A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

Iewel. Pag. 164.

Here I graunte M. Harding is like to finde some good aduauntage, as hauing vndoubtedly a great Number of the holy Fathers of his side. &c.

That Priestes, and Votaries maie not marrie. The first Chapter.

Harding.

THEN vndoubtedly you haue not the holy Scriptures on your side. For the ho∣ly Fathers haue neuer in great number determined, or weighed against the Scri∣ptures. For the same Christ that gaue vs the holy Scriptures, gaue vs also Pastours and Doctours (as S. Paule teacheth) to make perfite the

Saintes, that is, the Christians, by their ministerial wor∣king, and to build vp the body of Christe, whiche is his Churche. Seing then M. Iewel confesseth, that for this point we haue a great number of the Fathers on our side, let him make his Moustre of Glosers, Summistes, al the Canonistes, Schoolemen, and of his other late petie Do∣ctours, whom, when they serue vs, he calleth the Blacke Garde, neuer so great: we wil content our selues with the great number of Ancient Fathers.

And if the Fathers be on our side, what remaineth, but that the Reader make his choise, to whiche side to incline, to the olde Fathers of the Auncient Churche, of whose holinesse wee are wel assured, or to these yong Fathers of this new Churche, whose Children do geue vs better witnesse, that they be fathers, then doth their life, that they be holy.

Wel, how great number of holy Fathers so euer we haue on our side, certaine it is, that M. Iewel wil not yeelde. Let it then be considered, how he defendeth this point, and what pith there is in al that number of the Doctours sayinges, whiche he would seme to allege for his purpose.

As concerning the wordes of my confutation of the Apologie touching this point of the marriage of Priestes, and Votaries, bicause I knew, these married Apostates doo charge vs, as hauing an euil iudgement of Matrimo∣nie, directly answering the wordes of the Apologie, first, I commende Matrimonie, and approue the saying of S. Paule vttered in the Epistle to the Hebrewes in praise of it. Neuerthelesse I say, that to marrie it is vnlawful in two cases. The one is, if any person haue vowed con∣tinencie:

the other, if any man haue taken holy Orders. The first I proue by Scripture, and the Fathers: the se∣cond, by the Ordinance of the Churche, and also by te∣stimonie of the Fathers. Then I answer to the place al∣leged out of S. Chrysostom, who saith, that a married man may be promoted vnto the dignitie of a Bishop. In discour∣sing whereupon I shew, that the Bigamie of the married Apostates of our time, is by sentence of S. Chrysostome vtterly condemned. After this, graunting that in the olde Church married men vpon good causes were made Bishops, I denie, that Bishoppes were euer made married men, after they were Bishops.

These then be the thinges, that here M. Iewel hath to defende. First, that is is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie. Secondly, that it is lawful after the taking of holy Orders. Thirdly, that Bigamie, or second marriage is lawful in Priestes, Monckes, Friers, and Nonnes. Fourthly, that in olde time Bishoppes were mar∣ried after they had once ben consecrate Bishops. These foure if he doo not defende, he perfourmeth nothing touching this point, but sheweth him selfe to al menne ouercomme, though his Doctours allegations besides the purpose be neuer so many.

Now commeth me M. Iewel in, and allegeth Do∣ctours as thicke as haile, olde, and newe, knowen, and vnknowen, allowed, and disallowed, Schoolemen, and Summistes, vea the very marginal Annotations vpon the Glose of Gratian are haled in to helpe at a pintche, and yet al helpeth not.

Of his owne in manner he saith nothing, but thus, Origen saith, Tertullian saith, suche a one saith, and suche an

other saith, and he saith, and againe he saith, &c. Then he laith downe their Latine, be it true, be it false, and putteth a translation vnto it, suche, as becommeth shifters to vse in a false matter, and thus furnisheth out a great booke, that the worlde may thinke, he is a great Clerke.

Were al that he allegeth to the purpose, then were it somewhat, yet were it no great commendation, to make bookes onely out of Notebookes already made, and ga∣thered to his handes.

First (to declare his order) keeping him selfe a luffe of, and comming nothing neare the point, wherein my Confutation consisteth, he bringeth the holy Fathers in∣to suspicion of not dealing vprightly and indifferently herein, bearing the Reader in hande, they haue swarued from truth, either in the auauncing of Virginitie, or els in the disgracing of lawful Matrimonie. To make proufe of this, he allegeth no smal number of sentences out of certaine Fathers, in whiche not being thoroughly exami∣ned, they seeme to speake hardly of Marriage, specially of the second Mariage. For this point his Doctours be these, Tertullian in Exhortatione ad Castitatem: the author of the vnperfite worke vpon S. Matthew, whom he calleth Chrysostom, whereas it is wel knowen not to be his, as that, whiche conteineth sundry heinous heresies: S. Hierome writing against Iouinian, Helui∣dius, and to Gerontia: Athenagoras in Apologia pro Chri∣stianis: Nazianzen in dictum Euangelij, Cùm perfecisset Ie∣sus &c. Origen in Lucam, Homilia. 17. for which his cota∣tion hath, Homil. 19.

Nexte, he reckeneth vp so many menne, as he hath read of, that being Married, were afterwardes made Bis∣shops. Of whom he saith, that they vsed Mariage them selues in their owne personnes, which is more then he is liable to proue, if by vse of Marriage, he meane the car∣nal copulation.

These two, that is to say, the Fathers disgracing of Matrimonie and their hauing of wiues them selues, he calleth by the name of his two Principles, whiche being laid, he maketh his stoute vaunte, that he is the better hable to consider the substance of my reasons, for so he saith, and there at length he addresseth him selfe to shape an Answere to the parte of my Confutation aboue sette out.

Now to say somewhat to his Principles, before I come to his Answer, were it true, that certaine Fathers speaking of Matrimonie, vsed immoderate, and extraordi∣narie speaches, for so he termeth them: Againe, that many of them had ben married before they came to be Bishops: what perteineth that to the defence of the marriage of Votaries, and Priestes, whiche was the point presently treated of? What, wil he make this fonde and childish Argument, Certaine Fathers spake ouer vehemētly con∣cerning Matrimonie, Item, some of them were called to the dignitie of Bishops, from the state of married menne: Ergo, Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Nonnes, who haue vowed Chastitie, may lawfully marrie wiues, and take husbandes? Truly either this is his reason, or els hitherto he hath no reason at al. And of what smal sub∣stance this reason is, the veriest Cobblers of al their Mi∣nisters, if they can reade any English besides their com∣munion

booke, may easily perceiue.

Touching the Fathers speaches in reproufe of Matri∣monie, one answer M. Iewel, in manner may serue to re∣fute al that you would inferre of their sayinges. Onely I excepte Tertullian, who being fallen into the fowle He∣resie of Montanus, in his booke intituled, Exhortatio ad castitatem, wrote otherwise of Marriage (specially in that he condemned second marriage) then the Ca∣tholique Church holdeth, or the trueth beareth. And S. Hierome witnesseth (as Beatus Rhenanus noteth) that booke to haue ben written against the Churche. Now we thinke not our selues bounde to defende, what so euer they say, whom the Churche condemneth for He∣retiques. As for Origen likewise, you knowe, of how litle credite he is, in regard of sundry great errours: albeit touching the case of the second, and third Mariage, spea∣king where of you allege him: he may better be defen∣ded, then Tertullian may.

As concerning the other Fathers by you alleged, the thing, for which they seeme sometimes to speake of Ma∣trimonie not fauorably, is the immoderate concupiscence or luste now after sinne by our first parentes committed, which is of the holy Fathers reported to be malum, as∣much to say, an euil thing, and to procede not of God, but of sinne, without which euil thing, the thing, that is good in Matrimonie, that is to say, generation, can not be perfourmed.

This, besides other Fathers S. Augustine calleth of∣tentimes, malum, an euil thing, as carnalis concupiscentiae malum, the euil of fleshly luste, and malum libidinis, the euil thing of carnal pleasure, &c. He saith that natural

shamefastnesse sheweth it so to be, by whiche it com∣meth to passe, that although married personnes glorie in Children, yet when they attend vpon the worke of begeting Children, they choose them selues secrete places, and wil al witnesses to be out of their waie, thereby confessing the shamefastnesse it selfe of Nature. And this muche our first Parentes confessed, after they had sinned, by that they were ashamed, and coouered their shamely partes with Figge tree leaues, as the Scrip∣ture plainely declareth.

Neither proceedeth this euil thing of Marriage, but of sinne, and it is the paine of sinne. In married per∣sonnes it is euil, but no sinne, malum poenae, not malum culpae, as the Scholastical Diuines cal it. And this is the meaning of that saying of the authour that wrote the vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew, whome you wil needes to be S. Chrysostome. The saying is this. Haec ipsa Coniunctio Maritalis malum est ante Deum. Non di∣co, Peccatum, sed malum. This very wedlocke Con∣iunction it selfe is an euil thing before God. I saie not, it is Sinne, but I saie, it is an euil thing. In translating whiche woordes, you doo very falsly demeane your selfe, and beguyle your vnlearned Reader. For in that place the authour meaneth not by Coniunctio Matrialis the Copulation of Matrimonie, as you translate it, as though he said, Matrimonie it selfe were an euil thing: God forbid, any should so speake of Goddes holy ordi∣nance. But he meaneth the coniunction of the Hus∣band with his wife in the acte of generation. Neither yet vnderstandeth he the coniunction or acte it selfe, in wedlocke to be an euil thing (so it be not to the end to

saciate luste and pleasure, but to the ende to begete a childe, that being againe begotten and regenerate, may serue to fil the Citie of God, as S. Augustine speaketh) but the immoderate concupiscence and luste, without the whiche that wedlocke acte is not done. Whereof S. Augustine saith, Cùm ventum fuerit ad opus generan∣di, ipse ille licitus & honestus concubitus, non poterit es∣se sine ardore libidinis, vt peragi possit quod rationis est, non libidinis.

This immoderate concupiscence, this inordination, this rebellion of the fleshe, and preuenting and ouer∣bearing of reason, this filthy motion swaruing from reason whereof shame is taken, without whiche the acte of Wedlocke is not donne, is the thing, whiche the authour of that vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew, and sundry holy Fathers, haue called Malum, asmuche to say, an euil thing. Whiche euil thing notwithstan∣ding, married personnes doo vse wel, bicause of the three good thinges that Matrimonie hath, by which it is excused.

Those three thinges are these, Fides, Proles, Sacra∣mentum. Faith, or Fidelitie, Issue, and the Sacrament, whereof S. Augustine teacheth learnedly in his firste booke De Nuptijs & concupiscentia ad Valerium. By these three good thinges, as S. Augustine, and the Churche teacheth, the vse of Matrimonie is excused, not as an acte that of it selfe is euil, is excused thorough igno∣rance, or infirmitie, whiche is rather an excuse of the partie that worketh: but it is excused, for that o∣therwise it should be a sinne, excepte it had these three good thinges ioyned together. Whiche when it

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

hath, the Circumstances to euery good acte behooful presupposed, it is an acte lawful, honest, good and lau∣dable.

Now this being considered, whereas you M. Iewel iudge the holy Fathers to speake otherwise of Matrimo∣nie, then the honor and holinesse of that state deserueth: you shew your selfe to be of the nūber of those deceiued men, of whom S. Augustin saith thus. Profectò errāt, qui, cū vituperatur libido carnalis, damnari nuptias opinantur, qua∣si morbus iste de connubio sit, non de peccato. Verely they are deceiued, which, when fleshly luste is rebuked, thinke that marriage is condemned, as though this disease were of wedlocke, and not of sinne.

Likewise he saith againe, Quia iam ista conditione mortalium, nunc simul aguntur concubitus & libido, eò fit, vt cùm libido reprehendatur, etiam nuptialis concubitus li∣citus & honestus reprehendi putetur ab eis, qui nolunt dis∣cernere ista, vel nesciunt. Bicause as the condition of men is now (after Sinne) the acte of generation and lust, are done both atonce, thereof it commeth to passe, that, when luste is reprooued, the lawful and honest dealing of them together that be coupled in wedlocke, is thought also to be reprooued, of them, whiche wil not discerne betwene these thinges (he meaneth the acte, and the lust) or els know not how to discerne them. To cōclude, what so euer certaine Fathers say, and how so euer they seeme to speake of Matrimonie, this perteined nothing to the purpose. Al your great number of allegations might haue ben leafte out, for asmuche as thereby your Vowbreakers marriage is nothing iustified, nor defen∣ded.

M. Iewels second, Principle for defence of Vow-breakers marriages, answered, which is, that Bisshoppes and Priestes were married in olde time.

Your second Principle (for so you cal it) wherein you put the chiefe confidence of this cause, is, that many Bishops and Priestes in olde time were married, for so you dispose your wordes. I tel you M. Iewel, you haue not so much as one example for you, that a bishop was married, I meane, that any was euer married in the olde Church, and allowed in it, after that he was Bishop. That diuers and sundry married menne were for their vertue and ho∣ly life made Bishops, I denie not, ne neuer yet denied. You allege al the examples of antiquitie that you can, yet not so much as one to the purpose.

That Tertullian was a married man, and afterwarde made a Priest, I graunte. You say, Spiridion the Bisshop of Cyprus, was married, and had children: I denie, that Spiri∣dion being a Bishop, was married: but I confesse, that be∣ing a married laye man before, he was chosen afterwarde to be a Bishoppe, and had one daughter, named Irene. Whether he had mo children I knowe not, of mo chil∣dren of his I haue not read.

You make S. Hilarie the bishop of Poitiers a married man. Your proufe is the Epistle to Abra his daughter. If I denie, that he was euer married, how can ye prooue it? The Epistle to Abra, is a peeuish Apocryphal, and forged write, as I tolde you in my last Reioindre, where you vtter this same very stuffe in great sooth, whereby the worlde may vnderstand, what simple ragges ye haue wherwith to coouer your brethern the Apostates filthy

lecherie. That Prosper the Bishop of Rhegium was a mar∣ried man, you say it, but you prooue it not. And were it so, yet it serueth not your turne, bicause if he were ma∣ried, it was before he was priest.

Neither haue you good authoritie for proufe, that Chae∣remon the Bishop of a Citie called Nilus, whom you rec∣ken among married Bishops, was married. Eusebius saith, that in time of persecution he fled vnto a Hil in Arabia, with her that liued with him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and was neuer founde againe. That she was his wife, it appea∣reth not. She might be some woman of his kinne, or some other old womā, that kept him, and dressed his meate, and attended him as a nourse, of whom he had neede, being a man of extreme age, as Eusebius reporteth of him, say∣ing that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, passing olde.

Polycrates, you say, being a Bisshop, sometimes said, that seuen of his Fathers, or Ancestours, had ben Bishoppes. What healpeth this your cause at al? Marry say you, the Greeke word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Ruffinus translateth it, Patres. Wher∣unto sticke you? vnto the Greeke word, or vnto the La∣tine? If you sticke vnto the Latine worde, Patres, which signifieth Fathers, or Ancestours, you meane not I trow, that Polycrates had seuen Fathers, for that were to much by six, you knowe. One Father is ynough pardy for one man. If he had seuē Ancestours, what gather you therof? that he was married, bicause he had seuen Ancestours? Where is your Logique becomme M. Iewel? The truth is good Reader, here is Ruffinus belied. He trāslateth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Patres, but, Parentes: whiche goeth further of in signification, then the word Patres doth, as the lear∣ned in the Ciuile Lawes doo knowe. And this Greeke

worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly signifieth kinnesmen, them that be neare in bloud, them that be of one familie, and of the same kinred. S. Hierom translateth it propinquos, and him foloweth Sophroni{us}, putting for S. Hieromes Latine word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifiing them that were nye in bloud. Now Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus said, in his epistle to Pope Victor, that 7. Bishops in that See before him, were of his house, his familie, his stocke, his bloud, or his kinred. Let M. Iewel make the most of this place. Thereof he can cō∣clud nothing for any of the foure pointes before mencio∣ned, which he hath taken in hand to defende.

That S. Peter was a married man, for which you allege S. Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius the reherser of his words, it was neuer denied. This haue you nowe tolde vs diuers times. But where you say thus, O∣rigen saith, that S. Paule, and his wife were called to the Faith, both at one time: you deale with Origen, as you do with the reste, whom so euer you allege, falsifying them more or lesse. Origen saith not as you reporte him, but thus, Paulus (sicut quidam tradunt) cum vxore vocatus est. S. Paule (as some say) was called with a wife, that is to say, hauing a wife before. That he had a wife, he affir∣meth it not for certaintie, but maketh it a matter of a Some say. And there it foloweth immediatly (aliis vide∣tur, sine vxore) that others were of the opinion, he was free, and called to the Faith hauing no wife at al.

