Doctrinall and morall observations concerning religion vvherein the author declareth the reasons of his late vn-enforced departure from the Church of Rome, and of his incorporation to the present Church of England : teaching, maintaining and defending the true Christian Catholike and apostolike faith, professed by the ancient primitiue church, most conspicuous in the outward vertues and constant sufferings of many holy bishops and other good Christians, glorious in the crowne of martyrdome / by Iohn Copley ...

CHAP. XVIII. Containing an obseruation of the honourable state of Marriage prehibited by the Church of Rome to Priests, who by Gods Law may lawfully liue in it: and allowed to those who by Gods Law can not liue together without Incest.

AMongst all the fearefull dangers where-with the life of man is enuironed, [unspec I] * 1.1 by reason of the continuall outward assaults, and hidden am∣bushes of our three Enemies, the World, the Flesh, and the Deuill: It is certaine that none of them can be more difficultly auoided, or hardly re∣sisted, than those of the Deuill, who being least apparent, with greater subtletie can deuise his plots, and slily conuay them with faire outward pretences vnto their designed ends, than the other two can, who by their outward appearances and shewes, either of Beautie, Riches, Pompe, or sensuall Preasures, may bee discouered, and with the more facilitie preuented, or foiled. The reason hereof is, because the De∣uill hath a knowledge surpassing mans knowledge, and hath power so great that there is none vpon earth may bee com∣pared vnto it; by the first be knoweth how to deceiue man; by the second hee is most able to performe the intentions of his deceiptfull nature. Hence hee appeared to Eue in Pa adise in the disguised shape of a serpent by GODS permission, that thereby were may learne how much his craft is to bee feared: The Seraphicall Doctor of the Church of Rome noting as much,* 1.2 when hee said. It was the pro∣uidence of God that the Deuill in tempting should assume the forme of a Serpent, that his craft might not only bee discou••∣red, but also that by that likenesse the wilinesse of the Deuill 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tempting might bee knowne to all the children of Adam.

Hence also bee appeared to our mercifull Redeemer in the Wildernesse, as Saint Augustine, and others thinke, vnder the shape of a R••igious man, that hee might the more craftily tempt him, saying: Si filius Deies die vt la pides isti panes fiant; If thou art the Sonne of God say that those stones bee made bread: Where, saith Vega,* 1.3 You may see how the Deuill vnder the shew of pietie, hideth his malice. Therefore well said Iob of the Deuill: Quis reue∣labit faciem indumenti eius? Who shall reueale the face of his garment? as if hee should say; it is a difficult thing to reueale the Deuills countenance; for hee often chan∣geth his countenance to deceiue men, and being full of fraude and malice hee vseth often to change his counte∣nance, and vnder the colour of some pietie and vertue to hide himselfe. Which craftie imposture of the Deuill is not more liuely in any one thing to bee discouered than by his suggestions to the Church of Rome, which vnder the colour of chastitie, and for greater perfection, hee hath guilefully induced to make a prohibition of Priests marriages, which the law of GOD doth not forbidde, thereby giuing occasion of farre greater abuses against chastitie, than otherwise could haue happened, to the dishonour of God, to the scandall of the Church, and to the ruine of infinite soules, who being debarred of the lawfull and honourable remedie of marriage, appointed and approued by God himselfe, through the weakenesse of humane nature fall into such abhominable impurities, as are not to be named. Neither only hath the Deuill cun∣ningly vnder this pretence deceiued the Church of Rome like a slie Serpent, but also by too high a conceipt and estimation of her selfe an other way, euer praising her au∣thoritie and preheminence of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, by a sinister interpretation whereof shee soareth so high aboue her selfe in equalitie with God, that hee hath en∣duced her out of her pretended fullnesse of authori∣tie and power, to dispence with Marriage in those

degrees of affinitie, as GOD himselfe hath prohibited. The doctrine of both which points are so repugnant to the holy Scriptures, and so crossing th•• practise of the first ages of the Church, as nothing can be more.

2.* 1.4 For first, the prohibition of Priests marriage, can no way stand with Gods truth, reuealed in the holy Scriptures. For first, it is apparent that marriage is an institution and or∣dination of God himselfe, instituted before the fall of man, as appeareth in Genesis, where it is written: It is not good for man to be alone, let vs make a helpe like vnto himselfe. Which place of Scripture Cardinall Bellarmine most impetitinently wresteth in citing it,* 1.5 to proue marriage to bee a Sacrament of the new Law, instituted by God for that purpose. If this place proue it to bee a sacrament, it will follow that it was also a Sacrament in the old Law, which were in∣conuenient, and against the whole current of Romish Do∣ctors. Thomas Aquinas teaching out of Saint Augustine; That the Sacraments of the old Law are taken away,* 1.6 be∣cause they are fulfilled: and others are instituted, in power greater, better for profit, more easie to performe, fewer in number. And further Aquinas himselfe teacheth: It is behouefull there should bee other Sacraments in the new Law, wherewith the thinges should bee signified that went before of Christ, besides the Sacraments of the old Law, by where future thinges were foretold. Bellarmine to proue his purpose should shew where in the new Law it is instituted as a Sa∣crament: for as Thomas Aquinas saith, marriage, as it is or∣dained for the procreation of children,* 1.7 which was necessarie before sinne, was instituted before sinne: but as it affordeth a remedie against the wound of sinne; it was instituted af∣ter sinne in the time of the Law of nature; but as it repre∣senteth a mysterie of the coniunction of Christ and the Church, it hath had an institution in the new Law, and according to that institution, it is a Sacrament of the new Lawe. By which Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, first saying that it hath had an institution in the newe Lawe, it is

