Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 18: The Objections Answered
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).
But let us now hear the objections of Peter Martyr, that we may see whether he had any cause — if not just, at least probable — for departing from the common opinion of almost all, both Catholics and heretics.
The first objection. In the Old Testament there is frequent mention of vows; in the New a vow is not even named, except when the discourse is of Jewish vows, as Acts 21; therefore vows pertain to the Jewish ceremonies.
I answer that the name of vow is not found in the New Testament, but the thing is found, as we showed from the Apostle, and shall show more clearly below. But even if it were not found, the testimonies of the Old Testament would suffice, with the use and explanation of the Church. For the moral precepts, or lessons, of the Old Scripture pertain no less to Christians than to Jews; for therefore the Psalms are assiduously read in the Church, because they are full of moral lessons.
And indeed, if Martyr’s argument were of any force, it would also conclude that usury is not forbidden to Christians; for usury is everywhere forbidden in the Psalms and the Prophets, but in the New Testament it is not read forbidden under the name of usury; the prohibition of usury is indeed gathered from that passage, Lend, hoping for nothing thereby (Luke 6), but much more obscurely than a vow is gathered from those words of Paul, because they have made void their first faith. For those words all the Fathers understand of a vow; the former not all understand of usury; for Saint Basil (in his commentary on Psalm 14), Saint Ambrose (in the book On Tobias, chapter 16), Saint Jerome (in his commentary on Ezekiel, chapter 18), and some more recent men contend that in those words usury is not forbidden, but a counsel is given to the rich, that they lend without any hope of recovering the principal itself.
If, then, usury is forbidden to Christians by divine law, although an express prohibition of that kind is not found except in the Old Testament, how much more will the religion of vowing be lawful to Christians, since both the thing and the name of a vow are contained in the Old Testament, and the thing expressly in the New?
The second objection. As many of us as profess the faith of Christ are by that very fact wholly bound over to Him; why then do we by a vow again deliver ourselves to Him? Moreover, a son would be held ridiculous who by sealed tablets and witnesses should wish to subject himself to his father’s power. Therefore those who pronounce vows either confess that they are not God’s, or let them understand how foolishly they act in vowing, while, as is said, they do a thing already done. God provided by a law that the Israelites should not vow to Him the firstborn of their flocks, for no other reason indeed than that they were by right due to Him. Therefore, since we are now members of Christ, and bound to God in all ways, no less than the firstborn were of old, it is not to be permitted that we vow. So he.
I answer in two ways. First, by turning back the argument; for as Christians are bound to God by reason of creation and redemption, so also the Jews were bound to God by reason of creation and liberation from Egypt; therefore they too could not vow, lest they do a thing already done.
Peter Martyr answers that we indeed cannot vow, because not only are we bound to God, but we also know ourselves bound, the light of the Gospel now shining; but they could and ought to vow, that they might be admonished by this, as it were, pedagogy that they and all theirs were perpetually bound over as due to God.
But without any trouble this solution can be refuted; for those who vowed among the Jews were not merely some unskilled men, but also most wise Prophets, who knew our debt with God better than any of us know it. David, a most wise Prophet: Jacob vowed a vow to God (Psalm 131); and he exhorted the princes to vow (1 Paralipomenon, chapter 29), where he added this, to stop the mouth of Peter Martyr, judging that he and his did not fail to know that all things are God’s: “Who am I,” he says, “and what is thy people, that we should be able to promise thee all these things? All things are thine, and of thy own hand we have given thee what we received of thee.” Besides, if the Jews had been ignorant of this, they could not have been admonished of this debt through vows, but rather could have gathered the contrary from their custom of vowing; for if we cannot vow to God the things which are His own, he who vows is admonished that he has something which is not God’s. And so God would have given the Jews a very bad pedagogy, if Martyr’s opinion were true. For He would have wished them to be accustomed to making vows, that they might be admonished that all things are bound over to God, and meanwhile the contrary would happen.
I answer, secondly, to the argument directly, that we and all our things are due and bound over to God in this sense, that we have received all things from Him and retain them by His benefit, and accordingly He can, if He will, demand all things back, and we are bound to do whatever He commands. Yet because He leaves many things free to us, in which we can at our choice do this or that, therefore many things are at once God’s and ours: God’s, because we have them by His benefit; ours, because we can dispose of them at our choice, provided not against God. On which account, when we vow and offer something to God, we give of His things, and yet we truly give, because those things were also ours, and we could have not given them. Whence the Council of Orange (canon 11): “No one,” it says, “rightly vows anything to the Lord unless he receive it from Him, as is read, Of thy hand what we have received, we give thee.”
