Download Calvin and the Origin of "Macho Theology"

Calvin and the Origin of "Macho Theology"
or
Real Reconstructionists Don't Say "Brother"
It seems the Reformers mastered the art of inflammatory rhetoric. We have seen Luther's reaction to the possibility that
the German peasants would use his name to justify their revolt against the German princes; by his own words the blood of
100,000 peasant is on his hands.
Zwingli's pastoral rhetoric was cast in the same mold. Estep comments on Zwingli's reaction to Balthasar Hubmaier's
book on baptism:
Zwingli's style is caustic and .bitter. He adds very little to his previous arguments. The main point is that Anabaptists
were schismatics and would ultimately destroy the existing order in Switzerland if allowed to continue unmolested.169
But it is Calvin who is the preeminent bombast. We must be careful in analyzing Calvin's vehement outbursts of vulgar
insults and personal degredations. Vulgarity is not at all inherently unBiblical. "Sometimes Calvin used the term Catabaptistas instead of Ananbaptistas. The former is obviously more pejorative," yet there may be a Biblical connnection. Dankbaar
mentions "that Zwingli often called the Anabaptists "catabaptists," (perhaps) following Phil. 3:2 where Paul speaks of
"mutilation" (.katatome)170 in the same verse, Paul calls these men "dogs" even as Christ does in Rev. 22:15. In the same chapter which
contains the greatly-misused, "Judge not that ye be not judged," Christ tells us not to give that which is holy unto swine,
another unclean animal (Matt. 7:6).
But if we have Biblical warrant for shocking illustrations and insults, we must surely remember that our perspective may
not be as spiritually informed as that of Christ and the Apostles. In any case we are to "judge righteous judgment" (John
7:24).
Thus it turns out that the use of eye-opening language is a two-way street. If one considers Calvin's use of insults
extreme it may be a reflection of one's agreement with the Anabaptists; toward his own opponents, such a one will find
Calvin's vulgarity "appropriate." Thus, in a review of Balke's book, the Anabaptist Mark McCully observes with dissatisfaction
that
Calvin did a great deal of namecalling. Anabaptists were "perfectionists" (Balke, p. 234), "a nefarious herd" (p. 30),
"monstrous rascals" (p. 43), "noxious apostates" (p. 80), whose doctrine was "drunkard's vomit" (p. 188). On one
occasion, lamenting the moral climate in Geneva, Calvin exclaimed, "brothels have been erected, and the Catabaptists
have their meetings daily!" (p. 94).
In his conclusion, Balke calls upon us "to break through the polemical positions, since in the sixteenth century
there was a lack of tolerance, (p. 322). What he is not humble enough to even acknowledge is that Calvin was to
blame for the. intolerance. I agree with Menno Simons; Calvin "was a man of blood who approved of the
persecution of the faithful children of God" (p. 207). What audacity to write a book such as this without at least
being sorry for what happened! No wonder the Reconstructionists are pushing this book171
But how did Calvin react to Menno's accusation, or to the Anabaptists' Apologia (Defense)? Balke reports that
Calvin's appraisal of the Brethren remained essentially unchanged through the ensuing years. In 1560 he still assumed the same posture towards them; he still considered the Brethren to be too radical and too vehement. Their
Apology indulged too much in invective against others. Although the basic concepts of the Apology did not
require change, in Calvin's judgment, it still needed to be purgedof its invective and to state its positions in milder
language.172
If the fiery-tongued Calvin thought it needed milder language it must have been quite ferocious. Either that or both
parties felt that the other's accusations were unfair. One may choose to side with Balke, who thus analyzes Calvin's criticism of Menno the "ass" and Menno's reaction to Calvin the "man of blood:"
169
Estep, op. cit., 61.
Balke, op. cit., 11 + n.71.
171
McCulley, op.cit.,
172
Balke, op.cit., 148.
