The Protestant Inquisition ("Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution)

Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious "scandal

score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons
in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I
take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is
necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. Nor does this at all mean
that I have forsaken ecumenism, nor that I wish to bash Protestants, nor
that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings. Historical fact is
historical fact, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the
following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one
always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff - and not
often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be
the case) you the reader were shocked or surprised by the very title of
this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my
purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I humbly
offer this copiously-researched treatise, yet not without some remaining
trepidation:

C O N T E N T S (HTML-active)

o I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

o II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES
o III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
o IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
o V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION
o VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS
o VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS
o VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
o IX. AFTERWORD
o BIBLIOGRAPHY
o FOOTNOTES

EXPLANATION OF FOOTNOTING SYSTEM

Example No. 1: (3:156)

Number of book in Bibliography (#3) followed by the page number of the

citation.

Example No. 2: (18)

Number of reference not found in Bibliography. Information on source and

page number in Footnotes (number 18 in the Footnotes).

Example No. 3: (50:100/4)

Number of book in Bibliography followed by the page number, plus an

additional source (usually primary), listed in the Footnotes. The Footnotes
(#4) will give the specific section and page numbers from the second
source. This format is usually used when directly quoting Protestants such
as Luther or Calvin, or the Church Fathers.

Example No. 4: (51:v.4;458)

Number of book in Bibliography followed by the volume number (when the work
is more than one volume), and the page number. An additional source may
also be cited after a slash, as in Example No. 3.
 Example No. 5: (170:vs)

Used only when a passage from a Bible translation other than KJV is cited.
The "vs" stands for verse, (which can be found, of course, without a page
number), in order to distinguish the reference number from a plain footnote
citation (as in Example No. 2).

[Image]

{ "(P)" after author's name indicates that the writer is a Protestant }

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians

A. Johann von Dollinger

"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the

Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The
exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and
Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to
others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side.
The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of
everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as
something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)

B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)

"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early
Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few
splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was
powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading
reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the
power to persecute they did." (115:177)

C. Hartmann Grisar

"At Zurich, Zwingli's State-Church grew up much as Luther's did . . .

Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, were strong
compulsionists. Calvin's name is even more closely bound up with the
idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to
posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by
Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish
Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were
likewise at the outset written in blood." (51;v.6:278)

D. Henry Hallam (P)

"The Reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by

outrages of an excited populace or by the tyranny of princes . . . it
instantly withdrew . . . liberty of judgment and devoted all who
presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law to virulent obloquy, and
sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame to
us to own, can be uttered and cannot be refuted." (50:295-6/2)

E. Francois Guizot (P)

 "The Reformation of the 16th century was not aware of the true
principles of intellectual liberty . . . At the very moment it was
demanding these rights for itself it was violating them towards
others." (50:297/3)

F. William Lecky (P)

"What shall we say of a church . . . that had as yet no services to

show, no claims upon the gratitude of mankind . . . which nevertheless
suppressed by force a worship that multitudes deemed necessary to
salvation? . . . So strong and so general was its intolerance that for
some time it may, I believe, be truly said that there were more
instances of partial toleration being advocated by Roman Catholics
than by orthodox Protestants. " (50:298/4)

G. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially

Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic
Church." (78:1383)

2. The Double Standard of Protestant Anti-Catholic "Inquisition Polemics"

(John Stoddard)

"Religious persecution usually continues till one of two causes rises

to repress it. One is the sceptical notion that all religions are
equally good or equally worthless; the other is an enlightened spirit
of tolerance, exercised towards all varieties of sincere opinion . . .
inspired by the conviction that it is useless to endeavor to compel
belief in any form of religion whatsoever. Unhappily this enlightened,
tolerant spirit is of slow growth, and never has been conspicuous in
history, but if it be asserted that very few Catholics in the past
have been inspired by it, the same thing can be said of Protestants.

"This fact is forgotten by Protestants. They read blood-curdling

stories of the Inquisition and of atrocities committed by Catholics,
but what does the average Protestant know of Protestant atrocities in
the centuries succeeding the Reformation? Nothing, unless he makes a
special study of the subject . . . Yet they are perfectly well known
to every scholar . . . If I do not enumerate here the persecutions
carried on by Catholics in the past, it is because it is not necessary
in this book to do so. This volume is addressed especially to
Protestants, and Catholic persecutions are to them sufficiently well
known . . .

"Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said
of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants,
as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were
characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses
should not throw stones . . .

"It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism -

Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley - advocated the right
of the civil authorities to punish the `crime' of heresy . . .
Rousseau says truly:

"`The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors
were universal persecutors' . . .
 Auguste Comte also writes:

"`The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less

tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much
reproached.' (Philosophie Positive, vol.4, p.51).

"What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is

the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary
doctrine of Protestantism - the right of private judgment in matters
of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment
to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the
next to torture and kill him for having done so!

"Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the

aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were
attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had
existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and
revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by
centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the
Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which
already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of
which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest! .
. . All religious persecution is bad; but in this case, of the two
parties guilty of it, the Catholics certainly had the more defensible
motives for their conduct.

"At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy,
perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not
enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a
similar argument would have against one's entering the Protestant
Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this
respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other."
(92:204-5,209-l0)

3. Martin Luther

A. Hartmann Grisar

"Luther's intolerance is very much at variance with the Protestant

view still current to some extent in erudite circles, but more
particularly in popular literature. Luther, for all the harshness of
his disposition, is yet regarded as having in principle advocated
leniency, as having been a champion of personal religious freedom . .
. Below we shall, however, quote a series of statements from
Protestant writers who have risen superior to such party prejudice:

B. Walther Kohler (P)

"In Luther's case it is impossible to speak of liberty of

conscience or religious freedom . . . The death-penalty for
heresy rested on the highest Lutheran authority . . . The views
of the other reformers on the persecution and bringing to justice
of heretics were merely the outgrowth of Luther's plan; they
contributed nothing fresh." (5)

C. Karl Wappler (P)

 "Even contempt of the outward Word, carelessness about going to
church and contempt of Scripture - in this in-stance . . . the
Bible as interpreted by Luther - was now regarded as `rank
blasphemy,' which it was the duty of the authorities to punish as
such. To such lengths had the vaunted freedom of the Gospel now
gone." (6)

D. Johann Neander (P)

"[Luther's views] would justify all sorts of oppression on the

part of the State, and all kinds of intellectual tyranny, and
were in fact the same as those on which the Roman Emperors acted
when they persecuted Christianity." (51;v.6: 266-8)

E. Adolf von Harnack (P)

"It is an altogether one-sided view, one, indeed, which willfully

disregards the facts, to hail in Luther the man of the new age, the
hero of enlightenment and the creator of the modern spirit. If we wish
to contemplate such heroes we must turn to Erasmus [a Catholic] and
his associates . . . In the periphery of his existence Luther was an
Old Catholic, a medieval phenomenon." (85:193/7)

F. Dean William Inge (P)

"The Anglican Dean Inge, of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, did not
hesitate to say . .

'If we wish to find a scapegoat on whose shoulders we may lay the

miseries which Germany has brought on the world, I am more and
more convinced that the worst evil genius of that country, is not
Hitler or Bismarck or Frederick the Great, but Martin Luther.'

