Calvin - Institutes Of The Christian Religion Book4 Chapter13

248

CHAPTER 13 VOWS; AND HOW EVERYONE RASHLY TAKING THEM HAS MISERABLY ENTANGLED HIMSELF (The nature of vows, and prevalent errors concerning them, 1-7) 1. DEGENERATION AND DANGERS It is a matter indeed to be deplored that the church, whose freedom was bought at the inestimable price of Christ’s blood, has been thus oppressed by cruel tyranny and almost overwhelmed with a huge mass of traditions. But meanwhile each man’s private madness shows that it was not without very just cause that God permitted so much to Satan and his ministers. And it was not enough for men, neglecting Christ’s authority, to bear all the burdens imposed by false teachers; each had further to seek his own burdens for himself and, by digging pits for himself, had to plunge deeper still. This happened when they eagerly devised vows by which a greater and stricter obligation might be added to the common chains. We have already shown how so-called “pastors” in their presumptuous rule of the church have corrupted the worship of God in ensnaring miserable souls with their iniquitous laws. It will not, therefore, be inopportune here to join with this another related evil, to show how the world, according to the depravity of its own disposition, has always repelled with such obstacles as it could the helps by which it ought to have been led to God. Now the better to see how very serious is the mischief occasioned by vows, let my readers now recall the principles already set forth. For we have taught first that whatever may be required to train men to live pious and holy lives is comprised in the law.F449 We have further taught that the Lord, in order better to call us away from inventing new works, has included the entire praise of righteousness in simple obedience to his will.F450 If these things are true, one can readily judge that all reigned acts of worship, which we ourselves invent to deserve God’s favor, are not at all acceptable to him, no matter how well they may please us. And surely

249

the Lord himself in many passages not only openly rejects but deeply abhors them. Hence, there arises a doubt concerning those vows which are made apart from God’s express Word. What place should they have? Can they be duly undertaken by Christian men? To what extent are they binding? For what is called “promise” among men is called “vow” with respect to God. Moreover, we promise to men either those things which we think will be pleasing to them or those which we owe out of duty. It is, then, fitting that there should be a far closer observance of those vows which are directed to God himself, toward whom we must act in the greatest earnestness. At this point superstition has been strangely prevalent in all ages, so that men have, without judgment and without distinction, immediately vowed to God whatever came into their mind, or even their mouth. Hence arose those follies, indeed, monstrous absurdities among the Gentiles, by which they too insolently mocked their gods. And would that even the Christians had not imitated this presumption of theirs! Indeed, they ought not to have done this. But we see that for some centuries nothing has been more usual than this wickedness: whole people everywhere, despising God’s law, burned with a mad zeal to vow anything that had tickled them in dreams. I will not hatefully exaggerate, nor recount in detail, how gravely and in how many ways men have sinned in this respect. But it seems to me right to say this in passing, in order that it may better appear that, in discussing vows, we are not by any means raising a question over a superfluous matter. 2. GOD AS THE ONE TO WHOM WE MAKE OUR VOWS Now, if we wish to avoid error in determining what vows are lawful, what ones objectionable, it is well to consider three things: (1) who it is to whom the vow is made; (2) who we are who make the vow; (3) lastly, with what intention we make our vow.

250

The purpose of the first thing is to make us realize that it is God with whom we have to deal, who is so pleased by our obedience that he declares all self-made religion,F451 however splendid and beautiful it may be in men’s eyes, accursed [<510223> Colossians 2:23]. If all voluntary worship which we ourselves devise apart from God’s commandment is hateful to him, it follows that no worship can be acceptable to him except that which is approved by his Word. Therefore, let us not take to ourselves such license as to dare vow to God that which bears no evidence as to how he may esteem it. For Paul’s teaching that whatever is done apart from faith is sin [<451423> Romans 14:23]—since it may be extended to all actions— surely is particularly applicable when one turns one’s thought directly to God. But if we fail or err in the least things (Paul is there discussing the difference of foods) where faith gives no clear mandate, how much more modest must we be when we undertake a matter of the greatest importancel tindeed, nothing ought to be more serious for us than the duties of religion. Let our first precaution in vows, therefore, be never to proceed to any avowal without our conscience first making sure that it attempts nothing rash. But it shall be free of the danger of rashness when it has God going before it and dictating as from his own Word what is good or unprofitable to do. 3. THE MAN WHO MAKES THE VOW The second thing which we have said must be looked at here contains the following: we should measure our strength, we should keep our calling in mind, so as not to neglect the blessing of freedom which God has given us. For he is a rash man who vows what is either not in his power or conflicts with his calling. And he is ungrateful who despises God’s beneficence, which constitutes him lord of all things. When I speak thus, I do not mean that anything has been so placed in our hand that, borne up by confidence in our own strength, we may promise it to God. For it was very truly decreed in the Council of Orange that we vow nothing duly to God except what we have received at his hand. For all things offered to him are purely his gifts.F452 But since some things are given us by God’s kindness, others denied us by his equity, let every man look to the measure of grace given him, as Paul enjoins [<451203> Romans 12:3; <461211> 1 Corinthians 12:11].

