Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 22: The Vow of Continence Asserted from Those Words of Luke 1, ‘How Shall This Be?’
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).
I come at last to the vow of continence, which I will strive to confirm to the best of my power: first by the testimonies of Scripture, then by the consent of the Councils and of the whole Church; thirdly by the decrees and laws of the Pontiffs and Emperors; fourthly by the tradition of the Fathers, Greek and Latin; and last by natural reason too.
Let the first testimony, then, be that of Luke 1: How shall this be done, because I know not man? By which words the most holy Virgin signifies that she had an impediment by which she could not conceive and bear a son; but that impediment could be no other than a vow of continence already made. For those words, I know not man, do not signify, I do not now actually know, but, It is not lawful for me to know; otherwise it would have been a most inept question, since it could at once be answered, Though thou knowest not man now, yet a little after thou wilt know him. And so, as we say in Lent, I do not eat flesh — that is, it is not lawful for me at this time to eat flesh — so the Blessed Virgin said, I know not man — that is, I am forbidden to know man. And why she was forbidden, no reason can be rendered but a vow; for she both had a husband and was young; nor is it credible that she was barren or impotent, or certainly she could not yet know that herself, since she had not yet come to a husband. Nor finally was she forbidden to know man by any common law, as is known; therefore by a particular law, that is, by a vow.
The same is confirmed from the Fathers. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (in the oration on the Nativity of the Lord): “For,” he says, “if marriage had been undertaken by Joseph, how would she have opposed the angel foretelling a birth, as if astounded at a new and unaccustomed thing? Since she would altogether hope that she too would one day be a mother according to the law of nature. But since the flesh dedicated and consecrated to God, as a certain holy offering, ought to be kept untouched, therefore, ‘Even if thou be an angel,’ she says, ‘and hast come from heaven, even if that which appears be above man, yet that I should know man cannot be done. How shall I be a mother without a man? For Joseph indeed I know as a betrothed, but a husband I know not.’”
Saint Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 4): “Her virginity too,” he says, “was the more pleasing and acceptable, because Christ, being conceived, did not Himself, to preserve it, snatch it away from a husband who would violate it, but chose her, already dedicated to God, of whom He would be born, before He was conceived. This the words indicate which Mary rendered to the angel announcing to her the offspring: How, she says, shall this be done, because I know not man? Which surely she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself a virgin to God. But because the customs of the Israelites still refused this, she was betrothed to a just man, who would not violently take away, but rather guard against the violent, what she had already vowed.”
Bede (on Luke chapter 1): “She reverently set forth the purpose of her mind — namely, that she had determined to lead a virginal life. Who, because she first of women took care to devote herself to so great a virtue, deservedly by a singular blessedness above other women merited to excel.”
Saint Anselm (in the book On the Excellence of the Virgin, chapter 4): “The Virgin,” he says, “tender and delicate, sprung from a royal stock and most beautiful, directed her whole intention, her whole love, her whole zeal to this, that she might consecrate her body and soul to God by perpetual virginity.”
Rupert (Book 3 on the Canticle): “An excellent vow,” he says, “thou first didst vow to God, the vow of virginity.”
Finally, Saint Bernard (sermon 4 on Missus est): “She doubts not,” he says, “of the deed, but asks the manner and order; for she does not ask whether this shall be done, but how; as if she should say, Since my Lord, the witness of my conscience, knows that it is the vow of His handmaid not to know man, by what law, by what order will it please Him that this be done? If it behoove me to break my vow that I may bear a son, I both rejoice over the son and grieve over the vow.” And in the sermon Signum magnum: “In the liberty of the spirit, transcending the decrees of the Mosaic law, she vowed to God the unblemished sanctity of body and spirit together. For she proves the inviolable foundation of her purpose, in that she answered the angel so constantly promising a son, How shall this be done, because I know not man?” Let there come in the consent of the theologians in the Master (on Book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 30).
But let us see what the adversaries answer to these things. John Calvin, in his commentary on this passage in Marlorat, says three things worthy of reprehension. First, he accuses the most Blessed Virgin of maliciously restricting the power of God: “The holy Virgin seems,” he says, “to restrict the power of God no less maliciously than Zacharias before; for she concludes that what is beyond the common order of nature is impossible. For she reasons thus: I know not man; how then shall I believe that what thou announcest will be? Nor indeed need we labor greatly to purge her of all fault.” So he.
