all concerned as authors in the controversy, is farther than I HENRY shall determine. The substance of what these advocates for the queen alleged, is this. "Cardinal Cajetan endeavoured to prove the prohibitions in Leviticus were no branches of the moral law. They were not observed, as he reasons, before the law, no, not by the holy seed. For did not Abraham marry his sister, and Jacob two sisters? Thus Judah made no scruple to give his two sons to Tamar, and after their decease, promised her the third. To advance to the Mosaic institution: the prohibition in Leviticus is relaxed in Deuteronomy, which proves the law was not moral. For whatsoever is moral, must by consequence be immutable. Then as to the places cited for the divorce, from the New Testament, they would not bear in the argument. For instance, St. John Baptist's reproof of Herod is foreign to the point for both Josephus and Eusebius inform us, that his brother Philip was alive, when Herod lived with his wife, and by consequence this prince's crime was adultery, and not incest. And thus we have reason to believe, the incestuous Corinthian cohabited with his father's wife, when his father was living. For had he been dead, St. Paul could not have called it a 'fornication not named among the Gentiles;' for we find the marriage of step-mothers not only allowed among the Persians, and other heathen nations, but even among the Jews. For did not Adonijah request the marrying of Abishag, who had been his father's concubine ?" From all which, those who wrote against the divorce, concluded, "That the laws touching the degrees of marriage, were binding only to the Jews: and that Christians were bound to obey them no farther than they were incorporated with the laws of the Church: and that it was in the pope's power to dispense with the ecclesiastical custom and constitutions. They urged farther, "that the pope had granted this dispensation upon weighty considerations, to keep a good correspondence between the crowns of England and Spain. That after the marriage had continued above twenty years, it would be highly scandalous to bring it under debate. Besides, the proceeding to a divorce might be a dangerous precedent, and perplex the titles of several princes." VIII. WAR Abp. Cant. those who king's side. And lastly, they concluded, "That whatever nullities or HAM, defects of form were charged upon the bulls or briefs, the Bp. Burnet, pope was the only judge of that matter: and that it was a pt. 1. p 103. presumption in inferior prelates to determine upon the point." The reply of To these arguments, those who wrote for the king's cause, wrote on the replied, "That they were surprised to find men who declared against heretical novelties, to argue in so unorthodox a manner! For what is the inlet into all heresy in the opinion of catholic doctors? Is it not the setting up new interpretations of Scripture? Is it not the preference of private reasoning, to the doctrine and tradition of the Church? We have fully made out, continue these advocates, that the Fathers have unanimously maintained the Levitical prohibitions of marriage to be of a moral and unalterable nature: and that Cajetan was the first that was so hardy as to set up his own exposition against the sense of antiquity. It is true, before the Mosaic law, these prohibited degrees were not observed: but this proves only, that the immorality of such a correspondence does not strike full upon the understandings of all men. And therefore, since the thing has not the clearest evidence, nor can be easily discovered by the light of nature; considering this, we need not wonder to find a law in Leviticus for the better direction of practice. And as for the instance of Judah and Tamar, there is so much irregularity in all the circumstances, that it does not seem safe to bring it into precedent. And as to the permission of marrying the brother's wife, we can only infer from hence, that the reason of the law is not altogether unalterable. From whence it follows, that it may be dispensed with by the authority that made it. But though Moses relaxed by Divine revelation, it does not follow, the pope can give this liberty by the privilege of his character." As to the instance of Herod, they assert, "it is not clear from Josephus, that Philip was alive when Herod married his wife for Josephus says no more, than that she eloped from her husband, and then divorced herself from him. And as to the incestuous Corinthian, though some few precedents of a king of Syria, and some others, may be brought of sons marrying their step-mothers, yet these liberties had generally an ill complexion, and were looked on as the excesses of arbitrary and licentious princes." VIII. A remark upon the Levit. xx. Deut. xxv. And now, whether those who argued for the divorce disen- HENRY tangled the texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, may be somewhat a question. For granting, as they affirm, the prohibition o in Leviticus was binding upon all nations: granting this, why argument. should not the dispensation in Deuteronomy be interpreted to 21. the same extent? Why should the relaxation not be as 5. general as the restraint? It is a received maxim, that laws are to be expounded in favour of liberty. Indeed, were there any limitation in the text to bar this privilege, the case would be altered. But since this cannot be pretended, why may not Christians have the benefit of the Deuteronomy exception, as well as the Jews? Since the gospel allows greater liberties in other matters, why must it give less in this? Has not God as great a regard for the public interest, and the repose of kingdoms, under the Christian, as under the Jewish Church? And if so, how can the provision allowed the one, be denied the other? However, though the king's cause might be somewhat pressed in this particular, he is said to have had the advantage in another respect. For the universities and divines declared frankly for him. There was no bias of presents, no prospect Bp. Burnet, of preferment to prepossess them against truth. And for this Hist. Refair proceeding, doctor Croke is produced as an evidence. p. 89, 90. But there is a letter written to the king by this gentleman, 1529. which seems to speak to another sense. I shall transcribe some part of it. form. pt. 1. October 23, MS. ex Armig. 