Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

A DISPUTATION. Against the Heretics of our time: whether from this place it is concluded that it is a precept from God that every one of men should engage in the generation of offspring

LatineEnglish

A DISPUTATION. Against the Heretics of our time: whether from this place it is concluded that it is a precept from God that every one of men should engage in the generation of offspring.1

DISPVTATIO. Aduersus nostri temporis Haereticos, an ex hoc loco concludatur, Praeceptum esse à Deo, Quemlibet hominum vacare generationi prolis.

HVnc locum Haeretici validissimum sibi putant praebere telum aduersus Catholicos, virginitatem & coelibatum non modò summis laudibus efferentes, sed etiam legitimo coniugio dignitatis & meriti praestantia anteponentes. Clamant enim nos Dei praeceptis aduersari, & propter vanas hominum traditiones atque superstitiones certam manifestámque Dei legem & sententiá pro nihilo ducere. Hoc enim loco Moses narrat Deum benedixisse coniugio, & praecepisse hominibus vt crescerent & multiplicarentur: hoc autem fuit vel primum, vel certè secundum Dei praeceptum datum Adamo, & sub eius nomine cunctis mortalibus ex eo propagandis. Quis igitur dubitet, à coniugio & generatione prolis abstinentes, diuinae voluntati ac legi repugnare? Haec isti declamant apud imperitam plebem, & persuadent ea vel ignaris, vel ad licentiam carnis voluptatésque propensissimis. Quis autem mirari satis queat istorum impudentiam, qui virginitatem & coelibatum inuentum hominum esse dicunt, Deóque [displicere...]
The Heretics think that this place provides them a most valid weapon against the Catholics — who not only extol virginity and celibacy with the highest praises, but even prefer them, in excellence of dignity and merit, to legitimate marriage. For they cry out that we are opposed to God's precepts, and that, on account of vain human traditions and superstitions, we hold God's certain and manifest law and sentence for nothing. For in this place Moses narrates that God blessed marriage, and commanded men to increase and multiply: and this was either the first, or certainly the second, precept of God given to Adam, and, under his name, to all mortals to be propagated from him. Who, then, would doubt that those abstaining from marriage and the generation of offspring resist the divine will and law? These things those men declaim before the unskilled crowd, and persuade them either to the ignorant, or to those most inclined to the license of the flesh and to pleasures. But who could sufficiently marvel at the impudence of those who say that virginity and celibacy are an invention of men, and [displeasing] to God...? [continues]2
[...Deóque displicere?] cùm de eorum commendatione, & supra matrimonium dignitate ac merito, expressissimam habeamus apud Matth. cap. 19. Domini sententiam, laudantis Eunuchos qui se propter regnum coelorum castrauerunt, eorúmque conditionem coniugio praeferentis. Nam cùm discipuli dixissent Domino, Si ita est causa hominis cum vxore, non expedit nubere, ipse respondit eis, Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est: Sunt enim Eunuchi qui seipsos castrauerunt propter regnum coelorum. Qui potest capere capiat. Paulus quoque in prioris epistolae ad Corinthios capite 7. disertissimis verbis de coniugio, coelibatu & virginitate disputans, virginitatem & coelibatum longè praefert coniugio.
[...and displeasing to God?] — when, concerning their commendation, and their dignity and merit above matrimony, we have a most express sentence of the Lord (Matthew, chapter 19), praising the Eunuchs who castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and preferring their condition to marriage. For when the disciples had said to the Lord, “If such is the case of a man with a wife, it is not expedient to marry,” He answered them: “Not all grasp this word, but those to whom it is given: for there are Eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who can grasp it, let him grasp it.” Paul too, in the seventh chapter of the former epistle to the Corinthians, disputing in most eloquent words concerning marriage, celibacy, and virginity, far prefers virginity and celibacy to marriage.3
SED ostendendum nobis est, telum quod ex hoc loco Mosis arripuerunt Haeretici, obtusissimum & planè nullum esse; vt de hoc aliísque Haereticorum telis illud Dauidis verè dici possit, Sagitta paruulorum facta sunt plagae eorum. Dicunt Haeretici, Deum his verbis dedisse homini praeceptum ineundi coniugium & dádi operam liberis. Ad hoc dupliciter responderi potest: vel concedendo illud Domini dictum continere praeceptum, sed negando eiusmodi praecepto teneri aut omnes homines aut omni tépore; vel inficiando in illis Dei verbis vllum praeceptum contineri, aut impositam esse homini necessitatem colendi matrimonium & vacandi prolis generationi. Qui priori responso insistunt, variis id modis tractant. B. Cyprianus Tracta-[tu...]
But it must be shown by us that the weapon which the Heretics have seized from this place of Moses is most blunt and plainly nothing; so that of this and the other weapons of the Heretics that saying of David could truly be said: “The arrows of little ones are made their wounds.” The Heretics say that God by these words gave to man a precept of entering marriage and of giving effort to children. To this it can be answered in two ways: either by conceding that that saying of the Lord contains a precept, but denying that all men, or at every time, are bound by such a precept; or by denying that any precept is contained in those words of God, or that a necessity of cultivating matrimony and engaging in the generation of offspring has been imposed on man. Those who insist on the former answer treat it in various ways. Blessed Cyprian, in his Treatise [...] [continues]4

