Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 19: That a Vow Is Not Properly a Promise
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). 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).
There follows in order the fifth part of the disputation, in which is to be refuted the opinion of Luther and Calvin, that the promise made in Baptism ought properly to be called a vow. But certain things are first to be noted. The first is that there is a question among the theologians whether things commanded by God can properly fall under a vow. For some deny it, as Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure (on Book 4, distinction 38). But others affirm it, as certain more recent men — Domingo de Soto (Book 7 On Justice and Right, question 1, article 3) and Alfonso de Castro (Book 1 On Penal Law, chapter 10).
But these opinions can be reconciled. For a vow of a thing commanded can be made in two ways: in one way, with the intention of binding oneself, even if that thing were not commanded; in the other way, with the intention only of accepting and testifying an obligation which existed before. In the former way the later authors speak, and rightly teach that even things commanded by God can properly be vowed, if they be conceived as free, and he who vows intends to bind himself to them by a new obligation; for he who has vowed celibacy to God is no less properly reckoned sacrilegious if he fornicate than if he marry. From which it follows that not to fornicate is also matter of a vow properly so called, though otherwise it be commanded. By like reasoning, he who after a vow of poverty steals is no less sacrilegious than if he demand back his goods which he had already let go; from which we understand that not to steal, which is commanded, can fall under a vow, as to let go one’s goods, which is not commanded, but is a counsel. See Saint Thomas (2a2ae, question 186, article 10), where he admits that the religious sin twice if they steal or fornicate, because they offend both against the common law and against their own vow.
In the latter way the former authors speak, who rightly teach that things commanded do not properly fall under a vow, if they be taken as commanded — that is, if one, while he receives that he will do them, promises nothing new, but only acknowledges and receives the obligation which the law itself brings with it; such as was that promise of the Hebrews (Exodus 19): All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do. For where there is no intention of a new obligation, it is established that there is no vow properly so called.
In the second place it is to be noted beforehand that in Baptism all Christians promise that they will keep the law of God, and from that time renounce the devil and his pomps; for this both the rite of Baptism testifies and the Fathers most openly teach, as Tertullian (in the book On the Soldier’s Crown), Saint Cyprian (Book 1, epistle 5), Saint Basil (in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27), Saint Jerome (in the first Apology against Rufinus, near the end), Saint Augustine (Book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 33), Saint Gregory (homily 29 on the Gospels), and Bede (Book 3 of the History of the English, chapter 19).
The question, then, is: whether that promise is only a certain testification and acceptance of the obligation which the law of God brings with it, and accordingly not to be called a vow, except perhaps improperly and in a broad manner; or whether it is a new promise including a new obligation, and thus a vow properly so called. For Martin Luther (in the book On Monastic Vows) and John Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §6) teach that the primary vow is that promise which we make in Baptism, the contrary of which the common opinion of the theologians affirms (on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 38). Which opinion, since it is most true, can be confirmed by these arguments.
First, vows, as they are taken in the Scriptures, ought to be spontaneous and voluntary, not necessary. For thus we read (Deuteronomy 23): If thou hast vowed a vow, thou shalt not delay to pay it, because the Lord will require it; and if thou delay, it shall be reputed to thee for a sin; if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin. But the promise which is made in Baptism is necessary, nor can it be said of it, If thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin. For all are obliged by divine law to receive Baptism, nor is Baptism given by the Church without that promise.
Secondly, the vows of little children pronounced by their parents are not ratified, unless afterward, in adult age, they be confirmed by those in whose name they were made. For this Saint Bernard teaches (in epistle 1 to Robert), and a most evident reason confirms this very thing; because a vow is a particular law which each one imposes on himself if he will, and accordingly necessarily requires his own will. But the promise which is made in Baptism obliges little children, so that afterward, whether they will or not, they are compelled to hold it ratified, even though they pronounced it not by themselves, but by others. Therefore the obligation which is undertaken in Baptism has its force not from a vow, but from elsewhere.
Thirdly, if that promise were a vow properly so called, all the sins of Christians would be double, because against the law and against the vow; all would be sacrileges, because against the religion of the vow; nor would a secular sin less by fornicating or stealing than a religious, as is evident. But all these things are repugnant to the common opinion and judgment of the faithful; therefore that promise is not a vow properly so called.
