A DEFENCE FOR MARRIAGE OF Priests, by Scripture and ancient Writers. Made by Iohn Ponet, doctor of divinity. Heb. 13. Wedlock is to be had in honour among all men, and the bed undefiled: As for whoorekepers, and adulterers, God shall judge them. Imprinted at London, by Reynold Wolff. Cum Sereniss. Regis privilegio. To the Reader. To please or displease men's minds, I mind not, But mind (as God knoweth) Goddess mind to fulfil. As he will I will, and more I will not: So God be pleased, say men what men will. ¶ That the marriage of Bishops, priests, and other ministers of the church, is not only lawful by the word of God, but was also used in the primitive Church and so forth before the Bishop of Rome by his wicked Decrees ordained the Contrary. IF MEN had been so ready to redress the filthy and unclean life of priests (for the which they have been noted most worthily of the whole world) as they have been to stay them from the holly state of matrimony (whereby the amendment of the same should have ensued) neither should wifeless life have had so many proctors as it had, neither unchaste living should so much have reigned as it doth: But they would have been as willing to set the pen to the book to make the unchaste and vicious livers to repent and receive the remedy of the holy state of matrimony, as some busy bodies have been ready to procure statutes & laws, whereby the unchaste sole life hath been with fear of the pains of death continued, and the chaste married life in some state condemned. The cloud which hath so long blinded the eyes of the lay sort in this point, was the opinion of hollines that they conceived in priests, for that they married not as other men did: and the cloud that blinded the eyes of the priests, was the gain that they got by their unworthy estimation. So the one being deceived by simpleness and ignorance, and the other by covetousness and vain glory, have by a mutual consent continued this devilish state of unchaste sole life, to the great hindrance of virtue, and advancement of vice, and so to the subverlion of the kingdom of Christ and setting up of the kingdom of antichrist. To the intent therefore that this cloud of ignorance might be the sooner taken away from the eyes of the ignorant, and that they might know, that it is not the unmarried life, which maketh the priest better in the sight of the lord, but the worse, if he live burning in desires, contrary to the order in scripture commanded, I have set forth this little treatise, trusting hereby to please God, and to edify his congregation: the increase of whose kingdom and heavenly glory I only seek, and to quiet the consciences of many, which be not yet fully instructed and resolved, in this point. And first I will begin with this general preposition of Paul to the Corinthians. For the avoiding of fornication (saith Paul) let every man have his wife, 1. Co. 7 & every woman her husband. These two words, every man, and every woman, betokeneth that this saying of S. Paul doth dispense with no man nor woman, that cannot otherwise avoid fornication, but that he willeth all sorts, both of men & women, which be endangered by the reason of their flesh to fall into fornication, to avoid the same by the heavenly mean of marriage, which is a remedy appointed of God for that end and purpose. This phrase of speaking to call matrimony a remedy, is not only used in the Scriptures▪ but in the doctors also, who affirm with one consent that matrimony ought to be used in the Church of God, not only for procreation and increase of the world, but also for a remedy of incontinency. 1. Tim 4 And therefore Paul nameth the doctrine, which would take away this remedy, a doctrine of the devil: by the which words it should appear that Paul foresaw no small mischief, which should ensue to the Church of God, by restraining the liberty of marriage, or else would he never have termid it so heinously, calling it a doctrine of devils. If this doctrine had been persuaded only to priests, & not by law commanded, it had been more tolerable, but seeing it hath a commandment, it is evident, that it is the same doctrine which Paul calleth a doctrine of devils that for biddeth marriage. But what can all the commandments of man, that ever were made, prevail against the ordinance of God, planted in man's nature, in his first creation? Bow a tree by art with all the wisdom you can devise, straining it, that it may not grow right, and yet will it enjoy the power of growing (although it be crooked) as long as it continueth in life, obeying the ordinance and commandment of God, who at the beginning bade it grow and multiply: Even so the man, who hath not the gift to live without a wife, but is framed in his first creation to be one of them, by whom the world shallbe increased, keep him down with laws & statutes as streitely as ye can, yet will he at one time or other, kick against the law, and seek means to maintain and exercise that nature, which God for the continuance of procreation, hath planted in his flesh. The law and wit of the law makers, can not so restrain man's will, that it will be unwilling to that thing, where unto it is most willing, it will strive against the law, make it never so strong, other in mind or in deed, as it appeareth by the unchaste life of those, which have been bound by laws, not having the gift, with whose life, worse than lecherous, I am ashamed to occupy my pen. How many thousands have their been, which have striven earnestly for a time to obey the law of sole life, contrary to their nature? And yet have they in conclusion perceived their own weakness so great, that they were fain to give over, and yield to their nature, not withstanding their former purpose, and the straight law of death by man made to the contrary: Neither fasting neither watching, neither any thing such like, is more able to stay their desire (their life and health being preserved) then minyshing of moisture and earth about the root of a tree, (so ye kill it not) is able to stay the same tree from bringing forth of leaves and blossoms in the spring time of the year: whereby it may appear how sore the law makers of sole life, have thus long time striven against the stream, purposing to bind the mind, which being endued with the spirit of God, is at liberty, when their bands have no further force, but upon the body only and the outward actions. That marriage & priesthood may stand together. If any man would object unto me, that marriage can not stand with the order of priesthood: I will ask him again, whether marriage may stand as well with the order of priesthood now, as it might in the Apostles time or not? If it be answered that it may not, then must you show a reason why: which reason can not be showed, except ye allege the order of priesting devised by the bishop of Rome, which varieth in deed almost as far from the priests that were of Christ's ordering, as a dumb picture from the thing or person whom it doth represent. And therefore ought they to be corrected and redressed to their former example: so that it must needs be confessed, that marriage may as well stand with the order of preestehod now, as it might have done in the apostles time: which thing being granted, if I can show by the scripture and doctoures that the same apostles were married, then may I say, that the objection is false, for as much as marriage stood with priesthood in the apostles. To prove then that the apostles were married, being by shops and priests: Mat. 8. Peter's wives mother (as the Gospel witnesseth) was healed by Christ of a fever, by the which words it is plain that Peter had a wife which thing Clemens Alexandrinus writing against them that reproved marriage, doth plainly approve, saying: Li. 3. ca 30. Ecle. Hist. An & Apostolos improbavit? Petrus etenim ac Philippus, & uxores habuerunt, et filias nuptum dederunt: Do they reprove the apostles? Peter and Phillyppe had wives, and also children, which they gave to be married. And of the marriage of the same Peter, and also of other Apostles, thus writeth Ingnatius, Saint john's disciple: Non detraho autem caeteris beatis, qui nuptijs copulati fueruut, quorum nunc memini, opto enim Deo dignus ad vestigia eorum in regno ipsius inveniri sicut Abraham et Isaac, et jacob sicut joseph et Esaias et ceteri Prophetae, sicut Petrus & Paulus, & reliqui Apostoli, qui nuptijs fuerunt sociati. Qui non libidinis causa, sed posteritatis sub rogande gratia coniuges habuerunt. That is to say: I discommend not other holly men, which were married, of whom I have now spoken, My desire is, that I may be found acceptable to God in his Kingdom at their foot steps, as Abraham, Isaac, jacob, joseph, and Isaiah be, and all the rest of the Prophets: As Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, who were coupled in marriage, and yet not married for the fulfilling of their bodily lusts, but for the maintenance of their posterity and offspring. Whom should we allow for a witness of the marriage of the Apostles, if ye will refuse Ingnatius (who testified christ by his martyrdom and death, and was in the same world a dissiple of Saint john the evangelist.) If the proverb be true which is used of Plautus the Comic. Plus valet oculatus testis unus, quàm auriti decem: One eye witness is more worthy to be esteemed, than ten ear witnesses. We ought to give more creadyte to Ingnacius, then to any other, whose knowledge is only grounded upon a contrary report. Saint Ambrose doth also confirm the same sentence, saying: In Ca ●2. prim. epist. ad Cor. Omnes Apopostoli, excepto Johan, uxores habuerunt, All the apostles, except john, had wives. So that I trust, I need not to labour any more in proving this point (it being proved by so old and authentic writers) that to be a priest and to have a wife, be not repugnant, but stand so