And he gave as his reason that in Lutheranism:

'the Law of Nature, which ought to be the court of appeal against

unjust authority, is identified with the existing order of
society, to which absolute obedience is due.'" (84:382)

4. John Calvin

A. Will Durant (Secularist)

"Calvin was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of

belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely
repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new
religion had begun. He had seen the fragmentation of the Reformation
into a hundred sects, and foresaw more; in Geneva he would have none
of them." (122:473)

B. Georgia Harkness (P)

"There was little political liberty in Geneva under Calvin's regime,

and still less of religious liberty. His practical influence was on
the side of an autocratic state and complete conformity of the
individual to the established powers." (123:222)

5. Heinrich Bullinger: Most Tolerant of the Intolerant (Will Durant)

Bullinger was undoubtedly the most tolerant Protestant Founder:

"[He] avoided politics . . . sheltered fugitive Protestants, and

dispensed charity to the needy of any creed . . . he approached a
theory of general religious freedom." (122:413)

But even Bullinger favored Calvin's execution of Servetus and the burning
of witches, as we shall see later.

6. The 17th Century: Rutherford, Milton, Locke

The tradition of intolerance among Protestants did not soon die out.
According to Protestant historian Owen Chadwick:

"The ablest defence of persecution during the 17th century came from
the Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford (A Free Disputation
Against Pretended Liberty Of Conscience, 1649)." (120:403)

John Milton and John Locke, otherwise relatively "enlightened" Protestants,

argued for tolerance, but excluded Catholics - the former in his
Areopagitica (1644), and the latter in his first Letter Concerning
Toleration (1689). (78:1384)

7. The Persecuted Become the Persecutors!

One of the many tragi-comic ironies of the Protestant Revolution is the

fact that even persecuted Protestants failed to see the light:

"Often the resistance to tyranny and the demand for religious freedom
are combined, as in the Puritan revolution in England; and the
victors, having achieved supremacy, then set up a new tyranny and a
fresh intolerance." (123:222)

"Multitudes of Non-Conformists fled from Ireland and England to

America; . . . What is amazing is the fact that, after such
experiences, those fugitives did not learn the lesson of toleration,
and did not grant to those who differed . . . freedom . . . When they
found themselves in a position to persecute, they tried to outdo what
they had endured . . . Among those whom they attacked was . . . the
Society of Friends, otherwise known as Quakers." (92:207)

In Massachusetts, for successive convictions, a Quaker would suffer the

loss of one ear and then the other, the boring of the tongue with a hot
iron, and sometimes eventually death. In Boston three Quaker men and one
woman were hanged. Baptist Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts
in 1635 and founded tolerant Rhode Island (92:208). To his credit, he
remained tolerant, an exception to the rule, as was William Penn, who was
persecuted by Protestants in England and founded the tolerant colony of
Pennsylvania. Quakerism (Penn's faith) has an honorable record of tolerance
since, like its predecessor Anabaptism, it is one of the most subjective
and individualistic of Protestant sects, and eschews association with the
"world" (governments, the military, etc.), whence lies the power necessary
to persecute. Thus, Quakers were in the forefront of the abolition movement
in America in the first half of the 19th century.

8. Catholic Maryland: The First Tolerant American Colony

A. Patrick O'Hare

"Catholics . . . were the first in America to proclaim and to practice

civil and religious liberty . . . The colony established by Lord
Baltimore in Maryland granted civil and religious liberty to all who
professed different beliefs . . . At that very time the Puritans of
New England and the Episcopalians of Virginia were busily engaged in
persecuting their brother Protestants for consciences' sakes and the
former were . . . hanging `witches'." (50:300-01)

B. Martin Marty (P)

"Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the

Catholic-hating Puritans (8) . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new
regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed
their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the
little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of
promise on the land." (9)

C. John Tracy Ellis

"For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated,

and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics
and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration
unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . .
the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of
Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to
death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the
outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off
from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the
enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for
Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had
governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of
religious oppression." (10)

D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical

toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in
1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to
Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams."
(78:1383)

Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be

multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete
religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars
for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are
concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution - roughly
1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether
typical examples.

9. Conclusion (Will Durant)

"The principle which the Reformation had upheld in the youth of its
rebellion - the right of private judgment - was as completely rejected
by the Protestant leaders as by the Catholics . . . Toleration was now
definitely less after the Reformation than before it." (122:456/11)
 II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES

1. General Observations

Dissensions plagued Protestantism from the start, even though one would
think that a religion stressing individualism and conscience would be free
from such shortcomings and would promote mutual respect. The myth of
Protestant magnanimity and peaceful coexistence (especially in its infancy)
dies an unequivocal death as the facts are brought out:

A. Patrick O'Hare

"A volume might be filled with indubitable facts to prove the

intolerant spirit of Luther and of the various sects which his
rebellion originated. The quarrels, hostilities and jealousies that
constantly arose among one and all made them a prey to the fiercest
dissensions. They anathematized and persecuted each other . . . and
indulged in the coarsest and vilest invective . . . The Lutherans . .
. denounced and excluded the reformed Calvinists from salvation. The
Calvinists roused up the people against the Lutherans . . . Zwingli
complained of Luther's intolerance when he was the victim . . . but he
and his followers threw the poor Anabaptists into the Lake of Zurich,
enclosed in sacks." (50:293)

B. Calvin's Revealing Letter to Melanchthon

"It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our

differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in
opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the
Reformation, at issue among ourselves." (50:293)

Melanchthon replied:

"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to
weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." (92:88/12)

C. Johannes Janssen

Janssen, author of a 16-volume history of Germany during "Reformation"

times, claimed that:

"The Protestant sects derided each other in just as immoderate and

undignified a way as they one and all derided the papacy . . . Cursing
and blaspheming were as frequent as praying was rare." (111;v.16:4-5)

We will now examine some examples of this inter-Protestant invective:

2. Luther and Lutherans on Zwingli and His Followers

"I will not read the works of these people, because they are out of
the Church, and are not only damned themselves, but draw many
miserable creatures after them." (113;v.1:466)

"Zwingli was an offspring of hell, an associate of Arius (13), a man

who did not deserve to be prayed for . . ." (113;v.1:466)

"Zwingli was greedy of honour . . . he had learnt nothing from me . .

. Oecolampadius thought himself too learned to listen to me or to
 learn from me." (51;v.4:309/14)

"Zwinglians . . . are fighting against God and the sacraments as the

most inveterate enemies of the Divine Word." (111;v.5:220-21/15)

"Heretics who had broken away . . . ministers of Satan, against whom

no exercise of severity, however great, would be excessive." (50:286)

"It would be better to announce eternal damnation than salvation after

the style of Zwingli or Oecolampadius." (46:85)

Luther rejoiced at the news of Zwingli's death on the battlefield in 1531,

and said that he had met "an assassin's end" (46:86). And when Zwingli's
associate Oecolampadius shortly followed him to the grave, Luther concluded
that "the devil's blows have killed him." (46:86)

"It is well that Zwingli . . . lies dead on the battlefield . . . Oh,

what a triumph this is . . . How well God knows his business."
(45:139)

"Zwingli is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel,
to compel others to follow his error." (113; v.1:466)

The Lutherans proclaimed in full synod:

"The Zwinglians . . . we do not even grant to them a place in the

church, far from recognizing as brethren, a set of people, whom we see
agitated by the spirit of lying, and uttering blasphemies against the
Son of Man." (113;v.1:466)

The Zwinglians believed that the Eucharist was wholly symbolic (probably
the majority position of Protestants today). Hence, whoever believes the
same would have had the foregoing said about them by Dr. Luther, who firmly
held to Consubstantiation, i.e., the actual Body and Blood of Christ is
present in the communion along with the bread and wine.

