Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 30: The Second Objection 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).
The second objection they draw from those testimonies of Scripture which openly command marriage to those who suffer the goad of the flesh. For hence it follows that a vow of perpetual continence is rash, and accordingly unlawful, since no one knows how long he can live without goads of that kind. 1 Corinthians 7: Let them that contain not themselves marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. In the same place: For fear of fornication let every man have his own wife. Hither also greatly makes that of 1 Timothy 5: I will that the younger marry, be mothers of families, bear children. Against which precept those seem to sin who persuade or permit girls a vow of continence.
I answer to this argument in three ways. First I assert that in none of these passages are those called to marriage by the Apostle who are tempted by the goads of the flesh, but those who live incontinently, so as to pollute themselves with crimes. Secondly I assert that those who live incontinently are not called to marriage by an absolute command, but there is only shown them a certain easy remedy, and as it were a harbor to which they may betake themselves; yet so that it is left free to them to aspire to greater things. Thirdly I assert that this very thing — whether counsel, or permission, or remedy — is not given by the Apostle to those who have vowed continence, but only to men unmarried and free.
And that we may first speak of the first, it must be known that the adversaries think marriage to be necessary by divine law to those who burn. And by burning they understand temptations of the flesh not short and light, but grave and long-lasting, which disturb the conscience, although they be not consented to. So teaches Luther in the Epithalamium, where he also gravely accuses Saint Jerome for not entering marriage, since he himself confesses (in epistle 22 to Eustochium) that he was vexed by most grievous and long-lasting ardors of the flesh. Nay, Luther even goes so far as to accuse Saint Jerome on that account of the Pelagian heresy, as if, namely, he held that one could by his own strength, without the gift of God, overcome temptations. Which nevertheless is a manifest calumny, since in the same place Jerome says that he was wont assiduously to press God with prayers for obtaining victory against temptations.
But concerning burning Calvin and Peter Martyr agree with Luther in the commentary on 1 Corinthians 7. For Calvin distinguishes three kinds of temptations of the flesh. One which so tempts as to conquer, and this he says is the worst kind of burning, which is most true. Another which so tempts as at once to be sharply repelled, so that the darts do not penetrate within, nor any perturbation of mind arise; and these temptations he confesses are not properly called burnings, and that on account of these marriage is not necessary, which we too willingly grant. The third kind he says is a mean, when, namely, one does not fully consent to the temptation, yet the darts penetrate within, and there is felt a delight of the flesh and a perturbation of mind; and these temptations he says are properly burnings, and those who have them he affirms are cited by the Apostle to marriage by a fixed law, so that they sin by not marrying.
Where it is to be observed that Calvin not without fraud said that the third kind of temptation is when one does not fully consent, though the darts penetrate within; for to obscure the matter he set down “fully,” when he wished to say that the third kind is when one in no way consents, and yet feels sharp goads of the flesh. For he who consents, whether fully or not fully, pertains to the first kind, according to their opinion, since they do not acknowledge the distinction of mortal and venial sin, but teach that every motion of the flesh, however involuntary, is a mortal sin.
Nay, this is the chief foundation from which they deduce that those who are gravely tempted must necessarily take a wife, because, as Luther teaches in the Epithalamium, the contests of chastity are not like other contests; for he who endures hunger, or thirst, or other things of that kind, does not sin; but the heat of lust cannot be without sin, since every motion of concupiscence is forbidden. In which foundation Calvin, Peter Martyr, and all the others agree. But both the foundation itself is rotten, and the edifice which they build upon it can easily be thrown down.
And of the foundation indeed it will have to be disputed elsewhere; now let the testimony of Saint Paul and Augustine suffice. Romans 7: If I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it. Who can grasp that to be a sin to me which I do not do? Augustine (Book 1 On the City of God, chapter 25): “But if that concupiscential disobedience, which still dwells in the dying members, is moved beyond the law of the will, as it were by its own law, how much more is it without fault in the body of one not consenting, if it is without fault in the body of one sleeping.” But of this elsewhere. Now coming to the present matter, we assert that men are called by the Apostle to marriage not on account of temptations alone, or on account of the sensation, but on account of the consent of lust; and by burning we interpret not temptations, but incontinence and crimes, so that this is the sense of the Apostle’s words: He who has altogether determined either to fornicate or to marry, he does well if he marry, because it is better to marry than to burn — that is, than to fornicate.
We prove this our exposition from the preceding words; for the Apostle, about to say, It is better to marry than to burn, premised, If they contain not themselves, let them marry. Where Paul himself expounds burning as incontinence; for he renders the reason why those who contain not themselves ought to marry, namely, that it is better to marry than to burn — that is, than not to be continent; but it is established that incontinence signifies not a temptation, but a crime.
Secondly, the same appears from those words of the same chapter: It is good for a man not to touch a woman; but for fear of fornication let every man have his own wife. Where the Apostle does not say, for the sake of fleeing temptation, but, for the sake of fleeing fornication, let every man have his own wife — that is, not if thou be tempted, but if thou be about to fornicate, rather have a wife.
Thirdly, the same is proved from those words: Return again to the same, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinence. Where also not on account of simple temptation does he command that spouses render the debt to one another, but on account of incontinence. Burning, then, signifies the same in the Apostle as incontinence.
Fourthly, from that of 1 Timothy 5: I will that the younger marry; for he renders as the cause not temptation, but incontinence: To give no occasion to the adversary of reproach — that is, lest we give occasion to the Gentiles of speaking ill of the life and morals of Christians; but the adversaries cannot speak ill of Christians on account of hidden temptations, but on account of manifest crimes. Whence he at once subjoins: For some are already turned aside after Satan.
