IF MEN had ben so redy to redresse the filthy and vn­cleane lyfe of pre­stes (for the which they haue been noted moste worthe­ly of the whole world) as they haue beene to staye them from the hollye state of matrymony (wherby the a­mendement of the same shuld haue ensued) neyther shoulde wyuelesse lyfe haue hadde so many procters as it had, neyther vnchaste lyuyng shoulde so muche haue raygned as it doeth: But they would haue ben as willing to set the pen to the boke to make the vnchaste and vycious [Page] lyuers to repent and receaue the re­medy of the holly state of matrimo­ny, as some busy bodyes haue been ready to procure statutes & lawes, wherby the vnchaste sole life hath beene wyth feare of the paynes of death continued, and the chast ma­ried lyfe in some state condemned. The cloud which hath so long blinded the eyes of the lay sorte in thys poynt, was the opinion of hollines that they conceaued in preestes, for that they maryed not as other men dyd: and the cloud that blinded the eyes of the priestes, was the gaine that they gotte by their vnworthye estimacion. So the one beyng de­ceued by simplenes and ignorance, and the other by couetousnesse and vayne glory, haue by a mutuall cō ­sent continued this deuelyshe state of vnchaste sole life, to the greate hinderance of vertue, and auauncement of vice, and so to the subuer­lion of the kyngdome of Christ and [Page] settyng vp of the kingdome of an­tichriste. To the entent therefore that this cloud of ignorance might bee the soner taken awaye from the eyes of the ignoraunte, and that they myght know, that it is not the vnmaryed lyfe, whyche maketh the preest better in the sight of the lord, but the wourse, if he lyue burnyng in desyres, contrary to the order in scripture commaunded, I haue set forth this little treatise, trustynge hereby to please God, and to edifye his congregation: the encrease of whose kyngdome and heuenly glo­rye I only seeke, and to quiete the consciences of many, whiche be not yet fully instructed and resolued, in this point. And firste I will begin wyth this generall preposition of Paul to the Corinthiās. For the a­voiding of fornicatiō (saith Paul) let euery mā haue his wyfe, 1. Co. 7 & euery womā her husband. These two wor­des, euery man, and euery woman, [Page] betokeneth that this saiynge of S. Paul doth dispēce w ^t no mā nor woman, that cannot otherwyse avoyd fornication, but that he willeth all sortes, both of men & women, whi­che be endaungered by the reason of their fleshe to fall into fornicati­on, to auoyde the same by the hea­uenly meane of mariage, which is a remedy apointed of God for that ende and purpose. This phrase of speakynge to call matrimonye a remedy, is not only vsed in y ^e Scriptures▪ but in the doctours also, who afferme wyth one consente that ma­trimonye oughte to be vsed in the Churche of God, not only for pro­creation and increase of the worlde, but also for a remedy of incontinencye. 1. Tim 4 And therfore Paule nameth the doctryne, which would take a­waye this remedy, a doctrine of the deuell: by the which wordes it shuld appeare that Paule foresawe no small myschefe, whiche shoulde en­sue [Page] to the Churche of God, by re­straynynge the liberty of mariage, or els woulde he neuer haue termid it so heinously, callyng it a doctrine of deuils. If this doctrine had ben persuaded only to prestes, & not by lawe commaunded, it had ben more tollerable, but seyng it hath a com­maundement, it is euident, that it is the same doctryne whiche Paule calleth a doctrine of deuels that for byddeth mariage. But what can all the cōmaundementes of man, that euer were made, preuayle agaynste the ordinaunce of God, planted in mans nature, in hs fyrste creation? Bow a tree by arte with all the wis­dom you can deuise, streinyng it, y ^t it may not grow right, and yet wyl it enioye the power of growing (all­thoughe it be croked) as long as it continueth in lyfe, obeyinge the or­dinaunce and commaundement of God, who at the begynnynge bade it growe and multiplye: Euen so [Page] the man, who hathe not the gyft to lyue without a wyfe, but is framed in his first creacion to be one of thē, by whome the world shalbe increa­sed, keepe hym downe with lawes & statutes as streitely as ye can, yet wil he at one tyme or other, kycke a­gainste the lawe, and seke meanes to mainteine and exercise that na­ture, which God for the continuance of procreation, hath planted in his fleshe. The lawe and wytte of the lawe makers, canne not so restraine mannes will, that it wyll be vnwil­lyng to that thyng, where vnto it is moste willyng, it will stryue ageinst the lawe, make it neuer so stronge, other in mynde or in deede, as it appereth by the vnchaste lyfe of those, whyche haue been bounde by lawes, not hauynge the gyfte, with whose lyfe, wourse then lecherouse, I am ashamed to occupye my pen. Howe many thousandes haue their been, whyche haue stryuen ernest­ly [Page] for a tyme to obaye the lawe of sole lyfe, contrary to theyr nature? And yet haue they in conclusion perceaued theyr owne weakenesse so greate, that they were fayne to geue ouer, and yeld to their nature, not withstandynge their former purpose, and the streight lawe of deathe by man made to the contra­ry: Neyther fastynge neyther wat­chynge, neyther any thynge suche lyke, is more able to staye theyr de­syre (theyr lyfe and helthe beynge preserued) then minyshyng of moi­sture and earthe aboute the roote of a tree, (so ye kylle it not) is able to staye the same tree frome bryn­gynge forthe of leaues and blos­somes in the sprynge tyme of the yeare: whereby it maye appere howe sore the lawe makers of sole lyfe, haue thus longe tyme stry­uen agaynste the streame, pur­posynge to bynde the mynde, [Page] whiche beynge indued with the spi­ryte of God, is at lybertie, whan their bandes haue no further force, but vpon the bodye onlye and the outwarde actions. That mariage & priest­hod mai stand to­gether. Yf anye man woulde obiecte vnto me, that ma­riage can not stande with the order of presthod: I wyl aske him again, whether mariage maie stand as wel with the order of priesthod now, as it myght in the Apostles tyme or not? If it be answered that it maye not, then muste you shewe a reason why: which reason can not bee she­wed, except ye alledge the ordre of priestynge deuised by the byshop of Rome, whiche varyeth in deede al­most as farre from the preestes that were of Christes ordryng, as a dum picture from the thynge or person whome it doeth represente. And therfore ought they to bee corrected and redressed to theyr former ex­aumple: so that it muste needes be confessed, that mariage may as wel [Page] stande with the order of preestehod now, as it myght haue done in the Apostels tyme: which thing beyng granted, if I can shewe by the scrip­ture and doctoures that the same Apostels were maried, then may I saye, y ^t the obiection is false, for as­much as mariage stode w ^t presthod in the Apostels. To proue then that the Apostels were maried, being by shoppes and prestes: Mat. 8. Peters wiues mother (as the Gospell witnesseth) was healed by Christe of a feuer, by y ^e which wordes it is playn y ^t Peter had a wyfe which thinge Clemens Alexādrinus writing against thē y ^t reproued mariage, doth plainly ap­proue, saiynge: Li. 3. ca. 30. Ecle. Hist. An & Apostolos im­probauit? Petrus etenim ac Philippus, & vxores habuerunt, et filias nuptum dederunt: Do thei reproue the Apo­stels? Peter and Phillyppe hadde wiues, and also children, which thei gaue to be maryed. And of the ma­riage of the same Peter, and also of [Page] other Apostles, thus writeth Ing­natius, Saincte Iohns disciple: Non detraho autem caeteris beatis, qui nuptijs copulati fueruut, quorum nunc memini, opto enim Deo dignus ad vestigia eorum in regno ipsius inueni­ri sicut Abraham et Isaac, et Iacob sicut Ioseph et Esaias et ceteri Prophetae, si­cut Petrus & Paulus, & reliqui Apo­stoli, qui nuptijs fuerunt sociati. Qui non libidinis causa, sed posteritatis sub rogande gratia coniuges habuerunt. That is to saye: I discommend not other hollye men, whych were ma­ried, of whome I haue nowe spo­ken, My desyre is, that I maye be founde acceptable to God in hys Kyngedome at theyr foote steppes, as Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Io­seph, and Esaye bee, and all the reste of the Prophetes: As Peter, and Paule, and the reste of the A­postles, who were coupled in ma­ryage, and yet not maryed for the fulfyllynge of theyr [...]odely lustes, [Page] but for the mayntenaunce of theyr posterytee and ofsprynge. Whome shoulde we allowe for a wytnesse of the maryage of the Apostles, if ye wyll refuse Ingnatius (who testi­fyed Chryste by his martyrdome and deathe, and was in the same worlde a dissiple of Saincte Iohn the Euangelyste.) If the prouerbe bee true whyche is vsed of Plautus the Comic. Plus valet oculatus testis vnus, quàm auriti decem: One eye witnesse is more woorthy to be este­med, then tenne eare witnesses. We oughte to geue more creadyte to Ingnacius, thenne to any other, whose knowlage is only grounded vpon a contrary reporte. Saincte Ambrose dooeth also confirme the same sentence, saiyng: In Ca. [...]2. prim. epist. ad Cor. Omnes Apo­postoli, excepto Iohane, vxores habue­runt, Al y ^e apostles, except Iohn, had wyues. So y ^t I trust, I nede not to laboure any more in prouynge this pointe (it beynge proued by so olde [Page] and autentike writers) that to be a priest and to haue a wyfe, be not re­pugnaunte, but stande so well to­gether, that the Apostels were By­shoppes and preestes, and yet they had wyues not withstandyng. But what nedeth me to wander so farre in the doctoures for the proofe here of? whan this thing may otherwise be easly shewed by the scriptures it selfe, firste and formost saith Paule both to Timothy and to Tite: 1. Tim 3. Tit. 1. A bishop or priest, must be the husbād of one wife. Paul doth not say: It is ynough for him if he hath had a wife, but he saith in y ^e p̄sent time: Si quisest sine crimine, vnius uxoris uir. & opor­tet episcopū irreprehensibilem esse. He muste esse, be, the husbande of one wyfe. Neither finde I greate fault with the doctours which chaunge, be, into hath byn. But suche Bys­shops and Preestes as neither bee neither haue beene maryed, neither wille marrye to this daye, muste [Page] find some other exposition, for this texte of S. Paule, or els can not I se how they can excuse them selues, but y ^t thei shalbe foūd gilty by this description and rule of a blamelesse Byshoppe. I remenbre that Theo­philacte vpon this texte fyndeth a faulte with suche, Theoph vpon. 1. Tim. 3. as would haue a wyfe, in this place, to sygnyfy one Churche or one benefice: but they which so wrieth y ^e scripture, oughte rather merily to be laughed at, then to be with studie confuted, for expe­rience doth declare, that thei would rather (vxor) a wife, in this place shoulde signifie twenty other mens wyues, thē one of their owne. They handle the scriptures, as S. Hie­rome did against Iouinian: That is to saye, make it soūd as it is wri­thed, and not as it was wrytten. The wordes of them selues be so plain, that it can not be denied, but that Paule ment that it was not only a thing of sufferaunce, but veray [Page] conuenient, or rather requisite for a byshop or a prieste to haue a wyfe. This haue I proued by the woorde of God, by the doctours, and by the example of the Apostles, that prest­hode in his most holynesse and per­fection, maie well bee ioyned with the holy state of matrimony. If any man would pretende, Mari­age is no hyn­derance to a godly lyfe. Chriso. ho. 21. in gene. that mariage shuld hinder him from y ^e seruyng of God, let hym reade Chrisostome in Genesim. And in an other place al­so, in a sermon that he made against the Iewes, the Gentyles, and the heretykes, vpon the mariage made in Cana, where he hath these woor­des: Nec excuses te propter nuptias, Dominus tuus nuptijs interfuit, & nuptias honestauit, & dicis, nuptias obsta­culum esse ad pietatem? Nullum enim ad pietatem est obstaculum. Vis cog­noscere quia nihil nocet habere vxo­rem & liberos? Moses, nonne vxorem habuit & liberos? Helias, nonne virgo erat? Nonne Moses Manna de celo de­duxit? [Page] Nonne Elias ignem de coelo de­duxit? An nocuit huic virginitas? an impedimento fuerunt huic vxor & li­beri? Vidisti Heliam aurigam in aēre: Vidisti Mosen in mare viatorem: vide et Petrum ecclesiae columnam, quia & ipse vxorem habuit. &c. Excuse not thy selfe, because of mariage (saith Chrisostom) thy Lord was at a ma­riage, and commended it with his presence: And saiest thou, that ma­riage is a hynderaunce to a godly lyfe? It is no hynderance to a god­ly lyfe. Wilt thou know that it hurteth nothyng to haue a wife & chil­dren? Had not Moyses a wyfe and childrē? Was not Helias a virgin? Dyd not Moyses brynge Manna from heuen? Dyd not Helias bryng fyre from heauen? Dyd virginitee hynder the one? Or dyd maryage hynder thother? Thou seest Helias ridyng in a carte in the ayre: Thou seest Moses passyng thorough the myddes of the sea: Beholde Pe­ter [Page] also, a Piller of the Church, had a wyfe. &c. In case that ye thynke that the exāples of Moses, Helias and Peter, be not enough, I wyl be so bolde (to bring example of Chry­sostome) to adde vnto theym thre: hollye Abraham, and all the rest of Patriarkes and Prophetes of the olde testament: All the Apostles of Christ in the new testament, Actu. 21. Philip the euāgelist, who had many doughters: Cheremon, a bishop in Egipt, of a citie called Nilopolis: These shall ye haue [...]in Eccl [...]si. histo of Euseb. Philias also, whiche was bothe byshop and Marter, and Policrates, a Byshop of the Ephesians, which sayd: Se­uen of my fore fathers by ordre, wer Byshoppes of this See, and I am the eyght: Spiridion, and a great numbre of holly men mo, whiche all were maried & highly in the fauour of God. Mariage was no more hinderance to Abraham and the rest of the Patriarches, touching the trew seruice of God, and beyng in the fa­uour [Page] of god, then it was to Moses. Mariage was no hinderance to all the rest of the Apostles, neither is it this day to any other godly man: so that by the meanes thereof, they bee not caste oute of the fauoure of God, more then was sayncte Pe­ter. And saincte Ihon Chrysostom vpon the epistle to Tite, sayeth: Adeo preciosa res est matrimonium, ut poss [...]t quis cum eo ad sanctum E­piscopatus solium sub [...]ehi, So preci­ous a thynge is Matrimonye (say­eth he) that a manne maye ascende with it to the holly seat of a byshop. Let then this vayne quarrell, that mariage shoulde hynder enny man from the seruice of God, be no more alledged, as though there were a great matter in it, when it is suffi­cientely shewed, that there is none in deede.

