teaching abide, so that the Lord does not reject it, or those who received it desert, it will appear that he builded gold, silver, precious stones, and according to his building will he receive a reward. But if any man’s work is burned up, it was wood and hay and stubble. Although, therefore, the preacher will feel the loss of those whom he had taught, yet he will be saved himself if he takes a brave stand when the fire rages, but only on condition that he walks dauntlessly through the fire, i. e., persecution.” In this passage, then, Paul is speaking of the trying of one’s teaching, not of the fire of purgatory, as is plainly apparent, if, at least, you half-way open your eyes. All the rest of the things that are now and then adduced to the contrary you will easily quash; as, for instance, the parable of the rich glutton and Lazarus [Lk. 16: 19-31], from which many get flimsy shafts, though it is nothing but a parablethough they refuse to see it—by which Christ wished to teach the same lesson as by that other one about the ten virgins [Mt. 25: 1-13]; namely, that we ought to mend our lives here, while there is time, for after we go hence it will be too late to begin to repent, nay, entirely vain to pray and lament and beseech. Therefore let no one be reluctant to give up this most empty fiction. Rather let us all strive to grow in the knowledge of God and to change our lives for the better every day, whereby our hearts will become so accustomed to trusting in Christ that when death draws nigh we shall rejoice to depart and be with Christ [Phil. 1: 23].
[27]. MaarsrERIAL Office
Some deny magisterial office to Christians, declaring persistently that a man who is a Christian cannot possibly administer such an office; but whither their mad theory tends is beginning to be clear. Having, therefore, observed the saintliness and faith of large numbers of believers who have yet so administered magisterial offices as to glorify God by general peace and righteousness, and having observed also the effrontery and viciousness of bad men who pretend to be Christians but are not truly such, I venture to assert that no man is even capable of administering a magistracy properly
[Reference is to the Anabaptists. Cf. volume 2, pp. 272-273.]
unless he is a Christian. How, pray, does the state differ from the church? I mean in regard to the external habits and associations of life; for as far as the heart is concerned, I am well aware that the only church of Christ is that which trusts in Christ, while the state can be content if you show yourself a faithful citizen, even if you do not trust in Christ. The state demands that you serve the commonweal, not your own; that dangers be shared in common, and fortunes also, if necessity arises; that no one exercise a selfish prudence; that no one exalt himself; that no one stir up strife.
See now, alongside of these few things, what the church of Christ requires.
Paul reminds us in many a passage that love is not intent upon her own interest, but upon that of others.
In the second place, he says [II Cor. 11:29]: “Who is caused to stumble, and I burn not? Who is weak, and I am not weak?” He bids us weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice [ Rom. 12: 15].
In the third place, the believer demands not from a believer that he share his fortune with him, but the believer puts all his fortune in his girdle to be ready to help whenever occasion requires [cf. Acts 2:45, 4:34f.]. I do not wish to treat here as it deserves that ὕπουλον [festering sore] from which those trouble-makers are suffering, even though they deny it with as much shamelessness as persistence. Their eagerness shows what they have in mind, namely, community of all things, a condition which I with my slender resources could cheerfully endure, but God would not endure that any man should be robbed of his own. For Peter says to Ananias [Acts 5:4]: “Was it not possible for thee not to sell what thou hast sold” (I paraphrase his words), “and to keep it in thy power? And, on the other hand, after thou hadst sold it, was it not again in thy power?” “If thou wouldest be perfect,” says Christ [Mt. 19: 21], “go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor.” “If thou wouldest,” He says; He did not rob, nor bid the poor rob, the rich young man of his own.
In the fourth place, Peter enjoins, I Pet. 4: 10, that every man should minister for the general good the grace he has
[The Anabaptists.]
received; for that is becoming to “stewards of the manifold grace of God,” ete. Further, Paul bids us pursue humility [Rom. 12:16]. And Christ Himself almost threateningly proclaims that they that exalt themselves shall be humbled [cf. Mt. 23: 12]. Finally, factious strife is so generally deprecated that there is not a single one of the other Apostles who does not expressly condemn it.