To that example of the son of the family, who would be ridiculous if by sealed tablets he wished to subject himself to his father, I answer: the son of the family would be ridiculous if by sealed tablets he wished to subject himself to his father in those things in which he is bound necessarily to obey, and over which the father already has command; but he would not be ridiculous if in those things he subject himself in which otherwise he was of his own right. For parents cannot command their sons all that they will, and even in those things which they can, they often do not command, but give their sons the option; for example, it is free to sons to take a wife or not to take one, nor can they in that matter be compelled by parents; yet if one promise his father that he will do in that business what the father shall command, he will be bound to stand by his promises.
And to that about the firstborn of the flocks, which could not be vowed to God because they were God’s, I answer that this very thing favors our opinion; for therefore the firstborn of the flocks could not be vowed, but the rest could be vowed, though all things be God’s — for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof (Psalm 23) — because God (Leviticus 27) had not left to the Jews the free disposition of the firstborn, as He had left of other things. So, then, we too do not vow those things which are not in our power, but only those which God has left free to us.
But Peter Martyr insists: Nothing is free, nothing indifferent, in particular, although in general some things are called adiaphora, because they suit neither all nor at all times. For when something occurs to be sought or rejected, either it is repugnant to one’s own salvation or that of others, and is necessarily to be rejected; or it conduces to one’s own salvation or that of others, and is necessarily to be sought, if we truly love God and neighbor.
I answer that this last member is false; for that is not necessarily to be sought which conduces to one’s own salvation or that of others; otherwise the Lord would not say (Deuteronomy 23), If thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin; nor would the Apostle say (1 Corinthians 7), Let him do what he will; he sins not, if he marry. For he who can without sin do what he will — that is, marry or not marry, vow or not vow — is certainly neither necessarily compelled to seek marriage or a vow, nor necessarily to reject them. That alone, then, is necessarily to be sought which is necessary to salvation; but what is useful, not necessary, is also usefully, not necessarily, sought.
The third objection. The evangelical liberty, in which the Lord established us, is diminished by vows; therefore it is not lawful for Christians to vow. The antecedent is proved; for Christ willed the kinds of life to be free, because they suit neither all nor at all times. But those who vow one kind of life make it necessary for themselves, so that they can no longer pass to another. Likewise, Christ determined to unburden us of the law; but those who vow impede themselves more and more with laws. Why, says Martyr, do they not keep themselves free? If they will not act rightly unless compelled by law, they declare that they belong rather to the servitude of the law than to the kingdom of grace and faith.
I answer, first, by turning back the argument; for if Christ willed the kinds of life to be free, why do these men bind themselves by the laws of marriage? For marriage impedes from celibacy no less than a vow of celibacy from marriage. Then, if God willed us to be free from laws, and left the kinds of life free to us, what is it that a little before Martyr was saying, that nothing is free, nothing indifferent, but all things absolutely either commanded or forbidden? And so they preach in word evangelical liberty, and meanwhile impose an unbearable law, and such as no tyrant ever imposed.
Secondly, I answer that evangelical liberty is not liberty (as they dream) from law, but from sin (Romans 6): Being freed from sin, you became servants of justice; likewise from the Jewish ceremonies, which were shadows of things to come; and finally from fear and servitude, but not from the obligation of the law. For he who is endowed with charity — which is properly the grace of the New Testament and the evangelical liberty — is indeed held by the law, but is not under the law, because he willingly fulfills the law. But of this matter we have often treated elsewhere.
The fourth objection. He who vows does injury to God; for first he is repugnant to Him, making necessary the things which He willed to be free. Then he charges God either with folly or with envy; for by a vow he binds himself to one kind of life, that in that way he may become more perfect; as though God, who did not bind him to that kind of life, either did not know how to provide for him so well as he provided for himself, or certainly envied him that greater perfection.
I answer that no injury is done to God by vows, because He willed the kinds of life to be free negatively (so to speak), not affirmatively — that is, He willed not to oblige, but left it in our choice that each one bind himself to what he would. That, therefore, He did not oblige us, was His benignity; but that by vows we ourselves bind ourselves to that which we know to be more pleasing to Him, is gratitude and piety. And as the benignity of the Lord and the gratitude of the servant do not fight, so neither does it fight that we make necessary for ourselves the things which God left free to us. Nor do we charge Him with folly or envy; for what we do, we do by His counsel and admonition; for although He did not command us that greater perfection to which we tend by vows, yet He counseled and admonished that we aspire to it. Of which matter we shall treat a little later.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAFOT XVIII.
