Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1
The same in English.
FOrasmuche as we are created under the power of free will, & not under the law but under grace let us so live as we are created. You which lay upon us the law of continency against our will, do deprive us of the liberty of free will. You command us, and by commanding compel us to will that we would not, & not to will that we would do. You bind us to the law, from the which by grace we are made free: and you constrayne us to receive the spirit of bondage again to fear: and go about to make the grace of God of no effect, without the which we can do nothing, so that, as the Apostle saith: Grace is now no grace: and the gift of God is not the gift of God. And not of God, but of mā: not of him that calleth, but of him that worketh where as the Apostle saith: It is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy.
For where as there be three principal & effectual things whereby every human soul endued with reason apprehēdeath & perceiveth whatsoever spiritual thing it is able to apprehend and perceive, and without the which it can perceive nothing: the which three things be these: to wit free will, the commandment, and grace (for by free will we discern and chose the good from the evil: by the commandment we are provoked and stirred up to do all things: by grace we are furthered & holpen to perform the same) yet of all these, grace is the Lady & Maistres, and as a mighty Empresse and Queen, upon whose beck the other do wait and give attendance, receiving of her both strength and efficacy, and without her can do nothing, but remain as things of themselves dull and dead, much like as amongst the Philosophers, their Materia without Forma, being thereto adjoined. For in the stead of Materia, we may, after a manner not unfitly place free will: and in the place of Forma we may set grace, & the commandment (which is the mean between them both, as a certain instrument) to have respect to both: whereby the principal Artificer which is God, furthereth and setteth forward free will as a rude dull matter, applieth to it his grace as y e form thereof. And like as the said Materia without Forma, is rude and shapelesse, so free will is a thing rude and deform, if it be not holpen with grace coming thereunto, to move it & to further it, the commandment coming as a mean between them both in the stead of the instrumental cause, as is before said.
Therefore like as Forma is in respect of Materia, the like resemblance beareth free will in respect of grace. And again, as Materia is in respect of Forma, the same also is free will in respect of grace. And as the instrument serveth between the foresaid Materia and Forma, so doth the commandment between free will and grace. The instrument coming and working upon the said Materia being of it self ougle, rugged, and a thing without all shape and fashion, doth form it, shape and pullish it, and maketh it hansome, lightly, lightsome, bright and clear: even so likewise the commandment coming and working upon free will, being of it self, a thing rude, gross, unshapen & deformed, blind and obscure, doth clarify it, decke 〈◊〉 , adorn it, bewtifye and lighten it through the brightness of grace coming unto it, according to the saying of the Prophet: The • ommaundement of the Lord is bright and clear, giving sight to the eyes.
And as the matter & the instrument without the form can do nothing, even so free will and the commandment without grace have no power to work. For what can either free w • ll or the commandment do except they be helped̄ with grace both going before and following? For grace sendeth the commandment as a messenger and minister to free will: the commandment provoketh freewill and styrreth it up, as out of a sleep to do good works and leadeth it as a blind man, by the hand, teaching him the way wherein to go. Which both if they be destitute of grace, are able of thenselves to do nothing. And if they begin, yet they proceed not, neither do they perform or accomplish anything: and if they presume, it prospereth not, and is but labor lost. For where the commandment cometh, • yther by man or by Angel: and also where freewell is moved, provoked and informed either by the motion of man or of Angel, yet unless God's grace go withal preventing and following the same what is it able to do? For whē man was put in Paradise, what auayled him the commandment which he heard: Thou shalt eat of every tree of Paradise, but only of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. Which commandment wrought not to his salvation but to his condemnation. And why? because grace that saveth and helpeth, was wanting, which he presuming unjustly upon his own strength despised. Or what did the commandment of the law given by Moses, profit the people of Israel in the wilderness, which law they refused to obey? Or what profit wrought it to him which presumed to follow the Lord of his own free will and not of the Lord's calling, saying unto him: Lord I will follow thee whether soever thou goest. By these and many other places of holy Scripture both of the old and new Testament, it may be proved that neither the commandment nor free will have power to work of themselves, unless they be holpen by God's grace preventing and following them.
Seeing therefore the gift of continency, as all other gifts be, is the gift only of God's grace, and cometh not by the commandment nor by free will: they err therefore & strive in vain which labor to obtain it by their own power. And much more they also do err, which by force constrayne men against their will thereunto, moving thē to offer gifts into the sanctuary of God, not of their own accord but by coactiō, either not knowing or else not remembering the saying of the Lord to Moses: Seperate amongst you the first fruits unto the Lord, and let every man of his own voluntary and willing mind, come and offer the same unto the Lord. What is this, to separate with you the first fruits to the Lord, but only to wey and consider diligently in your hearts, and with discretion to lay down and separate unto the Lord, what we ought to present unto him out of the treasure of our heart? For if thou offer rightly & doest not rightly devide, thou sinnest. And what is to offer with a willing and ready mind, but as the psalmist, saith: I will offer sacrifice unto thee willingly and cheerfully: And the Apostle saith: Not grudgingly or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And Solomon saith: Geue the Lord his glory with a good and free heart, and in every gift thou givest, show a joyful countenance, and sanctify thy tithes with gladness: and with a cheerful eye do all that thou takest in hand. And the Apostle James saith: The Lord loveth not constrained service. And cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, that is, not carefully and with a willing mind.
Wherefore, as the Lord willeth us not to offer anything to him against our willes: so doth he forbid us to compel any man to offer anything against their wills by the foresaid Moses where he saith: Thou shalt not do thy neighbor wrong, neither oppress him with violence. To do wrong to thy neighbor, is to correct him for his sin not of any compassion or mercy towards him, but to re, prove him and to cause him in disdaining, upbraiding, 〈◊〉 rebuking him: not to inform him in the spirit of lenity: but to destroy him in the spirit of bitterness and rigor, as the Apostle saith: If a man be taken in any fault, you that are spiritual inform such in the spirit of lenity, considering thyself least thou also be tempted.
To oppress our neighbor with violence, is to exact anything of him above his power, & to lay upon him more then he is able to bear, an • more peradventure then they thenselves are able to wield, which lay it upon him. Whereas the Lord speaking of the Pharisees to his disciples, forbiddeth them the same, saying: The Scribes and Pharisees do sit upon the chair of Moses. &c. And the Apostle Peter: Feed (saith he) as much as in you lieth, the Lord's flock, providing for them, not by constraint, but willingly after a godly sort, and not for filthy lucre, but of a ready a mind: not as though ye were Lord's over the Clergy, but be you as an example to the flock of good will.
This shepherd of shepherds and Prince of the Apostles doth plainly and evidently declare and insinuate what all other Pastors and Apostles ought to do: how to entreat the flock of the Lord committed unto them, and what great care and compassion of mind they ought to have towards their Cure: and removeth far out of their harts all power of Tyrannicall Lordship and all ambitiō, which some do exercise with gredynes upon those that are committed to their charge, and pronounceth that they ought not to be Lord's, but fathers over their flock: and not imperiously to command them, as exercising stately authority and power upon them, but gently to admonish them and beseech them in the zeal of piety, according to the strength of every person, after the Lord, and not after the affection of their own will, or ambiciously setting forth their own power and iurisdictiō, and that they ought to be an example to the flock, doing first themselves that thing, which they command others, and so to teach them no less by examples then by words. Willingly (saith he) and not by cōstraynt: of charity, & not for greedy gain. For there be many which being inflamed with affection, not of charity, but of covetous gredines and ambition, command others that which they are not able to accomplish, and while they pretend to seek the gain of souls, they hunt and seek rather for worldly lucre. Which Balaam the Prophet did well express: who converted the gift of prophecy, and the grace of blessing which he had received of God, not to the profit of others, but to his own commodity.
And some there be, which whiles they correct others, they pretend to do it with the zeal of God: and whiles they would seem to be better then other, this they do with a certain presumption & rashness, and so fall in their own presumption and temerity. Of whom the Apostle speaketh: Which have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge To have a zeal of God, according to knowledge, is to do anything in God's matters prudently and circumspectly. Of whom Oza beareth a type and resemblance: Who whiles that he went about with his hand to stay the Ark of the Lord staggering a little by reason of the kicking of the Oxen which carried it, fell down therefore dead. The Ark of the Lord to stagger or miscarye by the kickyng of the Oxen, signifieth the law of the Lord (which the priests themselves ought to bear and hold up) to be contradicted of them in not observing the same, & to be turned out of the right course to the contrary part, which Oza, who is interpreted to be a helper of god, attempteth to hold up. For there be certain Prelates, which while they see the order of priesthood by some enormity or excess, to strayne the law of God never so little out of the right course, and labor to redress and rectify that misorder, rather by vain ostentation of their own strength, then for any pure zeal to God, while they thus presume inordinately to do, thinking to seme to be the helpers of God, many times do mortally fall, and incur thereby great danger and peril.
Some other also there be which having before their eyes no consideratiō of man's infirmity neither being touched with any respect of mercy and compassion, nor knowing how to say with the Apostle: Who is infirm and I am not infirm? these whiles they compare themselves to such as be under their charge, not in condition wherein they are equal, but in authority wherein they are superiors, & covet to be their masters, & more to rule over them then to profit them, they oppress the weakness of thē by force and violence of authority, and compel them to their obedience: which is rightly figured by the fact, which is read in y e Gospel of Simon Cyrenaeus, whom the persecutors of the Lord constrained to take up the Cross of Christ. Whose name also doth fitly agree w t y e same figure. For Simon by interpretation is called obedient. Simon then, that is to say, the obedient man is forced to bear y e Cross of the Lord, when as subjects being constrained of their masters by the rigor either of Lordship, or authority, or fere of their curse, and so compelled to obey them, are driven to sustain the Cross of continency against their wills: who neither do love the Cross which they bear, because they bear it rather to their destruction thē to their health: neither by bearing the Cross, do die unto sin, but by the bearing thereof are rather quickened unto sin. For thereof rise diverse other more grievous sins. For by the inhibiting of lawful and natural marriage with one woman, riseth the unnatural and most execrable Sodomitical fornication: riseth also the unlawful and damnable defiling of other men's wives: riseth furthermore cursed and whorish filthiness and pollution: and moreover riseth most abhominable incest against all nature, with their own kindred, with a heap of manifold other filthy ahhominatiōs and lecherous pollutions, whereby the frail infirmity of man is brought (no doubt) into great peril.
Wherefore Loth being delivered from the burning of Sodom through the guiding of the Lord's Angel, and beriued of the fellowship of his wife, whiles that he considering his own infirmity durst not ascend unto the mountain as the Angel bad him, did choose rather to dwell in Segor a little City nere by, the Angel thus bidding him and speaking unto him: Save thy soul and look not behind thee, but save thyself in the mountain least thou also perish. To whom Loth answered: I pray thee Lord, because thy servant hath found such grace in thy sight that thou wilt save me, I cannot be saved in the mountain, least perhaps some evil take me and I die: There is a little City hereby whereunto I may fly and may be saved in it.
What meaneth this that Loth flying from Sodom by the commandment of the Angel to be saved in y e mountain, would not ascend up to the hill fearing there to perish but did chose rather to dwell in Segor a small City near unto the hill, there to be saved, but that every faithful man coveting to eschew the burning & danger of Sodomitical lust, while neither he is able to mount up to the top of virginity, and also is afeard to ascend to the mountain of the state of widowhood least he perish therein, flieth therefore to the state of matrimony, which is a small cōtinēcy in respect of the other two, & also nere unto thē both. For after those two kinds of continencye, this chastity is also proved to be laudable, & is not deprived of the reward of the kingdom of heaven.
Unto this chastity, he is commanded to fly which cannot otherwise contain, & to be saved in it, least peradventure if he clime up to the mount, he fall into inconueniency & perish therein: that is, least if he shall attempt to obtain by his own strength the contenencye which is not given unto him of God, the evil of incontinency or fornication, or of some of the other evils afore rehearsed, do fall upon him, and so he perish in them mortally. For there be many who while they consider not their own infirmity, & while they strive to atchiue greater things thē they are able to reach in this their climbing do fall headlong into worse inconvenience, and while they foolishly seek for great things, do lose the less, which before they seemed to have. Whych we may well understand by the example of Loth aforesaid: Who what time he left the small City Segor, which he chose before to inhabit, in the which he sought to be saved: went up to the mountain and there abiding fell into the stolen incest of his own daughters, as the scripture witnesseth, saying: Loth went up from Segor and remained in the mountain, and his daughters gave to their father wine to drink that night. And the elder of them went and lay with her father. Which thing had not happened unto him, if he had kept himself still in Segor, where be might have been saved at the bidding of the Angel, as he himself required. But because he forsook that, which was granted to him of the Angel, and presumed to that upon his own will; contrary to the precept of the Angel, which was not granted:: therefore he fell into great danger of his soul & committed the grievous sin of incest.
No otherwise doth it hap̄ to many other, who while either they forsake y e thing which is granted thē of God, or ambitiously clime after that which is to thē not granted, both they lose that which they had granted unto thē, and fall into that which to them was not granted. For diverse there be which while they forsake either willingly or against their will, the married life which is to them lawfully permitted, and in which they might be saved, and strive with a presumptuous desire to lead a single life, both they lose that health and safety, which they might have had in one, and incur great danger in the other: so that whereby they suppose most to gain, by the same they lose & fall into the pit of greater ruin. Which thing S Paul y e Doctor of the Gentiles well considering, and tenderly providing for the infirmity of the weak Corinthians writing to him for counsel touching this matter, did write to thē again in this wise, saying: As concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, as it is good for a man not to touch a womā. Nevertheless to avoid whoredom, let every man have his wife and let every woman have her husband. Let the husband give unto his wife due benevolence: likewise also the wife unto her husband. And a little after: withdraw not (saith he) yourselves one from another, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves unto fasting and prayer: and afterward come together again le • to Satan tempt you for your incontinencye. For as the Poe • saith, we cannot all do all things, and as the Apostle saith: It is not in him that willeth not in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. Also another place: For to everyone of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And that everyone of us ought to keep and not to transgress this measure, he teacheth anon after saying: I wish that all men were as I myself am but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.
And that we are to be kept within our compass, and measure, and ought therewith to be content, he teacheth moreover as followeth: Let every man abide in that vocation wherein he is called, And shortly after, for confirmatiō thereof, he repeteth the same again and saith: Let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with the Lord And because he perceived that the infirmity of man was not able to sustain the burning motions and heats of nature stirring in a man, but only by the grace of God, neither to be able to conquer the flesh fighting against the spirit, according to that which he saith of himself in another place: For I see another Law in my members rebelling against the Law of my mind, he therefore of mercy and compassion, as condescending unto their weakness: and not by rigor of law and force of commandment, thus said. As also in another place in his Epistles he speaketh in like words saying: I speak thus grossly after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh. And in this foresaid Epistle, moreover a little before, using the same manner of speech, he saith, Thus I say to you as of favor and not of commandment. And adding moreover, he showeth: As touching virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but only do give counsel, as one that have found mercy with God, that I should be faithful. That is, after the same mercy wherewith the Lord hath informed and instructed me when he called me to the faith, and made me faithful to him: so I likewise do give counsel to other and show the same mercy to them.
And for as much as both are good: to wit to have a wife or not to have: to have a husband or not to have: neither is there any sin in having wife or husband: shortly after he inferreth saying: I suppose therefore this to be good for the present necessity: I mean, that it is good for a man so to be: What meaneth this, for present necessity? What is this necessity present, but present infirmity? or else instant necessity, compelling to do, as y e order of necessity requireth. Or else he meaneth by this present necessity, the distress of that time which then was instant, and compelled him to write, and so to bear with them which was for the avoiding of the fornicatiō amongst them, and many other kinds of filthiness above touched which might have happened. For the which fornication he took occasion to write unto the Corinthians and to answer to their letters: and therefore he vehemently against the said Corinthians in y e former part of the said Epistle uttereth these words: What will you shall I come to you with a rod? or in love and in the spirit of meekness? There is heard among you to be fornication, & such fornication as is not named among the Gentiles, that one should have his own fathers wife. &c. And therefore for this necessity of avoiding such fornication, he saith: It is good for a man so to be: that he which cannot contain, should mary & take a wife. which afterward he expoundeth thus inferring: art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. And if thou be loosed frō a wife seek not a wife. But if thou takest a wife thou sinnest not, and if a virgins mary, she sinneth not. &c. And that he spake not this by way of commanding, but of sufferance and compassion, he showeth plainly in these words following: But I spare you: that is to say, I bear with your infirmity: & therefore he leaveth it in the free power and will of every man, to choose what he best liketh, Neither doth he enforce any man (he saith) violently, nor charge them with any strait commandment, and therefore addeth these words following: And this I speak for your own commodity, not to tangle you as in a snare, but for that it is good and honest for you, that you may serve the Lord without separation.
This he saith to them whom before he exhorted to continency, and whom he would not to be let or troubled by matrimonial conjunction. But to other he saith thus: If any man think that it is uncomely for his virgin to remain over long unmarried, and if need so require, let him do what he thinketh good, he sinneth not: let them mary: And again both be good, he saith, but yet the one to be better he concludeth saying: Therefore he that joineth in Matrimony, his virgin doth well, but he that doth not doth better. Which agreeth well with the text above, speaking of both kinds, as well the man as the woman, where he saith: If thou take a wife thou sinnest not, and if the virgin take a husband she sinneth not.
If therefore it be no sin for the man to take a wife, nor for the virgins to take a husband, after the apostles mind, neither doth diminish their felicity, but rather increase it, & for as much as both do well, & so both be blessed: we then which take wives for our infirmity, what do we sin in having them? Or if the apostle do suffer & permit to every man for the avoiding of fornication to have his wife, we then which come of the same lump or mass & taking our sinful flesh of the sinful flesh of Adam, are not able otherwise to contain, why are we not permitted for y e same cause & by the same permissiō, to have likewise our wives, but are enforced to forsake them being married?
Wherefore either do you permit us, following the apostle, to have our wives, or else teach us that we come not of the same mass, either else show us that the same sufferaūce & permission is not granted to us by the Apostle which is granted to other. Which cause peradventure you will thus pretend: that this sufferance was granted of the Apostle, not to the clergy or to any of our order, but only to lay mē. Which cannot well be defended neither by the words of the Apostle, nor by any circumstance of his Epistle for as much as there is no certain distinction or denomination either of persons or degrees, or professions there mentioned, neither doth he make any difference either in names or offices of men, either of them which wrote unto him either of those persons of whom he wrote, or else of those to whō he answereth, but only in general to the whole church of the Corinthians, as he himself in the beginning of his Epistle purporteth in these words: Paul called the Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God & Sosthenes his brother to the church which is at Corinth, such as be sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that invocate the name of the Lord. &c. [And after a few other words, which here for breuityes sake we omit, as not being greatly to the purpose pertinent: thus he inferreth:] These premisses being then well considered, we beseech you to have regard & compassiō of our infirmity, most humbly desiring you, not to oppress us with this violence. For as we have sufficiently before proved, no man ought to be constrained unto continency against his will, neither is this kind • of virtue commanded of God to any man, of necessity, but only of voluntary devotion to be offered unto the Lord: as he himself speaketh in the Gospel: All men cannot receive this saying, but to whom it is given. Whereunto he gently exhorteth them that can take it, saying: He that is able to receive this, let him receive it. &c.
Wherefore for distinctions sake Moses is not himself commanded to cloth Aaron and his sons with breeches as in these words going before: Thou shalt cloth with these Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him. &c. But he thus saith: Thou shalt make linen breches that they thenselves may cover the filth of their flesh. That they themselves (saith he) may cover the filth of their flesh. Thou (saith he) shalt make the breches for the bishop and his sons: thou shalt teach the rule of chastity: thou shalt exhort them to abstain from the company of their wives, which shall do the priests office: Yet laying upon none violently the said yoke of continency, but whosoever shall be priests and shall serve the altar, shall of their own accord surcease from the use of matrimony: which when they shall do, & of their own voluntary consent shall take upon them the purpose of continency to serve the altar, then shall the grace of God be present, which as it did apparel those other priests aforesaid with attire for thē convenient: so shall it instruct these abundantly how they ought to live and to teach. And this sense well agreeth with the text that followeth, saying: And when thou shalt wash the father and his sons with water, thou shalt take the garments, that is, the strayt coat, the tunicle & the brestlappe, and put them upon Aaron, & gird them to him with a brodered girdle of the Ephod. Then thou shalt put the myter upon his head, and shalt put the holy crown upon the miter, and thus shall he be consecrated. Also thou shalt bring his sons and put coats upon them, and shalt gird them with girdles, both Aaron & his sons, and shalt put bonettes on them, and the Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetual law.
Thus then you see a commandment of receiving the linen breches of Moses. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that Aaron and his sons, first did apparel themselves with this kind of apparel, and so entered in to be washed, inducted, anointed & consecrated by the hands of Moses.
By the which we are plainly taught, that the yoke of continency is not to be enforced upon any man against his will, but is to be received of God with a prōpt & a devout will. Which thing also Dyonisius Areopagita that godly wise man, the Disciple of S. Paul and ordained of him B. of Athens, in a certain Epistle of his sent to Pymtus B. of the Gnasians, in which he toucheth many things of marriage and chastity (as is in y e Ecclesiastical history rehearsed) doth admonish the said Pymtus, and prayth him that he will lay no grievous burdens upon the necks of the Disciples, neither infer any necessity of compelled chastity upon the brethren, whereby the infirmity of some of thē might be in danger. And Pymtus answering to Dyonisius again, showeth himself willing to embrace the sentence of his wholesome council. The same also did Paphnutius, the divine & chaste bishop, who in y e council of Nice (as the Tripertite history doth show us) when the fathers, which there were present went about to restrain Priests from marriage: he rising up amongst thē & moved with the zeal of man's infirmity, desired thē that they would not so do, but rather to leave it unto the voluntary discretiō of every man, least in so doing they might peradventure give occasion of adultery and fornicatiō. For those holy men did thē use this cautele and moderation in religion, that whē they treated anything concerning instructiō and edification of the people, and would have them stirred up to a better life by godly instructions, they would rather persuade things to be observed with patience and lenity, then command with rigor and authority: neither would they compel any man to their obedience against his will.
Whose examples you also following, which succeed in their room and name, do you not lay vpō us infirm persons, such importable burdens, lest you be partakers with the Pharisyes and lawyers of the Lord's curse: Who saith: Woe to you lawyers which lay burdens upon men, which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one finger. And least the cry of the children of Israel ascend up to the Lord for the cruel dealing of them which are overseers of the works: Neither do you make such Eunuchs which are so borne from their mothers womb, or such Eunuchs which are violently made by men, but rather those Eunuchs which of their own accord have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heavē. Neither do you bring upon the holy order of God's ministers for us only, such an offense and slander, that for our wicked life you make the ministry to be despised of others, while you will not suffer them either to hear us, or to receive the sacraments of us, infaming thereby our lend life, & causing the savor of us to stink before Pharaoh, & his servants. Wherein it seemeth to us that you deal not soundly & uprightly, if a man may so say (I pray you take it in good worth, that I speak) & also to be against y e authority of God's word, & the canonical constitutions which you do: where as the Lord saith by Moses the lawgeuer: the shame of thy mother thou shalr not disclose, & her ignominy thou shalt not discover. Our mother is y e church: y e sons of this mother be all the faithful, which name yet most fitly is appropriate unto priests: for they do beget y e faithful, both by y e word of preaching & sacrament of baptism. Was not he to be counted a right mother: who said, my little children of whom I travel in birth again? The shame & ignominy of our mother, what is it but the reproueable conversation of the life of priests which shame & ignominy is thē revealed, whē y e life of priests is publicly infamed. Which thing you do, y e discover & notify unto men our fragility, lying before as hyd & covered, because before it was not known & for the same you bring y e holy ministry & mysteries of god into contempt & hatred: as though the polluted life of other did anything p • rtaine thereto to pullute the same, & as though our uncleanness did anything blemish thē, or diminish the pureness thereof, where as the Psalmist saith: The law of the Lord is pure and immaculate: Or as though they were any whitte polluted by our infection, which do receive the said mysteries either by our mouth, or by our ministry. Which if you grant to be so, then the Lord would never have spokē so to his disciples & the people, touching the Pharisees, saying: Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.
