VOWS: THE MISERY OF RASHLY MAKING THEM.
It is a thing truly to be deplored, that the Church, after its liberty
had been purchased by the inestimable price of the blood of Christ,
should have been so oppressed with a cruel tyranny, and almost
overwhelmed with an immense mass of traditions; but the general frenzy
of individuals shows that it has not been without the justest cause,
that God has permitted so much to be done by Satan and his ministers.
For it was not sufficient for them to neglect the command of Christ, and
to endure every burden imposed on them by false teachers, unless they
respectively added some of their own, and so sunk themselves deeper in
pits of their own digging. This was the consequence of their rivalling
each other in the contrivance of vows to add a stronger and stricter
obligation to the common bonds. As we have shown that the service of God
was corrupted by the audacity of those who domineered over the Church
under the title of pastors, insnaring unhappy consciences with their
unjust laws; it will not be irrelevant here to expose a kindred evil, in
order to show that men, in the depravity of their hearts, have opposed
every possible obstacle to those means by which they ought to have been
conducted to God. Now, to make it more evident that vows have been
productive of the most serious mischiefs, it is necessary to remind the
readers of the principles already stated. In the first place, we have
shown that every thing necessary to the regulation of a pious and holy
life is comprehended in the law. We have also shown, that the Lord, in
order to call us off more effectually from the contrivance of new works,
has included all the praise of righteousness in simple obedience to his
will. If these things be true, the conclusion is obvious, that all the
services which we invent for the purpose of gaining the favour of God,
are not at all acceptable to him, whatever pleasure they may afford to
ourselves; and, in fact, the Lord himself, in various places, not only
openly rejects them, but declares them to be objects of his utter
abomination. Hence arises a doubt respecting vows which are made without
the authority of the express word of God, in what light they are to be
considered; whether they may be rightly made by Christian men, and how
far they are obligatory upon them. For what is styled a _promise_ among
men, in reference to God is called a _vow_. Now, we promise to men
either such things as we think will be agreeable to them, or such as we
owe them on the ground of duty. There is need, therefore, of far greater
care respecting vows, which are addressed to God himself, towards whom
we ought to act with the utmost seriousness. But here superstition has
prevailed, in all ages, to a wonderful degree, so that, without judgment
or discretion, men have precipitately vowed to God whatever was
uppermost in their minds, or even on their lips. Hence those fooleries,
and even monstrous absurdities of vows, by which the heathen insolently
trifled with their gods. And I sincerely wish that Christians had not
imitated them in such audacity. This ought never to have been the case;
but we see, that for several ages nothing has been more common than this
presumption; amidst the general contempt of the law of God, people have
been all inflamed with a mad passion for vowing whatever had delighted
them in their dreams. I have no wish to proceed to an odious
exaggeration, or a particular enumeration of the enormity and varieties
of this offence; but I have thought it proper to make these remarks by
the way, to show that we are not instituting an unnecessary discussion,
when we treat of vows.
II. If we would avoid any error in judging what vows are legitimate, and
what are preposterous, it is necessary to consider three things—first,
to whom vows are to be addressed; secondly, who we are that make vows;
lastly, with what intention vows are made. The first consideration calls
us to reflect, that we have to do with God; who takes such pleasure in
our obedience, that he pronounces a curse on all acts of will-worship,
however specious and splendid they may be in the eyes of men. If God
abominates all voluntary services invented by us without his command, it
follows, that nothing can be acceptable to him, except what is approved
by his word. Let us not, therefore, assume to ourselves such a great
liberty, as to presume to vow to God any thing that has no testimony of
his approbation. For the maxim of Paul, that “whatsoever is not of faith
is sin,”[1072] while it extends to every action, is without doubt
principally applicable when a man addresses his thoughts directly to
God. Paul is there arguing respecting the difference of meats; and if we
err and fall even in things of the least moment, where we are not
enlightened by the certainty of faith, how much greater modesty is
requisite when we are undertaking a business of the greatest importance!
For nothing ought to be of greater importance to us than the duties of
religion. Let this, then, be our first rule in regard to vows—never to
attempt vowing any thing without a previous conviction of conscience,
that we are attempting nothing rashly. And our conscience will be secure
from all danger of rashness, when it shall have God for its guide,
dictating, as it were, by his word, what it is proper or useless to do.
