mary so was non offence but to haue moo wyues at ons nowe / ys offence by cause that the custome is contrary / and it folowith anone after Sum synnes and offensis be against nature Sum be agaynst customs / and sum be against preceptis and commaundmentis / and whan it ys thus / what offence is laid to this holy man Iacobe in hauinge many wyues yf ye aske nature why Iacob had so many wyues / she wil answere for hym that he dide not take them fore the inordinate luste and pleasure of the bodye but he vsid his wiues to encrease and multiply faithful people / if yow aske custome why Iacobe toke so many wiues it will answere that at that tyme in that country their maner was so to mary if ye aske the commaundement why Iacobe toke so many wiues it he wil answere / for bi cause that ther was no law that forbode yt but wherfore ys it nowe an offence to take mo wyues at ons than one that is for because lawes and customes do forbyd it / ye and that althoughe a man wolde take moo wiues for to increase and multyply faithful people Thus yowe maye se by saynte Austyn that it is not agaynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary in the firste degre of affinite Parauenture sum wil make this obieccion / and saye that almyghty God did dispence with Iacob that he myght mary on the rehersid wise / and in suche degreis of affinite and consanguinite / and so he did likewise with other holy men before the law saynte Augustyns wordes do take this obieccion clene awaye for a dispensacion to this purpose here is a lycence graunted againste sum lawe or a declaracion of sum lawe And by saynte Austyns wordes than ther was no lawe that forbode Iacob so to mary / and than had he no nede of licence to mary so nor there was no law to be declared / and therfore after saynte Augustines mynde Iacobe did not offende against the lawe of nature / and than after this tyme almyghty God did forbide certayne degreis of consanguinite and affinite as the first and second by law positiue and commaundement which Moyses did declare vnto the people and these prohibicions haue now no strength / but by a newe ordinaunce which that the churche made that Cristen people shulde not nowe mary in theis degres nor in the thirde Thus haue ye harde before of the sentence of Thomas of Argentyne / and the prohibicion leuital that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife vnderstande a widow to be a law positiue and the same we may haue of holy Chrisostoms sayng super matth ho. xlix He shewith why almyghty God commaundid the Iues to mary their brothers wifis widowes left without yssewe And than he asked whi a man myght not mary his brothers widowe that had children left by hir husbonde To this he answerethe and saye that it was done for by cawse that the lawe maker wolde haue affinite to go further a brode / wherby men myght be knyt togither So by thys yt apereth that the prohibicion leuiticall whiche for bode that a man shulde not mary his brothers widow / was a lawe positiue and a politicall precepte which nowe hathe no strengthe but bi the reason of the constitucion of the church Also it do apere that it ys not agaynste the law of nature for a man to mary his sister his nere kinswomen for yf the custome law of the churche to the contrarye were a waye / many discrete men with right iugement of reason had leuer mary their sister and nere kinswomen than other women And yet not for no filthye nor vnclenly desire but rather for the natural loue that thei haue to their kinswomen / they shuld be moued to vse them verey honestly ynal actis ye myche better than thei shuld vse eny other women This I suppose that the most parte of discrete men women that do or wil examyn this wel wil thê° iuge Thus now ye may perceyue that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marey his brothers wife a widow left without c NOw I shal shew ye that it is not against the law of God for a man to mary hys brothers wife a widow c. First it ys not agaynst the olde law of God but there ys and was a commaunded law vniuersall / bounde al the Iues to mary always their brothers wiues left c. and that vpon a great payne as ye haue herd declared before / and no man can saye that the Iues maried their brothers wiues widowes c. by a licence dispensacion of almighty God for that ye haue seyn manifestly improuid SAynte Chrisostome saith that the law did compel the iues to mary their brothers wifes widows ce so suche mariage is not agaynst the olde lawe / but it was ther coÌ„maundid super Mat. ca. xxii ho. lxxi ALso for a maÌ„ to mary his brothrs widowe c. is not against cristes law but rath r o r sauio r crist did approue suche mariage as ye saw he r at the beginning of myn answer. also in alt he newe Testament there is no expressid prohibicion against the deutronomical precepte which bonde the Iues to mary their brothrs wiues widowes c. nor yet of al the newe testameÌ„t no maÌ„ can gath r to coÌ„clude a prohibicion against the deuteronomicall commaundment / ye beside this ther is no maÌ„ that can conclude of eny scripture in the newe Testament eny prohibicion to let Mariage in eny degre of affinite or consanguinite beside the prohibicion of the lawe of nature / this is manifest wherfore / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe is not againste the law of God / for it is nether againste the newe lawe nor the olde BVt yet for asmuche as diuers Doctours do saye / that it is against the law of God to mary in the first and second degre of consanguinite and of affinite ye shal vnderstande that the churche hath made certayne constitucions and lawes vpoÌ„ the iudiciall commaundments and examples of the olde lawe / as that priestes and religions men shal saye their Canonical howres and seruice / of the which constitucion the church toke their grounde in the olde law as in the Psalme Septies in die laudem dixi tibi domine And agayne / media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi Likewise the church hath ordined and constitute that we shal faste the lente In the making of this law / the churche grounded it in the examples of the holy fathers of the olde lawe which fasted .xl. dayes and in the example of the fastinge of our sauiour Christ / and vpon this saynte Augustine / saynte Hierome / maximyn / saye that the lent is commaundid to be kept and fasted vi the law of God Also the churche hath ordined and decreid that no