Whose words indeed sufficiently indicate his impiety, and how nothing he has in common with the holy Fathers. For Saint Ambrose, Saint Bernard, the venerable Bede, and others on this passage in express words admonish that that, How shall this be done? was not of one doubting, but of one asking and desiring to learn the manner in which that thing would come to pass, which seemed to fight with her own vow. Then, how is it credible that she wished maliciously to restrict the power of God, who was full of grace, and with whom the Lord Himself always was present in a singular manner, as the angel had said a little before? Finally, if the holy Virgin restricted the power of God no less maliciously than Zacharias before, who for his incredulity was by the angel both chastised with words and punished with the penalty of lost speech, the most Blessed Virgin was not reprehended even by the least little word. But if the sin of both was the same, why was not the penalty the same too?
Secondly, Calvin accuses the Fathers who gather a vow of virginity from these words: “But that,” he says, “some have taken occasion from this passage to say that the Virgin had a vow of perpetual virginity, because otherwise that answer would have been superfluous, is too weak, nay, absurd and ridiculous. Shall we think that the Virgin suffered herself to be given to a husband to mock him? It would surely have been a perfidy worthy of grave reprehension, if she had spurned the holy covenant of marriage not without a mockery of God.”
Here too we miss Calvin’s modesty. For what is it, that he calls absurd and ridiculous what is asserted by Nyssen, Augustine, Bede, Bernard, Anselm, Rupert, and by the whole school of theologians? Further, his argument is solved in two ways. First, by denying the consequence, whatever be of the antecedent; for even if we should grant that the Blessed Virgin contracted marriage with Joseph with the mind of consummating the marriage — as Calvin (in his annotation on Luke chapter 1), Beza in the same place, Bucer (on Matthew chapter 1), Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Monastic Vows), and the Centuriators (Century 1, Book 1, chapter 10) falsely teach — still it would not yet follow that she, when she said, How shall this be done, because I know not man? did not have a vow of virginity; for she could have made this vow after the celebration of the marriage, and yet before the angelic salutation, as Saint Thomas teaches (part 3, question 28, article 4); so that first the marriage was celebrated, then, before it came to the consummation of the marriage, the Blessed Virgin made a vow of virginity, Saint Joseph himself consenting, and, as is piously believed, even vowing together with her.
I add, however, secondly, that the Blessed Virgin never had an explicit mind of consummating the marriage, and accordingly the antecedent too of the adversaries’ argument is false; for otherwise she would not be a virgin in mind, but only in flesh. Nor yet was the true marriage impeded by the perpetual will of being continent, nor did she mock her husband, nor did the holy Virgin perfidiously spurn marriage, as Calvin blasphemes; for when she entered marriage, she gave her husband absolute power over her body, so that it would truly have been lawful for Saint Joseph, if he had willed, to consummate the marriage with the Blessed Virgin; for this is required, and suffices, for the essence of true marriage. Yet because she herself knew, taught by divine revelation, that Saint Joseph would never seek it, therefore she could have, and had, an explicit will of always being continent, in which will virginity properly consists. And although Saint Thomas does not admit an absolute vow of virginity in the Blessed Virgin before her betrothal, yet Scotus admits it (on Book 4, distinction 30, question 2), and before Scotus Albert the Great (in the book On the Praises of the Virgin), and before Albert the holy Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine in the places noted, in express words teach that the Blessed Virgin vowed before her betrothal; nor do I see why that vow fights with the celebration of a true marriage, granting the revelation, which all theologians grant, by which it was revealed to the Blessed Virgin that Saint Joseph would never seek the conjugal debt.
But, some say, he who by a vow has delivered himself to God cannot by marriage deliver himself to another. Whence also the Apostle (1 Timothy 5) says that those who after a vow wished to marry have damnation, because they have made void their first faith. I answer that he who has vowed continence cannot now deliver himself to another with danger of violating the vow; for the Apostle speaks of persons of this kind, and reason itself teaches this. But if there be present an infallible certitude that the vow will never be violated, it is not repugnant that one who is of another deliver himself also to another in a different kind of union; otherwise spouses could not by common consent vow continence, which nevertheless all theologians admit; for spouses of this kind deliver themselves to God by a vow, and yet are mutually obliged by marriage.