251

I mean nothing else here than that you are to temper your vows to that measure which God by his gift sets for you, lest if you try to go beyond what he allows, in claiming too much for yourself, you cast yourself headlong. For example, when those assassins (of whom mention is made by Luke) vowed that they would not eat food until they had killed Paul [<442312> Acts 23:12], even if the plan had not been a wicked one, their very rashness in subjecting a man’s life and death to their power was not to be borne. Thus Jephthah was punished for his own folly when in hasty fervor he conceived a rash vow [<071130> Judges 11:30-31]. In this class, celibacy holds the first place for insane boldness. For priests,F453 monks, and nuns, forgetful of their own infirmity, think themselves surely capable of celibacy. But by what oracle were they taught to maintain chastity throughout life, and take vows to this end? They hear the Word of God on the universal condition of men: “It is not good for man to be alone” [<010218> Genesis 2:18]. They understand—and would that they did not feel—how the sin remaining in us is not without very sharp pricks! How confidently do they dare shake off for life that general calling, inasmuch as the gift of continence is more often given for a limited time, as occasion requires? In such stubbornness let them not count on God as their helper, but let them, rather, remember what he has said: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” [<050616> Deuteronomy 6:16; <400407> Matthew 4:7]. But this is to tempt God: to strive against the nature imparted by him, and to despise his present gifts as if they did not belong to us at all. They not only dare do this, but dare also call marriage “pollution,” only to extol some sort of celibacy with wondrous praise. This, despite the fact that God deemed it not alien to his majesty to institute marriage [cf. <010222> Genesis 2:22]; that he declared it honorable among all men [Hebrews 15:4]; and that Christ, our Lord, sanctified it by his presence, deigning to honor it with his first miracle [<430202> John 2:2, 6-11]! As though they do not furnish splendid proof in their own lives (which they most impudently call “angelic”) that celibacy is one thing, virginity anotherl in this they do great injury, surely, to God’s angels by comparing them with fornicators, adulterers, and something much more wicked and shameful.F454 And obviously, there is no need whatsoever for arguments where they are openly refuted by the thing itself. For we clearly see with what frightful punishments the Lord

252

commonly avenges such arrogance, and such contempt of his gifts arising from overconfidence. And for modesty’s sake, I omit the more hidden sins, of which even what is understood is too much. That we must vow nothing that may hinder us from serving our calling— this is beyond controversy. As if a householder should vow that, forsaking his wife and children, he would undertake other burdens; or a man fitted to hold public office, when elected, should vow that he would be a private citizen. But there will be some difficulty in understanding what we have said about not despising our freedom, unless it be explained. Here it is, then, in a nutshell. God has made us lords of all things and has so subjected them to us that we may use them all for our own benefit. Consequently, if we yield ourselves in bondage to external things (which ought to be a help to us), there is no reason why we should expect it to be a service acceptable to God. I say this because some try to win praise for humility through ensnaring themselves in many observances, from which God has with good reason willed us to be free and exempt. Accordingly, if we wish to escape this danger, let us always remember that we are by no means to depart from that dispensationF455 which the Lord has established in the Christian church. 4. VOWS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO INTENTION Now I come to my third point: your intention in making a vow is important if you would have God approve it. For, because the Lord looks upon the heart, not the outward appearance, the same thing (as the purpose in mind changes) may sometimes please and be acceptable to him, sometimes strongly displease him. If you vow abstinence from wine as though something holy inhered in this act, you are superstitious; if you look to some other not perverted end, no one can disapprove. But, as far as I can judge, there are four ends to which our vows ought duly to be directed. Two of these, for the sake of instruction, I refer to past time; two, to future. To past time belong those vows by which we either attest our gratitude to God for benefits received or, to avert his wrath, punish ourselves for

253

offenses committed. Let us, if you please, call the former, exercises of thanksgiving; the latter, of repentance. Of the first sort we have an example in the tithes which Jacob vowed if the Lord should lead him back unharmed from exile to his homeland [<012820> Genesis 28:20-22]. Another, in the ancient peace offerings which pious kings and leaders, about to undertake a righteous war, vowed to make if they should win the victory; or, indeed, when they were pressed by some greater difficulty, if the Lord should deliver them. That is what we are to understand in all the passages of the psalms that speak of vows [<192225> Psalm 22:25; 61:8; 56:12; 116:14, 18]. Such vows can also be useful for us today whenever the Lord has snatched us either from some calamity, or from some trying illness, or from any other critical situation. For it is not inconsistent with the duty of a pious man to consecrate to God a votive offering as a solemn token of recognition, lest he seem ungrateful toward his kindness. One familiar example will suffice to show the nature of the second sort. If anyone should, through the vice of gluttony, fall into any misdeed, nothing will stand in the way of his renouncing all dainty foods for a time in order to chastise his intemperance—doing this with the use of a vow to bind himself with a stricter bond. Yet I do not lay down a universal law for those who have offended in this way, but I am showing what is permitted to those who deem such a vow useful to themselves. Therefore, I hold that a vow of this sort is allowable, provided it be left optional. 5. VOWS OF FUTURE REFERENCE Those vows which have regard for the future tend partly to make us more cautious, as we have said, partly to arouse us, as by some stimulus, to our duty. A man sees himself so prone to a specific vice that in a thing otherwise not bad he cannot prevent himself from falling directly into evil. He will be doing nothing foolish if by vow he cuts off the use of this thing for a time. For example, if a man recognizes that some bodily adornment is dangerous for him, and still enticed by desire violently covets it, what better thing can he do than to put a bridle on himself—that is, to impose upon himself the necessity of abstinence—and thus free himself from all uncertainty?

