Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 34: The Sixth Objection from the Fathers 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 first of the Fathers is Peter, with all the Apostles except John: “We will take,” says Peter Martyr, “the beginning from the Apostles; for they are in a manner the Fathers of the Fathers. But they, although they were most holy, yet did not spurn marriages. Nay, if we believe Ambrose, all had wives except John and Paul.” And below: “Although I cite Ambrose in this place so as not altogether to concede to that opinion; for whence did he know that Paul had no wife?”
I answer that which of the Apostles had a wife, and which had not, cannot be known for certain from the Scriptures, except only of Peter, whose mother-in-law we read of (Matthew 8). Yet that John was a virgin no one ever doubted. The same of Paul and the other Apostles Jerome probably teaches (Book 1 against Jovinian). But whatever be of this, it is enough for us that both Peter and all the Apostles, after their calling by Christ, were continent. “But,” says Peter Martyr, “they are wont to say that the Apostles, after they came to Christ, in a manner repudiated their wives, and abstained from their fellowship. Those who say this say only their own, prove nothing; nay, they speak absurdly and without reason; for unless adultery had intervened, it was in no way lawful to depart from their wives. Nor did Christ come into the world to make divorces, but rather admonishes that what God has joined, man put not asunder.” So he. But we do not say that the wives were repudiated by the Apostles, which Christ forbids (Matthew 19), but that they abstained by consent from conjugal intercourse. For neither is Saint Joseph to be said to have repudiated his most blessed spouse, because he never knew her. For it is not carnal union, but the consent of minds, that makes a marriage.
Further, that all the Apostles after their calling renounced the conjugal office we not only say, but also prove. For when Peter had said (Matthew 19), Behold, we have left all things, the Lord added: Every one that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, etc., shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess eternal life. Where sufficiently openly, among all those things which we read the Apostles left, we see wives too numbered. And if a wife cannot be left without being repudiated, let Peter Martyr accuse Christ, who promises so great a reward to those who leave their wives. Add that we are not the first to teach that the Apostles lived celibate after their calling. Clement of Alexandria taught it (Book 3 of the Stromata); Saint Jerome taught it (Book 1 against Jovinian); nearly all others taught it, nor did any Catholic ever contradict.
In the second place Peter Martyr sets Ignatius, who (in the epistle to the Philadelphians) says that marriage is not to be disparaged, because the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles were husbands. I answer, of the Apostles we have already said that they had wives, but after their calling changed them into sisters, as Clement of Alexandria speaks. The Patriarchs and Prophets served the time and state of the Old Law. Although, as some prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, taught by example that marriage is not to be disparaged, as Ignatius rightly admonishes, so other prophets likewise, such as Elijah and Jeremiah, gave the example of continence.
Thirdly he sets Justin, who (in the Second Apology) mentions continence, but does not mention a vow. I answer, what is this to the point? Is it therefore unlawful to vow, because Justin does not mention a vow?
Fourthly he sets Dionysius of Corinth, who (in the epistle to the Gnosians, Eusebius being witness, Book 4 of the history, chapter 23) admonishes Pinytus, bishop of the Gnosians, not to compel the brethren to keep continence. I answer, which of us contradicts? But because it is not lawful to compel the brethren to continence, will it also not be lawful to undertake it of one’s own accord?
Fifthly he brings forward Irenaeus, who (Book 1, chapter 9) mentions the wife of a certain deacon; and (chapter 31) says that Tatian the heresiarch made marriage equal to harlotry. Peter Martyr adds: “And what else do our adversaries do? Nay, these establish that the marriage of ministers is worse than adultery and harlotry; what is it to agree with Tatian, if this is not?”
I answer, what is it to trifle, or rather impudently to lie, if this is not? Is a vow of continence therefore unlawful, because a certain deacon had a wife? And whence dost thou prove that that deacon did not abstain from his wife after receiving sacred orders? Further, Tatian condemned true and legitimate marriages, and therefore was a heretic; but we have shown that the marriages of the sacred ministers are not legitimate marriages, but sacrileges covered by the name of marriage, and therefore we reprehend them. Otherwise, if whoever does not commend illegitimate marriages follows Tatian, he too will be said to follow Tatian who does not approve the marriage of a parent with a daughter. And so Saint Augustine, who knew very well the heresy of Tatian, and condemned it (in the book On Heresies, chapter 25), yet affirms that the marriages which are contracted after a vow are worse than adulteries (in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 41).
In the sixth place he brings forward Clement of Alexandria, who (in the first book of the Paedagogue, chapter 10) says that Christians ought either to contract marriage, or to live purely, if they do not contract it. Hence Peter Martyr gathers that those who from monks and priests do not live purely ought to contract marriage. But why does he not rather gather that they ought to change their life and amend their morals, and so live purely and chastely, and render their vow to the Lord? “But,” says Martyr, “the same Clement (in Book 3 of the Stromata) says that Paul had a wife, that Peter and Philip begot children.” I answer that in the same place he says that these things were done before the calling to the apostolate, but afterward that wives were had by the Apostles in the place of sisters, not in the place of wives. He then weaves in a very long disputation of the same Clement against those who condemn marriage. But all are digressions, and prove nothing but the poverty which presses him, of testimonies making to the point.
Seventhly he passes to Tertullian, and first confesses that there are many things in Tertullian for the Papists, but that Tertullian is not to be believed, because he was a heretic and forbade second marriages. But this is easily refuted; for even if he was a heretic, he is yet never reprehended by the ancients for asserting a vow of continence, but for other errors, which Saint Augustine noted (in the book On Heresies, chapter 86).
Then Peter Martyr dares to lie, that in the book On the Veiling of Virgins Tertullian treats whether married women alone ought to enter the church with veiled head, or virgins too, but does not speak of the veil or habit of sacred virgins. But he lies so manifestly that there is no need but to read the book itself. For he writes against secular virgins, who, since they went about with bare head, took it ill that the sacred virgins came forth covered and veiled, and brought forward as an argument that the Apostle (1 Corinthians 11) commanded women to be veiled, but said nothing of virgins: “The virgins of men,” he says, “go about against the virgins of God.” And below: “We are scandalized,” he says, “because some go about otherwise, and prefer to be scandalized than to be provoked.” And below: “O sacrilegious hands, which could tear off a habit dedicated to God!” And below: “Thou hast married Christ, to Him thou hast delivered thy flesh, to Him thou hast betrothed thy maturity; go about according to the will of thy spouse. It is Christ who commands even others’ betrothed and married to be veiled; surely much more His own.” Finally, the book of Saint Cyprian On the Habit of Virgins, drawn from the book of Tertullian, sufficiently openly teaches of what virgins Tertullian speaks.
But Peter Martyr has from Tertullian a notable testimony against us; for in the book On Monogamy, treating that passage of 1 Timothy 5, I will that the younger marry, he speaks thus: “He directs it to such as he denotes above, young widows, who, found in widowhood and for some time affecting it, after they have had Christ among their delights, wish to marry, having a judgment, because they have rescinded their first faith — that, namely, in which, being found in widowhood and having professed it, they do not persevere. On which account he wishes them to marry, lest afterward they rescind the first faith of the widowhood undertaken.” “From these words,” says Martyr, “one or the other of these must altogether be understood: either that Paul wishes them to marry, though they had vowed — and this Tertullian seems rather to hold — or, if it treat not of widows who have professed, but of similar ones, yet that Paul wishes these too to marry, lest afterward they rescind the faith given. This opinion too makes against our adversaries; for they permit young women, and almost girls, to vow, and to incur the danger.”
I answer that the former sense the words of Tertullian in no way admit. For those words, “On which account he wishes them to marry, lest afterward they rescind the first faith of the widowhood undertaken,” most openly admonish that he speaks of those who have not yet vowed. For those who have once vowed and rescinded their first faith, how can they marry lest they rescind their first faith, since they have already rescinded it, and since to marry itself is to rescind the first faith? For Tertullian interprets to rescind the first faith as not to persevere in the profession of widowhood.
“But,” says Martyr, “Paul, saying, I will that the younger marry, directs his discourse to those who made void their first faith, as Tertullian says; the Apostle, then, by Tertullian’s interpretation, wishes those to marry who had already vowed.” I answer that to direct his discourse to those who had vowed is nothing else than to look to them, and from their ruin to provide a remedy for others, as the following words most openly teach. But as to the latter sense, we confess that the Apostle wishes young women to marry, but, as we showed above from the Fathers, not all young women, but only those who will not be continent. I omit here the rest of Peter Martyr’s lies, when he says that we call marriage impure and filthy, and others of that kind, for which he will render account to God in the judgment.
In the eighth place he sets Origen, in whose books he finds nothing for himself, except that he interprets certain passages as making for himself, because they do not make against himself — namely, where Origen does not vituperate marriage, and much more where he says something in praise of marriage. So he brings forward many things from the commentaries of Origen on Romans 12, and on Matthew 19 and 23. But there is nothing at all that makes to the point; for we honor marriage far more than the adversaries do, since we teach it to be a sacrament of Christ, which they most obstinately deny, and acknowledge in marriage only a civil contract.
Ninthly he comes to Cyprian, who (Book 1, epistle 11, to Pomponius) writes thus of certain virgins who, after they had dedicated themselves to God, were found to lie with males: “But if from faith they have dedicated themselves to Christ, let them persevere chastely and without any tale, and, thus strong and stable, await the reward of virginity. But if they will not persevere, or cannot, it is better that they marry than fall into the fire by their crimes.”
This passage not only Peter Martyr, but also Calvin, Brentius, and others of the adversaries objected. Peter Martyr also refutes some solutions little congruous, that he might show the argument to be plainly insoluble. But a plain and easy answer is at hand. For Saint Cyprian speaks in that way in which Saint Paul (1 Timothy 5) — namely, on occasion of certain virgins who bore themselves little honestly after a vow of continence, he admonishes others that if they have not a firm purpose of persevering, they vow not, but marry. This, then, is the sense of Cyprian’s words: “But if from faith they have dedicated themselves to Christ, let them persevere chastely and without any tale. But if they will not persevere, or cannot” — that is, if, while they deliberate of making a vow, they think that they will not persevere — “it is better that they marry than fall into the fire by their crimes.”
And that this is the sense of those words can be proved. First, because Saint Cyprian grants to those virgins, under a disjunction, that they marry, if they will not persevere, or cannot. And accordingly he grants that they marry, if only they will not persevere, even though otherwise they could. But that it is lawful after a vow to marry for one who can persevere, not even Calvin or Peter Martyr would affirm.
Secondly, of the sacred virgins in the same epistle the same Cyprian says that they sin most grievously if they be joined to any man, and are adulteresses not of a husband, but of Christ: “If a husband,” he says, “coming upon it, should see his betrothed lying with another, is he not indignant and roars? and through the grief of jealousy perhaps takes even a sword into his hands? What of Christ, our Lord and Judge, when He sees His virgin, dedicated to Him and destined for His sanctity, lying with another, how is He indignant and angered! And what punishments does He threaten to unchaste unions of this kind?” So he. Not, then, could Cyprian permit marriage to virgins of this kind dedicated to God, unless he wished to permit an unchaste union and a manifest offense of God, by his own testimony. But who would believe Cyprian to have been so foolish as knowingly and prudently to permit most grievous crimes?
Thirdly, of the virgins dedicated to God who had already fallen, in the same epistle he commands that they be separated, and this he repeats several times, and not once does he admonish that they can enter marriage with their defilers or with others: “But if,” he says, “obstinate they persevere, and do not separate from one another, let them know that with this their unchaste obstinacy they can never be admitted by us into the Church,” etc. Therefore, when above he admonished that they marry, he was not speaking of those who had already vowed, but of those who were still of their own right.