170
Calvin's criticism of Menno is unquestionably too sharp. On the other hand, the vocabulary that Menno used
against the reformers was not at all courteous either. We do not see the best side of Menno in his polemic against
the reformers. There can be no reasonable excuse offered for the cutting personal attacks of the authors of the
sixteenth century.173
"No reasonable excuse" but that one party is right in its opinion of the other. Let the reader judge. But consider the
opinions of Balke:
Calvin began his Brieve Instruction by remarking that ... the reformers represented the true Word of God. If the
Anabaptists departed from the reformers' interpretation, they could be charged with departing from the truth
and being either fantas-izers or instruments of the devil: 55
Calvin polarized his evidence from the outset. As a consequence he often distorted the facts of the case of his
opponents. As a result, the object of his attack was not at all the actual teaching of those he was trying to
expose. Added to this was the common use of derogatory names during this period of history. By present-day
standards, Calvin's language often went beyond the limits of decency, even though it was not considered excessive at that time. As was often the case in polemics, exaggeration was frequently employed in an attempt to
make the refutation of someone else's position the more devastating. We must keep in mind the customs of
that age with respect to debates. Neither side gave too much attention to the actual position of the opponent,
and both sides freely attacked opinions that their opponents had no intention of defending. 1'0- 5 1 With the discussion degenerated to this level, any opinion that was not in agreement with the prescribed
"Reformed doctrine" was not only summarily labeled heresy but was also declared to be an act of complete
corruption and, in the final analysis, inspired by the devil. Thus, for example, an Anabaptist who maintained that
he could not hold public office because he could not in good conscience carry a worldly sword was declared to
have forsaken God.61
In Calvin's presentation, the Anabaptists were pictured as unstable extremists who drew unwarranted conclusions
on the basis of insufficient evidence and lack of thorough study. "These poor fantastical*," he said, "which take
for a revelation from heaven whatsoever fables they have heard of their grandmothers."63 Their principal and
most solemn assertions were characterized as mere idle talk. Calvin used pejorative metaphor and rhetorical
logic to seek to overwhelm his opponents, 6'1 appealing not only to intellectual reasoning but also to the convictions of the heart in his effort to instruct and convince his readers. Calvin's objective clearly was to persuade
completely. In addition to the persuasive power of his arguments, he used all the resources of the literary skills
he could muster. Thus his literary style formed an integral part of his message.65 Unexpected comparisons,
amusing illustrations, and appeals to a healthy intellect abound in the work. Calvin felt that people could be
moved through all of these mean; thus sarcasm, irony, and insults continually flowed from his pen.
The treatise provides only a summary presentation of the Anabaptist teaching, developed in brief quotations
from the Co«-fessio Schlattensis. Whenever Calvin juxtaposed the Anabaptist teachings and his own concepts
there was a marked difference in style. In setting forth his own ideas he used a very pious and biblical
vocabulary. But when he dealt with the concepts of his opponents his language became almost colloquial and at
times vulgar. Thus his very choice of vocabulary undermined the credibility of his opponents, while his own
position was ennobled, even without considering the details of content. 66 This use of different levels of tone and
style was an essential part of Calvin's persuasive powers in refuting the Anabaptist positions.
Modern readers must constantly remember that, in the period before the Reformation, the colloquium or public
debate between representatives of conflicting parties was the universal practice. In his tractate, then, Calvin
maintained that same atmosphere of actual, sustained strife, which was vividly portrayed as a fundamental
conflict between God and the devil.
During the sixteenth century, polemic often degenerated into an attack on personalities rather than a
confrontation of issues. Calvin's polemic was no exception to this practice.67 When Calvin explained a doctrine to
which he subscribed and called his readers to accept this doctrine, he presented his case as a call to submit to the
will of God, and phrased it in prose that flowed with a special quality of dignity and excellence. It was characterized by balance and harmony of style.68 But when he attacked the positions of his opponents he used
173
Ibid., 208.
figurative language to describe their "stupidity," their "confusion," and their "immorality." They were never
analyzed or described definitively, but they were characterized and even caricatured. The attitude that Calvin
reveals is one of despising them as persons. His characteristic figures of speech served as much to denigrate his
opponents as persons as to clarify real issues.*9
Calvin passed up no opportunity to mock those who had composed the Confessio Schlattensis and the
commitment that they had to their confession. He placed them on the same level as the leaders of the Jewish
synagogues of Jesus' day:
... rather without troubling myself with them, because it is time lost...! desire and exhon all servants of God
to consider what bold-ness these poor ignorant men have, to make such magisterial determinations, and to
go about to constrain the world to receive them as things irrevocable and not to be gainsaid. . . . The
principal doctors and, as it were, the patriarchs of the whole Synagogue, after they had well ranged about,
have made a final conclusion. 70
He even uses the figure of a drunkard to denigrate the Anabaptists:
Last of all, like as a drunkard, after he hath well belched, doth disgorge the vile broth which charged his
stomach, even so these wicked men, after they have detracted this holy estate which the Lord hath so much
honored, finally with full throat they do spew ;out exceeding deformed blasphemies."
