overlooked and increased by the author.*)
Completed November 21, 1521. Issued in the last week of February 1522.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Jesus.
To his father, Hans Luther, Martin Luther, his son, wishes salvation in Christo!
That I attribute this book to you, dearest father, is not done with the intention that I would raise your name high in all the world, and we would boast according to the flesh, against the teachings of Paul, but that I seized the opportunity, which presented itself quite appropriately between you and me, to tell the godly readers in a short preface the occasion, the content and an example of this book.
And to begin with, I will not conceal from you that your son has come so far that he is now firmly convinced that there is nothing more holy, there is nothing more excellent, there can be no higher service than to keep God's commandment. O pity! (you will say) have you ever doubted this and only now learned that the matter stands thus? Rather, O great fortune! I not only doubted it, but knew nothing at all about it, that it was so. Even if you want to suffer it, I am ready to show that you have been in the same ignorance with me.
Almost the sixteenth year of my monastic life has passed, into which I entered against your will and without your knowledge. In paternal love, you had great fear for my weakness, since I was still a young man and had just entered my twenty-second year, that is, (to use Augustine's words), I was in the fiery heat of youth, because you had recognized from many examples that this way of life had an unhappy outcome. But you intended to bind me by an honest and rich marriage. This fear was in your heart, but also your displeasure with me could not be appeased for a while, although your friends advised you that if you wanted to sacrifice something to God, you should sacrifice your dearest and best to him. In the meantime, the Lord sounded the word of the Psalm into your thoughts: "God knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain" [Ps. 94, 11], but he met a deaf ear.
At last you let go and submitted your will to God, but still you could not get rid of the fear for me. For I remember as if it were today: since you were already talking to me again, and I was claiming that I had been frightened out of my wits by the horrors of heaven, I was not able to get rid of the fear.
*) This writing has Luther, as well as the letter to his father Hans Luther, written in Latin and let go out under the title: De votis mounstieis Martini I^uttisri juäieiuin. IVittoiukor^ao. Without indication of the printer and the time. Panzer lists two such editions (IX, 79 and 82). An imprint of this edition was produced in Basel in 1522. Furthermore, in the same year, an edition was published by Johannes Grünenberg in Wittenberg, which was revised and enlarged by Luther himself, with these words added to the title: u sese r66OFuitum 6t aueturu. According to this latter edition, the Scripture is reproduced in the Latin collective editions, namely: in the Wittenberg, lom. II, toi. 284; in the Jena one (1566), loru. II, toi. 477k; and in the Erlanger, oxp. var. ar^., vol. VI, p. 238. That same year, 1522, a single German edition appeared under the title: "Von denn geystlichen vnd kloster gelübden Martini Luthers vrtevll." At the end: "Gedruckt tzu Wittemberg Vnd verdeutscht durch den ehrwirdigen Docter Just Jona Probst tzu Wittemberg Anno 1522." This translation is first printed in the Wittenberg edition (1553), vol. VI, toi. I84K; then in the Altenburger, vol. I, p. 856 and in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 54. The attribution alone is found in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 25 (Latin) and vol. II, p. IOO (German). Because the translation by Jonas would have required significant improvements to be sufficient for our time, we have preferred to retranslate according to the Jena edition.
1502 L. v.". vi, 2M f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1809-1812. 1503
mel, because I did not like to become a monk, and because I wished to become a monk, but much less for the sake of the belly, but surrounded by the terror and struggle of a sudden death, I vowed a forced and stubborn (necessarium) vow - then you said: God grant that it may not be a fraud and a sham! As if God spoke through your mouth, this word penetrated into the deepest part of my soul and stuck there, but I closed my heart as much as I could against you and your word. You also added another thing. When, in childlike trust, I reproached you for your displeasure, you immediately repaid me and struck me so rightly and so skillfully that in all my life I have hardly heard a word from a man that preached more powerfully and stuck more firmly in me, for you said: "Have you not also heard that one must obey one's parents? But I, secure in my own righteousness, heard thee as a man, and with all my might (fortiter) despised thee, for from my heart I could not despise such a word.
Here now see if it was not also hidden to you that one must prefer God's commandments to all other things. For, if you had known that I was still in your power at that time, would you not have torn me completely out of the monk's habit by fatherly force? But even I, if I had known this, would not have undertaken such a thing without your knowledge and against your will, even if I would have had to suffer death over it many times. For my vow, by which I withdrew from the fatherly authority and the will of the father, which was commanded to me by God, was not only worthless, but even ungodly, and that it was not of God, came to light not only because it sinned against your authority, but also because it was not done voluntarily and gladly. Furthermore, it was based on the teachings of men and the superstitions of hypocrites, which God did not command.
But behold how great goods God, whose mercy is without number and whose wisdom is without end, has brought out of all these errors.
and sins have sprung up. Wouldn't you rather have lost a hundred sons now than not have seen such good? It only seems that Satan foresaw in me from my childhood something of what he is suffering now; therefore he has raged with unbelievable attacks to kill and prevent me, so that I have often wondered (thought) whether it was not I alone among all men whom he was pursuing.
But the Lord willed (as I see now) that the wisdom of the high schools and the holiness of the monasteries should be known to me through my own and certain experience, that is, through many sins and ungodlinesses, so that ungodly men would not have the opportunity to boast against me, their future opponent, that I condemned unknown things. Therefore, I have lived as a monk, not without sin, but without gross misdemeanors, because ungodliness and desecration of God are considered the highest godliness in the realm of the pope, let alone that they should be considered gross misdemeanors.
So what do you think now? Do you still want to tear me out of the monastic life? Because you are still my father, I am still your son and all vows have no power. On your side is divine power, on my side is human presumption. For even the. Chastity (conti
nentia), which they trumpet with such full cheeks, is not valid without obedience to God's command; chastity is not commanded, but obedience is commanded. Although the nonsensical and silly papists do not want anything to be put on a par with the virgin state and chastity, exalting both with wondrous lies, so that both their nonsensical lies and the greatness of their ignorance, both together and each alone, should make everything they do and teach suspicious.
For what kind of a mind is this that they twist the wise man's word [Sir. 26, 20. according to the Vulg.): "There is nothing of equal value with a chaste soul" to the effect that it seems as if he had put the virginal state and chastity above all things.
and ordered that the same could neither be changed nor dispensed with? while a Jew wrote this word for a virgin (among whom the virginal state and chastity were regarded as something reprehensible), 1) and that of a chaste wife. In such a way they also interpret that praise of a chaste wife: "This is she who does not know of the bed in sins" [Weish. 3, 13.], to the virgins.
In short, although the virginal state is not praised in Scripture, but only conceded, it is nevertheless adorned with the praise of conjugal chastity, as if with foreign feathers, by these people who are at hand to provoke souls to danger of their blessedness. Is it not true that nothing is equal to an obedient soul? Certainly; therefore there is nothing more delicious than a chaste soul, that is, than a chaste wife, not only because it [chastity in marriage] is commanded by God, but also, as the common saying goes, because there is nothing more lovely (expetibilius) among men than a chaste wife.
But those faithful interpreters of Scripture understand what is said about the commanded (conjugal) chastity from the not commanded (monastic) chastity; furthermore, they make human esteem a divine one, as if God respects it highly. Therefore they dispense with everything, even with the obedience of God, but they do not dispense with (monastic) chastity, which has sometimes been forbidden, namely accepted against the authority of the parents. O the worthy and right papist doctors and magistrates! The virgin state and chastity must be praised, but in such a way that men are more deterred than attracted by their greatness; as Christ, when the disciples praised chastity, saying (Matt. 19:10), "If a man's matter be so with his wife, it is not good to marry," soon withdrew them from it, saying (v. 11), "The word is not for everyone." The word must be grasped, but he wanted (to say) that it would be understood by few.
1) These brackets are set by us.
But I will come back to you, dear father, and say again: Do you still want to tear me out of the monastic life? But in order that you may not boast, God has gone ahead of you and taken me out himself. For what does it matter whether I wear the robe and the plate or take them off? Does the robe and the plate make the monk? "All things are yours," says Paul [1 Cor. 3:22, 23], "but you are Christ's." Should I then belong to the cowl, and not rather the cowl to me? The conscience is liberated, that is abundant freedom. So now I am a monk and yet not a monk, a new creature, not of the pope, but of Christ. The pope also makes creatures, but puppets and cardboards, 2) that is, larvae and idols, who are like him, of which I was also once one, seduced by various long-established words (verborum consuetudinibus), by which even the wise man, as he says, came into danger until death, until he was also freed by the grace of God.
But do I deprive you again of your right and your power? No. Your power over me remains completely unchanged as far as the monastic life is concerned, but this is already void (nullus) with me, as I have said. By the way, the one who pulled me out has a greater right over me than your right is, who, as you see, has now placed me not in the fictitious service of monasticism, but in the right service of God. For who can doubt that I am in the ministry (ministerio) of the Word? But this service (cultus) is clearly such that the power of parents must give way to it, since Christ says (Matth. 10, 37.): "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." Not that he has abolished the authority of parents by this word, since the apostle so often inculcates that children should obey their parents, but that if parents and Christ's profession or authority conflict with each other, Christ's authority alone should rule.
2) Osatpapa, seä puppas 6t pappos, a play on words. On "Pappen" compare Walch, St. Louiser Ausgab^ Vol. XVIII, Col. 254 and 296.
1506 V. L. VI, 242- 244. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1814-1817. 1507
Therefore, I would have to be obedient to you, or I would violate my conscience (of this I am now quite convinced), if the service of the word had not come to it over (ultra) the monastic life. That is what I said, that neither you nor I would have known before that God's commandments must be preferred to all things. But almost the whole world lies in this ignorance, since the powerful errors prevail among the papal abomination, which Paul predicted by saying that there would be people who do not obey parents [Rom. 1, 30.This fits the monks and priests perfectly, especially those who, under the appearance of a godly life and the name of serving God, escape the power of parents, as if there could be any other service of God than obeying His commandments; among these is also obedience to parents.
Therefore, I send you this book, from which you can see with how great signs and powers Christ has absolved me from the monastic vow, and has gifted me with such great freedom that, although he has made me the servant of all men, I am nevertheless subject to no one but him alone. For he is (as they call it) my immediate (immediatus) bishop, abbot, prior, lord, father and master; I know no other. So I hope that he has taken a son from you, so that he may begin to help his many other sons through me, which you should not only gladly suffer, but also rejoice in with great joy, and I am most firmly convinced that you will not do otherwise. How now, if the pope were to kill me or condemn me to the deepest hell? He cannot raise up the one who has been killed, so that he could kill him a second time and repeatedly; but if he has condemned me, it is my will that he never absolve me. For I have the firm confidence that the great day is near, in which this kingdom of abomination and desolation will be destroyed. If only God wanted us to be worthy first of all to be burned or killed by Him, so that our blood would cry out all the more and urge for the hastening of His judgment; but if we are not worthy to bear witness with our blood, then I will never be destroyed.
Let us at least ask and plead for this mercy, so that we may testify with our lives and with our voices that Jesus Christ alone is the Lord our God, given for all eternity, amen. In it, dearest father, I bid you farewell and greet my mother, your Margaret, together with all our family in Christ.
From the desert, November 21, Anno 1521.
Jesus.
Martin Luther's judgement on monastic vows".
First of all, I want to announce to those who have long condemned even the clearest truth for my sake out of ingrained hatred against my name, that I do not write anything to them in this book, because I do not want to let the voice of my incantation sound in vain to those deaf vipers who plug their ears [Ps. 58, 5. 6.], nor, as Solomon says, spill the word where it will not be heard, nor give the sanctuary to the dogs, nor cast pearls before swine. Let them read the decrees of their Creator and their wisdom, since they will. I serve only those who are tormented by the iron furnace of Egypt and the blazing fire of Babylon, that is, by the tyranny of conscience and sin. For we want to deal with the monastic vows, which, as we see, are multiplied and in general use, to the highest ruin of Christianity and immeasurable harm of souls. May God have mercy on us and bless us; may He enlighten His face upon us, so that we may recognize His way on earth and His salvation among all the nations, so that the nations may also praise Him, and the nations may rejoice and be glad, because He Himself judges them in righteousness, who have been freed from the statutes of men, and rules the nations on earth, amen.
It is not disputed here whether one must keep a vow, but which vows are true vows.
No one can deny that it is a right instituted by God that one should keep a vow, since the Scripture says [Ps. 76:12]:
1508 L. V. a. VI, 244 f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, I8I7-I8I9. 1509
"Vow and keep," so that it is not for anyone to dispute whether a vow should be kept. Nor do we dispute about whether one must keep a vow, but we deal with it by making a distinction among the vows and recognizing which are godly, good, and pleasing to God, of which alone it must be held that they are called vows in Scripture and are required; again, which are ungodly, evil, and displeasing to God, of which it could not be held otherwise that they are vows, than if it were said that it is a godly practice (pietatem) to have killed one's neighbor or committed adultery: so that it is not necessary to argue about whether one should keep or revoke such vows. For nothing so good and holy has ever been ordained that it has not also been undertaken in perverse imitation (aemulatione) and in impious glitter; indeed, the holier something is, the more the impious and hypocrites desire to imitate it in a perverse way. For what is more holy than the worship commanded in the first and highest commandment? Again, what is more common than superstition, that is, false and hypocritical worship? so that it is to be feared that through the same perversity the godly way of vows has also degenerated into hypocrisy and godless superstition. For true godliness and a sincere vow is not something at all ordinary, especially in these last, dangerous, godless and very evil times, in which, as has been proclaimed before, both faith and love would perish.
First, that the monastic vows are not based on God's waiting, but rather God's
Words find repugnant.
There is no doubt that the monastic vow is dangerous precisely because it has no proof and no example in the Holy Scriptures. But even the first church and the New Testament do not know the custom of vowing anything, let alone that they have this kind of perpetual vow.
The first thing is that he should approve of the vow of such chastity, which is very rare and a wonderful gift. For his vow is a mere and corruptible vow of men, as all other vows of men tend to be. But that, as is reported in the Acts of the Apostles [Cap. 18, 18], Paul, having taken a vow, had himself purified with four other men [Cap. 21, 24], who does not see that this was still a remnant of the old law? to keep silent about the fact that it was only a vow for a short time. For in this way the same apostle also kept all the other precepts of the old law with the Jews, but he did not intend that this should be an example for the new covenant; indeed, he left the law in place with the Gentiles. St. Anthony, who is actually the father of monks and the princeps of the monastic life, very wisely and Christianly held and taught that one should not do anything that is not based on the Scriptures. And he did not know this monasticism bound by vows and outward statutes at all, but lived in the desert in a free way, lived in a free way without marriage, as it is according to the Gospel. His descendants have made of his order a vow, a misery and a servitude, have followed the rule of Anthony, which is Christ's rule, in nothing else than in the outward appearance and deceptive imitation, by clinging only to human opinions.
So also Paul, although he repeatedly praises the example and the way (traditionem), which was given to the churches through his ministry, and demands that they should follow him, nevertheless does not want them to follow him as Paulo, but Christo in him, saying [1 Cor. 11, 1.]: "Be my followers, even as I am Christ's." Surely no other forerunner has been given to us than the one of whom the supreme majesty of the Father bore witness by this word [Matth. 17, 5.]: "Him shall ye hear." By this word Christ is ordained to be a leader to all, and all are subject to him and subordinate against him, as Micah
1510 L. V. a. VI, 245-247. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, I8IS-I822. 1511
had prophesied about him before, Cap. 5, 1. that from Bethlehem the duke should come, who should rule the people of God. Therefore he himself testifies with his father and says [Joh. 8, 12.]: "Whoever follows me does not walk in darkness", and again: "I am the light of the world." For he stands there as a banner for the nations, which God has raised up to bring together the exiles of Israel [Isa. 11, 12.]. As he again says Joh. 14, 1) 6.: "No one comes to the Father except through me"; "I am the door" [Joh. 10, 7, 9.]; "I am the way, the truth and the life."
These and similar sayings of the Scriptures, because they are brighter than the light and quite reliable, certainly force us to condemn everything that exists in the form of rules, statutes and sects. These and similar sayings of the Scriptures, because they are quite reliable, certainly force us to condemn everything that exists in the way of rules, statutes, orders and sects, which either goes against or without or above Christ, even if it had been taught by angels from heaven and confirmed by mighty miraculous signs. For he who said, "I am the way," will not suffer people to presumptuously take a different path. Rather, by this word he has revoked, annulled, and made futile all other ways, present and future. He who said, "This is the one you should hear," does not allow any other leader and master to stand up, no matter whether he teaches better or worse, but has condemned by this word all laws and statutes apart from Christ, as Christ also says John 10:8: "All who came before me were thieves and murderers."
From this it can be most clearly deduced that one may by no means take monastic vows, and by these heavenly thunderbolts all such vows are fundamentally abolished, forbidden and condemned, since no one can deny that in monasticism many, indeed all and only such things are vowed which are apart from Christ and without Christ (that is, without the Way, without the Light, without the Truth, without the Life),
1) In the editions erroneously: Joh. 6. Only the Jenaer has in the margin: "Joh. 6. 14.", where "14" should perhaps mean the correction of "6". The Erlanger has in the margin: Joh. 6, 14.
without God). Of this they clearly boast themselves and confess it without being ashamed of it, since they want to be such people who lead a higher and more perfect life above Christ. O of unspeakable blindness! This, then, will be established and certain before all things: Everything that is done about and apart from Christ, either from one's own measure or from the examples of the saints, has long since been forbidden and condemned as something human by God's Word, and the final verdict has been given that it may not be vowed, nor may it be established as a commandment or necessary way of life; but if it has already been vowed, it may not be fulfilled and kept, but must be dissolved and released. For this rock stands unconquerable: "I am the way" and no other. But everything that is not this way is error and slippery and darkness.
But also St. Francis, an admirable man of ardent spirit, very wisely said that his rule is the Gospel of Christ. But the Gospel has chastity as something free, nor does it contain anything of what now the Minorites [barefooted] observe with incredible hypocrisy. It is clear that Franciscus, since he wanted his own to live according to the Gospel, also wanted them to be completely free, both from vows and from all human statutes, so that the barefoot monks, even according to the right of their vows and their rule, would have the power to live and remain celibate and not celibate in the monasteries and all their statutes as long as they wanted; for those who vowed the Gospel neither vowed nor could vow anything else. Nowadays, however, this kind of people, who should be the most free, is the most superstitious and narrow-minded, trapped under countless statutes, including some childish articles and ridiculous observances. But the holy man erred in this, moved either by the multitude of those who despise the gospel in the world, or by the effect of error, in that the pope has confirmed and approved that he is from the gospel,
The first thing he did was to make the rule that is common to all believers a special rule of a few, and that he limited what Christ had given to the whole of Christianity to a small sect (in schismaticum). When a barefoot man vows his rule, he vows nothing else than what he has already vowed from the beginning in his baptism, namely the Gospel. Perhaps it was a greater error of Franciscus that he believed that many things in the Gospel were counsels, as the godless papist schools teach, which he wanted to make into commandments through his rule. Why I do not want to attribute this to this so great man, I will say soon after.
If, therefore, you were to ask a barefoot man why he lives without marriage and why he does not touch money, although he has professed the Gospel, and yet Christ commanded that the celibate state should be free, he has also touched money, at least in the coin of the emperor: what can he answer but that he observes what Franciscus taught in his rule from human opinion, and what is corrupted by papal tyranny, but that which he taught divine (that his rule was the Gospel) he does not observe? So you see that Franciscus is shown to have erred as a man in establishing his rule. For what does it mean to say that the Rule of the Minorites is the Gospel, other than to say that the Barefoot monks alone are Christians? For if the Gospel is theirs alone, there are no Christians except the Barefoot Friars, since the Gospel, which is beyond all dispute, belongs to the whole Christian people alone. He has also erred in teaching, if he taught otherwise, that one should pledge anew what they and all together have already pledged before in baptism, namely, the gospel common to all.
Of the reasons of those who take vows upon themselves.
But here it is necessary to deal with the two bases of their belief or rather their disbelief, the first of which is the following
This is that the gospel is not common to all, but is divided into counsels and commandments. But their monastic state obeys the counsels, not merely the commandments, which are laid down for the rest of the common people. But here they are not in one, but in a very gross error. And to pass over the fact that by this distinction they show that they do not know what the gospel really is (since they make of it commandments and counsels), namely, pure promises of God, which proclaim to men the benefits acquired by them; among which are also the declarations of the commandments of God and the exhortations to keep them, which Christ made in Matt. 5:6 and 7: What will they say to Christ, Marci at the last: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"? Will they here say that preaching is something different from commanding? Why does he command that what he wants only a few to keep be preached to the whole world and to all creatures? But also Paul, how often does he boast that he was set apart for the ministry of the gospel? The gospel is a promise, the gospel is a power of God that makes all blessed who believe in it, and all are lost in whom the gospel of Christ is hidden, there is nothing more common, nothing more necessary than the gospel; he teaches this almost everywhere. But just as they do not know what the gospel is, since they make a law out of it, so they do not understand these words of Paul at all.
Therefore we want to descend to them in that dark place and stammer with the stammerers in the Gospel, calling that counsel and commandments, which in the Gospel are exhortations. For Moses had commandments, as John 1:17 says, "The law was given through Moses." The gospel has grace, as it is said there, "Grace and truth came to be through JEsum Christ." Let us see, therefore, what profit there is to those who presume to fly above Christ, whither the error of their ungodly presumption drives them. For if we can prove that these are not counsels, which they boast of, and
1514 L.v. a.vi, 249f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1824-E. 1515
will we not catch them in the fact that they err in a way worthy of condemnation, and that their vows are based on ungodly lies? For if one claims that feigns counsel, which is not counsel, and dissolves the divine commandments, what is that but denying the truth of God and turning it into a lie, even blaspheming God? Is it not blasphemy if God says, "This is my commandment," and those would say against him in the name of the Lord, "It is not a commandment, but a counsel"; and in this and over this blasphemy, they still vow monasticism, adorn themselves beautifully, wipe their mouths and say: I have done not evil, but good? For who does not recognize that all those take their vows in such blasphemous and blasphemous conviction, who think that the commandments of God are counsels? But such are certainly now the vows of all spiritual persons, who have been persuaded of this blasphemous and blasphemous opinion of the precepts and commandments.
Therefore, we will continue to bring this ungodliness to light. The counsels which they invent are approximately what Christ teaches in Matt. 5. teaches that one should not take revenge, not repay evil with evil, not quarrel in court, leave the coat to the one who took the skirt, offer the cheeks to the other, walk one mile with the one who needs to walk, or two miles with the other, not resist evil at all, be ready for the adversary on the way; Likewise, that we should love our enemies, that we should do good to those who hate us, that we should pray for those who revile and persecute us; likewise, that we should give and lend freely to all who ask, sell and leave everything, and follow Christ, giving ourselves to the service of all, even the least of these. Add to this virginity and chastity. Some also add the eight beatitudes of Matth. 5, so that they may dissolve and break all of God's commandments. Of chastity, that it is a counsel, we will speak later; now we will look at the rest.
However, that all this is not advice, but
The first thing that proves that the commandments are necessary is that Matthew, when he wants to write this, prefaces it by saying that Christ went up the mountain, sat down, opened his mouth and taught. But to teach is not to give advice, but to indicate what must be done. And further, Christ himself says [v. 17], "I am not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." So all that he teaches there, he teaches for this reason, that the law may be fulfilled, not that the counsels may be enumerated. Then he also says, pointing, as it were, with his finger to what he then taught, "Whosoever therefore shall do away with one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Here you see that he clearly calls what he teaches commandments and interprets the word "teach" itself to be the same as: To give commandments.
Furthermore, when he wanted to come to what those "counselors" call, he says: "Unless your righteousness is better than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Is not the kingdom of heaven denied only to those who do not keep the commandments? But this he says over and above that which he himself teaches here, over and above that which the scribes and Pharisees had taught. I ask you, who is so audacious as to want to enumerate counsels here, where he [Christ], with so many words of teaching, of commanding, with so many and so serious threats, compels them to keep all that is written there? On what grounds will they claim that they are counsels? where will they find a proof? Yes, they may bring forward even one bag to prove it! And these wicked people are so insolent that they make counsels out of their own heads, without the Scriptures, against so many thunderbolts which testify that it is taught and commanded, that threats and promises are attached to it. Shall we follow the foolishness of Paris Gomorrah, where they say in their beautiful "Urtheil" 1) that this makes the Christian law too burdensome? O So
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 949.
dom, O Gomorrah' who measure the divine commandments according to the powers of free will and not rather according to the grace of God and according to themselves [the commandments].
But even more. In the midst of the thieves he puts their insolence to shame, saying [Matth. 5,1) 25. f.]: "Be ready for your adversary, lest he deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the servant, and you be cast into prison. I say unto thee, Verily thou shalt not come forth thence, till thou pay the last farthing." Here the Parisian moles and bats may answer whether there is any punishment for not obeying councils, let alone one so great and eternal that he who has not been willing to his adversary should be handed over to the judge, the servant, the dungeon, and never come out. Likewise, when he says [v. 46]: "If you love only those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not the publicans also do the same?" If he who is said to have no wages should have disobeyed a counsel, he is the same as the tax collectors and sinners. equal to tax collectors and sinners? He [Christ] teaches the same to Luke in the 6th chapter with many words in the most definite way. It is clear, then, that all their aforementioned counsels are true and undoubtedly necessary commandments, which Christ teaches in Matt. 5. So also Peter says 1 Petr. 5, 5: "All of you be subject to one another and hold fast to humility." And Rom. 12, 10. 16. [Phil. 2, 3.]: "Consider one another more highly than yourselves." But that this is not a counsel, that we should humble ourselves against inferiors, is proved by what Peter himself states and adds as a cause, saying, "For God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." Do you still think it is a counsel, since Peter testifies that it is hopefulness which God resists, if you do not submit to the lesser? But that "selling everything and giving it to the poor" is not the poverty they call monastic, is proved by the fact that Peter, after the resurrection [of Christ], went to the
1) In the Jena and Erlangen margin: Matth. 15.
The monastery people not only sell their goods and give them to the poor, but they also gather together goods from all over the world and give them to the poor. Furthermore, the monks not only do not sell what they have and give it to the poor, but they gather together the goods of all the world and have the greatest abundance before all people.
Not only is the godlessness and blasphemy of the schools and monasteries condemnable that they dare to teach such blasphemous things, but also their sleepy nature and their shameless laziness, or rather their arrogant certainty, is despicable that these belly servants did not care so much about the gospel that they would have opened the books once, turned the leaves over and at least looked at the words. For if they had only looked at the words, since they are so clear and obvious, they would have been able to escape these atrocious, shameful blasphemies of theirs. But what are they but places of idleness and solitary life? 2) Places of idleness, because they play and listen to lies; places of lonely life, because they are lonely without Christ, far separated from the common way of Christian truth.
So you can see in what kind of faith, in what kind of godly being these whore houses of Satan do and live their vows. Paul says: "If you spoke with the tongues of men and of angels, if you distributed all your possessions to feed the poor, if you let your own body burn, you would be nothing and would have done nothing if you did not have love [1 Cor. 13:1. ff.); how much more would you be nothing and have done nothing if you became a monk and vowed these counsels, if you did this in the blasphemous and ungodly attitude that denies the truth of God, as you see that they do! One reads of Pelagius that he led a praiseworthy life, but because he denied the grace of God, for the sake of this one ungodliness his whole life is lost.
2) Latin: Hulä erso kunt nisi seüolas et unrnastoria? Here the words sekolas and monsktsris. are taken in their original first meaning.
-rest, cap, good time; /tovaorucöx - living alone.
1518 L.v. L.VI.252-254. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX. 1830-1832. 1519
Life has been of no use. If anyone denies that Mary is a virgin, or otherwise does not believe any other single article of the faith, he will be condemned, and if he otherwise has the virginity and holiness of the holy virgin herself, how much more will this corrupt bunch of monks be condemned, who deny, change, dissolve and destroy the divine commandments! Behold, the basis of the monastic vows is impiety, blasphemy and profanation of God, and this has happened to them because they despise Christ, the guide and the light, and presume to follow other and better things. For whoever leaves the truth as a guide, whom else should he follow but lies? whoever does not follow the glory of God, it serves him right to follow blasphemies. This is the second reason why monastic vows should be shunned and completely abolished, and why all who have taken such vows should return to the common way of Christians with a good and safe conscience, since God Himself recalls such a one and forbids his vows, condemns them and punishes them as the greatest impiety.
Of virginity.
But [they say] virginity and the celibate life is a counsel. Christ himself clearly did not advise this, but rather discouraged it. He only pointed to it and named it by mentioning those who are cut off and said [Matth. 19, 12.]: "Whoever can grasp it, let him grasp it"; and again [v. 11.]: "Not everyone can grasp the word". Are these not rather words which admonish and discourage? For he invites and calls no one to it, but only indicates it. But Paul says, I give counsel; but neither does he invite anyone to it, nay, he rather dissuades and restrains, saying [1 Cor. 7:7], "Every man hath his own gift from God." He neither advises nor dissuades, but leaves it free (in medio). But our unchaste, celibate people understand by counseling nothing else than inviting, exhorting, calling and persuading to the celibate state, then also, [by] ab
The people of the country are to admonish, restrain, and discourage marriage, which they do in all their sermons and writings.
But let us come to the matter itself. If the celibate state is an evangelical counsel, what madness is your vow, that you make an exceedingly strict commandment out of a counsel, which the gospel does not do? for now you no longer live according to the gospel, but without it, and therefore also against the gospel, because you no longer have a counsel. If you obey the gospel, you must keep the celibate state free; if you do not keep it free, you do not obey the gospel. For it is impossible for a counsel of the gospel to become a commandment, and it is equally impossible for your vow to be a counsel. Therefore, your vowed chastity is most strongly against the gospel. Therefore, because God, the Giver of the Gospel, accepts nothing but what is evangelical, it is impossible that He should approve of your vows and not rather abhor them. Have you anything, monastics, to answer this? Deny that the counsel of the gospel is a counsel, or admit that your vow is not evangelical. For you will not presume to claim that God will suffer anyone to make a commandment out of His counsel or to approve and demand anything other than His gospel. Therefore it is necessary that you confess that God does not approve of your vows. And this is now already the third quite firm and mighty battering ram that stands erected for us against your monastic vows. And we see that monastic vows are found to be nothing else than an error in itself, which always deceives and seduces, and which a Christian must also avoid and abandon; nor can it be without harm, except for those who are spiritual and make good use of it. This happens only to the elect, to whom neither error nor sin can finally harm.
The second basis 1) of their disbelief is that they divide the Christian life into the state of perfection and the state of incompleteness.
1) The first basis see Col. 1512 f..
come-ness. To the common people they attribute the state of imperfection, to themselves that of perfection. And this difference they measure not according to the measure of spirit, faith, and love, and it is certain that these are especially in vogue among the people, not in the monasteries, but according to the splendor and appearance of outward works and their vows, in which, however, there is nothing of spirit, nor faith, nor love; indeed, the spirit of faith and love they annihilate.
The state of perfection is to be a despiser of death, life, glory and the whole world in a courageous faith and a servant of all in ardent love. But now you can hardly find people who are more attached to life, who are more ambitious, who have less faith, who abhor death more fiercely, than those who are deepest in monasticism (qui sunt monasticissimi). Therefore it is impossible (as we shall show) that those should not extinguish the faith who trust in their vows and works. But those who consider them necessary trust in them; for since they are afraid if they omit them, they must necessarily trust in them if they keep them. For fear and trust depend on one and the same thing, about which it is said elsewhere. The doctrine of the state of perfection and imperfection is a mere fairy tale and fool's game, which comes from not knowing anything about faith, and which is only good for seducing people. Seeing then that the monastic life is full of ungodliness, error and ignorance, so that wherever you look at it you see only ignorance, ungodliness and error, what doubt do you have that it will displease God, and that the vows made in regard to it will be null and void and must be entirely dissolved? These are the false Christs who teach that here and there is Christ, and deceive many, and even the elect with their signs and lying"" Miracles"" [Matth. 24, 23. 24.]
