Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 0: Preface
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). 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).
We have discoursed in the preceding book of bishops and clerics, that is, of the first and noblest part of the ecclesiastical body. It follows that we discourse of the other part of the Church, that is, of those men who, having followed the evangelical counsels of Christ, establish a manner of life stricter and more sublime than either the divine or the human law prescribes, or than the weakness of many mortals can bear. On which kind of men I will enter the disputation, if I first say a few things of the utility, or rather the necessity, of this very disputation.
For although the institutions of monastic life do not pertain to all Christians, yet the defense of so great and so excellent a part of our Catholic Church pertains in common to all those who desire the Christian commonwealth safe. For the heretics, while they attack this part, and, to vituperate the monastic life, daily feign portentous lies about monks, and on every offered occasion inveigh against monks, and drag them into the hatred of the common people, and call them the chief satellites of Antichrist — they certainly aim not only at scattering the orders of religious men and taking away the monastic life, but at disturbing and injuring the whole Church by this means, and (if it could be) overthrowing it from the foundations. For they understand that if they win their case against the monks — that is, if they persuade the Christian people that the orders of religious were not instituted by Christ, but devised by an evil demon — they will at once bring it about that the whole Church, which with one voice and consent has for so many ages now approved the monastic life, may seem, deluded by a vain error, to have worshiped Antichrist for Christ, and to have strayed as far as possible from the path of right faith and true doctrine.
Nor indeed is this war of the heretics against the monks new, nor a recent artifice of the evil demon, to attack the whole Church through the assault on monastic life. For as all the pious writers there ever were tried, both in sermons and in written books, to raise this kind of life to heaven with praises, so scarcely any heretics ever existed who could patiently hear even the name of monks: “When you,” says Blessed Augustine (on Psalm 132), “begin rightly to insult the heretics about the Circumcellions, that they may be healed by blushing, they insult you about the monks. First, if they are to be compared, see what need there is that by our words the drunken be compared with the sober, the headlong with the considerate, the raging with the simple, the wandering with the gathered. But yet they are wont to say, what does the name of monks mean? How much better do we say, what does the name of Circumcellions mean?” And again, of Petilian, a prince of the heretics, the same Augustine (Book III against Petilian, chapter 40): “Then he went on with a reviling mouth to the vituperation of monasteries and monks, accusing even me, that this kind of life had been instituted by me.”
Now the Arians raged with such fury against the monks that they penetrated even the most deserted solitudes and the most hidden and secret places to seek out monks, seize them, and kill them. For thus Rufinus writes of Lucius the Arian bishop (Book XI of the history, chapter 3): “Thence he turned the arms of his fury against the monasteries, laid waste the desert, and declared war on those at rest. Three thousand at once, or more, men dispersed through the whole solitude in secret and solitary dwelling, he set out to attack together. He sent an armed band of horse and foot; he chose tribunes, prefects, and leaders of wars, as though he would fight against barbarians. And when they had come, they saw a new kind of war: their enemies offering their necks to the swords, and saying nothing else but: Friend, for what art thou come?” Of the Emperor Valens, likewise an Arian, Blessed Jerome notes in the Chronicle that he so hated the monks that, a law being passed, he decreed that all monks should either take up arms and become soldiers, or be beaten with cudgels and slain.
But it would be too long if I recounted all the things wickedly said or cruelly done against those holy monks by the ancient heretics, and especially by the Emperor Constantine Copronymus and the other ancient Iconoclasts. What, then — to descend to later times — did John Wycliffe think of the orders of religious? Namely, that all to a man were introduced into the Church by the devil, and that Augustine, Benedict, Bernard were condemned to hell unless they did penance for having been monks and fathers of monks. For thus his last articles, reproved in the Council of Constance, have it. What of Martin Luther? Does he not, in every third word in all his writings (which indeed stand very many), tear at the monastic life? But, to pass over other things which will afterward be brought forward in their place, certainly in that his epithalamium — more obscene and sordid than can be believed — which he wrote on the seventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, he affirms that all who lead a celibate life in monasteries burn their bodies to the idol Moloch. And in the same book he says that the religious state is worth nothing, but is heathen, earthly, secular, and as it were mud, while on the contrary he proclaims that the married state is spiritual, heavenly, divine, and golden. John Calvin (Book IV of the Institutes, chapter 13) briefly defines the whole matter thus, that he would have monasteries to be brothels, monastic vows the nets of Satan, all monks cowled sophists who have made a division from the Church and consecrated themselves wholly to the devil. Philip Melanchthon (in the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, article on vows) calls the vows and works of monks now foolish observances, now hypocritical simulations, now even Pharisaic and Mohammedan traditions. The Magdeburg Centuriators (in Century 4, chapter 10), after they had briefly described the lives and deeds of many ancient hermits, close their discourse in these words: “But who would not execrate these monsters of men, as enemies of human society, and offending against the whole second table?” — to omit meanwhile that they spend no small part of those huge volumes in the vituperation of monks, whom they everywhere accuse of hypocrisy, everywhere of superstition, everywhere of impiety.
