Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 9: The Evangelical Counsels Asserted by the Testimonies of Scripture
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).
This opinion, that we may come to the third point, is proved first by the Scriptures; secondly, by the examples of the primitive Church; thirdly, by the testimonies of the ancients; fourthly, by reasons.
The first testimony is Isaiah 56: Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that I would, and shall hold fast my covenant, I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not perish.
That this treats of voluntary continents, not of those cut off or so born, who of necessity are continent, teach Jerome and Cyril on this passage, Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 24), Basil (in the book On True Virginity), Ambrose (in the exhortation to virgins), and Gregory (part 3 of the Pastoral, chapter 29); and it appears from the reward which is promised to the eunuchs. For there is no reason why to eunuchs cut off or so born should be promised greater glory than that of the sons and daughters of God. And Augustine adds subtly: If anyone should contend that Isaiah speaks of true eunuchs, our cause is still helped; for if to eunuchs who are continent because they cannot do otherwise is promised greater glory than to the just married, certainly with greater reason is it promised to those who will be continent even though they could be otherwise.
And here is to be observed that that name, better than sons and daughters, can have another sense also — namely, that we understand that something better is promised than sons and daughters would have been; for the Hebrew words, that is, a good name above sons and daughters, very well admit this sense: I will give to those who lack children something better than to have children; and so also the seventy Interpreters. And it comes back to the same as the former opinion; for always the continent are preferred to the married, since these are to have children, but those something better.
And that the continence of the eunuchs is not here commanded but counseled, the same authors teach, and Jerome proves from those words, They that shall choose the things that I would. For those are said to choose who are not compelled by a precept. And so the sense is: They that shall choose the things that I would — that is, who, transcending the things which I commanded, accommodating myself to human weakness, of their own accord shall choose the more perfect things, which I desire and would wish. Besides, the same appears from this, that those who are not eunuchs, though they are placed after the eunuchs, yet are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, nay, are called sons and daughters; therefore not all are bound to be eunuchs; therefore it is not a precept.
And that continence is not only useful in this life, as the adversaries say, but is truly meritorious of a singular glory — which they abhor as a blasphemy — appears from those words, I will give them an everlasting name that shall not perish, which Augustine thus expounds (On Holy Virginity, chapter 25): “Why,” he says, “dost thou tergiversate, impious blindness? Why dost thou promise only a temporal utility to the continent Saints? I will give them an everlasting name. And if perchance thou triest here to take ‘everlasting’ for ‘long-lasting,’ I add, I heap up, I inculcate, that it will never be lacking; what dost thou seek further? What sayest thou further? This everlasting name, whatever it is, will not be common to the eunuchs of God, though set in the same kingdom and the same house, with the many — for it signifies a certain glory proper and excellent; for perhaps therefore it is called a name, because it distinguishes those to whom it is given from the rest.”
But Peter Martyr, in the book On Celibacy and Monastic Vows, meets this, and tries to prove that Isaiah speaks of true eunuchs who were among the Jews; for because at that time it was great felicity to have much offspring, he says that God wished to console the eunuchs, and therefore promised them that He would have them in a better place than sons and daughters — that is, than the rest of the Israelites who do not keep the divine law — if only they themselves diligently observed the same law.
But this exposition can easily be refuted. First, because it is contrary to the ancient, most holy, and most learned Fathers — Basil, Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory — whom in a doubtful matter it is much safer to believe than one Apostate, who prefers to follow the Rabbis of the Jews rather than the holy Fathers of the Church.
Secondly, because Peter Martyr absurdly understands by the sons of God, to whom the eunuchs are preferred, the evil Israelites; for either the evil Israelites are called sons of God as Israelites, or as evil; not as Israelites, because the eunuchs too were Israelites and accordingly sons, wherefore the comparison would be inept; nor again are they called sons as evil, because a man, as he is evil, is not of God but of the devil. Wherefore by the sons are understood the married faithful and good, who also have a good place in the house of God, but to them are preferred the virgins and continent, who have a better place — that is, the place of the spouse.
Thirdly, because in this passage God promises to the eunuchs an everlasting name — that is, a celebrated fame, and one that will never perish, neither in this age nor in the future. Let Peter Martyr, then, show who those eunuchs are in whom this prophecy has been fulfilled; certainly he will not find those cut off in the flesh greatly celebrated. But we can bring forward an innumerable army of Saints and holy Virgins, of whose praises the books of the holy Fathers are full. And so the very fulfillment of this prophecy, so manifest, in the holy Virgins ought to be enough to exclude that carnal and Jewish opinion about carnal eunuchs.
The second testimony is Wisdom 3: Happy is the barren and the undefiled, that hath not known bed in sin; she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls. And the eunuch, that hath not wrought iniquity with his hands, nor thought wicked things against God; for the choice gift of faith shall be given to him (that is, a certain singular gift, answering to his fidelity), and a lot in the temple of God. For the fruit of good labors is glorious, and the root of wisdom that never falleth away. Which passage Jerome (in the place above) teaches to be similar to the former.
The third testimony is Matthew 13, where the Lord compares the kingdom of heaven — that is, the Church — to good ground, one part of which yielded fruit a hundredfold, another sixtyfold, another thirtyfold. Which passage, expounding, Cyprian (On the Habit of Virgins), Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian), and Augustine (On Holy Virginity, chapters 44 and 45) teach that by that parable is distinguished the merit of chaste marriage, of widowhood, and of virginity. From which it appears that virginal continence is a greater good, and more meritorious before God, than conjugal chastity is, and accordingly is a divine counsel; for what God does not command, and yet commends, and prefers to other things, without doubt He counsels.
The fourth is Matthew 19, when, the Apostles having said, It is not expedient to marry, the Lord said: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made so by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it. That here no precept of continence is given appears from the foregoing; for at the beginning of this chapter the Lord approved marriage, saying, What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder; therefore He does not here forbid marriage, therefore He does not command continence. The same appears from what follows: He that can take it, let him take it. For, as Augustine elegantly says (sermon 61 on the seasons), of the precepts of justice it cannot be said, He that can do it, let him do it, but, Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down. And that a counsel is given appears from this, that, the Apostles having said, It is not expedient to marry, the Lord did not say, Nay, but it is expedient, but said, All men take not this word; he that can take it, let him take it; that is, you have said truly that marriage is not expedient, for it rather impedes; yet not all understand this, but let him who can attain it not omit it. And that continence not only confers bodily utility but has a reward in heaven appears from that: There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.
But the adversaries, and first Peter Martyr in the book On Celibacy and Vows, expound that, for the kingdom of heaven, as meaning for the more expeditious preaching of the Gospel. But against this is the exposition of all the Fathers. Cyprian (On the Habit of Virgins): “Let them not now,” he says, “study to be adorned or to please any other than their Lord, from whom also they await the reward of virginity, He Himself saying: For there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” etc. Where Cyprian expounds the kingdom of God as the reward of virginity; therefore it does not signify the preaching of the Gospel, especially since Cyprian speaks of women virgins, who cannot preach the Gospel. Hilary on this passage expounds that, for the kingdom of heaven, as meaning in the hope of the heavenly kingdom, which cannot be referred to the preaching of the Gospel.
Chrysostom on this passage, addressing the spiritual eunuch: “Give thanks,” he says, “to God, because thou shalt have great rewards and gleaming crowns, if thou livest so — as though for those without any reward.”
Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian): “He sets before us,” he says, “as the giver of the prize, a reward; He invites to the race; He holds in His hand the prize of virginity; He shows the purest fountain, and cries out: Let him that thirsteth come and drink; he that can take it, let him take it. He does not say, Whether you will or not, you must drink and run, but, He that shall will, he that shall be able to run and to drink, he shall conquer, he shall be satisfied.”
Finally, Augustine (On Holy Virginity, chapter 24): “To Christ,” he says, “praising those who have made themselves eunuchs, not for this age but for the kingdom of heaven, let a Christian contradict, affirming that this is useful to the present life, not to the future,” etc. See the like in Bede and Anselm in their commentary on this passage.
The fifth is in the same place, where it is said to the young man: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. That here no precept is given, but a counsel, appears from the very sequence of the words; for to him asking, What shall I do that I may be saved? the Lord answered, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Where He shows that the observance of the commandments suffices for salvation; and then subjoins, If thou wilt be perfect — that is, if thou art not content with eternal life, but aspirest to an excellent degree in eternal life itself — go, sell all.
Besides, if this were a precept, certainly it would be a precept of charity; but it is not; for charity requires only that we love our neighbor as ourselves; therefore it does not require that we give all our things to our neighbors and keep nothing for ourselves, but we satisfy that precept if we partly give and partly retain. And that to give all merits a signal reward appears from those words, And thou shalt have treasure in heaven. But five expositions meet us to be refuted.
The first is that of Saint Jerome and Bede on this passage, where they teach that this young man came to the Lord not with the desire of a learner, but with the mind of a tempter. From which someone might gather that the Lord too answered not seriously, but ironically. Chrysostom refutes this opinion. First, because no Evangelist reprehends this young man, though three write this history — namely, Matthew chapter 19, Mark chapter 10, Luke chapter 18. Secondly, because the Lord spoke most gently with him, whereas otherwise He is wont to receive tempters differently. Thirdly, because he would not have gone away sad at hearing the Lord’s word, unless he had truly and seriously desired perfection.
Add that the Lord, looking on him, loved him, as Mark says; but the Lord does not love hypocrites. Therefore Blessed Jerome slipped in memory; for he thought this young man to be the same with that tempting Pharisee of whom Mark 14; for he alleges this passage of Mark, whereas Mark distinguishes the one from the other, as appears from chapters 10 and 14. Wherefore Jerome (question 1 to Hedibia, and in the book against Vigilantius), weighing this passage, expounds it far otherwise. Similarly Erasmus slipped in memory, who in the annotation on this passage writes that this young man is accused by Chrysostom as a tempter, whereas on the contrary Chrysostom rather defends him. Bede too, in his commentary on Mark chapter 10, openly changes his opinion and teaches that those are deceived who think this young man came with the mind of a tempter.
The second exposition is that of John Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §13), who first demonstrates that the Lord could not place perfection in selling all things, since the Apostle (1 Corinthians 13) says: If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing; and to the Colossians 3 says that charity is the bond of perfection. Then he explains this passage himself, and says that that young man, who had said, All these I have kept from my youth, had lied, and therefore Christ said to him, Go, sell all that thou hast, not to exhort him to do this, but that, this precept being proposed to him, which he could not fulfill, he might learn that he had lied — as if to one boasting that he knew all things we should say, Explain to us, then, how many stars there are in heaven, or grains of sand on the seashore. And that that young man had not kept all the commandments Calvin proves, because one of the commandments is to love God with the whole heart; but he who loves with the whole heart is ready to let go all things for God’s sake, nor is he made sad if it be said to him by God to let go all things; but this young man, at hearing Christ’s word, was made sad.
The same is the exposition of Peter Martyr in the book On Celibacy and Vows, where he adds also this argument: The Lord says, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all, etc.; but perfection is commanded to all (Matthew 5): Be ye perfect; therefore it was not a counsel, but a precept, to this young man to sell all.
But that Peter Martyr and Calvin err is proved. First from Mark chapter 10, where we read: And the Lord, looking on him, loved him. But the Lord does not love liars; therefore it is credible that he spoke the truth. Nor does Calvin’s argument conclude; for he who loves with the whole heart is not bound to do all that God counsels, but only what He commands. But that here the Lord does not command but counsel has already been proved; and again it can be proved; for the Lord did not say absolutely, Sell all, but under a condition, If thou wilt be perfect.