It is a"" Error, I say, and a gross ignorance of the state of perfection.
to be measured by councils and not by commandments. For the counsels are not above the commandments, as they invent, but conversely that counsel of chastity (and there is no other counsel) is below his commandment. For this is the commandment, that one should not have evil desire. But in this life neither a virgin nor a celibate person is without evil desire. But this wretched ignorant crowd does not know why this was advised. For they hold this counsel for the sake that chastity is in itself an exceedingly praiseworthy work, in which there is salvation and honor; therefore they consider themselves far better than other Christians. But Christ and Paul teach otherwise, who alone exalt faith and praise the celibate state for its sake, not because they want to be perfect in chastity before others, or do not desire to go against the commandment, but so that, freed from the sorrows and bodily afflictions which, as Paul says, are found in marriage, they may be all the more free from them, but so that, freed from the cares and cares of the flesh, which, as Paul says, are found in marriage, they may continue the more freely and unhindered in word and faith by day and by night, whereas otherwise one spouse must care for another, for the children, for the servants, and for the things of this life, and so be drawn away and be occupied with many affairs which prevent him from speaking.
In this way Christ also praises those who are cut, not because they cut themselves, but because they cut themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but not for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, so that they would be blessed through chastity (otherwise all would have to be cut), since faith alone makes blessed, but for the sake of the gospel, which he calls the kingdom of heaven, for the preaching and spreading of which among the nations he can work better who lives unmarried and without care for others without marriage. Christ wants chastity to be a servant of the kingdom of heaven, a willing servant, not one who must first earn it, but one who already has it and who, in order to share it with others, works selflessly, or at least promotes herself in it, always ready to die and leave the world for its sake.
And Paul says [1 Cor. 7:26.] that the celibate state is good because of the present
1522 N-' - a- ^1, 256 f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1835-1839. 1523
Not because of the reward in heaven, namely, because the free celibate people bear the hardships of this life, especially the Christian life, more easily than those who are bound in the state of marriage. And again he says [1 Cor. 7:34]: A virgin and "one who is not free, 1) cares for what belongs to the Lord, that she may be holy, both in body and in spirit". Now what does it mean to care for what belongs to the Lord? Is it to have chastity alone, and that as something idle? Rather, to have one's mind on God's word and to serve in it, to preach, to bear witness and to be ready to offer oneself for it. What is further and wider from this use of chastity than these monastics? These are also the most ignorant about the use of it, since they are chaste only for the benefit of themselves, serve with shouts and murmurs in the churches and promise themselves the crowns in heaven, namely for their dead (extincta) faith.
Certainly, if one considers the matter for oneself, one can see that Satan invented the fairy tale of the rites and the state of perfection for the sake of it, in order to give a coating to this perverse monasticism. For when he saw that nothing was vowed there, nor could anything be vowed, except what all had already vowed in baptism (with the exception of chastity), he began to invent perfections and counsels in order to make the common way contemptible and this peculiar way respectable by false appearance, and so that it should be thought that they vowed not small things; and he succeeded with the effect of his error. And what is even more nefarious, out of the many aforementioned vows invented by them, they have chosen only three, obedience, poverty and chastity, the others they do not vow and do not keep: quite unabashedly they quarrel in court, take revenge, hate their adversaries, collect debts in a harsh manner, do not give, do not lend and yet they now boast with a second lie and even greater deceit of the state of perfection and counsel. It is certain.
1) Here the Erlangen edition has "mixt" instead of innuptL.
If they claim these things to be counsels and perfections, they would also have to vow them, if life under vows (votorum institutum) is a state of perfection and life according to the counsels.
But if you look at the three councilors chosen by them, you will see that their obedience and poverty are in no way what they call councilors. For the councilors teach that one should be subject to all, and one should esteem the other higher than oneself. But their vow of obedience takes them completely out of the general humility taught in the Gospel, and makes them subject only to their superiors, and even to these only according to the rule of their order, in such a way that St. Bernard also says that a monk owes obedience to the command of his abbot only in such things as are contained in the rule. I ask you, what and of what kind is this obedience, that one should be free from everything and be subject to only one and even to this only partially? Is not a vow of such obedience a beautiful deception? The gospel commands that one should be subject to and obey all, at all times and in all things, and those who boast of the counsels do not want to be subject to their equals or inferiors, but only to One, their Superior, not in all things, but only in some.
Again, you see how well it goes out to those who choose better things than Christ taught, despising the leader and leading themselves. Peter really hits these people when he says, 2 Petr. 3, 3: "In the last days scoffers will come who walk according to their own lusts." Truly as scoffers they deceitfully boast of hearing, but teach disobedience and rather live in it, but mock the sound reason of all and deceive the souls of the simple by this boasting. Thus you see that the monastic life of error, lies, ignorance, foolishness, deceit, mockery, by its confusion, is actually an image of Babylon, in which the elect are miraculously preserved, like the three men in the fiery furnace.
(Dan. 3, 21. ff.]. So what does a monk vow? His words (if you take them according to the sense) will be these: God, I vow to you that I will not, as your Gospel teaches, submit to all, but only to One Superior, but also only according to the prescribed rule, and in this way I vow to you to keep your Gospel. Again, what is this but denying the gospel by vowing and setting up something of one's own? Here one could speak with Isaiah [66, 3.], their vow is just as if someone slaughters the son before the face of the father. Or do they not slaughter the Son of God by denying his gospel in such a sacrilegious way and yet presuming to offer him to God? They publicly vow obedience and yet fail to obey, and you can still think that these sacrilegious vows have validity before God and are required by Him?
The vow of poverty is also of this kind. The evangelical poverty is that one desires nothing in the spirit and administers the goods freely for the benefit of others. What else can they vow that goes beyond this, unless [the vow concerns] the outward use of goods, since both inward covetousness was renounced in baptism and the outward administration of goods is already ordered in the Gospel and they cannot do without the use themselves? But even here they mock themselves and all people, since no one has more to do with the administration of goods than they, then also no one uses them less for the benefit of others and more for their own advantage than they do: so they are, according to the vow, in that holy poverty; according to fact they are the most stingy and most entangled in temporal goods. Nor do they boast themselves as those who have vowed the councils, although no worldly people are farther from poverty. Nor is there anything in it that they let someone else take care of the goods, for the oeconomus administers their goods with their consent and according to their will. While in such a way they fly beyond the gospel and leave Christ as their leader, they fall into a state of poverty.
they go into the opposite, into the deepest abyss of the most perverse error, saying that they obey and are poor, while they are the most disobedient and richest of all, which everyone grasps with their hands; and yet these scoffers blind our senses with their fictitious words: obedience, poverty, counsel, perfection, spiritual order (religio) and the like.
Therefore, there is nothing of the precepts among those who boast of the precepts, but in all things that which is most contrary to the commandments, with the sole exception of chastity, and yet it too is ohue to the evangelical custom and benefit. Since the devil could not turn it into the opposite by any pretense, as he did with obedience and poverty, he left it untouched, but by far to the greatest destruction, both by abolishing its 1) use and by elevating it above the common faith, then by making it too much everyone's thing (vuIgavit), so as to bring countless souls into his snare and ruin them by what is impossible to nature. Thus, only chastity remains for those who take vows to the councils, but a perverse and godless one, which is also almost entirely corrupted by various pleasures. Woe to that vain vow of the councilors and to the state of perfection! For what is the whole of it but error, deceit, and ungodliness? But thou, O Lord, art righteous, and just is thy judgment; for so must they fall who desire not only to be like the Most High, but also to be higher, and forget the covenant of their God, like that woman, Prov. 7, who forsook the leader of her youth.
Therefore, as I have said, although I impute to St. Francis and other fathers the error of having arrogated to themselves the gospel alone out of great fervor of spirit, 2) I absolve them of this error, so that I do not have to believe that they approved of the lies and fictions of counsel, perfection, fictitious obedience and poverty, and perverse chastity.
1) It seems to us that instead of eis - esus should be read, and according to this we have translated.
2) Cf. above Col. 1511.
1526 v. a. vi, 259 f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1842-M4. 1527
have. For since they were brought by the impulse of the Holy Spirit and in full faith and fervent love alone to comply with the gospel completely and worthily, they did not think about whose gospel it was and whom it concerned, but only that it might be fulfilled; for they believed that the kingdom of God does not stand in words, but in power. But their followers went on and took hold of their outward nature, but their spirit and faith they let go, and it happened to them as it did to the Chaldeans, who fanned the fire in the furnace of Babylon: they themselves perish, and the saints are preserved, because, as the 28th Psalm [v. 5] says, "because they will not regard the work of the Lord, nor the works of his hands; therefore he breaketh them, and buildeth them not." For Ps. 77:20 says, "Thy way was in great waters, and yet thy foot was not felt"; and Ps. 4:4, "Know ye that the Lord leadeth his saints in a strange way"; and Ps. 68:36, "God is wondrous in his saints"; and Ps. 16:3, "In the saints that are in the earth, and in them that are glorious, all is my delight."
By these testimonies we are taught that in the case of the saints of God one should not pay attention to the appearance of outward works, but to the faith by which he governs them and sustains them wonderfully, allowing them to fall into error and sin according to the outward life that they take as if it were God's works and the right way, and fall into the abyss of error. And after the apostle had urged us to look at the end of the teachers [of the word of God], he added that we should follow their faith. For with God the judgment stands firm that all saints live, are driven and governed in the same spirit and the same faith, but outwardly do different works. For as God does not work through them at one and the same time, nor in the same place, nor in the same work, nor before the same persons, but He passes through times, through places, through works, through different persons, always governing them in the same spirit and faith, so that they may follow His hidden ways and His unknowable footsteps.
The saints will be forced to follow God's government and guidance through works, places, times, persons, and events that were not known to them before, and the saints will be forced to follow God's government and guidance through works, places, times, persons, and events that were not known to them before.
This is the school (eruditio) of faith in which all the saints have been instructed, each in his profession. Therefore, it is impossible that those untimely imitators of the saints should not err most corruptly, following even the best works of the fathers much more than their faith and spirit, let alone where they take hold of both their errors and their sins. For all such people stand in the door of their tent and see the back of Moses, who enters the tabernacle of the covenant, and think to find God in these works of the court and the porch, while it is written [Isa. 57:15], "The Lord dwells in His sanctuary," and [1 Kings 8:12], "The Lord has spoken) that He would dwell in darkness." Read the whole of Scripture and see if holy men have had to do with one and the same work.
For this matter the 62nd Psalm seems to me to be revealed, and it would not be useless to put it here. 1)
Yes, my soul is silent against God. For from him comes my salvation.
Yes, he is my rock and my salvation, my protection; nothing will shake me strongly.
How long will you fall upon one man and ruin yourselves all?
Like a hanging wall and cracked wall.
4. yes, they remember his exaltation to cast him out.
They take pleasure in lying, with their mouths they bless
And at their core, they curse. Sela.
1) The Psalm in Latin is not introduced according to the Vulgate, but translated by Luther from the Hebrew; therefore we translate here according to Luther.
1528 L. V. L. VI, 260-262. 174. judgment of spiritual and monastic vows!!. W. XIX, 1844-1847. 1529
Yes, "pure soul, be still toward God, for in Him rests my hope.
Yes, he is my rock and my salvation,
My protection, I will not waver.
7. with God is my salvation and my glory, the rock of my strength, my confidence is in God.
8. hope in him always, you people; pour out your heart before him.
God is our confidence. Sela.
9. but the children of men are vanity, the children of men are lies, so that they must rise in the. Dare,
All of them, because of their vanity. 10 Do not rely on intrigue and robbery; do not become vain.
If riches come to you, do not hang your heart on them.
11. God spoke once, I heard twice.
That the power of God is.
012 And with thee, O Lord, is mercy: for thou rewardest every man according to his deeds.
There is no other Psalm in which the hope, the confidence, the firm reliance on God is repeated and inculcated so often, for it is repeated twenty times, and the entire Psalm is about confidence in God, which is opposed most strongly of all things by the example of works in the saints. For this is the true way to blessedness, that one should give oneself to God, that in faith one should yield to Him and be quiet, that one should leave behind the noisy nature of presumption about works and surrender oneself to Him so that He may have His work in us, and not we ourselves. For we see nothing in the followers of the saints but the noise of the works which they have seen in the saints, for with these they toil day and night, but are never quiet toward God, subject to Him through faith. Therefore, they waver and are unsteady of heart, since the heart cannot come to rest through works. Their confidence is in the works that are taken from the example of the saints, through which
they presume to come where those have come by faith alone. But he cries out about their headless blindness, in which they rush in heaps to imitate the work of some great man, and do not rather and first learn to be quiet and trust in God. Why, he says, do you rush in such a way to the empty appearance of works? why do you all ruin yourselves? you all run and plunge yourselves to death. God is a high wall and a reliable protection, as Solomon says [Prov. 18, 10.]: "A high tower (that is, firmly founded) is the name of the Lord; the righteous runs there and is saved." Against you and all that you exalt, it will be like a hanging wall and a ramshackle wall; whoever leans on it will fall with it and will be thrown out and make a great fall (movebitur multum). Some want the word irruitis [ihr fallet her Ps. 62, 3.1) ] to mean the same as: to gather together, likewise: to be bad; both confirm the sense given before.
But, what follows is dark and doubtful: "But his exaltation they thought to muffle" [Ps. 62, 4.1) ]. Our [interpreter] has: But my reward; the Roman Psalter: my honor; Jerome: my theil, namely, my sacrifice (oblationem). For from this word [xxx = to lift up] the gifts and parts of holy things have the name sacrifice (oblationes), because they are lifted up. I therefore think that the meaning is that the ungodly in the examples of the saints not only do not follow that which alone is precious, honorable, the noblest, and even that by which they have part in holiness, namely faith, but with one accord or rather furiously deal with it, that they "cast it out" and destroy it, by extolling and preaching only the appearance of works. For no one follows the example of the saints less, and no one destroys it more, than those who follow their works alone and not their faith. Thus, no one today is less a Franciscan than those.
1) According to the above verse division, which is different from that in the Bible.
1530 v.". vi, 262-264. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1847-isso. 1531
who boast most of Franciscus (Franciscanissimi), who are called "of the Observance"; indeed, they are his bitterest enemies and intend most furiously to exterminate his faith. Hence follows: "They are well pleased with falsehood" [Ps. 62, 4.1) ], namely, they keep! the appearance, the faith they desolate and of which they boast and have pleasure in themselves before all other men, as if they were the holiest; "with the mouth they bless and in their inmost being they curse". For they praise as God Christ, St. Franciscum, Dominicum and others, whose followers they boast of being. But this praise is the highest blasphemy, since they destroy the faith and take only the appearance instead of the truth. From this, the whole psalm is clear, which teaches us to trust in God and that without faith everything is a lie.
Therefore also Isaiah says, Cap. 30 [v. 9. ff.], as it were in imitation of this Psalm: "For they are a disobedient people, lying children, who will not hear the law of the Lord, but say to the seers: Ye shall not see; and to the showers: Ye shall not see us right doctrine; but preach unto us softly, look unto us deceitfulness; depart from the way, make yourselves of the way; let the Holy One in Israel cease from us. Therefore thus saith the Holy One in Israel, Because ye reject this word, and rely upon iniquity, and stoutheartedness, and defy it; so shall such iniquity be unto you as a crack in a high wall, when it begins to trickle, which suddenly falls in unawares, and shatters." And soon after [v. 15]: "If you would repent and be still, you would be helped; by being still and hoping you would be strong" etc.
Second, 2) that the vows are contrary to faith.
That is enough to say that the monastic vows are against God's word. Now let us go on and prove that they are also contrary to the Christian faith, so that we may recognize all the more fully that this is a
1) According to the above verse division, which is different from that in the Bible.
2) This "secondly" corresponds to the "firstly" Col. 1508.
The main part of the abomination is the one that stands in the holy place. But we want to put here as the rock or our foundation, which is the main part of our faith, the word of Paul, Rom. 14, 23: "Everything that does not proceed from faith is sin. From this we conclude that monastic vows, if they do not proceed from faith, are sin. But they do not proceed from faith if they are perpetual, necessary, and not free [vows], which one can both keep and refrain from. But because this will come into the hands of adversaries, and also of the weak, we must meet their evasions, and lay the fords of this Jordan before them, lest these princes of the Midianites slip away from us. For first of all, they will deny that the faith in this saying is the Christian faith, having a human little bell, which is darker than the text itself and has never been understood by themselves, so that they may, as they are wont to do, deprive the Scripture of its power by such little bells, which they believe more than the pure revealed words of God, for no other reason than because these contradict the reason of their disbelief, in which they have asserted that not everything that is outside faith is sin.
Since Paul resisted this lie, which they set up against God, he was forced to put on the larva of their gloss and to give way to their opinion. 3) But this is the gloss: Faith is taken for conscience at this point. It means "what does not come from faith": he who acts against his conscience. But he who acts against conscience builds on hell. This I have told, lest they think that we neither know nor have read their glorious wisdom. Furthermore, they will deny even more that forced (necessaria) vows are without faith. For they have a faith that is manifold: a general faith, a particular faith, an acquired faith, an infused faith, an unformed faith, a formed faith, a faith of the general church, a faith of a son-
3) That is, because Paul testified against them, they sought to invalidate him by their gloss.
We are forced, therefore, so that these Amorites and frogs do not think we know nothing about their things, to argue against these things and to see our rock, though not as fixed, as firm. So we are forced, so that these Amorites and frogs do not think that we do not understand anything about their things, to dispute against these things, and not to fortify our rock, but to let it be seen as solid, after the smoke, the clouds and mists, which are stirred up by men, have been dispersed.
Christ says: "He who does not believe will be condemned," Marci the last, and Joh. 8, 24: "If you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins"; and Joh. 16, 8. f.: "He will punish the world for the sin of not believing in me. Suppose, then, that there is a monk who is chaste, obedient, poor, full of all virtues, and who does even such great things without faith, will he not be condemned? Does not the sentence remain: "He who does not believe will be damned"? Has he no sin in himself that the Spirit punishes? Will he not die in his sins? But the death, the damnation, the punishment [of the Holy Spirit] is not laid on anyone who does not sin. And here they cannot escape and say: the sin of unbelief is indeed condemned, but not everything that happens in the sin of unbelief. Does then an evil tree bring forth good fruit? and is not that which is done in sin sin? If one gives bread to the poor with the intention of breaking marriage, is it sin, and making a vow with the intention of not believing should not be sin? But also Joh. 3, 18. stops this ungodly mouth, since it says: "But he who does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God." I pray thee, of what faith doth he here speak? the infused, attained, general etc.? Is he not speaking of the one who makes alive? He that is without Him is already judged. And again [v. 36.], "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him." But the wrath of God does not abide on those who do not sin. Therefore, if works without faith are not sins, the wrath of God ceases.
on him who does this, and he would turn away wrath from himself by works, so that faith would not be necessary; what could be more blasphemous?
Therefore, our rock is invented firmly and overturns the foundation of their disbelief after the clouds are dispelled. Paul also stands firm: "Everything that does not come from faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]. He does not care that the judgment seems harsh to them. Christ's death, which he took upon himself for us, was also hard, and it was a great thing that the Son of God became man for us and was given for us; nevertheless, we believe that it happened. In matters of God, we do not have to follow our own judgment, nor do we have to decide according to what seems to us to be hard, soft, hard, easy, good, bad, just or unjust. "Thou shalt not do (Deut. 12:8) what seemeth thee right," as do the utterly godless faculties of the high schools, which estimate all divine things according to the judgment of human opinion, and instead of the rock of faith set up the sand and marshes of their misbelief as the main foundations. But our mind must be guided by the words of faith and the mind must be taken captive under the obedience of Christ. This is what the Paris whore with her exceedingly impudent forehead, which has long since shed its shame, has not done, for she recently dared to lock her feet apart and publicly show and speak her foul shame to the whole world: The law that one should not avenge oneself must for that reason be taken for a counsel, not because the holy Scripture teaches it, but because the human mind gives it, that this makes the Christian law burdensome 1) With the same godliness they will say that there is no hell, but the Scripture only threatens it, because the human mind abhors that a man should suffer eternal torment; in this sense, they say, Origen stumbled. O you high schools, O you faculties, O you wretched theo-
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 949.
logen, the basic soup of the most abominable dung puddle! Thus you give your mind (that is, the words of God) captive under the obedience of Christ, that is, under your mind. Therefore, we give our decision on this 1) from the divine image and dare to confidently say: Thus says the Lord of hosts, that the monastic vows, which are made and kept without faith, are sin, and for this reason also vain, damnable and must be revoked and refrained from, or else [in faith] vowed and kept anew.
That they now make conscience out of faith at this point, they do out of mere human outrage. For they also do not cite a little tittle from Scripture, by which they would like to prove that faith is sometimes taken in this way. I have not yet seen a passage in which faith is taken in any other way than as it is used everywhere in the same way, namely, Christian faith. But this is too far-reaching for it to be worth proving now. Nevertheless, let us tolerate this dark gloss of theirs and make good use of this human evil through the spirit that is given to us. For if they understood conscience rightly in the gloss, they would not speak evil. For it is quite true that if you did anything and thought that you were doing evil just by doing it, you would be sinning and, as they say, building up hell. But in this they err, that they do not make this conscience a general one in all works done without faith in Christ, but limit it only to certain cases in which, as they say, an erring conscience takes place. In this they err, because they fix their eyes only on the gross sins of pleasure, anger, and evil desire, but they never apply this conscience to the high and deep sins of the heart. Let us now see if we can do this.
If you do any work that you do not firmly believe will please God, or doubt whether it will please Him, do you not
1) It seems to us that instead of hac - hic or nose should be read, and we have translated so. Jonas has "here".
against conscience? because you do it and do not believe that it pleases God. But if you do not believe that it is pleasing, you have a conscience that it is a work not pleasing to God, and so you do against your conscience what you say is not pleasing to God. But are not all vows and all works of vows done without faith of this kind? Get me one who could dare to say that his vow is pleasing and pleasant to God. Yes, they themselves teach that such a claim would be presumption, and want us to be afraid and uncertain. But God has commanded us to trust in His mercy with certainty and without doubt, and that we should rely entirely on Him to please us and all that is ours, not through our worthiness or merit, but for His goodness' sake. For this is the conscience of a healthy faith, which here clings to the commandment and promise of God in the most faithful and unshaken way. This conscience is destroyed and sinned against by the one who either does not believe or, which is the same, doubts that he pleases God with everything that is his; therefore, he sins against himself and against the right conscience at the same time by doing what he does not believe pleases God.
But who frees us from this ungodly conscience that sins against itself? Nature cannot. For no matter how much good you do and shed your own blood, your conscience will always be wriggling and saying, "Who knows if this pleases God? For this saying of the wise man is true [Wis. 9:14]: "The thoughts of men are evil, and our devices are perilous." Nature, therefore, has not a good and confident (certam) conscience, and works cannot. But Christ, by the preaching of his word, revealed to the heart that it was he who became a priest for us, gave us, shed his blood, bore our sins, and adopted us as his own-this preaching, I say, makes the heart glad, straightens the conscience, so that it dares to speak and boast by itself: If
1536 - v-" vi, 267-269. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, i8Zs-i858. 1537
Christ is for me and mine, who is against me? For how should I not be pleasingly fine and all my works, if Christ is mine and I am Christ's? Could Christ possibly be displeasing? Behold, this is the faith which the Scripture teaches; he who has it cannot act contrary to conscience, because he cannot doubt that he pleases God, for Christ's sake who was given to him. But he who does not have it must always act against conscience, because he cannot but doubt whether he pleases God. For both the promise of God and the pledge of the promise, Christ, are missing, since nature is left to itself, uncertain what God thinks about it. But he who has the promise and Christ is quite sure what God thinks about him, namely, thoughts of peace for the sake of the blood of Christ, which cries out in our hearts for forgiveness of sins and, "Abba, dear Father!" [Rom. 8, 15.]
Therefore, the thoughts of men are evil, and he does not want us to rely on them. For this reason he has given us the promise of mercy and commanded that we should trust in it, and has given the priceless pledge, his only begotten Son, for this purpose, so that we may rely on his thoughts, which are revealed by the promise and sealed by Christ, Firmly and surely even against the gates of hell, so that even if we stumble and sin, we will soon rise again, knowing always that we must be pleasing for Christ's sake, although for our own sake we cannot but be displeasing. In this sense, that gloss is Christian and can be placed in good usage, and it agrees with Paul and all of Scripture in every way. For in truth he acts against his conscience and sins who does not believe or does not have Christ; and again, in truth he does not believe who acts against his conscience, so that the saying is certain: "He who does not believe will be condemned," because he does not believe that his sins are forgiven without doubt. This conscience sinks him into condemnation, since it remains burdened with sins.
Now we must see further that the monastic vows are without faith. It has been proved and confirmed with insurmountable testimonies that everything that does not come from faith is sin, but that it belongs to faith alone to work the forgiveness of sins, to make the conscience secure and cheerful and free from sins. But works, or the fruits of faith, do not actually belong to the forgiveness of sins and a cheerful conscience, but are the fruits of the forgiveness and good conscience that already existed and preceded them. Dear reader, I beg you to remember, as carefully as you can, that works before faith are sins, that faith alone without works works forgiveness of sins, justification and a good conscience, but that works after faith are the fruits of the already justified man, which come from the forgiveness of sins and a good conscience, that is, from faith and love. Remember these things, I say, for this is the Spirit [Isa. 40:7, 8.], which shall blow into the hay of the vows and into their flower, and the hay he shall make to wither, and their flower shall fall away. It is not human, but divine, on which we base ourselves. For it is certain that before faith, and without that Christian, life-giving and best faith, not only cannot forgiveness of sins or a good conscience be obtained by works or vows, but that what happens must necessarily be sin.
Now here you will see in what godliness these people make their vows, and what kind of faith is their general, acquired, infused [faith], in which they make their vows, whether you should consider them Jews or Christians. Paul says Gal. 3:12: "The law is not of faith"; and again [Cap. 2:16], "By the works of the law no flesh is justified before God"; and [Rom. 9:31], "Those who fall short of the righteousness of the law do not attain to the righteousness of the law." All this, with what precedes, establishes this as certain: He who has the forgiveness of sins, the satisfaction for the same, the justification of any
If any man lay claim to any other thing than faith alone, and seek it by any other means than faith, he hath denied Christ, hath cast away grace, and hath forsaken the gospel as an apostate. For thus Paul thunders to the Galatians [Gal. 5:4.], "Ye are fallen from grace, who would be justified by the law." But vows and works of vows are law and works, not faith nor of faith. For what is a vow but a kind of law? as their own speech testifies, when they say, That which was free before the vow is something necessary after the vow, and no longer a counsel, but a commandment. Now those who make their vows in the opinion that by this way of living they will become good and righteous, eradicate sin and become rich in good works: is it not obvious with them that they are godless and Jews, that they fall away from the faith, even blaspheme and deny the faith? for they attribute to the laws and their works what actually belongs to faith alone. Of these Paul prophesied very clearly (egregie) [1 Tim. 4, 1. 2.]: "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, and shall cleave to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, through them that speak lies in glibness." This departure [from the faith] and apostasy he also remembers [in the second letter] to the Thessalonians [Cap. 2, 2. ff.]. But where is this apostasy other than where one goes to works and attaches to works what faith accomplishes?
Now let us ask all who make vows in what opinion they vow, and you will find that they are possessed of this ungodly opinion, that they think that the grace of baptism has been destroyed, and now one must save oneself from shipwreck by the other plank, repentance, therefore by living under a vow one must seek not only to become good and blot out sins, but also to repent exceedingly abundantly and become better than other Christians. It is quite certain that they seek all this in works and vows, and not in faith; their word testifies to this, when they say, "If I did not seek and find these things.
what would I then have to do in the monastery? what should I toil for? For if they knew that this is achieved and attained through faith alone, they would certainly have to conclude: Why is it necessary to take a vow and become a monk? For they would immediately recognize that this way of life is superfluous and not necessary for righteousness or salvation, but rather void and contrary to salvation. As soon as the doctrine of faith is revealed, it is found that everything else is not necessary for righteousness. But if they had known this, they would never have made the vow, for no one likes to labor in vain, especially with such a great burden throughout life. Therefore, by this testimony, they are convicted that they took the vow for that reason, because they thought that this way of living under a vow was useful and necessary for righteousness or a good life, indeed, that they thought nothing more useful and better. But this opinion is ungodly, unholy, contrary to faith, which alone is necessary and useful; indeed, nothing is more useful and necessary for righteousness than it.
But this convicts them much more strongly and certainly that they vow and live in no other than this unbelieving and godless opinion, that they publicly teach and say as the main basis of their misbelief that man can obtain grace and forgiveness of sins through his natural works. For they are all of this opinion, because that is why they also make vows, so that they may obtain God's grace through this way of living, according to the main basis of their misbelief. What do they do other than deny Christ and renounce the faith? Yes, I have heard with my own ears that some who have a very great name among them teach: A spiritual person (religiosum) is most rich by this grace, that as often as he renews the religious vow in his heart with a very slight repentance (contritiunculam), so often he enters the order anew. But this entering he [who said such] made equal to baptism, as all make it equal [to baptism]. Such innumerable
A lot (äiluvia ----- floods of sin) of baptisms have these shameful work saints, but the faith has only one (Dauses, and by a single sin they give the baptism lost. If, however, there are some among them who do not hold this opinion, although they neither hear nor see anything else, they must be miraculously preserved in the midst of ungodly doctrine and unbelieving life, like the men in the fiery furnace of Babylon, by the power of God alone, who teaches them rightly and keeps them powerful inwardly. Therefore, if there were no other reason to revoke and abandon the monastic vow, this godlessness, that one denies Christ and rejects the faith, would still urge and drive one to do so abundantly. For no one can sufficiently consider how serious and vehement Paul's word is, which we have quoted [1 Tim. 4:1-3]: "In the last times some will depart from the faith and cleave to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, through those who are lying liars and have brands in their consciences, forbidding to be married and to shun the food that God has created, to take with thanksgiving the faithful and those who know the truth."
I would boldly dare, on the authority of this one word, since it is the word of the Holy Spirit, who is our God blessed [forever], amen, to absolve all the monks altogether from their vows and to proclaim confidently that their vows are rejected and void before God. For previously, by virtue of this word alone, I absolved priests from their celibate life, but as I look at the matter more closely and consider Paul's words more carefully, I find that his teaching extends over all and generally concerns all celibates, both monks and priests. Therefore, it would be useful to look at Paul a little more closely. And first of all, in order to refute from the bottom up those who, in honor of the pope, the priests and the monks, force this passage on the Tatians and do not want to allow it to be understood by our celibate life, the words themselves force it,
that they cannot be understood by the Tatians. For the Tatians not only forbade marriage, but condemned it altogether, saying that it was evil and sinful. Similarly, the Manichaeans not only forbade food, but condemned it because it was mixed with a part of darkness etc. But the pope and the papists condemn neither food nor marriage, but only forbid to become married and to avoid the good food of which they profess that God created it, and do this under the appearance of a more excellent spiritual life. To this Paul evidently points when he says, "Who in glittering are liars." For the papists do not teach it as something necessary, or that God has commanded it, to avoid food and marriage, but knowingly and with premeditation they forbid this by their own power, in order to establish their glitter. The Tatians and the Manichaeans, however, wanted their little sin to be regarded as something necessary and commanded by God, and did not know that what they taught was their own, nor did they put it forward in order to have the appearance of greater holiness, but believed that the truth and necessity of the common Christian life drove them to it. So we have this passage of Paul, which really hits our celibate people, the pope, the priests, the monks and nuns.