[...Blessed Cyprian, in his] second Treatise On the Dress of Virgins (and the same was the opinion of certain other Fathers), thinks that that precept of the Lord had force up to the point at which the human race was multiplied, but that afterward continence was in praise and honor. “The first sentence of God,” he says, “commanded to increase and to generate; the second persuaded continence. While the world is still rude and empty, we are propagated by the abundance of generating fecundity, and we grow to the increase of the human race. When the world is now filled and the earth full, those who can receive continence, living after the manner of eunuchs, are made eunuchs for the kingdom.” Thus Cyprian.5

[...B. Cyprianus Tra]ctatu secundo de Habitu virginum (eadémque fuit quorundam aliorum Patrum sententia) censet praeceptum illud Domini vim habuisse quo ad multiplicatum est genus humanum; posteà verò continentiam in laude & honore fuisse. Prima, inquit, Dei sententia crescere & generare praecepit: secunda continentiam suasit. Cum adhuc rudis mundus & inanis est, copia foecunditatis generante propagamur, & crescimus ad humani generis augmentum. Cum iam refertus est orbis & mundus impletus, qui capere continentiam possunt, spadonum more viuentes castrantur ad regnum. Haec Cyprianus.

Treading in whose footsteps, the Master of the Sentences, in the fourth book, distinction 26, writes similar things in these words: “It can indeed be understood that that [word], ‘Increase and multiply,’ said under a precept to the first humans before sin, by which they were bound even after sin, [held] until the multiplication was made: after which, the contract of matrimony was not according to a precept, but according to indulgence. So also after the flood, by which almost the whole human race was destroyed, it was said by precept to the sons of Noah, ‘Increase and multiply.’ But man being multiplied, [marriage] was contracted according to indulgence, not according to command.” Thus he.6

Cuius vestigiis insistens Magister sententiarum libro 4. distinct. 26. similia scribit his verbis: Potest sanè intelligi illud sub praecepto dictum hominibus primis ante peccatú, Crescite & multiplicamini, quo etiam post peccatum tenebantur vsquequo est facta multiplicatio: postquam, contractus matrimonij fuit non secundùm praeceptum, sed secundùm indulgentiam. Ita etiam post diluuiú quo vniuersum penè humanum genus deletum est, secundùm praeceptum dictum est filiis Noë, Crescite & multiplicamini. Multiplicato verò homine, secundùm indulgentiam contractum est, non secundùm imperium. Sic ille.

AT Beatus Thomas aliter respondens dicit illud praeceptum Domini non obligasse omnes & singulos homines, sed tantùm ipsam multitudinem: & ideo non est implendum à singulis hominibus, sed satis est vt impleatur à multitudine secundum aliquos. Nam in Secunda secundae quaest. 152. artic. 2. respondens ad primum argumentum, quo probabatur illicitam esse virginitatem, quia est contra illud Dei praeceptum Crescite & multiplicamini, in hanc sententiam scribit:
But Blessed Thomas, answering otherwise, says that that precept of the Lord did not oblige all and each man, but only the multitude itself: and therefore it is not to be fulfilled by individual men, but it is enough that it be fulfilled by the multitude, through some [of them]. For in the second part of the second part, question 152, article 2, answering the first argument — by which it was being proved that virginity is illicit, because it is against that precept of God, “Increase and multiply” — he writes to this effect:7

