❧ INVICTA VERITAS.  
¶ An answer, That by no manner of law/ it may be lawful for the most noble King of england/ King Henry the ayght to be divorced fro the queens grace/ his lawful and very wife.  
Set a part Cristen reader all blind affection: and read this book with judgement/ confering it with the other book against which this is written: and I doubt not/ but thou shalt stand on the quenis part/ as a favourer of the firm and invincible Verity.   

AD LAUDEM TVAM DOMINE.  
HEr followeth an answer/ that I Thomas Abel priest have made unto a certain ynglishe book late put forth and imprinted: which doth falsely affirm and say that it is against the law of God/ and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ and that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage: the which saying you shall see declared and provid false/ more clearly & more largely by holy scripture/ by holy decrees/ by doctors/ and expounders of holy scripture/ and also by reason here within/ than at the beginning of my answer/ And in lyk manner ye shall see this proposition and saying declared and proved true/ that a christian man may leefully marry his brother's widow left etc. both by the law of God/ and by the law of nature: and that the Pope hath power to dispense upon such marriage: for thowghe at the beginning of mine answer/ I show sufficiently the first saying to be false/ and this other last proposition and saying to be true: yet for because that I am compelled to follow the process of the english book which I answer to: I declare and prove the rehearsed propositions more largely within this mine answer according as the occasion is offered: the which if I had done also in the beginning I should have/ rehearsed one thing and one proof many times/ and so my answer would have been very tedious and long.  

FOr asmuch as now of late there be certain persons that have made a book in Latyn and the same have translated it again into English/ where they do affirm and say that a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ left without issue/ is so unleeful and so against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriages/ whether they be made and contract all ready/ or else yet to be made or contract: I am at this time compelled and constrained by my profession and promise that I have made unto our saviour christ to answer unto this untrue saying and to speak against it.   

FIrst for because to say and affirm that it is forbidden both by the law of God and by the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. and that the Pope can in no wise dispense upon such marriage made/ or yet to be made is very false and untrue: and also great and high blasphemy to god is law and to almighty God himself as I shall show ye here after   

ANd secondly I am compelled and bound to speak against this proposition and saying/ for to admonish and give my neighbour knowledge of this untrue opinion that is now set out in print and goith a broad/ to advertise him to take heed of this saying and to give in no wise credence unto it/ for it is no small daungere to men's souls to believe this false saying and great blasphemy/ the which ungracious persons have/ and in their books do colour and ornate with much rhetoric and eloquent words to th'intent that their false propositions & sayngis should be the sooner believed & accept of the readers. And so thus for these causes I am compelled to answer and speak against this before rehershed book/ in the which answer I will with the assistance & help of almighty God show ye how that this proposition & saying is false & high blasphemy to almighty God to affirm & say that it is forbidden & to be against the law of God/ & against the law of nature that any man should marry his brother's wife a widow/ left &c: and that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriages whether that they be contract all ready/ or else yet to be made & contract/ & I will also here show ye that this is true that a man may by the law of God and by the law of nature leefully marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue/ and that the Pope hath power to dispense upon such marriages and to licence a man so to marry.   

Three things principally I note that the persons the which have setforth their book do say. The first is this. In the preface of their book they say that the universities have confirmed their determinations upon the levitical laws by the which it is forbidden that any man should marry the wife of his brother departed without children. The second principal point and their saying is written in the foresaid preface the which is this. That it is forbidden both by the law of God and by the law of nature that any Cristen man should marry the wife of his brother dying without children. The third principal point and saying is written in the same preface joined unto the second saying which is this/ that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon any such marriages whether they be contract all ready or else yet to be contract. Now to their first saying. where they writ that the universities have confirmed their determinations upon thes levitical laws by the which it is forbidden that any man should marry the wife of his brother departed without children. Behold here I pray ye upon how goodly and substantial a ground these persons do say that the universities have builded & set their determinations. they say upon the levitical laws by the which it is forbidden that any man should marry the wife of his brother departed without children: when that in all the levitical law there is no such mariagis forbidden as every man may perceive & understand the look upon the levitical laws/ & also as ye shall see it more largely declared here after/ & by this also ye may perceive what these universities have determined/ that is in deed no thing but a proposition the which is very false even like as then ground is that they have builded their determinations upon. Now to the second point principal/ and saying of these persons where as they say that it is forbidden both by the law of God and by the law of nature that any christian man should marry the wife of his brother departed without children: this is likewise false/ First it is not against the law of God: for in the law of God/ God himself by his servant Moses died command and that upon great pain that every man of the jews should marry his brother's wife a widow left &c. as it is plainly expressed in the old law/ nor such marriages be not forbidden in the new law/ as ye shall see it evidently proved: 
duty. xxv.  wherefore it is not against the law of God for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow. nor any such marriage in none of the laws be forbidden/ also for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ is not forbidden by the law of nature.   


gen. xx  FIrst for because the holy patriarch abraham married his own sister Sara and we may not think and say that so holy a man would wetingely do so grievous a sin as to break the law of nature/ and to continue still in the same offence: wherefore it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. If it be not forbidden by the law of nature for a man to marry his sister/ than is it not forbidden that a man shall marry his brother's wife a widow.   

ALso Jerome saith that at the time that Abraham married his sister/ 
In questionibus hebraicis super genesim.  such marriage was not forbidden by the law/ and Jerome therefore excusith the Patriarch Abraham also the patriarch juda married his second son to his daughter in law Thamar/ for by cause her first husband judas his son died without issue/ they and also the same Patriarch after the death of his second son Thamar's second husband promised her his third son/ and also this holy man juda commanded his second son to marry his brother's wife a widow/ 
Genes. xxxviij  the which he would not have commanded/ if it had been against the law of nature/ wherefore ye may see that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ when that these holy patriarchs did in the time of the law of nature use such marriages & did command their children so to marry   

ALso holy Chrysostom saith that when juda the Patriarch commandid his second son to take and marry his brothers wife Thamar/ 
super ge. ho. lxij.  & so to stir up said and procure by her issue unto his brotther that was dead: thus saith Crisostom did juda command by the law & than the ʳ was no other law but the law of nature or else customs laudable & political gronded in the law of nature of the which this was one that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow etc. for else the patriarch iuda would not have commanded his son so to have married/ 
Genes. xxxviij  also this doth appear evidently by judas words/ for he confessed & granted that he had offended & done wrong to Thamar because he had not married his third son unto her/ & if that it had be against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. than juda had done no wrong to Thamar in that/ that he did ●ot marry his third son unto her/ but for asmuch as that was not against the law of nature/ therefore juda did confess that he did Thamar wrong for because he had not married his third son unto her/ according unto the law/ so now ye may see that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow.   

FIrthermore for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. can not be against the law of nature/ for almighty God did never command any m●ner of people to observe and keep that thing continually and upon a great pain that should be against the law of nature/ for that were evil of itself/ 
Ec. xv  & therefore no such thing almighty God did command as it is written/ nemini mandavit impie agere/ but almighty did command the Iwes to mary always their brother's wives left without issue: and that onder a great pain/ And this commandment he would have continually kept during the time of that law/ wherefore you may see evidently that such marriages can not be against the law of nature/ this argument doithe conclude/ it can not be denied.   

I Did say in the first principal proposition of this argument/ that almighty God died never command enny manner of parson to observe and keep that thing contynewally and that upon a great pain which should be against the law of nature/ this I did say to take away certain objections as this/ that almighty God did command Abraham to kill his soon that was innocent/ but yet almighty God did not command every man so to do continually: and likewise although almighty God did command the multitude of the people of Israel to borrow plate of the Egyptians and to carry it away with them/ yet almighty God did not command the people of Israel to do so continually nor yet he did not command them so to do upon a pain: but as I have said/ almighty God commanded the people of Israel to marry always their brother's wife's widows left without issue/ and that upon a great pain/ wherefore I say that such marriages cannot be against the law of nature: peraventure yet sum persons will say that this commandment of almighty God that bound the jews to marry their brother's wives widows etc./ was no law but a licence and a dispensation that almighty God gave unto the jews/ whereby they might use such marriages/ as almighty God did before the law dispense with jacob to marry two sisters/ and had them both wives at onhis/ And also in the time of the law he did dispense with certain kings to have two wives at onhis/ or more/ To this I answer thus/ that thowghe almighty God did suffer such marriage before the law/ and in the time of the law that men had more wives at once then one/ yet he never commanded that the jews should take more wives than one at once/ nor yet commanded the plurality of wives upon a pain/ also almighty god suffered the jews to forsake their wives by the libel of repudiation/ and likewise the jews to use usury/ but yet this/ nor the other he did never command to be kept as a law & that upon a great pain: but almighty God did command all the jews always to mary their brother's wives widows left without issue/ and that under a great pain/ wherefore this commandment was no dispensation/ but a plain law/ and thus you may see that such marriages can not be against the law of nature.   

NOw to the third point and principal saying of these persons: whereas they affirm that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon marriages made betwixt the brother and the brother's wife widow left without issue/ nor yet power to dispense upon such marriage to be made. This saying is false likewise as the other before: such marriage is not forbidden neither in the old law nor in the new law as you have herd before/ and the same you shall see here after more largely declared and provid where as I bring in the doctors minds against these deceivers opinion: wherefore now I say that this is false to say and affirm that the Pope haveth no power to licence the brother to marry the brother's wife a widow left without issue: for it is forbidden that a man may marry with her that is joined to him in the first degree of lateral affinity but only by the law and ordinance of the church as you shall here after see proved by the minds of great and excellent lernyde men/ And the Pope hath power to dispense against the prohibition of his own laws only/ this can no man deny wherefore it is false to affirm and say that the Pope hath no power to licence a man to mary his brother's wife a widow left with out issue.   

NOw here you have herd how that these persons sayngis and opinion is false which is this: that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ and that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage: by the which falsehood ye may perceive how that this proposition is true/ that a man may leefully by the law of God and by the law of nature marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ and that the Pope haithe power to dispense upon such marriage. First ye have seen that such marriage is not against the law of nature. Also you have hard how that such marriage is not forbidden by the old law/ but in the old law such marriages were expressly commanded and so by the law a man might leefully marry his brother's wife a widow etc. 
Mat. xxij  And also such marriage our saviour Criste did approbate in the new law as it is open where as the saduceys came to hour saviowre Christ and showed him how that there was a woman with theme that had maryde seven Brothern one after a nothers death/ the which marriage our saviour Christ did not reprove nor speak against them/ but surely if such marriage had been against the law of nature and against Christis law/ than would our saviour Christ have spoken against such marriage like as he spoke against the libel of repudiation whereby the jews did use to refuse their wives and marry other when they were a live/ and also the same wives so refusyde and put away did take and marry other men their first husbands being a live/ and for asmuch as they manner of marriages were unleeful and against the law of nature hour saviour Criste did reprove them as he died reprove other imperfections that the jews uside in their law, for hour saviour Christ came to fulfil the law with perfection/ and so for asmuch as he did not reprove marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow left without issue saying that hour saviour hade occasion offered to speak upon such marriage/ it followeth that he died allow and approbate such marriage/ peraventure yet sum persons will say that although hour saviour Criste did not speak against marriage between the brother and the brother's wife widow etc. yet it doth not follow/ that he did approbate such marriage: for hour saviour died not forbid the father to marry with the daughter/ and yet it doth not follow that he did approbate that the father might leefully marry his daughter/ if this were true that hour saviour did not forbid the father to marry with his daughter the which is false/ yet than this reason is not like the other. First by cause that marriage between the father and the daughter is expressly forbidden by the law of nature by the old law and by the new law/ and so is not marriage between the brother and the brother's wife/ and secondarily for by cause there was no occasion offerde/ unto hour saviowre Criste to approbate or to have reprovid marriage between the father and the daughter/ as there was in the other marriage/ but if the jews had comen unto our saviour Criste and showed him how there was a man that had married two or three of his own daughters/ one after the death of an other than he would have spoken against such marriage by cause that such is ill/ and unleeful: but for asmuch as marriage between the brother/ and the brother's wife widow etc./ is good and leeful by the law of Nature/ and by the law of good: ower saviour Christ did approbate such marriage/ Now than saying that marriage between the brother and the brother's wife is leeful by the law of nature and commaundide in the old law and approbate by our saviour Crist/ than it followeth that such marriage is forbidden only/ by the ordinance and law of the church/ And the pope hath power to licens against that ordinance/ and so consequently he hath power to dispense upon such marriage/ Thus now you have somewhat heard these deceivers opinion provid false/ and how that this is true/ that a man may by the law of God/ and by the law of nature marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue/ and that the Pope hath power to dispense upon such marriage. yet for asmich as these discevers have in their book that I make answer unto many clokyde reasons with eloquent and rethorik terms and many false argumentis/ and great lies and much blasphemy to Good covered with the same manner of cloth: I will discover you some of their errors to th'intent that you shall not be deceived nor believe their false sayings/ but yet I say that I will discover and rehearse you but some of their errors: fore if I would tarry to rehearse you all I should be compelled to make a great book/ and therefore I will not take that way: but rather touch/ and speak of some: and by them you may perceive the residue.   

IN the first chapter of their book they say that before the flowed the people set all their minds at all times to naughtiness and sin/ in so much that they took them wives at adaventurs whom so ever they had chosen sparing nor forberinge no manner of degree of affinity or kindred/ this is there saying/ grounding them of this scripture. 
Goe vi.  Videntes filii dei filias hominum quod essent pulchre/ acceperunt sibi vyores ex omnibus quas elegerant. This is the sense of this scripture/ the children of God saying the daughters of men that they were beauteful and fair/ they chose of all them to their wives such as liked them And these persons write/ that the men took them wives at adaventures whom so ever they had chosen sparing nor forberinge no manner of degree of affinity or kindrede/ And this saying can no wise be take of the rehearsed scripture/ but rather by the same scripture it folowithe that these persons say false/ fore the Scripture saith that the children/ and the sons of God/ saying the daughters of men fair and beautiful/ took of them wives such as liked them/ and it followeth that they married not with their mothers nor their own sisters/ nor their own auntiss/ for they married with the daughters of men which were neither their own mother's/ nor their sisters/ nor their aunts/ and therefore it is false to say that the people married them wives forbering nor sparing no manner of degree of affinity or kindred/ this error is written in the xvi leyffe of their book.   

ALso in the same first chapter of their book in the xvij and xviij leyffe they say that almighty God did command Moses to prescribe unto his people laws of matrimony that should be conformable and agreeing with honesty and shamefastness natural/ and to forbid such marriages that be foul of themself/ and have dishonesty in them/ and all this they say was commanded in the levitical book/ in the xviij chapter/ And among the marriages that they say be there forbidden is forbidden marriage between the brother and the brother's wife widow left without issue/ this these persons speak of/ or else all that they say is no thing for their purpose/ wherefore to this saying I answer thus/ first in the xviij. chapter of the levitical book is not forbidden that a man may not marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ no nor yet such marriages are not forbidden in no Place of the hole law/ but rather where as Moses did declare the levitical law/ ye and all the hole law/ that he had written before/ he showed unto the people how that almighty God had ordained and commanded that every one of the jews should marry always his brother's wife a widow left with out issue as it is manifest in the book of the deuteronomis wherefore you may evidently see that in the xviij chapter of the Levyticall law it was not forbidden that a man might not marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue/ and also the prohibicione in the levitical law in the xviij 
Chap. xxv  Chapter can not be all understand that they forbid marriage with all such persons as be their named. For there it is forbidden that a man may go to a woman when that she hath a passion the which they call her flowers/ And yet yet is evident that a man may marry a woman when that she hath them/ And likewise that a woman mayelefully marry when that she hath them. wherefore you may see that the prohibitions that be in the xviij chapter can not all be understand to forbid marriage with all such persons that be there named/ But yet peraventure these false deceivers that hath made the book that I answer now to/ will say that in the xviij chapter of the levitical is forbidden that a man may not marry his brother's wife. To this I answer that if they will take that prohibition to forbid Marriage between the brother and the brother's wife/ and not for the abusing of the brother's wife. Than it is thus understand/ that no man may marry his brother's wife while his brother is a live. Thus saith these persons great doctor Peter de Palude expowndinge the xviij chapter of the levitical book/ and so doth other doctors say as you shall see here after/ and likewise saith saint Augustyne expowndinge the xviij Chapter of the levitical book that there it is forbidden that a man may not marry his brother's wife while that her husband is a live/ nor a man may not marry his brother's wife that was refused and repudiate of her husband/ nor yet a man may not marry his brother's wife a widow having issue by her first husband/ But now by this rehearsed prohibition nor by no other is forbidden that a man may not marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ yet further more you shall understand that the levitical prohibitions can not all be understand to forbid marriage between all those persons that be there expressed/ as to forbid that the brother may not marry with the sister/ or that the brother may not marry with the brother's wife/ for if marriage between these persons were forbyden there/ than it shall follow that the Egyptians and the canoneiss were not polluted in all these things that be called their abominations the which is plainly against the text: wherefore the prohibitions can not be all understand to forbid marriage between all those persons that be there named/ that this should follow it is evident: for king Pharo did believe that Sara was not Abrans' wife/ for as much as Abraham said that she was his sister and the cause why Pharo did so believe was this for as much as in egypt the people did not marry their sister's/ and therefore when that Abraham showed king Pharo that Sara was his sister/ he belevid that she was not his wife as the process in the text doth evidently show/ And likewise for because Abraham said in the country of Canan to king Abymelech that Sara his wife was his sister the king Abymelech did believe that Sara was not Abraham's wife/ for as much as in that country they died not use to marry their sisters. 
gen. xii  and all this that the Egyptians and the Cananeis did not use to marry their sisters/ doithe these deceyvers affirm in the cxj 
gen. xx  lief of their book speaking there of Abraham and his wife. now than by this the truth and their grant also/ it followeth/ that the prohibitions levitical can not be all understand of forbidding of marriage/ when that the Cananeis did not use to marry their sisters as these deceivers do grant themself/ And than it followeth still/ that if the Egypcions & Cananeis did not use to marry their own sisters that than they died not use to marry their mothers nor their auntiss nor their mothers in law and so forth/ for if the Egipcians did judge to be against honest and reason to marry their sister's/ and therefore they did abstain for to marry them/ than they must needs iuge/ that it is more against reason and honest/ for to marry with their mother's/ with mothers in law/ with their father's sisters/ and with their mother's sisters/ and so they did therefore much more abstain to marry with them/ This reason can no man deny/ wherefore you may see by these argumentis foundid in their own saying that the levitical prohibitions can not be all understand that they forbid marriage between all the persons that be named in the xviij chapter of the levitical book/ & so now ye may see evidently that all their ground/ and foundation is false: for in that chapter they found falsely there false opinion.   