Thirdly, Calvin answers to our argument and that of the Fathers, by which we prove that the Virgin vowed virginity, because otherwise she would have answered the angel ineptly, How shall this be done, because I know not man? “The objection,” he says, “is to be solved, that the Virgin looks to the future time, and therefore signifies that there would be no cohabitation for her with a man. This conjecture is both probable and simple, that the greatness, or rather majesty, of the thing struck the Virgin, so that she had all her senses bound and constricted with wonder; when she hears that the Son of God is to be born, she conceives something not common; and this is the reason why she excludes the union of a man. Hence, astonished, she exclaims, How shall this be done?” So he. In which way Theodore Beza too expounds.
But first, if Calvin relies on conjecture alone, why does he desert the authority of all the Fathers and theologians? Whether it be safe, for the sake of one conjecture, to oppose all the Fathers, let him see to it. Then that conjecture is improbable and far-fetched. For then the Virgin would not have said, because I know not man, but, because I shall not know man. But thou wilt say: The Virgin believed the angel announcing the nativity of the Messiah, and knew from the prophecy of Isaiah 7 that the Mother of the Messiah would be a virgin; why then did she say, because I know not man? I answer that perhaps the prophecy of Isaiah did not at once come into the Virgin’s mind, and therefore she feared for her virginity, though otherwise she was not ignorant that the Mother of the Messiah would be a virgin; and this seems to be the opinion of Saint Bernard, who brings in the Virgin saying, If it behoove me to break my vow that I may bear a son, I both rejoice over the Son and grieve over the vow; and of Saint Athanasius (in the sermon on the Mother of God), who says, Here the Virgin hesitates, looking to nature and thinking of Joseph. I say, secondly, with Blessed Ambrose on this passage, that Blessed Mary knew very well that the Mother of the Messiah would bear as a virgin, and that this then came into her mind, and therefore she did not ask whether she would bear as a virgin, but in what manner and order this would be; as if she should say: Since by a vow and firm purpose I know not man, certainly if I am to bear, I am to bear as a virgin; but how shall a thing so unaccustomed be done? And the angel’s answer fits, saying, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, etc. — that is, this will be the manner, that the Holy Spirit come upon thee, and by His work, not by the work of any man, thou both conceive and bear.
But now, Calvin dismissed, let us hear Peter Martyr. He, in the book On Celibacy and Vows, brings three things to explain this passage of the Gospel. First he says that the marriage of the Virgin does not cohere with a vow of virginity. But this has already been solved.
Secondly he says that a vow cannot be gathered from those words, because I know not man, unless after the manner of Anaxagoras we make anything out of anything; and he proves it from other similar locutions. For (Exodus 6) Moses said: How shall Pharaoh hear me, since I am uncircumcised of lips? And yet we would not thence rightly gather that Moses vowed the uncircumcision of his lips. And Nicodemus said (John 3): How can a man be born when he is old? And yet who would thence gather that Nicodemus vowed old age?
But these things are too cold; for the uncircumcision of the lips and old age do not depend on free will, and therefore bring an impediment, whether to speaking or to being born, which cannot be removed by man. On which account Moses prudently said, How shall Pharaoh hear me, since I am uncircumcised of lips? and Nicodemus, How can a man be born when he is old? even though neither the one vowed the uncircumcision of his lips, nor the other old age; because without such a vow they had an impediment — the one to speaking, the other to being born — which they could not of themselves remove. But to know a man is placed in the choice of a married woman; therefore Saint Mary would have answered ineptly, How shall this be done, because I know not man, if she was forbidden by no law to know man; but it is established that she was not forbidden by a common law; it follows, then, that she was forbidden by a private law, that is, by a vow.
Thirdly, he tries to solve this our argument, and says that the Blessed Virgin, even though she made no vow, yet asked prudently: “Prudent, indeed,” he says, “was the question of our Virgin; because if the conception and birth which was foretold to her was to be by the ordinary and usual manner, she said this stood in the way, that she was not yet joined to a man; but if beyond the order and above nature, she desires to be taught of the manner.” So he.
