Article XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests._
Despite the great infamy of their defiled celibacy, the adversaries
have the presumption not only to defend the pontifical law by the
wicked and false pretext of the divine name, but even to exhort the
Emperor and princes, to the disgrace and infamy of the Roman Empire,
not to tolerate the marriage of priests. For thus they speak.
[Although the great, unheard-of lewdness, fornication, and adultery
among priests, monks, etc., at the great abbeys, in other churches
and cloisters, has become so notorious throughout the world that
people sing and talk about it, still the adversaries who have
presented the _Confutation_ are so blind and without shame that they
defend the law of the Pope by which marriage is prohibited, and that,
with the specious claim that they are defending a spiritual state.
Moreover, although it would be proper for them to be heartily ashamed
of the exceedingly shameful, lewd, abandoned loose life of the
wretches in their abbeys and cloisters, although on this account
alone they should not have the courage to show their face in broad
daylight, although their evil, restless heart and conscience ought to
cause them to tremble, to stand aghast, and to be afraid to lift
their eyes to our excellent Emperor, who loves uprightness, still
they have the courage of the hangman, they act like the very devil
and like all reckless, wanton people, proceeding in blind defiance
and forgetful of all honor and decency. And these pure chaste
gentlemen dare to admonish His Imperial Majesty, the Electors and
Princes not to tolerate the marriage of priests _ad infamiam et
ignominiam imperti_, that is, to ward off shame and disgrace from the
Roman Empire. For these are their words, as if their shameful life
were a great honor and glory to the Church.]
What greater impudence has ever been read of in any history than this
of the adversaries? [Such shameless advocates before a Roman Emperor
will not easily be found. If all the world did not know them, if
many godly, upright people among them, their own canonical brethren,
had not complained long ago of their shameful, lewd, indecent conduct,
if their vile, abominable, ungodly, lewd, heathenish, Epicurean life,
and the dregs of all filthiness at Rome were not quite manifest, one
might think that their great purity and their inviolate virgin
chastity were the reason why they could not bear to hear the word
woman or marriage pronounced, and why they baptize holy matrimony,
which the Pope himself calls a sacrament, _infamiam imperil_.] For
the arguments which they use we shall afterwards review. Now let the
wise reader consider this, namely, what shame these good-for-nothing
men have who say that marriages [which the Holy Scriptures praise
most highly and command] produce infamy and disgrace to the
government, as though, indeed, this public infamy of flagitious and
unnatural lusts which glow among these very holy fathers, who feign
that they are Curii and live like bacchanals, were a great ornament
to the Church! And most things which these men do with the greatest
license cannot even be named without a breach of modesty. And these
their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,
Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the
king of modest face, for the saying appears concerning you: "One
modest in face shall reign everywhere"). For they ask that, contrary
to divine law, contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the canons
of Councils you sunder marriages, in order to impose merely for the
sake of marriage atrocious punishments upon innocent men, to put to
death priests, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to drive into
exile banished women and fatherless children. Such laws they bring
to you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity,
however monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear. But because the
stain of no disgrace or cruelty falls upon your character, we hope
that you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when you
have learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our belief
derived from the Word of God to which the adversaries oppose the most
trifling and vain opinions.
And nevertheless they do not seriously defend celibacy. For they are
not ignorant how few there are who practise chastity, but [they stick
to that comforting saying which is found in their treatise, _Si non
caste, tamen caue_ (If not chastely, at least cautiously) and] they
devise a sham of religion for their dominion, which they think that
celibacy profits, in order that we may understand Peter to have been
right in admonishing, 2 Ep. 2, 1, that there will be false teachers
who will deceive men with feigned words. For the adversaries say,
write, or do nothing truly [their words are merely an argument _ad
hominem_], frankly, and candidly in this entire case, but they
actually contend only concerning the dominion which they falsely
think to be imperiled, and which they endeavor to fortify with a
wicked pretense of godliness [they support their case with nothing
but impious, hypocritical lies; accordingly, it will endure about as
well as butter exposed to the sun].
