Grace and peace in Christ! Regarding the matter of the King of England, my opinion which you have heard from my mouth, my dear Antoninus,and which we confidentilally discussed,that the decision of those of Loeown (Univ. of Louvain scholars),which for the most part pleases me, who have judged the opposite, and which the King can follow with the entirely safest conscience if he wants to be secure before God he must follow, yes he must follow,if he would be confident before God, that is,he cannot expel the Queen, the wife of the deceased brother, whom he has married, and through this expulsion has made the mother as well as the daughter to a blood-shame. Now I am not disputing whether the Dispensation of the Pope whether he should have taken the wife of the deceased brother was worthy but I am saying that it is always the case that the king in taking the wife may after all have sinned in taking the wife of the deceased brother: nevertheless it is a far greater and monstrous sin to expel the one he has married and in such a horrible way to disolve the marriage which equally puts the King and also the Queen and the Princess forever under a blood-disgrace although in fact there is nothing present why he should want to do this terrible harm and in addition to that to dissolve the marriage. These two sins are so very great that the one (previous?)slighter sin which is past and forgiven and no more a sin that is to be given consideration.
The marital binding of a man and woman is a divine and natural law. (Rechtes). However the command to take the wife of a deceased brother belongs to the granted (positiv)not to the divine law unless one wants to propose that all laws are divine because God has pronounced them all to be good. For this reason they torment the conscience of the king in vain who promote the expulsion and they sin deeply against the divine law.
That they put forward that it is against the divine law to marry the wife of a deceased brother namely that in Leviticus 18:16:"You should not uncover the nakedeness of your brother's wife", I answer, first of all: If they want to follow the Mosaic law and push us under this law-giver then it must be held that the king in this case should not only support the married queen but must also if she is not yet married to another ,in any case, take her and raise up seed for this deceased brother who left behind no children as it clearly stands in Deuteronomy 25:5 and Matthew 22:24 as the Sadducees brought forward to Christ.
However, here they say that the law of Deuteronomy 25 is ceremonial and must yield to Leviticus 18 which is moral because things which concern the ceremonial are obviated
while the things concerning the moral cannot be superceded. Here who cannot see that either these gloss-makers are either faltering or this thing lacks good reason and also cannot be said with any sort of clarity? Namely they can quickly find a gloss which makes a mockery of Levicticus 18; here they don't want to have any gloss. Therfore it is clear that they have pre-judged it without good reason so that according to their will they can gloss any disturbing law.
So then how can they demonstrate that Deuteronomy 25 is ceremonial or was and at the same time reassure the conscience? Is it enough to say: We want it to be so as we say: therefore it is ceremonial. We say that the law in the fifth book of Moses is a law about morals because it in fact has to do with serving the essence of the community for the preservation of the family, for maintaining inheritance, for the securing of inheritance, that is, in order to receive properties, so it was given to enlarge and strengthen the community-well being just as setting aside this or that acre for such and such a time in this or that way so that it should richly yield fruit something which truly is beneficial and is moral because through this rule properties were preserved for the household as well as the community-essence. For this reason the Jews could not regard this law as any less than another and the text clearly says that it is speaking of the preservation of families and inheritance which is surely not a cermonial thing but one essential to the community-well being and concerns morality.
And, dear one,if we want to assume that the law in the 5th Book of Moses is a ceremonial one, as these people propose, how does that serve the matter? since this nevertheless stands firm that the Jews under Moses were forced to keep this law just like that of circumcision and other cermonies. Here they might answer how the Jews could take the wife of a deceased brother when it was forbidden by Leviticus 3:18 a divine law. These two laws are opposed to one another if they both are understood as relating to a deceased brother. Therefore it is obvious that they do not rightly regard the the words and persons of the laws.