But, they say, he was bound to be perfect, since it is a precept, Be ye perfect (Matthew 5); therefore he was bound also to sell all. But on the contrary: for first, we have already shown above that the perfection here set down is not of precept, since it is distinguished from the observance of the law, of which it was said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Nor does that of Matthew 5, Be ye perfect, stand in the way; for there are various kinds of perfection, as we said above in chapter 2. For there is a certain perfection necessary to salvation, which consists in the full observance of the commandments; there is a greater perfection, which is necessary not to salvation simply, but to a more excellent degree of glory in the kingdom of heaven, and this consists in the observance of the counsels. Of the former perfection, then, the Lord speaks (Matthew 5), of the latter in this passage. Which is again proved in this way: for if this perfection were of precept, certainly all Christians would be bound to sell all their goods, for to all the precepts all are bound.
Martyr answers that this precept of selling all was given only to this young man, and accordingly was necessary for him to perfection, but not for others; for he is perfect who obeys God commanding.
But on the contrary: as, when the Lord says, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, He indicated that to keep the commandments is the means to eternal life for all men, so also, when He says, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all, He indicated that to sell all is the means to perfection for all men, and not only for that young man. Besides, we prove the same from the testimonies of the ancient holy Fathers, who teach that the Lord in this passage did not command, but only exhorted and counseled, as a perfection, to sell all and give to the poor.
Ambrose (in the book On Widows, beyond the middle): “That thou mayst understand,” he says, “the distance between precept and counsel, recall him to whom in the Gospel it is first prescribed that he do no homicide, commit no adultery, bear no false witness; for there is a precept where there is a penalty of sin. But when he had recalled that he had fulfilled the precepts of the law, a counsel is given him, that he sell all and follow the Lord; for these things are given not as a precept, but are offered as a counsel.”
Jerome (in the book against Vigilantius): “But whereas thou assertest that they do better who use their goods and little by little distribute the fruits of their possessions to the poor, than those who, their possessions being sold, bestow all at once, it will be answered thee not by me but by the Lord: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor. He speaks to him who wishes to be perfect, who with the Apostles leaves father, and boat, and net. That which thou praisest is the second and third degree, which we too receive, provided we know that the first is to be preferred to the second and third.”
Augustine (epistle 89, question 4): “Let that young man,” he says, “see how he kept the commandments of the law; nevertheless the good Master distinguished the commandments of the law from that more excellent perfection; for there He said, If thou wilt come to life, keep the commandments; but here, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all,” etc. Chrysostom on this passage: “That he might be allured,” he says, “He shows him that a huge reward will be his, and leaves all things to his will.”
The same is proved from the following words; for when Peter had seen the young man, at hearing this counsel, go away sad, he said to the Lord: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee; what therefore shall we have? as if he should say, Behold, we have done what this young man was unwilling to do; what therefore wilt thou give us? To which question, if the opinion of Martyr and Calvin is true, the Lord ought to have answered, I will give you nothing, for I spoke only to that young man, and to him not seriously, but said those things only that the young man might understand that he had lied. But He did not so answer, but said: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, etc. And lest we think these things promised only to the Apostles, let us hear Augustine (epistle 89, question 4) expounding this passage: “Those,” he says, “who have not received that so great and so splendid counsel of perfection about selling their goods, and yet, being free from damnable crimes, have fed the hungering Christ, will not indeed sit with Christ on high to judge, but will stand at His right hand to be judged mercifully.”
To Calvin’s argument from the Apostle, I answer that the abandonment of all things can be considered in two ways: in one way in itself, in the other way as it is a commanded act of love. In the first way, the abandonment of all things is not perfection, but yet is an instrument to perfection; and so we can expound the Lord’s words, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all, that is, take this instrument and thou shalt acquire perfection. But because this abandonment of goods, if it be without charity, does not save a man, therefore it is said not to profit, by the Apostle (1 Corinthians 13). In the second way, the abandonment itself can be called perfection, or a work of perfection, because it includes a certain eminent degree of charity; and of this too the Lord’s word can be understood, so that the sense is: If thou wilt be perfect, sell all; for hence it will appear that thou hast perfect charity.
The third exposition is that of the Pelagians, who explained that, If thou wilt be perfect, as, if thou wilt have nothing lacking to attain salvation; for he is perfect to whom nothing is lacking; and this they proved from those words of the Lord (Mark 10), One thing is wanting to thee, and from the words of the young man (Matthew 19), What is yet wanting to me? as if he should say, I have kept those precepts of the Decalogue delivered by Moses; is anything else to be done? To whom the Lord answered (Mark 10): One thing is wanting to thee; go, sell all, etc.
But that this exposition is false Augustine teaches (epistle 89, question 4) from those words (1 Timothy 6): Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God. Let the rich do good; let them be in good works; let them give easily, etc. “I think,” says Augustine, “that in commanding these things the Apostle was instructing the rich, not deceiving them — the Apostle who does not say, Charge the rich of this world to sell all that they have, give to the poor, and follow the Lord, but, Not to be high-minded,” etc.
When, then, the Lord says, If thou wilt be perfect, He does not speak of the perfection necessary to salvation, but of a certain other greater one. And when He says, One thing is wanting to thee, He does not mean for attaining salvation, but for that greater perfection. And similarly that young man, saying, What is yet wanting to me? does not understand for attaining salvation simply; for he had already heard the answer, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; but he understands for attaining salvation more easily and more perfectly — as if to say, What could I yet do useful to eternal life? But if anyone will admit that the young man asked whether anything was lacking to him simply for salvation, he will be able to say that it was answered by the Lord that nothing was lacking to him for salvation; for the Lord does not say, One thing is wanting to thee, sell all, but, If thou wilt be perfect, one thing is wanting to thee, as appears from the words of Matthew and Mark joined together — as if to say, Nothing is wanting to thee for attaining salvation simply, but, if thou wilt be perfect, one thing is wanting to thee, etc.
The fourth exposition is that of William of Saint-Amour, against whom Blessed Thomas writes (opusculum 19), who said that these words of the Lord ought to be understood according to the preparation of mind, and to contain a true precept, like that of Matthew 5: If any man strike thee on one cheek, offer him the other — which is a precept, but is understood in the preparation of mind, as Augustine expounds (in epistle 5 to Marcellinus). In the same way Melanchthon seems to understand this passage (in the Common Places, chapter on poverty).
But this too is a false exposition; for the examples of the Lord and of the Saints are the best commentaries on the Scriptures. But we see that the Lord, when He was struck on the cheek (John 18), did not turn the other, but said, Why strikest thou me? And similarly the Apostle, when he was struck on the cheek (Acts 23), did not turn the other, but said, God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. From which examples Augustine (in epistle 5) evidently gathers that this is a precept, but is understood in the preparation of mind. But the counsel of leaving all things the Lord, and the Apostles, and very many Saints did not retain in the preparation of mind, but fulfilled in the very deed and in fact. Luke 9: the Lord says of Himself, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And Matthew 19: the Apostles say, Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. And of Saint Anthony Athanasius writes that, when he had heard this Gospel read in church, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all, he, being soon taught by God of the true sense of those words, sold all and gave to the poor. From which it appears that this passage is to be understood of the real abandonment of all one’s goods.
Besides, that precept of offering the cheek to the striker cannot be fulfilled in the very deed without harm to the neighbor and offense to God, and therefore we understand that only patience is commanded, not that we should in the very deed offer the other cheek. But to sell all and give to the poor can be done without harm to anyone; for he does injury to no one who gives his goods to the poor; therefore we understand this counsel to be fulfilled in the very deed.
The fifth false exposition is that of Osiander, who (as Alfonso de Virves reports, Philippic 20) admitted that this is truly an evangelical counsel, but that it was given only to that young man with whom Christ was speaking.
But on the contrary: for first, Christ did not say those words to the young man in any manner whatever, but with the condition, if he wished to be perfect; therefore the counsel given to him is given to all the faithful who wish to be perfect, according to that of Mark 13: What I say to you, I say to all: Watch. Besides, the things which Christ said to someone as a prince are taken as said to all princes, as Feed my sheep (John 21); therefore also the things He said to one as a private person are understood as said to all private persons. Besides, that Christ said these things to all appears from the understanding of the Apostles, who believed these things said to themselves also, saying, Behold, we have left all things. And from the approval of the Lord saying, Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, etc. Add to this, as we said above, that these are most similar opinions, spoken by the same one and to the same: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, and If thou wilt be perfect, sell all, etc.; but the former is said to all — why not also the latter? Finally, Saint Anthony (Athanasius being witness) and Saint Francis (Blessed Bonaventure being witness) thought said to themselves, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all. Which same we could prove by many other witnesses. Not, then, to that young man alone was this counsel given.
The sixth testimony is in the same place, concerning obedience, where the Lord says, And follow me; for that this following is a counsel appears, because it is said to him alone who wishes to be perfect, and to whom it was said, Sell all that thou hast. And that by that, Follow me, obedience is signified, is proved in two ways. First, because to follow Christ is to imitate Christ; but Christ was made obedient unto death (Philippians 2). Secondly, because (Matthew 16) Christ Himself explains what it is to follow Him, saying: He that will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. Which last is an explanation of the foregoing, so that the sense is: He that will come after me — that is, follow me — let him deny himself and take up his cross, and so he will follow me. Now to deny oneself is nothing else than to bid farewell to one’s own judgment and one’s own affections, and to accommodate oneself to the judgment and will of another.
Someone will say: To deny oneself is indeed to obey, but here it treats of the obedience which is necessarily due to God, not of that which is spontaneously shown to man; for there follows, He that loveth his life shall lose it.
I answer that here it treats of the obedience which is necessarily due to God; yet hence is also deduced the counsel of religious obedience. For hence we have that to follow Christ is to deny oneself — that is, to subject oneself to the will of another. And we have from other passages that there is a twofold following of Christ: one common and necessary to all the faithful, of which it here treats — that is, Matthew 16 and Luke 9; and again another which is counseled only to those who wish to be perfect, of which it treats in Matthew 19 and Luke 18. Therefore it is necessary that there be a twofold self-denial — that is, obedience: one common and necessary to all, which consists in obeying only in those things which are necessary to salvation; the other greater and more universal, which consists in obeying in all things, even those not necessary, provided they be not sins — which kind of obedience is praised in the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35), who obeyed their father in those things in which they were not bound.
The seventh testimony is 1 Corinthians 7, where in many ways the counsel of continence is proposed. It is good, says Paul, for a man not to touch a woman. Likewise: It is good for a man so to be. Likewise: Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. Likewise: But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I. Likewise: I would that all men were even as myself — that is, continent, for so all the ancients expound it. Likewise: Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. Where the Apostle indicates that this counsel is not human but divine; for he says that he gives counsel, not as a political man, but as a faithful minister of God. Likewise: He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that giveth her not doth better. Finally, of the widow: Let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord; but more blessed shall she be if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. Where again thou seest this counsel attributed to the Holy Spirit.
To these passages the adversaries answer in three ways. The first solution is Luther’s in the Epithalamium, where he says that the Apostle in this passage does not counsel but dissuade continence; and he proves it from this, that the Apostle in this chapter mingles with the praise of continence the necessity of marriage; for after he said, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, he at once subjoins, But for fear of fornication let every man have his own wife; as if he would say, I indeed would wish to exhort to continence, which is truly a splendid thing, yet the danger of fornicating does not permit me to do this. Nearly the same Calvin teaches in the commentary on this passage; for he says that Paul’s opinion, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, is like this opinion, It would be good for a man not to eat or drink, if it could be done; but because it cannot be done without a miracle, therefore let every man eat and drink.
But on the contrary: for first the words of Paul are most clear; for he does not say, It would be good, but, It is good; he does not say, I would wish to give counsel, but, I give counsel, etc. Then all the Fathers so expound. See Chrysostom and others on this passage; Ambrose (in the book On Widows, near the end); Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian); and Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 13 and following). Of whom Augustine, as if he had foreseen that one of his Augustinian apostates would say that the Apostle in this passage exhorts to marriage and deters from continence, expressly wrote the contrary; for he says thus (chapter 16): “In this way,” he says, “he exhorts to virginity and perpetual continence, so as even to deter somewhat from marriage.”