How, then, as I had begun to say, does the life of the Christian church, as far as those things which we see are concerned, differ from the life of the state? It does not differ at all, for each one demands what the other demands. But as far as the inner man is concerned there is a vast difference. The citizen is compelled by the laws to show himself such and such a man towards his fellow-citizens; but we do in an insincere and rather unfaithful way the things we are compelled to do. The result is that, if you can look out for your own advantage contrary to the law but without being found out, you will not neglect to do it. This is not the case with the Christian state, that is, the church. For they that have the spirit of Christ are His [cf. Rom. 8:9], and they that are Christ’s do all things in accordance with His character and will. He so loved us that He gave Himself for us [cf. Eph. 5:25]. We shall, therefore, also do the same, if we have His spirit. Accordingly, we shall love all men as ourselves, and if we love them we shall neglect nothing that concerns the safety of our neighbors. If, therefore, you add love to the character of citizen, fraudulent zeal for individual advantage will disappear. Since, therefore, the spirit of Christ has that which the state particularly needs, nothing more auspicious ean come to the state than love; and since the gospel brings this with it, it is evident that the state becomes strong and holy only in case good hearts are united with good laws. No state, therefore, will be happier than that in which also true religion dwells. What I have said, then, of the state should be understood much more of civil office; for the magistrates are the head of the state, as it were, and if the members should properly have this character, much more should the head itself. Hence I declare, quite differently from what our friends hold, that a
magistrate cannot even be just and righteous unless he be a Christian. Take away from the magistrate, who is above the fear of man, the fear of God, and you make him a tyrant. Infuse into the tyrant the fear of God, and of his own accord he will do more freely and faithfully what the law orders than any terror could have caused him to; and out of a tyrant you will make a father on the pattern of Him whom as a result of faith he begins to fear and to serve, namely, God. But here they meet us with this: “The church of Christ ought to be so blameless as to have absolutely no need of magistrates; for Christians do not quarrel but yield. They do not carry their wrongs to court [cf. I Cor. 6:6], but if smitten upon one cheek turn the other also” [ef. Mt. 5:39]. I answer: May we, indeed, have such a church! At present, however, when these very persons who demand such blamelessness as is quite justly demanded of us by God but not by those who do nothing that is right—when, I say, these men themselves are so hopelessly far from practicing what they demand so loudly (for no one is so ready at backbiting), what, pray, do they expect of those who do not trust in God? Or do they, perhaps, repudiate the magistracy because they know their own very great propensity for backbiting, and fear that someone may not patiently endure their backbiting but enter complaint before a magistrate, so that they can no longer with impunity indulge in it or without danger scheme to get others’ goods under pretence of devotion to Christ? For as this class of men finds great fault with the most blameless for every little thing, so, as soon as you place their malady before their own eyes, they cry out: “Why judgest thou me? To my Lord I stand or fall” [ef. Rom. 14:4]. See how our friends have no need of tribunals! Of course, if you bear all the wrongs they inflict and do not strike back, and if you suffer them with impunity to make all sorts of trouble over trifles, these persons have indeed no need of tribunals. I say, on the contrary, that just on account of these persons who declare that a Christian cannot administer a magistracy we very greatly need the magistracy; and why should we not have a Christian magistrate to decide between Christians rather than one who is a stranger to Christ?
But now I will confirm the matter with testimony.
In Exodus 18: 21-22, Moses is bidden by the Lord (for I would not aseribe to Jethro himself what the Lord shows through him, as is plainly seen in Deut. 1:13, where Moses ascribes to the Lord what is here ascribed to the Midianite)— is bidden to “provide and select out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” “And place such over them,” he says, “to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens; and let them judge the people at all seasons.” See how Moses plainly sets forth here the qualities which a judge, above all men, must have—ability, fear of God, zeal for truth, hatred of covetousness, as I said a little while ago a good and truly Christian citizen ought. Nor can we fairly deny that this law applies to us. For the more we say it does not apply to us, the more we really need it. For they who under the influence of the Spirit conform themselves to the will of God shrink not from the law; for they by the Spirit bear witness to the law, that it is good, Rom. 7: 7-12. But those who are averse to the law are not spiritual; for the law is good and holy, nay, spiritual. It is plain, therefore, that as soon as these persons snarl at the law they show that they are carnal. Now I mean that law which can never be abolished, namely, that which pertains to love of one’s neighbor and is measured, or, as these persons say, regulated, by the second commandment [Lev. 19: 18], “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now see how this kind of men is pierced by “the arrow that flyeth by day and the demon that stalketh at noonday” [cf. Ps. 91: 5-6].
They say they have the foundation for this opinion of theirs in the Holy Scriptures, Matt. 20: 26, “Not so shall it be among you,” and Luke 22: 26, But ye shall not be so.” Here they are wrong twice: first, because this law applies to those only who were sent out to teach in place of the Apostles. These, therefore, Christ bids not to exercise dominion. For in regard to such leadership the Apostles had asked who of them should be regarded as superior to the rest. I will not deny, however, that, as far as ambition is concerned, this law applies equally to all of us, in the sense that it is not permissible for any Christian to solicit or to usurp dominion. But when it is offered,
the man is not truly pious who refuses to bear this burden which the state imposes upon him. Second, they are wrong in not understanding that Christ is speaking here of a tyranny rather than of a monarchy or an aristocracy conferred by consent of the people or by the calling of God upon one to whom the office of preaching the word has not been committed. 1 call it tyranny when dominion is assumed on one’s own authority. If one man does this, he is a tyrant, and his sway is called a tyranny; if several, not all but some few, arrogate dominion to themselves, the Greeks called it an oligarchy. Tyranny, then, Christ altogether forbids; on the other hand, as even in a flock of sheep there must be some ram that leads the rest, so also there must be some headship in every state. But here care must be taken not to apply to the tyranny of certain Popes what 1 am saying about civil magistracy. These persons, then, treating the word from the point of view of knowledge rather than of Christian love, fall into the mistake of eliminating all magisterial offices, even the just and lawful ones of which we especially have need for preserving peace and quiet. To their objection that Christians should endure all things and do all things that the Law commands, and therefore have no need of magistrates, I answer: Right indeed. As long, therefore, as we do not all live after this fashion, although we all nevertheless wish to be called Christians, there must be restraint and delay, nay, absolute silence, on the part of Christians in this matter of not administering civil office, lest we abolish a thing that is most necessary before we have secured that for the sake of which we want it abolished. Why continue? These fellows have no other object than to create disorder. Who has ever seen anywhere such universal blamelessness, or where in the world will one ever expect everybody to pursue blamelessness so eagerly, that no one sins? Since, therefore, there have always been those who under the guise of piety indulge in the same reckless course as the impious, we must also always have magistrates, and above all Christian magistrates in a Christian people. Then only must the magistracy be abolished when wrongdoing has been so thoroughly abolished that no man sins either with tongue or in deed. But this will be in the other world; for to this one the enjoyment of such perfect
