Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 31: The Third 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 third objection, and that the gravest of all, is taken from those passages which teach that continence is a gift of God, which is not given to all. Which argument, although we solved briefly in the disputation on the celibacy of priests, is nevertheless to be solved more accurately in this place. The chief passages are four. Wisdom 8: No one can be continent, except God give it. Matthew 19: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. And below: He that can take it, let him take it. 1 Corinthians 7: I would that all men were as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. And below: He that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will, and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Which passage, treating, Saint Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian) says that some have a necessity of marrying or of playing the harlot.
From these passages they argue thus: No one ought to vow anything but that which he knows for certain that he can render; otherwise he exposes himself to the danger of violating the vow, and accordingly vows rashly, and offends God; for a faithless and foolish promise displeaseth Him. But no one can know for certain whether he will be able to be perpetually continent, since he cannot do it without the gift of God, nor can he by any means know whether he has that gift, and much less whether he is going to have it perpetually, as the alleged Scriptures show; no one, therefore, can, except rashly and imprudently, vow perpetual continence. From which reasoning they also deduce that those who have already vowed can and ought to rescind their vow, because those things which are not in our power are not matter of a vow.
Peter Martyr adds a similitude. If one vow that he will perpetually minister to the poor, and then a little after fall into sickness, certainly he will not be bound by his vow, because what was possible for him when he vowed has now been made impossible for him; therefore also he who vowed continence, if he fall into the disease of concupiscence, will no longer be bound by his vow. Nor is it enough to say that he can pray to God and ask continence; for even he who is sick in body could pray to God and ask health, and yet if he does not obtain it, as often happens, he is free from his vow.
We answer that continence is both a gift of God and yet placed in the choice and power of man; of which the adversaries affirm the one and deny the other. And so it is to be observed that there are many kinds of the gifts of God. For some are given to man without his cooperation, such as strength, health, beauty, prophecy, the grace of tongues or of miracles, and all the habits which God infuses; and of these it would be foolish to assert that they are in our power, or depend on human choice, so that anyone can have them who will. And to this kind of gifts the adversaries reduce continence; for in express words Peter Martyr says: “It is the same to determine whether thou wilt be continent, and whether thou wilt prophesy.”
Another kind of gift consists in a divine help, without which we would not do that which with that help we do; for so to believe, to hope, to love, to persevere, to be patient, to overcome temptations are said to be, and are, most true gifts of God, because unless God prevented us by His grace, exciting us, and helped us by directing, protecting, and cooperating, we would do no good; and yet these very works depend on human choice, and are in our power, because God, though He help, yet does not compel or necessitate; and although a man without the help of God cannot do anything good, yet absolutely he is said to be able, because sufficient help, that one may act, or at least that he may be able to ask greater help, is never lacking; otherwise men would not sin by not believing, not hoping, etc. To this kind of gifts we say that continence pertains.
Where besides it is to be noted that, as concerning faith, penance, perseverance, and other good acts, so also concerning continence a twofold grace or help is wont to be distinguished. One sufficient, which is given to all, at least according to place and time, by which help it comes about not so much that we act as that we can act; but another efficacious, by which we actually do act. And this latter is a singular gift, which is not given to all; for those alone have the gift of faith who actually believe, those alone have the gift of perseverance who actually persevere, those alone have the gift of continence who actually are continent, who, as is known, are not many, much less all; and of this it is said: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. And at the same time it is true that all who will can be continent, because sufficient help to be continent, or to obtain grace, is denied to none. Just as it is written of faith too: All men have not faith (2 Thessalonians 3); and yet all can believe if they will, when the Gospel is preached; otherwise those who did not believe would not sin. What is the difference between these helps it is not of this place to explain, but it will be explained in the disputation on grace and free will, if God grant.
These things being now noted, it is to be proved that continence is a gift of God, and yet placed in our choice. That it is a gift of God, the alleged Scriptures most clearly show, nor do the adversaries deny it; but that it is in our power, prevenient (as we said) and accompanying grace, we confirm by these arguments.
First, by the testimonies of the same Scriptures; for (Matthew 19) those words, There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, openly indicate the liberty of choice. For if continence were so a gift of God that it did not depend on man’s choice, it should have been said, There are eunuchs who were made so by God, and not, who have made themselves eunuchs; for therefore of those cut off it is said, There are eunuchs who were made so by men, and not, who made themselves eunuchs, because that cutting off is another’s work, not their own. Besides, if the gift of continence is like the gift of prophecy, of tongues, of health, and others of that kind, why do we not say, There are prophets who made themselves prophets, as we say, There are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs?
Secondly, those words, He that can take it, let him take it, contain an exhortation to continence, as, besides the holy Fathers, Peter Martyr too testifies (in the book On Celibacy and Vows). So also those words of Paul (1 Corinthians 7): Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, contain an exhortation, the same Peter Martyr being interpreter. But who, I ask, being wise, would ever exhort to that which is not in one’s power? Did anyone ever exhort men to become prophets, or robust out of weak, tall out of short, beautiful out of deformed?
“But,” says Martyr, “those exhortations are given only to those who have the gift of God.” On the contrary: those who have the gift, by their own opinion, cannot but be continent. For Martin Bucer, who is wont to be to Peter Martyr as an oracle, writes on that of Matthew 19, All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given: As one very hungry cannot but eagerly take food if it be offered him, so one who has received that gift from God cannot but abstain from taking a wife. If, then, those who have not the gift cannot be continent, and those who have it cannot but be continent, who are those whom Christ and His Apostle exhort to continence?
Thirdly, those words (1 Corinthians 7), Let him do what he will; he sins not, if he marry, give man a free option of choosing marriage or celibacy. How, then, is it not placed in man’s choice to be continent if he will? For of impossible things there can be no deliberation.
Fourthly, the continent and celibate in the Scriptures are praised and rewarded, as has been sufficiently proved in the disputation on the evangelical counsels, from the testimony of Isaiah 56 concerning the eunuchs, to whom is promised a name better than sons and daughters; and from the Apocalypse chapter 14, where the virgins sing a new canticle which no other can sing; and from that of Wisdom 3: The fruit of good labors is glorious, etc. But works which are not in our power merit no reward, no praise, as all agree; for those are not rewarded who prophesy, who speak with tongues, who cure diseases, who cast out demons, because these are gifts of God alone; therefore continence is not only a gift of God, but also a free action of man.