We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversaries
defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at
variance with the very canons of the Councils. And that it is
superstitious and dangerous is evident. For it produces infinite
scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in the
real towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences].
Our other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in this
the subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires no
discussion. It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fears
God. And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet the
adversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing our
arguments.
First. Gen. 1, 28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and
that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are
speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite
which was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have
existed in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they
call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly
a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be
removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the
right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.
The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the
beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but that
now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded.
See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so formed by the
word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the
creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just as
the earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earth
bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the
earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but
the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will
exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth
cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God the nature of a
human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that a
woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].
Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a
natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly
that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But
since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must
always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also
with which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be
removed by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for the
adversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning,
but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly,
when men were born, they brought with them sex; now they do not.
Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right,
now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more
crafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of
nature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scripture
teaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male
and female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right is
truly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed
upon nature. But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an
extraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contract
marriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is an
ordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise,
why would both sexes have been created? And we are speaking, as it
has been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that
desire which they call physical love [which would have existed
between man and woman even though their nature had remained pure],
which concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, so
that now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessary
not only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guard
against sins]. These things are clear, and so well established that
they can in no way be overthrown.
Thirdly. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all
who are not fit for celibacy. The adversaries ask that a commandment
be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are
not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain
concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests. Does not
Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?
For he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It is
better to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19,
11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things
concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames
the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than
in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a
remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neither
can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration:
It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the
nature or concupiscence. Therefore all who burn, retain the right to
marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every
man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep
themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the
conscience of each one.
For as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and to
weaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these
magnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above,
the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.
If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar
gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift;
therefore it does not belong to all. God wishes the rest to use the
common law of nature which He has instituted. For God does not wish
His ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to be
chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just
as He wishes to nourish our life in this way, that we use food and
drink. Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who
endeavored to subdue the body, and yet made little progress.
Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing
that can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vow
rather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objection
that Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake, Matt. 19, 12, let him also consider this,
that He is praising such as have the gift of continence, for on this
account He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and
cloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence.
But now we are disputing concerning the law and concerning those who
do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free
and snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.
Fourthly. The pontifical law differs also from the canons of the
Councils. For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neither
do they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, even if they
remove from the administration of their office those who have
contracted them in the ministry. At those times this dismissal was
an act of kindness [rather than a punishment]. But the new canons,
which have not been framed in the Synods, but have been made
according to the private judgment of the Popes, both prohibit the
contraction of marriages, and dissolve them when contracted; and this
is to be done openly, contrary to the command of Christ, Matt. 19, 6:
What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. In the
_Confutation_ the adversaries exclaim that celibacy has been
commanded by the Councils. We do not find fault with the decrees of
the Councils; for under a certain condition these allow marriage, but
we find fault with the laws which, since the ancient Synods, the
Popes of Rome have framed contrary to the authority of the Synods.
The Popes despise the authority of the Synods, just as much as they
wish it to appear holy to others [under peril of God's wrath and
eternal damnation]. Therefore this law concerning perpetual celibacy
is peculiar to this new pontifical despotism. Nor is it without a
reason. For Daniel, 11, 37, ascribes to the kingdom of Antichrist
this mark, namely, the contempt of women.
Fifthly. Although the adversaries do not defend the law because of
superstition, [not because of its sanctity, as from ignorance], since
they see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffuse
superstitious opinions, while they give a pretext of religion. They
proclaim that they require celibacy because it is purity. As though
marriage were impurity and a sin, or as though celibacy merited
justification more than does marriage! And to this end they cite the
ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because, since under the Law, the
priests, at the time of ministering, were separated from their wives,
the priest in the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray,
ought always to practise continence. This silly comparison is
presented as a proof which should compel priests to perpetual
celibacy, although, indeed, in this very comparison marriage is
allowed, only in the time of ministering its use is interdicted. And
it is one thing to pray; another, to minister. The saints prayed
even when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did conjugal
intercourse hinder them from praying.