And again, if it were so, the Lord would not have sent forth Judas, whom he knew should betray him, with the other Disciples to preach, neither would have committed to him the power of working miracles, & of giving health nor admitted him to the Communion of the Supper. And if our impurity should infect our holy mysteries or ministrations, and make them worse that hear and receive the same then the Lord would never have touched the Leper whom he had healed, neither would he have kissed him, neither would have eaten with Simon another Leper, neither would have suffered his feet to be kissed, and with the tears to be washed, and with the hear to be dried, & his head to be annointed of Mary the sinner.
Therefore the holy Canons have thus decreed, that no man which rightly receiveth the Lord's Sacraments of an heretic, should be therefore anything corrupted by his heretical pranity, nor the said Sacraments should be any whitte distayned by the infection of him. Whereupon the Church of Rome in a certain Epistle directed unto Anastasius the Emperor, by Anastasius the Pope, did so ordain and write, that none of all them whom Acatius did baptize, or whom he ordained Canonically to be priests or Levites, should be anything hurt by the name of the said Acatius: so that thereby the Sacraments which by him were ministered, should seme the less firm and effectual. For the sacrament of Baptism also being ministered of an adulterer or a thief (which God forefend to be in the Church) doth come unto the receiver never a whit the worse. What meant that voice which sounded by the Dove, but that it excluded all evil and impurity of the corruption of man? in the which it is declared and said: This is he which baptizeth. &c. For if the beams of this visible Sun passing by the filthy places, receive no spot of filthiness thereby, much more the grace of him which made this visible Sun, is not tied to any worthiness of our works. What soever therefore any minister of the Church worketh in his functiō to the behoove of the people, all that taketh his effect by the operation of God. Thus witnesseth Paul by whom Christ speaketh: I have planted, and Apollo hath watered, but it is the Lord that hath givē the increase. God regardeth not so much, who or what manner of person doth preach, but that he so preach, that he may confirm thē that be naught, and cause them to preach well of Christ. For such is the operation of God's mighty grace, that by evil men he winneth good men, and by reprobate and wicked persons he getteth and gathereth together those that be good.
By these and such other reasons and authorities above alleged, you ought to be persuaded, neither to abandon us that be married, from the administration of divine service, nor yet to excommunicate such, to whom the matter nothing pertaineth, from the communion thereof. And if we be evil, we are evil to our selves, and hurt our selves more then others. And such as you suppose peradventure to be vicious, yet may have some good thing inwardly which you know not of.
For many there be whom you judge to be incontinent, which live more chastely then they whom you so greatly extol for their continency. We that have wives, according to the Apostles mind, so have them as though we had them not. Which gift of continency for as much as you cannot give us, pray therefore with us and for us, that he will give it unto us, who only is the giver thereof, & without whom no man is able to live continently. For otherwise we cannot have it, vules we pray unto him frō the bottom of our hearts, who is known to be the author and giver thereof. And this same (saith Solomon) is wisdom, to know whose gift it is: neither is there any gift above this.
These two Epistles written to Pope Nicolas under the title of Uolusianus, giveth us to understand by the contents thereof, first that he himself was then a married Bishop.
Secondly, that the liberty of Priests marriage ought not to be restrained by any general Law, of compulsion: but to be left to every man's free choice and voluntary devotion.
Thirdly the said Epistles being written to Pope Nicolas (if the title be true) declare, that this law prohibiting the lawful matrimony of Churchmen, began first in this Popes times generally to be enacted.
And although it be not here expressed, which Pope Nicolas this was, yet by the circumstance of time, and especially by the words of Pope Alexander 1. Distinct. 32. Praeter, it may probably be esteemed to be Nicolas. 2. and not Nicolas the first, as some do suppose amongst whom is Illyricus in Centur. 9. cap. 10. and also John Bale, De Scriptoribus Cent. 2. with certain other: from whose judgments although I am loath to dissent, yet notwithstanding modestly and freely to utter herein my opinion, this I suppose, that if the truth of this matter were thoroughly tried, it might peradventure be found, that they be herein deceived, and all by mistaking a certain place of Gracian. For the better explanation whereof, here is to be understanded, that amongst the distinctions of Gracian there is a constitution, Dist. 32. Nullus, the tenor whereof is thi •• Nullus Missam audiat Praesbiteri, quem scit Concubinam iud • bitanter habere, aut subintroductam mulierem. &c. That is: That no man shall hear mass of any Priest, whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concubine, or a woman privily resorting to him. &c.
This Decree for as much as Gracian doeth allege under the name and title of Pope Nicolas, not namynge what Nicolas he was, therefore John Bale and Illyricus, one following the other, and they both following Uolaterane Lib. 22. doth vouch this constitution upon Nicolas the first. The words of Uolateran be these, writing of Nicolas the first: Multa hic vtilia constituit, inter quae, nequis Concubinam habenti praesbitero aut sacrificanti interesset, vt testator Gracianus. &c.
In like effect follow also the words of Illyricus afore said: Decretum fecit, ne quis à Sacerdote Sacramentum su • cipiat, quem sciret habere Concubinam, seu vxorem, and alledgeth, as Uolaterane doth, the said Distinction of Gratiam Distinct. 32. Nullus. In alleging whereof both they seme to be deceived, mistaking belike one Nicolas for another, as may be proved, & made good by three or four reasons.
First, by the words of Pope Alexander the second, in the next Chapiter following, who being the successor of Leo and Nicolas the second, useth the same words in his Sinode of Mantua (which Gracian referreth unto Nicolas, and prosecuteth the same more amply and fully alleging moreover the former constitution of both his predecessors Pope Leo and Nicolas: which by all stories are known to be Leo the nynth and Nicolas the second, which both were next before him. The words of Alexander. 2. be these: Praeter hoc autem praecipiendo mandamus, vt nullus Missam audiat praesbiteri quem scit Concubinam habere indubitanter, vel subintroductam mulierem, vnde etiam sancta Synodus hoc capitulum sub excommunicatione statuit, dicens▪ Quicunque Sacerdotum, diaconorum, Subdiaconorum, post cōstitutum beatae memory praedecessoris nostri sancti Leonis Papae & Nicolai, de castitate Clericorum, Concubinam palam du • erit, vel ductam non reliquerit. &c. By the which words speaking of Nicolas his predecessor it is evident to understand this to be Pope Nicolas the second, which was his next predecessor and not Pope Nicolas the first, who was about 200. years before him.
The second reason, I take out of the next Chapter of Gracian going before, where he allegeth again the same Nicolas writing to Otho Archbishop. Which Otho was then in the time of this Nicolas the second Archbishop of Colen, and was afterward in the Counsel of Mantua, under Pope Alexander 2. teste John. Quintio, Iure consulto, Whereby it must needs be granted, that this was Nicolas the second, and not the first.
The third conjecture or reason is this, for that Pope Nicolas the first never made any such Act or Decree, the Priests that were entangled with a Concubine, should neither sing Mass, nor that any should resort to hear the Mass of such. &c. but rather the contrary. For so we read in the history of Antoninus, and in the Decrees 15. q. 8. Sciscitantibus. Sciscitantibus vobis si à sacerdote quifuerit comprehēsus in adulterio, sieve de hoc sola fama resperserit, debeatis Cōmunionem suscipere, nec ne, respondemus: Non potest aliquis quantumcunque pollutus sit, sacramenta diuina polluere, quae Purgatoria cunctarum contagionum existunt. &c.
And yet more plainly also afterward he saith: Consulendum decernitis vtrum praesbiterum habentem vxorem debeatis sustentare & honorare, an à vobis preijcere? In quo respondemus, quoniam licet ipsi valde sint reprehensibiles, vos tamen conuenit Deum imitari, qui solemn suum oriri facit super bonos & malos: deijcere enim à vobis eos non debetis. Distinct. 18. Consulendum. &c. That is: Where ye demand concerning the Priest that hath a wife, whether ye ought to sustain him, and honor him, or reject him from you, we answer, That albeit they be very much blame worthy, yet ye ought to be followers of God, which maketh his sun to rise both upon the good, and upon the bad. And therefore ye ought not to reject such away from you. &c.
And this Nicolas, Antoninus confesseth plainly to be Nicolas y e first. Whereby it is not only not unlike, but also most certain that Nicolas the first was not the father of this constitution, either to exterminate married priests from their churches, or to excommunicate the people from receiving their Communion, much less then frō hearing their service.
Fourthly, for as much then as it is undoubted that Nicolas 2. and Alexander 2. through the intrigation of wicked Hildebrand, were the authors of that constitution, whereof Gracian speaketh, it remaineth plain by the words of Uolusianus, in the latter end of his Letter, (wherein he maketh mention both of discharging the priest from singing Mass, & the people from hearing) that the said Epistle was written, not to Pope Nicolas the first but to the second, for because both these were decreed against married priests under Nicolas. 2. and Alexander. 2. as is afore declared.
And further, least my judgment herein should seem to stand alone and singular, without some to take my part, I will here produce for me a Parisian Doctor, and a famous Lawyer, Johannes Quintius above mentioned, who in his book De Clericorum moribus, plainly accordeth w • th mine opinion, touching this Nicolas author of the Decree aforesaid, where he writeth in these words: Nicolaus Papa Othoni Coloniensi Archiepisc. &c. Quinque fuerunt hoc nomine pontifices Primum, secundumúe oportuit esse, qui haec rescripserit, ill Romanus, anno. 860. hic Burgundus, ann. 1059. Reliquos Ninolaos antecessit Gratianus, qui scripsit haec, anno. 1150 Posteriorem fuisse credo, qui in Panomiae lib. 3. Tit. de lapsis, nominatur Nicholaus iunior, cuius est & aliud Decretum sequens. &c. That is to say in English: Pope Nicolas writing to Otho Archebishop of Colen. Glos. There have been in all, five Popes called by this name of Nicolas. Of the which five, this Nicolas the writer hereof must be either the first, or seconde: the one a Roman, anno. 860. the other a Burgundian, ann. 1059 or. 1060. the other Nicolas lived after Gratian, who wrote in the year. 1150. In my judgment I suppose this to be Nicholas the seconde, which in the third book of the Laws called Pannomiae. Tit. de lapsis, is named Nicolas the younger. Which Nicholas also is author of the next Decree that followeth. &c.
Wherefore if any man shall object hereafter, that because Gratian in the Distinction aforesaid, nameth Pope Nicolas absolutely without any additions, it is therefore to be taken for Nicolas the first: unto this objection I set here these two Lawiers to answer. Unto whose answer this I add also, that the common manner of Gracian lightly in all his Distinctions is, that when he speaketh of Popes, as of Innocentius, Gregorius, Leo, Lucius, and such other, very seldom he expresseth the difference of their names. So in the Dist. 18. Praesbyteris, where he bringeth in the Decree of Pope Calixtus in like manner against the Matrimony of Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, he addeth thereto no discrepance of his name: and yet all the world knoweth, that this was Calixtus the second, & not the first, &c. But whether he were or no, the matter forceth not much. The letters (no doubt) by their title appear to be written by Uolusianus. Most certain this is, by whō so ever they were written, fruitful Epistles they are, and effectual to the purpose.
But least we shall seem too much to digress from our purpose, let us return to the story & time of Nicolas y e second again, which was about the year, as is said. 1060. a little before Hildebrand was Pope. Which Hildebrand, albeit he was then but a Cardinal, yet was he the whole doer of all things, and concluded what him listed in the Church of Rome, and also made Popes, whom he would, as appeared both by this Nicolas, & also Pope Alexander which followed him. pag. 174. So that this dissolution of priests marriage began somewhat to kindle under this pope Nicolas, through the pestilent means of Hildebrand, and after him increased more under Pope Alexander, as appeareth by the Synod holden at Millane, an. 1067. but moste of all it burst out under the said Hildebrand himself being Pope, the year (as is said) 1076.
Although as touching this prohibition of priests to be married, I am not ignorant, that certain of the contrary faction, in searching out the reach and antiquity of this tradition, for priests to abstain from wives, do refer the same to the time of the seconde Council of Carthage, which was about y e time of Pope Syritius, a great enemy to Ministers wives, as appeareth Distinct. 84. Cum praeterito. Yet notwithstanding to the same may be answered, that this was no universal or general Council, but some particular Synod, and therefore of no such great forceable authority.
2 Secondly, the same Synod being about the time of Pope Syritius, who was a capital enemy against priests marriage: may seem to draw some corruption of the time then present.
3 Thyrdly, neither is it impossible, but as diverse bastard Epistles have been falsely fathered upon certain ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church, and diverse Canons also (as of the Council of Nice) have been corrupted by Bishops of Rome, so some falsehode likewise or forgery might be used in this seconde Council of Carthage.
4 Fourthly, although no false conveyance had ben used therein, yet for so much as the said Canon of this second Council of Carthage doth misreport and falsifye the Canons of the Apostles, in so doing it doth justly diminishe his own credit.
5 Fifthly, seeing the foresaid Canon of this seconde Council of Carthage tendeth clean contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, to the Council of Gangra, and other Councils moe, and commandeth that, which they do accurse, the authority thereof ought to have no great force, but rather may be rejected.
6 Finally, though this constitution of the Council of Carthage, were perfectly sound, without all corruption, yet plain and evident it is by this Uolusianus, Bishop also of Carthage, that the same constitution took no great hold in the Church, for so much as we see, that both this Uolusianus was married after that in Carthage him self, and also besides him many hundredth years after, Marriage was a common matter through moste Churches of Christendom, amongst Bishops and priests, as partly before hath been declared. And more may be seen in histories, what great tumults and business was long after that in Hildebrandes time, and after him also amongst the Clergy men, both in Italy, Spain, France, and in all quarters of Christendom, for separating priests from their liberty of marrying.
And again, if this tradition concerning the unmarried life of Priests had stand upon such an old foundation from the second Council of Carthage (as they pretend) what needed then in the time of Pope Nicolas. 2. Pope Alexander. 2. Pope Gregory. 7. and other Popes after them, so much labor to be taken, so many Laws and decrees to be devised & enacted, for the abolishing o • priests marriage, if the same had been of such a long antiquity as they would make men believe?
By these things considered it may appear, that this distraction of Priests marriage, by public Law compelling them to single life, was nether received for a full law generally to be observed in the Church of Rome, but only since the beginning of Hildebrand, that is, since these five hundred years.
Aboute which time first is to be noted, that under Pope Leo and this Pope Nicolas, Cranzius, and certain German Chronicles do say, that Symonie and Priests Marriage were prohibited. This Pope Leo was. ann. 1051.
After him Pope Nicolas (to whom the foresaid Letter of Uolusianus seemeth to be written) made this ordinance: Vt nullus missam audiat praesbyteri quem scit concubi nam indubitanter habere aut subintroductam mulierem. Et mox: Quicunque Sacerdotum, Diaconorum, Subdiaconorum, post constitutum beatae memory praedecessoris nostris sanctiss. Papae Leonis, de castitate clericorum, concubinam palam duxerit, vel ductam non reliqueret, ex parte omnipotentis Dei & authoritate beati Petri & pauli praecipimus, & omnino contradicimus vt Missam non cantet &c. That is, What soever priest Deacon, or Subdeacon, according to the constitution of Pope Leo our predecessor, conserning the chastity of Clerkees, shall openly mary a Concubine, or shall not put her away being married in the behalf of almighty God &c. we utterly charge and forbid the same, that he sing no Mass, nor read the Gospel or Epistle at Mass, nor execute any divine service. &c. And this was about the year of our Lord. 1058.
Although in this constitution of Pope Nicolas, this word Concubine may be understanded for no wi • e, but so as Gratian understandeth it in the 16. Canon of the Apostles in these words: Concubina vero intelligenda est praeter vxorem: That is, for one besides a man's wife. Then after this Pope Nicholas, coming pope Alexander, and specially Pope Hildebrand, do expound this Concubine forbidden, for a wife, and such priests as be married, they expound them for Nicolaitans: for so we read in the Synod of Millane, under Pope Alexander the second: Nicholaitae autem dicuntur Clerici, qui contra castitatis Ecclesiasticae regulam foeminis admiscentur. &c.
And further it followeth in the same Synod: Nicolaitarum quoque haeresin nihilominus condemnamus, & non modo praesbyteros, sed & Diaconos & Subdiaconos ab vxorū, vel concubinarum foedo consortio nostris studijs, in quantum nobis possibilitas fuerit, arcendos esse promittimus &c.
And after it followeth in this wise: Si haec de Simoniaca & Nicolaitarum heresy delenda & funditus destruenda fideliter non obseruauero, ab omnipotenti Deo & omnibus Sanctis sim excommunicatus et anathematizatus, & ab omni Christianorum consortio inueniar alienus.
And moreover it followeth upon the same: Anathematizo quoque omnes heresies extollentes se aduersus sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam, specialiter vero et nominatim. Simoniacam haeresin: deinde Nicolaitarum aque abominabilem haeresin, quae impudēter latrat, sacri altaris Ministros debere vel posse licenter vti coniugibus, quomodo & laicos, &c. As much to say in English, as, I do accurse all heresies extolling thenselves against the holy catholic and Apostolic church, but especially and namely, the heresy of Simony: and in like manner, the abominable heresy of the Nicolaitanes, which impudently barketh, that the Ministers of the holy alter may & ought to use wives lawfully, as well as lay men, &c. And thus much concerning the Synod of Milan, under Pope Alexander. 2. ann. 1067.
Nexte after this Alexander, rose up Pope Hildebrand, of all other, the chiefest and most principal enemy against Priests Marriage. For whereas all other approved Canons and Councelles were contented, that any Clergy man having a wife before his entering into his ministry, might enjoy the liberty of his marriage, so that he married not a widow, or a known harlot, or kept a Concubine, or were twice married, now cometh in Pope Hildebrand, making Priests Marriage to be heresy, and further enacting: That whatsoever Clerke, Deacon, or Minister had a wife, what so ever she was, (maid or other) either before his orders, or after, should utterly put her from him, or elles forsake his Ministry. &c.
Although notwithstanding the greatest parte of Ecclesiastical Ministers seeing this strange doctrine and proceedings (which Saint Paul expressly calleth the doctrine of Deuilles) did what they could to withstand the same. Of whom Lambertus Scafnaburgensis thus writeth: Aduersus hoc Decretum protinus vehementer infremuit tota factio Clericorum, hominem plane haereticum, & vesani dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus sermonis Domini, quo ait: Non omnes capiunt hoc Verbum: Qui potest capere, capiat, &c. Et Apostoli: Qui se non continet nubat: Melius est nubere, quàm vri, Violenta exactione homines viuere cogeret ritu Angelorum. Quod si pergeret, malle se sacerdotium, quàm coniugium deserere, &c. In English thus: Agaynste this Decree, the whole number of the Clergy did vehemently storm and grudge, crying out upon him, as a pernicious heretic, & one that maintained fantastical doctrine: who forgetting what the Lord saith: All men cannot take this word: He that can take it, let him take it. And also what the Apostle saith: Who so cannot otherwise contain let him marry, better it is to marry then to burn, &c. Yet notwithstanding would bind men to live like Aungelles. Who if he continued as he began, they would (they said) sooner forsake the order of Priesthode, then their order of Matrimony, &c.
Which Hildebrand, all this notwithstanding, yet ceased not still to call upon them, and to send to the Bishops everywhere to execute his commandment with all severity, threatening to lay the Apostolical Censure upon them, if otherwise they shown not their diligence there in to the uttermost. Ex Lamb. This was, ann. 1074. Of the same Hildebrand, Radulphus de Diceto also writing hath these words:
Gregorius Papa septimus Hildebrandus, celebrata Synodo, Symoniacos anathematizauit, vxoratos sacerdotes à Diuino remouit officio, & Laicis Missam eorum audire interdixit, nouo exexemplo, & (vt multis visum est) inconsiderato praeiudicio, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam, &c. The English is this: Pope Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand holding a Synod, accursed, such as committed Simony, and removed married Priests from saying service, forbidding also the lay men to hear their Mass, after a new and strange example, & as many thought, after an vnconsiderate prejudice, against the sentence of holy fathers.
And thus much for the antiquity of bringing in the single life of Priests, which first springing from the time of Pope Nicholas and Alexander 2. began first with a custom, and afterward was brought into a law, chiefly by Pope Hildebrand, and so spread from Italy into other countries, and at length into England also, albeit not without much ado, as ye shall hear, the Lord willing.
In the mean while as Pope Nicolas and Hildebrand were busy at Rome, so Lanfranke Archb. of Canterbury likewise was doing here in England about the same matter, although he began not altogether so roughlie as Pope Hildebrand did, for so it appeared by his Council holden at Winchester: where though he inhibited such as were Prebendaries of cathedral churches to have wives, yet did he permit in his Decree, that such Priests as dwelt in towns and villages, having wives, should retain them still, and not to be compelled to be separate from them: and they which had none, should be inhibited to have: enjoining moreover the Bishops thus, to foresee hereafter, that they presumed not to admit into order, any priests or Deacons, unless they should first make a solemn profession to have no wives.
The words of the Council be these: Decretumque est, vt nullus Canonicus vxorem habeat, sacerdotum vero in castellis & in vicis habitantium habentes vxores, non cogantur vt 〈◊〉 non habentes, interdicantur vt habeant: & deinceps caueant Episcopy, vt Sacerdotes vel Diaconi non praesumant ordinare, nisi profiteantur vt vxores non habeant, &c.
And here to note by the way of the said Lanfranke, for all his glorious gaye show of his monkish virginity and single life, yet he escaped not altogether so unspotted for his part, but that the story of Matthew Paris, writing of Paulus Cadonensis, whom Lanfranke preferred so gladly to be Abbot of S. Albons, thus reporteth of him: Paulus (inquit) Monachus Cadonensis Archiepiscopi Lanfranci nepos, iure, aliquorum relationibus, consanguinitate propinquior, &c. That is, Paul a Monk of Cadune, and nephew of the Archbishop Lanfranke, yea as some say further, more near in blood to him, then so, &c.
Then after Lanfranke, came Anselm into the See of Canterbury, who taking to him a stouter stomach, more fiercelie and egerlie labored this matter, in abrogating utterly the marriage of priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and of the universal clergy, not permitting as Lanfranke did, Priests that had wives in villages and towns, to keep them still, but utterly commanding, and that under great pain, not only Priests and Deacons, but Subdeacons also (which is against the Council of Lateran) which were already married, to be separated, and that none should be received into order hereafter, without profession of perpetual chastity.