If they want to propose that the cermonial things are done away with and that the moral remain and account of this the law in the 5th book of Moses is not to be kept but one must keep the law in the 3rd book of Moses it still, firstly, stands fast, as I have said, that the Jews kept both laws. For this reason these people necessarily must admit that the Jews did not sin against the law in in Leviticus (3rd
book of Moses) when they kept the law in the 5th book of Moses (Deuteronomy). Therupon they who hold such an opinion that the ceremonial is done away with and that they are death-bringing for us and not permitted for us to keep and therefore the contradicting law in Leviticus is not cited but the abolition (of the ceremonial) itself. Now, however they conclude the aboliton and nevertheless give the basis that the opposing law (in Leviticus) is a pronouncement of Moses in order to make their case believable. Thereby they reveal that it is not in striving for the truth but in their desire for victory that such sublties are stressed and that they exercise the deception which Aristotle calls the conclusion of a cause from a non-cause (a non causa ad causam). So under Moses where the law in Deuteronomy was not abolished the abolition cannot be cited as a proof-basis nor the contradictory nature of the laws since both laws were beneficial and to be kept. Therefore that contradictory nature is made much less useful a basis of proof. However, if it is to be some sort of basis of proof it is a piece of teaching dervied from the abolition itself and permit these people to desist from bringing up the contradictory nature of the law in Leviticus.They therefore assert that the ceremonial things are not permitted for us who do not understand either the abolition nor what a cermonial case is. Ceremonial things after the aboliton of the same are free and adiaphora matters (indiffertia)and no longer commanded or necessary, 1 Cor.7:18: "Is someone circumcised, let him not secure a foreskin", where it teaches that it is not necessary to have a foreskin otherwise the believing Jews would be required to again to produce a foreskin. Therefore the abolition is being free of the law not as a command as Jerome erred against Augustine. Like, if a king in a certain area wanted to give a new law he would be free to order, for certain reasons, some of the ceremonies of Moses. But then these ceremonies would not be binding in respect of the ceremonal but by the new command of the king. For these reason if the law in Deuteronomy were ceremonial and now set aside the King of England could nevertheless in a just cause , as he previously said, could set aside, against these subtle people, this and anew order the same, in whatever place he wants, that a brother of a deceased brother could marry the latter's wife. So then the subjects would be required to obey it completely just as they would have to obey any other law of the king or his civil sovereignty , Rom. 13:1:"Let everyone be subject"...etc.
Now again to come back to the law in Leviticus, which is contradictory to the law in Deuternomy, as these people say, we say that these laws are not so and should not be so interpreted so that one of them must be compeltely excluded but both must be kept and preserved because this interpretation was not supported by the Jews who were forced to keep both laws although they had the appearance of being contrary to each other.This then is the proper interpretation that the law in Leviticus is speaking of the wife of a living brother and the law in Deuternomy speaking of the wife of a deceased brother. So they are not opposed to each other but both are to be kept because the law in Leviticus expressly speaks of the brother and the law in Deuternomy speaks expressly of the deceased brother so as to distinguish him from the brother spoken of in Leviticus. So John the Baptist rebukes the Herod that he has taken the wife of his living brother, though multiple wives of the Herod's was permitted, and all did this,
but not a brother taking the wife of a living brother with the appearance of legality
or by attracting her by flattery as one might easily do it as with the taking of a house or other things. Through this trespass on the wife of his brother Philip Herod
became a criminal.
Also the opponents , should they want to, cannot prove that Leviticus speaks of the deceased brother nor can they reconcile both laws in any other way especially in a way that is sufficient to quiet a conscience. However, who is so unlearned so that he cannot imagine or dream up some sort of way to agitate a conscience?
Also it is sacralegous that they conclude: in following the law in Deuteronomy in a given case one could be required to take his own daugter (to wife) as in the case of
Athniel who having died left behind his wife,Achsa, the daughter of his brother Caleb ,thus Caleb would have been required as the brother of Athniel to marry his own daughter. Who does not see here the striving to protect an evil matter as though they actually do not know that a higher law supercedes a lower one just as the law of circumcision violates the law of the Sabbath, John 7:22, where Christ Himself argues that one could be circumcised on the Sabbath, that is, it was abrogated or an unrebuked sin against the Sabbath so as not to sin against the law of circumcision and brought forward (not by Moses) but by the fathers. (The latter about the fathers is from Jesus' statement in John 7.) What is the use of many words? It is acknowledged that a lower law and an inferior lawgiver cannot force the hand of a superior law and lawgiver but each law and lawgiver is subject to the limitation of authority which is given to them by God just as the father of a family gives laws for his family and his house so far as his authority extends. However the sovereign or the city does not obey the father's lawsbut subjects him to the laws of the community so that it is necessary for him that he keep silent with his laws and serve the laws of the general populace. So the King is lord over the kingdom or the city, which he to be sure permits, that they are governed by their own laws, however so, that they remain not in violation of the laws of the King, and are obedient to the King and do not lord it over the king's laws. So God permits all authorites, yes he approves, that they exercise their own laws except to the exclusion and exception of His will to whom they must yield with their laws and be obedient. So the granted laws must yield when they are opposed to the laws of God or the laws of nature as the laws of God and of nature are higher laws. For this reason the law in Deuteronomy is a conditional law and not a law of nature and it must yield in any matter whatsoever when it is against the the law of nature and give place to it as the lower gives way to the higher. Thus also when the law in Deuteronomy gives the appearance that it would force that he (Caleb) would marry his daughter Ascha so he would nevertheless because she is simply his brothers (thus taking the words of the actually and simply as such) but also his daughter he is prevented from doing so by a higher and different law to take one who is not only the wife of his brother but also his daughter although the conditional law commands him to take the wife of his deceased brother. However to what use are these far-ranging explanations, my dear Antoninus, so that you likely artfully dispute with those people who are not skillful in the law?
