On the Office of Preaching (30 June 1525)
Context
On the Office of Preaching text responds directly to the emergence of the Anabaptist movement in and around Zurich in 1524–1525. Former allies of Zwingli, most notably Konrad Grebel and Felix Manz, began to argue that reform had stalled and that Scripture demanded more radical obedience, especially regarding believers’ baptism, separation from civic authority, and the rejection of established ministry. In January 1525, adult baptisms were performed in Zurich, marking a definitive break with the city church. These developments coincided with the broader Peasants’ War in the Empire, heightening fears that religious radicalism could trigger social collapse. The immediate occasion for the treatise was unrest in Toggenburg, a rural territory allied with Zurich, where itinerant preachers entered villages without authorization, criticized infant baptism, rejected the authority of trained clergy, and gathered separatist communities. Zurich’s council, responsible for maintaining both religious unity and public order, requested theological clarification. Zwingli’s text is therefore not an abstract reflection on ministry, but a political-theological intervention designed to justify the regulation of preaching.
Ecclesiologically, the work reflects a decisive shift in Zwingli’s thinking. Earlier writings emphasized the freedom of the Gospel against clerical tyranny; On the Office of Preaching stresses order, calling, and accountability. Zwingli argues that Scripture itself mandates regulated ministry and communal discernment, rejecting claims of immediate inspiration that bypass learning, examination, and authorization. The work marks a clear boundary between the Reformed city church and Anabaptists, whom Zwingli now portrays as schismatic, socially dangerous, and theologically misguided.
Argument
In On the Office of Preaching (1525), Huldrych Zwingli addresses the crisis caused by self-appointed preachers, especially Anabaptists, who entered established congregations without authorization, preached novel doctrines, and administered rebaptism. Written to the Council and community of Toggenburg, in the east of the Swiss Confederation, the treatise combines pastoral warning, ecclesiological argument, and scriptural exegesis to defend ordered ministry against what Zwingli sees as spiritually destructive disorder. Zwingli’s central claim is that no one may legitimately preach unless sent, either by God through clear calling or by the consent of the Christian community. Drawing extensively on Scripture, especially Ephesians 4, Acts, and Pauline epistles, he argues that Christ instituted distinct offices: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, not to encourage doctrinal pluralism, but to preserve unity, maturity, and peace within the body of Christ. The proliferation of unsanctioned teachers inevitably leads to division, novelty, and error. A major polemical target is rebaptism, which Zwingli portrays as an outward, fleshly sign comparable to circumcision controversies in the apostolic age. Like the Judaizers opposed by Paul, the Anabaptists elevate an external rite into a mark of superiority and use it to form sectarian identities. Zwingli insists that Scripture teaches one baptism, valid once for all, and that rebaptism functions socially and politically as a tool of rebellion against both church and civil authority.
Zwingli carefully distinguishes apostles from bishops/evangelists. Apostles were itinerant messengers sent to establish the Gospel in new territories, often without material provision. Bishops and pastors, by contrast, are settled ministers entrusted with the ongoing care, teaching, and discipline of a congregation. Scripture, he argues, not only permits but requires that such ministers have households, receive material support, and exercise authority in an orderly manner. Attacks on benefices and settled ministry therefore rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of apostolic practice. A recurring theme is order versus disorder. True prophecy submits to communal judgment; genuine spiritual authority welcomes correction; God is a God of peace, not confusion. By refusing correction, rejecting learned interpretation, and claiming exclusive possession of the Spirit, the Anabaptists reveal themselves as driven not by divine calling but by pride, ambition, and concealed material interests. Ultimately, Zwingli presents preaching as a communal, accountable office, governed by Scripture, confirmed by calling, and exercised for the building up of the church. Against charismatic self-authorization, he insists that reform without order collapses into chaos, and that spiritual humility is proven not by separation from the church, but by faithful service within it.
Source
Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 4 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927) (Corpus Reformatorum 91)
Von dem Predigtampt (On the Office of Preaching)
June 30, 1525
Contents
Text
Wherein one sees how the self-appointed agitators who wish to be seen as apostles but are not, act against God’s word by preaching among His people without the need and permission of the entire community and its rightful guardians.
To the honorable and wise Council and the entire community of the County of Toggenburg, his especially dear lords and fellow countrymen, Huldrych Zwingli sends grace and peace from God.
I give thanks to God, the heavenly Father, that He has enlightened you with the light of His word and has led you so well into the recognition of the truth, so that you stand firmly in His covenant, which is entirely due to His grace and mercy, not to your wisdom. To Him be praise and honor forever! May He also continue to protect you so that you increase ever more in all goodness! Amen.
Dear lords and brothers! The fact that you, with discipline, remove idolatry and, through rightful judgment, release the priests who oppose the Gospel from their office shows that you are growing in all divine knowledge and courage. However, I warn you to be watchful so that the devil does not secretly instigate dissension among you, causing you to fall into errors more harmful than the former ones [cf. Matthew 12:45], as has happened before when people said: “I am of Christ” [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12] but did not live as Christians nor maintained peace.
Now, I hear that something similar may soon happen to you through those who, without the congregation’s permission, enter and begin preaching and rebaptizing out of their own impulse. The one act serves to confuse the truth, the other to incite rebellion. For rebaptism has been introduced for no other reason than to secretly conspire and rebel against authority (by which I do not mean the entire papacy, for that should not rule in a worldly manner, as it says in Matthew 20 [cf. Matthew 20:25-27]).
Both of these actions are entirely and utterly against Christ. First, because no one should teach unless they are sent. Secondly, because rebaptism is completely against God, as it is neither indicated nor commanded by word or example in either the New or Old Testament. Circumcision was given once and served as the sign for the old covenant, just as baptism is for us. Furthermore, the New Testament has only one baptism, which neither Christ nor the holy apostles ever rejected or taught to be repeated. On this subject, we have previously published a separate book, longer and more detailed than I would prefer.
However, if these godless men, who exalt themselves as apostles and preachers, wish to introduce even greater discord with their preaching, we will also write about the office of preaching so that people may recognize and silence these foolish, arrogant babblers, and all of it will be proven with clear words from God. If one does not guard against them, every day a new error arises, as anyone can clearly observe. If anyone were allowed to sow whatever they pleased among the Christian people, and if the church were not permitted to judge and reject their errors, then these cunning minds would hatch new ideas every day, just to display their supposed great wisdom and intelligence.
It is the same now as it was in the time of the apostles. Some came from Jerusalem to Antioch [cf. Acts 15:1-24], Corinth [cf. 1 Cor. 1:10ff.; 2 Cor. 10 and 11], Philippi [cf. Phil. 3:2], Crete [cf. Titus 1:5], and to the Galatians [cf. Gal. 1:7; 5:7-12] and took it upon themselves to teach. But all their effort was focused on external matters, particularly circumcision. They were well received because they came from Jerusalem and were Israelites. They claimed to have a greater faith, saying they had learned Christian doctrine from those who had personally heard Christ; some of them may even have seen Christ Jesus in the flesh.
However, their main intent was to disparage Paul’s name and bring him into contempt,since he strongly opposed their deceptions and even refuted them completely through his letters by the power of the truth. At the same time, they sought to build a following for themselves, which led to divisions among Christians. Their goal was to make themselves distinguished through new teachings and to profit from them. But when Paul recognized their deceit, he exposed them everywhere, especially in Philippians 3 [Phil. 3:2]: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh.” (Paul chooses this wording deliberately. They promoted circumcision, so he calls it “mutilation,” since they divided the new believing people with their arguments over circumcision, just as if one today were to call the Anabaptists “drowners” because their teachings could lead to great discord among the faithful and ultimately harm and suppress the Gospel.)
“Yes,” Paul says [Phil. 3:3], “beware of the mutilation; for we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” He then says, [Philippians 3:17-19] “ Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.”
Now, let us compare our modern-day mutilators with those Paul warned against. They first went out from Zurich and attached themselves to strangers, deceiving them with reckless speed to the point that they allowed themselves to be rebaptized. But let every devout Christian consider how justly or faithfully they have acted in this.
First, they were both publicly and privately refuted, so they should not have taken their teachings on baptism to other churches, nor should they have spread their errors further. For if it were allowed that someone who has been proven wrong could still impose their falsehoods upon other churches, then there would be more discord among Christians than among unbelievers. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, so that we may maintain unity.” [1 Cor. 12:13]
Secondly, they did not reveal to the simple-minded the solid foundations of infant baptism, which they had seen demonstrated in Zurich when they preached about baptism. It is well known that in Zurich, we uphold infant baptism and resist rebaptism, with the full counsel and support of the authorities, through our preaching of God’s word.
