Chapter XIII: Of Monastic Vows (Article XXVII)

p. 280 Article XXVII: Of Monastic Vows

In the town of Eisenach in Thuringia there was, to our p. 281 knowledge, a monk, John Hilten,¹ who thirty years ago was cast by his fraternity into prison, because he had protested against certain most notorious abuses. For we have seen his writings, from which it can be well understood what the nature of his doctrine was. And those who knew him testify that he was a mild old man, and serious indeed, but without moroseness. He predicted many things, some of which have thus far transpired, and others still seem to impend, which we do not wish to recite, lest it may be inferred that they are narrated either from hatred toward one or from partiality to another. But finally when, either on account of his age or the foulness of the prison, he fell into disease, he sent for the guardian, in order to tell him of his sickness; and when the guardian, inflamed with pharisaic hatred, had begun to reprove the man harshly on account of his kind of doctrine which seemed to be injurious to the kitchen; then, passing by the mention of his sickness, he said with a sigh that he had borne these injuries patiently for Christ’s sake, since he had indeed neither written nor taught anything which could overthrow the position of the monks, but had only protested again some wellknown abuses. “But another one,” he said, “will come in A. D. 1516, who will destroy you, neither will you be able to resist him.” This very opinion concerning the downward career of the power of the monks, and this number of years, his friends afterwards found also written by him in his Commentaries,² which he had left, concerning certain passages of Daniel. But although the issue will teach how much weight should be given to this declaration, yet there are other signs which threaten a change in the power of the monks, that are no less certain than oracles. For it is evident how much hypocrisy, ambition, avarice there is in the monasteries, how much ignorance and cruelty among all the unlearned, what vanity in their sermons and in devising continually new means of gaining money. And there are other faults, which we do not care about mentioning. Although there once were schools for p. 282 Christian instruction, now they have degenerated as though from a golden to an iron age, or as the Platonic cube degenerates into bad harmonies, which Plato says brings destruction. All the most wealthy monasteries support only an idle crowd, which gluttonizes upon the public alms of the Church. Christ, however, teaches concerning the salt that has lost its savor, that it should be cast out and be trodden under foot (Matt. 5:13). Wherefore the monks by such morals are singing their own fate [requiem]. And now another sign is added, because they are, in many places, the instigators of the death of good men. These murders God undoubtedly will shortly avenge. Nor indeed do we find fault with all; for we are of the opinion that there are here and there some good men in the monasteries, who judge moderately concerning human and facetious services, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of the cruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Arts. xvi., xxvii; Apology, Art xvi.; Smalcald Articles, Part iii., Arts. iii., xiv. Cf. Torgau Articles, xv.

¹ Luther wrote on the margin of his copy: “I think that this man was still alive, or had only recently died, when I was beginning my education at Eisenach. For I remember that my host, Henry Schalden, made mention of him compassionately, as though bound in prison. I was moreover fourteen or fifteen years of age. The same Henry Schalden was likewise very intimate with the Minorites, and together with his entire family was almost their captive and slave.” Concerning Hilten, see LÆSCHER, Reformationsacta, I., p. 148 sq.

² Commentar. on the Apocalypse and the text of Daniel, in so far as it agrees with the Apocalypse or supplies it. Some quotations are made from this book in MELCH. ADAMI, Vitæ Theologorum, p. 2 sq.

But we are now discussing the kind of doctrine which the composers of the Confutation are now defending, and not the question whether vows should be observed. For we hold that lawful vows ought to be observed; but whether these services merit the remission of sins and justification; whether they are satisfactions for sins; whether they are equal to baptism; whether they are the observance of precepts and counsels; whether they are evangelical perfection; whether they have the merits of supererogation; whether these merits when applied on behalf of others save them; whether vows made with these opinions are lawful; whether vows are lawful that are undertaken under the pretext of religion, merely for the sake of appetite and idleness; whether those are truly vows that have been extorted either from the unwilling, or from those who on account of age were not able to judge concerning the kind of life, whom parents or friends thrust into the monasteries, that they might be supported at the public expense without the loss of private patrimony; whether vows are lawful that openly tend to an evil issue, either because on account of weakness they are not observed, or because those who are in these fraternities are compelled to approve and aid the abuses of the Mass, the godless worship of saints, and the counsels to rage against good men concerning such questions as these we are treating. And although we have said very many things in the Confession concerning such vows as even the canons of the popes condemn, nevertheless the adversaries command that all things which we have produced be rejected. For they have used these words.