III. The second consideration which we have mentioned, calls us to
measure our strength, to contemplate our calling, and not to neglect the
liberty which God has conferred on us. For he who vows what is not in
his power, or is repugnant to his calling, is chargeable with rashness;
and he who despises the favour of God, by which he is constituted lord
of all things, is guilty of ingratitude. By this remark, I do not intend
that we have any thing in our power, so as to enable us to promise it to
God in a reliance on our own strength. For, with the strictest regard to
truth, it was decreed in the council of Arausium, that nothing is
rightly vowed to God but what we have received from his hand, seeing
that all the things which are presented to him are merely gifts which he
has imparted. But as some things are given to us by the goodness of God,
and other things are denied to us by his justice, let every man follow
the admonition of Paul, and consider the measure of grace which he has
received.[1073] My only meaning here, therefore, is, that vows ought to
be regulated by that measure which the Lord prescribes to us, by what he
has given us; lest, by attempting more than he permits, we precipitate
ourselves into danger, by arrogating too much to ourselves. Luke gives
us an example in those assassins who vowed “that they would neither eat
nor drink till they had killed Paul:”[1074] even though the design
itself had not been criminal, yet it would have betrayed intolerable
rashness, to make a man’s life and death subject to their power. So
Jephthah suffered the punishment of his folly, when, in the fervour of
precipitation, he made an inconsiderate vow.[1075] In vows of this
class, distinguished by mad presumption, that of celibacy holds the
preëminence. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetting their infirmity, think
themselves capable of celibacy. But by what revelation have they been
taught that they shall preserve their chastity all their lifetime, to
the end of which their vow reaches? They hear the declaration of God
concerning the universal condition of man; “It is not good for man to be
alone.”[1076] They understand, and I wish they did not feel, that sin
remaining in us is attended with the most powerful stimulants. With what
confidence can they dare to reject that general calling for their whole
life-time, whereas the gift of continence is frequently bestowed for a
certain time, as opportunity requires? In such obstinacy let them not
expect God to assist them, but rather let them remember what is written:
“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”[1077] Now, it is tempting God,
to strive against the nature which he has implanted in us, and to
despise the gifts which he presents, as though they were not at all
suitable for us. And they not only do this, but even marriage itself,
which God has deemed it no degradation of his majesty to institute,
which he has pronounced to be “honourable in all,” which our Lord Jesus
Christ sanctified with his presence, which he deigned to dignify with
his first miracle, they are not ashamed to stigmatize as pollution, for
the mere purpose of extolling celibacy, however it may be spent, with
the most extravagant encomiums. As though they did not exhibit a
striking proof in their own lives, that celibacy is one thing, and that
virginity is another; and yet they have the consummate impudence to call
such a life angelic. This is certainly doing a great injury to the
angels of God, to whom they compare persons guilty of fornication,
adultery, and other crimes far more atrocious and impure. And there is
not the least need of arguments, when they are clearly convicted by the
fact itself. For it is very evident what dreadful punishments the Lord
generally inflicts on such arrogance, self-confidence, and contempt of
his gifts. Modesty forbids me to animadvert on those things which are
more secret, of which too much is already known. That we are not at
liberty to vow any thing which may hinder us from serving God in our
vocation, is beyond all controversy; as if a father of a family should
vow that he will desert his wife and children, to undertake some other
charge; or as if a person qualified to fill the office of magistrate, on
being chosen to it, should vow that he would remain in a private
station. But the observation we have made, that our liberty ought not to
be despised, has some difficulty, which requires a further explication.
Now, the meaning may be briefly explained in the following manner: As
God has constituted us lords of all things, and has placed them in
subjection to us, in order that we might use them all for our
accommodation, we have no reason to hope that we should perform a
service acceptable to God, by making ourselves slaves to external
things, which ought to be subservient to our assistance. I say this,
because some persons consider themselves entitled to the praise of
humility, if they entangle themselves with many observances, from which
the Lord, for the best of reasons, intended we should be exempt.
Therefore, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember, that
we are never to depart from that economy which the Lord has instituted
in the Christian Church.
IV. I proceed now to the third consideration which I mentioned; that it
is of great importance with what intention a vow is made, if we wish it
to be approved by God. For as the Lord regards the heart, and not the
external appearance, it happens that the same action, performed with
different designs, is sometimes acceptable to him, and sometimes highly
displeasing. If any one vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any
holiness in such abstinence, he is chargeable with superstition; if this
be done for any other end which is not improper, no one can disapprove
of it. Now, as far as I am able to judge, there are four ends to which
our vows may be rightly directed. For the sake of further elucidation, I
refer two of them to the time past, and the other two to the future. To
the time past belong those vows by which we either testify our gratitude
to God for benefits received, or, in order to deprecate his wrath,
inflict punishment on ourselves for sins that we have committed. The
former may be called vows of thanksgiving; the latter, vows of
penitence. Of the former we have an example in Jacob, who vowed to give
to God the tenth of all he should acquire, if the Lord would bring him
again from his exile to his father’s house in peace.[1078] We have other
examples of the same kind in the ancient peace-offerings, which used to
be vowed by pious kings and generals, entering on just wars, to be
offered in case they should obtain the victory; or by persons labouring
under more than common difficulty, in case the Lord would deliver them.
Thus we are to understand all those places in the Psalms which speak of
vows.[1079] Vows of this kind may also be now used among us, whenever
God delivers us from any great calamity, from a severe disease, or from
any other danger. For on such occasions, it is not inconsistent with the
duty of a pious man to consecrate to God some oblation that he has
vowed, merely as a solemn token of grateful acknowledgment, that he may
not appear unthankful for his goodness. The nature of the second species
of vows will sufficiently appear from only one familiar example. If a
person has fallen into any crime through the vice of intemperance,
nothing prevents him from correcting that vice by a temporary
renunciation of all delicacies, and enforcing this abstinence by a vow,
to lay himself under the stronger obligation. Yet I impose no perpetual
law on those who have been guilty of such an offence; I only point out
what they are at liberty to do, if they think that such a vow would be
useful to them. I consider a vow of this kind, therefore, as lawful,
but, at the same time, as left to the free choice of every individual.
V. Vows which regard the future, as I have observed, have for their
object, partly to render us more cautious of danger, partly to stimulate
us to the performance of duty. For example; a person perceives himself
to be so prone to a certain vice, that, in something not otherwise evil,
he cannot restrain himself from falling into sin; he will commit no
absurdity, if he should deny himself the use of that thing for a season
by a vow. If any one be convinced that this or the other ornament of
dress is dangerous to him, and yet feel excessive desire for it, he
cannot do better than restrain himself by imposing a necessity of
abstinence, in order to free himself from all hesitation. So, if any one
be forgetful or negligent of the necessary duties of piety, why may he
not arouse his memory, and shake off his negligence by the imposition of
a vow? In both cases, I confess, there is an appearance of pupilage;
but, considered as helps of infirmity, such vows may be used with
advantage by the inexperienced and imperfect. Vows, therefore, which
respect one of these ends, especially those relating to external things,
we shall affirm to be lawful, if they be supported by the approbation of
God, if they be suitable to our calling, and if they be limited by the
ability of grace which God has given us.
