Confession of Faith, chapter 22. With lawful oaths and vows, we're up to section 7. This is the last section. Section 7. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. in which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience are so far from being degrees of higher perfection that they are superstitious and sinful stares in which no Christian may entangle himself. There are really two aspects to to the section before us, one is the doctrine and the other is the application. And we see, I think, pretty clearly that the reason for emphasizing these points regarding vowing is precisely because these points that we're going to discuss are the points which are violated when we talk about Popish vows, monastical vows. There are three things that we're going to have to discuss with respect to that perpetual single life or celibacy. We're going to discuss that some and whether or not you have a right to vow a life of perpetual celibacy. profess poverty, this is another very common monkish vow, and regular obedience. The word regular means according to a rule. So regular obedience is an obedience to the monastic rules. It could be the Franciscan order, the Dominican order, Jesuits, whatever. There are different orders and these orders all have rules. So regular obedience is the obedience you're going to pledge by raising these vows to the superiors. You have a father superior or if you're a nun, a mother superior. And those are the ones who are in the context of monastery are going to be in charge of enforcing this regular obedience. With this concept of regular obedience, is that one of the main things you can go to in refuting Freemasons? Is this the part of the Confession that most applies to making unlawful vows in society? Certainly what we're going to talk about, to some extent, does have some bearing on that. A lot of what we've talked about has been bearing on secret societies where you've got these oaths and vows that you're making and taking that are not to the true God. Remember, oaths and vows are part of religious worship. So there's already a problem when you're dealing with an organization like the Freemasons who have a if not a deistical view of God, it's very close to that. So I would actually say it's more of an older deistical view that to some extent is more like the God of somebody like Ben Franklin who believed in some kind of providence but not really a personal God. All right, so the other thing with respect to these vows, these popish vows and the things that are listed is the confession talks about them as not being degrees of higher perfection. Now, the reason for that, what lies behind that statement is, according to Popish theology, these kinds of vows that are taken by monks, these things are vows that generally comprehend what they would call gospel councils. And what these councils are, are what they believe to be a higher standard of morality. And we'll be looking at this We'll have to discuss this a little bit in terms of perpetual single life. But all of them, all of these ideas, they would derive from certain things that Christ said that are not so much iterations or reiterations of the law. They're rather counsels with respect to behavior. And what they've done is they've taken these things and constructed this sort of higher tier ethics. The problem is that very often that has actually tempted people to not only to violate these so-called gospel councils, to violate the law of God. When you're cutting against the grain of human nature so hard, you end up creating a situation where people are going to be tempted more to sin. Like the whole Roman Catholic pedophilia scheme? Well, you have that. You also had, if you were... If you read, for example, Justin Fulton's book called Why Priests Should Wed, which was written at the turn of the century, it was actually a book that was subject to the Comstock laws so that certain parts of it were blacked out because it was considered indecent even to discuss some of the matter in the book. And yet, the guy who wrote the Comstock Laws, Comstock himself, read the book and recommended the book, even in its expurgated state, to let people know what was going on. It was not, and really, one of the things that Fulton discloses is that, and this is something we know from from the Reformation. John MacDonald in his book Romanism Analyzed has an entire section on this where he discusses the fact that during the Middle Ages, they would build a monastery on one hill and a nunnery on another hill. And the valley in between was very often full of the bones of infants. The nuns were having abortions all the time. They had pits of lime where they were dissolving the bodies of the babies. The nunneries were really just whorehouses for the monks. Something very similar is what Fulton points out. They had a system It was still in use in this country in the 19th century where they would, it was like a pegboard where they would let nuns know which one was wanted which night. So they were sort of treated like a harem for the local priest. And he discusses a lot of that. Now I don't know how much of it actually occurred. I don't doubt if he's writing on it that there was at least some incidence of this going on, but I don't know how widespread. The point is that what you've done is you've created this artificial condition that cuts so hard against human nature itself. You're creating this sphere in which these kinds of things are going to occur. And so, yeah, it's not, it shouldn't be any surprise that when we hear these stories about pedophilia, it's all part of this regular obedience and perpetual single life and so on. So we'll talk a little bit more about that in their places. When we talk about the doctrine of vows here, we're going to have to reiterate the point, and it's been discussed again and again, that you don't have a right to take a vow to do something forbidden in the Word of God. To enter into a vow to do something that God has forbidden is in itself to sin against God. And it's an unlawful vow or an unlawful oath. And then again, we have to look at this second part of this, which is You've got to be sure that any vow that you're taking lies within your power. We're going to discuss that in a little bit of detail. I think we need to discuss it in relation to this idea that we will come across in a number of the Reformed Presbyterian Fathers that pertains to renewing of covenant. And particularly, I think we need to discuss