FOr asmuche as now of late ther be certayn persons that haue made a boke in Latyn and the same haue translat­ed it again into Englishe / where they doo affirme and saye that a man to m­ary his brothers wife a widowe / left without ysse­we / is so vnleful and so againste the law of God / and against the lawe of nature / that the Pope ha­th no power to dispence vpon suche mariages / w­hether they be made and contracte al redy / or els yet to be made or contracte: I am at this tyme co­mpellid and constrayned by my profession and pro­messe that I haue made vnto owr sauiour criste to answere vnto this vntrewe sayng and to speke ag­aynste it.

FIrst for bicause to saye and affirme th­at it is forbidden bothe by the lawe of God ād by the law of nature for a mā to mary his brothers wife a widow &c and that the Pope can in no wise disp­ence vpon suche mariage made / or yet to be made is very false and vntrew: and also gret ād high b­lasphemy to god is law and to almighty God him self as I shal shew ye here after

ANd secondly I am compellid and bou­nde to speke against this proposicion and sayng / for to admonyshe and gi­ue my neighbour knowleg of this vntrew opynion that is nowe set owt in printe and goith a brode / to aduertyse hym to take hede of this saynge and to giue in no wise credence vnto it / for it is no smal daungere to mens sowles to beleue this false sayng and gret blasphemy / the which vngraciouse persons haue / and in their bok­es do coloure and ornate with myche rethorike and eloquent wordis to thentent that their false proposicions & sayngis shuld be the soner beleuyd & acce­pte of the reders. And so thus for these causes I am compellid to answere and speke against this before rehershed boke / in the which answere I wil w­ith the assistence & helpe of almyghty God shew ye how y ^t this proposicion & saynge is false & highe blasphemy to almyghty God to affirme & saye y ^t it is forbiden & to be against the law of God / & a­gainst the law of nature y ^t eny man shuld mary h­is brothers wyfe a widowe / lefte &c: and y ^t the Po­pe hath no power to dispence vppon suche maria­gis whether that they be contracte al redy / or els yet to be made & contracte / & I wil also here shewe ye y ^t this is trew y ^t a man may by y ^e law of God ād by y ^e law of nature lefully mary his brothers wi­fe a widowe left with out yssewe / and that the Pope hath power to dispence vppon suche mariages and to licence a man so to mary.

THre thinges principally I note that the persons the which haue setforth their boke do saye. The first is this. In the preface of their boke they say that the vniuersites haue confirmed their determinaciōs vpō y ^e leuitical laws by y ^e whi­che it is forbiden that eny man shulde mary y ^e wi­fe of his brother departed without children. The seconde principall pointe and their saynge is writē in the forsaid preface the which is this. That it is forbiden bothe by the law of God and by the lawe of nature that any Cristen man shulde mary the wife of his brother dyinge without children. The thyrde principal pointe and sayng is writen in the same preface ioyned vnto the second sayng whiche is this / that the Pope hath no pow ^r to dispence v­pon eny suche mariagis whether they be contracte all redy or els yet to be contracte. Now to their fir­ste sayng. where they write that the vniuersites haue confirmed their determinacions vppon thes leuitical lawes by y ^e which yt is fo [...]biden that eny man shuld mary the wife of his brother departed without children. Beholde here I praye ye vppon how goodly and substanciall a grounde thies pers­ons do say y ^t y ^e vniuersites haue buylded & set ther determinacions. thei say vpon the leuitical lawes by y ^e which it is forbiden y ^t any man shuld mary y ^e wife of his broth ^r departed without children: whē y ^t in al y ^e leuitical law ther is no such mariagis for­bidē as euery mā may perceue & vnderstād y ^e loke upon y ^e [Page] leuitical lawes / & also as ye shal se it more large­ly declared here after / & by this also ye may perce­ue what thies vniuersites haue determined / that is in dede no thinge but a proposicion the which ys very false euen lyke as thē grounde is that they haue bilded their determinacions vpō. Now to the second pointe principal / and saynge of thies persons where as they saye that it is forbiden bothe by the law of God and by the law of nature that eny cri­sten man shulde mary the wife of his brother dep­arted without children: this is likewise falce / First it is not against the lawe of God: for in the law of God / God him self by his seruant Moyses dide commaunde and that vpon greate payne that euery man of the Iues shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe left &c. as it is playnly expressed in the olde lawe / nor suche mariagis be not forbiden in y ^e new law / as ye shal se it euidently proued: Deute. xxv. wherfor it is not against the law of God for a man to ma­ry his brothers wife a widow. nor eny suche mari­age in none of the lawes be forbiden / also for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow / is not forbid­en by the lawe of nature.

gen. xx FIrst for bycause the holy patriarke a­braham maried his owne sister Sara and we maye not thinke and saye th­at so holy a man wolde wetingely do so greuouse a syn as to breke the la­we of nature / and to continew still in the same of­fence: [Page] wherfor it is not against the law of nature f­or a man to mary his brothers wyfe a widowe &c. If it be not forbiden by the law of nature for a mā to mary his sister / than is it not forbiden that a mā shal mary his brothers wife a widowe.

ALso Ierome saith that at the tyme that Abraham maryd his sister / In questionib­us heb­raicis s­uper genesim. suche mariage was not forbiden by the law / and Ierome therfor excusith the Patriarke Abraham also the Patriarche Iuda maryed his second sone to his doughter in law Thamar / for by cause hir firste husbande Iudas his sone died withowt ysse­we / they and also the same Patriarke after the de­the of his secunde sone Thamars secunde husba­nde promysed hir his thirde sone / and also this ho­ly man Iuda commaundid his seconde sone to ma­ry his brothers wife a widow / Genes. xxxviij the which he wolde not haue commaundid / if it had bene against the l­aw of nature / wherfor ye may se that it is not ag­ainst the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow / when that theis holy patriarkes did in the tyme of the lawe of nature vse suche mariages & did cōmaund their childern so to mary

ALso holy Crisostome saith that whan Iuda the Patriarke cōmādid his secu­nde sone to take and mary his broth ^rs wife Thamar / suꝑ ge. ho. lxij. & so to styre vp seid ād procure by hyr yssewe vnto his brot­ther [Page] that was ded: thus saith Crisostom did Iuda cōmaund bi y ^e law & than the ^r was no other lawe but y ^e law of natu ^r or els customs laudable & poli­tical grōded in the law of natu ^r of y ^e which this w­as one y ^t a mā shuld mary his brothers wife a w­idow &c. for els the Patriarche iuda wold not haue cōmaundid his sone so to haue maryd / Genes. xxxviij also this d­oith appere euidently by iudas wordes / for he conf­essid & grauntid y ^t he had offendid & done wrong to Thamar bycause he had not maryed his thyr­de sone vnto hir / & if y ^t it had be against y ^e law of n­ature for a man to mary his brothers wife a wido­we &c. than Iuda hade done no wronge to Tham­ar in y ^t / y ^t he did [...]ot mary his thirde sone vnto hir / but for asmuche as y ^t was not agaynst y ^e law of nature / therfor Iuda did cōfesse y ^t he did Thamar w­ronge for bycause he had not maried his thirde so­ne vnto hir / according vnto y ^e law / so now ye may se y ^t it is not againste y ^e lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe.

FIrthermore for a man to mary his br­others wife a widow &c. can not be a­gainst the law of nature / for almyg­hty God did neuer commaund eny m­ [...]ner of people to obserue and kepe th­at thinge continually and vppon a gret payne th­at shuld be agaynst the law of nature / for that w­ere euyl of it self / Ec. xv & therfor no soche thing almigh­ty God did cōmād as it is writen / nemini mādauit [Page] impie agere / but almyghty did commaunde the Iwes to marye alwayes their brothers wifis left without yssew: and that onder a gret payne / And this comaundement he wold haue cōtinually ke­pte durynge the tyme of that lawe / wherfore yow may see euidently that suche mariages can not be agaynst the law of nature / this argument doithe conclude / it can not be denyed.

I Did say in the first principall proposi­cion of this argument / that almygh­ty God dide neuer commaunde enny maner of parson to obserue and kepe that thynge contynewally and that vpō a gret payne which shuld be against the law of nature / this I did saye to take awaye certain obieccions as this / that almyghty God did comm­aunde Abraham to kyl his soon that was innoc­ent / but yet almyghty God did not commaunde euery man so to doo continually: and likewise tho­wgh almyghty God did commaunde the multi­tude of the people of Israel to borowe plate of the Egyptians and to carye it away with them / yet almighty God did not commaunde the people of Israel to doo so continually nor yet he did not cō ­maunde them so to do vppon a payne: but as I haue saide / almyghty God commaunded the people of Israel to mary always their brothers wifes widows lefte without yssew / and that vppon a gret paine / wherfor I saye that suche mariagis cannot [Page] be against the law of nature: parauenture yet su­m persones will saye that this commaundemente of almyghty God that bownd the Iues to mary ther brothers wifis widows &c / was no law but a licence and a dispensacion that almyghty God gaue vnto the Iues / wherby they myght vse suche mariages / as almighty God did before the lawe dispence with Iacob to mary .ij. sisters / and hade theym both wifes at ons / And also in the tyme of the lawe he did dispence withe certayne kyngis to haue .ij. wifes at ons / or mo / To this I answer th­us / that thowghe almyghty God did suffre suche mariage before the law / and in the tyme of the la­we that men hade mo wifes at ons then one / yet he neuer commaundid that the Iues shuld take moo wifes than one at ons / nor yet cōmaundid the pluralite of wifes vppon a payne / also almighty god sufferd the Iues to forsake ther wifes by the lib­ell of repudiacion / and likewise the Iues to vse vsury / but yet this / nor the other he did neuer commaunde to be kepte as a law & that vppon a grete payne: but almyghty God did commaunde all the Iues alwayes to marye theyr brothers wifis wedowes lefte without yssew / and that vnder a grete payne / wherfor this commaundement was no dispensacion / but a playne lawe / and thus yow maye see that suche mariagis can not be ageynste the lawe of nature.

NOw to the thirde pointe and principa­ll sayinge of theis persones: wheras thei affirme that the Pope hath no po­wer to dispence vppon mariagis ma­de bitwixt the brother and the brothe­rs wife widowe left without yssew / nor yet power to dispence vppon suche mariage to be made. Th­is saynge is false lykewise as the other before: su­che mariage is not forbiden nether in the olde la­we nor in the newe lawe as yow haue herde befo­re / and the same you shal se here aftyr more large­ly declared and prouid where as I brynge yn the doctours myndes ageynst thies deceyuers opyni­on: wherfore now I saye that this ys false to say and affirme that the Pope haith no power to lic­ence the brother to mary the brothers wife a wid­owe left without yssewe: for it is forbiden that a man maye mary withe her that is ioynyd to hym in the first degre of lateral affynyte but onely by the lawe and ordinaunce of the churche as you sh­al here aftir se prouyd by the myndis of grete and excellente lernyde men / And the Pope hathe po­wer to dyspence against the prohibicion of his ow­ne lawes onely / this can no man deny wherfore yt is false to affirme and saye that the Pope hathe no power to licence a man to marye his brothers wife a widowe lefte with owt yssewe.

NOw here yow haue herde howe that thies persones sayngis and opinion ys false wh­iche [Page] ys this: that it is agaynste the lawe of God and against the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe / and that the Pope hathe no power to dispence vppon suche mariage: by the which falshed ye may perceyue how that this proposicion ys trew / that a man may lefully by the law of God and by the lawe of nature mary his brothers wife a widow lefte without yssew / and that the Pope haithe p­ower to dispence vppon suche mariage. First ye haue sene that suche mariage ys not againste the lawe of nature. Also yowe haue harde howe that suche mariage ys not forbiden by the olde lawe / but in the olde lawe suche mariagis were expres­ly commaundid and so by the lawe a man myght lefully mary his brothers wife a widowe &c. Mat. xxij And also suche mariage owr sauyour Criste did approbate in the newe lawe as yt ys open where as the saduceys came to owre sauiowre Christe and sh­ewid hym howe that there was a woman withe theme that hade maryde seuyn Brothern one aft­er a nothers dethe / the whiche mariage owr saui­oure Christe did not reproue nor speke agaynste theym / but suerly yf suche mariage had bene agaynste the lawe of nature and agaynste Christis la­we / than wolde owr sauiour Christe haue spoken agaynste suche mariage like as he spake agayn­ste the libell of repudiacion wherby the Iues did vse to refuse theyr wifes and mary other when t­hey were a lyue / and also the same wifes so refus­yde [Page] and put awaye did take and mary other men their firste husbandes beynge a lyue / and for asm­uche as theys manner of mariages were vnlef­ull and agaynste the lawe of nature owre sauiou­re Criste did reproue theyme as he dide reproue othere imperfeccions that the Iues vside in their law, for owre sauioure Christe came to fulfill the lawe withe perfeccion / and so for asmuche as he did not reproue mariage betwene the brother and t­he brothers wife a widowe lefte without yssewe seynge that owre sauioure hade occasion offeryd to speke vpon suche mariage / yt folowith that he di­de alow and approbate suche mariage / Parauent­ure yet sum persons will saye that thowgh owre sauioure Criste did not speke agaynste mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife wido­we &c. yet it doith not folowe / that he did approb­ate suche mariage: for owre sauioure dide not forb­id the father to mary withe the doughter / and yet it doith not folowe that he did approbate that the father myght lefully mary his doughter / yf this were trewe that owre sauioure did not forbide the father to mary with his dowghter the whiche ys false / yet than this reason ys not lyke the other. First by cause that mariage betwene the fath­er ād the doughter ys expresly forbiden bi the law of nature by the olde law and by the newe lawe / and so is not mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife / and secundarily for by cause ther was no occasion offerde / vnto owre saviowre [Page] Criste to approbate or to haue reprovid mariage betwene the father and the doughter / as ther was in the other mariage / but yf the Iues had comen vnto our sauyour Criste and shewed hym howe ther was a man that had maried .ij. or thre of hys owne doughters / one after the dethe of an other than he wold haue spoken ageynste suche maria­ge by cause that suche is yll / and vnlefull: but for asmuche as mariage betwene the brother / and the brothers wife widow &c / ys good and lefull by the lawe of Nature / and by the lawe of gode: ower sa­uioure Christe did approbate suche mariage / No­we than seynge that mariage betwene the broth­er and the brothers wife is lefull by the law of na­ture and commaundide in the olde lawe and appr­obate bi owr sauiour Crist / than it folowithe that suche mariage is forbiden onely / by the ordinau­nce and lawe of the churche / And the pope hathe power to licens againste that ordinaunce / and so consequently he hath power to dispence vpon suc­he mariage / Thus now you haue somewhat her­de thies deceyuers opinion prouid false / and howe that this ys trew / that a man maye by the lawe of God / and by the lawe of nature mary his bro­thers wife a widowe lefte with owte yssewe / and that the Pope hathe power to dispence vppon suc­he mariage. yet for asmich as these disceuers ha­ue in their boke that I make answere vnto many clokyde reasons with eloquent and rethorik ter­mys and many false argumentis / and grete lyes [Page] and muche blasphemy to Gode coueryd withe the same maner of cloth: I will discover yow some of their errors to thentent that you shal not be dece­uid nor beleue their false saynges / but yet I saye that I wil discouer and reherse yowe but some of theyr errors: fore yf I wold tarye to reherse you all I shuld be compellid to make a grete boke / and th­erfor I wil not take that way: but rather towche / and speke of some: and by them yowe maye perceue the residewe.

IN the firste chapiter of theyr boke th­ey saye that before the flowde the peo­ple set all their myndes at al tymes to nawghtines and syn / in so muche that they toke theym wifis at adauenturs whom so euer they hade chosen sparinge nor forbe­ringe no maner of degre of affinite or kindered / th­is is ther saynge / groundinge them of this script­ure. Ge. vi. Videntes filij dei filias hominum quod es­sent pulchre / acceperunt sibi vyores ex omnibus quas elegerant. This ys the sence of this script­ure / the childern of God seynge the doughters of men that they were beauteful and fayre / they cho­se of al theym to their wifis suche as liked them And theis persones write / that the men toke thē wifes at adauentures whome so euer thei hade ch­osen sparinge nor forberinge no maner of degre of affinite or kindrede / And this saynge can no wise be takyn of the rehersed scripture / but rather [Page] by the same scripture it folowithe that thies pers­ons saye false / fore the Scripture saithe that the childern / and the sones of God / seynge the doug­hters of men fayer and beautiful / toke of them w­ifes suche as liked them / and it folowith that thei maried not with their mothers nor their own sist­ers / nor their owne auntis / for they maryed withe the doughters of men whiche were nether their o­wne mothers / nor their sisters / nor theyr auntes / and therfor it is false to saye that the people mar­ied them wifes forberyng nor sparinge no maner of degre of affinite or kindred / this error ys writen in the .xvi. leyffe of theyr boke.

ALso in the same first chapiter of theyr boke in the .xvij. and .xviij. leyffe they saye that almighty God did co­mmaunde Moyses to prescribe vn­to his people laws of matrimony th­at shuld be conformable and agreynge with hone­stye and shamefastnes natural / and to forbide su­che mariages that be foule of them self / and haue dishonestye in them / ād al this they say was com­maundid in the leuitical boke / in the .xviij. chapit­er / And amonge the mariages that they saye be ther forbiden ys forbyden mariage betwene the b­rother and the brothers wife widow left without yssewe / this thies persones speake of / or elles all that they saye is no thing for their purpose / whe­rfore to this saynge I answere thus / Firste in the [Page] xviij. chapiter of the leuitical boke is not forbyden that a man may not mary his brothers wife a w­idowe left without yssew / no nor yet suche maria­ges are not forbiden in no Place of the hole lawe / but rather where as Moyses did declare the Le­uiticall lawe / ye and all the hole law / that he had writen before / he shewid vnto the people how th­at almyghty God had ordyned and commaund­id that euery one of the Iues shuld mary always his brothers wife a widowe lefte with out yssewe as yt ys manifeste in the boke of the deuteronomi wherfore yow maye euidently se that in the .xviij chapiter of the Leuyticall lawe yt was not forby­den that a man myght not mary his brothers wi­fe a widowe lefte withe owte yssewe / and also the prohibicione in the Leuiticall lawe in the .xviij. Chap. xxv Chapiter can not be al vnderstand that they for­bide mariage withe all suche persons as be ther namyd. For there it ys forbyden that a man may goo to a woman when that she hathe a passion the whiche they call hyr flowers / And yet yet ys eui­dent that a man maye mary a woman when that she hath theym / And lykewise that a woman m­ayelefully mary when that she hath them. whe­rfore yow may see that the prohibicions that be yn the .xviij. chapiter can not al be vnderstond to for­bid mariage withe al suche persons that be ther namyd / But yet parauenture thies false deceyu­ers that hath made the boke that I answere now to / wil saye that in the .xviij. chapiter of the Leui­ticall [Page] ys forbiden that a man maye not mary h­is brothers wife. To this I answere that yf t­hey will take that prohibicion to forbide Maria­ge betwene the brother and the brothers wife / and not for the abusing of the brothers wife. Th­an it is thus vnderstand / that no man maye mary his brothers wife while his brother is a lyve. T­hus saith thies persones great doctor Peter de P­alude expowndinge the .xviij. chapiter of the leuitical boke / and so doith other doctors saye as yow shal see here after / and lykewise sayth sayncte A­ugustyne expowndinge the .xviij. Chapiter of the leuitical boke that ther it is forbyden that a man may not mary his brothers wife while that hyr husbande is a lyue / nor a man maye not mary his brothers wife that was refused and repudiate of hir husband / nor yet a man maye not mary hys brothers wife a widowe hauinge yssew bi hyr fir­ste husband / But now by this rehersed prohibici­on nor by no other ys forbiden that a man may not mary his brothers wife a widowe lefte withoute yssewe / yet further more you shal vnderstande th­at the leuiticall prohibicions can not al be vnder­stande to forbyde mariage betwene al those pers­ons that be there expressed / as to forbide that the brother may not mary with the sister / or that the brother may not mary with the brothers wife / for yf mariage betwene thies persons were forbyden there / than it shal folowe that the Egiptians and the canoneis were not poluted in al thies thinges [Page] that be called ther abominacions the whiche is pl­aynly agaynste the texte: wherfore the prohibici­ons can not be al vnderstande to forbide mariage betwene all thos persons that be ther namyd / th­at this shulde folowe it is euident: for kynge Pha­ro did beleve that Sara was not Abrās wif / for as muche as Abraham sayde that she was his sister and the cause why Pharo did so beleue was this for as muche as in egipte the people did not mary their sisters / and therfor when that Abraham sh­ewid kinge Pharo that Sara was his sister / he b­elevid that she was not his wife as the processe in the texte doith euidently shewe / And likewise for bycause Abraham saide in the contre of Canan to kinge Abymelech that Sara his wife was his sister the kinge Abymelech did beleue that Sara was not Abrahams wife / for as myche as in that contre they dide not vse to mary ther sisters. gen. xii and al this that the Egiptians and the Cananeis did not vse to mary ther sisters / doithe thies deceyve­rs affirme in the .cxj. gen. xx leife of ther boke speking t­her of Abraham and his wife. nowe than by this the trewth and ther graunte also / it folowith / th­at the prohibicions leuiticall can not be all vnder­stand of forbiddinge of mariage / when that the Cananeis did not vse to mary ther sisters as th­ies deceyuers do graunte them selfe / And th­an it folowith still / that if the Egypcions & Ca­naneis did not vse to mary their owne sisters that than they dyde not vse to mary ther mothers nor [Page] their auntis nor their mothers in lawe and so fort­he / for yf the Egipcians did iuge to be ageynst honeste and reason to mary their sisters / and therfor they did abstayne for to mary them / than thei must nedes iuge / that it is more agaynste reason and honeste / for to mary with ther mothers / with m­others in lawe / with ther fathers sisters / and w­ithe ther mothers sisters / and so they did therfore myche more abstayne to mary with them / This reason can no man deny / wherfore yowe maye see by thies argumentis foundid in theyr owne saynge that the leuiticall prohibicions can not be all vnd­erstond that they forbide mariage betwene al the persons that be namyd in the .xviij. chapiter of y ^e leuitical boke / & so now ye may se euidently that al their grounde / and fundacion is false: for in that chapiter they founde falsly there false opinion.

