Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 5: Lies XI to XV: The Old Rites, the Few Abuses, and the Celibacy of Priests
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, Judicium de Libro Concordiae, a judgement of 1585 on the Lutheran Formula of Concord. 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 Eleventh Lie
Page 22, in article 21 of the Confession: “Among us,” they say, “the old rites are for the most part carefully observed. For it is a false slander that all ceremonies, all old institutions, are abolished in our Churches.”
What kind of lie this is, anyone will understand without trouble who is willing to compare with the present state of the Protestant Churches what Tertullian, Basil, Epiphanius, Augustine and other ancient writers left written about the rites of the Church. Certainly Tertullian, in the book On the soldier's crown, counts among the church ceremonies: to renounce the devil and his pomps before Baptism, to be dipped three times in the sacred font, to make yearly offerings for the dead, to mark the forehead with the sign of the cross at every going forward. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, chapter 27 [“21” in the scan], puts among the rites of the Church: to pray toward the East, to sign with the cross, the words of invocation while the Eucharist is shown, the blessing of the water of baptism, the blessing of the oil of anointing, the blessing of him who is baptized, the threefold immersion, and so on. Epiphanius, in the summary of the teaching of the Church, puts in the first place the profession of virginity, then also of widowhood, then the solitude of the Anchorites, the fasts of the fourth and sixth day, the fast of Lent, the stricter abstinence in the holy week of the Lord's passion, the memory of the dead in the prayers, the night and morning singing of psalms and hymns, the various rules of monks, of whom some abstained from meat, others also from eggs, others also from fish, and so on.
Lastly Augustine mentions the consecration of water by the sign of the cross, book 6 against Julian, chapter 8; exorcism and breathing out, in the book On the grace of Christ, chapter 40; the anointing we use in Baptism, book 2 of the Gospel questions, chapter 40; likewise the Chrism with which we are anointed after Baptism, book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 26; the sign of the cross, with which the Chrism is blessed and with which we are signed on the forehead when we receive the sacrament of Confirmation, on Psalm 141 and tractate 118 [“418” in the scan] on John; water to be mixed with wine in the sacred chalice, book 4 On Christian teaching, chapter 21; the fast of the 4th and 6th day, letter 86 to Casulanus; the Lenten fast, on Psalm 110; the choice of foods on fast days, book [the number is damaged in the scan] against Faustus, chapter 5; the vow of continence even after marriage, letter 45 to Armentarius; the vow of virginity, in the book On holy virginity, chapter 29; the vow of poverty, book 17 of the City of God, chapter 4; monks and anchorites, in the book On the ways of the Church, chapter 31; the vow of Monks, on Psalms 75 and 99 [“xcic” in the scan]; pilgrimages to holy places, letter 137 to his clergy and people.
Further, these and like things, which were in use in the ancient Church and now too keep their place in the Catholic Church, are not only not kept by the Lutherans but even mocked; and yet in the Confession they dare to say that the old rites are carefully kept by them, and that it is a false slander that they have abolished the institutions of all the ancients and almost all ceremonies.
The Twelfth Lie
Page 22, in the preface on the abuses changed: “Since the Churches among us,” they say, “disagree with the Catholic Church in no article of faith, and only leave off a few abuses,” and so on. These words are convicted of lying by the last part of this Concord, where they teach things about Christ which fight openly with the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and that of Athanasius, as we have already shown above. But this is not to be passed over: when they say they do not disagree with the Catholic Church except because of a few abuses, and those new, if by the Catholic Church they understand the one which now obeys the Roman Pontiff, they confess that they are outside the Catholic Church. And let them see for themselves whether it was lawful to separate from the Catholic Church because of a few abuses. But if by the Catholic Church they understand some ancient Church, they lie when they say these abuses are new; for they were in the ancient Church, if that is the catholic one from which they disagree only by reason of the abuses.
The Thirteenth Lie
Page 23, in the article on the marriage of priests: “In Germany,” they say, “priests were first forced to celibacy by violence 400 years ago.” Philip repeats the same in the Apology. But there is extant the Council of Mainz, celebrated in Germany in the time of the emperor Arnulf, 600 years ago, whose tenth canon decrees that no woman at all, not even a sister or mother, be permitted to live with churchmen. There is extant the Council of Worms, celebrated in Germany 700 years ago, whose ninth canon runs thus: “It is decreed that bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons abstain from their wives and do not beget children; and if they violate this decree, let them be driven from the honour of the clergy.” There is extant the Council of Aachen, celebrated in the time of Louis the Pious, in the year of the Lord 816, that is, 714 years before the Augsburg Confession, in canon 6 of which perpetual continence is laid on subdeacons; and what is said of subdeacons is without doubt understood of the higher grades. There is extant lastly the letter of Zachary, Roman Pontiff, to Boniface, Bishop and Apostle of the Germans, written 800 years ago, where we read thus: “From the day they receive the priesthood they are to be forbidden even their own marriage.” This law the Magdeburg Centuriators also mention, Century 8, chapter 10, column 704. So the lie of the Confession is refuted by as many witnesses as there were Bishops sitting in the three Councils cited above, with the testimony of the Roman Pontiff added.