And it is worth while to hear how they pervert our reasons, and what they adduce to establish their own cause. Accordingly we will briefly run over a few of our arguments, and, in p. 283 passing, explain away the sophistry of the adversaries in reference to them. Since, however, this entire case has been carefully and fully treated by Luther in the book to which he gave the title De Votis Monasticis, we wish here to consider that book as repeated.

First, it is very certain that a vow is not lawful, by which he who vows thinks that he merits the remission of sins before God, or makes satisfaction before God for sins. For this opinion is a manifest insult to the Gospel, which teaches that the remission of sins is freely granted us for Christ’s sake, as has been said above at some length. Therefore we have correctly quoted the declaration of Paul to the Galatians (Gal. 5:4): “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace.” Those who seek the remission of sins, not by faith in Christ, but by monastic works, detract from the honor of Christ, and crucify Christ afresh. But hear, hear how the composers of the Confutation escape in this place! They explain this passage of Paul only concerning the Law of Moses, and they add that the monks observe all things for Christ’s sake, and endeavor to live the nearer the Gospel in order to merit eternal life. And they add a horrible peroration in these words: “Wherefore those things are wicked that are here alleged against monasticism.” O Christ, how long wilt thou bear these reproaches with which our enemies treat thy Gospel? We have said in the Confession¹ that the remission of sins is received freely for Christ’s sake through faith. If this is not the very voice of the Gospel, if it is not the judgment of the eternal Father, which thou who art in the bosom of the Father hast revealed to the world, we are justly blamed. But thy death is a witness, thy resurrection is a witness, the Holy Ghost is a witness, thy entire Church is a witness, that it is truly the judgment of the Gospel that we obtain remission of sins, not on account of our merits, but on account of thee, through faith.

¹ Augsburg Confession, iv., vi., xii.

When Paul denies that, by the Law of Moses, men merit the remission of sins, much more does he withdraw this praise from human traditions; and this (Col. 2:16) clearly testifies. If the Law of Moses, which was divinely revealed, did not merit the remission of sins, how much less do these silly observances [monasticism, rosaries, etc.], differing from the civil custom of life, merit the remission of sins!

The adversaries feign that Paul abolishes the Law of Moses, and that Christ succeeds in such a way that he does not freely grant the remission of sins, but on account of the works of other laws, if any are now devised. By this godless and fanatical p. 284 imagination, they bury the benefit of Christ. Then they feign that among those who observe this Law of Christ, the monks observe it more rigidly than others, on account of the hypocrisy of poverty, obedience and chastity, since indeed all things are full of dissembling. In the greatest abundance of all things they boast of poverty. Although no class of men has greater license than the monks, they boast of obedience. Of celibacy we do not like to speak; how pure this is in most of those who desire to be continent, Gerson indicates. And how many of them desire to be continent?

Of course, by this dissimulation, the monks live more strictly in accordance with the Gospel! Christ has not succeeded Moses in such a way as on account of our works to remit sins, but so as to set his own merits and his own propitiation on our behalf over against God’s wrath, that we may be freely forgiven. He who, indeed, in addition to Christ’s propitiation, opposes his own merits to God’s wrath, and on account of his own merits endeavors to obtain the remission of sins, whether he present the works of the Mosaic Law, or of the Decalogue, or of the rule of Benedict, or of the rule of Augustine, or of other rules, annuls the promise of Christ, has cast away Christ, and has fallen from grace. This is the belief of Paul.

But, behold, most clement Emperor Charles, behold, ye princes, behold, all ye ranks, how great is the impudence of the adversaries! Although we have cited the declaration of Paul to this effect, they have written: “Wicked are those things that are here cited against monasticism.” But what is more certain than that men obtain the remission of sins by faith for Christ’s sake? And these wretches dare to call this a wicked opinion! We do not at all doubt that if you had been admonished of this passage, you would have taken care that such blasphemy be removed from the Confutation.

But since above it has been fully shown that the opinion is wicked, that we obtain the remission of sins on account of our works, we will be briefer on this topic. For the prudent reader will easily be able to reason thence that we do not merit the remission of sins by monastic works. Therefore this blasphemy also is in no way to be endured which is read in Thomas, that “the monastic profession is equal to baptism.”¹ It is madness to make human tradition, which has neither God’s command nor promise, equal to the ordinance of Christ, which has both the command and promise of God, which contains the covenant of grace and of eternal life.