Solvuntur objectiones.
Sed audiamus nunc objectiones Petri Mar¬
tyris, ut videamus, an habuerit aliquam, si
non justam, saltem probabilem causam re¬
cedendi a communi sententia omnium pene
tum Catholicorum, tum haereticorum.
Objectio prima. In Testamento veteri fre¬
quens est mentio votorum, in novo ne nomi¬
natur quidem votum, nisi cum sermo est de
votis Judaicis, ut Actor. XXI. igitur vota ad
caeremonias Judaicas pertinent.
Respondeo, nomen voti in Testamento no¬
vo non habetur, res tamen habetur, ut os¬
tendimus ex Apostolo, et infra clarius osten¬
demus. Sed etiamsi non haberetur, suffice¬
rent testimonia veteris Testamenti cum usu
et explicatione Ecclesiae. Moralia enim prae¬
cepta, vel documenta Scripturae veteris, non
minus ad Christianos, quam ad Judaeos per¬
tinent; idcirco enim assidue in Ecclesia le¬
guntur Psalmi, quod pleni sint moralibus
documentis.
Et sane, si Martyris argumentum valeret
aliquid, concluderet etiam, usuram Chris¬
tianis non esse prohibitam ; nam usura in
Psalmis, et Prophetis passim prohibetur, in
Testamento novo non legitur prohibita sub
nomine usurae, colligitur quidem usurae pro¬
hibitio ex illo loco : Mutuum date , nihil inde
sperantes , Lucae VI. (1) sed multo obscurius,
quam votum colligatur ex illis verbis Pauli,
quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt. Nam
ista verba omnes Patres de voto intelligunt,
illa non omnes intelligunt de usura; nam S.
Basilius in Commentario Psalm. XIV. S. Am¬
brosius in lib. de Tobia cap. fG. S. Hierony¬
mus in Commentar, in Ezechiel. cap. 18. et
aliqui recentiores contendunt in illis verbis
non prohiberi usuram, sed consilium dari
divitibus, ut dent mutuo sine ulla spe sor¬
tem ipsam recuperandi.
Si igitur usura jure divino prohibita est
Christianis, licet expresse ejusmodi prohibi¬
tio non habeatur nisi in veteri Testamento,
quanto magis religio vovendi licita erit
Christianis, cum et res, et nomen voti in
(1) Luc. VI, 35.
548
LIBER II.
Testamento veteri, res autem in novo ex¬
presse contineatur?
Secunda objectio. Quotquot fidem Christi
profitemur, eo ipso toti sumus illi obstricti;
quid igitur voto nos rursus ei tradimus ? Ri¬
diculus porro haberetur filius, qui tabulis
obsignatis atque testibus vellet sese patriae
potestati subdere. Idcirco qui vota nuncu¬
pant, aut se fateantur non esse Dei, aut in-
telligant quam vovendo stulte agant, dum,
quemadmodum dicitur, actum agunt. Lege
cavit Deus, ne Israehtse primogenita ex pe¬
coribus sibi voverent, non alia sane ratione,
nisi quod jure sibi debebantur. Propterea
cum nos jam Christi membra simus, et Deo
omnibus modis obstricti, non minus quam
primogenita antiquitus erant, non est per¬
mittendum ut voveamus. Hsec ille.
Respondeo dupliciter. Primo, retorquendo
argumentum ; nam quemadmodum Chris¬
tiani Deo sunt obstricti ratione creationis,
' et redemptionis, sic etiam Judsei obstricti
erant Deo ratione creationis, et liberationis
de jEgypto, igitur etiam illi vovere non po¬
terant, ne actum agerent.
Respondet Petrus Martyr, nos quidem vo¬
vere non posse, quia non solum Deo obstricti
sumus, sed etiam scimus obstrictos nos esse
luce jam Evangelii coruscante; illi autem
vovere poterant, et debebant, ut admone¬
rentur hac veluti paedagogia perpetuo de¬
bito se, ac sua omnia Deo obstricta esse.