cleare to be very absurdly cited by Bellarmine for the insti∣tution of marriage before, to prooue it to be a Sacrament: and secondly, that this Doctor himselfe committeth a great ouetsight in affirming it to haue had an institutiō in the new Law, whereby it is a Sacrament; since neither hee nor a∣ny other can shew any such institution. But it followeth by him notwithstanding, that as I my selfe haue cited the a∣fore said place of Genesis, it well prooueth the state of mar∣riage to haue beene ordayned by GOD. For which (as the Scripture saith) a man shall forsake his father and mo∣ther, [Verse 29] and hee shall cleaue vnto his wife, and they shall bee two in one flesh.

3 Which first institution was renued by Christ, when he said, Haue yee not read,* 1.8 that hee which did make from the beginning, made them male and female, and hee said, for this cause man shall leaue father and mother and shall cleaue to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. That therefore which God hath ioyned together, let no man separate. And the same Institution is Declared to be honourable among all men, and their bodies vndefiled: if therefore among all men, then also among Priests; if it were honourable for respect of the Author that ordained it, which was GOD himselfe, why shall it not also bee honourable for his Priests? If it were honorable in the time of innocencie before it was decayed, why should it not be honorable in the time of grace, where∣in man is repaired, as wel for Priests as others; if it were ho∣nourable because it was ordained in Paradise, the happiest place of the world, why shall it not also be honourable in the Church of Christ amongest Church-men, who honour God in the happiest places, that is, in the Churches orday∣ned to Gods honour? besides, since God the Sonne honou∣red the state of mariage with his presence at Canaan of Ga∣lilee, where hee wrought the first miracle that euer he did, turning water into wine, with his praiers, comparing the kingdome of God to a wedding; and holinesse to a wed∣ding garment.; why should wee thinke that Christ will not

be well pleased that his Priests should honor that state with their owne persons: is not increase & multiplication of chil∣dren, which is one principall end of marriage, as honorable a blessing in Priests as in others? or, is not the inconueni∣ence of solitarinesse signified in these words, It is not good for man to bee alone: that is, without a helpe and comfort, which is an other end of marriage, as fit for Priests, as for Lay people•• or, is it not as fit that Priests should haue a re∣medy for fornication, aswel as other men? taketh their pres∣hood from them the nature of men? or can their dignities in the Church of God giue them leaue to liue lasciuiously in a single life? are all Priests assured, that during their liues, they shall alwayes enioy the gift of continencie? or is it ab∣solutely in mans power, to haue it, or not to haue it? why then doth S. Paul say, Quipotest capere capiat: he that can take it let him take it; no no, they haue as much neede of such a helpe as any other. How comes it that many, yea most of the Clergy in the country of Liege, and diuers other places keep concubines? what is the cause that most of the Priests of Brittaine, haue also their bedfellows liuing in the house with them in the state of whoredome, but their want of mariage? whence so many de••••ourings of virgins, so many fornicatiōs, so many adulteries, so many bestialities recorded by diuers authors amōg Clergy men in the church of Rome but the want of this remedie instituted by God, practised in the old Lawe by the holiest, as Henoch, Noah, Abraham, Dauid, Ezechiel, Aaron, and other high Priests, approoued by Christ, called honourable by S. Paul amongest all men? What, is not the doctrine of S. Paul to be approoued, who alloweth the marriage and the bed vndefiled to all men, ex∣cluding none when he saith:* 1.9 Because of fornication let euerie man haue his owne wife? Here we see marriage is prescribed a remedy for euerie man.