blamelessness has been denied. For God’s sake, then, let them, I beg, stop, being wise in these matters, in which it is clearer than day that they are after nothing but to make a disturbance and to get renown in one way or another. Moreover, the insubordination of these brawlers is such that they will obey neither a Christian nor an impious magistrate. If the magistrate is a Christian, as soon as he interferes with them, they say, “We must obey God rather than you,” albeit nothing is ordered that does not conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the community. I will give an example. Certain persons recently began to have themselves rebaptized in the Zurich territory. The authorities, therefore, that is the Council and the Two Hundred, investigated the matter and forbade further rebaptizing. The fellows answered that we must obey God rather than man. When they were told to bring out, then, the law of God by which they taught rebaptism was instituted, they produced what is written in Acts 19:5 about those who had been better taught by Paul. Though they had not a right understanding of this passage, they yet said that they had been taught by the Holy Spirit, and that they must obey God rather than man. See what a door they are trying to open to all vices under pretence of religion, persisting as they do in these devices of their own invention and daring to defend all their presumption with the assertion, “We must obey God rather than you,” even when manifestly they are acting against all love. If they carry their point, this defence of the Apostles will become a laughing-stock, for everybody will find somewhere in Secrip-ture words that he can distort into an excuse for his irregularities, and then say: “God is to be obeyed rather than you.” A man will take to polygamy and marry many wives, and say that Jacob did so, and David and Solomon and numberless others, as Scripture tells us; that, therefore, he is answerable to God rather than to the authorities. See what a handle they furnish the Roman Pontiff for dinning into all men’s ears, “Look at your teaching. Do you not see how wisely your fathers acted in constituting me the one and only judge of the Holy Scriptures?’ And they furnish the same sort of handle
[This was in January, 1525, in the village of Zollicon, six miles from]
[Zurich.]
to those that cry for Councils; for when everyone walks according to his own notion, all men again compel the calling of Councils. But that no man may think there is disagreement in that teaching which has to do with the inner man, they confine their raging to these points and similar ones: Are infants to be baptized or not? Are adults to be rebaptized? Also this present knotty problem, whether a Christian can administer a civil office. In regard to these they fight so sharply and so bitterly that, the minute you differ from them, they call you by no gentler names than impious fellow, ἄϑεος [atheist], traitor; and they say that this shows an ardent spirit. But who does not see that this is a very temptation of Satan, who always dares to sow tares among the good seed [cf. Mt. 13:25]? I beg all, therefore, as does Paul, Rom. 12:16, to be of the same mind always, and not to cause such great offence to the gospel of Christ for a trifle; not to “mind high things, but to condescend to things that are lowly,” not with the feigned humility that is reproved in Col. 2: 18; and not to “be wise in their own conceits, etc.”
But if the magistrate is not pious (to come back to the second alternative), they think they have a special right not to obey him. Thus does the Evil One transform himself into an angel of light [cf. II Cor. 11:14] that he may be able to drag the conscience back to its primal unhappy state.
I am forced by their contentiousness to say these things about these quarrelsome persons, that others may be able to take measures earlier against such a plague, if it ever appears among them. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, and consequently cannot be attained through any of the elements of this world. It is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit [cf. Rom. 14:17]. How base is it, therefore, for those who wish to be looked up to on account of their religion to do combat for the elements of this world as if for the sum and substance of all piety, even if they had a distinct law for their course! For even the word must be dispensed with love as guide.
Now I come back to other testimony, with which to confirm the view that a magistrate among Christians ought by all means to be a Christian. For it is already clear enough that
Christians cannot get along without magistrates.
When Paul is binding together the church as the body of Christ, Rom. 12:8, he says that all the members are indeed one body, but have separate gifts; and among the gifts and members he reckons προϊστάμενον ἐν σπουδῇ» i. e., the one who rules, holding that he has as a gift of God his zeal for faithfully aeting as ruler over others. Hence he ought to devote freely to the whole body that which God gave not for his private use but for the general advantage. Since, therefore, Paul himself, even in writing to Christians, ascribes the right administering of an office to the grace of God, why should we say that a Christian ought not to rule?
Peter, in I Pet. 2: 13-16, absolutely compels obedience to the authorities. Yet they say: “But this was an impious magistrate.” I answer: Are you actually going to say that Peter commanded obedience to an impious magistrate, but would have forbidden obedience to one who was a Christian? Or, perhaps, that a Christian magistrate ought rather to give way to an impious man than to undertake the office himself? What greater madness can be imagined? For since commonwealths are governed by the authorities as head, is it not madness to prefer that the ruler should be impious rather than pious, to prefer that an impious tyrant ride the necks of the pious rather than a pious man be a father to the flock of the Lord? For what object has the impious man but to do all things for gain or fame? And what the pious man but from love and fear of God and his neighbor to commit no act that can offend the one or trouble the other? The impious one will heap up riches by means right or wrong, will climb to renown over the dead bodies of his own; the pious will share all things with those over whom he rules, and will prefer the safety and peace of his people to renown. But you say: “It frequently happens on this wise that when we raise even a pious man to a position of authority he degenerates into an impious one.” Why do you complain of that? You have thus just what you want—an impious ruler set over you. But away with quibbling! If, then, a pious ruler degenerates into an impious one, remove this impious one and substitute a pious one. But you will say: “He is a king, he is a despot, and he cannot be forced into line
302 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli by votes.” Bear, then, and endure any tyranny which does not interfere with faith; for it happens not in vain that you live under an impious ruler. God is either punishing your sins or testing your patience. But if the ruler attempt to wrest your faith from you, you will snap out even in this unpleasant situation: “One must obey God rather than man” [Aets 5: 29]. At the same time, remember that although the children of Israel were for a long time cruelly afflicted by the despot of Egypt, yet God had regard unto their affliction and brought them out with tremendous disaster to those who had hitherto oppressed them, and that God remains ever the same. If, therefore, He then looked upon, pitied, and rescued His own, neither will He ignore or neglect you.