No matter how far-fetched the illustration may be, we cannot escape the fact that Calvin compares the teachings
of the Anabaptists with the vomit of a drunkard. 72 This was typical of Calvin's systematic denigration of the
Anabaptists by the use of vulgar illustrations and descriptions. Small wonder that Higman concluded:
On the one hand are passages in which Calvin is facing God, so to speak: his vocabulary relies heavily on
biblical or devotional expressions and imagery; classical rhetoric provides harmonious rhythms and oratorical
modulations of tone, elegant without ever becoming flamboyant, which present an image of dignity,
sobriety, and simplicity. On the other hand Calvin writes of his opponents and of their doctrine in
markedly popular language: the vocabulary is drawn from the indigenous stock of the common people, not
the learned sources of scholarship; bizarre neologisms caricature them; the syntax is conversational, broken
and discordant; figurative colloquial expressions and vulgar images degrade them,"
Calvin's style would seem to be designed to convince the convinced; one could hardly expect to convince one's opponent by
calling him an "ass" and his teaching "vomit."174 Such is to be expected from Calvin, who had no authority in the eyes of the
Anabaptists (except where he agreed with Scripture) and also had no power over them. Calvin could persuade only those
over whom he had some degree of control. Intimidation was basic to Calvin's polemic. This is the fourth aspect of the
Reformers' Statist pastoral method.
Intimidation had marked the Reformed response to the Anabaptists from the beginning, as evident in Zurich with
Zwingli:
The Reformation in Zurich was not a haphazard development. Rather, under Zwingli's guidance, it proceeded
along clearly defined lines. The Swiss reformer well knew that pulpit eloquence alone could not accomplish the
task of reform. Thus, to preaching he added teaching and the disputation. Finally he sought legal support from
the ruling authorities of Zurich, the city council. 175
The first disputation between Zwingli and the Anabaptists did not end with the free exchange of ideas and a searching
together of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Instead,
The Council proclaimed Zwingli the victor and denounced the radicals. The alternatives were quite clear. The
little group could conform, leave Zurich, or face imprisonment.176
A similar procedure was evident when Balthasar Hubmaier, after fleeing the Austrian authorities, settled in Zurich.
His presence in the city was soon known, and on the orders of the city council both he and his wife were seized
and imprisoned. According to Zwingli, Hubmaier was arrested to keep him from fomenting an insurrection.
Bullinger admitted it was really because Hubmaier was so highly regarded by the Anabaptists. Since Zwingli felt
174
Ibid., 184-189. "...a great deal of reproach is poured on the heads of the Anabaptists. In the sixteenth century there was little
concern for treating one's opponents fairly." (Balke, 195).
175
Estep, 9
176
Ibid., 10.
himself already under siege by the local Wiedertciufer, the action was, in this case, not surprising. While a prisoner,
Hubmaier renewed his request for a disputation, which was granted. This led to a wholly unexpected result.
However, the meeting did not follow the pattern of the previous Zurich disputations. Present for this discussion
were Zwingli, Leo Jud, Oswald Myconius, Komtur Schmid, Sebastian Hofmeister, four members of the city
council, and a Zurich school teacher by the name of George Binder. Zwingli, Myconius, Jud, and Hofmeister
were mentioned in Hiibmaier's request (July 10) for a disputation on the baptismal question. Binder, doubtless
reflecting Zwingli's true feelings and attempting to impress his mentor with his fidelity, took a pugilistic stance,
calling Hiibmaicr, among other things, a Filzhut (a miser) andoL^oibiariJr.Qg,. Hubmaier did not answer in kind
but proceeded to quote Zwingli, place and time, when he asserted children should not be baptized until they
could be instructed in the faith. Zwingli claimed he had been misunderstood. Hubmaier was dumbfounded. The
upshot of it all was that he did agree to recant, but before making a final statement requested the privilege of
talking with Jud, Myconius, and Hofmeister alone. He well knew that in former days they too had questioned the
scriptural validity of infant baptism. In fact, Hofmeister had openly, according to Hoschek, so expressed himself
before the city council of SchafThausen. After the conference Hubmaier agreed to write out his recantation, which he
read before the Small Council and before the Council of Two Hundred the next day. He then was asked to
read the recantation before the congregation of the Fraumiinster after Zwingli's sermon on Friday, December 29,
and later at Griiningen.