c. ANd this did not almyghty God onely comaunde but also commaundid to punyshe with a greuous payne al these that wolde not mary their brothers widows / wherfore to dispise suche mariage / is nothing els / but to dispise blaspheme almyghty God which commaunded suche mariage Who euer herde eny man that durst saye that almyghty God did commaunde eny maner of people to do that thing / which is shamfully vnhonest of it self / morally euil c. as these blasphemers saye mariage to be betwene the brother and the brothers widowe lefte witheowte yssew / ys Whiche Almyghty God did commaunde Therfore yowe maye clerly se how hiely greuously these persones blaspheme almightye God Here now yowe haue herde one of these persones inuincible reasons / that they sayd they wolde bringe in for to gyue light vnto the determinacions of their vniuersites IN the .c. and .xj. leif of their boke these persones saye that ther was neuer nacion so beistly / none so withoute al humanite / but that they perceyued and knew / that thei ought this honour dewtye / and reuerence to their brothern / brothers wiues that they shuld refrayne from their mariages This is these persons owne sayng here thei dispise blaspheme almyghty God agayne for of this their sayng / it folowith that almyghty God in commaundinge the Iues to mary their brothers wiues / that he was more best lier than eny nacion / and that he did not perceiue / nor knew that the people oughte this honore / dewtie / and reuerence vnto their brothern / and brothers wiues that thei shuld refrayne frome their mariages This great blasphemy yow maye se folowith of their saynge And thus nowe yowe haue herde a nother of theis persons inuincible reasons In the same leif of their boke / theis persones saye / that he that haith sene eny thynge yn the olde stories and lawes must nedis know that this maner of inceste haue bene hadde in great infamy / reproue / sclaundre / that not onely in one cite / or contrey but almost in euery place / emong al men bene condempned as a certayne wikednes against nature This is agaynst these persons owne sayng wheryn thei adde more blasphemy For of this sayng it foloweth that almyghty God in commaunding the iues to mary their brothers widows c. commaundid them / that vpon a great payne / to do that thinge that is condempned in al contreis cities / for a certayne wikednes against nature Here now ye haue herde another of their reasons inuincible Sewrely these may wel be called stronge inuincible reasons / in blaspheming dispisinge of almygty God for I thinke no man / no nor yet the deuyl him self can make none stronger / nor more inuincible for to dispise blaspheme almyghty God than these pestilent persones do here make BVt now for asmuche as these vngracious persones do thus dispise blaspheme / not onely almyghty God but also his holy lawe commaundment I am compellid to desire ye to cal to yowr remembraunce that thing which I haue shewid ye before / that ys to saye / that almighty God did neuer in al the olde lawe commaunde eny thinge to be continually kepte / that vpon a payne but that which was iuste / goode / holy / a meane that the kepers of it might besauide / come to euerlastinge life And therfore almighty God sayth Custodite leges meas atque iudicia leuiti xviij que faciēs homo / viuet in eis And this ys the cause that the blissed Apostle callith the olde lawe holy / the commaundment holy / iuste gud / sayng ro vij Lex quidem sancta / mandatum sanctum / iustum / bonum For thowghe the Iues in the olde lawe vsed certayne thinges that were neth r good nor godly / yet was ther nothing commaundid in the olde law to be continually kepte / but that was holy iuste good to the keper as I haue sayd a meane / wherby he might be iustified sauid / in that lawe it was commaundid that euery man shulde always mary their brothers widow c. wherfore suche mariage was holy / iuste / gud This Argument is euident / both by the very wordes of almyghty God / and also by the wordes of the Apostle / so now by this ye may euidently perceyue howe that these vngracious persones / in dispisinge of mariage betwene the brother the brothers widowe c. do dispise blaspheme almighty God his holy law IN the .c. vij leife of their boke they say that they wil shew two reasons / which shal proue as opēly as it can be / that a man can not mary his brothers wife First bicause that affinite doith aswell lete mariage as doith consanguinite Seconde / because that he that so marieth dothe shame dishonestye vnto his father And for to proue the first reason / these persones saye / that not onely by the lawe of God so many persons be excludid from mariage in the lyne of affinite / as to be excludid and forbide in the lyne of consanguinite but that also the church is compellid to set the bondes