But this geare, they thynke, wyll soone bee aunswered, graun­tynge that the Apostles and other [Page] holly bishops and priestes had wy­ues as I say: Mary, than will they say agayn, that neither the apostles neyther the reste of the forenamed Ecclesiasticall persons had any matrimoniall vse of their wyfes, after the tyme of their election to their ministery, but did put them away, and vtterly forsooke the companye of theim, after that tyme. Well, yet than graunt they, that the apostles and other holy byshoppes and prie­stes had wiues, euen in the tyme of their apostleshyp and ministerye, whyche thyng I take at their han­des as wonne good grounde. For by that, haue al they granted (whi­che flee to this obiection▪ that a ma­ried man maie be a prieste, his wyfe being aliue. After this victory then let vs thus procede: The apostles (they saie) put awaye their wyues, after the tyme they were called to the preachynge of the Gospell. If I should aske ye, howe you proue [Page] that, shoulde not the beste reason or auctoritee that ye coulde bryng for your purpose bee blynde reason or coniecture? Well, answer what ye shal thynk good, whā I haue made aunswere to your former obiection. Whan ye speake of puttyng away of wyues, it is conuenient, that ye call to remembrance the laufull causes why a man may put awaye his wyfe, by goddis woorde: And in serchyng, ye shall fynde there, that a man can not put awaye his wyfe for any other cause, Mat 5. &. 19. but for adulte­rye onely. Than is the preachynge of the Gospell no cause, why a man shoulde put away his wyfe. Muche lesse for the Apostles of Christe, whose lyfe was a rule to all the reste of the Christen congregation. I trust you bee not so shamelesse, that ye wyll chalenge the Apostles wynes to bee euyll women, for the mayntenance of your fond reason. And yet yf you woulde so dooe, it [Page] maye be gathered by the Scripture that they were godlye and obedient women to their husbandes to your confusion. It is to be thought, that suche as Christe appoynted to rule the whole Congregacion, were hable to rule their wyues, their chyldren and family, or elles shuld not Christ haue obserued the same rule in chusyng of his apostles, as Paule prescribed to Timothye, in chusynge a Bysshoppe. 1. Tim. 3. If they were obedient wyues to their hus­bandes (as by that scripture it may bee gathered that they were) you must nedes graunt, that the Apo­postles dyd not put away their wy­ues, for if they hadde, they shoulde haue offended agaynste Goddes woorde, who chargeth man, not to put awaye his wyfe for any cause, but for adultery only.

Thus then I conclude: Goddes woorde sayeth, that no man maye put awaye his wyfe excepte for ad­ultery, [Page] ergo, they dyd not put them away. Yea, and further it maye be thus proued by scripture, that they had Matrimoniall companye with theire wyues in thys wyse. The worde of God was the onely rule of the Apostles lyfe: So that what soeuer Goddes woorde commaun­ded them, so they dyd: But Gods worde commaunded them, saiynge: Vir uxori debitum reddat, 1. Cor. 17 similiter et uxor uiro. Let the man render the dutye of a husbande to his wyfe, and the woman to her husbande.

Ergo, the Apostles beyng ruled by the sayde scripture, & obeiyng gods worde in this poynte, had matrimo­nial company with their wiues, and did acordyngly as scripture willeth them. For a profe wherof, the scrip­ture doth testify that the apostles & the brothers of the Lord & Cephas, caried their wiues about w ^t thē, to what purpose I pray you? if it wer not for the auoidynge of that in­conuenience, [Page] agaynste the whyche, matrimonie is prouyded by god for remedye. If a wyfe be a trouble to theim that be prieestes (as some do alledge it) why lefte they not theyr wiues at one place remainyng, and discharged theim selues of so clog­gyng a cariage? as by the scripture it shoulde seeme that Paule dyd. I doubt not, but that they wold haue so doone, yf the infirmitee of the fleshe had not dissuaded them to the contrary. Retourne not to your for­mer fantasy, sayeng as ye bee wont, that ye can not be answered, for if ye can defende without blushyng, that scripture rightly alleged, is not sufficient to confound your coniecture whyche is directly agaynst it, than is your face so blyndelesse, that it can not blusshe. A priest may not put awei his wife vnder p̄ ­tence of holines.

