Chapter I — The errors of the heretics against vows

I. Among the heretics who condemned vows, first are those called the Waldensians. These rejected all vows, on the grounds that vows impose necessity and coercion upon men. This impiety, long buried, was dug up again by the pseudo-apostles, into whose hands John Wycliffe placed it. Luther, a more shameless disciple of Wycliffe, disseminated this heresy of his to his own disciples. Yet he vomited forth his blasphemies chiefly against monastic vows above all others. Therefore, when we come to discuss these, I shall refute his impious sophistries. John Calvin, who adopted the principal errors of both Wycliffe and Luther, mixing in his own besides, and adding a yet more pestilent heresy, sharpens his pen — dipped in his own gall and ungovernable spite — against the making of vows, which he calls rash (Bk. IV, Institutes, ch. 13). He divides this entire chapter into two parts: in the first he treats of vows in general; in the second, of monastic vows. At the outset he laments and bewails that the Church, whose freedom was purchased at the inestimable price of the blood of Christ Jesus, has been oppressed under the weight of man-made traditions, and torn apart by the cruel tyranny of vows and human ingenuity. As is his custom, he twists the vilest and most scurrilous reproaches against Catholics, and audacious fabrications, striving to embellish them with the flowers of his elegant style and eloquence, which he wickedly abuses. But the more polished he is in the surface of his diction, the madder he is in the pursuit of truth. Sometimes he condemns all vows; sometimes he admits some; now he condemns only rashly made vows, now even those made cautiously and with deliberate mind. His aim throughout, however, is to consign all Catholic vows to superstition and idolatry. I will cull a few passages from among the many he writes, so as to refute him by his own teaching, and by the words of his own impudence and folly.

II. Calvin says (loc. cit., n. 4): "No one can disapprove of a vow, provided some holiness resides in it — if it looks to some end not perverse. Who is there, at least among Christians, who recognizes any holiness at all in abstinence from wine, once every other good end is removed? The Turks abstain from wine; many other nations abstain. No one would say that abstinence from wine constitutes holiness." Abstinence from wine, if vowed simply because it is abstinence, contains no holiness at all in itself, at least by natural necessity. But one who vows it does not vow it as though some sanctity resided in the mere absence of wine; rather, one who vows it to God takes it up as a means by which he might restrain his own concupiscence, and subject it to the spirit; and might dispose himself more securely to keep the law of God, and more easily and abundantly obtain from God the heavenly aids by which he might govern his appetites. This is what the vows of Catholics aim at. What, then, does this heresiarch slander in Catholics who vow abstinences and fasts to God? We do not recognize sanctity in fasting as such; but we call fasts holy insofar as they are instruments by which the sanctity of the soul is either acquired or increased — chiefly through charity, and the theological virtues — if the fasts are directed to God's glory. What superstition is there in this?

III. Calvin distinguishes four kinds of vows, of which two look to time past, whereby we either testify our grateful spirit toward God for benefits received, or, exacting punishment from ourselves for sins committed, seek to soften the divine vengeance — the former he also calls exercises of thanksgiving, the latter, of penance. The other two kinds look to future time, whereby we are rendered more cautious concerning some evil already committed, or spurred on to some good. "To future time," he says (n. 5), "belong those vows which partly tend to render us more cautious, partly to spur us on, as it were by certain goads, to duty. Someone sees himself so prone to a certain vice that in an otherwise indifferent matter he cannot restrain himself, but immediately slides into evil; he will do nothing absurd if he cuts himself off, by a vow, from the use of that thing for some period. As, if someone recognizes that a certain bodily adornment is dangerous for him, and yet desires it with vehement allurement — what better could he do than free himself from all doubt by imposing a curb upon himself, by vowing to abstain? Likewise, if someone is forgetful, or slothful, in the necessary duties of piety, why should he not, having undertaken a vow, sharpen his memory, and shake off his sluggishness? In both cases, I admit this has the appearance of a kind of pedagogy; but for this very reason — because they are aids for weakness — they are employed by the rude and imperfect, not without some benefit. Accordingly, we should say that vows which look to one of these ends, especially in external matters, are legitimate, provided they are supported by God's approval, and are limited according to the measure of grace given us by God, and suited to our calling."