of mariage in the lynes / bothe of affinite and consanguinite in like distance and degre / and for to shewe this ordinaunce of the churche / theis persons bringe in saynte Gregore / and Pope Iuly / saynte Austen / Isodore / maister Abbot Thus nowe I suppose these persones wold make their argument Affinite doith as wel let mariage as consauguinite but it is forbiden by the lawe of God / bi the law of nature that a man shal not mary his sister / bicause of their cōsanguinite Wherfor it is forbidē bi the law of god bi the law of nature that a man shal not mary his brothrs wife because of their affinite To this argumēt I wil answer First with theyr own doctours saynge Peter de Palude which expounding the .xviij. chap. leuitical / saith that it femeth the the pope may dispence in al the degreis of affinite ther conteyned / but not in all the degreis of consanguinite / with this sayng / this doctour doith deny these persons principal proposicion of their argument which is this that affinite doith as well let mariage as cōsanguinite / for he saith that affinite doith not let mariage as doith cōsanguinite / bicause that after his mynde the Pope may dispence in al degreis of affinite cōteyned in the .xviij. chap. of the leuitical law so he can not in al degreis of consanguinite that be there forbiden ALso this first principal proposition of these persons argument is false that affinite doith aswel let mariage as consanguinite for consanguinite may let mariage by the law of nature / as the father may not mary with the dowght r / nor the sone with the moth r / by
God / God him self by his seruant Moyses dide commaunde and that vpon greate payne that euery man of the Iues shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe left c. as it is playnly expressed in the olde lawe / nor suche mariagis be not forbiden in the new law / as ye shal se it euidently proued Deute xxv wherfor it is not against the law of God for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow nor eny suche mariage in none of the lawes be forbiden / also for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow / is not forbiden by the lawe of nature gen xx FIrst for bycause the holy patriarke abraham maried his owne sister Sara and we maye not thinke and saye that so holy a man wolde wetingely do so greuouse a syn as to breke the lawe of nature / and to continew still in the same offence wherfor it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers wyfe a widowe c. If it be not forbiden by the law of nature for a maÌ„ to mary his sister / than is it not forbiden that a maÌ„ shal mary his brothers wife a widowe ALso Ierome saith that at the tyme that Abraham maryd his sister / In questionibus hebraicis super genesim suche mariage was not forbiden by the law / and Ierome therfor excusith the Patriarke Abraham also the Patriarche Iuda maryed his second sone to his doughter in law Thamar / for by cause hir firste husbande Iudas his sone died withowt yssewe / they and also the same Patriarke after the dethe of his secunde sone Thamars secunde husbande promysed hir his thirde sone / and also this holy man Iuda commaundid his seconde sone to mary his brothers wife a widow / Genes xxxviij the which he wolde not haue commaundid / if it had bene against the law of nature / wherfor ye may se that it is not against the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow / when that theis holy patriarkes did in the tyme of the lawe of nature vse suche mariages did coÌ„maund their childern so to mary ALso holy Crisostome saith that whan Iuda the Patriarke coÌ„maÌ„did his secunde sone to take and mary his brothrs wife Thamar / suê‘ ge ho. lxij so to styre vp seid aÌ„d procure by hyr yssewe vnto his brotther that was ded thus saith Crisostom did Iuda coÌ„maund bi the law than the r was no other lawe but the law of natu r or els customs laudable political groÌ„ded in the law of natu r of the which this was one that a maÌ„ shuld mary his brothers wife a widow c. for els the Patriarche iuda wold not haue coÌ„maundid his sone so to haue maryd / Genes xxxviij also this doith appere euidently by iudas wordes / for he confessid grauntid that he had offendid done wrong to Thamar bycause he had not maryed his thyrde sone vnto hir / if that it had be against the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe c. than Iuda hade done no wronge to Thamar in that / that he did â—ot mary his thirde sone vnto hir / but for asmuche as that was not agaynst the law of nature / therfor Iuda did coÌ„fesse that he did Thamar wronge for bycause he had not maried his thirde sone vnto hir / according vnto the law / so now ye may se that it is not againste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe FIrthermore for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow c. can not be against the law of nature / for almyghty God did neuer commaund eny mâ—ner of people to obserue and kepe that thinge continually and vppon a gret payne that shuld be agaynst the law of nature / for that were euyl of it self / Ec. xv therfor no soche thing almighty God did coÌ„maÌ„d as it is writen / nemini maÌ„dauit impie agere / but almyghty did commaunde the Iwes to marye alwayes their brothers wifis left without yssew and that onder a gret payne / And this comaundement he wold haue coÌ„tinually kepte durynge the tyme of that lawe / wherfore yow may see euidently that suche mariages can not be agaynst the law of nature / this argument doithe conclude / it can not be denyed I Did say in the first principall proposicion of this argument / that almyghty