I remember years ago discussing this with a Lutheran vicar, and he readily acknowledged and decried the "Crypto-Calvinism" of later Melancthon.
At least it can be said for old man Luther that he stuck to his guns and kept to his beliefs, including ones that were good and true, such as the Real Presence, whereas Melanchthon exhibits the Protestant tendency which has prevailed ever since: constant doctrinal change and upheaval, leading to yet further sectarianism and doctrinal contradiction between parties.
Dave,
I've had a look at your sources, though I still need to look at Wappler's book cited by Smith, which is the only source Smith gives for his claims.
Much of what you say here is uncontroversial: that Melanchthon (and Luther, though as Bainton says Luther seems to have been a little more squeamish) thought governments should punish "sedition" and "blasphemy," which they interpreted to mean any open advocacy of Anabaptist teaching; also that Melanchthon's view of the Eucharist changed from an advocacy of the bodily presence of Christ to a vaguer doctrine of spiritual presence not too far from that of Bucer (in his later years) and Calvin. Why you go to such lengths to establish these things I'm not sure, since this is not what I'm challenging.
Here are the points on which I either disagree outright or at least would like to see more documentation:
1. The claim that Melanchthon thought those who denied the Real Presence should be executed. He may quite possibly have said something like this, but so far you have not provided any evidence that he did--when you provide such evidence I'll have a look at the context. The only one of your sources who even mentions this is Smith, and Smith provides no documentation for his claim. The bare assertion of a 100-year-old secondary source is not enough to establish something like this.
2. The claim that (if Melanchthon did say something to this effect) he was condemning his own later position. Melanchthon never adopted Zwingli's position, which I'm sure was what he had in mind if he did make the statement you allege. You say that Melanchthon later denied the Real Presence in the historic Christian sense of the term. I won't argue that point here, because it's irrelevant--the question is whether he denied it in the same sense as those whom he had earlier condemned. Bucer's claim from 1529 on was that both sides were condemning the other unjustly--that neither side actually held the offensive views alleged by the other. It was essentially this mediating position put forward by Bucer that Melanchthon later found convincing. So I don't see how you can make the case that Melanchthon adopted views he had earlier condemned. To you as a Catholic the Zwinglian and "crypto-Calvinist" positions may seem identical. But that really doesn't matter--if you're going to criticize Melanchthon for inconsistency you have to judge based on the terms as he defined them, not as you define them. (I'm really not sure what you would have gained if you could prove what you allege, but that's beside the point.)
3. Smith's claim that Melanchthon presided over a "regular inquisition" in which several Anabaptists were killed. Smith's source for this is a 1910 monograph by one P. Wappler. I'm glad to have had this source brought to my attention, since it looks interesting. But I haven't had a look at it yet (one copy is on microfiche and another in special collections in the library that I re
regularly use for research). When I have, I'll get back to you. Generally speaking the Lutherans imprisoned or exiled Anabaptists rather than executing them, even though you're quite right that Melanchthon considered the execution of Anabaptists to be warranted in principle (as a last resort). I'm not claiming that no Anabaptists were ever executed by a Lutheran government (though I don't know of such an instance off-hand, absent the case of Hans Hut who died when his prison cell caught on fire, in circumstances that remain unclear to this day). But I highly doubt Smith's claim that Melanchthon presided over the court that condemned them (in the 1536 memorandum to which you refer, Melanchthon explicitly states that ministers of the Gospel have no business getting directly involved with the use of the "sword"), and the propriety of his use of the technical term "inquisition." I suspect that Smith is indulging in some early-20th-century liberal grandstanding there. And while I'm at it, I have always regretted your use of this term in your online essay. "Inquisition" means something quite specific and is not appropriate as a general term for religious persecution. But of course "Protestant religious persecution" doesn't have the same bite, because just about everyone knows that Protestants persecuted people.
Which brings me to the broader question: what are you trying to prove here? That Protestants persecuted people? That is not under dispute. That their record of persecution is, taken as a whole, just as bad as that of the Catholic Church? One could maintain this legitimately, though I have come to the firm conclusion that it's not true (though certainly some Catholic governments--like Poland--were far more tolerant than some Protestant governments--like England or Geneva). That the Reformers were just all-round reprehensible people and can't be trusted? That is of course too subjective to establish firmly, but your writings certainly confirm this impression in the minds of conservative Catholics who read them. Which is why the problems with your terminology and use of sources need to be addressed.
