Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1
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.
1. Cor. 7.
Let every man have his own wife for avoiding of fornication.
1. Cor. 7.
Melius est nubere quàm vri: It is better to marry then to burn.
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.
1. Timoth. 3.
Oportet esse episcopum irreprehensibilem, vnius vxoris virum. &c. A Bishop ought to be unreproveable, the husband of one wife. &c.
The exposition.
Praecipit Apostolus, ne quis ad sacerdotium accedere praesumat, nisi is qui non nisi vnicam vxorem laicus habuisset: Accepto autem ordine, nunquam ei carnis commixtione se copularet, tantum vitae necessaria ei subministraret: That is, The Apostle here commandeth, that none should presume to be Priest, but he who being a lay man before, hath had no more but one wife: And after he be made priest, not to couple him self any more with her, but only to minister to her, things necessary for her living. &c.
And finally after these things thus disputed, and alleged, the said Anselm concludeth the matter with this final censure and determination, as followeth: Per hoc autem quod sacras vestes induunt, vel sacra vasa tangunt, Christo violenter manus inijciunt. Per hoc autem quod impudenter offerre praesumunt▪ Christum quodam modo visibiliter in altari crucifigunt. Legitur ministerium eorum, Christi persecutio, imo crucifixio appellatur: In English thus: In that these men (he speaketh of married Priests) do put on the holy vestments, or do touch the holy vessels, they do lay violent hands upon Christ. And in that they presume impudently to offer, they do in a manner visibly crucify Christ upon the altar. The ministry of such is read to be a persecution, or rather a crucifieng of Christ, &c.
Loe here the mighty reasons, the strong timbered arguments, and the deep divinity wherewith this Anselm and all other that draw after his string, go about to impugn the lawfulness of Priests marriage. Because the Israelites when they should appear before the Lord at Mount Sinai, were commanded to keep frō their wives three days: and because the Priests of the old Law in doing their function, as their turn came about, refrained the company of their wives for that present time: Ergo, priests of the new law must at no time have any wives, but live always single, &c.
And why might not Anselm as well argue thus: The people of Israel approaching to the Mounte, were commanded in like sort to wash their garments: Ergo, Priests of the new Law, which are occupied every day about the Aultar, ought every day to wash all their garments.
Moses approaching to the presence of the Lord in the bush, was commanded to put of his shoes: Ergo, Priests of the new law, which are ever approaching to the presence of their God, should never wear shoes.
Of king David and his company, which but once in all their life did eat of the shewebread, it was demanded by the high Priest, whether they had kept them from their wives three days before: Ergo, Kings and the people of the new Testament, which every year eat the bread of the Lord's boorde, more precious then ever was that Panis propositionis, should abide all their life wiuelesse and vnspoused.
But here Anselm should have considered by these Scriptures, howe we are taught not to put away our wives, but wisely to distinct times, when and howe to have them. For as Solomon teacheth, to be a time for all things: so is there a time to marry, and a time not to marry, a time to resort, a time to withdraw, a time of company, a time of abstinence and prayer, which S. Paul calleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and as he speaketh of a time of prayer and abstinence, so he speaketh also of a time of resorting together, and addeth the cause why: Ne tentet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram, &c. That is, Least Satan (saith he) tempt you for your incontinency.
And thus should Anselm with Solomon & Paul, have considered the order and distinction of times. Oftentymes in scripture that is commanded to some, and at sometime, which extendeth not to others. And that which for a time is convenient, is not by and by always conue • ient. Neither that which for a time is forbidden in Scripture, is therefore forbidden forever. Neither ought special examples, to break general orders: neither again do extraordinary prohibitions, make an universal rule.
They were then commanded to sequester themselves from their wives at the coming of the Lord: not that the coming of the Lord did break wedlock, but his commandment did bind obedience: and therefore obeyed they, because they were commanded. And yet were they not commanded to put away their wives, but only to separate themselves for a time, and that not for months and years, but only for three days, which abstinence also was enjoined them, not in the presence, nor at the appering of the Lord, but three days before his descending to them on the hill. Whereby it appeareth, that the use of their wedlock, neither displeased God being present, nor yet did drive his presence away when he was come: for he remained there present amongst them on the hill xl. days notwithstanding.
Furthermore, this time of separation from their wives, as it was expressly commanded to them by God: so was it not long nor tedious, but such as was neither hard for them, nor inconvenient for the time: giving us thereby to understand, how to use separation in wedlock wiselye, that is, neither at no time, nor yet too long.
For as they do not well, which never follow the time of S. Paul, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for abstinence and prayer: so do they worse which fall into that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereof S. Paul again giveth us warning, Ne tentet vos Satanas per incontinentiam vestram. But worst of all do they, which so separate their wives clean from them, and so abjure all matrimony, that they fall headlong into the devils pitfall of fornication, and all filthy abomination. And therefore the Lord foreseyng the peril thereof, said unto the people: Estote parati in diem tertium, & ne appropinquetis vxoribus vestris, &c. Appointyng in deed a separation from their wives, but yet knowing the infirmity of man, limiteth the time withal, adding, In diem tertium, and goeth no further.
He saith not, as Anselm said in the Council of Winchester: Iurabunt praesbyteri, diaconi, & Subdiaconi, vxores suas omnino abiurare, nec vllam deinceps cum eis conuersationem habere, sub districtione censurae, &c.
The like order also was taken by the Lord with the priests of the Old Testament, who although they were enjoined to withdraw themselves from their wives during the time of their priestly service: yet for avoiding fornication, they were permitted to have their wives notwithstanding. So that both their absenting from their wives served to sanctification, and their resorting again unto them, served to avoid adultery and fornication.
But here our priestly prelates will object, that because they be continually conversant about the priestly function therefore a perpetual sanctification is of them specially required. Whereunto I answer.
1 First, the priestly function of those high priests sacrifising for the people in the old law, representeth only the function of Christ the high priest sacrifising for the sins of the world, which truly and only performed that pure chastity in his sanctified body, which the law then in those priests prefigured.
2 Secondarilie, speaking now of the Priests of the new Testament (and speaking properly) the Scripture knoweth nor admitteth no Priest to sacrifice to God for the sins of man, but only the high king and priest Christ Jesus.
3 Thirdly, unto that priest all other be but servants and Ministers: of whom, some be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Preachers, having the gift of utterance, some Interpreters and Doctors, having the gift of understanding, some Deacons serving the Lord's boorde. The office of all whom chiefly co • sisteth in ministering the word, next in administering the Sacraments.
4 Fourthly, for so much as in these principally above all other, pureness and sanctification of life is required, as much and more too, then was in the Priests of the old Law, from whom all fornication, adultery, incest, and uncleanness of life ought most to be banished: therefore in these especially above the Priests of the old Law, matrimony and spousage is most requisite and convenient, who so ever he be, which otherwise cannot contain, according to the Apostle, saying: Vnusquisque vxorem suā habeat propter fornicationem.
5 Fifthly, neither is this matrimony in these, any hindrance to their sanctification before God, but rather furthereth & helpeth their sanctification, forasmuch as where matrimony is not, there commonly reigneth adultery, fornication, and all kinds of filthiness according to the true saying of Bernard: Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile connubium & thorum immaculatum, nonne reples eam concubinarijs, incestuosis, seminifluis, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus & omni denique genere immundorum? That is, Take frō the Church honorable marriage, and the bed undefiled, shalt thou not replenish it with Concubinaries, with incestuous persons, Sodomitical vices, and finally with all kind of beastly filthiness?
The truth of which saying, lacketh no kind of examples for confirmation, if we listed here to ransack the lives of these glorious despisers of matrimony, even from Lanfrank the first ringleader of this dance here in England, with Paulus Monk of Cadone his Nephew, whom Matthew Paris misdoubted to be his own son, unto Stephen Gardener with his gouldelockes, the author and workemaister of these six articles. But to the reasons of Anselm hitherto sufficient, which of themselves be so frivolous and gross, that only to recite them, is enough to confute the same.
Permitting therefore the rest to the discussion of Divines, it shall suffice for our purpose, professing here to write stories, to declare and make manifest by process of times & histories, that this cruel law compelling ministers of the church to abjure matrimony, entered not into this land before Lanfranke and Anselm his successor, as both may appear by the multitude of priests sons lawfully begotten in matrimony, and succeeding in the churches here of England, testified by the epistle of Pope Paschalis to Anselm before, pag. 196. and also may appear likewise by the Council of Anselm holden at Winchester which partly was touched before, and now the full act we have more largely expressed to be read and seen of all posterity, as under followeth.
1. Timoth. 3.
Oportet esse episcopum irreprehensibilem, vnius vxoris virum. &c. A Bishop ought to be unreproveable, the husband of one wife. &c.
The exposition.
Praecipit Apostolus, ne quis ad sacerdotium accedere praesumat, nisi is qui non nisi vnicam vxorem laicus habuisset: Accepto autem ordine, nunquam ei carnis commixtione se copularet, tantum vitae necessaria ei subministraret: That is, The Apostle here commandeth, that none should presume to be Priest, but he who being a lay man before, hath had no more but one wife: And after he be made priest, not to couple him self any more with her, but only to minister to her, things necessary for her living. &c.
And finally after these things thus disputed, and alleged, the said Anselm concludeth the matter with this final censure and determination, as followeth: Per hoc autem quod sacras vestes induunt, vel sacra vasa tangunt, Christo violenter manus inijciunt. Per hoc autem quod impudenter offerre praesumunt▪ Christum quodam modo visibiliter in altari crucifigunt. Legitur ministerium eorum, Christi persecutio, imo crucifixio appellatur: In English thus: In that these men (he speaketh of married Priests) do put on the holy vestments, or do touch the holy vessels, they do lay violent hands upon Christ. And in that they presume impudently to offer, they do in a manner visibly crucify Christ upon the altar. The ministry of such is read to be a persecution, or rather a crucifieng of Christ, &c.
Loe here the mighty reasons, the strong timbered arguments, and the deep divinity wherewith this Anselm and all other that draw after his string, go about to impugn the lawfulness of Priests marriage. Because the Israelites when they should appear before the Lord at Mount Sinai, were commanded to keep frō their wives three days: and because the Priests of the old Law in doing their function, as their turn came about, refrained the company of their wives for that present time: Ergo, priests of the new law must at no time have any wives, but live always single, &c.
And why might not Anselm as well argue thus: The people of Israel approaching to the Mounte, were commanded in like sort to wash their garments: Ergo, Priests of the new Law, which are occupied every day about the Aultar, ought every day to wash all their garments.
Moses approaching to the presence of the Lord in the bush, was commanded to put of his shoes: Ergo, Priests of the new law, which are ever approaching to the presence of their God, should never wear shoes.
Of king David and his company, which but once in all their life did eat of the shewebread, it was demanded by the high Priest, whether they had kept them from their wives three days before: Ergo, Kings and the people of the new Testament, which every year eat the bread of the Lord's boorde, more precious then ever was that Panis propositionis, should abide all their life wiuelesse and vnspoused.
But here Anselm should have considered by these Scriptures, howe we are taught not to put away our wives, but wisely to distinct times, when and howe to have them. For as Solomon teacheth, to be a time for all things: so is there a time to marry, and a time not to marry, a time to resort, a time to withdraw, a time of company, a time of abstinence and prayer, which S. Paul calleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and as he speaketh of a time of prayer and abstinence, so he speaketh also of a time of resorting together, and addeth the cause why: Ne tentet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram, &c. That is, Least Satan (saith he) tempt you for your incontinency.
And thus should Anselm with Solomon & Paul, have considered the order and distinction of times. Oftentymes in scripture that is commanded to some, and at sometime, which extendeth not to others. And that which for a time is convenient, is not by and by always conue • ient. Neither that which for a time is forbidden in Scripture, is therefore forbidden forever. Neither ought special examples, to break general orders: neither again do extraordinary prohibitions, make an universal rule.
They were then commanded to sequester themselves from their wives at the coming of the Lord: not that the coming of the Lord did break wedlock, but his commandment did bind obedience: and therefore obeyed they, because they were commanded. And yet were they not commanded to put away their wives, but only to separate themselves for a time, and that not for months and years, but only for three days, which abstinence also was enjoined them, not in the presence, nor at the appering of the Lord, but three days before his descending to them on the hill. Whereby it appeareth, that the use of their wedlock, neither displeased God being present, nor yet did drive his presence away when he was come: for he remained there present amongst them on the hill xl. days notwithstanding.
Furthermore, this time of separation from their wives, as it was expressly commanded to them by God: so was it not long nor tedious, but such as was neither hard for them, nor inconvenient for the time: giving us thereby to understand, how to use separation in wedlock wiselye, that is, neither at no time, nor yet too long.
For as they do not well, which never follow the time of S. Paul, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for abstinence and prayer: so do they worse which fall into that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereof S. Paul again giveth us warning, Ne tentet vos Satanas per incontinentiam vestram. But worst of all do they, which so separate their wives clean from them, and so abjure all matrimony, that they fall headlong into the devils pitfall of fornication, and all filthy abomination. And therefore the Lord foreseyng the peril thereof, said unto the people: Estote parati in diem tertium, & ne appropinquetis vxoribus vestris, &c. Appointyng in deed a separation from their wives, but yet knowing the infirmity of man, limiteth the time withal, adding, In diem tertium, and goeth no further.
