Book 2, Chapter 14: Vows

Of Vows.

The seventh head of the outward worship of God is concerning a vow. All the questions thereof may be reduced to these four.

1. Question. What is a Vow?

Ans. A vow is a promise made to God of things lawful and possible. I call it a promise, to distinguish a vow from a single purpose. For a purpose may be changed, but a vow lawfully made cannot. Again, there is great difference between these two: for in a vow, there is first, a purpose to do a thing; secondly, a binding of ourselves to do that we purpose. For this cause I term it a promise, because it is a purpose with a bond, without which there can be no vow made.

In the next place I add, a promise made to God; not to saint, angel, or man. The reasons are these. First, a vow is properly the work of the heart, consisting in a purpose. Now God alone knows the heart, and he alone is able to discern of the purpose and intent of the same, which no angel, saint, or other creature can possibly do. Secondly, when the vow is made, none can punish and take revenge of the breach thereof, but God. Thirdly, in the Old Testament, the Jews never vowed but to God, because the vow was a part of God's worship (Deuteronomy 23:21): When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not be [reconstructed: slack] to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and so it should be sin to you. Where by the way, we may take notice of the superstition of the popish church, that makes vows to saints and angels, which is in effect to make them gods, and to worship them as the Jews worshipped God in the Old Testament.

2. Question. Whether a vow, be now in the New Testament, any part of religion, or God's worship?

The answer is threefold.

First, if a vow be taken for a promise of moral obedience, the answer is that a vow is indeed the worship of God, and so shall be to the end of the world. For as God (for his part) promises mercy in the covenant of grace, so we in baptism do make a vow, and promise of obedience to him in all his commandments; and therefore Peter calls baptism a stipulation, that is, the promise of good conscience to God. This promise once made in baptism is renewed as often as we come to the Lord's Supper, and further continued in the daily spiritual exercises of invocation and repentance.

But it may be said, we are already bound to the obedience of the law by order of divine justice; therefore we cannot further bind ourselves. Ans. He that is bound by God may also bind himself. David, though he was bound by God in conscience to keep the law, yet he binds himself freely by oath to help his own weakness, and to keep himself from falling, when he says, I have sworn, and will perform it, that I will keep your righteous judgments (Psalm 119:106). And the same bond is no less necessary and beneficial for us, if we consider how prone and ready we are to fall from the worship of God.

The second answer. If a vow be taken for a promise of some ceremonial duty, as of sacrifices and oblations, or of giving house, lands, and goods to the temple, then we must put a difference between the Old Testament and the New. In the Old Testament, the vow of such duties was part of God's worship, but in the New it is not, and that for these reasons.

First, the Jewish ceremonies were to the Jews a part of God's worship, but to us Gentiles they are not, considering they are all in Christ abolished, and none of them do now stand in force by God's law to us. Thus the Passover was a ceremony, or service, appointed by God to be observed by the Israelites and their posterity (Exodus 12:24-25), and therefore stood as a part of God's worship to them for a perpetual ordinance. But to us in the New Testament, both it and other legal ceremonies are abrogated, and we have only two sacraments to be administered and received as seals of the promises of God and parts of his worship: Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Secondly, that which is not commended to us by God in the name of worship is no worship to us. Now, the ceremonies of the Jews are nowhere commended to us in that name; and therefore it is a vain thing for any man to vow the observation thereof.

Thirdly, vows of ceremonial duties did, in a peculiar manner, and upon special respects, pertain to the Jews. Hereupon, when they vowed house, lands, goods, etc. to the use of the temple, this they did as being the Lord's tenants, of whom alone they held their possessions, and hereby they acknowledged and also testified their homages and services due to him. And this particular respect concerns not the church and people of the New Testament; from where it follows that they are not tied by the same bond to perform worship to God by the vows of ceremonies, gifts, oblations, and sacrifices.