what that would mean when we're really stuck with this proposition that we can't, when we renew, we really can't renew as the original Covenanters, simply because of this proposition, it's not in our power. They had the power to reform church and state, we don't. So we'll talk about that. The other thing is this idea of vowing where there is no promise of ability from God. And that, you know, sometimes we vow things which are maybe not immediately under our power. However, we do have an obligation oftentimes to vow in that manner. If it's something where God has said, do this, or if God has promised some ability to do something. So, you know, at one level we might say, well, it's not in our power not to sin, because we haven't reached a state of sinless perfection. No, but we can vow, not because it's not in our power not to sin, but because God has commanded us to and He has promised to aid us in keeping ourselves from sin. You know, should we devote ourselves in that direction to keep ourselves unspotted from the world? So those are the things that we're going to be talking about. As I say, the first part is mainly doctrinal. The second part is application. The second part, and we're going to find this in other places in the Confession as well, where there's certain applications, and I know some people find these applications a little off-putting. They don't think of them as binding. What the Confession is actually teaching us by structuring this section, for example, in this manner, is that the doctrine and its proper application are not two different things. You know, when people say to you, oh, we agree with regard to the doctrine, we agree about this, but we differ in application, what they're really saying is, we don't hold the same doctrine. It's a workaround in their mind. They want to think that they hold the same doctrine. They actually don't. And that raises questions. Do they even worship the same God? There should be some question, but it's something we could have talked about when we talked about the doctrine of worship in the last chapter. that people say, oh, I agree with the regulative principle, but I disagree with the application that it would entail singing only psalms, or that it would entail not celebrating holy days, or that it would entail not using musical instruments in the worship of God. That sort of thing. To say I agree with the regulative principle, but is really to confess you don't agree with it. You think that, you think generally it may be a good idea in areas where you don't want to see some sort of corruption creep in. You know, maybe you're in favor of wine in the Lord's Supper and you're going to plead the regulative principle there. Maybe you're one of these people who you don't want like a rock and roll band going on in the worship of God. You're gonna try to plead that there, right? You're going to push it in that direction, even though you're okay with a piano or an organ because those somehow are holy instruments, but the guitar is an unsanctified, you know, device of the devil. Right? It's an expression of deep confusion in your thinking. And really, it all goes back to the fact that you don't really believe in the regulative principle. So this section, because this was such a hotly contested issue, and frankly, the regulative principle issues were not nearly as contested at least not in the areas where this confession is being subscribed by the people who are doing it, there's a general agreement here. The Westminster Divines sent out an edict, and in the edict they called for the tearing out of the organs, the great organs in St. Peter's and Paul's cathedrals in London. They agreed. There was a general agreement about where this regulative principle was going to take them. So there was not that argument. This, however, because it was really at the center of their contest with Rome and becomes an issue when we start talking about the nature of the church, They felt this is something that needed to be discussed. This is something which was a much more hotly contested issue of the day. It's question one. May any man vow to do anything forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, but which is not his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no power of ability from God? The answer is no. When the day was come, a certain of the Jews made an assembly and bound themselves with who were drunk until they had killed Paul. Verse 14. And they came to the chief priests and elders and said, we have bound ourselves with a solemn curse that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. Mark 6, 26. And the king was exceeding sorry, yet for his oath's sake and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. So, both of these give examples of an unlawful act that has been contracted by an oath or a vow. But, as you said, a vow cannot bind you to do that which is unlawful or impossible for reasons before explained in relation to an oath. Again, look at Acts 23, 12-14. Acts 23 verses 12 through 14. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And there were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. And they came to the chief priests and elders and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, and we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. And frankly, what they were binding themselves to do was, of course, unlawful. At another level, we also know it was impossible. They were not going to be able to accomplish this because God has a purpose for Paul. But when we talk about things being impossible, we're not talking so much in that vein. They didn't know that it would be impossible. So in that sense, that's not why we're citing this. They were certainly vowing, they were binding themselves under a curse or an oath to do what was inherently unlawful. They were looking to take the life of someone innocent of any capital crime as far as they were aware. Their motive, their rationale for this oath or vow to kill Paul, that is rooted in their belief that he is an apostate who's making war against the true religion. And in that, they're sadly mistaken. But when we say something that is impossible, We're really talking about something that not simply lies outside of your power at the moment, but almost certainly will lie outside of your power under every consideration at any time in your life. Just the idea that you're going to do something, you bound yourself to do something, and it is simply and entirely