well together, that the apostles were bishops and priests, and yet they had wives not withstanding. But what needeth me to wander so far in the doctoures for the proof here of? when this thing may otherwise be easily showed by the scriptures itself, first and foremost saith Paul both to Timothy and to Tite: 1. Tim 3. Tit. 1. A bishop or priest, must be the husband of one wife. Paul doth not say: It is enough for him if he hath had a wife, but he saith in the present time: Si quisest sine crimine, unius uxoris vir. & oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse. He must esse, be, the husband of one wife. Neither find I great fault with the doctors which change, be, into hath been. But such bishops and priests as neither be neither have been married, neither will marry to this day, must find some other exposition, for this text of S. Paul, or else can not I see how they can excuse themselves, but that they shallbe found guilty by this description and rule of a blameless bishop. I remenbre that Theophilacte upon this text findeth a fault with such, Theoph upon. 1. Tim. 3. as would have a wife, in this place, to signify one Church or one benefice: but they which so wrieth the scripture, ought rather merrily to be laughed at, then to be with study confuted, for experience doth declare, that they would rather (uxor) a wife, in this place should signify twenty other men's wives, than one of their own. They handle the scriptures, as S. Hierome did against jovinian: That is to say, make it sound as it is writhed, and not as it was written. The words of themselves be so plain, that it can not be denied, but that Paul meant that it was not only a thing of sufferance, but very convenient, or rather requisite for a bishop or a priest to have a wife. This have I proved by the word of God, by the doctors, and by the example of the Apostles, that priesthood in his most holiness and perfection, may well be joined with the holy state of matrimony. If any man would pretend, Marriage is no hindrance to a godly life. Chriso. ho. 21. in gene. that marriage should hinder him from the serving of God, let him read Chrisostome in Genesim. And in an other place also, in a sermon that he made against the jews, the gentiles, and the heretics, upon the marriage made in Cana, where he hath these words: Nec excuses te propter nuptias, Dominus tuus nuptijs interfuit, & nuptias honestavit, & dicis, nuptias obstaculum esse ad pietatem? Nullum enim ad pietatem est obstaculum. Vis cognoscere quia nihil nocet habere uxorem & liberos? Moses, nun uxorem habuit & liberos? Helias, nun virgo erat? Nun Moses Manna de celo deduxit? Nun Elias ignem de coelo deduxit? An nocuit huic virginitas? an impedimento fuerunt huic uxor & liberi? Vidisti Heliam aurigam in aenre: Vidisti Mosen in mare viatorem: vide et Petrum ecclesiae columnam, quia & ipse uxorem habuit. etc. Excuse not thyself, because of marriage (saith Chrisostom) thy Lord was at a marriage, and commended it with his presence: And sayest thou, that marriage is a hindrance to a godly life? It is no hindrance to a godly life. Wilt thou know that it hurteth nothing to have a wife & children? Had not Moses a wife and children? Was not Helias a virgin? Did not Moses bring Manna from heaven? Did not Helias bring fire from heaven? Did virginity hinder the one? Or did marriage hinder tother? Thou seest Helias riding in a cart in the air: Thou seest Moses passing through the mids of the sea: Behold Peter also, a Pillar of the Church, had a wife. etc. In case that ye think that the examples of Moses, Helias and Peter, be not enough, I will be so bold (to bring example of Chrysostome) to add unto them three: holly Abraham, and all the rest of patriarchs and Prophets of the old testament: All the Apostles of Christ in the new testament, Actu. 21. Philip the evangelist, who had many daughters: Cheremon, a bishop in Egypt, of a city called Nilopolis: These shall ye have ●in Eccl●si. histo of Euseb. Philias also, which was both bishop and Martyr, and Polycrates, a Bishop of the Ephesians, which said: Seven of my fore fathers by order, were bishops of this See, and I am the eight: Spiridion, and a great numbered of holy men more, which all were married & highly in the favour of God. Marriage was no more hindrance to Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs, touching the true service of God, and being in the favour of god, than it was to Moses. Marriage was no hindrance to all the rest of the Apostles, neither is it this day to any other godly man: so that by the means thereof, they be not cast out of the favour of God, more than was saint Peter. And saint John Chrysostom upon the epistle to Tite, sayeth: Adeo preciosa res est matrimonium, ut poss●t quis cum eo ad sanctum Episcopatus solium sub●ehi, So precious a thing is matrimony (sayeth he) that a man may ascend with it to the holy seat of a bishop. Let then this vain quarrel, that marriage should hinder enny man from the service of God, be no more alleged, as though there were a great matter in it, when it is sufficiently showed, that there is none in deed. But this gear, they think, will soon be answered, granting that the Apostles and other holy bishops and priests had wives as I say: Marry, than will they say again, that neither the apostles neither the rest of the forenamed Ecclesiastical persons had any matrimonial use of their wife's, after the time of their election to their ministry, but did put them away, and utterly forsook the company of them, after that time. Well, yet than grant they, that the apostles and other holy bishops and priests had wives, even in the time of their apostleship and ministry, which thing I take at their hands as won good ground. For by that, have all they granted (which flee to this objection▪ that a married man may be a priest, his wife being alive. After this victory then let us thus proceed: The apostles (they say) put away their wives, after the time they were called to the preaching of the Gospel. If I should ask ye, how you prove that, should not the best reason or authority that ye could bring for your purpose be blind reason or conjecture? Well, answer what ye shall think good, when I have made answer to your former objection. When ye speak of putting away of wives, it is convenient, that ye call to remembrance the lawful causes why a man may put away his wife, by God's word: And in searching, ye shall find there, that a man can not put away his wife for any other cause, Mat 5. &. 19 but for adultery only. Than is the preaching of the Gospel no cause, why a man should put away his wife. Much less for the Apostles of Christ, whose life was a rule to all the rest of the Christian congregation. I trust you be not so shameless, that ye will challenge the Apostles wines to be evil women, for the maintenance of your fond reason. And yet if you would so do, it may be gathered by the Scripture that they were godly and obedient women to their husbands to your confusion. It is to be thought, that such as Christ appointed to rule the whole Congregation, were able to rule their wives, their children and family, or else should not Christ have observed the same rule in choosing of his apostles, as Paul prescribed to Timothye, in choosing a bishop. 1. Tim. 3. If they were obedient wives to their husbands (as by that scripture it may be gathered that they were) you must needs grant, that the Apopostles did not put away their wives, for if they had, they should have offended against God's word, who chargeth man, not to put away his wife for any cause, but for adultery only. Thus than I conclude: God's word sayeth, that no man may put away his wife except for adultery, ergo, they did not put them away. Yea, and further it may be thus proved by scripture, that they had Matrimonial company with their wives in this wise. The word of God was the only rule of the Apostles life: So that what soever God's word commanded them, so they did: But God's word commanded them, saying: Vir uxori debitum reddat, 1. Cor. 17 similiter et uxor viro. Let the man render the duty of a husband to his wife, and the woman to her husband. Ergo, the Apostles being ruled by the said scripture, & obeying gods word in this point, had matrimonial company with their wives, and did accordingly as scripture willeth them. For a proof whereof, the scripture doth testify that the apostles & the brothers of the Lord & Cephas, carried their wives about with them, to what purpose I pray you? if it were not for the avoiding of that inconvenience, against the which, matrimony is provided by god for remedy. If a wife be a trouble to them that be prieestes (as some do allege it) why left they not their wives at one place remaining, and discharged themselves of so clogging a carriage? as by the scripture it should seem that Paul did. I doubt not, but that they would have so done, if the infirmity of the flesh had not dissuaded them to the contrary. Return not to your former fantasy, saying as ye be wont, that ye can not be answered, for if ye can defend without blushing, that scripture rightly alleged, is not sufficient to confound your conjecture which is directly against it, than is your face so blyndelesse, that it can not blush. A priest may not put awei his wife under pntence of holiness. And because no man should pretend a religious holiness, by the means whereof he might shift away his wife, the apostles decreed, as it appeareth in their Canons, Apostolorum Can. 5. that Episcopus aut presbyter uxorem propriam, nequaquam sub obtentu religionis abijciat, A bishop or a priest in no wise may put away his wife, under the pretence of holiness, and colour of religion: by the which Canon it may appear, that the apostles did not put away their wives. And yet came there a sort of heretics, named Eustachiani, shortly after