加爾文基督教要義(79)卷四第十三章 論誓願：倉促發願之弊

第十三章 論誓願：倉促發願之弊
　　一、真可惜，教會既由基督無價的寶血買得了自由，卻被一種殘暴的專制所壓迫，並且被一堆無窮的遺傳所覆沒；但是個人的狂熱卻也表明，神容許撒但和他的差役們多行惡事，並不是沒有很充分的理由。因為他們忽視了基督的命令，並忍受了假師傅所加給他們的一切重擔，好像還不夠似的，他們又為自己再加上一些重擔，叫自己沉淪於自己所掘的坑中。這是由於他們彼此競賽立誓發願，於普通的本分以外，再加上更嚴格的本分。我們既已指明，他們敗壞了神的崇拜，膽大妄為，用牧師的名稱來操縱教會，用他們不義的規法來牢籠可憐的靈魂，現在我們就不妨將一種類似的罪惡揭穿，藉以指明人心敗壞，竭力阻擋一切足以領他們歸向神的工具。我們為要更加顯明誓願足以產生極嚴重的禍患，就必須將上面所曾說明的原則，提醒讀者。第一，我們已經指明，凡關於虔誠和聖潔生活所必須的事，都包含在律法之內。我們也曾指明，主為要更有效地召我們脫離人所計劃的新作為，他就將一切的義都包括在單順服他的旨意以內。倘若這兩點是實在的，那麼顯然的結論乃是，我們為邀神寵所捏造的各種事奉，不問它們能怎樣使我們高興，都是不為神所悅納的；而且事實上，主在許多地方不只是公然拒絕它們，而且說它們是他極端厭棄的。因之，對於那些在聖經上未得明明許可的誓願，就發生了疑問：當用什麼觀點去看誓願？基督徒應當許願么？這些誓願有多少約束力？因為對人稱為「應許」的，對神就稱為「誓願」。我們對人所應許的東西，若不是我們認為能使他們滿意的東西，便是我們應當歸於他們的東西。那麼，我們對神發誓願，就當更為留意；我們對神行事，就當極其嚴肅。但在發誓願上，歷代以來迷信大為猖獗，以致人毫不審慎，隨意或隨口向神輕率發誓。因此產生了種種發願的愚妄和荒唐之事，就是異教徒無禮拿來戲弄他們的神祗的。我巴不得基督徒未曾效法他們的這種無禮妄為。這本來是不應當有的事；但我們卻看出，幾個世代以來，再沒有什麼比這僭妄更為普遍的了；一般人通常雖藐視神的律法，卻狂熱地把夢中任何使他們喜悅的事都拿來許願。我不要過甚其辭，也不要將這種種罪過枚舉出來；但是我想我理當順便提起，表明我們討論誓願，並不是不必要的。
　　二、我們若要判斷什麼誓願是合理的，什麼誓願是非理的，那麼，為求避免發生錯誤起見，我們必須考慮三件事：第一，當對誰發誓願；第二，發誓願的是誰；第三，發誓願的目的是什麼。第一個考慮叫我們想到，我們乃是對神發誓願；神既喜歡我們順服他，所以他咒詛一切私意崇拜，不管它們在人眼中是如何金玉其外（西2： 23）。倘若神厭棄由我們所捏造而並非由他所吩咐的一切私意崇拜，那麼，除非是神的道所許可的事，就沒有什麼是可以蒙神悅納的。所以，我們總不要擅自向神許那未曾在聖經上為他所認可的願。因為保羅說：「凡不出於信心的都是罪」（羅14：23），雖然這是有關於各種行為的，然而主要地乃是有關於人直接對神所陳訴的心思。保羅在那裡所論到的，不過是食肉的小事。倘若我們在沒有由確實的信心所啟悟的小事上，可能錯誤跌倒，那麼，我們在從事最重大的事上，就當怎樣更加謹慎阿！你們應該認為，沒有什麼事比宗教的事更為重大。所以，我們發誓願的第一條規律就是，若事前良心沒有把握，我們總不要鹵莽許願。我們若有神作指導，以他的道來指點我們所當作或不當作的，我們的良心就會免去鹵莽的危險。
　　三、我們所提第二件當考慮的事，乃是我們要估量自己的力量，思想自己所蒙的召，且不疏忽神所賜的自由。因為發願凡不量力或違反所蒙之召的，就未免是鹵莽；凡輕蔑神立他管理萬事之恩的，就是犯了忘恩的罪。我並不是說，我們有什麼東西，能靠自己的力量來獻給神。因為，亞勞修會議（Council of Arausium）極合真理地宣布說，人向神所許的願無非是從他所領受的，因為所獻與神的，無非是他所賜的。但既然有些東西由善良的神賜給了我們，還有些東西，神按照他的公義不賜給我們，那麼每人就當聽從保羅的勸告，照他所領受的恩典而行（羅12：3；林前12：11）。所以，我的意思無非是說，凡所許的願，都當照著主所分給各人恩典的大小；不然，倘若我們負重超乎主所容許的，我們便是不自量力，自陷於危險了。例如，路加所說那些想殺保羅的人所發的願，便是一個例子，因他們說：「若不先殺保羅，就不吃不喝」（徒23：12）。即令他們的圖謀不幹法令，然而將一個人的生死置於他們的權柄下，也就暴露了不可容忍的魯莽。所以耶弗他受自己的愚昧所處罰，因為他在滿腔熱血時，許了一個智慮不周的願（士1：30-40）。在這種願中，最為狂妄臆斷的，乃是守獨身的願。神甫，修士，和信女們，因忘記了自己的軟弱，就妄想自己能夠守獨身。可是，有什麼啟示已經告訴他們說，他們能夠終身保持貞節，直到願心達成呢？他們曾聽見神宣布人的普通情況說：「人獨居不好」（創2：18）。他們知道——我惟願他們未曾感覺到——那留在人身上的罪惡，總伴隨著許多極強烈的刺激，他們有什麼把握，敢於終身拒絕人類的一般使命，豈不知神賜人節制的恩賜，常是暫時為應付特殊需要的嗎？他們既這樣頑固，就不要希望得到神的幫助，反要記著經上所記載的：「你不可試探主你的神」（申6：16；太4：7）。凡違反他所賦予的天性，蔑視他所賜給的恩賜，且以它們為完全不適用於我們，這就是試探神。他們所行所為，更有甚於此的。婚姻本是神認為並不貶損他的威嚴而設立的，是他曾宣布「人人都當尊重」的，是主耶穌基督以親自參加婚筵來表示認可，並曾俯允用他的第一個神跡來表示尊重的，但他們卻不知羞愧，竟將婚娶毀謗為污穢；只為要抬高獨身的價值，便不問獨身守得怎麼樣，都加以極端的讚美。好像他們在自己的生活上未曾顯露出獨身是一回事，童貞又是一回事一般，他們竟極端鹵莽，稱獨身為天使般的生活。他們將犯淫亂的人，以及犯其他更污濁大罪的人，來比擬神的天使，這真是大大侮辱天使。他們的罪惡有事實證明，用不著爭辯。因為人這樣以僭妄自信的心來藐視主的恩賜，顯然要遭受他可畏的刑罰。對那些更秘密的事，我不便加以批評，而且這些事許多已為大家所知道。我們不能隨便許願，以致妨礙我們在我們的崗位上事奉神，這乃是無待爭辯的；例如一個家庭中的父親不當許願離棄妻子兒女，去另負責任；又如一個能作官的，被選后，就不當許願留在他私人地位上。但是我們所說，我們的自由權不容被藐視，必須再加以解釋。這話的意思可簡單說明如下：主既叫我們管理萬物，既叫萬物服從我們，以便我們享用，我們若使自己成為那理當服事我們之外物的奴隸，就不能希望我們是在事奉神，蒙他悅納。我這樣說，因為有些人庸人自擾，拘守許多儀文，還自以為配得謙卑的稱譽，其實這種儀文，神有上好的理由叫我們避免。因此，為要避免這種危險，我們總要記得，我們決不可離開主為他的聖教會所設立的法則。
　　四、現在我們要進而討論所提第三件當考慮的事：倘若我們要想使所許的願蒙神悅納，最要緊的是看許願的目的安在。因為主既注重內心，而不注重外表，往往同一行動，因為目的各異，所以有時蒙他悅納，有時極不蒙他悅納。若有人許願禁酒，以為這種禁絕有什麼聖潔之處，那麼他就犯了迷信；若是禁酒是出於並非不正當的目的，就沒有人能予非難。我認為正當的許願共有四種。為求更加明了起見，我把兩種願屬於過去，兩種願屬於將來。屬於過去的願，或是對所領受的神恩表示感謝，或是對自己所犯的罪自行處罰，以求祈免神的忿怒。頭一種願可稱為感恩的願；后一種願乃悔改的願。關於第一種願，我們有雅各為例，他許願將所得的十分之一獻給主，倘若他使他平平安安從逃亡中回到父家（創28：20-22）。古時的平安祭也屬於這種願。虔誠的君王和將軍從事義戰的時候，常許願如獲勝利，要獻上平安祭；也有人在非常的艱難中許願說，如蒙主拯救，他們要獻上平安祭。我們當這樣去了解詩篇上所說的願（詩22： 25，56：12，116：14，18）。我們今日每當蒙神拯救，脫離大災難，重病，或什麼危險時，也可以許這種願。因為每逢這種時會，一個虔誠的人對神獻上他所許的願，作為感恩的嚴肅表示，叫他對神的善良不至顯為不知感謝，乃是與他的本分並無不符的。第二種願的性質可由一種熟悉的例子充分證明。若有人因不知節制而犯了罪，他不妨暫時節制一切珍美之物來糾正那惡，並立願來加強這種節制，使自己負一個更重的擔子。然而，我對於犯了這種罪的人，並不訂定永久的規法，只指出他們可自由作什麼，只要他們以為這種願對他們是有益的。因此，我認為這種願是合法的，但是同時卻讓各人自由選擇。
　　五、關於我所提有關將來的願，目的有二：一，為使我們謹防將來的危險；二，為激勵我們履行責任。例如：一個人覺得自己這麼容易犯某種罪，以致他在一件本身不能算為壞的事物上也往往犯罪，那麼他若許願暫時不用那物，這也不算為無理。又若有人深信某種裝飾對他有危險，同時對他極有引誘力，那麼為叫自己擺脫一切遲疑，他立願克制自己不用它，就再沒有比這更好的辦法了。同樣，若有人忘記了或疏忽了他對虔敬生活所負的必須責任，他怎麼不能以發願來提醒自己的記憶，擺脫自己的疏忽呢？我承認這兩件事似近乎幼稚，但這種願既是軟弱人的一種幫助，對缺乏經驗和不完全的人，便是有益的。因之，凡有這些目的的願，尤其是那些有關外在事物的願，我們認為是合法的，只要它們為神所許可，合乎我們的身分，也不超過神所賜給我們的能力。
