![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/12\/HusExecution.jpg\")
<\/a>In Gavin\u2019s 2024 book, What it Means to be Protestant<\/em> (I\u2019m currently about a third of the way through it), he expressed dismay that Catholics were doing much better at online apologetics, and that many Protestants were becoming Catholics, leading him to step up his own efforts at apologetics and educating Protestants about their own heritage. I wrote about that yesterday in a Facebook post<\/a>.<\/p>\n Perhaps largely because of this concern, I think he did something unsavory that was beneath his usually irenic and ecumenical spirit, in writing about the famous burning of Jan Hus in 1415 by the Catholic Church. He clearly wanted to \u201cdo it up\u201d all he could for polemical, dramatic, and emotional effect. Certainly he is sharp enough to know how his mostly Protestant readers would react: the anti-Catholics reading would have a field day and the ecumenical Protestants would say, \u201csee how utterly horrible<\/em> those Catholics are, way way worse<\/em> than Protestants?!\u201d And so this fits in with the goal of keeping them Protestant.<\/p>\n He devoted 3 1\/2 pages (pp. 47-50) to a description of Hus\u2019s death in extreme and excruciating detail, as part of a 7 1\/2 page treatment of his persecution. Yet he had the unmitigated gall or chutzpah<\/em> to proclaim in the middle of it, \u201cwe should not exploit the grisly nature of Hus\u2019s death for rhetorical purposes\u201d (pp. 50-51). Now, to his credit, he did make a disclaimer about how \u201cProtestants persecuted others as well\u201d and concluded that \u201cAll of this is wrong\u201d (p. 46). He also acknowledges on page 56, \u201cGreat sins are committed by true Christians and true churches.\u201d But then he made the following dubious claim:<\/p>\n At the same time, it is also<\/em> wrong to attempt to equalize the blame on both sides when they are not to scale. There is simply nothing on the Protestant side that compares to the quantity and organization of late medieval Catholic violence. Saying, \u201cYes, Roman Catholic persecution of dissident groups was bad, but Protestants persecuted others, too!\u201d is like saying, \u201cYes, Texas may be large, but so is Rhode Island!\u201d (pp. 46-47)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is objectionable on so many levels. Here are four points I would make in response, that immediately come to mind:<\/p>\n 1) Most of the \u201cquantity\u201d \u2014 and also \u201corganization\u201d \u2014 of Catholic persecution can be explained simply by the length of time<\/em> that it went on, in the Middle Ages, when it was universally accepted that persecution of heresy was permissible, on the grounds that heresy was a \u201cmurder of the soul\u201d<\/a> every bit as punishable as the murder of the body (which has a certain inner consistency to it), and during which there were no Protestants at all. The First Crusade (if it is considered part<\/em> of this, which is debatable) began in 1096, and the Inquisition might be said to have started in 1184 in France, with the persecution of the Cathars and Waldensians. Once Protestantism began, it institutionalized capital punishment for heresy, and persecuted just as much \u2014 and for the same reasons \u2014 as Catholicism. Very few of them did not<\/em>; and they persecuted fellow Protestants as much as Catholics; often, even more<\/em> so. Moreover, when the bulk of the religious persecution died down (arguably after the Peace of Westphalia<\/a> in 1648), it was across the board<\/em>. This means that Protestants persecuted for only about 130 years, before the growing consensus against such practices took hold.<\/p>\n 2) Gavin completely ignored the English so-called \u201cReformation\u201d (at least in what I have read so far, and what remains in the book seems to be devoted to theology, not history). This is absurd, because it\u2019s likely that the entire enterprise of Protestantism wouldn\u2019t have survived without England coming on board. I myself have documented by name<\/a> 1375 Catholic martyrs of\u00a0 Butcher Henry VIII and \u201cBloody Queen Bess\u201d between 1534 and all the way up to 1729. Below, I will get into the type of torture and execution involved in many of these.<\/p>\n 3) It remains true to this day that Protestant persecution is rarely talked about \u2014 if known at all \u2013by Protestants, and even when it is honestly acknowledged, it\u2019s underplayed, minimized, and not presented in any\u00a0 remote semblance of its massive and widespread nature (precisely as Gavin did in his book, following the playbook to a tee). It\u2019s a huge double standard, so that millions of Protestants believe that their religious heroes never<\/em> participated in these activities, over against the terrible, wicked Catholics, who did, and which is always talked about, or that it\u2019s an entirely \u201clopsided\u201d comparison (Gavin\u2019s approach). Then there are pathetic lying books such as Foxe\u2019s Book of Martyrs<\/em><\/a> that play up and distort what Catholics did. See also my article, Were \u201c50-68 Million\u201d People Killed in the Inquisition?