Erasmus and Bucer on the Radical Reformation

“Erasmus and Bucer on the Radical Reformation.” - Laurel Carrington, St. Olaf College

Carrington’s paper essentially compares the differences between Erasmus’ and Bucer’s attitudes toward the radicals. Erasmus had expressed disappointment with the variance in the handling of heretics by those who followed him. Though Bucer and the general attitude of the Strassbourg reformation that was more lenient toward heretics, Erasmus was unwilling to deny the tradition of executing heretics.

The radicals were fissiparous and thus unsettling to society. So, capital punishment seemed appropriate to Erasmus. Bucer, in contrast, recognized that the radicals were in heresy but they did not commit any grievous sins warranting civil punishment. Further, they, like the mainstream reformers, sought Scripture as the source of their theology. While the radicals may have been mistaken in their reading of Scripture, they were open to being rebuked by Scripture and were not obstinate against it.

Erasmus did not find any scriptural prohibition of executing heretics. However, though he refused to be as lenient as Bucer by preferring exile to execution, Erasmus conceded that rulers must not be too hasty in handing down verdicts resulting in the sentence of execution. Regardless, the right of the radicals were limited for having separating themselves from the church. They, along with any other heretics, did not have the Spirit, whose home is among the unity and concord of the church. Having thus defined the radicals to be outside of the Christian society, Erasmus did not seem to have strongly insisted that they were fully worthy of preservation.