Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 245 ing, the “dignity” or glory of Him to whom alone glory belongs and in whom alone it is lawful to glory, they would claim for themselves that which belongs to God alone. And what greater insult to God can be done ? Now ’ * glorias in the plural number it is not unusual for Peter to use for the dignity or glory of God. For in I. Pet. i., 11, we read “when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory [gloria] that should follow.” For how could it be that Peter, forgetting himself, should now mean by “dignities” those arrogant elders whom he had chided in the earlier epistle? But the words following show the same thing, nay, the whole body of this chapter shows it, as I have said. For Peter is aiming at nothing else than preventing men from arrogating the divine to themselves and selling human wares for divine. How much that helps your side, ye may look to, yourselves.
XXX. It is of little consequence if those who are devoted to the Gospel suffer some hunger for it, so be it that they desire to be filled. For that woman of Samaria who had spoken with Christ at the well did some good unto her fellow-townspeople when, suddenly brought to admiring wonder at him [John iv., 7], she desired that her people also should have a share in the thing, and summoned them from the town for the purpose, that they might themselves hear Christ, who were yet men and eminent for knowledge while she was simple and hungry for the Word. But having received the food of the Word, she was perhaps herself superior, yet she grudged it not to others. How much of the Gospel food ye have in your store-houses is not clear, yet ye wish to seem so full that ye can belch it forth upon others. Indeed, as far as I can see, you have not up to now allowed unto others any knowledge of the Gospel teaching. But you seem to speak of everything rather vaguely, and if you deny this (as you will be right in doing) you cannot then deny that it is I alone you are aiming at.
XXXI. The traditions of the men of old deserve to be regarded with the more reverence, the more they are in
246 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli conformity with the Gospel. But what do you call the traditions of the ancients? Those which the greed of certain individuals has recently devised? You will say, “No.” Why do you not then present distinctly by name the traditions that you are trying so hard to have kept? Thus I, who am so in need of the heavenly food, and those like me, can see plainly which are to be retained and which let go. Please mention them all, whether of early or recent date, that the sore spot may be laid bare to the physician. For here seems to be the point in our ailment where it stings and is especially inflamed.
XXXII. Amen, if only you mean the Church of Christ and the bishops who are really bishops and not [John x., 8] thieves and robbers, but installed according to the rule of Paul to Timothy and Titus.
XXXIII. Here, unless it were now pretty well agreed by all that this whole thing was made at your instigation, you would expose our most kindly bishop to being laughed at in that you represent him as speaking with full confidence because prepared to render an account of his flock, though that I suspect is the lot of none besides him who said, “Father, of those that thou gavest me I have not lost one” [cf. John xvii., 12]. Yet I could wish that, since you have taken so much time to get it up, you had done the whole thing a little more carefully, and did n’t turn about so absurdly now to threats and now to entreaties, now weaving a veil of human tradition over the Gospel, now letting the Gospel go altogether and advocating only human, tradition. You may be laughed at by the crowd as a certain bishop is laughed at all about to-day who eniaKonei [watches] over a flock within the diocese of our most Reverend Lord of Constance. For in his continued but vain struggles against a certain learned and truly pious preacher, he finally went so far in madness as to venture to say before the general crowd, even pouring out crocodile tears the while: “The difference between a real bishop to whom the sheep have been entrusted and him to whom the sheep have not been
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 247 entrusted is that this fellow can even lead the sheep astray as he will and is not forced to give an account of his leading them astray, because he is not their shepherd, while on the contrary I, who am the lawfully appointed bishop, am compelled to give such an account of your sins, O my sheep, that though ye sin, not ye have to give an account yourselves, but I.” And this view he supported by the words of Ezekiel [iii., 18], though he looked at them somewhat awry, for he left out this part — “The same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” And when the crowd heard this mistake, they began to laugh and to say, “Bravo, good shepherd, who hast made us safe today!” But these things and things like them are not stumbling blocks of offence and error, and do not savour of heresy and impiety, oh no! Why? Because the servant who smote Christ in the face before Annas did no wrong [John xviii., 22], for he could not sin, being on the side of the high priest.
XXXIV. This that you quote from the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy, what has it to do here? There the question is about judgments, and in your view also the old law has been abolished as far as it has to do with ceremonials and judgments. What have ye to do with the Sacred Writings, which ye take into your hands so inappropriately, not to say clumsily? How much better it would have been not to touch these weapons of Achilles, which drag your untrained selves to destruction rather than help you in fighting, and to stay within the palisade ! But if you maintain with all possible vigour that the thing concerns me, I will say, how do I not listen to the bishops? Nothing is easier, since they say nothing.
XXXV. Thank God that at last you grant even this to unhappy mortals, that the Gospel be preached to them. I should think you ought to have put this in at the beginning, and that you would have begun in this way: Since, then, the Gospel of Christ has been approved by Holy Mother Church, and our predecessors long ago directed in their sacred Canons and synodal Statutes that it be preached.
248 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli it is our will and strict command and charge that every pastor or people’s priest have a copy of the marginal notes of Guillerin of Paris, ’ and that from this every Sunday he expound to the people under our authority the Gospel according to the text, with a loud voice so that he can be heard. For once, if I remember rightly, I saw some bishop’s synodal Statutes written in about this fashion, before I was anointed with the holy ointment. But you have kept this till towards the end, imitating certain rhetoricians, who bid one to keep the special points for the end of the speech that they may cling the faster. But if this had fallen out, would it not have been lawful to preach the Gospel? See into what a situation your affairs and words and notions have got! How neatly I could put my finger here upon your sore point; but I do not want to, lest some of its rottenness should touch the Most Reverend Lord of Constance.
XXXVI. I cannot understand in what sense you think the statement ought to be taken that without unity of the Church there can be no Gospel. For during the time^ when the doctrine of Arius had infected almost the whole Christian world, so that those who were on his side not only were called opdoSo^oi [orthodox], but were so powerful that they outlawed all the best people whose view of Christ was really sound, there was a Gospel, I take it, for both sides rested their case on it, and yet there was a tremendous split in the Church. Therefore there can be a Gospel along with a split in the Church. Here I know whither you would like to seek refuge, but you will be caught there, namely, that there is no Gospel for those whose views are unsound. Therefore Anastasius and Liberius, ^ though Roman Pontiffs, had no Gospel, because they agreed with Arius, Whose was the Gospel then? The Church’s. Therefore there can be a Church with sound views, and this Church can have the
‘Properly Guilielmus (Guillermus) of Paris (fl. c. 1485), a Dominican. ’ The fourth century.
3 Anastasius was pope 398 to 401 ; Liberius, 352 to 366. Their Arianism was very doubtful.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 249
Gospel, even if it has no Roman Pontiff. But what can be more absurd than this according to the teachings and ordinances of men? But, not to nin outside the subject, see how clearly I can divine that you had reference to that remark of Augustinus, to which all who exalt human traditions above the Gospel flee as to the protection of the shield of Telamon, “I should not believe the Gospel unless the Church had approved the Gospel.”’ Here I appeal to your sense of justice: tell me frankly whether you do not think that this remark of Augustine’s was a trifle reckless or escaped him unawares. For suppose Augustine had never lived : there would still have been a Gospel, as the glad tidings of God’s grace, there would still have been the covenant which God in his grace had entered into with the miserable race of man, and the same would have been true if, after he was born, Augustine had never believed it. Did any one before Augustine hold this view? Certainly not, for there is no record of it. Since the approval of the Church has not yet been spoken of distinctly enough, hear this further: Historians tell us that Matthew first committed the Gospel to writing eight years after Christ’s ascent into heaven, because the necessities of the situation demanded it. Up to that time they had preached it from memory with only the aid of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Tell me, pray, what Church stamped the Gospel with approval then, and whose Gospel? Was it that which they all had in their memories? Country bumpkins! The Gospel could waver, therefore, and go wrong, after the manner of human things. Or was it the Gospel inspired by the Holy Ghost that had been sent by the Father and Christ? But it were impious if we said that that which God himself directs has need of human sanction. It remains, therefore, that Augustine uttered those words with more force than discretion, or else
’ In his Contra epistolam Manichaus quam vacant Fundamenti, chap, v., ed. Vienne, 1891. Corpus eccle. Latin., xxv., 191 ^., p. 197, 1. 22. English trans, in Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, iv., 131 : “For my part I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
250 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli that he would never have believed if he had heard that the Gospel was preached before it had been written down. For no man had then stamped it with approval, much less any general council. Here you concoct as answer, that it appears from the beginning of Luke that some approval had been given by the Church, for he tells us that many had tried to write down the Gospel [Luke i., i, etc.]. This last I readily admit, for otherwise he would have said, “Matthew and Mark tried to write down EvayyeXiov [the Gospel] before me.” But of those many since no Gospels exist it appears that they were rejected as not having been written with perfect faithfulness. Therefore four Gospels have been approved by the Church. I say to all this that I am very much surprised that while it is clear that “approve” should be understood here as “accept,” some people are still so blind as to think that the Gospel would have had no existence, if it had not obtained the sanction of the fathers. The fathers did nothing but cut off from the original and genuine accounts the ocnoupvcpa and voda, that is, those which came from an unknown or a false source. And something not so very different from this we see going on even now. When some Hercules strives to clear away the filth that has been dragged into the abode of the Gospel by certain vicious idlers, he is said not to approve the Gospel, but to rescue it and, like faithful Abraham, to bring it back from captivity in the enemy’s country, to dig out the wells that had been loaded with rubbish by the Philistines \cj. Gen. xxvi., 15]. For how could it be that the divine should get its sanction from the human? Or how were it not the height of impiety to think that which (in the language of proverbs) sprang from the mouth not of man but of God, not valid unless it had received the approval of human ignorance? So we see it in the heathen poets; they make all the promises of all the gods invalid to which Jupiter had not nodded approval with that terrible brow of his. But Christ himself says [John v., 34], “But I receive not testimony from man, ” and a little later, ” But I have greater witness than that of
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 251
John” [John v., 36], and again, “I receive not honour from men” [John v., 41]. Add to this what your own Canons teach [i, q. marcion. ’], that the Gospel consists not in the words of the Scriptures, but in their sense; not in the outside, but in the pith; not in the leaves of the language but in the root of its spirit. Again, imagine some one deodidauTov [taught of God], as Paul was, who did not learn the Gospel from man; imagine some one enlightened in his heart from above and feeling comfort that no one can deny that his is a Gospel, will it wait to be a Gospel until the fathers have stamped it with approval? So learn at last that it is a Gospel when God deigns to illuminate a man freely with His grace, to draw him to Himself, and comfort him and make him at peace and free from all taint of sin. And when the poor man perceives it, no wonder he leaps with joy and exultation at the new and inspired message, and Paul gives his approval to this idea [Rom. i., 16] — The Gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that belie veth.” Go now and say that the Gospel borrows its sanction from an assemblage of men, and if you say it, I know not how you will escape the brand of blasphemy. See meanwhile, also, how hard it is to put out from the hearts of men such long accepted opinions, even when false or erroneous. See, too, how crude a performance it is to patch together words however they have come into your head, as those words of yours are patched without any sort of learning— “only let it not remove any man from the fold and unity of the Church, without which there can be no Gospel.”
