Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Quaestio III: Whether, and how, this state is Holy

THIS status, so illustrious, this member so vivid and laborious of the mystic body of the Church, has been hated by heretics from ancient times; and therefore they tried to torment and tear apart Monks with the sword, with flames, and with every force of tortures. But the unhappy Sectaries of this age pursue the religious life with such hatred that their Books and sermons are filled with gibes and most grievous insults, to stir up the hatreds of all men against them; hardly anything else do they more sharply reprehend. I lament, for from their very ranks very many, having shaken off the holy yoke of Religion, have rushed into the abyss of all crimes, and, with most shameful nuptial chambers, have even defiled the sacred Sacrament of matrimony with Nuns taken from Monasteries; but they did not touch the Sacrament of matrimony. They were rather most filthy concubinages, which they adorned with most foul epithalamiums. Thee I adjure from the abyss, most wretched Heresiarch, thee most unhappy apostate from Religion, from faith, thee most filthy suitor of a holy woman, strangled by a demon in her lap that night, I summon, most lost Luther. Come forth to confess thy filthiness. This indeed I should promise myself, that no other arguments would be needed than to learn the confession of this reprobate from the place of torment.

PLURIMA he wrote in his most filthy Epithalamium, which he weaves onto chapter 7. of the former epistle to the Corinthians, with brazen face and impious hand. He has much in his other works deserving to be burned, On Monastic Vows, and the rest.

PLURIMA that unspeakable Calvin too, marked with the coal of burned Pentapolis, perverter of nature and of the foul, exhaled in those pestilential corrupting Institutions of his, especially book 4. chapter 13.

PLURIMA also the bitter Melancthon, and others of this same sort, not men but Wolves, vomited forth. See them in Bellarmine Tom. I. lib. 2. de Monachis. and Bouerio exam. 2. Cens. 18. errore 3.

These men, therefore, cry out that the Monastic life is a new invention of superstition, a cult of the devil, a plague of the Church, a monster, brought forth with no hand of Divine authority acting as midwife from the deep abyss of Tartarus into the light, in order to overthrow true religion.

But we, on the contrary, will show that it is a most ancient exquisite mode of Divine worship, a holy buttress of the Church, proceeding from the bosom of God, and a hammer of heretics. Since indeed I find very many things recorded in monuments of letters, I will expose them according to custom in the Arena, which my Seraphic Saint Bonaventure wrote.

FIRST indeed, these religious men, whom I have undertaken to defend, are called by the Greeks by five names, men destined, namely, for Divine worship; for this the Latins hold as the chief name. Thus D. Dionys. cap. 6. Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae, where he says that Monks were called by the Apostles. Therapeutae, because they worshipped God purely, beyond the others. Philo uses the same name at the beginning of the book de contemplativa vita, and D. Basil everywhere, who also calls his discourses on Monastic matters Ascetical.

These are they whom the most ancient Fathers call Monks, and the champions of the Church, because their life is to be exercised unceasingly in the arena of the virtues.

A MONK however is said from Monos, which in Greek means singular, as D. Bonav. teaches, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 32. from D. Isidore in ethymol. lib. 7. cap. 13. He concludes indeed: Therefore if the word of a Monk is interpreted as solitary, or singular, what does he do in the crowd, who ought to be alone.

IN ALMOST THE SAME way speaks D. Hieronym. epist. ad Heliodorum. Wherefore Bellarmine does not rightly infer from this cap. 1. that the name of Monk, adduced by D. Jerome, suits most properly Hermits; for he elicits only from the etymology that a Monk ought to be separated from the world, saying: Interpret the word of a Monk, that is, one; what do you do in the crowd, who art solus (alone)? It is confirmed, for D. Jerome himself in the epistle to Eustochium says the name of Monk also belonged to the Cenobite, which all the ancients assert, from the time of D. Dionysius, who flourished CCC. or so years before the first Hermit, who was Paul.

That this is the genuine sense of D. Jerome S. Bonavent. proves, libro primo Pharetrae, cap. 31. from the same S. Doctor epist. 13. after the middle: Avoid the company of seculars: what need have you to see those things more often, in whose contempt you began to be a Monk, and before he exhorted them to imitate the holy sons of the Prophets, who dwelt in fields and solitudes, who dwelt together widely at the same time. Of these he says were the sons of Rechab, Hierem. 35. who indeed dwelt together.

D. AUGUSTINE on Psal. 132. Behold how good, etc. for brethren to dwell in one, places in holy unity concordant the name and the manner of the Monastic life.

The truest explanation of this name is in Cassian coll. 18. and Dionysius loc. cit. that Monks are so called, because, having left things divisible, they strive to please Monadio, that is, the divinity alone.

AND THEREFORE the primitive Monasteries (as S. Bonavent. says, contra Guilielmum, near the end) were instituted and built, that living together they might live in a solitary manner, and that each might have care of himself, and dwell with himself; and therefore they were called Monks, not because they were Hermits, but because their end was to be occupied solely with Divine contemplation, as the same S. Bonavent. has, citing for this the testimony of D. Jerome to Rusticus; otherwise, if they had been dwellers in hermits' cells, they would not have dwelt together in Monasteries, but alone in heremuses, after the example of Paul. And so from then on the name of Monk was left to those alone who devote themselves solely to contemplation: these are the Cassinenses, Cistercians, Carthusians, Camaldolese, and others of that kind. Which S. Bonaventure, S. Thomas, and other Doctors understanding, do not call later Dominicans, Franciscans, and others, who do not sweat solely in contemplation but also in action, aiding Bishops and Clerics in sermons, confessions, and administrations of the Sacraments, Monks, but call them regulars, or friars, as Bellarmine notes loc. cit. and it is gathered from D. Bonavent. loc. cit. and in the exposition of the rule, and lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 27. and 28. Although he sometimes ascribes to them also the name of Monks, as is plain loc. cit. contra Guilel. and in 4. d. 19. art. 2. quaest. 2. fin. where he reports the decree of Leo, forbidding Monks: Let no one dare to preach, unless he be a Priest, and it is held 16. quaest. 1. cap. 19. I add that also, as D. Bonav. notes.

ONLY two kinds of Religious, who are so called, namely as wholly given to the cult of God, did antiquity recognize. One of Hermits; the other of Cenobites. Thus teach D. Hieronymus epist. ad Eustochium, de Virginitate. D. Augustinus lib. de moribus Ecclesiae, cap. 31. Cassianus collat. 18. cap. 4. and D. Bonav. loc. cit. from D. Benedicto in regula, reporting two other kinds of corrupt Monks, who were called Sarabaitae, intent on the flesh: and Gyrovagi, wandering, whom D. Augustinus sharply reprehends de opere Monachorum, as related by D. Bonavent. there, and D. Hieronymus ad Rusticum, and other holy Fathers, whom S. Bonavent. reports, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 28. et cap. 32.

