is more agaynste reason and honeste / for to mary with ther mothers / with mothers in lawe / with ther fathers sisters / and withe ther mothers sisters / and so they did therfore myche more abstayne to mary with them / This reason can no man deny / wherfore yowe maye see by thies argumentis foundid in theyr owne saynge that the leuiticall prohibicions can not be all vnderstond that they forbide mariage betwene al the persons that be namyd in the .xviij. chapiter of the leuitical boke / so now ye may se euidently that al their grounde / and fundacion is false for in that chapiter they founde falsly there false opinion ALso in the same first chapiter of power boke in the .xix. leyfe thes persons saye / that what man hathe maryed his brothers wife / the whiche is vnderstande of a widowe left without yssew / shuld be Iuged of all the people not onely to haue contempnyd and dispiced God the which hath withe so great magesty commaundid the contrary / but also to haue offendid by infectinge and corruptinge the maners of the people by suche myschevous example to haue done ageinst the law of nature this is their sayng the which I beseche yow to note marke wel First they say that almighty God hathe with greate mageste commaundid the contrary to this that a man may lefully mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew / but this I wold se them shew / and where but that thei can not do nor yet no man for almyghty God neuer commaundid the contrary / but he did expresly commaunde that a man shuld mary his brothers wife a widow left without yssew / beside this thes persons do greatly blaspheme almyghty God in their sayng / for yf the people shuld iuge hym that hath maryed his brothers wife a widow c. to dispise and displease almyghty god than shuld the people iuge that almyghty God coÌ„maundid the Iwes to contemne him and to dispise him for almighty god as I shewed yow / commaundid the Iwes to mary ther brothers wifes / widows ce Moreouer yf the people shuld Iuge him that hath maryed hys brothers wife a widow cet to offend and infecte to corrupte the maners of the people by suche myscheuous example / to haue doon against the law of nature / thaÌ„ shuld the people iuge the almighty god did coÌ„maund the iues to offend to infecte / to corrupte the maners of the people / also that he coÌ„maundid the Iues to giue mischeuous example / to do agenst the law of nature / for it was almighty God the coÌ„maundid them to mary ther brothrs wifis widows ce thê° ye may now se howe thies ê‘sons blaspheme almyghty god his holy law for they saye that for a maÌ„ to mary his brothrs wif a widow c. ys abominable infection a corruption of the maners of the people a myschevous example and a breking of the law of nature / and yet thei can not deny but that almyghty God did commaunde suche mariagis / and so they laye al this abhominacion vpon almyghty God whiche is great dispisynge and blasphemy vnto hym ITem moreouer in the .xx. leife of their boke thies persons saye ouer and beside al this / Consyder with hou great strenght and weight of wordis and with how great care and thowght God in decerning thes lawes doith ofen reherse / sayng yt is not for a man / yt ys fowlnes yt ys myscheuousnes / yt ys cursidnes / yt ys abominacyon / yt ys not to be spoken / yt is not leful / yt ys agaynst the lawes of God / breuely yt ys fylthy and sclanderows that a man shuld do any suche thinge / Here now agayne thes persones do hiely blaspheme almyghty god for yf that mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife / be so yl and so abhominable as here they saye it ys / than they saye that almyghty God did command that thinge that ys meate for no man to doo / that is to saye fowlnes / that thynge that ys myscheuous / cursednes / abhominacion / yt is not to be spoken / it is not leful / it ys ageynst the very lawes of God / brevely yt ys filthy and sclanderous that a man shulde do any suche thinge / for it was almyghty God that did commaunde that men shulde mary ther brothers wifes widows lefte with out yssew The whiche mariages thies persons call abhominacion / myscheuousnes and sclanderousnes cet For of suche mariage thes persons speke / CoÌ„sider yow here with how great strenght and weight of wordie thes vngracius persons do Blaspheme almyghty god thay call hym the auctor and the commaunder of abhominacion of filthynes / and of cursidnes cet who euer herd so great blasphemy as ys this NOwe where as before they sayd that almyghty God in decerninge the lawes speketh with great strenght and weight of wordes yt