VI. It will not now be difficult to conclude what ideas ought to be
entertained of vows universally. There is one vow common to all
believers, which is made in baptism, and confirmed and established by us
in the profession of our faith in the Catechism, and in the reception of
the Lord’s supper. For the sacraments resemble covenants, or instruments
of agreement, by which God conveys his mercy to us, and in it eternal
life; and we, on the other hand, promise him obedience. Now, the form,
or at least the sum of the vow is, that, renouncing Satan, we devote
ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and not to
follow the corrupt inclinations of the flesh. This vow being sanctioned
by the Scripture, and even required of all the children of God, it ought
not to be doubted that it is holy and useful. It is no objection to
this, that no man in the present life performs the perfect obedience
which God requires of us; for as this stipulation is included in the
covenant of grace, which contains both remission of sins and the spirit
of sanctification, the promise which we then make is connected with, and
presupposes our supplication for mercy, and our solicitation for
assistance. In judging of particular vows, it is necessary to remember
the three rules which we have given, which will enable us to form a
correct estimate of the nature of every vow. Yet I would not be thought
to carry my recommendation, even of those vows which I maintain to be
holy, so far as to wish their daily use. For though I venture to
determine nothing respecting the number or time, yet, if any person
would follow my advice, he will make none but such as are sober, and of
short duration. For if any one often recur to the making of many vows,
all religion will be injured by their frequency, and there will be great
danger of falling into superstition. If any one bind himself by a
perpetual vow, he will not discharge it without great trouble and
difficulty; or, wearied by its long continuance, he will at length
violate it altogether.
VII. Now, it is evident what great superstition has for some ages
prevailed in the world on this subject. One person vowed that he would
drink no wine; as though abstinence from wine were a service in itself
acceptable to God. Another obliged himself to fast; another to abstain
from meat on certain days, which he had falsely imagined to possess some
peculiar sanctity beyond others. There were some vows far more puerile,
though not made by children. For it was esteemed great wisdom to vow
pilgrimages to places of more than common holiness, and to perform the
journey either on foot, or with the body half naked, that the merit
might be augmented by the fatigue. These, and similar vows, with an
incredible rage for which the world has long been inflamed, examined
according to the rules which we have laid down, will not only be found
to be vain and nugatory, but replete with manifest impiety. For whatever
may be the judgment of the flesh, God holds nothing in greater
abomination than services of human invention. The following pernicious
and execrable opinions are also entertained; hypocrites, when they have
performed these fooleries, suppose themselves to have attained a high
degree of righteousness; they place the whole substance of piety in
external observances; and they despise all who discover less concern
about these things than themselves.
VIII. To enumerate all the particular kinds of vows, would answer no
good purpose. But, because monastic vows are held in very high
veneration, as they seemed to be sanctioned by the public authority of
the Church, it is proper to make a few brief remarks respecting them. In
the first place, that no one may defend monachism, as it exists in the
present day, under the pretence of ancient and long-continued
prescription, it must be observed, that the mode of life in monasteries,
in ancient times, was very different from what it is now. They were the
retreats of those who wished to habituate themselves to the greatest
austerity and patience; for the discipline attributed to the
Lacedæmonians, under the laws of Lycurgus, was equalled, and even
considerably exceeded in rigour, by that which was then practised among
the monks. They slept on the ground without any beds or couches; they
drank nothing but water; their food consisted entirely of bread, herbs,
and roots; their principal dainties were oil, pease, and beans. They
abstained from all delicacy of victuals and ornaments of the body. These
things might be thought incredible, if they were not attested by persons
who saw and experienced them, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, and
Chrysostom. But it was by such probationary discipline that they
prepared themselves for higher offices. For that the monastic colleges
were at that time the seminaries, from which the Church was furnished
with ministers, is sufficiently evident from the examples of those whom
we have mentioned, who were all educated in monasteries, and from that
situation were called to the episcopal office, as well as of many other
great and excellent men of their age. And Augustine shows that the same
custom of supplying ministers for the Church from the monasteries
continued in his time; for the monks of the Island of Capraria are
addressed by him in the following manner: “We exhort you in the Lord,
brethren, that you keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and
that, if at any time your mother the Church shall have need of your
labour, you neither undertake the charge with eager pride, nor refuse it
with flattering indolence; but that you obey God with gentleness of
heart; not preferring your leisure to the necessities of the Church,
whom, if no good men had been disposed to assist in the production of
her children, you cannot discover how you could yourselves have been
born.” He here speaks of the ministry, which is the means of the
regeneration of believers. Again, in an epistle to Aurelius, he says:
“It causes an occasion of falling to themselves, and a most injurious
indignity to the ecclesiastical order, if the deserters of monasteries
are chosen to clerical offices; while of those who remain in the
monastery, we are accustomed to promote to such offices only the best
and most approved. Unless, perhaps, as the common people say, A bad
dancer is a good musician, so it should be jocularly said of us, A bad
monk will be a good minister. It is too much to be lamented, if we
stimulate monks to such ruinous pride, and think the clergy deserving of
such heavy disgrace; whereas, sometimes even a good monk will hardly
make a good priest, if he has sufficient continence, and yet is
deficient in necessary learning.” From these passages it appears that
pious men were accustomed to prepare themselves, by monastic discipline,
for the government of the Church, that they might be the better
qualified to undertake such an important office. Not that all monks
attained this end; or even aimed at it; for they were in general
illiterate men, but those who were qualified were selected.