But what, I beseech, drove the Lutherans into so open and so implacable a war against the monks? What did the monks harm them? What did they take from them? What do they owe them? Ought they not rather, if they were wise, to give great thanks to the kingdom of the monks, as they call it? From which, namely, that German Apostle, that third Elijah, and so many other illustrious prophets and evangelists came forth, as from a Trojan horse. For whence have they Luther, Pomeranus, Bucer, Pellican, Munster, Menius, Musculus, Myconius, Oecolampadius, [Peter] Martyr, Ochino? Is it not from the monasteries? Although, if we will confess the truth, the monasteries did not beget us so many heretics, but rather the very plague of heresy made deserters of the monasteries.
But why do we wonder if the sons of darkness cannot behold the light of religion with even eyes; if deserters of the warfare hate the camp of the Saints; if fugitives and traitors shudder at their fellow-soldiers standing in the battle-line; if, finally, the disciples and sons of the prince of darkness — the first deserter and turncoat of the heavenly warfare — imitate his works? For (as the great Anthony says in Athanasius) “the devil indeed hates all Christians, but upright monks and the virgins of Christ he can in no way endure.” Hence those words of Abbot Serenus in Cassian (Conference 7, chapter 23): “In the very monasteries in which eight or ten dwelt, the atrocity of the demons so raged, and frequent and sensible assaults were felt, that they did not dare all to sleep at night together, but, while some tasted sleep by turns, others keeping vigil clung to psalms and prayers or readings; and when the necessity of nature invited these to sleep, they were roused for the guard of those who were to sleep, and likewise the watches were handed over.”
You have what the heretics, both ancient and recent, and what their very father the devil, think of the monks. Now what the Fathers think of them — what Christ too and God — I see is deservedly required and awaited of me. But since very many testimonies of this kind will often necessarily have to be brought forward by us in the disputation itself, now, content with only two testimonies of the two most illustrious lights of either Church, I will dispatch the whole matter as briefly as can be. Let there come forth, then, first, the eminent glory of all Greece, Saint John Chrysostom. For he both contended most sharply for the defense of monastic life in three whole books, and everywhere praises solitudes and monasteries so splendidly and magnificently that he does not hesitate to set them before kingdoms and empires, and even before Paradise and Heaven itself. Finally (homily 8 on Matthew): “If anyone now come to the solitudes of Egypt, he will see that whole desert altogether more worthy than Paradise, and innumerable companies of angels shining in mortal bodies. For it is to be seen, spread through all that region, the army of Christ, and that admirable royal flock, and the conversation of the heavenly virtues glittering on earth. And these things you may behold shining not in men only, but also in women. Not with so many varied choirs of stars does heaven shine, as Egypt is distinguished and illuminated with innumerable dwellings of monks and virgins.” How great is this praise? And from how great a man, with how great majesty of words, is it come forth? But now let us hear Blessed Augustine, the most illustrious light of all the West.
He, then, in the first book On the Morals of the Church, chapter 31, setting the life of monks — both of hermits and of cenobites — against the Manichaeans who boasted of perfection: “I will say nothing,” he says, “of those who, most secret, altogether away from all sight of men, content with bread alone (which is brought them at fixed intervals of time) and water, inhabit the most deserted lands, enjoying the converse of God, to whom they have clung with pure minds, and most blessed in the contemplation of that beauty which cannot be perceived except by the understanding of the Saints. Of these, I say, I will say nothing; for they seem to some to have deserted human affairs more than they ought, those not understanding how much their spirit profits us in their prayers, and their life as an example, whose bodies we are not permitted to see. But here to dispute I think long and superfluous. For this so excellent height of sanctity, to whom does it not of its own accord seem to be admired and honored — how can it seem so by our discourse? But if this exceed our endurance, who would not admire and proclaim those who, the allurements of this world being contemned and deserted, gathered into a common life most chaste and most holy, pass their age together, living in prayers, in readings, in disputations? Swollen with no pride, turbulent with no obstinacy, livid with no envy; but modest, bashful, peaceable, they offer a most concordant and most intense life toward God, a most acceptable gift to Him from whom they merited to be able to do these things. No one possesses anything of his own; no one is burdensome to anyone. And the fathers, not only most holy in morals but also most excellent in divine doctrine, consult with no pride for those whom they call sons, with great authority of theirs in commanding, and great will of theirs in obeying.” And at last, after many other things, making an end, he says: “These pious morals, this life, this order, this institution, if I should wish to praise, I am neither worthily able, and I fear lest I seem to judge that, set forth by itself alone, it cannot please, if above the simplicity of a narrator I think the buskin of a praiser must also be added.” How unlike are these words of the Catholic Fathers to those which we recited a little before from Luther and Calvin? Namely, here faith, there perfidy; here wisdom, there folly; here gravity, there fury; here God, there the devil spoke.
