Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 20: The Arguments of Calvin Answered
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).
The first argument. God left marriage free; therefore it was lawful for no man to forbid it; and it is confirmed from the Apostle (1 Timothy 4), where he says it is a mark of heretics to forbid marriage. I answer: we concede the whole argument; for the Church neither forbids marriage nor compels anyone to undertake celibacy absolutely, but only requires that condition in those who wish to be initiated into the sacred mysteries — which if anyone will not accept, he can not accept it, but then he will not be initiated. Just as the Church is not deemed to forbid public courts, nor the office of executioner, even though she does not wish such things to be done by ecclesiastics. To the passage of the Apostle we say, with Jerome (Book I against Jovinian) and Augustine (Book XXX against Faustus, chapters 4 and 6), Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others on this passage, that the Apostle marks those who absolutely forbade marriage as evil — such as were Tatian, Marcion, and Manichaeus.
But perhaps they object, because the Apostle says this will be “in the last days.” I answer that by “the last days” is understood this whole last age, which is from Christ to the judgment. For the Apostle says: “We are they upon whom the ends of the ages are come.” And: “Little children, it is the last hour.” Add that the Greek word is not eschatois but hysterois — that is, not “in the last,” but “in the later times.” Nor can the adversaries deny this, unless they will have it that the Manichaeans and Encratites were not marked by the Apostle — who yet most openly forbade marriage; for they were not in the last times.
But Peter Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Monastic Vows) objects Saint Augustine, who (Book II On the Morals of the Manichaeans, chapter 18, and in letter 74 to Deuterius) testifies that the Manichaeans forbade marriage only to their elect, who among them were as it were priests and monks; and yet says they are marked by the Apostle when he says that the forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of demons. I answer: the same Augustine (Book XXX against Faustus, chapter 6) writes that marriage was simply forbidden by the Manichaeans; for although they permitted it to their hearers, they did this because they could not obtain otherwise: “Nor therefore say that you do not forbid, because many of your hearers, unwilling or unable to obey in this, you tolerate with friendship preserved.” Thus he. But we not only tolerate married Christians, but even praise them. And besides, the Manichaeans so permitted marriage to their hearers, to satisfy lust, that they yet warned that conception and the procreation of children were to be avoided — which is most openly to detest marriage. But Catholics chiefly praise marriage because it is known to have been instituted by God for the procreation of children.
The second argument. The Apostle (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1), when he expressed the ideal of the perfect bishop, among the other endowments and virtues which he required in him, dared to put marriage; for he says that a man of one wife is to be chosen. I answer: it is most false that the Apostle puts marriage among the endowments or virtues of the perfect bishop. To prove which it ought to suffice that all the most holy bishops there have been hitherto were continent, as we said above — who certainly it is in no way credible either did not understand the words of Paul, or would not obey him. Besides, since the same Paul (1 Corinthians 7) exhorts to continence and says it is good for the unmarried and widows so to remain, and, “He that marrieth doth well, he that marrieth not doth better,” how is it credible that the same Paul put among the endowments and virtues of a bishop that he have a wife? Add that not only Chrysostom and the other Fathers on this passage teach that Paul made no law that bishops should have wives, but only that they should not have, or have had, more than one; but even Martin Luther (in the propositions on digamy) contends that those words, “a man of one wife,” are to be taken negatively, not positively, so that a bishop is not bound to have one, but is bound not to have several women together with a wife. But, says Calvin, Paul in the same place, where he had described what bishops and deacons ought to be, describes also what their wives ought to be. I answer: Paul, where he says, “the women in like manner chaste,” and so on, either speaks of women in general (as Ambrose expounds), or of deaconesses, who were widows (as Chrysostom and Theophylact teach); or if he speaks of the wives of bishops and deacons, he speaks of the wives they had married before ordination, not those they were afterward to marry.
The third argument. The Apostle (Hebrews 13), without exception, securely pronounces that marriage is honorable among all; why not also among priests? I answer that the argument can easily be turned back upon him; for if the marriages of all are honorable, then the marriages of blood-relations in the first or second degree will be honorable, and the marriages of youths contracted without the command of their parents will be honorable — which nevertheless Calvin disapproves (Book IV Institutes, chapter 19, section 37). I say, then, that “in all” (Greek en pasi) can be expounded in three ways. First, so that “in all” is the same as “in every part” — that is, marriage is honorable in all that belongs to marriage, whether you consider the Sacrament, or the faith, or the offspring: so Oecumenius on this passage. Secondly, so that “among all” signifies “in the esteem of all” — that is, no one ought to reprehend marriage, even though he himself professes virginity: so Fulgentius seems to have taken it (in the book On the Faith, to Peter, chapter 3). Finally, “in all” — that is, in all lawfully joined, whoever they be, whether old or young, noble or obscure, Greeks or Hebrews, and so on: so Theophylact on this passage, and this seems the more literal exposition; but it matters little.
