Point 8: Of Vows

Our consent.

Touching vows this must be known: that we do not condemn them altogether, but only labor to restore the purity of doctrine touching this point, which by the Church of Rome from time to time has been corrupted and defaced. We hold therefore that a vow is a promise made to God touching some duties to be performed unto him, and it is twofold: general or special. The general vow is that which concerns all believers, and it is made in the covenant both of the law and of the Gospel. In the covenant of the Gospel there are two actions: one of God, the other of man. God in mercy on his part promises to men the remission of sins and life everlasting, and man again for his part promises to believe in Christ and to obey God in all his commandments. All men ever made this vow to God, as the Jews in circumcision, which they also renewed so often as they received the Passover. In the New Testament, all that are baptized do the like. In baptism this vow is called the pledge of a good conscience, whereby we purpose to renounce ourselves, to believe in Christ, and to bring forth the fruits of true repentance. It ought to be renewed so often as we are partakers of the supper of the Lord. This vow is necessary and must be kept as a part of the true worship of God, because it is a promise wherein we vow to perform all duties commanded of God either in the law or in the Gospel. Though we are already bound partly by nature and partly by the written word, yet we may renew the same bond in a vow. He that is bound may further bind himself, so it be to help his dulness for want of zeal, and to make himself more forward in duties of love to men and the worship of God. To this end David swore to keep the law of God in Psalm 119:106, though he was bound to it by nature and by the written law itself.

The special vow is that which does not reach to the person of all believers, but only concerns some special men upon some special occasions. This kind of vow is twofold. The first is the vow of a ceremonial duty in the way of service to God, and it was in practice in the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament. Examples are especially two: first, the vow of the Nazirites, whereunto no kind of men were bound by God's commandment, but they bound themselves — God only prescribing the manner and order of keeping it, with rites pertaining thereto, as abstinence from wine, the not cutting of their hair, and such like. The second example is of the Jews, when of their own accord they vowed to give God house or land, sheep or oxen, or any like things for the maintenance of the legal worship, of which God also prescribes certain rules in Leviticus 27. Now these vows were part of the Jewish ceremonial law, wherein God trained up the Jews in the Old Testament. Being observed by them, they were parts of God's worship, but now under the Gospel they are not — being all abolished with the ceremonial law, to which Christ put an end at his death upon the cross. It is true Paul made a vow and afterward kept the same in the time of the New Testament (Acts 18), yet not as a part of God's worship but as a thing indifferent for the time, wherein he only condescended to the weakness of the Jews that by this means he might bring them the better to Christ. As for Christ being called a Nazarite in Matthew 2:23, we may not think he was of that very order, because he did not abstain from wine. Rather he was so termed because he was the reality and fulfillment of that order. By it was signified that God's church was a peculiar people severed or chosen out of the world, and that Christ in respect of holiness was also separated from all sinners. Vows concerning meats, drinks, attire, touching, tasting, times, places, and days were proper to the Jews.