But sir touching this point, whether S. Paule had a wife or no by the opinion of S. Ambrose, whome here you cal to witnesse, whether is truer man, Maister Iewel, that wrote the Replie, or Maister Iewel, that wrote this pretensed Defence? There he sayth thus,

The twelue Apostles, saith S. Ambrose, only S. Iohn excepted, were al married. Here he saith otherwise, S. Ambrose saith, Omnes Apostoli, excepto Iohanne, & Paulo, vxores ha∣buerunt. Al the Apostles had wiues, only Iohn, and Paule excepted. Here S. Paule hath no wife, there S. Paule hath a wife. If you were a true man there, then are you falfe here. If you be true here, then were you false there. Or he had a wife by S. Ambrose, or he had not: say which ye wil, M. Iewel is contrarie to M. Iewel. Againe by M. Iewel in his Defence pag. 184. S. Paule had a wife. But by the same M. Iewel in the same booke page. 512. the same S. Paule had no wife. Faine would I know, which of these M. Iewels were to be trusted.

The place of S. Hierome against Iouinian, saying, that Priestes in his time had Matrimonies, that is to say, were taken from the state of maried personnes to be Priestes, helpeth you nothing. To the same I haue answered in my second Reionder, as to sundry thinges els here by you againe rehersed. Hitherto M. Iewel hath smal ad∣uantage, as thou seest Reader. Remember the foure pointes I noted to thee before, which is his parte to de∣fende, whiche not being defended, he may of any man be chalenged to yeelde, at leaste in this matter of the marriage of them, that haue vowed perpetual chasti∣tie. Before he commeth to the point, he saith litle of him selfe, but bringeth in heapes of other mennes sayinges nothing perteining to the question, as I iudge, to make a shewe of learning to the ignorant. Among which this is one, pretended to be alleged out of Damasus, for proufe that many Popes were Priestes sonnes. Thus he saith.

Iewel.

Pope Damasus shevveth vs, that a greate number of Bishoppes of Rome vvere Priestes sonnes: As Pope Syluerius: Pope Deus dedit: Pope Adria∣nus. 2. Pope Iohn. 15. Pope Felix. 3. Pope Hosius: Pope agapetus: Pope Gelasius: Pope Bonifacius: Pope Iohn. 10. Pope Theodorus. And conclu∣deth thus: Complures etiam alij inueniuntur, qui de Sacerdoti∣bus nati Apostolicae Sedi praefuerunt: many others beside there are founde, that being Priestes Sonnes, ruled the Apostolique See of Rome.

Harding.

What shal I say vnto this felow? Who euer saw so im∣pudent a man? Doth Pope Damasus shew you al this M. Iewel? Phy for shame man. You a minister of Gods worde? Nay, a minister of vaine Fables, a minister of open lyes. What may we cal this in you, foolish igno∣rance, or shamelesse malice? How could you be so igno∣rant, or so witlesse, as once to dreame, that Damasus that learned Pope should thus write? That you might seeme a ioily proctour for your brothers the married Apostates sacrilegious, incestuous, and abominable yoking (for Mar∣riage is too honorable a name for that filthinesse) must Damasus needes be made a Prophete, and such a Pro∣phete, as the worlde had neuer the like? A Prophete I say, for onlesse he had a strange gifte of Prophecie, how was it possible, that he should tel, who should be the Fa∣thers of menne borne so many yeres after his death?

Consider Reader I pray thee (for it booteth not to tel it M. Iewel) how this tale hangeth together. Damasus was the .39. Pope. Syluerius, whom M. Iewel putteth in the first place, was the .60. Pope. Deus dedit was the .70. Pope. Adrianus the seconde was the .109. Pope. Iohn the .15. was the .143. Felix the thirde was the .50. Agapetus

was the .59. Gelasius the .51. Bonifacius the first (whereas there were diuers of that name, whom he meaneth I know not) was the .44. Ihon the tenth was the .126. Theo∣dorus the first (if he meane any other of that name, he was farther of from Damasus) was the .75. Pope.

As for Pope Hosius, he is a Pope of M. Iewels owne making Verely in al the Registres of Popes I find none so named. A smal mater, if M. Iewel, who maketh so many Popes Priestes sonnes, make vs one Pope, who is neither Priestes, nor laie mānes sonne, nor any mānes sonne at al. What a maruelous Prophet then was M. Iewels Damasus, that could thus prophecie of so many Popes so long to come after his death, and tel, who should be their fathers, so many yeres before their great Grādfathers were borne?

If for some excuse you say, that this much you found in Gratian, Distinct. 56. it cā not helpe you. The printed Gra∣tian hath neither this forme of wordes, nor this order of names, nor so many Popes names by three. For he ha∣meth not Iohn. 10. nor Iohn. 15. nor Adrian. 2. So that you must take it vpon you your selfe, and beare the shame of it. And what if the book of Gratian had it, as you haue alle∣ged? Doo you not know, that such thinges in Gratian be of no authoritie sometimes, which be rehersed vnder this worde, Palea? Palea, good Reader, is asmuche to say, as Chaffe: and where so euer this word (Palea) Chaffe, is put in Gratian, by the same it is signified, as some doo iudge, that the saying immediatly folowing is with litle iudge∣ment infarced, and that it is litle worth, as Chaffe is litle worth in cōparison of cleane wheate. Such Chaffe, and vaine fables M. Iewel is dryuen to take holde of, to main∣teine his brothers filthinesse, for lacke of better stuffe.

And were it true, that these Popes, or some of them, whose names be founde here in Gratians Chaffe, were Priestes sonnes: yet had he benne a true dealer in this cause, he should not so vniustly haue conceeled, what the Glose saith in the same place, specially seing that he is so wel acquainted with the Glose, and furnisheth his great booke specially, and aboue al other Doctours, with the stuffe of the Glose. Thus there we finde. Omnia ista exem∣pla intellige de ijs qui in Laicali statu, vel minoribus ordini∣bus orationibus parentum suscepti sunt: quando suis parenti∣bus licebat vti vxoribus suis. Vnderstande thou al these ex∣amples of them, that were receiued (at Goddes hande) by the prayers of their fathers being in the state of laie menne, or in the lesser Orders: when their fathers might lawfully vse their wiues.

Thus, for any thing you haue brought hitherto, is your Great Poste of Priestes Marriages, thwited to a pudding pricke. As for that, whiche after al this you pretende to allege out of AEneas Syluius, whom you cal Pope Pius, whereas at the time when he wrote De gestis Concilij Ba∣siliensis, he was neither Pope, nor Pius, and out of Polydo∣rus Vergilius the late Prebendarie of Poules in London (whom in the Chronicles you reporte falsly) and laste of al out of fabling Fabian the late Merchant of London, a man of smal learning, and of as litle authoritie in these pointes, though a special fauourer of your side, as it is tolde, and therefore the readier to reporte vntruth: I am sure menne of meane knowledge wil litle esteme, and I accompt it not worth the answering. Make the best you can of it, thereby perhaps, or by some part of it, ye may proue, that of Married menne some were made Bishops,

which as I haue oftentimes tolde you, we denie not: but that Bishoppes, or Priestes were euer in any wel ordered Churche permitted to marrie, you shal neuer be hable to proue.

Now that you haue laid your two Principles, as you cal them, let vs see how substancially you defende your foure pointes aboue mencioned. And first, that it is law∣ful to marry after the Vowe of Chastitie, and after holy Orders taken, shewe vs by what learning, or authoritie ye proue it.

Iewel.

First of al, his obiection of Vovves nothing toucheth the Clergie of England. For it is knovven, and confessed, that the Priestes of England vvere neuer V••taries. Yet for further ansvver vve graunte, it is rea∣son, and conuenient, that vvho so hath made a Vovve vnto God, should keepe his promise. Cyrillus saith, Si castitatem promiserit, & seruar•• non poterit, pronunciet peccatum suum. If he haue promised,〈…〉〈…〉 vvovved Chastitie, and can not keepe it: let him pronounce, and confesse his Sinne.

Harding.

How long wil you go about the bush, as they say, when come you to the purpose? These bye matters not touched in my Confutatiō, haue made your booke great, but the same geue euidence, that you put more truste in multitude of wordes, then in substance of matter. If ye had the cleare truthe on your side, what needed so many wordes? One plaine sentence might haue better serued you. That you wander not abroad, here once againe I cal you home, and require you to leaue your delaies, and answer to the very point, or to confesse your errour. Remember, my wordes of the Confutation be

these. It is not lawful for them to marrie, which either haue by deliberate vowe dedicated al manner their chastitie vn∣to God or haue receiued holy Order."

Ouer against these my wordes, you haue placed in the margent of your booke, this note with your starre. Vntruthes, two together, as better appeareth by the An∣sweare. By which you charge my saying with two Vn∣truthes. Of such notes your booke hath great stoare. But God be thanked, the world seeth, you are ryfer of vpbraidinges, and sclaunders, then of substantial proufes. Nowe by your note you haue bounde your selfe to shewe vs, that it is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie, likewise also after the holy Orders taken.

Before you came to proue either of these two pointes, you tel vs, that the Priestes of England were neuer Votaries, that is to say, that they neuer made Vow of single life, and chastitie, whereby to binde them sel∣ues not to marrie. Neuer is a long daie M. Iewel. Wel, be it, as it is. If they be not Votaries, they may marrie say you. But answer directly to the point I pray you. May they marrie, who haue vowed chastitie? Say yea, or nay. VVee graunte, say you, it is reason, and conuenient, that who so hath made a Vowe vnto God, should keepe his promise. This is somewhat, though it be coldely spoken.

But yet you must come nearer vnto the point. You speake generally, and faintly. We speake not of a Vowe, or promise in general. If a man make a promise to an other man, it is reason, and conuenient, that he keepe it. But how saie you to the vow of chastitie, deliberatly made, of man, or woman to God? Is it in any wise ne∣cessary to perfourme it, or no? If it be necessary, why

speake ye so coldly, it is reason, and conuenient? What meane you by your reason and conuenience? Is it any more, but that if a Moncke, or a Frier feele him selfe mo∣ued with luste, he shal by and by take a woman vnder pretense of Wedlocke, and so quenche heate? that your Nonnes also, if they beginne to be wanton, shal take hus∣bandes, and so mortifie the lustes of their flesh? For ma∣king the perfourmance of the Vow but a matter of rea∣son, and conuenience, ye seeme easily to dispense with their marriages in case of hote, and vrgent temptations. For so men are wont to dispense with that which semeth reasonable and conuenient, when a greater reason see∣meth to moue them to the contrarie.

But let vs leaue your saying to your owne constru∣ction. By the same this much you graunte at the least, that so many of your Gospel, as haue broken their Vow of Chastitie, and haue married, haue don otherwise, then was conuenient, and agreable to reason. Thus ye make the Founder of your Religion Frier Luther, an vnreaso∣nable man. Such was Oecolampadius, such was Bucer, such was Peter Martyr, such were in manner al the reste of your fleshly Prelates, Teachers, Preachers, and Mini∣sters, who being Religious by taking Yokefelowes vnto them, haue broken their Vow and promise to God.

I canne you thanke M. Iewel for graunting this muche, althoughte it be too litle. Mary to your com∣panions, I doubte not, it seemeth too muche. And litle thanke doubtelesse shal you haue at their handes for it. For the breache of their Vowe being graunted to be against reason, and a thing inconuenient, how shal Gods people beleeue, their doctrine to be reasonable, and their

liues to be conuenient? Sure I am that neither Luther him selfe, nor Bucer, nor Peter Martyr, nor any of the reste, could euer be persuaded to acknowledge, and confesse so much. And were they now a liue, they would be offended with you for so saying. And how your good married brothers of England wil like you for it, I doubte, for asmuch at it is not for their profite, the people should vnderstand, that by your owne confessi∣on, their Preachers, and spiritual Gouernours (special∣ly such as were professed in any Religion, for certaine it is that they be Votaries) by taking wiues haue done the thing, that is inconuenient, and al together against rea∣son. What a hainous crime it is to contemne the vow of Chastitie, and to breake promise with God, it may be declared in an other place. Here onely we take that you confesse your selfe, that it is against reason, and not conuenient.

As for the saying you allege out of the third booke of Cyrillus in Leuiticum, it can serue you to no pur∣pose, but to witnesse your forgerie, and falshoode. For there is no such saying in that booke. If any man be mo∣ued to breake his vowe vpon warrant of those wordes, you are gilty of the crime.

If the Priestes of England be no Votaries, as you say, yet what say you to the Priestes of other countries? Is it lawful for them of Germanie, Fraunce, Italie, Spaine, and of other landes, who haue made the vow of chastitie, to marrie? That it is not lawful, I haue sufficiently pro∣ued in my Confutation. For the Scriptures be plaine, that a Vowe made to God, is to be perfourmed. Neither wil∣led I that which I said in my Confutation, to be vnder∣standed

of your felowes of England onely. How excuse you then your brethren of other Countries, that firste gaue the onset, and aduentured to set your Gospel a broche? What say you for Luther, for Peter Martyr your owne good frende and Maister, and for many such others, who were not onely Priestes, but also Religious menne, and feared not to yoke them selues in pretensed marriage vnto Nonnes? If they did wickedly therein, as no man lyuing can excuse them, how is not your Gospel builded vpon an euil foundation? But this is too large a fielde at this present, for vs to walke in. I looke stil, when you wil come to the point, that requireth your di∣rect Answer.

As for the Priestes of England, what moueth you to say, they be no Votaries? What priuiledge haue they aboue al other Priestes of Christendome, at least of the Latine, and West Churche? Who euer said it? Who euer wrote it? Where euer found you it? Or if any where it be found (which I trow ye shal neuer be hable to shew in a∣ny authentical writer) what reason hath the reporter for it? O say you, it is knowen, and confessed. But your word M. Iewel is no Gospel. Your bare affirmation is of smal credite. If ye haue no better proufe for it, and ye wil doo by my reade, in case you be a Priest, be not ouer hasty to take a Yokefelow yet, as your companions haue don. For surely not withstanding your maruelous knowledge, and bold confession, you are like to proue deceiued. Ma∣ry if you be no Priest, as I can not tel what to make of you, then go to it, and God send you better lucke, then some of your felowes haue had.

For proufe that Priestes of England are Votaries, this

is most certaine, that the Vowe of Chastitie is annexed vnto holy Orders by statute of holy Churche, and that with most conuenient reason the Church hath ordeined, that al from a Bishop to a Subdeacon, shal vowe Chasti∣tie. Which thing the Grecians also admitted, though not vniuersally. For although they marrie not after holy Or∣ders receiued, yet they vse matrimonie before holy Or∣ders contracted. Wherfore there is no doubte, but euery man that taketh holy Orders, be he of England, or of what countrie soeuer in the west Church, promiseth cō∣tinencie, ipso facto, that is to say, by the very taking it selfe of Orders, whether he expresse it in wordes, or holde his peace.

That the vowe of Chastitie is required at the taking of holy Orders, we haue these plaine wordes of S. Gre∣gorie, by whose procurement our English nation was conuerted to the Faith, and at whose handes the Church of England receiued al order and institution necessarie to Christian life: Nullum Subdiaconum facere praesumant Epi∣scopi, nisi qui se victurum castè promiserit. Let Bishops not presume to make any Subdeacon, onlesse he promise to liue in chastitie. Iustinian that Christian Emperour, who liued within fiue hundred yeres after Christe, gaue the like charge vnto Bishops. Neither was it S. Gregorie, that first made this Decree, or statute. He did but commaund the auncient Order and Tradition of the Churche to be renewed, and more exactly to be kepte, as certaine o∣thers his after commers Bishops of Rome did, when they sawe the olde discipline broken, and austeritie of life in some parte of the clergie slaked. The Fathers of the se∣cond Councel of Carthage, which was holden aboue

eleuen hundred yeres past, say expressely that these three Degrees, Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons, are annexed and tyed vnto chastitie. S. Leo that learned Bishop of Rome writing to Rusticus the Bishop of Narbon in Fraunce, saith. Lex continentiae eadem est Altaris ministris, quae episcopis atque presbyteris. Qui cùm essent laici, siue lectores, licitè & vxores ducere, & filios procreare potuerunt. Sed cùm ad praedictos peruenerunt gradus, coepit eis non licere, quod li∣cuit. The ministers of the Aulter (that is to say Deacons, and Subdeacons) be bounde to the same lawe of conti∣nencie, as Bishops, and Priestes be. When they were Laiemen, or Readers, it was lawful for them both to marrie wiues, and to begete children. But after they came to the foresaid degrees, what before was to them law∣ful, began now to be vnlawful.