Fifthly, from the like: it is no less a gift of God to believe than to be continent. For of faith it is written (John 6): No one can come to me, unless the Father draw him. And in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 13: As many as were preordained to eternal life believed. And to the Ephesians 2: By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. To the Philippians 1: To you it is given that you believe in him. And 2 Thessalonians, last chapter: All men have not faith. But nonetheless all who will can believe, and we rightly exhort all to faith, and without any rashness all promise in Baptism that they will keep the Christian faith unto death; therefore also all who will can be continent, and we rightly exhort all to continence; and without rashness many promise God that they will keep perpetual continence.
They answer that there is a difference between faith and continence, that the former is necessary to salvation, the latter not so. Whence we are wont to admonish, as Saint Jerome does (in his commentary on Matthew 19), that each one explore his strength before he vow continence, but we do not admonish that each one explore his strength before he believe.
But this is easily refuted; for the chief cause why the vow of continence is asserted rash by the adversaries is not because continence is not a necessary thing, but because it is an impossible thing without a peculiar gift of God, which is not given to all. Otherwise many not necessary things can be vowed without any rashness, as is known. If, then, this chief cause equally has place in faith and in continence, as we have demonstrated from the Scriptures, why is continence rashly promised, and faith not rashly promised?
Add that it is not true that he who wishes to vow continence ought to explore his strength, and that he who wishes to embrace the Christian faith ought not to explore his strength. For the Lord (Luke 14) admonishes those who wish to come to Him — that is, to undertake His law and faith — that they imitate those who wish to build a tower, who first compute whether they have means to finish it; and also those who are about to wage war, who first consider whether they can with ten thousand meet him who comes with twenty thousand. Whence also the Church explores the catechumens, whether they have a full and stable purpose of persevering in the Christian faith and law, because it is worse to fall away from the faith than never to receive the faith. To which end, by a most ancient custom, in Lent some scrutinies are made of the catechumens who are to be baptized at Easter. Of which see, if you please, Alcuin (in the book On the Divine Offices, chapter on Holy Saturday).
This only is the difference between faith and continence, that he who, exploring his strength, does not judge that he has sufficient strength to be continent, can marry, because continence is not necessary to salvation — although he can also procure greater strength through prayer; but he who judges that he has not sufficient strength to persevere in the faith and law of Christ cannot on that account lawfully fail to embrace the faith and law of Christ, which is necessary, but ought to ask greater strength of God, which without doubt he will have, if he ask faithfully.
Sixthly, it is proved from the absurdity which follows from the adversaries’ opinion. For if not all who will can be continent, it follows that for many men it is no sin to fornicate or commit adultery. For if one, before he takes a wife, be most grievously urged by the goads of the flesh, and perchance have not the gift of continence, what shall he do? Shall he fornicate with impunity? “He has,” they say, “a ready remedy: let him take a wife.” But what if he do not at once find one? For marriages are not contracted in one day; nay, many months for the most part intervene between betrothal and marriage. To these, if he has already taken one, but perchance is far absent from her, as often happens, or she labors under a grave and long sickness, so that it is not lawful for the man to ask the conjugal debt, what shall he do? Shall he commit adultery, if perchance he burn, and does not see that he has the gift of continence? “It is not lawful,” they say, “to commit adultery; therefore let one who is such beseech God for the gift of continence; for He will not deny what is faithfully asked.”
But why, I ask, cannot he do the same who has vowed continence, if perchance he burn, and does not see that he has the gift? They answer that there is great difference between continence from adultery or fornication, and continence from a wife. For the former is necessary and commanded by God, and therefore God never denies it to those who ask. But continence from a wife is neither necessary nor commanded; therefore it is not always granted, even if it be asked. Peter Martyr adds (in the book On Celibacy and Vows) that celibacy is not to be asked of God absolutely, but only under a condition, if it be expedient to His greater glory, as we ask health, wealth, and the like, which are not necessary to salvation. John Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §17) says that it is not ours to have confidence of obtaining from God a special gift, such as celibacy is. Martin Bucer (on Matthew 19) clearly affirms that celibacy is not to be asked of God by those who know not whether God wishes to give it to them. And their reason is, because prayer ought to be born of faith, and faith ought to rely on the promise of God; but there is no promise by which He has certainly promised perpetual celibacy to anyone. Thus these impious and impure men not only assail celibacy, but also preclude the way to it for themselves and others.
But it is easy to refute these little reasons; for although a particular promise is lacking, yet a general promise suffices: Ask, and you shall receive (Luke 11). And: If you shall ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you (John 14, 15, and 16). For otherwise, if a particular promise were required, neither Faith, nor Hope, nor Love, nor conjugal continence, nor any other virtue could be asked; for nowhere do promises of these gifts in particular exist.
Further, general promises do indeed require certain conditions; for not everything that each one asks does he always obtain, since it often happens that less useful and less good things are asked, which it in no way befits God to give. But the condition which is required is not, as the adversaries feign, that the thing asked be necessary to salvation, or commanded — for this they confirm by no reason or authority — but that what we ask be according to His will; for so Saint John teaches us (in epistle 1, chapter 5): This is the confidence which we have toward God, that whatsoever we ask according to his will, he heareth us. But not only is that according to His will which is necessary to salvation, but also that which is useful, and more useful than its opposite; nor only that which He Himself commanded, but also that which He counseled and praised, and to which He promised the greatest reward. And that celibacy is such we have taught above at length.
Saint Augustine (tract 102 on John), explaining what it is that God does not deny to those asking in the name of Christ, says that it is that which conduces to eternal salvation; nor does he add that it must be necessary or commanded.
It is proved lastly, from the testimonies of the Fathers, that celibacy is in our power, the grace of God helping. Tertullian (in the book On Monogamy, near the end), explaining that passage, All men take not this word: “Choose,” he says, “what is good; if thou canst not, it is because thou wilt not. For that thou canst if thou wilt, He shows, because He left each to thy choice.”
Origen (in his commentary on the same passage): “He who wishes,” he says, “to take the word which is set down concerning chastity, let him ask, believing Him who says it, and he will receive, not doubting of that which is written: Every one that asketh, receiveth.” Jerome (on the same passage): “To these,” he says, “it is given, who asked, who willed, who labored that they might receive. For to everyone that asketh it shall be given, and he that seeketh shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” Gregory Nazianzen (oration 31, on this chapter of the Gospel, concerning the three kinds of eunuchs): “When thou hearest,” he says, “to whom it is given, add, that it is given to those who will and consent.”
Ambrose (Book 3 On Virgins): “The Lord,” he says, “who knew that integrity was to be preached to all, imitated by few, said, All men take not this word.” And (in the book On Widows): “There are,” he says, “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven; but this is not commanded to all, but demanded of all.” And below: “The Creator of all knows that the inducements of individuals are various, and therefore He provoked virtue by rewards, He did not bind weakness by chains.” So he. Where thou seest continence preached to all, demanded of all — namely, if they themselves will attain its rewards.