Peter Martyr urges that word, “or cannot,” as though there were some who absolutely cannot be continent, even if they will. But this has been explained above. For Cyprian speaks in that way in which Christ Himself speaks, when He says, He that can take it, let him take it. For those are said to will and not be able who desire to be continent, but not with a full and perfect will. And accordingly they lack the efficacious strength to be continent, which strength, however, if they were willing to labor in prayer, they would not with difficulty acquire. Another passage from the book On the Singularity of Clerics we explained in the disputation on the celibacy of priests.
Tenthly he sets Eusebius of Caesarea, from whom, however, he brings nothing but a certain conjecture, that the solemn consecration of virgins began in the time of the Emperor Constantine, but before was not. This is the conjecture: that (Book 4 On the Life of Constantine), after he had narrated that by Constantine’s decree the old law was abrogated which deprived of inheritance those who had no children, Eusebius at once subjoined that women consecrated themselves to God for perpetual virginity, and also for the priesthood of God. But this conjecture rests on a manifest lie. For Eusebius did not subjoin about the consecration of virgins after the narration of the abrogated law, but premises it as the reason of the law abrogated. For he says that Constantine abrogated that law because many men and many women lacked children, not from impotence of begetting, but because, out of an immense love of the divinity, they professed perpetual celibacy.
In the eleventh place he sets Athanasius, but he could not find even one syllable for himself. Therefore he only brought forward certain passages against himself, and answered that Athanasius is not to be heard, is not to be tolerated, that this Father took too much upon himself. The Centuriators (Century 4, chapter 4, column 267, and chapter 6, column 466, and chapter 7, column 486) bring forward one testimony of Athanasius from the epistle to Dracontius, where he says that he had known bishops and monks who begot children. I answer that we too have known very many monks who at the same time wished to be called bishops, and begot children — namely, Luther, Bucer, Martyr, Ochino, Oecolampadius, Wigand, and others. For Athanasius in that place reprehends bishops and monks living dissolutely, and says that some are found who begot children. For that otherwise this was unlawful, by the opinion of Athanasius, appears from his exhortation to monks, where among other impediments of the monastic life he sets being bound to a wife, or hindered by children.
In the twelfth place he sets Basil, whom he says was called Great from his erudition and doctrine. And he brings forward one testimony from the book On Virginity, where Basil accuses the sacred virgins who live dissolutely and shamefully, and says that it would be far preferable if they had husbands and were subject to them and exercised the conjugal office as is fitting: “Nothing,” says Martyr, “could be said more aptly for us.”
I answer that Basil does not admonish that the sacred virgins who live shamefully, leaving their profession, should marry, but says that it would have been better if they had married before they vowed. For it is better to be saved in a humbler state than to be damned in a lofty one. That it is so is plain both from those words: “For if, the yoke of a husband being cast off, she is to be about to be a shame to the life for which, for the sake of keeping a household and procreating children, she was made useless, and to her professed virginity, the whole matter is full of loss. And it would be far preferable that she herself, joined to a husband, be governed for life,” etc. Where thou seest marriage persuaded, not to her who vowed, but to her who is to be a shame to her professed virginity; and from the same book, where Basil most fully proves that the sacred virgins can in no way marry: “Having professed virginity,” he says, “then incited by the pleasures of the flesh, they wish to veil the sin of harlotry with the name of marriage, not being ignorant, I think, even if they feign ignorance, that she who has passed by the right hand of her spouse is neither the spouse of Him whom she unlawfully left, nor can she be found, according to the laws, the wife of him to whom she joined herself by a vicious affection.” And below: “Let her not deceive herself, that the sin will be reputed to her for marriage.” And below: “For the pretext of marriage will have no place with Him.”
“But,” says Martyr, “Basil, when he wrote these things, had forgotten himself.” But who would believe that a man so admirable, who from his erudition found the name of Great, so openly in the same book fought with himself, and could not write three pages without forgetting himself? I omit what Martyr then weaves in in reprehension of Saint Basil; for we do not here ask whether he spoke rightly, but whether he said that of which we treat. Although even for the refutation of Martyr’s calumnies and little reasons it is enough to know that the one was truly Basil the Great, the other is Peter falsely called Martyr. He brings forward another testimony from question 15 fully explained, but it does not pertain to the point, and will be refuted by us a little below in the disputation on the vows of children made against the will of parents.
In the thirteenth place he sets Gregory Nazianzen, from whom he could bring nothing against us. He only brings forward many things which he says make for himself, because they do not make against himself — namely, where Nazianzen writes that marriage is good. He brings forward also many things which he says he does not approve, as that Nazianzen says that virginity aggregates men to the angels, that marriage is a sign of perturbation, virginity of splendor, that continence is placed in one’s choice, so that all can be continent who will. These Martyr says he cannot admit; but it matters little what he himself admits, provided Nazianzen makes for the Catholics.
In the fourteenth place he sets Hilary, from whom he could have only one passage to object to us. In the rest he rejects Hilary with the other Fathers, who too openly favor the Papists. He brings forward, then, a testimony against us from Hilary’s commentary on Matthew 19, where he speaks thus: “Let our discourse and will be about eunuchs; and in one He placed nature, in another necessity, and in the third will. Nature in him who is so born, necessity in him who was so made, will in him who by the hope of the heavenly kingdom has decreed to be such, who admonishes us to be made like, if only we can.” “Behold,” says Martyr, “he does not say, if only we will, but, if only we can, having regard to the strength of each of us.”
I answer that Hilary adds nothing to the word of the Lord, He that can take it, let him take it. Of which passage we have said enough. Nor do we deny that regard is to be had to one’s strength, and that those ought not to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven who do not yet feel that they have strength to be continent, and who accordingly cannot. Yet we add that those who do not yet have strength, and cannot now, can nevertheless through prayer acquire strength, by which afterward they will be able if they will.
Another passage from Hilary the Magdeburgians bring forward (Century 4, chapter 4, column 300), where, after they had set down the encomia of virginity from Athanasius, they subjoin thus: “Against this superstitious opinion Hilary seems to speak (on Psalm 64): We see philosophers shivering with naked bodies. The Masters abstain even from the use of marriages; the heretics live on the dry food of bread alone. But what at last is the profit of this idle purpose? All this is empty and ridiculous, and, with the very causes of the superstition, miserable. To God, then, are to be vowed the contempt of the body, the guarding of chastity, the endurance of fasting. For vows only of ecclesiastical religion are useful, which are approved both by cautions worthy of God and by the zeal of an observance set forth in the Church.”
From these words the Magdeburgians seem to have gathered that contempt of the body is to be vowed, but not that extreme one even to nakedness and shivering; that chastity is to be vowed, but conjugal, not virginal; that fasts are to be vowed, but not those arduous ones by which some live on bread alone. But Hilary does not say this; rather he admonishes that continence, fasts, contempt of the body, outside the Church profit nothing, but much profit if in the Church they be undertaken for God’s sake, and be vowed to God Himself. For he explains those words of the Psalm: To thee shall a vow be paid in Jerusalem. And he does force on those words: To thee, and in Jerusalem — that is, to God, and in the Church. And thence he calls superstitious the continence and fasts of the Gentiles, because not to God; and of the heretics, because not in the Church, are they offered. On which account Peter Martyr gathers from this passage of Hilary that Hilary held that the vow of celibacy ought to be made to please God. But he adds that this opinion of Hilary is not approved by him.
In the fifteenth place he sets Epiphanius, from whom he brings two testimonies. One from the book On Heresies, heresy 48, where we read thus: “But we do not impose necessity, but with good counsel admonish, exhorting him who can, but do not impose necessity on him who cannot, nor reject him from life.”
From these words Peter Martyr charges the Catholics with imposing the necessity of celibacy, because they admit none to sacred orders but the celibate; and again, with saying that all can be continent if they will, both of which Epiphanius reproves. But of this latter we have already often said in what way it is true that some can and cannot be continent. For they cannot while they have not the gift, and yet can absolutely, because they can ask and have the gift. And yet meanwhile we do not deny that they do ill who vow at the time when they feel that they have not the gift, and they do even worse who impel or even compel men of this kind to vow. But of the former it is a manifest calumny; for although we admit none to sacred orders but the celibate, yet as we do not compel to undertake orders, so neither to profess celibacy.
And so the same Epiphanius, who will have no one compelled to celibacy, affirms that none ought to be admitted to sacred orders but the celibate. For thus speaks Epiphanius (heresy 59): “In truth the holy preaching of God, after the coming of Christ, does not receive those who, their wife being dead, are joined in second marriage, on account of the excellent honor and dignity of the priesthood; but neither does it receive a man of one wife who still begets children, but him who has contained himself from one, or lived in widowhood, as deacon, and priest, and bishop, and subdeacon.”
Another testimony they bring forward, both Peter Martyr and John Brentius, from the same book, heresy 61, where we read thus: “It is better for one fallen from the course openly to take himself a wife according to the law, and to do penance for a long time from virginity, than to be daily wounded by darts.”
I answer, first, that Epiphanius seems to say that it is a less evil to marry after a vow than secretly and assiduously to play the harlot; yet he does not say that it is no evil to marry after a vow, which the adversaries say, and about which our controversy is. For in the same place a little before Epiphanius says thus: “The holy Apostles handed down that it is a sin, after virginity decreed, to turn to marriage.” And a little after he admonishes that that of Paul, If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned, ought to be understood of her who is not yet dedicated to God. And below, that of 1 Timothy 5, They have damnation, because they have made void their first faith, he says pertains especially to virgins who wish to marry after a vow.
Finally, Peter Martyr himself confesses that Epiphanius makes with us: “I never asserted,” he says, “that Epiphanius makes with me, in that he says it is a sin to enter marriage after a vow made.” And below: “In that, then, Epiphanius does not agree with me; but yet in this, that he says those marriages are both true and lawful.” So he. Who manifestly fights with himself, or falsely asserts that Epiphanius fights with himself. For that it is a sin to enter marriage after a vow, and that marriage is lawful after a vow, are contraries; both Martyr attributes to Epiphanius, who nevertheless constantly asserts the first always, the other never.
Secondly I say that it is probable that Epiphanius did not mean even to say that it is a less evil to marry after a vow than to play the harlot, but that he exhorted to marriage those who without a vow persevered in celibacy, and yet lived shamefully; for in that place he distinguishes two kinds of virgins. One, of those who by choice and profession and vow were virgins, and of these he repeats several times that it is not lawful, without a most grievous crime, after virginity dedicated to God, to turn to marriage. The other, of those who in the time of youth did not find convenient marriages, and therefore as it were necessarily remained celibate all that time, then, when they were now advanced in age, blushed to turn to marriage, and therefore had decided to remain celibate; yet meanwhile they secretly played the harlot, and before men were virgins, before God by no means. These, then, he exhorts to do penance for the virginity lost through fornication, and to have recourse to marriage, and to fear more the condemnation of God than the judgments of men.
And so when Epiphanius says, “It is better to have one sin than many,” he does not mean to say that it is better to sin once by marrying after a vow than to play the harlot several times, but that it is better after one fornication to pass to marriage than, by remaining celibate, to expose oneself to the danger of assiduously playing the harlot. And when he exhorts him who has fallen from the course to take a wife, he does not call the course a vow of celibacy, but celibacy itself, which he had for a long time freely kept, and afterward corrupted by fornication. This I say to be very probable, both because the words of Epiphanius admit this sense, and also because it is not credible that Epiphanius wished to exhort to that which he himself confesses to be against the Apostolic ordinances.