S. HIERONYMUS adds a third kind, as S. Bonavent. reports in Diaeta tit. 4. cap. 1. near the end, whom he calls Remobot, who dwelt two and three together, as is read epistola 22. ad Eustoch. after the middle; these however he reproves: he praises indeed the Cenobites, who in the Egyptian tongue are called Sauses, that is, living in common; and the Anchorets, who dwelt alone in the deserts, and are named from that, that they withdrew far from men: as Hermits are so called because they inhabit desert places, whom D. Isidorus distinguishes among themselves, lib. 2. de Divinis off. cap. 15. who, I think, lived apart not under obedience to Prelates; and therefore he rightly distinguishes them from Monks, that is, Cenobites, who dwelt in Cenobia, and from Anchorets, who dwelt scattered in solitude, but under obedience to some Prelate. Wherefore it does not seem sufficiently reasonable that Bellarmine reprehend S. Isidore cap. 3. because he distinguishes three kinds of Monks.

We, with D. Bonavent. in the aforesaid book contra Guilielmum, with D. Thom. and other scholastics, can better distinguish the friars and the orders of religions from their various ends, because some undertake the contemplative life, others the active, others the mixed. All however are called Religiosi by antonomasia, because they exercise the acts of religion in a singular and excellent manner; or, as S. Bonav. says, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 27. from D. Isidoro ethymol. lib. 10. because the Religiosus (says Cicero) is named from relego, because he re-examines, and as it were re-elects, those things which pertain to Divine worship.

NEXT, those who follow the contemplative life are various: some Cassinenses, some Cistercians, some Camaldolese: similarly among those who follow the active life, some are the Knights of Jerusalem, some of S. John, some intent on curing the sick, some on burying the dead: of those who profess the mixed life, some fight under D. Augustine, some under D. Francis, some under Saint Dominic.

But that these orders, instituted now many ages ago, were not the first, nor that Monasticism began only after the third century, and that the first authors were Anthony, Macarius, and the like, as the Magdeburgers bark centur. 4. cap. 6. col. 464. Nor that Monasticism began from error, or by chance, as they themselves say, col. 470. (Monasticism began, they say, partly from the observation of the doctrine of justification and the true worships of God, partly from a wicked emulation of the Essenoi,) I show more evidently.

PROVED from D. Bonav. loc. cit. The sayings from the Scriptures and the Fathers, on which Bellarmine relies cap. 5.

FIRST indeed Samuel gathered together the company of the Prophets, as is had 1. Reg. 10. for they met together for the cult of God, and professed justice and holiness. Wherefore, seeing Saul mingled with them, although he was then so good that none was better, as is said cap. 9. they marveled, saying: Is Saul too among the Prophets, psalming, and sounding forth the praises of God, and prophesying? From this the master of histories asserts the beginning of religious men. See S. Doctorem parte prima Eccl. Hier.

AGAIN Elias had disciples gathered, of whom the chief was Eliseus, as is had 4. Reg. 2. who were very anxious about the rapture of Elias. Similarly cap. 4. Eliseus, having gathered disciples, kept them in spiritual exercises, and they wanted neither wives nor riches. Of these D. Hieronymus to Rusticus, epistola 4: In order the sons of the Prophets (he says) whom we read of as Monks in the old testament, built themselves little huts near the streams of the Jordan; and, having left the crowds of the cities, they lived on polenta and wild herbs. And epist. 13. to Paulinus, adduced by D. Bonavent., speaking of Monks, says: Our prince Elias, and our Eliseus, the leaders of the Prophets, who dwelt in fields and solitudes, and made themselves tabernacles near the streams of the Jordan. He adds the Nazaraei, consecrated by vows, instituted by God Amos 2. whom, as S. Doctor argues, parte prima Eccl. Hier.

MOREOVER S. Bonau. proclaims John the Baptist the Prince of Monks and Hermits, with almost all the holy Fathers: Nazianzeno in the oration on Basil; Chrysostomo in the first homily on Mark, where he said loftily: As the Princes of Priests are the Apostles; so the Prince of Monks is John the Baptist. Hieronymo to Eustachium, epistola 2. The author of this life Paul, its illuminator Anthony, and, that I may ascend to higher things, its Prince John the Baptist. (S. Bonavent. uses these words.) The same Cass. collar. 18. cap. 6. teaches; Sozomenus lib. 1. hist. cap. 12. Isid. lib. 2. de off. cap. 15. Bernard. serm. de excell. Ioan. Baptistae.

We have also, Hier. 35. the nephews of Rechab, who, leading an austere life, shadowed forth above all the obedience of Religions, as D. Hieron. teaches, epist. ad Paulinum.

LET US GO FORWARD to the new testament, and we will show that there were Monks before the years CCC.

ACTORUM cap. 5. where the Apostles instituted the life in which all things were common. There it is proved that the obligation of that life was not of all Christians, from the reprehension made by Peter to Ananias: While it remained, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? That the Apostles bound themselves by vow to that perfection, D. August. asserts, lib. 17. de Civitate Dei, cap. 4. saying: The mightiest vowed this vow.

THAT Religions took their beginning from the example of the Apostles, Eusebius testifies, lib. 2. hist. cap. 16. Hieronymus de viris illustribus on Philo. Augustinus serm. 2. de vita communi Clericorum. Possidonius in the life of Augustini. Isidorus lib. 2. de offic. cap. 15. Cassianus, collat. 18. cap. 5. Therefore (he says) the discipline of the Cenobites took its beginning from the time of the Apostolic preaching.

But that which the Magdeburgenses say, Centur. 12., that then there was no vestige of Monks, and they adduce S. Ioan. Chrysostomum homil. 25. on the epistle to the Hebrews, is frivolous; for there the Saint speaks of the Church of Corinth alone; for he expounds those words: If any brother be named among you, and says that by the name of brother are understood not Monks but any faithful whatsoever, because then there was not even a vestige of a Monk at Corinth. But that they then were in Palaestina and in AEgypto, the same Saint asserts, lib. 4. contra vituperatores vitae Monasticae, not far from the end, and homil. 11. in Acta, where he says, that Monks live thus, as once at the beginning of the Church all the faithful lived in Hierusalem. And homil. 17. to the people he says: So great is the Philosophy introduced by Christ.

But that which D. Bonavent. would assert, that Anthony was the illuminator, not the Prince, of the Monastic life: it is proved from Athanasio in the life of D. Antonii, where he asserts that before Anthony there were Monks, who constituted their Monasteries in fields near the cities, and that Anthony went to a certain old man among them, that from his earliest age he might learn the Monastic discipline: from which it follows that Monks were far before B. Antonius. But B. Antonius was before the years CCC; for in the three hundredth year he was forty years old, as is gathered from the Chronicle of D. Hieronymi.

S. DAMASUS in the life of Dionysii Papae writes that he was taken up from being a Monk to the Pontificate. But it is established from the Chronicle of Eusebii that Dionysius sat at Rome in the year 266.

MOREOVER Tertullianus wrote a Book on the veiling of sacred virgins, and Beatus Cyprianus writes on the same argument. These were indeed older than Dionysius Papa.

MOREOVER D. Dionysius Areopagita writes to Demophilum the Monk. And lib. de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, cap. 6. he expounds at length the form of the Monastic profession. But in vain do the Centuriators, Erasmus, Valla, Lutherus, and Calvinus deny that Book to be Dionysii's, the disciple of the Apostle Paul; for three ancient Pontiffs allege those works as Dionysii Areopagitae: Martinus I. in C. Romano. Agatho in the epist. to Constantinum IV. Imperatorem. And Nicolaus Papa I., ad Michaelem Imperatorem, cites this epistle to Demophilum. Likewise two General Councils, the fourth, sixth, and seventh, can. 2. Moreover S. Maximus, who wrote annotations on Dionysium; Sophronius Patriarcha Hierosol. in the oration which is had at act. 11. of the sixth Synod; Damascenus lib. 1. de fide, cap. 12. Euthymius in the Panoplia, part. 1. titulo 2. Anastasius Bibliot. epist. ad Carolum Calvum. Hildoin. ep. ad Ludov. Pium, and all other later men. Therefore let Erasmus, Valla, etc. avail nothing.