The third and last part of the answer. If a vow be taken for a promise of some bodily and outward work, or exercise — as fasting, giving of alms, abstaining from certain meats and drinks, etc. — then it is not any part of God's worship, but only a help, stay, and furtherance of the same. For first, we have liberty of conscience in Christ to use or not to use all indifferent things. Now God's worship is not a thing of that nature, but absolutely necessary. Secondly, Paul (1 Timothy 4:8) affirms that bodily exercise profits little, but godliness is profitable for all things; in which words he opposes godliness to bodily exercise, and therefore godliness, or the worship of God, consists not in them.

But the words of David are alleged to the contrary (Psalm 76:11): "Vow and perform to the Lord your God." Where we have a double command, one to make vows, another to pay them. To which I answer: first, if David speaks of the vow of all moral duties, then the commandment concerns every man; because the thing commanded, is a part of God's worship. For it is as much as if he had said, Vow thankful obedience to God, and perform it. Again, if the place be meant, of the vow of ceremonial duties, then it is a commandment peculiar to the Old Testament, and so binds the Jews only: howbeit not all of them, but only such as had just cause to make a vow: for otherwise they had liberty to abstain from vowing (Deuteronomy 23:22): "When you abstain from vowing, it shall be no sin to you." Of one of these two kinds, must the place alleged necessarily be understood, and not of the third, which is of bodily exercise: for then it should reverse Christian liberty in the use of things indifferent, which no commandment can do.

By light of this answer, we may discern the error of the Popish Church, which makes vows a part of religion, and the worship of God. No, further, it teaches that some vows, as namely those of poverty, continence, regular obedience to this or that order, are works of merit and supererogation, tending to a state of perfection, even in this life; and deserving a further degree of glory in heaven, than the work of the moral law.

3. Question. When a vow made, does bind, and when not?

Before I give answer to the question, I will lay down this ground.

In making of a lawful vow, four conditions are to be observed.

The first, concerns the person of him that vows; that he be a fit person. His fitness may be discerned by two things. First, if he be at his own liberty, (as touching the things whereof he makes his vow,) and not under the government of a superior. Thus in the Old Testament, if a daughter had made a vow, without the consent or allowance of her father, it might not stand in effect (Numbers 30:4, 5). Secondly, if the party keep himself within the compass of his calling general and particular. Hence it follows, that vows of going a pilgrimage, to worship this or that idol, in this or that place, (for example, Saint James of Compostella, and the Lady of Loretto, &c.) are utterly unlawful; because such persons, by this practice, do leave their calling and condition of life, and take upon them a calling, not warranted by the Lord.

The second condition is, concerning the matter of a vow. It must be lawful, possible, and acceptable to God. Hereupon it follows, that there be four things, which cannot be the matter of a vow. The first, is sin. Thus the Jews bound themselves with a vow, that they would neither eat, nor drink, till they had killed Paul (Acts 23:12, 14). This their vow was nothing else, but a threatening of God himself: and therefore utterly unlawful. Secondly, trifles, and light matters; as, when a man vows, not to take up a straw, or such like. And this is a plain mocking of God. Thirdly, things impossible; as to fly, or to go on foot to Jerusalem. Fourthly, things merely necessary; as to die, which cannot be avoided.

The third, is touching the form of a vow. It must be voluntary, and free. And that it may be so, three things are necessarily required. First, that it be made in judgment, that is, with reason and deliberation. Next, that it be done with consent of will. And thirdly, with liberty of conscience.

Hence it appears, that the vows of children, mad-men, and fools, or such as are taken upon rashness, or constraint; also the vow of perpetual abstinence from things simply indifferent, are all utterly unlawful. For, the first sort are not done upon judgment, the next without due consideration, and the last are greatly prejudicial to Christian liberty.

The fourth concerns the end; which is, not to be a part of God's worship, but only a stay and prop to further and help us in the same. Now there be three particular ends of a vow. First, to show ourselves thankful to God for blessings received: secondly, to prevent sin to come, by keeping sobriety and moderation: thirdly, to preserve and increase our faith, prayer, repentance, and obedience.

This ground being laid, the answer to the question propounded is this. When in vowing, we observe the conditions pre-required, the vow is lawful, and consequently binds the party vowing, so as if he keep it not, he dishonors God. But when the said conditions, do not concur in the action of vowing, it becomes unlawful, and the party remains free, and not bound to performance.

