Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 24: The Same Asserted from the Words of the Apostle in 1 Timothy
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).
The third passage for the vow of continence is had in the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 5, where the Apostle speaks in this manner: Avoid the younger widows; for when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. In which passage by “first faith” nothing else can be understood but a vow of continence, as all the ancients absolutely understood. For since the Apostle says that those make void their first faith who wish to marry, we necessarily gather that he speaks of the faith of keeping continence, which is violated by marriage.
But this faith of keeping continence is either the faith given to a carnal husband, or to Christ the spiritual spouse. It cannot be the faith given to a carnal husband; for that lasts as long as the husband lives; but the husband being dead, the woman is loosed, and can marry whom she will, as the Apostle says (Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7). It follows, then, that in this passage the faith which is said to be made void by marriage is the faith given to Christ the spiritual spouse. But this faith given to Christ cannot be a simple purpose, or will of being continent, without a promise and vow; both because a simple purpose has no relation to another, nor can it be called a faith, whence faith is not made void when a purpose is changed; and also because it is often lawful to change a purpose without any fault. But the Apostle says absolutely that they have damnation because they make void their faith; it follows, then, that faith in this passage signifies a vow. From which it follows that a vow of perpetual continence is not impossible, nor unlawful, because then it would be no sin to violate it.
So expounded the Fourth Council of Carthage (canon 104): If any widows, however placed in fewer years, have devoted themselves to the Lord, and, the lay garment being cast off, have appeared in a religious habit under the testimony of the bishop and the Church, but afterward have passed to secular marriages, according to the Apostle they will have damnation, since they have dared to make void the faith of chastity which they vowed to the Lord. This is the opinion of the 214 bishops who were present in this Council. The same is had in the Fourth Council of Toledo (chapter 55), where there were 70 bishops.
So expound also three supreme and holy Pontiffs: Clement (Book 3 of the Constitutions, chapters 1 and 2), Innocent I (in epistle 2, chapter 13), and Gelasius I (in epistle 1, chapter 23). So also Tertullian (in the book On Monogamy, not far from the end); Basil (in the book On Virginity, a little beyond the middle); Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian, and on Ezekiel chapter 44); Epiphanius (heresy 48); Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 23, and in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapters 8 and 9, and on Psalm 75); Fulgentius (in epistle 1). Besides, all the expositors of this passage, both Greek — as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius — and Latin — as Ambrose, Primasius, Bede, Haymo, Sedulius, Anselm, and others.
To this passage many have tried to answer. And first Luther (in the book On Monastic Vows) contends that by “first faith” a vow cannot be understood, because nowhere else in the Scriptures is a vow called faith. And he will have it that by “first faith” is understood the Christian faith, which those widows lost, who, that it might be more easily lawful for them to marry, fell away from the Christian faith to Judaism or Paganism; and he confirms this his explanation by two reasons. First, because of these widows the Apostle says that they went back after Satan. Secondly, because he says that they grew wanton against Christ; for both to go after Satan and to grow wanton against Christ seem to signify nothing else than apostasy from the faith of Christ.
But this new explanation is easily refuted. For although faith nowhere else signifies a vow, yet in many passages it signifies a promise, or constancy in keeping a promise, both of which certainly pertain to a vow, since a vow is a certain promise. Genesis 44: I have taken this one upon my faith. To the Romans 3: Hath their unbelief made void the faith of God? So, then, in this passage faith can signify a promise or compact. And that faith not only can, but ought, in this passage to be taken for a compact and vow, not for the Christian faith by which we believe God, is gathered from that added word (have made void); for the faith by which we believe God is not rightly said to be made void, but to be lost or corrupted; but compacts and vows are most properly said to be made void. Numbers 30: If any one vow a vow to the Lord, he shall not make void his word. Psalm 88: The things that proceed from my lips I will not make void.
Then, there was no cause why those widows, if they had not vowed continence, could not marry, unless they fell away to the Jews or Pagans; for who forbade them to marry among Christians? Did not the Apostle (1 Corinthians 7) openly permit that widows marry again, provided in the Lord — that is, among Christians? Nor do Luther’s reasons conclude; for to go after Satan happens not only by apostasy, but by every mortal sin; and to grow wanton against Christ cannot signify a defection from the faith of Christ, but to play the harlot to the injury of Christ. For the Apostle says that those widows first grow wanton in Christ, and afterward wish to marry; but Luther says that they wish to marry, and therefore fall away from Christ; therefore he is compelled to confess that to grow wanton and to fall away are not the same.