ALso in the same first chapiter of power boke in the .xix. leyfe: thes persons sa­ye / that what man hathe maryed his brothers wife / the whiche is vndersta­nde of a widowe left without yssew / shuld be Iu­ged of all the people not onely to haue contempn­yd and dispiced God the which hath withe so gre­at magesty commaundid the contrary / but also to haue offendid by infectinge and corruptinge the maners of the people by suche myschevous exam­ple to haue done ageinst the law of nature. this is their sayng the which I beseche yow to note & ma­rke wel. First they say that almighty God hathe [Page] with greate mageste commaundid the contrary to this that a man may lefully mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew / but this I wold se them shew / and where: but that thei can not do nor yet no man: for almyghty God neuer comm­aundid the contrary / but he did expresly commau­nde that a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew / beside this thes persons do greatly blaspheme almyghty God in their say­ng / for yf the people shuld iuge hym that hath m­aryed his brothers wife a widow &c. to dispise and displease almyghty god: than shuld the people iuge that almyghty God cōmaundid the Iwes to contemne him and to dispise him: for almighty god as I shewed yow / commaundid the Iwes to ma­ry ther brothers wifes / widows &ce. Moreouer yf the people shuld Iuge him that hath maryed hys brothers wife a widow &cet. to offend and infecte & to corrupte y ^e maners of y ^e people by suche myscheuous example / & to haue doon against y ^e law of n­ature / thā shuld y ^e people iuge y ^e almighty god did cōmaund y ^e iues to offend to infecte / & to corrupte y ^e maners of y ^e people / & also y ^t he cōmaundid y ^e Iues to giue mischeuous example / & to do agenst y ^e law of nature / for it was almighty God y ^e cōmaundid them to mary ther broth ^rs wifis widows &ce. & thꝰ ye may now se howe thies ꝑsons blaspheme alm­yghty god & his holy law: for they saye y ^t for a mā to mary his broth ^rs wif a widow &c. ys abominable & infection & a corruption of y ^e maners of the people [Page] a myschevous example and a breking of the law of nature / and yet thei can not deny but that alm­yghty God did commaunde suche mariagis / and so they laye al this abhominacion vpon almygh­ty God whiche is great dispisynge and blasphe­my vnto hym.

ITem moreouer in the .xx. leife of the­ir boke thies persons saye ouer and be­side al this / Consyder with hou great strenght and weight of wordis and w­ith how great care and thowght God in decerning thes lawes doith ofen reherse / sayng yt is not for a man / yt ys fowlnes yt ys myscheu­ousnes / yt ys cursidnes / yt ys abominacyon / yt ys not to be spoken / yt is not leful / yt ys agaynst the lawes of God / breuely yt ys fylthy and sclander­ows that a man shuld do any suche thinge / Here now agayne thes persones do hiely blaspheme al­myghty god: for yf that mariage betwene the bro­ther and the brothers wife / be so yl and so abhomi­nable as here they saye it ys / than they saye that almyghty God did command that thinge that ys meate for no man to doo / that is to saye fowlnes / that thynge that ys myscheuous / cursednes / abh­ominacion / yt is not to be spoken / it is not leful / it ys ageynst the very lawes of God / brevely yt ys filthy and sclanderous that a man shulde do any suche thinge / for it was almyghty God that did commaunde that men shulde mary ther brothers [Page] wifes widows lefte with out yssew. The whiche mariages thies persons call abhominacion / mys­cheuousnes and sclanderousnes &cet. For of suche mariage thes persons speke / Cōsider yow here w­ith how great strenght and weight of wordie thes vngracius persons do Blaspheme almyghty god thay call hym the auctor and the commaunder of abhominacion of filthynes / and of cursidnes &cet. who euer herd so great blasphemy as ys this?

NOwe where as before they sayd that almyghty God in decerninge the la­wes speketh with great strenght and weight of wordes yt ys trew he did so for he speaketh agaynst the greate vi­ces and abhominable lyuynge that the Egipcians and the Cananeis vsid / but let thies persones sh­ewe where almyghty God doith speake with gre­at strength and weight of wordes ageynst maria­ge betwene the brother and the brothers wife a w­idow lefte without yssew. Agaynste suche maria­ge almyghty God did neuer speke but he did com­maunde expresly suche mariage.

ANd yet thes false decevers do apply the spekinge of almyghty God / w­here he reprouid and spake agaynst the greate syns of abhominable ly­uynge of the Egypcians and the ca­nanes / to be ageynst the mariage betwene the bro­ther [Page] and the brothers wife / a widowe lefte withe out yssewe / and yt is no thinge so / wherfor yowe muste note and marke wel thies persones saynge for they doo not care how falsly they saye / nor yet how fasely they apply goddis sayng and holy scr­ipture nor other mens saynge / so that they make suche saynges to apere for their false purpose / also you shall se them bringe in many thinges that pe­rteyne no thynge to this / for to shew that it ys for­biden by the law of God and by the lawe of natu­re for a man to marye hys brothers wife a widow left without yssewe.

ANd yow must note that in the olde lawe all that euer is spoken withe greate strength and weyghte of wordes and forbidden and callid cursyd and abhominable and fylthynes / ys not thinges that be forbiden by the lawe of natu­re / Leui. xi nor they be not so callid by cause they be yll of t­hem self / for fysshe that hath no scales ād sinnes as elys and conger were callid abhominable for to ete / and yete it was not ageynste the lawe of natu­re for a man to ete elys and counger / Leui. xi Also all that crepith vppon the grounde was forbidden to ete in the olde law / and was callid abhominable / ād yet to ete snailles ys not agaynst the lawe of nature / for snaillis be good and holsome and be eten in many placis / and so lykewise / yf a woman shulde haue worne a mans germent she hade done abho­minable [Page] in the olde law / and for abominacion yt was forbidden / and yet yt was not agaynste the lawe of nature. And so were thinges in that lawe callyd filthy and vnclenly and forbidden / and yet they were not against the lawe of nature / leu. xv as to t­ouche caren of certayn bestes / and many other thi­nges were forbidden as fylthynes and foule thin­ges / and finally you must note that the great and greuous punyshementis that were thretenyd yn the olde law / were not always thretenyd for bre­kynge of the lawe of nature / as the childe that w­as not circumcisyd was thretened that he shulde perishe from the middest of the people / and yet a childe that is not circumcisyd / doith not offende a­gaynst the lawe of nature And yet beside all this ye must note that the same thinge that was one against the lawe of nature / ys always against y ^e lawe of nature / for the lawe of nature doith neuer moue nor altere hyr self in no maner of tyme sens Adam fell.

FIrthermore ye must marke and note that sayncte Ierome saith in the Pr­ologe vppon Oseas that almyghty God doith commaunde no thing but that which ys honeste / nor almygh­ty God cōmaunding vnhoneste thingis doith not make them honest suche as be fowle of them self: w­herfor by this it folowith y ^t for a man to mary his brothers wif a widow / was neu ^r foule nor euyl of [Page] it self / for than it coulde neuer haue bene good tho­wghe almyghty god had commaundid yt neuer so muche. But almyghty God did commaunde suc­he mariage / wherfore suche mariage can not be a­gaynst the law of nature / So nowe these fewe re­wlys yow must take / and they shal helpe yowe to perceue the falsite of thies deceyuers.

NOw where as these deceyuers in the xx. seife of their boke say / forsoith yf a man will waye well and examine th­ese forsaid thinges religiously and wi­th goode consciens and so as they ow­ght to be / how can he but approue the trewth & al­low the conclusions and determinacions of thies vniuersites & thinke certaynly that yt is forbiden both by the law of God and by the lawe of nature that a Christen man shuld mary his brothers w­ife a widowe? this is these persons sayng. To the whiche thus I answere / forsoith yf a man wil w­ay wel this case of matrimony / yf a Cristen man may mary his brothers wife a widow lefte withe out yssew / and examyn yt with good consciens as it owght to be / how shulde he not streyght waye reproue and disalowe the conclusions and determinations of thies vniuersites that saye the contra­ry / and to think certaynly that it is nether against the lawe of God nor against the law of nature for a Christen man to mary his Brothers wife a wi­dowe & cetera. This shal euery lernyd man that [Page] haith good consciens iuge to be trewe.

MOreouer where as thies deceyuers in the .xxi. leife of their boke saye that y ^e sonnis of Cayn the whiche were drou­wnyd in Noys flowid / they were so punyshed by cause they did foully abuse theyr sisters and theyr brothers wifes / wherfore these persons wold conclude that it is against the lawe of God and agaynst the law of nature for a man to mary his Brothers wife a widow &c. Here yow maye see a goodly Argument. Cayn sonnys did fowly abuse theyr sisters and theyr brothers wifes / wherfore yt is ageynst the lawe of God ād agaynst the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe &cet. What shuld a man saye to so lewid an Argument? but as the conclus­ion is manifeste false / so is all y ^t the makers of the argument go abowt to proue.

ALso where as they saye in the same leif of theyr boke / Here ye maye see before yower eyes the holy lawes of God / here yow maye see the lyuely Prophecyes and the wordes of exce­dynge vertue and strength &c. And anone after they saye / forsoith it be comyth a Cri­sten herte more to regard the wordes of God and his auctorite / whiche doith forbide and so hathe in abhominacion / so doith punyshe and reuenge suche matrim [Page] mary his stepmother / wherfor yt is forbiden by t­he lawe of God and by the lawe of nature that a man shulde mary his Brothers wife a widowe le­fte without yssew / the maior of this argument is false / the whiche is this. That yt is forbiden yn y ^e same place of the lawe for a man to mary his ste­pmother where yt is forbidden for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe &ce. This proposicion I saye is false: for yt is not forbidden in all the ho [...] lawe for a man to mary his brothers wife a wido­we left without yssew. and so therfore the wordes of saynte polle helpith nothinge for thies persons Purpose.

ANd also suche mariage and fornication that the Apostle doith here reproue / ys not spoken of in the Leuitical prohibicion: for this yonge man that had mari­ed his mother in lawe / did take hyr from his fat­her: and so maryed hyr / his father beyng a lyue / as the wordes of sayncte Poll a fore rehersed do sh­ewe / and therfore sayncte Poll did not grounde h­ym in the Leuiticall lawe when that he rebwl [...]ed this Coryntheane for mariyng of his fathers wi­fe. That the father was a lyue of the Corynthe­ane that maryed his mother in law / it semyth al­so by thies wordes of the Apostle where he saithe ther is not suche fornication herde of amonge the gentiles / and sayncte Poll beynge so well lernyd as he was knewe very wel that the Gentils had [Page] sum tyme abusyd theyr fathers wifes / also he k­newe that the Iues had abusyd their fathers wi­fes bothe before the lawe and in the lawe: before y ^e law Ruben abusyd his fathers wife / ād so did A­bsalon in the lawe abuse his fathers wifes / therf­ore this offence that this Coryntheane did was more than for to lye withe his fathers wife / or ellis saincte Poll wold not haue callid yt suche / & so greuous fornication as hath not ben hard of / a­mong the gentiles. But for a man to take awaye his fathers wife from hym and openly mary hyr and so kepe hyr still / suche maner of fornication h­ath not ben herd of amonge the gentilz: and for by cause this Coryntheane had done so / therfore the holy Apostle did call that suche fornicacion as h­ad not bene hard of / and therfore he did sharpely rebuke yt and greuously correcte yt.

ALso Theophilacte expoundinge the v. Chapiter prime Epistole ad Cor­inthios / doith suppose that the fath­er of this Corintheane was a lyue / when that this yonge man maryed his mother in lawe. For Thephilacte doith cal t­hat mariage adultry / and also in a nother place expoundyng stil the same Chapiter / he callith t­his Corinthians acte agayne adultry / And the abusion that man doith with a woman that is n­ot maryed is not callid adultry / Wherfore by th­se yt semyth that thys yonge mans father was a [Page] lyue when that he maryed his Fathers wife

¶ Radulphe of Laundun expoundinge the .vii chapiter of the second Pistill ad Corinthios doith say / this yongman toke awaye his fathers wyfe / and so he did his father iniury and wronge.

¶ Iohn de ruppella expoundinge the rehershid Chapiter saith the same.

¶ Peter de Tarantase vppon the same Cha­piter do likewise affirme and saye.

¶ In the .xxij. leif of their boke thay saye that sayncte Iohn Baptiste did reproue herode the kin­ge by cause he had maried his brothers wyfe and he shewid the kinge that suche mariage was not leful nor that kinge Herode coulde not kepe his b­rothers wyfe: this is trewth for Herode had ma­ried his Brothers wife / his brother beyng a lyue as shewith saynte Ierome in commentarijs super Mattheum. Cap. xiiij. And so do Iosoph the gre­at storiagraphe of the Iues libro .xviij. Antiquit­atis Capite. ix. And also the same Ioseph againe in the same boke. Cap. xi. saith that king Herodis brother was a lyue when that Herode maried his brothers wife. And lykewise doith saye the olde wryter and doctour Egesipe Libro secundo Capite quinto of the destruccion of Ierusalem.

¶ Druthmar writinge vppon sayncte Math­ewe sayth Herodes Brother Philipp was a lyue when that Herode toke awaye his brothers wife / and therfor sayncte Iohn did rebuke kyng Herode

¶ Hugh Cardinall writinge vppon Matthe­we saith that Philip Herodes Brother was a ly­ue when that Herode toke awaye his wife and m­aried hyr / and therfore sayncte Iohn did rebwke Kynge Herode.

¶ Albart the great writer vppon sayncte M­arke sayth that Iohn did rebwke King Herode because he had maryed his Brothers wife his brot­her beynge than a lyue.

¶ Also the interlynyall gloyse shewith vppon Matthew that Herodes Brother was a lyue w­hen Herod toke awaye his brothers wife / and so dothe manye diuerse other doctours.

¶ Sayncte Iohn therfore did iustly reproue k­inge herode for he did nowght to mary his broth­ers wife hir husband beynge a lyue / but now sayn­cte Iohn did not saye that a man might not leful­ly mary his brothers wife a widow lefte without yssew / For sayncte Iohn knew very well that su­che mariages were good and lefull and commaun­did in the lawe. So now ye may perceve that this saynge of sayncte Iohn doithe nothinge fauoure [Page] thies decevers purposse.

NOw in the .xxvi. leife of their boke they bringe in the counsels of the A­postils that they kept in Iherusalem where the Apostils decreyd that the gentils that were new come in to cri­stis faithe shuld absteyne and forbere fornicacion / and forbere to ete of any beste / byrde / or foule that was suffocate or stranguled / and to forbere to ete any maner of flesshe that was offered to ydols / & to forbere to ete blode as to forbere to ete puddyng­es that be made of blode / and nowe thies deceuers affyrme that in / and vnder the name of fornicaci­on the Apostils did forbide that a man shuld ma­ry his brothers wife a widow left with out yssewe But this is very false / for fornicacion was alwa­ys forbyden in euery law / But for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left withoute yssewe / was neuer forbidden in the lawe of nature nor yn the olde lawe / nor in the newe / but as ye haue ha­rde / suche mariage was in every lawe good and l­efull. Wherfore you maye see that it is false to sa­ye that the Apostils vnder the name of fornicaci­on did forbid that a man shuld marey his Brothe­rs wife a widowe left without yssewe.

ANd agayne these persons can shew no doct­our that so expoundith the decre of the apo­stils. Here you maye see howe these decey­uers [Page] do expound and apply scripture falsly for th­eyr false purposse.

NOwe where as thies persons in the .xxvij. leif of ther boke bryng in Ter­tulyan the which they say doth affy­rme that this Leuiticall forbiddynge that a man shuld not mary his broth­ers wife / was brought in / tawght / and ordyned s­pecially and by name of Christe hym self / and his apostils / because that all the hole churche and co­mpany of Cristes faithe shuld obserue an [...] kepe yt with deuocion and reuerence. This thies perso­ns saye Tertulian writeth: but yet it helpith them no thing / for their false purpose: for after th [...]yr w­riting and allegyng of Tertulian / he saith that y ^e Leuiticall forbidding that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife was brought in and tawght / and ordyned specially and by name of Criste hym self / & his apostils. & I shew you that for a man to mary his broth ^rs wyf a widow left without yssew ys not forbidden by the leuitical law: and therfore this auctor helpeth thies persones not a whit.

NOw where as thies persones do bring in Tertuliane agayne in the .xxix. leif and in the .xxx. leif: that sayth the com [...]ādment that bounde the Iues to mary theyr broth ^rs wife widowe left without yssew ys now ded and ceassed: & the contrary of this law [Page] hath place: and he shewith why the commaunde­ment ys nowe caessed / for the causes wherfore su­che mariage was commaunded in the olde lawe / be now taken awaye. And ther he shewith .iij. ca­uses why almyghty God did commaund the Iues to mary their brothers wifes widowes left with­out yssewe.

¶ The first was because almyghty God wo­ld that the olde blissynge / Encreasse yow and m­ultiply / owght than to run forth and continew.

¶ The seconde cause he saith was this: For as­muche as the childern were punyshed for the fat­hers fawtes than.

¶ Thyrdly for bycause that the dry and baren persons were had for defamyd persons.

¶ Here be now the causes that tertullian alle­gethe why almyghty God did commaunde in the old lawe that euery man shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew. And for asmu­che as thies causes (after Tertulians mynd) be n­ow takyn awaye / therfore he saith that the com­maundment that bownd the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifes ys now ceassyd and ded / and the cō trary of this taketh now place.

¶ First here I will answere to these reasons: se­cond [Page] I will shew yow how this commaundement that a man shulde always mary his brothers w­ife a widowe left without yssew / ys now ceassyd & deid: And thyrdly how this is false to saye that y ^e contrary of that commaundment haith now place And finally I will shew yow / for what reasona­ble causes almyghty God did commaund the Iu­es to mary theyr brothers wifes widowes left w­ithout yssewe.

¶ Now I will turne to the reasons of Tertul­iane wher as he saith that the cause that almygh­ty God did commaund his people the iues to ma­ry theyr brothers wifis widows left without yss­ew / was for by cause as yet the olde blissing of god Encreasse yow and multiply / owght to run forthe and continew. This cause ys nothing worthe nor yet meyt to shewe why almyghty God shuld co­mmaund y ^e brothers to mary theyr brothers wyfs widows &c. For yf other men beside the brothern had maryed the widows of the Iues that were le­ft without yssew / the olde blissyng of God / Encr­ease yow / and multyply / myght as wel haue run­nfurthe and contynewid as thowghe the Bro­thers had maryed theyr Brothers widowes lefte without yssew.

¶ This no man can deny: therfore Tertulians reason yt but small.

The second cause that Tertuliane doth assigne why almyghty God did cō ­maunde the Iues to mary theyr bro­thers wifes widows &c. was this: for bicause than the children were pun­yshed for their fathers fawtes / and euery man no­we ys punyshed for his owne syn / this is not trew For almyghty God saith by his Prophet Ezech­iel that the soon shall not be punyshed for his fat­hers fautes. Ezech. xviij Also yt were agaynst reason that al­myghty God shuld make a lawe to punyshe the childe for the fathers fautis / when the childe is in­nocent / and the father fautie / also yt were more a­gaynst reason to punyshe the childe for the fautes of his owne father natural / and for the fautes al­so of his father that is his father but by the law: wherfore this can be no resonable cause why alm­yghty God did commaund the Iues to mary the­yr brothers wifes widows left without yssew.

THe thirde cause that Tertulian doith assigne why almyghty God did com­maund the Iues to mary their brothe­ [...]s wifis widows left with out yssewe was this: bycause that the barren and dry persons were hade for defamyd persons: therfore an ordin­aunce was made that they shuld haue yssew by o­ther of their kyn as you wold saye by a proctour / This cause lykewyse is nothinge worthe / for the dry and barren persons myght as well haue had [Page] yssewe / yf other persons / besides their brothern a­nd kinsfolke / had maryed their wifes widows &c. as though their brothern had maryed theyr wido­ws / this is euydent / Wherfore thies saynges of Tertulyan do not seme to be causes why that al­myghty God dyd commaund the Iues to marye their brothers wifes widowes left without yssew

NOwe to the seconde poynte that I sayd I wold shewe you that this commaundm­ent that bounde the Iues to mary alw­ays theyr brothers wyfes widowes lefte without yssewe / is now ceassed and ded: that is to saye / th­at no man now / Iue nor Gentile / nor Christen-man is bounde to mary his brothers wife a wido­we left with out yssew vnder a payne. For this commaundment was in the olde lawe a Iudiciall: and all those commaundements be ded and ceass­ed. Nowe as touchinge the bonde and payne / t­his is trewe: But yet yt folowith not of this th­at now it is agaynst the lawe of God and agay­nst the law of nature for a man to mary his bro­thers wife a widow left without yssew / and that the Pope haith no power to dispence vpō such mariage: & so it is false / which is the thyrde poynte y ^e I sayd I wold shew you / to saye that this iudici­al commaundmēt / that bound men to mary theyr brothers wifis widows &c. ys ceassed and ded aft­er this faciō: & thꝰ y ^e cōtrary to haue place as ye m­ay se by exāple. If a king in his realme wold make [Page] this lawe that who so euer put out a mans eye sh­ulde lese his owne eye for it / who than coulde say that this lawe were now agaynst the lawe of god and agaynst the lawe of nature? trewly no man And yet this was a Iudicial commaundmēt and lawe with the Iues the whiche is now ceassid and ded: that ys to saye / it byndith no more now by th­at lawe. And yet the same may agayne be a newe constitucion. ye and likewise this commaundment myght haue be made agayne by the churche / that a man in certayne causes shuld haue bene bownd to haue maryed his brothers wife a widow left w­ithout yssew. Wherfore yow maye see / that it is f­alse to saye that this commaundment that boun­de men to mary their brothers wifs widows &c. ys now ceassid and ded / and the contrary nowe to ha­ue place is false to: that is to saye / that it is nowe ageynst the lawe of God and lawe of nature / for a man to mary his Brothers wife a widowe &c.

