Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 22: The Arguments of the Magdeburgians 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 Magdeburgians (Century 9, chapter 10, columns 540, 541, and 542) collect ten arguments against the celibacy of clerics out of one letter of Saint Udalric, bishop of Augsburg, to Pope Nicholas, which was lately printed at Basel and inserted in that work entitled Orthodoxology of the Holy Fathers. But of those arguments nine are the same as those which we have already solved, set forth by Calvin and Melanchthon; only one remains to be solved, which is taken from a certain wretched narration. For this Saint Udalric writes this history: “Blessed Gregory the Great, Pope, once by a certain decree of his took away wives from priests. Then a little after, when the same Gregory had ordered some fish to be caught from his fishpond, the fishermen, instead of fish, found six thousand heads of suffocated infants; which slaughter of infants, when Saint Gregory understood it to have been born of the hidden fornications or adulteries of the priests, he at once revoked the decree, and purged his sin with worthy fruits of penance.” This narration, because it renders the law of clerical celibacy vehemently odious, the same Magdeburgians often inculcate elsewhere, as in Century 6 (chapter 7, column 388, and chapter 10, column 686).
I answer, first, if the authority of this Saint Udalric avails anything, it presses the Lutherans more than us. For in this letter he confesses that the Roman Pontiff is the head of all, and that obedience is owed to him by all. Likewise he asserts that the Pontiff ought to compel priests and monks not to take a wife in any way, and that if they take one after the vow of continence, they ought to be separated.
I say, secondly, that this letter seems to be forged — and forged by some unskilled defender of the marriage of ecclesiastics. For, first, the times in no way cohere. For Saint Udalric was made bishop in the year of the Lord 924 (as Hermann Contractus and the Abbot of Ursperg teach), or in the year 903 (as it is said to be written in the Chronicle of the Church of Augsburg); but Pope Nicholas I died in the year 867 (as Onuphrius noted in the book On the Roman Pontiffs). Therefore Bishop Udalric could not write to Pope Nicholas, who had died long before. They will say: he wrote perhaps before he became bishop. But at the beginning of the letter he calls himself bishop; besides, the authors agree that Saint Udalric lived 83 years, 50 in the episcopate and 33 before the episcopate; from which it follows that he was born in the year of the Lord 870, or 891 according to others. Therefore between the death of Nicholas and the birth of Udalric there are at least three years; for according to others there are 24. Unless, then, he wrote before he was born, or to Nicholas after his death, it cannot be a letter of Saint Udalric to Nicholas.
They will say: it is not Nicholas I but Nicholas II to whom Saint Udalric writes. But this could still less be; for Saint Udalric died almost about a hundred years before the beginning of the pontificate of Nicholas II, for Saint Udalric died in the year 953 or 974, and Nicholas II was made Pope in the year 1059. They will say perhaps that there are two Udalrics, bishops of Augsburg. For the Magdeburgians put one (Century 9, chapter 10, column 540), another (Century 10, chapter 10, column 602). But that former one the Centuriators themselves feigned; for they prove that he ever existed from nothing else than the letter to Nicholas. For Munster (Book III On Germany), reviewing the catalogue of the bishops of Augsburg, puts no Hulderic or Udalric before Saint Udalric, who lived after the times of Nicholas, as we showed above. Wherefore the Magdeburgians of that former Hulderic, feigned by themselves, indicate neither his country nor his parents, nor cite any author who testifies of his episcopate, as they are wont to do in other cases.
Besides, what this author says — that Saint Gregory took away wives from priests — is false, and still more false that he rescinded such a decree. And that in Gregory’s fishpond six thousand heads were found is most false. For no vestige of these things exists in all the works of Blessed Gregory. Nay, he himself (Book I, letter 42) mentions the decree of his predecessor, who had ordered the Sicilian subdeacons to be separated from their wives and to live celibate, as the other subdeacons in the whole Church lived; and in the same place he tempers the rigor of the decree. For he bids the wives be permitted to the subdeacons who had married them before ordination, but that no others henceforth be ordained unless they first vow continence. And so he established nothing new, but only mitigated the rigor of his predecessor’s sentence. Besides, if from Gregory’s decree that slaughter of six thousand infants was born, certainly it was born in Sicily, to which alone Gregory’s decree pertains. But how is it likely that very few subdeacons of Sicily begot six thousand infants in a very short time? And how did those six thousand heads leap from Sicily into the Roman fishpond of Gregory? And how was it understood that those were the heads of the sons of clerics, not of laymen? Finally, why did John the Deacon, Bede, Sigebert, Ado, Freculphus, and so many others write nothing of a history so wonderful? And so Staphylus not without cause suspects this letter to be forged under the name of Saint Udalric, in answer to the feigned dissensions which Illyricus falsely charges to be among Catholics; who also adds that at Augsburg, among the works of Saint Udalric, not a syllable of this matter exists.