The Fourteenth Lie
Page 24, in the same article on the marriage of priests: “And the thing was done,” they say, “so uncivilly that not only were marriages forbidden for the future, but even present ones were broken up, against all laws divine and human, against the very canons made not only by Pontiffs but by most praised synods.” This too can be counted among the famous lies of the Confession.
For there are two questions about the marriage of priests. One, whether it is lawful to take a wife after receiving holy orders. The other, whether it is lawful for one who took a wife before holy ordination to give himself at once both to the priesthood and to marriage. And to the first question all the Lutherans answer, in words and in deeds, that it is lawful. But to want to defend this from the mind of the ancient canons, which either Councils or Pontiffs issued, is too open a shamelessness. For even the Greek Church, which yet was always more liberal in this matter, both condemns and at all times condemned marriages after ordination. There is extant the Council of Neocaesarea, celebrated 1200 years ago, in whose first canon we read thus: “If a priest takes a wife, let him be removed from his order.” And the Trullan Synod, canon 6, forbids bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons to presume to take a wife after receiving orders. The same prohibition we read in the Roman synod under Sylvester, canon 8; in the second Council of Toledo, chapter 1; in the canons of the Apostles, canon 27; in the decree of Callixtus I in Gratian, distinction 27, canon Presbyteris; in letter 82 of Leo I to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, chapter 4; and in the letters of Gregory I, book 1, letter 42. Nor was there ever any disagreement on this in the Catholic Church.
Add that Paphnutius and Ulric, whom the adversaries are accustomed to bring forward for their cause in season and out of season, affirm this very thing. For Socrates, book 1, chapter 8, and Sozomen, book 2, chapter 22 [as printed; the story is in Sozomen book 1], write that Paphnutius in the Council of Nicaea, while explaining his opinion on the marriage of clerics, said among other things that according to the old canons churchmen must be forbidden to take wives after holy ordination. Ulric too, in the Letter to Nicholas, which the Magdeburg Centuriators report and often press (Century 6, chapter 7, column 388; and chapter 10, column 686; and Century 9, chapter 10, column 540), openly teaches that it is not lawful for priests and monks to take wives, and that if they have taken them they must be separated. And although we do not wholly approve either the story of Paphnutius or the letter of Ulric, yet I wanted to show that on the question of new marriages of priests the adversaries are refuted not only by our side but also by their own patrons.
Now as to the other question, namely whether it is lawful for priests to give themselves to having children: Philip affirms it, and so strongly that he contends that to take marriage away from priests is against the old canons which both Pontiffs and most praised Synods made. It is a wonder, though, why neither in the Confession nor in the Apology did he bring forward any such canon. For we on the contrary can bring forward all the canons of the Churches, which forbid consecrated men all use of wives. By these Philip's lie is most evidently confuted.
And first, from the Eastern Church we bring the first Council of Nicaea, in the 3rd canon of which bishops, priests and deacons are forbidden to have any woman in the house except a mother, or sister, or aunt. Where no mention is made of a wife, who yet ought to have been named in the first place if living with her were lawful for priests. And that this was the mind of the Nicene Council we shall prove by three witnesses most worthy of belief. For Basil, in the letter to George [as printed; Basil’s letter 55 is to the priest Gregory], orders the said George to be separated from his wife according to the sense of this canon. Epiphanius, in heresy 59, which is that of the Cathari, writes thus: “But one who is still living and begetting children, the husband of one wife, it does not receive; but him who has kept himself from his one wife, or lived in widowhood, as deacon, priest, bishop and subdeacon, especially where the church canons are sound. But you will tell me that in some places priests and deacons and subdeacons still beget children. But this is not according to the canons, but according to the mind of men, which has grown slack with time.” Jerome in the book against Vigilantius: “What will the Churches of the East do?” he says. “What those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which either receive virgin clerics, or, if they have had wives, they cease to be husbands?”