ALso that this is false / yt is euident bi the opynion that Tertulyane helde and did conclude vppon this sayng: for Tertuliane had this opynion / t­hat it was vnlawfull for any wom­an to mary agayne after the deth of hyr husband / Thus he makith his reason / the lawe is ceassid wherby a man shuld be bound to mary his Broth­ers wife / wherfor if a womans husband be ded she maye not mary her husbandes Brother / for that [Page] is now forbidden: and she may not mary eny heyt­hen man: for that is lykewise forbidden to euery cristen woman: and all Christen people be broth­ern in God ergo &c.

All this saynge is Tertulians / and of this saynge it folowith that a wom­an after the deth of hir husband m­ay mary no more. For first Tertul­iane faith that a woman after the d­eth / of hir husband may not mary hir husbandes brother / for that / he saith is now forbiden / and all Cristenmen be brothern in Christe: and so than by that meane they be brothern to hir husband t­hat is dede: and than she may not mary any of th­em / nor agayne / she may mary no heythen man / f­or that Tertuliane saith is forbidden also: Wher­fore he concludethe that no Cristen woman maye mary after the deth of hyr husband: the whiche I saye is false / and ageinst the holy Apostil saynge where as he writeth / that yf a womans husbande doo dy / let hyr mary / sayth he / where she will / so that she mary a Cristen man. i. cor vij And Tertuliane in his saynge / and boke that he writ it he yt in / ys conuicte and condemnid for heresy. And thus I sa­ye therfore it is false / and heretical to saye / and af­fyrme / that this commaundment that bounde the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifis widows &c. ys now ded and ceassid and the contrary hathe place: that is to saye / that yt is now forbidden by the la­we [Page] of God and by the cawe of nature that a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widow left with­out yssew. And the Pope hath no power to dispence vppon suche mariage.

ALso by brynging in that heretike Ter­tuliane on this wife and in the boke th­at ys condemned for heresy / you may perceue with what spirit and consciens thies persons haue writen and made theyr boke / Here thei leve owt the bokes name / w­her they allege Tertulian: and they saye on this wise in the .xxviij. leif of their boke: and the same Tertuliane writith in an other place / and so they leve owt the name of the boke: whiche in dede is c­allid monogamia the whiche boke is condemnid. Also in theyr ynglysshe boke thei leue out parte of Tertulians sayng and argument / wher he wold haue concluded to haue condempned the second m­riages. By this you euidently perceue that thies persons opinion & sayng / where they affirme that it is against the lawe of God and ageynst the law of nature / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssewe ys euidently false: ye and suspecte hereticall / seynge that they goo about to proue their rehersed opynion and saynge / by tertulian wher he is condemned for an heretike. Now to the fowrth I wil shew ye / for what resonable c­auses it was comaundid in y ^e olde law y ^t euery man shuld mary his brothers wife / a widow left &ce.

The first was that the land is of the iu­es the which shuld goo and continew by inheritaunce / shuld not goo owte of the blode / and name and house th­at it cam of / and therfore it was com­maundid to the Iues that they myght not sel the­ir inheritaunce: leuiti. xxv. ād than it was commaundid and ordyned that if a man died without yssew that his brother (if he had any / Deute. xxv or els his next kinnesman) shulde mary his wife / and the first childe that th­is seconde brother hade by his brothers wife / shuld be namyd the first brothers childe and enioy his l­ande and so kepe vp the ded mans house and name Wherfore holy Crisostome saithe that almyghty God in commaunding theiues to mary their bro­thers wifes widows left without yssewe / Super mat. homelia. xlix. did exc­ogite and made a meane to counfort suche persons as shuld chaunce to dye without yssew. This ys holy Crisostomes mynde / so by this commaund­ment and lawe if he chaunced to dye without ysse­we he was in a suerty that the next of his blode s­huld enioy and inheret his landes / and vpholde h­is house and name / the which was alwais to him y ^t so died a cōforte. For euery man naturalli had le­uer y ^t one of his own blode shuld enioy & haue his landes than a straunger not of his kyn / also euery man wold gladly haue his name & house y ^t he cam of / to remayn & continew: also beside this conforte that y ^e man had / this lawe was a mene to confort y ^e widow who is husband dyed without yssew / for [Page] thowgh she lefte hyr husband / yet she was suer to be maryed agayne to one of his next kyn / whiche was no small counforte to hyr / to be in a suerte to mary one that she louyd for hyr husbandes sake: and also to mary one that louid hyr for hyr husb­andis sake: Also this maner of mariage was a m­eane to cause hyr husbandes kynred to bere and o­we loue and fauour styll vnto the woman that h­ad buryed hyr first husband: for by cause she mar­yed agayne hyr husbandis kynsman for whos sa­ke this kindred had loued hir husband before: the whiche loue wold sone haue wexid colde and gro­wn sklender toward the wedow / if she had maryd out of hir husbandis kyndred / as we may see / dai­ly by experyence. And finally / this maner of mar­iage was a speciall meane to kepe and continew y ^e loue and kyndenes that was betwene the woma­ns kynred and the kynred of hyr first husband: y ^e whiche loue / and kyndenes wold haue mynyshed and haue decayd / if the wife had maryed out of hir husbandis kindred / wherfore so to marye was a speciall meane to kepe loue and kyndenes betwene kindredis. And yf sum of thies causes had strength now in this Realme by an ordinaunce decreyd / th­ey wold not be iuged but good and resonable / As this that no man shuld sell his inheritaunce / nor agayne that many inheritaunces shuld neuer co­me to one mans hande / this were parauenture a good and a resonable law. So thus yowe maye see that thies be resonable and honeste causes / and politicall [Page] meanis / and very mete for that tyme for t­he comen welth of the Iues: and therfore almyg­gty God made this lawe that euery one of the I­ues shulde always mary their brothers wifes w­idows left without yssewe: And commaunded the Iues to kepe it / Wherfor you may euidently perc­eue that it can not be againste the lawe of nature and reason for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow &c. And also it is hy blasphemy to almyg­hty God to saye that he with his infinite sapience and wisdom did make a lawe againste reason and commaunde it to be kepte vppon a great payne. But now where as thies persons saye that this lawe that commaundid suche mariage / ys now d­ed and hath no strengthe: sewerly that is trew for men (as I shewed ye before) but yet standeth it in theyr lyberty to mary or not marye their brothers wifes widows &ceter. and so it doith not follow t­hat it is now ageynste the law of God and agey­nste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his bro­thers wife a widow left without yssew: and that the pope can not dispence vppon suche mariage.

IN the .xxx. leif of their boke they b [...]y­nge in Gregory answeryng to a que­stion that saynte Augustyne had m­ouid concerning mariage with in deg­reys of affinyte / saynge on this wise. There is a certayn erthly and a worldly lawe w­ith in the dominacion of Rome / that the sone and [Page] the doughter of brother and sister or of .ij. brothers germayne / or of .ij. sisters / may mary togither: but we haue lernid by experience that ther coulde ne­uer yssew cum of suche mariage. To this it maye be thꝰ answeryd: that nowe at this present time t­her ys comen of suche mariage noble and great ys­sew: as the Emperours children: for the Empero­wr and his wife that now ys / came of .ij. sisters ge­rmane / for the Emperours mother and his wifes mother where both sisters and doughters to Don Ferdinando that was kyng of spayne. Also we m­ay se great and noble yssewe that is come of a man that maryd .ij. sisters germane the whiche maria­ge ys hyer in the degreys of affinite than is the c­hildren of the brother and sister germane in consa­nguinite. As the kyng of Portingall that now is / and his brothern and the Emperours wife and h­yr sisters the whiche cam of the Kynge of Portin­gaill / this mans father that maryd two sisters g­ermane that were both doughters to Don Ferdi­nando Kynge of spayne. And this sayd Kynge of Portingaill had by bothe thies sisters yssewe / ye and yet after the deth of thies two sisters / his wi­fes / he mariyd the thyrde sisters doughter the w­hiche lady is now the frenche Kynges wife: and by this lady also the sayd Kynge of Portynga­ill hade yssewe whiche ys yet a lyue: Wherfo­re we maye see that of suche mariage cumythe yssewe.

IN the .xxxj. leif of their boke thies pe­sons do aduertyse the reder to marke iij. or .iiij. thinges of Gregores sayng. First that y ^e leuitical lawes wher it is forbidden that a man shuld mary his brothers wife with the other / be the very lawes of allmyghty God / And now the same lawes be of the same strength that it is not lefull to contracte matrymoney contrary to that which is forbid [...]en in the same. This saynge helpith no thinge to th­ies deceyuers pupose: for it is not forbidden in the Leuiticall lawe that a man maye not mary his b­rothers wyfe a wydowe & cetera. As I haue often sayd before. Moreouer thies persons saye that sa­ynte Gregory writeth that the occasion of saynte Iohns martyrdome was this / by cause he wolde mayntayne and vpholde the trewth of the sa­me lawes agaynste Herode the kynge / whiche had maryed hys Brothers wife. This saynge lyk­ewyse makith no thinge for thies persons purpo­se. First for by cause that for a man to mary h­ys Brothers wyfe a widowe lefte withowte yss­ewe / it is not agaynste the trwthe and aucto­rite of the Leuiticall lawe: for there ys no suche Mariage forbidden there / nor saynte Iohn did not suffer martyrdome for reprouynge of Kyn­ge Herode / for mariynge hys Brothers wife a widowe left withowte yssewe: for he did not re­proue Kynge Herode for suche Mariage. But he reprouyd Kynge Herode by cawse he had [Page] mareyd his brothers wife / hir husband his broth­er than beynge a lyue: and so in that kyng Herode did agaynste the lawe of nature / and agaynst the leuiticall law / and if saynte Iohn did vpholde the trwth and the auctorite of the Leuitical lawe: we must suppose that lykewise he wold vpholde the trouth of the Deuteronomicall commaundement that bound the Iues to mary their brothers wifes widows left without yssew / and than it is manif­este that saynte Iohn spekith no thinge that can make for thies menys false purpose / In the same leif thies persons do affirme that Gregory doith write that mariages whiche certayne ynglysshe men had contracte with their brothers wifes / and that euen before they had taken them: saith vpon them to be so vnleful and not to be spoken / that th­ey coulde notwithout dedly syn render the dewty of mariage one to a nother / nor yet abide stil in the same mariage. Here thies persons say falsly vp­pon Gregory and agaynste his wordes and agay­nst his minde. For Gregory did admitte those yn­glyshmen that had maryed their brothers wifes to be Cristen / and to retayne and kepe still theyr wifes and also to cum into the churche and receyue the blessed Sacrament of the Auter / the whiche Gregory wolde in no cause haue sufferd / yf he had Iuged suche mariage to haue ben agaynst the la­we of God and against the law of nature / nor yet Gregory wolde haue sufferd thies ynglishmen to haue continewed still with their wifes / yf it had [Page] bene dedly syn to them to haue continewed withe their wifes: And therfore ye may see that thies p­ersons speke directly agaynste Gregoris mynde: also ye shal se that they speke agaynste Gregoris wordis if ye wil loke vpon Gregory / but Grego­ry did exhorte and teche the ynglishemen that w­ere new comen to the faith / that they shuld no m­ore mary as they had done before / and made them lawes of matrimoney that they shuld not marye theyr kynswomen in the first degre of affinite or consanguinite nor in the second / nor in the thyrde / nor in the fowerthe.

THat they write also in the .xxxij. leif of their boke: that Gregory sa­we that mariage betwene the bro­ther and the brothers wife a wido­we &c. of this mariage they speke to be playnly vngodly and iuged it abhominable before God and man and also agayne the nature of man / and as nyghe as can be vnto the nature ād lyfe of bestis. This thies persons s­aye Gregory sawe and did iuge suche matrimony o to be. In the whiche saynge they affirme that s­aynte Gregory doith blaspheme almyghty God: and also his holy lawe: for if Gregory sawe and iuged mariage betwene the brother and the broth­ers wife / to be abhominable and odious to God & man / and also to be against the nature of man / ād as nyghe as can be vnto the nature and lyfe of be­stis [Page] / than must it nedes folowe that saynte Greg­ory sawe that almyghty god in commandinge su­che mariage did commaunde that thing that was abhominable and odyous to God and man / and a­lso that thinge that is ageynste the nature of man and that thing that is as nyghe as can be to the n­ature and lyfe of bestis: for as I haue shewed yow almyghty God did commaunde suche mariage / & also by this their sayng of saynte Gregory / yt do­ith folowe that he sawe as myche abhominacyon in the lawe of God whiche commaundid the bro­ther to mary the brothers wife a widow left wit­hout yssewe. And if it were so / than sayncte Gre­gory dyd blaspheme godys lawe. Here ye maye see what thies persons saye by saynte Gregory / also in the later ende of the same leif thies persons sa­ye that saynte Gregory sawe how greuous pun­yshment is abydinge them whiche haue defylyd them self with this fowl syn. That they vnderst­ande in the rehersed mariage: therfore he iugede t­hat nother peace / nor faith and Cristendome / nor any other thinge in this worlde beside forth / is of suche vertue and goodnes that is able to recomp­ence and waye owt the maliciousnes of this dede: and so forthe / withe diuerse grete and sharpe wor­des as yow maye see in their boke.

NOw by this sayng thies persons do grea­tly blaspheme saynte Gregory and do sa­ye that he blasphemithe almyghty God / [Page] for yf saynte Gregory shuld thus iuge by maria­ge betwene the brother and the brothers wife a widowe &c. Than saynte Gregory shuld iuge th­at almyghty God in commaundinge suche mariage / commaunded that thing that is so abhomina­ble and so euill / that ther is no thing in this worl­de of suche vertu and goodnes that is able to reco­mpence and waye owt the maliciousnes of this d­ede / Who euer harde any man saye that almygh­ty God wolde commaunde so abominable a thin­ge as these persons saye Gregory iugithe maria­ge betwene the brother and the brothers wife wid­owe &c. to be? And suche mariage commaundid almighty God: Ancel­me wherfore this in no wise may be G­regoris iugement nor mynd: for Ancesme (as thi­es deceyuers do allege) saith in a Pistell / that for certain honeste causes there were holy men bothe before the law / & in the law / that did mary in the first and seconde degre of consanguynite / as Abr­aam Isaac & Iacob: Ios. xv ther m­ay be h­onest c­auses why a man m­ay ma­ry his sister. in libro. de Pat­riarcha abraam In the lawe Caleb y ^t maryd his brothers doughter / than if ther may be honest causes why a man may mary his sister / ther may be honest causes why a man maye marye his Br­others wyfe a widow & cetera. And than it folow­ithe that by sum honest cause ther maye be a reco­mpence for any offence in suche mariage.

ALso saynte Ambrose doith excuse the dough­ters of Lothe / saynge that the good zele th­at they had for to conserue mankynde / the whiche [Page] they thowght shulde haue perished) did reward t­hem so vniuersally / that it coueryd their inhone­ste priuate acte / and than it folowith that yf their good zele that they had did excuse their particula­re faute / ther may be sum thinge in this worlde of suche vertue and goodnes that it is able to recom­pense and waye owt the maliciousnes of matrim­oney betwene the brother and the brothers wife a widow &c. For in this or suche mariage is none of­fence agaynst the lawe of God nor against the la­we of nature / as ye haue hard before. Wherfore it semith by this that saynte Gregoris mynde was neuer to iuge suche mariage to be so euyl as thies persons wold haue hym to do.

NOr Gregoris wordis do not so sownde nor signifie / nor Gregory doith not s­aye that it is against the law of God and against the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a wid­owe &c. And that the Pope haith no power to dis­pence vpon suche mariage / and so al that thies p­ersons bringe in of Gregory do nothinge helpe th­eyr malicyouse purpose.

IN the .xxxiij. leyf of theyr boke they bringe in Pope zachary / the which an­swerd the bishop Theodore to his que­stion whether that a mans natural s­one maye marye with his fathers god [Page] doughter? and the Pope answerid on this wise / we be / saith he / by the lawe of God comaundid to ab­stayne from owr owne kyndred Carnal / mychm­ore it is conuenient that we shuld with all streng­th be ware of hyr that ys owr fathers doughter s­piritual / Wher vppon thies persones wolde conc­lude that it is against the lawe of God and aga­ynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his b­rothers wife a widowe left without yssew: and th­at the Pope hath no power to dispence vppon suc­he mariage / But this saynge of Pope zachary di­rectly agaynst their conclusion. For of his saynge it folowith / that the Pope maye dispence and lice­nce the brother to mary the sister / and than it fol­owith that the Pope may licence a man to marye his brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe. for it is no more forbidden for a man to marye his brothers wife a widowe &cete. than it is for a man to mary his sister / but the pope hath power by th­is zacharias saynge / to licens a man to marye hys sister. This you shal see prouyd. The Pope hath power to licence a man to mary his fathers godo­ughter / for that affinite doith not let mariage by no lawe / but onely by the lawe of the churche / as of it self it is euident / and the Pope maye dispence against the puer prohibicion of the churche: Wh­erfore the Pope may licence a man to mary his fa­thers goddoughter / and now Pope zachary saithe that it is more forbidden that a man shuld mary his fathers goddoughter than his fathers dough­ter [Page] / and yet vppon suche mariage the Pope hathe power to dispence: Wherfore than he haith power to dispence that the brother may mary the sister / for yf the Pope maye dispence in the thing that is more prohibit / he may dispēce in that thing y ^t is le­se prohibite / and than further / if the Pope may di­spence vppon mariage betwene the brother and y ^e sister / he hath than power to dispence vpon mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife a w­idowe &c. This you se doith followe of this Pope zachary his sayng / the whiche makith for the tre­wth / and against thies deceyuers false conclusion.

IN the same leif thies persons do bry­nge in the glose that doith goo vppon the wordes of Pope zachary / the whi­che glose doith make argumentis th­at the Pope can not dispence thoughe he wold / in the seconde degre of consanguinite nor yet in the second degre of the first maner of affini­te / for the second degre of consanguinite and of th­is affinite hath / his begynninge of the lawe of na­ture / and agayne bycause of the same degre it is forbidden expresly in the olde testament of God. Here thies persons shewe that the gloser maki­th Argumentis / and saye that the Pope cannot (thoughe he wolde) dispence in the seconde degre of consanguinite nor in the seconde degre of the firste maner of affinite &c. But they will not shew yow how the same gloser doith also make arguments [Page] to shewe that the Pope may dispence in theyse de­greys of consanguynite and of affinite / and yet y ^e same gloser makith argumentis for bothe partes and finally he determineth nother this / that the p­ope may dispence / nor yet this / that the Pope can not dispence / but this these deceyuers wil not reh­erse in their boke / and so nowe ye maye see that the gloser whiche they do allege doith nothynge for their purpose / And also if the glose had sayd that the Pope coulde not haue dispencyd in the rehers­h [...]d degreys of consanguinite and of affinite / he h­ad spoken directly agaynste the texte: for the tex­te sayth that affinite spirituall in the firste degre ys more forbidden (in the whiche the Pope may di­spence) than ys consanguynite Carnall in the sa­me degre / as you haue hard before / and thus thies persons wold haue the glosse to destroye the texte whiche can not be.

FIrthermore they bringe in Pope Inn­ocent the thyrde to whom sent the A­rch [...]diacon of biturs to know wheth­er that wife that was departed from hir husband without iugement of the churche / by cause hir husband and she were in so n­yghe degre of kyndred that the sea Apostolyk co­ulde not / nor yet was wonte to dispence with / ow­ght to be restored agayne to hyr husbande? marke wel this questyon and case that this archediacon [Page] asked of the Pope: and than yowe shall and maye perceue better the Popis answere that he made to the question and case / The Pope answerithe and sayth this woman whiche doith knowe the kyn­red betwene hir husband and hir specially in thies degres whiche be forbidden by the law of God can not haue to do Carnally withe this hir husband without dedly syn / and so finally the Pope saith t­hat the woman shal not be restored agayne to hyr husband. Here the Pope answerith verey wel / ād no thinge for thies mens purpose. For as the case was put furth in general / so that case purposed / the Pope answereth in generall / that is to saye t­hat yf a woman whiche was departed frome hyr husband without iugement of the churche because hir husband / and she were in so nyghe degre of ky­nred / that he sea Apostolik coulde not / nor yet w­as not wont / to dispence with yt: Than saith the Pope if the woman knewe this / and so vppon th­is is departyd from hir husband she may not be r­estored to hyr husband agayne / nor ly withe hym without dedly syn. For how coulde she be restored to hyr husband agayne or company with hym w­ithout dedly syn? When that she knew hyr husba­nd so nere to hyr of kyn that in kepinge hym company / and to be restored to hym / she shuld do aga­ynst the law of God / and that the Pope could not dispence with hyr that she myght turn agayne to hir husband / nor he was not wonte to dispence in suche a case: all this is trwthe / but all this is in g­eneral: [Page] for it is not shewid in what degre of kynr­ed the woman could not be restored agayne to hyr husbande / nor in what degre the Pope could not / nor was not wont to licence a woman that was departed from hyr husband to be restored agayne. And so all this saynge of Pope Innocent makith no thinge for thies mens purpose. For the case that they speke of / ys particuler and speciall that ys it againste the lawe of God and agaynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his Brothers wife a widowe &ce. And that the Pope hath no power to dispencr vppon suche mariage. This Pope innoc­ent doith not saye / nor vppon all his sayng / this no man can conclude / But this Pope innocent ys directly against this false opinion / as it is manife­ste in the chapiter. Deus qui Ecclesiam. Where yt appereth that he sufferd the Iues whiche turned to Criste and receyued Baptism to continwe still with their Brothers wifes that they had maryed before. But the heythens that turnyd and receyu­ed baptism / the sayd Pope wold not suffer them to haue mo wifes then one: which befor had maryed them to mo. And thus by this may ye se that Pope innocent ys against thies deceuers false opinion / & likwise he is agaynst them in the chap. Gaudemꝰ.