254

Similarly, if a man be either forgetful or lazy toward the necessary duties of piety, why should he not, by making a vow, wake up his memory and shake off his laziness? In both kinds of vows, I admit, there is a sort of elementary training, but as helps to weakness they are utilized with advantage by the untutored and imperfect. Accordingly, we shall say that those vows which look to one of these ends, especially in outward things, are lawful, provided they are supported by God’s approval, agree with our calling, and are limited to the endowment of grace given us by God. 6. LAWFUL VOWS IN GENERAL It is not difficult now to infer what we ought to think of vows in general. All believers have one common vow which, made in baptism, we confirm and, so to speak, sanction by catechism and receiving the Lord’s Supper. For the sacraments are like contractsF456 by which the Lord gives us his mercy and from it eternal life; and we in turn promise him obedience. But this is the form, or at least a summary, of the vow: that, renouncing Satan, we yield ourselves to God’s service to obey his holy commandments but not to follow the wicked desires of our flesh [cf. <451314> Romans 13:14]. It is not to be doubted that this vow, since it is attested by Scripture and indeed is required of all children of God, is holy and salutary. And there is no obstacle in the fact that no one can maintain in this life the perfect obedience to the law which God requires of us. For inasmuch as this stipulation is included in the covenant of graceF457 under which are contained both forgiveness of sins and the spirit of sanctification, the promise which we make there is joined with a plea for pardon and a petition for help. We must keep in mind the three rules given above when judging particular vows; by them we may safely determine the nature of each vow. Yet do not think that I so commend those very vows which I declare to be holy as to wish them to be daily practice. For though I dare not prescribe anything about number or time, anyone who obeys my advice will undertake only sober and temporary vows. If from time to time you go to excess in making vows, the whole religious character of it will be cheapened by the

255

very repetition, and will tend to lapse into superstition. If you bind yourself with a perpetual vow, either you will fulfill it with great trouble and tedium, or else, wearied by its long duration, you will one day venture to break it. 7. PERVERSE VOWS Now, it is clear what great superstition over vows plagued the world for some centuries. One person vowed that he would be abstemious, as if abstinence from wine were of itself worship pleasing to God.F458 Another bound himself to fasting; a third, to abstinence from meat on certain days, in which he had vainly imagined there was a singular holiness above other days. And some things far more childish were vowed, but not by children. For men esteemed it great wisdom to undertake votive pilgrimages to holier places, and sometimes to make their journey either on foot or half naked, in order to obtain more merit through their weariness. If these and like things, over which the world has flamed with unbelievable zeal for some time, be examined according to those rules which we have previously laid down, they will be deemed not only empty and fleeting but full of manifest impiety. For, however the flesh may judge it, God hates nothing more than counterfeit worship. Besides, there are these pernicious and damned opinions: hypocrites, when they have performed such follies, believe that they have procured for themselves exceptional righteoustress; they place the whole of piety in external observances; and they despise all others who appear less careful of such things. (Monastic vows and the decline of monastic life, 8-10) 8. THE MONASTICISM OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH There is no point in listing individual forms. But since monastic vows are held in greater veneration because they seem to be approved by public judgment of the church, we must speak of them briefly.F459 First, lest anyone should defend present-day monasticism on the grounds of its antiquity, we must note that a far different mode of living once prevailed in monasteries. Those who wished to exercise themselves in the greatest severity and patience retired there. For the sort of discipline that, as historians relate, existed among the Spartans under the laws of Lycurgus

256

was found among the monks, and even one much more rigid. They slept on the ground; their drink was water; their food bread, vegetables, and roots; their chief delicacies oil and chick-peas. They abstained from all sumptuous fare and pampering of the body. These things might seem exaggerated if they were not handed down by experienced eyewitnesses, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, and Chrysostom.F460 With such preliminaries the monks prepared themselves for greater tasks. For that the monastic colleges were, so to speak, seminaries of the ecclesiastical order, those whom we have just mentioned offer clear enough proof (for all of them were reared in monasteries and then called to the office of bishop), as do many other great and outstanding men of their time. And Augustine shows that in his day the monasteries usually supplied the clergy for the church. For he thus addresses the monks of the island of Capraria: “We exhort you, brethren in the Lord, to keep your resolve and persevere to the end; and if Mother Church at any time requires your labor, do not take it up with eager elation, or reject it through alluring indolence, but obey God with a meek heart. And do not prefer your leisure to the needs of the church. If no good men had been willing to minister to her in childbirth, you would not have found out how you were born.” He is speaking of the ministry by which believers are spiritually reborn. Likewise, writing to Aurelius: “If deserters from monasteries are chosen for the army of the clergy, this occasions their own fall and inflicts a most shameful injury upon the order of clergy. For of those who remain in the monastery it is our custom to take into the clergy only the more acceptable and better men. Unless perhaps, as the common folk say, a bad piper makes a good musician,F461 so they will jokingly say of us, a bad monk makes a good clergyman. ‘Tis a great pity for us to lift monks to such ruinous pride and consider the clergy worthy of such grave reproach—seeing that sometimes even a good monk scarcely makes a good clergyman, if he has the requisite continence and yet lacks necessary training.”F462 It is clear from these passages that pious men customarily prepared themselves by monastic discipline to govern the church, that thus they might be fitter and better trained to undertake so great an office. Not that all the monks attained this end or even aimed at it, since the greater part were unlettered; but those who were suitable were chosen.