XXX VH. That Christ is one, that, again, the Church founded upon a rock by the voice of the Lord is one, who will deny? Yet there are those who differ about the rock, some holding that it was a fisherman, others that it was the Creator of fishes and of all creatures. And which side judges the matter more soundly and correctly, even a slave will
’ Corpus iur. can., canon 64, causa i, questio i.
252 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli easily decide, to say nothing of CEdipus, ’ because the words of Christ seem to point to his saying that he is himself the rock on which he is going to build the Church. For when he had called Peter by this name from “petra, ” a rock [Matt, xvi., 18], saying “Thou art Peter,” if he had meant that Peter was the foundation stone of the Church he would not have gone back to the primitive word and said, “And upon this rock I will build my Church,” but would have stopped with the name Peter in this way: “Thou art Peter, upon whom I will build my Church.” As it is, in going back to the TtpoDTOTVTtov [primitive word], he makes it apparent that he meant himself by the rock upon which he would build his Church, as if he had said : ” I, O Simon, for this full confession of my godhead will give to thee a name conformable to this confession, and from me, who am the rock (for Christ was the rock [I. Corinth, x., 4]), thou shalt henceforth be called Peter. And let not that name seem hard or rough to thee. This rock from which thou receivest thy name is the foundation stone of the Church.” Besides, the agreement of the men of old to this interpretation is unanimous. Now the “seat” which you bring inhere, I am inclined to think is nowhere spoken of in connection with this matter in the sacred writings, though I know well enough that mention is made of seats once or twice in the Gospel, as when Christ overthrew “the seats of them that sold doves” [Matt, xxi., 12], and when he upbraided the scribes and Pharisees for sitting unw^orthily in Moses’ seats [Matt, xxiii., 2], but these passages are very unfavourable to your proposition. But if you mean that seat before which we shall all stand to give an accounting, I easily grant that as God is one, so is the throne one, where Christ is sitting on the right hand of God [Col. iii., i], to which the same Apostle urges us to hasten with confidence, saying [Hebr. iv., 16], “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” If,
‘Allusion to Terence, Andria, i., 2, 23, v. 194. “Davus sum, non Oedipus,” meaning “I am no riddle solver.”
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 253 again, you wish to be understood as speaking of the seats of men, nothing seems farther from the truth, for there are as many seats and chairs as there are banquet halls and courts and market-places. Even if I wished to deny that there are one altar and one priesthood, Paul would refute me [Hebr. xiii., 10], “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle,” and [I. Corinth, ix., 13], where he constantly speaks of only one altar. In the matter of the priesthood he would also confute me [Hebr. vii., 11], where he clearly proves that the old priesthood had been handed on to Christ, whom above [ch. iv.] he called the great apxieftpa, that is, the highest priest (for the name “pontifex, ” pontiff, certain idolaters also used, whence I should like it better if we had taken the Greek name in its place), nay, by many arguments he established that Christ would be forever the dp^iepea or High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.
XXXVIII. Believe me, no prophecy of Orpheus himself is truer than that he that gathereth not unto Christ, spreadeth abroad, scattereth, wasteth [Matt, xii., 30].
XXXIX. That you should here again have spouted with incautious excess, I put up with only so far as to enable you to see how many absurdities will rise up against the Canonical Law of which you are, I believe, the champions, if what you propound in these words shall be accepted as valid. “False and impious and sacrilegious is whatever is set up by the favour of man to the injury of the order of the Church. ” Therefore, impious, false, and sacrilegious are those who maintain that the Roman Pontiff is the great high priest, the universal bishop, because the Church forbade any attempt at that in the African Council Di. 99 primae sedis.’ It is false, impious, and sacrilegious that the suburban bishops whom we call suffragans and some call imitation bishops, do not distribute the bread of the heavenly word to the churches entrusted to them, because that is the especial, nay, the only function of a bishop, and one
’ Corpus iur. can., c. 3, Dist. xcix.
254 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli who neglects to fulfil it is called a shameless dog 2. q. 7. He who neither — . ^ I pass by the directions of Christ who, in sending his disciples into the harvest, gave them no other command than to preach the Gospel to every creature [Mark xvi., 15]. I pass by Paul who says that he was sent, not to baptise, but to spread the Gospel [I. Cor. i., 17]. It will be false and impious and sacrilegious for priests to engage in warfare, because they should not mingle in mundane matters, according to the warning to which the whole subject of the third book of Decretals is devoted.^ Yet you see even bishops in our days steeping themselves in their cups as much as the Leon tines did, following after pleasures as much as the Crotonians, and in their tables surpassing even the Jews. That bishop will be false and impious and sacrilegious, who has rich and ostentatious furniture, such as we see them with in our days, even surpassing kings. For this was forbidden in the Council of Carthage Di. 41. A Bishop — .^ It is false and impious and sacrilegious if a bishop acts as umpire in mundane matters, because he does differently from what the order of the Church prescribes II. q. I. You, now — .”• Yet the money lenders to-day get their interest through no judges so successfully as through the bishops. It is false and impious and sacrilegious that the imitation bishops charge for the blessing of vestments and altars and shrines almost bushels of money, because that is forbidden in many places in the Canonical Law. Any bishops who forbid the priests to marry are false and impious and sacrilegious according to that formula of yours, because the Church once ordered that a bishop should be husband of one wife, according to the deliverance of Paul to Timothy and Titus dist. 26, passim, 5 and the Council of Gangra forbids one to scorn a wife under pretence of religious scruples 28. dist. c. If any one, — and If any one decree — . ^ What-
’ Corpus iur. can., c. 32, c. ii., qu. 7. s Jbid., 1-5, Dist. xxvi.
» Ibid., Decretal. Gregori. IX., Lib. iii., Tit. 50.
3 Ibid., c. 7, Dist. xli. ’ Ibid., c. 14-15, Dist. xxviii.
*Ibid., 29, Catisa xi., qu. I.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 255 ever bishop exacts more than the two soldi which they call “cathedral” money is, by this definition of yours, impious and false and sacrilegious, because a decree was passed 10. q. 3, “This you — ”,’ and there it was forbidden that more than has been mentioned be exacted from the parish priests. Time would fail me if I tried to gather together all the absurdities that would spring from this doughty principle of yours if it be not invalidated. Yet I beg you meanwhile to reflect how illusory and feeble those things are which are devised by a man however wise, if they be not according to the rule of the divine will and Scriptures. And this, if you will excuse me for saying so, has come upon you often, here and in other parts of this admonitory document. For when a little while before you had brought forward the words of Christ [Matt, xii., 30], “He that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad,” I began to look with eager attention to see whether you were getting ready to try to urge me, as you ought, to direct all my efforts more vigorously and strongly towards Christ. But it proved to be far otherwise. For, as I think, you brought the words in simply to support this aB,ioo}xa [principle] of yours, and how well you did it, I fancy is sufficiently clear from what I have said. Yea verily, I beg of you by the gods, what do you think is blasphemy, pray, if it does not seem to you blasphemy to attribute to a created being that which belongs to God, to argue, or rather to trifle, in this way? — Christ said, “He that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad,” and then, not so much for the sake of satisfying one’s desires as of showing them forth, to append “False and impious and sacrilegious is whatever is set up by the favour of man to the injury of the Church.” Who does not see your sore point now ? For while in your earlier remarks you always coupled the Gospel or the Gospel teaching or Christ or the Lord or the mastery of the Gospel with your traditions, here at last pain forces you to leave off any such covering. Who does not see whence these groans and sighs emanate ?
’ Corpus iur. can., c. 4, c. x., qu. 3.
