Church Discipline Or Civil Punishment: on the Origins of the Reformed Schism, 1528- 1531
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1985. Vol. 23. No. 1, 3-18. Copyright @ 1985 by Andrews University Press. CHURCH DISCIPLINE OR CIVIL PUNISHMENT: ON THE ORIGINS OF THE REFORMED SCHISM, 1528- 1531 J. WAYNE BAKER University of Akron Akron, Ohio 44325 The question of the proper relationship between the church and the civil magistracy in the Christian community was one of the significant issues brought to the fore by the Protestant Reformation. The problem was a legacy of the challenge to papal supremacy by several late medieval theorists, the most notable of whom, Marsilius of Padua, gave complete sovereignty in the Christian community to the civil authority. A second and related late medieval develop- ment was the tendency in the imperial cities to view the Christian city in corporate terms, thus identifying the church with the civil community, and giving complete control of the Christian city to the civil magistrates.' This trend toward magisterial supremacy was intensified as a result of the Reformation. In the Swiss Confederation, several city governments had already, prior to the Reformation, partially imposed their wills over the churches under their jurisdiction. With the advent of the Reformation, the magistrates of these cities acted swiftly to institu- tionalize their control by abolishing the old ecclesiastical discipline and substituting for it a civil discipline. They had few qualms about extending their authority over church and clergy. The first such institutionalization took place at Zurich when the council, in 1525, created the Ehegericht, or marriage court, which in time became a true morals court. It was a magisterial court, not an ecclesiastical tribunal. In Zurich, church discipline thus became 'For Marsilius, see Alan Gewirth, Marsilius of Padua: The Defender of Peace, vol. 1: Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy (New York, 1951); for the process in the imperial cities, see Bernd Moeller, Reichsstadt und Reformation (Giitersloh, 1962). 4 J. WAYNE BAKER civil punishment under the authority of the Christian magistracy.2 Similar systems of discipline were adopted by other Swiss states, such as Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, as they became Reformed cities in the late 1520s. This institutionalization of magisterial discipline did not occur without controversy. Throughout much of the sixteenth century there was a continuing conflict within the Reformed churches between two parties advocating two distinctive approaches to dis- cipline. Two vital issues were involved in this controversy. First, there was the late medieval question of who should control disci- pline in the Christian community: Should it be the church, or should it be the magistracy? This issue largely pertained to the development of public policy and the wielding of political power; at stake was the matter of who exercised decisive social control. The second question related more directly to Reformation theol- ogy: What should be the definition of the nature of the church and the consequent relationship of the church to civil society? The present essay is devoted to an analysis of the origins of the split in the Reformed mind over the matter of discipline in the thought of Huldrych Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger, on the one hand, and Johannes Oecolampadius, on the other hand. The model of church polity and discipline developed in Zurich by Zwingli and especially by Bullinger was perfectly in tune both with the theoret- ical developments of the later Middle Ages exemplified in the theory of Marsilius and with the actual assumption of power over the church by the civil governments. The system advocated by Oecolampadius in Basel, however, cut directly across these late medieval lines with its insistence on the essential independence of the church from the civil magistrate in matters of discipline and polity. 1. Zw ingli's Concept of Christian Discipline Zwingli was the originator of the first Reformed concept of Christian discipline. He clearly presented his mature point of view *For the 1525 statute, see Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., Ulrich Zwingli (1484- 1531): Selected Works (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 118-122. For a study of the court, see Walther Kohler, Ziircher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, 1: Das Ziircher Ehegericht und seine Auswirkung in der deutschen Schweiz zur Zeit Zwinglis (Leipzig, 1932). THE REFORMED SCHISM, 1528-1531 5 as an advocate of magisterial discipline in a remarkable letter of May 4, 1528,3 to Ambrosius Blarer of Constance. Blarer had written Zwingli to present the objections of Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Catholics in Constance to the ius reformandi of the magistracy and to ask for Zwingli's own opinion on the right of the magistrate to effect reform and to rule over the external affairs of the church. Zwingli's reply was