ALso in the same first chapter of power book in the xix lief: thes persons say/ that what man hath married his brother's wife/ the which is understand of a widow left without issue/ should be judged of all the people not only to have contemned and dispiced God the which hath with so great majesty commanded the contrary/ but also to have offended by infecting and corrupting the manners of the people by such myschevous example to have done against the law of nature. this is their saying the which I beseech you to note & mark well. First they say that almighty God hath with great majesty commanded the contrary to this that a man may leefully marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ but this I would see them show/ and where: but that they can not do nor yet no man: for almighty God never commanded the contrary/ but he did expressly command that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ beside this thes persons do greatly blaspheme almighty God in their saying/ for if the people should judge him that hath married his brother's wife a widow etc. to despise and displease almighty god: than should the people judge that almighty God commanded the Iwes to contemn him and to despise him: for almighty god as I showed you/ commanded the Iwes to marry their brother's wife's/ widows &ce. Moreover if the people should judge him that hath married his brother's wife a widow &cet. to offend and infect & to corrupt the manners of the people by such mischievous example/ & to have done against the law of nature/ than should the people iuge the almighty god did command the Jews to offend to infect/ & to corrupt the manners of the people/ & also that he commanded the jews to give mischievous example/ & to do against the law of nature/ for it was almighty God the commanded them to marry their brothers wifis widows &ce. & thus ye may now see how these persons blaspheme almighty god & his holy law: for they say that for a man to marry his brothers wife a widow etc. is abominable & infection & a corruption of the manners of the people a myschevous example and a breaking of the law of nature/ and yet they can not deny but that almighty God did command such mariagis/ and so they lay all this abomination upon almighty God which is great despising and blasphemy unto him.   

ITem moreover in the twenty lief of their book these persons say over and beside all this/ Consider with how great strength and weight of words and with how great care and thought God in decerning thes laws doth often rehearse/ saying it is not for a man/ it is foulness it is mischievousness/ it is cursedness/ it is abomination/ it is not to be spoken/ it is not leeful/ it is against the laws of God/ briefly it is filthy and sclanderows that a man should do any such thing/ Here now again thes persons do highly blaspheme almighty god: for if that marriage between the brother and the brother's wife/ be so ill and so abominable as here they say it is/ than they say that almighty God did command that thing that is meat for no man to do/ that is to say foulness/ that thing that is mischievous/ cursedness/ abomination/ it is not to be spoken/ it is not leeful/ it is against the very laws of God/ briefly it is filthy and slanderoous that a man should do any such thing/ for it was almighty God that did command that men should marry their brother's wife's widows left with out issue. The which marriages these persons call abomination/ mischievousness and etc. For of such marriage thes persons speak/ Consider you here with how great strength and weight of wordie thes ungracius persons do Blaspheme almighty god they call him the auctor and the commander of abomination of filthiness/ and of cursidnes &cet. who ever herd so great blasphemy as is this?   

Now where as before they said that almighty God in decerning the laws speaketh with great strength and weight of words it is true he did so for he speaketh against the great vices and abominable living that the Egipcians and the Cananeis used/ but let these persons show where almighty God doth speak with great strength and weight of words against marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow left without issue. Against such marriage almighty God did never speak but he did command expressly such marriage.   

ANd yet thes false decevers do apply the speaking of almighty God/ where he reprovid and spoke against the great sins of abominable living of the egyptians and the cananes/ to be against the marriage between the brother and the brother's wife/ a widow left with out issue/ and it is no thing so/ wherefore you must note and mark well these persons saying for they do not care how falsely they say/ nor yet how fasely they apply God's saying and holy scripture nor other men's saying/ so that they make such sayings to apere for their false purpose/ also you shall see them bring in many things that pertain no thing to this/ for to show that it is forbidden by the law of God and by the law of nature for a man to mary his brother's wife a widow left without issue.   

ANd you must note that in the old law all that ever is spoken with great strength and weight of words and forbidden and called cursed and abominable and filthiness/ is not things that be forbidden by the law of nature/ 
Levi. xi  nor they be not so called by cause they be ill of them self/ for fish that hath no scales and sins as eels and conger were called abominable for to eat/ and yet it was not against the law of nature for a man to eat eels and counger/ 
Levi. xi  Also all that creepeth upon the ground was forbidden to eat in the old law/ and was called abominable/ and yet to eat snailles is not against the law of nature/ for snaillis be good and wholesome and be eaten in many placis/ and so likewise/ if a woman should have worn a man's germent she had done abominable in the old law/ and for abomination it was forbidden/ and yet it was not against the law of nature. And so were things in that law called filthy and uncleanly and forbidden/ and yet they were not against the law of nature/ 
leu. xv  as to touch caren of certain beasts/ and many other things were forbidden as filthiness and foul things/ and finally you must note that the great and grievous punyshementis that were threatened in the old law/ were not always threatened for breaking of the law of nature/ as the child that was not circumcised was threatened that he should perish from the midst of the people/ and yet a child that is not circumcised/ doth not offend against the law of nature And yet beside all this ye must note that the same thing that was one against the law of nature/ is always against the law of nature/ for the law of nature doth never move nor altere her self in no manner of time since Adam fell.   

FIrthermore ye must mark and note that saint Jerome saith in the Prologue upon Oseas that almighty God doth command no thing but that which is honest/ nor almighty God commanding unhonest things doth not make them honest such as be fowl of themself: wherefore by this it followeth that for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ was never foul nor evil of itself/ for than it could never have been good thowghe almighty god had commanded it never so much. But almighty God did command such marriage/ wherefore such marriage can not be against the law of nature/ So now these few rewlys you must take/ and they shall help you to perceive the falsite of these deceivers.   

NOw where as these deceivers in the xx. seife of their book say/ forsoith if a man will way well and examine these foresaid things religiously and with good consciens and so as they ought to be/ how can he but approve the truth & allow the conclusions and determinations of these universities & think certainly that it is forbidden both by the law of God and by the law of nature that a Christian man should marry his brother's wife a widow? this is these persons saying. To the which thus I answer/ forsoith if a man will way well this case of matrimony/ if a Cristen man may marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue/ and examine it with good consciens as it ought to be/ how should he not straight way reprove and disallow the conclusions and determinations of these universities that say the contrary/ and to think certainly that it is neither against the law of God nor against the law of nature for a Christian man to marry his Brother's wife a widow & cetera. This shall every learned man that haveth good consciens judge to be true.   

Moreover where as these deceivers in the xxi lief of their book say that the sons of cain the which were drowned in Noys flowid/ they were so punished by cause they did foully abuse their sisters and their brother's wife's/ wherefore these persons would conclude that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow etc. Here you may see a goodly Argument. Cayn's sons did foully abuse their sisters and their brother's wife's/ wherefore it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a etc. What should a man say to so lewid an Argument? but as the conclusion is manifest false/ so is all that the makers of the argument go about to prove.   

ALso where as they say in the same leaf of their book/ Here ye may see before yower eyes the holy laws of God/ here you may see the lively Prophecies and the words of exceeding virtue and strength etc. And anon after they say/ forsoith it be cometh a Cristen heart more to regard the words of God and his authority/ which doth forbid and so hath in abomination/ so doth punish and revenge such matrim marry his stepmother/ wherefore it is forbidden by the law of God and by the law of nature that a man should marry his Brother's wife a widow left without issue/ the maior of this argument is false/ the which is this. That it is forbidden in the same place of the law for a man to marry his stepmother where it is forbidden for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow &ce. This proposition I say is false: for it is not forbidden in all the ho●● law for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. and so therefore the words of saint poll helpeth nothing for these persons Purpose.   

ANd also such marriage and fornication that the Apostle doth here reprove/ is not spoken of in the Levitical prohibition: for this young man that had married his mother in law/ did take her from his father: and so married her/ his father being a live/ as the words of saint Poll afore rehearsed do show/ and therefore saint Poll did not ground him in the levitical law when that he rebwl●ed this Coryntheane for marrying of his father's wife. That the father was a live of the Coryntheane that married his mother in law/ it seemeth also by these words of the Apostle where he saith there is not such fornication heard of among the gentiles/ and sayncte Poll being so well learned as he was knew very well that the Gentiles had sum time abused their father's wife's/ also he knew that the jews had abused their father's wives both before the law and in the law: before the law Reuben abused his father's wife/ and so did Absalon in the law abuse his father's wife's/ therefore this offence that this Coryntheane did was more than for to lie with his father's wife/ or else saint Poll would not have called it such/ & so grievous fornication as hath not been hard of/ among the gentiles. But for a man to take away his father's wife from him and openly marry her and so keep her still/ such manner of fornication hath not been herd of among the gentilz: and for by cause this Coryntheane had done so/ therefore the holy Apostle did call that such fornication as had not been hard of/ and therefore he did sharply rebuke it and grievously correct it.   

ALso Theophilacte expounding the v. Chapter prime epistle ad Corinthios/ doth suppose that the father of this Corintheane was a live/ when that this young man married his mother in law. For Thephilacte doth call that marriage adultery/ and also in another place expounding still the same Chapter/ he calleth this Corinthians act again adultery/ And the abusion that man doth with a woman that is not married is not called adultery/ Wherefore by these it seemeth that this young man's father was a live when that he married his Father's wife  
¶ Radulphe of Laundun expounding the vii chapter of the second Pistill ad Corinthios doth say/ this youngman took away his father's wife/ and so he did his father injury and wrong.  
¶ john de ruppella expounding the rehershid Chapter saith the same.  
¶ Peter de Tarantase upon the same Chapter do likewise affirm and say.  
¶ In the xxij leaf of their book they say that saint john baptist did reprove Herod the king by cause he had married his brother's wife and he showed the king that such marriage was not leeful nor that king Herode could not keep his brother's wife: this is truth for Herode had married his Brother's wife/ his brother being a live as showeth saint Jerome in commentarijs super Mattheum. Cap. xiv. And so do josoph the great storiagraphe of the jews libro xviij Antiquitatis Capite. ix. And also the same joseph again in the same book. Cap. xi. saith that king Herodis brother was a live when that Herode married his brother's wife. And likewise doth say the old writer and doctor Egesipe Libro secundo Capite quinto of the destruction of jerusalem.  
¶ Druthmar writing upon sayncte Mathewe saith Herodes Brother Philipp was a live when that Herode took away his brother's wife/ and therefore saint john did rebuke king Herode  
¶ Hugh Cardinal writing upon Matthew saith that Philip Herodes Brother was a live when that Herode took away his wife and married her/ and therefore saint john did rebwke King Herode.  
¶ Albart the great writer upon saint Mark saith that john did rebwke King Herode because he had married his Brother's wife his brother being than a live.  
¶ Also the interlynyall gloyse showeth upon Matthew that Herodes Brother was a live when Herod took away his brother's wife/ and so doth many diverse other doctors.  
¶ Sayncte john therefore did justly reprove king Herod for he did nought to marry his brother's wife her husband being a live/ but now saint john did not say that a man might not leefully marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ For sayncte john knew very well that such marriages were good and leeful and commanded in the law. So now ye may perceve that this saying of saint john doithe nothing favour these decevers purpose.   

NOw in the xxvi lief of their book they bring in the counsels of the apostles that they kept in Iherusalem where the apostles decreed that the gentiles that were new come in to Christ's faith should abstain and forbear fornication/ and forbear to eat of any best/ bird/ or foul that was suffocate or stranguled/ and to forbear to eat any manner of flesh that was offered to idols/ & to forbear to eat blood as to forbear to eat puddings that be made of blood/ and now these deceivers affirm that in/ and under the name of fornication the apostles did forbid that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue But this is very false/ for fornication was always forbyden in every law/ But for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ was never forbidden in the law of nature nor in the old law/ nor in the new/ but as ye have hard/ such marriage was in every law good and leeful. Wherefore you may see that it is false to say that the apostles under the name of fornication did forbid that a man should mary his Brother's wife a widow left without issue.   

ANd again these persons can show no doctor that so expoundith the decree of the apostles. Here you may see how these deceivers do expound and apply scripture falsely for their false purpose.   

Now where as these persons in the xxvij leaf of their book bring in tertulian the which they say doth affirm that this levitical forbidding that a man should not marry his brother's wife/ was brought in/ taught/ and ordained specially and by name of Christ himself/ and his apostles/ because that all the hole church and company of Cristes' faith should observe an● keep it with devotion and reverence. This these persons say Tertulian writeth: but yet it helpeth them no thing/ for their false purpose: for after thayr writing and alleging of Tertulian/ he saith that the levitical forbidding that a man should not marry his brother's wife was brought in and taught/ and ordained specially and by name of Criste himself/ & his apostles. & I show you that for a man to marry his brothrs wife a widow left without issue is not forbidden by the levitical law: and therefore this auctor helpeth these persons not a whit.   

NOw where as these persons do bring in tertullian again in the xxix leaf and in the xxx leaf: that saith the commandment that bound the jews to marry their brothers wife widow left without issue is now dead and ceased: & the contrary of this law hath place: and he showeth why the commandment is now caessed/ for the causes wherefore such marriage was commanded in the old law/ be now taken away. And there he showeth three causes why almighty God did command the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue.  
¶ The first was because almighty God would that the old blessing/ increase you and multiply/ ought than to run forth and continue.  
¶ The second cause he saith was this: For asmuch as the children were punished for the father's fawtes then.  
¶ Thirdly for because that the dry and barren persons were had for defamed persons.  
¶ Here be now the causes that tertullian allegethe why almighty God did command in the old law that every man should marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. And for asmuch as these causes (after Tertulians mind) be now take away/ therefore he saith that the commandment that bound the jews to marry their brother's wives is now ceased and dead/ and the contrary of this taketh now place.  
¶ First here I will answer to these reasons: second I will show you how this commandment that a man should always marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ is now ceased & died: And thirdly how this is false to say that the contrary of that commandment haveth now place And finally I will show you/ for what reasonable causes almighty God did command the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue.  
¶ Now I will turn to the reasons of tertullian where as he saith that the cause that almighty God did command his people the Jews to marry their brother's wives widows left without issue/ was for by cause as yet the old blessing of god increase you and multiply/ ought to run forth and continue. This cause is nothing worth nor yet meyt to show why almighty God should command the brothers to marry their brother's wyfs widows etc. For if other men beside the brothern had married the widows of the jews that were left without issue/ the old blessing of God/ Increase you/ and multiply/ might as well have runnfurthe and contynewid as thowghe the Brothers had married their Brother's widows left without issue.  
¶ This no man can deny: therefore Tertulians reason it but small.   

The second cause that tertullian doth assign why almighty God did command the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows etc. was this: for because than the children were punished for their father's fawtes/ and every man now is punished for his own sin/ this is not true For almighty God saith by his Prophet Ezechiel that the soon shall not be punished for his father's faults. 
Ezech. xviij  Also it were against reason that almighty God should make a law to punish the child for the father's fautis/ when the child is innocent/ and the father faulty/ also it were more against reason to punish the child for the faults of his own father natural/ and for the faults also of his father that is his father but by the law: wherefore this can be no reasonable cause why almighty God did command the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue.   

THe third cause that Tertulian doth assign why almighty God did command the jews to marry their brothe●s wives widows left with out issue was this: because that the barren and dry persons were hade for defamed persons: therefore an ordinance was made that they should have issue by other of their kin as you would say by a proctor/ This cause likewise is nothing worth/ for the dry and barren persons might as well have had issue/ if other persons/ besides their brothern and kinsfolk/ had married their wife's widows etc. as though their brothern had married their widows/ this is evident/ Wherefore these sayings of tertulian do not seem to be causes why that almighty God did command the jews to mary their brother's wife's widows left without issue   

Now to the second point that I said I would show you that this commandment that bound the jews to marry always their brother's wife's widows left without issue/ is now ceased and dead: that is to say/ that no man now/ Ive nor Gentile/ nor Christen-man is bound to marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue under a pain. For this commandment was in the old law a judicial: and all those commandments be dead and ceased. Now as touching the bond and pain/ this is true: But yet it followeth not of this that now it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ and that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage: & so it is false/ which is the third point the I said I would show you/ to say that this judicial commandment/ that bound men to marry their brother's wives widows etc. is ceased and dead after this fashion: & thus the contrary to have place as ye may see by example. If a king in his realm would make this law that who so ever put out a man's eye should lose his own eye for it/ who than could say that this law were now against the law of god and against the law of nature? truly no man And yet this was a judicial commandment and law with the jews the which is now ceassid and dead: that is to say/ it byndith no more now by that law. And yet the same may again be a new constitution. ye and likewise this commandment might have be made again by the church/ that a man in certain causes should have been bound to have married his brother's wife a widow left without issue. Wherefore you may see/ that it is false to say that this commandment that bound men to marry their brother's wifs widows etc. is now ceassid and dead/ and the contrary now to have place is false to: that is to say/ that it is now against the law of God and law of nature/ for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow etc.   

