Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 21: The Arguments of Philip Melanchthon 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).
Now let us come to the arguments of Philip [Melanchthon]. The first argument. Marriage is of divine right (Genesis 1: “Increase and multiply”) and of the law of nature, as is plain from the natural appetite of begetting; but divine and natural right cannot be taken away by any human law; therefore, and so on. And it is confirmed: for as no one can be obligated by himself or by another not to eat, because this would be against the natural inclination of preserving the individual, so no one can be obligated by himself or by another not to take a wife, because this would be against the natural inclination of preserving the species.
I answer that the Lord’s word does not sound a precept, but expresses the institution of nature. For to the birds and brute animals too God said in the same place, “Increase and multiply,” to whom nevertheless nothing properly can be commanded. But that there is a natural precept about entering marriage can be conceded; yet because it is affirmative, it does not bind except in a case of necessity, that is, when danger threatened lest the human race should perish. And by this the confirmation is answered. For as we are not bound to eat except when there is danger lest the individual perish, so we are not bound to take a wife except when there is danger lest the human species perish. Looking to which the Fathers said that “Increase and multiply” was then a precept to individual men, when the earth was empty, as at the beginning of the world, and soon after the Flood; but now, since the earth is full, heaven is to be filled, which is done better by continence than by marriage. For although Philip laughs at this solution, yet it is Tertullian’s (in the book On Monogamy, before the middle), Cyprian’s (in the book On the Dress of Virgins), Jerome’s (Book I against Jovinian), and Augustine’s (On Holy Virginity, chapter 9); and the text itself teaches this, for after God said, “Increase and multiply,” He adds, as if giving a reason: “And fill the earth.” And so those words have the force of a precept only when the earth is empty. Finally, if Philip will have all men bound to marriage by divine and natural right at every time, he does injury to Christ, John, and innumerable other most holy men who lived without a wife.
The second argument. The Apostle commands all who have not the gift of continence to marry (1 Corinthians 7): “But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife.” I answer that the Apostle speaks of married men who, having married wives in paganism, doubted after their conversion to the faith whether they ought to use their wives; for to these he answers that each retain his own wife and render the conjugal debt to one another. So Tertullian (in the book On Monogamy) and Blessed Jerome (Book I against Jovinian), and it is plain from what follows. For a little after he adds: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so remain.” And: “Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.” Add too that this is not a precept of the Apostle, but a counsel, or rather a permission — like that of the same chapter: “If he contain not himself, let him marry; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.” For the Apostle’s sense is, as Jerome in the same place, and Chrysostom, and Ambrose, and others expound: it is good not to touch a woman, and either not to take a wife, or, having taken one, by consent to abstain from the conjugal office; yet if you fear fornication, you do well in adhering to a wife, because it is better to lack the perfection of virginity than to fall into the crimes of fornication. Add, thirdly, that all these are said to those who have not the vow of continence. For to those who have vowed continence it is not said, “let every man have his own wife,” and “if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned,” but it is said, “Render to the Most High thy vows,” and, “They have damnation, because they have made void their first faith.” This exception Jerome expressly puts (Book I against Jovinian, on that, “if a virgin marry she hath not sinned”), Chrysostom (in the commentary on the same passage), Epiphanius (heresy 61, announcing the same words), likewise Augustine (on Psalm 83, treating the same words), and Gregory (Book VI, chapter 1, on the book of Kings, treating that, “let every man have his own wife”).
The third argument. The pontifical law which joined celibacy to the priesthood dissents from the ancient Councils, and accordingly is to be deemed unjust. But which those Councils are he did not say. Yet let us adduce whatever can be adduced. First is the sixth canon of the Apostles: “Let a bishop or priest by no means cast off his own wife under pretext of religion.” Secondly is the fourth canon of the Council of Gangra: “Whoever holds apart from a priest who has had a wife, that one ought not, when he ministers, to partake of the offering, let him be anathema.” Thirdly is canon 13 of the Sixth Synod, which expressly reproves the custom of the Roman Church, by which those who are initiated into sacred orders are bidden to profess continence. Fourthly is canon 3 of the Fifth Council of Carthage, in which it is established that bishops, priests, deacons abstain from wives “in their own bounds” — that is, in the order of their turn, as the Fathers in Trullo expound (in the canon just cited). Fifthly is the canon Aliter (distinction 31), where Pope Stephen says that in the Eastern Church ecclesiastical men are joined in marriage, and does not reprehend that custom. Therefore it is false, which we have often said, that it was never heard that it was lawful to take a wife after sacred ordination. Lastly is the canon of Blessed Augustine (cause 35, question 1, canon Cum igitur), where it is said: “The Church, after the apostolic institutions, added certain counsels of perfection, as concerning the continence of clerics,” and so on. Therefore this is a counsel, not a precept. These perhaps are all that can be adduced from canon law for the opinion of the heretics.