4 And if wee looke into the practise of the Primitiue Church,* 1.10 we shall find the same remedy to haue beene vsed without checke or controule. May we thinke that S. Paul

excluded Priests when hee said;* 1.11 It is better to marry than to burne. Doth his Doctrine debarre Priests of marriage when hee saieth; If thou takest a wife, thou sinnest not.* 1.12 Doth not Saint Paul sharpely reprooue them that shall forbid marri∣ages when hee saieth; In the latter dayes some shall depart from the faith, and shall giue heede vnto spirites of errour,* 1.13 and doctrines of diuells, which speake lies through hypocrisie, and haue their consciences burned with a hot yron, forbidding to marrie?* 1.14 By diuers of my former Chapters I haue shewed the Church of Rome to haue departed from her former faith; now it is apparent they teach doctrine of diuells, be∣cause they forbid Priests to marrie, and teach the Doctrine to bee good. Is it to bee thought that Saint Paul did not allow Priests to marrie, when hee said, A Bishoppe must be vnreprooueable, the husband of one wife, hauing children vnder obedience with all honest 1. Timoth, 3.2.4. And when hee said; Let Deacons be the husbands of one wife, and such as can rule their children well, and their owne housholde 1. Ti∣mothy 3.12. Can it bee said that Saint Paul doeth not ap∣prooue marriage in Priests and Deacons, when he allow∣eth them one wife, children, and housholde to haue care of? What may bee probably inferred vpon the wordes of Saint Paul to the Philippians the last chapter, translated by the Rhemists thus; I beseech thee my sincere companion. By oc∣casion of which words Cardinall Bellarmine saith, that it is more probable Saint Paul had no wife,* 1.15 against Clemens Alexandrinus, and Ignatius in some Editions, who holde he had a wife; which standeth well with the translation of the Church of England saying; My faithfull yoake fellow; I will not stand much vpon this place, leauing the probabili∣tie thereof to the Reader. But sure I am that Saint Peter had a wife; for Saint Matthew saith,* 1.16 That our Sauiour entred into Saint Peters house and sawe his wifes mother. I trow this is plaine enough that he had a wife. It is left also recorded, That Philip the Euangelist which was one of the s••auen Dea∣cons, had foure daughters virgins which did prophesie.* 1.17 Ignatius

the disciple of Saint Iohn Euangelist writing to the Phila∣delphians,* 1.18 maketh report, That Peter, Paul, and other A∣postles were married. Clemens Alexandrinus writing against those that reprooued marriage,* 1.19 amongst other things spea∣keth thus;

What doe they reprooue the Apostles? Peter and Philip had wiues, and they gaue also their daugh∣ters in marriage to men. Neyther doth Saint Paul the Apostle thinke much, in one of his Epistles to make men∣tion, or to giue salutation to his consort (Philippians 4.) whome hee therefore denieth himselfe to carrie about, that hee may bee the more ready to preach the Gospel, (1. epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.) And againe in the eight Booke of his worke he saith; They say that Saint Peter, when hee sawe his wife led vnto martir∣dome, he reioyced in the grace of Election, and at her returne vnto her owne house, and cryed out vnto her, when shee was ledde, and calling her by her name, said; O wife, remember the Lord. Such were the marriages of Saintes, so perfect was the affection of the Blessed.

Thus hee who liued about the yeare of our Lord God, one hundred ninetie and seauen, in the time of Commodus the Emperour. By which Doctrines and Examples in the A∣postles times it is very euident, that Priests and Bishops had wiues.

5 In the Canons of the Apostles it is decreed thus;

A Bishop or Priest shall not,* 1.20 vnder the colour of Reli∣gion, cast away his owne wife: But if he doe reiect her, hee shall bee excommunicated; but if hee shall per∣seuere, hee shall bee depriued. Which Canon is re∣lated in an other place.

The most renowned generall Councell also held at Nice, in the time of Constantine the Emperour, about the yeare of our Lord GOD three hun∣dred and thirtie, where were likewise assembled three hundred and eighteene, whereof also mention is made in the Tripartite Historie and elsewhere. In the which Cau∣tion was made with full consent of all the Fathers, Not to

prohibite Subdeacons, Deacons,* 1.21 Priestes or Bishoppes from sleeping with their wiues; lest by that meanes a yoake should bee imposed vppon them, which might bee a cause of fornica∣tion. In which bufinesse Paphnutius, who being himselfe single, and most famous for leading holinesse of life, and power of doing myracles, laboured and obtained verie much. Againe, as in succeeding Ages some at Rome would haue induced Priestes and Deacons vnto single life, or to abstinence from their wiues, and went about to make Lawes to this purpose, so in the yeare of our Lord God, sixe hundred seauentie and seauen, the sixth generall Councell was gathered at Constantinople, in the time of Constantine the fourth, whereat there were present two hundred foure score and nine Bishoppes, for which cause some will haue it of the same authoritie with the E∣uangelicall Bookes; in which Councell some things con∣cerning the marriage of Priestes were decreed, making mention of them who at Rome laboured much in that mat∣ter: the words of the Councell are recorded in the corpes of the Connon Lawe in these verie wordes:* 1.22 For as much as wee vnderstand it to be deliuered in the order of the Romane Canon, that those who are ordained Deacons or Priests, shall not accompanie with their wiues; we following the ancient Ca∣non of Apostolicall diligence, and the constitutions of holy men, will indeed haue legall mariages to be of force, in no case dissol∣uing their marriages which their wiues, nor depriuing them of fa∣miliaritie together in fit season. Whosoeuer therefore shall bee found worthie to be ordained Deacon, or Subdeacon, or Priest, such shall in no case be prohibited from ascending to such degree, for cohabitation with his wife, neither likewise shall they be con∣strained at the time of their ordination to professe chastitie. And forthwith sentence is pronounced against those that shall pre∣sume againt this in these words. If therefore any shall presume against the Apostles Canons, to depriue any Priests or Deacons from the company and communion of their legall wife, let him be deposed; likewise the Priest or Deacon who for religions sake