ALso that this is false/ it is evident by the opinion that Tertulyane held and did conclude upon this saying: for tertullian had this opinion/ that it was unlawful for any woman to marry again after the death of her husband/ Thus he maketh his reason/ the law is ceassid whereby a man should be bound to marry his Brother's wife/ wherefore if a woman's husband be dead she may not marry her husbands Brother/ for that is now forbidden: and she may not marry any heathen man: for that is likewise forbidden to every christian woman: and all Christian people be brothern in God ergo etc.   

All this saying is Tertulians/ and of this saying it followeth that a woman after the death of her husband may marry no more. For first tertullian faith that a woman after the death/ of her husband may not marry her husbands brother/ for that/ he saith is now forbidden/ and all Cristenmen be brothern in Christ: and so than by that mean they be brothern to her husband that is deed: and than she may not marry any of them/ nor again/ she may marry no heathen man/ for that tertullian saith is forbidden also: Wherefore he concludeth that no Cristen woman may marry after the death of her husband: the which I say is false/ and against the holy Apostil saying where as he writeth/ that if a woman's husband do die/ let her marry/ saith he/ where she will/ so that she marry a Cristen man. 
i. cor seven  And tertullian in his saying/ and book that he writ it he it in/ is convict and condemnid for heresy. And thus I say therefore it is false/ and heretical to say/ and affirm/ that this commandment that bound the jews to marry their brother's wives widows etc. is now dead and ceassid and the contrary hath place: that is to say/ that it is now forbidden by the law of God and by the cawe of nature that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. And the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage.   

ALso by bringing in that heretic tertullian on this wife and in the book that is condemned for heresy/ you may perceive with what spirit and consciens these persons have written and made their book/ Here they leave out the books name/ where they allege Tertulian: and they say on this wise in the xxviij leaf of their book: and the same tertullian writeth in an other place/ and so they leave out the name of the book: which in deed is called monogamia the which book is condemned. Also in their ynglysshe book they leave out part of Tertulians saying and argument/ where he would have concluded to have condemned the second mriages. By this you evidently perceive that these persons opinion & saying/ where they affirm that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue is evidently false: ye and suspect heretical/ saying that they go about to prove their rehearsed opinion and saying/ by tertulian where he is condemned for an heretic. Now to the fourth I will show ye/ for what reasonable causes it was commanded in the old law that every man should marry his brother's wife/ a widow left &ce.   

The first was that the land is of the Jews the which should go and continue by inheritance/ should not go out of the blood/ and name and house that it came of/ and therefore it was commanded to the jews that they might not sell their inheritance: 
leviti. xxv.  and than it was commanded and ordained that if a man died without issue that his brother (if he had any/ 
duty. xxv  or else his next kinsman) should marry his wife/ and the first child that this second brother had by his brother's wife/ should be named the first brother's child and enjoy his land and so keep up the dead man's house and name Wherefore holy Chrysostom saith that almighty God in commanding thieves to marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue/ 
Super mat. homelia. xlix.  did excogite and made a mean to comfort such persons as should chance to die without issue. This is holy Crisostomes' mind/ so by this commandment and law if he chanced to die without issue he was in a surety that the next of his blood should enjoy and inherit his lands/ and uphold his house and name/ the which was always to him that so died a comfort. For every man naturally had liefer that one of his own blood should enjoy & have his lands than a stranger not of his kin/ also every man would gladly have his name & house that he came of/ to remain & continue: also beside this comfort that the man had/ this law was a mean to comfort the widow who is husband died without issue/ for although she left her husband/ yet she was sure to be married again to one of his next kin/ which was no small comfort to her/ to be in a surety to marry one that she loved for her husbands sake: and also to marry one that loved her for her husband's sake: Also this manner of marriage was a mean to cause her husbands kindred to bear and owe love and favour still unto the woman that had buried her first husband: for by cause she married again her husbandis kinsman for whose sake this kindred had loved her husband before: the which love would soon have wexid cold and grown slender toward the widow/ if she had married out of her husband's kindred/ as we may see/ daily by experience. And finally/ this manner of marriage was a special mean to keep and continue the love and kindness that was between the woman's kindred and the kindred of her first husband: the which love/ and kindness would have minished and have decayed/ if the wife had married out of her husband's kindred/ wherefore so to mary was a special mean to keep love and kindness between kindredis. And if sum of these causes had strength now in this Realm by an ordinance decreed/ they would not be judged but good and reasonable/ As this that no man should sell his inheritance/ nor again that many inheritances should never come to one man's hand/ this were peraventure a good and a reasonable law. So thus you may see that these be reasonable and honest causes/ and political meanis/ and very meet for that time for the comen wealth of the jews: and therefore almyggty God made this law that every one of the jews should always marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue: And commanded the jews to keep it/ Wherefore you may evidently perceive that it can not be against the law of nature and reason for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. And also it is hy blasphemy to almighty God to say that he with his infinite sapience and wisdom did make a law against reason and command it to be kept upon a great pain. But now where as these persons say that this law that commanded such marriage/ is now dead and hath no strength: surely that is true for men (as I showed ye before) but yet standeth it in their liberty to marry or not mary their brother's wife's widows & ceter. and so it doth not follow that it is now against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue: and that the pope can not dispense upon such marriage.   

IN the xxx leaf of their book they b●ynge in Gregory answering to a question that saint Augustyne had moved concerning marriage with in degrees of affinity/ saying on this wise. There is a certain earthly and a worldly law with in the domination of Rome/ that the son and the daughter of brother and sister or of two brothers german/ or of two sister's/ may marry together: but we have learned by experience that there could never issue come of such marriage. To this it may be thus answered: that now at this present time there is comen of such marriage noble and great issue: as the emperors children: for the emperor and his wife that now is/ came of two sisters german/ for the emperors mother and his wife's mother where both sisters and daughters to Don Ferdinando that was king of spain. Also we may see great and noble issue that is come of a man that married two sisters german the which marriage is higher in the degrees of affinity than is the children of the brother and sister german in consanguinity. As the king of Portugal that now is/ and his brothern and the emperors wife and her sisters the which came of the King of Portingaill/ this man's father that married two sisters german that were both daughters to Don Ferdinando King of spain. And this said King of Portingaill had by both these sisters issue/ ye and yet after the death of these two sisters/ his wife's/ he married the third sister's daughter the which lady is now the french Kings wife: and by this lady also the said King of Portyngaill had issue which is yet a live: Wherefore we may see that of such marriage cumythe issue.   

IN the xxxj leaf of their book these pesons do advertise the reder to mark iij. or four things of Gregores saying. First that the levitical laws where it is forbidden that a man should marry his brother's wife with the other/ be the very laws of allmyghty God/ And now the same laws be of the same strength that it is not leeful to contract matrymoney contrary to that which is forbidden in the same. This saying helpeth no thing to these deceivers purpose: for it is not forbidden in the levitical law that a man may not marry his brother's wife a widow & cetera. As I have often said before. Moreover these persons say that saint Gregory writeth that the occasion of saint john's martyrdom was this/ by cause he would maintain and uphold the truth of the same laws against Herode the king/ which had married his Brother's wife. This saying likewise maketh no thing for these persons purpose. First for by cause that for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow left without issue/ it is not against the truth and authority of the levitical law: for there is no such Marriage forbidden there/ nor saint john did not suffer martyrdom for reproving of King Herode/ for marrying his Brother's wife a widow left without issue: for he did not reprove King Herode for such Marriage. But he reproved King Herode by cause he had married his brother's wife/ her husband his brother than being a live: and so in that king Herode did against the law of nature/ and against the levitical law/ and if saint john did uphold the truth and the authority of the Levitical law: we must suppose that likewise he would uphold the troth of the Deuteronomicall commandment that bond the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows left without issue/ and than it is manifest that saint john speaketh no thing that can make for these means false purpose/ In the same leaf these persons do affirm that Gregory doth write that marriages which certain ynglysshe men had contract with their brother's wife's/ and that even before they had taken them: saith upon them to be so unleeful and not to be spoken/ that they could notwithout deadly sin render the duty of marriage one to another/ nor yet abide still in the same marriage. Here these persons say falsely upon Gregory and against his words and against his mind. For Gregory did admit those ynglyshmen that had married their brother's wives to be Cristen/ and to retain and keep still their wives and also to come into the church and receive the blessed Sacrament of the Auter/ the which Gregory would in no cause have suffered/ if he had judged such marriage to have been against the law of God and against the law of nature/ nor yet Gregory would have suffered these ynglishmen to have continued still with their wives/ if it had been deadly sin to them to have continued with their wives: And therefore ye may see that these persons speak directly against Gregoris mind: also ye shall see that they speak against Gregoris words if ye will look upon Gregory/ but Gregory did exhort and teach the ynglishemen that were new comen to the faith/ that they should no more marry as they had done before/ and made them laws of matrimoney that they should not mary their kinswomen in the first degree of affinity or consanguinity nor in the second/ nor in the third/ nor in the fowerthe.   

THat they writ also in the xxxij leaf of their book: that Gregory saw that marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow etc. of this marriage they speak to be plainly ungodly and judged it abominable before God and man and also again the nature of man/ and as nigh as can be unto the nature and life of bestis. This these persons say Gregory saw and did judge such matrimony o to be. In the which saying they affirm that saint Gregory doith blaspheme almighty God: and also his holy law: for if Gregory saw and judged marriage between the brother and the brother's wife/ to be abominable and odious to God & man/ and also to be against the nature of man/ and as nigh as can be unto the nature and life of bestis / than must it needs follow that saint Gregory saw that almighty god in commanding such marriage did command that thing that was abominable and odious to God and man/ and also that thing that is against the nature of man and that thing that is as nigh as can be to the nature and life of bestis: for as I have showed you almighty God did command such marriage/ & also by this their saying of saint Gregory/ it doth follow that he saw as much abomination in the law of God which commanded the brother to marry the brother's wife a widow left without issue. And if it were so/ than sayncte Gregory did blaspheme god's law. Here ye may see what these persons say by saint Gregory/ also in the later end of the same leaf these persons say that saint Gregory saw how grievous punishment is abiding them which have defiled themself with this fowl sin. That they understand in the rehearsed marriage: therefore he iugede that neither peace/ nor faith and Christendom/ nor any other thing in this world beside forth/ is of such virtue and goodness that is able to recompense and way out the maliciousness of this deed: and so forth/ with diverse great and sharp words as you may see in their book.   

NOw by this saying these persons do greatly blaspheme saint Gregory and do say that he blasphemithe almighty God/ for if saint Gregory should thus judge by marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow etc. Than saint Gregory should judge that almighty God in commanding such marriage/ commanded that thing that is so abominable and so evil/ that there is no thing in this world of such virtue and goodness that is able to recompense and way out the maliciousness of this deed/ Who ever hard any man say that almighty God would command so abominable a thing as these persons say Gregory iugithe marriage between the brother and the brother's wife widow etc. to be? And such marriage commanded almighty God: 
Ancelme  wherefore this in no wise may be Gregoris judgement nor mind: for Ancesme (as these deceivers do allege) saith in a pistle/ that for certain honest causes there were holy men both before the law/ & in the law/ that did marry in the first and second degree of consanguynite/ as Abraam Isaac & jacob: 
Ios. xv there may be honest causes why a man may marry his sister. in libro. de Patriarcha abraam  In the law Caleb that married his brother's daughter/ than if there may be honest causes why a man may marry his sister/ there may be honest causes why a man may mary his Brother's wife a widow & cetera. And than it followeth that by sum honest cause there may be a recompense for any offence in such marriage.   

ALso saint Ambrose doth excuse the daughters of Loath/ saying that the good zeal that they had for to conserve mankind/ the which they thought should have perished) did reward them so universally/ that it covered their inhoneste private act/ and than it followeth that if their good zeal that they had did excuse their particular fault/ there may be sum thing in this world of such virtue and goodness that it is able to recompense and way out the maliciousness of matrimoney between the brother and the brother's wife a widow etc. For in this or such marriage is none offence against the law of God nor against the law of nature/ as ye have hard before. Wherefore it seemeth by this that saint Gregoris mind was never to judge such marriage to be so evil as these persons would have him to do.   

NOr Gregoris words do not so sound nor signify/ nor Gregory doth not say that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. And that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage/ and so all that these persons bring in of Gregory do nothing help their grievous purpose.   

IN the xxxiij lief of their book they bring in Pope zachary/ the which answered the bishop Theodore to his question whether that a man's natural son may mary with his father's god daughter? and the Pope answered on this wise/ we be/ saith he/ by the law of God commanded to abstain from our own kindred Carnal/ mychmore it is convenient that we should with all strength be ware of her that is our father's daughter spiritual/ Where upon these persons would conclude that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue: and that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage/ But this saying of Pope zachary directly against their conclusion. For of his saying it followeth/ that the Pope may dispense and licence the brother to marry the sister/ and than it followeth that the Pope may licence a man to mary his brother's wife a widow left without issue. for it is no more forbidden for a man to mary his brother's wife a widow & cete. than it is for a man to marry his sister/ but the pope hath power by this zacharias saying/ to licens a man to mary his sister. This you shall see proved. The Pope hath power to licence a man to marry his father's godoughter/ for that affinity doth not let marriage by no law/ but only by the law of the church/ as of itself it is evident/ and the Pope may dispense against the puer prohibition of the church: Wherefore the Pope may licence a man to marry his father's goddoughter/ and now Pope zachary saith that it is more forbidden that a man should marry his father's goddoughter than his father's daughter / and yet upon such marriage the Pope hath power to dispense: Wherefore than he haith power to dispense that the brother may marry the sister/ for if the Pope may dispense in the thing that is more prohibit/ he may dispense in that thing that is lose prohibit/ and than further/ if the Pope may dispense upon marriage between the brother and the sister/ he hath than power to dispense upon marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow etc. This you see doth follow of this Pope zachary his saying/ the which maketh for the truth/ and against these deceivers false conclusion.   

IN the same leaf these persons do bring in the gloze that doth go upon the words of Pope zachary/ the which gloze doth make argumentis that the Pope can not dispense though he would/ in the second degree of consanguinity nor yet in the second degree of the first manner of affinity/ for the second degree of consanguinity and of this affinity hath/ his beginning of the law of nature/ and again because of the same degree it is forbidden expressly in the old testament of God. Here these persons show that the glosser maketh Argumentis/ and say that the Pope cannot (though he would) dispense in the second degree of consanguinity nor in the second degree of the first manner of affinity etc. But they will not show you how the same glosser doth also make arguments to show that the Pope may dispense in these degrees of consanguynite and of affinity/ and yet the same glosser maketh argumentis for both parts and finally he determineth neither this/ that the pope may dispense/ nor yet this/ that the Pope can not dispense/ but this these deceivers will not rehearse in their book/ and so now ye may see that the glosser which they do allege doith nothing for their purpose/ And also if the gloze had said that the Pope could not have dispensed in the rehersh●d degrees of consanguinity and of affinity/ he had spoken directly against the text: for the text saith that affinity spiritual in the first degree is more forbidden (in the which the Pope may dispense) than is consanguynite Carnal in the same degree/ as you have hard before/ and thus these persons would have the gloss to destroy the text which can not be.   

FIrthermore they bring in Pope Innocent the third to whom sent the Arch●diacon of biturs to know whether that wife that was departed from her husband without judgement of the church/ by cause her husband and she were in so nigh degree of kindred that the sea Apostolyk could not/ nor yet was wont to dispense with/ ought to be restored again to her husband? mark well this question and case that this archediacon asked of the Pope: and than you shall and may perceive better the Popis answer that he made to the question and case/ The Pope answerithe and saith this woman which doth know the kindred between her husband and her specially in these degrees which be forbidden by the law of God can not have to do Carnally with this her husband without deadly sin/ and so finally the Pope saith that the woman shall not be restored again to her husband. Here the Pope answereth very well/ and no thing for these mens purpose. For as the case was put forth in general/ so that case purposed/ the Pope answereth in general/ that is to say that if a woman which was departed from her husband without judgement of the church because her husband/ and she were in so nigh degree of kindred/ that he sea Apostolic could not/ nor yet was not wont/ to dispense with it: Than saith the Pope if the woman knew this/ and so upon this is departed from her husband she may not be restored to her husband again/ nor lie with him without deadly sin. For how could she be restored to her husband again or company with him without deadly sin? When that she knew her husband so near to her of kin that in keeping him company/ and to be restored to him/ she should do against the law of God/ and that the Pope could not dispense with her that she might turn again to her husband/ nor he was not wont to dispense in such a case: all this is trwthe/ but all this is in general: for it is not showed in what degree of kindred the woman could not be restored again to her husband/ nor in what degree the Pope could not/ nor was not wont to licence a woman that was departed from her husband to be restored again. And so all this saying of Pope Innocent maketh no thing for these mens purpose. For the case that they speak of/ is particular and special that is it against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow &ce. And that the Pope hath no power to dispencr upon such marriage. This Pope innocent doth not say/ nor upon all his saying/ this no man can conclude/ But this Pope innocent is directly against this false opinion/ as it is manifest in the chapter. Deus qui Ecclesiam. Where it appeareth that he suffered the jews which turned to Criste and received Baptism to continwe still with their Brother's wives that they had married before. But the heythens that turned and received baptism/ the said Pope would not suffer them to have more wives than one: which before had married them to more. And thus by this may ye see that Pope innocent is against these decevers false opinion/ & likewise he is against them in the chap. Gaudemus.   

IN the xxxvi leaf they say. Now beside all this we shall prove the same by the authority of holy counsels. This they mean that they will prove by the authority of holy counsels that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife/ a widow left without issue etc. To all the councils that these persons do bring in/ it may be briefly answered/ that there is none of them that say it is against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ nor yet this. That the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriages.   