SPLENDIDLY the Apostle testifies this of the vow also of chastity, in what is added, prima Tim. 5. Avoid younger widows. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will wish to marry: having damnation, because they have broken their first faith.

THAT they broke the faith given by vow, the Councils declare: Conc. Carth. IV. can. 104. which was of 214. Episcoporum. Tol. IV. cap. 55. where there were 70. Episcopi, and so also three Pontifices. Clem. lib. 3. const. cap. 1. Innocent. I. epist. 2. cap. 13. Gelas. I. epist. 1. cap. 23. Add Tertull. de Monog. Basil. lib. de virg. Hieron. lib. 1. in Iovin. cap. 44. Etc. Epiphan. haeres. 48. August. lib. de sancta virg. cap. 23. and lib. de bono vid. cap. 8. and 9. and in Psal. 75. Fulgent. epist. 1. and all the expositors of this place, both the Greeks, Chrysost. Theodoret. Theophylac. Oecum. And the Latins, Ambrof. Primas. Beda, Haymo, Sedul. and Anselm. apud Bellarm. cap. 24.

But the Apostle inflicts damnation on these, to which the Council of Chalced. subscribed, can. 16. Concilium Turon. II. cap. 16. Gelas. Pap. epist. 1. cap. 21.

FURTHERMORE Philo Iudaeus, older than Dionysius, in lib. de vita contemplativa supplicum, describes at very great length the life and manners of the Monks and of the consecrated Virgins, whom S. Marcus Evangelista instituted in AEgypto, where he plainly sets down the profession of poverty, continence, fastings, psalmody, etc.

THAT HE spoke of Christians, not of the Essenoi, as the Centuriators feign, is proved: for Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 17. and Epiphanius haeresi 29. assert it. The same D. Hieronymus touches on, de viris illustribus on Philone, where he concludes: From which it appears that the first Church of those believing in Christ was of such a kind as the Monks now strive and desire to be. Moreover Cassianus, lib. 2. cap. 5. de Institutis Coenobiorum, asserts that the Egyptian Monks received from S. Marco the first norm of living, which Cassianus could not have learned except from this book of Philonis. The same assert deserte Beda in the prolog. on Marcum, Sozomenus lib. 2. cap. 12. Nicephor. lib. 2. cap. 15.

I ASSERT first that some of the Evangelical counsels are holy, against the heretics, as related by Bellarmino lib. 1. cap. 8. First the counsel of Castity is proved.

THE FIRST place of Scripture is adduced by D. Bonavent. in Diaeta salutis, titulo 6. cap. 2. Matth. 19. There are Eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it. That these are they who vow continence in religion, S. Epiphanius asserts, haeresi 58. S. Hieronymus on this place; S. Augustinus, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 30. S. Fulgentius, lib. de fide ad Petrum, cap. 3. That here indeed it is not commanded is plain, because above he said, praising matrimony: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, and it is confirmed by what follows: He that can take it, let him take it, as D. Bonavent. notes, serm. 6. de tempore.

Pseudomartir, de caelibatu, and others answer, that that is signified significatively "for the kingdom of heaven," on account of preaching the Gospel more expeditiously.

But against them are all the holy Fathers, expounding with us: Cyprianus, de habitu Virginum. Hilarius on this place. Chrysostomus here. Hieronymus lib. I. in Iovinianum. Augustinus de sancta Virginitate, cap. 24. The same hold Beda, and Anselmus, here.

Here he alludes to that of Isaïae cap. 56. Let not the Eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the Eunuchs: They that shall keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant: I will give them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall never perish.

THAT what is here treated of is those continent of their own will, of whom Matth. 19. speaks, not of the maimed, or so born, who are continent of necessity, the Saints teach: Hieronymus, and Cyrillus on this place; Augustinus in the Book de sancta Virginitate, cap. 24. Basil. lib. de vera virginitate. Ambrosius in the exhortation to the Virgins; and Gregorius, 3. part. Pastoralis, cap. 29. And it is plain from the reward, that there is promised to them a greater glory than that of the sons and daughters of God.

S. Augustinus adds subtly: If anyone contend that Isaias speaks of true Eunuchs, still our cause is helped; for if to Eunuchs, who are continent of necessity, there is promised a greater glory than to the just who are married; certainly a greater will be given to those continent of their own will.

THAT here continence is not commanded but urged, the aforesaid Fathers teach; S. Hieronymus proves it from those words: They that shall choose the things that I will. That the vow of continence is holy is proved, because eternal glory is promised to it. D. Augustinus praises this vow excellently, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 25. as is related at the end from D. Bonaventura.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Bonavent. on 3. sapientiae: Blessed is the barren and unspotted, who hath not known a sinful bed: she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls. And the eunuch, who hath not wrought iniquity with his hands, nor thought wicked things against God: for a special gift of faith shall be given him, and a portion in the temple of God. For the fruit of good labours is glorious, and the root of wisdom that never faileth. That this place is like the former, D. Hieronymus teaches, loco citato.

IT IS PROVED thirdly by D. Bonavent. in 4. d. 38. art. 2. quaest. 1. in corpore; for the Lord compares the Church to the good earth, of which one part rendered fruit a hundredfold, another sixtyfold, another thirtyfold; which place, expounding, Cyprianus, de habitu Virginum; Hieronymus, lib. I. in Iovinianum; Augustinus, de sancta Virginitate, cap. 44. et 45. teach that by that parable is distinguished the merit of chaste marriage, widowhood, and virginity. From which it is plain that Virginity is a greater good and more meritorious than conjugal chastity, and so is a counsel of God.

IT IS PROVED fourthly by D. Bonavent. in the exposition of the Missa, at the fraction of the most holy Hostia, and in the serm. de Virginibus, from prima Corinth. 7. where the counsel of continence is proposed in many ways: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Likewise: It is good for a man so to be. Likewise: Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. Similarly: But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, as I also. Likewise: I would that you all were, as I myself am. Likewise: Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. Where note that Paul presents himself as a faithful minister of God in giving this counsel. Likewise: He that joineth his Virgin in marriage doth well: and he that joineth her not doth better. The unmarried and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and in spirit. Finally of the widow: She shall be married to whom she will: only in the Lord. But she will be more blessed if she so continue, according to my counsel: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. Where thou seest that this counsel is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Lutherus answers in the epithalamio, that the Apostle indeed indicates that he inclines to continence, but that at last he dissuades from it: But because of fornication, let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband.

Calvinus answers nearly the same in his commentary on this place, namely that he wishes to say: I would urge continence, but because it is impossible, let every man have a wife; just as if anyone should say: It would be good neither to eat nor to drink; but because without these you cannot live, eat ye and drink.