The fourth argument. The Apostles by their own example taught that marriage is unworthy of no function, however excellent in holiness; for that they not only had wives but even led them about, Paul testifies (1 Corinthians 9); to which passage can also be added that of Philippians, last chapter: “I beseech thee also, my sincere companion, help those women,” and so on — for it could conveniently be rendered “sincere wife,” which is written in Greek. I answer: it is not altogether certain which of the Apostles had a wife, and which had not. Tertullian (in the book On Monogamy) and Jerome (Book I against Jovinian) hold that, besides Peter, whose mother-in-law we read of in the Gospel, no other of the Apostles had a wife. Saint Ignatius (in the letter to the Philadelphians) says that Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles were married, except John — although in the Vatican codex and certain other ancient ones the name of Paul is not had. Clement of Alexandria too (Book III of the Stromata, about the middle) asserts that some of the Apostles, and namely Paul, had a wife, from the cited passages. But whatever be of this, it is certain that those of the Apostles who had a wife, after they were called by Christ, renounced the conjugal office, as Blessed Jerome teaches (Book I against Jovinian), and is sufficiently gathered from Matthew 19: “Behold, we have left all things and followed thee.” For the Lord at once, explaining what it is to leave all, adds: “Everyone that shall leave father, or mother, or wife,” and so on.
To that passage, then, of 1 Corinthians 9, where it is said: “Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” I say that the Apostle speaks not of wives, but of pious women who followed the Apostles and ministered to them, as they also followed the Lord (Luke 8). So nearly all the Greeks and Latins expound — Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ambrose, Haymo, and others on this passage; and also Tertullian (in the book On Monogamy), Blessed Jerome (Book I against Jovinian), Blessed Augustine (in the book On the Work of Monks, chapter 4). And certainly the property of the Greek tongue sufficiently shows this. For he says gynaika periagein [“to lead about a woman”], without any article. For if he spoke of a wife, he would say ten gynaika; for a wife is a certain particular woman. Add that Clement of Alexandria, who alone among the ancients expounded this passage of the wives of the Apostles, in the same place adds that although they were wives, yet the conjugal office had ceased among them, and they were held by the Apostles in place of sisters, not in place of wives — which suffices us against the heretics.
Peter Martyr meets us (on 1 Corinthians 9), where he proves in three ways that the Apostle speaks of wives. First, because otherwise he would not say “sisters, women,” but only “sisters,” since it is established that every sister is a woman. Secondly, because he would not say “power of leading about a woman” (which sounds authority), but would say that women were wont to follow, as we read (Luke 8). Thirdly, because if those women fed the Apostles from their own means, it would be false that the Apostles received expenses from the peoples; therefore he speaks of wives, who followed the Apostles their husbands, and did not feed them but were fed by them from the expenses of the peoples. To the first I say that “sisters, women” are so called, as in Acts 1 they are called “men, brethren” — except that Paul (as he often is wont) changed the order and said “a sister, a woman” for “a woman, a sister.” To the second I say that the power of which Paul speaks was not over the women, but over the action of leading them about, if they were willing to follow; or if there was power over the women, I will say that the Apostles had authority over those women, not the authority of husbands over wives, but of teachers over female disciples. To the third I say either that those women were not rich, and did not minister money but only service, receiving money from the peoples to whom the Apostles preached; or that they were rich and fed the Apostles, but were not always with the Apostles, and therefore the Apostles were sometimes fed by the peoples, sometimes by those women.