¹ Cf. Smalcald Articles, Art. xiv., p. 335.

Secondly. Obedience, poverty and celibacy, if nevertheless the latter be not impure, are, as exercises, adiaphora. And, for this p. 285 reason, the saints can use these without impiety, just as Bernard, Franciscus and other holy men used them. And they used them on account of bodily advantage, that they might have more leisure to teach and to perform other godly offices, and not that the works themselves are, by themselves, works that justify or merit eternal life. Finally, they belong to the class of which Paul says (1 Tim. 4:8): “Bodily exercise profiteth little.” And it is credible that in some places there are also at present good men, who exercise the ministry of the Word, who use these observances without wicked opinions [without hypocrisy and with the understanding that they do not regard their monasticism as holiness]. But to hold that these observances are services, on account of which they are accounted just before God, and through which they merit eternal life, conflicts with the Gospel concerning the righteousness of faith, which teaches that for Christ’s sake righteousness and eternal life are granted us. It conflicts also with the saying of Christ (Matt. 15:9): “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” It conflicts also with this statement (Rom. 14:23): “Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” But how can they affirm that they are services which God approves as righteousness before him, when they have no testimony of God’s Word?

But look at the impudence of the adversaries! They not only teach that these observances are justifying services, but they add that these services are more perfect, i. e. meriting more the remission of sins and justification, than do other kinds of life [that they are states of perfection, i. e. holier and higher states than the rest, such as marriage, rulership]. And here many false and pernicious opinions concur. They imagine that they observe precepts and counsels. Afterwards liberal men, when they dream that they have the merits of supererogation, sell these to others. All these things are full of phar- 2, isaic vanity. For it is the height of impiety to hold that they satisfy the Decalogue in such a way that merits remain, while such precepts as these are accusing all the saints: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart” (Deut. 6:5). Likewise: “Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). [For as the First Commandment of God (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind”) is higher than a man upon earth can comprehend, as it is the highest theology, from which all the prophets and all the apostles have drawn as from a spring their best and highest doctrines; yea, as it is such an exalted commandment; according to which alone all divine service, all honor to God, every offering, all thanksgiving in heaven and upon earth, must be regulated and judged, so that all divine service, high p. 286 and precious and holy though it appear, if it be not in accordance with this commandment is nothing but husks and shells without a kernel, yea nothing but filth and abomination before God; which exalted commandment no saint whatever has perfectly fulfilled, so that even Noah and Abraham, David, Peter and Paul acknowledged themselves imperfect and sinners: it is an unheard-of, pharisaic, yea an actually diabolical pride, for a sordid barefooted monk or any similar godless hypocrite to say, yea preach and teach, that he has observed and fulfilled the holy high commandment so perfectly, and, according to the demands and will of God, has done so many good works, that merit even superabounds to him. Yea, dear hypocrites, if the holy Ten Commandments, and the exalted First Commandment of God were fulfilled just as the bread and remnants are put into the sack! They are shameless hypocrites with whom the world is plagued in this last time.] The prophet says (Ps. 116:11): “All men are liars,” i. e. not thinking aright concerning God, not fearing God sufficiently, not believing him sufficiently. Wherefore the monks falsely boast that in the observance of a monastic life the commandments are fulfilled, and more is done than what is commanded [that their good works and several hundredweights of superfluous, superabundant holiness remain in store for them].

Again, this also is false, viz. that monastic observances are works of the counsels of the Gospel. For the Gospel does not advise concerning distinctions of clothing and meats and the renunciation of property. These are human traditions, concerning all of which it has been said (1 Cor. 8:8): “Meat commendeth us not to God.” Wherefore they are neither justifying services nor perfection; yea when they are presented covered with these titles, they are mere doctrines of demons.

Virginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has been said above.¹ It is, however, a most pernicious error to hold that evangelical perfection lies in human traditions. For thus the monks even of the Mohammedans would be able to boast that they have evangelical perfection. Neither does it lie in the observance of other things which are called adiaphora, but because the kingdom of God is righteousness and life in hearts (Rom. 14:17), perfection is growth in the fear of God, and in confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and in devotion to one’s calling; just as Paul also describes perfection (2 Cor. 3:18): “We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” He does not say: We are continually receiving another hood, or other sandals, p. 287 or other girdles. It is deplorable that, in the Church, such pharisaic, yea Mohammedan, expressions should be read and heard, as that the perfection of the Gospel, of the kingdom of Christ, which is eternal life, should be placed in these foolish observances of vestments and of similar trifles.