“A precept has the nature of a debt: but there is a twofold kind of debt; one which ought to be fulfilled by each one, and this debt can be passed over by no one without sin; the other is a debt to be fulfilled not by individuals but by the multitude, by which not just anyone of the multitude is bound — for there are many things necessary to the multitude, for fulfilling which one does not suffice, but a multitude is needed, of which one does this, but another that. The precept, therefore, given by God to the first humans about eating, when He said, ‘Eat of every tree of Paradise,’ obliges all and each, and ought to be fulfilled by all; for without food no one can preserve life. But the precept given to man about generation, when it was said, ‘Increase and multiply,’ does not regard individual men, but the multitude of men; which it is necessary not only to multiply corporally, but also to grow and advance spiritually. Wherefore it is sufficiently provided for the human multitude, if some give effort to carnal generation, while others, abstaining from this, devote themselves to the contemplation of divine things, for the beauty and salvation of the whole human race. Just as also, in an army, some guard the camp, others bear the standards, some fight with swords: which things, nevertheless, are all debts of the multitude, but cannot be fulfilled by one [man].”8

Praeceptum habet rationem debiti: duplex autem est genus debiti; alterum quod impleri debet ab vnoquoque, & hoc debitum à nullo sine peccato praeteriri potest: alterum est debitum non à singulis sed à multitudine implendum, quo non quilibet de multitudine tenetur, multa enim sunt multitudini necessaria quibus explendis vnus non sufficit, sed opus est multitudine, cuius vnus aliquis hoc facit, alius verò aliud. Praeceptum igitur datú à Deo primis hominibus de comedendo, cùm dixit, Ex omni ligno Paradisi comede, omnes & singulos obligat, & ab omnibus impleri debet; sine cibo enim nullus vitam tueri potest. At praeceptum datum homini de generatione, cùm dictum est, Crescite & multiplicamini, non respicit singulos quásque homines, sed multitudinem hominum; quam necessarium est non solúm multiplicari corporaliter, sed etiam spiritualiter crescere ac proficere. Quocirca satis prouidetur humanae multitudini, si quidam generationi carnali operam dent; quidam verò ab hac abstinentes, contemplationi diuinorum vacent, ad totius humani generis pulchritudinem & salutem. Sicut etiam in exercitu quidam castra custodiunt, alij signa ferunt, nonnulli gladiis decertant: quae tamen omnia debita sunt multitudini, sed per vnum impleri non possunt.

Ad hunc igitur modum B. Thomas praeceptum illud Dei, Crescite & multiplicamini, interpretandum esse censet.
In this manner, therefore, Blessed Thomas thinks that precept of God, “Increase and multiply,” is to be interpreted.9

But Scotus, in the fourth [book] of the Sentences, distinction 26, interprets that precept in this manner: “The contract of matrimony,” he says, “was instituted [...] [continues]10

SCOTVS autem in quarto Sententiarum, distinctio 26. ad hunc modum interpretatur illud praeceptum: Contractus, inquit, matrimonij institutus [...]

[...The contract of matrimony] was instituted by God before the fall (Genesis 2, ‘This now is bone of my bones’; and Genesis 1, ‘Increase and multiply’), and after the fall (Genesis 3, ‘I will multiply thy conceptions and thy sorrows,’ said the Lord to Eve; and Genesis 9, ‘Increase and multiply’). And it is the institution of matrimony by way of an affirmative precept, which obliges always but not for-always, but in time of necessity: not only in the beginning, but it still seems to oblige in the same way, if a fewness of children should happen from some cause — say, from war, plague, or disaster, and the like.” Thus Scotus.11

[...Contractus matrimonij] institutus est à Deo ante lapsum, Genes. 2. Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis; & Genes. 1. Crescite & multiplicamini; & post lapsum Gen. 3. Multiplicabo conceptus tuos & aerúnas, dixit Dominus Euae; & Gen. 9. Crescite & multiplicamini. Et est institutio matrimonij per modú praecepti affirmatiui, quod obligat semper sed non ad semper, sed tempore necessitatis: non tantùm in principio, sed adhuc videtur eodé modo obligare, si paucitas in filiis ex aliqua causa accideret, putà ex bello, peste, vel clade, & huiusmodi. Ita Scotus.

