Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 19: That Celibacy Is Most Rightly Annexed to Sacred Orders by Apostolic Law
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now for the other question — whether it was rightly done that a perpetual celibacy should be annexed to the sacred orders — there are two errors to be refuted: one of the Greeks, the other of the Lutherans. The former error is: that clerics ought, before they receive the sacred orders, to take wives, because after the sacred orders are received it is not lawful to do so, and he who lives without a wife exposes himself to too great a danger of fornicating.
Of this error some make Nicholas, one of the first seven deacons, the author. But whatever be of this, it is established that Vigilantius expressly taught this error; of whom Blessed Jerome speaks thus at the beginning of the book against Vigilantius: “O wickedness! He is said to have bishops as partners of his crime — if indeed they are to be called bishops, who ordain no deacons unless they have first taken wives, believing chastity to no celibate.” This error the Fathers of the Council in Trullo received, about the year of the Lord 700, as is plain from canon 13, where that profane Synod by name condemns the canons of the Roman Church and establishes the contrary — namely, that clerics take wives before the subdiaconate and afterward live with them, being set in sacred orders. In the time of this Synod began the custom of the Greeks which now is; and it was increased and confirmed in the time of Leo IX, when the dissension of the Greeks from the Latins grew greatly in many other articles. Whence there is a book of Cardinal Humbert written at that time on this matter, against Abbot Nicetas, who then most sharply defended this custom of the Greeks.
The latter error is far graver: that it is lawful to take a wife not only before ordination, but even after ordination. Certain foundations of this error Jovinian laid, who taught that virginity is not superior to matrimony; for thence it followed that priests wish in vain to lack wives. Whence also certain nuns, having heard Jovinian, married, as Blessed Augustine relates (in the book On Heresies, chapter 82). Yet this heresy was soon extinguished, nor did it reach to the deceiving of any priest, as Augustine says in the same place. But the first who openly taught that it is lawful to take a wife after ordination was John Wycliffe, as Thomas Waldensis relates (volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapters 128 and 129, and volume 3 On the Sacramentals, chapters 66 and 67). Him followed Luther (in the book On the Abrogation of the Private Mass), Pomeranus (in the book On the Marriage of Bishops), the Magdeburgians (in each Century, chapter 7, and namely Century 11, chapter 7, column 389, where they say this is the most pestiferous heresy of all that ever disturbed the Christian kingdom), likewise Beza and [Peter] Martyr (on 1 Corinthians 7), Philip Melanchthon (in the Augsburg Confession, article 23, and in the Apology of that article), Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 12, section 23), Brentius (in the Württemberg Confession, chapter on marriage). Besides, Erasmus (in the declamation on the praises of matrimony) judges it useful if the right of marriage be granted to priests; and the same seems to have held Panormitanus, otherwise a Catholic and learned author (on the chapter Cum olim, on married clerics). I hear that Kemnitz (in the third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent) treated copiously of the celibacy of priests, but I have not yet been able to see that book; and if conjecture is to be made from his other works, he will add nothing, or very little, to what the Centuriators and Calvin gathered.
Against these errors we must prove that the vow of continence is annexed to the sacred orders, so that it is lawful neither to take wives, nor to use wives married before, after ordination — by positive right indeed, but most ancient and most just, and which in no way is expedient to be relaxed at this time.
It is proved, first, by the Scriptures. And first Paul (in the epistle to Titus, chapter 1): “A bishop must be hospitable, kind, sober, just, holy, continent.” Where it is to be noted that for what we have “sober,” in Greek it is sophrona, which (as Jerome says on this passage) is ambiguous, and can signify prudent, sober, chaste; but in this place it signifies chaste. And because chastity is common also to the married, therefore the Apostle adds also “continent,” which in the same place Blessed Jerome expounds “from the embraces of a wife.” The same (2 Timothy 2): “Labor as a good soldier of Christ Jesus; no man being a soldier to God entangles himself with secular business.” Here the Apostle commands the bishop to war strenuously for God; then he says that he cannot war well for God if he has entangled himself with secular business — such as marriage certainly is, no one can deny. For, as Saint Basil beautifully teaches (in the preface of the Monastic Constitutions): “Marriage is a fetter.” The same Apostle (1 Corinthians 7) bids the married by consent to be free for a time from the work of marriage, that they may attend to prayer; from which by good consequence Blessed Jerome deduces (on chapter 1 to Titus, and Book I against Jovinian) that he commands bishops and other sacred men to be perpetually free from the work of marriage, since they ought daily to attend to prayer. Which same argument from this passage Origen uses (homily 23 on Numbers) and Epiphanius (in the heresy of the Cathari).
Besides, in the Old Testament we see that continence from wives was especially required in those who were about to draw near to God or handle any holy thing. For (Exodus 12) it is commanded that those about to eat the Paschal Lamb should gird their loins — by which was signified, as Gregory expounds (homily 22 on the Gospel), that those who eat the Paschal Lamb ought to tame the pleasure of the flesh. Exodus 19: when the people was about to receive the law from God, Moses says to them: “Be ready against the third day, and come not near your wives.” Which testimony Ambrose uses (Book I On the Offices, last chapter) to prove the continence of clerics. Likewise Exodus 28: God commands that Aaron and his sons, when they entered the tabernacle, should be covered with linen drawers from the loins to the thighs — by which Bede expounds (Book III On the Tabernacle, chapter 9) it was signified that the priests of the New Testament ought either to be virgins or to have dissolved the covenants contracted with wives. Likewise 1 Kings 21: the priest Achimelech would not give David the loaves of proposition to eat unless he first understood that he had for some time abstained from his wife. From which Blessed Jerome deduces (on chapter 1 to Titus) that a perpetual continence, even from wives, is required in priests, who confect, eat, and deliver to others the body of Christ, which was signified by that bread of proposition.
Finally, from 1 Paralipomenon 24 and Luke 1 it is gathered that the priests of the Old Testament were wont to minister by their turns, and that all the time they ministered in the tabernacle they were away from home and wife. From which Pope Siricius deduces (in the letter to Himerius), and Innocent I (in the letter to Victricius), and Bede (on chapter 1 of Luke), that if those, in the time they ministered, abstained from wives, it is altogether fitting that our priests, who minister not by turns but always, always contain themselves from wives.
This last argument Calvin tries to solve (Book IV, chapter 12, section 25), and says that the Levitical priests were antitypoi of Christ, that is, bore the figure of Christ, and because they could not exactly represent the excellence and holiness of Christ, were ordered to purify themselves beyond human manner; but that now this is not necessary, since through the coming of Christ the figures and shadows have ceased. But the solution avails little. For as the Levitical priests bore the figure of Christ to come, so now Christian priests represent Christ who has come. For the priest, while he performs the sacred mysteries, sustains the person of Christ, and therefore in sacrificing he says not, “This is the body of Christ,” but, “This is my body”; for he there acts Christ — which also the ornament of the sacred vestments designates. Then, that was not the primary cause why the Levitical priests should abstain from wives, that they bore the figure of Christ, but that they ministered to the Lord (Exodus 19): “Let the priests who come to God be sanctified, lest He strike them.” For otherwise David was always a figure of Christ, and yet was only then ordered to abstain from his wife when he was about to eat the holy bread, as we said. Finally, if those, because they signified Christ, had to purify themselves beyond human manner, how much more ought they to be purified who daily handle Christ Himself?