Paul writes to Timothy, I Tim. 2:1-2: “I exhort therefore, first of all, that entreaties, prayers, intercessions, supplications, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in high place; that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity,” etc. Here first consider whether a more quiet and peaceful life can be led under an impious ruler or under a pious one. But if we may pray for a condition of peace, surely we may also pray that God will grant us a pious ruler, in order that peace and concord may better be secured. Since, therefore, it is not unbecoming for God to give us such a ruler, why should it be unbecoming for a pious man to administer that which the Lord offers of Himself? I am speaking all along of the authorities we call lay authorities, not of the tyranny which the Roman Pontiffs have arrogated to themselves. Then, consider this also, that if we may pray that we may lead a life of all godliness and gravity, surely we may also pray that rulers may be inducted into office under whom godliness and honesty and gravity of life may attain the fullest measure possible. And this we shall secure more successfully under pious than under impious rulers.
The Apostles everywhere enjoin upon slaves to obey their masters: I Pet. 2:18; Paul, I Cor. 7: 21-22; Eph. 6: 5-8; Col. 3:22; I Tim. 6: 1-2. On the other hand, Paul at the same time enjoins upon masters to govern impartially and to treat their servants kindly. Can that be twisted so as to apply to impious masters? As if, indeed, the impious would have deigned even
to look at the writings of the Apostle, much less to listen to and to obey him! He writes, therefore, for believing masters, as is clearly evident from I Tim. 6: 2, where he says: “And servants that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but let them serve them the rather because they are believing and beloved.” But if he could be a Christian who had slaves, much more can a Christian administer a civil office without detriment to piety and the word of God. For it is harder to be a master than a magistrate; and it is nearer cruelty to have slaves than for the sake of the public tranquillity to have citizens obedient to you.
I will now come to examples.
We read in Gen. 14: 14 how large a number Abraham had of slaves born on the estate.
Marvelous, too, was the extent and difficulty of the dominion held by Moses at the bidding of the Lord Himself. And he held it by the method of ordering the most serious cases brought before himself, which could scarcely have failed to arouse suspicion if he had not been so thoroughly faithful in the house of the Lord, Heb. 3: 2.
What shall I say of Joshua and the others, all of whom were put in authority at the word and bidding of God?
We shall never be able to bring up anything to prove that a pious man may not lawfully administer a magisterial office as long as we continue to live in such a way that some men have to be restrained from wrongdoing. Therefore these people say (for they will do any sort of squirming): “It is our own fault, then, that we are compelled to have magistrates, since we do not live according to Christ’s directions; for if we did so live, we should have no need at all of magistrates.” I answer: Who denies that? Hold the view, therefore, and teach it in all the corners where you conspire together, that Christians ought to lead such a blameless life that they can have no need of magistrates. As it is, therefore, since you see that the life of all men is such that we have need of very stern magistrates, and at the same time you loudly protest again and again that Christians ought not to have magistrates, do you fancy that it is hard to see what you are aiming at? At confusion of all things, forsooth. You keep trying to mix up everything with the idea
of climbing to renown in some way. Why do we not all strive to lead a perfectly blameless life, and then the magistrates will not trouble us. If we all in this fashion put on a garment of blamelessness, the magistracy will become a dead letter of itself; for whom shall it smite with the sword when all are perfectly harmless? But, mark you! take heed lest you rather pretend that such blamelessness can be than really expect it, with the view of getüng as much reputation for piety out of this clever idea of yours as Plato wished to get for wisdom when he arranged his Republie. Why should I mention David, Solomon, Asa, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others, when our friends are ready with the statement: “Magistrates were necessary under the old law, but these external things do not apply to us”? Right indeed. But this does apply to us: As long as we suffer from the same disease from which they suffered under the law, do we not also need the same remedy? We do. No impious ruler was imposed upon the stiff-necked Jews until they had reached the limit of impiety; and as soon as they forsook their impiety they were delivered from him and installed a ruler of their own nation and religion. Christians also, therefore, recognizng the mercy of God, ought to appoint for themselves a Christian ruler, under whom to live in tranquillity and quiet. For there are among them no fewer who are ready to do wrong than there were once among the Jews, and these must be restrained by punishments. And while they are compelled to endure an impious ruler they ought to recognize their sin and understand that he has been set over them only on account of their impiety. The pious, therefore, may lawfully choose a pious ruler, and a pious man may lawfully administer among the pious the office offered him.
But, as has been said, it is well to support our position with examples from the New Testament also, in order to satisfy these persons.
We read in Rom. 16: 23: “Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you.” If a man is treasurer, is he not a person in authority? Though you deny this flatly, I say that not even a treasurer, be he a person in authority or not, can administer this office without there being a person in authority who has made him treasurer, either by his own power or in accordance with
the general suffrage.