And because no man should pre­tende a religious holynesse, by the meanes whereof he myghte shyfte awaye his wyfe, the apostles de­creed, [Page] as it appeereth in their Ca­nons, Apostolorū Can. 5. that Episcopus aut presbyter vxorem propriam, nequaquā sub ob­tentu religionis abijciat, A bysshop or a prieste in no wyse maie put awaie his wife, vnder the pretence of ho­lynesse, and colour of religion: by the whiche Canon it maie appeere, that the apostles dyd not put away their wyues. And yet came there a sorte of heritikes, named Eustachi­ani, shortly after the apostles tyme, who sayde, that priestes that were maried shuld not be set by, and dis­swaded the people from receauyng the Sacramentes at suche priestes handes: For the condemnation of whiche heretikes in the old councel of Gangris, The coū sayle of Gāgris whych was about the same tyme, that Nicene coūsel was, This decree was made: Si quis di­scernit presbyterum coniugatū, tanquā occasione nuptiarum, quod offerre non debeat, & ab eius obla [...]ione ideo absti­net, amathema sit: If any iudge a ma­ried [Page] prieste, as thoughe he shoulde not minister, because he is marri­ed, and so for that cause withdra­weth hym selfe frome suche a prie­stes ministration, let hym be accur­sed. This godly counsell of suche antiquitee, compelled not the prie­stes of these dayes to putte awaye their wyues, neyther condempned them frome their company, but al­lowed and commaunded theym vnder the payne of accursynge, to kepe styll their wyues, and condem­ned the Eustachians for heritikes, who vnder the pretence of holynesse were offended with the mariage of priestes, and held the contrary opi­nion to the counsell. And there is a place cited out of S. Gregory in the Decrees, whiche dothe plainly de­clare, that it is a lawe of man, & di­rectly agaynst the law of God, that any man should put away his wyfe vnder such a pretence: Dist. 27. q. 2. Sunt qui dicūt These be the wordes: Sunt qui dicunt, religionis [Page] gratia coniugia debere dissolui, verū sci endum est, quod si hoc lex humana con­cessit, lex tamen diuina prohibuit, per se enim veritas dicit: Math. 19. Quos deus con­iunxit▪ homo ne separet. Qui etiam ait: Non licet dimittere vxorem, Ibidem. excepta causa fornicationis. Quis ergo huius la­tori legis contradicat? scimus quia scri­ptum est: Erunt duo in carne vna. Gen. 2. That is to say: Somme there bee, whiche holde opinion, that marri­age ought to be broken for relygi­ons sake, but it muste bee knowen, that all thoughe the lawe of man hath so graunted it, yet the lawe of God hath forbydden it. For the truthe it selfe sayd: Math 19 Let not manne separate theim, whome God hath coupled. And it also sayeth: It is not laufull for a man to put awaye his wyfe, excepte for fornication. Who than maye gayne saye this lawmaker? For we knowe that it is written: Gen. 2. They shall bee two in one flesshe. Marke these woordes [Page] I praie you, and ye shall perceaue that they neede no interpretation nor wresting, for the proofe of this purpose. What wolde you haue more sayde, the thing beyng pro­ued by the scripture, by y ^e Canōs of y ^e Apostels, & by the old ancient coū sayles and doctours? me thinketh ye shuld change your iudgements, and say another while, as it is lar­gely proued, that the Apostels dyd not put away their wyues, but cō ­panyed wyth them, after the tyme that they were called to the prea­ching of the Gospell, without pre­tendyng holines of religion.

But then will ye fall on meruai­ling, how it came first to passe, Priests to put awaye their wiues was the inuē tion of the By­shope of Rome. that priestes dyd put away their wyues, they hauyng no warrant so to do by gods worde, neither yet exaum­ple of the Apostels of Christe, and other holye fathers in the Primi­tiue Churche: From this meruay­lynge I truste easelye to delyuer [Page] you, if ye wyll take paynes to reade on a littell. Howe shuld Antichrist haue been knowen, if the prophe­cyes of him shulde not haue been fulfilled? And one of the chiefe mar­kes, wherby Daniel appointed out Antichriste is, that he shoulde for­byd maryage: whose prophecy must bee fulfylled. 1. Tim. 4. And Paule likewyse prophecyed, that suche doctoures shulde come in the latter days, whi­che should confirme that dyuelishe doctrine of Antichriste, forbiddyng men to marye. This doctrine was firste founde out by the diuell, for the maintenaunce of whooredome and all filthye kind of liuing: And it was broughte to passe by the de­uelles highe preest, Antichrist, the byshop of Rome, whose power by vsurpation extendeth thoroughout the moste part of Christendom, pu­blished and stablysshed this dyue­lyshe doctrine against the mariage of preestes, contrary bothe to the [Page] doctrine of Christe (for the whyche cause, it may wel bee called the doc­trine of Antichrist) and contrary to the exāple of thapostles, as ye haue hearde. And for a profe, that Anti­christ byshop of Rome was the first setter abrode of this diuelyshe doc­trine, I wyll cite vnto you a playn place ex sexto synodo. 6 Synod. distin. 3 [...]. cap. Quū in Roma. Quum in Ro­mani ordine canonis cognouimus esse traditum, eos qui ordinati sunt diaconi vel presbyteri, confiteri ꝙ non iam su­is copulentur vxoribus, antiquum se­quentes canonem apostolicae diligentiae, & constitutionis sacrorum virorum, le­gales nuptias amodo valere volumus, nullo modo cum vxoribus suis eorum concubia dissoluentes aut priuantes eos familiaritate ad inuicem in tempore o­portuno: Quicunque ergo diligens in­uentus fuerit in subdiaconali ordinati­one aut diaconali aut sacerdotali, hij nullo modo prohibeantur ad talem a­scendere gradum pro vxoris suae co­habitatione, Nec etiam tempore ordi­nationis [Page] suae profiteri castitantē cogan­tur, quod abstinere debeat à legalis v­xoris familiaritate. Si quis igitur prae­sumpserit, contra apostolicos canones, aliquos presbyterorum & diaconorum priuare à contactu & communione legalis vxoris suae, deponatur. Simili­ter & presbyter aut diaconus, qui reli­gionis causa vxorē suam expellit, excō ­municetur: si vero in hoc permanse­rit, deponatur. &c. The englysshe wherof is this) For as muche as we knowe, that it is in the Canons of Rome, that suche as be appoin­ted to take the order of Deacon or prieste, confesse that they haue not matrymonyall companye of theyr wyues: Wee, followynge the olde Canone and rule of the apostelles dylygence, and the Constitutions of holly menne, wylle, that frome hensefoorthe, lawfull marriage be effectual [...]e, myndynge in no wyse to lowse the mutualle copulacyon [Page] of them with their wyues, or els staiyng them frō their familiaritee together in tyme conuenient. Who soeuer therfore be found worthy in the order of subdeacon, deacon, or preeste, let him in no wise be kepte backe or forbydden to ascende vn­to such a degree for that he hath his wyfe dwellynge with hym, neither let him be compelled to professe chastitye, whan they take orders, wher­by he should forsake his lawful wi­ues company. Therfore if any man presume contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, to take away the mu­tual embrasinges and companiyng with their laufull wyues from any preest, or deacon, let hym be disgra­ged: Likewyse that preest whiche putteth away his wife for religions sake, let him be excommunicate, and yf he so contynue, disgrade hym. Thus farre haue ye herd the woor­des of the synode, by the which it is plaine, that the Canons of the Ro­myshe [Page] sorte, and the Canons of the Apostles be contrari. The Apostles taught one thyng: The byshop of Rome brought in another. Nowe iudge you whether is beste for vs which professe Christ, to follow the Apostles of Christ, or the Romyshe Antichrist? The law of God, which wylleth byshopes and preestes to mary: or the doctrine of the deuyll, as Paule calleth it, whiche forbyd­deth theym maryage. It is an ex­treme wickednes abhorred of God, to stablyshe & defende a doctrine of deuils, cōtrary to the word of God, contrary to the example of the apo­stles, contrarye to the ordre of the Primitiue Churche, to the subuer­siō of chastitie, to the maintenāce of hoordom, & other fleshly beastlines: but whosoeuer forbyddeth mariage to theim that hathe not the gyfte of sole life, stablisheth a doctrine of de­uils, with al the inconueniences be­fore rehersed. Ergo, thei that forbid ma­riage [Page] to them whiche hathe not the gift of sole life, cōmaūd an extreme wyckednesse abhorred of God. For a further profe of this my purpose, I haue thought good here to recite certayne practises of the bys­shop of Rome, which he vsed to brīg this matter to passe. It were to te­dious, to rehearse all the names of those Antichristian byshopes, that were the patchers & proppers vp of this Decree. Yet one or two of them can I not well passe ouer, but espe­cially Gregorye the .vii. otherwyse named Hildebrande, whose life, who soeuer hath read, may perceiue that he was one of the chiefe authors of the wyuelesse lyfe of the clergye. Reade thoroughout the Cronicles, and I thynke you shal fynde few or none more vicious, more ambicious more cruel, more lecherous: Ye shal be forced to say, that Hildebrād was euen a meete serpent to spit out such a poison at the cōmaūdment of An­tichrist, [Page] amonge the people of God. Thistoriographers doth abūdātly testify, what tumultes & rufflynges he caused at Magūce & Cōstance, & many other places in Fraunce and Germanye, for thestablishment of this most abhominable law against the mariage of preestes.