To the same passage Calvin brings three solutions. First he says that the Apostle by the name of “first faith” takes the faith given in Baptism, which those widows made void by wantoning and playing the harlot.
But this solution avails little. For besides that it is opposed to all the ancients cited, the Apostle openly says that they have damnation because they made void their first faith by wishing to marry; but no woman in Baptism promises that she will not marry. If, then, they had not vowed continence, why are they damned if they wish to marry? And as to what the Apostle here says, When they have grown wanton in Christ, some understand of spiritual delights, so that the sense is: After they have abounded in spiritual delights in the house of God, ungrateful to the heavenly spouse they seek earthly marriages; so Tertullian (On Monogamy) and Cyprian (Book 3 to Quirinus, chapter 74). Others understand of an affluence of temporal things, so that the sense is: After they have been fed to satiety in the house of God at the expense of the Church, they wish to marry; so Theodoret and Blessed Thomas on this passage. Others, as Chrysostom on this passage, and Jerome (in the epistle to Ageruchia on Monogamy), understand of fornication, so that the sense is: After they have fornicated to the injury of their spouse Christ, they add this too, that they wish to marry.
But in whatever way that be taken, When they have grown wanton, they will marry, always our argument has its force. For if that, After they have grown wanton, be not taken of harlotry, it is established that only this is reprehended, that they wish to marry against their vow. But if it be taken of harlotry, then they ought not only not to be reprehended, but even to be praised, if they wished to pass from harlotry to honest marriage. Not, then, does the Apostle call the faith of Baptism “first faith,” but the faith of a vow, to which answers, as a second, the faith of entering marriage; for it is the same as if he said, After the faith given to Christ, they wish to give faith to a mortal husband, and to make void that first faith. Add that even if the Apostle spoke of the faith given in Baptism, still nothing would be concluded for the heretics. For in Baptism we promised that we would keep the law of God; but the law everywhere inculcates that vows are to be paid. And so this too is true, that those widows who after a vow wish to marry, by violating the vow, make void the faith given to God in Baptism.
The second solution of Calvin is that those widows of whom the Apostle speaks promised continence, and made void this promise when they wished to marry; but yet that they could not promise it, except those who had exceeded the sixtieth year and were no longer apt for marriage. For the Apostle says: Let a widow be chosen of no less than sixty years. And so nothing can be deduced from this passage for the vow of nuns, who profess continence even in the flower of their age. This solution too has nothing solid; for although the Apostle commands a widow to be chosen of sixty years, yet he accuses not the old, but the younger, that they made void their first faith by wishing to marry.
If, then, it is true, as Calvin says, that a younger woman cannot vow continence, why does the Apostle reprehend them? Besides, I say that the Apostle, when he says, Let a widow be chosen of no less than sixty years, and, Avoid the younger widows — that is, choose them not — does not speak of admission to a vow of continence, but either of election to a certain office and order of deaconess, as Tertullian expounds (in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, and Book 1 to his wife) and certain others; or, what is more probable, of admission to the number of those widows who were fed by the Church, as Chrysostom and Ambrose on this passage, and Jerome (in the epistle to Salvina), expound; for the word Let her be chosen, in Greek katalegestho, signifies to be enrolled and numbered in a catalog.
But the Apostle was unwilling that widows less than sixty years old be fed by the Church, as Blessed Jerome teaches in the place noted, because the younger can procure themselves a living by their labor; and besides, because the younger are more difficultly kept in chastity, and it was more shameful for one of those widows who were fed and governed by the bishop to fall than for some other; therefore he wished them to be well proved, and such that no danger of incontinence should be feared.
The third solution is that that promise of continence which the widows made was not properly a vow made to God to worship Him, but was a promise made to the Church to minister more expeditiously to those to whom by the office of deaconesses they owed it; just as if some woman, wishing to be received as a handmaid, should promise that she will not think of marriage, that she may serve more freely.
This solution fits least of all; for besides that the cited Fathers say that they truly vowed to God, if a vow made to God can and ought (as Calvin says) to be rescinded by one who, agitated by the goads of the flesh, cannot be continent, how much more can a promise made to the Church be rescinded? Why then does the Apostle condemn those younger women, because they wish to marry?
