Thank God this is a good, peaceful, and law-abiding town. Oppression and strongheadedness, however, could change people so that they might consider not respecting an official in spite of the fact that he is an official of their territorial lord.
Again I ask Your Electoral Grace to accept this letter as an expression of honest, humble faithfulness. I have been silent long enough so that I would by no means disparage anyone. But unless I am totally out of my mind, [Metzsch and the contractors] are doing with Your Electoral Grace's property and money as they please. Although Your Electoral Grace perhaps knows all of this, I wanted to demonstrate my services.
God strengthen and comfort Your Electoral Grace's heart against all the intrigues of the devil. Amen.
Your Electoral Grace's humbly dedicated [Wittenberg, June or July,]2 1531 Luther announces that he, along with many cherry-loving boys, will soon visit Stifel's cherry garden.
On Michael Stifel, see LW 49, 140, 211, n. 6.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 6, 143.
Greetings, greetings, greetings, my Michael. I have nothing else to write to you. So that you might not complain, however, that I write nothing to you, I wanted at least to write to you this ["greeting"]. At the same time I wanted to inform you that shortly we, together with many cherry-loving boys, will come to you, God willing, and visit your cherries.
Farewell in the Lord.
[Wittenberg, September 3, 1531]2 One of the events which shocked Europe in the first half of the sixteenth century was the divorce of Henry
VIII from Catherine of Aragon.3 While the Roman Curia played politics and procrastinated in making a decision on Henry's request for an annulment of his marriage, Thomas Cranmer prepared the fatal blow to papal jurisdiction in England. In the late summer of 1529 he suggested to the King that the universities were the institutions which alone would be capable of giving an impartial verdict on the legitimacy and validity of the King's marriage. As a result of this suggestion the court contacted the major universities of Europe for opinions on the King's case. With very few exceptions the universities approved the planned annulment of the marriage.4
In order to strengthen his position, the King also sought out the opinions of the outstanding evangelical theologians on the Continent. To make the necessary contacts the court used Symon
Grynaeus,5 a Humanist from Basel, who visited England in spring of 1531 for the purpose of studying manuscripts, and who returned to Basel by mid-July. While Grynaeus' exact commission is unknown, he carried sufficient material with him so that Melanchthon, Bucer and the preachers of Strassburg, Zwingli, and others could issue briefs on this matter.6 At the same time contacts were established between the English court and Landgrave Philip of Hesse,7 who was to function as an intermediary between the court and Wittenberg University, especially Luther. By the time Philip contacted Luther,8 Luther had already spoken9 on the issue in a letter to Robert Barnes,10 one of the English evangelical exiles.
Barnes, a former Augustinian and a Cambridge University Doctor of Divinity, had been the outstanding member of the evangelically-oriented White Horse Inn group of theologians.11 He had been tried for heresy and put under house arrest, but had been able to escape to the Continent. In the summer of 1530 he appeared in Wittenberg, and "early in September, 1531, Barnes became involved in" the - 14 matter of Henry's divorce12—how is not clear. Was Barnes contacted by Grynaeus? Or by the English court? The latter seems to be suggested by the fact that Thomas Cromwell was involved in arranging for Barnes's safe-conduct for the return to England.13 Or was Barnes perhaps acting on his own initiative in an attempt either to bring about a rapprochement between Henry and Luther,14 or to put himself into the good graces of the King? In any case, just as Grynaeus had done with his contacts, Barnes provided
Luther with copies of the briefs issued by the universities.15 Having obtained Luther's opinion on the matter, Barnes traveled via Magdeburg16 and Lübeck to Antwerp, where in November of 1531 he published a supplication addressed to the King;17 on the basis of this supplication Barnes hoped to be able to return to England. Under royal safe-conduct Barnes did indeed go to England in December of 1531, and delivered Luther's opinion on the marriage case. Obviously Luther's opinion, which was so contrary to all of the King's plans, did not endear Barnes to the King.