Here by the way, a question of some moment is made; whether Jephthah upon his vow, did offer his daughter in sacrifice or no? Considering that it is plain, even by the light of nature, as also by the doctrine before taught, that a man is bound by the vow which he makes.

This question admits sundry answers, according to the divers opinions and judgments of men, upon the place written (Judges 11). And my purpose is not to examine that which others have brought in way of resolution, but briefly to deliver that which I take to be the truth. I answer therefore that Jephthah did not offer his daughter in sacrifice upon his vow; but only dedicated her to God, after the manner of the Nazarites, to the end of her days; to lead her life apart in a single estate. The truth of this answer will appear by these reasons.

First, in the 37th verse of the chapter, the daughter of Jephthah craves leave of her father, to go apart into the mountains, for two months' space, to bewail her virginity. Where it may be observed, that she went not to deplore the loss of her life, but her future estate and condition, because she was (upon her father's vow) to live a perpetual single life. And why? Surely, because (as the text says, verse 39) she had not known a man; and it was accounted a curse in Judea, for a woman always to live unmarried.

Secondly, in the last verse it is said in our common English translation, that the daughters of Israel went year by year, to lament the daughter of Jephthah: but I take it, it may be as well, or better translated out of the Hebrew, they went to talk or confer with her, and so to comfort her: and that this interpretation may not seem strange, the very same word is observed in this sense (Judges 5:11): "there shall they talk or confer of the righteousness of the Lord." Now if they went year by year to comfort her, then she was not put to death.

Thirdly, Jephthah is commended by the Holy Ghost, for the excellency of his faith (Hebrews 11:32), and that out of the same history. Now the commendation of his faith, and the unnatural murder of his daughter, cannot stand together.

But it will be said, that Jephthah vowed, that whatever came out of his doors to meet him should be the Lord's, and he would offer it for a burnt offering (v. 31). Ans. The words may more truly be read thus; or I will offer it in sacrifice. And the meaning of the vow was this: That thing which first meets me, if it be a thing to be sacrificed, I will sacrifice it: if not, I will dedicate it to the Lord. For it seems to consist of two parts, whereof the latter is coupled to the former, by a disjunctive conjunction, as the grammarians speak. In this manner, the word is elsewhere taken, so as it may either way be expounded. In the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:10), in our common translation it is read, you and your son, and your daughter, but out of the Hebrew, it may be translated either and, or or.

It will be said again, that Jephthah rent his clothes, because his daughter met him, when he returned from the victory. Ans. That was in regard of her vowed virginity: which was a curse among the Jews. And besides, he had but one daughter, and by this means of sacrificing her all hope of posterity after him was cut off.

But it seems, that monastic vows of virginity, by this example are lawful. Ans. Indeed the custom of vowing virginity began in those days, but they thought it not a state of perfection, but rather an estate of misery, as may appear, in that he rent his clothes, when she met him, and the daughters of Israel went to comfort her, as being now in a woeful and miserable estate.

Upon these reasons, I conclude, that Jephthah did not offer up his daughter in sacrifice, but only set her apart, to live a single life, to the honor and service of God. And Jephthah might know even by the light of nature, that it was a sin to vow his daughter's death, and a double sin to kill her.

4. Question. Whether monastic, or monkish vows bind or no?

To this the Papists answer affirmatively, placing the greatest part of their religion, in practice and observance of these vows.

That we may know them the better, they are in number three. The first is, the vow of continency, whereby a man renounces marriage forever, and vows to God perpetual virginity. The second, of voluntary poverty, which is, when a man gives over all property of his goods, and binds himself to live by begging. The third is, of regular obedience, when a man resigns himself in conscience, to be ruled by another, and to keep some devised order, in all actions and duties pertaining to religion.

Now the question being, whether these vows bind or no? I answer in a word, they do not, and that for these reasons.