outside of your, not necessarily even just your ability, because sometimes, you know, ability You can stretch your abilities, you can hone your abilities, you can increase your abilities. But this is something, we're talking about something that is so outside of your ability or even your ability to strive in that direction, make real inroads towards accomplishing that. To do that, to go down that road, is in itself sinful. And I think of it, I think in terms of someone I knew a number of years ago, who pledged to go to another country. And he was gonna be a missionary there, but he needed to learn, I think it was Sanskrit. So this was a guy who, He was struggling with the English language. A well-intentioned guy, but there was just no way that he was going to learn Sanskrit. And yet no one would tell him this. In fact, they were encouraging him to continue to pledge himself to this and so on. You know, it's not only wrong for him, but it's wrong for all those people who are encouraging him to do what, for him, probably is an impossibility. He doesn't have, and this is a case where we could say he doesn't even have any particular promise from God that he will get that ability, that he'll achieve that. It's very, very different from a situation where there might be some promise in the Word of God, but there really isn't that kind of promise in the Word of God. And so he couldn't even latch on to that. Taking a vow to do the impossible is sort of like taking a vow to fly under your own power. You know, to flap your arms like if I can flap my arms fast enough and jump off this cliff. Both are gonna end in disaster. One is going to end in physical disaster, but this is gonna end in a spiritual disaster. It's going to cause some kind of problem at some point. A vow shouldn't be taken to do anything that is not in the power of the person vowing. Look at Acts 5.4 and 1 Chronicles 29.5. Acts 5, verse 4. Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 1 Corinthians 29, verse 5. The gold for things of gold, and the silver for things of silver, after all manner of work, to be made by the hands of our Lord Jesus. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto you? So again, when we talk about power, not being in your power, we're not simply talking about, let's say, raw ability, although we have to consider that as well. But we're also talking about when we say it's in your power, not your power, we're saying that it has something to do with something over which you have authority. You know, whether your service, consecrate your service, like in 1 Chronicles 29.5, or giving of lands as they were pledging themselves to do in Acts 5, 4 and 5. You know, they didn't have to do that, but once they did, they bound themselves. You know, before they did it, it was in their power. It was under their power to do that or not to do that. They didn't have to do that. So again, it has to be, a vow has to respect something over which you have authority. You know, you can't lawfully take a vow that you're going to make 100 batches of cookies in someone else's kitchen. You don't have the authority. You may have the ability to make 100 batches of cookies, but you don't have the authority to do it there. It doesn't lie in your power to do it there. So you don't have the right to step out in that way. So you have to make sure it's not only a matter of ability, But it's something that actually falls under your legitimate authority. Particularly, there should be no vow when there exists no promise of ability from God. We're going to look at Isaiah 1, 12-15. Isaiah 1, 12-15. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts, bring no more vanillations. Incense is an abomination unto me. The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with. It is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble unto me. I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, So, you don't, you know, should you sacrifice to God, you know, under the Old Testament? Yes. But there are a number of things that you don't have the authority, nor do you have the promise of either ability or authority. from God. You just don't have it. Which is why you can't, just by consecrating your hymn singing to God, you cannot make it acceptable to Him. You're playing musical instruments in the worship of God. You cannot, through consecration or vow or oath or any other attempt to evade what's going on. You can't make it lawful. You cannot make it acceptable because you have no promise of God to do so. You certainly don't have the authority. To consecrate whatever worship you want to consecrate to God, is that in a way you're making yourself... you're contending directly against God's power, right? You're trying to make yourself God to say that... There is that. You are setting yourself in opposition to God when you engage in worship that He's not commanded. It's not under your authority. It doesn't matter how much you consecrate the building, which they so often do, which is superstitious. The sanctuary, right? Right. They call it the sanctuary and all of that. That's superstition. We don't have holy places under the New Testament. Only places under the old were typical and shadowy, just like musical instruments, just like animal sacrifice, just like incense, just like all of these other things. You see, I have no promise of ability that is to For example, in the case of breaching of the regularity principle, you don't have any promise of ability to make that praise acceptable to God. You don't have the authority or the promise that you will have the authority ever to determine what will be acceptable in the worship of God. There's just nothing there for you. So you shouldn't be making vows or taking vows to that effect. Last, nor when made by a child or other person under authority and destitute of the right to bind themselves of their own will. Numbers 30 verses 5, 8, 12, and 13. Numbers 30, verse 5. But if a father disallow her in the day that he heareth, not any of her vows or her bonds, wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand, and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. Verse 8. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it, then he shall make her vow what she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect, and the Lord shall forgive her. Verse 12 and 13. but if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them, and whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand. Her husband hath made them void, and the Lord shall forgive her. Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. So, the fact is that we have a situation where children, other persons who are under authority are not in fact given the authority, they don't have the authority to enter into any kind of covenant, oath, vow, without the express approval of those who are over them. It doesn't lie within their power to bind themselves because they are not competent, independent authorities. You're not a competent, independent authority until you have been released from parental authority until you have, in fact, been relinquished. One of the reasons why, for example, you have that custom of the father giving his daughter What he's doing is he's signaling this transfer of authority, because for women, they don't have that independent authority. They're not independent of their fathers, and then they're not independent of their husbands. There's a transfer of authority. There's a sense in which you're always under some authority. You always find yourself in submission to some authority. So that's maybe true, but generally speaking, fathers and husbands are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of being the door key to determine whether or not something is going to be allowed to stand or not when it comes to this doctrine of oaths and vows. Do unbelieving parents have the moral authority over a believing child to command them to do what is wrong? No, obviously they don't, but it's kind of got me thinking about that from, you know, an immoral constitution of government doesn't have the moral right to tell you what to do. Does that apply to the family sphere as well? obviously your parents have the right to tell you to do what is right, but do they have, especially if it's unbelieving, pagan parents, do they have any moral authority over you? They have moral authority over you. It's natural. It's not like, in other cases, not contracted. It's natural and it's there. It's really an inviolable bond between parent and a child, with rare exception. As long as the parent lives, as long as the child lives, there is some kind of obligation there. Now, it obviously shifts, it changes to some degree, you know, when you're married. But that does not mean that in every case, although what it does mean is at that point you are in a situation to enter into oaths and vows under your own authority if you're a male and under the authority of your husband if you're a female. It's not going to be under the authority of the father. That said, That's why the Bible very clearly talks about a number of things that have bearing on this. And really, one reason why this chapter comes before we look at the next three chapters, four chapters, we're going to be talking about the civil magistrate, we're going to be talking about marriage and divorce, we're going to be talking about the church. These are all institutions. Which involve the matter of vows. Which involve this issue of oaths and vows, right. So there's no mistaking that we're talking about this first. This isn't an afterthought, this is actually in some respects central to the existence of all of these different things. Anyway, if you're a child or if you're anyone who's under the authority of another, you cannot enter into an oath or vow. When I say under the authority of another, we're talking about it in terms of family, primarily in terms of fathers and husbands and so on. I think there are other ways we can think about this. In terms of business, what you're doing when you enter into a contract, in terms of business, is you are placing yourself under an authority. So you may, in fact, not have the authority to do certain things by virtue of that covenant of commerce. You know, you have to look at that. So, as far as the parent's authority to make null and void the unlawful or rash vows of their spouses or their children, does that involve, would that apply to like, say, like a single child who maybe made a rash vow? Does the parent have the right to disavow that? Like, say, if the child says, I will never drink for the rest of my life, does the parent, upon coming to understand that, have the right to say, that was a rash vow, you're not bound to that? Yes. Because you're still under the parent's... Yes. Yeah, they would have a right to negate that. You don't have the right to do a number of things as as a child still under the authority of parents without their permission. So you should be, as long as you're under someone else's authority, you should be informing them of the oath that you would like to take? Yeah, I would say even when you're, again, when you're outside of that authority, right, you have an independent authority as a husband or as a father, just as someone in society, it's possible that you're going to find yourself in a situation where you're being asked to make some vow, but you can't, you don't have the authority. Just because You have authority in a lot of areas, but for example, you don't have the authority to negotiate an arms deal on behalf of the United States. That may seem like an extreme example, but I use that because it should be obvious. But there are things which are maybe a little less obvious, but if you thought about them a little bit more, you would realize that you don't really have a clear title to authority in this matter. You know, you're in contract with someone. You know, you have a no-compete clause you signed. You know, when you took some position and you leave a job and you've promised not to do certain things for five years or something like that. You know, so you don't have an authority then to enter into certain kinds of of other commercial contracts. It's really a very similar idea, so it shouldn't seem strange. I mean, we actually observe this in commerce, and it's more understandable, I think, to people in terms of commerce than stopping to think about the fundamental structure of society. So this idea, like you said, you're 18, you're just free to do whatever you want, even if you do move out, you're still under your parents' You still have obligations. You're never entirely free of an obligation to your parents as long as they're alive, right? You have a certain obligation to honor them. That doesn't stop when you turn 18 or you move out or even if you get married. All of a sudden now I'm married, I don't have to honor my parents. I don't have to pay attention to that commandment. No, that's not how it