Whereas the Fathers of the sixth General Councel holden in Constantinople do agnise and confesse (as Gra∣tian reherseth out of Iuo Carnotensis) that it is cōmaun∣ded by the Romaine Canon, that they who tooke the holy order of Deaconship, or Priesthod, should professe and promise to cōpanie no more with their owne wiues, which they had maried before they came to take orders▪ thereof it is vndoubtedly concluded, that, if any came single to those holy orders, they were, as they might be with more right required afterward neuer to marrie.

Neither was it the custome of the Latine Church on∣ly, that who so euer tooke holy orders, should promise chastitie: but also of the Greeke Churche, and that be∣fore the first Councel of Nice. The Fathers of the aunci∣ent Councel of Neocaesaria now called Trapezus, Tra∣pezonda in vulgare language, whereat S. Basile, and S.

Gregorie Nazianzen were present, decreed, presbyterum si vxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo deponi debere, that a priest should be deposed from his order, if he married a wife.

In the olde councel of Ancyra we finde this decreed concering Deacons. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, & sus∣ceperunt manus impositionem, professi continentiam, si po∣stea ad nuptias venerini, à ministerio cessare debebūt. What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bishops hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if after∣wardes they come to marrie, they ought to ceasse from the ministerie.

The Fathers of the councel of Gangra, in the ende of their decrees concluded with these wordes. Haec aūt scri∣psimus, non, qui in Ecclesia Dei secundū Scripturas sanctū pro∣positū Continentiae eligunt, vituperantes, sed eos qui abutun∣tur proposito in superbiam, & extolluntur aduersus simplicio∣res, abscindimus, &c. We haue written these thinges, not reprouing them, which in the Church of God according vnto the scriptures doo choose the holy Vow or purpose of continencie, but we cutte of (by excommunication) those that abuse suche purpose to pride, and becomme haulte and lofty against the simple.

The Coūcel of Laodicea speaking of Priestes, Deacōs, and others, that haue geuē them selues ouer to liue in the holy ministratiō, saith, nō oportere eos, qui in proposito conti∣nētia sunt, tabernas intrare, that they who haue purposed to keepe Chastitie, may not be haunters of Tauernes.

Origen, whom I may wel allege for a witnesse of the Church of his time, saith, that none may offer the cōtinual Sacrifice, but such only as haue vowed cōtinual Chastitie.

The auncient Fathers of the Churche, who ordeined the vowe of Chastitie to be made by them that would be admitted to holy Orders, were moued thereto partly by the holy Ghoste author of al purenesse, partly by the deuotion of them selues that came to the holy ministerie, partly also by the Tradition of the Apostles, who tou∣ching chastitie of ministers made this Decree. Exijs qui coelibes in Clerum peruenerunt, iubemus, vt lectores tantū, & cantores, si velint, nuptias contrahant. Of them that haue comme to the clergie single, we commaunde that the Readers, and singing men marrie, if they wil, and none elles.

Some of our married Priestes of England wil here per∣happes saie vnto me. Sir, when I was made Priest, I made no vowe, nor promised at al to liue the single life: For I said nothing to the bishop that laid handes vpon me, and he required no such thing of me. How am I then a Vota∣rie? And why may I not marrie? To whom I answer, you tooke this charge vpon you, before you came to be made Priest, when you tooke Subdeaconship. For that is the first among the holy Orders. Vnto which for so much as the vowe of Chastitie by common Tradition, by spe∣cial statute and ordinance of the Church, is annexed, in taking that Order, you hounde your selfe ipso facto, that is to say, in fact it selfe, to that condition, which thereto be∣longeth. For Vowes, Promises, Othes, Grauntes, and such other the like, may be made, and professed by facte and dede, though wordes of vowing, promising, swearing, or graunting be not expressed. Many a man that marrieth a wife, doth not tel her before, or at the time of marriage with expresse wordes, that he wil loue her, cherish her,

keepe, defend, and mainteine her, render wedlocke due∣tie vnto her, &c: Yet in that he marrieth her, al these he is bounde to performe, as being vnderstanded to be con∣teined in the condition of marriage, and hath promised no lesse by taking her to wife. And if being required of the wise to render these dueties vnto her, he refuse, and say, nay wife, thou shalt pardō me, I neuer made thee pro∣mise to do this much for thee: may not she say againe, why husbād, you haue married me, and that is promise ynough?

The partie that taketh an Othe, commonly saith no∣thing, but by laying his hande vpon a booke, and by kis∣sing the booke, or, as the custome is in some countries, by holding vp his two forefingers, geueth his consent, and protesteth to doo that is included in the condition of the othe. Some time menne geue consent to a thing, not by speaking ought at al, but by going vnto a side: which of the olde Romaines was termed, pedibus ire in sententiā.

The Souldier by taking his badge, and yelding his name to be booked, which is a deede, though he speake no∣thing, promiseth, and so farre forth bindeth him selfe, to obey his Captaine, and to abide the fortune of warre. The Gētiles in old time, that receiued Circuncisiō, who were called, Proselyti, by that very facte, made Vowe and pro∣testatiō, to perfourme what Moyses law required, though they said nothing. And many a Christian man in the time, when the faith was persecuted by heathen Tyrātes, made promise, and profession of Idolatrie, onely by casting a litle frankencense into the Fier, when they vttered no wordes of Idolatrie at al. Many other such exāples might here easily be rehersed, by which it is declared, that a man in some cases voweth, promiseth, and professeth a thing,

good or euil, in acte and deede, where wordes of Vowe, promise, or professiō be not spoken. And to this sense the common English prouerbe (if it may be applied to so sad a matter) leadeth vs: As good is a becke, as a Dieu garde, wherby is meant a cōsent, geuen by dede without worde.

But what neede I to proue this by examples? The plaine texte of the tenth Canō of the most auncient Coū∣cel of Ancyra aboue rehersed, putteth this matter out of doubte. Where it is said of Deacons, that if, when they receiued the Bishops laying on of hand vpon them, they required not licence to marrie, but helde their peace, thereby (professi continentiā be the wordes of the Coun∣cel) hauing vowed, promised, or professed to continew in Chastitie: in case afterward they married, they should geue ouer the holy ministerie. Lo there by taking the ho∣ly order only, without wordes of a Vowe expressed, the promise and Vow of Chastitie is by those learned Fathers pronounced to be made. Neither is the partie, that after holy Orders taken marrieth, excused by that he ceaseth from the ministerie. The cessation from the ministerie, is a pounishement in the courte of man: there remaineth to such a one an other pounishmēt in the courte of God, for his breache of promise. Thus it is cleere, that the Priestes of England were Votaries, as wel as other Prie∣stes of the Latine Church be, which M. Iewel only vpon warrant of his owne auctoritie denieth.

Sith then it is so Reader, that M. Iewel keepeth him selfe a luffe of, and wil not come to the point, wherein the controuersie lyeth, not being hable in deede to iusti∣fie the marriage of them that haue taken holy Orders, or otherwise haue made Vow of Chastitie: I thinke it good

here briefly to reherse the summe of his allegatiōs, wher∣with he hath blotted so much paper about this matter.

Hauing denied the Priestes of Englād to be Votaries, he bringeth in sayinges of Fathers, reporting that Virgi∣nitie is a harde thing, and that it is not in our choise, but the mere gifte of God. Which thing as it maketh nothing to the present purpose, so I graunte to be true. We ought not to choose that state of life, but vpon good trial of our selues. But when we haue taken that yoke vpon vs, it be∣houeth vs to pray for the assistance of Gods grace, and to vse al suche good meanes, by whiche we may atteine helpe towardes the perfourmance of our promise.

Then he allegeth other sayinges counseling those, that either can not, or wil not keepe Chastitie, to take the re∣medie, that God hath ordeined, that is to say, to marrie. Which counsel is vnderstanded to be geuen vnto them, that haue made no Vow at al to the contrarie.

After this he bringeth in certaine testimonies speaking in fauour (as they seeme) of marriage after a Vow of Cha∣stitie, taken out of S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Epiphanius, S. Hierome. In al which places those holy Fathers are to be vnderstanded to speake of them, that haue made a se∣cret or simple Vow, as they terme it, and not a Solemne Vow. Neither doo they allow such marriages simply, but in cōparison of a woorse iniquitie. The matrimonie of such, is not to be dissolued, yet is the breache of their pro∣mise a mortal sinne. Now so it is by determinatiō of the Church, that a Solēne Vow is made at the professiō of any approued Religiō, and at the taking of holy Orders, and by whom such Vow is made, they may not go backe to mar∣riage, neither if they marrie, doth that marriage holde, but

is taken for none. In the case of a simple Vowe, marriage standeth for good, and may not be dissolued, albeit the partie who Vowed, and promised the contrarie, by con∣tracting marriage, as I said sinneth mortally.

The reason hereof is this. In a Simple Vowe there is made but a bare Promise, and the dominion of the thing which is promised, remaineth stil with him that promi∣seth. But in a Solemne Vowe, there is not onely a pro∣mise, but also a deliuerie made of the thing that is promi∣sed, asmuche to say, of him selfe, and so there is also an ac∣ceptation, and a possession to the interest of Christ taken of the Churches part. This is the differēce betwixt both. And it is a thing natural, and apperteining to the lawe of al nations, that a bare promise be of lesse efficacie, then the exhibitiō, surrendre, and deliuerie of Possessiō of the thing that is promised. He that hath promised one a howse, or a portion of Lande, hath not yet taken away from him selfe the dominion of the thing. Wherefore if afterward he make deliuerie of it to an other, the deliue∣rie shal stand for good. Yet to the other he is bounde to make recompense, which commonly is iudged to be the valour of the thing promised. And he that hath now de∣liuered vnto an other a howse, or Lande, hath altogether depriued him selfe of the dominion thereof, neither can he now geue it to an other, as being an others thing.

The case is like in the Vowe of Chastitie, which is a certaine cōtracte betwen man and God. And reason it is, that what we acknowlege ourselues bound to perfourme vnto mā in a worldly cōtract, we be bound to perfourme no lesse vnto God in this spiritual cōtracte. The bare pro∣mise made to God differeth much from the exhibiting:

and therfore if after a simple Vow of Chastitie, which cō∣sisteth in promise only, a man deliuer his body to another, which thing is done by Matrimonie: the deliuerie stan∣deth firme and good. But if he geue vp also his owne body to keepe chastitie vnto God, and by entring into some Religion, or by taking Orders: now he can not dispose of it otherwise, as not being in his dominion, nei∣ther if he attempt it, shal it stand for good. This muche touching the diuersitie of a Simple, and Solemne Vow, I thought necessary to be said in this place.

This much being weighed, and considered, it must appeare certaine, that the places, which M. Iewel alle∣geth out of S. Augustine, affirming the mariages of such as marrie after the Vow of chastitie, to be true mariages, and to be such, as may not be dissolued: are truly vnder∣standed of mariages contracted in the case of a Simple Vowe, and not of a Solemne Vowe. Howsoeuer a man, or a woman make a Vowe to liue the single life, chaste and continent, and do not solemnize the same, either by entring into some Religion, or by taking holy Orders: if not withstanding the Vow they presume to marrie, the marriage holdeth. But if they marrie after they haue solemnized their Vowe by entring into Religion, or by taking holy Orders: the marriage is none at al, and therefore is to be dissolued, bicause they haue made de∣liuerie of them selues before the Church into the handes of their Superiours, and be not in state now to dispose of their personnes or bodies otherwise, as being deliue∣red vp to custodie of perpetual chastitie.

Hereof it appeareth, how litle cause you had M. Iew∣el to reproue M. Dorman, for calling the mainteiners of

marriage in this case, the Deuils ministers. In this case I say, for he speaketh expressely of Priestes. And there∣fore you may consider, how wel it became you to say that by the iudgdment of our late Louanian Clergie, S. Au∣gustine is become the minister of the Deuil, for these be the termes of your seemely eloquence. Here therefore I re∣turne vpon you M. Iewel those wordes, which without cause, you imagine S. Augustine to say vnto me. Ye speake fondly, and vnaduisedly, and vnderstand not what ye speake.

Here to returne to M. Iewels order, among other thinges, for answere vnto certaine places of the Fathers, calling such kinde of marriage, worse then Aduoutrie, In∣ceste, and Sacrilege: he saith, that such wordes haue proce∣ded more of zele, and heate of minde, then of profound consi∣deration, and iudgement of the cause. And so in effecte he reiecteth the holy and auncient Fathers, as men vnwor∣thy of credite. But ô Lorde, what Fathers? Verely the chiefe, and best learned, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine. Ah good Sir, lacked these learned and holy Fathers consideration and iudgement, and do you acknowledge it in your selfe, and your com∣panions? O menne of deepe consideration, and great iudgement, that coulde so easily prouide them selues of wemen to geue the bridle vnto luste!

Among al other thinges that he bringeth in defence of his Companions vnlawful marriage, this is the fardest from reason, and hath least colour of learning, that by his doctrine the vow of Chastitie is to be broken, and that al Monckes, Friers, Priestes, and Nonnes, may lawfully mar∣rie, bicause il promises, filthy Vowes, and wicked Othes ought not to be kept. For proufe that il Vowes are to be

broken, he allegeth Isidorus out of Gratian saying, In ma∣lis promissis rescinde fidem, in turpi vot•• muta decretum. Quod incautè vouisti, ne facias, impia est promissio, quae sce∣lere impletur. In an il promise breake thy faith. In a filthy Vow, change thy purpose. What thou hast vn∣warely vowed, doo it not. It is a wicked promise, that is fulfilled with mischeefe.

Againe he saith, It is not sufficient to say, I haue vowed. Herode vowed Iohn Baptistes head. The Iewes vowed S. Paules death. Hubaldus made a vowe that he would neuer helpe his owne mother, or brethren, were there neede neuer so great. He allegeth also the 8. Councel of Toledo. Where it was declared, and decreed, that wicked vowes ought not to be made, and if they were made, that in any wise they should not be perfourmed. Where for ex∣ample the vowe of Herode is mencioned, and that of Iephte, who through his vow thought him selfe bounde to sacrifice his daughter.

But what reliefe bringeth al this vnto his cause, onlesse he be hable to proue, that Chastitie is an il, and a wicked thing, as the murdering of S. Iohn Baptist, and of S. Paul, and as the sacrificing of Iephtes daughter was? But how excellēt a thing chastitie is, and how acceptable it is vnto God, and of how much more merite it is then matrimo∣nie, both Christ him selfe in the Gospel, and S. Paule in his Epistle to the Corinthians doo partly teache vs, and the holy Fathers in māner al haue most largely declared, spe∣cially S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, who haue written special Treaties of Virginitie, and S. Hierom, and S. Augustine disputing moste learnedly against Iouinian, that helde opinion, Marriage and Virgi∣nitie

to be of equal merite, to whose Heresie our fleshly Gospellers beare special fauour, and maintenance.

As for the eight Councel of Toledo, I maruel, how he durst be so bolde, as to allege it, which maketh so litle for him touching the breache of a Godly Vowe, and so much against him, touching the marriage of them, that haue taken holy Orders. For the wordes of the Coun∣cel be these. Si verò ad coniugia, morésque seculi redire at∣tentauerint, omni Ecclesiastica dignitate priuentur, & Apostatae habeantur, & in monasterio donec vixerint, sub poenitentia retrudantur. In case they geue the attempte to returne vnto marriages, and vnto the manners of the worlde, let them be depriued of al Ecclesiastical digni∣tie, and reputed for Apostates: And let them be shut vp in a Monasterie to doo penaunce, so long as they liue. By this M. Iewel may see, by what menne his married Brethren were called Apostates, and by how many hun∣dred yeres, before he and I were borne. I trust he wil beare the more with me, if I happen to cal them by that their auncient name some times.

Concerning that you pretende to allege out of one Alphonsus de Castro, Philippica. 19. whom you say to be one of M. Hardinges greatest Doctours: in good sooth he is no whit a greater Doctour of mine, then is the man in the Moone. For in deede there is none of that name, that euer wrote Philippicas. It is one Alphon∣sus Viruesius M. Iewel, a learned man of this present age, Bishop of Canaria, who writing against Philip Melanch∣thon, called his Orations, or Treaties, Philippicas, after the imitation of Demosthenes, who so named those most eloquent Orations, that he made against King Philip of

Macedonia the great Alexanders Father. A like errour to that you reproue me of so often, and so bitterly, by ouersight naming Iosue, for the Prophete Osee. Thus you see your selfe not cleare of the faulte, you charge me so muche withal. Neither is this your only ouersight of that sorte.