\u00a0<\/a>[8-21-15].<\/p>\n 4)\u00a0 There is also a large element of glaring hypocrisy in the widespread early Protestant persecution (as some secular historians like Will Durant have noted), insofar as Protestants perceived themselves \u2014 and continue to do so today \u2014 as the champions of religious freedom, primacy of conscience, and\u00a0 the bold innovators of unfettered private judgment, over against Big Bad Oppressive Murderous Rome. For them to nevertheless engage in persecution, given these supposed emphases and commitments \u2014 even against each other \u2013, was rank hypocrisy. The subsequent massive lies, ultra-exaggerations, myths, and misrepresentations of anti-Catholic propaganda these past 500 years sought to maintain this false legend of supposedly \u201cfreedom-loving\u201d and tolerant early Reformers\u201d by ignoring that entire aspect of Protestant history.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I would love to not have to write about these matters at all<\/em>. My view is that:<\/p>\n 1) we need to understand why many Christians of virtually all stripes used to widely believe in execution for heresy,<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n 2) since all kinds of Christians committed these acts, it\u2019s a \u201cwash\u201d and ought to be put out to pasture as a sort of polemical attempt to \u201cscore points\u201d against the other side and to pretend that our own was better.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve also \u2014 let it be made clear \u2014 always opposed execution for heresy, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic (including the execution of Jan Hus). My view is that of the early Church: people who are wrong about theology ought to be loved and persuaded to adopt true doctrines, and I\u2019ve devoted my life to doing just that. I believe that most theological error ultimately stems from ignorance and lack of education, not deliberate rebellion. I\u2019m also against capital punishment altogether. I used to accept it only in cases of terrorism or serial murderers, etc., but a few years back changed my mind about that, too. I do accept just war and the use of lethal force by police, where warranted.<\/p>\n That said, because of the double standard continues (see #3 not far above), I continue to write (albeit reluctantly) about the topic, so as to \u201cbalance the score\u201d and present another side to the usual one-sided propaganda. See my web page, Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance<\/a>. Since Gavin \u2014\u00a0 quite disappointingly \u2014 wants to join in this pitiful game and tactic, I\u2019ll play along, too, since he insists on doing this. I already replied to Gavin at length regarding Hus\u2019s execution, a year and ten months ago: Reply To Gavin Ortlund: Catholic Inquisitions; Hus<\/a> [2-7-24], and also in a similar paper, Reply To Gavin Ortlund: Albigensian Crusade<\/a> [2-6-24].<\/p>\n I\u2019d like to compare burning as a method of torture and execution, to what routinely happened in England, as a result of Butcher Henry VIII proclaiming himself the head of the \u201cchurch\u201d there. This resulted in Catholic priests performing Masses (or folks who harbored or aided them) being branded as treasonous and thus subject to the punishment for that: hanging drawing, and quartering. How many reading know much about that<\/em> method of execution, I wonder? Catholics can play the game of presenting gruesome accounts, too. According to a web page called \u201cCapital Punishment UK:\u00a0<\/a><\/span>History of the Death Penalty in Britain<\/a>, this is what was involved in this horrific and terrifying punishment (be forewarned; more sensitive, soft-hearted readers may want to skip the next three paragraphs)<\/p>\n That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King\u2019s pleasure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The prisoner was often dragged by a horse, sometimes naked, leading to all sorts of abrasions and other injuries before he even got to the torture and execution place; including being pelted by the crowd with many objects, spit on, and who knows what else. The hanging proceeded till just before death, then the prisoner was pulled down or allowed to fall a distance, leading to more injuries and discomfort. Then the real fun began: disemboweling and emasculation (\u201cprivy members\u201d): all with hundreds of men, women, and children watching.