To the first Cardinal Humbert answers (in the book against Nicetas), and this answer is had under the name of Leo IX (distinction 31, canon Omnino): that the Apostles commanded that clerics not cast off their wives from their care, even if they have left them as to the bed; for they ought still to feed them and provide for them in all things. This the Synod in Trullo expounded (canon 12), where it is said that a bishop’s wife ought to live in some monastery and enjoy the providence of the bishop her husband; and also the Second Council of Tours (canon 8), where it is said that a married bishop ought to have his wife as a sister and bear her care, yet without any suspicion of carnal intercourse. Add that this very canon does not make for us [the adversaries]; for the Greek word for which we have “of religion” is prophasei, which properly signifies “pretext”; and so the sense is: let a bishop or priest by no means cast off his wife under pretext — that is, let him not dismiss the care of his wife under the pretext that he is bound to contain himself from her.
To the second I say that anathema is said to those who think matrimony is of itself evil, and therefore hold it unlawful for one who has had a wife to do sacred things, even if he contains himself from her. That this is so is plain, both because in the first canon anathema is said to those who think marriage absolutely evil, and because in this fourth canon it is said not “who has a wife,” but “who has had a wife.”
To the third I say that those canons are of no approved Council. For the true Sixth Synod issued no canons, as is plain from the Seventh Synod (sessions 4 and 5). But after the Sixth Synod certain bishops came together at Constantinople, in the palace of the Emperor Justinian II which was called Trullum, and issued the canons brought forward under the name of the Sixth Synod. But these canons not only did no Roman Pontiff approve, but Pope Sergius, who then sat, openly disapproved, as Bede writes (in the book On the Six Ages, under Justinian) and Paul the Deacon (Book VIII, chapter 9, On Roman Affairs). And Bede calls the assembly of those Fathers who issued these canons an “erratic Synod.” Add that even if those canons availed anything, they would in no way help the cause of the Lutherans; for they do not permit any cleric, after receiving the sacred orders, to take a wife (which the Lutherans do), but only to use a wife married before orders; and this even they do not permit to bishops, but only to the lower clerics, as is plain from canons 6, 12, and 48.
To the fourth I say that the Latin words of the Council are not “in their own bounds,” but “according to the statutes of the earlier ones,” or “according to their own statutes” — that is, according to the law established in the earlier Councils of Carthage, and chiefly in the Second of Carthage (canon 2). But the Greeks, ill understanding these words, rendered them kata tous idious horous. Although even these Greek words could not ill be rendered “according to their own definitions.” But since the Council is Latin, not Greek, there is no need to labor much over the Greek reading. And that in this Council all use of wives is forbidden to sacred men is plain from Augustine (Book II On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 20), who was present at that Council; likewise from this, that this canon speaks in the same way of bishops and of the others. But the Fathers in Trullo do not permit bishops ever to mingle with their wives.
To the fifth I say, first, that that canon is perhaps of no authority; for Gratian does not say which Stephen it was that issued that canon, since there were very many Pontiffs of that name, nor does any letter of any Stephen exist where that canon is had. I say, secondly, that without any doubt the author of that canon, when he says that the Eastern clerics are joined in marriage, does not mean that they take wives, but that they exercise the marriage office, as the Gloss explains. For since it is certain from very many Councils, and from the very practice and confession of the Greeks, that it was never lawful, nor is now held lawful in Greece, that those in sacred orders take wives, either that Stephen says what is false, or he understands only, as we said, “they are joined in marriage” — that is, they exercise the bond of marriage. And this very thing, although the Roman Church does not approve it and judges it an abuse, yet permits to the Greeks; and if they had no other error, peace would easily be composed.
To the last I say that those words are not Blessed Augustine’s but Gratian’s, who continued his own words with the words of Blessed Augustine, as he often is wont to do. Let them be read in Augustine (Book XV On the City of God, chapter 16). Besides, what Gratian says has a good sense; for when he says that the Church added certain counsels of perfection, and among them numbers the continence of clerics, he means that the Church imposed on clerics continence to be kept by precept, which otherwise was only a counsel of perfection. For it is not credible that Gratian was so inept as to think that continence was not a counsel of perfection before the Church’s definition.