1. First, they are flat against the law of God, which I make manifest in the particulars. The vow of perpetual chastity, is expressly against God's commandment (1 Corinthians 7:9): If they cannot abstain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. To this text the Papists answer, three ways.

First they say, that this place of scripture, is only a divine permission, and not a commandment: we reply again directly, that it is a plain commandment: for the intent of the Holy Ghost in that text, and in the whole chapter is, to ordain a necessary remedy for incontinency, which Paul calls burning, and for the avoiding of fornication, which brings destruction to the soul. And for that purpose, he speaks not in permitting manner, but in imperative terms, Let them marry.

Secondly, they answer, that the words concern only incontinent persons, that commit fornication. We on the other side affirm, that they are not only given to them that live incontinently, but to all persons, which are subject to burning, which burning may be without incontinency.

For the better understanding whereof, let it be considered, that there be three distinct degrees of lust in man. The first is, when the temptation is first received into the mind. The second, when the same temptation prevails, though with some resistance and trouble of the mind and conscience, which also (though no outward offence as yet follow) is a degree of burning. The third is, when the temptation so far prevails, that the heart and will are overcome, and the duties of religion for the time utterly hindered: this is the highest and worst kind of burning. And if we consider these degrees well, it will easily appear, that there may be burning without incontinent living.

Thirdly, they answer; that this text speaks not of persons that are free, but of those alone, who are bound from marriage by solemn vow: we contrariwise affirm and hold, that the words are general, and plainly directed to all persons, bound by vow or otherwise; and that appears by vers. [illegible], where he says, I speak not this to tangle you in a snare. These words do show, that Paul's mind was, touching the vow of perpetual virginity. For he leaves every man according to God's ordinance, to his own liberty, willing none by vow to bind himself from the use thereof.

Now for the vow of regular obedience, that also is against the word of God (1 Corinthians 7:27): You are bought with a price, be not the servants of men. Where the Apostle forbids us, to subject our hearts and consciences, to the laws and ordinances of men, in matters of religion; and consequently overthrows the vow of regular obedience. For in that a man binds himself to be ruled (in all things belonging to God's worship) according to the will and pleasure of his superior, yes to eat, drink, sleep; to be clothed, etc. according to a certain rule given and prescribed by him; whereas in regard of conscience we are bound only to God.

Lastly, the vow of voluntary poverty, is also a plain abuse of God's own ordinance and appointment (Deuteronomy 15:4), that there should be no beggar in Israel.

But it may seem, that this law is not perpetual. For in the New Testament we read, that there were beggars, as namely one, that was laid at the gate of the Temple, daily to ask alms (Acts 3). Ans. This law neither was then, nor is now abrogated by God, but the observation of it (at that time, and since) was much neglected. And the neglect of provision for the poor, is the cause of begging; and the vow of perpetual poverty, still remains as a manifest breach of God's holy ordinance, notwithstanding anything that may be pretended to the contrary.

The second reason follows. Monkish vows, as they are against God's commandment, so are they also against the liberty of conscience, which we have by Christ touching the use of the creatures, and ordinances of God: as riches, marriages, meats, drinks, and apparel. Stand fast, says the Apostle, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free (Galatians 5:1). Again, Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day (Colossians 2:16). In these places, there is granted to man, a free use of all things indifferent, so it be not in case of offence.

Now in monkish vows, those things which God has made indifferent, and put in our liberty, are made necessary: whereas no ordinance of man, can make things simply necessary, and parts of God's worship, which he himself has made indifferent, and left free to the will of man. And hence it was that the forbidding of meats and marriage, were termed by the Apostle, the doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1).

But (will some say) does not the civil magistrate in our commonwealth, forbid the use of some meats? Answer: He does. But by his commandment he takes not away the liberty that we have in the use of things indifferent, but does only moderate it, for the common good, which he may do lawfully.

The third reason. Some of them are out of the power and ability of him that vows; as the vow of perpetual chastity in single life. For our Savior says, All men cannot receive this word, but they to whom it is given (Matthew 19:11), that is, continence is a gift of God, whereof all men are not capable, but those only to whom he gives it, when, and as long as it pleases him; neither is it denied to some, because they will not, but because they are not able.