Howbeit that I alleged out of Osee vnder the name of Iosue, maketh clearly with me: and this you allege out of Bishop Viruesius vnder the name of the Obseruant Frier Alphonsus de Castro, maketh quite against you, and your Brethren. For this is that Viruesius writeth. If a man haue vowed (saith he) and can not conteine, and hauing assaid al meanes, yet preuaileth not: in this case I would aduise him, to prouide for his safetie by Marriage, not doing it of his owne head but by the authoritie of the Pope. Thus he. In which wordes he geueth but his priuate aduise, referring the partie so standing in danger, vnto the Pope for dispensa∣tion of his Vowe. Your Brethren on the other side, not∣withstanding their solemne Vowe, as being, some, Religi∣ous personnes, some Priestes, ronne hedlong to Marriage, as they cal it, hauing assaied fewe due meanes or none at al for the obteining of Chastitie, neuer calling better menne then them selues to counsel, nor sticking for any dispensation for their Vowe to be had at al. To say the least of both: his aduise is sober, and leaneth to Obediēce: these men seeme to play the merchants venturers, their dooing is rash comtemptuous, and altogether disobediēt.

But how farreforth this aduise of Viruesius is to be al∣lowed, whether the case be to be admitted, that by Prai∣ers, fasting, by streight discipline, and chastisment of the flesh, by any asking, seking, knocking, nor by any meanes,

a man hauing deliberatly, and deuoutly made a Vowe of continencie, with intent the more expeditely and purely to serue God, can not obteine at his mercie the necessarie gifte of continencie, and whether, if through frailtie, and negligence perhappes he fal, he shal not repent, and study how to amend that he hath done amisse, and continually fight against temptatiōs, but streight waie take a woman, and marrie, and how safe it is for a man in this case to sue vnto the Pope for a dispensation of his Vowe: and whe∣ther when he hath married, he be sure to be deliuered from al temptations of incontinencie: these pointes I wil not take vpon me here to determine, but leaue them to the consideration of their consciences, that be learned in these cases, and haue the true feare of God.

At length M. Iewel commeth vnto that point, which he should haue answered long before. At length I say, bicause after that he hath filled fiue leaues of Paper with diuers sayinges of the Doctours gathered out of his Notebookes, and heaped together to litle other purpose, then to shewe of a great booke. Now then thou shalt here see good Reader, how substantially he proueth it to be lawful for Priestes to marrie, and that the Marriage of Priestes hath ben accompted lawful. As concerning Monckes, and Friers, and Nonnes, that haue taken the vaile of their profession, they must defend their Marria∣ges, or rather yokinges, aswel as they can them selues: for this man hath nothing to say in their defence. If he had, out it should, to help to make vp the heape, neither could he be spareful of it, fauouring the cause so much as he doth. That then being leaft as a desperate cause, let vs see, what good stuff he bringeth for the Mariages of Priestes.

Iewel.

M. Harding vnvvares falleth into the same Negatiue Diuinitie, that h••s•• often, and so muche abhorreth. For thus he saith, vve denie vtterly, that any man, after that he hath receiued holy Orders, maie marrie.

Neither can it be shevved, that the Marriage of suche vvas euer accomp∣ted lavvful in the Catholique Churche. If this tale be true, then be al the Greeke Priestes Votaries, as vvel as the Latines. But it is noted vpon the Decrees, Graeci continentiam non promittunt, vel tacitè, vel expressè. The Greekes make no promise of continent, or Single life, neither secretly, nor expressely.

Harding.

If you take them to be Votaries, that make a Vowe neuer to marrie for time to come, so are the Greeeke Priestes Votaries by law of the Greeke Churche, as wel as the Latines. but if you accompte them to be Votaries, that Vowe vtterly to absteine from the vse of a woman, whether they had wiues before they tooke holy Orders, or otherwise: in this sense the Greekes are not ne haue not ben Votaries generally, that is to say, in al places and at al times, as the Latines were, and yet be, as among whom more austeritie of life hath alwaies ben vsed. So that in this respecte your Argument is naught, and concludeth not. As for your marginal note, it is besides the texte, and therfore of smal authoritie. It is a signe, ye lacke good eui∣dence for this matter, fith that for proufe of it, ye are dri∣uen to serue your selfe of such weake stuffe. Albeit the same note is thus to be vnderstanded, that they of the East Church, what time they were promoted to holy Orders, made no promise to absteine from the companie of their lawful wiues, vnto whom they were married, be∣fore they tooke suche Orders. And so muche you

might haue found in the texte, being a Decree of the sixt synode, that you needed not to haue scraped helpe out of the bookes margent. Now shew vs your better stuffe. For this is litle worthe.

Iewel.

In the Councel holden at Ancyra, it is concluded thus, Diaconi qui∣cunque ordinantur, si in ipsa Ordinatione protestati sunt, & di∣xerunt velle se Coniugio copulari, quia sic manere non possunt, Hi si postmodum vxores duxerint, in Ministerio maneant, pro∣pterea quòd Episcopus illis licentiam dederit. Deacons as many as be ordered, if at the time of receiuing Orders, they made protestation, and said that they vvould marrie for that they finde not them selues hable so to continue vvithout Marriage, if they aftervvard marrie, let them con∣tinue in Ministerie, for asmuch as the Bishop hath geuen them licence. M. Harding, I trovv, vvil not denie, but Deaconship is one of the holy Orders.

Harding.

This proueth not, that Deacons did marrie: nor that any Bishop euer gaue them licence to marrie, but onely, that if they would marrie, the Bishops licence therto ob∣teined, they should not be remoued from the ministerie. Whether any with licence married or no, you are not yet hable to shewe. And whereas no deacon might mar∣rie, but such as had made protestation that he would mar∣rie, before he tooke holy Orders, and had obteined leaue of the Bishop so to doo: by this we vnderstand, that for a Deacon to marrie, simply to speake, and of it selfe, it was vnlawful. For otherwise what needed protestation, leaue and licence? What so euer is lawful, may be done with∣out protestatiō or licence, and what may not be done but with protestation and licence, the same of it selfe is vn∣lawful. And so my saying by this testimonie is confirmed, it is not confuted.

Againe it is to be considered, that by this Councel, a Deacons Marriage was not made firste allowable after that he was promoted to the Order of Deaconship, but before he receiued that holy Order. For if he made no protestation that he would marrie, and asked no licence thereto, but helde his peace: by the wordes that follow in the same Canon, it is cleare, that he bound himselfe to perpetual continencie, and might neuer marrie after∣warde, as he that had by taking that Order, professed, and promised chastitie. Those wordes are these, which you should haue rehersed, had you dealt truly and vprightly. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, &c. What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke Orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bisshoppes hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if afterwarde they come to marrie, they shalbe bound to ceasse from the ministerie. He that made his Protestation that he would marrie, and that for necessitie, and had licence of the Bishop: when he mar∣ried in deede, was suffered to remaine in the Ministerie, as they that were admitted vnto holy Orders with wed∣locke. For he seemed already in harte and affecte, a mar∣ried man. And such that Prouincial Councel did beare withal, when for lacke of other worthy menne, the more parte yet remaining in infidelitie, the Bishops were compelled to admitte to the Ministerie of the Churche married menne. Your brethren can not claime by this example. For they neuer made any suche protestation, when they were ordered, neither demaunded they euer any such licence of their Bishops, but eche, as they felt them selues moued with the spirite of luste, vpon warrāt of your Gospel, and their owne spirite, went lustily to

their yoke felowes, and vnder pretence of Marriage con∣cluded a lusty bargaine. If ye haue no better stuffe then this, for the marriage of the Apostates your companions, wel you may receiue your fee of them, verely it is not yet sufficiently defended.

Iewel.

So saith Pope Steuin, Graecorum Sacerdotes, Diaconi, aut Sub∣diaconi Matrimonio copulantur: The Greeke Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in Matrimonie. Vpon vvhich vvordes the Glose noteth thus, Multi ex hac litera dixerunt, quòd Orientales possunt contrahere in Sacris Ordinibus. Many haue said vpon occasion of this texte, that the Priestes of the East Church (contrary to that M. Harding so certainly here assureth vs) may marrie, being vvithin holy Orders.

Harding.

Had you rehersed the whole Decree, as you found it, you had marred your cause, and plaid a simple Proctour. Your married brethren therefore do commend your po∣lice, I doubt not, who see their marriage condemned by that Decree of Pope Steuen▪ The whole is this. Aliter se Orientalium traditio haebet Ecclesiarum, aliter huius Sancta Romanae Ecclesiae. Nā earum Sacerdotes, Diacons, aut Sub∣diaceni Matrimonio copulātur. Istius autem Ecclesiae, vel Oc∣cidentalium nullus Sacerdotum à Subdiacon•• vsque ad Epis∣copum licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi. The Tradition of the East Churches, is otherwise, then is the tradition of this holy Romaine Church. For their Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in matrimonie▪ but there is neuer a Priest of this Church, or of the weast partes, that from a Subdeacon to a Bishop hath licence to marrie.

By this Decree it is euidēt, that so many as from a Sub∣deacon to a Bishop do marrie in these weast partes, doo

contrary to the Tradition and order of the Church. And whereas you allege the Glose for you, you make al that be hable to reade the place, witnesses of your impudēcie. For it maketh altogether against you. First whereas the Decree hath, Matrimonio copulantur, asmuche to say, the Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons of the East Church are coupled in Matrimonie, the Glose expoundeth it thus, and that truly, id est, copulato viūtur, that is to say, they vse Ma∣trimonie, wherein they were coupled before they tooke orders. As for the other wordes of the Glose, Multi ex hac litera dixerūt, &c. Many vpon occasion of this text haue said, that they of the East Chucrh may marrie within holy Orders: it is not the minde of the Glose, but a some say, as I may terme it, and a fansie of certaine, whom the author of the Glose there confuteth, with these woordes immediatly folowing, which by your cōmon sleight of falsifying, you nipte away from the end of the sentēce. Sed eis obstat in∣frà Distinctio proxima, Si quis eorū. &c. But the nexte distin∣ction that foloweth, whose beginning is, Si quis eorū, is contra∣ry to their opinion. That nexte Distinction taken out of the sixth Councel hath thus. Si quis eorū qui ad Clerū accedūt, voluerit nuptiali iure mulieri copulari: hoc ante ordinationē Subdiaconatus faciat. If any of them that come vnto the Clergie, be willing to couple with a woman in right of Marriage: let him do it, before he be made Subdeacon. Vpon that place the Glose saith thus, whereunto it made relation in the former Distinction: Istud caput euidēter est cōtra illos qui dicūt, quòd Graci possunt cōtrahere in sacris or∣dinibus. This Chapter is euidētly against them, which say, that the Greekes may marrie, being within holy Orders. Lo M. Iewel, what haue you gained by the Glose? he that

examineth your bookes, specially that of your late pre∣tensed Defence, wil say with me, there was neuer such a false Gloser, as you are, by abusing al other writers that you allege, but specially the poore Glose vpon Gratian.

Iewel.

Of the Priestes of the vvest Churche Cardinal Caietane saith, Papa potest dispensare cum Sacerdote Occidentalis Ecclesiae, vt vxo∣rem ducat, nulla existēte causa publicae vtilitatis. The Pope may di∣spense vvith a Priest of the vvest Churche to marrie a vvife, although there be no manner cause of common profite.

Harding.

It goeth harde with you M. Iewel, when you haue no better testimonies for the Marriage of Priestes, then the Obiections which the Glose maketh to him selfe, and the errour of Caietaine, at least whiche Catharinus no∣teth for an errour. But to whom wil you sticke? To Ca∣tharinus? or to Caietanus? If to Catharinus, then Caie∣tane helpeth your cause nothing at al. For of Cathari∣nus it is condemned for an errour. If you sticke to Ca∣ietane, then you disannul Catharinus, who is your author. For els you must tel vs, where Caietane saith so, and vp∣on what groundes he saith so.

Touching the Question, whether the Pope may in a case dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or a re∣ligious man to marrie a wife, or no, here I dispute not. I confesse, the Single state of the Clergie, not to be Iuris Diuini expressely, but Iuris Ecclesiastici positiui. And to say, that the Pope may in no case at al dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or with a religious person to marrie, it is against the Diuines, against the Cano∣nistes,

and against the authoritie, which the Churche of Rome hath in some cases vsed de facto, as they speake, as it is knowē by the example of Raymeris the king of Ara∣gon in Spaine, with whom about the yere of our Lorde, 1160. the Pope dispensed, yea he compelled him, as we reade, to geue ouer the Profession of his Religion, and to marrie (whiche is more, then to dispense with a secular Priest) for sauing of Christian bloud, and for the necessary disposition of that kingdom. The like example happened in the kingdome of Pole. Casimirus the onely that re∣mained a liue of the kinges bloud, being a Moonke and a Deacon, by sute of the Nobles of that realme, Dis∣pensation of the Pope obteined, was taken out of his monasterie of the Order of Cisterce, made Kinge of Pole, and married. But suche a singular case maketh no common rule. Againe where a thing is not done, but by special dispensation, the dispensation it selfe argueth the same of it selfe, that is to say, considered without dis∣pensation, to be vnlawful. Therefore my Assertion, that no man may marrie after holy Orders receiued, and that such Marriage was neuer accompted lawful in the Ca∣tholique Churche, standeth true, as before.

Iewel.

Athanasius saith, Multi quoque ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierunt: Monachi contrà Parentes liberorum facti sunt. Many of the Bisshoppes (he saith not al, but many) haue not mar∣ried. By vvhiche vvoordes he geueth vs to vnderstande, that some haue married) contrarievvise, Monkes haue becomme fathers of Chil∣dren.

Harding.

This testimonie is bodged with your forged Parenthe∣ses. Whereby you signifie, that of it selfe, and without ad∣dition of your owne wordes, it helpeth you litle. Al stan∣deth vpon trial of the translation. If you could haue alle∣ged S. Athanasius owne wordes, as he wrote in Greeke, a right answere might soone be made. The translatour litle thinking of their sleightes, that be Proctours for the Marriages of Votaries, had rather hauing respect to the finenesse of the Latine, so to turne it, then otherwise. If the place were thus latined, Multi ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierant, or, non habuerunt, Monachi contrà parentes li∣berorū extiterunt, whereby is signified, that many Bishops had neuer contracted Marriages, and that some Monkes had ben fathers of children, if the place had thus benne turned, as I suppose the Greeke hath: it would haue ser∣ued you to no purpose. For I graunt you, that some bishops haue had wiues, but before they were made Bishops, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes father, and Gregorie of Nyssa S. Basils brother, and that some Monkes were fathers of children, whiche they begote in lawful wed∣locke, before they entred into that profession, and order of life.

Albeit, if we allowed you this translation for good and true according to the Greeke, yet of these woordes you can not conclude, that by iudgement of S. Athanasius the Marriages of bishops are accompted lawful. by the circū∣stance of the place in that Epistle to Dracontius, S. Atha∣nasius may seeme to speake those wordes in dispraise of certaine Bishops, and Monkes, and not at al in their com∣mendation, and so you ought not to allege it for an al∣lowed

example. But hereof we shal be more assured, if they of Basile wil sette foorth that Fathers workes in Greeke.

Iewel. Pag. 176.

Cassiodorus vvriteth thus. In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vi∣tam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper vxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur. At that time they say, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria died in Martyrdom, hauing mar∣ried a vvise a litle before, being as yet in manner a nevv married man.

Harding.

A man would thinke, if this wil not serue the turne, that nothing wil serue. A blessed man Eupsychius, bishop of Caesaria, a holy Martyr, married to a wise but a litle be∣fore his Martyrdome. The writer of the Storie Cassiodo∣rus, a noble man, and graue Senator of Rome, a man of good credite. What can a man desire more? But phy vpō such shamelesse falsifiers. O lamentable state, where the people of God be cōpelled to heare such false Prophetes. What wil he feare to speake in pulpite, where he is sure no man shal control him, that is not ashamed, thus to write in bookes openly published vnto the world, which he knewe should not escape the examination of his Ad∣uersaries?

The truth is good Reader, Neither Cassiodorus wrote thus, nor Eupsychius was euer Bishop of Caesaria, nor of any other place, nor so much as a Priest, Deacon, or Sub∣deacon. The writer of the Storie which we haue of this blessed Martyr Eupsychius, is Sozomenus the Greeke. Who with the Ecclesiastical Storie of Socrates, and The∣odoritus, was translated into Latine by one Epiphanius Scholasticus. out of whiche three Cassiodorus gathered

the Abridgemēt that we haue vnder the name of the Tri∣partite historie. The place truly reported hath these wor∣des. In illo tempore ferunt vitam finisse Martyrio Basilium Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyterum, & Eupsychium Caesarien∣sem Cappadociae ducta nuper vxore, cùm adhuc quasi Sponsus esse videretur. They say, that at that time Basili{us} a Priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life in Martyrdom: Al∣so Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, hauing mar∣ried a wife a litle before, and when as yet he seemed to be but a new married man.