Fourthly, that promise which is made in Baptism, if it were a vow, certainly would contain the obligation of a vow either explicitly or implicitly. But it does not contain it explicitly, for the faithful, while they are baptized, do not have, nor ought to have, an explicit intention of binding themselves, except as far as they are bound by the very laws of God. And that it does not contain even an implicit obligation is thus proved: if there were an implicit vow in Baptism, it would be either from a law of the Church annexing this vow to Baptism — in the way that the vow of continence is joined to the Sacrament of Order (but such a law of the Church nowhere exists) — or it would be from the very nature of the Christian religion, so that, as the monastic vows are connected with the religious orders, so also there would be annexed to the Christian religion a vow of renouncing the devil and his pomps and works. But neither can this be said; for the Christian religion, since it is necessary to all, ought to have as its bonds the divine laws, which are necessarily to be kept by all; but the religious orders, because they are not of necessity but of will, have also bonds not necessary but voluntary, such as are all vows properly so called.
Let there come in last that, since it is in no way necessary, nor even very useful, to make vows of those things which are of precept, it is not credible that God or the Church willed that all the faithful be obliged to make vows of that kind. And that it is not very useful to make vows of those things to which we are obliged by law — unless perchance those vows coincide with vows of things not commanded — is evident from this, that vows of things not commanded are laudably made, among other causes, that a man may in that way more firmly and stably persevere in a good work already conceived; for those who see themselves free easily change a good purpose. Since, then, we are sufficiently bound by the law itself to do the works of the law, there is no need to seek new bonds, lest we procure for ourselves, without great utility, an occasion of sinning more grievously.
The objections which are wont to be made against this can easily be solved. The first objection. Christians sin and are punished more grievously when they do not keep the law of God than the heathen or the Jews; therefore they have some obligation which those do not have. I answer that Christians sin and are punished more grievously because they are more ungrateful and better knew the will of the Lord; but not because they have another obligation, for then they would not only sin more grievously, but would also sin twice.
The second objection. Saint Augustine (on Psalm 75): “Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God, all in common. What ought we to vow? To believe in Him, to hope from Him for eternal life, to live well according to the common measure; for there is a certain measure common to all: not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to love drunkenness, not to be proud, not to kill a man, not to hate a brother, not to weave destruction against anyone; all this we all ought to vow.” So he. I answer that Saint Augustine in that place takes the name of vow in a broad and common manner, so that it comprehends not only vows properly so called, but also any other promise whatever; although such an acceptation of a vow is not easily found in the Scriptures.
The third objection. The Church compels those who promised in Baptism that they would keep the law of Christ to keep it; but it does not compel the heathen and the Jews, who did not promise it; therefore a certain obligation arises from the promise which the law itself does not bring with it, and accordingly that promise seems to be a true vow. I answer that the Church compels baptized Christians to keep the law of Christ, yet not from their promise, but from this, that through Baptism they were made members and sons of the Church; for every member ought to be subject to the head, and every son is subjected to his parent by the law of nature.