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for being willing to discuss the actual historical facts, whatever they may be.
>The claim that Melanchthon thought those who denied the Real Presence should be executed. He may quite possibly have said something like this, but so far you have not provided any evidence that he did--when you provide such evidence I'll have a look at the context. The only one of your sources who even mentions this is Smith, and Smith provides no documentation for his claim.
This is incorrect. Will Durant also mentioned it. That book is dated 1967, so it is a mere 39 years old, rather than "100".
I also provided a primary source. You just didn't read carefully enough to access it. In my Bainton citation from Here I Stand, the source(s) are identified as "memorandum of 1531" and "memorandum of 1536" -- both written by Melanchthon and signed by Luther.
In the next lengthy citation, I give Melanchthon's own words from the 2nd document (though not specifically dealing with the Real Presence), from another Bainton book.
At the end of that I write: "for further source information, see my paper, "Luther's Attitudes on Religious Liberty" {Roland H. Bainton} ). There you go, Edwin!: primary source information, just for people like you who would actually go consult it; yet you missed this, so I have to reiterate what I already wrote (as so often in these tedious discussions about how I supposedly haven't provided enough documentation, or have allegedly quoted someone out of context, etc.).
This paper was drawn exclusively from Bainton's book, Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963). If you follow that link to my other paper (Bainton's stuff) you eventually find the primary source for the 1531 memorandum:
CR, IV, 739-740 (1531).
You also find the source for the 2nd memorandum:
WA, L, 12
Now, it's true that Bainton didn't happen to mention a clause in these two horrific documents about the Real Presence (that is deduced -- fairly certainly, I think,. but not absolutely certain -- from Smith and Durant referring to the same time period, as cross-referenced with the Bainton information).
What Bainton does mention are all these tenets as grounds for the death penalty:
1531: "rejection of the ministerial office"
1536: "rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism . . ."
Bainton cites Melanchthon, writing in the 1536 memorandum:
"They teach that a Christian should not use a sword, should not serve as a magistrate, should not swear or hold property, may desert an unbelieving wife. These articles are seditions and the holders of them may be punished with the sword."
So that is three more grounds to add to the previous seven. He adds two more at the en
(cont.)
. . . end of the citation: denial of original sin and "unnecessary separation."
Preserved Smith on the same page 177 of his Social Background of the Reformation, which I cited, adds more criteria from Luther:
"[He] also, at other times, justified persecution on the ground that he was suppressing not heresy but blasphemy. As he interpreted blasphemy, in a work published about 1530, it included the papal mass, the denial of the divinity of Christ or of any other 'manifest article of the faith, clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout Christendom." [that would certainly include, for Luther, the real presence]. The government should also, in his opinion, put to death those who preached sedition, anarchy or the abolition of private property.
So lessee how many things Luther and Melanchthon now believed should subject a person to the death penalty:
1. rejection of the ministerial office (that would take out present-day Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, house cherches, etc.)
2. rejecting government, (anarchists; conscientious objectors?, Jehovah's Witnesses)
3. Rejecting oaths,
4. Rejecting private property, (communists, socialists, Christian communes with property held in common, some of the early Christians mentioned in the book of Acts)
5. marriages outside the faith
6. protest against the punishment of blasphemy which was itself blasphemy. (that would take out everyone who disagrees with these abominable policies, including myself)
7. rejection of infant baptism (Baptists, most pentecostals -- including myself in 1982, when I got "baptized" as an adult, Church of Christ, etc.)
8. pacifism (Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, left-wing evangelicals like Jim Wallis and Ron Sider and Anthony Campolo, etc.)
9. refusal serve as a magistrate,
10. desertion of an unbelieving wife.
11. denial of original sin (Melanchthon thought that Zwingli possibly denied this, at Marburg in 1529)
12. "unnecessary separation" (sectarianism) (all Protestants, in my definition of this! LOL
13. papal mass, (all Catholics, so now I am killed for the fourth time (#6, #7, #12: because I uswed to be a nondenominationalist, and this one)
14) denial of the divinity of Christ (all the cults)
15) any other 'manifest article of the faith, clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout Christendom." (who knows how many more things this would entail!)
Thank God they didn't consistently carry out all this execution. We could count (as always) on Luther and Melanchthon and Luther to be self-contradictory. For once it had a positive fruit . . .
I can't find anything further on the two memoranda, with my present resources, so it looks like we are left with CR and WA, unless you know of something else. I could find nothing in my copy of Manschreck's Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer.