shall expell his wife, let him be excommunicated: and if he shall persist in this, let him be deposed. The same sixt Sinode decreed as appeareth in the Canon law; That the Priest who liueth not in lawfull marriage,* 1.23 should abstaine from his office. Now when I obserued thus in the Canon of the generall Councel, mention to be made of the Canon of the Apostles, which I haue before rehearsed, and also the constitution of the Ni∣cene Councell; and with the generall consent of the Coun∣cell of Constantinople, those to be condemned, excommuni∣cated and deposed, that would defend the Romane Canon, or compell any to keepe it; I could no way satisfie my selfe how the mariage of Priests prohibited now in the present Church of Rome is not flat against these ancient generall Councels; If Bellarmines assertion be true, That a Councell is an assem∣blie of true Iudges,* 1.24 whose decrees are necessarily to be followed: As also againe, if it be true; That by the Catholike faith wee are to hold, that generall Councels confirmed by the high Bishop, cannot erre neither in faith nor manners: As Bellarmine in ano∣ther place affirmeth; what excuse can the Church of Rome pretend to free her selfe from disobedience to the aforesaid Councels, and dischrge her selfe from heresie in not belee∣uing what the Councels, confirmed by a high Bishop, and by the Christian world acknowledged. The cited ancient Coun∣cels alloweth Priests marriages; the late Councell disallow∣eth them; therefore the best conclusion that any man of iudgement can make hereupon, is that the former are to be embraced, and the latter to be reiected.

6 I cannot but wonder to see how the Church of Rome swarueth from the marke of antiquitie in prohibiting or ma∣king a law to restraine Priests from the lawfull estate of wed∣locke.* 1.25 I find that one Dionisius Bishop of the Corinthians, who flourished in the time of Antonius Verus, that is about the yeare of our Lord 164. as Eusebius relateth,* 1.26 wrote an E∣pistle to the Gnosians, in the which he warneth and entrea∣teth Pynitus their Bishop, not to lay heanie burdens vpon the shoulders of his disciples, nor to intimate vnto his brethren the

necessitie of enforced chastitie, whereby the infirmitie of many shall be end angered. Concerning the which, Pynitus wrote backe vnto Dionisius, embraced his good aduice and coun∣sell, and withall entreated him to send him whatsoeuer other spirituall food what strong and sound. I haue noted likewise that Origen who succeeded Clement in the Schoole of Al••x∣andria,* 1.27 about the yeare two hundred, as Saint Hierome wit∣nesseth; expounding th Gospell of Saint Matthew, hath left these words toposteritie against the commanders of sin∣gle life. The Lord reprehendeth (saith he) such teachers, who only doe not which they say, but also cruelly and without mercie not according to the estimation of euery hearers strength do en∣ioyne things aboue their power, as namely, who forbid to marrie, and who compell from that which is expedient, to immoderate vncleannesse. I haue read also that Gregorie Nazianzen,* 1.28 Bi∣shop, for the funerall of his father who was a Bishop, and of his Gorgonia, that he made most learned sermons, in which it is manifest to be seene, with what holinesse the Bishops and Ministers of the Churches liued in the state of wedlocke. I find further that Saint Iohn Chrysostome vpon those words of Esay, I saw the Lord sitting;* 1.29 speaketh most honorablie of the marriage of the Apostles and Apostolicall men. Who al∣so saith in another of Saint Philogonius, that he was an aduo∣cate,* 1.30 but afterward was made a Bishop, and in time of his being Bishop, had a lawfull wise and a daughter. I obserue also that Saint Hierome seemeth to insinuate,* 1.31 that till his time Bishops and Priests were married, according to the A∣postles meaning. Let Bishops and Priests reade this (saith he) who bring vp their children in ecular learning, and make them to reade Comedies, and to sing the lasciuious writings of Iesters, being bred vp perhaps with Ecclesiasticall reuenues. And a∣little after: Heli the Priest himselfe was holy, yet because he in∣structed not his children in all discipline and correction, he fell downest it to the ground and so died.* 1.32 Which words are to be seene in the Canon law. I find also Saint Ambrose to say, that the integrity of the bodie is to be wished for by vs, which of coun∣sell