Fifthly, the same can be proved by the example of the Apostle himself (2 Corinthians 12): There was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me; for which thing thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. Nor is it true what Peter Martyr says (in the book On Celibacy and Vows), that the Apostle obtained the grace by which he neither fell nor was gravely vexed; for the Apostle himself says the contrary, namely, that he did not obtain what he asked, that the sting of the flesh be taken away. For he says: And the Lord answered me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect in weakness. Whence Saint Augustine (tract 7 on John, and sermon 53 on the words of the Lord, and often elsewhere) brings this example of Paul, when he wishes to show that God often usefully does not hear the prayers of His own. And so the Apostle was tempted by great and long-lasting goads of the flesh, and yet did not take a wife; therefore to be tempted is not to burn, otherwise Paul would be condemned by his own judgment.
But Peter Martyr adds that this passage of the Apostle is not necessarily to be understood of carnal temptation, since Chrysostom understands by the sting of the flesh a pain of the head; but others, the persecutions which he suffered.
But this is too great negligence, or impudence, since Chrysostom, and also Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, in express words refute those who interpret the sting of the flesh as a pain of the head. This indeed is true, that these Fathers refer this passage to persecutions; yet Saint Augustine (on Psalm 58, sermon 2) contends that the sting of the flesh signifies something which brings shame and modesty, and which no one would have dared to say of so great an Apostle, unless he himself had not blushed to confess this of himself. But certainly there is no shame in confessing pains of the head or persecutions.
Whence also Theophylact, though he expounds of persecutions, yet adds that it is better to expound of a temptation of the flesh: “Or,” he says, “what is better, he expressed the incitements of Venus, by which he was especially urged.” In which way also Sedulius, Anselm, and Thomas in their commentary teach it can be expounded; which same the metaphor of buffeting persuades; for as a buffet does not so much hurt the flesh as cast shame on the mind, so a carnal temptation, which is not consented to, brings rather a blush than a detriment. Finally, this exposition seems now so received that commonly carnal temptations are wont to be called a sting of the flesh.
But because this passage does not altogether convince, since it is expounded in various ways by the Fathers, there are two others more evident. 1 Corinthians 9: I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection. And Romans 7: I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. And: For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. And: I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind.
Which passages not only Saint Augustine in many places, and especially (Book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 1, and Book 6 against Julian, chapter 11), contends are to be understood of Paul himself and of other just men; but Luther too (in the assertion of the second article) altogether affirms that they cannot be understood otherwise, and proves it from the labors of all the Saints, and namely of Saint Jerome, in overcoming most grievous temptations of the flesh: “What,” he says, “do we read in the life of all the Saints but labors, vigils, prayers, fasts, by which as by spiritual engines they fought against the flesh and the concupiscences of their own body? Which of them does not groan? does not accuse, does not labor in his flesh and in his concupiscences? Since, then, in all these we see those authorities, the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man, but I see another law, etc., what cause is there that we should wish the Apostle to say these things not in his own, but in the person of the impious, which we see carried on in the persons of the most pious with most lively zeals?” And below: “How often, then, does Saint Jerome complain of the burnings of lusts, even then when with much fasting and labor he fought against it — that is, when he was not only baptized, but most holy?” So he. Who, as he says these things most truly, so he manifestly contradicts what he taught of Saint Jerome in the Epithalamium. For here he joins him with Paul, and with all the saints strenuously resisting concupiscence; from which it follows that either in Paul (1 Corinthians 7) to burn is not to be tempted, but to fall into crimes; or Paul and all the saints suffered burning, and accordingly sinned against God because they did not enter marriage.
There come in, sixthly, the testimonies of the Fathers. Clement of Alexandria (Book 4 of the Stromata, at the very beginning) attributes to the followers of the heresiarch Basilides that explanation which the adversaries now embrace: “And that,” he says, “It is better to marry than to burn, they say the Apostle means, Cast not thy soul into the fire, resisting night and day, and fearing lest thou fall from continence; for when the soul is occupied in resisting, thou art divided from hope.” “Take, then,” says Isidore in these words in his Morals, “a robust woman, lest thou be torn from the grace of God; and when thou hast grown fervent in seed, pray with a good conscience.” And a little after: “These sayings,” he says, “I have adduced to reprehend the Basilidians,” etc. The commentary which is attributed to Ambrose, on this passage: “When,” he says, “the will consents to the heat of the flesh, one burns; for to suffer desires and not be conquered is of an illustrious and perfect man.”
Saint Jerome (in the Apology for the books against Jovinian): “But if,” he says, “they cannot be continent, and wish to quench the ardor of lust not so much by continence as by fornication, it is better to marry than to burn — that is, it is better to take a husband than to fornicate.” So he. Saint Augustine (in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 34): “It were better,” he says, “for them to marry than to burn — that is, than to be laid waste by the hidden flame of concupiscence in the very concupiscence — who repent of their profession and are irked at their confession.” The same Saint Augustine (in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 10): “It seems to me,” he says, “that at this time only those who contain not themselves ought to marry, according to that opinion of the same Apostle: But if they contain not themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.”
Further, Chrysostom seemed to Peter Martyr to have understood this passage of temptation alone, but it is not so; for Chrysostom thus most briefly expounded: “The Apostle signifies how great is the tyranny of concupiscence. And this is what he says: If thou sufferest great violence, and art inflamed with lust, free thyself by labors and sweats, lest at some time thou fall.” So he. Where he interprets burning as a temptation which will altogether lead to crime, namely, an infirmity of mind being added to the heat of concupiscence; for that is what those words signify: “tyranny, violence, and lest thou fall.” And so the sense, according to Chrysostom, is: If thou art of a weak mind, and the force of temptation so urges that thou art altogether about to fornicate, it is better that thou marry; which sense he expressed more clearly in the book On Virginity. And Theodoret, following Chrysostom, thus expressed it: “By burning,” he says, “he calls not the trouble of desire, but the enslavement of the soul, and its inclination to what is worse. And what he says is of this kind: It is indeed better both for you to whom conjugal intercourse has not yet fallen, and for you who were indeed joined but are separated by death, to choose continence. But if you cannot bear the assault of desire, but are of a mind too weak to sustain this contest, since you have not a lively and ardent purpose of mind toward the things which are beautiful and honorable, no law forbids that you contract marriage.” So he.