But, they say, he does not condemn them because they wish to marry, but because they made void the faith given to the Church by playing the harlot. But on the contrary; for the Apostle in the present says, Having damnation; therefore a present fault ought to answer to a present damnation; but the harlotry had already passed, and, according to Calvin’s opinion, had been amended by a new will of honest marriage. For thus the Apostle speaks: When they have grown wanton, they will marry; they are not, then, condemned because they have grown wanton, but because they wish to marry, which is present. But why are they condemned because they wish to marry, unless because they vowed continence, and so by wishing to marry made void their first faith?
But they insist again, because in the same place the Apostle says, I will that the younger marry; therefore he does not approve the vows of the younger. But see the explanation of this passage below, chapter 30.
Now Peter Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Vows), after a repetition of those things which we have already brought forward from Luther and Calvin and refuted, brings two new things. First he says that this passage is ambiguous, and can be expounded in various ways, and accordingly nothing solid can be brought hence to confirm dogmas.
I answer that that passage cannot rightly be called ambiguous which all the interpreters who existed before our disputes arose expounded in one way; otherwise nothing will be unambiguous. For nothing is so openly said which cannot by the contentious be made ambiguous. I add besides that from ambiguous passages dogmas can be established and confirmed, when there has come in the explanation of the Church approved by Councils, or by the common consent of the Fathers; for otherwise we shall have nothing at all certain, as indeed the heretics have nothing certain; for, as we said, there is nothing in the Scriptures which cannot be expounded in various ways, if we wish to act contentiously. And if thou add besides that from such ambiguous passages dogmas of faith cannot be confirmed, we shall have no dogma at all. For example, that Christ is God very many in Transylvania today deny, and all the passages of Scripture by which we prove it they expound in various ways; therefore, if we believe Peter Martyr, it will not be a dogma of faith that Christ is God, and this same could easily be shown of all the other articles.
Secondly, Peter Martyr contends that that, Having damnation, does not signify a punishment answering to sin before God, but only a certain infamy among men. For although those women who had promised the Church that they would be chaste do not sin by marrying, nay do well, since Paul said, It is better to marry than to burn, yet they incur a certain mark of levity, that they do not persevere in what they had begun.
Further, this he proves no otherwise than by the authority of Martin Bucer, who taught that that word krima, which our translator rendered “damnation,” is ambiguous, and is sometimes taken for an accusation before men.
But to Bucer we oppose first all the Fathers cited above, who say that those widows who after a vow wish to marry have eternal damnation before God. We oppose then the Apostle Paul himself, who everywhere uses that word to signify damnation before God and men, for a great and manifest crime. To the Romans 3: Whose damnation (to krima) is just, he calls damnation the judgment of God against those who blasphemed and lyingly said that the Apostle taught, Let us do evil that good may come. And to the Romans 13: But they that resist the ordinance of God purchase to themselves damnation (krima). But certainly those who resist God have damnation before God, and not before men only.
Finally, John too (chapter 3) not once, but thrice uses the word (krima) in this signification: The Son of man came not, he says, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. Where that, hina krine (that he may judge), does not signify a judgment of discussion, but of damnation. For the sense is: He came not to bear a sentence of damnation against the world, but rather, on the contrary, of absolution. So also a little after: He that believeth is not judged — that is, is not damned; but he that believeth not is already judged — that is, manifest is the sentence of damnation which he will have, even though it be not yet pronounced. Let Bucer and Martyr, then, see where they have read that krima does not signify damnation before God.