>The claim that (if Melanchthon did say something to this effect) he was cond
(cont.)
. . . condemning his own later position. Melanchthon never adopted Zwingli's position,
I never said that he did.
>which I'm sure was what he had in mind if he did make the statement you allege.
Perhaps. But all these fine points aside, my protest against the ruthlessness and hypocrisy of this remains intact, because it is ridiculous to start putting to death dissenting Protestants ten years after Worms, when there was disagreement right from the start. Disagreement to Protestants is like spots to a leopard or bark to a tree. How ridiculous is it for a Protestant to put to death another Protestant for "excessive separation"? You say he wouldn't have adopted Zwingli's position. From what I can tell, this is true; he moved towards Calvin's so-called "spiritual/mystical presence." So what are you saying?: it's justified and understandable for him to call for the death penalty for the Anabaptist and Zwinglian positions, but he gets off the hook when he denies the real presence and holds to Calvin's absurdly self-contradictory "spiritual presence"? I don't see that it's all that different. The crucial, troublesome move is away from Real presence in the first place. But its crazy for Protestants to kill each other; all the while pretending that they are all following the "clear" Bible.
>You say that Melanchthon later denied the Real Presence in the historic Christian sense of the term. I won't argue that point here, because it's irrelevant--the question is whether he denied it in the same sense as those whom he had earlier condemned. Bucer's claim from 1529 on was that both sides were condemning the other unjustly--that neither side actually held the offensive views alleged by the other. It was essentially this mediating position put forward by Bucer that Melanchthon later found convincing. So I don't see how you can make the case that Melanchthon adopted views he had earlier condemned.
Both sources that I utilized for my contention stated that the offense was a deniual of the real presence: not an adoption of a purely symbolic view. Smith described it as follows:
"the opinion that the eucharistic bread did not contain the real body and blood of Christ, as blasphemy properly punishable by death"
Durant writes:
"He recommended that the rejection of infant baptism, or of original sin, or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, should be punished as capital crimes . . . "
Melanchthon certainy later rejected the real presence, in any reasonable, historically-consious meaning of the term; therefore he adopted the same position that he earlier advocated a death penalty for.
That is, IF Smith and Durant have reported accurately. If they have not, that's another story. Therefore, with the information I have, my claim is not inconsistent or incoherent at all. If the source material is shown to be wrong, or presented in a way imprecise enough that my connection between the two things is
(cont.)
. . . improper, then I will make those modifications.
But something about false eucharistic belief was condemned. If the purely symbolic view was, then Zwinglians as well as Anabaptists ought to have been put to death. How does one explain to the drowning Anabaptist (being executed) that the Zwinglian gets off the hook, even though he believes the same exact thing (symbolic Eucharist) that he is being executed for?
>To you as a Catholic the Zwinglian and "crypto-Calvinist" positions may seem identical.
Not at all; the first is purely symbolic; the second claims a spiritual presence. Having had a cover story published in which I critiqued the Zwinglian view at great length, and having engaged in five or six lengthy debates on the nature of Calvin's eucharistic view, with Calvinists, I think I am in a position to know these elementary things, thank you. And I would go further and claim that I probably know at least as much about the differences as you do. After all, your field is history; mine is apologetics, which involves much comparative theology.
>But that really doesn't matter--if you're going to criticize Melanchthon for inconsistency you have to judge based on the terms as he defined them, not as you define them. (I'm really not sure what you would have gained if you could prove what you allege, but that's beside the point.)
If you have access to either or both primary sources, by all means go get them and let's examine what exactly was stated there.
>Which brings me to the broader question: what are you trying to prove here?
The outrageousness of religious persecution, and the particular hypocrisy of Protestants doing it to each other, given their supposed principles of freedom. I object on the very same grounds that Roland Bainton does:
"My first study of Luther was a paper dealing with his attitude to religious liberty in 1929. It was written at a time when I felt intense resentment against him because he spoke so magnificently for liberty in the early 1520s and condoned the death penalty for Anabaptists a decade later. Having worked eight years on a biography of Luther in the 1940s, anger changed to sadness through the discovery that in this case, as often elsewhere, it is the saints who burn the saints."
If he can feel this rage and sorrow, why can't I? And of course, as always, part of the backdrop is the ongoing double standard and peoples' ignorance of these things. So my papers help to bring them up to speed, to know the real history, precisely as I have been doing lately regarding Galileo and (just today) showing the widespread use of astrology: puincturing through the "science vs. religion" myths, just as there are many Protestant and secular myths to be exploded.