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Non esse proprie votum promissionem, quce sit in Baptismo. Sequitur ordine quinta pars disputationis, in qua refellenda est sententia Lutheri et Calvini, quod promissio, quae sit in Baptis¬ mo, votum proprie dici debeat. Sunt autem quaedam antea praenotanda. Primum est, quaestionem esse inter Theologos, num res a Deo imperatae sub votum proprie cadere possint. Quidam enim id negant, ut S. Tbo- mas, et S. Bonaventura in IV. distinet. 38. Alii vero affirmant, ut recentiores quidam, Dominicus a Soto lib. VII. de justitia, et jure, quaest. I. art. 3. et Alpbonsus a Castro lib. I. de lege poenali, cap. 10. Sed conciliari possunt hae sententiae. Nam duobus modis fieri potest votum de re prae¬ cepta, uno modo cum intentione se obligan¬ di, etiamsi res illa praecepta non esset ; alio modo cum intentione solum acceptandi, et testificandi obligationem, quae antea erat. Priore modo loquuntur auctores posteriores, et recte docent res etiam a Deo imperatas, proprie posse voveri si concipiantur ut libe¬ rae, et qui vovet, intendat ad eas se obligare nova obligatione; nam qui coelibatum Deo vovit, non minus proprie censetur sacrilegus si fornicetur, quam si nubat. Ex quo sequi¬ tur, non fornicari esse etiam materiam voti proprie dicti, licet alioqui praeceptum sit; pari ratione qui post votum paupertatis fura¬ tur, non minus sacrilegus est, quam si res suas, quas jam dimiserat, repetat : ex quo intelligimus non furari, quod praeceptum est, posse sub votum cadere, ut res suas dimit¬ tere, quod non est praeceptum, sed conci¬ lium. Vide S. Thomam in 2. 2. quaest. GLXXXVI, art. 10. ubi admittit religiosos bis peccare si furentur, aut fornicentur, quod et contra legem communem, et contra vo¬ tum proprium delinquant. Posteriore modo loquuntur auctores prio¬ res , qui recte docent, res praeceptas non cadere proprie sub votum, si accipiantur ut praeceptae, id est, si quis dum eas recipit se facturum, nihil novi promittit, sed solum agnoscit et recipit obligationem, quam lex ipsa secum affert ; qualis fuit illa promissio Hebraeorum, Exod. XIX ‘. Cuncta quce locutus est Dominus, faciemus (1). Ubi enim non est intentio novae obligationis, nullum esse vo¬ tum proprie dictum constat. Secundo loco praenotandum est, in Bap¬ tismo omnes Christianos promittere se legem Dei servaturos, atque ex eo tempore abre¬ nuntiare Diabolo, et pompis ejus; id enim et ritus Baptismi testatur, et Patres apertissime docent, ut Tertullianus -libro de corona mili¬ tis, S. Cyprianus lib. I. epist. 5. S. Basilius lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 27. S. Hierony¬ mus in Apologia prima contra Ruffmum prope finem. S. Augustinus lib. I. de pecca¬ torum meritis, et remission. cap. 33.S.Gre- gorius homil. 29. in Evangelia, et Beda lib, III. histor. Anglorum, cap. 19. Quaestio igitur est: An ea promissio sit solum quaedam testificatio , et acceptatio obligationis, quam lex Dei secum affert, proinde non appellanda votum, nisi forte improprie, et largo modo : An vero sit nova promissio novam obligationem includens, atque adeo votum proprie dictum. Martinus enim Lutherus in lib. de votis monasticis, et Joannes Calvinus lib IV. instit. cap. 13. §. 6. votum primarium esse docent promissionem illam, quam facimus in Baptismo, cujus con¬ trarium affirmat communis sententia Theo¬ logorum, in quarto sententiarum, distinc¬ tione 38. Quae sententia quoniam verissima est, his argumentis confirmari potest. Primum, vota, ut in Scripturis accipiun¬ tur, spontanea ac voluntaria, non necessaria esse debent. Sic enim legimus Deuteronom. XXIII : Si votum voveris, non tardabis reddere, quia requiret illud Dominus , et si moratus fue¬ ris, reputabitur tibi in peccatum, si nolueris polliceri absque peccato eris (2). At promissio, quae fit in Baptismo, necessaria est, neque de illa potest dici, si nolueris polliceri, absque peccato eris. Omnes enim ad Baptismum suscipiendum divina lege obligantur, neque Baptismus sine illa promissione ab Ecclesia datur. Secundo, vota parvulorum a parentibus edita, rata non sunt, nisi ab ipsis, quorum nomine facta sunt, postmodum in aetate adulta confirmentur. Id enim docet Sanctus Bernardus in epist. I. ad Robertum, et aper¬ tissima ratio id ipsum confirmat; quia votum (1) Eyod. XIX, 8. - (2) Deut. XXIII, 21, CAPUT XIX. 551 est lex particularis, quam sibi quisque impo¬ nit, si vult, ac proinde voluntatem pro¬ priam necessario exigit. At promissio quae sit in Baptismo parvulos obligat, ita