X: Of Celibacy or Priestly Marriage.
What is the main dispute in this article.
It is not asked whether a priest who has the gift may live outside marriage. This is not denied, if only he does not otherwise mix with wicked women. Nor is it asked whether some, many or few priests remain unmarried, this is also confessed, nor is it asked whether celibacy in and of itself is a state pleasing to God, we likewise insist on this, but this is the main dispute, whether a priest with a clear conscience may not enter holy matrimony, live in holy matrimony, and whether this is detrimental to his soul's salvation, but whether his salvation is promoted if he remains and lives in celibacy, in the state of virginity. The popes say yes, we say no and can never again allow that priests should not be allowed to live in holy matrimony or be condemned by it.
For what reasons?
1. Holy matrimony is not an order instituted by men or by angels, but by God, the Holy Trinity, Himself, even before the fall of our first parents, which God also endowed with rich blessings and ordained as a means by which churches, schools and government are to be established. How can such a holy order be harmful to a priest's soul? Would this not be a mockery to the founder of the order?
2. God has for the most part created the nature of mankind and implanted it in such a way that it should become conjugal, since he says [Gen. 9:7]: Grow and multiply. No one has excepted or spoken: The clergy should not live in matrimony, should not be two in one flesh.
3. But rather the Holy Spirit testifies that the marriage state is an honorable state for all. To the Hebrews on the 13th [:4]: Marriage should be kept honest among all, and the marriage bed undefiled. If marriage is to be kept honest for all, why not for priests as well?
4. In Genesis, God says in chapter 2 [:18]: It is not good that man should be alone; we will make him a helper to be with him. If this passage does not also apply to the priests, it must follow that they are not human beings.
5. St. Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the 7th chapter says [:2]: For the sake of fornication let every man have his own wife. Every man, Unusquisq. St. Paul does not exclude any priest.
6. On the contrary, he testifies in his writings that if a bishop does not have the gift of virginity, he may, indeed should, have his wife and be unimpaired in his office or salvation if he also has children, as is written in the first epistle to Bishop Timothy in chapter 3 [:2]: A bishop is to be blameless as the husband of one wife who has obedient children with all honor. It clearly states that a bishop can be blameless if he has his own wife and children. So in the epistle to Titus in the first chapter, verse 6, he testifies to just this. Because St. Paul allowed this, indeed commanded it, and wrote it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are we not to believe him?
7. Wherefore St. Paul testified of himself that he had power to lead a woman about, as St. Peter did in the first to the Corinthians in chapter 9 [:5]: Have we not also power to lead about a sister, a wife, as the other apostles, and the Lord's brethren, and Cephas? For although the popes say that St. Paul does not speak of the wife, but of other women who used to follow the apostles, helping and assisting them, this interpretation is quite wrong, for St. Paul boasts that he preached in vain without the help of other people. 1 Cor. 4 [:12]: Thus the women gave him nothing, and St. Paul says that it was not from women, as from many, but from one woman, who would have found it especially difficult to receive the apostle from her property. So also the apostle uses the word circumducendi, to circumvent, saying that he had power and right to lead away a woman. But the women who helped the apostles were not in the apostles' power, they were not led around by them, but followed the apostles themselves. But the fact that St. Paul also calls this wife a sister is a way of speaking, and the apostle has indicated how one should love wives, namely as a physical sister, from which some fathers have concluded that St. Paul had a wife. But that the popes say that even if he had one, he did not use her in marriage in the apostleship, is something that people of understanding understand well, as it is said inconsistently, without any clear proof.
8. If the marriage of priests and clergymen were so unjust, priests and clergymen would not have lived in the marriage state so many hundred years ago with the glory that they were not criminal, not impure, not condemned by it, and because one of the most distinguished papal scribes has spoken such words in open print: We offer to forfeit all, if they can show us a single example that has been approved by the Church of Christ for sixteen hundred years, we will present to them several undeniable, public examples for sixteen hundred and more years out of several thousand years, which they shall not deny or overthrow for eternity.
Noah, the preacher of righteousness (1 Peter 3 [sic: 2 Pet. 2:5]), was a righteous man without change, led a godly
life in his day and fathered three sons. In the 6th chapter Genesis [:10].
Ezekiel was a great, holy prophet of God, lived in wedlock, had a wife, as he himself says of her death Ezekiel 24 [:18]: While I was speaking to the people early in the morning, my wife died to me at night.
According to the law of the Lord, the high priest had to take a wife, beget children with her, and yet burn incense early every day in the tabernacle before the ark of the covenant. Exodus 30 [:19].