Besides, if it is so difficult to be continent, as these men say and show by example (since none among them are continent), certainly Paul was most inept in praising so greatly an impossible thing. And the absurdity of this will appear if one applies all Paul’s words to Calvin’s example. For would not the Apostle have been ridiculous if he had said, It is good not to eat? Likewise, Art thou without food? seek not food. Likewise, Concerning not eating I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, that no one eat. Likewise, He that eateth doth well, he that eateth not doth better. Likewise, He that eateth sins not, he does what he will; he will be more blessed if he eat not. Not, then, of an impossible thing does Paul speak.
But by that, But for fear of fornication let every man have his own wife, the Apostle does not admonish that every man in whom is some danger of fornicating should take a wife; for then absolutely all ought to take a wife, none excepted, whereas Luther himself excepts those who have the gift of continence. For in those too is the danger of fornicating, since they can lose that gift and be sometimes overcome by temptation; but he admonishes that those who have taken a wife retain her, and whoever is about to fornicate should rather take a wife, as he says below, He that containeth not himself, let him marry.
The second exposition is that of Peter Martyr on this passage, where he opposes to these words of Paul, It is good for a man not to touch a woman — that is, to be without a wife — those words of God (Genesis 2), It is not good for man to be alone — that is, it is not good for man to be without a wife. And because Paul ought not to fight with God, he says that Paul speaks only of those who are certain that they have the gift of continence, but God of all those who lack this gift. And since very few, or none, are those who know for certain that they have this gift, thence he wishes to infer that it is good that all take wives.
But he errs on both sides. For that God does not speak of those who lack this gift appears; for God spoke those words before the sin of Adam, at which time Adam without any doubt lacked evil concupiscence, and had, with the other virtues, also the gift of continence, so that he could be continent if there were need.
And that Paul does not speak only of those who have the gift of continence, but pronounces absolutely that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, appears also; for although not all have this gift, yet all can have it if they ask it of God, and accordingly Paul’s counsel can suit all. For if this gift were so from God that it were in no way in our power to be continent and not to be continent — as it is not in our power to prophesy, which example Calvin brings in the commentary on this chapter — absurdly would Paul say, But I give counsel, and, Let him do what he will; for there is no deliberation or choice about that which is not in our power. For who but a fool would deliberate whether he would prophesy or not prophesy?
Likewise, the same Blessed Paul in the same place says that conjugal continence too is a gift of God, and is not given to all: Every one, he says, hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. I ask, then, he who has not the gift of conjugal continence, what shall he do? Will it be lawful for him to fornicate? They will answer that it is not lawful to fornicate, because although he has not the gift of continence, yet he will have it if he ask it of God. The same I will say of virginal continence. The words of God and of Paul, then, are to be harmonized otherwise. God speaks of the good of the species, Paul of the good of the individual. Likewise, God speaks for that time when the world was empty, Paul for that when the world is full. Finally, God speaks of the good which is referred to temporal life, but Paul of the good which is referred to eternal life, as we shall now prove.
There is, then, a third solution: that Paul, whether he persuades continence or not, only praises it as useful for something else, but not as of itself pleasing to God and meritorious. But this utility they do not expound in the same way; for Luther in the Epithalamium acknowledges no other utility than the temporal, because, namely, it frees from cares and many afflictions which are necessarily annexed to marriage: “Saint Paul wishes,” he says, “this word to be understood spiritually, where he says, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, so that this good is not said of merit before God — as hitherto that text has been expounded even by Saint Jerome — but is said of the temporal good, advantage, and quiet in this life, in which the chaste man excels the married; since he who lives chastely without marriage is free from those troubles and tribulations which are in the married state.” But Melanchthon (in the Places, chapter on chastity), Martyr on this passage of the Apostle, and others, acknowledge not only this temporal utility, but also some spiritual one — namely, that those who lack a wife are more expeditious for praying, preaching, and so forth. But we, besides these two, acknowledge a third — namely, for pleasing God and meriting the greatest rewards. And indeed to refute Luther it ought to suffice that Jovinian held altogether the same, whom Augustine refutes in these words (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 13): “Whence,” he says, “they marvelously dote who think that the good of this continence is not necessary for the kingdom of heaven, but for the present age — because, namely, marriages are distended with more and closer earthly cares, from which trouble virgins and the continent are free,” etc.
But, they say, the Apostle says: I think this to be good for the present necessity. And below: Such shall have tribulation of the flesh.
I answer that that, For the present, or, as we read, the instant necessity, does not signify on account of present troubles to be fled, but on account of the shortness of the time, because the Lord is near, and those days approach of which it is said, Woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days; as Jerome expounds (in the book against Helvidius, Book 1 against Jovinian, and in the epistle to Eustochium on virginity), and it appears from the Apostle in this place, who, as if explaining what the present necessity is, says: The time is short; and again: For the fashion of this world passeth away. But that, Such shall have tribulation of the flesh, is understood indeed of the temporal affliction which the married suffer; but not for the fleeing of that alone does Blessed Paul teach that continence is good; nay, as Jerome finely expounds (Book 1 against Jovinian), lest anyone should think that the married are indeed inferior to virgins as to spiritual things, but yet are happier as to carnal things, therefore he adds that they are also wretched as to carnal things, and therefore there is no cause for doubting whether it is better to be continent or to marry.
Now against Philip and Martyr there are in this very chapter two or three passages. The first is: The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. Where the Apostle says that virginity is a holiness of body and spirit, and that through it we please God; for the sense is, as the married woman thinks how she may keep herself beautiful, that she may so please her husband, so the virgin thinks how she may keep the integrity and sanctity of the body, that through it she may please God. Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian), expounding this: “That virginity,” he says, “is a victim of Christ, whose mind no thought, whose flesh no lust has defiled”; where thou seest virginity called a victim of God, and accordingly a thing by which God is worshiped and which pleases God.
The second is: Not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. Where the Apostle says that continence is of itself decent and comely, and accordingly dear to God, and at the same time useful for something else — that is, for praying without intermission.
The third is: But more blessed shall she be if she so remain — that is, as Ambrose expounds, more worthy in the age to come.
Let there come in last Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 14), where he says thus: “Since eternal life is to be approached, in which there is a certain excellent glory, to be bestowed not on all who will live for eternity, but on some there; for the attaining of which it is not enough to have been freed from sin, unless something be vowed to the Liberator Himself — something of which not to have vowed is no crime, but to have vowed and rendered is praise — therefore the Apostle says, But I give counsel.”
The eighth testimony is 1 Corinthians 9, in which whole chapter Paul strives to show that he did more than was commanded him, and therefore merited a singular glory before God. For when the Lord had ordained that those who announce the Gospel should live of the Gospel, Paul preferred to preach the Gospel gratis, and so to do a work of supererogation: It is better for me, he says, to die, than that any man should make my glory void. For if I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel. What is my reward then? That preaching the Gospel, I may deliver the Gospel without charge.
Peter Martyr answers, in his commentary on this passage, that Paul does not speak of a work of supererogation, but of a work due before God, though not due according to the judgment of men; and therefore by the name of glory too he will have understood glorying before men, not before God’s tribunal. And he proves it in three ways. First, because Paul says, It is better for me to die, than that any man should make my glory void. But for a work not necessary, such as one of supererogation is, no one ought to undergo death, but only for a necessary one; therefore he speaks of a work necessary before God, from which nevertheless follows glorying before men, who can judge that work not necessary.
Secondly, because Paul despairs of reward unless he do this work; for he says, And if I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me — that is, if I preach taking a stipend from the people, I shall gain nothing; whence follows, What is my reward then? That preaching the Gospel, I may deliver the Gospel without charge; therefore he speaks of a due work, which unless it be done, the whole reward is lost.
Thirdly, because he says, That I abuse not my power, and, Lest I should give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ; but to abuse power, and to give a hindrance to the Gospel, is a sin. So Martyr concludes that the Apostle Paul would have gravely sinned if he had taken a stipend from the people, because in this way he would have impeded the course of the Gospel.
In this explanation there are two errors of Martyr. The first, that by the glory which Paul attributes to himself he understands glorying before men, not before God. For first Blessed Augustine (in the book On the Work of Monks, chapter 10) writes the contrary in these words: “It is better for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glory void. What glory? but that which he wished to have with God in Christ”; this Augustine. Where see how openly he contradicts Martyr. Then the words of Paul openly show that he speaks of glory with God — that is, of the merit of a certain excellent glory, which he expected by that work of supererogation; for below, that which he called glory he calls reward: What is my reward then? etc. But certainly Paul did not expect reward from men, but from God. Finally, if Paul gloried before men as of an undue work, which nevertheless before God were due, he would glory falsely — which who would say, unless perhaps some Peter Pseudomartyr?
The second error is that he says Paul would have sinned if he had taken a stipend from the people, and accordingly his work was due, not of supererogation. For first, Paul in that whole chapter does nothing else than prove that it was lawful for him to live from the people’s stipends; for he proves this, first, by the example of the other Apostles; secondly, by the examples of soldiers, shepherds, husbandmen; thirdly, from the law of Moses; fourthly, from Christ’s ordinance; fifthly, from nature itself.
Besides, so have all the Fathers expounded. Chrysostom on this passage: “Those things,” he says, “which are done above the precept, according to this saying obtain a reward; but those which are contained under a precept, not so.” Ambrose twice repeats that Paul made lawful things unlawful to himself. Augustine (in the book On the Work of Monks, chapter 5): “The innkeeper,” he says, “to whom that wounded man was brought, had heard, If thou spend any more, at my return I will repay thee; Paul, then, spent more, who, as he himself testifies, warred at his own charges.” Finally, the other Apostles took stipends from the peoples, as Paul here says, nor is it likely that they sinned; therefore neither would Paul have sinned by taking.
Martyr answers that the case of Paul and of the others is not the same; for the others did not have false apostles as rivals, as Paul had. But this avails nothing; for otherwise Blessed Paul would not rightly prove by the example of the other Apostles that he could be fed by the people. For it might have been answered that the case of those Apostles and his own was not the same. Then Paul abstained from taking stipends not on account of the false apostles, but lest he should burden the peoples, as he himself says (1 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3). Nay, on account of the false apostles he ought rather to have taken stipends. For they accused Paul of this, as Cajetan well observes, that Paul did not seem a true Apostle, since he did not live after the manner of the other Apostles. Wherefore he in that whole chapter proves that he is a true Apostle, and that he could take stipends if he would.
To the first argument I say that it is false that it is not lawful to die for a work of supererogation; for how many sacred virgins have been killed because they refused marriage.
To the second, Anselm answers on this passage that Paul despairs of glory if he only evangelize for the sake of temporal food. We can, secondly and better, say that Paul, when he says, If I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me, etc., does not despair of glory simply, but of a certain singular glory which is due to a work of supererogation, as Chrysostom expounds.
To the third I say, with Chrysostom (homily 8 on penance) and with Oecumenius and Theophylact on this passage, that Paul took the word “abuse” for vehement use; for he meant to say, Lest I use my power as much as I can. Nor is this new; for other authors too, both sacred and profane, use this word in the good part. For the word katachresomai, and in Latin abutor, signifies three things. First, to use a thing against its institution, and this is evil. Secondly, to use beyond the institution, and this is not evil; whence is the figure catachresis. Saint Paulinus (epistle 11 to Severus): “And so,” he says, “the Empress mother, her son the Emperor readily assenting, the treasures being opened for holy works, used up the whole treasury.” Thirdly, to use simply, as in Plato (epistle 8) and other authors.
And as to what he says, Lest I give any hindrance, I say that there “hindrance” does not signify scandal, but interruption; for it is in Greek enkope. For Paul feared lest some more avaricious men, lest they should have to feed the preachers, be retarded from the Gospel; but this fear could be common to Paul with the other Apostles, who nevertheless, notwithstanding this, took stipends from the people. From which we understand that it was not a sin to take stipends from the people, even if from thence followed some retardation of the course of the Gospel; for that retardation arose not from the fault of the Apostles, who used their right, but from the fault of the hearers. Yet Blessed Paul preferred to suffer hunger and labor, than that in any way the course of the Gospel should be retarded.
