BOOK infidels, being parts of the law of nature, as well as of II. the law of God; and that therefore they judged mar1530. riage in these degrees unlawful, and that the Pope had no authority to dispense with them. At Padua, Numb. 33. And Ferrara, Sept. 29. And in The university of Padua, after some days public dispute, on the first of July determined to the same purpose; about which Crooke's letter will be found among the Instruments at the end of this book. At Ferrara, the divines did also confirm the same conclusion, and set their seal to it; but it was taken away violently by some of the other faction: yet the Duke made it be restored. The profession of the canon law was then in great credit there, and in a congregation of seventy-two of that profession, it was determined for the King; but they asked one hundred and fifty crowns for setting the seal to it, and Crooke would not give more than an hundred: the next day he came and offered the money; but then it was told him, they would not meddle in it, and he could not afterwards obtain it. papers. In all, Crooke sent over by Stokesley an hundred several books, papers, and subscriptions, and there were hands subscribed to many of those many But it seems Crooke died before he could receive a reward of this great service he did the King; for I do not find him mentioned after this. I hope the reader will forgive my insisting so much on this negociation; for it seemed necessary to give full and convincing evidences of the sincerity of the King's proceedings in it, since it is so confidently given out that these were but mercenary subscriptions. What difficulties or opposition those who were employed in France found, does not yet appear to me; but the seals of the chief universities there were procured. The university of Orleance determined it on the seventh of April. The faculty of the canon law at II. 1530. At Paris Sorbonne, Paris did also conclude, that the Pope had no power to BOOK dispense in that case, on the twenty-fifth of May. But the great and celebrated faculty of the Sorbonne (whose conclusions had been looked on for some ages of the as little inferior to the decrees of councils) made their May 25. decision with all possible solemnity and decency. Of the They first met at the church of St. Mathurin, where July 2. there was a mass of the Holy Ghost, and every one took an oath to study the question, and resolve it according to his conscience; and from the eighth of June, to the second of July, they continued searching the matter with all possible diligence, both out of the Scriptures, the fathers, and the councils; and had many disputes about it. After which, the greater part of the faculty did determine, That the King of England's marriage was unlawful, and that the Pope had no power to dispense in it; and they set their common seal to it at St. Mathurin's, the second of July, 1530. To the same purpose did both the faculties of law, civil At Angiers, and canon, at Angiers, determine the seventh of May. May 7. On the tenth of June, the faculty of divinity at Bour-At Bourges, ges made the same determination. And on the first of October the whole university of Tholose did all with And Thoone consent give their judgment, agreeing with the lose, Oct. 1. former conclusions. More of the decisions of univer- Numb. 34. sities were not printed, though many more were obtained to the same effect. In Germany, Spain, and Flanders, the Emperor's authority was so great, that much could not be expected, except from the Lutherans, with whom Cranmer conversed; and chiefly with Osiander, whose niece he then married. Osiander Jan. 28. upon that wrote a book about incestuous marriages, letter, Cott. which was published; but was called in by a prohibi-C tion printed at Ausburg, because it determined in the King's cause, and on his side. But now I find the King did likewise deal among June 10. Collect. his original Libr. Otho. II. 1530. Pelerine BOOK those in Switzerland that had set up the Reformation. The Duke of Suffolk did most set him on to this; (so one who was employed in that time writes ;) for he often asked him, How he could so humble himself, as to submit his cause to such a vile, vicious, strangerpriest, as Campegio was? To which the King answered, He could give no other reason, but that it seemed to him, spiritual men should judge spiritual things: yet, he said, he would search the matter further; but he had no great mind to seem more curious than other princes. But the Duke desired him to discuss the matter secretly amongst learned men, to which he consented; and wrote to some foreign writers that were then in great estimation. Erasmus was much in his favour, but he would not appear in it: he had no mind to provoke the Emperor, and live uneasily in his own country. But Simon Grineus was sent for, whom the amongst King esteemed much for his learning. The King inthe reform-formed him about his process, and