I perswade,* 1.33 and not out of power do command. For virginitie alone is that which may be perswaded, and may not be comman∣ded, it is a matter rather of wish then of precept. Which words do not a little t••xe them, that enact lawes to make men liue single liues: neither are Saint Chrysostomes words vnlike vnto those of Saint Ambrose,* 1.34 who treating of the marriage of Priests, speaketh most plainly, saying: It is lawfull for him that will, honestly to embrace marriage: for as riches doe diffi∣cultly lead into the kingdome of heauen, yet many rich men haue often entered thither: euen so marriages, though they haue ma∣ny difficulties in them, yet they may be so vsed, as not to be any impediment to perfection of life. Who in another place spea∣keth more plainly vpon those words of Saint Paul; Whosoe∣uer without fault is a man of one wife;* 1.35 saith thus, The Apostle intendeth to stop her mouthes of Heretikes, that condemne mar∣riage, shewing that thing to want fault, yea to be soprecious, that therewith also any bodie may be promoted vnto the holy seat of a Bishop. I find further that Primasius a disciple of Saint Augu∣stine as some hold, where the Aostle prescribeth what kind of children, Bishops children ought to be, doth not obscure∣ly handle this matter,* 1.36 when he saith; He that hath not knowne how to instruct a few children, how shall he gouerne so many chil∣dren of God, that is, all the people? Neither are Histories of antiquitie wanting to proue the marriages of Priests. Eusebi∣us hath left recorded; that Polycrates Bishop of the Ephesi∣ans maketh mention of seuen of his predecessors,* 1.37 of whom he was borne, who in order were Bishops, and himselfe to haue been the eight. Whose words also Saint Hierome re∣porteth, who liued in the timne of Seuerus.* 1.38 The same Author likewise hath left recorded that Cheremon Bishop of Nilus, a towne of Egyyt, with his aged wife was banished for Christ; which Author maketh mention also of diuers other married Bishops. I haue found that Spiridion Bishop of Tremithunth, a husband-man also in the Bishopricke of the Cyprians,* 1.39 and a shepheard of sheepe, had wife and children, neither, for that was he the lesse famous for Diuine matters. I haue read also that

Eupsychius of Caesaria in Capadocea Priest,* 1.40 when hee was but newly married, at that time to haue ended his life, with a glorious martyrdome. Many others might be alleaged, and this was the custome of the ancient Church; in the East many out of their owne free will, euen Bishops abstained,* 1.41 and ma∣ny of them also in time of their Bishoprickes by their lawfull wiues had children. Neither was it the custome in the East, but also in the West Church Hilarie Bishop of Pictauia is well knowne, and is reported by many to haue been married. The words of Damasus are plaine, who saith,* 1.42 Os••us Pope was the sonne of Steuen a Subdeacon. Boniface Pope was the sonne of Iucundus Priest, de titulo fasciolae; Agapetus Pope the sonne of Gordian Priest; Theodorus Pope, the sonne of Theodorus Bi∣shop of the citie of Hierusalem: Siluerius Pope, sonne of Hor∣mista Bishop of Rome: Deusdedit Pope, son of Iucundus Priest; Felix the third, a Romane, sonne of Felix Priest, who was his father; Gelasius an Africane, was borne of his father Va∣lerius Bishop, and many other are found who haue gouerned the Apostolicall sea, that were borne of Priests. Thus much saith Damasus Pope, who was Bishop of the Church of Rome a∣bout the yeare of our Lord 380. and a little after Gratianus ad canonem Cenomanensem addeth that they were borne in lawfull marriages which then were euery where free for Priests. I omit to speake of Nicholas the first, who would not trou∣ble the Bulgarian Priests for marriage, but suffered them quietly to liue in that estate;* 1.43 who liued about the yeare of our Lord 866. And so I ouer-passe many other Popes after his time, who were sonnes to Bishops and Priests, as might easily be proued out of Platina who writeth their liues. By all which proofes both out of holy Fathers, and ancient Hi∣storiographers I find the state of marriages iustifiable before God and man.

7 Now when the law came in that debarred them of this priuiledge and honorable estate, it is easily to be discouered,* 1.44 to haue bin in the time of Siricius the Bishop of Rome; 380. yeares after Christ: before which time it was beleeued and