It is proved, secondly, by the testimonies of the ancient Councils of the whole Church. And first of the Eastern Church. We have the Council of Ancyra, celebrated 1200 years ago (canon 10), where it is said: “Deacons who at their very ordination do not protest that they wish to have a wife cannot after ordination take one; but if they protest, they can take one, because then the bishop is deemed to have dispensed with them.” Likewise the Council of Neocaesarea, celebrated a little after (chapter 1): “A priest, if he take a wife, let him be removed from his order.” The First Council of Nicaea (canon 3) forbids a bishop, priest, and deacon to have any woman in the house except a mother, sister, or aunt. No mention is made of a wife, which yet ought to have been put in the first place, if it were lawful to dwell with her. Likewise, why is the cohabitation of women forbidden to clerics, if they can be married? Can they not have their wives’ maidservants in the same house? Finally the Synod in Trullo (canon 6) forbids bishops, priests, deacons, or subdeacons to take a wife after their ordination, and (canon 48) commands that a bishop not cohabit with his wife.
Of the African Church we have a signal testimony. For the Second Council of Carthage (canon 2): “It pleases all that bishops, priests, deacons, or those who handle the Sacraments, being guardians of chastity, abstain even from their wives.” And the reason is there given: “That what the Apostles taught and antiquity itself observed, we too may keep.” This testimony refutes not only the Lutherans, but also those Catholics who will have this decree on the continence of priests to have begun from Siricius. For these Fathers say it began from the Apostles. Likewise the Fifth Council of Carthage (canon 3) and the African Council (canon 37) establish the same.
Of the Italian Church we have the Roman Council under Sylvester I, which (canon 8) forbids subdeacons to dare in any way to take wives. Of the Gallican Church we have the Second Council of Arles, celebrated 1200 years ago, in which (canon 2) it is provided that no married man be assumed to the priesthood unless he has promised continence from his wife. Likewise the First Council of Tours (canons 1 and 2), and the Second of Tours (canon 20), the Council of Agde (chapter 9), and the Third of Orleans (canon 2): “That no cleric from a subdeacon and above mingle with his own wife, if perchance he already has one.” Of the Spanish Church we have the Council of Elvira, before the times of Siricius (canon 33): “It pleases wholly to forbid bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons — that they abstain from their wives and not beget children.” The Second of Toledo (chapter 1), the Fourth of Toledo (chapter 26), and the Eighth of Toledo (chapter 6) forbid the use of wives even to subdeacons. Finally, of the German Church we have the Council of Aachen in the time of Louis I (chapter 6), the Council of Worms (chapter 9): “It pleases that bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons abstain from wives and not beget children.” Finally the Council of Mainz in the time of the Emperor Arnulph (chapter 10) established that no woman at all, not even a sister or mother, be permitted to dwell with ecclesiastics.
From these it appears that it is a most open lie which Philip [Melanchthon] says (in the very Augsburg Confession, article 23, to which so many princes subscribed): that in Germany 400 years ago the law of celibacy was first imposed on clerics. For the cited Councils were celebrated in Germany 700 years ago, or even more. Nor is it less a lie which he says in the Apology: that the law of the celibacy of clerics is found in no Council, but was introduced by the Roman Pontiff alone against the opinion of the Synods.
It is proved, thirdly, by the testimonies of the ancient Pontiffs. Clement I, in the canons of the Apostles (canon 27): “We command that of those who are advanced to the clergy in marriage, if they wish, they may take wives — but only lectors and cantors.” And what is said of lectors and cantors is understood of the other minor orders too, since the reasoning of all is the same. Calixtus I (in Gratian, distinction 27, canon Presbyteris): “To priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks we wholly forbid to have concubines or to contract marriages.” Siricius (in the letter to Himerius, chapter 7 — which Calvin too confesses) forbids intercourse with a wife to those who are in sacred orders. The same a little after Innocent I confirmed (in the letter to Victricius, chapter 9, and in the letter to Exuperius, chapter 1). The same Leo I (in letter 82 to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica, chapter 4, and in letter 90 to Rusticus of Narbonne, chapter 3). The same Gregory I (in letter 42, Book I, and letter 34, Book III). The same Pope Zachary (in the last letter, to Boniface bishop of Germany, 800 years ago). Whence too Philip’s lie appears more clearly.
But it pleases me to report the words of Leo I (in the letter to Anastasius), because they evidently convict not only the Lutherans but also the Greeks. For to the Greeks he writes in this manner: “So excellent is the choice of all priests, that things which in other members of the Church are free from fault are yet in them held unlawful. For while to those set outside the order of clerics it is free to attend to the fellowship of marriage and the procreation of children, yet, to exhibit the purity of perfect continence, not even to subdeacons is carnal wedlock granted, so that both those who have may be as not having, and those who have not may remain single and unmarried. And if in this order, which is fourth from the head, it is worthy to be kept, how much more is it to be kept in the first, or in the second, or third — lest anyone be thought fit either for the Levitical ministry, or the priestly honor, or the episcopal excellence, who is not yet shown to have bridled himself from the pleasure of a wife?” To these add the express testimonies of the ancient emperors, which are in the Code (on bishops and clerics, law Eum qui and following, likewise in the Authentics On Monks).
It is proved, fourthly, by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin. Origen (homily 23 on Numbers): “It is certain that the unceasing sacrifice is hindered to those who serve conjugal necessities; whence it seems to me that it is his alone to offer sacrifice who has devoted himself to unceasing and perpetual chastity.” Eusebius (Book I Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 9): “But it befits those who are consecrated and occupied in the ministry and worship of God henceforth to contain themselves from intercourse with a wife,” and so on. Epiphanius (at the end of the work against heresies): “The holy priesthood is for the most part from virgins, or from solitaries, or, if these do not suffice for the ministry, from those who contain themselves from their own wives; and if anyone from the beginning has been a continent widower, he can hold the place of bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon.” Likewise (heresy 59, which is of the Cathari): “But the Church does not receive as deacon, priest, bishop, and subdeacon a man of one wife who still lives with her and begets children, but him who has contained himself from one, or has lived in widowhood — especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere. But you will tell me that in certain places priests, deacons, and subdeacons still beget children: but this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men, which through time has grown languid.”