And that ye may be the better ac­quainted with his practises, both in these & all other christian Realmes, ye shal vnderstand, that amōgest o­ther letters sent to other parties, he addressed also hys letters to Otto byshop of Constance, cōmaūdyng, y ^e he shuld forbyd y ^e mariage through out his diocese, of suche preestes as were not yet maried, & that he shuld breke & loose the matrimonial knot betwene them, that were alredy ma­ried: But Otto ꝑceauing right wel thūgodly purpose of Hildeb. neither would diuorse those preestes which wer maried, nother deny y ^e liberti of mariage to such preestes as wer yet [Page] vnmaryed. The byshope of Rome therfore cursed him, and discharged his subiectes of their dutyes and obedience towardes hym, and ap­poynted Otto a daye, to appeare before him at Rome in a counsell a­poynted. In that coūsel Hildebrād with thother bishops of Itali amō ­gest other thīgs, established stoutly a law, that frō thenceforth, preestes should not mary. And that such as had maried, shuld other forth w ^t put away their wyues, or els be clearely expelled from all ecclesiasticall fun­ction. And none to be admitted in­to the ordre of preesthode, vnlesse he fyrst were sworne, neuer to mary. This Decree of the sole life of pree­stes (when the counsell was dissol­ued) was publyshed throughe oute Italy. And the byshops euery wher there, were cōmanded bothe to obey and execute it. And lykewyse were the byshops of Fraunce forced to o­bey the determinacion of the same [Page] Decree, made by that same counsel of Rome: But the clergy of Fraūce withstode boldly Hildebrandes de­cree, and cried with one assent, affir­myng, that counsell to be directly agaynst Goddes holye woorde. And that the byshop of Rome tooke that thyng awaye from preestes, whiche both God and nature had giuen vnto them: and that the said byshop of Rome was an heretique, & thauctor of a wycked doctrine, by the sugge­stion not of the holy gost, but of the deuyll himselfe: and moreouer that his decree was contrary to this sai­yng of Christ: Math. 19. All receaue not this woorde: and contrarye also to this holsome doctrine of Saynt Paule: As touchyng virginitie I haue no cōmaundement of the Lorde: 1. Cor 7. And he that can not absteyn, let him ma­ry: And contrarye also bothe to the Canons of the Apostles, and of Ni­cene counsell. They founde faulte with this Hildebrāde for y ^t he wolde [Page] haue theim contrary to the order of nature, lyue lyke Angels without the company of women, and that he hadde also by this Decree opened a window to whooredome and al vn­clennesse. Insomuche that they an­swered with one voice, that thei had rather lose their benefices, then for­sake (agaynste the woorde of the Lorde) theire wyues. And (sayde they) if maryed preestes be an euyl syght to the bishop of Romes eyes, then let hym call Angelles downe from heauen to be ministers in the Churche. But the byshop of Rome was nothynge stirred with all these godly reasons & authorities of scripture, neither yet with the Decree of the holly Nicene counsell, but mo­ued continuallye the myndes of the byshops, with swarmes of imbassa­dours, & sendyng of letters thycke and threfolde, accusynge theym for their slackenesse & negligence, and also thretnyng them with the plage [Page] of his curse, vnlesse they compelled their preestes to obeye his Decree. So that a great numbre of bishops beyng forced by this tirannye of the byshop of Rome, applyed them sel­ues to take away the lawfull law of matrimony frome their preestes. But tharchebishop of Magūce perceauing that it woulde be a weghty and no easye thynge to compasse, to take Mariage cleane awaye frome the preestes of his Diocesse: fyrste he admonyshed theym frendlye of this Romysh Decree, geuyng them halfe a yeares respite, for to consult vpon the thynge, and aduertisyng them earnestely to obey the byshop of Rome and hym. And that they woulde of theim selues willynglye do that thyng, whiche they shoulde in conclusyon, wyll they nyll they, be constrayned to dooe: otherwyse he shuld be forced to attempte some thing more greuous agaynst them.

The halfe yeare beeynge expy­red, [Page] Tharchebyshop called a con­uocation at Erifort, where he com­manded them, accordyng to the bi­shop of Romes decree, either vtter­ly to forsake and forswere mariage, or elles to leaue of their ecclesiasti­cal ministerie: but the clergie defen­ded them selues against Hildebran­des Decree, with scriptures, with reasons, with saiynges of counsels, with thexāples of their forefathers, & with a numbre of vnanswerable argumentes, wherby they proued, that the sayd Decree was nothyng to be estemed, but to be worthyly of all men reiected. And whan tharche bishop replied, saiyng, that he was compelled of the bishop of Rome, & that he could do no lesse but accom­plishe and kepe his lawes. The clergy perceauyng that there coulde be no meanes made to compasse theyr bishop, neither by disputation, nei­ther yet by intreaty, they withdrew them selues a litell from the coūsell, [Page] as purposyng to consulte vpon the matter: some thought not good to returne into the counsell, and some other thought it was good to re­turne, and pluck tharchebishop out of his chaire by the eares, handling hym as he had deserued, that there might a notable testimony remayn to their posterite of his worthy deth on that sorte, so that all his succes­sours might take ensample by hym to beware how they toke away such priuileges and libertees from the clergi. Tharchebishops spies, made reporte vnto hym of theyr intente, that went out. Then sent the arche­byshope somme of his frendes to them that were without, for to counsell them to conceaue a good opini­on of their bishop, and to wyl them quietly to retourne agayn into the counsell. They were contented and retourned. Than the archebyshop made promise, that he would do the best he coulde to change the byshop [Page] of Romes mynde, wyllyng them in the meane season to returne to their cures. The next yere folowyng, the byshop of Magunce at the cōman­dement of the byshop named Curi­ensis (whō the bishop of Rome had sent in ambassage vnto hym, bothe with his letters and cōmandement) called a counsayle at Magunce. In this counsayle he commaunded the clergie vnder the peyne of cursyng, that they wolde immediatly in that present Synode, either vtterly for­sake their wyues, or els their mini­stery for euer. The Clergie plea­did theyr owne cause boldely: and whan they perceyued that their an­swere coulde not be herde, but that they should be compelled by the ty­rannie of the byshop of Rome, to o­beye, there was a sodayn tumulte, wherein the ruffelynge was so vio­lente, and with suche a force, that bothe the byshop of Romes ambas­sadour and the archebyshope were [Page] putte in ieopardie of their lyues. The counsayl brake vp. The arche­byshop perceyuynge and fearynge the daunger of the matter, woulde medle no more with the reasonyng therin, but committed all togither to the byshop of Rome, therein to doo what he shoulde thynke good. But he would here neither Scrip­ture, neyther reason, neyther any auncient wryter sence the apostles tyme. His eares were stopped a­gaynste all reasons, whyche were contrarye to his opinyon: he hea­ped vp his thunderboltes of cur­synges and excommunications v­pon all theym that woulde not o­beye this sayenge of his: we wyll, charge, and straytely commaunde you. He wente foorthe on lyke hym selfe, withoute all feare of God, withoute all reuerence to the holly Scriptures, as a horne woode beaste, for the maynte­naunce of his dyuelyshe Decree, [Page] pretendyng alwaies a zeale to cha­stitee, that he myght the safelyer lyue without suspicion in his accu­stomed lecherous life, whereof the histories doth plentuously intreate, and thus by violence and tyrannie, he compassed his purpose.

The lyke practyse to this that was vsed in Italye Fraunce and Germanye, hath been vsed also in Englande by the bysshops at sun­drye tymes, but namely in kynge Edgars dayes, thorough the sug­gestion of the bysshoppes, Dun­ston, Ethelwald, and Oswalde, thre monkes, by whose procurement to Iohn the .xiii. of that name, bishop of Rome. The pristes, who were named secular canons, were banyshed out of their colleges of Wynche­ster and Worcetter, and sundry o­ther places of the realme, bycause they hadde wyues, and monkes were placed in theyr roumes. The chiefe cause that was layde to [Page] theyr charge wherfore to put them oute of their lyuynges was, that they were maried. But why I pray you were the monkes nowe of late dayes agayne displaced? If Ma­trimonie myght be called a faulte (as God forbydde that any christen tongue shoulde abuse it selfe in so speakynge) yet had it been but one fault. Nowe for that one faulte (as they call it) what a numbre of fau­tes I praye you, were there founde in the abbaies at the kynges maie­sties visitation? Dyd nor the con­fessions of theim selues, in man [...]r without examination, wytnes those abbays to be the store houses of al vicious lyfe and abhomination? Was not there couched togither in one dunghyll, superstition, ydola­trie, pryde, malice, ydelnesse, igno­rance, abhorryng of maryage, and yet a satisfyeng of their stynkynge lustes of theyr bodyes other ways? and vnder the pretence of obedy­ence [Page] to theyr Abbotte or pryoure, dysobedyence to God, and theyr prynce, &c. These were the holly ones, whome Dunstone placed in steede of the Preestes, whyche ly­ued in Godlye marryage. These were the chaste and vertuous ly­uers, agaynste whose lyfe it was not lawfulle to speake. But yee maye see by theyr ouerthrowe, how well God was pleased with theyr woorkes. Ye may see how woorthi­ly God hath caste downe theyr be­gun buylded Babylon, and hathe scattred those blyndlynges to their vtter confusion, and his moste hea­uenly glory. Thei entred theyr houses as though God hadde geuen theim possession, but thankes bee geuen to God, who hath sent Christ with his whyppe, challengynge theym for papystes and lyars, and declarynge to all the whole worlde that they haue made his howse a [Page] Sodomyticall denne of beastelye blynde wretches and steale swat theeues. The selfe same thynge was also practysed by Anselme ar­chebyshoppe of Caunterburye, in Henrye the fyrste his dayes, the seconde yeare of his Reygne, in a Counsaylie holden at London, where he forbadde the preestes of Englande to haue wyues. It was at that tyme a straunge mattier vnto theym: Libro. 7. For as Hunting­don [...]nlis dooeth wryte, they were neuer forbydden vntyll that day. And for a confyrmacion of An­selmes facte, there was sente in­to Englande, frome the Byshope of Rome one Ioannes Cremen­ses, a Cardynalle, who helde a Counsaylle at London, where he alledged many reasones for the restraynte and prohybytyon of Preestes marriages, and amongest other allegacions, he sayde, that it [Page] was an exceadynge great abhomi­nacion, for a preest to aryse frome a whores side (for so he called preestes lawfull wyues) and immediatly to goe make gods body. Yet it came to passe that although he hadde the same day sayde masse (which he cal­led the makynge of Gods body) he was taken with a whore the same nyght. From whence came this fe­low I pray you? came he not frome Rome? was he not a Cardinal? was he not sent frome the capitayne ge­nerall of Antichristes kyngdome the bysshoppe of Rome him selfe? What neede we then to doubt from whence this lawe of wyuelesse lyfe came fyrst, and who were the stabli­shers therof?