Besides, why, I ask, would those widows, if they were bound by no vow, have been infamous among men, if they had wished to marry? If it was not shameful (as they themselves say) for a bishop to have a wife, and, she being dead, again to take another and another, and in the very episcopate to procreate children, why would it have been shameful for a widow who could not be continent to marry? And if they will not have it to be infamy, or levity, or shame for monks and nuns at this time, after a solemn vow of continence, to pass to marriage, how do they dare to say that it was infamous and shameful for those widows to wish to marry, when they had no obligation of not marrying?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Idem asseritur ex verbis Apostoli I. ad Tim. V . Damnationem habent, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt. Tertius locus pro continentiae voto habe¬ tur in epistola priore ad Timoth. cap. V, ubi hoc modo Apostolus loquitur : Adolescentio- res viduas devita, cum enim luxuriatce fuerint in Christo , nubere volunt , habentes damnatio¬ nem , quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt (i) : quo loco per primam fidem nihil aliud intel- ligi potest, nisi continentiae votum, ut om¬ nes omnino veteres intellexerunt. Nam cum Apostolus dicat, eas primam fidem irritam faeere, quae nubere volunt, necessario colli¬ gimus eum loqui de fide servandae continen¬ tiae, quae per nuptias violatur. Ista autem iides servandae continentiae, aut est fides data marito carnali, aut Christo sponso spirituali ; non potest esse fides data carnali marito ; illa, enim tamdiu durat, quamdiu maritus vivit ; mortuo autem viro, soluta est mulier, et cui vult, nubere potest, ut Apostolus ait ad Roman. VII, et I. Cor. VII. Igitur sequitur, ut hoc loco fides, quae per nuptias irrita fieri dicitur, sit fides data spirituali sponso Christo. Non potest autem haec fides, Christo data, esse simplex propositum, seu voluntas continendi sine promissione ac voto ; tum quia simplex pro¬ positum non habet relationem ad aliud, nec fides dici potest; unde non irritatur fides, cum mutatur propositum; tum etiam quia propositum saepe licet sine ulla culpa mu¬ tare. Apostolus autem absolute dicit eas damnationem habere, quia fidem irritam fa¬ ciunt ; sequitur igitur, ut fides hoc loco vo¬ tum' significet. Ex quo sequitur, votum per¬ petuae continentiae non esse impossibile, nec illicitum, quia nullum tunc fuisset peccatum illud violare. Ita exposuit Concilium Carthaginiense IV, can. 104. Si quae viduae quantumlibet in mi¬ noribus annis positae, se devoverint Domino, et veste laicali abjecta, sub testimonio Epis¬ copi et Ecclesiae religioso habitu apparue¬ rint, postea vero ad nuptias saeculares tran¬ sierint, secundum Apostolum damnationem habebunt, quoniam fidem castitatis, quam Domino voverunt, irritam facere ausae sunt. Haec sententia est 214 Episcoporum, qui in hoc Concilio interfuerunt. Idem habetur in Concilio Toletano IV, cap. 55. ubi 70 Epis¬ copi fuerunt. Ita exponunt etiam tres summi sanctique Pontifices; Clemens lib. III. const. cap. 1. et 2. Innocentius I. in epist. 2. cap. 13. et Gelasius I, in epist. 1. cap. 23. Ita etiam Tertullianus in libro de Monogamia, non procul a fine ; Rasilius in lib. de virginitate, parum ultra medium ; Hieronymus lib. I. in Jovinianum, et in cap. XLIV Ezechielis ; Epiphanius liaer. 48. Augustinus libro de sancta virginitate, cap. 23. et libro de bono viduitatis, cap. 8. et 9. et in Psalm. LXXV. Fulgentius in epist. 