257

9. AUGUSTINE’S DESCRIPTION OF MONASTICISM But there are two main places in which Augustine depicts for us the form of early monasticism. In the book On the Morals of the Catholic Church, he defends the holiness of that profession against the slanders of the Manichees; and in another book, which he entitled On the Work of Monks, he inveighs against certain degenerate monks who were beginning to corrupt that institution. I shall sum up what he teaches there as far as possible in his own words. “In contempt of the allurements of this world, gathered into a most chaste and holy common life, they spend their time together, living in prayers, readings, and discussions, not swollen by pride, not disorderly through stubbornness, nor livid with envy. No one possesses anything of his own; no one is burdensome to any man. With their hands they earn that which may feed the body yet not keep the mind from God. They give their work to men whom they call ‘deans.’ These deans, managing everything with great care, render an account to one whom they call ‘father.’ These fathers are not only most holy in morals but also most pre-eminent in divine doctrine, and distinguished in all things. They counsel without pride those whom they call ‘sons’; they command their sons with great authority while the latter obey with great willingness. They come together from their several cells at the end of each day, while they are yet fasting, to hear that father. At least three thousand men meet under each father” (he is speaking chiefly of Egypt and the East). “Then they take bodily nourishment, enough for health and wellbeing; each one restrains his desire in order not to take too much even of the frugal and very common fare available. Thus they not only abstain from meat and wine sufficiently to tame their lusts, but from such things as arouse too greedy appetite in the stomach and gullet. Yet some authorities in an absurd and shameful manner habitually defend these latter foods as ‘cleaner,’ and condone a base desire for them on the ground that they are quite distinct from meats. Whatever remains over and above necessary food (and very much remains from the works of their hands and the restriction of their diet) is distributed to the needy with greater care than that with which it was procured by those who distribute it. For in no way do they make it a business to have a surplus, but in every way make it their business not to keep any surplus.” Then, remembering the austerity (an example of which he had seen at Milan and elsewhere), he

258

says: ‘ Amid these conditions no one is urged to hard things which he cannot bear; no one is burdened with what he refuses; nor condemned by others because he confesses himself too weak to follow them. For they remember how greatly love is commended; they remember ‘that all things are clean to the clean’ [<560115> Titus 1:15]. Therefore, they watch with all diligence not to reject certain kinds of foods, as if corrupted, but to tame lust and maintain love of the brethren. They remember, ‘Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food’ [ <460613> 1 Corinthians 6:13]. Yet many who are strong abstain for the sake of the weak. Many have no reason to do this except that they like to sustain themselves on the commoner and less sumptuous fare. Therefore, they who, while well, restrain themselves, if reason of health compels them, in sickness have no qualms about taking food. Many do not drink wine, yet they do not think themselves defiled by it; for they most humanely provide it for the weaker brethren, and those who without it cannot attain bodily health; and they fraternally admonish some who foolishly refuse it lest out of vain superstition they become weaker rather than more holy. So they diligently exercise piety; yet they know that exercise of the body applies for but a short time. Brotherly love especially is kept: diet, speech, clothing, countenance—all are conformed to it. They meet in and aspire together toward one love. To offend against it is considered as wicked as to offend against God himself. If anyone resists it, he is cast out and avoided. If anyone flouts it, he is not allowed to stay one day.”F462A In these words that holy man seemed to have painted us a picture of what monastic life was of old. Even though they were rather long, I wanted to insert them here, because I realized that I would go to somewhat greater length if I were to collect the same things from various sources, however brief I might try to be. 10. COMPARISON OF EARLIER WITH LATER MONASTICISM But here it is not my intention to pursue this entire argument. I merely wish to indicate in passing not only what sort of monks the ancient church had but what sort of monastic profession then existed. Thus intelligent readers may judge by comparison the shamelessness of those who claim antiquity to support present monasticism. Augustine, in sketching for us a

259

holy and lawful monasticism, would dispense with all rigid requirement of those things left free to us by the Lord’s Word. Yet today nothing is more sternly required! For they count it an unforgivable crime for anyone to depart even in the slightest degree from what is prescribed in color or appearance of clothing, in kind of food, or in other trifling and cold ceremonies. Augustine stoutly contends that it is not lawful for monks to live upon others in idleness. In any well-ordered monastery of his day he denies that such an example existed.F463 Our present-day monks find in idleness the chief part of their sanctity. For if you take idleness away from them, where will that contemplative life be, in which they boast they excel all others and draw nigh to the angels? Finally, Augustine requires a kind of monasticism which is but an exercise and aid to those duties of piety enjoined upon all Christians. What? When he makes brotherly love its chief and almost its only rule, are we to think that he praises a conspiracy by which a few men, bound together among themselves, are separated from the whole body of the church?F464 Rather, it is his intention that by their example they may shed a light to preserve the unity of the church. In both respects the character of present-day monasticism is so different that you could scarcely find things more unlike, not to say contrary. Our monks are not content with that piety to which Christ enjoins his followers to attend with unremitting zeal. Instead, they dream up some new sort of piety to meditate upon in order to become more perfect than all other people. (The erroneous claim of monastic perfection,11-14) 11. MONASTICISM—A STATE OF PERFECTION? If they deny this, I should like to ask them why they dignify their order alone with the title of perfection, and take the same title away from all God’s callings. And I am not ignorant of their sophistical solution: that monasticism is not to be called perfect because it contains perfection within itself, but because it is the best way of all to attain perfection.F465 When they would hawk themselves among the common people, when they would lay a snare for untutored and ignorant youths, when they would assert their own privileges, and when they would enhance their own dignity to the reproach of others—they boast that they are in the state of