Some cry, the Church the Church: was not this Cardinall trowe you a meete membre of the Churche, to make a lawe for the rulynge of the Churche? Thus hathe the deuyll vnder the name of preeste, byshop, [Page] Cardinall, Pope, and Churche, deceaued all the worlde. Surely I am perswaded that it was doone by the hyghe prouidence of God, that this Cardinall shoulde be so taken in suche a trappe, at that tyme espe­cially, bicause he would haue it no­tified to all the whole worlde, that the wyuelesse lyfe of preestes, which Antichrist studied to bryng to passe, was altogither the deuils doctrine, and contrarye to the mynde of the holy ghoste. Ye maye se, that this Church of Rome is the well spring of all the poyson that hath infected thuniuersal church of Christēdome.

All the Greke Churche hath ben, from the Apostles tyme to this day, cleare from this heresy, in that they neuer alowed y ^e doctrine of sole life, but haue continued cōtrarye, in the doctryne of the Apostles, as the byshop of Rome confesseth in hys owne Decrees. Aliter se orientalium habet traditio ecclesiarum, dist. 31. ca. Aliter. aliter huius [Page] S. Ro. ecclesiae: nā ea℞ sacerdotes, Di­aconi, aut subdia coni, matrimonio copu lātur: Istiꝰ autē eccl [...]ae, uel occidētaliū, nullꝰ sacerdotū, à subdiacono us (que) ad epm̄, licētiā habet cōiugiū sortiēdi. The churches of the East, (saith the bshop of Rome) haue one tradicion & ordre, & this holly church of Rome another: for the prestes, deacōs, & subdeacōs of the Greke church, doth mary but no preest of the churche of Rome, or of y ^e west churches, frō subdeacō to y ^e degree of a bishop hath licēse to mary. By this text may ye see, not only who thei be which hath begun & continued the doctrine of the Apost. in this poynt, but also who they bee, which haue brought in, the cōtrary doctrine. Nowe then is my purpose proued, & your merueilyng (howe it came first to passe that preestes dyd put away their wyues) answered, in y ^e it is shewed, that it is by doctrine of the deuyl, & first published by the Romish by shoppe, otherwyse called Antichrist, acordīg to the prophecies [Page] of Paul & Daniel. A preest may marye after that he hath re­ceyued thordre of prest­hode. Some sophister wold yet ꝑaduenture frame further cauellatiō, grāting y ^t prests may mary before they be prestes, but it must not (wil thei say) be grāted, that thei mai mary after thei be once ētred in to y ^e holly ordre of presthod. But my former reson wel waid, wil make a redy way for an answer to this obiectiō. For if it be grāted, y ^t thapostles & o­ther holy mē lai w ^t their wiues after thei wer called & chosē to their mini­steri (as I haue before proued y ^t thei did) cōpare mariage of a wife & liēg w ^t a wife togither, & when it shal apere vnto you, y ^e mariage of a wife, is as smal an offēce as liyng w ^t a wife, ye will be as redy to graunt the one, as ye wer to graunt the other. Al the world must graūt, y ^t matrimony is not denied to prestes for y ^e own sake, bicause of it selfe it is an holy thyng ordeined of God: but bicause as the p̄tend of the mutual cōpany betwen y ^e man & the womā, which followeth [Page] matrimony, & is iudged of the vn­learned, an vngodly thynge. Nowe then the mutuall companye of the preest & his wyfe, beyng founde lau­full amongest suche as be all redye entred into the ordre of preesthode, ye must nedes graūt, that to marry is as laufull, which is of it selfe no euyll thing but good, not vngodly but lauful & honorable in al states. How say ye to y ^e very words of God him selfe in the .xxi. chap. of Leuit. where he saide: Leuit. 21. Sacerdos uiduam, pro­phanam, repudiatam, & meretricem nō ducet in uxorem, sed uirginem. The preest shall mary no wydow, no hea­then woman, no deuorsed woman, nor no cōmen women, but a virgin of his owne nacion. Preestes be not so straitly tyed with lawes, nowe in the tyme of the lyght of the gospell, as the were in the shadowe of Mo­ses: And yet ye see, that euen in the myddes of the Mosaicall cōmaun­dementes, a preeste might marrye [Page] after he was a preest: and if his wife died, he might by the same law mar­ry the widow of an other preest, whiche thinge Innocencius the .i. had in remembraunce in his Decree, sai­ynge: In Decre­tis Inno­centis ca. 4. ed [...]i­cturiū Rothomag [...]n Mulierem uiduam clericus non ducat uxorem: quia scriptum est: Sa cerdos uxorem uirginem accipiat, non uiduam, non reiectam. &c. Ye may see that in the time of Innocencius the first, a preest myght marry after he was priest. And Leo the first, entreatyng of the same matter, sayed: Si in ueteri testamento hec sacerdotalium coniugiū forma, seruata est, Epist. 85. quanto ma­gis sub reuelata iam gratia constituti, a­postolicis debemus inseruire praeceptis? If this māner of prestes mariages was obserued in the olde testament, how muche more ought we to obeye the Apostolicall cōmaundementes, beyng now in the tyme of grace? Another place there is in the decrees which proueth this poynte, wherof these bee the wordes: Diaconus qui­cum (que) [Page] cum ordinantur, si in ipsa ordina­tione protestati sint, Distin. 28 Diaconi. ex sinodo Ancyria tana. ca. 308. dicentes seuelle ha­bere uxores, nec possese continere, si postea ad nuptias peruenerit, maneant in ministerio: propterea ꝙ his Ep̄s licen­tiam dederit. That is to say: What soeuer Deacons they be, that make protestacion in takyng of their Or­dres, that thei wyl haue wyues, and that thei can not refrayne: In case they marry afterwarde, yet shal thei remayne in their ministery, bicause the Byshop hath so licenced theym.

In these woordes may ye learne, that some marryed, or at the leaste, that it was not agaynste the lawes of God, but that they myght marry after the receiuyng of their ordres, and a prouiso also, that they should not be disgraded for so doing. If ye allege, that Ordo impedit matrimo­niū contractum, & dirimit contrahen­dum, Orders let the contracting of matrimony, and breake matrimony alreadye contracted, I wyll set the [Page] Bishope of Rome to answere you with his Decrees, who sayeth: Co­pula sacerdotalis, Distin. 26 que. 42. Sors. nec legali nec euāgeli­ca, nec apostolica authoritate ꝓhibetur, ecclesiastica tantum lege interdicitur. The mariage of preestes is not for­bydden, neither by the law of God, neither by the law of the gospel, ne­ther yet by the Apostles, but by the Ecclesiasticall law it is vtterly for­bydden: Unto the which saiyng, all the learned men both in the lawe, & in the scole learnyng, as Panormi­tane, Thomas, Albert, Duns, Bo­nauenture & other, doth agree: Insomuch that Panormitanus y ^t gret learned lawyer sayeth: Melius fore, & pro bono ac salute anima℞ salubrius, si & uniuscuius (que) uolūtati relīqueretur, ita ut non ualentes aut nō uolentes con­tinere, possint contrahere. Quia expe­rientia docente, comperimus contrariū effectū sequi ex illa lege, cū hodie pleri (que) nō uiuāt spūalit, nec sint mūdi, sed macu lētur illicito coitu, cū ipso℞ grauissimo [Page] to, vbi cum propria vxore esset castitas, That is: It were better and whol­somer for the saluation of soules, that this thynge were lefte to euery mans wyll, so that suche as eyther could not or wold not abstein, might marry: for we perceaue now by ex­perience, that there foloweth a con­trary effect of the lawe of sole lyfe: forasmuche as many nowe a daies lyue not spiritually, neyther bee cleane, but defyled with vsyng vn­lauful commixtions, to the heinous offence of God, where as if it were with theyr owne wyues, it were cha­stitee. In these woordes ye may see the great clerke Panormitan lamēt this lawe of wiuelesse lyfe, & fynde great faute therwith. Which thyng he wold neuer haue don, if that law had com from God. But frō whens this lawe came fyrst, I haue decla­red largely before, that it was deui­sed by the dyuel, and publyshed and also stablyshed in all christen real­mes [Page] where it was receaued, by the vicars of Antichrist. Then maye I graunt you, that Orders let the contractyng of matrimony, and breake the matrimony all redy contracted, not by the lawe of God, but by the lawe of the byshop of Rome, whose lawe here hath the name of the ec­clesiasticall lawe, and so my former reasons stand in their full strengthe and force. In epist. i. ad Tim. 3. Faber Stapulensis doth expresse to the eye this diuelysh law with a very proper similitude, wherby the diuels craft is liuely discifu­rid and opened to all mens sighte. Thus he saith: Apostolicum nupti­arum ritum retinuerūt Greci, ne (que) mu­tare voluerunt. Agamiam acceptaue­runt aliae ecclesiae, vnde plurimi per de­teriorem incontinentiam lapsi, in pedi­cas inciderunt diaboli: Araneos vides veneno turgentes, tam subtilia retia te­xere, quae oculos fallere possit: quicquid incidit, mortifero morsu necant: & primum quod aggrediuntur caput est, sen [Page] sus auferentes. Hae daemonis & laque­orum eius mira arte & subtilitate no­bis praetensorum, & venenatorum mor suum, quaedam sunt adumbrationes, qui etiam retia plaerun (que) nectit, in his quae clariora & sanctiora videntur. The Grecians (saythe he) kept styll the vse of the apostles in mariage, and woulde not change it. Other chur­ches receaued to lyue without ma­riage, by the meanes wherof many of them fallynge into further and greater incontinencie, were trap­ped in the snares of the dyuelle. Ye see the spyders, wyche be swel­lynge full with poysone, make so fyne nettes, that they can scarsely bee seene, in those nettes what so euer falleth, they kyll it with their deadely bytte. The fyrste thynge that they assaulte, is the head, destroyenge there the senses. These nettes bee certayne fygures of the dyuell, and of his venomed bytyn­ges and fyne snares wouen and set [Page] for vs by hym with a meruaylous arte and subtiltee. Who common­ly knitetth his nettes in those thyn­ges, whiche appere more euidente, and more holly. Thus farre Faber hathe declared by this similitude, that as the spyder spynneth her webbe with muche arte, so hath the dyuell with muche arte made his snare of wyuelesse lyfe: And as the spyder maketh her threede so fyne, that it can not well be seene whan it hangeth in the lyghte, so hathe the dyuell made this snare so fyne and pleasant in the outward shewe with a face of holynesse, y ^t many can not well see it, although they be in the lyght of the gospell. And as the spider by the help of her fine nettes, catcheth an infinite nūbre mo than she shuld do otherwise, so y ^e diuel by y ^e help of this cloke holy snare, cat­cheth an īfinit nūbre of soules, more thē he shuld do otherwise. So y ^t this compellid chastitee (most vnworthy [Page] the name of chastitee) mai right wel bee called one of the diuelles chiefe huntyng nettes. If a man calle to remembrance the churche of the old tyme, wherin it was laufull for pre­stes and other ecclesiasticall miny­sters to marye, and compareth it to the churche that is nowe adays, he shall fynde in that churche, citees, townes, countreyes, desertes, eue­ry where replenyshed with a wyl­lynge chastnesse and continencie of solitarye lyuers, of clarkes and of laye men, or that gaue theim selues to no other imbrasynges but theim only whiche be in chaste matrimo­nie. But he shall fynde the churche nowe adaies, which is bonde vnder the lawe of wiuelesse life and of fai­ned chastitee, most filthily steyned with the spottes of fornication, ad­ultery, incest, and Sodomitical ab­homination.