Sunt etiam qui putauerunt praeceptum illud fuisse ratum & validum vsque ad Christi aduentú & promulgationem legis Euangelicae: tunc autem perdidisse vim suam, cùm Christus ad Eunuchismum & castrationem propter regnú Coelorum omnes inuitans dixit, Qui potest capere capiat.
There are also those who thought that that precept was firm and valid up to the coming of Christ and the promulgation of the evangelical law; but that it then lost its force, when Christ, inviting all to eunuchism and castration for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven, said, “He who can grasp it, let him grasp it.”12
SANCTVS CHRYSOSTOMVS in libro de Virginitate, cùm multis verbis contendisset probare non futuram in statu innocentiae coniunctionem maris & foeminae ad generationem prolis, sed eam ex peccato extitisse, in 17. capite eius libri dicit illa verba Domini, Crescite & multiplicamini & replete terram, non ad naturae institutionem & statum innocentiae pertinere, sed dicta esse in remedium concupiscentiae iam fluentis post peccatum. Chrysostomo suffragatur Damascenus libro 2. & 4. de fide orthodoxa, dicens propterea factam esse foeminam, quia sciebat Deus futurum esse peccatum, cui obnoxium genus humanum non aliter quàm per maris & foeminae coniunctionem esset generandum. Verùm ex narratione Mosis liquidissimè perspicitur, in statu innocentiae creatum esse marem & foeminam, & mulierem factam esse adiutorium viro, videlicet ad generationem prolis: id quod suprà, cùm explanaremus illa verba, Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi, satis argumentati sumus.
St. Chrysostom, in the book On Virginity, when he had contended with many words to prove that in the state of innocence there would not have been a union of male and female for the generation of offspring, but that it arose from sin, says, in the 17th chapter of that book, that those words of the Lord, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” do not pertain to the institution of nature and the state of innocence, but were said as a remedy for the concupiscence now flowing after sin. Damascene supports Chrysostom (book 2 and 4 On the Orthodox Faith), saying that the woman was made for this reason, because God knew that sin would be future, to which the human race, being liable, was to be generated in no other way than through the union of male and female. But from the narration of Moses it is most clearly seen that in the state of innocence male and female were created, and the woman was made a helper to the man — namely, for the generation of offspring: which we sufficiently argued above, when we explained those words, “Let us make him a helper like himself.”13
BEATVS AVGVSTINVS in lib. 14. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 21. commemorat opinionem quorundam, verba illa Crescite & multiplicamini spiritualiter tantú interpretantium:
Blessed Augustine, in book 14 On the City of God, chapter 21, records the opinion of certain men who interpret those words, “Increase and multiply,” only spiritually:14

“Some,” he says, “wish that ‘Increase and multiply’ be understood not according to carnal fecundity: because, according to the soul too, some such thing is read as said, ‘Thou shalt multiply virtue in my soul’; so that what follows in Genesis, ‘And fill the earth, and rule over it,’ they understand the ‘earth’ as the flesh which the soul fills by its presence, and over which it especially rules when it is multiplied in virtue. But carnal offspring, without the lust which arose after sin — looked upon, confounded, and veiled — could neither be born then, just as neither now can they; nor would they have come to be in Paradise, but outside, as also was done: for after they were dismissed thence, they came together to beget children, and begot them.”15

Quidá inquit, illud Crescite & multiplicamini, non secundùm carnalem foecunditatem volunt intelligi: quia & secundùm animam legitur tale aliquid dictum, Multiplicabis in anima mea virtutem: vt id quod in Genesi sequitur, Et implete terram, & dominamini eius, terram intelligant carnem quam praesentia sua implet anima, eiúsque maximè dominatur cùm in virtute multiplicatur. Carnales autem foetus sine libidine, qua post peccatum exorta, inspecta, confusa, & velata est, nec tunc nasci potuisse, sicut neque nunc possunt; nec in Paradiso futuros fuisse, sed foris sicut & factum est: nam posteaquam inde dimissi sunt, ad gignendum filios coierunt, eósque genuerunt.

Sic eo loco Augustinus: qui tamen ad hanc ipsam opinionem aliquando adhaesit, vt patet legenti quae ab eo disputantur super illis verbis Crescite & multiplicamini, tum in libro primo de Genesi contra Manichaeos, cap. 19. tum in lib. 13. Confessionum, capite 24. VERVM non in ista sententia perstitit Augustinus: nam eam aliis locis acerrimè oppugnauit. Sanè in lib. 14. de Ciuit. Dei capit. 22. aduersus eam ita disputat: Nos, inquit, nullo modo dubitamus secundùm bene-[dictionem...]
Thus Augustine in that place: who, nevertheless, once adhered to this very opinion, as is clear to one who reads the things disputed by him upon those words, “Increase and multiply,” both in the first book On Genesis against the Manichees, chapter 19, and in book 13 of the Confessions, chapter 24. But Augustine did not persist in that opinion: for he most sharply attacked it in other places. Indeed, in book 14 On the City of God, chapter 22, he disputes against it thus: “We,” he says, “in no way doubt that, according to the bless[ing...] [continues]16