Another canon Peter Martyr brings forward (in the book On Celibacy and Vows), from letter 87 (elsewhere 85) of Saint Leo, where we read thus: “For, the Apostle saying that, among the other rules of Christianity, that man is to be ordained bishop who is established to have been or to be the husband of one wife, this precept has always been held so sacred that the same condition is understood to be kept about the woman of a priest to be chosen: lest perhaps she, before she came into the marriage of him who had had no other wife, had experienced the wedlock of another man.” From this passage Martyr deduces two things: that he can be made bishop who not only has had, but even has, one wife; and that a bishop can take a wife if he has none. But wonderful is the impudence of this man. For the same Leo (in letter 84 to Anastasius, chapters 3 and 4) in express words commands that a bishop can be the husband of one wife only in such a way that he perpetually contains himself from her. And that which in certain copies is read, “about the woman of a priest to be chosen [eligenda],” is a manifest error; for it ought to be read, and is read in the better codices, “about the woman of a priest to-be-chosen [eligendi]” [i.e., of the priest-to-be-chosen].
The fourth argument of Philip. Continence is a most difficult thing, and is not given to all, as is plain (Matthew 19): “All men take not this word.” Therefore it ought not to have been so indifferently imposed on all clerics. I answer: as the gift of continence is not of all, so neither ought all to be priests, but only those who seem to have this gift. But you will say: what if someone thinks he can be continent, and afterward, when he has received orders, finds that he cannot? I answer that those have the gift of continence who will and desire to be continent; and to those to whom God gave to will, He will also give to accomplish, if they themselves will. Accordingly no one can say that he does not have the gift which he thought he had; for that will of being continent for God’s sake is the very gift of continence. Besides, are not married men too often compelled, whether by the absence or by the very long illness of the spouse, to abstain from a wife? And yet it is not lawful for them to take another wife, however much they burn with the heat of lust. Which example Blessed Augustine brings forward (Book II On Adulterous Marriages, chapters 19 and 20) against those who against right take a wife under the pretext that they cannot be continent.
Add that there is no one who cannot be continent if he will, as the Fathers teach — Tertullian (at the end of the book On Monogamy), Nazianzen (oration 31), Basil (On Virginity, past the middle), Chrysostom and Jerome (on Matthew 19), and Augustine (Book VI of the Confessions, chapter 11). But one must not neglect the necessary remedies, which are three: prayer, fasting, and the avoidance of dangers. For the temptation of the flesh either arises from the suggestion of the demon — as is plain from Anthony, Hilarion, Benedict, and the like, who, living in the desert and in perpetual fasts, were nevertheless tempted; and then prayer is necessary, because the demon is stronger than we, nor can we conquer him except by the aid of one stronger, who is God; for this reason it is said (Wisdom 8): “No one can be continent unless God give it” — or it arises from the abundance of food and drink; for when nature has received what suffices for nutrition, the rest is converted into the matter of generation, whence is born the itch of the flesh; and against this fasting is necessary, that sparingness of drink and food may wear down the pride of the flesh — or, finally, it arises from the sight and conversation of women; for things seen or heard, if they suit nature, naturally move the imagination, and the imagination the appetite. Hence so many laws of the Councils forbidding clerics the company of women; on which see also Basil (chapter 3 of the Monastic Constitutions). Since therefore the Lutherans have cast away these three — namely, the prayer of the canonical hours, all fasts, and even on Friday they eat flesh, and finally each wishes to have a woman in his house — what wonder if they cannot be continent? Certainly Luther himself at every dinner and supper feasted most lavishly and drank a pint of sweet wine, as is in a certain letter at the end of the work of John Cochlaeus On the Life of Luther.
The fifth and last argument. This celibacy of clerics begets prodigious lusts, fills the world with concubines and the Church with scandals. I answer that it is false that celibacy begets these things, but it is the abuse of celibacy that begets them. For the Apostle (1 Corinthians 7) says the fruits of celibacy are to think of the things of God, to be holy in body and spirit, to sit by the Lord without intermission; therefore not the use but the abuse of celibacy begets prodigious lusts. But if good things were to be taken away on account of abuses, heaven and earth too would have to be taken away, because some abuse them, thinking them gods; and the Decalogue would have to be taken away, and all the Sacraments, because many abuse them too. So Gregory Nazianzen answers (in the oration on Basil, not far from the beginning) those who execrate natural philosophy and the writings of the gentiles because some abuse them. Nor yet do we admit that there are as many concubine-keepers and impure men among ecclesiastics as the heretics say, who, measuring all others by themselves, think none are chaste. Certainly there are very many who celebrate daily, and of whom no evil suspicion is heard.