To the passage of Philippians 4 I say two things. First, that it is not of Paul’s wife that it here treats, but of some man whom Paul calls “sincere companion,” or yokefellow, or conjugal; for syzygos signifies him who draws the same yoke. And he calls him “companion” either because he was the husband of one of the women before named — that is, of Evodia or Syntyche, as Chrysostom and Theophylact say — or because he was his associate in the preaching of the Gospel, as Theodoret and Haymo teach; or certainly it is the proper name of a man, as Oecumenius will have it. And that it is so — that is, that he speaks not of a wife — these reasons persuade. First, because very many of the ancients assert that Paul had no wife: as Jerome (in the letter to Eustochium on virginity), Hilary (on Psalm 127), Augustine (in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 4), Epiphanius (heresy 58, of the Valesians), Ambrose (on 1 Corinthians 7 and in the exhortation to virgins), Tertullian (in both books to his wife); likewise Chrysostom, Theodoret, and all the other ancients on this passage, except Clement of Alexandria. Secondly, because (as Theophylact noted) if he spoke of a wife, he would not say gnesie [masculine], but in the feminine gnesia; for the Apostle was not so polished as to use Atticisms. Thirdly, because (as Oecumenius says) it is not credible that Paul’s wife dwelt at Philippi, and not rather in Judaea, or certainly in Tarsus of Cilicia, whence Paul was sprung. Fourthly, because (as Ambrose noted on 1 Corinthians 7) Paul was called by the Lord as a young man, at which time it is not credible he had a wife, and it is certain he did not afterward take one. Fifthly, because (as Theodoret noted) Paul (1 Corinthians 7) places himself among those who had no wives: “To the unmarried and to the widows I say, it is good for them if they so remain, even as I; but if they contain not themselves, let them marry.” But the epistle to the Corinthians was written before the epistle to the Philippians, as the same Theodoret shows in the preface of his commentary on the epistles. Therefore either Paul took a wife after he had written to the Corinthians — which is incredible — or he had no wife when he wrote to the Philippians. I say secondly that even if it were established that Paul spoke of his own wife, yet it ought also to be certain to us that he was separated from his wife as to the bed. For that Paul led a continent life when he preached the Gospel, Blessed Augustine evidently deduces from 1 Corinthians 7 (in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 4).
The fifth and last argument of Calvin is taken from the history of Socrates (Book I, chapter 8) and Sozomen (Book I, chapter 22), where they say that when the Council of Nicaea wished to make a law that it should not be lawful for clerics to sleep with their wives, Paphnutius the confessor rose, and the whole Synod went into his opinion, and left continence from a wife to the discretion of each. I answer that this testimony has some weight for the opinion of the Greeks, but none at all for the error of the Lutherans. For each author in the same place testifies that Paphnutius added that it seemed good to him that, according to the ancient canons, it be forbidden to clerics to take wives after ordination in any way, but only that they be permitted to use those they had taken before ordination. Is not this whole thing against the Lutherans, who take wives after the priesthood?
But neither for the error of the Greeks is there great support in this testimony of Socrates and Sozomen. For either the whole of what they relate of Paphnutius is false, or certainly (which I rather believe) some such thing then happened, but was not well narrated by them. Perhaps the Fathers of the Council wished to establish graver penalties against incontinent clerics — that there were some such then can be understood from Epiphanius and Ambrose in the places noted — and Paphnutius urged that this should not be done. But that the Council established that continence be left to the discretion of clerics has no appearance, nor ought those authors to be believed. First, because the history of Sozomen is disapproved by Saint Gregory (Book VI, letter 31): “because,” says Gregory, “it lies much.” And Socrates, to omit the rest, in Book V of his history (chapter 21) tells three clear lies. First, that in his time it was lawful for each to celebrate Easter when he would, and that the Church had established nothing certain on this matter. But it is established that the Synod of Nicaea established that Easter should always be celebrated on the first Sunday after the fourteenth moon of the first month; of which canon Epiphanius makes mention (heresy 70, of the Audians), and Ambrose (Book X, letter 83), Eusebius (in the life of Constantine), Athanasius (in the book On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia). Secondly, he says that in the Roman Church there is no fasting before Easter except three weeks, and yet it is called Lent [Quadragesima]. But Saint Leo, who lived at the same time as Socrates, says (sermon 4 on Lent) that at Rome forty days are fasted; and the same says Gregory (homily 16 on the Gospel), and it is most certain. Thirdly, he says that at Rome there is no fasting on Saturdays, when yet the contrary is certain from Augustine (letters 86 and 118 to Januarius). If, then, in the history of his own time Socrates lies so openly, or certainly reports what he does not know, what credit can be given him in the history of the Council of Nicaea, which was celebrated more than a hundred years before his age?