John Chrysostom (in his commentary on the same passage): “To these,” he says, “it is given, who of their own accord choose it; which He therefore said, to show that we have need of help from above, which indeed is ready for all, if we wish to come out superior in this struggle.”
Augustine (on Psalm 137, on that, Jacob vowed a vow to God): “David himself,” he says, “vowed, as having it in his power, and asks God to fulfill what he vowed; there is the devotion of the one vowing, but there is the humility of the one praying. Let no one presume by his own strength to render what he has vowed. He who exhorts thee to vow, He Himself helps that thou render.” And (Book 6 of the Confessions, chapter 11): “Thou wouldst surely give,” he says, “namely continence, if with inward groaning I knocked at thy ears.” Finally, the same Augustine (Book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapters 10, 13, and 20) expressly teaches that continence is possible for all, even for those who, thinking nothing of it, have fallen into the necessity of keeping it. Which same still more fully Basil teaches (in the book On Virginity, beyond the middle). From these it will be easy to answer the passages of Scripture set down at the beginning.
That first passage, then, of Wisdom 8, No one can be continent, except God give it, ought to be taken of continence in general, so as to comprehend not only virginal or widowed, but also conjugal continence. For he who says these words is Solomon, who indeed was not a virgin or a widower, but married, and accordingly asked marital continence of God. On which account we have not from this passage that continence is so a gift of God that it cannot be common to all. For even by the adversaries’ opinion, conjugal continence can be had by all, provided they ask it of God; for therefore there follows: I went to God, and besought him.
That other passage, Matthew 19, All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given, needs a greater explanation. The adversaries contend that that, All men take not, has this sense: Not all are capable of continence from a wife, but those alone who have the peculiar gift. From which it follows that those who have not the gift truly cannot be continent. And they gather this sense from the Greek word; for it signifies not to take — that is, to apprehend, as we say, take the book, take the cap — but to take, that is, to be capable, as we say, this jar takes only so much water, as one measure or another, as the Gospel speaks.
But the adversaries are deceived by the ambiguity of this word. For the Greek word, and the Latin capio, sometimes signifies a natural power of taking, which those who have not are properly called incapable; sometimes, however, it signifies an actual or voluntary capacity, which depends on free will, and those who have it not are not called incapable, but are said not to take. For example, a narrow place is rightly called incapable of many things; and similarly children, who are not yet naturally apt for weaving frauds, are called incapable of guile. But he who does not understand something, because he does not attend, or because there is no one to teach him, he is not called incapable, although he does not yet take what is said. And similarly he who does not admit some counsel, because he has already been persuaded by another to something else, is indeed said not to take that counsel, yet not to be incapable, or not able to admit it if he will. And in this signification it is taken in this passage; for it signifies that not all understand practically — that is, do not admit, are not persuaded, do not approve, what is said, that it is not expedient to marry.
And that this is so is proved first, because if to take in this passage signified to be capable, the Lord would have ineptly added, He that can take it, let him take it. For by these words the Lord exhorts to continence, as Peter Martyr confesses, and all interpreters teach. But what kind of exhortation is it, He that can be capable, let him be capable? Besides, if it here treated of capacity, and the Lord wished, as the adversaries contend, to show that not all are capable of continence, and accordingly that it is necessary for them to marry, that reason (for there are eunuchs who were so born from their mother’s womb, etc.) would plainly make nothing to the point, nay would rather prove the contrary. For if thou say: Some are continent by a defect of nature, as the frigid; some by another’s cruelty, as those castrated by men; some by their own will, as those who for the worship of God live celibate — therefore not all can be continent: certainly thou wilt not gather more rightly than if thou shouldst say: Some, dragged by force, run; others run of their own accord; therefore not all can run. But on the contrary thou wouldst most rightly gather: Many are continent by necessity, many by will; therefore it is credible that all can be continent if they will.
On which account Saint John Chrysostom (in his commentary on this passage) rightly teaches that Christ by this similitude of eunuchs wished to prove that it is easy and useful to abstain from marriage, and accordingly that those judge not rightly who do not take — that is, do not receive and approve — this word. For if many abstain, without any hope of a greater good, as the corporal eunuchs, how much easier will it be to abstain, the hope of a most excellent reward and a most refulgent crown being set before us? Add lastly the testimonies of the Fathers which were cited a little before.
But that, He that can take it, let him take it, can be expounded in two ways. First, that the Lord speaks of the proximate power, which those alone have to whom the Lord has already inspired an efficacious desire of being continent, so that the sense is: He that can take it, let him take it — that is, those who by the gift of God feel themselves inwardly persuaded to be continent, let them approve this word. So Jerome (on this passage) and Augustine (Book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 19) seem to have understood this saying; but it ought not thence to be deduced, therefore not all can be continent. For although not all have the proximate power, yet they have the remote, and can, if they will, by prayers obtain the proximate power — that is, strength to be continent; just as of faith it is said (John 6), No one can come to me, unless the Father draw him. For it can be added: He that can come, let him come — that is, he who is drawn, let him come; but he who is not drawn, let him pray that he be drawn.
Secondly, it can be said that this passage has the same sense with that of Matthew 13, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear; for the Lord does not mean to say that not all have ears, but admonishes all to use the faculty which they have. As we are wont to say: He who has eyes, let him see; he who has a mind, let him judge; so, then, in this passage too the Lord says, He that can take it, let him take it — that is, he who has a sound mind and judgment, let him understand, judge, approve this word which was said, It is not expedient to marry.
Now the third passage, Every one hath his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that (1 Corinthians 7), has no difficulty; for the Apostle calls a gift of God not only virginal continence, but also conjugal. For it is a gift of God that some choose virginity, and similarly that some choose marriage, and in it chastely persevere. But how with these coheres that it is in our power to be continent and to live chastely, we have already before explained.
The last passage does not make to the point. For when Paul says, He that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will, and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well, the name “virgin” can be taken in two ways. In one way, for virginity itself, as Saint Jerome took it (Book 1 against Jovinian). In the other way, for a virgin daughter, as Epiphanius expounds (heresy 61); likewise the commentaries of Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, and nearly all others.
