Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 6: The Lies Are Exposed and the Calumnies Refuted
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).
As to the fifth part of the question, we will briefly recount certain manifest lies, or most absurd opinions, of the three chief heresiarchs of this time — Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin — which they have put forward in their disputations against the monastic life; for the refutation of these lies avails more to confound them than many most subtle arguments.
Luther, then, in the Epithalamium. First he asserts that women were created for nothing but marriage. But if it is so, there will then be no women in heaven, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage, and we shall fall into the heresy of the Origenists, who deny that in the age to come there will be a distinction of sexes — which Jerome refutes in the epistle against the errors of John of Jerusalem. In vain also were so many thousands of most holy virgins in this world, if woman was created for nothing but marriage.
Secondly, he says that it is the same to deliberate whether a wife is to be taken, and whether one should eat and drink. But about the former all the wise deliberate, even the heathen, as appears from Gellius (Book 1, chapter 5); about the latter, only fools, or not even fools.
Thirdly, he says that Moses commanded marriage to all the Jews, so that it was in no way lawful in the Old Testament to be without a wife. How, then, did Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the Baptist lack wives? For that they lacked them Jerome proves (Book 1 against Jovinian). But Luther found this precept not in the divine letters, but took it from the ravings of the Rabbis. For Rabbi Solomon (on Genesis 9) will have him guilty of homicide who does not give labor to children, and Rabbi David Kimchi (on Isaiah 56) says it is the opinion of the ancient Jews that he who does not leave a son is as it were excommunicated by God.
Fourthly, he says, and very often repeats and inculcates, that Paul, when he says that he could have led about a sister, a woman (1 Corinthians 9), meant to say that he could have taken a wife — as though periagein and gamein meant the same thing — which is either intolerable ignorance or malice.
Fifthly, he says that virginity indeed excels marriage, yet that a married woman is better before God than a virgin is; how well these cohere, let him see to it. Certainly Blessed Augustine speaks otherwise (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 31): “When, then,” he says, “the professors of perpetual continence, comparing themselves with the married, find according to the Scriptures that they are below them — in work, in reward, in vow, and in prize — let there at once come to mind what is written: The greater thou art, humble thyself the more in all things.”
The same Luther in the book On Monastic Vows. First he says that the primitive Church and the New Testament wholly were ignorant of the use of vowing anything. But that Blessed Mary vowed continence Augustine teaches (On Holy Virginity, chapter 4): “How,” he says, “does Mary say, ‘How shall this be done, since I know not man?’ Which surely she would not say unless she had before vowed herself a virgin to God.” That the Apostles too, and many others in the primitive Church, vowed poverty and continence, we shall show below in the question on vows. Nay, Luther himself in this very book a little lower says: In Baptism all Christians truly vow all the precepts. But this vow the primitive Church did not ignore, unless it also ignored Baptism.
Secondly, he says that the form of vowing ought to be this, if one is to vow piously: “I vow chastity, poverty, and obedience unto death, freely” — that is, so that I may change when I will. But if you promise continence unto death, how freely? if freely, how unto death?
Thirdly, he says that Christ never counseled virginity, but rather deterred from it; and that the Apostle, when he says, Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, meant to say, “I do not counsel, but I frighten off.” What more splendid than that gloss? Add that the same Luther in the assertion of article 30 says that there is no evangelical counsel except the one of virginity.
Fourthly, he says, with Jovinian, that one life is not better than another before God, but all equal; and because he knew that Jovinian had been confuted by Blessed Jerome, he says that Jerome said those things to please his friends, and inconsiderately scraped together passages of Scripture from everywhere and wrested them to his own purpose — “not to say,” he says, “depraved them” — and that Jovinian was overcome by him not by solid erudition but by his authority alone; and at length concludes: “Who knows whether Jerome in this part was one of those of whom in Ezekiel the Lord says: When the prophet shall have erred, and spoken a lie, I the Lord have deceived that prophet?” But Augustine (epistle 29 to Jerome) calls Jerome’s books against Jovinian a most sweet and most splendid disputation, and (epistle 28) names Jovinian’s book vain babbling.
Fifthly, he says that the best form of religious orders would be if no one were admitted to profession before the age of 70 or 80. But this is most absurd, and unworthy to be refuted. Certainly Jerome (in the epistle to Eustochium, on the keeping of virginity), speaking of cenobites: “For the old and the little ones,” he says, “a meal is often provided, that the wearied age of some may be sustained, and the beginning age of others not broken.” From which words we gather two things: one, that in the time of Saint Jerome there were in the monasteries men of all ages — old men, boys, and men of middle age; the other, that men too old or too young are less apt for the labors of the monasteries, since meals must be provided to these while the rest fast.
Philip Melanchthon, in the Augsburg Confession (article 27) and in the Apology of the same article. First he says that in the time of Saint Augustine the monasteries were free colleges, bound by no vows. But Augustine (on Psalm 75) says: “Let no one placed in a monastery, brother, say, ‘I withdraw from the monastery,’ for neither are those alone who are in the monastery going to attain to the kingdom of heaven, and those who are not there do not belong to God. It is answered to him: But they did not vow, thou hast vowed.” And on Psalm 99, of apostates he says: “While he does not persevere in fulfilling what he vowed, he becomes a deserter of so holy a purpose, and guilty of a vow not rendered.”
Secondly, he says that monasteries of old were schools of sacred letters and other disciplines. But Basil in the monastic constitutions, Cassian On the Institutions of the Cenobia, Jerome in the epistle to Rusticus and in another to Paulinus on the instruction of a monk, Augustine (Book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapter 31), and other ancients, while they describe the institutions of the monasteries, make mention of prayer, fasts, psalmody, continence, obedience, poverty. Of schools of letters, and dialectic, and other disciplines, not even a word.
Thirdly, he says that Saint Bernard and Francis undertook the religious life for bodily advantage alone; and by bodily advantage he means to be free from the impediments of marriage, the cares of educating children, and the like — which indeed are not without reason said to pertain to a certain advantage of the body. But that Saint Francis walked with bare feet, used one tunic only, and that of hair and most rough, slept on the ground, kept vigil whole nights, fasted almost always, and was for the most part sustained on bread and water alone — who but a madman would refer this to bodily advantage? Further, Saint Bernard not only lived most hardly, but also (sermon 30 on the Canticle and elsewhere throughout) openly teaches that it is not of a monk, but of a physician, to care for the advantage and good condition of the body; but that it is of a monk to seek the advantage of the spirit, and to crucify the flesh, and chastise the body, that the spirit may live and be strong.