the apostles time, who said, that priests that were married should not be set by, and dissuaded the people from receiving the Sacraments at such priests hands: For the condemnation of which heretics in the old council of Gangris, The counsel of Gangris which was about the same time, that Nicene counsel was, This decree was made: Si quis discernit presbyterum coniugatum, tanquam occasione nuptiarum, quod offerre non debeat, & ab eius obla●ione ideo abstinet, amathema sit: If any judge a married priest, as though he should not minister, because he is married, and so for that cause withdraweth himself from such a priests ministration, let him be accursed. This godly counsel of such antiquity, compelled not the priests of these days to put away their wives, neither condemned them from their company, but allowed and commanded them under the pain of accursing, to keep still their wives, and condemned the Eustachians for heretics, who under the pretence of holiness were offended with the marriage of priests, and held the contrary opinion to the counsel. And there is a place cited out of S. Gregory in the Decrees, which doth plainly declare, that it is a law of man, & directly against the law of God, that any man should put away his wife under such a pretence: Dist. 27. q. 2. Sunt qui dicunt These be the words: Sunt qui dicunt, religionis gratia coniugia debere dissolui, verum sci endum est, quod si hoc lex humana concessit, lex tamen divina prohibuit, per se enim veritas dicit: Math. 19 Quos deus coniunxit▪ homo ne separet. Qui etiam ait: Non licet dimittere uxorem, Ibidem. excepta causa fornicationis. Quis ergo huius latori legis contradicat? scimus quia scriptum est: Erunt duo in carne una. Gen. 2. That is to say: Somme there be, which hold opinion, that marriage ought to be broken for religions sake, but it must be known, that all though the law of man hath so granted it, yet the law of God hath forbidden it. For the truth itself said: Math 19 Let not man separate them, whom God hath coupled. And it also sayeth: It is not lawful for a man to put away his wife, except for fornication. Who then may gain say this lawmaker? For we know that it is written: Gen. 2. They shall be two in one flesh. Mark these words I pray you, and ye shall perceive that they need no interpretation nor wresting, for the proof of this purpose. What would you have more said, the thing being proved by the scripture, by the Canons of the apostles, & by the old ancient counsels and doctors? me thinketh ye should change your judgements, and say another while, as it is largely proved, that the apostles did not put away their wives, but companied with them, after the time that they were called to the preaching of the Gospel, without pretending holiness of religion. But then will ye fall on marveling, how it came first to pass, Priests to put away their wives was the invention of the Byshope of Rome. that priests did put away their wives, they having no warrant so to do by god's word, neither yet example of the apostles of Christ, and other holy fathers in the Primitive Church: From this marvel I trust easily to deliver you, if ye will take pains to read on a little. How should Antichrist have been known, if the prophecies of him should not have been fulfilled? And one of the chief marks, whereby Daniel appointed out Antichrist is, that he should forbid marriage: whose prophecy must be fulfilled. 1. Tim. 4. And Paul likewise prophesied, that such doctoures should come in the latter days, which should confirm that devilish doctrine of Antichrist, forbidding men to mary. This doctrine was first found out by the devil, for the maintenance of whoredom and all filthy kind of living: And it was brought to pass by the devels high priest, Antichrist, the bishop of Rome, whose power by usurpation extendeth throughout the most part of Christendom, published and stablished this devilish doctrine against the marriage of priests, contrary both to the doctrine of Christ (for the which cause, it may well be called the doctrine of Antichrist) and contrary to the example of th'apostles, as ye have heard. And for a proof, that Antichrist bishop of Rome was the first setter abroad of this devilish doctrine, I will cite unto you a plain place ex sexto synodo. 6 Synod. distin. 3●. cap. Quum in Roma. Quum in Romani ordine canonis cognovimus esse traditum, eos qui ordinati sunt diaconi vel presbyteri, confiteri ꝙ non iam suis copulentur uxoribus, antiquum sequentes canonem apostolicae diligentiae, & constitutionis sacrorum virorum, legales nuptias amodo valere volumus, nullo modo cum uxoribus suis eorum concubia dissoluentes aut privantes eos familiaritate ad invicem in tempore oportuno: Quicunque ergo diligens inventus fuerit in subdiaconali ordinatione aut diaconali aut sacerdotali, hij nullo modo prohibeantur ad talem ascendere gradum pro uxoris suae cohabitatione, Nec etiam tempore ordinationis suae profiteri castitantem cogantur, quod abstinere debeat à legalis uxoris familiaritate. Si quis igitur praesumpserit, contra apostolicos canon's, aliquos presbyterorum & diaconorum privare à contactu & communione legalis uxoris suae, deponatur. Similiter & presbyter aut diaconus, qui religionis causa uxorem suam expellit, excommunicetur: si vero in hoc permanserit, deponatur. etc. The english whereof is this) For as much as we know, that it is in the Canons of Rome, that such as be appointed to take the order of Deacon or priest, confess that they have not matrymonyall company of their wives: We, following the old Canone and rule of the apostles diligence, and the Constitutions of holy men, will, that from hensefoorthe, lawful marriage be effectual●e, minding in no wise to louse the mutual copulation of them with their wives, or else staying them from their familiarity together in time convenient. Who soever therefore be found worthy in the order of subdeacon, deacon, or priest, let him in no wise be kept back or forbidden to ascend unto such a degree for that he hath his wife dwelling with him, neither let him be compelled to profess chastity, when they take orders, whereby he should forsake his lawful wives company. Therefore if any man presume contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, to take away the mutual embracings and companying with their lawful wives from any priest, or deacon, let him be disgraged: Likewise that priest which putteth away his wife for religions sake, let him be excommunicate, and if he so continue, disgrade him. Thus far have ye herd the words of the synod, by the which it is plain, that the Canons of the romish sort, and the Canons of the Apostles be contrari. The Apostles taught one thing: The bishop of Rome brought in another. Now judge you whether is best for us which profess Christ, to follow the Apostles of Christ, or the romish Antichrist? The law of God, which willeth bishops and priests to marry: or the doctrine of the devil, as Paul calleth it, which forbiddeth them marriage. It is an extreme wickedness abhorred of God, to stablish & defend a doctrine of devils, contrary to the word of God, contrary to the example of the apostles, contrary to the order of the Primitive Church, to the subversion of chastity, to the maintenance of hoordom, & other fleshly beastliness: but whosoever forbiddeth marriage to them that hath not the gift of sole life, stablisheth a doctrine of devils, with all the inconveniences before rehearsed. Ergo, they that forbidden marriage to them which hath not the gift of sole life, command an extreme wickedness abhorred of God. For a further proof of this my purpose, I have thought good here to recite certain practices of the bishop of Rome, which he used to bring this matter to pass. It were to tedious, to rehearse all the names of those Antichristian bishops, that were the patchers & proppers up of this Decree. Yet one or two of them can I not well pass over, but especially Gregory the vii otherwise named Hildebrande, whose life, who soever hath read, may perceive that he was one of the chief authors of the wifeless life of the clergy. Read throughout the Chronicles, and I think you shall find few or none more vicious, more ambitious more cruel, more lecherous: Ye shall be forced to say, that Hildebrand was even a meet serpent to spit out such a poison at the commandment of Antichrist, among the people of God. Thistoriographers doth abundantly testify, what tumults & rufflings he caused at Magunce & Constance, & many other places in France and Germanye, for thestablishment of this most abominable law against the marriage of priests. And that ye may be the better acquainted with his practices, both in these & all other christian Realms, ye shall understand, that amongst other letters sent to other parties, he addressed also his letters to Otto bishop of Constance, commanding, the he should forbid the marriage through out his diocese, of such priests as were not yet married, & that he should break & lose the matrimonial knot between them, that were already married: But Otto ꝑceaving right well thungodly purpose of Hildeb. neither would divorce those priests which were married, neither deny the liberti of marriage to such priests as were yet unmarried. The bishop of Rome therefore cursed him, and discharged his subjects of their duties and obedience towards him, and appointed Otto a day, to appear before him at Rome in a counsel appointed. In that counsel Hildebrand with tother bishops of Itali amongst other things, established stoutly a law, that from thenceforth, priests should not marry. And that such as had married, should other forth with put away their wives, or else be clearly expelled from all ecclesiastical function. And none to be admitted into the order of priesthood, unless he first were sworn, never to marry. This Decree of the sole life of priests (when