Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A19677
|
Inuicta veritas. An answere, that by no maner of lawe, it maye be lawfull for the moste noble kinge of englande, kinge Henry the ayght to be diuorsed fro[m] the quenes grate, his lawful and very wyfe
|
Abell, Thomas, d. 1540.
|
1532
(1532)
|
STC 61; ESTC S110723
|
71,431
|
142
|
⧠INVICTA VERITAS ¶ An answere That by no maner of lawe / it maye be lawfull for the moste noble Kinge of englande / Kinge Henry the ayght to be diuorsed fro the quenes grace / his lawful and very wyfe Sette a parte Cristen reader all blynde affeccion and read this boke with iugement / conferringe it with the tother boke agenst which this is writen and I doute not / but thou shalt stande on the quenis parte / as a fauourer of the firme and inuincible Verite AD LAVDEM TVAM DOMINE HEr folowith an answer / that I Thomas Abell priest haue made vnto a certain ynglishe boke late put forthe and imprinted which doith falsly affirme and saye that it is againste the law of God / and againste the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe / and that the Pope hath no power to dispence vpon suche mariage the which saing you shal se declared and prouid false / more clerly more largely by holy scripture / by holy decrees / by doctours / and expounders of holy scripture / and also by reason here within / than at the beginninge of my answer / And in lyk maner ye shal se this proposicion and sayng declared and prouyd trew / that a cristen man may lefully mary his brothers widowe left c. bothe by the lawe of God / and by the lawe of nature and that the Pope hath power to dispence vpon suche mariage for thowghe at the beginninge of myn answere / I shewe sufficiently the first saynge to be false / and this other last proposicion and saynge to be trew yet for bicause that I am compelled to folow the processe of the ynglyshe boke which I answere to I declare and proue the rehersid proposicions more largely within this myne answere according as the occasion is offerd the which if I had done also in the beginning I shuld haue / rehersed one thing and one profe many tymes / and so my answere wolde haue bene very tedious and longe FOr asmuche as now of late ther be certayn persons that haue made a boke in Latyn and the same haue translated it again into Englishe / where they doo affirme and saye that a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe / left without yssewe / is so vnleful and so againste the law of God / and against the lawe of nature / that the Pope hath no power to dispence vpon suche mariages / whether they be made and contracte al redy / or els yet to be made or contracte I am at this tyme compellid and constrayned by my profession and promesse that I haue made vnto owr sauiour criste to answere vnto this vntrewe sayng and to speke agaynste it FIrst for bicause to saye and affirme that it is forbidden bothe by the lawe of God aÌ„d by the law of nature for a maÌ„ to mary his brothers wife a widow c and that the Pope can in no wise dispence vpon suche mariage made / or yet to be made is very false and vntrew and also gret aÌ„d high blasphemy to god is law and to almighty God him self as I shal shew ye here after ANd secondly I am compellid and bounde to speke against this proposicion and sayng / for to admonyshe and giue my neighbour knowleg of this vntrew opynion that is nowe set owt in printe and goith a brode / to aduertyse hym to take hede of this saynge and to giue in no wise credence vnto it / for it is no smal daungere to mens sowles to beleue this false sayng and gret blasphemy / the which vngraciouse persons haue / and in their bokes do coloure and ornate with myche rethorike and eloquent wordis to th entent that their false proposicions sayngis shuld be the soner beleuyd accepte of the reders And so thus for these causes I am compellid to answere and speke against this before rehershed boke / in the which answere I wil with the assistence helpe of almyghty God shew ye how that this proposicion saynge is false highe blasphemy to almyghty God to affirme saye that it is forbiden to be against the law of God / against the law of nature that eny man shuld mary his brothers wyfe a widowe / lefte c and that the Pope hath no power to dispence vppon suche mariagis whether that they be contracte al redy / or els yet to be made contracte / I wil also here shewe ye that this is trew that a man may by the law of God aÌ„d by