Fourthly, he says that monkery is a lately invented thing; which, how great a lie it is, has already been demonstrated by us, since we have traced it from the time of the Apostles. Besides, I would gladly learn what Philip calls “lately”; for although he denies that in the time of the Apostles there were monks, and again asserts that our monks are not similar to those who existed in Augustine’s time, yet he does not deny, nor can he deny, that at least monkery, such as it now is, began from the time of Saint Benedict — for this all the Lutherans admit, since they see that the rules established by him still exist and are kept, and that the monasteries which he founded are inhabited. But Saint Benedict flourished a thousand years ago. Unless, then, with Philip a thousand years are as one day, according to the Scriptures, let him see how true it is that monkery began lately.
Fifthly, he says that we assert that the monastic life merits justification and the remission of sins, and, applied to others, saves them, and is far better than Baptism itself. But this is mere calumny, for no Catholics ever so taught. We say indeed that the works of the religious life — that is, to live chastely, to retain nothing of one’s own, to obey superiors — are good works, and meritorious of eternal life, if they be done by the just, and conduce to satisfaction for sins, like all other good works; but that they merit justification no one says.
We say also that religious can make other men partakers of their good works, as all other faithful can; for there is a communication among the members of the same body. But that a monk can save others by his works — that is, merit for them grace or glory — no Catholic ever said.
Finally, we say that between Baptism and the profession of the religious life there is a certain likeness: that, as in Baptism we renounce the devil and begin a new life, so through the profession of the religious life we renounce the world and many lawful pleasures and begin a new life; and as in Baptism all sins are perfectly remitted as to guilt and penalty, so in religious profession, when it is undertaken with due intention, it is piously believed that all temporal penalty is remitted for which otherwise satisfaction would have to be made, even the guilt being remitted. Yet we do not therefore prefer, or make equal to, Baptism the monastic profession; for Baptism takes away not only the penalty but also the guilt, and that we know for certain; but the monastic profession does not take away the guilt, but the penalty alone, and this very thing we do not assert for certain, but piously believe; nor is this our invention. For first Athanasius testifies (in the life of Anthony) that Blessed Anthony in a vision heard the holy angels saying that all his sins had been remitted to him when he undertook the monastic life.
Blessed Jerome (in epistle 25, on the death of Blesilla): “When,” he says, “Christ being propitious, nearly four months ago she had, in a certain second manner, washed herself by the Baptism of her purpose, and so afterward lived that, the world being trodden underfoot, she always thought of the monastery.”
Blessed Bernard (in the book On Precept and Dispensation, not far from the end): “You wish,” he says, “to hear this too from me, whence, among the other institutions of penance, the monastic discipline has merited this prerogative, that it is called a second Baptism. I judge it to be on account of the perfect renunciation of the world, and the singular excellence of the spiritual life, by which, pre-eminent above all kinds of human life, this manner of conversation makes its professors and lovers like to the angels, unlike to men; nay, it reforms the divine image in man, configuring us to Christ after the manner of Baptism; and as it were at length we are baptized a second time, while, by the fact that we mortify our members which are upon the earth, we put on Christ, planted anew together in the likeness of His death,” etc. And (sermon 30 on the Canticle) he says that monastic labor is a kind of martyrdom; but no one is ignorant that martyrdom is a kind of Baptism. Finally, Blessed Thomas too (2a2ae, last question, article 3) teaches that it is rightly believed that through monastic profession satisfaction is made for all sins, and that this profession is a second Baptism.
The same Melanchthon, in the Common Places, in the chapter on the distinction of counsels and precepts, says. First, that our blindness is to be deplored, that we adorn mendicancy, or a similar unbidden work, with greater titles than the divine law, since no work can be conceived greater than that which is demanded in the first precept: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc.
To this calumny we briefly answer that there is no Catholic who simply prefers the counsels to the precepts. Nay, Blessed Thomas (2a2ae, question 184, article 3) teaches the contrary; for he will have Christian perfection to consist essentially in the observance of the precepts, instrumentally in the observance of the counsels.
We can, however, prefer the counsels to the precepts in three ways. First, by comparing individual counsels, not with any precept whatever, but with those precepts which are concerned with the same matter; for example, about the matter of external works is concerned the precept, Thou shalt not steal; about the same is concerned the counsel, Sell all, and give to the poor; it is certain that this counsel is more perfect than the precept, Thou shalt not steal. Similarly the counsel of virginity is more perfect than the precept, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and so of the others.
Secondly, by comparing not the counsels with the precepts, but the state of men keeping the precepts and the counsels, with the state of those who keep the precepts alone. Nor can it be doubted that the former state is a thing far better and more perfect than the latter, since the former includes the latter, not the contrary. Whence the Lord said to him who said he had kept all the precepts: If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, etc.
Thirdly, by comparing the counsels with any precept whatever, even with that, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; but by considering in the counsels not the external works of the counsels, but the charity which they presuppose, and to which they lead. For by that precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, infinite charity is not commanded, but a certain fixed degree — namely, so much charity that by it you set nothing equal to or before God. But a greater degree of charity is required that for God’s sake you renounce all riches and pleasures otherwise lawful; for Augustine says (sermon 18 on the words of the Apostle), speaking of virgins: “A greater love imposed a greater burden.”
Secondly, Melanchthon says that we falsely think the law of God to be granted only about external discipline, so that by that law, Thou shalt not kill, unjust slaughter is forbidden, but not private desire of vengeance, malevolence, unjust hatreds, and so forth; and this he deduces from the fact that we do not think the first motions of concupiscence, to which we do not consent, to be sins. In which matter he thrice sins. First, that he lies, that we do not acknowledge for sins anything but external works, which is so huge a lie that it is almost incredible. Secondly, that he deduces this from the fact that we teach the involuntary motions of the soul not to be sins, as though there were no internal acts except involuntary ones. Thirdly, that he asserts this himself — namely, that involuntary motions are sins; nay, he will have even the natural propensity, and the natural powers by which the flesh lusts against the spirit, to be sins, which is against all reason. For by the name of sin all understand an evil and voluntary act; whence Blessed Augustine (at the end of the book On the Perfection of Justice) says that he who in no way consents to the illicit motions of concupiscence, even if he feels them, ought not to say to God, Forgive us our debts, but only what follows, Lead us not into temptation.