God dide neuer commaunde enny maner of parson to obserue and kepe that thynge contynewally and that vpoÌ„ a gret payne which shuld be against the law of nature / this I did saye to take awaye certain obieccions as this / that almyghty God did commaunde Abraham to kyl his soon that was innocent / but yet almyghty God did not commaunde euery man so to doo continually and likewise thowgh almyghty God did commaunde the multitude of the people of Israel to borowe plate of the Egyptians and to carye it away with them / yet almighty God did not commaunde the people of Israel to doo so continually nor yet he did not coÌ„maunde them so to do vppon a payne but as I haue saide / almyghty God commaunded the people of Israel to mary always their brothers wifes widows lefte without yssew / and that vppon a gret paine / wherfor I saye that suche mariagis cannot be against the law of nature parauenture yet sum persones will saye that this commaundemente of almyghty God that bownd the Iues to mary ther brothers wifis widows c / was no law but a licence and a dispensacion that almyghty God gaue vnto the Iues / wherby they myght vse suche mariages / as almighty God did before the lawe dispence with Iacob to mary .ij. sisters / and hade theym both wife 's at on s / And also in the tyme of the lawe he did dispence withe certayne kyngis to haue .ij. wifes at on s / or mo / To this I answer thus / that thowghe almyghty God did suffre suche mariage before the law / and in the tyme of the lawe that men hade mo wifes at ons then one / yet he neuer commaundid that the Iues shuld take moo wifes than one at ons / nor yet coÌ„maundid the pluralite of wifes vppon a payne / also almighty god sufferd the Iues to forsake ther wife 's by the libell of repudiacion / and likewise the Iues to vse vsury / but yet this / nor the other he did neuer commaunde to be kepte as a law that vppon a grete payne but almyghty God did commaunde all the Iues alwayes to marye theyr brothers wifis wedowes lefte without yssew / and that vnder a grete payne / wherfor this commaundement was no dispensacion / but a playne lawe / and thus yow maye see that suche mariagis can not be ageynste the lawe of nature NOw to the thirde pointe and principall sayinge of theis persones wheras
Thephilacte doith cal that mariage adultry / and also in a nother place expoundyng stil the same Chapiter / he callith this Corinthians acte agayne adultry / And the abusion that man doith with a woman that is not maryed is not callid adultry / Wherfore by thse yt semyth that thys yonge mans father was a lyue when that he maryed his Fathers wife ¶ Radulphe of Laundun expoundinge the .vii chapiter of the second Pistill ad Corinthios doith say / this yongman toke awaye his fathers wyfe / and so he did his father iniury and wronge ¶ Iohn de ruppella expoundinge the rehershid Chapiter saith the same ¶ Peter de Tarantase vppon the same Chapiter do likewise affirme and saye ¶ In the .xxij. leif of their boke thay saye that sayncte Iohn Baptiste did reproue herode the kinge by cause he had maried his brothers wyfe and he shewid the kinge that suche mariage was not leful nor that kinge Herode coulde not kepe his brothers wyfe this is trewth for Herode had maried his Brothers wife / his brother beyng a lyue as shewith saynte Ierome in commentarijs super Mattheum Cap. xiiij And so do Iosoph the great storiagraphe of the Iues libro .xviij. Antiquitatis Capite ix And also the same Ioseph againe in the same boke Cap. xi saith that king Herodis brother was a lyue when that Herode maried his brothers wife And lykewise doith saye the olde wryter and doctour Egesipe Libro secundo Capite quinto of the destruccion of Ierusalem ¶ Druthmar writinge vppon sayncte Mathewe sayth Herodes Brother Philipp was a lyue when that Herode toke awaye his brothers wife / and therfor sayncte Iohn did rebuke kyng Herode ¶ Hugh Cardinall writinge vppon Matthewe saith that Philip Herodes Brother was a lyue when that Herode toke awaye his wife and maried hyr / and therfore sayncte Iohn did rebwke Kynge Herode ¶ Albart the great writer vppon sayncte Marke sayth that Iohn did rebwke King Herode because he had maryed his Brothers wife his brother beynge than a lyue ¶ Also the interlynyall gloyse shewith vppon Matthew that Herodes Brother was a lyue when Herod toke awaye his brothers wife / and so dothe manye diuerse other doctours ¶ Sayncte Iohn therfore did iustly reproue kinge herode for he did nowght to mary his brothers wife hir husband beynge a lyue / but now sayncte Iohn did not saye that a man might not lefully mary his brothers wife a widow lefte without yssew / For sayncte Iohn knew very well that suche mariages were good and lefull and commaundid in the lawe So now ye may perceve that this saynge of sayncte Iohn doithe nothinge fauoure thies decevers purposse NOw in the .xxvi. leife of their boke they bringe in the counsels of the Apostils that they kept in Iherusalem where the Apostils decreyd that the gentils that were new come in to cristis faithe shuld absteyne and forbere fornicacion / and forbere to ete of any beste / byrde / or foule that was suffocate or stranguled / and to forbere to ete any maner of flesshe that was offered to ydols / to forbere to ete blode as to forbere to ete puddynges that be made of blode / and nowe thies deceuers affyrme that in / and vnder the name of fornicacion the Apostils did forbide that a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widow left with out yssewe But this is very false / for fornicacion was always forbyden in euery law / But