Moreover ye must note that the prohibitions that the counsels have decreed to let marriage in degrees of affinity/ were not made for because such affinity did set marriage by the law of nature as it is manifest/ in the third and fowerthe degree of affinity: no more is the first nor the second degree in the right line in the second line after the mind of these persons great doctor/ Peter de Palude: for he saith upon the xviij Chapter of the levitical book that the Pope may dispense in all the degrees of affinity there contained.   

NOw where as there be diverse counsels and many decreys and sayings of fathers that do forbid that a man shall not marry his sister/ his brother's wife/ his niece/ nor his cousin german: of such counsels decreys and sayings/ a man may gather that in the beginning of Cristes' church the people did use commonly to marry their sister's/ their brother's wife's/ their near kinswomen: and such as were nigh to them in affinity/ for else surely the counsels and fathers would not have spoken so often of such marriages as they did: for experience doth teach us that counsels parliamentis/ and synods do not often times make many decreys against those things that be not in use/ but where therebe many decreys and laws made against a thing: the same decreys and laws do evidently show that the thing that they speak so much against was greatly in use. Wherefore saying that therebe diverse counsels and many decreys and sayings that do now forbid that the people shall not marry in the first degree of affinity/ in the ascendent line/ nor in the side line/ nor yet in the second nor in the third degree of affinity: it is evident that the people did use to marry in these degrees before/ and at the beginning of the church and than the people lived more justly and godlyer than they do now: Wherefore it followeth that for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow left with out & cete. or in the second degree of affinity/ can not be against the law of God/ nor against the law of nature. For if such marriage had been so evil/ the people that lived so justly and so holy before the prohibitions of such Marriage were made/ and at the beginning of the church/ would never have uside such Marriage. So now by this reason you may see that the counsaills and decreys that do forbid now such marriage make against these Pestilent persons false opinyone.   

Truly the cause why these Fathers and counsels did orden and decree/ that the people should no more mary with their kindred and affinity in the first/ second/ and third degree/ was this. For asmyche as those holy Fathers and prelates did see and manifestly perceive that the charitable love and kindness that was wont to be among Cristen people did sore minish and decay. Wherefore these Fathers and Prelates ordained and decreed that the Pope should marry all out of their kindred and affinity/ to knit in love such people together by marriage that were not knit together in love by kindred and affinity. We see by common experience that by marriage the kindred of both the persons that be married do love together: Wherefore the holy Fathers and consailles did limit out certain degrees of affinity and kindred in the which they supposed that love would continue without the help of marriage/ and so they did forbid and command no man to marry in non of these degrees of affinity and kindred without the Pope's licence. But that the people should marry out of these degrees of kindred and affinity. This did these Fathers and counsels orden and command to the intent to spreaded abroad and sow love and charity by marriage among the people that were not joined together in kindred and affinity. Here ye have hard the causes why the counsels and decreys did forbid marriage in the first/ the second/ and the third/ and fourth degree of affinity and kindred whereby ye may see that for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow &ce. or his niece or cousin german/ is not against the law of God/ nor against the law of nature: but against the law of the church: with the which the Pope may dispense   

IN the xxxvij leaf of their book/ these persons bring in the counsel of Necene and the synod of Gregore the yongar: where it was decreed according to the words of God: that a woman which had been married to two Brothern should be put bake from communion/ and from the receiving of the sacrament until she died/ and a man that had married his brother's wife/ should be an Anatheme/ In the which synod/ all together answered/ Anatheme be he/ that is as much to say (as these pestilent persons do expound it) as damnation to everlasting death/ To this saying of the counsel and synod/ I answer: that their saying and excommunication is understand to be applied unto such persons as do marry themselves in such degrees of affinity without licence of the Pope. As that woman that doth marry her self after the death of her husband to her husbands brother: and so in like wise/ that man which marrieth his brother's wife a etc. For they that presume to marry on the rehearsed manner/ ought to be punished as it is afore spoken of: except that they be penitent and sorry for that they have done/ ye and leave and forsake/ the men their wife's/ and the women their husbands: without the Pope licence them to marry the said men and women that they had taken before/ But yet the counsel and synod did not decree to punish that woman/ which after the death of her husband/ married her husbandis brother: nor yet the man which married his Brother's wife a widow etc. for by cause they married against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ as it is manifest. For there is neither the counsel/ nor the synod that doth decree and say that such marriage is against the law of god and against the law of nature. But the counsel and synod did orden and decree the punyshements before rehearsed for such persons as did presume to marry/ as the woman with her husbandis brother/ or the man with the Brother's widow against the prohibition and decree of the church/ And so now this counsel and synod do not help these ungracious persons false opinion/ But yet if these deceivers will say that the synod and counsel/ or any other decree or counsel doth forbid that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow etc. for by cause that such marriage is against the law of God and against the law of nature: when that they show me this of any decree or counsel: I shallbe ready to make answer to it.   

IN the xxxij leaf of their book/ they say on this wise last of all/ and for a conclusion. That the sentence of Wiklif wherein he did hold that the prohibitions of matrimoney written in the Levitical/ be only judicial preceptis of Moses/ & therefore the causes of divorce brought in by the mean of kindred & of affinity to be brought in without ground & foundation/ & only by the ordinance of man/ was condemned as contrary to all virtue and goodness/ & as heretical/ & expressly against holy scripture/ in the great convocation that was first at London/ & after at Oxford: & last of all in the counsel of Constancy. Here these persons say falsely/ & they lie on Wicleffe: for Wik lef did never say that all the prohibitions of matrimoney written in the levitical law be but only judicials: nor the convocation/ nor yet the counsel doth not condemn Wiklyf in the print: & yet if he had said/ that all these prohibitions of matrimoney had been but only judicials/ & the convocation and counsel to have condemned him for the same saying/ and to have judged all these prohibitions to be morals: yet all these would no thing have helped these deceivers falls opinion: For as much as in the levitical prohibitions is not forbids (as I often times said) that a man shall not marry his brothers wife a widow left without issue/ and thus ye may see that all that they bring in/ for them can do them no service.   

IN the same leaf of their book/ they say there be decres of other counsels and answers in writing of other of the pope's which do subscribe & agree to these foresaid determinations/ and a none after this/ it folowithe in their book. But we trust gentle and indifferent reader/ that these foresaid rehearsed things shall fully content thee/ for thou sayst here first of all in manner an hole comen assent and agreement of the holy church/ and firthermore thou seist the Popes themselves do give so great majesty and godly authority unto the levitical prohibitions/ that they do plainly affirm and hold steadfastly: that who so ever doth marry contrary to the commandment of these laws be not (indeed) man and wife: nor they cannot render one to the other the duty of matrimony without deadly sin: nor they can not be together by any judgement of the church/ thus say the Pope's/ all this is these deceivers sainge/ and so with these words & sayings they would suade and move the reder to believe that it is against the law of God/ & against the law of nature/ for a man to mary his Brother's wife a widow left without issue: & that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage/ but this (as ye have seen proved before is very false: and where as they say you may in manner se a hole comen assent and agreement of the hole church/ (the which they understand to their opinion) this is also false. For the hole assent and agreement of the church hath agreed that the Pope may dispense upon marriage between the brother and the brother's wife widow etc. And consequently that such marriage is neither against the law of nature: for else the hole church/ and learned men of the Princes and Pope's counsel/ would not have consented that he should have dispensed upon such marriage: if it had been against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ and thus you may see/ that these persons saying is false/ which is this. That the hole assent of the church doth affirm matrimony between the brother and the brother's wife/ to be against the law of God and against the law of nature/ But the hole church of Cristendom hath without reclamation approved such matrimoney leeful and good: Where as these persons say that the Popes themself have given great majesty and godly authority unto the levitical prohibitions: these persons name very often and rehearse their levitical prohibitions in general. But I would see them name one prohibition levitical/ which doth forbid that a man may not marry his brother's wife widow left with out issue. This they should bring of the levitical law the which would do them sum service/ and make well for their purpose: but this they cannot do nor no man for them: for as I have showed you such marriage is not forbidden in the levitical law/ and therefore you may plainly see that to bring in the levitical law/ is no thing for their purpose.   

IN the xxxviij leaf of their book/ they say finally to make an end. Thou shalt understand gentle reader/ that the requestis and suetes of diverse persons/ which have desired dispensations in these degrees have many times here tofore been denied and repellid by the Popes of Rome which answered them thus. It is not in any case leeful for us to dispense with the laws of God: and this we shall show you here after. To this their reason and sophistical argument/ I answer that all thowghe sum Popes have denied to dispense in such degrees of affinity: yet upon this no man can conclude that therefore such degree is of affinity do set marriage by the law of God and by the law of nature. For the Pope may deny to dispense in the third degree of consanguinity/ and affinity in the side line/ and yet every man knowithe/ that the third degree of affinity and consanguinity doth not let matrimony by the law of God/ and by the law of nature/ and also their argument is nought and sophistical. Also the Pope may leefully deny and not licence a manis son to marry his father's goddoughter/ and yet such marriage is neither forbidden by the law of God/ nor by the law of nature/ and thus you may see/ that these persons reason is no thing worth. They say/ that you shall understand/ that Pope's hath denied to dispense in such degrees: And I say that you shall understand that Popes have dispensed and licensed the Brother to mary the sister and the son to marry the Father's Sister/ and the Brother to marry the Brother's widow/ and one man to marry two Sisters/ and also the same man to marry his wife's niece. And that Popes have licensed more persons to mary in such degrees of affinity and consanguinity/ as I shall show you here after. Wherefore you may perceive these deceivers reason is of no strength.   

NOw where as they say that the Pope's/ when they denied to dispense in such degreys'/ they answered thus. it is not in any case leeful for us to dispense with the Laws of God/ and this these persons say they will show here after/ and I will make answer unto it when that they show it. Finally to make an end: you shall understand/ that in the xxxviij leaf of their book/ they make an Epilogation/ And a great heap of shameful lies/ saying/ Moreover thou seest (and except we be deceived) thou dost grant etc. I rehearse no more of their letter/ because you may see the residue in their book which is all together false/ and so in the end of their second chapter in the xxxix leaf that maketh a conclusion of the same stuff/ saying/ that the sentence and determinations of their universities is of as undoubted credence and authority/ as can be. Where they say/ that to marry her that is left of his brother dying without children/ is so forbidden/ both by the law of God/ and by the law of nature: that the Pope is not of power to dispense with any such marriage/ whether they be all ready contract/ or else to be contract. This is the sentence and determinations of their universities: yet these persons (as ye have seen) have not proved it/ neither by authority/ nor reason/ nor they never shall/ for the sentence and the determinations of their universities/ are manifest false and a great error heretical: wherefore if these persons had said that the sentences and determinations of the universities/ be as undowtid falsehood as can be/ where they say: That to marry her that is left of his brother dying without children/ is so forbidden both by the law of God/ and by the law of nature/ and that the Pope is not of power to dispense with any such marriage/ than they had said truth: for without fail/ the sentences and determinations of their universities are undowtid falsehood/ as you have partly hard/ and as ye shall hear more/ her after.   

IN the third chapter in the xxxix leaf of their book/ they say thus. We think that we have well and sufficiently confirmed and stabilished our intent and purpose by the Pope's laws/ and by the authority and counsels. Now next we will go about to fortify and make good the same by the most excellent and most faithful interpreters and most true doctors that expownde holy scripture. Here they say that they have well and sufficiently confirmid and stablished their intent by the Pope's law and by the authority of counsels: And yet you may see that they have brought neither Pope's law nor counsels that affirm this their false purpose. That it is against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. And that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage. Wherefore they should have said that they had neither well nor sufficiently confirmed and stabilyshed their purpose: nor yet never shall by no faithful interpreters and true doctors that expownde holy scripture/ had these persons said thus/ they had said trowth. But that they love to say as their book doth evidently show/ Now I beseech you mark and note well what these doctors say that they bring in/ and how well they fortify these deceivers purpose. First they bring in and allege the great clerk Origene/ where he expowndith the twenty chapter of the Levitical. Now I beseech you look well upon all that they bring of Origene/ and you shall see that in no point he helpeth or favoryth their opinion.   

IN the xli leaf of their book/ they say that Crisostom doth agree with Origen/ and they say truth/ for he doth no thing say that makithe for their purpose.   

IN the xlij leaf of their book/ they say that Basilius the great/ is of the same sentence and mind/ that these other two foresaid doctors be/ and if it be so/ than he doth not fortify their opinion: for the other two doctors in no case favour and affirm this these persons opinion. That it is against the law of God and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. nor yet these doctors do not say that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage. Nor this can not be gathered of these doctors words nor conclude/ as you may see in these persons book/ where they allege these doctors/ and if this doctor Basilius be of the same sentence and mind/ that Origene and Chrysostom be: than he helpeth no thing these persons opinion: and it is in deed truth/ for Basilius in all his goodly pistill doth not say that it is against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his Brother's wife a widow left without issue.   

IN the xliij leaf. they allege Basilius again saying/ If it fortune a man to be overcome with shameless and uncleanly affection to join so unleefully/ that he coupilith himself by marriage with two sisters/ this man is judged not to have contract any marriage: And that he must not be admitted in to the communion of the church/ or cum in the company of Cristen folk before that they have broken this so unleeful couple or bond/ and be departed the on from the t'other/ To this saying I answer thus. That it is understand on this wise that if a man overcomen with shameless affection/ couplyth himself by marriage with two sisters without the Pope's licence/ that than he ought to be judged not to have contract any marriage with the second sister: for by cause he did against the ordinance of the church: which hath decreed that no man shall marry two sisters: and also if any man will attempt the contrary/ and marry two sisters: that than the couping with the second Sister to be judged no marriage: but rather the persons that so did couple themselves under the pretence of marriage against the law of the church/ not to be admitted in to the communion of the church or cum among Christian people before that they have broken their unteafulle couple and bond/ and be departed the one from the t'other. Thus on this wise all Basilius saying is trwthe/ and maketh against these persons purpose and opinion. But they should rather have brought (if they had could) Basilius to have said that he/ which couplyth himself to two sisters one after the death of the t'other for honest respectis & causes with the Pope's licence doth against the law of God/ and against the law of nature/ so that the Pope can not dispense upon such marriage. If these persons had brought in this of basilius saying/ it would have done them sum service. But they can not/ and therefore Basilius helpeth them nothing.   

IN the xlviij lief these persons allege ysichyus/ Gregory Nazanzeus scolere an excellent learned man in holy scripture to be of origen's chrysostom and of Basilius side/ for he expunding the Levitical law saith thus &ce. To this I answer/ that if ysichius be of the rehearsed doctors side/ than it followeth that he saith no thing for to aid these deceivers false opinion. For neither Origen Chrysostom nor Basilius speak no thing in to the favour of these persons opinion. and thus Isychius/ being of the other doctors side/ can not help these persons opinion/ nor he doth not help them in deed in no manner of point: as you may manifestly see in these persons book/ where they do allege him/ for they allege him where he expoundith the xviij Chapter in the levitical book: where it is not forbidden that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. As I have often times showed you: Nor Isichius doth not say that such marriage is there forbidden: nor he doth not say that such marriage is forbidden by the law of God and by the law of nature/ nor yet he doth say that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon marriage between the brother and the brother's wife a widow left with out issue. And therefore ye may perceive that Isichius doth nothing for these decevers purpose.   

IN the li leaf of their book/ they say on this wise. Now with all these doctors opinions agree saint Ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Austyne. And first these persons allege saint Ambros where as he answereth to one Pattern which would have married his dowghters' daughter unto his own soon: which son was the maidens half uncle. For Pattern the father had his son by an other woman/ and in this case saint Ambros said thus. That the son might not marry with the father's dowghters' daughter/ nor yet the niece with the niece/ saying that the law of God forbiddith that the son should marry with the brother's daughter. This is now saint Ambrose his mind. To this I answer that expressly we have in the same law of God that saint Ambrose speaketh of: that the uncle married the niece/ and the niece married with the niece. As Othoniel married his Brother's daughter/ which was called Axa: and the niece married with the niece/ as the daughters of Salphat married with their uncles sons/ 
Nun. ultimo  and here no man can say that these persons married their uncles sons by a dispensation and licence of almighty God: for they were not licensed but commanded by almighty God so to marry/ for there was a law made and published by the reason of the daughters of Salphat as the very text here showeth. Respondit Moyses filijs Israel & domino precipiente ait: recte tribus filiorum joseph locuta est/ & hec lex super filiabus Salphat a Domino promulgata est/ & sequitur/ fecerunt filie Salphat ut sibi fuerat imperatum. And so these women married their uncles sons according to the law and commandment of almighty God/ and so in likewise/ the daughters of Eleazar married their uncles sons. 
i Par. twenty-three.  By this you may see it is not forbidden by the law of god the son to mary with the Brother's daughter/ nor the niece with the niece. but such marriages were commanded by almighty God in his law. these persons say in the lij leaf/ that saint ambrose doth affirm to be against the law of nature for a man to marry his daughter. This is true and noman will say the contrary. but this saying is no thing for these persons purpose/ let them show where saint ambrose saith. It is against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. This these deceivers promise to show and bring in/ but they do not.   

IN the liiij leaf of their book/ they bring in saint Hierome that meruelyth at the Patriarch abraham for by cause he married his sister: seeing the thing is so abominable/ and saying again that almighty God ordained afterward a law for it. wherein he thretenith that who so ever shall take his sister/ other on the father's side/ or on the mother's side: & shall see her foulness: it is a rebuke & a shame/ he shall be driven out of his country in sight of his own kin: he haithe unhilled the privetes of his sister/ he shall receive his reward for his sin. after this saying/ these decevers make an exposition upon saint Hieroms' writing: & for because it is not to the purpose/ I let it pass/ thowghe it be false/ & to saint Hierome saying I answer thus. what so ever saint Hierome saith where they do allege him/ I would show ye/ that saint Hierome doth not marvel nor judge abrahams marriage to be evil: but doth excuse abraham in that he married his sister saying/ In the Hebrew tongue/ it soundith that Sara was abrahams' sister: 
In qnsti. hebraicis super gen.  & in his excuse he saith that at that time such marriage was not forbidden by the law. Here ye may see that saint Hierome doth excuse the patriarch abram in that he married his sister: & saith that in the time of abran such marriage was not forbidden by the law: the which must be understand/ that such marriage was not forbidden by the law of nature. For if that such marriage had been leeful and against the law of nature: than saint Hierome had not justified and excused Abraham in that he married his sister saying: that such marriages at the time were not foebidden by the law. And so thus now you may perceive that saint Hieroms' mind and writing here is/ that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister. And so by this saint Hierome is against these persons false opinion.   

