setting down that which he found existing, and that he had no idea of introducing some new thing. Had this been otherwise he could not have spoken of one who set aside his profession as " sinning against God," as "guilty of sacrilege, by stealing away himself, and so robbing God of his offering."

St. Basil's definite statement of the nature of the obligation, however, doubtless had the effect of stiffening the attitude of the Church towards vows taken in Religion. "It would certainly seem," says a recent writer," that he did his utmost to render the obligation contracted by the monk or nun as binding as possible, and that he is conscious of introducing a new rigour into the practice of the Church in this matter. We have only to read his Canonical Letters, together with the passage above quoted, to be convinced that this is so. Whatever earlier Fathers of the Church may have decreed from kindness and compassion, the virgin, says Basil, 'is to be regarded as the bride of Christ, and a chosen vessel dedicated to the Lord.' If, therefore, she breaks her vow, she is to be punished as though convicted of adultery.1 This principle is extended to men also. In the early days of monasticism, however, before the intervention of the State, it would be difficult to enforce such vows. But yet everything is done to impress upon the monk the fact that before God his vow is inviolable. He is bound by the laws and enactments of the Church, by the force of public opinion, and by his own conscience, even though the arm of the law cannot reach him.

1 St. Basil, Epis. 199, xviii. 2 Ibid., 199, xix.

And, indeed, so far as the monastery itself was concerned, the vows made by the monk at his profession could not be recalled."1

2

The Sixty-fifth Excerption of Ecgbriht, A.D. 740, says, without noting any exception whatever, "The vow of a monk can in no wise be relinquished. For one ought to pay to God what he has vowed"; 2 and the Eighteenth Canon of Cealchythe, A.D. 785, enjoins, That the vows of Christians be fulfilled,” making no reference to the possibility of dispensation.3

In 1139, Pope Innocent II declared certain kinds of vows to be "solemn," and those so designated are, under the Roman obedience, difficult of dispensation. The history of this piece of legislation is obscure, but it is very doubtful if Pope Innocent's act was intended to elevate one kind of vow to a place of greater force and dignity than it had before. Rather did it make a distinction unknown before, and as a concession to the laxity of the times, dissipated the force of Religious vows, creating what has been known since as simple" vows, and thereby affording many persons in Religion a far easier escape from their obligations than the purer and stronger primitive ages dreamed of permitting. This subject is discussed in the following section."

1 St. Basil, Reg. Fus. 14. Morison, op. cit., 92, 93.

2 Johnson, English Canons, Vol. i, p. 198. 3 Ibid., p. 278.

4 Gautrelet is of the opinion that while a so-called “ simple" vow was provided for by the Second Council of Lateran, in practice there was no distinction made until four hundred years had elapsed. He "Until the sixteenth century there was scarcely anything known in the Church except solemn vows." Since the sixteenth century, and especially since the European upheavals following upon the French Revolution, the Roman Church has been very jealous of Religious

says,

V. Of Divers Kinds of Vows

Vows are distinguished as (1) temporary or perpetual; (2) personal or real; (3) conditional or absolute; (4) explicit or implicit; (5) public or private; and (6) simple or solemn.

The first explains itself, being a vow binding one for a limited period, or for life.

A personal vow is one that can only be fulfilled by him who makes it, as, for example, when one vows to hear Mass daily. A real vow is one that involves his estate. Should one vow to give a certain sum of money to the Church, and die before fulfilling the vow, his heirs must regard it as a lien on the estate, just as they would a promissory note.

Vows are conditional when made contingent upon something that may transpire, or happen in the future; as when one vows to become a Religious if he escapes a perilous situation unharmed. Such a vow does not bind if the condition be not fulfilled. An absolute vow is one that involves no condition to be fulfilled.

An explicit vow is one mentioning definitely the object; for example, “I vow to go to Mass every Sunday." An implicit vow is one that binds one to a certain thing only by implication; for example, “I vow to keep the precepts of the Church." One of the precepts is to attend Mass on Sundays, and by the

binding themselves by solemn vows. In France, for example, no Religious Orders for women have been permitted to take any but simple vows since 1790. This applies even to such recognized Orders as the Carmelites, the Poor Clares, and the Visitation. (See Gautrelet, op. cit., Vol. i, 136-7.)

latter vow I am just as truly bound to do this as I should be by the explicit form used above.

A private vow is one that is "made to God immediately and without the intervention of any Religious body whose duty it is to receive it and see that it is performed." Vows taken in a Religious Community and accepted by the Superior, or vows assumed at ordination, are public vows.

The distinction between simple and solemn vows is one that was created at the Lateran Council of A.D. 1139, when Pope Innocent II declared certain vows to be solemn."2 Until that date all vows in the Catholic Church were of one kind, to all intents and purposes having the same force as those taken to-day by most Anglican Religious. That is to say, such great Religious as St. Benedict, St. Scholastica, St. Gregory the Great, St. Anthony, St. Jerome, St. Augustine of Canterbury, the Venerable Bede, St. Boniface, St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter the Hermit, Lanfranc, the Blessed Herluin, founder of the first abbey of Bec-in fact, all who were professed prior to the year 1139 knew nothing of the distinction between solemn and simple vows. vows they pronounced had to all intents and pur

1 Gautrelet, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 99.

The

2 The second Lateran, or so-called tenth œcumenical, Council was convened by Innocent II, on April 4th, 1139. It was a reforming Council and dealt with a number of important questions affecting the Religious Orders. There are but thirty canons of this Council extant, and none of them refers to the subject of vows. (See Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Leclercq's edition, Vol. v, Part 1, p. 721 et seq.) There seems no reason, however, to doubt the authenticity of the long established tradition, extending over many centuries, that this distinction was created at this time.

poses the essential characteristics of what to-day are called solemn, as have the vows of those who are professed in most Anglican Communities.1

The substance of a solemn vow according to the authorities is stated as follows: "A solemn vow is on the part of the subject perpetual and absolute, in such a way as that the Religious cannot leave the Order, and the Order cannot send away the Religious. This condition is essential, and is sufficient to make the vow solemn when the Church declares the engagement irrevocable on both sides. This, then, is the distinctive property and character of a solemn vow. The other qualities that are assigned are rather the effects of the solemnity of the vow than qualities constituting its nature."2

This strict distinction between solemn and simple vows, however, is something that concerns only those under the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. By her action in the Reformation, the Church of England virtually returned to the older practice that

1 St. Francis de Sales, in the Preface to the Rule and Constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation, is quite definite on the subject, and seems to dispose of any question for those bound by the Roman decrees. "Many weighty divines have formerly held," he says, "that this solemnity was essential to the nature of Religious vows. But Pope Boniface VIII, having since determined the contrary, the point is out of all dispute. It must fairly be owned that this property is no way inseparable from Religious vows, since the most celebrated and holy monks of old made their profession without it, and of late Pope Gregory XIII has annexed it to simple vows for the most illustrious Society of the Name of Jesus, by which he has sufficiently declared that this kind of solemnity is so entirely dependent on the authority of the Church that she may remove it from solemn vows without making them simple, and annex it to simple ones without rendering them solemn." 2 Devine, Convent Life, p. 102.