In the sixteenth place Peter Martyr proposes Chrysostom, from whom he brings nothing but the praises of marriage, which in no way hinder our cause. But the Magdeburgians (Century 5, chapter 4, column 444) produce a testimony of Chrysostom from the oration on the cohabitation of regular women with men, where he exhorts the sacred virgins rather openly to marry than so to cohabit with men: “For those marriages,” he says, “neither does God condemn, nor do men reprehend. For it is an honest thing, offending no one, injuring no one. But that virginity with men is by all charged as more than defilement itself.”
But the Magdeburgians did not report these words faithfully enough. For they omitted those which immediately precede, from which it is most openly gathered that Chrysostom speaks of marriages which precede a vow, not of those which follow it. For he says thus: “For if thou desirest to have cohabitants, it behooved not to choose virginity, but there was to be a passing to marriage. For it would have been much better so to have married than in that way to profess virginity; for those marriages neither does God condemn,” etc. And below: “If they desire a husband and marriage, who forbade, and took away the liberty, that they should not do this?” So he. Chrysostom, then, speaks in the way in which Cyprian and Basil spoke, of that which ought to have been done before the vow, not of that which ought to be done after the vow. For the same Chrysostom (in epistle 6 to Theodore) expressly says that marriage after monastic vows is not marriage, but something worse than adultery.
There exists in Chrysostom another passage which could have been objected against vows, though I have not read that it was noted by any of the adversaries. In Book 3 against the vituperators of monastic life, toward the end, Chrysostom speaks thus: “Therefore let us not untimely recall our children from their sojourn in the desert, but let us permit the solid discipline of heavenly zeal in them, and the shrubs to be strengthened with deep roots, and, whether they be to be nourished ten years, or even twenty, in the monastery, let us not disturb it.” From these words it seems to be gathered that the monks were not bound by vows, or at least that the vows themselves were free in Chrysostom’s age, since they could return home from the monastery.
I answer: there were two kinds of men who lived in the monasteries at that time. Some professed the monastic life, and these were bound by vows, nor could they return to secular business. Others dwelt in the monasteries only for a time, not so much to become monks as to be exercised in piety and the virtues. These were bound by no vows, and when they wished to depart from the monastery, they could. Of these latter, then, Chrysostom speaks in this place. Which can be known also from this, that he exhorts all citizens to send their sons to the monasteries, and also that they themselves, though married, should betake themselves thither and dwell there for some time. Of the former Saint Basil speaks (chapter 21 of the Constitutions), where by many reasons he shows that it is not lawful for a monk to return home. Chrysostom himself too (in epistle 6 to Theodore): “Indeed I weep,” he says, “not that thou bearest the care of paternal affairs, but that by neglecting thou hast trodden underfoot whatever thou hadst before promised to Christ from thy heart. At these things I shudder, by these I am anguished and tormented; on account of these I fear not without reason. For as desertion of the warfare is not objected to one not warring, so he who has once begun to be a soldier, when he is detected to have deserted, is judged worthy of the extreme punishment.” Likewise Theophylact (on Matthew 8): “But if,” he says, “it was not lawful for that man even to bury his father, woe to those who, having professed the monastic life, return to worldly business.”
In the seventeenth place Peter Martyr sets Ambrose, from whom, because he could bring nothing against vows of continence, he inveighs against his books On Virgins, plainly golden and most sweet. He says that Ambrose is not consistent with himself, because now he teaches that virginity is not commanded but counseled, but now the same commands it, since he forbids virgins consecrated to God to marry. But this false Martyr, blinded by carnal love, does not understand either what he speaks or of what he affirms. For it is one thing to command virginity, another to exact it from one who of his own accord bound himself. Finally, those books On Virgins, which so greatly displease Peter Martyr, Saint Jerome wonderfully praises (in epistle 22 to Eustochium).
In the eighteenth place he sets Jerome, from whom he brings one passage from epistle 8 to Demetrias. Then he rather bitterly reprehends the books of Saint Jerome against Jovinian. But to the latter objection it is enough to oppose Saint Augustine, who (in epistle 29 to Jerome) calls those books against Jovinian a most sweet and most splendid disputation; and also Jerome himself, who (in the Apology for his books against Jovinian) already before refuted those calumnies which Peter Martyr now brings forward.
Further, the testimony in the epistle to Demetrias is this: “The holy purpose of virgins, and the glory of the heavenly and angelic family, the name of certain not behaving well defames; to whom it must be openly said, that either they marry, if they cannot be continent, or be continent, if they will not marry.” “These words,” says Martyr, “cannot be understood of those who have not yet vowed. Because no one dishonors any order unless he has been enrolled in it. No one would have defamed the Apostles by a base life, unless he had been numbered among them.”
I answer, Saint Jerome speaks of the maidservants of noble sacred virgins. For there were certain sacred virgins, most noble women, who lived in their own homes and went forth accompanied by many maidservants. And it often happened that some of the maidservants, who indeed had no vow, by living little chastely defamed their mistresses. For thus Jerome goes on in the same place after the words cited: “A thing worthy of laughter, nay of lamentation: the mistresses going along, a virgin maidservant comes forth more adorned, so that from too great familiarity you would take her whom you saw unadorned to be the mistress.” And a little above: “For the morals and pursuits of mistresses are for the most part judged from the morals of their maidservants and companions.”
Further, that the maidservants of the sacred virgins were not all sacred virgins is evident from epistle 22 to Eustochium, where he admonishes the virgin Eustochium that of her maidservants, if she have any of the same purpose, she honor these the more and admit them to her table, that their honor may be an invitation to the others. Where he also adds these words of the maidservants whom he had said were to be invited to continence by the honor of the others: “If any dissembles and refuses the service, read to her the Apostle: It is better to marry than to burn.” Where he teaches that the maidservants are indeed to be provoked to the purpose of continence, but not to be compelled.
Another testimony from Jerome could have been brought forward; for he speaks thus to a sacred virgin (in epistle 47, on avoiding suspected fellowship): “If thou art a virgin, why dost thou fear a diligent guard? if corrupt, why dost thou not openly marry?” And that she whom he addresses is a sacred virgin appears from those words of the same epistle: “Let not the conversation of her displease thee who consecrated thee a virgin to thy spouse.”
I answer, Jerome speaks of a certain virgin who had not publicly professed in a monastery (for in the same epistle he exhorts her to betake herself to a monastery), but had privately vowed continence, as at that time many were wont to do; and then, her mother a widow being left, had clung to a certain young man, and lived with him not without suspicion of unchastity. This one, then, Jerome admonishes rather openly to marry than perpetually to live unchastely with the scandal of others. Nor does he so admonish this as though it were no sin, which the adversaries will have, to marry after a vow, but because it is a lesser sin, and prudence and reason teach that of two evils the lesser is to be chosen. And that Saint Jerome thinks it an evil to marry after a vow Peter Martyr does not deny, since Saint Jerome repeats it a thousand times (Book 1 against Jovinian, and in other places); but besides, we have this very thing in this passage; for after he had said, “If thou art corrupt, why dost thou not openly marry?” he thus subjoins: “Nor indeed do I say this that I take away penance after sin, so that what began ill should ill persevere, but because I despair of a divulsion in a union of this kind.” That is, I do not exhort thee to marry because I desire that in that which thou hast begun ill by fornicating thou shouldst ill persevere by marrying, and not rather desire penance and amendment; but because I despair that thou canst be separated from the man, therefore I prefer what is the lesser evil, that thou cleave to a husband, not to a fornicator.
And it is to be observed in this place that marriages after a simple vow, of which Jerome speaks, although they cannot be contracted without sin, yet are true marriages; and therefore it is in some way a lesser evil to marry after such a vow than assiduously to fornicate, both on account of the faith of marriage, and on account of legitimate offspring, and on account of other goods; yet also in some way, as we said above, it is a greater evil so to marry than to fornicate, because he who so marries renders himself unfit to keep his vow, which he who fornicates does not do.
In the nineteenth place he sets Augustine, whom first he confesses most openly opposed to himself and his Lutherans; for he says thus: “All these kinds of vows — that is, of virgins, widows, married women — Augustine will have to be both firm and valid, so that they sin most grievously who after pronouncing them have contracted marriages.” And after the testimonies alleged he subjoins: “These things the man of God writes, as a man deceived.”
But why is it not more likely that Martyr is deceived than that man of God, who even by the testimony of the adversaries was most learned and most holy? He then brings two passages for himself. One from the book On Holy Virginity, chapters 40 and 41, where Augustine says that it is impossible, or very difficult, to understand why God gives to one the gift of continence, to another does not give it. From which passage Martyr gathers that not all who will can have this gift. For if all who will had the gift, it would not be difficult to understand why it is given to one and not given to another; for the cause would be, because one wills, another wills not.
The other testimony is taken from the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapters 9 and 10, and from epistle 70 to Boniface, where Saint Augustine teaches that marriages after a vow are ratified and true, and ought not to be dissolved.
A third testimony Brentius adds from the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 21, where Saint Augustine dares not prefer the virginity of Saint John to the marriage of Abraham.
I add a fourth testimony from the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 34, where Saint Augustine speaks thus of certain sacred virgins: “These wish to marry, and therefore do not marry, because they cannot with impunity, who would better marry than burn.”
I answer to the first testimony, and say that Saint Augustine speaks of the gift of continence, not by which it comes about that one can be continent — which we say is denied to none — but by which it comes about that one actually is continent; which is not given except to those to whom God has judged it should be given. Nor is this proper to the gift of continence, but common with the gift of faith, of love, of perseverance, and other gifts of the same kind. Since all the just can truly persevere if they will, and yet it is impossible to understand why God gives to one just man the gift of perseverance, so that he actually infallibly perseveres, but suffers another to fall, and does not give him that grace by which he efficaciously perseveres. (Book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 34): “Now if anyone constrain me to search out that profundity, why to one it is so persuaded that he is persuaded, to another not so, two things meanwhile occur which it pleases me to answer: O the depth of the riches! And: There is no iniquity with God.” But of these it must be disputed elsewhere.
To the second I say that Augustine indeed wished marriages after a vow to be true marriages, but at the same time asserted (which Peter Martyr does not deny) that those sin most grievously who marry after a vow; for he says thus (in the book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 9): “Such widows are condemned, not because they entered conjugal faith afterward, but because they made void the first faith of continence.” And chapter 11: “I could not say that women fallen from a better purpose, if they marry, are adulteries and not marriages; but plainly I would not hesitate to say that lapses and ruins from a holier chastity, which is vowed to God, are worse than adulteries.” So he. And so the testimony of Augustine effects nothing against that which we now defend, that it is not lawful to marry after a vow.
But Peter Martyr insists: In this at least you contradict Augustine, that you decree the marriages of monks and nuns to be void.
I answer: it is agreed among the theologians that marriage after a simple vow of continence is indeed unlawful, yet ratified, and not to be dissolved; but after a solemn vow it is null. For so Innocent I teaches (in epistle 2), and after him Gelasius (in epistle 1), and the First Council of Toledo (canon 16). But whether after a solemn vow marriage is null by divine and natural law, or only by ecclesiastical law, is a question. For Albert, Blessed Thomas, Blessed Bonaventure, Richard, and Durandus (on Book 4, distinction 38), and Domingo de Soto (Book 7 On Justice and Right, question 2, article 5) will have marriage to be null by divine and natural law, if it be contracted after a solemn vow. And these would say that Saint Augustine spoke only of a simple vow, not of a solemn one, as also Saint Jerome (in epistle 47, on avoiding suspected fellowship); but on the contrary, that Saint Basil (in the book On Virginity) and Chrysostom (in epistle 6 to Theodore) spoke of a solemn vow.