ut pos¬ tea, velint nolint, cogantur eam habere ra¬ tam etiamsi non per se, sed per alios eam ediderint. Igitur non ex voto, sed aliunde vim habet obligatio quae suscipitur in Bap¬ tismo. Tertio, si ea promissio votum esset proprie dictum, omnia Christianorum peccata essent duplicia, quia contra legem, et contra votum; omnia essent sacrilegia, quia contra voti re¬ ligionem ; nec minus peccaret saecularis fornicando, aut furando, quam religiosus, ut patet. At haec omnia communi fidelium sententiae, ac judicio repugnant, non igitur illa promissio votum est proprie dictum. Quarto, illa promissio quae fit in Baptismo, si votum esset, certe aut explicite, aut im¬ plicite voti obligationem contineret. At non explicite continet, nec enim fideles dum bap¬ tizantur explicitam intentionem habent, aut habere debent se obligandi, nisi quantum ex ipsis Dei legibus obligantur. Quod autem nec implicitam obligationem contineat, ita probatur ; si esset implicitum votum in Bap¬ tismo, aut esset ex lege Ecclesiae annectente hoc votum Baptismo, quomodo adjunctum est votum continentiae Sacramento ordinis, (talis autem Ecclesiae lex nusquam exstat) aut esset ex natura ipsa religionis Christia¬ nae, ut quemadmodum connexa sunt vota monastica ordinibus religiosis, ita etiam an¬ nexum esset Christianae religioni votum re¬ nuntiandi Diabolo, et pompis, atque operi¬ bus ejus. Sed neque hoc dici potest; nam religio Christiana cum sit omnibus necessa¬ ria, vincula habere debuit, divinas leges, quae necessario ab omnibus servandae sunt : ordines vero religiosi, quia non necessitatis, sed voluntatis sunt, vincula quoque non ne¬ cessaria, sed voluntaria habent, qualia sunt omnia vota proprie dicta. Accedat postremo, quod cum non sit ullo modo necessarium, neque etiam admodum utile de iis rebus, quae sunt in praecepto, vota facere, non est credibile Deum, aut Ec¬ clesiam voluisse, ut omnes fideles ad ejus¬ modi vota facienda obligarentur. Non esse autem admodum utile de rebus iis, ad quas ex lege obligati sumus, vota facere, nisi forte ea vota coincidant cum votis de rebus non praeceptis, ex eo praespicuum est, quod vota de rebus non praeceptis ideo laudabiliter fiunt, praeter alias causas, ut homo eo modo firmius, et stabilius perseveret in bono opere jam concepto, qui enim se liberos cernunt, facile mutant propositum bonum. Cum igi¬ tur ad opera legis facienda satis ligati simus ex ipsa lege, non opus est nova vincula quae¬ rere, ne occasionem gravius peccandi nobis ipsi sine magna utilitate procuremus. Objectiones, quae contra fieri solent, facile solvi possunt. Prima objectio. Christiani gravius peccant, et puniuntur cum non ser¬ vant legem Dei, quam Ethnici vel Judaei : Igitur aliquam habent obligationem, quam illi non habent. Respondeo, gravius peccant, et puniuntur Christiani, quia magis ingrati sunt, et melius noverunt Domini voluntatem; non autem quia habeant aliam obligationem, quia tunc non solum gravius .peccarent, sed etiam bis peccarent. Secunda objectio. S. Augustinus in Psal. LXXY : Vovete, inquit, et reddite Domino Deo vestro « omnes communiter. Quid debemus vovere? credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, bene vivere secundum com¬ munem modum; est enim quidam modus communis omnibus furtum non facere, adul¬ terium non facere, non amare vinolentiam, non superbire, non hominem occidere, non odisse fratrem, non adversus aliquem texere perniciem, hoc totum omnes vovere debe¬ mus. » Haec ille. Respondeo, accipit S. Au¬ gustinus, eo loco nomen voti largo et com¬ muni modo , ut non solum comprehendat vota proprie dicta, sed etiam quamlibet aliam promissiunem, quamvis talis acceptio voti non facile in scripturis inveniatur. Tertia objectio. Ecclesia eos, qui promi¬ serunt in Baptismo Christi legem se serva¬ turos, cogit ut eam servent : non autem co¬ git Ethnicos, et Judaeos, qui id non promi¬ serunt: igitur obligatio quaedam nascitur ex promissione, quam non adfert secum ipsa lex, proinde illa promissio verum votum esse videtur. Respondeo , cogit Ecclesia Christianos baptizatos, ut servent legem Christi, non tamen ex eorum promissione, quam ex eo, quod per Baptismum facti sunt membra, et filii Ecclesiae ; omne enim mem¬ brum subjectum esse debet capiti, et omnis filius parenti jure naturae subjicitur. 552 LIBER II.