Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 17: That All Vows Are Not Made Void Through Baptism
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Baptismi, the second general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The fourth proposition: Through Baptism all vows are not made void. This is had in canon 9 of the Council of Trent, and is against Luther in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, and in the book On Monastic Vows; and also against Calvin in the Antidote, and Chemnitz in the Examination of this canon 9; who teach that through Baptism a man is freed from all vows, not only those which he made before but also those which he made afterwards, except that one which is made in Baptism, when we promise that we will keep God's law.
Their foundations are these. First, because God in the Old Testament laid down about vows, how they should be made, and when, and about what things. But in the New Testament Christ and the apostles prescribed nothing except the one promise which is made in Baptism, the last chapter of Matthew. Second, because we wish to vow either things commanded by God or things not commanded. If things commanded, we do it in vain, since in Baptism we vowed all the commandments. If things not commanded, we now fight against Baptism, which freed us from all human inventions. Third, in Baptism we vow more than we can fulfil; therefore he is foolish who vows anything else, and he does wrong to Baptism, as if the vow made in it were not enough.
But these foundations are weak. For, to answer the first, even if Christ and the apostles had prescribed nothing about vows, it would be no wonder, since vows are of the law of nature, as is plain from the vow of the patriarch Jacob, Genesis 28. Yet it is false that the apostles handed down nothing about vows, since in 1 Timothy 5 blessed Paul, by the consent of all interpreters, speaks of the vow of continence, where he says that certain widows, if they marry, have damnation, “because they have made void their first faith.”
To the second I answer: both things commanded by God and things not commanded can be vowed, provided they are good things. Nor are things commanded vowed in vain, both because by the vow a man is bound more strongly and made more certain to fulfil them, and also because what is done both from a precept and from a vow is an act of two virtues, and so more excellent than what is done from a precept alone. And to vow a thing not commanded is not against the profession of Baptism, because, as we said above, Baptism frees from sin, not from those things which help to avoid sins, and which subject us more to God and bind us to God, as vows are. Nor can vows be called human inventions, since they have commendation in Scripture: Psalm 75, “Vow ye, and pay”; and Ecclesiastes 5, “If thou hast vowed any thing to God, defer not to pay it.” Nor can it be answered that vows are of the Old Testament; for the book of Psalms and Ecclesiastes hand down moral teachings which suit all. Lastly, the breaking of vows rather fights with Baptism. For we profess in Baptism that we will keep all God's commandments; and one of God's commandments is that vows be kept, as is plain from the places cited.
To the third I answer that what the adversaries assume is false and blasphemous, that in Baptism we promise more than we can fulfil. For that fights both with the words of Christ, who in Matthew 11 calls his law a sweet yoke and his burden light; and with the words of Paul, who says, Romans 8, that Christ died that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us; and with the Second Council of Orange, canon 25, where it is defined that a baptized man can keep all God's commandments; and with Basil in the oration on “Attend to thyself,” and with the other Fathers, who say that it is blasphemous to assert that God's commandments are impossible. Nor do we think the promise made in Baptism insufficient. For it is sufficient for its end, that is, for saving a man, although something can be added so that one may be saved either more easily or more excellently; just as Baptism is not therefore insufficient because it is better, even by the testimony of the adversaries, to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist than only to be baptized; nor is the word of God insufficient, although it is better to hear the word of God and receive the sacraments than only to hear the word of God. Lastly, if the Jews in circumcision promised that they would keep God's law, and yet besides it could vow many other things, as Chemnitz admits, nor could the promise of circumcision be called insufficient, why will Christians not be able to vow something, even though in Baptism they promised that they would keep God's whole law? Or why would the promise of Baptism be called insufficient? And these things suffice in this place; for we have discussed vows carefully in the disputation on monks.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.\PUT XYll.
Per liaptii^nmm non ficri irrila omnia vnta.
Quarla proposilio: Pcr naplismum non jninl ir-
rita oninia vota. Ilacc hahotnr c;iiion. \), coiicilii
Iridcnl. cst^im' contra Lulhorum in lihro dc (Mipli-
vilatc B;ihylon. ca[). de l>aplisino, cl in lih. dc vo-
lis monasticis. nccnuii Caivinuni in Anlidoto . <■!
Remnitium iii Kx;imine liujiis c;iiion. 9. (pii do-
cenl, pcr Baplismum liherari hominem ah omni-
hus volis, non sohim qnac anlca. scd ctiam qn;ic
poslea rccerit, cxcoiilo illo uno . quod lit in B;i-
plismo , cuin promitlimus nos Dei legem scrva-
turns.
Fundamcnla ipsornm snnl. Primo: Quia Dcus in
Teslaincnto vclcri disposuil de volis, qnomoilo fic-
renl, et quando, el de quihus rehus. Al in Tcsta-
iiicnto novo Christus ct ;iposloIi nihil pracs(Mipsc-
runl, nisi unicam [iromissionem, qnac (il in l>a-
plismo. Malih. ull. Secundo, quia vcl voverc volu-
mus les a Dco |)r;icccplas, aut non pr;ieoo()las. Si
pracccptas, Iruslra id r.icimns , cnm in B;i|)tisn;o
vovcrimus omnia iiracccpla.Si non pr;ioco|)las j;im
pucmamus cum Biqitismo, qui nos libenivil al) o-
ninihus hnmiinis inventionihns.Tcrtio, in |{;i[)!ismo
plus vovcnin-, quani implcrc possimus: cri,'o slnl-
lusest, qui aliquid aliud vovcl , cl injnriam riioil
Bnptismo, quasi volum in eo factum non sil suni-
cicns.