He saith not, as Anselm said in the Council of Winchester: Iurabunt praesbyteri, diaconi, & Subdiaconi, vxores suas omnino abiurare, nec vllam deinceps cum eis conuersationem habere, sub districtione censurae, &c.
The like order also was taken by the Lord with the priests of the Old Testament, who although they were enjoined to withdraw themselves from their wives during the time of their priestly service: yet for avoiding fornication, they were permitted to have their wives notwithstanding. So that both their absenting from their wives served to sanctification, and their resorting again unto them, served to avoid adultery and fornication.
But here our priestly prelates will object, that because they be continually conversant about the priestly function therefore a perpetual sanctification is of them specially required. Whereunto I answer.
1 First, the priestly function of those high priests sacrifising for the people in the old law, representeth only the function of Christ the high priest sacrifising for the sins of the world, which truly and only performed that pure chastity in his sanctified body, which the law then in those priests prefigured.
2 Secondarilie, speaking now of the Priests of the new Testament (and speaking properly) the Scripture knoweth nor admitteth no Priest to sacrifice to God for the sins of man, but only the high king and priest Christ Jesus.
3 Thirdly, unto that priest all other be but servants and Ministers: of whom, some be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Preachers, having the gift of utterance, some Interpreters and Doctors, having the gift of understanding, some Deacons serving the Lord's boorde. The office of all whom chiefly co • sisteth in ministering the word, next in administering the Sacraments.
4 Fourthly, for so much as in these principally above all other, pureness and sanctification of life is required, as much and more too, then was in the Priests of the old Law, from whom all fornication, adultery, incest, and uncleanness of life ought most to be banished: therefore in these especially above the Priests of the old Law, matrimony and spousage is most requisite and convenient, who so ever he be, which otherwise cannot contain, according to the Apostle, saying: Vnusquisque vxorem suā habeat propter fornicationem.
5 Fifthly, neither is this matrimony in these, any hindrance to their sanctification before God, but rather furthereth & helpeth their sanctification, forasmuch as where matrimony is not, there commonly reigneth adultery, fornication, and all kinds of filthiness according to the true saying of Bernard: Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile connubium & thorum immaculatum, nonne reples eam concubinarijs, incestuosis, seminifluis, mollibus, masculorum concubitoribus & omni denique genere immundorum? That is, Take frō the Church honorable marriage, and the bed undefiled, shalt thou not replenish it with Concubinaries, with incestuous persons, Sodomitical vices, and finally with all kind of beastly filthiness?
The truth of which saying, lacketh no kind of examples for confirmation, if we listed here to ransack the lives of these glorious despisers of matrimony, even from Lanfrank the first ringleader of this dance here in England, with Paulus Monk of Cadone his Nephew, whom Matthew Paris misdoubted to be his own son, unto Stephen Gardener with his gouldelockes, the author and workemaister of these six articles. But to the reasons of Anselm hitherto sufficient, which of themselves be so frivolous and gross, that only to recite them, is enough to confute the same.
Permitting therefore the rest to the discussion of Divines, it shall suffice for our purpose, professing here to write stories, to declare and make manifest by process of times & histories, that this cruel law compelling ministers of the church to abjure matrimony, entered not into this land before Lanfranke and Anselm his successor, as both may appear by the multitude of priests sons lawfully begotten in matrimony, and succeeding in the churches here of England, testified by the epistle of Pope Paschalis to Anselm before, pag. 196. and also may appear likewise by the Council of Anselm holden at Winchester which partly was touched before, and now the full act we have more largely expressed to be read and seen of all posterity, as under followeth.
An other Note.
Appellatori in forma debita tanquam Clerico per Ordinarium petito libertatis Ecclesiasticae beneficium non negabitur.
In the Statute entitled Articuli Cleri, made only for the benefit of the Clergy. An. R. Edwardi. R▪ 2. nono. are diverse notes to like effect.
But what needeth many arguments for the proof hereof? The Statutes and law books of this Realm are very full of them in diverse and many places, besides the presidents, for the form of giving of benefices, whereof none are capable, but such as are spiritual men & of the Clergy, wherein they are not called or termed by any other title or term in the Latin tongue, then Clerici, for the most part, not in the kings own grant or the Lord Chauncellours, or any other subjects of his, as very well appeareth both by diverse old written Presidents which have been shown unto me, & also by the forms of presentations collected & set forth for the instruction of such as are ignorant, or not very perfect in the order of them, in a Printed book called The book of sundry Instrumentes. In which form in the said book the words in the kings grant be these: Rex Reuerendissimo in Christo. &c. ad Ecclesiam Parochialem de N. vestrae diocaesis modo per mortem vltimi incumbentis ibidem vacantem, & ad nostram donationem pleno iure spectantem, dilectum Capellanum nostrum A.B. Clericū, intuitu charitatis vobis praesentamus, & mandamus vti dictum A. Capellanum nostrum ad praefatam Ecclesiam admittere, eumque Rectorem eiusdem instituere, cum suis iuribus. &c.
But if the presentation be from a Knight, an Esquire, or a Gentleman, then these words Capellanum nostrum are always left out, as in the said book appeareth in this sort. Reuerendo in Christo patri. &c. A.B. de N. ad Ecclesiam de N predictam vestrae dioc. modo per mortem T.D. vltimi incumbentis ibidem vacantem, & ad meam praesentationem pleno iure spectantem, dilectum mihi in Christo Iacobum P. Clericum vestrae paternitati praesento, humiliter rogans quatenus prefatum I. ad dictam Ecclesiam admittere, ipsumque in Rectorem eiusdem Ecclesiae institui & induci facere velitis cum suis Iuribus & pertinentijs vniuersis. &c. As in the said book is more at large to be seen or perused.
Thus I doubt not, loving reader, but by these so plain Evidences above prefixed, thou hast sufficiently to understand, that this violent restrainte of Priests lawful Marriage within this Realm of England, is of no such long reach and antiquity, as hath been thought of many, and all by reason of ignorance of histories, and course of times. So that briefly as in a Summary Table to comprehend that whole effect hereof:
First about the year of our Lord. 946. to the profession of single life, and displacing of marriage began to come into example here in England, by reason of s. Benets monks, which then began to increase hereabout the time of King Edgar, and especially by the means of Oswald bishop of York, Odo and Dunstane, Archbishops of Canterbury, and Ethelwolde Bishop of Wint. so that in diverse Cathedral churches, and bishops Seas, monks with their professed singleness of life, crept in, & married Ministers (which were then called secular Priests) with their wives out of sundry Churches were dispossessed not from wives, but only from their places: and yet not in all Churches, but only in certain, whereof read before, page 198.
Not long after that, about the time of Pope Nicolas 2. An. 1060. of Alexander, and Hildebrand, came into y e sea of Canterbury another Monk called Lanfranke, who also being a promoter of this professed chastity, made the Decree more general, that all Prebendaries being married in any Churches, should be displaced: yet the Priests in Towns and villages should not be compelled to leave their married wives, unless they would.
Last of all followed monkish Anselm. an. 1106. by whō was made this law of Winchester aforesaid, that Priests, Archdeacons, Deacons, & subdeacons, which had wives & spiritual living, should be put from them both, and also that none after should be admitted to their orders, but should first profess single life, that is, to live without wives. And thus much concerning priests marriage forbidden.
Let us add moreover to these evidences above rehearsed, for more confirmation of the ancient use and liberty of priests marriage another testimony or two out of like ancient records with like plain words declaring unto us, howe the matrimony of Priests, before the time of Lanckfranke aforesaid was no strange example in the Church, and first we will infer the words of an old Martyrologe pertaining to the Recordes of Canterbury. The words of which Martyrologe be these.
Argument,
Da- In the Sacrament of the Lord's body, the thing that representeth must needs bear a similitude of the thing represented.
ti- The substance of bread in the Sacrament, is only that which beareth the similitude of Christ's body.
j. Ergo, the substance of bread, must needs be in the Sacrament.
And therefore by this demonstratiō, it is apparent, that these ii. partes in the Article aforesaid, are evil couched together, whereof the one must needs destroy the other. For if the first part of the Article be true, that the natural body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, and seeing the Sacrament wherein the body of Christ is present, must needs be the substance of bread and not the accidences only of bread, as is above proved, then the substance of bread cannot be euacuated from the Sacrament, and so the second member of the Article must needs be false.
Or if the second part be true that there is no substance of bread remaining, and seeing there is nothing else to make the sacrament of the natural body of Christ, but only the substance of bread, for as much as the accidences of bread can make no Sacrament of Christ's body, as is above shown: then taking away the substance of bread, the first pa • t of the article must needs be false, which saith that the natural body of Christ is present in the sacrament forasmuch as the substance of bread being euacuated, there remaineth no Sacrament, wherein the body of Christ should be present. 2. Secondly, that it disagreeth from the whole order and course of the scriptures, it is sufficiently explained before, in the treatise of John Lambert, upon the Sacrament. pag. 1099. as also in other sundry places in this volume besides. 3. Thirdly, that the said Article of transubstantiation is no ancient nor authentic doctrine in the church publicly received: but rather is a novelty lately invented, reaching not much above y e age of 3. or 4. hundred years or at most above the the time of Lancfrancus an, 1070. it remaineth now to be proved,
Wherein first may be joined this issue, that this monstrous paradox of transubstantiation was never induced or received publicly in the church, before the time of the Lateran Council, under Pope Innocentius the 3. ann. 1216. or at most before the time of Lanfrancus, the Italian, Archbishop of Cant. 1070.
In which time of Lanfrancus, I deny not, but that this question of transubstantiation began to come in controversy, and was reasoned upon, amongst certain learned of the clergy. But that this Article of transubstantiation was publicly determined, or prescribed in the church for a general law or Catholic doctrine of all men necessarily to be believed, before the time of the forsayd Innocentius the 3. it may be doubted, and also by histories of time proved to be false.
And though our adversaries seem to allege out of the old Doctors certain speeches and phrases, which they wrast and wring to their purposes: wherein they say: that the bread is called, is believed, & is the body of Christ that of bread is made the body of Christ: that the bread is changed, altered, or converted to the body of Christ, or is made to be his body, that the creatures be converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ: that the bread and wine do pass into the divine substance, with such other like sentences: and bear themselves brag upon the same as thought this doctrine of transubstantiation stood upon y e consent of the whole universal Church, of all ages and times of nations and people, and that the judgment of the Church was never other then this: and yet if the old Doctors sayings be well weighed, and the discourse of times by this history well examined, it will be found that this prodigious opinion of transubstantiation hath no such ground of consent and antiquity as they imagine: nor yet that any heresy or treason was made of denying of transubstantiatiō before y e time of Innocentius the 5. or at the furthest of Lanfrancus, as is aforesaid: about the which time Satan the old Dragon was prophesied by the Apocalypse to be let lose, to seduce the world.
For probation whereof, first I will begin with the time of Tertullian, and of Augustine: which both do teach the Sacrament to be a figure, a sign, a memorial, & representation of the Lord's body, and knew no such transubstantiation: & yet were no traitors nor heretics.
Neither was S. Ambrose any heretic or traitor, where he writeth these words: Vt sint, quae erant, & in aliud conuertantur. &c. Which words Lanfrancus could not answer unto any otherwise, but by denying them to be the words of Ambrose.
Gelasius was bishop if Rome, and lived about 500. years after Christ, and speaketh of a transmutation of the bread and wine into the divine nature, but there expounding himself, he declareth what he meaneth by that mutation, so that he expressly showeth the elements of bread & wine, notwithstanding to remain still in their proper nature, with other words moe, very plain, to the same effect: unto the which words Contarenus in the assemble of Ratesbone, could not well answer, but stood astonied.
Theodoretus likewise speaking of the visible simboles, hath these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. after the sanctification they remain in their former substance, figure and form. &c.
Irenaeus, where he saith, that the bread broken and the cup mixed, after the vocation of God, cease to be common bread anymore, but are the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ: and explicating his words more plainly addeth moreover, that the Eucharist consisteth in 2. things, one being earthly, which is bread & wine: the other heavenly: which is the body and blood of Christ. &c. declareth in these words, both his own opinion plainly, & also teacheth us what was then the doctrine of his time.
Hesichius also who was 500. years after Christ where he speaketh of the said mistery, quod simul panis & caro est. i. which he saith to be both flesh, and bread, declareth thereby two substances to be in the Sacrament. By the which we have to understand, that transubstantiation in his age was not crept into the Church: and yet neither heresy nor treason therefore was ever laid to his charge for so saying.
Emissenus, comparing a man converted to Christ, by regeneration, unto the holy misteryes converted into the body and blood of our Lord, expresseth plainly, quod in exteriori nihil additum est, & totum in interiori mutatum est. That is, that outwardly nothing is changed, and that all the change is inward. &c. wherein (no doubt) he spake plain against this Article, and yet no man in all that age did accuse him therefore either to be heretic or traitor.
Here might be added the words of Fulgentius, Hic calix est nouum Testamentum, id est. Hic calix quem vobis trado, nouum Testamentum significat. i. This cup is the New Testament: that is, this cup which I deliver unto you, signifieth the New Testament.