And to admit that Paul still speaks so much of the Tatians and Manichaeans, it cannot be denied for the sake of it that he also speaks of the Papists, namely as far as they agree with those. Does the evangelist John not speak against Sabellius for the sake of the divinity of Christ, because his words are against the Arians? Or does he not speak against the followers of Cerinthus, because his words refute the Jews? Or do they not apply against the Turks, because they apply against the Gentiles? They are valid and argue against all, they may be called whatever they want, they may belong to whatever sect they want, as long as they deny that Christ is God, even if he suits them or not. Thus this passage of Paul condemns all who forbid to become married and teach to avoid food, may
1542 L. V. L. VI, 272-L74. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1864-1867. 1543
They may be Tatians, Manichaeans, Turks, Papists or any others. For even the Turk abstains from wine under the appearance of sanctity. Since, therefore, it cannot be denied that the pope forbids marriage as well as food, it is evident that he resists the Holy Spirit in this word of Paul, and that his teaching is of the devil, erroneous and a mere hypocrisy. Can anyone object to this? Is it not quite clear and insurmountable? After all, the Papists are not Turks, nor Manichaeans, nor Tatians, of which we do not accuse them, but in so far as they agree with the Turks, Manichaeans and Tatians, we do accuse them. They are not Turks, but they do and teach what the Turks teach.
Now that the monastic vows are declared to be erroneous, devilish and gleaming doctrines by the pronouncement of the Holy Spirit, what are you still afraid of revoking them and letting them go? Or are you afraid to hear and follow the Spirit, your Creator? Do you fear that the Spirit of Truth may lie to you or be angry with you if you follow his voice? If you knew you had made a vow to commit church robbery, you would certainly cancel and change that vow, so why don't you change and cancel this one too? But perhaps that holds you back which has also held me back until now, that the monks do not teach [these lies], 1) but voluntarily engage in this kind of teaching and gilding. The priests, however, are compelled by the pope's command, but do not vow voluntarily. And this voluntary vow, which is not forced by anyone, has moved me very strongly up to now, but now it no longer moves me. First of all, because Paul asserts with such a free spirit that they are lying doctrines of seducing spirits and the devils, which is also proven by the matter itself, confirming the words of Paul. For they teach that one is justified and saved by works, and they renounce faith, since they consider their obedience, poverty and chastity not only certain ways to salvation, but also more perfect and better than those of the rest.
1) Cf. Col. 1546.
Believers, which is an obvious and obvious lie and error and sin against the faith. And there is nothing left with them but gruesomeness and branding in the conscience.
Finally, as if they did not want anyone to doubt that Paul was talking about them, they rage even more and unashamedly reveal their lies. For they also sell their good works and share them with other people along with their merits and brotherhoods, as if they were such people who not only walk on a better path, but could also make others blessed with them out of their abundance. Can anyone deny that this is done by them publicly and everywhere? But that they ascribe so much to works, that they not only blot out their own sins, but also those of others, and that they not only benefit themselves, but also others, to salvation: what more blasphemous and foolish thing can be devised against Christ and his faith? Which Jews? which Gentiles? which Turks are just as much raving? Does not this mean to provoke and entice not only one's own conscience, but also the conscience of others, to trust in their works and merits? But what does it mean but to trust in the most damnable lie? And yet with this lie they devour the goods of the whole world in idleness and soft living. Finally, they have recently reached the peak (finem) of their frenzy by promising entrance to heaven to those people who put on the robe when they die. What is an abomination if this is not an abomination?
So you see, yes, you grasp it here with your hands, that they have not only left the faith, but also that the whole world has been deceived by their horrible lies. For every man's own faith is both necessary and sufficient for the remission of sins and for salvation. Faith brings us Christ, that is, we become one flesh with him, bones of his legs, and he makes all things common to us with him, so that our conscience may boast in him and over him, that through his blood and merit alone we both live justified and live blessed for eternity.
1544 V. a- VI, 274-276. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Klostergeludden. W. XIX, 1867-1870. 1545
without all our own works, even without the works of others. For the faith of Christ cannot suffer grace and righteousness to come either by our works or by the works of others, for it knows and confesses continually that this is Christ's [work] alone. If then they taught faith, they would not sell their works to other people, but would draw themselves and all men from the trust in works to Christ alone, and at the same time show how their life under the vow is not at all necessary for righteousness, for salvation, for the forgiveness of sins, but that faith alone is necessary.
Of these Christ prophesied quite actually Matth. 24, 23. [Luc. 21, 8.]: "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ." Note, I beseech you, the words of Christ, "In my name shall they come, saying, I am Christ." Those papist religious (religiosi) never call themselves by this word "Christ"; none say, I am called Christ, or will be called so, but they all say, I am Christ. They abstain from the name, but they presume the office, the work and the person. Do you ask how they do it? Listen. It belongs to Christ alone to help others with his merits and works and to make them blessed. The works of others are of no use to anyone, not even to themselves, for the verdict is clear: "The righteous will live by his faith." For faith sets us on the works of Christ, without our works, and transfers us from the banishment of our sins into the kingdom of his righteousness. This is faith, this is the gospel, this is Christ.
But where do the papists draw this faith? Do they not direct it to themselves? For they teach people to trust in their merits and share their works and brotherhoods with other sinners, so that they bear and redeem their sins and make them righteous and blessed. Is this not saying, "I am Christ"? Does it not mean to do what Christ does? They are already no longer Christians, but Christ. For the description of a Christian is this: he that believeth by the works of the one Christ alone,
without works of their own, to be justified, freed from sins and blessed. The description of Christ is this: "He who makes his people blessed from their sins" [Matth. 1, 21.], who gives them his own merits and all righteousness. But this is what our monks do. In my name (he says) they will come, that is, they do this not as pagans, but as Christians, yes, as the very most Christian people, for they do not allow anyone else to boast more proudly of the Christian name. I remember here what I have often heard, that some of this kind of people have given all their good works to dying sinners with these words: Behold, I give thee all the good things that I have done in my life, and thought that by this foolishness they had accomplished an inestimable work of love, while they drew that poor man away from Christ and made him trust in the works of a man. O terrible darkness, O miserable blindness, O horrible frenzy! Do you not, O Satan, play your game in this way in the souls of those who are lost and bring others to ruin?
I believe that these ravening wolves are sufficiently discerned from these fruits of theirs, in which opinion they take their vows and lead their lives, so that no one can deny that becoming a monk (if not obtained by a miracle) is the same as falling away from the faith, denying Christ, becoming a Jew, and, as Peter predicted [2 Ep. 2, 22], eating again the heathen filth which they had spewed forth. For thou seest that these lost men have nothing else in view than works, and such works indeed, which they liken to the works of Christ, solely for the reason that they think that they, under the pretense of the Christian name, celebrate Christians in that godless and abominable faith, which they call the common and unformed. Therefore, as I have said, the voluntary vow of the monks no longer prevents me from saying that it can and must be omitted. For what is this vow but a covenant made with devils? The Holy Spirit, your God, says you have erred.
1546 V. L. VI. 276-278. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1870-1873. 1547
thum and lies, and you doubt whether you may go back and leave the vow? Take heed of Paul, who remembers not only those who teach it and are compelled to do so, but also those who follow them; indeed, of those who follow he speaks chiefly, saying [1 Tim. 4:1], "They shall depart from the faith, and follow the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Here you see that the hearers and followers are mentioned first. But, this is true (certo), the monks, since they vow voluntarily, do not teach these lies,, 1) but are taught and follow as seduced. Therefore, Paul speaks in general against all these celibate people and does not accept anyone. And what need is there of many words? To whom it is not enough that the Holy Spirit declares what is praised to be the doctrines of devils, lies, errors, gossip, what should be enough? Who would want to keep the devil's covenant in order to be saved, and not rather break it as soon as possible and leave it?
But suppose that you have miraculously been preserved in pure faith by vowing and living under the vows, as Bernard and many others have been preserved, to whom, for the sake of the faith of Christ, of which they were full, this poison has not harmed: nevertheless, since it is known by God's saying that these are doctrines of devils, lying doctrines, which by their nature deceive and seduce, because they can teach nothing but works, you can and must tear up the vow which you have made to keep these [doctrines]. For the teachings of men cannot become the teachings of God through the example of a saint. The doctrine of God teaches faith, beyond which those followers of vows (votarii) boast of teaching something else. But this something else is nothing, can be nothing, but a work. But a work cannot be taught without violating faith, since faith and works are in extreme conflict in the business of justification. Thus it comes about that the doctrine of works is inevitably a doctrine of devils and
. 1) Vgc Col. 1642.
is an abandonment of faith. But no one teaches works because he does not consider them necessary for righteousness and salvation; for if he did not consider them necessary, he would teach in vain. Why else would he teach them, and who would follow and keep them if he knew any other way to righteousness and salvation?
Paul therefore rightly says [Gal. 3, 12]: "The law is not of faith", and [Gal. 2, 16]: "By the works of the law no one is justified"; so also a vow is not of faith, and by a vow no flesh is justified. And everything that Paul asserts in his letter to the Galatians against the law and its works also applies to the vow and its works. Whether they are vowed in a godly or in an ungodly opinion, they must be broken as those which God has rejected and which are performed on things that are rejected by God. Therefore, Bernard and others who vowed to godly opinions and lived under vows are to be compared to those two hundred men [2 Sam. 15:11] who went with Absalom from Jerusalem to Hebron when he was stirring up rebellion against the kingdom of his father David. For they knew nothing of the cause of Absalom, and went in simple-mindedness; it is certain that they recovered when they knew the cause. But where they had been seized in the midst of the matter, they might have been accused as men guilty of high treason, if their work and their way had been considered, but if they had been judged according to their heart, they should have been acquitted. This story gives us opportunity for a beautiful spiritual interpretation of this matter, but now is not the place to dwell on it. Absalom is actually the Papist kingdom, which has rebelled against the kingdom of Christ, has also cast it out, and sits in the midst of Jerusalem. But the godly, who were with him, did not agree with him in this frenzy. And, to say nothing of others, I am sure of Bernard that he was like those two hundred men, which he himself evidently proved at the
1548 V- s. VI, 278 f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. - W. XIX, 1873-1876. 1549
I have lost my time, for I have lived a damned life, but one thing comforts me that you will not despise a troubled and bruised heart: I have lost my time, for I have lived reprobately; but one thing comforts me, that thou wilt not despise a troubled and a bruised heart. And elsewhere: Christ possesses the kingdom with twofold right, first because he is the Son, secondly because he suffered, and this second merit he did not need, but he gave it to me and to all believers.
You see that these are words of an exceedingly Christian heart, which puts all its confidence in Christ and despairs of its own works altogether. He boasts nothing of the vow of poverty, obedience, chastity; indeed, he calls his life a damnable one, and in this faith he is preserved and justified with all the saints. Or do you think that he lied or said in jest that his life was damnable? He felt the judgment of God, before which no one can stand but Christ alone and His righteousness, so he wanted to be nothing and threw himself on Christ, but said his own righteousness was damnable. Now, if you heard it preached that the vows and the life of the religious are damnable and of no use for righteousness and salvation, who would make vows? who would remain under vows? And if you would not call them damnable, you would in truth be damnable and would not imitate the vows of the holy fathers in any way. But as Bernard was, so all holy and godly religious must necessarily have been, so that you can clearly see that all of them have been wonderfully preserved and have finally, by necessity, come back to saying that the vows are nothing and damnable, so that they might become righteous and blessed by faith alone. And ungodly men despise this faith of the fathers, reproach and exalt the works that condemned them, and under the pretense of the example of the saints they teach to depart from the faith, and against the example of the fathers they deceive the whole world with lies. Behold, this means: God is wonderful in His saints.
And since they want the monastic life to be considered pleasing before God because the saints lived well (bene) in it, why do they not also teach that fire, sword, frost, wild beasts, death on the cross and various kinds of death are pleasing before God and must be praised? Did not the holy martyrs live well in it? St. Agnes remained a virgin in the whorehouse. And how great people God lets fall into sins, so that they learn humility and recognize themselves! Paul confesses in Romans 7:18, 20 that sin dwells in his flesh, and yet he lives well in the midst of sin and needs sin well. And who among the saints does not live well in the flesh, in the world, among devils? Does one have to pledge the works of the flesh, the world and the devil for the sake of it? But these godless people do not want the monastic life to be considered merely that one lives in it, but by its help (per quam), or rather that one lives well by it (qua). For they teach that this kind of life and the essence (substantiam) of it is good, by which they become good and blessed. This is impious, this is ungodly and blasphemous, this is their lie, this is their error, this is their falsehood, this is the fiction of devils; thus they deceive the hearts of the simple, speaking proud words when there is nothing behind (as Peter [2 Ep. 2, 18.] says). For no saint is made good by the same, neither can they show any example of it. But all are justified and saved in Christ alone through faith, as we have shown in Bernard.
But St. Augustine also says: Woe to the life of men, however praiseworthy it may be, if it is judged without mercy! and again: I may be frightened, but I will not despair, for I will be mindful of the wounds of the Lord. You see that he too condemns his own life and that of all men, but takes refuge in the wounds of Christ. And Paul Gal. 2:20: "I live, yet now not I, but Christ liveth in me." All live in Christ alone, pledge themselves to him, trust in him and boast in him, and think nothing of their own lives.
1550 D- v. L. vi, 279-28i. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1876-1878. 1551
works. Therefore we also say: Cursed be he that teacheth otherwise than that in faith alone is righteousness and salvation. Is this not clear enough? It is therefore also clear that the monastic vows, since they cannot be taught otherwise than by faith and apart from faith, are ungodly, heathenish, Jewish, robber of God, false, erroneous, devilish, hypocritical, apostate, and contrary to the examples of the saints. Therefore, one should confidently revoke and abandon them, even though they may be performed in godly and serious opinion. For if the apostle forbids to teach the works of the divine law, and compels the Galatians and the Romans with so great vehemence to forsake them, how much more are these self-chosen works of men forbidden and to be forsaken! In short, works and vows cannot be taught, nor persuaded to be done, without saying that they are wholesome and useful for salvation and righteousness. For what kind of teaching would it be to say that works and vows are not wholesome, nor necessary? Who would listen to it? Who would accept it? But to teach that they are salvific is diabolical and apostate from faith, since faith alone is necessary and salvific. Therefore, either monastic vows and works cannot be taught and learned seriously, or one must apostatize from Christ and fall away from the faith, both teachers and hearers. And St. Paul says plainly that these are the devil's doctrines and lies and errors; if you do not depart from them with St. Bernard, even at your end, you will be lost for eternity.
Since all this is true and established by divine testimony, it proves that the one who takes monastic vows, if he does it without faith, stands before God in this opinion of heart: Behold, God, I vow to you that I no longer want to be a Christian, I revoke the vow that I made in baptism. I will no longer base myself on Christ nor live in him, for all this is in vain and has long since become obsolete. But I vow to you, above and apart from Christ, a new and much better vow, namely, in my own works of chastity,
of obedience and poverty and of this whole rule. For by these works I shall be justified and saved, and shall be useful to others with me for righteousness and salvation. Are you astonished and do you deny that a pious man has such thoughts? But if you deny it, you must at the same time deny that what was said before is true. For the heart that is not built on Christ by pure faith and misses making a vow cannot be of any other mind than what has been said; for it must look at the works and esteem them great, otherwise it would not vow. But to magnify works is to deny faith, to revoke baptism, to reject Christ, as has already been said enough. And you could believe that it pleases God and is required by Him, and not rather that He hates it to the utmost and condemns it? This is what happens to those who go along without faith and take works.
Yes, see a much greater misery and misfortune in their ways. Those are considered the best among them who come closest to this godless nature, for they are rare and few in number who live chastely, poorly, obediently and according to the other precepts of the rules. How great penances are here! how great prisons! how great punishments! how great suffering of those who do not reach it! how great is the conscience when they do not keep their order! For such great toil Satan casts away his ruin. That which one should have fled with the greatest effort and conscience, one follows with the greatest effort and conscience. Moses said rightly s5 Mos. 28, 64. 66.]: "There you will serve other gods, which will not give you rest day and night." Christ also seems to have prophesied of this [Luc. 13, 24.]: "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many will seek to enter and will not be able to do so." But God seems to resist them according to His mercy, so that they will not reach their state of perfection, that is, the highest degree of godlessness, 1) by allowing them to
1) Instead should be read Wohl attinZant.
1552 D. v. L. vi. 281-283. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows". W. xix, i878-i88i. 1553
fall by bequeathing their way with thorns (as he speaks in Hosea [Cap. 2, 6.]), so that the transgressors, seized in fear, strike within themselves and return to their former man, where it was better for them than now, Hos. 2, 7. Now is this not an unbelievable reversal, the first are the last and the last are the first? The apostates are the spiritual (religiosi) and the spiritual are the apostates. And those who keep the vows least keep them most, and those who keep them most keep them least. Thus it is, yea, thus, O Lord, "with the perverse thou art perverse" [Ps. 18:27.]. Thus the word Rom. 3, 16. 17.1) is fulfilled: "In their ways is vain destruction and heartache, and they know not the way of peace" [Is. 59, 7. 8.].
Again, whoever vows in a Christian and godly mind will necessarily think before God thus: Behold, God, I vow to live this way, not because I believe that this is the way to righteousness and salvation or atonement for sins; for from this may Your mercy preserve me. This would be to the shame of my Lord Christ, since it would be to deny his merit and to make his blood unclean, and to make a mockery of your Son, who alone has this honor, that he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, washes and justifies all in his blood; I will not throw away your mercy in such an ungodly way. This I will expect of him, and I will measure myself by it in him alone, but by no means in myself or in any other creature, much less in my vows and works. But this I intend: since I must live in the flesh and not be idle, I will accept this way of living to exercise my body, to serve my neighbor, to meditate on your word, as another takes up farming or a trade, each so that he may work, without all regard to merit or justification, which must be first in faith and always remain first and rule in all things etc. If the mind of the pledger is not such a one.
1) In the editions erroneously: Psalm 18.
you see from the foregoing that the vow is not godly, nor is it truly a vow, because faith demands this attitude when it is there, or it is not faith. For the verdict is clear: "The righteous lives by faith"; no one can live by works, therefore he cannot live by vows.
Now you see how many there are who vow in such a way; certainly either no one or those who are wonderfully brought to it. For such a mind despises the vows and considers them no better than tillage or any other work of the hands. But which of the religious ever makes a vow in such a way that he does not consider his work of vow to be one in which he does more than he owes (supererogationis), a work of perfection to which no other is either similar or equal? as they also teach quite impudently. Moreover, he who is of this [right] disposition considers this way of living to be a practice and activity, not the thing and the essence itself, for he considers faith to be the thing and the essence. Just as man is the essence, but his natural activity is the custom of his essence, so faith uses the exercises and works of all. They, on the other hand, do not regard them as the use, but as the essence itself. For if a man is in the spiritual state (esse religiosum), of him they say that he is in a good state absolutely, whose use need not be made, but who rather uses all others; he is the head, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega.
Third, that the vows are contrary to evangelical freedom.
So far we have seen that our monasticism is contrary both to the word of God and to the Christian faith. And although it is abundantly condemned and rejected on the basis of these two things, and rightly made odious to all (for what is found contrary to God and His word is at the same time easily concluded to be contrary to all things, not even to itself), it is not a good thing.
1554 v.vi, 283-WZ. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, i8si-i88s. 1555
If we do not agree on this, we will try to explain this in more detail for those who cannot find it themselves. And now, thirdly, let us prove that it is contrary to the fruit of the Word and of faith, namely, Christian and evangelical freedom. If one violates this and does not keep it intact, this is no less ungodly than if one denies the faith and becomes apostate, as Paul teaches us in the letter to the Galatians. Therefore we repeat what has been said, and lay it down as a reliable main foundation, that a vow cannot please God, indeed, it is not regarded by him as a vow unless it is quite properly (Germane) Christian and godly. For he cannot acknowledge what is done contrary to Christian godliness, certainly no more than he can deny himself, since he has commanded Christian godliness in the first and highest commandment. But a vow is not a Christian and godly one if it is not vowed with uninjured faith. Then faith is inviolate if the vow is considered a free thing and not necessary for righteousness and blessedness, since it is certain that these can be attained by no laws, by no works, but only by faith in Christ, as we have firmly proved and evidently demonstrated. For before all works there must be righteousness and blessedness, not just any righteousness and blessedness, but the righteousness and blessedness of God, that is, the eternal righteousness and blessedness that remains for all eternity, which God alone gives and works in us, and for this very reason, because it is God's work in us alone, it can be prevented by our works, but not brought about.
For it is written in John 6:29: "This is God's work, that you believe in Him whom He has sent"; and soon after [v. 44]: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him"; and again [v. 45]: "It is written in the Prophets: They shall all be taught of God. He therefore that heareth of the Father, and learneth, cometh unto me"; and again [v. 65], "Therefore have I said unto you:
No one can come to me unless it is given to him by my Father." He also says this to Peter Matth. 16, 17.: "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." And Paul [Rom. 12, 3. Eph. 4, 7.] calls faith a gift of God, because it is not of us. For this thing, the righteousness of God and the blessedness of God, namely, the work of the Majesty alone, is far too great to be prepared by our powers. Therefore, what is brought about by our powers is rather iniquity than righteousness, much more properly destruction than blessedness, as it is said in Hof. 13:9: "Israel, thou bringest thyself to misery, for thy salvation is with me alone." Therefore, those vows that are made presumptuously in the belief that they will bring about righteousness and blessedness, are also misdeeds and ruin that are contrary to the righteousness and blessedness of God, whose work and office they presume to be.
What Christian freedom is.
Since it is quite certain from this that no vow is accepted before God unless it is considered unnecessary for righteousness and salvation, and since he himself has not commanded that any vow be taken, it clearly follows that such a vow is free and can be remitted. For these two things are evidently contrary to each other: that it is not necessary for righteousness and blessedness, and that it cannot be remitted without danger to righteousness and blessedness. If it cannot be omitted, it is necessary; if it is not necessary, it can be omitted, so that one sees that the form of a godly and Christian vow before God is this: I vow to you to live this way, which by its nature is not necessary, nor can it become necessary for righteousness. For if it is not so, it cannot be a godly vow, as is sufficiently clear from what has been said. But what will God answer here? Will he not say, "Why then do you do this?
foolishly a vow? Don't you have enough vows to keep to me?
But here a strong objection is raised: The works of the law, which are commanded in the holy ten commandments, as chastity, meekness, gentleness, obedience to parents, do not justify, nor are they necessary for righteousness and salvation, since Paul says [Rom. 3, 20.]: "By the works of the law no flesh is justified." Nevertheless they are necessary, since Christ says Matt. 19:17: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." For they cannot be remitted if there is faith, which alone justifies, since they are fruits of justifying faith. For faith without works is dead and of no avail, 1 Cor. 13, 2. And Peter [2 Ep. 1, 5.] requires that "virtue be in faith." And Paul demands from the Galatians [Gal. 5, 6] the "faith that is active through love". So it could also be said of vows and their works that they are necessary because they are commandments after the vow has been made, as fruits of righteousness, although they are not necessary for righteousness itself, which is of faith alone. For this is also not Christian freedom, that one can omit the commandments of God. But the commandment of God is [Ps. 76:12]: "Praise and keep." For by faith we do not abolish the law, but we establish it, says Paul Rom. 3, 31.
This question has been raised so that we may consider the nature (naturam) of Christian freedom. Now Christian or evangelical liberty is the liberty of conscience, by which conscience becomes free from works, not that none should be done, but that it should trust in none. For conscience is not a power to act, but a power to judge, to judge works. This is its real work, as Paul says Rom. 2, 15, to accuse or excuse, to make guilty or acquit, to make fearful or safe. Therefore, his office is not to do something, but to judge what has been done, or what should be done, which is either guilty or innocent before God [the conscience].
can make it safe (salvam). Christ, therefore, has made it free from works, since he instructs it through the Gospel that it should trust in no works, but be presumptuous in his mercy alone. And so a believing conscience depends only (absolutissime) on the works of Christ and is that "dove in the holes in the rock and in the cracks in the stone" [Hohel. 2, 14.and knows most certainly that it cannot be secure and calm except in Christ alone, but that in all its own works it cannot remain other than guilty, despondent and condemned.
So it makes a difference and judges between Christ's works and its own. It takes hold of Christ's works and judges in this way: by them I will be justified and preserved and freed from all sins and all evil, I have no doubt, because they were done by him for this very purpose and poured out on me in baptism; without them there is no salvation, "no peace in my bones" [Ps. 38:4], no satisfaction for sins. But its own evil works it sees and condemns, but in Christ's works it overcomes and despises them, that they cannot bite it. Christ's works are more powerful to deliver us and give us peace than ours are to take us captive and terrify us, if you believe otherwise. But it takes hold of its own good works and judges that they must be done in vain, solely for the benefit of the neighbor and to exercise the body, but not at all to prepare justice, peace, satisfaction for sins and forgiveness. For this it seeks only in Christ's works and finds it in constant faith, as it sees that Christ did his works in vain for our benefit and for the use of the body according to the will of God.
It is this knowledge of freedom and the right condition (sanitatem) of the conscience against which all attacks of human and godless teachings are directed. Here the cunning of the serpent seeks to displace the simplicity that is in Christ [2 Cor. 11:3]. Here you see how ungodly the laws of atonement are, by which we are taught that we blot out sins by our works. They are snatching open jaws-.
1558 L. V.". VI, 286-288. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows" etc. W. XIX, 1886-1888. 1559.
of wolves, which tear consciences away from Christ and lead them, torn apart, most miserably to their own works, always learning, always working, and yet never attaining to truth and peace [2 Tim. 3. 7.]. Paul calls these wolves Apost. 20, 29. f., who would come among them, not sparing the flock, and speaking perverse doctrines to draw the disciples to themselves. For what else does it mean to draw the disciples to himself but to tear them away from Christ? This happens when consciences are instructed to heal themselves by their works, to blot out sins, and to merit grace, since this alone must be sought in Christ's works through faith.
Here you see that the spiritual (canonicum) law and the kingdom of the pope are condemned and repugnant to Christ, which does nothing but entangle consciences with their own works and tear them away from Christ, after both freedom and the teaching and knowledge of freedom have been eradicated. In particular, however, the impure and impious whore, the school of Paris, is condemned here, which said that the teachings of Aristotle in his doctrine of morals did not deviate from the teachings of Christ, although he teaches nothing else than that we attain virtues by works, since he says: "By doing moderate things, we become moderate. This curses a Christian conscience as a cesspool of hell, saying, "By believing in the temperate Christ, I also am temperate; his temperance is also mine, for it is his gift, not my work. In short, you see that the theology of all high schools, whether it consists only in thought (speculativam) or also in life (practicam), is condemned here, for they do not teach Christ, but human wisdom, which by its input also brings about the faith which they call that which they have attained. Woe to this shameful and abominable Sodom and Gomorrah! At the same time you see here why Paul also condemns the works of the divine law or the righteousness from the law, and why he considers his Pharisaic righteousness, of which he praises Phil. 3:6 that it was blameless, as filth and damage.
Namely, because it is contrary to the righteousness that is of Christ and in Christ. For it tears away the conscience and does not let it cling to the righteousness of Christ, but holds it fast in its presumption to its own righteousness and to the works that man has done, as it is said in Rom. 9, 30. f.: "The Gentiles, who have not stood after righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but I say of the righteousness that comes by faith. But Israel hath walked after the law of righteousness, and hath not obtained the law of righteousness." Why? Because they did not seek to obtain it by faith, but by works, as it were.
Do you finally understand why I have so often said that neither vows nor our works are necessary for righteousness and salvation? For a godly conscience judges this only from the works of Christ which were poured out on us in baptism and given to us, and so it is free from all works, not that it does none, but that they do not accuse and excuse [Rom. 2:15]. For he that believeth on Christ hath no works so evil as to accuse and condemn him, neither so good as to excuse and save him; but all that is ours accuseth and condemneth us: only that which is Christ's excuseth and saveeth us.
Now see for thyself how the works of the ten commandments are to be omitted and done, which are: Chastity, obedience, meekness, gentleness, and the like. These are not to be omitted, but done (that I say so) according to their essence (substantiam), but not according to conscience, that is, not as if they excused and justified, for that would mean corrupting the conscience and withdrawing it from Christ his bridegroom, with whom it is one flesh, having a share in all his goods, but they must be done freely and gratuitously, for the benefit and advantage of the neighbor, as Christ's works are done to us freely and gratuitously. But then they are no longer works of the law, but of Christ, who works in us through faith and lives in all things. Therefore they can no more be omitted than faith, nor are they less necessary.
necessary than faith. But the works that are truly works of the law are fictitious and false, for apart from Christ no one is gentle, chaste, meek, obedient, godly, reverent (adorans) etc. For he does it not with a free conscience, but out of a desire for benefit or honor or fear of punishment. And since a feigned holiness is a twofold wickedness, it is evident that such works are not only not necessary, but also to be refrained from and fled from.
But here you will perhaps say: Does your Christian liberty teach that one should fornicate, kill, rob, lie, be rebellious and practice idolatry? You fool, as if I were teaching you to do a greater evil, when I am teaching that you should not do a lesser evil. I say that one should not be angry, and you want to go and kill, so that you may not be angry? I want these fictitious works to be left alone and right works to be done, so that you will stop being unchristian in your generosity and become godly in your generosity. For it is necessary that the works also change (although they are outwardly quite similar), where you are changed inwardly, so that now no longer your works, but Christ's works are done in you. But this is not within human ability to decide whether an ungodly husband is worse than a fornicator, or vice versa; it is God who looks at the heart. A fornicator abuses his body for illicit pleasure, an ungodly husband abuses his body for illicit honor. Therefore, we must stop our reckoning here. We see in the Gospel that the tax collectors are closer to Christ than the Pharisees, so that even though the latter are worse according to human judgment, the Gospel praises them more blessedly. Therefore it seems safer when someone has fallen publicly than when someone has remained ungodly in secret. But therefore we do not advise them to fall, but command God his secret and terrible judgments.
From this it follows that if the divine law is made a doctrine of works and is to be fulfilled by works (quando divina lex docetur et
servatur per opera). For the law is spiritual, given to humble and require us to seek Christ. The office of the law is not that it demands our works, but that it shows sin and how we are not able to do it (impossibilitatem nostram); "for by the law comes knowledge of sin" [Rom. 3, 20.]. Therefore, as the works of the law are to be omitted, so also the teaching of the law must be omitted. Here you will again say: Shall we then live freely, without law? Again, this is foolish, as if I taught thee to know less, since I teach thee to know more. But also here Paul wants to dare to make the knowing Jews and the ignorant Gentiles equal by not making a difference between those who are without law and those who are in the law. But let us now also come to the vows and their works, and as we compared them in objection 1) with the works of the divine law, since they even seemed to spring from the commandment which says, "Vow and keep," so let us also compare them in the answer with the same. We have heard that the works of the law are done in two ways, sometimes by us as ours, sometimes by Christ in us as Christ's works, whose gift they are. Now, in order to admit that the vows are also under the commandment (about which we shall see later), they must likewise be done in two ways. Sometimes by us as ours; then they must without doubt be omitted and condemned as those which tear a godly conscience away from Christ, wound it, and turn it to works, for they teach that righteousness and forgiveness of sins apart from Christ are brought about by works. There is nothing but that righteousness which Paul calls to be considered filth and harm. Nor is it in our power to decide whether he who keeps the vows or he who breaks them is better, as we have given an example above of the works of the law.
Sometimes they happen in us through Christ in the spirit of freedom, when they are in vain.
1) Cf. 1556.