Now Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §3) says that we call marriage, which God instituted, a pollution. It is a lie. For what God instituted we call a sacrament, and, with Paul, a great sacrament, not a pollution. But concupiscence, and the disobedience of the members, which God did not institute, and without which nevertheless marriage is not consummated, we call a pollution, and a disease which is not a sin, but is born of sin. See Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence.
Secondly, he says in the same place (§8) that of old pious men who became monks intended nothing else than to prepare themselves by the monastic discipline for the government of the Church; which is a lie insulting to all the saints who were called from the monasteries to the episcopate, who, if we believe Calvin, were most ambitious, whereas on the contrary it is established that they all were made bishops out of monks unwillingly. Certainly Blessed Augustine (sermon 1 on the common life of clerics) affirms that he wished to be a monk, not a bishop, and therefore never went to places that lacked a bishop, lest perchance he be there compelled to be bishop. How vehemently Chrysostom and Basil fled the episcopate, that they might live perpetually in a monastery, can easily be understood from Chrysostom’s book On the Priesthood. Jerome (in the epistle to Pammachius against John, bishop of Jerusalem) asserts that he was unwillingly made a priest by Paulinus the bishop, when he had determined to be not a priest but only a monk. Gregory (in the epistle to Leander, which is had at the beginning of the Morals) miserably deplores his lot, that, when he had chosen to live perpetually in a monastery, yet he had been compelled to undertake the pontificate.
And since Calvin adduces in his own favor Augustine’s epistle 81 to the monks of the island of Capraria, whereas the passage which he adduces favors us more than him, let us bring forward the passage itself: “But you, brethren,” he says, “we exhort in the Lord that you guard your purpose and persevere unto the end, and, if mother Church should desire any labor of yours, that you neither undertake it with greedy elation nor refuse it out of flattering sloth, but with a gentle heart obey God, nor prefer your leisure to the necessities of the Church, to whom in travail, if no good men were willing to minister, you would find no way to be born.” From this passage Calvin proves that of old it was customary that bishops and clerics were sometimes sought from the monasteries; from which he will have it consequent that those who became monks were wont to become so in order to prepare themselves for the episcopate and similar ecclesiastical offices. But that this is not consequent, everyone sees, and those words of Augustine indicate the contrary. For first, if those monks of the island of Capraria were preparing themselves for ecclesiastical offices, what need was there to exhort them not to refuse those offices, if ever they were called to them? Then, why does Augustine exhort them to guard their purpose and persevere unto the end, if they were not to remain there perpetually, but only for a time, until, namely, they had prepared themselves for the ecclesiastical ministry?
Thirdly, he says in the same place (§10) that Augustine, when he portrays legitimate monkery for us, wished all rigid exaction to be absent of those things which are left free to us by the word of the Lord. That this is a lie appears from the passages above alleged from Augustine on Psalms 75 and 99, and others to be cited below.
Fourthly, he says in the same place that Augustine requires in monks that they refer all their institutions to that piety which God commended to all — that is, to the charity of God and neighbor; but that our monks have feigned for themselves I know not what new piety, by the meditation of which they are more perfect than all. This too is a lie, and Calvin says truly only “I know not what new piety,” etc. For truly he knows not what new piety the monks have feigned; for they have feigned nothing new, since by all their vows they desire nothing else than to be perfected in charity. But that the monastic life is more perfect than the life of seculars, which Calvin so greatly abhors, Augustine most plainly teaches (in epistle 89, question 4, to Hilary), where he says thus: “The good Master distinguished the commandments of the law from that more excellent perfection; for there He said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; but here, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast,” etc.
Fifthly, he says in the same place (§14) that the monastic life is nowhere, not even by one syllable, approved by the Lord. This lie Augustine refutes in the place already cited, and Chrysostom (homily 17 to the people): “So great,” he says, “is the philosophy introduced by Christ.”
Sixthly, he says (§12) that it never came into the mind of any of the ancients to say that Christ counseled anything, but that all with one voice cry out that not a single little word was uttered by Christ which is not necessarily to be obeyed. This is a most impudent lie; for he adduced no witness to confirm his opinion. But we in the following question will adduce all the ancients, who truly with one voice cry out that there are many evangelical counsels. Now let the cited passage of Augustine suffice.
Seventhly, he says in the same place that monks, that they may seem more perfect than others, promise that they will keep the evangelical counsels — of not swearing, of loving enemies, of not seeking vengeance. But neither do any monks vow these things, and we say that these are not counsels but precepts.
Eighthly, he says (§14) that the Fathers abhorred with their whole heart that blasphemy and sacrilegious dogma by which monastic profession is called a second Baptism. But we have shown that Athanasius, Jerome, Bernard, Thomas did not abhor that opinion. But he adduced none in his own favor.
Ninthly, he says in the same place that in Augustine’s time true monks accommodated themselves wholly to the charity of the neighbor, but that ours have made a division from the whole Church. This he proves in two ways. First, because the ancient monks came together to the same church with the other Christians, and partook of the sacraments with the same; but ours have their own churches, their own altars, and so forth. Secondly, because (1 Corinthians 1) the Apostle calls those schismatics who said, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas; but the monks say, I am of Augustine, I of Benedict, I of Francis.
Here is a twofold lie. For first it is false that the ancient monks did not have their own churches, altars, sacraments; for of old both hermits and cenobites, almost all, dwelt outside the cities, far from the rest of men, and because they could not come together to the churches of bishops or parish priests, the individual monasteries had their own abbot, a priest, from whom they received the sacraments. This Augustine manifestly indicates, both (Book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapters 31 and 33) and in epistle 81 to Eudoxius, priest and abbot in the island of Capraria; likewise Epiphanius, in the epistle to John of Jerusalem, where he says that he ordained Paulinian a priest of the monastery of Bethlehem, because Saint Jerome, the superior of that monastery, out of too great humility did not dare to minister the sacraments to the brethren. The same appears from almost all the Conferences of Cassian, and especially the 18th, chapter 15.