Nor indeed did God bear testimony to the sanctity and excellence of the orders of religious only through the words and writings of the Catholic Fathers, but Himself by Himself. For what God thinks of this kind of life, those divine and most ample promises testify first of all, which stand partly in the Prophets, partly in the Gospels, by which (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18, Isaiah 56) the Lord promises to the cultivators of this discipline a hundredfold in this world, an honorary seat in the judgment, and a place and name in the kingdom of heaven greater and nobler than that of sons and daughters. This same the divine signs and prodigies testify. For certainly, after apostolic times, by the splendor of the greatest signs, in the judgment of the whole world, the great Anthony, both the Macarii, Hilarion, Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Dominic were always held most illustrious. But these all without controversy were, by profession, monks.
Of how great and how abandoned an audacity is it, then, to contemn, disapprove, reject, spit upon, and tear at institutions most holy, confirmed by God Himself crying and approving them from heaven with signs and prodigies, yet still with obstinate minds? — to omit meanwhile that these very institutions Elijah and John long before foreshadowed, Christ counseled, the Apostles cultivated, almost all the Saints loved. For, except the holy martyrs, scarcely any at all are read to have been enrolled in the number of the Saints who did not come forth from the monasteries. So that to me now the approval of monastic life seems to hold the chief place, and to be most clearly eminent, among those marks and symbols by which we distinguish and recognize the Catholic Church from the conventicles of all the heretics. Which that holy bishop of the Alexandrian Church, Peter, well understood, when (Theodoret being author, Book IV of the history, chapter 20) he demonstrated chiefly from this that a certain Lucius was no bishop, no Catholic, but a heretic, an enemy, a wolf, and an invader — because no monks, singing the sacred hymns according to the custom of the Church, led him to the pontifical throne. For that great Pontiff held that the orders of monks are so a part of the true Church that he could not be held bishop of the Church who would not have monks with him.
Since these things are so, it can certainly easily be understood that the cause of the monks is so joined with the cause of the Church that no one was ever an enemy of the Church who did not at the same time declare war on all monks. Wherefore our mother the Catholic Church seems to me to ask of us that we not suffer ourselves to be conquered by the enemies in diligence and zeal, but that, as much as they labor day and night in reading and writing to bring some detriment to the Church, or to its parts and members, so much of effort and labor we lay out in preserving all the parts of the Church whole and roofed — especially since with God a most illustrious crown of justice and faith awaits us, but the mere punishment of perfidy and crimes awaits them in hell. Now let us approach nearer to the matter itself.
This whole disputation on monks is contained in seven chief heads or questions. By which questions there will be explained, by one and the same effort, the names, origin, nature, parts, properties, and actions of the religious life; and at the same time answer will be made to all those things which our adversaries reprehend in monks and their orders.
The first question, then, will be on the origin, reasoning, and variety of the religious orders. For the adversaries do not fear to assert that the orders of religious are a thing recently brought into the Church, and that it is the same to say, “I am of the order of Blessed Augustine, I of Benedict, I of Dominic, I of Francis,” as to say, “I indeed am of Paul, but I of Apollo, and I of Cephas” — which the Apostle most gravely reprehends in the Corinthians, so that they do not even fear on that account to mark those men with sedition, schism, and heresy.
The second question will be on the evangelical counsels, which are as it were the bases and foundations of the whole monastic edifice. For the heretics shudder at the word of counsels and works of supererogation, as at a huge blasphemy. Which they necessarily do; for since they think the divine precepts cannot be fulfilled by anyone, however most just, they cannot but vehemently marvel when they hear us say that true religious fulfill not only the precepts but also the counsels, and do more than God commanded.
The third question will be on monastic vows. For since the adversaries think that nothing pleases God except what He Himself commanded to be done, they reprehend all vows which are undertaken about things not commanded by God as superstitious and vain. Nay, they will have it openly that the vow of continence is a sacrifice to the idol Moloch, the vow of poverty mere folly, the vow of obedience the highest rashness.
The fourth question will be on the vows which sons sometimes undertake against the will of their parents, and spouses against the will of the other spouse. For since God commanded that parents be honored, and that those whom God has joined be not separated, they gravely accuse us because we suffer sons to become monks against the will of their parents, and dissolve marriages — though not yet consummated, yet ratified and firm — on account of monastic profession.
The fifth, on the solitude and the highest severity of life of the hermits. For the adversaries call hermits bears and misanthropes on account of their solitude; and on account of that severity by which very many of them never put off the hairshirt, fed on roots alone, lying on the ground took a very brief sleep, some even fasted whole weeks, others loaded themselves with iron chains, some perpetually stood on high columns — all these they execrate as the murderers of their own selves, and transgressors of that apostolic precept, “Give honor to the body” — which precept none keep more religiously and holily than they.