Luther categorically rejects the validity of the argument that the King has the duty or privilege to divorce the Queen. He substantiates this contention by discussing some of those arguments which had been presented in support of the divorce. He deals especially with the question of sin in marrying a deceased brother's wife. Concentrating on Leviticus 18:16, Luther points out that this passage does not establish the necessity of the divorce. Discussing the relationship of positive law to natural law and to divine law, Luther backs his stand against the divorce by arguing that matrimony is a matter of divine law, and that according to divine law matrimony is indissoluble. For divine law takes precedence over all statements of the positive law by which the King might have been forbidden to marry the wife of his deceased brother. If the King had done any wrong by marrying his deceased brother's wife, then he sinned at the most against positive law, as, for instance, set forth in the Canon Law. Luther doubts even this, because Pope Julius II had given his permission for the King to marry his deceased brother's wife; consequently the King was excused from obeying the positive law at this point. And further, two wrongs do not make one right. That is, even if the King had done wrong by marrying his deceased brother's wife, the divorce still would not remedy this situation; to the contrary, the divorce would be a more serious offense
(because it would be contrary to divine law) than the alleged crime of the marriage to the deceased brother's wife (something which is forbidden only in the positive law of the pope).
Having delivered Luther's opinion to the court, Barnes considered it necessary to go once more into exile; in January of 1532 he was back on the Continent.18 Apparently he functioned for some time as assistant to John Aepinus, the pastor of St. Peter's Church in Hamburg.19 In 1533 he matriculated at Wittenberg University but never participated for any length of time in the life of the University. "From August, 1534, to January, 1535, Barnes returned to London to negotiate with Henry on behalf of the cities of Hamburg and Lübeck."20 In May of 1535 he finally returned permanently to England, and in July of 1535 he attained the status of royal chaplain. Yet it was only for a short time that Barnes enjoyed the King's favor. He strongly opposed the Six Articles, "and for his stand against this policy Barnes was burned at Smithfield, July 30, 1540."21
Luther's letter to Barnes is extant in two versions, (A) and (B). The text of the (A) version provides the original text of this letter22 (the one given by Luther to Barnes), and is the basis for the following translation. This version is extant in several sixteenth century manuscript copies, and in the common editions of Luther's works. One of the copies was written by Nicholas von Amsdorf, who was at that time a pastor in Magdeburg. It is safe to assume that he copied from the original when Barnes traveled from Wittenberg via Magdeburg and Lübeck to Antwerp.23 The text of the (B) version also originates with Luther, but is of secondary quality. Luther prepared this version—from memory or from notes—for Landgrave Philip of Hesse, to whom, on September 22, 1531, Luther promised to send a copy of his opinion concerning Henry's divorce.24 A manuscript containing the text of this (B) version is deposited in the Marburg archive.25 It is written in two different (unknown) handwritings, but corrected in Luther's own handwriting. This is the reason that St.L. and Enders26 considered this (B) version to be the original one. In addition to this Marburg manuscript, the (B) version is extant in several sixteenth century manuscript copies, of which one was written by John Bugenhagen,27 and in the common editions of Text in Latin: WA, Br 6, 178–182 (A); 188–188 (B).
Grace and Peace in the Lord - 15 My Antony:28 here you finally have also29 my opinion on the case of the King of England, since you insist on it with such great perseverance.
To begin with, as I have said, I approve of the decision of the faculty of Louvain,30 especially regarding the latter question,31 and the King may abide by it with a sufficiently safe conscience; in fact, he has to abide by it if he wants to be on the safe side. Under no circumstances will he be free to divorce the Queen to whom he is married, the wife of his deceased brother,32 and thus make the mother as well as the daughter33 into incestuous women. Even if the King might have sinneds34 by marrying the wife of his deceased brother, and even if the dispensation granted by the Roman pope might not have been valid35 (I do not debate this now), nevertheless it would be a heavier and more dreadful sin [for the King] to divorce the woman he had married; and this especially for the reason that then the King, as well as the Queen and the Young Queen,36 could be forever charged with, and considered as, being incestuous people. According to my opinion, therefore, those37 who urge the King to the divorce for this reason alone torture his conscience in vain. If he has sinned by marrying, then this sin is past, and like all other sins of the past is amended through repentance; but the marriage should not be torn apart for this reason, and such a heavy future sin ought not to be permitted. For how many marriages are there in the world which have been made through sinning? And yet they ought not and may not be put asunder. So much for this one reason.