Here is no mencion made, that Eupsychius was the bi∣shop of Caesaria. The storie, as we haue it in Latine of Epi∣phanius turning, calleth him only Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae, that is to say, Eupsychius a mā of Caesaria, that is in Cappadocia: whiche is added to signifie of whiche Caesaria he was, for that there was an other famous Ci∣tie of that name in Palestina, an other likewise in Mau∣ritania, and others moe in other countries. Sozomenus him selfe, who is the authour of the Storie, addeth a worde more, signifying of what estate and condition he was, whereby the opinion of his being the Bishoppe of Caesaria, is quite taken awaye. For thus he reporteth of him in the Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. Eupsychiū Caesariensem Cappadociae Patriciū, as∣much to say, Eupsychius of Caesaria in Cappadocia, a no∣bleman, or, one of the Lordes of the Citie. Thus is Eupsy∣chius, whom M. Iewel hath made a Bishop (as much as he is him selfe) founde to be a Laie gentleman, or noble man of the Citie of Caesaria. And whereas he married a wife, but a litle before his Martyrdome, what is that to the pur∣pose for proufe that it was in olde time lawful for Priestes

to marrie? Bicause M. Iewel knew this muche rightwel, contrary to the custome he vseth at other times, he dis∣sembled the greeke Original, and thought he might better father this shameful lye vpon Cassiodorus, meaning the latine Translation of Epiphanius. And to helpe the mat∣ter, he stickte not to put in this word (Episcopum) Bishop of his owne, and so calleth him boldely, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria. Let these menne haue leaue thus to corrupte and falsifie the Fathers, and by them they shal be hable to proue, what they liste.

M. Iewel standeth so muche in his owne conceit for the example of this Eupsychius, that for proufe of this very matter he bringeth it in againe in an other place, in his pretensed Defence of his Apologie. But there he alle∣geth it out of Nicephorus. His wordes be these. Nicepho∣rus saith, that Eupsychius, being a Priest at Caesaria in Cappa∣docia, married a wife a litle before that he was martyred.

Now let vs heare Nicephorus tel his owne tale. Thus he saith in like sorte as Sozomenus said before him. Hoc ipso tempore & Basilius Ancyranae Ecclesiae Praesbyter, marty∣rio est defunctus: atque item Caesariensis Eupsychius Cappa∣dox, veteri familia, loco{que} claro natus. At the very same time Basilius a Priest of the Church of Ancyra, died a martyr. Euen so likewise did Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappa∣docia, borne of an aunciēt howse, and of noble parētage. Thus hath M. Iewel belied and falsified, both Sozomenus, and his translator, and also Nicephorus. Let vs see, what substantial witnesse he bringeth for legitimation of his Priestes Marriage, in the last place.

Iewel.

Likevvise M. Harding might haue founde it noted in his ovvne Glose,

〈…〉〈…〉

M. Ie••el saith of my 〈…〉〈…〉 see∣meth▪ that than he 〈…〉〈…〉 Nicepherus sp•…•…∣king of the two Apollinar••s, Father, and Sonne, both he∣retiques, saith, P••ter Presbyters, filius Lect••ris ordine•••…•…∣ti••ebat, the Father obteined the Order of a Priest, the sonne of a P••••••der. Of this it seemeth not, that the father was married, after th•••• he obteined to be a Priest, but ra∣ther contrariwise, that he was married before he was Priest. For Ni••••ph••r•••• saith, the father obteined to be a Priest, whereby he seemeth to signifie (if we may say, what seemeth to vs) that he was a father before he was made Priest, and not first a Priest, and afterward married, and so made a father.

But perhaps M. Iewel g••••her••th his seeming of these wordes following in Nicephorus: Senex Alexandriae••ri••••, Beryti d••c••it & ••ucta Laodicia coni••g••; Apollinari•• fili•…•… proge••••it ••smuche to say. The olde m•••• was borne at A∣l••xandria, ••••ught a•• Berytu••, married a wife at Laodice••, and beg•••••• Apollinaris his sonne. Of this order of wordes he can conclud•• no more that the older Apollinaris was married after that he was Priest, then that he was borne at Alexandria after that he was an old man. If he could proue that he was an old man b••••ore he begote the yon∣ger Apollinaris, and that he was Priest, before he came to Laodicea, when he married, then should he seeme to proue, that an Heretique was married after he was Priest, as many be now adaies. Vntil he proue so much, which s••••l a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, this his seeming 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seeme litle worth.

Iewel.

Chrysostome speaking of the Marri••ge of Bishops, saith thus, Quam∣uis nuptie plu••imum di••••••u••tatis in s•• hab••••••••, ita tamen assumi

possunt, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint, Notwith∣••••••••••ing marriage haue in it much tr••••ble yet so it may be taken, that •…•…shalbe no hinderance to perfite life. He saith marriage may be ta∣k•••• or chosen: and he speaketh namely of the marriage of Priestes and Bishoppes.

Harding.

Why nipte you of the ende of the sentence M. Iew∣el? Though you, nor your good brethren the married Apostates, like not wel of them: yet for true dealinges sake, you should not so haue gelded your Doctor of the wordes, that so iointly hang to the sentence by you al∣leged. They be these. Verum id planè perquam rarò at∣que difficile. Marriage may be so taken, that it shal not be a lette vnto the perfiter life (so much goeth before) but cer∣tainly that is a thing very seldome, and of great difficultie. Doo ye heare syr, what your owne Doctor saith? That marriage be not an impediment vnto perfiter life, which Priestes doo professe, it is very seldome seene, and a thing of very great difficultie, saith your Chrysostome.

Here good Reader that thou be not begyled, I must tel thee this muche. Whereas M. Iewel beareth thee in hand, that S. Chrysostome saith, Marriage may be taken or chosen, and that of Priestes, and Bishops, for of their Marriage he speaketh, saith this manne: al this is false. For first vnderstand thou, this sentence is not in S. Chry∣sostome at al: not in the Greeke, I saie, in which tongue only he wrote. For I haue seene the Greeke, and dili∣gently conferred it my selfe. But it is added vnto his texte, either by the translation, or by falshod vsed at the printing, as in these corrupte times false printers haue corrupted many bookes of the olde Fathers. Yet this muche wil I say of this sentence, that it may right wel

stand without any euil m••••ning gathered of it, though〈…〉〈…〉 be not S. Chrysostom••••, the Greeke examples supposed to be true. For the Circumstance of the place beareth it to be spoken, not specially of the Marriage of Prie∣stes, and Bishoppes, as M. Iewel taketh it in this place, but of Marriage indefinitely, and generally, as it maie be proued (if there were nothing elles to proue it) by the same M. Iewel in an other place, namely in the page 179. before, where he saith thus, in the first line of that page, S. Chrysostome saith generally of al menne, Quamuis n••ptia plurimum difficultatis habeant, &c. Thus M. Iewel in the 514. page. is confuted by M. Iewel, in the 179. page. Of such Contradictions he hath good stoare.

That it may appeare the plainer, thus is it that we reade in S. Chrysostome. Si igitur qui vxorem duxit, &c. Then if it be so, that he which hath married a wife, be careful for the thinges of the worlde, and of conuenience a Bishop should not be touched with any suche care: how said the Apostle before, vnius vxoris virum, that a Bishop, should be the hus∣band of one wife? Some vnderstand such a one to be signi∣fied (by these wordes) that shal be made a Bishop after his wiues death. Albeit he, that hath a wife, may be, as one not hauing. And this much he graunted them very wel in consideration of the time, and nature of the thing, as the case then stoode. And a man may take that thing honestly, and lawfully, if he wil. For as richesse doo hardly bring a man in∣to the kingdom of Heauen (yet often times many riche men haue there entred in) so also doth marriage. Thus farre goeth the greke in S. Chrysostom, and no further touching this matter. For immediatly follow, not the wordes that M. Iewel buildeth his proufe vpon, but other wordes cōcer∣ning

an other thing, as euery learned man may see in the •…•…nted Greeke booke, in the 20. leafe, the seconde pag. t•••• 20. line.

You might haue sene this in the Greeke M. Iewel, or your Greeke Frende for you, aswel as you saw that o∣ther place of S. Chrysostome by me truly alleged and trāslated, where he expoundeth these wordes of S. Paul, The husbande of one wife. Which place you wring and wr••st very violently to serue your purpose, and yet it wil not be, and the learned may easily perceiue your false iuggling in it. There you wil nedes haue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie, the wife that is gonne from her husband by di∣uorce, and therefore you turne it, Vxori quae decessit (àse) whereas you should haue followed the allowed transla∣tion that is in vse, which hath Defunctae vxori, the wife deceassed, or departed this life. So I haue turned the place in my Confutation according to the Greeke, and as the common Latine translation hath.

Consider therefore how impudently you reproue me without cause. First in the margent of your booke, ouer against this testimonie of S. Chrysostom, truly translated by me out of the Greeke worde for worde (For whereas be ••••epeth no beneuol••nce towarde his wife deceased, how can he be a good gouernour? You haue set this odious note of reproufe, directing it by your sterre vnto the worde, deceassed * Vntruthe. For M. Harding fowly mistaketh S. Chrysostomes meaning. And there again immediatly. * Vn∣truth standing in false exposition. Not being content with this in your te••te, page 174. lin. 3. you say further? Those wordes M. Harding in his translation hath purposely falsified. I haue not purposely falsified them M. Iewel for they be

not my••••, but they be the word•••• of the common tr••••∣slation, and the same i•• according to the Greeke: For th•• verbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth not to departe away by di∣uorce, as you haue violently turned it, but simply to de∣parte, or goe awaye, and sometimes, as in this very place, to departe out of this life. You might haue learned so much of the common Greeke Lexicon.

Now that S. Chrysostome is so to be vnderstanded, S. Chrysostome him selfe clearely sheweth in wordes of the same sentence there. For whereas he speaketh of that second marriage, which he confesseth not to be for∣bidden by the lawes: what other second marriage mea∣neth he, but that, when as a man marrieth againe after the deceasse of his first wife? For I trow you wil not say, that the lawes after Christes comming, among Chri∣stian men permitted a man to marrie againe, his wife be∣ing aliue, and so to haue two wiues at once, specially in the case which your translation importeth, that is, when the wife (is not put away for Aduoutrie of her parte, but) departeth from the husband, which she may not do, but for aduoutrie of his parte.

It is not likely, S. Paule would debarre a man from comming vnto the dignitie of a Bishop, that had two wiues at once. For such a one, excepte he repented, and had put awaye from him one of them, was not admitted to be made a Christian man. What trow ye, that he re∣quired not a farr•• mo•••• p••rfection in him, that was to be made a Bishop?

Thus you see good reason, why Ambros••••s-C••••ild••le••∣sis that learned man, trāslated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for that is S. Chrysostoms word, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you haue

noted in your bookes margent) by this worde, Defun∣ctae, and why I turned it, the wife disceassed. You may now of your courtesie take backe againe your bitter re∣proches of fowle mistaking, of false exposition, of pur∣posed falsifying, to your selfe. For these special qualities be proued to be yours, they be not myne.

For two other testimonies in proufe of Priestes Mar∣riage, M. Iewel craueth helpe at Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa. Thus he saith.

Iewel.

Erasmus saith, The Priestes of the Greeke Church this daie, not vvith∣standing their Orders, marrie vviues. The like vvriteth Cornelius Agrip∣pa against the Iouanians.

Harding.

Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa be menne of smal credite God wote in this cause, which in their time they f••uo••red, as much as you do now. It is cōmonly reported (you know) for a vaine shifte of a theefe, to say, Aske my fellow, whether I be a theefe, or no. Herein we are mo∣ued with the authoritie of these two smatterers of your Gospel, in their daies but newly broc••ed, no more then if we heard Frier Luther, Monke H••p••r, Peter Martyr the regulare Chanon of S. Augustines order, and suche other married Apostates, to speake a good worde in fa∣uour of their vnlawful yokinges. How be it the truth is, both Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa, belye the Greeke Churche herein, as the Doctours of the Sor∣bo••e in Paris haue in their Censures againste Eras∣mus truely declared. For by the lawe, it was neuer, nor yet is to this day, lawful in the Greeke Churche, for Priestes to marrie wiues, after that they haue taken

the holy Order of Priesthood••.

Ie••••l.

Likevvise Cardinal Caiet••n•• saith; Nec ratione, nec authoritat•• probari potest, quod absolute loquendo Sacerdos peccet, cōtra∣hēdo matrimonius▪ It can not be proued, neither by reason, nor by a••th••∣ritie, speaking absolutely that a Priest offendeth God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 marrying a vvife,

Harding.

Cardinal Caietane hath his errours, for which he hath ben reproued and confuted. We are not bound to main∣teine, what so euer he saith. How be it this saying of his seemeth to haue no great errour, so it be vnderstanded, as he meant. There be two thinges, that make the mar∣riage of Priestes in the most Church vnlawful, the S•…•… of the Church, and the Vow annexed. The Statute and cōstitution of the Church, bindeth clerkes receiuing ho∣ly Orders neuer to marrie. As touching the Vow like as the Order and h••b••••e of Monkes (by which ••a••e al reli∣gious be vnderstanded) hath Chastitie ••••nexed by〈…〉〈…〉 that institut••d the habite, and the ••••le for monkes to〈…〉〈…〉 in, and therfore he that receiueth it, is said therewith to make a Vow cōsequently ••••••en so holy Order among the Latines, or thereof the West Church, by the Churches cōstitution, hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 anne••••d inseperably, and ther∣fore who so euer t••k••th it, willingly bindeth him selfe therunto in fact and deede, though no word of the bo••d be spoken. So ••h••t this b••nde procedeth both of the sta∣tute of the C•••••••••• ••nd of the Vow. And for this consi∣d••ration the 〈…〉〈…〉 Priest•••• is vnlawful. Bu•• spea∣king ••bso••••t••ly sai••h 〈…〉〈…〉 that is to say, if there were no such stature, of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nor Vow at ••et in this case ••f •• Prie••st ••••rried for any thing that is in reason,〈…〉〈…〉 in th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 presse Scriptures to the cont•…•…

he ••ould not sinne. Wherby he signifieth, that, the case •…•…tanding as it doth, Priestes marriage is vnlawful. Now remaineth M. Iewels last proufe of this matter.

Iewel.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 likewise, Anselmus saith in a Dialogue betvvene the Maister •…•…d the Scholare, touching these matters. Desideramu•• certificari tua sol••tione super vulgari in toto orbe quaestione, quae ab omnibus penè quotidie ventilatur, & adhuc lis indiscussa celatur. Scilicet, an liceat presbyteris, post acceptum ordinem vxores ducere. VVe are d••sirous by your ansvver to be certified, about this common question, that is novv tossed through the vvorlde, and as yet lieth vndiscussed, I meane vvhether a Priest, being vvil his Orders, may marrie a vvife. Here∣by a appeareth, that in the time of A••selmus, vvhich vvas aboue a thou∣sand yeres after Christe, this matter laye in question, and vvas not yet discussed.

Harding.

Anselmus wrote three Dialogues, in which he maketh the Maister and the Scholare to talke together. The first, is De Veritate: the second, De Libero Arbitrio: the third, De Casu Diaboli. An other Dialogue he wrote also of an other matter, in which he appointeth for talkers toge∣ther, Anselmus, and Beso Moe Dialogues he neuer wrote, for ought that can appeare by the workes, that be extant in printe vnder his name. And in these, neither in any of these, there is no such Dialogue betwene the Maister, and the Scholare touching these matters, as you say. And whereas you haue in the Maigent of your booke, Inqui∣sitione prima, I maie inquire for suche an Inquisition a longe time, before I finde it, for there is no suche thing at al among his Dialogues. Whether Frier Bale, Illyri∣cus, or some other suche gatherer of Rifferaffe haue deceiued you, or of your selfe you were disposed

in this place to 〈…〉〈…〉 you•• owne inuention (I w••••〈…〉〈…〉 cal it pl••••••e lying) I knowe ••ot: certainly amongest〈…〉〈…〉 printed workes, there is no s••ch Dialogue to be founde.