Yet they proceed arrogantly, speaking of our honorable council with such mockery that it is unbearable. They slander the preachers, especially me, in such a disgraceful manner that every God-fearing person should rightfully be repulsed by their inhuman insolence. This happens because they sell their name for profit and, in doing so, rob those who listen to them of all understanding and faith. They claim to be the only ones who have the Spirit of God, for they condemn all who do not submit to rebaptism or who oppose them. But why do they condemn others? It must be because those others have not been baptized (according to their belief), in which case it follows that they consider themselves superior to the unbaptized by the same degree that they despise them. Or they condemn other Christians because they believe they are not truly faithful, leading to the conclusion that they have convinced themselves that no one possesses God’s Spirit or faith except them alone.
Their latest actions reveal their nature: they scorn so many well-educated, wise men and so many God-fearing, devout people, disregarding all warnings and sound understanding. Despite all the foundations laid in God’s word, they have introduced rebaptism and elevated themselves to the status of apostles. In every congregation they enter, even where bishops and believers already exist, they impose rebaptism without the community’s approval or even consulting it. Are these not the very mutilators that Paul speaks of? Could there be any greater enemies of the cross of Christ, even if they cover themselves with a false humility? After all, what sect or faction has ever arisen without first displaying an extreme outward humility? Who has ever appeared more humble than the Carthusians?
And yet, these very Carthusians are reluctant to admit why they fled from Ittingen, despite claiming to have had twelve thousand guilders at their disposal. Just look: they have not left behind a single field, meadow, vineyard, fishery, forest, jurisdiction, estate, or landholding. How much more must there be that we do not even know about? And all of this they have acquired within just a few short years, so much so that many now doubt whether there were ever truly Carthusians in Ittingen at all. I have shown this only as an example, that false humility often leads to a terrible outcome in the end. Paul also warns against being deceived by such people in Colossians 2 [cf. Col. 2:18], and truly, as he says, “their god is their belly” [cf. Phil. 3:19].
I well know the hidden motives of some among them. In Zurich, church benefices were no longer being handed out, except for parish positions. Yet some among them resisted this, wishing that the poor, who depended on these funds, would continue to be supported by them. Meanwhile, they falsely taught that no one who held a benefice could preach the Gospel, hoping that pastors would be dismissed so that they could replace them. They publicly proclaimed: “I desire no benefice.” But who knows whether some of them secretly accepted one, stuffing it into their sleeve, just as the Barefoot Friars [Franciscans] quietly collected money? Thus, they served their belly no less than those whom Paul condemned in his time [cf. Phil. 3:19].
Some among them even came to me personally and asked for my mediation so they could obtain benefices, something they cannot now deny if they are honest about the truth. Now their reputation is entirely worldly, for rebaptism is nothing more than an external matter, just as others placed such great importance on the physical act of circumcision. These Anabaptists distinguish themselves from others just as those earlier groups did, speaking of God in grand terms, presenting themselves so piously, as if they had just barely survived a shipwreck. The common folk look on in awe and fear, but in the end, it always comes down to the same things: rebaptism, the rejection of infant baptism, the claim that there should be no government, that all things should be held in common, that no one owes rent or tithes, topics on which we have already provided a Christian response elsewhere. And yet, they use deception in this as well. Publicly, they sigh deeply and proclaim, “Woe, woe to him who collects rent and tithes!” Not that they are saying people should stop paying them. But privately, they whisper into ears: “If you have paid rent for twenty years, you no longer owe your landlord anything.”
Consider, dear and faithful lords and friends, what would result from this! Even those who have no regard for the Gospel would seize upon this argument and claim it for themselves. Observe how they are watching for the moment when no one will pay anything to anyone for their debts. This is the ultimate purpose of their rebaptism and the self-appointed “apostles” who send themselves forth to preach. While it is true that many good things have been misused, especially by the clergy, such matters should still be judged by the proper authority, that is, the government. And those who, through force, withhold or take what belongs to another are not Christians, but robbers. But if the authorities do nothing, then God will surely provide. This is why it is necessary to have governing authorities and for everyone to uphold their commitments and duties. For if one were to begin allowing authorities to be disregarded by those who act in a Christian manner, it would be no different than casting a flock of sheep into the wilderness without a shepherd.
Because of this, dear and faithful lords and brothers, I have been troubled with concern for you, so that your simple and devout people are not led astray into error by these godless, rebellious teachers. For you have always been as lords and brothers to me, and I will forever regard myself as one of you. You will see that if worldly honor or excessive vanity is placed above all else, then no new reform can stand. But where there is knowledge of God and reverence for Him, and where everything is done for His glory, there no one, not over you nor over anyone, can prevail. Therefore, I write this little book for you, so that you may guard yourselves against the wandering talkers and agitators who come preaching where no previous teaching has prepared the way. They do not seek to strengthen what has already been built but rather to overturn it with outward matters.
May God protect you! May He complete the good work He has begun in you [cf. Phil. 1:6]. Given in Zurich.
In whatever way I may serve you, I remain always obedient.
On the Office of Preaching
I do not wish to elaborate further on what prompted me to write this little book. It has already been well understood that this has happened because some have become so presumptuous that, without the authorization of a bishop or the church congregation, they run into foreign parish churches, ring the bells, preach whatever they wish, and perform rebaptisms, leading to disorder and rebellion. And then they claim that they act rightly, that they are sent by God. With this writing, I want to demonstrate through their very own deeds that they are not sent by God, and that such actions should not be permitted in any congregation unless granted by the unanimous consent of the entire church body.
Therefore, although this book carries the title “On the Office of Preaching,” I will also, God willing, discuss teaching in general and how it was practiced in the time of the holy apostles. To begin, let us first consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 4 [Eph. 4:11-14], where he says: “He himself granted that some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity,[a] to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Paul’s words mean that Christ has established these offices (each of which I will discuss separately later) within His body, that is, the church, so that His body may be strengthened and built up in unity of faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God. This way, it may become a complete, strong, and fully developed body, just as Christ in His earthly life reached the full stature of a perfect man and was put to death in the prime of His strength. This is so that we are not easily swayed and tossed about by every wind of vain doctrine, teachings devised through deceit and cunning trickery, which are intended to draw people into error and to gain a following through deception.
See, All Devout Christians! If these offices were established by God so that various doctrines could be tolerated, then it could never be right for anyone to appoint himself as an open teacher. For the more leaders there are, the more differing opinions arise, and deception can easily hide itself. No one presents falsehood in its raw form; rather, they give it an attractive appearance. The pope has long upheld his ranks of scholars under the pretense of preventing error. Yet, even in our own time, we have seen them openly work to suppress the truth. But does this mean that anyone may simply claim to be an apostle, teacher, or evangelist? No! This will be made clear in what follows.
Now, let us first speak of the office of the apostles, for all offices have their distinct purposes. An apostle is nothing other than a messenger. Thus, if we were to speak proper German, we would say there were twelve messengers. However, we do not say: Peter the messenger or James the messenger. The name and office were instituted by Christ Himself. Luke 6:13 states: “Jesus called His disciples to Himself and chose twelve from among them, whom He also named apostles.” That is sufficient explanation of the title.
The office of the apostles is to preach the Gospel, that is, to teach the world to know both God and itself. When a person truly recognizes themselves, they must come to dissatisfaction with their own nature. This leads to repentance and reformation, if they also come to the knowledge of God. But from this arises another kind of despair, when a person finds themselves so sinful that they realize they are in need of salvation. Even as they strive for betterment each day, they still find within themselves deep flaws, failures, and imperfections, which may cause them to despair of ever approaching God. At this point, the apostles reveal the salvation that God has graciously given us through His Son. This is their highest duty, and indeed, the greatest office among all. For the apostles had to travel, since they were messengers, and they were the first to carry the message of salvation throughout the world.
Christ entrusted this office to them first when He sent them to preach, limiting their mission initially to Jewish lands, as stated in Matthew 10:5-16: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Cure the sick; raise the dead; cleanse those with a skin disease; cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff, for laborers deserve their food. Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:11-16) Here we see the nature of the apostles’ commission and mission: they were given a general charge, that all who are sent to preach should be sustained for the sake of the teaching. Thus, all who proclaim the Gospel hold no office different from that of the apostles in terms of preaching itself.