Also, in Acts 13:7-13 we read that Paul set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphilia, leaving Sergius Paulus in the proconsulship. Of Publius, whose father God, through Paul, had healed of dysentery, I will say nothing, since it is not entirely clear that he accepted the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ [ef. Acts 28: 7-8]. But why should I not speak of men like Theodosius and Louis, who have governed kingdoms and other dominions most piously? For I do not wish to speak without due consideration about men like Charles the Great, who as far as piety is concerned were masters of ceremonies rather than pious kings. But I make mention of that Theodosius to whose piety we may find witness not only in the histories of the heathen writers, but also in the writings of most pious men, and of that Louis who for his marked piety got the name of “the Pious,” and of the Louis who so stoutly resisted the Roman Pontiff that he even congratulated himself upon dying under the ban of his excommunication. Even our Zurichers at the head of affairs at that time were so influenced by his faithfulness that they endured for eighteen years the impious excommunication of the Roman Pontiff.
Since, then, it is plain from both Testaments that a Christian can administer a magisterial office, we will now see what the character of a Christian magistracy is.
We find that there are not, as these persons say, a sacerdotal and a lay magistracy, but only one; for the power of the church by which the shameless sinner is shut out from communion is not that of a magistrate, as the bishops have thus far exercised it; it belongs to the whole church, not to certain persons who have despotically arrogated supreme authority to themselves.
Before 1 come, therefore, to the magistracy itself, I wish to say something about these guardians of the church, that
[Theodosius the Great, Roman Emperor 379-395 A. D., who employed]
[vigorous measures to suppress paganism. Either Louis the Pious, son and successor of Charles the Great; or,]
[more probably, Louis IX (St. Louis), King of France 1226-1270 A. D. MATS IV of Bavaria, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire 1314-1347]
those who have thus far been in such fear of their words of censure may cease to tremble so at them. Christ, in order that the church, His bride, might be kept guiltless [cf. Eph. 5: 27], commanded, Matt. 18: 15-17: “And if thy brother sin against thee, go and show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church; and if he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile man and a publican.” In the first place, here we see excommunication inflicted for a sin, not for interest and other debts, which are to be collected by the power of the courts when you are unwilling to remit them. Here fall to the ground the bulls, briefs, and diplomas with which the Roman Pontiff (and in naming him I mean the whole Papal hierarchy, ὁ. e., whatever has sworn to obey his laws) has worried the whole church of Christ; for these have chiefly been used because of pecuniary disagreements and differences in regard to property, not because of the offence caused by sin. Second, it is required that you meet the sinner alone and admonish him in a friendly way. Here the Pontifical crowd sin again. For as soon as it pleases them, they summon to their tribunal before the whole congregation some unsuspecting person, very often an innocent one. See what an atrocious exercise of power! No king or presiding officer but first calls the offender before himself; but these fellows cover with shame before the whole congregation an innocent man, or one who has suspected nothing of the sort, and thunder out: “Judge So-and-So admonishes this person to satisfy this other within a fortnight, or he will be excommunicated!” There the eyes of all were instantly turned upon the poor astounded fellow, and he was not allowed to utter a syllable or to plead his case, to protest against the wrong or to defend his innocence; for if so much as even the feeblest sound had escaped him, it would have been all up with the poor wretch. And 1 am inclined to think that the great king of the Persians dealt with his subjects less roughly and barbarously; whose habit they tell us it was from early times to compel all who approached him first to brush and to kiss the dust with their
lips, and then to plead their case. But this poor fellow of ours is more than prostrated to the earth in the sight and hearing of all: with his case unheard, he is forced to depart convicted and condemned in the judgment of all. Or if ever he is permitted to plead his cause, it happens in a corner, not in the public assembly, where he had received the blow. Third, it is required that before you cast off your brother you try speaking to him in the presence of witnesses; so reluctantly does the church of Christ resort to public punishment. On the other hand, pettifoggers of the market place aim at making the greatest possible haste without any regard for mercy, and at causing the greatest amount of loss instead of sparing; for the number of fees increases with the number of summonses and judgments. Finally, the judgment of the whole church is required; not of the Church Universal, for that can never assemble in this world, but of the church in which the accused is a member and communicant. Here the dominion, or rather despotism, of the Roman Pontiff shows itself in its true character. Excommunieation is effected only when the church has rejected him who displeases her; but the Pope casts out of the church the very man she herself most desires to be saved to her; nor does he consult the church, but commands her to treat as excommunicated the man whom he himself hates or proposes to ruin. But if we ought to interpret laws by the intention of the lawgiver, as we certainly ought, and not judge that a man has infringed the law who has not infringed it, it follows that those who are excommunicated by the Popes in this fashion are not guilty in the sight of God. For, as far as this form of fixing guilt is concerned, excommunication belongs to the church and to no one else; and unless she excommunicates, the man is not cast off or held guilty in heaven whom the Pope holds guilty [ef. Mt. 16: 19]. Hence all the artifices of excommunications and censures must fall to the ground. And we must see to it that the true rod of discipline be restored to the church of Christ, that it may smite the shameless sinner, and when he has changed his heart, admit him into fellowship again. This will keep in the path, even in spite of themselves, some who walk not after the Spirit. But even if it does not profit them, yet those who desire to live honestly and peace-
ably in this world will profit from not being forced to see sin reaping a harvest unmolested. This power of excommunication, I say, is not that of a magistrate, for it belongs to the whole church; and it belongs to the church so completely that unless she casts out a man he is not cast out. I say this the more willingly, in order that these impostors may no longer be able to shelter themselves by saying: “How, pray, can the dominion of the Roman Pontiff be denied? Did not Christ Himself institute excommunication?” He did not institute it as the Pope uses it. Nay, neither he nor any individual can use it, but only the particular church concerned. For the name itself shows clearly enough what it is, even if we had not so plain an utterance on the subject. For to excommunicate is to remove from the company of those who communicate together. And if you say, “Cannot the Pope cast out of the church?” 1 say that he cannot, for that belongs to the church alone, and not to the Pope. For Christ never said, “Tell it to the Pope.” Hence it came about that persons excommunicated by the Pope did not in like manner seem to the church worthy of such rejection; and so it followed that few shunned those whom he ordered men to abhor. Let them, therefore, fulminate, thunder, storm, and thrust us down to hell with their formulas, but let us not be moved one whit. On the other hand, let us fear exceedingly to tempt the severity of the church by our wantonness. This will be pleasing in the sight of the Most High.