Besides these arguments, it seems that answer must also be made to the complaint of Philip: “Of old,” he says, “the canons suspended from office priests who had married; but you suspend them from trees.” I answer, first, that hence it follows that Luther and others who took wives after the priesthood were suspended from office by the sentence of the ancient canons, and therefore, since they wished to discharge the office and yet retain their spouses, they were rebels and contumacious against the Church, and accordingly could deservedly be suspended from trees. I say besides that the canons of the ancient Church were some milder, some more severe; for the Council of Neocaesarea (canon 1) bids a priest be removed from his order if he take a wife; but the Second Council of Toledo (canon 1) bids that a priest who has married be held a stranger to the Church as guilty of sacrilege, and the Eighth of Toledo (canon 6) bids such men be shut up in monasteries, that they may there live under grave burdens of penance to the end of their life. Add, lastly, that priests are never so severely punished in the Church for taking wives, as Philip says; but because they take them after a solemn vow, and accordingly take not wives but concubines under the name of marriage, and pollute at once both matrimony and the priesthood; to which intemperance, when they add heresy too, and say that vows are not to be kept, what wonder if they are worthy to be suspended from trees.
Let us add the testimony of Jerome (Book I against Jovinian): “Certainly thou confessest that he cannot be a bishop who in the episcopate begets children; otherwise, if he be caught, he will not be held as a husband, but condemned as an adulterer.” Thus he. Now that the punishment of adultery in Jerome’s time, and indeed the ordinary one, was the extreme penalty, is plain from letter 49 of the same Jerome, on the woman struck seven times; and from Book I against Jovinian, where he says thus: “Daily the blood of adulterers is shed, and amid the very laws, the axes, and the tribunals, flagrant lust bears sway.” Wherefore, by Jerome’s opinion, bishops giving their effort to children can not only be suspended from office, but even, as adulterers, beheaded. But now let us come to the Magdeburgians.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI. Solvuntur argumenta Philippi. Nunc ad argumenta PhilippiWeniamus. Argumentum Primum. Conjugium est de jure divino. Gen. I : Crescite et multiplica¬ mini (1) : Et de jure naturae, ut patet ex na¬ turali appetitu generandi ; at jus divinum et naturae non potest tolli ulla humana lege, ergo etc. Et confirmatur. Nam sicut nemo potest obligari a se, vel ab alio ad non co¬ medendum, quia hoc esset contra naturalem inclinationem conservandi individuum, ita nemo potest obligari a se vel ab alio ad non ducendam uxorem, quia id essset contra naturalem inclinationem conservandi spe¬ ciem. Respondeo, verbum Domini non praecep¬ tum sonare, sed natura} institutionem expri¬ mere. Nam etiam avibus, et brutis animan¬ tibus ibidem Deus dixit : Crescite et multipli¬ camini; quibus tamen nihil proprie praecipi potest. Praeceptum autem naturale esse de conjugio ineundo, concedi potest, sed quia est affirmativum, non obligat nisi in casu necessitatis, id est, quando periculum immi¬ neret, ne humanum genus periret. Et per hac respondetur ad confirmationem. Nam sicut non tenemur comedere, nisi quando periculum est, ne pereat indivi¬ duum, ita non tenemur ducere uxorem, nisi quando periculum esset, ne species humana periret. Ad quod respicientes Patres dixe¬ runt, illud : Crescite et multiplicamini , tunc fuisse praeceptum.singulis hominibus, quan¬ do terra erat vacua, ut in exordio mundi, et mox a diluvio. Nunc autem cum terra plena sit, coelum esse replendum , quod melius continendo, quam nubendo fit; Etsi enim hanc solutionem Philippus ridet, tamen est Tertulliani lib. de Monogamia ante medium, Cypriani lib. de Habitu Virginum, Hierony¬ mi lib. I in Jovinianum, et Augustini de