for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left withoute yssewe / was neuer forbidden in the lawe of nature nor yn the olde lawe / nor in the newe / but as ye haue harde / suche mariage was in every lawe good and lefull Wherfore you maye see that it is false to saye that the Apostils vnder the name of fornicacion did forbid that a man shuld marey his Brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe ANd agayne these persons can shew no doctour that so expoundith the decre of the apostils Here you maye see howe these deceyuers do expound and apply scripture falsly for theyr false purposse NOwe where as thies persons in the .xxvij. leif of ther boke bryng in Tertulyan the which they say doth affyrme that this Leuiticall forbiddynge that a man shuld not mary his brothers wife / was brought in / tawght / and ordyned specially and by name of Christe hym self / and his apostils / because that all the hole churche and company of Cristes faithe shuld obserue anâ— kepe yt with deuocion and reuerence This thies persons saye Tertulian writeth but yet it helpith them no thing / for their false purpose for after thâ—yr writing and allegyng of Tertulian / he saith that the Leuiticall forbidding that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife was brought in and tawght / and ordyned specially and by name of Criste hym self / his apostils I shew you that for a man to mary his brothrs wyf a widow left without yssew ys not forbidden by the leuitical law and therfore this auctor helpeth thies persones not a whit NOw where as thies persones do bring in Tertuliane agayne in the .xxix. leif and in the .xxx. leif that sayth the comâ—aÌ„dment that bounde the Iues to mary theyr brothrs wife widowe left without yssew ys now ded and ceassed the contrary of this law hath place and he shewith why the commaundement ys nowe caessed / for the causes wherfore suche mariage was commaunded in the olde lawe / be now taken awaye And ther he shewith .iij. causes why almyghty God did commaund the Iues to mary their brothers wifes widowes left without yssewe ¶ The first was because almyghty God wold that the olde blissynge / Encreasse yow and multiply / owght than to run forth and continew ¶ The seconde cause he saith was this For asmuche as the childern were punyshed for the fathers fawtes than ¶ Thyrdly for bycause that the dry and baren persons were had for defamyd persons ¶ Here be now the causes that tertullian allegethe why almyghty God did commaunde in the old lawe that euery man shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew And for asmuche as thies causes after Tertulians mynd be now takyn awaye / therfore he saith that the commaundment that bownd the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifes ys now ceassyd and ded / and the coÌ„trary of this taketh now place ¶ First here I will answere to these reasons second I will shew yow how this commaundement that a man shulde always mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew / ys now ceassyd deid And thyrdly how this is false to saye that the contrary of that commaundment haith now place And finally I will shew yow / for what reasonable causes almyghty God did commaund the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifes widowes left without yssewe ¶ Now I will turne to the reasons of Tertuliane wher as he saith that the
thies persons haue writen and made theyr boke / Here thei leve owt the bokes name / wher they allege Tertulian and they saye on this wise in the .xxviij. leif of their boke and the same Tertuliane writith in an other place / and so they leve owt the name of the boke whiche in dede is callid monogamia the whiche boke is condemnid Also in theyr ynglysshe boke thei leue out parte of Tertulians sayng and argument / wher he wold haue concluded to haue condempned the second mriages By this you euidently perceue that thies persons opinion sayng / where they affirme that it is against the lawe of God and ageynst the law of nature / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssewe ys euidently false ye and suspecte hereticall / seynge that they goo about to proue their rehersed opynion and saynge / by tertulian wher he is condemned for an heretike Now to the fowrth I wil shew ye / for what resonable causes it was comaundid in the olde law that euery man shuld mary his brothers wife / a widow left ce The first was that the land is of the iues the which shuld goo and continew by inheritaunce / shuld not goo owte of the blode / and name and house that it cam of / and therfore it was commaundid to the Iues that they myght not sel their inheritaunce leuiti xxv aÌ„d than it was commaundid and ordyned that if a man died without yssew that his brother if he had any / Deute xxv or els his next kinnesman shulde mary his wife / and the first childe that this seconde brother hade by his brothers wife / shuld be namyd the first brothers childe and enioy his lande and so kepe vp the ded mans house and name Wherfore holy Crisostome saithe that almyghty God in commaunding theiues to mary their brothers wifes widows left without yssewe / Super mat homelia xlix did excogite and made a meane to counfort suche persons as shuld chaunce to dye without yssew This ys holy Crisostomes mynde / so by this commaundment and lawe if he chaunced to dye without yssewe he was in a suerty that the next of his blode shuld enioy and inheret his landes / and vpholde his house and name / the which was alwais to him that so died a coÌ„forte For euery man naturalli had leuer that one of his own blode shuld enioy haue his landes than a