The second kind of special vow is that whereby a man promises freely to perform some outward and bodily exercise for some good end. This vow, if made accordingly, is lawful and belongs both to the Church of the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament we have the example of the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35), who by the appointment of Jonadab their father abstained from strong drink and wine, from planting vineyards and orchards. Jonadab intended only to prepare them beforehand and acquaint them with their future condition and state, that they should be strangers in a foreign land, and so prepare themselves to endure hardship in time to come. Now in the New Testament we have warrant likewise to vow — as if a man by drinking wine or strong drink finds himself prone to drunkenness, he may vow with himself to drink no more wine or strong drink for so long as he finds the drinking thereof will stir up his infirmity and minister occasion of sinning. Of this kind also are the vows in which we purpose and promise to God to keep set times of fasting, to task ourselves in prayer and reading of holy Scriptures, to give set alms for special causes known to ourselves, and to do sundry like duties. That we be not deceived in making such vows, certain rules must be remembered. First, the vow must be agreeable to God's will and word — for if it is otherwise, the making as also the keeping of it is sin. Vows must not be the bonds of iniquity. Second, it must be so made that it may stand with Christian liberty, for we may not make such things necessary in conscience which God has made free. Christian liberty allows us the free use of all things indifferent, so it be out of the case of offense. Hence it follows that vows must be made and kept, or not kept, insofar as in conscience they may stand or not stand with our liberty purchased by Christ. Third, the vow must be made with the consent of superiors, if we are under governance. Thus among the Jews, the vow of a daughter might not stand unless the consent of parents came thereunto. Fourth, it must be within the power and ability of the maker to do or not to do — a vow made of a thing impossible is no vow. Fifth, it must be agreeable to the calling of him that makes it: both to his general calling as he is a Christian, and to that particular calling wherein he lives. If it is against either one or both, it is unlawful. Sixth, it must be made with deliberation — rash vows are not lawful, though the things vowed may be done lawfully. Seventh, the end must be good, which is to preserve and exercise the gifts of faith, prayer, repentance, obedience, and other virtues of the mind, as also to testify our thankfulness to God for blessings received. These are the principal rules which must be observed in making vows. Herewith must be remembered that vows made in this manner are by themselves no part of God's worship, but only helps and furtherances thereunto. Thus are we to esteem of all the vows of the New Testament.

The dissent or difference.

The points of difference between us touching vows are especially three. First, the Church of Rome teaches that in the New Testament we are as much bound to make vows as was the Church of the Jews, and that even in external exercises. We say no, considering the ceremonial law is now abolished, and we have only two ceremonies by commandment to be observed: baptism and the supper of the Lord. Again, we are not so much bound to make or keep vows as the Jews were, because they had a commandment so to do and we have none at all. But they allege to the contrary the prophet Isaiah, chapter 19:21, who speaking of the time of the Gospel says: The Egyptians shall know the Lord, and shall vow to him and keep it. I answer two ways: first, that the prophet in this place expresses and signifies the spiritual worship of the New Testament by the ceremonial worship then used, as he does also in the last chapter where he calls the ministers of the New Testament priests and Levites. Second, we grant the Church of the New Testament makes vows to God, but they are of moral and evangelical duties which must not be left undone. So often as we come to the Lord's Table, we in heart renew the vow and promise of obedience. And though vows be made of things and actions indifferent, yet they are not any parts of God's worship — which is the point to be proved.

Again they allege Psalm 76:11: Vow to God and perform it. And they say that this commandment binds all men. Answer: That commandment first binds the Jews to the making of ceremonial vows. Again, David here speaks of the vowing of praise and thanksgiving to God, and so he expounds himself in Psalm 56:12: My vows are upon me, I will offer praises to God. This vow indeed concerns all men because it respects a moral duty, which is to set forth the praise of God.

Second point of difference. They also hold that vows made even of things not commanded — as meats, drinks, attire, and the like — are parts of God's worship, and indeed tend to a state of perfection, in that the keeping of them brings man to a higher estate than the keeping of the law can do. We flatly say no, holding that lawful vows are certain props of God's worship and not the worship itself. For Paul says plainly in 1 Timothy 4:8: Bodily exercise profits little, but godliness is profitable for much. Again, as God's kingdom is, so must his worship be. God's kingdom stands not in outward things, as in eating, drinking, and such like actions, and therefore his worship stands not in outward things.

