Article XXVII (XIII): _Of Monastic Vows._
In the town of Eisenach, in Thuringia, there was, to our knowledge, a
monk, John Hilten, 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 [that he was a
Christian, and preached according to the Scriptures]. 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, omitting
all mention of his sickness, he said with a sigh that he was bearing
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 against some well-known
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, which he had left, concerning certain
passages of Daniel. But although the outcome 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. [The more stupid asses the
monks are, the more stubborn, furious bitter, the more venomous asps
they are in persecuting the truth and the Word of God.] And there are
other faults, which we do not care to mention. While they once were
[not jails or everlasting prisons, but] schools for 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. [Now this precious gold is
turned to dross, and the wine to water.] 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. Therefore the monks by such morals
are singing their own fate [requiem, and it will soon be over with
them]. And now another sign is added, because they are in many
places, the instigators of the death of good men. [This blood of
Abel cries against them and] 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 factitious
services, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of the
cruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise.
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 the belly 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 these questions 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 fortify their own cause. Accordingly, we will briefly
run over a few of our arguments, and in passing, explain away the
sophistry of the adversaries in reference to them. Since, however,
this entire cause 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 reiterated.
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 Confession 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.
When Paul denies that by the Law of Moses men merit the remission of
sins, he withdraws this praise much more from human traditions, and
this he clearly testifies Col. 2, 16. 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.], averse to
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 imagination they bury
the benefit of Christ. Then they feign that among those who observe
this Law of Christ, the monks observe it more closely than others, on
account of their hypocritical poverty, obedience, and chastity, since
indeed all these things are full of sham. In the greatest abundance
of all things they boast of poverty. Although no class of men has
greater license than the monks [who have masterfully decreed that
they are exempt from obedience to bishops and princes], 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 [not to mention the thoughts of
their hearts]?
Of course, in this sham life the monks live more closely in
accordance with the Gospel! Christ does not succeed Moses in such a
way as to remit sins on account of our works, but so as to set His
own merits and His own propitiation on our behalf against God's wrath
that we may be freely forgiven. Now, he who apart from 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 Decalog, 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 verdict 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 advised of this passage, you would have taken [will
take] care that such blasphemy be removed from the _Confutation._
But since it has been fully shown above that the opinion is wicked,
that we obtain the remission of sins on account of our works, we
shall be briefer at this place. 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. 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.
Secondly. Obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided the latter is
not impure, are, as exercises, adiaphora [in which we are not to look
for either sin or righteousness]. And for this 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, engaged in 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 [are the most holy people
who] observe [not only] precepts and [but also] counsels [that is,
the superior counsels, which Scripture issues concerning exalted
gifts, not by way of command but of advice]. Afterwards these
liberal men, since they dream that they have the merits of
supererogation, sell these to others. All these things are full of
pharisaic vanity. For it is the height of impiety to hold that they
satisfy the Decalog 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 shine 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
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 as easily 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. Therefore 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, namely, 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. Therefore
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. 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, 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.
Now hear our Areopagites [excellent teachers] 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 merits eternal life if maintained by a due observance, which by
the grace of God any monk can maintain; 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 been said above. 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 against God's
judgment, as Bernard also says with very great force: It is necessary
first of all to believe that you cannot have the remission of sine
unless by God's indulgence. Secondly, that you can have no good work
whatever, unless He has given also this. Lastly, that you can merit
eternal life by no works, unless this also is 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 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 filth. But since even they need mercy, they act wickedly
in fabricating works of supererogation, and selling them [their
superfluous claim upon 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, they are in no way
evangelical perfection.
But the adversaries cunningly wish to appear as if they 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 prettily phrased! 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 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, hence they actually hold that they
have superfluous merits. But what is it to arrogate to one's self
perfection, if this is 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 the
more abundantly, and quotes Scripture, Matt. 19, 29: Every one that
hath forsaken houses, etc. Accordingly, here, too, it 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 forsakes 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 that Christ does
not approve this flight appears the more clearly 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,
namely, when power or tyranny compels us either to depart or to deny
the Gospel. Here we have the command that we should 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.
Therefore it is evident that they wickedly distort Christ's word to a
monastic life. Unless perhaps the declaration that they "receive a
hundredfold 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. 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. For evangelical
poverty does not consist in the abandonment of property, but in not
being avaricious, in not trusting in wealth, just as David was poor
in a most wealthy kingdom.
Therefore, since the abandonment of property is merely a human
tradition, it is a useless service. Excessive also are the praises
in the Extravagant, 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 many errors and seditions
follow, through such commendations Muentzer was deceived, and thereby
many Anabaptists were led astray.] But [they say] Christ here speaks
of perfection. Yea, they do violence to the text who quote it
mutilated. Perfection is in that which Christ adds: Follow Me. An
example of obedience in one's calling is here 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, 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, 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.]
Thirdly. In monastic vows chastity is promised. We have said above,
however, concerning the marriage of priests, that the law of nature
[or of God] in men cannot be removed by vows or enactments. And as
all do not have the gift of continence, many because of weakness are
unsuccessfully continent. Neither, 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. Therefore this
vow is not lawful in those who do not have the gift of continence,
but who are polluted on account of weakness. Concerning this entire
topic enough has been said above, in regard to which indeed it is
strange, since the dangers and scandals are occurring before men's
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, 13 f., who had made
traditions contrary to God's command.
Fourthly. Those who live in monasteries are released from their vows
by such godless ceremonies 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 worshiped, just as the Dominicasters invented the
rosary of the Blessed Virgin, which is mere babbling 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.
We will not here speak of the entire service of ceremonies, of the
lessons, singing, and similar things, which could be tolerated if
they [were regulated as regards number, and 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
pointed 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 tricks 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 abandoned.
Here they present an objection derived from the Law concerning the
Nazarites, Num. 6, 2f. 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, namely, in the promise of the blessed Seed.]
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 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 taught 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, chap. 35, 6f. 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, that is, contrary to the Scriptures. It is very certain,
however, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins or
justification. Therefore, when the Rechabites are praised, it is
necessary [it is certain] that these have observed their custom, not
because they believed that by this they merited remission of sins, or
that the work was 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, concerning which there is the
commandment of God: Honor thy father and mother.
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 countrymen, so that
they might not relapse into the impiety of their countrymen. He
wished by these marks to admonish them of the [fear of God, the]
doctrine of faith and immortality. Such an end is lawful. But for
monasticism far different ends 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, 11ff. concerning widows, 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 [which, however, he is not doing]; still this
passage will not favor monastic vows, which are made concerning
godless services, and in this opinion that they merit the remission
of sins and justification. For Paul with ringing voice condemns all
services, all laws, all works, if they are 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 the vows of widows, if there were any, must have been 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 thus cast
off faith. He calls this first faith, clearly not in a monastic vow,
but in Christianity [of their Baptism, their Christian duty, their
Christianity]. And in this sense he understands 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.
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 saying of Christ annuls, which
reads, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men. Therefore the vows themselves and
the observances 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 simply pharisaic and
condemned 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 come to this,
namely, 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.