260

perfection. When they are so closely pressed that they cannot maintain such empty arrogance, they fall back on this dodge—that they have not yet attained perfection, but that they are in such a state that they aspire to it more than all other men. Meanwhile, such admiration of monasticism remains among the people that they think the monastic life alone angelic, perfect, and purged of all fault. On this pretext they engage in the most profitable commerce. But they leave that restraint of theirs buried in a few books. Who does not see that this is an intolerable mockery? But let us deal with them on the assumption that they attribute nothing more to their profession than to call it a state of acquiring perfection. Indeed, in giving it this name they distinguish it from other ways of life as by a special mark. And who can bear such a great honor being given to an institution nowhere approved by even one syllable; and that all other callings of God are regarded as unworthy by comparison, though they have not only been commanded by his own sacred lips, but adorned with noble titles? And how great an injury, I beg of you, is done to God when some such forgery is preferred to all the kinds of life ordained by him and praised by his own testimony? 12. CHRIST’S RULE OF LIFE IS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS Come now, let them call slanderous my previous statement that they are not content with the rule laid down by God. Even though I refrain from speaking, they accuse themselves more than enough. For they openly teach that they shoulder a greater burden than Christ laid upon his people, seeing that they promise to keep the evangelical counsels to love one’s enemies, not to seek vengeance, not to swear, etc. [<400533> Matthew 5:33 ff.]—by which Christians are not commonly bound. What antiquity will they claim against us here? This never entered the minds of the ancients. All declare with one voice that men must of necessity obey every little word uttered by Christ. And without any hesitation they consistently teach that these things are particularly commanded which our good interpreters imagine Christ only “advised.”F466 But because we have taught aboveF467 that this is a most pestilential error, it is sufficient here briefly to have noted that present-day monasticism is founded upon the very opinion which all pious folk ought by right to abhor. This opinion is that a more perfect rule of life can be devised than the common one committed

261

by God to the whole church. cannot but be abominable.

F468

Whatever is built upon such a foundation

13. THE MEANING OF <401921> MATTHEW 19:21 But they bring in another argument for their perfection, and this they regard as their strongest one. For the Lord said to the young man who inquired about perfect righteousness, “If you wish to be perfect, sell all that you have and give to the poor” [<401921> Matthew 19:21]. I am not yet discussing whether they do this or not; let us grant them this for the moment. They therefore boast that they are made perfect by forsaking all their possessions. If the sum of perfection lies in this, what does Paul mean when he teaches that he who gives all his goods to the poor is nothing unless he has love [<461303> 1 Corinthians 13:3]? What sort of perfection is this which, if love is lacking, is reduced to nothing along with the man who has it? Here they have to reply: it is indeed the highest, but not the sole, work of perfection. But here also Paul loudly contradicts them, not hesitating to make love—without such renunciation—the bond of perfection [<510314> Colossians 3:14]. If it is certain that there is no disagreement between the Master and the disciple, and one of them denies that man’s perfection consists in renouncing all his goods, and again declares that it stands without the renunciation, we must take note how Christ’s statement is to be understood: “If you would be perfect, sell all you have” [<401921> Matthew 19:21]. Now, the meaning will be quite clear if we take into account to whom these words are addressed, something we should always heed in all Christ’s discourses.F469 A young man asks by what works he shall enter into eternal life [<401916> Matthew 19:16; cf. <421025> Luke 10:25]. Christ, because the question concerned works, refers him to the law [<401917> Matthew 19:17-19]. And rightly! For, considered in itself, it is the way of eternal life; and, except for our depravity, is capable of bringing salvation to us. By this reply Christ declared that he taught no other plan of life than what had been taught of old in the law of the Lord. So also he attested God’s law to be the doctrine of perfect righteousness, and at the same time confuted false reports so he might not seem by some new rule of life to incite the people to desert the law.

262

The young man, not from evil intent, but puffed up with vain confidence, replies that he has kept all the precepts of the law from childhood [<401920> Matthew 19:20]. It is quite certain that he was an immeasurable distance away from what he boasted of having reached. And if his boasting had been true, he would have lacked nothing toward attaining the highest perfection. For we have shown above that the law in itself contains perfect righteousness; and this appears from the fact that its observance is called the way of eternal salvation. To teach him how little he had advanced toward that righteousness which he too boldly replied he had fulfilled, it was worth-while to search out his intimate shortcoming. Since he abounded in riches, he had his heart fixed upon them. Therefore, because he did not feel this secret wound, Christ probes it. “Go,” he says, “sell all you have.” [<401921> Matthew 19:21.] If he had been as good a keeper of the law as he thought, he would not have gone away in sorrow on hearing this word [<401922> Matthew 19:22]. For the man who loves God with all his heart not only counts as refuse whatever opposes love of Him, but flees it like the plague. Therefore, when Christ commands the covetous rich man to give up all that he has, it is like commanding an ambitious man to give up all his honors, a voluptuary all his pleasures, or a shameless man all means of lust. Thus, consciences untouched by any awareness of the general admonition must be called back to a specific awareness of their own evil. Our opponents vainly give a general interpretation to this particular instance, as if Christ established the perfection of man in renunciation of goods. Actually, he meant nothing else by this statement than to compel the young man, pleased with himself beyond measure, to feel his sore, that he might realize he was still far removed from the perfect obedience to the law which he was falsely claiming for himself. I admit that this passage was misunderstood by some of the fathers, and hence arose the affectation of voluntary poverty, by which only those who abandoned all earthly things and devoted themselves naked to Christ were accounted blessed.F470 But I trust that all good and peaceable men will be satisfied with my explanation, so that they may not be in doubt about Christ’s meaning.