IV. I wished to quote this at greater length than perhaps was strictly necessary, so that I might draw arguments against Catholic vows from Calvin himself, rather than from elsewhere, to stop his own slanderous mouth. For at the beginning of this chapter, discussing the vows made in the Catholic Church, he said this: "Moreover, so that it may better appear how grievous a mischief has been brought in by vows, let readers keep in mind the principles laid down earlier. For we have taught, first, that whatever can be desired for establishing a pious and holy life is contained in the Law." From this arises a difficulty concerning vows made otherwise than by the express word of God — where are they to be placed? Let Calvin tell us now: is it held by the express word of God in Scripture that one may vow abstinence from choice foods, and from splendid attire? Let him tell us where it is expressed that the forgetful and the slothful should take up vows, by which, sluggishness shaken off, they might become more diligent in the duties of piety owed to God. Let him tell us how he himself can know that such vows are suited to his calling, and to the gift of divine grace. Are all these things defined by the express word of God? If he says yes, then why does he rail against Catholics for offering vain acts of worship to God through vows, contrary to the express word of God? If he denies it, why then does he find fault with Catholics for vowing to God things not explicitly found in Scripture? What more is there to say? If vows displeased God, he would certainly not command their observance, as in fact he does command in Ecclesiastes 5: "If thou hast vowed anything to God, defer not to pay it: for an unfaithful and foolish promise displeaseth him." Likewise, Psalm 75: "Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God." And again, Psalm 55: "I will render to thee sacrifices of praise... I will pay thee my vows, which my lips have uttered."

V. To evade these most manifest testimonies somehow, the Lutherans and Calvinists concede that vows may be made for a defined time, but not in perpetuity — since, says Calvin (loc. cit., n. 6), "If you bind yourself by a perpetual vow, either you will grow weary from great tedium, and dislike it, or, worn down by its long duration, you will one day dare to violate it." He gives another reason: that such perpetual vows are contrary to Christian liberty — than which nothing more inept could be said. For if temporary vows do not conflict with the liberty of Christians, why should perpetual ones conflict with it? Tell me: where in Scripture is it expressly stated that it is lawful to make temporary vows to God, but not perpetual ones? Indeed, the perpetuity of vows is most clearly gathered from Scripture itself. For Hannah, Samuel's mother, dedicated a perpetual vow to God (1 Kings 1): "And Anna, being in bitterness of soul, prayed to the Lord, shedding many tears... and made a vow, saying: O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt look down on the affliction of thy servant... and wilt give to thy servant a man-child, I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life." And this vow was so pleasing to God that he immediately granted the one who made it her request. If a mother can dedicate a perpetual vow to God concerning her son, how much more can the son himself concerning himself — since everyone has greater right over himself than a mother has over him! Moreover, to utterly demolish Calvin's sophistry: it is the slavery of sin that is opposed to the liberty of the sons of God — not the slavery of justice and honor, as the Apostle says (Rom. 6): "But being made free from sin, you became servants of justice." The liberty of the new law, then, frees us from sin, and from the most grave yoke of vice. To this Christian liberty, the things that bind us to God are not only not opposed; they rather perfect it — as Augustine expressly says (Bk. On the Greatness of the Soul, ch. 34): "This is the true, this is the perfect, this is the only religion, by which the soul is reconciled to God, whose greatness we inquire into, and by which it is made worthy of the liberty it seeks. For he alone sets us free from all things, whom it is most useful to serve in all things, and in whose service, to find favor, is perfect liberty itself." The vows which all Christians make even in baptism, even according to Calvin, are perpetual, and yet do not for that reason offend against Christian liberty. The bond of matrimony is perpetual, and graver than any vow, and yet it in no way conflicts with the liberty given us through Christ. Why, then, should a perpetual vow conflict with it? These wretched men do not understand that... to serve God is to reign. It is, indeed, often burdensome and laborious to pay vows made to God. But this happens both in temporary and in perpetual promises. What of the fact that Calvin himself recommends the making of vows to shake off sluggishness, and to spur on a torpid will? It could indeed happen that not a few of these vows would be violated. What of it? Did not Christ foresee the difficulty of his law, and the innumerable transgressions of it, from its very promulgation? If the difficulty of keeping a promise, or the danger of violating it, ought to deter men from promising, no covenants would ever be made, no promises ever given. Vows which are made to God concerning things commanded by God himself are, Calvin admits, licit acts of religion; but not, he says, vows concerning things not commanded. He contradicts himself at every turn. He abstains from lavish living, from wine, and similar things — and vows to shake off sluggishness — are not about commanded matters. The vows that the Patriarch Jacob, Hannah, and many others recorded in Sacred Scripture made were not concerning commanded things, but free ones, as anyone who reads can see. And yet that these vows pleased God is gathered from the fact that he severely exacted their fulfillment. But we need not dwell longer on so plain a matter, especially since we shall discuss it further when the subject of monastic vows recurs.