But Scotus and Paludanus (on Book 4, distinction 38), and Cajetan (2a2ae, question 88, article 7), and the whole school of the jurisconsults, as Panormitanus reports (on the chapter Rursus, Qui Clerici vel Voventes), assert that only by ecclesiastical law the marriage is void which is contracted after a solemn vow. And these would say that Augustine and Jerome either spoke of a simple vow, or of a solemn one according to the rules of divine and natural law; for the ecclesiastical decree by which those who have a solemn vow are made unfit for marriage had not come to their notice. Either opinion is probable; nor is it of our consideration in this place to define that question.
To the third I say that Saint Augustine in that place does not compare virginity with marriage absolutely, but the virginity of one person with the marriage of another person. For although absolutely virginity far excels marriage, as Augustine, both often elsewhere and in the very book On the Good of Marriage (chapter 23) affirms, yet it can happen that virginity be joined in one man with less charity, humility, and other virtues than marriage in another man. Therefore we cannot prefer a virgin to a married person, unless it be established that in the other virtues they are equal.
To the fourth I say that Saint Augustine spoke in the way in which Saint Jerome (in epistle 47) — namely, that it is a lesser evil openly to marry for one who has a simple vow, than perpetually to fornicate secretly.
In the twentieth place he adduces Leo, from whose works he brings one testimony from epistle 87 (elsewhere 85) to the bishops of Africa, where Leo speaks thus: “Since the Apostle says that, among the other rules of Christianity, that bishop be ordained who is established to have been or to be the husband of one wife, this precept has always been held so sacred that even concerning the woman of the priest to be chosen the same condition is understood to be kept.” For here Leo seems to say that not only can a bishop be ordained who had a wife, but even one who has one; and besides, that a bishop who has not a wife can take one, if he will.
But to this testimony I have already answered in the disputation on the celibacy of priests. For we admit that a bishop can be made who has a wife, provided he thenceforth will be continent from her. But that a bishop can take a wife Saint Leo never held or wrote; since in the more correct codices it is not, “concerning the woman of the priest to be chosen,” but, “concerning the woman of the priest to be chosen” (of the priest, i.e., the one being chosen). For Saint Leo commands that not only he be barred from the priesthood who had several wives, but also he who had one, who nevertheless had before been another’s. Consult epistle 84 to Anastasius, where in express words Leo teaches that not only a bishop, but also a priest, deacon, and subdeacon, ought to be unmarried, or continent.
In the last place Peter Martyr adduces Gregory I, who (Book 1, epistle 42) writes thus: “Three years ago the subdeacons of all the churches of Sicily were forbidden, after the manner of the Roman Church, to have intercourse with their wives; which seems to me hard and incompetent” (Peter Martyr preferred to read “impious” for “incompetent,” to exaggerate the matter) “that one who has not found the use of continence, nor promised chastity, be compelled to be separated from his wife, and thereby — which God forbid — fall into worse.” From these things Martyr deduces many things which seem to fight against the Catholics.
The first is that the Roman Pontiff, who had forbidden that the subdeacons of Sicily have intercourse with their wives, acted against the Nicene Synod, which, Paphnutius being author, decreed that the intercourse of his own wife was not to be forbidden to clerics. But that Paphnutian fable we have, as I judge, evidently confuted in the disputation on the celibacy of priests. Besides, if one Roman Pontiff imposed a precept a little harder and incompetent, as Saint Gregory says, it was soon tempered by his successor.
The second is that at that time a vow was not annexed to sacred order. For Gregory says that it seemed hard to him that subdeacons be compelled to keep chastity who had not promised it. But if in Sicily the subdeacons did not vow, did they nowhere else vow? Nay, it was an abuse that in Sicily they did not vow. And therefore there Saint Gregory commands that the bishops be admonished to ordain no subdeacon who does not first vow continence.
The third is that this tyranny began from the Roman Church, but that in the Eastern or Greek Church there was no such usage. But it is a most manifest lie that there was no usage of continence of subdeacons, and of the higher orders too, in the Eastern and Greek Church before the times of Saint Gregory. For the contrary in express words teach Epiphanius (heresy 59), Jerome (in the book against Vigilantius), Leo (epistle 84), and others whom we cited above in the disputation on the celibacy of priests.
The fourth is that Gregory, though very superstitious, yet saw that this was hard and alien from piety, and tried to moderate it, but could not so far as he wished, on account of the canons and decrees. But that Peter Martyr calls a most holy man very superstitious, he does after his manner. That he says he saw this to be alien from piety, he lies, as he is wont. For Gregory had said his predecessor’s decree to be not impious, but incompetent. And that he adds that Saint Gregory tried to moderate the canons of his predecessors, but did not do so far as he wished, he plainly divines, or rather dreams. For Gregory, as he used supreme power, so also used supreme liberty in those things which he saw to pertain to the honor of God and the utility of the Church.
Certain others bring forward yet one testimony from Pope Gelasius. For he (in epistle 1 to the bishops of Lucania, chapter 23), speaking of widows who had vowed continence, says: “We ought to cast no snare on such, but only to propose to them the exhortations of the everlasting reward, and the punishments of the divine judgment, so that our conscience may be discharged, and their intention render account for itself to God.” So he.
I answer: the snare of which Gelasius speaks is not, as the adversaries believe, the prohibition of marriage to those who had vowed, but to those who had not vowed. For before, Gelasius had said that those who have vowed cannot marry without sin: “As,” he says, “if they could not be continent, according to the Apostle they were by no means forbidden to marry, so, deliberation being had with themselves, they ought to keep the faith of chastity promised to God.” Gelasius, then, will have it that widows ought not to be compelled to vow, but that there ought to be set forth to them both the rewards if they vow and render, and the punishments if they vow and do not render.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXI Y. Solvitur objectio sexta ex Patribus. Primus ex Patribus est Petrus cum omni¬ bus Apostolis, excepto Joanne : « Sumemus, inquit Petrus Martyr, principium ab Apos¬ tolis ; nam quodammodo sunt Patres Pa¬ trum. Illi autem quamvis essent sanctissimi, tamen non aspernati sunt conjugia. Imo si credimus Ambrosio, omnes habuerunt uxo¬ res praeter Joannem et Paulum. » Et infra: « Quamquam ita Ambrosium cito hoc lo¬ co, non ut prorsus concedam in eam sen¬ tentiam : unde enim sciebat ille, Paulum non habuisse uxorem? » Respondeo, qui ex Apostolis uxorem ha¬ buerint, et qui non habuerint, ex Scripturis certo constare non posse, excepto solo Pe¬ tro, cujus socrum legimus Matth. VIII. Joan¬ nem tamen virginem fuisse nemo dubitavit unquam. Id^m de Paulo, et ^Apostolis csete- ris probabiliter docet Hieronymus lib. I. con¬ tra Jovinianum. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, il¬ lud nobis satis est, et Petrum et Apostolos omnes, post vocationem a Christo, conti¬ nentes fuisse : « Sed, inquit Petrus Martyr, solent dicere Apostolos, postquam venissent ad Christum, repudiasse quodammodo uxo¬ res, et ab illarum consortio abstinuisse. Qui ista dicunt, sua tantum dicunt, nihil pro¬ bant ; imo absurde, et sine ratione dicunt; nam nisi intercessisset adulterium, nullo modo licuit discedere ab uxoribus. Nec Christus venit in mundum facere divortia, sed potius monet, ut quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. » Haec ille. Nos vero non dicimus ab Apostolis repudiatas uxores, quod Christus prohibet Matth. XIX. sed ex consensu abstinuisse a commercio conjuga¬ li. Nec enim S. Joseph ideo repudiasse di¬ cendus est Beatissimam conjugem suam, quia eam numquam cognoverit. Non enim carnalis copula, sed consensio animorum conjugium facit. Porro Apostolos omnes post vocationem renuntiasse officio conjugali, non tantum di¬ cimus, sed etiam probamus. Nam cum Pe¬ trus dixisset Matth. XIX : Ecce nos reliqui¬ mus omnia, Dominus addidit : Omnis, qui re¬ liquerit domum , aut parentes , aut fratres , aut uxorem etc. centuplum accipiet , et vitam aeter¬ nam possidebit. (I) Ubi satis aperte inter om¬ nia illa, quae legimus Apostolos reliquisse, videmus etiam conjuges numerari. Quod si relinqui non potest uxor, quin repudietur, accuset igitur Petrus Martyr Christum, qui praemium tam grande uxores relinquenti¬ bus pollicetur. Adde, quod non nos primi do¬ cemus, Apostolos coelibes post vocationem vixisse. Docuit id Clemens Alexandrinus lib. III Stromatum ; docuit S. Hieronymus lib. I. in Jovinianum ; docuerunt alii fere omnes nec ullus Catholicorum unquam contradi¬ xit. Secundo loco ponit Petrus Martyr Igna- tium, qui in epistola ad Philadelphienses dicit, non esse detrahendum nuptiis, quod. Patriarchae, Prophetae et Apostoli Mariti fuerunt. Repondeo, de Apostolis jam dixi- 38 (1) Math. XIX, 27 et 29. Tom. II. 594 LIBER II. mus, eos habuisse uxores, sed post vocatio¬ nem mutasse illas in sorores, ut Clemens Alexandrinus loquitur. Patriarchae et Pro¬ phetae tempori et statui legis veteris servie¬ bant. Quamquam, ut nonnulli prophetae, ut Isaias et Ezechiel, exemplo docuerunt non esse detrahendum nuptiis, ut recte Igna- tius monet, sic alii item Prophetae, ut He- lias, et Hieremias exemplum continentiae praebuerunt. Tertio ponit Justinum, qui in Apologiall. meminit continentiae, sed non meminit voti. Respondeo, quid hoc ad rem? Num ideo vo¬ vere non licet, quia Justinus non meminit voti ? Quarto ponit Dionysium Corinthium, qui in epistola ad Gnosios, teste Eusebio lib. IV. histor. cap. 23. monet Pinytum Episcopum Gnosiorum, ne compellat fratres ad servan¬ dam continentiam. Respondeo, quis nostrum contradicit ? Sed num quia non licet cogere fratres