Chrysostom (homily 2 on the patience of Job): “He said, ‘the husband of one wife,’ not for the reason that this should now be observed in the Church; for a priest ought to be adorned with all chastity whatsoever.” Gregory of Nyssa (in the book On Virginity, last chapter): “How dost thou discharge the priesthood of God, who wast anointed for this very thing, to offer the gift? How wilt thou offer these very things to God, who obeyest not the law forbidding an impure man to do sacred things? And if thou desirest God to appear to thee, what is the cause why thou hearest not Moses, who charges the people to be pure from marriage, that they may grasp the sight of God?” Cyril (Catechesis 12): “If he who discharges the priesthood well before Jesus abstains from a woman, how would Jesus Himself be about to come forth from man and woman?” Oecumenius (on chapter 3 of the first to Timothy, on that, “the husband of one wife”): “He did not establish that a bishop should depend on a wife, or necessarily have a wife, but if it happen (he says) from worldly men, let him at least not be twice-married — yet so that, called to the office of bishop, he fulfill it; so that those who have wives be as not having.”
Now of the Latins. Cyprian, or whoever is the author (in the book On the Singularity of Clerics), affirms that it was revealed to him by the Lord that clerics ought not to have women in their house; which he also proves throughout that whole book. Nor does it stand in the way that at the end of the book (as Peter Martyr noted) he speaks thus: “If anyone has a mother, or daughter, or sister, or spouse, or kinswoman, let him have her so that no maidservant be present,” and so on. For he speaks of a spouse who has likewise vowed continence. A like passage is had in the Second Council of Arles (canon 3): “If any of the clerics from the grade of the diaconate presume to have with him for his solace a woman — besides a grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, niece, or a wife converted [to continence] with him — let him be held a stranger to communion.” Otherwise, if Cyprian granted clerics a wife whom it was lawful to use, he would fight with his whole book, and with the very title, On the Singularity of Clerics.
Ambrose (Book I On the Offices, last chapter): “You know that an inoffensive and unspotted ministry is to be exhibited, and to be violated by no conjugal intercourse — you who with whole body, uncorrupt modesty, being strangers even to the conjugal fellowship itself, have received the grace of the sacred ministry. This I have not passed over, because in most of the more remote places, when they held the ministry or even the priesthood, they begot children.” The same (in letter 82 to the Church of Vercelli): “The Apostle said ‘having children,’ not ‘begetting,’” and so on. And (on chapter 1 of the first to Timothy): “Thenceforth they are restrained from the use of a woman,” and so on.
Jerome (in the book against Vigilantius, near the beginning): “What will the Churches of the East do? what of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which receive clerics either virgins, or continent, or, if they have had wives, they cease to be husbands?” The same (at the end of the Apology for his books against Jovinian): “Bishops, priests, deacons are chosen either virgins, or widowers, or at least chaste after the priesthood.” Augustine (Book II On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 20): “We are wont to set before them the continence of clerics, who for the most part are taken unwilling to undergo the same burden, and, having undertaken it, carry it through to the due end with the Lord’s help.” See the whole passage. The author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament (who is not Augustine, as the title bears, but someone more ancient), in the last question, near the end: “If it is lawful and good to marry, why is it not lawful for priests to have wives?” And he gives the cause at length. Gregory, besides the decrees cited above (Book VI, chapter 1, on the book of Kings), says that those err who, on account of Paul’s word, “let every one have his own wife,” think it lawful for ecclesiastics to have wives. Gregory of Tours (Book IV of the history, chapter 4) relates that a certain count, who, having dismissed his wife, had been initiated into sacred orders, because he afterward wished to return to his wife, was excommunicated by all the bishops.
Isidore (Book II On the Divine Offices, chapter 10): “It pleased the holy Fathers that those who handle the sacred mysteries be chaste and continent from wives, and free from all carnal uncleanness.” This he says of subdeacons. Similar things he teaches of deacons and priests (chapters 5 and 8). From which passages can be understood those words of chapter 2: “Let them keep the chastity of the body perpetually, or be bound by the tie of one marriage.” For these are said of clerics in general, both major and minor. For all clerics ought either to be perpetually continent, if they be initiated into the major orders, or to be bound by the tie of one marriage, if into the minor. Blessed Anselm (in letter 8) asserts that it was rightly forbidden by Gregory VII that any should be present at the sacred rites of married priests. Bede (Book III On the Tabernacle, chapter 9): “No one can either receive the priesthood, or be consecrated to the ministry of the altar, unless he has either remained a virgin, or dissolved the covenants of matrimony contracted with a wife.” Finally, to omit the more recent, Arator the subdeacon of Pope Vigilius, 1000 years ago (in the book on the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 30), after he had explained the reason why the priests of the old law were permitted to contain themselves from their wives only for a time, adds:
Now the nourishing faith of the Church bids her pontiffs be chaste without end.
To these testimonies let there be added the examples of the same. For from the time of the Apostles, all bishops, priests, and other ecclesiastics whose lives we have, and whom we ever heard praised, were continent; nor can any example of an approved man be brought to the contrary. The Magdeburgians indeed most diligently sought in all ages for some who took a wife after receiving orders, and bring forward many examples (Centuries 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, at the beginning of the seventh chapter); but none of them avails anything. For either those examples must be understood of wives whom they had married before — as of Gregory, the father of Gregory Nazianzen — or they are understood of minor clerics — as what they bring from the Fourth Council of Toledo, chapter 42 — or they are examples of those who are reprehended — as what they bring from the letter of Zachary to Boniface — or they are express lies, as when they say (Century 5, chapter 7) that the priests of Macedonia took wives, on the testimony of Innocent I (letter 22); for Innocent says nothing of the kind. Philip (in the book On Celibacy, to the King of England) proves that the ancient bishops used marriage from the letter of Polycrates (in Eusebius, Book V of the history, chapter 24); for Polycrates writes that seven of his kinsmen were bishops, and that he is the eighth. But Philip was deceived by the translation of Rufinus. For the Greek word syngenon, which is in Eusebius, signifies not “parents” but “kinsmen.” But grant they were parents; does it therefore follow that they used marriage in the episcopate?
From this so great a cloud of witnesses three things are deduced. First, that Clichtove and others err who think the law of continence was imposed on clerics first by Siricius. For Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and some of the cited Councils are more ancient than Siricius. Secondly, that the custom of the Greeks which they now have was not in the first six hundred years, as is plain from the same authors, and also from Chrysostom, Jerome, and Leo in the cited places. Thirdly, that it is a lie — and indeed a most impudent one — of Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 12, section 25), where he says that all the ancient Fathers approved marriage in the episcopal order. For very many of the cited Fathers, and very many Councils, establish the contrary, and no example to the contrary can be brought.