<\/p>\n The executioners were skilled in prolonging the ordeal and keeping the victim alive for as long as possible to maximize suffering. Some of these executions took over an hour to complete. The disemboweling itself was usually not fatal. Organs were removed and burned, and not infrequently, another nice civilized touch was added: the victim\u2019s heart was cut out while he was still alive. Failing that, he would be subjected to quartering while still alive, too: arms and legs cut off one-by-one, sometimes with rusty blades and\/or with multiple strokes. Another method was tying the martyr\u2019s arms and legs to four horses, who then ran in four directions. By this point, beheading was surely welcome. But even then, multiple blows were common (even five or more) when the first did not sever cleanly.<\/p>\n All of this was for simply being a practicing Catholic priest or friend of same, in merrie olde England after 1534: in a country that had previously been maybe 85-90% Catholic. Now (getting back to Hus and others who suffered this fate), I was curious how long it takes to be burned alive, and how much suffering occurs. Certainly it\u2019s a horrifying death, beyond words, but compared to the above, it\u2019s actually quite preferable. One web page I found<\/a> describes what happens (warning: not for the faint of heart):<\/p>\n The earliest stage of the process of death by burning begins as soon as flames come into contact with the victim\u2019s body. When this happens, the fire quickly starts to burn and destroy the outermost layer of the skin known as the epidermis. Within five minutes, the thicker underlying layer of skin called the dermis will begin to shrink and split open, allowing fat to drain out of the body. At this point, the muscles will also start to contract. This part of the process is excruciatingly painful, but relatively brief. Although a person being burned to death initially feels immense pain as their body begins to burn, the pain eventually subsides once the skin and the nerve endings below are destroyed. Once that occurs, pain is no longer felt.<\/p>\n While a person being burned to death may survive the initial burning of their flesh, many people are already dead at this point. Victims who die before their flesh has been fully consumed often expire because of smoke inhalation, which leads to\u00a0respiratory system\u00a0failure and causes the person to suffocate.\u00a0Death from suffocation\u00a0may also occur if the lungs fill with fluid during the burning process. Thermal decomposition of vital organs and other parts of the body can lead to death as well. This happens when the heat of the fire causes the organs to shrink and ultimately shut down. Another possible cause of death during the burning process is loss of blood and other fluids. When the body suffers severe burns, an inflammatory response is triggered that leads\u00a0capillaries\u00a0to leak. Death will result if too much blood is lost in this manner. Death may also result if the victim\u2019s body temperature rises above 105 degrees Fahrenheit, which causes the body\u2019s\u00a0enzymes\u00a0to stop functioning properly and may also lead to organ failure and shock.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note how in \u201cmany\u201d cases, the victim dies within five minutes, from several possible causes, and if they go longer than that, they no longer feel pain. Compare this to the deliberately protracted torture of hanging, drawing, and quartering . . . so if we want to make comparisons, how about this<\/em> one? Protestants want to bring up Hus? Then I\u2019ll note the above, that happened to many Catholic saints.<\/p>\n Thankfully, Catholic women weren\u2019t subjected to this. But St. Margaret Clitherow<\/a>, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in 1586, was \u2014 for the \u201ccrime\u201d of harboring Catholic priests and having Masses in her home \u2014 laid on a sharp rock, and a door was put on top of her and loaded with 700-800 pounds of rocks and stones, so that the sharp rock would break her back. It took about fifteen minutes for her to die. She was pregnant at the time.<\/p>\n Or we could recall the grisly death of Blessed Margaret Pole<\/a>, age 67 and frail and ill at the time of her execution in 1541. She was accused in the usual kangaroo courts of those tragic times in England of \u201chaving \u201ccommitted and perpetrated diverse and sundry other detestable and abominable treasons\u201d and was sentenced to death, but was held in the Tower of London for two and a half years, and \u201ctormented by the severity of the weather and insufficient clothing.\u201d<\/p>\n Eustace Chapuys<\/a>, ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor, was an eyewitness of her abominable execution. The chief executioner had been sent north to deal with rebels, so the execution was performed by \u201ca wretched and blundering youth who hacked her head and shoulders to pieces in the most pitiful manner\u201d. It took eleven strokes of an axe for the executioner to remove her head. The first blow missed its mark, gashing her shoulder.