Bede also who lived about the year 730. writing vpō the psalm 21. hath these words: Edent paupers. &c. Pauperes id est mundi contemptores, edent quidem realiter, si ad sacramenta referantur, & saturabuntur aeternaliter, qui intelligent in pane & vino visibiliter sibi proposito, inuisibile scilicet corpus verum, & sanguinē verum domini, quae verus cibus & verus potus sunt, quo non venter distenditur, sed men's saginatur. &c. that is: Poor men, to wit, despisers of the world, shall eat in deed really, if it be referred unto the Sacraments, and shall be filled eternally, because they shall understand in bread and in wine, being visibly set before them▪ a thing invisible, to wit, the true body and true blood of the Lord, which are true meat, & true drink, wherewith not the belly is filled, but the mind is nourished.
And thus in these words of Bede likewise is to be understand, that no transubstantiation, as yet in his time was received in the Church of England.
Long it were to stand upon all particulars Briefly to conclude, the farther the church hath been from these our latter days, the purer it was in all respects, and especially touching this barbarous article of transubstantiation. We will now draw more near our own time, coming to the age of Bertrame, and of Haimo, who were about the year of our Lord 810. under Carolus Magnus.
By whose writings it is evident, that the church was infected as yet with no such phantasy of transubstantiatiō neither did any almost, dream of taking away y e substance of bread from the Sacrament. For although Haymo, Remigius, Rabanus, and other which lived in that age, do attribute to the Sacrament, the honorable name, and reverence (as we also do) of the Lord's body and blood: yet they exclude not from thence all substance of mele & bread & lean the bare accidences, as our new come Catholics do, as by the words of Haymo doth appear. Where he following the words of Bede, showeth also the cause, why it is so called by the name of the Lord's body. Quia (saith he) panis corpus confirmat, ideo ill corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. That is: Because bread confirmeth the heart of man, therefore it is called conveniently the body of Christ, and because wine worketh blood in the flesh of man, thereof is it referred to the blood of Christ. What can be more effectually spoken to prove the substance of bread there to remain? For take away the substance of bread & wine, what is in the accidences left, that can confirm mans heart, or ingender blood in the flesh. And therefore seeing there must needs something remain, that must be referred to Christ's body & blood in that Sacrament, it either must be the substance of bread and wine, or else it can be no Sacrament. And furthermore, speaking of the visible things which are sanctified how and whereunto they be converted, he saith: that by the holy ghost they pass to a Sacrament of the Lord's body.
And likewise the same Haymo in another place, speaking of the feuites of the earth, that is, of corn and wyne, declareth, how our Savior making of them an apt mistery, cōuerteth them to a Sacrament of his body and blood. &c. Lib. 7. in Ecclesiast. cap. 8.
Bertramus likewise, as he lived in the same age, so in like sort he shown his opinion therein, to the like effect as Haymo did. For as Haymo writing in these words declareth, quia aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti: sacramentum enimuero percipitur, virtute Sacramenti interior homo satiatur, that is: the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another thing: for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but with the virtue of the Sacrament, the inward man is satisfied.
So after like manner, Bertramus according to y e same, thus writeth: Ille panis, qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, & aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. &c. That is: the bread, which by the ministry of y e priest is made the body of christ doth import one thing outwardly to the senses of man, & another thing it speaketh to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly it is bread, the same as was before, the same form is pretended, the color appeareth, the same taste remaineth. But inwardly there is another matter fare more precious, and more excellent, because it is heavenly, which is the body of Christ, that is scene, not with the outward eyes of the flesh, but with the sight of a faithful mind. &c.
We will now proceed to the testimony of Rabanus Maurus bishop of Mainz & scholar sometime to Alcuinus in Paris, an english man: who living also in the same age with Haymo and Bertrame, (which was 800. years after Christ) giveth the like testimony of this doctrine in his book of Institutions. Where he asking the question, why the Lord would give the mysteries of his body and blood, then under such things as might be kept and reserved whole with great honor? thus he answereth again: The Lord (saith he) would rather that the Sacraments of his body and blood should be received with the mouth of the faithful, and made to be their food, that by the visible action, the invisible effect might be shown: For like as material meat outwardlye nourisheth and quickeneth the body, so also the word of God inwardly nourisheth and strengtheneth the soul. For man liveth not only by bread, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God.
And after followeth: For this bread and drink, signifieth the eternal society of the head, and of the members together.
And again: For the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another thing. The Sacrament is received with the mouth, with the virtue of the Sacrament the inward man is nourished: For the Sacrament is turned to the nourishment of the body, but the virtue of the Sacrament, the dignity of eternal life is gotten.
Wherefore, like as the same is turned into us, when we eat of it: so also are we turned into the body of Christ, when we live obediently and godly. &c. Who seeth not by these words of this Byshoppe, what form of doctrine was then in the Church received concerning this article of the Sacramet, much diverse from this our gross opinion of transubstantiation.
With the said Rabanus also accordeth another of the like standing and also doctrine, called Christianus Druthmerus : who writing upon Math. The wine (saith he) doth chere and cherish the blood, and therefore not incōuenienlty the blood of christ is figured thereby: for whatsoever proceedeth frō him to us it chereth us with true gladness, & increaseth all goodness unto us.
And a • it • e before, the said Druthmarus saith: The Lord gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his body, to the remission of sins, and keeping of charity, that they always remembering his doing, might do that in figure, which he should do for them. This is my body (saith he) that is, in Sacrament. This Druthmarus lived also in the time of Carolus Magnus, as witnesseth Abbas Spaynehemensis.
After Bertamus was Johannes Scotus, or else as some call him, Johannes Erigena, a man well accepted with Carollus Caluus, and afterward with Lodouicus Balbus, about the yere of our Lord 880. He wrote a Book De corpore & sanguine Domini, so affirming therein, & teaching, as he knew that Bertramus had taught a little before in France. This book y e pope caused to be condemned in Vercellensi Synodo, Of the life and conversation of this Johannes Scotus, & also of his death, read before, pag. 146.
In the yere of our Lord. 950. lived Odo Archbyshop of Canterbury, in whose time it appeareth in the catholickes own confession, that many priests then affirmeth, that the bread and wine after consecration, did remain in their former substance, and that the said mysteries were only a figure of the body and blood of Christ, as we find it witnessed by Osberne himself, who did write the lives of Odo, Dunstane. and Elphege, at the bidding of Lanfrāke Archbyshop of Canterbury, as reporteth Edmerus, Anselmus Chaplain. The words of Osberne be these: Hoc fere tempore, quidam clerici maligno error seducti, asseuerare conabantur panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem, in priori substantia manere, & figuram tantummodo esse corporis & sāguinis Christi. &c. That is: About this time (saith Osbern, writing in the days of Lanfrak) certain of the Clergy, being seduced by wicked error, did hold and maintain, that bread and wine, which are set upon the altar, after the consecration do remain in their former substance, and are but only a figure of the body and blood of Christ. &c. And no doubt but at that time, the common opinion of most of the Clergye was so that the Sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, and that the substance of bread and wine notwithstanding were not transubstantiate, as the Romish Catholics do now teach. But this is the guise of these men that in their writings and stories, still they diminish the better number, whereby their faction may seem ever to be the bigger and therefore to extenuate the common opinion then received in the Church, he inferreth mention of certain of the Clergy. &c.
And as he faileth in the number of these Clergymen which then held against transubstantiation, so he upholdeth the same with as lying a miracle: Which miracle he feigneth to be wrought the same time, for the conversion of the said Clergy men, by the blood dropping out of the host at Mass, as Odo was breaking the host over the chalice. At the sight whereof, first Odo himself (saith he) wept for joy, seeing his petition accomplished, which he so earnestly prayed for. Secondarily, all those Clergy men (saith he) which before believed not this transubstantiation, by & by were converted, and blessed the archbishop that ever he was borne, desiring him to pray again, that the blood might return to his former shape, & straight it was done. And this was the miracle: which seemeth as true, as that which W. Malmesbury writeth of the said Odo, howe by his prayers, he caused a sword to come flying from heavē into king Aethelstanes scabbard whē he had lost his own, as he should fight against Analanus : or else as that miracle where the said Odo is said to cover and defend the church of Canterbury, that no drop of rain could touch it, so long as the roof thereof was in making. Ex W. Malmesb. Vid sup. pag. 151.
In the which so miraculous a miracle, many things are to be marveled. First I marvel, that at this great miracle of the Archb. in his Cathedral Church, amongst so many singing men, we read of no Te Deum there to be song, after the doing thereof.
Secondly I marvel, that those Priests and Clerks, which then denied transubstantiation, were suffered to be so near the Archb. at his Mass, and that they were not committed rather to ward like heretics and traitors, if this Article of transubstantiatio had ben then such a Catholic doctrine, and so publicly received in the Church as they say it was.
Thirdly I marvel, seeing the time of miracles is expired, we having the scriptures to guide us, why y e Archbyshop would seek to miracles and apparitions to convert men, rather then to the law and Prophets, according as we are commanded, especial having no such example of all the old Doctors, which in confutatiō of so many erroneous opinions, yet never sought to such miracles, or blind means,
Fourthly, I marvel much at the discrepance in telling this tale, between Osbern and the other which since have written Legendes of Odo. For whereas Osbern speaking of certain Priests, nameth no place, but leaveth the matter at large, and speaketh absolutely: quidam clerici : all other which have since written the Legendes of Odo, do tell this tale against certain Priests of Canterbury, adding to the words of Osberne, quidam Clerici Cantuarienses But to convict the falsehood of them all, as well Osberne as of the rest, there is a legend of the life of Odo, and of Oswald together, more ancient then this of Osberne, written (as it may seem) in the time of Aelfricus Archb. of Canterbury & Elphege then Bishop of Winchester, wherein mention is made in deed of this miracle, but after another sort, then this of Osberne, & to another purpose, then to dissuade certain priests infected with that error frō the opiniō before declared: which is only brought to show the holiness of Odo: as commonly the manner of Legendes is to do. So that in this old Legend it is thus reported, that when this miracle was done, Odo disclosed the matter not to many priests of England, that were in that error as Osborne would: sed vocat protinus fidelem seruum, qui cominus erat, & miraculum secrete demonstrate, &c. that is, but called unto him a certain faithful servant, which was near about him, and shown unto him the miracle secretly. Wher upon the Priest (saith the Legende) much rejoiced at the holiness of Odo, and desired him to make his prayer to almighty God, that the body might return again to the former shape. &ce. Out of this old lying Legend, Osberne, and other likewise that followed him, seemeth to have takē this tale: so that out of the error of one (as the manner is) springeth the error of a number mo.
But this much more I marvel, why this miracle is not stored in Henry Huntingdon, which professedly writeth of such miracles, nor in Rog. Houeden, and such other: but only in such blind Legendes, which commonly have no substance of verity, nor certeinetie of time or writer, to know when, and by whom they were written, and for the most part are stuffed with lying visions, and prodigious fables.
Finally, if this miraculous fiction of Osberne, were true y t for the converting of Priests of England, which would not believe transubstantiation, this blood did drop out of the host (of the which blood peradventure came the blood of Hales) and that by the sight thereof the Priests e • tsoone were all converted (as Osberne pretendeth) how then came it to pass, that after the time of Odo, in the days of Elfricus, which was after him Archb. of Canterbury, y e third from Dunstane, and fourth from Odo, not only the Priests of England, but also the Archbishop himself, wer not yet brought to the belief of this transubstantiatiō, but taught the very same doctrine of the sacrament thē, which we do now? as most clearly appeareth both by the Epistles and Homilies of the foresaid Archbishop Elfricus, which herunder, for the more evidence (Christ willing) we will annex.
This Elfricus, as saith Capgrave, in the life of Oswald bishop of Worcester, was first Abbot of S. Albo • es and after made archbishop of Canterbury, about the yere of our Lord 996. in the time of king Etheldred, & of Wulfsinus B. of Scyrburne, Elfricus also (as witnesseth Will. of Malmesbery, in Vita Adelmi ) was Abbot of Malmesbery. Furthermore the said Will. of Malmesbery writing of Elfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, saith that he was before bishop of Welles, and afterward archbishop of Canterbury. So that Elfricus was Archbishop of Canterbury, it is out of all ambiguity. But whether Elfricus which was Abbot (of whom we do here entreat) were the same Archbishop, or not, by this diversity of Capgrave & Malmesbery, it may be doubtful. But whether, he were or no, to this our present purpose is not greatly material, for so much as the said Elfricus, & Elfricus (although they were diverse persons yet were they both in one age, and lived in one time together.
Furthermore, the same Elfricus (of whom now we speak) of what calling soever he was, yet notwithstanding he was of such estimation and good liking in those days among the most learned, that for his learning authority, and eloquence, his writings were accepted and authorised among y e Canons & constitutions of y e Church in that time, as hereby may appear: For where as the bishops and Priests before the coming of William Conqueror had collected together a certain book of Canons and ordinances, to govern the Clergy, gathered out of general and particular councils, out of the books of Gildas, out of the poenitentiall books of Theodorus Archbyshop of Canterbury, out of the writings of Egbertus archbishop of York, out of the Epistles of Aleuinus, as also out of the writings of the old Fathers of the primitive Church. &c. among the same Canons & Constitutions be placed these two Epistles of the said Elfricus here under following, whereof the one was sent to Wulfsinus Bysh. of Scyrburne, the other to Wulfstane Archb. of York, as yet are to be seen in ii. books belonging to the Library of the Church of Worcester, the one written in the old Saxons tongue entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the other for the most part in Latin, with this title: Admonitio spiritualis doctrinae. Which book of Saxon Canons & Constitutions belonging sometime to Wulfstane Bishop of Worcester, was given by him as for a great jewel, to the Church o • Worcester, as by the same book appeareth.