　　六、現在我們對一般發願應有什麼意見，不難作一結論了。有一個願是眾信徒所同有的，這願是在領洗禮時發的，並在念信經和領受聖餐時加以堅立的。因為聖禮好像是約或合同，藉此神把他的慈悲和慈悲中的永生賜給我們，而我們則許願順從神。這一個願的總和，乃是我們應許摒棄撒但，專心事奉神，順從他的聖潔命令，而不隨從肉體敗壞的傾向。這一個願既是為聖經所批准的，甚至是向神的眾兒女所索取的，我們就不應懷疑它是聖潔而有益的。雖然今生沒有人完全順服神的律法，但這並不廢除這願，因為這恩典的約既包含了將赦罪和成聖的靈賜給我們的條款，所以我們所給的應許就預先假定我們向神祈求憐憫和援助。在判斷一願時，我們必須記著上面所提的三個準則，好使我們能正確估計每一個願。然而，即令對那些我所認為聖潔的願，我也不主張每天都應用。雖然我不貿然決定許願的時間和次數，然而，倘若有人願意遵守我的勸告，他就只要許明哲而為時頗短的願。因為倘若有人屢次許願，宗教就會因此而受損，而且有陷入迷信的危險。倘若有人以永遠的願來束縛自己，他要還這一個願，就必不免於困難；或因守願太久而厭倦，以致完全把它破壞。
　　七、若干世代以來，世人對許願是多麼迷信，乃是顯而易見的事。有人許願不飲酒，好像不飲酒是一種蒙神悅納的事奉似的。又有人許願禁食。另有人在某些日子不吃肉，妄想因此比別人聖潔些。還有些願更為幼稚，但並不是兒童許的。因為有人認為最聰明的辦法，就是許願到非常聖潔的地方去，或步行或裸著半身，以便用疲勞來增加功德。這些和類似的願，久為舉世所熱中，若用我們所定的三個準則來考驗，它們就不但顯為虛妄無價值，而且充滿了不虔敬，因為不拘屬肉體的判斷如何，神最憎惡人所捏造的事奉。此外假冒為善的人，以為他們行了這些蠢事，便達到了高超的義，又以為虔誠全是在乎表面的行為，而且輕視那些比他們自己少關心這些事的人。
　　八、數述各種各色的願，原是無意義的。但因修道似乎是為教會的公共權威所批准，且最受尊敬，所以我們對它們理當略加討論。第一，人不得借口修道主義的古老，便來為今日的修道主義辯護，須知古時修道院的生活與今日所有的非常不同。當時的修道院是那些想過極端簡樸和忍耐生活之人的隱所。當時修道士所受的訓練，與拉克代門派（Lacedaemonians）在呂庫爾古（Lycurgus）所訂規律之下所受的訓練比較起來，其嚴厲有過之而無不及。他們睡在地上，無榻無床；所飲的只是清水；所食的只有麵包，野菜和根莖；最珍貴的食物只是油，豌豆和豆子。他們禁絕一切美味和裝飾。這些事若不是為拿先斯的貴鉤利，巴西流，和屈梭多模等人所親自看見並實行過，幾乎是不可置信的。實在是藉著這種嚴格訓練，他們才把自己準備好，來擔當更高的職務，因為修道院是當時的神學院，從其中產生出教會的牧人，這是從上面所提人物的例子中可以充分證明的。他們都是在修道院里受教育，從其中被召出來充當主教的，同時有其他偉大人物，也是如此。奧古斯丁也證明，由修道院供給教牧的風氣，在他的時代仍然存在，因為他對加普拉利亞（Capraria）島的修道士寫信如此說：「弟兄們，我們奉主名勸你們，要保守你們的目的，堅持到底；倘若作你們之母的教會需要你們效勞，你們既不要存驕傲心來擔任職務，也不要存懈怠心而推卻，但要存溫柔的心順服上帝，不求自己的安閑，以致不顧教會的需要；須知若過去沒有好人協助她產生屬靈的兒女，你們自己也不能被產生出來。」他在這裡是說到牧職，這牧職乃是信徒重生的工具。他又寫信給奧熱流說：「倘若離棄修道院的人被選充當教士，這不但叫這些人自己跌倒，而且也極有損於教會聖職的尊嚴；我們對那些留在修道院中的，素來是只把那些最好的和受人贊的升任聖職。除非如一般人說，一個舞蹈不佳的人，可以做一個好音樂家，照樣，關於我們，也可以開玩笑說，一個壞修道士可以做一個好教士。倘若我們激勵修道士存這樣危險的驕傲心，而且以為教士該受這樣大的侮辱，那是太可哀了；其實有時甚至一個好修道士也難做一個好教士，雖然他能攻克己身，但學識卻不足。」這些話可以證明，虔誠人一向用修道院的訓練來準備自己，治理教會，好使自己更適於擔任這種重要職分。這並非是說，一切修道士都達到了這個目的，或說，都以此為目的，因為他們大都是不識字的人，惟有那些合格的才被選上了。
　　九、奧古斯丁對於古時的修道生活給了我們一個寫照，特別是在兩處：一處是在他的論正教禮儀（De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae）中，他反駁摩尼教派的誹謗，而為修道生活的聖潔辯護；另一處是在他的論修道士的辛勞（De Opere Monachorum）中，他指斥那些開始敗壞修道生活的墮落修道士。他所陳述的種種，我將盡量用他的話語來概括陳述。他說：「他們既輕看塵世的誘惑，以最嚴謹的堅貞聖潔，來共同生活，就以祈禱，讀經，聚會，來共同生活，既不表驕矜，也不現頑固，更不呈嫉妒。沒有人把什麼據為己有，也沒有人累及別人。他們用手操勞，以獲得足以養活身體的東西，而不妨礙專心事奉神。他們將操作所得交與組長。這些組長小心翼翼支配一切東西，並向一位稱為院長的交帳。這些院長舉止聖潔，靈智卓越，德行優異，毫無驕傲，關懷那些他們所稱為兒女的修道士的幸福，也能以權威命令他們，而且也為他們所樂意服從。在一天終了，當他們仍然禁食的時候，他們都從斗室中出來，聚集傾聽院長講道；每一個院長至少有三千人圍繞著」（他多是指埃及和東方而言）；「然後他們進食，不過足夠維持健康和生命而已；每人克制自己的口腹，對擺在他面前的小量淡薄食品也節省受用。他們不但禁用酒肉，藉以抑制肉慾，而且禁用那些名為潔凈而實足以刺激口味的東西，因為別人可恥地以潔凈為借口，來盡量享受肉類以外的一切美味。除必需的食用外，一切剩餘的（因為他們雙手勞動而食用菲薄，所以剩餘的極有可觀）都分給窮人，負責分配的人比分配自己所賺得的，還要小心。因為他們並不求富有這些東西，而只求不留為己有。」奧氏既提到他在米蘭和別的地方所見到的刻苦生活，後來，又說：「在這種種情形下，沒有人被敦促去度他所不能勝任的克苦生活；對任何人都不勉強加上他所拒絕的；也沒有人因承認自己太軟弱不能模仿別人，而被別人咎責；因為他們記得那對愛的最高讚美；他們記得在潔凈的人，凡物都潔凈（多1：15）。因此，他們殷勤努力，並不在拒絕某種食物是不潔的，而在征服情慾，保守愛弟兄的心。他們記得經上有話說：『食物是為肚腹，肚腹是為食物；但神要叫這兩樣都廢壞』（林前6：13）然而有許多強壯的人，實行節制，乃是為軟弱的人。還有許多人這樣做，有著不同的原因，他們喜歡較差較賤的食品。因此，這些在身體完全健康時克制自己的人，在生病時，卻不怕享用為健康所需要之物。很多人不飲酒，並不是恐怕為酒所玷污；因為他們很合乎人情，將酒給那些非有酒不能使身體健康的衰弱者喝。有些人愚笨，拒絕不飲，他們就以弟兄之愛來勸告，免得他們因虛幻的迷信而使身體衰弱，卻不能助長聖潔。他們這樣操練自己成為虔敬，但他們知道，身體的操練只能持續一個短時間。最要遵守的，乃是愛心，飲食，言語，服裝，容貌都須以愛心為主。這一切都集成為一個愛心；違背愛心，就是違犯律法，得罪上帝；若有人拒絕愛心，他就被眾人棄絕；若有人違反了愛心，他就不得逗留一日。」既然奧古斯丁在這幾段書上將古時修道主義的真性質寫實出來了，所以我不嫌冗長，將它們轉錄於此；因為我知道，不拘我怎樣求簡短，我若要從其他作家搜集同樣的事情，就恐怕要更加冗長了。
　　十、我在這裡不打算把論點完盤托出，不過指出古代教會修道士的品格以及當時修道生活的性質，使明智的讀者，從比較上就能判斷那些憑藉古製作為今日修道主義護符的人，是何等厚顏無恥。當奧古斯丁將聖潔而合法的修道生活給我們陳述時，他將一切由主賜人有自由，卻為他們嚴格苛求的事，都排除在外。但今日沒有什麼比這更嚴格執行的。因為他們認為，人如果稍微偏離他們所規定的衣服的顏色或樣式，食物的種類，或其他瑣碎無味的禮儀，就是犯了永不能得赦的罪。奧古斯丁堅決爭論說，修道士靠別人過懶惰生活，乃是不合法的，他否認在當時任何有規矩的修道院中，能找出這樣的一個例子來。今日的修道士卻把他們的閑懶，看為聖潔的主要部分。倘若把他們的閑懶除去，他們所誇稱那超過別人，且足以比擬天使的默想生活，還有什麼呢？總之，奧古斯丁所要求的修道生活，無非是要求於一切基督徒的，即要在虔誠上操練自己。他把愛心列為修道生活惟一主要的規律，難道我們可以說，他是叫少數人結黨，離開全體教會嗎？反之，他倒是叫人以身作則，啟迪別人，保持教會的合一。今日的修道作風與此迥異，什麼也比不上它與古代的修道生活更是相反的了。因為現在的修道士並不以基督命令他的僕人所恆常追求的虔敬為滿足，妄想出一種新的虔敬，以求使自己比別人更完全。