ad continentiam, non licebit etiam sponte illam suscipere? Qninto profert Irenoeum, qui lib. I. cap. 9. meminit uxoris Diaconi cujusdam ; et cap. 31. dicit, Tatianum haeresiarcham aequasse matrimonium scortationi. Addit Petrus Mar¬ tyr : « Et quid aliud nostri faciunt adversa¬ rii ? Imo isti matrimonium ministrorum sta¬ tuunt esse adulterio et scortatione deterius ; quid est consentire cum Tatiano, si hoc non est ? » Respondeo, quid est ineptire, vel potius impudenter mentiri, si hoc non est? Num ideo votum continentiae illicitum erit, quia Diaconus quidam uxorem habuit? Et unde probas Diaconum illum ab uxore non conti¬ nuisse post sacrum ordinem susceptum? Porro Tatianus vera et legitima matrimonia damnabat, et ideo haereticus erat; nos sa¬ crorum ministrorum conjugia, non conju¬ gia legitima, sed sacrilegia conjugii nomine tecta esse ostendimus, et ideo reprehendi¬ mus. Alioqui si Tatianum sectatur quicum¬ que conjugia illegitima non commendat, Tatianum etiam sectari dicetur, qui conju¬ gium parentis cum filia non probaverit. Ita¬ que S. Augustinus, quiTatiani haeresim op¬ time noverat, eam que damnaverat in lib. de haeresibus, cap. 25. idem tamen conjugia, quae post votum contrahuntur, pejora adul¬ teriis esse affirmat in libro de bono viduita¬ tis, cap. 41. Sexto loco profert Clementem Alexandri¬ num, qui in primo libro paedagogi, cap. 10. dicit, Christianos debere, aut matrimonium contrahere, aut pure vivere, si non contra¬ hant. Hinc enim colligit Petrus Martyr eos, qui non pure vivunt ex Monachis et Sacer¬ dotibus, debere matrimonium contrahere. At cur non potiifs colligit, debere eos mu¬ tare vitam, et mores emendare, et sic pure, ct caste vivere, et votum suum Domino red¬ dere? « Sed, inquit Martyr, idem Clemens in lib. III Stromatum dicit, Paulum habuis¬ se uxorem, Petrum, ac Phillippum liberos genuisse. » Respondeo, sed ibidem dicit, ante voca¬ tionem ad Apostolatum ista facta esse, pos¬ tea vero ab Apostolis uxores habitas loco sororum, non loco uxorum. Attexit deinde longissimam disputationem ejusdem Cle¬ mentis contra eos, qui nuptias damnant. Sed omnia sunt na pspyot, neque aliud probant nisi inopiam, qua ipse premitur, testimo¬ niorum, quae ad rem faciant. Septimo transit ad Tertullianum, ac pri¬ mum fatetur multa in Tertulliano esse pro Papistis, sed non esse fidem habendam Ter¬ tulliano, quod haereticus fuerit, et secundas nuptias prohibuerit. Sed facile hoc refelli¬ tur; nam etiamsi haereticus fuerit, non ta¬ men unquam a veteribus reprehenditur, quod votum continentiae asseruerit, sed ob alios errores, quos S. Augustinus notavit lib. de haeresibus, cap. 86. Deinde Petrus Martyr mentiri audet, in libro de velandis virginibus Tertullianum tractare, an solae nuptae debeant velato ca¬ pite ingredi Ecclesiam , an etiam virgines, non autem loqui de velo, seu habitu sacra¬ rum virginum. Sed adeo manifeste mentitur, ut non sit opus, nisi librum ipsum legere. Scribit enim adversus virgines saeculares, quae cum nudo capite incederent, aegre fere¬ bant, virgines sacras textas, et velatas pro¬ cedere, et adferebant in argumentum, quod Apostolus I. Corinth. XI. mulieres velari j usserit, de virginibus autem nihil dixerit : « Ambiunt, inquit, virgines hominum, ad¬ versus virgines Dei. » Et infra : « Scandali¬ zamur, inquit, quia aliter aliae incedunt, et malunt scandalizari, quam provocari. » Et infra : « 0 sacrilegae manus, quae dicatum Deo habitum detrahere potuerunt. » Et in¬ fra : « Nupsisti Christo, illi tradidisti carnem tuam, illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam, incede secundum sponsi tui voluntatem. Christus est qui et alienas sponsas et maritatas velari jubet; utique multo magis suas. » Denique CAPUT XXXIV. 595 liber S. Cypriani de habitu virginum ex libro Tertulliani expressus, satis aperte do¬ cet, de quibus virginibus Tertullianus lo¬ quatur. Sed habet Petrus Martyr ex Tertulliano insigne testimonium contra nos ; nam in lib. de monogamia, tractans locum illum I. Ti- moth. V: Volo juniores nubere, ita loquitur : « Ad eas dirigit, quales supra denotat, juven¬ culas viduas, quai in viduitate deprehensae, et aliquandiu affectatae, postquam in deliciis habuerunt Christum, nubere volunt habentes judicium, quod primam fidem resciderunt, illam videlicet, a qua in viduitate inventae, et professae eam, non perseverant. Propter quod vult eas nubere, ne primam fidem sus¬ ceptae viduitatis postea rescindant. » « Ex his verbis , inquit Martyr , alterutrum horum omnino intelligendum est, vel Pau¬ lum velle eas nubere, quamvis vovissent, idque magis Tertullianus videtur sentire, vel si non de viduis, quae professae sint, sed de similibus agatur, tamen Paulum eas quoque velle nubere, ne postea fidem datam rescin¬ dant. Haec quoque sententia contra adver¬ sarios nostros facit ; nam illi juvenculas, et pene puellas permittunt vovere, et in peri¬ culum incurrere, » Respondeo, priorem sensum nullo modo admittunt verbaTertulliani. Illa enim verba, « Propter quod vult eas nubere, ne primam fidem susceptae viduitatis postea rescindant,» apertissime monent eum loqui de illis, quae nondum voverunt. Nam quae semel vove¬ runt, et fidem primam resciderunt, quomodo possunt nubere, ne primam fidem rescin¬ dant, cum jam eam resciderint? et cum ipsum nubere, sit primam fidem rescindere? Tertullianus enim interpretatur primam fi¬ dem rescindere, non perseverare in profes¬ sione viduitatis. <t At, » inquit Martyr, « Paulus dicens : Volo juniores nubere, dirigit sermonem ad eas, quae primam fidem irritam fecerunt, ut Tertullianus dicit: vult igitur ApOstolus, ex interpretatione Tertulliani eas nubere, quae jam voverant. » Respondeo, dirigere ser¬ monem ad eas quae voverant, nihil aliud est, quam eas respicere, et ex earum ruina aliis prospicere de remedio, ut verba sequentia apertissime docent. Quod vero attinet ad posteriorem sensum, fatemur velle Aposto- tolum juvenculas nubere, sed ut supra ex Patribus ostendimus, non omnes juvenculas, sed eas tantum quae continere nolunt. Omitto hic mendacia reliqua Petri Martyris, cum dicit nos matrimonium impurum, et spur¬ cum appellare : et alia id genus, quorum Deo rationem in judicio reddet. Octavo loco ponit Origenem,in cujus libris nihil invenit pro se, nisi quod loca quaedam, pro se facere interpretatur, quia non faciant contra se, nimirum, ubi Origenes non vitu¬ perat nuptias, et multo magis ubi aliquid dicit in laudem nuptiarum. Ita profert multa ex commentariis Origenis in cap. XII. ad Roman. et in cap. XIX. et XXIII. Matthaei. Sed nihil omnino est quod ad rem faciat; nos enim nuptias longe magis honoramus, quam adversarii faciant, cum sacramentum Christi esse doceamus , quod illi pertina¬ cissime negant, et civilem contractum solum in nuptiis agnoscant. Nono venit ad Cyprianum, qui lib. I. epist. 11. ad Pomponium ita scribit de qui¬ busdam virginibus, quae posteaquam se Deo dicaverant, cum masculis cubare repertae fuerant: « Quod si ex fide se Christo dica¬ verunt, pudice, et caste sine ulla fabula per¬ severent, ita fortes, et stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent. Si autem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nu¬ bant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. » Hunc locum non Petrus Martyr solum, sed etiam Calvinus, Brentius, aliique ex adver¬ sariis objecerunt. Refellit quoque Petrus Martyr aliquot solutiones parum congruas, ut ostenderet argumentum plane esse inso¬ lubile. Sed responsio plana, et facilis in promptu est. Sanctus enim Cyprianus eo modo loquitur, quo Sanctus Paulus I. Ti- moth. V. nimirum occasione quarumdam virginum, quae parum honeste se gerebant post votum continentiae, monet alias, ut si non habent firmumpropositum perseverandi, non voveant, sed nubant. Hic igitur sensus est verborum Cypriani. « Quod si ex fide se Christo dicaverunt, pudice et caste sine ulla fabula perseverent. Si autem perseverare nolunt, aut non possunt, » id est, si dum de voto faciendo deliberant, cogitant se non perseveraturas, melius est ut nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. Esse autem hunc sensum eorum verborum probari potest. Primo, quia S. Cyprianus virginibus illis sub disjunctione concedit, ut nubant, si perseverare nolunt, aut non pos¬ sunt. -Proinde concedit, utnubaht, si tantum nolint perseverare, etiamsi alioqui possint. At post votum licitum esse nubere ei, qui 596 LIBER II. perseverare potest, ne Calvinus quidem, aut Petrus Martyr affirmaret. Secundo, de sacris virginibus in eadem epistola idem Cyprianus dicit, eas gravissime peccare si alicui viro misceantur; et non mariti, sed Christi adulteras esse : « Si su¬ perveniens , inquit , maritus sponsam suam jacentem cum altero videat, nonne indignatur, et fremit? et per zeli dolorem fortassis et gladium in manus sumit? Quid Christus Dominus et Judex noster cum vir¬ ginem suam sibi dicatam, et sanctitati suce destinatam jacere cum altero cernit, quam indignatur, et irascitur. Et quas poenas in¬ cestis ejusmodi conjunctionibus commina¬ tur? » Haec ille. Non ergo Cyprianus potuit ejusmodi virginibus Deo dicatis nuptias per¬ mittere , nisi incestam conjunctionem et manifestam Dei offensionem, seipso teste, permittere vellet. Quis vero credat tam stul¬ tum Cyprianum fuisse, ut sciens, et prudens gravissima crimina permitteret? Tertio, de virginibus Deo dicatis, quae jam lapsae fuerant, in eadem epistola jubet ut separentur, idque aliquoties repetit, et ne semel quidem admonet, posse eas cum stu¬ pratoribus suis, aut cum aliis inire matrimo¬ nium : « Quod si, inquit, obstinatae per¬ severant, nec se ab invicem separant, sciant se cum hac sua impudica obstinatione num- quam a nobis admitti in Ecclesiam posse etc. » Igitur cum supra monebat, ut nube¬ rent, non de iis loquebatur, quae jam vove¬ rant, sed de iis, quae adhuc sui juris erant. Urget Petrus Martyr illud verbum : a Aut non possunt, » quasi aliquae sint quae abso¬ lute non possint continere, etiamsi velint. Sed hoc supra explicatum est. Sic enim Cyprianus loquitur, quomodo Christus ipse, cum ait, qui potest capere, capiat. Illi enim dicuntur velle, et non posse, qui desiderant continere, sed non plena , et perfecta volun¬ tate. Proinde desunt illis vires efficaces ad continendum, quas tamen vires, si vellent in oratione laborare, non difficulter acqui¬ rerent. Alium locum ex libro de singularitate Clericorum, in disputatione de coelibatu sa¬ cerdotum explicavimus. Decimo ponit Eusebium Caesariensem, ex quo tamen nihil adfert nisi conjecturam quamdam, quod consecratio virginum solem- nis cceperittempore Constantini Imperatoris, antea vero »on fuerit. Conjectura Iisqc est, quod lib. IV. de vita Constantini, postea- quam narraverat, Constantini decreto abro¬ gatam fuisse legem veterem, quae privabat haereditate eos, qui liberos non habebant, continuo subjecerit Eusebius, mulieres ad perpetuam virginitatem se Deo consecrasse, necnon ad sacerdotium Dei. At haec conjec¬ tura nititur manifesto mendacio. Non enim Eusebius subjecit de virginum consecratione post narrationem de abrogata lege , sed praemittit tamquam rationem legis abroga¬ tae. Dicit enim, Constantinum legem illam abrogasse, quia multi viri, multaeque fe¬ minae liberis carebant, non ob impotentiam generandi, sed quia ob immensum amorem numinis, perpetuum coelibatum profiteban¬ tur. Undecimo loco Athanasium ponit, sed ne syllabam quidem unam pro se invenire po¬ tuit. Idcirco solum attulit loca quaedam contra se, et respondit, non esse Athanasium audiendum, non esse tolerandum, nimis multum sibi sumpsisse hunc patrem. Cen- turiatores cent. IV. cap. 4 coi. 267. et c. 6. 