However, the apostles surpassed the prophets, evangelists, and teachers in that they were the first to bring the Gospel to an unknowing and unbelieving world, and they carried God’s word through wide and perilous journeys, as we see clearly in the life of the holy Paul. God did not allow them any comforts or provisions of earthly assistance or necessities, which, however, were later granted to those who were appointed in their place within the churches, as will be explained later. Furthermore, Christ reinforced this same commission, but expanded it, when He spoke to them on the day of His resurrection [John 20:21-23]: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” And after saying this, He breathed on them and said: “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Mark 16:15-16 expresses this same idea with these words: “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[a] to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” This is binding and loosing. “Whoever believes is loosed; whoever does not believe is bound.” This is well demonstrated throughout Scripture. Luke expresses this commission as follows [Luke 24:45-47]: “Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” Although this commission is broader than the first one, where they were initially sent only to the Jewish people, Matthew 28:19-20 also confirms it: “ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”
Thus, among those who serve the Word, there is no essential difference between the apostles and others, except that the apostles were appointed to travel far and wide without any material preparation or provisions. That is why I have often said that those who claim to be apostles among Christians, such as the high bishops and prelates, should also go forth without bag or purse if they truly follow the apostolic example. But what do they do? Even the devil himself could not be more deceitful. They do not preach at all, yet they still demand to be called apostles. They travel with grand entourages, as if they were meant to subjugate the rulers of this world. It is impossible for them to be apostles or messengers, for they do not walk in the way of the Word at all, indeed, they do not even carry it. Therefore, those who do preach the Word but remain in their churches and do not travel cannot be apostles either. These we will discuss later.
Now follows Paul’s statement [Ephesians 4:11]: “And some He appointed as prophets.” The word prophet is not Hebrew but Greek, derived from “to foretell”, and it properly means a predictor, someone who speaks of future events and reveals what is to come. his was the office of the prophets in the Old Testament, which has now been assumed by evangelists, bishops, or pastors. The prophets observed the sins of the people, either forbidding them where they arose or uprooting them where they had already taken root. As God said to Jeremiah [Jeremiah 1:9-10]: “Now I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” This, in short, is the primary duty of a prophet: to uproot, break down, and destroy everything that has been raised up against God, and to build and plant what God desires.
During the time of the apostles, certain men were also called prophets because they had a deep understanding of Scripture and explained it before the entire church. At that time, there were no written Scriptures of the New Testament, and the apostles taught orally. However, when the evangelists later recorded their writings, they wrote down what had already been learned, understood, and believed. The epistles were also written to strengthen the faith that had first been learned through preaching and believed through divine revelation. From this, we understand that those who interpreted the Scriptures of the Old Testament before the church were also called prophets in the time of the apostles. This is clearly shown in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, where Paul says: “ When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three and each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said. If someone sitting receives a revelation, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged (and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets”, “For God Is Not a God of Disorder and Conflict, but of Peace.”
This is the meaning of Paul’s words: “When you come together to hear the Psalms or the Scriptures, some among you are learned, some can speak languages (here he primarily refers to Hebrew), some have received a special revelation from God, and some can interpret, translating Hebrew words into Greek or another language. You should handle these things in such a way that they build up the congregation.”
For example, there were many among the Jews who became Christians and then lived among the Gentiles who came to faith. Those who knew the Hebrew language should read or recite the Scriptures aloud in an orderly way. Then, another person should translate the words into the common language. Anyone who is neither an interpreter nor a language scholar should not speak before the exposition of the prophets but rather remain silent and speak privately with himself and with God. Even when the Scriptures were read in two languages, many still did not understand them. This is why the prophets would then explain the meaning of the Scriptures and reveal the will of God from them. Thus, prophets had to be learned in languages, for all other gifts served the purpose of leading to the highest gift, which is the ability to interpret and expound on God’s Word. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:1: “Desire the spiritual gifts, but most of all, that you may prophesy.” That is: to interpret and explain the divine Word of Scripture. When the prophets expounded the Scriptures, the whole church was to judge, that is, all others were to assess whether the interpretation was correct or not.
Now, one might ask: How can the church judge, if they are hearing something for the first time that they have never heard before? Answer: Through God, who dwells within them. Wherever God is present in a person, that person immediately understands whether something is being spoken for God’s glory and for the peace of His people, or not. From this, we learn a fundamental truth: The pope and all his followers must be judged by the church, that is, by those to whom he preaches. The pope has no right to force the Word upon the people; rather, they must judge him. If his teachings do not align with God’s truth, the people are not bound to accept them. See in What a Deluded State the Papacy Exists! They do not teach, yet they force the Word upon others. Woe, woe, how is it that blind people always seek to defend the corrupt papacy?
When the prophets speak in order, and during this, if someone among the congregation has been given insight into the Scriptures by God, that person should also have the right to speak about their understanding. However, this must be done in an orderly and disciplined manner: If a new speaker begins, the previous one should fall silent. No new speaker should begin while the previous one is still speaking. Rather, each should speak one after another when the congregation is assembled, each in their own church and in proper order, so that all people may be encouraged and may learn the truth.
Even though all men in the church have the right to speak about the Scriptures, they should do so only after the prophets, and only when the prophet has not yet explained the meaning of the text. Thus, those who exalt themselves as apostles or prophets do not follow the practice of the apostles in interpreting the Scriptures. They do not remain in their own churches; instead, they run into other churches and speak there without the prophets. They claim that they are allowed to comment on the Scriptures, yet they refuse to allow others to do the same.
Even if they grant permission to speak, they do not allow themselves to be corrected. I could give many examples: Learned and true prophets have come to hear their preaching and have read from the New Testament. When the true prophets asked for permission to speak, they responded that only they had the right to speak. And when the true meaning of Scripture was explained, the Anabaptists refused to accept it, even though the rest of the congregation did. Thus, they do not enter churches to learn, but only to teach, and they refuse to be taught by anyone, despite their empty words claiming they are willing to learn. Paul also says [1 Corinthians 14:30-33]: If someone sitting receives a revelation, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged (and the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder, but of peace). That is: If they are truly prophets of God, they will gladly yield to those who reveal the hidden meaning of Scripture. And All This Shall Be Done in Peace All of this must take place peacefully, for God is not a God of disorder and conflict, but a God of peace.
See how clearly this reveals the true spirit of the Anabaptists, despite how humbly they always present themselves! Their spirits are not subject to the prophets; rather, they immediately create division among them. Example: A respectable and devout prophet once faithfully interpreted Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 before his congregation, particularly regarding the refining fire mentioned there. Even though the Anabaptist who heard the explanation did not understand it, he nevertheless left the sermon and accused the prophet of lying. Look at how “friendly” the spirit of these so-called prophets is! If they truly have the God who has revealed His Gospel to us at this time, then they must have a God of peace, not a God of division. If, instead, they create discord, then they do not have the God of peace, the same God who first revealed the Gospel so peacefully through His prophets and evangelists. Among the true believers, there was no conflict, for we speak only of those churches where the Gospel is preached.
The Anabaptists, however, disrupt these churches. They do not seek out the churches of unbelievers, instead, they bring confusion into the believing churches, where there was once great and steadfast peace in God. And all of this they do for the sake of outward, temporal matters. Therefore, it is clear that they do not have the God of peace, but rather the god of disorder and conflict. They act just like those who came to Antioch and said: “Unless you are circumcised, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:5) They confused the Christian people with this teaching. Likewise, the Anabaptists now say: “Unless you are rebaptized, you cannot be saved.” And with this, they also bring confusion among the people. Thus, We Have Two Distinctions Within the Office of Prophets.
There are two distinct aspects of the office of prophets: The first is how the prophets in the Old Testament resisted evil and planted good. Likewise, watchmen (pastors) in the New Testament do the same. Thus, the office of prophet, bishop/pastor, and evangelist is fundamentally one office. The second aspect of the prophetic office is found in large churches, where the understanding of Scripture is publicly expounded, primarily regarding the Old Testament, when people gather to study Scripture. This practice is not yet common everywhere. However, if God wills, it will soon begin here in Zurich, as arrangements are already underway, as previously promised, with the reformation of the Grossmünster. Thus, strictly speaking, one cannot be called a prophet under this second office unless he is one who can interpret the languages. Paul continues in Ephesians 4:11: “And some He appointed as evangelists.”
The office of evangelists is no different from that of prophets, provided that the prophet is also regarded as a watchman, one who uproots evil and plants good. In this sense, an evangelist is no different from a bishop or pastor. This is clearly confirmed in 2 Timothy 4:5, where Paul writes to Timothy: “Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” But Timothy was a bishop. Therefore, it follows that the office of evangelist and bishop is one and the same. This is also evident from Paul’s previous words in 2 Timothy 4:2, where he speaks of the bishop and evangelist as one and the same office. [399] As 2 Timothy 4:2 says: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, and encourage with all patience and teaching,” etc.
What is that other than the office of a bishop, a prophet, a shepherd? This office, in terms of teaching, is nothing different than that of an apostle. But the difference lies in this: that the apostles were wanderers or travelers, whereas every bishop resides and is settled in the place where he serves as bishop or pastor. The apostles were not to possess property, while it is fitting for pastors to have their own possessions, as they must be maintained, even though rebellious and unruly factions teach otherwise, contrary to what is plain.