Besides, that history of Paphnutius manifestly conflicts with the words of Epiphanius (against heresy 59), where he says that it is against the ecclesiastical canons for a priest or deacon to beget children; and with the words of Jerome (in the book against Vigilantius), where he says that in the East and Egypt it is not lawful for priests and deacons to use wives — which surely would be false if the Synod of Nicaea, celebrated in the East a little before, granted them the use of wives. Either, then, Epiphanius and Jerome, or Socrates and Sozomen, lie. But certainly more credit is to be given to Epiphanius and Jerome, holy men and near to the times of the Council of Nicaea, than to Socrates and Sozomen, heretics and much more recent. Then, how does that narration of Paphnutius cohere with the third canon of the Council of Nicaea, where it is forbidden to bishops, priests, deacons to have any woman in the house except a mother, sister, aunt? And convicted by this argument, Luther (in the book On Councils, part 1) says that the Fathers of the Council would not follow the opinion of Paphnutius — although Luther elsewhere wrote the contrary too. Finally, how can it be that neither Rufinus, who wrote much of the Council of Nicaea and of Paphnutius (Book I of the Ecclesiastical History), nor any other of the ancients before Socrates, made mention of this matter, and no vestige of so great a thing exists in the acts of the Council? And what some say — that Suidas, who mentions this matter in the life of Paphnutius, was a little after the times of Constantine — is openly false; for Suidas is several centuries later than Socrates, since he writes even the life of John Damascene.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Solvuntur argumenta Calvini. «■ Argumentum primum. Deus reliquit ma¬ trimonium liberum, ergo nulli homini licuit id prohibere , et confirmatur ex Apostolo I. Timoth. IV. ubi notam haereticorum esse dicit prohibere nuptias. Respondeo, concedimus totum argumen¬ tum ; neque enim Ecclesia prohibet matri¬ monium, aut cogit ullum ad coelibatum ab¬ solute suscipiendum, sed solum requirit eam conditionem in iis, qui initiari volunt sacris mysteriis, quam si quis nolit accipere, po¬ test non accipere, sed non initiabitur. Quem¬ admodum non censetur Ecclesia prohibere judicia forensia, nec officium tortoris, etiamsi nolit talia ab Ecclesiasticis fieri. Ad locum Apostoli dicimus cum Hieronymo libr. I. in Jovinianum, et Augustino lib. XXX. contra Faustum, cap. 4 et 6. Ambrosio, Chrysosto- mo, aliisque in hunc locum, notari ab Apos¬ tolo eos, qui absolute nuptias ut malas pro¬ hibebant, quales fuerunt Tatianus, Marcion, et Manichseus. Sed forte objiciunt, quia Apostolus dicit id futurum in novissimis diebus. Respondeo, novissimos dies intelligi totam hanc ultimam aetatem, quae est a Christo usque ad judi¬ cium. Nam Apostolus ait : Nos sumus in quos fines sceculorum devenerunt. Et : Filioli ravis¬ sima hora est (1). Adde, quod vox Graeca non est sed vor ipoiq, id est, non in ulti¬ mis, sed in posterioribus temporibus. Neque id negare possunt adversarii, nisi velint Ma¬ nichaeos et Encratitas ab Apostolo notatos non fuisse, qui tamen apertissime nuptias prohibebant. Nec enim illi in ultimis tempo¬ ribus fuerunt. Sed objicit Petrus Martyr in lib. de cceli- batu, et votis monasticis, sanctum Augusti¬ num, qui lib. II de moribus Manichaeorum, cap. 18. et in epist. 