Finally, to omit the rest, Saint Thomas (in his commentary on this passage) not only affirms that burning in this passage signifies incontinence, but also confirms it from the very propriety of the word. For to burn signifies not to be warm, which befits the tempted, but to be undone by heat and to suffer detriment, which by no means befits those who are simply tempted, but those who are overcome by temptations. And hence Scripture (1 Peter 1, Ecclesiasticus 2, Wisdom 3, and elsewhere) compares the just placed in temptations to gold, which is proved by fire; for gold is said to be proved in the fire, not to be burned up, though it grow very hot, because it suffers no detriment; but chaff is said to grow hot and be burned up, because it is plainly consumed.
I will now add the second solution. For even if by burning the Apostle signified temptation, still the adversaries would gain nothing; for in none of those passages which they cite is found a true precept of marrying, but only a permission; and it is false what Calvin says (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §17), that those who burn are cited to marriage by a fixed law. For first the form of speaking is not imperative; for the Apostle does not say, You who contain not yourselves, marry, but, Let them that contain not themselves marry; nor does he say, For fear of fornication take a wife, but, Let him have a wife, etc.
Then the reason which the Apostle renders — namely, It is better to marry than to burn — sufficiently indicates that the words of the Apostle contain not a precept, but a permission. For, as Chrysostom notes, the Apostle adds reasons, lest it seem a legislation, as he himself said; and besides, the reason itself does not conclude that marriage is necessary, but lawful and permitted. For although it is better to marry than to burn, yet there is a certain third thing better than both — that is, to be continent, and to quench the burning by fasting and tears. Just as, if one should say, He who wishes not to fight, let him flee, because it is better to flee than to be killed, he would not command, but permit, flight; for he would not forbid to fight and conquer, which is better than to flee or be killed.
Thirdly, as the Apostle says, Let them that contain not themselves marry, so he said, Return again to the same; for as he admonished the incontinent unmarried to marry, on account of the danger of fornication, so also he admonished the incontinent married, after some cessation from the conjugal work, again to return to the conjugal work, on account of the danger of adultery. But by these latter words the Apostle commanded nothing, but only permitted; for he subjoined: But this I say by indulgence, not by commandment. Therefore in the former words too there is no command, but only indulgence and permission.
From which we understand that even in those words, Let every man have his own wife, there is no precept. For either he speaks of those who have already taken wives, as Saint Jerome will have it (Book 1 against Jovinian), and rightly, because a little after there follows, But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so remain; or he speaks of those who had not taken, as Peter Martyr contends. If of those who had taken, then the sense will be: Let every man have his own wife — that is, retain her even as to the bed, but by indulgence, not by command; for it is the same, Return again to the same, and, let every man have his own wife, as to the bed. But if he speaks of those who had not taken, it will be the same: Let every man take a wife on account of fornication, and, Let them that contain not themselves marry, which we have already shown sounds a permission, not a law. Nay, an argument is drawn from the greater; for if, where there is danger of adultery, Paul does not command the conjugal work, but permits it, much more will he not command where there is danger of fornication alone.
Fourthly, if there were any precept of marriage in the words of Paul, it would be most of all in those of 1 Timothy 5, I will that the younger marry; but that there is no precept there can easily be proved. For first it would fight with those words of the same Apostle, I will that all be as myself — that is, continent; for these most openly fight, I will all to be continent, and I will some to marry. For it is the same as if he said, I will all to be continent, and I will not all to be continent. Neither, then, does the Apostle command, but he absolutely wishes the one — that is, that all be continent — and yet permits the other, yielding to the infirmity of some — that is, to marry. Besides, Paul not only said, I will that the younger marry, but adds, bear children, be mothers of families, etc. If, then, when he says, I will that the younger marry, he commands marriage, also when he says, I will them to bear children and be mothers of families, he commands that they have children, and accordingly if they be barren, they will sin against the Apostolic law. Which surely no one but a fool would grant.
I add lastly the testimonies of the Fathers. And that passage, Let them that contain not themselves marry, we have already heard Theodoret expounding thus, No law forbids that you contract marriage; which same others also teach. But that passage, I will that the younger marry, Chrysostom thus expounds: “I will, because they themselves will.” And below: “Does he then command marriage? God forbid. But neither does he forbid it.” And below: “He forbids, then, and deters from widows of this kind, not because he is unwilling that young women be widows, but because he forbids them to become adulteresses.”
Saint Ambrose expounds both passages together in the book On Widows: “I do not think,” he says, “that he thought the younger were to be recalled from the affection of widowhood, especially since he said, It is better to marry than to burn; for certainly he persuaded marriage as a remedy, that the perishing might be healed, not prescribed it as a choice, that a chaste and continent woman should follow it.” And at the end of the book: “But neither does a widow receive a precept, but a counsel.” Saint Jerome (in epistle 11 to Ageruchia, on Monogamy): “The Apostle wills,” he says, “a second marriage, when he says, I will that the younger marry, preferring digamy to fornication, by indulgence only, not by command.” Augustine (in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 8): “In that he says, I will that the younger marry, he commends the good of marriage with Apostolic sobriety and authority; he does not impose the office of procreating, even on those who take up the good of continence, as in obedience to a law.” And a little before: “They said the same of that passage, Let them that contain not themselves marry, namely, that a remedy is shown, not a law fixed.”
But let us now at last bring the third solution. I say, then, that all those things which the adversaries object from the Apostle, whether they sound a permission, as we have proved, or a precept, as they will have it, pertain only to free men, but not to those who are already bound by vows. For of her who has a vow of continence it cannot rightly be said, Let her that contains not herself marry; it is better to marry than to burn. For both are evil, both to marry and to burn; nay, it is worse to marry, whatever the adversaries cry out, especially for her who has a solemn vow.
For she who burns either does not sin, if burning signifies only temptation; or sins only against temperance and against her vow, if it signify fornication; but she who marries after a solemn vow sins against temperance, against her vow, and against marriage itself, since under the name of marriage she covers a perpetual sacrilege. But she who marries after a simple vow contracts a true marriage, yet in some way sins more than she who fornicates, because she renders herself impotent to keep her vow, which she who fornicates does not do.