1. Praeterea omnes ex¬ positores hujus loci, tum Graeci, ut Ghrysos- tomus, Theodoretus, Theophylactus et QE- cumenius ; tum Latini, ut Ambrosius, Pri- masius, Reda, Haymo, Sedulius, Anselmus et alii. i\d hunc locum multi respondere conati sunt, ac primum Lutherus in lib. de votis monasticis, contendit, per primam fidem non posse intelligi votum, eo quod nusquam alibi in Scripturis votum dicatur fides. Vult autem ipse perprimam fidem intelligi fidem Christianam, quam perdiderunt viduae illae, quae ut facilius nubere illis liceret, defece¬ runt a fide Christiana ad Judaismum, vel Paganismum, et confirmat hanc explicatio¬ nem suam dualius rationibus. Primo, quia de his viduis Apostolus dicit, eas abiisse re¬ tro post Satanam. Secundo, quia dicit, eas (1) I. Timoth. V, 11. CAPUT XXIV. 565 luxuriatas esse adversus Christum ; nam et abire post Satanam, et luxuriari adversus Christum, nihil videntur significare aliud, quam Apostasiam a fide Christi. Sed haec nova explicatio facile refellitur. Nam etsi fides nusquam alibi significat vo¬ tum, tamen multis in locis significat promis¬ sionem, sive constantiam in promissione servanda, quorum utrumque ad votum per¬ tinere certum est, cum votum promissio quaedam sit. Genes. XlAX.Ego hunc in fidem meam recepi. Ad Rom. III. Numquid incredu¬ litas illorum fidem Dei evacuavit ? (1) Sic igi¬ tur hoc loco fides promissionem, seu pactum significare potest. Quod autem non solum possit, sed etiam debeat fides hoc loco pro pacto ac voto accipi, non pro fide Chris¬ tiana, qua Deo 'credimus, colligitur ex illo verbo adjuncto ( Irritam fecerunt :) nam fides, qua Deo credimus, non recte dicitur irritari, sed amitti, vel corrumpi : pacta au¬ tem et vota propriissime irritari dicuntur. Num. XXX. Si quis Domino votum voverit, non faciet irritum verbum swwm.Psalm.LXXXVIII. Quce procedunt de labiis meis , non faciam irrita (2). Deinde, nulla causa erat, cur viduae illae, si non voverant continentiam, non possent nubere, nisi deficerent ad Judaeos, aut Pa¬ ganos : Quis enim illas prohibebat nubere ititer Christianos? An, non Apostolus I. Cor. VII. aperte permis*erat, ut viduae iterum nuberent, modo in Domino, id est, inter Christianos? Neque Lutheri rationes conclu¬ dunt ; nam abire post Satanam, non solum contingit per apostasiam, sed per omne pec¬ catum mortale , luxuriari autem contra Christum, non potest significare defectionem a Christi fide,' sed scortari in injuriam Christi. Nam Apostolus dicit, eas viduas prius luxuriari in Christum, et postea nu¬ bere velle : Lutherus autem dicit, eas nu¬ bere velle, et propterea deficere a Christo : ergo cogitur fateri, non esse idem luxuriari et deficere. Ad eumdem locum tres solutiones Calvi¬ nus affert. Primo dicit, Apostolum nomine primae fidei accipere fidem in Baptismo da¬ tam, quam istae viduae irritam fecerunt las¬ civiendo, et scortando. At solutio parum valet. Nam praeterquam quod adversatur omnibus veteribus citatis, aperte Apostolus dicit, eas habere damna¬ tionem, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt nubere volendo, nulla autem mulier in Bap¬ tismo promittit se non esse nupturam. Si ergo non voverant continentiam, cur dam¬ nantur, si nubere velint? Quod aiutem Apos¬ tolus hoc loco ait : Cumtduxuriatoe fuerint in Christo ; aliqui intelligunt de spiritualibus de¬ liciis, ut sit sensus : Posteaquam deliciis spi¬ ritualibus in domo Dei abundarunt, ingratae sponso coelesti terrenas appetunt nuptias ; ita Tertullianus de Monogamia, et Cypria¬ nus lib. III. ad Quirinum cap. 74. Alii intelli¬ gunt de temporalium rerum affluentia, ut sit sensus : Posteaquam in domo Dei Eccle¬ siae sumptibus ad satietatem pastae fuerint, nubere volunt; ita Theodoretus et B. Tho- mas in hunc locum. Alii, ut Chrysostomus hoc loco, et Hieronymus in epistola ad Age- ruchiam de Monogamia, intelligunt de for¬ nicatione, ut sit sensus : Postquam in inju¬ riam sponsi sui Christi fornicatae fuerint etiam hoc addunt, ut nubere velint. Sed quocumque modo accipiatur illud : Cum luxuriatae fuerint , nubere volunt ; semper argumentum nostrum suum robur habet. Nam si de scortatione non accipiatur illud : Postquam luxuriatae fuerint , constat solum reprehendi quod nubere velint contra vo¬ tum. Si autem accipiatur de scortatione, tunc non solum non reprehendi, sed etiam laudari deberent, si a scortatione ad hones¬ tum conjugium transire vellent. Non igitur primam fidem vocat Apostolus fidem Baptis¬ mi, sed fidem voti, cui respondet, tamquam secunda, fides matrimonii