Wasn't Moses a great prophet? He had a wife, Ziporam. Exodus 2 [:18].
Aaron took as his wife Eliseba, the daughter of Amminadab, Nahasson's sister, who bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. Did the Church of God condemn this marriage of high priests and prophets?
Zacharias the priest was blameless before God. Luke 1 [:5] He had a wife, Elizabeth, who bore him a son, John the Baptist.
St. Peter was an apostle, had his wife. 1 Cor. 9 [:5]. Matth. 8 [:14]. For because he had a wife-in-law, he must also have had a wife.
St. Philip the Evangelist, one of the 7 Deacons, had his wife, from whom he begot four daughters who could prophesy. Acts 21 [:8-9].
St. Paul example has been drawn before.
Timothy and Titus were bishops and had wives, as the church histories attest.
Gregorius Nyssenus, a distinguished teacher, had his wife, as Nicephorus writes in the 19th chapter of Book 2.
Hilarius, the holy bishop around the year 350, had his wife and was not condemned for it, but a distinguished pope, Mantuanus, testifies that at that time God was not offended by the marriage of priests.
Non nocuit tibi progenies, non obstitit Uxor
Legitimo conjuncta toro, non horruit illa
Tempestate Deus thalamos, cunabula, taedas.
These examples are all clear and cannot be overturned. Where is the glorious speech that no single example of approved priests can be shown?
9. But I would like to know, because the popes consider marriage to be a sacrament which serves for the forgiveness of
sins, how they are to blame for not being allowed to use this sacrament, since otherwise the sacraments are such treasures that belong to the whole Church. In the sacrament of the Lord's Supper the word should mean all, all priests and ministers. In the sacrament of Matrimony the word should be all (in the 13th chapter of Paul on Hebrews), all the laity except the priests. These are indeed private interpretations, repugnant interpretations.
10. Finally, that we do not forbid marriage to the spiritual state, or to any state, we have the reason because St. Paul says that it is a doctrine of devils to forbid marriage. In first Timothy in chapter 4, where he writes thus [:1-3]: The Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, through those who speak lies in deceitfulness and have a brand on their conscience, forbidding to marry and to abstain from the food which God has created. This doctrine, because it is a doctrine of devils, we do not wish to partake of, and conclude from this that whoever forbids to marry is introducing a doctrine of devils, and the apostle does not exempt the prohibition of priestly marriage from this.
So that I take the matter properly, do you reject virginity and celibacy in general?
No, not at all, but we say that whoever has this gift has a glorious, good gift and may use it with a clear conscience, should refrain from all immoral mixing and may also express himself in an honest marriage bed. But we reject the papal doctrine of celibacy, because it is in many ways contrary to the right doctrine of virginity and the single state. For the popes praise celibacy, but to the holy married state, bring shame and ridicule, saying that marriage is an unclean state, when St. Paul calls the marriage bed an undefiled bed. They say of celibacy that one who lives in this state earns eternal life; which is most vehemently opposed to the merit of Jesus Christ. The popes are also mistaken in thinking that anyone can have this gift if he only wants to. Since Scripture clearly testifies to this, even Christ Jesus himself, Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, not everyone grasps this word.
Again, that they particularly want the priests to live in this state, whether God has granted them to have the gift or not. Furthermore, the popes still do not know what a true virginity is; they think that if one does not use marriage outwardly, that is enough. But the heart also belongs to it, that one should not burn in the heart, should not suffer heat. We cannot approve of this papal celibacy, because it is introduced against and without God's word. Luther testifies to it by all ten commandments with which he contends.
Against the I. For they make an idol of them, because this state is supposed to give and acquire eternal life for them.
They misuse the Scriptures of God for their false teaching.
Against the III. They make a special service out of it.
Against the IV. They enter the state without and against their parents' will.
Against the V. They are killing themselves, depriving themselves of their soul's salvation by placing their salvation and hope in celibacy.
For in the commandment the married state is sanctified, established, and confirmed. The popes condemn it among priests and generally speak of the marriage bed in a very derisive and scornful manner.
They live in idleness, toil and scrape, eat and drink, thus stealing what is their neighbor's, stealing from their parents the rights they otherwise have over their children.
Against the VIII. They bear false witness against holy matrimony.
Against the IX. and X. Have evil desire and lust in their hearts and say that evil desire is not a sin.
It is nevertheless certain that St. Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 7 [:8], highly praises the single state, indeed prefers it to the married state?