¹ Apology, Art. xxiii., 19, p. 239

Now hear our Areopagites, as to what an unworthy declaration they have recorded in the Confutation. Thus they say: “It has been expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures that the monastic life, if maintained by a due observance, which by the grace of God any monks can maintain, merits eternal life; and indeed Christ has promised this as much more abundant to those who have left home or brothers,” etc. (Matt. 19:29). These are the words of the adversaries, in which it is first said most impudently that it is expressed in the Holy Scriptures that a monastic life merits eternal life. For where do the Holy Scriptures speak of a monastic life? Thus the adversaries plead their case, thus men of no account quote the Scriptures. Although no one is ignorant that the monastic life has recently been devised, nevertheless they cite the authority of Scripture, and say too that this their decree has been expressly declared in the Scriptures.

Besides, they dishonor Christ when they say that, by monasticism, men merit eternal life. God has ascribed not even to his Law the honor that it should merit eternal life, as he clearly says in Ezek. 20:25: “I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” In the first place, it is certain that a monastic life does not merit the remission of sins, but we obtain this by faith freely, as has above been said. Secondly, for Christ’s sake, through mercy, eternal life is granted to those who by faith receive remission, and do not set their own merits over against God’s judgment, as Bernard also says with very great force:¹ “It is necessary first of all to believe that you cannot have the remission of sins, unless by God’s indulgence. Secondly, that you can have no good work whatever, unless he have given also this.

¹ Apology, Art. xii., § 73, p. 179.

Lastly, that you can merit eternal life by no works, unless this also be given freely.” The rest that follows to the same effect we have above recited. Moreover, Bernard adds at the end: “Let no one deceive himself, because if he will reflect well, he will undoubtedly find that with ten thousand he cannot meet Him [namely, God] who cometh against him with twenty thousand.” Since, however, we do not merit the remission of sins or eternal life by the works of the divine Law, but it is necessary to seek the mercy promised in Christ; much less is this honor of meriting the remission of sins or eternal life p. 288 to be ascribed to monastic observances, since they are mere human traditions.

Thus those who teach that the monastic life merits the remission of sins or eternal life, and transfer the confidence due Christ to these foolish observances, altogether suppress the Gospel concerning the free remission of sins and the promised mercy in Christ that is to be apprehended. Instead of Christ they worship their own hoods and their own sordidness. But since even they need mercy, they act wickedly in fabricating works of supererogation, and selling them [the superfluous part in heaven] to others.

We speak the more briefly concerning these subjects, because from those things which we have said above concerning justification, concerning repentance, concerning human traditions, it is sufficiently evident that monastic vows are not a price on account of which the remission of sins and life eternal are granted. And since Christ calls traditions useless services,¹ they are in no way evangelical perfection.

¹ Matt. 15:9.

But the adversaries cunningly wish to modify the common opinion concerning perfection. They say that a monastic life is not perfection, but that it is a state in which to acquire perfection. It is well said, and we remember that this correction is found in Gerson. For it is apparent that prudent men, offended by these immoderate praises of monastic life, since they did not venture to remove entirely from it the praise of perfection, have added the correction that it is a state in which to acquire perfection. If we follow this, monasticism will be no more a state of perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic. For these are also states in which to acquire perfection. For all men, in every vocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear of God, in faith, in love towards one’s neighbor, and similar spiritual virtues.

In the histories of the hermits there are examples of Anthony and of others which make the various spheres of life equal. It is written that when Anthony asked God to show him what progress he was making in this kind of life, a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandria was indicated to him in a dream, to whom he should be compared. The next day Anthony came into the city, and went to the shoemaker in order to ascertain his exercises and gifts, and, having conversed with the man, heard nothing except that early in the morning he prayed in a few words for the entire state, and then attended to his trade. Here Anthony learned that justification is not to be ascribed to the kind of life which he had entered [what God had meant by the revelation; for we are justified before p. 289 God not through this or that life, but alone through faith in Christ].