Now we must come back to the real magistrate. He is nowhere more emphatically approved than in Rom. 13: 1-7, where Paul discusses with such pains obedience to the authorities that one has a right to suspect that even then there were persons who, just like some in our own time, were trying to turn Christian liberty to the advantage of the flesh [cf. Gal. 5:13]. Not that I approve the unbridled license of power shown by some magistrates or princes, but I would not have those who give themselves out for Christians aim at casting off all authority in the expectation that they are going to live in freedom. “This I have always regarded as the height of folly or the height of viciousness. Every company gathered together 1 anywhere must obey some authority; otherwise all combined
action would be at an end. Christians, therefore, should not disparage authority, but should do their best to make that under which we live as pious and just as possible. And if this is not in our power, because, for instance, the ruler we are forced to obey was born king or simpleton, we must the more often entreat God to send us at length some Moses to bring us out of servitude into true liberty: not such liberty that every man shall do as he likes (for that is a more baneful tyranny than when one man or a few men exercise such indulgence. For it is more insupportable to have a whole nation running mad than a few individuals), but such that under it truth has free course, justice is administered impartially to all, peace and concord are preserved by common consent. Now, then, let us hear Paul. He says [Rom. 13: 1-6]: “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God. Therefore the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. And if thou desirest to have no fear of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” We must now consider Paul’s statements separately, in order to get his full meaning. As to his saying “every soul,” it is not unusual for “soul” to be used for “man”; so that he said “every soul” for “all men.” For this Hebrew expression has somewhat greater vividness than the Latin “omnes homines,” “all men.”—He said “higher powers” for “rulers,” whether they be monarchs or the aristocracy, that is, whether it is a king or the nobles who are high in power.— For there is no power but of God.” What, Paul? Was Pharaoh’s power of God? Surely; for on account of our sins God places children and effeminate creatures upon our necks, Isa. 3: 4-5. Therefore let them that rule not hold their
heads too high when they hear that all power is of God, for they are not thereby justified. For frequently He punishes the bad by means of the very bad. But let them rather, hearing how they have been raised to their position by the providence of God, make it their aim to do nothing that is unbecoming in one who sits in God’s place. And let them keep ever before their eyes that from the founding of the world they that have ruled with violence have ever had brief dominion; but that, on the other hand, the posterity of all them that have exercised their power with moderation have retained their ancestral realms as long as might be. A vast and slippery thing is power. Now, nothing tends to fall out of one’s hands more quickly than a thing which is at once very large and slippery, especially if you try to hold on to it forcibly. Power is a vast thing of this sort and exceeding slippery; and if you try with all your might to hold on to it, that is, to do everything with violence, it will fall out of your hands. There should be moderation in preserving it, and if you disregard that, it is better not to have it at all. “The powers,” then, “are ordained of God.” Hence it is evident that “he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” But who would not obey a pious power more willingly than an impious one? I do not mean that you should not obey an impious power (for Paul goes on to say, “they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment”), but that you should not allow yourself to be hurried into the mistake of those who declare that a Christian cannot be a magistrate. For suppose a city so born again in Christ that every one of its citizens lives according to His precepts; it will still require magistrates because of those who come there. Let us, therefore, not talk about abolishing magistrates in general, until blamelessness itself abolishes them. For those that delay to obey the authorities “shall receive to themselves judgment,” that is, lay up for themselves a great store of the wrath and vengeance of God.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Would that rulers might be as careful to listen to this part of Paul’s words as they are to thunder forth those other words: “There is no power but of God; the powers are ordained of God,” and, “He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi-
nance of God.” But we poor mortals are not so constituted that we listen as carefully to what brings us to order as we do to what brings others. It is a rare virtue among rulers, especially as they conduct themselves today, not to be a terror to good works, that is, not to obstruet the truth and not to be hatefully harsh to those who order their lives according to the rule of gospel truth. On the other hand, it is common with some rulers to promote the worst men to places of rank, power, and honor for no other reason than that they may fight fiercely for the Roman Pontiff and treat savagely those who venture to speak out what is true. If anyone says, “I trust in the one and only God and bring my troubles to Him without the intervention of any advocate,” he is suddenly hurried off to punishment, because, forsooth, he has refused to desert God for a ereature. And those who do this bear witness in official records that their aim is to defend the true and ancient religion of Christ. If to avoid a scandal you, a priest, marry a wife, you are ordered to prison unheard, while meantime these persons are less horrified to see a whoremonger administering the mass before their eyes than if he were a dog. For sometimes dogs coupling in churches are driven away with a stick, but no one drives away the whoremonger, though he defiles everything we have hitherto considered most holy. If, on the other hand, before the eyes of these rulers (I am speaking of tyrants, well aware that many pious rulers strenuously exert themselves to give us a view in these latter days of pure and simple Christianity) —if, I say, before their eyes you commit the most abominable crime, and yet at least just insult the freshly rising Christ, you obtain forgiveness. See how everything is turned upside down with them. What pen can leave to posterity a worthy record of this madness? What tongue express its shamelessness, recklessness, monstrousness? What tears bewail these lost ones, rushing with eyes open, such is their madness, into utter destruction? And yet they offer themselves to the simple-minded erowd as champions of righteousness and truth. Ah, if we boast in the name of Christ, ought not His word to have more effect with us than that of any creature? But when
[Cf. Vol. 1, pp. 177-196. Ti. e., the Reformation movement.]
