The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Article XXVII (XIII) Monastic Vows

[1] To our knowledge there was a monk named John Hilten in the Thuringian town of Eisenach. Thirty years ago, he was thrown into prison by his religious order because he had condemned certain scandalous abuses. We have seen his writings, which clearly explain the nature of his doctrine. Those who knew him declare that he was mild in his old age and serious indeed, but not gloomy. [2] He predicted many things, some of which have already happened. Others still seem close at hand, but we do not want to repeat them, lest it may be inferred that they are told either from hatred toward one or from preference toward another. Finally, either because of his age or the foulness of the prison, he became ill. He sent for the guard to tell him of his sickness. Inflamed with pharisaic hatred, the guard began to rebuke the man harshly because of his kind of doctrine, which seemed to interfere with the work of the kitchen. Without mentioning his sickness, Hilten said with a sigh that he was patiently bearing these injuries for Christ’s sake, since he had neither written nor taught anything that could undermine the monastic life, but had only criticized some well-known abuses. [3] “Another one,” he said, “will come in AD 1516. He will destroy you, and you will be unable to resist him.” Later, his friends found this very prediction about the declining influence of the monastic orders and the very date written in his surviving commentaries dealing with certain passages of Daniel. [4] The outcome will show how much emphasis should be given to this declaration, yet there are other signs that threaten a change in the monks’ power, no less certain than oracles. It is clear how much hypocrisy, ambition, and greed there are in the monasteries, how much ignorance and cruelty exists among all the unlearned, what pride there is in their sermons, and how they continually create new ways of making money. There are other faults, which we do not care to mention. [5] Monasteries were schools for Christian instruction; now they have deteriorated, as though from a golden to an iron age (or as Plato says, the cube deteriorates into bad harmonies bringing destruction). All the most wealthy monasteries support only a lazy crowd, which gorges itself upon the public alms of the Church. [6] Christ, however, teaches that the salt that has lost its savor should be cast out and be trodden underfoot (Matthew 5:13). By such morals the monks are singing their own fate ‹a requiem, and it will soon be over with them›. [7] Now another sign is added, because in many places, they are the instigators of the death of good men. No doubt, God will soon avenge these murders. [8] Certainly we do not accuse every one of them, for here and there some good men in the monasteries decide fairly about human and “factitious” services, as some writers call them, and do not approve the cruelty exercised by the hypocrites among them.

[9] Now we are discussing the kind of teaching that the writers of the Confutation defend, not the question of whether vows should be kept. We hold that legitimate vows should be kept. However, we are discussing different questions: Can these services merit the forgiveness of sins and justification? Are they satisfactions for sins? Are they equal to Baptism? Are they the obedience to basic rules and counsels? Are they evangelical perfection? Do they have the merits of super abundance? Do these merits, when applied to others, save them? Are vows made with these beliefs legitimate? Are vows legitimate that are made under the appearance of religion, merely for the sake of the belly and laziness? Are those true vows that have been forced either from the unwilling or from those who because of age were not able to understand this kind of life, whom parents or friends thrust into the monasteries so that they might be supported at public expense, without the loss of their private inheritance? Are vows legitimate that openly come to a bad end, either because they are not kept due to weakness, or because those in the monastic orders are pushed to approve and help the abuses of the Mass, the godless worship of saints, and the counsels attacking good people? [10] We have said many things in the Confession about such vows that even the canons of the popes condemn. Yet, the adversaries command that everything we have produced must be rejected. They have used these words.

It is worthwhile to hear how they distort our reasoning and what they mention to support their own case. So we will briefly review a few of our arguments. In passing, we will explain away the adversaries’ slick logic in reference to them. However, this entire case has been carefully and fully discussed by Luther in his book On the Vows of the Monks[LW 44:243–400]. We wish to be seen as repeating that case here.

[11] First, it is very clear that a vow is illegitimate if the person who makes the vow thinks that the forgiveness of sins before God is merited by it or satisfaction is made before God for sins. This opinion clearly insults the Gospel, which teaches that the forgiveness of sins is freely granted to us for Christ’s sake, as has been said at some length before. Therefore, we have quoted correctly Paul’s declaration to the Galatians, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (5:4). Those who seek the forgiveness of sins, not through faith in Christ, but through monastic works, divert people from Christ’s honor and crucify Christ again. Listen, listen how the writers of the Confutation look for a way out! [12] They explain this passage of Paul only in relation to Moses’ Law, and they add that the monks obey all things for Christ’s sake. They try hard to live nearer to the Gospel in order to merit eternal life. They add a horrible conclusion in these words, “Therefore, those things are wicked that are here alleged against monasticism.” [13] O Christ, how long will You bear these accusations with which our enemies present Your Gospel? In the Confession we said that the forgiveness of sins is received freely for Christ’s sake, through faith. O Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, You revealed the Gospel to the world. If our teaching is not the very voice of the Gospel, if it is not the eternal Father’s judgment, we are rightly blamed. But Your death is a witness, Your resurrection is a witness, the Holy Spirit is a witness, Your entire Church is a witness of this: the true meaning of the Gospel is that we receive forgiveness of sins, not because of our merits, but because of You, through faith.

[14] When Paul denies that by Moses’ Law people merit the forgiveness of sins, he withdraws this praise much more from human traditions. He clearly presents this in Colossians 2:16. If Moses’ Law, which was divinely revealed, did not merit the forgiveness of sins, how much less do these silly observances, hostile to the civil custom of life, merit the forgiveness of sins!

[15] The adversaries wrongly claim that Paul abolishes Moses’ Law and that Christ follows in such a way that He does not freely grant the forgiveness of sins, but forgives because of the works of other laws, if any are now created. [16] By this godless and fanatical imagination they bury Christ’s benefit. Then they wrongly claim that among those who obey this “Law of Christ,” the monks obey it better than others, because of their hypocritical poverty, obedience, and chastity, since indeed all these things are full of sham. They brag about poverty most of all. No class of men has greater license than the monks; they boast of obedience. We do not like to speak about celibacy. Gerson indicates how pure this is in most of those who desire to be sexually pure. How many of them do desire to be chaste?

[17] Of course, in this sham life the monks live more closely according to the Gospel! Christ does not follow Moses in such a way as to forgive sins because of our works, but to set His own merits and His own atoning sacrifice against God’s wrath for us, so that we may be freely forgiven. Now, apart from Christ’s atoning sacrifice, whoever applies his own merits to God’s wrath and tries to receive the forgiveness of sins because of his own merits (whether the works of Moses’ Law or of the Ten Commandments or of the rule of Benedict or of the rule of Augustine or of other rules) does away with Christ’s promise, has cast away Christ, and has fallen from grace. This is Paul’s verdict [Galatians 5:4].

[18] Look, most merciful Emperor Charles. Look, you princes. Look, all you ranks, how great is the impudence of the adversaries! Although we have quoted Paul’s declaration to this effect, they have written, “Wicked are those things that are here cited against monasticism.” [19] What is more certain than that men receive the forgiveness of sins through faith for Christ’s sake? And these wretches dare to call this a wicked belief! We do not doubt that if you had been advised about this passage, you would have taken care that such blasphemy be removed from the Confutation.

[20] It has been fully shown above that this belief is wicked: We receive the forgiveness of sins because of our works. Therefore, we shall be briefer here. For the levelheaded reader will easily determine that we do not merit the forgiveness of sins by monastic works. Therefore, this blasphemy, which appears in Thomas, also cannot be tolerated, “The monastic profession is equal to Baptism.” It is insane to make human tradition, which has neither God’s command nor promise, equal to Christ’s ordinance. Baptism has both God’s command and promise, which contains the covenant of grace and of eternal life.

[21] Second, religious exercises, obedience, poverty, and celibacy—provided the latter is not impure—are adiaphora. Therefore, the saints can use them without impiety, just as Bernard, Francis, and other holy men used them. They used them to restrain the body, so that they might have more freedom to teach and to perform other godly offices, not that these works themselves are, by themselves, works that justify or merit eternal life. Finally, these exercises are of the type that Paul says, “Bodily training is of some value” (1 Timothy 4:8). [22] It is believable that in some places there are also currently good men, engaged in the ministry of the Word, who use these exercises without wicked opinions. [23] But to hold that these exercises are [justifying] services because they are counted just before God, and through which they merit eternal life, conflicts with the Gospel about the righteousness of faith. This Gospel teaches that for Christ’s sake righteousness and eternal life are granted to us. It conflicts also with Christ’s saying, “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). It conflicts also with this statement, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). But how can the adversaries affirm that God approves these services as righteousness before Him when they have no testimony of God’s Word?

[24] See how impudent the adversaries are! Not only do they teach that these exercises are justifying services, but they add that these services are more perfect, that is, meriting more the forgiveness of sins and justification than do other kinds of life. Here many false and deadly beliefs agree. The adversaries imagine that they observe basic rules and counsels. Afterward, these generous men, dreaming that they have the merits of super abundance, sell these to others. [25] These things are full of pharisaic pride. It is the height of ungodliness to hold that these merits satisfy the Ten Commandments in such a way that merits remain, while such basic rules as these accuse all the saints, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5). Likewise, “You shall not covet” (Romans 7:7). The prophet says, “All mankind are liars” (Psalm 116:11), that is, not thinking rightly about God, not fearing God enough, not believing Him enough. Therefore, the monks falsely brag that the commandments are fulfilled in the obedience of a monastic life, and more is done than what is commanded.

[26] This is also false: monastic observances are works of the counsels of the Gospel. The Gospel does not advise about distinguishing clothing and meats and the giving up of property. These are human traditions, about which it has been said, “Food will not commend us to God” (1 Corinthians 8:8). Therefore, they are neither justifying services nor perfection. Indeed, when they are presented covered with these titles, they are mere “teachings of demons” [1 Timothy 4:1].

[27] Virginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has been said before. However, it is a most deadly error to hold that evangelical perfection lies in human traditions. In this way even the monks of the Muslims could brag that they have evangelical perfection. Neither is virginity part of the things called adiaphora. Because God’s kingdom is righteousness and life in hearts (Romans 14:17), perfection is growth in the fear of God, growth in confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and growth in devotion to one’s calling. Paul also describes perfection this way, “[We] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18). He does not say, “We are continually receiving another hood or other sandals or other girdles.” It is regrettable that such pharisaic, indeed, Muslim, expressions should be read and heard in the Church. For they say the perfection of the Gospel and Christ’s kingdom (which is eternal life) should be wed along with these foolish observances about vestments and similar trifles.

[28] Now hear our Areopagites ‹excellent teachers› on what an unworthy declaration they have recorded in the Confutation. They say:

[29] These are the words of the adversaries, in which it is first said most rudely that the Holy Scriptures say that a monastic life merits eternal life. Where do the Holy Scriptures speak of a monastic life? The adversaries plead their case this way, so men of no account quote the Scriptures. Although no one is ignorant that the monastic life is a recent creation, yet they quote the authority of Scripture and say, too, that their decree has been clearly declared in the Scriptures.

[30] Besides, they dishonor Christ when they say that men merit eternal life by monasticism. Not even to His Law has God assigned the honor that it should merit eternal life, as He clearly says in Ezekiel, “I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life” (20:25). [31] First, it is certain that a monastic life does not merit the forgiveness of sins, but we receive this freely through faith, as has been said before. [32] Second, for Christ’s sake, through mercy, eternal life is granted to those who through faith receive forgiveness and do not apply their own merits against God’s judgment, as Bernard also says with very great force:

We have quoted above the rest of the passage, which speaks in the same way. Furthermore, Bernard adds at the end, “Let no one deceive himself, because if he will reflect well, he will undoubtedly find that with ten thousand he cannot meet Him ‹namely, God› who comes against him with twenty thousand.” [33] We do not merit the forgiveness of sins or eternal life by the works of the divine Law, but it is necessary to seek the mercy promised in Christ. The honor of meriting the forgiveness of sins or eternal life cannot be assigned to monastic observances, since they are mere human traditions.

[34] Those who teach that the monastic life merits the forgiveness of sins or eternal life, and transfer the confidence owed Christ to these foolish observances, completely suppress the Gospel about the free forgiveness of sins and the promised mercy in Christ, which is to be grasped. Instead of Christ they worship their own hoods and their own filth. But since even they need mercy, they act wickedly by inventing works of supererogation and selling them to others.

[35] We speak more briefly here about these subjects, because from what we have said before about justification, repentance, and human traditions, it is clear that monastic vows are not rewarded with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Since Christ calls traditions useless services, they are in no way evangelical perfection.

[36] The adversaries deceitfully wish to appear as if they modify the common opinion about perfection. They say that a monastic life is not perfection, but that it is a state in which one acquires perfection. What a pretty phrase! We remember that this change is found in Gerson. Clearly levelheaded people, although they did not risk removing monastic life from being praised as perfection, were offended by its excessive praise. So they made the change that monasticism is a state in which one acquires perfection. [37] If we follow this logic, monasticism will be no more a state of perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic. For these are also states in which one acquires perfection. All people, in every vocation, should seek perfection, that is, grow in the fear of God, in faith, in love toward one’s neighbor, and similar spiritual virtues.

[38] In the accounts of the hermits there are stories of Anthony and others that make the various stations in life equal. It is written that when Anthony asked God to show him how he was progressing in this kind of life, he was shown in a dream a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandria for comparison. The next day Anthony came into the city and went to the shoemaker to determine his exercises and gifts, and he spoke with the man. He heard nothing except that early in the morning the shoemaker prayed a few words for the entire state and then worked his trade. Here Anthony learned that justification is not to be assigned to the kind of life that he had entered.

[39] Although the adversaries now lessen their praises about perfection, they actually think otherwise. They sell and apply merits to others under the appearance that they are obeying basic rules and counsels. So they actually maintain that they possess surplus merits. What is this other than assuming perfection to oneself? The Confutation states that the monks try hard to live more closely in line with the Gospel. So it assigns perfection to human traditions if they are living more clearly in line with the Gospel by not having property, being unmarried, and obeying the monastic rule regarding clothing, meats, and similar silly things.

[40] The Confutation also says that the monks merit eternal life more abundantly and quotes Scripture, “everyone who has left houses,” and so on (Matthew 19:29). So here it claims perfection also for man-made religious rites. But this Scripture passage in no way favors monastic life. Christ does not mean that leaving parents, wife, and siblings is a work that must be done because it merits the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, such leaving is cursed. Anyone who leaves parents or wife to merit the forgiveness of sins or eternal life by this work dishonors Christ.

[41] There are two kinds of leaving. One happens without a call, without God’s command, which Christ does not approve (Matthew 15:9). The works we choose are useless services. When Christ speaks about leaving wife and children, it becomes clear that He does not approve this kind of leaving. We know that God’s commandment forbids leaving wife and children. God’s command to leave is different, that is, when power or tyranny pushes us either to leave or to deny the Gospel. Here we are commanded to bear injury and should rather allow not only wealth, wife, and children, but life to be taken from us. Christ approves of this kind of leaving, and so He adds for the Gospel’s “sake” [Mark 10:29]. He does so to illustrate that He is speaking not of those who injure wife and children, but who bear injury because of the confession of the Gospel. [42] For the Gospel’s sake we should even leave our body. Here it would be ridiculous to hold that it would serve God to kill oneself and to leave the body without God’s command. So, too, it is ridiculous to hold that it is a service to God without His command to leave possessions, friends, wife, and children.

[43] Clearly, they wickedly twist Christ’s word into a monastic life. Unless perhaps the declaration that they “receive a hundredfold in this life” is in place here. Many become monks not because of the Gospel, but because of extravagant living and laziness. They find the most plentiful riches instead of slender inheritances. [44] Because the entire subject of monasticism is full of shams, they deceptively quote Scripture passages. So they sin doubly. They trick people and that, too, under the appearance of the divine name.

[45] They also quote another passage about perfection, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:21). This passage has stirred up many who have imagined that casting away possessions and the control of property is perfection. [46] Let us allow the philosophers to praise Aristippus, who cast a great weight of gold into the sea. Such stories have nothing to do with Christian perfection. The division, control, and possession of property are civil ordinances, approved by God’s Word in the commandment “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). The abandonment of property has no command or advice in the Scriptures. Evangelical poverty does not come from the abandonment of property, but from not being greedy, from not trusting in wealth, just as David was poor in a most wealthy kingdom.

[47] Since the abandonment of property is merely a human tradition, it is a useless service. The praises in the Extravagante are also excessive. This papal bull says that abandoning ownership of all things for God’s sake gains merit, is holy, and is a way of perfection. It is very dangerous to praise so excessively a matter that conflicts with political order. [48] But ‹they say› Christ speaks about perfection here. Indeed, those who quote the text in a butchered way violate it. Perfection is found in what Christ adds, “Follow Me” [Matthew 19:21]. [49] Here He presents an example of obedience to one’s calling. Because not all callings are the same, this calling does not belong to everyone, but only to that person with whom Christ speaks. In the same way we are not to imitate the call of David to the kingdom [1 Samuel 16] or of Abraham to slay his son [Genesis 22]. Callings are personal, just as business matters themselves vary with times and persons. However, the example of obedience is general. [50] Perfection would have belonged to that young man if he had believed and obeyed this vocation. So with us perfection is that everyone with true faith should obey his own calling.

[51] Third, chastity is promised in monastic vows. We have said above, however, about the marriage of priests, that the law of nature in human beings cannot be removed by vows or enactments. Because not everyone has the gift of chastity [Matthew 19:12], many are not successful at it because of weakness. Neither, indeed, can any vows or any enactments set aside the Holy Spirit’s command: “Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Therefore, this vow is illegitimate in those who do not have the gift of chastity, but who are polluted because of weakness. [52] We have already said enough about this topic. Regarding this, it certainly is strange that the adversaries still defend their traditions contrary to God’s clear command, since the dangers and scandals are clearly visible to all. Not even Christ’s voice moves them. He scolded the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13[–36]), who had made traditions contrary to God’s command.

[53] Fourth, those who live in monasteries are released from their vows by godless ceremonies such as these: the Mass applied to the dead for profit and the worship of saints. In the latter, there are two faults. First, the saints are put in Christ’s place, and they are wickedly worshiped, just as the Dominicans invented the rosary of the Blessed Virgin, which is mere babbling, as foolish as it is wicked, and nourishes the most empty arrogance. Then, too, these very impieties are applied only for profit. [54] Likewise, they neither hear nor teach the Gospel about the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake, the righteousness of faith, true repentance, or works having God’s command. They are occupied with philosophic discussions or preserving ceremonies that conceal Christ.

[55] We will not discuss here the entire service of ceremonies, the lessons, singing, and similar things. They could be tolerated if they were regarded simply as exercises, such as school lectures. Their purpose is to teach the hearers and, while teaching, to move some to fear or faith. But now the adversaries wrongly describe these ceremonies as services of God that merit the forgiveness of sins for themselves and for others. Because of this they increase the number of these ceremonies. However, if they would use them to teach and encourage the hearers, brief and pointed lessons would be more profitable than these limitless babblings. [56] So, the entire monastic life is full of hypocrisy and false beliefs. Further, there is this danger: some in these monastic communities are driven to yield to those persecuting the truth. Therefore, there are many important and compelling reasons that free good people from the obligation to this kind of life.

[57] Finally, the canons themselves release many who either without discretion made vows when seduced by the tricks of monks or when compelled by friends. Not even the canons declare such vows to be legitimate. Consider all these things. Clearly there are many reasons showing that monastic vows made in the past are illegitimate. Because of this, a life full of hypocrisy and false beliefs can be safely abandoned.

[58] The adversaries object to this and present an argument taken from the Law of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:2[–21]). However, the Nazirites did not make their vows with the same opinion of the monks, which we condemn. The rite of the Nazirites was an exercise or a declaration of faith before the people. It did not merit the forgiveness of sins before God and did not justify before God. Further, just as circumcision or slaying victims would not be a service of God now, so the rite of the Nazirites should not be presented now as a service. It should be regarded simply as an adiaphoron. It is not right to compare (a) monasticism, created without God’s Word, as a service that should merit the forgiveness of sins and justification with (b) the rite of the Nazirites, which had God’s Word and was not taught for the purpose of meriting the forgiveness of sins. The rite of the Nazirites was an outward exercise, just as other ceremonies of the Law. The same can be said about other ceremonies required in the Law.

[59] The Rechabites are also quoted. They did not have any possessions and did not drink wine, as Jeremiah 35:6–10 says. Indeed, the example of the Rechabites agrees beautifully with our monks, whose monasteries excel the palaces of kings and who live most extravagantly! Yet the Rechabites, in their poverty of all things, were married. Our monks, although overflowing with self-indulgence, profess celibacy.

[60] Besides, examples should be interpreted according to the rule, that is, according to certain and clear Scripture passages, not contrary to the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures. [61] Certainly our observances do not merit the forgiveness of sins or justification. Therefore, when the Rechabites are praised, it is necessary [to point out] that they have observed their custom, not because they believed (a) they merited forgiveness of sins by it or (b) that the work was itself a justifying service or (c) that it was a service by which they obtained eternal life instead of by God’s mercy, for the sake of the promised Seed [Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16]. Their obedience is praised because they had their parents’ command. One of God’s commandments relates to this, “Honor your father and your mother” [Exodus 20:12].

[62] The custom also had a particular purpose. Because they were foreigners, not Israelites, it is clear that their father wanted to distinguish them from their fellow citizens by certain marks so that they might not relapse into the impiety of their countrymen. By these marks he wanted to encourage them in the doctrine of faith and immortality. That is a legitimate reason. Far different reasons are given for monasticism. They pretend that monastic works are a [justifying] service; they pretend that they merit the forgiveness of sins and justification. [63] The Rechabites’ example is, therefore, different from monasticism. (We leave out the other evils in monasticism, which still continue.)

[64] The adversaries also quote from 1 Timothy 5 about widows. As widows served the Church, they were supported at public expense, where it is said, “They desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith” (5:11–12). [65] First, let us suppose that the apostle speaks here of vows. Still, this passage will not support monastic vows, which are made for godless services and with the opinion that they merit the forgiveness of sins and justification. With ringing voice, Paul condemns all services, all laws, all works if they are obeyed to merit the forgiveness of sins. Or he condemns the idea that because of them, instead of through Christ’s mercy, we receive forgiveness of sins. Therefore, the vows of widows, if there were any, must have been different from monastic vows.

[66] Besides, if the adversaries do not stop misapplying the passage to vows, the prohibition “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age” (1 Timothy 5:9) must be misapplied in the same way. [67] So vows made before this age will be of no account. The Church did not know this kind of vows. So Paul condemns widows, not because they marry, for he commands the younger to marry. But he condemns because, when supported at the public expense, they became unchaste, thus casting off faith. He calls this “former faith,” clearly not in a monastic vow, but in Christianity. In this sense he understands faith in the same chapter, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (5:8). [68] Paul speaks of faith differently than the philosophers. He does not assign faith to those who have mortal sin. So he says that people cast off faith who do not care for their relatives. In the same way he also says that unchaste women cast off faith.

[69] We have repeated some of our reasons and, in passing, have dismissed the adversaries’ objections. We have collected these matters, not simply because of the adversaries, but much more because of godly minds, that they may see the reasons why they should condemn hypocritical and fictitious monastic services. All such things certainly are done away with by this one saying of Christ, “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). Therefore, the vows themselves and the observances of meats, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals, girdles are useless services in God’s sight. All godly minds should certainly know that the following opinions are simply pharisaic and condemned: (a) these observances merit the forgiveness of sins, (b) we are regarded righteous because of them, (c) we receive eternal life because of them, and not through mercy because of Christ. The holy people who have lived this kind of life must have learned—having rejected confidence in such observances—that they had the forgiveness of sins freely. They must have learned that for Christ’s sake through mercy they would receive eternal life, and not for the sake of these services. God only approves services set up by His Word, which are of benefit when used in faith.