It is proved, fifthly, by reason. For since marriage vehemently hinders the ecclesiastical offices, it was just that marriages be forbidden to priests and other sacred men. For the offices of ecclesiastics are to sacrifice, pray, teach, exhort, minister the Sacraments, bear the care of the poor, and the like — which cannot be rightly exercised (as the Apostle teaches, Titus 1) unless the priest be hospitable, kind, sober, just, holy, continent, learned. Now marriage hinders, first, the office of sacrificing, as Jerome says (Book I against Jovinian), because a certain highest purity and holiness is required in it, as Chrysostom explains (Book VI On the Priesthood). And in the conjugal act it cannot be denied that there is mixed a certain impurity and pollution — not such as is a sin, but such as is nevertheless born of sin. For although Calvin (in the place noted) cries out against Siricius, who called the marriage of priests a pollution, yet that not only the marriage of priests (which is a sacrilege, not a marriage) but even the marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certain pollution and shamefulness, the rebellion of the members and human shame in that act sufficiently testify — which always seeks secrecy, as Blessed Augustine noted (Book XIV On the City of God, chapter 17).
Then, it hinders the study of prayer and reading, in which the priest ought assiduously to be occupied. For prayer requires a mind elevated, purified, and tranquil; but the conjugal act, as Blessed Augustine teaches (Book XIV On the City of God, chapter 16), most greatly dulls the edge of the mind, depresses it to lower things, disturbs it, and in a manner makes the soul itself carnal. Thirdly, it hinders the efficacy of preaching, as Ambrose teaches (Book I On the Offices, last chapter); for how will he efficaciously exhort widows and virgins who perpetually gives his effort to children? Fourthly, it hinders the pastoral care; for he who has a wife and children always thinks of them, and the affection with which he ought to follow his sheep is wholly consumed in wife and children; and yet (as Ambrose teaches, Book I On the Offices, chapter 7) spiritual children ought to be loved more than carnal. Fifthly, it hinders the care of the poor, and that hospitality and kindness which the Apostle so greatly commends; for he who has a wife and children ought to lay up treasure for them, and married men are rarely found who have anything superfluous. Add that, since a cleric cannot leave benefices to his children, and yet every father desires his children well provided for, they would be forced to be most avaricious, and to sell the Sacraments. Sixthly, it would hinder the administration of the Sacraments; for then clerics would scarcely be distinguished from laymen, and it would be “as the people, so the priest.” Which experience testifies; for in the time of Gregory VII, when in Germany priests had begun to take wives, so great a contempt of the Sacraments followed that laymen everywhere administered the Sacraments, as John Nauclerus and others relate. And so Blessed Epiphanius (heresy 59) rightly says that continence is necessary for the honor of the priesthood. It remains to answer the arguments. And first I will answer the arguments of Calvin in the same order in which he sets them forth.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Coelibatum jure Apostolico rectissime annexum ordinibus sacris . Jam vero de altera quaestione ; An recte factum sit, ut coelibatus perpetuus sacris ordinibus annecteretur, duo sunt refutandi errores; unus Graecorum, alter Lutherano- rum. Prior error est ; Oportere Clericos, an¬ tequam ordines sacros suscipiant, uxores du¬ cere, quia post sacros ordines susceptos, non licet id facere, et nimis magno periculo fornicandi se exponit, qui sine uxore vivit. Hujus erroris aliqui auctorem faciunt Ni¬ colaum, unum ex septem primis Diaconis. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, constat, Vigilan¬ tium hunc errorem expresse docuisse ; de quo sic B. Hieronymus initio lib. contra Vi¬ gilantium : « Proh nefas, inquit, Episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes, si ta¬ men Episcopi nominandi sunt, qui non ordi¬ nant Diaconos, nisi prius uxores duxerint, nulli coelibi credentes pudicitiam. » Hunc errorem receperunt Patres Concilii Trullani, circa annum Domini 700, ut patet ex can. 13. ubi profana illa Synodus damnat nomi- (1) Luc. XXI, 34. — (2) I. Timoth. III, 4. — (3) Qui de ccelibatu plura desiderat, adeat : Nature et vir g init d, parle docteur Ennemond Dufieux; Du celibat ecclesiastique , par Mgr Pavy, ev^que d’Alger, et Recherches historiques sur le celibat, par Mgr Jager, camerier du Pape. CAPUT XIX. natim canones Romanae Ecclesiae, et contra¬ rium statuit, nimirum ut Clerici ante Sub- diaconatum uxores ducant, et cum eis vivant postea, in sacris ordinibus constituti. Tem¬ pore hujus Synodi coepit mos Graecorum, qui nunc est. Auctus autem est et confirma¬ tus tempore Leonis IX. quando dissidium Graecorum a Latinis maxime crevit in multis aliis articulis. Unde exstat liber Humberti Cardinalis eo tempore scriptus de hac re, contra Nicetam Abbatem, qui hunc morem Graecorum tunc acerrime defendebat. Posterior error longe gravior est. Non so¬ lum licere ante ordinationem, sed etiam post ordinationem, uxorem ducere. Hujus erro¬ ris fundamenta quaedam jecit Jovinianus, qui docuit, virginitatem non praestare matri¬ monio ; inde enim sequebatur, frustra Sacer¬ dotes velle carere uxoribus. Unde etiam quaedam Sanctimoniales, Joviniano audito, nupserunt, ut B. Augustinus refert lib. de haeresibus, cap. 82. Haec tamen haeresis mox extincta fuit, nec usque ad deceptionem ali- cujus Sacerdotis pervenit, ut ibidem Augus¬ tinus ait. Primus autem qui docuit aperte, licere post ordinationem uxorem ducere, fuitJoan- nes Wiclefus, ut refert Thomas Waldensis tom. II de Sacramentis, cap. 128. et 129. et tom. III de Sacramentalibus, c. 66 et 67. Eum secuti suntLutherus in lib. de abro¬ ganda Missa privata ; Pomeranus in lib. de conjugio Episcoporum, Magdeburgenses in Centuriis singulis, cap. 7. et nominatim Cen¬ turia XI, cap. 7, coi. 389. ubi dicunt, hanc esse haeresim maxime pestiferam omnium, quae unquam Christianum regnum perturba¬ runt. Item Beza, et Martyr in primam ad Corinthios VII. Philippus Melanchthon in Confessione Augustana, art. 23 et in Apolo- gia ejusdem articuli, Calvinus lib. IV. Insti- tut. cap. 12, §. 