[...We in no way doubt that, according to the bless]ing of God, to increase and multiply and fill the earth is a gift of the marriage which God instituted from the beginning, before the sin of man, by creating male and female: which sex is certainly evident in the flesh. For to this work of God the blessing too is subjoined: for when Scripture had said, ‘Male and female He made them,’ it immediately subjoined, ‘And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and rule over it,’ etc. All which things, although they could not unfittingly be referred also to the spiritual understanding, yet ‘male and female’ cannot be understood as something similar even within one man: because, namely, in him there is one thing that rules, [another that is ruled...] [continues]17

[...Nos nullo modo dubitamus secundùm bene]dictionem Dei crescere & multiplicari & implere terram, donú esse nuptiarum quas Deus ante peccatum hominis ab initio constituit, creando masculum & foeminam: qui sexus euidens vtique in carne est. Huic quippe operi Dei etiam benedictio subiecta est: Nam cùm scriptura dixisset, masculum & foeminam fecit eos, continuò subdidit, Et benedixit eis Deus dicens, Crescite & multiplicamini, & implete terram, & dominamini eius, &c. Quae omnia quanquam non inconuenienter possent etiam ad intellectum spiritualem referri, masculum tamen & foeminam non sicut simile aliquid etiam in homine vno intelligi potest: quia videlicet in eo aliud est quod regit, [aliud quod regitur...]

[...another that is ruled:] but as it most evidently appears in the bodies of different sex, that male and female were so created, that, by generating offspring, they might increase and multiply and fill the earth — to which sentence, so evident, it is great absurdity to be reluctant. For it was not about the spirit which commands and the flesh which obeys, nor about the rational mind which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor about the contemplative virtue by which it excels and the active by which it is subjected, nor about the intellect of the mind and the sense of the body, but openly about the conjugal bond by which each sex is mutually bound to the other, that the Lord, being asked whether it is lawful to dismiss a wife for any cause whatever, answered and said: ‘Have you not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh? Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh: what therefore God has joined, let not man separate.’ It is certain, therefore, that male and female were so instituted at the first, as now we see and know two humans of different [sex...] [continues]18

[...aliud quod regitur:] sed sicut euidentissimè apparet in diuersi sexus corporibus, masculum & foeminam ita creatos, vt prolem generando crescerent & multiplicarentur & implerent terram, cui sententiae tam euidenti magna absurditatis est reluctari. Neque enim de spiritu qui imperat & carne quae obtemperat, aut de animo rationali qui regit & irrationali cupiditate quae regitur, aut de virtute contemplatiua qua excellit & de actiua qua subditur, aut de intellectu mentis & sensu corporis, sed apertè de vinculo coniugali quo inuicem sibi vterque sexus obstringitur, Dominus interrogatus vtrum licet quacumque ex causa dimittere vxorem, respondit atque ait, Non legistis, quia qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum & foeminam fecit eos, & dixit, Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem & matrem, & adhaerebit vxori suae, & erunt duo in carne vna? Itaque iam non sunt duo, sed vna caro: Quod ergo Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Certum est igitur masculum & foeminam ita primitus institutos vt nunc homines duos diuersi [sexus videmus & nouimus...]

[...vt nunc homines duos diuersi sexus videmus & nouimus]. Hactenus verba fuere Augustini. HAEC prodita sunt ab iis qui existimarunt illis verbis Crescite & multiplicamini datum esse praeceptum hominibus ineundi coniugia, & dandi operam liberis propter humani generis multiplicationem. Nec tamen doctores isti putarunt eo Dei praecepto omnes homines omníque tempore astrictos teneri, vt falsò dictitant Haeretici. Censent enim illi praeceptum hoc vel nó obligare singulos quósque homines, sed in vniuersum tantummodo ipsam hominum societatem atque communitatem; vel obligasse quidem omnes homines, non tamen semper, sed tandiu quoad multiplicatum esset humanum genus; vel obligasse omnes & semper, verùm nó ad semper (vt loquitur Scotus), sed in casu tantùm necessitatis, cùm scilicet humanú genus propter saeuissimam aliquam pestem aut cladé aliásque calamitates adeo diminutum esset & ad tantam redactum paucitatem, vt nisi per ge-[nerationem...]
[...as now we see and know two humans of different sex.” Thus far were the words of Augustine. These [interpretations] were brought forth by those who thought that by those words, “Increase and multiply,” a precept was given to men of entering marriages and of giving effort to children, for the multiplication of the human race. Nor, however, did those doctors think that by that precept of God all men at every time are held bound, as the Heretics falsely keep saying. For they think this precept either does not oblige individual men, but only the society and community of men in general; or did indeed oblige all men, yet not always, but only so long as until the human race was multiplied; or obliged all and always, yet not for-always (as Scotus speaks), but only in a case of necessity — namely, when the human race, on account of some most savage plague or disaster and other calamities, was so diminished and reduced to such fewness, that unless by ge[neration...] [continues]19
[...vt nisi per generationem prolis quamprimùm succurreretur], timeri posset ne vel simpliciter & in toto orbe, vel certè in aliquo regno aut prouincia penitus interiret; vel denique praeceptú illud habuisse vim obligandi homines vsque ad tempus legis Euangelicae, quo tépore dato à Christo Domino colendi virginitatem & coelibatum consilio, obligatio illius antiqui praecepti soluta & sublata est. Verumtamen, haec respósa non ab Haereticis modo improbátur, sed nec omnibus Catholicis planè satisfaciunt. Certè aduersus ea satis copiosè disputat Michaël Medina [...]
[...that, unless it were succored by the generation of offspring as soon as possible], it could be feared lest either simply and in the whole world, or certainly in some kingdom or province, it should utterly perish; or, finally, that that precept had the force of obliging men up to the time of the evangelical law, at which time, the counsel of cultivating virginity and celibacy being given by Christ the Lord, the obligation of that ancient precept was loosed and removed. But nevertheless, these answers are not only disapproved by the Heretics, but they do not plainly satisfy all Catholics either. Certainly Michael Medina disputes against them copiously enough [...] [continues]20
[...Michaël] Medina, lib. 4. de Sacrorum hominum continentia, in exordio secundae controuersiae, per sex prima capita. DICAMVS igitur nos quod recta ratio similius vero esse suadet, & videtur sacris litteris congruentius: nullum illis Dei verbis Crescite & multiplicamini praeceptum contineri, sed voluisse Deum ea oratione declarare, propterea se cùm creauit hominem fecisse eum marem & foeminam, vt per legitimam eorum coniunctionem humana proles generaretur, & ita genus humanum omni saeculo propagatum perpetuò conseruari posset; quo autem celeriùs & copiosiùs genus humanum multiplicaretur, maximam se vtrique sexui generandi foecunditatem indidisse, idque sua benedictione significasse. Ob id autem imperandi modo dixit Deus Crescite & multiplicamini, vt intelligeretur illum Dei sermonem operatorium esse & efficacem eius quod significatur illis verbis: vt sicut in aliis omnibus, ita & in hoc illud verum fuerit, Dixit & facta sunt.