263

14. MONASTIC SECTARIANISM Yet nothing was more remote from the thought of the fathers than to establish the kind of perfection afterward fabricated by these hooded Sophists so as to set up a double Christianity. For that sacrilegious doctrine had not yet arisen which compares the profession of monasticism to baptism, and even openly declares it a form of second baptism. Who can doubt that the fathers would have abhorred this blasphemy with all their heart? Now about that last thing which Augustine says was in force among the ancient monks—that they applied themselves wholly to loveF471—what need is there to show in words how completely foreign it is to this new profession? The facts themselves tell us that all those who enter into the monastic community break with the church. Why? Do they not separate themselves from the lawful society of believers, in adopting a peculiar ministry and a private administration of the sacraments? If this is not to break the communion of the church, what is? And, to pursue the comparison which I have begun, and to finish it once for all, what resemblance in this respect do they have to the ancient monks? Even though they dwelt apart from others, yet they had not a separate church; they partook of the sacraments with others; they attended solemn assemblies; there they were part of the people. By erecting a private altar for themselves, what else have present-day monks done but broken the bond of unity? For they have both excommunicated themselves from the whole body of the church and despised the ordinary ministry by which the Lord willed to preserve peace and love among his people. For every monastery existing today, I say, is a conventicle of schismatics, disturbing the order of the church and cut off from the lawful society of believers. And that this separation should not be obscure, they have taken upon themselves various names of sects. And they have not been ashamed to boast of what Paul cannot sufficiently execrate [<460112> 1 Corinthians 1:1213; 3:4]. Unless we are to suppose that Christ was divided by the Corinthians, when one boasted of one teacher, another of another! And that it is not an injustice to Christ when some call themselves Benedictines instead of Christians, some Franciscans, some Dominicans; and when they haughtily take to themselves these titles as their profession of religion, while affecting to be different from ordinary Christians!F472

264

(Differences of ancient and monastic profession: New Testament widows and deaconesses were not nuns, 15-19) 15. THE DEGENERATION OF THE CONDUCT OF MONKS These differences which I have so far recounted between the ancient monks and the monks of our time are not in morals but in the profession itself. Let my readers accordingly remember that I have spoken rather of monasticism than of monks, and noted not those faults which inhere in the life of a few, but those which cannot be separated from the order of living itself. But what use would it be to explain in detail what a great discrepancy there is in their morals? This is clear: that no order of men is more polluted by all sorts of foul vices; nowhere do factions, hatreds, party zeal, and intrigue burn more fiercely. Indeed, in a few monasteries men live chastely, if one must call it chastity where lust is suppressed to the point of not being openly infamous. Yet you will scarcely find one in ten which is not a brothel rather than a sanctuary of chastity. But what sort of frugality is there in their diet? They are fattened just like pigs in a sty. But that they may not complain of my treating them too unkindly, I go no farther. Yet in the few things I have touched upon, anyone who knows the matter itself will admit that I have said nothing as an accuser. Augustine, while according to his testimony the monks excelled in very great chastity, still complains that there were many vagabonds who by evil arts and impostures fleeced the simpler folk of their money; who plied a disgraceful traffic in carrying martyrs’ relics about—indeed, hawked the bones of some dead man or other for martyr’s relics; and who with many like misdeeds brought shame upon the order. As he declares that he saw no better men than those who improved in monasteries, so he laments that he saw no worse men than those who deteriorated in monasteries. F473 What would he say if he saw today how almost all monasteries abound in and well-nigh burst with so many and such lamentable vices? I am saying only what is perfectly obvious to all. Still, this charge does not apply to all with no exception whatever. For just as the rule and discipline of holy living was never so well established in monasteries as not to leave some drones far different from the rest,