23. Brentius in Confessione Wirtembergensi, capite de conjugio ; Prae¬ terea Erasmus in declamatione de laudibus matrimonii, utile esse judicat, si Sacerdoti¬ bus jus conjugii concedatur, et idem sensisse videtur Panormitanus, Catholicus alioqui et doctus auctor, in cap. Cum olim, de Clericis conjugatis. Audio Kemnitium in tertia parte Examinis Concilii Tridentini, de coelibatu Sacerdotum copiose tractasse, sed eum librum nondum vhlere potui. Ac si ex aliis ejus operibus conjectura facienda est' , nihil 55 aut parum admodum addet ad ea, quae Cen- turiatores et Calvinus collegerunt. Contra hos errores probandum nobis est, votum continentiae annexum esse ordinibus sacris, ita ut nec ducere uxores, nec uxori¬ bus antea ductis uti liceat post ordinatio¬ nem; positivo quidem jure, sed antiquissimo et aequissimo, et quod nullo modo expediat, ut hoc tempore relaxetur. Probatur primo, Scripturis ; ac primum Paulus in epist. ad Titum, cap. I : Oportet , inquit, esse Episcopum hospitalem , benignum , sobrium , justum , sanctum , continentem (1). Ubi notandum pro eo, quod nos habemus sobrium, Graece esse trupova, quod, ut Hie¬ ronymus in hunc locum dicit, ambiguum est, et prudentem, sobrium, castum signifi¬ care potest ; hoc autem loco significat cas¬ tum. Quia vero castitas etiam conjugatis communis est, ideo Apostolus addit etiam, continentem ; quod ibidem B. Hieronymus ex¬ ponit ab uxoris amplexibus. Idem in epist. II ad Tim. cap. II : Labora , inquit, sicut bo¬ nus miles Christi Jesu , nemo militans Deo im¬ plicat se negotiis saccularibus (2). Hic Aposto¬ lus Episcopo praecipit, ut strenue militet Deo ; deinde dicit, non posse eum bene mi¬ litare Deo, si se implicaverit negotiis saecu¬ laribus, qualia certe esse nuptias, nemo ne¬ gare potest. Nam, ut S. Basilius pulchre do¬ cet in prooemio constitutionum Monastica¬ rum : « Nuptiae pedicae sunt. » Idem Apos¬ tolus I. ad Corinthios VII jubet, conjugatos vacare ex consensu ad tempus ab opere nup¬ tiarum, ut orationi instare possint ; Ex quo per bonam consequentiam deducit B. Hiero¬ nymus in cap. I ad Titum, et lib. I in Jovi- nianum, eum praecipere Episcopis, et aliis hominibus sacratis, ut perpetuo a nuptiarum opere vacent, cum quotidie orationi insistere debeant. Quo eodem argumento ex hoc loco utuntur Qrigenes homil. 23. in Numer. et Epiphanius haeresi Gatharorum. Praeterea in veteri Testamento, continen¬ tiam ab uxoribus videmus in primis fuisse requisitim in iis, qui Deo propinquaturi, vel rem aliquam sanctam tractaturi erant. Nam Exod. XII. praecipitur, ut comesturi Agnum Paschalem renes suos accingerent, quo signi¬ ficabatur, ut Gregorius exponit homil. 22. super Evangel. debere eos carnis volupta¬ tem edomare!', qui Agnum Paschalem come¬ dunt. Exod. XIX. cum populus legem a Deo (1) 8. — (2) II. Tim. II, 3 et 4. 436 LIBER I. accepturus esset, ait illis Moses : Estote pa¬ rati in diem tertium , et ne appropinquetis uxo¬ ribus vestris (1). Quo testimonio utitur Am¬ brosius lib. I de officiis, cap. ultimo, ad pro¬ bandam continentiam Clericorum. Item Exod. XXVIII praecipit Deus, ut Aa- ron et filii ejus cum ingrederentur taberna¬ culum, foeminalibus lineis a renibus usque ad foemora tecti essent ; cpo exponit Beda, lib. III de tabernaculo cap. 9. significatum esse, debere Sacerdotes novi Testamenti aut virgines esse, aut contracta cum uxoribus foedera dissolvisse. Item I. Reg. XXI. noluit Achimelecb Sacerdos dare Davidi panes pro¬ positionis comedendos, nisi prius intellexis¬ set, eum ab uxore aliquamdiu se continuisse. Ex quo deducit B. Hieronymus in cap. I ad Titum, perpetuam requiri in Sacerdotibus continentiam, etiam ab uxoribus, qui corpus Christi, quod illo pane propositionis signifi¬ cabatur, conficiunt, edunt, aliisque tradunt. Denique exlib. IParalip. cap. 24 etLucsel colligitur, Sacerdotes veteris Testamenti per vices suas ministrare solitos, et toto eo tem¬ pore, quo ministrabant in tabernaculo, a do¬ mo et uxore abfuisse. Ex quo deducunt Si- ricius Papa in epistola ad Himericum, et In¬ nocentius I in epistola ad Victricium, necnon Beda in cap. I Lucae, quod si illi tempore, quo ministrabant, ab uxoribus abstinebant, omnino decere, ut Sacerdotes nostri, qui non per vices, sed semper ministrant, sem- per ab uxoribus se contineant. Hoc ultimum argumentum solvere cona¬ tur Calvinus, lib. IV, cap. 12, §. 25. ac dicit, Sacerdotes Leviticos avTtTwrouc Christi fuisse, id est, figuram Christi gessisse, et quia Christi excellentiam et sanctitatem exacte referre non poterant, jussos fuisse ultra hu¬ manum morem se purificare. Nunc autem id necessarium non esse, cum per Christi adventum figurae, atque umbrae cessave¬ rint. At solutio parum valet. Nam sicut Levi- iici Sacerdotes, Christi venturi figuram ge¬ rebant, ita nunc Sacerdotes Christiani Chris¬ tum, qui venit, repraesentant. Sacerdos enim, dum sacra mysteria peragit, Christi perso¬ nam sustinet, et propterea sacrificans, non dicit : Hoc est corpus Christi, sed : Hoc est corpus meum. Ipse enim Qhristum eo loco agit ; id quod etiam vestium saicrarum orna¬ tus designat. Deinde, non est illa primaria (1) Exod. XIX, 15. — (2) Exod. XIX,' 22. causa, cur Sacerdotes Levitici deberent abs¬ tinere ab uxoribus, quia gerebant Christi figuram, sed quia Domino ministrabant. Exodi XIX : Sacerdotes , qui accedunt ad Deum, sanctificentur, ne percutiat eos (2). Nam alio- qui David semper erat Christi figura, et ta¬ men tunc solum jussus est abstinere ab uxo¬ re, quando panem sanctum comesturus erat, ut diximus. Denique, si illi, quia Christum