From the African Church we have as witness the second council of Carthage, canon 2, where we read thus: “It pleases all that bishops, priests, deacons, or those who handle the sacraments, guardians of chastity, abstain also from their wives, so that what the Apostles taught and antiquity itself kept, we too may guard.” The fifth council of Carthage has the same, canon 3, and the African council, canon 77. To these Augustine subscribes, who says in book 2 On adulterous marriages, chapter 20: “We are accustomed to set before them the continence of clerics, who are mostly taken unwillingly to take up that burden, and, having taken it up, carry it through to the due end with the Lord's help.”
From the Spanish Church we have as witness the Council of Elvira, most ancient, canon 33; Toledo II, canon 1; Toledo IV, canon 26; Toledo VIII, canon 6; which forbid the use of wives even to subdeacons.
From the Gallican Church we have as witness the second Council of Arles, celebrated 1200 years ago, in whose 2nd canon it is provided: “That no married man be taken up to the priesthood unless he has promised continence from his wife.” Likewise Orleans III, canon 2: “That no cleric,” it says, “from subdeacon upward, have intercourse with his own wife, if perhaps he already has one.” The same is commanded by the Council of Agde, canon 92 [as printed], Tours I, canons 1 and 2, and Tours II, canon 20.
From the German Church we have already cited above three ancient Councils, Aachen, Worms, Mainz.
From the English Church we have as witness Bede, who says in book 3 On the tabernacle, chapter 9: “No one can either receive the priesthood or be consecrated to the ministry of the altar unless he has either remained a virgin or dissolved the bonds of marriage contracted with a wife.”
From the Italian Church, lastly, we have as witness St. Ambrose, who says in book 1 On duties, the last chapter: “You know that the ministry is to be kept unoffending and spotless, and not to be violated by any marital intercourse.” Likewise Pope Siricius in the letter to Himerius, chapter 7; Innocent I in the letter to Victricius, chapter 9, and to Exuperius, chapter 1; Leo I in letter 90, to Rusticus, chapter 3; and Gregory I, book 3, letter 34. But let us hear Leo's words in the Letter to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica: “The choosing of all priests,” he says, “is so excellent that things which in other members of the Church are free from fault are held unlawful in them. For while those set outside the order of clerics are free to give themselves to the fellowship of marriage and the begetting of children, yet, to show the purity of perfect continence, fleshly marriage is not allowed even to subdeacons; so that those who have may be as not having, and those who have not may remain single and unmarried.”
To these are added the examples of all antiquity. For as many bishops and priests as were famous and praised from Apostolic times either never took a wife at all, like Athanasius, Basil, both Gregories, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, and countless others; or had wives indeed but did not give themselves to them after receiving the priesthood, like Gregory the father of Gregory the theologian, Hilary, Paulinus, and not a few others. Certainly the adversaries have not yet been able to find in all antiquity a single praised bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon or monk who took a wife, or begot children from a wife married before. Let the Confession see, then, against what canons the Pontiffs act when they do not allow priests to give themselves to marriage and the begetting of children.
The Fifteenth Lie
Page 25, in the same article: “Hence,” they say, “priests are tortured with capital punishments, against the will of the canons, for no other cause but marriage.” If this is not a lie, let the adversaries bring forward even one canon where it is forbidden that priests be punished if they try to take a wife. For we have already brought forward many canons in which continence is laid on priests; and surely it cannot be against the canons if a penalty is set against the violators of the canons.
“But,” says Philip in the Apology, “the canons only suspend from office; you suspend from trees.” So Philip confesses, first of all, that Luther his teacher, and all the other ministers of the new Gospel who would not do without wives, were by the judgement of the canons suspended from office; and since they nevertheless wished to carry out the office, they stood out as contumacious and rebels against the laws of all the Churches, for which crime they could surely have been rightly suspended from trees. Next, neither is it true that the ancient canons only suspended from office. For there is extant canon 1 of the second council of Toledo, where it is decreed that those who take a wife after holy orders, or return to her whose company they had already left, are to be held as strangers by the Church, as guilty of sacrilege. And in the eighth council of Toledo, canon 6, those who are joined to wives after holy orders are ordered to be sent away to monasteries under the burdens of penance to the end of their life. And in the second council of Tours, celebrated over 1000 years ago, canon 16, there are these words about Monks (such as Luther, Bucer, Martyr, Ochino and others of the evangelicals were): “If any have been converted in a monastery, let them in no way have leave to wander about, nor, God forbid, let any of them take a wife. For if he takes a wife, let him be excommunicated, and separated from the company of the wife wrongly joined to him, even with the judge's help. And if that unhappy monk, defiled by such a union, tries to defend himself by anyone's patronage, both he who persists in this obstinacy and those who have taken him up to defend him are to be cut off from the Church until he returns within the walls of the monastery and does the penance laid on him by the abbot for as long as he is ordered, and after satisfaction returns to grace.” Gregory of Tours writes, book 4 of the history of the Franks, chapter 4, that a certain notable count, who, having left his wife's bed by mutual consent, had been admitted to holy orders, and then, stirred by the devil, had presumed to return to her, was at once excommunicated by the one sentence of all the Bishops. And many like examples or decrees could be brought forward if need required.