Third point of difference. They maintain such vows as are not agreeable to the rules before named, and herein also we are to dissent from them. The first and principal is the vow of continency, whereby a man promises to God to keep chastity always in single life, that is, outside the estate of wedlock. This kind of vow is flat against the word of God, and therefore unlawful. For Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:9: If they cannot contain, let them marry. 1 Timothy 4:1: It is a doctrine of devils to forbid to marry. Hebrews 13:4: Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled. Again, this vow is not in the power of him that vows, for continency is the gift of God, who gives it not to all but to whom he will and when he will and as long as he will. They allege that in the want of continency, fasting and prayer obtain it. Answer: It is not so. God's gifts are of two sorts: some are common to all believers, as the gift of faith, repentance, and the fear of God; others are peculiar to some only, as the gift of continency (1 Corinthians 7:7): I would that all men were as I myself am, but every man has his proper gift of God — one this way, another that way. Now if we fast and pray for the increase of the common gifts of God, as faith, repentance, and all such as are needful to salvation, we may obtain them in some measure. But the like cannot be said of particular gifts. The child of God may pray for health or wealth and not obtain either in this world, because it is not the will of God to grant these blessings to all men. Paul prayed three times to be delivered from a temptation and yet did not obtain his request. So may we likewise pray for chastity in single estate and yet never obtain it, because it may be that it is the will of God to save us without it. This vow therefore we abhor as a thing that has heretofore and does still bring forth innumerable abominations in the world. Yet mark how we do this: though we dislike the vow, we like and commend single life. Marriage is better in two respects: first, because God has ordained it to be a remedy of incontinency for all such persons as cannot contain; second, because it is the nursery both of church and commonwealth, bringing forth a seed of God for the enlarging of his kingdom. Yet single life in those that have the gift of continency is in some respects to be preferred. First, because it brings liberty in persecution (1 Corinthians 7:26): I suppose it to be good for the present necessity for a man so to be. Second, because it frees men from the common cares, troubles, and distractions in the family (verse 28): Such shall have trouble in the flesh, but I spare you. Third, because single persons do commonly with more bodily ease and liberty worship God — it being still presupposed that they have the gift of continency (verse 34): The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit.

Again, though we dislike the vow, yet we hold and teach that men or women, being assured that they have the gift of continency, may constantly resolve and purpose with themselves to live a single life (1 Corinthians 7:37): He that stands firm in his own heart, having no need, but has power over his own will, and has so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin — he does well. We embrace the saying of Theodoret on 1 Timothy chapter 4: He does not blame single life or continency, but he accuses those who by enacted law compel men to follow these. Men made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12), not by vow but by a purpose of heart, which is far less than a vow and may be changed upon occasion, whereas a vow cannot unless it evidently appear to be unlawful.

Thirdly, for such persons as are able to contain, to live single for the ends before named — indeed we hold it to be no counsel of perfection, yet we do not deny it to be a counsel of expediency or outward ease. According to that which Paul says in verse 25: I give my advice — and verse 35: I speak this for your benefit, not to ensnare you.

Lastly, we think that if any having the gift of continency do make a vow to live single, and yet afterward marry (the said gift remaining), they have sinned — yet not because they are married, but because their vow is broken. And thus said Augustine of widows that married after their vow, in his book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 9.

The second is the vow of poverty and monastic life, in which men bestow all they have on the poor and give themselves wholly and only to prayer and fasting. This vow is against the will of God. Acts 20:35: It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive. Proverbs 30:8: Give me neither riches nor poverty. Deuteronomy 28:22: Poverty is numbered among the curses of the law, none of which are to be vowed. And it is the rule of the Holy Spirit in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: He that will not labor in some special and warrantable calling must not eat. And verse 12: I exhort that they work with quietness and eat their own bread. Now when men live apart from others, giving themselves only to prayer and fasting, they live in no calling. And it is against the general vow made in baptism, because it frees men from sundry duties of the moral law and changes the proper end of man's life. For every man must have two callings. The first is the general calling of a Christian, by virtue of which he performs worship to God and duties of love to men. The second is a particular calling, wherein according to his gift he must do service to men in some function pertaining either to the church or commonwealth of which he is a member. The first of these two must be performed in the second, and the second in and with the first. The end of man's life is not only to serve God by the duties of the first table, but by serving man in the duties of the second table to serve God. Therefore the love of our neighbor is called the fulfilling of the whole law (Romans 13:10), because the law of God is practiced not apart but in and with the love of our neighbor. This being so, it is manifest that vowed poverty in monkish life makes many unprofitable members both of church and commonwealth.