ys trew he did so for he speaketh agaynst the greate vices and abhominable lyuynge that the Egipcians and the Cananeis vsid / but let thies persones shewe where almyghty God doith speake with great strength and weight of wordes ageynst mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife a widow lefte without yssew Agaynste suche mariage almyghty God did neuer speke but he did commaunde expresly suche mariage ANd yet thes false decevers do apply the spekinge of almyghty God / where he reprouid and spake agaynst the greate syns of abhominable lyuynge of the Egypcians and the cananes / to be ageynst the mariage betwene the brother and the brothers wife / a widowe lefte withe out yssewe / and yt is no thinge so / wherfor yowe muste note and marke wel thies persones saynge for they doo not care how falsly they saye / nor yet how fasely they apply goddis sayng and holy scripture nor other mens saynge / so that they make suche saynges to apere for their false purpose / also you shall se them bringe in many thinges that perteyne no thynge to this / for to shew that it ys forbiden by the law of God and by the lawe of nature for a man to marye hys brothers wife a widow left without yssewe ANd yow must note that in the olde lawe all that euer is spoken withe greate strength and weyghte of wordes and forbidden and callid cursyd and abhominable and fylthynes / ys not thinges that be forbiden by the lawe of nature / Leui. xi nor they be not so callid by cause they be yll of them self / for fysshe that hath no scales aÌ„d sinnes as elys and conger were callid abhominable for to ete / and yete it was not ageynste the lawe of nature for a man to ete elys and counger / Leui. xi Also all that crepith vppon the grounde was forbidden to ete in the olde law / and was callid abhominable / aÌ„d yet to ete snailles ys not agaynst the lawe
wold not tarry vpon it / nor vppon Pope martines approuinge of Waldens boke / nor yet vpon the Doctours whiche thei name without eny rehersinge of their writinges and opinions For all thies be impertinent to the purpose as euery man may see in these deceyuers boke Wherfore I passe ouer to the .lxxxvii. leif IN the .lxxxvij. leif / thies persones doo allege two glosers of the lawe of Canon / Iohn Andre and Iohn Imola which do gather and conclude by the wordes of the very texte of the chapiter Literas and also bi the wordis of gloses there / that the degreys writen in the leuiticall lawe be the same self degreis in the whiche Pope innocent hym self doith saye that the Pope hath no power to dispence with Here thies persons saye falsly of Iohn Andre for in the ende of his answere he concludith that the Pope may dispence in the first degre of consanguinite after that the matromony be ons coÌ„summat / thus ye may se how thies shamles persons doo lye IN the .lxxxviij leif / thei say that maister Abbot is of Iohn andres opinion here also thei say falsely vpon Maister abbot / for he ther rehersinge diuers opinions / finally doith conclude that the Pope may dispence in the first degre of affinite after that matrimony be consummate Thus ye may se that thies false deceyuers do not ceasse to lye IN the .lxxxix. leif / thies persons say that to those persons which the law of god doith cal neyest of blode / ther can be no good nor iuste cause for the which it might be sufferd or dispensed with the one of theÌ„ that shuld diskou r the fowlnes of a nother / nor the r can not be alleged anything so honeste / that is able to cov r the dishonesty of this thing This is your own pestilent saynge here they greatly accuse AbraÌ„ / Isaac / Iacob for thei maryd with their sistern with their vncles doughters / if ther can not be allegid eny thing so good honeste / that is able to couer the dishonestie of suche mariages / than thies persons do condempne thies holy patriarkes / say that in mariyng their kinneswomen thei did shamfully / euen that thing which is so euyl that ther can not be alleged eny thinge soo honeste that is able to couer the dishonestye of their Mariages Who will saye thus by thies holy fathers and patriarchâ—s / but thies vngracious persons Sainte Hierom doith excuse Abraham in that he maryed his sister / and shewith that in so mariynge he did not offend / as ye haue harde before And sainte austen against Faustus the manachye / shewith that Iacob did not offende in maryinge of his vncles doughter / and saynte ancelme in the epistle / that thies persons affirme to be his / sayth that for certain consideracions and honest causes / men sum tyme maryed their nere kynswomen