　　十一、倘若他們否認我所說的，我願意他們告訴我，他們為什麼專稱自己的生活方式為「完全」，而拒絕稱其他為神所定的身分為完全呢？我並非不知道他們的巧辯，說他們並非指修道生活本身內含有完全，而是指修道生活為達到完全的最好身分。為他們想使人重視自己，牢籠無知和沒有經驗的青年，伸張自己的特權，提高自己的尊嚴以貶損別人時，他們就誇稱自己達到了完全。他們一旦受窘迫，無法維持這種空虛的自炫時，他們就閃避說，他們雖尚未達到完全，但他們是處在一種比別人更能達到完全的地位。同時，他們仍為人們所稱羨，好像只有修道生活是天使般完全的，純潔沒有玷污的。他們就以此為借口來進行一種最有利的貿易；而他們的節制卻被埋在幾本書中去了。誰不知道這是開不可容忍的玩笑呢？但是我們暫且認為，他們真是不過稱他們的修道生活為一種便於達到完全的身分。然而他們給它這一稱呼，就是以特別的表記，來表明它與別的生活方式不同。將這種光榮轉移到從未曾蒙神讚許的一種制度，且將這種輕蔑加於其他一切不僅為神命令，而且蒙神的聖道稱許的身分，這誰能容忍呢？將人的捏造抬高在神自己所委任所稱讚的各種生活之上，這是何等大大侮辱他！
　　十二、現在讓他們控告我，說我既認為他們不以神給僕人所定的規律為足，乃是誹謗了他們。就令我對此題沉默不言，他們自己也供給了自控的充分理由；因為他們公然教導人說，他們給自己一種義務，比基督所給他門徒的還要重大，因為他們應許遵守福音上愛仇敵，不報復，不咒詛的各種勸告，而這些勸告一般基督徒並沒有遵守的義務。他們在這裡能有什麼古代的證據呢？這種意見是古人從未有過的。古人都異口同聲地宣布說，凡基督所說的，沒有一個字是我們不必服從的；他們反都毫不躊躇地將這些解經家所稱為勸告的那些經文，都當作命令。但我們既已證明這是一種最危險的錯誤，就只須在這裡簡單地說，一切信徒都當憎惡修道主義所根據的意見，即以為有一種生活的規律，較比神所賦予一切教會的共同規律更為完全。凡在這種基礎上所建立的上層結構，無非都是可憎的。
　　十三、但是他們再想出一個理由，來證明他們的完全，且以這理由是最有決定性的。我們的主對那問什麼是完全之義的少年人說：「你若願意作完全人，可去變賣你所有的，分給窮人」（太19： 21）。他們是否這樣做，我暫不置辯；目前姑以為他們真是這樣做了。他們誇口說，他們放棄了一切所有，所以他們得稱為完全。倘若整個的完全就在於此，那麼保羅所說：「我若將所有的周濟窮人，卻沒有愛，我就算不得什麼」（林前13：3），有什麼意義呢？那種因缺乏愛而算不得什麼的完全，是一種什麼樣的完全呢？這裡他們必然回答說，這雖是完全生活的主要部分，卻不是唯一的完全。然而這種說法也與保羅的話不相符。保羅毫不躊躇地以「愛心」——並不必須捨棄財產 ——為「聯絡全德的」（西3：14）。若是在主和門徒中間，的確沒有不相符合之處，而且保羅明明否認人的完全在於放棄財產，反倒主張人不必放棄產業，而可以有完全，那麼，我們必須研究當怎樣了解主的話：「你若願意作完全人，可去變賣你所有的。」倘若我們考慮——對主的一切言論都應考慮——主是對誰說話，那麼他說話的意義就不會模糊。一個少年人問主說：「我該作什麼善事，才能得永生？」（太19：16）。問題既然是關於作什麼，基督就把他指到律法方面去；這是很合理的，因為就律法的本身而言，它是永生之路，而其所以失效，乃是由於我們的墮落。基督用這回答來宣布，除古時上帝在律法上所吩咐的以外，他沒有教導什麼別的人生準則。這樣，他也同時對神的律法作見證，以它為完全的義的道理，藉此阻止一切誹謗，免得人說，他是用一種新人生準則來激動百姓脫離律法。那少年人誠然不是出於惡意。而是染了虛浮的自信，所以對於律法的教訓，他回答說：「這一切我自幼都遵守了」（太19：20）。這少年人與他所誇口已經做到的，實在相差極遠；倘若他所誇的屬實，他就不會要用什麼來成為完全了。因為律法本身包含完全的義，乃是我們已經證明了的；並且從這經文看，遵守律法，即稱為進入永生之路。為要向這少年人指明，他所過於自信回答說已遵守之義，乃是何等貧乏，就有暴露他心中所隱藏的一種罪惡之必要。他富有錢財，一心專註於其上。因為他不感覺這暗傷，所以基督要揭發它。他說：「你去變賣所有的。」倘若他果如自己所想象是那樣遵守律法的，他聽了這話，就不會憂憂愁愁地走了。因為凡盡心愛神的人，就不僅要把凡與愛心不相符的東西視為糞土，而且要厭棄它為有害的。所以，基督命令一個富而貪財的人放棄他的一切財產，就等於命令一個野心勃勃的人放棄他的一切尊榮，命令一個好奢侈逸樂的人放棄他的一切珍饈，命令一個淫蕩的人放棄一切引誘之具。因此，我們必須使凡不被一般規勸感動的良心去感覺到自己的特別過犯。所以，把基督這句話伸展為通律，好像他是把人的完全都歸於放棄財產，乃是不對的；其實，基督不過藉著指出這一點，來鞭策那得意忘形的少年人，使他認識自己的罪過，知道自己距離完全遵守律法尚甚遙遠，而他竟驕傲地假裝做到了。我承認這段經文為一些教父所誤解，而他們的誤解造成了自甘貧窮的矯揉造作；所以那些放棄一切世上的東西，專心事奉基督的人，就被看為是世上惟一快樂的人。但我相信，我所說的要善良和睦的人滿意，對基督的話的真諦不再有疑問。
　　十四、在教父之後，這些帶頭巾的詭辯家所杜撰的完全，不免樹立起兩種基督教，真是沒有什麼比這種舉動更違反教父的意向了。因為那時沒有產生過那褻瀆神的教義，以修道生活比為洗禮，甚且稱之為第二洗禮。誰不相信教父對這種褻瀆，會衷心感到憎惡呢？奧古斯丁說，古時修道士專心致力於愛。我們何必指明，這與今日的修道士是完全不相符呢？事實證明，一切退入修道院的，都與教會分開了。他們自行取得一種特別的職分，私自舉行聖禮，這豈不是與信徒的合法團體自行分裂嗎？若這不是破壞教會的團體，那麼什麼才是呢？將所提出的比較結論起來說，他們與古時的修道士有什麼相同的地方呢？古時修道士的生活雖離開眾人，但他們卻沒有分離的教會，他們也同別人一起領受聖禮；參加聚會聽道，並與眾信徒一同禱告；因之，他們仍是民眾的一部分。當今修道士們則自行設立聖壇，這種舉動豈不是破壞教會的團結嗎？因為他們乃是自己與教會斷絕關係，輕視通常的聖職，這聖職乃是神用來保持安寧與愛心在他僕人中間的。所以當今的修道院，我認為無非是一些擾亂教會秩序，與信徒合法團體分離的秘密集社。他們自立各種派別的名稱，使分裂更為顯明；他們將保羅所極憎嫌的引以為榮，而不知恥。哥林多人各自誇耀他們的師傅（林前1：12，13：3，4），這豈不是將基督分裂了么？今日的修道士不稱為基督徒，而稱為本泥狄克派，或法蘭西斯派，或多米尼古派；他們都傲然自取這些尊稱，當作他們宗教生活之徽幟，矯揉造作，以別於一般信徒，這豈不是真有損於基督的尊嚴么？
　　十五、我所陳述古今修道士彼此間的差別，並非是就修道士之私生活而言，而是就修道制度而言。所以讀者須知，我所講的是修道制度，而不是修道士，所非難的過失，並非是只歸咎於少數人的，而是與修道生活分不開的。他們的生活方式迥異，勿須再加特別陳述。顯然沒有另外一種人，更為一切極卑鄙的邪惡所敗壞的了，再沒有比他們更為黨派，仇恨，奸謀，和詭計所玷污的了。在少數寺院中，就貞潔只是指著抑制情慾而不至臭名四溢而言，他們還可說是過著貞潔的生活；但是十個修道院中難有一個不是賣淫之所，而是貞潔之居。他們的吃食有什麼節約之處呢？他們真像一些在豬欄中養得很肥的豬。但免得他們抱怨我待他們太苛刻，我不多說了，然而從我所提到的幾件事上，凡知道實情的，都會承認我所說的，只是真理。在修道士以最嚴格的貞操著稱的時代，奧古斯丁尚且抱怨說，他們當中有許多流氓，以邪僻欺騙之術來從不提防的人手中索詐錢財，藉售賣殉道者的遺物，經營一種引起誹謗的交易，甚至將任何死人的骸骨，當作殉道者的遺骸出賣，並犯許多類似罪行，來羞辱其修道院。他說，他沒有看見過優於修道院所造就出來的人物，也沒有看見過劣於修道院所敗壞的人物。他若看到今日一切修道院中所充滿的罪惡，他又會怎樣說呢？我所說的，只是人所共曉昭彰的惡行；不過這裡所咎責的，並不加於全體而毫無例外。因為正如在古代修道院中，聖潔生活之規律和訓練並沒有建立得那麼良好，以致其中沒有一些素餐者，照樣我也不能說，今日的修道士盡皆墮落不如古昔，以致他們當中沒有好人了；不過好人為數稀少，散布隱藏於極大多數敗類之中；他們不但受輕蔑，而且遭侮辱磨折，有時甚至為其他的修道士所虐待；恰如米勒西人之諺語有云，在彼輩當中，不該容許有好人存在。