sancta Virginitate, cap.9. et ipse textus hoc docet; nam postquam Deus dixit : Crescite et multiplicamini , subdit, quasi rationem red¬ dens : Et replete terram. Itaque tunc solum vim praecepti illa verba habent, cum terra est vacua. Denique, si Philippus vult jure divino et naturali quocumque tempore te¬ neri homines omnes ad conjugium, injuriam facit Christo, Joanni, innumerisque aliis sanctissimis viris, qui sine uxore vixerunt. Argumentum Secundum. Apostolus pra3- cipit omnibus, qui donum continentiae non habent, ut nubant, I. Cor. VII : Propter for¬ nicationem autem unusquisque uxorem suam habeat (2). Respondeo, Apostolum loqui de conjuga¬ tis, qui cum in Paganismo uxores duxissent, post conversionem ad fidem, dubitabant an deberent uxoribus uti; iis enim respondet, ut unusquisque uxorem suam retineat, et conjugale debitum invicem reddant. ItaTer- tullianus lib. de Monogamia, et B. Hierony¬ mus lib. I in Jovinianum, et patet ex se¬ quentibus. Nam paulo post addit : Dico au¬ tem non nuptis , et viduis , bonum est eis si sic permanserint. Et : Solutus es ab uxore, noli quaerere uxorem (3). Adde etiam, non esse hoc praeceptum Apostoli, sed consilium, vel permissionem potius, sicut illa ejusdem capitis : Si non se continet, nubat , et si nupserit virgo, non pecca¬ vit etc. (4) Est enim sensus Apostoli, ut Hie¬ ronymus ibidem et Chrysostomus, et Am¬ brosius et alii in hunc locum exponunt: Bo- (1) Gen. I, 22 (2) I. Cor. VII, 2. — (3) I. Cor. VII, 8 et 27. — (4) Id* 9 et 28. CAPUT XXI. num est mulierem non tangere, et vel uxo¬ rem non ducere, vel post eam ductam ex consensu ab officio conjugali abstinere; ta¬ men, si timetis fornicationem, bene facitis uxori adhaerendo, quia melius est carere per¬ fectione virginitatis, quam incidere in flagi- tia fornicationum. Adde tertio, haec omnia dici iis, qui vo¬ tum continentiae non habent. Qui enim vo¬ verunt continentiam, iis non dicitur : Unus¬ quisque uxorem suam habeat , et virgo si nup¬ serit, non peccavit . Sed dicitur : Redde altis- - simo vota tua. Et : Damnationem habent , quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt (1). Hanc ex¬ ceptionem diserte ponunt Hieronymus lib I m Jovimanum, in illud : Si nupserit virqo non peccavit. Chrysostomus in commentario eius¬ dem loci. Epiphanius haeresi6I. eadem ver- :aYYeJn(enS' Item -Augustinus in Psalm. LaXXIII tractans eadem verba : et Grego- r/,US VI’ caP- *• in lih- Regum, tractans illud : Unusquisque uxorem suam habeat. Argumentum Tertium. Lex pontificia, quae coelibatum sacerdotio adjunxit, dissen¬ tit a Conciliis antiquis, proinde iniqua cen¬ senda est. Quae autem sint illa Concilia, ipse non dixit. Nos tamen adducamus qusecum- que adduci possunt. Primo est Canon Apos¬ tolorum sextus : « Episcopus aut Presbyter uxorem propriam nequaquam obtentu reli¬ gionis abjiciat. » Secundo est. Canon Concilii Gangrensis quartus : « Quicumque discernit a Presby¬ tero,. qui uxorem habuit, quod non oporteat eo ministrante de oblatione percipere, ana¬ thema sit. )> Tertio est Canon 13 sextae Synodi, qui di¬ serte. reprobat morem Romanae Ecclesiae, quo jubentur profiteri continentiam, aui sa¬ cris initiantur. 4 . Quarto est Canon 3 Concilii V Carthagi¬ niensis, in quo statuitur, ut Episcopi, Pres¬ byteri, Diaconi se abstineant ab uxoribus in propriis terminis, id est, in ordine vicis suae ut exponunt Trullani Patres Canone jam ci¬ tato. J Quinto est Canon Aliter, dist. 31. ubi Ste- phanus Papa dicit, in Orientali Ecclesia Ec¬ clesiasticos viros matrimoniis copulari, nec eum morem reprehendit. Ergo falsum est, quod saepe diximus, nunquam esse auditum quod licuerit post sacram ordinationem uxo¬ rem ducere. 405 (1) I. Cor. VII, 2 et 28. Tom. II. Ultimo est Canon B. Augustini 35. quaest. 