Though we dislike this vow also, we do it holding these conclusions. First, a man may forsake all his goods upon special calling, as the Apostles did when they were sent to preach the Gospel through the whole world. Second, goods may be forsaken — yes, wife, children, parents, brothers, and all — in the case of confession: that is, when a man for the religion of Christ is persecuted and constrained to forsake all he has. For then the second table gives place to the duties of the first (Mark 10:29). Second, for the time of persecution, men may withdraw themselves (just occasion offered) and go apart to wildernesses or like places (Hebrews 11:37). Yet for the time of peace I see no cause of solitary life. If it be alleged that men go apart for contemplation and spiritual exercises, I say again that God's grace may as well be exercised in the family as in the cloister. The family is indeed as it were a school of God, in which those that have but a spark of grace may learn and exercise many virtues — the acknowledgement of God, invocation, the fear of God, love, generosity, patience, meekness, faithfulness, and so on. Nay, here are more occasions of doing or receiving good than are or can be in a cloister. Third, we do not condemn the old and ancient monks, though we do not like everything in them. For they lived not as idle persons, but in the sweat of their own brows as they ought to do, and many of them were married. In their meat, drink, apparel, rule, vow, and whole course of life they differed from the monks of this time even as heaven from earth.

The third vow is of regular obedience, whereby men give themselves to keep some devised rule or order, standing most commonly in the observance of exercises in outward things, as meats, drinks, and apparel. This vow is against Christian liberty, whereby is granted a free use of all things indifferent, so it be without the case of offense. Galatians 5:1: Stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ has made you free. Colossians 2:16: Let no man judge you in meat or drink. To conclude: whereas the Papists magnify these their vows and yet make no such account of the vow in baptism, we for our parts must be contrary to them not only in judgment but also in practice. We ought to have special care to make good the vows we have pledged to God according to his commandment. In our creation we made a vow of obedience, and being received into the covenant of grace, we vowed to believe in Christ and to bring forth fruits of new obedience. This vow is renewed as often as we come to the Lord's Table. Our duty therefore is to perform them also to God, as David says: Vow unto God and keep it. If we keep them not, all turns to our shame and confusion. Men stand much on the keeping of that word which they have passed to men, and it is taken for a point of much honesty, as it is indeed. Now then, if there be such care to keep trust with men, much more should we have care to keep covenant with God.

Our consent.

On the subject of vows, it must be understood that we do not reject them altogether, but only seek to restore the purity of teaching on this point, which the Church of Rome has progressively corrupted and obscured. We hold that a vow is a promise made to God concerning duties to be performed for Him, and it is of two kinds: general and special. The general vow concerns all believers and is made in the covenant, both of the law and of the Gospel. In the covenant of the Gospel there are two actions: one on God's part and one on the person's part. God, in mercy, promises forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. The person, in turn, promises to believe in Christ and to obey God in all His commandments. All people have made this vow to God — the Jews in circumcision, which they also renewed each time they participated in the Passover. In the New Testament, all who are baptized do the same. In baptism, this vow is called 'the pledge of a good conscience,' by which we commit to deny ourselves, believe in Christ, and bring forth the fruits of true repentance. It should be renewed each time we participate in the Lord's Supper. This vow is necessary and must be kept as part of the true worship of God, since it is a promise in which we commit to perform all the duties commanded by God in either the law or the Gospel. Although we are already bound to these duties — partly by nature and partly by the written word — we may still renew that same obligation through a vow. A person who is already bound may bind himself further, as long as it is to help overcome his own slowness due to lack of zeal and to make himself more diligent in the duties of love toward others and worship toward God. For this reason David swore to keep God's law in Psalm 119:106, even though he was already bound to it by nature and by the written law itself.