The sixth, on the habit and tonsure. For they believe a wonderful superstition to be placed in this: that monks always wear the same kind of garment, of the same form, the same color, the same size, and that those who are of the same order are always tonsured in the same way.
The seventh, on the work of monks. For the adversaries hold that it is of the nature and reasoning of true monastic profession that all monks seek their living by the labor of the hands, and therefore they charge all who do not do this, as corrupters of their own profession, and false and degenerate monks; and they teach that it is both evil and unlawful either to come of one’s own accord to want, or to collect one’s living by begging.
On this subject there have written: Saint John Chrysostom, in three books against the vituperators of monastic life; John Cassian, in the books On the Institutions of the Cenobia; Albert the Great, in the Defensory of the Mendicants; Blessed Thomas, in Opusculum 19, which is against the assailants of the religious state; Blessed Bonaventure, in the Apology of the Poor and the book On the Poverty of Christ; Thomas Waldensis, Books III and IV On the Doctrine of the Faith and On the Sacramentals (title 9); Albert Pighius (controversy 14); Alfonso de Virves (Philippic 20); Alfonso de Castro, in the books against heresies (under the words “Mendicity,” “Monk,” and “Vow”); John Bunderius, in his Compendium of Debates (title 34); Conrad Koellin, in the Overthrow of the Lutheran Epithalamium; John of Deventer, in the refutation of the Augsburg Confession; John Eck, in the Enchiridion and in the devout conclusions; Francisco Orantes (Book V On Catholic Places); Gaspar Schatzger (Book I, last chapter, and Book II, chapter 1, of his Controversies); John Hoffmeister, against article 27 of the Augsburg Confession; Jacob Latomus, in the book On the Institutions and Vows of Monks; John Cochlaeus, in the book On Vows and in the discussion of article 27 of the Augsburg Confession; Josse Clichtove, Book III of the Antiluther; Alan Cope, Dialogue 2; Matthew Galen, On the Origin of the Monastic Life; Richard of Le Mans, in the antidote to the censure of Erasmus on the rule of Saint Augustine; Francisco Torres, in two books On Monastic Vows; William Lindanus (Book IV, chapter 98, of the Panoply).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
PBJSFATIO Disseruimus Libro superiore de Episcopis, et Clericis, id est, de prima et nobi¬ lissima parte corporis Ecclesiastici. Sequitur, ut de altera parte Ecclesia?, hoc est, de iis hominibus disseramus, qui Evangelica Christi secuti consilia, vitae genus arctioris, ac sublimioris instituunt, quam aut lex divina, vel humana praescribat, aut etiam multorum mortalium infirmitas patiatur. De quo hominum genere dispu¬ tationem ingrediar, si pauca prius de hujus ipsius disputationis utilitate, vel potius necessitate, dixero. Quamquam enim monastica vitae instituta, non ad omnes Christianos pertinent, defensio tamen tam magnae, et tam excellentis partis Catholicae nostrae Ecclesiae, ad eos omnes communiter pertinet, qui Christianam Rempublicam salvam cupiunt. Haeretici enim dum hanc partem petunt, ac ut monasticen vituperent, portentosa mendacia quotidie de Monachis fingunt, et quacumque oblata occasione in Monachos invehuntur, atque eos in odium vulgi rapiunt, et primarios Antichristi satellites vocant, non eo certe spectant, ut ordines solum hominum religiosorum disjiciant, monasticenque de medio tollant, sed ut Ecclesiam totam hac ratione perturbent, ac laedant, eamque (si fieri possit) a fundamentis evertant. Intelligunt enim, si contra Monachos causam obtinuerint, id est, si populo Christiano persuaserint, non a Christo institutos, sed a malo daemone excogitatos ordines religiosorum fuisse, se continuo id effecturos, ut universa Ecclesia, quae una voce et consensu tot jam saeculis mo¬ nasticen approbavit, vano errore delusa, pro Christo Antichristum coluisse, et a rectae fidei, veraeque doctrinae tramite quam longissime aberrasse videatur. Neque vero novum est hoc haereticorum adversus Monachos bellum, neque re¬ cens mali daemonis artificium, per monasticae vitae oppugnationem Ecclesiam uni¬ versam petere. Sicut enim quotquot fuerunt unquam pii scriptores, tum sermoni¬ bus, tum scriptis libris, hoc genus vitae laudibus in coelum tollere conati sunt, sic