Paul writes in Titus 1:5–9: “ I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain, but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, self-controlled, upright, devout, and restrained, holding tightly to the trustworthy word of the teaching, so that he may be able both to exhort with sound instruction and to refute those who contradict it.” From these words of Paul, well known to all Christians, I wish only to highlight those that serve our understanding.
First, there must have already been apostles in Crete who had preached the faith; but there were not yet appointed priests, bishops, overseers, evangelists, pastors, or prophets, for he says (Titus 1:5): “ I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done.” So, the office of apostle must be something broader or different than that of an evangelist. Secondly, when he speaks about a bishop’s children being believing and well raised, it is clear that he speaks of a settled, householding, respectable man. Where now are the agitators who attack the simplicity of the gospel, saying: “Your pastor should not own a house; he should live as a guest in others’ homes,” and from this they infer: “If he owns a house, then he can no longer speak the truth”? But Paul also writes in 1 Timothy 3:4 concerning the office of a bishop: “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children in submission with all dignity.” And shortly after that (1 Tim. 3:5): “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” See how clearly the distinction between apostles and bishops is revealed, so that one may recognize the spirit of rebellious men.
I could point out here that in this situation, the very poor and forsaken would be less likely to be chosen as bishops than those who are established, because the utterly destitute often govern their household poorly. For where there is good governance, there is also stability. But I will leave that aside, lest anyone think I am trying to hide his greed behind this argument. We hear here, in conclusion, that a bishop is also to be chosen on the condition that he governs his household well. So he must indeed have a household. Yes, it means that one who has a disorderly, quarrelsome, careless, or neglected household is not fit to take care of the whole congregation.
Now tell me, you quarrelsome people, what would you say if Titus, along with the Cretans, had appointed a wealthy, prosperous man to the office of bishop? Therefore, let us look more closely at Scripture and set aside quarreling. Paul here does not indicate whether the bishop should be rich or poor, but he does require that he be a good manager of his household. This should not be misunderstood to mean “housekeeping” in the narrow, material sense, for he also says that a bishop should not be greedy for shameful gain. From this, the whole church has rightly learned that those who are extravagant, shameless profit-seekers, usurers or publicans, should not be chosen as bishops. It’s also clear from the care Paul takes in outlining the bishop’s qualifications that he does not intend for only wealthy people to be chosen. As Christ says in Luke 18:24, “It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Nevertheless, they had to choose those who still managed their households well and lived respectably. That doesn’t happen by begging, because beggars have neither household nor servants. What Paul meant by “householder” was a disciplined man who could govern his household in such a way that it caused no scandal, respectable, obedient, and diligent in what is right. Where there is such a household and household leader, there is also every reason to expect that one can live in a proper manner without burdening or exploiting others.
It all comes down to this: that bishops or evangelists are not acting in an Antichristian or papist manner simply because they own homes or goods, as long as they are not shamefully greedy for worldly possessions. And when Paul says that a bishop should be hospitable (Titus 1:8), that clearly implies he must have a home in order to offer hospitality to the poor and travelers. Likewise, he must have something to share with those who come to him for food. Here we reject the blasphemous slander that the evangelists must endure from the quarrelers, who say: “Anyone who has a benefice (i.e., church income or property) cannot speak the truth and should not be considered a pastor.” Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that those who serve the Gospel should be supported by those to whom they minister. As he writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13: “But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you.” Likewise, in Hebrews 13:7, it is written:
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.” We are not speaking here of the idle and useless clerics who wish to be pastors whether God wills it or not. Rather, we speak only of those who faithfully proclaim the Gospel. Paul also says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching, for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” and “The laborer deserves to be paid.’” From these words, we clearly hear Paul applying Christ’s saying, “The laborer deserves to be paid”,to all offices that serve the teaching of God. As he states: “Especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
(The office of teacher will be addressed later.) But now, since it is evident that those who teach us and lead us in discipline should be supported by us, why then do these rebellious babblers go about whispering among simple Christians: “Whoever receives a benefice cannot preach the Gospel. And even if such a benefice comes from the pope, could it still be from God?” Unless, of course, you split hairs and say that “double honor,” “wages,” or “benefice” are not the same thing. But what does it matter what name you give to the support of those appointed to teach? Whether you call it a wage, a double honor, a benefice, or sustenance, it is the means of maintaining those who are entrusted with teaching. Christ Himself calls it “wages.” Are we to be more spiritual than Christ? They also say: “There should be no established benefices; people should live only from what is freely given to them.”
Answer:
The ordering of outward, material matters belongs to the Christian community. As Paul writes in Philippians 3:16, all things should contribute to peace and unity. Paul himself instituted such order regarding the Lord’s Supper: in the early church, it was custom that the entire meal was eaten in common, as Christ had done. But when abuses began to creep in, Paul corrected them in 1 Corinthians 11:22. Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? And finally, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:34: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.” In the same way, we can rightly understand the origin of benefices: they arose when alms giving, the traditional free offerings, became too burdensome and excessive. When benefices, that is, designated provisions, were instituted, it was done to ensure that these burdens would not overwhelm the church. Yet in the end, poor pastors were forced to resume relying on alms due to poverty, because the tithe lords took the best of the produce and left only the scraps.
Let me give you a personal example: I have often been asked to forgo my benefice. If I had done so, I am certain that an honorable council would have easily raised at least a hundred guilders for me. I would have gained far more than I otherwise received. God knows how much these deceitful slanderers falsely attribute to me. In addition, several citizens offered me generous support. Now tell me, dear reader: what was I supposed to do? I could plainly see that if I gave up my benefice, the stream of voluntary gifts would begin to flow. I know full well how the more flattering of the monastery preachers and friars have profited. Some individuals privately pledged to give me more than a hundred guilders per year, and had my lords given me a hundred more, and had I made the most of that support, it would have been far more profitable than any benefice! But what would have come of that? My successors would likely have followed the same path I had taken, and the seriousness of the teaching would have been turned into a game of flattery. Since no one is completely immune to temptation, and God tests us in many ways, I have been content with a modest, regular benefice from a canonry, because I see that this is by far the best arrangement: that a pastor be given a reasonable, fixed provision each year, so that no one needs to slip him support in secret.
For the one accustomed to such alms-gathering will always present himself as if he has nothing, and in doing so, he will take everything he possibly can. If a pastor has a fixed benefice, then no one needs to pity him, because it is well known that he has a reasonable and stable income. And this entirely eliminates the harmful dependence on almsgiving. The self-appointed preachers should not pout, no matter how friendly they may seem, just because I express this opinion. I could easily point out how they, in their so-called mission (to which they appointed themselves), have eaten and drunk at the expense of the poor and simple, all while carrying gold and silver in their own pockets.
Let me contrast their behavior with my own. Every time I have preached in the countryside, I have not acted as if I were any holier than they. I have paid for my own provisions out of my own pocket. And when people offered me money or gifts, I refused them, even though they were offered willingly and generously. Christ says in Matthew 6:22: “If your eye is pure, your whole body will be full of light.” This speaks directly to the danger of seeking material gain. If you are a true servant of God, then you will use your benefice to the glory of God. But if you are not His servant, it will soon become obvious, for you will begin to chase after shameful profit and greedy gain. As soon as that happens, you become salt that has lost its flavor,fit for nothing but to be thrown away [cf. Matthew 5:13]. One can place more trust in someone with a modest, fixed benefice, so long as he teaches rightly, than in someone who lives in constant fear of being dismissed. I have no regard for the idle chatterers who come pretending to own nothing, while clearly looking after their own interests. You can see it clearly in how they posture and present themselves. Sadly, I had to learn the truth about them too late.
At first, among the simple folk, I thought their zeal was spiritual, later, I saw it was just greed. It also deeply troubles me when preachers demand large sums before they will agree to preach. I do not know whether such men are even worthy of being called preachers. Thankfully, we have few of that kind among us here, so I will not dwell on them. As for what is said about the supposed wealth of pastors in Zurich: in the year 1524, I could not have made even sixty guilders had not the provost and the chapter granted me sixteen portions to supplement my income. Others have even less than I do, though some might have a bit more. Yet the slanderers falsely claim I receive three hundred guilders, along with other benefices. I speak this before God, who raised and sustains me: I am satisfied with what I have. If I ever lacked anything, it would be only so I could give more to the poor, since I am not able to help them as generously now as I once could when I had more.
Indeed, if I were to follow my fleshly desires, I would much prefer to renounce every benefice on earth, if only I could avoid preaching. But the times will not allow it, and I dare not bury the small talent God has entrusted to me [cf. Luke 19:13ff.]. So you see: it is only the relentless noise of these disorderly preachers that forces me to speak of my own affairs, something I would never choose to do.