Secondly, to her who has a husband, and, whether because he is perpetually ill, or because he is perpetually absent, cannot ask of him the conjugal debt, even though she burn most grievously, it cannot be said, If she contain not herself, let her marry; it is better to marry than to burn. But it must necessarily be said to her that she keep faith with her spouse, and by prayers and fasts fight against the burning. Which not even the adversaries would dare to deny. Not, then, did the Apostle say those words to all who burn, but only to those who are unmarried and free; and if those are reckoned bound who have given faith to a spouse, why not those who have given it to God?
Thirdly, from the Fathers. Saint Ambrose (to a fallen virgin, chapter 5): “Someone says,” he says, “It is better to marry than to burn. This saying pertains to her who has not promised, to her not yet veiled. But she who has betrothed herself to Christ and received the holy veil has already married, is already joined to an immortal husband. Even if she wish to marry by the common law of wedlock, she perpetrates adultery, is made a handmaid of death.”
Saint Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian): “If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned — not that virgin who has dedicated herself to the worship of God; for if any of these marry, she will have damnation, because she has made void her first faith; for virgins who after consecration marry are not so much adulteresses as incestuous.”
Saint Augustine (Book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 15): “To those,” he says, “who contain not themselves, it certainly is expedient to marry, and what is lawful is expedient; but for those who have vowed continence, it is neither lawful nor expedient.” And (in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 8): “Accordingly,” he says, “let those who contain not themselves marry before they profess continence, before they vow to God what, unless they render, they are justly condemned.”
Gregory (in the Pastoral, part 3, admonition 28): “It is written,” he says, “It is better to marry than to burn; for they come to marriage without fault, if, however, they have not yet vowed better things.”
Saint John Chrysostom (in the book On Virginity, chapter 39): “To a widow,” he says, “he gives altogether, if she will, the power of marrying; but her who, her husband being dead, has consecrated herself to God for the time to come, if she afterward marry, he vehemently accuses, as one who has afterward deceived the faith given to God. Not to these, then, but to those he said, If they contain not themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.” The same Chrysostom (homily 19 on the first to the Corinthians), expounding that, If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: “He does not speak,” he says, “of her who has chosen virginity for herself, seeing that she has already sinned.” Which same have Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius on the same passage, and Epiphanius (heresy 61).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXX. Solvitur secunda objectio. Alteram objectionem ducunt ex illis Scrip¬ turae testimoniis, quai aperte imperant ma¬ trimonium iis, qui stimulum carnis patiun¬ tur. Hinc enim sequitur, votum continentiae perpetuae temerarium esse, et proinde illici¬ tum, cum nemo sciat quamdiusine ejusmodi stimulis vivere queat. I. Corinth. VII : Qui non se continent , nubant ; melius est enim nu¬ bere ', quam uri. Ibidem: Propter fornicatio¬ nem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat. Huc etiam maxime facit illud I. Timoth. V : Volo juniores nubere , matres familias esse , filios procreare. (1) Contra quod praeceptum ii peccare videntur, qui puellis continentiae votum suadent, aut permittunt. Respondeo ad hoc argumentum tribus modis. Primum assero, in nullo horum lo¬ corum vocari ad nuptias ab Apostolo eos, qui tentatur stimulis carnis, sed eos, qui incon¬ tinenter vivunt, ita, ut flagitiis se polluant. Secundo assero, eos, qui incontinenter vi¬ vunt, non vocari absoluto imperio, ad nup¬ tias, sed solum ostendi eis remedium quod¬ dam facile, et quasi portum, quo se reci¬ piant ; sic tamen ut liberum eis relinquatur ad majora aspirare. Tertio assero, hoc ip¬ sum sive consilium , sive permissionem, sive remedium non dari ab Apostolo iis, qui voverunt continentiam, sed solum homi¬ nibus solutis et liberis. Ac ut de primo prius dicamus, sciendum est, adversarios existimare nuptias esse ne¬ cessarias jure divino iis, qui uruntur. Per ustionem autem intelligunt tentationes carnis non breves et leves, sed graves et diuturnas, quse conscientiam turbant, licet eis non con¬ sentiatur. Ita docet Lutherus in Epithala¬ mio, ubi etiam graviter accusat S. Hierony¬ mum, quod conjugium non inierit, cum ipsemet fateatur in epist. 