BUT on the contrary, for the Apostle says: I would: I give counsel; but I would not command: And this is the unanimous commentary of the holy Fathers. See Chrysostomum, and others on this place, Ambrosium lib. de viduis, near the end. Hieronymum lib. I. in Iovinianum. Augustinum lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 13. who, as if he had foreseen the empty invention of his apostate, namely that the Apostle would deter from continence, himself wrote the contrary in cap. 16.

In this manner he exhorts to virginity and perpetual continence, that he might also somewhat deter from nuptials.

MOREOVER, if continence is impossible, why does Paul labor so much in giving this counsel? And the absurdity will be plain if the sayings of the Apostle are applied after the example of Calvinus. It would surely be ridiculous for the Apostle to say: It is good not to eat. Likewise: Be without food, seek not food. Likewise: Concerning not eating I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel: that no one should eat. Likewise: he that eateth doth well, and he that eateth not doth better. Likewise: he doth not sin who eateth, but he will be more blessed, if he so continue according to my counsel. From the ridiculous doctrine of Calvinus these absurdities would follow.

NOR does he wish all to have necessity of marrying, as Lutherus himself confesses, who excepts those who have the gift of continence, but warns those who are unwilling to be contained to marry, lest they fornicate: He that containeth not, let him marry.

Petrus Martyr answers on this place that the sense is: Let them be continent who have the gift of continence. It is good for a man not to touch a woman, that is, not to have a wife; but because almost no one can promise himself that he has this gift, let him accept the commandment, or counsel, of God, Genes. 2. It is not good for man to be alone.

BUT the answer is empty, for God said this to Adam, who in the state of innocence was adorned with the gift of continence, and he said it for the species to be preserved and for a temporal good; but the Apostle speaks universally on account of the spiritual good of the individual. Wherefore as virginity is a gift of God, so also conjugal continence: Every one hath his proper gift from God: one indeed after this manner, another after that. Therefore, as he who marries has need of this gift, and is not on that account removed from marriage, because he can obtain it from God; so also here.

They answer thirdly that Paul praises continence only as useful, either for driving away the molestations of marriage (Lutherus says, in the epithalamio) or for serving God more easily (Melancthon, and P. Martyr say).

But the Apostle asserts that it avails also for pleasing God, as D. Bonavent. notes, loco cit.: The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, how she may please God, that she may be holy in body and in spirit.

It is proved fifthly from that of Lucae primo: How shall this be done, because I know not man? and from prima Timot. 6. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will wish to marry: having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. I have sufficiently expounded these places in the preceding disputation, quaest. 10. where I showed that vows are pleasing to God.

It is proved also from the sacred Councils: Ancyrano can. 18. Chalced. generali can. 16. Carthag. tertio cap. 33. and Carthag. quarto cap. ultimo; Toletano quarto cap. 55. Turon. 2. cap. 16. Maguntiensi cap. ultimo, where it brings in the Elibettinum decree 13. and the sixth of Colonia. Romano sub Sylvestro can. 10. and Fotouilicense, where the solemn vow of virginity is enjoined to be most gravely observed.

The same the SS. Pontifices impose: Clemens lib. 3. Constit. Apostolicarum, cap. 1. Cyricius epist. prima, cap. 6. Innocentius I. epist. 2. cap. 12. Leo I. epist. ad Rusticum Episcopum Narbonensem, which is 90. cap. 13. Gelasius epist. 33.

In the same way Constantinus Magnus Imperator abrogated that law of the Romans, by which the childless, or those bereft of children, were deprived of hereditary succession. The cause of the abrogation Eusebius writes, lib. 4., to have been on account of those who vowed celibacy out of piety, lest the political Law seem to punish piety.

Thus also Iovinianus Imperator made a Law, that no one should dare to seek a sacred Virgin in marriage, nor look upon her immodestly, as had been done in the time of Julian the Apostate, and he imposed the punishment of death. Lutherus was guilty of this punishment. Sozomenus writes this law, lib. 6. cap. 3. and it still exists in C. lege si quis, de Episcopis, et Clericis.

It is proved also by D. Bonavent. both in Pharetra lib. 1. cap. 38. and in 4. sent. d. 38. quaest. 9. from the Fathers, who commend the vow of chastity wonderfully, as most pleasing to God and profitable to salvation.

S. Gregorius lib. 15. moral. cap. 12.: The virginity of the flesh was by no means commanded, but only praised. For if it were commanded, surely marriage would now be turned into a fault.

S. Augustinus lib. de virginitate sancta, cap. 12. Tom. 6.: Assuredly the Virgins will have something great beyond the others in that common immortality of the saints, because they have something already not of the flesh in the flesh. And below, cap. 27.: The Virgins are they, and they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. Whither do we think this Lamb goeth? Certainly whither no one either dareth or is able to follow him, unless you? Where I believe the joys are great, perchance distinguished from all the other joys in that kingdom. The joys of the Virgins are Christ's: of Christ, in Christ, with Christ, after Christ, through Christ, for the sake of Christ. And cap. 5.: That birth of one holy Virgin is the glory of all holy Virgins. And those Virgins themselves, with the Virgin Mary, are the Mothers of Christ, because they do the will of his Father.

S. Cyprianus de habitu, et disciplina Virginum, cap. 3. Tom. 2.: If continence followeth Christ, virginity is destined for the kingdom of God.

D. Ambrosius lib. 3. de virginitate, Tom. 4.: They who do not marry, and do not take wives, are as Angels on earth, that they may not feel the tribulation of the flesh, may know not servitude, and that, as it were stripped of the infirmity of the body, they may think not the things of man, but the things of God.

I ASSERT secondly that the vow of poverty is a holy Counsel of God. Thou hast very many arguments and authorities in D. Bonavent. in Apologia Pauperum, of the third responsio, chapter one.

It is proved by D. Bonavent. in the first place cited, and in Diaeta salutis, tit. 4. cap. 1. near the end, and tit. 6. cap. 2. from that of Matth. 19.: If thou wilt be perfect: Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven. D. Aug. epist. 89. quaest. 4. and in Psal. 103. concion. 3. refers this whole place excellently to the Monastic profession.

Calvinus answers lib. 4. Instit. cap. 13. § 13. that that young man lied, when he said: All these things I have kept (that is, the commandments) from my youth, and therefore Christ, mocking him, said to him: Go, sell, etc. That he had not fulfilled the commandments he proves, because the great commandment is to love God above all things, and yet he did not love God with his whole heart, because, having heard: Go, sell all things for love of me, he went away sad.

But Calvinus strikes his foot with the hoe; for if Christ imposed that commandment on that young man, impossible no less than to number the stars of heaven (as he himself says), by what argument is he convicted of sin, because he went away grieving?

The same Petrus Martyr answers nearly with Calvinus; therefore both, now reprobate, lie.

I press the point, for in 10. Marci it is said: Christ loved him. By what argument then do they either convict him of lying, or ironically lead him on to things simply impossible?

Pseudomartyr insists that this is a commandment: If thou wilt be perfect, for in Matth. 5. we are commanded: Be ye perfect, as also your Father is perfect.

It is answered that that perfection, like that of the eternal Father, is simply impossible, unless one be some god; therefore only imitation is urged in charity, not is every work commanded.

Martyr answers that this commandment was given to this young man alone.

But this is false: for many Saints acknowledged that it was said to them also. Thus D. Antonius, as S. Athanasius testifies in his life, and S. P. Franciscus, as S. Bonaventura notes in his life, where S. Doctor advertises that this counsel was given under this condition: If thou wilt be perfect, as if he said: This is the way, and the ladder, to perfection, to which whosoever wills to ascend must leave all things.