466. et cap. 7 coi. 486. proferunt unum Athanasii testimonium ex epistola ad Dra- contium, ubi dicit, se novisse Episcopos et Monachos, qui filios genuerint. Respondeo, nos etiam novisse permultos Monachos, .qui simul etiam Episcopi dici volebant, et filios genuerunt, nimirum Lu- therum , Bucerum, Martyrem, Ochinum , (Ecolampadium, Wigandum, et alios. Atha- nasius enim eo loco reprehendi! Episcopos et Monachos perdite viventes, ac dicit, non¬ nullos reperiri, qui filios genuerint. Nam alioqui id illicitum fuisse ex sententia Atha¬ nasii, patet ex cohortatione ad Monachos, ubi inter alia impedimenta monasticae vitae ponit, alligatum esse uxori, aut filiis impe¬ ditum. Duodecimo loco ponit Basilium, quem ab eruditione, et doctrina magnum appellatum fuisse dicit. Pro fert autem unum testimonium ex libro de virginitate, ubi Basilius arguit sacras virgines , quee perdite et flagitiose vivunt, ac dicit, longe esse praestabilius si viros habeant, iliisque subjectae sint, et offi¬ cium conjugale, ut decet, exerceant .-«Nihil, inquit Martyr, pro nobis dici potuit aptius.» Respondeo, non monet Basilius, ut sacrae virgines; quae flagitiose vivunt, relicta pro¬ fessione nubant , sed dicit, melius fuisse futurum, si nupsissent antequam voverent. Melius enim est in statu humiliore salvari, quam in sublimi damnari. Id ita esse pla¬ num est tum ex illis verbis : « Nam si abjecto CAPUT XXXIV. 597 | viri jugo, et ad vitam, ad quam conservandae domus, et procreandorum liberorum gratia, facta est inutilis, et professae virginitati pu¬ denda futura est, tota res damni plena est. Et longe praestabilius esset ipsam viro conjunc¬ tam ad vitam gubernari etc. » Ubi vid es nuptias suaderi, nonei quae vovitsedei,quae professae virginitati pudenda futura est, tum ex eodem libro, ubi Basibus fusissime probat, sacras virgines non posse ullo modo nubere :« Vir¬ ginitatem, inquit, professae, deinde a carnis voluptatibus incitatae, scortationis peccatum nuptiarum nomine velare volunt, non igno¬ rantes, opinor, etiam si ignorantiam simu¬ lent, quod quae sponsi sui dexteram praete¬ riit : neque hujus est sponsa, quem illegi¬ time reliquit, neque illius, cui seipsam per affectum vitiosum adjunxit, juxta leges uxor reperiri potest. » Et infra : « Ne decipiat seipsam , quod peccatum ipsi pro nuptiis reputabitur. » Et infra : « Non enim locum apud ipsum habebit nuptiarum praetextus. » « At, inquit Martyr, Basibus cum haec scripsit, oblitus erat sui. » Sed quis credat virum tam admirabilem, qui ab eruditione magni nomen invenit, in eodem libro tam aperte secum pugnare , nec potuisse tres paginas scribere, quin oblivisceretur sui? Omitto quae deinde attexit Martyr in repre¬ hensionem S. Basibi : non enim hic quaeri¬ mus, an recte dixerit, sed an dixerit id, de quo agimus. Quamquam etiam ad refutatio¬ nem calumniarum, et ratiuncularum Marty¬ ris, satis est scire, illum fuisse vere magnum Basibum, istum esse Petrum falso Martvrem appellatum. Adfert aliud testimonium ex qusest. 15. fuse explicata, sed ad rem non pertinet, et a nobis paulo infra refutabitur in disputatione de votis filiorum invitis pa¬ rentibus editis. Decimotertio ponit Gregorium Nazianze- num, ex quo nihil adferre potuit contra nos. Tantum adfert multa , quae dicit pro se facere, quia non faciunt contra se, nimirum ubi Nazianzenus scribit nuptias esse bonas. Adfert etiam multa, quae dicit se non pro¬ bare, ut quod Nazianzenus dicat virginitatem homines Angelis aggregare, nuptias pertur¬ bationis, virginitatem splendoris indicium esse, continentiam in arbitrio positam, ita ut possint continere omnes, qui volunt. Haec Martyr admittere se non posse dicit, sed non multum refert quid ipse admittat, modo Nazianzenus a Catholicis faciat. Decimoquarto ponit Hilarium , ex quo unum dumtaxat locum habere potuit, quem nobis objiceret. In reliquis Hilarium rejicit cum cseteris Patribus ; qui Papistis nimis aperte favent. Testimonium igitur contra nos profert Martyr ex commentario Hilarii in cap XIX. Matth. ubi sic loquitur : « Nobis circa Eunuchos sermo sit et voluntas; et in uno posuit naturam, in altero necessitatem, et in tertio voluntatem. Naturam in eo qui ita nascitur, necessitatem in eo, qui ita fac¬ tus est, voluntatem in illo, qui spe regni coe¬ lestis talis esse decreverit, qui nos similes effici, si tamen possimus, admonet. Ecce inquit Martyr, is non inquit, si tamen veli¬ mus ; sed , si possimus, rationem habens virium uniuscujusque nostrum, » Despondeo, nihil Hilarius addit ad verbum Domini : Qui potest capere , capiat. De quo loco satis multa diximus. Neque negamus habendam esse virium rationem, et eos non debere seipsos castrare ob regnum coelorum, qui nondum vires habere se sentiunt ad continendum, et c[ui proinde non possunt. Tamen addimus, eos, qui vires nondum ha¬ bent, et modo non possunt, posse tamen per orationem vires acquirere, quibus postmo- dum poterunt si voluerint. Alium locum ex Hilario proferunt Magde- burgenses, Gent. IY. cap. 4. coi. 300. ubi postquam posuerunt encomia virginitatis ex Athanasio, ita subjungunt : « Contra hanc superstitiosam opinionem videtur Hilarius in Psal. LXIY. loqui : Cernimus nudis Phi¬ losophos algere corporibus. Ipso etiam con¬ jugiorum usu Magistri abstinent, haeretici sicco panis cibo vivunt. Sed quis tandem otiosi hujus propositi profectus? Totum hoc inane, et ridiculum est, et cum ipsis super¬ stitionis causis miserabile. Deo ergo vovenda sunt contemptus corporis, castitatis custodia, jejunii tolerantia. Vota enim tantum Eccle¬ siasticae religionis utilia sunt, quae cum et dignis Deo cautionibus et propositae in Ec¬ clesia observantiae studio probantur. » Ex his verbis Magdeburgenses collegisse videntur, vovendum esse corporis contemp¬ tum, sed non extremum illum usque ad nu¬ ditatem, et algorem ; vovendam castitatem, sed conjugalem, non virginalem; vovenda jejunia, sed non ardua illa, quibus nonnulli solo pane vivunt. At non hoc Hilarius dicit, sed monet, continentiam, jejunia, corporis contemptum, extra Ecclesiam nihil prodesse, multum autem prodesse si in Ecclesia prop¬ ter Deum suscipiantur, ipsiqueDeo vovean- 598 LIBER II. * tur. Explicat enim illa verba Psalmi : Tibi reddetur votum in Hierusalem (l).Et vim facit in illis vocibus : Tibi et in Hierusalem, id est, Deo, et in Ecclesia. Atque inde superstitiosa vocat continentiam, et jejunia Gentilium, quia non Deo ; et haereticorum, quia non in Ecclesia offeruntur. Quociica Petrus Martyr ex hoc loco Hilarii colligit, Hilarium sensisse, votum coelibatus debere fieri ad placendum Deo. Sed addit, sibi hanc Hilarii sententiam non probari. Decimoquinto ponit Epiphanium, ex quo duo testimonia profert, unum ex lib. de hse- resib. hseresi 48. ubi sic legimus : « Nos vero non necessitatem imponimus, verum cum bono consilio admonemus, exliortantes eum qui potest, non autem necessitatem imponi¬ mus non potenti, neque rejicimus ipsum a vita, » Ex his verbis arguit Catholicos Petrus Martyr quod imponant necessitatem coeli¬ batus, quia non admittunt ad sacros ordines nisi ccelibes : Et rursus, quod dicant omnes posse continere, si velint ; quorum utrumque reprobat Epiphanius. Sed de hoc posteriore jam saepe diximus, quomodo verum sit quos¬ dam posse et non posse continere. Nam non possunt, dum non habent donum, et tamen * possunt absolute, quia possunt donum pe¬ tere et habere. Et tamen interim non nega¬ mus, quin male faciant, qui vovent eo tem¬ pore, quo se donum non habere sentiunt, et pejus etiam faciunt, qui ejusmodi homines impellunt, aut etiam cogunt ad vovendum. De priore autem, manifesta calumnia est ; nam etsi non admittimus ad sacros ordines, nisi ccelibes, tamen sicut non cogimus ad ordines suscipiendos, ita nec ad coelibatum profitendum. Itaque idem ipse Epiphanius, qui neminem vult cogi ad coelibatum, affirmat non debere admitti ad sacros ordines nisi ccelibes. Sic enim loquitur Epiphanius haeresi 59. « Revera non suscipit sancta Dei prcedicatio post Christi adventum eos, qui mortua sua uxore secundis nuptiis conjuncti sunt, propter ex¬ cellentem sacerdotii honorem et dignitatem ; sed et adhuc liberos gignentem unius uxoris virum non suscipit, sed eum, qui se ab una continuit, aut in viduitate vixit, Diaconum, et Presbyterum, et Episcopum, et Ifypodia- conum. y> Aliud testimonium proferunt, tum Petrus Martyr, tum etiam Joannes Brentius ex eo¬ dem libro haeresi 61 . ubi sic legimus : « Me¬ lius est lapsum a cursu palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem et a virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere, et non quotidie jaculis sauciari. » Respondeo primo, Epiphanius videtur di¬ cere, minus malum esse nubere post votum, quam occulte et assidue scortari : non tamen dicit, non esse malum nubere post votum, quod adversarii dicunt, et de quo nostra controversia est. Nam in eodem loco paulo ante Epiphanius sic ait : « Sancti Apostoli tradiderunt, peccatum esse post decretam virginitatem converti ab nuptias. » Et paulo post, monet illud Pauli : Si nupserit virgo , non peccavit, intelligi debere de ea quae non¬ dum est dicata Deo. Et infra, illud I. Ti- moth. Y. Damnationem habent, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt (2), dicit maxime per¬ tinere ad virgines, quae nubere volunt post votum. Denique ipse etiam Petrus Martyr, fatetur Epiphanium nobiscum facere : « Numquam inquit, afferui, Epiphanium facere mecum, quod dicat esse peccatum matrimonium inire, post votum editum. » Et infra : « In eo itaque mecum non convenit Epiphanius ; sed tamen in eo quod illas nuptias, et veras esse dicat, et licitas. » Haec ille. Qui mani¬ feste secum pugnat, vel Epiphanium falso pugnare secum ipsum afferit. Nam peccatum esse nuptias inire post votum, et nuptias esse licitas post votum pugnantia sunt : utrum¬ que tribuit Martyr Epiphanio , qui tamen constanter primum asserit semper, alterum numquam. * Secundo dico, probabile esse, Epiphanium non voluisse etiam dicere, minus malum esse nubere post votum, quam scortari, sed hor¬ tatum esse ad nuptias eos, qui sine voto perseverabant in ccelibatu, et tamen flagi¬ tiose vivebant; nam in eo loco distinguit duo genera virginum. Unum eorum, qui ex electione, et professione, ac voto virgines erant, et de his saepius repetit, non licere sine gravissimo crimine post dicatam Deo virginitatem converti ad nuptias. Alterum eorum, qui tempore adolescentise non inve¬ nerunt commodas nuptias, et ideo quasi ne¬ cessario permanserant toto eo tempore coe- libes, deinde cum jam provecti essent aetate, erubescebant converti ad nuptias, atque (1) Psal. LXIV, 2. - (2) I. Cor. VII, 28; I. Tim. Y, 19. CAPUT XXXIY. 