They even go so far as to spread rumors about my wife, Anna Reinhart, saying how wealthy she is, when in fact she does not possess even the value of a full silver coin beyond her household goods and clothing, nor more than four hundred guilders altogether. Since marrying me, she has neither worn fine garments nor adorned herself with rings but has lived as simply as the wife of any common tradesman. The modest inheritance her children, the Meyer family, gave her is necessary for her own support. She is over forty years old and suffers frequent illness; this is one of the reasons I married her. And yet they slander her, spreading falsehoods about her supposed wealth and lavish clothing. But everyone who knows her situation understands the injustice being done to her. Slander flourishes easily, especially in times of resentment. Not every lie immediately shows itself for what it is. Her children have a fair inheritance. May God grant them the grace to use it rightly. But of all the wealth people speak of, she possesses not even a single silver coin, except for her clothing, a few personal ornaments, and her living stipend, which amounts to thirty guilders. I have also given her full freedom to secure her morning gift (i.e., legal dowry) from this, and I make no claim to her property, not even to a single coin. Paul himself often defended against slander because he saw that false accusations could bring real harm to the Gospel. In the same way, I would gladly remain silent in my own defense, were it not for the damage these lies bring to the message of Christ.
To begin with, we clearly learn here that this Philip in Caesarea, called an evangelist, was in fact serving as a watchman or bishop, though he is not referred to as an apostle. Yet he was one of the seven who had earlier been chosen as deacons in Acts 6:5. It’s also important to note that the title “apostle” or “messenger” seems to have changed when someone became permanently settled in one place and no longer traveled, whether due to age or by orderly assignment. At that point, they came to be known as bishops. For example: James the Younger (not “the Lesser”, since minor in Latin refers to age, not status) served as bishop in Jerusalem. Jerome and the early church fathers all call him bishop, precisely because he was settled there. When the other apostles went out to distant lands to preach, James, who had once also gone out to preach, remained in Jerusalem as a watchman and leader of the Word of God. Likewise, John the Evangelist suffered much in his apostolic labors. But in the end, he died as a bishop (i.e., watchman) in Ephesus, in the 68th year after Christ’s ascension. This shows the difference between apostles and evangelists: not in their teaching, but in the nature of their office. Furthermore, we hear that this Philip had his own home, for Paul stayed there with a large group of companions.
This stands in sharp contrast to the disorderly preachers of our time, who, wherever they go, immediately seek to elevate themselves by undermining the bishops and pastors who have long and faithfully preached the Gospel. They disrupt the work of these shepherds and mislead their flocks. They do this in the following way: they read aloud Matthew 10:6–42 and say: “See! The apostles were to lodge with others and own nothing of their own. Therefore, these ‘mass-priests’ or ‘pulpit-preachers’ (as they call them) cannot speak the truth, because they have benefices!” But this argument fails because they refuse to distinguish between the apostolic office and that of evangelists or bishops. Such confusion stems from disgraceful ignorance. And if you point this out to them, quoting nothing but the clear Word of God to show that the apostolic office and the bishopric are distinct, they shout: “God has spoken! As it says in Matthew 11:25, He has hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to the simple! Therefore, we should not listen to the scholars!” They go on: “God has given His Spirit just as much to the Germans as to the Latins or Greeks!” And even more defiantly: “Honest folk, we have it in our hands, and no one shall take it from us!” To such people, I would gladly offer a sharp answer, if only so their spirit could be revealed for what it truly is. Still, you should respond to them as is fitting for your calling, not according to what their behavior deserves.
God has revealed these things only to the simple and humble. But what does “simple” or “humble” mean here? Does it mean someone who is foolish or lacking understanding? Or does it mean someone whose heart is genuine and upright, not arrogant, not biased, not deceitful? If you are so well taught that you can confidently cite Scripture on every side, yet your knowledge comes only from reading and study, then why do you count yourself among the “simple”? Are you really entitled to speak as if you alone possess the truth, just because the moment someone challenges you with Scripture and corrects your error, you respond: “You’re a scholar. I’m not. That’s why I understand the entire Bible better than you.” If that’s your logic, then I could say anything I want, and if anyone challenged me with Scripture, I could simply respond: “You’re educated. So you can’t know the truth. But I do, because I’m uneducated.”
Now tell me honestly, I ask you kindly: are we to believe all of Scripture, or only the parts you like? I hope you’ll be ashamed enough to admit that we must believe all of it, not just the parts that suit your argument. If that’s the case, then it must also be true, according to God’s Word, that: Evangelists should be well taught; they should not be novices; they are to teach others, and they may have homes and fixed provisions, just as apostles were to travel without resources [cf. Matthew 10:6ff.]. So why, then, do you slander the faithful evangelists? And I’m not talking about the corrupt papal priests, I speak of the honest, faithful servants of the Gospel. If you didn’t know the difference between apostles and evangelists, then you have left the nest far too soon, your spirit has not yet been nourished or matured. And your slander is nothing more than ignorant presumption. But if you did know the difference, and still concealed it, then you have acted deceitfully. In that case, you were not sent by God, but by a false goddess named Eris, which in plain German means strife.
Therefore, dear Christian, understand this: when Christ speaks in Matthew 11:25 of “the little ones” or “the simple,” He is not referring to the ignorant, if that were true, I would prefer to be an unlearned man rather than a doctor of theology! No, Christ means those who are simple in faith, not children of this age [cf. Luke 16:8], whose eyes are pure and undivided in faith [cf. Matthew 6:22],not wise by the standards of this world, but those who despise worldly greatness and stand confidently before God, because He has chosen even the most learned to be His disciples. Consider Nicodemus, Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Gamaliel, Ananias, Apollos, Agabus, Timothy, Titus, and many others.
All of them, despite their learning, had to humble themselves, deny themselves, and become like little children. They did not rely on their own knowledge, nor did they manipulate God’s Word to fit their opinions. They did not elevate the desires of the flesh above the guidance of the Spirit [cf. Galatians 5:17]. They did not consider themselves great but were humble and obedient instruments of God. Christ’s meaning is this: The wise of this world do not understand the way of salvation. And the further they are from worldly wisdom, which is ultimately unreliable, the more clearly they come to know God’s will. But that does not mean that whatever nonsense any fool says is therefore true, or that such a person has been called by God to be an apostle. Let me ask you: Why do you and your group praise your own teachers so highly,those who are with you in the campaign for childhood baptism and rebaptism? Are they not all pulpit preachers and beneficiaries of church income themselves?
If so, how can they be telling the truth, according to your own standards? You cannot excuse your deceit by appealing to ignorance. God gives some ten talents [cf. Matthew 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–28], and if they use them faithfully, He does not reject them for having great knowledge. On the contrary, He gives them authority over ten cities [cf. Luke 19:17], because they have served well. All of this shows clearly that evangelists in apostolic times had homes and gave hospitality, just as Paul describes regarding Titus and Timothy.
So it’s no use when these confused zealots and mockers say, “If they were truly from God, they could justify everything on their own. And if their foundation were weak, they’d still win everyone over, because all that matters is that we gain Christ” [cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19–22]. But when they act as if they are so pure that no one may correct them, and everything they say must be “of the Spirit,” then I clearly see that they’re after the same mastery and dominance the pope claims. I have no desire to defend the proud and greedy preachers, those who are more numerous among the radicals themselves than among anyone else, as will be made clear when they finally come forward with their baptism as they so loudly boast. Furthermore, Acts 21:9 tells us: “Philip had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.” This confirms even more clearly that Philip had a household and that he raised his children in good order and discipline, just as is required in the qualifications for bishops.
Yet I hear some of these self-appointed apostles saying, while trying to tear everything down: “It would be better if priests had no wives.” And these are the very ones who previously screamed about priests being forbidden to marry! Now what are we to make of that? Isn’t it time someone knocked some sense into these heads? Does it not trouble you that the whole world has been turned upside down? You nitpicking critics and self-appointed “censors” and “correctors”, when will you realize that your constant fighting is nothing more than bitter, snarling malice and not the Spirit of God? You self-righteous opponents!
I do not doubt that it might be more fitting for an apostle or messenger to travel without a wife, for the sake of the Gospel. But if a man is not chaste, then he should have a wife and may take her with him, as Peter and others did, as Paul clearly affirms in 1 Corinthians 9:5. But bishops should not be without wives, so that scandal may be avoided, something that has already been sufficiently addressed. Scandal is dangerous, and the flesh is so unreliable that even a man who has raised well-disciplined children must still remain vigilant. This is why the apostles wanted bishops to have wives.