significabant, debuerunt ultra humanum mo¬ dum se purificare, quanto magis purificari debebunt, qui Christum ipsum quotidie trac¬ tant. Probatur secundo, testimoniis Conciliorum antiquorum totius Ecclesiae. Ac primum Ec¬ clesiae Orientalis. Habemus Concilium Ancy¬ ranum celebratum ante annos 1200. can. 10. ubi dicitur : « Diaconos qui in ipsa ordina¬ tione non protestantur se velle uxorem ha¬ bere, non posse post ordinationem eam du¬ cere ; Si autem protestentur, posse ducere, quia tunc censetur Episcopus cum eis dis¬ pensasse. » Item Concilium Neocaesariense paulo post celebratum, cap. I : « Presbyter, inquit, si uxorem duxerit, ordine suo mo¬ veatur. » Concilium Nicaenum I. can. 3. in¬ terdicit Episcopo, Presbytero, et Diacono ne domi mulierem ullam habeat praeter matrem, sororem, amitam. Nulla uxoris mentio fit, quae tamen primo loco poni debuit, si cum ea habitare liceret. Item, cur prohibetur Clericis cohabitatio mulierum, si uxorati esse possunt? Nonne uxores ancillas habere possunt in eadem domo? Denique Synodus Trullana, can. 6. prohibet, ne Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, aut Subdiaconi post ordinationem suam, uxorem ducant, et can. 48. praecipit, ut Episcopus non cohabitet uxori. Ecclesiae Africanae habemus insigne testi¬ monium. Concilium enim Carthaginiense II, can. 2 : « Omnibus placet, inquit, ut Epis¬ copi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel qui Sacra¬ menta contractant, pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant. » Et ratio ibi red¬ ditur : « Ut quod, inquiunt, Apostoli docue¬ runt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus. » Hoc testimonium non solum refellit Lutheranos, sed etiam eos ex Catho¬ licis, qui volunt hoc decretum de sacerdo¬ tum continentia a Siricio inccepisse. Isti enim Patres ab Apostolis inccepisse dicunt. Item Concilium Carthaginiense V, can. 3. et CAPUT XTX. 457 Concilium Africanum, can. 37. idem consti¬ tuunt. Ecclesiae Italicae habemus Concilium Ro¬ manum sub Sylvestro I. quod canon. 8. pro¬ hibet Subdiaconis, ne uxores ullo modo du¬ cere audeant. Ecclesiae Gallicae habemus Concilium Are- latense II, ante annos 1700 celebratum ; in quo can. 2. cavetur, ne ullus conjugatus, ad sacerdotium assumatur, nisi continentiam ab uxore promiserit. Item Concilium Turo- nense I, canone 1 et 2. et Turonense II, ca¬ none 20. Agathense, cap. 9. et Aurelianense III, can. 2 : « Ut nullus, inquit, Clericorum a Subdiacono et supra, propriae, si forte jam habeat, misceatur uxori. ,> Ecclesiae Hispanicae habemus Concilium Eliberitanum ante tempora Siricii, can. 33 : « Placuit, inquit, in totum prohibere Epis¬ copis, Presbyteris. Diaconis, ac Subdiaconis abstinere se a conjugibus, et non generare filios. » Toletanum II, cap. 1 et Toletanum IV, cap. 26 et Toletanum VIII, cap. 6. etiam Subdiaconis usum uxorum prohibent. Denique Ecclesiae Germanicae habemus Concilium Aquisgranense tempore Ludo- vici I, cap. 6. Concilium Wormaciense, cap. 9 : « Placuit, inquit, ut Episcopi, Pres¬ byteri, Diaconi, et Subdiaconi abstineant se ab uxoribus, et non generent filios. » Deni¬ que Concilium Moguntinum tempore Arnul- phi Imperatoris, cap. 10. statuit, ut nulla pe¬ nitus mulier, ne soror quidem, aut mater, cum Ecclesiasticis habitare permittatur. Ex his apparet mendacium esse apertissi¬ mum, quod Philippus dicit in ipsa Confes¬ sione Augustana, artic. 23. cui tot Principes subscripserunt, in Germania ante annos 400, primum esse legem coelibatus impositam Clericis. Nam Concilia citata, sunt in Ger¬ mania ante annos 700 celebrata, vel etiam amplius. Nec minus mendacium est, quod in Apologia dicit, legem de coelibatu Cleri¬ corum in nullo Concilio reperiri, sed a solo Romano Pontifice contra Synodorum senten¬ tiam inductam esse. Probatur tertio, testimoniis veterum Pon¬ tificum. Clemens I. in Canonibus Apostolo¬ rum, can. 27 : « In nuptiis autem qui ad Clerum provecti sunt, praecipimus, ut si vo¬ luerint, uxores accipiant, sed lectores, can¬ toresque tantummodo. » Quod autem delec¬ toribus, et cantoribus dicitur, idem de aliis minoribus ordinibus intelligitur, cum sit omnium eadem ratio. Calixtus I. apud Gra- cianum, dist. 27. can. Presbyteris : « Pres¬ byteris, inquit, Diaconis, Subdiaconis, et Monachis concubinas habere seu matrimo¬ nia contrahere penitus interdicimus. » Siri— cius in epistola adHimericum, cap. 7. (quod etiam Calvinus fatetur) prohibet cum uxore commercium iis qui sunt in sacris. Idem paulo post confirmavit Innocentius I. in epis¬ tola ad Victricium, cap. 9. et in epist. ad Exuperium, cap. 1. Idem Leo I, in epist. 82. ad Anastasium Episcopum Thessalonicae, cap. 4. et in epist. 90. ad Rusticum Narbo¬ nensem, cap. 3. Idem Gregorius I. in epist. 42. lib. I et epist. 34, libri III. Idem Zacha- rias Papa in epist, ultima, ad Bonifacium Episcopum Germaniae, ante annos 800. Unde etiam apparet clarius Philippi mendacium. Sed placet verba referre Leonis I, in epist. ad Anastasium, quia non solum Lutheranos, sed etiam Graecos, evidenter coarguunt. Ad Graecos enim scribit hoc modo : « Omnium, inquit, Sacerdotum tam excellens est electio, ut haec, quae in aliis membris Ecclesiae va¬ cant a culpa, in illis tamen habeantur illicita. Gum enim extra Clericorum ordinem consti¬ tutis nuptiarum societati, et procreationi filiorum studere sit liberum, ad exhibendam tamen perfectae continentiae puritatem, nec Subdiaconis quidem carnale connubium con¬ ceditur, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non ha¬ bentes, et qui non habent, permaneant sin¬ gulares et innupti. Quod si in hoc ordine, qui quartus exstat a capite, dignum est cus¬ todiri, quanto magis in primo, vel in secun¬ do, tertiove servandum est, ne aut Levitico ministerio, aut Presbyterali honore, aut Epi¬ scopali excellentia quisquam idoneus existi¬ metur, qui se a voluptate uxoria, necdum frsenasse detegitur? » His adde expressa tes¬ timonia veterum Imperatorum, quae exstant Codice de Episcopis, et Clericis, leg. eum qui, et sequentibus, item in