works. So, the point of this, however, is there are certain hierarchies within social order. they have to be honored. The Bible does not, for example, conceive of marriage as being this joining of two equals. They're two different parties. I mean, this idea that you're joining two equals is why we've gotten to this point where men can marry men. Because it wouldn't even be a possible thing if we were thinking of marriage in terms other than this egalitarian agreement. And these orders are rooted in nature, correct? Yes. Yeah, these are established in nature. Just a quick question to step back to the parents. If your parents, you know, I don't know if the word command is a little bit too strong, but command you to do something like, I mean, John Brown of Haddington, he'd leave dying advice for his children, things like that. Yes. And your parents die, you're still obligated to do what they wanted you to do, right? Yes, you still bear a certain obligation to that. I mean, parents should be very careful not to bind their children too stringently because they don't know what's going to fall out in the future. But at the same time, parents should be, you know, they should, I think, leave a sort of dying request. We leave behind wills. I think if you look in the Bible, when people in the Bible are dying, they very often are blessing and advising on their deathbeds. Jacob and his sons are a perfect example. or Joseph, huh? Joseph's bones, right? Yeah, Joseph's bones go off, right? Yeah, so that, he commands that with respect to his, his posterity, and they do it, right? Yes, that's not outside of the realm. Does a woman have authority to divorce her husband? I couldn't find that in Scripture. No, not really. I mean she has, not of herself, but when we get to marriage and divorce we'll talk about that because really what we're going to find is neither party has the right. This idea of no-fault divorce is not biblical. The fact is that divorce has to be it has to be enacted by a competent authority. And it usually, and it really should involve the church and the state, you know, when it becomes necessary. That's a situation where you, You've bound yourself in such a way that you don't have the authority to unbind. You don't have it. The authority to unbind has to be at the discretion of others. And the other thing here is, to an extent, And for example, in Domestical Duties, you see this principle that we're talking about, about being under authority. When you read Domestical Duties, he talks about in there that wives don't have the right to dispose of their property without the consent of the husband. Whereas husbands do have the right to dispose of property without the consent of their wives, although they're counseled to be very circumspect in doing so. And it's this same principle that we're talking about that lies behind why when we talk about oaths and vows, both children and other persons under authority, you know, wives and so on, they, I mean, this could extend to the military, right? You're in the military, you can't, I don't know what it is now, but I know for a long time, if you joined the military, for example, you weren't allowed to get a tattoo without their permission, because they owned you. They own you while you're in the military. You do that, and there was a time when you could get in a lot of trouble. I don't know how severe, but I know it could be pretty serious. They took you the way you came to them, but you weren't allowed to do anything. You have your hair cut the way they want it. You wear the clothes they want you to wear. You're where they want you to be whenever they tell you to be there, period. You have no authority over anything in your life. And you certainly don't, then, in this matter of oaths and vows. I don't know, again, where it is now, but it should follow that in that situation, they have certain rights to intervene and to tell you don't do this and don't do that. When it comes to military vows, say, you know, some guy joins the military and he's converted and comes across this idea or this doctrine of oaths and vows, what would he biblically be required to do? Would he be required to renounce his oath and leave the military? Or would he keep his oath as long as they don't force him to do anything sinful? And then once, obviously, his contract is up, Get away from it. I think you've got to tell them that you now view yourself in a very different relation. You have to keep that oath to the extent that you can. I guess that's where Acts 5.29 would kick in, right? As long as you're not offending God. Yeah, you've got to do that. But, I mean, if you're a believer, you should have never taken that oath or vow in the first place. It was rash, it was sinful, but to the extent that what is being required of you is not sinful, not rash, and so on, you're going to have to do it. You kind of have to suck that up. You entered into it, you did so of your authority. But in the same way, I would say that this is a situation where, just in terms of what Scripture is saying, people shouldn't be allowed to join the military without their parents' consent. Because you're going to enter into an oath or vow. There should be the ability to negate that. Of course, I don't think that would go very far in our society today. Let's move on to question two. Are Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life so far from being a degree of higher perfection that it is a superstitious and sinful snare in which no Christian may entangle himself The answer is yes. Again, looking at Matthew 19, 11 and 12, as well as 1 Corinthians 7, 2 and 9. Matthew 19, 11 and 12. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb, and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men. And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 1 Corinthians 7, verses 2 and 9. Verse 2, nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. And verse 9, but if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So, the papists are maintaining monastical vows for perpetual single life to be a degree of higher perfection. That verse from Matthew 19, 11, and 12 about some being born eunuchs and some who made themselves eunuchs, you may have heard me relate this story, but Origen, church father, when he read that, concluded from that that he should castrate himself, and he did. And that was, Of course, that was not a good thing to do. So, that's not what that is talking about. We know some people have what has been called the gift of confidence, but even if you have that, if you are able to live a chaste life for a time, It's no guarantee that at some point you're not going to want to marry. So even there, this idea of perpetual chastity, we'll come back to that, perpetual celibacy, that's a promise, a promise that no one should make. They're confuted for the following reasons, because a vow of perpetual single life is unlawful, Proverbs 18, verse 22. Proverbs 18 verse 22, whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favor of the Lord. Yeah, the Bible says if you find a wife you've found a good thing and you've found favor with the Lord. It doesn't give that kind of advice just to some, but to all. It's viewed as Something which pertains to all men so that doesn't sound like the Bible's in fact Interested in this perpetual single life I know may not avow the performance of that which he has not promised the strength to perform first Corinthians 7 7 and 1 Corinthians 7, verse 7, For I would that all men were even as I myself, but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that. The fact is, again, confidence is a gift, but as Paul says, not everybody has it, and even if you have it for a time, there's no guarantee that you have it perpetually. And so pledging yourself to this is a problem. So although every man ought to exercise continence, this idea of chastity is a good one, yet as no man has a promise of perpetual continency, which is necessarily required to perpetual single life, no man ought to pledge himself to such. 1 Corinthians 7, 9 again. 1 Corinthians 7, verse 9. But if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. Paul says, look, there may come a time when you cannot contain, that is, when this continence comes to an end. Christ says expressly, the gift of condescension is not given to all men. Matthew 19.11 again. Matthew 19.11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this thing, save they whom it is given. So, it's something which some have and not others. But even those who have it may only have it for a time. We just don't know. You shouldn't be pledging yourself that just because you're not interested in being married today doesn't mean that in 10 years you're not going to be. Some people are married very young, some people are married in midlife, and some are married much later in life. But most people marry. Most people at the end of it all show that they didn't have a gift of perpetual continency. And that has to do with the fact that we are created to be social beings. We are social creatures. But second, because marriage is honorable in all men and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13, verse 4. Hebrews 13, verse 4. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Yeah, so this idea that there's a higher degree of perfection. And by the way, this idea, they get this idea from what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 when he says that it is, you know, if a man gives his daughter in marriage, it is a good thing, but if he keeps her, if she remains a virgin, it's better. So, say, going back to the authority of the parents, if a daughter runs away with a guy and marries another guy, does the father have the right to annul that marriage? Yes. After it's already done? Yes. So, now there may be reasons why he shouldn't. But does he have the authority? Yes. Is it always the wisest course? No. So if your daughter marries some bum drug dealer, it's probably the wisest thing to say, hey, no. Maybe. Maybe. You've got to take a lot of things into account. I mean, there was a time in which we lived in a society where she probably would never be able to find a suitable husband again because she was used. So that, and I would expect that there will be a time, hopefully soon, where that will be the case all over again. So that generally when the morals of a society increase, it's going to be harder and harder to do something with people in that condition. You have to take that into account. But anyway, the idea that he who gives his daughter in marriage has done well, but he who's kept the virgin has done better, they use that as one of these counsels, as proof for one of these counsels, along with the passage in Matthew 19. And what they fail to recognize or realize, is the context in which Paul is speaking. Paul tells us that what is better is that a woman who is not married has more time to focus on spiritual things and give herself to serving the Lord. She's not going to be serving her husband and she's not going to be doing things that are going to interfere with all of those other things. It's better in that respect, in that context. But that does not mean that marriage is somehow a lesser state. This is a big point of contention between the reformers and the Papists at the time of the Reformation. Third, because the Apostle bids every man take his own wife for shedding of fornication, 1 Corinthians 7, 1, 2, and 9. 1 Corinthians 7, verses 1 and 2. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Then verse 9. But if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So, you know, Paul, again, Paul is saying it's good for a man not even to touch a woman. That doesn't mean that it's not good for a man never to marry, but he's saying it's good that men avoid that. There is a provocation to the flesh. And so, particularly in an unmarried state, it's provocative. It's provocative to people just seeing other people behaving in that way, let alone doing it themselves. So there's no wonder then that Paul is talking about that. He's trying to avoid people falling into fornication. He's trying to encourage confidence until and unless they are in a situation where they can marry, those who are single. That's a very different proposition from that of Rome, which portrays perpetual celibacy as this ideal state of higher perfection. Fourth, because the forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of devils, 1 Timothy 4, 1 and 3. 1 Timothy 4 verse 1, Now in the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. And verse 3, Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received for thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Right, so you know again It's not even as if this idea hadn't been anticipated in Scripture. Paul warns against those who would forbid marriage. And that's exactly what that is. A vow of perpetual single life is a forbidding of marriage. And it's called a doctrine of devils. Precisely, again, because you're binding yourself to a course that very, very few people will find conducive and even attainable in this life. Question three. Are popish monastical vows of a professed poverty so far from being a degree of higher perfection that it is a superstitious and sinful scenario in which no Christian may entangle himself? The answer is yes. We're looking at Ephesians 4, verse 28. Ephesians 4, verse 28. Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good that he may have to give to him that need it. The ideal in the Bible is that those who are able-bodied should work in order to assist those who can't. Those who are in need. Real need. And it's very clearly the distinguishing feature of the needy and the lazy is work. Can you work? What can you do? Do it. Do what you can. Why? Not so that you can heap up riches to yourself, but so that you're in a position to help others. You have an obligation. You can't do that with a vow of poverty means you're going to be perpetually, you're going to be a beggar. In fact, some of these monastic orders would send their people out to beg. They would go around and beg for food. They would beg. These various monks would wander around at the time of the Reformation begging for food, for clothes, for attention, I guess. I don't know. The rest of the papers there are then maintaining monastical vows so they profess poverty to be a higher degree of perfection. Again, it's this idea that they get from what they perceive to be gospel counsels. You know, blessed are the poor. Well, that's a gospel counsel, they would say. And they would take that and then say, well, you know, it's not unlawful to have this or that, but the higher gospel counsel would be to be poor. The time that you save not being married and distracted by all that, don't you waste it going out and begging all the time? What's this? If you're saving time to sort of spend studying by not being married... Oh, yes. Are you turning around and wasting that time if you have to go out and spend half your time begging for money or food? Well, it depends. Some of these guys would spend their time studying. Some would spend their time praying. Some would spend their time singing. Some would spend their time gardening. They would all spend some time doing all these things, but some of them would tend to do more of one than the other. Show to be unlawful, first of all, because the Lord did not allow beggars to be among His people of old. Deuteronomy 15, 7. Deuteronomy 15 verse 7, If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates and thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shalt thine hand from thy poor brethren. God doesn't want beggars. If there are the poor, we have an obligation to take care of the poor. But we should not be encouraging beggars, right? How are we going to take care of the poor? Well, we distinguish, again, between, I know people today don't like this, but the Bible distinguishes, and historically we would distinguish between what we called the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. And again, it usually came down to, the big question was, can you work, do you work? If you can work and you don't, you're undeserving poor. If you can't work and you don't, you're deserving poor. Or if you're working but you can't quite make everything ends meet all the time, you're deserving poor. Those who are able to work and won't, they viewed as parasites on society. And second, because Ager wished the Lord might not give him poverty, lest he should steal and take the name of God in vain. Proverbs 30, verses eight and nine. Proverbs 30, eight and nine. Remove far from me vanity and lies. Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with food convenient for me, lest I be full and deny thee and say, who is the Lord? Lest I be poor and steal and take the name of my God in vain. So, Edgar wants to avoid the extremes of poverty. That's one of his petitions. And if we consider that as a counsel from the wisest man who ever lived, then we need to probably reconsider whether or not a vow of professed poverty is going to be the best course for us to take. Poverty has its own peculiar temptations. If wealth has its own trappings and its own problems, so does poverty, which is why you're saying, I don't want to be rich and I don't want to be poor. The best place is to be somewhere in between. If I have too much, I may forget God. If I have too little, I may curse God. The third, because the Lord will have every man eat his bread in the sweat of his face. Genesis 3, 19. Genesis 3, verse 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return into the ground, for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. So again, from the moment of man's fall, God has decreed that man should work in order that he might earn his bread. That whole idea is contrary to professed poverty. I mean, professed poverty, If you, and this has very often been the case, if you do a minimum work-wise each day, work in a minimal situation, you're probably going to, at the very least, find subsistence. You may not be living high, you may not be living great, but you will subsist. Professed poverty, I mean, what they're talking about, divesting yourself of everything, takes an additional effort. You have to, in a sense, pledge yourself not to work in order to attain that kind of poverty, which is why a lot of them, as they say, they didn't work. They wandered around and begged. Now, when I talk about the difference between the needy who were deserving and then the undeserving, That distinction was, for example, held forth in Scotland. For a long time, they would issue tags for beggars. You'd have to go before the authorities and plead your case. And if you really were unable to work, you know, I've got one leg leprosy and I'm blind in both eyes, you'd probably be found as a deserving, needy person, and you're going to get a tag. You can work. If you're an agent and you need this and you obviously can't go out and work in the fields anymore, they're going to give you that tag. There are a number of reasons, but they would actually issue beggar tags. And beggar tags in Scotland were limited. You had a permit to beg in your town, not in another town. You couldn't go anywhere you wanted to beg. You had to beg amongst your people. And they would see that tag and they would know you were deserving poor, and people would be more inclined to help you. If you didn't have one of those tags, they figured that you were probably just trying to get it over on them. With the number of beggars we have, and so many people in this country that want to beg, we probably would be better off doing something like that so you would know, is this person deserving poor or not? You know, give them a beggar tag. Then at least they'll have to guard that, right? They'll have to do something. And fourth, because the apostle commands the Thessalonians to work with their own hands, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 11. 