the counsel was dissolved) was published through out Italy. And the bishops every where there, were commanded both to obey and execute it. And likewise were the bishops of France forced to obey the determination of the same Decree, made by that same counsel of Rome: But the clergy of France withstood boldly hildebrand's decree, and cried with one assent, affirming, that counsel to be directly against God's holy word. And that the bishop of Rome took that thing away from priests, which both God and nature had given unto them: and that the said bishop of Rome was an heretic, & th'author of a wicked doctrine, by the suggestion not of the holy ghost, but of the devil himself: and moreover that his decree was contrary to this saying of Christ: Math. 19 All receive not this word: and contrary also to this wholesome doctrine of Saint Paul: As touching virginity I have no commandment of the Lord: 1. Cor 7. And he that can not abstain, let him marry: And contrary also both to the Canons of the Apostles, and of Nicene counsel. They found fault with this Hildebrand for that he would have them contrary to the order of nature, live like Angels without the company of women, and that he had also by this Decree opened a window to whoredom and all uncleanness. insomuch that they answered with one voice, that they had rather lose their benefices, then forsake (against the word of the Lord) their wives. And (said they) if married priests be an evil sight to the bishop of Rome's eyes, then let him call Angels down from heaven to be ministers in the Church. But the bishop of Rome was nothing stirred with all these godly reasons & authorities of scripture, neither yet with the Decree of the holly Nicene counsel, but moved continually the minds of the bishops, with swarms of ambassadors, & sending of letters thick and threefold, accusing them for their slackness & negligence, and also threatening them with the plague of his curse, unless they compelled their priests to obey his Decree. So that a great numbered of bishops being forced by this tyranny of the bishop of Rome, applied them selves to take away the lawful law of matrimony from their priests. But th'archbishop of Magunce perceiving that it would be a weighty and no easy thing to compass, to take Marriage clean away from the priests of his Diocese: first he admonished them friendly of this Romish Decree, giving them half a years respite, for to consult upon the thing, and advertising them earnestly to obey the bishop of Rome and him. And that they would of themselves willingly do that thing, which they should in conclusion, will they nill they, be constrained to do: otherwise he should be forced to attempt some thing more grievous against them. The half year being expired, Tharchebyshop called a convocation at Erifort, where he commanded them, according to the bishop of Rome's decree, either utterly to forsake and forswear marriage, or else to leave of their ecclesiastical ministery: but the clergy defended themselves against hildebrand's Decree, with scriptures, with reasons, with sayings of counsels, with thexamples of their forefathers, & with a numbered of unanswerable arguments, whereby they proved, that the said Decree was nothing to be esteemed, but to be worthily of all men rejected. And when tharche bishop replied, saying, that he was compelled of the bishop of Rome, & that he could do no less but accomplish and keep his laws. The clergy perceiving that there could be no means made to compass their bishop, neither by disputation, neither yet by entreaty, they withdrew themselves a little from the counsel, as purposing to consult upon the matter: some thought not good to return into the counsel, and some other thought it was good to return, and pluck th'archbishop out of his chair by the ears, handling him as he had deserved, that there might a notable testimony remain to their posterity of his worthy death on that sort, so that all his successors might take ensample by him to beware how they took away such privileges and liberties from the clergi. Tharchbishops spies, made report unto him of their intent, that went out. Then sent the archebyshope somme of his friends to them that were without, for to counsel them to conceive a good opinion of their bishop, and to will them quietly to return again into the counsel. They were contented and returned. Than the archbishop made promise, that he would do the best he could to change the bishop of Rome's mind, willing them in the mean season to return to their cures. The next year following, the bishop of Magunce at the commandment of the bishop named Curiensis (whom the bishop of Rome had sent in embassage unto him, both with his letters and commandment) called a counsel at Magunce. In this counsel he commanded the clergy under the pain of cursing, that they would immediately in that present Synod, either utterly forsake their wives, or else their ministry for ever. The Clergy pleadid their own cause boldly: and when they perceived that their answer could not be herd, but that they should be compelled by the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, to obey, there was a sudden tumult, wherein the ruffling was so violente, and with such a force, that both the bishop of Rome's ambassador and the archebyshope were put in jeopardy of their lives. The counsel broke up. The archbishop perceiving and fearing the danger of the matter, would meddle no more with the reasoning therein, but committed all together to the bishop of Rome, therein to do what he should think good. But he would hear neither Scripture, neither reason, neither any ancient writer sense the apostles time. His ears were stopped against all reasons, which were contrary to his opinion: he heaped up his thunderbolts of cursings and excommunications upon all them that would not obey this saying of his: we will, charge, and straightly command you. He went forth on like himself, without all fear of God, without all reverence to the holy Scriptures, as a horn wood beast, for the maintenance of his devilish Decree, pretending always a zeal to chastity, that he might the safelier live without suspicion in his accustomed lecherous life, whereof the histories doth plenteously entreat, and thus by violence and tyranny, he compassed his purpose. The like practise to this that was used in italy France and Germanye, hath been used also in England by the bishops at sundry times, but namely in king Edgar's days, through the suggestion of the bishops, Dunston, Ethelwald, and Oswalde, three monks, by whose procurement to john the xiii of that name, bishop of Rome. The priests, who were named secular canons, were banished out of their colleges of Wynchester and Worcetter, and sundry other places of the realm, because they had wives, and monks were placed in their rooms. The chief cause that was laid to their charge wherefore to put them out of their livings was, that they were married. But why I pray you were the monks now of late days again displaced? If Matrimony might be called a fault (as God forbid that any christian tongue should abuse itself in so speaking) yet had it been but one fault. Now for that one fault (as they call it) what a numbered of faults I pray you, were there found in the abbeys at the kings majesties visitation? Did nor the confessions of themselves, in man●r without examination, witness those abbeys to be the store houses of all vicious life and abomination? Was not there couched together in one dunghill, superstition, idolatry, pride, malice, idleness, ignorance, abhorring of marriage, and yet a satisfying of their stinking lusts of their bodies other ways? and under the pretence of obedience to their abbot or prior, disobedience to God, and their prince, etc. These were the holy ones, whom Dunstone placed in steed of the priests, which lived in Godly marriage. These were the chaste and virtuous livers, against whose life it was not lawful to speak. But ye may see by their overthrow, how well God was pleased with their works. Ye may see how worthily God hath cast down their begun builded Babylon, and hath scattered those blyndlynges to their utter confusion, and his most heavenly glory. They entered their houses as though God had given them possession, but thanks be given to God, who hath sent Christ with his whip, challenging them for papists and liars, and declaring to all the whole world that they have made his house a sodomitical den of beastly blind wretches and steal swat thieves. The self same thing was also practised by Anselme archbishop of Caunterburye, in henry the first his days, the second year of his Reign, in a Counsaylie holden at London, where he forbade the priests of England to have wives. It was at that time a strange matter unto them: Libro. 