　　十六、藉此今昔修道生活之比較，我相信我已經把今日修道士援引古代教會之範例來為自身辯護的虛妄揭穿了；因為他們與古時修道士迥異，正如猿猴與人迥異一樣。同時我得承認，即令奧古斯丁所稱許之古修道制度，也還有些我不能完全贊同的地方。我承認他們的嚴格生活，在外表的訓練上並沒有什麼迷信之處；但是，我以為他們不免有假裝的和偏激的熱忱。放棄財產，以免懸念世事，似乎是好的；但是，一個人以虔誠的心盡職治理家庭，卻更為神所看重。這種人是在家庭中作一個聖潔的父親，不懷貪婪，野心，或其他敗壞的情慾，專心在他的身分上事奉神。離開人類社會去退隱，過哲人的生活，乃是一件美麗的事；但是，一個人退隱到沙漠中去獨居，好像是恨惡一切世人，放棄主所命令他的主要天職，這並非是基督徒的愛心所應為的。即使修道生活沒有別的惡，然而它將一種無用而有害的榜樣介紹到教會，也就為害不小了。
　　十七、現在我們要檢討今日修道士在加入修道院時所立的願。第一，既然他們的企圖是要設立一種新的事奉以邀神恩，因此，我就從前面所說的斷定，無論他們所立的是什麼願，在神的眼中都是可憎的。第二，他們不顧神的呼召，也沒有得著神的許可，便順著自己的意向，為自己發明一種新的生活方式；所以我認為這是一種鹵莽不法的企圖，因為他們的良心在神的面前無所依據，而「凡不出於信心的都是罪」（羅14：23）。第三，他們在今日的修道制度中立願實行許多腐敗和邪惡的事奉；所以我說他們不是把自己奉獻給神，而是奉獻給魔鬼。既然先知因以色列人用褻瀆的禮儀敗壞了對神的真實崇拜，就很有理由說他們「所祭祀的是鬼魔，並非真神」（申32：17），那麼，我們對今日一戴上修道的頭巾，就負起千百種邪惡迷信之軛的修道士，為什麼不可說同樣的話呢？他們所立的是什麼願呢？他們應許神終身守童貞，好像他們曾與神立約，使他們免去結婚的需要。他們並沒有申辯的餘地，說他們不過是靠神的恩典來立願；因為他曾宣布，這種特別的恩賜並非是賜給一切人的（太19：11），所以我們不能自以為可以領受這種恩賜。讓那些有這恩賜的人應用它。倘若他們感到情慾的刺激而不安，就當求助於那能增加他們的抵抗能力的主。倘若仍然無效，他們就不當輕視那給予他們的補救方法。因為凡未曾領受節制恩賜的人，無疑神呼叫他們結婚。所謂節制，不光是指肉體不犯姦淫，而是包括心中無疵的貞潔。因為保羅所命令的不只是避免外體的污穢，也須免去內在的慾火攻心（林前7：9）。他們說，凡要專心完全事奉神的人，自古相沿的風氣，就是以立願自約。我承認這風習是古時所實行的，但我不能承認古時毫無弊病，以致要把古時所行的，都作為準則。人一旦許願，就不許再反悔，這乃是逐漸演成的風氣。這是可以從居普良的話證明的。他說：「守童身的若專心奉獻自己給了神，就當恆忍保持貞操，而無虛偽。如此堅持有恆，他們才能盼望得著守童貞的賞賜。但若他們不願或不能恆忍，與其尋樂墜入火中，倒不如結婚為妙。」今日倘若有人想對守童貞的願提出這樣一個合理的限度來，他們將要如何毫不躊躇地加以誹謗呢？所以他們已與古風相距懸殊，對不能守願的人毫不寬待；更且他們恬不知恥宣布說，人若以娶妻來解決情不自禁，就比犯姦淫，玷污自己的身靈，犯了更重的罪了。
　　十八、但他們仍然辯駁，力圖證明這種誓願在使徒時代已通行了，因為保羅說，寡婦在領受教會的職務之後，若再結婚，乃是「廢棄了當初所許的願」（提前5： 12）。我不否認那些把自己和自己的工作奉獻給教會的寡婦，有不再結婚的一種不言而喻的義務；這不是因為她們以不結婚為宗教的義務，像後來的看法一樣，而是因為若不避免婚姻生活的牽制，她們就不能自由履行職務。但是她們若於許願后，打算再嫁，這豈不是放棄神的召命嗎？因此，難怪他說，她們懷著這種念頭，乃是「情慾發動，違背基督。」隨後為充分表明他的意思，他又加上說，她們既不履行對教會所應許的，所以她們甚至違反了廢棄了當初在受洗時所許的願，這願叫每人都當履行他的職責。除非你認為這乃是說，她們既喪盡了一切廉恥，就再不顧及美德，竟放縱於各種邪僻淫逸中，與基督教婦女之品格背道而馳——這一種解釋是我很贊同的。所以我要答覆說，那些蒙接納加入教會服務的寡婦，就以永遠寡居來自約；倘若她們後來再嫁，我們就容易了解，她們是如保羅所說，拋棄廉恥，暴露鹵莽，而不成其為基督教的婦女；這樣一來，她們不但破壞對教會所許的願，而且離棄了一般虔誠女子的共同義務。但是，第一，我否認她們之孀居，除因婚姻生活與她們所擔任的職務不相融洽外，還有什麼其他原因；而且我認為她們孀寡的義務不是絕對的，而只是因她們的職務有這種需要。第二，我否認她們是如此受孀居拘束，以致寧可慾火攻心，或犯不貞節的罪，而不可再嫁。第三，我注意到保羅所規定的年紀，通常是能免於危險的，禁止收納六十歲以內的寡婦；而且他特別指示須限於那些只曾一次出嫁的，因此是已經證明她們能守節的。我們咎責守獨身主義的願，只是因為人錯認它為一種事奉，又因為本沒有能力信守的人卻鹵莽地許這願。
　　十九、但保羅的這一段話怎能援用於修女呢？因為寡婦是被任為女執事，並非是用詩歌或喃喃之聲來取悅於神，而將其他光陰浪費；她們倒是為整個教會服務窮人，並全心全意從事慈善服務。她們許願寡居，並非認為不結婚是事奉上帝，而只是為求更有自由來履行職務。最後，她們許願守節，並不是在年輕妙齡的時候，直到後來才由經驗告訴她們，她們是如何側身於懸崖之上；她們許願守節，乃是在越過了一切危險的關頭之後，不違反虔誠和安全。且不追究前兩點，我只要說，准許婦人在六十歲之前許願守節，乃是不對的；因為使徒保羅說：「寡婦記在冊子上，必須年紀到六十歲。」「我願意年輕的寡婦嫁人，生養兒女」（提前5： 9，14）。後來讓寡婦在四十八歲，四十歲，甚至三十歲時就許此願，那是決不可恕的；至於不幸的女子，在未達知事之年，就被誘騙威脅，入此可咒的陷井，那是更不可恕的。關於男女修道士所立貧窮和服從的願，我不擬在此逗留來加以反對。我只要說，這種願在今日不僅和許多迷信交織著，而且似乎是為戲弄神和人而成立的。但為求避免有過於嚴厲駁斥每一點之嫌，我們就只說到此為止。
　　二十、什麼是合法和蒙神悅納的願，我們已經充分說明了。然而，有些又膽怯又沒有經驗的人，即使對所立的願不滿意，而且深知它不對，可是對自己的責任卻陷於疑團，極為困惱，一方面深怕違反了對神的應許，另一方面，又怕若遵守這願，便是犯了更大的罪。我們對這種人當給予幫助，好使他們擺脫此種困難。現在為求立刻掃除一切顧慮，我要說，凡不合法不合理的願，對神既無價值，對人也無效力。在人的契約上，除非對方要我們守約，我們就無義務，同樣神所未曾命令我們的事，我們若認為有履行的必要，那乃是可笑的；尤其是我們的行為除非是蒙神悅納，且有我們的良心證明它們是蒙神悅納，就不是好的。因為固定不移之理乃是：「凡不出於信心的都是罪」（羅14：23）。保羅這話的意思是說，凡我們存疑心所作的事，就都是罪，因為一切善行都是出於信心，這信心使我們准知它們蒙神悅納。因此，既然一個基督徒所行的，若不存這種信心，就不能算是合法的，那麼，他若因無知鹵莽許了願，後來發覺他的錯誤，他為何不能放棄所立的願呢？因為凡不加審慎所許的願，是不但沒有約束力的，而且是必須取消的；又因為這種願不但在神的眼中無價值，而且是他所厭棄的，這已由我們指明了。對一個不需多加辯論的題目，我們用不著再辯論了。我以為以下一論據就足以使虔誠人的良心獲得安寧，脫離疑慮：凡不出於純潔動機，且不以合理的目的為依歸的行為，都為神所拒絕，而且他禁止我們繼續下去，正如他禁止我們開端一樣。因此，我們可以下結論說，一切由錯誤和迷信而立的願，對神都是無價值的，且當為我們所拋棄。
　　二十一、這種解決辦法足以答覆惡人對於那些脫離修道院從事一種光榮生活的人所加的誹謗。世人通常嚴重指責他們為毀信背誓的，以為他們破壞了對神和對教會不可解除的約。但我認為，凡為人所認可，但為神所取消的約，便不是約。此外，我們雖承認，他們以前因錯誤與不認識神而受拘束，但現在他們既然為真理的知識所啟悟，我就認為基督的恩典，已經將他們從約的拘束中解救出來。因為倘若基督的十字架能拯救世人脫離神的律法所加於我們的咒詛，那麼，它是多麼更能使我們從那只是由撒但所加欺枉陷井的拘束中解放出來！所以，凡為基督的福音真光所照耀的，他也必將他們從迷信的陷井中解放出來。此外，他們若不適於獨身生活，另有一個辯護。因為凡足以毀滅人的靈魂——這靈魂正是主所要拯救而不要毀滅的——而行不通的願，就不當予以遵守。那些未曾領受特別恩賜的人，決不能遵守獨身之願，這是我已經指明的，我雖不置一辭，經驗也已經宣示了；因為極端的淫亂，幾乎盛行於一切修道院中，乃是人所共知的；若其中仍有人好像較為貞潔有德，他們並非真是貞潔，不過是把他們不貞潔的敗德掩蓋了。因此神以極可畏的刑罰加諸人的無禮，因為他們忘記自己的軟弱，違反自然，貪圖那末賜給他們的，藐視神所賜予他們的捕救方法，頑固妄斷，強自以為可以勝過不貞潔的罪。一個人既有人勸他需要結婚，而且婚姻是主給他作補救的，然而他不僅輕視婚姻，而且立一個願使自己堅決輕視婚姻，對於此種人，我們豈不是只好稱之為老頑固嗎？