Moreover, besides this book of Worcester above touched, there is yet extant also another like book of Canons belōgyng to the Church of Exeter, wherein the same two Epistles of Elfricus be contained in the old Saxon tongue, and also in Latin, and prescribed yearly to be read to the Clerks and Priests of that Church: Which book in like manner was given to the Church of Exeter by Leofricus the first, and most famous Bishop of that sea.
Of this Elfricus further is to be understanded, that he translated two books of 80. sermons out of Latin, into the Saxon speech, used then orderly to be read in Churches on sondayes & other festiual days of the year, as by his own words may appear in the end of one of y e said books of sermons, whose words be these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; We let pass many good Gospels which he that liest, may translate. For we dare not enlarge this book much further, left it be ouergreat, and so be a cause of lothsomnes to men, through the bigness thereof. &c.
Also in another place he confesseth the same of himself: whose words in the preface before his grammar be these. Ic AElfric ƿolde þa listlan boc aƿendan to engliscum gereorde of ðam staef craefte ðe is gehaten grammatica. syððan ic tƿa bec aƿende on hund eahtatigum spellum; I Elfrike was desirous to turn into our English tongue from the art of letters, called grammar, this little book, after that I had translated the two books of fourscore sermons, &c.
Of his Epistles especially we read of four, which he wrote. One to the monks of Egnesham. De consuetudine monachorum. An other to Wulfstane Arch. of York, wherein is touched the matter of the Sacrament. The third, he wrote against priests marriage, to one Sygeferth, with whom there was a certain Anker abiding, which defended the marriage of priests, affirming it to be lawful. The fourth, he wrote to Wulfsinus B. of Scyrburne, touching the matter of the sacrament. In the which epistle he taking occasion by a certain abuse in his time, which was, that priests on Easter day filled their housel box, and so kept it for the space of the whole year, till Easter came again, for sick persons, writeth upon that occasion, in these words as follow in his own Saxons tongue.
A writing of Aelfrike to wulfstne.
Man sceal healden þaet halige husel mid mycelre gymene & ne forhealdan hit. ac halgian oþen edniƿe to sceocum mannum. a. embe VII. niht. oððe embe XIIII. night {that} hit huru fynig ne sy. forðon ðe eal sƿa {that} ðe on easterdaeg ƿaes gehadgod; Ðaet husel is Cristes lichama na lichamlice ac gastlice; Na se lichama ðe he on ðroƿode. ac se lichama ðe he embe spraec. ða ða h bletsode hlaf & ƿin to husel anre nihte aer his ðroƿunge. & cƿaeþ be þam gebletsode hlaf. ðis is min lichama. & eft be ðam halgan ƿine. ðis is min blode þe bið for manegum agoten on synna forgifenesse; Vnderstandaþ nu {that} se drighten ðe mihte aƿendon ðone hlaf aer his ðroƿunge to his lichaman. & {that} ƿin to his blode gastlice. þaet se ylca daeghƿamlice bletsah ðurh sacerda handa hlaf & ƿin to his gastlican lichaman. and to his gastlican blode.
The same in English.
Men shall reserve more carefully that holy housel, & not reserve it to long, but halow other of new for sick men always within a week or a fortnight, that it be not so much as hory. For so holy is the housel which to days hallowed, as that which on Easterday was hallowed, That housel is Christ's body not bodily but ghostly. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread: this is my body, & again by the holy wine, this is my blood, which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins. Understand now that the Lord, who could turn that bread before his suffering to his body, and that wine to his blood ghostly, y t the self same Lord blesseth daily through the priests hands, bread and wine to his ghostly body, and to his ghostly blood.
After this Epistle above prefixed of Elfricus, written to Wulfsinus B. of Shireburne, concerning the sacramental bread, how it is not Christ's body, lichamlice that is, bodily, or (as we term it now) really: and also howe the same ought not to be ouerlong kept in y e pyx: here followeth further another epistle of the said Elfricus written to Wulfstane Archb. of York, both reprehending y e said abuse above touched, and also containing matter more at large against the bodily presence in the sacramental bread. The copy of his epistle, both in his own Saxon, and in our English here followeth.
An other Epistle of Aelfricus against the bodily presence to Wulfstane Archbishop of York.
SVme preostas gefyllað heora husel box on 〈◊〉 & healdaþ ofer tƿelf monaþ to untrumum 〈◊〉 sƿylce ðaet husel sy haligre ðonne oþer. Ac hi 〈◊〉 ƿislice. forðam he hit ƿannað. oððe mid ealle for •••• on sƿa langum first. & he bið • on scyldig 〈◊〉 saegþ seo boc; Se ðe husel forhylt. oððe hit 〈◊〉 oððe miseton. oððe oðre nytenu. sceaƿa þapoenitentialem. hƿaet he saegðe þisum; Eal sƿa halig is ðaet 〈◊〉 ðe bið gehalgod to daeg. sƿa ðaet ðe bið gehalgod on ð •• halgan easterdaege; Healda • forþig ic bid þone hal •• Cristes lichaman mid maran ƿisdome to seocum ••• num fram sunnan daege to sunna daege on sƿiþe 〈◊〉 box. oððe be ðam maestan feoƿertyne niht and ðþþ hit þonne. and lecgað ðaer oþer; ƿe habbaþ by s ••• ðam on Moses bocum. sƿa sƿa God sylf bebead 〈◊〉 Moses ae. ðaet se sacerd sceolde on aelcum saet ••• daege ƿettan tƿelf hlafas on ðam tabernaculo ealle ••• bacene. ða ƿaeron gehatene Panes propositionis. and 〈◊〉 sceoldon ðaer standan on ðam God's getaelde oð 〈◊〉 saeternes daeg. & etan hi ðonne ða sacerdas sylfe ••• tan daer oðre; Sume preostas nellað ðicgan ðaet 〈◊〉 ðe hi halgiaþ; Nu ƿille ƿe eoƿ secgan. hu seo boc segð 〈◊〉 þam; Presyter missam celebrans. & non audens sac •• ficium accurante conscientia sua anathema est; 〈◊〉 maessepreost ðe maessaþ. and ne dear ðaet husel ðicg •• ƿat hine scyldigne. se is amansumod; Laesse 〈◊〉 ••• digenne ðaet husel. ðonne to halgienne; Se ðe tu ••• gaþ ane ofletan to husle. se bið þam gedƿolan gelice. ••• an cild fullaþ tuƿa; Christ sylf gehalgod husel aer 〈◊〉 ðroƿunge. he bletsode ðone hlaf. & to braec þus sƿeþe • de to his halgum apostolum. etaþ ðisne hlaf. hit is m •• lichama: and he eft bletsode aenne calic mid ƿine and cƿ ••• heom ðus to. drincaþ ealle of ðisum. his is min ag ••• blode ðaere niƿan gecydnysse. ðe bið for maneg •• •• goten on synna forgyfenysse; Se drihten þe halg ••• husel aer his ðroƿunge, and cƿaeþ {that} se hlaf ƿaere his 〈◊〉 lichama. and þaet ƿin ƿaere ƿitodllice his blod. se ha ••• daeghƿamlice þurgh his sacerda handa hlaf to his ••• man. & ƿin to his blod on gastlicere geryne. sƿa 〈◊〉 raedaþ on bocum; Ne bið se liflica hlaf lichamlice 〈◊〉 ah se ylca lichama. ðe Christ on ðroƿode; Ne ðaet 〈◊〉 ge ƿin nis þaes haelendes blod • e for us agoten ƿaes ••• chamlice þinge. ac on gastlicum andgyte; aegþer 〈◊〉 soþlice se hlaf his lichama. and {that} ƿin eac his blod sƿa 〈◊〉 heofonlica hlaf ƿaes. ðe ƿe hataþ manna. ðe feoƿertig •• ara afedde God's folce. & þaet hlutre ƿaeter ƿas ••• lice his blod. ðe arn of ðam stane on ðam ƿaetene ð ••• Sƿa sƿa Paulus aƿraet on sumon his pistole: Omnes 〈◊〉 nostri eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt: & 〈◊〉 eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. &c. Ealle uref ••• aeton on ðam ƿaestene þone ylcan gastlican mete. & ð ••• gastlican drenc druncon; Hi druncon of þam gastli ••• stane. & se stane ƿaes Christ; Se apostol saede sƿa sƿa 〈◊〉 nu gehyrdon þaet hi ealle aeton ðone ylcan gast ••• mete. and hi ealle druncon ðone gastlican drenc; N • cƿaeð he na lichamlice. ac gastlice; Naes Christ ða gyt geboren. ne his blod naes agoten. ða þaet Israhela folc 〈◊〉 aet ðone mete. & of ðam stane dranc. & se stan naes lichamlice Christ ðeah he sƿa cƿaede; Hit ƿaeron ða ylcan geryn • on ðaere ealdam ae. & hi gastlice getacnodon þaet gastlice husel ures haelendes lichaman. ðe ƿe halgiaþ nu.
The same in English.
SOme Priests fil their box for housel on Easter day, and so reserve it a whole yere for sick men, as though that housel were more holy then any other. But they do unadvisedly, because it waxeth hory, or altogether rotten by keeping it so long space: and thus are they become guilty, as y e book witnesseth to us. If any do keep y t housel to long or lose it or myse or other beasts do eat it, se what the penitential book saith by this: So holy is altogether that housel, which is hallowed today, as that which is hallowed on Easter day. Wherefore I beseech you to keep the holy body of Christ with more advisement: for sick men, frō Sunday to Sunday, in a very clean box: or at the most not to keep it above a fortnight, and then eat it, laying other in the place. We have an example hereof in Moses books, as God him self hath commanded in Moses law, how the Priests should set every Saturday, twelve loaves all new baked, upon the tabernacle: the which were called Panes propositionis: and those should stand thereon God's tabernacle, till the next Saturday, and then did the Priests thenselves eat them, and set other in the place. Some Priests will not eat the housel, which they do hallow: But we will now declare unto you how the book speaketh by thē Presbyter missam celebrans, & non audens sumere sacrificium, accusante conscientia, an athema est. The Prieste that doeth say mass and dare not eat the housel, his conscience accusing him, is accursed. It is less danger to receive the housel, then to hallow it. He that doth twice halow one host to housel, is like unto those heretics, who do christen twice one child. Christ himself blessed houssel before his suffering: he blessed the bread and brake it, thus speaking to his Apostles: Eate this bread, it is my body. And again, he blessed one Chalice with wyne, & thus also spake unto them: Drink ye all of this, it is mine own blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, & saith that the bread was his own body, & that the wyne was truly his blood, haloweth daily by the hands of the priest, bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery, as we read in books▪ And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviors blood which was shed for us in bodily thing: but in Ghostly understanding. Both be truly, y e bread is his body, & that wine also is his blood, as was the heavenly bread, which we call manna that fed forty years God's people. And the clear water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness, was truly his blood, as S. Paul wrote in one of his Epistles: Omnes patres nostri candemescam spiritualem manducauerunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, &c. Al our fathers did eat in the wilderness the same ghostly meat, and drank y e same ghostly drink. They drank of that Ghostly stone, and that stone was Christ. The Apostle hath said (as you now have heard) that they all did eat the same ghostly meat, & they all did drink the same ghostly drink. And he saith not bodily, but ghostly. And Christ was not yet borne, nor his blood shed, when that the people of Israel did eat that meat and drank of that stone. And the stone was not bodily Christ, though he so said. It was the same mystery in the old law, and they did ghostly signify that ghostly housel of our Saviors body which we consecrate now.
Besides these Epistles above prefixed, of Elfricus to Wulfsinus, and Wulfstane, which fight directly against transubstantiatiō, mention was touched also before of certain Sermons to the number of lxxx. translated by the said Elfricus, out of Latin into the Saxon, that is, into our English tongue, as ye partly have heard before. Of the which lxxx. Sermons, xxiiij. were chiefly selected, to be read, as in stead of Hom • lies, or treatises, unto the people: in such order, as the first xii. Sermons or treatises, entreating of general matters (as De initio creaturae, de augurils, de die iudicij, vnius confessoris de vanilo • uio & negligentia, d • auaritia, de falsis dijs, &c. ) were appointed to be read at pleasure, & at the discretion of the Minister. The other xii. sermons were prescribed of proper feasts: (as De annūtiatione beat Mariae, de natiuitate domini, de circumcisione domini, de Epiphania, de purificatione sanctae Mariae. Dominica prima in Quadragesima, Dominica palmarum Die Pascae &c. Wherof this testimony remaineth in y e same book yet to be seen both in the Saxon tongue, and also in the Preface of the latter xii. Sermons in Latin, in these words following: In hoc codicillo con tinentur sermons Anglice, quos accepimus de libris quos Abbas Anglice transtulit. &c.
Furthermore as touching these lxxx. Sermons aforesaid, which El • ricus translated into English, here is to be understanded, that in the said Sermons used then orderly to be recited to y e people, there is one appointed to be red in die Sancto Pascae, that is, upon Easter day, Which Sermon being translated by the said Elfricus, we have here exhibited both in Saxon speech and in English, to the intent, that the Christian and indifferent reader perusing the same, may judge thereby, how the fantastical doctrine of transubstantiation, in those days of Elfricus & before his time, was not yet received nor known in the Church of England: for so much as the said Sermon being in Latin before, doth leave unto us an evident declaratiō, what was the common opinion of this Sacrament in the Church received: before that Elfricus did ever set hand to translate the same out of the Latin.