Thus haue I declared fyrst, that mariage and priesthode may stande [Page] togyther.

And than that mariage is no hinderance to a godly lyfe.

Thyrdely, that the apostles dyd not put away their wyues after the tyme they were called to the prea­chynge of the gospell.

Fourthly, that no priest may put away his wyfe, vnder the pretence of religion. And that that vse was fyrste broughte in by the byshope of Rome.

And last of all, that a priest may marry, after thar he hath receaued the order of priesthode.

Nowe remaineth onely to be an­swered the obiection of the vowe, whiche is bothe fondly and wrong­fully layd to all such prestes charge as wer neuer professed to any other kynde of rule, than to the only or­der of priesthode. For if it could be proued by the holy scriptures, or els by any other strong and godly rea­son, that secular priestes (as they be [Page] tearmed) whan they be admitted to their ministration, make a vowe ne­uer to marry, but alwaies to liue a sole and a wiueles life, then wold I either haue yelded or answered with like reason & like authoritee in their behalfe, as the worde of god shulde haue ruled me. But seyng it can not be proued, that there is any suche vowe made by any such preest at the receuing of his charge at the byshopes hand, I can not but meruayle greatly, why the aduersaries of prestes mariages wyll not of a like sort yeld in their argument, their groūd beynge nothyng, and their reasons vnresonable. Let the very self same booke be iudge in this cause, wher­with the byshope vseth to geue or­ders, and it shall appeere to the whole worlde, that neyther the by­shop maketh any request of an vn­maried lyfe to the preest in gyuyng hym orders, neyther yet promy­seth the prieste an vnmaryed lyfe in [Page] receauynge theim. This sentence, Accipe iugum castitatis, Take the yoke of chastitee, Is not in all the whole boke: whiche hath not with­standynge been alwaies bothe con­monly and wrongfully alleged as a matter of weight, but it hath this sentēce: Accipe iugum domini, Take the yoke of the Lorde: whiche ma­keth nothing for the profe that prestes shulde lyue sole, but that they shuld liue godly. Yet for this sayīg wrong alleged, preestes haue been chalenged for votaries, as though they had made a solemne profession neuer to enter into the holy state of matrimony. So y ^t this reason hath ben so cōmon, and so cōmonly published by y ^e aduersaries of mariage & the proctors of vowes, y ^t almost the rudest in a coūtrei can redily obiect it, takīg it to be a very strōg & an insoluble argumēt. wherfore I thou­ght good to admonish such as heretofore haue bē by this reson seduced [Page] that they shal no more credyte their wrong allegaciōs with, whom thei be wont to enchaūt the eares of the vnlearned. Yet bicause this appea­reth but a siender solucion for the defence of them, which haue in reli­gion withoute question vowed o­penly, to lyue sole all the dayes of their lyfe. I haue wyshed that som learned man wold take the paynes to resolue the vnlearned sorte tou­chyng that poynt, who myght open to them somwhat of the matter, that they should not esteme it so heinous a thynge as they dooe, that a man whiche hathe vowed to lyue all his life sole, should in conclusion marry notwithstanding his vowe. But se­yng my wishyng taketh no such ef­fecte, as my wyll was it shoulde, I thought good to leaue of wyshyng and fall to writyng in that poynte, when I see few or none els wyll. True it is, that it can not be proued by scripture, that any Christen man [Page] preest or other can make anye suche vowe of sole lyfe, whiche he can not reuoke agayne when it shall please God to call him to a contrary state, and yet is the contrary opinion de­fēded as though ther were nothing more trew. The place of scripture which is now most alleged to proue the strengthe of the vowe by, is in the fyrst to Timothe the first epistle where Paule sayeth: 1. Timo. 5. The wydowes bee subiecte to the slaunder of the worlde, because they haue broken their former promise. If it be graū ­ted that Paul in this place speketh of vowes, which thing is in questi­on, and then afterwarde the same place be well wayed, it wyll appeare that he geueth a determinate sen­tence, that all vowes of sole lyfe be of none effect which be made vnder the age of threscore yeares. For the texte hath these wordes. Non minor annix sexaginta, Not vnder thage of threscore yeares. By the ordre then [Page] that scripture openeth in this place, all vowes of sole lyfe that be made before that age, bee voyde and of none effecte, bicause they bee not a­greable to the woorde of God. It is euident that Paule in this place wylled Timothie not to credyte the yonger sorte in their vowynge, but aduysed him to obiecte vnto theym their youth & their wanton courage increasing in them that were vnder that age, & so to put them of, and to confute them, as it is playne by the vsyng of the Greke worde, [...], which signifieth, confute. So that hee alloweth not the vowe of the yonger huswiues, but willeth them to marrye and brynge foorthe chyl­dren, continewynge in the hollye state of matrimony, that the aduer­saryes of the Gospell shoulde haue no iust occasion to be offended with their trade of liuyng, who woulde otherwyse bee readye to ieste and rayle vpon them, in case thei shulde [Page] repent theym, and marrye contra­rye to their former determinacion.

This note of inconstancy, Paule foresawe that it shoulde be a blotte to the wydowes whiche were cho­sen to bee fedde of the Congrega­cion, not easye to be wyped awaye, but that euer they shoulde bee sub­iecte for it, to the obloqui and ac­cusacion of the people. And for that cause Paule sayde, that they were [...], habentes iudicium, 1. Tim. 5. meanynge thereby not the condem­nacion before GOD, but the re­proche and iudgement of the world.

To aduoyde thys inconuenience Paule admonyshed Timothye to refuse suche as woulde shew to bee founde of the Congregacion before the forenamed age, saiyng: Iuniores reijce, Admit none of the yōger sort, for feare God shuld be dishonoured by such as had professed his name. Forasmuche, then as the vowe (if ye wyll so call it) or the promyse of [Page] suche as make promyse of sole lyfe, before the age of threscore yeres, 1. Tim. 5. is against thordre that Paule (indued with the spirit of god) dyd prescribe, it must neades be graunted, that all suche vowes be voyde and of none effect. But it may peraduenture be obiected of some, such as wyl not be answered, that we ought not to call agayne our vowe, if we make it be­fore the age of threscore, bycause the scripture sayeth: Psal. 75. Vouete & red­dite Domino, Uowe and rendre it to the Lorde. This obiection is thus answered, that we be bounde to ren­der the thing that we vow, accordīg to the ordre appoynted in scripture, if we perceaue the thynge to stande with the pleasure and glory of God and the ordre of his woorde. But it is alleaged that Paule woulde not haue any vow of sole lyfe alow­ed for good, before the age of three score yeres. Then he that breaketh the vow of sole life made before that [Page] tyme, breaketh no vowe, that is to say, no Christian vowe, but a wyc­ked and a diuelysh vow, bycause it was made contrary to the ordre ap­poynted in the woorde of God.