7. For as Huntingdon●nlis doth write, they were never forbidden until that day. And for a confirmation of Anselmes' fact, there was sent into England, from the Byshope of Rome one joannes Cremenses, a Cardynalle, who held a Counsel at London, where he alleged many reasons for the restraint and prohibition of Preestes marriages, and amongst other allegations, he said, that it was an exceeding great abomination, for a priest to arise from a whore's side (for so he called priests lawful wives) and immediately to go make gods body. Yet it came to pass that although he had the same day said mass (which he called the making of God's body) he was taken with a whore the same night. From whence came this fellow I pray you? came he not from Rome? was he not a Cardinal? was he not sent from the captain general of Antichristes' kingdom the bishop of Rome himself? What need we then to doubt from whence this law of wifeless life came first, and who were the stablishers thereof? Some cry, the Church the Church: was not this Cardinal trow you a meet member of the Church, to make a law for the ruling of the Church? Thus hath the devil under the name of priest, bishop, Cardinal, Pope, and Church, deceived all the world. Surely I am persuaded that it was done by the high providence of God, that this Cardinal should be so taken in such a trap, at that time especially, because he would have it notified to all the whole world, that the wifeless life of priests, which Antichrist studied to bring to pass, was altogether the devils doctrine, and contrary to the mind of the holy ghost. Ye may see, that this Church of Rome is the well spring of all the poison that hath infected thuniversal church of Christendom. All the Greek Church hath been, from the Apostles time to this day, clear from this heresy, in that they never allowed the doctrine of sole life, but have continued contrary, in the doctrine of the Apostles, as the bishop of Rome confesseth in his own Decrees. Aliter se orientalium habet traditio ecclesiarum, dist. 31. ca Aliter. aliter huius S. Ro. ecclesiae: nam ea ℞ sacerdotes, Diaconi, aut subdia coni, matrimonio copu lantur: Istius autem eccl●ae, vel occidentalium, nullus sacerdotum, à subdiacono usque ad epm, licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi. The churches of the East, (saith the bshop of Rome) have one tradition & order, & this holy church of Rome another: for the priests, deacons, & subdeacons of the Greek church, doth marry but no priest of the church of Rome, or of the west churches, from subdeacon to the degree of a bishop hath licence to marry. By this text may ye see, not only who they be which hath begun & continued the doctrine of the Apost. in this point, but also who they be, which have brought in, the contrary doctrine. Now then is my purpose proved, & your marvelling (how it came first to pass that priests did put away their wives) answered, in the it is showed, that it is by doctrine of the devil, & first published by the Romish by shop, otherwise called Antichrist, according to the prophecies of Paul & Daniel. A priest may mary after that he hath received th'order of priesthood. Some sophister would yet peradventure frame further cavellation, granting that priests may marry before they be priests, but it must not (will they say) be granted, that they may marry after they be once entered in to the holly order of priesthood. But my former reason well weighed, will make a ready way for an answer to this objection. For if it be granted, that th'apostles & other holy men lai with their wives after they were called & choose to their ministeri (as I have before proved that they did) compare marriage of a wife & lying with a wife together, & when it shall apere unto you, the marriage of a wife, is as small an offence as lying with a wife, ye will be as ready to grant the one, as ye were to grant the other. All the world must grant, that matrimony is not denied to priests for the own sake, because of itself it is an holy thing ordained of God: but because as the pntend of the mutual company between the man & the woman, which followeth matrimony, & is judged of the unlearned, an ungodly thing. Now than the mutual company of the priest & his wife, being found lawful amongst such as be all ready entered into the order of priesthood, ye must needs grant, that to marry is as lawful, which is of itself no evil thing but good, not ungodly but lawful & honourable in all states. How say ye to the very words of God himself in the xxi chap. of levit. where he said: Levit. 21. Sacerdos viduam, prophanam, repudiatam, & meretricem non ducet in uxorem, sed virginem. The priest shall marry no widow, no heathen woman, no divorced woman, nor no comen women, but a virgin of his own nation. priests be not so straightly tied with laws, now in the time of the light of the gospel, as the were in the shadow of Moses: And yet ye see, that even in the mids of the Mosaical commandments, a priest might marry after he was a priest: and if his wife died, he might by the same law marry the widow of an other priest, which thing Innocencius the i had in remembrance in his Decree, saying: In Decretis Innocentis ca 4. ed ●icturiū Rothomag●n Mulierem viduam clericus non ducat uxorem: quia scriptum est: Sacerdos uxorem virginem accipiat, non viduam, non reiectam. etc. Ye may see that in the time of Innocencius the first, a priest might marry after he was priest. And Leo the first, entreating of the same matter, said: Simo in veteri testamento hec sacerdotalium coniugium forma, seruata est, Epist. 85. quanto magis sub revelata iam gratia constituti, apostolicis debemus inseruire praeceptis? If this manner of priests marriages was observed in the old testament, how much more ought we to obey the Apostolical commandments, being now in the time of grace? Another place there is in the decrees which proveth this point, whereof these be the words: Diaconus quicumque cum ordinantur, si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sint, Distin. 28 Diaconi. ex sinodo Ancyria tana. ca 308. dicentes seuelle habere uxores, nec possese continere, si postea ad nuptias pervenerit, maneant in ministerio: propterea ꝙ his Epns licentiam dederit. That is to say: What soever Deacons they be, that make protestation in taking of their Ordres, that they will have wives, and that they can not refrain: In case they marry afterward, yet shall they remain in their ministry, because the Bishop hath so licensed them. In these words may ye learn, that some married, or at the least, that it was not against the laws of God, but that they might marry after the receiving of their ordres, and a proviso also, that they should not be disgraded for so doing. If ye allege, that Ordo impedit matrimonium contractum, & dirimit contrahendum, Orders let the contracting of matrimony, and break matrimony already contracted, I will set the bishop of Rome to answer you with his Decrees, who sayeth: Copula sacerdotalis, Distin. 26 que. 42. Sors. nec legali nec evangelica, nec apostolica authoritate ꝓhibetur, ecclesiastica tantum lege interdicitur. The marriage of priests is not forbidden, neither by the law of God, neither by the law of the gospel, neither yet by the Apostles, but by the Ecclesiastical law it is utterly forbidden: Unto the which saying, all the learned men both in the law, & in the school learning, as Panormitane, Thomas, Albert, Duns, Bonaventure & other, doth agree: Insomuch that Panormitanus that great learned lawyer sayeth: Melius fore, & pro bono ac salute anima ℞ salubrius, si & uniuscuiusque voluntati relinqueretur, ita ut non valentes aut non volentes continere, possint contrahere. Quia experientia docente, comperimus contrarium effectum sequi ex illa lege, cum hody plerique non uiuant spunalit, nec sint mundi, sed macu lentur illicito coitu, cum ipso ℞ gravissimo to, ubi cum propria uxore esset castitas, That is: It were better and wholesomer for the salvation of souls, that this thing were left to every man's will, so that such as either could not or would not abstain, might marry: for we perceive now by experience, that there followeth a contrary effect of the law of sole life: forasmuch as many now a days live not spiritually, neither be clean, but defiled with using unlawful commixtions, to the heinous offence of God, where as if it were with their own wives, it were chastity. In these words ye may see the great clerk Panormitan lament this law of wifeless life, & find great fault therewith. Which thing he would never have done, if that law had come from God. But from whence this law came first, I have declared largely before, that it was devised by the devil, and published and also stablished in all christian realms where it was received, by the vicar's of Antichrist. Then may I grant you, that Orders let the contracting of matrimony, and break the matrimony all ready contracted, not by the law of God, but by the law of the bishop of Rome, whose law here hath the name of the ecclesiastical law, and so my former reasons stand in their full strength and force. In epist. i. ad Tim. 3. Faber Stapulensis doth express to the eye this devilish law with a very proper similitude, whereby the devils craft is lively discifurid and opened to all men's sight. Thus he saith: Apostolicum nuptiarum ritum retinuerunt Greci, neque mutare volverunt. Agamiam acceptaverunt aliae ecclesiae, unde plurimi per deteriorem incontinentiam lapsi, in pedicas inciderunt diaboli: Araneos vides veneno turgentes, tam subtilia retia texere, quae oculos fallere possit: quicquid incidit, mortifero morsu necant: & primum quod aggrediuntur caput est, sen sus auferentes. Hae daemonis & laqueorum eius mira arte & subtilitate nobis praetensorum, & venenatorum mor suum, quaedam sunt adumbrationes, qui etiam retia plaerunque nectit, in his quae clariora & sanctiora videntur. The Grecians (saith he) kept still the use of the apostles in marriage, and would not change it. Other churches received to live without marriage, by the means whereof many of them falling into further and greater incontinency, were trapped in the snares of the devil. Ye see the spiders, which be swelling full with poison, make so fine nets, that they can scarcely be seen, in those nets what so ever falleth, they kill it with their deadly bit. The first thing that they assault, is the head, destroying there the senses. These nets be certain figures of the devil, and of his venomed bitings and fine snares woven and set for us by him with a marvelous art and subtilty. Who commonly knitetth his nets in those things, which appear more evident, and more holly. Thus far Faber hath declared by this similitude, that as the spider spynneth her web with much art, so hath the devil with much art made his snare of wifeless life: And as the spider maketh her thread so fine, that it can not well be seen when it hangeth in the light, so