IN the lu leaf of their book/ these persons bring saint Augusten where he writeth against Faustus the great heretic and saith that the commandment of God that bound the Jews to marry with their brother's wife's widows left without issue/ was a figure/ and did signify that the preachers should labour in the gospel to stir up the seed/ unto his brother departed: that is to our saviour Crist/ which died for us. Here ye may see that saint Austen saith that the commandment of God that bound the jews to marry their brother's wives widows/ was a figure/ & than it can not be against the law of nature: as to offer up incense and to be circuncysed were figurs/ & yet now they be not against the law of nature and thus saint Augustyn is not for these menis purpose.   

IN the lvi leaf/ They bring in saint Augustyn in an other place where as he saith. although in time past men married their sister's/ yet that thing was done because necessity compelled men unto it/ but this thing is not now so old/ nor was never so necssary: but it was made afterward as damnable/ because religion doth forbid it. Thus here is the english of saint Austin'S words/ and after the same words that these persons have in their Latyn book. but they have in their ynglishe book that it is not now as damnable/ by cause religion doth forbid it/ And saint Austen saith is was made afterward as damnable/ because religion doth forbid it. And than if this/ for a man to marry his sister be now made damnable because religion doth forbid it: Than it is evident that for a man to marry his sister/ is not damnable of the own nature: for that thing that is damnable by nature/ was/ and is always damnable. and saint augusten saith that this thing/ for a man to marry his sister/ was made afterward damnable/ because religion doth forbid it: and therefore it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister: also saint augustyn saith in the same place where these persons allege him/ that in the beginning of man kind 〈◊〉 was leeful by all means the brothern to marry wit● sisters: but now (saith he) the custom is so agai●●●●e marriage as though such marriage had ●●●er been lawful. By this ye may see that for a man to marry his sister/ is leeful by the law of nature: & it is ●●●●●den 〈◊〉 ●e custom: & than it followeth that if such 〈◊〉 ●e be leeful by the law of nature/ it is 〈◊〉 ●y the same law for a man to marry h● 〈◊〉 ●s wife a widow left without issue. For this can be no more forbidden than for a man to mary his Sister. And thus you may perceive that saint augustyn is against these persons false opinion.   

IN the same leaf/ these persons would have you call to your remembrance of the judgement of these great divines four/ or five things. First what so ever person of Cristes' believe brekith any of the levitical prohibitions of marriage/ he shall be dampened both body and soul into everlasting deith in hell. Note here I beseech ye how these pestilent persons openly slander and say false upon saint ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Augustin. For there is none of them that doth judge/ that what so ever person of Cristes' believe brekith any of the levitical prohibitions of marriage that he shall be dampened both body and soul into everlasting deith in hell/ as these persons do say upon them but it is these ' pestilent persons own malicious judgement: and yet all this maketh nothing for their false opinion. For there is no prohibition levitical that doth forbid that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow etc.   

THe second thing that they would have you note of the judgement of saint ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint augustin is this. That not only the jews did abstain from marrying their Brother's wives even as you would say/ for fere of sum mischief/ and yet they might have done it by authority of their law: but the very heythens also after the death of their wives/ did evermore abstain from marriage of their wives sister/ as from a certain impiety or abomination against nature. Here these shameless persons falsely slander again these holy Doctors/ for they never did judge nor say that the jews did abstain from marrying of their Brother's wives for fere of sum mischief that should fall upon them/ for so marrying. Nor yet these holy men never said that the heythens did evermore abstain from marrying their wives sistern/ as from a certain impiety or abomination against nature. Wherefore you may see that these ungracious persons do falsely say and slander Saint Ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Augustin/ and not only in this their false saying slander these holy men/ But they also do blaspheme almighty God: for in saying that the jews did abstain from marrying their Brother's wives for fere of sum mischief that should fall upon them for so marrying/ they say that almighty God in commanding and biding the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows &cet. commanded and bound them to a thing that mischief should come to the jews for fullfilling and keeping of the same commandment/ ye and beside all this it followithe that almighty God in commanding and biding the jews to marry their Brother's wife's widows &cet. set the jews in a miserable state and in a grievous perplexite/ for if they married their brother's wife's widows &c. according to the commanding of almighty God: than they lokyde for mischief to fall upon them for so marrying, and again/ if they did not marry their brother's wife's widows etc. than they should be punished with perpetual infamy and dishonour. For so had almighty God commanded to punish all those that would not marry their brother's wife's widows etc. and thus by these false deceivers sayings almighty God in commanding the jews to mary their brother's wife's widows &cet. set them in a marvelous grievous perplexite. Who durst thus say by almighty God/ saying that he nouresshed the jews with singler benevolence and marvelous kynenes holy and just laws concerning them and their time? Wherefore you may see these persons in their saying do highly baspheme almighty God: and do falsely say upon these holy men and Doctors.   

NOw to the second part of this their second saying/ where as these persons affirm that the very heythens after the death of their wives did evermore abstain from marrying of their wives sisters as from a certain impiety or abomination against nature. Here these deceivers confound themselves and speak against their own writing. For in the xviij leaf of their book/ they say: that beside other mischievous vices this thing was also leeful and customable among these haythens to mingle and mercy themself by the most shameful lust and pleasure of their bodies with them that be most nigh of their blood and affinity putting no difference between them and other women. This they said and write there/ and here they say the contrary. They say that the heythens after the death of their wives did evermore abstain from marrying of their wives sisters as from a certain impiety or abomination against nature: Therefore you may clearly see/ these persons be past shame/ and care not whate they writ and say/ that they might cause the reder to believe their false opinion.   

THe third thing that these deceivers would have you note of the judgement of saint Ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Austen is this. That marriage contract contrary to these prophibitions be uncomely and abominable and as near as can be to the life of bruyt bestis etc. ye and further/ they be the transgression and breaking of all the law. Here these false liars say again falsely on these holy men. For this they can not show to be the judgement of saint Ambros/ saint Hierome/ and saint Augusten. Also these lies and false sayings make no thing for their purpose. For they speak of the levitical law and there ground the themself: where it is in no wise forbidden that a man shall not mary his brother's wife a widow left without issue.   

THe four thing that these deceivers would have you to note and mark of the judgement of saint Ambrose saint Hierome/ and saint Austen is this/ That marriages made contrary to the levitical prohibitions be so grievous and so hateful in the sight of God/ that they have destroyed holl nations/ polluted the land/ and being polluted caused it naturally to grudge and to put them out which had committed such things. Here again these deceivers say falsely upon these holy men: for they cannot show these their sayngis to be these doctors judgement. Also these lies and false sayings make no thing for these persons false purpose: for all their saying is ground in the levitical law: and there it is not forbidden that a man shall not mary his Brother's wife a widow left without issue.   

THe .v. thing that these persons would have you note of the judgement of saint Ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Austen is this. That the prohibitions levitical pertain not only to thieves/ but to all Cristians which come to serve God. And that they which be polluted with any of these not to be spoken dedis/ are defiled with them al. Here these shameless liars say falsely on Ambrose/ Hierome/ and Austen: for as I have showed you/ they cannot bring where that this their saying should be these holy means iugementis. and again this their false saying doth not help these deceivers false opinion/ as you have hard before/ by cause they ground them in the levitical prohibitions: But now for asmuch as in this their saying/ they affirm that if a man be polutid & corrupt with any of thi●s not to be spoken dedis/ he is defylid with them all: he ʳ ye may see how like themself they speak/ for of this their saying/ it followeth that if a manly with his sister & so is polutid in that sin: that than he is polluted with his other/ with his stepmother/ with his daughter/ polluted with his niece/ & with brute bestis/ polluted with offering his seed in sacrifice to the ydol Moloch. For all these & other more/ be forbidden in the levitical law: who would say thus but these filthy & lying persons? Now you hard how these deceivers have slandered and falsely said of these three holy men saint Ambrose/ saint Hierome/ and saint Augustin.   

IN the lvij leaf/ they exhort you to mark well saint Ambrose his saying/ and to that you have herd my answer before.   

AFter these doctors these persons bring holy saint Ancelme. Briefly he in all that pistle/ which these persons say is his/ doth not say that it is against the law of God and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow &ce. nor yet this that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage: nor this can not be gathered nor concludid of this saying of saint Ancelme in the rehearsed pistle as it appeareth in the lx leaf of their book. That Cristiane religion and perfection haveth ordained that the bounds and butailes of consanguinity should be stretched forth unto the vi degree on every side/ according unto the decreys of holy fathers and canons: so that kinsfolk being in the vi degree may not mary toghither: by this you may see that saint Ancelme doth speak of such marriage as is forbidden by the law of the church: and therefore in the end of his pistle he showeth that both before the law and in the law/ men upon certain honest causes and considerations married their near knswomen/ as their sisters and their neces: before the law/ as Abraham/ Isaac/ and jacob. In the law/ Othoniel/ the which marriages saint Ancelme doth not say that they were against the law of nature. But he doth approve them good: for because the persons which so married/ did mary for good considerations and honest causes/ yet for all that (saith he) Cristiane religion & the perfectness that ought to be in a Cristen man will judge nothing to be honest that is against the honesty of nature. So here saint Ancelme doth suade that we should not marry now our kinneswomen/ but marry other for to spreaded a broad love and charity/ for it is against the honesty of nature after his mind/ to marry within the uj degree. For men and women do by the reason of affinity & kindred bare love naturally unto that degree. And therefore saint Ancelme did extend the honesty of nature to the vi degree/ as it appeareth by his saying before/ And thus you may see that saint ancelme doith not say that it is against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister and near kinswoman: but that for honest causes men have so married.   

IN the .lxv. leaf/ these persons bring in Hugh Cardinal: Rauffe Flamacensis/ Rute Tintiensis/ Hildebart Cenomanese/ Iuo Carnotense/ all bishops and one water of constance archdeacon of Oxford/ and truly the first two Hugh Cardinal/ and Rauffe flaviacensis expounding the xviij. chapter levitical. briefly here I answer/ there is none of these Doctors that saith it is against the law of God and against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue: nor yet this that the Pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage: nor this can not be concludid of their sayings. Wherefore I pass over unto the .lxxv. leaf of these deceivers book where they allege for their purpose the scholastical doctors.   

NOw among the scolastical doctors these persons do bring in Thomas in the lxxviij lief of their book: which saith that at the beginning of mankind there were exceptid from marriage the father and the mother/ that is to be understand/ that the father might not mary with the daughter/ nor the mother with the soon/ but afterward when mankind was encreaside and multiplied there were many more persons except by Moses' law. briefly saint Thomas in all his reasons before and after doth no thing but declare that the father and the daughter/ the mother and the soon were forbidden to marry together by the law of nature. The other persons that were afterward except/ he saith were forbidden to marry together by the law of Moses: which law/ Thomas calleth sum time the law of God. This may you see plainly in all the process that these persons do bring in of Thomas from the .lxxv. leaf/ unto the lxxix leaf/ and thus Thomas speaketh not one word against this that a man may marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ nor yet against this/ that the Pope haithe power to dispense upon such marriage.   

these persons promised to bring doctors to speak against these things: but they be very slake in performing their promise.   

IN the same lief/ these persons do bring in Thomas saying/ infidels contract within the degrees forbidden in the xviij. Chapter of Levitical/ contrary to the law of God: whether both to or one of them be converted to the faith: they may not bide still together in such marriage: for as much as saint Thomas speaketh here of the degrees forbidden in the xviij chapter of the levitical: I will answer no other wise but thus/ it is not forbidden in the xviij Chapter of the levitical that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue: and therefore saint Thomas speaketh nothing for these deceivers purpose.   

ALso to Altissiodorensis saying/ where they allege him to say that the preceptis Levitical be morals: this saying doth no service to these deceivers false opinion. For as I have showed you/ and am compelled often times to show you/ that it is not forbidden in the Levitical law that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. And if these deceivers were not passed shame they would not allege so often the levitical law and prohibitions as they do seeing it maketh nothing for their purpose/ or else they should rehearse sum prohibition levitical that doth forbid that a man shall not marry his Brother's wife a widow left etc.   

IN the lxxxij leaf/ they bring Peter de Palude: which saith the Pope hath no power to dispense in the first degree of affinity no more than he haveth in the first degree of consanguinity: for marriages forbidden by the law of God in the first degree of consanguinity or affinity not one streghter above the other: but the one of side half to the other as the brother and the sister in this degree. Also the Pope hath power to dispense because it is somewhat against the law of nature/ and a little after this Doctor Peter de Palude saith that the Pope hath no power to dispense that a man should marry the wife of his brother although he died without children/ for how be it men were sufferde to do thus in times past: yet that was not but by dispensation/ ye and that dispensation was by the law of God and not by the law of men/ and again a little after this he saith that the Pope hath no more power to dispense with a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ than he haveth to dispense for a plurality of wives. For marriage between the brother and the brother's widow left without issue: was suffered for a certain time by the dispensation of almighty God/ like as it was to have many wife's. Here is this Doctors mind which speaketh sum what for these persons purpose.   

NOw to this Doctors saying I answer thus/ and first to this point where he saith that the Pope hath no power to dispense in the first degree of affinity no more than he hath in the first degree of consanguinity and that not only in the right line no more than in the side line: as the brother to marry with the sister: for by cause this is somewhat against the law of nature. To this/ this Doctor Peter de Palude expounding the xviij Chapter of the levitical saith: that the Pope may dispense in all the degrees of affinity contained in the levitical/ for all these degrees (saith he) seem to be forbidden by the law posytive. And now you may see by this doctors mind that marriage between the brother's widow and the Brothere/ is not against the law of nature: for this doctor saith that the Pope may dispense in that degree of affinity. and where as he said that the Pope could not dispense that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue: here he saith the contrary. For he saith the Pope may dispense in all degrees of affinity that be contained in the levitical law. Also where as he said that the Pope hath no more power to dispense with a man to mary his Brother's wife a widow left with out issue/ than he hath to dispense for a plurality of wife's: here you may see that this Doctor saith the contrary. For he affirmeth that the Pope may dispense in all degrees of affinity contained in the levitical law. And finally where as he saith/ that it was suffered for a certain time that the brother should marry the Brother's wife a widow left without issue/ but this he saith was but by the dispensation of almighty God: like as it was to have many wife's. This saying can in no case be true: for almighty god did not despence in the old law/ that a man might marry his Brother's wife a widow left without issue: but did expressly command that all the jews should always mary their brother's wife's widows left without issue. And they should so marry upon a great pain. And therefore it is not true to say that almighty God did dispense with the jews that they might marry their Brother's wife's widows left without issue/ for they were bound to marry their Brother's wives left without issue/ by an expressid law of almighty God/ also this can in no wise be called a dispensation: for a dispensation doth always presuppose a commandment contrary to the license and dispensation: but in all the hole law there is no commandment that forbiddeth that a man shall not marry his Brother's wife a widow left with out issue: as it is manifest. Wherefore it can not be said that almighty God did dispense and licence the jews to marry their Brother's wives widows left with out issue. Finally by licence and dispensation a man is set at liberty to use his dispensation or not to use it: but the jews were not at liberty and at choice to mary their brother's wife's widows left with out issue/ or else to leave them. But rather the law compelled the jews to mary their Brother's wife's widows left with out issue. or else to punish such as would not mary their Brother's wife's widows left without issue/ with perpetual infamy and great dishonour. Wherefore it can not be said that almighty God did dispense with the jews to mary their Brother's wife's widows left with out issue/ but he commanded them so to mary The example also and similitude that this doctor Peter de Palude brought to show that almighty God did dispense with the jews that they might marry their brother's wife's widows etc. doth not prove in any case. He saith on this wise that almighty God suffered the jews to marry their brother's wife's widows etc. like as he did suffer sum persons to have more wives at once than one. This saying is not like: for the first/ almighty God did command/ and bound every man to it: but the second/ that a man might have more wives at once than one/ almighty God did never command to persons in general nor in special: and so you may see that the example and similitude doth not prove. Here peraventure sum will meruyll at this doctor Peter de Palude which in expowndinge the laws levitical doth so directly speak against that he wrote in his book upon the sentences. To this it may be answered that when he wrote upon the sentences he held that opinion: but when he came afterward and would expound the levitical/ he forsook his opinion/ which he held before: and here upon the levitical book he wrote the truth: wherefore upon the xviij chapter levitical he saith thus. In certain books it is written/ no man may take his brother's wife which (saith he) is thus understand. No man may take his brother's wife (his brother being a live) for asmuch as the law in another place doth command that a man shall marry his brother's wife a widow. And now by this saying/ this Doctor peter de Palude is not only against the deceivers opinion in many points as ye have seen before: but here also he utterly doth destroy all the ground where on these persons would build their false opinion. For he saith that the prohibition levitical that forbiddithe a man to take his brother's wife is understand/ to forbid him that he taketh not his brother's wife while his brother is a live/ for as much as in an other place the law doth command that a man shall marry his brother's wife a widow. Thus ye may perceive that this their great Doctor Peter de Palude doth utterly destroy all these deceivers false opinion/ for he showeth and affirm that for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ is not forbidden in the levitical law but he saith such marriage is commanded in another place of the law.   