The first exposition is not probable; for it is unheard of that a virgin be taken for virginity. Nor in this matter have we a question with the adversaries; for John Calvin, Peter Martyr, Erasmus, and others on this passage understand by “virgin” a virgin daughter, not virginity. If, however, that former exposition were admitted, by “necessity” there would be no need to understand an absolute necessity of marriage, but a conditioned one. For, as Saint Jerome says in that passage, those who will not be continent must either take a wife or play the harlot; yet absolutely neither is necessary. But if the latter exposition be taken, which is true and genuine, by “necessity” there will be no need to understand a necessity of marriage on account of the lack of the gift of continence, of which necessity we here treat; but an extrinsic necessity, which does not pertain to the present matter. For a father is said to have a necessity of joining his daughter in marriage, if she herself will not live in celibacy, or if he himself be a slave and be compelled by his master to give his daughter in marriage; and on the contrary he is said to have a necessity of keeping his daughter a virgin, if either she herself will not marry (for she cannot be compelled to it), or if no one be found who wishes her. But if no such necessity be present, it will be free to the father to determine of his daughter as he will; but if he join her in marriage, he will do well; if he join her not, he will do better, as the Apostle in the same place writes. So much for the passages of Scripture set forth.
But to that similitude which Peter Martyr set down, of him who vowed to minister to the sick, and afterward did not do it, because he himself fell into sickness, it is answered that this vow is not like the vow of continence. For first, that man does not sin by not fulfilling the vow, because he has a will prompt and ready to fulfill the vow; for he does not wish to be sick, but is compelled. But he who on account of the disease of concupiscence takes a wife after a vow does not have a will to fulfill the vow, but has a contrary one — that is, of not fulfilling it; for it implies a contradiction that one wish to be continent, as he vowed, and wish to take a wife.
Then, bodily sickness does not depend on the will of the sick person, but incontinence does. For it cannot rightly be said, No one is sick but he who wills. But it is most rightly said, No one fornicates but he who wills. For the members of the body obey at the beck of the will.
Finally, bodily health is not a good to be asked absolutely, because sickness is often better for attaining eternal life than health. Whence there exists no evangelical counsel of preserving health for the kingdom of heaven. But continence can be asked absolutely, and is infallibly granted, if there be not from elsewhere a defect in the prayer, because it is a good far more useful to eternal life than marriage, and therefore is counseled and commended throughout the Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXI. Solvitur tertia objectio. Objectio tertia, eaque omnium gravissima, sumitur ab iis locis, qui docent, continen¬ tiam esse donum Dei, quod non omnibus detur. Quod argumentum etsi solvimus bre¬ viter in disputatione de ccelibatu sacerdo¬ tum, hoc tamen loco accuratius solvendum est. Loca praecipua sunt quatuor Sapient. VIII : Nemo potest esse continens, nisi Deus det. Matth. XIX : Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc} sed quibus datum es^.Et infra : Qui potest ca¬ pere, capiat. I. Corinth. VII : Volo autem CAPUT XXXI. 583 omnes homines esse sicut meipsum , sed unus¬ quisque proprium donum habet ex Deo , unus sic, alius autem sic. Et infra : Qui statuit in corde suo firmus fton habens necessitatem , po¬ testatem autem habens suce voluntatis, et hoe judicavit in corde suo servare virginem suam, bene facit (1). Quem locum tractans S. Hie¬ ronymus lib. I. in Jovinianum dicit, quos¬ dam habere necessitatem nubendi, aut scor¬ tandi. Ex his locis ita argumentantur : Nemo debet vovere, nisi id, quod certo scit se posse solvere ; alioqui exponit se periculo violandi votum, et proinde temere vovet, et Deum offendit : Displicet enim illi infidelis, et stulta promissio. (2) At nemo potest certo scire, an poterit perpetuo continere, cum id non possit sine dono Dei, nec possit ulla ra¬ tione scire, an habeat illud donum, et multo minus an sit perpetuo habiturus, ut Scrip¬ turae allatae ostendunt ; nemo igitur potest, nisi temere , et imprudenter , perpetuam continentiam vovere. Ex qua ratione illud etiam deducunt, eos, qui jam voverunt, posse, ac debere votum suum rescindere, quia ea, quae non sunt in nostra potestate, non sunt materia voti. Addit Petrus Martyr similitudinem. Si quis enim voverit se perpetuo ministraturum pauperibus, ac deinde paulo post in morbum incidat, certe non tenebitur voto suo, quia quod erat ei possibile cum vovit, jam illi impossibile factum est ; igitur et ille, qui continentiam vovit , si incidat in morbum concupiscentiae, non tenebitur amplius voto suo. Neque satis est dicere, posse istum orare Deum, et petere continentiam : Nam etiam qui aegrotat corpore , posset orare Deum, et petere sanitatem, et tamen si non impetrat, ut saepe accidit, liber a voto suo est. Respondemus, continentiam, et donum esse Dei, et tamen in arbitrio, et potestate hominis positam, quorum alterum adversarii affirmant, alterum negant. Et igitur obser¬ vandum, multa esse genera donorum Dei. Quaedam enim dantur homini sine ejus coo¬ peratione, qualia sunt robur, sanitas, pul¬ chritudo, prophetiae, linguarum aut miracu¬ lorum gratia, et omnes habitus, quos Deus infundit, et haec stultum esset asserere esse in nostra potestate, aut pendere ex humana electione, ita, ut possit ea habere quicumque velit. Atque ad hoc genus donorum revo¬ cant adversarii cpntinentiam ; disertis enim verbis Petrus Martyr dicit : « Idem esse, statuere an velis continere, et an velis pro¬ phetare. » Aliud genus doni consistit in auxilio di¬ vino, sine quo non faceremus