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.

New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals

Disclaimer: Any inaccuracies in the following report are due to the nature of presenting papers. Below is represents with the greatest attempt for accuracy but there is not text available for review. Points of uncertainty in the author’s ideas will be evident in how I represent them.

“New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals.” - Stephen Buckwalter, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft

            Stephen Buckwalter’s presentation began with an overview of editorial concerns of involved with the new critical edition of Bucer’s works. In regards to Bucer’s polemic against the Anabaptists, He addressed matters of layout with the works against Pilgram Marpeck, the Marburg Anabaptists and Bernhard Rothmann. The original publication against Marpeck’s Confession was laid out by having two columns. The layout placed Marpeck’s points, to which Bucer added numbers, next Bucer’s replies to each point. The previous critical edition to the new laid the whole exchange in one column, Marpeck’s articles being followed by Bucer’s reply. The trouble with this was that it at times made it difficult to tell who was author at any single point. The new edition sought to revert back to the original two-columned layout in order to preserve coherency.

            The polemic against the Marburg Anabaptists differed in that it was not an imaginary dialogue in the traditional way that the polemic against Marpeck had been. Rather, it was a reflection of actual dialogues that had taken place. This was also a point-by-point response, but the origin of this as a true dialogue required a one-columned format, for the debate had actually occurred in time. The polemic against Rothmann was not point-by-point, so the question did not arise.

Following the discussion of these editorial concerns, Buckwalter investigated similarities and differences between Bucer and the radicals, primarily Marpeck. Both had a high view of a singular covenant, Marpeck using the term bundt Thirty-three times in his confession and Bucer replying with twenty-two instances. For Marpeck, the bundt was of a good conscience toward God while Bucer’s emphasis was on the unity of the covenant through both Testaments as the covenant with Abraham.

The central theological departure that they made form each other was on the intersection of civic and ecclesial life. Bucer insisted on the external structure of the church as an institution with civil support. Marpeck, on the other hand, viewed the church as an invisible reality. The church was not merely a civic community’s religious life but further a gathering of those committed to discipleship.