22. ad Eustochium. se gravissimis, et diuturnis ardoribus carnis vexatum fuisse : Imo etiam eo Lutherus pro¬ greditur, ut S. Hieronymum propterea hse- resis Pelagianse accuset, quasi videlicet senserit propriis viribus, sine dono Dei pos¬ ti) I. Cor, VII, 9 et 2; I. Tim. V, 14. Tom. II. 37 578 LIBER II. se aliquem vincere tentationes. Quae tamen est manifesta calumnia, cum ibidem Hiero¬ nymus dicat se precibus ad Deum assidue instare solitum pro victoria obtinenda con¬ tra tentationes. Sed de ustione cum Luthero conveniunt Calvinus, et Petrus. Martyr in commentario I. Cor. VII. distinguit enim Calvinus tria genera tentationum carnis. Unum, quod ita tentat, ut vincat, et hoc esse dicit pessimum genus ustionis, quod verissimum est. Alte¬ rum, quod ita tentat, ut statim acriter re¬ pellatur, ita ut intus jacula non penetrent, nec ulla mentis perturbatio oriatur, et has tentationes fatetur non proprie vocari ustio¬ nes, et propter has non esse nuptias neces¬ sarias, quod etiam libenter concedimus. Tertium genus esse dicit medium, cum quis videlicet tentationi non plene consentit, ta¬ men jacula intus penetrant, et sentitur car¬ nis delectatio et mentis perturbatio : et has tentationes proprie ustiones esse dicit, et qui eas habent, eos affirmat certa lege cita¬ ri ab Apostolo ad matrimonium, ita ut pec¬ cent non nubendo. Ubi est observandum, Calvinum non sine fraude dixisse, tertium genus tentationis esse cum quis plene non consentit, licet ja¬ cula intus penetrent; nam ad rem obscuran¬ dam posuit, plene; cum vellet dicere, ter¬ tium genus esse, cum quis nullo modo con¬ sentit, et tamen sentit acres stimulos carnis. Qui enim consentit, sive plene, sive non ple¬ ne, ad primum genus pertinet secundum eorum sententiam, cum non agnoscant dis¬ crimen peccati mortalis, et venialis, sed omnem motum carnis, quantumvis involun¬ tarium, doceant esse mortale peccatum. . Imo hoc est fundamentum praecipuum, ex quo deducunt eos, qui graviter tentantur, debere necessario uxorem ducere, quia, ut Lutherus in Epithalamio docet, non sunt c'er- tamina castitatis similia aliis certaminibus : qui enim tolerat famem, aut sitim, aut alia id genus, non peccat ; at aestus libidinis sine peccato esse non potest, cum sit prohibitus omnis motus concupiscentiae. In quo funda¬ mento Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, et omnes alii conveniunt. Sed et fundamentum ipsum est putridum, et aedificium, quod superex- truunt, facile dejici potest, Ac de fundamento quidem alibi disputan¬ dum erit, nunc S. Pauli et Augustini testi¬ monium sufficiat Rom. VII : Si quod, nolo, facio, jam non ego operor illud. » Quis, ca¬ piat mihi esse peccatum, quod ego non operor ? Augustinus lib. I. de Civ. Dei cap. 25 : « Quod si iltti concupiscentialis inobe- dientia, quae adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, praeter voluntatis legem, quasi lege sua movetur, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque cul¬ pa est in corpore dormientis. » Sed de hoc alibi. Nunc ad rem praesentem venientes, asserimus ab Apostolo vocari homines ad matrimonium non ob solas tentationes, sive ob sensum, sed ob consensum libidinis, et per ' ustionem, non tentationes, sed incontinen¬ tiam, et flagitia interpretamur, ut hic sit sensus verborum Apostoli ; qui omnino de¬ crevit, aut fornicari, aut nubere, is bene fa¬ cit si nubat, quia melius est nubere, quam uri, id est, quam fornicari. Probamus hanc nostram expositionem, ex antecedentibus verbis; dicturus enim Apostolus : Melius est nubere , quam uri , prae¬ misit : Si non se continent , nubant. Ubi per ustionem exponit ipsemet Paulus inconti¬ nentiam : Nam causam reddit cur debeant nubere qui non se continent, quod videlicet melius sit nubere, quam uri, id est, quam non continere ; constat autem incontinen¬ tiam non tentationem, sed flagitium signi¬ ficare. Secundo idem patet ex illis verbis ejus¬ dem capitis : Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere; propter fornicationem autem unus¬ quisque suam uxorem habeat (I). Ubi non di¬ cit Apostolus, propter tentationem fugien¬ dam, sed propter fornicationem fugiendam quisque suam uxorem habeat, id est, non si tentaris, sed si fornicaturus es, uxorem po¬ tius habeas. Tertio idem probatur ex illis verbis : Ite¬ rum revertimini in idipsum , ne tentet vos Sa¬ tanas propter incontinentiam vestram (2). Ubi etiam non propter simplicem tentationem jubet, ut conjuges debitum invicem reddant, sed propter incontinentiam. Idem igitur si¬ gnificat apud Apostolum ustio, quod incon¬ tinentia. Quarto ex illo I. Timoth. V: Volo juniores nubere ; causam enim reddit non tentatio¬ nem, sed incontinentiam : Nullam , inquit, dare occasionem adversario maledicti causa , id est, ne demus occasionem Gentilibus male- (1) I. Cor. VII, 1 et 2. — (2) Id. 5> CAPUT XXX. 579 dicendi vitam, et mores Christianorum : non autem possunt maledicere adversarii Chris¬ tianis ob occultas tentationes, sed ob mani¬ festa flagitia. Unde mox subjungit : Jam enim quaedam abierunt post Satanam. Quinto idem probari potest exemplo ipsius Apostoli II. Corinth, XII: Datus est mihi sti¬ mulus carnis meae Angelus Satanae , qui me colaphizet : propter quod ter Dominum rogavi , ut auferretur a me (1). Nec est verum quod dicit Petrus Martyr in lib. de coelibatu, et votis, Apostolum impetrasse gratiam, qua nec laberetur, nec graviter vexaretur, ipse enim Apostolus contrarium dicit, se videlicet non impetrasse quod petebat, ut auferretur stimulus carnis. Ait enim : Et respondit mihi Dominus , sufficit tibi gratia mea , nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur. Unde S. Augustinus tract. 