<\/p>\n Gavin in his book thought it was terrible that Hus had to wait one month to learn when he was to be executed. He wrote:<\/p>\n The worst part of the whole ordeal relates to the simple fact that Hus was not informed when his execution would be. From the conclusion of his trial on June 8 till his execution on July 6, he waited. . . . It\u2019s one thing to steel yourself to prepare for a dreaded day, but imagine waking up every morning knowing that at any moment you might face the flames!(pp. 52-53)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are a host of examples, showing how Protestants \u2014 and the leaders of the Revolt \u2014 were just as \u201cbloodthirsty\u201d (if we want to call it that), as Catholics. It makes for scandalous, shocking, and\u00a0 outrageous reading, but again, if Gavin wants to present an emotional and one-sided account of such things, two can play at that game. I provide both<\/em> sides, so that readers can learn that the whole thing amounts to a \u201cwash\u201d and is useless to talk about and make a bone of contention or accusation, as it were. Wouldn\u2019t it be nice if we just stuck to theology and history of doctrine?<\/p>\n Martin Luther and his successor Philip Melanchthon favored capital punishment for Anabaptists. Gavin appears to think that this was only in cases of extreme \u201csedition and blasphemy\u201d (p. 46). But this is untrue. Luther\u2019s most famous Protestant biographer, Roland Bainton, in his famous book, Here I Stand<\/em><\/a> (that I read in 1984 as a zealous Protestant), wrote:<\/p>\n In a memorandum of 1536,\u00a0again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated. Philip of Hesse had asked several cities and universities for advice as to what he should do with some thirty Anabaptists whom he was holding under arrest. He had steadfastly refused to inflict the death penalty and had resorted to no more than banishment. But this was ineffective because the Anabaptists argued that the earth is the Lord\u2019s and refused to stay away. Of all the replies which Philip received those from the Lutherans were the most severe. Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside of 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<\/strong><\/em> would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.<\/p>\n Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first [in 1531] he said, \u201cI assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.\u201d Luther\u2019s addition to the second document was a plea that severity be tempered with mercy. In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk<\/em> to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished. (pp. 376-377; my bolded italics).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This 1536 memorandum included the following language:<\/p>\n The Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism<\/em><\/strong>, original sin, and inspiration which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. . . . Concerning such tenets, this is our answer : As the secular authorities are bound to control and punish open blasphemy, so they are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine, irregular Church services and heresies in their own dominions; . . .<\/p>\n Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism<\/em><\/strong>, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then, because these articles are also important. . . \u00a0we conclude that in these cases also the stubborn sectaries must be put to death. (cited in Johannes Janssen,\u00a0History of the German People from the Close of the Middle Ages<\/i><\/a>, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223; my bolded italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Belief in adult, believer\u2019s baptism was sufficient as a cause for execution. Thus, Gavin himself (a Baptist) could have conceivably been executed in Luther\u2019s territories, with his express permission and consent (also in Calvin\u2019s), whereas I, as a Catholic, would only be banished at worst. But I could have been executed when I was between the ages of 24 to 32, because I believed in adult believers\u2019; baptism then, and even got \u201cbaptized\u201d in a warm bath.<\/p>\n Luther went far beyond this, too, calling for, in 1522 (when he was supposedly completely \u201ctolerant\u201d), the execution of adulterers and even frigid wives:<\/p>\n The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death. . . .<\/p>\n Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. (The Estate of Marriage<\/em>, 1522, translated by Walther I. Brandt, from\u00a0Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, Vol. 45, pp. 32, 34)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nice guy, huh? In 1526, Luther preached that female sorcerers should be put to death (not sure if he thought the same about male sorcerers):<\/p>\n Concerning the female sorcerer. . . . Let them be killed. (Sermon on Exodus 22:18<\/em>: \u201cYou shall not permit a female sorcerer to live,\u201d 1526, WA [Weimar collection of Luther\u2019s writings] XVI, p. 551; in\u00a0Susan C. Karant-Nunn<\/a>\u00a0&\u00a0Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks<\/a>\u00a0[editors and translators],\u00a0Luther on Women: a Sourcebook<\/a><\/em>, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 231)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In 1538, Luther advocated the burning of witches:<\/p>\n On that day (August 20, 1538), [Georg] Spalatin<\/a> [good friend of Luther\u2019s] related the tale of a witch\u2019s insolence, . . . Luther answered: \u201cOne should hasten to put such witches to death. . . . an example should be made of them to terrify others.