both before the lawe and in the lawe / before the lawe / as abraham / and Isaac / and Iacob / in the lawe / as Othoniel / thies holy men iuge thies mariages to be honeste / iuste / and goode whiche thies vngracyous persones do falsely dampne for to coloure their dampnable opinion IN the lxxxx leif / of their boke thies persones wold haue yow to marke specially / which diuerse of thies holy and approbate doctours do holde / also that the brother can not mary a woman that is but only handfaste vnto his brothere and if he doo the mariage can not stande by helpe of eny dispensacion / and that al suche mariages must nedes be vtterly broken / Of this opinion thies persones saye is mayster lyre / and also the noble diuine Hugh de sancto victore and so in the lxxxxij leif of their boke / they saye that mariage in the firste degre of consanguinite and of affinite is not only forbiden in the leuitical lawe but also mariage in the first degre / for a iustice groundid only vppon a certain comyn honeste and comelines / is forbidden by the lawe of God in the leuitical and so can not be dispensid with all by me Here ye may se howe openly and without all shamfastnes they lye they bid yow marke whiche diuerse of the holy aÌ„d approbate Doctours do hold that the brother can not mary a woman that is but only handfaste to his brother after his dethe thus they muste vnderstande yt and if a man doo the mariage can not stande by helpe of eny dispensacion First thies persons haue brought no doctoure that this doith affirme / and ther is nether maister Lyre / nor Hughe de sancto Victore that doith saye that the pope can not dispence with a man that he maye mary that woman whiche was only but handfast to his broth r aft r his brothrs deth Hugo de S. vic in al his longe processe that thies persons bring in / hath not a worde of the Popes power and dispensacion / nor maister Lyre in this case / moreouer yt is euident that it is but only forbiden by the lawe of the churche that a man may not mary his brothers spouse after the dethe of his brother ther is no scripture nor Doctour saynge that suche mariage ys forbiden by the leuitical lawe / nor agayne ther is no Doctour that doith saye that the Pope can not dispence in this case yow may se what persons be thies / thei care not howe falsly thei saye / thei be not ashamid to speke agaynst al reason and lerning FOr to proue their a fore rehersed saynge / thei bring in a case that ther was a man whiche had his eldest soon hand fast to a mayde / and so this yonge men died and than his father bounde him selfe by an other to the mayden / that he wold marey his yongest sone to hyr / and vppon this / he made suyte to the Pope whiche was Alexandre the thirde and he wolde not dispence and lycence this mannis yonger sone to marey the maiden but lete the man that swore he wolde mary his yonger soone to the mayden be pariuride where vppon thies persons wold conclude / that the Pope can not dispence that a man maye mary his Brothers spouse after his brothers dethe / which is false for this argument ys nought to saye The Pope will not dispence vppon suche mariage wherfore it folowith that he can not dispence vppon suche mariage This yow se doith not folowe For the Pope doith not alwais dispence where he may dispence Also if the Pope were bounde to dispence in the thyrde and fowerth degre of affinite withe euery man that did or wolde swere to mary in thies degreis / than the prohibicion were no prohibicion / Also where as thies persones saye that the Pope alexandre did affirme in his answere to the Bishope of Papye / the it is writen in the leuitical / that the Brother can not haue the Brothers spouse / and
mary so was non offence but to haue moo wyues at ons nowe / ys offence by cause that the custome is contrary / and it folowith anone after Sum synnes and offensis be against nature Sum be agaynst customs / and sum be against preceptis and commaundmentis / and whan it ys thus / what offence is laid to this holy man Iacobe in hauinge many wyues yf ye aske nature why Iacob had so many wyues / she wil answere for hym that he dide not take them fore the inordinate luste and pleasure of the bodye but he vsid his wiues to encrease and multiply faithful people / if yow aske custome why Iacobe toke so many wiues it will answere that at that tyme in that country their maner was so to mary if ye aske the commaundement why Iacobe toke so many wiues it he wil answere / for bi cause that ther was no law that forbode yt but wherfore ys it nowe an offence to take mo wyues at ons than