We know very well that the holy apostle highly praises the unmarried state of virginity and in some ways prefers it to the married state, but he does not condemn the married state, he does not condemn the marriage of priests.
He does not give a commandment that one must, contrary to one's nature, express oneself in marriage; he also prefers the married state to the unmarried state in a certain way, since he says: It is better to be free than to be in heat. Again in the 6th verse he says [:1 Cor. 7:6]: What he has said up to this point about the virgin state, he says out of favor, not out of commandment. In the 35th verse: He desires no one to throw a rope around his neck. He leaves it to the discretion of each one whether he wants to be free or not free, according to each one's ability. In the 17th verse: As God has distributed to each one. In the 18th verse: Each one as the Lord has called him, so let him walk, and so I do in all churches. In the 36th verse: He does what he wants, he does not sin. These passages of St. Paul are all against the papal celibacy orders, and we are not mistaken that St. Paul says in this very chapter in verse 1: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Who denies that, in the sense in which St. Paul means it, namely propter necessitatem, for the sake of the present need it is good for man to be so, he himself says in the 26th verse. At the time when St. Paul wrote these words, the Christians were in great, hard affliction, were not safe because they were chased away and driven out. In such distress it is of course better, if it can be, not to have a wife, because a single person can get on better in such affliction than one who has a wife and children. But what good is this passage about papal celibacy?
In verse 40 St. Paul says that the virgin is more blessed if she remains so. But he adds, in my opinion, lest anyone should think her more blessed than a married woman; that she may go to heaven sooner than the married, St. Paul nowhere says; that is not St. Paul's opinion. This is how he speaks of virgins. The popes refer it to priests, which is very inconsistent.
St. Paul speaks in verse 5: Whoever is not married has the best reason for fasting and praying?
Answer: St. Paul does not say this, for he speaks expressly of married couples in these words: Do not withdraw one from the other, unless by the consent of both for a time, that you may have leisure for fasting and prayer, and come together again.
It does not follow from this that married couples cannot pray in the marriage state, to which many thousands of people will testify, but the holy apostle speaks of certain times of prayer de precibus solennibus, as it was customary to hold public prayers at times for several days in succession to avert a misfortune which one feared. This is what the apostle is referring to, so this passage cannot forbid priests to marry forever.
The 32nd and 33rd verses say: He who is single takes care of what belongs to the Lord, as it pleases the Lord, but he who is married takes care of what belongs to the world, as it pleases his wife.
These words do not imply that priests should not have wives, for they speak indefinitely and generally of the laity as well. But St. Paul does not mean to teach that married couples cannot serve God, since the fear of God is both commanded and praised for married couples.
Noah was married, yet he led a godly life. Gen. 5.
Zacharias and Elizabeth were married, but lived blamelessly before God. Luke 1. But the holy apostle wants to say this much: It is easier to serve God in the single state than in the married state, because a single person is free from all worries and other daily hindrances, but in the married state other worries, other toil, work and business come in, which do not displease God either. Furthermore, St. Paul actually sees how many misuse the married state and think too much of the carnal air, meanwhile forgetting their divine service, or getting caught up in other business and missing the divine service, but this happens per accidens, accidentally, not that the married state is guilty of this in itself, but that some people misuse it. If it were to follow from this that priests should not have wives because they cannot serve God, then it would follow: The priests and high priests, the prophets and apostles did not serve God because they were married: No layman or Christian can serve God if he is married. For St. Paul was not speaking of the priests in particular, but in general, as the text shows, for which reason these words of St. Paul are not to be understood without condition.
It would also follow that all those who are not married serve God, but this is not the case. Many of them live outside the married state, serve not God, but the devil, and are dead while they live. 1 Timothy 5.
Matthew 19 says [:12]: Some have married for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To conclude from this that whoever is out of wedlock enters the kingdom of heaven deserves the kingdom of heaven.
The Lord Christ says in this chapter that not to marry is not for everyone, but only for those to whom it is given. He is threefold:
1. Some are eunuchs (verschnitten), born from the mother's womb.
2. Some of the people eunuchs, as it was customary to make such eunuchs at court.
3. But there are some who have cut themselves off for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. What is this? He wants to say this much: There are some who could be free, but are not, and have the gift that they can refrain from it, such ones cut themselves off for the sake of the kingdom of heaven: That is, that they may perform their office in the church of God (which is now and then called in Scripture the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 20, etc.) without all hindrance, without all other care. And thus says the Lord Christ soon afterward, whoever can grasp it, let him grasp it. He does not compel everyone to do it, but says: Whoever can or is able to do it, let him do it. But it is very ridiculous for them to think that this is the way to gain the kingdom of heaven. Such error comes from the fact that they do not understand the Scriptures and do not know that so often in the New Testament the kingdom of heaven is taken for the Christian church on earth, for the ministry of preaching, Matthew 13, Matthew 20, etc. With God there is no difference, when a married person dies in Christ, he attains eternal life by grace, which a single person attains, who must also have it by grace alone.