nulli fere unquam haeretici exstiterunt, qui vel nomen Monachorum patienter au- 500 PRiEFATIO dire potuerint : « Quando vos (inquit B. Augustinus in Psalm. CXXXII.) recte hae¬ reticis de Circumcellionibus insultare caeperitis, ut erubescendo sanentur : illi vobis insultant de Monachis. Primo, si comparandi sunt, vos videte, quid opus est, ut verbis nostris comparentur ebriosi cum sobriis, praecipites cum consideratis, furen¬ tes cum simplicibus, vagantes cum congregatis ? Sed tamen dicere consueverunt, quid sibi vult nomen Monachorum ? Quanto melius dicimus nos, quid sibi vult no¬ men Circumcellionum ? » Et rursus de Petiliano haereticorum principe, idem Au¬ gustinus lib. adversus Petilianum III, cap. 40 : « Deinceps, inquit, perrexit ore ma¬ ledico in vituperationem monasteriorum et Monachorum, arguens etiam me, quod hoc genus vitae a me fuerit institutum. » Jam vero Ariani tanto furore bacchabantur in Monachos, ut ipsas etiam desertis¬ simas solitudines, locaque maxime abdita et recondita penetrarent, ut Monachos quaererent, raperent, atque occiderent. Sic enim de Lucio Episcopo Ariano scribit Ruffinus lib. hist. XI. cap. 3 : « Inde, inquit, ad monasteria furoris sui arma con¬ vertit, vastat eremum, et bella quiescentibus indicit. Ter mille simul, aut eo am¬ plius, viros per totam solitudinem secreta, et solitaria habitatione dispersos, oppu¬ gnare pariter aggreditur. Mittit armatam equitum ac peditum manum. Tribunos, Praepositos, et bellorum Duces, tamquam adversus Barbaros pugnaturus, elegit. Qui cum venissent, novam belli speciem vident, hostes suos gladiis objectare cer¬ vices, et nihil aliud dicere, nisi : Amice, ad quid venisti ? » De Valente Imperatore pariter Ariano in Chronico B. Hieronymus annotavit, usque adeo illum odisse Mo¬ nachos, ut lege lata, Monachos omnes aut arma sumere, militesque fieri aut fusti¬ bus caedi, mactarique decreverit. Sed nimis longum esset, si omnia veterum haereticorum, ac praesertim Impera¬ toris Constantini Copronymi, et caeterorum veterum Iconomachorum in sanctps illos Monachos, aut improbe dicta, aut crudeliter facta commemorarem. Quid igitur, ut ad posteriora tempora descendamus, Joannes Wiclef de Religiosorum ordinibus sensit? Nempe omnes ad unum a Diabolo in Ecclesiam introductos, et Augustinum, Benedictum, Bernardum ad inferos esse damnatos, nisi poenitentiam egerint, quod Monachi, et Patres Monachorum fuerint. Sic enim habent articuli ejus postremi in Concilio apud Constantiam reprobati. Quid Martinus Lutberus ? Nonne tertio quo¬ que verbo in omnibus scriptis suis, quae sane quamplurima exstant, monasticen la¬ cerat ? At, ut alia praetermittam, quae suo loco postea afferentur, certe in Epithala¬ mio illo suo, plusquam credi possit, obscceno et sordido, quod in caput septimum epistolae prioris ad Corinthios scripsit, qui coelibem vitam in monasteriis ducunt, eos omnes idolo Moloch corpora sua cremare confirmat. Et in eodem libro, statum religionis nihil valere, sed Ethnicum, terrenum, saecularem, ac veluti lutum esse dicit, cum e contrario statum conjugii spiritualem, coelestem, divinum, atque au¬ reum esse praedicet. Joannes Calvinus libro Institutionum IV, cap. 13, rem totam breviter ita definit, ut esse velit monasteria lupanaria ; vota monastica retia Satanae ; Monachos omnes sophistas cucullatos, qui ab Ecclesia dissensionem fecerint, et se totos Diabolo consecraverint. Philippus Melanchthon in Apologia pro Confessione Augustana , articulo de votis , vota atque opera Monachorum nunc observa¬ tiones fatuas, nunc hypocriticas simulationes, nunc etiam traditiones Pharisaicas atque Mahumeticas vocat. Magdeburgenses Centuriatores in 10. cap. IV. Cent. PRAEFATIO 501 posteaquam multorum veterum Eremitarum vitas et res gestas breviter descripse¬ runt, in haec verba sermonem claudunt : cc Sed quis, inquiunt, non haec hominum monstra execretur, ut inimicos humanae societatis, et contra totam secundam tabu¬ lam delinquentes ? » Ut illud interim omittam, quod partem non modicam ingen¬ tium illorum voluminum in Monachorum vituperatione consumunt, quos ubique hypocrisis, ubique superstitionis, ubique impietatis accusant. Sed quid, obsecro, Lutheranos in tam apertum, tamque implacabile bellum con¬ tra Monachos impulit? Quid eis Monachi nocuerunt? quid rapuerunt? quid illis debent ? Nonne, si saperent, ingentes gratias potius regno Monachorum, ut ipsi