one that is for because lawes and customes do forbyd it / ye and that althoughe a man wolde take moo wiues for to increase and multyply faithful people Thus yowe maye se by saynte Austyn that it is not agaynste the lawe of nature for a man to mary in the firste degre of affinite Parauenture sum wil make this obieccion / and saye that almyghty God did dispence with Iacob that he myght mary on the rehersid wise / and in suche degreis of affinite and consanguinite / and so he did likewise with other holy men before the law saynte Augustyns wordes do take this obieccion clene awaye for a dispensacion to this purpose here is a lycence graunted againste sum lawe or a declaracion of sum lawe And by saynte Austyns wordes than ther was no lawe that forbode Iacob so to mary / and than had he no nede of licence to mary so nor there was no law to be declared / and therfore after saynte Augustines mynde Iacobe did not offende against the lawe of nature / and than after this tyme almyghty God did forbide certayne degreis of consanguinite and affinite as the first and second by law positiue and commaundement which Moyses did declare vnto the people and these prohibicions haue now no strength / but by a newe ordinaunce which that the churche made that Cristen people shulde not nowe mary in theis degres nor in the thirde Thus haue ye harde before of the sentence of Thomas of Argentyne / and the prohibicion leuital that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife vnderstande a widow to be a law positiue and the same we may haue of holy Chrisostoms sayng super matth ho. xlix He shewith why almyghty God commaundid the Iues to mary their brothers wifis widowes left without yssewe And than he asked whi a man myght not mary his brothers widowe that had children left by hir husbonde To this he answerethe and saye that it was done for by cawse that the lawe maker wolde haue affinite to go further a brode / wherby men myght be knyt togither So by thys yt apereth that the prohibicion leuiticall whiche for bode that a man shulde not mary his brothers widow / was a lawe positiue and a politicall precepte which nowe hathe no strengthe but bi the reason of the constitucion of the church Also it do apere that it ys not agaynste the law of nature for a man to mary his sister his nere kinswomen for yf the custome law of the churche to the contrarye were a waye / many discrete men with right iugement of reason had leuer mary their sister and nere kinswomen than other women And yet not for no filthye nor vnclenly desire but rather for the natural loue that thei haue to their kinswomen / they shuld be moued to vse them verey honestly ynal actis ye myche better than thei shuld vse eny other women This I suppose that the most parte of discrete men women that do or wil examyn this wel wil thê° iuge Thus now ye may perceyue that it is not against the law of nature for a man to marey his brothers wife a widow left without c NOw I shal shew ye that it is not against the law of God for a man to mary hys brothers wife a widow c. First it ys not agaynst the olde law of God but there ys and was a commaunded law vniuersall / bounde al the Iues to mary always their brothers wiues left c. and that vpon a great payne as ye haue herd declared before / and no man can saye that the Iues maried their brothers wiues widowes c. by a licence dispensacion of almighty God for that ye haue seyn manifestly improuid SAynte Chrisostome saith that the law did compel the iues to mary their brothers wifes widows ce so suche mariage is not agaynst the olde lawe / but it was ther coÌ„maundid super Mat. ca. xxii ho. lxxi ALso for a maÌ„ to mary his brothrs widowe c. is not against cristes law but rath r o r sauio r crist did approue suche mariage as ye saw he r at the beginning of myn answer. also in alt he newe Testament there is no expressid prohibicion against the deutronomical precepte which bonde the Iues to mary their brothrs wiues widowes c. nor yet of al the newe testameÌ„t no maÌ„ can gath r to coÌ„clude a prohibicion against the deuteronomicall commaundment / ye beside this ther is no maÌ„ that can conclude of eny scripture in the newe Testament eny prohibicion to let Mariage in eny degre of affinite or consanguinite beside the prohibicion of the lawe of nature / this is manifest wherfore / for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe is not againste the law of God / for it is nether againste the newe lawe nor the olde BVt yet for asmuche as diuers Doctours do saye / that it is against the law of God to mary