Add lastly that if those words, That I abuse not my power, and those, Lest I give a hindrance, signified that Paul would have sinned if he had taken stipends from the people, it would follow that he could not glory before men as of an undue work. For if he himself says that he ought to have done it, and says this to men, how does he glory that he did an undue work? Therefore Peter Martyr fights with himself, while he teaches that Paul glories before men of an undue work, and yet brings in the same Paul saying that he ought to have done that work, and would have sinned unless he had done it.
The ninth testimony is Apocalypse 14, where we read: No man could say the canticle but those hundred and forty-four thousand; these are they who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins, and they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. From which testimony it appears that virgins have a singular reward, since they sing a canticle which no other of the Blessed can sing.
The Magdeburgians (Century 1, Book 2, chapter 4, column 454) answer that this passage ought to be understood mystically of those who are not stained with idolatry, which is called the fornication of Babylon, the great harlot.
But on the contrary. For first John indicates that these virgins, who alone could say that canticle, were certain few; for a hundred and forty-four thousand are few if they be compared with that great crowd of Saints which for its multitude could not be numbered, which the same John saw (Apocalypse chapter 7). But the greater part of the Saints was free from idolatry, as is known. Besides, John would not say, they were not defiled with women, but with a woman, if he understood it of the fornication of Babylon.
Finally, the Fathers expound it of true virgins: Primasius, Bede, Oecumenius, and Anselm on this passage; Jerome (in the book against Helvidius, at the end); Gregory (part 3 of the Pastoral, chapter 29); and Augustine (On Holy Virginity, chapter 27 and following), who among other things says thus (chapter 29): “The rest of the multitude of the faithful, which is not able to follow the Lamb to this, will behold you; it will behold and not envy, and by rejoicing with you it will have in you what it has not in itself. For that new canticle, proper to you, it will not be able to say, but it will be able to hear, and to be delighted with your so excellent good. But you who will both say and hear — because what you will say you will also hear from yourselves — will exult more happily and reign more joyfully.” So much for the Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput IX.
Asseruntur Consilia Euangelica testimoniis
Scrip turee.
Quae sententia, ut ad tertium veniamus,
probatur primo, Scripturis. Secundo, exem¬
plis primitivae Ecclesiae. Tertio, testimoniis
veterum. Quarto, rationibus.
Primum testimonium est Isaiae LVI : Non
dicat Eunuchus. Ego lignum aridum , quia
heee dicit Dominus Eunuchis : qui custodierint
sabbata mea , et elegerint quee ego volui , et ser¬
vaverint foedus meum , dabo eis in domo mea,
et in muris meis locum , et nomen melius a filiis
et filiabus nomen ceternum dabo eis , quod non
peidbit (1).
Quod hic agatur de continentibus volun¬
tariis, non de abscissis , vel sic natis , qui
necessario continent, docent Hieronymus et
Cyrillus in hunc locum, Augustinus libro de
sancta virginitate, cap. 24. et Basilius in li¬
bro de vera virginitate, Ambrosius in exhor¬
tatione ad virgines , et Gregorius, III parte
pastoralis, cap. 29. et patet ex praemio, quod
Eunuchis promittitur. Nec enim ulla ratio
est, cur abscissis vel natis Eunuchis promit¬
tatur major gloria , quam sit filiorum et fi¬
liarum Dei. Addit autem subtiliter Augusti¬
nus. Si quis contendat , Isaiam loqui de ve¬
ris Eunuchis, adhuc juvari causam nostram;
nam si Eunuchis, qui continent se, qui non
possunt aliud facere, promittitur major glo¬
ria, quam justis conjugatis : certe majore
ratione promittitur iis , qui se continebunt,
etiamsi possent non continere.
Est autem hoc loco observandum illud no¬
men : Melius a filiis et filiabus ; posse habere
alium etiam sensum, videlicet , ut intelliga-
mus promitti aliquid melius , quam fuissent
filii et filiae, nam verba Hebraea rwsn1’ D^on
Dina DiU , id est , nomen bonum prae filiis et
filiabus optime recipiunt hunc sensum, dabo
illis qui carent liberis aliquid melius, quam
sit habere liberos, et sic etiam veterunt 70 In¬
terpretes : TO7T0V OVOgaOTOV %pS tTTW VtWV, X5U Svj-ya-
(1) Isai. LXIV, 3, 4 et 5.
522
LIBER II.
0e/3wv. Et recidit in idem cum superiore sen¬
tentia; Nam semper anteponuntur continen¬
tes conjugatis, cum isti liberos, illi melius ali¬
quid habituri sint.
Quod autem continentia Eunuchorum hoc
loco non imperetur, sed consulatur, docent
iidem auctores, et probat Hieronymus ex il¬
lis verbis : Qui elegerint quae ego vblui. Illi
enim dicuntur eligere , qui non coguntur
prsecepto. Itaque sensus est; Qui elegerint
quse ego voluit , id est , qui transcendentes
ea, quse praecepi accommodans me humanae
imbecillitati, sponte sua elegerint perfectio¬
ra , quae ego cupio et vellem. Praeterea
idem patet ex eo , quod qui Eunuchi non
sunt, etsi postponuntur Eunuchis, tamen
non excluduntur a regno coelorum, imo filii
et filiae vocantur; Ergo non tenentur omnes
esse Eunuchi, ergo non est praeceptum.
Quod autem continentia non solum sit uti¬
lis in hac vita , ut adversarii dicunt, sed sit
vere meritoria gloriae singularis, quod tan-
quam ’ blasphemiam horrent, patet exiliis
verbis : Nomen aeternum dabo eis, quod non
J peribit , quod sic exponit Augustinus de san¬
cta virginitate cap. 25 : « Quid, inquit, ter¬
giversaris impia caecitas? Quid temporalem
tantummodo utilitatem promittis continenti¬
bus Sanctis? Nomen aeternum dabo eis. Et
si forte hic ipsum aeternum pro diuturno co¬
naris accipere, addo, accumulo, inculco, nec
unquam deerit, quid quaeris amplius? Quid
dicis amplius? aeternum hoc nomen , quid¬
quid illud est, Spadonibus Dei, quod utique
gloriam quamdam propriam excellentemque
significat , non erit commune cum multis,
quamvis in eodem regno, et in eadem domo
constitutis : Nam ideo fortasse et nomen dic¬
tum est, quod eos, quibus datur, distinguat
a caeteris. »
Sed occurrit Petrus Martyr in lib. de coe-
libatu et votis monasticis, ac probat, Isaiam
loqui de veris Eunuchis, qui erant apud Ju¬
daeos : Nam quia eo tempore magna felici¬
tas erat, habere multam prolem, dicit, Deum
voluisse consolari Eunuchos, atque iliis id¬
circo pollicitum se habiturum eos meliore
in loco , quam filios et filias , id est, quam
Israelitas reliquos, qui non custodiunt legem
divinam , si tamen ipsi eamdem legem dili¬
genter observaverint.
At hsec expositio facile refelli potest. Pri¬
mo, quia contraria est antiquis, sanctissimis,
ac doctissimis Patribus, Basilio, Cyrillo, Am¬
brosio , Hieronymo , Augustino , Gregorio,
quibus in re dubia multo tutius credi potest,
quam uni Apostatae, qui mavult Rabbinos
Judaeorum, quam sanctos Patres Ecclesiae
sequi.
Secundo, quia absurde Petrus Martyr per
filios Dei, quibus anteponuntur Eunuchi, in-
telligit Israelitas malos : Nam vel dicuntur
filii Dei Israelitee mali quatenus Israelitae,
vel quatenus mali ; non quatenus Israelitee,
quia etiam Eunuchi erant Israelitae, et proin¬
de filii; quocirca inepta esset collatio : non
etiam dicuntur filii, quatenus mali, quia ho¬
mo, qua malus est, non ex Deo, sed exDia-
bolo est : Quare per filios conjugati fideles
et boni intelliguntur, qui etiam locum bonum
habent in domo Dei, sed eis anteponuntur
virgines, et continentes , qui locum melio¬
rem habent, id est, locum sponsae.
Tertio, quia hoc loco Deus pollicetur Eu¬
nuchis nomen aeternum, id est, celebrem fa¬
mam, eamque numquam interituram, neque
in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Ostendat igi¬
tur Petrus Martyr, qui sint illi Eunuchi, in qui*-
bus impletum sit hoc vaticinium ; certe non
inveniet carne abscissos valde celebratos. At
nos proferre possumus exercitum innumera¬
bilem Sanctorum , et sanctarum Virginum,
quorum laudibus pleni sunt libri sanctorum
Patrum. Itaque ipsa vaticinii hujus tam ma¬
nifesta impletio in sanctis Virginibus satis
esse deberet ad excludendam carnalem et
Judaicam illam sententiam de Carnalibus
Eunuchis.
Secundum testimonium Sap. III : Felix
sterilis , et incoinquinata , quce nescioit thorum
in delicto , habebit fructum in respectione ani¬
marum sanctarum , et Spado, qui non ope¬
ratus est per manus suas iniquitatem , nec co¬
gitavit contra Deum nequissima , dabitur enim
ei fidei donum electum (id est, donum quod¬
dam singulare, respondens fidelitati ipsius)
et sors in templo Dei. Bonorum enim laborum
gloriosus est fructus , et quce non concidit radix
sapientice (1). Quem locum similem esse su¬
periori, docet Hieronymus, ubi supra.
Tertium testimonium Matth. XIII. ubi Do¬
minus comparat regnum coelorum , id est,
Ecclesiam, terroe bonee, cujus una pars red¬
debat fructum centesimum , alia sexagesi¬
mum, alia trigesimum. Quem locum expo¬
nentes Cyprianus de habitu virginum, Hie-
0
(1) Sap. III, 13 et 14.
CAPUT IX.
523
ronymus lib I in Jovinianum, et Augustinus
de sancta virginitate cap. 44. et 45. docent,
ea parabola distingui meritum casti conju¬
gii, viduitatis et virginitatis. Exquo apparet,
continentiam virginalem esse majus bonum,
et magis meritoiium apud Deum, quam sit
castitas conjugalis, ac proinde esse consilium
divinum ; quod enim Deus non praecipit, et
tamen commendat , et anteponit aliis rebus,
sine dubio consulit.
Quartum est Mattii. XIX. cum Apostoli
dixissent : Non expedit nubere , Dominus ait :
Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus da¬
tum est , sunt enim Eunuchi , qui de matris
utero sic nati sunt , et sunt Eunuchi , qui facti
sunt ab hominibus , et sunt Eunuchi , qui seipsos
castraverunt propter regnum coelorum . Qui po¬
test capere, capiat (I) . Hic non dari praeceptum
de continentia, patet ex superioribus ; Nam
initio hujus capitis Dominus approbavit nup¬
tias, dicens : Quod Deus conjunxit , homo non
separet ; ergo non prohibet hoc loco nuptias,
ergo non praecipit continentiam. Idem patet
ex sequentibus : Qui potest capere capiat.
Nam, ut eleganter ait Augustinus serm. 61.
de tempore ,. de praeceptis justitiae non po¬
test dici : Qui potest facere, faciat, sed om¬
nis arbor, quae non fecerit fructum bonum,
excmdetur. Quod autem consilium detur,
patet ex eo , quod cum Apostoli dixissent :
Non expedit nubere, Dominus non ait : Imo
vero expedit, sed ait : Non omnes capiunt ver¬
bum hoc; qui potest capere, capiat ; id est, ve¬
rum dixistis, nuptias non expedire, nam im¬
pediunt potius ; tamen non omnes hoc in-
telligunt, sed qui potest assequi, non omit¬
tat. Quod denique continentia non solum con¬
ferat corporalem utilitatem, sed praemium
habeat in ccelo , patet ex illo : Sunt Eunu¬
chi , qui castraverunt se propter regnum coelo¬
rum.
