106 D. Mart. Luther's letter to D. Johann Brismann. *)
Perhaps in January 1523.
He admonishes Brismann that, as Luther had asked him earlier, he should publicly refute the tasteless booklet of Caspar Schatzgeher, a Minorite monk, which he had issued against Luther's booklet of vows, for which he gives him some reasons.
Grace and peace in Christ! The other day a man of your order, Caspar Schatzgeyer, appeared against me in a booklet published against me about vows and masses, who had also previously published the wretched and clumsy booklet which he called Scrutinium1 1) [Examination].
1) The title of this writing is: Lcrutiniura divinac scripturac pro conciliationc dissidcntiura dogmatuva circa sudscriptas inatcrias, dc ^ratia ct lidcro arbitrio, dc üdc ct opcridus, dc pcccnto in kono opere, de exordio verae poenitentiae, de rneritorio actu lideri arkitrii, de sacriücio novi tcstanacnti, de
and tried to unite Christ and Belial, that is, the godless scholasticism and the holy scripture. Since this turned out badly for him, he thought of another way to gain fame, and now he gives birth to Indagines [researches] and Conatus [experiments] and I do not know what kind of whimsical stuff is written in words.
saccrdotio novac Ic^is, de e'oiroEidonc sub utruHUo spccic, dc baptisino ct libcrtatc ctiristiana, dc votis ct statu oaonacliorum. Without place and time. Quarto. 102 leaves. (Wiedemann, Eck, p. 419.) One can see that Luther could not possibly answer all that was written against him.
*) This letter is first printed with Brismann's book; then with Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 113; in the Wittenberg Latin edition, Dona. II, col. 323, and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 287. According to the latter we have translated.
and things. But you know yourself how people have the way or even the fate (I am talking about those who are only Minorites and not Christians) to use new and strange words, just as they also live according to new customs. Thus one writes swords, another syrup, another plaster, 1) but this one, as I have said, researches and experiments, so that they namely have no communion with men in words and things. In addition, there is also a certain own and minoritic way of expression, which is such that it cannot be called anything else than minoritic, which has its main strength in that it is highly annoying, in that it wants to seem new and yet is neither new nor old, but also not even in the middle between new and old.
(2) But to come to the matter itself, I have asked you to take upon yourself the trouble of answering, not that I think you worthy, who with the gift of God can serve better things, to argue with such larvae, but because I have too much to do to be able to answer myself. For although I despised the unlearned man in so holy a matter, and thought that such people, who are moved by such trifling writings to decide against my book of the vows, which, as I must say myself, of all that I have written is the strongest and, as I may well boast, irrefutable, would not be able to be fortified, even if I repeated my answer a thousand times: I have nevertheless yielded to certain friends who insisted and pressed me very hard, and consented that he should be answered.
3 Continue happily in Christ, since you know the sect of the Minorites very well and understand very well in how many places "the treasure vulture" (Thesaurivora), that "explorer" and "tempter", lies; trying to persuade us to believe that among the monks faith and chastity are as common as the monks themselves are common, especially the Minorites, although his own conscience and conscience of the monks are very good.
1) This refers to Alveld's writing MaiaAlHÄ. Cf. the introduction to the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 32, second columne.
experience teaches him far otherwise, except that a mere minorite must be a mere hypocrite. For he speaks on the very beat as they have lived hitherto, believing that there will be no one to perceive that he is lying, as there has been no one hitherto to believe that they are mere comedians, and, as Paul says [2 Tim. 3:5.], "who have the appearance of a godly being, but deny his power."
(4) Although you do not need me to show you what is most to be refuted in it, yet, in order that he may see how we condemn such things in one sense, I will also remind him of this, of which no doubt Christ, who teaches you, will remind you. But it is this, that in the whole book that man does indeed draw on a great deal from Scripture and shows it off in the margins with more boastfulness than befits a Minorite (unless hypocrisy were involved). Meanwhile, the blind and nonsensical researcher does not see how all this serves nothing to the point, which is so obvious that he must confess it himself, if it is shown to him only a little tangibly, in the following way:
(5) Are not all the words and deeds of the Scriptures testimonies that concern all Christians, as Paul says in Romans 15: "What is written is written for our learning"? What nonsense, then, is it to refer what is said to all Christians in general to a single sect alone? For what else could a fool conclude in regard to the whole pompous book of the researcher than this corollary: since you justify your particular sect with general scriptural passages, it must truly follow that either all Christians must be Minorites, or, if they are not, they cannot be Christians, since to these alone is said what you adduce for the Minorites? What will "the treasure vulture" (Thesaurivora,) do here? Will he not be ashamed, if there is still a speck of shame in him, that he has ever disgraced himself before men, as one who has so ungodly and blasphemously done such violence and wrong to the holy Scriptures and to Christians? so that, if his things are true, either the Christians cannot be Christians, or they cannot be Christians.
or the Scripture does not have to be Scripture. Behold, there you have the reward for error, which those must receive who argue against the known truth!
(6) But so that he does not blaspheme: I only said this, but I do not prove it with any example, although the books are available and he cannot make any excuses, so I at least state with you what you also state as your opinion about the preface of the same. Is therefore the monastic state 1) not beautifully and quite minoritically proven from the passage of Luke, in which it is written that the Lord went into the house of Martha and Mary? that is, as Schatzgeper says, into the monasteries, in which an active and contemplative life is going on? 2c.
(7) But to pass over the unlearned things of the monks, which almost no one understands (as few hear these words of the active and contemplative life, let alone that such a house is with them), is it not certain that this doctrine, which the Lord taught by his entrance into the house of Martha, of whatever kind it may be, is common to all Christians? Unless such entrance was not a part of the gospel, or the gospel was not common to all Christians.
(8) Dear! what does the wretched treasure-keeper do, in putting the Scriptures in favor of the monastic state, other than that he himself says by deed: Dear! laugh, hiss, and mock me, an unskilled and tasteless man, who has put the sayings that apply to all Christians in general on my lousy robe? For he himself admits outright that there is nothing in Scripture about monasticism, and consoles himself only with the one thing that monasticism does not seem to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, he forgets this statement again and again and does nothing else than citing the Scriptures for the monastic state, until he also makes Christ a monk and Mary a nun, who was at least an engaged wife, which is a theft from God for the nuns of this great tempter.
1) In Latin monastles, which must be resolved with xxxxxxxxx, as follows from the beginning of § 8 and other places.
9 But I beg you, dear Brismann, not to be annoyed by the foolish sacrilege of so many monstrous things. Continue as you have begun, and show this blind researcher, if he can grasp it, even from his Aristotle, that it is something else to say general things and particular ones. Call to his mind even Porphprius, who makes something quite different out of a general and a particular accidental property. I confess, of course, that I am overcome by weariness and disgust while reading, not so much by the bad Latin, even non-Latin, but I am especially overwhelmed by the exceedingly unlearned impudence of the man, who contradicts himself in almost every line to the very highest degree. But so that you do not eat up this annoyance all by yourself, I want to override it in one or the other piece, so that the excellent tempter does not get angry that with so many books no answer could have been brought out of me. He also wants to become a famous man.
First I accept this main sentence of his booklet, 2) since he boasts: the monastic state is not against the Scriptures, not even in one point, therefore, according to the words of Christ, one must accept this as the right thing: He who is not against us is for us. Thus he says.
(11) Behold, I beseech thee, how diligently this tempter hath read my little book, wherein I have done this one thing, to prove that the monastic state is by its nature contrary to the Scriptures. He refutes all these reasons like this: he is not against it, therefore he is for it. He forces me to understand it like this: the holy scripture does not call the monks by their names, and does not even think of them with one letter of this word: Minorite, Augustinian, Carthusian 2c., therefore it is not against it. In this way neither Arius, nor Pelagius, nor any heretic is against the Scripture, but all for the Scripture.
(12) But in order that I may speak roughly with a rough head, I divide man's life into two parts. For he has to do either with things that are below him or with things that are above him. With those that are below him, God lets him operate freely (agere), also with those that are above him.
2) How this is to be understood follows from s 14.
Such things, which he does not order in the holy scripture, as: building, herding, buying and, as Peter [1 Ep. 2, 13] calls them, human orders, that is, making orders. In these things it is not necessary to wait for a word of God, but also the heathen Jethro can teach the holy Moses, because (according to Gen. 1.) man has been made lord over things, so that he may dispose with reason, according to his pleasure, of what is under him. For in this there is no service of God, and it is done both by the wicked and the pious. All this is given out in vain, both to the good and to the evil, as it is said in Matt. 6.
13. But with the things that are above him, that is, with God, God has never permitted, nor does God permit it yet, but what is to happen here must all be done at a certain and explicit command of God, because man does not know in himself what is above him, that is, what God wants, if He has not revealed Himself in His word; just as the "creatures" that are under man do not know what man wants unless he makes himself known to them by a sign, as by striking, restraining, slackening 2c. Therefore it is not enough here to say: it is not forbidden in Scripture, but one must say: it is commanded, yes, precisely because it is not commanded, it is truly forbidden. For man must not rule himself above where it is God's alone to rule, for just by doing so he usurps God's throne with Lucifer and wants to be like Adam. That is why in Moses, when what is due to God is to happen, it is repeated so often in so many words, but out of utmost necessity: The Lord has spoken it, the Lord has said it, the Lord has commanded it, the Lord has commanded it. And there nothing happens at all unless a word of the Lord has gone before. Yes, Deut. 12:8 says: You shall not do against the LORD your God what seems right to you. Thus Nadab and Abihu were consumed by the fire of the LORD without any other sin than that they did the best work without the commandment of God, as Moses writes.
14. and what is the content of all the prophecies
and the whole Scripture, as: That we should do nothing good before God without a certain commandment of God? So let the wretched treasure hunter leave his boast: that the monastic state is not against God; for if it is not against God, we also confess that it is for God. But now it is against God precisely because it is without the word of God. Therefore, he should not have proved that nothing is actually said about the monastic state in Scripture, but that something is said about it; he should have stated the affirmative sentence, not the negative sentence. For if they let the monastic state be something like that of which we have said that it is among men, I have said more than in one place, even in the booklet of vows, that it should be tolerated. Now, however, they count it among the things that are above man, as a special worship, which is piratical, abominable and a complete perversion, as I have said enough.
(15) But if this word makes Schatzgeyern so courageous that Christ says, "He who is not against us is for us," why does not the word of the same Christ make him despondent, "He who is not with me is against me? But Christ himself did nothing against (erga) his Father, except what the Father commanded him, as he says: "That I should thus do as the Father commanded me. So he is against him who does something without the father's command. For if Schatzgeyer rightly interprets, "He is not against us," that is, it is not forbidden: so also my interpretation is right, "He is not with me," that is, it is not commanded. But this "not being with me" means Christ "being against me": that is, that the "not commanded" is as much as "forbidden.
(16) And he, of whom Christ says: "he is for us", 1) admittedly did not cast out devils at his own will, but at God's call. Christ proves this from the fruit of this, when he says [Marc. 9, 39]: no one can speak evil of him, who has done any deed in his name.
1) At De Wette vobig. We have adopted the reading Aurifabers uodis, because of Marc. 9, 49.
have. For so many other saints have done many miracles, but none without God's call, inwardly or outwardly, which call was proved by some sign.
(17) See, then, how this tempter evidently treats the Scriptures in such a way as to draw what was done by command and impulse of God (divinitus) to things chosen by human presumption without God's command.