From these the exposition of Osiander falls also, apud Alphonsum Viviesium Phil. 20.

It is proved secondly by D. Bonavent. in Diaeta, tit. 4. cap. 1. from 4. Actorum: And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common unto them. That they agreed thus by vow, D. Augustinus asserts, in the first sermon de communi vita clericorum.

It is confirmed, for Ananias, and Saphira, were therefore punished with death because they retained something of their own; otherwise they would not have deserved so great a punishment.

That they had already vowed it is proved; for it is said: He defrauded of the price of the field; but it would not be fraud unless the thing had already been promised; and therefore the Apostle says: While it remained, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? That that violation was sacrilegious the Apostle testifies: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, to lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

IT IS CONFIRMED from the holy Fathers, who acknowledge this breaking of a vow. Thus Chrysostomus homil. 12. in Acta. Hieronymus epistola 8. which is ad Demetriadem. Augustinus serm. 27. de verbis Apostoli, and sermone 10. de diversis. Fulgentius epistola de debito coniugali, cap. 8. Gregorius lib. 1. epist. 33. Arator lib. 1. in Acta Apostolorum. Oecumenius, on this place. Beda on this place.

IT IS PROVED then by D. Bonavent. in his works on Poverty, from the Fathers, especially in the Apologia, loco citato, where he reports very many; lib. indeed 1. Pharetrae, cap. 41. he brings among others D. Bernardum epistola 103. and in the first sermon of all the saints, expounding that of Matth. 5.: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Thus also the saints expound: Ambrosius in 6. Lucae, Nyssenus, Hieronymus, Beda on 5. Matth. Leo in the sermon on this Gospel, Chrysostomus, and Anselmus on that place; Basil. quaest. 105. Abulensis, Lyra, Caictanus, Iansenius, who expound of actual voluntary poverty: for the Greek word πτωχὸς also sounds of a beggar. It is confirmed, for in Lucae 6. the Poor, who are said to be blessed, are opposed not to the proud but to the rich; for he soon adds: Woe to you, rich, as Bellarminus notes, ad eum locum, where he confirms that the name of poor agrees here with that: Who when he was rich became needy. 2. Corinth. 8. whence S. Bonavent. deduces that it speaks of actual voluntary poverty: and below he observes that the woe against the rich is opposed to the Beatitude of the poor.

HENCE therefore S. Bonavent. argues that it is best to vow poverty, loco citato in Lucam.

From this the exposition of Calvinus falls, who by "the poor" expounds "the afflicted."

AGAINST it, indeed, because, as Bellarminus notes, after D. Bonavent. ad 6. Lucae, he distinguishes the poor from those who mourn.

But S. Bonavent. disputes it deliberately, opuscul. de paupertate Christi, contra Guillelmum.

FIRST he shows it from that Matth. 19.: If thou wilt be perfect: go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and follow me.

SECONDLY from that of Peter, who, the promises having been made to the poor, animated, said: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? and Christ promises them: Amen I say to you: that you, who have followed me, shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israël; and every one that hath left house, or brethren, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

But S. Bonavent. OBSERVES, with the Glossa, that not a part of the goods, but all, were to be renounced.

THIRDLY he proves it from that Marci 12. where Christ praised the widow, who sent those two mites, necessary to herself, into the Gazophylacium. But this, of her want, sent all that she had, her whole livelihood.

FOURTHLY he proves it from that Lucae 12. where, that rich man having been blamed, greedy of gathering, he exhorts to renouncing all things, and to living after the manner of the birds, especially the crows, which, possessing nothing, are fed by the providence of God: Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them, after that Psalm. 146.: Who giveth to their beasts their food, and to the young ravens that call upon him. But S. Bonavent. advertises, ad eum locum Lucae, that the crows are put among the other birds, partly because they are of the greatest gluttony, as is intimated Genes. 8. of that raven, which went forth and did not return back; because it had settled on carcasses. Then because the young of crows are abandoned by their parents, and, naked and unfit to seek food, are fed by God, as is had Iob 38.: Who will prepare food for the raven, when her young ones cry unto God? Whence by the crows he understands also the other birds, as is said Matth. 6.: Behold the birds of the air.

HENCE Christ elicits the inference: How much more are you better than they: For indeed, because someone could argue that it is more fitting for us to be solicitous, because we have need of more things, Christ rebukes: And which of you, by thinking, can add to his stature one cubit. Thus therefore he argues: He who gives you the growth of the body even to the last hair, will give also the necessaries to the body; therefore he concludes: If then ye be not able to do even the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest?

HE ADDS also: Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin, etc. From this indeed Christ advances step by step to urging the selling of all things: Sell what ye possess, and give alms, where he answers that counsel, Matth. 19.: If thou wilt be perfect, etc. as D. Bonavent. notes, loco cit. in Lucam, where he also refers the Fathers to this.

FIFTHLY from that Lucae 14.: Every one of you that renounceth not all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple, where he observes from the Gloss that the disciples of Christ, who profess the chief religion, ought to renounce also in effect. Which the same S. Bonavent. observes, ad 14. Lucae, from the same Gloss, where he also notes, from D. Bernardo, loco supra citato declamat that this is laid as the foundation of edification, as he had said, Lucae 12.: For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down and think whether he have means to finish it? and therefore the first beatitude is placed at the beginning for the poor: Blessed are the poor in spirit, etc.

But S. Bonavent. CONFIRMS it in the opusculo cited; whom Bellarminus follows, loco addicto: that Christ urged poverty in affection, because he himself was most poor, as is said Matth. 8.: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head, as the Gloss notes. Whence D. Chrysostomus, homil. 28. in Matth.: Why wouldst thou gather money, following me? Seest thou not that I have not so much as a lodging, not so much as the birds have?

NEXT Matth. 17. Christ had not a stater to pay the tribute. Whence he says to Peter: Go thou to the sea, etc. so the Gloss observes.

IOANNIS C. 14.: The prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing, as the Gloss notes, and secunda Corinth. 8.: For your sakes he became needy, when he was rich; in this I give counsel. Where D. Bonavent. adds Augustinian words in the original: He became so needy as not to have what the foxes have; and in this I give counsel, he subjoins under a breath, that ye imitate his poverty. Thus it is expounded also by D. Hieronymo in the Gloss, and Lyrano, and other expositors.

NOW indeed D. Bonavent. argues thus most strongly against Guillelmum: Christ made his works holy, most worthy of imitation, especially in suffering nakedness, poverty, etc. as is said prima Petri 2.: Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that ye should follow his steps: Therefore to vow poverty is holy.

HENCE D. Hieronymus ad Hedibiam, epist. 150.: Wilt thou be perfect, and stand in the first pinnacle of dignity? Do what the Apostles did: Sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow the Saviour. The same he has in epistola 1. ad Heliodorum, and Matth. 6. on those words: Behold the birds of the air, etc.

He confirms it with the testimonies of other holy Fathers. These are Ambrosius in Lucam lib. 6. cap. 9. Tom. 3. and lib. 2. de offic. Tom. 4. Augustinus lib. de bono coniug. cap. 8. at the end, Tom. 6. de eccl. dogm. cap. 71. Gregorius homil. 20. in Ezech. Bernardus epist. 42. Prosper de vita contemplativa, lib. 2. cap. 9. and it is had in 12. quaest. 1.