74. ad Deuterium, testa¬ tur Manichaeos non prohibuisse nuptias nisi electis suis, qui erant apud eos quasi Sacer¬ dotes, et Monachi : et tamen dicit eos notari ab Apostolo, cum ait, doctrinam esse daemo¬ niorum, prohibitionem nuptiaimm. (1) I. Cor. X, 11; I. Joan. II, 18. CAPUT XX. 461 Respondeo. Idem Augustinus lib. XXX. contra Faustum, cap. 6. scribit, a Manichaeis interdictas nuptias simpliciter, quia etsi eas permittebant auditoribus suis, id faciebant, quia non poterant aliud obtinere : «Nec ideo, inquit, vos dicatis non prohibere, quia multos vestros auditores in hoc obedire no¬ lentes, aut non valentes, salva amicitia tole¬ ratis. » Hsec ille. Nos autem non solum tole¬ ramus Christianos conjugatos, sed etiam laudamus. Ac praeterea Manichaei auditori¬ bus suis sic nuptias permittebant ad explen¬ dam libidinem, ut tamen conceptum, et libe¬ rorum procreationem cavendam esse mone¬ rent. Quod est nuptias apertissime detestari. Catholici autem ideo potissimum nuptias laudant, quod ad procreationem liberorum a Deo institutae fuisse noscantur. Argumentum secundum. Apostolus I. Ti- moth. III et Tit. I. cum absoluti Episcopi ideam exprimeret, inter reliquas dotes, et virtutes, quas in eo requirebat, ausus est conjugium ponere : ait enim, unius uxoris virum esse eligendum. Respondeo, falsissimum est, quod Aposto¬ lus inter dotes, aut virtutes absoluti Episcopi ponat conjugium : ad quod probandum suf¬ ficere deberet, quod quotquot Sanctissimi Episcopi hactenus fuerunt, omnes continen¬ tes fuerunt, ut supra diximus : quos certe nullo modo credibile est, aut non intellexisse verba Pauli, aut ei obtemperare noluisse. Praeterea cum idem Paulus, I. Corinth. VII. hortetur ad continentiam, et dicat bonum esse innuptis et viduis, ut sic permaneant, et : Qui nubit benefacit , qui non nubit melius facit (1); quomodo credibile est eumdem Paulum inter dotes, et virtutes Episcopi po¬ suisse ut uxorem habeat? Adde, quod non solum Chrysostomus et alii Patres in hunc locum docent, Paulum non tulisse legem, ut episcopi habeant uxores, sed solum ut non habeant, vel habuerint plures quam unam : sed etiam Martinus Lutherus in propositioni- » bus de digamia contendit ista verba : Unius uxoris virum , esse accipienda negative, non positive, ita ut non teneatur Episcopus ha¬ bere unam, sed teneatur non habere plures fceminas una cum uxore. At, inquit Calvinus, Paulus ibidem, ubi descripserat quales debeant esse Episcopi et Diaconi, describit etiam quales debeant esse eorum uxores. Respondeo, Paulum, ubi di¬ cit : Mulieres similiter pudicae e tc. vel loqui de mulieribus generatim, ut Ambrosius ex- ponit, vel de Diaconissis, quse viduas erant; ut Chrysostomus et Theophylactus docent, vel si loquatur de uxoribus Episcoporum et Diaconorum, loqui de uxoribus, quas acce¬ perant ante ordinationem, non quas postea accepturi essent. Argumentum Tertium. Apostolus Hebr. XIII citra exceptionem secure pronuntiat, honorabile esse inter omnes conjugium : Cur non etiam inter Sacerdotes ? Respondeo, argumentum facile in ipsum retorqueri posse, si enim conjugia omnium sunt honorabilia, etiam conjugia consangui¬ neorum in primo aut secundo gradu erunt honorabilia, et conjugia adolescentium in¬ jussu parentum contracta, erunt honorabi¬ lia, quse tamen Calvinus improbat libro IV, cap. 19. §. 37. Instit. Dico igitur, tribus mo¬ dis posse exponi illud In omnibus , Grsece, Iv 7rao-i. Primo, ut in omnibus, idem sit, quod, omni ex parte, id est, conjugium honorabile est in omnibus, quse conjugii sunt, sive Sa¬ cramentum, sive fidem, sive prolem consi¬ deres : ita GEcumenius in hunc locum. Se¬ cundo, ut omnibus significet apud omnes, id est, nemo debet conjugium reprehendere, etiamsi virginitatem ipse profiteatur; ita vi¬ detur accepisse Fulgentius lib. de fide ad Petrum cap. 3. Denique, in omnibus, id est, in omnibus legitime conjunctis, quicumque illi sint, sive senes, sive juvenes, sive nobi¬ les, sive obscuri, sive Graeci, sive Hebraei etc. Ita Theophylactus in hunc locum, et hsec videtur magis litteralis expositio, sed parum refert. Argumentum quartum. Apostoli exemplo suo docuerunt, nullius, quamvis excellentis functionis sanctitate, indignum esse conju¬ gium, nam eos uxores non solum habuisse, sed etiam circumduxisse testatur Paulus I. Corinth. IX, cui loco etiam addi potest illud Philipp. ult. : Rogo te etiam Germane compar adjuva illas etc. (2). Posset enim commode verti, Germana conjux, quod Grsece scrip¬ tum est. Respondeo, non esse omnino certum, qui ex Apostolis uxorem habuerint, et qui non habuerint. Tertullianus libro de Monoga¬ mia, et Hieronymus libro I in Jovinianum existimant praeter Petrum, cujus socrum in Evangelio legimus, nullum alium Apostolo- / (1) I. Cor. VII, 38. — (2) Philipp. IV, 3. 462 LIBER I. 4 rum uxorem habuisse. S. Ignatius in epis¬ tola ad Philadelphienses dicit, Petrum et Paulum, et reliquos Apostolos conjugatos fuisse, excepto Joanne, quamquam in Vati¬ cano codice, et 'quibusdam aliis vetustis non habetur nomen Pauli. Clemens quoque Ale¬ xandrinus lib. III Stromatum circa medium, aliquos Apostolorum, et nominatim Paulum uxorem habuisse asserit ex locis citatis. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, certum est eos ex Apos¬ tolis, qui uxorem hubuerunt, postquam vo¬ cati a Christo fuerunt, officio conjugali re¬ nuntiasse, ut beatus Hieronymus docet lib. I in Jovinianum, et satis colligitur ex cap.X Matth. : Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te. Statim enim Dominus 'explicans, quid sit relinquere omnia, adjicit : Omnis qui reliquerit patrem, aut matrem. , aut uxo¬ rem etc. (I) Ad locum igitur illum I. Qor. IX, ubi di¬ citur : Numquid non habemus potestatem soro¬ rem mulierem circumducendi , sicut cceteri Apostoli , et fratres Domini , et Cephas ? (2) Dico Apostolum non de uxoribus, sed de piis feminis loqui, quse sequebantur Apostolos et eis ministrabant, sicut etiam Dominum se¬ quebantur Lucae VIII. Ita fere omnes Graeci et Latini exponunt, ut Chrysostomus, Theo- doretus, QEcumenius, Theophylactus, Am¬ brosius, Haymo, et alii in hunc locum. Nec- non Tertullianus libro de Monogamia, B. Hieronymus libro I in Jovinianum, B. Au¬ gustinus libro de opere Monachorum, cap. 4eto. et certe proprietas linguae Graecae hoc satis ostendit. Nam dicit yuimV.a ntpt- aysiv, sine ullo articulo. Si enim de uxore lo¬ queretur, diceret : rw yuvcuV.a; uxor enim certa quaedam mulier est. Adde, quod Cle¬ mens Alexandrinus, qui unus ex veteribus exposuit hunc locum de uxoribus Apostolo¬ rum, ibidem addit : quod etsi uxores erant, tamen cessaverat inter eos conjugale offi¬ cium, et loco sororum, non loco uxorum ab Apostolis, habebantur, quod nobis sufficit contra haereticos. Occurrit Petrus Martyr in cap. IX primae ad Corinth. ubi probat tripliciter Apostolum loqui de uxoribus. Primo, quia alioqui non diceret, sorores mulieres, sed sorores tan¬ tum, cum constet omnem sororem esse mu¬ lierem. Secundo, quia non diceret, potesta¬ tem circumducendi mulierem, quod sonat auctoritatem, sed diceret consuevisse mu¬ lieres sequi, ut legimus Luc. VIII. Tertio, quia si illae mulieres aluissent Apostolos ex suis facultatibus, falsum esset quod Apostoli accepissent sumptus a populis, ergo loquitur de uxoribus, quae sequebantur Apostolos vi¬ ros suos, et non eos alebant, sed ab eis ale¬ bantur ex sumptibus populorum. « Ad Primum dico, sic vocari sorores .mu¬ lieres, sicut Act. I dicuntur viri fratres, nisi quod Paulus, ut saepe solet, mutavit ordi¬ nem, et dixit sororem mulierem, pro mu¬ lierem sororem. Ad Secundum dico, potes¬ tatem, de qua Paulus loquitur, non fuisse in