3. Zwingli and His Cohorts on Luther

Zwingli, not to be outdone, returned the compliment:

"The devil has made himself master of Luther, to such a degree, as to

make one believe he wishes to gain entire possession of him."
(113;v.1:463)

"To see him in the midst of his followers, you would believe him to be
possessed by a phalanx of devils." (113;v.1:464)

"We do you no injustice when we reproach and condemn you as a worse

betrayer and denier of Christ than the ancient heretic Marcion (16)."
(50:288)

Oecolampadius was also not without a retort:

"He is puffed up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by Satan."

(113;v.1:463)

Zwingli's Church of Zurich wrote of Luther:

 "He will not and can not associate himself with those who confess
Christ . . . He wrote all his works by the impulse and the dictation
of the devil." (113;v.1:464)

At least the insults exhibit some vehemence, perhaps revealing the felt
importance of their object. Today, on the other hand, many Protestants are
utterly indifferent towards Luther, as if their faith was a product solely
of their own invention and ingenuity; oftentimes, such self-professed
generic "Christians" eschew even the title of "Protestant."

4. Luther on Bucer

"They think much of themselves, which, indeed, is the cause and

wellspring of all heresies . . . Thus Zwingli and Bucer now put
forward a new doctrine . . . So dangerous a thing is pride in the
clergy." (51;v.6:283/17)

"A gossip . . . a miscreant through and through . . . I trust him not

at all, for Paul says (18) `A man that is a heretic, after the first
and second admonition, avoid.'" (51;v.6:289/19)

5. Luther on Calvin and Oecolampadius

"Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled,

through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths."
(122:448/20)

6. Calvin on Luther and Lutherans

"What to think of Luther I know not . . . with his firmness there is

mixed up a good deal of obstinacy . . . Nothing can be safe as long as
that rage for contention shall agitate us . . . Luther . . . will
never be able to join along with us in . . . the pure truth of God.
For he has sinned against it not only from vainglory . . . but also
from ignorance and the grossest extravagance. For what absurdities he
pawned upon us . . . when he said the bread is the very body! . . . a
very foul error. What can I say of the partisans of that cause? Do
they not romance more wildly than Marcion respecting the body of
Christ? . . . Wherefore if you have an influence or authority over
Martin, use it . . . that he himself submit to the truth which he is
now manifestly attacking . . . Contrive that Luther . . . cease to
bear himself so imperiously." (126:46-8/21)

"Luther had done nothing to any purpose . . . people ought not to let
themselves be duped by following his steps and being half-papist; it
is much better to build a church entirely afresh." (113;v.1:465)

"I am carefully on the watch that Lutheranism gain no ground, nor be

introduced into France. The best means . . . for checking the evil
would be that the confession written by me . . . should be published."
(126:76/22)

7. Calvin on Zwingli

Historian Philip Hughes tells us that Calvin "abhorred" Zwingli also.

(45:229)

8. Calvin on Melanchthon
Calvin had some sort of friendship with Melanchthon (rare among differing
Protestant leaders), but wrote harshly of him in letters to others:

"He openly opposes sound doctrine; or . . . cunningly, or at least,

with but little manliness, disguises his own opinion . . . The
inconstancy of Philip moves both my anger and detestation."
(126:52,65/23)

9. Melanchthon on Zwingli

The timid Melanchthon was "manly" enough, however, to launch at least one
salvo against Zwingli:

"Zwingli says almost nothing about Christian sanctity. He simply

follows the Pelagians, the Papists and the philosophers." (46:261)

10. Bucer on Calvin

Despite theological affinities, Bucer had quite a low opinion of Calvin:

"Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people
according as he loves or hates them." (113;v.1:467)

11. Luther on Protestant "Heretics"

"Heresiarchs . . . remain obdurate in their own conceit. They allow

none to find fault with them and brook no opposition. This is the sin
against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness."
(51;v.6:282/24)

"Those are heretics and apostates who follow their own ideas rather
than the common tradition of Christendom, who . . . out of pure
wantonness, invent new ways and methods." (51;v.6:282-3/25)

Grisar adds:

"In his frame of mind it became at last an impossibility for him to

realise that his hostility and intolerance towards `heretics' within
his fold could redound on himself." (51;v.6:283)

"We must needs decry the fanatics as damned . . . They actually dare
to pick holes in our doctrine; ah, the scoundrelly rabble do a great
injury to our Evangel." (51; v.6:289/26)

"I am on the heels of the Sacramentaries (27) and the Anabaptists; . .

. I shall challenge them to fight; and I shall trample them all
underfoot." (46:86)

III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

1. General Observations

A. Hilaire Belloc

"There came - round about 1536-40 - a change . . . The temptation to

loot Church property and the habit of doing so had appeared and was
growing; and this rapidly created a vested interest in promoting the
 change of religion. Those who attacked Catholic doctrine, as, for
instance, in the matters of celibacy in the monastic orders . . .
opened the door for the seizure of the enormous clerical endowments .
. . by the Princes . . . The property of convents and monasteries
passed wholesale to the looters over great areas of Christendom:
Scandinavia, the British Isles, the Northern Netherlands, much of the
Germanies and many of the Swiss Cantons. The endowments of hospitals,
colleges, schools, guilds, were largely though not wholly seized . . .
Such an economic change in so short a time our civilization had never
seen . . . The new adventurers and the older gentry who had so
suddenly enriched themselves, saw, in the return of Catholicism, peril
to their immense new fortunes." (107:9-l0)

B. Will Durant

"The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight

alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes
and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical
property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as
temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . .
The Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory
except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith."
(122:438-9)

C. Henri Daniel-Rops

"Right from the beginning, Luther's spiritual revolt had let loose
material greed. The German rulers, the Scandinavian monarchs and Henry
VIII of England had all taken advantage of the break from papal
tutelage to appropriate both the wealth and the control of their
respective Churches." (46:309-10)

2. Melanchthon on the Princes

"They do not care in the least about religion; they are only anxious
to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of
bishops . . . Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent
on the plunder of the Churches." (122:438,440)

3. A Precedent: The "Hussites" (Will Durant)

The Protestants had learned from the "Hussites", Bohemians who claimed to
follow the heretic John Hus, whom Luther hailed as one of his forerunners.
After Hus's execution in 1415, zealous ragtag armies:

"Passed up and down Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia . . . pillaging

monasterles, massacring monks, and compelling the population to accept
the Four Articles of Prague . . ." (122:169)

4. Luther's Advice to the Princes

"The abbeys are as much your property as the game that runs on your
lands. The monasteries . . . are dens of iniquity, which you must root
out, if you would have God bless you." (50:295)

5. Sweden: Gustavus Vasa (A.G. Dickens {P})

"In Sweden Gustavus Vasa deprived the Church of all its landed
 properties . . . The proportion of land held by the crown increased
during his reign from 5.5% to 28%: that of the Church from 21% to
nil." (121:191)

6. Scotland and England (Hilaire Belloc)

"The great Scottish nobles . . . supported the religious revolution

because it gave them the power to loot the Church and the monarchy
wholesale." (107:112)

Likewise, the English "Reformation" was perpetrated primarily by means of

plunder at the highest levels of government.