XL. In saying ’ ’ non deiicere et impugnare dictat ratio, etc.” for “deiciiendas et impugnandas esse, nature does not dictate this sudden casting off with hostile violence, etc.,” you indulge in a Greek construction, and with such you have about as much to do, as a jackdaw with a harp. I come back to the subject. The traditions of our predecessors, as I said a little while ago, we all look upon with the more reverence the more they savour of the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, and the farther they are removed therefrom, the less we accept them. But as to myself, I have done and shall continue to do unmoved the exact opposite of what you accuse me of. For, to speak for the sake of illustration, when the sheep entrusted to me heard of the ordinance of excommunication established by Christ [Matt, xviii., 17], “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, etc.,” they began presently to argue with me, saying, “Then if one does not sin he cannot be excommunicated. For a law is not to be understood in any other sense than what accords with the intent of the lawgiver.” And if I had not wrestled with them with the most urgent entreaty not to make any ill-considered disturbance, they would have cast off the bonds of excommunication on the spot. I am speaking of that excommunication by which we are excommunicated for a debt acquired by a loan or contract or in any other way. By this illustration you can see how fairly or unfairly I am considered a peacemaker or a sower of discord, when by pious prayers only I drive into line those who know that they are not bound by divine law to stay there, who might without harm to their consciences resist, partly because they confidently trust the divine promises, partly because they rely upon the freedom of their country and fear not every wind that blows. Hundreds of times I have said openly : ” I beseech you by Jesus Christ, by our common faith, not to make any change rashly, but to show to all men by your endurance, if in no other way, that you are Christians, in that, on account of the weak brethren, you bear things that by Christ’s law you do not need to bear. ”
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 257
XLI. Here you are caught by your own tracks, O Shrewmouse, ’ when, changing that number which alone is becoming to our Most Reverend Lord and which alone he has been in the habit of using, you come down to the singular and say, “For I do not admit that those people should here be listened to.” For you never would have done this, unless you had meant to show by this mark that you were the author of this hasty ^ effusion, just as the reported maker of the shield of Pallas worked in an image of himself so cleverly at the top of the shield, that if it were erased or removed the shield itself would fall apart. But to draw your portrait more distinctly, so that you cannot think yourself unknown, I will say, you are he who once talked over many things with me privately, ^ and on another occasion you so far forgot yourself as to say that speech was a bodily exercise. For I remember the words still. And when all who were there laughed at you, ye gods, with what a labyrinth of words you tried to uphold the statement! How you contracted your brow and with what an angry look you tried to dispel the laughter! Yet to this extent I congratulate you that you are so great (in your own estimation at least) that even the good respect your anger, albeit influenced more by politeness than by your frown. I bid you, therefore, whoever you are, to refrain from the false charges with which you have been soothing your soul, and cease struggling so senselessly and obstinately against the revival of Christianity, or rr}v Xeovrffv [the lion’s skin] will be stripped off you rather roughly, and you will repent when it is too late. Be it enough to have been pardoned three times. No one will be able to endure much longer your hiding yourself, like a cuttle-fish, in your own inky blackness. The good and also learned will at length seize their brushes and paint you in your true colours. But things will be all
’ Reference to the Vicar-General Johannes Faber.
»0r is it a misprint for “delightful” (which he uses elsewhere) — festinse for festivae? — H. P.
sZwingli writing to Beatus Rhenanus on October 12, 1520, alludes to this visit of Faber {Werke, n. e., vii., 354).
258 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli right, if you return to wisdom, or at least cease making up charges and stirring up our most pious bishop. Therefore, I urge you to come to yourself. For so far is it from my intending to yield to your attacks that I pray that, if I ever have to fight, I may have no other foe than you, though, on the other hand, I shall set no small value on your friendship, if you will take on again a spirit worthy of you. Now I will return to the question.
XLII. Who is so dull as to hold the same opinion in regard to the Apostles and to false apostles? From whom has this been heard among those who at this time are treating the teaching of Christ simply and sincerely? From no one surely except those who have set up their own abomination in the place of God. These are they who venture to spout things like these — “Who, pray, were the Evangelists? Who the Apostles? Were they not men? They could slip then, and go wrong and be mistaken. The Spirit of God is ever the same and can inspire some Thomas ’ in the latter days as well as the Sauls and Simons in the beginning.” As if the Evangelists had handed down their own notions to us, after the fashion of your crowd, and did not assign to Christ alone all that they did, and write only what he did and what he taught. As if the Apostles had loaded the people with burdens like those of the false apostles. The Apostles preached the teachings of Christ in all their purity, for they raised the consciences cast down with terror at their sins up to good hope through the word of Christ which cannot deceive. To-day certain persons preach human ravings most wantonly, and try to frighten minds truly free, teaching that there is sin where there is no sin, and most cruelly murdering the soul. The Apostles taught that the Son of God out of pure generosity did not so much pardon the sins of all as give himself up as an expiatory offering for all. The false apostles preach to-day that no sin is so slight that it does not need to be washed out by human reparation. Peter suffered not that Cornelius should think him anything
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 259 more than man, saying “Stand up ; I myself also am a man. ” [Acts X., 26.] The false apostles demand almost divine honours, and like Domitian suffer themselves to be called Lord God. The Apostles taught men only to recognise the grace of God, and its fulness brought to them through Christ. The false apostles cease not to shove upon the shoulders of men heavy and unbearable burdens, and compel them to buy off their wrongdoings for money as if they were merchandise, or, if there is no money, with clothing and food and drink or even their hearthstones. They spare not the orphan nor the widow. They must have money in any case, for they say God cannot be appeased without it. Go now and declare that the teaching of the Apostles can fall into such suspicion as that of the false apostles. As if any one were so stupid as not to see plainly what has been freely transmitted to us from the divine goodness by the Apostles, and what on the other hand has proceeded from human greed through hypocrisy.
XLIII. By general councils I do not know whether you wish the four to be understood which certain persons teach should be taken on the same footing as the Gospel, or all such councils. If the former, I should not want to detract at all from their value, though I cannot see how it is right to wish them regarded as of equal authority with the Gospel. Let those see to this who proclaim the doctrine. If you mean all general councils, I will ask you whether you hold that all should be held authoritative and kept with scrupulous care. If you say “Yes, ” I beg you to explain this difficulty, whether we must side with those who, according to di. 25, 26, 28, and 29,^ have decided that a bishop should be husband of one wife, or with those who at the suggestion of evil spirits forbid his marriage. Shall we not have to go back to Scripture here? For John bids us not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits, whether they are of God [I. John iv., i]. But by what touchstone shall we try them other than that which has become the head of the comer
’ Corpus iur. can., Dist. xxv., xxvi., xxviii., xxix.
[Ps. cxviii., 22; Matt, xxi., 42; Mark xii., 10], which was rejected of men, but chosen of God? He says that chastity cannot be required of a man unless it be given him from above. Therefore the Scriptures will be above the councils. For where the councils are at variance with each other there is no other way than by the Holy Scriptures of deciding which council comes nearer to the Scripture standard. And this method was always adopted by the men of old. And those Canons which are in harmony with the Scripture (for this alone is free from the possibility of deceit, as your own decrees hold di. 9. c. “I — ”) ’ will, of course, have to be accepted, and those not in such harmony will have to be rejected. I ask, I say, whether we ought now to obey the council which permits marriage to bishops or that which refuses it. You will say, no doubt, “That which refuses it, ” But I oppose to this the Synod of Gangra which pronounces anathema against him who holds that it is not lawful for a bishop to marry, and if you try it by the touchstone of the Gospel, the Gospel confirms this and Paul assents to it. If therefore this is to be done away by violent human ordinance, is not the divine forced to yield to the human? And what more dreadful abomination than this can be found? As if we wanted to patch up the divine with the human and so make complete what was imperfect before. For this is what you maintain, O jueXavovpe [black fish]. I am going to direct my remarks solely to you now. You once said (you know where yourself) that Christ [John xvi., 12] said, ” I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now, ” for the purpose of reserving some parts of his testament to be afterwards spread abroad by Thomases and Scotuses. Hear what an impious thing it was to say: The Apostles were sad because they had heard that one of their own company should betray Christ, and because, though they had listened to his divine sayings, many of them had not sunk into the depths of their minds, for their sorrow prevented, when they heard the list of the evils to
’ Corpus iur. can., C. 5, Dist. ix.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 261 come upon them. Therefore, they heard many things to no purpose, and when Christ observed this, he preferred to put off the explanation of some things till the coming of the Holy Ghost, that he should make more intimately known to them the things they had not understood, and should refresh their memory of what he had said. For he had said [John xiv., 26] ’ ’ he shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” So, here you have the word “you,” that is, the Apostles, of course, not Thomases, Scotuses, Bartholuses, Balduses. ’ He added afterwards those words which you quote from chapter xvi., and distort to the detriment of the truth. For having said, “I have yet many things to say to you,” to you Apostles, I say, he added: “Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come , he will guide you into all truth ’ ’ [John xvi .,13]. ” You he said, not “some,” disciples of Aristotle rather than of Christ. But if the truth cannot lie, as it cannot, then the Holy Ghost guided you into all truth, O Apostles, so that you should understand more clearly the things that you had not thoroughly taken in before, and should boldly enter upon things which otherwise you would never have dared to begin, and should foretell under his inspiration things which no man knew were to happen. He made clear, then, to the Apostles by the guide of the Spirit, as he had promised, those things which they had not been able before to bear or understand. You see again how unfortunate you are when you turn over the Scriptures. I advise you to do nothing for some time but study carefully the way the learned treat them, and not take them into your hands on any point without a guide. Otherwise it may easily come about that you fall into some great and fatal bliinder.
’ Bartolus, born at Sassoferrato, in the Mark Ancona, Central Italy, 1313; died in Perugia, 1359, where he has a magnificent tomb in the church of San Francesco. He was the most famous of the dialectical school of jurists, and taught in Perugia University.
Baldus de Ubaldis, born 1319, 1324, or 1327, at Perugia; died at Pavia, 1400 or 1406. He was the most famous pupil of Bartolus, and taught in Bologna, Perugia, Pisa, Padua, and Pavia.