you add, “If it is not opposed to the view of the Popes,” you are setting the word of man before the word of God. Think not, then, excellent princes, that you can conceal even from the humble folk how far you are from Christ by making formal proclamation that you will defend true religion, while in reality you persecute it more cruelly than any Turks. Practices of that sort last for a while, but they finally bring a disastrous end. You should uphold general righteousness, not persecute the guiltless for the sake of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The wicked man, the murderer, the robber, and all such like pests ought to fear your face, but the pious and blameless ought to rejoice because of it. What am I to say in censure of the boundless lust and luxury of certain princes, upon which they lavish all their substance senselessly, so that it would be better never to have acquired anything than to have squandered it so basely? They stake their money chests at play, for their purses cannot hold such an amount of gold as they stake. They drink, so that it were better the wine had been poured upon the ground than destroy the human body by its use, as if, as Pliny has it, there were no other path through which wine could be poured out and destroyed than the human body. “They go awhoring to such an extent that they seem to have a deadly hatred for a pure marriage; and they so defile all things with their lewdness that the man is indeed unfortunate who happens to have a beautiful or elever wife or daughter. And when they have spent everything thus, they not only despoil the wretched people with new exactions and taxes and tribute, but load them with burdens, torment and destroy them, so that they seem to have been born for the general ruin.—‘“Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Those, therefore, who, on the other hand, delight in evil and are a constant menace to the good are not rulers, but tyrants, torturers, butchers.— Then follows: And if thou desirest to have no fear of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same.” I beg those who disparage magistrates to consider these words carefully. If they hate or fear the power, let them do that which is right. At the same time let rulers reflect that they are not to be a terror to good deeds. Having praise from the power when you have acted rightly is said in reference
to the custom prevalent among the Athenians and the Romans of giving rewards or formal thanks to those who served the state well, sometimes before the Senate, sometimes before the general assembly; as we frequently read in Cicero how some were praised in the Senate, others before the assemblage in the Forum.— “He is a minister of God for thy good, or to thee for good.” Rulers are set over us for the good of all. Therefore let those who rule to the ill of all see what right they have to boast in the name of Christ, seeing that they not only, like thieves and robbers, plunder the goods of all, but, like plagues, also waste their bodies. But they are ministers of God all the same, just as Satan is a minister of God, who everywhere opposes, deceives, and destroys. “For he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God.” Swords are carried before certain rulers as an emblem of power, and it is to this custom that Paul is alluding here. He shows that some are so audaciously evil that, unless they be smitten with the sword, the rest cannot have peace. He says, therefore, that the ruler is a minister of God for the guarding of general righteousness and tranquillity. Here I ask those who repudiate the magistracy whether a pious man cannot be a minister of Christ just as well as an impious man. They say it was written among them of old time [cf. Mt 5: 21f.]: “Thou shalt not kill”; but that we are forbidden to yield to anger, much more to kill. Nice fellows these! They refuse with the very words before them to see what the meaning of God’s words is. For when He says that we are not even to yield to anger, it becomes clear that, wishing to block up the fountain-source of killing, He is speaking of that killing which proceeds from ungovernable passion, not of that which is visited by law upon those who have dared to upset the public peace, towards whom we more often feel pity than anger. But, since even in such cases judgment is sometimes too precipitate, is not a pious man more likely to give a right and timely judgment than an impious man?—“For he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil” [Rom. 13:4]. He says he is a minister of God and an avenger whom He uses for wrath, that is, to assert His justice, against those who do evil. He, therefore, avenges in God’s name, not in his own; He smites in God’s
314 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli name, not in his own. “But you are bidden to smite no one.” Yes, but God, who kills and makes alive, [cf. Deut. 32: 39], who sends to hell and brings back, has the right to smite; and therefore when He bids a man smite, that man, too, smites without sin. Thus Moses slew, and Phineas, Samuel, Elijah, Jehu, and others; and the slaying is accounted glory to them. But let the magistrate take care not to smite unless the Lord bids him. When the Lord does bid, no man will see the fact better than the pious man, that is, he who knows how often one must forgive, but also knows best when to strike down. For though Peter was bidden to refrain seventy times seven times [cf. Mt. 18:22], he yet struck down Ananias and Sapphira at once, Acts 5: 1-11, no doubt because the situation demanded it. For not always does there appear one with the aspect or voice of an angel to tell us to strike down, but sometimes the Lord stirs the heart within and instruets it in what cases to pardon and in what not.
“Wherefore we must needs be in subjection to authority, not only because of the vengeance, but also for conscience sake” [Rom. 13:5]. He means that we should refrain from evil doing, not so much from fear of punishment as because the conscience is on guard, which we ought to keep so blameless that we in no matter resist the will of God. Since, then, God wills that we should obey the magistrates, we cannot without danger to the conscience neglect to listen to the magistrate. What will those who would abolish the Christian magistracy find to say here? “That it is an offence against conscience not to obey an impious ruler, and, on the other hand, is an offence against conscience to obey a pious ruler? What shall I say? I praise knowledge of the things of faith, but contentiousness I do not praise. For that cannot be without lust for glory which is the most indubitable champion of glory. And if lust for glory goads persons on to such violent dissensions, love is certainly very far away; and when love is away, all things are empty and vain.