Then, it is false that our monks have made a division from the Church, since we see that they acknowledge the same Pontiff whom the rest of the Church does; that they are ordained by the same bishops by whom the other clerics are; finally, that they communicate with the same people with whom the other Christians do. But if, because they have churches and altars, they were schismatics, all parish priests too would be schismatics; for there is no parish which does not have a church and altars distinct from the church and altars of other parishes.
Lastly, it is false that the monks say, I am of Augustine, I am of Benedict, in the same sense in which the Corinthians said, I am of Paul, I of Apollo; for those erred in two things by saying, I am of Paul, I of Apollo. First, because they thought that the force of the Sacrament of Baptism depended on the probity of the one baptizing, and therefore gloried that they were spiritual sons of excellent men, as Augustine expounds (tract 5 on John, and elsewhere). And this appears first from the following words: Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Secondly, from the fact that in that whole chapter, and the three following, to remove this error Paul teaches that the Apostles are only ministers of Christ, but that it is Christ who truly and by power does all things, and therefore that God chose the unlearned and lowly through whom to convert the world, lest salvation should seem to depend on men. Thirdly, from the fact that hence we understand how they truly made schisms who said, I am of Paul, I of Apollo; for they made as many Baptisms as there were baptizers, and accordingly as many faiths and churches.
Secondly, they erred in that they rashly judged of their preachers, and preferred some to others, as appears from those words (chapter 4): Judge not before the time, etc.; But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, etc. But the monks, when they say, I am of Augustine, I of Benedict, say this only to indicate the distinction of orders. But if some of the simpler religious sometimes contend for the glory of their leaders, and prefer Blessed Francis, on account of the stigmata, to Blessed Dominic, or the contrary, they do ill, and fall under the latter reproof of the Apostle; but neither are these on that account schismatics, nor ought whole orders of religious to be defamed on account of a few simpletons.
Tenthly, he says (§19) that of old it was unlawful to admit a woman to the vow of continence before the age of 60. But that great solicitude of the ancients — Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome — in guarding the sacred virgins indicates otherwise; for if all the nuns exceeded the age of 60, their chastity would not need great guarding.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Mendacia deteguntur , et calumniae refutantur. Quantum ad quintam partem quaestionis, referemus breviter mendacia quaedam ma¬ nifesta, vel absurdissimas sententias trium praecipuorum hujus temporis Haeresiarcha- rut|, Lutheri, Melanchthonis, Calvini, quas in disputationibus suis contra monasticen protulerunt ; horum enim mendaciorum re¬ futatio plus valet ad eos confundendos, quam multa subtilissima argumenta. Lutherus igitur in Epithalamio. Primo as¬ serit, mulieres nonnisi ad matrimonium creatas fuisse. At si ita est, non igitur in coelo ullae erunt mulieres, ubi non nubent, neque nubentur, et incidemus in haeresim Origenistarum, qui in futuro saeculo negant futuram sexuum distinctionem, quam Hie¬ ronymus refellit in epistola contra errores Joannis Hierosolymitani. Frustra etiam fue¬ runt in hoc mundo tot millia sanctissimarum virginum, si mulier non est ad aliud creata, quam ad nuptias. Secundo dicit, idem esse consultare, sit ne ducenda uxor, et sit ne comedendum, et bibendum. At de priore omnes sapientes consultant, etiam Ethnici, ut patet ex Gellio lib. I, cap. 5. de posteriore, soli stulti, vel ne stulti quidem. Tertio dicit, Mosem praecepisse omnibus Judaeis matrimonium, ita ut nullo modo li¬ cuerit in veteri Testamento carere uxore. Quomodo igitur Elias, Elisams, Hieremias, Joannes Baptista, uxoribus caruerunt? Ca- ruisse enim probat Hieronymus lib. I con¬ tra Jovinianum. Sed Lutherus hoc praecep¬ tum non in divinis litteris reperit, sed ex Rabbinorum deliriis sumpsit. Nam R. Salo¬ mon in cap. IX Gen. vult esse reum homici¬ dii, qui liberis non dat operam, et R. David Kirnhi incap.LVI Isaiae ait, sententiam esse antiquorum Judaeorum, eum qui non relin¬ quit filium, esse tanquam excommunicatum a Deo. Quarto dicit, et saepissime repetit, et in¬ culcat Paulum, cum ait, se potuisse circum¬ ducere sororem mulierem I. Corinth. IX vo¬ luisse dicere, se potuisse ducere uxorem, quasi Trs/jiaystv et yayelv idem significent, quae est imperitia, vel malitia intolerabilis. Quinto dicit, virginitatem quidem prae¬ stare conjugio, tamen mulierem conjugatam meliorem esse coram Deo, quam sit virgo ; quae quam bene cohaereant , ipse viderit. Certe aliter loquitur B. Augustinus lib. de sancta virginitate cap. 31. : « Cum ergo, in¬ quit, perpetuae continentiae professores se conjugatis comparantes, secundum Scriptu¬ ras compererint eos infra esse, et opere, et mercedc, et voto, et praemio, stafim veniat in mentem quod scriptum est : Quanto ma¬ jor es, tanto humilia te in omnibus. » Idem Lutherus lib. de votis monasticis. Primo dicit, Ecclesiam primitivam, et no¬ vum Testamentum in totum ignorasse vo¬ vendae cujusque