But that you may see how thoroughly worthless those things are that we fashion with a notion of offering something better than the divine, I will put things to you thus: That the New Testament is the most excellent that God is ever likely to bestow upon the race of man, you do not, I think, deny. If you deny it, read chapter viii. of Paul to the Hebrews, or rather the whole Epistle, and you will soon be ashamed of your denial. Now if Christ gave us that in incomplete form, he was evidently far inferior to Moses, who so thoroughly completed the Old that he forbade that anything be added or taken away [Deut. iv., and xii.]. Furthermore, if what was lacking was not added until the boggy utterances of Durandus^ and the dicta of Scotus, the earlier generations had it in incomplete form until about the last three hundred years. The Apostles transmitted it unfinished, Christ, the Son of God, equal and like unto the Father in all respects, transmitted it unfinished. And what more blasphemous than that can be said? Yet they say nothing else who, under this pretext, as I have said, make human traditions equal or superior to the divine law, or maintain that they are necessary for salvation. Therefore they are blasphemous towards God, towards the Apostles, and towards the Fathers whom they champion with such zeal. But that you may understand me still better, listen. If without certain decretals of the councils, or the opinions of certain Sophists, one cannot be saved, then the Apostles were not saved, and the first fruits of the Christians were certainly not saved. For they did not have these decretals, they did not have these opinions, which are hardly yet clearly set forth. See whither you are taking yourself or rather whither truth is pushing you. Hence, in fact, our whole battle to-day is nothing but what Christ mentions in Luke [xvi., 14 ff.], “And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided him. And he said
’ Bishop of Meaux, twenty-eight miles east of Paris. He was the chief representative of the Nominalists. He was born at St. Pourgain, eighty-five miles north-west of Lyons, about 1275; died at Meaux, 1334.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 263 unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men : but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. ” Expound this passage to me, good Brother. You will doubtless find that we worship God in vain with the teachings and commandments of men. For a Christian ought to be “dead from these rudiments” and ought not to set up ordinances, since they are of no value [Colos. ii., 20]. Who, therefore, will not look with reverence upon any councils, pray, if they are in conformity with the divine law? Yet it seems to me that those have the better opinion who say, “If the councils are in conformity with the divine law, what need is there of crediting them with what they have simply worked over, instead of crediting the Holy Scripture itself, which, according to Christ’s words, has the greater testimony? For the testimony of God is greater than the testimony of man, so that even the testimony of John the Baptist yields to it [John v., 36]. But if the councils contradict the divine law, who will not presently bring forward that saying of the Apostle, “we ought to obey God rather than men”? [Acts v., 29.] Therefore, we. ought to be constantly on our guard lest something be set up some time that does not exactly square with the heavenly truth, which presents itself so simply that it can be easily grasped, and is so transparent and clear that it needs not to “receive honour from men” [John v., 41]. Therefore this is the one guide and master necessary to settle anything that may have come into dispute. Let them have done, therefore, who think that in these days any disagreement which arises among Christians as to the authority of Scripture can be settled by the councils of certain blind bishops, without doing all things under the lead of Scripture alone, which proceedeth from God and not from human desires. And by Scripture I mean not the letter which kills but the spirit that giveth life. I greatly fear, however, that what follows shortly after the words of Christ quoted above can be said of some of these people, namely, “But I know you, that ye have not the love of
God in yourselves.”^ You all, for I now come back to the whole group of you advisers, have the greatest reason to fear that those words may be justly applied by somebody to the Most Reverend Hugo, namely, that under your instigation he seems to love his coffers better than Christ, and to be looking out for wealth rather than salvation. But he will undoubtedly do the latter if you urge him to favour before all things the making the divine will and purpose as clear as possible to all men by the preaching of the Gospel. For in this way you will make his name worthy of heaven and immortality. But, wretched me! Why do I waste my labour and materials ? ^ As if what pinches you through the whole course of your remarks were not clearer than light even to the purblind, though you imagine that you conceal it so nicely! The Most High God grant that the clouds may be scattered at last and that you may see the clear light ! Amen. And may you not continue to force our excellent bishop to limp with both feet! Amen. But may you suffer him to run up rightly and without offence in the way and the law of God, untrammelled by the burden of human traditions! Amen and Amen.
XLIV. With regard to those who are commended to us as much by their lives as by their teaching, read your sacred Canons di. 9. c. “I — . ”^ Thus you will find that in Augustinus’s opinion you ought to have unhesitating confidence in those only who are the authors of those Scriptures which are called Canonical (and these are those which are contained in the Bible) ; other writers you should read with the feeling that, however pre-eminent they are for learning and holiness, what they write is not true because they in their holiness and learning believed it, but because by the power of the Canonical Scriptures they were able to convince their hearers of the truth of what not they themselves but the Spirit of God breathing in their words approved. Lo, here you have the Scripture as master and teacher and
‘John v., 42. ^Plautus, Pmnulus, 332.
3 Corpus iur. can., C. 5, Dist. ix.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 265 guide, not the Fathers, not this misunderstood Church of certain people; and this you can read still more plainly a little farther on in the same di.” c. “He who does not know” — ^And meantime I want you to bear this in mind, that I make use of your Canons simply on your own account ; for you seem to have as much confidence in them as in the Gospel or the teachings of the Apostles or the entire Scriptures bestowed upon mankind together by the divine goodness. It is not because I or any one who trusts in the divine utterances can accept those Canons as weapons of attack, except so far as they are not at variance with the divine utterances. But what need will there then be of yielding to the Canons and not rather to the Holy Scriptures?
XLV. Why, pray, do ye cling so tenaciously to ceremonials? You yourselves say they are to be kept only for a time. To what time do you postpone their abolition? Do you think we ought to pay no attention to the divine goodness now calling us away from these ceremonials? Do you suppose that anybody will have the courage ever to take up war against them again, if the present splendid intellects fail? Or that those are going to get off unscathed who display not so much indifference as hostility to the now budding Christianity? Have ye no fear of Him who said [Matt, xi., 23]: ”And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell : for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you. That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee”? Have ye no fear, I say, that he will sometime threaten the peoples of Germany also, if they let the present opportunity pass? — And thou, Germany, whose stout and valiant heart I have drawn away from the uproars of war unto true piety, and have enriched with all manner of learning because thou hadst strength great enough for every sort of study, that thou mightest with learning and skill cleanse religion of the
^ Corpus iur. can., C. 8, Dist. ix.
266 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli foul stains that some have cast upon it, and mightest trumpet it forth in all its purity, shall thy glory be exalted unto the heavens for this that thou didst, to be sure, make a beginning, but failed to carry the work through? Nay, verily. Thou shalt be brought down to hell, because thou hast disregarded the light coming into the world. For there is no nation so barbarous that it would have stmk down in such inactivity, if such opportunities had been offered it to establish true religion upon a sound basis. But the judgment that shall fall upon the unbelieving citizens of Sodom shall be milder than that which falls upon thee, etc. Here again you see how your whole discourse is an attempt to draw away to some shadowy good those who have already learned to worship the Father in spirit and in truth. If ceremonials are to be kept for a time, they are to be done away with sometime. What hinders their being abolished now, especially as the world is looking for this and all the good and learned are moving in this direction? But you will say, Wait till the time when no doubt certain rvqiksnianonoi, [blind bishops] will suffer them to be done away with. Do ye think that those whose life is a drunken spree, whose god is their belly [Phil, iii., 19], whose mules and drinking cups, as well as their ceilings, are loaded with gold, are ever going to return to right feeling so far as to allow a thing to be done away with when that will lighten their plates and coffers? In that case we shall abolish without any trouble many things that contribute nothing to salvation, and though retained can never satisfy the insatiable desires of certain persons, unless they be lowered. Therefore, do cease crying out, “Ceremonials, ceremonials,” for ye wiU talk to deaf ears.
XLVI. Now for the first time we poor mortals learn that the Republic of Christ cannot exist without ceremonials, though it was never better off than at the time when there were the fewest possible ceremonials. We learn finally that the state cannot be carried on unless ipevdeTtiaKOTToi, [counterfeit bishops] purify the walls of the church with water and salt and ashes, grease the altars with holy oil,
Archeteles: Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 267 and dip the bronze of the bells in holy water. For if these things were neglected, all political order would fall to the ground, as if before these things were accepted cities had not been admirably governed. I do not deny, nay, I assert, that the teachings of Christ contribute very greatly to the peace of the state, if indeed they are set forth in their purity. But now that certain hypocrites have begun to care for their chests and not for Christ, I do not know whether anything could have happened more fatal to the cities. For how can it be that such things as these shall make for peace and quiet? — “We are the priests, you are the laymen: we are the learned, you are the ignorant: the keys are ours, the empty purses yours: it is for us to pass our days in leisure, for you to earn your bread by the sweat of your brow : you must be kept from adultery, we shall revel freely in every sort of lust : you shall pay tribute and taxes, we will soothe our leisure with your offerings : you shall keep watch and guard at night, we will snore on careless and free to high day: you shall keep off the foe from the town, our religion forbids us to free our countrymen from danger. ’ ’ I know what you are going to say to this, but pray be silent. Do not all these things belong to the ceremonials without which you say cities totter? But that Christianity which I advocate is adapted to all cities, obeys the laws and the magistrates of the nation, pays taxes to whom taxes are due, tribute to whom tribute is due, rates to whom rates are due. Under it no one calls any possession his own, all things are held to be in common ; every one is eager to outdo his neighbour in kindnesses, to exercise all gentleness, to share his neighbour’s burden, and relieve his need. For he regards all men as brothers, abhors blasphemy, embraces piety and helps it to grow among all. But why continue? It was an empty rather than a true statement, nay it was one of jealousy, that without the ceremonials cities and states would totter and fall, and it was made only for the purpose of rousing among the people hatred and resistance to the preaching of the Gospel. See how far from your style of speech the words of the false
268 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli witnesses against Stephen were [Acts vi., 13]. “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. ’ ’ Now I will add your words, “For thus all political order would fall to the ground.” What would follow, I leave you to consider.