The special vow does not apply to all believers but concerns only certain individuals on particular occasions. This kind of vow is also of two types. The first involves ceremonial duties performed as acts of service to God — this was practiced in the Jewish church under the Old Testament. Two examples stand out: first, the Nazirite vow, which God did not require of anyone by commandment but which people undertook voluntarily, with God prescribing the manner and rules for keeping it, including the accompanying rites such as abstaining from wine, not cutting their hair, and similar practices. The second example is when Jews voluntarily vowed to give to God their house, land, sheep, cattle, or similar things for the support of the ceremonial worship — of which God also gives rules in Leviticus 27. These vows were part of the Jewish ceremonial law through which God trained the Jews in the Old Testament. When observed by them, they were elements of true worship — but this is no longer the case under the Gospel, since they have all been abolished along with the ceremonial law, which Christ brought to its end at His death on the cross. It is true that Paul made and kept such a vow in the New Testament period (Acts 18), but not as an element of worship. He did it as a matter of indifference for that time, accommodating himself to the weakness of the Jews so that by this means he might better bring them to Christ. As for Christ being called a Nazarite in Matthew 2:23, this must not be taken to mean He belonged to that specific order — since He did not abstain from wine. Rather, He was called by that name because He was the reality and fulfillment of what that order represented. The Nazirite order signified that God's church was a set-apart people, chosen out of the world, and that Christ in His holiness was also separated from all sinners. Vows concerning foods, drinks, clothing, touching, tasting, times, places, and days were particular to the Jewish people.

The second kind of special vow is when a person freely promises to perform some outward and physical practice for a good purpose. This kind of vow, when made properly, is lawful and belongs to both the Old and New Testament church. In the Old Testament we have the example of the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35), who at the direction of their ancestor Jonadab abstained from wine and strong drink and from planting vineyards and orchards. Jonadab's intention was simply to prepare them for their future circumstances — teaching them to live as strangers in a foreign land and to endure hardship. In the New Testament we have similar grounds for making vows. For example, if a person finds that drinking wine or strong drink makes him prone to drunkenness, he may vow to himself to abstain from wine or strong drink for as long as he finds that drinking it stirs up that weakness and creates occasion for sin. In this same category are vows in which we purpose and promise to God to observe set times of fasting, to commit ourselves to prayer and reading of holy Scripture, to give specific alms for particular causes known to ourselves, and to perform various similar duties. To avoid mistakes in making such vows, certain rules must be kept in mind. First, the vow must be agreeable to God's will and word — if it is not, both the making and the keeping of it is sin. Vows must not bind us to wrongdoing. Second, it must be made in a way that is consistent with Christian liberty, for we may not bind the conscience with things God has left free. Christian liberty gives us the free use of all indifferent things, as long as we are not causing offense. It follows that vows must be made, kept, or not kept insofar as they can or cannot stand with the liberty purchased for us by Christ. Third, the vow must be made with the consent of one's superiors, if one is under authority. Among the Jews, for example, a daughter's vow was not binding unless her parents consented to it. Fourth, the vow must be within the maker's power and ability — a vow of something impossible is no vow at all. Fifth, it must be consistent with the calling of the person who makes it — both his general calling as a Christian and his specific calling in life. If it conflicts with either, it is unlawful. Sixth, it must be made with deliberation. Rash vows are not lawful, even if the thing vowed is itself lawful. Seventh, the aim must be good — to strengthen and exercise the gifts of faith, prayer, repentance, obedience, and other virtues of the mind, or to express gratitude to God for blessings received. These are the principal rules to observe in making vows. It must also be remembered that vows made in this manner are not in themselves a form of God's worship but only aids and supports toward it. This is how we are to regard all vows in the New Testament era.

The dissent or difference.

The points of difference between us on vows are mainly three. First, the Church of Rome teaches that in the New Testament era we are just as obligated to make vows as the Jewish church was, including vows involving outward practices. We disagree — the ceremonial law has now been abolished, and we have only two ceremonies commanded to be observed: baptism and the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, we are not as strictly bound to make or keep vows as the Jews were, because they had an explicit commandment to do so, and we have none. They appeal to Isaiah 19:21 in support, where the prophet, speaking of the Gospel era, says: 'The Egyptians will know the Lord and will make vows to Him and perform them.' I answer in two ways. First: the prophet here expresses the spiritual worship of the New Testament era in the language of the ceremonial worship then in use — as he also does in the last chapter of his book, where he calls the ministers of the New Testament 'priests and Levites.' Second: we grant that the New Testament church makes vows to God, but these are vows of moral and evangelical duties that must not be omitted. Each time we come to the Lord's Table, we inwardly renew the vow and promise of obedience. And even where vows are made concerning indifferent things and actions, they are not themselves elements of God's worship — which is the very point at issue.