But if there were any such, what should that releiue your sory, causes? If the Maister had in good so••••h so tolde the Scholar••, it had ••en some what. Now th••t〈…〉〈…〉 Scholare saith it is a common question, and much toss••d betwen menne, and as yet lyeth vndiscussed: what other thing doth the Author by these wordes, but prouoke the Readers attention, that the Answer be the more diligēt∣ly weighed, and considered of? You knowe M. Iewel the writers of suche Dialogues, may make the demaun∣der to talke, what they liste. Neither is any thing to be auouched for true or false the sooner, bicause the demaū∣der so reporteth. By this you may see, that the author had a desire to discusse this matter by the Scholars mouing of the question, you can not argue, that at that time, this point was so muche in question.

And whereas by the a••thors fictiō, the Scholare saith, it was then a common question, and laie vndiscussed, by that a ma•• may ghess•• that in Anselmus time, suche, as whom it bec••me to be Scholars, and not Maisters, were busy in common table talke aboute suche questions, as the like personnes now a daies occupie their heades, and wheat their tongues aboute the like, and other questions of greater weight, wh•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them selues in their bolde and sto•••••• ••ss••••erations more like maisters; the•…•… Scholars.

And againe, whereas the Scholare in the pretensed Dialogue said, that question laie as yet vndiscussed, it is to be referred to those daies, and to the comp••ss•• of that

time, sine•• ••hiche that matter in that age beganne to 〈…〉〈…〉 in question. Thereof you may not conclude, that it was neuer before discussed in Christes Church, for the sp••ce of a thousand yeres, as you thereof would seme to g••ther. For among learned men, and the gouernours of Christes Churche, it was euer from the Apostles time certaine, and without al controuersie, that Priestes being in holy Orders might not marrie. And this is al that M. Iewel was hable to bring for proufe, that Priestes, and who so euer haue Vowed Chastitie, may marrie. Let vs see further, how wel he defendeth his Apologie against my Confutation, touching this matter.

The Apologie, cap. 8. Diuision. 2.

And as Sozomenus saith of Spiridion, and as Nazianzene saith of his 〈…〉〈…〉 Father, vve saie, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serue in the ministerie neuer the vvorse, for that he is married, but rather the better, and vvith more hablenes to doo good.

The Confutation. fol. 76. a.

Were it not that the weight of these matters requi∣red an vpright and plaine dealing, for ciuilities sake I could be content sometimes to spare you, and where ye make manifest lyes, to vse a softer word, and terme them fittens. But now if I tel you that you vse your accu∣stomed figure pseudologia, which is lying in plaine english: I trust you wil beare with my plainenes, amend your owne fault, and cōsider the power of truth, that causeth me to be so bold with you. This I am sure of, that neither Sozomenus, nor Gregorie Nazianzene, nor Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 5. as you haue caused your bookes both Latine and English to be noted in the margent, where ye mi∣stake

Eusebius for Ruf••••u•• ••o•• N••••ia•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ther i•• M•…•…¦nodia, as you note also in th•• margent, n••r in the fu•…•… oration that he made of his fath•••• hath any such saying as ye report of them. For how could they say that a bis•••••• serueth in his ministerie neuer the worse, but rather the better, and with more ablenes to do good for that he is maried, the Scripture being so plaine to the contrary•…•… What, wene ye they were either so ignorant, or so for∣getful, or so much inclined to promote your carnal do∣ctrine of priestes mariages, as to say so, not withstanding that S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians? Saith he not of them that be maried, that such shal haue tribulation of the flesh? Saieth he not, he that is without a wife, careth for the thinges of our Lord how he may please God? Of him that hath a wyfe saieth he not, that he careth for the thinges that be the worldes how he may please his wife, and is diui∣ded? finally sayth he not, I tel you this thing for your pro∣fite, not to tangle you in a snare, but for that which is honest, and comely vnto you, and that which may geue you readines to praye to God without lette? Wherfore recant for shame that fowle errour, that a bishop serueth the better in his ministerie, and is the more able to do good, for that he is maried. * Verily here ye seme to be of the flesh rather then of the spirite. Neither are ye to be called any lon∣ger, if ye mainteine this doctrine, spiritual men, as in times past they haue ben, whose romes ye occupie, but rather fleshly men. * Such men, such doctrine, fleshly men, flesh∣ly doctrine. * Neither see I, what ye can say for Defence of this doctrine, onlesse ye bristle your selues against S. Paule, and maugre his auctoritie affirme impudently, that it is no lette for a Bishop from the seruice of God,

to haue the tribulation of the flesh, that he may serue in 〈…〉〈…〉 vocation better, taking care for the thinges that be the worldes, and seeking how to please his wife, then if he studie for the thinges that be our Lordes, and seeke how to please God: that a man may do more good, being by occasion of his wife diuided and distract, then being whole and in him selfe vnited finally that a bishop shal serue the Church better being entangled and clog∣ged with worldly affaires, then hauing power and opor∣tunite to pray to God without lette. *

Now therfore see you not how great is your impu∣dencie in that you lye your selfe, and father such a fowle lye vpon Sozomenus, and that light of the world in his time Gregorie Nazianzene? * But for then dealing let vs heare what Sozomenus sayth concerning Spiri∣dion. For Rufine in the tenth booke added to Euse∣bius touching this matter reporteth nothing, but that he had a daughter named Irene, who died before her fa∣ther a virgin. * The wordes of Sozomenus be these. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, Spiridion was a Husbandman, hauing wife and children, and yet for al that he was neuer the worse about Gods seruice. Of this place we graunte ye may saye with Sozomenus, that Spiridion serued God neuer the woorse for that he was married. But how, and whereof gather ye, that he serued God the better, and was more able to doo good because of his marriage? * Now Spiridion was a man of passing holinesse, and in power and vertue surmounted al other menne of his time, as one that wrought greate miracles, and was taken for a prophete.

For Rufine, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ompareth P••pl••••utiu•• with the Apostles, s••m••th to pro••••tes Spiridion before him. If this one Saint of so great excellencie being made bishop of a maried man serued God neuer the worse for that he was maried; wil ye therefore make a general doctrine, that bishops and priestes shal ma••y, and that thereby they shal be no whit hindered from Gods seruice? * Spiridion ob∣teined that priuiledge through especial grace by his ex∣ceding ve••••ue, which is graunted to fewe. And the pri∣uileges of a fewe make not a lawe for al in general ye knowe, as Nazianzene saieth.

Furthermore if the wordes of Sozomenus that ye build youre annal doctrine vpō be wel examined, ye shal finde, th•••• he maketh more against you then with you. For signifying that he had wife and children, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet for al that he was neuer the worse about God•• seruice. This reuocation, or exceptiō negatiue (yet for al that &c.) implieth a cōfession affirma∣tiue of the contrarie. * As though by reason the sentence should beare this meaning. He had wife and children, and therefore was lesse apt and able to serue God in bi∣shoply ministerie. If there were no repugnance betwen the state of a bishop, and mariage, but the hauing of a wife were a better abling of a man to serue in that vocation, as ye say: then Sozomen us neither would, nor should haue vsed that maner of speach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as much to say, yet for al that but ••••ther thus he should haue spoken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that this sence might rise of his wordes, Spiridion was a husband∣man, hauing wife and children, and therefore he was the better disposed and readier to serue God. *

Neither maketh the place of Gregorie Nazianzene •…•…y what for you more, then this of Sozomenus doth: whose wordes be these after the translation of Rapha∣•…•… Volaterranus varying much from the Greeke. Hic Ba∣silij pater Basilius item appellatus, et si matrimonio se vinxit, ita tamen in eo vixit, vt nihil propterea ad perfectam virtu∣tem, ac Philosophiam consequendam impediretur. Basiles father who was named also Basile, although he put him selfe in bondes of matrimonie, yet he liued so herein, as he was letted no whit from the atteining of perfitte vertue, and holy knowledge. Were not marriage a lette and hinde∣rance to perfection requisite in a Bishop, this learned man could not rightly haue said, ita tamen in eo vixit, &c. yet for al that he liued so, &c. * Bicause the hauing of a wife is a hinderance to perfection, therefore of good reason in the praise of that holy Bishop, who was mar∣ried long before he tooke that degree, yet notwithstan∣ding (saieth this writer) he was not therefore letted from perfection. By which manner of speach he acknowled∣geth marriage in others to be a lette to perfection. Who vnderstādeth not for what cause of these two speaches, the one is reasonable, the other absurd: he is power, yet for al that liberal, and, he is power, yet for al that sparing? The like consideration duly conceiued, retourneth the auctoritie by this Defender alleaged against him selfe. For the like absurditie is in this saying, Basiles father was married, yet for al that he was not thereby letted from perfection: if for hauing a wife a man be the better able and readier to serue in the holy ministerie of a Bishop. *

Right so it is easy to put him from the holde he taketh

of Chrysostome, by Chrysostom him selfe. For least my man should thinke, whereas S. Paule sayeth, a Bishop ought to be the husband of one wife, that the same order conti∣neweth stil in the Church, thereto he saieth in his seco••d homilie de patientia Iob: non ea ratione quod id nunc in Ec∣clesia obseruetur. Oportet enim omni pr••rsus castitate S••cer∣dotem ornatum esse. S. Paule (sayeth he) required this not in consideration that the same be nowe obserued in the Church. For it behoueth a Bishop to be garnished with al manner a chastitie.

Iewel.

Here commeth M. Hardinge in a lofte vvith Io Triumphe, as ha∣uing beaten dovvne al the vvorld vnder his feete: And as being already in sure possession of the victorie, he crieth out, Impudencies, Loude his, foule Faultes, and pietie Fittens. And ful terribly chargeth vs, like a Conqueroure, to render oure selues, and to r••cante for sonne. This nevve courage is suddainly blovven vpon him, for that he th••••∣keth, vve haue intruded v••on his office, and as he saieth, ha••e cor∣rupted, and falsified the holy Fathers. But it vvere a vvorthie mat∣ter to knovve vvherein. Forsoothe vve saie, by the reporte of Soz••∣menus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Fa∣ther to Nazianzen, being bothe Married Bishoppes, notvvithstanding theire Marriage, vvere neuer the vv••rs•• hable to doo theire Ecclesiastical offices, but rather the better.

Here M. Harding of himselfe, and freely confesseth, these Ho∣ly Fathers vv••re ne••••r the vvorse hable to d•••• their offices? For so muche th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 importe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But that they vvere the better hable to doe their•• offices, ••••cause of theire VViues, that he d••nieth vtterly, and herein he saie••h me are corrupters, and falsifiers of the Fathers. And thus the vvhole diffe∣rence, that is betvvene M. Hardinge and vs touching this matter, stan∣deth

onely in these tvvo poore vvordes, Rather the better, and ••euer the v••••rse.

Novv gentle reader, that thou maiest be the better hable t•• i••dge betvvene vs, I beseeche the indifferently vveigh these vv••••des.

Gregorie Nazianzene hereof, that is, of the helpe, that his Father, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being the Bishop of Nazianzum had by his vvife, vvriteth thus: Illa quae data est Adamo, &c. Eua that vvvas geuen to Adam for a helper for asmuch as it vvas n•••• good for man to be alone, in steede of a helper became his enemie. It follovveth, Meo autem Patri Mater mea data illi à Deo, non tantum adiutrix facta est, id enim minus esset mirū, sed etiā dux, & princeps, verbo, facto{que} indu∣cens illū ad res optimas. Et aliis quidem rebus quamuis optimum esset subditam esse viro, propter iura coniu∣gii tamen in pietate non verebatur seipsam illi magi∣stram exhibere: My mother being geuen to my father of God, became not onely his helper, for that had ben no great vvonder, but also vvas his leader, and Captaine, bothe by vvord and by deede, trayning him vnto the best. And albeit in other thinges it vvere beste for her to be subiecte vnto her husbande for the right of marriage, yet in religion, and Godlinesse, she doubted not to becomme his Maistresse.

These vvordes M. Hardinge, be plaine, and cleare, and vvithout fitton, Gregorie Nazianzen sayeth, that his ovvne ••••••ther vvas vnto his father the Bishop of Nazianzum, a hel∣per and a directour, both by vvorde and deede, to leade him to the best: and that in al other thinges being his inferiour, yet in ••eligion and Godlinesse she vvas his Maistresse. And yet m••st al these vvordes so open, so plaine, so cleare, be drovvned vvith your simple distinction, of Rather the better, and neuer the vvorse. Maie vve not novve allovve you vvith fauour, to take al these, that ye cal sitions, lyes, corruptions, and falsi∣fienges, home againe vnto your selfe?

If you ••••••••r cr••••le th••se t••••••ges before is 〈…〉〈…〉 must remembre al truth must not be measured by your reading▪

Harding.

To beginne with these last wordes, as I require not al truth to be measured by my r••••ding M. I••w••l, so nei∣ther is it to be measured by your writing. Whether I euer readde these thinges before, or no, it skilleth not. Certaine it is, where you readde al that ye haue here al∣leged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene, you readde also that, whereby your false, and vnreasonable assertion is confuted, teaching that his Father being Bishop of Nazi∣anzū learned the doctrine of Godlines of his wife. Ha∣uing read and seene the truth of this point in that very place, and here conceeling it, that you might not seeme confuted, yea, and so boldely auouching the contrarie: how make you not al menne, that know this, witnesses of your falshode, and impudencie?

As for your vaine, and light tauntes of my comming in a lofte, with Io Triumphe, of my terrible charging of you like a Conquerour, of the new courage suddainly blowen vpon me, and such other prety eloquence fitter for a Mi∣nister, then for a sober man: I can easily contemne. No wise man that readeth my wordes, for which ye ruffle so with me, wil iudge you had iuste cause, with suche sporte to delight your selfe. Neither said I, if you marke my wordes wel, that you had corrupted and falsified the holy Fathers, for that you said vpon reporte of Sozome∣nus, and S. Gregorie Nazianzene, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Father to Nazianzene, were for their marriage neuer the worse hable to serue God, but rather the bet∣ter (which neuerthelesse is false): but for that you speake

it generally of a Bishop: as though Bishops should do•• that apperteineth to their charge the better, if they mar∣ried wiues. For truth whereof I referre me to the place.

Those two holy Fathers, were menne endewed with a singular and special grace, and the example of so few, is not to be drawen to be made a rule in general, as I said in my Confutation. Yet the most that is said of them, is, that they serued God neuer the worse by reason of their Mar∣riage.

Againe, whereas I answered to euery parte of your Apologie in this place, you defende but one thing by me confuted. Neither to say the truth, doo you defende the same, but say, what you were hable, to shew some colour of a Defence. This argueth that the other thinges you brought, are fully confuted. For elles why did you not de∣fende them? And this muche is the Reader here to be warned of by the waie: That whereas most commonly I answere to euery thing by the Apologie obiected vnto the Catholikes, in your pretēsed Defence, you laie much of my Confutatiō together, and in your Answere, either you touch no point by me confuted, or very few pointes, but fil your booke with new matter, not perteining to the defence of that which is confuted, taken as it seemeth out of the stoare of your Notebookes, which Illyricus, Frier Bale, and certaine others of that cutte haue made to your hande.

Touching this present matter, you would, if you wist how, persuade the worlde by the example of Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, that a Bishop is not only not letted or hindred from doing that, which belongeth to his due∣tie by hauing a wife, but also muche holpen, and that for

being marrried, he is the better hable to discharge the ser∣uice of a Bishop. To proue this, you allege muche out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene in Epitaphie patris. And the wordes, whiche you allege, be there in deede. Which wordes reporte, that S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Mother, was to his Father a helper, a guide, a Leader, a Capitaine, by worde, and by deede training him vnto the best, yea further, that in Religion, and godlinesse she was not asha∣med to becomme his Maistresse. Al this is true M. Iewel, I confesse, and yet it proueth not your purpose at al. How so?

Marke Reader, and consider of it wel, how M Iewel begyleth thee. Gregorie Nazianzen hereof (saith he) that is, of the helpe that his Father, being the Bishoppe of Na∣zianzum had by his wife, writeth thus. Illa &c. Here lyeth the deceite, in that he maketh S. Gregorie Na∣zianzenes Father Bishop of Nazianzum, when he had suche helpe of his mother, as though it were credible, that a Bishoppe should be taught of his wife, how to teache his flocke the doctrine of our Religion. If S. Gre∣gorie Nazianzene had meant thus, he had made his Fa∣ther but a simple Bishop. It is a weake flocke, they say of sheepe, where a Yew beareth the belle. So truely it must be an infortunate Dioces, where the Bishop is his Wiues scholare.