sent him back to Basil, to try what his friends in Germany and Switzerters are in land thought of it. He wrote about it to Bucer, EcoR. Smith's lampadius, Zuinglius, and Paulus Phrygion. Grineus employed ed in Swit zerland. Whose let a MS. in Library. Ecolam padius; Ecolampadius, as it appears by three letters, one The opinions of dated the tenth of August 1531, another the last of the same month, another to Bucer the tenth of September, was positively of opinion, That the law in Leviticus did bind all mankind; and says, That law of a brother's marrying his sister-in-law was a dispensation given by God to his own law, which belonged only to the Jews; and therefore he thought that the King might without any scruple put away the Queen. But Bucer was of another mind, and thought the law in Leviticus did not bind, and could not be moral, because God had dispensed with it in one case, of raising up seed to his brother: therefore he thought these laws belonged only to that dispensation, and did no more bind Christians Bucer; II. 1530. than the other ceremonial or judiciary precepts; and BOOK that to marry in some of these degrees was no more a sin, than it was a sin in the disciples to pluck ears of corn on the sabbath-day. There are none of Bucer's letters remaining on this head; but by the answers that Grineus wrote to him, one on the twenty-ninth of August, another on the tenth of September, I gather his opinion, and the reasons for it. But they all agreed, that the Pope's dispensation was of no force to alter the nature of a thing. Paulus Phrygion was of opinion, Phrygion; that the laws in Leviticus did bind all nations, because it is said in the text, That the Canaanites were punished for doing contrary to them, which did not consist with the justice of God, if those prohibitions had not been parts of the law of nature. Dated Basil, the tenth of September. In Grineus's letter to Bucer, he tells him, that the King had said to him, That now for seven years he had perpetual trouble upon him about this marriage. Zuinglius's letter is very full. First, he largely Zuinglius; proves, that neither the Pope, nor any other power, could dispense with the law of God: then, that the Apostles had made no new laws about marriage, but had left it as they found it: that the marrying within near degrees was hated by the Greeks, and other heathen nations. But whereas Grineus seemed to be of opinion, that though the marriage was ill made, yet it ought not to be dissolved; and inclined rather to advise, that the King should take another wife, keeping the Queen still: Zuinglius confutes that, and says, if the marriage be against the law of God, it ought to be dissolved; but concludes the Queen should be put away honourably, and still used as a Queen; and the marriage should only be dissolved for the future, without illegitimating the issue begotten in it, since it had gone on in a public way, upon a received error: but advises, that the King should proceed in a judiciary way, and 1530. BOOK not establish so ill a precedent, as to put away his II. Queen, and take another, without due form of law. Dated Basil, the seventeenth of August. There is a second letter of his to the same purpose from Zurich, the first of September. There is also with these letters a long paper of Osiander's, in the form of a direction how the process should be managed. And Calvin, Epist. 384. There is also an epistle of Calvin's, published among the rest of his. Neither the date, nor the person to whom it was directed, are named. Yet I fancy it was written to Grineus upon this occasion: Calvin was clear in his judgment that the marriage was null, and that the King ought to put away the Queen, upon the law of Leviticus. And whereas it was objected, that the law is only meant of marrying the brother's wife while he is yet alive; he shews that could not be admitted; for all the prohibited degrees being forbidden in the same stile, they were all to be understood in one sense therefore, since it is confessed, that it is unlawful to marry in the other degrees, after the death of the father, son, uncle, or nephew, so it must be also a sin to marry the brother's wife after his death. And for the law in Deuteronomy, of marrying the brother's wife to raise up seed to him; he thought, that by brother there is to be understood a near kinsman, according to the usual phrase of the Hebrew tongue: and by that he reconciles the two laws, which otherwise seem to differ, illustrating his exposition by the history of Ruth and Boaz. It is given out that Melancthon advised the King's taking another wife, justifying polygamy from the Old Testament; but I cannot believe it. It is true, the lawfulness of polygamy was much controverted at this time. And as in all controversies newly started, many crude things are said; so some of the Helvetian and German divines seem not so fierce against it; though none of them went so far as the |