IN the .xxxvi. leif they saye. Now besi­de all this we shall proue the same by y ^e auctorite of holy counsels. This they mean that they will proue by the auct­orite [Page] of holy councels that it is againste the lawe of God and againste the lawe of nature for a mā to mary his brothers wife / a widowe left without yssew &c. To all the councells that these persons do bringe in / yt may be brefely answered / that the­re is none of them that saye yt is agaynst the law of God / and againste the lawe of nature / for a mā to mary his brothers wife a widowe lefte without yssew / nor yet this. That the Pope hath no pow ^r to dispence vppon suche mariages.

MOreouer ye must note that the prohibicions that the counsels haue decreyd to let mariage in degreys of affinite / were not made for bycause suche affi­nite did set mariage by the law of na­ture as it is manifest / in the thyrde and fowerthe degre of affinite: no more ys the first nor the second degre in the right lyne in the second lyne after the mynde of thies persons great doctour / Peter de Palude: for he saith vppon the .xviij. Chapiter of the Leuiticall boke that the Pope maye dispence in all the degreys of affinite there conteyned.

NOw where as there be diuerse counse­ls and many decreys and saynges of fathers that do forbide that a man sh­al not mary his sister / his brothers w­ife / his nece / nor his cosin germane: of sych counsells decreys and saynges / a man maye [Page] gather that in the begynninge of Cristes churche the people did vse comenly to mary their sisters / their brothers wifes / their nere kynswomen: and suche as were nye to them in affinite / for els sew­erly the councels and fathers wolde not haue spo­ken so often of suche mariages as they did: for ex­perience doith teche vs that counsels parliament­is / and sinodes do not often tymes make many de­creys agaynste thos thinges that be not in vse / but where therbe many decreys and lawes made agaynste a thinge: the same decreys and lawes do euidently shew that the thinge that they speke so muche agaynst was greatly in vse. Wherfore se­ynge that therbe diuerse counsels and many decr­eys and saynges that do now forbide that the peo­ple shal not mary in the first degre of affinite / in y ^e ascendent lyne / nor in the side lyne / nor yete in the second nor in the thirde degre of affinite: it ys euy­dent that the people did vse to mary in thies deg­reys before / and at the beginninge of the churche and than the peple lyued more iustly and godlyer than they doo now: Wherfore it folowith that for a man to mary his Brothers wife a widowe lefte withe owte &cete. or in the second degre of affini­te / can not be agaynste the lawe of God / nor aga­ynste the lawe of nature. For yf suche mariage h­ad ben so euyll / the people that lyued so iustly and so holely before the prohibicions of suche Maria­ge were made / and at the begynnynge of the chur­che / wolde neuer haue vside suche Mariage. [Page] So now by this reason yowe maye see that the co­unsaills and decreys that do forbid nowe suche m­ariage make agaynste these Pestilent persons fa­lse opinyone.

TRewly the cause why thies Fathers and counsailles did orden and decre / that the people shuld no more marye with their kynred and affinite in the first / second / and thirde degre / was t­his. For asmyche as those holy Fathers and prel­ats did se and manifestly perceue that the charita­ble loue and kyndenes that was wont to be amo­nge Cristen people did sore mynyshe and decay. Wherfore thies Fathers and Prelats ordenyd ād decreyd that the Pope shuld mary all owt of their kinred and affynite / to knyte in loue suche people to gither by mariage that were not knyte to gith­er in love by kynred and affinite. We se by comyn experyence that by mariage the kyndred of bothe the persons that be maryd do loue togither: Whe­rfore the holy Fathers and consailles did lymit o­wte certayn degreys of affinite and kindred in the whiche they supposid that loue wolde contynewe without the helpe of mariage / and so they did for­bide and commaunde no man to mary in non of th­ies degres of affinite and kyndred without the P­opes licence. But that the people shuld mary owt of thies degres of kynred ād affinite. This did th­ies Fathers and councels orden and commaund to [Page] the entent to spreyd abrode and sowe loue and charite by mariage amonge the people that were not ioynid togither in kynred and affinite. Here ye haue hard the causes why the counsels and decreys did forbid mariage in the first / the seconde / and the thyrde / and fowerth degre of affinite and kyndred wherby ye may see that for a man to mary his br­others wife a widow &ce. or his nece or cosyn ger­mane / ys not against the lawe of God / nor agay­nst the lawe of nature: but againste the lawe of y ^e churche: with the whiche the Pope maye dispence

IN the .xxxvij. leif of their boke / thyes persones bryng in the counsaile of N­ecene and the synode of Gregore the yongar: where it was decreyd accord­inge to the wordes of God: that a woman whiche had ben maryed to .ij. Brothern shul­de be put bake frome communyon / and from the receyuinge of the sacrement vntyl she died / and a m­an that had maryed his brothers wife / shuld be an Anatheme / In the whiche synode / al to gither an­sweryd / Anatheme be he / that is as myche to saye (as thies pestilent persones do expounde it) as da­mnacion to euerlastynge dethe / To this sayng of the counsel and synode / I answere: that theyr say­nge and excommunycacion ys vnderstād to be applyed vnto suche persons as do mary them selues in suche degreys of affinite without licence of the Pope. As that woman that doith mary hyr self [Page] after the deth of hir husband to hir husbandes br­other: and so in lyke wise / that man which marye­th his brothers wife a widowe &cet. For they th­at presume to mary on the rehersed maner / owght to be punyshed as it is a fore spoken of: except that they be penitent and sory for that they haue done / ye and leaue and forsake / the men their wifes / and the women their husbandis: without the Pope lycence them to mary the saide men and women th­at thei hade taken before / But yet the counsel and synode did not decre to punyshe that woman / whi­che after the deth of hir husband / maried hir hus­bandis brother: nor yet the man whiche maryd his Brothers wife a widow &c. for by cause they mar­yed agaynste the lawe of God / and agaynste the lawe of nature / as it is manifest. For ther is noth­er the counsell / nor the synode that doith decre and saye that suche mariage is against the law of god and agaynste the lawe of nature. But the counsel and synode did orden and decre the punyshements before rehersed for suche persons as did presume to mary / as the woman with hir husbandis brother / or the man with the Brothers widow against the prohibicion and decre of the churche / And so nowe this counsel and sinode do not helpe thies vngrac­ious persones false opinion / But yet if these decey­uers will saye that the sinode and counsell / or any other decre or counsell doith forbid that a man shal not mary his brothers wife a widow &c. for by ca­use that suche mariage is against the law of God [Page] and against the lawe of nature: when that they s­hew me this of any decre or counsell: I shalbe redy to make answere to it.

IN the .xxxij. leif of their boke / they say on this wise last of all / and for a conclusion. That y ^e sentence of Wiklif wherin he did holde y ^t the prohibicions of matrimoney writen in the Leuitic­al / be onely iudicial preceptis of Moyses / & therf­ore the causes of diuorce brought in by the meane of kinred & of affinite to be brought in without g­round & fundacion / & onely by the ordinance of m­an / was condempnyd as contrary to all vertu ād goodnes / & as heretical / & expresly agaynste holy scripture / in y ^e great conuocation y ^t was first at London / & after at Oxforde: & last of al in y ^e counsel of Constancy. Here these persons saye falsly / & they lye on Wicleffe: for Wik lef did neu ^r say y ^t al y ^e pro­hibicions of matrimoney writen in y ^e leuiticall law be but only iudicials: nor y ^e cōuocation / nor yet the counsel doith not condempne Wiklyf in y ^e point: & yet if he had sayd / y ^t al thies prohibicions of matrimoney had bene but onely Iudicials / & the conuo­cacion and counsel to haue condempnyd hym for y ^e same saynge / and to haue iuged all thies prohibici­ons to be moralles: yet al thies wold no thing ha­ue holpen thies deceuers fals opiniō: For as mych as in y ^e leuitical prohibiciōs ys not forbid [...] (as I of­ten tymes sayd) y ^t a mā shal not mary his broth ^rs [Page] wife a widowe lefte withoute yssewe / and thus ye maye see that all that they bringe in / for them can do them no seruice.

IN the same leif of their boke / they say there be decres of other counsails and answers in writing of other of the popes whiche do subscribe & agree to th­ies forsayd determinacions / and a none after this / it folowithe in theyr boke. But we truste gētill ād indifferent reder / that thies forsaid rehersyd thinges shal fully content the / for thow seyst here first of all in maner an hole comen asse­nt and agrement of the holy churche / and firther­more thow seist the Popes them selues do gyue so great magestye and godly auctorite vnto the Le­uiticall prohibicions / that they doo playnly affir­me and hold stedfastly: that who so euer doith m­ary contrary to the commandment of thies lawes be not (in ded) man and wife: nor they cannot rend­er one to the other the dewty of matrimony wit­hout dedly syn: nor they can not be togither by any iugement of the churche / thus say the Popes / all this ys these deceyuers sainge / and so with thies wordes & saynges they wold swade and moue the reder to beleue that it is against the lawe of God / & against the lawe of nature / for a man to marye his Brothers wife a widowe left without yssew: & that the Pope hath no power to dispence vppon suche mariage / but this (as ye haue sene prouyd [Page] before ys verey false: and where as they saye yow maye in maner se a hole comen assent and agrem­ent of the hole churche / (the whiche they vnderst­and to their opinion) this ys also false. For the h­ole assent and agrement of the churche hath agr­eyd that the Pope maye dispence vppon mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife widow &c. And consequently that suche mariage is noth­er agaynst the lawe of nature: for ells the hole ch­urche / and lernyd men of the Princes and Popes counsaill / wolde not haue consentyd that he shuld haue dispenced vppon suche mariage: if it had be­ne agaynste the lawe of God / and againste the law of nature / and thus you maye see / that thies persons saynge is false / whiche is this. That y ^e hole assent of the churche doith affirme matrim­ony betwene the brother and the brothers wife / to be agaynst the lawe of God and agaynst the law of nature / But the hole church of Cristendom ha­th without reclamacion approued suche matrim­oney lefull and good: Where as thies persons saye that the Popes them selue haue geuen greate magestye and godly auctorite vnto the Leuiticall prohibicions: thies persons name verey often and reherse their Leuiticall prohibicions in generall. But I wold see them name one prohibicion Leuit­icall / whiche doith forbide that a man may not m­ary his brothers wyfe wydowe lefte wythe owte yssew. This they shulde bringe of the Leuiticall lawe the whiche wolde doo them sum seruice / and [Page] make well for their purpose: but this they cannot doo nor no man for them: for as I haue shewed you suche mariage is not forbiden in the leuitical law / and therfore yowe maye playnly see that to bryn­ge in the Leuiticall lawe / ys no thynge for theyr purpose.

IN the .xxxviij. leif of their boke / they saye finally to make an ende. Thow shalt vnderstand gentill reader / that the requestis and suetes of diuerse p­ersons / whiche haue desyred dispensac­ions in thies degreys haue many tymes here to fore bene denyed and repellid by the Popes of Rome whiche answered them thus. It is not in any case leful for vs to dispence with the lawes of God: ād this we shall shewe yow here after. To this their reason and sophistical argument / I answere that al thowghe sum Popes haue denyed to dispence in suche degreys of affinite: yet vppon this no mā can conclude that therfore suche degre is of affini­te do set mariage by the lawe of God and by the l­aw of nature. For the Pope may deny to dispence in the thyrde degre of consanguinite / and affinite in the side lyne / and yet euery man knowithe / th­at the thyrde degre of affinite and consanguinite doith not let matrimony by the lawe of God / and by the law of nature / and also theyr argument ys nowght and sophistical. Also the Pope maye lefully denye and not lycence a manis sone to mary his [Page] fathers goddoughter / and yet suche mariage ys n­eyther forbidden by the lawe of God / nor by the l­awe of nature / and thus yow may see / that thies persons reason is no thinge worthe. Thei say / th­at you shal vnderstande / that Popes hath deny­ed to dispence in suche degreys: And I saye that yowe shall vnderstonde that Popes haue dispen­cyd and lycencyd the Brother to marye the sister and the son to mary the Fathers Sister / and the Brother to mary the Brothers widowe / and one man to mary two Sisters / and also the same man to mary his wifes nece. And that Popes haue li­cencyd moo persons to marye in suche degreis of affinite and consanguinite / as I shall shewe y­owe here after. Wherfore yowe maye percey­ue thies deceyuers reason is of no strength.

NOw where as they saye that the Po­pes / whan they denyed to dispence in suche degreys / they answeryd thus. yt is not in eny case lefull for vs to d­ispence withe the Lawes of God / a­nd this thies persons saye they will shewe here a­fter / and I wyll make answere vnto yt whan that they shewe it. Finally to make an ende: yow shall vnderstand / that in the .xxxviij. leif of their boke / they make an Epilogacyon / And a gr­eat heape of shamefull lyes / saynge / Moreouer t­how seest (and excepte we be deceyued) thow doist [Page] graunte &c. I reherse no more of their letter / beca­use yow may see the residewe in their boke whiche ys all togither false / and so in the ende of their se­cond chapiter in the .xxxix. leif that maketh a co­nclusion of the same stuffe / sayng / that the senten­ce and determinacyons of their vniuersites is of as vndowtyd credence and auctorite / as can be. Where they saye / that to mary hir that is left of his brother dyinge without children / is so forbidd­en / both by the lawe of God / and by the law of nature: that the Pope is not of power to dispence wi­th any suche maryage / whether they be all redy c­ontracte / or ells to be contracte. This is the sente­nce and determinacions of theyr vniuersites: yet thies persones (as ye haue sene) haue not prouyd it / nother by auctorite / nor reason / nor they neuer shal / for the sentence and the determinacions of t­heyr vniuersites / ar manifest false and a great er­ror hereticall: wherfore yf these persons had sayd that the sentences and determinacions of the vniuersites / be as vndowtid falsehed as can be / whe­re they saye: That to mary hyr that is lefte of his brother dying without children / is so forbidden bothe by the lawe of God / and by the lawe of natu­re / and that the Pope is not of power to dispence with any suche mariage / than they hade said tre­wth: for without faile / the sentences and determi­nacions of theyr vniuersites are vndowtid falsehed / as yow haue partly harde / and as ye shal he­are more / her after.

IN the third chapiter in the .xxxix. le­if of theyr boke / thei say thus. We th­inke that we haue wel and sufficient­ly confirmyd and stabilished owr ent­ent and purpose by the Popes lawes / and by the auctorite and counsels. Nowe next we will go about to fortifye and make goode the same by the most excellent and most faithfull interpre­ters and most trew doctours that expownde holy scripture. Here they saye that they haue well and sufficiently confirmid and stablysshed their entent by the Popes lawe and by the auctorite of counse­ls: And yet yow may see that they haue brought nether Popes law nor counsels that affirme thys theyr false purpose. That it is againste the lawe of God / and againste the lawe of nature / for a mā to mary his brothers wife a widow &c. And that the Pope hath no power to dispence vppon suche mariage. Wherfore they shuld haue sayd that th­ey hade nother well nor sufficiently confyrmyd ād stabilyshed their purpose: nor yet neuer shal by no faithful interpreters and trew doctours that ex­pownde holy scripture / had thies persones said th­us / they had sayd trowth. But that they loue to saye as theyr boke doith euidently shew / Nowe I beseche you marke and note well what thies doct­ours saye that they bring in / and how well they f­ortify thies deceyuers purpose. First they bring in and allege the great clerke Origene / wher he exp­owndith the .xx. chapiter of the Leuitical. Now I [Page] beseche yowe loke well vppon all that they bri­nge of Origene / and yowe shall see that in noo poynte he helpith or favoryth their opinion.

IN the .xli. leif of theyr boke / they say that Crisostom doith agre with Origen / and they say trewth / for he doith no thinge say that makithe for theyr purpose.

IN the .xlij. leif of theyr boke / they say that Basilius the greate / ys of the s­ame sentence and mynde / that thies other two forsayd doctours be / ād if yt be so / than he doith not fortyfye theyr opinion: for the other two doctours in no case fauo­ur and affirme this thies persons opinion. That it is agaynste the law of God and agaynste the la­we of nature / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow &c. nor yet thies doctours do not saye th­at the Pope haith no power to dispence vppon su­che mariage. Nor this can not be gatherid of thies doctours wordes nor conclude / as yow maye se in thies persons boke / wher they allege thies docto­urs / and if this doctoure Basilius be of the same sentence and mynde / that Origene and Crisosto­me be: than he helpith no thinge thies persons opi­nion: and it is in dede trewth / for Basilius in al his goodly pistill doith not saye that it is agaynste the lawe of God / and againste the lawe of nature / for [Page] a man to mary his Brothers wyfe a widowe left without yssewe.

IN the .xliij. leif. they allege Basilius agayn saynge / If it fortune a man to be ouercum with shameles and vncle­nly affeccion to ioyne so vnlefully / th­at he coupilith hym self by mariage with two sist­ers / this man is iuged not to haue contracte any mariage: And that he must not be admitted in to the communion of the churche / or cum in the com­pany of Cristen folke before that they haue brok­en this so vnlefull couple or bonde / and be depar­tid the on from the tother / To this saynge I ans­wer thus. That it is vnderstand on this wise th­at if a man ouercomen with shameles affeccion / co­uplyth him self by mariage with .ij. sisters witho­ut the Popes licence / that than he owght to be iu­ged not to haue contracte any mariage with the second sister: for by cause he did agaynste the ordina­unce of the church: whiche hath decreyd that no man shall mary two sisters: and also if any man will attempte the contrary / and mary .ij. sisters: that than the couplynge withe the seconde Si­ster to be iuged no mariage: but rather the pe­rsons that so did couple them selues vnder the pretence of mariage agaynste the lawe of the c­hurche / not to be admitted in to the communion of the churche or cum emonge Christen people before that they haue broken theyr vnteafulle [Page] couple and bonde / and be departid the one from the tother. Thus on this wise all Basilius saynge is trwthe / and makith against thies persons pur­pose and opinion. But they shuld rather haue br­ought (yf they hade coulde) Basilius to haue said that he / whiche couplyth hym self to .ij. sisters o­ne after the deth of the tother for honest respectis & causes with the Popes lycence doith againste the lawe of God / and agaynste the lawe of nature / so that the Pope can not dispence vppon suche mar­iage. If thies persones hade brought in this of basilius saynge / it wolde haue done them sum seru­ice. But they can not / and therfore Basilius help­eth them nothynge.

IN the .xlviij. leife these persons allege ysichyus / Gregorye Nazanzeus scol­ere an excellent lernyd man in holy sc­ripture to be of Origens Chrisostome and of Basilius side / for he expunding the Leuitical lawe saith thus &ce. To this I ans­were / that yf ysichius be of the rehersed doctours syde / than it folowith that he saythe no thinge for to ayde thies deceyuers false opinion. For nether Origen Chrysostom nor Basilius speke no thing in to the fauour of thies persons opinion. and thus Isychius / being of the other doctours side / cā not helpe thies persons opinion / nor he doith not helpe them in dede in no maner of point: as you may m­anifestly se in thies persons boke / where they doo [Page] allege hym / for they allege hym where he expoundith the .xviij. Chapiter in the Leuiticall boke: where it is not forbidden that a man shal not ma­ry his brothers wife a widowe lefte without ysse­we. As I haue often tymes shewid yow: Nor Isic­hius doith not say that suche mariage is ther for­bidden: nor he doith not saye that suche mariage is forbidden by the lawe of God and by the lawe of nature / nor yet he doith saye that the Pope haith no power to dispence vppon mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife a widowe left with out yssewe. And therfore ye may perceue that Isi­chius doith nothing for thies deceuers purpose.

IN the .li. leif of their boke / they saye on this wise. Now with all thies doctours opinions agre saynte Ambrose / saynte Hierome / and saynte Austyne. And first thies persons allege sa­ynte Ambros where as he answereth to one Pat­erne which wold haue maryed his dowghters do­wghter vnto his owne soone: whiche son was the maydens half vncle. For Paterne the father had his sone by an other woman / and in this case sayn­te Ambros sayd thus. That the sone myght not mary with the fathers dowghters dowghter / nor yete the nece with the nece / saynge that the lawe of God forbiddith that the sone shulde mary with the brothers dowghter. This is now saynte Am­brose his mynde. To this I answere that expresly we haue in the same lawe of God that saynte A­mbrose [Page] spekith of: that the vncle maryed the nece / and the nece maryed with the nece. As Othon­iel maryed his Brothers dowghter / which was c­allid Axa: and the nece maryed with the nece / as the doughters of Salphat maryed with their vncles sones / Nume. vltimo and here no man can saye that thies p­ersons maryed theyr vncles sones by a dispensaci­on and lycence of almyghtye God: for they were not lycencyd but commaundid by almyghty God so to mary / for ther was a law made and publysh­ed by the reason of the dowghters of Salphat as the very texte here sheweth. Respondit Moyses filijs Israel & domino precipiente ait: recte tribus filiorum Ioseph loquuta est / & hec lex super fi­liabus Salphat a Domino promulgata est / & se­quitur / fecerunt filie Salphat vt sibi fuerat imp­eratum. And so thies women maryed their vncles sones according to the lawe and commaundement of almyghty God / and so in lykwise / the dought­ers of Eleazar maryed theyr vncles sones. i. Par. xxiij. By t­his you may se it is not forbiden by the law of god the sone to marye withe the Brothers dowghter / nor the nece with the nece. but suche mariages w­ere commaunded by almyghty God in his lawe. Thies persons saye in the .lij. leif / that sainte am­brose doith affirme to be against the law of nature for a man to mary his doughter. This is trew ād noman will saye the contrary. but this saynge ys no thing for thies persons purpose / let them shewe where saynte ambrose saith. It is agaynst the law [Page] of nature for a man to mary his brothers wif a w­idow left without yssewe. This thies deceyuers promise to shewe and brynge in / but they do not.