Now Reader al these great crakes, that M. Iewel vt∣tereth here so liberally, in thy iudgement must come to naught, when thou vnderstandest the truth of this matter. Thus then it is. Gregorie the elder, S. Gregorie Nazian∣zenes Father, was a married man long before he was Bis∣shop: and before he was married vnto his wife, and also

long after, he was in Infidel. She, S. Gregories mother, contrariwise was a Christian woman, borne of Christian parentes, and descended of a stocke, that had ben Chri∣stian of long time. Her learned sonne speaking of her, in comparison of his Father, saith, that she was not taken out of the wilde Oliue, and engraffed into the good Oliue, as he was: But that she had vertue, and the true faith of Christe, as by auncient inheretance, from her godly forefa∣thers. Of him he saith, that he was a branche of a Roote, that was not to be praised, that was not disposed to godlines, that was not planted in the howse of God. Touching the re∣ligion that he was of, speaking more particularly of him, he saith, that he was one of them, who were named Hypsistarij, of whom I haue not readde, but in S. Gre∣gorie Nazianzene. These Hypsistarij, as he describeth them, were neither altogether Heathens, nor Iewes, but (as a man following S. Gregorie might terme them) mon∣grels betwen both. For (as he saith) of the Heathnish errour, they exchewed Idolles, and Sacrifices, and yet honoured the Fier and Lampes, and of Moyses lawe they had in reuerence the Saboth daie, and vsed the Iewish superstition about cer∣taine meates, but Circumcision they vtterly refused. Suche a one touching Religion, was this Gregorie.

Now that vertuous and holy woman his wife on the other side, taking great thought for her husband, ••nd, as her sonne writeth, hauing great griefe at harte, that being yoked together in wedlocke, they drewe not one waie together through diuersitie of faith, that she was vnited vnto God but in respecte of halfe, that the copulation of the spirite was not ioined with the bodily copulation, being most desirous to remedie

this, and y•••• not being ••••ble to bring it to passe: she f••l downe (saith h••) befo•••• God daie and night, she besought and craued of him the saluation of her husband, with muche fasting, and with many teares. Withal she was in∣stant vpon her husband to come to the Christian faith, she vsed al the waies she could deuise whereby to winne him, with chidinges (saith he) with admonitions, with kinde and louing seruices, with tokens of displeasure. To be shorte, it coulde no otherwise be (saith he) but that the droppe of water with continual falling should at length make a hole in the stoane, and that the thing in time should be brought to passe, that was so earnestly intended.

There then speaking particularly of the meanes, by which Gods prouidence brough him to Saluation, and to become a Christian man, among other thinges, he saith, that his Father was muche furthered with a vision in a dreame, wherewith (saith he) God oftentimes benefiteth〈…〉〈…〉 soule, which he accompteth worthy to be saued. It seemed vnto him in his dreame, that he sange that verse of Dauid the Prophete. Laetatus sum in ijs quae dicta sunt mihi, in de∣mum Domini ibimus. that is to saye, as he vttereth it out of the seuenty Interpreters, It reioised me to heare them, that said vnto me, Come on, let vs goe into the howse of our Lord.

This vision he tolde his wife. She, being very glad of it, as hauing assured hope, that her long praier and desire was heard, interpreting it to the best sense, and signify∣ing vnto him, how great fauour God shewed vnto him, made al the haste she could possibly, that he were Chri∣stened, fearing, as her sonne writeth, lest by differring some thing might happen in the meane while, that should be a hinderance to that blessed calling, and defeit

al, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 she had so much and so long gonne about to bring to affecte. To be shorte, within a while after she founde the meane, that he was Christened by the holy Father Leontius Bishop of that Dioces, at what time out of al coaster of the worlde the Bishoppes repaired to Nicaea, there to holde a General Councel, to the condemnation of the heresie of Arius. After this he liued a holy life, and at length by Gods prouidence, he was promoted vnto the bishoprike of Nazi••nzum.

This much is (though in a farre larger processe) decla∣red by S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the Oration, which he made at the burial of his Father. Whereby it is made cleare to al menne, how his Father was holpen by his wife, not as being a Bishop, as M. Iewel doth vntruly say, but as yet being an Infidel. That her sonne reporteth of her, that she was vnto his Father, a helper, a guide, a leader, a Captaine, an instructour, a teacher a maistresse in religion, and godlinesse: al this is to be vnderstanded of the time, in which he remained an vnbeleuer, not of the time, in which he was Bishop of Nazianzum.

Herein she did the parte, that many other godly and faithful wiues haue donne, who haue vsed the like dili∣gence and care, to bring their husbandes being Infidels, vnto the faith of Christe. That holy woman Monica S. Augustines mother, did the like with her husband Patri∣cius, of whom he writeth thus in his booke of Confessi∣ons, speaking vnto God, as there his manner is: Tradita vira seruiuit veluti Domino, & sategit cum lucrari tibi, &c. When she was married out vnto her husband, she serued him, as if he had ben her Maister, and tooke care how she might winne him vnto thee, ô Lorde. Againe he said there

afterwarde. Vir••m s••••m iam in extrema vita temporall eiu•• lucrata est tibi. She wanne her husband vnto thee (ô Lorde) now in the ende of his temporal life.

In consideration that God oftentimes worketh such grace by the wife to the winning of the husband vnto God, S. Paule requireth, that a Christian woman put not awaie her husband from her being an infidel, if he cōsent to dwel with her. For how knowest thou o woman (saith he) whether thou shalt saue thy husband or no?

Either you haue read these thinges M. Iewel, in the place from whence you tooke the wordes, which here you allege, or you trusted the gatherer of your Notes. If you trusted your gatherer, you should haue tried the te∣stimonie wel, before you had spoken so peremptorily. If you haue readde and seene al this, in that you haue con∣ceeled the truth, and spoken so much to the contrary, you shew your selfe to be one, that is litle to be trusted.

Certainely al menne may nowe see, howe iust cause I haue, not to take these fittons, and corruptions againe vnto me, but to leaue them with you, and to charge you with them, as I did before in my Confutation of your Apologie.

After this M. Iewel bringeth in a great meany of Do∣ctours sayinges, with whiche they commende Marriage and seeme to blame them that despised, and condemned Marriage, and were of the opinion, that a man could not be saued if he were married. Whereunto I thinke al an∣swere needeles, for asmuch as we are not they, that con∣demne Marriage, as it hath now ben oftentimes said. we esteme it as honorable, and where marriage is lawful, and lawfully vsed, we accōpt that bed vnspotted and cleane,

as S. Paule calleth it. Mary we say, that who soeuer haue bound them selues to liue in continencie by solēne Vow, as Priestes and Religious persons, for them it is not law∣ful to marrie, and their Marriage is vnlawful, or rather, none at al. Against whiche doctrine M. Iewel hath nothing to say, nor to allege, and yet touching Marriage, he hath filled a great deale of paper with the doctours sayinges. So ready he is to bring muche, and so litle hable to bring ought, that maketh clearely for him.

What thinges certaine Fathers haue writen against im∣pure heretikes dispraising marriage in al men, the same he allegeth now, as if they were spoken against the Catho∣likes condemning the Marriage of these Apostates. He bringeth in a long saying of Origen, spoken of the Mar∣cionistes, and Cerdonistes, and such others. He allegeth Epiphanius against the filthy Origenians. Chrysostome a∣gainst wicked wemen, that keping the name of Maides, liued worse then hartlots in the Stewes. Briefely so ma∣ny mo as he founde, old, and late writers of al sortes, spea∣king bitterly against the impune life of il menne, and we∣men. Whereunto I answere briefly: As al the married A∣postates approche neare vnto the filthinesse of Deuils, so some of the Catholique Clergie, and religious per∣sonnes, be farre from the purenesse of Angelles. God geue vs al grace to amende, that is amisse, and you M. Iewel a better harte, and more charitie towardes his Church. With which grace being endewed, you wil take lesse pleasure in reporting il of her Ministers.

I neede not here after this sorte to trauaile any farther in this matter against Maister Iewel. What so∣euer is beside that, whiche I haue here answered in the

whole booke of his pretensed Defence touching th•…•… point, it is either not worth the answering, as altogether impertinent, or sufficiently refelled in my former Con∣futation. Compare the one with the other Christian Reader, and if thou be hable to iudge of these thinges, assure thy selfe, my sayd Confutation maie satisfie thee, for ought that M. Iewel bringeth. Now bicause it were infinite to stand vppon euery pointe, and to discusse so many tedious, and impertinent allegations: I thinke it more conuenient to vse an other waie, and by laying to∣gether certaine his Vntruthes, to make shorter worke.

M. Iewels Vntruthes, and flatte Lies concer∣ning the Marriage of Priestes, and Votaries.

[ 1] He steineth the authoritie of S. Hierome, S. Chryso∣stome, S. Gregorie Nazianzen, and diuers other learned and ancient Fathers, as disgracing lawful Matrimonie, and the Marriage of Widowes, and Widowers.

[ 2] He saith, S. Hierome in Catalogo witnessed, that Ter∣tullian was a married Priest. The place wil shew this vn∣truth. Albeit I denie not, but that he was married, before he was Priest: and so were diuers others, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, Gregorius Nyssenus, and certaine others.

[ 3] He saith, S. Hilarie Bishoppe of Poitiers was married, and that he prooueth by an Apocryphal epistle to one A∣bra his daughter. These toies are vaine, and more fabu∣lous, then Esops fables.

[ 4] So he maketh Prosper the bishop of Rhegium, a mar∣ried man, vpon a felender coniecture, how soeuer it be,

it can not be prooued, that he was married after that he was Bishop. that is ynough for vs.

He saith, that Polycrates had seuen of his Fathers [ 5] Bishops before him. The meaning of the testimonie alleged for that purpose is, that seuen of his howse, and kinred, had benne Bishoppes in his Churche before him. For so signifieth the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as is before noted.

That which he allegeth vnder the name of Pope Da∣masus, [ 6] is intitled in the Decrees, Palea, as muche to say, Chaffe, by which name in the Decrees of Gratian, that is signified, which is by some other mā added vnto Gra∣tian. and wel may this be so named, bicause it is a thing forged, and litle worthe. And how could Damasus write of so many Popes, whiche liued after his death certaine hundred yeres?

He saith, alleging for his authour Fabian the late mer∣chant [ 7] of London, that Marriages of Priestes in England were free a thousand yeres together, and yet it is euidēt, that the English Clergie was gouerned according to the order which our Apostle S. Augustin leaft, who by S. Gregories rule, might not allow married Priestes.

He saith, the Priestes of England were neuer Vota∣ries, [ 8] for proufe, he saith boldely, it is knowen, and confessed, which stout asseueration maketh weake proufe. And were it so, then surely if any had maried, although he had sinned thereby, yet the mariage should haue continued, whiche is knowen to haue alwaies benne vsed other∣wise.

He calleth the Vow of Chastitie, an euil promisse, and [ 9] an vnhonest Vow, whiche worde was neuer yet spo∣ken

by any good or honest man. For our Ladie vowed her chastitie vnto God, as it is euident by the interpreta∣tion of many holy Fathers vpon S. Lukes Gospel.

[ 10] He denieth primam fidem, the first faith in S. Paule to be meant of the Vow of Chastitie, whiche is directly a∣gainst the aunciēt fathers doctrine. For although it were expounded of baptisme also, yet none but Heretikes, euer denied it to apperteine to Vowes.

[ 11] He beareth the world in hande, as though we violent∣ly forced yong Maidens to receiue Vowes. It cōmeth of their owne choise, and of Gods grace, and not of any constraint of ours.

[ 12] He turneth, Offerre, to Minister the oblation, or holy com∣munion, whereas it is to make the oblation, before that it be ministred.

[ 13] He taketh halfe the sense of S. Paule awaye, concer∣ning those, whom he exhorteth to absteine from the vse of wedlocke for a certaine time of praier, as I prooued before.

[ 14] He saith, Paphnutius alone, was proctour for the truth a∣gainst the whole Councel of Nice, intending thereby to bring his reader in beleefe, that one is better, then three hundred and seuenteen. For 318. Bishoppes were at that Councel. Thus he seeketh to discredite Councelles.

[ 15] He burdeneth vs, as seming to say, that the cōpanie of man and wife is filthinesse, which we say not, but teach Marriage to be a Sacramēt, but yet, as, not betwen father and daughter, so neither betwene Frier and Nonne.

[ 16] He saith, I haue falsified S. Chrysostoms woordes. But it is not so. For S. Chrysostom saith, that neither he, that had two wiues at once, nor he, who had ben againe

married after his first wiues death, may be made Priest by S. Paules rule, he speaketh of the seconde Marriage after the first wiues death, saying. Qui defuncta vxori beneuolentiam non seruat, he that rendreth not good wil to his wife being dead, how can he be a good gouernour ouer the Church? So that by S Chrysostomes interpreta∣tion, S. Paule literally forbiddeth him to be made Priest, who hath had mo Wiues then one, whether it were at once, or one after an other.

He corrupteth the text of S. Chrysostom, putting for [ 17] the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Latine, quae discessit (à se) her that is gone frō him, in stede of this worde defun∣ctae, which is, dead. His coniecture taken of the Greeke worde, is void, and nothing worth. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dece∣do, doth signifie also to depart this life. And it is plainer, that S. Chrysostom expressely cōfesseth this sense, which we defend, saying, Quidam hoc ita intelligunt, vt ad episco∣patū is assumatur, qui vnius fuerit vxoris vir. Some men do vnderstand this mater, that he be taken to Bishophoode, who hath ben the husband of one wife. And that this last sense not being reproued of S. Chrysostome, is the most literal sense, it may appeare by these wordes of S. Paule. Let her be chosen a widowe, quae fuerit vnius viri vxor, which hath ben the wife of one husband. Wherefore as by the wife of one husband, she is meant, which hath not ben twise married: so by the husbād of one wife, he like∣wise is vnderstanded, that hath not ben twise married.

Cassiodorus (saith M. Iewel) writeth, that Eupsy∣chius, [ 18] who suffered Martyrdome being newe married, was a Bishoppe. What a shameful corruption is this, to adde the woorde, Bishoppe, vnto the text, whereas it is

euident by Sozomenus the authour of the Storie, and by Nicephorus, that Eupsychius was a laie gentleman of Ce∣sarea in Cappadocia, as is before declared. What vile for∣gerie is this M. Iewel, to turne a Gentleman, or a Noble man, into a Bishop, only that a Bishop might seeme to haue married? So litle can your Marriages of Bishoppes, and Priestes be mainteined without Lies.

[ 19] He leaueth out the better halfe of the Glose, reciting that parte, which the Glose alloweth not, leauing that, which it alloweth.

[ 20] He saith, that a good and diligent Bishop serueth ra∣ther the better, bicause of marriage. But how vntruly he saith it, it is before sufficiently declared. Certainly (I may say) were it true, then Christ, who was the best Bishoppe that euer was, and omitted nothing, whereby he might haue ben most perfite) would haue ben married.

[ 21] He saith, S. Paule gaue rules to the Clergie, that Bi∣shops, and Deacons should be the husbādes of one wife: the sense is not wel geuen. It is to be vnderstanded, that none other husbandes should be Bishops, or Deacōs, but such, as had ben, or were, the husbandes of one wife.

[ 22] He saith further, immediatly after the former rule of one wife, in the same tenour and course of speache S. Paule sheweth, that some shal forbid to marrie. This is false. It doth not follow immediatly. For there goeth betwen a cōmendation of the Church (which S. Paule nameth the piller of truth) and likewise of the Incarnation of Christ. After which wordes S. Paule saith. The spirit saith plaine∣ly, that in the last daies some shal depart from the faith. From whiche faith? Verely from that faith of the incar∣nation, and that, whereof the Churche is the piller.

Marke the worde discedent à fide, they shal depart from the faith. He that departeth from the faith, once had the faith. We neuer had your faith M. Iewel, neither in any other point, nor in this concerning the marriage of Priestes. But we had, and haue the faith, that the lawful Marriage of Christian persons is a Sacrament, and that faith had you once, when you were baptized, and incor∣porate in our Church. You are gon from that faith, and not we. S. Paul then teacheth, that some shal forbid Mar∣riages, as the Manichees, Encratites, and Marcionistes did, of whom the Apostle prophecied, as S. Chrysostom, and diuers other Fathers doo expounde. But (saith M. Iewel.) He that condemneth Marriage in a few, must likewise be called a condemner of Marriage. Why sir, doo you allow [ 23] Mariage betwen the Father and the Daughter, or be∣twen the Brother and the Sister? If not, then you con∣demne Marriage in a fewe. It is to be knowen, that Marriage is then forbidden, when it is taught, that a man hauing no impedimēt in his owne person, or when there is no impediment in the person, whom he would take, is yet forbidden to marrie: as if Marriage of it selfe were il, or, as if it were an il thing in it selfe, a man to marrie.