But we shall reply in order to these figments. In the first place,
it is necessary for the adversaries to acknowledge this, namely, that
in believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by the
Word of God, i.e., it is a matter that is permitted and approved by
the Word of God, as Scripture abundantly testifies. For Christ calls
marriage a divine union, when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What God hath
joined together [let not man put asunder. Here Christ says that
married people are joined together by God. Accordingly, it is a pure,
holy, noble, praiseworthy work of God]. And Paul says of marriage,
of meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified by the
Word of God and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences
become certain that God approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith,
which uses it with thanksgiving as a gift of God. Likewise, 1 Cor. 7,
14: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc., i.e..
the use of marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith in
Christ, just as it is permitted to use meat, etc. Likewise, 1 Tim. 2,
16: She shall, be saved in childbearing [if they continue in faith],
etc. If the adversaries could produce such a passage concerning
celibacy, then indeed they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul
says that woman is saved by child-bearing. What more honorable could
be said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by
the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing
children and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let the
reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without
faith are not praised. If they continue, he says, in faith. For he
speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore he requires
especially faith [that they should have God's Word and be believing],
by which woman receives the remission of sins and justification.
Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every man a
good work of a particular calling ought to follow faith. This work
pleases God on account of faith. Thus the duties of the woman please
God on account of faith, and the believing woman is saved who in such
duties devoutly serves her calling.
These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and
Christian] thing. If therefore purity signifies that which is
allowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they
have been approved by the Word of God. And Paul says of lawful
things, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i.e., to
those who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore,
as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage is
pure on account of the Word of God and faith.
Again, if purity is properly opposed to concupiscence, it signifies
purity of heart, i.e., mortified concupiscence, because the Law does
not prohibit marriage, but concupiscence, adultery, fornication.
Therefore celibacy is not purity. For there may be greater purity of
heart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those
who are even truly continent [who even, according to bodily purity,
really maintain their chastity].
Lastly, if they understand that celibacy is purity in the sense that
it merits justification more than does marriage, we most emphatically
contradict it. For we are justified neither on account of virginity
nor on account of marriage, but freely for Christ's sake, when we
believe that for His sake God is propitious to us. Here perhaps they
will exclaim that, according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage is
made equal to virginity. But, on account of such clamors we shall
not reject the truth concerning the righteousness of faith, which we
have explained above. Nevertheless we do not make virginity and
marriage equal. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy
surpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpasses
agriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a
more excellent gift than marriage. And nevertheless, just as an
orator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence than
an architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does
not merit justification by virginity more than a married person
merits it by conjugal duties but each one ought faithfully to serve
in his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives
the remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.
Neither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies,
but because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations,
in praying, teaching, [writing,] serving. For this reason Paul says,
1 Cor. 7, 32: He that is unmarried careth for the things which
belong to the Lord. Virginity, therefore, is praised on account of
meditation and study. Thus Christ does not simply praise those who
make themselves eunuchs, but adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake,
i.e., that they may have leisure to learn or teach the Gospel; for He
does not say that virginity merits the remission of sins or salvation.
To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do
not establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon the
priests. Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be
transferred to us. [The law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutes
concerning what is clean or unclean, do not at all concern us
Christians.] Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity.
Now it is not impurity, because Paul says, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure
all things are pure. For the Gospel frees us from these Levitical
impurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from the
laws concerning uncleanness]. And if any one defends the law of
celibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Levitical
observances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles in
Acts 15, 10 sqq. strove against those who required circumcision and
endeavored to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians.