rei usum. At B. Mariam vo¬ visse continentiam docet Augustinus de sancta virginitate cap. 4. : « Quomodo, in¬ quit, ait Maria, fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco? Quod profecto non diceret, nisi Deo virginem se ante vovisset. » Vo¬ visse etiam Apostolos, aliosque multos in primitiva Ecclesia, paupertatem, et conti¬ nentiam, infra ostendemus in quaestione de votis. Imo Lutherus ipse in hoc ipso libro paulo inferius dicit. In Baptismo omnes Christianos vere vovere omnia praecepta. At hoc votum primitiva Ecclesia iron ignoravit, nisi etiam Baptismum ignoraverit. Secundo dicit, formam vovendi hanc esse debere, si pie vovendum sit : Voveo casti¬ tatem, paupertatem et obedientiam usque CAPUT VI. ad mortem libere, id est, ut mutare possim quando volo. At si usque ad mortem conti- tinentiam polliceris, quomodo libere? si li¬ bere, quomodo usque ad mortem? tertio dicit, Christum nunquam consu¬ luisse virginitatem, sed ab ea potius deter¬ ruisse, et Apostolum, cum ait: De virginibus prceceptum Domini non habeo , consilium autem do (1), voluisse dicere, fion consulo, sed ab¬ sterreo. Quid ista Glossa praeclarius? Adde quod idemLutherus in assertione articuli 30. ait nullum <^sse consilium Evangelicum, nisi unum virginitatis. Quarto dicit, unam vitam non esse melio¬ rem alia coram Deo, sed omnia paria, cum Joviniano ; et quia noverat a B. Hieronymo . Jovinianum confutatum, dicit Hieronymum ut placeret amicis ea dixisse, et Scripturae loca inconsiderate undique corrasisse, et ea ad suum propositum detorsisse : « Ne di¬ cam, inquit, depravasse. » Et Jovinianum ab eo non solida eruditione, sed sola aucto¬ ritate sua superatum, et tandem concludit : « Quis scit si Hieronymus hac parte fuerit unus illorum de quibus in Ezechiele dicit Dominus : Propheta cum erraverit, et men¬ dacium locutus fuerit, ego Dominus decepi Prophetam illum? » At Augustinus epistol. 29. ad Hieronymum, libros Hieronymi con¬ tra Jovinianum vocat suavissimam, praecla- rissimamque disputationem, et epist. 28. Jo- viniani librum vaniloquia nominat. Quinto dicit, optimam formam religionum futuram, si ad professionem nemo admitta¬ tur ante annum 70 vel 80. At hoc absurdis¬ simum est, et indignum quod refellatur. Certe Hieronymus in epistola ad Eusto- chium de custodia virginitatis, de coenobitis loquens : «Senibus, inquit, et parvulis saepe fit prandium, ut aliorum fessa sustentetur setas, aliorum non frangatur incipiens. » Ex quibus verbis duo colligimus; unum, fuisse tempore S. Hieronymi in monasteriis homines omnium aetatum, senes, pueros, et mediae aetatis viros; alterum, minus aptos esse ad labores monasteriorum homines ni¬ mium senes, aut nimium juvenes, quando¬ quidem oporteat his prandia praebere, jeju¬ nantibus caeteris. Philippus Melanchthon in confessione Au¬ gustana art. 27. et in Apologia ejusdem ar¬ ticuli. Primo dicit, tempore S. Augustini mo¬ nasteria fuisse libera collegia, non astricta V I w Olo ullis votis. At Augustinus in Psal. LXXV ait: « Nemo positus in Monasterio frater dicat, recedo de Monasterio, neque enim soli, qui sunt in monasterio, perventuri sunt ad reg¬ num coelorum, et illi, qui ibi non sunt, ad Deum non pertinent. Respondetur ei, sed illi non voverunt, tu vovisti. » Et in Psal.XCIX de Apostatis ait : « Dum non perseveraverit implere quod vovit, fit desertor tam sancti propositi, et reus voti non redditi. » Secundo dicit, monasteria olim fuisse sco- las sacrarum litterarum, et aliarum discipli¬ narum. At Basilius in constitutionibus mo¬ nasticis, Cassianus de institutis coenobiorum, Hieronymus in epist. ad Busticum, et in alia ad Paulinum de institutione Monachi, Au¬ gustinus lib. I de moribus Ecclesiae, cap.31. aliique veteres dum describunt instituta mo¬ nasteriorum, meminerunt orationis, jejunio¬ rum, psalmodiae, continentiae, obedientiae, paupertatis. De scholis litterarum, et dia¬ lecticae aliarumque disciplinarum ne verbum quidem. Tertio dicit, S.Bernardum et Franciscum ob solam corporis utilitatem religionem sus¬ cepisse; corporis vero utilitatem vocat ca¬ rere impedimentis conjugii, curis liberorum educandorum et similibus, quae quidem non immerito ad corporis quamdam utilitatem pertinere dicuntur. Sed quod S. Franciscus nudis pedibus ambularet, una sola tunica, eaque cilicina, et asperrima uteretur, humi cubaret, totas noctes vigilaret, tere semper jejunaret, pane solo, et aqua, ut plurimum sustentaretur, quis nisi insanus ad corporis utilitatem referret? Porro S. Bernardus non solum durissime vixit, sed etiam ser. 30. in Cant. et alibi passim aperte docet, non esse Monachi, sed Medici, corporis utilitatem et bonam habitudinem curare, Monachi vero esse spiritus utilitatem quaerere, et carnem crucifigere, et corpus castigare, ut spiritus vivat, et valeat. Quarto dicit, monachatum esse nuper in¬ ventum; quod quantum sit mendacium, jam a nobis demonstratum est, cum ab Aposto¬ lorum tempore eum deduxerimus. Praeterea libenter discerem, qu.d vocet Philippus, Nu¬ per : nam etiamsi negat Apostolorum tem¬ pore fuisse Monachos, et rursum asserit Mo¬ nachos nostros non esse similes iis, qui fue¬ runt Augustini tempore, tamen non negat, nec potest negare, quin saltem monachatus, (1) I. Cor. VII, 25. LIBER II. olli qui nunc est, coeperit a tempore S. Benedic¬ ti ; id enim Lutherani omnes admittunt, cum videant adhuc exstare, et servari regulas ab ipso conditas, et habitari monasteria, quse ipse fundavit. At S. Benedictus ante annos mille floruit. Nisi ergo apud Philippum