"Wiedertaufer" = Anabaptists
Once Hiibmaier was in the pulpit of the Fraumiinster, instead of recanting, he began, "Oh what anguish and travail I
have suffered this night over the statements which I myself have made. So I say here and now, I can and I will
not recant."-'3 He then proceeded to defend believer's baptism. Zwingli entered the other pulpit and silenced the
people. Hiibmaier was reminded of his previous recantation and accused of being devil-possessed, which was
obviously the reason for his conduct at the moment.-1 Refusing to back down, he was seized and placed in the
Wcllenberg prison, known as the "Wasserturm" since it stood in the Limmat, just a short distance from the
Fraumiinster.
With his second Zurich imprisonment Hiibmaier was subjected to torture. While stretched on the rack, he
uttered the required recantation and afterwards committed it to writing as demanded by Zwingli. Although far
less damaging than it might have been, the recantation satisfied Zwingli and demonstrated the weakness of
Hiibmaier. Subsequently it became the occasion for deep repentance and confession. In this confession which
was given the title, Short Apology, the note of pride and arrogance that at times marked h earlier works has
disappeared. In its place, we find here the ci. Hiibmaier's soul over the weakness of the flesh.
I may err—I am a man—but a heretic I cannot be, because I ask constantly for instruction in the word of God. But
never has any one come to me and pointed out a single word, but one single man and his followers—against his
own previous preaching, word and print, whose name I spare for the sake of God's word—who against
common justice and appeal in behalf of his own government, the confederacy, and also the Emperor, by
capture, imprisonment, sufferings and the hangman, tried to teach me the faith. But faith is a work of God and
not of the heretic's tower, in which one sees neither sun nor moon, and lives on nothing but water and
bread. . . . O God, pardon me my weakness. It is good for me (as David says) that thou hast humbled
me. 2B
i
Like Grebel, Blaurock, and Saltier before him, the disappointed Hiibmaier left Zurich and its memories behind.
For the man who failed to defeat him in debate jesorted t_Q the base, tactics^.pf an Inquisitor177
We see, then, the general approach of the Reformers: First, engage the opponent in debate, consisting notably of
intimidation; intimidation of the opponent through academic one-up-manship, and intimidation of the hearers (if a public
disputation or publication) by rhetorical force, i.e., name-calling, or equating the opponent with the Devil. The second phase was
physical intimidation: legal or ecclesiastical authorities would give the "victory" to the reformers, and any hearers who
believed the "losers" would be subject to punishment. The "losers" would then face imprisonment or torture in an effort
to intimidate them into "changing their minds," having not seen the wisdom in chaging in the face of rhetorical intimidation.
177
Ibid., 61-63
Consider a disputation that was held a decade after Hubmaier's disputation, between the Swiss Brethren and the leaders
of the Reformed Church of Bern.
The debate of 1538 was held ostensibly, to use the words of the Zwinglians, "to find together the truth." However,
the debate was held under the auspices of the City Council of Bern, which the Anabaptist participants were forced to
acknowledge as the lawful judicature. Hence, the sincerity of the state church participants is open to serious
question.
The discussions took place over a six-day period. The agenda included seven articles: "Old and New Testament,"
"The Ministry," "The Church," "Baptism," "The Oath," "The State," and "The Ban." Clergymen of the Reformed
Church were pitted against unlearned Anabaptist laymen, whom they attempted to dazzle and confuse with their
learning and sophistry. However, the Anabaptist disputants proved more than a match for the "Doctors." Even
though they won none of the ecclesiastics to their banner, they at least were able to maintain their position in
spite of intimidation. 178
We have already seen something of Luther's threatening rhetoric179, but McGrath insists that this tyrannical
intolerance was not confined to Luther alone;
all of the famous reformers displayed it, from John Calvin... to Ulrich Zwingli forcing his former friend Hubmaier
to give up his doctrine and conscience under torture and the threat of death. Far from restoring the priesthood of
all believers, and instituting a new religious freedom, the famous reformers all tried to impose their own
interpretations by force, and intimidate their opponents into silence by threats.180
Rather than seeking heart-to-heart communication, each of the reformers "used pejorative metaphor and rhetorical logic to
seek to overwhelm his opponents181." What a contrast with the Anabaptists, who avoided the "wisdom of men" and concentrated on a clear, unstained presentation of the Scriptures, which could be used by the Spirit to work on the heart of the
hearer.