in the first and second degre of consanguinite and of affinite ye shal vnderstande that the churche hath made certayne constitucions and lawes vpoÌ„ the iudiciall commaundments and examples of the olde lawe / as that priestes and religions men shal saye their Canonical howres and seruice / of the which constitucion the church toke their grounde in the olde law as in the Psalme Septies in die laudem dixi tibi domine And agayne / media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi Likewise the church hath ordined and constitute that we shal faste the lente In the making of this law / the churche grounded it in the examples of the holy fathers of the olde lawe which fasted .xl. dayes and in the example of the fastinge of our sauiour Christ / and vpon this saynte Augustine / saynte Hierome / maximyn / saye that the lent is commaundid to be kept and fasted vi the law of God Also the churche hath ordined and decreid that no
brothers wiues widowes left c. that vpon a great payne / therfore it is false to saye that almighty God did commande in the olde law that no man shulde mary his brothers widowe c. so therfore is this false that the Pope haue no power to dispence vpon suche mariage which these persons wolde conclude vpon there false proposicion IN the .c. .xlv. leif of their boke these persons write that the leuitical prohibicion that a man shulde not mary his brothers wife a widow c. Thus thei must vnderstand yt or ells it is not to the purpose thoughe it was lymyted restrayned of almighty God in the Deuteronomi / yet for al that bicause afterwarde the said restraynt was taken awaye of God him self by the comyng of Cr st here these persons do not declare whate they meane vnderstande / by lymytynge restrayninge of the leuiticall prohibicion / nor yet what they wolde haue vnderstanden by the taking awaye of the restraint / at the coming of o r sauiou r crist but where as thei say that the leuitical prohibicion that a man shuld not mary his brothers widowe c. was restraynide in the Deuteronomi / here these persons say manifestly false for as I haue saide oftin tymes / as ye haue harde many doctours saye / ye as the leuitical law it self sayth / that ther is no suche prohibicion there therfore ther was no restraint made vpon that prohibicion nor yet owr sauiour Criste did not at his cominge take awaye the restraynt for ther was none to be taken away but in the Deuteronomi almyghty God did playnly streyghtely commaunde that the Iues shulde mary always their brothers wyues widowes left c. this confirmeth Isichius sayng in commē leui that the law Deuteronomical did not onely commāde mē to mary their brothers wiues widows but it did also compell them so to mary This therfor can be callid no restraynt and thus all these persones saynge ys false IN the same leif / theis deceyuers say / that yf the Pope now a dayes coulde by dipensacion / cause that a man might mary after the law of the Deuteronomi his brothers wife which doith dye hauing none yssewe for to reyse vp sede to his brother withoute doughte he shulde make Cristen men at thys daye to folow the Iues ceremonyes supersticion sues / which the Pope can not do / no more than he can cause that we shulde kepe the Sabot daye or that thei shulde be circuncisid To this I answere / that the Pope can not by dispēsacion cause a mā to mary his brothers widow c. as the Iues in the olde law maryed theirs Nor the Pope doith not licence a man to mary his brothers widowe after the facion maner but the Pope doith licence dispence that a Cristen man may mary his brothers widow as a kynge or a prince to mary his brothers widowe / to be meane that queytnes peace may be kepte betwene realme realme for to continew loue frendeship betwene Cristen princes / for other suche reasonable profitable causes concerning the comyn welthe of Cristendome / thus for theis / suche causes the Pope doith maye dispence that a man may mary his brothers widowe c. not after the maner of the Iues therfore theis persons bringe yn a thing that no man will deny / and yet it is nothing for their purpose IN the .cliij. leif of their boke / these persones saye that like as a man may frely fulfil his purpose of a more holyer lyuynge the sayng nay frowarde forbiddinge of his indiscrete prelate notwithstanding euen so it is yn mariage that if a mans consciens moue him to diuorse that he dyuorse hym self though the church say contrary Here now ye may se perceyue theis pestilent persons vngracious maliciouse entent what thei counsail / wolde haue done the is to saye a man to diuorse