Add lastly that the Church never punished priests for marriages (as Philip lies) but for sacrileges. For just as (as Augustine says in the book On the good of widowhood, chapter 9) widows who marry after a vow are not condemned because they entered later on a marriage faith, but because they made void their first faith of continence: so too the Church does not punish priests because they want to enter marriage, but because by contracting marriage after a solemn vow they do not contract a true marriage but commit sacrilege. And if Augustine in the same book, chapter 11 [“41” in the scan], says that the falls of widows who marry after a simple vow of continence are worse than adulteries, what would he say of the fall of priests who, after a solemn vow, by taking concubines under the name of wives, violate at once marriage and the priesthood?
And if they contend, as they do, that vows of continence are not to be kept, they are now not only sacrilegious but also heretics, and can rightly be suspended from trees, since they contradict the Apostle, who says, 1 Timothy 5: Avoid the younger widows; for when they have grown wanton in Christ they will marry, having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. That this place is to be understood of the violation of a vow of continence is taught by two ancient councils, Carthage IV, canon 104, and Toledo IV, canon 55; by two ancient Pontiffs, Innocent I in Letter 2, chapter 13 [“23” in the scan], and Gelasius I in his Letter, chapter 23; by all the interpreters of this place, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Bede, Haymo; and lastly by the other Fathers, Tertullian On monogamy, Basil On virginity, Epiphanius heresy 48, Jerome book 1 against Jovinian, Augustine On the good of widowhood, chapters 8 and 9.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
XI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 22. in artic. 21. Confess. : « Apud nos (inquiunt), magna ex parte veteres ritus di¬ ligenter observantur. Falsa enim calumnia est, quod omnes cseremonife, omnia vetera instituta, in Ecclesiis nostris aboleantur ». Quale sit hoc mendacium nullo negotio in- telliget, qui conferre voluerit cum priesenti statu Ecclesiarum Protestantium, ea qure de l itibus Ecclesiee scripta reliquerunt Tertul¬ lianus, Basilius, Epiphanius, Augustinus, aliique veteres scriptores. Certe Tertullianus in lib. de corona militis, inter ecclesiasticas caeremonias numerat, ante Baptismum re¬ nuntiare diabolo, et pompis ejus, ter mergi in sacro fonte, oblationes anniversarias pro defunctis facere, ad omnem progressum fron¬ tem crucis signaculo terere. Basilius lib. de Spiritu sancto ad Amphilochium cap. 21. inter Ecclesiae ritus ponit, orare ad Orien¬ tem, cruce signare, invocationis verba dum ostenditur Eucharistia, benedictionem aquae baptismatis, benedictionem olei unctionis, benedictionem ejus qui baptizatur, trinam immersionem, etc. Epiphanius in compendia¬ ria doctrina Ecclesia?, primo loco ponit vir¬ ginitatis professionem, deinde etiam vidui¬ tatis, tum solitudinem Anachoretarum, jeju¬ nia quartae et sextae feriae, jejunium quadra¬ gesimae, arctiorem abstinentiam in sacra heb¬ domada passionis Dominicae, memoriam de¬ functorum in precibus, nocturnas et matu¬ tinas psalmorum, et hymnorum celebratio¬ nes, varia monachorum instituta, quorum alii a carnibus abstinebant, alii etiam ab ovis, ailii etiam a piscibus etc. Denique August. meminit consecrationis aquae per signum crucis, lib. vi. contra Julianum, cap. 8. Ex¬ orcismi et esufflationis, lib. de gratia Christi, cap. 40. Unctionis, qua utimur in Baptismo, lib. ii. qusest. Evangelica cap. 40. Item Chri¬ smatis, quo inungimur post Baptismum, lib. xv. de Trinit. cap. 26. Signo crucis, quo be¬ nedicitur Chrisma, et quo signamur in fronte, dum sacramentum Confirmationis accipi¬ mus, in psal. cxli. et tract. 