practised, that Priests might haue wiues as freely as other men, and Siricius was the first that forbad it. I find first that before his time Priests exercised their functions being mar∣ried men,* 1.45 asis acknowledged by Alphonsus who writeth; that in the Primitiue Church it was obserued, that he which was ma∣ried might be promoted to Priest-hood, though it were not re∣quired of him that he should first be married, & he addeth that this eustome preuailed till the times of the Nycene Councell. And diuers other writers affirme,* 1.46 that in the most ancient times of the Church, and after the Apostles death they had their wiues. And I obserue that hee was the first that forbad Priests to marrie,* 1.47 by the decree thereof extant in the Canon law, as also by the confession of Polydor Virgil; and the Glosse vp∣on the Canon law, saith: Syricius brought in the continencie of Priests and Deacons, yea some affirme that of old, before the time of Siricius Priests might contract marriage. This Glosse Pius Quintus the late Pope hath commanded to be wiped out, because it makes against the present doctrine of the Church of Rome: but Nauclerus saith in effect as much, that Syrīcius commanded Deacons to be continent. But although Pope Syricius began this matter, yet as Polydor Virgil saith; It could neuer be effected, that their marriage should be taken away til Gregory the seuenth came to be Pope in the yeare 1074. Which thing when he attempted in Germany, he was oppo∣sed against as one that brought in a new eustome neuer receiued before. Auentine writeth, that in those daies Priests had wiues openly as other men bad, and begate children, their wiues being called by aseemely name, Presbyteresses. And when the Pope forbad them marriage, this to many Bishops and other learned and good men seemed a new doctrine, and a pestilent heresie as euer troubled any Christian kingdom. And he saith the Bishops of Italy, Germanie and France met together, and for this cause decreed, that he had done against Christian pietie, and deposed him, for that among diuers other things, he diuorced men and their wiues, denying such as bad their lawful wiues to be Priests; whē yet in the meane time he admitted to the altars whore-mon∣gers,

adulterers and incestuous persons.* 1.48 Mantuan saith that Hilarie a Fench Bishop was married, and that in his time it was lawfull. Sinesius the Bishop of Ptolomais writeth thus of himselfe:* 1.49 The sacred hand of Theophilus hath giuen me a wife, and hereupon I testifie vnto all men that I will neither for∣sake her, nor yet as an adulterer keepe her company, but I will pray God to send mee by her many and good children. Atha∣nasius reports, that Bishops and Monkes liued married,* 1.50 and had children. And Pius Secundus saith; It is better for a Priest to marrie then to burne, though hee haue vowed not to marrie. And moreouer, that there bee many reasons to for∣bid Priests marriage, but more to allow it. But no maruaile that this restraint was made by the Pope, since the prohibi∣tion of marriages is a plaine marke of Antichrist, who should bring in the contempt of women; for after that the Pro∣phet Daniel had said that Antichrist should persecute the ho∣ly teachers, and the pious beleeuing people,* 1.51 and should ex∣alt himselfe aboue all God, hee addeth; Hee shall know no∣thing of the God of his Fathers, and hee shall know nothing of the loue of women, and of euery God, and that hee shall mag∣nifie himselfe aboue all things. Which version agreeth with the Hebrew truth, and with the seuentie Interpretors and Aquila. Therefore let not any man oppose that, which is carried about, and in which it is read; Hee shall bee in the concupiscences of women. Where Saint Hierome himselfe in his Comentaries vpon Daniel, interpreteth this sentence thus; That Antichrist shall counterfeit chastitie to deceiue many. By all which it is manifest, that this law restraining Priests from marrying, is a noueltie brought into the Church by Popes by degrees, and a great wrong vnto the state of marriage, which I haue shewed to be honorable in all. This I could exemplifie by the abuses come into the Church by this restraint, both in former ages, and in this present age wherein wee liue. If this law had not been, it is likely that Matthaeus Parisiensis would haue had no cause to leaue recorded vnto posteritie, that a Cardinall did all the day

in a Synode heere in England inueigh against the marriages of Priests,* 1.52 who at night was taken in bed with a strumpet; there are too many to bee found as carnall as this Cardinall. If this law of the Pope had not restrained Priests from mar∣rying, occasion would neuer haue been giuen for a Gen∣tleman in Wales this last yeare to haue written vnto Ma∣ster Birkhead the Arch-priest, complaining of a Iesuite, who by the heate of the powder-treason was thought to be dri∣uen into Ireland, where he got his owne kinswoman with child; neither would many the like abuses bee complained of in diuers, if the wicked restraint of marriages, which is in truth the very doctrine of Diuels, had neuer been made and inuented? Gentle Reader pardon mee if these obscaeni∣ties offend your eares, I may as well relate truthes in iusti∣fication of true doctrine against the Church of Rome; as that Church both by reports and printed bookes may dis∣gorge multitudes of lies against the reformed Church of England, your deare countrey. I do not this of any delight I take to walke in the wayes of sinners, bt onely to discouer the wickednesse of their doctrine by such their wicked fruits: as iust punishments inflicted by Gods permission that they may see their errors, and forsake their wicked wayes. Now therefore since it appeared vnto me by these premises, how the Church of Rome against the law of God, against the practise of the purest ages, to the scandall of the Christian world, through Satans craft vnder pretence of chastitie restrained Priests from lawfull marriages, I could not re∣maine in the communion of that Church, lest by Gods per∣mission in time I might also be partaker of her iust punish∣ments.