vocant, agere deberent? Ex quo nimirum Apostolus ille Germanicus, tertius Elias, totque alii illustres Prophetae, atque Evangelistae, tanquam ex equo Trojano prodierunt. Unde enim habent Lutherum, Pomeranum, Bucerum, Pellicanum, Munsterum, Menium, Musculum, Miconium, (Ecolampadium, Martyrem, Ochinum? Nonne ex monasteriis ? Quamquam si verum fateri volumus, non monasteria tot nobis haereticos pepererunt, sed ipsa potius pestis haereseos monasteriorum deser¬ tores fecit. Sed quid miramur, si filii tenebrarum lucem religionis aequis oculis intueri non queunt : si desertores militiae, castra Sanctorum oderunt : si fugitivi ac perfidi, stantes in acie commilitiones suos exhorrent ; si denique principis tenebrarum, primique coelestis militiae desertoris ac transfugae, discipuli ejus ac filii, opera imi¬ tantur ? cc Nam (ut apud Athanasium magnus ait Antonius) omnes quidem Christia¬ nos Diabolus odit, sed probos Monachos, Christique virgines tolerare nullo modo potest. » Hinc illae voces Abbatis Sereni apud Cassianum Collat. VII, cap. 23. cc In ipsis, inquit, coenobiis, in quibus commorabantur octo, vel d*ecem, ita Daemonum atrocitas grassabatur, et frequentes, ac sensibiles sentiebantur aggressus, ut non auderent omnes pariter noctibus obdormire, sed vicissim aliis degustantibus som¬ num, alii vigilias celebrantes, Psalmis et orationibus, seu lectionibus inhaerebant, cumque illos ad soporem naturae necessitas invitaret, expergefactis ad eorum, qui dormituri erant, custodiam, similiter excubiae tradebantur. » Habetis, quid haeretici tam veteres, quam recentes, et quid ipse etiam pater eo¬ rum Diabolus de Monachis censeat. Nunc de iisdem quid censeant Patres, quid etiam Christus et Deus, merito a me requiri, atque exspectari video. Sed quoniam plurima hujus generis testimonia in ipsa Disputatione saepius nobis erunt necessario afferenda, nunc duobus tantum duorum clarissimorum utriusque Ecclesiae luminum testimoniis contentus, rem totam, quam brevissime fieri poterit, expediam. Prodeat igitur in primis totius Graeciae eximium decus S. Joannes Chrysostomus. Is enim et pro vitae monasticae defensione tribus integris libris acerrime decertavit, et ubique solitudines, ac Monasteria ita splendide, magnificeque laudat, ut illa Regnis atque Imperiis, et ipsi etiam Paradiso, ac Ccelo non dubitet anteponere. Denique homil. 8. in Matthaeum : cc Si quis, inquit, nunc ad yEgypti veniat solitudines, paradiso pror¬ sus omnem illum eremum videbit digniorem, et innumerabiles Angelorum coetus in corporibus fulgere mortalibus. Est enim cernere tota illa regione diffusum exerci¬ tum Christi, et admirabilem illum regium gregem, virtutumque coelestium conver¬ sationem in terris micantem. Atque haec non in viris solum, verum etiam in fceminis splendere conspicias. Non ita variis astrorum choris coelum refulget, ut iEgyptus / 502 PRiEFATIO innumeris Monachorum, ac virginum distinguitur, atque illustratur habitaculis. » Quanta est haec laus ? et a quanto viro, quanta verborum majestate profecta? Sed jam B, Augustinum totius Occidentis clarissimum lumen audiamus. Is igitur in libro de moribus Ecclesiae primo, cap. 31. Monachorum vitam, tum Eremitarum, tum Coenobitarum, Manichaeis perfectionem jactantibus objiciens : « Nihil, inquit, de iis dicam, qui secretissimi penitus ab omni hominum conspectu, pane solo, qui eis per certa intervalla temporum affertur, et aqua contenti, deser¬ tissimas terras incolunt, perfruentes colloquio Dei, cui puris mentibus inhaeserunt, et ejus pulchritudinis contemplatione beatissimi, quae nisi Sanctorum intellectu per¬ cipi non potest ; Nihil, inquam, de his loquar ; videntur enim nonnullis res humanas plusquam oporteret, deseruisse, non intelligentibus, quantum nobis eorum animus in orationibus prosit, et vita ad exemplum, quorum corpora videre non sinimur. Sed hic disputare longum et supervacaneum puto. Nam hoc tam excellens fastigium sanctitatis, cui non sua sponte mirandum, et honorandum videtur, oratione nostra videri qui potest? Sed si hoc excedat nostram tolerantiam, quis non illos miretur, et praedicet, qui contemptis atque desertis mundi hujus illecebris, in communem vitam castissimam sanctissimamque congregati, simul aetatem agunt, viventes in orationibus, in lectionibus, in disputationibus. Nulla superbia tumidi, nulla pervi¬ cacia turbulenti, nulla invidentia lividi : sed