CHAPTER 13.
OF VOWS. THE MISERABLE ENTANGLEMENTS CAUSED BY VOWING RASHLY.

This chapter consists of two parts,—I. Of vows in general, sec. 1-8. II. Of monastic vows, and specially of the vow of celibacy, sec. 8-21.

Sections.

1. Some general principles with regard to the nature of vows. Superstitious errors not only of the heathen, but of Christians, in regard to vows.

2. Three points to be considered with regard to vows. First, to whom the vow is made—viz. to God. Nothing to be vowed to him but what he himself requires.

3. Second, Who we are that vow. We must measure our strength, and have regard to our calling. Fearful errors of the Popish clergy by not attending to this. Their vow of celibacy.

4. Third point to be attended to—viz. the intention with which the vow is made. Four ends in vowing. Two of them refer to the past, and two to the future. Examples and use of the former class.

5. End of vows which refer to the future.

6. The doctrine of vows in general. Common vow of Christians in Baptism, &c. This vow sacred and salutary. Particular vows how to be tested.

7. Great prevalence of superstition with regard to vows.

8. Vows of monks. Contrast between ancient and modern monasticism.

9. Portraiture of the ancient monks by Augustine.

10. Degeneracy of modern monks. 1. Inconsiderate rigour. 2. Idleness. 3. False boast of perfection.

11. This idea of monastic perfection refuted.

12. Arguments for monastic perfection. First argument answered.

13. Second argument answered.

14. Absurdity of representing the monastic profession as a second baptism.

15. Corrupt manners of monks.

16. Some defects in ancient monasticism.

17. General refutation of monastic vows.

18. Refutation continued.

19. Refutation continued.

20. Do such vows of celibacy bind the conscience? This question answered.

21. Those who abandon the monastic profession for an honest living, unjustly accused of breaking their faith.

1. It is indeed deplorable that the Church, whose freedom was purchased by the inestimable price of Christ』s blood, should have been thus oppressed by a cruel tyranny, and almost buried under a huge mass of traditions; but, at the same time, the private infatuation of each individual shows, that not without just cause has so much power been given from above to Satan and his ministers. It was not enough to neglect the command of Christ, and bear anyburdens which false teachers might please to impose, but each individual behoved to have his own peculiar burdens, and thus sink deeper by digging his own cavern. This has been the result when men set about devising vows, by which a stronger and closer obligation 2473might be added to common ties. Having already shown that the worship of God was vitiated by the audacity of those who, under the name of pastors, domineered in the Church, when they ensnared miserable souls by their iniquitous laws, it will not be out of place here to advert to a kindred evil, to make it appear that the world, in accordance with its depraved disposition, has always thrown every possible obstacle in the way of the helps by which it ought to have been brought to God. Moreover, that the very grievous mischief introduced by such vows may be more apparent, let the reader attend to the principles formerly laid down. First, we showed (Book 2 chap. 8 sec. 5) that everything requisite for the ordering of a pious and holy life is comprehended in the law. Secondly, we showed that the Lord, the better to dissuade us from devising new works, included the whole of righteousness in simple obedience to his will. If these positions are true, it is easy to see that all fictitious worship, which we ourselves devise for the purpose of serving God, is not in the least degree acceptable to him, how pleasing soever it may be to us. And, unquestionably, in many passages the Lord not only openly rejects, but grievously abhors such worship. Hence arises a doubt with regard to vows which are made without any express authority from the word of God; in what light are they to be viewed? can they be duly made by Christian men, and to what extent are they binding? What is called a promise among men is a vow when made to God. Now, we promise to men either things which we think will be acceptable to them, or things which we in duty owe them. Much more careful, therefore, ought we to be in vows which are directed to God, with whom we ought to act with the greatest seriousness. Here superstition has in all ages strangely prevailed; men at once, without judgment and without choice, vowing to God whatever came into their minds, or even rose to their lips. Hence the foolish vows, nay, monstrous absurdities, by which the heathen insolently sported with their gods. Would that Christians had not imitated them in this their audacity! Nothing, indeed, could be less becoming; but it is obvious that for some ages nothing has been more usual than this misconduct—the whole body of the people everywhere despising the Law of God,604604   See Ps. 119:106. 「I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.」 Calvin observes on these words, that the vow and oath to keep the law cannot be charged with rashness, because it trusted to the promises of God concerning the forgiveness of sins, and to the spirit of regeneration. and burning with an insane zeal of vowing according to any dreaming notion which they had formed. I have no wish to exaggerate invidiously, or particularise the many grievous sins which have here been committed; but it seemed right to advert to it in passing, that it may the better appear, that when we treat of vows we are not by any means discussing a superfluous question.

2. If we would avoid error in deciding what vows are legitimate, and what preposterous, three things must be attended to—viz. who 2474he is to whom the vow is made; who we are that make it; and, lastly, with what intention we make it. In regard in the first, we should consider that we have to do with God, whom our obedience so delights, that he abominates all will-worship, how specious and splendid soever it be in the eyes of men (Col. 2:23). If all will-worship, which we devise without authority, is abomination to God, it follows that no worship can be acceptable to him save that which is approved by his word. Therefore, we must not arrogate such licence to ourselves as to presume to vow anything to God without evidence of the estimation in which he holds it. For the doctrine of Paul, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), while it extends to all actions of every kind, certainly applies with peculiar force in the case where the thought is immediately turned towards God. Nay, if in the minutest matters (Paul was then speaking of the distinction of meats) we err or fall, where the sure light of faith shines not before us, how much more modesty ought we to use when we attempt a matter of the greatest weight? For in nothing ought we to be more serious than in the duties of religion. In vows, then, our first precaution must be, never to proceed to make any vow without having previously determined in our conscience to attempt nothing rashly. And we shall be safe from the danger of rashness when we have God going before, and, as it were, dictating from his word what is good, and what is useless.

3. In the second point which we have mentioned as requiring consideration is implied, that we measure our strength, that we attend to our vocation so as not to neglect the blessing of liberty which God has conferred upon us. For he who vows what is not within his means, or is at variance with his calling, is rash, while he who contemns the beneficence of God in making him lord of』 all things, is ungrateful. When I speak thus, I mean not that anything is so placed in our hand, that, leaning on our own strength, we may promise it to God. For in the Council of Arausica (cap. 11) it was most truly decreed, that nothing is duly vowed to God save what we have received from his hand, since all things which are offered to him are merely his gifts. But seeing that some things are given to us by the goodness of God, and others withheld by his justice, every man should have respect to the measure of grace bestowed on him, as Paul enjoins (Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:11). All then I mean here is, that your vows should be adapted to the measure which God by his gifts prescribes to you, lest by attempting more than he permits, you arrogate too much to yourself, and fall headlong. For example, when the assassins, of whom mention is made in the Acts, vowed 「that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul」 (Acts 23:12), though it had not been an impious conspiracy, it would still have been intolerably presumptuous, as subjecting the life and death of a man to their own power. Thus Jephthah suffered for his folly, when with precipitate fervour he made a rash vow (Judges 11:30). Of this class, the first place of 2475insane audacity belongs to celibacy. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetful of their infirmity, are confident of their fitness for celibacy.605605   On the vow of celibacy. see Calv. de Fugiend. Micit. sacris, Adv. Theolog. Paris. De Necessit. Reform. Eccl.; Præfat. Antidoti ad Concil. Trident.; Vera Eccles. Reform. Ratio; De Scandalis. But by what oracle have they been instructed, that the chastity which they vow to the end of life, they will be able through life to maintain? They hear the voice of God concerning the universal condition of mankind, 「It is not good that the man should be alone」 (Gen. 2:18). They understand, and I wish they did not feel that the sin remaining in us is armed with the sharpest stings. How can they presume to shake off the common feelings of their nature for a whole lifetime, seeing the gift of continence is often granted for a certain time as occasion requires? In such perverse conduct they must not expect God to be their helper; let them rather remember the words, 「Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God」 (Deut. 6:16). But it is to tempt the Lord to strive against the nature implanted by him, and to spurn his present gifts as if they did not appertain to us. This they not only do, but marriage, which God did not think it unbecoming his majesty to institute, which he pronounced honourable in all, which Christ our Lord sanctified by his presence, and which he deigned to honour with his first miracle, they presume to stigmatise as pollution, so extravagant are the terms in which they eulogise every kind of celibacy; as if in their own life they did not furnish a clear proof that celibacy is one thing and chastity another. This life, however, they most impudently style angelical, thereby offering no slight insult to the angels of God, to whom they compare whoremongers and adulterers, and something much worse and fouler still.606606   Bernard, de Convers. ad Clericos, cap. 29, inveighing against the crimes of the clergy, says, 「Would that those who cannot contain would fear to take the vow of celibacy! For it is a weighty saying, that all cannot receive it. Many are either unable to conceal from the multitude, or seek not to do it. They abstain from the remedy of marriage, and thereafter give themselves up to all wickedness.」 And, indeed, there is here very little occasion for argument, since they are abundantly refuted by fact. For we plainly see the fearful punishments with which the Lord avenges this arrogance and contempt of his gifts from overweening confidence. More hidden crimes I spare through shame; what is known of them is too much. Beyond all controversy, we ought not to vow anything which will hinder us in fulfilling our vocation; as if the father of a family were to vow to leave his wife and children, and undertake other burdens; or one who is fit for a public office should, when elected to it, vow to live private. But the meaning of what we have said as to not despising our liberty may occasion some difficulty if not explained. Wherefore, understand it briefly thus: Since God has given us dominion over all things, and so subjected them to us that we may use them for our convenience, we cannot hope that our service will be acceptable to God if we bring ourselves into bondage to external things, which ought to be subservient to us. I say this, because 2476some aspire to the praise of humility, for entangling themselves in a variety of observances from which God for good reason wished us to be entirely free. Hence, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember that we are by no means to withdraw from the economy which God has appointed in the Christian Church.

4. I come now to my third position—viz that if you would approve your vow to God, the mind in which you undertake it is of great moment. For seeing that God looks not to the outward appearance but to the heart, the consequence is, that according to the purpose which the mind has in view, the same thing may at one time please and be acceptable to him, and at another be most displeasing. If you vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any holiness in so doing, you are superstitious; but if you have some end in view which is not perverse, no one can disapprove. Now, as far as I can see, there are four ends to which our vows may be properly directed; two of these, for the sake of order, I refer to the past, and two to the future. To the past belong vows by which we either testify our gratitude toward God for favours received, or in order to deprecate his wrath, inflict punishment on ourselves for faults committed. The former, let us if you please call acts of thanksgiving; the latter, acts of repentance. Of the former class, we have an example in the tithes which Jacob vowed (Gen. 28:20), if the Lord would conduct him safely home from exile; and also in the ancient peace-offerings which pious kings and commanders, when about to engage in a just war, vowed that they would give if they were victorious, or, at least, if the Lord would deliver them when pressed by some greater difficulty. Thus are to be understood all the passages in the Psalms which speak of vows (Ps. 22:26; 56:13; 116:14, 18). Similar vows may also be used by us in the present day, whenever the Lord has rescued us from some disaster or dangerous disease, or other peril. For it is not abhorrent from the office of a pious man thus to consecrate a votive offering to God as a formal symbol of acknowledgment that he may not seem ungrateful for his kindness. The nature of the second class it will be sufficient to illustrate merely by one familiar example. Should any one, from gluttonous indulgence, have fallen into some iniquity, there is nothing to prevent him, with the view of chastising his intemperance, from renouncing all luxuries for a certain time, and in doing so, from employing a vow for the purpose of binding himself more firmly. And yet I do not lay down this as an invariable law to all who have similarly offended; I merely show what may be lawfully done by those who think that such a vow will be useful to them. Thus while I hold it lawful so to vow, I at the same time leave it free.