418. in Joan. Aquee miscendae vino in sacro calice, lib. iv. doctrin. Cbrist. cap. 21. Jejunii 4. et 6. fe¬ rire, Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. Jejunii qua- dragesimalis, in psal. cx. Delectus ciborum in diebus jejuniorum, lib. m. contra Fau¬ stum, cap. o. Yoti continentire etiam pnst conjugium, Epist. 45. ad Armentarium. Yoti virginitatis, lib. de sancta virginitate, cap. 29. Voti paupertatis, lib. xvii. de Civit. Dei cap. 4. Monachorum , et Anachoretarum . lib. de moribus Ecclesiae, cap. 31. Yoti Mo¬ nachorum, in psal. lxxv. et xcic. Peregrina¬ tionum ad loca sancta, Epist. 137. ad cle¬ rum et populum suum. Porro haec et similia, quae in veteri Ecclesia in usu erant, et nunc etiam in Ecclesia catholica locum suum reti¬ nent, uLutheranis non modo non servantur, sed etiam irridentur; et tamen in Confes¬ sione dicere audent, veteres ritus a se dili¬ genter servari, et falsam esse calumniam, quod omnium veterum instituta, atque om¬ nes ferme ca?remonias aboleverint. XII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 22. in preefat. de abusibus mutatis : d Cum Ecclesia?, inquiunt, apud nos de nullo articulo fidei dissentiant ab Ecclesia catho¬ lica, tantum paucos quosdam abusus omit¬ tant etc. ». Ha?c verba mendacii arguuntur ab ultima parte hujus Concordiae, ubi ea de Christo docent, qua? cum Symbolo aposto- lico, Nica?no, et Athanasii, aperto pugnant, ut supra jam ostendimus. Illud autem non est praetereundum, quod cum dicunt, se ab Ecclesia catholica non dissentire, nisi pro¬ pter paucos, eosque novos abusus, si per Ec¬ clesiam catholicam intelligunt eam, qua? nunc paret Romano Pontifici, fatentur se ex¬ tra Catholicam esse. Et sane viderint ipsi, an propter paucos abusus ab Ecclesia catho¬ lica separari licuerit. Si vero per Catholicam intelligunt antiquam aliquam Ecclesiam, mentiuntur, cum dicunt, hos abusus esse novos ; fuerunt enim in antiqua Ecclesia, si illa est ea catholica, a qua non dissentiunt, nisi ratione abusuum. XIII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 23. in articulo de conjugio sacerdo¬ tum : « In Germania, inquiunt, primum ante annos 400. sacerdotes vi coacti sunt ad coe¬ libatum )>. Quod idem repetit Philippus in Apologia. At exstat Concilium Monguntinum, celebratum in Germania tempore Arnulphi imperatoris, ante annos 600, cujus decimus canon statuit, ut nulla pcenitus mulier, ne soror quidem aut mater, cum ecclesiasticis habitare permittatur. Exstat Concilium Wormatiense, in Germania ante annos 700. XIV. MENDACIUM. 119 celebratum, cujus nonus canon ita habet : Placuit, ut episcopi, -presbyteri, diaconi, et subdiaconi abstineant se ab uxoribus, et non generent filios; quod si hoc decretum viola¬ verint, ab honore clericatus pellantur. Ex¬ stat Concilium Aquisgranense, tempore Lu- dovici Pii celebratum, anno Domini 81G, id est, annis 714 ante Confessionem Augusta¬ nam, in cujus Concilii canone 6. indicitur subdiaconis perpetua continentia ; et quod de subdiaconis dicitur, sine dubio de altiori- bus gradibus intelligitur. Exstat denique epistola Zacharise Romani Pontificis, ad Bo- nifacium Episcopum et Apostolum Germa¬ norum, scripta ante annos 800, ubi sic legi¬ mus : A die suscepti sacerdotii, etiam ab ipso proprio conjugio prohibendi sunt. Cujus legis meminerunt etiam Magdeburgenses, Centur. 8. cap. 10. coi. 704. Mendacium igi¬ tur Confessionis tot testibus refutatur, quot Episcopi in tribus supra citatis Conciliis con¬ sederunt, addito etiam Romani Pontificis te¬ stimonio. XIV. MENDACIUM. Pag. 24. in eodem articulo de conjugio sacerdotum : « Et res, inquiunt, gesta- est tam inciviliter, ut non solum in posterum conjugia prohiberentur, sed etiam praesen- tia, contra omnia jura divina et humana, contra ipsos etiam canones, factos non solum a Pontificibus, sed a laudatissimis synodis, distraherentur ». Et hoc numerari potest in¬ ter illustria mendacia Confessionis. Duce sunt enim queestiones de conjugio sacerdotum. Una, an liceat post