599 idcirco coelibes permanere deereverant : in- terim tamen occulte scortabantur, et coram hominibus virgines erant, coram Deo nequa¬ quam. Hos ergo hortatur, ut agant poeniten- tiam propter amissam per fornicationem virginitatem, et ad matrimonium confugiant, magisque timeant Dei condemnationem quam hominum judicia. Itaque cum ait Epiphanius : « Melius est unum peccatum habere, quam multa, » non vult dicere, melius est peccare semel nu¬ bendo post votum, quam ssepius scortari, sed melius esse post unam fornicationem transire ad nuptias, quam coelibem manendo exponere se periculo assidue scortandi. Et cum hortatur eum, qui a cursu lapsus est, ut uxorem accipiat, non vocat cursum votum coelibatus, sed ipsum coelibatum, quem ille longo tempore libere servaverat, et postea per fornicationem corruperat. Hoc dico valde esse probabile, tum quia verba Epiphanii hunc sensum patiuntur, tum etiam quia non est cre¬ dibile Epiphanium hortari voluisse ad id, quod ipse fatetur esse contra Apostolicas sanctiones. Decimosexto proponit Petrus Martyr Chry- sostomum, ex quo nihil adfert, nisi laudes nuptiarum, quse niljil causas nostrae officiunt. Sed Magdeburgenses Gent. Y. cap. 4. coi. 444. producunt testimonium Chrysostomi ex oratione de cohabitatione regularium mu¬ lierum cum viris, ubi hortatur virgines sa¬ cras, ut potius aperte nubant, quam cum viris ita cohabitent : « Nam illas nuptias, inquit, neque Deus condemnat, neque homi¬ nes reprehendunt. Honesta enim res est, neminem offendens, neminem laedens. Vir¬ ginitas autem illa cum viris plusquam stu¬ prum ipsum ab omnibus arguitur. » At non satis fideliter haec verba Magde¬ burgenses retulerunt. Siquidem omiserunt ea, quse proxime praecedunt ; ex quibus apertissime colligitur, Chrysostomum loqui de nuptiis, quse votum praecedunt, non de iis, quse illud sequuntur. Sic ait : « Nam si habere cohabitatores concupiscis, non opor¬ tebat virginitatem eligere, sed ad nuptias transeundum erat. Multo enim melius sic nupsisse, quam illo modo virginem profiteri, fuisset ; nam illas nuptias neque Deus con¬ demnat, etc. » Et infra : « Si concupiscunt virum, et nuptias, quis prohibebat, et liber¬ tatem adimebat, ne hoc facerent? » Hsec ille. Loquitur ergo Chrysostomus, quomodo Cyprianus, et Basilius loquebantur, de eo, quod debuisset fieri ante votum, non de eo, quod post votum fieri debuit. Idem enim Chrysostomus in epist. 6. ad Theodorum, diserte dicit matrimonium post vota monas¬ tica non matrimonium, sed quid adulterio pejus esse. Exstat apud Chrysostomum alius locus, qui contra vota objici potuisset, quamvis eum non legerim ab aliquo adversariorum notatum fuisse, lib. III. adversus vitupera¬ tores vitse monasticEe, sub finem ita loquitur Chrysostomus : « Ergo ns intempestive li¬ beros nostros ab deserti commoratione re¬ vocemus, verum studii coelestis disciplinam in eis solidam permittamus, altisque radici¬ bus arbusta firmari, et sive decem annos, sive etiam viginti nutriendi illi sint in mo¬ nasterio, non perturbemus. » Ex his verbis colligi videtur, non fuisse Monachos votis adstrictos, aut certe vota ipsa libera fuisse Chrysostomi aetate, quandoquidem domum ex monasterio redire poterant. Respondeo : duo erant genera hominum, qui in monasteriis eo tempore vivebant. Alii enim monasticem profitebantur, et hi votis adstricti erant, nec redire poterant ad nego¬ tia saecularia. Alii solum ad tempus in Mo¬ nasteriis degebant, non tam ut Monachi fie¬ rent, quam ut in pietate, et virtutibus exer¬ cerentur. Hi vero nullis votis alligati erant, et cum volebant abire ex monasterio, pote¬ rant. De his ergo posterioribus hoc loco Chrysostomus loquitur. Quod etiam ex eo cognosci potest, quod omnes cives hortatur, ut ad monasteria filios suos mittant, necnon, ut ipsi etiam, licet conjugati, eo se confe¬ rant, ibique aliquandiu commorentur. De prioribus loquitur S. Basilius cap. 21 Cons¬ titutionum, ubi multis rationibus ostendit non licere Monacho domum redire. Ipse etiam Chrysostomus in epist. 6. ad Theo¬ dorum : « Equidem fleo, inquit, non quod paternarum rerum sollicitudinem geras, sed quod negligendo calcaveris quidquid ante de pectore Christo spoponderas. Ad hsec inhorresco, his angor, et crucior ; propter ista formido non immerito. Ut enim non ob¬ jicitur desertio militiae, non militanti; ita is, qui semel cceperit esse miles, cum deseruisse detegitur, poena ultima dignus judicatur. ;> ItemTheophylactusin cap. YIII. Matth.: e Si autem, inquit, illi neque patrem sepelire licuit, vse his, qui monasticem professi ad mundana regrediuntur negotia. » Decimoseptimo ponit Petrus Martyr Am- 600 LIBER II. brosium, ex quo quia nihil adferre potuit contra vota continentiae, invehitur in ejus libros de virginibus plane aureos et dulcis¬ simos. Dicit Ambrosium sibi ipsum non constare , quod nunc doceat virginitatem non imperari, sed consuli ; nunc vero ipse idem eam imperet, cum prohibeat virgines Deo sacratas nubere. Sed non intelligit iste falsus Martyr carnali amore caecatus, neque quod loquatur, neque de quibus affirmet. Aliud enim est imperare virginitatem, aliud eam exigere ab eo, qui sponte se obligavit. Denique libros illos de virginibus, qui tan¬ topere displicent Petro Martyri, S. Hierony¬ mus mirifice laudat in epist. 22. ad Eusfco- chium. Decimooctavo ponit Hieronymum, ex quo unum locum profert ex epist. 8. ad Deme¬ triadem. Deinde acerbe satis reprehendit libros S. Hieronymi adversus Jovinianum. Sed posteriori objectioni sat est opponere S. Augustinum, qui in epist. 29. ad Hiero¬ nymum, libros illos contra Jovinianum sua¬ vissimam et praeclarissimam disputationem appellat. Necnon ipsum Hieronymum, qui in Apologia pro libris suis contra Jovinia¬ num, eas calumnias, quas nunc Petrus Mar¬ tyr profert, jam ante refutavit. Porro testimonium in epist. ad Demetria¬ dem, hoc est : « Sanctum virginum propo¬ situm, et coelestis , Angelorumque familiae gloriam, quarumdam non bene se agentium nomen infamat, quibus aperte dicendum est, ut aut nubant, si se non possunt continere, aut contineant, si nolunt nubere. » « Haec verba, inquit Martyr, non possunt intelligi de iis qui nondum voverint. Quia nemo ho¬ nestat aliquem ordinem nisi fuerit in illuni adscriptus. Nullus turpi vita infamasset Apostolos, nisi inter eos fuisset annume¬ ratus. » Respondeo, loquitur S. Hieronymus de ancillis sacrarum virginum nobilium. Erant enim quaedam virgines sacrae foeminae nobi¬ lissimae, quae domi suae vivebant, et multis ancillis comitatae procedebant. Saepe autem fiebat, ut aliquae ancillarum, quae quidem nullum habebant votum, parum pudice vi¬ vendo dominas infamarent. Sic enim pergit ibidem Hieronymus post verba citata : « Digna res risu, imo planctu, incedentibus dominis, ancilla virgo procedit ornatior, ut prae nimia consuetudine quam incomptam vi¬ deris, dominam suspiceris. » Et paulo supe¬ rius : a Mores enim, et studia dominarum plerumque ex ancillarum et comitum mori¬ bus judicantur.» Porro ancillas virginum sacrarum non fuisse omnes sacras virgines, perspicuum est ex epist. 22. ad Eustochium ; ubi monet virginem Eustochium, ut ex ancillis, si quas habeat ejusdem propositi, eas magis hono¬ ret, et ad mensam suam adhibeat, ut earum honor aliarum sit invitatio. Ubi etiam addit heee verba de ancillis, quas dixerat invitan¬ das ad continentiam ex aliarum honore : « Si qiue dissimulat, et servitutem refugit, illi Apostolum legito, melius est nubere, quam uri. » Ubi docet, esse quidem provo¬ candas ancillas ad propositum continentiae, sed non esse cogendas. Aliud testimonium ex Hieronymo proferri potuisset ; sic enim loquitur ad sacram vir¬ ginem in epist. 47. de vitando suspecto con¬ tubernio : « Si virgo es, quid times diligen¬ tem custodiam? si corrupta, cur non palam nubis? » Esse autem virginem sacram, quam alloquitur, patet ex verbis illis ejusdem epi¬ stolae : « Non tibi displiceat ejus conversatio, quae te sponso tuo virginem consecravit. » Respondeo, loquitur Hieronymus de qua¬ dam virgine, quae non in monasterio publice professa fuerat (nam in ep.dem epistola hor¬ tatur eam, ut se conferat ad monasterium) sed privatim voverat continentiam, ut eo tempore multae facere solebant ; ac deinde relicta matre vidua, juveni cuidam adhae¬ serat, et cum eo vivebat non sine suspicione impudicitiae. Hanc ergo Hieronymus monet, ut potius aperte nubat, quam perpetuo cum aliorum scandalo impudice vivat. Neque ita hoc monet, quasi peccatum non sit, quod adversarii volunt, nubere post votum, sed quia minus peccatum non sit, et prudentia ac ratio doceat, ex duobus malis minus esse eligendum. Quod autem S. Hieronymus malum esse putet, nubere post votum, non negat Petrus Martyr, cum id millies repetat S. Hieronymus lib. I contra Jovinianum, et aliis in locis, sed preeterea id ipsum habemus hoc loco ; nam postquam dixerat : « Si cor¬ rupta es, cur non palam nubis ? » Ita sub¬ jungit : « Neque vero hoc dico, quod post peccatum tollam poenitentiam, ut quod male coepit, male perseveret, sed quod desperem in istiusmodi copula divulsionem. » Hoc est, non hortor ut nubas, quia cupiam in eo, quod male coepisti fornicando, male perse¬ veres nubendo, et non potius cupiam poeni¬ tentiam, et emendationem ; sed quia despero CAPUT XXXIY. 