1. can Cum igitur, ubi dicitur : « Ecclesia, pos Apostolica instituta, quaedam consilia perfectionis addidit, utpote de continentia Clericorum et c. » Ergo hoc consilium, non praeceptum est. Haec forte sunt omnia quae ex jure Canonico pro sententia haereticorum adduci possunt. Ad Primum respondit Humbertus Cardina¬ lis m hb. contra Nicetam, et habetur haec lesponsio sub nomine Leonis IX dist 31 can. Omnino, Apostolos jussisse ut non ab¬ jiciant Clerici uxores a cura sua, et si reli¬ querint quoad, thorum, debent enim adhuc eas alere, et eis in omnibus providere. Id quod exposuit Concilium Trullanum can. . • ubl dicitur .: quod Episcopi uxor debet m monasterio aliquo degere, et providentia Episcopi viri sui frui. Necnon Concilium Tu- ronense II, can. 8. ubi dicitur, quod Episco¬ pus conjugatus debet habere uxorem ut so¬ rorem, et. ejus curam gerere, absque tamen ulla suspicione carnalis commercii. Adde quod iste ipse Canon non pro nobis facit • nam Graeca vox pro qua habemus (religio¬ nis.) est riia/Satec, quse cautionem proprie si¬ gnificat Itaque sensus est, Episcopus aut Presbyter nequaquam praetextu cautionis uxorem abjiciat, id est, ne curam uxoris di¬ mittat, eo praetextu quod tenetur ab ea se continere. Ad Secundum dico, anathema dici eis qui putant matrimonium ex se esse malum5 et propterea existimant non licere sacra fa¬ cere ei qui uxorem habuit, etiamsi ab illa se contineat. Id ita esse, patet, tum quia in ipso primo Canone dicitur anathema iis qui pu¬ tant nuptias absolute esse malas, et in hoc canone quarto non dicitur, qui uxorem ha¬ bet, sed qui uxorem habuit. Ad Tertium dico illos Canones non esse ulhus approbati Concilii. Nam vera sexta Synodus nullos Canones edidit, ut patet ex Vll Synodo, actione 4 et 5. Sed. post VI Sy¬ nodum quidam Episcopi convenerunt Cpns- . tantlnoPoIb et in palatio Imperatoris Justi¬ niani II quod Trullum dicebatur, canones l^tos ediderunt nomine sextae Synodi. Q®te- rum hos canones non solum nullus Romanus Pontifex probavit, sed etiam aperte impro¬ bavit Sergius Papa, qui tunc sedebat, ut Reda scribit, in lib. de sex aetatibus in Jus¬ tiniano, et Paulus Diaconus lib. VIII, cap.9. 30 466 LIBER I. de Rebus Romanis. Vocat autem Beda erra¬ ticam Synodum coetum illorum Patrum, qui hos canones ediderunt. Adde, quod etiamsi isti Canones aliquid valerent, nihil tamen juvarent causam Lutheranorum, non enim permittunt, ut ulli Clerico post sacrorum ordinum susceptionem liceat uxorem duce¬ re, quod Lutherani faciunt, sed solum ut li¬ ceat uti uxore ante ordinem ducta, et hoc etiam non permittunt Episcopis, sed solum inferioribusClericis,utpatetexcan.6,12 et48. Ad Quartum dico, verba Latina Concilii non esse, in propriis terminis, sed secun¬ dum priorum statuta, vel, secundum pro¬ pria statuta, id est, secundum legem condi¬ tam in Conciliis prioribus Carthaginiensi¬ bus, ac pracipue in II Carthaginiensi, can. 2. Grajci autem haec verba male intelligen- tes verterunt, x«ra rou? iStou? opov$. Quamquam etiam haec ipsa Graeca verba non male reddi possent, secundum proprias definitiones. Sed cum Latinum sit Concilium, non Grae¬ cum, non multum laborandum est de Graeca lectione. Prohiberi autem in hoc Concilio omnem usum uxorum sacris hominibus, pa¬ tet ex Augustino lib. II de adulterinis conju¬ giis, cap. 20. qui Augustinus illi Concilio in-* lerfuit. Item ex eo quod iste Canon loquitur eodem modo de Episcopis, et de aliis. At Patres Trullani non permittunt Episcopos misceri unquam suis uxoribus. Ad Quintum dico Primum, Canonem il¬ lum forte nullius esse auctoritatis ; nam nec dicit Gratianus quotus sit Stephanus ille, qjii eum Canonem edidit, cum plurimi fuerint Pontifices ejus nominis, nec ullius Stephani epistola exstat, ubi ille Canon habeatur. Di¬ co Secundo, absque ullo dubio auctorem ejus Canonis, cum dicit Orientales Clericos matrimonio copulari, non velle dicere, uxo¬ res ducunt, sed matrimoniale officium exer¬ cent, ut glossa explicat. Nam cum certum sit ex Conciliis plurimis, et ex ipsa praxi et confessione Graecorum, nunquam fuisse lici¬ tum^ nec nunc haberi licitum in Graecia, ut in sacris existentes ducant uxores, vel ille Stephanus falsum dicit, vel tantum intelli- git, ut nos diximus, matrimonio copulantur, id est, matrimonii copulam exercent. Porro hoc ipsum etsi Romana Ecclesia