id, quod cum eo auxilio facimus, sic enim credere, sperare, diligere, perseverare, patientem esse, vin¬ cere tentationes dicuntur, et sunt verissima Dei dona, quia nisi Deus gratia sua nos prae¬ veniret excitando, et adjuvaret dirigendo, protegendo, et cooperando, nihil boni face¬ remus ; et tamen ista ipsa opera pendent ab electione humana, et sunt in nostra potes¬ tate, quia Deus licet juvet, non tamen cogit, neque necessitat ; et licet homo sine Dei auxilio non possit quidquam boni facere, absolute tamen dicitur posse, quia sufficiens auxilium, ut quis operetur, aut saltem, ut possit majus auxilium petere , numquam deest, alioqui non peccarent homines non credendo, non sperando etc. Ad hoc genus donorum continentiam pertinere dicimus. Ubi praeterea est notandum, quod sicut circa fidem, poenitentiam, perseverantiam, aliosque actus bonos, ita etiam circa conti¬ nentiam duplex gratia, sive auxilium distin¬ gui solet ; Unum sufficiens, quod omnibus datur saltem pro loco, et tempore; quo auxilio non tam fit ut operemur, quam ut operari possimus ; Aliud autem efficax, quo re ipsa operamur. Atque hoc posterius est donum singulare, quod non omnibus datur; soli enim illi donum fidei habent, qui re ipsa credunt, soli illi donum habent perse¬ verantiae, qui re ipsa perseverant, soli illi donum habent continentiae, qui reipsa con¬ tinent, quos notum est non esse multos, nedum omnes, et de hoc dicitur ; Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc , sed quibus datum est (3). Et simul est verum, omnes, qui volunt, posse continere, quia sufficiens auxilium ad conti¬ nendum, aut ad gratiam impetrandam nulli denegetur. Sicut etiam de fide scriptum est: Non omnium est fides II.Thess.III.(-4)ettamen omnes credere possunt si volunt, cum prae¬ dicatur Evangelium, alioqui non peccarent, qui non crederent. Quid intersit inter haec auxilia, non est hujus loci explicare, sed in disputatione de gratia, et libero arbitrio, si Deus annuerit, explicabitur. (2) Eccl. Y, 3. — (3) I. Math. (1) Sap. VIII, 21 ; Math. XIX. 11 et 12; I. Cor. VII, 7 et 37. — XIX, 11. — (4) II. Thess. III, 2. 584 LIBER IT. His jam notatis, probandum est, conti¬ nentiam donum Dei esse, et tamen in arbi¬ trio nostro positam. Quod sit donum Dei, Scripturae allatae clarissime ostendunt, nec adversarii id negant : quod autem sit in po¬ testate nostra, praeveniente, ut diximus, et co¬ mitante gratia, bis argumentis confirmamus. Primo testimoniis earumdem Scriptura¬ rum : nam Matth. XIX. illa verba : Sunt eu¬ nuchi, qui se castraverunt propter regnum coe¬ lorum (I), aperte indicant arbitrii libertatem. Si enim continentia ita esset donum Dei, ut ab hominis electione non penderet, dicen¬ dum fuisset, sunt eunuchi, qui sunt facti a Deo, non autem, qui se castraverunt : Ideo enim de abscissis dicitur, sunt enim eunuchi, qui sunt facti ab hominibus, non autem qui se castraverunt, quia illa abscissio est opus alienum, non proprium. Praeterea, si donum continentiae simile est dono prophetiae, lin¬ guarum, sanitatis, atque aliis ejusmodi, cur non dicimus, sunt Prophetae, qui se ipsos Prophetas fecerunt, sicut dicimus, sunt eu¬ nuchi, qui seipsos castraverunt? Secundo illa verba : Qui potest capere, ca¬ piat, cohortationem ad continentiam habent, ut, praeter sanctos Patres , etiam Petrus Martvr testatur in lib. de ccelibatu et votis. Sic etiam illa verba Pauli prioris epist. ad Corinth. YII : De virginibus praeceptum Do¬ mini non habeo , consilium autem do (2), cohor¬ tationem continent, eodem interprete Petro Martyre. At quis, rogo, sapiens hortaretur unquam ad id, quod non est in potestate ? Num, quis unquam hortatus est homines, ut Prophetae fiant, aut robusti ex debilibus, proceri ex parvis, formosi ex deformibus ? « Sed, inquit Martyr, istae cohortationes dantur iis tantum, qui donum Dei habent. » Gpntra, qui donum habent, ipsorum sen¬ tentia, non possunt non continere. Scribit enim Martinus Bucerus, qui Petro Martyri instar oraculi esse solet, in illud Matth. XIX: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus da¬ tum est. Sicut valde famelicus non potest non avide cibum sumere, si offeratur ei : sic non posse non continere ab uxore ducenda, qui donum id a Deo susceperit. Si igitur, qui donum non habent, non possunt continere ; qui habent, non possunt non continere ; qui sunt illi, quos Christus et Apostolus ejus ad continentiam cohortantur? Tertio, illa verba I. ad Corinth. Y’II : Quod vult, faciat; non peccat , si nubat (3) ; liberam homini optionem dant eligendi conjugium, aut coelibatum; Quomodo* ergo non est in arbitrio hominis positum, ut contineat, si velit ? Non enim de rebus impossibilibus ulla deliberatio esse potest. Quarto, continentes, ac ccelibes in Scrip¬ turis laudantur, et praemiis afficiuntur, ut satis probatum est in disputatione de conci¬ liis Evangelicis, ex testimonio Isa. LYI. de Eunuchis, quibus promittitur, nomen melius quam filiis et filiabus. Et ex Apocalyp. cap. XIY. ubi Virgines cantant canticum novum , quod nemo alius cantare potest. Et ex illo Sap.IlI : Bonorum laborum gloriosus est fruc¬ tus, etc. (4) At nullum praemium, nullam laudem merentur opera, quae non sunt in nostra potestate, ut omnes consentiunt : Nec enim praemio afficiuntur, qui prophe¬ tant, qui linguis loquuntur, qui morbos cu¬ rant, qui daemones ejiciunt, quia haec solius Dei dona sunt : igitur continentia non solum est donum Dei, sed etiam libera hominis actio. Quinto, a simili, non minus donum Dei est credere, quam continere. Nam de fide scriptum est. Joan. YI : Nemo potest ad me venire , nisi Pater traxerit eum. Et in Actis Apostolorum cap. XIII : Crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam. Et ad Ephes. II : Gratia estis salvati per fdem., hoc non ex vobis, Dei enim donum est. Ad Phi- lipp. I : Vobis datum est, ut in eum credatis. Et II. ad Thess. ult : Non omnium est fides (5). At nihilominus credere possunt omnes, qui volunt, et recte hortamur omnes ad fidem, et sine ulla temeritate promittunt omnes in Baptismo, se fidem Christianam conservatu¬ ros usque ad mortem : igitur et