1562 V. L. VI, 290 f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1891-1894. 1563
The laws and customs of all people can be observed and complied with, if they are not against God's commandments and he does not put his conscience in them. For a Christian can observe and submit to all the laws, customs and manners of all men, if only they are not against God's commandments and he does not place the confidence of his conscience in them. For the conscience belongs to Christ and Christ to the conscience, the secret bridal chamber of this bridegroom, and no one would approach this bride. For it is of no consequence whether you abstain from wine with the Turks or drink wine with the Christians, if you do it only with a free conscience. Thus Paul approached the Gentiles and the Jews with a completely free conscience. With these he abstained [from food] and performed circumcision, with those he ate and did not circumcise anyone. If you vow the monastic life in such a way that you want to live with such people in the conscience that you expect neither benefit nor harm from God, but that either a coincidence has led you to accept this way of living, or that it has pleased you to live this way and for this reason you do not consider yourself better than he who has taken a wife or cultivates the land, then you do not vow evil, nor do you live evil, as far as the vow is concerned. For if love should require you to abandon the vow, you would not be able to persevere in the vow without sin, as we shall say.
But it is impossible to make a vow in such a conscience unless it is made by those who are wonderfully drawn and sustained by the Spirit of Christ, that is, by the elect. Otherwise, this way of vowing and living in vows is completely (ex diametro) contrary to this conscience, because this state of living under a vow (institutum vovendi) has been invented and is highly praised for the very purpose of entangling the conscience and keeping it captive under the bondage of the law. For what religious would suffer to be equated before God with a husband or a peasant or a craftsman? Do they not vow precisely so that they may be regarded as having served God?
serve before others in a peculiar obedience? Why else would they so despise all other ways of living and so highly esteem this one alone? For they do not say with the prophet [Ps. 63:4], "Thy goodness is better than all manner of life." But rather: One way of living is better than all others, which is true before men, but not before God. And to reveal here the thoughts of the hearts: If virgins and celibate people were to hear that they are no better in the sight of God than husbands and wives and filthy husbandmen, what would they do? Would they not grumble against the householder, that he made them equal to those who had worked only one hour, although they alone had borne the burden and heat of the day? [Dear one, send up a virgin and a celibate, who would be content with the penny common to all. For they will say, Why did I abstain? why did I not marry? why did I deceive myself?
Do you see the ungodly thoughts of their hearts against the goodness of the Father of the house? For first of all they desire that God should look at the person, that he should look at the works and not at the faith, that is, that he should prefer men to Christ. For they do not care how delicious things others have received from Christ, but how excellent things they have offered before others. Secondly, by this murmuring they confess that they have kept chastity not freely and in vain, that is, in a Christian and godly spirit, but in a servile and rewarding one, that is, in a Jewish and godless will (voluntate); And for this reason their virginity is not virginity, except that of foolish virgins, whose lamps go out because they have no oil in their vessels, that is, no free faith in their conscience [Matth. 25, 3.]. What, then, are those pompous bulls in which virginity, celibacy, vows, privileges, crowns, 1) and such foolish antics, which are preached in order to
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 967.
Table Talks, cap. 30, 34.
1564 v. a. vi, M-2S3. 174 Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W- xix, iss^-iMs.
What is the reason for the Christians to be attracted to virginity, other than mere lies of Satan, by which they are provoked to hope and destroy the virginity of the conscience? For they all have the same mind, that they would rather have become married, if they were not granted that, that they would be esteemed higher in merit before God. Since the nature of the monastic state (instituti) is such that it calls to works, not to faith, how can a Christian vow be left anywhere, if it is not preserved by divine miracle?
But as one discussion brings forth another, so these godless people here will shout that I am a follower of Jovinian, and will hold up Jerome against me, who claims virginity against Jovinian. For they will believe that I have not read Jerome. But they think it is enough for them that they have read him. They have no need for judgment in reading; whatever they may have read is an article of faith. I do not know at all what Jovinian's opinion was; perhaps he did not treat this subject correctly; but I confidently assert that Jerome did not treat it correctly either. For he treats virginity merely for himself, but does not include it in the faith, nor does he build it upon it. In this way of teaching, because it is a human one, no work, no virtue can be taught without harm or danger. For the holy man, and no one can deny this, is carried away by human impetuosity and heat and by too great a desire to please his friends and especially his Eustochia, 1) and he drives Jovinian into a corner more by his reputation than by proper scholarship. This is evidenced by his quite rash eagerness to gather testimonies of the Scriptures from everywhere.
1) Here the Jena edition has suo Rustocüio, the Erlangen suac LuktoeUio, but it should be read Sun" LuAocüisc. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1148 and 1399. table speeches, cap. 43, § 43 and Cap. 57, § 12. ücv^QStock, Colloquia, tom. II, col. 1591). LiuäkM, Colloquia, Tour. II, p. 140. on the other hand, the form LustoctUuru is found in LclrcustocL, 1. c. col. 239lr and Liudscil, 1. c. Tom. Ill, p. 149.
He is able to bring to the table the most appropriate and the most inappropriate ones, which would have made him very ridiculous if an opponent of equal standing had stood opposite him. For even the passages which he introduces as his most excellent, on which he lays the main emphasis for his victory, he forces, not to say falsifies. For where Paul says [1 Cor. 7, 38.]: "He who marries his virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does better," he clearly draws this to mean that this "doing well and better" refers to the merits before God and making sects in the people of God, while it is quite obvious that Paul is speaking of what is good and better for this life, because a virgin who is not burdened with worries can serve the Lord more freely; but all merit he leaves with common faith. And who knows whether Jerome in this play was not one of those of whom it is said in Ezekiel [Cap. 14, 9. according to the Vulgate]: "If a prophet go astray and speak lies, it is I the Lord who have deceived that prophet"? And rightly so; why do we not have heed to the words of God alone? Why do we neglect the counsel of the Holy Spirit and do not test everything before we keep it?
We also admit that virginity is something very great when things are compared among each other, but at the same time we also say: If a virgin wants to raise herself higher before God than others, yes, even only wants to make herself equal to them, then she is a virgin of the devil. The Gospel teaches [Luc. 14, 10.] that one should put oneself below others and that one should esteem others higher than oneself.
So virginity must be treated and taught in such a way that it is not kept because of any law or compulsion or hope of reward, but out of a willing mind, for nothing, so that, for example, a virgin should think thus: Although I can marry, it pleases me better that I remain a virgin, not because it is commanded, not because it is advisable, not because it is exquisite and great above other virtues, but because it pleases me to live as it pleases another to marry or to live as it pleases another to marry. it seems good to another to marry, or
1566 D.v. ".vi, 29r-Ms. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, isss-iM. 1567
To cultivate the land. For I have no desire for the troubles of the married state, I want to be free from worries and have time (vacare) for God. Behold, this is called being a virgin in Christian simplicity, which does not glory in itself, but in Christ. For everyone must serve God with his gift for free, but all should boast in common virginity of faith in Christ alone, where there is neither man nor woman, so neither virgin nor spouse, neither widow nor celibate, but all at once one in Christ [Gal. 3:28].
Here belong the excellent examples in the "Descriptions of the Lives of the Fathers", where, by the pronouncement of God, that tanner in Alexandria is declared to be just as good, even better than Anthony, a husband better than a virgin or a celibate, a citizen better than a monk, a common man better than the father of the monks; and that, where two married women are equated with Paphnutius and a certain piper, 1) who had once been a murderer. What did God want with these examples, but that he wanted to endure the godless teachings and orders of the sects for the sake of these saints, which even then began to break in against the faith with great pretense? Now the gifts of God are different, both great and small, 1 Cor. 12:4 and 7:7; a rich man has more than a poor man; but for this reason no one should establish sects and distribute merits and rewards before God according to them, nor should one give himself preference over another, but all should serve for free, as those who are rich in common faith and Christ, who works unequally, although he himself is equal in all. If then it displeases you that you as a virgin are considered equal to a married person, then you also marry; a godly and free marriage is better for you than a worshipping and godless virginity. The verdict is certain: God sees works and
1) In the editions Aulaedus, for which probably auletss.
- flute player should be read. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 76, § 3 and Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2755, § 209, where the same examples are introduced.
persons, but the heart and the faith [Rom. 2, 11. 1 Sam. 16, 7.], Jer. 5, 3.: "Lord, your eyes see according to faith."
So you see that this proves it: Although here and there an incidental vow may be godly by virtue of miracle, yet the institution of making vows and the manner of teaching such a life are to be condemned as ungodliness. Just as the law, when taught by the letter alone, can contain good instruction (exemplum), as in Paul, who used it without the letter; so the way of teaching the letter of the law and its works is ungodly. So Bernard made vows and lived under the vow, but not out of compulsion of the vow, but rather out of freedom of the spirit, even though his vow did not teach this freedom, but rather the compulsion that is contrary to this freedom. This is said in response to the aforementioned objection, so that we know that if a vow were a commandment, according to the words: "Vow and keep" [Ps. 76, 12.If a vow were a commandment, according to the words, "Vow and keep," its works would have to be done in a spirit of freedom, like the works of the Ten Commandments, not because they are vows, but because they are so pleasing and free, although, as I said, no one keeps them in this way unless he is miraculously led to do so, since the way of vowing and living [under the vow] is contrary to it, by which they are torn away from freedom and forced into bondage and compulsion.
But now we continue and deny that a vow can be or become a commandment, just as the works of the law are not or cannot be commandments. For "God is not a God to whom ungodly beings please" [Ps. 5:5], rather we prove that it is forbidden precisely by gospel freedom. For Paul, in order to assert evangelical liberty, says Gal. 1:8: "But if we also, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have heard, let him be accursed." And later [Gal. 5:13.], "But ye, brethren, are called to liberty," and again [v. 10.], "But he that maketh you to err shall bear his judgment, whosoever he will." From these words it is clear
1568 v-vi. 2ss f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, E-imi. 1569
(habes) that no one may teach anything that is contrary to evangelical freedom. For this freedom is divine right; God has ordained it, will not revoke it, nor can he accept anything that goes against it, nor may a man violate it with any statute, however small. But this liberty is not only that of which we have said before, which reigns in the spirit and conscience, in which we are not accused or excused by any works, but also that by which all human commandments are abrogated, and all that may be kept in outward observances, as there are all foods, all garments, all persons, all offerings, all places, all vessels, all days, that they may be kept or not kept, as long, where, how, when, as often as we please, or as the thing itself brings with it. And in general, everything that is not a divine commandment is done away with and set at liberty.
For Paul says Col. 2:20-23: "If then ye are dead with Christ unto the statutes of the world, why are ye entangled with statutes, as though ye lived in the world? Who say, Thou shalt not touch this, thou shalt not taste that, thou shalt not touch that, which is all consumed with hands, and is the commandment and doctrine of men; which have an appearance of wisdom through self-chosen spirituality and humility, and in that they spare not the body, neither do honor to the flesh for its need." Here the apostle clearly forbids not to be bound by the ordinances of men. And Christ Matth. 15, 9: "But they serve me in vain, because they teach such doctrines, which are nothing but the commandments of men." And Titus 1:14: "[Punish them severely] that they heed not the commandments of men, which turn away from the truth." These are certain commandments of God that forbid teaching and hearing the doctrines of men. But the institution of making vows, is it not something merely human? Is it not on plates, garments, food, drink; days, places, offerings and other customs? Where has God commanded any of these things? Where does he have such poverty, such obedience,
commanded such chastity? Why do you still doubt that it is not permitted, nor was it permitted, to vow these things? Because of God, that which you make necessary through man is free, and you think that what you set (erras) through error is more pleasing to God than what He Himself has decreed? He cannot suffer sin to be made of the use of the garments, the food, the drink, the days, because he did not want one to sin in them, and yet you claim that sin is made in them? So he did not want the married life to be made necessary, but decreed that it should be free, and did not want it to be made a sin if someone marries when he wants, and you make it a perpetual and necessary one under the law by your vow?
So what else is left but to say that here it is proved in the most obvious way that the vows of spiritual life and the entire monasticism are against the evangelical freedom and are absolutely forbidden by divine commandments? since one cannot deny that they are mere human teachings. For it is no less a sin to violate the freedom decreed by God than to sin against any other commandment of God. Of course, you may vow and keep whatever you want, but without violating the freedom commanded. For you may not take it away from yourself, nor may you commit sin where God has not willed that there should be sin. He did not intend that sin should be committed in the use of chastity, but made it free so that he who married would not sin. In the same way, Paul added in 1 Cor. 7:37, where he counsels virginity, "if he who has decided to let his virgin remain so is unconstrained," thereby forbidding that chastity be or become a required and constrained and necessary one. Therefore, as soon as one begins to force and demand it, it is already settled and free by this saying of Paul.
Now let us come back to what we said above, that the vow is
1570 L.v.s.vi, 29k-2gs. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix. isoi-iso4. 1571
I promise you obedience, chastity and poverty, with the whole rule of St. Augustine until death, freely, that is, that I can change it if it seems good to me: I vow to keep obedience, chastity and poverty, with the whole rule of St. Augustine, until death, freely, that is, that I can change it if it seems good to me. If you interpret or understand it differently, you see from what has been said before that it is against the freedom offered to us by God that we sin, and that it is impossible for God to accept it differently if He does not revoke freedom, that is, if He does not deny Himself. What is it to me if the holy fathers, or even no one, vowed in such a way or had such an opinion? How? if all of them had erred or had been miraculously led inwardly? The judgment of the gospel is evident and irrefutable, that the doctrines of men are condemned, and that they are free, but we are masters of them; therefore we cannot become their servants, not even by the reputation of angels, much less by our foolish superstition and humility, as Paul says. Equally evident is the truth that the state of vows is a slavish human doctrine1) . Why then should we tolerate that servants ride and masters walk, as Solomon says [Eccl. 10:7]? Rather, we should give thanks to Christ, who has honored us with this freedom, and preserved it for us unharmed when we sought to violate it with ungodly vows, and has firmly decreed that our vows shall always be vain, free, and void; he has graciously watched over us while we were nonsensical.
Some people may laugh and mock this ridiculous vow, which is actually a kind of sham vow; for what is it but a sham when one says: I vow to do freely what seems good to me? Let him laugh who will, but let him know at the same time that it is neither wonderful nor new when men act foolishly and ridiculously, when they
1) Instead of ornnium äootrinam in the Jena we have getefen with the edition of 1521 üonnnum äoetrinam.
follow their own advice without and above God's word. "Your word (says Christ) is the truth" [John 17:17]. Now what do you think that the word of a man is other than a lie? It is ridiculous, but only to those who hear or acknowledge the truth of evangelical freedom; otherwise, however, this powerful error under this ridiculous thing brings no less the serious and severe wrath of God upon so many thousands of souls who are miserably caught and corrupted in these cords. The vow is a human sin and remains a human sin. But it is not altogether ridiculous, for pledging free allegiance for a time is not useless. For we see that it was an institution of the first church and a very salutary custom that the elders instructed the young people, who were handed over to them for a time, in faith and good discipline, which is also indicated by the letters of the apostles Peter and Paul, where they teach that the young should be subject to the elders [1 Pet. 5, 5.]. From this, the Christian schools first arose, in which also maidens were taught, as the history of St. Agnes shows. From these, the monasteries and convents arose for the sake of those who wanted to remain permanently and freely in these schools.
But when those who had taken upon themselves to instruct the youth began to grow lazy and to care for their own, when they became rich and idle, when the youth also became more licentious, then they invented the ropes of vows, in order to keep the consciences bound under discipline by them, so that each one restrained himself through fear of sin, but the overseers could take care of the rest. Just as it is now the great custom in high schools to ensnare the youth with oaths and to torment their consciences, so that one does not have to watch over them and worry about them, and can lie down on the other ear and sleep safely. Thus, free Christian schools have become servile and Jewish monasteries and real synagogues of godlessness. Therefore, if today's vow is taken back to that ancient custom and is thus made
1572 D-"- vi, 298-soo. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, 1904-1907. 1573
there would be no danger in doing so; and no doubt it is not regarded by God as anything other than that it should be kept that way for a time, only so that the weak and unintelligent might receive Christian instruction and then be dismissed again, which we will also prove later by the testimony of God's works.
Here a weak or even a clever one may raise the objection: If God wanted the marital state to be so free that it could be changed by marriage, then, according to the same freedom, it will also be permitted to leave one's spouse and to exchange marriage again with the marital state, or, if the law of God compels one not to leave one's spouse, then likewise the law of God concerning vows compels one not to leave the marital state, for sin is on both sides, set and forbidden by God. Or: So it will also not be permitted to marry, lest by deprivation of freedom the marriageless state be made an illicit one, or it will be necessary to keep the vow as well, since by the same the marriage has become illicit. I answer: evangelical freedom only applies to things that happen between God and yourself, not between you and your neighbor. For he does not want you to give sacrifices from robbery, nor does he want anyone to do anything that is harmful to his neighbor; indeed, he wants everything to be done for the benefit of his neighbor. He has therefore given you the freedom to live freely before him, or even completely freely in celibacy, and has not wanted this freedom to be changed between him and you. For he does not suffer that you bind and entangle yourself against him, since he releases you in all things and makes you free. Otherwise, what would a vow be but that you bind that which he has commanded to be loosed? But with this freedom he does not forbid that you might entangle and bind yourself against your neighbor, because your neighbor has not commanded you to be loose and free, as God has done. Otherwise, you would be allowed to make and break all agreements, covenants and contracts as you pleased. Therefore, he who
has already entered into marriage under the right and authority of another, and God does not want to deprive him of this right against his will, so that you may serve him. But if that right should cease, either by the death of the spouse or by his consent, behold, then you have complete and unimpaired freedom between God and yourself, as before, to marry and remain chaste.
The vow of celibacy to God is therefore like making a marriage contract with a husband who has already died or who is separated and free by mutual consent. For just as if a man had died or, by giving you permission, offered you the opportunity to live chastely in a free way and never again wanted to accept conjugal duty from you, such a contract would also have been made between you on both sides with letter and seal and witnesses, and you would have wanted to do so foolishly, as if you wanted to do something great for the man, to solemnly promise him the conjugal duty anew in the opinion that by this very promise you would not only fix the former freedom to live chastely, but even surpass it and fulfill it in a more excellent way - would he not call you nonsensical? Thus God made the covenant of freedom with you in baptism, that you should always be free to live chastely, and will henceforth no longer accept what is contrary to this freedom. And you, in order to make this freedom greater and more perfect, make a vow and change it into bondage and compulsion. What could be done more absurdly? Therefore, the religious are actually the worshippers of Baal, who want to make themselves a husband to God through the bondage of the vow, while He has made them free through the freedom of the Gospel. For Baal is called a husband who has a wife. Thus, not satisfied with the common freedom, the monastics presume to make themselves a special Baal belonging to them in front of others, thinking that by this service they are acting more than evangelical, even though they are raging against the Gospel. That means "limping around the altar" [1 Kings 18:26], as is their custom.
1574 L- V. ". VI. soo s. XI. Luther's writings of dxn monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1907-1909. 1575
that is, extolling their works above the common faith and "carving themselves with knives" [v. 28.], that is, tormenting themselves with their wretched statutes and doctrines, yet never killing the old man etc.
Now, therefore, let us finally put an end to this discussion and conclude: Poverty, obedience, and chastity can be kept constantly; they cannot be vowed, prescribed, required. For in keeping, evangelical freedom remains, in prescribing, vowing, requiring it does not; therefore the saints who kept this kept it freely, for they would have kept it even if they had not vowed it, and it had not been required of them, therefore their vow, though foolish, did them no harm because of their faith and freedom of spirit. But it is incomparably different when something is done without being prescribed or required, and when the same is prescribed and required to be done. For this is to make a right out of what is done, a command out of a deed, a rule out of an example, a necessity out of what is accidental; what could be more inconsistent and more pernicious? But the former is from God, the latter from men; therefore one must remain with the former, but leave the latter aside. So we do not condemn the vows themselves, if someone wants to take a vow upon himself, but that one prescribes them and makes a commandment out of them, that we condemn.
These vows were taken in the same way as chastity was taken at the Council of Nicaea. Because priests and bishops had lived voluntarily without marriage for some years, some tried to turn this example into a commandment and then to force the conscience to the celibate state; so much had the faith and the gospel already come into decline in the holy council, and the statutes of men broke in, but the whole council was resisted by one man, Paphnutius, who refused to make a decision about the celibate state, because this was to be fulfilled by the Antichrist, the Roman idol. In this way, since the
While the monks had previously lived voluntarily without marriage, in poverty and obedience, their descendants finally turned their free and evangelical example into a necessary vow. And here was no Paphnutius who would have resisted, since the sins were already rampant and the wrath of God caused the powerful errors to come to maturity over the world, as he had predicted in Paul's writings [2 Thess. 2, 11.]. Therefore St. Bernard and others kept chastity, obedience and poverty under vows, but judging by (secunäuw) the vows, rather by the old example of the fathers and by the gospel, and they, stumbling from human error, approved and taught the so shameful statute and the damned institution of vows, although they themselves testified to something quite different and in a different way in their lives. But the strong errors also had to be strengthened by the wrongly received examples of the fathers, for the sake of those who did not accept the love of the truth so that they would be saved, 2 Thess. 2, 10.
Fourth, that the vows are contrary to the commandments of God.
We have thus seen that monasticism is not only not of God (for it has no testimony from Scripture, nor any sign or miracle by which it would be confirmed from heaven; rather, it is forbidden and rejected, as are all human statutes), but is also contrary to the Christian faith and evangelical freedom. Now, fourthly, let us see how it agrees with the divine commandments. For it is impossible that it should not be contrary to all [commandments], since it is contrary to him from whom, through whom, and in whom are all things [Rom. 11:36.], for he is holy with the saints, and perverse with the perverse [Ps. 18:26, 27.]. Therefore, as to the unclean nothing is pure, but all things are unclean; so to the perverse all things are perverse, and nothing is right. And here again I want to have excused the saints once and for all, so that it is not always necessary to excuse their examples. I do not dispute the fact that the saints in this state
1576 D- V-". VI, S0I-S03. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. nx, ISV9-I9". 1577
but about the state itself; not that the three men lived in the fiery furnace of Babylon, but whether all everywhere may throw themselves into the same fiery furnace or worship the golden image of the king? I do not dispute whether Paul lived without marriage, but whether from his example a right and a doctrine are to be made? The same Paul kept the whole law of Moses and yet he did not want it to be taught and heard in order to keep it. So Bernard lived under the vow without the vow, as the apostle lived under the law without the law, but therefore the vow or the law must not be made a doctrine or a way of life, but rather must be done away with.
And above, when we spoke of faith, we showed sufficiently that this monastic state is in conflict with the first tablet or the first three commandments. For in the first commandment faith is commanded, in the second that one praise and confess God's name, in the third that God have His work in us. In these three pieces the true and right service of God is entirely found. But the state of the vow, because it teaches works, takes away the power of faith (as we have said), and therefore they reject the name of God and set up their name. For they are no longer called Christians nor children of God, but Augustinians, Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans; these and their fathers praise them highly, more than Christ. For they do not firmly trust that they will be justified and saved by this name, because they are baptized, because they are Christians, but only because they have the name of their order. Therefore they trust in their name, of which they boast, just as if the baptism and the faith had long since perished, as it were, by shipwreck. Therefore they use the name of the Lord only uselessly and do not call upon Him confidently, but their name [they use], which they have exalted by works. For you can see that they completely despair when they are aware that they have not kept their order, because they think that it is necessary for righteousness and salvation. But where they make themselves believe that they have kept it or that they have suffered
If they have suffered over what they have not observed, then they certainly expect the crown of honors through this name, much more certainly than through the fact that they have been baptized into Christ, yes, they have forgotten it, do not even remember that they have been baptized into the works of Christ, so that they should place their confidence in them, but seek their own and look to it that they receive the crown before God through the name, that they have been religious. They have enough of this when they have emulated their fathers, achieved their ordinances and examples with similar works, or have also suffered because they have not achieved them; but that they should have Christ and his works in faith, they despise. O dreadful destruction!
So you see that faith and the first commandment cannot stand with the doctrine of monastic vows (unless by a miracle of God's grace), nor can the second commandment with their high boasting and vain pomp. For since Christ alone goes to heaven, who also came down from heaven and is in heaven [John 3:13], it is impossible that a Benedictine, an Augustinian, a Franciscan, a Dominican, a Carthusian and the like should go to heaven. For all these people seek heaven with empty lamps, that is, with their own works, and without their own works they provide themselves nothing to God; for so teaches the rule of their life and their vows. But a Christian ascends by strange works, namely Christ's; baptized and transplanted into Him, he henceforth lives not himself, but Christ in him, who completely sanctifies the Sabbath for him from all his works. How dreadful it is, therefore, when you lie imprisoned in such a conscience that you cannot be blessed if you do not keep your order, but then you can be blessed if you have kept it! Is not Christ entirely concealed here? But this conscience would be nowhere if the state of the vow were not, but now it is everywhere. Therefore there is no holy Sabbath anywhere, but it is fulfilled Ps. 74:8 [according to the Vulgate], "We will defile all the feasts of God on earth." See to,
Whether it is not the same thing that Paul says Rom. 2, 22. 24: "You abhor idols, and rob God of what is His. For on your part the name of the Lord is blasphemed among the Gentiles." For who among all men praises the service of God so highly as the monastics? No one curses idolatry more, but behold, they are robbers of God. What kind of sanctuary do they rob? That by which everything is sanctified, the holy name of God. For they erase the Christian name and put their own in its place and want to be saved in it, which can and must be done in the name of Christ alone, as Peter says, Apost. 4, 12: "There is no other name given to us in the whole world (sub coelo), wherein we shall be saved."
For as it is impossible that he who relies on Christ in faith should seek salvation in his own name (for he knows of no other works and merits but Christ's alone, therefore he has no name in which he can be blessed and sanctified but the name of Christ alone), so it is equally impossible that he who relies on works and vows should not seek salvation in his own name, for he has works and merits apart from Christ's works and merits, so he also has another name apart from Christ's name. But what does this mean but to steal the name of Christ and to attach it to oneself and to say: I am Christ, since Christ's works alone save all who are saved? And this is the blasphemy of the name of God among the Gentiles, that holiness and sanctification (sanctificatio) is now everywhere attached to another than the name of God. For in the mouths of all, their orders are called holy, as if they made holy those who keep them, or as if it were something holy to live in them, whereas the name of God alone makes holy and is something holy when one walks in it alone. They themselves are the originators of this very widespread blasphemy through their robbery of God, with which they usurp the name of the Lord and the work of the name of the Lord and arrogate it to themselves, and seduce and entice the whole world through this blasphemy.
Since these blasphemous opinions or consciences must be as far as possible from the Christians, why do you still have reservations about leaving the monastic vows in place, to flee them, to avoid them and to change them along with the whole monastic life? which was invented precisely to make such consciences, and it cannot, by its nature, make any other consciences, and you can also see by obvious experience that such consciences are made in the whole world. Or, when you see that Korah, with its houses and all its possessions, will be swallowed up, will you remain in the midst of the maw and not at least imitate the prudence of the rest of Israel, flee and say, "Lest the earth also swallow us up"? Or will this hinder thee, that thou mayest see that the children of Korah, which remained there, were preserved? [4 Mos. 26, 11.] But thou shalt know that this was done (as Moses writes) by a great miracle. For you cannot deny that the monasticism is rebellious against Christ and actually of the kind of the Korahites. For it stirs up sectarianism among the people of Christ and, as you see, teaches them to trust in their own works against faith and to fear because of them, since you cannot (without a miracle) even show a religious who would not be caught in this predatory and blasphemous conscience that he will be saved if he keeps his order, but will be damned if he does not keep it. For why else should he make and keep vows if his conscience were not so? What will it help you that in these god-robbing and blasphemous lodges the children of this Korah have been preserved? It is a miracle of divine power not to live a common rule.
But the name Korah is given to him quite appropriately, for this means bald or a bald head, for, as the apostle testifies [1 Cor. 11:7.], the man is God's glory and should not cover the hair, so that you may know that this rebellious Korah is without the headship of Christ, without the glory of God raising himself to the headship, boasting in his own name against Christ. How exactly (pro-
1580 2 V. a. VI, 305-307. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 1916-1919. 1581
prio) Peter describes them in 2 Petr. 2, 1. 2. where he says that they are false teachers, who will introduce opinions and corrupt sects next to them and deny the Lord who bought them, by which the way of truth will be blasphemed! What are those opinions and corrupt sects but the consciences, the doctrines, those aforementioned blasphemous and robbery sects, by which Christ is denied with his works and his name? and in his place are set up the works and names of men, and are imputed to them that which is Christ's, righteousness, blessedness, and holiness.
But here those robbers of God, as they are incorrigible and unbelieving, when they see that they are seized in such a manifest grave of God, will invent distinctions after their manner, in which they are very fruitful, and will say that they have never taught differently, than that Christ and the grace of God are the principal thing in the orders and the best as well as the holy of holies, otherwise the orders are holy in a less principal way (minus principaliter), or something holy in a participative way (par- ticipative) etc., or they will bring forward some other small part of their head, so that it will not seem as if they were caught and put to shame. To them I answer, And why have they not taught this from the beginning? Who has revealed to the already lost and now perishing souls that in future times this distinction will be thought of? These have simply understood the word "holy" as it reads, and knew nothing of the secret deceit of this ambiguous speech. But well, they may yet stand up and teach how they now make the distinction, and bear loud witness before the people in this way: You shall know that it is much better to be simply a Christian than a religious, and you will see how many [will enter a religious order, indeed, will remain only in the monastery at all. But now they teach that religious orders are much better and holier than the common state of believers. This is the pernicious speech by which they tear the faithful away from Christ by means of the hope of greater godliness than they have found in Christ. This is the God
robbery, this the blasphemy with which Christ cannot abide; if they did not extol them, they themselves could not abide.
Nor is there any reason for what they claim, that the greater and the main thing is given more prestige (augeri) by the addition of a lesser and secondary thing (secundarii). If this were true, who could have restrained the common people from seizing the lesser instead of the greater, as they do now? It is a miracle if someone is not mistaken here, therefore this annoyance must be cleared out of the way and only that greater thing must be presented. Furthermore, why do they not advise people as much to leave the lesser and take hold of the greater, and why do they not teach the religious to leave as much as they invite and entice people to enter the orders from the greater to their lesser? Now this is a twofold lie; first, that they indeed had their monastic state for the greater and principal thing and a Christian for the lesser and something contemptible, this is proved by their blasphemous and blasphemous speeches, which rather exhort to the order than to Christianity; the other lie is that also something else is invented as holy. For Christ alone is holy and does not suffer us to be made holy and blessed by any other name, as we have indicated above from Peter. Therefore, wherever you turn, you will find that this state is by its nature ungodly, impious, blasphemous, and contrary to Christ, and a powerful cause of destruction to all who are not miraculously preserved with the children of Korah. So now the true worship, which is ordered in the first three commandments, lies desolate, and the ways of Zion are full of mourning, because there is no one to come to the high feast (solenni- tatem); in its place they have set another [worship], which is quite worthy of them, that is, that display of ceremonies with dresses, offerings, singing, reading. In all these things there is nothing of faith, nothing of the name or works of God, but everything entirely human.
1582 A.v. L.vi, 307f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1919-1922. 1583
From the institution of Paul 1 Cor. 14, a trace of this usage seems to remain, since he teaches that in the assembly of the church three things take place, namely speaking with tongues or singing psalms, prophesying or interpreting, and praying. First, something was read from the Scriptures or the Psalms, then the prophets interpreted it and taught, and third, they prayed together; a divine and entirely Christian institution, but ordained for teaching and exhortation, that is, to nourish the faith. The first they imitate nowadays by the lections at early mass, by the epistles, gospels and songs of individuals; the second by the homilies; the third by the responsories, antiphons, graduals 1) and all that is read or sung by all together [in the choir]; but all not in a proper way. For all this is not done in order to teach or to exhort, but only with the intention that they do works. For they are satisfied that they have only read in such a way, sung in such a way, shouted in such a way. This work is sought after and is called worship. But what is read and sung, or why is read and sung, they do not even think of; nor is there a prophet to interpret and teach. Therefore, so that they are not idle in this wondrous service, they take great pains and care in reading aloud, in singing, in rightly distinguishing, in pausing, in making the end, in paying attention to [everything], and have only one thing in mind, that it be read and sung well, devoutly and praiseworthily. This is the final purpose of this service; for this are references (disciplinae), punishments, articles, statutes, sins and merits, which are quite worthy of this service. 2) One would like to say that
1) The song after the epistle.