Of this whole disputation, see Michael Medina (in the five books On the Continence of Sacred Men), Claude d’Espence (in books of the same argument), Josse Clichtove (in the book On the Celibacy of Priests), Hosius (in a Dialogue on this matter), Ayala (On Traditions, part 3), Diego de Payva (in the last book), John Cochlaeus (On Vows, against Calvin), Alfonso de Castro (Book XIII On Heresies, under the word “Priesthood,” heresy 4), Albert Pighius (controversy 15). See also the solutions of other arguments, which could have been referred here too, below in Book II On Monks, chapter 29 and following.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput xxn. Solvuntur argumenta Magdeburgensium. Magdeburgenses Cent. IX , cap. 10 , coi. 540, 541 et 542, colligunt decem argumenta contra coelibatum Clericorum ex una epistola S. Udalrici Episcopi Augustani ad Nicolaum Papam , quae nuper excusa est Basileae, et inserta in illo opere, quod inscribitur, Ortho- doxologia sanctorum Patrum. Sed ex iis ar¬ gumentis novem sunt eadem cum illis, quae jam solvimus , a Calvino et Melanchthone proposita, unum solum solvendum superest, quod sumitur ex quadam miserabili narra¬ tione. Scribit enim iste sanctus Udalricus hanc historiam : «Beatus Gregorius Magnus Papa I, aliquando suo quodam decreto uxo¬ res sacerdotibus ademit. Deinde paulo post cum idem Gregorius jussisset ex piscina sua pisces aliquot capi', piscatores pro piscibus sex millia capitum infantium suffocatorum repererunt; quam cscdem infantium cum in- telligeret S . Gregorius ex occultis fornica¬ tionibus vel adulteriis sacerdotum natam es¬ se, continuo revocavit decretum, et peccatum suum dignis poenitentiae fructibus purgavit.» Hanc narrationem, quia vehementer odiosam reddit legem de coelibatu Clericorum , saepe alibi inculcant ii dem Magdeburgenses , ut Centuria VI, cap. 7, colum. 388. et cap. 10, colum. 686. Respondeo Primo , si quid valet hujus sancti Udalrici auctoritas , ea magis premi Lutheranos, quam nos. Nam in hac epistola fatetur, Romanum Pontificem esse caput om¬ nium, et ei ab omnibus deberi obedientiam. Item asserit, Pontificem debere cogere Pres¬ byteros et Monachos, ne ullo modo uxorem ducant, et si duxerint post votum continen¬ tiae, debtre separari. Dico Secundo, eam epistolam videri con¬ fictam; et confictam ab aliquo imperio de¬ fensore conjugii Ecclesiasticorum. Nam in primis tempora nullo modo cohmrent : nam S. Uldaricus creatus est Episcopus anno Do¬ mini 924, ut Hermannus Contractus et Abbas Urspergensis docent, vel anno 903, ut dici¬ tur scriptum esse in Chronico Augustana) Ecclesiae ; Nicolaus autem Papa I obiit anno 867, ut Onuphrius annotavit in libro de Ro¬ manis Pontificibus : Non ergo potuit scribe¬ re EpiscopusUdalricus ad Papam Nicolaum, qui jamdudum obierat. Dicent , scripsit fortasse antequam fieret Episcopus. At in principio epistolae se Epis¬ copum vocat ; praeterea conveniunt auctores, S. Uldaricum 83 annos vixisse , 50 in Epis¬ copatu, et 33 ante Episcopatum ; ex quo se¬ quitur eum natum esse anno Domini 870 vel 891. juxta alios , ergo inter obitum Nicolai, et ortumUldarici sunt anni ut minimum tres; nam secundum alios sunt 24. Nisi ergo scri¬ pserit ipse antequam nasceretur, vel ad Ni¬ colaum post ejus mortem , non potest esse epistola