Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1

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.

Prosper Bishop of Rhegium.

Cheremon Bishop of Nylus. All these were married Bishops.

Of Polychrates, and his 7. aunciters Bishops and married men, we spake before.

Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople in Iustinians time was the more commended, because his father & aunciters before him, were Priests and Bishops married.

Jerome saith, that in his time, Plurimi Sacerdotes habebant matrimonia. That is, many Priests were then married men.

Pope Damasus reciteth up a great number of Bishops of Rome, which were Priests sons, as:

• Syluerius. an. 544.
• Deus dedit, about the year 622.
• Adrianus 2. about the year 873.
• Felix 3. about the year 474.
• Hosius.
• Agapetus. an. 534.
• Gelasius, 484.
• Boniface.
• Theodorus, whose Father was Byshoppe of Jerusalem, about the year 634.
• Johannes 10. an. 924.
• Johannes 15. the son of Leo a Priest, about the year 984.
• Richard Archdeacon of Coventry.
• Henry Archdeacō of Huntingdon.
• Volusianus Bishop of Carthage.
• Tho. Archbishop of York, son of Sampson Bishop of Worcester.

And howe many other Bishops and Priests in other countries besides these Bishops of Rome, might be annexed to this Catalogue, if our leisure were such, to make a whole beaderole of them all?

In the mean time the words of Siluius Cardinal, & afterward B. of Rome, are not to be forgotten, which he wrote to a certain friend of his, which after his orders taken, was disposed to marriage. To whom the foresaid Sylvius answereth again in these words following: Credimus te vti non insulso consilio, si cum nequeas continere, coniugium quaeris: quamuis id prius cogitandum fuerat, anteaquam initiaueris sacris ordinibus. Sed non sumus dij omnes qui futura prospicere valeamus. Quando huc ventum est, vt legi resistor nequeas, melius est nubere quàm vri, &c. That is: We believe that you in so doing, follow no sinister counsel, in that you choose to be married, when otherwise you are not able to live chaste. Albeit this counsel should have come into your head, before that you entered into Ecclesiastical orders. But we are not all gods to foresee before, what shall happen hereafter. Now for so much as the matter and case standeth so, that you are not able to resist the law, better it is to marry then to burn, &c.

All these premisses well considered, it shall suffice, I trust though no more were said, to prove that this general law and prohibition of priests marriage pretended to be so ancient, is of no such great time, nor long continuance of years as they make it, but rather to be a late devised doctrine gēdered by the Monks, and grounded vpō no reason, law nor scripture, but that certain, which be repiners against the truth, do rack and wrast a few places out of Doctors and ii. or iii. Councils for their pretensed purpose. Whose objections and blind cavillations, I as professing heete but to write stories, refer to the further discussion of Divines: in whose books this matter is more at large to be sought and searched. In the mean season so much as appertaineth to the searching of times and antiquity, and to the conservation of such Acts and monuments as are behoueable for the Church, I thought hereunto not unprofitable to be adjoined a certain Epistle learned and ancient of Uolusianus, Bishop sometimes of Carthage, tending to the defense of Priests lawful wedlock, which Aeneas Sylvius in Descriptione Germaniae, also Illyricus in Catal. and Melancth. Lib. De coniugio do father upon Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, in the time of Pope Nicholas 2. but as I find it in an old written example, sent by John Bale to Math. Archbishop of Canterbury, as it is joined in the same book: so it beareth also the same title and name of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage: joining also withal, another Latin Epistle, which perhaps hath not been seen in Print before. The Copies of which both Epistles as being pertinent to the purpose present, here under ensue in form as followeth.

As touching the antiquity of this Epistle above prefixed it appeareth by the copy which I have seen, & received of the above named Matthew Archbyshop of Canterbury, to be of an old & ancient writing, both by the form of the characters, and by the wearyng of the Partchment, almost consumed by length of years and time.

And as concerning the author thereof, the superscriptiō (if it be true) plainly declareth it to be the Epistle of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage. Albeit heretofore it hath commonly been taken and alleged by the name of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, and partly appeareth to be so, both by the testimony of Aeneas Sylvius, in Descriptione Germaniae, who in the said treatise affirmeth that Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, did constantly resist the Pope abolishing the marriage of Priests, &c. and also by the record of Illyricus, testifieng that the said epistle not only remaineth yet to this day in old monuments, but also that he himself did see two exemplars of the same, both pretending the name of the said Huldericus to be the author. Notwithstanding this copy here above prefixed, beareth the title not of Huldericus Bishop of Augusta, but of Uolusianus Bishop of Carthage in Aphricke, as ye may see by the words of the preamble, saying, This is the rescripte of Volusianus Bishop of Carthage, unto Pope Nicholás concerning Priests not to be restrained from lawful marriage, &c.

Furthermore, which Pope Nicholas this was to whome these epistles were written, it is not plainly shown in the same, but that by probable conjecture it may be gessed rather to be Pope Nicholas 2. for so much as in his time, Priests marriage began somewhat earnestly to be called in, more then at other times before

Now as touching the English▪ of this Latin epistle above exhibited, forasmuch as the same is before inserted, page 157. we will refer the reader unto the same place. Wherein if the translation of the English do swerve anything from the Latin here above prefixed, the cause was, for that the Latin copy which here we follow, came not before to our hands.

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.

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.

1. Timoth. 3.

Oportet esse episcopum irreprehensibilem, vnius vxoris virum. &c. A Bishop ought to be unreproveable, the husband of one wife. &c.