It must neades be granted, that all our doynges must haue a respect to the glory of God, and the rule pre­scribed in hollye scriptures. If we vowe or promyse any thyng other­wyse, then this rule ruleth vs, wee be bownde to vndooe the thynge a­gayne that we haue done. Euen as the wyfe was bownd [...] to vnuowe a­gayn that thing, Num. 30. whervnto her hus­bande woulde not consent. And as the seruaunt to vnvow agayne that thyng, whervnto the maister would not consente. And as the chylde, to vnvowe agayne that thynge wher­vnto his father would not consent: So bee wee bownde to vnvowe a­gayne that thynge, wherevnto we perceaue in our selfe by lackyng of the gyfte that our heauenly father [Page] doth not consent. In this mynde it is plain that S. Ciprian was when he willed the virgins, who had pro­mysed to lyue a sole lyfe, to marry, if they perceyued not the gyfte gyuen vnto them so to contynew, as it ap­peareth in the .xi. Epistle of his first booke in these wordes: Quod si se ex fide Christo dicauerunt, Cyprian pudice & caste sine vlla fabula perseuerent. Si autem perseuerare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant (quam) in ignem deli­tijs suis cadant. Certe multum fratri­bus aut sororibus scandalum faciant. That is to say: If it so be that thei haue faythfully dedicated them sel­ues to Christe, let them so withoute ta [...]g, chastly and reuerently cont [...]d. But if so be, that either they wyll not or can not so continew, it is better for theim to marrye, then that they shoulde fall to burnynge with their pleasures. Truely they ought not to be the occasion of any offence to their brothers or systers. [Page] By these woordes it is playne that Saynt Cyprian had not his eye set so muche vpon the vowe that the maydens hadde made, as vpon the glory of God, that he should not be dishonoured, nor the congregacion offended with their followyng vn­lawfull lustes and desyres: for that cause he wylled the virgins whiche had vowed, and other woulde nor, or could not continue, to vnsai their vowe agayne & marrye. Further it shoulde seme by the scriptures, that none such as marry after their vow for voidynge of fornication, breake their vow, but kepe it: & that mai be proued thus. S. Iames in the .iiii. chap. of his Epi. giueth an exceptiō to all christen men, Iaco. 4. which exception must be either expressed or els vnderstanded in all their vowes, bargay­nes, & promyses: in so much that it can not be a christē vow, nor a godly bergayne, vnlesse this exception be either expressed or included in it. [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] This exception is, Si deus voluerit, yf God wylle. This exception was in Paules promise, whan he promi­sed to go into Spayn. Rom. 15. This excep­tiō was also in Peters promise, whā he said to our sauiour, Non lauabis mihi pedes in aeternum, Thou shalt neuer washe my fete: elles shuld Paul haue broken his promyse, in that he wente not into Spayne: and Peter shuld haue broken his promyse like wyse, in that he suffered Christe to washe his feete. Yet this exception (yf God wyll) beyng included, ney­ther of them bothe brake their pro­myses, bycause God called theim o­therwayes for the larger settynge forth of his glory, and so they both were excused. Of a lyke sorte that godly man what so euer he be, that maketh a vowe to lyue a sole lyfe without maryage, and perceaueth in processe of tyme that God calleth hym to a contrarye vocation, he is bounde to saye as Christe sayd, Not [Page] as I wyl, but as thou wylt, Math. 26. O hea­uēly father. Then if this man mar­ry, he breketh not his vowe, because it included this exception, Si Deus uoluerit, If god wil. The same thing hathe a glose in the Decrees, that these generall conditions, Si Deus voluerit: si vixero: si potero, If God wyll, if I lyue, if I can, be included in all vowes and othes, so that all suche as can iustly challenge the ex­ception, maie not be impeached as breakers of their vowe or bargain. This exception Paul forgat not in the .vii. chapi. the first epistle to the Corinthiās, 1. Cor. 7. spekyng in the cōmen­dation of the vnmaried lyfe, for as soone as he perceaueth hym selfe to haue spoken any thyng ernestly for the stablishment of a sole life, by and by he calleth agayne the Corinthi­ans to this exception, willyng them to sette theyr eyes vpon the wyll of God, & to examine them selues whe­ther they be so called or not, and so [Page] to trie whether God be pleased with their lyfe or not, if not, Propter stu­pra vitāda, [...]. Cor. 7. suam quis (que) vxorem habeat, & suum quae (que) virum, For the aduoi­dyng of fornication, let euery man haue his wyfe, and euery womā hir husband. And afterwarde whan he had wyshed all men to be as he is, in cōtinent he referreth them al again to this exception, that is to saye, to the will and pleasure of god, & put­teth them in mynde of their vocati­on, wherin it is the will (saieth he) and plesure of God, that thei shuld walke, chargyng suche as haue not the gyft of sole lyfe to marry, with these woordes, Si non continent, con­trahant matrimonium, Ibidem. If thei can not refraine, let theim marry. As who shulde saie, if they feele them selues hable to cōtinue, without mariage, so to continue, if not, to marrye in the Lorde. Ibid. Vnusquis (que) vt illum voca­uit Dominus, ita ambulet, Lette euery man walke acordingly as the Lord [Page] hath called hym, referring them al­waies to the callyng, will & pleasure of the Lord. Sundry like exceptiōs he hath in the same chapiter, which I leaue out, desyrous to bee shorte. Nowe than whan this sentence, Vouete & reddite domino, Uow, Psal. 75. & render it to y ^e Lord, is alleged agaynst thē, who hath vowed a sole life, to re­strain thē frō mariage, must be ioy­ned with this exceptiō, Si deus volu­erit, If god wil: and the spirit of god must giue testimony to the consciēce of mā that hath so vowed, whether he perceaue by the stirrynge of his fleshe, y ^t god hath so called hym or not. And whā we haue knowlege by the testimony of our conscience, that god hath not indued vs w ^t a power to liue in single life w ^tout danger of burnyng in desires, we may be well assured, y ^e god is not contēt we shuld remain in y ^t state, but y ^t he wold haue vs chāge our state, & walk after his will. It is none excuse wherwith to [Page] aunswere the lorde whan he calleth vs to mariage, to saie, forsoothe O Lorde, I haue made a vowe neuer to marry, and therfore I can not folow thy callynge, as by this simili­tude it maie apere. Whā the kinges maiestie calleth his subiect forth to take harneis and weapon, to go im­mediately to the sea coast for the de­fence of his countrey, is it sufficiēt excuse for the subiect to sai, Forsoth sir, I can not nor wyll not come be­cause of a promise y ^t I haue made to abide within the walles of my hous and neuer to go out all the daies of my life? Thinke ye not, but that if a prince had a nūbre of such subiectes he were wel manned? Such subiec­tes apere rather to take vpon theim the partes of their princes, thē of o­bedient subiectes, in that thei wyll folow their own determinatiō, & not the mynd of their prince. Euē so the mā which refuseth to marry whē the spirite of god ascertaineth his cōsci­ence, [Page] y ^t he can not liue otherwise, do­eth disobey god, in that he foloweth hym not what tyme he calleth hym. God must not be indented withall: we must waite vpō his calling, and not he vpon our vowyng. We must serue him with a free spirite in libertee, indifferent to what state of lyfe it shall please hym frome tyme to tyme to appoint, and not in the state of lyfe, which we fashion to our sel­ues. You will saie peraduenture, we may haue this gifte for the askyng, and than wyll ye bryng in, Math. 7. Luc. 11. Petite & accipietis, quaerite, & inuenietis, pulsa­te & aperietur vobis, Aske, & ye shall haue, seke, and ye shall fynd, knocke & it shalbe opened vnto you. True it is, that ye shal haue the gift of sole life for the askynge, yf it be the will of God to gyue it you. But many tymes he wylleth not that thynge that you woulde, he onely knoweth what thyng is good for vs, & what is not. We many tymes aske that [Page] thing, that is not mete for vs, in the iudgement of God, whiche to our blind iudgement semeth most conuenient. As whan we desire worldely ryches at goddis hand, or victory in battayle, or delyuerance out of cap­tiuitee, or plentie of vitayls in the tyme of dearth, and suche like. Ma­ny tymes it chāceth y ^t god graūteth not these our petitions, bycause he knowith y ^t it shalbe more for his glorie & our profite not to graūt them. Euen so, if the gifte of syngle life be desyred at his hand, he giueth it not to all men: Math. 19. Non omnes capiunt verbū hoc, All men receaue not this word: and therfore the Lorde hath taught vs to saie in our praiers, Math. 6. Fiat volū ­tas tua, Thy will be fulfilled. Not as we wyll, but as he wyll. And yet is it true, that if we aske, we shal haue: but what shal we haue? forsoth what so euer it shall please hym to geue, and not what so euer it shall please vs to aske. And therfore Iohn saith [Page] in his first epistle, Haec est fiducia quā habemus apud deum, 1. Ioan. 5. ꝙ si quid petieri­mus secundū volūtatem eius, audit nos, This is the truste that we haue in God, that if we aske hym any thyng accordyng to his will, he hereth vs. The mother of the chyldren of Ze­bede, had no graūt of her peticion, Math. 20. bicause it stode not with the wil and plesure of God: So that although it be true, aske & ye shall obteyn, she asked and obteyned not, because her request had not a relation to the wil and pleasure of God, who geueth sundry gyftes as it shal please hym, and as he thynketh mete and conuenient for them that call vpon hym. As touchīg things y ^t he hath [...]ōmā ­ded, he denieth them to no man, but thynges indifferent sometymes he gyueth, sometyme he denieth at his pleasure. To some he giueth riches y ^t they shuld help the poore: to some he geueth pouertie, to exercise thē in hope: to som he giuith helth, to labor [Page] for them that be in afflictiō, to some he geueth syckenes to exercyse them with pacience, and so furth: to some he geueth the gyfte to lyue without a wyfe, and to some he denyeth the same gyft, and them Paule willeth by commaundement to marry.

