Second, there is proof of this in the New Testament, namely in St. Paul, 1 Tim. 2[:1-2]: “I exhort,” says Paul, “that first of all intercessions be made for kings and all governments, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” Observe that it is incumbent on government to maintain a quiet and peaceable life among Christians. Now there is nothing that makes Christians more agitated and disquieted than the emergence among them of false preachers and separate sects. We are told that if two people were to quarrel and wrangle with one another over two cents, the government should intervene but that if, on the other hand, they were to quarrel with one another publicly from the pulpit over doctrinal matters and were not to keep it a matter of personal disagreement but were rather to awaken disquiet and confusion in the congregation, that the government should not intervene and restore peace by convenient, untyrannical means. It is true that the government cannot step in as a judge of doctrines, but it should step in as the judge of disorder and disunity, because it pertains to its office to maintain a quiet and peaceable life among its subjects.
Moreover, this is proved by the words of the author of the memorandum himself, for he writes as follows: “The secular government has been commanded to punish public crimes that it sees manifest in words and deeds” etc. But is it not a public crime if ten or twenty citizens in a town (where perhaps one or two thousand live) are peaceful members of the church and are content with the preacher that has been properly appointed by their government but then, over a period of four or six weeks, separate themselves and try to establish their own assembly and even, contrary to the order established by their government, to inaugurate a new preaching office? If they do not like the preacher who has been properly appointed by the government, they can still believe what they wish or move away. But to go beyond their personally chosen faith and to establish a new assembly and preaching office in a community that is not theirs to govern and in which they have no public authority, that is a public crime. And when the government intervenes, one cannot accuse it of attempting to control faith. Let everyone believe and confess for himself whatever he wishes, that is certainly no concern of the secular magistrate; but it does concern the magistrate when someone establishes a new sect* or a new preaching office without its permission.
Here someone might object and say: By this rule, the apostles should not have preached until they had been either called by the government or granted its permission. But since in fact they preached without the warrant of the government, often indeed contrary to governmental ban, they must, according to what was said above, have done wrong. Answer: It is certainly true, beyond question or doubt, that the apostles acted contrary to governmental ordinances. But one must ask whether their behaviour contrary to governmental fiat constituted a punishable crime. To be sure, if one chooses to judge the matter according to external appearances, it is a crime, and it was proper for a pagan or a Jewish government, according to its pagan or Jewish faith, to examine the case. I do not say that it was proper for them to have a pagan or a Jewish faith. Indeed, the most appropriate course would have been for them to inquire into the true faith, acquire it, and adhere to it. But since they had always been of the Jewish or pagan faith, they did not do as they should have. But according to their faith they acted conscientiously and prudently when they took action against a new sect or preaching office established contrary to their faith. And I deem it a foolish and imprudent government, whatever faith it may adhere to, that heedlessly allows a new assembly contrary to its faith to arise among its subjects. But if it desires to act justly as well as prudently, it must first of all take the true faith to heart and then, so far as is appropriate to its office, promote that faith and keep it peaceful.
* Sometimes, as in the fourth paragraph of this memorandum and again in the last paragraph, Brenz uses the German word “sect,” the meaning of which is exactly rendered by the cognate English term. But here and in several other passages he uses the word “rotirung,” which is related to the verb “sich rotten” (to band together, usually for nefarious purposes). By so doing, he deliberately implies that those who form new sects are unruly and potentially dangerous people. These overtones of disorder and rebelliousness are not adequately conveyed by the word “sect.” On the other hand, if “sect” says too little, the standard English equivalents of “rotirung” (mob, gang, horde, rabble, etc.) all say too much and make Brenz’s rhetoric sound more lurid than it actually is. Thus, for want of a better term, “rotirung” has in all instances been translated as “sect.” [All footnotes taken from: Whether Secular Government Has the Right to Wield the Sword in Matters of Faith. A Controversy in Nürnberg over Freedom of Worship and the Authority in Spiritual Matters, translated by James M. Estes. Toronto: Center for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1994, pp. 55-72.]
print version
return to list
previous document