continere possunt omnes, qui volunt, et recte horta¬ mur omnes ad continentiam ; et sine teme¬ ritate multi promittunt Deo, se continentiam perpetuam servaturos. Respondent, discrimen esse inter fidem et continentiam, quod illa sit necessaria ad salutem, hsec non item. Unde monere sole¬ mus, ut facit S. Hieronymus in comment. cap. XIX. Matth. ut quisque exploret vires suas, antequam voveat continentiam, non autem monemus, ut quisque exploret vires suas antequam credat. (1) Math. XIX, 12. — (2) I. Cor. VII, 25. — (3j I. Cor. VII, 37. — (4) Isai LVI, 5; Apoc. XIV. 3; Sap. III, 15. — (5) Joan. VI. 44: Act. XIII. 48; Ephes. II, 8: Philipp. I. 29; II. Thessal. III, 2. CAPUT XXXI. At facile hoc refellitur ; nam potissima causa, cur votum continentiae temerarium asseritur ab adversariis, non est, quia con¬ tinentia non sit res necessaria, sed quia res impossibilis, sine peculiari Dei dono, quod non omnibus datur. Alioqui multa non ne¬ cessaria. sine ulla temeritate voveri possunt, ut notum est. Si igitur heec potissima causa seque locum habet in fide atque in conti¬ nentia, ut ex Scripturis demonstravimus, cur temere promittitur continentia, et non temere promittitur fides ? Adde, quod non est verum, debere eum, qui vult vovere continentiam , explorare vires suas , et non debere explorare vires suas, qui vult fidem Christianam amplecti. Nam Dominus Luc. XIV. monet eos, qui vo¬ lunt ad se venire , id est, legem ac fidem suam suscipere, ut imitentur eos, qui volunt turrim aedificare, qui prius computant, si habent sumptus ad perficiendum ; necnon eos, qui bellum gesturi sunt, qui prius cogi¬ tant, si possint cum decem millibus occur¬ rere ei, qui cum viginti millibus venit. Unde et Ecclesia explorat Catechumenos, an ha¬ beant plenum et stabile propositum perse¬ verandi in fide et lege Christiana, quia pejus est a fide deficere, quam fidem numquam recipere. Ad quem finem ex antiquissima consuetudine in Quadragesima fiunt aliquot scrutinia Catechumenorum, qui in Paschate baptizandi sunt. De quibus vide, si placet, Alcuinumin lib. de officiis divinis, cap. de Sabbato sancto. Hoc solum interest inter fidem et conti¬ nentiam, quod, qui explorans vires suas, non judicat se habere sufficientes vires ad con¬ tinendum, potest nubere, quia continentia non est necessaria ad salutem, quamquam etiam potest procurare vires majores per orationem ;qui autem judicat, se non habere sufficientes vires ad perseverandum in fide et lege Christi, is non potest propterea licite non amplecti fidem et legem Christi, quse necessaria est, sed debet vires majores a Deo petere, quas sine dubio habebit, si fide¬ liter petat. Sexto, probatur ex absurdo, quod 6x ad¬ versariorum sententia sequitur. Nam si con¬ tinere non possint omnes, qui volunt, sequi¬ tur, multis hominibus nullum peccatum esse fornicari aut moechari. Nam si quis, ante¬ quam uxorem ducat, gravissime urgeatur stimulis carnis, et donum continentiae forte non habeat, quid aget ? fornicabiturne im¬ 385 pune ? « Habet, inquiunt, paratum reme¬ dium, ducat uxorem. » Sed quid, si non statim inveniat? Nec enim uno die contra¬ huntur matrimonia, imo multi menses ple¬ rumque intercedunt inter sponsalia, et nup¬ tias. Ad lisec, si jam duxit, sed forte abest procul ab ea, ut saepe contingit, aut ea morbo gravi, et diuturno laborat, ita ut non liceat viro debitum petere conjugale, quid aget? mcechabiturne, si forte uritur, et do¬ num continentiae se habere non videt ? « Non licet, inquiunt, moechari: idcirco, qui ejusmodi est, pro continentiae dono Deum exoret ; non enim negabit ille, quod fideliter petit. » Sed cur, quaeso, non idem facere poterit, qui continentiam vovit, si forte uratur, et donum se habere non videat? Respondent, magnum esse discrimen inter continentiam ab adulterio, vel fornicatione, et continen¬ tiam ab uxore. Illa enim necessaria est, et a Deo imperata, idcirco numquam Deus eam petentibus negat. At continentia ab uxore nec necessaria est, nec imperata ; ideo non semper conceditur, etiamsi petatur. Addit Petrus Martyr in lib. de ccelibatu et votis, coelibatum non esse petendum a Deo abso¬ lute, sed solum sub conditione, si expediat ad majorem ejus gloriam, sicut petimus sa¬ nitatem, opes, et similia, quse non sunt ne¬ cessaria ad salutem. Joannes Calvinus lib.IY. Instit. cap. 13. §. 17. dicit, nostrum non esse fiduciam habere obtinendi a Deo spe¬ cialis doni, quale est coelibatus. Martinus Bucerus in cap. XIX. Matthaei, clare affirmat, non esse petendum coelibatum a Deo ab iis, qui nesciunt, an Deus velit illum eis dare. Ratio autem eorum est, quia oratio debet nasci ex fide, fides autem niti debet promis¬ sione Dei ; promissio vero nulla est, qua coelibatum perpetuum alicui certo promise¬ rit. Ita impii et impuri isti homines, non modo coelibatum oppugnant, sed etiam viam sibi, et aliis ad eum praecludunt. Sed facile est ratiunculas istas refellere : Nam etsi promissio particularis deest, suf¬ ficit tamen promissio generalis : Petite et ac¬ cipietis Luc. XI. Et : Si quid petetis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis , Joan. XIY, XY, et XYI. Alioqui enim, si requireretur particula¬ ris promissio, nec Fides, nec Spes, nec Di¬ lectio, nec Continentia conjugalis, nec alia virtus peti posset : nusquam enim exstant promissiones horum donorum in particu¬ lari. 586 LIBER II. Porro generales promissiones requirunt quidem certas conditiones : non enim quod quisque petit, semper impetrat, cum saipe contingat minus utilia, et minus bona peti, quse Deum nullo modo dare conveniat: sed conditio, quse requiritur, non est, ut adver¬ sarii fingunt, ut res, quse petitur, sit neces¬ saria ad salutem, vel imperata. Id enim nulla ratione, vel auctoritate confirmant, sed est, ut id, quod petimus, sit secundum ejus vo¬ luntatem ; sic enim docet nos S. Joannes in epist. I. cap. V. Hsec est fiducia, quam ha¬ bemus ad Deum, quia quodcumque petieri¬ mus secundum ejus voluntatem audit nos. Non solum autem est secundum ejus volun¬ tatem id, quod est necessarium ad salutem, sed etiam id, quod est utile, et utilius, quam ejus oppositum ; neque id solum, quod ipse imperavit, sed etiam quod consuluit, et lau¬ davit, et cui praemium maximum promisit. Talem autem esse coelibatum, supra multis docuimus. Sanctus Augustinus tract. 