5. The vows which have reference to the future tend partly, as we have said, to render us more cautious, and partly to act as a kind of stimulus to the discharge of duty. A man sees that he is so prone to a certain vice, that in a thing which is otherwise not bad he cannot restrain himself from forthwith falling into evil: he will 2477not act absurdly in cutting off the use of that thing for some time by a vow. If, for instance, one should perceive that this or that bodily ornament brings him into peril, and yet allured by cupidity he eagerly longs for it, what can he do better than by throwing a curb upon himself, that is, imposing the necessity of abstinence, free himself from all doubt? In like manner, should one be oblivious or sluggish in the necessary duties of piety, why should he not, by forming a vow, both awaken his memory and shake off his sloth? In both, I confess, there is a kind of tutelage, but inasmuch as they are helps to infirmity, they are used not without advantage by the ignorant and imperfect. Hence we hold that vows which have respect to one of these ends, especially in external things, are lawful, provided they are supported by the approbation of God, are suitable to our calling, and are limited to the measure of grace bestowed upon us.

6. It is not now difficult to infer what view on the whole ought to be taken of vows. There is one vow common to all believers, which taken in baptism we confirm, and as it were sanction, by our Catechism,607607   Latin, 「Catechism.」—French, 「En faisant protestation de notre foy;」—in making profession of our faith. and partaking of the Lord』s Supper. For the sacraments are a kind of mutual contracts by which the Lord conveys his mercy to us, and by it eternal life, while we in our turn promise him obedience. The formula, or at least substance, of the vow is, That renouncing Satan we bind ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and no longer follow the depraved desires of our flesh. It cannot be doubted that this vow, which is sanctioned by Scripture, nay, is exacted from all the children of God, is holy and salutary. There is nothing against this in the fact, that no man in this life yields that perfect obedience to the law which God requires of us. This stipulation being included in the covenant of grace, comprehending forgiveness of sins and the spirit of holiness, the promise which we there make is combined both with entreaty for pardon and petition for assistance. It is necessary, in judging of particular vows, to keep the three former rules in remembrance: from them any one will easily estimate the character of each single vow. Do not suppose, however, that I so commend the vows which I maintain to be holy that I would have them made every day. For though I dare not give any precept as to time or number, yet if any one will take my advice, he will not undertake any but what are sober and temporary. If you are ever and anon launching out into numerous vows, the whole solemnity will be lost by the frequency, and you will readily fall into superstition. If you bind yourself by a perpetual vow, you will have great trouble and annoyance in getting free, or, worn out by length of time, you will at length make bold to break it.

7. It is now easy to see under how much superstition the world has laboured in this respect for several ages. One vowed that he would be abstemious, as if abstinence from wine were in itself an acceptable service to God. Another bound himself to fast, another to 2478abstain from flesh on certain days, which he had vainly imagined to be more holy than other days. Things much more boyish were vowed though not by boys. For it was accounted great wisdom to undertake votive pilgrimages to holy places, and sometimes to perform the journey on foot, or with the body half naked, that the greater merit might be acquired by the greater fatigue. These and similar things, for which the world has long bustled with incredible zeal, if tried by the rules which we formerly laid down, will be discovered to be not only empty and nugatory, but full of manifest impiety. Be the judgment of the flesh what it may, there is nothing which God more abhors than fictitious worship. To these are added pernicious and damnable notions, hypocrites, after performing such frivolities, thinking that they have acquired no ordinary righteousness, placing the substance of piety in external observances, and despising all others who appear less careful in regard to them.

8. It is of no use to enumerate all the separate forms. But as monastic vows are held in great veneration, because they seem to be approved by the public judgment of the Church, I will say a few words concerning them. And, first, lest any one defend the monachism of the present day on the ground of the long prescription, it is to be observed, that the ancient mode of living in monasteries was very different. The persons who retired to them were those who wished to train themselves to the greatest austerity and patience. The discipline practiced by the monks then resembled that which the Lacedemonians are said to have used under the laws of Lycurgus, and was even much more rigorous. They slept on the ground, their drink was water, their food bread, herbs, and roots, their chief luxuries oil and pulse. From more delicate food and care of the body they abstained. These things might seem hyperbolical were they not vouched by experienced eye witnesses, as Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom. By such rudimentary training they prepared themselves for greater offices. For of the fact that monastic colleges were then a kind of seminaries of the ecclesiastical order, both those whom we lately named are very competent witnesses (they were all brought up in monasteries, and thence called to the episcopal office), as well as several other great and excellent men of their age. Augustine also shows that in his time the monasteries were wont to furnish the Church with clergy. For he thus addresses the monks of the island of Caprae: 「We exhort you, brethren in the Lord, to keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and if at any time our mother Church requires your labour, you will neither undertake it with eager elation, nor reject it from the blandishment of sloth, but with meek hearts obey God. You will not prefer your own ease to the necessities of the Church. Had no good men been willing to minister to her when in travail, it would have been impossible for you to be born」608608   At the same place, he admirably says, 「Dearly beloved, love ease, but with the view of restraining from all worldly delight, and remember that there is no place where he who dreads our return to God is not able to lay his snares.」 (August. Ep. 82). He is speaking 2479of the ministry by which believers are spiritually born again. In like manner, he says to Aurelius (Ep. 76), 「It is both an occasion of lapse to them, and a most unbecoming injury to the clerical order, if the deserters of monasteries are elected to the clerical warfare, since from those who remain in the monastery our custom is to appoint to the clerical office only the better and more approved. Unless, perhaps, as the vulgar say, A bad chorister is a good symphonist, so, in like manner, it will be jestingly said of us, A bad monk is a good clergyman. There will be too much cause for grief if we stir up monks to such ruinous pride, and deem the clergy deserving of so grave an affront, seeing that sometimes a good monk scarcely makes a good clerk; he may have sufficient continence, but be deficient in necessary learning.」 From these passages, it appears that pious men were wont to prepare for the government of the Church by monastic discipline, that thus they might be more apt and better trained to undertake the important office: not that all attained to this object, or even aimed at it, since the great majority of monks were illiterate men. Those who were fit were selected.

9. Augustine, in two passages in particular, gives a portraiture of the form of ancient monasticism. The one is in his book, De Moribus Ecclesiœ Catholicœ (On the Manners of the Catholic Church), where he maintains the holiness of that profession against the calumnies of the Manichees; the other in a treatise, entitled, De Opere Monachorum (On the Work of Monks), where he inveighs against certain degenerate monks who had begun to corrupt that institution. I will here give a summary of what he there delivers, and, as far as I can, in his own words: 「Despising the allurements of this world, and congregated in common for a most chaste and most holy life, they pass their lives together, spending their time in prayer, reading, and discourse, not swollen with pride, not turbulent through petulance, not livid with envy. No one possesses anything of his own: no one is burdensome to any man. They labour with their hands in things by which the body may be fed, and the mind not withdrawn from God. The fruit of their labour they hand over to those whom they call deans. Those deans, disposing of the whole with great care, render an account to one whom they call father. These fathers, who are not only of the purest morals, but most distinguished for divine learning, and noble in all things, without any pride, consult those whom they call their sons, though the former have full authority to command, and the latter a great inclination to obey. At the close of the day they assemble each from his cell, and without having broken their fast, to hear their father, and to the number of three thousand at least (he is speaking of Egypt and the East) they assemble under each father. Then the body is refreshed, so far as suffices for safety and health, every one curbing his concupiscence so as not to be profuse in the scanty and very mean diet which is provided. 2480Thus they not only abstain from flesh and wine for the purpose of subduing lust, but from those things which provoke the appetite of the stomach and gullet more readily, from seeming to some, as it were, more refined. In this way the desire of exquisite dainties, in which there is no flesh, is wont to be absurdly and shamefully defended. Any surplus, after necessary food (and the surplus is very great from the labour of their hands and the frugality of their meals), is carefully distributed to the needy, the more carefully that it was not procured by those who distribute. For they never act with the view of having abundance for themselves, but always act with the view of allowing no superfluity to remain with them」 (August. De Mor. Eccl. Cath. c. 31). Afterwards describing their austerity, of which he had himself seen instances both at Milan and elsewhere, he says, 「Meanwhile, no one is urged to austerities which he is unable to bear: no one is obliged to do what he declines, nor condemned by the others, whom he acknowledges himself too weak to imitate. For they remember how greatly charity is commended: they remember that to the pure all things are pure (Tit. 1:15). Wherefore, all their vigilance is employed, not in rejecting kinds of food as polluted, but in subduing concupiscence, and maintaining brotherly love. They remember, 『Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats,』 &c. (1 Cor. 6:13). Many, however strong, abstain because of the weak. In many this is not the cause of action; they take pleasure in sustaining themselves on the meanest and least expensive food. Hence the very persons who in health restrain themselves, decline not in sickness to use what their health requires. Many do not drink wine, and yet do not think themselves polluted by it, for they most humanely cause it to be given to the more sickly, and to those whose health requires it; and some who foolishly refuse, they fraternally admonish, lest by vain superstition they sooner become more weak than more holy. Thus they sedulously practice piety, while they know that bodily exercise is only for a short time. Charity especially is observed: their food is adapted to charity, their speech to charity, their dress to charity, their looks to charity. They go together, and breathe only charity: they deem it as unlawful to offend charity as to offend God; if any one opposes it, he is cast out and shunned; if any one offends it, he is not permitted to remain one day」 (August. De Moribus Eccl. Cath. c. 33). Since this holy man appears in these words to have exhibited the monastic life of ancient times as in a picture, I have thought it right to insert them here, though somewhat long, because I perceive that I would be considerably longer if I collected them from different writers, however compendious I might study to be.