7. Erasmus' Disdain of Protestant Plunder

The greatest scholar and man of letters in Europe at this time, Erasmus,
who looked with some favor upon the "Reformation" initially, but came to
despise it as he saw its fruits, wrote on May l0, 1521, just a few weeks
after the Diet of Worms, about those who "covet the wealth of the
churchmen." He goes on to say:

"This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly

taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse
fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that
of others, so that no one benefits." (117:l57)

IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM

1. General Observations

Protestant leaders sought to exterminate Catholicism wherever possible, and

exhibited very little tolerance and much philistine ignorance and hatred.
Janssen tells us the views of some leading "reformers" on this score:

"Luther was content with the expulsion of the Catholics. Melanchthon

was in favour of proceeding against them with corporal penalties . . .
Zwingli held that, in case of need, the massacre of bishops and
priests was a work commanded by God." (111;v.5:290)

2. Zwingli (Zurich)

Zwingli's Zurich was definitely not a haven of Christian freedom:

"The presence at sermons . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment;

all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed
regulations was punishable. Even outside the district of Zurich the
clergy were not allowed to read Mass or the laity to attend. And it
was actually forbidden, `under pain of severe punishment, to keep
pictures and images even in private houses' . . . The example of
Zurich was followed by other Swiss Cantons." (111;v.5:134-5)

The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525 (121:117). How did Zwingli's ideas
spread?:

"Their progress was marked by the destruction of churches and the

burning of monasteries. The bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne and
Geneva were forced to abandon their sees." (46:81-2)
 3. Farel (Geneva)

William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in
August,1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and
nunnery. (123:8)

"His sermons in St. Peter's were the occasion of riots; statues were
smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the
amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared." (45:226-7)

4. Bucer (Augsburg / Ulm / Strassburg)

"Martin Bucer . . . though anxious to be regarded as considerate and

peaceable . . . advocated quite openly `the power of the authorities
over consciences' .He never rested until, in 1537 . . . he brought
about the entire suppression of the Mass at Augsburg. At his
instigation, many fine paintings, monuments and ancient works of art
in the churches were wantonly torn, broken and smashed. Whoever
refused to submit and attend public worship was obliged within eight
days to quit the city boundaries. Catholic citizens were forbidden
under severe penalties to attend Catholic worship elsewhere . . . In
other . . . cities Bucer acted with no less violence and intolerance,
for instance, at Ulm, where he supported Oecolampadius . . . in 1531,
and at Strasburg . . . Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had
prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the
preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations
prescribing attendance at the sermons." (51;v.6:277-8)

5. Various Protestant Cities and Areas

In 1529 the Council of Strassburg also ordered the breaking in pieces of

all remaining altars, images and crosses, and several churches and convents
were destroyed (111;v.5:143-4). Similar events transpired also in
Frankfurt-am-Main (122:424). At a religious convention at Hamburg in April,
1535 the Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund,
Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog Catholics and
Zwinglians before banishing them (111;v.5:481). Luther's home territory of
Saxony had instituted banishment for Catholics in 1527 (51;v.6:241-2).

"In 1522 a rabble forced its way into the church at Wittenberg, on the
doors of which Luther had nailed his theses, destroyed all its altars
and statues, and . . . drove out the clergy. In Rotenburg also, in
1525, the figure of Christ was decapitated . . . On the 9th of
February, 1529, everything previously revered in the fine old
cathedral of Basle, Switzerland, was destroyed . . . Such instances of
brutality and fanaticism could be cited by scores." (92:94)

"[In] Constance, on March 10, 1528, the Catholic faith was altogether
interdicted . . . by the Council . . . 'There are no rights whatever
beyond those laid down in the Gospel as it is now understood' . . .
Altars were smashed . . . organs were removed as being works of
idolatry . . . church treasures were to be sent to the mint."
(111;v.5:146)

6. Scotland: John Knox

In Scotland, John Knox and his ilk passed legislation in which:

 "It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the
punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging;
for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death." (45:300)

Knox, like virtually all the Protestant Founders, was persuaded "that all
which our adversaries do is diabolical." He rejoiced in that "perfect
hatred which the Holy Ghost engenders in the hearts of God's elect against
the condemners of His holy statutes" (28). In conflict with these damned
opponents (i.e., Catholics) all means were justified - lies, treachery
(29), flexible contradictions of policy. (122:610/30)

7. Luther

Luther was at the forefront of this remarkable inquisition against Catholic

practice:

"It is the duty of the authorities to resist and punish such public
blasphemy." (51;v.6:240)

"If the preacher does not make men pious, the goods are no longer
his." (51;v.6:244)

"Not only the spiritual but also the secular power must yield to the
Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise." (51;v.6:245)

In his self-proclaimed righteous infallibility, Luther had decided by 1527

that:

"Men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and
the sword." (51;v.6:262/31)

"Even though they do not believe, they must nevertheless . . . be

driven to the preaching, so that they may at least learn the outward
work of obedience." (51;v.6:262/32)

"Although we neither can nor should force anyone into the faith, yet
the masses must be held and driven to it in order that they may know
what is right or wrong." (51;v.6:263/33)

"It is our custom to affright those who . . . fail to attend the

preaching; and to threaten them with banishment and the law . . . In
the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them .
. . as if they were heathen." (51;v.6:263/34)

"Although excommunication in popedom has been shamefully abused . . .

yet we must not suffer it to fall, but make right use of it, as Christ
commanded." (122:424-5)

If I may be excused an irresistible pun at this point: "The Catholic Masses

were forced out, while the Catholic masses were forced in" (to Protestant
services)!

8. Melanchthon

Melanchthon asked the state to compel the people to attend Protestant

services (122:424). Later on, in Saxony (1623), even auricular confession
and the Eucharist were made strictly obligatory by law, punishable by
banishment. (51;v.6:264)
 9. Calvin

Calvin, in Geneva, took religious compulsion to an absurd degree which

would make the most zealous Pharisee sick with envy. Suffice it to say that
the reality of the Genevan "theocracy" is the farthest thing conceivable
from the prevailing myth of Protestantism as the champion of the individual
conscience against the vicious tyranny of Rome. The irony is all the more
profound when we realize that Calvin was the most influential "reformer"
and the "father," one could say, of all Protestant systematic theology and
biblical commentary and exegesis.

10. Conclusion (Owen Chadwick {P})

"The Protestant states did not question that teachers of disapproved

doctrines should be prevented from preaching. Nor did they question
that the state should use laws to encourage churchgoing. In Anglican
England and Lutheran Germany, Reformed Holland . . . the citizens were
alike liable to penalties if they failed for no good reason to attend
the worship of their parish churches." (120:398)

V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION

1. Luther: Revolutionary Invective / The Peasants' Revolt

"The Pope and the Cardinals . . . since they are blasphemers, their
tongues ought to be torn out through the back of their necks, and
nailed to the gallows!" (92:94/35)

"It were better that every bishop were murdered . . . than that one
soul should be destroyed . . . If they will not hear God's Word . . .
what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep
them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who
contribute body, goods . . . that the rule of the bishops may be
destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians." (122:377/36)

Will Durant asserts:

"Luther . . . emitted an angry roar that was almost a tocsin of revolution"

(122:377). These roars were numerous:

"If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe
that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The
word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal . . ." (109:41/37)

"If we punish thieves with the gallows . . . why do we not still more
attack with every kind of weapon . . . these Cardinals, these Popes,
and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not
wash our hands in their blood?" (109:41/38)

"If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to
it . . . To the fire with them!" (51;v.6:247/39)

Jesuit Luther scholar Hartmann Grisar, exercising all charity and any
benefit of the doubt possible in interpreting such statements as these,
writes:

"No one . . . will be so foolish to believe that it was really his

 intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty
demands were but the violent outbursts of his own deep inward
intolerance." (51;v.6:247)

Let's hope Grisar is right, for Luther's sake. On the other hand, the
rhetoric is very explicit and was circulated widely in all of Germany and
elsewhere. At any rate, Luther should have known how people would react to
such wild, reckless statements, and therefore largely bears responsibility
for the Peasants' Revolt that broke out in Germany, not coincidentally, in
1525. This is frankly admitted by virtually all historians of the period,
including fervent Protestants. Grisar agrees:

"But who was it who was responsible for having provoked the war?
Occasional counsels to . . . self-restraint . . . were indeed given by
Luther from time to time . . . but . . . they are drowned in the din
of his controversial invective . . . If his reforms were rejected then
it was to be wished that monasteries and foundations `were all reduced
to one great heap of ashes' (40). 'A grand destruction of all the
monasteries, etc., would be the best reformation.'" (51;v.6:248/41)

"It is a duty to suppress the Pope by force." (51;v.6:245/42)

"Some . . . will not treat our gospel rightly; but have we not
gibbets, wheels, swords, and knives? Those who are obdurate can be
brought to reason." (111;v.3:266/43)

"The spiritual powers . . . also the temporal ones, will have to

succumb to the Gospel, either through love or through force, as is
clearly proved by all Biblical history." (111;v.3:267/44)

Luther's friend, the minor "reformer" Wolfgang Capito, warned Luther on

December 4, 1520 about his bone-chilling invective:

"You are frightening away from you your supporters by your constant
reference to troops and arms. We can easily enough throw everything
into confusion, but it will not be in our power, believe me, to
restore things to peace and order." (111;v.3:136)

Capito was in this instance wise, almost a prophet, but unsuccessful at

persuasion. After the Peasants' Revolt broke out, Luther advised the
princes to kill the peasants in any fashion necessary, en masse, and the
usual estimates are of 100,000 resultant deaths. This episode is widely
acknowledged as a blot on Luther's career. Durant maintains:

"The peasants had a case against him. He had not only predicted social
revolution, he had said he would not be displeased by it . . . even if
men washed their hands in episcopal blood . . . He had made no protest
against the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property . . . The
peasants felt that the new religion had sanctified their cause, had
aroused them to hope and action, and had deserted them in the hour of
decision . . . Many of them, or their children . . . returned to the
Catholic fold." (122:394-5)

2. Zwingli

Zwingli, too, had marked militaristic tendencies:

"Zwingli had gone the length of declaring that the massacre of the
 bishops was necessary for the establishment of the pure Gospel . . .
He wrote on May 4, 1528,

"'The bishops will not desist from their fraud . . . until a

second Elijah appears to rain swords upon them . . . It is wiser
to pluck out a blind eye than to let the whole body suffer
corruption.'" (111;v.5:180/45)

Zwingli, the inveterate adulterer (who is he to talk about "corruption"?),

was killed, along with 24 Zwinglian preachers, at the battle of Kappel, a
few miles south of Zurich, on October 11, 1531, at which news Luther
reacted with glee. This event, no doubt, helped to make Zwingli's
successor, Bullinger, the most mild and moderate of all the founders of
Protestantism.

3. Luther and Melanchthon Condone Slavery

Luther, hardened by the bitter pill of the Peasants' Revolt and his hand in
it, sanctioned slavery, quoting the Old Testament:

"Sheep, cattle, men-servants were all possessions to be sold as it

pleased their masters. It were a good thing were it still so. For else
no man may compel nor tame the servile folk." (122:449/46)

Luther's sidekick Melanchthon followed him in upholding serfdom

(122:457/47). Having seen the dreadful and tragic results of their own
anarchical teachings, they became much more ruthless than that which they
claimed to be "reforming." How strange and curious is religious corruption!

VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS

1. Luther

"There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article

of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by
good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in
the Creed . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but
punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to
teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to
do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then
let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master
- namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]." (111;v.10:222/48)

"That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword

needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets
relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have
no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . .
Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly
false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children
were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate
themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and
congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of
God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are
bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also
when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as
infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . .
we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death."
(111;v.10:222-3/49)
Bullinger saw the contradiction in Luther's appeal to tradition for
punishment of heretics, and thought it was "truly laughable" that he should
suddenly appeal to the fact,

"of the Church having so long held this . . . If Luther's argument,

based on longstanding usage, be admitted . . . then the whole of
Luther's own doctrine tumbles over, for his teaching is not that which
the Roman Church has held for so long." (51;v.6:259/50)

Logical consistency was never one of Luther's strong points.

Grisar states:

"That . . . every follower of his Evangel, were bound to regard all

opinions which diverged from his own as godless heresies . . . he had
never doubted from the moment he had discovered his new Evangel."
(51;v.6:238)

2. Melanchthon

"Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that

suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. 'Why
should we pity such men more than God does?' he asked, for he was
convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell." (122:423)

"A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the

bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some
with life imprisonment, and some with exile." (115:177)

"Even though the Anabaptists do not advocate anything seditious or

openly blasphemous" it was, in his opinion, "the duty of the
authorities to put them to death." (51;v.6:250/51)

At the end of 1530, Melanchthon drafted a memorandum in which he defended a

regular system of coercion by the sword (i.e., death for Anabaptists).
Luther signed it with the words, "It pleases me," and added:

"Though it may appear cruel to punish them by the sword, yet it is

even more cruel of them . . . not to teach any certain doctrine - to
persecute the true doctrine . . ." (51;v.6:251)

Protestant theologian Hunzinger concludes that:

"Melanchthon was wont to lose no time in having recourse to fire and

sword. This forms a dark blot on his life. Many a man fell victim to
his memorandum." (51;v.6:270/52)

In 1530 Melanchthon recommended death for rejection of the Real Presence of

Christ in the Eucharist, but changed his mind on this very doctrine later
in his life! (122:424)

3. Zwingli

"Young Bible students he once mentored were now advocating more

radical reform . . . refusing to have their babies baptized, citing
his own earlier ideas . . . In January, 1525, Zwingli agreed that they
deserved capital punishment . . . for tearing the fabric of a seamless
 Christian society." (53)

Zwingli's Zurich mercilessly persecuted the Anabaptists:

"The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The

penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were 'drowning,
burning, or beheading,' according as it seemed advisable . . . 'It is
our will,' the Council proclaimed, 'that wherever they be found,
whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and
that none of them shall be spared.'" (111;v.5:l53-7)

4. Bucer

In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by

fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives,
children and cattle. (111;v.5:367-8,290-1)

5. Knox

"His conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the

Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities
predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly
destroyed:

"'To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . .

Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel
death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from
reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.'"
(122:614/54)

6. England

"Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists

in 1575 . . . Henry VIII . . . had a score of them burned on one day
in 1535." (45:143)

Six Carthusian monks, a Bridgettine monk, and the Bishop of Rochester, St.
John Fisher, were hanged or beheaded (the Bishop), some being disemboweled
and drawn and quartered, in May and June, 1535, all for denying that Henry
VIII was the Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England. (45:181-2)

Hugh Latimer, an English "reformer", had, remarks Will Durant, "tarnished

his eloquent career by approving the burning of Anabaptists and obstinate
Franciscans under Henry VIII." (122:597)

Queen Elizabeth, writes Philip Hughes:

" . . . enacted a definition of heresy that made life safe for all who
believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation. But the statute left
intact that heresy was, by common law, an offense punishable by death.
An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in
fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian." (45:274)

It wasn't until 1679 that capital punishment for heresy was abolished in
England, by an act of Parliament of Charles II. (45:274)

John Stoddard gives an account of Henry VIII, who founded Anglicanism:

 " . . . the murderer of two wives . . . and the executioner of many of
the noblest Englishmen of the time, who had the conscience and the
courage to oppose him. Among these were the venerable Bishop Fisher .
. . and Sir Thomas More, one of the most distinguished men of his
century . . .

"When Henry began his persecution, there were about 1,000 Dominican
monks in Ireland, only four of whom survived when Elizabeth came to
the throne thirty years later . . .

