d THEEEEHE it | 1 } it} tt } ‘ itt rit ' rtely TVESPETVELHTS { t ' 7 \ eee ' } i aad yi f SHAH 1K} NG RHEE HLETTEELT ELH rhteiti a ee ty! ' WHR } i uf CHPEET LP EEEE TEC T # ; i Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/episodeinstruggl00evan_0 AN EPISODE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS CoLUMBIA UNIVERSITY New York SALES AGENTS HUMPHREY MILFORD AMEN CorNER, E.C. LONDON EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Lrp. 30 Norts SzEcHUEN RoAD SHANGHAI AN EPISODE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM THE SECTARIES OF NUREMBERG 1524-1528 BY AUSTIN PATTERSON ‘EVANS, Pu.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SERN Ty ERTAS | a TTERIS AB —— N e w York COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1924 Copyright, 1924 By CoLtumMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS All rights reserved Printed from type. Published November, 1924 Tae MEP Th OUN R Panoh eS NORWOOD:MASS°:°U°:S°:A To GEORGE LINCOLN BURR PREFACE THE subject of religious tolerance or intolerance may seem to some of antiquarian rather than of immediate and practical interest. In modern civili- zation men and women are no longer hanged, drowned, or burned because of the peculiarities of their religious belief or lack thereof. But in the longer view religious intolerance is but a phase of the world-old struggle between those who would im- pose by force their own or the community’s will and those who believe that man should be true to his own conscience. In all ages intolerant men have been in the majority. When they wish to compel the minority to worship at their shrines they invoke the gods which by them are held most dear — whether of church, of state, or of some social or economic system. Intolerance, some maintain, is but one aspect of the inevitable struggle for existence and the notion of tolerance is therefore a chimeric dream. ‘There can be no tolerance, they claim, but that of in- difference; men will and must fight for the things they truly cherish, employing any means which may, in their judgment, achieve the end they seek. Are we to accept this dictum of the determinist? I cannot so believe. If man is a wholly irrational being, yes; but if his actions may be at least in part controlled by reason there seems good hope vil Vill PREFACE that even in the struggle he may recognize and respect the differing viewpoints of his fellows. ‘This does not mean that one may have no convictions; it implies merely that, clinging to his own, he should be willing to permit others likewise to hold theirs. If tolerance be anything at all it is not an inborn response of the animal, it is a temper born of the rational in man. The present essay was written in 1915 but was then set aside in the hope that opportunity might be found to search the archives of Nuremberg and Bamberg to make absolutely certain that no signifi- cant material lay still buried in those repositories. Conditions during the past few years have made this impossible. The riches of these archives have, however, been laid bare through the researches of workers in allied fields—notably by Wappler, Nicoladoni, Kolde and Schornbaum. The work of these scholars, especially in the publication of docu- mentary materials, has been of such quality and fullness that there seems no valid reason for longer delaying the publication of this study. The theme of the study is the development among the Luther- ans of a theory of persecution, and more especially the influence which the presence of a group of sectaries in Nuremberg had in shaping a policy of repression of dissent in Lutheran lands, ‘be- tween the years 1524 and 1528. In addition some light is thrown upon the importance of the sectaries of the Reformation for the growth of religious toler- ance. In the belief that the most fruitful work PREFACE ix may be performed through the intensive cultiva- tion of a narrow field the study has been closely limited both in space and time. But it is not without significance for the story as a whole, since the situation in Nuremberg was fairly typi- cal of what was going on throughout much of Germany. The significance of the problem was called to my attention and my interest therein aroused in the Seminar of Professor George L. Burr at Cornell University. My debt to him is great, how great any who have come under his leadership, and who read this study, will easily recognize. It is a pleas- ant duty here to record my debt to a great and in- spiring guide, who gave himself unsparingly to his students, counting not the cost in the delay to his own work, that they might enjoy the fruits of his ripe scholarship and experience. Others have read parts of the manuscript and have offered helpful suggestions. For such assist- ance I am especially indebted to Professor C. H. Hull of Cornell, who read and criticized with great care nearly the whole of it, and to Dr. Gottlieb Betz of Columbia, who went over portions