menu_book Chapter 25

Section 25 of Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4. information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Joshua Kenney. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, by John Calvin. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Chapter 13, Part 2.

10. Here, however, I had no intention to discuss the whole subject. I only wish 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 while 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 inexperable

crime if anyone deviates in the least degree from the prescribed form in color 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. 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 and 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 monarchism 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 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

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 who sees not that this is 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 honor 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 divisive man is preferred to all the modes of life which he has ordered and by his testimony approved twelve but let them say i calumniated them when i declare 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 have promised 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 counsel 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 be but abominable thirteen 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 matthew nineteen twenty one 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 of 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

first corinthians thirteen three 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 Colossians 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 in what sense we

should understand the words of Christ. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast. Now there will not be the least obscurity in the meaning if we consider, and this ought to be attended to in all our Savior's discourses, to whom the words are redressed. 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 inefficiency 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 it 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 was 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 he says 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. Philippians 3.8

Therefore, when Christ orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as if he has 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 rest 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 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 and hence arose an affection of voluntary poverty those only being thought blessed 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 fourteen 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 that is 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 up 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 there are 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 first corinthians one twelve thirteen three four 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 fifteen 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 manners of what use is it to particularize and show how great the difference

this much is certain that there is no order of man 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 styes but lest they complain that i deal too unmercifully with them i go no further 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 he complains that there were many vagabonds who by wicked arts and impostors 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 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 malaysian proverb think they ought to have no good man among them

sixteen 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 augstein 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 affection 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 ambition and other lusts of the flesh makes it his purpose to serve god in some particular vocation it is fine to philosophize 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 than that profession there is certainly no small evil in its having introduced a useless and perilous example into the church seventeen 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 favor 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 its 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 romans fourteen twenty three 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 son to devils and not to god de thirty two seventeen psalm one hundred six thirty seven 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 their 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 matthew nineteen eleven 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 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 archiviousness but also burning of mind first corinthian seven nine 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 which commenced was so free from every defect that all that was then done is to be regarded as a rule moreover the inexorable rigor of holding that after the vow is conceived there is no room for repentance crepting 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 would seek to temper the vow of consonance 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 anyone 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 eighteen 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 first timothy five twelve i by no means deny that widows who dedicated themselves and their labors 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 a christian woman 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 because 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 nineteen but what ground can there be for applying this passage to nuns for deaconesses were pointed 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 labor 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 and of twenty and lastly of thirty years still less possible is it to tolerate the case of miserable girls who before they had 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 twenty 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 to god should be regarded by us as no 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 be 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 romans fourteen twenty three 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 further to discuss a point which does not require it to appease pious consciences and free them from all doubt this one argument seems to be sufficient that is 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 knowing with god and ought to be abandoned by us twenty one he who understands this solution is furnished with the means of repelling the calumnies of the wicked against those who withdraw from narcissism to some honest kind of livelihood they are grievously charged with having perjured themselves and broken their faith because they have broken the bond vorgially supposed to be intessoluble but 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 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 are held bound how much more must it rescue us from the 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 an 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 infirmity 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 end of section twenty five