Against this, the Papist objects, that we may receive any good gift of God, if we pray for it: for Christ has said, Ask, and you shall receive (Matthew 7:7). Answer: It is false. God's gifts are of two sorts. Some are common to all that believe, and necessary to salvation; as faith, repentance, obedience, the fear of God. Some again are special gifts, not given to all, nor needful to salvation, but peculiar only to some; as health, wealth, continence, single life, etc. Now the promise of our Savior, Ask, and you shall receive, is meant of things necessary to salvation, and not of particular and special gifts. For some may pray for them, and yet never receive them. Thus Paul prayed three times, that the prick in his flesh, the messenger of Satan, might be removed from him, yet he was not heard, nor his petition granted. And why? Because that which he prayed for, was not a common gift necessary to salvation, but a special grace, for the time of the temptation, wherewith he was presently assaulted; whereupon answer was given, My grace is sufficient for you.

And hence we learn, in what manner, to ask things at the hands of God, when we pray. Such as are necessary to salvation, we may ask absolutely and simply; but things that are less necessary, with this condition: if it may stand with the good will and pleasure of God.

Again, the Papist alleges an example of two married persons; the one whereof being smitten by the hand of God with the dead palsy, the other must needs pray for the gift of continence. Answer: In this case a married party may ask it, and by God's mercy obtain it, because now there remains to him or her no other remedy. But it is not so with single persons, considering that they have another remedy, which is marriage: and therefore they may not look, or hope to obtain such a gift.

Thirdly, they say, God has given to all men sufficient aid and strength, that if they will use the means, they may have the gift of chastity. For sufficient grace is given to all, though not effectual. Answer: It is false: there is neither sufficient, nor effectual grace given to all, to live a single life; but it is a rare and special gift given only to some. Paul to Timothy, wills younger women, not to endeavor to forbear, when they have not the gift, but in want thereof to marry (1 Timothy 5:14). Where he takes it for granted, that they had no such power given them of God, to live in perpetual chastity, though they would.

The fourth reason. Popish vows do abolish that order, which God has set in the society of mankind, to wit, that men should not only serve him in the duties of the first table, but in the duties of the second, by serving of men (Galatians 5:13). By love serve one another. Again (Romans 13:10), love is called the fulfilling of the law; because the law of God is practised, not apart by itself, but in and with the love of our neighbor. From this order it follows, that every man, beside the general calling of a Christian, must have some particular kind of life, in the which he must walk, and therein do service to men: which if he refuse to do, he must not eat, according to the Apostle's rule (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Now these vows make a separation between these two: for they bring men into a general calling, but they utterly frustrate and make void the particular, and the duties of it; so as a man keeping them, cannot be serviceable to man, either in church or commonwealth. Besides, by the vow of poverty, the Apostle's rule is annulled (1 Timothy 5:16), which is, that if a man be able to maintain himself, or have any kindred able to do it, he should not be chargeable to the church; and so there might be sufficient alms to them that are truly poor.

The fifth reason. They bring in again Judaism: for Jewish religion by God's appointment, stood in bodily rites, and outward ceremonies, actions, and gestures, yes in outward things, as garments, meats, drinks. And their rule was, Touch not, taste not: from all which we are wholly freed by Christ.

Sixthly, these vows are idolatrous and superstitious: for they are made and observed with an opinion of God's worship, of merit, and of the state of perfection: whereas nothing can be made God's worship, but that which himself commands. And bodily exercises are unprofitable, as Paul says, and therefore they cannot be meritorious. And further, to dream of a state of perfection beyond the law of God, is to make the law itself imperfect: whereas contrariwise, the law of the Lord is perfect, righteous, and pure (Psalm 19:7, 8).

VII. Lastly, these vows are against the preservation of nature: for by them, specially that of perpetual chastity, men are brought to destroy even their own bodies and lives, which they are bound to preserve and maintain. Ephesians 5:29. No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it. The Apostle, even in his days, noted it as a fault, in the voluntary religion, that was then taken up by some; that for the maintenance thereof, they spared not their own bodies (Colossians 2:23). And like to that, is the practice of Popish Votaries, which tends to the ruin and overthrow of nature, and life itself.