of it from the standpoint of the German philologist. For pains- taking and critical aid in the preparation of the manuscript and in the journey through the press grateful acknowledgment is due to my wife, Barbara Evans. AuSsTIN P. EvANs. Montrose, New York, 22 April, 1924. CONTENTS CHAPTER PRUNE RODE CTION ee tol. 75. che Ua erg Meee yh II BEGINNINGS OF DISSENT IN NUREMBERG . III Tue CuasH with AuTHoriry....... PNP UUTHER AND) DISSENT eh) ce el oe. V Towarp A Pouicy oF REPRESSION... . VI Dissent Must BE CRUSHED ....... VII Dissent CANNOT BE CRUSHED ...... IST BUTOGRAPHICAT TIN OTEes cently) oolm Gale LEREEELCACA SIU Th Gd ge h SDRee ec A PR LES op.) 0 G0 Giusee 2a WAS Can EL JD MTe a oh Laan a xl Aa re: ' Ap * cae : D) ) > wey nah ‘ 9 ts Me at ey ty ay i Bok oy ar A i ie Hie’ ¥ ty Aw i i Gar i fi 4 Ly Ve An Episode in the Struggle for Religious Freedom CHAPTER [ DN ROOD. OG Tor ONS INTOLERANCE is not peculiar to any particular place or time. It is not inherent in any single in- stitution. It may be enshrined in a creed or in the denial of all creeds; it is found in religious or philosophic systems, or among men of science. It is a State of mind rather than the product of an institution or of asystem. ‘Tolerance, too, has never been entirely lacking. If it is today coming to be better understood and more highly prized than in some past ages, it is because the belief is growing that there may be more than one good way of looking at a question. This carries with it no impli- 1 For these introductory pages there has been no attempt to examine carefully the source material. The books which have been found most helpful in obtaining this background for my work are the following: Acton, Lectures on Modern History; Beard, The Reformation of the 16th Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge; Lecky, Rationalism in Europe; More, Utopia; Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics; Volker, Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der Reformation; Wernle, Renaissance des Christentums; and by the same author, Renaissance und Reformation. Among magazine articles the one which proved especially helpful is Burr’s Anent the Middle Ages (Am. Hist. Rev., vol. XVIII, pp. 710-726). I 2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM cation that one way may not be better than another, nor does it mean that the individual may have no real convictions. But whether it is argued that truth is absolute or that it is relative, there can scarcely be debate over the question that truth for the individual, or for the generation, is only as much of truth — absolute or relative —as that individual or that generation can grasp. The truth of one generation may become the falsehood of the next. Thus conceived, truth for the individual is a relative and a growing thing. It is for him to form his own convictions while respecting and even welcoming the differing views of others. Intolerance always appeals to authority. Dur- ing the Middle Ages it was the authority of a Church which with solicitous care watched over and guided man throughout his earthly life. As the representative of God it opened or closed for him the gates of Paradise, according as he followed in the paths appointed him by a divinely ordained clergy. The problem of primary interest for men of that age was their souls’ salvation, and for this the Church was indispensable — extra eccle- stam nulla salus. If the Church is the interpreter of God’s truth to man and if there can be no salvation outside its portals, it follows that the clergy are in duty bound to protect the faithful under their care. They would be recreant to their trust should any serious breach of the discipline or dissent from the doctrine of the Church be allowed to pass unchal- INTRODUCTION 3 lenged. The Christian may fall into error on ques- tions of faith and practice, but it is for the clergy to lead back the erring one into the paths of truth. If he refuses to be so led, if he stubbornly resists in- struction and insists upon the propagation of false teaching, not only does he damn his own soul, but he endangers the souls of those with whom he comes in contact. All the powers of earth and heaven were marshalled in defense of the unity of the faith and the safety of the faithful. Should the heretic remain obdurate he might expect the ex- treme penalty of death. The spirit of the time demanded suppression of dissent.” The duty and responsibility of the individual was relatively simple. All that was required of him was to accept unquestioningly the teaching of the Church. For one to oppose with his reason the judgment of the ages respecting the revealed will of God was deemed as preposterous then as now it seems absurd for one to question the work- ings of natural law or our notions of progress. For how could one hope, with his puny wit, to over- throw truth divinely established and authorita- tively interpreted? Obedience was the cardinal 2 This