mille anni sint, ut dies unus, juxta Scripturas, vi¬ derit ipse quam sit verum, nuper coepisse monachatum. Quinto dicit, nos asserere vitam monasti¬ cam mereri justificationem, et remissionem peccatorum, et applicatam aliis eos salvare, et longe meliorem esse ipso Baptismo. At haec mera calumnia est, nulli enim Catholici ita docuerunt unquam. Dicimus quidem opera religionis, id est, caste vivere, nihil proprii retinere, obedire majoribus, bona esse opera, et meritoria vitae aeternae, si a justis fiant, et conducere ad satisfactionem pro peccatis, sicut caetera omnia bona ope¬ ra ; at mereri justificationem nullus dicit. Dicimus etiam , posse religiosos facere alios homines participes suorum bonorum operum, ut possunt omnes alii fideles ; est enim communicatio inter membra ejusdem corporis : At posse Monachum salvare alios suis operibus, id est, mereri illis gratiam, vel gloriam, nemo Catholicus dixit unquam. Denique dicimus, inter Baptismum, et professionem religionis esse quamdam simi¬ litudinem; quod sicut in Baptismo renuntia¬ mus Diabolo, et incipimus novam vitam, ita per professionem religionis renuntiamus sae¬ culo et multis licitis voluptatibus, et incipi¬ mus novam vitam ; et sicut in Baptismo re¬ mittuntur perfecte omnia peccata , quoad culpam et poenam, ita in professione reli¬ giosa, quando debita intentione suscipitur, pie creditur remitti omnis poena temporalis, pro qua alioqui satisfaciendum esset,' etiam culpa remissa ; non tamen propterea ante¬ ponimus, vel sequamus Baptismo professio¬ nem monasticam ; Baptismus enim non so¬ lum poenam, sed etiam culpam tollit, idque certo scimus ; professio autem monastica non tollit culpam, sed solam poenam, et hoc ipsum non certo asserimus, sed pie credi¬ mus, neque est hoc nostrum inventum. Nam in primis testatur Athanasius in vita Anto¬ nii, B. Antonium in visione audivisse sanc¬ tos Angelos dicentes, omnia peccata sibi re¬ missa fuisse, quando monasticam vitam sus¬ cepit. B. Hieronymus in epist. 25. de obitu Ble- sillae : « Cum, inquit, propitio Christo ante quatuor ferme menses secundo quodam mo¬ do se propositi Baptismo laverit,et ita dein¬ ceps vixerit, ut calcato mundo semper mo¬ nasterium cogitaverit. » B. Bernardus lib. de praecepto, et disjftn- satione non procul a fine : « Audire, inquit, et hoc vultis a me unde inter caetera poeni¬ tentiae instituta monasterialis disciplina me¬ ruerit hanc praeragativam , ut secundum Baptisma nuncupetur, arbitror ob perfec¬ tam mundi abrenuntiationem, ac singularem excellentiam vitae spiritualis, qua praeemi¬ nens universis vitae humanaa generibus, hujuscemodi conversatio professores , et amatores suos Angelis similes, dissimiles ho¬ minibus facit; imo divinam in homine refor¬ mat imaginem, configurans nos Christo ins¬ tar Baptismi, et quasi denique secundo bap¬ tizamur, dum per id, quod mortificamus membra nostra, quae sunt super terram, Christum induimus, complantati denuo si¬ militudini mortis ejus etc. » Et serm. 30. in Cantica, laborem monasticum martyrii ge¬ nus esse dicit; nemo autem ignorat marty¬ rium genus esse Baptismi. Denique etiam B. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. ult. art. 3. docet recte credi per monasticam professionem satisfieri pro omnibus peccatis, et esse hanc professionem alterum Baptisma. Idem Melanchthon in locis communibus capite de discrimine consiliorum et praecep¬ torum dicit. Primo, deplorandam esse nos¬ tram caecitatem, quod mendicitatem, aut si¬ mile opus non mandatum, ornemus majori¬ bus titulis, quam legem divinam, cum nul¬ lum opus possit cogitari majus, quam quod in primo praecepto flagitatur : Diliges Domi¬ num Deum tuum etc. Ad hanc calumniam breviter responde¬ mus, neminem esse Catholicorum, qui sim¬ pliciter praeponat consilia praeceptis. Imo B. Thomas in 2. 2. q. CLXXXIY, art. 3. con¬ trarium docet; vult enim perfectionem Christianam essentialiter consistere in obser¬ vatione praeceptorum, instrumentaliter in observatione consiliorum. Possumus tamen anteponere consilia prae¬ ceptis tribus modis. Primo, comparando sin¬ gula consilia non cuicumque praecepto, sed praeceptis illis, quae versantur circa eamdem materiam ; v. gr. circa materiam externo¬ rum operum versatur praeceptum : Non fu¬ raberis ; circa eamdem versatur consilium : Vende omnia, et da pauperibus ; certum est, consilium hoc esse perfectius praecepto, non CAPUT VI. 517 furaberis. Similiter consilium virginitatis perfectius est prsecepto : Non moechaberis , et sic de aliis. Secundo, comparando non consilia cum praeceptis, sed statum hominum servantium praecepta et consilia, cum statu eorum, qui sola observant praecepta. Neque enim dubi¬ tari potest, quin sit res longe melior, et per¬ fectior status prior posteriore, quandoqui¬ dem ille istum includit, non contra. Unde Dominus ei, qui dicebat servasse se omnia praecepta, dixit : Si vis perfectus esse , vende omnia quce habes etc. (1) Tertio, comparando consilia cum quolibet praecepto, etiam cum illo : Diliges Dominum Deum tuum; sed considerando in consiliis non opera externa consiliorum, sed charita- tem, quam preesupponunt, et ad quam du¬ cunt, illo enim praecepto : Diliges Dominum Deum tuum , non praecipitur charitas infinita, sed certus quidam gradus, nimirum tanta charitas, ut per eam nihil Deo aeques vel anteponas. At major gradus charitatis re¬ quiritur, ut propter Deum renunties omni¬ bus opibus, et voluptatibus alioqui licitis ; dicit enim Augustinus serm. 18. de verbis Apostoli de virginibus