ineundi ; idem enim est, ac si diceret, post fidem Christo datam, volunt fidem mortali marito dare, et primam illam irritam facere. Adde, quod etiamsi de fide in Baptismo data Apostolus loqueretur, adhuc nihil pro hsereticis con¬ cluderetur. Nam in Baptismo promisimus legem Dei nos servaturos ; lex autem passim id inculcat, vota esse reddenda. Itaque etiam hoc verum est, eas viduas, quae post votum nubere volunt, votum violando, fidem in Baptismo Deo datam irritam fa¬ cere. Altera solutio Calvini est, viduas illas, de quibus Apostolus loquitur promisisse con¬ tinentiam, et hanc promissionem irritam fecisse, cum nubere voluerunt, sed' tamen non potuisse id promittere, nisi eas, quae excesserant annum sexagesimum, et jam non (1) Gen. XLIV, 32 ; Rom. III. 3. — (2) Num, XXX, 3; Psal. LXXXVII, 35. V 566 LIBER II. amplius aptae erant conjugio. Dicit enim Apostolus : Vidua eligatur non minus sexa- ginta annorum (I). Itaque nihil ex hoc loco deduci posse pro voto Sanctimonialium, quae etiam in flore aetatis continentiam pro¬ fitentur. Haec etiam «olutio nihil solidi habet; nam etsi Apostolus jubeat, viduam eligia nno- rum sexaginta, tamen non vetulas, sed ado- lescentiores accusat, quod primam fidem irritam fecerint volendo nubere. Si igitur verum est quod Calvinus ait, non posse juniorem continentiam vovere, cur Apostolus eas reprehendit ? Praeterea dico Apostolum, cum ait : Vidua eligatur non mi¬ nus annorum sexaginta. Et : Adolescentiores viduas devita , id est, non eas eligas, non lo¬ qui de admissione ad votum continentiae, sed vel de electione ad quamdam praefectu¬ ram et ordinem Diaconissae, ut exponunt Tertullianus libro de velandis virginibus, et lib. I, ad uxorem, et quidam alii : vel, quod probabilius est, de admissione ad numerum earum viduarum quae ab Ecclesia alebantur, ut Chrysostomus et Ambrosius in hunc lo¬ cum, et Hieronymus in epistola ad Salvi- nam, exponunt ; verbum enim Eligatur , Graece xara^yscrw, in Catalogum adscribi et numerari significat. Nolebat autem Apostolus, viduas minores annis sexaginta ab Ecclesia ali, ut beatus Hieronymus loco notato docet, quia juniores possunt labore suo victum sibi comparare : et praeterea, quia juniores difficilius conser¬ vantur in pudicitia, et turpius erat, aliquam earum viduarum, quae ab Episcopo aleban¬ tur et regebantur, labi, quam aliquam aliam, ideo eas valde probatas esse volebat, et quibus nullum periculum incontinentiae ti¬ meretur. Tertia solutio est, quod ista promissio continentiae, quam viduae faciebant, non erat proprie votum Deo factum ad eum colendum, sed erat promissio facta Ecclesiae ad expedi¬ tius ministrandum iis, quibus ex officio Dia¬ conissarum debebant, quomodo si aliqua cupiens recipi in ancillam, promittat se non cogitaturam de nuptiis, ut liberius servire possit. Haec solutio minime omnium quadrat ; nam praeterquam, quod Patres citati dicunt, eas Deo vere vovisse, si votum Deo factum rescindi potest, ac debet (ut Calvinus dicit) ab eo, qui stimulis carnis agitatus, continere non potest, quanto magis rescindi poterit promissio facta Ecclesiae? Cur ergo istas adolescentiores Apostolus damnat, quia nu¬ bere volunt ? Sed, inquiunt, non damnat, quia nubere volunt, sed quia fidem Ecclesiae datam irri¬ tam fecerunt scortando. At contra ; nam Apostolus in praesenti dicit : Habentes dam¬ nationem ; ergo debet culpa praesens damna¬ tioni praesenti respondere : scortatio autem jam praeterierat, et ex sententia Calvini emendata fuerat per novam voluntatem ho¬ nesti conjugii ; Sic enim loquitur Apostolus : Cum luxuriatae fuerint, nubere volunt ; non igitur damnantur, quia luxuriatae fuerint, sed quia nubere volunt, quod est praesens. Cur autem damnantur quia nubere volunt, nisi quia continentiam voverunt, et sic nu¬ bere volendo, primam fidem irritam fece¬ runt? Sed instant rursus, quia ibidem Apostolus dicit : Volo juniores nubere ; non ergo appro¬ bat vota juniorum. At vide hujus loci expli¬ cationem infra cap. 30. Jam vero Petrus Martyr in lib. de ccelibatu