265

similarly, I say that monks today have not so degenerated from that holy antiquity as not to have still some good ones in their flock. But these few lie hidden, scattered in that huge multitude of evil and depraved men. And they are not only despised but also wantonly molested, and even at times cruelly treated by the others, who—as the Milesian proverb has it—think there ought to be no place for a good man among them.F474 16. CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST ANCIENT MONASTICISM By this comparison of ancient and present-day monasticism I trust I have accomplished my purpose: to show that our hooded friends falsely claim the example of the first church in defense of their profession—since they differ from them as much as apes from men. Meanwhile, I frankly admit that even in that ancient form which Augustine commends there is something that I do not like very much. I grant that they were not superstitious in the outward exercise of a quite rigid discipline, yet I say that they were not without immoderate affectation and perverse zeal.F475 It was a beautiful thing to forsake all their possessions and be without earthly care. But God prefers devoted care in ruling a household, where the devout householder, clear and free of all greed, ambition, and other lusts of the flesh, keeps before him the purpose of serving God in a definite calling. It is a beautiful thing to philosophize in retirement, far from intercourse with men. But it is not the part of Christian meekness, as if in hatred of the human race, to flee to the desert and the wilderness and at the same time to forsake those duties which the Lord has especially commanded. Though we grant there was nothing else evil in that profession, it was surely no slight evil that it brought a useless and dangerous example into the church. 17. MONASTIC VOWS, ESPECIALLY THE VOW OF CHASTITY Now then, let us look at the nature of those vows by which monks are today initiated into this illustrious order. First, because it is their intention to establish a new and forged worship to merit God’s favor, I conclude from the above evidence that whatever they vow is abominable in God’s sight.F476

266

Secondly, because they invent any mode of life they please without regard for God’s call, and without his approval, I say that this is a rash and therefore unlawful enterprise. For their conscience has nothing to sustain it before God, and “whatever is not of faith is sin” [ <451423> Romans 14:23].F477 Moreover, when they bind themselves to many acts of worship at once perverted and impious, which present-day monasticism includes within itself, I contend that they are consecrated not to God but to an evil spirit. For why was the prophet allowed to say that the Israelites had sacrificed their children to demons and not to God [<053217> Deuteronomy 32:17; <19A637> Psalm 106:37], merely because they had corrupted the true worship of God with profane ceremonies? Why are we not allowed to say the same of monks who wrap themselves in a cowl and a thousand impious superstitions? Now, what are the kinds of vows? They promise perpetual virginity to God, as if they had previously covenanted with God to free them from the need to marry. There is no reason for them to claim that they make this vow only with reliance upon God’s grace. For since he declares that it is not given to all men [<401911> Matthew 19:11-12], it is not for us to take assurance that the special gift is ours. Let those who have it use it. If at any time they feel themselves troubled by their flesh, let them take refuge in the help of him through whose power alone they can resist. If they do not benefit, let them not despise the remedy which is offered them. For those who are denied the power of continence are called to marriage by God’s clear word [<460709> 1 Corinthians 7:9]. I call “continence” not that continence by which the body alone is kept pure from fornication but also that by which the mind keeps its chastity unsullied. For Paul enjoins us to guard not only against outward wantonness but also against the burning lust of the mind. This practice, they say, was observed from time immemorial: that those who wished to dedicate themselves completely to the Lord should bind themselves by a vow of continence.F478 I admit, of course, that this custom was allowed in ancient times, but I do not grant that that age was so free of all defect that whatever was done then must be taken as the rule. Then there gradually crept in that inexorable severity by which, after the vow was made, no place was left for repentance. This is clear from Cyprian. “If virgins have out of faith dedicated themselves to

267

Christ, let them continue therein, modestly and chastely, without any deception. Thus, strong and steadfast, let them await the reward of virginity. But if they do not wish to continue, or cannot, they had better marry than fall into fire by their trespasses.”F479 With what reproaches would they now not torture a man who wished to temper the vow of continence with such equity! Therefore, they depart far more from that ancient custom. For they not only admit no moderation or pardon when anyone is found unable to keep his vow, but shamelessly declare that he sins more heinously if he cures the intemperance of his flesh by taking a wife than if he corrupts body and soul by fornication. 18. THE CASE OF THE WIDOWS IN <540512> 1 TIMOTHY 5:12 But they are still persistent, and try to show that such a vow was customary under the apostles. For Paul says that the widows who married after having been once received into public ministry violated their first pledge [<540511> 1 Timothy 5:11-12]. I by no means deny to them that the widows who pledged themselves and their services to the church took upon themselves the state of perpetual celibacy. But they did so not because they regarded it as something religious of itself (as afterward began to be the case) but because they could not carry on their function without being their own masters and free of the marriage yoke.F480 But if, having made their pledge, they contemplated remarriage, what was this but to cast off God’s call? No wonder, then, if Paul says that with such desires they grow wanton against Christ [<540511> 1 Timothy 5:11]! Afterward, by way of amplification, he adds that in so far as they do not fulfill what they promised the church, they also violate and nullify that first pledge given in baptism [<540512> 1 Timothy 5:12], which includes the provision that every person should fulfill his calling. Unless, perhaps, you prefer to understand it thus: that, having lost shame, so to speak, they then cast away all concern for decency, stoop to all kinds of wantonness and unchastity, and in their licentious and dissolute life exhibit something utterly unbecoming to Christian women. This interpretation pleases me very much. Let us then reply: those widows who were at that time received into public ministry took upon themselves the condition of perpetual celibacy. If they afterward married, we can easily understand how they fell into what Paul says: casting away shame, they became more immoderate than