“For, for this cause pay ye tribute: for they are God’s ministers attending continually upon this very thing.” Some rulers open their eyes very wide indeed when they hear that the paying of tribute is made a duty by divine pronouncement;
but they do not reflect that Paul says, “for, for this cause.” What then, is the cause on account of which the paying of tribute is commanded? This, that the rulers may smite the evil and not the good, maintain the public peace, honor and stablish the good and not the evil. For Paul says they “attend continually upon this very thing,” upon taking vengeance in God’s stead, and punishing those who do that which is evil [Rom. 13:4.]. So much from Paul on magisterial office.
It was said, even by the ancient philosophers: “Would you know a man? Give him power.” So widely does the desire for wealth and glory corrupt the heart of man, though for a time it may conceal everything perfectly. When, however, the way is once opened, no one can restrain it so that its victims seem to have been moderate in their longings. Consequently there is no other thing that more surely inflames hidden longings than power; for then they think they have found the opportunity to run riot with impunity. Hence it is a very dangerous thing to entrust power to anyone. Saul surpassed all in kindness and simplicity of heart, as much as in stature and splendor of body [I Sam. 9:2]. Yet how he changed his ways! Who was ever more ungrateful to a benefactor than he to David? Though he had often given the latter occasion, nevertheless he never experienced any ill-treatment at his hands. They say that Pythagoras surpassed all tyrants in cruelty after he obtained the controling power. A man who had held aloof from so many things, and who had been so persistently taciturn that you would call him a misanthrope rather than a lover of dominion, so intoxicated himself with the unrestrained use of power that, as drunk as a man overloaded with wine, he made onslaught upon the innocent. Who now can safely entrust power to anyone when we see the most singlehearted and the wisest so changed by power? What, pray, are we to hope for from those who born in power yet abhor nothing so much as the knowledge of how to. exercise power? When they ought to fulfil the duties, they simply display the outward aspect of a ruler, and leave everything else in the hands of the most greedy men, so that instead of one tyrant those who live under such governments have a thousand. All righteousness flags, greed flourishes, nay, rules, and for no other reason than
that nobody learns how to exercise power. They think that if by some means or other the revenues are very large, government is well administered. But why do I complain of these men, when those who wish to be called ecclesiastics—nay, spirituals and monks—bishops, and abbots, are reckoned good and faithful ministers in proportion as they have increased the annual returns? Let us, therefore, not rashly trust supreme power to the indiscreet, to children, stupid and greedy persons, but to those whose probity, faithfulness, discretion, have been proved by long experience (otherwise we shall in vain some day utter the familiar lament, “I did not think’); and may the Father Almighty give us such rulers as look to no other example than His by whose ordinance they are inducted into such offices, that they may conduct themselves after the manner of our Creator, which would make it possible for us to boast of having many fathers instead of being forced to utter the complaint of the Prophet, Mic. 7: 1-3: “Woe is me! for I am as one who gathereth in autumn the grape of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat; my soul desired the first-ripe figs. The holy man is perished out of the earth; and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; every man hunteth his brother to death. The evil of their hands they call good. The prince asketh, and the judge is for giving; and the great man hath uttered the desire of his soul and they have troubled it,” ete. Let the princes, rather, often reflect upon the words of the same prophet in the third chapter, lest overcome with greed they savagely tear the sheep and lend themselves overmuch to false prophets, bishops, monks, and priests of Baal, who, if they cannot turn away from Christ the souls of all, yet by their bribes and devices shake them, and draw them off, if they can. Let the princes look with suspicion upon every hat or mitre, for although their wearers sometimes pretend that they will have access to Christ, it often happens that they bring a heavier load of damage. For they are the very ones who exhaust kingdoms, enjoying so fully the fruits of others’ labors that they even trample under foot what would be capable of feeding many thousands. But the words of the prophet are as follows, Mic. 3: 1-6: “Hear, ye princes of Jacob, and ye chiefs of the house of Israel: Is it not for you to know judgment? ye who
hate the good and love the evil; who violently pluck off their skin from off them, and the flesh from off their bones; who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them; and have broken and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not answer them: yea, he will hide his face from them at that time, according as they have behaved wickedly in their doings. Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people to err; that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and if a man put not something into their mouth, they prepare war against him. Therefore night shall be unto you instead of vision; and darkness to you instead of divination; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be darkened over them,” ete. If the rulers would listen every day to this discourse of the prophet, they would show themselves somewhat milder to their sheep than some of them have done hitherto. And as to the second part, they would learn there clearly to recognize the frauds of the Romanists, who, while contumaciously resisting the renascent Christ at the bidding of their greed, vociferate that they do everything from devotion to peace, in order to win the favor of all. For we wish to seem devoted to peace, even when we hold arms in our hands and live in camp. So grateful a thing is peace to poor mortals, which yet these persons are strongly bent upon disturbing. For, the reason they take such pains to pretend that they are seeking peace is that they may meanwhile devour all things with their teeth. For where peace flourishes, what churches are there, pray, in which they do not make demands like beggars? And if you do not put cakes into their mouths, but refuse, they even hallow a war against you. What princes, pray, for too many years now have refused anything to these Romanists, the bishops and their satellites, that the latter have not declared war upon them? How often have we seen compacts broken by them! How many myriads of souls have they struck down! I say nothing of the havoc done to bodies, property, and estates, of the destruction of cities,’ the ruin of chastity and faithfulness, the extinction of general righteousness, the barbarizing of men’s natures, all of which
← 59. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 61. Commentary on True and False Religion →