Yet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use of
marriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices,
which often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel all
domestic thoughts from their minds. [For to be burdened with great
affairs and transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations,
governments and churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam from
lustfulness.] Good men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4,
commands that every one possess his vessel in sanctification [and
honor, not in the lust of concupiscence]. They know likewise that
they must sometimes retire, in order that there may be leisure for
prayer, but Paul does not wish this to be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Now
such continence is easy to those who are good and occupied. But this
great crowd of unemployed priests which is in the fraternities cannot
afford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical continence, as
the facts show. [On the other hand, what sort of chastity can there
be among so many thousands of monks and priests who live without
worry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover,
have not the Word of God, do not learn it, and have no regard for it.
Such conditions bring on all manner of inchastity. Such people can
observe neither Levitical nor perpetual chastity.] And the lines are
well known: The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates those
who are busy.
Many heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treated
marriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gained
extraordinary admiration. And Epiphanius complains that, by this
commendation especially, the Encratites captured the minds of the
unwary. They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; they
abstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpassed the
Dominican brethren who live upon fish. They abstained also from
marriage; and just this gained the chief admiration. These works,
these services, they thought, merited grace more than the use of wine
and flesh, and than marriage, which seemed to be a profane and
unclean matter, and which scarcely could please God, even though it
were not altogether condemned.
Paul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelic
forms of worship. For when men believe that they are pure and
righteous on account of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledge
of Christ, and suppress also the knowledge of God's gifts and
commandments. For God wishes us to use His gifts in a godly way.
And we might mention examples where certain godly consciences were
greatly disturbed on account of the lawful use of marriage. This
evil was derived from the opinions of monks superstitiously praising
celibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a life that would be
a great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins]. Nevertheless we do
not find fault with temperance or continence, but we have said above
that exercises and mortifications of the body are necessary. We
indeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain observances,
as though they made righteous. And Epiphanies has elegantly said
that these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kai
dia tehn politeian, i.e., for restraining the body or on account of
public morals; just as certain rites were instituted for instructing
the ignorant, and not as services that justify.
But it is not through superstition that our adversaries require
celibacy, for they know that chastity is not ordinarily rendered
[that at Rome, also in all their monasteries, there is nothing but
undisguised, unconcealed inchastity. Nor do they seriously intend to
lead chaste lives, but knowingly practise hypocrisy before the
people]. But they feign superstitious opinions, so as to delude the
ignorant. They are therefore more worthy of hatred than the
Encratites, who seem to have erred by show of religion; these
Sardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion.
Sixthly. Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the law
of perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls and
public scandals also are added, which even, though the law were not
unjust, ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as has
destroyed innumerable souls.
For a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] have
complained of this burden, either on their own account, or on account
of others whom they saw to be in danger. But no Popes give ear to
these complaints. Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious to
public morals this law is, and what vices and shameful lusts it has
produced. The Roman satires are extant. In these Rome still
recognizes and reads its own morals.
Thus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those
who prohibit marriage. But since the custom in regard to other laws
was that they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it,
why is the same not done with respect to this law, in which so many
weighty reasons concur, especially in these last times, why a change
ought to be made? Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming
weaker, and vices are increasing; wherefore the remedies divinely
given should have been employed. We see what vice it was which God
denounced before the Flood, what He denounced before the burning of
the five cities. Similar vices have preceded the destruction of many
other cities, as of Sybaris and Rome. And in these there has been
presented an image of the times which will be next to the end of
things. Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have been
especially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, and
men ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty pertains to
the magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [God has
now so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted
almost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflicted
on account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the
teachers of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinent
men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of
continence.
The Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are most
excellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are as
iron and inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this is
simply of human right. And they are now making this law more
grievous in many ways. The canon bids them suspend priests, these
rather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but from
trees. They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage. [It is
to be feared therefore, that the blood of Abel will cry to heaven so
loudly as not to be endured, and that we shall have to tremble like
Cain.] And these very parricides show that this law is a doctrine of
demons. For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law by
these parricides.
We know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because we
seem to have separated from those who are thought to be regular
bishops. But our consciences are very secure, since we know that,
though we most earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot
please the adversaries unless we cast away manifest truth, and then
agree with these very men in being willing to defend this unjust law,
to dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put to death
priests if they do not obey, to drive poor women and fatherless
children into exile. But since it is well established that these
conditions are displeasing to God, we can in no way grieve that we
have no alliance with the multitude of murderers among the
adversaries.