Now, as for the statement that Philip’s four daughters prophesied, I would gladly hear what the highly learned, yet disruptive, self-appointed apostles have to say about that. After all, Scripture clearly says that a woman should not speak in church [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35]. So we must observe carefully what the word “prophesy” means in this context. In Scripture, it can sometimes mean listening to preaching or engaging in the interpretation of Scripture in a church setting, as is seen in 1 Corinthians 11:5, where Paul writes: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” There, Paul is not speaking about women preaching, but rather saying that if a woman prays publicly, she should be properly veiled. The same applies if she listens to the Word of God in a public setting, she should do so modestly and covered. Sometimes “prophesy” also means to offer the interpretation or explanation of Scripture, as in 1 Corinthians 14:31: “You can all prophesy one by one.” This means: if the first speaker has not yet brought forth the full meaning of a passage, and God reveals the understanding to someone else, that person may also speak, bringing out the true sense of the Scripture being examined.
It has already been clearly shown that the Scriptures being interpreted publicly in church at that time were from the Old Testament. As we read in 1 Corinthians 14:26: “Each one has a psalm,” etc. At that time, the books of the New Testament were more often written on hearts than in manuscripts. From all this, we learn that Philip’s four daughters did not prophesy as ordained prophets, nor did they speak in public worship as ordinary men might, for women were not permitted to speak publicly in the church [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35]. Nor do we find that they delivered formal prophecies. So, Luke likely means this: Philip had four daughters who were learned in the Holy Scriptures, and who praised God through Psalms and other songs. Such women could be beneficial in leading their household in devotion. Indeed, it was an ancient and well-established custom among the Jews for women to learn the Scriptures, understand them, and praise God with them, especially through Psalms.
This serves as strong evidence against those rebellious, self-appointed preachers who act contrary to God by claiming that faithful bishops are not permitted to have homes or steady provisions, and that if they do, they cannot speak the truth. I say all this not for my own sake, for as I have already explained, my flesh would prefer to be released from all duties of preaching. And I would still receive provision, for He who made me will also provide for me. But that very God will not release me from this office. I have pleaded for years, but the longer I serve, the more He entrusts to me. Praise be to Him! Therefore, let no one hinder faithful evangelists from having a position or a provision, even if it would be good to reduce or remove other benefices, provided it is done peacefully and with the consent of those who hold them. Because if we were to abolish parish benefices today, the next generation of priests would only pressure us to reinstate them again tomorrow. Let no one be led into rash decisions by the agitation of disorderly people. What these people dream up, they present as divine truth, claiming: “The Spirit of God told me so.” But I am quite ready to answer with the words of the holy Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:37: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.” Paul goes on to say in Ephesians 4:11: “And some He appointed as pastors and teachers.” It is well known that by “pastors,” he means those who keep watch. This office is closely connected with that of the evangelist, for they are the true bishops and overseers, those to whom Christ speaks in Matthew 24:42: “Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house will come.” And again, in the words He speaks to Peter in John 21:15–17: “Do you love Me? Feed My sheep.” Likewise, in John 10 [cf. John 10:11–30], He speaks of the shepherd’s office, clearly referring to the bishop’s role. Peter, too, connects shepherd and bishop in 1 Peter 2:25, where he says: “Now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls,” meaning Jesus Christ, our Lord. This has already been sufficiently explained.
Now, in large churches or parishes, it may happen that placing the full burden of preaching and watching over the whole flock upon one man is simply too much. In such cases, one might wisely be assigned to watch over dangers and open offenses, while another is entrusted with the ministry of the Word. For example, in our own church, it is more than enough for one, yes, two or three men, to serve as watchmen. And although we three share the work of preaching, it is still more than enough for us.
As for doctors or teachers, we are not to understand by this those in red hats, with gold rings, silk robes, and gilded vestments. Rather, it means either: those who teach, and are also called prophets, as previously explained, who teach the general congregation, and also prepare others to become teachers themselves in the languages; or teachers in a broader sense, including all who instruct, apostles and evangelists included. We see this, for example, when Paul refers to himself as a teacher (doctor) of the Gentiles in 1 Timothy 2:7, meaning he was an apostle to the Gentiles, just as he says in Galatians 2:2. Still, we can recognize from the ordering of his words that Paul especially uses the title “doctor” to refer to those who are learned and teach in such a way that others learn from them and go on to teach others in turn, as we can also clearly observe in Acts 13:1. In Antioch, there were in the church certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (a companion of Herod the ruler), and Saul [cf. Acts 13:1]. From these words, we clearly see that even in the time of the apostles, the larger churches had many learned men who were thoroughly trained in Scripture, and who continuously taught others, so that the Word of God would not fall into misunderstanding. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:5: “I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy.” Here Paul expresses his desire that all Christians be fluent in languages, but for this purpose, that so that they might prophesy. Of course, he knows that not everyone will have knowledge of many tongues, but he emphasizes how valuable it is for Christians to understand the languages in which the Word of God was originally written. He desires this, not for its own sake, but so that such knowledge would serve the higher goal: explaining the Scriptures and preaching the Word.
The Anabaptists severely misuse this, especially when they downplay the importance of language, saying: “We don’t need the languages. We understand Scripture just as well as those who know many of them. What matters is the Spirit, not knowledge.” But Paul does not make that wish in vain, he earnestly desires that everyone understand the biblical languages. So, take note: It is true that the human heart can be turned to God only by God’s own drawing, no matter how learned a person may be. Still, one must have an understanding of Scripture in order to rightly handle it. Just having zeal is not enough. Many may appear spiritual, but when their speech is not in harmony with the Word of God, we begin to discern what sort of spirit is at work. Among the simple, the Word of God has often been misused, not out of malice, but because they did not truly understand it. Therefore, we must investigate the meaning to see whether it aligns with Scripture. And in doing so, the faithful believer can rightly discern whether the true meaning has been reached.
There is no better way to test this than by knowing the languages. For example, just as the German language cannot fully defend itself in writing, because we all already know German, so too, if we knew Hebrew as well as we know German, we could thoroughly understand the Old Testament. In the same way, if we understood Greek as well as German, nothing in the New Testament would remain hidden from us. Because of this, all commentaries and glosses are of little value compared to knowing the original languages, as we clearly see from Paul’s words. He does not say: “I wish you all understood the rabbis or the commentaries,” but rather: “I wish you all understood the tongues,” meaning especially Hebrew. Yet in these lands, the common person cannot learn Hebrew, and therefore it is necessary to have certain trained teachers in some places to provide instruction. And this is not a new idea or innovation. Some among them say to the simple-minded: “Look! How harshly John the Baptist rebuked the Pharisees for refusing to be baptized!” And the simple listeners are left confused, unsure of what to think.
But this is not the true meaning of the passage in Matthew 3. Rather, Matthew intends, in summary form, to show that John, perceiving the insincerity of the Pharisees’ intentions, rebuked them harshly. He knew they were not coming to be baptized in true repentance, and thus he confronted them, not with those few words alone, but likely with many teachings and warnings. For who could record everything that John the Baptist ever taught in detail? Now, if we already face such dangers from people who know nothing more than the bare letters of the text, how much greater the confusion will become over time, especially if strange interpretations are already so frequent at the beginning!
Therefore, it is more necessary than ever to have trained individuals who can properly interpret the true meaning of Scripture from the letter of the text and defend it accordingly. If we see them clearly misreading Scripture, yet presenting their opinions as inspired by the Spirit, then everyone can recognize what kind of “spirit” this really is. It is a spirit that refuses correction, a spirit that uses the sheer number of rebaptized followers as an excuse to escape all obedience and accountability. I speak truthfully: you can discern this from some of their own words and writings. But in the end, the true judge, God Himself, will bring everything to light in its time. No faithful Christian has ever claimed any of these offices for himself, whether apostle, prophet, or teacher, unless he was sent by God or appointed by the church or the apostles. That, too, is nothing other than a call and commission.
We intend to demonstrate this clearly, through the Lord Jesus Christ, through John the Baptist, through the apostles and their writings, and also through the Old Testament. From the Old Testament, we will cite just one story, Numbers 16, because the rest is already well known: that no one ever claimed the office of prophet or priest without God’s call, without signs or confirmations, and without being found in alignment with the truth, as we read in Deuteronomy 13:1ff.. And as for the priesthood: only the tribe of Levi was authorized to serve in that office. The story in Numbers 16 is summarized as follows: When Moses, at God’s command, appointed his brother Aaron as high priest, there rose up against them a faction led by Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On from the tribe of Reuben. They said: “You’ve gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard this, he addressed Korah and all the rebels, saying: “Tomorrow the Lord will make known who belongs to Him and who is holy. He will allow those whom He chooses to draw near to Him. Therefore, do this: You, Korah, and all your company who desire to be priests, take censers, fill them with incense, and bring them before the Lord.” There were 250 of them in total… Aaron, too, was to bring his censer. And when God performed His sign, He commanded the entire congregation to separate themselves from the rebels. Then the earth opened and swallowed their tents and all their possessions. They went down alive into hell, and the earth covered them over.