non probat, et abusum esse judicat, tamen permittit Grae¬ cis ; et si errorem alium non haberent, facile pax componeretur. Ad Ultimum dico, ea verba non esseB. Au¬ gustini sed Gratiani, qui sua verba cum ver¬ bis B. Augustini continuavit, ut saepe facere solet. Legantur apud Augustinum lib. XV de Civ. Dei, c. 16. Praeterea quod Gratia¬ nus dicit, bonum sensum habet; cum enim ait Ecclesiam addidisse quaedam consilia perfectionis, et in eis numerat continentiam Clericorum, vult dicere, Ecclesiam impo¬ suisse Clericis continentiam praecepto ser¬ vandam, quae alioqui solum erat consilium perfectionis. Nec enim credibile est tam in¬ eptum fuisse Gratianum, ut putaverit Gon- tinentiam non fuisse consilium perfectionis ante Ecclesiae definitionem. Alium Canonem profert Petrus Martyr in lib. de Ccelibatu et votis, ex epistola 87, alias 85. S. Leonis, ubi sic legimus : « Di¬ cente enim Apostolo, ut inter alias Christia¬ nismi regulas is Episcopus ordinetur, quem unius uxoris virum fuisse aut esse constaret, tam sacra semper est habita ista praeceptio, ut jam de muliere sacerdotis eligenda, ea¬ dem intelligatur servanda conditio : ne forte illa priusquam in matrimonium ejus veni¬ ret, qui aliam non habuisset uxorem, alte¬ rius viri esset experta conjugium. » Ex hoc loco duo deducit Martyr, posse fieri Episco¬ pum, non solum qui habuerit, sed etiam qui habeat unam uxorem : et posse Episcopum uxorem ducere, si non habeat. At mira est impudentia hujus hominis ; Nam idem Leo in epist. 84. ad Anastasium cap. 3 et 4. di¬ sertis verbis jubet, Episcopum ita unius uxo¬ ris virum esse posse, ut tamen ab illo per¬ petuo se contineat. Quod vero in quibusdam exemplaribus legitur : « De muliere sacer¬ dotis eligenda, » mendum est manifestum. Sic enim legi debet, et legitur in codicibus melioribus : « De muliere sacerdotis eligen¬ di. » Argumentum Quartum Philippi, Continen¬ tia res est difficillima, nec omnibus datur; ut patet Matth. XIX : Non omnes capiunt ver¬ bum hoc (1). Ergo non debuit ita indifferen¬ ter omnibus Clericis imponi. Respondeo, si¬ cut non omnium est donum continentiae, ita nec omnes debent esse sacerdotes, sed solum ii, qui videntur hoc donum habere. Sed Dices. Quid si aliquis putet se posse continere et postea experiatur se non posse, quando ordines accepit? Respondeo, illos habere donum eontinen- (!) Matth. XIX, 11; CAPUT XXI. 467 tise, qui volunt et cupiunt continere : quibus autem Deus dedit velle, dabit etiam perfice¬ re si ipsi velint. Proinde nemo potest dicere se non habere donum, quod se habere pu¬ tabat ; nam illa voluntas continendi propter Deum est ipsum donum continentiae. Ad haec, nonne etiam conjugati saepe coguntur, vel propter absentiam, vel propter aegritu¬ dinem longissimam conjugis, abstinere se ab uxore? et tamen non licet eis aliam uxo¬ rem ducere, quantumvis urantur aestu libi¬ dinis. Quod exemplum affert B. Augustinus lib. II de adulterinis conjugiis, c. 19 et 20. contra eos, qui contra jus uxorem ducunt eo praetextu, quod continere non possint. Adde, quod nemo est, qui continere non possit si velit, ut docent Patres, Tertullianus in fine lib. de Monogami a, Nazianz#nus orat. 31. Basilius de Virgin, ultra medium, Chry- sostomus et Hieronymus in cap. XIX Matth. et Augustinus lib. VI confess. cap. 11. Sed oportet remedia necessaria non negligere, quae tria sunt : oratio, jejunium, et pericu¬ lorum evitatio. Nam tentatio carnis vel ori¬ tur ex suggestione daemonis, ut patet ex An¬ tonio, Hilarione, Benedicto, et similibus, qui in eremo et perpetuis jejuniis viventes, ta¬ men tentabantur, et tunc necessaria est ora- , tio, quia daemon fortior nobis est, nec pos¬ sumus eum vincere nisi auxilio fortioris, qui est Deus : propter hoc dicitur Sap. VIII : Nemo potest esse continens nisi Deus det (1). Vel oritur ex abundantia cibi et potus; nam cum natura accepit quod sufficit ad nutri- tionem reliquum convertitur in materiam generationis, inde nascitur pruritus carnis ; et contra hoc necessarium est jejunium, ut carnis terat superbiam, potus