XLVII. I do not deny that the things which have been decreed by the general consent of all should be observed, but by those who decreed them, and only when they have received really the consent of all, and how far this seems to yourselves true in the present case is made quite clear by what follows.
XLVIII. “Or at least acceded to.” From this term “acceded to” it appears that you mean things which certain people by the persistent use of their power have forced upon the simple body of Christians against their will and their remonstrances even. For after things came to such a pass that the Pontiffs declared themselves to be lords of all things, including the right to make laws at their own sweet will, and even claimed infallibility for themselves, what did they not venture to command? And, on the other hand, who was likely to court misfortune so far as to offer resistance, especially when the simple-minded crowd whom they vigorously oppressed, though not without the desire to rebel, yet did not dare to utter a murmur? Yet what is the use of refuting these things at length when it is clearer than light in these days of ours how that general consent came about or how the ceremonials were acceded to (to use your word)? For we see the things that you wish to make appear decreed by general consent cried out against by the crowd, and what you call accepted rejected. There you have your ” general consent ” and your “acceded to.” Almost the whole business was done by command, and that with a wanton persistency not dictated by the spirit of Christ. For to bring forward one example out of thousands, no one objects to pious prayers in the consecration of churches,
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 269 but no one approves of superstitious punctiliousness. Every one naturally abhors extortion, abhors your Canons, abhors the oaths taken. And now, when such vast sums of money are extorted for ceremonials of this kind, you say that general consent or acceptance has been accorded, when nothing is less true. I will tell you here a thing that happened a few days ago, that you may see how truly assent is given in the exaction of money for consecrating churches. A certain suffragan ’ dedicated a certain church ^ and several altars in it— I do not wish to mention any names — and demanded as the price of the dedication twelve Rhenish gold pieces for the church, ten for the churchyard, and five for each of the altars. Then a priest ^ of more than usual spirit came forward and opposed to the performance Christ’s words, “Freely ye have received, freely give” [Matt, x., 8], and said that the man was guilty of Simon’s curse who ventured to sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit or thought they could be sold [Acts viii., 20]. Then that suffragan frowned, and said, “For this reason I will not treat with you in many words, because I fear running the risk of simony; therefore I will not make any bargain with you at all. ” For thus the sacrilege would be incurred, to which they have given the name of simony from Simon the sorcerer. “But,” he continued, “I demand this amount of money of you, I do not bargain for it. ” So these poor people were forced to borrow twentysix gold pieces to pay that counterfeit bishop, in order, forsooth, not to fall into the sin of simony with him.”* Here you see clearly whether these burdens are acceded to or ordered. That counterfeit bishop preferred to command the money rather than to bargain for it. Go now, and say that things are acceded to which certain people have ventured to command with so much pride and arrogance. I
’ Melchior Fattlin. ’ That at Hettlingen in the canton of Zurich.
5 Jacob AeberH, also called Wagner, pastor of Neftenbach, of which church that of Hettlingen was a branch. These names are given by Finsler, in loco, p. 310.
’• The complaint of Faber about a similar matter of non-payment is given in EgU, Actensammlung, Nos. 459 (Dec. 15, 1523) and 541 (June 11, 1524).
270 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli could tell hundreds of other things worthy of a smile about that suffragan — things that he has done or said, puffing himself up before the simple farmers, but my practice forbids. Everything will sometime be brought out into the clear light, if those swindling lovers of darkness do not stop darkening the light.
XLIX. Those who model their teachings upon the pattern of the Scriptures cannot be said to teach according to the whims of their own feelings, but those who go to work without resting on the authority of the sacred writings, contrary to Paul’s directions to Timothy. For he gives him [II. Timothy iii., 14] the following admonition : “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them ; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Timothy had learned from Paul, and Paul from Christ, but both had been led by the same spirit into the knowledge of holy things. In these Paul bids Timothy continue, but they continue not in these, who according to what you say carry on this business as suits their own sweet will. They continue therein who eimpoalSpcog xai ddiaGndarisjg, that is, constantly and undividedly cling to them, in the same Paul’s words, knowing that all sacred Scripture was inspired by God, and is valuable for teaching, arguing, guiding, and for the discipline which is founded on righteousness, so that a man of God is perfectly finished and prepared unto every good work [II. Tim. iii., 15, etc.]. Those who give assent unto flesh and blood, regulate their teachings according to their own sweet will; those who give assent unto the spirit of God sweetly breathing from the Holy Scriptures and ever freshly blooming, regulate their teaching according to the thought and purpose of God. And He is by no means of recent origin, for the prophet called him the Ancient of days [Dan. vii. , 22] . They, therefore, who refer all things to His purpose, and examine all things by the standard of His thought, do not set up
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 271 a new standard, but go back to the old, old one, as Jeremiah also urges [vi., 16], “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. ” You see that rest will be found in the old standard, not in the new one, to which you cUng so obstinately, meanwhile accusing of innovations those who for this one thing alone urge war upon you and your likes, that they want to abrogate innovations too freely introduced and to restore the old by right of recovery, as it were. And this is lawful according to your own Canons [Dist. 9 “He who does not know — ”].’ There, to touch but briefly upon each point, you have put into the canon that ypacpi) deoTtvevffTog, that is, a Scripture inspired of God, is to stand forever unshaken, but things written by the bishops can be torn out not only by councils but by anybody of any learning, provided such writings contain anything at variance with the divinely inspired. I have determined, however, if God will and if He shall duly inspire me, to write a special book upon this subject, to wit, upon the force and the use of the Holy Scriptures. ^ For we often use the sacred words very perversely.
L. If every word from the beginning of the Gospel had rested upon the voice of the crowd, where, pray, would Christianity be now? The Apostles were very few. And the Popes, how many nations and kingdoms have they converted to Christ, and Christ comforts them and encourages them to do it boldly without any hesitation because of their small number [Luke xii., 32]. “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” I might uncover here the marked foolishness which lies hidden under your words. For who of the heathen philosophers was ever so dull as to prefer the opinion of the crowd to the opinion of the few, of the wise few, of course? And
’ Corpus iur. can., C. 8, Dist. ix.
‘Reference to his sermon on “Clearness and Certainty of the Word of God,” as his sermon which appeared on September 6, 1522, was called in the German. Gualther, in his Latin translation given in his edition of Zwingli’s works, calls it De certitudine et claritale verbi dei liber. _
272 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli what should we come to, if we rested to-day on the opinion of the crowd? Would it not be all up with you and with your teachings? Of so little moment ye think it whether ye spit out whatever comes into your head! I might treat you, I say, vastly less considerately and I have a right to, but I prefer to spare you, for I have a great hope that you will come back to yourselves and sing a palinode.
LI. “At least,” you add “when they are not inconsistent with the divine law.” Here I confess I do not understand you. If you are speaking of those midway things which in the view of the philosophers are neither good nor bad, why do you drag in such trifles here, where Christ’s work is the matter in hand? Again, what have you, who call yourselves the champions of Christianity, to do with those people ? He who gathereth not unto this , scattereth abroad. But how can you seem to gather unto Christ, when you gather unto that “which is at least not inconsistent with the divine law”? He that is not with Christ is against him. Therefore, if you are with these midway things, you are not with Christ. For Christ has nothing to do with the world. But if you wish to be understood as referring to laws which you admit are not of divine origin nor good, and which you yet say are not bad, what have you to do with such laws? Has any jurisdiction been entrusted to you over boundaries and aqueducts and rain water and neighbourhood rights? But even such ordinances I maintain have a sacred character when they correspond to the gauge of the divine will. Through their means justice can be administered and the peace secured which is Christ. Do ye think your real thought can still be hidden? Take away the treasure chambers and you will have done away with these enigmatical utterances. And I do not grant you that the treasure chamber is not inconsistent with the divine law, for it is contrary to love of one’s neighbour. For he is deceived by certain counterfeit rites, is plundered and stripped, while the hypocrites devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer. Read Matthew xxiii.,
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 273
14, and you will find what the nature of those things is which you declare to be not inconsistent with the divine law. But, thank God, you have got so far that the things you were a little while ago venturing to palm off as of God, you are now satisfied to call by this made up and unintelligible middle name — “things which are at least not inconsistent with the divine law,” Furthermore, not to discuss too long with you here, know that the whole law which you have undertaken to defend is holy. For, according to Paul’s authority, it proceeded from God [Rom. vii., 12], “wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Thus this fiction of yours about the things which are not inconsistent with the divine law amounts to nothing, for whatever is good proceedeth from God [James i., 17], “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.” Hence, if these things of yours proceeded from God, they are good. If they did not proceed from God, as, according to your own testimony, they did not, then they are bad. If ye are priests of Christ, proclaim the law of Christ, that is good, holy, and everlasting. If ye are preachers of vanities, why sit ye in the holy place? The things that have not proceeded from God, but from man, are bad. For the good is good only through one characteristic and source, to wit, that it is from God, the fountain of all good. Otherwise we should be obliged to admit several fountains of good. For, if anything good could come out of man or out of any created thing, then the created thing would be a fountain and source of good, and it would not be true that every good and excellent gift is from God or that all things have been given unto theSon of God by the Father.