IX. But Augustine has given us a portraiture of the ancient monachism,
principally in two places; in his treatise On the Manners of the
Catholic Church, in which he defends the sanctity of that profession
against the calumnies of the Manichæans; and in another book, On the
Labour of Monks, in which he inveighs against some degenerate monks, who
had begun to corrupt that order. The different things which he states, I
shall here collect in a brief summary, using, as far as possible, his
own words. “Despising the allurements of this world, united in a common
life of the strictest chastity and holiness, they spend their time
together, living in prayers, in readings, and in conferences, neither
inflated with pride, nor turbulent with obstinacy, nor pale with envy.
No one possesses any thing of his own; no one is burdensome to another.
By the labour of their hands, they procure those things which are
sufficient to support the body, without hindering the mind from devotion
to God. Their work they deliver to those who are called Deans. These
Deans dispose of every thing with great care, and render an account to
one, whom they call Father. Most holy in their manners, preëminent in
divine learning, and excelling in every virtue, these Fathers, without
any pride, consult the welfare of those whom they call children,
commanding them with great authority, and obeyed by them with great
cheerfulness. At the close of the day, while yet fasting, every one
comes forth from his cell, and they all assemble to hear the Father; and
each of these Fathers is surrounded by at least three thousand men,” (he
is speaking chiefly of Egypt and the East;) “there they take some bodily
refreshment, as much as is sufficient for life and health; every one
restraining his appetite that he may make but a sparing use even of the
provisions placed before him, which are in small quantities, and of the
plainest description. That they not only abstain from animal food and
from wine, in order to repress libidinous desires, but from such things
as stimulate the appetite with greater power, in proportion to the
opinion entertained by some persons of their purity; under which
pretence a vile longing after exquisite meats, with the exception of
animal food, is wont to be ridiculously and shamefully defended.
Whatever remains beyond their necessary food, (and the surplus is
considerable, both from the diligence of their hands, and from the
abstemiousness of their meals,) is distributed to the poor, with greater
care than if it had been earned by those who distribute it. For they are
not anxious to have an abundance of these things, but all their concern
is, that none of their abundance may remain with them.” Afterwards,
having mentioned their austerity, of which he had seen examples at Milan
and other places, he says, “In these circumstances, no one is urged to
austerities which he is unable to bear; there is no imposition on any
one, of that which he refuses; nor is he condemned by the rest, because
he confesses himself too weak to imitate them; for they remember the
high commendations given of charity; they remember that to the pure, all
things are pure.[1080] Therefore all their industry is exerted, not in
rejecting certain kinds of food as polluted, but in subduing
concupiscence and preserving the love of the brethren. They remember
that it is said, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God
shall destroy both it and them.[1081] Yet many strong persons abstain on
account of the weak. Many have a different reason for doing it; they are
fond of living on meaner and less sumptuous food. These persons,
therefore, who are abstemious when in perfect health, if a state of
indisposition requires, partake, without any fear, when they are sick.
Many drink no wine; but this is not from an apprehension of being
defiled with it; for they most humanely cause it to be given to those
who are languid, and cannot obtain health of body without it; and some,
who foolishly refuse it, they admonish, with brotherly affection, to
beware lest their vain superstition debilitate them rather than promote
their holiness. Thus they diligently exercise themselves in piety: but
they know that the exercise of the body extends only to a short time.
Charity is principally observed; to charity the food, the conversation,
the apparel, the countenance, are subservient. They all assemble and
combine into one charity; to violate this, is accounted unlawful, and a
sin against God; if any one resist charity, he is expelled and shunned;
if any one offend against it, he is not suffered to remain a single
day.” As Augustine appears, in these passages, to have exhibited a
portraiture of the true character of ancient monachism, I have thought
proper, notwithstanding their length, to insert them here; for I saw
that, however I might study brevity, yet I should go into still greater
length, if I were to collect the same things from different authors.
X. My design here is not to pursue the whole argument, but merely to
point out, by the way, the characters of the monks who belonged to the
ancient Church, and the nature of the monastic profession at that
period, that the judicious readers may be able, from a comparison, to
judge of the effrontery of those who plead antiquity in support of the
monachism of the present day. When Augustine gives us a description of
holy and legitimate monachism, he excludes from it all rigid exaction or
imposition of those things which the Lord in his word has left free. But
there is nothing at the present day more severely enforced. For they
consider it a crime, never to be expiated, for any one to deviate in the
minutest particular from the rules prescribed in the colour or shape of
their apparel, the kind of food, or other frivolous and uninteresting
ceremonies. Augustine strenuously contends, that it is not lawful for
monks to live in idleness at the expense of others. He denies that there
was such an example to be found in his time in any well regulated
monastery. The present monks place the principal part of their sanctity
in idleness. For if they were divested of idleness, what would become of
that contemplative life, in which they boast of excelling other men, and
of making near approaches to the life of angels? In fine, Augustine
requires a monachism which would be no other than an exercise and
assistance in the duties of piety, which are enjoined on all Christians.
What! when he represents charity as the principal and almost only rule
of it, can we suppose him to be commending a conspiracy, by which a few
men are closely united to each other, and separated from the whole body
of the Church? On the contrary, he would have them to enlighten others
by their example, in order to the preservation of the unity of the
Church. In both these respects, the nature of modern monachism is so
different, that it is scarcely possible to find any thing more
dissimilar or opposite. For, not content with that piety, to the study
of which Jesus Christ commands his servants constantly to devote
themselves, our present monks imagine I know not what new kind of piety,
in the meditation of which they are become more perfect than all others.
XI. If they deny this, I would wish them to inform me why they dignify
their order alone with the title of _perfection_, and deny this
character to all the callings appointed by God. I am not unacquainted
with their sophistical solution, that it is so called, not as containing
perfection in it, but because it is the best calculated of all callings
for the attainment of perfection. When they wish to elevate themselves
in the estimation of the people, to entrap inexperienced and ignorant
youths, to assert their privileges, to extol their own dignity to the
degradation of others, they boast of being in a state of perfection.