At adversarii, ac in primis Petrus Martyr
in lib. de ccelibatu et votis , illud , Propter
regnum coelorum , exponunt propter Evange-
lium expeditius praedicandum. Contra autem
est omnium Patrum expositio. Cyprianus
lib. de habitu virginum : « Nec ornari jam,
inquit , aut placere alii , quam Domino suo
studeant, a quo et mercedem virginitatis ex-
pectant, dicente ipso : Sunt enim Spadones,
qui se castraverunt propter regnum Dei etc.»
Ubi regnum Dei exponit Cyprianus virgini¬
tatis mercedem : non ergo significat praedi¬
cationem Evangelii, praesertim cum Cypria¬
nus de mulieribus virginibus loquatur, quae
non possunt praedicare E vangelium. Hilarius
in hunc locum, illud : Propter regnum coelo¬
rum ; exponit, spe regni coelestis quod ad
Evangelii praedicationem referri non potest.
Chrysostomus in hunc locum alloquens
Eunuchum spiritualem : « Gratias, inquit,
age.Deo, quia magna praemia, rutilantesque
coronas habebis, si ita vives, quemadmodum
sine aliquo illi praemio. »
Hieronymus lib. I contra Jovinianum :
«Proponit, inquit, Agnothetis praemium,
invitat ad cursum , tenet in manu virginita¬
tis bravium, ostendit purissimum fontem, et
clamitat : Qui sitit veniat, et bibat, qui po¬
test capere, capiat. Non dicit , velitis, noli¬
tis, bibendum vobis est , atque currendum,
sed qui voluerit, qui potuerit currere atque
potare, ille vincet, ille satiabitur. »
Denique, Augustinus de sancta virginitate,
c. 24 : « Christo , inquit, laudanti eos, qui
se castraverunt , non propter hoc saeculum
sed propter regnum Coelorum , Christianus
contradicat, affirmans hoc praesenti vitae es¬
se utile, non futurae etc. » vide similia apud
Bedam et Anselmum in commentario hujus
loci.
Quintum est ibidem, ubi adolescenti dici¬
tur : Si vis perfectus esse , vade , vende omnia
quce habes et da pauperibus , et habebis thesau¬
rum in coelo (2). Quod hic non detur praecep¬
tum, sed consilium, patet ex ipsa consequen¬
tia verborum : nam interroganti : Quid fa¬
ciam , ut salvus fiam ? Dominus respondit: Si
vis ad vitam ingredi , serva mandata. Ubi os¬
tendit, mandatorum observationem sufficere
ad salutem ; ac deinde subjungit : Si vis per¬
fectus esse , id est , si non es contentus vita
aeterna, sed aspiras ad excellentem gradum
in ipsa vita aeterna : Vade, vende omnia.
Praeterea, si hoc esset praeceptum , certe
esset praeceptum charitatis, at non est; nam
charitas non requirit, nisi ut diligamus proxi¬
mum, sicut nos ipsos; ergo non requirit, ut
demus omnia nostra proximis, et nobis nihil
servemus , sed satisfacimus ei praecepto, si
partim demus, partim retineamus. Quod au¬
tem dare omnia mereatur insigne praemium,
patet ex illis verbis : Et habebis thesaurum
in coelo. Sed occurrunt quinque expositiones
refellendae.
Prima est S. Hieronymi et Bedee in hunc
(1) Matth. XIX, 10, 11 et 12. — (2) Matth. XIX, 21 et passim.
LIBER II.
52i
locum, ubi docent, juvenem istum non voto
discentis, sed animo ten tantis ad Dominum
accessisse. Ex quo posset aliquis colligere,
Dominum quoque non serio respondisse, sed
ironice. Refellit Chrysostomus hanc senten¬
tiam. Primo , quia nullus Evangelista hunc
adolescentem reprehendit , cum tres hanc
historiam scribant, nimirum Matth. c. XIX.
Marcus cap. X. Lucas cap. XVIII. Secundo,
quia Dominus lenissime cum eo locutus est,
cum alioqui tentatores aliter excipere soleat.
Tertio, quia non abiisset tristis audito verbo
Domini, nisi revera serio perfectionem desi-
derasset.
Adde, quod Dominus intuitus eum , dilexit
illum , ut ait Marcus, Dominus autem non di¬
ligit hypocritas. Ergo B. Hieronymus me¬
moria lapsus est; existimavit enim, hunc ju¬
venem eumdem esse cum illo Pharisoeo ten-
tatore, de quo Mare. XIV. nam hunc locum
Marci allegat, cum tamen Marcus distinguat
unum ab altero, ut patet ex cap. X et XIV.
Quare Hieronymus quEest. 1 . ad Hedibiam,
et libro contra Vigilantium, hunc locum ex¬
pendens, longe aliter exponit. Similiter me¬
moria lapsus estErasmus, qui in annotatione
ad hunc locum scribit, a Chrysostomo hunc
adolescentem tanquam tentatorem accusari,
cum e contrario potius Chrysostomus eum
defendat. Beda quoque in commentario ad
cap. X. Marci, aperte mutat sententiam, ac
docet falli eos , qui putant hunc adolescen¬
tem animo tentantis accessisse.
Altera expositio est Joannis Calvini lib. IV
Instit. cap. 13, §. 13. qui primo demonstrat,
Dominum non potuisse constituere perfec¬
tionem in vendendis omnibus rebus , cum
Apostolus I. Corinth. XIII. dicat : Si distri¬
buero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas,
charitatem autem non habeam , nihil mihi pro¬
dest (1). Et ad Coloss. III. dicat, charitatem
esse vinculum perfectionis. Deinde explicat
ipse locum hunc, ac dicit, adolescentem il¬
lum, qui dixerat : Omnia heee servavi a juven¬
tute mea , mentitum fuisse, et ideo Christum
ei dixisse :Vade, vende omnia quee habes , non
ut eum ad hoc faciendum hortaretur, sed ut
proposito illi mandato , quod implere non
posset, disceret, se esse mentitum; quomodo
si jactanti se scire omnia, diceremus : expli¬
ca igitur nobis, quot sint stellae in coelo, vel
grana arenae in littore maris; Quod autem
ille juvenis non servaverit omnia mandata,
probat Calvinus, quia unum ex mandatis est,
diligere Deum ex toto- corde : qui autem di¬
ligit ex toto corde, paratus est omnia dimit¬
tere propter Deum; Nec efficitur tristis , si
ei dicatur a Deo, ut dimittat omnia, iste au¬
tem juvenis, audito Christi verbo, tristis ef¬
fectus est.
Eadem est expositio Petri Martyris in libro
de coelibatu et votis, ubi addit etiam hoc ar¬
gumentum : Dominus ait : Si vis esse perfec¬
tus , vende omnia etc. at perfectio omnibus
imperatur Matth. V : Estote perfecti’, igitur
non consilium, sed praeceptum fuit huic ado¬
lescenti, vendere omnia.
At errare Petrum Martyrem et Calvinum,
probatur Primo ex cap. X. Mare, ubi legi¬
mus: Dominus autem intuitus eum , dilexit eum.
Dominus autem non diligit mendaces, igitur
credibile est, eum vera dixisse. Neque argu¬
mentum Calvini concludit , nam qui diligit
ex toto corde , non tenetur facere omnia,
quae Deus consulit, sed solum quae praecipit.
Hic autem Dominum non praecipere, sed con¬
sulere, jam probatum est: et rursus probari
potest; nam Dominus non absolute dixit:
Vende omnia , sed sub conditione : Si vis per¬
fectus esse.
At, inquiunt, tenebatur esse perfectus,
cum sit praeceptum : Perfecti estote , Matth .
V. igitur tenebatur etiam vendere omnia.
Sed contra, nam in primis jam supra osten¬
dimus, perfectionem hoc loco positam, non
esse praecepti, cum distinguatur ab observa¬
tione legis, de qua dictum est : Si vis ad vi¬
tam ingredi, serva mandata.
Neque obstat illud Matth. V : Estote per¬
fecti ; nam varia sunt genera perfectionis, ut
diximus supra capit. 2. Quaedam enim est
perfectio necessaria ad salutem, quae consi¬
stit in plena observatione mandatorum ; quae¬
dam est perfectio major, quee necessaria est
non ad salutem simpliciter, sed ad excellen¬
tiorem gradum gloriae in regno coelorum, et
haec consistit in observatione consiliorum.
De priore igitur perfectione loquitur Domi¬
nus Mat. V. de posteriore hoc loco. Id quod
rursus hoc modo probatur, nam si haec per¬
fectio esset praecepti , certe tenerentur om¬
nes Christiani vendere omnia sua , nam ad
praecepta omnia omnes tenentur.
Respondet Martyr , hoc praeceptum ven¬
dendi omnia datum esse solum huic adoles¬
centi, et proinde, illi fuisse necessarium ad
(1) I. Cor. XIII, 3.
CAPUT IX.
525
perfectionem, non autem aliis ; ille enim est
perfectus, qui Deo jubenti obedit.
At contra, sicut cum Dominus ait : Si vis
ad vitam ingredi , serva mandata ; indicavit,
servare mandata esse medium ad vitam se-
ternarn omnibus hominibus. Sic etiam cum
ait : Si vis esse perfectus, vende omnia ; indi¬
cavit , vendere omnia esse medium ad per-
fectionemomnibus hominibus, et non solum
illi adolescenti. Praeterea , idem probamus
ex testimoniis veterum sanctorum Patrum,
qui docent, Dominum hoc loco non imperas¬
se, sed tantum hortatum esse, et consuluis¬
se, tanquam perfectionem , vendere omnia,
et dare pauperibus.
Ambrosius lib. de viduis, ultra medium :
« Ut intelligas, inquit, distantiam praecepti,
atque consilii, illum recorderis, cui inEvan-
gelio ante praescribitur, ne homicidium faciat,
ne adulterium admittat, ne falsum testimo¬
nium dicat; praeceptum enim ibi est, ubi est
poena peccati. At vero cum se praecepta le¬
gis memorasset implesse, consilium ei datur,
ut vendat omnia, et sequatur Dominum ; haec
enim non pro praecepto dantur, sed pro con-
- silio deferuntur. »
Hieronymus lib. contraVigilantium: «Quod
autem asseris eos melius facere, qui utuntur
rebus suis et paulatim fructus possessionum
suarum pauperibus dividunt, quam eos qui
possessionibus venumdatis semel omnia lar¬
giuntur, non a me, sed a Domino responde¬
bitur : si vis perfectus esse , vade , vende
omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus. Ad eum
loquitur , qui vult esse perfectus , qui cum
Apostolis patrem , et naviculam, et rete di¬
mittit. Iste quem tu laudas, secundus et ter¬
tius gradus est, quem et nos recipimus,
dummodo sciamus prima secundis et tertiis
praeferenda. »
Augustinus epistol. 89. quaestion.4 : «Vi¬
derit, inquit, ille juvenis quemadmodum
ille legis mandata servaverit , verumta-
men magister bonus mandata legis ab ista
excellentiore perfectione distinxit; ibi enim
dixit, si vis venire ad vitam, serva mandata;
hic autem, si vis perfectus esse, vade, ven¬
de omnia etc. » Chrysostomus in hunc lo¬
cum : « Ut alliciatur , inquit, ingentem ei
mercedem futuram ostendit, etvoluntati ejus
omnia relinquit. »
Idem probatur ex verbis sequentibus ; nam
cum Petrus vidisset adolescentem audito
hoc consilio abiisse tristem , dixit Domino :
E cce nos reliquimus omnia , et secuti sumus te ,
quid ergo erit nobis ? quasi diceret, ecce nos
fecimus quod iste juvenis facere noluit, quid
ergo nobis dabis? Cui interrogationi, si ve¬
ra est Martyris et Calvini sententia , Domi¬
nus respondere debuit, nihil vobis dabo, nam
soli illi juveni, et illi non serio locutus sum,
sed solum ea dixi , ut juvenis intelligeret se
fuisse mentitum. At non ita respondit, sed
ait : Arnen dico vobis , quod vos qui secuti estis
me in regeneratione etc. Et ne putemus solis
Apostolis haec promitti, audiamus Augusti¬
num epistola 89 , quaest. 4. hunc locum ex¬
ponentem : « Qui, inquit, illius perfectionis
de vendendis rebus suis consilium tam gran¬
de, tamque praeclarum non receperunt, et
tamen a damnabilibus immunes criminibus
esurientem Christum paverunt, non sedebunt
quidem cum Christo sublimiter judicaturi,
sed ad ipsius dexteram stabunt misericordi¬
ter judicandi. »
Ad argumentum Calvini ex Apostolo, res¬
pondeo , desertionem omnium rerum posse
dupliciter considerari; uno modo secundum
se, altero modo ut est actus imperatus dilec¬
tionis. Primo modo, desertio omnium rerum
non est perfectio, sed tamen est instrumen¬
tum ad perfectionem, et sic possumus expo¬
nere verba Domini : Si uis perfectus esse, ven¬
de omnia , id est, sume hoc instrumentum et
acquires perfectionem; quia tamen haec de¬
sertio rerum, si absque charitate sit, non sal¬
vat hominem, ideo dicitur non prodesse, ab
Apostolo , I. Corinth. XIII. Secundo modo
desertio ipsa potest dici perfectio, sive opus
perfectionis, quia includit gradum quemdam
eximium charitatis , et de hac etiam potest
intelligi verbum Domini, ut sensus sit, si vis
esse perfectus, vende omnia; nam hinc ap¬
parebit te habere perfectam charitatem.