the law of nature lefully mary his brothers wife a widowe left with out yssewe / and that the Pope hath power to dispence vppon suche mariages and to licence a man so to mary THre thinges principally I note that the persons the which haue setforth their boke do saye The first is this In the preface of their boke they say that the vniuersites haue confirmed their determinacioÌ„s vpoÌ„ the leuitical laws by the whiche it is forbiden that eny man shulde mary the wife of his brother departed without children The seconde principall pointe and their saynge is writeÌ„ in the forsaid preface the which is this That it is forbiden bothe by the law of God and by the lawe of nature that any Cristen man shulde mary the wife of his brother dyinge without children The thyrde principal pointe and sayng is writen in the same preface ioyned vnto the second sayng whiche is this / that the Pope hath no pow r to dispence vpon eny suche mariagis whether they be contracte all redy or els yet to be contracte Now to their firste sayng where they write that the vniuersites haue confirmed their determinacions vppon thes leuitical lawes by the which yt is foâ—biden that eny man shuld mary the wife of his brother departed without children Beholde here I praye ye vppon how goodly and substanciall a grounde thies persons do say that the vniuersites haue buylded set ther determinacions thei say vpon the leuitical lawes by the which it is forbiden that any man shuld mary the wife of his broth r departed without children wheÌ„ that in al the leuitical law ther is no such mariagis forbideÌ„ as euery maÌ„ may perceue vnderstaÌ„d the loke upon the leuitical lawes / also as ye shal se it more largely declared here after / by this also ye may perceue what thies vniuersites haue determined / that is in dede no thinge but a proposicion the which ys very false euen lyke as theÌ„ grounde is that they haue bilded their determinacions vpoÌ„ Now to the second pointe principal / and saynge of thies persons where as they saye that it is forbiden bothe by the law of God and by the law of nature that eny cristen man shulde mary the wife of his brother departed without children this is likewise falce / First it is not against the lawe of God for in the law of
Thephilacte doith cal that mariage adultry / and also in a nother place expoundyng stil the same Chapiter / he callith this Corinthians acte agayne adultry / And the abusion that man doith with a woman that is not maryed is not callid adultry / Wherfore by thse yt semyth that thys yonge mans father was a lyue when that he maryed his Fathers wife ¶ Radulphe of Laundun expoundinge the .vii chapiter of the second Pistill ad Corinthios doith say / this yongman toke awaye his fathers wyfe / and so he did his father iniury and wronge ¶ Iohn de ruppella expoundinge the rehershid Chapiter saith the same ¶ Peter de Tarantase vppon the same Chapiter do likewise affirme and saye ¶ In the .xxij. leif of their boke thay saye that sayncte Iohn Baptiste did reproue herode the kinge by cause he had maried his brothers wyfe and he shewid the kinge that suche mariage was not leful nor that kinge Herode coulde not kepe his brothers wyfe this is trewth for Herode had maried his Brothers wife / his brother beyng a lyue as shewith saynte Ierome in commentarijs super Mattheum Cap. xiiij And so do Iosoph the great storiagraphe of the Iues libro .xviij. Antiquitatis Capite ix And also the same Ioseph againe in the same boke Cap. xi saith that king Herodis brother was a lyue when that Herode maried his brothers wife And lykewise doith saye the olde wryter and doctour Egesipe Libro secundo Capite quinto of the destruccion of Ierusalem ¶ Druthmar writinge vppon sayncte Mathewe sayth Herodes Brother Philipp was a lyue when that Herode toke awaye his brothers wife / and therfor sayncte Iohn did rebuke kyng Herode ¶ Hugh Cardinall writinge vppon Matthewe saith that Philip Herodes Brother was a lyue when that Herode toke awaye his wife and maried hyr / and therfore sayncte Iohn did rebwke Kynge Herode ¶ Albart the great writer vppon sayncte Marke sayth that Iohn did rebwke King Herode because he had maryed his Brothers wife his brother beynge than a lyue ¶ Also the interlynyall gloyse shewith vppon Matthew that Herodes Brother was a lyue when Herod toke awaye his brothers wife / and so dothe manye diuerse other doctours ¶ Sayncte Iohn therfore did iustly reproue kinge herode for he did nowght