I don't write for you: you know all this stuff. I write for the layman: the popular audience. You of all people ought to know that because you have so often decried the "populism" and technically non-academic
(cont.)
. . . nature of apologetics. But you can't blast that on the one hand because it is populist and then imply that I should be writing to scholars and academics rather than the common man. Apologetics is what it is. You do the historiography; I do the apologetics, with as accurate sources as I can find. If you correct some for me, due to better access, great! Please do so, whenever you see any inaccuracy. I'll only appreciate that and thank you, every time.
>That the Reformers were just all-round reprehensible people and can't be trusted? That is of course too subjective to establish firmly, but your writings certainly confirm this impression in the minds of conservative Catholics who read them. Which is why the problems with your terminology and use of sources need to be addressed.
See my paper: Why I Sometimes Write About "Bad" & Scandalous Stuff Concerning Early Protestant Leaders (aka "Reformers")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-about-
bad.html
How many times must I address this pseudo-objection with you and others? 20? 100? 1000? What is so difficult to grasp about it?
I look forward to further source information, if you want to look it up (dunno how close you are to the materials).
Hi Edwin,
I found what may be more primary source information.
From the book by Martin Brecht: Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church: 1532-1546 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993; translated by James L. Schaaf)
Based on the way he describes it on pp. 36-37, he appears to be referring to the 1536 "memorandum". He talks about a treatise called That Secular Government is Obligated to Restrain Anabaptists with Bodily Punishment.
He says:
"The harsh opinion was unmistakably in Melanchthon's handwriting, but it also bore Luther's signature." (p. 37)
In footnote 21 on p. 394 (right after the treatise), he provides the following sources:
WA 38:294-310
WA, Br 7:127
WA, Br 12:157-63
WA, TR 5, no. 5815
Here's some more stuff I found:
"A Historical and Theological Context for Mennonite-Lutheran Dialogue," John D. Roth
http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/
pastis...july02roth.html
"In the spring of 1536 Landgrave Philip of Hesse-founder of the University of Marburg and champion of the Protestant Reformation-requested the counsel of several leading German theologians as to whether or not Anabaptists captured in his territories should be subjected to the death penalty. Of the various replies he received, none were as concise and resolute as that written by the highly regarded professor of theology at Wittenberg, Philip Melancthon. "Since Holy Scripture clearly teaches that the noted articles of the Anabaptist are wrong and devilish, and since it is clear and obvious that they are direct destroyers of civil government," Melancthon wrote, "it follows without a doubt that the magistracy is obligated to counter such false and seditious teachings . . . and to apply punishment, mild or severe, as it sees fit." The punishment he favored was quickly made apparent. "Whoever blasphemes God," Melancthon insisted, quoting from the book of Leviticus, "is to be killed."[1]
"In the broader history of the Reformation, Philip Melancthon is almost always described as an irenic person-a moderating influence on the more impassioned and impulsive rhetoric of his co-worker Martin Luther.[2] Yet in the struggle to consolidate the Reformation against the distractions of radical dissent, Melancthon's counsel found widespread assent. Indeed, one of the very few points where Protestants and Catholics found themselves in agreement during the course of the sixteenth century was their mutual antagonism to the Anabaptist movement. Their shared concern for political stability and religious orthodoxy led to the deaths of several thousand dissenters."
Footnote 1: Das weltliche Oberkeitt den Widertaufferen mit leiblicher Straff zu weren schuldig sey (Wittemberg, 1536), Aiii, Avii.
"Although Luther and Melancthon both took pains to argue that no one should be executed for wrong belief, they quite readily called on the civil government to execute those who threatened the social and political stability of the state. Between 1525 and 1574 some 4000 European Anabaptists were executed by civil authorities, slightly more in Catholic territories than in Protestant lands. Of those Anabaptist executions at the hands of Protestant princes, some 25% took place within Luther's own territory of Electoral Saxony."
[a little under 500: an average of roughly ten a year for the 50-year period mentioned]
========================
A-ha! I have run across an online translation of the 1536 memorandum. Ironically, the URL was posted on my own blog on 2-22-05 by agnostic Ed Babinski, in one of his usual massive text-dumps.
Should Christian princes use the sword and employ physical punishment angainst Anabaptists? 1536
[WA 50, 9-15] Translated by E
(cont.)