It is striking that Calvin's approach to and judgment of the Anabaptists reveals his aristocratic tendencies and his
pride in his intellectual superiority. The Anabaptists generally, gained their., followers, especially among the common
and uneducated people. In 1556 Calvin wrote a letter to the refugee congregation in Frankfurt, where he had paid a
visit shortly before to settle some disputes. In that congregation a certain Gisbert van Gelder, an Anabaptist or
Libertine, had made an appearance.121 The church leaders, among whom was a Lasco, condemned him. One member
of the congregation registered a protest against this judgment, however. Calvin considered it unthinkable that a
man who was a carpenter by trade should set himself up as a judge in order to nullify the pronouncement of the
official officebearers. Itjs worthy of note that it was a man who worked with his hands who had defended the
condemned people. This was the last record of Calvin's confrontation with the Anabaptists.182
We have already seen how the style of the founder of the Swiss Brethren, Conrad Grebel, changed markedly after his
conversion
His letters were no longer embellished with allusions to the pagan Greek and Roman gods. Instead they were filled
with references to Christ, the Word of God, and scriptural admonitions. The flowery and verbose eloquentia of the
humanist was supplanted with a style characterized by simplicity, purpose, and integrity.183
The same could be said of Hubmaier
While Hubmaier was indebted to Luther and Zwingli for some of his basic insights, in certain respects he excelled
them. Luther was guilty of numerous inconsistencies, ridiculous use of Scripture to support infant baptism, and
178
Ibid., 153.
The judgment of all impartial scholars is probably reflected by the Protestant (not Catholic) historian Hallam when he writes of Luther:
An unbounded dogmatism, resting on an absolute confidence in the infallibility, practically speaking, of his own judgment, pervades his
writings; no indulgence is shown, no pause allowed, to the hesitating; whatever stands in the way of his decisions, the fathers of the Church, the
school men and philosophers, the canons and councils, are swept away in a current of impetuous declamations; and as everything contained in
the Scripture, according to Luther, is easy to be understood, and can only be understood in his sense, every deviation from his doctrine incurs
the anathema of perdition. That the Zwinglians, as well as the whole Church of Rome, and the Anabaptists, were shut by their tenets from
salvation is more than insinuated in numerous passages of Luther's writings. (The Literature of Europe, 1:372, in McGrath, p. 11)
180
McGrath, 11
181
Balke, 186.
182
Balke, 199.
183
Estep, 27.
179
scathing denunciations and misrepresentations of those with whom he disagreed. In all of this he was
Hiibmaier's inferior. His unchaste tongue and pen add to the impression. But neither Luther nor Zwingli matched
Hubmaier's spirit of Christian love, This superlative quality made him pre-eminently fair in dealing with the
position of his enemies. 184
And Schaff would agree that Hubmaier manifested a spirit of tolerance, rather than one of "winning through
intimidation:"
He was an advocate of the voluntary principle, and a martyr of religious freedom. Heretics, he maintained, are
those only who wickedly oppose the Holy Scriptures, and should be won by instruction and persuasion. To use force
is to deny Christ, who came to save, not to destroy.185 .
Why, then, does Balke so often defend Calvin? One reason is surely that Calvin, like Luther, is so inconsistent Calvin
is at times wonderfully comforting in his pastoral method. And as we said at the very beginning of this paper, in pointing out
Calvin's bad side, we are not denying the good and Biblical things he said and did; there are two sides to Calvin. Just as there
are two sides — a good side and an unBiblical side — to Humanism, and two sides to Calvin, there are two sides to every
reformer, yesterday and today. If the Recon-structionists decide to emulate all the bad in Calvin, we must still thankfully admit
that they have made and may continue to make many marvelous insights into the Scriptures. With them all, to point out their
bad side is not to deny their good. With Harkness, we are not going to take the two sides of Calvin and attempt to render a
judgment on the man as a whole:
Toward the church he had left behind him at Geneva, Calvin displayed the combination of magnanimity and
pettiness which makes his character so difficult to evaluate. He seems in all sincerity to have tried to induce his
friends to heal the breach. He wrote to the Genevan church urging cordial support of their ministers. When Cardinal
Sadoleto, taking advantage of Calvin's expulsion, tried to win back Geneva to Catholicism, Calvin was appealed to
and he wrote for the Genevans a reply which is a courteous, dignified, and brilliant defense of the Protestant
position. Yet in a letter to Bullinger he expresses a very poor opinion of the ministers who suceeded him and Farel,
remarking that they are extremely ignorant and "never open their mouths without driveling."186
Nevertheless, much of Calvin's rhetoric can be understood when the audience is rightly considered. Intimidation is usually the
goal of his vulgar excoriation (further intimidation, that is, of those who already align themselves with Calvin) , while the
more pleasant style is usually evident toward those with whom Calvin had, or sought to obtain, a political alliance.