mulieres, sed in actionem eas circumducen¬ di, si sequi vellent, vel si in mulieres erat potestas, dicam, Apostolos habuisse auctori¬ tatem in eas mulieres, non virorum in uxo¬ res, sed doctorum in discipulas. Ad tertium dico vel eas mulieres non fuisse divites, et non ministrasse pecunias , sed obsequium tantum, accipientes pecunias a populis, qui¬ bus Apostoli praedicabant, vel fuisse divites, et aluisse Apostolos, sed non semper fuisse cum Apostolis, et ideo Apostolos aliquando fuisse nutritos a populis, aliquando ab illis mulieribus. Ad locum ex Phil. IV dico duo. Brimo, non de uxore Pauli hic agi, sed de viro ali¬ quo, quem Paulus vocat Germanum compa¬ rem, seu conjugem, aut conjugalem, ffu?vyo$ enim significat eum, qui idem jugum tra¬ hit. Vocat autem eum conjugem, vel quia erat maritus alicujus ex feminis antea nomi¬ natis, id est, Evodiae aut Synthiches, ut Chrysostomus et Theophylactus dicunt, vel quia erat socius suus in Evangelii praedica¬ tione, ut Theodoretus et Haymo docent; vel certe est nomen proprium viri, ut vult QE- cumenius. Quod autem ita sit, id est, quod non lo¬ quatur de uxore, suadent hae rationes. Pri¬ ma, quia plurimi veterum asserunt, Paulum non habuisse uxorem, ut Hieronymus in epistola ad Eustochium de virginitate. Hila¬ rius in Psalm. CXXVII. Augustinus libro de gratia et libero arbitrio, cap. 4. Epiphanius heeresi 58. Valesiorum, Ambrosius in c. VII prioris ad Corinth. et in exhortatione ad vir¬ gines, Tertullianus in utroque libro ad uxo¬ rem. Item Chrysost. Theodoretus, aliique veteres omnes in hunc locum, excepto Cle- menteAlexandrino. Secunda, quia, utTheo- l^iylactus notavit, si de uxore loqueretur; (1) Matth. XIX, 27 et 29. — (2) I. Cor. IX, 5. CAPUT XX. 463 non diceret yvwns, sed in genere feminino yvYttria. Non enim tam politus erat Apostolus ut Atticismis uteretur. Tertia, quia, ut dicit QEcumenius, non est credibile uxorem Pauli habitasse Philippis, et non potius in Judaea, vel certe in Tarso Ciliciae, unde Paulus oriun¬ dus erat. Quarta, quia, ut Ambrosius nota¬ vit in I. Corinth. VII, Paulus adolescens a Domino vocatus est, quo tempore non est credibile eum uxorem habuisse, et certum est postea non accepisse. Quinta, quia, ut notavit Theodoretus, Paulus I. Corinth. VII ponit se inter eos qui non habebant uxores : Innuptis , et viduis , inquit, dico , bonum, est il¬ lis si sic permanserint , sicut et ego ; Quod si non se continent , nubant. At epistola ad Co¬ rinthios scripta est ante epistolam ad Phi¬ lippenses, ut idem Theodoretus ostendit in praefatione commentarii in epistolas. Igitur vel Paulus accepit uxorem postquam scrip¬ serat ad Corinthios , quod est incredibile, aut non habuit uxorem cum scriberet ad Philippenses. Dico Secundo, quod si constaret Paulum loqui de uxore sua, tamen certum etiam no¬ bis esse deberet, eum ab uxore separatum fuisse, quoad thorum. Quod enim Paulus vitam continentem duxerit cum Evangelium praedicabat, evidenter deducit ex I. Corinth. VII B. Augustinus libro de gratia et libero arbitrio, cap. 4. Argumentum Quintum et ultimum Calvini sumitur ex historia Socratis lib. I, cap. 8. et Sozomeni lib. I, cap. 22. ubi dicunt, quod cum Nicaenum Concilium legem ferre vellet, ne liceret Clericis cum uxoribus suis dormi¬ re, surrexit Paphnutius confessor, et Syno¬ dus tota in ejus sententiam ivit, et conti¬ nentiam ab uxore in arbitrio cujusque .reli¬ quit, Respondeo, hoc testimonium aliquid ha¬ bere momenti pro sententia Graecorum, sed nullum penitus pro errore Lutheranorum. Nam uterque auctor in eodem loco testatur Paphnutium adjecisse, bonum sibi videri, ut secundum antiquos Canones prohibeatur Clericis, ne post ordinationem ullo modo