LI I. When I came upon this beautiful comparison with the sailors, I wondered greatly where in the world you could have got it. And as I was thinking about it a certain learned gentleman who was there said that he had read much the same words in a collection of letters. Therefore, I beg of you, if this is the state of the case, return
274 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli the thing immediately, before you are branded with the mark of theft. But as to the matter itself, I readily agree that a difference is unpleasing to you which you see is Hkely to fall out to your loss, and that you very greatly desire that all your opponents should yield to you, and reasonably. For you are held in high esteem by the untutored rabble both for your titles of honour and the reputation for that learning which you have dnmk from the swamps of the Scotuses and Thomases. But, ah me, lend me your ear a moment. If you see a quarrel going on among the shipmasters, in whose number I take it ye are to be reckoned, why do you not yourselves yield? Is it because you think, as I have said, that all must yield to you and you to none? Or is it because you think you alone sail by the Pole-star, while everybody else is wandering all about the sky? But this would be pretty presumptuous and arrogant. For you also are men who can slip and go astray and be mistaken. But if you grant this, it were surely unfair to want everybody to yield to you unless you shall have first learned to yield to the Scriptures, and so the thing comes back to the Scriptures for decision, and if any one handles them properly he does not have to yield, as I have shown over and over again already. Therefore if I have anywhere handled the Scriptures improperly, you ought to have pointed that out. That you have never done, but all your remarks savour of that thing from the satire writer, “Such is my will and bidding. Be my pleasure reason enough.”^ On the other hand, if I have handled the Scriptures according to Christ’s intentions, it will be your business to yield, and to cease from wranglings and strife, as you say, and to lend both ear and mind to the advancement of reviving Christianity, and to suffer the iron sinews of your neck to be softened by receiving the yoke of the Lord. For if with brazen brow ye try to charge upon and throw down the brazen wall of which Jeremiah speaks [i., i8, and xv., 20],
’ Juvenal, Satires VI., line 223, where the text has hoc instead of the first
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 275 ye shall come upon a stone of offence, and if the stone shall fall upon you, it shall grind you to powder. Mark these things carefully, I beg. On most of them enough has been said above.
LIII. When you desire to reach ” some sort of ” a harbour, what, pray, do you mean by this expression “some sort of” except that there are many harbours, not one harbour only? Look to it yourselves whether this is a pious remark. I will not suggest that by this term of yours you are representing certain commonplace and despicable harbours. If you are people who may not be contradicted, come, show us a sure harbour and goal. But I know what your difficulty is. There is a discussion as to whether we ought to obey the divine or the human. Here you are between the devil and the deep sea, for if you say that the human ought to yield to the divine, the treasure chamber falls and vain titles fall ; if you say the divine ought to yield to the human, you fall yourselves into the depths of impiety. Why prolong the discussion? Did Christ come into this world to show us some sort of a harbour, and not a sure and safe one? Does he not say that man lives by the word of God and that he is worshipped in vain by the teachings and commandments of men? And when the Apostles said, “How can we know the way?” did he not reply, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”? [John xiv., 6.] If he is the way, why do ye not walk in him? If the truth, why do ye not trust in him? If the life, why do ye not seek life in him, instead of getting up “some sort of ” a harbour? I might quote hundreds of passages from the Gospel writings, to show the impiety of that expression, but I will sound the recall. The Gospel, those good and glad tidings of the grace of God, confers upon poor mortals this blessing above all others, that it leads them to a sure harbour of salvation, which otherwise is absolutely unknown. So much for that fine and modest “some sort of.”
LIV. Who is this one person? Is it Christ? But in him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”
[Col. ii., 3]. But he “of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” [I. Cor. i., 30.] Is it another such? I know no other God but this one only, though many, at the cost of salvation, receive Him not. Is it some man? Have no fear. As a little while ago, in regard to strife, I argued with you at length, to prevent your falling into the mistake of thinking that everything must be yielded to yourselves, so now I am minded to regard it as very unsafe to swear allegiance to any human master, however learned;’ For ”cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm!” Qer. xvii., 5.]
LV. If counsels are sounder they ought undoubtedly to be followed. But I rest not upon the counsels of men, but upon the purpose and will of God. For if we neglect His will knowingly we shall be beaten with many stripes [Luke xii., 47].
LVI. You said “councils” here for “counsels,” but I would not have you put down this criticism to a carping spirit. Your whole discourse is so incorrect and so hopelessly misspelled, that unless I had designedly covered over certain things, you would have become a laughing stock to every one of any sort of education. I am not sure, therefore, whether it was a slip or real ignorance that caused you to write “councils” for “counsels.” If you will examine this whole section carefully, you will find it bristling with solecisms.
LVII. Without loss of his soul no man disregards Christ. For ’ ’ he that is not with [Christ] is against [him] : and he that gathereth not with [him], scattereth” [Luke xi., 23], as I think you have heard by this time to the point of nausea. Now, no obstinate attempt is made to drag elsewhere but rather to Christ. For they drag elsewhere who call away from Christ to created beings. And further, those to whom a talent has been entrusted may not snore in idleness, but must labour with unremitting activity, that when the Lord
‘Horace, EpisL, [., i, 14.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 277 cometh and demandeth an accounting they may deserve to hear ’ ’ Well done, good and faithful servants, ’ ’ etc. In season and out of season must they be compelled to come in to the feast [Luke xiv,, 23], But since we have come to speak of this passage, to which certain persons [so Augustine] do violence, saying, “Lo, here we have Christ saying ‘compel them to come in’ ; therefore the unyielding must be overcome by force and authority,” I wish to rescue the passage from the continuance of this abuse. First, therefore, we see that a single servant was sent to compel them to the f eas . , Now how could it have been that one man should compel a vast number, if he was to attempt it by force and authority, as these people wish ? Secondly, no one tries to drive a person to a banquet or supper by violence. That would be exceedingly rude. Some people do, however, go so iinduly far in urging as unwittingly to tear one’s cloak by pulling, so that one of the commonest proverbial expressions among the Germans is “to rend one’s cloak.” Still all this is done in the name of friendship and not of authority, at least such as that with which this crowd hold up their heads. Friendship, to be sure has an authority of its own. Hence, I think, it is clear that in the above mentioned parable from Luke xiv., 23, “compel to come in” means nothing more than if you say, “Press them very urgently to come to the feast.” For it is not likely that he who said that his kingdom was not of this world, forgot himself here and commanded that unbelievers be forced to come to him by the use of authority and violence on the part of his servants, to the imending hatred of the bidders. It were rather as, in the last chapter of Luke, those two disciples whom he joined as they were going to Emmaus constrained him, urging him after the fashion of friends, and not with the violence with which the Jews had dragged him before the judgment seat. Now I come back to the path. Those who wander in the darkness must be persistently dragged to the light,, and compelled to come to the feast by words, not blows.. For this even the divine Paul holds [II. Timothy iv., 2j:
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. ” Do you hear with whom one must labour in season and out of season? Nor can you make the objection that there is no need of urging out of season in our day, for you see all wickedness standing on the brink, and everything ready to fall into the depths of impiety. For I call it the depth of impiety, when we are turned from God to created things, when we accept the human for the divine, disregarding or even scorning the divine, and yet I have so far seen no one who cried out against this wickedness as it deserves. Though ears be so tender that they fear to hear a stinging truth, nay, resist and cry out, yet are they not on this acount to be forever humoured. And the gainsay ers are to be vigorously convinced by the sound doctrine of the Gospel truth [Tit. i., 9].
LVIII. You think some allowance ought to be made for those who err with good intentions, and I think so too, if only the intention is good. It is an error with the best of intentions to think it unlawful to eat meat during Lent; it is an error with the worst of intentions not to point out to a Christian people the blessings that have been given unto them by God. For it is for this that we have received the spirit which is of God, not the spirit of the world [I Corinth, ii., 12]. For thus were the grace of God cast away or weakened [Galat. ii., 21]. Again, it is an error with the worst of intentions to say that if the chief Pontiff should bring down all souls to hell, yet could he not be deposed or punished; no man can even wink at errors like these and at the same time have good intentions. But as to the kind of errors you are talking about, to wit, the errors of ceremonials, hear what Paul says [Rom. xiv., i] : “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,” that is, take him in a pious spirit, deal
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 279 with him gently, teach him, do not deceive him with enigmatical doctrines. You have it here clearly stated that those who are weak ought not to be left in their weakness by those who are stronger, but ought to be received with pious teaching of the faith. Now whose duty do ye think this is? That of the more vigorous and more learned, no doubt, such as you are certainly thought to be by people in general. Therefore understand that it was your duty to fashion your discourse in this way: “O happy beings, to whom this great blessing is freely offered! For a time we were darkness, but now it is given us by the goodness of God to become light [cf. Eph. v., 8]. Ye have thought us learned, but if we had any learning it was imperfect and feeble, and that which was not wholly pure we did not venture to put forth for fear of evil results. Now that the truth is disclosing itself on all sides, take care not to miss it wherever it appears, and embrace it without dissenting voice, lest while some delay, and some obstruct, and some throw it away, it may be lost altogether, and your last state be worse than the first. For a neglected warning from God has ever caused great disaster, ’ ’ or something of this sort. As it is, when you cling so tenaciously to ceremonials and exert yourselves so in their defence, what do ye but hinder the truth? Be it said without malice. For by your own words ye weaken the power of ceremonials, and yet you champion preserving them till some indefinite time, though they might without any risk whatever be abolished simply by sound teaching. And they will be abolished all the same, though you struggle against it. Therefore, I advise you to do as they say Julius Caesar did, when he saw that he could not escape death. He took care to gather the edge of his garments about him that he might fall in a suitable manner. So should you now that you see ceremonials tottering and almost ready to fall, strive to cause them to fall as fitly as possible — that is, not let them hold on so obstinately. You should immediately see to it how light can most speedily be let into the place of shadows. So
28o The Works of Huldreich Zvvingli will poor mortals not only feel no grief at the loss of ceremonials, but greatly rejoice that they have found the light so long denied them. In short, if ye put new wine into old bottles, the bottles will break, nor can the garment of Christ, which hath no seam, receive a patch of fresh cloth [Matt, ix., 17].