And yet notwithstanding, for all this great blustering and thundering of this Romish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Priests yet still holding their own, as well as they could, gave not much place to his unlawful Iniunction, but kept still their wives almost two hundred years after, refusing and resisting of long time, the yoke of that servile bondage, to keep still their freedom from such vowing, professing, and promising, as may well appear by those Priests of York, of whom Gerardus Archbishop of York speaketh, writing to Anselm in these words: Sitio Clericorum meorum integritatem, sed praeterquam in paucis admodum, ve Aspidis surditatem, vel fabulosi cuiusdam Prothei mutabilitatem inuenio. Varijs linguarum aculeis, minas, modo conuitia infligunt. Sed hoc facilius in his qui remotíores sunt, tolero. Illud omnino grave genus mali est, quod hi qui quasi in sinu meo sunt, qui Canonicorum nomine gaudent canones aspernant, aduersus concilij nostri statuta, quasi Sophistici disputatores argumētantur, professiones vero mihi penitus abnegant Canonici illi, qui sine profession ad sacros ordines inordinabiliter sunt prouecti, & qui in praesbyteratu vel Diaconatu constituti, vxores sieve Concubinas in publico hactenus habuerunt, ab Altari nulla se reuerentia continuerunt. Cum vero ad ordines aliquos inuito, dura ceruice nituntur, ne inordinando castitatem profiteantur: In englishe thus: I much desire the purity of my clergy men. Howbeit except it be in very few, I find in them the deafness of the serpent aspis, and the inconstancy of Protheus that the Poets fable spake of. With their stinging tongues they cast out some while threats; some while taunts and rebukes. But this grieveth me less in them that be further off. This grieveth me most of all, that they which be of mine own Church as in mine own bosom, and prebendaryes of mine own See, contemn our Canons, and argue like Sophisticall disputers, against the statutes of our Council. The prebendaries which vnordinately have been taken into orders heretofore without making vow or profession, refuse utterly to make profession to me. And they that be priests or Deacons, having married before openly wives or Concubines, will not be removed for any reverence from the Aultare. And when I call upon any to receive order, styffely they deny to profess chastity in their ordering &c.
Thus for all their rigorous austerity by this Anselm in forcing his Decree made at London, against the marriage of Priests, yet the same had no great success, neither in his life time, nor after his life. For although sundry priests, during his life time, were compelled by his extremity, to renounce their wives, yet many denied to obey him.
Divers were contented rather to leave their benefices, then their wives. A great number were permitted by king Henry, for money to enjoy their wives. Which was so chargable unto them, (saith Edmer in his 4. book) that at length two hundredth priests, in their Albes and Priestly vestementes, came barefoot to the kings Palace, crying to him for mercy, and especially making their suit to the Queen, who using much compassion towards them, yet durst not make for them any intercession.
Anselm at this time was over the Sea, making his voyage to the pope. Who hearing hereof, writeth to the King, declaring that such forfaytures appertained nothing to him. But only unto Bishops, and in their default to the Archbishops. Whereof read more, pag. 194. So willful was the blind zeal of this Prelate, against all reason, against nature it self, against the example of his forcelders against public custom of his own time, against the doctrine of the Apostles, the constitution of Councils against all honesty, and all God's forbode, that he neither at the contemplation of the king, nor at the crying out and public dolour of so many priests, nor yet moved with the letters of Pope Paschalis himself (who putting him in remembrance of so many priests sons, willed him to consider the necessity of the time, pag. 196. would yet nothing relent from his stubborn purpose, unto his latter ende. In whom, as many great crimes may justly be noted, so of all other, this is most principally in him to be reprehended: for that he seeing and perceiving what Sodomitical feditie and abomination, with other inconveniences, did spring incontinently upon this his Diabolical doctrine, yet for all that would not give over his pestilent purpose.
For so the story recordeth, that when Anselm had established his Synodoll constitution, in separating priests from their wives (which was, anno. 1103.) not long after, rumors and complaints were brought to him, of the execrable vice of Sodomitry, which then began specially to reign in the Clergy, after this inhibition of matrimony.
Whereupon Anselm was constrained to call another Council at Paul's within London, to provide for this mischief. In which Council this Act was made: Sodomiticum flagitium facientes, & eos in hac voluntate iuuantes, graui an athemate dānamus, donec poenitentia & confession absolutionem mereantur, &c. All them that commit the ungracious sin of Sodomitry, and them also which assist them in this their wicked purpose, with grievous curse we do condemn, till such time as they shall deserve absolution by penance and confession, &c.
Thus ye have heard what abhominable wickedness ensued after that priests were debarred from marriage, and whatfore punishment was devised by this maidenly prelate, for extirping that sinful wickedness: in the abolishing whereof, more wisely he should have removed away the occasion whereof he was the author himself, then by penalty to suppress it, which he could never do.
Now let us hear further, what followed in that worthy Council: Qui vero in hoc crimine publicatus fuerit, statutum est, siquidem fuerit persona religìosi ordinis, vt ad nullum amplius gradum promoueatur, & si quem habet, ab illo deponatur. Si autem laicus, vt in toto Regno Angliae legali sua condignitate priuetur. Et ne huius criminis absolutionem, ijs qui se sub regula viuere vouerunt, aliquis nisi Episcopus deinceps facere praesumat Statutum quoque est, vt per totam Angliam in omnibus Ecclesijs, & in omnibus diebus Dominicis, excommunicatio praefata publicetur ac renouetur, &c. Which is as much to say in English: It is enacted, that whosoever shall be publicly known to be guilty hereof, if he be a religious person, he shall from thence forth be promoted to no degree of honor, and that degree which he hath already, shall be taken from him. If he be a lay person, he shall be deprived of all his freedom within the whole realm of England. And that none under a bishop shall presume to assoil such as have been Monks professed, of that trespass. It is also enacted, that every Sunday in the year, and in every parish church in England, this general curse aforesaid shall be published and renewed, &c. Ex Rog. Houed. & Epist. Anselm. 278.
Is not here (trow you) good division of Justice, that lawful wedlock of priests can find no grace nor pardon, yea, is made now heresy: where adultery & horrible Sodomitry is washed away with a little confession? And see yet what followeth more. After that this penal curse should now go abroad and be published in churches, the monks perceiving this matter to touch them somewhat near, whispered in Anselmus care, persuading him that y e publication of that Acte might grow to great danger and inconvenience, in opening the vice which before was not known: in such sort, that in short time after, that curse was called in again.
And so cursed Sodomitry & adultery passed free without punishment, or word spoken against it, where contrary godly matrimony could find no mercy.
Now what reasons and arguments this Anselm sucked out of the Court of Rome, to prove the matrimony of priests unlawful, were it not for combring the Reader with tediousness, here would be shown. Briefly, the chief grounds of all his long disputation, in his book entitled, Offendiculum Sacerdotum, between the master and scholar, come to this effect.
Argument.
Priests of the old law, during the time of their ministration, abstained from their wives:
Ergo, Priests in the time of the Gospel, which every day minister at the altar, must never have any wives.
Another Argument.
Moses, when he should sanctify the people, going up to the hill, commanded them to sequester themselves from their wives three days:
Ergo, Priests that must be sanctified to the Lord always ought to live chaste always without wives.
Another Argument.
David before he should eat of the shewbread, was asked whether he and his company had been without the company of their wives three days:
Ergo, Priests that be continually attending upon the table and sacraments of the Lord, ought never to have company with any such.
Another Argument.
Oza, which put his hand to the Ark, was slain therefore, as it is thought, because he lay with his wife the night before:
Ergo, Priests whose hands be always occupied about the Lord's service, must be pure from company of wife, or any woman.
Another Argument.
Nadab, and Abiud, which sacrificed with strange fire, were devoured therefore, because they companied with their wives the same night:
Ergo, Priests and sacrificers must have no wives to company with all.
Another Argument.
The priests of the Gentiles, in old time when they sacrificed to their idols, are said to lie from their wives:
Ergo, much more the priests that sacrifice to the living God, ought so to do.
Another Argument.
Christ was borne of a Virgin, Christ lived ever a virgin, and commandeth them that will serve him, to follow him. Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur: id est, Si vis mihi ministrare, me caste viuendo imitare.
Ergo, Priests that have wives are not meet to serve him.
The fourth and fifth Articles of vows and Priests Marriage.
As we have discoursed before by histories and order of time, the antiquity of the iii. former Articles above mentioned, to wit, of transubstantiation, of the half communion and of private Masses, so now coming to the Article of vows and of Priests marriage, the reader will look perchance to be satisfied in this likewise, as in the other before & to be certified from what cōtinuaunce of time these vows & unmarried life of Priests have continued. Wherein although sufficient hath been said before in the former process of this history, as in the life of Anselmus. pag. 195. also of Pope Hildebrand, pag. 175. &c. yet for the better establishing of y e readers mind against this wicked article of Priests marriage, it shall be no great labor lost, here briefly to recapitulate in the tractatiō of this matter, either what before hath been said, or what more is to be added.
And to the intent that the world may see and judge the said law and decree of Priests single sole life, to be a doctrine of no ancient standing here within this Realm, but only since the time of Anselmus, I will first allege for me the words of Henr. Huntyngton. lib. 7. De historia Anglorum here following.
Eodem anno ad festum Michaelis tenuit Anselmus Archiepiscopus Concilium apud Londonias: In quo prohibuit sacerdotibus Anglorum, vxores antea non prohibitas. Quod quibusdam mundissimum visum est, quibusdam periculosum: ne dum mundicias viribus maiores appeterent, in immundicias horribiles ad Christiani nominis summum dedecus inciderent, &c. That is, The same year at the feast of S. Michael. Anselm the Archbyshop of Canterbury held a Synod at London: In the which Synod he forefended Priests here in England to have wives, which they were not inhibited before to have. Which constitution seemed to some persons very pure and chaste. To othersome again it seemed very dangerous, least while that men should take upon them such chastity more then they should be able to bear, by that occasion they might happily fall into horrible filthiness, which should redound to the exceeding slander of Christian profession, &c.
Albeit I deny not but before the time also of Anselmus, both Odo, and after him Dunstane Archb. of Canterbury, and Aethelwold B. of Winchester, and Oswold B. of Worcester in the days of King Edgar, anno. 963. as they were all Monks themselves, so were they great doers against the marriage of priests, placing in Monks in Churches and Colleges, and putting out the married Priests as ye may read before pag. 153. Yet notwithstanding neither was that in many Churches, and also the priests then married, were not constrained to leave their wives, nor their roumes, but only at their own choice. For so writeth Malmesbury in vita Dunstani: Ita{que} clerici multarum Ecclesiarum, data optione, vt aut amictum mutarent, aut locis valedicerent, cessere, &c. That is: Therefore diverse & sundry clerks of many Churches, being put to their choice, whether to change their weed, or to part from their places, went their ways, &c. So also Elfricus after them (of whom mention was made before) was somewhat busy in setting forward the single life of Priests, and Lanfrancus likewise. But yet this restreynt of Priests lawful marriage was never publicly established for a law here in the Church of England, before the coming of Anselm in the days of William Rufus, & king Henry 1. writing in these words: Boldly I command by the authority which I have by my Archbishoprike, not only within my Archbishoprike, but also throughout England, that all Priests that keep women, shall be deprived of their Churches, and all ecclesiastical benefices, &c. As ye may read more at large before, page. 196. which was much about the same time whē as Hildebrand also at Rome begā to attempt the same matter, as before hath ben shown: & also besides him were other Popes mo, as Innocent the 3. Pope Nicholas the 2. and Calixtus the 2. by whom the act against Priests marriage was brought at length to his full perfectiō, and so hath continued ever since.
Long it were and tedious to recite here all such constitutions of Councils provincial and general, namely of y e council of Carthage, & of Toledo, which seemed to work something in that behalf, against the matrimony of priests. Again, longer it were to number up the names of all such bishops and priests, which notwithstanding have been married since that time, in diverse countries, as more amplye shall be shown (the Lord willing) in the sequel hereof. In the mean season, as touching the age & time of this devilish prohibition for priests to have their wives, this is to be found by credible proofs, and conferring of histories, that in the year of our Savior 1067. at what time Pope Hildebrand began first to occupy the Papal chair, this oath began first to be taken of Archbishops and Bishops, that they should suffer none to enter into the ministry, or into any ecclesiastical function having a wife: and likewise the Clergy to be bound to promise the same.
And this was (as I said) about the year of our Lord, 1067. well approved and testified by course of histories. Whereby appeareth the prophesy of S. Paul truly to be verified, speaking of these latter times. 1. Tim. 4. Where he writeth in these words. The spirit speaketh plainly, that in the latter times, there shall some depart from the faith, harkening unto spirits of error, and to doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which the Lord hath created to be taken with thanksgiving, &c.
In this prophesy of S. Paul ii. things are to be observed: First the matter which he prophesieth of, that is, the forbidding of marriage, and forbidding of meats, which God generally hath left free to all men. The second thing in this prophesy to be noted, is the time whē this prophesy shall fall, that is, in the latter times of the world. So that this concurreth right well with these years of Pope Hildebrand aforesaid, being a thousand years complete after the Ascension of our Savior: so that they may well be called the latter times.
This prophesy of S. Paul thus standing (as it doth firm and certain, that is, that forbidding of marriage must happen in the latter times of the world, then must it needs consequently follow thereby, that the married life of priests is more ancient in the Church, then is the single life, then the law I mean commanding the single life of Priests. Which may soon be proved to be true, by the true count of times, and search of histories.
For first at the Council of Nice, it is notorious that this devilish law of marriage to be restrained, was stopped by Paph •• tius.
2. Before this Council of Nice, in the year of our Lord 180. we read of Polycrates B. of Ephesus, who dissenting from Pope Uictor about a certain controversy of Easter day, alledgeth for himself how his progenitoures before him 7. together, one after another, succeeded in that seat, and he now the 8. after them was placed in the same: using this his descent of his parents, not only as a defense of his cause, but also a glory to himself, &c.
3. Pope Syricius about the year of our Lord 390. wrote to the priests of Spain about the same matter of putting their wives from them, if his Epistle be not counterfeyte. These Spanish priests had then with them a Bishop of Terragon. Who answering to Syricius in this behalf, alleged the testimonies of S. Paul, that Priests might lawfully retain their wives, &c. To this Syricius replied again (if his writing be not forged) most arrogantly and no less ignorauntly, reproving the Priests that were married, and for the defense of his cause, alleged this sentence of S. Paul: Si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini. That is: If ye shall live after the flesh, ye shall die, &c. Whereby may appear not only howe they in Spain then had wives, but also how blind these men were in the Scriptures, which shown themselves such adversaries against Priests Marriage.
4. To be short, the further we go & nearer to the ancient time of the church, the less ancient we shall find the deprivation of lawful matrimony amongst Christian ministers, beginning if we will, with the Apostles, their examples and Canons, who although were not all married, yet diverse of them were, and the rest had power and liberty to have and keep their wives, witnessing S. Paul, where he writeth of himself: Non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut & reliqui Apostoli? That is to say: have not we power to lead about a sister to wife, as also the other Apostles have? Whereby is to be seen, both what he might do, and what the other Apostles did. Also Clemens Alexandrinus, which was CC. years after Christ, Lib. Strom 7. denieth not but that Paul was married being an Apostle, as well as Peter and Philp. And as the said Apostles in their doctrine admonish all men to marry that cannot otherwise do, saying to everyone being in danger of temptation: Vnusquisque suam vxorem habeat ne tentet vos Satanas, &c. That is, Let every man have his own wife, least Satan tempt you, &c. So likewise the same Apostles in their Canons (as in the Popes Decrees cited) do precisely charge, that no Bishop nor priest, should sequester from him his wife for any matter or pretence of religion, saying: If any shall teach that a priest for religion sake, ought to contemn his own wife, let him be accursed, &c.
As for the Glose there in the margent, which expoundeth this word contemning for exhibiting things necessary for her sustenance, all the world may see that to be a Glose of mere Sophistry. And because I have here made mention of Clemens Alexandrinus, it shall not be to our purpose impertinent, to infer the words of this worthy writer, wherewith he doth defend Priests lawful matrimony, against certain vain bosters of virginity in his time. Dicunt gloriosi isti iactatores, se imitari dominum, qui neque vxorem duxit, neque in mundo aliquid possedit: se magis quam alios Euangelium intellexisse gloriantes. That is: These glorious braggers do vaunte themselves to be the followers of the Lord, who neither had wife, nor yet possessed any thing here in the world, &c. And it followeth: Eis autem dicit scriptura, deus superbus resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Deinde nesciunt causam cur dominus vxorem non duxerit primum quidem propriam sponsam habuit ecclesiam. Deinde vero nec homo erat communis, vt opus haberet etiam adjutor aliquo secundum carnem, &c. To these the Scripture maketh answer: God withstandeth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Agayne, they consider not the cause why the Lord took no wife. First he had his own peculiar spouse: which is y e Church. Moreover, neither was he as a common man, that he should stand in such need of a helper after the flesh, &c. And in the same book a little after alleging against them that abhor matrimony, he inferreth the words of S. Paul: how that in the latter days some shall fall from the faith attending to spirits of error, and to doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, and to abstain from meats, &c. Which place of Saint Paul, Clement here applieth not against the Novatians, and them that condemn matrimony in general in all men, as naught: but he applieth it only against such, as forbid marriage in part, and namely in Priests, &c.
This Clement wrote after Christ two hundredth years, and yet if we come downward to lower times, we shall find both by the Council of Gangrene CCC. years, and also by the Council of Nice CCCC. years after Christ, the same liberty of priests marriage established and enacted as a thing both good and godly. The words of Gangrene Council be these: Si quis discernit Praesbyterum coniugatum, tanquam occasion nuptiarum, quod offerre non debeat, & ab eius oblation ideo abstinet, anathema sit, &c. That is: If any do judge that a Priest for his marriage sake, ought not to minister, and therefore doth abstain from the same, let him be accursed.
Moreover, proceeding yet in times and Chronicles of the Church, we shall come to the sixth Council called Synodus Constantinopolitana, almost seven C. years after Christ: the words of the which Council be alleged in the Decrees, and be these in Latin. Quoniam in Romani ordine canonis esse cognouimus traditum, eos qui ordinati sunt Diaconi vel Presbyteri, confiteri quod non suis iam copulentur vxoribus, antiquum sequentes canonem Apostolicae diligentiae & constitutiones sacrorum virorum, legales nuptias amodo valere volumus, nullo modo cum vxoribus suis eorum connubia dissoluentes, aut priuantes eos familiaritate adinuicem, in tempore oportuno, &c. That is: Because in the order of the Romaine Canon, we know it so to be received, that such as be Deacons and Priests, shall profess themselves to have no more copulation with their wives, we following the ancient Canon of the diligent Apostles and constitutions of holy men, enact that such lawful marriage, from henceforth, shall stand in force, in no case dissolving their conjunction with their wives, neither depriving them of their mutual society and familiarity together, in such time as they shall think convenient, &c. Hitherto ye have heard the decree: hear now the penalty in the same decree and distinction contained. Si quis igitur praesumpserit contra Apostolicos canones aliquos Praesbyterorum & Diaconorum priuare à contactu & communion legalis vxoris suae deponatur, &c. That is: If any therefore shall presume, against the Canons of the Apostles, to deprive either priest or Deacon from the touching and company of his lawful wife, let him be deprived. And likewise this Priest and Deacon, whosoever for religion sake shall put away his wife, let him be excommunicate, &c. And the Council of Gangrene saith: let him be accursed. By these words of the Council recited, six things are to be noted.
1. First, how this Council calleth y e Marriage of priests lawful, contrary to these vi. articles, and to a certain late English writer of our country, entitling his book against the unlawful marriage of Priests.
2. In that this Council so followeth the Canons of the Apostles, and constitutions of holy men: we have to understand, what the censure both of the Apostles: and determination of other holy men were therein.
3. If the Iniunction of this Council, agreeing thus with the Apostles and holy men, stood with truth, the contrary Canon of the Romaines, and also of these six English articles, must needs be condemned of error.
4. By this Council appeareth that so long time, almost 700. years after Christ, this prohibition of Priests marriage was not yet entered into the Orient Church, but stoutely was holden out.
5. By the Roman Canon here mentioned (which began with Gregorius 600. years after Christ, a little before this Council) it cannot be denied, but the Church of Rome began then to disceuer, not only from the verity, but also from the unity of all other Churches, following the Apostolic doctrine. Albeit the said Roman Canon, at that time stood not long, but was shortly disanulled by the said Gregorius again by the occasion of infants heads found in his fish pond, whereof (Christ willing) more shall be spoken hereafter.
6. Sixthly, here is to be noted & remembered the crafty false packing, and fraud of the Romaines: which in the Latin book of Councils, in diverse new impressions, have suppressed this Canon, because be like, it maketh little w t their purpose: plaieng much like with this, as Pope Zosimus Boniface and Celestinus played with y e sixth council of Carthage, which for their supremacy would have forged a false Canon of Nice, had not the Council sent to Constantinople for the true exemplar thereof & so proved them open liars to their faces. So likewise this Canō above mentioned although it be omitted in some books, yet being found in the ancient & true written copies being alleged of Nile a Greek Bishop of Thessalonica. CC. year tofore and moreover being found & alleged in the Popes own book of Decrees Distin. 31. must needs convince them of manifest theft & falsehood. Thus it may stand sufficiently proved that y e depravation of Priests lawful marriage all this space was not entered into the church neither Greek nor Latin, at least took no full possession before Pope Hildebrandus time. Anno Domini. 1070 and especially Pope Calixtus time. Anno Domini. 1120. which were the first open extortors of Priests marriage.
Auentinus a faythfulll writer of his time writing of the Council of Hildebrand, hath these words: Sacerdotes illa tempestate publice vxores, sicut caeteri Christiani habebant filios procreabant, sicuti instrumentis donationū quae illi templis, Mystis, & Monachis fecere: vbi hae nominatim cum coniugibus testes citantur, & honesto vocabulo Praesbiterissae nūcupantur, inuenio Caesar tum. &c. That is: In those days Priests commonly had wives as other Christ̄ men had, and had children also, as may appear by ancient instruments, & deeds of gift, which were then given to Churches to the Clergy and to religious houses in the which instruments both the Priests and their wives also with them (which there be called Praesbyterissae ) I find to be alleged for witnesses. It happened moreover y e same time (saith Auentine) that the Emperor had the inuestyng of diverse Archbyshoprickes, Byshoprickes, Abbayes and Nunries within his dominions, Pope Hildebrand disdaynyng against both these sortes aforesaid, that is, both against them that were invested by the Emperor and also against all those Priests that had wives, provided so in his Council at Rome, that they which were promoted by the Emperor into livings of the Church were counted to come in by Simony: the other which were married Priests were counted for Nicolaitanes. Wherupon pope Hildebrand writing his letters to y e Emperor, to Dukes, Princes, and other great Prelates, and Potētates: namely to Bertholdus, Zaringer, to Rodolphus of Sueuia, to Welphon of Bavaria, to Adalberon, and to their Ladies, and to diverse other to whom he thought good: also to Bishops, namely, to Otto Bishop of Constance, with other Priests and lay people, willeth them in his letters to refuse and to keep no company with those Symoniake, and those Nicolaitane Priests (for so were they termed then, which had either any Ecclesiastical living by the Emperor, or else which had wives to avoid their Masses: neither talk, neither to eat nor drink with them, nor once to speak to them, nor to salute them, but utterly to shun them, as men execrable and wicked, no otherwise thē they would eschew the plague or pestilence.
By reason whereof ensued a mighty schism and affliction among the flock of Christ, such as lightly the like hath not been seen. For the Priests went against their Bishops, the people against the Priest, the laytie against the Clergy: briefly all ran together in heaps & in confusion. Men and women, as everyone was set upon mischief, wickedness, contention and avarice, took thereby occasion upon every light suspicion, to resist their Minister, to spoil the goods of the Church. The vulgare people contemned the Priests which had married wives, despised their Religion, and all things that they did: yea and in many places would purge the place where they had been, with holy water, and brent their Tithes. Also such was, the mischief of them, that they would take the holy mysteries, which those married Priests had consecrated, and cast them in the dyrt, & tread them under their feet: For so then had Hildebrand taught them, that those were no Priests, neither that they were Sacraments, which they did consecrate. So that by this occasion, many false Prophets rose, seducing the people from the truth of Christ, by forged Fables, and false miracles, and feigned Gloses, wrastyng the Scriptures as served best for their own purposes. Of whom few there were that kept any true chastity. Many could make glorious boasts & brags thereof, but the greatest part under the show & pretence of honesty & pureness of life committed incest, fornication, adultery, everywhere almost, and no punishment was for the same. &c. Thus much out of Auentinus: Lib. 5. Annal.