8 And as I was moued to abādon her by reason of this illu∣siō whereby the diuel maketh her his;* 1.53 so was I no lesse moued by the cōsideration of her doctrine permitting such mariages to be lawful in such degrees, as som of their own teach to be prohibited by the law of God & nature; as namely, by suffe∣ring one brother to marrie his brothers wife, when the other

is deceased. For so doth the Pope by dispencing in this case, which notwithstanding is iustly to be reprooued, as I proue out of Ioannes Ʋiguerius the learned Bishop of Spaine, who

deliuereth his Doctrine thus; It is a doubt,* 1.54 not of small importance, whether the Pope can dispence in the first degree of the first kinde of Affinity, that two brethren may successiuely haue the same wife, or two sisters the same husband. It seemeth that hee can not, because the Pope cannot dispence in the Law of Nature. But the first aforesaide degree of Affinitie is prohibited by the Law of Nature: (Thou shalt not reueale the turpitude of thy Brothers wife, because it is thy turpitude) for that as Rabbi Moyses saith, the Lawe giuen in that place, ex∣cludeth onely those persons from marriage, who are to conuerse and dwell together, amongst whom the one is to keep the others pudicicitie: and so only he excepteth them, which by the law of nature are excepted from ma∣trimony, since the text brings a naturall reason, saying; Be∣cause it is the turpitude of thy brother: And the refore herein the Lawe is not figurall, but morall; and no dis∣pensation can be made of morall precepts. And of this o∣pinion S. Thomas seemed to bee, for hee saieth,* 1.55 that that Law doth yet continue, because if Infidells (and he spea∣keth not of Iewes, but absolutely of all Infidells) before they are conuerted haue contracted matrimony against that law, after faith receiued, they cannot continue in such matrimony. Therefore this Law is morall, and not iudi∣cial. And although from the beginning of mankind, when the Author of nature dispenced, for the fewnesse of men, to contract marriages in the same degree; yet not after multiplication, because the dispensation and inclination of contracting, ceased not only in consanguinitie, but al∣so in Affinitie. And although God haue dispensed with the Iewes, yea also cammanded a brother to take his bro∣thers wife, to raise his brothers seede, that his brother might haue children, that his name might not bee blot∣ted

out of Israel. But if the brother had children, it was forbidden;* 1.56 for it is said, Hee that shall marry the wife of his brother, shall do an vnlawfull thing. Since therefore that of raysing the brothers seed was a iudiciall Lawe, and all the iudiciall Lawes were finished in the death of Christ, and God dispenceth not in them; it followeth, that neyther the Pope can dispence with it, because it is mo∣rall and naturall; neyther is it alike in a Vowe and an Oath with the aforesaid degree of Affinitie or Consan∣guinitie, because although Christ gaue power ouer all contracts and consents of men, to annull them or change them:

* 1.57 Because in all such, the condition is to bee vnder∣stoode (if it please the Superiour) yet hee gaue them not

power to chaunge Nature; which should bee done if hee should dispence in the first degree of Affinitie, and in others recited in Leuiticus: and if sometimes it may bee found that dispensation hath beene giuen to some; hoc fuit de facto, sed non de iure: This was a matter of fact, & not of right.

Hitherto Ʋiguerius. By which discourse it is cleare, that hee holdeth the precept of one brother not to marry his brothers wife, nor contrariwise to be a moral precept which admits no dispensation: and therefore if the Pope dispence in it, he doth more than belongeth to his ec∣clesiasticall power and authority, whereby we see now that which I said in the beginning of this chapter to be specified viz. that the Church of Rome attributing too much by an ouer-deeming conceit of her owne power vnto marriage, one way allowing it where it is vnlawfull, and derogating from marriage an other way, by restrayning it where it is by God allowed, she is miserably deluded by the Diuell.

9 Now therefore (curteous Reader) this being so,* 1.58 haue I not had reason to flie from her daunger, obseruing the reformed Churches to haue discouered this perillous de∣ceit of the Diuells? Had I not reason to vnite my selfe to them, especially this of England, from the which my Pa∣rents

before mee were most vnfortunately seduced to the iust punishment of my name and family euer since; not thin∣king it fit to rest vpon the example of Eutiches the heretike saying; That as he had learned of his Fathers, and beleeued in the faith wherein hee was borne, euen so hee desired to die; but rather to giue eare unto the Councell of God,* 1.59 declared by the mouth of his Prophets, properly agreeing to my selfe; Walke not yee in the ordinances of your Fathers, neyther obserue their wayes, nor defile your selues with their Idolles.* 1.60 I am the Lord your God, walke in my Statutes, and keepe my iudgements, and doe them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  How miserably the Church of Rome is illu∣ded by Satans wily suggesti∣ons.
• * 1.2

  Bonauen. in bre¦uiloquio, part. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.3