We must also not make the mistake of rejecting all vehement language, seeing the Scriptures rightly use such harsh terms
against hardened and open opponents of the Scriptures. There is a place for denunciation to warn the faithful. But we
must be careful lest our political ambitions kindle a hatred that blinds us to the righteousness of our "opponents."
Turning to the sixteenth century we are struck by the extremely harsh names with which the Anabaptists were
identified by some of their contemporaries, who honestly considered them to be tools of the devil. Surely such
hatred must have shriveled the souls of those who felt it, and closed their eyes to new truth. 187
Finally, we must ask what the Reconstructionists find to be so worthy in Calvin's pastoral method. Is it Calvin's "macho
theology" of intimidation and put-down? I certainly hope not. I know my own past (and present), how easy it is to become a
member of a theological "clique" that all too easily conceives of itself as the embodiment of all truth, and takes to ridicule and
insult in referring to its "opposition." I know I have tended to emulate Calvin's bad side, self-consciously striving for vulgar and
offensive epithets which with to deride an "opponent." Humble arminians and hard-working "pietists" are often subjects of
Reconstructionist lambasting, and Calvin is most often the object of Reconstructionist emulation. If I can keep one other
Reconstructionist from working to master the pastoral machismo of Calvin, this paper will have served a purpose.
In any event Balke's book will become "an invaluable help for us today" if we allow Calvin's Scriptural side to judge his
darker side. In the second preface to Psychopannychia,
184
Estep, 64.
Schaff, VII:609-610
186
Harkness, 17.
187
Dyck, 308. He continues
For the most part, however, these were persons in authority in Catholic or Protestant churches, or in the state. The common people were not unfriendly
to the Anabaptists, unless they were aroused by the authorities. The hatred of officials was, in fact, poured out upon the Anabaptists precisely because they
were so popular with the people.
185
Calvin admitted that, when he reread what he had written, he noticed that in the heat of discourse he had said some
things too sharply and rudely. He acknowledged that there were also good people who had adopted this error due to a
lack of faith or a lack of knowledge of Scripture.188
Harkness records another incident worthy of attention:
On April 27, (1564) he spoke to the Little Council (of Geneva) in his room, expressing his gratitude for their
friendship and — true to his convictions to the end — urging that they recognize their short-comings and humble
themselves before God. This address reveals, without ostentation, his own awareness of his powers and his
limitations:
"I also acknowledge that in another matter I am deeply indebted to you; namely, for having borne patiently with my
vehemence, which was sometimes carried to excess. My sins in this respect have, I trust, been pardoned also
by God."189
Surely Calvin would urge Reconstructionists to temper their ambition, to "do as I say, not as I do." Calvin might well
agree with the assessment of Harkness:
Calvin is surprisingly broad-minded in seeing the range of injury covered by the command, "Thou shalt not bear
false witness." Calvin rises to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount as we find him urging charity in judgment,
and the placing of "fair constructions on every man's word's and actions." The pity of it is that his advice was not
more often followed by himself.190
We turn now from the verbal abuse endorsed by the Reformers to the physical violence enacted against the Anabaptists, for
which, in contrast to the verbal abuse, no apology seems to have been offered.
188
Balke, 30. Discouragingly, Calvin took his apology back as it touched the Anabaptists. Of these he said:
1 wish, therefore, to warn such beforehand not to take anything said as an afront to themselves, but to understand that,
whenever I use some freedom of speech, I am referring to the nefarious herd of Anabaptiits, from whose fountain this noxious
stream did, as I observed, first flow, and against whom nothing I have said equals their deserts. If I am to have a future fight with
them, 1 am determined they shall find me, if not a very skillful, yet certainly a firm, and as 1 dare promise, by God's grace, an
invincible defender of the Truth. And yet to them 1 have not given immoderate vent to my bile, having constantliy_ refrained, from
all permess and .petulanceof speech; tempering my pen so as to be fitter for teaching than forcing, and yet able to draw such" as
are unwilling to be led. It was certainly much more my intention to bring all back into the right way, than to provoke them to anger."
189
Harkness, 57-58.
190
Ibid., 175