him selfe / to forsake his wife yf his conscience moue him to diuorse without eny further profe or shewing of eny iust cause to mary where yt plesid him thoughe the churche sayd the contrary which is clerly against al reason ALso by this their saynge yowe may perceyue that these persones wolde vtterly destroye the blissed sacrament of matrimony For by this meane waye euery man as often as he wold chaunge his conscience to diuorse / so often he might chaunge his wife / ye the wife hyr husband / without shewinge of eny other profe or cause / without eny maner of sentence iugement of the churche ye thowgh the church said commaundide the contrary / so by this / shulde the sacrament of matrimony be destroid Here ye may se what pestlent persons these be / whiche haue compiled this boke that I answere to FVrthermore theyr comparison and similitude wherby they wolde proue that a man maye diuorse hym selfe frome hys wyfe by hys conscience / thowghe the Churche saye contrarey / ys openly false Fore thowghe yt be so that a Prieste / be mouede yn hys mynde to be a religious man / may frely fulfil his purpose of a more holier lyuinge notwithstanding the nay of his indiscrete prelate yet it doith not folowe / that euen so yt is in mariage that yf a mans conscience moue him to diuorse / that he may diuorse him self forsake hys wife / mary anoth r / thowghe the church say contrary This case is not like the oth r first forbicause that a priest which goith to religion for a more holier lyuing / may fulfil his godly purpose lefully notwithstanding the frowarde / forbidding of his vndiscrete prelate for asmuche as the priest beyng at libertye / doing no wronge to no person by the reason of his going to religion but seruith almighty God better Thus he may fulfil his godly purpose thoughe his vndiscreite prelaite saye contrary / but so may not a man that is maryed / diuorse hym self whan his conscience mouith him to diuorse / for bicause the maried man is not at libertie / For he is bounde to continew with his wife accordinge to the lawes of matrimony during al the tyme of his lyfe / nor he can not departe frō his wife for to mary anoth r while that his wife is a lyue Wherfore there is no conscience that can helpe a maryed man in the mater of diuorse / excepte he can manifestly proue some iuste cause befor the church that his mariage ys not good And than he must abyde stonde to the churches iugement determinacion And therfore this is false / to say that lyke as a priest may for a more holier lyuinge / fulful his purpose notwithstanding the forbiddinge or nay of his vndiscreite prelate euen so it is in mariage / that if a mans conscience moue him to diuorse that he diuorse hym self thowghe
of nature / for snaillis be good and holsome and be eten in many placis / and so lykewise / yf a woman shulde haue worne a mans germent she hade done abhominable in the olde law / and for abominacion yt was forbidden / and yet yt was not agaynste the lawe of nature And so were thinges in that lawe callyd filthy and vnclenly and forbidden / and yet they were not against the lawe of nature / leu xv as to touche caren of certayn bestes / and many other thinges were forbidden as fylthynes and foule thinges / and finally you must note that the great and greuous punyshementis that were thretenyd yn the olde law / were not always thretenyd for brekynge of the lawe of nature / as the childe that was not circumcisyd was thretened that he shulde perishe from the middest of the people / and yet a childe that is not circumcisyd / doith not offende agaynst the lawe of nature And yet beside all this ye must note that the same thinge that was one against the lawe of nature / ys always against the lawe of nature / for the lawe of nature doith neuer moue nor altere hyr self in no maner of tyme sens Adam fell FIrthermore ye must marke and note that sayncte Ierome saith in the Prologe vppon Oseas that almyghty God doith commaunde no thing but that which ys honeste / nor almyghty God coÌ„maunding vnhoneste thingis doith not make them honest suche as be fowle of them self wherfor by this it folowith that for a man to mary his brothers wif a widow / was neu r foule nor euyl of it self / for than it coulde neuer haue bene good thowghe almyghty god had commaundid yt neuer so muche But almyghty God did commaunde suche mariage / wherfore suche mariage can not be agaynst the law of nature / So nowe these fewe rewlys yow must take / and they shal helpe yowe to perceue the falsite of thies deceyuers NOw where as these deceyuers in the xx seife of their boke say / forsoith yf a man will waye well and examine these forsaid thinges religiously and with goode consciens and so as they owght to be / how can he but approue the trewth allow the conclusions and determinacions of thies vniuersites thinke certaynly that yt is forbiden both by the law of God and by the lawe of nature that a Christen man shuld mary his brothers wife a widowe this is these persons sayng To the whiche thus I answere / forsoith yf a man wil way wel this case of matrimony / yf a Cristen man may mary his brothers wife a widow lefte withe out yssew / and examyn yt with good consciens as it owght to be / how shulde he not streyght waye reproue and disalowe the conclusions and determinations of thies vniuersites that saye the contrary / and to think certaynly that it is nether against the lawe of God nor against the law of nature for a Christen man to mary his Brothers wife a widowe cetera This shal euery lernyd man that haith good consciens iuge to be trewe MOreouer where as thies deceyuers in the .xxi. leife of their boke saye that the sonnis of Cayn the whiche were drouwnyd in Noys flowid / they were so punyshed by cause they did foully abuse theyr sisters and theyr brothers wifes / wherfore these persons wold conclude that it is against the lawe of God and agaynst the law of nature for a man to mary his Brothers wife a widow c. Here yow maye see a goodly Argument Cayn sonnys did fowly abuse theyr sisters and theyr brothers wifes / wherfore yt is ageynst the lawe of God aÌ„d agaynst the lawe of nature for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe cet What shuld a man saye to so lewid an Argument but as the conclusion is manifeste false / so is all that the makers of the argument go abowt to proue ALso where as they saye in the same leif of theyr boke / Here ye maye see before yower eyes the holy lawes of God / here yow maye see the lyuely Prophecyes and the wordes of excedynge vertue and strength c. And anone after they saye / forsoith it be comyth a Cristen herte more to regard the wordes of God and his auctorite / whiche doith forbide and so hathe in abhominacion / so doith punyshe and reuenge suche matrim mary his stepmother / wherfor yt is forbiden by the lawe of God and by the lawe of nature that a man shulde mary his Brothers wife a widowe lefte without yssew / the maior of this argument is false / the whiche is this That yt is forbiden yn the same place of the lawe for a man to mary his stepmother where yt is forbidden for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe ce This proposicion I saye is false for yt is not forbidden in all the hoâ—â— lawe for a man to mary his brothers wife a widowe left without yssew and so therfore the wordes of saynte polle helpith nothinge for thies persons Purpose ANd also suche mariage and fornication that the Apostle doith here reproue / ys not spoken of in the Leuitical prohibicion for this yonge man that had maried his mother in lawe / did take hyr from his father and so maryed hyr / his father beyng a lyue / as the wordes of sayncte Poll a fore rehersed do shewe / and therfore sayncte Poll did not grounde hym in the Leuiticall lawe when that he rebwlâ—ed this Coryntheane for mariyng of his fathers wife That the father was a lyue of the Coryntheane that maryed his mother in law / it semyth also by thies wordes of the Apostle where he saithe ther is not suche fornication herde of amonge the gentiles / and sayncte Poll beynge so well lernyd as he was knewe very wel that the Gentils had sum tyme abusyd theyr fathers wifes / also he knewe that the Iues had abusyd their fathers wifes bothe before the lawe and in the lawe before the law Ruben abusyd his fathers wife / aÌ„d so did Absalon in the lawe abuse his fathers wifes / therfore this offence that this Coryntheane did was more than for to lye withe his fathers wife / or ellis saincte Poll wold not haue callid yt suche / so greuous fornication as hath not ben hard of / among the gentiles But for a man to take awaye his fathers wife from hym and openly mary hyr and so kepe hyr still / suche maner of fornication hath not ben herd of amonge the gentilz and for by cause this Coryntheane had done so / therfore the holy Apostle did call that suche fornicacion as had not bene hard of / and therfore he did sharpely rebuke yt and greuously correcte yt ALso Theophilacte expoundinge the v. Chapiter prime Epistole ad Corinthios / doith suppose that the father of this Corintheane was a lyue / when that this yonge man maryed his mother in lawe For