a short treatise on the topic of Christian disci- pline. He based his theory on the conviction that the church and civil community formed a single corporate entity under the com- plete authority of the Christian magistrate. Zwingli cast his entire argument in opposition to Luther's dictum, "Christ's kingdom is not external," which Zwingli equated with the Anabaptist position on the relationship of the magistracy to the church. On the basis of the internal nature of Christ's king- dom, then, Luther denied that the magistrate could involve him- self, as a magistrate, in matters of religion.4 Zwingli countered with the assertion that "Christ's kingdom is also external."5 In building 3Emil Egli, et al., eds., Huldrych Zwinglis samtliche Werke (Berlin, Leipzig, Zurich, 1905- ), 9:451-467 (hereinafter cited as ZW). Some feel that Zwingli origi- nally took a position advocating discipline in the hands of independent congrega- tions, based on such evidence as Article XXXI of Zwingli's "Sixty-Seven Articles" of 1523; in Jackson, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), p. 114. For this point of view, see Alfred Farner, Die Lehre uon Kirche und Staat bei Zwingli (Tubingen, 1930), pp. 15-18; but cf. Robert C. Walton, Zwingli's Theocracy (Toronto, 1967), p. 214, to the effect that Zwingli's point of view as stated in his letter to Blarer was "only a further elucidation of the position taken before 1523." For a discussion of the situation in Constance that precipitated Blarer's request and of Zwingli's reply, see Bernd Moeller, Johannes Zwick und die Reformation in Konstanz, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, 28 (hereinafter cited as QFRG) (Giitersloh, 1961), pp. 121-123; Hans-Christoph Rublack, Die Ezn- fuhrung der Reformation in Konstanz von den Anfangen bis zum Abschluss 1531, QFRG 40 (Gutersloh and Karlsruhe, 1971), pp. 74-75; and Fritz Blanke, "Zwingli mit Arnbrosius Blarer im Gesprach," pp. 81-86 in Der Konstanzer Reformator Ambrosius Blarer 1492-1564. Gedenkschrift zu seinem 400. Todestag, ed. Bernd Moeller (Stuttgart, 1964). 'regnum Christi non est externum. ZW, 9:452 (cf. p. 466, lines 9-10). For an EngIish translation of Zwingli's letter, see G. R. Potter, trans., "Church and State, 1528: A Letter from Zwingli to Ambrosius Blarer (4 May 1528)," Occasional Papers of The American Society for Reformation Research, 1 (Dec., 1977): 114-115. See also Hans Rudolf Lavater, "Regnum Christi etiam externum-Huldrych Zwinglis Brief vom 4. Mai 1528 an Ambrosius Blarer in Konstanz," Zwingliana, 15/5 (1981/1982): 338-381 (an annotated German translation of the letter is given on pp. 353-381). 5ZW, 9:454; see also Lavater, p. 359, n. 119. 6 J. WAYNE BAKER his argument, Zwingli noted that the apostles abolished circumci- sion, clearly an external matter. Then, in case someone might reply that even though the apostles could legislate concerning such a matter as circumcision, the magistrate could not do so, Zwingli pointed out that the decision at the Council of Jerusalem had been made by the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6). He then proceeded to argue that the term "presbyter" in the NT referred both to ministers of the word and to lay elders, i.e., to men of substance "who in arranging and attending to affairs were to the church what the council is to the city." Appealing to Erasmus' translation of "np~ofhh~po~"with "seniores," Zwingli argued that these elders of apostolic times were the equivalent of councilmen or magistrates in Zurich or Constance. Just as the elders made decisions for the church at the Council of Jerusalem, so the council of the Christian city should not hesitate to make decisions for the church.6 Zwingli thus defended the supremacy of the magistracy over all affairs in the commonwealth, including religion. Even though he did not deal directly with the classic locus on discipline and ex- communication (Matt l8:l5- l8), it is clear that "Tell it to the church" (vs. 17) meant, for Zwingli, "Tell it to the magistracy." He opposed any separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and therefore viewed the Ehegericht as a magisterial rather than an ecclesiastical court. Furthermore, he clearly identified the church assembly with the civil community. For him, these were but a single corporate entity. In his letter to Blarer, in direct opposition to the viewpoint of Luther and the Anabaptists, Zwingli wrote: "I think that the Christian man is to the church what the good citizen is to the city." And even more clearly, at a later time, he insisted: "The Christian man is nothing other than the faithful and good citizen; the Chris- tian city is nothing other than the Christian church."7 This view of Christian society led Zwingli to place in the hands of the Chris- tian magistracy all disciplinary authority, including the imposi- tion of excommunication, if it was to be used at all. Since there was but one example of excommunication in the NT (1 Cor 5),Zwingli felt that only the most flagrant sinner could be banned from the 'jZW, 9:456.