To this testimony of Auentinus above mentioned, we will also adjoin the record of Gebuilerus a writer of this our latter time, and one also of their own crewe, who doth testify that in time of the Emperor Henricus the fourth, an. 1057. the number of 24. Bishops both in Germany, Spain, and in France, were married, with the Clergy also of their diocese.
Of the which Spanish Bishops we read also in Isidorus, which wrote more then six hundredth years after Christ (and the place also cited in the Popes Distinctions) in his book De clericorum vita, how they ought either to lead an honest chaste life, or else to keep themselves within the bande of matrimony, &c. Whereby is declared the single life of Priests, either to be then voluntary, or else their marriage not to be restrained as yet, by any law.
Moreover, such Calistian Priests as be now adays, counting Priests marriage as a new devise, and not standing with ancient times, let them look upon the Decree of Pope Symmachus, and answer there to the Glose. Dist. 81. where it is written: Let Priests be all restrained from the conversation of all women, except it be their mother, sister, or their own wife, &c. Where the gloss in the margent, giveth a note, saying: Hic loquitur secundum antiqua tempora.
Thus if either the voice of scripture might take place with these men which be so rigorous against Priests marriage: or if the examples of the Apostles might move them (whom S. Ambrose witnesseth to have been all married, except only Paul and John) or else if the multitude of married Bishops and Priests might prevail with them, here might be rehearsed:
That Tertullian was a married Prieste, as witnesseth Jerome.
Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus, had wife and children.
Hilary Bishop of Poytiers, was also married.
Gregory Bishop of Nyssa.
Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum.
Cheremon Bishop of Nylus. All these were married Bishops.
Of Polychrates, and his 7. aunciters Bishops and married men, we spake before.
Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople in Iustinians time was the more commended, because his father & aunciters before him, were Priests and Bishops married.
Jerome saith, that in his time, Plurimi Sacerdotes habebant matrimonia. That is, many Priests were then married men.
Pope Damasus reciteth up a great number of Bishops of Rome, which were Priests sons, as:
- Syluerius. an. 544.
- Deus dedit, about the year 622.
- Adrianus 2. about the year 873.
- Felix 3. about the year 474.
- Hosius.
- Agapetus. an. 534.
- Gelasius, 484.
- Boniface.
- Theodorus, whose Father was Byshoppe of Jerusalem, about the year 634.
- Johannes 10. an. 924.
- Johannes 15. the son of Leo a Priest, about the year 984.
- Richard Archdeacon of Coventry.
- Henry Archdeacō of Huntingdon.
- Volusianus Bishop of Carthage.
- Tho. Archbishop of York, son of Sampson Bishop of Worcester.
And howe many other Bishops and Priests in other countries besides these Bishops of Rome, might be annexed to this Catalogue, if our leisure were such, to make a whole beaderole of them all?
In the mean time the words of Siluius Cardinal, & afterward B. of Rome, are not to be forgotten, which he wrote to a certain friend of his, which after his orders taken, was disposed to marriage. To whom the foresaid Sylvius answereth again in these words following: Credimus te vti non insulso consilio, si cum nequeas continere, coniugium quaeris: quamuis id prius cogitandum fuerat, anteaquam initiaueris sacris ordinibus. Sed non sumus dij omnes qui futura prospicere valeamus. Quando huc ventum est, vt legi resistor nequeas, melius est nubere quàm vri, &c. That is: We believe that you in so doing, follow no sinister counsel, in that you choose to be married, when otherwise you are not able to live chaste. Albeit this counsel should have come into your head, before that you entered into Ecclesiastical orders. But we are not all gods to foresee before, what shall happen hereafter. Now for so much as the matter and case standeth so, that you are not able to resist the law, better it is to marry then to burn, &c.
All these premisses well considered, it shall suffice, I trust though no more were said, to prove that this general law and prohibition of priests marriage pretended to be so ancient, is of no such great time, nor long continuance of years as they make it, but rather to be a late devised doctrine gēdered by the Monks, and grounded vpō no reason, law nor scripture, but that certain, which be repiners against the truth, do rack and wrast a few places out of Doctors and ii. or iii. Councils for their pretensed purpose. Whose objections and blind cavillations, I as professing heete but to write stories, refer to the further discussion of Divines: in whose books this matter is more at large to be sought and searched. In the mean season so much as appertaineth to the searching of times and antiquity, and to the conservation of such Acts and monuments as are behoueable for the Church, I thought hereunto not unprofitable to be adjoined a certain Epistle learned and ancient of Uolusianus, Bishop sometimes of Carthage, tending to the defense of Priests lawful wedlock, which Aeneas Sylvius in Descriptione Germaniae, also Illyricus in Catal. and Melancth. Lib. De coniugio do father upon Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, in the time of Pope Nicholas 2. but as I find it in an old written example, sent by John Bale to Math. Archbishop of Canterbury, as it is joined in the same book: so it beareth also the same title and name of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage: joining also withal, another Latin Epistle, which perhaps hath not been seen in Print before. The Copies of which both Epistles as being pertinent to the purpose present, here under ensue in form as followeth.
The epistle in Latin of Volusianus, or as some think of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, to Pope Nicholas, against the forbidding of Priests Marriage.
Epistola Volusiani Carthaginensis Episcopy ad Nicolaum Romanorum Episcopum.
Haec est rescriptio Volusiani Carthaginensis Episcopy, in qua Papae Nicolao de continentia clericorum, non just sed impie, nec canonice, sed indiscrete tractanti ita respondit.
Nicolao Domino & patri peruigili sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Prouisori, Volusianus solo nomine Episcopus, amorem vt filius, timorem vt seruus.
CVm tua, ô Pater & Domine, decreta super clericorum continentia nuper mihi transmissa, à discretione inuenirem aliena, timor me turbauit cum tristitia. Timor quidem propter hoc, quod dicitur, pastoris sententia, sieve iusta, sieve iniusta timenda est. Timebam enim infirmis Scripturae auditoribus, qui vel iustae vix obediunt sententiae, ne iniustam conculcantes libere, onerosa, imo importabili pastoris praeuaricatione praecepti, se obligarent. Tristitia vero vel compassio, dum considerabam, qua ration membra cauere possent, capite suo tam graui morbo laborante. Quid enim grauius quid totius Ecclesiae compassione dignius, quam te summae sedis Pontificem, ad quem totius Ecclesiae spectat examen, à sancta discretione vel minimum exorbitare? Non parum quippe ab hac deuiasti, cum clericos, quos ad abstinentiam coniugij monere debebas, ad hanc imperiosa quadam violentia cogi volebas. Nun quid enim merito communi omnium sapientum iudicio haec est violentia, cum contra Euangelicam institutionem, ac sancti Spiritus dictationem, ad priuata aliquis decreta cogitur exequenda?
Cum ergo plurima veteris ac noui Testamenti suppetant exempla, sanctam (vt nosti) discretionem docentia, tuae rogone grave sit paterniati, vel pauca ex pluribus huic paginae interseri. Dominus quidem in veteri lege sacerdoti coniugium constituit, quod illi postmodum interdixisse non legitur. Sed idem in Euangelio loquitur: Sunt eunuchi, qui se castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum, sed non omnes hoc verbum capiunt: qui potest capere, capiat. Quà propter Apostolus quoque ait: De virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo, consilium autem do. Qui etiam iuxta praedictum Domini, non omnes hoc consilium capere posse considerans, sed multos eiusdem consilij assentatores, hominibus, non Deo, pro falsa specie continentiae placere volentes, grauiora vides committere, patrum scilicet vxores subagitare, masculorum ac pecudum amplexus non abhorrere: ne morbi huius aspersione ad usque pestilentiam conualescente, nimium status labefactetur Ecclesiae totius: Propter fornicationem, dixit, vnusquisque suam vxorem habeat. Quod specialiter ad laicos pertinere, ijdem mentiuntur hypocritae: qui licet in quouis sanctissimo ordine constituti, alienis tamen vxoribus non dubitant abuti. Et quod flendo cernimus, omnes in supradictis saeuiunt sceleribus. Hi nimirum non recte Scripturam intellexerunt, cuius mamillam quia durius pressêre, sanguinem pro lacte biberunt. Nam illud Apostolicum: Vnusquisque suam habeat vxorem, nullum excipit vere, nisi professorem continentiae, vel eum qui de continuanda in Domino virginitate prefixit.
Quod nihilominus tuam, Pater venerande, condecet strenuitatem, vt omnem qui tibi manu vel ore votum faciens continentiae, postea voluerit apotatare, aut ad votum exequendum ex debito constringas, aut ab omni ordine, canonica autoritate deponas: & hoc vt viriliter implere sufficias, me omnesque mei ordinis viros adiutores habebis non pigros. Verùm vt huius voti nescios omnino scias non esse cogendos, audi Apostolum dicentem ad Timoth: Oportet (inquit) Episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, vnius vxoris virum. Quam sententiam ne quis ad solam Ecclesiam verteret, subiunxit: Qui autem domui suae praeesse nescit, quomodo Ecclesiae Dei diligentiam habebit? Similiter inquit: Diaconi sint vnius vxoris viri, qui filijs suis been praesint, & suis domibus. Hanc autem vxorem à sacerdote benedicendam esse, sancti Syluestri Papae decretis scio te sufficienter docuisse. His & huiusmodi sanctae Scripturae sententijs, Regulae clericorum scriptor non immerito concordans, ait: Clericus sit pudicus, aut certe vnius matrimonij vinculo foederatus. Ex quibus omnibus veraciter colligit, quod Episcopus & Diaconus reprehensibiles notantur, si in mulieribus multis diuiduntur. Si vero vnam sub obtentu religions abijciunt, vtrunque, scilicet Episcopum & Diaconum, sine graduum differentia, hic Canonica damnat sententia: Episcopus aut Presbyter vxorem propriam nequaquam sub obtentu religions abijciat, si vero reiecerit, excommunicetur: & si perseuerauerit, deijciatur. Sanctus quoque Augustinus, sanctae discretionis non inscius: Nullum, inquit, tam grave facinus est, quin admittendum sit, vt deuitetur peius.
Legimus praeterea in secundo Tripartitae Ecclesiasticae libro historiae, quod cum Synodus Nicaena haec eadem vellet sancire decreta, vt videlicet Episcopy, Praesbyteri, Diaconi, post consecrationem à proprijs vxoribus vel omnino abstinerent, vel gradum deponerent: surgens in medio Paphnutius, (ex illis Martyribus quos Maximus Imperator, oculis eorum dextris euulsis, & sinistris suris incisis, damnauit) contradixit, honorabiles confessus nuptias, ac castitatem esse dicens connubium cum propria vxore: persuasitque Concilio ne talem ponerent legem: grauem asserens esse causam, quae aut ipsis, aut eorum coniugibus occasio fornicationis existeret. Et haec quidem Paphnutius, licet nuptiarum expers, exposuit: Synodusque eius sententiam laudauit, & nihil ex hac parte sanciuit, sed hoc in vniuscuisque voluntate, non in necessitate dimisit.
Sunt vero aliqui, qui sanctum Gregorium suae sectae sumunt adiutorem: quorum quidem temeritatem rideo, ignorantiam doleo. Ignorant enim, quod periculosum huius haeresis decretum à S. Gregorio factum, condigno poenitentiae fructu postmodum ab eodem sit purgatum. Quippe cùm die quadam in viuarium suum propter pisces misisset, & allata inde plus quam sex milia infantum capita videret, intima mox ductus poenitentia ingemuit, & factum à se de abstinētia decretū, tātae caedis causam cōfessus, cōdigno illud, vt dixi, poenitentiae fructu purgauit: suoque decreto prorsus damnato, Apostolicum illud laudauit confilium: Melius est nubere quàm vri: addens ex sua parte: Melius est nubere, quàm mortis occasionem praebere. Hunc forsitan rei euentum si illi mecum legissent, non tam temere, credo, iudicarent, Dominicum saltem timentes praeceptum: Nolite iudicare, vt non iudicemini. Inde Paulus dicit: Tu quis es, qui iudicas alienum seruum? suo Domino stat, aut cadit. Stabit autem: potens est enim Dominus statuere illum. Cesset ergo sanctitas tua cogere, quos tantùm deberet admonere: ne priuato (quod absit) praecepto, tam veteri quàm nouo contrarius inueniaris testamento. Nam, vt ait sanctus Augustinus ad Donatum: Solum est quod in tua iusticia pertimescimus, ne non pro lenitatis Christianae consideratione, sed pro immanitate facinorum censeas coercendum. Quod te per ipsum Christum ne facias obsecramus: sic enim peccata compescenda sunt, vt supersint quos peccasse poeniteat. Illud etiam Augustini volumus te recordari, quod ait: Nihil nocendi fiat cupiditate, omnia consulendi charitate: & nihil fiat immaniter, nihil inhumaniter. Idem de eodem: In timore Christi in nomine Christi exhortor: Quicunque non habetis temporalia, habere non cupiatis: quicunque habetis, in eis non praesumatis. Dico autem, non si ista habetis, damnamini: sed si in istis praesumatis, damnamini: si propter talia magni vobis videamini: si generis humani conditionem communem propter excellentem vnitatem, obliuiscamini. Quod nimirum poculum discretionis ex illo fonte Apostolicae hauserat praedicationis: Solutus es ab vxore, noli quaerere vxorem: alligatus es vxori, noli quaerere solutionem. Vbi & subditur: Qui habent vxores, sint tanquam non habentes: & qui vtuntur mundo, tanquam non vtantur. Idem dicit de vidua: Cui vult nubat, tantum in Domino. Nubere in Domino est, nihil in contrahendo cōnubio quod Dominus prohibeat, attentare. Jeremiah quo{que} ait: Nolite cōfidere in verbis mendacij, dicētes: Templū Domini, templum Domini, tēplum Domini est. Quod Hieronimus exponens: Potest (inquit) & hoc illis virginibus conuenire, quae iactant pudicitiam suam impudenti vultu: praeferunt castitatem, cum aliud habeat conscientia: & nesciunt illam Apostoli definitionem de virgins, vt sit sancta corpore & spiritu. Quid enim prodest corporis pudicitia, animo constuprato, si caeteras virtutes, quas Propheticus sermo describit, non habuerit? Quas quidem, quia te aliquatenus habere videmus, & quia discretionem, licet in hac re neglectam, in alijs tamen vitae tuae constitutionibus eam honest conseruatam non ignoramus: huius intentionis prauitatem te cito correcturum non desperamus. Et ideo non quanta possumus grauitate, istam licet grauissimam negligentiā corripimus, vel iudicamus. Quanquam enim secundū vocabula quae vsus obtinuit, sit Episcopatus Praesbyterio major: tamen Augustinus Hieronymo minor est, & à minori quolibet non est refugienda correptio: praesertim cum is qui corripitur, & contra veritatem, & pro hominibus niti inuenitur. Ne{que} enim, vt ait sanctus Augustinus ad Bonifaciū: Quorumlibet disputationes, quam uis catholicorū & laudatorum virorum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus: vt non liceat nobis salua honorificentia, quae illis debetur, aliquid in eorū scriptis improbare at{que} respuere, si forte inuenerimus quod aliter senserint quàm veritas habeat, diuino adiutorio vel ab alijs intellecta, vel à nobis. Quid autem veritati magis contrariū, quàm hoc, quod cum ipsa veritas de continentia loquens, nō vnius hominis, sed omnium plane (non excepto numero professorum continentiae) dicat: Qui potest capere, capiat: isti (nescitur vnde instigati) dicant: Qui non potest capere, feriatur anathemate?
Quid vero per homines fieri potest stolidius? quid diuinae maledictioni obligatius, quàm cum aliqui, vel Episcopy videlicet, vel Archidiaconi, ita praecepites sint in libidinem, vt ne{que} adulteria, neque incestus, neque masculorum (proh pudor) turpissimos amplexus sciant abhorrere: casta clericorum cōiugia sibi dicant foetere, & ab eis non verae iusticiae compassione, sed falsae iusticiae dedignatione, non vt conseruos rogent cōtinere, sed vt seruos iubeant ac cogant abstinere? Ad cuius imperij, ne dicam consilij, tam fatuam, tam{que} turpē addunt suggestionem, vt dicāt: Honestius est pluribus occulte implicari, quàm aperte in hominū vultu & conscientia cum vna legari. Quod profecto nō dicerent, si ex illo & in illo essent, qui dicit: Vae vobis Pharisaeis, qui omnia facitis propter homines. Et per Psalmistā: Qui hominibus placent, confusi sunt, quoniam Dominus spreuit eos. Hi sunt, qui prius deberent nobis persuadere, vt in cōspectu eius, cui omnia nuda & aperta sunt, erubescamus peccatores esse, quàm in conspectu hominū mundi esse. Licet ergo merito suae prauitatis, nullius consiliū mereantur pietatis, nos tamē memores humanitatis diuinae, eis consilium authoritatis nunquam à pietate vacantis, per viscera ministramus charitatis. Dicimus nempe: Eiice primùm hypocrita trabem de oculo tuo, & tunc perspicies vt eiicias festucā de oculo fratris tui.
Illud quoque rogamus eos attendere, quod Dominus dicit de muliere: Qui sine peccato est vestrûm, primus in eam lapidem mittat, quasi di • eret: Si lex iubet, si Moses iubet, iubeo & ego, sed competentes legis ministros exigo. Attendentes, quid adducitis, attendite quaeso & quid estis: quia, si te ipsum, vt ait Scriptura, perspexeris, nulli vnquam detraxeris. Significatum est autem nobis de quibusdā eorum, quod tanta apud se intumescant elatione, vt gregem Domini, pro quo boni pastores animas non dubitant ponere, isti verberibus etiam abs{que} ration praesumant laniare. Quorum sent̄tiam S. Gregorius nimium deplorans ait: Quid fiet de ouibus, quando pastores lupi fiunt? Sed quis vincitur, nisi qui saeuit? quis vero persecutorē iudicabit, nisi qui dorsū suū ad flagella patienter ministrauit? Operae praecium est autē, vt audiatur, quo fructu tantū Ecclesiae Dei inducabant scandalū, tantū cleris despectum, & ab ipsis Episcopis, & ab eorum infidelibus patiatur. Nec enim eos infidels dicere dubitauerim, de quibus Paulus Apostolus dicit ad Timotheum: Quia in nouissimis temporibus discedēt quidam a fide, attendants spiritibus erroris, & doctrinis daemoniorum, in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, & cauteriatam habentium conscientiam, prohibentium nubere.
Hic est autem, si diligēter inspiciatur, totius eorum manipulus zizaniae, totius euentus insaniae, vt dum clerici licita vnius mulieris cōsortia, Pharisaico deuicti (quod absit) furore, relinquere cogātur, fornicatores & adulteri & aliarum prauitatum turpissimi ministri cum ipsis efficiantur. Qui hanc in Ecclesia Dei haeresim, sicut caeci duces caecorū machinantur, vt videlicet illud impleatur quod Psalmista eis, vt pote doctoribus erroris, taliter imprecatur: Obscurentur oculi eorum ne videant. &c. Quia ergo nemo, ô Apostolice, ignorat, quod si tu per tui decreti sententiam, tantam futuram esse pestilentiam solitae discretionis claritate perspexisses, nūquam quorumlibet tam prauis suggestionibus consensisses: debitae tibi subiectionis fidelitate consulimus, vt vel nūc ad tanti scandali ab Ecclesia Dei pro pulsionē euigiles: & qua nosti discretionis disciplina, Pharisaicā ab ouili Dei extirpes doctrinā, ne scilicet vnica Sunamitis, adulterinis diutius vsa maritis, gentem sanctam, regale sacerdotium, per irrecuperabile à sponso Christo videlicet, auellat diuortium: dum nemo sine castimonia, non tantum in virginali flour, sed etiam in coniugali habita conjunction, visurus sit Dominum nostrum: qui cum Deo patre & Spiritu sancto viuit & regnat per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.
As touching the antiquity of this Epistle above prefixed it appeareth by the copy which I have seen, & received of the above named Matthew Archbyshop of Canterbury, to be of an old & ancient writing, both by the form of the characters, and by the wearyng of the Partchment, almost consumed by length of years and time.
And as concerning the author thereof, the superscriptiō (if it be true) plainly declareth it to be the Epistle of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage. Albeit heretofore it hath commonly been taken and alleged by the name of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, and partly appeareth to be so, both by the testimony of Aeneas Sylvius, in Descriptione Germaniae, who in the said treatise affirmeth that Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, did constantly resist the Pope abolishing the marriage of Priests, &c. and also by the record of Illyricus, testifieng that the said epistle not only remaineth yet to this day in old monuments, but also that he himself did see two exemplars of the same, both pretending the name of the said Huldericus to be the author. Notwithstanding this copy here above prefixed, beareth the title not of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, but of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage in Aphricke, as ye may see by the words of the preamble, saying, This is the rescripte of Volusianus Bishop of Carthage, unto Pope Nicholás concerning Priests not to be restrained from lawful marriage, &c.
Furthermore, which Pope Nicholas this was to whome these epistles were written, it is not plainly shown in the same, but that by probable conjecture it may be gessed rather to be Pope Nicholas 2. for so much as in his time, Priests marriage began somewhat earnestly to be called in, more then at other times before
Now as touching the English▪ of this Latin epistle above exhibited, forasmuch as the same is before inserted, page 157. we will refer the reader unto the same place. Wherein if the translation of the English do swerve anything from the Latin here above prefixed, the cause was, for that the Latin copy which here we follow, came not before to our hands.
Another epistle of the said Volusianus, concerning marriage not to be restrained from priests and ministers of the Church.
CVm sub liberi arbitrij potestate creati simus, & non sub lege, sed sub gratia, qualiter creati sumus, viuamus. Vos qui continentiae legem nobis inuitis, imponitis, liberi arbitrij nos potestate priuatis. Quod nolumus velle, & quod volumus nolle cogendo imperatis, & imperando cogitis: & legis vinculo, à quo ipsa gratia nos in libertatem liberati sumus, alligare, & spiritum seruitutis iterum in timore accipere, ipsamque gratiam, sine qua nihil facere possumus, omnino euacuare satagitis, ita vt (sicut ait Apostolus) ipsa gratia iam non sit gratia, & Dei donum non sit Dei donum: Et non ex Deo sed ex homine, nec ex vocante, sed ex operante: cum idem Apostolus dicat: Quia non est volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis.