But although the adversaries now moderate their praises concerning perfection, yet they actually think otherwise. For they sell merits, and apply them on behalf of others, under the pretext that they are observing precepts and counsels, on account of which they actually hold that they have superfluous merits. But what is it to arrogate to one’s self perfection, if this be not? Again it has been laid down in the Confutation that the monks endeavor to live more nearly in accordance with the Gospel. Therefore it ascribes perfection to human traditions if they are living more nearly in accordance with the Gospel by not having property, being unmarried, and obeying the rule in clothing, meats and like trifles.

Again the Confutation says that the monks merit eternal life 4c the more abundantly, and quotes Scripture (Matt. 19:29): “Every one that hath forsaken houses,” etc., viz. that this claims perfection also for factitious religious rites. But this passage of Scripture in no way favors monastic life. For Christ does not mean that to forsake parents, wife, brethren, is a work that must be done because it merits the remission of sins and eternal life. Yea such a forsaking is cursed. For if any one forsake parents or wife, in order by this very work to merit the remission of sins or eternal life, this is done with dishonor to Christ.

There is, moreover, a twofold forsaking. One occurs without a call, without God’s command; this Christ does not approve (Matt. 15:9). For the works chosen by us are useless services. But it appears the more clearly that Christ does not approve this flight from the fact that he speaks of forsaking wife and children. We know, however, that God’s commandment forbids the forsaking of wife and children. The forsaking which occurs by God’s command is of a different kind, viz. when power or tyranny compels us either to depart or to deny the Gospel. Here we have the command that we should the rather bear injury, that we should rather suffer not only wealth, wife and children, but even life, to be taken from us. This forsaking Christ approves, and accordingly he adds: “For the Gospel’s sake” (Mark 10:29), in order to signify that he is speaking not of those who do injury to wife and children, but who bear injury on account of the confession of the Gospel. For the Gospel’s sake we ought even to forsake our body. Here it would be ridiculous to hold that it would be a service to God to kill one’s self, and without God’s command to leave the body. So too it is ridiculous to hold that it is a service to God without God’s command to forsake possessions, friends, wife, children.

p. 290 Therefore it is evident that they wickedly distort Christ’s word to a monastic life. Unless perhaps the declaration that they “receive a hundred-fold in this life” be in place here. For very many become monks not on account of the Gospel, but on account of sumptuous living and idleness, who find the most ample riches instead of slender patrimonies. But as the entire subject of monasticism is full of shams, so, by a false pretext, they quote testimonies of Scripture, and as a consequence they sin doubly, i. e. they deceive men, and that too under the pretext of the divine name.

Another passage is also cited concerning perfection (Matt. 19:21): “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and come and follow me.”¹ This passage has exercised many, who have imagined that it is perfection to cast away possessions and the control of property. Let us allow the philosophers to extol Aristippus, who cast a great weight of gold into the sea. [Cynics like Diogenes, who would have no house, but lay in a tub, may commend such heathenish holiness.] Such examples pertain in no way to Christian perfection. [Christian holiness consists in much higher matters than such hypocrisy.] The division, control and possession of property are civil ordinances, approved by God’s Word in the commandment (Ex. 20:15): “Thou shalt not steal.” The abandonment of property has no command or advice in the Scriptures.² For evangelical poverty does not consist in the abandonment of property, but not to be avaricious, not to trust in wealth, just as David was poor in a most wealthy kingdom.

¹ Luther wrote on the margin of his copy of the Apology: “Go, sell all things,’ but for the same reason for which they should be forsaken, i. e. for Christ’s sake, not by one’s own choice.”

² Luther on margin: “The poor in spirit are called blessed for the same reason as above.”

Wherefore since the abandonment of property is merely a human tradition, it is a useless service. Excessive also are the praises in the Extravagant,³ which says that the abdication of the ownership of all things for God’s sake is meritorious and holy and a way of perfection. And it is very dangerous to extol with such excessive praises a matter conflicting with political order. [When inexperienced people hear such commendations, they conclude that it is unchristian to hold property; whence then many errors and seditions follow; through such commendations Münzer was deceived, and thereby many Anabaptists were led astray.] But Christ here speaks of perfection. p. 291 Yea they do violence to the text who quote it mutilated. Perfection is in that which Christ adds: “Follow me.”¹ The example of obedience in one’s calling has been presented. And as callings are unlike [one is called to rulership, a second to be father of a family, a third to be a preacher]; so this calling does not belong to all,² but pertains properly to that person with whom Christ there speaks, just as the call of David to the kingdom, and of Abraham to slay his son, are not to be imitated by us. Callings are personal,³ just as matters of business themselves vary with times and persons; but the example of obedience is general. Perfection would have belonged to that young man if he had believed and obeyed this vocation. Thus perfection with us is that every one with true faith should obey his own calling. [Not that I should undertake a strange calling for which I have not the commission or command of God.]