But he labors in vain; for if the conception was to be by the natural and ordinary way, she would have said not prudently, but most foolishly, that this stood in the way, that she was not yet joined to a man. For a present or past conception was not promised her, but a future one: Behold, he says, thou shalt conceive and bring forth. But for a future conception it was not required that she should know a man, or should have known one, but that she should be able and willing to know one in the future; wherefore no betrothed woman at all, unless perhaps mad, would ask of one foretelling a conception, How shall this be done, since I have not yet known a man? for it would be answered her, If thou hast not yet known, thou wilt know afterward. But if the Virgin’s conception was to be above nature, it is true that she desires to be taught of the manner; but she desires it therefore, because she was certain that she would bear as a virgin, since she had vowed not to know man.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPET XXII. Asseritur votum continentive ex illis verbis Lucce primo: Quomodo fiet istud ? etc. Venio tandem ad votum continentiae ; quod primum Scripturae testimoniis, deinde Conciliorum, et Ecclesiae totius consensu ; tertio Pontificum, et Imperatorum decretis ac legibus ; quano Patrum Graecorum, et Latinorum traditione ; postremo naturali etiam ratione confirmare pro viribus nitar. Primum igitur testimonium sit illud Luc. i. Quomodo fiet istud , quoniam virum non co¬ gnosco (i)? Quibus verbis Virgo sanctissima significat impedimentum se habere, quo mi¬ nus filium concipere et parere posset : im¬ pedimentum autem illud non aliud esse potuit, quam votum continentiae jam emis¬ sum. Illa enim verba : Virum non cognosco , non significant jam actu non cognosco, sed non licet mihi cognoscere, alioqui ineptissima interrogatio fuisset, cum posset statim res¬ ponderi, etsi nunc virum non cognoscis, tamen paulo post cognosces. Itaque sicut dicimus in Quadragesima. Ego non vescor carnibus, id est, non licet mihi hoc tempore carnibus vesci ; sic B. Virgo dixit : Virum non cognosco, id est, prohibeor virum co¬ gnoscere. Cur autem prohiberetur, nulla ratio potest reddi, nisi votum ; nam et virum habebat, et juvenis erat ; nec est credibile sterilem, aut impotentem fuisse, vel certe id ipsa nondum scire poterat cum ad virum nondum pervenisset. Nec denique prohi¬ bebatur virum cognocere lege aliqua com¬ muni, ut notum est, igitur lege particulari, id est, voto. Idem confirmatur ex Patribus S. Grego- rius Nyssenus in oratione de nativitate Do¬ mini : « Nam, inquit, si nuptiarum causa assumpta erat a Josepho, quomodo Ange¬ lum de partu praedicentem, quasi re nova atque insolita obstupefacta, adversata esset? cum prorsus speraret se quoque ipsam ali¬ quando juxta legem naturae matrem esse futuram? Sed quoniam Deo dicatam, et con¬ secratam carnem, veluti sanctum quoddam donarium, intactam servari oportebat, prop- terea etiamsi Angelus sis, inquit, ac de coelo veneris, etiamsi supra hominem sit id quod apparet, attamen ut virum cognoscam, fieri non potest. Qui mater ero absque viro? Jo- seplium enim sponsum quidem novi, virum autem non cognosco. » S. Augustinus lib. de sancta virginitate, cap. 4 : « Ipsa quoque, inquit, virginitas ejus gratior, etacceptior, quia non eam con¬ ceptus Christus viro violaturo, quam conser¬ varet, ipse praeripuit, sed priusquam conci¬ peretur, jam Deo dicatam, de qua nascere¬ tur, elegit. Hoc indicant verba, quae sibi foetum annuntianti Angelo Maria reddidit. Quomodo, inquit, fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco? Quod profecto non diceret, nisi Deo virginem se ante vovisset. Sed quia hoc Israelitarum mores adhuc recusabant, desponsata est viro justo, non violenter abla¬ turo, sed potius contra violentos custodituro, quod illa jam voverat. » Beda in cap. I Lucae : « Propositum, in¬ quit, suoe^mentis reverenter exposuit, vitam