sacros ordines susceptos uxorem ducere. Altera, an liceat ei, qui duxit uxorem ante sacram ordinationem, simul et sacerdotio et conjugio operam dare. Ac de prima quidem quaestione Lutherani omnes, et verbis et factis respondent, licere. Sed hoc, ex sententia veterum canonum, quos vel Concilia, vel Pontifices ediderunt, velle defendere, nimis aperta impudentia est. Nam etiam Graeca Ecclesia, quae tamen in hac parte semper liberalior fuit, et dam¬ nat, et omni tempore damnavit conjugia post ordinationem. Exstat Concilium Ncocae- sariense, ante annos 1200 celebratum. In cujus I canone sic legimus : Presbyter si uxorem duxerit, ordine suo moveatur. Et Synodus Tralliana, canone 6. prohibet, ne episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi, post ordines susceptos uxorem ducere prae¬ sumant. Quam eamdem prohibitionem legi¬ mus in synodo Romana sub Syl vestro, cun. 8. In Concilio Ii. Toletano cap. i. in canonibus Apostolorum, ean. 27. can. in Decreto Ca- lixti I apud Gratianum dist. 27. can. Pre¬ sbyteris. In epist. 82. Leonis I ad Anasta¬ sium, Thessalonica5. Episcopum cap. 4. Et in epistolis Gregorii i lib. i. epist. 42. Nec ulla fuit unquam de hac re in Ecclesia catholica dis¬ sentio. Adde, quod hoc ipsum affirmat Pa- phnutius et Udalricus, quos adversarii pro sua causa opportune et importune adducere solent. Scribunt enim Socrates lib. i. cap. 8. et Sozomenus lib. n. cap. 22. Papbnutium in Concilio Nicaeno, dum sententiam suam de conjugio clericorum explicaret, inter alia dixisse, oportere juxta veteres canones, ec¬ clesiasticis prohibere, ut post sacram ordi¬ nationem uxores ducant. Udalricus quoque in Epist. ad Nicolaum, quam referunt Mag¬ deburgenses, et saepius inculcant, cent 6. cap. 7. colum. 388. Et cap. 10. coi. 686. Et cent. 9. cap. 10. coi. 540 aperte docet, non licere presbyteris, et monachis uxores du¬ cere, et si duxerint, debere separari. Et quamquam nec historiam Paphnutii, nec epist. Udalrici omnino nos probamus : tamen ostendere volui, in quaestione de novis nu¬ ptis sacerdotum, non solum a nostris, sed etiam a suis patronis adversarios refutari. Jam vero de altera quaestione. An videli¬ cet liceat sacerdotibus liberis operam dare ; Philippus affirmat, et quidem ita, ut subtra¬ here sacerdotibus conjugium, esse contendat contra veteres canones, quos tam Pontifices, quam laudatissimae Synodi condiderunt. Mirum autem est, cur nec in Confessione, nec in Apologia, ullum talem protulerit ca- nonem. Nos enim econtrario, omnes Eccle¬ siarum ’ canones proferre possumus, quae omnem usum uxorum sacratis hominibus interdicunt. Ex quibus Philippi mendacium evidentissime confutatur. Ac primum ex Orientali Ecclesia, proferi¬ mus Nicaenum concilium I in cujus Concilii 3 canone prohibetur episcopis, presbyteris, diaconis, ne ullam domi mulierem habeant, praeter matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam. Ubi nulla uxoris fit mentio, quae tamen primo loco nominari debuit, si ejus cohabitatio sa¬ cerdotibus licita esset. Ac eam mentem Ni¬ caeni Concilii fuisse, tribus testibus fide di¬ gnissimis comp ro babi mus. Basilius enim in epistola ad Georgium, ex hujus canonis sententia, praedictum Geor- 120 MENDACIA CONCORDLE. gium ab uxore separari preccipit. Epiphanius in hseresi 59. qu?e est Catharorum, ita scri¬ bit : Sed et adhuc viventem, et liberos gi¬ gnentem, unius uxoris virum, non suscipit ; sed eum qui se ab una continuit, aut in vi¬ duitate vixit, diaconum, et presbyterum, et episcopum, ct hypodiaconum, maxime ubi sinceri sunt canones ecclesiastici. At dices mihi, in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gi¬ gnere presbyteros et diaconos, et hypodia- eonos. At hoc non est juxta canones; sed juxta hominum mentem, qua} per tempus elanguit. Hieronymus in lib. contra Vigilan¬ tium : Quid facient, inquit, Orientis Eccle¬ siae? quid Hrgypti, et Sedis Apostolicae, qua} aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt? Ex