Nam cùm sint▪ tria principalia & quasi effectiua, per quae omnis anima humana capax & compos rationis, quicquid spiritalis boni apprehendere & percipere potest, apprehendit & percipit, & sine quibus nihil prorsus capere possit: liberum arbītrium videlicet, Mandatum, & gratia (libero enim arbitrio bona à malis decernimus atque eligimus: mandato ad omnia facienda prouocamur ac incitamur: gratia promouemur & adiuuamur) horum omnium tamen gratia Domina & Magistra & quasi praepotens imperatrix & Regina est, ad cuius nutum caetera pendent, & ab ea vim & efficaciam expectant, & sine illa nihil praeualent, sed quasi stolida & mortua, sicut materia sine forma, iacent & subiacent. Loco enim materiae, secundum propositionem aliquam, liberum arbitrium possumus accipere non incongrue: Gratiam vero, loco formae: Mandatum autem quod medium est quasi instrumentum, ad vtrunque respicere, quo summus artifex Dominus liberum arbitrium quasi stolidam materiam moueat & promoueat, & formam gratiae illi componat. Et sicut materia sine form • est horrida & deformis: ita liberum arbitrium est horridum & deform sine gratia superueniente se mouente & promouente, mandato medio quasi instrumento (vt diximus) interueniente. Quod ergo forma in materia, hoc in libero arbitrio per quandam similitudinem est gratia: & quod materia sub forma, hoc idem est libera voluntas sub gratia. Et item, quod est instrumentum ipsorum, hoc est mandatum ad vtrunque istorum. Instrumentum namque sordidam materiam, & horridam atque asperam, obscuram, & quasi coecam emaculat & expolit, & claram, planam ac lucidam, forma superueniente, reddit. Sic & mandatum, liberum arbit • ium sordidum & horridum, asperum & incultum, obscu • um & coecū, nitidat, comit, lenit, & excolit, lucidat, & illuminate: sicut Propheta dicit: praeceptum domini lucidum, illuminans oculos, splendore gratiae superueniente. Et sicut materia & instrumentum sine forma nihil valent, ita libera voluntas & mandatum sine gratia nihil virtutis habent. Quid enim liberum arbitrium vel mandatum sine gratia praeueniente & subsequente potest▪ Gratia namque ad liberum arbitrium, mandatum quasi nuntium ac famulum mittit: mandatum liberum arbitrium prouocat atque quasi sopitum excitat, vt ad bona facienda euigilet & exurgat, viamque ei quam peragere debeat, quasi coeco deducendo demonstrate. Quorum vtrunque▪ si à gratia deseritur, nihil omnino per se potest. Quod si conatur, deficit, non proficit, neque etiam efficit, vel perficit. Si praesumit, non assumit, sed potius to tam operam & laborem frustra consumit. Cùm enim mandatum, seu per hominem sieve per Angelū mittitur, & etiam liberum a • bitrium seu humano seu angelico mandati nuntio cōmouetur, prouocatur, & instruitur, 〈◊〉 diuina gratia comitetur, praeueniat, & subsequatur, quid valebi •• Quid nempe homini in paradiso posito mandatū quod audiuit: E • omni ligno Paradisi comede, de ligno vero scientiae boni & mali ne comedat? Nihil prorsus ad salutem, sed potius ad condemnationem. Quare? Quia gratia saluatrix & auxiliatrix defuit, quā ill injust suis viribus fisus, cōtempsit. Aut quid valuit Israelitico populo in Eremo cōstituto, mandatū legis quod per Moyse accepit, cui obedire neglexit? Aut quid profuit illi qui Dominū se qui suo arbitrio, & nō illius vocatione praesumit dicens: Domine, sequa • te quocun{que} ieris. Ex multis alijs diuinae scripturae locis noui & veteris Testamenti demōstrari potest, quod ne{que} mandatū, neque liberū arbitriū per se quicquā valet, nisi diuina gratia praeueniendo▪ & subsequendo adiuuet. Cùm igitur continentiae bonū, imo omne bonū sit solius diuinae gratiae donū, nec per mandatum, nec per liberū arbitriū cōprehendatur, errant & frustrà laborant qui se suis viribus illud apprehendere • entant. Illi etiam magis errant qui hoc inuitis & nolentibus imperant, & nō spōtanee sed coacte in Sacrarium Dei dona offerre suadent, nescientes aut obliti illius quod Dominus Moysi & Moses à Domino praecepit dicens • Separate apud vos primitias Domino: quisque voluntarius & bono animo offerat ease Domino. Quid est separare apud vos primitias Domino, nisi studiosa cogitatione & meditatione in cordibus vestris tractare, & cum discretione deponere & diuidere, quid Domino de thesauro cordis nostri valeamus offerre? Si enim recte offeras & non recte diuidas, peccasti. Et quid est prono animo offerre, nisi quod ait Psalmista: voluntary sacrificabo tibi? Et Apostolus: Non ex tristitia aut necessitate: Hilarem datorem diligit Deus. Et Solomon, Bono animo gloriam red Domino, & in omni Dato hilarem fac vultum tuum, & in exultatione sanctifica decimas tuas, & in bono oculo facito adinuentionē manuū tuarū. Et Apostolus Jacobus: Nō amat Dominus (inquit) coacta seruitia. Et, maledictus qui opus Domini facit negligenter .i. nō curious neque voluntary. Sicut nos ergo Dominus inuitos aliquid offerre non iubet: ita vos inuitos aliquos offerre aliquid cogere, prohibit per eundem Moysen vbi ait: Ne facias Calumniam proximo tuo, nec vi opprimas eum. Calumniā proximo facere, est eū non cōpatiendo & miserando corrigere de peccato: sed dedignido & exprobrando & detrahendo arguere & accusare, & non in spiritu lenitatis instruere, sed in spiritu asperitatis & austeritatis destruere, cum Apostolus dicat: Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis instruite huiusmodi in spiritu lenitatis, considerans teipsum ne & tu tenteris. Vi opprimere proximū, est vltra vires suas aliquid exigere, & onus quod portare nō potest imponere, imponētibus fortassis importabile, cùm Dominus de Pharisaeis ad Discipulos loquens, hoc eis prohibeat dicens: Super cathredam Moysi sedent Scribe & Pharisaei, &c. Et Apostolus Petrus: Pascite (inquit) qui in vobis est, gregem Domini, prouidentes, non coacte, sed spontanee, secundū Dominum: neque turpis lucri gratia, sed volūtarie: neque dominantes in Clero, sed forma estote gregi ex animo. Hic pastor pastorū, princeps Apostolorū, quid caeteri pastores vel Apostoli debeant facere, quomodo gregē Domini sibi creditum tractare, aperte & pie demonstrate atque insinuate, & quantam solicitudinem & compassionem erga subditos habere oporteat, eis inculcat: & omnem potestatem tyrannicae dominationis vel ambitionem cupiditatis, quam quidam in subditos sibi exercent, ab eorum cordibus procul eliminat, & eos non dominos, sed patres subditorum debere esse pronunciat: neque eis aliquid typo potentiae imperare, sed zelo pietatis admonere & obsecrare iuxta vires vniuscuiusque secundum Dominum, non secundum suae voluntatis arbitrium vel potestatis imperium: & illis formam esse gregi debere, vt quid alijs imperant, ipsi priores faciant, & non minus exemplis quam verbo proficiant. Ex animo▪ inquit: non ex imperio: ex voluntate, non coactione: ex charitate, non ex cupiditate. Sunt enim plaerique qui zelo cupiditatis, nō charitatis accensi, alijs imperant quod implere non valent: & dum lucrum animarum querere se simulant, lucrum potius terrenum captant. Quod been Balaam propheta exprimit, qui prophetiae donum & benedicendi gratiam quam diuinitus acceperat, non ad vtilitatē aliorum, sed ad vsum suae cupiditatis vertit: & sicut nonnulli qui dum alios corrigunt, hoc zelo Dei facere se ostendunt, & dū meliores alijs se videri volunt, hoc praesumptione quadam & temeritate agunt, & ideo in ipso praesumptionis suae & temeritatis actu corruunt. De quibus dicit Apostolus: Qui zelum Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam. Zelum Dei secundum scientiam est habere, provide & cōsulte in diuinis rebus aliquid agere. Quorum profectio Oza similitudinem gerit, qui dum Arcam Domini calcitrantibus bobus qui eam portabant, in • linatum parumper erigere voluit, mox dum ad eam manum tetendit, mortuus cecidit. Arcam Domini calcitrantibus bobus inclinari▪ est legem Domini quam ipsi sacerdotes portare & tenere debent ab eis nō obseruando contradici, & quasi à recto statu in diuersam partem flecti, quam Oza, qui adiutor dei interpretor, erigere tentat: Quia sunt quidā Prelati, qui dum sacerdotalem ordinem▪ ipsam legem diuinā maligno excessu vel leuiter à sitae rectitudinis vta quasi inclinare & in aliam partem flectere vident, eam inclinationem castigere & corrigere magis virtutis suae ostentatione quàm diuina emulatione praesumunt, & quia hoc inconsulte agunt dum adiutores Dei videri appetunt, plerum{que} mortaliter in deterius cadunt. Sunt & alij qui nullam infirmitatis humanae considerationem, nec vllum misericordiae respectum & compassionis affectū habent, & cum Apostolo dicere nescientes: Quis infirmatur & ego non infirmor? D • m se subditis non conditione qua pares, sed authoritate qua superiores sunt, conferunt, at{que} magistri videri, & plus prae esse quàm prodesse cupiunt, illorum infirmitatem vi dominationis premunt, & eos sibi obedire compellunt. Quod nimirum illo facto figuratur, quod de Simone Cyrenaeo in Euangelio legitur, quem angariauerunt persecutores Domini vt tolleret crucem eius. Cuius etiam nomen huic figurae conuenienter aptatur. Simon nam{que} interpretor obediens. Simon verô, id est obediens, crucem Domini portare angariatur cum subiecti qui{que} à suis magistris vi dominationis vel authoritatis, • el anathematis pressi, & eis obedire compulsi, crucem continentiae patiuntur inuiti: ipsam{que} crucem quam portant, non amant, quia ipsam plus ad perniciem suam, quàm ad salutem portant, nec ipsa cruce peccato moriuntur, sed potius ipsi peccato viuificantur: Nam & alia peccata grauiora exinde oriūtur. Inhibito enim naturali vnius mulieris coniugio, surrepit non naturalis, sed contra naturam execrabilis Sodomitica fornicatio: surrepit illicita & damnabilis, non legitima sed contra legem alienae vxoris contaminatio, nec non etiam & meretricabilis nefanda pollutio: quin etiam abominabilis omnibus parentalis incestatio, vel aliarum multarum immundiciarum vel libidinum à diabolo inuentarum id genus, in quibus humana infirmitas periclitatur. Vnde Loth de Sodomitico incendio Angelo domini educente ereptus, & vxoris consortio viduatus, dum sua infirmittais cōscius ad montana non ausus est Angelo monente ascendere, ipse in Segor p • rua ciuitate quae iuxta erat, elegit habitare, ipso Angelo praecipiente & sic ad eum loquente: Salua animam tuam: noli respicere post tergum, sed in monte saluum te fac, ne & tu simul pereas. Cui dixit▪ Loth: Quaeso Domine mi, quia inuenit seruus tuus gratiam corā te vt saluares me: non possum in monte saluari, ne forte apprehēdat me malum & moriar. Est Ciuitas iuxta hic ad quam▪ possum fugere parua, & saluabor in ea. Quid est quod Loth à Sodomis fugiens praecipiente Angelo vt in monte saluaretur, montem ascēdere quia ibi mori timebat, noluit, sed Segor paruā ciuitatem iuxtà montem positam, vt in ea saluaretur, ad habitandum elegir, nisi quicun{que} fidelium Sodometicae libidinis incendium & periculum euadere cupiens, dum celsitudinē virginalem non valet, & castitatis vidualis timet ascendere ne in ea periclitetur ad cōiugalem copulam cùm ad vtram{que} continentiam p • r • ula est & vtri{que} proxima, confugit? Nam{que} post continētias supradictas, haec castitas probatur laudabilis, & non priuatur praemio regni coelestis. Ad hanc castitatem, qui non potest continere, iubetur accedere & in ea suluari, ne forte si montem ascenderit, apprehendat eum malū & moriatur, & ne, si continentiam non sibi diuinitus concessam, suis viribus obtinere tentauerit, malum incontinentiae vel fornicationis vel aliquarum supradictarum pes •• um eum apprehendat, & in eis mortaliter pereat. Sunt enim multi qui dū infirmitatem suam non considerant, & dum maiora se apprehendere conantur, ipsa sua praecipitatione retroacti, in deteriora labuntur: quia dum maiora inconsultius ambiunt, minora quae tenere videbantur, amittunt. Quod sane exemplo ipsius Loth aperte demonstratur: qui dum relicta Segor quam ad habitandum elegerat, & in qua saluari petierat, in montem ascendit, ibi{que} mansit, in incestum filiarum suarum, ipsarum surreptione corruit, sicut scriptura dicit. Ita nam{que} scriptum est: Ascendit Loth de Segor & mansit in monte, dederunt{que} filia patri suo bibire vinum nocte illa, & ingressa est major, dormiuit{que} cum patre. Quod nequaquam sibi contigisset, si in Segor in qua saluari poterat, ad praeceptum Angeli, sicut ill postulauerat, remaneret. Sed quia hoc quod sibi ab Angelo concessum fuerat, dereliquit, & quod concessum non fuerat, id postea sua voluntate contra praeceptum Angeli praesumpsit, salutis suae dispendium pertulit, & grave incestus peccatum incurrit. Sic pleris{que} contingit▪ qui dum quod sibi concessum est à Deo relinquunt, & id quod sibi concessum est ambiunt, & illud quod sibi concessum est perdunt, & illud quod sibi concessum non est, aprehendunt. Quia sunt nonnulli, qui dum coniugalem vitam quae sibi concessa est, & in qua saluari possent, vel inuiti vel volentes deserunt, & maiori profectus desiderio caelibem vitam actitare satagunt, salutem quam in illa habere poterant, perdunt, & periculum maximum in ista incurrunt, & ex quo proficere conabantur, magis deficiunt (& sicut supradiximus) in maioris ruinae voraginem vergunt. Quod been Doctor gentiū Paulus cōsiderans, & infirmis quibus{que} benign prospiciens Corinthijs super his scriptis suis se consulentibus, ita rescripsit dicens: De quibus autem scripsistis mihi: bonum homini est mulierē non tangere: propter fornicationem autem vitandam, vnusquis{que} vxorem suam habeat, & vnaquae{que} virum. Et vxori vir debitum reddat: similiter vxor viro. Et post pauca, Nolite (inquit) fraudari inuicem, nisi forte ex consensu ad temptus, vt vacetis orationi: & iterum reuertimini in idipsum ne tentet vos Satanas propter incōtinentiam vestram: quoniam, sicut ait Poeta, non omnia possimus omnes: Et sicut Apostolus in superioribus dixit: Quia non est volentis ne{que} currentis, sed Dei miserentis: Et alibi: Quia vnicui{que} nostrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi. Hanc mensuram vnicui{que} tenendam nec transgrediendam esse, docens mox intulit: Volo autem omnes homines esse sicut meipsum, sed vnusquis{que} proprium habet donum ex Deo, alius quidē sic▪ alius autem sic: Quia videlicet mensura nos arcendos, & debere esse contentos in sequentibus intimauit dicens: Vnumquē{que} sicut vocauit Deus, ita ambulet. Et vnusquis{que} in qua uocatione vocatus est, in hac permaneat apud Deum Et hoc idem repetit paulo inferius causa confirmationis: Vnusquis{que} in quo vocarus est frater, in hoc permaneat apud Deum. Et quia infirmitatem humanā videbat non posse tollerare incentiua gemini calori • ▪ nisi per gratiam Dei, ne{que} vincere pugnam carnis aduersus spiritum: & quia sic ipse dixit de se alibi • Videbam aliam legē in menbris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae, hoc se misericorditer, & compatiēter, & unanimiter, nō regulariter ne{que} imperatiue dix isse, sicut in alia epistola, mōstrauerat vbi ait: Humanū dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae. Et in hac ipsa paulo superius in eodem schemate, vbi ait: Hoc autem dico secūdum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium, subdendo demonstrate: De virginibus autem preceptū Domini non habeo▪ consilium do tanquā misericordiā consecutus, vt sim fidelis. Id est, ea misericordi • qua mihi Dominus consuluit quando ad fidem me vocauit, & sibi fidelem fecit, & ego alijs consulo & eandem misericordiā illis impendo. Et quoniam bonū est vtrum{que} cū vxore esse & sine vxore esse, & cū viro esse & cū viro non esse, ne{que} peccatum est vel cum vxore esse vel cū viro esse, mox subinfert dicēs: Estimo ergo bonū esse propter instant̄ necessitatē: quo niā bonū est homini esse sic. &c.
Quid est propter instantem necessitatem? Que est necessitas instans, nisi infirmitas praesens? Vel necessitas instans, est necessitas vrgens & cogens prout necessitas extirerit vel coegerit. Vel instantem necessitatem dicit illius temporis necessitatem & angustiam quae tunc extabat & cum cogebat vt talia scriberet & eis sic indulgeret causa scilicet vitandae fornicationis quae▪ tunc temporis acciderat, & aliarum multarum fornicationum supradictarum quae accidere possent. Pro qua fornicatione hoc incaepit, & sibi scribentibus rescripsit, & Corinthijs in superioribus huius epistolae vehementer inuectus, in haec verba prorupit: Quid vultis? In verga veniam ad vos, an incharitate & spiritu mansuetudinis? Omnino auditur inter vos fornicatio, & talis fornicatio qualis nec inter gentes, ita vt vxorē patris sui quis habeat. Propter hanc ergo necessitatem vitandae fornicationis dico bonum esse homini sic esse, vt si continere non potest, nubat, vel vxorem accipiat, Quod exponendo subdit: Alligatus es vxori? Noli quaerere solutionem. Solutus es ab vxore? Noli querere vxorem. Si autem acceperis vxorem, non peccasti. Et si nupserit virgo, non peccauit. Et hic iterum non imperando sed indulgendo & compatiendo se dixisse ostendit: Ego autem vobis parco, id est, infirmitati vestrae cedo, Hoc ita{que} in potestate voluntatis vniuscuius{que} posuit vtrum velit eligire: nec se dicit cuiquam violentiam infer, nec laqueum quo eum astringat & teneat, inijcere, consequenter subiungens: Porro, hoc ad vtilitatem vestram dico: non vt laqueum vobis inijciam, sed ad id quod honestum est, & quod facultatem praebeat Dominum obsecrandi. Hoc dicit illis quos ad continentiam superius hortatus fuerat, & quos consortio vxoriae coniunctionis impediri, vel sollicitos esse nolebat. Alijs vero ita dicit: Si quis autem turpem videri se existimat super virginem suam, quod sit superadulta, & ita oportet fieri: quod vult, faciat: non peccat si nubat. Et iterum: vtrun{que} bonum esse▪ vnum tamen melius esse cōcludendo confirmat: Igitur qui matrimonio coniungit virginem suam, been facit, & qui non iungit melius facit. Quod concordatur superiori sententiae vtri{que} sexui datae, in qua ait: Si acceperis vxorem non peccasti, & si nupserit virgo non peccauit. Si ergo virum accipere vxorem, & virginem nubere, iuxta Apostolum peccatum non est, & beatitudinem non aufert, sed affert: & quia vter{que} been facit, ideo ambo beati: nos qui vxores propter infirmitatem habemus, quid habendo peccamus? Aut si Apostolus vnicui{que} propter fornicationem vxorem suam habere indulget & permittit, cur nos qui ex eadem massa sumus, & carnem peccati ex carne Adae peccatricem traximus, & continere non possumus, propter eandem causam & secundum eandem indulgentiam vxores habere non permittimut, & habitas dimittere angariamur? Aut ita{que} vxores nobis habere imitātes Apostolum permittite, aut nos ex eadem massa non esse docete, aut nobis eandem indulgentiam, & permissionem non esse concessam ab Apostolo, demonstrate. Quod opinor dicturi estis, quia haec indulgentia non fuit data ab Apostolo clericis aut alicui nostri ordinis, sed solis laicis. Quod ex verbis Apostoli vel ex circumstantia epistolae non potest defendi, cûm nulla ibi certa distinctio vel denominatio habeatur personarum vel graduum sieve professionum, nec ipse discernit seu nominibus seu officijs vel qui sibi scripserunt, vel de quibus, vel quibus ipse rescribebat, nisi tantū generaliter omni Ecelesiae Corinthiorum, sicut ipse in principio huius epistolae his verbis demōstrat: Paulus vocatus Apostolus Christi Jesus per volūtatē Dei, & Sostenes frater, Ecclesiae Dei quae est Corinthi, sanctificatis in Christo Jesus, vocatis sanctis, cū omnibus qui inuocant nomē Domini. [Et post nonnulla alia, quae cōpendij causa hic rescidimus, haud ita multum ad rem attinentia, subinfert mox ad hunc modum:] Infirmitatem nostrā vos cōsiderate, ac miserari rogamus, & ne ei violentiā inferatis suppliciter imploramus. Nam sicut iam satis superius inculcauimus vobis, null{us} ad cōtinētiā inuitus debet compelli. Ne{que} hoc genus virtutis vlli per legem Dei necessario imparutū est, sed volutaria deuotione Domino offerendū, dicēte ipso de hoc, Euangelio: Nō omnes capiunt verbū istud, sed quibus datū est. Ad quā tamē benigna mox exho • tatione eos qui possūt inuitat dicēs: Qui potest capere • apiat. Vnde gratia distinctionis nō Moses foeminalibus vestire Aaron & filios eius iubetur, vt de prioribus dicitur: vesties ijs Aarō fratrē tuū & filios eius cū eo: sed, facies (inquit) faeminalia linea vt operiant carnē turpitudinis suae. Ipsi (inquit) operian • ea • nē turpitudinis suae, tu foeminalia pontifici & filijs eius facies: tu castitatis regulam docebis: tu abstinendum ab vxorio complexu eis qui Sacerdotio functuri sunt, intimabis: nulli tamē violentū huiusmodi continentiae iugū imponens: sed quicunque Sacerdotes fieri ac ministerio altaris seruire volūt, ipsi sua sponte vxori serui esse desistant. Quod vbi perfecerint, at{que} suscepto semel continentiae proposito, ministros se Sanctuarij at{que} Altaris fore consenserint, aderit diuina gratia quae velut caeteris illis habitū Sacerdotibus cōgruū imponens, quomodo viuere vel docere debeant, abundanter instituit. Qui sensus subsequentibus quoque Domini verbis affirmatur, quibus post pauca subiungit: Cùm{que} laueris patrē cū filijs aqua, indues Aaron vestimentis suis, id e • t, linea & tunica, & superhumerali, & rationali, quod stringes balteo, & pones tiaram, & oleum vnctionis fundes super caput eius, at{que} hoc ritu consecrabitur. Filios quo{que} illius applicabis & indues tunicis lineis, cinges{que} Aaron balteo, cilicet & liberos eius, & impones eis Mitras, erūt{que} Sacerdotes mei in religione perpetua: Nam{que} hic de foemmalibus à Moyse accipiēdis praecipitur. Vnde liquido constat quod se hoc genere vestimēti ipse prius Aaron ac filij eius induerant, & • ic ad manum Moysi lauādi, inducendi, vngendi & consecrandi intrabant. Hic aperte ostenditur & docetur nulli continentiae iugum inuito imponendum, sed à Deo prompta & deuota volūtate accipiendum. Quod & Dionysius Areopagita theosophus, id est Deū sapiens, Pauli Apostoli Discipulus▪ & ab eo Atheniensium Archiepiscopus ordinatus, in epistola qua dam ad Pymtum Gnasiorum Episcopum missa, in qua plurima de nuptijs & castitate commemorat, sicut Ecclesiastica refert historia, monet, & precatur illum ne grauia onera discipulorū ceruicibus imponat, neue fratribus necessitatē cōpulsae castitatis inducat, in qua nonnullorum pereclitatur infirmitas. At{que} Pymtus Dionysio rescripsit sententiā se consilij melioris quod ipse dabat, amplecti. Hoc i • idem & Paphnutius vir diuinissimus at{que} castissimus, cùm in Niceno Concilio (vt in tripartita historia inuenimus) patres qui ibi aderant, hoc interdicere Sacerdotibus voluissent, in mediū eorū zelo humanae infirmitatis cōmotus & cōscius exurgens, hoc ne facerent rogauit: quin potius in voluntate vniuscuius{que} ponerent exorauit, ne forte per hoc locum darent & occasion̄ adulterio & fornicationi. Hac nam{que} cautela sancti viri in religione vtebantur, vt cùm de instructione & aedificatione subditorū aliquid agerent, & eos ad meliorē vitā de diuinis praeceptis cōmoneri facerēt, cū patientia & mansuetudine potius obedienda praeciperēt, quam cū potentia & austeritate imperarēt, nullū{que} inuitū sibi obedire cōpellerent. Quorū vos exempla sequentes qui eorum loco tenetis & nomen, ne nobis infirmis importabilem sarcinam quaesumus imponatis, ne imprecatione dominica cū pharisaeis & • egisperitis suscipiamini, in qua a •• : Ve vobis legis periti, qui oneratis homines oheribus quae non possunt portari, & ipsi vno digito vestro ea non tangitis. Et ne clamo • filiorū Israel ascendat ad Dominum propter duritiam eorū qui praesūt operibus Ne{que} vos voletis facere eunuchos qui de vtero matris sic nati sunt, vel eos eunuchos qui violēter ab hominibus facti sunt, sed potius eos eunuchos, qui seipsos sua sponte eunuchizauerunt propter regnum coelorum: neue sacris ordinibus & diuino mysterio propter nos tantū, calumniā faciatis vel inferatis, qui propter nostram vitam improbā illud hominibus cōtemptibile facitis, dum eis ne à nobis illud audiant & percipiant, prohibitis: ac per hoc vitā improbam infamatis, & odorem nostrū corā Pharone & seruis eius faetêre facitis. Quod vos non recte, si dici liceat (ne moleste accipiatis) videtur nobis, facere, & contra diuinā authoritatē & Canonicam regulā hoc {quod} facitis, esse: cùm Dominus per legislatorem dicat: Turpitudinē matris tuae nō reueles, & ignominia eius ne discooperias: Mater nostra Ecclesia est: Filij huius matris, quique fideliū sunt. Cuius tamē materna appellatio, maximà in Sacerdotibus est. Nam ipsi, generant fideles, & verbo praedicationis, & sacramento Baptismatis. An non mater erat quae dicebat: Filioli mei quos interum parturio? Turpitudo ergo & ignominia matris nostrae reprehēsibilis est actio Sacerdotalis vitae. Quae turpido tunc reuelatur, & ignominia discooperitur, cū sacerdotalis vita publice infamatur. Quod vos nimirū facitis, qui fragilitatē nostrā quasi hactenus latentē & coopertam (quia eā nullus ita cognouerat) hominibus diffamatis, & propter eā diuina mysteria vel ministeria aspernāda sancitis. Quasi ad ea pertineat pollutio aliena, & ea polluat & cōmaculet immūdicia nostra cū Psalmographus dicat: Lex domini immaculata. Aut qua si illi nostro cōtagio cōtaminētur, quia ea ex nostro ore & ex nostro officio adipiscūtur. Quod si ita dicitis esse, nequaquā discipulis & turbis de Pharisaeis Domin{us} praeciperaet: Omnia quaecū{que} dixerint vobis, seruate & facite Et rursus, si ita esset nequaquā Dominus Iudam quē • urē esse scieba • & proditorē suū futu • ū, cum discipulis alijs ad praedicandū mitteret, ne{que} pot • statē signa •• c • endi & sanitates donādi, n • {que} ad communionem sac • o • anctae caenae eū admitteret. Et si immūdicia nostra diuina mysteria vel ministeria & eorū capaces & auditors insiceret & deteriora • et, nequaquā Dominus Lepro • ū quē mūdauerat, • angeret, ne{que} ei o •• ulū daret, & nequaquā cū Simone alio Leproso manducaret, & nequaquā à Maria peccatrice pedes suos osculari, & lach • y ••• la • ari, & capillis tergi▪ & caput suum vngi permitteret. Hinc sacrorum Canonū veneranda authoritas sanxit, nullū qui etiam ab haeretico sacramēta dominica recte perceperit, vll • tenus ipsa haeretica prauitate corrumpi, nec vlla sacramēta illius cōtagione comaculari. Vnde Romana Ecclesia Anastasium Papam in quadam epistola ad Anastasium Imparatorem directa, decreuit & scripsit, quod nullū de his vel quos baptizauit Acatius, vel quos Sacerdotes vel Leuitas secundū Canones ordinauit, vlla eos ex nomine Acatij portio laesionis attingat, quo forsan per iniquum t • adita sacramēti gratia minus firma videatur. Nā & baptismū (quod procul sit ab Ecclesia) sieve ab adultero, sieve a fu • e datū fuerit, ad percipientē non minus peruenit illibatum. Quid vox illa quae son • it per colūbā? Omnē maliciā vel maculā humanae pollutionis excladit, qua declaratur ac dicitur: Hic est qui baptizat. &c. Nā si visibles solis istius radij cū per loca foetidissima transeunt, nulla cōtactus inquinatione maculantur: multo magis virtus illius qui istū visiblē solē fecit, nulla mysterij dignitate cōstringitur. Quicquid ergo ad hominum profectum quilibet in Ecclesia minister pro officio suo videtur operari, hîc totū cōtinetur implēdo diuinitatis effectu. Ita ill per quē Christ{us} loquitur Paulus, affirmat: Ego plātaui, Apollo rigauit: sed deus incrementum dedit. A Deo nō qu • ritur quis vel qualis praedicet: sed sic praedicet, vt inuidos etiā been de Christo praedicare confirmet. Tanta est nam{que} diuinae potentia graciae, vt per malos acquirat bonos, & per reprobos & improbos acquirat & colligat probos. His ita{que} authoritabus & alijs praedictis rationibus persuaderi debetis, ne{que} nos à diuini officij celebritate arcere, ne{que} illos quorū nihil interest, ab eius cōmunione suspēdere. Quodsi mali sumus, nobis ipsis sumus▪ & plus nobis quàm alljs nocemus: & quos fortasse malos conspicitis, quid boni interius habeāt, ignoratis. Sūt enim pleri{que} quos de incōtinētia iudicatis, qui cōtinētiores sūt quàm illi quos de cōtinentia glorificatis. Qui habemus vxores, iuxta Apostolū tanquā non habemus. Quum videlicet cōtinētiā quia nobis nō potestis dare, orate nobiscū & pro nobis, vt ill nobis donet, cuius hoc donū nos citur esse, & sine quo nemo poterit cōtinēs esse. Aliter enim illā habere nō possumus nisi ex totis precordijs illum oremus cuius hoc donū esse cognoscimus. Et hoc ipsū (inquit Salomō) est sapientia, scire culus hoc donum est, & quoniam super hoc nihil est.