When they are so closely pressed, that they cannot defend such empty
arrogance, they have recourse to this subterfuge—that they have not yet
attained perfection, but that they are in a condition more favourable
than any others for aspiring towards it. In the mean time they retain
the admiration of the people, as though the monastic life, and that
alone, were angelic, perfect, and purified from every blemish. Under
this pretext they carry on a most lucrative traffic; but their
moderation lies buried in a few books. Who does not see that this is an
intolerable mockery? But let us argue the case as if they really
attributed no higher honour to their profession, than to call it a state
adapted to the attainment of perfection. Still, by giving it this
designation, they distinguish it, as by a peculiar mark, from all other
modes of life. And who can bear that such honour should be transferred
to an institution, which has never received from God even a single
syllable of approbation, and that such indignity should be cast on all
the other callings of God, which have not only been enjoined, but
adorned with signal commendations by his most holy word? And what an
outrageous insult is offered to God, when a mere human invention is
preferred beyond all the kinds of life which he has appointed and
celebrated by his own testimony!
XII. Now, let them charge me with a calumny in what I have already
alleged, that they are not content with the rule which God has
prescribed to his servants. Though I were silent on the subject, they
furnish more than sufficient ground for their own accusation; for they
openly teach that they take upon themselves a greater burden than Christ
laid upon his disciples, because they promise to keep the evangelical
counsels, which inculcate the love of our enemies, and prohibit the
desire of revenge and profane swearing, and which, they say, are not
binding on Christians at large. What antiquity will they plead here?
This notion never entered into the mind of one of the ancients. They
all, with one consent, declare that there was not a syllable uttered by
Christ which we are not bound to obey; and without any hesitation they
uniformly and expressly represent the passages in question as commands,
which these sagacious interpreters pretend to have been delivered by
Christ merely as counsels. But as we have already shown that this is a
most pestilent error, it may suffice to have briefly remarked here, that
the monachism which exists at present, is founded on the opinion, which
justly deserves to be execrated by all believers, that some rule of life
may be imagined more perfect than the common one given by God to all the
Church. Whatever superstructure is raised on this foundation, cannot but
be abominable.
XIII. But they adduce another argument in proof of their perfection,
which they consider as most conclusive; our Lord said to the young man
who inquired what was the perfection of righteousness, “If thou wilt
be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.”[1082]
Whether they do this, I shall not now dispute; let us at present put
the case that they do. They boast, therefore, that they have been made
perfect by forsaking all that they have. If the whole of perfection
consist in this, what does Paul mean, when he says, “Though I bestow
all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, I am
nothing?”[1083] What kind of perfection is that which is reduced to
nothing by the absence of charity? Here they will be obliged to
answer, that though this is the principal, yet it is not the only work
of perfection. But here also they are contradicted by Paul, who
hesitates not to make “charity,” without any such renunciation, “the
bond of perfection.”[1084] If it is certain, that there is no
discordance between the Master and the disciple,—and Paul explicitly
denies the perfection of a man to consist in the renunciation of his
property, and, on the other hand, asserts that it may exist without
that relinquishment,—it is necessary to examine in what sense we are
to understand the declaration of Christ, “If thou wilt be perfect, go
and sell that thou hast.” Now, there will be no obscurity in the
sense, if we consider, what ought always to be considered in all the
discourses of Christ, to whom the words are addressed. A young man
inquires, “What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal
life?”[1085] As the question related to works, Christ refers him to
the law; and that justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of
eternal life, and is not otherwise insufficient to conduct us to
salvation, than in consequence of our depravity. By this answer Christ
declared, that he taught no other system of life than that which had
anciently been delivered in the law of God. Thus he at the same time
gave a testimony to the divine law as the doctrine of perfect
righteousness, and precluded all calumnies, that he might not appear,
by inculcating a new rule of life, to incite the people to a departure
from the law. The young man, not indeed from badness of heart, but
infected with vain confidence, replies respecting the precepts of the
law, “All these things have I kept from my youth up.”[1086] It is
certain beyond all doubt, that he was at an immense distance from that
which he boasted of having attained; and had his boast been true, he
would have wanted nothing necessary to complete perfection. For it has
been already proved that the law contains in itself a perfect
righteousness; and it appears from this passage that the observance of
it is called _the entrance_ into eternal life. To teach him how little
proficiency he had made in that righteousness, which he too
confidently replied that he had fulfilled, it was necessary to
investigate and expose a vice which lay concealed in his heart. He
abounded in riches, and his heart was fixed on them. Because he was
not sensible of this secret wound, therefore, Christ probes it. “Go,”
says he, “sell all that thou hast.” If he had been so good an observer
of the law as he imagined, he would not have gone away sorrowful on
hearing this answer. For he who loves God with all his heart, not only
esteems as worthless whatever is inconsistent with his love, but also
abominates it as pernicious. Therefore, when Christ commands a rich
and avaricious man to relinquish all his wealth, it is just the same
as if he commanded an ambitious man to renounce all his honours, a
voluptuous man to abandon all his delicacies, and an unchaste man to
forsake all the instruments of temptation. Thus consciences, which
receive no impression from general admonitions, require to be recalled
to a particular sense of their own guilt. It is in vain, therefore, to
extend this particular argument to a general maxim, as though Christ
placed all the perfection of man in the renunciation of his
possessions, whereas he only meant by this direction to drive this
young man, who betrayed such excessive self-complacency, into a sense
of his malady, that he might perceive himself to be still very far
from the perfect obedience of the law, to which he arrogantly and
falsely pretended. I confess that this passage was misunderstood by
some of the fathers, and that their misconstruction gave rise to an
affectation of voluntary poverty; so that they were supposed to be the
only happy persons, who renounced all earthly things, and devoted
themselves entirely to Christ. But I trust that the explication which
I have given will be satisfactory to all good and peaceable persons,
so as to leave them in no doubt of the true meaning of Christ.