58. universities, He acquaints the king, "he had paid three-and-twenty R. Harley crowns to friar Thomas, who, notwithstanding he had given Whether the hopes of his declaring for the divorce, yet he had now deserted &c. dethe king's side, and argued for the lawfulness of the marriage, livered their opinions He mentions one Raphael, who had printed against the divorce gratis. in Italy. In this book, the author protests that what he had formerly written for the king's satisfaction, was only by way of exercise, but that now he had declared his mind without reserve. He lets the king know farther, that one Ambrose had twenty crowns of him for determining at Padua, in favour of the divorce: and that two other friars had seventy-seven crowns." Cornelius Agrippa stands recommended as a man very famous for great and curious learning, and so satisfied in the king's cause, that he gave it out, that the thing was clear and НАМ, Apolog. advers. theologos ses, cap. 2. Lovanien Harmar. P. 18. WAR- indisputable, for which he was afterwards hardly used by the Abp. Cant. emperor, and died in prison. If Agrippa's fancy then was not exactly balanced, the overweight lay in the king's scale. HowBp. Burnet, pt. 1. p. 95. ever, in one of his books he breaks out into this expostulation. "Who would have imagined, that divines, in matters of faith and conscience, should have been governed by partialities or aversion? Who would have thought they could have been bribed by treats and presents, unless they had given proof of this mercenary temper, in declaring against the king of England's first marriage?" Cavendish, cardinal Wolsey's gentleman-usher, is another authority, that the king was at a considerable expense for the gaining the foreign universities. He tells us, that those who governed those societies, or had the keeping of the common seals, were fed by the commissioners with great sums of money; and gained by the prevaCavendish's lence of bribery. One of our own parliaments concurs with Cavendish in his reflection. Memoirs, &c. p. 99. 1 Mar. Lib. 9. p. 140. The act sets forth, "That the seals as well of certain universities in Italy and France, were gotten (as it were for a testimony) by the corruption of money, with a few light persons, scholars of the same universities: as also the seals of the universities of this realm, were obtained by great travel, sinister working, secret threatenings and entreatings of some men of authority, specially sent at that time thither for the same purpose." Farther, Sleidan believes that the foreign universities, and particularly that of Paris, were bribed for the king. Lastly, in the year 1532, there was a book published at Lunenburgh, entitled "A Confutation of the Censures of the Universities," printed with the king's license in England. This book, now in the Bodleian library, informs us, that the university of Paris were at the lowest at an even division, as many being against as for the divorce. And that some members of that body published discourses against the other party, who gave their opinions for the king. This author wrote on the queen's side, and dedicated his book to Eustathius Chapnytius, the emperor's ambassador in England. On the other side, it may be said, people will not always study an intricate question, and take pains in a fair cause, without a consideration. The king being thus fortified with the censures of the uni VIII. An address to the pope nobility, &c. versities, and other learned men, resolved to publish their con- HENRY clusions. And to make the most of the advantage, he procured an address, or rather a remonstrance to be sent from several of the nobility and commons to the pope. "In this from the letter, they complain how long they have been disappointed in this business; that they would not have given his holiness any trouble, had not the king, the soul of the government, been so deeply concerned; but when the head suffers so much, the body must of course be uneasy. That they humbly conceived, the justice of the cause, approved by the determination of so many famous universities in France, Italy, and England, might have superseded the trouble of any farther importunity and that there had been no need of soliciting his holiness to confirm the opinions of so many learned men: especially since the decision of the cause relates to a king and kingdom, which have so well deserved of the apostolic see. But neither the reasonableness of the request, the memory of obligations received, nor the repeated entreaties of an excellent prince, can prevail with your holiness, and dispose you to a just regard. And since all these motives are without effect, it is no wonder if our grievances have made us break silence, and forced us upon the freedom of a remonstrance. For is it not a very unfortunate thing, that the declaration of so many famous universities, and other persons of learning, should not be able to do the king their intended service: that these celebrated societies cannot prevail with the apostolic see to exert the functions of its character? And that a prince who has engaged for St. Peter's chair, against so many potent enemies, and defended the popedom, both with his sword and pen, should be denied in a case of common right; should be refused the benefit of that spiritual authority, which, had it not been for his highness, would have been in no condition to have obliged any part of the Church. These mysterious proceedings put us perfectly to a stand: and in consequence of this usage, we are threatened, as it were, with a deluge of misfortune: for indeed, what inundation can be more calamitous than the perplexing the royal title, and reviving the controversy of the succession, which has lately cost the nation so much treasure and blood? "God be thanked, we have an admirable prince, whose right to the crown is unquestionable, and were he blessed with any |