The same in English.
FOrasmuche as we are created under the power of free will, & not under the law but under grace let us so live as we are created. You which lay upon us the law of continency against our will, do deprive us of the liberty of free will. You command us, and by commanding compel us to will that we would not, & not to will that we would do. You bind us to the law, from the which by grace we are made free: and you constrayne us to receive the spirit of bondage again to fear: and go about to make the grace of God of no effect, without the which we can do nothing, so that, as the Apostle saith: Grace is now no grace: and the gift of God is not the gift of God. And not of God, but of mā: not of him that calleth, but of him that worketh where as the Apostle saith: It is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy.
For where as there be three principal & effectual things whereby every human soul endued with reason apprehēdeath & perceiveth whatsoever spiritual thing it is able to apprehend and perceive, and without the which it can perceive nothing: the which three things be these: to wit free will, the commandment, and grace (for by free will we discern and chose the good from the evil: by the commandment we are provoked and stirred up to do all things: by grace we are furthered & holpen to perform the same) yet of all these, grace is the Lady & Maistres, and as a mighty Empresse and Queen, upon whose beck the other do wait and give attendance, receiving of her both strength and efficacy, and without her can do nothing, but remain as things of themselves dull and dead, much like as amongst the Philosophers, their Materia without Forma, being thereto adjoined. For in the stead of Materia, we may, after a manner not unfitly place free will: and in the place of Forma we may set grace, & the commandment (which is the mean between them both, as a certain instrument) to have respect to both: whereby the principal Artificer which is God, furthereth and setteth forward free will as a rude dull matter, applieth to it his grace as y e form thereof. And like as the said Materia without Forma, is rude and shapelesse, so free will is a thing rude and deform, if it be not holpen with grace coming thereunto, to move it & to further it, the commandment coming as a mean between them both in the stead of the instrumental cause, as is before said.
Therefore like as Forma is in respect of Materia, the like resemblance beareth free will in respect of grace. And again, as Materia is in respect of Forma, the same also is free will in respect of grace. And as the instrument serveth between the foresaid Materia and Forma, so doth the commandment between free will and grace. The instrument coming and working upon the said Materia being of it self ougle, rugged, and a thing without all shape and fashion, doth form it, shape and pullish it, and maketh it hansome, lightly, lightsome, bright and clear: even so likewise the commandment coming and working upon free will, being of it self, a thing rude, gross, unshapen & deformed, blind and obscure, doth clarify it, decke 〈◊〉 , adorn it, bewtifye and lighten it through the brightness of grace coming unto it, according to the saying of the Prophet: The • ommaundement of the Lord is bright and clear, giving sight to the eyes.
And as the matter & the instrument without the form can do nothing, even so free will and the commandment without grace have no power to work. For what can either free w • ll or the commandment do except they be helped̄ with grace both going before and following? For grace sendeth the commandment as a messenger and minister to free will: the commandment provoketh freewill and styrreth it up, as out of a sleep to do good works and leadeth it as a blind man, by the hand, teaching him the way wherein to go. Which both if they be destitute of grace, are able of thenselves to do nothing. And if they begin, yet they proceed not, neither do they perform or accomplish anything: and if they presume, it prospereth not, and is but labor lost. For where the commandment cometh, • yther by man or by Angel: and also where freewell is moved, provoked and informed either by the motion of man or of Angel, yet unless God's grace go withal preventing and following the same what is it able to do? For whē man was put in Paradise, what auayled him the commandment which he heard: Thou shalt eat of every tree of Paradise, but only of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. Which commandment wrought not to his salvation but to his condemnation. And why? because grace that saveth and helpeth, was wanting, which he presuming unjustly upon his own strength despised. Or what did the commandment of the law given by Moses, profit the people of Israel in the wilderness, which law they refused to obey? Or what profit wrought it to him which presumed to follow the Lord of his own free will and not of the Lord's calling, saying unto him: Lord I will follow thee whether soever thou goest. By these and many other places of holy Scripture both of the old and new Testament, it may be proved that neither the commandment nor free will have power to work of themselves, unless they be holpen by God's grace preventing and following them.
Seeing therefore the gift of continency, as all other gifts be, is the gift only of God's grace, and cometh not by the commandment nor by free will: they err therefore & strive in vain which labor to obtain it by their own power. And much more they also do err, which by force constrayne men against their will thereunto, moving thē to offer gifts into the sanctuary of God, not of their own accord but by coactiō, either not knowing or else not remembering the saying of the Lord to Moses: Seperate amongst you the first fruits unto the Lord, and let every man of his own voluntary and willing mind, come and offer the same unto the Lord. What is this, to separate with you the first fruits to the Lord, but only to wey and consider diligently in your hearts, and with discretion to lay down and separate unto the Lord, what we ought to present unto him out of the treasure of our heart? For if thou offer rightly & doest not rightly devide, thou sinnest. And what is to offer with a willing and ready mind, but as the psalmist, saith: I will offer sacrifice unto thee willingly and cheerfully: And the Apostle saith: Not grudgingly or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And Solomon saith: Geue the Lord his glory with a good and free heart, and in every gift thou givest, show a joyful countenance, and sanctify thy tithes with gladness: and with a cheerful eye do all that thou takest in hand. And the Apostle James saith: The Lord loveth not constrained service. And cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, that is, not carefully and with a willing mind.
Wherefore, as the Lord willeth us not to offer anything to him against our willes: so doth he forbid us to compel any man to offer anything against their wills by the foresaid Moses where he saith: Thou shalt not do thy neighbor wrong, neither oppress him with violence. To do wrong to thy neighbor, is to correct him for his sin not of any compassion or mercy towards him, but to re, prove him and to cause him in disdaining, upbraiding, 〈◊〉 rebuking him: not to inform him in the spirit of lenity: but to destroy him in the spirit of bitterness and rigor, as the Apostle saith: If a man be taken in any fault, you that are spiritual inform such in the spirit of lenity, considering thyself least thou also be tempted.
To oppress our neighbor with violence, is to exact anything of him above his power, & to lay upon him more then he is able to bear, an • more peradventure then they thenselves are able to wield, which lay it upon him. Whereas the Lord speaking of the Pharisees to his disciples, forbiddeth them the same, saying: The Scribes and Pharisees do sit upon the chair of Moses. &c. And the Apostle Peter: Feed (saith he) as much as in you lieth, the Lord's flock, providing for them, not by constraint, but willingly after a godly sort, and not for filthy lucre, but of a ready a mind: not as though ye were Lord's over the Clergy, but be you as an example to the flock of good will.
This shepherd of shepherds and Prince of the Apostles doth plainly and evidently declare and insinuate what all other Pastors and Apostles ought to do: how to entreat the flock of the Lord committed unto them, and what great care and compassion of mind they ought to have towards their Cure: and removeth far out of their harts all power of Tyrannicall Lordship and all ambitiō, which some do exercise with gredynes upon those that are committed to their charge, and pronounceth that they ought not to be Lord's, but fathers over their flock: and not imperiously to command them, as exercising stately authority and power upon them, but gently to admonish them and beseech them in the zeal of piety, according to the strength of every person, after the Lord, and not after the affection of their own will, or ambiciously setting forth their own power and iurisdictiō, and that they ought to be an example to the flock, doing first themselves that thing, which they command others, and so to teach them no less by examples then by words. Willingly (saith he) and not by cōstraynt: of charity, & not for greedy gain. For there be many which being inflamed with affection, not of charity, but of covetous gredines and ambition, command others that which they are not able to accomplish, and while they pretend to seek the gain of souls, they hunt and seek rather for worldly lucre. Which Balaam the Prophet did well express: who converted the gift of prophecy, and the grace of blessing which he had received of God, not to the profit of others, but to his own commodity.
And some there be, which whiles they correct others, they pretend to do it with the zeal of God: and whiles they would seem to be better then other, this they do with a certain presumption & rashness, and so fall in their own presumption and temerity. Of whom the Apostle speaketh: Which have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge To have a zeal of God, according to knowledge, is to do anything in God's matters prudently and circumspectly. Of whom Oza beareth a type and resemblance: Who whiles that he went about with his hand to stay the Ark of the Lord staggering a little by reason of the kicking of the Oxen which carried it, fell down therefore dead. The Ark of the Lord to stagger or miscarye by the kickyng of the Oxen, signifieth the law of the Lord (which the priests themselves ought to bear and hold up) to be contradicted of them in not observing the same, & to be turned out of the right course to the contrary part, which Oza, who is interpreted to be a helper of god, attempteth to hold up. For there be certain Prelates, which while they see the order of priesthood by some enormity or excess, to strayne the law of God never so little out of the right course, and labor to redress and rectify that misorder, rather by vain ostentation of their own strength, then for any pure zeal to God, while they thus presume inordinately to do, thinking to seme to be the helpers of God, many times do mortally fall, and incur thereby great danger and peril.
Some other also there be which having before their eyes no consideratiō of man's infirmity neither being touched with any respect of mercy and compassion, nor knowing how to say with the Apostle: Who is infirm and I am not infirm? these whiles they compare themselves to such as be under their charge, not in condition wherein they are equal, but in authority wherein they are superiors, & covet to be their masters, & more to rule over them then to profit them, they oppress the weakness of thē by force and violence of authority, and compel them to their obedience: which is rightly figured by the fact, which is read in y e Gospel of Simon Cyrenaeus, whom the persecutors of the Lord constrained to take up the Cross of Christ. Whose name also doth fitly agree w t y e same figure. For Simon by interpretation is called obedient. Simon then, that is to say, the obedient man is forced to bear y e Cross of the Lord, when as subjects being constrained of their masters by the rigor either of Lordship, or authority, or fere of their curse, and so compelled to obey them, are driven to sustain the Cross of continency against their wills: who neither do love the Cross which they bear, because they bear it rather to their destruction thē to their health: neither by bearing the Cross, do die unto sin, but by the bearing thereof are rather quickened unto sin. For thereof rise diverse other more grievous sins. For by the inhibiting of lawful and natural marriage with one woman, riseth the unnatural and most execrable Sodomitical fornication: riseth also the unlawful and damnable defiling of other men's wives: riseth furthermore cursed and whorish filthiness and pollution: and moreover riseth most abhominable incest against all nature, with their own kindred, with a heap of manifold other filthy ahhominatiōs and lecherous pollutions, whereby the frail infirmity of man is brought (no doubt) into great peril.
Wherefore Loth being delivered from the burning of Sodom through the guiding of the Lord's Angel, and beriued of the fellowship of his wife, whiles that he considering his own infirmity durst not ascend unto the mountain as the Angel bad him, did choose rather to dwell in Segor a little City nere by, the Angel thus bidding him and speaking unto him: Save thy soul and look not behind thee, but save thyself in the mountain least thou also perish. To whom Loth answered: I pray thee Lord, because thy servant hath found such grace in thy sight that thou wilt save me, I cannot be saved in the mountain, least perhaps some evil take me and I die: There is a little City hereby whereunto I may fly and may be saved in it.
What meaneth this that Loth flying from Sodom by the commandment of the Angel to be saved in y e mountain, would not ascend up to the hill fearing there to perish but did chose rather to dwell in Segor a small City near unto the hill, there to be saved, but that every faithful man coveting to eschew the burning & danger of Sodomitical lust, while neither he is able to mount up to the top of virginity, and also is afeard to ascend to the mountain of the state of widowhood least he perish therein, flieth therefore to the state of matrimony, which is a small cōtinēcy in respect of the other two, & also nere unto thē both. For after those two kinds of continencye, this chastity is also proved to be laudable, & is not deprived of the reward of the kingdom of heaven.
Unto this chastity, he is commanded to fly which cannot otherwise contain, & to be saved in it, least peradventure if he clime up to the mount, he fall into inconueniency & perish therein: that is, least if he shall attempt to obtain by his own strength the contenencye which is not given unto him of God, the evil of incontinency or fornication, or of some of the other evils afore rehearsed, do fall upon him, and so he perish in them mortally. For there be many who while they consider not their own infirmity, & while they strive to atchiue greater things thē they are able to reach in this their climbing do fall headlong into worse inconvenience, and while they foolishly seek for great things, do lose the less, which before they seemed to have. Whych we may well understand by the example of Loth aforesaid: Who what time he left the small City Segor, which he chose before to inhabit, in the which he sought to be saved: went up to the mountain and there abiding fell into the stolen incest of his own daughters, as the scripture witnesseth, saying: Loth went up from Segor and remained in the mountain, and his daughters gave to their father wine to drink that night. And the elder of them went and lay with her father. Which thing had not happened unto him, if he had kept himself still in Segor, where be might have been saved at the bidding of the Angel, as he himself required. But because he forsook that, which was granted to him of the Angel, and presumed to that upon his own will; contrary to the precept of the Angel, which was not granted:: therefore he fell into great danger of his soul & committed the grievous sin of incest.
No otherwise doth it hap̄ to many other, who while either they forsake y e thing which is granted thē of God, or ambitiously clime after that which is to thē not granted, both they lose that which they had granted unto thē, and fall into that which to them was not granted. For diverse there be which while they forsake either willingly or against their will, the married life which is to them lawfully permitted, and in which they might be saved, and strive with a presumptuous desire to lead a single life, both they lose that health and safety, which they might have had in one, and incur great danger in the other: so that whereby they suppose most to gain, by the same they lose & fall into the pit of greater ruin. Which thing S Paul y e Doctor of the Gentiles well considering, and tenderly providing for the infirmity of the weak Corinthians writing to him for counsel touching this matter, did write to thē again in this wise, saying: As concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, as it is good for a man not to touch a womā. Nevertheless to avoid whoredom, let every man have his wife and let every woman have her husband. Let the husband give unto his wife due benevolence: likewise also the wife unto her husband. And a little after: withdraw not (saith he) yourselves one from another, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves unto fasting and prayer: and afterward come together again le • to Satan tempt you for your incontinencye. For as the Poe • saith, we cannot all do all things, and as the Apostle saith: It is not in him that willeth not in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. Also another place: For to everyone of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And that everyone of us ought to keep and not to transgress this measure, he teacheth anon after saying: I wish that all men were as I myself am but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.
And that we are to be kept within our compass, and measure, and ought therewith to be content, he teacheth moreover as followeth: Let every man abide in that vocation wherein he is called, And shortly after, for confirmatiō thereof, he repeteth the same again and saith: Let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with the Lord And because he perceived that the infirmity of man was not able to sustain the burning motions and heats of nature stirring in a man, but only by the grace of God, neither to be able to conquer the flesh fighting against the spirit, according to that which he saith of himself in another place: For I see another Law in my members rebelling against the Law of my mind, he therefore of mercy and compassion, as condescending unto their weakness: and not by rigor of law and force of commandment, thus said. As also in another place in his Epistles he speaketh in like words saying: I speak thus grossly after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh. And in this foresaid Epistle, moreover a little before, using the same manner of speech, he saith, Thus I say to you as of favor and not of commandment. And adding moreover, he showeth: As touching virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but only do give counsel, as one that have found mercy with God, that I should be faithful. That is, after the same mercy wherewith the Lord hath informed and instructed me when he called me to the faith, and made me faithful to him: so I likewise do give counsel to other and show the same mercy to them.
And for as much as both are good: to wit to have a wife or not to have: to have a husband or not to have: neither is there any sin in having wife or husband: shortly after he inferreth saying: I suppose therefore this to be good for the present necessity: I mean, that it is good for a man so to be: What meaneth this, for present necessity? What is this necessity present, but present infirmity? or else instant necessity, compelling to do, as y e order of necessity requireth. Or else he meaneth by this present necessity, the distress of that time which then was instant, and compelled him to write, and so to bear with them which was for the avoiding of the fornicatiō amongst them, and many other kinds of filthiness above touched which might have happened. For the which fornication he took occasion to write unto the Corinthians and to answer to their letters: and therefore he vehemently against the said Corinthians in y e former part of the said Epistle uttereth these words: What will you shall I come to you with a rod? or in love and in the spirit of meekness? There is heard among you to be fornication, & such fornication as is not named among the Gentiles, that one should have his own fathers wife. &c. And therefore for this necessity of avoiding such fornication, he saith: It is good for a man so to be: that he which cannot contain, should mary & take a wife. which afterward he expoundeth thus inferring: art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. And if thou be loosed frō a wife seek not a wife. But if thou takest a wife thou sinnest not, and if a virgins mary, she sinneth not. &c. And that he spake not this by way of commanding, but of sufferance and compassion, he showeth plainly in these words following: But I spare you: that is to say, I bear with your infirmity: & therefore he leaveth it in the free power and will of every man, to choose what he best liketh, Neither doth he enforce any man (he saith) violently, nor charge them with any strait commandment, and therefore addeth these words following: And this I speak for your own commodity, not to tangle you as in a snare, but for that it is good and honest for you, that you may serve the Lord without separation.