³ Extravag. of John XXII., tit., xiv., cap. 5, where these words of Pope Nicholas III. are quoted from Lib. vi., Decretal l. v., t. xii., c. 8.

¹ Luther adds: “I. e. Suffer with me.”

² Luther on margin: “Yea, it does not belong to all, because on account of Christ, it is public.”

³ Luther on margin: “No.”

Thirdly. In monastic vows chastity is promised. We have said above, however, concerning the marriage of priests, that the law of nature in men cannot be removed by vows or enactments.⁴ And as all do not have the gift of continence, many because of weakness are unsuccessfully continent. Neither er indeed can any vows or any enactments abolish the command of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 7:2): “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” Wherefore this vow is not lawful in those who do not have the gift of ccntinence, but who are polluted on account of weakness. Concerning this entire topic enough has been said above, in regard to which indeed it is wonderful, since the dangers and scandals are occurring before the eyes, that the adversaries still defend their traditions contrary to the manifest command of God. Neither does the voice of Christ move them, who chides the Pharisees (Matt. 23: sq.), who made traditions contrary to God’s command.

⁴ Cf. Apology xxiii., § 7 sq., p. 237.

Fourthly. Those who live in monasteries are released from their vows by such godless ceremonies,⁵ as of the Mass applied on behalf of the dead for the sake of gain; the worship of saints, in which the fault is twofold, both that the saints are put in Christ’s place and that they are wickedly worshipped, just as the Dominicans invented the rosary of the Blessed p. 292 Virgin, which is mere idle talk, not less foolish than it is wicked, and nourishes the most vain presumption. Then, too, these very impieties are applied only for the sake of gain. Likewise, they neither hear nor teach the Gospel concerning the free remission of sins for Christ’s sake, concerning the righteousness of faith, concerning true repentance, concerning works which have God’s command. But they are occupied either in philosophic discussions or in the handing down of ceremonies that obscure Christ.

⁵ I. e. The fact that these godless services are maintained releases all godly men from the obligations they may have formerly made to devote themselves to a monastic life. Cf. last sentence, § 58.

We will not here speak of the entire service of ceremonies, of the lessons, singing and similar things which could be tolerated if they would be regarded as exercises, after the manner of lessons in the schools [and preaching], whose design is to teach the hearers, and, while teaching, to move some to fear or faith. But now they feign that these ceremonies are services of God, which merit the remission of sins for themselves and for others. For on this account they increase these ceremonies. But if they would undertake them in order to teach and exhort the hearers, brief and select lessons would be of more profit than these infinite babblings. Thus the entire monastic life is full of hypocrisy and false opinions [against the first and second commandments, against Christ]. To all these this danger also is added, that those who are in these fraternities are compelled to assent to those persecuting the truth. There are, therefore, many important and forcible reasons which free good men from the obligation to this kind of life.

Lastly, the canons themselves release many, who either without judgment [before they have attained a proper age] have made vows when enticed by the arts of the monks, or have made vows under compulsion by friends. Such vows not even the canons declare to be vows. From all these considerations it is apparent that there are very many reasons which teach that monastic vows such as have hitherto been made are not vows; and for this reason a sphere of life full of hypocrisy and false opinions can be safely deserted.

Here they present an objection derived from the Law concerning the Nazarite (Num. 6: sq.). But the Nazarites did not take upon themselves their vows, with the opinions which, we have hitherto said, we censure in the vows of the monks. The rite of the Nazarites was an exercise [a bodily exercise with fasting and certain kinds of food] or declaration of faith before men, and did not merit the remission of sins before God, did not justify before God. [For they sought this elsewhere, viz. in the promise of the blessed Serd.] Again, just as circumcision or the slaying of victims would not be a service of God now, so the rite of the Nazarites ought not to be presented now as a service, but it ought to be judged simply p. 293 as an adiaphoron. It is not right to compare monasticism, devised, without God’s Word, as a service which should merit the remission of sins and justification, with the rite of the Nazarites, which had God’s Word, and was not delivered for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins, but to be an outward exercise, just as other ceremonies of the Law. The same can be said concerning other ceremonies prescribed in the Law.