And though the Latin copies and exemplars of these foresaid Sermons, are not remaining in our Libraries, let y t be no marvel to thee, loving reader: but understand thereby the crafty packing of the Popes Clergy, who in the time of Lanfrancus, & Pope Innocent, studying by all means, how to prefer and further this their newcome doctrine of transubstantiation, did abolish and rase out of Libraries and Churches, all such books which made to the contrary. And therefore because Lanfrancus and other Italian Priests here in England understood not y e Saxon books as they did the Latin, all that which they understood, they made away. The Saxon books, because they knew them not, they let remain, And this is the cause why our Latin copies now are not to be found. Which to be true by iii. reasons coniectural it may probably be supposed.
First, for that these Saxon Sermons being translated out of the Latin (as ye have heard by the words of Elfricus already proved) only we see the Saxon books reserved: of the Latin none doth appear.
Secondly, there is yet remaining one certain piece or fragment of an epistle of Elfricus in the Library of Worcester, wherein, so much as maketh against the matter of transubstantiation, we have found in the middle of the said Latin epistle, utterly rased out, so that no letter or piece of a letter doth there appear. The words cut out, were these: Non est tamen hoc sacrifi • ium corpus eius, in quo passus est pro nobis ne{que} sanguis eius quem pro nobis effudit: sed spiritualiter corpus eius efficitur & sanguis, sicut Manna quod de caelo pluit, & aqua quae de petra fluxit. Sicut Paulus &c. 1. Notwithstanding this sacrifice is not the same body of his, wherein he suffered for us, nor the same blood of his: which he shed for us but spiritually it is made his body and blood as that Manna which rained from heaven and the water which did flowe out of the rock, as Paul. &c. These words so rased out are to be restored again by another Saxon book found in Exceter. By the rasing of which one place, it may easily be conjectured, what these practicers have likewise done in the rest.
Thirdly by one Italian trick of Polydore Uirgill in our days, the properties and doings of all other Italian papists of elder time, may partly be conjectured. For so I am informed by such, as precisely will affirm it to be true y t when Polydore being licensed by the king to view and search all Libraries, had once accomplished his story by the help of such books as he had compiled out of Libraries in y e end, when he had taken out what he would: like a true factor for y e popes own tooth, he piled his books together & set them all on a light fire. For what cause he so did, I cannot certainly pronounce: but who so considereth well his religion, may shrewdly suspect him. For a probatiō, whereof, this may serve for a sufficient trial: that whereas of all other writers of histories that have been in England, as of Fabian, Lanquer, Rastall, More, Leland, Balle, Halle, & such other, some of their books which they then occupied yet remain in hands to be seen. Only of such books, as Polydore used and which past his hands, what English man is he that hath seen, or can show me one? Whereby it may well be thought, the foresaid information to be true. As also by this one Italian trick of Polydore, may other Italians likewise be suspected, in making away such Latin books within this land, as made not for their purpose. But for so much as those Latin books be n • w abolished, and cannot be had, let us return to our Saxon tongue again, and see what this Saxon sermon of Elfricus translation, doth say for transubstantiation: The copy whereof here ensueth.
A Sermon translated out of Latin into the Saxon tongue by Aelfricus, against Transubstantiation. An. 996.
In die Sanctae Pascae.
The Alphabet of the Saxon tongue.
a. b. c. d. e. f. y. h. i. l. m. n. o. p. r. s. t. u. ƿ. x. y. z.
Abbreuiations.
This Sermon was usual to be read in the Church here in England in the Saxons time. An. 366.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The same in English.
A Sermon on Easter day.
MEn beloved, it hath been often said unto you about our Saviors resurrection, howe he on this present day, after his suffering mightily rose from death. Now will we open unto you through God's grace, of the holy housel, which ye should now go unto, and instruct your understanding about this mystery, both after the old covenant, and also after the new, that no doubting may trouble you about this lively food. The almighty God bad Moses his Captain in the Lande of Egypt, to command the people of Israel to take to every family a lamb of one yere old, the night they departed out of the country to the land of promise, and to offer that lamb to God, and after to cut it, and to make the sign of the Cross with the lambes blood upon the side posts, and the upper post of their door, and afterward to eat the Lambes flesh roasted, and unleavened bread with wild lettisse, God saith unto Moses: Eate of the Lamb nothing raw, nor sodden in water but roasted at the fire. Eate the head, the feet, and the inwardes, and let nothing of it be left until the morning, if any thing thereof remain▪ that shall you burn with fire. Eate it in this wise: Girde your loins▪ and do your shoes on your feet▪ have you staves in your hands, and eat it in haste. The time is the Lord's Passover. And there was slain on that night in every house through out Pharaoh's reign, the first borne child: and God's people of Israel were delivered frō that sudden death through the Lambes offering & his bloudes marking. Then said God unto Moses. Keep this day in your remembrance, and hold it a great feast in your kindredes with a perpetual observation, and eat unleavened bread always seven days at this feast. After this deed, God led the people of Israel over the red Sea with dry foot, & drowned therein Pharaoh and all his army together with their possessions, and fed afterward the Israelites 40. years, with heavenly food, and gave them water out of the hard rock, until they came to the promised land. Parte of this story we have treated off in another place, partly we shall now declare, to wit, that which belongeth to the holy housel, Christian men may not now keep that old law bodily, but it behooveth them to know what it Ghostlye signifieth. That innocent Lamb which the old Israelites did then kill, had signification after Ghostly understanding, of Christ's suffering, who vnguiltie shed his holy blood for our redemption. Hereof sing God's servants at every Mass, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. That is in our speech: Thou Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Those Israelites were delivered from that sudden death, and from Pharaoh's bondage by the lambes offering, which signified Christ's suffering: through which we be delivered from everlasting death, and from the devils cruel reign, if we rightly believe in the true redeemer of the whole world Christ the Savior. That Lamb was offered in the evening: and our savior suffered in the sixth age of this world. This age of this corruptible world is reckoned unto the evening. They marked with the lambes blood upon the doors, and the upper posts Thau, that is the sign of the cross, and wer so defended from the Angels that killed the Egyptians first borne child. And we ought to mark our foreheads and our bodies with the token of Christ's rood, y t we may be also delivered from destruction, when we shall be marked both on forehead, and also in heart with the blood of our Lord's suffering. Those Israelites did eat the lambes flesh at their Easter time, when they were delivered, and we receive ghostly Christ's body, & drink his blood, when we receive with true belief, that holy housel. That time they kept with them at Easter 7. days with great worship, when they were delivered from Pharaoh, and went from that land. So also Christian men keep Christ's resurrection at the time of Easter these 7. days, because through his suffering and rising we be delivered, and be made clean by going to this holy housel, as Christ saith in his Gospel: Verily, verily I say unto you ye have no life in you except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him, and hath that everlasting life, and I shall raise him up in the last day. I am the lively bread that came down from heaven: not so as your forefathers did eat that heavenly bread in the wilderness, and afterward died. He that eateth this bread, liveth forever. He blessed bread before his suffering, and divided it to his Disciples, thus saying: Eate of this bread, it is my body, and do this in my remembrance. Also he blessed wyne in one cup, and said: Drink ye all of this: This is my blood that is shed for many, in forgiveness of sins. The Apostles did as Christ commanded, that is, they blessed bread and wine to housel again afterward in his remembrance. Even so also their successors and all priests by Christ's commandment do bless bread and wine to housel in his name with the Apostolic blessing. Now men have often searched and do yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corn, and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christ's body: or howe wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing, to y e Lord's blood. Now say we to such men, that some things be spoken of Christ by signification▪ and some be things certain. True this is and certain that Christ was borne of a maid, and suffered death of his own accord, and was buried, and on this day rose from death. He is said to be bread by signification, and a Lamb, & a Lyon, & a mountain. He is called bread, because he is our life and angels life. He is said to be a Lamb for his innocence: a Lyon for strength wherewith he overcame the strong devil. But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true nature, neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lyon. Why is then the holy house called Christ's body, or his blood, if it be not truly that it is called? Truly the bread and the wine which in the supper by the priest is hallowed, show one thing without to human understanding, and another thing within to believing minds. Without they be seen bread and wine both in figure & in taste, & they be truly after their hallowing Christ's body and his blood through ghostly mistery. An heathen child is christened, yet he altereth not his shape without, though he be changed within. He is brought to y e fontstone sinful through Adams disobedience: howbeit he is washed frō all sin within, though he hath not changed his shape without. Even so the holy font water that is called the wellspring of life, is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption, but y e holy ghostes might cometh to the corruptible water through the priests blessing, and it may after wash the body and soul from all sin, through ghostly might. Behold now we see two things in this one creature: after true nature, y t water is corruptible moisture, and after ghostly mistery, hath wholesome virtue. So also i • we behold the holy housel▪ after bodily understanding, then we see that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we knowledge therein ghostly might, thē understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortality to thē that eat it with belief. Muche is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, and the visible shape of proper nature. It is naturally corruptible bread, and corruptible wine, & is by might of God's word truly Christ's body and blood, not so notwithstanding bodily, but ghostly. Much is betwixt the body of Christ which he suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. The body truly that Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Marie w t blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, with a reasonable soul living, and his ghostly body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without limb, w t out soul, and therefore nothing is to be understand therein bodily, but all is ghostly to be understand. Whatsoever is in that housel, which giveth substance of life that is of the ghostly might, and invisible doing. Therefore is that holy housel, called a mystery, because there is one thing in it seen, and another thing understanded. That which is there seen, hath bodily shape: and that we do there understand, hath ghostly might. Certainly Christ's body which suffered death and rose from death never dieth henceforth, but is eternal and vnpassible. That housel is temporal, not eternal, corruptible and dealed into sundry partes chewed between teeth and sent into the belly: howbeit nevertheless after ghostly might it is all in every parte. Many receive that holy body: and yet notwithstanding, it is so all in every part after ghostly mystery. Though some chewe the less, yet is there no more might notwithstanding in the more parte, then in the less, because it is whole in all men after the invisible might. This mystery is a pledge and a figure: Christ's body is truth it self. Thys pledge we do keep mystically, until that we be come to the truth it self, and then is this pledge ended. Truly it is so as we before have said, Christ's body and his blood: not bodily, but ghostly. But now here the Apostles words about this mystery. Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites thus writing in his epistle to faithful men: Al our forefathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and all they did eat the same ghostly meat, & drank the same ghostly drink. They drank truly of the stone that followed them, and that stone was Christ Neither was that stone then from which the water ran bodily Christ, but it signified Christ, that calleth thus to all believing and faithful men: Who soever thirsteth, let him come to me and drink, and from his bowels shall flowe lively water. This he said of the holy Ghost, which they received who believed on him. The Apostle Paul saith: that the Israelites did eat the same ghostly meat, & drank the same ghostly drink, because that heavenly meat that fed them 40. years, and that water which from the stone did flowe, had signification of Christ's body and his blood, that now be offered daily in God's Church. It was the same which we now offer, not bodily, but ghostly.