Authenticis de Monachis, Probatur quarto, testimoniis veterum Pa¬ trum Graecorum et Latinorum. Origenes ho- mil. 23. in librum Numeri : « Certum est, inquit, quia impeditur sacrificium indesinens iis, qui conjugalibus necessitatibus serviunt, unde videtur mihi quod illius solius est of¬ ferre sacrificium, qui indesinenti et perpe¬ tuae se devoverit castitati. » Eusebius lib. I demonstrat. Evang. cap. 9 : « Verumtamen, inquit, eos qui sacrati sint atque in Dei mi¬ nisterio, cultuque occupati, continere dein¬ ceps seipsos a commercio uxoris decet etc. » 458 LIBER I. Epiphanius ad finem operis contra haere- ses : « Sanctum, inquit, sacerdotium ex vir¬ ginibus, ut plurimum, aut ex solitariis, aut si hi ad ministerium non suffecerint, de Ilis qui se a propriis uxoribus continent, et si quis ab initio continens viduus fuerit, ha¬ bere potest locum Episcopi, Presbyteri, Dia¬ coni, Hypodiaconi. » Item heeresi 59. quas est Gatharorum? « Sed, inquit, et adhuc viventem et liberos gignentem unius uxoris virum Ecclesia non suscipit, sed eum, qui se ab una continuit, aut in viduitate vixit. Diaconum, et Presbyterum, et Episcopum, et Hypodiaconum : maxime ubi sinceri sunt Canones Ecclesiastici. At dices mihi in qui¬ busdam locis adhuc liberos gignere Presbyte¬ ros, et Diaconos, et Hypodiaconos : At hoc non est juxta Ganonem, sed juxta hominum mentem, quae per tempus elanguit. » Chrysostomus homil. 2. de patientia Job : « Dixit, inquit, unius uxoris virum, non ea ratione, ut id nunc in Ecclesia observetur ; oportet enim omni prorsus castitate Sacer¬ dotem ornatum esse. » Gregorius Nyssenus libro de virginitate cap. ult. : « Quomodo, inquit, Dei sacerdotio fungeris, qui ad hoc ipsum, ut munus offerres, unctus es? Quo¬ modo haec ipsa Deo offeres, qui legi non ob¬ temperas prohibenti, ne sacra impurus fa¬ ciat? Ac si Deum tibi apparere expetis, quid in causa est cur Mosem non audias, qui po¬ pulo edicit, ut a nuptiis purus sit, quo Dei aspectum comprehendat?» Cyrillus Cate¬ chesi 12 : « Si, inquit, qui apud Jesum bene fungitur sacerdotio, abstinet a muliere : ipse Jesus quomodo ex viro, et muliere proditu¬ rus esset? » Oecumenius in cap. III. primae ad Timoth. in illud; Unius uxoris virum: « Non statuit, inquit, ut ab uxore pendeat Episcopus, aut uxorem necessario habeat, sed si fiat, inquit, e mundanis, non sit sal¬ tem bigamus, ita tamen ut vocatus ad Epis¬ copi munus, illud compleat; quod qui ha¬ bent uxores, sint tanquam non habentes. » Jam ex Latinis. Cyprianus, sive quicum¬ que est auctor, in lib. de singularitate Cleri¬ corum, affirmat sibi a Domino revelatum, non debere Clericos domi suae habere mu¬ lieres; id quod etiam toto eo libro probat. Neque obstat, quod in extremo libro (ut Pe¬ trus Martyr notavit) sic loquitur : « Si quis habet matrem, vel filiam, vel sororem, vel conjugem, vel cognatam, sic habeat, ut nulla ancilla intersit etc. » Nam loquitur de conjuge, quee simul voverit continentiam. Similis habetur locus in Concilio II Arela- tensi, can. 3 : «Si quis de Clericis a gradu diaconatus in solatio suo mulierem praeter aviam, matrem, sororem, filiam, neptem, vel conversam secum uxorem habere prae¬ sumpserit, a communione alienus habea¬ tur. » Alio qui si Cyprianus uxorem Clericis concederet, qua uti liceret, pugnaret cum toto suo libro, et cum ipso titulo : « De sin¬ gularitate Clericorum. » Ambrosius lib. I de officiis, c. ult. : «Inof¬ fensum, inquit, exhibendum, et immacula¬ tum ministerium, nec ullo conjugali coitu violandum cognoscitis, qui integro corpore, incorrupto pudore, alieni etiam ab ipso con¬ sortio conjugali, sacri ministerii gratiam re¬ cepistis. Quod ideo non praeterivi, quia in plerisque abditioribus locis, cum ministe¬ rium gererent, vel etiam sacerdotium, filios susceperunt. » Idem in epist. 82. ad Eccle¬ siam Vercellensem : « Habentem, inquit, filios, dixit Apostolus, non facientem etc. » Et in cap. I, epist. I ad Timotheum : « Dein¬ ceps, inquit, ab usufceminae cohibentur etc.» Hieronymus lib. in Vigilantium circa ini¬ tium : « Quid facient, inquit, Orientis Eccle¬ siae? quid iEgypti, et sedis Apostolicae, quas aut virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continen¬ tes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse de¬ sistunt? » Idem in fine Apologiae pro libris contra Jovinianum : «Episcopi, inquit, Pres¬ byteri, Diaconi, aut virgines eliguntur, aut vidui, aut certe post sacerdotium pudici. » Augustinus lib. II de adulterinis conjugiis, cap. 20 : « Solemus, inquit, eis proponere continentiam Clericorum, qui plerumque ad eamdem sarcinam subeundam capiuntur in¬ viti, eamque susceptam usque ad debitum finem, Domino adjuvante perducunt. » Vide totum locum. Auctor quaestionum veteris et novi testamenti, qui non est Augustinus, ut titulus praesefert, sed aliquis antiquior, quaes¬ tione ultima sub finem : « Si licet, inquit, et bonum est nubere, cur sacerdotibus non licet uxores habere? » Et prolixe causam reddit. Gregorius praeter decreta supra citata lib. VI, cap.l. in lib. Regum, errare dicit eos, qui propter verbum, Pauli : Unusquisque uxo¬ rem suam habeat (1), putant licere Ecclesiasti¬ cis uxores habere. Gregorius Turoni cus lib. (1) I. Cor. VII, 2. CAPUT XIX. 459 IV hist. cap. 4. refert quemdam Comitem, qui dimissa uxore fuerat sacris initiatus, quia postea ad uxorem redire voluit, ab om¬ nibus Episcopis excommunicatum fuisse. Isidorus lib. II de officiis divinis, cap. 10 : « Placuit, inquit, sanctis Patribus, ut qui sacra mysteria contrectant, casti sint, et continentes ab uxoribus, et ab omni carnali immunditia sint liberi. » Haec de Subdiaco- nis dicit. Similia docet de Diaconis, et Pres¬ byteris cap. 5 et 8. Ex quibus locis intelligi possunt ea verba capitis secundi : « Casti¬ moniam corporis perpetuo servent, aut unius matrimonii vinculo foederentur. » Haec enim dicuntur de Clericis in universum, tum ma¬ joribus, tum minoribus. Debent enim omnes Clerici aut perpetuo esse continentes, si ma¬ joribus ordinibus initiati sint, aut unius ma¬ trimonii vinculo copulari, si minoribus. B. Anselmus in epist, 8. asserit recte a Gregorio VII prohibitum fuisse, ne ulli in- teressent Sacris sacerdotum conjugatorum. Beda lib. III de tabernaculo, c. 9 : « Nemo potest, inquit, vel sacerdotium suscipere, vel ad altaris ministerium consecrari, nisi aut virgo permanserit, aut contracta cum uxore matrimonii foedera solverit. » Deni¬ que, ut recentiores omittam, Arator Subdia- conus Vigilii Papse ante annos 1000, in lib. in Acta Apostolorum cap. 30, posteaquam explicuit rationem, cur sacerdotibus veteris legis permitteretur, ut solum ad tempus ad uxoribus se continerent, subdit : Ecclesiee nunc alma fides sine fine pudicos Pgntifices jubet esse suos etc. His testimoniis accedant exempla eorum- dem. Nam a tempore Apostolorum, omnes Episcopi, Presbyteri, aliique Ecclesiastici, quorum vitas habemus, et quos unquam lau¬ datos audivimus, continentes fuerunt, neque ullum exemplum probati viri in contrarium afferri potest. Magdeburgenses quidem dili¬ gentissime quaesierunt omnibus saeculis ali¬ quos, qui uxorem duxerint post susceptos ordines, et multa exempla proferunt, Centu¬ ria IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X et XI. initio capitis septimi, sed nullum eorum aliquid valet. Nam vel exempla illa debent intelligi de uxoribus, quas antea duxerant, ut de Gregorio, patre Gregorii Nazianzeni, vel in- telliguntur de minoribus Clericis, ut quod proferunt ex Concilio Toletano IV, cap. 42. vel sunt exempla eorum qui reprehendun¬ tur, ut quae proferunt ex epistola Zacharise ad Bonifacium, vel sunt expressa mendacia, ut cum dicunt Cent. V, cap. 7. Presbyteros Macedoniae duxisse uxores, teste Innocen- tio I, epist. 22. nihil enim tale Innocentius dicit. Philippus in lib. de ccelibatu ad Re¬ gem Angliae, probat veteres Episcopos ma¬ trimonio usos ex epist. Polycratis, apud Eu- sebium lib. V hist. cap. 24. scribit enim Po¬ lycrates septem ex parentibus suis fuisse Episcopos, seque octavum esse. At deceptus Philippus est ex versione Ruffini. Graeca enim vox crwysvwv, quae est apud Eusebium, non parentes, sed cognatos significat. Sed fac esse parentes, num propterea sequitur eos in Episcopatu matrimonio usos? Ex hac autem tanta nube testium tria de¬ ducuntur. Primo, errare C1 i ctovaeum et alios, qui putant legem continentiae impositam Cle¬ ricis primum a Siricio. Nam Clemens, Ori- genes, Eusebius, Epiphanius, et aliqua Con¬ cilia citata, antiquiora sunt Siricio. Secundo, morem Graecorum, quem nunc habent, non fuisse primis sexcentis annis, ut patet ex iisdem auctoribus, necnon ex Chrysostomo, Hieronymo, et Leone locis citatis. Tertio, mendacium esse, et quidem impudentissi- mum Calvini lib. IV instit. cap. 12, §. 25. ubi dicit omnes veteres Patres approbasse conjugium in ordine Episcopali. Nam Patres plurimi citati, et Concilia plurima contra¬ rium statuunt, et nullum exemplum in con¬ trarium adferri potest. Probatur jam quinto ratione ; cum enim conjugium vehementer impediat Ecclesias¬ tica munera, aequum fuit, ut sacerdotibus, aliisque sacratis hominibus conjugia prohi¬ berentur, nam Ecclesiasticorum munera sunt sacrificare, orare, docere, exhortari, Sacra¬ menta ministrare, ouram pauperum gerere, et similia, qua3 rite exerceri non possunt, ut Apostolus ad Titum c. 1. docet, nisi sacer¬ dos sit hospitalis, benignus, sobrius, justus, sanctus, continens, doctus. Jam vero matrimonium impedit in primis, ut Hieronymus dicit lib. I. in Jovinianum, munus sacrificandi, quia summa quaedam puritas, et sanctitas in eo requiritur, utChry- sostomus explicat lib. VI. de sacerdotio. In actu vero conjugii negari non potest, quin admixta sit quaedam impuritas et pollutio, non quae peccatum sit, sed quae ex peccato tamen nata sit. Quamvis enim Calvinus, loco notato, vociferetur contra Siricium, qui con¬ jugium sacerdotum pollutionem vocavit, ta- 460 LIBER I. men non solum conjugium sacerdotum, quod sacrilegium est, non conjugium, sed etiam sanctorum matrimonium sine pollu¬ tione quadam, et turpitudine non exerceri, satis testatur rebellio membrorum, et -vere¬ cundia liumana in illo actu, quae secretum semper quaerit, ut notavit B. Augustinus lib. XIV de civitate Dei,*bap. 17. Deinde, impedit studium orationis, et lec¬ tionis, in quo assidue sacerdos versari debet. Oratio enim requirit mentem elevatam, pur¬ gatam, et tranquillam; actus autem con¬ jugii, ut B. Augustinus docet lib. XIV. de civit. Dei, cap. 16. maxime hebetat aciem mentis, et deprimit ad inferiora, et pertur¬ bat et animam ipsam carnalem quodammo¬ do facit. Tertio, impedit efficaciam praedicationis, ut Ambrosius docet lib. I de officiis cap. ul- tim. quomodo enim efficaciter exhortabitur viduas et virgines, qui liberis perpetuo ope¬ ram dat ? Quarto, impedit curam pastoralem, nam qui uxorem, et liberos habet, de illis semper cogitat, et affectus, quo oves suas prosequi deberet, in uxore et filiis totus consumitur, et tamen (ut Ambrosius docet lib. I de offi¬ ciis, cap. 7.) plus diligendi essent filii spiri¬ tuales, quam carnales. Quinto, impedit curam pauperum, et illam hospitalitatem, et benignitatem, quam Apo¬ stolus tantopere commendat; nam qui uxo¬ rem, et liberos habet, debet eis thesauri¬ zare, et raro inveniuntur conjugati qui su¬ perfluum habeant. Adde, quod cum Clericus non possit filiis relinquere beneficia, et tamen omnis Pater cupiat bene prospectum filiis suis, cogerentur esse avarissimi, et vendere Sacramenta. Sexto, imnediret Sacramentorum admini- strationem ; tunc enim vix distinguerentur Clerici a Laicis, et esset sicut populus, sic sacerdos. Quod experientia testatur; nam tempore Gregori VII. cum in Germania coe¬ pissent sacerdotes uxores ducere, tantus contemptus Sacramentorum secutus est ut passim Laici Sacramenta administrarent, ut Joannes Nauclerus, et alii referunt. Ita¬ que merito B. Epiphanius haeresi 59. dicit, ■ propter honorem sacerdotii necessariam esse continentiam. Superest argumenta solvere. Ac primum solvam argumenta Calvini eo¬ dem ordine quo ipse proponit.