This he saith to them whom before he exhorted to continency, and whom he would not to be let or troubled by matrimonial conjunction. But to other he saith thus: If any man think that it is uncomely for his virgin to remain over long unmarried, and if need so require, let him do what he thinketh good, he sinneth not: let them mary: And again both be good, he saith, but yet the one to be better he concludeth saying: Therefore he that joineth in Matrimony, his virgin doth well, but he that doth not doth better. Which agreeth well with the text above, speaking of both kinds, as well the man as the woman, where he saith: If thou take a wife thou sinnest not, and if the virgin take a husband she sinneth not.
If therefore it be no sin for the man to take a wife, nor for the virgins to take a husband, after the apostles mind, neither doth diminish their felicity, but rather increase it, & for as much as both do well, & so both be blessed: we then which take wives for our infirmity, what do we sin in having them? Or if the apostle do suffer & permit to every man for the avoiding of fornication to have his wife, we then which come of the same lump or mass & taking our sinful flesh of the sinful flesh of Adam, are not able otherwise to contain, why are we not permitted for y e same cause & by the same permissiō, to have likewise our wives, but are enforced to forsake them being married?
Wherefore either do you permit us, following the apostle, to have our wives, or else teach us that we come not of the same mass, either else show us that the same sufferaūce & permission is not granted to us by the Apostle which is granted to other. Which cause peradventure you will thus pretend: that this sufferance was granted of the Apostle, not to the clergy or to any of our order, but only to lay mē. Which cannot well be defended neither by the words of the Apostle, nor by any circumstance of his Epistle for as much as there is no certain distinction or denomination either of persons or degrees, or professions there mentioned, neither doth he make any difference either in names or offices of men, either of them which wrote unto him either of those persons of whom he wrote, or else of those to whō he answereth, but only in general to the whole church of the Corinthians, as he himself in the beginning of his Epistle purporteth in these words: Paul called the Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God & Sosthenes his brother to the church which is at Corinth, such as be sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that invocate the name of the Lord. &c. [And after a few other words, which here for breuityes sake we omit, as not being greatly to the purpose pertinent: thus he inferreth:] These premisses being then well considered, we beseech you to have regard & compassiō of our infirmity, most humbly desiring you, not to oppress us with this violence. For as we have sufficiently before proved, no man ought to be constrained unto continency against his will, neither is this kind • of virtue commanded of God to any man, of necessity, but only of voluntary devotion to be offered unto the Lord: as he himself speaketh in the Gospel: All men cannot receive this saying, but to whom it is given. Whereunto he gently exhorteth them that can take it, saying: He that is able to receive this, let him receive it. &c.
Wherefore for distinctions sake Moses is not himself commanded to cloth Aaron and his sons with breeches as in these words going before: Thou shalt cloth with these Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him. &c. But he thus saith: Thou shalt make linen breches that they thenselves may cover the filth of their flesh. That they themselves (saith he) may cover the filth of their flesh. Thou (saith he) shalt make the breches for the bishop and his sons: thou shalt teach the rule of chastity: thou shalt exhort them to abstain from the company of their wives, which shall do the priests office: Yet laying upon none violently the said yoke of continency, but whosoever shall be priests and shall serve the altar, shall of their own accord surcease from the use of matrimony: which when they shall do, & of their own voluntary consent shall take upon them the purpose of continency to serve the altar, then shall the grace of God be present, which as it did apparel those other priests aforesaid with attire for thē convenient: so shall it instruct these abundantly how they ought to live and to teach. And this sense well agreeth with the text that followeth, saying: And when thou shalt wash the father and his sons with water, thou shalt take the garments, that is, the strayt coat, the tunicle & the brestlappe, and put them upon Aaron, & gird them to him with a brodered girdle of the Ephod. Then thou shalt put the myter upon his head, and shalt put the holy crown upon the miter, and thus shall he be consecrated. Also thou shalt bring his sons and put coats upon them, and shalt gird them with girdles, both Aaron & his sons, and shalt put bonettes on them, and the Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetual law.
Thus then you see a commandment of receiving the linen breches of Moses. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that Aaron and his sons, first did apparel themselves with this kind of apparel, and so entered in to be washed, inducted, anointed & consecrated by the hands of Moses.
By the which we are plainly taught, that the yoke of continency is not to be enforced upon any man against his will, but is to be received of God with a prōpt & a devout will. Which thing also Dyonisius Areopagita that godly wise man, the Disciple of S. Paul and ordained of him B. of Athens, in a certain Epistle of his sent to Pymtus B. of the Gnasians, in which he toucheth many things of marriage and chastity (as is in y e Ecclesiastical history rehearsed) doth admonish the said Pymtus, and prayth him that he will lay no grievous burdens upon the necks of the Disciples, neither infer any necessity of compelled chastity upon the brethren, whereby the infirmity of some of thē might be in danger. And Pymtus answering to Dyonisius again, showeth himself willing to embrace the sentence of his wholesome council. The same also did Paphnutius, the divine & chaste bishop, who in y e council of Nice (as the Tripertite history doth show us) when the fathers, which there were present went about to restrain Priests from marriage: he rising up amongst thē & moved with the zeal of man's infirmity, desired thē that they would not so do, but rather to leave it unto the voluntary discretiō of every man, least in so doing they might peradventure give occasion of adultery and fornicatiō. For those holy men did thē use this cautele and moderation in religion, that whē they treated anything concerning instructiō and edification of the people, and would have them stirred up to a better life by godly instructions, they would rather persuade things to be observed with patience and lenity, then command with rigor and authority: neither would they compel any man to their obedience against his will.
Whose examples you also following, which succeed in their room and name, do you not lay vpō us infirm persons, such importable burdens, lest you be partakers with the Pharisyes and lawyers of the Lord's curse: Who saith: Woe to you lawyers which lay burdens upon men, which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one finger. And least the cry of the children of Israel ascend up to the Lord for the cruel dealing of them which are overseers of the works: Neither do you make such Eunuchs which are so borne from their mothers womb, or such Eunuchs which are violently made by men, but rather those Eunuchs which of their own accord have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heavē. Neither do you bring upon the holy order of God's ministers for us only, such an offense and slander, that for our wicked life you make the ministry to be despised of others, while you will not suffer them either to hear us, or to receive the sacraments of us, infaming thereby our lend life, & causing the savor of us to stink before Pharaoh, & his servants. Wherein it seemeth to us that you deal not soundly & uprightly, if a man may so say (I pray you take it in good worth, that I speak) & also to be against y e authority of God's word, & the canonical constitutions which you do: where as the Lord saith by Moses the lawgeuer: the shame of thy mother thou shalr not disclose, & her ignominy thou shalt not discover. Our mother is y e church: y e sons of this mother be all the faithful, which name yet most fitly is appropriate unto priests: for they do beget y e faithful, both by y e word of preaching & sacrament of baptism. Was not he to be counted a right mother: who said, my little children of whom I travel in birth again? The shame & ignominy of our mother, what is it but the reproueable conversation of the life of priests which shame & ignominy is thē revealed, whē y e life of priests is publicly infamed. Which thing you do, y e discover & notify unto men our fragility, lying before as hyd & covered, because before it was not known & for the same you bring y e holy ministry & mysteries of god into contempt & hatred: as though the polluted life of other did anything p • rtaine thereto to pullute the same, & as though our uncleanness did anything blemish thē, or diminish the pureness thereof, where as the Psalmist saith: The law of the Lord is pure and immaculate: Or as though they were any whitte polluted by our infection, which do receive the said mysteries either by our mouth, or by our ministry. Which if you grant to be so, then the Lord would never have spokē so to his disciples & the people, touching the Pharisees, saying: Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.
And again, if it were so, the Lord would not have sent forth Judas, whom he knew should betray him, with the other Disciples to preach, neither would have committed to him the power of working miracles, & of giving health nor admitted him to the Communion of the Supper. And if our impurity should infect our holy mysteries or ministrations, and make them worse that hear and receive the same then the Lord would never have touched the Leper whom he had healed, neither would he have kissed him, neither would have eaten with Simon another Leper, neither would have suffered his feet to be kissed, and with the tears to be washed, and with the hear to be dried, & his head to be annointed of Mary the sinner.
Therefore the holy Canons have thus decreed, that no man which rightly receiveth the Lord's Sacraments of an heretic, should be therefore anything corrupted by his heretical pranity, nor the said Sacraments should be any whitte distayned by the infection of him. Whereupon the Church of Rome in a certain Epistle directed unto Anastasius the Emperor, by Anastasius the Pope, did so ordain and write, that none of all them whom Acatius did baptize, or whom he ordained Canonically to be priests or Levites, should be anything hurt by the name of the said Acatius: so that thereby the Sacraments which by him were ministered, should seme the less firm and effectual. For the sacrament of Baptism also being ministered of an adulterer or a thief (which God forefend to be in the Church) doth come unto the receiver never a whit the worse. What meant that voice which sounded by the Dove, but that it excluded all evil and impurity of the corruption of man? in the which it is declared and said: This is he which baptizeth. &c. For if the beams of this visible Sun passing by the filthy places, receive no spot of filthiness thereby, much more the grace of him which made this visible Sun, is not tied to any worthiness of our works. What soever therefore any minister of the Church worketh in his functiō to the behoove of the people, all that taketh his effect by the operation of God. Thus witnesseth Paul by whom Christ speaketh: I have planted, and Apollo hath watered, but it is the Lord that hath givē the increase. God regardeth not so much, who or what manner of person doth preach, but that he so preach, that he may confirm thē that be naught, and cause them to preach well of Christ. For such is the operation of God's mighty grace, that by evil men he winneth good men, and by reprobate and wicked persons he getteth and gathereth together those that be good.
By these and such other reasons and authorities above alleged, you ought to be persuaded, neither to abandon us that be married, from the administration of divine service, nor yet to excommunicate such, to whom the matter nothing pertaineth, from the communion thereof. And if we be evil, we are evil to our selves, and hurt our selves more then others. And such as you suppose peradventure to be vicious, yet may have some good thing inwardly which you know not of.
For many there be whom you judge to be incontinent, which live more chastely then they whom you so greatly extol for their continency. We that have wives, according to the Apostles mind, so have them as though we had them not. Which gift of continency for as much as you cannot give us, pray therefore with us and for us, that he will give it unto us, who only is the giver thereof, & without whom no man is able to live continently. For otherwise we cannot have it, vules we pray unto him frō the bottom of our hearts, who is known to be the author and giver thereof. And this same (saith Solomon) is wisdom, to know whose gift it is: neither is there any gift above this.
These two Epistles written to Pope Nicolas under the title of Uolusianus, giveth us to understand by the contents thereof, first that he himself was then a married Bishop.
Secondly, that the liberty of Priests marriage ought not to be restrained by any general Law, of compulsion: but to be left to every man's free choice and voluntary devotion.
Thirdly the said Epistles being written to Pope Nicolas (if the title be true) declare, that this law prohibiting the lawful matrimony of Churchmen, began first in this Popes times generally to be enacted.
And although it be not here expressed, which Pope Nicolas this was, yet by the circumstance of time, and especially by the words of Pope Alexander 1. Distinct. 32. Praeter, it may probably be esteemed to be Nicolas. 2. and not Nicolas the first, as some do suppose amongst whom is Illyricus in Centur. 9. cap. 10. and also John Bale, De Scriptoribus Cent. 2. with certain other: from whose judgments although I am loath to dissent, yet notwithstanding modestly and freely to utter herein my opinion, this I suppose, that if the truth of this matter were thoroughly tried, it might peradventure be found, that they be herein deceived, and all by mistaking a certain place of Gracian. For the better explanation whereof, here is to be understanded, that amongst the distinctions of Gracian there is a constitution, Dist. 32. Nullus, the tenor whereof is thi •• Nullus Missam audiat Praesbiteri, quem scit Concubinam iud • bitanter habere, aut subintroductam mulierem. &c. That is: That no man shall hear mass of any Priest, whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concubine, or a woman privily resorting to him. &c.
This Decree for as much as Gracian doeth allege under the name and title of Pope Nicolas, not namynge what Nicolas he was, therefore John Bale and Illyricus, one following the other, and they both following Uolaterane Lib. 22. doth vouch this constitution upon Nicolas the first. The words of Uolateran be these, writing of Nicolas the first: Multa hic vtilia constituit, inter quae, nequis Concubinam habenti praesbitero aut sacrificanti interesset, vt testator Gracianus. &c.
In like effect follow also the words of Illyricus afore said: Decretum fecit, ne quis à Sacerdote Sacramentum su • cipiat, quem sciret habere Concubinam, seu vxorem, and alledgeth, as Uolaterane doth, the said Distinction of Gratiam Distinct. 32. Nullus. In alleging whereof both they seme to be deceived, mistaking belike one Nicolas for another, as may be proved, & made good by three or four reasons.
First, by the words of Pope Alexander the second, in the next Chapiter following, who being the successor of Leo and Nicolas the second, useth the same words in his Sinode of Mantua (which Gracian referreth unto Nicolas, and prosecuteth the same more amply and fully alleging moreover the former constitution of both his predecessors Pope Leo and Nicolas: which by all stories are known to be Leo the nynth and Nicolas the second, which both were next before him. The words of Alexander. 2. be these: Praeter hoc autem praecipiendo mandamus, vt nullus Missam audiat praesbiteri quem scit Concubinam habere indubitanter, vel subintroductam mulierem, vnde etiam sancta Synodus hoc capitulum sub excommunicatione statuit, dicens▪ Quicunque Sacerdotum, diaconorum, Subdiaconorum, post cōstitutum beatae memory praedecessoris nostri sancti Leonis Papae & Nicolai, de castitate Clericorum, Concubinam palam du • erit, vel ductam non reliquerit. &c. By the which words speaking of Nicolas his predecessor it is evident to understand this to be Pope Nicolas the second, which was his next predecessor and not Pope Nicolas the first, who was about 200. years before him.
The second reason, I take out of the next Chapter of Gracian going before, where he allegeth again the same Nicolas writing to Otho Archbishop. Which Otho was then in the time of this Nicolas the second Archbishop of Colen, and was afterward in the Counsel of Mantua, under Pope Alexander 2. teste John. Quintio, Iure consulto, Whereby it must needs be granted, that this was Nicolas the second, and not the first.
The third conjecture or reason is this, for that Pope Nicolas the first never made any such Act or Decree, the Priests that were entangled with a Concubine, should neither sing Mass, nor that any should resort to hear the Mass of such. &c. but rather the contrary. For so we read in the history of Antoninus, and in the Decrees 15. q. 8. Sciscitantibus. Sciscitantibus vobis si à sacerdote quifuerit comprehēsus in adulterio, sieve de hoc sola fama resperserit, debeatis Cōmunionem suscipere, nec ne, respondemus: Non potest aliquis quantumcunque pollutus sit, sacramenta diuina polluere, quae Purgatoria cunctarum contagionum existunt. &c.
And yet more plainly also afterward he saith: Consulendum decernitis vtrum praesbiterum habentem vxorem debeatis sustentare & honorare, an à vobis preijcere? In quo respondemus, quoniam licet ipsi valde sint reprehensibiles, vos tamen conuenit Deum imitari, qui solemn suum oriri facit super bonos & malos: deijcere enim à vobis eos non debetis. Distinct. 18. Consulendum. &c. That is: Where ye demand concerning the Priest that hath a wife, whether ye ought to sustain him, and honor him, or reject him from you, we answer, That albeit they be very much blame worthy, yet ye ought to be followers of God, which maketh his sun to rise both upon the good, and upon the bad. And therefore ye ought not to reject such away from you. &c.
And this Nicolas, Antoninus confesseth plainly to be Nicolas y e first. Whereby it is not only not unlike, but also most certain that Nicolas the first was not the father of this constitution, either to exterminate married priests from their churches, or to excommunicate the people from receiving their Communion, much less then frō hearing their service.
Fourthly, for as much then as it is undoubted that Nicolas 2. and Alexander 2. through the intrigation of wicked Hildebrand, were the authors of that constitution, whereof Gracian speaketh, it remaineth plain by the words of Uolusianus, in the latter end of his Letter, (wherein he maketh mention both of discharging the priest from singing Mass, & the people from hearing) that the said Epistle was written, not to Pope Nicolas the first but to the second, for because both these were decreed against married priests under Nicolas. 2. and Alexander. 2. as is afore declared.
And further, least my judgment herein should seem to stand alone and singular, without some to take my part, I will here produce for me a Parisian Doctor, and a famous Lawyer, Johannes Quintius above mentioned, who in his book De Clericorum moribus, plainly accordeth w • th mine opinion, touching this Nicolas author of the Decree aforesaid, where he writeth in these words: Nicolaus Papa Othoni Coloniensi Archiepisc. &c. Quinque fuerunt hoc nomine pontifices Primum, secundumúe oportuit esse, qui haec rescripserit, ill Romanus, anno. 860. hic Burgundus, ann. 1059. Reliquos Ninolaos antecessit Gratianus, qui scripsit haec, anno. 1150 Posteriorem fuisse credo, qui in Panomiae lib. 3. Tit. de lapsis, nominatur Nicholaus iunior, cuius est & aliud Decretum sequens. &c. That is to say in English: Pope Nicolas writing to Otho Archebishop of Colen. Glos. There have been in all, five Popes called by this name of Nicolas. Of the which five, this Nicolas the writer hereof must be either the first, or seconde: the one a Roman, anno. 860. the other a Burgundian, ann. 1059 or. 1060. the other Nicolas lived after Gratian, who wrote in the year. 1150. In my judgment I suppose this to be Nicholas the seconde, which in the third book of the Laws called Pannomiae. Tit. de lapsis, is named Nicolas the younger. Which Nicholas also is author of the next Decree that followeth. &c.
Wherefore if any man shall object hereafter, that because Gratian in the Distinction aforesaid, nameth Pope Nicolas absolutely without any additions, it is therefore to be taken for Nicolas the first: unto this objection I set here these two Lawiers to answer. Unto whose answer this I add also, that the common manner of Gracian lightly in all his Distinctions is, that when he speaketh of Popes, as of Innocentius, Gregorius, Leo, Lucius, and such other, very seldom he expresseth the difference of their names. So in the Dist. 18. Praesbyteris, where he bringeth in the Decree of Pope Calixtus in like manner against the Matrimony of Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, he addeth thereto no discrepance of his name: and yet all the world knoweth, that this was Calixtus the second, & not the first, &c. But whether he were or no, the matter forceth not much. The letters (no doubt) by their title appear to be written by Uolusianus. Most certain this is, by whō so ever they were written, fruitful Epistles they are, and effectual to the purpose.
But least we shall seem too much to digress from our purpose, let us return to the story & time of Nicolas y e second again, which was about the year, as is said. 1060. a little before Hildebrand was Pope. Which Hildebrand, albeit he was then but a Cardinal, yet was he the whole doer of all things, and concluded what him listed in the Church of Rome, and also made Popes, whom he would, as appeared both by this Nicolas, & also Pope Alexander which followed him. pag. 174. So that this dissolution of priests marriage began somewhat to kindle under this pope Nicolas, through the pestilent means of Hildebrand, and after him increased more under Pope Alexander, as appeareth by the Synod holden at Millane, an. 1067. but moste of all it burst out under the said Hildebrand himself being Pope, the year (as is said) 1076.
Although as touching this prohibition of priests to be married, I am not ignorant, that certain of the contrary faction, in searching out the reach and antiquity of this tradition, for priests to abstain from wives, do refer the same to the time of the seconde Council of Carthage, which was about y e time of Pope Syritius, a great enemy to Ministers wives, as appeareth Distinct. 84. Cum praeterito. Yet notwithstanding to the same may be answered, that this was no universal or general Council, but some particular Synod, and therefore of no such great forceable authority.
2 Secondly, the same Synod being about the time of Pope Syritius, who was a capital enemy against priests marriage: may seem to draw some corruption of the time then present.
3 Thyrdly, neither is it impossible, but as diverse bastard Epistles have been falsely fathered upon certain ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church, and diverse Canons also (as of the Council of Nice) have been corrupted by Bishops of Rome, so some falsehode likewise or forgery might be used in this seconde Council of Carthage.
4 Fourthly, although no false conveyance had ben used therein, yet for so much as the said Canon of this second Council of Carthage doth misreport and falsifye the Canons of the Apostles, in so doing it doth justly diminishe his own credit.
5 Fifthly, seeing the foresaid Canon of this seconde Council of Carthage tendeth clean contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, to the Council of Gangra, and other Councils moe, and commandeth that, which they do accurse, the authority thereof ought to have no great force, but rather may be rejected.
6 Finally, though this constitution of the Council of Carthage, were perfectly sound, without all corruption, yet plain and evident it is by this Uolusianus, Bishop also of Carthage, that the same constitution took no great hold in the Church, for so much as we see, that both this Uolusianus was married after that in Carthage him self, and also besides him many hundredth years after, Marriage was a common matter through moste Churches of Christendom, amongst Bishops and priests, as partly before hath been declared. And more may be seen in histories, what great tumults and business was long after that in Hildebrandes time, and after him also amongst the Clergy men, both in Italy, Spain, France, and in all quarters of Christendom, for separating priests from their liberty of marrying.
And again, if this tradition concerning the unmarried life of Priests had stand upon such an old foundation from the second Council of Carthage (as they pretend) what needed then in the time of Pope Nicolas. 2. Pope Alexander. 2. Pope Gregory. 7. and other Popes after them, so much labor to be taken, so many Laws and decrees to be devised & enacted, for the abolishing o • priests marriage, if the same had been of such a long antiquity as they would make men believe?
By these things considered it may appear, that this distraction of Priests marriage, by public Law compelling them to single life, was nether received for a full law generally to be observed in the Church of Rome, but only since the beginning of Hildebrand, that is, since these five hundred years.
Aboute which time first is to be noted, that under Pope Leo and this Pope Nicolas, Cranzius, and certain German Chronicles do say, that Symonie and Priests Marriage were prohibited. This Pope Leo was. ann. 1051.
After him Pope Nicolas (to whom the foresaid Letter of Uolusianus seemeth to be written) made this ordinance: Vt nullus missam audiat praesbyteri quem scit concubi nam indubitanter habere aut subintroductam mulierem. Et mox: Quicunque Sacerdotum, Diaconorum, Subdiaconorum, post constitutum beatae memory praedecessoris nostris sanctiss. Papae Leonis, de castitate clericorum, concubinam palam duxerit, vel ductam non reliqueret, ex parte omnipotentis Dei & authoritate beati Petri & pauli praecipimus, & omnino contradicimus vt Missam non cantet &c. That is, What soever priest Deacon, or Subdeacon, according to the constitution of Pope Leo our predecessor, conserning the chastity of Clerkees, shall openly mary a Concubine, or shall not put her away being married in the behalf of almighty God &c. we utterly charge and forbid the same, that he sing no Mass, nor read the Gospel or Epistle at Mass, nor execute any divine service. &c. And this was about the year of our Lord. 1058.
Although in this constitution of Pope Nicolas, this word Concubine may be understanded for no wi • e, but so as Gratian understandeth it in the 16. Canon of the Apostles in these words: Concubina vero intelligenda est praeter vxorem: That is, for one besides a man's wife. Then after this Pope Nicholas, coming pope Alexander, and specially Pope Hildebrand, do expound this Concubine forbidden, for a wife, and such priests as be married, they expound them for Nicolaitans: for so we read in the Synod of Millane, under Pope Alexander the second: Nicholaitae autem dicuntur Clerici, qui contra castitatis Ecclesiasticae regulam foeminis admiscentur. &c.
And further it followeth in the same Synod: Nicolaitarum quoque haeresin nihilominus condemnamus, & non modo praesbyteros, sed & Diaconos & Subdiaconos ab vxorū, vel concubinarum foedo consortio nostris studijs, in quantum nobis possibilitas fuerit, arcendos esse promittimus &c.