7. in Joan. et serm. 53. de verbis Do¬ mini, et alibi saepe, hoc Pauli exemplum adfert, cum ostendere vult Deum saepe uti¬ liter non exaudire suorum orationes. Itaque Apostolus tentabatur magnis et diuturnis stimulis carnis, et tamen uxorem non duce¬ bat : non igitur tentari est uri, alioqui Pau¬ lus suo ipsius judicio damnatus esset. Sed addit Petrus Martyr, bunc locum Apostoli non necessario de tentatione car¬ nali esse intelligendum, cum Chrysostomus per stimulum carnis dolorem capitis intel- ligat; alii vero persecutiones, quas patie¬ batur. At haec nimis magna negligentia, vel im¬ pudentia est, cum Chrysostomus, necnon Theodoretus, OEcumenius, et Theophylac- tus disertis verbis refellant eos , qui per stimulum carnis dolorem capitis interpre¬ tantur. Illud quidem est verum, hos Patres referre hunc locum ad persecutiones; tamen S. Augustinus in Psal LYIII. concione 2. contendit, stimulum carnis aliquid signifi¬ care, quod verecundiam, et pudorem adfe- rat, et quod nemo de tanto Apostolo dicere ausus fuisset, nisi ipse hoc de se confiteri non erubuisset. At certe nullus est pudor, dolores capitis, aut persecutiones confiteri. Unde etiam Theophylactus, licet exponat de persecutionibus, tamen addit, satius esse exponere de tentatione carnis : « Vel, » in¬ quit, « quod satius est, Veneris incitamenta, quibus maxime urgebatur, expressit. » Quo¬ modo etiam exponi posse docent Sedulius, Anselmus, et Thomas in commentario; quod idem suadet metaphora colapliizationis ; ut enim colaphus, non tam laedit carnem, quam pudorem injicit animo, ita carnalis tentatio, cui non consentitur, ruborem potius, quam detrimentum adfert. Denique adeo videtur jam recepta haec expositio, ut vulgo tenta¬ tiones carnales, stimulus carnis dici soleant. Sed quia hic locus non omnino convincit, cum variis modis a Patribus exponatur, sunt alia duo magis perspicua I. Corinth. IX: Castigo corpus meum , et in servitutem redigo. Et Rom. VII : Ego ipse mente servio legi Dei , carne autem legi peccati. Et : Non quod volo bonum , hoc ago, sed quod nolo malum. Et : Sentio aliam legem in membris meis, repugnan¬ tem legi mentis meae (2). Quae loca non modo S. Augustinus multis in locis, ac praecipue lib. II. retract. cap. 1. et lib. VI. in Julianum cap. 11. contendit de ipso Paulo, et aliis justis hominibus intelli- genda esse : sed etiam Lutherus in assert. 2. articuli omnino affirmat non posse aliter intelligi, et probat ex laboribus omnium Sanctorum et nominatim S. Hieronymi in superandis gravissimis carnis tentationibus : u Quid, » inquit, « in vita omnium Sancto¬ rum legimus, quam labores, vigilias, ora¬ tiones, jejunia, quibus veluti machinis spiri¬ tualibus pugnaverunt adversus carnem, et concupiscentias corporis proprii ? Quis eorum non gemit? non accusat , non laborat in carne sua, et in concupiscentiis suis? Cum ergo in his omnibus videamus illas auctori¬ tates, caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, et condelector legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem, video autem aliam legem etc. quaj causa est, ut h£cc Apostolum velimus non in sua, sed in impiorum persona dicere, quse in personis piissimorum videmus vivacissi¬ mis studiis geri? » Et infra : « Quoties ergo S. Hieronymus de incendiis libidinum con¬ queritur, etiam tum cum multo jejunio, et labore contra eam pugnaret, hoc est, dum esset non modo baptizatus, sed et sanctissi¬ mus? )> Heec ille. Qui ut verissime ista dicit, ita manifeste repugnat iis, quse docuit de S. Hieronymo in Epithalamio. Hic enim eum cum Paulo jungit, et cum omnibus sanctis, concupiscentiee strenue repugnantibus, 6x quo sequitur, ut vel apud Paulum I. Co¬ rinth. VII. uri non sit tentari, sed labi in sce¬ lera : vel Paulus, et omnes Sancti ustionem passi sint, ac proinde contra Deum pecca- (1) II. Cor. XII, 7 et 8. (2) I. Cor. IX, 27 ; Rom. VII, 25 et seq. ad finem. 580 LIBER II. verint, quod matrimonium non inierint. Accedunt sexto testimonia Patrum. Cle¬ mens Alexandrinus lib. IV. Stromatum in ipso principio, Basilidis Haeresiarchae secta¬ toribus tribuit eam explicationem , quam nunc adversarii amplectuntur : « Et illud, inquit, melius est nubere, quam uri, ajunt dicere Apostolum, ne animam tuam in ignem injicias, noctu, et interdiu resistens, et timens, ne a continentia excidas; nam cum in resis¬ tendo occupata fuerit anima, a spe es divi¬ sa. )> « Apprehende ergo, » inquit his verbis Isidorus in moralibus, « robustam mulierem, ne a Dei gratia avellaris, et cum ignem in semine excreveris, cum bona ores conscien¬ tia. » Et paulo post : « Has voces, » inquit, « adduxi ad Basilidianos reprehendendos etc. » Commentarius, qui Ambrosio tribui¬ tur, in hunc locum : « Cum, » inquit, « vo¬ luntas calori carnis consentit, uritur; nam desideria pati, et non vinci, illustris viri est, et perfecti. » S. Hieronymus in Apologiapro libris con¬ tra Jovinianum : « Si autem, » inquit, « se continere non possunt, et ardorem libidinis non tam continentia volunt quam fornica¬ tione restinguere, melius est nubere, quam uri, id est, melius est maritum ducere, quam fornicari. » Haec ille. S. Augustinus lib. de sancta virginitate cap. 34: « Melius, inquit, nuberent, quam urerentur, id est, quam oc¬ culta flamma concupiscentiae in ipsa concu¬ piscentia vastarentur, quas pcenitct profes¬ sionis, et piget confessionis. » Idem S. Au¬ gustinus lib. de bono conjugali c. 10: « Mihi, inquit, videtur hoc tempore solos eos, qui se non continent, conjugari oportere, secundum illam ejusdem Apostoli sententiam : Quod si se non continent, nubant; melius est enim nubere, quam uri. » Porro Chrysostomus visus est Petro Mar¬ tyri de tentatione sola hunc locum intel¬ lexisse, sed non ita est; sic enim Chrysosto¬ mus brevissime exposuit : « Significat Apos¬ tolus quanta sit concupiscentiae tyrannis. Hoc autem est quod dicit, si magnam vio¬ lentiam pateris, et libidine incenderis, labo¬ ribus te et