The popes say that if one only prays, everyone can circumcise himself and be advised to marry.
Christ Jesus says: Do not marry, do not stand with anyone, but only with those to whom it is given. Thus he testifies that it is given only to some, which St. Paul also says, that each one has his own
gift, which God has distributed to him, one this, another another. Concerning prayer, God gives everything we ask according to his word. But if he has called us to the married state and has ordained me or you to live in it, then I am not asking rightly when I ask for the gift of virginity, for I am asking against God's will and I do not know what I am asking for. So little it follows: If I ask God for the gift of healing, he will certainly give it to me, because he has given it to others, 1 Corinthians 12. It follows just as little that because God has given the gift of celibacy to others, he must therefore give it to me. These are singularia dona, special gifts, which God distributes as he wills, as he has called each one. There is another opinion about the gifts that God gives in general, such as forgiveness of sins, eternal life and salvation, which God gives to all who call upon him rightly in the name of Christ; without these gifts they cannot be saved, but without the gift of virginity many of them have been saved and can still be saved, which everyone must confess. It would be a matter for the popes to deny the salvation of souls to all married couples, but pious Christians would not turn to this, because the popes are not masters of heaven and it is not up to them to distribute heaven to whom they wish.
Can a man obtain the gift of chastity through prayer if his wife is sick or if she is taken prisoner?
This is again a special thing, for God has called them to this state. The God who has laid this burden on them also helps them to bear it and gives them grace so that they do not succumb to the cross he has laid on them. The logicians (Logici) would reject the popes with finesse: Casus singulares, non faciunt Regulam generalem. No general rule can be made from particular cases. In sum, they can get nowhere with their objections.
One more thing. They say: Although the apostles had wives, they left them in the apostleship or did not live with them in marriage.
They will never be able to explain this. Leaving a wife for the apostleship is nowhere to be seen, but this is what God says: A man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. [Matthew 19:5]
Again: What God has joined together, let no man put asunder [Matthew 19:6]. Although it is said of the apostles that they forsook all things, this is not to be understood of the women. They left everything that they could leave without breaking God's commandments. But they could not leave the wives by virtue of God's commandment, for Christ says in the 19th chapter of Matthew [:9]: Nothing shall put away marriage except adultery. He does not say that apostleship divorces marriage. It is also said elsewhere: Whoever leaves his wife for my sake, that is de coacta desertione, to be understood: when one is driven from wife and child by tyrants, because of the confession of Christ. But the apostles did not have such an opportunity, since they were called by Christ Jesus and told to follow him and leave everything, namely their nets and their handicrafts. Just as Lot left everything behind him in Sodom, but took his wife with him (Genesis 19 [:15]). But the fact that they did not live with their wives is not yet proven from Scripture. Marital concubinage is not forbidden and does not contradict the priesthood. The priests in the Old Testament attended their wives, and Christ says that one should attend his wife. St. Paul says: Do not deprive one another, neither priest nor layman. [1 Cor. 7:5]
Much testimonia and evidence could be introduced from the popes' own books, in which they clearly confess that the prohibition of priestly marriage is not a divine, but only a human commandment. As Bellarminus clearly confessed. Again: From their Jure canonico, spiritual law, in which it is said almost innumerable times that before this it was always right for priests to marry, that Paphnutius and the Council of Nicaea were right in not forbidding priests to marry. Again: That many popes are successively narrated in spiritual law, who have all been the sons of priests (dist. 56. cap. Osius.) One could also tell widely how this prohibition of priestly marriage, which St. Paul calls your doctrine of the devil, has always been gradually torn down and introduced by various damned heretics. Again: What an abomination and unspeakable disgrace arose from celibacy in the papacy, that in the nunneries in the 6,000 dead children and heads were found in the pond, as Bishop Ulrich confesses etc. But it would be far too long and is known to almost everyone,
so we will leave it at this for the sake of brevity. And yet we hope that every Christian has done more than enough in this dispute, and that our opponents will one day mend their ways, reflect, give glory to Christ and his holy word and convert to God, abandoning all new, proud, arrogant errors. Fiat, fiat. (Let it be, let it be.)
Chapter Navigation