2) Interesting is the translation or rather free paraphrase that Justus Jonas gives for these last two sentences, therefore we put it here according to the Wittenberg edition: "Therefore, so that they are not at all idle in the same their own invented new service, so they themselves have made Mt early, long, morose masses, that they alone without all the people and congregation murmur and sing, with lectionles, with pre-singing, with bending, with bowing,
This very respectable service is held so that these great and respected men may learn at least a little of grammar and music during the whole time of their lives. For surely it cannot be supposed that they seek something else? If, as Paul says, an unbeliever came into the midst of these roaring, murmuring, shouting men, and saw that they neither prophesied nor prayed, but only sounded in their own way like the organ pipes (but the organ they have very appropriately joined and placed next to the like), would he not rightly say: "What are you raving about? What are they but those pipes or trumpets (tibiae) of which Paul [1 Cor. 14:8] says that they give no clear sound, but only sound into the wind, no different than if someone wanted to give a lecture, mounted the speaker's platform and let a whole hour of foreign words sound among the people, which no one could understand? Does he not speak into the wind? Would he not be considered mad? Of course, such a service would be fitting for the blasphemous and blasphemous adversaries of Christ, that they would be no better than those dumb and wooden pipes, sounding with great difficulty, teaching nothing, learning nothing, praying nothing, and yet praising this work of frenzy as the highest service of God and taking all the world's good to themselves through the merits of it. And certainly for such a house such holiness is due.
as they then also in the Prime the tzuimincm6 bleat, then psalms in the third, sixth, ninth with eitel Jägergeschret hinaus dönen siönenl Item, as they the Didi in the song, 6t in tsrra bright and high sounding, with strong feisten Succentorstimmen, long hold, pauses, punktm (as they call it then), middle, question, Accent and final; and is in monasteries and convents the service and church - diligence even. For it is said that in the monastery, in the convent, they sing day and night in the same way and well, ei, it has well voiced people. That is the basis of the service, there are special rules, when to enter, when to leave, how to stand, how to sit. If a note in the song, a statute is passed, then the whole choir must hiss like geese; there are obedience, punishment, there are penalties, there are articles, there are statutes, after that one counts sin, after that piety. And just such worship is worth nothing better."
1584 D V.". VI, 3V8-S10. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, is2r-isss. 1585
I say nothing here of the saints who, in their godly opinion, have engaged in these shenanigans. But of this service itself I say that it would be sufficient cause to break and abandon the monastic vows, even if nothing else induced them to do so. For what is it but a mere folly, or, as the apostle says, a nonsense? But this is what is praised in the first place, this is what those who become religious seek. For this is how they intend to serve God, for this reason they leave the world, their goods, their parents, for this reason they deny themselves to follow Christ. For this is how the foolish and blasphemous people apply the divine sayings of Christ in this childish, ridiculous and foolish comedy, in which they themselves are in the foreground as mute pipes, trumpets and strings, who are not endowed with reason to serve God, but at the same time deny the service of God. If you knew that you had vowed serious things, but afterwards realized that it was playfulness and something ridiculous, would you not regret your vow? would you not change it? would you not be excused by the error that you had vowed something improper, which you did not know? Now you see that this is how it is with monastic vows today. Or do you think that this vow is pleasant and pleasing before God? Does he then ask that many silent pipes be brought together for him, which are to please him by sounding in the wind?
I see that Bernard and his kind were preserved by God so that they kept this foolish work in check by some seriousness. His sermons are available, which he prophesied and taught in the assembly of the brethren. In this some work he restored the old institution of Paul, whereby he preserved himself and his own with him, as Paul said of Timothy [1 Ep. 4, 16.]. And if there were such people like Bernard in the monasteries, they could be tolerated because of Paul's serious institution, which was partly kept. But since they are only dead pipes and mute flutes, which are blown to the wind.
and, as Paul says, are despised and accused of nonsense by unbelievers, how much more should they be abandoned and fled by believers? unless we want to be worse than pagans and unbelievers and prefer to regard as good and godly what they rightly call nonsensical, with which Paul also agrees. Therefore, do not believe that your vow made on these nonsensical things is required or approved by God, but confidently believe that it is rejected and condemned, since it is seen that they are not only tempting God here, but also mocking Him with this foolish work. And this little of the first three commandments may be enough for now.
Fifth, that the vows are contrary to love.
. Now let us come to the second tablet and summarize the commandments of it into these two: Obedience to parents and love of neighbor. For according to faith in God there is nothing greater than obedience to parents, of which Paul says very well in 1 Tim. 5:4: "Let them first learn to rule their own houses godly and to repay their parents in kind, for this is well done and pleasing in the sight of God." Here Paul absolutely forbids that a widow should not be accepted if she has a house to rule and parents to obey, and also adds [v. 8.], "But if anyone does not provide for his own, especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Now it is superfluous to state here how he prefers love to all things, since in 1 Cor. 13 he lets everything be nothing that is done without love. But what Paul says of a widow must be understood of all children in general. Here again I speak nothing of the examples of the saints or of a miraculous work, but of the institution itself, that one makes vows, and declare and decide by divine authority: that no vow, if it is to be godly and pleasing to God, can be made unconditionally (absolute), but all include a be-
1586 L. v.". vi. 3io f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, isss-isW. 1587
The apostle also says that he is cursed if he vows or keeps a vow against the obedience of his parents and the love of his neighbor. For whoever vows or keeps a vow against the obedience of parents and the love of neighbor, let him be accursed; or, as the apostle says here, he has denied the faith, and is worse than a heathen. For we cannot do anything against God, but only for God. But since the monastic state teaches quite ungodly and most impudently in public that one does not need to obey one's parents, that one does not need to care for what is the other's (for they say that a monk has died to the world and is consecrated to God, that he only needs to be active in the monastery, that his parents, his neighbors, yes, the whole world may be poor, they may perish, it may be up to them): cursed be he who either vows this or keeps it.
Here they have an example in the "Descriptions of the Lives of the Fathers", which is quite ungodly and cruel, because a mother visited her two sons, who were hermits (Eremitae), wishing in motherly love to see the children she had born. But they closed the door and denied their mother the sight of them, but promised that they would see her in the future glory, if she suffered that they would prevent her from seeing them in this life. When I hear such an example (of which there are many in the descriptions of the lives of the fathers) praised, it seems to me as if I heard people praising Lucretia or Saul, that they had killed themselves in a high spirit, or other monstrosities of the heathen. But those call this a virtue, and a Christian one at that.
Here they also pervert those wholesome and universal words [Matth. 10, 37]: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me"; and again [Marc. 10, 29. 30]: "He who leaves houses and brothers etc. will receive it a hundredfold and possess eternal life"; and Ps. 45, 11: "Listen, daughter, look at it and incline your ears, forget your people and your father's house" etc. These and similar words, which are spirit and life, and which speak of the faith of Christ, for whose sake all things must be forsaken, are interpreted by these robbers of God and blasphemers
on their [monk's] death and lie, and on flesh and blood.
Here I have reached the point where I would like to be angry and burn [with zeal] to avenge myself because of these more than blasphemous and blasphemous lies and follies, but I lack words and thoughts with which I could attack these iniquities properly. Already because of this few abominations I wish that all monasteries would be torn up by the roots, destroyed and taken away, as it should be, and yet God wanted that, after Lot is torn out with his daughters, the Lord would sink them into the depths with fire and brimstone from heaven, like Sodom and Gomorrah, so that not even their memory would remain, because it would not be enough if one wished the curse upon them. Behold now thy holy and faithful vow. Above you vowed that you would no longer be a Christian, but because the perception (sensus) of faith is something high, the subtlety of error (subtilis error) would excuse the impertinence. But here you vow to the most shameless impiety, which does not accept you unless you declare obedience to the parents and service to the neighbor. O of sorrow! How terribly rages this insolence and shamelessness, which quite obviously rages against obvious commandments of God, and yet promises praise and eternal life. If all monks were rich in angelic holiness, this state itself, which obviously rages against the commandments of God, would not only not be praised (voveri) and kept, but would have to be avoided and cursed as the highest ungodliness. If someone vowed to commit murder or adultery, it would be judged a vain and condemned vow; why is it not vain and condemned if you vow disobedience to parents and cruelty to your neighbor, or if you make a pretense to go with thieves and have your part with adulterers, should you not avail yourself of Solomon's counsel and depart from the sinners who tempt you to evil?
But let us listen to their excuses in their ungodliness. First, they say.
1588 L. V. L. VI, 31I-313. 174 Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows, W. XIX, IS28-IS31. 1589
Obedience is better than sacrifice; therefore they must not serve their neighbor or do good without the permission of their superior. Secondly, the spiritual fathers are more than the physical fathers, therefore obedience to the latter is preferable to obedience to the former. Thirdly, love is nevertheless practiced among the brothers of the monastery. This is what they say. So you see that obedience and love are taken away from the public by them and forced into their corner. But let us examine these three pieces in order. First of all, the word: "Obedience is better than sacrifice" refers first and foremost and only to the commandments of God, and it is in fact most strongly opposed to monasticism. For he who vows monasticism gives himself (as they say) to God as a sacrifice. But the Lord says that he abhors this sacrifice if it is done against the obedience of his commandment. But his commandment is to obey one's parents and serve one's neighbor. Is it not a great folly, then, to call this an obedience that is higher than the sacrifice of which God says it is a sacrifice that goes against obedience?
The monks teach to understand the holy scriptures in such a way that they apply what is said of the commandments of God to human commandments, and what is said against human commandments against the commandments of God. A barefoot man stiffly holds to this obedience, does not give or bring money to his neighbor, even if he should perish from lack, and [should also], as much as is in him, kill his brother through hunger, nakedness, lack; afterwards he boasts against God that his obedience was better than sacrifice. Of course, because in baptism he vowed obedience to God, but this he nullified in the monastery by the new obedience to men.
By the same obedience, they have even disposed of their works of mercy, which Christ, as he threatens in Matth. 25, 40, will demand in the judgment. A monk sees a hungry person, a thirsty person, a naked person, a homeless person, a prisoner, etc., but he is careful not to leave the monastery, not to visit a sick person, not to mourn a sick person, and not to go to the monastery.
He said that he did not want to comfort the other, but let go and spoil what spoils, closing his heart, even though he could help him. Afterwards he said that he had let love stand for the sake of it, because he had not wanted to elevate sacrifice above obedience. He does the same when his father and mother begin to need his works, that he either nurtures them or serves them etc. O outrageous frenzy! In my monastic life, although I was simple and unlearned, I had truly no greater aversion to anything than to this cruelty and the theft of God, that one denied love. Nor have I ever been persuaded to believe that this monkish obedience, which so brazenly rages against love, is right and permissible. But here they will say: If the monks were given this permission to run around, the whole monastic state will perish, the monasteries will become desolate, the service will fall away, if they go away individually to serve the parents and meager neighbors. Beautiful! So that stones and wood may remain, so that the howling of the pipes and the murmuring in the choir may endure, so that the plates on the heads and the long robes may not be discarded, one must leave the commandment of God, for which one should also shed one's blood, one's soul and everything should pass away. How wisely, how justly these men judge the commandments of God! Is it not so, as I have said, that monasticism and the commandment of God are by their very nature contrary to each other? For if you want to keep God's commandment, you cannot keep a perpetual vow; choose which of the two you want.
And, I ask you, what harm will monasticism suffer if a monk goes out, if it is necessary, to serve the parents, to visit the sick and to devote himself to divine obedience and love? Is it necessary for this reason to abandon chastity, poverty and obedience? And how? if obedience and love would not let him return? against what will he sin? against wood and stones? by not having stood in the choir, by not having put on the habit, by not having taken the
1590 L. v.". vi, 3is-zis. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, issi-1934. 1591
What is the meaning of the words of the plate that he did not shear, did not sleep in the common dormitory, did not eat in the common dining hall, that he did not murmur the common hummed misunderstood words? Namely, these are such great things, and salvation is based on them in such a way that one must trample on the commandments of God for their sake! Yes, of course! He has consecrated himself to God who has committed himself to these things; but he has not consecrated himself to God who in baptism has pledged obedience to his parents and love for his neighbor. What else can we say to these nonsensical people than the word of Christ, Marc. 7, 9: "You have finely abrogated the commandment of God, so that you may keep your sentences"?
Every Christian should therefore hold this as certain, that just as you cannot make a vow to deny God and His commandments, you also cannot vow in such a way that you will not obey your parents and serve your neighbor. Therefore, you can confidently interpret your vow in such a way that you should be quite certain by God's own word that your vow will no longer bind you when your parents or your neighbor need you. Is this not clear enough? Who can even complain about this? If you can break one commandment for the sake of a vow, you can break them all and deny God altogether. But if you cannot deny God and all the [commandments] altogether, then you cannot deny or break any of them (not even the least). For the monastic vow must apply to the commandments, not against the commandments of God, and must always yield to them, even if one would have to yield to them permanently and renounce the vow altogether. For, do not doubt it, God cannot require a vow from you, nor recognize one that is done against a letter of his commandment; he is faithful and true and cannot deny himself.
If they now boast that obedience to parents must rightly give way to the service of God, for the service of God will be in the
1) We have followed here the reading of the first edition: Äs rkdus instead of: in rsvus the Jenaer.
If the first commandment commands obedience to the parents, but the fourth commandment commands obedience to the parents, then I answer: You have heard above that the monastic service is a fool's work. But it is impossible that the true service of God should be hindered by obedience to parents and the service of the neighbor; indeed, it is precisely this obedience and the service of the neighbor that is the real and genuine service of God, which they destroy by their foolish work and their blasphemous service of God. For what is worshipping and serving God other than keeping His commandments? But obedience and love toward one's neighbor is commanded. But shouting or murmuring in chorus is not commanded, indeed, it is forbidden, because it is tempting and mocking God. Nor is prayer, which is most excellent in their worship, nor even their shouting prevented by obedience to parents and the service of neighbor. For in obeying and serving, as you can live chastely and poorly, so you could also pray and shout as much as you wanted. Only this is prevented, that thou shouldest not, in bodily presence, together with the rest, scour the stones and the wood, and take [thy seat] not. But if your parents or neighbors made you deny the faith, the name and the work of God, which we said was commanded in the first tablet, then here what those assert would have taken place, that obedience to parents and everything must give way to the service of God. But this service is common to all believers, and nowhere less so than in these monasteries and riotous mobs, as can easily be seen from the above.
But that they say, secondly, that they are spiritual fathers, that also belongs to the "invented words" with which they, as St. Peter [2 Ep. 2, 3] foretold, would deal with us; also what they invent and distort about obedience and sacrifice. Spiritual fathers are those who teach us first of all to obey the commandments of God, to be subject to our parents, to serve our neighbors, as the apostles did. But since they teach contrary to men and their own commandments, they are certainly spiritual fathers, but according to the spirit of error, of which
Paul pointed out 1 Tim. 4, 1.: "Those who cling to seducing spirits." For even the apostles should not have been obeyed, not even the angels, if they taught against obedience to parents and the service of the neighbor, how much less must one obey these ungodly and god-robbing men, who are worse than unbelievers and those who deny the faith? But if they taught the pure faith, and your parents or neighbors did not want you to learn from them, they would not be heard at all, although you could not then withdraw your obedience and service from them forever by any vow. For in order that you may learn the faith, it is not necessary that you withdraw yourself from parents and neighbors and submit yourself to others forever. Paul had begotten Onesimus, who was not Philemon's son but his slave, while he was in prison, only for his spiritual son, as he boasts, and since he also had a right to Philemon himself, whom he had also begotten, he does not make him his subject, but sends him back to his master and asks him for his consent. What do you think he would have done if Onesimus had been [Philemon's] son? And our people, though they teach neither faith, nor anything wholesome, but all that is sacrilegious, dare to tear children away from their parents by constant bondage?
Therefore, just as a wife has the power to take her husband out of the monastery if he has put on the robe without her consent, whether he be anointed priest or washed, so also a father or mother has the right to take their son or daughter out of the monastery. And the son or daughter, for the blessedness of their souls and the wrath of God, are bound to follow and to take off the habit without hesitation, and to consider it null and void, even if he had made a thousand vows and had as many indelible marks as hairs on his head. But now they completely detach the children from the obedience of their parents, and they talk about everyone being free in spiritual matters. Why then do they not also separate
the spouses? Or why do they not also tear the children from the breasts of the mothers, if that is enough that there is freedom in spiritual things? Yes, in this way we would like to tear off all children from parents, all servants from masters, all peoples from authorities, dissolve all covenants, all contracts, all agreements (contractus) and say: in spiritual things all are free and independent, but no one is subject to another. But these authors of invented words call spiritual things their human statutes. These blind, god-robbing and blasphemous people!
So it is true that love could be practiced among the monks themselves, and yet this is not spoken with truth. For love is free, not directed to any persons in particular, but they bind it only to their own and to themselves, neglecting others entirely. This is a fictitious love and a fuel for mobs and hatred, as we see monasteries racing against monasteries, orders against orders. But the true and universal love which the apostle describes in 1 Cor. 13, which offers itself to the service of all, friends and enemies alike, is forbidden and illicit to them. For, as we said above, a monk is not allowed to leave the monastery, visit the sick and perform other Christian services, even if it were necessary and he could do it; rather, on the contrary, they pervert everything, leave the work of their hands pending, are themselves idle and allow themselves to be done good by all the world alone, devour the goods of all, are well-fed and strong, even to the great detriment of the right poor. But they pay their benefactors with the spiritual works of mercy, namely, with their worship, which we have described above, with much murmuring, roaring, long-suffering (halando) [while singing], reading etc. Above all, their masses are cursed and an abomination before God.
With this empty pretense (figura) of words, they annihilate the truth that Christ requires, the works of mercy, and comfort themselves because of such annihilation, so that they may not even recognize their ungodliness, repent, and be worthy of grace (venia).
1594 L. V. L. VI, 317 f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1937-1940. 1595
be. If they kept this custom only for the young people, so that they would not be free to roam around everywhere, so that their tender and weak age would be kept in check all the more easily and would learn in the monasteries to practice love in the home, which later should be shown publicly to everyone, then it would be tolerated, yes, it would be a good institution. But now they are children all their lives and learn love in the home, indeed, they consider it the highest and only one. But we see God's work in Bernard and others of his kind; so that he would not leave them in this childish and narrow love, he dragged them into the midst of great and many worldly affairs, so that in these love might prove its right power, pour itself out and spread over all, willing and ready for all, and by this secret miracle he preserved them, so that they would not be lost in this damned state of narrow and fictitious love, in which the others, who did not recognize this work of God, were lost. However, I will not deny that some were saved in the love in which they served only their own, because they lacked the opportunity to serve others as well, although they were ready to serve all. I condemn the state itself because it forbids serving others than their monastics.
Thus, although we admit that some have been preserved who have not sinned against obedience to parents and love of neighbor while living under vows, we see here quite obviously, that the state of vows is by its nature contrary to God's commandments of obedience to parents and love of neighbor, and that therefore it may neither be vowed nor kept, and that for this reason it is impossible for it to be considered a vow before God and to be required of Him. It is also certain that those who have been preserved have not made such vows, or, if they have vowed in such a way, that God has been lenient with their error and has not accepted it in the way they vowed. Therefore, it is condemnable if you allow yourself to be found in a way of life that you see is contrary to their
The nature of these people is in conflict with the divine commandments and only makes them idle people who, as it were, devour other people's goods as locusts, caterpillars and beetles or, as Peter says [2 Ep. 2, 13.But they themselves serve no one, show love to no one, do good to no one, and that they want to be such people, they vow and commit themselves to it, by corrupting God's commandments for God's sake, by falsifying God's words and forcing them on their inventions, and by perverting everything. And even if there were nothing else evil with them, they still have their cursed masses, which they have turned into sacrifices and good works, with which they give back spiritual goods to their benefactors in abominable perversity for retribution, that is, they teach them to trust in lies and drag them down with them into the abyss, the blind ladders of the blind. These masses, I say, should frighten everyone so much that if someone had carelessly taken their vows, he would change his mind, leave their assembly and return to the purity of Christian simplicity, since from all that has been said before it is most certain that no one can commit himself to this way of life by a vow that is godly and pleasing to God, or, if it happens, it is an error. For he finds other things than he has provided for himself, therefore it is necessary that in the monasteries either an ungodly or a false vow is made, neither of which can stand before God. Therefore, it always remains free; indeed, it is necessary that one change and revoke this vow and return to Christian freedom and the divine commandments. This may be enough of the fifth part, now let us go on.
Sixth, that the monastic life is contrary to reason.
Sixthly, let us hold this stand also against natural reason, that is, against the gross light of nature, which, though it does not in itself understand the light and works of God, namely, in such a way that in affirmative things (affirmativw) (as it is said)
1596 v. vi, 31S-320. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, 1940-1942. 1597
is deceptive in its judgment; but in the negation (in negativis) it is reliable. For reason does not comprehend what God is, but understands with the utmost certainty what is not God. Although it does not see what is right and good in the sight of God (namely, faith), it knows very well that unbelief, murder, and disobedience are evil. Christ also makes use of this when he explains [Luc. 11, 17] that every kingdom, if it is at odds with itself, becomes desolate, and Paul, when he says [1 Cod. 11, 13] that nature teaches that a woman should not pray with her head uncovered (prophesies). What is therefore clearly repugnant to this reason, of which it is certain that it is also much more repugnant to God. For how should that not be contrary to heavenly truth which is contrary to earthly truth? In this way also Christ Joh. 3, 12. distinguishes the truth, and from the twofold [truth] makes the conclusion: "If ye believe not, when I tell you of earthly things, how would ye believe, if I told you of heavenly things?" Therefore, let us see that the monastic state is contrary not only to the Law and the Gospel and all Scripture, to the words and works of God, but also to the common reason of all men. And above all, let us hold this: Even if a vow should be godly and right in all things, it ceases to be a vow when it has become impossible, and can no longer bind even before God. For example, if you have vowed to go on pilgrimage to St. James, but are prevented from doing so either by death, or poverty, or sickness, or imprisonment, then the vow is omitted without any thought of conscience; and this proves that every vow is conditional, and is always understood to exclude the case of impossibility.
Is this not clear and certain enough? For what is asserted of one vow must be asserted of all. For all, whether they be great or small, whether they be vowed only for a time or for ever, are all equally comprehended under this commandment: Praise and keep, as we shall see. Therefore, if in one thing, even the
the least, the impossibility is excluded, so it is also excluded in everything, even the greatest. Now if you have vowed celibacy, and afterwards realize that it is impossible for you, could you not freely enter into matrimony and understand your vow conditionally? For what is there to prevent you from doing it and being able to do it? Is not the weakness of the flesh as great an obstacle to the celibate state as poverty or sickness to one who wishes to go on pilgrimage? Yes, even the divine commandments, although they are unchangeable, which is beyond all dispute, nevertheless set the case of impossibility as an exception, as far as external works are concerned. For you will not condemn St. Peter because he did not preach when he was thrown into prison by Herod [Apost. 12:3 ff.], he did not serve his neighbor, for which he nevertheless had the commandment of love, but the excellent (beata) impossibility excuses him. Nor will you bring any blame on Paul for having let love stand in the way, because he often wanted to come to the Romans and yet was prevented. And Apost. 16, 7. he wanted to travel to Bithynia, but the wind or the spirit did not allow it. And we would have to say that the martyrs in the prisons were godless if they could not refrain from the works because the impossibility forced them to do so.
But here one would like to say: God crowns the will inwardly, where he does not find the ability outwardly; therefore he who made his vow to St. Jacob fulfills the same with his will, where he is not able to do it in execution; so also the saints fulfill the commandments of God. To this I reply: Either this is not enough, or it confirms my assertion. It is not enough, because both the vow and the commandment are not only based on the will, but also on the work. He has just vowed the work of pilgrimage, not the will. For what would that be if one vowed: I vow to you the will to go on pilgrimage to Saint James? Thus, the commandment of God compels the work. For what would it be: I command you to do something?
1598 v. a. vi, 320-3W. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1912-1945. 1599
Therefore, I conclude here that I have proved (demonstratively) that the vows always exclude the impossibility, just like the external works according to the commandments of God. Therefore, even the celibate state, if it is impossible according to the vow, is not included in the vow, at least according to the external works. And you have nothing to oppose it. But if the will is enough where the ability is lacking, then I have won, for I am speaking only of one who would like to fulfill the vow of celibacy and is unable to do so because of the weakness of the flesh, because he has often tried to do so and yet cannot restrain his flesh either by fasting or by any other effort, and is sometimes forced to endure impure rivers, both awake and asleep, against his will and conquered by the heat of lust, and yet is otherwise of an irreproachable life.
Do you want to say here, as some foolish people do, who do not care about souls at all: one must ask God for mercy, which He does not deny to anyone? Fine. Why didn't you also advise St. Peter to ask God that Herod not throw him into prison? Why didn't Paul ask not to be prevented from coming to the Romans? Why didn't the martyrs ask not to be prevented from the works of love by imprisonment? And why do you not teach the one who vowed the pilgrimage to St. James to pray so that he would not become poor, sick, die, or go into captivity? Is this the way to play games in such serious matters? How, if God did not want to be asked? or if he is asked, did not want to hear? In this way you would teach us all to vow celibacy and then ask that it not be impossible for us, and thereby you would force God to change His word by which He created all things, and to revoke this divine order of nature: "Be fruitful and multiply." This is foolish and childish. Everyone has to make the experience on himself, so that he can see whether the law "be
fruitful and multiply" has the upper hand, or rather the privilege that he is exempt from this law.
But again you will say: It is not the same with the impossibility with the saints and the impossibility with a celibate. For the will of the saints is strong and complete and would be put into action, and there would be no internal obstacle to it, which would be in their power; but there is an external obstacle to it, which is not in their power, namely tyranny. But the will of a celibate is not complete, nor is it strong; nor is it hindered by an outward obstacle, but by an inward one, namely by his flesh and himself, who is nevertheless badly in his power. For if the will were a complete one, it would be impossible that it should not hold the husbandless life. Therefore the case you make does not hold (non est dabilis), that someone is a celibate by will but could not also be so by ability. I answer: Our flesh is certainly in our power, that we can cut out his eyes, his hands, his feet, his tongue, or strangle him with a rope, or suffocate him in water, just as a tyrant, if he were weaker than we, would be in our power. What does this have to do with what we are asking and doing here? Is that why you will be chaste if you put out your eyes? By the way, as far as chastity is concerned, who does not know that the inner tyrant who has his home in our members is no more in our power than the evil will of an outer tyrant? Yes, an external tyrant you may appease with kind words and draw to your side, but this one who dwells within you you cannot tame by any efforts, let alone by words.
What do you want to say to Paul Rom. 7, 19.: Was his will not complete and strong when he said: "The good that I want, I do not do, but the evil that I do not want, I do"? Why then does he not do that which he most fully confesses that he wills? Now where is what you said?
1600 L. v. a. vi, W f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix. 1945-1948. 1601
An inner obstacle does not stand in the way, does not make impossible what a complete will has set before itself? "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another, that ye do not the things that ye would" [Gal. 5:17]. So I will that this celibate also be admitted to me absolved from the vow, if with all his heart he would rather live celibate than in wedlock, but that which is impossible to the flesh compels him to do the opposite in outward works and to refrain from his vow, as one who is hindered by an insurmountable disease and a tyrant who cannot be tamed. Is not also he who is bound by a vow to St. Jacob, when he suffers from a disease, prevented by an inward obstacle? But how much more furious is the illness and how much more cruel the tyrant in our limbs than any bodily illness! Here, too, God will accept the will where he does not find the ability, while there is still no sin against any of his commandments, neither with the will nor with the deed, but with the will also the vow itself is fulfilled over the commandment; only the outer work of the vow remains after, since an insurmountable inability forces it.
But again you will object: In this way you will prepare the way, that one may also violate the divine commandments with outward works, if only the will does not want to [transgress]. So he who would rather live chastely will be excused if he commits fornication, since for us the commandments of God are impossible, as you yourself have often taught.
I answer: Here you should have spoken of the inequality [of cases] which you wanted to assert above between the saints who were prevented and the celibate who could not keep his vows (succumbentem). For although it is true that the commandments of God are impossible for us, it is not true that someone wants to live chastely and commits fornication. For whoever has set his will on God's law, the law is not only possible for him, but has become easy; for if he cannot abstain, this impossibility does not urge him to do and fornicate against God's law.
For he does not commit fornication for the sake of it, because he could not do otherwise. That is what marriage is for; he takes a wife, and the law of chastity will be easy for him. But it is not so with my celibate [who is bound by vows], who, wishing to abstain from all things with a complete heart, and to satisfy the law of God in all things, would be satisfied if he took a wife, yet would prefer to do without a wife also, and to live in celibacy; but he cannot overcome the nature of his sex, that he could naturally do without sexual intercourse, and therefore he will commit fornication, because he cannot do otherwise. So it is not the same case with the commandments and the vow. For it is the will that makes the commandments of God possible that is not sufficient to make a vow possible. Whoever wants to keep the commandments of God and cannot keep the vow must give up the vow so that the commandments remain, so that the vow and the commandment are not transgressed at the same time through fornication.
Therefore, if the celibate state is impossible for him, the right to marry and to dissolve the vow remains for the celibate, although I confess that where there is a rich spirit that works the complete will of abstinence, abstinence necessarily follows, as we are sure that such has happened with the saints. But the rest of the celibate can only desire such a will more than they practice it. But the transgressors also do not desire to be able to keep the commandments of God, as St. Paul desired in Romans 7, which he could not fully desire. Yes, the transgressors do not want the law of God from the heart, since an ungodly will cannot help but hate the law; rather, it feigns the will and works that are spoken of elsewhere and do not now belong to this matter. One sees, then, that the proper form of the vow before God would be the following: I vow chastity as long as it is possible for me; but if I cannot keep it, then I shall be free to become married.
But well, whom this disputation of the impossibility does not bring to conviction (fidem), we want to force him with experience.
1602 L.v.s. VI, 323-325. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1948-1950. 1603
and prove the right with the deed. Behold, I have vowed the whole rule of Augustine, in which he commanded that wherever I go, I shall go two or three by myself, that is, I shall not go alone. This I have vowed to keep until death, as the form of the vow expressly states. Under the time I am caught and am forced to be alone; where, I ask you, does my vow remain? I should rather be put to death than be alone, if the vow does not exclude the impossibility. But if I am held [captive] that I cannot be killed, what shall I do? Here the vow is dissolved, or it is recognized that it has already included the exception of impossibility before. So in the same rule I vow to pray at certain hours, to use certain clothes, food, places. But if I get sick, so that I cannot do any of these things, the vow is not kept. The illness will not excuse me, because a commandment of God must be kept in life, in death, in all circumstances. But God's commandment is, "Vow and keep." Thus I can give examples of all the other statutes of the Rule. Therefore, as I said above about the brother of Jacob, if impossibility is excluded with necessity in all other statutes, what is the reason why it should not be excluded in chastity alone? where both multiple dangers and the greatest necessity prevail, so that if impossibility is to take place in any part of the rule, it should rightly take place in chastity before others; if it does not take place in chastity, then it will be allowed to take place much less in others. What great danger, I pray thee, is there in compelling a prisoner to have a companion with him, or a sick person to perform the prayers? Rather, there is no danger, because it is impossible what you want to force. But if you force someone who cannot abstain to abstain, how great impurity, how great fornication, how great adultery and all kinds of evil you will cause!
