Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

mitted to it: "That all such canons, laws, statutes, decrees, usages, and customs, heretofore made, had, or used, that forbid any person to contract matrimony, or condemn matrimony already contracted by any person, for any vow or promise of priesthood, chastity or widowhood, shall from henceforth cease, be utterly void, and of none effect." The affirmative of this proposition was maintained by fifty-three voices, the negative by

That highly-respected divine, Dr. Redmayn, appears not to have been present when this question was decided by the Convocation; as his name is not found in the lists of those who delivered their opinions. His judgment however, was deemed of so much importance, that he was requested to state it. He did so before the Convocation separated in the following words. “I think, that, although the Word of God do exhort and counsel priests to live in chastity, out of the cumber of the flesh and the world, that thereby they may the more wholly attend to their calling: yet the band of containing from marriage doth only lie upon priests of this realm by reason of canons and constitutions of the Church, and not by any precept of God's Word; as in that they should be bound by reason of any vow, which, in as far as my conscience is, priests in this Church of England do not make: I think that it standeth well with God's Word, that a man which hath been, or is but once married, being otherwise accordingly qualified, may be made a priest. And I think, that, forasmuch as canons and rules made in this behalf be neither universal, nor everlasting, but upon consideration may be altered and changed: therefore the King's Majesty, and the higher powers of the Church may, upon such reasons as shall move them, take away the clog of perpetual continency from the priests, and grant that it may be lawful to such as cannot, or will not, contain, to marry one wife. And if she die, then the said priest to marry no more, remaining still in his ministration." (Ibid. 223.) Æneas Silvius, who, under the de

twenty-two. Among the majority were several individuals then unmarried, and who continued so to the end of their lives. On the other hand, some of those who had voted for clerical celibacy, were notwithstanding, soon after tempted to renounce that state themselves.

On the eighth of January, Bishop Gardiner was brought before the council, and set at liberty, being informed that his case came within the general pardon which had been announced from the throne on the prorogation of Parliament'. He was then admonished upon the subject of his former contumacy, and required to state plainly whether he would undertake to receive the royal injunctions, the homilies, and such other points of doctrine or ecclesiastical discipline as might hereafter emanate from the King and clergy. He replied, that, with respect to his future conduct, he should be guided by that of his brethren upon the episcopal bench, and that as to the homilies, he admitted the general soundness of their doctrine. He added, however, that he must still protest against the homily treating of justification, and he begged to be allowed four or five days in order to consider that subject more fully. Bishop Ridley, accordingly was sent to him together with Cecil. Whether the doctrinal argusignation of Pius II. filled the papal chair from 1458, to 1464, said that "there were very good reasons why clergymen should be compelled to live in celibacy, but that there were much better reasons why they should be allowed to marry."

Burnet, Hist. Ref. II. 89.

Life of Bp. Ridley, 221.

ments urged by these distinguished persons produced any effect upon his mind does not appear, but he certainly parted from them with a disposition to obey the mandates of authority. For he retired to his diocese, and there, both by his precepts and example, he induced the clergy to acquiesce in such alterations as their superiors thought proper to sanction.

About the end of January, was debated in council the first remarkable case of divorce which had occurred since England's emancipation from the papal yoke. The Marquess of Northampton, who was brother to the Queen Dowager, Catharine Parr, had married Anne Bourchier, daughter to the last Earl of Essex of that name. This unhappy female had disgraced the long line of her illustrious ancestry by the foul crime of adultery. Her infamy had been fully established before the ecclesiastical court in the preceding spring, and she had accordingly been divorced in the usual way from her injured husband's bed and board. It was, however, justly doubted whether this relief was so complete as to warrant Northampton in contracting a new marriage. For the purpose of deciding this question, a commission was issued in the last May to Archbishop Cranmer, the Bishops Tunstall and Holbeach, Dr. Ridley, and six others, who were to enquire, whether by God's law, the Marquess would be justified in marrying again. Cranmer immediately applied

Then Bishop of Rochester, but translated to Lincoln before the end of the summer.

himself to the task imposed upon him with that unshrinking diligence which he never failed to use in an enquiry of importance. He collected a volume of authorities bearing upon the case, and the impression of his mind appears to have been, that the innocent party might lawfully contract a new marriage'. Our Saviour, it was shewn, had described marriage as that state in which the individuals entering into it became one flesh, and he had condemned divorces upon every ground but that of adultery": by which, indeed, according to his definition of matrimony the tie is broken. The Master's views were then shewn to be those of his Apostles, by whom marriage is represented as a state in which the contracting parties acquire personal rights over each other'. Nay, so broadly does this principle seem to be maintained by St. Paul, that he is considered as authorising divorce, in case a converted wife or husband should be deserted on that account by an unconverted partner". On the other hand, however, authorities were collected to shew that Christ only admitted divorce, in order to mitigate the rigour of the Jewish law, which denounced death to the adulteress and her paramour; and some of his words were cited to prove the absolute indissolubility of marriage'. To the same purport were alleged St. Paul's words, in which

· Strype, Mem. Cranm. 226. * 1 Cor. vii. 4.

"What, therefore God hath put asunder." St. Matt. xix. 6.

St. Matt. xix. 6, 9. y Ibid. 15. joined together, let not man St. Mark x. 9.

he declares that the wife is bound to the husband so long as she lives. These passages, however, were considered as not admitting an interpretation strictly literal; since, if they did, every kind of separation between married persons must be deemed unlawful. Upon the whole, therefore, it was rendered probable from Scripture, that Christians are to consider marriage as indissoluble, except on the ground of adultery, which naturally breaks the tie; and that the innocent party, after disruption, is in no manner bound to the guilty one. From Scripture, the Archbishop's collections proceed to the fathers; but these venerable authorities were found to throw no certain light upon the subject: they agreed as to the propriety of divorce in case of adultery, but they differed as to the lawfulness of a new marriage contracted either by the innocent party, or by the guilty one. Something, however, it was thought, might be inferred from their silence upon this subject. By the civil law, divorce, together with the liberty of marrying again consequent upon it, was allowed not only in case of adultery, but also upon many other grounds. Yet it did not appear that any of the fathers had written against this licence. The ancient laws of divorce were, indeed, admitted by Justinian into his celebrated code; which is a very strong presumption, that they were not considered as highly objectionable by the divines of his day,

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »