Persecution Repentance

[HiredGoon]

Anyhow, sounds kinda harsh. And these Christian leaders spoke at each other in such ways! In my "Complete Writings of Menno Simons" the translator sort of apologizes for the way Bro. Menno verbally disembowels some of the people he writes to (Gellius Faber comes to mind). Truly glad people don't talk this way today, eh?

Some of the stuff Thomas More and Luther wrote concerning each other is enough to make a sailor blush.

What year was "Concerning Rebaptism"?

"Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter of Martin Luther to Two Pastors" was written in 1528.

 

[Tertiumquid]

[size=-1](Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)[/size]

I will be extremely impressed if you have any of the above sources, particularly Janssen. I know of only one place in cyber-space where these sources are quoted repeatedly: Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong's website. I have Grisar and Durant myself. (edited to add: upon checking, these quotes are from Dave Armstrong's paper, "The Protestant Inquisition").

Now about Luther. The picture of Luther put forth by Armstrong is that Luther was always an advocate of severe punishment, in all circumstances. Roland Bainton, in his biography of Luther (Here I Stand), states that overall, Luther’s leniency is what is striking:

"The other point to remember alike in the case of Luther and Melanchthon is that they were quite as much convinced as was the church of the inquisition that the truth of God can be known, and being known lays supreme obligations upon mankind to preserve it unsullied. The Anabaptists were regarded as the corrupters of souls. Luther's leniency toward them is the more to be remarked than his severity. He did insist to the end that faith is not to be forced, that in private a man may believe what he will, that only open revolt or public attack on the orthodox teaching should be penalized—in his own words, that only sedition and blasphemy rather than heresy should be subject to constraint.”

According to Bainton elsewhere, Luther’s view was in flux. Bainton notes that Luther did support a broader concept of religious freedom previous to 1530. Bainton quotes Luther as saying in 1527:

“It is not right, and I am deeply troubled that the poor people are so pitifully put to death, burned, and cruelly slain. Let everyone believe what he likes. If he is wrong, he will have punishment enough in hell fire. Unless there is sedition, one should oppose them with Scripture and God's Word. With fire you won't get anywhere."

Bainton then documents Luther’s change in attitude. Luther saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances. Sedition can be defined as, “Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state,” or insurrection and rebellion. Bainton describes legal documents prepared by Melanchthon and signed by Luther which held that all Anabaptists were to be punished, even those that weren’t stirring up social unrest. Even with this, Bainton points out:

“Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said, "I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order." Luther's addition to the second document was a plea that severity be tempered with mercy.”

Bainton then again notes yet another change in Luther’s position:

“In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished.”

Most importantly, Bainton gives the reason for Luther’s harsh attitude towards the Anabaptists. He explains why Luther vacillated on how to treat peaceful Anabaptists. Luther’s attitudes were an over-reaction to overt social unrest:

“For the understanding of Luther's position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceased to be peaceful. Goaded by ten years of incessant persecution, bands of fanatics in 1534 received a revelation from the Lord that they should no more be as sheep for the slaughter but rather as the angel with the sickle to reap the harvest. By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia and there inaugurated the reign of the saints, of which Thomas Muntzer had dreamed. Catholics and Protestants alike conjoined to suppress the reign of the new Daniels and Elijahs. The whole episode did incalculable damage to the reputation of the Anabaptists, who before and after were peaceable folk. But this one instance of rebellion engendered the fear that sheep's clothing concealed wolves who might better be dealt with before they threw off the disguise. In Luther's case it should further be remembered that the leading Anabaptist in Thuringia was Melchior Rink, and he had been with Thomas Muntzer at the battle of Frankenhausen. Yet when all of these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon's memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition."

One can understand then why Luther advocated such a strong position at one point. The fabric of sixteenth century society was laden with civil unrest. Extreme times call for extreme measures, and sometimes those extreme measures are the result of an over reaction to current events. Consider the events in American history after the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11, in which America, collectively, looked over their shoulders to see if terrorists were hiding in the bushes.

The majority of the above was extracted from a paper of mine reviewing Dave Armstrong's usage of Bainton's biography of Luther found here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Armstrong%20and%20Bainton%201.htm

I have other material on Luther available here:
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


Regards,
James Swan