HE PROVES it then by reasons. The first is: The more one withdraws from the occasion of cupidity, the more one ascends toward the city of God: but by poverty we are wholly separated from the occasion of cupidity: Therefore. The minor is evident. The major is proved, because the more one withdraws from one opposite, the more one approaches the other opposite: but the city of God and the city of the Devil are opposites, because the former has for its foundation the love of eternal things; and the city of the devil, cupidity: Therefore. See the other reasons in D. Bonaventura.

But the principal one for proving the sanctity of poverty, even that excluding the common, is: As simple is related to simple, so more to more; but poverty simply is laudable: Therefore greater poverty is more laudable. Such is this: Therefore.

I ASSERT thirdly. The vow also of obedience is a holy counsel of the Lord.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonavent. loco cit. Diaetae, titulo 6. cap. 2. from Matth. 16.: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me, on which almost alone Bellarminus solidly relies, lib. 2. cap. 21.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Bonavent. in Pharetra, lib. 2. cap. 43. from the holy Fathers, whom Bellarminus also reports.

FIRST D. Augustinus, de operibus monachorum, cap. 17. Tom. 3.: The prayer of one obedient man is heard sooner than ten thousand of the scornful.

D. HIERONYMUS, epistola 4. ad Rufinum monachum, after the middle, Tom. 1.: Serve the brethren, wash the feet of guests, having suffered injuries keep silence, fear the Superior of the monastery as the Lord, love him as a father, believe that whatsoever he shall command is salutary for thee, and judge not the judgment of the greater, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill the things commanded.

D. BERNARDUS de praecepto, et dispensacione, before the middle: Whatsoever man commandeth in the place of God, which nevertheless is not certain to displease God, must be received altogether no otherwise than if God commanded it.

THE SAME, epistola 7. ad Adam monachum: This is to be noted, that some things are pure goods; some pure evils, and in these no obedience is owed by men: because neither are those to be let go, even when they are prohibited; nor these to be committed, when they are commanded. Moreover, between these there are certain middling things, which according to the manner, place, time, or person, can be both evil and good: and in these the law of obedience is laid, as it were in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was in the midst of paradise. In these assuredly it is not lawful to prefer our own sense to the judgment of the masters: in these altogether neither the command nor the prohibition of the prelates is to be despised. O Monk most obedient, who from whatsoever words of the elders lettest not slip one iota, attendest not what sort of thing is commanded, content because it is commanded. And this is obedience without delay. D. Gregorius Magnus, who was a Monk, has like things, lib. 35. moral. cap. 10.

THE SAME D. Bernardus, in the Declamation upon the Gospel: Behold we have left all things; Go then, go to work, thou who disposest to leave all things; remember to count thyself also first among the things to be left; nay, indeed, above all and principally deny thyself, if thou deliberatest to follow him, who emptied himself for thee.

THE SAME, serm. 3. in Adventu Domini: Render reverence, and obedience, to the prelate, of which the one is of the heart, the other of the body. S. Bonavent. reports many other things, lib. 1. cap. 11. S. Bonavent. reports many other things, lib. 1. cap. 11.

MANY things I have adduced from D. Bernardo, whom Calvinus confesses to be a pious writer.

S. BENEDICTUS, in Regula, cap. 5.: Obedience then will be acceptable to God, and sweet to men, if what is commanded be done not lukewarmly, nor tardily, nor with murmuring, nor with the answer of one unwilling; because obedience, which is rendered to superiors, is exhibited to God; and cap. 7.: Obedience, a good, is to be exhibited not only to the Abbot by all, but the brethren also should obey one another, knowing that by this way of obedience they are to go to God.

S. Bonavent. reports also other testimonies of these Fathers, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 11. and the twelfth. Finally S. Doctor shows the whole state of Religion to be holy, cap. 3. Resp. primae.

THAT is a holy state which leads swiftly to Charity: Such is the state of Religion: Therefore. The major is plain, because Charity is the end of perfection, 1. Timot. 1. and from D. Augustino lib. 1. retr. cap. 6. The minor is proved; for Christ praised this perfection above ordinary and necessary observance, Matth. 19. et 16. Hence D. Chrysostomus, homil. 17. ad populum, calls it the Philosophy of Christ. It is confirmed by S. Doctore; for he enjoins works of supererogation, as we saw above, which the SS. adduce as such: Cyprianus lib. de habitu Virg. Hieron. lib. 1. in Iovin. Ambrosius lib. de vid. Gregor. lib. 15. moral. cap. 9. Chrysostomus homil. 8. de Poenit. Basil. lib. de Virg. Nazianzenus orat. 2. in Iul.

WHATEVER Calvinus sees, lib. 4. cap. 13. sect. 12. denying works of supererogation, but saying all are commandments: Why then does he cry out that none is necessary to salvation?

IT IS PROVED still further by S. Doctore above: That state is holy which removes all incentives to evil: Such is Religion: Therefore. The minor is proved; for: Whatsoever fault there is in the world is either the concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life, from D. Ioan. The first, as to occasions, is removed by the vow of Chastity. The second, of Poverty. The third, by the vow of Obedience. In this Evangelical declining consists perfection, as the scriptures, Councils, and Fathers teach, as S. Doctor says there.

The holy Church indeed has attested this in the Councils: Chalc. act. 15. cap. 6. Gangr. cap. 9. Ancyr. c. 18. Carth. I. cap. 3. Carth. 4. cap. 11. Tol. 4. et 10. Eliber. cap. 13. Tur. 2. cap. 21. Constan. sess. 8. Trid. sess. 25. The acts that are not of Religion are the acts of Religious, as S. Doctor says most beautifully, and with him Valentia.

THOU OBJECHEST first: Works spontaneous are dearer to God than compelled: But works from vows are necessary: Therefore. The major stands from the scriptures, Psalm. 5. prima Corinth. 7. where he protests that he wills not to compel them to the vow, but that they be free: Not that I cast a snare upon you; secunda Corinth. 3.: Not of sadness, or of necessity: The same he has ad Philem.

IT IS ANSWERED from D. Bonau. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 2. especially in the first argument, second place: that he who vows spontaneously presents himself to the work not owed, and voluntarily submits himself to the obligation and necessity of rendering; which necessity is voluntary, and does not diminish but increases alacrity, because it proceeds from love. Nor does it oppose cheerfulness in rendering, which stands in the proposal of the heart and the serenity of countenance, as D. Bonau. teaches, in Diaeta, tit. 2. cap. 7. at the end.

BUT THAT of prima Corinth. 7. where Pseudomartyr cries out that the Apostle exhorts to continence, but does not will that they ensnare themselves by vow: S. Bonau. answers that the Apostle wills to say that he does not compel to vowing virginity, as if he reproved marriage; but that he exhorts to vowing it, as more honorable than marriage.

He wills also to indicate that a vow can be a snare holding by force unto ruin, if anyone vow rashly, or compelled; just as also marriages are snares to those marrying unwillingly. Bellarminus brings it in, cap. 29., that Prov. 20.: It is a ruin to man to devote holy things, and after vows to retract, where in Hebrew for the word ruina there is מוקש, which properly indicates a snare.