to mary his brothers wife hir husband beynge a lyue / but now sayncte Iohn did not saye that a man might not lefully mary his brothers wife a widow lefte without yssew / For sayncte Iohn knew very well that suche mariages were good and lefull and commaundid in the lawe So now ye may perceve that this saynge of sayncte Iohn doithe nothinge fauoure thies decevers purposse NOw in the .xxvi. leife of their boke they bringe in the counsels of the Apostils that they kept in Iherusalem where the Apostils decreyd that the gentils that were new come in to cristis faithe shuld absteyne and forbere fornicacion / and forbere to ete of any beste / byrde / or foule that was suffocate or stranguled / and to forbere to ete any maner of flesshe that was offered to ydols / to forbere to ete blode as to forbere to ete puddynges that be made of blode / and nowe thies deceuers affyrme that in / and vnder the name of fornicacion the Apostils did forbide that a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widow left with out yssewe But this is very false / for fornicacion was always forbyden in euery law / But for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left withoute yssewe / was neuer forbidden in the lawe of nature nor yn the olde lawe / nor in the newe / but as ye haue harde / suche mariage was in every lawe good and lefull Wherfore you maye see that it is false to saye that the Apostils vnder the name of fornicacion did forbid that a man shuld marey his Brothers wife a widowe left without yssewe ANd agayne these persons can shew no doctour that so expoundith the decre of the apostils Here you maye see howe these deceyuers do expound and apply scripture falsly for theyr false purposse NOwe where as thies persons in the .xxvij. leif of ther boke bryng in Tertulyan the which they say doth affyrme that this Leuiticall forbiddynge that a man shuld not mary his brothers wife / was brought in / tawght / and ordyned specially and by name of Christe hym self / and his apostils / because that all the hole churche and company of Cristes faithe shuld obserue anâ— kepe yt with deuocion and reuerence This thies persons saye Tertulian writeth but yet it helpith them no thing / for their false purpose for after thâ—yr writing and allegyng of Tertulian / he saith that the Leuiticall forbidding that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife was brought in and tawght / and ordyned specially and by name of Criste hym self / his apostils I shew you that for a man to mary his brothrs wyf a widow left without yssew ys not forbidden by the leuitical law and therfore this auctor helpeth thies persones not a whit NOw where as thies persones do bring in Tertuliane agayne in the .xxix. leif and in the .xxx. leif that sayth the comâ—aÌ„dment that bounde the Iues to mary theyr brothrs wife widowe left without yssew ys now ded and ceassed the contrary of this law hath place and he shewith why the commaundement ys nowe caessed / for the causes wherfore suche mariage was commaunded in the olde lawe / be now taken awaye And ther he shewith .iij. causes why almyghty God did commaund the Iues to mary their brothers wifes widowes left without yssewe ¶ The first was because almyghty God wold that the olde blissynge / Encreasse yow and multiply / owght than to run forth and continew ¶ The seconde cause he saith was this For asmuche as the childern were punyshed for the fathers fawtes than ¶ Thyrdly for bycause that the dry and baren persons were had for defamyd persons ¶ Here be now the causes that tertullian allegethe why almyghty God did commaunde in the old lawe that euery man shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew And for asmuche as thies causes after Tertulians mynd be now takyn awaye / therfore he saith that the commaundment that bownd the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifes ys now ceassyd and ded / and the coÌ„trary of this taketh now place ¶ First here I will answere to these reasons second I will shew yow how this commaundement that a man shulde always mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew / ys now ceassyd deid And thyrdly how this is false to saye that the contrary of that commaundment haith now place And finally I will shew yow / for what reasonable causes almyghty God did commaund the Iues to mary theyr brothers wifes widowes left without yssewe ¶ Now I will turne to the reasons of Tertuliane wher as he saith that the