Here does not apply, as I also said above.
that you say that for a prisoner and a sick person the will is enough, because then there would be no difference between one who had made a vow and one who had not. For what layman could not have the will to have a companion, and have the will to pray according to the form of the rule? In matters concerning conscience and blessedness, one must not engage in such antics, but keep an exact and proper distinction. It is certain that in the [monastic] rule the work, not the will, is required and praised. It is also certain that the vow is broken by a sick and imprisoned person with necessity, which should not be the case if the vow excludes the impossibility. The saying stands firm: "Vow and keep." Not one letter nor one tittle of this law will pass away until it is all done. So it binds the vow only to the point of impossibility, or you must admit that there have never been any monks. For there has not been one who has not been prevented even by illness or by some other cause from fulfilling any part of his rule, which is quite contrary to his vow.
Furthermore, because the will to keep the vow is so persistently raised, which remains firm, although it is impossible to fulfill the outward work, we also want to lay down this [will]. All agree on this, which Bernhard also approves in his book "Von Geboten und Dispensationen" ("Of Commandments and Dispensations"), that all parts of the rules are in the power of the superior, who can make dispensations in them with his subordinates, not only when impossibility or danger should arise, but also when it seems appropriate and suitable. Sometimes, however, these parts of the rules are binding or not binding according to the mere arbitrariness of the superior. Then, however, they permanently give the pope full power in all these matters to annul, change, and dispense with them. But everything that this chair of Satan does is suspicious; I do not want its prestige to protect me in a matter concerning consciences; let us stick to what the saints have done, and to the general and
1604 D- V. a. VI, 325-327. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 1950-1953. 1605
from all accepted uses. Now it is certain that in these dispensations one is permitted to renounce the will to keep the vow and is given freedom to break it. For he is not compelled to do it unwillingly who keeps the dispensation, nor does he think of it, much less that he would rather do the opposite. Answer, then: If this dispensation is allowed, I will confidently conclude that the content (tenorem) of a monastic vow is the following: I vow to keep this rule at the discretion of the superior. If this is not its content, I again declare that all monks, all monasteries are damned, and that there has never been a monk. For no one has ever understood and kept it otherwise than as I have just said.
But if in other pieces it is in the power of the superior not only to dissolve the work but also the will, that is, to make the whole vow free for his subordinate, even where no impossibility or danger requires it, you say, if you can, why he should not give his brother, who is weighed down by the storms of rutting and the greatest dangers, not also in the piece where chastity is vowed, by the same force might, nay, should, give him the opportunity to marry, and freedom at least to the outward work, if he would not by all means [release] the will? Why is the vow of chastity alone of demant, while all others are of tow and straw? Will one not rightly accuse monasticism of godlessness and extreme cruelty, and just by this hold it quite suspicious that it is the devil's mummery (scenam), because it is so lenient in trivial matters and so strict in the most important ones? For what else can be said to this perversity than the word of the Gospel [Matt. 23:24], "Ye that are gnats, and swallow camels"? and again [v. 23], "Ye that tithe mint and dill, and leave the most grievous things of the law behind"; or this word [v. 4], "They lay heavy and infallible burdens upon men's necks." For what will sound reason judge here but that.
it comes from the spirit of Satan's wickedness, that only from [the vow of] chastity cannot be dispensed, so that he entangles souls with indissoluble bonds, and from the others could be dispensed, so that he mocks their fictitious spiritual state?
What can the monastics answer to this? Either no part of the vows can be dispensed with, or they can all be dispensed with, because there is no stronger reason for one part than for the others, except that in the case of chastity several causes urge and call for the dispensation, where they refuse it more obstinately than in the case of others. And here, dear reader, pause a little, and consider with yourself, to say nothing of this impiety and cruelty of dispensing, how uncertain and dangerous everything is in this wretched state. If this custom of dispensing is an error and displeases God, who would dare to enter or remain in the spiritual state? For who would remain there or vow and keep this way of life, in which that is vowed of which they teach by word and their own example that it need not be kept? Is this not laughing at God like a fool? Or else, should this custom not be an error, who would make us certain of it, since God says, "Vow and keep"? since it is said above that we cannot be certain either by the example of the saints or of the many, because all have sin and can err, and here the certain and manifest word of God says, "Vow and keep."
But if it is uncertain whether this custom is erroneous, then I say again: Who can presume to enter the spiritual state or to remain in it? and everything that I have taught about error, I will also state here. For the one ungodliness is as great as the other, if you follow what you obviously know to be error, and if you accept as truth what you do not know to be error or truth. O these are truly the annual times of which Paul prophesied [2 Tim. 3:1 ff]. But now that they have taken the vow and their stand on the
1606 k. V. L. VI, p27 f. XI. Älther's writings of the monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 1953-1956. 1607
If I were to base my opinion on the word of God: "Vow and keep," then I publicly testify that this custom of dispensing is ungodly, a pernicious and powerful error. With this alone I could enforce and demonstrate that all vows should be forbidden and free. To do this the more fully and abundantly, let us first consider the causes of their quite frivolous dispensation in other parts of the rule and of the cruel severity in the vow of chastity to maintain it.
Now they pretend that chastity is something so incomparably precious that nothing can be found that can be put on a par with it and exchanged for it. Here they draw on the saying of the wise man [Sir. 26, 20. according to the Vulg.]: "There is nothing of equal value with a chaste soul." To this they add the boasts of vaunted virginity, one of which, standing out above others, is from Jerome: "I say boldly, though God is able to do all things, yet He is not able to restore a virgin after she has come to ruin." But everything else, being inferior, can obtain dispensation and be exchanged. O double blindness, which in a Christian and divine matter judges the commandments according to works, and the faith according to persons, which even the heathen do not do in their human affairs, and then they take the word of a man as the highest article of faith. Jerome says he will boldly say that God cannot restore a virgin after she has fallen. What is it to me what you boldly say? I have to look at, not how boldly, but how true you speak. I do not believe in your boldness, but in the truth of God. With what do you prove that a virgin cannot be restored after the fall, not even by God? Of course, by this boast the uneducated reader learns to consider nothing more precious than virginity, that is, to prefer the work to faith; he can restore the lost virginity of faith in the spirit and he should not be able to restore the one lost in the flesh? . Oh how I wish that this praise of the
It is not true, as Hugo de St. Victory has already refuted it earlier. And it is also not true, as already Hugo de St. Victore refuted it earlier. For God can also make the flesh intact again, even raise up a dead [virgin] and change her completely anew, so that she has never known a man; for we are His clay, He is our potter. But if he understands it in such a way that she cannot be restored for her own sake, because he [God] cannot make it so that a corrupted [virgin] is not corrupted, that is, that he cannot make what has happened to be undone: then one could say with the same boldness that no grace that has once been corrupted can be restored by God.
But let us return to the matter at hand and consider a new impiety of this monastic state, so that its wickedness may be found hateful. They claim that the vow is just as much as a commandment of God, since the Scripture says: "Vow and keep," but the way to fulfill the vow is not to be derived from the form of the commandment, but from the greatness and smallness, from the preciousness and the low value of the works or the things commanded. In this way you must keep the virginity which you have vowed, because it is something great; to keep the other works of the rule is not necessary, but it can be dispensed with because they are small things. But what is this but to say, I keep chastity, not because it is required by the commandment of the vow, but because it is great? And what is this but saying that the commandment of the vow is not in God's will but in my own, to what extent it is commanded and not commanded, to what extent it must be fulfilled and not fulfilled? And do you think that God is not angry at these offenses, irritations, temptations and mockeries of His Majesty? Those are a perfect image of Saul, who presume to interpret for themselves what is [right] obedience to the Lord, and keep back the fat oxen for sacrifice to God [1 Sam. 15:9 ff]. These are the ones who stirred up
1608 L- v. a. vi, 328-330. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W, xix, isss-isss. 1609
They say that obedience is better than sacrifice [v. 22]; they praise the commandment of the vow with words and deny it with deeds.
In such a way, you would look at a woman to desire her, and deny that it is sin, because it is a small thing compared to the work. You want to take your neighbor's coat and say: It is not forbidden, because it is a small thing. If you say to your brother, Racha, you do not sin, because you did not kill the brother. And this rule of monastic theology you can carry out through all the commandments of God: in great things and works you will teach that one must keep them, in small ones that one can dispense and abrogate. Furthermore, so that you leave nothing to God in terms of prestige, place in your will the right to decide what is small and what is great, as here the monastics by their own authority prefer chastity to all other works. There you have the monastic godliness, that is, the most fantastic god-robbing and blasphemous godlessness. They have learned this nonsense from their king and head, the pope, who arrogates to himself the right to dispense in all vows, with the exception of the vows of chastity, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and St. James. According to him, this will be the meaning of the divine commandment: Vow and keep chastity, pilgrimage to Jerusalem and St. Jacob, but in other things vow and do not keep. Why this? Because these three things are great, the others are small. So also the monks: Vow and keep chastity of the rule, but the rest of the rule vow and do not keep it. O a foolishness that is very appropriate in these last times of wrath. Christ says Matt. 5:19: "Whosoever shall destroy one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven," and again [v. 18]: "The least letter shall not be destroyed, nor one tittle of the law, till all be done." But the pope and the monastics do not merely abolish one letter or one tittle, but the whole words and the whole commandment, saying: In great things hold, in small things we resolve. But we want, by repealing these horrible abominations
curse and detest. Hold on to the following.
First, that we make no distinction between works; they are equal before God, though they are great and small before us and among themselves. Paul says Rom. 12, 3. that everything is divided according to the measure of faith. For it is not he who has done more and greater things that is pleasing, but he who has done them with greater faith and love. The conjugal chastity of Abraham and Sarah will be preferred to the virginity of many. And the marriage of the apostle Peter will undoubtedly be higher than the virginity of St. Agatha. According to faith, I say, all things are to be measured; for not he that doeth works, but he that believeth shall be saved. It is for the heathen to judge by works, yes, even they judge works by the heart; it is for the Christian to judge by faith. Secondly, in fulfilling the commandments, one must look at nothing but the form of the commandment and the will of him who commands, and not care whether the works are small or great, small or precious, much or little, short or long, or of what shape or name they are. For it is not the work but obedience that God requires in the work, or, as the Scripture says, "obedience, not sacrifice," for He has no need of our goods. Thus Samuel says to Saul [1 Sam. 15, 22.], "Do you think that the Lord delights in sacrifice and burnt offering more than in obedience to his voice?" Now let us take the monastic people to task. They cannot deny that they vow their whole rule, not only chastity, but also that the whole rule is understood under the word "vowed"; therefore it is necessary that it should also be understood completely under the word "keep". For it is not said: Vow the whole and keep a part, but: All that you vow, keep it. Therefore, if they accept their vow as a commandment, they are forced to confess that before God obedience to the whole rule is required to the last jot and cannot be dispensed with. Here, the laborious division with which some have attempted to comfort themselves and
1610 L. V. L. VI, S30-3S2. XI. Luther's Writings On Monastic Vows etc. W. LIL, I95S-ISSS. 1611
to divide their rules into commandments, counsels and interpretations. The word of God stands firm: "Pledge and keep". If, at the hour of death, this will begin to disturb the conscience, then the straw of human sin will be of no use against it. For it will be afraid of the voice of God, so that it cannot heed the voices of men (sentiat).
What do the monks want to do here? Here they will finally open their eyes and see that their vows are foolish and impossible. And who will not repent of being a monk? And who among them will be able to be blessed? For you will find that there has never been even one monk who has fulfilled his whole rule in deed. But they themselves have long since felt and seen this, so they have invented another excuse how to escape from the commandment of God. Such a wretched misery and abomination drives the wretched people on their ways, after they have once started to stray from the right straight (regia) way of faith. For when they saw that the rules and orders, entangled with so many statutes and commandments, were vowed and nowhere kept, they were beside themselves that so many should be condemned as transgressors of the vows; at the same time they recognized that it was quite foolish and impossible if one should presume to keep all these vows. Therefore, the wretched people set out to find a council for their cause and to divide the enormous number (chaos) of vows into two classes, naming some essential and others secondary. They made three of them essential, poverty, obedience and chastity. Of the others they wanted them to be secondary, and therefore determined that only those would break their vows who abandoned the essential ones. This is the opinion in which they all agree, but in vain. It is a little human fief that is of no use at all to make the conscience firm, but rather serves only to seduce. Who will make us sure that God is pleased with this division? Do you want to build my conscience on your dreams? What shall I say to God when He holds up His commandment to me, "Vow and keep," and urges me to do so?
that everything is essential (as indeed it is)? For it has been said that before him there is no distinction of works; everything is essential, because everything is decided under the same commandment in the same way, vowed in the same way. Now you yourselves also call it vows; incidental things (accidentalia) he knows not, but will say, Are they vows? Then you must keep them, but if you must keep them, they are essential. In this way, wherever they may turn, they are cornered and seized and cannot escape. The word and commandment of God stands firm for all eternity and does not suffer to be escaped or falsified.
Thus, these two adversaries, the conscience and the law, meet and clash here. Also my Moses has led the Israelites out of their camp that they had to face God. What remains but for them to see the smoking and fearful mountain, that is, the wrath that reaches from heaven to earth and from earth to the midst of heaven? Where shall they go before the face of this fiery law? They themselves make dispensations in the commandments of God, divide His works and do them. But the commandment requires everything. For if you had vowed either to kill a fly or to pick up a straw, you would have to fulfill the vow without being dispensed from it, and not consider what you had vowed, but perform the obedience because you had vowed, especially if the vow does not conflict with another commandment of God; how much more must you keep all that you have vowed according to the rule! So you see, dearest reader, that monasticism in itself is nothing but a kind of Babel of error, of ignorance, of disobedience, of disbelief, of robberies of God, of blasphemies and a cesspool of the most extreme ungodliness and sins. Or do you doubt that it is so? Do you not see that they not only do not fulfill their vows, but also teach this so that they are vowed and not fulfilled, and only deal with one thing, that they are regarded for it as if they had not vowed with the vows, and with the
1612 8. V. a. Vl. S32-3S4. 174 Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 1962-1961. 1613
What sow or donkey would mock and play such a game with itself as they presume to play with the living and true God? What sow or donkey would mock and play such a game with itself as they presume to mock the living and true God with these their follies and play their game with Him?
Now see for yourself if anyone can be preserved in this fiery furnace of Babylon, unless by the power of a divine miracle, by which the elect have been preserved, while they have also erred humanly under the vows, and yet in the spirit of freedom have adhered to the very truthful gospel of God. Thus is the judgment of God fulfilled, by which he tends to confuse the language of those who build the tower, so that they may make a name for themselves, while they do and say what is not proper, what they themselves also do not understand, by calling a vow not a vow according to their wrong sense, by making the unlawful lawful, a commandment a noncommandment, the ungodly something godly, the theft of God something holy, blasphemy something venerable, and many other things of the kind. This is that night in which Christ is mocked, beaten and scoffed at, the papal servants saying to him, "Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that smote thee?" [Matth. 26, 68.] Perhaps some will not believe that these are the abominations of monasticism, because they are all too frightening. Those I let go and be wise in their opinion, not wanting to serve them even with this writing; only those I want to serve who would gladly save their souls. I think that they are satisfied by what has been said before, so that they believe that what I say is true. For true is the commandment of God: "Vow and keep," which will deceive no one but the one who does not believe that it is both a commandment and true. It is equally true that unbreakable usage and experience show that they make vows which they not only do not keep, but also teach that they should not be kept. For you cannot know their lies more surely than from the fact that they dispute and contradict themselves. For it is so ordered of God that ungodliness always disgraces itself, and the lies
are never in agreement with themselves, indeed, they always bear witness against themselves.
What shall I do now, that I may be delivered out of this Zoar [Gen 19:21], whither I have fled to escape Sodom? What shall you do? Do you think that one should still argue about it, that you should hurry up your course to the mountain of freedom? after you have heard that you have vowed such a way of life, which is not only contrary to the word of God, the gospel, the faith, the Christian freedom and the commandments of God, but also most shamefully disputes against itself and is at odds with itself. Let this kingdom be devastated, since it is so divided in itself. Do you think that before God this vow will be required, which you vowed in such an abominable matter, since he himself forbids it and does not want it? For he who did not want you to vow will also not want the vow to be kept, but that it be left and done with as much haste as possible. But I am dealing here with the monks themselves and repeat the question, so they may tell me: why do they dispense in the other parts of the vow and do not dispense only in chastity? or why do they teach that everything else is secondary, and only these three things must be the essential ones? They may say, by what authority is a vow a commandment in some things and not in all? The mouth of those who speak unrighteous things is completely clogged and they are forced to admit: If a part of the vow can be remitted or dispensed with, then the whole of it can be remitted and dispensed with, or if the whole of it cannot be remitted or dispensed with, then no part of it can be remitted and dispensed with. Therefore, if the superior can permit the brother to eat meat, drink wine, refrain from prayer, take off his garment, contrary to what the rule of the vow prescribes, he can also permit him to have goods, to go free, and to take a wife, especially if it should be necessary for him. Thus, I say, I compel them to answer.
However, I do not want to emphasize this for the sake of-
1614 L.v. ".vi.334f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, iWi-E. 1615
They have claimed because they themselves answer or are forced to answer in such a way, which must have no credibility and no reputation because of the monstrosities of their godlessness. For how, if they should err even in answering, who in their vows and lives are nothing but error? Consciences must be fortified with a firmer and more certain foundation, namely with the reputation of God and that alone. For Peter [1 Ep. 4, 11] says: "If anyone speaks, he speaks it as the word of God," that is, he should be sure that what he speaks is the word of God. This also Paul commands Timothy, saying [2 Tim. 3:14], "Stand fast in that which thou hast learned, knowing of whom thou hast learned." But he had learned nothing but the word of God, therefore one must remain with God's word alone. With this alone I now proceed to prove that they are nonsensical against sound reason and against themselves, and will conclude by their own testimony (autoritatem) that the impossible chastity is free, and that the vow of it is by its nature a conditional one, lasting only for a time," since I have proved that they do so in other parts of the world, that they have admitted this in other parts of the vow, and that no reason remains why this should not be true in all parts, since even stronger causes press for the freedom of chastity than for any other part which it makes free. It is therefore solely at their discretion that they make some essential, others secondary, and, while the others are free, bind chastity in such a way that it cannot be dispensed with, to the ruin and snare of consciences.
Incidentally, our consciences can be based on the fact that we have proven with clear and certain testimonies of Scripture that the monastic vow is by its nature contrary to the words of God, the Gospel, the faith, Christian freedom, the divine commandments, not to mention common sense and that it contradicts itself. By its nature, I say, because I do not want to deny that holy men have used this perverse being in a good way, and by God's miracles he has
Just as I say that death, the cross, and the evils of this world are by their very nature contrary to faith, which Christ and his followers used and glorified. But no one vows the example of the saints who have well used evil, but all vow evil itself. For no one vows to live in the spirit in which Bernard lived. For this is necessary and cannot fall under a vow, and is vowed from the beginning and begun at baptism. But a law of deeds, or works of the law, righteousness of the flesh they vow, and that only invented and ordained by men, which God has forbidden in the New Testament, as we have proven, which also leads by its nature to destruction through the appearance and the basing (ratione) on their own wisdom.
Therefore, although I see that the saints were of the same opinion, that they divided the vows into essential and incidental ones, then received both dispensation and dispensation themselves in many matters of the rules, nevertheless, because it is uncertain whether they did this in that God approved of what they did or forgave their error, it is not sufficiently certain nor a reliable protection for the conscience that one should claim anything on the basis of their example or their deeds. For he who foretold [Matt. 24:24] that even the elect would fall into error opposes anyone who would presume to do so. Otherwise, if their holiness should prove that what they have done is pleasing to God, we have clearly proved from the deeds of the saints (that is, from the works of God that bear witness) that all vows are free, and that the form of a vow before God is no other than this: I vow the rule for a time according to the will of the superior; and that the monasteries, according to their ancient use, are considered by God to be nothing other than Christian schools, to instruct the blossoming youth in the faith and godly discipline until the years of a more mature age. Now that the prestige of holiness does not sufficiently confirm the example, it is necessary to
1616 v-"- vi. S3S-S37. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix. E-1970. 1617
with a different prestige, namely divine. For the action of the saints pleased God for this reason, because he disliked the institution of monastic vows, therefore he also tolerated and willed that his saints should dispense and act against him, in order to remind all faithfully, so that they would not be diverted from the right straight road of the Gospel by the deceptive appearance of this state of vows (devoti instituti). For Bernard did not sin, nor did he keep his vows in all things, when he left his monastery on the Pope's business and went through countries; this is what God willed, so that one would not think that the way of living under vows (institutum votorum) applied before him. In the same way, Christ also allowed his disciples to eat with unwashed hands, against the statutes of the ancients. In short, we measure the examples and the deeds of the saints according to the words of God, against which, as has been sufficiently proven, the monastic vows dispute. They measure the words of God by the deeds and sayings of the saints, if they measure best, and yet they do not want to be considered to have erred.
To the last.
Lastly, let us make an attack against them and assume for the sake of argument that those three vows, the essential vows, are valid before God and that they cannot be dispensed with. Now if I can prove that two of these are free, even among yourselves, will you not admit that the third must also be free, namely, that of chastity? Therefore let us examine them a little (tentemus), although we have said something about them immediately in the beginning. First, let us consider poverty, which is twofold. [One is spiritual, of which Christ says Matt. 5:3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This one cannot be praised, since it is common to all Christians. This consists in the fact that one deals with the goods in a free spirit, uses them and is master of them, not a servant of them, does not set his heart on them, does not count on riches, and is not a slave to them.
He is not a rich man [Matth. 19, 24] and does not trust or boast of it. Against this the monks do not sin in one way alone. First, they make of it a counsel; second, they presume on it alone, and boast that it is praised by them. But that it is not a council is proved by the fact that Christ calls them blessed, expressing in a bad way (volens) that those are damned who are not poor. For he used to promise blessedness to those who keep what is necessary, as when he punished the woman and said [Luc. 11, 28]: "Yes, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it," and [Matth. 16, 17]: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah," and [Joh. 13, 17]: "Blessed are you, if you do it"; likewise [Matth. 5, 3]: "For the kingdom of heaven is yours." However, he says that the bondage of hell rests on those who are not poor.
Since the monks vow this, they sin twice. First, they do it in an ungodly way, believing that it is a counsel, which is a commandment, and by doing so they cancel the divine commandment, denying that it is commanded. Second, because they hypocritically pretend to vow something other than what they vowed in baptism. By this hypocrisy they revoke or despise the vow of baptism, as if it were either too little or nothing compared to that vow. But this is to blaspheme baptism, which is everything to all Christians. Therefore, if the vow is not to be ungodly, sacrilegious and blasphemous before God, they must not vow this poverty. The other is bodily. This may be a threefold one, so as to engage in antics with the buffoons in such a way: either that you do not use any thing, which is impossible, for one must make use of food and clothing to sustain life; or that you do not manage or have to do with any goods: this [poverty] is found in little children, young people, the sick, fools, and the like, who are under the yoke or power of others; or that you possess nothing of your own, but manage the common goods. And these two [kinds of poverty]
must be praised by the monks, especially the second. Incidentally, physical poverty is actually a lack of food and clothing that requires help from others because it cannot help itself with its own things.
Now see what kind of game Satan is playing here. Lucas in the Acts of the Apostles [Cap. 2, 44. 4, 32.] praises what is done by the apostles, that they have everything in common and thus have abundance, but does not call it poverty or poor, yes (so he says [Apost. 4, 34.]): "there was no one among them who had lack". It is not poverty at all, nor can it be called such, where a few people come together and pool their goods and live out of the common good, but it is a complete abundance of all things. For this was the glory of the first church, as Lucas tells us, that though they all possessed much in spiritual and evangelical poverty, yet they had abundance of temporal goods for every man's need. But later, when their wealth was consumed and famine set in, they began to lack in temporal things as well; then they became poor in body as well, so that Paul and Barnabas collected the alms of the believers for them everywhere. But the apostles did not order this poverty, since they had everything in common, but suffered it when the common goods were lacking. Our religious, however, vow neither spiritual nor bodily poverty, but the well-known common abundance, out of which they are given superfluously, which, as I said, could be called in a violent way (violenter) a poverty of children and fools, which is nothing less than poverty. For it is not that they may lack, but that they may have abundance, that they enter the orders, induced by the fact that they know that in the monasteries there are full storehouses, which give abundantly (eructantia) from generation to generation. For where there is poverty in the monasteries, they either do not enter, or they are sorry that they have entered.
Is this not an enormous mockery of God and man, that one pretends to vow poverty and yet seeks abundance in security and idleness, which is acquired by the hand of others?
Is it to be known and distributed, where nothing is less than to be in want or to be poor? Or do they want us not to know what poverty is or means? Do they also want to take away the meanings of words? According to the understanding of all, according to the usage of all, according to the manner of speaking of all, physical poverty means starvation and lack of food and clothing. Who has ever heard that it is called poverty when one has nothing of one's own and has an abundance of common goods? O you scoffers and deceivers, who by miserliness use fictitious words on people, as Peter foretold! Therefore those who vow monastic life also lie against physical poverty, so that they are both ungodly against spiritual poverty and liars against physical poverty. And this fictitious and lying vow, do you think, should be pleasing to God? Surely the saints must have had something else in mind when they made this vow. The nature of the vow, as we have said, is lying, ungodly, impious and blasphemous.
But further, suppose that these ungodly vows are godly and pleasing, and that is called poverty, which is the surest abundance. What will they say of those who have been taken from the monasteries to the papacy, cardinalate, episcopate, or any other ecclesiastical office that has to do with the administration of goods (dioeceses rerum), where they are certainly placed from the vow in their own goods? And here you cannot say either, if you do not want to play again with fictitious words, that a pope, bishops, cardinals and their like do not possess their own goods, since they have them according to their arbitrariness. Nevertheless, the superiors of the monks may not administer their own goods, but those certainly administer their own, even though they have received them from the church, so that it is nothing that you say that they are not their goods, but the church's goods, which is also spoken with fictitious words. For the pope gives them these goods as a lord of them; indeed, the pope makes himself lord of both [spiritual and temporal] goods, and into this position are also sometimes hei-
The monastery is a place where people like Anastasius, the disciple of Bernard, are transferred. Where is the vow of monastic poverty here? You must absolutely condemn the state of a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, or deny that a monk may enter it. Here they say that such a one gives way to obedience and enters the state of perfection. You lie very well on your own head; why did you say before that the monastic state is the state of perfection? I ask you, how many states of perfection do you have? When a bishop takes off his episcopal cap and enters a monastery (as has sometimes happened), he passes from the state of imperfection to the state of perfection. Again, a monk who leaves the monastery and becomes a bishop enters the state of perfection. Here you see that the states make each other perfect and imperfect, that is, the lies fall against themselves and bite and consume each other. What can you expect that these impudent and nonsensical people will say at last? whether they will not perhaps make this a state of perfection when you go out of the conjugal life into a whorehouse? Oh, dear Lord Christ, to live in this sacrilegious way is nothing but the most shameful lies.
Furthermore, if for the sake of obedience and because of the state of perfection, the vow of poverty is dissolved, why not also the vow of chastity? Where are those essential vows now? Is poverty now a secondary vow? Thus those must be tossed and turned by all kinds of winds of falsehood, who have left the solid rock and have presumed to make for themselves new ways, their own guidance, and strange paradises. "I have left them (it is said [Ps. 81, 13.]) in the folly of their hearts, to walk after their counsel." And Peter [2 Ep. 3, 3.], "In the last days shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts." But what will they say to this? is not the vow a divine commandment, especially if it is an essential one? But out of a divine commandment one may not even by the angels, let alone the pope or
to any man's esteem. For the saying stands firm [Acts 5:29]: "One must obey God more than men." Otherwise, for the same reason, one might steal, kill, commit adultery, rebel against one's parents, in short, deny God with His commandments, out of human force and obedience. For if one may transgress one commandment, one may transgress them all. From this it follows that it is either impossible that the vow is a divine commandment, or it is necessary that all those are guilty of the vow and are condemned who have become popes from monks. Here one must not joke and gossip that they remain in poverty. This is a serious matter; since it is a matter of conscience that is being discussed here, it must be taught in such a way that it is solid. For we know that a monk and a pope do not agree with each other in any respect concerning the vow of poverty. The former has vowed to live poorly in the monastery, the latter is required to fulfill it throughout his life, because the vow is a commandment of God. Nor is it of any use that they put on the state of perfection, not only because of the aforementioned lie by which they contradict themselves, but also because of another lie, because the state of perfection cannot be without and against the commandment of God, but [then] is rather a damnable state. For no commandment of God contends with perfection; rather, perfection consists in the commandments of God alone. For he is perfect who keeps all the commandments of God.
So what is this impudent insolence to claim that the vow is a commandment of God and the state of perfection? and again to claim that it can be dissolved and the state of perfection left for the sake of the state of perfection? You see, dear reader, that I am overwhelmed by the greatness and quantity of the lies, so that I cannot express them in words. This famous monasticism is a forest, a sea, a sand dune of lies. How enormous, I beg you, is also this lie, that they call the pontifical state a state of perfection, which, however, only in the
1622 L.v. ".vi, 34"-342. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows" etc.-W. m, is77-ins. 1623
They teach that the vow must be dissolved because of this lie, because they want it to be a divine commandment. And because of this lie they teach that the vow must be dissolved, of which they nevertheless want it to be a divine commandment. Thus, the miserable and evil-standing essence of this essential vow (male substans substantia substantialis hujus voti) of monastic poverty has escaped us. We have found that it cannot be called poverty, nor is it considered by them to be an essential vow or commandment, even though they teach that it is an essential vow and commandment. Why, then, does their wretched chastity have such a rigid (rigidam) nature in its vow? Will you not admit that either chastity is secondary, or that you are nonsensical and lost in innumerable ways, both in teaching and in keeping, concerning the vow of poverty?
Therefore, I will make the conclusion: Since both a monk and a layman can come to the episcopate, either the monastic vow is nothing, or the monk who becomes a bishop is damned. For he comes to the same position to which one can rise who is not bound by any vows, which would be impossible if the vows made a distinction between a monk and a layman. For a bishop does not vow the monastic vows, nor is he required to vow them; indeed, no one would want to vow them, because they are too strict and too perfect. And that I say it briefly: The vow of poverty seems to be invented even by the devil, so that the monks would become free by pretending it, so that they would not have to help the poverty of others and to perform works of mercy and love, which we have also touched upon above. For he [the devil] keeps them locked up, so that they may serve no one, then also be idle and do no work of the hands, so that they only allow themselves to be served by others, and on this occasion he also distracts the people from helping the truly poor, from helping the married, and from helping the poor.
The poor, widows, orphans, and strangers, on the other hand, should squander their goods on these imaginary poor, who in reality are rich, fattened, idle, and sure hypocrites.
Now let us see whether the essentiality of obedience holds up better than that of poverty. Above we said that obedience is also twofold, the evangelical, by which we are all subject to one another, which we pledge in baptism, and this cannot be pledged again except in hypocrisy and mockery. The other is the bodily; if this be not opposed to the former, I know not what it shall be. But it may be said to be found in women, children, servants, and prisoners, and all who by any constraint are subject to another. For evangelical obedience is free and of one's own free will to him who is not a superior by any right, only because God has so willed that we should be subject to those to whom we do not owe such a duty by any right. Here, too, the monks are absent with the same nonsense as in the case of poverty. First, that they make a council of it; second, that they arrogate it to themselves alone. Therefore they impiously deny that it is a commandment of God, and in an impious way they condemn the vow of their baptism by making the vow, and pretend that they vowed something different and greater than they had vowed in baptism. But if some vow in a godly way, they certainly vow only bodily obedience. But if the Spirit is not in them and finally makes them submissive to others, then nothing is pledged but the opposite of evangelical obedience, as we also said above. For he who vows obedience vows obedience only to one superior and not in general, but according to the rule, by which he causes that he cannot comply with evangelical obedience, since he is prevented from obeying, yielding to, and pleasing both his equals and inferiors, as well as other superiors and all others. For evangelical obedience requires that one be benevolent even toward the adversary and yield in everything and at all times.