Tertia expositio est Pelagianorum ; qui il¬
lud : Si vis esse perfectus , explicabant, si vis
ut tibi nihil desit ad consequendam salutem;
ille enim est perfectus , cui nihil deest , et
hoc probabant ex illis verbis Domini , Mare.
X : Unum tibi deest ; et ex verbis adolescen¬
tis, Matth. XIX : Quid adhuc mihi deestl qua¬
si diceret, servavi ista prtecepta Decalogi a
Mose tradita; num aliquid aliud faciendum
est? cui respondit Dominus, Mare. X : Unum
tibi deest , vade , vende omnia etc. » (1)
At falsam esse hanc expositionem, docet'
(1) Matth. XIX, 20; Mare. X, 21 et passim,
526
LIBER II.
Augustinus epist. 89, qusest. 4. ex illis ver¬
bis I. Tim. VI : Divitibus hujus saeculi prceci-
pe , non superbe sapere , nec sperare in incerto
divitiarum, sed in Deo vivo. Bene faciant divi¬
tes ; sint in operibus bonis , facile tribuant
etc. [}) «Puto, inquit .Augustin. quod ista
praecipiens, divites instruebat, non fallebat
Apostolus, qui non ait, praecipe divitibus hu¬
jus Mundi , ut vendant omnia quae habent,
dent pauperibus , et sequantur Dominum,
sed non superbe sapere etc. »
Cum ergo Dominus ait : Si vis perfectus
esse , non loquitur de perfectione necessaria
ad salutem , sed de alia quadam majore. Et
cum ait : « Unum tibi deest, o non vult di¬
cere ad salutem consequendam, sed ad per¬
fectionem istam majorem. Et similiter ille
juvenis dicens : Quid adhuc mihi deest ? non
intelligit ad salutem simpliciter assequen¬
dam; jam enim audierat responsum : Si vis
ad vitam ingredi , serva mandata ; sed intelli¬
git ad salutem facilius , et perfectius asse¬
quendam, q. d, quid possem adhuc facere
utile ad vitam aeternam? Quod si quis admit¬
tere velit juvenem petivisse , an aliquid sibi
deesset simpliciter ad salutem, dicere pote¬
rit a Domino fuisse responsum, nihil ei dees-
se ad salutem; non enim Dominus ait :
■ Unum tibi deest , vende omnia; sed ; Si vis
perfectus esse , unum tibi deest , ut patet ex
verbis Matthaei, et Marci simul junctis, q. d.
nihil tibi deest ad salutem simpliciter asse¬
quendam, sed, si vis perfectus esse, unum
tibi deest etc.
Quarta expositio est Gulielmi de sancto
Amore, contra quem scribitB.Thomas opusc.
XIX. qui dicebat verba ista Domini debere
intelligi secundum animi praeparationem,
et verum praeceptum continere , sicut illa
Matth. V : Si quis te percusserit in unam ma¬
xillam, praebe illi et alteram ; (2) quod praecep¬
tum est , sed intelligit in animi praeparatio¬
ne, ut Augustinus exponit in epist. 5.adMar-
cellinum. Eodem modo videtur intelligere
hunc locum Melanchthon in locis communi¬
bus, cap. de paupertate.
At haec quoque falsa expositio est, nam
exempla Domini, et Sanctorum sunt optima
commentaria Scripturarum. Videmus autem
Dominum , cum fuit in maxilla percussus,
Joan. XVIII. non vertisse alteram , sed di¬
xisse: Cur me caedis ? Et similiter Apostolum,
(1) I. Tim. VI. 17.
XIX, 27.
cum esset in maxilla percussus, Act. XXIII.
non vertisse alteram, sed dixisse : Percutiat
te Deus , paries dealbate. Ex quibus exemplis
evidenter colligit Augustinus in epist. 5. il¬
lud esse praeceptum, sed intelligi in praepa¬
ratione animi. At vero consilium de relin¬
quendis omnibus rebus , Dominus, et Apos¬
toli , et Sancti plurimi non in praeparatione
animi retinuerunt, sed re ipsa et factis imple¬
verunt. Luc. IX. de se Dominus ait : Vulpes
foveas habent , et volucres coeli nidos , filius au¬
tem hominis non habet ubi caput suum reclinet .
Et Matthaei XIX. Apostoli dicunt : Ecce nos
reliquimus omnia , et secuti sumus te. (3) Et de
S. Anton. scribit Athanasius, quod cum au-
disset in Ecclesia legi hoc Evangelium : Si
vis perfectus esse, vade, vende omnia, eum mox
a Deo edoctum de vero sensu eorum verbo¬
rum , omnia vendidisse et dedisse pauperi¬
bus. Ex quo apparet de reali desertione om¬
nium facultatum hunc locum esse intelligen-
dum.
Praeterea illud praeceptum de maxilla prae¬
benda percussori, non potest impleri re ipsa
sine damno proximi , et offensione Dei , et
ideo intelligimus praecipi solum patientiam,
non autem ut re ipsa offeramus alteram ma¬
xillam. At vendere omnia, et dare pauperibus,
sine ullius damno fieri potest; nemini enim
facit injuriam , qui res suas donat pauperi¬
bus : idcirco intelligimus hoc consilium re
ipsa implendum.
Quinta expositio falsa, est Osiandri, qui,
ut refert Alphonsus Virvesius Philippica 20.
admisit hoc esse vere consilium Evangeli-
cum , sed non esse datum nisi juveni illi,
cum quo Christus loquebatur.
At Contra; Nam in primis non dixit Chris¬
tus illa verba adolescenti quomodocumque,
sed cum conditione, si vellet esse perfectus,
ergo consilium illi datum, omnibus fidelibus
qui volunt esse perfecti, datur, juxta illud
Mare. XIII : Quod vobis dico, omnibus dico,
vigilate. Praeterea quae Christus dixit alicui
ut Principi, accipiuntur dicta omnibus Prin¬
cipibus, ut : Pasce oves meas, Joan. XXI, er¬
go etiam quae dixit uni ut privatae personae,
intelliguntur dicta omnibus privatis perso¬
nis. Praeterea quod Christus haec dixerit om¬
nibus, patet ex intelligentia Apostolorum,
qui haec sibi etiam dicta crediderunt, dicen¬
tes : Ecce nos reliquimus omnia. Et ex appro-
— (2) Matth. V, 39. — (3) Joan. XVIII, 23; Act. XXIII. 3; Luc. IX, 58; Mat.
CAPUT IX.
527
batione Domini dicentis : Arnen dico vobis ,
quod vos qui secuti estis etc. Ad haec, ut supra
diximus, simillimae sententiae sunt, et ab po-
dem, atque eidem dictae : Si vis ad vitam in¬
gredi, serva mandata. Et : Si vis perfectus
esse , vende omnia etc. (1) At •prior dicta est
omnibus, cur non etiam posterior? Denique
S. Antonius teste B. Athanasio, et S. Fran-
ciscus teste B. Bonaventura, sibi dictum pu¬
taverunt : Si vis perfectus esse, vende omnia.
Quod idem pluribus aliis testibus probare
possemus : Non igitur soli illi juveni datum
est consilium hoc.
Sextum testimonium est ibidem de obe-
dientia, ubi Dominus ait : Et sequere me ;
nam quod haec sequela sit consilium, patet,
quia dicitur ei soli ; Qui vult esse perfectus,
et cui dictum est : Vende omnia quae habes.
Quod autem illo : Sequere me, significetur
obedientia, probatur dupliciter. Primo, quia
sequi Christum est imitari Christum ; Chris¬
tus autem factus est obediens usque ad mor¬
tem, Philipp. II. Secundo, quia Matth. XVI
explicat ipse Christus quid sit sequi se di¬
cens : Qui vult venire post me, abneget semet-
ipsum, tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me (2).
Quod ultimum, est explicatio superiorum, ut
sensus sit: Qui vult post me venire, id est,
me sequi, abneget se, et tollat crucem suam,
et sic sequetur me . Porro abnegare se, ni¬
hil est, aliud quam valedicere suo judicio,
et suis affectibus et accommodare se alterius
judicio, et voluntati.
Dicet aliquis : Abnegare se, est quidem
obedire, sed hoc loco agitur de obedientia
quae necessario debetur Deo, non quae sponte
exhibetur homini, sequitur enim : Qui amat
animam suam, perdet eam.
Respondeo, hoc loco agi de obedientia,
quae necessario debetur Deo: tamen hinc
deduci etiam consilium religiosae obedien-
tiae. Nam hinc habemus, sequi Christum,
esse abnegare seipsum,id est, alterius volun¬
tati seipsum subjicere. Habemus, autem ex
aliis locis duplicem esse Christi sequelam :
unam communem, et necessariam omnibus
fidelibus, de qua hic agitur, id est, Matth.
XYI et Luc. IX et rursum aliam quae solis
iis consulitur, qui volunt esse perfecti, de
qua agitur Matth. XIX et Lucae XVIII. Ergo
necesse est duplicem esse abnega tionem sui,
id est, obedientiam, unam communem et
necessariam omnibus, quae consistit in obe-
diendo in iis rebus tantum, quae sunt neces¬
sariae ad salutem : alteram majorem et uni¬
versaliorem, quae consistit in obediendo in
omnibus rebus, etiam non necessariis, modo
peccata non sint : qualis obedientia lauda¬
tur in Rechabitis Hierem. XXXV, qui obe-
dierunt patri suo in iis, in quibus non tene¬
bantur.
Septimum testimonium est I.Corinth. VII,
ubi multis modis proponitur consilium con¬
tinentiae. Bonum est, inquit Paulus, mulierem
non tangere. Item : Bonum est homini sic esse.
Item : Solutus es ab uxore, noli qucerere uxo¬
rem. Item : Dico autem innuptis, et viduis, bo¬
num est si sic permanserint, sicut et ego. Item :
Volo omnes vos esse sicut me ipsum, id est, con¬
tinentes, sic enim omnes veteres exponunt.
Item : De virginibus praeceptum Dei non ha¬
beo : consilium autem do, tanquam misericor¬
diam consecutus a Domino ut sim fidelis (3).
Ubi indicat Apostolus consilium hoc non esse
humanum, sed divinum : dicit enim se con¬
silium dare, non ut hominem politicum, sed
ut fidelem ministrum Dei. Item : Qui matri¬
monio jungit virginem suam, bene facit , et qui
non jungit, melius facit. Denique de vidua :
Cui vult nubat, tantum in Domino; beatior au¬
tem erit si sic permanserit secundummeum con¬
silium ; puto autem , quod et ego spiritum Dei
habeam (4) : ubi rursum vides tribui consi¬
lium hoc Spiritui sancto.