modesti, verecundi, pacati, concor¬ dissimam vitam et intensissimam in Deum, gratissimum ipsi munus offerunt, a quo ista posse meruerunt. Nemo quidquam possidet proprium, nemo cuiquam onerosus est. Patres vero non solum sanctissimi moribus, sed etiam divina doctrina excellen¬ tissimi, nulla superbia consulunt his, quos filios vocant, magna sua in jubendo auctoritate, magna eorum in obtemperando voluntate. » Ac demum post alia multa finem faciens, ait : « Pios mores, hanc vitam, hunc ordinem, hoc institutum si lau¬ dare velim, neque digne valeo, et vereor, ne judicare videar, per seipsum tantum¬ modo expositum placere non posse, si super narratoris simplicitatem cothurnum etiam laudatoris addendum putavero. » Quam dissimilia sunt haec verba Catholico¬ rum Patrum iis, quae ex Luthero et Calvino paulo ante recitavimus ? Nimirum, hic fides, ibi perfidia ; hic sapientia, ibi stultitia; hic gravitas, ibi furor ; hic Deus, ibi Diabolus loquebatur. Neque vero Deus per voces et scripta solum Catholicorum Patrum, sed etiam ipse per se sanctitati, atque praestantiae ordinum Religiosorum testimonium tulit. Quid enim de hoc vitae genere Deus censeat, testantur in primis divinae illae, am- plissimaeque promissiones, quae partim in Prophetis, partim in Evangeliis exstant, quibus (Matth. XIX. Mar. X. Luc. XVIII. Isaiae LVI.) centuplum in hoc saeculo, sedes honoraria in judicio, locus et nomen in regno coelorum majus, atque nobilius, quam filiorum et filiarum sit, hujus disciplinae cultoribus Dominus pollicetur. Testantur deinde hoc idem divina signa, atque prodigia. Certe enim post Aposto- lica tempora splendore maximorum signorum, judicio orbis terrae, semper claris¬ simi habiti sunt magnus Antonius, uterque Macarius, Hilarion, Benedictus, Ber- nardus, Franciscus, Dominicus. At ii omnes sine controversia professione Monachi fuerunt. Quantae igitur, et quam projectae est audaciae, sanctissima instituta, a Deo ipso, de coelo signis, atque prodigiis clamante, et approbante, confirmata, adhuc tamen PRiEFATIO 503 animis obfirmatis contemnere, improbare, rejicere, conspuere, lacerare? Ut inte- rim omittam, quod haec ipsa instituta longe ante Elias et Joannes adumbrarunt, Christus consuluit , Apostoli coluerunt, Sancti fere omnes adamarunt, Exceptis enim sacris Martyribus, rari omnino in numerum Sanctorum relati leguntur, qui ex Monasteriis non prodierint. Ut mihi jam monasticae vitae approbatio inter eas notas ac symbola, quibus Ecclesiam Catholicam ab omnium haereticorum conventi¬ culis internoscimus , atque distinguimus, principem locum tenere, clarissimeque eminere videatur. Quod sanctus ille Alexandrinae Ecclesiae Episcopus Petrus probe intellexit, cum auctore Theodoreto lib. hist. IV, cap. 20, ex eo potissimum de¬ monstravit, Lucium quemdam non Episcopum, non Catholicum, sed haereticum, hostem, lupum, et invasorem esse, quod eum nulli Monachi de more Ecclesiae sacros Hymnos concinentes, ad .solium Pontificale deduxerint. Existimabat enim magnus ille Pontifex, ita partem verae Ecclesiae esse ordines Monachorum, ut Episcopus Ecclesiae haberi non posset, qui secum Monachos habere noluisset. Quae cum ita sint, intelligi profecto facile potest, ita causam Monachorum cum Ecclesiae causa esse conjunctam, ut nemo unquam Ecclesiae hostis fuerit, qui non bellum eodem tempore Monachis omnibus indixerit, Quare a nobis mater nostra Ecclesia Catholica petere mihi videtur, ne nos ab hostibus diligentia, studioque vinci patiamur, sed quantum illi dies ac noctes legendo et scribendo laborant, ut aliquod Ecclesiae, vel ejus partibus ac membris detrimentum afferant, tantum nos opera, et laboris in omnibus Ecclesiae partibus sartis tectisque conservandis colloce¬ mus ; praesertim cum nos apud Deum clarissima justitiae, fideique corona, illos poena sola perfidiae, atque scelerum apud inferos maneat. Nunc ad rem ipsam pro¬ pius accedamus. Omnis haec de Monachis Disputatio septem praecipuis capitibus, sive quaestioni¬ bus continetur. Quibus quaestionibus una eademque opera explicabuntur nomina, origo, natura, partes, proprietates, et actiones vitae religiosae ; et simul ad ea omnia respondebitur, quae adversarii nostri in Monachis et eorum ordinibus repre¬ hendunt. Prima igitur quaestio erit de origine, ratione, et varietate Religionum. Nec enim verentur adversarii, asserere, ordines Religiosorum, rem esse recens in Ecclesia