LIX. That a universal error has the force of right I am not inclined to allow even to unbelievers, much less to Christians. For Christ could not bear that men should wander in error [Matt, ix., 36], and Peter congratulates us because a little while ago we “were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of [our] souls” [I. Pet. ii., 25]. And do you venture to take up again the defence of error, when even your own Canons cry out against it [di. 83’]? — “The error which is not objected to is approved, and the truth when not vigorously championed is crushed.” See whither your blind malice leads you, namely, to forgetting yourselves and your own teachings, and to embracing certain empty trifles that nobody of any intelligence can stand. But I do not want to brandish my pen at you here, however much you deserve it. For I think it is clear enough and to spare to everybody how feebly, not so say treacherously, you are defending your side and your doctrines.
LX, But what are these new doctrines? The Gospel? Why, that is 1522 years old. The teachings of the Apostles? Why, they are almost as old as the Gospel. Those of the patriarchs and the prophets? Why, these are even older than the Sibyl’s. Therefore, I beg of you to call things by their right names, so that we can be on our guard against these things that are so dangerous. But we shall do that in any case by this procedure. We shall try everything by the touchstone of the Gospel and by the fire of Paul. And when we find things in harmony with the Gospel, we shall keep them, when we find things not thus in harmony, we shall throw them out. Those who are thus deprived of
’ Corpus iur. can., C. 3, Dist. Ixxxiii.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 281 some of their ill-gotten gains may shriek as much as they like. We shall not listen to these Stentors, and shall pass with deaf ear by the Sirens. For “we ought to obey God rather than men” [Acts v., 29]. But what am I doing, as if it were not clear what doctrines you hold to be new?
LXI. How this word “to rule” the Church of God pleases you! In Acts xx., whence you quoted it, some commentators put it in for “to feed, ” with damage to the sense. For Paul speaks thus to the bishops of the Ephesians, “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood ” [Acts XX., 28]. Here you have the flock, the overseers, the congregation to be fed, not ruled, the congregation, not of man, but of God, because he won it by his blood. Why do ye use such an arrogant word? Shepherds, or feeders, feed, not rule.
LXn. Now since the Church was won for God by the blood of Christ (“For we were bought with the precious blood of the lamb without blemish,” that is, Christ [I. Pet. i., 19]), what reason is there why certain persons should scorn us who are of the flock of Christ, and not only not regard us as Christians but not even as men? They are not satisfied, if through our kindness they are allowed to devote themselves to the care of their bodies at their leisure, unless they reduce us to slavery. But this is in violent opposition to the words of Paul when he. says [I. Corinth, vii., 23], “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” What is the reason, I say, why this favour is never proclaimed, namely, that we are bought with the precious blood of Christ ? Why are all things filled with false promises to squeeze out money? That were the way in which we could best be kindled to the love of God and a state of grace. We boast, indeed, of the blood of Christ that has been shed for us, but if any one, relying upon that, confidently believes that God will forgive his sins forever for Christ’s sake, we straightway proclaim him a heretic! Stick closely to this expression which has
282 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli fallen from you by design or accident, gentlemen, that Christ won the Church by his own blood. For it is the formula of salvation. Whoever, therefore, confidently believes it, belongs to that Church of Christ which he won by his blood. For faith alone is the ground of salvation. He who believes shall not see death forevermore [John viii., 51]. Strive to be reckoned in that Church which is sprinkled with the blood of Christ, that ye may hold in hatred the Church of the wicked. What have ye to do with the Church that rests on flesh and blood?
LXIII. If nothing is to be altered or changed, why has the communion been altered that used to be given under both forms, according to the institution of Christ and the usage of the Apostles? Or rather why has it been mutilated? Why has the fiinction of bishop been changed into that of prince ? Why is marriage forbidden [to the clergy] ? Why are hundreds of other things altered? Christ and the Apostles and the general opinion are all opposed thereto. Are ye mightier than God, that ye have ventured to forbid what Christ left free? Or wiser than God, that ye complete what God inadvertently left unfinished? Or so stupid, that you think you are going to persuade consciences free in Christ not to regard as lawful what they know is lawful by the divine law, even though you shout till you are hoarse?
LXIV. Yet you modify your remarks a little later after this fashion, “until those whom it concerns come together for the business of the Church, ” etc. This I fancy, is likely to come about when “the Parthian drinks the Saone and Germany the Tigris. ” ’ For I want you to be convinced that in these days of ours there are going to be men who will rage against the champions of a purer Christianity as violently as in the days of old the Jews raged against Christ himself. For how can it be that those whose ceilings gleam with gold and their mules with gems and their attendants with silk, should voluntarily accept any limitation or reform in all these things? They would easily come to an
’ Vergil, Eclogues, i., 62.
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 283 agreement if they might order everything according to their own purposes and not according to the intent of Scripture, but this will certainly not be accepted by the world which is already well instructed in the Gospel everywhere (I had almost said better instructed than those same high priests) , and cannot in any way be torn away from it. When they see something proclaimed that does not square with the Gospel, they simply make a laughing stock of them that sit in Moses’ seat, and lay heavy burdens upon men’s shoulders but will not themselves touch them with so much as the tips of their fingers [Matt, xxiii., 4]. This is the reason, I say, why I have no hope that the councils will ever be compelled to obey the Scriptures, unless the unanimous agreement of princes brings that about. But it is wonderful how well certain sly dogs ^ know how to prevent this by dazzling the eye with the delusions of functions and honours and priesthoods and deceiving with empty hopes. In vain therefore shall we expect any modification of view from them.
LXV. The Scriptures can be compared together not only by those whose concern you say it is but also by those who trust in God and in His word and who are pining with longing for Him. For it can happen that if the bishops betake themselves to the study of the Scriptures in their usual manner, without regarding the general and common consent, they may prove to be all or in great part unversed in the sacred writings. How, then, shall they make any sound decision in regard to the less transparent parts of Scripture? But even if they be ever so learned, may it not happen that all of them have some illusion, while some layman may show a clear vision in the matter? (I do not want you to snap at me with that silly statement, ”The councils cannot be wrong.” For even your own people have not maintained that unreservedly, but have modified it thus: “The council cannot be wrong in matters which are of the faith.”) Would not violence be done the Scrip-
’ This looks like a pun upon catulus, “puppy,” and a catulus as diminutive of catus, “shrewd, crafty,” though I do not find such a word. — H. P.
284 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli tures, and the man whose view was sound be not left free to hold sound views, and those who were eager for the light of truth be forced to dwell in darkness? And this the divine Paul also warned us against [I. Corin. xiv., 29], saying, “Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all,” he says, “prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted” [I. Corin. xiv., 29-31]. The passage, I think, is clear enough to you. You see, therefore, that any one may prophesy, though in a certain order, that all may learn the truth of the Scriptures, and all may be comforted by the Word of God, which alone can give repose unto human longing. I want to leave you here for reflection from time to time the shameless statement of a certain smatterer, who ventured to proclaim in a public assembly that it was not lawful for laymen to know or to read the Gospel, but only for those to whom that function had been entrusted, namely for our little priests and masters. Would that some Apollo would give him ass’s ears because he does not remember or does not know that Christ said [Matt, x., 2y], “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. ” And again, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” [Mark xvi., 15]. But they confront me presently with the Gordian knot: If it is not lawful for any persons to make some definite proclamation in regard to the truth of Scripture, there will arise countless errors. For every one will maltreat the Sacred Writings at his own sweet will. Country bumpkins! Do ye not see that the spirit of God is everywhere like unto itself and ever the same? The more unskilled a man is in human devices and at the same time devoted to the divine, the more clearly that spirit informs him, as is shown by the Apostles and by the foolish things of this world which God hath chosen. And as it is a spirit of unity and harmony and peace, not of strife and dissension, it will inspire even the most ignorant, sobeit that they are pious, in such manner
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 285 that they will understand the Scriptures in the plainest way according to God’s purpose. This the prophet Joel foretold [ch. ii., 28]: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (he does not say, upon courtiers and bishops only); “and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” etc. And the same thing is plainly set forth in Acts [ch. x.], because while Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on the untaught household of Cornelius and upon Cornelius himself, and Peter, seeing this, perceived that the Holy Ghost had not limited himself to the Jews only or to the Apostles [Acts x., 44-48] (for he is no respecter of persons), and he bade that they be baptised. And when other Apostles, still having something of the Jewish arrogance left and thinking that that which had been wrought upon them should not be distributed among the crowd, demanded an explanation of Peter’s action, he answered at length and finally said, “For as much then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” [Acts xi., 17.] And the same sort of thing certain persons are doing to-day. As soon as some pious and learned man has set forth something from Scripture rather rriore simply and clearly than usual, they break out with, “Who gave thee authority to teach thus? It belongs to the Fathers only.” You would think they expected with their authority to frighten God from daring to inspire any one to teach sound doctrine. In short, the disagreement which is rife to-day seems to me to come from nothing else than that you do not concede that we have a full share in the spirit of him who has numbered all the hairs of our heads, and [cf. Matt, x., 30, etc.] in whose sight we are of more value than the fowls of the air. We turn to our own decrees and imagine that not we receive honour from the Scripture, but it from us, and that the source of the wisdom of God is so hemmed in by our authority that it cannot inform any one except through us, though he bids his own to be of good cheer in regard to knowledge and the adornment of speech ; for that at the critical moment
286 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli the Spirit will be at hand and will remind us of all that Christ has said unto us. And certain Brothers and Fathers, living in ill-employed leisure, were not satisfied with his teaching and believed it not. So they ventured to try to give a better one, and that has resulted most disastrously. For in place of the teachings of Christ, the worship of Aristotle has spnmg up, and instead of men of Apostolic character, apostates have arisen; instead of men of thrift, men greedy of gain; instead of piety, superstition; and instead of simplicity, madness and hypocrisy. Finally it has come to such a pass that nor law nor right nor heaven nor God’s words can bring these goats over from the left to the right side. For they have drunk in other teachings than those of the Spirit, though if they had ever been properly imbued with the teachings of the Spirit, things never could have come to such a pass that none should be more densely ignorant of the heavenly teachings than those who venture to subordinate them to their own opinions, and to claim for themselves alone the right of expounding them. Therefore, to come to an end at last, it is not the function of one or two to expound passages of Scripture, but of all who believe in Christ. “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” [John iii-, 34]-
LXVI. You bid us pour forth prayers by which God may be appeased by the restitution that is due him, as if prayers were a sort of money by which the punishments due our sins could be bought off, and not a means of beseeching the mercy of God, that he may not enter into judgment with us, but may take pity upon us according to his great mercy. For as to a price for the doing away with punishment, you know, I think, that Christ was made a sacrifice for us to take away the sins of the people [Hebr, ix., 12], and that “he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” [II. Cor. v., 21]. But the testimony of Paul would not be so strong, if Christ had not very clearly said the same
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 287 thing in Luke, xxii., 19, “This is my body which is given for you, ” and a little later, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” [Luke xxii., 20]. Hence I do not see how those can be acquitted of blasphemy who attribute to their own prayers and the works that they sell that which belongs to Christ alone. The Heavenly Father willed that he should make restitution for us, and by this free sacrifice draw to him those that could not yield to the works of laws and ceremonials. And this Paul again shows more clearly than daylight [Eph. i., 7], saying of Christ, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace ; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence ; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure,” etc. But this market of prayers makes them npog ra akqura [very like barley groats], and we set out merchandise for sale, as it were, we who have filled our coffers with this sort of hypocrisy and Persian trifles, so that all the granaries are full, the sheep fat, the walls solid, and all would go well, if only he were dumb who is going to say some day, “Fools, this night shall your souls be required of you, and then whose will these things be that ye have laid up?” \Cj. Luke xii., 20.] Kaq)d\aiov [the sum of the matter is], it is fiarroXoyia [silly talk], if any one expects after the fashion of the heathen to propitiate God by his much speaking [Matt, vi., 7]. We ought, nevertheless, to pray without ceasing, and to imitate the importunate widow [cj. Luke xviii., 3], but not to advertise our prayers, that is, offer them for sale with a price attached, in this fashion, “These are worth so much or so much, ” as that word “restitution ” which you add seems to hint. We ought rather to trust ourselves wholly to the divine goodness.