At nullo negotio haec solutio refelli potest;
nam qui apud Judaeos vovebant, non erant
solum imperiti aliqui homines, sed etiam
Prophetae sapientissimi, qui melius noverant
debitum nostrum cum Deo, quam ulli nos¬
trum sciant. David Propheta sapientissimus :
Votum vovit Deo Jacob , Psalm. CXXXI. (i) et
Principes ad vovendum hortatus est, lib. I
Paralip cap. XXIX. ubi haec addidit, ut os ob¬
strueret Petro Martyri, judicans se et suos
non ignorare omnia esse Dei : « Quis , in¬
quit, ego , et quis populus tuus , ut possimus
tibi hcec universa promittere ? Tua sunt om¬
nia , et quce de manu tua accepimus , dedi¬
mus tibi. » Praeterea, si Judsei hoc ignoras-
sent, non potuissent per vota hujus debiti
admoneri, sed potius contrarium ex sua vo¬
vendi consuetudine colligere potuissent; nam
si non possumus vovere Deo, quae ipsius
sunt, qui vovet, admonetur se aliquid ha¬
bere quod non sit Dei. Itaque paedagogiani
valde malam Deus Judaeis tribuisset, si esset
vera Martyris sententia. "Voluisset enim eos
assuescere faciendis votis, ut admonerentur
omnia esse Deo obstricta, et interim contra¬
rium eveniret.
Respondeo secundo ad argumentum di¬
recte, nos et omnia nostra Deo esse debita
et obstricta in hoc sensu, quod omnia ab illo
accepimus, et ejus beneficio retinemus, et
proinde potest ille, si' velit, omnia repetere,
et nos tenemur quidquid ille jusserit facere.
Tamen quia ille multa nobis libera relinquit,
in quibus possumus pro arbitrio, hoc aut
illud facere, idcirco multa sunt Dei et nostra
simul; Dei, quia ejus beneficio illa habe¬
mus; nostra, quia possumus pro arbitrio de
illis disponere, dummodo non contra Deum.
Quocirca quando vovemus, et offerimus ali¬
quid Deo, de rebus ejus damus, et tamen
vere damus, quia res illae etiam nostrse erant,
et potuissemus non dare. Unde Concilium
Arausicanum can. 11 : «Nemo, inquit, quid¬
quam Domino recte voverit, nisi ab ipso ac¬
ceperit, sicut legitur, quae de manu tua ac¬
cepimus, damus tibi. »
Ad illud exemplum filiifamilias, qui ridi¬
culus esset si tabulis obsignatis se subdere
vellet patri, Respondeo : filiumfamilias ridi¬
culum fore si tabulis obsignatis se patri sub¬
dere vellet in iis rebus, in quibus necessario
parere tenetur, et de quibus imperium pa¬
tris jam habet; at non fore ridiculum si in
iis rebus se subdat, in quibus alioqui sui
juris erat. Nec enim parentes possunt omnia
quae volunt filiis imperare, et in iis etiam
quae possunt, saepe non imperant, sed dant
filiis optionem ; exempli causa, liberum est
filiis uxorem ducere, vel non ducere, nec
possunt in ea re a parentibus cogi, si tamen
quis patri polliceatur se facturum in eo ne¬
gotio, quod is imperaverit, tenebitur stare
promissis.
Ad illud autem de primogenitis pecorum,
quae Deo voveri non poterant, quia Dei erant,
Respondeo, hoc ipsum sententiae nostrae fa¬
vere ; nam ideo primogenita pecorum voveri
non poterant; reliqua autem voveri pote¬
rant, tametsi omnia Dei sint : Domini enim
est terra , et plenitudo ejus, Psalm. XXIII. (2)
quia Deus Levit. XXVII. non reliquerat Ju¬
daeis liberam dispositionem primogenitorum,
ut reliquerat rerum caeterarum. Sic igitur et
nos non vovemus ea quae non sunt in nostra
(1) Psal. CXXXI, 2. — 2) Psal. XXIII, 1.
CAPUT XVIII.
549
potestate, sed ea solum, quae Deus libera
nobis reliquit.
Sed instat Petrus Martyr. Nihil est liberum,
nihil indifferens in particulari, licet in ge¬
nere dicantur quaedam dStdfopx, quia nec
omnibus, nec omni tempore conveniunt.
Nam cum aliquid occurrit expetendum, vel
rejiciendum, aut illud repugnat saluti pro¬
priae vel aliorum, et necessario rejiciendum
est; aut conducit saluti propriae vel aliorum,
et necessario expetendum est, si vere Deum
et proximum diligimus.