We have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a good
conscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law
concerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and
natural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is
superstitious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole
affair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake of
religion [not for holiness' sake, or because they do not know better;
they know very well that everybody is well acquainted with the
condition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but for
the sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext of
religion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against these
most firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to those
to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to
marry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. We
hold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do
we wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve
marriages that have been contracted.
We have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted our
arguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we have
explained away these false accusations. Now we shall relate as
briefly as possible with what important reasons they defend the law.
First, they say that it has been revealed by God. You see the
extreme impudence of these sorry fellows. They dare to affirm that
the law of perpetual celibacy has been divinely revealed, although it
is contrary to manifest testimonies of Scripture, which command that
to avoid fornication each one should have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2;
which likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that have been contracted;
cf. Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the knaves say in
reply? And how dare they wantonly and shamelessly misapply the great,
most holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds us what an
author such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of demons,
1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so many
monstrous lusts and so many murders which are now committed under the
pretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome].
The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought to
be pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vessels
of the Lord. And they cite many things to this effect. This reason
which they display we have above removed as especially specious. For
we have said that virginity without faith is not purity before God,
and marriage, on account of faith, is pure, according to Titus 1, 16:
Unto the pure all things are pure. We have said also this, that
outward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to be
transferred hither, because the Gospel requires purity of heart, and
does not require the ceremonies of the Law. And it may occur that
the heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were polygamists,
is purer and burns less with lusts than that of many virgins who are
even truly continent. But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bear
the vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring to
cleanness of heart and to the entire repentance. Besides, the saints
will know in the exercise of marriage how far it is profitable to
restrain its use, and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess his
vessel in sanctification. Lastly, since marriage is pure, it is
rightly said to those who are not continent in celibacy that they
should marry wives in order to be pure. Thus the same law: Be ye
clean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impure
celibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become pure
married priests].
The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests
is the heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! [Pity on our poor
souls, dear sirs; proceed gently!] This is a new crime, that marriage
[which God instituted in Paradise] is a heresy! [In that case all
the world would be children of heretics.] In the time of Jovinian the
world did not as yet know the law concerning perpetual celibacy.
[This our adversaries know very well.] Therefore it is an impudent
falsehood that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, or
that such marriage was then condemned by the Church. In such
passages we can see what design the adversaries had in writing the
_Confutation_. They judged that the ignorant would be thus most
easily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy,
if they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned by
many previous decisions of the Church. Thus they frequently cite
falsely the judgment of the Church. Because they are not ignorant of
this, they were unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology,
lest this falsehood and these reproaches might be exposed. Our
opinion, however, as regards the case of Jovinian, concerning the
comparison of virginity and marriage, we have expressed above. For
we do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither
virginity nor marriage merits justification.
By such false arguments they defend a law that is godless and
destructive to good morals. By such reasons they set the minds of
princes firmly against God's judgment [the princes and bishops who
believe this teaching will see whether their reasons will endure the
test when the hour of death arrives], in which God will call them to
account as to why they have dissolved marriages, and why they have
tortured [flogged and impaled] and killed priests [regardless of the
cries, wails, and tears of so many widows and orphans]. For do not
doubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out, Gen. 4, 10, so
the blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly raged,
will also cry out. And God will avenge this cruelty; there you will
discover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you will
perceive that in God's judgment no calumnies against God's Word
remain standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is grass, and all
the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field [that their
arguments are straw and hay, and God a consuming fire, before whom
nothing but God's Word can abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24].
Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselves
with the consciousness of right counsels, because even though the
priests would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet this
disruption of marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty are
manifestly contrary to the will and Word of God. Neither does
novelty or dissent delight our princes, but especially in a matter
that is not doubtful more regard had to be paid to the Word of God
than to all other things.