sudoribus libera, ne quando decidas. » Heec ille. Ubi ustionem interpre¬ tatur tentationem, quae ad flagitium omnino perducet , nimirum accedente ad aestum concupiscentiae animi infirmitate ; id enim significant illae voces : « Tyrannis, violentiae et ne decidas. » Itaque sensus est juxta Chrysostomum, si animo imbecillo es, et vis tentationis ita urget, ut omnino sis fornica- turus , praestat, ut nubas ; quem sensum clarius expressit in lib. de virginit. Et Chry¬ sostomum secutus Theodoretus ita expressit : « Ustionem , inquit , non vocat cupidita¬ tis molestiam, sed animae mancipationem, et ad id quod est deterius inclinationem. Quod autem dicit, est ejusmodi ; melius quidem est , et vos quibus conjugalis consuetudo nondum obtigit, et vos qui conjuncti quidem fuistis, sed morte estis disjuncti, eligere con¬ tinentiam. Sin autem cupiditatis impetum ferre non potestis, sed ad hoc sustinendum certamen imbecillo animo estis, quam ad ea, quae pulchra, et honesta sunt, non habe¬ tis alacre, et ardens animi propositum, nulla lex prohibet, quo minus matrimonium con¬ trahatis. » Haec ille. Denique, ut omittam caeteros, S. Thomas in commentario hujus loci, non solum affir¬ mat ustionem hoc loco incontinentiam signi¬ ficare, sed etiam id confirmat ex ipsa vocis proprietate. Uri enim non calere significat, quod tentatis convenit, sed calore labefac¬ tari, ac detrimentum pati, quod minime convenit iis, qui simpliciter tentantur, sed iis, qui tentationibus superantur. Atque hinc Scriptura I. Pet. I. Eccles. II. Sap. III. et alibi comparat justos in tentationibus positos auro, quod per ignem probatur : au¬ rum enim in igne probari dicitur, non com¬ buri, licet valde incalescat, quia detrimentum non patitur : paleam vero incalescere, et comburi, quia plane corrumpitur. Alteram nunc solutionem addam, tametsi enim per ustionem Apostolus tentationem significaret, adhuc tamen nihil adversarii obtinerent : Nam in nullo eorum locorum, quos ipsi citant, invenitur verum praeceptum nubendi, sed sola permissio : falsumque est quod Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 13. §. 17. dicit, certa lege citari ad conjugium eos, qui uruntur. Primum enim forma loquendi non est imperativa : Nam non ait Apostolos, qui non continetis, nubite, sed : Qui non se con¬ tinent , nubant ; nec ait, propter fornicationem ducite uxorem, sed : Uxorem habeat etc. Deinde ratio, quam Apostolus reddit, ni¬ mirum : Melius est nubere , quam uri , satis indicat, verba Apostoli, non praeceptum, sed permissionem continere. Ut enim Chrysos¬ tomus notat, Apostolus rationes adjungit, ne videatur legislatio, id quod ipse dixit : Ac praeterea ratio ipsa non concludit, necessa¬ rium esse matrimonium, sed licitum, et per- CAPUT XXX. 581 missum : Nam etsi melius est nubere, quam uri , tamen est quoddam tertium melius utroque, id est, continere, et ustionem inedia et lacrymis restinguere. Quomodo, si quis diceret, qui non vult pugnare, fugiat, quia melius est fugere, quam occidi, is non im¬ peraret, sed permitteret fugam ; non enim prohiberet pugnare, et vincere, quod est melius, quam fugere, vel occidi. Tertio, sicut Apostolus ait : Qui non se continent , nubant , ita dixit : Iterum rever¬ timini in idipsum , ut enim monuit inconti¬ nentes solutos, ut nuberent, ob periculum fornicationis, sic etiam monuit conjugatos incontinentes, ut post aliquam feriationem ab opere conjugali, iterum redeant ad opus conjugale, ob periculum adulterii. At his verbis posterioribus nihil Apostolus impe¬ ravit, sed solum permisit ; sic enim sub¬ junxit : Hoc autem dico secundum indulgen¬ tiam, non secundum imperium ; igitur in verbis quoque prioribus, nullum imperium, sed sola indulgentia, ac permissio est. Ex quo intelligimus, etiam in illis verbis : Unusquisque uxorem suam habeat, nullum esse praeceptum : Nam aut loquitur de illis, qui jam uxores duxerunt, ut vult S. Hieronymus lib. I. in Jovinianum, et recte, quia sequitur paulo post : « Dico autem innuptis , et viduis , bonum est si sic permanserint ; » aut loqui¬ tur de illis, qui non duxerant, ut Petrus Martyr contendit : si de iis qui duxerant, tunc sensus erit : Unusquisque uxorem suam habeat , id est, retineat etiam quoad thorum sed juxta indulgentiam, non juxta imperium, idem enim est: Iterum revertimini in idipsum: et unusquisque suam uxorem habeat , quoad thorum : si vero [de iis loquitur, qui non duxerunt, idem erit ; Unusquisque umorem ducat ob fornicationem, et, qui non se con¬ tinent, nubant, quod jam ostendimus, per¬ missionem, non legem sonare. Imo a majori ducitur argumentum : Nam si, ubi est adul¬ terii periculum, Paulus non imperat opus conjugale, sed permittit ; multo magis non imperabit ubi est periculum solius fornica¬ tionis. Quarto, si ullum esset praeceptum matri¬ monii in verbis Pauli, maxime esset in illis I. Timoth. V: Volo juniores nubere , at nullum ibi esse praeceptum facile probari potest. Nam in primis pugnaret cum illis verbis ejusdem Apostoli : Volo omnes esse sicut rneip- sum (I), id est, continentes; ista enim aper¬ tissime pugnant, volo omnes continere, et volo quosdam nubere. Idem enim est ac si diceret, volo omnes continere, et non volo omnes continere. Neutrum igitur Apostolus jubet, sed absolute optat, unum, id est, om¬ nes continere, et tamen alterum permittit cedens infirmitati quorumdam, id est, nubere. Praeterea non solum Paulus dixit : Volo ju¬ niores nubere , sed addit : Filios procreare , matres familias esse etc. Si ergo cum