straunger not of his kyn / also euery man wold gladly haue his name house that he cam of / to remayn continew also beside this conforte that the man had / this lawe was a mene to confort the widow who is husband dyed without yssew / for thowgh she lefte hyr husband / yet she was suer to be maryed agayne to one of his next kyn / whiche was no small counforte to hyr / to be in a suerte to mary one that she louyd for hyr husbandes sake and also to mary one that louid hyr for hyr husbandis sake Also this maner of mariage was a meane to cause hyr husbandes kynred to bere and owe loue and fauour styll vnto the woman that had buryed hyr first husband for by cause she maryed agayne hyr husbandis kynsman for whos sake this kindred had loued hir husband before the whiche loue wold sone haue wexid colde and grown sklender toward the wedow / if she had maryd out of hir husbandis kyndred / as we may see / daily by experyence And finally / this maner of mariage was a speciall meane to kepe and continew the loue and kyndenes that was betwene the womans kynred and the kynred of hyr first husband the whiche loue / and kyndenes wold haue mynyshed and haue decayd / if the wife had maryed out of hir husbandis kindred / wherfore so to marye was a speciall meane to kepe loue and kyndenes betwene kindredis And yf sum of thies causes had strength now in this Realme by an ordinaunce decreyd / they wold not be iuged but good and resonable / As this that no man shuld sell his inheritaunce / nor agayne that many inheritaunces shuld neuer come to one mans hande / this were parauenture a good and a resonable law So thus yowe maye see that thies be resonable and honeste causes / and politicall meanis / and very mete for that tyme for the comen welth of the Iues and therfore almyggty God made this lawe that euery one of the Iues shulde always mary their brothers wifes widows left without yssewe And commaunded the Iues to kepe it / Wherfor you may euidently perceue that it can not be againste the lawe of nature and reason for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow c. And also it is hy blasphemy to almyghty God to saye that he with his infinite sapience and wisdom did make a lawe againste reason and commaunde it to be kepte vppon a great payne But now where as thies persons saye that this lawe that commaundid suche mariage / ys now ded and hath no strengthe sewerly that is trew for men as I shewed ye before but yet standeth it in theyr lyberty to mary or not marye their brothers wifes widows ceter and so it doith not follow that it is now ageynste the law of God and ageynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew and that the pope can not dispence vppon suche mariage IN the .xxx. leif of their boke they bâ—ynge in Gregory answeryng to a question that saynte Augustyne had mouid concerning mariage with in degreys of affinyte / saynge on this wise There is a certayn erthly and a worldly lawe with in the dominacion of Rome / that the sone and the doughter of brother and sister or of .ij. brothers germayne / or of .ij. sisters / may mary togither but we haue lernid by experience that ther coulde neuer yssew cum of suche mariage To this it maye be thê° answeryd that nowe at this present time ther ys comen of suche mariage noble and great yssew as the Emperours children for the Emperowr and his wife that now ys / came of .ij. sisters germane / for the Emperours mother and his wifes mother where both sisters and doughters to Don Ferdinando that was kyng of spayne Also we may se great and noble yssewe that is come of a man that maryd .ij. sisters germane the whiche mariage ys hyer in the degreys of affinite than is the children of the brother and sister germane in consanguinite As the kyng of Portingall that now is / and his brothern and the Emperours wife and hyr sisters the whiche cam of the Kynge of Portingaill / this mans father that maryd two sisters germane that were both doughters to Don Ferdinando Kynge of spayne And this sayd Kynge of Portingaill had by bothe thies sisters yssewe / ye and yet after the deth of thies two
and blode with hir mother and with hyr father in lawe / by the reason that he is one flesshe blode with her mother / and who so euer mariyth his fathers flesshe and blode doith against the lawe of nature / wherfore the sone may not mary with his mother in lawes dowghters which is manifestly false OF this reason ye may conclude that .ij. brothern may not mary .ij. sistern / thus he that marye his brothers wiues sister maryeth his brothers flesshe blode / for the brother hys wife be one flesshe blode / the brothers wife hyr sister be one flesshe blode / the brothers wiues sister is one flesshe blode with hir sisters husbandis / he is one flesshe blode with his father wherfore his brother may not mary his wyues sister for asmuche as she is his fathers flesshe blode / by reason that hyr sister hath maried his brother / ye may se whate a Sophistical reason these persons bringe in greatly to their owne rebuke shame yf they had ony shame ALso this is manifestly false / that they saye that he which maryeth his fathers flesshe blode / doith plainly against the law of nature for a manis sone may mary by the law of nature his brothers doughters doughter / which is his fathers flesshe blode This no man wil deny wherfore it is false to saye that he that marith his fathers flesshe blode / doith against the law of nature Here now ye haue harde these persones seconde reason / by the which they said that thei wolde proue that a man might not mary his brothers widowe c. thei haue nothinge done