  Didacus de la Ʋega. tom. 1. Dom. in Qua∣drag. Iob 41.
• * 1.4

  The prohibiti∣on of Priests marriages is not agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Genes. 2. vers. 18.
• * 1.5

  De Matri. Sa∣cram. lib. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.6

  S. Thom. 3. part. q. 61. art. 4. sed contra. August. contra Faustum. lib. 19. cap. 13. tom. 6. Thom. in corp. vbi supra.
• * 1.7

  3. p. q. 42. art. 2. in corp.
• * 1.8

  Diuers reasons grounded vp∣pon the Scrip¦tures for the approbation of priests mar∣riages. Matth 19. Hebr. 13.14.
• * 1.9

  1. Cor. 7.2.
• * 1.10

  The new Te∣stament ma∣keth for the marriage of Priests.
• * 1.11

  1. Cor. 9.
• * 1.12

  1. Cor. 28.
• * 1.13

  Note this.
• * 1.14

  1. Tim. 4.1.2, 3.
• * 1.15

  Clem. Alexand. 3 stromat. Ignatius epist. ad Philadelph.
• * 1.16

  Matth. 8.14.
• * 1.17

  Acts 21.8, 9.
• * 1.18

  Ignat. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.19

  Ecclesiast. hist. libr. 3 cap. 3••.
• * 1.20

  The marriage of Priests pro¦ued by anci∣ent Councels Dist 28. canon. Si quis.
• * 1.21

  Lib. 2. cap. 14. & dist. 31. can. Ny••en. Sya••d.
• * 1.22

  Dist. 31. can. quoniam in Ro∣mam.
• * 1.23

  Dist. 28 Canon. Presbiterum.
• * 1.24

  De Concil. lib. 1. cap. 18. lib 2. de Concil. authorit. cap. 1.
• * 1.25

  Proofes of an∣tiquitie for the marriage of Priests.
• * 1.26

  Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 4 cap. 23.
• * 1.27

  Origen. hom. 25. in Matth.
• * 1.28

  Gregor. Nazian.
• * 1.29

  Chrysost. hom. 4.
• * 1.30

  In orat. de S. Philogonio.
• * 1.31

  In 6. cap. Pauli ad Ephesios.
• * 1.32

  Distinct 37. Canone legunt.
• * 1.33

  Quaest. 32. ca. 1. integritas.
• * 1.34

  Hom. 10. in epist. ad Iimoth.
• * 1.35

  Chrysost hom. 2. in epist. ad Tit.
• * 1.36

  Primas. super verba Apostoli.
• * 1.37

  Euseb eccles. Hist. lib. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.38

  In lib. de scripto eccles. Hist. eccles. lib. 6. cap. 42.
• * 1.39

  Hisotr. Tripartit. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. cap. 10.
• * 1.40

  Histor. tripartii. lib. 5. cap. 14.
• * 1.41

  Tripartit. hist. lib. 9. cap. 38.
• * 1.42

  Exquadam E∣pist. ad diuum Hieron.
• * 1.43

  Rescriptum eius ad Bulgaros: dist. 28. canone consulendum.
• * 1.44

  The Prohibiti∣on of Priests marriages, when it came into the Church of Rome.
• * 1.45

  Aduers. haeres. verb. Sacerdot. haeres. 4.
• * 1.46

  Scot. 3. d. 37. Cost. Enchir. pag. 51.
• * 1.47

  Greg. à Valent. tom. 4. d sp 9. q. 5. punct. 5. §. 1. Dist. 82. plurim. Inuent. lib. 5. cap. 4. Dist. 84. cum. in preterito, gloss. §. qui Sacrament. Index expurg. 381. uum. 261. Naucler. tom. 2. generat. 137. Jnuent. lib. 5. cap. 4. Sigebert. an. 1074. Lambert. pag. 201. & 207. Auentine in Annal. lib. 5. Naucl••r. vol. 2. ge. 36. Baron. an. 174. Sigon. reg. Jtal. lib. 9. an. 174. pag. 448. pag. 460.
• * 1.48

  Fast. lib. 1.
• * 1.49

  Epist. ad Enopt. & Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 55.
• * 1.50

  Epist. ade Dra∣cont. Epist. 321. Pius 2. apud Plaitn. in vita.
• * 1.51

  Daniel 11.
• * 1.52

  Matth. Parisan Henric. primum.
• * 1.53

  The Church of Rome al∣loweth of in∣cestuous mar∣riages.
• * 1.54

  Io. Viguer. Instit christ ca. 16. § 7 vers. 9. non mo∣dicum.
• * 1.55

  In. 4 dist. 39. q. 1 art. 3. ad tertium
• * 1.56

  Deuteronom. 25 Leuiticus 20.
• * 1.57

  Ʋt habetur in cap. quemad. de iureiurando.
• * 1.58

  My conclusi∣on vpon the premisses.
• * 1.59

  Concil. Calced. art. 2.
• * 1.60

  Ezec. 20.18, 19.