601 te posse separari a viro, ideo malo, quod minus est malum, ut marito adhsereas, non fornicario. Est autem hoc loco observandum, nuptias post votum simplex, de quo Hieronymus loquitur, licet sine peccato contrahi neque¬ ant, tamen veras nuptias esse ; et ideo aliquo modo minus malum esse, nubere post votum ejusmodi, quam assidue fornicari, tum ob fidem conjugii, tum ob prolem legitimam, tum ob alia bona : tamen etiam aliquo modo, ut nos supra diximus, est majus malum sic nubere, quam fornicari, quia, qui ita nqbit, reddit se inhabilem ad votum servandum, quod non facit, qui fornicatur. Decimonono ponit Augustinum, quem in primis fatetur adversari sibi, et suis Luthe- ranis apertissime; sic enin ait#M< Haec om¬ nia votorum genera , id est , virginum, viduarum, conjugatarum, vult Augustinus et firma, et valida esse, ita ut gravissime peccent, qui post ea nuncupata, matrimonia contraxerint.» Et post testimonia allata sub¬ jungit : « Ista vir Dei scribit, ut homo de¬ ceptus. » Atcurnonsitverisimilius decipi Martyrem, quam illum virum Dei, qui etiam adversariis testibus doctissimus atque sanctissimus fuit? Adfert deinde duo loca pro se. Unum ex libro de sancta virginitate, cap. 40. et 41. ubi Augustinus dicit, impossibile esse, aut valde difficile intelligere, cur Deus uni det con¬ tinentiae donum, alteri non det. Ex quo loco colligit Martyr, non posse omnes qui volunt , haberent donum hoc. Si enim omnes qui volunt, haberent donum, non esset difficile intelligere, cur uni daretur, alteri non daretur. Causa enim esset, quia unus vult, alius non vult. Alterum testimonium sumitur ex lib. de bono viduitatis cap. 9. et 10. et ex epist. 70. ad Bonifacium, ubi S. Augustinus docet, nuptias post votum ratas esse, ac veras, nec debere dissolvi. Tertium testimonium addit Brentius ex lib. de bono conjugali, cap. 21. ubi S. Au¬ gustinus non audet anteponere virginitatem §ancti Joannis, conjugio Abrahse. Addo ego quartum testimonium ex lib. de sancta virginit. cap. 34, ubi sic loquitur S. Augustinus de virginibus quibusdam sacris : «Hae nubere volunt, et ideo non nu¬ bunt, quia impune non possunt, quae melius nuberent, quam urerentur. » Respondeo ad primum testimonium, et dico, S. Augustinum loqui de dono con¬ tinentiae, non quo fit, ut aliquis continere possit , quod nemini negari dicimus , sed quo fit, ut re ipsa aliquis contineat ; quod non datur, nisi iis, quibus Deus dandum esse judicaverit. Neque est hoc proprium dono continentiae, sed commune cum dono fidei, dilectionis , perseverantiae , aliisque donis ejusdem generis. Siquidem omnes justi vere perseverare possunt, si velint, et tamen impossibile est intelligere, cur Deus uni justo det perseverantiae donum, ita ut reipsa infallibiliter perseveret, alium cadere sinat, nec det ei eam gratiam, qua efficaciter perseveret : lib. de spiritu et littera cap. 34 : « Jam si ad illam profunditatem , inquit, scrutandam quisquam me coarctet, cur uni ita suadetur, ut persuadeatur, alteri non item, duo interim occurrunt quae respondere libeat : 0 altitudo divitiarum. Et : Non est iniquitas apud Deum. » Sed de his alibi dis¬ putandum est. Ad secundum dico, Augustinum voluisse quidem nuptias post votum esse veras nup¬ tias , sed simul asseruisse (quod Petrus Martyr non negat) gravissime peccare eas, quae post votum nubunt; sic enim ait lib. de bono viduitat. cap. 9 : « Damnantur tales viduae, non quia conjugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiae primam fi¬ dem irritam fecerunt. » Et cap. 11. « Non possim dicere a proposito meliore lapsas, si nupserint, foeminas, adulteria esse, non conjugia, sed plane non dubitaverim dicere, lapsus et ruinas a castitate sanctiore, quae vovetur Deo, adulteriis esse pejores. » Haec ille. Itaque testimonium Augustini nihil efficit contra id, quod nunc defendimus, non licere nubere post votum. Sed instat Petrus Martyr : In eo saltem contradicitis Augustino, quod matrimonia Monachorum et Sanctimonialium irrita esse decernitis. Respondeo : convenit inter Theologos, matrimonium post votum simplex continen¬ tiae illicitum quidem esse, tamen ratum, nec dirimendum : post votum solemne nul¬ lum esse. Sic enim Innocentius I. docet in epist. 2. et post eum Gelasius in epist. I. ac Toletanum Concilium I. can. 16. Utrum autem post solemne votum, nullum fit ma¬ trimonium jure divino et naturali, an so¬ lum jure Ecclesiastico, quaestio est. Nam Albertus, B. Thomas, B. Bonaventura, Bi-' chardus, et Durandus in IV. dist. 38. et 602 LIBER II. Dominicus a Soto lib. VII. de justitia et jure, quaest. 2. art. 5. volunt jure divino, ac naturali matrimonium nullum esse, si post votum solemne contrahatur. Atque hi dice¬ rent S. Augustinum de voto simplici tantum esse locutum, non de solemni, ut etiam S. Hieronym, in epist. 47. de vitando sus¬ pecto contubernio. Contra vero, S. Basi- lium in lib. de virginit. et Chrysostomum in epist. 6. ad Theodorum, de voto solemni. AtScotus etPaludanusinIV. dist. 38.etCa- jetanus in 2. 2. q. LXXXVIII. art. 7. et om¬ nis schola Jurisconsultorum, ut refert Pa¬ normitanus in cap. Rursus. Qui Clerici vel voventes, asserunt solo jure Ecclesiastico matrimonium irritum esse, quod post vo¬ tum solemne contrahitur. Atque hi Augusti¬ num et Hieronymum , vel de voto simplici locutos esse dicerent, vel de solemni secun¬ dum regulas juris divini ac naturalis. De¬ cretum enim Ecclesiasticum, quo inhabiles fiunt ad matrimonium, qui votum habent solemne, ad eorum notitiam non pervenisse. Utraque sententia probabilis est; nec est nostrae considerationis hoc loco quaestionem istam definire. Ad tertium dico, S. Augustinum eo loco non conferre virginitatem cum conjugio ab¬ solute, sed virginitatem unius personae cum conjugio alterius personae. Etsi enim abso¬ lute virginitas longe excellat conjugio, ut Augustinus, cum alibi saepe, tum in ipso libro de bono conjugali, cap. 23. affirmat : tamen potest fieri, ut virginitas conjuncta sit in uno homine cum minore charitate, hu¬ militate, aliisque virtutibus, quam conju¬ gium in altero homino. Idcirco non possu¬ mus anteponere virginem conjugato, nisi constet in caeteris virtutibus illos esse pares. Ad quartum dico , S. Augustinum eo modo esse locutum, quo S. Hieronymus in epist. 47. nimirum minus malum esse aperte nubere ei, qui simplex votum habet, quam perpetuo occulte fornicari. Vicesimo adducit Leonem, ex cujus ope¬ ribus unum testimonium profert ex epist. 87. alias 85. ad Episcopos Africae, ubi Leo ita loquitur : « Dicente Apostolo, ut inter alias Christianismi regulas is Episcopus or¬ dinetur, quem unius uxoris virum fuisse, aut esse constaret, tam sacra semper habita est ista praeceptio, ut etiam de muliere sa¬ cerdotis eligenda, eadem intelligatur ser¬ vanda conditio. » Videtur enim hic dicere Leo, non modo posse Episcopum ordi¬ nari, qui uxorem habuerit, sed etiam qui habeat ; et praeterea posse Episcopum, qui non habet uxorem, eam ducere, si vo¬ luerit. Sed ad hoc testimonium jam respondi in disputatione de coelibatu sacerdotum. Ad¬ mittimus enim Episocpum fieri posse, qui uxorem habeat, modo ab ea se continere de¬ inceps velit. Posse autem Episcopum uxo¬ rem ducere numquam sensit, vel scripsit S. Leo; siquidem in codicibus emendatiori¬ bus non habetur : « De muliere sacerdotis eligenda, » sed, « de muliere sacerdotis eligendi. » jubet enim S. Leo, ut non solum arceatur a sacerdotio, qui plures uxores ha¬ buit, sed etiam is qui unam habuit, quae tamen alterius antea fuerit. Consule epist. 84. ad Anastasipn, ubi disertis verbis Leo do¬ cet, non modo Episcopum, sed etiam Pres¬ byterum, Diaconum et Subdiaconum debere innuptum esse, vel continentem. Postremo loco adducit Petrus Martyr Gre- gorium I, qui lib I. epist. 42. ita scribit : « Ante triennium omnium Ecclesiarum Siciliae Subdiaconi prohibiliti fuerunt, ut more Romanae Ecclesiae suis uxoribus non miscerentur, quod mihi durum atqua in- competens » (impium pro incompetens, Pe¬ trus Martyr legere maluit ad rem exagge¬ randam) « videtur, ut qui usum continentiae non invenit , neque castitatem promisit, compellatur a sua uxore separari, atque hoc, quod absit, in deterius cadat. » Ex his mul¬ ta deducit Martyr, quae adversus Catholicos pugnare videntur. Primum est, Romanum Pontificem, qui prohibuerat , ne Subdiaconi Siciliae suis uxoribus miscerentur, fecisse contra Nicae¬ nam Synodum, quae Paphnutio auctore de¬ crevit, non esse Clericis prohibendum pro¬ priae uxoris commercium. At fabulam istam Paphnutianam in disputatione de coelibatu sacerdotum evidenter, ut arbitror, confuta¬ vimus. Praeterea, si unus Romanus Pontifex praeceptum paulo durius, et incompetens, ut S. Gregorius dicit, imposuit, mox illud a successore temperatum fuit. Secundum est, non fuisse eo tempore vo¬ tum annexum sacro ordini. Gregorius enim dicit, durum sibi esse visum, ut Subdiaconi castitatem tenere cogerentur, qui non pro¬ miserant. At si in Sicilia Subdiaconi non vovebant, num alibi nusquam vovebant? Imo abusus erat, quod in Sicilia non vove¬ rent. Atque idcirco ibi S. Gregorius jubet, CAPUT XXXV. 603 moneri Episcopos, ut nullum ordinent Sub- diaconum, qui non antea continentiam vo¬ veat. Tertium est tyrannidem hanc a Romana Ecclesia coepisse, in Orientali autem seu Graeca Ecclesia ejusmodi usum non fuisse. Sed mendacium apertissimum est , non fuisse usum continentiae Subdiaconorum, atque ordinum etiam superiorum in Orientali et Graeca Ecclesia ante tempora S. Gregorii. Contrarium enim disertis verbis docet Epi- phanius haeresi 59. Hieronymus lib. in Vi¬ gilantium. Leo epist. 84. et alii quos supra citavimus in disputatione de coelibatu sacer¬ dotum. Quartum est, Gregorium, licet admodum superstitiosum, vidisse tamen hoc esse du¬ rum, et alienum a pietate, et moderari co¬ natum, non tamen potuisse quantum vole¬ bat, ob canones et decreta. Sed quod sanc¬ tissimum virum admodum superstitiosum Petrus Martyr vocat, facit more suo. Quod ait eum vidisse hoc esse alienum a pietate, mentitur, ut solet. Non enim impium, sed incompetens Gregorius esse dixerat praede¬ cessoris sui decretum. Quod, addit S. Gre¬ gorium moderari conatum canones praede¬ cessorum, sed non tantum fecisse quantum voluisset, plane divinat, vel somniat potius. Gregorius enim, ut summa potestate, ita etiam summa libertate utebatur in iis, quae ad Dei honorem , et Ecclesiae utilitatem pertinere videbat. Adferunt alii quidam adhuc unum testi¬ monium ex Gelasio Papa. Is enim epist. I. ad Episcopos Lucaniae, cap. 23. de viduis, quae continentiam voverant, loquens, ait : « Nos talibus nullum laqueum debemus in¬ jicere , sed j solum adhortationes praemii sempiterni, poenosque proponere divini ju¬ dicii, et ut nostra sit absoluta conscientia, et illarum pro se raitionem Dei reddat in¬ tentio. » Haec ille. Respondeo : laqueus, de quo Gelasius lo¬ quitur , non est , ut adversarii credunt, nuptiarum prohibitio iis quae voverant, sed iis quae non voverant. Nam ante dixerat Ge¬ lasius eas, quae voverunt, non posse nubere sine peccato : « Sicut, inquit, si se continere non poterant, secundum Apostolum nullate¬ nus nubere vetabantur : sic habita secum deliberatione, promissam Deo pudicitiae fi¬ dem debent custodire. » Vult igitur Gelasius * non debere cogi viduas ad vovendum, sed exponenda illis esse, et priemia si voveant, et reddant, et supplicia si voveant, et non reddant.