LXVIL Would that ye had the same feelings towards us that he has whom you have made the sponsor of your designs. You know, I think, how the proceedings recently in the Council of Zurich came out, namely that your charge was met in a Christian spirit, and that this pained one of the
288 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli delegates so much that he could not assuage his grief in any other way than by sending this delicious admonitory document to the Chapter, so as to make me blush again, as he hoped would be the case when the larger part of the assembly turned their gaze upon me as the person at whom this little tale was pointed. It was this fatherly affection, I fear, that influenced you to draw our most pious bishop into that scheme. For there is no other explanation of the proceeding, since the gist of the whole admonition seems to be all of a piece with the earlier course of action. Fatherly affection admonishes in a fatherly spirit, calls home, warns privately, listens with gentleness to the son who makes reparation, does not get together a meeting secretly by night, nor drag the offender before the body of priests and counsellors, but urges him once and again to turn from his sin according to the teaching of Christ [Matt, xviii., 15 foil.], and finally, if he still persists, turns him away in sorrow. And that you may do, when, by the instrumentality of Holy Writ, you have shown me guilty of any error in regard to Christ’s doctrine. For you cannot win in any other way, unless, perhaps, you choose to have recourse to force. Then I shall be as defenceless before you as sheep before a wolf; for Christ sent out his disciples like sheep into the midst of wolves. [Matt, x., 16.] You can kill, I admit, so can a highwayman; you can hold one a prisoner, so can a fever, but in bed; you can torture with various punishments, so can the plague, the cholera, and other diseases. Therefore I say and proclaim unto you, that if you wish to maintain that I have not taught the Gospel doctrine truly, try it not by threats nor flattery, not by snares and secret devices, but by the open warfare of Holy Writ and by public meeting, following the Scripture as your guide and master, and not human inventions. For otherwise ye will not accomplish anything more than Xerxes accomplished when he forced the sea, as he fancied, to endure blows and shackles.
LXVni. That we may abide in the unity of Holy Mother Church, we beseech thee to hear us. That we may
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 289 abide in obedience to those set over us, that is, to our good magistrates, we beseech thee to hear us. That thou wilt teach the counterfeit bishops so much humiHty that they will regard themselves not as rulers and men set over us, but, according to Peter’s words [I. Pet. v., i], as Gv^xTtpea^vrepovg [fellow elders], we beseech thee. That thou wilt illumine them with thy light that they may know the true Church which is thy bride, we beseech thee to hear us. That thou wilt open to them the fountain of living water, we beseech thee to hear us [cf. Jer. ii., 13]. From the worn-out wells that they have dug and that have not the living water, save us, O Lord. From the unbearable burdens that they lay upon men’s shoulders, save us, O Lord [Luke xi., 46, and Matt, xxiii., 4]. Bid them bear them and practise what they preach. If they cannot in any other way be persuaded to suffer thy yoke to be easy and thy burden light, force them to do it, O Lord [Matt, xi., 30].
LXIX. For thus it will come to pass that thy Church shall enjoy the deepest peace and tranquillity. For thou seest. Most Holy Jesus, that their ears have been shut up by worthless whisperers and sycophants and gain-seekers, in consequence of whose noise, even though they hear thy voice, they cannot recognise it nor obey it, for these men block their way and impose upon their singleness of heart. For where in all the diocese of Constance have thy teachings been received with such universal acceptance as at Zurich? Is deeper peace to be seen (alas, for these times of ours!) in any canton of Switzerland? Yet have they dared, under pretence of bringing about peace where there was no dissension, to strain every nerve in order to sow tares among the good seed. Thou knowest there was no need of that splendid delegation of three scholars recently, which yet they ventured to suborn, having dragged in Hugo, whose natural sentiments in regard to thy teachings are not unsound. But they could not make out that my teachings were one whit against thy law. And now thou knowest also in what spirit they have written to me. As for myself,
2go The Works of Huldreich Zwingli there is no need to call thee to witness in what spirit I do all that I do. Thou knowest how far aloof from all strife and uproar I have kept myself from early youth, yet thou hast not ceased to call me to this duty of battle in spite of my unwilling protests. Therefore I may now rightly appeal to thee to finish unto the day of the Lord the good work which thou hast begun, and if I ever build anything less worthily than I ought, cast it down; if I lay any other foundation than thee, destroy it, that thy flock, led and inspired by thy spirit, may come to the knowledge that it shall lack nothing, if it be led and fed by thee as bishop and shepherd. For thou, O Son of God, art the defender and advocate of all who put their hope in thee. If then thou failest them, thy name will be a weariness and mark of scorn to all mankind. They will mock thee as the Jews mocked thee as thou wast hanging from the cross, for they will say: “Lo, this fellow began to build and could not finish.” O then, sweet vine, whose vintner is the Father, and of whom we are the branches, abandon not thy planting and thy building. Thou hast promised to be near us to the fulness of the ages, and hast bidden us to be of good cheer when brought before kings and potentates, for that the spirit would protect us at the critical moment, and inspire us with words whereby they should be compelled even against their will to hear testimony of thee. Put, therefore, fit words into the mouths of all who seek thy glory and sanctify thy name, that they may speak before the princes of this world things acceptable unto thee and profitable for unhappy mankind. For so it shall come to pass that we, who are members one of another and one body in thee our one and everlasting head, shall form thy one and only bride whom Paul betrothed to thee without spot or blemish [Eph. v., 2”^], and that Church shall be abandoned which is naught but stains and defilement, since the name of God is through it made of ill repute. Thou livest and reignest as God with the Father and the Holy Ghost world without end. Amen. I foresee that I shall seem to you unduly to have made all things worse,
Archeteles : Reply to Bishop’s Admonition 291 for the minds of most theologians nowadays have this in common with courtiers, that they think nothing pious or holy or right except what they have themselves done. If they make proclamation, it must be held as law; if they condemn, the condemnation must be accepted; if they make untrue accusation, they must not be answered. And we see, too, that nature has somehow ordained that those who are most prone to attack others are most averse to seeming to have done it. And if ye are so minded, I have no ground for good hope of you, for ye will continue to wail that an unworthy thing is done in that a pastor has ventured to resist his bishop, and ye will not take in good part this little admonition with which I have tried to dissuade you from stirring up our bishop. But that will not frighten me a bit. Nor will the fact that you turn to abuse and call me promiscuously a quarrelsome bird and villain and sycophant have any more effect than rain has upon the donkey, for I have so toughened my skin that I simply scorn these weapons. And as to the matter itself, so far am I from yielding to you that unless you leave me and mine — that is, the sheep of Christ — in peace and quiet, I shall proceed to deal with you far more roughly, without fear of your words or your frowns. You must deal with me by means of the Holy Scriptures bestowed upon us by God (and do not forget that point), and they must not be twisted. You must not use things devised by the vanity of man, and you must come to close quarters and not fight by laying mines. As soon as I perceive any tricks, I shall expose them. Be it enough to have been pardoned this time for having ventured to disturb the peace under pretence of restoring peace. If you persist, as I hope you will not, in the plan you have begun, of not speaking the name of Zwingli, while yet attempting to make it known by all sorts of side thrusts and to hold it up to disapproval, I shall certainly not spare your names but shall challenge you by name to single combat as Menelaus challenged Paris, and if you scorn me so far as to refuse to come forth, I will proclaim your reluctance to
← 17. XIV. Archeteles, Part 1 · Contents · 19. XIV. Archeteles, Part 3 →