18 For even that which Christ said of him who cast out devils, "is for you," is certainly for all Christians. For "for you" is not so much for religious and monks, but for all. For all Christians must imitate him, not in doing the same work, but in acting with the same faith, the same obedience, and the same spirit. For not all members have the same business, but all have the same mind, the same spirit, and the same life, so that again one sees the stupidity of the investigator, who makes something special for the monks out of the things that all Christians have in common. For he also interprets the "for you" entirely to mean that he wants it to be taken as an example to be imitated. But if he refers the imitation not to faith and spirit, but to the outward work, he is even more nonsensical, because no monk has ever cast out devils. And nothing would have to become of the monastic state but an outward casting out of devils, in order to imitate him of whom he boasts, "he is for you."
19) But if the "for you" is not said of the example of imitation (as I believe), but of the participation in the work, so that "for you" is just as much as co-workers, helpers, as Paul says Rom. 8: If God is for us, who may be against us? and again: All things work together for the good of the elect; so it follows again that it is understood by those who are under the same commandment and driven by the same spirit, but cannot be understood by those who have lived according to their own pleasure without the word of God. Therefore, the unskillful and blind for
He should not have first taught that certain things are against us and certain things are for us, which we knew quite well without his investigations, researches and experiments, but he should have proved that the monastic state is for us and not against us, that it must be considered a service of God and obedience to God. However, one would tolerate it [as I myself have said], 1) if it were held as a free exercise of the body for a certain time or forever. That is enough of the first!
(20) But I will also speak of the other thing which he cites from Jeremiah: that the Rechabites, by the command of their father Jonadab, abstained from wine, nor cultivated the land, nor built houses. Therefore, according to this example, one may vow a perpetual monastic state, because God has praised and rewarded them excellently.
21) Behold, I beseech thee, even the minoritical theology, which sees nothing in the Scriptures but robes and their clogs. 2) But let us look at this passage properly. For there the power of parents and the obedience of children are exalted. And this God praises, because he also commanded it so sharply in the Ten Commandments. But, my dear, what is that to do with the god-robbing monks, who almost always take the children against the power of their parents and completely destroy the obedience ordered by God with their cursed, abominable self-chosen obedience?
22. You godless cowl, who taught you to interpret the divine words in such a way that you turn your eyes only to the works and leave God's word in the queue, and what is said of divine commandments always only draws on the monks' presumptuous presumptions and inventions? If you point out to me [in your monastic life] a father who commands his children, I will say that he must be obeyed, not because the father, a human being, commands it, but because God, with His commandment and order, has ordered the commandment of that [human being] and demands obedience.
1) The bracketed words are readings of the Wittenberg edition.
2) The Minorites wore wooden shoes, therefore Spalatin calls them "Holzschuhbarfüßer". Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1419, sub No. 57.
But if Schatzgeyer treats this example rightly in the interpretation, then monks must be bodily parents of their monks; if they are not parents, O how his so stupid tempter mocks himself by drawing the example of paternal authority and filial obedience, both ordered by God, to the fictitious obedience and authority invented by human dreams without God's word! O of the unlearned monks and dumb clods! Do you dare to write books?
(23) Surely the power of parents surpasses all power that is under God. For no one doubts that Isaac did right, since he obeyed his father Abraham to the point of death, while God had said nothing to Isaac but this: Honor your father 2c. Therefore, if the father's authority in case of need also extends over the son's body and life, so that he can kill and sell him, as is written in Exodus 22, what new thing is it that it also extends over food and clothing? But therefore even parents must not immediately follow such examples as the kings of Israel did, when they sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch after Abraham's example and let themselves think that they were doing God a service by doing so. How much less may a man who is not a father, without a special commandment of God, seize foreign children and throw them under himself, and deprive the parents of their authority, and the children of obedience, that is, deny God Himself with His commandment? O cute monasticism, which is so beautifully proven from the example of the Rechabites, and yet is found to be robbery of God, completely contrary to the Rechabite example, and a horrible desolation of the divine commandment, of paternal authority and filial obedience!