but shewed them selfe sophestres / ful of wordes and empty of al treuthe and reason ALso in this their seconde reason / they saye yt is more against the law of God against the law of nature for a man to mary his brothers widow c. than for a man to mary his aunte of eny syde / of this sayng / it folowith that almyghty god in commaundinge the iues to marey their brothers widowes did commaunde / them to do that thing that was against the law of god agaynst the law of nature bonde them to the same vpon a great payne that thing that was lesse against the law of nature / he forbadde them whiche is a commaunding a doyng against the right ordre of reason For reason willith that the thing which is moste euyll / shuld be most forbiden / of theis persons saynge it folowith that almyghty God did contrary in the olde law / thus these persons / despiseth almighty Goddis commaunding doyng IN the .c. .xlj. leif of their boke / thei say that criste nother did nothinge / nor sayd no thing but that he had takyn of his fath r nor brake no thinge of them which his father commaundid / aÌ„d wolde haue doon This they vnderstande in thinges that were commaundid in suche as were forbiden in the olde law for they wold by this their sayng conclude that the Pope haith no power to dispence / licence a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe ce for by cause thei saye / that suche mariage was forbiden in the olde law And our sauiour crist did neuer breke nothing of them whiche his father commaundid / and wolde haue doon wherfore the Pope that is Cristes vicare / can not licence vpon suche mariage / vpon this their saynge / yt folowith that the Iues be bounde still to mary their brothers widowes lefte withoute yssewe and to circumcision and to al the ceremonies and Iudicialls For almighty God wolde that the Iues shulde kepe them / and commaundid them to kepe these and owr sauiour Criste did neuer breke nothing of them which his father wolde haue kepte Wherfore the Iues be now bounde to al these / ye and to al the hole law of Moyses This ys false and against the techinge of the Apostle where he sayth yf ye be circumcised Crist shal do yow no goode Gala. iiij v Gal. ij nor the keping of his commaundements shal be nothing profitable to yow And agayne saynte Pol speketh against Peter to his face / because he wold the gentils that were conuertid to kepe the ceremonies of the Iues. Here now ye may see that the Apostle did teche the people to breke to do contrary to the olde lawe ye and so haith the churche decreid and made / that no man shal now mary his brothers widow whiche is against the commaundment of the olde lawe BVt for asmuche as they saye that our sauiour Crist did neuer breke â—o thinge of them which his father almighty God commaundid and wold haue done yow must note and vnderstond that almighty God did commaunde certayne thinges to be kepte for a certayne tyme / and in like maner certayn thinges he did forbide for a certain tyme / as the Iudicialles and ceremonies of the olde law he wolde haue suche as were commaundid to be done / the people to fulfill them and kepe them and suche as he forbade that the people shuld not do them / and yet for al this / almighty God did not commaunde the Iudiciallis nor ceremonies always to be kepte but he willid that the Iues shulde kepe them vnto the tyme that it shulde please him to sende his sone to take vpon him our nature so to be very God and man our sauiour Crist and so to shewe vnto the worlde further his fathers wil and pleasure / and what he wolde haue all maner of people to kepe and obey frome that tyme forewarde and than our sauiour crist did dissolue the Iudicialles and Ceremonies of the olde lawe / so that no man shulde be bounde to kepe them eny longer nor put eny longer hope or truste of saluacion in them ¶ And frome that tyme forth warde that almaner of people shulde put there hope of saluacion in beleuinge yn Almyghty God and yn Iustely kepinge suche Lawes and suche commaundmentis as almyghty God had sent vnto them by hys sone ower Sauioure Criste And thus owr Sauioure Criste toke away after hys comynge the Iudicialles Ceremonyes of the olde lawe accordinge vnto his fathers will and commandement For the tyme of them was than exspired / but nowe I muste returne vnto theis persons saynge which is this It was commaundid by almyghty God in the olde law that a man shulde not mary his brothers widow c. o r sauio r crist neuer brake nothinge of them / which almyghty God commaundid wolde haue done wherfor the Pope can not dispence vpon suche mariage To this reason I answer that the maior of the reason is false which is this / that almighty God commaunded in the olde law that no man shuld mary his brothers wife widowe c. for yn the olde law almighty God did expresly commaunde the Iues always to mary their