"Executions speedily began . . . At one time, . . . about 800 a year

(55). Hallam [a Protestant] . . . says (56) that the revolting
tortures and executions of Jesuit priests in the reign of Elizabeth
were characterised by a 'savageness and bigotry, which I am very sure
no scribe of the Inquisition could have surpassed' . . . The details
of these atrocities . . . would form very unpleasant reading for
Protestants, accustomed as they are to think that all religious
persecution has been done by Catholics. As Newman says:

"'It is pleasanter (for them) to declaim against persecution, and

to call the Inquisition a hell, than to consider their own
devices and the work of their own hands.'" (92:131-2,135)

Stoddard chronicles further persecution in England - of the Dissenters.

Under Elizabeth, Presbyterians, for example, were "branded, . . .
imprisoned, banished, mutilated and even put to death. A few Anabaptists
and Unitarians were burned alive." (92:205)

Anglican Bishops were silent accomplices and witnesses of much torture.

(92:205-6)

"The proximate cause of that great revolution, which cost James (57)
his crown, was the publication by the King of an edict of religious
toleration! . . . The first and only time the Church of England has
made war on the Crown, was when the Crown had declared its intention
of tolerating . . . the rival religions of the country!" (58)

In Ireland, Bishops were executed by the English in 1578 (two), 1585 and
1611. In 1652 "an attempt was made to exterminate the entire Irish Catholic
priesthood . . .

"An Act signed by the Commissioners for the Parliament of England

decreed that every Romish priest . . . should be . . . hanged . . .
beheaded . . . quartered, his bowels drawn out and burned, and his
head fixed on a pole in some public place . . . Finally, scarcely a
Catholic prelate was left on the whole island." (92:206)

"Dissenters in Ireland . . . also endured apalling miseries . . .

Instances are recorded of Dissenters whose fingers were wrenched
asunder, whose bodies were seared with red-hot irons, and whose legs
were broken . . . Their wives were also whipped in public." (92:207)

7. Calvin

A. General

"In the preface to the Institutes he admitted the right of the

government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians
 should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . .
should be equally punished." (115:178)

During Calvin's reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546, "58 persons were
put to death for heresy." (122:473)

"While he did not directly recommend the use of the death penalty for
blasphemy, he defended its use among the Jews." (123:102)

In defense of stoning false prophets, Calvin observes:

"The father should not spare his son . . . nor the husband his own
wife. If he has some friend who is as dear to him as his own life, let
him put him to death." (123:107/59)

He talks of the execution of Catholics, but, like Luther, did not readily
attempt to act on his rhetoric:

"Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist . .

. deserve to be repressed by the sword." (123:96/60)

B. James Gruet

In January, 1547 in Calvin's Geneva, one James Gruet, a kind of

free-thinker of dubious morals, was alleged to have posted a note which
implied that Calvin should leave the city:

"He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his
accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet
had written on one of Calvin's tracts the words 'all rubbish.' The
judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a
whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded
on July 26, 1547 . . . Evangelical freedom had now arrived at the
point where its champions took a man's life . . . merely for writing a
lampoon!" (114:176/61)

Durant gives further detail:

"Half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and
his head was cut off." (122:479)

C. Comparet Brothers

In May 1555, a drunken riot occurred, precipitated by a group which

objected to the excess of foreign refugees in Geneva. Dissidents of Calvin
were termed "Libertines."

"The brothers Comparet, two humble boatmen, were executed and pieces
of their dismembered bodies nailed on the city gates." (46:192)

"The Comparet brothers, with Calvin's approval, were tortured . . .

Under the rack they said the riot had . . . been premeditated, but
denied this again before their execution. A number, including Francois
Berthelier, were beheaded . . . Several others were banished, and the
wives of the condemned were likewise driven from the city." (123:48)

"All the other leaders of the party took flight and were sentenced to
death in their absence." (46:192)
D. Michael Servetus

The most infamous execution in Geneva was that of Michael Servetus, a

Spanish physician who denied the Trinity, and was a sort of Gnostic
pantheist. He had met Calvin, and the latter declared on February 13, 1547
in a letter to Farel:

"If he comes, provided my authority prevails I will not suffer him to

return home alive." (46:186)

"With Calvin's knowledge and probably at his instigation, . . .

William Trie, of Geneva, denounced Servetus to the Catholic
Inquisition at Vienne and forwarded the material sent by the heretic
to Calvin." (114:177)

Daniel-Rops says of this episode, that "Protestant historians refer to it

with embarrassment." (46:187)

"The fact cannot be dodged that Calvin delivered Servetus to the

Inquisition, and then tried either by a lie or a subterfuge to cover
his part in the matter." (123:42)

"Upon arriving at Geneva on August 13, 1553, he was detected almost

immediately . . . through Calvin's instigation he was arrested and put
in prison. Calvin . . . hoped for his execution." (123:42)

"On August 20 he wrote to Farel:

" 'I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I should
like him to be spared the worst part of the punishment,' meaning
the fire." (46:190)

This is the most that can be said about Calvin's "mercy" in this case.

"On October 26, the Council ordered that he be burned alive on the
following day . . . That he desired Servetus' death . . . is clear."
(123:44)

"Calvin's observations on this appalling death make horrifying

reading: . . .

"'He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on

bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: "Misericordias!" . . .'"
(46:190-91)

Henry Hallam, the Protestant historian, gave the following opinion:

"Servetus, in fact, was burned not so much for his heresies, as for
personal offense he had several years before given to Calvin . . .
which seems to have exasperated the great reformer's temper, so as to
make him resolve on what he afterwards executed . . . Thus, in the
second period of the Reformation, those ominous symptoms which had
appeared in its earliest stage, disunion, virulence, bigotry,
intolerance, . . . grew more inveterate and incurable." (62)

" 'Servetus's death, for which Calvin bears much of the

responsibility,' writes Wendel, 'marked the reformer with a bloody
 stigma which nothing has been able to efface.'" (46:191)

This stigma, however, is shared by many other "reformers", who commended

this atrocious vendetta:

"Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave 'thanks to the

Son of God' . . . and called the burning 'a pious and memorable
example to all posterity.' Bucer declared from his pulpit in
Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to
pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates
must punish blasphemy with death." (122:484)

In 1554 Calvin wrote the treatise Against the Errors of Servetus, in which
he tried to justify his cruel action:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they

allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only
am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that
they spit in my face." (46:191)

This was Calvin's attitude towards the punishment and execution of

heretics. In what way, I submit, is he morally any better than those who
committed atrocities by means of the Inquisition?

8. Protestant Torture

As to the myth that torture was a tactic solely of Catholics, Janssen

quotes a Protestant eyewitness to the contrary:

"The Protestant theologian Meyfart . . . described the tortures which

he had personally witnessed . . . 'The subtle Spaniard and the wily
Italian have a horror of these bestialities and brutalities, and at
Rome it is not customary to subject a murderer . . . an incestuous
person, or an adulterer to torture for the space of more than an
hour'; but in Germany . . . torture is kept up for a whole day, for a
day and a night, for two days . . . even also for four days . . .
after which it begins again . . . 'There are stories extant so
horrible and revolting that no true man can hear of them without a
shudder.'" (111;v.16:516-18,521)

He gives also another typical instance of the treatment of Anabaptists:

"At Augsburg, in the first half of the year 1528, about 170
Anabaptists of both sexes were either imprisoned or expelled by order
of the new-religionist Town Council. Some were . . . burnt through the
cheeks with hot irons; many were beheaded; some had their tongues cut
out." (111;v.5:160)

9. Conclusion

Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic

failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general "blind spot" of
the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly "enlightened"
age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its
initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented
refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt.

VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS

 1. Overview

A. Preserved Smith

Witch hunts were widespread from the 16th century up to the 18th. Smith,
the secularist historian, feels that:

"A . . . patent cause of the mania was the zeal and bibliolatry of
Protestantism . . . Luther . . . seeing an idiotic child, whom he
regarded as a changeling, . . . recommended the authorities to drown
it, as a body without a soul. Repeatedly, both in private talk and in
public sermons, he recommended that witches should be put to death
without mercy and without regard for legal niceties . . . Four witches
were burned at Wittenberg on June 29, 1540. The other Protestants
hastened to follow the bad example of their master. In Geneva, under
Calvin, 34 women were burned or quartered for the crime in the year
1545. A sermon of Bishop Jewel in 1562 was perhaps the occasion of a
new English law against witchcraft . . . After the mania reached its
height in the closing years of the century, anything, however trivial,
would arouse suspicion . . . The Spanish Inquisition, on the other
hand . . . treated witchcraft as a diabolical delusion." (115:186-7)

B. John Stoddard

"Protestants in the town of Salem hanged numbers of persons accused of

being witches, and in the neighbouring town of Charlestown a poor old
clergyman was, for the same reason, crushed to death between two slabs
of stone! This cruel deed was even publicly commended by the
Protestant ministers of Boston and Charlestown. John Wesley . . . was
one of the bitterest persecutors of 'witchcraft,' and declared - 'The
giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible.' In England
under James I, a law was passed subjecting witches to death on the
first conviction, even though they had done no harm. Twelve Anglican
Bishops voted for this law! The last witch was hanged in Scotland in
1727, but in 1773 the Associated Presbytery reaffirmed its belief in
witchcraft." (92:208)

2. Luther

"I would have no compassion on these witches; I would burn them all."
(92:99)

3. England

"The laws of Henry VIII (1541) punished with death any of several
practices ascribed to witches, but the Spanish Inquisition branded
stories of witchcraft as the delusions of weak minds, and cautioned
its agents (1538) to ignore the popular demand for the burning of
witches." (122:851-2)

"In England, under Elizabeth, before the craze had more than well
started on its career, . . . 47 are known to have been executed for
the crime." (115:188)

The brilliant historian Paul Johnson contends that; "Above all, Puritanism
was the dynamic behind the increase in witch-hunting." (63)
 4. Scotland

Philip Hughes informs us that:

"In Scotland, 1560-1600 (then Calvinist), some 8,000 women were burnt
as witches - the total population was around 600,000." (45:273)

This is actually, incredibly, 1.3% of the population! Projecting these

rates to the United States, which had a population of 231 million in 1980,
3.07 million witches would have been executed from 1940 to 1980, or roughly
the whole population of Chicago!

5. Bullinger

"Let those men consider what they are doing, who . . . decide that
witches who deal only in dreams and hallucinations should not be burnt
or put to death." (111;v.16:364)

6. Calvin's Geneva

"Like later Puritan governments, that of Geneva displayed an increased

ferocity towards witches, of whom on the average two or three were
burned every year." (121:164)

7. Conclusion (Karl Keating)

"In Britain 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant

Germany the figure was 100,000 . . . If the Inquisition establishes
the falsity of Catholicism, the witch trials establish the falsity of
Protestantism." (4:292,298)

VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

1. Overview

The early Protestants were not the champions of free speech and freedom of
the press, either, as we are led to believe, any more than they were for
freedom of religion or assembly - not by a long shot. Suppression of the
Mass and forced Church attendance by civil law are examples of this
intolerance of freedom of thought and action, which we previously examined.
Neither was Catholic and sectarian literature to be suffered:

"With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which

are exactly in harmony wlth those of the territorial prince of the
day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory
of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself
enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant
side...From the very first religious life among the Protestants was
influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther
imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of
faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and
to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed
theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their
land and subjects . . . 'Luther never attempted to solve this
contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have
supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was
their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which
differed from their own.' (64)" (111;v.14:230-31)
 "The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time
in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies
the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press
control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him
himself." (111;v.14:506)

"In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves

zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the
writings of all opposing parties. 'When first Luther began to write
books, it was said,' so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560),
'that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk
and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books.
Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the
purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate
members and sects.'" (111;v.14:506-7)

"The Protestant princes . . . loved and encouraged the censorship

because, with its help, they could suppress the well-merited complaint
against their robbery of Church property, or other self-interested
deeds, or even criminal acts." (111;v.14:507)

"Violation of the orders of the censorship was everywhere to be

severely punished." (111;v.14:234)

2. Luther Suppresses Catholic Bibles (!)

Janssen writes of a hypocritical instance of Luther's censorship (1529):

"Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic

translation of the Bible. 'The freedom of the Word,' which he claimed
for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When .
. . he learnt that Emser's translation . . . was to be printed . . .
at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry
of Mecklenburg, with the request that 'for the glory of the evangel of
Christ and the salvation of all souls' he would put a stop to this
printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of
Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the
Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he
invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that
were displeasing to him." (111;v.14:503-4)

3. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books

"When the controversy on the Lord's Supper was started at Wittenberg,

the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the
Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the
latter's views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was
issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the
following effect:

" 'Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians,

etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also
those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down
herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of
life and property.'" (111;v.14:232-3/65)

"Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the

 censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran
teaching (66). The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed
formally on the Index at Wittenberg." (111;v.14:504)

4. Protestant Universities

"Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant

universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and
begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately
regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly
awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a 'stinking
cesspool of the devil.'" (111;v.14:231-2)

5. Various Protestant Cities and Areas

"At Strassburg Catholic writings were suppressed as early as 1524 . .

. The Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main exercised . . . strict
censorship . . . At Rostock, in 1532, the printer of the Brethren of
the Common Life was sent to prison, because he had used his printing
press to the disadvantage of Protestantism." (111;v.14:502)

"Wherever the prince, according to old Byzantine fashion, thought

himself a theologian, he managed the censorship in person."
(111;v.14:233)

Instances could, of course, be multiplied, but the above examples suffice

to illustrate the general Protestant hostility to a free press.

IX. AFTERWORD

1. Henry Hallam (P)

"Persecution is the deadly original sin of the Reformed churches, that

which cools every honest man's zeal for their cause in proportion as
his reading becomes extensive." (50:297/67)

2. Thomas Babington Macaulay (P)

"Protestant intolerance, despotism in an upstart sect, infallibility

claimed by guides who acknowledge that they had passed the greater
part of their lives in error . . . these things could not long be
borne . . . It required no great sagacity to perceive the
inconsistency and dishonesty of men who, dissenting from almost all
Christendom, would suffer none to dissent from themselves, who
demanded freedom of conscience, yet refused to grant it . . . who
urged reason against the authority of one opponent, and authority
against the reason of another." (50:297-8/68)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

{* = non-Catholic work}

4. Keating, Karl, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, San Francisco: Ignatius,

1988.

45. Hughes, Philip, A Popular History of the Reformation, Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Image, 1957.
46. Daniel-Rops, Henri, The Protestant Reformation, vol.2, tr. Audrey
Butler, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1961.

50. O'Hare, Patrick F., The Facts About Luther, Rockford, IL: TAN Books,
rev. ed., 1987 (orig. Cincinnati, 1916).

51. Grisar, Hartmann, Luther, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6
vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917.

78. Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983. *

84. Rumble, Leslie & Charles M. Carty, That Catholic Church, St. Paul, MN:
Radio Replies Press, 1954.

85. Conway, Bertrand L., The Question Box, NY: Paulist Press, 1929.

92. Stoddard, John L., Rebuilding a Lost Faith, NY: P.J. Kenedy & Sons,
1922.

107. Belloc, Hilaire, Characters of the Reformation, Garden City, NY:

Doubleday Image, 1958.