Regarding the other reason—whether you are fabricating it, or whether it is true—that the King is searching for a son, an heir to the kingdom, but that the Queen gives birth only to girls.38 etc., [I reply:]
Who doesn't see that this is an even less valid argument? Who will assure the King either that this present Queen will not give birth to a boy (if age does not hinder it), or that the other Queen,39 the one whom he is to marry, will give birth to boys? Nevertheless, even if it would be certain that the other Queen would give birth to boys, it still will not be permissible to divorce the former Queen, especially not as an incestuous woman, and thus equally to put the mark of incest forever on the [already born] offspring, that is, to punish them without any cause with this extremely heavy punishment. Before I would approve of such a divorce I would rather permit the King to marry still another woman and to have, according to the examples of the patriarchs and kings, two women or queens at the same time.40
The opponents bring forth, however, that it is contrary to divine law for a man to marry his deceased brother's wife. Leviticus 18 [:16]. To this I reply first of all: If they want to abide by the law of Moses, and also force us to live under the authority of this legislator, then what they will accomplish is that in this case the King will be held responsible not only for keeping the Queen to whom he is married, but also, if she had not [yet] been remarried to someone else, for marrying her by all means possible, and for begetting an offspring to his brother, since the deceased brother did not leave any children by this woman.
This is clearly and definitely stated in Deuteronomy 25 [:5]. For if we are forced to observe one law of Moses, then by the same reason we also ought to be circumcised, and ought to observe the whole law, as Paul argues in Galatians 5 [:3]. Now, however, we are no longer under the law of Moses, but are subject in these matters to the laws of the state, just as, prior to Moses, Abraham and Nahor were. They married the daughters of their brother; this was a relationship which Moses afterwards prohibited.41 And Jacob married two sisters,42 also in opposition to Moses' law, who later prohibited such marriages for his people.43
Therefore that law of Moses, which beforehand was not valid and which after Christ again ceased to be valid as positive law, does not bind the King, and does not demand the divorce. But that law of God and that statement of divine law44 according to which matrimony is established as something which ought to be maintained forever, until death, binds the King. For the sake of this law, Christ abolished the letter of divorce handed down from Moses when he said: "From the beginning it was not so."45
Therefore only this argument is left, that the King, if he has sinned by marrying his deceased brother's wife, has sinned against a man-made law, or a law of the state. If he would divorce the Queen, however, he would indeed sin against the divine law.46 If the law of God is in conflict with the law of man, then the law of man has to yield, so that one does not sin against the law of God; the law of God does not have to yield so that one does not sin against the law of man. An offense against the law of man may either be quashed, or the need to obey this law may be nullified, so that we are not forced to sin against God's law or nullify the validity of God's law.47
This, however, is the situation regarding the divine law, namely, that the superior law nullifies the inferior one. For instance: It was a divine law to observe the Sabbath;48 yet another divine law, that is, the law of circumcision,49 nullified this law concerning the Sabbath, and permitted, even more, required
- 16 circumcising exactly on the Sabbath (as often as the Sabbath was the eighth day after birth), as Christ himself argues in John 7 [:22]. Consequently the law concerning the Sabbath had to yield to the law concerning circumcision; one sinned against the law concerning the Sabbath, or rather the law concerning the Sabbath yielded, and in this case was nullified. Even more, on each Sabbath in the morning and in the evening sacrifices were made and all the works of the priests were performed in the Temple; and yet the priests were without guilt, as Jesus states in Matthew 12 [:5]. Even circumcision yielded to a new law of God by which the people were ordered to go out from Egypt;50 during all the forty years that this new law was in effect, they did not circumcise, and did this without [committing] sin.51 Further, it