hath the devil made this snare so fine and pleasant in the outward show with a face of holiness, that many can not well see it, although they be in the light of the gospel. And as the spider by the help of her fine nets, catcheth an infinite numbered more than she should do otherwise, so the devil by the help of this cloak holy snare, catcheth an infinit numbered of souls, more than he should do otherwise. So that this compelled chastity (most unworthy the name of chastity) may right well be called one of the devils chief hunting nets. If a man call to remembrance the church of the old time, wherein it was lawful for priests and other ecclesiastical ministers to mary, and compareth it to the church that is now adays, he shall find in that church, cities, towns, countries, deserts, every where replenished with a willing chasteness and continency of solitary livers, of clerks and of lay men, or that gave themselves to no other embracings but them only which be in chaste matrimony. But he shall find the church now adays, which is bond under the law of wifeless life and of feigned chastity, most filthily stained with the spots of fornication, adultery, incest, and Sodomitical abomination. Thus have I declared first, that marriage and priesthood may stand together. And than that marriage is no hindrance to a godly life. thirdly, that the apostles did not put away their wives after the time they were called to the preaching of the gospel. Fourthly, that no priest may put away his wife, under the pretence of religion. And that that use was first brought in by the byshope of Rome. And last of all, that a priest may marry, after thar he hath received the order of priesthood. Now remaineth only to be answered the objection of the vow, which is both fond and wrongfully laid to all such priests charge as were never professed to any other kind of rule, than to the only order of priesthood. For if it could be proved by the holy scriptures, or else by any other strong and godly reason, that secular priests (as they be termed) when they be admitted to their ministration, make a vow never to marry, but always to live a sole and a wifeless life, then would I either have yielded or answered with like reason & like authority in their behalf, as the word of god should have ruled me. But seeing it can not be proved, that there is any such vow made by any such priest at the receiving of his charge at the bishops hand, I can not but marvel greatly, why the adversaries of priests marriages will not of a like sort yield in their argument, their ground being nothing, and their reasons unreasonable. Let the very self same book be judge in this cause, wherewith the byshope useth to give orders, and it shall appear to the whole world, that neither the bishop maketh any request of an unmarried life to the priest in giving him orders, neither yet promiseth the priest an unmarried life in receiving them. This sentence, Accipe jugum castitatis, Take the yoke of chastity, Is not in all the whole book: which hath not withstanding been always both conmonly and wrongfully alleged as a matter of weight, but it hath this sentence: Accipe jugum domini, Take the yoke of the Lord: which maketh nothing for the proof that priests should live sole, but that they should live godly. Yet for this saying wrong alleged, priests have been challenged for votaries, as though they had made a solemn profession never to enter into the holy state of matrimony. So that this reason hath been so common, and so commonly published by the adversaries of marriage & the proctor's of vows, that almost the rudest in a Edovardi can readily object it, taking it to be a very strong & an insoluble argument. wherefore I thought good to admonish such as heretofore have been by this reason seduced that they shall no more credit their wrong allegations with, whom they be wont to enchant the ears of the unlearned. Yet because this appeareth but a siender solution for the defence of them, which have in religion without question vowed openly, to live sole all the days of their life. I have wished that some learned man would take the pains to resolve the unlearned sort touching that point, who might open to them somewhat of the matter, that they should not esteem it so heinous a thing as they do, that a man which hath vowed to live all his life sole, should in conclusion marry notwithstanding his vow. But seeing my wishing taketh no such effect, as my will was it should, I thought good to leave of wishing and fall to writing in that point, when I see few or none else will. True it is, that it can not be proved by scripture, that any Christian man priest or other can make any such vow of sole life, which he can not revoke again when it shall please God to call him to a contrary state, and yet is the contrary opinion defended as though there were nothing more true. The place of scripture which is now most alleged to prove the strength of the vow by, is in the first to Timothe the first epistle where Paul sayeth: 1. Timo. 5. The widows be subject to the slander of the world, because they have broken their former promise. If it be granted that Paul in this place speaketh of vows, which thing is in question, and then afterward the same place be well weighed, it will appear that he giveth a determinate sentence, that all vows of sole life be of none effect which be made under the age of threescore years. For the text hath these words. Non minor annix sexaginta, Not under th'age of threescore years. By the order than that scripture openeth in this place, all vows of sole life that be made before that age, be void and of none effect, because they be not agreeable to the word of God. It is evident that Paul in this place willed Timothy not to credit the younger sort in their vowing, but advised him to object unto them their youth & their wanton courage increasing in them that were under that age, & so to put them of, and to confute them, as it is plain by the using of the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth, confute. So that he alloweth not the vow of the younger housewives, but willeth them to marry and bring forth children, continewing in the holly state of matrimony, that the adversaries of the Gospel should have no just occasion to be offended with their trade of living, who would otherwise be ready to jest and rail upon them, in case they should repent them, and marry contrary to their former determination. This note of inconstancy, Paul foresaw that it should be a blot to the widows which were chosen to be fed of the Congregation, not easy to be wiped away, but that ever they should be subject for it, to the obloqui and accusation of the people. And for that cause Paul said, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, habentes judicium, 1. Tim. 5. meaning thereby not the condemnation before GOD, but the reproach and judgement of the world. To avoid this inconvenience Paul admonished Timothye to refuse such as would show to be found of the Congregation before the forenamed age, saying: juniores reijce, Admit none of the younger sort, for fear God should be dishonoured by such as had professed his name. Forasmuch, then as the vow (if ye will so call it) or the promise of such as make promise of sole life, before the age of threescore years, 1. Tim. 5. is against th'order that Paul (endued with the spirit of god) did prescribe, it must needs be granted, that all such vows be void and of none effect. But it may peradventure be objected of some, such as will not be answered, that we ought not to call again our vow, if we make it before the age of threescore, because the scripture sayeth: Psal. 75. Vovete & reddite Domino, Vow and render it to the Lord. This objection is thus answered, that we be bound to render the thing that we vow, according to the order appointed in scripture, if we perceive the thing to stand with the pleasure and glory of God and the order of his word. But it is alleged that Paul would not have any vow of sole life allowed for good, before the age of three score years. Then he that breaketh the vow of sole life made before that time, breaketh no vow, that is to say, no Christian vow, but a wicked and a devilish vow, because it was made contrary to the order appointed in the word of God. It must needs be granted, that all our doings must have a respect to the glory of God, and the rule prescribed in holly scriptures. If we vow or promise any thing otherwise, than this rule ruleth us, we be bound to undo the thing again that we have done. Even as the wife was bownds to unuowe again that thing, Num. 30. whereunto her husband would not consent. And as the servant to unvow again that thing, whereunto the master would not consent. And as the child, to unvowe again that thing whereunto his father would not consent: So be we bound to unvowe again that thing, whereunto we perceive in ourself by lacking of the gift that our heavenly father doth not consent. In this mind it is plain that S. Cyprian was when he willed the virgins, who had promised to live a sole life, to marry, if they perceived not the gift given unto them so to continue, as it appeareth in the xi Epistle of his first book in these words: Quod si se ex fide Christo dicaverunt, Cyprian pudice & caste sine ulla fabula perseverent. Simo autem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant quam in ignem delitijs suis cadant. Certe multum fratribus aut sororibus scandalum faciant. That is to say: If it so be that they have faithfully dedicated them selves to Christ, let them so without ta●●●●●●g, chastened and reverently cont●●●●d. But if so be, that either they will not or can not so continue, it is better for them to marry, then that they should fall to burning with their pleasures. Truly they ought not to be the occasion of any offence to their