We said unto you ere while, that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering, and said: Thys is my body and my blood, Yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible might, the bread to his own body: and that wine to his blood: as he before did in the wilderness, before that he was borne to be a man, when he turned y e heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his own blood. Uery many did eat of that heavenly meat in the wilderness, and drink the ghostly drink: and were nevertheless dead, as Christ said. And Christ meant not y e death which none can escape, but that everlasting death which some of that folk deserved for their unbelief. Moses and Aaron, and many other of that people which pleased God, did eat that heavenly bread: and they died not y • everlasting death, though they died the common death. They saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corruptible, & they ghostly understood by that visible thing, and ghostly received it. The Savior saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood▪ hath everlasting life. And he bad them not eat that body wherewith he was enclosed, nor to drink that blood which he shed for us: but he meant with those words that holy housel, which ghostly is his body and his blood, and he that tasteth it with believing heart, hath that eternal life. In the old law faithful men offered to God diverse Sacrifices, that had foresignification of Christ's body, which for our sins he himself to his heavenly father hath since offered to sacrifice. Certainly this housel which we do now halow at God's alter, is a remembrance of Christ's body which he offered for us: and of his blood which he shed for us: So he himself commanded: Do this in my remembrance. Once suffered Christ by him self, but yet nevertheless his suffering is daily renewed at this supper, through mystery of the holy housel. Therefore we ought to consider diligently: howe that this holy housel is both Christ's body, and the body of all faithful men, after ghostly mystery. As wise Augustine saith of it: If ye will understand of Christ's body, here the Apostle Paul thus speaking. Ye truly be Christ's body and his members. Now is your mystery set on God's table, and ye receive youre mystery, which mystery ye yourselves be. Be that which ye see on the altare, and receive that which ye yourselves be. Again the Apostle Paul saith by it: We many be one bread, and one body. Understande now and rejoice, many be one bread, and one body in Christ. He is our head, and we be his limbs: and the bread is not of one corn, but of many: nor the wine of one grape, but of many. So also we all should have one unity in our Lord, as it is written of the faithful army, how that they were in so great an unity, as though all of them were one soul, and one heart. Christ hallowed on his table the mystery of our peace and of our unity. He which receiveth that mystery of unity, & keepeth not the bond of true peace, receiveth no mystery for himself, but a witness against himself. It is very good for Christian men, that they go often to howsell, if they bring with them to the alter, vngiltines and innocency of heart: if they be not oppressed with sin. To an evil man it turneth to no good, but to destruction, if he receive unworthily that holy housel. Holy books command that water be mingled to that wine which shall be for housel, because the water signifieth the people, & the wine Christ's blood, and therefore shall neither the one without the other be offered at the holy mass, that Christ may be with us, and we with Christ, the head with the limbs, and the limbs with the head. We would before have entreated of the Lamb which the old Israelites offered at their Easter time, but that we desired first to declare unto you of this mystery, and after how we should receive it. That signifying lamb was offered at the Easter, And the Apostle Paul saith in the Epistle of this present day, that Christ is our Easter who was offered for us, and on this day rose from death. The Israelites did eat the Lambes flesh as God commanded, with unleavened bread and wild lettisse: so we should receive that holy housel of Christ's body and blood without the leaven of sin, and iniquity. As leaven turneth the creatures from their nature: so doth sin also change the nature of man from innocence to uncleanness. The Apostle hath taught howe we should feast, not in the leaven of the euilnesse, but in the sweet doughe of purity and truth. The herb which they should eat with the unleavened bread is called lettisse, and is bitter in taste. So we should with bitterness of unfeigned repentance purify our mind, if we will eat Christ's body. Those Israelites were not woonte to eat raw flesh, and therefore God bad them to eat it neither raw nor sodden in water, but roasted with fire. He shall receive the body of God raw, that shall think without reason, that Christ was only manlike unto us, and was not God. And he that will after man's wisdom search y e mystery of Christ's incarnation, doth like unto him that doth seeth lambes flesh in water, because that water in this same place signifieth man's understanding: but we should understand, that all the mistery of Christ's humanity was ordered by the power of the holy Ghost: and then eat we his body roasted with fire because the holy ghost came in fyry lykenes to the Apostles in diverse tongues. The Israelites should eat the lambs head, and the feet: and the purtenaunce, and nothing thereof must be le • te over night. If anything thereof were left, they did burn that in the fire: and they break not the bones. After Ghostly understanding we do eat the lambes head, when we take hold of Christ's divinity in our belief. Agayne when we take hold of his humanity with love, then eat we the lambs feet, because that Christ is the beginning and end, God before all world, and man in the end of this world. What be the lambes purtenaunce but Christ's secrete precepts, and these we eat when we receive with the greediness the word of life. There must nothing of the lamb be left unto the mornig, because that all God's sayings are to be searched with great carefulness: so that all his precepts may be known in understanding and deed in the night of this present life, before that the last day of the universal resurrection do appear. If we cannot search out thoroughly all the mystery of Christ's incarnation, then ought we to betake the rest unto y e might of the holy ghost with true humility, and not to search rashly of that deep secretenes above the measure of our understanding. They did eat the Lambes flesh with their loins girte. In the loins is the lust of the body, and he which will receive that housel, shall cover or wrap in that concupiscence, and take with chastity that holy receipt. They were also shod. What be shoes but of the hides of dead beasts? We be truly shod if we match in our steppes and deeds, the life of mē departed this life, which please God with keeping of his commandments. They had staves in their hands when they did eat. This staff signifieth a carefulness & diligent overseeing. And all they, that best know and can, should take care of other men, and stay them up with their help. It was enjoined to the eaters y t they should eat the lamb in haste, for God abhoreth slouthfulnesse in his servants, and those he loveth, that seek the joy of everlasting life with quickenes, and hast of mind. It is written: Prolong not to turn unto God, least the time pass away through thy slow tarrying. The eaters mought not break the lābs bones. No more mought y e soldiers that did hang Christ, break his holy legs, as they did of the two thieves that hanged on either side of him. And the Lord rose from death sound without all corruption: and at the last judgment they shall see him, whom they did most cruelly wound on the cross. This time is called in the Hebrew tongue Pasca, & in Latin Transitus, and in English a Passover, because that on this day the people of Israel passed from the land of Egypt over the red sea: from bondage to the land of promise. So also did our Lord at this time depart as saith John the Euangeliste, from this world to his heavenly father. Even so we ought to follow our head, and to go from the devil to Christ: from this unstable world, to his stable kingdom. Howbeit we should first in this present life depart from vice to holy virtue: from evil manners to good manners, if we will after this our lente life go to that eternal life, and after our resurrection, to Christ. He bring us to his everlasting father, who gave him to death for our sins. To him be honor and praise of well doing world without ende. Amen.
And thus I suppose, it standeth clear & evidently proved by course of all these ages afore recited, from the time of Tertullian and Agustine unto the days of this Elfricus above mentioned, and after him, that this newcome miracle of transubstantiation was not yet crept into the heads of men, nor almost came in any question amongst learned mē nor was admitted for any doctrine in the Church, at least for any general doctrine of all men to be received, til a M. year complete after Christ, that is, till that Satan began to be let at large. Apoca. 20. For whoever heard in all the primitive Church, or ever read in the works of the old ancient Doctors this question once to be asked, or disputed, whether any substance of bread and wine remained in the Lord's Supper? Or what man was ever so doltish to believe any such thing, or ever called heretic for not believing the same, before the time of seduction that is before the 1000. years aforesaid were expired.
Wherefore they that stand so much upon the antiquity of this Article as a doctrine which hath ever since Christ's time been received in the Church, taught by the Apostles, believed of all Catholics, and confirmed by consent of all ages, of Councils, of nations, and people unto this present day: these I say, either show them selves very ignorant in histories and in all state of antiquity or else most impudently they do abuse the simple credulity of the people.
To proceed now farther in this discussion of antiquity, it followed, that after the time of Elfricus aforesaid, this matter of transubstantiation began first to be talked off, & to come in question among a few superstitious monks: so that as blindness and superstition began more and more to increase, so the said gross opinion still more and more, both in number and authority prevailed, in so much that about the year of our Lord. 1060. the denying of transubstantiation began to be counted heresy.
And in this number first was one Berengarius a French man, and Archdeacon of Angeowe, which of all Christian men, which we read of, was first called and counted an heretic for denying of transubstantiation, & troubled for the same, as ye shall hear.
This Berengarius lived in the time of Pope Leo 9. Uictor, and Nicholas 2. which was about the year of our Lord. 1060. Albeit I do find our writers here in some discrepaunce. For the most of them do hold, that he first recanted under Pope Leo 9. in the Council of Uercellense: and afterward again under Pope Nicholas 2. about the year 1062. as is to be gathered of Gratian, De consecrate. dist. 2. Ego Berengarius, where he saith, that Pope Nicholas did send about to Bishops and Archbishops, the Copy of his recantation.
Again, by the Acts of the Council of Rome, it there appeareth, that the said Berengarius made this his said last recantation under Pope Hildebrand, called Gregory 7. But this difference of times is no great matter to stand upon. The truth of the story is this: that when Berengarius had professed the truth of the sacrament, & had stand in the open confession thereof, according to the ancient verity of the doctrine received in the Church before, he was so handled by certain malignaunt & superstitious monks that what by evil entreaty, and what for fear of death (such is the weak frailty of man) he began to shrink, and afterward did in deed recant the truth.
Of these malicious enemies against Berengarius, the chiefest troubler was Lancfranke, Abbot of Codune, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, Guimond monk, likewise first of the abbey of Leufrede, & afterward Archb. of Auersane: Algerius also monk of Corbein: Fulbertus also monk and bishop: and Hildebrand sometime monk of Cluniake, and then Archdeacon of Turon, & afterward Bishop of Rome.
By these and such other monks of the like fraternity, the error and heresy of transubstantiation began first to be defended, and partes publicly in writing to be taken about that matter. Of the which sides and partes, the first that began to set up that faction by writing, seemeth to be Paschasius, who was a little before Berengarius about the time of Bertrame: and likewise Lancfrancke the first that brought it into England.
On the contrary side again, the first that was openly impugned and troubled for denying transubstantiation, was this Berengarius: with whom Lancfranck also was supposed at the first beginning to hold and take part, but afterward to clear himself, he stood openly against him in the Council, and wrote against him.
It followeth then in the Acte of the Council, that when the Synod of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other Prelates were together assembled, y e greater number (saith the story) did hold, that the bread and wine were turned substantially into the body and blood of Christ. Notwithstanding (saith he) diverse there were in the said Council which held the contrary with Berengarius, but at last were driven to give over. Berengarius among the rest, after he had long stand in the constant defense of the truth, at last relented to their willes, confessing his error where none was, and desired pardon of the Council. And this was (as seemeth to W. Malmesb.) his first giving over. Who afterward returning to himself again after the death of Pope Leo, and prickte with the stinge of conscience, was driven again to recognise the truth, which he before had denied.
The Pope (saith Malmesb.) perceiving this, would not leave him so, but sent into France, Hildebrand his Cardinal Chaplain (as meet a mate for such a seat, as was in all Satan's court) and made him with a wany and to come again coram nobis: who so handled Berengarius and bringing him before the face of the Council bolden at Turon, that he made him to say, erraui, once again: against whom stood up in that Council Lanfrancus, and Guimundus aforesaid, impugning his assertion. And thus standeth the narration of W. Malmesbery. But by the acts of y e Council of Rome appeareth another declaration, which is, that this latter recantation of Berengarius should be at Rome under Hildebrand, being then Pope, in the yere of our Lord. 1076. and in the month of February, and that in the said Council holden in Ecclesia Saluatoris, this recantation of, Ego Berengarius, was made, and he enjoined by the said Pope Hildebrand, upon his oth, never hereafter to teache or dispute contrary to that faith of the Sacrament there holden. &c.
Again, Henry Bullinger in his book, De origin erroris, following belike some other author, expresseth the order of the foresaid recantation after this sort, and saith, that in the time of Pope Leo. 9. Anno. 1051. there was a Roman Council holden at Uercellense, in the which Council Lanfrancke being then present, the Book of John. Scotus was openly read, and there condemned. Also Berengarius was sent for, who seeing the prejudicial proceeding of that Council, refused himself to come, but sent two Clerks, which openly there defended his cause and quarrel, and were for the same committed unto prison. Such is the freedom of the Popes general Councils, w t prisons and violence to defend their verities. Against the doings of this Council notwithstanding, the French men stood stiff, both at Angew, and Turon, joining and consenting with Berengarius.
Not long after this, died Pope Leo, and after him succeeded Pope Uictor, by whom another Synod was kept at Florence, where the Acts and doings of the foresaid Council of Uercellense, were confirmed, and a Legate also appointed to be sent to Turon in France. This legate was Hildebrand above mentioned, who calling the clergy of France together in a Synod, fell there in hand with the cause of the Sacrament. Berengarius not being ignorant of these Romaine Councils, so kept himself, that in all his action, he would give none other answer, but that he believed and consented with the faith of the Catholic Church: & so for that time did frustrate the purpose of the council, rather deluding the pretēses of his enemies, then freely confessing the simple truth.
Again, after Uictor came Pope Nicholas 2. who congregating another Council at Rome, An. 1058. sent for Berengarius there to appear, who being present, argued what he could, for the justness of his cause, but all would not serve: In the Popes general Councils, such a stroke and mastership beareth authority above verity. Berengarius being thus borne down on every side by might & superiority, when no remedy would serve, but he must needs recant again (for the law of relapse was not yet in season) he desired to know what other confession of the sacrament the Pope would require of him, besides y t which he had there confessed. Then Pope Nicolas committed that charge to Humbart a Monk of Lotharinge, and after a Cardinal, y t he should draw out in formable words, the order of his recantatiō, after the prescription of Rome, which he should read and publicly profess before the people. The form of which words is registered in the Decrees, De consecrate. dist 2. Ego Berengarius. &c. The effect whereof is this: That he pretendeth with heart and mouth, to profess, that he acknowledging the true, catholic, and Apostolical faith, doth execrate all heresy, namely, that, wherewith he hath lately been infamed, as holding that the bread and wine upon the Altare, after the consecration of the Priest, remain only a Sacrament, and are not the very self body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither can be handled or broken with the priests hands, or chewed with the teethe of the faithful, otherwise then only by manner of a Sacrament Consenting now to the holy and Apostolical Church of Rome, he professed with mouth and heart, to hold the same faith touching the Sacraments of the Lord's mass, which the Lord Pope Nicholas, with his Synod here present doth hold, and commandeth to be holden by his Evangelical and Aposticall authority, that is, that the bread and wine upon the Altar, after consecration are not only a Sacrament, but also are the very true and self body, and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are sensibly felt and broken with hands, and chewed with teethe: swearing by the holy Evangelists, that whosoever shall hold or say to the contrary, he shall hold them perpetually accursed, and if he himself shall hereafter presume to preach or teach against the same, he shall be content to abide the severity and rigor of the Canons. &c.
This cowardly recantation of Berengarius, as it offended a great number of the godly sort: so it gave to the contrary part no little triumph, whereby ever since they have taken the greater courage to tread down the truth.
〈1 page duplicate〉It happened shortly after this, that Hildebrand the Popes graunde Captain, in the behalf of his Mayster Pope Nicolas, went in warfare against the Normandes. Which war being finished, shortly after, he set upon a new viage to fight for Pope Alexander, against Cadolus: which victory being also achieved, it was not long, but he put the new Pope Alexander beside the cushion, and was made Pope himself: so that during the busy stir of these wars, the Popes holiness had no laisure to attend the debating of this controversy of the Sacrament.