10. Here, however, I had no intention to discuss the whole subject. I only wished to show, by the way, what kind of monks the early Church had, and what the monastic profession then was, that from the contrast sound readers might judge how great the effrontery is of those who allege antiquity in support of present monkism. Augustine, 2481while tracing out a holy and legitimate monasticism, would keep away all rigorous exaction of those things which the word of the Lord has left free. But in the present day nothing is more rigorously exacted. For they deem it an inexpiable crime if any one deviates in the least degree from the prescribed form in colour or species of dress, in the kind of food, or in other frivolous and frigid ceremonies. Augustine strenuously contends that it is not lawful for monks to live in idleness on other men』s means. (August. De Oper. Monach.) He denies that any such example was to be found in his day in a well-regulated monastery. Our monks place the principal part of their holiness in idleness. For if you take away their idleness, where will that contemplative life by which they glory that they excel all others, and make a near approach to the angels? Augustine, in fine, requires a monasticism which may be nothing else than a training and assistant to the offices of piety which are recommended to all Christians. What? When he makes charity its chief and almost its only rule, do we think he praises that combination by which a few men, bound to each other, are separated from the whole body of the Church? Nay, he wishes them to set an example to others of preserving the unity of the Church. So different is the nature of present monachism in both respects, that it would be difficult to find anything so dissimilar, not to say contrary. For our monks, not satisfied with that piety, on the study of which alone Christ enjoins his followers to be intent, imagine some new kind of piety, by aspiring to which they are more perfect than all other men.

11. If they deny this, I should like to know why they honour their own order only with the title of perfection, and deny it to all other divine callings.609609   Laurentius, defending his written assertion, that the monks falsely imagined that by means of their profession they merited more than others, admirably concludes, 「There is no safer, no better way than that taught by Christ, and in it no profession is enjoined.」 I am not unaware of the sophistical solution that their order is not so called because it contains perfection in itself, but because it is the best of all for acquiring perfection. When they would extol themselves to the people; when they would lay a snare for rash and ignorant youth; when they would assert their privileges and exalt their own dignity to the disparagement of others, they boast that they are in a state of perfection. When they are too closely pressed to be able to defend this vain arrogance, they betake themselves to the subterfuge that they have not yet obtained perfection, but that they are in a state in which they aspire to it more than others; meanwhile, the people continue to admire as if the monastic life alone were angelic, perfect, and purified from every vice. Under this pretence they ply a most gainful traffic, while their moderation lies buried in a few volumes.610610   French, 「,Par ce moyen ils attirent farine au moulin et vendent leur sainteté tres cherement; cependant cette glose est cachee et comme ensevelie en peu de livres;」—by this means they bring grist to their mill, and sell their holiness very dear; meanwhile, the gloss is concealed, and is, as it were, buried in a few books. Who sees not that this 2482is intolerable trifling? But let us treat with them as if they ascribed nothing more to their profession than to call it a state for acquiring perfection. Surely by giving it this name, they distinguish it by a special mark from other modes of life. And who will allow such honour to be transferred to an institution of which not one syllable is said in approbation, while all the other callings of God are deemed unworthy of the same, though not only commanded by his sacred lips, but adorned with distinguished titles? And how great the insult offered to God, when some device of man is preferred to all the modes of life which he has ordered, and by his testimony approved?

12. But let them say I calumniated them when I declared that they were not contented with the rule prescribed by God. Still, though I were silent, they more than sufficiently accuse themselves; for they plainly declare that they undertake a greater burden than Christ has imposed on his followers, since they promise that they will keep evangelical counsels regarding the love of enemies, the suppression of vindictive feelings, and abstinence from swearing, counsels to which Christians are not commonly astricted. In this what antiquity can they pretend? None of the ancients ever thought of such a thing: all with one voice proclaim that not one syllable proceeded from Christ which it is not necessary to obey. And the very things which these worthy expounders pretend that Christ only counselled they uniformly declare, without any doubt, that he expressly enjoined. But as we have shown above, that this is a most pestilential error, let it suffice here to have briefly observed that monasticism, as it now exists, founded on an idea which all pious men ought to execrate—namely, the pretence that there is some more perfect rule of life than that common rule which God has delivered to the whole Church. Whatever is built on this foundation cannot but be abominable.

13. But they produce another argument for their perfection, and deem it invincible. Our Lord said to the young man who put a question to him concerning the perfection of righteousness, 「If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor」 (Mt. 19:21). Whether they do so, I do not now dispute. Let us grant for the present that they do. They boast, then, that they have become perfect by abandoning their all. If the sum off perfection consists in this, what is the meaning of Paul』s doctrine, that though a man should give all his goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, he is nothing? (1 Cor. 13:3). What kind of perfection is that which, if charity be wanting, is with the individual himself reduced to nothing? Here they must of necessity answer that it is indeed the highest, but is not the only work of perfection. But here again Paul interposes; and hesitates not to declare that charity, without any renunciation of that sort, is the 「bond of perfectness」 (Col. 3:14). If it is certain that there is no disagreement between the scholar and the master, and the latter clearly denies that the perfection of a man consists in renouncing all his goods, and on the other hand asserts that perfection may exist without it, we must see 2483in what sense we should understand the words of Christ, 「If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast.」 Now, there wil1 not be the least obscurity in the meaning if we consider (this ought to be attended to in all our Saviour』s discourses) to whom the words are addressed (Luke 10:25). A young man asks by what works he shall enter into eternal life. Christ, as he was asked concerning works, refers him to the law. And justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of eternal life, and its inefficacy to give eternal life is owing to our depravity. By this answer Christ declared that he did not deliver any other rule of life than that which had formerly been delivered in the law of the Lord. Thus he both bore testimony to the divine law, that it was a doctrine of perfect righteousness, and at the same time met the calumnious charge of seeming, by some new rule of life, to incite the people to revolt from the law. The young man, who was not ill-disposed, but was puffed up with vain confidence, answers that he had observed all the precepts of the law from his youth. It is absolutely certain that he was immeasurably distant from the goal which he boasted of having reached. Had his boast been true, he would have wanted nothing of absolute perfection. For it has been demonstrated above, that the law contains in it a perfect righteousness. This is even obvious from the fact, that the observance of it is called the way to eternal life. To show him how little progress he had made in that righteousness which he too boldly answered that he had fulfilled, it was right to bring before him his besetting sin. Now, while he abounded in riches, he had his heart set upon them. Therefore, because he did not feel this secret wound, it is probed by Christ—「Go,」 says he, 「and sell that thou hast.」 Had he been as good a keeper of the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on hearing these words. For he who loves God with his whole heart, not only regards everything which wars with his love as dross, but hates it as destruction (Phil. 3:8). Therefore, when Christ orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as if he had ordered the ambitious to renounce all his honours, the voluptuous all his luxuries, the unchaste all the instruments of his lust. Thus consciences, which are not reached by any general admonition, are to be recalled to a particular feeling of their particular sin. In vain, therefore, do they wrest that special case to a general interpretation, as if Christ had decided that the perfection of man consists in the abandonment of his goods, since he intended nothing more by the expression than to bring a youth who was out of measure satisfied with himself to feel his sore, and so understand that he was still at a great distance from that perfect obedience of the law which he falsely ascribed to himself. I admit that this passage was ill understood by some of the Fathers;611611   Chrysostom, in his Homily on the words of Paul, 「Salute Prisca,」 &c., says, 「All who retire to monasteries separate themselves from the Church, seeing they plainly assert that their monasticism is the form of a second baptism.」 and hence arose an affectation of voluntary poverty, those only being thought 2484blest who abandoned all earthly goods, and in a state of destitution devoted themselves to Christ. But I am confident that, after my exposition, no good and reasonable man will have any dubiety here as to the mind of Christ.

14. Still there was nothing with the Fathers less intended than to establish that kind of perfection which was afterwards fabricated by cowled monks, in order to rear up a species of double Christianity. For as yet the sacrilegious dogma was not broached which compares the profession of monasticism to baptism, nay, plainly asserts that it is the form of a second baptism. Who can doubt that the Fathers with their whole hearts abhorred such blasphemy? Then what need is there to demonstrate, by words, that the last quality which Augustine mentions as belonging to the ancient monks—viz. that they in all things accommodated themselves to charity—is most alien from this new profession? The thing itself declares that all who retire into monasteries withdraw from the Church. For how? Do they not separate themselves from the legitimate society of the faithful, by acquiring for themselves a special ministry and private administration of the sacraments? What is meant by destroying the communion of the Church if this is not? And to follow out the comparison with which I began, and at once close the point, what resemblance have they in this respect to the ancient monks? These, though they dwelt separately from others, had not a separate Church; they partook of the sacraments with others, they attended public meetings, and were then a part of the people. But what have those men done in erecting a private altar for themselves but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated themselves from the whole body of the Church, and contemned the ordinary ministry by which the Lord has been pleased that peace and charity should be preserved among his followers. Wherefore I hold that as many monasteries as there are in the present day, so many conventicles are there of schismatics, who have disturbed ecclesiastical order, and been cut off from the legitimate society of the faithful. And that there might be no doubt as to their separation, they have given themselves the various names of factions. They have not been ashamed to glory in that which Paul so execrates, that he is unable to express his detestation too strongly. Unless, indeed, we suppose that Christ was not divided by the Corinthians, when one teacher set himself above another (1 Cor. 1:12, 13; 3:4); and that now no injury is done to Christ when, instead of Christians, we hear some called Benedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans, and so called, that while they affect to be distinguished from the common body of Christians, they proudly substitute these names for a religious profession.

15. The differences which I have hitherto pointed out between the ancient monks and those of our age are not in manners, but in profession. Hence let my readers remember that I have spoken of monachism rather than of monks; and marked, not the vices which cleave to a few, but vices which are inseparable from the very mode of life. In regard to 2485manners, of what use is it to particularise and show how great the difference? This much is certain,612612   See Bernard. ad Guliel. Abbat.. 「I wonder why there is so much intemperance among monks. O vanity of vanities! but not more vain than insane.」 See also August. de Opere Monach. in fin that there is no order of men more polluted by all kinds of vicious turpitude; nowhere do faction, hatred, party-spirit, and intrigue, more prevail. In a few monasteries, indeed, they live chastely, if we are to call it chastity, where lust is so far repressed as not to be openly infamous; still you will scarcely find one in ten which is not rather a brothel than a sacred abode of chastity. But how frugally they live? Just like swine wallowing in their sties. But lest they complain that I deal too unmercifully with them, I go no farther; although any one who knows the case will admit, that in the few things which I have said, I have not spoken in the spirit of an accuser. Augustine though he testifies, that the monks excelled so much in chastity, yet complains that there were many vagabonds, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extracted money from the more simple, plying a shameful traffic, by carrying about the relics of martyrs, and vending any dead man』s bones for relics, bringing ignominy on their order by many similar iniquities. As he declares that he had seen none better than those who had profited in monasteries; so he laments that he had seen none worse than those who had backslidden in monasteries. What would he say were he, in the present day, to see now almost all monasteries overflowing, and in a manner bursting, with numerous deplorable vices? I say nothing but what is notorious to all; and yet this charge does not apply to all without a single exception; for, as the rule and discipline of holy living was never so well framed in monasteries as that there were not always some drones very unlike the others; so I hold that, in the present day, monks have not so completely degenerated from that holy antiquity as not to have some good men among them; but these few lie scattered up and down among a huge multitude of wicked and dishonest men, and are not only despised, but even petulantly assailed, sometimes even treated cruelly by the others, who, according to the Milesian proverb, think they ought to have no good man among them.