268 <540518>

befitted Christian women [ 1 Timothy 5:18]. Thus they not only sinned in breaking the pledge given to the church but cut themselves off from the condition of pious women. But first, I deny that they professed celibacy for any reason except that marriage did not agree with the work which they undertook; and I deny that they bound themselves at all to celibacy except in so far as the necessity of their calling demanded. Secondly, I do not grant that they were so bound that it was not better for them then to marry than either to be troubled by the stings of the flesh or to fall into any uncleanness. Thirdly, I say that Paul set an age which is commonly beyond danger, especially when he ordered that only those bc chosen who, content with one marriage, had already given an example of continence. Moreover, we disapprove of the vow of celibacy for no other reason than that it is wrongly considered as service of God and is rashly made by those to whom the power of continence has not been given. 19. NUNS ARE VERY DIGERENT But how is it lawful to apply this passage of Paul to nuns? For deaconesses were created not to appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling, not to live the rest of the time in idleness, but to discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, constancy, and diligence in the task of love. They did not vow celibacy to present to God some sort of service in abstaining from marriage, but only because they were thus freer to perform their task. Finally, they made this vow not at the beginning of youth, or even in the flower of life—to learn too late by experience over what a cliff they had plunged; but when they seemed to have passed all danger, they made a vow no less safe than holy. But not to press our opponents’ two points, I say that it was unlawful to receive women into the vow of continence before the age of sixty, inasmuch as the apostle admits only women of sixty years [<540509> 1 Timothy 5:9] but bids the younger women marry and bear children [<540514> 1 Timothy 5:14]. Therefore, that permission given first at the age of twelve years, then at twenty, and afterward at thirty years can in no way be excused. And it is something much less tolerable that poor girls, before they can either know through age or grasp through any experience of their own, are not only induced by fraud but compelled by force and threats to take upon themselves this cursed halter.F481

269

I shall not stop to assail the two remaining vows.F482 I only say this: besides being, as conditions are today, entangled with many superstitions, these vows seem to have been composed in order that those who take them may mock God and men. But lest we seem to criticize every little point too spitefully, we shall be content with that general refutation which has been given above.F483 (Unlawful and superstitious vows are not binding, 20-21) 20. ARE INADMISSIBLE VOWS BINDING? I believe that I have sufficiently explained what sort of vows are lawful and acceptable to God. Yet ignorant and timid consciences, even when they dislike or disapprove of a vow, nonetheless sometimes doubt concerning the obligation, and are gravely troubled, when they shrink from violating a pledge given to God, and are afraid, on the other hand, lest they sin more by keeping it. Consequently, we must help them here, so as to enable them to escape from this difficulty. But to remove every misgiving at once, I say that all unlawful or improperly conceived vows, as they are of no value before God, should be invalid for us. For if in human contracts only those promises bind us in which he with whom we contract wishes us to be considered bound, it is absurd to hold us to fulfill what God does not require of us; especially since our works are right only when they please God and have the testimony of conscience that they please him. For this principle remains: “Whatever is not of faith is sin” [ <451423> Romans 14:23]. Paul means by this that when a work is undertaken with doubt it is faulty because the root of all good works is faith, by which we are sure they are acceptable to God. Therefore, assuming that a Christian man is allowed to undertake nothing without this certainty, if men have undertaken anything rashly through the fault of ignorance, why should they not desist from it when once freed of error? Since rashly made vows are of this sort, they not only bind nothing but must of necessity be rescinded. But what of the fact that they are accounted not only worthless in God’s sight but also an abomination to him—as was previously proved?F484 It is superfluous to discuss an unnecessary matter any further. To me this one proof seems quite enough to set pious consciences at rest and free them from every

270

misgiving: all works that do not flow from a pure fountain and are not directed to a lawful end are repudiated by God, and so repudiated that he forbids us not less to continue in them than to begin them. From this it follows that those vows which arise from error and superstition are of no value before God and must also be abandoned by us. 21. ON THE BREAKING OF MONASTIC VOWS Moreover, he who will grasp this explanation will have the means to defend against the slanders of the wicked those who depart from monasticism to some honorable way of living. They are gravely accused of broken faith and perjury because they have broken the so-called “indissoluble” bond by which they were bound to God and church.F485 But I say that there has been no bond where God abrogates what man confirms. Secondly, granted that they were bound while they were held entangled in ignorance of God and in error—but now, after they have been illumined by the knowledge of truth, I say they are free by the grace of Christ. For if the cross of Christ has such great power that it frees us from the curse of God’s law, by which we were held bound [Galatians 3:13], how much more will it deliver us from those outward fetters which are nothing more than the deceptive nets of Satan! There is no doubt that those whom Christ illumines with the light of his gospel he also releases from all halters which they had taken upon themselves through superstition. Yet the released have another defense if they were not fit for celibacy. For if an impossible vow is sure destruction of the soul which God wills to be saved and not lost, it follows that one must not continue in it. How impossible the vow of continence is for those not endowed with that special gift [<401911> Matthew 19:11-12], we have already explained above.F486 And though I should remain silent, experience speaks. For it is not unknown with what great impurity almost all monasteries swarm. And if any seem more decent and more modest than the rest, they are not for this reason chaste, for the evil of unchastity, though repressed and confined, remains within. Thus, indeed, God takes vengeance with frightful examples upon the arrogance of men when they, unmindful of their own weakness, against nature covet what has been denied them, and, contemptuous of the remedies which the Lord had put within their grasp,

271

assume that they can conquer the disease of incontinence with stubbornness and obstinacy. For what else but stubbornness will we call it when a man, warned that he needs marriage, and that it is given to him as a remedy by the Lord, not only despises it but also binds himself by an oath to despise it?