brothers wiues widowes left c. that vpon a great payne / therfore it is false to saye that almighty God did commande in the olde law that no man shulde mary his brothers widowe c. so therfore is this false that the Pope haue no power to dispence vpon suche mariage which these persons wolde conclude vpon there false proposicion IN the .c. .xlv. leif of their boke these persons write that the leuitical prohibicion that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife a widow c. Thus thei must vnderstand yt or ells it is not to the purpose thoughe it was lymyted restrayned of almighty God in the Deuteronomi / yet for al that bicause afterwarde the said restraynt was taken awaye of God him self by the comyng of Cr st here these persons do not declare whate they meane vnderstande / by lymytynge restrayninge of the leuiticall prohibicion / nor yet what they wolde haue vnderstanden by the taking awaye of the restraint / at the coming of o r sauiou r crist but where as thei say that the leuitical prohibicion that a man shuld not mary his brothers widowe c. was restraynide in the Deuteronomi / here these persons say manifestly false for as I haue saide oftin tymes / as ye haue harde many doctours saye / ye as the leuitical law it self sayth / that ther is no suche prohibicion there therfore ther was no restraint made vpon that prohibicion nor yet owr sauiour Criste did not at his cominge take awaye the restraynt for ther was none to be taken away but in the Deuteronomi almyghty God did playnly streyghtely commaunde that the Iues shulde mary always their brothers wyues widowes left c. this confirmeth Isichius sayng in commē leui that the law Deuteronomical did not onely commāde mē to mary their brothers wiues widows but it did also compell them so to mary This therfor can be callid no restraynt and thus all these persones saynge ys false IN the same leif / theis deceyuers say / that yf the Pope now a dayes coulde by dipensacion / cause that a man might mary after the law of the Deuteronomi his brothers wife which doith dye hauing none yssewe for to reyse vp sede to his brother withoute doughte he shulde make Cristen men at thys daye to folow the Iues ceremonyes supersticion sues / which the Pope can not do / no more than he can cause that we shulde kepe the Sabot daye or that thei shulde be circuncisid To this I answere / that the Pope can not by dispēsacion cause a mā to mary his brothers widow c. as the Iues in the olde law maryed theirs Nor the Pope doith not licence a man to mary his brothers widowe after the facion maner but the Pope doith licence dispence that a Cristen man may mary his brothers widow as a kynge or a prince to mary his brothers widowe / to be meane that queytnes peace may be kepte betwene realme realme for to continew loue frendeship betwene Cristen princes / for other suche reasonable profitable causes concerning the comyn welthe of Cristendome / thus for theis / suche causes the Pope doith maye dispence that a man may mary his brothers widowe c. not after the maner of the Iues therfore theis persons bringe yn a thing that no man will deny / and yet it is nothing for their purpose IN the .cliij. leif of their boke / these persones saye that like as a man may frely fulfil his purpose of a more holyer lyuynge the sayng nay frowarde forbiddinge of his indiscrete prelate notwithstanding euen so it is yn mariage that if a mans consciens moue him to diuorse that he dyuorse hym self though the church say contrary Here now ye may se perceyue theis pestilent persons vngracious maliciouse entent what thei counsail / wolde haue done the is to saye a man to diuorse him selfe / to forsake his wife yf his conscience moue him to diuorse without eny further profe or shewing of eny iust cause to mary where yt plesid him thoughe the churche sayd the contrary which is clerly against al reason ALso by this their saynge yowe may perceyue that these persones wolde vtterly destroye the blissed sacrament of matrimony For by this meane waye euery man as often as he wold chaunge his conscience to diuorse / so often he might chaunge his wife / ye the wife hyr husband / without shewinge of eny other profe or cause / without eny maner of sentence iugement of the churche ye thowgh the church said commaundide the contrary / so by this / shulde the sacrament of matrimony be destroid Here ye may se what pestlent persons these be / whiche haue compiled this boke that I answere to FVrthermore theyr comparison and similitude wherby they wolde proue that a man maye diuorse hym selfe frome hys wyfe by hys conscience / thowghe the Churche saye contrarey / ys openly false Fore thowghe yt be so that a Prieste / be mouede yn hys mynde to be a religious man / may frely fulfil his purpose of a more holier lyuinge notwithstanding the nay of his indiscrete prelate yet it doith not folowe / that euen so yt is in mariage that yf a mans conscience moue him to diuorse / that he may diuorse him self forsake hys wife / mary anoth r / thowghe the church say contrary This case is not like the oth r first forbicause that a priest which goith to religion for a more holier lyuing / may fulfil his godly purpose lefully notwithstanding the frowarde / forbidding of his vndiscrete prelate for asmuche as the priest beyng at libertye / doing no wronge to no person by the reason of his going to religion but seruith almighty God better Thus he may fulfil his godly purpose thoughe his vndiscreite prelaite saye contrary / but so may not a man that is maryed / diuorse hym self whan his conscience mouith him to diuorse / for bicause the maried man is not at libertie / For he is bounde to continew with his wife accordinge to the lawes of matrimony during al the tyme of his lyfe / nor he can not departe frō his wife for to mary anoth r while that his wife is a lyue Wherfore there is no conscience that can helpe a maryed man in the mater of diuorse / excepte he can manifestly proue some iuste cause befor the church that his mariage ys not good And than he must abyde stonde to the churches iugement determinacion And therfore this is false / to say that lyke as a priest may for a more holier lyuinge / fulful his purpose notwithstanding the forbiddinge or nay of his vndiscreite prelate euen so it is in mariage / that if a mans conscience moue him to diuorse that he diuorse hym self thowghe