De convenientia institutorum Romanae Ecclesiae cum Evangelica libertate

1. The Lutherans are so hostile to continence that they condemn not only the continence of secular priests and ministers,¹ but also that of monks and cenobites.

For, they say, this is a command of the Lord: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth;² and nowhere, they claim, is it found to have been abrogated or changed. But how will the human race multiply if the entire company of religious abstains from sexual intercourse and shuns marriage? They have, however, advanced to such rashness and madness that they lead consecrated virgins out of their convents and join them to husbands,³ and draw monks and cenobites into marriage with many exhortations.

O unspeakable lust! O detestable rashness! O unheard-of insolence, to be driven from the whole earth by sword, fire, and torments! For who has ever dared, unless he despised sacred things, to defile a virgin dedicated to God?⁴ We read that the Apostle Matthew⁵ sternly rebuked King Irthacus for demanding that Ephigenia, the bride of Christ the Best and Greatest, be his wife.⁶⁷ And do you, Lutherans, not blush to drag into marriage virgins led out of convents, who have bound themselves by a vow to perpetual continence? Were not even among the pagans those virgins who had enrolled themselves in sacred rites always held in great esteem? Those who served Vesta, Minerva, Diana, or Juno of Achaea⁸ were renowned for the glory of virginity.⁹ Add that even the Muslims, for whom the reins of lust are loosened, do not condemn continence. What of it? Even demons themselves, perpetual enemies of chastity,¹⁰ when invoked by certain incantations so that they may feign to possess something divine, wish to appear only to virgins—as though, I say, virginity had a certain union with divinity.¹¹ Why, then, do you condemn what both good and evil revere and honor?

2. But,¹² tell me—so that I may entangle you in your own answer—are not the goods of the mind better than bodily goods? If you deny this, I shall immediately convict you by this reasoning¹³: just as the mind is better than the body, so the goods of the mind ought to be better than the goods of the body. If you grant it, those¹⁴ who reject bodily pleasures for this purpose—that they may raise their minds more freely to divine things—you unjustly condemn¹⁵. For what does Paul mean when he says in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter VII,¹⁶¹⁷ “The unmarried woman, and the virgin, considers the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman considers the things of the world, how she may please her husband”? If virginity is to be condemned through your blind rashness, why does the Apostle say in the same place,¹⁸ “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give counsel”? Do you, who wish to be—or at least to seem—followers of Paul, brand Paul with this disgrace: that he counsels the Corinthians to pursue a lost and condemned thing?¹⁹

Moreover, Augustine in his book On Virginity prefers it to marriage in these words:²⁰ “For a sure reason and the authority of the sacred Scriptures show us that marriage is not a sin, yet we do not equate it with the good of virginal continence, or even of widowhood.”²¹ Jerome, too,²² argued most vigorously against Jovinian,²³ who considered marriage equal to virginity. And did not our Savior, Jesus Christ,²⁴ choose a perpetual Virgin as his Mother? Unless, perhaps, you will deny this as well in your rashness. Did he not, while fixed to the cross, entrust his Mother to a virgin disciple?

3. Come, then: condemn the continence that is not bound by any bond of a vow.²⁵ Will you consider that which sacred virgins, monks, and cenobites have vowed to be condemnable? Have you not read in the Psalm,²⁶ “Make vows and pay them to the Lord your God”? In the book of Numbers, chapter XXX,²⁷ we also read: “If a man makes a vow to the Lord and binds himself with an oath, he shall not break his word, but shall fulfill everything he promised.” Ecclesiastes, chapter V,²⁸ likewise says: “Whatever you vow, fulfill; for it is much better not to vow than, after making a vow, to fail to fulfill what was promised.” Likewise Deuteronomy XXIII:²⁹ “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not delay in fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will require it of you; and if you delay, it will be counted as sin for you.” If vows made to God must be fulfilled, who are you to annul the vow of virginity³⁰ at your own discretion?

4. Perhaps you will say that a foolish promise, or one contrary to divine law, need not be fulfilled to God; and that a promise of virginity is foolish and opposes the law that commands us to work for the multiplication of the human race.

But you consider the nature of precepts badly: for the rule is quite different for precepts given to each person individually³¹ and those given to a multitude. Whatever divine or human law commands one person must be carried out by that person with every diligence, care, and effort; but for a command given to a multitude, it is enough if some carry it out. For if a commander orders an army to guard the camp,³² his command³³ will be fully satisfied if some undertake the duty, even though others are occupied with other military tasks.³⁴ So it is with this divine precept: since it is given to a multitude, not every individual is bound by this law. It is sufficiently observed if some devote themselves to the begetting of offspring while others are occupied with exercises in spiritual matters,³⁵ especially since we have fallen upon times in which the number of people who worship God³⁶ has increased almost immeasurably. For since there are far more people engaged in married life³⁷ than living celibate lives,³⁸ there is no reason to fear that the human population will decline if someone abstains from sexual intercourse.

5. Perhaps you will object that, as Aristotle holds in Book I of the Ethics, the common good is superior to the private good, and more divine;³⁹⁴⁰ yet it is agreed that all those who flee every sexual pleasure seek only private advantages, whereas those who enter marriage serve the public good.

It may be answered, however, that the common good is superior and more divine than the private good when both belong to the same kind.⁴¹ No one has ever denied that the safety of the state ought to be preferred to the safety of one citizen.⁴² But if they belong to different kinds, nothing prevents a private good of one kind from being superior to some common good of another kind. For the everlasting happiness of one person, which consists in the enjoyment of God, is superior and more excellent than the temporal good of a state. Since, therefore, the advantages of virginity and marriage belong to different kinds, it is no wonder⁴³ if virginity excels marriage, although the former seems to serve private advantage and the latter the common good. Hence Augustine, too,⁴⁴ says in his book On Virginity:⁴⁵ “It must be believed that the fruitfulness of the flesh—even of those women who in this time seek nothing else in marriage than offspring, whom they may dedicate to Christ—cannot compensate for lost virginity.”

6. Therefore, contrary to what the Lutherans proclaim,⁴⁶ the perpetual chastity of cenobites and the integrity of virgins do not clash with evangelical liberty. For since no one compels a person to religious life—as we also argued when defending the continence of priests—no one can be compelled to that continence which is joined to religious life. I would add that continence also brings a person the greatest benefit: it makes the mind and thought exceptionally free for grasping spiritual things, in which the life of rational nature consists. Nothing, surely, ought to seem more welcome, more sweet, or more delightful to a wise man than this.