THE NET OF FAITH

by Peter Chelčický

translated by Rev. Enrico Molnár

CHAPTER 40

INTERPRETATION OF LUKE 3:14

REFUTATION OF ST. AUGUSTINE’S

ARGUMENT ON PERMISSIBLE WARFARE

[ The temporal power, bad as it is, could not of itself sharpen so many swords for the Christians. ]  But that ‘great pillar’ of the Church of Rome, who supports it strongly so that it may not fall, gave to the gospel a spirit of a sharp sword when he said, “If Christian discipline were to disparage war completely, this should be found in the gospel ordering us to put down arms and give up soldiering; however, it is satisfied with the admonition not to exact too much and to be content with wages.  It does not attack the calling of the soldier.”[407]  This ‘great pillar’ has thus extracted blood instead of milk out of the gospel.  If our faith were founded on such acts of bloodiness (sic) – and how much blood there was spilled by the soldiers because of this teaching – then it would be correct.  But our faith obliges us to bind wounds, not to make blood run…

And he says about the Christian discipline that when the soldiers came to John to be baptized saying, “And we, what must we do?” John should he have given them another answer: “Throw your weapons away, give up war service, wound and kill no one.”[408]  According to these arguments, it would seem necessary for the Roman Church to fight, to shed human blood, and to gain peace by the sword…  For this reason there is a need of soldiers who would go to war for the Holy Church and for Country.  According to this (view) warfare among Christians is a good thing and founded on Scriptures…  Therefore, when that ‘pillar’ was standing in Rome holding and supporting the Church and providing her with a scripturally sanctioned warfare, some came forth objecting on the basis of Christian discipline; but he accused them of being heretics and their discipline but a foul error.[409]  [ Now it is natural that the Church, leaning against the secular power, does everything she can to bolster up that ‘pillar’, lest it fall down with its strange teaching. ]

Now of course, we have to obey the Scripture … but not everything in the Scripture is divine…  Some portions do not lead us to follow Christ for (they) were written by some only as an (historical) record, and they were never (intended) to have any power.  So, for example, when our Lord Jesus cured the lepers[410] he told them to go to show themselves to the priests and to offer gifts in accordance with the Law of Moses.  Therefore, even though this was recorded in the Scripture, later on no apostle ever sent cured lepers to the Jewish priests, nor was any Christian obligated to give thank-offerings in accordance with the Law of Moses.  This was written as an (historic) act of the power of Jesus and of a custom of the priests of the Old Testament, but not for an imitation by coming generations of Christians.

The story of John and his soldiers must be understood in a similar manner.  He did certain things and spoke in a certain way, which Lord Jesus neither did nor spoke…  And we understand that John was sent before Lord Jesus to prepare[411] his way, that is, to move the people to repentance and to an expectation of Lord Jesus, saying that he who will come after him will be greater…  Therefore John, who preceded our Lord Jesus in time, was still under the Law of Moses, which he was bound to observe in all his acts and words – excepting baptism and bearing witness to Jesus; this was outside the Law…  But John could not have changed the laws (concerning) the (established) order of things.

CHAPTER 41

REFUTATION OF AUGUSTINE’S ARGUMENT (CONCLUSION)

The soldiers who came to John with their question were not of the Christian faith.  And John, seeing they were people accustomed to serve commanders and rulers, gave them an answer that was in agreement with the Law of Moses: “Rob no one by violence and be content with your wages.”  For those sins come easiest to those who rely on the power of compulsion…  John did not dissuade them from soldiering, since the Jews were allowed to perform military service and to conduct defensive wars against enemies…  He only tried to restrain them from evils they might easily succumb to in their profession…

John could not have said, “Leave soldiering and follow me.”  But Lord Jesus had the authority to say to the ruler, “Sell all that you possess, give it to the poor, and follow me.”[412]  He had even power to change his claim to nobility, to ask him to leave his wife and to follow Jesus.  He did not order him to defend the church by the sword lest she be blown down by a contrary wind…

[ This story about John and the soldiers ] was not written for the purpose of showing Christians that … they need military service for the defense of faith or of faithful people.  [ It only asks everyone to be faithful to his profession, to his faith. ]  And the Christians must be faithful to the teaching of their Jesus … who taught them to turn the other cheek if anyone struck them on the right cheek,[413] not to return evil for evil, and to love their enemies.

What will the knights with their sword do about this?  That ‘pillar’ who supports the Church in her bloody business is afraid lest Christian discipline should hasten condemning war, and (in doing so) he justifies war in the Christian religion on Jewish kings and their law, and even on pagan kings.[414]  The Church teaches the Christian kings to defend her by war against external enemies and by exterminating heretics (who are the domestic enemies) … by virtue of the example of Jewish kings…

[407] Luke 3:14.  St. Augustine often uses this argumentum e silention.  “The gospel nowhere attacks the calling of soldier, so it views it as lawful.”  Cf. Epistles, 138,ii,15; also De Civitate Dei, v:21, i:20, v:12,13,16,24,26; xix:17, xv:5, iv:4, v:15; xv:7; xix:21, xx;9; etc.

[408] Cf. Contra Faustum, xxii:74.  Augustine is quoted with approval by Calvin: “If Christian discipline condemned all wars when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms…  Those whom he orders to be contented with their pay, he certainly does not forbid to serve.”  MacGregor, The New Testament Basis of Pacifism, 1941, p.20.

[409] Possibly De Civitate Dei I, 19,20.

[410] Luke 17:14.

[411] John 1:15.

[412] Matthew 19:21.

[413] Matthew 5:39,44; Luke 6:29.

[414] e.g. De Civitate Dei, iv:4, xv:5.