Ad haec loca respondent adversarii tripli¬
citer. Prima solutio est Lutheri in epithala¬
mio, ubi dicit, Apostolum hoc loco non con¬
sulere, sed dissuadere continentiam ; Et pro¬
bat ex eo quod Apostolus in hoc capite lau¬
dationi continentiae admiscet necessitatem
matrimonii; nam postquam dixit : Bonum
est homini mulierem non tangere, statim sub¬
jungit : Propter fornicationem autem unus¬
quisque suam uxorem habeat ; quasi velit di¬
cere, ego quidem vellem hortari ad conti¬
nentiam, quae sane praeclarum quiddam est,
tamen non sinit me hoc facere periculum
fornicandi. Idem fere docet Calvinus in com¬
mentario hujus loci ; ait enim similem esse
Pauli sententiam : Bonum est homini mulie¬
rem non tangere : huic sententiae, bonum es¬
set homini non comedere, neque bibere, si
fieri posset ; sed quia non potest fieri sine
miraculo, ideo, unusquisque comedat, et bibat.
(1) Mare. XIII, 37; Joan. XXI, 17; Matth. XIX, 27 et 20 ; Mare. X, 21. — (2) Philipp. II, 8;
Matth. XVI, 24. — (3) I. Cor. VII, 1, 26, 27, 8, 7 et passim. — (4) I. Cor. VII, 38, 39 et 40.
528
LIBER II.
At Contra ; nam in primis verba Pauli
apertissima sunt ; Non enim dicit bonum
esset, sed : Bonum est; non ait consilium
dare vellem, sed : Consilium do etc. Deinde
Patres omnes sic exponunt. Vide Chrysosto-
mum et alios in hunc locum. Ambrosium li¬
bro de viduis prope finem. Hieronymum lib.
I in Jovinianum, et Augustinum libro de
sancta virginitate, cap. 13. et sequentibus.
Ex quibus Augustinus, quasi praevidisset,
unum ex suis Augustinianis apostatis dic¬
turum, Apostolum hoc loco hortari ad nup¬
tias, et deterrere a continentia, diserte scrip¬
sit contrarium, sic enim ait, cap. 16. « Hoc
modo, inquit, exhortatur ad virginitatem,
continentiamque perpetuam, ut aliquantu¬
lum a nuptiis etiam deterreret. »
Praeterea, si ita est difficile continere, ut
isti dicunt, et exemplo ostendunt, cum nulli
apud eos contineant : certe Paulus ineptis¬
simus fuit, qui rem impossibilem tantopere
laudavit. Et patebit absurditas hujus rei, si
quis applicet omnia verba Pauli ad exem¬
plum Calvini. Nonne enim ridiculus fuisset
Apostolus, si dixisset, bonum est non come¬
dere? Item, cares cibo, noli quaerere cibum?
Item, de non comedendo praeceptum Domi¬
ni non habeo, consilium autem do, ut nemo
comedat? Item qui comedit, bene facit,- qui
non comedit, melius facit? Item, non pec¬
cat qui comedit, quod vult facit, beatior
erit si non comederit? Non igitur de re im¬
possibili loquitur Paulus.
Per illud autem : Propter fornicationem
autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat (1),
non monet Apostolus, ut unusquisque, cui
inest aliquid periculum fornicandi, uxorem
ducat : nam tunc omnes omnino deberent
uxorem ducere, nullo excepto, cum tamen
Lutherus ipse excipiat eos, qui habent do¬
num continentiae. Nam etiam illis inest pe¬
riculum fornicandi, cum possint donumillud
amittere , et vinci aliquando a tentatione,
sed monet, ut qui uxorem duxerunt, illam
retineant, et quicumque est fornicaturus,
uxorem potius ducat, sicut infra dicit : Qui
non se continet, nubat.
Altera expositio est Petri Martyris in hunc
locum, ubi opponit his verbis Pauli : Bonum
est homini mulierem non tangere, id est, sine
uxore esse, illa verba Dei Genes. II : Non est
bonum hominem esse solum (2), id est, non est
bonum hominem sine uxore esse. Et quia
non debet pugnare Paulus cum Deo, dicit
Paulum loqui solum de illis, qui certi sunt
se habere continentiae donum, Deum autem,
de* omnibus illis qui hoc dono carent. Et
quoniam rarissimi, aut nulli sunt, qui certo
sciant se habere hoc donum, inde vult in¬
ferre, bonum esse, ut omnes ducant uxo¬
res.
At utrinque errat; Nam quod Deus non
loquatur de iis, qui hoc dono carent, patet ;
nam ea verba locutus est Deus ante pecca¬
tum Adae, quo tempore Adam sine ullo du¬
bio carebat mala concupiscentia, et habebat
cum casteris virtutibus etiam donum conti¬
nentiae, ita ut posset continere, si opus es¬
set.
Quod autem Paulus non loquatur de iis
solum, qui habent donum continentias, sed
absolute pronuntiet, bonum esse viro mulie¬
rem non tangere, patet etiam ; nam etsi non
omnes habent hoc donum, tamen omnes pos¬
sunt habere, si a Deo illud petant, et proin¬
de omnibus potest convenire Pauli consi¬
lium. Nam si ita hoc donum esset a Deo, ut
nullo modo esset in nostra potestate conti¬
nere, et non continere, sicut non est in nos¬
tra potestate prophetare, quod exemplum
affert Calvinus in commentario hujus capi¬
tis, absurde Paulus diceret : Consilium autem
do. Et : Quod vult , faciat ; non enim ulla est
consultatio, aut electio de eo, quod non est
in nostra potestate. Quis enim, nisi stultus,
consultaret, an vellet prophetare, vel non
prophetare ?
Item, idem B. Paulus ibidem dicit, etiam
continentiam conjugalem esse donum Dei,
et non dari omnibus : Unusquisque , inquit,
donum suum habet ex Deo , unus quidem sic ,
alius autem sic. Peto igitur, qui non habet
donum continentias conjugalis, quid aget?
Num licebit ei fornicari ? Respondebunt, non
licere fornicari, quia etsi non habet donum
continentiae, tamen habebit, si a Deo petat.
Idem ego dicam de continentia virginali.
Verba igitur Dei et Pauli aliter concordanda
sunt. Deus loquitur de bono speciei, Paulus
de bono individui. Item, Deus loquitur pro
eo tempore, quo mundus erat vacuus, Pau¬
lus pro eo, quo mundus est plenus. Denique,
Deus loquitur de bono, quod refertur ad
vitam temporalem, Paulus autem de bono,
quod refertur ad vitam aeternam, ut jam
probabimus.
(1) I. Cor. VII, 2. — (2) I. Cor. VII, I ; Gen. II, 18.
CAPUT IX.
529
Est ergo Tertia solutio, quod Paulus sive
suadeat continentiam, sive non, solum illam
laudet tanquam utilem ad aliud, non autem
ut per se Deo gratam et meritoriam : Hanc
autem utilitatem non eodem modo expo¬
nunt; Nam Lutherus in Epithalamio non
agnoscit aliam utilitatem quam temporalem,
quia nimirum liberat a curis, et afflictioni¬
bus multis, quae necessario sunt annexse ma¬
trimonio : «Vult, inquit, S. Paulus hoc ver¬
bum spiritualiter intelligi, ubi ait, bonum
est homini, mulierem non tangere, ut hoc
bonum non sit dictum de merito coram Deo,
sicut hactenus textus ille etiam a S. Hiero¬
nymo est expositus, sed dictum est, de ten^r
porali bono, commodo, et quiete in hac vi¬
ta, quibus homo castus antecellit conjuga¬
tos ; siquidem is, qui sine conjugio caste vi¬
vit, ab his molestiis, et tribulationibus, quae
in matrimoniali statu sunt, liber est. »
AtMelanchthon in locis, cap.#De castitate,
Martyr in hunc locum Apostoli, et alii , non
solum hanc utilitatem temporalem agnos¬
cunt, sed etiam aliquam spiritualem, quod
nimirum qui uxore carent, expeditiores sunt
ad orandum, praedicandum etc. Nos autem
praeter has duas agnoscimus tertiam, nimi¬
rum ad placendum Deo, et praemia maixima
promerenda. Et quidem ad refellendum Lu-
therum sufficere deberet, quod idem omnino
senserat Jovinianus, quem his verbis refel¬
lit Augustinus, libro de sancta virginitate,
cap. 13. « Unde, inquit, mirabiliter desi¬
piunt, qui putant hujus continentiae bonum
non esse necessarium propter regnum coelo¬
rum, sed propter praesens saeculum, quod
scilicet conjugia terrenis curis pluribus, at¬
que arctioribus distenduntur, qua molestia
virgines, et continentes carent etc. »
At, inquiunt, Apostolus dicit : Arbitror
hoc bonum esse propter proesentem necessitatem.
Et infra : Tribulationes tamen carnis habebunt
hujusmodi.
Respondeo, illud Propter praesentem , vel,
ut nos legimus : Instantem necessitatem , non
significare propter praesentes molestias fu¬
giendas, sed propter temporis brevitatem,
quia Dominus prope est, et dies illi propin¬
quant, de quibus dicitur: V ce praegnantibus,
et nutrientibus in illis diebus (l) : ut exponit
Hieronymus, libro contra Helvidium, libr. I
contra Jovinianuru, et in epist. ad Eusto-
chium de virginitate, et patet ex Apostolo
(1) Matii. XXIV, 19. — (2) I. Cor. VII, 34. —
Tom. II.
hoc loco, qui quasi explicans quid sit prae¬
sens necessitas, ait: Tempus breve est , et rur¬
sum : Praeterit enim figura hujus mundi. Illud
autem : Tribulationes tamen carnis habebunt
hujusmodi , intelligitur quidem de afflictione
temporali, quam patiuntur conjugati, sed
non ad eam solam fugiendam, docet B. Pau¬
lus bonam esse continentiam : imo, ut pul¬
chre exponit Hieronymus, lib. I contra Jo-
vinianum, ne quis putaret, conjugatos esse
quidem inferiores virginibus quantum ad
spiritualia, sed tamen esse feliciores quan¬
tum ad darnalia, ideo addit eos etiam mise¬
ros esse quoad carnalia, et propterea nul¬
lam esse causam ambigendi, sitne melius
continere an nubere.
Jam vero contra Philippum, et Martyrem,
sunt in hoc ipso capite duo vel tria loca.
Primus est : Mulier innupta , et virgo cogitat
quae Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo, ut sit
sancta , et corpore , et spiritu (2). Ubi Aposto¬
lus dicit, virginitatem esse sanctitatem cor¬
poris, et spiritus, et per eam nos placere
Deo ; sensus enim est, sicut mulier conjugata
cogitat, quomodo se pulchram consei^vet, ut
sic placeat viro suo, sic virgo cogitat, quo¬
modo servet corporis integritatem, et sanc¬
titatem, ut per eam placeat Deo. Hierony¬
mus lib. I contra Jovin. hoc exponens : « Il¬
la, inquit, virginitas hostia Christi est, cujus
nec mentem cogitatio , nec carnem libido
maculavit» : ubi vides virginitatem, hostiam
Dei nominari ; proinde rem esse, qua coli¬
tur Deus, et quae placet Deo.
Secundus est : Non ut laqueum vobis inji¬
ciam, sed ad id quod honestum est, et quod fa¬
cultatem praebeat sine impedimento Dominum
obsecrandi (3) : ubi Apostolus dicit, continen¬
tiam et per se honestam, ac decoram esse,
et proinde Deo caram, et simul utilem ad
aliud, id est, ad orandum sine intermis¬
sione.
Tertius est : Beatior autem erit si sic per¬
manserit (4), id est, ut exponit Ambrosius,
dignior in futuro saeculo.