XIV. Nothing, however, was further from the intention of the fathers,
than to establish such a perfection as has since been fabricated by
these hooded sophisters, which goes to set up two kinds of Christianity.
For no one had then given birth to that sacrilegious dogma, which
compares the monastic profession to baptism, and even openly asserts it
to be a species of second baptism. Who can doubt that the fathers would
have sincerely abhorred such blasphemy? As to the concluding observation
of Augustine, respecting the ancient monks, that they devoted themselves
wholly to charity, what need is there for a word to be said to
demonstrate it to be altogether inapplicable to this modern profession?
The fact itself declares, that all who retire into monasteries separate
themselves from the Church. For do they not separate themselves from the
legitimate society of believers, by taking to themselves a peculiar
ministry and a private administration of the sacraments? What is a
disruption of the communion of the Church, if this be not? And to pursue
the comparison which I have commenced, and to conclude it at once, what
resemblance have they in this respect to the monks of ancient times?
Though they lived in a state of seclusion from other men, they had no
separate Church; they received the sacraments with others; they attended
the solemn assemblies to hear preaching, and to unite in prayers with
the company of believers; and there they formed a part of the people. In
erecting a private altar for themselves, what have the present monks
done, but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated
themselves from the general body of the Church, and have shown contempt
of the ordinary ministry, by which it has pleased God that peace and
charity should be preserved among his servants. All the present
monasteries, therefore, I maintain to be so many conventicles of
schismatics, who disturb the order of the Church, and have been cut off
from the legitimate society of believers. And to place this division
beyond all doubt, they have assumed various names of sects; and have not
been ashamed to glory in that which Paul execrates beyond all
possibility of exaggeration. Unless we suppose that Christ was divided
by the Corinthians, when every one boasted of his particular
teacher;[1087] and that it is now no derogation from the honour of
Christ, when, instead of the name of Christians, some are called
Benedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans; and when they
haughtily assume these titles to themselves as the badges of their
religious profession, from an affectation of being distinguished from
the general body of Christians.
XV. The differences which I have stated, between the ancient monks and
those of the present age, relate not to manners, but to the profession
itself. Let it, therefore, be remembered by the readers, that I have
spoken of monachism rather than of monks, and have censured those faults
which are not merely chargeable on the lives of a few, but which are
inseparable from the life itself. The great dissimilarity of their
manners can hardly require a particular representation. It is obvious,
that there is no order of men more polluted with all the turpitude of
vice; none more disgraced by factions, animosities, cabals, and
intrigues. In some few convents, indeed, they live in chastity; if
chastity it must be called, where concupiscence is so far restrained as
not to be publicly infamous; but it is scarcely possible to find one
convent in ten, which is not rather a brothel than a sanctuary of
chastity. What frugality is there in their food? They are exactly like
so many swine fattening in a sty. But lest they should complain that I
handle them too roughly, I proceed no further; though in the few
particulars upon which I have touched, whoever knows the matter of fact
will acknowledge that I have confined myself to the simple truth.
Augustine, at a time when, according to his own testimony, monks were so
eminent for the strictest chastity, yet complains that there were many
vagabonds among them, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extorted money
from the unwary, who exercised a scandalous traffic by carrying about
the relics of martyrs, and even sold the bones of any dead men as the
bones of martyrs, and who brought disgrace on the order by a great
number of similar crimes. As he declares that he had seen no better men
than those who had been improved in monasteries, so he complains that he
had seen no worse men than those who had been corrupted in monasteries.
What would he say, at the present day, to see almost all monasteries,
not only filled, but overflowing, with so many and such desperate vices?
I say nothing but what is notorious to every person; though this censure
is not applicable to all without any exception. For as the rule and
discipline of holy living has never been so well established in
monasteries, but that there were always some drones very different from
the rest, so I do not say that the monks of the present day have so far
degenerated from that holy antiquity, that there are not still some good
men among their body; but they are few, dispersed and concealed among a
vast multitude of the wicked and abandoned; and they are not only held
in contempt, but insulted and molested, and sometimes even treated with
cruelty by the rest; who, according to a proverb of the Milesians, think
that no good man ought to be suffered to remain among them.
XVI. By this comparison of ancient and modern monachism I trust I have
succeeded in my design of evincing the fallacy of the plea, which the
present men of the hood allege in defence of their profession, from the
example of the primitive Church; as they differ from the early monks
just as apes do from men. At the same time, I admit that even in the
ancient system which Augustine commends, there is something which I
cannot altogether approve. I grant, they discovered no superstition in
the external exercises of a too rigid discipline; but I maintain that
they were not free from excessive affectation and misguided zeal. It
seemed a good thing to forsake their property in order to exempt
themselves from all earthly solicitude; but God sets a higher value on
pious exertions for the government of a family, when a holy father of a
family, free from all avarice, ambition, and other corrupt passions,
devotes himself to this object, that he may serve God in a particular
calling. It is a beautiful thing to live the life of a philosopher in
retirement, at a distance from the society of men; but it is not the
part of Christian charity for a man to act as if he hated all mankind,
withdrawing to the solitude of a desert, and abandoning the principal
duties which the Lord has commanded. Though we should grant that there
was no other evil in this profession, yet certainly this was not a small
one, that it introduced a useless and pernicious example into the
Church.