At length, when all was quieted, and Pope Hildebrand now was where he would be, his restless brain could not be unoccupied, but eftsoone summoneth a new Council at Rome in the Church of Lateran, to revive again the old disceptation of Berengarius, about the year (as some hold) 1079.
Thus Berengarius being toste by these Monks and Pharisees, was so confounded, and baited on every side, that partly for worldly fear, straining him on the one side, partly for shame and grief of conscience, that he had now twice renied the truth, on the other side, that the man (as is of him reported) after these such turbulent tragedies, forsaking his goods, his studies, learning, and former state of life, became a laborer, and wrought with his hands for living, all the residue of his life.
The opinion which Berengarius sustained touching the Sacrament (as by his own words in Lancfranckes book may appear) was this: The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things: The one visible: the other invisible, that is, of the Sacrament, and of the thing or matter of the Sacrament. Which thing (which is to mean, the body of Christ) if it were here present before our eyes, it were a thing visible & to be seen: but being lift up into heaven, and sitting on the right hand of his father, to the time of restoring of all thing (as S. Peter saith) it cannot be called down from thence. For the person of Christ consisteth of God and man: the Sacrament of the Lord's table consisteth of bread and wine, which being consecrate are not changed, but remain in their substances, having a certain resemblance or similitude of those things, whereof they be sacraments, &c. Ex Lib. Lancfranci.
By these words of Berengarius doctrine, all indifferent readers may see & judge, that he affirmed nothing but that was agreeable to the holy scripture, believing with S. Agustine, and all other ancient elders of the Church, that in the holy supper all faithful believers be refreshed spiritually, with the body & blood of the Lord, unto everlasting life. Wherefore most impudently they do misreporte him (as they do many other besides) which falsely lay to his charge, as though his teaching should be, that in the sacred supper of the Lord, nothing else were received of y e faithful, besides only y e bare signs, which is the bread & the wine.
And now that you have seen the doctrine of Berengarius, let us also take a vewe of the contrary teaching of Lanfrancus and his fellows, conferring and comparyng together the institution of the one side, with the institution of the other, to mark and consider which of them soundeth nearer to the truth of the scriptures. The words of Lanfrancke be these:
I believe the earthly substances, which upon the Lord's table are divinely sanctified, through the ministration of the Priest, to be converted unspeakably, incomprehensibly, and miraculously by the operation of God's mighty power, into the essence of the Lord's body, the outward forms only of the things themselves, and certain qualities reserved, and that for two respects: The one, least the sight of the raw and bloody flesh might otherwise make men to abhor from eating thereof for that they which believe the thing they see not, might have the greater merit for their belief. The conversion of which earthly substances into the essence of the Lord's body, notwithstanding, yet is the self same body of the Lord in heaven, and there hath his essential being at the right hand of his father immortal inuiolate, perfect, vndeminished, and uncorrupted: so that truly it may be affirmed, the self same body both to be received of us, and yet not the self same. The self same, I mean, as touching the essence, property, and virtue of his true nature: and yet not the self same as touching the forms of bread and wine, and other outward qualities incurring to our outward senses. &c. And thus have ye the confession of Lancfranke Archb. of Cant.
From this confession of Lancfranke, the opinion and assertion also of Guimundus Archb. of Auersane, doth nothing differ in grosenesse and impiety, but rather passeth the same, thus affirming and defending: That the body of Christ is pressed, and torn with teethe even like as it was felt and touched with the hands of Thomas.
And moreover, the said Guimundus (if his book be not rather counterfaited at Louaine) in the same place answering to an objection put out, that it is not lawful for Christ to be torn in pieces with teethe, doubteth not to pronounce that whether we take tearing for hard bitinge, or soft biting, it is not repugnant nor disagreeing, but that (by the will of God agreeing thereunto) the body of Christ may be touched with hands, bitten with mouth, crushed, yea and divided in pieces, with hard or soft pressing of the teeth: and that, as he was bruised upon the cross, according to the Prophet, saying: He was bruised for our iniquities, &c. so the same body for the health of the faithful, may devoutly be torn and rent with their teethe any thing to the contrary notwithstanding. &c. Guimund. lib. Sacrament. fol. 30. Judge now all good studious readers, what is to be thought of this kind of doctrine, and howe this opinion cohereth with the infallible voice of God's word, saying: Exod. And of him ye shall not break a bone. &c.
Thys rude and misshapen doctrine of these Monks, concerning transubstantiation, as ye have heard, whē and by whom it began first to be broached: so if ye would now know by what learning and scriptures they did confirm, and establish the same, ye must here think and understand, howe their chiefest grounds and substance to persuade the people was at this time, certain miracles by them forged, and published both in their writings and preachings whereof one was the same of Odo above recited, which Osberne, or some other monkish Legend invented of him, howe he should show unto certain the host turned into the likeness of flesh and blood droppinge into the chalice for the conversion of those clearkes, which before would not believe it.
An other like miracle is also told by the said Osberne of Dunstane in this order, how the said Dunstane appeared to a certain lame crepill in the night, willing him to resort unto his tomb, to have his limbs again restored. Which crepil, according as he was willed, after he had there continued praying for health a long time, and could not obtain, began to return home again after long tarrying, w t out all hope of recovery. To whom the said Dunstane appearing again by the way, asked from whence he came, and whether he would. The crepill answering, declared how he came thither upon hope of health, where he had long tarried, and because he could find no recovery, therefore he now was returning home. To whom then said Dunstane: I am (saith he) Dunstane the fellow servant of all God's servants, and have been occupied with certain necessary business, for the which I could not be present there with my children. For Elfrike (said he) otherwise surnamed Bata hath attempted to disherite my church, but I have so stopped him, that he could not prevail.
Many other fabulous miracles of the like stamp are rife in popish stories, counterfeited & forged under diverse and sundry names, some referred to Gregory, some to Paschasius, and to other moe, which to recite all, would fill a whole sea full of lies & fables. Among many, one is thus invented of Paschasius. There was a Priest, saith he, of Almain, named Plegildus, who did see and handle with his hands, visibly the shape of a child upon the altar & so after he had embraced and kissed him, it returned again to the likeness of bread, as he should come to the receiving thereof. This miracle when it was objected against Berēgarius, he merely deriding the blind fable, answered in these words: Speciosa inquit, pax nebulonis, vt cui oris praeberet basium, eo dentium in ferret exitium. That is, A goodly peace quoth he of a false verlet, that whō he before kissed with his mouth, by & by he goeth about to tear him with • is teeth.
An other miracle is reported of a Jew body, who upon a time entering into the Church, with another Christian lad which was his play fellow, saw upon the altar a little child broken & torn in pieces, and afterward by portions to be distributed among the people. Which sight when the young Jew coming home had told unto his father to be true and certain, he was for the same, condemned to be burned. Thus he being enclosed in a house, and the door fast where he should be burned, he was found and taken out from thence by the Christians, not only alive, but also having not one hear of his head blemished w t the flames about him. Who then being of the Christians, demanded howe he was so preserved from the burning fire: there appeared (said he) to me a beutiful woman sitting on a chair, whose son the child was, which was before divided & distributed in the Church among the people, who reached to me her hand in the burning flame, and with her gown skirtes kept the flame from me, so that I was preserved thereby from pearishing. &c. Belike these Monks lacked miracles among the Christians, when they were fain to borrow such figmentes of the Jews to prove their feigned transubstantiation.
And these commonly were then the arguments of these Monks, wherewith they persuaded the people to believe their transubstantiation. But to leave these monks fictions, & to return again to Berengarius, thus Malmesbury of him reporteth, that after he had once or twice recāted (as is aforesaid) yet notwithstanding this doctrine of the Sacrament still remained in the mind of his hearers. And how so ever the tyranny of the Pope did drive him thorough fear to deny his opinion, and wrought him much trouble, yet notwithstanding after his death he lacked not his well willers. In the number of whom was Hildebertus Bishop Cenomanensis, whose verses in commendation of his master, I thought here not unworthy to be preserved, being otherwise rare peradventure to be found in our story writers.
Verses in praise of Berengarius.
Althoughe in this time of Berengarus, which was about the year of our Lord. 1060. (as ye have heard) this error of transubstantiation began to grow in force and strength, by the supporting of certain popish monks above rehearsed, as Lancfrancus, Guimundus, Algerius, Hugo, Bishop of Lincoln. Fulbertus, (of whom it is said in stories, that our Lady gave him suck being sick, with her own breasts) and such other: yet notwithstanding, all this while the said Transubstantiatiō was decreed for no public law, nor doctrine to be holden by any general consent, either of the Church of Rome, or any other Council, before the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the 3. who in the year of our Lord. 1215. celebrating in the church of Lateran, a general council of 1300. bishops, enacted there diverse constitutions, as of yearly confession, and the communion to be used of the whole multitude once a year through every parish church.
Item, for the recovery of the holy land, with a subsidy also to be leauied for the same.
Item for the abolishing of the books and writings of Joachim Abbas, and also the opinions of Almaricus afore mentioned: notwithstanding that y e said Joachim did subscribe with his own hand that he held the same doctrine, which was in the church of Rome, and also submitted his books to be presented to the Sea of Rome, there to be corrected or approved. And yet was he judged though not an heretic yet to be erroneous, & especially in those books which he wrote against Peter Lombard, calide afterward the master of Sentence.
In the said Counsel, besides diverse other constitutions and the Articles of the Creed there in order repeated, as appeareth, Extr. De summa trinit. & fide Catholica, cap. 1. firmiter, there was also enacted, decreed, and establyshed the faith and belief of Transubstantiation, in these words following.
There is one universal Church of the faithful, without which none can be saved, in the which Church the self same Jesus Christ is both Priest and also the sacrifice, whose body and blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar, under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine, into the blood, by the power and working of God: so that to the accomplishing of this mystery of unity, we might take of his, the same which he hath taken of ours. And this sacrament none can make or consecrate, but he that is a priest lawfully ordained, according to the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ hath left to his Apostles, and to their successors. &c.
And thus was the foundation laid for the building of transubstantiatiō, upon the consent of these foresaid. 1300. Bishops, in the year of our Lord above specified, under pope Innocentius, and the doctrine thereof intruded for an article of faith into the church, necessarily to be believed of all men under pain of heresy.
But yet all this while, notwithstanding that the substaunte of bread and wine was now banished out of the sacrament, and utterly transcorporated into the substance ot Christ's very body and blood: yet was not this body eleuated over the priests head nor adored of the people till the days af pope Honorius the 3. succeeding after Innocentius, who by his counsel likewise commanded adoration and elevation to be joined with transubstantiation as one idolatry commonly bringeth forth another.
Agayne, the said sacramedt of the Lord's supper being now consecrated, transubstantiated, eleuated and adored yet it was not offered up for a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, nor for a remedy of the souls in Purgatory, nor for a merit operis operati, sine bono motu vtentis. &c. before that other popes coming after, added still new aditions to the former inventions of their predecessors.
And thus have you the whole order and origin of these Idolatrous partes of the mass described by their times & ages, which first began with consecration and the form thereof, which were words of the Canon. Then came transubstantiation by Innocentius, and after eleleuation & adoration by Honorius, and last of all came the oblation meretorious and propitiatory for the quick and dead in remission of sins, Ex opere operato.
Which things being thus constituted by the to much usurped authority of the church of Rome, shortly after followed persecution, tyranny and burning among the Christians, first beginning with the Albigenses, and the faith full congregation of Toulouse, near about the time of the said Innocentius, as is afore remembered. pag. 271.
And thus much for the first article of transubstantiatiō which (as ye have heard) was not admitted into y e Church for any general doctrine of faith, before the year and time above assigned, of pope Innocent the third, and therefore if any have been otherwise persuaded, or yet do remain in the same persuasion still of this doctrine, as though it had been of a longer continuance then frō the time above expressed, let him understand that by ignorance of histories he is deceived, and for the more satisfyinge of his mind, if he credit not me, let him believe the words of one of his own catholic sort, John Duns I mean, who in his 4. book writing of Transubstatiation, in what time and by whose authority it was first establieshd, hath these words, which also are before mentioned, pag. 257. These words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiatiō: but the Church did choose this sense, which is harder, being thereto moved (as seemeth) chiefly because men should hold of the Sacraments, the same which the Church of Rome doth hold. &c. And further in the same place the said Duns expounding himself what he meaneth by the church of Rome, maketh there express mention of the said Innocentius the 3. and of this Council of Lateran. &c.
And furthermore, to the intent that such as be indifferent seekers of the truth, may be more amplie satisfied in this behalf, that this transubstantion is of no antiquity, but of a late invention: I will also adjoin to this testimony of Johan. Scotus, the judgment and verdict of Erasm. lib. Annot. where he writeth in these words: In Synaxi transubstantiationē sero definiuit Ecclesia. Diu satis erat credere sieve sub pane consecrato, sieve quocun{que} modo adesse verum corpus Christi. &c. That is, In the sacrament of the communion, the church concluded transubstantiatiō but of late days. Long before that it was sufficient to believe the true body of Christ to be present either under bread, or else by some manner. &c.
The second Article.