Ecclesia Africana testem habemus, concilium II Carthaginiense, can. 2. ubi sic legimus : Omnibus placet, ut episcopi, pres¬ byteri, diaconi, vel qui sacramenta contre¬ ctant, pudicitiae custodes, etiam se ab uxo¬ ribus abstineant, ut quod 'Apostoli docue¬ runt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus. Idem habet concil. Carthagi¬ niense V can. 3. et concil. Africanum, ca¬ non. 77. His subscribit Augustinus, qui in lib. ii. de adulterinis conjugiis cap. 20 : So¬ lemus, inquit, eis proponere continentiam clericorum, qui plerumque ad eam sarcinam subeundam capiuntur inviti, eamque susce¬ ptam usque ad debitum finem, Domino adju- Arante, perducunt. Ex Ecclesia Hispanica testem habemus Concilium Elibertinum , antiquissimum, can. 33. Toletan. II can. 1. Toletan. IV can. 26. Toletan. VIII can. 6. quae etiam subdia- conis usum uxorum prohibent. Ex Ecclesia Gallicana testem habemus Concil. Arelatense II ante annos 1200 cele¬ bratum, in cujus 2 canone cavetur : Ne ullus conjugatus ad sacerdotium assumatur, nisi continentiam ab uxore promiserit. Item Au- relianense III canone 2. Ut nullus, inquit, clericorum a subdiacono et supra, propriae, si forte jam habeat, misceatur uxori. Quod idem praecipiunt Agathense Concilium, ca¬ none 92. Turonense I can. 1. et 2. Et Turo- nense II canone 20. Ex Ecclesia Germanica, jam supra citavi¬ mus tria antiqua Concilia, Aquisgranense, Worrna tiense , Mo ngu nt in um . Ex Ecclesia Anglicana testem habemus Dedam, qui lib. iri. de tabernaculo cap. 9 : Nemo, inquit, potest vel sacerdotium susci¬ pere, vel ad altaris ministerium consecrari, nisi aut virgo permanserit, aut contracta cum uxore matrimonii foedera solverit. Ex Ecclesia denique Italica, testem habe¬ mus D. Ambrosium, qui lib. i. de officiis cap. ult. « Inoffensum, inquit, exhibendum, et immaculatum ministerium, nec ullo conjugali coitu violandum cognoscitis. Item Siricium papam in epist. ad Himericum cap. 7. Inno¬ centium I in epist. ad Victricium cap. 9. et ad Exuperium cap. 1. Leonem I in epist. 90, ad Rust. cap. 3. Et Gregorium I lib. m. epist 34. Sed verba Leonis audiamus in Epi¬ stola ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem epi¬ scopum : Omnium, inquit, sacerdotum tam excellens est electio, utheee, quai in aliis Ec¬ clesiae membris vacant a culpa, in illis tamen habeantur illicita. Cum enim extra clerico¬ rum ordinem constituti, nuptiarum societati, et procreationi filiorum studere sit liberum, ad exhibendam tamen perfectae continentiae puritatem, nec subdiaconis quidem carnale connubium conceditur, ut et qui habent sint tamquam non habentes et qui non habent permaneant singulares, et innupti. His accedunt exempla totius antiquitatis. Quotquot enim ab Apostolicis temporibus episcopi, et presbyteri celebres et laudati fuerunt, omnino aut uxorem numquam du¬ xerunt, ut Athanasius, Basilius, uterque Gregorius, Chrysostomus, Ambrosius, Hie¬ ronymus, Augustinus, Leo, et alii innume¬ rabiles ; aut uxores quidem habuerunt, sed illis post susceptum sacerdotium uperam non dederunt, ut Gregorius pater Gregorii theologi, Hilarius, Paulinus, et alii non pauci. Certe unum aliquem laudatum episcopum, presbyterum, diaconum, subdiaconum aut monachum, qui duxerit uxorem, aut ex uxo¬ re antea ducta, filios procreaverit, adhuc adversarii invenire in tota antiquitate mi¬ nime potuerunt. Videat igitur Confess. con¬ tra quos canones, Pontif. agant, cum sacer¬ dotes non patiuntur nuptiis et procreationi operam dare. XV. MENDACIUM. . • Pag. 25. in eodem articulo : « Hinc, in¬ quiunt, capitalibus poenis excruciantur sa¬ cerdotes, contra canonum voluntatem, nul¬ lam aliam ob causam, nisi propter conju¬ gium». Si hoc non est mendacium, profe¬ rant adversarii, vel unum canonem ubi pro¬ hibitum sit, ne sacerdotes excrucientur, si uxorem ducere tentaverint. Nos enim jam XV. MENDACIUM. 