videlicet virginalem se ducere decrevisse. Quae, quia prima fceminarum tantae se vir¬ tuti mancipare curavit, jure singulari prae ceeteris foeminis beatitate meruit excellere.» S. Anselmus lib. de excellentia virginis, cap. 4 : « Virgo, inquit, et tenera, et delica¬ ta, regali stirpe progenita, et speciosissima, totam intentionem suam, totum amorem suum, totum studium suum ad hoc intendit, ut corpus, et animam suam Deo virginitate perpetua consecraret. » Rupertus lib. III. in Cantica : « Votum, inquit, egregium prima Deo vovisti, votum virginitatis. » Denique S. Bernardus serm. 4. super Mis¬ sus est : « Non dubitat, inquit, de facto, sed modum requirit, et ordinem : nec enim quee- rit, an fiet istud, sed quomodo ; quasi dicat, cum sciat Dominus meus testis conscientiae meae, votum esse ancillae suae non cognos- (1) Luc. I, 34. 560 LIBER II. cere virum, qua lege, quo ordine placebit ei, ut fiat istud ? si oportuerit me frangere vo¬ tum ut pariam filium, et gaudeo.de filio, et doleo de voto. » Et in serm. Signum ma¬ gnum : « In libertate spiritus legis Mosaicse decreta transcendens, illibatam Deo corpo¬ ris simul et Spiritus sanctimoniam vovit. Probat enim propositi inviolabile fundamen¬ tum, quod tam constanter promittenti filium Angelo respondit, quomodo fiet istud, quo¬ niam virum non cognosco ? » Accedat con¬ sensus Theologorum apud Magistrum in IY. lib. sententiarum, dist. 30. Sed videamus quid ad haec adversarii respondeant. Joannes Calvinus in commen¬ tario hujus loci apud Marloratum, tria dicit reprehensione digna. Primo, accusat Beatis¬ simam Virginem, quod maligne restrinxerit Dei potentiam : « Videtur, inquit, sancta Virgo non minus maligne restringere Dei potentiam, quam prius Zacharias : quod enim praeter communem naturae ordinem est, impossibile esse colligit. Sic enim ratio¬ cinatur : virum non cognosco, qui credam igitur futurum quod nuntias? Nec vero ma¬ gnopere laborandum est, ut eam purgemus ab omni vitio. » Haec ille. Cujus sane verba satis indicant impieta¬ tem ejus, et quam nihil ei commune sit cum sanctis Patribus. Nam S. Ambrosius, S. Ber- nardus, Beda venerabilis, et alii in hunc lo¬ cum disertis verbis monent, illud : Quomodo fiet istudl non fuisse dubitantis, sed quaeren¬ tis, ac discere cupientis modum quo res illa futura erat, quae cum ipsius voto pugnare videbatur. Deinde, quomodo credibile est eam maligne restringere voluisse Dei poten¬ tiam, quae erat gratia plena, et cum qua Do¬ minus ipse singulari modo semper aderat, ut Angelus paulo ante dixerat. Denique si non minus maligne S. Virgo potentiam Dei restrinxit, quam ante Zacharias ab Angelo ob incredulitatem, et verbis castigatus, et amissae loquela supplicio punitus fuit. Bea¬ tissima Virgo ne minimo quidem verbulo reprehensa. At si idem utriusque peccatum, cur non et poena eadem fuit? Secundo, Calvinus accusat Patres, qui vo¬ tum virginitatis ex his verbis colligunt : « Quod autem, inquit, ex hoc loco occasio¬ nem quidam sumpserunt, ut dicerent virgi¬ nem habuisse votum perpetuae virginitatis, quod alioqui supervacanea fuisset ista res¬ ponsio, nimis infirmum est, imo absurdum, ac ridiculum. Existimabimus ne Virginem passam fuisse marito se collocari, ut eum luderet? Fuisset profecto perfidia, gravi re¬ prehensione digna, si sanctum conjugii foe¬ dus non sine Dei ludibrio sprevisset. » Hic etiam desideramus Calvini modestiam. Quale enim est, ut absurdum et ridiculum dicat, quod asseritur a Nysseno, Augustino, Beda, Bernardo, Anselmo, Ruperto, et ab omni schola Theologorum ? Porro argumen¬ tum ejus duobus modis solvitur. Primum negando consequentiam, quidquid sit de an¬ tecedente : nam etiamsi daremus B. Virgi¬ nem cum Josepho conjugium contraxisse animo consummandi matrimonium, ut Cal¬ vinus annotatione in cap. I. Lucae, Beza ibi¬ dem, Bucerus in cap. I. Matthaei, Martyr in libro de coelibatu et votis monasticis, et Cen- turiatores, Centur. I, lib. I, cap. 10. falso docent, adhuc tamen non