Accedat Ultimo Augustinus libro de sancta
virginitate, cap. 14. ubi sic ait : « Quoniam
adeunda est vita aeterna, in qua est quaedam
egregia gloria, non omnibus in aeternum vic¬
turis, sed quibusdam ibi tribuenda, cui con¬
sequendae non satis est liberatam esse a pec¬
cato, nisi ipsi liberatori voveatur aliquid
quod non sit criminis non vovisse, sed vo-
(3) Id. 35. — (4) Id. 4Q.
34
530
LIBER II.
visse ac reddidisse sit laudis, ideo ait Apos¬
tolus : Consilium autem do. »
Octavum testimonium est, I. Cor. IX, quo
toto capite Paulus conatur ostendere, se plus
fecisse quam sibi esset praeceptum, et prop-
terea singularem gloriam apud Deum me¬
ruisse. Nam cum Dominus ordinasset iis, qui
Evangelium annuntiant, de Evangelio vive¬
re, Paulus maluit gratis Evangelium praedi¬
care, et sic facere opus supererogationis :
Melius , inquit, est mihi, mori , quam ut gloriam
meam quis evacuet. Nam etsi evangelizavero,
non est mihi gloria; necessitas enim mihi in¬
cumbit : Vce enim mihi est , si non evangeliza¬
vero. Quce est ergo merces mea? ut Evangelium
'praedicans , sine sumptu ponam Evange¬
lium (1).
Respondet Petrus Martyr in commentario
hujus loci, Paulum non loqui de opere super¬
erogationis, sed de opere debito coram Deo,
licet non debito secundum judicium homi¬
num, et ideo etiam nomine gloriae vult in-
telligi gloriationem coram hominibus, non
coram Dei tribunali. Et probat tripliciter.
Primo, quia Paulus ait : Melius est mihi mo¬
ri, quam ut gloriam meam quis evacuet. At
pro opere non necessario, quale est supere¬
rogationis, nemo debet mortem subire, sed
solum pro necessario, ergo loquitur de opej-e
necessario coram Deo ; ex quo tamen sequi¬
tur gloriatio coram b ominibus, qui illud opus
judicare possunt non necessarium.
Secundo, quia Paulus desperat de mer-
cede, nisi hoc opus faciat, ait enim : Et si
evangelizavero non est mihi gloria , id est, si
praedicavero accipiendo sumptus a populo,
nihil lucrabor : Unde sequitur? Quce est ergo
merces mea ? Ut Evangelium praedicans sine
sumptu ponam Evangelium ; ergo loquitur de
opere debito, quod nisi fiat, perditur tota
merces.
Tertio, quia dicit, ut non abutar potestate
mea ; et ne quod offendiculum ponam Evan¬
gelio Christi; At abuti potestate, et offendi¬
culum ponere Evangelio, peccatum est. Ita
concludit Martyr, Apostolum Paulum gravi¬
ter peccaturum fuisse si accepisset sumptus
a populo, quia hoc modo impedivisset cur¬
sum Evangelii.
In hac explicatione duo sunt errores Mar¬
tyris. Primus, quod per gloriam, quam sibi
tribuit Paulus, intelligit gloriationem coram
hominibus, non coram Deo. Nam in primis
B. August. lib. de opere Monachorum, cap.
10. contrarium scribit his verbis : « Bonum
est magis mihi mori, quam ut gloriam meam
quis evacuet. Quam gloriam? nisi quam ha¬
bere voluit apud Deum in Christo » : haec
August. Ubi vide quam aperte Martyri con¬
tradicat. Deinde verba Pauli aperte osten¬
dunt, eum loqui de gloria apud Deum, id
est de merito cujusdam excellentis gloriae,
quam exspectabat opere isto supererogatio¬
nis; nam infra, id quod vocavit gloriam, vo¬
cat mercedem. Quce est ergo merces mea etc.
At certe non exspectabat Paulus mercedem
ab hominibus, sed a Deo. Denique si Paulus
gloriaretur coram hominibus, quasi de ope¬
re indebito, quod tamen revera coram Deo
debitum esset, falso gloriaretur, quod quis
dicat, nisi forte aliquis Petrus Pseudomar-
tyr?
Secundus error est, quod dicat Paulum
peccaturum ‘fuisse, si accepisset sumptus a
populo, et proinde opus ejus fuisse debitum,
non supererogationis. Nam in primis Paulus
in toto isto capite nihil aliud agit, quam ut
probet sibi licuisse vivere ex populi sumpti¬
bus ; id enim probat, Primo, exemplo alio¬
rum Apostolorum. Secundo, exemplis mili¬
tum, Pastorum, Agricolarum. Tertio, ex
lege Moysi. Quarto, ex Christi ordinatione.
Quinto, ex ipsa natura.
Praeterea ita exposuerunt omnes Patres.
Chrysostomus in hunc locum : « Quae, in¬
quit. supra praeceptum fiunt multa, secun¬
dum hoc dictum, mercedem consequuntur;
quae autem sub praecepto continentur, non
itidem. » Ambrosius bis repetit Paulum sibi
licita illicita fecisse. Augustinus libro de ope¬
re Monachorum, cap. 5. ; « Audiverat, in¬
quit, stabularius, ad quem vulneratus ille
perductus est, si quid amplius erogaveris,
in redeundo reddam tibi: amplius ergo ero¬
gabat Paulus, qui suis, ut ipse testatur,
sumptibus militabat. » Denique Apostoli cae-
teri sumptus a populis accipiebant, ut hic
Paulus dicit, nec est verisimile eos peccasse,
ergo nec Paulus peccasset accipiendo.
Respondet Martyr, non esse eamdem ra¬
tionem Pauli, et aliorum ; nam alii non ha¬
buerunt Pseudoapostolos aemulos, ut habuit
Paulus. At hoc nihil valet; nam alioqui non
recte probaret exemplo aliorum Apostolo¬
rum B. Paulus se potuisse ali a populo. Res¬
ponderi enim potuisset, non esse eamdem
(1) I. Cor. IX, 15, 16, 17 et 18.
CAPUT IX.
531
rationem eorum Apostolorum , et suam.
Deinde Paulus non abstinuit ab accipiendis
sumptibus propter Pseudoapostolos, sed ne
gra\%ret populos, ut ipse dicit, I. Thessal.II,
et II. Thessal. III. Imo propter Pseudoapos¬
tolos debuisset potius accipere sumptus. Illi
enim de hoc Paulum accusabant, ut Cajeta-
nus bene animadvertit , quod Paulus non
videretur verus Apostolus, cum non viveret
more aliorum Apostolorum. Quocirca ille in
toto isto capite probat se esse verum Apos¬
tolum, et se posse accipere sumptus si velit.
Ad Primum argumentum dico, falsum es¬
se, non licere mori pro opere supererogatio-
nis; quot enim sacree virgines occisae sunt,
quia nuptias recusaverunt.
Ad Secundum respondet Anselmus in hunc
locum, Paulum desperare de gloria, si solum
evangelizet propter alimenta temporalia.
Possumus secundo et melius dicere, Pau¬
lum cun» ait : Si evangelizavero non est mihi
gloria etc. non desperare de gloria simplici¬
ter, sed de gloria quadam singulari, quae
.debetur operi supererogationis, ut exponit
Ghrysostomus.
Ad Tertium dico cum Ghrysostomo hom.
8. de poenitentia, et cumQEcumenio et Theo-
phylacto in hunc locum, Paulum accepisse
nomen abusus pro vehementi usu; voluit
enim dicere, ne quantum possum utar po¬
testate mea. Neque est hoc novum; nam alii
etiam auctores tum sacri, tum profani utun¬
tur hac voce in Ponam partem. Tria enim
significat vox xarapqoawpai, et Latine, abutor.
Primo, uti re aliqua contra ejus institutio¬
nem, et hoc malum est. Secundo, uti prae¬
ter institutionem, et hoc non est malum;
unde est figura v-a-ri/pm?. S. Paulinus epist.
11. ad Severum : <t Itaque, inquit, prompto
filii Imperatoris assensu mater Augusta pa¬
tefactis ad opera sancta thesauris toto abusa
fisco est. » Tertio, uti simpliciter, ut apud
Platonem epist. 8. et alios auctores.
Quod autem ait : Ne quod offendiculum po¬
nam, dico ibi offendiculum non significare
scandalum, sed interruptionem, est enim
Graece eyxoriw. Metuebat enim Paulus, ut ali¬
qui avariores, ne deberent alere concionato-
res, ab Evangelio retardarentur ; hic autem
metus poterat communis esse Paulo cum
caeteris Apostolis, qui tamen hoc non ob¬
stante,? sumptus a populo capiebant. Ex quo
intelligimus non fuisse peccatum accipere
sumptus a populo, etiamsi inde sequeretur
aliqua retardatio cursus Evangelii; nam illa
retardatio non orieOatur culpa Apostolorum,
qui utebanturjure suo, sed culpa auditorum.
Tamen B. Paulus maluit pati famem, et la¬
borem, quam ullo modo Evangelii cursus re¬
tardaretur.
Adde postremo, quod si illa verba: Ut non
abutar potestate mea; et illa : Ne offendiculum
ponam , significarent Paulum peccaturum
fuisse, si a populo sumptus accepisset, se¬
queretur eum non potuisse apud homines
gloriari tamquam de opere indebito. Nam si
ipse dicit se debuisse illud facere, idque ho¬
minibus dicit, quomodo gloriatur se fecisse
opus indebitum? Ergo Petrus Martyr secum
ipse pugnat, dum docet, Paulum gloriari
apud homines de opere indebito ; et tamen
inducit eumdem Paulum dicentem, se de¬
buisse illud opus facere, et peccaturum nisi
fecisset.
Nonum testimonium est Apoc. XIV, ubi
legimus : Nemo poterat dicere canticum nisi
illa centum quadraginta quatuor millia ; hi sunt
qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, vir¬
gines enim sunt , et sequuntur A gnum quocum¬
que ierit { 1). Ex quo testimonio apparet, sin¬
gulare praemium habere virgines, quando¬
quidem canunt canticum , quod nulli alii
Beatorum canere possunt.
Respondent Magdeburgens. Cent.I, lib.II,
cap. 4. coi. 454. hunc locum debere intelli-
gi mystice de iis, qui non sunt maculati
idololatria, quae vocatur fornicatio Babylo¬
nis, meretricis magnae.
At contra. Nam in primis Joannes indicat
paucos quosdam fuisse istos virgines, qui
soli canticum illud dicere poterant; pauci
enim sunt centum quadraginta quatuor mil¬
lia, si cum illa turba magna Sanctorum com¬
parentur, quae prae multitudine numerari
non poterat, quam idem Joannes vidit Apo-
cal, cap. VII. At major pars Sanctorum im¬
munis fuit ab idololatria, ut notum est.'Pra>
terea Joannes non diceret, cum mulieribus
non sunt coinquinati, sed cum muliere, si
intelligeret de fornicatione Babylonis.
Denique Patres de veris virginibus expo¬
nunt, Primasius, Beda, OEcumenius, et An¬
selmus in hunc locum, Hier, libro contra
Helvidium in fine, Greg. III parte pastoralis,
cap. 29. et Augustinus de S. Virginitate,
cap. 27 et sequentibus, qui inter csetera sic
(1) Apoc. XIV, 3 et 4.
532
LIBER II.
ait cap. 29. : « Videbit vos caetera multitu¬
do fidelium, quse Agnum ad hoc sequi non
valet : videbit nec invidebit, et collaetando
vobis quod in se non habet, habebit in vo¬
bis. Nam et illud canticum novum, proprium
vestrum, dicere non poterit, audire autem
poterit, et delectari vestro tam excellenti
bono. Sed vos qui et dicetis, et audietis,
quia et hoc quod dicetis, a vobis audietis,
felicius exultabitis, jucundiusque regnabi¬
tis. » Haec de Scripturis.