It is good to be chaste, good to be obedient, good to be voluntarily poor.  What folly, then, to say that it is unlawful to bind oneself by promises of this kind, since it is lawful to be good—­the only thing that is lawful!  It is not unlawful, if you will, to possess riches, to enjoy one’s independence, to wed; but there is virtue in foregoing these pleasures, and virtue is better than its defect, and it is no more unlawful to do better than to do good.

If it is lawful to contract a solemn engagement with man, why not with God?  If it is lawful for a short time, why not for a long time?  If it is lawful for two years, why not for ten, and a lifetime!  The engagement is no more unlawful itself than that to which we engage ourselves.

The zealous guardians of the rights of man protest that, nevertheless, vows destroy man’s liberty, and should therefore be forbidden, and the profession suppressed.  It is along this line that the governmental machine is being run in France at present.  If the vow destroys liberty, these fanatics are doing what appears dangerously near being the same thing.

There is a decided advantage in being your own slave-master over having another perform that service for you.  If I do something which before God and my conscience I have a perfect right to do, if I do it with deliberate choice and affection, it is difficult to see wherein my liberty suffers.  Again, if I decide not to marry—­a right that every man certainly has—­and in this situation engage myself by vow to observe perfect chastity—­which I must do to retain the friendship of God—­I do not see how I forfeit my liberty by swearing away a right I never had.

In all cases, the more difficult an enterprise a man enters upon and pursues to a final issue, the more fully he exercises his faculty of free will.  And since the triple vow supposes nothing short of heroism in those who take it, it follows that they must use the very plenitude of their liberty to make the thing possible.

The “cui bono” is the next formidable opponent the vow has to contend with.  What’s the good of it?  Where is the advantage in leading such an impossible existence when a person can save his soul without it?  All are not damned who refuse to take vows.  Is it not sufficient to be honest men and women?

That depends upon what you mean by an honest man.  A great saint once said that an honest man would certainly not be hanged, but that it was by no means equally certain that he would not be damned.  A man may do sundry wicked and crooked things and not forfeit his title to be called honest.  The majority of Satan’s subjects were probably honest people in their day.

The quality of being an honest man, according to many people, consists in having the privilege of doing a certain amount of wickedness without prejudice to his eternal salvation.  The philosophy of this class of people is summed up in these words:  “Do little and get much; make a success of life from the standpoint of your own selfishness, and then sneak into heaven almost by stealth and fraud.”  That is one way of doing business with the Lord.  But, there are greater things in heaven and on earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.