brothers or sisters. By these words it is plain that Saint Cyprian had not his eye set so much upon the vow that the maidens had made, as upon the glory of God, that he should not be dishonoured, nor the congregation offended with their following unlawful lusts and desires: for that cause he willed the virgins which had vowed, and other would nor, or could not continue, to unsai their vow again & marry. Further it should seem by the scriptures, that none such as marry after their vow for voiding of fornication, break their vow, but keep it: & that may be proved thus. S. james in the four chap. of his Epi. giveth an exception to all christian men, jaco. 4. which exception must be either expressed or else understanded in all their vows, bargains, & promises: in so much that it can not be a christian vow, nor a godly bargain, unless this exception be either expressed or included in it. This exception is, Si deus volverit, if God will. This exception was in Paul's promise, when he promised to go into spain. Rom. 15. This exception was also in Peter's promise, when he said to our saviour, Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum, Thou shalt never wash my feet: else should Paul have broken his promise, in that he went not into Spain: and Peter should have broken his promise like wise, in that he suffered Christ to wash his feet. Yet this exception (if God will) being included, neither of them both broke their promises, because God called them otherways for the larger setting forth of his glory, and so they both were excused. Of a like sort that godly man what so ever he be, that maketh a vow to live a sole life without marriage, and perceiveth in process of time that God calleth him to a contrary vocation, he is bound to say as Christ said, Not as I will, but as thou wilt, Math. 26. O heavenvly father. Then if this man marry, he breaketh not his vow, because it included this exception, Si Deus voluerit, If god wil The same thing hath a gloze in the Decrees, that these general conditions, Si Deus volverit: si vixero: si potero, If God will, if I live, if I can, be included in all vows and oaths, so that all such as can justly challenge the exception, may not be impeached as breakers of their vow or bargain. This exception Paul forgot not in the vii chapi. the first epistle to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 7. speaking in the commendation of the unmarried life, for as soon as he perceiveth himself to have spoken any thing earnestly for the establishment of a sole life, by and by he calleth again the Corinthians to this exception, willing them to set their eyes upon the will of God, & to examine themselves whether they be so called or not, and so to try whether God be pleased with their life or not, if not, Propter stupra vitanda, ●. Cor. 7. suam quisque uxorem habeat, & suum quaeque virum, For the avoiding of fornication, let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband. And afterward when he had wished all men to be as he is, in continent he referreth them all again to this exception, that is to say, to the will and pleasure of god, & putteth them in mind of their vocation, wherein it is the will (saith he) and pleasure of God, that they should walk, charging such as have not the gift of sole life to marry, with these words, Si non continent, contrahant matrimonium, Ibidem. If they can not refrain, let them marry. As who should say, if they feel themselves able to continued, without marriage, so to continue, if not, to marry in the Lord. Ibid. unusquisque ut illum vocavit Dominus, ita ambulet, Let every man walk accordingly as the Lord hath called him, referring them always to the calling, will & pleasure of the Lord. Sundry like exceptions he hath in the same chapter, which I leave out, desirous to be short. Now than when this sentence, Vovete & reddite domino, Vow, Psal. 75. & render it to the Lord, is alleged against them, who hath vowed a sole life, to restrain them from marriage, must be joined with this exception, Si deus volverit, If god will: and the spirit of god must give testimony to the conscience of man that hath so vowed, whether he perceive by the stirring of his flesh, that god hath so called him or not. And when we have knowledge by the testimony of our conscience, that god hath not endued us with a power to live in single life without danger of burning in desires, we may be well assured, the god is not content we should remain in that state, but that he would have us change our state, & walk after his will. It is none excuse wherewith to answer the lord when he calleth us to marriage, to say, forsooth O Lord, I have made a vow never to marry, and therefore I can not follow thy calling, as by this similitude it may apere. When the kings majesty calleth his subject forth to take harness and weapon, to go immediately to the sea coast for the defence of his country, is it sufficient excuse for the subject to sai, Forsooth sir, I can not nor will not come because of a promise that I have made to abide within the walls of my house and never to go out all the days of my life? Think ye not, but that if a prince had a numbered of such subjects he were well manned? Such subjects apere rather to take upon them the parts of their princes, them of obedient subjects, in that they will follow their own determination, & not the mind of their prince. Even so the man which refuseth to marry when the spirit of god ascertaineth his conscience, that he can not live otherwise, doth disobey god, in that he followeth him not what time he calleth him. God must not be indented withal: we must wait upon his calling, and not he upon our vowing. We must serve him with a free spirit in liberty, indifferent to what state of life it shall please him from time to time to appoint, and not in the state of life, which we fashion to our selves. You will say peradventure, we may have this gift for the asking, and than will ye bring in, Math. 7. Luc. 11. Petite & accipietis, quaerite, & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur vobis, Ask, & ye shall have, seek, and ye shall find, knock & it shallbe opened unto you. True it is, that ye shall have the gift of sole life for the asking, if it be the will of God to give it you. But many times he willeth not that thing that you would, he only knoweth what thing is good for us, & what is not. We many times ask that thing, that is not meet for us, in the judgement of God, which to our blind judgement seemeth most convenient. As when we desire worldly riches at God's hand, or victory in battle, or deliverance out of captivity, or plenty of victuals in the time of dearth, and such like. Many times it chanceth that god granteth not these our petitions, because he knoweth that it shallbe more for his glory & our profit not to grant them. Even so, if the gift of single life be desired at his hand, he giveth it not to all men: Math. 19 Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, All men receive not this word: and therefore the Lord hath taught us to say in our prayers, Math. 6. Fiat voluntas tua, Thy will be fulfilled. Not as we will, but as he will. And yet is it true, that if we ask, we shall have: but what shall we have? forsooth what so ever it shall please him to give, and not what so ever it shall please us to ask. And therefore john saith in his first epistle, Haec est fiducia quam habemus apud deum, 1. joan. 5. ꝙ si quid petierimus secundum voluntatem eius, audit nos, This is the trust that we have in God, that if we ask him any thing according to his will, he heareth us. The mother of the children of zebedee, had no grant of her petition, Math. 20. because it stood not with the will and pleasure of God: So that although it be true, ask & ye shall obtain, she asked and obtained not, because her request had not a relation to the will and pleasure of God, who giveth sundry gifts as it shall please him, and as he thinketh meet and convenient for them that call upon him. As touching things that he hath commanded, he denieth them to no man, but things indifferent sometimes he giveth, sometime he denieth at his pleasure. To some he giveth riches that they should help the poor: to some he giveth poverty, to exercise them in hope: to some he giveth health, to labour for them that be in affliction, to some he giveth sickness to exercise them with patience, and so forth: to some he giveth the gift to live without a wife, and to some he denieth the same gift, and them Paul willeth by commandment to marry. In case there be one that live in continency, yet sinneth he not although he do marry, as the hand fasting of the blessed virgin Mary to joseph beareth witness, although she had the gift. In that point Paul would not take upon him to command, but to counsel only. And S. Augustine sayeth, that such offend not in marrying, but in forsaking their former purpose. In case there be any that hath not the gift of sole life, they sin if they marry not. Si non continent nubant, If they can not forbear, let them marry. God biddeth not man fast, if he can in no wise without danger of sickness abstain. God biddeth not man vow continency, if he can in no wise without danger of burning in desire, live without the company of a woman. God biddeth not man take purgations and poticarye ware for medecyns against the burning, he giveth no other medicine but this one only, Si non continent, contrahant matrimonium. Et, Propter stupra vitanda, svam quisque uxorem habeat, & suum quaeque virum habeat. That is, If they can not refrain, let them marry. And, For the avoiding of whoredom, let every man have his wife, and every woman have her husband. True it is, that the gift of continency is a gift of God, more excellent than is the gift of matrimony, but to whom I pray you? to him that can not live with out the company