. . . Erik Anderson / Eckehart Stöve
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/Insti.../s6/
txt08_2.htm
This work does not mention the Eucharist or Lord's Supper or the Real Presence at all. That makes sense because by this time Melanchthon's view had changed considerably, and we would have virtually condemned himself if it had included "denial of the real presence."
Therefore, Smith and Durant must be referring to the 1531 memorandum or some similar pronouncement from the period 1530-1531, at which time Luther had adopted the death penalty in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (1530: LW, Vol. 13, 39-72; esp. 61-62), etc. It is not absolutely clear that it is from that memorandum, either, but since we know that it discusses the death penalty and deals with the "sedition" of the Anabaptists, etc., it stands to reason.
I gave the source for that writing, above: CR, IV, 739-740
[for readers besides Edwin or those who have done primary "Reformation" research, CR = Corpus Reformatorum: a collection of texts, including from Melanchthon]
Perhaps I can find it, too, with a little more searching.
Dave,
I'm sorry, but you are the one who is not reading your own sources carefully enough. Durant does not count as an additional source because his only source is Smith. As far as I can see, Bainton does not mention the claim that Melanchthon advocated the death penalty for denial of the Real Presence. I'm not sure why you keep speaking as if this is to be found in one of the two memoranda. I had had a look at the 1536 one in CR, and it certainly didn't, as you note later on. But I see no reason to think that the 1531 one did either, since it too was directed against the Anabaptists. If Melanchthon said this, I'm pretty sure that the statement is to be found in the 1520s--after Marburg both Melanchthon and Bucer (Bucer faster than Melanchthon) started moving toward a more conciliatory position.
So your case still rests only on an undocumented assertion by Smith. The rest of your evidence concerns the Anabaptists, not the "Sacramentarians."
The Seebass article cited by Roth certainly indicates that the number of Anabaptists executed by Protestant governments was a lot larger than I thought. I will have a look at it when I get the chance. However, Smith's claim about a "regular inquisition" headed by Melanchthon remains highly dubious. Smith may be translating approval (which you have abundantly demonstrated and which I have never challenged) into active involvement.
I remain uncertain as to why you would feel "rage and sorrow" that Protestants shared the Catholic understanding of the role of the civil magistrate in defending orthodox Christianity. Certainly we should all be ashamed of the way all our spiritual ancestors were willing to invoke Caesar to defend Christ. But why is this more shameful for Protestants than for Catholics? I understand why Smith and Bainton are upset--they are reacting against a liberal Protestant myth that identified Protestantism with enlightenment and tolerance. Smith was part of the generation that first exploded this--Bainton helped give it its death blow. And good riddance too. That's why from my perspective you're flogging a dead horse here, and your invocation of their righteous horror (which made sense in their context) seems a bit disingenuous.
The main point of superiority I'll claim for Protestants with regard to religious persecution is that they were more exclusively concerned with outward civil order than Catholics and relatively less likely to see the mere existence of heretics as polluting the society in which they lived. With regard to Catholic-Protestant violence, this meant that Protestants were more likely to go after the celebration of the Mass, the consecrated Host, statues of saints, and at worst (from a modern humanitarian point of view) the persons of priests or religious or perhaps laypeople who were defending the obnoxious religious objects; Catholics were more likely to engage in wholesale violence against ordinary laypeople on the other side (Natalie Zemon Davis
Davis's work on religious riots in Lyons is my main source for this, but it's borne out by what I know about events elsewhere). With regard to radicals, it meant that there was a relatively higher threshold of tolerance for quietly expressed dissent, and that Protestants were less likely to invoke a charge of heresy (with the punishment of burning) rather than sedition or blasphemy (punished at worst by beheading or drowning).
But all of this is relative. Unquestionably both Protestants and Catholics persecuted, and arguably the relatively better record of Protestants (better in certain specific respects) can be traced to non-theological factors. It seems to me that generally the larger and more centralized political units were more likely to use wholesale lethal violence to maintain order, while smaller and less centralized units tended to emphasize consensus and to use the death penalty more reluctantly (preferring exile or imprisonment). Thus, instead of comparing Catholic vs. Protestant governments, one could reasonably single out three 16th-century ruling families--the Tudors, the Valois, and the Hapsburgs--as guilty of the vast majority of religiously motivated killing that took place in the 16th century. Catholic Poland (large but decentralized) was one of the most tolerant regimes of the century. So insofar as Catholics on the whole had a worse record than Protestants, it is arguably largely because the two great monarchies of the 16th century--the French Valois and the Spanish/Austrian Hapsburgs--remained Catholic.