ait : Volo juniores nubere , imperat nuptias, etiam cum ait volo eas Filios procreare , et mair es familias esse , imperat, ut liberos habeant, proinde si steriles fuerint, peccabunt in Apostolicam legem. Quod sane nemo nisi stultus conce¬ deret. Addo ultimo testimonia Patrum. Ac locum quidem illum : Qui non se continent, nubant, jam audivimus Theodoretum ' ita exponen¬ tem, nulla lex prohibet, quo minus matri¬ monium contrahatis; quod idem et alii do¬ cent. Locum autem istum : Volo juniores nubere , ita exponit Chrysostomus : « Volo quia ipsae volunt. » Et infra : « An vero ma¬ trimonium praecipit? absit. Sed neque pro¬ hibet. » Et infra : « Prohibet igitur ab hujus¬ modi viduis , atque deterret, non quod adolescentulas esse viduas nolit, sed quod adulteras fieri vetet. » S. Ambrosius utrumque locum exponit simul in lib. de viduis : « Non puto, inquit, quod juniores revocandas putarit a vidui¬ tatis affectu, maxime cum dixerit : Melius est nubere, quam uri : Nam utique pro re¬ medio nuptias suasit, ut peritura sanetur, non pro electione praescripsit, casta et con¬ tinens quod sequatur. » Et in fine libri : « Sed nec vidua praeceptum accipit, sed concilium. » S. Hieronymus in epist. 11. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia : « Vult, in¬ quit , Apostolus alterum matrimonium , cum ait : Volo juniores nubere, praeferens digamiam fornicationi, secundum indulgen¬ tiam dumtaxat, non secundum imperium. » Augustinus lib. de bono viduitatis cap. 8 : <( Quod, inquit, dicit : Volo juniores nu¬ bere, nuptiarum bonum Apostolica sobrie¬ tate, et auctoritate commendat; non pro¬ creandi officium etiam eis, quae continentiae bonum capiunt, tanquam ad obsequelam legis imponit. » Et paulo ante : « Idem dixe¬ runt de illo loco, qui non se continent, nu- « (1) I. Cor. VII, 7. 582 LIBER II. bant, nimirum remedium ostendi, non legem figi. »* Sed adferamus nunc tandem solutionem tertiam. Dico igitur, ista omnia, quae ex Apostolo adversarii objiciunt, sive permis¬ sionem sonent, ut nos probavimus , sive praeceptum, ut ipsi volunt, pertinere solum ad homines liberos, non autem ad eos, qui votis jam obligati sunt. Nam de ea quae ha¬ bet votum continentiae, non potest recte dici: Quos non se continet , nubat ; melius est nubere , quam uri. Nam utrumque est malum, et nu¬ bere, et uri; imo pejus est nubere, quidquid reclament adversarii, praesertim ei, quae ha¬ bet votum solemne. Nam quae uritur, aut non peccat si ustio solum tentationem significat; aut peccat so¬ lum contra temperantiam, et contra votum, si fornicationem significat : quae vero nubit post solemne votum, peccat contra tempe¬ rantiam, contra votum, et contra ipsum conjugium, cum sub nomine conjugii tegat perpetuum sacrilegium. Quae autem nubit post votum simplex, illa verum matrimonium contrahit, tamen aliquo modo magis peccat, quam quae fornicatur, quia reddit se impo¬ tentem ad servandum votum, quod non facit, quae fornicatur. Secundo, ei, quae virum habet, et sive, quod ille perpetuo aegrotet, sive quod per¬ petuo absit, non potest ab eo debitum con¬ jugale petere , etiamsi gravissime uratur , non potest dici, si non se continet, nubat ; melius est nubere, quam uri. Sed necessario dicendum illi est, ut servet fidem conjugi, et orationibus et jejuniis pugnet contra us¬ tionem. Id quod ne adversarii quidem negare auderent. Non igitur Apostolus ea verba dixit omnibus, qui uruntur, sed solum iis, qui soluti, ac liberi sunt : et si ligati cen¬ sentur ii, qui fidem conjugi dederunt, cur non ii, qui dederunt Deo ? Tertio ex Patribus S. Ambrosius ad vir¬ ginem lapsam cap. 5 : « Dicit aliquis, in¬ quit, melius est nubere, quam uri. Hoc dic¬ tum ad non pollicitam pertinet, ad nondum velatam. Caeterum, quae se spopondit Christo, et sanctum velamen accepit, jam nupsit, jam immortali juncta est viro. Etiam si voluerit nubere communi lege connubii, adulterium perpetrat, ancilla mortis efficitur. » S. Hieronymus lib. I in Jovinianum : « Si nupserit, inquit, virgo non peccavit , non illa virgo quae semet Dei cultui dedicavit ; harum enim si qua nupserit, habebit dam¬ nationem, quia primam fidem irritam fecit ; virgines enim quae post consecrationem nu¬ pserint, non tam adulterae sunt, quam in¬ cestae. » S. Augustinus lib. I. de adulterinis con¬ jugiis cap. 15 : « Illis, inquit, qui se non continent, utique expedit nubere, et quod licet, expedit : quae autem voverint conti¬ nentiam, nec licet, nec expedit. » Et lib. de bono viduitatis cap. 8 : « Proinde, inquit, quae se non continent, nubant, antequam continentiam profiteantur, antequam Deo voveant, quod nisi reddant, jure damnan¬ tur. » Gregorius in lib. pastorali par. III. admo¬ nitionis 28 : « Scriptum est, inquit, melius est nubere, quam uri, sine culpa quippe ad conjugium veniunt, si tamen necdum meliora voverunt. » S. Joannes Chrysostomus in lib. de Vir¬ gin. cap. 39 : « Viduae, inquit, omnino si vo¬ luerit, potestatem nubendi facit, at eam, quae conjuge mortuo se in sequens tempus Deo consecrarit, si postea nupserit, vehe¬ menter accusat, ut quae fidem Deo datam post fefellerit. Non his ergo, sed illis dixit, si se non continent, nubant; melius est enim nubere, quam uri. » Idem Chrysostomus hom. 19. in priorem ad Corinthios, exponens illud ; Si nupserit virgo, non peccavit : « Non de ea, inquit, quae sibi elegerit virginitatem loquitur, quippe quae jam peccavit. » Quod idem habent Theodoretus, Theophylactus, QEcumenius in eumdem locum, et Epipha- nius haeres. 61. .