They also appeal to Psalm 76:11: 'Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them.' They say this commandment binds all people. Answer: That commandment first binds the Jews to the making of ceremonial vows. Furthermore, David here speaks of vowing praise and thanksgiving to God — as he explains himself in Psalm 56:12: 'Your vows are binding upon me, O God; I will render thank offerings to You.' This vow does concern all people, because it involves a moral duty — giving glory to God.

Second point of difference. The Church of Rome also teaches that vows made even of things not commanded — such as food, drink, clothing, and the like — are elements of God's worship and tend toward a state of perfection, in that keeping them brings a person to a higher condition than keeping the law alone can achieve. We plainly deny this, holding that lawful vows are supports for God's worship, not the worship itself. Paul says plainly in 1 Timothy 4:8: 'Bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things.' Furthermore, as God's kingdom is, so must His worship be. God's kingdom does not consist in outward things such as eating, drinking, and similar actions — and therefore His worship does not consist in outward things either.

Third point of difference. The Church of Rome endorses vows that are not consistent with the rules set out above, and on this point we must also disagree. The first and most significant is the vow of celibacy — by which a person promises to God to remain sexually abstinent, living unmarried for life. This kind of vow is directly contrary to the word of God and therefore unlawful. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:9: 'If they do not have self-control, let them marry.' In 1 Timothy 4:1 he calls it a doctrine of demons to forbid marriage. And Hebrews 13:4 says: 'Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled.' Furthermore, this vow exceeds what the person making it can guarantee — for celibacy is a gift of God, which He gives not to all but to whom He wills, when He wills, and for as long as He wills. They claim that fasting and prayer can obtain the gift of celibacy when it is lacking. This is not so. God's gifts are of two kinds: some are given to all believers, such as faith, repentance, and the fear of God; others are given only to some, such as the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7): 'I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.' If we fast and pray for an increase of the common gifts — faith, repentance, and all that is necessary to salvation — we may obtain them in some measure. The same cannot be said for particular gifts. A child of God may pray for health or wealth and receive neither in this life, because God may not will to grant these blessings to everyone. Paul prayed three times to be delivered from a temptation and did not receive what he asked for. Similarly, a person may pray for the gift of celibacy and never receive it — because it may be God's will to save that person without it. We therefore regard this vow as something that has produced and continues to produce innumerable evils in the world. Note, however, how we take this position: although we reject the vow of celibacy, we have no objection to the single life itself and commend it in its place. Marriage is better in two respects: first, God has ordained it as a remedy for those who lack self-control; second, it is the nursery of both church and society, raising up a seed for God and enlarging His kingdom. Yet the single life, for those who have the gift of celibacy, is in some respects preferable. First, it provides freedom during persecution (1 Corinthians 7:26): 'I think then that this is good in view of the present distress.' Second, it frees a person from the ordinary cares, troubles, and distractions of family life (verse 28): 'Such people will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.' Third, single people can generally worship God with greater ease and undistracted focus — provided, of course, that they have the gift of celibacy (verse 34): 'The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit.'

Furthermore, while we reject the vow of celibacy, we hold and teach that men and women who are genuinely assured they have the gift of celibacy may firmly and deliberately resolve to live a single life. As 1 Corinthians 7:37 says: 'He who stands firm in his heart, having no compulsion but having authority over his own will, and has decided in his own heart to keep his own virgin, he will do well.' We embrace the saying of Theodoret on 1 Timothy 4: 'He does not blame single life or celibacy, but he accuses those who by binding law compel men to pursue these.' People made themselves celibate for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12) — not by vow but by a deliberate purpose of heart, which is far less binding than a vow and may be changed as circumstances require. A vow, once made, cannot be changed unless it clearly proves to be unlawful.

Third: for those who are genuinely able to live celibate, choosing single life for the reasons mentioned above — we do not regard this as a counsel of perfection, but we do acknowledge it may be a counsel of practical benefit and outward ease. This is in line with what Paul says in verse 25: 'I give an opinion' — and in verse 35: 'This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you.'