Respondeo, falsum esse membrum hoc
postremum ; non enim necessario expeten¬
dum est, quod conducit saluti propriae vel
aliorum, alioqui non diceret Dominus, Deut.
XXIII : Si nolueris polliceri , absque peccato
eris. Neque Apostolus diceret, I. Cor. VII :
Quod vult, faciat ; non peccat, si nubat (1).
Qui enim potest sine peccato facere quod
voluerit, id est, nubere, aut non nubere ;
vovere aut non vovere, certe nec necessario
cogitur expetere nuptias, aut votum, nec ne¬
cessario illa rejicere. Illud ergo solum ne¬
cessario est expetendum, quod necessarium
est ad salutem ; quod vero utile est, non ne¬
cessarium, utiliter quoque, non necessario
expetitur.
Objectio tertia. Libertas Evangelica, in
qua nos Dominus constituit, minuitur per
vota; non igitur Christianis licet vovere.
Antecedens probatur; nam Christus libera
esse voluit genera vitee, quod nec omnibus,
nec omni tempore conveniant. Qui autem
vovent unum genus vitee, necessarium sibi
illud faciunt, ut jam non possint ad aliud
transire. Item, Christus nos a lege exone¬
rare constituit, qui autem vovent, se magis
ac magis impediunt legibus. Cur, inquit
Martyr, non se liberos servant? Si nolunt
recte agere, nisi lege adigantur, se magis
ad servitutem legis, quam ad regnum gratiae
et fidei pertinere declarant.
Respondeo primo, retorquendo argumen¬
tum; nam si Christus libera esse voluit ge¬
nera vitae, cur ipsi se legibus matrimonii
adstringunt? Nec minus enim impedit con¬
jugium a coelibatu, quam votum coelibatus
a conjugio. Deinde, si Deus liberos nos a
legibus esse voluit, et genera vitae libera
nobis reliquit, quid est quod paulo ante
Martyr dicebat, nihil esse liberum, nihil in¬
differens, sed omnia omnino aut praecepta,
aut prohibita ? Itaque praedicant verbo liber¬
tatem Evangelicam, et interim imponunt
legem importabilem, et qualem nullus un¬
quam tyrannus imposuit.
Secundo respondeo, libertatem Evange¬
licam non esse libertatem (ut illi somniant)
a lege, sed a peccato, Rom. YI, Liberati a
peccato servi facti estis justitice { 2) : Item a cae¬
remoniis Judaicis quae erant umbrae futuro¬
rum, ac demum a timore, et servitute, non
autem ab obligatione legis; qui enim chari-
tate, quae est proprie gratia Testamenti no¬
vi, et libertas Evangelica, praeditus est, lege
quidem tenetur, sed non est sub lege, quia
libenter implet legem. Sed de hac re alibi
saepe tractavimus.
Objectio quarta. Qui vovet, injuriam Deo
facit; nam in primis repugnat illi, faciens
necessaria quae ille voluit esse libera. Deinde
arguit Deum vel insipientiae, vel invidiae;
nam voto se obligat ad unum genus vitae, ut
eo modo perfectior evadat ; quasi Deus, qui
eum ad illud vitae genus non obligavit, aut
non sciverit ei tam bene prospicere, ut ipse
sibi prospexit, aut certe inviderit illi istam
majorem perfectionem.
Respondeo, nullam fieri Deo injuriam per
vota,, quia ipse voluit esse libera genera vi¬
tae negative (ut sic loquar) non affirmative,
id est, noluit obligare, sed reliquit in arbi¬
trio nostro, ut quisque ad quod vellet se
obligaret. Quod itaque ncn obligaverit nos,
benignitas ejus fuit; quod vero per vota ipsi
nos obligemus ad id, quod illi gratius esse
scimus, gratitudo, et pietas est. Et sicut non
pugnant benignitas Domini , et gratitudo
servi, sic etiam non pugnat quod nobis ne¬
cessaria faciamus, quae libera Deus nobis
reliquit. Neque insipientiae aut invidiae illum
arguimus , nam quod facimus, ejus consilio,
et admonitione facimus ; etsi enim non im¬
peravit nobis majorem illam perfectionem,
ad quam per vota tendimus, consuluit tamen,
et admonuit, ut ad eam aspiraremus. De
qua re paulo post agemus.
(1) Deut. XXIII, 22; I. Cor. VII, 36.— Rora. VI, 18.
550
LIBER II.