had been divine law that the Bread of the Presence ought to be eaten only by the priests.52 And yet David, a layman, ate it without committing sin, as if he were ordered by another law of God, that is, the law to love one's neighbor who is in need.53 There are many such examples in which one divine law nullifies another. What else are magistrates, and those who wield the sword and enforce the law by killing [or] imprisoning those who are guilty, [or] confiscating their property, doing other than nullifying these divine laws: "You shall not kill; you shall not steal"?54 This is the same as if by another divine law these magistrates were ordered to kill, imprison, [or] punish those who are guilty. These actions would not be permitted unless the law,
"You shall not kill," is nullified by another law. How much more in this case does that manmade law,55 "you shall not marry your deceased brother's wife," have to yield to that former, superior law, "A man shall not abandon his wife, and the two shall be one flesh."56 Even if this statement, "You shall not marry your deceased brother's wife," were a divine law, it would nevertheless have to yield and be nullified because of the law concerning matrimony, which is a superior law, as has been stated above concerning the examples which demonstrate just how often one divine law nullifies another one.
Let us nevertheless assume (which certainly is not true) that the law of Moses is still valid and binds us Gentiles when it states in Leviticus 18 [:16]: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife." What are the opponents making out of this text? The text, of course, speaks of a living brother, not a deceased one. Since the contradictory law in Deuteronomy 25 [:5] orders that a brother ought to marry his deceased brother's wife, it becomes clear that [Leviticus 18:16] deals with a living brother (who could have had one or perhaps several wives at the same time). So for instance John the Baptist, on the basis of this passage (as is known), charges Herod that he is not permitted to have the wife of his brother Philip, who was [still] living.57 Therefore on the basis of this passage the doctors of the opposition could accomplish nothing that is sound, even if the law of Moses [still] bound us Gentiles. How much less can they accomplish now since Moses' law does not bind us Gentiles!58
You will reply: If someone continues this argumentation then he will end up teaching59 that we also are not prevented by any law of God from marrying daughters, sisters, or mothers, since the law of Moses prohibits this, but the law of Moses now no longer binds us Gentiles. I answer that such marriages are prohibited and considered incestuous by natural law. This is sufficiently proven by the fact that in Scripture before, during, and after [the time in which] the law [of Moses was valid,] no example [for the permission of such marriages] can be found, and without example and law nothing may be undertaken.
Precisely by this fact God has sufficiently demonstrated that he condemns such marriages. But there are laws and examples for marrying your deceased brother's wife.
The opponents argue that it follows from the law of Deuteronomy 25 [:5] that someone could marry, or would be obligated to marry his own daughter; so, for instance, if Othniel60 at his death had left his wife
Achsah, who was the daughter of his brother Caleb, then Caleb, as Othniel's brother, would have been obligated to marry his own daughter. Who does not see the evil effort in this argument to support an evil cause? [The opponents argue] as if they did not know, or ought not to know, that one law nullifies another whenever they contradict each other, as stated above. Therefore even if through the law of Deuteronomy
25 [:5] Caleb would have been obligated to marry his brother's wife, yet because this wife of his brother was his own daughter he was prohibited from marrying her by another, superior law, [and was ordered] to stay away from her. So the law of Deuteronomy 25 [:5] yields to the other law, that is, to the natural law, and simultaneously also to the Mosaic law of Leviticus 18 [:16]. Therefore it is impossible for the opponents to establish, by means of this law in Deuteronomy 25 [:5], the validity of that law in Leviticus
18 [:16], which deals with a living brother—or at least speaks ambiguously—and simply to condemn every marriage according to the law of Deuteronomy 25 [:5]. They do not see that by this condemnation they totally nullify the law concerning the marriage of a deceased brother's wife. Yet this law is confirmed