Protestants vs. Radicals – A Lutheran Defends the Rights of Rulers in Religious Matters

page 4 of 8    print version    return to list

previous document      next document

Now, with respect to the conduct of the apostles, it is true that they committed a crime against the government. But not every crime is sinful and punishable. Just as Moses and Phinehas committed murder but were not liable to punishment for it, [Exod. 2:11-15, Num. 25:7-13.] so the crime of the apostles was no sin, because they had been called to it by God and could publicly certify and prove their call with miracles, as though with letter and seal, to both Jews and pagans. So now, if a sect or preaching office springs up in some town or other outside the common order and contrary to governmental prohibition and those responsible want to establish their right to commit such a crime, then they are obliged to do so by performing public miracles. If they do not do that, then one is justified in judging their crime to be sinful and punishable.

But again someone might say: According to this rule the evangelical preachers committed a crime because they did not confirm their teaching with miracles. Answer: I am not speaking here of the doctrine, whatever its merits might be, but of the public teaching office and of the public or secret sect. Now, because the evangelical preachers have been duly called by the government and perform their calling and office in those places to which the government has summoned them and where the secular government permits an assembly, no one can accuse them of any crime and they do not need to perform any miracles, since they assumed their office lawfully. But they must take care that they are able to render account for their teaching. Just as a secular official who has been appointed to his office by the government does not need to account for his call to that office, for he was lawfully called to it (and the government knows that), but must render account for his conduct in office, so is it in the case of a preacher who has been duly called by the government.

But anyone who has unlawfully entered the preaching office must render account not only for his teaching but also for his call. If he cannot do this, he is guilty of a crime. And indeed, recent experience should have been sufficient to teach us that unlawful preaching, even if some truth be mixed in with it, leads to no good. When both peasants and scholars began some years ago to preach without call or appointment, that brought us the drama of the Peasants’ Revolt.

And our memorandist admits this in his second memorandum,* where he says: “If a preacher attempts to preach where he does not have an appointment, then the government should restore peace” etc. Suppose then that in some place where there are no Anabaptists and no preacher, a few citizens adopt the Anabaptist faith and choose a preacher from among their number, who would say that this preacher had been lawfully called? For individual citizens or subjects have no authority to call a preacher; or if they have such authority, it is proper that they supply proof of it. But if they cannot publicly certify their authority, should not the lawful government have the power to curb their crime? If it has the power to prevent the formation of guilds where none exist, must it not also have the power to prevent the formation of a new religious group in its territory?

We are asked to accept that if it were to happen that in the space of one week an entire neighbourhood of people living in one particular street in a city converted from Christianity to Judaism and had themselves circumcised according to Jewish custom, the government would be obliged to allow them to build their own synagogue and to grant them the right to do everything according to the law of Moses. Who would be so mad as to recommend any such thing to a government?

It is another matter when subjects who adhere to two or three faiths accept and confirm government on the condition that it permit everyone the observance of his own religion, as the Jews accepted the Romans, and the Bohemians, so they say, accepted Ferdinand.** Similarly, Joshua promised security to the Gibeonites and had to keep his word even though the Israelites had otherwise been commanded to extirpate all alien religions in the land of Canaan. However, as for allowing a new sect or teaching office to enter its territory, a government may well have reasons for doing so, as perhaps the authorities in Worms and Frankfurt have good grounds for tolerating the Jews. But I can find no reason why a government should be forced or compelled by virtue of its office to do any such thing, etc.


* i.e., in his letter to Spengler.
** In October 1526, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was elected King of Bohemia after having agreed to uphold the rights of the Estates, which included the right to adhere to any of several legally recognized religions.