There is impediment, as of blould, as betwen brother and sister, so of Solemne Vow, and of Religion, as betwen a Priest and a Nonne, or any other woman. And as S. Paul doth allow the impediment of bloude, counting him a great sinner, who had his fathers wife: so doth he allow the impediment of a vow, when he saith, that the yong widowes (if they should be receiued into the number of those chast persons, whom the Churche vsed to feede) were like to haue damnation, bicause they would desire

to marie, and so would in harte at the least breake their former faith, or promise of perpetual Chastitie. But (saith he) let yonge widowes marrie, and bring forth children. As who should saie: If they were receiued into the solemne number of Widowes, then they should make promise not to marrie: and that promise perhaps they would breake, if not openly, yet in hart.

Thus it is no Deuils doctrine to teache, that a per∣son hauing once vowed, can not marrie: bicause he him selfe geueth the impediment, and not the lawe of the Churche. For that lawe was in S. Paules time, as I now haue shewed after S. Chrysostoms minde. Oecu∣menius saith, Pactae sunt quòd Christo adiungerentur, reij∣ciunt autem ipsum ad humanas reuolutae nuptias. (Item pòst) verùm quia hoc faciunt, nubant, seipsas Christo non despondeant. They couenaunted that they would be ioi∣ned vnto Christe, but they shake him of, and turne them selues to humaine Marriages. But bicause they doo so, let them marrie on Goddes name, let them not (by Vow) betroth them selues to Christe. Marke Rea∣der, S. Paule would not haue them marrie after their profession of Chastitie (that might not be in any wise) and therefore he wil haue them not to be professed, and so to marie. Pope Innocentius is belied. he condem∣neth [ 24] not Marriage, but Incest, and vnlauful Marriage, and preferreth in Priestes, and Deacons, holy conti∣nencie, [ 25] before the satisfying of Carnal luste. Likewise Pope Siricius is fowly belyed. If thou deale not chastly, [ 26] yet deale charily, what is meant thereby, and how rea∣sonably it is said, I shal hereafter declare in due place. Where I shal cleare the Canonistes of the sclaunder you

vtter against them of teaching the people, that Simple fornication is no sinne, whiche they neuer taught.

We saie not that men in Marriage can not please God: [ 27] but that such men can not please God, who hauing pro∣mised by taking holy Orders, that they wil liue chaste, do breake their promise. It is better to marrie in a case, then [ 28] to liue single: to some man I graunt, it is the auoyding of a greater euil, but not of it selfe better. For the Apostle saith, he that ioyneth his virgin in Marriage, doth wel, but he that ioyneth her not, doth better.

Whom God hath ioyned, let no man sunder. But God ne∣neuer [ 29] ioyned a Priest in Christes Church to a wife after his Priesthood, bicause the mans owne facte, and vow, is against his Marriage. Againe he is alreadie married to Christe, who liueth for euer, and so whiles his firste spouse liueth, he maie marrie no more. that is S. Basils reason. Although simple fornication be not now pou∣nished [ 30] with deposing the Priest, yet it is not leafte vn∣pounished.

Last of al you repeate manie abuses of the Clergie, which as in some part maie seme to arise and come of sin∣gle life, so I doubt not, but if Priestes were commonly married, the case would be muche worse. Certainely seeing Christe said, there are Eunuches, who gelde them selues for the kingdom of heauen, the Churche hath done right wel, to reserue the highest order for them, who do most force vnto them selues, for heauens sake. And seing S. Paule would haue al men chaste without Mar∣riage, as him selfe was: muche more it is to be thought, he would haue his owne Successours in the publike mi∣nisterie to be suche.

Againe if among married men, he be meetest to be cho∣sen Priest, who hath had but one wife, he yet were more meete, who had none at al. If before Priesthod one wife be the most, afterward one is to much. If perfection, and an Angels life be in most perfite chastitie, that same is most meetest for Priestes, who are the Angels of God. If married persons ought to be apart for a time, to haue the more leisour to praye, and to communicate: he that must stil attend the publike prayer, and must bothe offer, and minister the Communion, had nede stil to absteine from wedlocke: specially seing the Priestes of the lawe during the time of their ministerie, did not companie with their wiues.

Eusebius, and Epiphanius, accompt those counselles, and praises of single life, which are in holy Scripture, to apperteine to Priestes, as to the most excellent degree, and not vnto the Laie men: as who are permitted to vse a lower state of perfection. If no man that liueth in war∣fare to God, doo wrappe him selfe in secular busines, and yet S. Paul saith, that the maried person doth thinke vpon the thinges of the world, and is distracted thereby: how conueniently hath the West Churche ordeined, that he should only be made a Priest, who by Gods grace is con∣tent to professe and leade a single life? Or how can that Bishop, or Priest wholy attend hospitalitie and almose dedes, and the profit of his flocke, and the setting vp of common schooles, of vniuersities, of hospitals, and almose houses for the poore, and such other like dedes of mercie, and of publike profit: who hath his wife and children to prouide for? Had we now had in al England the furni∣ture of Colleges, and Scholes (whiche God be praysed

we haue, and should yet haue had more, had not the blaste of your Euangelical spirite ouerthrowen them) if the Clergie had alwaies ben married? Nay the mar∣ried Bishops, that now liue so merily, and kepe such con∣tinual dalliance and cheere vpon other mennes paines and trauailes, were nourished in the Vniuersities, special∣ly by their almose, and foundations, who were single, and chaste Bishops, and Priestes. Thus though nothing be perfite in this life, yet the single life, of the two, is more conuenient for the Cler∣gie, both by Gods Worde, and by the experience of Ci∣uil policie.

Notes

• The Fa∣thers be on our side by M. Iewels ovvne confessiō.
• Heb. 13. To marrie vnlauful in tvvo cases.
• The foure thinges that in this mat∣ter M. Ievvel hath to defende.
• VVhat is that M. Ievvel. perfour¦meth in this ma∣ter of Priestes and Vo∣taries marria∣ges.
• M Iewels order in his trea∣tie of this pointe, and his tvvo princi∣ples.
• M. Iewels tvvo Princi∣ples.
• Ansvver to M. Ie∣vvels do∣ctours.
• The Fa∣thers cal immode∣rate luste, an euil thing, for vvhiche they be thought of some vnlear∣ned, to reproue marriage De pecca∣to origina¦li contra Pelag. & Coelestiū. lib. 2. c. 37 Lib 1. de Nuptiu et Concupis∣cent. c. 22
• Gen. 3.
• August. in Psal. 70.
• Opere im∣perfecto in Matth. Hom. 1. sub finem.
• VVhat is that vvhich is of the Fa∣thers ac∣compted euil in vvedlok vvorke.
• August. de Nuptijs et concupis∣cent. lib. 1. cap. 24.
• The euil thing of wedlock vvorke of mar∣ried per∣sons vvel vsed. The three good thinges of mar∣riage. à cap. 10. vsque ad cap. 16.
• August. de Nuptus et Concupis. lib. 1. ca. 5.
• August. de peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestiū lib. 2. c. 37
• Tettulliā of a mar∣ried man made Priest. Spiridion made Bis∣shop frō being a married laie man. S. Hilarie married by M. Ievvel. In the Re∣ioinder against the Sa∣crifice of the Masse fol. 172. b.
• Chaeremō
• Euseb. Hist. Ec∣cles. lib. 6. cap 42.
• Polycra∣tes.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Ruffinus belied.
• Hiero. in Catalo∣go. in Po∣lycrate.
• Ignat. ad Philadelp. Origen falsified by M. Ievvel. Origen. in Commēt. in epist. ad Rom. c. 1. VVhe∣ther S. Paule had a vvife ot no by the opi∣nion of S. Am∣brose. M. Ievv∣els foule contradi∣ctions. Replie. Article. 17. Diui∣sion. 11.
• Ambros. in 2. Cor. 11.
• Hieron. contra Io∣uinian. Lib. 1. In the 2. Keioin∣der. fol. ••75. b.
• Distin. 56 Osius. A vaine and a fonde thing as∣cribed to Damasus, as though he vvrote of thīges done lōg after his death.
• Pope Ho∣sius, a Pope of M. Iewels making.
• Palea.
• Distinct. 56. in Glossa.
• AEneas Syluius.
• Polydorus Vergil.
• Fabian.
• Cyril in Leuitic. Lib. 3.
• Confutat. fol. 73. b.
• Defence. pag. 163.
• M. Ievvel ful coldly maketh that but reasona∣ble, and cōueniēt, that is ne¦cessary.
• The Foū∣ders, and chiefe maisters of this nevv Go∣spel are iudged vnreaso∣nable mē by M. I. him selfe.
• Forgerie.
• VVhat hath M. Ievvel to say in de∣fence of the vota∣ries mari¦ages in o¦ther lādes besides England?
• That prie¦stes of En¦gland be Votaties.
• The vovv of chasti∣tie anne∣xed vnto holy Or∣ders.
• The vovve of Chastitie required at the ta∣king of Subdea∣conship.
• Grego. li. 1. epi. 42.
• Nouell. 123.
• Concil. Carthag. 2. Ca. 2. Leo epist. 92. ca. 3.
• Distin. 31. Quoniam.
• Chastitie promised at the ra∣king of holy Or∣ders also in the aū∣cient Gre∣ke Church Concil. Neocaesar. Cap. 1.
• Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• Concil. Gangren. in fine.
• Concil. Laodicēs. cap. 24.
• Origen. in Numer. homil. 23.
• Canonum. Apost. can. 25.
• Vovv of Chastitie made in facte, though no vvor∣des be spoken.
• Promises other, ād Grauntes, made in deede vvithout vvorde.
• Souldier.
• Proselyti.
• Thurifica∣ti.
• Vovv of Chastitie made in silence. Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• The sum∣me of M. Ievvels al∣legations for proufe of priestes marriages
• Bonifac. 8. in c. vnico. de voto. in 6. The deter¦mination of the Churche, in vvhat case of a Vovve made mar¦riage hol∣deth, in vvhat case it holdeth not. For vvhat reason marriage holdeth in the case of a Sim∣ple Vovv, other∣vvise in the case of a So∣lemne Vovve.
• M. Dor∣man de∣fended a∣gainst M. Ievvel. Defence pag. 169. Dorman in his first booke, fo 16. b.
• M. Ievvel chargeth the holy Fathers vvith o∣uersight for zele and heat.
• 22. quaest. 4. In ma∣lis.
• Marc. 6. Act. 23. 22. quaest. 4. Inter caetera.
• Iudic. 11.
• Mat. 19. 1. Cor. 7.
• Iouinians heresie.
• Concil. To letan. 8. Cap. 7. in Epitom. Married Priestes of olde times cal∣led Apo∣states.
• Alphonsus de Castro alleged by M. Ievvel in stede of Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariē.
• Viruesius Philippica 19.
• Novv M. Ievv. cō∣meth to the point at length.
• Distinct. 31. Quo∣niam. in Margine.
• In vvhat sense are the Greke Priestes Votaries.
• M. Iewels chiefe au∣toritie is a margi∣nal note vpon the Glose.
• Distinct. 31. Quo∣niam.
• Concil. Ancyran. cap. 9.
• Ansvver vnto the Canon of the Coū¦cel of An∣cyra.
• Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• The case of our Apostates is not like vnto this case.
• Dist. 31. Aliter.
• Glos. dist. 31. Aliter.
• Diuersitie betvven the East, and vvest Churche touching libertie of Clerks mariages
• Distin. 32. Si quis eorum.
• Cathari∣nus con∣tra erro∣res Caie∣tani, er∣rore. 103.
• Caietan. in Opusc. lib. 5. tra∣ctatu. 27.
• vvhether the Pope may dis¦pense vvith a Priest, or religious person to marrie in a case.
• Raymeri•• made kīg of Aragō of a Mōke and mar∣ried by dispensa∣tion. See the historie of Fran∣ciscus Ta∣rapha.
• Munster. Cosmo∣graphiae, lib. 3. in Schlesia. & lib. 4. in Polonia Mart. Cro¦merus.
• Athanas. ad Dra∣contium.
• Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14
• A falshod in excu∣sable, and in tolle∣rable of M. Ievv.
• Histor. Tripartit. lib. 6. c. 14
• Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 11
• An impu∣dent fal∣sifying.
• Nicepho∣rus be∣lyed by M. Ievv. Defence. pag. 514.
• Nicepho∣rus. lib. 1•• cap. 20.
• Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit•• in Glossa.
• Apolli∣naris the elder not married, after he was made Priest.
• Chrysost. in Epist. 1 ad Timo. Homil. 1••
• M. Ievvel nippeth of vvor∣des of his doctor.
• It is a hard thīg that mar∣riage should not be a lette vn∣to the per¦fites life by iudge∣mēt of S. Chryso∣stom.
• M. Ievvel buildeth his prouf vpō a for¦ged sen∣tence ad∣ded vnto S. Chry∣sostome.
• I•• prim. cap Titi. hom. 2.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• Tit. 1. ho. 2
• M. Ievv. in his de∣fence pa. 175. vseth false trā∣slation.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pag. 164.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• VVhat secōd mar¦riage not forbiddē by the lavves.
• Erasmus, and Cor∣nel. Agrip∣pa.
• Caietan. in Quod libet.
• VVhere of is it, that the Marriage of Prie∣stes in the vvest Church is vnlavv∣ful. Statute of the Chur∣che and Vovvan∣nexed.
• VVhat meaneth Caietane by this vvorde, Absolu¦tely.
• Anselmus in Dialog. Inquisitio∣ne prima.
• Anselmus vvrong∣fully ma∣de a spo∣kesman for the A∣postates marriage.
• Lying much v∣sed of this defender.
• Sozome∣nas, Gre∣gorie Na∣zianzene
• Eusebius belyed by the auc∣thour of the Apo∣logie.
• A bishop is not a∣ble to do his mini∣sterie the better for that he is maried to a vvife.
• Leaft out by M. I.
• Left out by M. Iev
• Left out by M. Ie. The place of Sozo∣menus examined
• Cap. 5. lib. 1. cap. 11.
• Left out by M. Ie.
• Spiridion
• Ecclesiast. Histo. lib. 10. cap. 4. & 5.
• The place of Sozo∣menus al∣leaged by the defen∣der ma∣keth vt∣terly a∣gainst them. Leaft out by Mil.
• Nazian∣zenes vvordes returned vpon the defender.
• Leaft out by M.I.
• Tit. 1.
• The vvordes importe it not.
• I beseche thee also Reader to vveigh my Ansvver.
• Vntruth for then he vvas not Bi∣shop, but an infidel Nazian. in Epita∣phi•• patris.
• She vvas his Mai∣stresse before he knevv, vvhat the faith of Christ vvas yet they serue you to no purpose. False. He vvas not then Bishop of Na∣zianzum, nor yet a Christian.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 VVhat a do vvould this fellovv make, if he had me at a Vantage in deede, that thus fareth vvithout cause, as by the ansvver it shal better appeare.
• M. Ievv∣els gay e∣loquence minister-like.
• Spiridiō, and Gre∣gorie Na∣zianze∣nes fa∣ther.
• M. Ievvel defēdeth after his manner but fevv partes of the Apo∣logie.
• In vvhat respecte saith Na∣zianzen of his Mother, that she vvas to his Fa∣ther, a lea∣der. &c.
• M. Iewels falshed discoue∣red.
• Gregorie Naziāzē expoun∣ded.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. fol. 124. a. Aldi. Hypsista∣rij vvhat menne they were
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• Psal. 121.
• Faithful vviues haue ben cause of their hus∣bandes conuer∣sion to the faith. Monica S. Augu∣stines Mo¦ther la∣boured to cōuert Patricius her hus∣band. Confessio∣num. li. 9. cap. 9.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• Heb. 13.
• VVith vvhat stuffe M. Ievv. fur∣nisheth out this pointe at large. Defence Pag. 187. 188. 189.
• Pag. 165.
• Pag. 166.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Pag. 167.
• Pag. 168. 169.
• Luc. 1.
• Pag. 170. 1. Tim. 5.
• Pag. 171.
• Pag. 172.
• Pag. 173.
• Pag. 174
• Pag. 175. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum Hom. 2.
• 1. Tim. 5.
• Pag. 176.
• Pag. 175.
• Pag. 182.
• ••. Tim. 4.
• Discedent à fide.
• Pag. 182.
• 1. Cor. 5.
• 1. Tim. 5.
• Pag. 182.
• Pag. 183.
• Infra. li. 5. cap. 15.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• Pag. 185.
• Math. 19.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• 1. Cor. 7.