invectam, et idem esse dicere : Ego sum ordinis R, Augustini, ego Benedicti, ego Dominici, ego Francisci, ac dicere ; Ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego vero Cephae ; quod Apostolus in Corinthiis gravissime reprehendit, ut etiam illos propterea seditionis, schismatis, atque haereseos notare non vereatur, Secunda quaestio erit de consiliis Evangelicis, quae sunt quasi bases et funda¬ menta totius monastici aedificii. Horrent enim haeretici ad vocem consiliorum, et operum supererogationis, tanquam ad ingentem blasphemiam. Id quod necessario faciunt ; cum enim arbitrentur ipsi, praecepta divina non posse a quoquam, ta¬ metsi justissimo, unquam impleri, non possunt non vehementer mirari, cum nos dicere audiunt, veros Religiosos non solum praecepta, sed etiam consilia adimplere, et plus facere, quam Deus praecepit. Tertia quaestio erit de votis monasticis. Cum enim adversarii putent, nihil Deo placere, nisi quod ipse fieri jussit, omnia vota, quae de rebus a Deo non imperatis suscipiuntur, tanquam superstitiosa, et inania reprehendunt. Imo aperte votum 504 PU/EFATIO continentiae sacrificium idoli Moloch, votum paupertatis meram stultitiam, votum obedientiae summam temeritatem esse volunt. Quarta quaestio erit de votis, quae filii invitis parentibus, et conjuges invito altero conjuge, aliquando suscipiunt. Nam cum Deus mandaverit, honorari parentes, et non separari quos Deus conjunxit, graviter nos accusant, quod filios invitis parenti¬ bus Monachos fieri patiamur, et matrimonia, licet nondum consummata, tamen rata et firma, propter monasticam professionem dissolvamus. Quinta, de solitudine, et summa vitae severitate Eremitarum. Eremitas enim ad¬ versarii ursos ac misanthropos vocant propter solitudinem : propter eam autem severitatem, qua plurimi eorum numquam cilicium exuebant, solis radicibus vescebantur, humi cubantes somnum brevissimum capiebant : nonnulli etiam in¬ tegris hebdomadibus jejunabant : alii ferreis ca-tenis se onerabant : quidam in editis columnis perpetuo consistebant ; eos omnes execrantur tanquam sui ipsorum homicidas, et illius Apostolici praecepti transgressores : Habeto honorem corpori; quo praecepto nullum ipsi religiosius ac sanctius colunt. Sexta, de habitu et tonsura. Miram enim superstitionem in eo positam esse cre¬ dunt, quod Monachi semper idem vestimenti genus, eadem forma, eodem colore, eadem magnitudine gerant, et eodem semper modo, qui sunt ejusdem ordinis, ton- dantur. Septima, de opere Monachorum. Existimant enim adversarii, de natura et ra¬ tione verae monasticae professionis esse, ut Monachi omnes labore manuum victum quaerant, et idcirco eos omnes, qui id non faciunt, tanquam suae ipsius professio¬ nis corruptores, falsosque ac degeneres Monachos arguunt, et malum et illicitum esse docent, tam sponte sua ad mendacitatem devenire, quam mendicatione victum colligere. Scripserunt de hoc argumento S. Joannes Chrysostomus in tribus libris contra vituperatores vitae monasticae ; Joannes Cassianus in libris de institutis Coenobio¬ rum ; Albertus Magnus in defensorio mendicantium ; B. Thomas in opusculo 19-. quod est contra impugnantes religionem ; B. Bonaventura in Apologia pauperum, et libro de paupertate Christi ; Thomas Waldensis lib. III. et IV. de doctrina fidei, et de sacramentalibus, tit. 9. Albertus Pighius controversia 14, Alphonsus Virve- sius Philippica 20, Alphonsus a Castro in libris contra haereses, verbo Mendicitas, verbo Monachus, et verbo Votum ; Joannes Bunderius in suo Compendio concer¬ tationum, titulo 34, Conradus Koellim in eversione Epithalamii Lutherani ; Joannes a Daventria in refutatione Confessionis Augustanae ; Joannes Eckius in Enchiridio, et in conclusionibus devotis; Franciscus Orantius lib. V. de locis Catholicis; Gas- par Schatzherus lib. I. cap. ult. et lib. II, cap. 1. suarum Controversiarum ; Joannes Hoffmeisterus contra art. 27. Confessionis Augustanae; Jacobus Latomus libro de Monachorum institutis et votis ; Joannes Cochlaeus libro de votis, et in discussione artic. 27. Confessionis Augustanae ; Jodocus Clictovaeus lib. III. Antilutheri ; Alanus Copus Dialopo 2 , Matthaeus Galenus de origine Monastices ; Richardus Ccenomanus in antidoto ad censuram Erasmi in regulam S. Augustini ; Franciscus Turrianus libris duobus de votis monasticis ; Guglielmus Lindanus lib. IV, cap. 98. Panopliae. CAPUT I. 505