IN the lxxxiij leaf of their book/ these persons bring in the authority of the bishop of florins and John de Turre cremata which (as these persons do say/ do agre in this matter with Pet de Palude/ now if it be so/ than they speak directly against their false opinion: for Peter de Palude speaketh against it/ And if these deceivers will say that th●rchbishope of florins and john de Turre cremata doith agre with Peter de Palude/ where he did err/ and not where he said truth. than surely they should nother be believed nor accept. Briefly these two rehearsed Doctors and Alexander de Alice whose saying and opinion these deceivers do not recite/ they all ground them in Peter de Paluddes first opinion/ which he himself did after forsake and reprove/ and in the prohibitions levitical to the which I have answered often times that it is not forbidden there that a man shall not mary his brother's wife a widow left without issue/ and likewise doth the Doctors that they bring after the said Cardinals and Walden that saith the Levitical laws be moral preceptis and of the x. commandments and that even to so many degrees as be reckoned up there unto the fowerthe/ this unto the fowerthe/ these deceivers leave out of walden's saying: thowghe this opinion of Walden be false/ yet I would not tarry upon it/ nor upon Pope martins approving of walden's book/ nor yet upon the Doctors which they name without any rehearsing of their writings and opinions. For all these be impertinent to the purpose as every man may see in these deceivers book Wherefore I pass over to the lxxxvii leaf.   

IN the lxxxvij leaf/ these persons do allege two glosers of the law of Canon/ john Andre and john Imola which do gather and conclude by the words of the very text of the chapter Literas: and also by the words of gloss there/ that the degrees written in the levitical law be the same self degrees in the which Pope innocent himself doth say that the Pope hath no power to dispense with. Here these persons say falsely of john Andre: for in the end of his answer he concludith that the Pope may dispense in the first degree of consanguinity after that the matromony be once consummate/ thus ye may see how these shameless persons do lie.   

IN the lxxxviij leaf/ they say that master Abbot is of john andres opinion: & here also they say falsely upon Master abbot/ for he there rehearsing divers opinions/ finally doth conclude that the Pope may dispense in the first degree of affinity after that matrimony be consummate. Thus ye may see that these false deceivers do not cease to lie.   

IN the lxxxix leaf/ these persons say that to those persons which the law of god doth call neyest of blood/ there can be no good nor just cause for the which it might be suffered or dispensed with the one of them that should diskouer the foulness of another/ nor the ʳ can not be alleged anything so honest/ that is able to covr the dishonesty of this thing. This is your own pestilent saying: here they greatly accuse Abram/ Isaac/ & jacob: for they married with their sister & with their uncles daughters/ & if there can not be allegid any thing so good & honest/ that is able to cover the dishonesty of such marriages/ than these persons do condemn these holy patriarchs/ & say that in marrying their kinneswomen they did shamefully/ & even that thing which is so evil that theridamas can not be alleged any thing so honest that is able to cover the dishonesty of their Marriages. Who will say thus by these holy fathers and patriarchs/ but these ungracious persons? saint Hierom doth excuse Abraham in that he married his sister/ and showeth that in so mariing he did not offend/ as ye have hard before. And saint austin against Faustus the manachye/ showeth that jacob did not offend in marrying of his uncles daughter/ and saint ancelme in the epistle/ that these persons affirm to be his/ saith that for certain considerations and honest causes/ men sum time married their near kinswomen both before the law and in the law/ before the law/ as abraham/ and Isaac/ and jacob/ in the law/ as Othoniel/ these holy men judge these marriages to be honest/ just/ and good: which these ungracious persons do falsely damn for to colour their damnable opinion.   

IN the. lxxxx. leaf/ of their book these persons would have you to mark specially/ which diverse of these holy and approbate doctors do hold/ also that the brother can not marry a woman that is but only handfast unto his brother: and if he do: the marriage can not stand by help of any dispensation/ and that all such marriages must needs be utterly broken/ Of this opinion these persons say is master lyre/ and also the noble divine Hugh de sancto victore. and so in the. lxxxxij. leaf of their book/ they say that marriage in the first degree of consanguinity and of affinity is not only forbidden in the levitical law: but also marriage in the first degree/ for a justice grounded only upon a certain common honest and comeliness/ is forbidden by the law of God in the levitical: and so can not be dispensid with all by me. Here ye may see how openly and without all shamefastness they lie they bid you mark which diverse of the holy and approbate Doctors do hold that the brother can not marry a woman that is but only handfast to his brother after his death (thus they must understand it) and if a man do: the marriage can not stand by help of any dispensation. First these persons have brought no doctor that this doth affirm/ and there is neither master Lyre/ nor Hugh de sancto Victore that doth say that the pope can not dispense with a man that he may marry that woman which was only but handfast to his brother after his brothers death. Hugo de S. vic. in all his long process that these persons bring in/ hath not a word of the Pope's power and dispensation/ nor master Lyre in this case/ moreover it is evident that it is but only forbidden by the law of the church that a man may not marry his brother's spouse after the death of his brother. there is no scripture nor Doctor saying that such marriage is forbidden by the levitical law/ nor again there is no Doctor that doth say that the Pope can not dispense in this case. you may see what persons be these/ they care not how falsely they say/ they be not ashamid to speak against all reason and learning   

FOr to prove their afore rehearsed saying/ they bring in a case: that there was a man which had his eldest soon hand fast to a maid/ and so this young men died: and than his father bound himself by an other to the maiden/ that he would mary his youngest son to her/ and upon this/ he made suit to the Pope which was Alexandre the third: and he would not dispense and licence this man's younger son to mary the maiden: but let the man that swore he would marry his younger soone to the maiden be pariuride: where upon these persons would conclude/ that the Pope can not dispense that a man may marry his Brother's spouse after his brothers death/ which is false: for this argument is nought to say. The Pope will not dispense upon such marriage: wherefore it followeth that he can not dispense upon such marriage. This you see doth not follow. For the Pope doth not always dispense where he may dispense. Also if the Pope were bound to dispense in the third and fourth degree of affinity with every man that did or would swear to marry in these degreis'/ than the prohibition were no prohibition/ Also where as these persons say that the Pope alexandre did affirm in his answer to the bishop of poppy/ the it is written in the levitical/ that the Brother can not have the Brother's spouse/ and therefore he commanded the bishop that he should not suffer henry that hath sworn to marry his young soon to the maid to fulfil his purpose. To this I answer that it is not forbidden in the Levitical law that a man shall not marry his brother's spouse: nor there is no manner of mention made of any such marriage/ and so ye may see that all that ever they bring/ is not for their false purpose.   

IN the. lxxxxiij. leaf of their book/ upon their undoubted falls lies and sayngis/ they would thus conclude their false purpose saying. Wherefore seeing that these things be thought true to so many and discrete auctors that it is not leeful for a man to mary his brother spouse: how much more unlawful ought we to think this thing/ that a man should marry his brother's wife a widow with whom his brother hath had carnally to do and that he should uncover the privities of etc. Here again they continue in their customable lying. For they say the many discrete auctors have judged that it is forbidden in the levitical law that a man shall not marry his brother's spouse: & that such marriage is so unleeful/ that the Pope can not dispense upon it. This ye see is manifestly false: for there is no discrete auctor that so saith/ & if there be any auctores that so judge: why do not these persons bring them in? but they say very falsely: for there be no discrete aucto●r● that so judge and say.   

Wherein this their saying they would have men to judge & believe that it is unlawful for a man to marry his brother's spouse. And than much more unlawful for a man to marry his brother's widow with whom his brother hath hade carnally to do etc. Here these false deceivers speak covertly. but I will show you a very truth/ which is this. The Quenis grace that now is/ was a maiden when her grace was married last/ and in witness and record that this is true her grace haveth sworn/ and testified upon a book and received the blessed Sacrament of the altar/ that she was a maiden when her grace was last married. Wherefore the determinations of the faculty of divinity and the canon of the university of Paryse (though that they be false) yet they make nothing against this matrimony/ nor the determinations of both the facultes of law/ of thuniversity of Angew. nor the determination of divinity of the university o Biturs/ for these have determined on this wise: That if there were paste between the husband and the wife/ carnal copulation: that than the brother/ may not mary his brother's widow: nor the Pope can not dispense upon such marriage/ so now although the determinations of these universities be false/ as be all the o'th' ʳ: yet these reherside/ help no thing the pestilent & malicious purpose of these pestilent persons: for asmuch as the Quenis grace was a maiden/ when she was last married.   

HEre now ye have hard part of these shameless persons manners: part of their manifest errors/ part of their damnable dying: and part of their blasphemy/ you have also heard how that they have brought in holy scripture/ counsels and doctors for to have coloured and fortified their ungracious and false opinion: and yet they can not bring it to pass nor never shall. Wherefore/ although in the beginning of this my answer I showed and provid sufficiently the truth of this proposition. That it is not against the law of god nor against the law of nature/ for a man to mary his brother's wife a widow left without issue. And that the pope haveth no power to dispense upon such marriage: now yet/ I will show you the same more largely by holy father's/ doctors/ and Pope's sayings/ and first that such marriage is not against the law of nature.   

FIrst saint Hierome doth excuse Abraham/ in that he married his sister/ & doth justify and defend Abraham for so marrying. 
In qnst. heb. super gen.  For such marriages saith saint Hierome/ were not then forbidden of the law of nature. And if it be not forbidden by the law nature a man to mary his sister: much less was it forbidden/ a man to mary his brother's widow left without issue.   

saint Austen saith that in the time of Abraham/ men might leefully marry with their sisters of the one side: 
count. faustum li. xxij. ca xxxv.  or of both sides. & if it were leeful & not against the law of nature than for men to marry their sisters: it is not against the law of nature then for a man to marry his brothers etc.   


super mat. ho m. xlix  HOly Chrysostom doth show reasonable causes why almighty God did command the jews to marry their brother's widows etc. and than such marriage cannot be against the law of nature and reason.   

TErtulian/ these deceivers doctor doth allege certain causes which be judged good and reasonable why the Jews should in the time of the old law mary their brother's wives widows etc. Wherefore he did not judge such marriage to be against the law of reason: seeing he assigned (after his mind) reasonable causes: whereby men might leefully marry their brother's widows. yet ye shall understand that I do not approve Tertulians reasons/ that he showeth for such marriage: but yet by his reasons it appeareth that he did not judge marriage between the brother and the brother's widow etc. to be against the law of reason and nature.   

RVperte upon the levitical/ saith that Abraham after the custom of the heithens/ among the which he dwelled/ did mary his own sister: and yet for all that he did not sin/ for asmuch as unto that time/ he had not by the law commandment to the contrary: nor yet by the voice of almighty god. Now where there is no commandment (saith he) there is no transgression of the law. so by this doctors saying/ ye may clearly see/ that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister/ and than it is not against the law of nature for a man to mercy his brother's wife left without issue.   

HEwgh of saint victore saith that in the institution of matrimony/ there were but two persons except: 
li. iij. de sacramento p. ij. ca iiij  that is but the father and the mother: so that it was forbidden than/ that the father should not marry with the daughter/ nor the mother with the son. but all other persons might leefully marry together by the first institution of matrimony. After this (saith this doctor) came the second institution of matrimony/ which was made by the law written/ and that did except certain other persons beside the father and the mother/ and this was done/ other for to ornate nature/ or else to augment and increase chastity. And than to mary the Brother with the Sister or the near kinsman with the near kinswoman began to be unleeful by the prohibition that before was leeful/ and granted by nature.  
By this doctors mind ye may evidently see/ that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister/ and than it followeth that it is not against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc.   


ix. lib. iiij. art. xiii.  Saint Thomas saith that the prohibition levitical that forbiddeth that a man may not marry his sister/ is a prohibition and a commandment judicial/ and he in likewise saith in another place/ 
p. ij. 2. q. 9 arti. iiij.  that it was not forbidden by the law of nature that a man should not mary his sister/ wherefore if it be not against 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 brother's wife a widow left etc.   


In four sen. dis. xl. corpor. qnst.  saint Thomas again saith that by the law of nature/ it is forbidden that the father shall not mary his daughter nor the mother her son: other persons near of kin be forbidden/ by the law of God/ and than it followeth that for a man to mary his brother's widow etc. is not against the law of nature.   

PEter of Blesen saith that at the beginning there were no more persons except from matrimony/ but the father and mother/ & is to say: that the father may not marry the daughter/ nor the mother with the son. And therefore saith this doctor/ it was said for matrimony/ a man shall leave and forsake his father and his mother/ and take him to his wife. But afterward (saith he) the lawmaker did except more persons and forbade more degrees.   

Saint Bonaventure in answering to an argument that infideles which turn to Christ's faith ought not to retain their wives which they had married before/ 
In four distinct. xxxix. qnst. iiij.  if so be they had married themself to their sister's/ or near kinswomen/ such as be against the order that Christian people do keep in marriage/ saith thus: that for a man to marry his sister is forbidden by the commandment of the church: and therefore when heathen turn to the faith they must conform themself afterward to the order of the church: & not to marry against the churches prohibition: but if they married their sisters before: than they may not be separate: for the ordinance of the church doth not extend to that/ so saint bonaventure doth say that for a man to marry his sister/ is but against the law of the church/ and not against the law of nature: for if it were against the law of nature: than the ordinance of the church would dissolve and break it: the which saint Bonaventure saith/ the church can not do: and than/ if it be not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister/ it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's widow & cete.   


In four dist. xl. conclusione ij.  THomas also of argentine show that infidelis may mary in the degrees that be forbidden to Cristen men. For if they be jews/ than they may marry with their kinswomen in the iii and four degree: for there was forbidden to them but the first and second degree as show the xviij. Chapter of the levitical/ and if the infideles be gentiles and follow only the law of nature than they may marry in the first and second degree: for although the written law positive/ do forbidden such marriages: yet it seemeth that the law of nature doth not forbid them: the which is manifest in the old fathers that were before the law. For abraham married his sister/ and jacob his uncles daughter. and if it be not against the law of nature/ for a a man to marry his sister: it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's widow left without issue.   

ALso Pope zachary saith (which these deceivers do allege for them in their book) that it is more forbidden that a man shall not marry his father's goddoughter: and that a man ought more forbeer to mary with her/ than to mary with his father's daughter: & yet it is evident/ that it is not against the law of God nor against the law of nature for a man to mary his father's goddoughter for that is forbidden but only by the law of the church. Wherefore it followeth that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his father's daughter. For if that thing that is more forbidden be not against the law of nature: than that thing that is less forbidden in the same kind of forbidinge/ is not against the law of nature/ and this pope Zakary speaketh of one manner of forbidding of marriage/ and than it followeth upon this saying of this Pope that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister. And so than it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his brother's widow etc.   

NOw ye have hard by these holy fathers and men of great learning how that it is not against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his sister. Whereof followeth that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left with out issue. The hole universal numbered of expownders of holy Scripture do affirm/ that from the first Institution of matrimony unto the time of the law of Moses: there were no more persons except and forbidden to mary together by the law of nature: but these/ The Father with the daughter/ and the Mother with the son/ All other persons might mary together in the side line in any manner of degree of consanguinity or affinity. 
con. fan. li. xxij. ca xlvij  Wherefore saint Augustyn doth defend the holy Patriarch Iacobe the which married two sisters and had them both at once: and they were his near kinswoman/ for in the second degree/ and the one of them was joined to him by Aliens in the first degree of affinity/ and beside these two wives/ this holy man jacob had other two wives and they were to him and among themself in the same degree of affinity. And yet saint Augustyn doth justify this holy patriarch jacob in thus marrying: saying on this wise. it is said on to jacob for a great offence that he had four wyves but he is cleared and quite of this offence by a general proclamation. First for asmuch/ as when the manner and custom was to have more wives than one/ than to marry so was none offence. but to have more wives at once now/ is offence: by cause that the custom is contrary/ and it followeth anon after. Sum sins and offensis be against nature. Sum be against customs/ and sum be against preceptis and commaundmentis/ and when it is thus/ what offence is laid to this holy man Iacobe in having many wives? & if ye ask nature why jacob had so many wives/ she will answer for him that he died not take them fore the inordinate lust and pleasure of the body: but he used his wives to increase and multiply faithful people/ if you ask custom why Iacobe took so many wives: it will answer that at that time in that country their manner was so to marry: if ye ask the commandment why Iacobe took so many wives: it he will answer/ for by cause that there was no law that forbade it. but wherefore is it now an offence to take more wives at once than one? that is for because laws and customs do forbid it/ ye and that although a man would take more wives for to increase and multiply faithful people. Thus you may see by saint Austyn that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry in the first degree of affinity. peraventure sum will make this objection/ and say that almighty God did dispense with jacob that he might marry on the rehearsed wise/ and in such degrees of affinity and consanguinity/ and so he did likewise with other holy men before the law. saint Augustyns words do take this objection clean away: for a dispensation (to this purpose here) is a licence granted against sum law or a declaration of sum law. And by saint Austyns words than there was no law that forbade jacob so to marry/ and than had he no need of licence to marry so: nor there was no law to be declared/ and therefore after saint Augustine's mind: Iacobe did not offend against the law of nature/ and than after this time almighty God did forbid certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity: as the first and second by law positive and commandment which Moses did declare unto the people: and these prohibitions have now no strength/ but by a new ordinance which that the church made that Cristen people should not now marry in these degrees nor in the third. Thus have ye hard before of the sentence of Thomas of argentine/ and the prohibition levital: that a man should not marry his brother's wife (understand a widow) to be a law positive: and the same we may have of holy Chrisostoms saying. 
super matth. ho. xlix  He showeth why almighty God commanded the jews to marry their brother's wives widows left without issue. And than he asked why a man might not marry his brother's widow that had children left by her husband. To this he answereth and say that it was done for by cause that the law maker would have affinity to go further a broad/ whereby men might be knit together. So by this it appeareth that the prohibition levitical which for bode that a man should not marry his brother's widow/ was a law positive and a political precept which now hath no strength but by the reason of the constitution of the church. Also it do apere that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister: his near kinswomen: for if the custom & law of the church to the contrary were a way/ many discrete men with right judgement of reason had liefer marry their sister and near kinswomen than other women. And yet not for no filthy nor uncleanly desire: but rather for the natural love that they have to their kinswomen/ they should be moved to use them very honestly ynal acts: ye & much better than they should use any other women. This I suppose that the most part of discrete men & women (that do or will examine this well) will thus judge. Thus now ye may perceive that it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his brother's wife a widow left without etc.   