loquens : « Major amor majus imposuit onus. » Secundo dicit Melanchthon, falso nos pu¬ tare legem Dei tantum de externa disciplina condonari, ut illa lege : Non occides , prohi¬ beri injustam caedem, non autem privatam cupiditatem vindictae, malevolentiam, in¬ justa odia etc. et hoc deducit ex eo, quod non putamus esse peccata primos motus concupiscentiae, quibus non consentimus. In qua re ter ipse peccat. Primo, quod men¬ titur, nos non agnoscere pro peccatis nisi externa opera, quod est tam ingens menda¬ cium, ut fere sit incredibile. Secundo, quod hoc deducit ex eo, quod docemus involun¬ tarios motus animi non esse peccata, quasi nulli sint actus interni nisi involuntarii. Ter¬ tio, quod hoc ipse asserit, nimirum involun¬ tarios motus esse peccata, imo etiam natu¬ ralem propensionem, et naturales potentias, quibus caro concupiscit contra spiritum, vult esse peccata, quod est contra omnem rationem. Nomine enim peccati omnes in- telligunt actum malum, et voluntarium, unde B. Augustinus in extremo lib. de per¬ fectione justitise, dicit, eum, qui nullo modo consentit illicitis motibus concupiscentiae, etiamsi eos sentiat, non debere dicere Deo : Dimitte nobis debita nostra , sed solum quod sequitur : Ne nos inducas in tentationem. Jam Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 13. §. 3. dicit nos pollutionem vocare conjugium, quod Deus instituit. Mendacium est. Nos enim quod Deus instituit vocamus Sacra¬ mentum , et magnum Sacramentum cum Paulo, non pollutionem. At concupiscentiam, et membrorum inobedientiam, quam Deus non instituit, et sine qua tamen non con¬ summatur conjugium, vocamus pollutionem, et morbum, qui non peccatum sit, sed ex peccato natus sit. Vide Augustinum de nup¬ tiis, et ^goncupiscentia. Sefcundo, dicit ibidem §. 8. olim pios ho¬ mines, qui Monachi fiebant, nihil aliud in¬ tendisse, quam ut se monastica disciplina ad Ecclesiae gubernationem praepararent : quod est mendacium contumeliosum in om¬ nes sanctos, qui ex monasteriis ad Episco¬ patum vocati sunt, qui, si Calvino credimus, ambitiosissimi fuerunt, cum e contrario con¬ stet, eos omnes invitos ex Monachis Episco¬ pos factos. Certe B. Augustinus serm. 1. de communi vita Clericorum affirmat se Mona¬ chum non Episcopum esse voluisse, et ideo nunquam ivisse ad loca, quae Episcopo ca¬ rebant, ne forte ibi Episcopus esse cogere¬ tur. Chrysostomus et Basilius quam vehe¬ menter fugerint Episcopatum, ut perpetuo in monasterio viverent, ex lib. Chrysostomi de sacerdotio facile potest intelligi. Hiero¬ nymus in epistol. ad Pammachium contra Joannem Hierosolymae Episcopum, asserit se invitum a Paulino Episcopo Presbyterum esse creatum, cum non Presbyter, sed Mo¬ nachus tantum esse decrevisset. Grego rius in epistola ad Leandrum, quae habetur ini¬ tio Moralium, miserabiliter deplorat casum suum, quod cum elegisset perpetuo vivere in monasterio, tamen compulsus fuisset Pon¬ tificatum suscipere. Et quoniam Calvinus pro se adducit epist. 81. Augustini ad Monachos insulae Capra¬ riae, cum tamen locus, quem adducit, magis nobis, quam illi faveat, ipsum locum profe¬ ramus : «Vos autem fratres, inquit, exhor¬ tamur in Domino, ut propositum vestrum custodiatis, et usque in finem perseveretis, ac, si quam operam vestram mater Ecclesia desideraverit, nec elatione avida suscipiatis, nec blandiente desidia respuatis, sed miti (1) Mattii. XIX, 18, 21 et passim. 518 LIBER II. corde obtemperetis Deo, nec vestrum otium necessitatibus Ecclesiae praeponatis, cui par¬ turienti, si nulli boni ministrare vellent, quo¬ modo nasceremini non inveniretis. » Ex hoc loco probat Calvinus, consuevisse olim, ex monasteriis Episcopos et Clericos aliquando peti, ex quo vult esse consequens, eos, qui Monachi fiebant, ideo fieri solitos, ut se ad Episcopatum, et similia Ecclesiastica mu¬ nera praepararent: Sed hoc non esse conse¬ quens, nemo non videt, et verba illa Augus¬ tini contrarium indicant. Nam in primis si Monachi illi insulae Caprariae se prapara- bant ad Ecclesiastica munera, quid opus fuit eos hortari, ne recusarent ea munera, si quando ad ea vocarentur? Deinde, fui Au¬ gustinus eos hortatur, ut propositum suum custodiant, et usque in finem perseverent, si non erant ibi perpetuo mansuri, sed solum ad tempus, donec videlicet se praeparassent Ecclesiastico ministerio ? Tertio, dicit ibidem §. 10. Augustinum cum legitimum monachatum nobis defor¬ mat , omnem rigidam exactionem voluisse abesse earum rerum, quae nobis verbo Do¬ mini liberae relinquuntur. Hoc mendacium esse, patet ex locis supra allegatis ex Augus¬ tino in Psal. LXXV et XCIX et aliis infra ci¬ tandis. Quarto, dicit ibidem, Augustinum requi¬ rere in Monachis, ut omnia sua instituta re¬ ferant ad eam pietatem, quam Deus omni¬ bus commendavit, id est, ad charitatem Dei et proximi; nostros autem Monachos nescio quam, novam pietatem sibi finxisse, cujus meditatione sint omnibus perfectiores. Hoc quoque mendacium est, et solum vere dicit Calvinus, nescio quam novam pietatem etc. Vere enim nescit, quam novam pietatem Monachi finxerint ; nihil enim finxerunt novi, cum omnibus suis votis nihil aliud cupiant, quam perfici in charitate. Quod vero mo¬ nastica vita sit perfectior vita stecularium, quod tantopere exhorret Calvinus, Augusti¬ nus apertissime docet in epist. 89. q. 4. ad Hilarium, ubi sic ait: « Magister bonus man¬ data legis ab ista excellentiore perfectione distinxit; ibi enim dixit : Si vis ad vitam in¬ gredi, serva mandata; hic autem: Si vis perfectus esse , vende omnia quae habes etc. » Quinto, dicit ibidem §. 