We want to come to the matter and say that Moses is dead and lived for the Jewish people and we are not obligated to his laws.For this reason we want to run away from as poison and not assent to everything which comes from Moses as a law-giver if it is not also by our laws, natural or secular, recognized as good and does not serve the community life but causes rebellion and disturbance of all laws.The same may have served his community but we have our law-giver in these matters. Therfore this is to be debated: if by the law of the Pope or Emperor marriage is forbidden between a brother and the wife of a deceased brother to which the king of England was obligated to follow so as not to marry the Queen and after he had taken her to expel her must be given this answer: Absolutely not, but he should keep it by keeping her under the threat of losing salvation and receiving everlasting damnation. This is demonstated in this way: First, it does not stand firm that he was forbidden from taking the wife of the brother neither by natural law nor yet divine but through a conditional law.Now the law-giver Moses is for us dead and nothing. Since we read that previously Abraham lived under the natural law and married the daughter of Nahor his brother; this degree is afterward through a conditional law of Moses forbidden. And
Jacob married two sisters which afterward,similarly, was forbidden by Moses. It remains then that it was only a human and conditional law that forbids one to marry the wife of a deceased brother. However, as we have said, marriage is a divine and natural law. When the divine and natural law conflict with the conditional law the conditonal law must yield to the divine; for this reason Christ lifted the law of divorce so that the divine could be maintained. the King of England may therefore have sinned in that he married the wife of a deceased brother and he may have sinned against the civil and human law of the Emperor or against the law of the Pope; if now the Pope and the Emperor release him from their law he has definetely not sinned since the same God who has pronounced the conditional and civil law good has also pronounced good the release of that civil law of the Emperor because he has given him the authority to give and abolish laws and , as I say, the binding and loosing of the
laws in the lands given to him. I say the same of the Pope where he rules with the civil authority; although he binds with no law so he yet has more responsibility when
he releases than when he binds. However, when the King expels the Queen he commits the severest transgression and sins against the divine law which says: "What God has
joined together must not be separated by man",that is, that man should not separate what God, either through his ordinance or by his permission, has bound togehter because his joining together, whether it be by law or by or human action, is higher than a human ordinance. When now these two laws conflict with one another one must be careful that the King of England does not keep a human law and thereby transgress a divine law and that it may be let go if he does not keep the human law without sin in order to keep the divine law. Yet, as I have said, that whether the Pope ( if he recognizes the law of the Emperor) dispenes with the law that is no sin.
There you have, my dear Antoninus, my opinion safegurarded in your bosom. Since I do not know whether it would be useful to make the same public in that my name might endanger the matter which you know is sufficiently hated and despised and although I
speak the truth it may well be despised because of hatred of my name. Nevertheless so that you may dispute securely about my opinion among friends
you may according to your preference either suppress it or make it public. I wish, in fact, that if it were not for the hatred of my name standing in the way that
the King and the Queen could be benefited by it so that they would not be deceived by the Sophists into making an unworthy and crazy separation about which they, should it
happen, would suffer a constant misery of conscience. However, should it happen that this separation has already occured, regarding the advice of other Doctors, and the King has completed it nevertheless I advise you to advise your friends, insofar as you can, that they detest this divorce. and if the opponents of the King of England are completely taken in, yet ours with all zeal will attempt to support the
Queen that she should not consent to this divorce but rather die than make her conscience guilty of such a great transgression before God but that she firmly believe that she is lawful and legal Queen of England made so by God Himself and justified to be so. It is not to be allowed that she should be burdened by such a false accusation believing something to be a sin which is no sin. That would be relying on an erring conscience instead of appealing to God. If she cannot save the King (God forbid) may she yet save the soul of the Queen in that if she cannot prevent the divorce yet she can bear this great and gross injustice as her cross but in no way consenting or agreeing to it. If I may do nothing else I will pray that Christ will prevent this divorce and the counsel of Ahithophel, who gives that advice,bring to nothing or that if He does not hinder it that at least He gives the Queen strong faith and a constant and steadfast conscience that she is the lawful and legal Queen of England against all the gates of the world and hell. May it be right well with you in Christ. Given at Wittenberg on the 5th of September in the year 1531.Your Martin Luther.
NOTES: Finally finished this lengthy epistle. Wonder if Catherine and Mary read it as
it was made public in another form. If you read this mark an x under the comments and
xx etc. as the case may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment