Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:03:07.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reformation Defense of Clerical Marriage in the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

John K. Yost
John K. Yost
Affiliation:
Mr. Yost is professor of history in the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The abolition of monastic vows and mandatory clerical celibacy and the exaltation of marriage and the family were among the most revolutionary changes in religion and ethics produced by the Reformation. Although scholars have given it too little attention, the controversy over the relative merits of marriage and celibacy, and particularly the campaign for clerical marriage, played a major role in the development of the Reformation. The law of celibacy and vows of chastity became principal topics of discussion when the reformers strove to break down the old order of medieval Christianity. The most concrete manifestation of the impact of the controversy over marriage and celibacy lay in the fact that many priests joined the Reformation movement precisely to escape the restrictions imposed upon their domestic life by the old order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 152 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Few Reformation scholars, however, would be willing to go so far as to call the controversy over marriage and celibacy “a major cause of the Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist Reformations” with Screech, Michael A., The Rabelaisian Marriage (London, 1958), p. 2.Google Scholar Yet Luther accurately perceived the importance of the issue when he claimed in his 1535 commentary on Galatians that the Reformation movement would have made little headway against the papacy if clerical celibacy had been observed as rigorously then as in the time of Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine before the practice of it became so corrupt. See Luther, Martin, Luther's Works, ed. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Hansen, Walter A. (Saint Louis, 1963)Google Scholar, vol. 26, Lectures on Galatians 1535, pp. 458–459. For a general treatment of the problem of celibacy and clerical marriage during the Reformation, see Franzen, August, Zolibat und Priesterehe in der Auseinandersetzun der Refermationszeit und der Katholischen Reform des 16. Jahrhunderts (Munster, 1969)Google Scholar and Ozment, Steven, “Marriage and the Ministry in the Protestant Churches,” in Celibacy in the Church, ed. Basset, William and Huizing, Peter (New York, 1972).Google Scholar Franzen omitted the English Reformation and Ozment had time to make only a few brief but insightful observations about it. Although intentionally avoiding the religious polemics, the best account of celibacy and clerical marriage in the English Reformation remains Lea, Henry C., History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, 3d ed. rev., 2 vols. (London, 1970), 2: 77–149.Google Scholar I am preparing a monograph on the changing attitudes of the Protestant reformers toward marriage and celibacy in the English Reformation.

2. Ozment, Steven E., The Reformation in the Cities (New Haven, 1975), pp. 60–61, 114;Google ScholarChadwick, Owen, The Reformation (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 409, 412.Google Scholar

3. While acknowledging their significance for ecclesiastical life, Franzen, , Zolibat und Priesterehe, p. 3Google Scholar, did not consider the questions of celibacy and clerical marriage central to matters of Christian belief. Lea, , Sacerdotal Celibacy, 1: viGoogle Scholar, claimed his book dealt with questions of morality and modes of thought, but it mainly amounted to an institutional history with little attention given to the underlying attitudes and ideas involved in the medieval development and the Reformation breakdown of the rule of celibacy.

4. Lea, , Sacerdotal Celibacy, 2: 77.Google Scholar

5. Powell, Chilton, English Domestic Relations, 1487–1653 (New York, 1917), p. 120.Google Scholar See also Bailey, Derrick S., Sexual Relation in Christian Thought (New York, 1959), p. 190, n. 2.Google Scholar

6. Barnes, Robert, “That by Gods worde it is lawfull for priestes… to marry Wiues,” in The Whole workes of W. Tyndall, John Frith, and Doct. Barnes, ed. Day, John J. (London, 1573);Google ScholarJoye, George, The defence of the mariage of preistes (Auryk, 1541);Google ScholarBale, John, The actes of Englysh votaryes (London, 1546);Google Scholaridem, The apology of J. Bale agaynste a ranke papyst (n.p., 1555); Ponet, John, A defence for mariage of priestes (n.p., 1549);Google ScholarParker, Matthew, ed., A defence of priestes mariages… agaynst T. Martin, (n.p., [1567]);Google ScholarVeron, John, A stronge defence of the maryage of pryestes (n.p., [1562]).Google Scholar