sequeretur, eam, cum dixit : Quomodo fiet istud , quoniam virum non cognosco ? non habuisse votum virginita¬ tis; potuit enim hoc votum emisisse post conjugii celebrationem, et tamen ante Ange¬ licam salutationem, utS.Thomas docet, III. parte quaest. XXVIII. art. 4. ita ut primum nuptiae celebratae sint, deinde antequam ad matrimonii consummationem veniretur, B. Virgo votum virginitatis emiserit, ipso S. Josepho consentiente, et, ut pie creditur, etiam simul vovente. Addo tamen secundo, B. Virginem num- quam habuisse explicatum animum consum¬ mandi matrimonium, ac proinde falsum esse etiam antecedens argumenti adversa¬ riorum : nam alioqui non esset Virgo animo, sed solum carne. Nec tamen impeditum fuit verum matrimonium ex perpetua voluntate continendi, nec lusit virum suum, neque conjugium perfide S. Virgo sprevit, ut blas¬ phemat Calvinus ; nam cum matrimonium iniit, dedit viro absolutam potestatem in coipus suum, ita ut vere licuerit S. Josepho, si voluisset, cum B. Virgine matrimonium consummare, id enim requiritur, et sufficit ad essentiam veri conjugii ; tamen quia scie¬ bat ipsa, divina revelatione edocta, num- quam S. Josephum id expetiturum, idcirco poterat habere, et habebat explicitam volun¬ tatem semper continendi, in qua voluntate proprie virginitas consistit. Et quamvis S. Thomas non admittat votum absolutum virginitatis in B. Virgine ante desponsatio¬ nem, Scotus tamen admittit in IV. distinet. 30. quaest. 2. et ante Scotum Albertus Ma¬ gnus in libro de laudibus Virginis, et ante CAPUT XXII. 561 Albertum Sancti Patres, 'Gregorius Nysse- nus, et Augustinus locis notatis disertis ver¬ bis docent, B. Virginem vovisse ante despon¬ sationem ; neque video cur id votum pugnet cum veri conjugii celebratione, posita reve¬ latione, quam omnes Theologi ponunt, qua Beatae Virgini revelatum fuit, numquam S. Josephum debitum conjugale expetitu¬ rum. At, inquiunt quidam, non potest, qui per votum se Deo tradidit, per nuptias se alteri tradere. Unde et Apostolus I. Timoth. V. dicit eas, quae post votum nubere volebant, damnationem habere : Quia primam fidem nritam fecerunt (1). Respondeo, eum, qui vovit continentiam, non posse jam se alteri tradere cum periculo violandi voti; nam de hujusmodi personis Apostolus loquitur, et ratio ipsa hoc docet. At si adsit certitudo infallibilis voti numquam violandi , non repugnat, ut qui est unius se tradat etiam alteri in diverso genere nuptiarum, alioqui non possent conjuges ex communi consensu vovere continentiam, quod tamen admittunt omnes Theologi ; nam ejusmodi conjuges se tradunt Deo per votum, et tamen sunt invi¬ cem obligati per matrimonium. Tertio, Calvinus respondet nostro et Pa¬ trum argumento, quo probamus, Virginem vovisse virginitatem , quia alioqui inepte respondisset Angelo : « Quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco ? Solvendum, » inquit, « est objectum, quod Virgo in futu¬ rum tempus respiciat, ideoque significet, nullam sibi fore cohabitationem cum viro. Hsec vero conjectura et probabilis est, et simplex, quod rei magnitudo, vel potius ma¬ jestas virginem perculerit, ut sensus omnes admiratione ligatos haberet ac constrictos ; cum audit nasciturum esse Dei filium, ali¬ quid non vulgare concipit ; atque hsec ratio est cur coitum virilem excludat. Hinc atto¬ nita exclamatj : Quomodo fiet istud ?» Hsec ille. Ad quem modum exponit etiam Theo¬ dorus Beza. Sed primum, si sola conjectura Calvinus nititur, cur deserit Patrum Theologorum omnium auctoritatem? An tutum sit ob con¬ jecturam unam repugnare omnibus Patribus; ipse viderit. Deinde improbabilis et longe petita illa conjectura est. Tunc enim Virgo non dixisset, quoniam virum non cognosco, sed, quoniam virum non cognoscam. At inquies : Virgo credidit Angelo annuntianti nativitatem Messise, et sciebat ex vaticinio Isaise VII, Matrem Messise Virginem futu¬ ram : cur ergo dixit, quoniam virum non cognosco? Respondeo, fortasse Virgini, non venisse in