The Law of God and the Law of This World

Faith alone can preserve a person in the world from delusions and the snares of the devil; faith alone teaches us to distinguish good from evil; through faith alone do we partake of things spiritual and divine.

In our time people believe in much that should not be believed; true Christian faith is considered error and heresy, while dead customs are taken for faith. Division has occurred among people: one side accuses the other of heresy, and from this arise wars and strife, murders, the burning of people, and many other sins; so that faith is now hard to recognize, for all of it reeks of heresy and enmity. In such circumstances reasonable people must preserve the true faith, which was set forth by the apostles and given once by God through Jesus Christ, and not be carried away by those new beliefs to which people are now urged.

Among the first Christians the apostles established equality: no one was obligated to another in any way, but all were to love one another and serve one another out of love, forming one body composed of many members, with Christ as the head. Among them there were no rulers with pagan offices: no judges, no city councillors. Although the Christians lived under the authority of pagans to whom they had to pay tribute, they themselves did not hold pagan offices. This continued for more than three hundred years, until Constantine: he was the first to intrude into the midst of Christians with pagan dominion and with officials appropriate to pagans. The goal to which the apostles led Christians was far loftier and more perfect than that pursued by pagan authorities, for to form one body and be guided by one Spirit of God for religious and moral purposes is far higher than to maintain that earthly justice which is supported by pagan authorities through various coercive measures.

Courts in tribunals, though they help in restoring stolen property, lead people into sins from which Christians can be delivered only by renouncing such courts. Christians should cause injustice to no one and deceive no one, and should patiently endure injustice done to them, not repaying evil for evil.

The mutual relations established by the apostles among the first Christians were based on the law of Christ, which determines how one should deal with opponents of the faith, tempters, and heretics: they should be admonished and rebuked first privately, and if that fails—before witnesses, and finally the matter should be told to the church; and if they will not listen to the church either, then they should be treated as pagans and tax collectors—that is, one should not associate with them. In the same sense the apostle forbids association with adulterers and others. Such an evangelical ordering of society can reform the corrupted human race better than the pagan system, with its earthly kings and city judges: under the former, a sinner can again acquire the grace of God which his sins had deprived him of, while under the latter, all such sinners are sentenced to death.

Thus the law of Christ alone was fully sufficient for the ordering of the communities of the first Christians, and, guided by it alone, they made moral progress; but later, when two laws were mixed in with it—civil law and papal law—morality began to decline. Those who write chronicles acknowledge this, and we see with our own eyes how these two laws destroy and kill faith and the law of God. Therefore we, their late descendants, sitting as if under the shadow of these laws, speak uncertainly about the law of God and divine governance, for the darkness of these two laws obscures our eyes. Therefore, groping and guessing, as it were, I pose the question: Is the law of Christ sufficient, without human laws added to it, to establish and order here, on the earthly path, a fully Christian religion? I answer, though with trepidation: yes, it is sufficient even now, because before it was sufficient for ordering Christian society. The law of Christ is not weakened either by the resistance offered to it or by the multitude of those converted to it: on the contrary, it has thereby acquired still greater force, and therefore it alone is always sufficient. Furthermore, if it was sufficient to convert unbelievers to the faith, then it is also sufficient for ordering life and morals, for the latter is easier. And since governance by means of Christ’s teaching is better than governance with human additions, who will doubt that people would be more perfect guided by the law of God than poisoning themselves, as with venom, with various additions?

Civil law, or the law of pagan kings, has as its aim the establishment of justice among people in everything concerning a person’s body and bodily possessions; the Gospel law, on the contrary, has as its aim the spiritual perfecting of people. Since pagans place their good only in the safety of body and possessions, they hold to civil governance. Likewise those Christians who have turned back to paganism, rejecting God and His law, and strive only for earthly pleasures, for freedom and peace in the world and for bodily enrichment—they too support secular authority, which indulges their desires, and in case of danger threatening their life or property, resorts to weapons or enables them to recover lost property through the courts. The justice that secular authority strives to establish is necessary for the rulers themselves: if one went against another and generally did evil to another, then even the kingdom would be destroyed. Secular authority does not care about other virtues and therefore, apart from injustice, permits all other sins.

Christ’s governance orders a person spiritually in virtues and brings him to such innocence that he can please God and earn a reward in eternity. Under this governance a person relates quite differently to bodily deprivations: he does not avenge them and does not seek satisfaction in court, but patiently endures them.

Among Christians equality was established, and no one was to exalt himself above others; therefore a true Christian would never dare to become a king over Christians. Moreover, for Christians the apostolic commandment is obligatory—to bear one another’s burdens: how then can a good Christian decide to be himself a burden to others by becoming king?