7. Erasmus, Desiderius, A ryght fruteful Epystle in laude and praise of matrymony, trans. Taverner, Richard (London, 1532);Google ScholarLuther, Martin, An exposition in to the seventh chaptre of the first pistle to the Corinthians, trans. Roy, William (Antwerp, 1529);Google ScholarMelanchthon, Philipp, A very godly defense, defending the mariage of priestes, trans. Joye, George (Ipswich, 1541);Google ScholarBullinger, Heinrich, The Christen state of Matrimonye, trans. Coverdale, Miles (London, 1541).Google Scholar Compare Becon, Thomas, The golden boke of christen matrimonye (n.p., 1542)Google Scholar, which is another translation of Bullinger's book but with a preface by Becon strongly praising matrimony over celibacy. Bucer, Martin, The Gratulation of M. Martin Bucer unto the Churche of Englande (n.p., 1549).Google Scholar

8. Tyndale, William, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, ed. Walter, Henry (Cambridge, 1850);Google ScholarTurner, William, The huntyng and fyndyng out of the romyshe foxe (Antwerp, [1544]);Google Scholaridem, The rescuynge of the romishe fox (Bonn, 1545); Becon, Thomas, The booke of Matrimony in The workes of Thomas Becon, 3 vols. (London, 1560–1564);Google ScholarPilkington, James, “The Burning of St. Paul Church: The Addition and Confutation of the Addition,” in Works, ed. Scholefield, James (Cambridge, 1842).Google Scholar

9. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 312.Google Scholar

10. Becon, , The workes of T. Becon (London, 1564)Google Scholar, fol. 307.

11. For a discussion of the date of composition and the question of authorship, see Butterworth, Charles C. and Chester, Alan G., George Joye, 1495?–1553 (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 223–225.Google Scholar

12. Hudson, Winthrop S., John Ponet (1516?–1556): Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago, 1942), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

13. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 330–331.Google Scholar The best account of Barnes's life can be found in James P. Lusardi, “The career of Robert Barnes,” in More, Thomas, The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, (New Haven, 1963-)Google Scholar, vol. 8, part 3, ed. Louis A. Schuster et al (1973). For an excellent analysis of Barnes's thought, see Clebsch, William A., England's Earliest Protestants, 1520–1535 (New Haven, 1964), pp. 58–77.Google Scholar

14. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 309–310.Google Scholar

15. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 313.Google Scholar

16. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 310–311.Google Scholar

17. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 309, 311–312.Google Scholar

18. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 312.Google Scholar

19. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 311–312.Google Scholar

20. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 337.Google Scholar

21. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 312, 315.Google Scholar

22. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 315–316.Google Scholar

23. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 333.Google Scholar

24. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 334.Google Scholar

25. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 337.Google Scholar

26. Barnes, , Whole workes, p. 338.Google Scholar

27. Barnes, , Whole workes, pp. 338–339.Google Scholar

28. Joye, The defence of the mariage of preistes, sig. A3.

29. Joye, The defence, sigs. A3v–A4r.

30. Joye, The defence, sig. A4.

31. Joye, The defence, sigs. A5v–A6r, C2r-C3r.

32. Joye, The defence, sig. C3.

33. Joye, The defence, sigs. B8r-C2r.

34. Joye, The defence, sigs. A5v–A7r.

35. Joye, The defence, sigs. A7v–A8v.

36. Joye, The defence, sigs. A8r–B2r, B7v–B8r.

37. Joye, The defence, sig. C3v.

38. Joye, The defence, sigs. C3v–C5v.

39. Joye, The defence, sigs. C5v–C7v.

40. Joye, The defence, sigs. C7v–D1r.

41. Joye, The defence, sig. B1v.

42. Ponet, A defence for mariage of priestes, sig. Al. Even Bale claimed the praise of marriage to be the ultimate aim of his attack on the rule of celibacy in The Actes of Englysh votaryes, sig. A8v.

43. Ponet, A defence, sigs. A2r–A3r.

44. Ponet, A defence, sigs. D7v–D8r.

45. Ponet, A defence, sigs. D8v–E4v.

46. Ponet, A defence, sigs. E4r–E6r.

47. Ponet, A defence, sig. E8.

48. Ponet, A defence, sigs. E8r–F3v.

49. Ponet, A defence, sigs. A3r–A4r.

50. Ponet, A defence, sigs. A4r–A5v.

51. Lea, , Sacerdotal Celibacy, 2:121;Google ScholarBailey, , Sexual Relation, pp. 191–192.Google Scholar

52. Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (London, 1964), pp. 220–222.Google Scholar

53. Ponet, A defence, sig. D7.