mentem statim Isaise vaticinium, et ideo virginitati suse timuisse, licet alioqui non ignoraret Matrem Messise Virginem fu¬ turam; et hsec videtur sententia S. Bernardi, qui inducit Virginem dicentem : Si opor¬ tuerit me frangere votum, ut filium pariam, et gaudeo de Filio, et doleo de voto ; et S. Athanasii in serm. de Deipara, qui ait : Hic hsesitat Virgo ad naturam respiciens, et de Josepho cogitans. Dico secundo cum B. Ambrosio in hunc locum, Beatam Ma¬ riam optime scivisse Matrem Messise Virgi¬ nem parituram, et hoc illi tunc in mentem venisse, et ideo non qusesivisse an esset Vir¬ go paritura, sed quo modo, et ordine id fu¬ turum esset; quasi diceret : Quoniam ex voto, et firmo proposito virum non cognos¬ co, certe si paritura sum, Virgo paritura sum ; at quomodo res tam insolita fiet? et quadrat Angeli responsio, dicentis : Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te etc. id est, modus hic erit, ut Spiritus Sanctus in te super¬ veniat, et ejus opera, non viri alicujus ope¬ ra, et concipias, et parias. Sed jam Calvino dimisso Petrum Marty¬ rem audiamus. Is in lib. de coelibatu et votis, tria quaedam affert ad hunc locum Evangelii explicandum. Primo dicit, non cohaerere matrimonium virginis cum voto virginitatis. Sed hoc jam solutum est. Secundo dicit non posse colligi votum ex illis verbis : Quoniam virum non cognosco , nisi more Anaxagorae quodlibet faciamus ex quolibet, et probat ex aliis similibus locu¬ tionibus; nam Exod. VI, Moses dixit : Quo¬ modo audiet me Pharao, cum sim labiis incir- cumcisus ? (2) Et tamen non inde recte colli¬ geremus, Mosem vovisse labiorum incircum- cisionem. Et Nicodemus dixit, Joan. III : Quomodo potest homo nasci cum sit senec ? Et tamen quis inde colligat Nicodemum vovisse senectutem? Sed haec nimis frigida sunt ; nam incir- cumcisio labiorum, et senectus, non pendent ex libero arbitrio, et ideo impedimentum afferunt, sive ad loquendum, sive ad nas¬ cendum, quod non potest tolli ab homine. ^Quocirca prudenter dixit Moses? Quomodo *N (1) I. Tim. V, 12. — (2) Exod. VI, 12. Tom. II. i 36 562 LIBER II. audiet me Pharao , cum sim labiis incircumci- sus ? Et Nicodemus : Quomodo potest homo nasci cum sit senex ? etiamsi nec ille voverit incircumcisionem labiorum, nec iste senec¬ tutem : quia sine tali voto impedimentum habebant, ille ad loquendum, et iste ad nascendum, quod per se removere non po¬ terant. At virum cognoscere, mulieri conju¬ gatae in arbitrio positum est ; idcirco inepte respondit Sancta Maria : Quomodo fiet istud , quoniam virum non cognosco , si nulla lege prohibebatur virum cognoscere : constat autem, eam non fuisse prohibitam lege com¬ muni; sequitur igitur, ut prohibita fuerit lege privata, id est, voto. Tertio, conatur solvere hoc nostrum ar¬ gumentum , atque ait, Beatam Yirginem etiamsi votum non fecerit, tamen prudenter interrogasse : « Prudens,» inquit, « sane Vir¬ ginis nostrae interrogatio, quia si conceptus et partus, qui ei praedicebatur, ordinaria usitataque ratione futurus esset, dixit hoc obstare, quod viro nondum admisceretur ; si vero extra ordinem, ac supra naturam, de modo cupit edoceri. » Haec ille. Sed frustra laborat; nam si naturali et ordinaria via conceptus futurus erat, non prudenter, sed stultissime dixisset hoc ob¬ stare, quod nondum viro admisceretur. Nam non promittebatur ei conceptus praesens, aut praeteritus, sed futurus : Ecce , inquit, con¬ cipies, et paries. Ad futurum autem concep¬ tum non requirebatur, ut virum cognosce¬ ret, aut cognovisset , sed ut cognoscere posset, ac vellet in futurum ; quare nulla omnino sponsa, nisi forte amens, a praedi¬ cente aliquo conceptum quaereret: Quomodo fiet istud, cum virum nondum cognoverim; responderetur enim ei, si nondum cogno¬ visti, postea cognosces. Si autem supra na¬ turam conceptus Virginis futurus erat, verum est quod de modo cupit edoceri, sed ideo id cupit, quia certa erat se Virginem pari¬ turam, quia virum non cognoscere voverat.