That royal power is a heavy burden for subjects is evident from the fact that after Solomon’s death the Jews asked his son to lighten them from his father’s hard labor and from his heavy yoke, but Rehoboam, having consulted with fools like himself, answered harshly: “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.” From this it is clear that even the wisest Solomon was a heavy burden on the people through his power.

Jesus Christ himself forbade his disciples to exalt themselves over one another: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.” And in the Old Testament, Gideon refused the Jews’ offer to be king over them and answered: “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you.”

Love for God cannot be evoked in a person by coercive measures: it is based on a person’s free will and is generated by the word of God. But if a king tries to reform evil people by preaching the word of God, then he will turn into a priest and will not resort to that power which reforms people in no other way than by hanging them.

To those people who assume pagan power in order to arrange a luxurious life for themselves at the cost of others’ sufferings, one may apply the Old Testament parable about the trees that turned to the olive, the fig tree, and the vine with a request to reign over them. None of them agreed, because they would have had to give up everything that constituted their charm, and only the bramble answered: “If you have truly chosen me to be king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

People possessing the gifts of God’s grace will not exchange them for the goods of body and world, for dominion and advancement, knowing that all this entails cruelty, mercilessness, violence, robbery of their own brothers; but the bramble, sharp and cruel, boldly says: “Since you have chosen me as lord, know that I am your lord and will rule over you so that some will not even have their skin left whole: I will clip their wings, I will strip the peasant bare like a linden tree.” And another will say to this: “Never mind! Skin the peasant: he will recover, like a willow by the water.” People living in luxury, with fat bellies overgrown with lard, justify such treatment of the common people.

No human law can contribute to the moral perfecting of people as much as the law of God. The law of Moses was a good law, but a Christian ruler cannot be guided by this law, for it has already been superseded and replaced by another law—the law of Christ, and the law of Christ is entirely based on love of God and neighbor.

The interference of two masters, secular and spiritual, in the Christian church has violated that state of purity and innocence in which it was established by the apostles and remained for three hundred and twenty years. And although many people consider this interference useful for the faith, this poison has never been and never will be faith, but will always remain poison, poisoning people and killing faith; and therefore Christians must remember that while keeping the true faith, they cannot rule over others after the pagan custom. Yet meanwhile the apostles of Antichrist consider this secular power the third part of the church.

According to the teaching of the Roman church, secular power is founded on Holy Scripture, and first of all on the following text: “Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages’” (Luke 3:14).

These words by themselves could not have sharpened the sword for Christians so that they might shed human blood with it, but a great pillar of the Roman church (Augustine), who strongly supports it lest it fall, has given this passage the meaning of a sharp sword among Christians. He expresses himself thus: “If Christian teaching completely condemned war, then to the soldiers who turned to John a saving counsel would rather have been given to lay down their arms and leave military service; but if he commands them to be content with their wages, he does not reject military service and does not condemn war.”

The second passage to which the Roman church refers is the following: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God,” etc. (Romans 13:1 ff.). This is the main foundation on which scholars establish secular power, and one master of the University of Prague told me that I too must acknowledge this, and if I do not, I shall be a heretic.

Here are some more of the master’s arguments proving that human law, which punishes people for certain acts with death, does not contradict the law of God: 1) The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” does not forbid punishing the guilty with death, for in such cases it is not the judge who kills, but the law compels him to it; 2) God multiplies life and death, therefore he can also kill: “I kill, and I make alive”; kings are appointed by God and therefore can do likewise; 3) the Apostle Paul says: “Those who practice such things deserve to die, and he does not bear the sword in vain”; 4) in the Gospel: “But those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me”; 5) Cyprian, concerning the Old Testament commandment to kill idolaters, says that if such a commandment existed before Christ’s coming, all the more should it be observed after his coming, as is confirmed by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Those who practice such things deserve to die.”

Augustine and Jerome interpret the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in the same way.

St. Gregory and again St. Augustine reason about this in the same way. From all these arguments it turns out that they want to make God double-tongued, so that with one mouth he says: thou shalt not kill, and with the other: kill.

Jesus is now very poor; crowds no longer follow him—unless some outcast and fool wretchedly drags himself after him, like a fly out of slops. But scholars are very rich and famous in the world; they have spawned many servants of God with swords, and the whole world looks up to them. A wise man of the world will look at Jesus, see that he is abandoned by all, clothed in poverty, enduring hardships, and will abandon him and go to the scholars who, according to their laws, serve God in whole crowds—in churches, in war, at tortures, in state institutions, at pillories and gallows. The wise man of the world will seize upon such broad service to God, but only a fool will follow Jesus, and the world will whistle him down.