1624 2 v.vi, 342-344. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, is7s-is83. 1ß25
But granted that the will of evangelical obedience remains in them, which I do not deny, just as the will of evangelical poverty can remain, as I do not doubt that this has happened with the saints, yet the institution itself, the manner itself of making the vow, disputes against the gospel. For (as I said before) I am not disputing about the example and about the spirit of the saints, for married couples must also have it, but I am disputing about the law and about the way of vowing, which may not be ordered, taught, or vowed, since it is contrary to the gospel. For the vow does not permit you to be subject to all, but the gospel wants you to be subject to all; these two things are virtually at odds with each other, however much a gospel spirit remains with some people who are under vows contrary to the gospel.
Much holier and more perfect is the obedience of a spouse, of children, of servants, of prisoners, and the like, than that of monks, although even they, according to outward ability, cannot show it to all in the flesh, since they are bound and under foreign power. And above we said that evangelical liberty is such that it deprives no one of his right or goods, but moreover, being willing and ready to serve and obey all, they obey their superiors plainly (simpliciter) and without prescribed rule in all things. But the monks obey only their superiors and also these not par excellence, but according to a certain measure of the prescribed rule, as also Bernard teaches, in which they deviate also from those old monks exceedingly far (longe lateque). Furthermore, they do not come into this narrow and mutilated obedience by chance or by necessity (which happens with a spouse, children, servants, prisoners and the like), but voluntarily, so that clearly in the whole world there is no lower and sparser obedience, which would also be more contrary to the Gospel, than that of the monks.
Moreover, another favorable circumstance (felicitas) in the obedience of a child, a spouse, a servant, and a
Citizen who is far from godlessness and the theft of God [of monkish obedience]. For no one thinks that by this obedience he is rendering GOtte a special service before others that is higher than the gospel demands. For no one calls the same a council. But if this ungodly and god-robbing opinion were not in the monastic obedience, it could neither be taught nor praised nor kept. For the monastics, by their obedience, want to be something special about the gospel, above others, and only brides and wives of the divine majesty, and make of this a Baal, that is, a husband who belongs to them, and whose own they are, One flesh, One spirit with him, but the others they look upon as if they were servants and hirelings and concubines in the crowd. But it is certain that the saints were not of this ungodly opinion, for since the spirit of humility dwelt in them, they exalted themselves over no one. Thus you see that the monastic obedience, no less than their poverty, are new and invented words, above and against the use of all languages. To this invention they also add impiety and theft of God. For they call that obedience, which is more properly called disobedience, both spiritually and physically, when it is held against the gospel, as they call that poverty, which ought more properly to be called abundance. Then they pledge this obedience to ungodly opinion, in which they consider it more perfect and greater than true and evangelical obedience. Thereby they blaspheme the obedience of baptism and the gospel. Therefore, the obedience of a child, a spouse, a servant, a prisoner is better and more perfect than the obedience of a monk, even if it is the best, that is, without impiety and theft of God, as it was with the saints. But if it is godless and god-robbing, it cannot be compared with profanation and murder, much less with good obedience.
Therefore, I may well take the liberty of stating confidently: Unless
If monastic obedience is vowed and held only for a time as a first instruction (rudimentum) to Christian and evangelical obedience, so that the youthful age, practiced by it, learns to yield to all in all things in such a way that it yields to its superior in the monastery in some things through the vow, as some examples also prove in the life descriptions of the fathers, then it is completely godless and must soon be abandoned. This is also the poverty of children, that they do not administer goods, so that they learn to be economical, since otherwise they would become wasteful and licentious because of their age, if the goods were immediately given under their hand. For what nonsense is this, that one despises the general obedience, which is to be shown in general, in order to raise the special obedience, which is to be kept in a limited way (particulariter)? Does monasticism teach us that it is better to do little good to a few people than to do much good to many people? Therefore, if we want to go from imperfection to perfection, we must go from monastic obedience to obedience to parents, to masters, to husbands, to tyrants, to adversaries, and to all. And as they make the vow of obedience almost the greatest and highest in the orders, we see, on the contrary, that it is the lowest and smallest, even when it should be godly and right, that is, when it is vowed as a first instruction to evangelical obedience. For if it is praised for perfection, it is neither the lowest nor the least, but a perversity and a robbery of God. Thus it comes to pass that, as we have said of poverty that there is nowhere less poverty than where one boasts of it, so there is nowhere less obedience than where one boasts of it, and here Paul's word is fulfilled
Tim. 3, 5.]: "They have the appearance of godliness, but they deny its power." Therefore, monastic obedience is either to be kept for an initial instruction, which is to last only for a time, or it must soon be abandoned, and one must ent
neither return to lawful obedience to parents and masters nor to evangelical obedience to all, not caring if he were also fortified by a thousand vows, because this is vowing against the Gospel and cannot be approved nor required by God.
Let this be said of obedience according to truth, but now let us speak of it according to the lies of the monks, that we may see how no lie is alone and without others behind it (simplex). They say that the vow of obedience is an essential and now a divine commandment. Here I repeat what I stated about the vow of poverty. What will they say of the bishops who have been accepted from the monasteries [as bishops]? Where is their essential vow? Again, they will say that they pass into the state of perfection and that they yield to obedience. I, too, take up again what I have opposed above, namely, that a monk may not become a bishop, nor enter in such a way into the state of perfection, and that here even the states of perfection quarrel against each other, alternately attaching and taking perfection and imperfection. Thus these lovely people do not measure the state of perfection according to faith and love, not even according to the outward hypocrisy of their works, but according to the arbitrariness of moving from one state to another. For when a bishop becomes a monk, he enters the state of perfection, because it has become so popular for them to call it a state of perfection. Again, a monk becomes a bishop and enters the state of perfection. Wherever you may wander, if you have their standard, you wander into the state of perfection, yes, even a secular [secularis] as they call it) is more perfect than a monk without vows, since he can become a bishop without vows, where a monk cannot go unless he rises above his vows into the state of perfection; therefore, monks are either equal to seculars (secu- laribus) in their state, or inferior to them.
1628 D. V. a. VI, 345-347. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, IS86-I98S. 1629
This is foolish and childish, and yet the proof that lies in the things themselves compels that this be understood as their opinion.
This is something serious: if the vow is a commandment, no monk is allowed to become a bishop under the pretext of any obedience, since one may not leave the commandment of God pending on any grounds, nor even change it in consideration of any good, however great it may be. For God wants one to obey His voice. Moreover, in the vow of obedience it is something special that he who leaves monastic obedience enters into the obedience common to all. For, like a bishop, every Christian is bound to obey the pope, as they themselves teach, even though he has vowed the monastic life for the sake of it, that he might render a greater and more perfect obedience than the common one. Therefore, by submitting to the worse obedience and abandoning the more perfect one, he becomes like anyone who performs common obedience, even though he had previously vowed the perfect one over the common one. Is he not a transgressor of the vow? Has he not returned to the worldly and shaken off the yoke of obedience? What do they want to say here? Surely they must either let the vow of obedience be a first instruction for a time, or they must condemn as guilty [of transgression] of the vow all those who come out of the monasteries into the episcopate. And yet they have among the number of such some saints, as Bonaventure etc. But how great a lie and theft from God it is to say that this is "entering the state of perfection" when the essential vow and commandment of God is broken and forsaken! as if the commandment of God were in conflict with perfection, or if apart from the commandment of God there could be any beginning of salvation, let alone perfection. Therefore, if a monk wants to be perfect, he will remain in his vows and keep the divine commandment, even though (as I have said) everything is fictitious. For the state of bishops is to preach God's word. This is not the state in which the religious are
The bishop's office is only entered by the monks [when they become bishops], since no one could teach God's word better than the monks, as St. Bernard and similar people have done. Therefore, when a monk enters the episcopate, as the episcopate has been for more than four hundred years, he rather enters from the true episcopate into the state of episcopal idols and larvae.
And to put an end to lies and fiction, among all monastic vows none is less essential than the vow of obedience, and none proves more irrefutably that monasticism is a mere first instruction of Christian youth, which, according to the ancient custom of the fathers, should be observed only for a time to learn the faith and evangelical discipline. So I prove this: It is impossible that the monasteries should not have their superiors who preside over the monks, govern and provide for them. Is this not true? For what a confused lot would an assembly be without a regent (pastore)? If this is true, then it is also impossible that this office of overseer should not please God, because according to Rom. 13, 1. it is a power decreed by God. But to be a superior and at the same time to obey or to be a subject is equally impossible. But I am speaking of physical obedience or submission, which is also only vowed, as we have said; but also the rule says: One must obey the superior, and discipline is in his power. And upon this they draw the word of the apostle [Heb. 13, 17. according to the Vulgate], "Obey your superiors, and be subject unto them." For a superior cannot be bodily subject either to the assembly (congregationi) or to a subject. It follows, then, that any superior is absolved before God from the vow of obedience as long as he is a superior; but he can be so forever, both himself and any other. Thus, either no one is permanently or necessarily bound by the vow of obedience even before God, or no one can be a superior in the monasteries; for the superior does not obey, but one obeys him, and the rule and the wording of the pledge (pro-
1630 L. V. E. VI, 347-349. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, I98S-I992. 1631
fessionis when one makes profession) or of the vow prescribes that one should obey.
Here, those who say that a superior is also subject to his superiors and that he rules according to the rule will not bother me in the least. I know that, but what has that to do with the vow of obedience, of which you said that it is now a divine commandment, which one may not change any more? One may not leave a commandment of God standing for the sake of another commandment of God, much less for the sake of a man. It is something else to be a superior and something else to obey other superiors. For this obedience will eventually come down to the pope, who obeys no one. For no one vows to be a superior or to obey the pope and the superiors of the superior, but to the superior himself in the monastery he vows obedience; obedience, I say, and bodily submission, which cannot be the same in the office of a superior. Do not play with words! But what would be clumsy if a mere layman ruled over the monks according to the rule, but he himself obeyed no one and vowed nothing? For what is the difference between this and a superior who has taken a vow? Thus, the conclusion is certain that monastic obedience is a budding (rudem) and childish obedience, ordered only as a first instruction for the youth, which is also not pleasing before God in any other way and cannot possibly be vowed in any other way, if one does not want to make it a godless and god-robbing one. Therefore, because the evangelical way of life is more perfect, one must finally return to it after that [monastic life], as it were from the part to the whole. For when the perfect comes, the piecemeal must cease, and when the time comes for us to be men, then what is childish must be done away with.
So all vows are only for a time and changeable. Now only chastity remains; who can now show why it too should not be for a time only? for it should be above all others for a time only (esse temporalissi
mam). This is, alas! not fictitious, but true, although by its nature ungodly and predatory. For its vow does not invent a chastity, as it inventes obedience and poverty with new words, but comprehends the true [chastity] as it is signified in all languages. But, as to keeping, there is nothing so fictitious as this vow, and nowhere is there less chastity than in those who have vowed chastity; it is almost all defiled, either by impure rivers, or by constant rutting and the restless flame of pleasure. And it would be desirable that, if something fictitious had to be praised in the monasteries, a fictitious chastity would be praised. For that would be a wholesome fiction. And if only someone would procure that the vow of fictitious poverty and fictitious obedience could be exchanged for fictitious chastity, so that, just as under poverty abundance is kept, under obedience disobedience is kept, so conversely under chastity conjugal life would be kept, and they would be forced to true poverty and true obedience (1). This fiction could be tolerated and would be a blessed change.
But Satan lacked a beautiful appearance in the vow of chastity, since there is too great an obvious difference between chastity and conjugal life, therefore he did not arrange it according to the effect of his error. But poverty was beautifully feigned by having nothing of one's own; obedience, too, had a good appearance in partial obedience, for there is nothing more similar to evangelical and general obedience than monastic and particular obedience. For the flesh of a finger is similar to the flesh of the whole body. Here, then, a wide plan was open to its effects, that it should be
1) In the editions utri^us is written here, with which we know nothing. We have assumed utiyus and translated it accordingly. Also Jonas has read utricius and translated "for those two", which however does not fit into this sentence: st sä vsraru pqupsrtatsru st ovsäisutiam utrlc^us eo^srsutur at all.
1632 L.v. a.vi, 3is f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, 1992-1997. 1633
For poverty he taught wealth, for obedience he taught disobedience in life (vivere), while for chastity he could teach neither conjugal life nor debauchery.
But this also served for the effect of his error. For since he lacked that, that he could not teach the pleasant air, he rather dealt with it by working the pleasantness. For the rarity and impossibility of chastity, together with the multitude of those who made vows, filled his thoughts. For this would have been an all too righteous fiction, if the monks under the vow of chastity had been married couples, and the keeping of this vow would have done no harm to the souls. Therefore, he turned his mind to another fiction worthy of the devil. Not content with tainting the vow of chastity with fornication, profanity and adultery, he also invented the monastic lusts that are rampant among nuns and monks, that is, the silent sins. These were the thoughts of Satan; whether he put them into practice, others may see. I have only set out to reveal his thoughts, by which he always does the most horrible and abominable things against the Christian people. Beware that you do not believe that they live chastely, since it is known that they live ungodly, then also that they go in safety, fattening themselves on foreign goods, in idleness, in abundance and plenty. "For this is (says Ezek. 16, 49. 50.) thy sister Sodom's iniquity: Hopefulness, and all things abundant, and good peace, which she and her daughters had: but they helped not the poor and needy, but were proud, and did abominable things before me: wherefore also I put them away, as thou sawest." Chastity is hardly preserved in the midst of much labor, want and cross, even in those who are very godly, that is, who gird up their kidneys with the spirit of faith, as it is said in Isa. 11:5, "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his kidneys." And, Zech. 9, 17. [according to the Vulg.], "the grain of the elect, and the wine that begetteth virgins," is the good and beautiful thing that is found in the Christian
Paul dares to say of a widow who lives in lusts [1 Tim. 5:6]: "She is alive and dead. How then will they endure who have not the troubles of other men, and in whom we see in full swing all that Ezekiel says of Sodom, hopefulness, idleness, all fullness, abundance? And no one neglects the poor more; but the faith and the spirit they even persecute, let alone possess. But in the meantime they comfort themselves by presupposing chastity in each other, which they feel they do not keep. And by this presupposition the order is nevertheless holy. O over the times, o over this regiment, o over these deeds! and all [is the work] of the devil.
What shall I say further about the vow of chastity, since I did not intend to speak about keeping it, and I have spoken abundantly about the fact that it is not kept? For I have evidently proved that the whole system of vows is fictitious in its first and highest parts, namely obedience and poverty, even though these are vowed and kept by the most holy and godly, but that it is lying, ungodly, impious and blasphemous in its essence for those who are not holy and godly. What more do you want? Furthermore, that which is most sought after by the praisers is far more detestable and abominable, namely, their very worship, which in its essence is nothing other than a kind of carnival play (larva) that mocks God with platters, smearing, dressing, roaring, murmuring, standing, sitting, bowing, kneeling, burning incense and blasting. But the main part of this service, namely the mass, because they keep it many times as a sacrifice and work, surpasses all impiety and abomination, so that if no other cause should induce one to take off the habit, to leave the monastery, to abhor the vow, the abomination of the masses alone should be sufficient, so that the conscience should not be made a party to the perversity of these people, especially because you cannot be under the vow and in the monastery without being present at their masses, and thereby
16e4 v-". vi, 350-352. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. xix, 1997-2000, 1635
to cooperate. Yes, there is no one among the pledges who does not first, and with the highest thoughts of it, turn his attention to the masses and the service. For this reason they become monks, so that they can serve God. For the sake of chastity, no one puts on the habit, because he knows that it can be kept outside the habit, no less successfully than in it. But the abominable divine service lures us by the glitter of the devil, and with the most subtle deception he draws us into the unbreakable snare of chastity or rather of pleasure. Namely, he sells the make-up of this abomination so cheaply that, if you do not want to place yourself in the constant danger of abominable pleasure, he will not admit you to these pleasures of his.
Since the cause of the vow is by its nature an abomination, the nature of it piratical, and the intention prompted by fraud, and since the highest parts of the vow are also fictitious and false, what doubt do you have that such a vow has no validity in any of its parts? For not philosophy, but nature and law and common sense teach that this is not a contract, the nature of which is evil, the cause of which is predatory, and the intention of which is caused by falsehood (falso), even if a simple-minded man should keep such a contract. But you see that all this takes place in the monastic vow in the highest degree. The cause is that deceitful sham worship and the abomination of the masses. The nature is that obedience and poverty should be evangelical counsels, then that bodily obedience and bodily poverty should be essential vows. The intention is to take all this differently than it is. This vow, therefore, by its nature, does not bind, but must be broken, even though the saints, preserved by the Holy Spirit in the midst of these abominations, have kept such a vow above its nature and against its nature. Imagine if you had promised to kill your father and ravish your mother, but had not fulfilled it unless you had fasted and said several prayers or done other good works.
If you have not, will you be bound by the promise of prayer and good, because this is good, even though you see that the main part and the cause and the intention of the vow is entirely curse-worthy? Rather, thou shalt omit the good with the evil, and promise another without the evil, or promise nothing, according to thy will. Thus, you see, the matter of monastic vows is with all who have not, through the spirit, despised their vows and considered them to be nothing.
Chastity, like all other vows, is ungodly in that it is praised above common faith to the shame of Christ, as we have mentioned above. For it is not a virgin or a chaste man, but a Christian who is saved. But in Christ there is neither man nor woman, neither virgin nor wife and the like, but One faith, One baptism, One Lord. And where the Spirit is not, it is impossible that chastity should not be vowed and kept in an ungodly woman. For the one who vows believes that by this work of chastity he pleases God, although it is written [Heb. 11:6], "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Therefore, whoever vows chastity in this opinion vows nothing and is at liberty not to fulfill the vow. But who are those who have vowed in this opinion cannot be described in words, but is left to the conscience of each one. But the fact that it cannot be described is due to the annual times that Paul preached. For in front of every path are the aversions and dangers, with the highly praised virginity, with the highly praised vow of chastity, the examples of the saints, on which the simple-minded crowd is inclined to fall, and, while the gospel and faith are silent, to take hold of what is praised and held up to them, and so to rely on works and perish. Again, it may happen that some in the spirit of faith take hold of this without offense and fulfill it in a right way, as we believe of the saints. And since these are not to be condemned and those are not to be
1636 D. V. ". VI, 352-354. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u, Kloster vows. W. XIX, 2000-2003. 1637
If the gospel alone reigns and the nets of vows are not, there would be no dangers, nor would this certain explanation be necessary, since everyone would know that chastity is not based on a vow. But if the gospel alone ruled, and the nets of vows were not, there would be no danger, nor would this certain declaration be necessary, since all would know that chastity is not to be kept by a vow, but freely, that one should not measure oneself by works, but in Christ. But now, he who misses it, misses himself; he who does not miss it, does not miss himself; what more can we say until the aversions and dangers are taken away from the kingdom of Christ?
But perhaps they will hold against me the saying Is. 56, 4. 5., where the Lord promises to give a place and a better name in his house to those who are cut, than to sons and daughters. So it seems that virginity and chastity have a better merit than other believers, and that not only faith has merit. I answer, This passage intends the same thing as Paul 1 Cor. 7, 26. which likewise says, "it is good for a man to be thus," and fV. 38] that it is better not to marry a virgin than to marry her. For we also know that in the Father's house are many mansions [John 14:2], and that one star outnumbers another in brightness [1 Corinthians 15:41], and that every man shall receive his reward according to his work [1 Corinthians 3:8]. Yes, Paul says [1 Tim. 5, 17.] that the elders who labor in the word are worthy of twofold honor. And, to come to Isaiah, the Lord comforts the evangelical sons, so that they should not think that they are nothing if they do not beget [or give birth], as chastity was cursed in the law. So he puts away this curse, saying [Isa. 56:3], "And the man that is cut off shall not say, Behold, I am a dry tree. "etc. Then he does not praise mere chastity, nor exalt it above all things, as our people do, but says [vv. 4, 5], "For thus saith the Lord unto them that are cut off, which keep my sabbaths, and choose that which is right in mine eyes, and keep mine
Firmly establish the covenant: I will give them a place in my house and within my walls, and a better name than sons and daughters; an everlasting name will I give them, which shall not pass away."
You see that here chastity is praised in such a way that keeping God's Sabbaths, choosing what God wants, observing God's covenant, which is common to all, is far preferred to it. From this it follows that without these things chastity is nothing. Therefore, "this place and this better name than sons and daughters" cannot be understood in any other way than that the gifts in the house of God are different from one another and some 1) are greater than others, just as Paul worked more than the others; thus virginity and chastity are greater works and gifts than conjugal life. And indeed the names and oerters among the sons and daughters and among one another in the house are better and greater, but between God and those who are cut off there is no other name but the one and common, which is Christ. For this one keeps the Sabbaths, this one chooses what is pleasing, and keeps the covenant of the Lord. But the name of the one who is cut off does none of these, but rather arises from these things. In this way all passages must be understood which seem to extol works and set a difference of works. For Paul also, 1 Cor. 12, 4. 5. 6. describes various graces, gifts, powers, but always adds that it is One God, One Lord, One Spirit; and Peter [1 Ep. 4, 10.] says of the various graces of God, whereby one should serve the other; and Rom. 12, 4. 5. and 1 Cor. 12, 27. he makes One Body, but various businesses of the various members in one and the same healthy faith.
But now let us also speak of godly chastity, and of that which is performed in right devotion [bons äovota), for greater certainty of conscience, although it either does not exist at all, or never-
1) Instead of Malora aliis in the editions, we have adopted the reading raajors. slin sILis from the first single edition.
1638 L.v. L.vi, ss4f. XI. Luther's writings of the monastic vows" etc. W. xix, 2003-20"-. 1639
is possible for anyone. 1) Because the Spirit who began it is faithful and will accomplish the [chastity] begun, even though he causes it to suffer strong blows and to be challenged, we want to say something about it for the sake of abundance. Paul confesses Rom. 7, 18. such a sin in his flesh that he could not be without it in this life. This sin is undoubtedly against the law of God, but for the sake of faith, which fights against it through the Spirit, it is forgiven and not imputed, although the law requires that there should be no sin in us. But the law of the Spirit, of life in Christ, comes to our aid, so that this impossibility of the law cannot work condemnation, if we only walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. From this I now conclude in this teaching, as from a greater (a m^ori). If God relents in His law, which He Himself gave, and forgives the impossibility of the law that is left in us, and there is no danger, even though there is actually sin, how much more should one confidently rely on His goodness that He will not impute the vow of chastity (which He Himself did not command, nor advise, nor approve, but which came about through human iniquity and ignorance), if it is impossible for us and danger of pleasure should press in? Only that we should remain within the limits of the lower chastity of conjugal life and not walk according to the flesh. Should he then require the vow, which was invented by our foolishness, in a stricter way than his law, which he has decreed by his own [wisdom]?
The apostle Paul, 2) Apost. 15, proved the evangelical freedom from the works of God, because the Spirit was given to the Gentiles without circumcision and without the Law of Moses, although almost the whole first church was of the opposite opinion in a mistaken conscience. But only Peter, Paul and Bar-
1) Instead of impo8sidlli8 we have assumed xo88idi1i8 because the former does not seem to us to be correct.
2) It seems to us that instead of "Saul" it would be better to read "Peter", because in this sentence reference is made to Apost. 15, 8. 9. is referred to.
nabas made the judgment on the basis of the works of God that this was free, and upheld it against all. By this we are instructed that, where testimonies of Scripture do not stand by us, we must base ourselves on [such] certain works of God and follow them instead of the testimonies. This is also what must be done in this case; since we see that His goodness is lenient in His most holy law because of its impossibility, we should also make sure that He is lenient in the impossibility of our vow. For it is not credible that he should be so severe in demanding [the fulfillment of] our foolishness, since he is so kind in that which pertains to his justice. And I believe that if someone in this confidence takes a wife, because he cannot keep the vowed chastity, he would also find a lenient and willing (facile) father just by the help of this confidence, because he would do this in order not to sin more seriously against his law.
The work of conjugal duty is also like this. Although, according to the 51st Psalm [v. 7], it is sin and clearly something that rages, differing in nothing from adultery and fornication, insofar as it involves heat and evil desire, He does not attribute it to married couples for any other reason than His mercy, because it is impossible for us to avoid it, even though we are guilty of being without it. Why, then, should one not have confidence in Him that He [God] will forbear this impossibility to a man who is in a celibate state, but is unable to keep it and would otherwise sin, and permit him to marry with the rupture of the vow, or, if this happens with sin of the vow, graciously forgive him this, as well as the conjugal duty? This reason, when you consider how great the law of God is, and carefully weigh everything against it: the impossibility of it, and the sin that is forgiven, and the greatness of the forgiving kindness, furthermore the foolishness and incomprehensibility of our vow, the mere statute and invention of men, [this reason, I say,] will certainly urge you to consider it something
1640 v- n. vi, 3Z5-357. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix, soos-soos. 1641
You have no regard for the fact that a man in a celibate state, who is not able to keep it and would fall, is granted conjugal life, compared to the forgiveness of sin against the whole law of God because of the impossibility, which is with all men, so that we can make the quite reliable conclusion from this work of God that an impossible vow does not bind, at least according to the goodness of God, even if it should bind in some way according to its nature.
And this I want to have said, not as if I admitted that any such vow could be made according to a monastic rule, or [to say such] consider it necessary for those who have made their vow in godly manner also under the monastic rule. For these (as I have said) the spirit, as it drives them, will continue to drive them, so that they vow and live under the monastic system without the monastic system. For they vow or live, not because the form and the law of the monastic life so prescribe and require, but because it so pleases them in the spirit of freedom of their own free will to do of themselves what the monastic life prescribes, otherwise they would deal with works of the law and with righteousness from works, which is most contrary to the Gospel. But those, because they vow and live according to the form of monastic life and for the sake of monastic life, are Jews, and vow and live in an ungodly way against the gospel. Therefore, their vow cannot be one that would need this counsel, but it must absolutely be revoked and taken away, because in the new testament, which is the testament of freedom, in which the office of the spirit and not of the letter rules, one may not establish and teach the letter. But if it should be raised up and taught for temptation, it must not be seized, but must be rejected and fled.
For Paul says Rom. 16, 17. 18.: "But I exhort you, brethren, that ye take heed of them which cause division and dissension, beside the doctrine which ye have learned, and depart from them. For such do not serve the Lord JESUS Christ, but
their bellies; and by sweet words and splendid speech they seduce the innocent hearts."
These words can only be understood by those who teach something better, as it were, besides the Christian way. For he does not say that they deny our doctrine, but that they teach another in addition to it, which the monastic rules actually do; but also discord and mobs, then also the service of the belly, but especially sweet speeches and splendid words, exaltations of praise, privileges and other praises of orders and works we see nowhere but among the monastics, where also the seduction of innocent hearts reigns. Since, then, he commands us to be careful of them and to depart from them, there is no doubt that such vows are invalid and have never been of any value. Therefore one must also depart from them, either in spirit, as the saints did, or at the same time in spirit and letter, as from a very certain seduction, which the apostle here described and condemned. He wants the same thing when he writes to Timothy in his two letters [2 Tim. 3, 14.], "let him remain in what he has learned," and does not allow anything to be added. "If thou do this (saith he [1 Tim. 4:16.]), thou shalt make thyself blessed, and they that hear thee." Yea, if he persist not therein, he shall destroy himself, and them that hear him. Therefore Peter also, 2 Petr. 2, 1., calls them "corruptible sects," by deterring us from sects and opinions apart from Christ with a ghastly and terrifying word. And 1 Peter 4:10 ff, where he commanded that nothing else should be taught but the word of God, nor should anything be distributed but the work of God, so that God alone might be glorified among us in all things through Jesus Christ, he added that we should not be alienated in the heat of temptation. But let us listen to his most salutary words [vv. 10-13]: "Serve one another, each with the gift he has received, as good stewards of the many graces of God. If anyone speaks, that he may speak it as the word of God. If anyone has a ministry, that he may do it as of the promise of God.
1642 D. V.". VI, 3S7-S5S, XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 2008-2011. 1643
that God may present, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power forever and ever! Beloved, do not let the heat that comes upon you (that comes upon you, that you are tempted) alienate you, as if something strange were happening to you, but share in the sufferings of Christ."
First of all, he wants nothing to be distributed but the gift that one has received, nothing to be taught but the word of God, nothing to be administered but what God works in us, because we are stewards, not of our own ability, but of the various graces of God, where nothing human but everything is spoken and done by God in us. This must be done so that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose glory and authority is from everlasting to everlasting. For since we are his kingdom and it is his due to rule and reign in us, no word or work must be permitted which he does not speak or do in us. But if we allow it, we reject him with the Jews and do not want him to rule over us, and let a stranger rule in the midst of the kingdom of God; and so the kingdom of God is laid waste and the abomination sits in the holy place. For this reason the church is the kingdom of God and is so called, because in it alone God rules, reigns, speaks, works, is praised. Therefore, if a man teaches and works in us something that God neither teaches nor works, then God is no longer praised in us through Jesus Christ. For He is praised who is the best of the word and the work; but God is not praised through a foreign word and work. Thus it comes about that God necessarily loses his honor and his kingdom in us when a foreign word and work reigns in us, for his honor and kingdom will be whose is the word and the work. What stronger can be said against the papacy, against the bishoprics, against the monastic system, against the priesthood, in their present condition? Is anyone so clumsy or so foolish that he should claim that the teachings and works of the pope and the monks are God's? Teachings and works are God's teachings and works, given by Jesus Christ.
give? For where did Jesus Christ teach them? But what is not spoken or done in us by Jesus Christ, that cannot be done by us through him to the glory of the Father. Who then is the honor and power in the monks? By the devil, through St. Benedict and other men, who are highly praised and glorified by ungodly hypocrisy and perverse imitation of their works. Therefore, just as Christ does not teach monastic vows, neither does he work them, even though he miraculously worked and spoke without vows in the saints who were imprisoned under the state (instituto) of vows.
Then, addressing them sweetly, he says: "Beloved, do not become strangers in the heat that is in you" (nolite peregrinari in fervore, qui in vobis est) etc. He is concerned that we might abandon this rule which he has prescribed, tempted by some temptation, and uses the word "become a stranger" (peregrinandi), which in Greek means: ξενίζεσ, 1) do not go on a journey (nolito hospitari), do not become guests, and does not have in mind merely a figure in the Old Testament in this word. For he wants exactly what Paul says in Eph. 4, 14, "that we should not be weighed and swayed by all kinds of wind of doctrine," that we should not be invited to the sacrifices of the Moabites and not become guests of all the Gentiles who are around us, but remain in our own and native doctrine. By "heat that is in. you" he understands the own spirit, which is prefigured by the word conflare [to blow together, to melt], hence it is said in the Old Testament that idols are blown together [Isa. 41, 29.] (conflari) and cast images (conflatilia) are made [Deut. 27, 15.], that is, that the ungodly doctrines of works are formed. He says beforehand that this spirit will not be lacking in us and among us, but reminds us beforehand, so that we do not fall into temptation and distress through it. For such people should be in the future, and they have been there, and there will be those who try this on us. But (he says) soften
1) In the Jena:
1644 V- L- VI, 3S9 f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 2011-2014. 1645
Do not depart from your native rule, as if something strange were happening to you, that is, you should be sure that nothing new will be taught by God; the word that you have heard is eternal and remains from eternity to eternity. Now if something new and strange should come, know that it comes from somewhere other than God to turn you away and make you strangers. With this word he has clearly forestalled the future lie of the papists, since they say: not everything is said and ordered by Christ and the apostles, but a great deal is left to the church to say and order. This is something strange and new, of which Peter says that we do not have to or cannot encounter it. So Peter condemns here everything that is not God's words and works, that is, he cancels the monastic vows.