Thus, God punished, already in the Old Testament, those who, in rebellious arrogance and without His command or Moses’ authority, presumed to take up the priestly office of offering sacrifices. And that office was far less dangerous than the ministry of teaching. Our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, was called down from heaven by the Father, that He is the true Savior whom God has sent to us, the one we are to hear. As it is written: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him.” Matthew 3:17; 17:5. This divine commissioning was revealed before all people by the holy John [the Baptist], who testified that our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by God the heavenly Father, as written in John 1:32–34: “And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on Him. I myself did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.’” See how clearly and directly John confirms the calling and sending of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
That these words testify to the necessity and legitimacy of Christ’s divine sending is further confirmed by the apostle Paul in Hebrews 5:4–5: “No one takes this honor upon himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a high priest but was appointed by the One who said to Him, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’” Our Lord Jesus Himself repeatedly assures the Jews, through long discourse, that He was sent by the Father, as in John 8, and again in: John 6:57 – “As the living Father sent Me…” John 17:18 – “As You sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” John 20:21 – “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” Galatians 4:4 – “God sent His Son into the world…” From all these testimonies, we clearly see how necessary a divine sending is before anyone publicly takes up the office of preaching. Even Christ Jesus demonstrated the authority of His sending in many ways, both through His own words and through the witness of others. As for the calling of John the Baptist, God had already announced it through the prophet Malachi 3:1, as the Gospel of Mark 1:2 confirms: “Behold, I send My messenger before You…” The Evangelist John also clearly affirms this, saying in John 1:6: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John the Baptist himself testifies in John 1:33, as we’ve already seen: “He who sent me to baptize with water said to me…”, thus declaring the divine origin of his commission.
Again, in John 3:27, John the Baptist says: “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.” These are John’s own words, in which he shows that no one can accomplish anything in the ministry of salvation unless it is given to him by God. He adds in John 3:28: “You yourselves bear me witness that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him.’”
Once more, he refers to his sending. Regarding the apostolic commission, we have already cited two testimonies from John 17:18 and John 20:21, in which Christ says: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you. “He also says in Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves.” In Matthew 28:19–20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” And again, in Mark 16:15: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel…” All of these are words of sending. Christ further confirms this commissioning in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30, and again in Luke 19:12–28, where sending and entrusting are presented as one and the same. This divine calling and sending was so carefully observed that no one dared to appoint himself. When Judas brought his own life, and his place among the apostles, to an end by hanging himself, no one presumed to take his position by personal ambition. Rather, the entire congregation made the selection, as recorded in Acts 1:15–26. Likewise, when there was a need for helpers, not everyone stood up on his own, claiming the office, which one might have thought to be an honorable thing, but rather, the whole community chose the seven deacons, as it says in Acts 6:1–6. And that was only for managing material matters!
Similarly, when the apostles learned that Samaria had received the Word of God through the preaching of Philip, not everyone ran off to help, they instead sent only Peter and John, as seen in Acts 8:14. And again: when self-appointed brothers came to Antioch and confused the believers with the doctrine of circumcision (just as the Anabaptists are doing today), no one went to Jerusalem on his own initiative. Rather, Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with several others, to go there, as recorded in Acts 15:1–21. And when they were sent back, only those appointed to accompany them went. Paul himself so firmly insisted on the legitimacy of his calling that it is clear he was often looked down upon because some suspected he had appointed himself, as if he had taken the office of apostle without authorization. But he states clearly in Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ…” By this he intends to highlight his heavenly calling, which is described in Acts 9, and later retold by Paul himself in Acts 22 and Acts 26.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 1:17, he declares: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel.” Here again, he underscores his divine sending. He says further in 1 Corinthians 9:1–2: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” From these words we clearly see that certain ceremonial preachers challenged him, questioning whether he was truly an apostle, because he had not been sent in the same manner as those who had been bodily with Christ and directly commissioned by Him. But Paul answers this in 2 Corinthians 12:11: “I was not inferior to the most eminent apostles.” And again in 1 Corinthians 15:10: “I worked harder than any of them.” Moreover, in Galatians 1 and 2, he devotes himself to demonstrating his calling, not as one who was unsent, but as one who, though not among the original apostles who had walked with Christ, was still sent by God. He aligned himself with the apostles for the sake of those he taught, though he gained little from them personally. When they saw that God had entrusted him with the Gospel to the Gentiles, they extended the hand of fellowship to him and to Barnabas, acknowledging them as co-workers.
All of this serves to affirm Paul’s apostleship, even though his opponents claimed otherwise. He responds by placing his calling alongside that of the other apostles, asserting his own legitimacy. In Romans 10:15, Paul says this about all who serve the Word: “How can they preach unless they are sent?” From this, we see clearly: no one should take up preaching unless he is sent, for during the time of the apostles, no one ever appointed himself. Indeed, those who did so were always considered heretics or schismatics. Paul also points this out in other places, referring to those who are rightfully appointed to leadership in the Word: 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13; Hebrews 13:17; and1 Timothy 5:17, where he says: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” These clear testimonies make it more evident than daylight itself that no one should assume the office of bishop (or minister) unless he is sent and chosen for that task.
Therefore, it is necessary that we speak about calling and sending. This can be clearly understood from all the previous testimonies. It is certain from the words of Christ in John 20:21: “As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you.” From this we know: all who wish to take up preaching must be sent by God. Otherwise, they are the corrupt workers of whom Paul speaks in Philippians 3:2. Moreover, those who are truly sent by God are also marked outwardly, either by miraculous signs or by an evident public appointment. For example: Paul was not only called inwardly in his heart to be an apostle, but also outwardly marked by his miraculous conversion. Matthias, on the other hand, was chosen by lot through the consensus of the entire Christian congregation, as described in Acts 1:26.
Indeed, throughout the apostolic age and down to our own time, no one has ever rightly claimed the office of bishop, that is, among those who truly preach the Gospel, unless they were first chosen and appointed. (I am not speaking here of the tyrants, some of whom have prepared for such great bloodshed over episcopal elections, and wage war against one another for the sake of bishoprics.) The appointment of ministers has happened in three ways: by the whole congregation, as was the case with Matthias; by the apostles, without the whole congregation, as in Acts 8:14, where Peter and John were sent to Samaria by the apostles; and by an individual apostle, as Paul appointed Titus in Crete, according to Titus 1:5. Here we must note how, in the course of time, this process has been entirely corrupted, especially under the papacy. The election of bishops has been turned into tyranny, for high bishops, abbots, and feudal lords often appointed pastors against the will of the congregation, choosing them from among their stable boys, cooks, or pimps. Even when the congregation itself retained the right to choose, they often elected pastors out of favoritism, without the counsel of faithful, learned Christians, and without regard for the qualifications outlined by Paul.
Therefore, the most godly way of choosing a pastor is for the whole congregation, together with the advice of wise and devout bishops, prophets, or Christian teachers, to appoint one who is fitting, just as we can see Titus himself did. Even though Paul says to Titus, “appoint elders” [Titus 1:5], he did not appoint them by himself, as the tyrannical bishops now presume to do. Why? Because if the power of church discipline (like excommunication), and even the judgment of doctrine, rests with the congregation, then how much more must the calling of a teacher belong to the church, rather than to some foreign bishop or abbot. It must not be left to a simple, unlearned congregation alone, either, as Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 regarding the right use of prophecy makes clear. The responsibility for doctrine is entrusted not only to the congregation, but especially to the prophets, interpreters, and those learned in languages, although the congregation also has the right to speak and respond.
Now, let us examine each form of sending, and determine whether these self-appointed preachers can be shown to be truly sent by God. We begin with the question of inward calling. Christ says in John 20:21: “As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you.” If Christ had been sent for the sake of earthly wealth, then perhaps one might excuse those who cause upheaval over tithes and rents. But since there is no trace of such a motive in Christ’s mission, it is evident that those who stir up unrest over material possessions are not sent by God. God’s Word commands obedience to governing authorities, whether they are believers or not [cf. Romans 13:1]. But these people teach that no Christian can be a ruler, even though that directly contradicts the Scriptures, for instance, in 1 Timothy 6:2, 1 Peter 2:13–18, and Ephesians 6:5–9. It is clear, then, that through their teaching and rebaptism, they are acting against God and against the peace of the Christian community. And even if they were to swear a thousand oaths to the contrary, the truth would soon be revealed. For the moment they feel strong enough in numbers to prevail, they would rise up against all government, refusing to give to Caesar what is owed to him [cf. Matthew 22:21].
The Third Proof
The third proof, by which even the simplest Christian can recognize that these men are not sent by God, lies in the nature of their teaching. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:33: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as is the case in all the churches of the saints.” So if their baptism and preaching result only in discord, then they certainly do not serve the God of peace. They like to quote Christ’s words in Matthew 10:34: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” But this must be understood correctly: the sword Christ speaks of is not meant to divide believers but rather refers to the conflict that will arise between believers and unbelievers. These people, however, create division among the faithful, and over outward, worldly matters, just like those who, in the time of the apostles, caused division over circumcision.