NOw I shall show ye that it is not against the law of God for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow etc. First it is not against the old law of God: but there is and was a commanded law universal/ & bound all the jews to marry always their brother's wives left etc. and that upon a great pain as ye have herd declared before/ and no man can say that the jews married their brother's wives widows etc. by a licence & dispensation of almighty God: for that ye have sayne manifestly improvid.   

saint chrysostom saith that the law did compel the Jews to marry their brother's wife's widows &ce. & so such marriage is not against the old law/ but it was there commanded 
super Mat. ca xxii ho. lxxi    

ALso for a man to marry his brothers widow etc. is not against Christ's law: but rath ʳ o r saviour christ did approve such marriage as ye saw her at the beginning of mine answer. also in alt he new Testament there is no expressed prohibition against the deutronomical precept which bond the jews to marry their brothers wives widows etc. nor yet of all the new testament no man can gather to conclude a prohibition against the deuteronomicall commandment/ ye & beside this there is no man that can conclude of any scripture in the new Testament any prohibition to let Marriage in any degree of affinity or consanguinity beside the prohibition of the law of nature/ this is manifest: wherefore/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow is not against the law of God/ for it is neither against the new law nor the old.   

But yet for asmuch as divers Doctors do say/ that it is against the law of God to marry in the first and second degree of consanguinity and of affinity ye shall understand that the church hath made certain constitutions and laws upon the judicial commandments and examples of the old law/ as that priests and religions men shall say their Canonical hours and service/ of the which constitution the church took their ground in the old law: as in the Psalm Septies in die laudem dixi tibi domine. And again/ media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi. Likewise the church hath ordained and constitute that we shall fast the lente: In the making of this law/ the church grounded it in the examples of the holy fathers of the old law: which fasted xl days: and in the example of the fasting of our saviour Christ/ and upon this saint Augustine/ saint Hierome/ & maximyn/ say that the lent is commanded to be kept and fasted vi the law of God. Also the church hath ordained and decreid that no man shall marry in the first and second degree of affinity and consanguinity/ and took example and occasion in the prohibitions of the old law in making this decree and ordinance/ and therefore often times doctors say that it is forbidden by the law of God that a man shall not marry in these degrees. Wherefore these rehearsed things and laws which be only ordinances of the church/ yet be they called the laws of God: for because the church in making them took occasion and example in the old law/ Therefore when any doctor saith it is forbidden by the law of God/ that a man may not marry in the first degree of consanguinity and affinity: it must be understand that such marriage is said to be forbidden by the law of God: because that upon the prohibitions in the old law (which now have strength) the church hath made a new constitution which doth forbid marriage in these degrees. This rwle perceived/ now I will show that the Pope hath power to dispense and licence a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left etc.   

THe Pope haith power to licence & dispense against any prohibition made by the church: This is so evident that no man can deny it And it is only a prohibition of the church that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow etc. Wherefore it followeth that the pope may in this case licence & dispense/ that a man may marry his brother's wife a widow left etc.   

THis reason and argument is good/ and the first proposition of it is true. And the minor and second proposition I will prove/ that it is but only a prohibition of the church/ that a man may not marry his brother's widow etc. First it is not forbidden by the law of nature/ nor by the old law nor in the new law/ as ye have hard. Wherefore such marriage is only forbidden by the prohibition of the church.   


in iiij dist. if.  THe same doth affirm Master dunce/ saying the affinity settith matrimony. but that is not but because of the statute of the church. & so than it is not forbidden/ but by the statute of the church that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow.   


in iiij dist. xl. qnst. ij. in corpore quest  saint Bonaventure saith that it is not unleeful for a man to marry his sister/ but for because that the statute of the church hath forbidden that no man shall marry his sistr. & than it followeth that it is not forbidden/ but by the statute of the church that no man shall marry his brother's widow &ce. for this can be no more forbidden than the tother.   


in. iiii. dis●●nc. xxxix. q●in.  ALso saint Bonaventure saith that a Jew which hath married his brother's wife a widow/ & so turneth to christian faith: ought not to be divorced from his wife. & so by this holy Bonaventurs saying/ it is not forbidden but by the church that a man shall not marry his brother's wife a widow. For if such marriage were forbidden/ other by the law of God/ or by the law of nature than the jew that had so married & came to the faith: ought to be divorced & separate from his wife: that which Bonaventure doth deny/ wherefore it is not forbidden/ but by the ordinance of the church that a man shall not marry his brother widow etc.  
ALso these false deceivers great doctor Peter de Palude expounding the xviij chapi. levitical/ saith that all degrees of affinity their contained seemed to be forbidden by the law positive.   

ALso Frances Marro saith that at the beginning of Christ's church/ affinity did not let persons to marry together: 
In iiij dist. xli qnstio. v nica In supplemeit to gavi elis in iiij. dist. xli. q. i.  for there was than no law positive for it.   

WEndelyn saith the affinity lettith marriage only by the statute of the church: which have ordained the persons joined in certain degrees of affinity/ shall not marry together.  
¶ Now by these doctors mids/ ye may perceive/ that it is only forbidden by the law of the church that a man may not marry his brother's widow. wherefore the minor/ & second proposition of the reason principal is true. & so is this conclusion/ that the Pope may licence and dispense that a man may marry his brother's wife a widow etc. There be also doctors that do confirm this conclusion. First Peter de Palude expounding the xviij cha. levitical saith that it seemeth that the pope may dispense in all degrees of affinity that be contained in the same chapter.   


In four dist. xli qnsti. iij.  Also doctor De rubone saith that the church may dispense in any manner of degree of affinity or consanguinity that is of the side line: as with the brother & the sister/ & so forth in consanguinity/ & the brother with the brother's widow & so forth in affinity.   


super decree. xxxv. qnst. ij. iij  ALso john Cardinal de Turre Cremata disputing in the degrees of affinity & consanguinity & after answering to an objection that he maid against this. That the Pope suffereth the jews that had married their brother's wives according to the old law to retain their wives still after that they be christened. He saith if a man died without issue/ that than it was not forbidden by the law of God/ but that the brother might marry the brother's wife/ & therefore he saith that the Pope doth not properly dispense with the jews that thus come to that faith. But rath r he doth command or consent that the jews: shall still remain with their brother's widows that they have married/ so by this doctors mind it was not forbidden in the old law that a man might not marry his brother's widow left without etc. also that the Pope may consent to such marriage 
In commentaries super secundam second divi thome.    

ALso Tacitan saith that the Pope may dispense with all persons in marriage except the father with the daughter/ & the son with the other: now by these doctors minds ye see that the conclusion of the principal argument is true/ that the Pope may dispense that a man may marry his brothers widow etc.   

Now beside all this evident proof: yet to stablesshe and fortify this undowtid trowth that a man may by the Pope's licence marry his brother's widow etc. I will show ye the same truth by experiens of Popes which have dispensed in like marriage/ or in marriage that is as greatly forbidden as for a man to marry his brother's widow etc.   

FIrst Pope Innocent the third/ willed and consented that Livonienses which had married their brother's wives/ and afterward turned and came to Cristes' faith/ that they should continue and keep still their brother's widows/ as it appeareth in the decretallis/ capi. deus qui ecclesiam.   

ALso Pope Martin the fifth did dispense and licence that the brother which had known his own sister carnally/ to marry afterward the same sister   

ANd Pope Alexandre the sixth did licence the king of Portugal that fast was/ to marry his wives sister/ not withstanding that he had by his first wife a child. And also the same Pope dispensed with the same king after the death of his second wife/ his first wives sister to marry his wives ne●e: and yet he had many children by the second wife.   

ALso Pope Alexandre did licence & dispense with Don ferdinando king of Cycill to mary his father's sister: which is more than to dispense with a man to mary his brother's widow etc.   

ANd Pope july the second did dispense with the king of England that he might mary his brother's wife a widow left etc.   

ANd Pope Leo the tenth granted unto the Austyn friars thorough Christendom that they might dispense in the first degree of affinity: that is to say that if the brother had married or contract with the brother's widow wittingly or otherwise: that those friars might licence those persons to continue still so married: so that the persons married or contract in that degree of affinity were not accused/ nor openly complained on before a judge or ere they required the dispensation.   

ALso in like degree of affinity the Pope did dispense now of late with a noble man of France/ who is called my Lord of luce: so thus now you may see by the Doctors minds/ and by the experience of the Pope's excercisinge in this case licens and dispensation/ that the Pope may licence a man to marry his brother's widow & ceter.   

FInally/ this confirmith the great learned consel of Princes & kings: which were examined to show the truth/ whether that the Pope had power to licence men to mary in the afore reherside degrees of affinity & consanguinity/ And these great learned men that were of those kings & princes counssailles affirmed & granted/ that the Pope might licence & dispense upon such marriage/ & so did also the pope's learned counsel/ ye & so died the universal number of the learned men in Christendom: for they heard & knew of such licences & dispensations granted. And the marriages by the licences were made/ and yet they never reclaimed nor spoke against them. Wherefore now ye may evidently se and perceive/ that the opinion of these deceivers is false: where as they say that it is against the law of God/ & against the law of nature: for a man to marry his brother's etc. And that the Pope hath no power to dispense upon such marriage/ & that this is very true/ that for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow/ is neither against the law of God/ nor against the law of nature: and that the Pope hath power to dispense upon such marriage. And also by this/ you may clearly see/ that the determinations of the universytes/ be manifestly false.   

NOw these deceivers opinion thus openly reprovide/ and showed to be false/ and the truth in this matter declared: I will return again unto their book.   

In the. lxxxxiiij. leaf of their book these persons say that there be many/ and that strong and invincible reasons/ the which may seem to declare & lighten the sentence of thuniversities/ & they reasons they will bring in. & for this purpose they bring in many diffinitions and descriptions of the law of God/ & of the law of nature etc. The which I do not pass upon: because I would not be to long/ & so I come to the c viii. leaf of their book/ where as they say on this wise.   

Therefore seeing that God himself here doith plainly pronounce & give sentence: that the Cananeis and Egipcians did file their land and spot it with filthiness/ while that they did contract marriage with their brother's wives: & that he/ for that cause did greatly aborre them: & did most rightfully take vengeance upon them & punished them most sharply: it cannot be no nother wise/ but it must nediss follow/ that god hath judged this thing to be shamefully unhonest: & of itself (as they say) morally evil & nought: and also against the rightwiseness of natural law & reason: ye & to be abominable & abhorred. This is these false deceivers own saying/ & note & merke it well. First it is manifestly false/ for almighty god did never punish the Egipcians & Cananeis for because they married their brother's wives widows left etc. Nor he did never abhor them/ nor there is no scripture/ nor doctor the saith that almighty God did destroy/ & punish the Cananeis & Egyptians/ because they married their brother's widows. Wherefore it is shamefully false: to say that almighty God did punish & destroy the Cananeis & the Egipcians for marrying their brother's wives widows left &ce.   

ALso in this their saying/ these deceivers speak directly against their own writing/ for in the luj leaf of their voke they writ/ that the very heythens after the death of their wives did evermore abstain fro marrying of their wives sisters as from a certain impiety or abomination against nature. This they wrote there/ & here they writ the almighty God did take vengeance upon the Cananeis & Egipcians for marrying of their brother's widows etc. the which is no more impiety than for a man to marry his wives sister after their own opinion: yet beside this/ these deceivers in their afore rehearsed saying do greatly despise and highly blaspheme almighty God/ for it followeth of this their saying that almighty God in commanding the Jews to marry their brother's wives widows left etc. that he commanded them to file & spot their land with filthiness/ while that they did contract marriage with their brother's widows etc. & that for fulfilling of his commandment he did abhor the jews/ ye & of these deceivers saying/ it followeth that almighty God in commanding them to marry their brother's wives widows/ did command them to do that thing: for the which he should take right vengeance upon them & punish them most sherpely/ & also that almighty God did command the jews to do the thing/ the which is shamefully unhonest/ & of itself morally evil/ & nought/ & against the rightwiseness of natural law and reason/ ye & to be abominable & abhorred. All this these persons say by marriage between the brother & the brother's widow etc. For of this manner of marriage/ is their speaking: or else it is not for their purpose/ & almighty God commaundide the jews to marry their Brother's widows left etc.   

ANd this did not almighty God only command: but also commanded to punish with a grievous pain all these that would not marry their brother's widows/ wherefore to despise such marriage/ is nothing else/ but to despise & blaspheme almighty God: which commanded such marriage. Who ever heard any man that durst say that almighty God did command any manner of people to do that thing/ which is shamefully unhonest of itself/ & morally evil etc. as these blasphemers say marriage to be between the brother and the brother's widow left witheowte issue/ is? Which almighty God did command. Therefore you may clearly see how highly & grievously these persons blaspheme almighty God. Here now you have heard one of these persons invincible reasons/ that they said they would bring in for to give light unto the determinations of their universities.   

IN the c and xj leaf of their book these persons say that there was never nation so beistly/ none so without all humanity/ but that they perceived and knew/ that they ought this honour duty/ and reverence to their brothern/ & brother's wives: that they should refrain from their marriages. This is these persons own saying: here they despise & blaspheme almighty God again: for of this their saying/ it followeth that almighty God in commanding the jews to marry their brother's wives/ that he was more best liar than any nation/ and that he did not perceive/ nor knew that the people ought this honore/ duty/ and reverence unto their brothern/ and brother's wives: that they should refrain from their marriages. This great blasphemy you may see followeth of their saying. And thus now you have herd another of these persons invincible reasons. In the same leaf of their book/ these persons say/ that he that haveth seen any thing in the old stories and laws must nediss know that this manner of incest have been had in great infamy/ reprove/ & slander/ & that not only in one cite/ or country: but almost in every place/ & among all men been condemned as a certain wickedness against nature. This is against these persons own saying: wherein they add more blasphemy. For of this saying it followeth that almighty God in commanding the Jews to marry their brother's widows etc. commanded them/ & that upon a great pain/ to do that thing that is condemned in all countries & city's/ for a certain wickedness against nature. Here now ye have heard another of their reasons invincible: Sewrely these may well be called strong & invincible reasons/ in blaspheming & despising of almygty God for I think no man/ no nor yet the devil himself can make none stronger/ nor more invincible for to despise & blaspheme almighty God than these pestilent persons do here make.   

But now for asmuch as these ungracious persons do thus despise & blaspheme/ not only almighty God: but also his holy law & commandment I am compelled to desire ye to call to your remembrance that thing which I have showed ye before/ that is to say/ that almighty God did never in all the old law command any thing to be continually kept/ & that upon a pain: but that which was just/ good/ & holy/ & a mean that the keepers of it might besavide/ & come to everlasting life. And therefore almighty God saith Custodite leges meas atque judicia: 
leviti. xviij  que faciens homo/ vivet in eyes. And this is the cause that the blessed Apostle calleth the old law holy/ & the commandment holy/ just & good/ saying. 
ro. seven.  Lex quidem sancta/ & mandatum sanctum/ justum/ & bonum. For thowghe the jews in the old law used certain things that were nether good nor godly/ yet was there nothing commanded in the old law to be continually kept/ but that was holy just & good to the keeper: & (as I have said) a mean/ whereby he might be justified & saved/ & in that law it was commanded that every man should always marry their brother's widow etc. wherefore such marriage was holy/ just/ & good. This Argument is evident/ both by the very words of almighty God/ and also by the words of the Apostle/ & so now by this ye may evidently perceive how that these ungracious persons/ in despising of marriage between the brother & the brothers widow etc. do despise & blaspheme almighty God & his holy law   

IN the c seven. lief of their book they say that they will show two reasons/ which shall prove as openly as it can be/ that a man can not marry his brother's wife. First because that affinity doth aswell let marriage as doth consanguinity. second/ because that he that so marrieth doth shame & dishonesty unto his father. And for to prove the first reason/ these persons say/ that not only by the law of God so many persons be excluded from marriage in the line of affinity/ as to be excluded and forbid in the line of consanguinity: but that also the church is compelled to set the bonds of marriage in the lines/ both of affinity and consanguinity in like distance and degree/ and for to show this ordinance of the church/ these persons bring in saint Gregore/ and Pope july/ saint Austen/ Isodore/ & master Abbot. Thus now I suppose these persons would make their argument affinity doth as well let marriage as consauguinite: but it is forbidden by the law of God/ & by the law of nature that a man shall not marry his sister/ because of their consanguinity: Wherefore it is forbidden by the law of god & by the law of nature: that a man shall not marry his brothers wife because of their affinity To this argument I will answer. First with their own doctors saying Peter de Palude which expounding the xviij chap. levitical/ saith that it femeth the the pope may dispense in all the degrees of affinity there contained/ but not in all the degrees of consanguinity/ & with this saying/ this doctor doth deny these persons principal proposition of their argument which is this: that affinity doth as well let marriage as consanguinity/ for he saith that affinity doth not let marriage as doth consanguinity/ because that (after his mind) the Pope may dispense in all degrees of affinity contained in the xviij chap. of the levitical law: & so he can not in all degrees of consanguinity that be there forbidden.   

ALso this first & principal proposition of these persons argument is false: that affinity doth aswell let marriage as consanguinity: for consanguinity may let marriage by the law of nature/ as the father may not marry with the dowghter/ nor the son with the other/ by reason of their consanguinity: & therefore these persons were forbidden to marry together by the law of nature/ & exempt at the first institution of matrimony/ but so we ʳ no manner of persons in no degree of affinity: wherefore this proposition is false/ that affinity doth as well let marriage as doth consanguinity.   