But Christ speaks most clearly against the monastic vows Matth. 24, 23-26: "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is Christ,' or 'There,' you are not to believe it. For false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall show great signs and wonders, and shall deceive into error (where it is possible) even the elect. Behold, I have told you before. Therefore, when they shall say unto you: Behold, he is in the wilderness, go not out; behold, he is in the chamber, believe it not." These words cannot be understood by any heretics, but only by those who teach (as they call it) ways and means of life (vivendi) to righteousness and blessedness. There have been no such people except the papists and the monastics. For it is these who praise the hermits (hermitas), that is, they call to the desert and the chamber, that is, to the closed places (claustra) or monasteries (monasteria--places where one is alone). In these, they teach, Christ is found, that is, righteousness and blessedness, in such an impudent way that they call the other states in which people live (vivendi ordines) worldly ones, as if blessedness were only in them. But just by this they are false Christs and draw from the common faith to the works and from Christ to themselves. One reads in the "Lebensbeschrei
In the "Writings of the Fathers" a face appeared to St. Sylvanus and he was shown that hell was full of monks. He did not want to be comforted afterwards in his life, after he had seen that people of this kind - who seemed to be saints - were lost in heaps. This story and this face certainly coincide with this Gospel, and God seems to have revealed it for the sake of it, so that He would show and endure the effect of the error that began at that time. This is also what he wanted with many other signs, in St. Anthony, Paphnutius and others. For in this book there are many very dangerous examples [of such] who rage against the doctrine of faith with works. But if [already] at that time the monastic life was an effect of error and brought the monks to ruin, what, I pray you, will you think it is now, after the faith and the gospel have long since been extinguished?
Here the reason of the Parisian asses and the swine of the papist mob coincides, with which they make a conclusion from the crowd and holiness. Christ destroys the reason that is taken from the multitude by saying [Matth. 24, 24.): "And they shall deceive many, so that even the elect shall be led astray." But the reason, which is taken from holiness, he destroys by the very fact that he predicts that also the elect shall be deceived. So the braying asses do not make any difference by saying that the church has not been abandoned for such a long time and has known very well what Luther claims to know. The church they call their groups, but they are no more the church than were the prophets, the priests, the elders, the kings, the princes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the synagogue, all of whom, even in Elijah's time, were in error and ignorance, so that only seven thousand remained; but they were so hidden and seemed so little to be the synagogue that not even Elijah knew one of their number. O a frightful example! So you have here by the word of Christ that one may return, yes,
when you have gone out into the wilderness or entered their chambers. What is this but that your vow, which is made on a doctrine other than that of Christ, must be revoked and cast off as erroneous and ungodly? For I have said that St. Bernard was preserved by making this judgment about his vows and his whole life from the bottom of his heart: I have lived shamefully. Did he not by this word and confession annul his vows and return to Christ? In the same way the other saints were preserved under vows without vows, only that they lived in the error of the elect under vows, as a snare and effect of error to those who are lost and do not believe the gospel. Since these words of Christ are really a pox on the monastic life and at the same time destroy its reasons, one must confidently base oneself on them and consider the vows as non-vows, since you know undeniably (more evidently) that they are based on words and works, not of God, but of men, and that they are based on what is forbidden, and that they are by their nature sinful against the glory and kingdom of God.
From all this follows also the foolishness of a vow, especially the vow of chastity, so that, if it were not destroyed by other reasons, precisely the foolishness would not let it stand (valere). For what does a celibate vow by vowing chastity? But only a thing that is not in his power nor can be, since it alone is the gift of God, which a man can receive but not offer? Therefore, he mocks God by vowing; not unlike if he were to vow to become a bishop, or an apostle, or a prince, or a king, although he knows that none of these things are in the vower's own power, but in another's will and in the power of the one calling. Dear, imagine a madman who would make a vow to God in this form: I vow to you, Lord, that I will form new stars or move mountains; what would you think of this vow? But the vow
The vow of chastity is no different from this, since it is no less a miraculous work of God than forming stars or moving mountains. Since the Lord commands that he who vows or sacrifices should sacrifice from his own wealth and from the gifts that have been given to him through the blessing of the Lord, as expressed by all the words of the Mosaic Law concerning vows, it is clear that the vow of chastity is not pleasing to God, nor can it be required (exigi) by Him, since it is made of a thing that has not yet been given, nor is it within our power. For if a vow applies that concerns things that are not ours but are in the hand of God, we could lawfully and godly vow everything that God has and can do. If all of this is worthless, the one vow of chastity will also be worthless. So you want to vow that you will certainly be saved, that you will be like Peter, that you will destroy the kingdom of the Turks, that you will surpass Methuselah in age, and everything that God does or can do in man. If you may not vow these things because they are not yours, why do you vow chastity, which is not yours? Why do you vow in one thing that is God's alone and not yours, and not in all things? If not in all, why in one? Will you say: I can obtain chastity through prayer? I hear that. But, what could you not obtain by prayer? Did not Christ promise [Marc. 11, 24/: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, believe that ye shall receive it, and it shall be done unto you?" So why don't you also pledge and obtain everything else?
But perhaps you will object: In this way one should not vow even in baptism, since faith and the fulfillment of God's commandments are not in our power, but in God's alone. I answer: That is said quite nicely and puffingly, as if the vows in baptism were in any way in agreement with your vows! In baptism is the promise of God that offers us [Christ], and our vow is nothing other than to accept Christ.
1648 v. vi. 362-361. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. xix. 2017-2020. 1649
that is offered to us. Truly, a blessed vow, which does not promise to give anything, but only to accept the goods and to hold on to the goods received. Here we clearly vow nothing of ours, nor of what is in the hand of God, rather, if you look at it rightly, God makes the vow to us and the vow is on the side of God, who at the same time promises and gives us His grace and what His commandments require. We vow again that we will gladly accept and keep his vow and promise. But, if you vow virginity or chastity, is God also vowing, promising and offering it to you? For when did he promise that he would give it to you? How can you be sure that he will give them to you? Dost thou not go all alone, and have nothing of the thing which thou promiseest? Are you not there alone, making a promise, and there is no one to answer you and accept your promise? And why should he accept it, since you make an empty and foolish promise and promise what you do not have? You see, then, that the vow of baptism and that of chastity are quite opposite in nature. The former offers what it does not have; the latter receives what it does not have. Here a man who has nothing (inanis) promises another's good; there the rich God promises his own. Therefore, as long as he cannot prove the promise of God, who gives, in the vow of chastity, the foolishness and nullity of such a vow cannot be excused. God cannot accept and require that which is foolish and vain; but the vow of baptism is a true and substantial one (plenum), for it is based on God's promise and gift. What does it matter that some do not accept it? Nevertheless, he who offers it is true.
With this foolishness they combine another, that in order to emphasize the indissoluble severity of the vow (pro aäorüanäopro ador- riando), they grant a whole year of trial (probationis) (as they call it) to the one who vows, these wonderfully merciful and kind people! And yet to something about them
If they were to use the probationary year to commend themselves, one could well approve of it, so that the one who wants to enter could look at their customs, their food (victum), their clothing and other things that concern the body. But now the year of trial serves that he who wants to take vows should try in the same year whether he can also live chastely. I ask you, what foolishness can be equal to this, if one looks at the reason for this institution? For I always exclude the saints in their miraculous life. For the test of chastity is not measured by the ability of the spirit, but by the number of days, and one who has lived chastely for a year is judged to be able to live chastely all his life. Since the test of chastity must be made on an external thing, why is it not also tested on people and places, so that he who has traveled through many places and seen many people is competent, so that we alone make messengers and merchants monks? Or if an inner thing can be tested by the course of a certain time, why is he not also sent to patience, gentleness, faith, love, who has tried himself in it for a year, so that one would not need the grace of God at all for these things? For it is enough that the time has passed over him, and immediately he is sent to become a new man. Or, if this is not enough in these things, why is it enough in chastity alone? This I say, so that you may see that in all monasticism there is nothing that is not exceedingly foolish and ungodly, and clearly worthy only of the papal realm.
But even more. Since Peter [1 Ep. 4, 11] wants nothing to happen in the Church except what is certain to happen "out of the wealth that God provides": who makes them certain that this trial year is enough before God? Who told them that in the sight of God this trial would be pleasant? Rather, Peter says that it is not pleasing before God because it is ordered by human understanding, but according to God's will there is no trial year, but the whole life is A Year of Trial. For it can
1650 k. V. a. VI, 36t f. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX. 2020-2023. 1651
It may happen that you live chastely not for one but for two and three years, but after that you cannot abstain at all because of the heat of the flesh and the heat of the blood, where the fiery breath of the devil also blows, which makes the burning coals burn (as it says in Job). But the test of chastity cannot happen when the evil desire rests, but when it rages. But the time of raging and excited evil desire (libidinis), that is, the time of testing, is in no one's power; why then do you reckon one time for another and call a test what is not a test? I have experienced in myself and in many others how peaceful and calm the devil tends to be in the first year of the priesthood and the monastic state, so that nothing seems to be more pleasant than chastity. But this is what the exceedingly treacherous enemy does to tempt and entrap. To this end the foolish monastics help and measure the year of trial not only not according to the spirit, but also not according to the thing itself, but rather according to the calendar and the number of days, so that they may prove that there is nothing wholesome nor right deliberation in them, by going about in these spiritual and very yearly things (as Peter [2 Ep. 2, 12] says) "like unreasoning animals, which are born by nature to be slaughtered. Since this year of trial comes from foolish men alone, who foolishly count the days alone, and since it is uncertain whether it pleases God, yes, since it is certain that it displeases Him, then also according to the nature of the thing itself and according to God's word no certain time of trial can be indicated or fixed, but the whole life must necessarily be the year of trial, you see that even the vow of chastity is nothing that is based on this year of trial. For since they themselves judge that the vow must first be tried by an examination, and this examination is never certain, the vow can never be certain either. But since their year of trial 1) is of their own choice and arbitrariness
1) Here is an error in the text. To give sense, we have, instead of nunum in the editions, assumed auuus, as also Jonas has translated.
is set by men, this entails (facit) that the fulfillment of the vow must also be arbitrary, so that if they annul and abolish the year on which the vow is based, the vow must also be annulled and abolished.
But this is the most important thing, that they have begun to fix the years in which the vows could be made (professionis - since one could make profession), some calling the fourteenth, others the eighteenth [the most suitable]. I ask you, where do men get the right to determine this? Here, at last, some of them please me in one piece, that they give permission to monks who have professed before the eighteenth year to go out. This is the only praiseworthy and evangelical thing I have seen in monasticism, although not in all of them everywhere. But it is to be regretted that they do not do the same with all who have professed before their sixtieth year, so that they may imitate Paul to some extent, who does not want widows younger than sixty to be fed from the wealth of the communities. For men, since they are stronger and more vital in body, and die more slowly 2) than women, should not be accepted until they are seventy or eighty years old. Here I hold the monks completely captive by their own testimony. If they acquit a young man who has made profession under eighteen years of age, and there is no reason for fixing this very year, but mere human arbitrariness, according to which they could also have fixed the thirtieth, fortieth, fiftieth, and sixtieth, then on the same ground they must acquit any one, that he may have made profession in whatever year he pleases. For they do not look at the commandment of God or the vow, but at the weakness of the pledgee, and to this they attribute the monastic vow with a healthy and godly fairness.
Now it is possible, and it is in no man's power to prevent, that a young
2) taräiusHue teminis eruoriantur Jonas has put over": "and rather die than the women".
1652 V. a. VI, 365-367. 174" Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 2023-2026. 1653
If a man or a man up to the age of sixty is just as weak or even weaker to abstain and suffers more from heat than a young man. If, then, it is the heat and weakness according to which the vow and commandment must be interpreted and tempered, as indeed it is and has always been from time immemorial, then all vows must by all means be both free and temporary. If they do not arrange them in this way, they are clearly the most cruel and bloodthirsty murderers of souls. But if they should think that they are not allowed to do so, they cannot be allowed to release before the age of eighteen, even if a boy or a small child had vowed. For who knows what he will be able to do in the future? In Baptism and God's Sacraments we are always certain of what we will receive or suffer, namely divine things, therefore God's vows against us are firm and reliable. But to vow what is not ours is one and the same foolishness in a little child, boy, man, old man and in all men, therefore also one and the same reason [for all^ to renounce it.
Now we want to add to what we have finished, namely the passage Marc. 2, where Christ gives a reliable rule for the alleviation (epiikiae) of all laws in general, since he speaks [v. 25-28:] "Have you not read what David did, when he was in need and hungered, along with those who were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the shewbread, which none but the priests were permitted to eat, and he gave it also to them that were with him. And he said to them: The Sabbath was made for man's sake, and not man for the Sabbath's sake; so the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." This is what Christ says. I beseech you, let us not pass by these words of majesty, which are full of consolation and spiritual refreshment, nor let us hear them drowsily, nor treat them coldly. First of all, it is certain that the Sabbath was a commandment of God, not in a fictitious way, but in the most severe way. With no less severity, the laymen were forbidden from the shewbrot
than to [transgress] the whole law of God; nevertheless, David broke this with a sure conscience for the sake of his need. Therefore, when Abimelech the priest was afraid and said, because he shunned the law
Sam. 21:4], "I have no common bread, but holy bread," David confidently interpreted the law to him, saying [v. 5], "This way is unclean, but it is sanctified in the witness," that is, as Paul interprets Tit. 1:15: "To the clean all things are clean; but to the unclean nothing is clean."
But Christ makes this example a general rule by making a conclusion from the similarity of the case (a simili) and says: David broke the law which forbids to eat the holy bread, so one will also be allowed to break the Sabbath and all other laws. For if this general conclusion were not valid, Christ would have foolishly proved that one may break the law of the Sabbath by an example of another law, which is about not eating the shewbread. Therefore it is evident here that the divine commandments also always exclude the case of necessity, not only of the soul, but also of the body and goods. For on the same ground that a law may be broken, so may any law be broken, that is, interpreted and received in its proper sense, whether it binds or not. For in truth the Scripture cannot be broken, Joh. 10, 35. And [Matth. 5, 18.], "Not the least letter, nor one tittle, shall pass from the law, till it all be done." Therefore, when we speak of breaking and violating the law, we must be understood to mean that the false understanding of it is to be broken, but the true understanding is to be kept. Thus Christ adds, Matth. 12, 5, that the priests in the temple break the Sabbath without guilt; furthermore also to pull an ox out of the pit or to water it, Luc. 14, 5, that is, not only for the sake of distress of soul and body, but also for the sake of goods it can be broken. This is nothing other than saying: God did not give His commandments to destroy the soul, the body or the goods.
1654 L. V. L. VI, 367-369. n. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 2026-2028. 1655
but that all these may be used intact in His commandments. Therefore, the commandments must always be understood in such a way that you do not forget at the same time that God created body, soul, and salvation and wants you to take care of them in such a way that if any of these things is in danger, you should know that His commandments are no longer commandments.
Now let us come to our cause. The vow of chastity is a merely bodily law of an entirely bodily matter, therefore it can be broken confidently, indeed, no one has bound or could bind where there was danger to soul or body. For [God, does not require the vow to corrupt body and soul, and it must be the vow of chastity according to Christ's own interpretation has this meaning: I vow chastity as far as it is possible for me without danger to body and soul. If, therefore, you should later feel heat, the vow is already void, and you may safely follow the words of Paul [1 Cor. 7:9], "If they abstain not, let them be free"; and again, "It is better to be free than to suffer heat." Had not the Jews then as strictly vowed the law of the Sabbath and of the holy bread, as thou hast vowed chastity? There is absolutely no difference. Surely you conclude from this reason of Christ: "The Jews broke the law of the Sabbath and of the holy bread, in that necessity permitted the exception and made the interpretation, and I will also break the law of chastity, which I have vowed, because of greater necessity and danger to the soul. Fear not, Christ will not deceive you, for in fact you do not break the vow, but take the right understanding of it.
Here a wrong person would say: On the same ground one would also commit adultery, if necessity should require it, likewise kill, steal and break all the commandments of God. I answer: Such necessity cannot occur. There are women, there are men enough; take a woman, take a man. There is no danger to body or goods if you are gentle and keep your anger in check. But can not at least the case arise that one steal
would have to? I answer: If the need were there, then it would be permitted, because then the proverb has taken place: In adversity all things are common. So as foolish and cruel it would be if you were to kill yourself by hunger for fear of the law, when you could steal food from another's abundance to preserve your life, so foolish you are if you do not take a wife when you are in heat and abstain at the risk of your soul. But as you interpret the law of theft, that it is not required when there is hunger, so you must interpret the law of the vow, that it is not required when there is the affliction of heat. But Solomon seems to have pronounced this in Proverbs, Cap. 6, 30. ff., where it literally reads in Hebrew thus: "One will not despise the thief, 1) if he should steal to satisfy his soul, because he is hungry, and if he is afflicted, he must restore sevenfold, and all the goods of his house must pass away. But he that committeth adultery with a woman hath lost his understanding (minoratus corde est), and shall bring his soul to destruction." As if he wanted to say: A thief should not be condemned, although he, if he is affected, will be punished according to the law by the one who wants to be cruel, if he only stole out of necessity to satisfy his soul.
How now? What do we read in the book of Judges, Cap. 21, 19. ff., that the children of Benjamin, at the command of all Israel, stole the daughters of the inhabitants of Shiloh for wives? Even though the children of Israel may have sinned either by vowing not to give them their daughters or by keeping their vow, the children of Benjamin did not sin by committing the theft, since there were no other wives to take, since both the Israelites and the inhabitants of Shiloh refused to give them their daughters. But how much less is a theft that takes the goods than that takes the daughters?
1) In the Jena edition correctly: eontemnevt, by which is rendered. Luther has the same meaning in his Bible translation: Es ist einem Diebe nicht so große Schmach." Erlangen edition: coväelLneüt.
1656 V- a. VI, 369 f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 2028-2031. 1657
concerns? This deed was desecration and kidnapping, if you wanted to interpret the law strictly according to the blindness (captivitatem) of the letter, that is, foolishly and in false delusion (superstitiose). Therefore also the children of Israel refer very finely to this right spiritual mind, saying to those of Shiloh [Judges 21, 22.]: "The guilt is on your side, because you did not want to give it to them, since they asked for it" etc.
Yes, I would dare to say, trusting in this word of Christ [Marc. 2, 25. ff.], that if sons or daughters who have vowed chastity were in the case that they could not support themselves or their parents in any other way, unless they married a rich man who could support them, then in such a case they should break their vow and their Sabbath, and not be moved in this by those who talk that the treasure of chastity is incomparably great. Is not obedience to the law of God concerning the Sabbath and the holy bread incomparable to anything else? For what is more delicious than obedience? And yet He requires this in such a way that He does not want the body which He created to be destroyed by you, or all goods to be burned, but that they be used in obedience; for why would not God rather have commanded us to kill ourselves and torment ourselves with hunger or disease? For what is the difference between commanding that we should inflict upon ourselves disease or death, and requiring the fulfillment of a law which we cannot perform without destroying ourselves through disease or destruction? Let this be far from us, that we should think that God is so disposed against us. How much more is it unfounded that one should understand it as if he demanded the fulfillment of a commandment and vow to the detriment of the soul!
In short, in this palliation of the laws and their right understanding, there is nothing more certain than to let love be the judge. For everything that is contrary to love cannot in any case be released (dispensari), nor can it be palliated by declaration [of the law], since it is impossible for a case to be
of necessity against love. Again, that which is not contrary to love is free, lawful, and ought to be dispensed with, especially in case of necessity. For Paul stands firm, who says [Rom. 13:8], "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." Who, I pray thee, can establish any other law than that which is necessary, which would go further and beyond this law of Paul? And if it were established, required, vowed, how could or should it be kept with necessity, since we are to owe nothing but to love? So we can keep a vow, but not owe it, since we owe nothing but to love. And Christ says Matt. 7:12, "This is the law and the prophets"; and Matt. 22:40, "In these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." So nothing binds, nor can bind against love, nothing beyond love. Now it is easy to see why one may not dispense in cases of adultery, murder, theft and similar things. Again, why dispensing may and must be done in the case of the vow of chastity and all vows, namely, because in the case of those [by dispensing] love is violated, but in the case of these it is not violated, but rather kept, for it harms no one if you marry. Yes, just as you would want it to be free for you to become married when you are in heat, so you must also want it to be free for another, not only wanting it, but also helping it to happen.
Christ confirms this in Matth. 12, 7, when he prefers mercy to all laws, saying to the Pharisees who were driving the Sabbath: "But if you knew what this is: I am pleased with mercy and not with sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. For this is what he says, that one should have mercy where there is a need in the body or goods, and not understand the law as being contrary to helping in such a need. For in this way he protects the apostles, who gathered ears of corn because they were hungry, that is, because they needed mercy in this need. Therefore, the vow of chastity must be much more in need of mercy.
1658 D- V- a. VI, 370-372. XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows etc. W. XIX, 2031-203S. 1659
When the heat of the heat has brought about the necessity of conjugal life, God will want to have mercy much more than that narrow-minded (illiberal) sacrifice of chastity. So here too, our David eats the forbidden bread quite confidently and says: "The vow of chastity was made for the sake of man, not man for the sake of the vow of chastity. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the vow and of chastity. But this is not a matter of faith against God, because God is not for man's sake, but man for God's sake; of this spiritual law we will speak at another time and in another place.
Therefore, whoever understands this truth and exceedingly lovely freedom of Christ's faithful, let him give thanks to God and enter into marriage confidently and confidently, if he cannot abstain, and despise the nonsensical puppets with their abominable and godless laws and threats, who dare to blaspheme in their god-robbing decree "on the life and discipline of the clergy" (de Vit. et bo. Cie.): in marriage one cannot serve God. For what is this but to accuse the marital state of unbelief, impiety and total apostasy? Certainly for you, Pabst, you servant of Satan, Abraham and all the patriarchs, Zacharias and Elizabeth did not serve GOtte! But what do I concern myself with these monsters, who surpass themselves in monstrosity? It is certain that, because of their excessive rage to blaspheme, one should flee and push them away.
Further, that many speak of the burdensome nature of marriage, and for that reason counsel abstinence, have indeed a humane but quite foolish opinion; namely, in order to teach that complaint should be avoided, you invite the torture of conscience! We do not teach marriage in such a way that it is not burdensome, nor do we promise such a thing, but we want it to be permitted and free, so that whoever can abstain as long as he wants to. It is the conscience that we free from complaint, not the marriage. But how much happier it is to endure a marriage that is troublesome in two ways than to be constantly tormented by the sting of conscience!
to become? God has imposed this burden and all holy patriarchs have borne it. Paul proclaims this affliction beforehand to those who are free, but does not advise against it, nor does he condemn it [1 Cor. 7:28]: "Such (he says) shall have tribulation of the flesh." But he does not say, Do not enter into this affliction; nor does he say, It is evil and damnable; rather, it is gain if you bear it rightly and godly. It is burdensome to be bound in prison for Christ's sake, but can you advise against it for that reason? Will you not rather exhort him to bear it steadfastly? We are not writing here for those who marry for idleness and pleasure, for whom it serves them right to find trouble for pleasure, but we are writing for those who wish to exchange the danger of their happiness, the necessity to sin, the impossibility to abstain, together with the whole hell of fear of conscience, for any trouble or toil, who do not want to live in pleasure but rightly. May those pass their days in comfort, we say to our spouses, "By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But even you must never believe that those who abstain from marriage in order to avoid hardship live chastely in the right way. For experience teaches how these great despisers of marriage, and those who extol chastity, keep themselves chaste, since only those can keep themselves chaste, not those who flee troubles, but those to whom it is given to be chaste for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And what is it to us what the water bubbles judge? Let us do what is right by evil rumors and good rumors. The Lord judges the nations and the earth with justice [Ps. 96:13]. All men are liars, but God alone is true. To Him be glory forever and ever, Amen.
Of the widows in Paul.
1 Tim. 5, 11. 12.
There is still one passage left that someone might want to think proves something for the vows. This is the place where
Paul 1 Tim. 5, 11. 12. speaks of the apostate widows in the following way: "If they have become lustful against Christ, they want to be free and have their verdict that they have committed the first faith. It is not known that this passage is the source of the well-known words of Augustine, in which he says that it is condemnable for nuns not only to be free, but also to have the will to marry. But we must first consider Paulum; if he does not teach that it must be so, then Augustine's proof will not be valid either. First of all, it is certain that Paul does not speak of such an institution that one has made vows (de vovendi instituto). For the first church never knew this way of making vows, but he speaks of widows who were fed by the goods of the church and provided for by the service of the deacons, of which we read Apost. 6. an example. He is not talking about men in the spiritual state (religiosis), not about virgins, but about poor widows, whose care is most urgently commanded in the law of Moses. For in the same chapter [1 Tim. 5, 16.] Paul makes the provision that widows, who can be fed from their own goods, are not to be fed from the wealth of the church. For he says, "If a believer has widows, let him provide for them, and let not the church be burdened, that they which are right widows may have enough." Again, concerning widows who have parents or children, he makes the same provision, saying [v. 4], "But if a widow has children or nephews, let them first learn to rule their own houses divinely, and repay their parents in kind, for this is well done and acceptable in the sight of God." But to a true widow he makes the one who has neither parents nor children nor anyone by whom she could be provided for. But he says thus [v. 5.], "But this is a true widow who is lonely, who puts her hope in God, and perseveres in prayer and supplication day and night."
Among these, then, he finds two kinds which he rejects; one which lives in pleasures, that is, of those who by wealth, which is
They are rich and can provide for themselves with it. Of these he says [v. 6], "But she that liveth in lusts is alive dead." The others are those who were accepted by the church because of their poverty, but because they were young, fattened themselves on other people's goods and became lustful; and while in their own poverty they would have been desired by no one, now, well provided for by other people's work, they desire to marry of their own free will. But even this Paul does not condemn in them, that they desire to be free, but that they have committed the first faith, for he speaks thus [v. 12.]: "And have their judgment, that they have committed the first faith." Otherwise he would speak against himself, since he continues [v. 14.], "I will therefore that the young widows be free, and beget children." But the word faith cannot mean a vow in this place, for they had not vowed widowhood, nor does "faith" mean "vow" in all Scripture, but it is faith in Christ which they had denied in order that they might the more surely marry, and had returned to Judaism or heathenism, which the circumstances and what follows prove, for it follows [v. 15], "For some are already turned back after Satan"; and again [v. 13], "But they also learn to speak what ought not to be."
This is certainly said of the apostasy from faith and doctrine, as is sufficiently known. From the same spirit he also writes, 2 Tim. 4, 10. "Demas hath forsaken me, and hath loved this world"; and again [2 Tim. 1, 15.], "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia have turned from me." For if they had not sinned against faith, he would not have spoken of them in this way, but would have commanded that they should be taken care of, as of the harlot with the Corinthians. Therefore we conclude: the first faith is the Christian faith, from which many in the first church fell away when it was still new. And this apostasy was severely punished by the apostles, and the author of the letter to the Hebrews also attacks it severely, claiming [Cap. 6, 4-6.
Once they have fallen away, they are renewed again to blessedness, because those who fell away were of the opinion that they could also be saved by another faith, namely their own or the Jewish faith. So this passage has nothing to do with vows, much less with monastic vows. But this is also a strong reason that he speaks of faith in Christ, that he says [1 Tim. 5:11]: "If they have become horny against Christ." To become lustful against Christ is not only to be senseless through the lust of the flesh, but also to rebel against Christ for the sake of lust and, after denying the faith, to consider something else.
But suppose also that the apostle speaks of vows and not of widows, yet this passage proves most strongly of all to us, and no passage of Scripture so powerfully and so evidently condemns vows and orders, that one would almost wish that it spoke of vows or could be understood by them. For when it speaks of vows, it is evident that for the future vows will be punished and condemned, however much those [widows] may have sinned in the past. For he says [1 Tim. 5, 11.], "Renounce the young widows"; and again [v. 14.], "I will that the young widows be free." Therefore, according to this provision of the apostle, no one was allowed to make a vow unless he was sixty years old. So choose what you will: either the apostle speaks of the vows, or he does not speak of the vows. If he does not speak of the vows, then this passage does not enforce anything; if he speaks of the vows, then life under vows before the age of sixty is punished and condemned by himself, and this saying will be the most reliable protector of our opinion that then the conscience can be completely confident when one takes his vows.
In short, since enough has been said that this way of life is contrary to the gospel, since sin is made in food, in drink, in places, persons, works, actions, in which Christ does not make sin, but has commanded that they should be free, and since
this way of living could not endure if one did not commit such sin and entangle the consciences, as is clear, so that there can be nothing more certain (for this life would immediately come to an end if one considered it free and did not entrap the consciences): it is also quite certain at the same time that such vows are void, unlawful, ungodly, and contrary to the Gospel. Therefore, there is no need to argue whether you have vowed in a godly or godless mind, because it is certain that you have vowed ungodly things. Therefore, one must rely on the gospel and let go of these vows with complete confidence, no matter by what circumstance they may have been prompted, from what mind they may have come, at what time they may have been made, and return to the freedom of the Christian faith. This is my firm and undoubted opinion, for which I praise and give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great goodness has set us free, who is eternally given, amen.
This is what I wanted to say about the monastic life at this time, but I will say more if someone should attack it, although I believe that everything is so fortified with Scripture and clear reason that it can not only shut the mouths of the adversaries (to which I have paid little attention), but also establish the consciences against God in good confidence and make them secure, which is what I have mainly had in mind. For those who are entangled by long-standing laws, by habits, by their own fear and misgivings, furthermore by the prestige of holiness, by the multitude and greatness of men, but especially those to whom the holy Scriptures have been instilled in an erroneous mind, are certainly very difficult to help, and the so cheerful freedom is very difficult to persuade those who are so desperate and already consider themselves lost in hell.
For I am not at all pleased that this contends and triumphs over the pope and his Jewish schools, the innumerable heap of high schools, monasteries and convents. For what do we care what this shameful empire of the pope teaches, which is worse than the
1664 L. V. L. VI. 375 f. 174. Urtheil von d. geistlichen u. Kloster vows. W. XIX, 2040-2042. 1665
Turks, and which I have long despised? We leave it to us that we make the consciences strong against Satan in the hour of death and make them safe before the Son of Man. Men may rage as they will; in death at least they will leave us, be it as defeated or as victors. But who can stand before Satan and before the judgment of God, if he does not, fortified with the most certain and clearest words of God, stand on the rock and his watch and want to hear what could be brought against him who can say to God without hesitation and without trembling of heart: This you have said, you who cannot lie?
Therefore, for the sake of Christ, I also ask all those who make use of my advice, who want to leave the monastic life and return to freedom, to examine their conscience first and foremost, so that they do not undertake this, lured by the novelty of the matter or solely out of contempt or hatred for people. For such will not stand in death, when the conscience awakens and is tormented by the devil because of apostasy, because of breaking the vow etc. but
The latter will be intent on a godly repentance, so that the latter will be worse than the former. For it is necessary that one firmly base oneself here on God's pure word alone and not even turn away from God's judgment, since we know that He is true and cannot deny Himself. But the words that are to apply here are those we have quoted above, in which Christ alone is set before us as our light and duke, and everything that is invented by men is condemned.
May He Himself, our dear Duke and our Light, Jesus Christ, enlighten and strengthen our hearts in His own power and His healing words for eternal life. His is the glory and the kingdom forever and ever, amen.
1522. in the month of January.
1 Petr. 2, 16.
As the free, and not as if you had the freedom to the cover of wickedness, but as the servants of God.
Gal. 3, 13.
But you, dear brothers, are called to freedom. But see to it that through freedom you do not give place to the flesh.
The writing following in this the old edition of Walch, Col. 2053-2084:
Concerns and lessons of dm monasteries and vows of the clergy,
is a part of the sermon on Epiphany Day in the church postilion, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol.
391 et seq, §§ 253-312, therefore (because duplicate) omitted here.