uxores ducant, sed solum permittatur uti illis, quas ante ordinationem acceperant. Nonne hoc totum contra Lutheranos est, qui post Sacerdotium uxores ducunt? At neque pro Graecorum errore magnum est praesidium in hoc testimonio Socratis et Sozomeni. Nam vel totum est falsum quod isti de Paphnutio tradunt, vel certe (quod magis credo) tale aliquid tunc accidit, sed non bene abistis narratum est. Fortasse vo¬ luerunt Patres Concilii graviores poenas con¬ stituere in Clericos incontinentes, quales tunc aliquos fuisse ex Epiphanio et Ambro¬ sio locis notatis intelligi potest, et Paphnu¬ tius suasit non esse id faciendum. At quod Concilium statuerit, continentiam esse relinquendam in arbitrio Clericorum nullam habet apparentiam, nec debet illis auctoribus credi. Primo, quia Sozomeni his¬ toria a S. Gregorio reprobatur, lib. VI, epist. 31. : « Quia, inquit Gregorius, multa men¬ titur. » Socrates autem, ut omittam csetera, lib. V suae historiae, cap. 21. tria clara men¬ dacia dicit. Primo : licuisse suo tempore unicuique celebrare Pascha quando vellet, nec de hac re Ecclesiam aliquid certi sta¬ tuisse. At constat, Nicaenam Synodum sta¬ tuisse ut Pascha semper celebraretur prima Dominica post quartamdecimam lunam pri¬ mi mensis; cujus Canonis meminerunt Epi- phanius haeres. 70 Audianorum, et Ambro¬ sius lib. X, epistola 83. Eusebiusin vita Con¬ stantini, Athanasius in libro de Synodis Ari¬ mini et Seleuciae. Secundo dicit, in Romana Ecclesia non jejunari ante Pascha, nisi tres hebdomadas, et tamen vocari Quadragesi¬ mam. At S. Leo, qui eodem tempore vixit, quo Socrates, sermone 4. de Quadragesima dicit, Romae jejunari XL dies, et idem dicit Gregorius lpemil. 16. in Evangelia, et certis¬ simum est. Tertio dicit, Romae non jejunari in Sabbatis, cum tamen contrarium sit cer¬ tum ex Augustino epistol. 86 et 118. ad Ja¬ nuarium. Si ergo in historia sui temporis Socrates tam aperte mentitur, vel certe re¬ fert quae non scit, quae fides adhiberi illi po¬ test in historia Concilii Nicaeni, quod annis plusquam centum aiite ejus aetatem celebra¬ tum est? Praeterea, historia ista de Paphnutio ma¬ nifeste pugnat cum verbis Epiphanii contra haeres. 59. ubi ait, esse contra Canones Ec¬ clesiasticos, quod Sacerdos vel Diaconus li¬ beros gignat; et cum verbis Hieronymi lib. contra Vigilantium, ubi dicit in Oriente et ASgypto non esse licitum Sacerdotibus et Diaconis uxoribus uti, quod sane falsum est, si Nicaena Synodus, in Oriente paulo ante celebrata, uxorum usum illis concessit. Vel ergo Epiphanius et Hieronymus, vel Socra¬ tes et Sozomenus mentiuntur. At certe ma¬ gis credendum est Epiphanio et Hieronymo viris sanctis, et qui vicini fuerunt tempori- 464 LIBER I. bus Concilii Nicseni, quam Socrati et Sozo- meno haereticis, et multo recentioribus. Deinde, quomodo cohaeret illa narratio de Paphnutio cum canone tertio Concilii Nicse¬ ni, ubi prohibetur Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, ne ullam domi mulierem habeant, prseter matrem, sororem, amitam? Et hoc argumento convictus Lutherus, in lib. de Conciliis, parte prima dicit, Patres Concilii noluisse sequi sententiam Paphnutii, quam¬ vis etiam contrarium Lutherus alibi scrip¬ serit. Denique, qui fieri potest, ut nec Ruffinus, qui multa de Concilio Nicseno et Paphnutio scripsit lib. I historias Ecclesiasticas, nec ul¬ lus alius ex veteribus ante Socratem hujus rei meminerit, nec ullum vestigium tantae rei in actis Concilii exstet? Quod autem qui¬ dam dicunt, Suidam, qui hujus rei meminit in vita Paphnutii, fuisse paulo post tempora Constantini, aperte falsum est; nam Suidas aliquot saeculis Socrate posterior est, quippe qui scribit etiam vitam Joannis Damasceni.