et votis, post repetitionem eorum, quae ex Luthero et Calvino jam protulimus, et refu¬ tavimus, duo adfert nova. Primum dicit, hunc locum esse ambiguum, et posse variis modis exponi, proinde nihil solidi hinc ad- ferri posse ad confirmanda dogmata. Respondeo , non posse recte ambiguum vocari eum locum, quem omnes interpretes, qui quidem ante nostras lites exortas exsti¬ terunt, uno modo exposuerunt : alioqui nihil erit non ambiguum. Nihil enim est tam aperte dictum, quod non possit a contentio¬ sis ambiguum fieri. Addo praeterea, ex locis ambiguis dogmata stabiliri ' et confirmari posse, quando accessit explicatio Ecclesiae per Concilia approbata, aut per communem Patrum consensum ; nam alioqui nihil om¬ nino habebimus certi, ut revera nihil haere¬ tici certi habent; nam, ut diximus, nihil est in Scripturis, quod non possit exponi variis modis, si velimus contentiose agere. Quod si addas praeterea, ex ejusmodi ambiguis locis dogmata fidei confirmari non posse, nullum omnino habebimus dogma. Exempli causa, Christum esse Deum, negant hodie in Transylvania permulti, et omnia loca Scripturae, quibus id nos probamus, illi va¬ riis modis exponunt ; ergo si Petro Martyri (1) I. Timoth. V, 9. CA1?UT XX Y. 567 credimus, non erit dogma fidei, Christum esse Deum, atque hoc idem de omnibus aliis articulis facile posset ostendi. Secundo, Petrus Martyr contendit illud : Habentes damnationem : non significare poe¬ nam, quae peccato respondeat coram Deo, sed solum quamdam infamiam apud homi¬ nes. Etsi enim illae, quae promiserant Eccle¬ siae castas se futuras non peccent nubendo, imo benefaciant cum Paulus dixerit : Me¬ lius est nubere , quam uri (1), tamen subeunt quamdam notam levitatis, quod non perse¬ verent in eo, quod coeperant. Porro id non aliter probat, quam auctori¬ tate Martini Buceri, qui vocem illam xpipx, quam noster interpres damnationem inter¬ pretatus est, ambiguam esse docuit, et in¬ terdum accipi pro accusatione coram homi¬ nibus. At nos Bucero opponimus in primisomnes Patres supra citatos, qui damnationem ae¬ ternam coram Deo habere dicunt viduas, quae post votum nubere volunt. Opponimus deinde ipsum Apostolum Paulum, qui ubi¬ que illa voce utitur ad significandam dam¬ nationem coram Deo et hominibus, pro cri¬ mine magno et manifesto, ad Rom. III : Quorum damnatio , r'o xpipa, manifesta est , ap¬ pellat damnationem judicium Dei contra il¬ los, qui blasphemabant, ac mentiebantur Apostolum dicere, Faciamus mala , ut eve¬ niant bona. Et ad Rom. XIII : Qui autem re¬ sistunt Dei ordinationi , ipsi sibi damnationem , xpifjta, acquirunt (2). Certe autem, qui Deo resistunt damnationem habent coram Deo, et non coram hominibus tantum. Denique Joannes etiam cap. III. non se¬ mel, sed ter utitur verbo (xpipu) in hac si¬ gnificatione : Non venit , inquit, filius homi¬ nis, ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum (3). Ubi illud, tva xpan (ut judicet) non significat judicium discussionis, sed damnationis. Est enim sensus : Non venit, ut sententiam damnationis ferat adversus mundum, sed contra potius , absolutionis. Sic etiam paulo post : Qui credit , non judi¬ catur, id est, non damnatur, qui autem non credit , jam judicatus est, id est, manifesta est sententia damnationis, quam habebit, etiamsi nondum pronuntiata sit. Viderint igitur Bu¬ cerus et Martyr, ubi legerint v.ptpu, non si¬ gnificare damnationem coram Deo. Praeterea, quare, quaeso, viduae illae, si nullo voto obstrictae erant, infames fuissent apud homines, si nubere voluissent? Si non erat turpe (ut ipsi dicunt) Episcopo uxorem habere, et ea mortua, rursus aliam, et aliam ducere, et in ipso Episcopatu filios procreare, cur turpe fuisset viduae, quae continere non poterat, nubere ? Et si nec infamiam, nec levitatem, nec turpitudinem esse volunt hoc tempore Monachis et Sanctimonialibus,- post solemne votum continentiae, ad matrimo¬ nium transire ; quomodo audent dicere , fuisse infame, ac turpe viduis illis velle nu¬ bere, cum nullam haberent non nubendi obligationem.