In case ther be one that liue in continency, yet sinneth he not although he doe marrye, as the hand fastyng of the blessed virgin Mary to Io­seph beareth wytnesse, although she had the gyfte. In that poynt Paul woulde not take vpon him to com­maunde, but to counsell only. And S. Augustine sayeth, that suche of­fende not in maryeng, but in forsa­kyng their former purpose. In case there be any that hath not the gyfte of sole lyfe, they synne if they mary not. Si non continent nubant, If thei can not forbeare, let them marrye. God byddeth not man fast, if he can in no wyse without daunger of sick­nesse abstayn. God byddeth not mā [Page] vowe continencye, yf he can in no wyse without daunger of burnyng in desyre, lyue without the company of a woman. God byddeth not man take purgaciōs and poticarye ware for medecyns agaynst the burnyng, he geueth no other medecyne but this one only, Si non continent, con­trahant matrimonium. Et, Propter stu­pra uitanda, suā quis (que) uxorem habeat, & suū quae (que) uirum habeat. That is, If they can not refrayne, let theim marry. And, For the aduoidyng of whoredome, let euery man haue his wyfe, and euerye woman haue her husbande. Trew it is, that the gyft of continencye is a gyfte of God, more excellent then is the gyfte of matrimony, but to whome I praye you? to him that can not lyue with out the company of a woman? no. A charger full of golde is better then a charger full of meate, but to whō I pray you? to him which is so hun­grye, that he can not tarry one mo­ment [Page] of an houre without daunger of death for lacke of meate, and can make no other shyfte but the same only? no. Then must we not couet the thyng which is without our re­che, but be contēt with our callyng, as Moyses, Exod. 33. who spake with God face to face, & all the Patriarches, and all the Apostles were, & a great nōbre of holy men mo, whiche were maried: namely as Abraham was, of whō thus writeth S. Augustine: De bono viduitat. Propterea tenuit coniugij castitatem, quia non potuit ampliorem. That is to say: Therfore he helde him to the chastitie of marriage, bicause he had not the greater gift. And short­ly after in the same treatyse: Ibidem. Res er­go ipsas si comparemus, nullo modo du bitandū est, meliorē esse castitatē conti­nentiae, (quam) castitatem nuptialē, cū tamen utrum (que) sit bonum. Homines uero cū comparamꝰ, ille est melior, qui bonum amplius (quam) alius habet. That is to say: If wee compare the thynges theim [Page] selues togither, there is no question but that the chastitie of continency is better then matrimoniall chasti­tie, and yet neuerthelesse they both be good: but when we compare the menne togyther, he is the better, whiche hathe more goodnesse then the other hathe. And although he whiche hathe the gyfte of chaste continencye, is noted of Saynte Austustine to bee better then he, who hathe the gyfte of chaste ma­ryage: Yet maye he whiche hathe the baser gyfte, bee as good (euen by the aucthoritie of Sayncte Au­gustine) as the other holye menne that enioyed the greater gyfte, and lyued sole without mariage.

It foloweth not. Ihon the Euan­geliste hadde the gyfte to lyue a continent lyfe, ergo, euerye man that wyll, maye so dooe: no more then it followeth, Sampson was hable to take vp vpon hys backe the gaates of a Citee, poastes [Page] and all, and carry theim away vnto a hyll: ergo, euerye man that wyll, maye so dooe. Euerye man is not streyghte waye made a Ihon or a Sampson, that is to say, continent or mighty, with willynge. Suche vowes therefore bee temerous and vnaduysed vowes, although they bee neuer so aduisedly made, when the vower hathe not respecte to the power, whiche he hathe receaued at Goddes hande, for the perfour­maunce of that his vowe. Who woulde not accompte that man vn­wyse, and his vowe also folysh, that woulde vowe, neuer to eate fyshe all the dayes of his lyfe, when God hath so framed his appetite, that he can eate nothyng elles? or neuer to drinke water, when he can drinke nothyng elles? of the whiche pro­perties there be some in Englande: or neuer to marrye, when he canne not lyue continent, but burneth continually in fleshely desyres? Be not [Page] these and suche lyke bounde to vn­vowe with aduisement, that thyng which thei vowed to their owne vn­dooynge vnaduisedly? And be not these and suche lyke vowes against Goddes holye woorde, who wylleth euery man to walke accord [...]ngly as the Lorde hath called him? God cal­leth that mā who hath not the gyft of cōtinency, to mariage, The vow calleth the same mā from it. Is not the vow then an aduersary to God? God sayeth yea: The vowe sayeth naye: Whom ought we to follow? The vowe sayeth: although ye can not absteyne, yet oughte ye not to marry. God sayeth: Si nō continent, contrahant matrimonium, If thei can not lyue chast, let thē mary. It must neades then be confessed, that that man, which after this sort resoneth with him selfe, and in conclusion for saketh his vow (a thyng of his own makyng) and followeth Christ, lo­ueth Christ better then him selfe, & [Page] acknowlegeth Christ to be his mai­ster. And contrariwyse, that man whyche forsaketh the callynge of Christ, and followeth his vowe, lo­ueth hym selfe better than Christe, and acknowledgeth his vowe to be his maister, acordyng to the sayeng of Paule: Eius serui estis, cui obeditis. Ye be his seruātes, Rom. 6. whom ye obey. If the vowe then stay any man frō maryage, it is a token that his vow was wyckedly made, withoute the exception before mencioned, or els woulde he neuer staye for anye respecte to his vowe. And scripture is a wytnesse, that suche men be fal­len frome grace, bicause they wyll bee vnder a lawe, whan Christ hath sette theym at lybertie. That vowynge is▪ a doctrine not taught by Christe, but instytuted by the onely ordynaunce of the Churche, as in the Sexte it dooeth appeare, where it is sayde: Extra li. 3. De voto & voti redempt. Quod votum. Voti solemnitas ex sola constitutione Ecclesiae est in­uenta, [Page] matrimonij vero vinculum, ab ipso ecclesiae capite rerum omnium conditorem ipsum in paradiso & in sta­tu innocentiae instituente vnionem & indissolubilitatem acceperit: That is to saye, The solempnes of the vow was deuysed by the onely Consti­tution of the Churche, but the bonde of matrimonie toke his vn­separable vnytynge and knotte of Christe hym selfe, whyche is the head of the Churche, and maker of all thynges. So that the vowe is but an ordynance of man, and mar­ryage the ordynance of God.

Wherefore, if wee wyll refuse Mariage beynge the ordinaunce of GOD, bycause of our vowe, which is the Ordinaunce of Man, maye not Christe saye vnto vs: Ye worship me in vayne, Math. 15. Marc. 7. teachyng the doctrines and cōmaundemen­tes of man? Yes trulye. And styc­kynge to this our vowe, wee breake [Page] our promise made in baptisme, wher we vtterly renounce and forsake all other thynges, in helle, earthe, and heauen, and gyue our selues whol­ly and onely to God, commyttynge the wholle tuition and gouernance of vs to him, promysing him faith and truthe, that he shall dooe with vs, not what pleaseth vs, but what pleaseth hym. Nowe whan we, by a vowe, promyse this or that kynde of lyfe, whyche is not commaunded in Goddes woorde, without excep­tyng, goddis wyll and pleasure, we take vpon vs to gouerne our selfe after a fashion, not of goddes, but of our owne deuisynge, reuokynge and callyng agayn our former pro­myses, whyche wee made to hym in baptysme, and so we take vpon vs to serue God after our owne fashi­on: But how wycked and vngodly a thynge it is so to dooe, all godly men can easily geue sentence. The ignorant sorte whiche haue not yet [Page] tasted of the spirite of God, would sooner iudge, that marriage should rather bee broken for the vowes sake, than the vowe for the mary­age sake. And yet is there a decree wherein these woordes bee contey­ned, Tanta est vis in sacramento con­iugij, ꝙ nec ex violatione uori, Decret. dist. 27. diaconus. potest dissolui ipsum coniugium, that is to say, Suche a strengthe is in the sacra­ment of matrimonye, that it maye not bee dissolued for y ^e breakyng of the vowe. And saynct Augustine in his booke De bono viduitatis, spea­kynge of theim, whyche haue for­saken theyr former pourpose, and marryed afterwarde, sayth, Proin­de qui talium nuptias dicunt non esse nuptias, sed potius adulteria, Augustin. non mihi videntur satis accurate & diligenter cō ­siderare quid dicant, that is, Therfore they y ^t say, that the mariages of su­che men bee no marriages, but ra­ther adultery, appere not to me di­lygentely to waye the thynge that [Page] they saie. And Gratian citeth an o­ther place out of saynct Augustine, whiche hath the very same sentence in effect, Disti. 27. ca. Quidā Quidam nubentes post votū, asserunt adulteros esse, ego autē dico vo bis ꝙ grauiter peccant qui tales diuidūt, that is to sai, Som say, that such as mari after their vow, be adulterers: but I say, y ^t they syn heinously whi­ch diuide such as haue maried after their vowe. These and suche like sentēces beyng found in the doctours, declare their opinion, that the stren­ghte of matrimony is of more force, than is the strengthe of the vowe. Howe be it, al this wyl not serue the vngodly, who cesse not to maynteyn manfully the strength of their vow, and woulde haue holly matrimo­ny to be called whooredom, for mai­stresse vowes plesure. Yet wel worth Paphnutius, who was not afrayde to confesse openly in Nicene coūsel, that mariage was honourable in al states, & that the companieng of the [Page] husbād with his own wife, was chastitee. So that it shoulde appere he was of the opiniō, that matrimony, kept as it ought to be, was one kīd of chastitee, euen as virginite is an other, both the which kindes of cha­stite, be the giftes of God, & no more in our power to perfourme the gifte of them to god, (vnles he geue them to vs first) then it is in our power to performe the gifte of all the frenche kynges iewels to the kyng our mai­ster, onles he fyrst geue vs them. In dede I might performe my promise so made to the kynge our master, yf mi promise did include this exceptiō (if the frēche king wil geue thē me: or if I can get them) and euē so may I performe my vow made to god of sole life, if it include the christē exception, that is to say, if y ^e giuer of that gifte will geue it me, or if god be so pleased, without whiche exception, all vowes be wicked, all promyses be vayn, and al bargains vngodly.

[Page] AND to make an ende in stede of a recitall of those thynges why­che I haue spoken, I will knyt vp the matter with this breefe reason. No vowe whiche hath this excep­tion (yf God wyll) other expressed or included, byndeth any man that hath not the gyft of sole lyfe, to ab­steyne from the holly state of matri­mony. But al christian vowes haue this exception (if god will) other ex­pressed or included, Ergo, no christē vow bindeth any man to abstein frō the holly state of matrimony. The partes of this syllogisme be proued in my former processe to hym that wyll wyllyngly waie it. Wherefore it shuld be but a folly to make more matter whan enough wyl serue, as no doubte it wyll, to them that wyll be satisfied. If there be any whom nothyng wyll serue, I beseeche the lyuyng lorde to soften theyr hartes, whan it shall be his pleasure, to his moste heauenly glory. Amen.