And after it followeth in this wise: Si haec de Simoniaca & Nicolaitarum heresy delenda & funditus destruenda fideliter non obseruauero, ab omnipotenti Deo & omnibus Sanctis sim excommunicatus et anathematizatus, & ab omni Christianorum consortio inueniar alienus.
And moreover it followeth upon the same: Anathematizo quoque omnes heresies extollentes se aduersus sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam, specialiter vero et nominatim. Simoniacam haeresin: deinde Nicolaitarum aque abominabilem haeresin, quae impudēter latrat, sacri altaris Ministros debere vel posse licenter vti coniugibus, quomodo & laicos, &c. As much to say in English, as, I do accurse all heresies extolling thenselves against the holy catholic and Apostolic church, but especially and namely, the heresy of Simony: and in like manner, the abominable heresy of the Nicolaitanes, which impudently barketh, that the Ministers of the holy alter may & ought to use wives lawfully, as well as lay men, &c. And thus much concerning the Synod of Milan, under Pope Alexander. 2. ann. 1067.
Nexte after this Alexander, rose up Pope Hildebrand, of all other, the chiefest and most principal enemy against Priests Marriage. For whereas all other approved Canons and Councelles were contented, that any Clergy man having a wife before his entering into his ministry, might enjoy the liberty of his marriage, so that he married not a widow, or a known harlot, or kept a Concubine, or were twice married, now cometh in Pope Hildebrand, making Priests Marriage to be heresy, and further enacting: That whatsoever Clerke, Deacon, or Minister had a wife, what so ever she was, (maid or other) either before his orders, or after, should utterly put her from him, or elles forsake his Ministry. &c.
Although notwithstanding the greatest parte of Ecclesiastical Ministers seeing this strange doctrine and proceedings (which Saint Paul expressly calleth the doctrine of Deuilles) did what they could to withstand the same. Of whom Lambertus Scafnaburgensis thus writeth: Aduersus hoc Decretum protinus vehementer infremuit tota factio Clericorum, hominem plane haereticum, & vesani dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus sermonis Domini, quo ait: Non omnes capiunt hoc Verbum: Qui potest capere, capiat, &c. Et Apostoli: Qui se non continet nubat: Melius est nubere, quàm vri, Violenta exactione homines viuere cogeret ritu Angelorum. Quod si pergeret, malle se sacerdotium, quàm coniugium deserere, &c. In English thus: Agaynste this Decree, the whole number of the Clergy did vehemently storm and grudge, crying out upon him, as a pernicious heretic, & one that maintained fantastical doctrine: who forgetting what the Lord saith: All men cannot take this word: He that can take it, let him take it. And also what the Apostle saith: Who so cannot otherwise contain let him marry, better it is to marry then to burn, &c. Yet notwithstanding would bind men to live like Aungelles. Who if he continued as he began, they would (they said) sooner forsake the order of Priesthode, then their order of Matrimony, &c.
Which Hildebrand, all this notwithstanding, yet ceased not still to call upon them, and to send to the Bishops everywhere to execute his commandment with all severity, threatening to lay the Apostolical Censure upon them, if otherwise they shown not their diligence there in to the uttermost. Ex Lamb. This was, ann. 1074. Of the same Hildebrand, Radulphus de Diceto also writing hath these words:
Gregorius Papa septimus Hildebrandus, celebrata Synodo, Symoniacos anathematizauit, vxoratos sacerdotes à Diuino remouit officio, & Laicis Missam eorum audire interdixit, nouo exexemplo, & (vt multis visum est) inconsiderato praeiudicio, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam, &c. The English is this: Pope Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand holding a Synod, accursed, such as committed Simony, and removed married Priests from saying service, forbidding also the lay men to hear their Mass, after a new and strange example, & as many thought, after an vnconsiderate prejudice, against the sentence of holy fathers.
And thus much for the antiquity of bringing in the single life of Priests, which first springing from the time of Pope Nicholas and Alexander 2. began first with a custom, and afterward was brought into a law, chiefly by Pope Hildebrand, and so spread from Italy into other countries, and at length into England also, albeit not without much ado, as ye shall hear, the Lord willing.
In the mean while as Pope Nicolas and Hildebrand were busy at Rome, so Lanfranke Archb. of Canterbury likewise was doing here in England about the same matter, although he began not altogether so roughlie as Pope Hildebrand did, for so it appeared by his Council holden at Winchester: where though he inhibited such as were Prebendaries of cathedral churches to have wives, yet did he permit in his Decree, that such Priests as dwelt in towns and villages, having wives, should retain them still, and not to be compelled to be separate from them: and they which had none, should be inhibited to have: enjoining moreover the Bishops thus, to foresee hereafter, that they presumed not to admit into order, any priests or Deacons, unless they should first make a solemn profession to have no wives.
The words of the Council be these: Decretumque est, vt nullus Canonicus vxorem habeat, sacerdotum vero in castellis & in vicis habitantium habentes vxores, non cogantur vt 〈◊〉 non habentes, interdicantur vt habeant: & deinceps caueant Episcopy, vt Sacerdotes vel Diaconi non praesumant ordinare, nisi profiteantur vt vxores non habeant, &c.
And here to note by the way of the said Lanfranke, for all his glorious gaye show of his monkish virginity and single life, yet he escaped not altogether so unspotted for his part, but that the story of Matthew Paris, writing of Paulus Cadonensis, whom Lanfranke preferred so gladly to be Abbot of S. Albons, thus reporteth of him: Paulus (inquit) Monachus Cadonensis Archiepiscopi Lanfranci nepos, iure, aliquorum relationibus, consanguinitate propinquior, &c. That is, Paul a Monk of Cadune, and nephew of the Archbishop Lanfranke, yea as some say further, more near in blood to him, then so, &c.
Then after Lanfranke, came Anselm into the See of Canterbury, who taking to him a stouter stomach, more fiercelie and egerlie labored this matter, in abrogating utterly the marriage of priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and of the universal clergy, not permitting as Lanfranke did, Priests that had wives in villages and towns, to keep them still, but utterly commanding, and that under great pain, not only Priests and Deacons, but Subdeacons also (which is against the Council of Lateran) which were already married, to be separated, and that none should be received into order hereafter, without profession of perpetual chastity.
And yet notwithstanding, for all this great blustering and thundering of this Romish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Priests yet still holding their own, as well as they could, gave not much place to his unlawful Iniunction, but kept still their wives almost two hundred years after, refusing and resisting of long time, the yoke of that servile bondage, to keep still their freedom from such vowing, professing, and promising, as may well appear by those Priests of York, of whom Gerardus Archbishop of York speaketh, writing to Anselm in these words: Sitio Clericorum meorum integritatem, sed praeterquam in paucis admodum, ve Aspidis surditatem, vel fabulosi cuiusdam Prothei mutabilitatem inuenio. Varijs linguarum aculeis, minas, modo conuitia infligunt. Sed hoc facilius in his qui remotíores sunt, tolero. Illud omnino grave genus mali est, quod hi qui quasi in sinu meo sunt, qui Canonicorum nomine gaudent canones aspernant, aduersus concilij nostri statuta, quasi Sophistici disputatores argumētantur, professiones vero mihi penitus abnegant Canonici illi, qui sine profession ad sacros ordines inordinabiliter sunt prouecti, & qui in praesbyteratu vel Diaconatu constituti, vxores sieve Concubinas in publico hactenus habuerunt, ab Altari nulla se reuerentia continuerunt. Cum vero ad ordines aliquos inuito, dura ceruice nituntur, ne inordinando castitatem profiteantur: In englishe thus: I much desire the purity of my clergy men. Howbeit except it be in very few, I find in them the deafness of the serpent aspis, and the inconstancy of Protheus that the Poets fable spake of. With their stinging tongues they cast out some while threats; some while taunts and rebukes. But this grieveth me less in them that be further off. This grieveth me most of all, that they which be of mine own Church as in mine own bosom, and prebendaryes of mine own See, contemn our Canons, and argue like Sophisticall disputers, against the statutes of our Council. The prebendaries which vnordinately have been taken into orders heretofore without making vow or profession, refuse utterly to make profession to me. And they that be priests or Deacons, having married before openly wives or Concubines, will not be removed for any reverence from the Aultare. And when I call upon any to receive order, styffely they deny to profess chastity in their ordering &c.
Thus for all their rigorous austerity by this Anselm in forcing his Decree made at London, against the marriage of Priests, yet the same had no great success, neither in his life time, nor after his life. For although sundry priests, during his life time, were compelled by his extremity, to renounce their wives, yet many denied to obey him.
Divers were contented rather to leave their benefices, then their wives. A great number were permitted by king Henry, for money to enjoy their wives. Which was so chargable unto them, (saith Edmer in his 4. book) that at length two hundredth priests, in their Albes and Priestly vestementes, came barefoot to the kings Palace, crying to him for mercy, and especially making their suit to the Queen, who using much compassion towards them, yet durst not make for them any intercession.
Anselm at this time was over the Sea, making his voyage to the pope. Who hearing hereof, writeth to the King, declaring that such forfaytures appertained nothing to him. But only unto Bishops, and in their default to the Archbishops. Whereof read more, pag. 194. So willful was the blind zeal of this Prelate, against all reason, against nature it self, against the example of his forcelders against public custom of his own time, against the doctrine of the Apostles, the constitution of Councils against all honesty, and all God's forbode, that he neither at the contemplation of the king, nor at the crying out and public dolour of so many priests, nor yet moved with the letters of Pope Paschalis himself (who putting him in remembrance of so many priests sons, willed him to consider the necessity of the time, pag. 196. would yet nothing relent from his stubborn purpose, unto his latter ende. In whom, as many great crimes may justly be noted, so of all other, this is most principally in him to be reprehended: for that he seeing and perceiving what Sodomitical feditie and abomination, with other inconveniences, did spring incontinently upon this his Diabolical doctrine, yet for all that would not give over his pestilent purpose.
For so the story recordeth, that when Anselm had established his Synodoll constitution, in separating priests from their wives (which was, anno. 1103.) not long after, rumors and complaints were brought to him, of the execrable vice of Sodomitry, which then began specially to reign in the Clergy, after this inhibition of matrimony.
Whereupon Anselm was constrained to call another Council at Paul's within London, to provide for this mischief. In which Council this Act was made: Sodomiticum flagitium facientes, & eos in hac voluntate iuuantes, graui an athemate dānamus, donec poenitentia & confession absolutionem mereantur, &c. All them that commit the ungracious sin of Sodomitry, and them also which assist them in this their wicked purpose, with grievous curse we do condemn, till such time as they shall deserve absolution by penance and confession, &c.
Thus ye have heard what abhominable wickedness ensued after that priests were debarred from marriage, and whatfore punishment was devised by this maidenly prelate, for extirping that sinful wickedness: in the abolishing whereof, more wisely he should have removed away the occasion whereof he was the author himself, then by penalty to suppress it, which he could never do.
Now let us hear further, what followed in that worthy Council: Qui vero in hoc crimine publicatus fuerit, statutum est, siquidem fuerit persona religìosi ordinis, vt ad nullum amplius gradum promoueatur, & si quem habet, ab illo deponatur. Si autem laicus, vt in toto Regno Angliae legali sua condignitate priuetur. Et ne huius criminis absolutionem, ijs qui se sub regula viuere vouerunt, aliquis nisi Episcopus deinceps facere praesumat Statutum quoque est, vt per totam Angliam in omnibus Ecclesijs, & in omnibus diebus Dominicis, excommunicatio praefata publicetur ac renouetur, &c. Which is as much to say in English: It is enacted, that whosoever shall be publicly known to be guilty hereof, if he be a religious person, he shall from thence forth be promoted to no degree of honor, and that degree which he hath already, shall be taken from him. If he be a lay person, he shall be deprived of all his freedom within the whole realm of England. And that none under a bishop shall presume to assoil such as have been Monks professed, of that trespass. It is also enacted, that every Sunday in the year, and in every parish church in England, this general curse aforesaid shall be published and renewed, &c. Ex Rog. Houed. & Epist. Anselm. 278.
Is not here (trow you) good division of Justice, that lawful wedlock of priests can find no grace nor pardon, yea, is made now heresy: where adultery & horrible Sodomitry is washed away with a little confession? And see yet what followeth more. After that this penal curse should now go abroad and be published in churches, the monks perceiving this matter to touch them somewhat near, whispered in Anselmus care, persuading him that y e publication of that Acte might grow to great danger and inconvenience, in opening the vice which before was not known: in such sort, that in short time after, that curse was called in again.
And so cursed Sodomitry & adultery passed free without punishment, or word spoken against it, where contrary godly matrimony could find no mercy.
Now what reasons and arguments this Anselm sucked out of the Court of Rome, to prove the matrimony of priests unlawful, were it not for combring the Reader with tediousness, here would be shown. Briefly, the chief grounds of all his long disputation, in his book entitled, Offendiculum Sacerdotum, between the master and scholar, come to this effect.
Argument.
Priests of the old law, during the time of their ministration, abstained from their wives:
Ergo, Priests in the time of the Gospel, which every day minister at the altar, must never have any wives.
Another Argument.
Moses, when he should sanctify the people, going up to the hill, commanded them to sequester themselves from their wives three days:
Ergo, Priests that must be sanctified to the Lord always ought to live chaste always without wives.
Another Argument.
David before he should eat of the shewbread, was asked whether he and his company had been without the company of their wives three days:
Ergo, Priests that be continually attending upon the table and sacraments of the Lord, ought never to have company with any such.
Another Argument.
Oza, which put his hand to the Ark, was slain therefore, as it is thought, because he lay with his wife the night before:
Ergo, Priests whose hands be always occupied about the Lord's service, must be pure from company of wife, or any woman.
Another Argument.
Nadab, and Abiud, which sacrificed with strange fire, were devoured therefore, because they companied with their wives the same night:
Ergo, Priests and sacrificers must have no wives to company with all.
Another Argument.
The priests of the Gentiles, in old time when they sacrificed to their idols, are said to lie from their wives:
Ergo, much more the priests that sacrifice to the living God, ought so to do.
The exposition.
Melius, id est, leuius est legitimae vxori nubere, quàm vri, id est, quàm alienarum mulierum concupiscentia consumi. It is a lighter fault to marry one lawful wife, then to be consumed with concupiscence of strange women.
The fourth and fifth Articles of vows and Priests Marriage.
As we have discoursed before by histories and order of time, the antiquity of the iii. former Articles above mentioned, to wit, of transubstantiation, of the half communion and of private Masses, so now coming to the Article of vows and of Priests marriage, the reader will look perchance to be satisfied in this likewise, as in the other before & to be certified from what cōtinuaunce of time these vows & unmarried life of Priests have continued. Wherein although sufficient hath been said before in the former process of this history, as in the life of Anselmus. pag. 195. also of Pope Hildebrand, pag. 175. &c. yet for the better establishing of y e readers mind against this wicked article of Priests marriage, it shall be no great labor lost, here briefly to recapitulate in the tractatiō of this matter, either what before hath been said, or what more is to be added.
And to the intent that the world may see and judge the said law and decree of Priests single sole life, to be a doctrine of no ancient standing here within this Realm, but only since the time of Anselmus, I will first allege for me the words of Henr. Huntyngton. lib. 7. De historia Anglorum here following.
Eodem anno ad festum Michaelis tenuit Anselmus Archiepiscopus Concilium apud Londonias: In quo prohibuit sacerdotibus Anglorum, vxores antea non prohibitas. Quod quibusdam mundissimum visum est, quibusdam periculosum: ne dum mundicias viribus maiores appeterent, in immundicias horribiles ad Christiani nominis summum dedecus inciderent, &c. That is, The same year at the feast of S. Michael. Anselm the Archbyshop of Canterbury held a Synod at London: In the which Synod he forefended Priests here in England to have wives, which they were not inhibited before to have. Which constitution seemed to some persons very pure and chaste. To othersome again it seemed very dangerous, least while that men should take upon them such chastity more then they should be able to bear, by that occasion they might happily fall into horrible filthiness, which should redound to the exceeding slander of Christian profession, &c.
Albeit I deny not but before the time also of Anselmus, both Odo, and after him Dunstane Archb. of Canterbury, and Aethelwold B. of Winchester, and Oswold B. of Worcester in the days of King Edgar, anno. 963. as they were all Monks themselves, so were they great doers against the marriage of priests, placing in Monks in Churches and Colleges, and putting out the married Priests as ye may read before pag. 153. Yet notwithstanding neither was that in many Churches, and also the priests then married, were not constrained to leave their wives, nor their roumes, but only at their own choice. For so writeth Malmesbury in vita Dunstani: Ita{que} clerici multarum Ecclesiarum, data optione, vt aut amictum mutarent, aut locis valedicerent, cessere, &c. That is: Therefore diverse & sundry clerks of many Churches, being put to their choice, whether to change their weed, or to part from their places, went their ways, &c. So also Elfricus after them (of whom mention was made before) was somewhat busy in setting forward the single life of Priests, and Lanfrancus likewise. But yet this restreynt of Priests lawful marriage was never publicly established for a law here in the Church of England, before the coming of Anselm in the days of William Rufus, & king Henry 1. writing in these words: Boldly I command by the authority which I have by my Archbishoprike, not only within my Archbishoprike, but also throughout England, that all Priests that keep women, shall be deprived of their Churches, and all ecclesiastical benefices, &c. As ye may read more at large before, page. 196. which was much about the same time whē as Hildebrand also at Rome begā to attempt the same matter, as before hath ben shown: & also besides him were other Popes mo, as Innocent the 3. Pope Nicholas the 2. and Calixtus the 2. by whom the act against Priests marriage was brought at length to his full perfectiō, and so hath continued ever since.
Long it were and tedious to recite here all such constitutions of Councils provincial and general, namely of y e council of Carthage, & of Toledo, which seemed to work something in that behalf, against the matrimony of priests. Again, longer it were to number up the names of all such bishops and priests, which notwithstanding have been married since that time, in diverse countries, as more amplye shall be shown (the Lord willing) in the sequel hereof. In the mean season, as touching the age & time of this devilish prohibition for priests to have their wives, this is to be found by credible proofs, and conferring of histories, that in the year of our Savior 1067. at what time Pope Hildebrand began first to occupy the Papal chair, this oath began first to be taken of Archbishops and Bishops, that they should suffer none to enter into the ministry, or into any ecclesiastical function having a wife: and likewise the Clergy to be bound to promise the same.
And this was (as I said) about the year of our Lord, 1067. well approved and testified by course of histories. Whereby appeareth the prophesy of S. Paul truly to be verified, speaking of these latter times. 1. Tim. 4. Where he writeth in these words. The spirit speaketh plainly, that in the latter times, there shall some depart from the faith, harkening unto spirits of error, and to doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which the Lord hath created to be taken with thanksgiving, &c.
In this prophesy of S. Paul ii. things are to be observed: First the matter which he prophesieth of, that is, the forbidding of marriage, and forbidding of meats, which God generally hath left free to all men. The second thing in this prophesy to be noted, is the time whē this prophesy shall fall, that is, in the latter times of the world. So that this concurreth right well with these years of Pope Hildebrand aforesaid, being a thousand years complete after the Ascension of our Savior: so that they may well be called the latter times.
This prophesy of S. Paul thus standing (as it doth firm and certain, that is, that forbidding of marriage must happen in the latter times of the world, then must it needs consequently follow thereby, that the married life of priests is more ancient in the Church, then is the single life, then the law I mean commanding the single life of Priests. Which may soon be proved to be true, by the true count of times, and search of histories.
For first at the Council of Nice, it is notorious that this devilish law of marriage to be restrained, was stopped by Paph •• tius.
2. Before this Council of Nice, in the year of our Lord 180. we read of Polycrates B. of Ephesus, who dissenting from Pope Uictor about a certain controversy of Easter day, alledgeth for himself how his progenitoures before him 7. together, one after another, succeeded in that seat, and he now the 8. after them was placed in the same: using this his descent of his parents, not only as a defense of his cause, but also a glory to himself, &c.
3. Pope Syricius about the year of our Lord 390. wrote to the priests of Spain about the same matter of putting their wives from them, if his Epistle be not counterfeyte. These Spanish priests had then with them a Bishop of Terragon. Who answering to Syricius in this behalf, alleged the testimonies of S. Paul, that Priests might lawfully retain their wives, &c. To this Syricius replied again (if his writing be not forged) most arrogantly and no less ignorauntly, reproving the Priests that were married, and for the defense of his cause, alleged this sentence of S. Paul: Si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini. That is: If ye shall live after the flesh, ye shall die, &c. Whereby may appear not only howe they in Spain then had wives, but also how blind these men were in the Scriptures, which shown themselves such adversaries against Priests Marriage.
4. To be short, the further we go & nearer to the ancient time of the church, the less ancient we shall find the deprivation of lawful matrimony amongst Christian ministers, beginning if we will, with the Apostles, their examples and Canons, who although were not all married, yet diverse of them were, and the rest had power and liberty to have and keep their wives, witnessing S. Paul, where he writeth of himself: Non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut & reliqui Apostoli? That is to say: have not we power to lead about a sister to wife, as also the other Apostles have? Whereby is to be seen, both what he might do, and what the other Apostles did. Also Clemens Alexandrinus, which was CC. years after Christ, Lib. Strom 7. denieth not but that Paul was married being an Apostle, as well as Peter and Philp. And as the said Apostles in their doctrine admonish all men to marry that cannot otherwise do, saying to everyone being in danger of temptation: Vnusquisque suam vxorem habeat ne tentet vos Satanas, &c. That is, Let every man have his own wife, least Satan tempt you, &c. So likewise the same Apostles in their Canons (as in the Popes Decrees cited) do precisely charge, that no Bishop nor priest, should sequester from him his wife for any matter or pretence of religion, saying: If any shall teach that a priest for religion sake, ought to contemn his own wife, let him be accursed, &c.
As for the Glose there in the margent, which expoundeth this word contemning for exhibiting things necessary for her sustenance, all the world may see that to be a Glose of mere Sophistry. And because I have here made mention of Clemens Alexandrinus, it shall not be to our purpose impertinent, to infer the words of this worthy writer, wherewith he doth defend Priests lawful matrimony, against certain vain bosters of virginity in his time. Dicunt gloriosi isti iactatores, se imitari dominum, qui neque vxorem duxit, neque in mundo aliquid possedit: se magis quam alios Euangelium intellexisse gloriantes. That is: These glorious braggers do vaunte themselves to be the followers of the Lord, who neither had wife, nor yet possessed any thing here in the world, &c. And it followeth: Eis autem dicit scriptura, deus superbus resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Deinde nesciunt causam cur dominus vxorem non duxerit primum quidem propriam sponsam habuit ecclesiam. Deinde vero nec homo erat communis, vt opus haberet etiam adjutor aliquo secundum carnem, &c. To these the Scripture maketh answer: God withstandeth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Agayne, they consider not the cause why the Lord took no wife. First he had his own peculiar spouse: which is y e Church. Moreover, neither was he as a common man, that he should stand in such need of a helper after the flesh, &c. And in the same book a little after alleging against them that abhor matrimony, he inferreth the words of S. Paul: how that in the latter days some shall fall from the faith attending to spirits of error, and to doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, and to abstain from meats, &c. Which place of Saint Paul, Clement here applieth not against the Novatians, and them that condemn matrimony in general in all men, as naught: but he applieth it only against such, as forbid marriage in part, and namely in Priests, &c.
This Clement wrote after Christ two hundredth years, and yet if we come downward to lower times, we shall find both by the Council of Gangrene CCC. years, and also by the Council of Nice CCCC. years after Christ, the same liberty of priests marriage established and enacted as a thing both good and godly. The words of Gangrene Council be these: Si quis discernit Praesbyterum coniugatum, tanquam occasion nuptiarum, quod offerre non debeat,