1 Thessalonians 4 verse 11, and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. So again, the apostolic injunction is work. Work with your own hands. Work at this. Do this. And fifth, because professed poverty hinders a greater good, our charity and benevolence towards the poor indigent members of Christ, which is contrary to the apostles' rule." Again, Ephesians 4, 28. Ephesians 4, verse 28, "'Let him that stole steal out more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.'" Yeah, that he may have to give to him that needeth. I mean, if you're deliberately trying to be poor, you're not going to be able to exercise charity yourself toward the poor. So there's something inherently wrong with that, right? You're missing the point when you take this vow of poverty. You're actually cutting yourself off from opportunities of real charity. And what you're doing is you're really burdening the church unnecessarily with another poverty case. The poor, we're told, will always be with us. Deliberately to pledge yourself to be poor is deliberately to pledge yourself to be another burden placed upon the resources of the Church. Last question. Are Popish monastical vows of irregular obedience so far from being a degree of higher perfection that it's a superstitious and sinful scenario in which no Christian may entangle himself? And the answer is yes. 1 Peter 4, 2. 1 Peter 4, verse 2, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lust of men, but to the will of God. We're not commanded to place our wills under the will of another. That's not what we're called to do or to be. We're called to yield ourselves, willing before God, yield our wills up to God, and so on. Not to a father superior. Thus, we say to the Papists due error, maintaining monastical vows of irregular obedience to be a degree of higher perfection. And there are a number of reasons for that, but it's likely shown to be unlawful because it makes us the servants of men, which is contrary to what the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7.23. 1 Corinthians 7.23, you're bought with a price of being not servants of men. Don't be servants of men. You're bought with a price. But again, what's the problem with this vow of regular obedience? Well, you're pledging yourself to be the servants of men. If we were to look through a number of things that Paul says when talking to people, he tells them, be content with whatever estate you're in. However, when he talks about slaves, those who are servants, And by that he meant domestic servants who were slaves. They were held as property to some extent. He says, don't be overly anxious to get yourself out of that situation. Be content in it. But if you have the opportunity, or if someone were to purchase your freedom, avail yourself of it. Why? So that you are more free to serve God. Why then would you want to put yourself under some vow of regular obedience? Putting yourself in a state of voluntary slavery. That's what these monks really are. They're slaves. Slaves to what the abbot or the father superior or whatever these people who are running these monasteries are saying. Do what they're told to do. And that passage, 1 Corinthians 7.23, denotes doing anything for the service or obedience of men as superiors, which should be repugnant to the commands of the service of God. We'll get it in Acts 5.29. Acts 5.29, then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men. Ultimately, and this is another problem Many of these monastical vows involved actions which were not only beside the Word of God, but sometimes contrary to the Word of God. We've talked about a couple of them. This vow of perpetual single life, this vow of professed poverty. actually against certain things that God would have us to do or to be. So you shouldn't suffer yourselves to be brought into bondage by any man. You should not freely use that which the Lord has made free to us. 2 Peter 2.19 and John 8, 36. Second Peter 2, 19. While they promised them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption, for of whom a man is overcome of the same as he brought into bondage. John 8, verse 36. The Son, therefore, shall make you free, and you shall be free indeed. So again, Christianity is about being set free from these rules of men. Does that include that all men have the right to resist, even to the death, unlawful, unjust tyranny and slavery? Like a slave from Africa on one of those ships had the moral right by God to fight back and to kill if he had to those who were trying to take him against his will to be a slave. even though they were being sold into slavery by oftentimes their superiors? Yes. Does that apply to the U.S. government? It applies to every... There's no authority over God's authority. I mean, you've... You know, slavery... Slavery is against the natural state of man. And although there are rules that are to be observed in that relation, the fact is that it's one thing when we're talking about a voluntary servitude. It's another thing when it's based on kidnapping, which is what the African slave trade was based upon. It was almost all kidnapping. In the Bible, it's a death penalty offense, kidnapping. So these people are not innocent in this regard. But if you talk about indentured servitude, very different proposition. Now you're dealing with a situation where there may be good and laudable reasons for you to enter into that. But it's going to depend, again, upon any oaths and vows that are involved. You can't enter into a situation which will entail a sinful course of action on your part, or the taking of a sinful oath or vow. We're going to move next in Chapter 23 on the Civil Magistrate. We will discuss the origin of the Magistrate and the duties of the Magistrate and so on. So the next few weeks we'll be talking about Chapter 23. And in the background, keep in mind, you know, this Doctrine of Most Vows has a lot of bearing on our relationship to the Magistrate.