ALso in the decreys Ca Non dz/ extra de consanguinitate & affinitate/ it is written & degreed that the child that is had in the second marriage may marry with the kin of the first husband/ & thus if I married a wife & so died/ the children that my wife had by a nother man/ might marry with my kin/ as the son that my wife had by another man/ might marry my sister/ notwithstanding the affinity that was sometime between my sister & my wife: & this decree was made by counsel general/ but after my death my son may not marry with my sister/ by the reason of consanguinity/ which by me remaineth still in my son toward my sister. And therefore it is  to say that affinyte doth aswell let marriage as doth consanguinity.   

FIrthermore & if it were granted that affinity which is between the brother & the brother's widow did as well let marriage as doth consanguinity that is between the brother & the sister: yet this granted/ it would nothing help these deceivers false opinion/ for it is neither against the law of God/ nor against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister. First it is not against the law of nature for a man to marry his sister/ as ye have hard it declared before: nor it is not against Cristes' law. For our saviour Crist did never forbid such marriage: nor no man can conclude of any scripture in all the new testament/ that it should be forbidden that a man may not marry his sister: & as to the old law where it was forbidden that a man should not marry his sister: that prohibition now hath no strength: & therefore it is not forbidden by the law of God nor by the law of nature for a man to marry his sister. Wherefore the second proposition of these persons Argument is also false: which is this. That it is against the law of God & against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his sister. & therefore their conclusion is false/ which is this/ that it is against the law of God & against the law of nature/ for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left without issue. Thus you may see that these deceivers first reason in false and nowghte.   

THe second reason/ that these persons say doith openly prove that a man can not marry his brother wife a widow etc. is this. because that he that so marrieth doth shame & dishonesty to his father. The which in the cxxviij leaf of their book they go about to declare on this wise: He that marrieth his brother's wife/ takithe his father's flesh & blood to marriage: the which thing plainly is against the law of nature/ for saying the husband & the wife be one flesh & blood: truly he that taketh his brother's wife/ taketh also the flesh & blood of his father/ & as for our brother is the flesh & blood of our father & mother/ & the more nearer to them than any of both their sister's/ because he is their own son/ therefore if it be against the law of God & against the law of nature to marry our father's sisters or ower mother's sisters/ or else the wife of our father's brother or our mother's brother/ whose wives be but of affinity to us/ & that only in the second degree: truly much more it should be against nature to marry our brother's widow: for the nearer that they come to the stoke to be one flesh & blood: the more they ought to be forbidden: but our brother is more nearer unto our father/ as is above said/ than either own unkilles or auntiss. This is now these persons second reason the which I beseek ye to note & mark well/ & ye shall see whate goodly learning & sophestry they show in it. For to perceive this their Argument/ ye must note how the husband/ & the wife be one flesh & blood: & how the father & the son be one flesh & blood. First the husband and the wife be one body in consenting together in their mids & willis/ & in giving & granting each of them to other the use of their bodies/ and thus on this wise be the husband and the wife one body and blood/ & the father and the son be one flesh and blood/ by the reason that the son is engendered of the father's seed and substance by natural propagation/ & now for to say that he that marrieth his brother's widow marrieth his father's flesh and blood/ that is to say the same flesh and blood that came of the widows husband's father by generation: is openly false. For the widow doth not come of the seed and substance of her husbandis father nor no part of her body & blood cometh of her husbands father's flesh and blood: for to make her on this manner one flesh and blood with her father in law. And this these Sophisters must prove if they would have their Argument good/ for they must show that like as the father and the son is one flesh and blood/ so is the son and his wife one flesh and blood. Which is false: for the son and the wife be one body after one manner/ and the son and the father be one flesh and blood after another manner: as I have showed ye before/ and therefore their argument is nought and doith nothing conclude for their purpose.  
¶ Also the widow is no more one body with her husband that is dead: and therefore he that marrieth the widow doth not marry her father in laws flesh and blood/ the antecedent may be declared thus: if the widow were still one body with her husband that is dead) she might never marry more: for she might not grant and give the use of her body to no man: for she is one body still with her husband that is died/ and so than might she never marry/ which were the heresy that tertulian was condemned in: wherefore it is false to say that he that marrieth his brother's widow/ marrieth his father's flesh and blood.   

furthermore of this these persons reason/ ye may conclude: that the father and the son may not marry the mother and the daughter thus. For he that taketh and mariyth his father's wives dowghter/ doth marry and take his father's flesh/ and blood/ for the father and his wife is one flesh and blood: and the daughter/ also is one flesh and blood with her mother and with her father in law/ by the reason that he is one flesh & blood with her mother/ and who so ever mariyth his father's flesh and blood: doth against the law of nature/ wherefore the son may not marry with his mother in laws daughters: which is manifestly false.   

OF this reason ye may conclude that two brothern may not marry two sister/ thus: he that mary his brother's wives sister marrieth his brother's flesh & blood/ for the brother & his wife be one flesh & blood/ & the brothers wife & her sister be one flesh & blood/ & the brother's wives sister is one flesh & blood with her sisters husbandis/ & he is one flesh & blood with his father: wherefore his brother may not marry his wives sister for asmuch as she is his father's flesh & blood/ by reason that her sister hath married his brother/ ye may see whate a Sophistical reason these persons bring in greatly to their own rebuke & shame if they had any shame.   

ALso this is manifestly false/ that they say that he which marrieth his father's flesh & blood/ doth plainly against the law of nature for a manis son may marry by the law of nature his brother's daughters daughter/ which is his father's flesh & blood. This no man will deny wherefore it is false to say that he that marith his father's flesh & blood/ doth against the law of nature. Here now ye have hard these persons second reason/ by the which they said that they would prove that a man might not marry his brother's widow etc. & they have nothing done but showed them self sophestres/ full of words and empty of all truth and reason.   

ALso in this their second reason/ they say it is more against the law of God & against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's widow etc. than for a man to marry his aunt of any side/ of this saying/ it followeth that almighty god in commanding the Jews to mary their brother's widows did command/ them to do that thing that was against the law of god & against the law of nature: & bond them to the same upon a great pain: & that thing that was less against the law of nature/ he forbade them: which is a commanding & a doing against the right order of reason. For reason willeth that the thing which is most evil/ should be most forbidden/ & of these persons saying it followeth that almighty God did contrary in the old law/ & thus these persons/ despiseth almighty Goddis commanding & doing.   

IN the c & xlj leaf of their book/ they say that christ neither did nothing/ nor said no thing: but that he had take of his father: nor broke no thing of them: which his father commanded/ and would have done. This they understand in things that were commanded & in such as were forbidden in the old law: for they would by this their saying conclude that the Pope haveth no power to dispense/ & licence a man to marry his brother's wife a widow &ce. for by cause they say/ that such marriage was forbidden in the old law. And our saviour christ did never break nothing of them which his father commanded/ and would have done: wherefore the Pope that is Cristes' vicar/ can not licence upon such marriage/ upon this their saying/ it followeth that the jews be bound still to marry their brother's widows left without issue: and to circumcision and to all the ceremonies and judicials: For almighty God would that the jews should keep them/ and commanded them to keep these and our saviour Criste did never break nothing of them which his father would have kept. Wherefore the jews be now bound to all these/ ye and to all the hole law of Moses. This is false and against the techinge of the Apostle where he saith, if ye be circumcised Crist shall do you no good: 
Gala. iiij. &. v Gal. ij.  nor the keeping of his commandments shallbe nothing profitable to you. And again saint Pol speaketh against Peter to his face/ because he would the gentiles that were converted to keep the ceremonies of the jues. Here now ye may see that the Apostle did teach the people to break & to do contrary to the old law: ye and so haveth the church decreid and made/ that no man shall now marry his brother's widow which is against the commandment of the old law.   

But for asmuch as they say that our saviour Crist did never break ●o thing of them which his father almighty God commanded and would have done: you must note and understand that almighty God did command certain things to be kept for a certain time/ and in like manner certain things he did forbid for a certain time/ as the judicials and ceremonies of the old law he would have such as were commanded to be done/ the people to fulfil them and keep them: and such as he forbade that the people should not do them/ and yet for all this/ almighty God did not command the judiciallis nor ceremonies always to be kept: but he willid that the jews should keep them unto the time that it should please him to send his son to take upon him our nature: & so to be very God and man our saviour Crist: and so to show unto the world further his father's will and pleasure/ and what he would have all manner of people to keep and obey from that time forward: and than our saviour christ did dissolve the judicials and Ceremonies of the old law/ so that no man should be bound to keep them any longer: nor put any longer hope or trust of salvation in them.  
¶ And from that time forth ward that almaner of people should put there hope of salvation in believing yn almighty God and in justly keeping such Laws and such commaundmentis as almighty God had sent unto them by his son ower saviour Criste. And thus our saviour Criste took away after his coming the judicials & Ceremonies of the old law according unto his father's will and commandment. For the time of them was than expired/ but now I must return unto these persons saying which is this. It was commanded by almighty God in the old law that a man should not marry his brother's widow etc. & our saviour christ never broke nothing of them/ which almighty God commanded & would have done: wherefore the Pope can not dispense upon such marriage. To this reason I answer that the maior of the reason is false: which is this/ that almighty God commanded in the old law that no man should marry his brother's wife widow etc. for in the old law almighty God did expressly command the jews always to marry their brother's wives widows left etc. & that upon a great pain/ & therefore it is false to say that almighty God did command in the old law that no man should marry his brother's widow etc. & so therefore is this false that the Pope have no power to dispense upon such marriage: which these persons would conclude upon there false proposition.   

IN the c & xlv leaf of their book these persons writ that the levitical prohibition that a man should not marry his brother's wife a widow etc. Thus they must understand it or else it is not to the purpose though it was limited & restrained of almighty God in the Deuteronomi/ yet for all that: because afterward the said restraint was taken away of God himself: by the coming of Christ: here these persons do not declare whate they mean & understand/ by lymyting & restrayninge of the levitical prohibition/ nor yet what they would have understanden by the taking away of the restraint/ at the coming of our saviour christ: but where as they say that the levitical prohibition that a man should not marry his brother's widow etc. was restraynide in the Deuteronomi/ here these persons say manifestly false: for as I have said oftin times/ & as ye have hard many doctors say/ ye & as the levitical law itself saith/ that theridamas is no such prohibition there. & therefore there was no restraint made upon that prohibition: nor yet our saviour Criste did not at his coming take away the restraint: for there was none to be taken away but in the Deuteronomi almighty God did plainly & streyghtely command that the jews should marry always their brother's wives widows left etc. & this confirmeth Isichius saying: 
in comen. levi  that the law Deuteronomical did not only command men to marry their brother's wives widows: but it did also compel them so to marry. This therefore can be called no restraint: and thus all these persons saying is false.   

IN the same leaf/ these deceivers say/ that if the Pope now a days could by dipensation/ cause that a man might marry after the law of the Deuteronomi his brother's wife which doth die having none issue for to raise up seed to his brother: without doughte he should make Cristen men at this day to follow the Jews ceremonies & superstition sues/ which the Pope can not do/ no more than he can cause that we should keep the Sabot day: or that they should be circuncisid. To this I answer/ that the Pope can not by dispensation cause a man to marry his brother's widow etc. as the jews in the old law married theirs. Nor the Pope doth not licence a man to marry his brother's widow after the fashion & manner: but the Pope doth licence & dispense that a Cristen man may marry his brother's widow as a king or a prince to marry his brother's widow/ to be mean that queytnes & peace may be kept between realm & realm: & for to continue love & friendship between Cristen princes/ & for other such reasonable & profitable causes concerning the common wealth of Christendom/ & thus for these/ & such causes the Pope doth & may dispense that a man may marry his brother's widow etc. & not after the manner of the jews: & therefore these persons bring in a thing that no man will deny/ and yet it is nothing for their purpose.   

IN the cliij leaf of their book/ these persons say that like as a man may freely fulfil his purpose of a more holier living (the saying nay & froward forbidding of his indiscrete prelate notwithstanding) even so it is in marriage that if a man's consciens move him to divorce: that he dyvorse himself though the church say contrary. Here now ye may see & perceive these pestilent persons ungracious & malicious intent: & what they counsel/ & would have done (the is to say) a man to divorce himself/ & to forsake his wife if his conscience move him to divorce) without any further proof or showing of any just cause: & to marry where it pleased him though the church said the contrary: which is clearly against all reason.   

ALso by this their saying you may perceive that these persons would utterly destroy the blessed sacrament of matrimony. For by this mean & way: every man as often as he would change his conscience to divorce/ so often he might change his wife/ ye & the wife her husband/ without shewing of any other proof or cause/ & without any manner of sentence & judgement of the church: ye & though the church said & commaundide the contrary/ & so by this/ should the sacrament of matrimony be destroyed. Here ye may see what pestilent persons these be/ which have compiled this book that I answer to.   

furthermore their comparison and similitude: whereby they would prove that a man may divorce himself from his wife by his conscience/ thowghe the Church say contrary/ is openly false. Fore thowghe it be so that a Priest/ be movede in his mind to be a religious man/ may freely fulfil his purpose of a more holier living (notwithstanding the nay of his indiscrete prelate) yet it doth not follow/ that even so it is in marriage: that if a man's conscience move him to divorce/ that he may divorce himself & forsake his wife/ & marry another/ thowghe the church say contrary: This case is not like the other: first forbecause that a priest which goeth to religion for a more holier living/ may fulfil his godly purpose leefully (notwithstanding the froward/ forbidding of his undiscrete prelate) for asmuch as the priest being at liberty/ & doing no wrong to no person by the reason of his going to religion: but serveth almighty God better. Thus he may fulfil his godly purpose though his undiscreite prelaite say contrary/ but so may not a man that is married/ divorce himself when his conscience moveth him to divorce/ for because the married man is not at liberty/ For he is bound to continue with his wife according to the laws of matrimony during all the time of his life/ nor he can not depart from his wife for to marry another: while that his wife is a live. Wherefore there is no conscience that can help a married man in the matter of divorce/ except he can manifestly prove some just cause before the church: that his marriage is not good. And than he must abide & stand to the church's judgement & determination. And therefore this is false/ to say that like as a priest may for a more holier living/ fulful his purpose (notwithstanding the forbidding or nay of his undiscreite prelate) even so it is in marriage/ that if a man's conscience move him to divorce: that he divorce himself thowghe the church say contrary. Now here ye may see what thing these persons would have done/ and after what manner.   

NOw for to come to an end/ these deceivers say in the preface of their book: that the universities will put for the reasons of more weight shortly to all the world than these persons have showed in their book: surely so had thuniversities need to do. For these persons (as ye have seen) have brought noon but such as be abominable/ shameful & false/ but the universities after due ordyr and reason/ should a put for the first their reasons: & than their determinations/ & that specially in determining a matter or a point of our faith/ & I suppose so they would have done/ if they had determined the trowth/ but for as much as they have determined that thing that is very false/ to be true: therefore they put forth no reasons with their determinations: nor they can none find to put forth/ why they have thus determined: wherefore I briefly conclude/ that the universities have determined falsely in this case that I have spoken of/ & that this proposition is false/ that it is against the law of God & against the law of nature for a man to marry his brother's wife a widow left etc.  
¶ Now ye have hard part of these persons blasphemy / part of their errors/ part of their shameful lies/ & falsnes/ & beside all this ye may perceive how these ungracious persons have given great occasion to destroy kindness & amity among christian princes/ & the they sow for love/ hatred & discord/ & also ye may perceive what great mischief these persons with their labour/ counsel/ opinion/ & book have begun ●ye & how much more mischief they would do/ if they might bring their malicious purpose to effect: ye may likewise perceive in what confusion (with their false opinion) they would bring princes concerning their marriages. And finally what a sisme & a division (with their opinion) they have stired up in christendom/ for by their opinion/ they affirm that all Christ's church haveth thus many years erred in the faith in dispensing in the first & second degree of affinity & consanguinity/ all this followeth of these ungracious persons false opinion/ with much more than I rehearse/ wherefore let no man judge that in my answer I rebuke them/ with ire and passion: but rath r I had cause to reprove them sharpelyer for the they have so highly offended almighty god: ye and they cause many so to do/ wherefore these evil persons are well worthy rebuke & reprove. our saviour christ vehemently rebuked the false scribes pharisees and false teachers/ because they offended god & taught other so to do/ also john bap. reproved & sharply rebuked false prophets & teachers/ so did Pol & john in their pistils/ Hierom/ Ambros/ austin & many other holy fathers: for nothing offendeth God more than teachers of false doctrine/ nor there is none so incurable a pestilence/ nor so hurtful to man's soul/ as is false doctrine/ if it be accept & believed/ wherefore ye may perceive that I had a just cause to rebuke & reprove these ungracious persons that have set forth this book that I answer to. For they teach false doctrine & would have it to be accept & believed: & though I have not so substantially & profoundly answered here in every point/ as other better learned men peradventure shall do hereafter yet for all that my conscience would not suffer me to hold my peace/ but compelled me to offer with the poor widow a farthing of my learning to the honour of almighty God. Wherefore I will meekly beseek ye to accept this my answer/ my zeal/ and will/ in good wurth: as I trust he doth/ for whose sake and cause I took upon me to make this answer/ which is our saviour christ: to whom be given all honour and laud. AMEN.    

The lief/ pagyn/ & line. the faults. thamendements B. i. Pagi. i Lin. i almighty almighty god H. i Pag. i. Lin. viii. is it it is N. i. Pag. ij. Lin. viii. other oath N. iij. Pag. i Lin. xv. hath no power/ hath power.   

¶ Imprinted at Luneberge the year of ower Lord God. M.D.XXXII. in may