(24) There are also other things in monasticism that dispute with the example of the Rechabites. And how should they not dispute, since the main thing itself is against it? First of all, GOD does not praise the works, but the obedience [of the Rechabites]. For if he [their father] had commanded other works as well, he [God] would still have praised their obedience; but the monastic state is entirely in ge
drowned in the knowledge of their works. Furthermore, it is certain that the Rechabites were not commanded by their father to do such things in order to establish some special divine service with such works, for that would have been ungodly, and Jeremiah does not say that either (for nothing need be done for the service of God without a certain word from God, as we have said), but they used such practice freely for their bodies, as another uses agriculture. But our monastic state does not come along so modestly, but the devil leads it, that it walks about in strange and great things, that it makes of its efforts not only a service of God, but almost the sole and highest service of God, without any commandment of God. For if they did not use the service of God, no one would go to it, no one would stay with it. This is the exceedingly impudent Baal Peor, when one sets up a new altar and establishes a special service out of his own boldness.
025. Take to this, that such free and bodily ordinance of the Rechabites was not exalted above spiritual things, which are not in our power. For they were not commanded abstinence [from marriage] or anything concerning the soul, but it concerned wine, fruits and houses, all of which are in our power. But our monastic state drives quite madly on such things which are not in our power, namely, to chastity. For even Jonadab should not have commanded his children what was not in their power, although he held the paternal power. But these senseless and strange people impose impossible things on those who are not their children, without all power. O madness and abomination! And yet this "treasure vulture" may compare the monastic state with the household, although they are different, like hell and heaven. And he does this because, as a blind man, he falls only on the resemblance of the works, but pays no attention to the reason and the true form of the works, as these monkeys are wont to do, so that he may make his name true and be a right treasure vulture, 1) that is, one who has the noblest treasures, namely, the faithful, the good and the bad.
1) sit, not she. (Walch.)
The new version of the book is a new version of the book.
(26) Yes, it is also certain that Jonadab's commandment was not so sharp that, if a case had arisen, it could not have been dissolved or exempted, as Christ says of the Sabbath, Matt. 12. Far be it from Jonadab, the holy man, to have kept his commandment more sharply than God kept His own, and that he should not rather have commanded such things to be omitted where there was danger to body and soul. It was enough that this excellent example proved how pleasant obedience to parents would be, namely because God foresaw the future abominations of the monks, by which they would introduce an obedience contrary to the divine commandment.
27 These two things are about the strongest, which give the whole book a semblance, so that if these fall, nothing of the other can stand.
(28) But finally I wonder why he does not do more with the example of Samuel, when Hannah pledges her son to the Lord. We want to go through this briefly, so that no weak person will take offense at it. First of all, here too is parental authority, as with the Rechabites, and [secondly] only over the body and an outward thing, which was in the authority of Samuel. For chastity, which is not in anyone's power, was not vowed by the mother, so that it is again in two respects a vow quite different from the monastic vows. Thirdly, vows of this kind were also prescribed by God and instituted in the last chapter of the 3rd book.
The first vow was the vow of Genesis, which God ordered so that when someone wanted to vow something, he vowed it with such customs (ritu), so that their vows would not be inventions of human presumption without word, like those of the monks; but now that such ceremonies have ceased, there is no vow prescribed by God left but baptism.
This is what I, dear Brismann, wanted to do to you, so that you would not have to endure only the annoyance of this rather overminoritic booklet, in which this wretched man throws all divine and human things into one another in such a way that he seems to be possessed by Satan himself. Dear, who should not attribute this to Satan alone, to twist the divine words spoken to all Christians with such audacity and to refer them falsely to the unchristian sects, and to make things out of what is commanded that are not commanded? Is this not to set one's mouth against Heaven, to blaspheme the Holy One of God, and to deny the whole Scripture? Ah! You wretched and miserable monks should finally learn to treat divine things with fear and reverence, for you have been warned by so many examples of those who have made a mockery of themselves so far, especially this treasure hunter, who could not rest until his foolishness was revealed to all. Namely, wisdom always reveals the liars as those who only attach disgrace to themselves, and yet these rash ones never cease neither to bring shame upon themselves nor to lie. May grace be with you, and may you prosper in it.
Your Martin Luther.