IN the .liiij. leif of their boke / they bry­nge in saynte Hierome that meruelyth at the Patriarke abraham for by cause he maryed his sister: seing the thin­ge is so abhominable / and seynge ag­ayne that almyghty God ordenyd afterward a l­aw for it. wherin he thretenith that who so euer s­hal take his sister / other on the fathers side / or on the mothers side: & shal se hir fowlnes: yt is a rebuke & a shame / he shal be dryuen owt of his countre in sight of his owne kynne: he haithe vnhilled the priuetes of his sister / he shal receiue his reward for his synne. after this saing / thies deceuers make an exposicion vpon sainte Hieroms writing: & for bycause yt is not to the purpose / I let it passe / thow­ghe it be false / & to saynte Hierome sayng I answ­ere thus. what so euer saynte Hierome saith wher they do allege him / I wolde shewe ye / that saynte Hierome doith not meruell nor iuge abrahams mariage to be euyl: but doith excuse abrahā in that he maryd his sister saynge / In the Hebrew tonge / yt soundith that Sara was abrahams sister: In q̄sti. hebrai­cis su­per gen. & in his excuse he sayth that at that tyme suche mariage was not forbiden by the law. Here ye may se that sainte Hierome doith excuse the Patriarche abram in y ^t he maryed his sister: & saith y ^t in y ^e tyme of abrā [Page] suche mariage was not forbidden by the lawe: the whiche must be vnderstand / that suche mariage was not forbidden bi the lawe of nature. For yf th­at suche mariage had bene lefull and againste the lawe of nature: than saynte Hierome had not iustifyed and excused Abraham in that he maryed his sister saynge: that suche mariages at y ^e tyme were not foebidden by the lawe. And so thus nowe yow maye perceyue that Saynte Hieroms mynde and writinge here ys / that it is not agaynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his sister. And so by this saynte Hierome is agaynst thies persones fa­lse opinion.

IN the .lv. leif of their boke / thies pers­ons brynge saynte Augusten wher he writith againste Faustus the greate heretik and saythe that the commau­ndment of God that bownde the iues to mary with theyr brothers wifes widowes lefte without yssew / was a figure / and dyd signifie that the preachers shuld labour in y ^e gospell to styre vp the sead / vnto his brother departyd: that ys to o­ur sauiour Crist / which died for vs. Here ye maye see that saynte Austen saith that the commaund­ment of God that bownde the Iues to mary the­yr brothers wyues widows / was a figure / & then it can not be againste the lawe of nature: as to of­fer vp incense and to be circuncysed were figurs / & yet now they be not agaynste the lawe of nature [Page] and thus Saynte Augustyn is not for these me­nis purpose.

IN the .lvi. leif / They brynge in sayn­te Augustyn in an other place where as he saith. Althowghe in tyme past men maried thier sisters / yet that th­inge was doen bycause necessite comp­ellid men vnto it / but this thinge is not now so ol­de / nor was neuer so necssary: but it was made af­terward as damnable / bicause religion doith forb­idde yt. Thus here is the englisshe of saynte aust­ens wordes / and after the same wordis that thies persons haue in their Latyn boke. but they haue in theyr ynglishe boke that it is not now as dam­nable / by cause religion doith forbide it / And saynte Austen saith is was made afterwarde as damnable / bycause religion doith forbide yt. And than yf this / for a man to mary his sister be nowe made dampnable bycause religion doith forbide yt: Th­an it is euident that for a man to mary his sister / is not damnable of the owne nature: for that thy­nge that is damnable by nature / was / and ys al­ways dampnable. and saynte augusten saith that this thyng / for a man to mary his sister / was ma­de afterward dampnable / because religion doith f­orbid yt: and therfore it is not agaynst the lawe of nature for a man to mary his sister: also saynte a­ugustyn saith in the same place where thies pers­ons allege hym / that in the begynninge of man k­ynde [Page] [...] was leful by al meanys y ^e brothern to mary wit [...] sisters: but now (saith he) y ^e custom ys so a­gai [...] [...]e mariage as thoughe siche mariage h­ad [...]er ben lawfull. By this ye may se y ^t for a mā to mary his sister / is leful by y ^e law of nature: & it is [...]den [...] [...]e custome: & than yt folowith that yf suche [...] [...]e be lefull by the lawe of nature / it is [...] [...]y the same lawe for a man to mary h­ [...] [...] [...]s wife a widowe lefte withowt yssewe. For this can be no more forbiden than for a man to marye his Sister. And thus yowe maye perce­yue that sainte augustyn is against thies persons false opinion.

IN the same leif / thies persons wold h­aue yow call to yowr rememberaunce of the iugement of thies great diuines fower / or fyue thinges. First what so euer persone of Cristes beleue brekith eny of the leuiticall prohibicions of mariage / he shal be damp­ned both body and sowle into euerlastinge deith in hell. Note here I beseche ye how thies pestilent p­ersons openly sclaunder and saye false vpon sain­te ambrose / sainte Hierome / and sainte Augustin. For ther is none of them that doith iuge / that wh­at so euer person of Cristes beleue brekith eny of y ^e leuiticall prohibicions of mariage that he shall be dampned bothe body and sowle into euerlastinge deith in hell / as thies persons do saye vppon them but it is thies 'pestilent persons owne malicious [Page] iugement: and yet all this makith nothing for th­eir false opinion. For ther is no prohibicion leuitic­al that doith forbide that a man shal not mary h­is brothers wife a widowe &c.

THe second thinge that thei wolde ha­ue yow note of the iugement of sainte ambrose / sainte Hierome / and sainte augustin is this. That not only the Iues did abstaine frome marying th­eir Brothers wiues euen as yow wold say / for fe­re of sum mischef / and yet thei might haue don it bi auctorite of their law: but the very heythens also after the deth of their wiues / did euermore abs­taine frome mariage of their wiues sistern / as fro­me a certain impiete or abominacion againste nat­ure. Here thies shameles persons falsly sclaunder againe thies holy Doctours / for they neuer did iuge nor saye that the Iues did abstayne frome ma­ryinge of their Brothers wiues for fere of sum m­yschefe that shulde fall vppon them / for so mary­inge. Nor yet thies holy men neuer sayde that the heythens did euermore absteyne from maryi­nge their wiues sisterne / as frome a certaine impiete or abhominacion againste nature. Wherfore yowe maye see that these vngracious persons do falsly saye and sclaunder Sainte Ambrose / Sai­nte Hierome / and Sainte Augustin / and not one­ly in this their false sainge sclaunder these holy men / But they also doo blaspheme almightye [Page] God: for in saynge that the Iues did absteyne fro­me mariynge their Brothers wifes for fere of sum myscheif that shuld fal vppon them for so mariy­nge / they saye that almyghty God in commaun­dinge and biddinge the Iues to mary theyr broth­ers wifes widowes &cet. commaundid and bounde them to a thinge that myschefe shulde cum to the Iues for fullfillinge and kepyng of the same com­maundement / ye and beside all this yt followithe that almyghty God in commaunding and biddi­nge the Iues to mary their Brothers wifes wido­ws &cet. set the Iues in a myserable state and in a greuous perplexite / for yf they maryd theyr brot­hers wifes widows &c. accordynge to the comma­undinge of almyghty God: than they lokyde for myschef to fall vppon them for so mariynge, and agayne / if they did not marry their brothers wifes widowes &c. than they shulde be punyshed withe perpetuall infamy and dishonour. For so had alm­yghty God commaundid to punyshe all thos th­at wold not mary their brothers wyfes widowes &c. and thus by thies false deceyuers saynges al­mighty God in commaundinge the Iues to mar­ye their brothers wifes widows &cet. set them in a meruelous greuous perplexite. Who durst thus saye by almyghty God / seynge that he nouressh­ed the Iues with singler beneuolence and meruel­ous kynenes holy and iuste lawes concerning them and theyr tyme? Wherfore yowe maye see thies persons in theyr sayng do highly baspheme almy­ghty [Page] God: and do falsly saye vppon thies holy men and Doctours.

NOw to the seconde parte of this their second saynge / wher as thies persons affirme that the verey heythens aft­er the deth of theyr wiues did euermo­re abstayne frome mariynge of theyr wyues sisters as frō a certayn impiete or abomin­acion against nature. Here thies deceyuers confo­unde them selues and speke againste their owne writinge. For in the .xviij. leif of their boke / they saye: that beside other myscheuous vices this th­inge was also lefull and customable amonge th­ies haythens to myngle and marcy them self by the most shameful lust and pleasure of their bod­yes with them that be most nyghe of their blode and affinite puttinge no difference betwene them and other women. This they sayd and write th­ere / and here they saye the contrary. They saye that the heythens after the deth of theyr wiues d­id euermore abstayne frome mariynge of their w­iues sisters as frome a certayne Impiete or abho­minacion against nature: Therfore yow may cl­eerly se / thies persons be past shame / and care not whate they write and saye / that they myght cau­se the reder to beleue their false opinion.

THe thirde thinge that thies deceyuers w­olde haue yow note of the iugement of sa­ynte [Page] Ambrose / saynte Hierome / and saynte Aust­en is this. That mariage contracte contrary to t­heis prophibicions be vncomely and abhominable and as nere as can be to the lyfe of bruyt bestis &c. ye and forther / thei be the transgression ād breking of al the lawe. Here these false lyers saye agayne falsly on these holy men. For this they can not sh­ew to be the iugement of Saynte Ambros / Sainte Hierome / and Saynte Augusten. Also thies lyes and false saynges make no thinge for their purp­ose. For they speke of the leuiticall lawe and there ground the them self: wher it is in no wise forbiden that a man shal not marey his brothers wife a w­idowe left without yssew.

THe .iiij. thinge that thies deceyuers wolde haue yow to note and marke of the iugement of saynte Ambrose saynte Hierome / and saynte Austen is this / That mariages made cont­rary to the leuitical prohibicions be so greuous ād so hateful in the sight of God / that thei haue dest­royd holl nacions / poluted the land / and beyng po­lutyd caused it naturally to gruge and to put them owt whiche hade committed suche thinges. Here agayn theis deceyuers saye falsly vppon thies ho­ly men: for thei cannot shew thies their sayngis to be thies doctours iugement. Also thies lyes and f­alse saynges make no thing for thies persons fal­se purpose: for al their saynge ys grownded in the [Page] Leuiticall lawe: and there yt is not forbidden that a man shall not marey hys Brothers wife a wi­dowe left without yssewe.

THe .v. thing that thies persons wolde haue yow note of the iugement of sa­ynte Ambrose / sainte Hierome / and s­ainte Austen is this. That the prohibicions leuiticall perteyne not only to theiues / but to all Cristians whiche cum to serue God. And that thei which be poluted with eny of thies not to be spoken dedis / ar defilyd with them al. Here thies shameles lyers saye falsly on Am­brose / Hierome / and Austen: for as I haue shewid yow / they cannot bringe where that this their sa­yng shuld be thies holy menys iugementis. and agayne this their false sayng doith not helpe thi­es deceyuers false opinion / as you haue hard befo­re / by cause they grownd them in the leuitical pro­hibicions: But now for asmuche as in this their s­aing / thei affirme y ^t if a man be polutid & corrupte with eny of thi [...]s not to be spokē dedis / he is defy­lid with thē al: he ^r ye may se how like thē self thei speke / for of this their saing / it folowith y ^t if a manly with his sist ^r & so is polutid in y ^t syn: y ^t than he is poluted with his moth ^r / with his stepmoth ^r / w­ith his doughter / poluted with his nece / & with b­ruet bestis / polutid with offering his sede in sacrifice to y ^e ydol Moloch. For al thies & oth ^r mo / be forbidē in y ^e leuitical law: who wold say thꝰ but thies filthy & lying [Page] persons? Nowe yowe hard howe thies deceyuers haue sclaundered and falsly sayd of thies .iij. holy men saynte Ambrose / sainte Hierome / and sainte Augustin.

IN the .lvij. leif / they exhorte yowe to marke wel saynte Ambrose his saynge / and to that yow haue herd my answere before.

AFter thies doctours thies persons b­ringe holy saynte Ancelme. Breifly he in all that pistel / which thies per­sons saye is his / doith not saye that it is against the lawe of God and a­gainst the lawe of nature / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe &ce. nor yet this that the Pope haith no power to dispence vppon suche ma­riage: nor this can not be gatheryd nor concludid of this saynge of saynte Ancelme in the rehersed pi­stle as it appereth in the .lx. leif of their boke. T­hat Cristiane religion and perfeccion haith ordyn­ed that the boundis and butailes of consanguinite shulde be streched furthe vnto the .vi. degre on eu­ery side / accordinge vnto the decreys of holy fath­ers and canons: so that kynsfolke beyng in the .vi degre maye not marey toghither: by this you may se that sainte Ancelme doith speke of suche mariage as is forbiden bi the lawe of the churche: and t­herfore in the ende of his pistel he shewith that b­othe before the law and in the law / men vpon cer­taine [Page] honest causes and consideracions maried t­heir nere knswomen / as their sisters and their ne­ces: before the lawe / as Abraham / Isaac / and Ia­cob. In the law / Othoniel / the whiche mariages sainte Ancelme doith not saye that thei were aga­inst the lawe of nature. But he doith approue th­em good: for bicause the persons which so maryed / did marey for good consideracions and honest cau­ses / yet for all that (saith he) Cristiane religion & the perfytnes that owght to be in a Cristen man wil iuge nothinge to be honest that is against the honestie of nature. So here sainte Ancelme doith swade that we shuld not mary nowe owr kinnes­women / but mary other for to spreyd a brode loue and charite / for it is against the honestye of natu­re aftir his mynde / to mary within the .vj. degre. For men and women do bi the reason of affinite & kindred bare loue naturally vnto that degre. And therfore sainte Ancelme did extende the honestie of nature to the .vi. degre / as it aperith bi his sai­nge before / And thus yow may se that sainte an­celme doith not saye that it is againste the law of nature for a man to mary his sister and nere ky­nswoman: but that for honeste cawses men ha­ue so maryed.

IN the .lxv. leif / thies persons bring in Hughe Cardinal: Rauffe Flamacen­sis / Rute Tintiensis / Hildebart Cenomanese / Iuo Carnotense / al bishops [Page] and one water of constance archedeacon of Oxforde / and truly the first two Hughe Cardinal / and Rauffe flauiacensis expoundinge the xviij. chapi­ter leuitical. Brefely here I answere / there is no­ne of thies Doctours that saith it is againste the law of God and againste the lawe of nature / for a man to m [...]ry his brothers wife a widow left wit­hout yssew: nor yet this that the Pope haith no p­ower to dispence vpon suche mariage: nor this can not be concludid of their saynges. Wherfore I passe ouer vnto the .lxxv. leif of thies deceyuers boke where they allege for their purpose the scholastic­all doctours.

NOw amonge the scolastical doctours thies persons do bringe in Thomas in the .lxxviij. leyf of their boke: whiche saith that at the beginning of mank­inde there were exceptid frome maria­ge the father and the mother / that is to be vnder­stand / that the father myght not marey with the doughter / nor the mother with the soon / but after­ward when mankynde was encreaside and multiplied there were many moo persons excepte bi M­oyses lawe. Brefely saynte Thomas in all hys reasons before and after doith no thinge but decla­re that the father and the dowghter / the mother and the soon were forbiden to mary togither bi the lawe of nature. The oth [...]r persons that were aft­erward except / he saith were forbiden to mary to­gither [Page] by the lawe of Moyses: whiche law / Th­omas callith sum tyme the lawe of God. This maye yowe see plainly in al the processe that thies persons do bringe in of Thomas from the .lxxv. leif / vnto the .lxxix. leif / and thus Thomas spe­keth not one worde against this that a man maye mary his brothers wife a widowe lefte withowte yssew / nor yet againste this / that the Pope haithe power to dispence vpon suche mariage.

THies persons promised to bring doctou­rs to speke againste thies thinges: but they be verey slake in performinge th­eir promesse.

IN the same leife / thies persons doo b­ring in Thomas sayng / infidels cont­racte within the degreis forbiden in y ^e xviij. Chapiter of Leuitical / contrary to the lawe of God: whether both to or one of them be conuertid to the faith: they maye not bide still togither in suche mariage: for as my­che as saynte Thomas speketh here of the degre­ys forbiden in the .xviij. chapiter of the leuitical: I wil answere no other wise but thus / yt is not for­biden in the .xviij. Chapiter of the leuiticall that a man shal not mary his brothers wife a widowe left with out yssew: and therfore saynte Thomas spekith nothinge for thies deceyuers purpose.

ALso to Altissiodorensis saynge / wh­ere thei allege him to saye that the preceptis Leuitical be moralles: this saynge doith no seruice to thies dec­eyuers false opinion. For as I haue shewid you / and am compellid often tymes to sh­ew yow / that it is not forbiden in the Leuitical la­we that a man shal not mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew. And if thies deceiuers were not paste shame they wolde not allege so of­ten the leuitical lawe and prohibicions as they do seyng it makith nothinge for their purpose / or ells they shuld reherse sum prohibicion leuiticall that doith forbede that a man shal not mary his Brot­hers wife a widowe left &c.

IN the .lxxxij. leif / thei bringe Peter de Palude: whiche saith the Pope hathe no power to dispence in the first degre of affinite no more than he haith in y ^e first degre of consanguinite: for mariageis forbiden bi the lawe of God in the first degre of consanguinite or affinite not one streghter abo­ue the other: but the one of syde half to the other as the brother and the sister in this degre. Also y ^e Pope hath power to dispence bycause it is sumwh­at against the lawe of nature / and a litle after th­is Docter Peter de Palude saith that the Pope h­ath no power to dispence that a man shulde mary the wife of his brother althowgh he died without [Page] children / for how be it men were sufferde to do th­us in tymes past: yet that was not but by dispens­acion / ye and that dispensacion was by the lawe of God and not by the lawe of men / and agayne a li­tle after this he saith that the Pope hath no more power to dispence with a man to mary his brothe­rs wife a widow left without yssew / than he hai­th to dispence for a pluralite of wiues. For maria­ge betwene the brother and the brothers widowe left without yssewe: was sufferd for a certayn ty­me by the dispensacion of almyghty God / like as it was to haue many wifes. Here is this Doctou­rs mynde whiche spekith sum what for thies pers­ons purpose.

NOw to this Doctours saynge I ans­were thus / and first to this pointe w­here he saith that the Pope hath no p­ower to dispence in the first degre of affinite no more than he hath in the first degre of consanguinite and that not only in the ri­ght lyne no more than in the side lyne: as the brot­her to mary with the sister: for by cause this is su­mwhat against the lawe of nature. To this / this Doctour Peter de Palude expownding the .xviij. Chapiter of the leuitical saith: that the Pope m­aye dispence in al the degreis of affinite conteyned in the leuiticall / for al thies degreys (saith he) seme to be forbidden bi the lawe posytiue. And now yow maye see by this doctours mynde that mariage be­twene [Page] the brothers widowe and the Brothere / ys not against the lawe of nature: for this doctour s­aith that the Pope maye dispence in that degre of affinite. and where as he sayd that the Pope cou­lde not dispence that a man shuld mary his broth­ers wife a widowe left without yssewe: here he sa­ith the contrary. For he saith the Pope may dispe­nce in al degreis of affinite that be conteyned in t­he leuiticall lawe. Also where as he said that the Pope hath no more power to dispence with a man to marey hys Brothers wyfe a widowe left with owt yssewe / than he hath to dispence for a plural­ite of wyfes: here yowe maye see that this Docto­ur saith the contrarey. For he affirmeth that the Pope maye dispence in all degreys of affinite cont­eyned in the Leuiticall lawe. And finally where as he saith / that it was suffered for a certayne tyme that the brother shulde mary the Brothers wyfe a widowe left withowte yssewe / but this he sayth was but by the dispensacion of almyghty God: li­ke as it was to haue many wifes. This saynge can in no case be trew: for almighty god did not despence in the olde law / that a man might mary his Brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe: but did expresly commaund that al the Iues shuld al­ways marey their brothers wifes widowes lefte withowt yssewe. And they shuld so mary vppon a great payne. And therfore it is not trew to saye that almyghty God did dispence withe the Iues that they might mary their Brothers wifes wid­owes [Page] left without yssewe / for thei were bownde to mary their Brothers wifes left withoute yssewe / by an expressid lawe of almyghty God / also this can in no wyse be callid a dispensacion: for a dispen­sacion doith alwayes presuppose a commaundm­ent contrary to the lycense and dispensacion: but in all the hole lawe ther is no commaundement th­at forbiddeth that a man shal not mary his Brot­hers wife a widowe lefte with owte yssewe: as it is manifeste. Wherfore it can not be sayd that al­myghty God did dispence and licence the Iues to mary theyr Brothers wifis widowes lefte withe owte yssewe. Finally by licence and dispensacion a man is set at libertye to vse his dispensacion or not to vse it: but the Iues were not at libertie and at choyse to marey their brothers wifes widowes le­fte withe owte yssewe / or ellis to leue them. But rather the lawe compellid the Iues to m­arey theyr Brothers wifes widowes lefte wit­he owte yssewe. or ells to punyshe suche as w­old not marey their Brothers wifes widowes lefte without yssewe / with perpetuall infamy and great dishoner. Wherfore it can not be sayd that almyghty God did dispence withe the Iues to m­arey theyr Brothers wyfes widowes lefte withe owt yssewe / but he commaundid them so to marey The example also and similitude that this doct­our Peter de Palude brought to shewe that almy­ghty God did dispence withe the Iues that they might mary their brothers wifes widows &c. doith [Page] not proue in eny case. He saith on this wise that al­mighty God suffered the Iues to mary their bro­thers wifes widowes &c. lyke as he did suffer sum persons to haue mo wifes at ons than one. This saynge is not like: for the first / almyghty God did commaund / and bounde euery man to it: but the second / that a man myght haue mo wifes at ons th­an one / almyghty God did neuer commaunde to persons in general nor in special: and so yow maye see that the exemple and similitude doith not pro­ue. Here parauenture sum will meruyll at this d­octour Peter de Palude whiche in expowndinge the lawes leuitical doith so directly speke againste that he wrote in his boke vppon the sentences. To this it may be answeryd that whan he wrote vp­pon the sentences he helde that opinion: but when he cam afterward and wolde expounde the leuiti­call / he forsoke his opinion / whiche he helde befo­re: and here vppon the leuiticall boke he wrote y ^e trewthe: wherfore vppon the .xviij. chapiter leui­tical he saith thus. In certayne bokes it is writen / no man maye take his brothers wife whiche (sai­th he) is thus vnderstand. No man maye take his brothers wife (his brother beynge a lyue) for asm­uche as the lawe in a nother place doith commau­nde that a man shal mary his brothers wife a w­idowe. And now by this saynge / this Doctour p­eter de Palude is not onely against the deceyuers opinion in many pointis as ye haue sene before: but here also he vtterly doith destroye all the grounde [Page] where on thies persons wolde bilde their false opi­nion. For he saith that the prohibicion leuitical th­at forbiddithe a man to take his brothers wife ys vnderstande / to forbide him that he taketh not h­is brothers wife while his brother is a lyue / for asmuch as in an other place the lawe doith comma­und that a man shal mary his brothers wife a w­idow. Thus ye may perceue that this their great Doctour Peter de Palude doith vtterly destroye al thies deceyuers false opinion / for he shewith and affirmith that for a man to mary his brothers w­ife a widow / ys not forbiden in the leuitical lawe but he saithe suche mariage is commaundid in another place of the lawe.