XVII. Let us now examine the nature of the vows by which monks in the
present day are initiated into this celebrated order. In the first
place, their design is to institute a new service, in order to merit the
favour of God; therefore I conclude, from the principles already
established, that whatever they vow is an abomination in the sight of
God. Secondly, without any regard to the calling of God, and without any
approbation from him, they invent for themselves a new mode of life, in
conformity with their own inclinations; therefore I maintain it to be a
rash and unlawful attempt, because their consciences have nothing to
rest upon before God, and “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.”[1088]
Thirdly, they bind themselves to many corrupt and impious services,
comprehended in the monachism of the present day; therefore I contend,
that they are not consecrated to God, but to the devil. For why was it
lawful for the prophet to say of the Israelites, that “they sacrificed
unto devils, not to God,”[1089] only because they had corrupted the true
worship of God with profane ceremonies; and why shall it not be lawful
for us to say the same of the monks, whose assumption of the hood is
accompanied with the yoke of a thousand impious superstitions? Now, what
is the nature of their vows? They promise to God to maintain perpetual
virginity, as if they had previously stipulated with him that he should
exempt them from the necessity of marriage. They have no room to plead,
that they make this vow merely in a reliance on the grace of God; for as
he declares that it is not given to all men,[1090] we have no right to
entertain a confidence that we shall receive the special gift. Let those
who possess it use it: if they experience disquietude from the
stimulations of passion, let them have recourse to his aid by whom alone
they can be strengthened to resist. If they are unsuccessful, let them
not despise the remedy which is offered to them. For those who are
denied the gift of continence, are undoubtedly called to marriage by the
voice of God. By continence I mean, not a mere abstinence of the body
from fornication, but an unpolluted chastity of mind. For Paul enjoins
the avoidance not only of external impurity, but also of the internal
burning of libidinous desire.[1091] It has been a custom, they say, from
time immemorial, for persons who intended to devote themselves entirely
to the Lord, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that
this custom was practised in the early ages; but I cannot admit those
ages to have been so free from every fault, that whatever was done then
must be received as a rule. And it was only by degrees that in process
of time things were carried to such an extreme of rigour that no one,
after having made the vow, was permitted to recall it. This is evident
from Cyprian. “If virgins have faithfully dedicated themselves to God,
let them persevere in modesty and chastity without any disguise. Thus,
being firm and constant, they may expect the reward of virginity. But if
they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better for them to be married,
than with their pleasure to fall into the fire.” With what reproaches
would they now hesitate to stigmatize a person who would wish to
introduce such a reasonable limitation of the vow of continence? They
have widely departed, therefore, from the ancient custom, in refusing to
admit the least moderation or relaxation, if any one be found incapable
of performing the vow; and not only so, but they are not ashamed to
pronounce that he commits a greater sin, if he remedies his intemperance
by taking a wife, than if he contaminates his body and soul with
fornication.
XVIII. But they still pursue the argument, and endeavour to show that
vows of this kind were in use in the times of the apostles; because Paul
says that widows who, after having been received into the public service
of the church, married, had “cast off their first faith.”[1092] I do not
deny that widows who dedicated themselves and their services to the
Church, thereby entered into a tacit obligation never to marry again;
not because they placed any religion in such abstinence, as began to be
the case afterwards; but because they could not discharge that office
without being at their own disposal, free from the restraint of
marriage. But if, after having pledged their faith, they contemplated a
second marriage, what was this but renouncing the calling of God? It is
no wonder, therefore, if he says that with such desires “they wax wanton
against Christ.” Afterwards, by way of amplification, he subjoins, that
they failed of performing what they had promised to the Church, so that
they even violated and annulled their first faith pledged in baptism;
which includes an engagement from every one to fulfil the duties of his
calling. Unless it be thought better to understand the meaning to be,
that having, as it were, lost all shame, they would thenceforward have
no longer any regard for virtue, but would abandon themselves to every
kind of profligacy, and in a licentious and dissolute life exhibit the
greatest contrariety to the character of Christian women—an
interpretation which I much approve. We reply, therefore, that those
widows, who were then received into the service of the Church, imposed
on themselves the condition of perpetual widowhood; if they afterwards
married, we easily understand their situation to have been as Paul
states, that, casting off shame, they betrayed an insolence unbecoming
Christian women; and that thus they not only sinned in breaking their
faith pledged to the Church, but in departing from the common
obligations of pious females. But first, I deny that they engaged to
remain in a state of widowhood for any other reason than because
marriage would be altogether incompatible with the office which they
undertook; or that they bound themselves to widowhood at all, except as
far as the necessity of their vocation should require. Secondly, I do
not admit that their profession was so binding, but that even then it
was better for them to marry than to be inflamed with concupiscence, or
to be guilty of any impurity of conduct. Thirdly, I observe that Paul
prescribes that age which is generally beyond all danger, forbidding any
to be received under threescore years old; and especially when he
directs that the choice shall be limited to those who have been content
with one marriage, and have thus already given proof of their
continence. And we condemn the vow of celibacy for no other reason, but
because it is unjustly considered as a service acceptable to God, and is
rashly made by those who have not the power to keep it.
XIX. But how was it possible to apply this passage of Paul to nuns? For
widows were appointed deaconesses, not to charm God by songs or
unintelligible murmurs, and to spend the rest of their time in idleness;
but to serve the poor on behalf of the whole Church, and to employ
themselves with all attention, earnestness, and diligence, in the duties
of charity. They made a vow of widowhood, not with a view of performing
any service to God in abstaining from marriage, but merely that they
might be more at liberty for the discharge of their office. Lastly, they
made this vow, not in their youth, nor in the flower of their age, to
learn afterwards, by late experience, over what a precipice they had
thrown themselves; but, when they appeared to have passed all danger,
they made a vow equally consistent with safety and with piety. But, not
to urge the two former considerations, it is sufficient to observe, that
it was not allowable for women to be admitted to make vows of continence
before the age of sixty years; since the apostle says, “Let not a widow
be taken into the number under threescore years old.” “I will that the
younger women marry and bear children.”[1093] The subsequent admission
of this vow at the age of forty-eight years, then forty years, and then
thirty, can by no means be excused; and it is still more intolerable
that unhappy girls, before they are old enough to be capable of knowing
or having any experience of themselves, should be inveigled by fraud and
compelled by threats to entangle themselves in those execrable snares. I
shall not stay to oppose the other two vows, made by monks and nuns, of
poverty and obedience. I will only observe, that beside the many
superstitions with which, under existing circumstances, they are
interwoven, they appear to be framed for the purpose of mocking both God
and men. But that we may not seem too severe in agitating every
particular point, we shall content ourselves with the general repetition
already given.