These be the reasons. In the next place, we are to consider the allegations that are commonly made, in the favor and defense of Popish vows.

And first it is objected: In the Old Testament, vows were a part of God's worship: therefore they are so to be holden in the New. Ans. There is great difference between them. For first, they had their warrant out of God's word; these have not so: no, there be express testimonies of scripture against these vows.

Secondly, in their vows, there was always right reserved to superiors, to reverse them, if they liked them not. But in Monastical vows, all right is taken from superiors. For children are permitted to vow; and their promises must stand against parents' consent. And wives (according to Popish doctrine) may vow, against the express consent of their husbands.

Thirdly, they were not perpetual, but ceased with the ceremonial Law. But these are supposed to have a perpetual equity, that must continue till the end of the world.

Secondly, they allege that which is written (Matthew 19:12). Some have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heaven. Ans. The meaning of the text is not, that some have vowed single life, but that there are some, who being assured that they have the gift of continence, upon that gift, do endeavor to maintain their present estate, that so they may the better serve God, and advance his kingdom, both in themselves and others.

Thirdly, they object (1 Timothy 5:12), where Paul speaks of certain young women, which have damnation, because they have broken their first faith: that is, (as they interpret it) their vow of single life. Ans. The words are not to be understood, of the faith of the vow; but either of that faith and promise, which was made to God in their Baptism, or the faith and promise of service and relief to be performed to the poor; and for the breach of either of these, they may be said to incur damnation.

Fourthly, they say, Christ himself was a beggar, and therefore why may not we also be beggars? Ans. Though Christ was poor, yet was he no beggar. For he kept a family, and had a treasure. Judas was the steward of his family, and bore the bag (John 13:29). Again, there is mention made of 200 pence (John 6:7), which in likelihood was in the bag that Judas kept: yes, of the money which he had, the Disciples are said to buy meat (John 4:8). And though it were granted, that Christ was a beggar, yet it follows not, that we should be so. For his poverty was expiatory, and part of his sufferings. So says the Apostle, He being rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich (2 Corinthians 8:9).

Fifthly, they allege, that the Disciples forsook all, and lived in poverty; and their example is propounded for our imitation. Ans. They forsook all indeed, yet how? Not for ever, but for a time; and that not by vow, but only in affection and disposition of their hearts. For after they had forsaken all, we read, that they came to their nets and boats again (John 21:3). Again, the Apostle Paul speaks of himself and the rest, when he says, Have we not power to lead about a wife being a sister? (1 Corinthians 9:5). By which it is plain, that they put not away their wives.

Sixthly (Matthew 19:21). If you will be perfect (says Christ to the young man) go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me. Here (says the Papist) our Savior prescribes perpetual poverty, by express counsel. Ans. The words are no counsel, but a special commandment of trial, directed to this young man. And the end of it was, to discover to him, his secret pride, and hypocrisy, in that he boasted, that he had kept all the commandments, when as indeed he knew not what they meant.

Lastly, they object the example of the Recabites, who according to the commandment of their father Jonadab, would drink no wine, nor dwell in houses, nor build, nor plant, nor sow (Jeremiah 35), and the Lord approves their practice. Ans. They did obey their father's command in these things, as being things indifferent, but not as parts of God's worship in the doing whereof they placed religion. And they obeyed it carefully, for this end, that they might inure themselves to hardship. Secondly, this their obedience, touching these things, stood not by any vow, much less was it perpetual. For then they should have observed all the things which they vowed, equally, which they did not; for they dispensed with their father's voluntary injunction for dwelling in tents; and as we read verse 11. They came up, for fear of the Chaldeans, that were in the land, and dwelt at Jerusalem.

And so much touching Popish vows, whereof to conclude, this may be said; That they are all, but a mere will-worship, standing upon no ground or warrant of God's word, and therefore of no force, to bind the consciences of men, but are to be holden, as they are in truth, wicked and abominable.