IN the .lxxxiij. leif of their boke / thies persons bringe in the auctorite of the byshop of florens and Iohne de Turre cremata whiche (as thies persones do say / do agre in this matter with Pet ^r de Palude / n­ow if yt be so / than they speke directly against the­ir false opinion: for Peter de Palude spekith agai­nst yt / And if these deceyuers wil saye that th [...]r­chbishope of florens and Iohn de Turre cremata doith agre with Peter de Palude / wher he did er­re / and not where he sayd trewth. than suerly th­ey shuld noth ^r be beleuid nor accept. Breuely thies two rehersed Doctours and Alexander de Ales whose saynge and opinion thies deceyuers do not recyte / they al grownde them in Peter de Palud­des [Page] first opinion / whiche he him self did after fors­ake and reproue / and in the prohibicions leuiticall to the whiche I haue answered often tymes that it is not forbiden there that a man shal not marey his brothers wife a widowe left witheout yssewe / and likewise doith the Doctours that they bringe after the sayd Cardinals and Walden that saith the Leuitical lawes be morall preceptis and of the x. commaundements and that euen to so many d­egreys as be rekennyd vp ther vnto the fower­the / this vnto the fowerthe / these deceyuers leue owt of Waldens saynge: thowghe this opinion of Walden be false / yet I wold not tarry vpon it / nor vppon Pope martines approuinge of Waldens boke / nor yet vpon the Doctours whiche thei na­me without eny rehersinge of their writinges and opinions. For all thies be impertinent to the pur­pose as euery man may see in these deceyuers boke Wherfore I passe ouer to the .lxxxvii. leif.

IN the .lxxxvij. leif / thies persones doo allege two glosers of the lawe of Ca­non / Iohn Andre and Iohn Imola w­hich do gather and conclude by the w­ordes of the very texte of the chapiter Literas: and also bi the wordis of gloses there / that the degreys writen in the leuiticall lawe be the sa­me self degreis in the whiche Pope innocent hym self doith saye that the Pope hath no power to dis­pence with. Here thies persons saye falsly of Iohn [Page] Andre: for in the ende of his answere he concludith that the Pope may dispence in the first degre of c­onsanguinite after that the matromony be ons cō ­summat / thus ye may se how thies shamles pers­ons doo lye.

IN the .lxxxviij leif / thei say y ^t maister Abbot is of Iohn andres opinion: & he­re also thei say falsely vpon Maister abbot / for he ther rehersinge diuers o­pinions / finally doith conclude y ^t y ^e Pope may disp­ence in the first degre of affinite after y ^t matrimo­ny be consummate. Thus ye may se that thies fa­lse deceyuers do not ceasse to lye.

IN y ^e .lxxxix. leif / thies persons say y ^t to tho­se persons which y ^e law of god doith cal ney­est of blode / ther can be no good nor iuste cause for y ^e which it might be sufferd or dispensed with y ^e one of thē y ^t shuld diskou ^r y ^e fowlnes of a nother / nor the ^r can not be alleged anything so honeste / y ^t is able to cov ^r y ^e dishonesty of this thing. This is y­our own pestilent saynge: here they greatly accuse Abrā / Isaac / & Iacob: for thei maryd with their si­stern & with their vncles doughters / & if ther can not be allegid eny thing so good & honeste / y ^t is able to couer y ^e dishonestie of suche mariages / than thi­es persons do condempne thies holy patriarkes / & say y ^t in mariyng their kinneswomen thei did sha­mfully / & euen y ^t thing which is so euyl y ^t ther can not be alleged eny thinge soo honeste that is able [Page] to couer the dishonestye of their Mariages. Who will saye thus by thies holy fathers and patriar­ch [...]s / but thies vngracious persons? Sainte Hie­rom doith excuse Abraham in that he maryed his sister / and shewith that in so mariynge he did not offend / as ye haue harde before. And sainte austen against Faustus the manachye / shewith that Ia­cob did not offende in maryinge of his vncles dou­ghter / and saynte ancelme in the epistle / that thi­es persons affirme to be his / sayth that for certain consideracions and honest causes / men sum tyme maryed their nere kynswomen both before the la­we and in the lawe / before the lawe / as abraham / and Isaac / and Iacob / in the lawe / as Othoniel / thies holy men iuge thies mariages to be honeste / iuste / and goode: whiche thies vngracyous pers­ones do falsely dampne for to coloure their damp­nable opinion.

IN the .lxxxx. leif / of their boke thies p­ersones wold haue yow to marke spe­cially / which diuerse of thies holy and approbate doctours do holde / also that the brother can not mary a woman t­hat is but only handfaste vnto his brothere: and if he doo: the mariage can not stande by helpe of e­ny dispensacion / and that al suche mariages must nedes be vtterly broken / Of this opinion thies persones saye is mayster lyre / and also the noble diuine Hugh de sancto victore. and so in the .lxxxxij. [Page] leif of their boke / they saye that mariage in the fi­rste degre of consanguinite and of affinite is not only forbiden in the leuitical lawe: but also mariage in the first degre / for a iustice groundid only vppon a certain comyn honeste and comelines / is forbid­den by the lawe of God in the leuitical: and so can not be dispensid with all by me. Here ye may se ho­we openly and without all shamfastnes they lye they bid yow marke whiche diuerse of the holy ād approbate Doctours do hold that the brother can not mary a woman that is but only handfaste to his brother after his dethe (thus they muste vnd­erstande yt) and if a man doo: the mariage can not stande by helpe of eny dispensacion. First thies pe­rsons haue brought no doctoure that this doith affirme / and ther is nether maister Lyre / nor Hughe de sancto Victore that doith saye that the pope can not dispence with a man that he maye mary that woman whiche was only but handfast to his broth ^r aft ^r his broth ^rs deth. Hugo de S. vic. in al his longe processe that thies persons bring in / hath n­ot a worde of the Popes power and dispensacion / nor maister Lyre in this case / moreouer yt is euid­ent that it is but only forbiden by the lawe of the churche that a man may not mary his brothers s­pouse after the dethe of his brother. ther is no scri­pture nor Doctour saynge that suche mariage ys forbiden by the leuitical lawe / nor agayne ther is no Doctour that doith saye that the Pope can not dispence in this case. yow may se what persons be [Page] thies / thei care not howe falsly thei saye / thei be n­ot ashamid to speke agaynst al reason and lerning

FOr to proue their a fore rehersed say­nge / thei bring in a case: that ther was a man whiche had his eldest soon ha­nd fast to a mayde / and so this yonge men died: and than his father bounde him selfe by an other to the mayden / that he wold marey his yongest sone to hyr / and vppon this / he made suyte to the Pope whiche was Alexandre y ^e thirde: and he wolde not dispence and lycence this mannis yonger sone to marey the maiden: but lete the man that swore he wolde mary his yonger so­one to the mayden be pariuride: where vppon thi­es persons wold conclude / that the Pope can not dispence that a man maye mary his Brothers sp­ouse after his brothers dethe / which is false: for t­his argument ys nought to saye. The Pope will not dispence vppon suche mariage: wherfore it fo­lowith that he can not dispence vppon suche ma­riage. This yow se doith not folowe. For the Po­pe doith not alwais dispence where he may dispence. Also if the Pope were bounde to dispence in the thyrde and fowerth degre of affinite withe euery man that did or wolde swere to mary in thies deg­reis / than the prohibicion were no prohibicion / Al­so where as thies persones saye that the Pope al­exandre did affirme in his answere to the Bisho­pe of Papye / y ^e it is writen in y ^e leuitical / y ^t y ^e Brot­her [Page] can not haue the Brothers spouse / and the [...]for he commaundid the bishope that he shulde not suffer henry that hath sworne to mary his yonge so­on to the maide to fulfill his purpose. To this I answere that it is not forbidden in the Leuitical l­aw that a man shal not mary his brothers spou­se: nor there is no maner of mencion made of eny s­uche mariage / and so ye may see that all that euer thei bring / ys not for their false purpose.

IN the .lxxxxiij. leif of their boke / vpō their vndowted fals lyes and sayng­is / thei wold thus conclude their false purpose sayng. Wherfor seyng that t­hies thinges be thowghte trewe to so many and discrete auctours that it is not leful for a man to marey his brother spouse: how much m­ore vnlawful owght we to thinke this thing / th­at a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe with whome his brother hath had carnally to do and that he shuld vncouer the priuites of hir & cet. Here agayn they continew in their customable ly­ing. For thei say y ^e many discrete auctours haue iuged y ^t it is forbiden in y ^e leuitical law y ^t a man shal not mary his brothers spowse: & y ^t suche mariage is so vnleful / y ^t y ^e Pope can not dispēce vpō it. Th­is ye se is manifestly false: for ther is no discrete a­uctor that so saith / & if ther be eny auctores y ^t so iu­ge: why do not theis persons bring them in? but t­hey saye verey falsly: for ther be no discrete aucto­ [...]r [...] that so iuge and saye.

WHerin this their sayng thei wolde h­aue men to iuge & beleue that it is v­nlawful for a man to mary his brot­hers spowse. And than muche more vnlawful for a man to mary his br­others widowe with whome his brother hath ha­de carnally to doo &c. Here thies false deceyuers s­peke couertly. but I wil shewe yow a verey treu­th / whiche is this. The Quenis grace that now is / was a mayden when hir grace was maryed l­aste / and in witnes and recorde that this is trewe hir grace haith sworne / and testyfyed vppon a b­oke and receyued the blessid Sacrament of the au­ter / that she was a mayden when hir grace was last maryed. Wherfore the determinacions of the facultye of diuinite and the canon of the vniuersite of Paryse (thoughe that thei be false) yet they m­ake nothing against this matrimony / nor the de­terminacions of both the facultes of lawe / of thu­niuersite of Angew. nor the determinacion of diui­nite of the vniuersite o Biturs / for thies haue det­ermined on this wise: That if ther were paste be­twene the husband and the wife / carnal copulaci­on: that than the brother / may not marey his bro­thers widowe: nor the Pope can not dispence vpon suche mariage / so now thowgh the determinaciōs of thies vniuersites be false / as be al y ^e oth ^r: yet th­ies reherside / helpe no thing y ^e pestilēt & malicious purpose of thies pestilent ꝑsons: for asmuche as y ^e Quenis grace was a mayden / when she was last maryed.

HEre now ye haue harde parte of thi­es shameles persons maners: parte of their manifeste errours / parte of their dampnable lyenge: and parte of their blasphemy / yow haue also herde how that thei haue brought in holy scripture / counsels and doctours for to haue coloured and fortified th­eir vngracious and false opinion: and yet thei can not bringe it to passe nor neuer shal. Wherfore / al­thowghe in the beginninge of this my answere I shewid and prouid sufficiently the trewthe of this proposicion. That it is not against the law of god nor against the law of nature / for a man to marey his brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe. And that the pope haith no power to dispence vp­pon suche mariage: now yet / I wil shewe yow the same more largely by holy fathers / doctours / and Popes saynges / ād first that suche mariage is not agaynst the law of nature.

FIrst sainte Hierome doith excuse Ab­raham / in that he maryed his sister / & doith iustifye and defende Abraham for so mariynge. In q̄st. heb. su­per gen. For suche mariages saith saynte Hierome / were not than forbiden of the law of nature. And if it be not forb­iden bi the lawe nature a man to marey his sister: miche lesse was it forbiden / a man to marey his b­rothers widowe left without yssew.

SAynte Austen saith y ^t in y ^e tyme of Abrah­am / men might lefully mary with their sisters of the one side: cōt. faustum li. xxij. ca. xxxv. or of bothe sides. & if yt were leful & not agaynst y ^e law of nature than for men to mary their sisters: it is not against the law of nature then for a man to mary his brothers &c.

super mat. ho m. xlix HOly Crisostome doth shewe reasonable causes why almighty God did comma­und the Iues to mary their brothers wi­dows &c. ād than suche mariage cannot be against the law of nature and reason.

TErtulian / theis deceyuers doctoure d­oith allege certayne causes which be iuged good and reasonable why the iues shulde in the tyme of the olde law ma­rey their brothers wiues widows &c. Wherfor he did not iuge suche mariage to be against the lawe of reason: seinge he assigned (after his mynde) reasonable causes: wherby men might lefully mary th­eir brothers widows. yet ye shall vnderstonde th­at I doo not approue Tertulians reasons / that he shewith for suche mariage: but yet by his reasons it appereth that he did not iuge mariage betwene the brother and the brothers widow &c. to be agai­nst the lawe of reason and nature.

RVperte vpon the leuitical / saith that Abr­aham after the custome of the heithens / a­mong [Page] the which he dwellyd / did marey his owne sister: and yet for all that he did not syn / for asmoc­he as vnto that tyme / he had not by the law com­maundement to the contrary: nor yet by the voice of almyghty god. Now where ther is no commau­ndment (saith he) there is no transgression of the law. so by this doctours saynge / ye may clerely se / that it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his sister / ād than it is not against y ^e law of nature for a man to marcy his brothers wife le­ft without yssewe.

HEwgh of saynte victore saith that in the institution of matrimony / there were but two persons excepte: li. iij. de sacramento p. ij. ca. iiij that is but the fath ^r and the mother: so that it was forbiden than / that the father shulde not mary with the doughter / n­or the mother with the sonne. but al other person­es might lefully mary togither by the first instit­ucion of matrimony. After this (saith this docto­ur) came the seconde institution of matrimony / w­hich was made by the lawe writen / and that did e­xcepte certayne other persones besyde the father and the mother / and this was done / other for to ornate nature / or els to augment and encrease ch­astite. And than to marey the Brother wythe the Sister or the nere kynsman withe the nere kyns­woman began to be vnlefull by the prohibicion th­at before was lefull / and graunted by nature.

By this doctours mynde ye may euidently se / th­at it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his sister / and than it folowith that it is not against the lawe of nature / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe &c.

ix. lib. iiij. art. xiij. SAinte Thomas saith that the prohibicion leuitical that forbideth that a man may n­ot mary his sister / ys a prohibicion and a c­ommaundment iudiciall / and he in likewise saith in another place / p̄. ij. 2. q. 9. ar­ti. iiij. that it was not forbiden bi y ^e law of nature that a man shulde not marey his sister / wherfore yf it be not against the law of nature for a man to marey his sister / it is not against the law of nature for a man to marey his brothers wife a widowe left &c.

In .iiij. sen. dis. xl. cor­por. q̄st. SAynte Thomas agayne saith that by the lawe of nature / it is forbiden that the fat­her shal not marey his doughter nor y ^e mo­ther hir sonne: other persones nere of kyn be forbi­den / bi the lawe of God / and than it folowith that for a man to marey his brothers widowe &c. is not against the law of nature.

PEter of Blesen saith that at the beginnin­ge there were no mo persons excepte from matrimony / but the father and mother / & is to saye: that the father may not mary the doug­hter / nor y ^e mother with the sone. And therfor sai­th [Page] this doctour / it was sayd for matrimony / a man shal leaue and forsake his father and his mother / and take him to his wife. But afterwarde (saith he) the lawmaker did excepte mo persons and for­bade mo degres.

SAinte Bonauenture in answeringe to an argument that infideles whiche tourne to cristes faith ought not to retayne their wi­ues whiche they had maried before / In .iiij. distinct. xxxix. q̄st. iiij. yf so be they had maryed thē self to their sisters / or nere kinsw­omen / suche as be against the ordre that Christen people do kepe in mariage / saith thus: that for a man to mary his sister is forbiden bi the commau­ndment of the churche: and therfore when heithen turne to y ^e faith they must conforme thēself after­ward to y ^e ordre of the chirch: & not to mary against y ^e churches prohibicion: but if thei maried their si­sters befor: than thei may not be separate: for the ordinaunce of the churche doith not extende to that / so saynte bonauenture doith saye that for a man to mary his sister / is but against the law of the churche / and not against the law of nature: for yf it were against the law of nature: than the ordinaunce of the church wolde dissolue and breke it: the whi­che saynte Bonauenture saith / the church can not do: and than / yf it be not agaynst the law of natu­re for a man to mary his sister / it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers w­idowe &cete.

In .iiij. dist. xl. conclusione ij. THomas also of Argentyne shewe that in­fidelis maye marey in the degreis that be forbiden to Cristen men. For if they be I­ues / than thei may mary with their kinswomen in the .iii. and .iiij. degre: for ther was forbidden to them but the firste and seconde degre as shew the xviij. Chapiter of the leuitical / and yf the infide­les be gentils and folowe onely the law of nature than they may mary in the first and second degre: for thowgh the writen law positiue / do forbid such mariages: yet it semith that the law of nature do­ith not forbid them: the which is manifest in y ^e ol­de fathers that were before the law. For abraham maried his sister / and Iacob his vncles doughter. and if yt be not againste the lawe of nature / for a a man to mary his sister: it is not againste the la­we of nature for a man to mary his brothers wid­owe left without yssew.

ALso Pope zachary saith (which these deceiuers do allege for them in their boke) that it is more forbidē that a m­an shal not mary his fathers goddo­ughter: and that a man ought more forbeer to marey with hir / than to marey with his fathers doughter: & yet it is euident / that it ys not against the law of God nor against the law of na­ture for a man to marey his fathers goddoughter for that is forbiden but onely by the lawe of the c­hurche. Wherfore it folowith that it is not agay­nst [Page] the law of nature for a man to mary his fath­ers dowghter. For yf that thinge that is more for­biden be not against the law of nature: than that thinge that is lesse forbidden in the same kynde of forbidinge / ys not agaynst the law of nature / and this pope Zakary speaketh of one maner of forbi­ddinge of mariage / and than yt folowith vpon th­is saynge of this Pope that it ys not againste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his sister. And so than it is not against the law of nature for a mā to marey his brothers widowe &c.

NOw ye haue harde by theis holy fath­ers and men of greate lernynge how y ^t it ys not againste the lawe of nature / for a man to mary his sister. Wherof folowith that it is not agaynste the l­awe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wi­fe a widowe left withe owte yssewe. The hole vn­iuersal numbre of expownders of holy Scripture doo affyrme / that frome the firste Institucion of matrimony vnto the tyme of the lawe of Moy­ses: there were no moo persones excepte and forbidden to marey to gether by the lawe of n­ature: but these / The Father wythe the Do­wghter / and the Mother withe the Sone / All other persones myght marey to gether in the si­de lyne yn eny maner of degre of consanguini­te or affynite. cō. fan. li. xxij. ca. xlvij Wherfore Saynte Augustyn d­othe defend the holy Patriarke Iacobe the whiche [Page] maried two sisters and hade them bothe at ons: ād they were his nere kynswoman / for in the seconde degre / and the one of them was ioyned to hym by Alians in the first degre of affinite / and besyde th­eis two wiues / this holy man Iacob had oth ^r two wiues and thei were to him and amonge them self in the same degre of affinite. And yet saynte Aug­ustyn doth iustify this holy patriarke Iacob in th­us marying: sayng on this wise. yt is said on to I­acob for a greate offence that he had fower wyves but he is cleryd and quite of this offence by a gene­rall proclamacion. First for asmoche / as when the maner and custome was to haue moo wiues than one / than to mary so was non offence. but to haue moo wyues at ons nowe / ys offence: by cause that the custome is contrary / and it folowith anone af­ter. Sum synnes and offensis be against nature. Sum be agaynst customs / and sum be against p­receptis and commaundmentis / and whan it ys t­hus / what offence is laid to this holy man Iacobe in hauinge many wyues? & yf ye aske nature why Iacob had so many wyues / she wil answere for h­ym that he dide not take them fore the inordin­ate luste and pleasure of the bodye: but he vsid his wiues to encrease and multiply faithful people / if yow aske custome why Iacobe toke so many wiu­es: it will answere that at that tyme in that coun­try their maner was so to mary: if ye aske the commaundement why Iacobe toke so many wiues: it he wil answere / for bi cause that ther was no law [Page] that forbode yt. but wherfore ys it nowe an offence to take mo wyues at ons than one? that is for bec­ause lawes and customes do forbyd it / ye and that althoughe a man wolde take moo wiues for to in­crease and multyply faithful people. Thus yowe maye se by saynte Austyn that it is not agaynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary in the firste degre of affinite. Parauenture sum wil make this obieccion / and saye that almyghty God did dispence with Iacob that he myght mary on the rehers­id wise / and in suche degreis of affinite and consanguinite / and so he did likewise with other holy m­en before the law. saynte Augustyns wordes do take this obieccion clene awaye: for a dispensacion (to this purpose here) is a lycence graunted againste sum lawe or a declaracion of sum lawe. And by sa­ynte Austyns wordes than ther was no lawe th­at forbode Iacob so to mary / and than had he no nede of licence to mary so: nor there was no law to be declared / and therfore after saynte Augustines mynde: Iacobe did not offende against the lawe of nature / and than after this tyme almyghty God did forbide certayne degreis of consanguinite and affinite: as the first and second by law positiue and commaundement which Moyses did declare vnto the people: and these prohibicions haue now no str­ength / but by a newe ordinaunce which that y ^e ch­urche made that Cristen people shulde not nowe mary in theis degres nor in the thirde. Thus ha­ue ye harde before of the sentence of Thomas of [Page] Argentyne / and the prohibicion leuital: that a m­an shulde not mary his brothers wife (vnderstan­de a widow) to be a law positiue: and the same we may haue of holy Chrisostoms sayng. super matth. ho. xlix He shewi­th why almyghty God commaundid the Iues to mary their brothers wifis widowes left without yssewe. And than he asked whi a man myght not mary his brothers widowe that had children left by hir husbonde. To this he answerethe and saye that it was done for by cawse that the lawe ma­ker wolde haue affinite to go further a brode / wh­erby men myght be knyt togither. So by thys yt apereth that the prohibicion leuiticall whiche for bode that a man shulde not mary his brothers w­idow / was a lawe positiue and a politicall precep­te which nowe hathe no strengthe but bi the reas­on of the constitucion of the church. Also it do ap­ere that it ys not agaynste the law of nature for a man to mary his sister: his nere kinswomen: for yf the custome & law of the churche to the contrarye were a waye / many discrete men with right iuge­ment of reason had leuer mary their sister and ne­re kinswomen than other women. And yet not for no filthye nor vnclenly desire: but rather for the natural loue that thei haue to their kinswomen / th­ey shuld be moued to vse them verey honestly ynal actis: ye & myche better than thei shuld vse eny other women. This I suppose that the most par­te of discrete men & women (y ^t do or wil examyn t­his wel) wil thꝰ iuge. Thus now ye may perceyue [Page] that it is not against y ^e law of nature for a man to marey his brothers wife a widow left without &c

NOw I shal shew ye y ^t it is not against y ^e law of God for a man to mary hys brothers wife a widow &c. First it ys not agaynst the olde law of God: but there ys and was a commaunded law vniuersall / & bounde al the Iues to mary always their brothers wiues left &c. and that vpon a gre­at payne as ye haue herd declared before / and no man can saye that the Iues maried their brothers wiues widowes &c. by a licence & dispensacion of almighty God: for y ^t ye haue seyn manifestly impr­ouid.