\u201d<\/p>\n On August 25 (1538), they spoke much of witches who stole eggs from hens and milk and butter. Luther said: \u201cNo mercy is to be shown them. I myself would begin to burn them according to the law that the priests should begin to stone culprits.\u201d (Conversations With Luther: Selections from Recently Published Sources of the Table Talk<\/em><\/a>, translated and edited by Preserved Smith and Herbert Percival Gallinger, New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1915,\u00a0pp. 163-164)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Smith and Gallinger commented in a footnote to this on page 164:<\/p>\n Such sayings as these fanned the flames of the horrible persecution of witches by which hundreds of thousands of harmless persons lost their lives in the sixteenth century. Four witches were executed at Wittenberg in 1540.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In another\u00a0Table Talk<\/em>\u00a0excerpt from the period 1538-1540, drawn from the Weimar edition, deemed to be quite trustworthy by the editors of\u00a0Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> (Vol. 54, Introduction), Luther advocated the torturing (and execution?) of witches:<\/p>\n If I were a judge, I would have such a poisonous, syphilitic whore tortured by being broken on the wheel and having her veins lacerated, for it is not to be denied what damage such a filthy whore does to young blood, so that it is unspeakably damaged before it is even fully grown and destroyed in the blood.\u00a0(Table-Talk<\/em>, WA, TR, IV, no. 4857, pp. 552-554; cited in Susan C. Karant-Nunn & Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks,\u00a0ibid<\/em><\/a>., \u00a0pp. 157-158)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The standard 55-volume Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> chose to omit this entry, even though it is from impeccable sources, according to its own discussion of\u00a0Table Talk<\/em> in the Introduction to Volume 54. One must really \u201cdig\u201d to find Luther statements like these. Protestants don\u2019t make it easy. They don\u2019t want unpleasant facts like these to be known, because they don\u2019t foster the carefully preserved myth.<\/p>\n Another myth is that John Calvin, sadly (as most Protestants freely admit) assented to the death of the heretic Michael Servetus, but that this was an exception<\/em> to his usual rule (hence, Gavin briefly alludes to \u201cCalvin\u2019s involvement in the death of Michael Servetus\u201d on page 46, and says nothing else about Calvin\u2019s advocacy of the execution of heretics). It\u2019s chilling (and sadly revealing) to read Calvin\u2019s mocking account of how Servetus reacted to the announcement of his impending execution:<\/p>\n To be fair, Calvin preferred that Servetus be beheaded. But he wrote in the year after he was executed:<\/p>\n Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . .\u00a0Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that\u00a0I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed<\/em>. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but\u00a0I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face<\/em>.\u00a0(Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus<\/em>, written in\u00a01554;\u00a0in Philip Schaff,\u00a0History of the Reformation<\/em>\u00a0[New York, 1892], vol. 2, p. 791; cited in Stanford Rives,\u00a0Did Calvin Murder Servetus?<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0Infinity, 2008,\u00a0pp. 348-349<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Calvin expressed his view on capital punishment for heresy in 1557:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Calvin expressly approved of torture as well<\/a>, writing on 24 July 1555:<\/p>\n I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.<\/p>\n We shall see in a couple of days, I hope, what the torture will wring from him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Remember, these are the two big guys for Protestants: the two greatest and most influential leaders, and Luther was the Revolt\u2019s initiator. Luther\u2019s right-hand man Philip Melanchthon thought a denial of the real presence in the Eucharist, among other things, was worthy of death. Secularist historian Preserved Smith wrote about this<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\nADDENDUM: Beliefs of John Hus<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n