14. vitam monas¬ ticam nusquam esse vel una syllaba a Domi¬ no approbatam. Hoc mendacium refellit Au¬ gustinus loco jam citato, et Chrysostomus hom. 17. ad populum : « Tanti est, inquit, Philosophia a Christo introducta. » Sexto, dicit §. 12. nulli unquam veterum ve¬ nisse in mentem, dicere Christum aliquid consuluisse, sed omnes una voce clamare, nullam penitus voculam a Christo emissam, cui non sit necessario obtemperandum. Hoc impudentissimum est mendacium ; ipse enim nullum adduxit testem ad suam sententiam confirmandam. Nos autem in sequenti quaes¬ tione adducemus omnes veteres, qui revera una voce clamant, multa esse consilia Evan- gelica. Nunc sufficiat locus Augustini cita¬ tus. Septimo, dicit ibidem, Monachos, ut vi¬ deantur aliis perfectiores, promittere se con¬ silia Evangelica servaturos, de non jurando, de inimicis diligendis, de non appeteuda vin¬ dicta. At neque ista ulli Monachi vovent, et nos ea non consilia, sed praecepta esse dici¬ mus. Octavo, dicit §. 14. Patres toto pectore ab^ horruisse ab illa blasphemia et sacrilego dogmate, quo professio monastica secundum Baptisma nominatur. At nos ostendimus, Athanasium, Hieronymum, Bernardum,Tho- mam, non abhorruisse ab illa sententia. Ipse vero pro se nullum adduxit. Nono, dicit ibidem, tempore Augustini ve¬ ros Monachos totos se ad charitatem proxi¬ mi accommodavisse, nostros autem a tota Ecclesia discessionem fecisse. Id vero pro¬ bat dupliciter, Primo, quia veteres Monachi ad eamdem Ecclesiam cum caeteris Christia¬ nis conveniebant, et cum iisdem Sacramenta participabant; nostri autem proprias habent Ecclesias, propria altaria etc. Secundo, quia I. Corinth. I Apostolus vocat schismaticos eos, qui dicebant : Ego sum Pauli , ego Apol¬ lo , ego Cephee (1); At Monachi dicunt : Ego sum Augustini, ego Benedicti, ego Fran- cisci. Hic est mendacium duplex : Nam in pri¬ mis falsum est, veteres Monachos non ha¬ buisse proprias Ecclesias, Altaria, Sacra¬ menta : Nam olim tam Eremitae, quam Coe¬ nobitae fere omnes extra urbes procul a re¬ liquis hominibus habitabant, et quia non po¬ terant ad Ecclesias Episcoporum vel Paro¬ chorum convenire, habebant singula monas¬ teria suum Abbatem, Presbyterum, a quo Q) I. Cor. I, \2. CAPUT VII. Sacramenta percipiebant. Id manifeste indi¬ cat Augustinus tum lib. I de moribus Eccle¬ siae cap. 31 et 33. tum in epist. 81. ad Eu- doxium Presbyterum, et Abbatem in insula Capraria ; item Epiphanius in epist. ad Joan- nem Hierosolymitanum, ubi dicit, se ordi¬ nasse Paulinianum Presbyterum monasterii Bethleemilici, quia S. Hieronymus ejus mo¬ nasterii Praepositus, prae nimia humilitate non audebat Sacramenta fratribus minis¬ trare. Idem apparet ex collationibus Cassia¬ ni fere omnibus, ac praecipue XVIII . cap. 15. Deinde, falsum est Monachos nostros dis¬ cessionem fecisse ab Ecclesia,- cum videa¬ mus , eos eumdem Pontificem agnoscere, quem reliqua Ecclesia; ab iisdem Episcopis ordinari, a quibus caeteri Clerici; denique eidem populo communicare , cui caeteri Christiani. Si autem, quia habent Ecclesias, et altaria, schismatici essent, essent etiam schismatici omnes Parochi; nulla enim est paroecia, quae non habeat Ecclesiam, et al¬ taria distincta ab Ecclesia, et altaribus alia¬ rum paroeciarum. Ultimo falsum est, eodem sensu, Mona¬ chos dicere : Ego sum Augustini, ego sum Benedicti, quo Corinthii dicebant : Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo ; isti enim in duobus erra¬ bant, dicendo : Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo. Primo, quia putabant, vim Sacramenti Bap¬ tismi pendere a probitate baptizantis, et ideo gloriabantur, se filios esse spirituales excel¬ lentium virorum , ut exponit Augustinus tract. 5. in Joann. et alibi. Et patet primo ex verbis sequentibus : Num Paulus crucifi¬ xus est pro vobis ? aut in nomine Pauli bapti- zati estis? (1) Secundo ex eo, quod toto illo capite, et tribus sequentibus, ad hunc erro¬ rem tollendum, Paulus docet, Apostolcs so¬ lum esse ministros Christi, Christum autem esse, qui vere, et ex potestate omnia facit, et ideo Deum elegisse indoctos et viles, per quos mundum converteret, ne salus ab ho¬ minibus pendere videretur. Tertio ex- eo, quod hinc intelligimus, quomodo vere schis¬ mata facerent, qui dicebant : Ego sum Pau¬ li, ego Apollo; nam tot Baptismata facie¬ bant, quot erant baptizatores, et proinde tot fides et Ecclesias. Secundo errabant, quod temere judica¬ bant de praedicatoribus suis, et alios aliis praeferebant, ut patet ex illis verbis cap. IV: Nolite ante tempus judicare etc. Mihi autem 519 pro minimo est , ut a vobis judicer etc. (2) At Monachi cum dicunt : Ego sum Augustini, ego Benedicti, solum hoc dicunt ad distinc¬ tionem ordinum indicandam. Quod si aliqui ex simplicioribus religiosis interdum conten¬ dunt pro gloria suorum Ducum, et B. Fran- ciscum propter stigmata B. Dominico ante¬ ponunt, vel e contrario, male faciunt, et in¬ cidunt in posteriorem reprehensionem Apos¬ toli, sed nec isti propterea schismatici sunt, nec oportet propter paucos idiotas, univer¬ sos ordines religiosorum infamare. Decimo dicit, §. 19. olim nefas fuisse, mu¬ lierem admittere ad votum continentiae ante annum 60. Sed aliud indicat summa illa sol¬ licitudo veterum, Cypriani, Chrysostomi, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, in sacris virginibus custodiendis; si enim Sanctimoniales omnes excederent annum 60, non magna custodia indigeret earum pudicitia.