As touching the seconde Article, which debarreth from the lay people the one half of the Sacrament, understanding that under one kind, both partes are fully contained, for so much as the world well knoweth that this Article is but young, invented, decreed, and concluded no longer since then at the Council of Constance, not past 200. years ago: I shall not need to make any long standing upon that matter, especially for that sufficient hath been • aid th • rof before in our long discourse of the Bohemians story, pag. 611.
First, let us see the reasons and objections of the adversaries in restraining the Laity from the one kind of this Sacrament. The use (say they) hath been so of longe continuance in the Church. Whereunto we answer, that they have no evident nor authentic example of any ancient custom in the church, which they can produce in that behalf.
Item, where they allege the place of S. Luke, where Christ was known in breaking of bread. &c. citing moreover many other places of Scripture, wherein mention is made of breaking of bread: to answer thereunto, although we do not utterly repugn, but that some of those places may be understanded of the Sacrament, yet that being granted, it followeth not therefore, that one parte of the Sacrament was only ministered to the people without the other, when as by the common use of speech, under the naming of one part, the whole action is meant. Neither doth it follow, because that bread was broken among the brethren, therefore the cup was not distributed unto them. For so we find by the words of S. Paul, that y e use of the Corrinthians was to communicate not only in breaking of bread, but in participating the cup also. The cup (saith he) which we participate. &c.
Also after the Apostles, in the time of Cyprian, of Jerome, of Gelasius and other successively after them, it is evident y t both the kinds were frequented in the Church. First Cyprian in diverse places declareth that the sacrament of the blood was also distributed. How do we (saith he) provoke them to stand in the confession of Christ, to the shedding of their blood, if we deny unto them the blood of Christ when they prepare themselves to the conflict?
The words of Jerome are plain. Priests (saith he) which minister the Eucharist, and devide the blood vnro the people.
In historia tripartita, it was said to y e Emperor Theodosius, how will you reciue the body of the Lord, with such bloody hands, or the cup of his precious blood, with that mouth, which have spilled so much innocent blood?
In the Canon of Gelasius, and in the Popes own decrees, these words we read: We understand that there be some which receiving only the portion of the Lord's body, do abstain from the cup of his sacrate blood, to whom we enjoin, that either they receive the whole Sacrament in both the kinds, or else that they receive neither: for the dividing of that whole & one Sacrament cannot be done without great sacrilege, &c. So that this decree of Pope Gelasius being contradictory to the council of Constance, it must follow, that either y e pope did err, or else the council of Constance must needs be a sacrilegious Council, as no doubt it was.
The like testimony also appeareth in the Council of Toletane, that the laity did then communicate in both kinds, besides diverse other old presidēts, remaining yet in the churches both of Germany and also of France, declaring likewise the same.
And thus it standeth certain and demonstrable by manifold probations, how far this newfound custom differeth from all antiquity and prescription of use and time. Again, although the custom thereof were never so ancient, yet no custom may be of that strength to gainstand or countermaunde the open and express commandment of God, which saith to all men: Bibite ex hoc omnes. Drincke ye all of this. &c.
Again, seeing the cup is called the blood of the new testament, who is he that dare or can alter the Testament of the Lord, when none may be so hardy to alter the Testament of a man, being once approved or ratified?
Further, as concerning those places of Scripture before alleged, De fractione panis, that is, of breaking of bread, whereupon they think themselves so sure that the Sacrament was then ministered but in one kind: To answer thereunto, first we say, it may be doubted whether all those places in Scripture, De fractione panis, are to be referred to the Sacrament. Secondly, the same being given unto them, yet can they not infer thereby, because one parte is mentioned, that the full Sacrament therefore was not ministered. The common manner of the Hebrew phrase is, under breaking of bread to signify generally the whole feast or supper: as in the Prophet Isaiah, these words, Frange esurienti panem tuum, do signify as well giving drink as bread, &c. And thirdly howsoever those places, De fractione panis be taken, yet it maketh little for them, but rather against them. For if the Sacrament were administered amongst them in fractione panis. i. in breakinge of bread, then must they needs grant, that if bread was there broken. Ergo, there was bread, forasmuch as neither the accidences of bread without bread can be broken, neither can the natural body of Christ be subject to any fraction or breaking by the Scripture, which saith: And ye shall break no bone of him. &c. Wherefore take away the substance of bread, and there can be no fraction. And take away fraction, how then do they make a Sacrament of this breaking, whereas neither the substance of Christ's body, neither yet the accidences without their substance can be broken, neither again will they admit any bread there remaining to be broken? And what then was it in this their Fractione panis ▪ that they did break, if it were not Panis, that is, Substantia panis quae frangebatur? To conclude, if they say that this fraction of bread was a Sacramental breaking of Christ's body, so by the like figure let them say that the being of Christ's natural body in the Sacrament is a Sacramental being, and we are agreed.
Item, they object further and say, that the church upon due consideration may alter as they see cause, in rites, ceremonies and Sacraments.
Answer. The institution of this sacrament standeth upon the order, example, & commandment of Christ. This order he took: First he divided the bread severally frō the cup, and afterward the cup severally from the bread. Secondly this he did not for any need on his behalf, but only to give us example how to do the same after him, in remembrance of his death to the worlds ende. Thirdly, beside this order taken, and example left, he added also an express commandment: Hoc facite, Do this. Bibite ex hoc omnes. Drink ye all of this. &c. Against this order, example, and commandment of the Gospel, no Church nor council of men nor angel in heaven hath any power or authority to change or alter, according as we are warned: If any bring to you any other Gospel beside that ye have received, hold him accursed. &c.
Item, another Objection. And why may not the Church (say they) as well alter the form of this Sacrament, as the Apostles did the form of Baptism, where in the Acts S. Peter saith: Let everyone be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. &c.
Aunswere. Thys text saith not, that the Apostles used this form of baptising: I baptize thee in the name of Christ. &c. but they used many times this manner of speech, to be baptized in the name of Christ, not as expressing thereby the formable words of baptising, but as meaning this, that they would have them to become members of Christ, and to be baptized as Christians, entering into his baptism, and not only to the Baptism of John: and therefore, although the apostles thus spake to the people, yet notwithstanding when they baptized any themselves, they used (no doubt) the form of Christ prescribed, and no other.
Item, among many other objections, they allege certain perils and causes of weight and importance, as spilling, shedding, or shaking the blood out of the cup, or souring, or else sticking upon men's beardes. &c. for the which they say it is well provided, the half communion to suffice. Wherunto it is soon answered, that as these causes were no let to Christ, to the Apostles, to the Corinthians, and to the brethren of the Primitive Church, but that in their public assemblies they received all the whole Communion, as well in the one part as in the other: so neither be the said causes so important now, to adnull and euacuate the necessary commandment of the Gospel, if we were as careful to obey the Lord, as we are curious to magnify our own devises, to strayne gnattes, to stumble at staws, and to seek knottes in rushes, which rather are in our own phantasies growing, then there where they are sought.
In summa, diverse other objections and cavillations are in Popish books to be found as in Gabriel the difference made between the laity and Priests, also the distinction used to be made between the Priests communion and the laicall communion. Where is to be understand, that when Priests were bid to use the laicall communion, thereby was meant not receiving under one kind as lay men do now, but to abstain from consecrating, and only to receive as the lay men then did. Some also allege certain special or particular examples, as of the cup only serving for the bread, or of the bread only sent to certain sick folk for the cup. And here they infer the story of Sozomenus, touching the woman in whose mouth the Sacrament of bread, which she only received without the cup, was turned to a stone, &c. other allege other private examples likewise of infants, aged mē, sick persons, men excommunicate, phrentickes and mad men, or men dwelling far off from Churches, in mountains or wilderness, &c. All which private examples neither make any instance against the ancient custom of public congregations frequented from the Apostles time, and much less ought they to derogate from the express and necessary precept of the Gospel which saith to all men without exception: Hoc facite, &c. Bibite ex hoc omnes, &c.
The third Article.
Private Masses, trentall Masses, and dirige Masses, as they were never used before the time of Gregory, vi.C. years after Christ: so the same do fight directly against our Christian doctrine, as by the definition thereof may well appear: The Mass is a work or action of the priest, applied unto men for meriting of grace, Ex opere operato, in the which Action the Sacrament is first worshipped, and then offered up for a sacrifice for remission of sins, à poena & culpa, for the quick and the dead. Of this definition as there is no part, but it agreeth with their own teaching: so there is no part thereof which disagreeth not from the rules of Christian doctrine, especially these, as follow.
1. The first rule is: Sacraments be instituted for some principal end and use, out of the which use they are no sacraments. As the sacrament of Baptism is a Sacrament of regeneration, and forgiveness of sins to the person that is Baptized. But if it be carried about to be worshipped and shown to other as meritorious for their remission, and regeneration, to them it is no sacrament.
2. No sacrament nor ceremony doth profit or conduce, but them only which take and use the same.
3. Only the death of Christ, and the work of his sacrifice upon the cross is to be applied to every man by faith for salvation and health of his soul. Beside this work alone, to apply any action or work of Priest or any other person, as meritorious of it self, and conducible to salvation, to souls health, or to remission of sins, it is Idolatry and derogatory to the Testament of God, and to the blood of Christ prejudicial.
4. To make Idols of sacraments, and to worship dumb things for the living God, it is Idolatry. Fugite Idola, &c. 1. Cor. 10.
5. Every good work whatsoever it be that a man doth, profiteth only himself, and cannot be applied to other men, Ex opere operato, to profit him unto merit or remission, only the Actions of Christ except.
6. No man can apply to another the sacrifice of Christ's death by any work doing: but every man must apply it to himself by his own believing. Iustus ex fide sua viuet. Habacuc. 2.
7. The Sacrifice of Christ's death doth save us freely by it self, and not by the means of any man's working for us.
8. The Passion of Christ once done and no more, is a full and a perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, both original and Actual: by the virtue of which Passion, the wrath of God is pacified toward mankind forever, Amen.
9. The Passion of Christ once done is only the object of that faith of ours which justifieth us and nothing else. And therefore whosoever setteth up any other object, beside that Passion once done, for our faith to apprehend and to behold the same, teacheth damnable doctrine, and leadeth to Idolatry.
Against all these rules, private Masses directly do repugn. For first beside that they transgress the order, example, and commandment of Christ (which divided the bread and cup to them all) they also bring the Sacrament out of the right use whereunto principally it was ordained. For where as the use of that Sacrament is principally instituted for a testimonial and remembrance of Christ's death, the private Mass transferreth the same to another purpose, either to make of it a gasing Idol, or a work of application meritorious, or a sacrifice propiciatory for remission of sins, or a commemoratiō for souls departed in Purgatory, according as it is written in their Mass book: Pro quorū memoria corpus Christi sumitur, Pro quorū memoria sanguis Christi sumitur. &c. Whereas Christ saith contrary, Hoc facietis in meam commemorationem.
Furthermore, the Institution of Christ is broken in this, that where the Communion was givē in common, the private Mass suffereth the Priest alone to eat & drink up all, and when he hath done, to bless the people with the empty cup.
Secondly, whereas Sacraments properly profit none but thē that use the same in the private Mass the Sacrament is received in the behoove not only of him that executeth, but of them also that stand looking on, & of them also which be far of, or dead and in Purgatory.
Thirdly, whē by y e scripture nothing is to be applied for remission of our sins, but only the death of Christ, cometh in the private Mass as a work meritorious done of the Priest, which being applied to other, is auayleable Ex opere operato, both to him that doth it, and to them for whom it is done, ad remissionem peccatorum.
Fourthly, private Masses & all other Masses now used of the Sacrament make an Idol, of commemoration make adoration, instead of a receiving, make a deceauyng, in place of showing forth Christ's death, make new oblation of his death, & of a cōmuniō, make a single sole supping. &c
Fifthly, whereas in this general frayltie of man's nature, no mā can merit by any worthiness of working for him self, the Priest in his private Mass taketh upon him to merit both for him self, and for many other.
Sixthly, it standeth against Scripture, that the Sacrifice and death of Christ can be applied any other wise to our benefit and justification, then by faith: Wherefore it is false that the action of the Mass can apply the benefit of Christ's death unto us. Ex opere operato, sine bono motu vtentis vel sacrificantis.
Seventhly, where as the benefit of our saluatiō and justifying standeth by the free gift & grace of God through our faith in Christ: contrary the application of these Popish Masses stoppeth the freeness of God's grace and maketh that this benefit must first come through y e Priests hands and his opus operatum, unto us.
The eight contrariety between private Mass, and gods word, is in this: That where the scripture saith Vnica oblation cōsummauit eos, qui sanctificantur in perpetuum With one oblation he hath made perfect them that be sanctified forever: against this rule the private Mass proceedeth in a contrary doctrine, making of one oblation a daily oblation, and that which is perfectly done and finished, new to be done again: And finally, that which was instituted only for eating and for a remembrance of that oblation of Christ once done, the Popish Mass, maketh an oblation and a new satisffaction daily to be done, for the quick and the dead.
To conclude these both private and public Masses of Priests, turn away the object of our faith from the body of Christ crucified, to the body of Christ sacrifised in their Masses. And where God annexeth the promise of justification, but only to our faith in the body of Christ crucified: they do annex promise of remissiō a poena & culpa, to the body in their Masses sacrificed, by their application: besides diverse other horrible and intolerable corruptions which spring of these their private and public Masses, which here I leave to other at their leisure further to conceive and to consider. Now let us proceed to the other Articles following.
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: