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