Most contrary of all to Christ’s teaching is service with the sword, because it consists entirely in repaying evil for evil. Although they make excuses that the sword is raised for God’s cause, not their own, God knows how sincere this excuse is: if it were so, then people would not take revenge for offenses and injustices done to themselves; but in fact it turns out that they do not leave the slightest verbal insult without retaliation, yet permit outrage against God. Christ, on the contrary, commanded to love one’s enemies and to repay them good for evil. Not received by the Samaritans, he did not allow the apostles to call down fire from heaven. Christ cared more for the souls of his enemies than for his own temporary sufferings. If people believed Christ’s words and followed his example, there would be no wars on earth. And battles, and other killings, and all hostile attempts on others, and all repaying of evil for evil occur only because we do not love our enemies and do not patiently endure the offenses done to us.

With the ordering of a truly Christian society as indicated in Holy Scripture, the sword and all its deeds—that is, battles and all bloodshed—have nothing in common, as being contrary to the calling of Christians and to those virtues that befit them. Christians are united by one faith in Christ, they pray for one another: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” they are bound to one another by a bond of love and peace: after all this, can any of the ancient monks who have been proclaimed saints prove on the basis of faith that Christians ought to have battles and killings? Christians who wage wars and commit other bloodshed are Christians in name only and follow the pagans, with only this difference: that pagans did not know God and had no share in those spiritual blessings to which Christians lay claim. The battles among Christians cannot be compared even with Jewish battles, for the latter were permitted by the law.

Christians who kill one another in battle are in any case deprived of participation in the spiritual blessings promised by Christ. If they justify themselves by saying that they have too much to do with the world and therefore have no time to think about higher spiritual matters and grasp them, in that case they can be answered briefly: in vain do they believe in Christ, in vain are they baptized. But if Christians consider themselves partakers in Christ’s sufferings and hope for salvation, yet at the same time crucify Christ in themselves by killing one another, then punishment and curses greater than those for pagans await them.

Battles among Christians are contrary to the law of Christian love, which forbids any hostile attempt on one’s neighbor—on his body, soul, property, or honor—by deed or word, and teaches us to bear without complaint the injustices that others do to us.

The mutual relations among Christians the apostle defines thus: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another” (Romans 13:8). In these words the difference between deeds of faith and deeds of pagan dominion is expressed: the one cannot be the other. Therefore the union of paganism with Christianity could not take place at the very beginning. In the beginning some found consolation in drinking the blood of Christ, others in shedding human blood; but now both have united in a common service to God: they drink the blood of Christ and shed the blood of their neighbors.

There are two extremes: either to completely reject God and turn away from him, or to cleave to him with all one’s heart. But neither is easy for people; for a person is not so depraved as to wholly reject God; on the other hand, few would want to cleave to God with all their heart. Faith based on papal laws represents something intermediate between the two, and on this the majority of people rest content. It prescribes various good actions, false and seeming, which are expressed in various external rites, and people think they are keeping the true faith when they confess God with their lips alone and express their reverence by external signs alone.

—Peter Chelčický (15th century)

---

Translator’s Notes:

• Peter Chelčický (c. 1390–c. 1460) was a Czech religious thinker whose book Sít’ víry (The Net of Faith) argued that the church was corrupted when Emperor Constantine made Christianity a state religion. This excerpt articulates his core theology: that Christianity is inherently incompatible with state power, courts, violence, and war.
• The reference to Constantine marks the key turning point in Chelčický’s historical analysis. Before Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313 AD) and his later patronage of Christianity, the church existed as a persecuted minority that could not wield state power. For Chelčický (and later Tolstoy), this was Christianity’s golden age.
• The parable of the trees seeking a king (Judges 9:8-15) is from Jotham’s fable warning Israel against kingship. The olive, fig, and vine—fruitful and beneficial—refuse, but the bramble (thornbush) accepts, threatening destruction.
• The “master of the University of Prague” who called Chelčický a heretic if he rejected Romans 13 reflects the ongoing tension between Chelčický and the institutional church, including the moderate Hussite establishment.
• Augustine (354-430) is repeatedly cited as the theologian who provided intellectual justification for Christian participation in war and state violence—what later became known as “just war theory.” Chelčický viewed Augustine’s influence as deeply corrupting.
• The distinction between “drinking the blood of Christ” (communion) and “shedding human blood” (war) captures Chelčický’s horror at the contradiction of Christians killing other Christians while claiming to follow the Prince of Peace.
• This text articulates what would later be called Christian anarchism: the belief that true Christianity requires rejection of state power, violence, and coercion in all forms. Tolstoy saw himself as continuing this tradition.