102. in Joan- nem, explicans quid sit, quod Deus petenti¬ bus in nomine Christi non negat, dicit esse id, quod conducit ad aeternam salutem, nec addit, oportere esse necessarium, aut impe¬ ratum. Probatur ultimo, coelibatum esse in po¬ testate nostra, Dei gratia adjuvante, ex tes¬ timoniis Patrum. Tertullianus lib. de Mono¬ gamia, prope finem, explicans locum illum, Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc: «Elige, inquit, quod bonum est; si non potes est quia non vis. Posse enim si velis, ostendit, quia tuo arbitrio utrumque reliquit. » Origenes in commentario ejusdem loci : « Qui vult, inquit, capere verbum, quod de castitate positum est, petat: credens dicenti, et accipiet, non dubitans de illo, quod fic¬ tum est : Omnis qui petit, accipit. » Hiero¬ nymus ineumdem locum : « His, inquit, da¬ tum est, qui petierunt, qui voluerunt, qui, ut acciperent, laboraverunt. Omni enim pe¬ tenti dabitur, et quaerens inveniet, et pul¬ santi aperietur ». Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. 31. in hoc Evangelii cap. de tribus Eu¬ nuchorum generibus : « Gum audis, inquit, quibus datum est, adde, datum esse iis, qui volunt, et assentiuntur. » Ambrosius lib. III. de virginibus : « Do¬ minus, inquit, qui sciret praedicandam om¬ nibus integritatem, imitandam paucis ; non omnes, inquit, capiunt verbum istud. » Et lib. de viduis : « Sunt, inquit, Spadones, qui se castraverunt propter regnum coelorum ; sed hoc non omnibus imperatur, sed ab om¬ nibus flagitatur. » Et infra : « Scit Creator omnium allectus esse varios singulorum, et ideo praemiis virtutem provocavit, non in¬ firmitatem vinculis alligavit. » Haec ille. Ubi vides, continentiam omnibus praedicari, ab omnibus flagitari, nimirum, si ipsi velint praemia ejus consequi. Joannes Chrysostomus in comment. ejus¬ dem loci : « His, inquit, datum est, qui sponte id eligunt ; quod ideo <yxit, ut osten¬ deret superiore nobis auxilio opus esse, quod quidem omnibus paratum est, si volumus in hac lucta evadere superiores. » Augustinus in Psalm. CXXXVII. in illud, Votum vovit Deo Jacob : « Ipse David, in¬ quit, vovit, tamquam in potestate habens, et rogat Deum, ut impleat, quod vovit ; est devotio voventis, sed est humilitas depre- cantis. Nemo praesumat viribus suis red¬ dere, quod voverit. Qui te hortatur ut vo¬ veas, ipse adjuvat, ut reddas. » Et lib. VI. Confess. cap. 11. «Utique dares, inquit, ni¬ mirum continentiam, si gemitu interno pul¬ sarem aures tuas.» Denique, idem Augusti¬ nus lib. II. de adulterinis conjugiis, cap. 10, 13 et 20, ex professo docet, possibilem esse continentiam omnibus, etiam illis, qui nihil de ea cogitantes, in ejus servandae necessi¬ tatem inciderunt. Quod idem adhuc fusius docet Basilius in lib. de virginit. ultra me¬ dium. Ex his ad loca Scripturae, initio po¬ sita, facile erit respondere. Ille igitur locus primus Sap. VIII: Nemo potest esse continens , nisi Deus det , de conti¬ nentia in genere accipi debet, ut non solum virginalem, aut vidualem, sed etiam conju¬ galem comprehendit. Is enim, qui haec verba dicit, Salomon est, qui quidem non virgo, aut viduus, sed maritus erat, ac proinde maritalem continentiam a Deo pe¬ tebat. Quocirca non habemus ex hoc loco, continentiam ita esse donum Dei, ut non possit esse omnibus communis. Nam etiam ex adversariorum sententia, continentia conjugalis ab omnibus haberi potest, modo eam a Deo petant; idcirco enim sequitur: Adii Deum , et deprecatus sum. Ille alius locus Matth. XIX : Non omnes ca¬ piunt verbum hoc , sed quibus datum est , ma¬ jore explicatione indiget. Adversarii conten¬ dunt iliud, Nos omnes capiunt , hunc habere sensum : Non omnes sunt capaces continen¬ tiae ab uxore, sed ii soli, qui habent pecu- CAPUT XXXI. 587 liare donum. Ex quo sequitur, ut qui non habent donum, vere non possint continere. Colligunt vero hunc sensum ex voce GrEeca ; nam w, non significat capere, id est, apprehendere, quomodo dicimus cape librum, cape pileum, sed capere, id est, ca¬ pacem esse, quomodo dicimus, hydria haec tantum aquae capit, ut metretam unam, vel alteram, ut Evangelium loquitur. At falluntur adversarii ambiguitate hujus vocis. Nam verbum £«osw, et Latinum capio, interdum significat naturalem potentiam ad capiendum, quam qui non habent, dicuntur proprie incapaces ; interdum tamen signifi¬ cat actualem, seu voluntariam capacitatem, quae ex libero arbitrio pendet, et qui eam non habent, non dicuntur incapaces, sed di¬ cuntur non capere. Exempli gratia, locus angustus recte dicitur incapax multarum re¬ rum, et similiter pueri, qui nondum apti sunt naturaliter ad fraudes nectendas, di¬ cuntur doli incapaces. At qui aliquid non intelligit, quia non attendit, aut quia non est qui eum doceat, is non dicitur incapax, ta¬ metsi nondum capiat, quod dicitur. Et si¬ militer qui consilium aliquod non admittit, quia ab alio jam est persuasus ad aliud, di¬ citur quidem non capere illud consilium, non tamen non esse capax, sive non posse illud admittere, si velit. Et in hac significa¬ tione accipitur hoc loco ; significat enim non omnes intelligere practice,id est, non admit¬ tere, non persuaderi, non approbare quod dictum est, non expedit nubere. Quod autem hoc ita sit, probatur primo, quia si capere hoc loco significaret esse ca¬ pacem, inepte Dominus addidisset : Qui -potest capere , capiat. His enim verbis adhor¬ tatur Dominus ad continentiam, ut Petrus Martyr fatetur, et omnes interpretes docent. At quali^ adhortatio est, qui potest esse ca¬ pax, sit capax ? Praeterea, si de capacitate hic ageretur, et vellet Dominus, ut adversa¬ rii contendunt, ostendere, non omnes esse .capaces continentiae, ac proinde illis neces¬ sarium esse nubere, ratio illa (sunt enim Eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt etc.) nihil plane ad rem faceret, imo con¬ trarium potius probaret. Nam si dicas, qui¬ dam continent vitio naturae, ut frigidi ; qui¬ dam aliena crudelitate, ut ab hominibus castrati; quidam propria voluntate, ut qui propter Dei cultum ccelibes vivunt, non ergo omnes possunt continere : certe non rectius colliges, quam si diceres : Quidam vi tracti currunt, alii currunt sponte, non igitur om¬ nes possunt currere. At contra rectissime colligeres: Multi necessitate continent, multi voluntate; igitur credibile est, omnes con¬ tinere posse, si velint. Quocirca S. Joannes Chrysostomusin com¬ mentario hujus loci recte docet, Christum per hanc similitudinem Eunuchorum pro¬ bare voluisse, facile et utile esse abstinere a nuptiis, et proinde non recte judicare cos, qui non capiunt, id est, non suscipiunt et ap¬ probant verbum hoc. Nam si multi absti¬ nent, sine ulla spe majoris boni, ut Eunuchi corporales, quanto facilius erit abstinere proposita spe excellentissimi prsemii et ful¬ gidissimae coronae ? Adde ultimo testimonia Patrum, quae paulo ante citata sunt. Illud autem : Qui potest capere , capiat, duobus modis potest exponi. Primo, ut lo¬ quatur Dominus de potentia proxima, quam non habent, nisi illi, quibus jam Dominus inspiravit desiderium efficax continendi, ut sensus sit : Qui potest capere , capiat, id est, qui Dei dono sentiunt sibi intus persuaderi, ut contineant, approbent verbum hoc. Ita vi¬ dentur hoc dictum intellexisse Hieronymus in hunc locum, et Augustinus lib. II. de adulterinis conjugiis cap. 19. sed non debet hinc deduci, ergo non omnes possunt con¬ tinere. Nam etiamsi non omnes habent po¬ tentiam proximam, tamen habent remotam, et possunt, si velint, precibus impetrare po¬ tentiam proximam, id est, vires ad continen¬ dum : sicut de fide dicitur Joan. VI. Nemo potest ad me venire, nisi Pater traxerit eum. Addi enim potest : Qui potest venire, veniat, id est, qui trahitur, veniat; qui autem non trahitur, oret, ut trahatur. Secundo, dici potest, hunc locum habere eumdem sensum cum illo Matth. XIII. Qui habet aures audiendi , audiat, non enim vult Dominus dicere, non omnes habere aures, sed monet omnes, ut utantur facultate, quam habent. Quomodo solemus dicere : Qui habet oculos, videat ; qui habet men¬ tem, judicet ; sic igitur et hoc loco Dominus dicit : Qui potest capere , capiat , id est, qui habet mentem et judicium sanum, intelli- gat, judicet, approbet verbum hoc, quod dictum est : Non expedit nubere. Jam vero tertius locus : Unusquisque pro¬ prium donum habet ex Deo , unus sic, alius au¬ tem sic, 1. Cor. VII. non habet difficultatem ; nam Apostolus vocat donum Dei non solum continentiam virginalem, sed etiam conju- 388 LIBER II. galem. Donum enim Dei est, quod aliqui eli¬ gant virginitatem, et similiter, quod aliqui eligant matrimonium, et in eo caste perse¬ verent Sed quomodo cum his cohaereat, quod in potestate nostra sit continere, et caste vivere, jam antea exposuimus. Postremus locus non facit ad propositum: Nam cum Paulus ait: Qui statuit in corde suo firmus , non habens necessitatem, potestatem au¬ tem habens suce voluntatis , et hoc judicavit in corde suo servare virginem suam, bene facit : dupliciter accipi potest nomen, Virginis. Uno modo, pro ipsa virginitate, ut accepit S. Hieronym. lib. I. in Jovinianum. Alio modo, pro filia virgine, ut exponit Epipha- nius haeres. 61. Item connnent. Ambrosii, Theodoreti, Theophylacti, et aliorum fere omnium. Prima expositio non est probabilis, est enim inauditum, ut virgo hccipiatur pro vir¬ ginitate. Neque in hac re quaestionem habe¬ mus cum adversariis : Nam Joannes Calvi¬ nus, Petrus Martyr, Erasmus, et alii in hunc locum, per virginem, filiam virginem intei- ligunt, non virginitatem. Si tam$n admitte¬ retur prior illa expositio, per necessitatem non oporteret intelligere necessitatem abso¬ lutam conjugii, sed conditionatam. Nam, ut eo loco S. Hieronymus dicit, qui nolunt con¬ tinere, illis necesse est, aut uxorem ducere, aut scortari, absolute tamen neutrum est necessarium. Si vero accipiatur expositio posterior, quae vera et germana est, per ne¬ cessitatem non erit opus accipere necessita¬ tem conjugii, ob carentiam doni continen¬ tiae, de qua necessitate hic agimus ; sed ne¬ cessitatem extrinsecam, quae ad rem prae¬ sentem non pertinet. Dicitur enim pater ha¬ bere necessitatem jungendi filiam matrimo¬ nio, si ipsa nolit vivere in coelibatu, vel, si ipse servus sit, et cogatur a Domino' filiam elocare : et contra dicitur, habere necessita¬ tem servandi filiam virginem, si vel ipsa nolit nubere (neque enim ad id cogi potest) vel si non inveniatur, qui eam velit. Sed si nulla talis necessitas adsit, liberum erit pa¬ tri statuere de filia, ut voluerit : sed si jun¬ gat eam matrimonio , bene faciet, si non jungat, melius faciet, ut Apostolus ibidem scribit. Haec de locis scripturae propositis. Ad eam vero similitudinem, quam Petrus Martyr posuit de eo, qui vovit ministrare aegrotis, et postea non fecit, quod in mor¬ bum ipse inciderit, respondetur, non esse si¬ mile hoc votum voto continentiae. Primum enim, iste non peccat non implendo votum, is non habet voluntatem implendi votum quia voluntatem habet promptam et para¬ tam ad votum implendum, non enim vult aegrotare, sed cogitur. At qui ob morbum concupiscientiae ducit uxorem post votum, is non habet voluntatem implendi votum, sed habet contrariam, id est, non implendi ; implicat enim contradictionem, quod quis velit continere, ut vovit, et velit uxorem ducere. Deinde, aegritudo corporalis non pendet a voluntate aegrotantis, incontinentia vero pendet. Non enim potest recte dici, Nemo aegrotat, nisi qui vult. At rectissime dicitur ; Nemo fornicatur, nisi qui vult. Obediunt enim membra corporis ad nutum volun¬ tatis. Denique, sanitas corporalis non est bonum absolute petendum, quia saepe melior est aegritudo ad vitam aeternam consequendam, quam sanitas. Unde nullum exstat consilium Evangelicum de tuenda sanitate, propter regnum coelorum. At continentia absolute peti potest, et infallibiliter conceditur, si aliunde non sit defectus in oratione, quia est bonum ad vitam aeternam longe utilius, quam matrimonium, et propterea consuli¬ tur et commendatur passim in Scripturis.