SAynte Chrisostome saith that the law did compel the iues to mary their brothers w­ifes widows &ce. & so suche mariage is not agaynst the olde lawe / but it was ther cōmaundid super Mat. ca. xxii ho. lxxi

ALso for a mā to mary his broth ^rs widowe &c. is not against cristes law: but rath ^r o ^r sauio ^r crist did approue suche mariage as ye saw he ^r at y ^e beginning of myn answe ^r. also in alt he newe Testament there is no expressid prohibicion aga­inst y ^e deutronomical precepte which bonde y ^e Iues to mary their broth ^rs wiues widowes &c. nor yet of al y ^e newe testamēt no mā can gath ^r to cōclude a prohibicion against y ^e deuteronomicall commaun­dment / ye & beside this ther is no mā that can con­clude [Page] of eny scripture in the newe Testament eny prohibicion to let Mariage in eny degre of affinite or consanguinite beside the prohibicion of the lawe of nature / this is manifest: wherfore / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe is not againste the law of God / for it is nether againste the newe lawe nor the olde.

BVt yet for asmuche as diuers Docto­urs do saye / that it is against the law of God to mary in the first and second degre of consanguinite and of affinite ye shal vnderstande that the churche hath made certayne constitucions and lawes vpō the iudiciall commaundments and examples of y ^e olde lawe / as that priestes and religions men shal saye their Canonical howres and seruice / of y ^e wh­ich constitucion the church toke their grounde in y ^e olde law: as in the Psalme Septies in die laudem dixi tibi domine. And agayne / media nocte surge­bam ad confitendum tibi. Likewise the church ha­th ordined and constitute that we shal faste the le­nte: In the making of this law / the churche grou­nded it in the examples of the holy fathers of the olde lawe: which fasted .xl. dayes: and in the exa­mple of the fastinge of our sauiour Christ / and v­pon this saynte Augustine / saynte Hierome / & m­aximyn / saye that the lent is commaundid to be kept and fasted vi the law of God. Also the chur­che hath ordined and decreid that no man shal m­ary [Page] in the first and second degre of affinite and co­nsanguinite / and toke example and occasion in the prohibicions of the olde lawe in makyng this decre and ordinaunce / and therfor often tymes doctours saye that it is forbiden by the lawe of God that a man shal not mary in theis degreis. Wherfor the­se rehersid thinges and lawes which be only ordi­naunces of the church / yet be thei callid the lawes of God: for because the church in makinge them toke occasion and example in the olde law / Therfor when eny doctour saith yt ys forbiden by the lawe of God / that a man may not mary in the first de­gre of consanguinite and affinite: yt must be vnd­erstande that suche mariage is sayd to be forbiden by the lawe of God: bycause that vppon the pro­hibicions in the olde lawe (which now haue stren­gth) the church hath made a newe cōstitucion w­hich doith forbid mariage in theis degreis. This rwle perceyued / now I will shew that the Pope h­ath power to dispence and licence a man to ma­ry his brothers wife a widowe left &c.

THe Pope haith power to licence & dispence against eny prohibicion made bi the chur­ch: This is so euidēt y ^t no man can deny yt And it is onely a prohibicion of y ^e church y ^t a man s­hal not mary his brothers wife a widow &c. Wh­erfor yt folowith that y ^e pope may in this case lice­nce & dispence / y ^t a man may mary his brothers wi­fe a widowe left &c.

THis reason and argument is good / and the first proposicion of it is trew. And the mi­nor and seconde proposicion I wil proue / t­hat it is but onely a prohibiciō of y ^e church / y ^t a mā may not mary his brothers widowe &c. First it is not forbiden bi y ^e law of nature / nor bi the olde law nor in y ^e newe law / as ye haue hard. Wherfor such mariage is only forbiden by the prohibicion of y ^e c­hurche.

in .iiij dist. yf. THe same doith affirme Master dunse / sai­ng y ^e affinite settith matrimony. but y ^t is not but bicause of y ^e statute of the church. & so than it is not forbidē / but by y ^e statute of y ^e chur­che that a man shall not mary his brothers wife a widowe.

in .iiij dist. xl. q̄st. ij. in corpore quest SAynte Bonauenture saith y ^t it is not vnleful for a mā to mary his sist ^r / but for bicause that the statute of y ^e church hath forbidē y ^t no man shal mary his sist ^r. & thā it folowith y ^t it is not forbidē / but by y ^e statute of y ^e church y ^t no mā shal mary his brothers widowe &ce. for this can be no more forbiden than the tothere.

in. iiii. dis [...]nc. xxxix. q [...]in. ALso saynte Bonauenture saith y ^t a Iue w­hich hath maryed his brothers wife a w­idowe / & so turneth to cristen faith: ought not to be diuorced from his wife. & so by this holy Bonauenturs sayng / it is not forbiden but by the church that a man shal not mary his brothers w­ife a widowe. For yf suche mariage were forbiden / [Page] other by the law of God / or by the lawe of nature than the iewe that had so maried & cam to the fait­he: ought to be diuorced & seperat from his wife: y ^t which Bonauenture doith deny / wherfor it is not forbiden / but by the ordinaunce of the churche y ^t a man shal not mary his brothere widowe &c.

ALso theis false deceiuers great doctour Pet­er de Palude expoundinge the .xviij. chapi. leuitical / saith y ^t all degreis of affinite theyr conteyned semed to be forbiden by y ^e law positiue.

ALso Frances Marro saith y ^t at y ^e beginninge of cristes churche / affinite did not let persons to mary togith ^r: In .iiij dist. xli q̄stio. v nica In sup­plemeit to gavi elis in iiij. dist. xli. q. i. for ther was than no law positiue for it.

WEndelyn saith y ^e affinite lettith mariage o­nely by y ^e statute of y ^e church: whiche haue ordined y ^e persons ioyned in certayne degre­is of affinite / shal not mary togither.

¶ Now by theis doctours myndis / ye may per­ceue / y ^t it is onely forbiden by y ^e law of the churche y ^t a man may not mary his brothers widow. wh­erfor the minor / & seconde proposicion of the reason principal is trewe. & so is this conclusion / y ^t y ^e Pope may licence and dispence y ^t a mā may mary his b­rothers wif a widow &c. Ther be also doctours t­hat do confirme this conclusion. First Peter de Pa­lude expounding y ^e .xviij. cha. leuitical saith that it semith that the pope maye dispence in al degreis of affinite that be conteyned in the same chapiter.

In .iiij. dist. xli q̄sti. iij. Also doctour De rubone saith y ^t y ^e church may dispence in any maner of degre of affinite or cō sanguinite y ^t is of y ^e side lyne: as with the broth ^r & y ^e sister / & so furth in consanguinite / & y ^e broth ^r with the brothers widow & so furth in affinite.

super decre. xxxv. q̄st. ij. iij ALso Iohn Cardinal de Turre Cremata disputinge in the degreis of affinite & consang­uinite & aft ^r answeringe to an obiection that he maide against this. That the Pope suffereth y ^e Iues that hade maryed their brothers wiues acc­ordinge to the olde lawe to retayne their wiues st­ill after y ^t they be Cristened. He saith yf a man died without yssew / y ^t than yt was not forbidē by y ^e law of God / but y ^t the broth ^r might mary the brothers wife / & therfor he saith y ^t the Pope doith not prop­erly dispence with the Iues y ^t thus come to that fa­ith. But rath ^r he doith commaund or consent that the Iues: shal stil remayne with their brothers w­idows that thei haue maryed / so by this doctours mynde it was not forbiden in the olde law y ^t a man might not mary his brothers widowe left witho­ut &c. also y ^t the Pope may cōsent to such mariage In commenta­ri [...]s su­per sec­undam secunde diui thome.

ALso Tacitan saith y ^t y ^e Pope may dispence with al ꝑsons in mariage exc [...]pte y ^e father with y ^e dought ^r / & y ^e sone with y ^e moth ^r: n­ow bi thies doctours myndis ye se that the cōclusi­on of y ^e principal argumēt is trew / y ^t y ^e Pope maye dispēce y ^t a mā may mary his broth ^rs widowe &c.

Now beside al this euident profe: yet to stablesshe and fortify this vndowtid trowth that a man may by the Popes licence m­ary his brothers widow &c. I wil shew ye the sa­me truth by experiens of Popes which haue disp­ensyd in lyke mariage / or in mariage y ^t is as great­ly forbidē as for a man to mary his brothers wid­ow &c.

FIrst Pope Innocent the thirde / willed and consentid that Liuonienses which had maryed their brothers wiues / and afterwarde turned and came to Cri­stes fayth / that they shuld continewe and kepe stil their brothers widows / as it apper­eth yn the decretallis / capi. deus qui ecclesiam.

ALso Pope Martin the fiueth did disp­ence and licence that the brother whi­ch had knowen his own sister carnal­ly / to mary afterwarde y ^e same sister

ANd Pope Alexandre the sixte did li­cence the kinge of Portingale that fast was / to mary his wiues sister / not withstanding that he had by his first wife a childe. And also the same Pope dispensed with the same kinge after the dethe of his seconde wife / his first wiues sister to mary his wiues ne [...]e: and yet he had ma­ny children by the second wife.

ALso Pope Alexandre did licenc [...] & dispence w­ith Don ferdinando king of Cycill to marey his fathers sister: which is more than to disp­ence with a man to marey his brothers widow &c.

ANd Pope Iuly the second did dispence withe the king of Englonde that he myght marey his brothers wife a widowe left &c.

ANd Pope Leo the tenth grauntid vnto the Austyn fryers thorowgh Cristendome that they myght dispence in the first degre of affinite: that is to say th­at yf the brother had maryed or contr­acte with the brothers widow wittingly or other­wise: that thois fryers might licence thois persons to continewe still so maryed: so that the persones maryed or contracte in that degre of affinite were not accused / nor openly complayned on befor a iu­ge or ere they required the dispensacion.

ALso in lyke degre of affinite the Po­pe did dispence nowe of late withe a noble man of France / who is called my Lorde of luce: so thus now yowe maye se by the Doctours myndes / and bi the experience of the Popes e­xcercisinge in this case licens and dispensacion / that the Pope maye licence a man to mary his br­others widowe & ceter.

FInally / this confirmith the greate lernyd cōsel of Princes & Kingis: whiche were examined to shew y ^e treuth / wh­eth ^r that y ^e Pope had power to licence men to marey in the afore reherside d­egreis of affinite & consanguinite / And theis great lerned men y ^t were of those kingis & princes couns­sailles affirmed & graunted / y ^t the Pope myght li­cence & dispence vpon suche mariage / & so did also the popes lernyd counsayl / ye & so dide the vniuer­sal noumbre of the lernyd men in Cristendome: for thei herde & knew of suche licences & dispensacions graunted. And the mariages bi the licences were made / and yet they neuer reclamyd nor spoke ag­ainst them. Wherfore now ye may euidentli se and perceue / that the opinion of these deceyuers is fal­se: where as they say that it is against the lawe of God / & against the law of nature: for a man to m­ary his brothers widowe &cet. And that the Pope hath no power to dispence vpon suche mariage / & y ^t this is verey trew / y ^t for a man to mary his brot­hers wife a widowe / is nother against the law of God / nor againste the lawe of nature: and that y ^e Pope hath power to dispence vppon suche maria­ge. And also by this / yowe maye clerely see / that the determinacions of the vniuersytes / be man­yfestly false.

NOw these deceyuers opinion thus openly reprouide / and shewid to be false / and the [Page] trewth in this matter declared: I wil retourne a­gayne vnto their boke.

In the .lxxxxiiij. leif of their boke theis persons saye that there be many / and that stronge and inuincible resons / the which may seme to declare & lyghten the sentence of thuniuersites / & theys reasons thei wil bring in. & for this purpose thei b­ring in many diffinicions and descriptiōs of y ^e law of God / & of y ^e law of nature &c. The which I doo not passe vpon: bycause I wolde not be to longe / & so I come to the .c. viij. leif of their boke / where as they say on this wise.

THerfore seyng that God him self here doi­th playnly pronounce & giue sentence: that the Cananeis and Egipcians did file th­eir lande and spot yt with filthynes / while that t­hey did contracte mariage with their brothers w­ifes: & that he / for that cause did greatly aborre th­em: & did most rightfully take vengeaunce vppon them & punyshed them most sharply: yt cannot be no nother wise / but it must nedis folowe / that god hath iuged this thinge to be shamfully vnhonest: & of it self (as they say) morally evill & nowght: ād also againste the rightwisnes of natural law & re­ason: ye & to be abhominable & abhorred. This is these false deceyuers owne saynge / & note & merke it wel. First it is manifestly false / for almyghty g­od [Page] did neuer punyshe the Egipcians & Cananeis for because they maryed their brothers wiues wi­dowes left &c. Nor he did neuer abhorre them / nor ther is no scripture / nor doctour y ^e saith that almy­ghty God did destroye / & punyshe the Cananeis & Egiptians / because thei maried their brothers widows. Wherfor it is shamfully false: to say y ^t almighty God did punyshe & destroy the Cananeis & the Egipciās for marying their brothers wiues widowes left &ce.

ALso in this their sayng / these deceyu­ers speke directly against their owne writinge / for in the .lvj. leif of their v­oke they write / that the verey heyth­ens after the deth of their wiues did euermore abstayne fro mariyng of their wiues si­sters as from a certayne impietie or abhominacion ageynst nature. This thei wrote there / & here th­ey write y ^e almighty God did take vengeaunce v­pon the Cananeis & Egipcians for marying of t­heir brothers widows &c. the whiche is nomore impietie than for a man to mary his wyues sister af­ter their owne opinion: yet beside this / these dece­yuers in their a fore rehersid saynge do greatly dispise and hiely blaspheme almighty God / for it fo­lowithe of this their saynge that almyghty God in commaundinge the iues to mary their brothers wiues widowes lefte &c. that he commaundid thē to fyle & spotte their lande with filthines / while y ^t [Page] they did contracte mariage with their brothers w­idows &c. & y ^t for fulfillinge of his commaundmēt he did abhorre the Iues / ye & of these deceyuers s­ayng / it folowith that almighty God in comma­unding them to mary their brothers wiues wido­ws / did commaunde them to do that thinge: for y ^e which he shulde take right vengeaunce vpon thē & punyshe them most sherpely / & also that almig­hty God did commaunde the Iues to do y ^e thinge / y ^e which ys shamfully vnhonest / & of it self mor­ally euill / & nowght / & against the rightwisnes of naturall lawe and reason / ye & to be abhominable & abhorred. Al this these persons saye by maria­ge betwene the brother & the brothers widowe &c. For of this maner of mariage / is their spekinge: or els it is not for their purpose / & almighty God co­mmaundide the Iues to mary their Brothers w­idowes left &c.

ANd this did not almyghty God onely co­maunde: but also commaundid to punys­he with a greuous payne al these that w­olde not mary their brothers widows / wherfore to dispise suche mariage / is nothing els / but to dispi­se & blaspheme almyghty God: which commaun­ded suche mariage. Who euer herde eny man that durst saye that almyghty God did commaunde e­ny maner of people to do that thing / which is sh­amfully vnhonest of it self / & morally euil &c. as t­hese blasphemers saye mariage to be betwene the [Page] brother and the brothers widowe lefte witheowte yssew / ys? Whiche Almyghty God did comma­unde. Therfore yowe maye clerly se how hiely & greuously these persones blaspheme almightye God. Here now yowe haue herde one of these per­sones inuincible reasons / that they sayd they wol­de bringe in for to gyue light vnto the determina­cions of their vniuersites.

IN the .c. and .xj. leif of their boke these persones saye that ther was neuer n­acion so beistly / none so withoute al h­umanite / but that they perceyued and knew / that thei ought this honour d­ewtye / and reuerence to their brothern / & brothers wiues: that they shuld refrayne from their mari­ages. This is these persons owne sayng: here thei dispise & blaspheme almyghty God agayne: for of this their sayng / it folowith that almyghty God in commaundinge the Iues to mary their brothe­rs wiues / that he was more best lier than eny nac­ion / and that he did not perceiue / nor knew that y ^e people oughte this honore / dewtie / and reuerence vnto their brothern / and brothers wiues: that thei shuld refrayne frome their mariages. This great blasphemy yow maye se folowith of their saynge. And thus nowe yowe haue herde a nother of t­heis persons inuincible reasons. In the same leif of their boke / theis persones saye / that he that haith sene eny thynge yn the olde stories and l­awes [Page] must nedis know that this maner of inceste haue bene hadde in great infamy / reproue / & sclau­ndre / & y ^t not onely in one cite / or contrey: but alm­ost in euery place / & emong al men bene condempn­ed as a certayne wikednes against nature. This is agaynst these persons owne sayng: wheryn thei adde more blasphemy. For of this sayng it folow­eth that almyghty God in commaunding the iu­es to mary their brothers widows &c. commaun­did them / & y ^t vpon a great payne / to do y ^t thinge y ^t is condempned in al contreis & cities / for a certay­ne wikednes against nature. Here now ye haue h­erde another of their reasons inuincible: Sewrely these may wel be called stronge & inuincible reaso­ns / in blaspheming & dispisinge of almygty God for I thinke no man / no nor yet the deuyl him self can make none stronger / nor more inuincible for to dispise & blaspheme almyghty God than these pestilent persones do here make.

BVt now for asmuche as these vngrac­ious persones do thus dispise & blasp­heme / not onely almyghty God: but also his holy lawe & commaundment I am compellid to desire ye to cal to y­owr remembraunce that thing which I haue she­wid ye before / that ys to saye / that almighty God did neuer in al the olde lawe commaunde eny thi­nge to be continually kepte / & y ^t vpon a payne: but that which was iuste / goode / & holy / & a meane th­at [Page] the kepers of it might besauide / & come to euer­lastinge life. And therfore almighty God sayth Custodite leges meas atque iudicia: leuiti. xviij que faciēs homo / viuet in eis. And this ys the cause that y ^e blis­sed Apostle callith the olde lawe holy / & the com­maundment holy / iuste & gud / sayng. ro. vij. Lex quidem sancta / & mandatum sanctum / iustum / & bonum. For thowghe the Iues in the olde lawe vsed cert­ayne thinges that were neth ^r good nor godly / yet was ther nothing commaundid in the olde law to be continually kepte / but that was holy iuste & g­ood to the keper: & (as I haue sayd) a meane / whe­rby he might be iustified & sauid / & in that lawe it was commaundid that euery man shulde alwa­ys mary their brothers widow &c. wherfore suche mariage was holy / iuste / & gud. This Argument is euident / both by the very wordes of almyghty God / and also by the wordes of the Apostle / & so now by this ye may euidently perceyue howe that these vngracious persones / in dispisinge of maria­ge betwene the brother & y ^e brothers widowe &c. do dispise & blaspheme almighty God & his holy law

IN the .c. vij. leife of their boke they say that they wil shew two reasons / whi­ch shal proue as opēly as it can be / th­at a man can not mary his brothers wife. First bicause that affinite doith aswell lete mariage as doith consanguinite. Se­conde / because that he that so marieth dothe sha­me [Page] & dishonestye vnto his father. And for to pro­ue the first reason / these persones saye / that not o­nely by the lawe of God so many persons be excl­udid from mariage in the lyne of affinite / as to be excludid and forbide in the lyne of consanguinite: but that also the church is compellid to set the bo­ndes of mariage in the lynes / bothe of affinite and consanguinite in like distance and degre / and for to shewe this ordinaunce of the churche / theis persons bringe in saynte Gregore / and Pope Iuly / saynte Austen / Isodore / & maister Abbot. Thus nowe I suppose these persones wold make their argument Affinite doith as wel let mariage as consauguini­te: but it is forbiden by the lawe of God / & bi the l­aw of nature that a man shal not mary his sister / bicause of their cōsanguinite: Wherfor it is forbidē bi the law of god & bi y ^e law of nature: y ^t a man shal not mary his broth ^rs wife because of their affinite To this argumēt I wil answer. First with theyr own doctours saynge Peter de Palude which exp­ounding y ^e .xviij. chap. leuitical / saith y ^t it femeth y ^e y ^e pope may dispence in al y ^e degreis of affinite ther conteyned / but not in all y ^e degreis of consanguini­te / & with this sayng / this doctour doith deny the­se persons principal proposicion of their argument which is this: y ^t affinite doith as well let mariage as cōsanguinite / for he saith y ^t affinite doith not let mariage as doith cōsanguinite / bicause y ^t (after his mynde) y ^e Pope may dispence in al degreis of affi­nite cōteyned in y ^e .xviij. chap. of y ^e leuitical law: & [Page] so he can not in al degreis of consanguinite that be there forbiden.