cibique parci- ftis. Vel denique oritur ex aspectu et collo¬ quio feminarum ; nam res visae vel auditae, si naturae conveniant imaginationem natu¬ raliter movent, et imaginatio appetitum. Hinc tot leges Conciliorum prohibentium Clericis feminarum contubernium; de quo etiam vide Basilium c. 3. Monast. const. Qum igitur Lutherani haec tria abjecerint, videlicet, orationem Canonicarum horarum, jejunia omnia, et etiam feria 6. carnibus Vescantur, ac demum quisque domi suae mu¬ lierem habere velit, quid mirum si continere non possint? Certe Lutherus ipse in singulis prandiis et ccenis, largissime epulabatur, et unum sextarium vini dulcis hauriebat, ut est in epistola quadam ad finem operis Joannis Cochlaei de Vita Lutheri. Argumentum Quintum et ultimum. Coeli¬ batus iste Clericorum prodigiosas libidines parit, mundum concubinis, et Ecclesiam scandulis replet. Respondeo, falsum esse, quod coelibatus ista pariat, sed abusus est coelibatus, qui ista parit. Apostolus enim I. Cor. VII fructus coelibatus esse dicit, cogitare quae Dei sunt, sanctum esse corpore et spiritu, sine inter¬ missione Domino assidere : Non igitur usus, sed abusus coelibatus prodigiosas libidines parit. Si autem propter abusus res bonse tol¬ lendae essent, coelum et terra etiam tollenda essent, quia eis quidam abutuntur, putantes esse Deos; necnon Decalogus tollendus es¬ set, et omnia Sacramenta, quia etiam eis multi abutuntur. Ita respondet Gregorius Nazianzenus orat, in Basilium nqp. procul a principio, illis qui execrantur Philosophiam naturalem, et scripta gentilium, propterea. quod quidam eis abutuntur. Nec tamen ad¬ mittimus tot esse concubinarios et impuros inter Ecclesiasticos , quot haeretici dicunt, qui omnes alios ex se metientes, nullos pu¬ tant esse castos. Certe plurimi sunt qui quo* tidie celebrant, et de quibus nulla mala sus¬ picio auditur. Praeter haec argumenta respondendum vi¬ detur etiam querimoniae Philippi : « Olim, inquit , Canones suspendebant sacerdotes, qui uxores duxissent , ab officio, vos autem suspenditis ab arboribus. » Respondeo in primis , hinc sequi Luthe- rum, et alios qui post sacerdotium uxores duxerunt, suspensos fuisse ab officio ex sen¬ tentia veterum Canonum , et ideo cum offi¬ cio fungi voluerint , et tamen conjuges reti¬ nere, rebelles et contumaces fuisse adversus Ecclesiam , ac proinde merito ab arboribus suspendi potuisse. Dico praeterea , Canones veteris Ecclesiae, alios mitiores , alios seve¬ riores fuisse ; Nam Concilium Neocaesariense canon. 1. jubet Presbyterum ordine moveri, si uxorem ducat; at Concilium Toletanum II, canon. 1. jubet sacerdotem, qui uxorem duxit, ut sacrilegii reum ab Ecclesia haberi extraneum, et Toletanum VIII. canon. 6. ju¬ bet ejusmodi homines recludi in monasteriis ut ibidem sub gravibus poenitentiae oneribus usque ad finem vitee degant. Adde ultimo, Presbyteros numquam in Ecclesia tam seve- (1) Sap. VIII, 21. 408 LIBER I. re puniri; qui uxores ducunt, ut Philippus dicit : sed quia post votum solemne ducunt, et proinde non uxores , sed concubinas sub conjugii nomine ducunt, et matrimonium si¬ mul ac sacerdotium polluunt; cui intempe¬ rantiae cum etiam haeresim addunt, ac di¬ cunt : vota non esse servanda , quid mirum si digni sunt , qui ab arboribus suspendan¬ tur. Addamus Hieronymi testimonium lib. I. adversus Jovinianum : « Certe confiteris, inquit, non posse esse Episcopum qui in Episcopatu filios faciat , alio quin si depre¬ hensus fuerit, non quasi vir tenebitur , sed quasi adulter damnabitur. » Haec ille. Por¬ ro adulterii poenam Hieronymi tempore , et quidem ordinariam , fuisse ultimum sup¬ plicium, patet ex epistola 49. ejusdem Hieronymi, de muliere septies icta; et ex lib. I. contra Jovinianum , ubi sic ait : « QuotidiS moechorum sanguis effunditur, et inter ipsas leges , secures , ac tribunalia, flagrans libido dominatur. » Quare Hierony¬ mi sententia , Episcopi liberis operam dan¬ tes, non solum suspendi possunt ab officio, sed etiam, ut adulteri, capite caedi. Sed jam ad Magdeburgenses veniamus.