109. O'Connor, Henry, Luther's Own Statements, NY: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed.,
1884.

111. Janssen, Johannes, History of the German People From the Close of the
Middle Ages, 16 vols., tr. A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (orig.
1891).

113. Spalding, Martin J. {Archbishop of Baltimore}, The History of the

Protestant Reformation, 2 vols., Baltimore: John Murphy, 1876.

114. Huizinga, Johan, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, tr. F. Hopman,
NY: Harper & Bros., 1957 (orig. 1924).*

115. Smith, Preserved, The Social Background of the Reformation, NY:

Collier Books, 1962 {2nd part of author's The Age of the Reformation, NY:
1920}. *

117. Erasmus, Desiderius, Christian Humanism and the Reformation,

{selections from Erasmus}, ed. & tr. John C. Olin, NY: Harper & Row, 1965
(orig. 1515-34).

120. Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation, NY: Penguin, rev. ed., 1972. *

121. Dickens, A.G., Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe, London:

Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966. *

122. Durant, Will, The Reformation, {vol. 6 of 10-vol. The Story of

Civilization, 1967}, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1957. *

123. Harkness, Georgia, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics, NY: Abingdon
Press, NY, 1931. *

126. Dillenberger, John, ed., John Calvin: Selections From His Writings,
Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1971.*
 FOOTNOTES

* 1. Dollinger, Johann von, Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, p.68.

* 2. Hallam, Henry, Introduction to the History of Literature, NY: 1880,
v.1, p.200, sec. 34.
* 3. Guizot, Francois, General History of Civilization in Europe, Paris:
1828 / English ed. 1837, pp.261-2.
* 4. Lecky, William, History of Rationalism, London: 1870 ed., v.1,
p.51.
* 5. Kohler, Walther, Reformation und Ketzerprozess, 1901, pp.29 ff.
* 6. Wappler, Karl, Die Inquisition, 1908, pp.69 ff.
* 7. Rumscheidt, Martin, ed., Adolf von Harnack: Liberal Theology at its
Height, London: Collins, 1989, p.251 (from History of Dogma, 1890).
* 8. E.g., he allowed several hundred Puritans, unwelcome in
Episcopalian Virginia, to enter Maryland in 1648 (see Ellis, #10
below, p.37).
* 9. Marty, Martin, Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in
America, NY: Penguin, 1984, pp.83,85-6.
* 10. Ellis, John Tracy, American Catholicism, Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Image, 1956, pp.36,38-9.
* 11. Durant is referring here to the year 1555, the time of the Diet of
Augsburg.
* 12. Melanchthon, Philip, Epistles, Book 4, Ep. 100.
* 13. Arius: a 4th century heretic who denied that Christ was fully God,
saying He was created.
* 14. In Table Talk (1540).
* 15. De Wette, M., Luther's Letters, Berlin: 1828, v.3, pp.454-6.
* 16. Marcion: a 2nd century heretic who accepted as Scripture only ten
epistles of St. Paul, and parts of Luke; he denied the humanity and
sufferings of Christ.
* 17. Werke (Luther's Works), Weimar ed., 1883, v.38, pp.177f.
* 18. Titus 3:10.
* 19. Luther, Martin, Table Talk, ed. Mathesius / Kroker, pp.154, 253.
* 20. Werke, Halle ed., 1753 (ed. J.G. Walch), v.20, p.223.
* 21. Letter to Martin Bucer, January 12, 1538.
* 22. Letter to Heinrich Bullinger, July 2, 1563.
* 23. Letters to John Sleidan, August 27, 1554, and to Bullinger,
February 23, 1558.
* 24. Werke, Weimar, 19, pp.609 ff.
* 25. Ibid., 7, p.394.
* 26. Werke, Erlangen ed., 1868, 61, pp.8 ff.
* 27. "Sacramentarians": Those who deny the Real Presence in the
Eucharist (e.g., Zwingli).
* 28. Knox, John, History of the Reformation in Scotland, NY: 1950,
Introduction, p.73.
* 29. Ibid., v.1, p.194 and note 2.
* 30. Ibid., Introduction, p.44. See also Edwin Muir, John Knox, London:
1920, pp.67,300.
* 31. Werke, Erl., v.3, p.39 / Letter to Georg Spalatin.
* 32. In 1529.
* 33. Werke, Weimar, 30, 1, p.349 / Preface to Smaller Catechism (1531).
* 34. Enders, L. Briefwechsel (Luther's Correspondence), Frankfurt, 9,
p.365 / Letter to Leonard Beyer (1533).
* 35. Against the Papacy of Rome, Founded by the Devil (1545). One of
Luther's most vile and colorful tracts.
* 36. Werke, Weimar, v.28, pp.142-201 / Against the Falsely Called
Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops (July, 1522). Luther at
the height of his revolutionary invective.
* 37. De Wette, Ibid., (#15), v.1, p.417 / Letter to Spalatin, February,
1520.
* 38. Werke, Erl., v.2, p.107 / On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher
(1520).
* 39. Luther, Table Talk, (Mathesius, ed.), p.180 / Summer, 1540.
* 40. Ibid., v.3, p.46.
* 41. Ibid.
* 42. Enders, Ibid., (#34), v.4, p.298.
* 43. In 1522.
* 44. Letter to the Elector of Saxony, 1522.
* 45. Zwingli's Works, v.7, pp.174-84.
* 46. Werke, Weimar, v.15, p.276 / Belfort Bax, The Peasants' War in
Germany, London: 1899, p.352.
* 47. See Janssen (111;v.4:362-3) / J.W. Allen, History of Political
Thought in the 16th Century, London: 1951, p.33 (a Protestant work).
* 48. Werke, Erl. Ausgabe, Bd. 39, pp.250-58 / Commentary on 82nd Psalm
(1530) / cf. Durant (122:423), Grisar (51;v.6: 26-7).
* 49. Pamphlet of 1536.
* 50. Letter to Albert Margrave of Brandenburg.
* 51. Bretschneider, ed., Corpus Reformation, Halle: 1846, 2, pp.17 ff.
/ February, 1530.
* 52. Hunzinger, August W., Die Theol. der Gegenwart, 1909, 3,3, p.49.
* 53. Ruth, John L., "America's Anabaptists: Who They Are," Christianity
Today, October 22, 1990, p.26 / cf. Dickens (121:117); Lucas
(118:511).
* 54. In Muir, Ibid., (#30), p.142.
* 55. In roughly the last half of the 16th century.
* 56. Hallam, Henry, Constitutional History of England, v.1, p.146.
* 57. James II, King of England from 1685-88 (a Catholic).
* 58. Buckle, Henry T., History of Civilization in England, NY: 1913,
v.1, p.308.
* 59. Calvin, John, Opera (Works), v.27, p.251 / Sermon on Deuteronomy
13:6-11.
* 60. Letter to Duke of Somerset, October 22, 1548.
* 61. Cf. Daniel-Rops (46:82-3) and Spalding (113;v.1:384).
* 62. Hallam, Ibid., (#2), v.1, p.280.
* 63. Johnson, Paul, A History of the English People, NY: Harper & Row,
Rev. ed., 1985, p.162.
* 64. Dollinger, Ibid., (#1), pp.52 ff.
* 65. Bretschneider, Ibid., (#51), v.4, p.549.
* 66. See also Durant (122:424).
* 67. Hallam, Ibid., (#56), p.63.
* 68. Macaulay, Thomas Babington, Essays (Hampden).

[Image]

Main Index / Church Index / Medieval & Renaissance Page

Copyright 1991, 1993 by Dave Armstrong. All rights reserved.