ALso this first & principal proposition of these persons argument is false: y ^t affinite doith aswel let mariage as consanguinite: for consa­nguinite may let mariage by the law of nature / as the father may not mary with y ^e dowght ^r / nor the sone with the moth ^r / by reason of their consangui­nite: & therfor these persons were forbiden to mary togither bi the law of nature / & exempte at y ^e firste institucion of matrimony / but so we ^r no man ^r of ꝑ­sons in no degre of affinite: wherfo ^r this proposici­on is false / that affinite doith as well let mariage as doith consanguinite.

ALso in the decreys Ca. Non dz / extra de con­sanguinitate & affinitate / yt is writen & dec­rreyd that the childe that is had in the seconde mariage may mary with the kynne of the firste husbonde / & thꝰ if I maried a wife & so died / the ch­ildren y ^t my wife had by a noth ^r man / might mary with my kinne / as the sone y ^t my wife had bi a no­ther man / might mary my sister / notwithstandin­ge the affinite that was sumtyme betwene my si­ster & my wife: & this decre was made by counsail general / but after my dethe my sone may not ma­ry with my sister / by the reason of consanguinite / which by me remayneth stil in my sone toward mi sister. And therfore it is salse to saye that affinyte doith aswel let mariage as doith consanguinite.

FIrthermore & yf it were grauntid th­at affinite which is betwene the brot­her & the brothers widowe did as well let mariage as doith consanguinite th­at is betwene the brother & the sister: yet this grauntid / it wolde nothinge helpe theis d­eceyuers false opinion / for it is nether againste the law of God / nor agaynst the lawe of nature for a man to mary his sister. First it is not againste the law of nature for a man to mary his sister / as ye haue harde it declaryd before: nor it is not agaynst Cristes law. For owr sauiour Crist did neuer for­bide suche mariage: nor no man can cōclude of eny scripture in al the newe testament / that it shulde be forbiden that a man may not mary his sister: & as to the olde lawe where it was forbidden that a man shuld not mary his sister: that prohibicion n­owe hath no strengthe: & therfor yt ys not forbidē bi the law of God nor by the law of nature for a man to mary his sister. Wherfore the seconde pro­posicion of these persons Argument is also false: whiche is this. That it is against the law of God & against the law of nature / for a man to mary his sister. & therfore their conclusion is false / which is this / that it is against y ^e law of God & against the lawe of nature / for a man to marry his brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe. Thus yowe maye see that theis deceyuers first reason in false and nowghte.

THe seconde reason / that theis persons say doith openly proue that a man can not m­ary his brother wife a widow &c. is thys. bycause that he that so maryeth doith shame & dishonestye to his father. The which in the .cxxviij leif of their boke they go abowte to declare on this wise: He that maryeth his brothers wife / takithe his fathers flesshe & blode to mariage: the whiche thing playnly is against the lawe of nature / for s­eynge the husbonde & the wife be one flesshe & blo­de: truly he y ^t takith his brothers wife / takith also y ^e flesshe & blode of his fath ^r / & as for our broth ^r is the flesshe & blode of our father & mother / & y ^e more nerer to them than eny of bothe their sisters / bec­ause he is their owne sone / therfore if it be against the law of God & against the law of nature to m­ary our fathers sisters or ower mothers sisters / or els the wife of our fathers brother or our mothers brother / whose wifes be but of affinite to vs / & th­at onely in the seconde degree: truly mych more it shulde be against nature to mary our brothers w­idowe: for the nerer that thei cum to the stoke to be one flesshe & blode: the more they ought to be forbiden: but our brother is more nerer vnto our father / as is aboue said / than eyther owne vnkilles or a­untis. This ys now these persones seconde reason the which I beseke ye to note & marke wel / & ye s­hal se whate goodely lerning & sophestry thei she­we in it. For to perceyue this their Argument / ye must note how the husbande / & the wife be one fl­esshe [Page] & blode: & how the father & the sone be one fle­sshe & blode. First the husband and the wife be one body in consenting togither in their myndis & wi­llis / & in geuinge & graunting eche of them to ot­her the vse of theyr bodies / and thus on this wyse be the husbande and the wife one body and blode / & the father and the sone be one flesshe and blode / by the reason that the sone is engendered of the fath­ers seade and substance by natural propagacion / & nowe for to saye that he that marieth his brothe­rs widowe marieth his fathers flesshe and blode / that is to saye the same flesshe and blode that ca­me of the widowes husbandis father by generaci­on: is openly false. For the widow doith not come of the sead and substance of hir husbandis fathere nor no parte of hyr body & blode comith of hyr husbandes fathers flesshe and blode: for to make hyr on this maner one flesshe and blode with hir fath­er in lawe. And this theis Sophisters muste pro­ue yf they wolde haue their Argument good / for they must shewe that lyke as the father and the sone is one flesshe and blode / so ys the sone and his wife one flesshe and blode. Whiche ys false: for the sone and the wife be one body after one maner / and the sone and the father be one flesshe and blode af­ter a nother maner: as I haue shewid ye before / ād therfore their argument is nowght and doith not­hing conclude for their purpose.

¶ Also the widowe is no more one body withe [Page] hyr husbande that is deade: and therfore he that marieth the widowe doith not mary hir father in lawes flesshe and blode / the antecedent may be de­clared thus: yf the widowe were still one bodye w­ith hyr husbande that is ded) she might neuer ma­ry more: for she might not graunte and gyue the vse of hyr body to no man: for she is one bodye still with hyr husbande that ys deid / and so than mig­ht she neuer mary / which were the heresy that ter­tulian was condempned in: wherfore it is false to saye that he that marieth his brothers widow / m­arieth his fathers flesshe and blode.

FArthermore of this these persones re­ason / ye maye conclude: that the fat­her and the sone may not mary y ^e mo­ther and the doughter thus. For he t­hat takith and mariyth his fathers wyues dowghter / doith mary and take his fathe­rs flesshe / and blode / for the father and his wife is one flesshe and blode: and the doughter / also is one flesshe and blode with hir mother and with hyr father in lawe / by the reason that he is one flesshe & blode with her mother / and who so euer mariyth his fathers flesshe and blode: doith against the la­we of nature / wherfore the sone may not mary w­ith his mother in lawes dowghters: which is m­anifestly false.

OF this reason ye may conclude that .ij. bro­thern may not mary .ij. sistern / thus: he y ^t marye his brothers wiues sister maryeth his brothers flesshe & blode / for the brother & hys wife be one flesshe & blode / & y ^e brothers wife & hyr sister be one flesshe & blode / & the brothers wiues sister is one flesshe & blode with hir sisters husban­dis / & he is one flesshe & blode with his father: wh­erfore his brother may not mary his wyues sister for asmuche as she is his fathers flesshe & blode / by reason that hyr sister hath maried his brother / ye may se whate a Sophistical reason these perso­ns bringe in greatly to their owne rebuke & shame yf they had ony shame.

ALso this is manifestly false / y ^t they saye y ^t he which maryeth his fathers flesshe & blode / doith plainly against y ^e law of nature for a manis sone may mary by the law of nature his brothers doughters doughter / which is his f­athers flesshe & blode. This no man wil deny wh­erfore it is false to saye y ^t he that marith his fathe­rs flesshe & blode / doith against the law of nature. Here now ye haue harde these persones seconde r­eason / by the which they said that thei wolde pro­ue y ^t a man might not mary his brothers widowe &c. & thei haue nothinge done but shewed them se­lfe sophestres / ful of wordes and empty of al treu­the and reason.

ALso in this their seconde reason / they saye yt is more against the law of God & against y ^e law of nature for a man to mary his broth­ers widow &c. than for a man to mary his aunte of eny syde / of this sayng / it folowith y ^t almyghty g­od in commaundinge the iues to marey their brot­hers widowes did commaunde / them to do that t­hing that was against y ^e law of god & agaynst the law of nature: & bonde them to the same vpon a g­reat payne: & y ^t thing y ^t was lesse against y ^e law of nature / he forbadde them: whiche is a commaund­ing & a doyng against y ^e right ordre of reason. For reason willith y ^t the thing which is moste euyll / s­huld be most forbiden / & of theis persons saynge it folowith y ^t almyghty God did contrary in the ol­de law / & thus these persons / despiseth almighty Goddis commaunding & doyng.

IN the .c. & .xlj. leif of their boke / thei say that criste nother did nothinge / nor sayd no thing: but y ^t he had takyn of his fath ^r: nor brake no thinge of them: which his father commaundid / ād wolde haue doon. This they vnderstande in thinges y ^t were commaundid & in suche as were forbid­en in y ^e olde law: for they wold by this their sayng conclude that y ^e Pope haith no power to dispence / & licence a man to mary his brothers wife a wido­we &ce. for by cause thei saye / that suche mariage was forbiden in the olde law. And our sauiour cr­ist did neuer breke nothing of them whiche his fa­ther [Page] commaundid / and wolde haue doon: wherfore the Pope that is Cristes vicare / can not licence v­pon suche mariage / vpon this their saynge / yt fol­owith that the Iues be bounde still to mary their brothers widowes lefte withoute yssewe: and to circumcision and to al the ceremonies and Iudicia­lls: For almighty God wolde that the Iues shul­de kepe them / and commaundid them to kepe these and owr sauiour Criste did neuer breke nothing of them which his father wolde haue kepte. Wherf­ore the Iues be now bounde to al these / ye and to al the hole law of Moyses. This ys false and aga­inst the techinge of the Apostle where he sayth, yf ye be circumcised Crist shal do yow no goode: Gala. iiij. &. v Gal. ij. nor the keping of his commaundements shalbe noth­ing profitable to yow. And agayne saynte Pol speketh against Peter to his face / because he wold y ^e gentils that were conuertid to kepe the ceremoni­es of the Iues. Here now ye may see that the Apostle did teche the people to breke & to do contrary to the olde lawe: ye and so haith the churche decreid and made / that no man shal now mary his broth­ers widow whiche is against the commaundment of the olde lawe.

BVt for asmuche as they saye that o­ur sauiour Crist did neuer breke [...]o thinge of them which his father al­mighty God commaundid and wold haue done: yow must note and vnd­erstond [Page] that almighty God did commaunde cert­ayne thinges to be kepte for a certayne tyme / and in like maner certayn thinges he did forbide for a c­ertain tyme / as the Iudicialles and ceremonies of the olde law he wolde haue suche as were comm­aundid to be done / the people to fulfill them and kepe them: and suche as he forbade that the people shuld not do them / and yet for al this / almighty God did not commaunde the Iudiciallis nor cere­monies always to be kepte: but he willid that the Iues shulde kepe them vnto the tyme that it shu­lde please him to sende his sone to take vpon him our nature: & so to be very God and man our saui­our Crist: and so to shewe vnto the worlde furt­her his fathers wil and pleasure / and what he w­olde haue all maner of people to kepe and obey fro­me that tyme forewarde: and than our sauiour cr­ist did dissolue the Iudicialles and Ceremonies of the olde lawe / so that no man shulde be bounde to kepe them eny longer: nor put eny longer hope or truste of saluacion in them.

¶ And frome that tyme forth warde that alm­aner of people shulde put there hope of saluacion in beleuinge yn Almyghty God and yn Iustely kepinge suche Lawes and suche commaundment­is as almyghty God had sent vnto them by hys sone ower Sauioure Criste. And thus owr Sa­uioure Criste toke away after hys comynge the Iudicialles & Ceremonyes of the olde lawe accor­dinge vnto his fathers will and commandement. [Page] For y ^e tyme of them was than exspired / but nowe I muste returne vnto theis persons saynge which is this. It was commaundid by almyghty God in y ^e olde law that a man shulde not mary his br­others widow &c. & o ^r sauio ^r crist neuer brake noth­inge of them / which almyghty God commaundid & wolde haue done: wherfor the Pope can not dis­pence vpon suche mariage. To this reason I ans­wer that y ^e maior of y ^e reason is false: which is th­is / that almighty God commaunded in the olde l­aw that no man shuld mary his brothers wife w­idowe &c. for yn y ^e olde law almighty God did ex­presly commaunde the Iues always to mary th­eir brothers wiues widowes left &c. & that vpon a great payne / & therfore it is false to saye that al­mighty God did commande in y ^e olde law that no man shulde mary his brothers widowe &c. & so th­erfore is this false that y ^e Pope haue no power to dispence vpon suche mariage: which these persons wolde conclude vpon there false proposicion.

IN the .c. & .xlv. leif of their boke these pers­ons write that y ^e leuitical prohibicion that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife a widow &c. Thus thei must vnderstand yt or ells it is not to y ^e purpose thoughe it was lymyted & restrayned of almighty God in y ^e Deuteronomi / yet for al that: bicause afterwarde y ^e said restraynt w­as taken awaye of God him self: by y ^e comyng of Cr st: here these persons do not declare whate th­ey [Page] meane & vnderstande / by lymytynge & restray­ninge of the leuiticall prohibicion / nor yet what t­hey wolde haue vnderstanden by the taking aw­aye of the restraint / at the coming of o ^r sauiou ^r cr­ist: but where as thei say y ^t the leuitical prohibicion that a man shuld not mary his brothers widowe &c. was restraynide in the Deuteronomi / here the­se persons say manifestly false: for as I haue saide oftin tymes / & as ye haue harde many doctours s­aye / ye & as the leuitical law it self sayth / y ^t ther is no suche prohibicion there. & therfore ther was no restraint made vpon that prohibicion: nor yet owr sauiour Criste did not at his cominge take awaye the restraynt: for ther was none to be taken away but in the Deuteronomi almyghty God did pla­ynly & streyghtely commaunde that the Iues sh­ulde mary always their brothers wyues widow­es left &c. & this confirmeth Isichius sayng: in com­mē. leui that y ^e law Deuteronomical did not onely commāde mē to mary their brothers wiues widows: but it did also compell them so to mary. This therfor can be callid no restraynt: and thus all these persones sa­ynge ys false.

IN the same leif / theis deceyuers say / y ^t yf the Pope now a dayes coulde by di­pensacion / cause y ^t a man might mary after y ^e law of y ^e Deuteronomi his bro­thers wife which doith dye hauing no­ne yssewe for to reyse vp sede to his brother: witho­ute [Page] doughte he shulde make Cristen men at thys daye to folow the Iues ceremonyes & supersticion sues / which the Pope can not do / no more than he can cause that we shulde kepe the Sabot daye: or that thei shulde be circuncisid. To this I answe­re / that the Pope can not by dispēsacion cause a mā to mary his brothers widow &c. as the Iues in y ^e olde law maryed theirs. Nor the Pope doith not licence a man to mary his brothers widowe after y ^e facion & maner: but the Pope doith licence & dispence y ^t a Cristen man may mary his brothers widow as a kynge or a prince to mary his brothers wido­we / to be meane that queytnes & peace may be kep­te betwene realme & realme: & for to continew loue & frendeship betwene Cristen princes / & for other suche reasonable & profitable causes concerning the comyn welthe of Cristendome / & thus for theis / & suche causes the Pope doith & maye dispence that a man may mary his brothers widowe &c. & not after the maner of the Iues: & therfore theis persons bringe yn a thing that no man will deny / and yet it is nothing for their purpose.

IN the .cliij. leif of their boke / these persones saye that like as a man may frely fulfil h­is purpose of a more holyer lyuynge (the s­ayng nay & frowarde forbiddinge of his indiscrete prelate notwithstanding) euen so it is yn mariage that if a mans consciens moue him to diuorse: th­at he dyuorse hym self though the church say con­trary. [Page] Here now ye may se & perceyue theis pestil­ent persons vngracious & maliciouse entent: & w­hat thei counsail / & wolde haue done (y ^e is to saye) a man to diuorse him selfe / & to forsake his wife yf his conscience moue him to diuorse) without eny fu­rther profe or shewing of eny iust cause: & to mary where yt plesid him thoughe the churche sayd the contrary: which is clerly against al reason.

ALso by this their saynge yowe may per­ceyue that these persones wolde vtterly destroye the blissed sacrament of matrim­ony. For by this meane & waye: euery man as of­ten as he wold chaunge his conscience to diuorse / so often he might chaunge his wife / ye & the wife hyr husband / without shewinge of eny other profe or cause / & without eny maner of sentence & iugement of the churche: ye & thowgh the church said & com­maundide the contrary / & so by this / shulde the sa­crament of matrimony be destroid. Here ye may se what pestlent persons these be / whiche haue com­piled this boke that I answere to.

FVrthermore theyr comparison and si­militude: wherby they wolde proue that a man maye diuorse hym selfe frome hys wyfe by hys conscience / thowghe the Churche saye contra­rey / ys openly false. Fore thowghe yt be so t­hat a Prieste / be mouede yn hys mynde to be [Page] a religious man / may frely fulfil his purpose of a more holier lyuinge (notwithstanding y ^e nay of his indiscrete prelate) yet it doith not folowe / y ^t euen so yt is in mariage: y ^t yf a mans conscience moue him to diuorse / y ^t he may diuorse him self & forsake hys wife / & mary anoth ^r / thowghe y ^e church say cont­rary: This case is not like the oth ^r: first forbicau­se y ^t a priest which goith to religion for a more holi­er lyuing / may fulfil his godly purpose lefully (n­otwithstanding y ^e frowarde / forbidding of his vn­discrete prelate) for asmuche as the priest beyng at libertye / & doing no wronge to no person by the reason of his going to religion: but seruith almighty God better. Thus he may fulfil his godly purpose thoughe his vndiscreite prelaite saye contrary / but so may not a man that is maryed / diuorse hym self whan his conscience mouith him to diuorse / for bicause the maried man is not at libertie / For he is bounde to continew with his wife accordinge to y ^e lawes of matrimony during al y ^e tyme of his lyfe / nor he can not departe frō his wife for to mary anoth ^r: while y ^t his wife is a lyue. Wherfore there is no conscience that can helpe a maryed man in y ^e m­ater of diuorse / excepte he can manifestly proue so­me iuste cause befor y ^e church: that his mariage ys not good. And than he must abyde & stonde to the churches iugement & determinacion. And therfore this is false / to say that lyke as a priest may for a more holier lyuinge / fulful his purpose (notwith­standing the forbiddinge or nay of his vndiscreite [Page] prelate) euen so it is in mariage / that if a mans co­nscience moue him to diuorse: that he diuorse hym self thowghe the church say contrary. Nowe here ye may se what thinge these persones wolde haue done / and after what maner.

NOw for to come to an ende / these deceyu­ers say in y ^e preface of their boke: that the vniuersites wil put for the reasons of more waight shortly to al the worlde than these perso­ns haue shewid in theyr boke: sewerly so had thu­niuersities nede to do. For theis persons (as ye ha­ue sene) haue brought noone but suche as be abhominable / shamful & false / but the vniuersites aft ^r due ordyr ād reason / shulde a put for the first theyr reasons: & than their determinacions / & that speci­ally in determininge a mater or a pointe of our fai­th / & I suppose so they wolde haue done / yf thei h­ad determined the trowth / but for as myche as t­hey haue determined that thinge that is very fal­se / to be trew: therfore thei put forth no reasons w­ith their determinacions: nor thei can none fynde to put forth / why they haue thus determined: w­herfor I breuely conclude / that the vniuersities h­aue determined falsly in this case that I haue spo­ken of / & that this proposicion is false / that yt ys against y ^e law of God & against y ^e law of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow left &c

¶ Now ye haue harde parte of theis persons b­lasphemy [Page] / parte of their errors / parte of their sha­mful lies / & falsnes / & beside al this ye may perce­yue how these vngracious persons haue geuen gr­eat occasion to destroy kyndenes & amite among c­risten princes / & y ^e thei sowe for loue / hatered & dis­corde / & also ye may perceyue what great myscheif these persons with their labour / counsell / opinion / & boke haue begun [...]ye & how mych more myscheyf they wold do / yf thei might bringe their maliciou­se purpose to effecte: ye may lykwise ꝑceyue in wh­at confusion (with their false opinion) thei wold b­ring princes concerning their mariages. And finally what a sisme & a diuision (with their opinion) thei haue stered vp in cristendom / for by their opin­ion / thei affirme y ^t al cristes church haith thus m­any yeres erred in y ^e faith in dispensing in y ^e firste & second degre of affinite & consanguinite / al this fo­loweth of these vngracious persons false opinion / with mych more than I reherse / wherfor let no mā iuge y ^t in my answer I rebuke them / with yre and passion: but rath ^r I had cause to reproue them sharpelyer for y ^e thei haue so hiely offendid almighty g­od: ye ād they cause many so to do / wherfor theis euil persons ar wel worthy rebuke & reproue. o ^r s­auio ^r crist vehemently rebuked y ^e false scribes ph­ariseis and false teachers / bicause thei offendid god & taught other so to do / also Iohn bap. reproued & sharply rebuked false prophetes & teachers / so did Pol & Iohn in theyr pistils / Hierom / Ambros / a­usten & many oth ^r holy fathers: for nothing offen­deth [Page] God more than teachers of false doctrine / nor ther is non so incurable a pestilence / nor so hurtful to mans sowle / as is false doctrine / yf it be accept & beleued / wherfor ye may perceyue y ^t I had a iuste cause to rebuke & reproue these vngracious perso­ns y ^t haue set forth this boke y ^t I answer to. For t­hey teche false doctrine & wold haue yt to be accep­te & beleued: & thoughe I haue not so substancially & profoundly answered here in euery pointe / as o­ther better lernyd men parauentur shal do heraft ^r yet for all y ^t my conscience wold not suffer me to h­old my peace / but compellid me to offer with y ^e poor widow a farthing of my lerninge to the honour of almighty God. Wherfor I will mekely beseke ye to accepte this my answere / my zele / and will / in good wurth: as I trust he doith / for whose sake ād cause I toke vpon me to make this answer / whi­ch is owr sauiour crist: to whome be gyuen all ho­nour and laude. AMEN.