Thou objectest secondly against the first assertion, that the Apostle, prima Corinth. 7., exhorts to matrimony: Because of fornication, let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband; and prima Timot. 5.: I will the younger to marry, and to bear children.

S. Bonaventure answers, in 4. dist. 31. q. 1., that men are called to matrimony not on account of temptations alone, but on account of fornication, because otherwise the incontinent live. Therefore the Apostle first said: If they do not contain themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn, that is, than not to be continent; and therefore he also says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman: but because of fornication let every man have his own wife, and he subjoins: But return again to the same, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Thus S. Bonavent. answers, ad 2., from D. Hieronymo, and after him Bellarminus; they expound that to Timothy in the same way, because certain young women cast themselves after Satan, as the Apostle himself testifies there.

Thus indeed S. Hieronymus says, in the Apologia pro libris, contra Iovinianum: But if they cannot contain themselves, and wish to quench the ardor of lust not so much by continence as by fornication, it is better to marry than to burn, that is, it is better to take a husband than to fornicate. The SS. expound in the same manner: Clemens Alexand. lib. 4. stromatum, at the beginning, where he reprehends the exposition of the Basilidian heretics, namely that it is better to marry than to burn, that is, to be tormented with temptations; even if we do not assent to what is the example of Luther in the Epithalamio, of Calvin, and of Peter Martyr, on this place. For the innovators have overturned all errors, that they might dig a sewer fouler than the rest.

But our exposition is also that of the author on the epistles of D. Paul, who is judged to be Ambrosius; of D. Augustini, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 34. and de bono coniugali, cap. 10.; of Theodoreti, nay even of Chrysostomi, if it be read attentively, as Bellarminus notes.

But grant that: If they do not contain themselves, let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn, be understood as being struck by the keener stings of the flesh; still they gain nothing; for matrimony is not commanded, as Calvinus wills, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 13. §. 17., but permitted, which the words of the Apostle plainly show; for as, to remove the burning, he says, let them marry; so in a more efficacious manner, namely in the imperative mode of words, he says to the married, if at any time they be continent: Again: return to the same, that Satan tempt you not, and he subjoins: But this I say according to indulgence, not according to commandment. Which expressed that matrimony was by him merely permitted, not commanded, as Bellarminus notes, cap. 30., after D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 31. art. 2. quaest. 2. in the second argument.

Thus also that is understood: I will the younger to marry, for in prima Corinth. 7. he says: I would that all were as I myself am. So Chrysostomus, Ambrosius here, Hieronymus epist. 11. Augustinus lib. de bono viduit. cap. 8.

Finally these things were said to those not having the vow, but to the free, as the SS. note: Ambrosius ad virg. lapsam, c. 5. Hieronymus lib. 1. in Iouin. Augustinus lib. 1. de adulter. coniug. cap. 15. Gregorius in Pastorali, part. 3. admonitione 28. Chrysostomus lib. de virginitate, cap. 39. Theodoretius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, and others on that place.

Thou objectest thirdly against the first assertion. It is mad to vow what is not in our power: but continence is such, because it is a gift of God, as is had Sap. 8.: No man can be continent, except God give it. Matth. 19.: He that can take it, let him take it, and prima Corinth. 7.: But every one hath his proper gift from God; Therefore, etc. Bellarminus says this argument, cap. 31., is most difficult.

D. Bonaventure answers, in 2. dist. 28. art. 2. in corpore, that the gift of continence is indeed from God, in such a way that no one is continent by his own proper powers; nevertheless the help of God is always present, and to us willing it remains entire, with that help, to be continent, so that we can even vow continence. But this is the argument of Pelagius, whom the sectaries imitate, namely that what we cannot attain by the powers of free will alone is not in our power; which is most false, because the assisting grace of God is never wanting; for this is not of those gifts which communicate non-necessary actions, as prophecy; but that celibacy is in our power is certain, by the grace of God at least assisting, which is ready to each one willing.

It is proved first by D. Bonavent. in stimulo diuini amoris, part. 3. cap. 9. from the same, where he says: I would that you all were as I myself am: but every one hath his proper gift from God, one indeed after this manner; another after that.

It is proved secondly from the Fathers. Tertullianus, lib. de Monogamia, near the end, says: Choose what is good; if thou canst not, it is because thou wilt not. Origenes on that place: Whoever wills to take the word laid down about chastity, let him ask, and he shall receive. Hieronymus on the same place: To these it is given, who have asked, who have willed. Nazianzenus oratione 31. on this Gospel: When thou hearest, to whom it is given; add, that it is given to those who will, and consent. Ambrosius lib. 3. de Virginibus, and lib. de viduis, where he has: This is not commanded to all; but it is sought from all. The same has Chrysostomus on the same place: To these it is given, who choose it of their own accord; which he said in order to show that we have need of the higher help, which indeed is prepared for all, if we will to come out superior in this struggle. Augustinus, in Psal. 137.: He who exhorts thee to vow, himself helps thee to render, and lib. 6. confess. cap. 11.: Assuredly thou wouldst give continence, if with an internal groan I knocked at thy ears. S. Augustinus shows the same ex professo, lib. de adulterinis coniugiis, cap. 10. 13. et 20. and D. Basilius lib. de Virginitate, beyond the middle.

But that place of sapientiae 8. about continence must be taken in a general sense. For Salomon, who there speaks, was not a virgin or a widower, but a husband, and therefore he asked marital continence, as Bellarminus notes, after D. Bonavent. loco cit. and in the commentary on sapientiae.

But as to that Matth. 19. All men take not this, etc.: it is Answered from D. Bonavent. in Diaeta, tit. 6. cap. 2. at the end, that this is a counsel which is free in our will, and so not all men take it, that is, will to take it. For it is usually said: This good man does not take the counsel, although he be capable, that is, he could take it; whence he subjoins: For there are Eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, that is, many have received this counsel. Wherefore it does not denote that some are incapable, as the adversaries pretend. But what is said: it is said: He that can take it, let him take it, sounds: He who is not thus blinded by the passion of concupiscence, and is illuminated by God, and can perceive how great is the dignity of chastity, let him understand. For it sounds the same as he that readeth, let him understand. For it stands in us, with Divine help, to will to attend; as is said in Isaia cap. 6.; and on the contrary: They could not understand, namely because they would not, being indeed blinded by their passions.

But the third place, prima Corinth. 7., indicates the gift of virginal and marital continence, which are in our power.

THOU OBJECHEST fourthly against the first assertion: The inconveniences which follow from celibacy. The first is, because the world would be ended if all were celibates. The second, that diseases arise from celibacy.

Bellarminus ANSWERS, cap. 32., after D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. 3. ad 2., from D. Hieronymo lib. in Iovin., that there is no danger that all die, or that all vow; nor are the diseases such that they cannot be cured otherwise. As we saw with Medina, lib. 4. de continentia, cap. 11. And if there were a certain holiness from a lethal disease, still continence must be prized more, which is the hundredth fruit, as I said above.

OTHER things the heretics object, namely that by the vow of chastity the generation of men is impeded; the forces of the Republic are diminished for expelling the barbarians; the inclination to begetting, which is a good, is impeded; finally that the tree is better which renders fruits than if flowers only, etc.