We could get into a comparison of the Catholic and Protestant Tudors by way of testing this hypothesis, but I suspect that you would challenge the claim that Elizabeth and Edward were relatively less bloodthirsty than the Marian regime (only relatively!), and I think it would be an excessive digression at this point.
Back to the main issue--I think the real difference between us is that you think it is somehow "hypocritical" for Protestants to persecute each other. This claim makes no sense to me. Protestants did not claim some absolute right of private judgment. They did not claim that they ought to be allowed to believe whatever they liked. They claimed that they had recovered the true sense of Scripture and hence the true teaching of the Catholic Church. Hence, they saw no contradition or hypocrisy in punishing those who, as they saw it, had departed from Catholic orthodoxy. In other words, just because they thought they were not heretics doesn't mean that they didn't think other people were. They were relatively less likely to invoke an accusation of heresy than the Catholic Church was, but they didn't rule it out on principle. You're expecting them to conform to the 19th-century liberal Protestant stereotype. Which is, in the end, why you share Smith's horror at the fact that they don't.
P.S.
If you want to make a charge of hypocrisy (or at least of a rather discreditable shift in position resulting in the adoption of a position earlier regarded as worthy of execution) you should look into Thomas Cranmer's involvement in the condemnation of John Lambert in 1538 for denying transubstantiation.
Hi Edwin,
So because you "see no reason to think that the 1531 one [contained something on the disputed contention] either," does that mean you won't be consulting CR to see what it says? I was looking forward to that out of curiosity.
As far as I can ascertain from my present knowledge, unless Smith (and Durant) are just spouting nonsense (and why would they do that, as it would have a bearing on their professional historical competence?), the data which led them to conclude this comes from either the 1531 memorandum or some related statement around 1530-1531.
I don't have the resources to pursue that further, and probably most of the stuff is in a language I can't read. You consulted CR before; why not this time?
What I'm also curious about is: why do you think Smith would make an unsubstantiated statement like this if in fact it were based on nothing? Surely he must have had access to some information in order to make the claim, no? As a layman, I trust (generally) what the historians say, if they are reputable. I don't necessarily have to see the utmost documentation for every claim they make.
Their job is to convey to us regular folk the facts of history, as best they can ascertain them. I know that's not good enough for you, and I wouldn't expect it to be, of course. But it is for the historical layman rperting what a historian has asserted on something.
So I think the main thing to wonder about is: where did Smith get this notion, and what is his source for it (and why wouldn't he mention the source?).
But would you be so kind as to consult CR so we can find out if this thought is in the 1531 memorandum, or not? You don't even have to cite or translate it. If you report that the real presence or the Eucharist are not mentioned in it at all, I'll trust you.
Typo: " rperting" was supposed to be "reporting."
Dave,
When I was last in Drew library (Friday) I didn't realize that you were claiming that the Melanchthon memoranda referred to the Real Presence controversy. I still don't understand why you think it is likely, since none of your sources claim this--they all agree that these texts refer to the Anabaptists. I did come across the 1536 memorandum because I was looking for the letter to Brenz that Smith appears to be citing in the sentence after his claim about the Real Presence. I will have a look at the 1531 text tomorrow, but I see no reason to think that it is relevant to anything other than the Anabaptist question.
Of course Smith's claim is going to be based on something. I don't think he fabricated it out of thin air. But without documentation, the claim can't be taken seriously. Whatever Melanchthon said may well have been seriously distorted or misunderstood on the way to Smith's printed page. Making a claim like this without documentation is not good scholarly practice, and such a claim does not deserve any credence until the documentation is found. You can take Smith's word for it if you choose to, but I don't see why I should.
look is awesome! acquisto auto incidentate studi filosofici etichette indipendenti
free online poker no download free online poker no download free online poker no download. play black jack for money play black jack for money play black jack for money.
"He reckoned the denial of infant baptism, or of original sin, and the opinion that the eucharistic bread did not contain the real body and blood of Christ, as blasphemy properly punishable by death."
The anabaptists denied infant baptism, original sin, and transubstantiation. So, according to both Catholics and Lutherans, that would be worthy of being burned at the stake. Coincidence? No. Revelation 17:5 tells us what Rome is, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Who are the daughters? We see who now! Come out from among them my people, and be maligned anabaptists.
Commenting by HaloScan