XX. The nature of those vows which are legitimate and acceptable to God,
I think, has been sufficiently declared. Yet as timid and inexperienced
consciences, even after they are dissatisfied with a vow, and convinced
of its impropriety, nevertheless feel doubts respecting the obligation,
and are grievously distressed, on the one hand, from a dread of
violating their promise to God, and, on the other, from a fear of
incurring greater guilt by observing it, it is necessary here to offer
them some assistance to enable them to extricate themselves from this
difficulty. Now, to remove every scruple at once, I remark, that all
vows, not legitimate or rightly made, as they are of no value with God,
so they ought to have no force with us. For if in human contracts no
promises are obligatory upon us, but those to which the party with whom
we contract wishes to bind us, it is absurd to consider ourselves
constrained to the performance of those things which God never requires
of us; especially as our works cannot be good unless they please God,
and are accompanied with the testimony of our conscience that he accepts
them. For this remains a fixed principle, that “whatsoever is not of
faith, is sin;”[1094] by which Paul intends, that whatever work is
undertaken with doubts, is consequently sinful, because all good works
spring from faith, by which we are assured of their acceptance with God.
Therefore, if it be not lawful for a Christian man to attempt any thing
without this assurance, and if any one through ignorance has made a rash
vow, and afterwards discovered his error, why should he not desist from
the performance of it? since vows inconsiderately made, not only are not
binding, but ought of necessity to be cancelled; and, also, as they are
not only of no value in the sight of God, but are an abomination to him,
as we have already demonstrated. It is useless to argue any longer on a
subject which does not require it. This one argument appears to me
sufficient to tranquillize pious consciences, and to liberate them from
every scruple—That all works not proceeding from a pure source, and
directed to a legitimate end, are rejected by God, and rejected in such
a manner that he forbids our continuance, as much as our commencement,
of them. Hence we may conclude, that vows which have originated in error
and superstition, are of no value with God, and ought to be relinquished
by us.
XXI. This solution will furnish an answer to the calumnies of the
wicked, in defence of those who leave monachism for some honourable way
of life. They are heavily accused of breach of faith and perjury; having
broken, as it is commonly supposed, the indissoluble bond which held
them to God and the Church. But I maintain that there is no bond, where
that which man confirms is abrogated by God. Besides, though we should
grant that they were bound while they were involved in error and
ignorance of God,—now, since they have been enlightened with the
knowledge of the truth, I maintain that the grace of Christ has
delivered them from the obligation. For if the cross of Christ possesses
such efficacy as to deliver us from the curse, under which we were held
by the law of God, how much more, then, shall it extricate us from other
bonds, which are nothing but delusive snares of Satan! Whomsoever,
therefore, Christ illuminates with the light of his gospel, there is no
doubt that he liberates them from all the snares in which they had
entangled themselves by superstition. Though they are not at a loss for
another defence, if they are not qualified to live in celibacy. For if
an impossible vow be the ruin of souls, which it is the will of the Lord
to save and not to destroy,—it follows that it is not right to persevere
in it. But the impossibility of an observance of the vow of continence
by those who are not endued with a special gift, we have already shown,
and without my saying a word, experience itself declares; for it is
notorious what extreme impurity prevails in almost all monasteries; and
if any of them appear more virtuous and modest than the rest, it does
not follow that they are really more chaste, because they conceal the
vice of unchastity. Thus God inflicts awful punishments on the audacity
of men, when, forgetting their weakness, they covet, in opposition to
nature, that which is denied them, and, despising the remedies which God
had put into their hands, indulge a contumacious and obstinate
presumption that they are able to overcome the vice of incontinence. For
what shall we call it but contumacy, when any one who is admonished that
he stands in need of marriage, and that it has been given to him by the
Lord as a remedy, not only contemns it, but binds himself by an oath to
persevere in that contempt?
Footnote 1072:
Rom. xiv. 23.
Footnote 1073:
Rom. xii. 3. 1 Cor. xii. 11.
Footnote 1074:
Acts xxiii. 12.
Footnote 1075:
Judges xi. 30-40.
Footnote 1076:
Gen. ii. 18.
Footnote 1077:
Deut. vi. 16. Matt. iv. 7.
Footnote 1078:
Gen. xxviii. 20-22.
Footnote 1079:
Psalm xxii. 25; lvi. 12; cxvi. 14, 18.
Footnote 1080:
Titus i. 15.
Footnote 1081:
1 Cor. vi. 13.
Footnote 1082:
Matt. xix. 21.
Footnote 1083:
1 Cor. xiii. 3.
Footnote 1084:
Col. iii. 14.
Footnote 1085:
Matt. xix. 16.
Footnote 1086:
Matt. xix. 20.
Footnote 1087:
1 Cor. i. 12, 13; iii. 4.
Footnote 1088:
Rom. xiv. 23.
Footnote 1089:
Deut. xxxii. 17.
Footnote 1090:
Matt. xix. 11.
Footnote 1091:
1 Cor. vii. 9.
Footnote 1092:
1 Tim. v. 12.
Footnote 1093:
1 Tim. v. 9, 14.
Footnote 1094:
Rom. xiv. 23.