IT IS ANSWERED that these men have spoken petulantly and carnally; but truly if thou read through those who savor of heavenly and true goods, thou wilt understand that things are otherwise. To all these S. Bonavent. answers, in Diaeta, Tit. 4. cap. 4., where he has a panegyric of chastity; that this vow is preeminent above the others springing from marriage, and therefore in the parable to bear the fruits of the earth a hundredfold; but marriage thirtyfold. See S. Bonaventuram. Therefore D. Augustinus, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 8.: Therefore (he says) no fecundity of the flesh can be compared to the holy virginity of the flesh. D. Hieronymus shows the same at length, ad Demetriadem, et epist. 22. ad Eustochium, and the same D. Augustinum loco cit. capite 10., where he refutes that which Erasmus says, in the dialogue of the Suitor and the Maiden, namely that Virgins are born from the conjugal act. But he answers that virgins are born from the conjugal act, not as is honorable, who are born even from adultery. So let it be that a virgin be born even of a rape: but a virgin once made is not born even from marriage.

THOU OBJECHEST fifthly, the Councils: Ancyr. can. 19. where he puts the violators of the solemn vow of chastity among bigamists: but bigamy is not a sin: Therefore.

IT IS ANSWERED that in this they are likened to bigamists, in that they are irregular and unfit for the priesthood.

Other Councils also they bring, which bring only this, that marriages are not to be blamed.

THOU OBJECHEST sixthly the Fathers: first because from D. Ambrosio, all the Apostles, except Paul, and John, had wives.

IT IS ANSWERED that the Apostles were continent after their vocation. Therefore Matth. 19.: Behold we have left all things, and Christ answers: Every one that hath left wife, etc.

SECONDLY they bring Tertullianum, lib. de monogamia, where treating of that prima Tim. 6. I will the younger to marry, where he seems to exhort to marriage those who had broken the first faith of the vow, as I said in the assertion.

IT IS ANSWERED that Tertullianus speaks of widows who had not yet vowed; for he says: On account of which he wills them to marry, that they afterward rescind not the first faith of widowhood; for if he spoke of those already fallen from the vow, how could he warn that they rescind not the first faith, when it had already been rescinded? More cautious therefore, having been made cautious by the fall of others, he wills others to marry, who are not willing to contain themselves.

THIRDLY they oppose D. Cyprianum, lib. 1. epist. 11., where he writes of certain virgins who, after they had dedicated themselves to God, were found to lie with men: But if from faith they have publicly dedicated themselves to Christ; and chastely, without any fable, let them persevere thus strong and stable, and await the reward of virginity; but if they are unwilling, or unable, to persevere, it is better that they marry than fall into the fire with their delights. Petrus Martyr, Calvinus, Brentius, and others press this place.

Bellarminus answers that in that epistle he presses that those who had fallen should be separated from their suitors, otherwise he threatens excommunication; therefore he exhorts to marry those who had not yet vowed, lest they fall as the former.

I indeed exhibit an easier answer, that S. Cyprianus does not speak of those who had vowed to Christ, etc. For he seems to speak of the same who had dedicated themselves, and who could marry. Therefore he exhorts them, with the Apostle, to rendering the vow; but if they are unwilling, or unable, that is, judge that they cannot, let them marry. For it is a manner of speaking: whether thou wouldst not, or couldst not, contain.

Martyr PRESSES Hilarium in cap. 19. Matth. where he says: Christ, about the Eunuchs, admonishes, if we are able, where he objects that he did not say: if we would.

IT IS ANSWERED that Hilarius adds nothing to the Gospel, but admonishes that we consider the powers of our will, whether with Divine help it can take this counsel.

They object also many others, who either praise marriages only, as Ignatius ad Philadelphios, Nazianzenus, Chrysostomus, etc.

Or they exaggerate against those who have the vow and keep it not, and cry out not indeed that it is better, but that it would have been future, that they should be married, as Basilius lib. de Virginitate, Epiphanius haeresi 61.

Or that continence profits outside the Church, as Hilarius in Psalm. 64.

But the REMAINING Papists they cry out are weak, mad, and deceived.

Petrus Martyr INSISTS, because D. Augustinus, although deceived, asserts that those marrying sin after the vow; nevertheless validly to marry.

IT IS ANSWERED, with D. Bonavent., that D. Augustinus spoke of the simple vow, not of the solemn, which by Divine natural law makes marriage invalid.

HE OBJECTS against the second assertion, because Monks are made by absorbing alms, which is against the Apostle, Ephes. 4. prima Thessal. 4. et secunda Thessal. 3. and D. Augustinum lib. de opere Monach. cap. 17.

Bellarminus answers, cap. 42., from D. Bonavent. in the questions on the rule of S. Francisci, q. 11. and in the Apologetic book against a certain unnamed man, near the end, and de paupertate Christi, contra Guilelmum, art. 2. ad 9. and in the Apologia Pauperum, and D. Thom. opus. 19. et 22. quaest. 187. art. 3. ad, that Religious are not bound to seek their food by the labor of their hands, as is said Actorum 6.: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. But the Apostle writes to certain idle seculars, as is plain to the reader. He exhorts (grant it) even Religious, as S. Franciscus exhorts his own, to do some work for avoiding idleness, yet so that he weaken not the spirit of prayer and devotion. Say the same as to D. Augustino, who obliges only those who, before they became Religious, lived by the labor of their hands, and who now can do the same without impediment to a greater good, and yet will not, out of idleness and sloth. For in cap. 21. he excepts the Religious who exercise Ecclesiastical ministries, such as all mendicants are at this time. For thus he says: If they are Evangelists, if ministers of the Altar, if dispensers of the Sacraments, they do not arrogate well to themselves, but plainly claim the power, namely of living from the means of the people. So S. Bonavent., who adds also D. Hieronymum, in the prologue on Iob.

Brentius objects secondly, in the confess. Vuirtemberg.: Either he vowing poverty is poor, and then he has nothing that he might leave; or rich, and then either he puts all things in common, and provides more surely for himself; or he gives to the poor, and so renders himself troublesome to his neighbor by his begging, and so against Charity.

Bellarminus answers, cap. 20.: Even the poor man to leave what he may acquire, from D. Augustino epistola 89. quaest. 4. But if a rich man, by putting into common he leaves the dominion, after the example of the Apostles, Actorum 4. Nor is it against Charity, because they give the rich an occasion of buying heaven; otherwise Christ would praise a thing against Charity. So also D. Bonav. in the places adduced.

Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Proemium I: Prooemium

Disputatio I: ON FAITH

Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is

Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is

Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex

Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false

Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically

Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way

Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible

Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles

Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time

Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light

Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude

Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is

Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides

Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means

Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept

Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect

Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form

Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY

Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE

Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE

Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues

Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit

Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH

Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found

Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD

Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object

Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH

Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH

Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation

Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone

Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge

Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things

Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative

Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.

Disputatio II: On Unbelief

Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is

Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins

Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH

Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth

Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason

Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted

Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites

Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it

Disputatio III: On Heresy

Quaestio I: What HERESY is

Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy

Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY

Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer

Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH

Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books

Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics

Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics

Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics

Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics

Disputatio IV: On Hope

Quaestio I: What HOPE is

Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is

Question III

Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for

Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue

Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue

Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless

Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits

Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity

Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is

Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed

Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD

Dubitatio VI: Whether* the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Dubitatio I: Whether* KNOWLEDGE *is a gift of the Holy Ghost