[...Michael] Medina (book 4 On the Continence of Sacred Men, in the opening of the second controversy, through the first six chapters). Let us therefore say what right reason persuades to be nearer the truth, and what seems more congruous to the sacred letters: that no precept is contained in those words of God, “Increase and multiply,” but that God willed by that speech to declare that He therefore, when He created man, made him male and female, that through their legitimate union human offspring might be generated, and so the human race, propagated in every age, might be perpetually preserved; and that, in order that the human race might be multiplied more quickly and copiously, He implanted the greatest fecundity of generating in each sex, and signified this by His blessing. And for this reason He said, in the manner of commanding, “Increase and multiply,” that it might be understood that that speech of God is operative and efficacious of that which is signified by those words: so that, as in all other things, so in this too that should be true, “He spoke, and they were made.”21
Nullum autem verbis illis subesse Dei praeceptum, tribus hisce argumentis probari potest. Etenim vt Deus dixit hominibus Crescite & multiplicamini, sic quinto die creatis piscibus & auibus similiter benedixit & dixit, Crescite & multiplicamini, & replete aquas maris, auésq́ multiplicentur super terram. Quis autem vsque eò sit amens, vt putet illis verbis datum esse à Deo praeceptum piscibus generandi & multiplicandi genus suum? pisces nempe cùm ratione careant, Dei legis & praecepti minimè sunt capaces. Deinde, quemadmodum dixit Deus Crescite & multiplicamini, ad eundem modum dixit primis hominibus, Replete terram & subiicite eam, Dominamini piscibus maris, & volatilibus coeli, & vniuersis animantibus quae mouentur super terram. Neminem autem crediderim esse vel tam rudem, vel tam opinionis suae tenacem, vt dicat praeceptum homini esse à Deo vt subiiciat sibi terram & dominetur animalibus: cùm per se manifestum sit, illis verbis non aliud significari quàm datum esse homini imperium in animalia, iúsque ea capiendi & possidendi, & ad vsus suos prout libitum fuerit conferendi.
But that no precept of God underlies those words can be proved by these three arguments. For, as God said to men, “Increase and multiply,” so on the fifth day, the fishes and birds having been created, He similarly blessed and said, “Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, and let the birds be multiplied over the earth.” But who would be so far out of his mind as to think that by those words a precept was given by God to the fishes of generating and multiplying their kind? For the fishes, since they lack reason, are by no means capable of God's law and precept. Next, just as God said, “Increase and multiply,” so in the same manner He said to the first humans, “Fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of heaven, and all living things that move over the earth.” But I would believe no one to be either so rude, or so tenacious of his opinion, as to say that it is a precept of God to man that he subdue the earth to himself and rule over the animals: since it is of itself manifest that by those words nothing else is signified than that dominion over the animals was given to man, and the right of taking and possessing them, and of applying them to his uses as he pleases.22
Denique, si fuisset illud Dei praeceptum ineundi matrimonium & vacandi prolis generationi, meritò quaerédum esset quo tempore illud praeceptum sit abrogatum: nusquam enim aut in veteri aut in nouo Testamento eius praecepti abrogatio traditur. Non est autem credibile, tam antiquum, tam generale, tam diuturnum Dei praeceptum sine publica auctoritate Ecclesiae vel Synagogae abrogatum iri. De abrogatione Circumcisionis & aliorum Caeremonialium legis Mosaicae multa legimus in Sacris litteris, & in vetustissimis Ecclesiae Conciliis decreta; de antiquatione huius praecepti nihil vspiam in diuinis litteris, aut in oecumenicis Conciliis sancitum & constitutum inuenitur. Verùm de hac quaestione satis in praesens disputatum sit.
Finally, if that had been a precept of God of entering matrimony and of engaging in the generation of offspring, it would deservedly have to be asked at what time that precept was abrogated: for nowhere, either in the Old or in the New Testament, is the abrogation of that precept delivered. But it is not credible that so ancient, so general, so long-lasting a precept of God would be abrogated without the public authority of the Church or of the Synagogue. Concerning the abrogation of Circumcision and of the other ceremonials of the Mosaic law, we read many things decreed in the Sacred letters, and in the most ancient Councils of the Church; concerning the antiquating of this precept, nothing anywhere is found sanctioned and established, either in the divine letters or in the ecumenical Councils. But let this question, for the present, be sufficiently disputed.23