S. Udalrici ad Nicolaum. Dicent : non esse Nicolaum I sed II , ad quem scribit S, Udalricus. At id minus fieri potuit; nam obiit S. Udalricus fere circiter centum annis ante initium Pontificatus Nico¬ lai II , obiit enim S. Udalricus anno 953 vel 974 , et Nicolaus II creatus est Papa anno 1059. Dicent fortasse, duos esse Udalricos Epis¬ copos Augustanos. Unum enim ponunt Mag¬ deburgenses Centuria IX, cap. 10, coi. 540. alterum Centur. X, cap. 10, coi. 602. Sed priorem illum confinxerunt ipsi Centuiiato- CAPUT XXIII. 469 * res; non enim aliunde probant illum aliquan¬ do extitisse quam ex epistola ad Nicolaum. Munsterus enim lib. 'III de Germania Cata¬ logum recensens Episcoporum Augustano¬ rum, nullum Huldericum vel Udalricum po¬ nit ante S. Udalricum, qui vixit post tempo¬ ra Nicolai , ut supra ostendimus. Quocirca Magdeburgenses illius prioris Hulderici, a se conficti, neque patriam, neque parentes in¬ dicant, neque auctorem ullum citant, qui de ejus Episcopatu testetur, ut in aliis face¬ re solent. Praeterea, quod iste auctor dicit S. Gre- gorium ademisse uxores sacerdotibus , fal¬ sum est, et magis adhuc falsum quod resci¬ derit hujusmodi decretum. Quod vero in pis¬ cina Gregorii sex millia capitum sint inventa, falsissimum. Nec enim ullum exstat vesti¬ gium harum rerum in omnibus B. Gregorii operibus. Imo ipse lib. I , epist. 42. memi¬ nit decreti sui praedecessoris , qui jusserat, Subdiaconos Siculos separari ab uxoribus, et vivere coelibes , ut reliqui Subdiaconi in tota Ecclesia vivebant , et ibidem temperat rigorem decreti. Jubet enim permitti uxores Subdiaconis, qui eas duxerant ante ordina¬ tionem , sed non ordinari rursum alios nisi prius voverent continentiam. Itaque nihil ip¬ se novi statuit, sed solum mitigavit rigorem sententiae sui praedecessoris. Praeterea , si ex decreto Gregorii nata est illa caedes sex millium infantium , certe in Sicilia nata est, ad quam solum pertinet Gre¬ gorii decretum. Quomodo autem verisimile est paucissimos Subdiaconos Siciliae brevis¬ simo tempore sex millia infantium genuisse ? Et quomodo illa sex millia capitum ex Sici¬ lia in Romanam piscinam Gregorii saltave¬ runt? Quomodo autem intellectum est illa esse capita filiorum Clericorum, non Laico- rum? Denique cur de historia tam admiran¬ da nihil scripsit Joan. Diaconus, Beda, Sige- bertus, Ado, Freculphus, aliique tam multi? Itaque non immerito suspicatur Staphilus, hanc epistolam confictam sub nomine S. Udalrici, in responsione ad fictas dissensio¬ nes, quas inter Catholicos esse falso crimi¬ natur Illyricus, qui etiam addit Augustae in¬ ter opera S. Udalrici , nullam syllabam de hac re exstare. De tota hac disputatione, vide Michaelem Medinam in libris quinque de continentia ho¬ minum sacrorum, Claudium Espencseum in (1) I. Tim. III, 2 et 12; Tit. I, 6. libris ejusdem argumenti, Jodocum Clichto- vseum in libro decoelibatu Sacerdotum, Ho- sium in Dialogo de hac re, Ajalam de tradi¬ tionibus parte tertia , Didacum Payvam li¬ bro ultimo , Joannem Cochlaeum de votis contra Calvinum , Alphonsum a Gastro libr. XIII de hseresibus, verbo Sacerdotium, hse- resi 4. Albertum Pighium controversia 15. Yide etiam solutiones aliorum argumento¬ rum, quse huc etiam referri potuissent , in¬ fra lib. II de Monachis, cap. 29 et sequenti¬ bus.