Finally, we believe that if anyone with the gift of celibacy makes a vow to remain single but then marries while that gift remains, he has sinned — not because he married, but because he broke his vow. Augustine said the same of widows who married after making such a vow, in his book On the Good of Widowhood, chapter 9.

The second condemned vow is the vow of poverty and monastic life — in which a person gives away everything he has to the poor and devotes himself entirely to prayer and fasting. This vow is contrary to the will of God. Acts 20:35 says: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Proverbs 30:8 says: 'Give me neither poverty nor riches.' Deuteronomy 28:22 numbers poverty among the curses of the law — and none of those are things to be vowed. The Holy Spirit's rule in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is: 'If anyone is not willing to work, he is not to eat.' And verse 12: 'We command and exhort such persons to work quietly and to eat their own bread.' When people withdraw from ordinary society to devote themselves only to prayer and fasting, they are living in no lawful calling. This vow is also contrary to the general vow made at baptism, because it releases a person from various duties of the moral law and changes the proper purpose of human life. Every person must have two callings. The first is the general calling as a Christian, by which he worships God and fulfills duties of love toward others. The second is a particular calling, suited to his gifts, in which he serves other people in some function belonging to either the church or the society of which he is a member. The first must be performed through the second, and the second must be carried out in conjunction with the first. The purpose of human life is not only to serve God through the duties of the first table of the law, but to serve God by serving others in the duties of the second table. This is why Paul calls love of neighbor the fulfillment of the whole law (Romans 13:10) — because the law of God is practiced not in isolation but in and through love of neighbor. Given all this, it is evident that vowed poverty in monastic life produces people who are useless members of both church and society.

While we reject this vow as well, we do so while affirming these qualifications. First, a person may forsake all his possessions in response to a specific divine calling — as the apostles did when they were sent to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world. Second, possessions may be forsaken — indeed, wife, children, parents, siblings, and everything — in the case of open confession of faith: that is, when a person is persecuted for the religion of Christ and compelled to give up everything he has. In that case, the duties of the second table give way to the duties of the first (Mark 10:29). And during a time of persecution, people may rightly withdraw — when a genuine occasion is provided — and take refuge in remote places or wilderness areas (Hebrews 11:37). But in times of peace, I see no case for a solitary life. If it is argued that people withdraw for contemplation and spiritual practice, I say again that God's grace can be exercised just as well in a family as in a monastery. The family is in fact a school of God, in which those who have even a spark of grace can learn and practice many virtues — acknowledging God, calling on Him, fearing Him, loving others, showing generosity, exercising patience and meekness, and being faithful. Indeed, there are more opportunities for doing and receiving good in a household than there are or can be in a cloister. Third, we do not condemn the ancient and early monks, though we cannot approve of everything about them. They did not live as idle people — they worked with their own hands as they ought, and many of them were married. In their food, drink, clothing, rule, vows, and entire way of life, they differed from the monks of our time as much as heaven differs from earth.

The third condemned vow is the vow of regular obedience — by which people bind themselves to keep some devised rule or order, which typically consists of outward practices concerning food, drink, and clothing. This vow is contrary to Christian liberty, which grants the free use of all indifferent things as long as they are not causing offense. Galatians 5:1 says: 'Stand firm in the freedom with which Christ has set us free.' Colossians 2:16 says: 'Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink.' In conclusion: while the papists make much of these their vows and give little account of the vow made in baptism, we must stand in direct opposition to them — not only in doctrine but in practice. We ought to be especially careful to fulfill the vows we have made to God according to His commandment. In our creation we made a vow of obedience, and upon being received into the covenant of grace, we vowed to believe in Christ and to bring forth the fruits of new obedience. This vow is renewed every time we come to the Lord's Table. Our duty is therefore to keep it before God, as David says: 'Vow to the Lord your God and fulfill it.' If we do not keep our vows, the shame and confusion falls back on us. People place great importance on keeping their word to other people, and rightly so — it is considered a mark of integrity. If we are so careful to keep faith with other people, how much more ought we to keep covenant with God.