Translator’s notes

  1. New disputation heading — a polemic against the Reformers, who argued from 'Increase and multiply' (Gen 1:28) that marriage/procreation is commanded of all and thus that vows of celibacy violate God's law. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'H.' The Protestant argument: since God commanded 'increase and multiply' (the first/second precept to Adam and all his race), to vow celibacy is to defy God's law — so the Catholic exaltation of virginity over marriage is impious. They preach this to the ignorant and the licentious. Pererius is appalled at calling celibacy a mere human invention displeasing to God. ↩
  3. Against the Reformers: Christ Himself commends celibacy above marriage (Matt 19:10-12, the 'eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven'), and Paul prefers virginity to marriage (1 Cor 7). ↩
  4. Pererius' rebuttal: the heretics' proof-text is feeble (Ps 64:7, 'the arrows of little ones'). Two answers to 'Increase and multiply = a precept binding all to marry': (1) grant it is a precept, but deny it binds all men or at all times; (2) deny it is a precept at all. Those taking the first line vary; Cyprian's treatment follows. Marginal glosses: 'Psal. 63.'; 'Responsio ad argumentum haereticorum.'; 'Prima interpretatio.' Page breaks at catchword 'ctatu' (Tractatu). RESUME PDF 543 with '...B. Cyprianus Tracta[tu]...'. ↩
  5. First interpretation (Cyprian, de Habitu virginum, with other Fathers): the command bound only until the race was multiplied; thereafter continence is honored ('eunuchs for the kingdom'). The same Cyprian passage was quoted earlier (printed p.463). ↩
  6. Peter Lombard (Sentences IV d.26) agrees: the precept bound the first humans (and Noah's sons after the flood) until the race was multiplied; thereafter marriage is by indulgence (permission), not command. Marginal gloss: 'Genes. 9.' ↩
  7. Second interpretation (Aquinas, ST II-II q.152 a.2 ad 1): the precept binds the community, not each individual — so it suffices that some fulfill it. Introduces the Aquinas quotation. Marginal gloss: 'Secunda expositio S. Thom.' ↩
  8. Aquinas block-quote: precepts are 'debts' of two kinds — individual (eating: all must, none omit without sin) and communal ('increase and multiply': owed by the multitude, fulfilled if some marry while others embrace contemplation) — like the different roles in an army. ↩
  9. Closing Aquinas' interpretation: the command is a communal debt, satisfied by the married while leaving celibacy open to others. ↩
  10. Third interpretation (Scotus, Sent. IV d.26) — begins (continues on the next page). Marginal gloss: 'Tertia expositio Scoti.' Page breaks at catchword 'instituus' (institutus). ↩
  11. Scotus block-quote: marriage was instituted before and after the fall; 'increase and multiply' is an affirmative precept that 'obliges always but not for-always' — binding only in times of necessity (war, plague, depopulation). Marginal gloss: 'Quarta expositio' (begins beside the next view). ↩
  12. Fourth interpretation: the precept was valid only until Christ, who released it by commending celibacy (Matt 19:12). Marginal gloss: 'Quarta expositio.' ↩
  13. Fifth view (Chrysostom, de Virginitate 17; Damascene): the male–female union and 'increase and multiply' belong to fallen nature, not innocence. Pererius rejects it: Moses shows the sexes and the woman-as-helper (for generation) instituted in innocence. Marginal gloss: 'Quinta expositio.' ↩
  14. Augustine reports (de Civ. Dei 14.21) an opinion reading 'increase and multiply' allegorically — introduces the quotation. Marginal gloss: 'B. Augustini sententia.' ↩
  15. The allegorizers' view (Augustine, de Civ. Dei 14.21, quoting it): 'increase and multiply' = multiply virtue in the soul (Ps 138:3); 'earth' = the flesh ruled by the soul; carnal offspring (with post-sin lust) could not have been born in Paradise, only outside, after the expulsion. Marginal gloss: 'Psalm. 137.' ↩
  16. Augustine himself once held the allegorical reading (de Gen. c. Manich. 1.19; Conf. 13.24) but later repudiated it sharply (de Civ. Dei 14.22) — beginning the recantation, which continues on the next page. Page breaks at catchword 'bene[dictionem].' ↩
  17. Augustine block-quote (de Civ. Dei 14.22): 'increase and multiply' is the gift of marriage, instituted before sin in the creation of the two sexes — a bodily distinction; 'male and female' cannot be allegorized into faculties within one man. ↩
  18. Augustine continues: the male/female of Gen 1:27-28 is literal, not allegorical — confirmed by Christ's own literal use of it (Matt 19:4-6) on the indissoluble marriage bond. ↩
  19. End of the Augustine quote. Pererius now sums up the 'first answer' camp: those who grant 'increase and multiply' is a precept all deny it binds every individual always (against the heretics) — variously: it binds only the community; or all but only till the race was multiplied; or all but only in cases of grave necessity (Scotus). ↩
  20. The remaining views: the precept bound in depopulation-emergencies (lest the race perish), or only until the Gospel (when Christ's counsel of celibacy released it). But these answers satisfy neither the heretics nor all Catholics — Medina argues against them. Page breaks at catchword 'Medina.' ↩
  21. Pererius' own preferred answer (the 'second response,' with Michael Medina): the words contain NO precept at all. They declare that God made the two sexes for propagation and implanted fecundity (the 'blessing'); the imperative form marks God's word as efficacious ('He spoke and they were made,' Ps 148:5). Marginal gloss: 'In illis verbis, Crescite & multiplicamini, nullum contineri praeceptum.' ↩
  22. First two of three arguments that 'increase and multiply' is no precept: (1) the same words were said to the fish and birds (Gen 1:22), who, lacking reason, cannot be bound by a precept; (2) 'subdue the earth and rule the animals' (Gen 1:28) is plainly a grant of dominion, not a command — so neither is 'increase and multiply.' Marginal gloss: 'Psal. 148.' ↩
  23. Third argument: if it were a precept, its abrogation would be recorded somewhere (as the abrogation of Circumcision and the Mosaic ceremonies is) — but no such repeal appears in Scripture or the Councils; so it was never a binding precept. This closes the disputation against the Reformers. Catchword 'Dixit' (signature SS) opens the next lemma. RESUME PDF 547 with 'Dixit...' (Gen 1:29). ↩