The Rechabites also are cited, who did not have any possessions, and did not drink wine, as Jeremiah writes (ch. 35: sq.). Yea truly, the example of the Rechabites accords beautifully with our monks, whose monasteries excel the palaces of kings, and who live most sumptuously! And the Rechabites, in their poverty of all things, were nevertheless married. Our monks, although abounding in all voluptuousness, profess celibacy.

Besides examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i. e. according to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary to the rule or contrary to the Scriptures. It is very certain, however, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins or justification. Wherefore when the Rechabites are praised, it is necessary that these have observed their custom, not for the purpose of believing that by this they merited remission of sins, or that the work is itself a justifying service, or one on account of which they obtained eternal life, instead of, by God’s mercy, for the sake of the promised Seed. But because they had the command of their parents their obedience is praised,⁴ concerning which there is the commandment of God: “Honor thy father and mother.”

⁴ See Jer. 35:18, 19.

Then too the custom had a particular purpose: Because they were foreigners, not Israelites, it is apparent that their father wished to distinguish them by certain marks from their own people, so that they might not relapse into the impiety of their people. He wished by these marks to admonish them of the doctrine of faith and immortality. Such an end is lawful. But far different ends for monasticism are taught. They feign that the works of monasticism are a service, they feign that they merit the remission of sins and justification. The example of the Rechabites is therefore unlike monasticism; to omit here other evils which inhere in monasticism at present.

They cite also from 1 Tim. 5:11 sqq. concerning widows,

Luther added: “And it was temporal; and then too neither unmarried nor poor, nor obedient.”

Luther on margin: ‘Neither were these unmarried or obedient or poor, as the monks.”

Cf. 2 Kings 10:15.

p. 294 who, as they served the Church, were supported at the public expense, where it is said: “They will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.” First let us suppose that the apostle is here speaking of vows; still this passage will not favor monastic vows, which are made concerning godless services, and in the opinion that they merit the remission of sins and justification. For Paul, with his entire voice, condemns all services, all laws, all works, if they be observed in order to merit the remission of sins, or that, on account of them, instead of through mercy on account of Christ, we obtain remission of sins. On this account it was necessary for the vows of widows, if there were any, to be unlike monastic vows.

Besides if the adversaries do not cease to misapply the passage to vows, the prohibition that no widow be selected who is less than sixty years (1 Tim. 5:9) must be misapplied in the same way. Thus vows made before this age will be of no account. But the Church did not yet know these vows. Therefore Paul condemns widows, not because they marry, for he commands the younger to marry; but because, when supported at the public expense, they became wanton, and on this account cast off faith.¹ He calls this “first faith,” clearly not of a monastic vow, but of Christianity [of their baptism, their Christian duty, their Christianity]. And in this way he receives faith in the same chapter (v. 8): “If any one provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith.” For he speaks otherwise of faith than the sophists. He does not ascribe faith to those who have mortal sin. He accordingly says that those cast off faith who do not care for their relatives. And in the same way he says that wanton women cast off faith.

¹ Luther on margin: “Perhaps they relapsed into Judaism, since they could not find in the Church one who was willing or able to marry them: and the Jews gladly married them from hatred to Christ.”

We have recounted some of our reasons, and, in passing, have explained away the objections urged by the adversaries. And we have collected these matters, not only on account of the adversaries, but much more on account of godly minds, that they may have in view the reasons why they ought to disapprove of hypocrisy and fictitious monastic services, all of which indeed this one voice of Christ annuls, when it says (Matt. 15:9): “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Wherefore the vows themselves and the observance of meats, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals, girdles, are useless services in God’s sight. And all godly minds should certainly know that the opinion is pharisaic and condemned p. 295 that these observances merit the remission of sins; that on account of them we are accounted righteous; that on account of them, and not through mercy on account of Christ, we obtain eternal life. And the holy men who have lived in these kinds of life must necessarily have learned, confidence in such observance having been rejected, that they had the remission of sins freely; that for Christ’s sake through mercy they would obtain eternal life, and not for the sake of these services [therefore godly persons who were saved and continued to live in monastic life had finally to come to this, viz. that they despaired of their monastic life, despised all their works as dung, condemned all their hypocritical service of God, and held fast to the promise of grace in Christ, as in the example of St. Bernard, saying, Perdite vixi, I have lived in a sinful way]; because God only approves services instituted by his Word, which services avail when used in faith.