Now we must consider the external signs, can we see in them any indication that they were truly sent by God? If they were sent by God, then He would have confirmed their mission either with miraculous signs or with a clear and unmistakable public calling. But they perform no miracles, nor have they been rightly called or appointed by any church. Therefore, they lack all outward signs of the apostolic or episcopal office. It is thus certain: they are not sent by God, as has already been clearly demonstrated from Scripture. Regarding the Nature of Their Office: Let us now examine whether they live in accordance with the offices they claim for themselves. And again, we find proof that they are not sent by God.
If they claim to be apostles, then their office requires them to go among unbelievers, to travel constantly, and to bring others to the faith. As was already shown, the difference between an apostle and a bishop is this: an apostle travels and works among unbelievers, while a bishop remains settled in one place, watching over those who have already received the faith. But these men do not go out among unbelievers. Instead, they attach themselves to already believing communities, disrupting what was once peaceful and united. Therefore, it is certain: they are not apostles. They are not bishops, for they have not been appointed by any church together with other reputable, well-instructed, faithful bishops. Still less are they prophets or teachers. Therefore, it clearly follows that they are nothing more than agitators and rebels. Now, they raise two objections in response:
First Objection:
They say, “But doesn’t Paul write in 1 Corinthians 14:31: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged”
Answer:
Yes, but this kind of speaking or prophesying still occurs in many churches and is just now being reintroduced among us as well. However, just because someone is allowed to speak in church does not mean that he may elevate himself to the office of apostle or bishop by his own initiative. Nor does it mean that he should begin preaching before the congregation on his own authority. Rather, such a one may speak only when the interpreters, those trained in the languages, and the prophets have already spoken. That is why Paul so strongly urges in that passage that everything must be done decently and in order [cf. 1 Cor. 14:40]. Therefore, no one should claim the office of apostle or evangelist for himself, unless he has been both inwardly called by God and outwardly confirmed in that calling. Someone is not automatically a bishop just because he has spoken publicly about Scripture. Otherwise, Paul would not have taken such care to distinguish clearly between the various offices, not only here in Ephesians 4:11, but also in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Romans 12:7–8.
Second Objection:
They say, “But doesn’t John 3:34 declare: ‘The one whom God has sent speaks the words of God’? So then, whoever speaks God’s Word must have been sent by Him.”
Answer:
This is a misuse of Scripture. First of all, these words originally refer specifically to Christ, but they apply secondarily to those whom God has truly sent, not to self-appointed teachers. It is not the same thing to speak about God or the Bible as it is to be sent by God in the office of apostle or bishop. Secondly, the logic of their argument is faulty. The statement: “The one God sends speaks the words of God,” does not imply the reverse, that: “Whoever speaks the words of God is therefore sent as an apostle or bishop.” That is false reasoning. In short, we must not presumptuously elevate ourselves as masters [cf. Matthew 23:8–10].
Yet, every church must have a watchman or overseer, so that the lawless, stubborn troublemakers can be restrained, not by the personal power of the overseer, but by the authority of the whole church. If the office of watchman, that is, the office of bishop or pastor, were to be so disregarded and trampled underfoot, that anyone could set himself up as a bishop whenever he pleased, then in a short time, there would be great disorder and division among those who now present themselves as preachers. For just as this current group now steps forward claiming to be teachers or apostles, so tomorrow another faction would arise, wanting to claim the right to teach just as much as the first. And after them, yet another group. This would lead to widespread confusion, with each person gathering a faction to himself.
Indeed, as many loudmouths as there are, so many sects and disturbances would arise. Let me be clear: I speak here only of public teaching within the church. Certainly, every believer has the right to speak with others about God and to remind one another of His truth. But that anyone may begin to preach in a corner according to their own will, without the approval and discernment of the church, which has the responsibility to judge such matters, or that anyone may appoint himself as a teacher or pastor in a believing congregation (and by “believing,” I do not mean all who call themselves Christian, but those who truly believe the Gospel and allow it to be freely preached), ,this, I say, is not only presumptuous and wicked, but Antichristian. For no less confusion would result from such behavior than if, in a city, every citizen wanted to be mayor simply because he happened to be a citizen. And they should not object by quoting 1 Peter 2: “We are all priests.” Because I am not speaking here about spiritual worthiness or priesthood in general, but rather about the office of teaching.
It is true: we are all spiritually qualified for the priesthood of the New Testament, which is nothing more than that each of us offers ourselves as a living sacrifice, as Paul says in Romans 12:1. But we are not all apostles or bishops, as Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 12:29. Even if someone is a bishop, that does not give him the right to interfere in another person’s flock or to intrude into another’s diocese whenever he pleases. Paul says in Romans 15:20: “Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation.” This shows clearly that one should not intrude into the work of others. I speak here especially of pastors or evangelists who faithfully and rightly understand their office, and even they should not run into other churches without invitation, nor should they stir up division among congregations.
For this reason, for the sake of God and Christian peace, I want to seriously exhort all those who are restless and eager to preach to carefully consider the words of James 3:1: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will face stricter judgment.” Behold, the devout and holy apostle warns us not to take so lightly the task of becoming a teacher, that we would, unprepared and unequipped, dare to exalt ourselves to such an office. Yet there are many who, either from a desire for honor or from hatred or love of material support, rashly present themselves as teachers, though it is plain to see that they accomplish nothing but strife and discord. Ah, God! Do they think their spirit or motives are unknown? As if no one can discern them, when in fact every believer who is spiritual judges all things (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:15)?
We certainly do not mean to say that anyone should be denied the right to preach based solely on their status or station, provided they are truly sent, that is, duly appointed as a bishop or commissioned as an apostle. Such a person will strive among unbelievers and not confuse the faithful. But this business of self-appointment and disruption, this novel, outward ambition without the endorsement of the Christian community, can never produce anything good. It does not come from God. The God of peace conducts all things through wisdom, not with harshness, not with bitterness, not with discord, yet this is exactly what we see in abundance in their teachings. Their actions, the fruit of their preaching, reveal themselves to be nothing but contentious people, greedy for earthly things, who become prosperous while disturbing those who were once peaceful, devout, and God-fearing. This shows that what they bring is a temptation, not a spirit. The devil comes in such a subtle and benign form (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14) that the simple believe it is a spirit, but upon closer look, it is clearly nothing more than self-will.
May God remove the fog and deceit from our eyes, that we may clearly know and do His will. I also want to earnestly exhort the workers in the gospel of Christ with the words of Paul in Colossians 4:17: “See to it that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.” God has appointed you as watchmen and shepherds in the churches. Be watchful and vigilant, that the wolves may not tear the flock apart, and that discord does not arise among Christ’s sheep. There should be no discord among believers, even though there is an eternal conflict between believers and unbelievers. And when the rebellious Anabaptists and preachers call you and all who do not follow their path “unbelievers,” let that not trouble you; for each of you knows well in whom you have placed your trust. When they call a man godless, who is undoubtedly trusting in God, it is clear to see that their spirit comes from the father of lies (cf. John 8:44). Do not be alarmed either by the so-called “doctors” whom they so loudly praise, as if they stood firm on their side. We know well what these people are capable of, and what spirit they are of. Rather, remember that rebaptism (Anabaptism) can never become anything other than a sect, because it immediately strikes at the authority of the community and civil governance.
For that reason, it can never become anything other than a sect that God allows to remain, until the elect and steadfast are revealed. Be vigilant, that your flock remains pure, free from fornication, impurity, drunkenness, pride, slander, and all excess, and that they live accordingly. Build up faith, reverence for God, and love for your neighbor. Teach that no greater service can be rendered to God than to honor Him with innocence. Teach that the eternal must not be forfeited for the sake of the temporal, for this you have clear grounds in Scripture. Do not grow weary in doing what is good (cf. Galatians 6:9); for we have learned well what labor it takes when one handles them gently, as we have done, and yet they speak still with such ingratitude.
If we were now to reward them according to their bold and lying words, which they have spoken and still speak, there is no doubt that the unrest would break out all the more violently. Therefore, strive as faithful laborers in the vineyard; do not abandon your place or your office. The Lord is coming soon (cf. Philippians 4:5); He is near, may He not find us sleeping (cf. Mark 13:35–36). Therefore, be vigilant and hopeful; and you will, without doubt, prevail. May God grant His grace! Amen.
In the booklet on baptism, a single word has entirely changed the meaning: On the second page of the first section, line 13, one should read: “that these had not previously been baptized with water.” I had not, due to fatigue, been able to read the booklet again; this was pointed out to me by others. There may well be many more errors in it. Let each person always pay careful attention to the meaning.