121 canones multos produximus, in quibus indi¬ citur continentia sacerdotibus ; et sane con¬ tra canones esse non potest, si poena statua¬ tur in canonum violatores : u At, inquit, Philippus in Apologia, canones tantum sus¬ pendunt ab officio, vos autem suspenditis ab arboribus ».Ergo fatetur in primis Phiilippus, Lutherum, praeceptorem suum, et omnes alios novi Evangelii ministros, qui uxoribus carere noluerunt, ex canonum sententia, suspensos ab officio fuisse, et cum nihilomi¬ nus officio fungi voluerint, contumaces, et rebelles, contra leges omnium Ecclesiarum exstitisse, propter quod crimen, jure sane ab arboribus suspendi potuissent. Deinde, neque est verum, antiquos canones solum ab officio suspendisse. Exstat enim canon i. II concilii Toletani, ubi statuitur, ut qui post sacros ordines uxorem ducunt, aut ad eam redeunt, acujus contubernio jam recesserant, ut sacrilegii rei ab Ecclesia habeantur extra¬ nei. Et in concilio Toletano VIII can. 6. qui post sacros ordines uxoribus copulantur, ju¬ bentur sub poenitentiae oneribus usque ad extremum vitae ad monasteria relegari. In concilio vero Turonensi II ante 1000. annos celebrato can. 16. habentur haec verba de Monachis, (qualis Lutherus, Bucerus, Mar¬ tyr, Ochinus, et alii fuerunt ex evangelicis). Si qui in monasterio conversi sunt, nullate¬ nus habeant licentiam evagandi, nec, quod absit, ullus eorum conjugem ducere. Nam si uxorem duxerit, excommunicetur, et de uxoris male sociatae consortio, etiam judicis auxi¬ lio, separetur : qui infelix monachus, tali conjunctione foedatus, si per cujuscumque patrocinium se conatus fuerit defensare, et is qui in hac pertinacitate perdurat, et illi qui eum susceperint defensandum, ab Ecclesia segregentur donec revertatur ad septa monasterii, et indictam ab abbate, quamdiu praeceptum ei fuerit, agat poeniten¬ tiam, et post satisfactionem revertatur ad gratiam. Scribit Gregorius Turonicus lib.iv. historiae Francorum c. 4. Insignem quemdam comitem, qui dimisso, ex consensu mutuot uxoris thoro, sacris ordinibus initiatus fue¬ rat, ac deinde a diabolo instigatus, ad eam- dem redire praesumpserat, mox fuisse una omnium Episcoporum sententia excommu- nicatum. Et multa similia vel exempla, vel decreta, proferri possent, si necessitas po¬ stularet. Accedit postremo, quod numquam Eccle¬ sia sacerdotes punivit* propter conjugia, (ut mentitur Philippus) sed propter sacrilegia. Sicut enim (ut August. dicit, in lib. de bono viduitatis cap. 9.) non damnantur viduae, quae nubunt post votum, quia conjugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continen" tiae primam fidem irritam fecerunt. Sic etiam non punit Ecclesia sacerdotes, quia conju¬ gium inire volunt ; sed quia conjugium post solemne votum contrahendo, non verum conjugium contrahunt, sed sacrilegium com¬ mittunt. Etsi August. in eodem libro cap. 41. lapsus viduarum, quae post simplex votum continentiae nubunt, adulteriis pejores esse dicit, quid de lapsu sacerdotum diceret, qui post solemne votum, uxorum nomine concu¬ binas ducendo, conjugium simul et sacerdo¬ tium violant ? Quod si contendant, ut faciunt, vota continentiae non esse servanda, jam non sacrilegi solum, sed etiam haeretici sunt, et merito ab arboribus suspendi possunt, cum Apostolo contradicant, dicenti I Tim. v. Adoleseentiores viduas devita, cum enim lu¬ xuriatae fuerint, in Christo nubere volunt, habentes damnationem, quia primam fidem irritam fecerunt : quem locum de voti con¬ tinentiae violatione esse intelligendum, do¬ cent duo antiqua concilia, Carthaginiense IY. canone 104. et Toletan. IY. canon. 55, duo antiqui Pontifices, Innocentius I, in Epist. 2. cap. 23. et Gelasius I, in Epistl. cap. 23, omnes interpretes hujus loci, Chry- sostomus, Theodoretus, Tlieophylactus, OE- cumenius, Ambrosius, Sedulius, Primasius, Beda, Haymo, et caeteri denique Patres, Tertullianus de Monogamia, Basilius de vir¬ ginitate, Epiphanius haeres. 48. Hieron. lib. i. in Jovinianum, Augustinus de bono vidui¬ tatis cap. 8. et 9.