of a woman? no. A charger full of gold is better than a charger full of meat, but to whom I pray you? to him which is so hungry, that he can not tarry one moment of an hour without danger of death for lack of meat, and can make no other shift but the same only? no. Then must we not covet the thing which is without our reach, but be content with our calling, as Moses, Exod. 33. who spoke with God face to face, & all the patriarchs, and all the Apostles were, & a great number of holy men more, which were married: namely as Abraham was, of whom thus writeth S. Augustine: De bono viduitat. Propterea tenuit coniugij castitatem, quia non potuit ampliorem. That is to say: Therefore he held him to the chastity of marriage, because he had not the greater gift. And shortly after in the same treatise: Ibidem. Res ergo ipsas si comparemus, nullo modo du bitandum est, meliorem esse castitatem continentiae, quam castitatem nuptialem, cum tamen utrumque sit bonum. Homines vero cum comparamus, ille est melior, qui bonum amplius quam alius habet. That is to say: If we compare the things them selves together, there is no question but that the chastity of continency is better than matrimonial chastity, and yet nevertheless they both be good: but when we compare the men together, he is the better, which hath more goodness than the other hath. And although he which hath the gift of chaste continency, is noted of saint Austustine to be better than he, who hath the gift of chaste marriage: Yet may he which hath the base gift, be as good (even by the authority of saint Augustine) as the other holy men that enjoyed the greater gift, and lived sole without marriage. It followeth not. John the evangelist had the gift to live a continent life, ergo, every man that will, may so do: no more than it followeth, Samson was able to take up upon his back the gaates of a city, posts and all, and carry them away unto a hill: ergo, every man that will, may so do. Every man is not straight way made a John or a Samson, that is to say, continent or mighty, with willing. Such vows therefore be temerous and unadvised vows, although they be never so advisedly made, when the vower hath not respect to the power, which he hath received at God's hand, for the performance of that his vow. Who would not account that man unwise, and his vow also foolish, that would vow, never to eat fish all the days of his life, when God hath so framed his appetite, that he can eat nothing else? or never to drink water, when he can drink nothing else? of the which properties there be some in England: or never to marry, when he can not live continent, but burneth continually in fleshly desires? Be not these and such like bound to unvowe with advisement, that thing which they vowed to their own undooing unadvisedly? And be not these and such like vows against God's holy word, who willeth every man to walk accordingly as the Lord hath called him? God calleth that man who hath not the gift of continency, to marriage, The vow calleth the same man from it. Is not the vow then an adversary to God? God sayeth yea: The vow sayeth nay: Whom ought we to follow? The vow sayeth: although ye can not abstain, yet ought ye not to marry. God sayeth: Si non continent, contrahant matrimonium, If they can not live chaste, let them marry. It must needs than be confessed, that that man, which after this sort reasoneth with himself, and in conclusion for saketh his vow (a thing of his own making) and followeth Christ, loveth Christ better than himself, & acknowledgeth Christ to be his master. And contrariwise, that man which forsaketh the calling of Christ, and followeth his vow, loveth himself better than Christ, and acknowledgeth his vow to be his master, according to the saying of Paul: Eius servi estis, cui obeditis. Ye be his servants, Rom. 6. whom ye obey. If the vow then stay any man from marriage, it is a token that his vow was wickedly made, without the exception before mentioned, or else would he never stay for any respect to his vow. And scripture is a witness, that such men be fallen from grace, because they will be under a law, when Christ hath set them at liberty. That vowing is▪ a doctrine not taught by Christ, but instituted by the only ordinance of the Church, as in the sext it doth appear, where it is said: Extra li. 3. De voto & voti redempt. Quod votum. Voti solemnitas ex sola constitutione Ecclesiae est inventa, matrimonij vero vinculum, ab ipso ecclesiae capite rerum omnium conditorem ipsum in paradiso & in statu innocentiae instituente unionem & indissolubilitatem acceperit: That is to say, The solempnes of the vow was devised by the only Constitution of the Church, but the bond of matrimony took his unseparable uniting and knot of Christ himself, which is the head of the Church, and maker of all things. So that the vow is but an ordinance of man, and marriage the ordinance of God. Wherefore, if we will refuse Marriage being the ordinance of GOD, because of our vow, which is the Ordinance of Man, may not Christ say unto us: Ye worship me in vain, Math. 15. Marc. 7. teaching the doctrines and commandments of man? Yes truly. And sticking to this our vow, we break our promise made in baptism, where we utterly renounce and forsake all other things, in hell, earth, and heaven, and give ourselves wholly and only to God, committing the whole tuition and governance of us to him, promising him faith and truth, that he shall do with us, not what pleaseth us, but what pleaseth him. Now when we, by a vow, promise this or that kind of life, which is not commanded in God's word, without excepting, God's will and pleasure, we take upon us to govern ourself after a fashion, not of gods, but of our own devising, revoking and calling again our former promises, which we made to him in baptism, and so we take upon us to serve God after our own fashion: But how wicked and ungodly a thing it is so to do, all godly men can easily give sentence. The ignorant sort which have not yet tasted of the spirit of God, would sooner judge, that marriage should rather be broken for the vows sake, than the vow for the marriage sake. And yet is there a decree wherein these words be contained, Tanta est vis in sacramento coniugij, ꝙ nec ex violatione vori, Decret. dist. 27. diaconus. potest dissolui ipsum coniugium, that is to say, Such a strength is in the sacrament of matrimony, that it may not be dissolved for the breaking of the vow. And saint Augustine in his book De bono viduitatis, speaking of them, which have forsaken their former purpose, and married afterward, saith, Proinde qui talium nuptias dicunt non esse nuptias, sed potius adulteria, Augustin. non mihi videntur satis accurate & diligenter considerare quid dicant, that is, Therefore they that say, that the marriages of such men be no marriages, but rather adultery, appear not to me diligently to way the thing that they say. And Gratian citeth an other place out of saint Augustine, which hath the very same sentence in effect, Disti. 27. ca Quidam Quidam nubentes post votum, asserunt adulteros esse, ego autem dico vo bis ꝙ graviter peccant qui tales dividunt, that is to say, Some say, that such as mari after their vow, be adulterers: but I say, that they sin heinously which divide such as have married after their vow. These and such like sentences being found in the doctors, declare their opinion, that the strength of matrimony is of more force, than is the strength of the vow. How be it, all this will not serve the ungodly, who cease not to maintain manfully the strength of their vow, and would have holy matrimony to be called whoredom, for mistress vows pleasure. Yet well worth Paphnutius, who was not afraid to confess openly in Nicene counsel, that marriage was honourable in all states, & that the companying of the husband with his own wife, was chastity. So that it should appear he was of the opinion, that matrimony, kept as it ought to be, was one kind of chastity, even as virginity is an other, both the which kinds of chastity, be the gifts of God, & no more in our power to perform the gift of them to god, (unless he give them to us first) than it is in our power to perform the gift of all the french kings jewels to the king our master, unless he first give us them. In deed I might perform my promise so made to the king our master, if mi promise did include this exception (if the french king will give them me: or if I can get them) and even so may I perform my vow made to god of sole life, if it include the christian exception, that is to say, if the giver of that gift will give it me, or if god be so pleased, without which exception, all vows be wicked, all promises be vain, and all bargains ungodly. AND to make an end in stead of a recital of those things which I have spoken, I will knit up the matter with this brief reason. No vow which hath this exception (if God will) other expressed or included, bindeth any man that hath not the gift of sole life, to abstain from the holy state of matrimony. But all christian vows have this exception (if god will) other expressed or included, Ergo, no christian vow bindeth any man to abstain from the holy state of matrimony. The parts of this syllogism be proved in my former process to him that will willingly way it. Wherefore it should be but a folly to make more matter when enough will serve, as no doubt it will, to them that will be satisfied. If there be any whom nothing will serve, I beseech the living lord to soften their hearts, when it shall be his pleasure, to his most heavenly glory. Amen. Imprinted at London in the house of Reynolde Wolf. ANNO DOMINI M.D.XLIX. Sap. 8. ¶ When I perceived that I could not keep myself chaste, except GOD gave it me (and that it was a point of wisdom also, to know whose gift it was) I stepped unto the Lord, and besought him etc.