16. By this contrast between ancient and modern monasticism, I trust I have gained my object, which was to show that our cowled monks falsely pretend the example of the primitive Church in defence of their profession; since they differ no less from the monks of that period than apes do from men. Meanwhile I disguise not that even in that ancient form which Augustine commends, there was something which little pleases me. I admit that they were not superstitious in the external exercises of a more rigorous discipline, but I say that they were not without a degree of affectation and false zeal. It was a fine thing to cast away their substance, and free themselves from all worldly cares; but God sets more value on the pious management of a household, when the head of it, discarding all avarice, 2486ambition, and other lusts of the flesh, makes it his purpose to serve God in some particular vocation. It is fine to philosophise in seclusion, far away from the intercourse of society; but it ill accords with Christian meekness for any one, as if in hatred of the human race, to fly to the wilderness and to solitude, and at the same time desert the duties which the Lord has especially commanded. Were we to grant that there was nothing worse in that profession, there is certainly no small evil in its having introduced a useless and perilous example into the Church.

17. Now, then, let us see the nature of the vows by which the monks of the present day are initiated into this famous order. First, as their intention is to institute a new and fictitious worship with a view to gain favour with God, I conclude from what has been said above, that everything which they vow is abomination to God. Secondly, I hold that as they frame their own mode of life at pleasure, without any regard to the calling of God, or to his approbation, the attempt is rash and unlawful; because their conscience has no ground on which it can support itself before God; and 「whatsoever is not of faith is sin」 (Rom. 14:23). Moreover, I maintain that in astricting themselves to many perverse and impious modes of worship, such as are exhibited in modern monasticism, they consecrate themselves not to God but to the devil. For why should the prophets have been permitted to say that the Israelites sacrificed their sons to devils and not to God (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37), merely because they had corrupted the true worship of God by profane ceremonies; and we not be permitted to say the same thing of monks who, along with the cowl, cover themselves with the net of a thousand impious superstitions? Then what is their species of vows? They offer God a promise of perpetual virginity, as if they had previously made a compact with him to free them from the necessity of marriage. They cannot allege that they make this vow trusting entirely to the grace of God; for, seeing he declares this to be a special gift not given to all (Mt. 19:11), no man has a right to assume that the gift will be his. Let those who have it use it; and if at any time they feel the infirmity of the flesh, let them have recourse to the aid of him by whose power alone they can resist. If this avails not, let them not despise the remedy which is offered to them. If the faculty of continence is denied, the voice of God distinctly calls upon them to marry. By continence I mean not merely that by which the body is kept pure from fornication, but that by which the mind keeps its chastity untainted. For Paul enjoins caution not only against external lasciviousness, but also burning of mind (1 Cor. 7:9). It has been the practice (they say) from the remotest period, for those who wished to devote themselves entirely to God, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that the custom is ancient, but I do not admit that the age when it commenced was so free from every defect that all that was then done is to be regarded as a rule. Moreover, the inexorable rigour of holding that after the vow is conceived there is 2487no room for repentance, crept in gradually. This is clear from Cyprian. 「If virgins have dedicated themselves to Christian faith, let them live modestly and chastely, without pretence. Thus strong and stable, let them wait for the reward of virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better to marry, than by their faults to fall into the fire.」 In the present day, with what invectives would they not lacerate any one who should seek to temper the vow of continence by such an equitable course? Those, therefore, have wandered far from the ancient custom who not only use no moderation, and grant no pardon when any one proves unequal to the performance of his vow, but shamelessly declare that it is a more heinous sin to cure the intemperance of the flesh by marriage, than to defile body and soul by whoredom.

18. But they still insist and attempt to show that this vow was used in the days of the apostles, because Paul says that widows who marry after having once undertaken a public office, 「cast off their first faith」 (1 Tim. 5:12). I by no means deny that widows who dedicated themselves and their labours to the Church, at the same time came under an obligation of perpetual celibacy, not because they regarded it in the light of a religious duty, as afterwards began to be the case, but because they could not perform their functions unless they had their time at their own command, and were free from the nuptial tie. But if, after giving their pledge, they began to look to a new marriage, what else was this but to shake off the calling of God? It is not strange, therefore, when Paul says that by such desires they grow wanton against Christ. In further explanation he afterwards adds, that by not performing their promises to the Church, they violate and nullify their first faith given in baptism; one of the things contained in this first faith being, that every one should correspond to his calling. Unless you choose rather to interpret that, having lost their modesty, they afterwards cast off all care of decency, prostituting themselves to all kinds of lasciviousness and pertness, leading licentious and dissolute lives, than which nothing can less become Christian women. I am much pleased with this exposition. Our answer then is, that those widows who were admitted to a public ministry came under an obligation of perpetual celibacy, and hence we easily understand how, when they married, they threw off all modesty, and became more insolent than became Christian women that in this way they not only sinned by violating the faith given to the Church, but revolted from the common rule of pious women. But, first, I deny that they had any other reason for professing celibacy than just because marriage was altogether inconsistent with the function which they undertook. Hence they bound themselves to celibacy only in so far as the nature of their function required. Secondly, I do not admit that they were bound to celibacy in such a sense that it was not better for them to marry than to suffer by the incitements of the flesh, and fall into uncleanness. Thirdly, I hold that what Paul enjoined was in the common case free from danger, 2488because he orders the selection to be made from those who, contented with one marriage, had already given proof of continence. Our only reason for disapproving of the vow of celibacy is, because it is improperly regarded as an act of worship, and is rashly undertaken by persons who have not the power of keeping it.

19. But what ground can there be for applying this passage to nuns? For deaconesses were appointed, not to soothe God by chantings or unintelligible murmurs, and spend the rest of their time in idleness; but to perform a public ministry of the Church toward the poor, and to labour with all zeal, assiduity, and diligence, in offices of charity. They did not vow celibacy, that they might thereafter exhibit abstinence from marriage as a kind of worship rendered to God, but only that they might be freer from encumbrance in executing their office. In fine, they did not vow on attaining adolescence, or in the bloom of life, and so afterwards learn, by too late experience, over what a precipice they had plunged themselves, but after they were thought to have surmounted all danger, they took a vow not less safe than holy. But not to press the two former points, I say that it was unlawful to allow women to take a vow of continence before their sixtieth year, since the apostle admits such only, and enjoins the younger to marry and beget children. Therefore, it is impossible, on any ground, to excuse the deduction, first of twelve, then of twenty, and, lastly, of thirty years. Still less possible is it to tolerate the case of miserable girls, who, before they have reached an age at which they can know themselves, or have any experience of their character, are not only induced by fraud, but compelled by force and threats, to entangle themselves in these accursed snares. I will not enter at length into a refutation of the other two vows. This only I say, that besides involving (as matters stand in the present day) not a few superstitions, they seem to be purposely framed in such a manner, as to make those who take them mock God and men. But lest we should seem, with too malignant feeling, to attack every particular point, we will be contented with the general refutation which has been given above.

20. The nature of the vows which are legitimate and acceptable to God, I think I have sufficiently explained. Yet, because some ill-informed and timid consciences, even when a vow displeases, and is condemned, nevertheless hesitate as to the obligation, and are grievously tormented, shuddering at the thought of violating a pledge given to God, and, on the other hand, fearing to sin more by keeping it,—we must here come to their aid, and enable them to escape from this difficulty. And to take away all scruple at once, I say that all vows not legitimate, and not duly conceived, as they are of no account with God, should be regarded by us as null. (See Calv. ad Concil. Trident.) For if, in human contracts, those promises only are binding in which he with whom we contract wishes to have us bound, it is absurd to say that we are bound to perform things which God does not at all require of us, especially since our works can only 2489be right when they please God, and have the testimony of our consciences that they do please him. For it always remains fixed, that 「whatsoever is not of faith is sin」 (Rom. 14:23). By this Paul means, that any work undertaken in doubt is vicious, because at the root of all good works lies faith, which assures us that they are acceptable to God. Therefore, if Christian men may not attempt anything without this assurance, why, if they have undertaken anything rashly through ignorance, may they not afterwards be freed, and desist from their error? Since vows rashly undertaken are of this description, they not only oblige not, but must necessarily be rescinded. What, then, when they are not only of no estimation in the sight of God, but are even an abomination, as has already been demonstrated? It is needless farther to discuss a point which does not require it. To appease pious consciences, and free them from all doubt, this one argument seems to me sufficient—viz. that all works whatsoever which flow not from a pure fountain, and are not directed to a proper end, are repudiated by God, and so repudiated, that he no less forbids us to continue than to begin them. Hence it follows, that vows dictated by error and superstition are of no weight with God, and ought to be abandoned by us.

21. He who understands this solution is furnished with the means of repelling the calumnies of the wicked against those who withdraw from monasticism to some honest kind of livelihood. They are grievously charged with having perjured themselves, and broken their faith, because they have broken the bond (vulgarly supposed to be indissoluble) by which they had bound themselves to God and the Church. But I say, first, there is no bond when that which man confirms God abrogates; and, secondly, even granting that they were bound when they remained entangled in ignorance and error, now, since they have been enlightened by the knowledge of the truth, I hold that they are, at the same time, free by the grace of Christ. For if such is the efficacy of the cross of Christ, that it frees us from the curse of the divine law by which we were held bound, how much more must it rescue us from extraneous chains, which are nothing but the wily nets of Satan? There can be no doubt, therefore, that all on whom Christ shines with the light of his Gospel, he frees from all the snares in which they had entangled themselves through superstition. At the same time, they have another defence if they were unfit for celibacy. For if an impossible vow is certain destruction to the soul, which God wills to be saved and not destroyed, it follows that it ought by no means to be adhered to. Now, how impossible the vow of continence is to those who have not received it by special gift, we have shown, and experience, even were I silent, declares: while the great obscenity with which almost all monasteries teem is a thing not unknown. If any seem more decent and modest than others, they are not, however, chaste. The sin of unchastity urges, and lurks within. Thus it is that God, by fearful examples, punishes the audacity of men, when, unmindful of their 2490infirmity, they, against nature, affect that which has been denied to them, and despising the remedies which the Lord has placed in their hands, are confident in their ability to overcome the disease of incontinence by contumacious obstinacy. For what other name can we give it, when a man, admonished of his need of marriage, and of the remedy with which the Lord has thereby furnished, not only despises it, but binds himself by an oath to despise it?