Scd haec fnndamenta dcbilia sunt. IVam ut ;id
primum rc5pnndeamus,etiamsi Chrislus el apostoli
nilil de volis praescripsissent, inirum non esscl ,
cum vola siiit dc jurc naturae, ul patct ex volo pa-
triarchae Jacob. Genes. 28. tamen falsum esl, A-
poslnlos iiihil de votis Iradidissc , cum 1. Timot.
5. B.Paulusomnium intcrprclum consensu de voto
conlinentiae loqualur, ubi dicil viduas quasdam,
si nnhant, danmalioncm liaborc, (jui^i primani Ci-
dcm irritam fcccrnnt.
Ad so(MiniInin ros|)ondoo: Vovori possc tmn rcs
lUMOocplas a I>oo, Inm ctiam rcs iion i)r;icco|)l;is ,
modosinl rcs bonac. IVcque frustra voviMilnr rcs
in-aoocplao, Inm qnia pcr voliim liomo m;ijj;is \'\<^i\-
tnr. ot corlior rodililnr im|)l(Midi, Inm oli;iiii ([ni;i
(inod sit cx [iraccopio. cl cx volo, est acliis diia-
ruin virlnlnm, ct proinde oxcellentiiis qnam id ,
(|nod lil c\ solo pr;io(M'|)lo. Vovcrc antiMn r(Mn non
pi;iocc[)lam,non ost conlra prorossionem B;i[)lisiiii,
([iiia, ul supra diximns. B;i[)iismus libcral a i)cc-
c;ito, non ah iis rohns, (pKic jnv;inl ad vil.inda pec-
c;il;i. ct qmic niatiis Dco snhjiiMiiiil , ct (Mim D(!0
lipiinl; nt snnt vol;i. Nc^pH; ilici |)ossunt voUi, liu-
iiiiiiiii invonla, cnm lial)0;inl in Scriptiira commcn-
tliilioncm, ps;ilm. 7.'J. Vovclc clrcddilc.FA Kcch^s.
.'>. >)i quid vovisli Dco, non niorcri.fi rcddcrc Nc-
(juc polcsl responderi vola csscTcslainonti volciis:
iiiim libcr psalniorum cl rioolosiastcs, monilia do-
(MHnont;i Iradunt, qnao omnihus convcniniil. De-
nifpie viohilio volorum pngiiiil polius cnm B.qilis-
mo. Nam profilomur in Baptismo, nos scrvaturos
oinnia Dci miindai;!: nnnm ;iulcm csl ex mandalis
l>ci, ul vola siilvanlnr, ut p;itel cx locis oit;ilis.
Al tertinm rcspondco f;ilsum.cl blasphcmnm cs-
se. qnod advorsarii assumunt.nos in Baptismo plus
promillcrc. quam implorc possimns ; id cnini. et
jingnal onm vorhis Cliiisti, qni Mallh. 11. vocal le-
gein suam jugnm snavc , et onus sunm levc: et
cum vcrhis Panli, qui dicil Rom^m. 8. Chrislum
iHoilunm cssc, ut jnslificalio lcgis implcrclur in
nohis: el cuin ooncilio aransicano II. canon. 2.>.
ubi definitur, posse homincm haptizatum scrvarc
o(nni;i Dci nnmdala , et oum Basilio orationo in
ilitiil: AUcndc tibi, cl cum aliis F\Tlribus, qui di-
cnnl. hlas|)hcmuin essc asscrere. Dci mandata es-
se impossibilia. Neque pulanms promissioncm in
Hapiismo fiicUim essc insunhMcnlcm. Esl cnim snf-
ficiens ad snnin lincm. idcsl, ad s;ilv;in(lnm hoini-
neni. licel addi aliqnid possit, ul vel facilins , vcl
oxcodlenlins aliquis siilvctnr, quomodo non idco
]>;i|)tisnuis est insurficiens licet mclius sil. b;ipli-
zari el Eucharistiam sumere, cliam teslimonio ad-
vcrsiiriorum. qnam solnm bapliznri: nequc vorbnm
Dci csl insurficicns. licel melius sit , vcibum Dei
andire cl sacramcnla suscipere , quam solnm Doi
verhum audire. Dcnique si Judaei in circumcisione
polli(Md);iiitur sc Dci lcgcm servalnros. et lamcn
|)r;ieter (^a vovcre poterant iiiuUa alia , ul Keinni-
lius latclur, ncqne dici poler;it circumcisionis pro-
niissio insuniciens, cur non poterunt Chrisliani
vovere ;iliquid. etiamsi in B.iplismo promiscrint,
se univors;irn Dci logem scivaluros?;uil cnr dicclnr
Ba|)lismi proinissio insu(ficicns?Atqne haec hoc lo-
co su(fici;inl: n;im dc volis accurale disseruimus in
fjisputat. de monachis.