point becomes clearer when one reads the protests against the laxity of the clergy during the 12th century in the suppression of heresy. As in the case of lynchings in this country the mob resorted to rough and ready justice to protect themselves against the heretics when the clergy were slow or refused to proceed against them. Cf. Lea, Inquisition in the Middle Ages, Vol. I, pp. 218 et sqq; and Vacandard, The In- quisition, pp. 32 et sqq. 4 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM virtue; faith implicit the cardinal grace. Doubts, questionings, must be sternly repressed. For con- science the man of the Middle Ages had but little need. Questions of right and wrong were decided for him. It was for him to conform, to obey.’ A change in this point of view is observable as early as the thirteenth century. With the develop- ment of scholastic philosophy reason forged an ex- cellent tool for the defense of faith, but it was among those very scholastic philosophers that the problem of the rights of the individual conscience was agitated, and the necessity of obedience to the dictates of that conscience affirmed. The schoolmen were not arguing for a subjective norm, but it is not such a long step from their thought to the idea that the individual has a right and a duty to follow his conscience even though it may be in opposition to the dictates of external authority. Such a principle is capable of growth and during the succeeding generations, under the inspiration of an awakened and redirected intellect, it developed widely.* 3 Obviously, such statements may be pushed too far. The seeming contrast between the attitude of the 12th and of the zoth century is after all not so great, except that the state has now usurped the position of the medieval Church, or shall one say their relative positions are reversed. Theoretically the state in its punitive measures now takes cognizance only of overt acts and does not enter the realm of thought or conscience, but in times of stress, such as war, the dividing line is very thinly drawn. * On the growth of the claims of the individual conscience see Acton, Lectures on Modern History, p. 31 et seq. INTRODUCTION 5 It would be too long a story to trace in any de- tail the growth of this idea through the two succeed- ing centuries until it eventuated in a broader out- look and a wider tolerance in the later Renaissance period. ‘The restless minds of the later medieval thinkers worked out a theory of ‘ two-fold truth,” whereby reason was given free play on all questions not concerned definitely with theology.’ Inviting avenues of speculation were opened in which rein might be given to a reawakened curiosity. New discoveries widened the horizon of mankind and aroused a deeper interest in all things of this world; old theological cosmologies were shattered; and irresistibly thought began to lay hold on and ques- tion the very dogmas of the Church itself. Faith and reason were now supplanted by conscience and reason aS a means of arriving at truth. And truth thus realized may frequently find itself at variance with the truth, preserved in the custody of an authoritative institution. Forces were thus developing which would one day tax to the utmost the claims of authority, but as yet conscious revolt had not raised its head. Nicholas of Cusa might put forth his theory of a concord between all faiths, to be reached through discussion and without compulsion;*° Thomas More might sigh for a state where all faiths were to be 5 Cf. Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics, Vol. II, pp. 3-52. 6 In the dialogue De Pace seu Concordantia Fidei (1453). Cf. Burr, pp. 710-713. 6 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM tolerated so long as each man held honest convic- tions and respected those of others; ’ Erasmus might pen satirical attacks against the foibles of the clergy and place in the hands of the layman a new edition of the New Testament, edited and interpreted with chatty, readable notes, in the hope that thus each individual might arrive at truth for himself.? But these men all remained within the Church. Nicholas of Cusa was an influential car- dinal; More suffered martyrdom for the orthodox faith; Erasmus never broke from the Church into which he was at birth baptized. Such men wrote and talked with great freedom. ‘The Church, se- cure in her position, could afford to be indulgent, and was, indeed, inclined to be so. There has probably never been a period of greater freedom within the Catholic communion. The works of More and Erasmus were widely read and, though there were angry murmurings from some narrow and over-zealous clerics, there seemed good reason to hope that the new ideas might modify existing forms, and that out of these years would come a broader view-point and a more perfect freedom for the individual to order his religious life in accord- ance with the dictates of his own reason and con- science. All hope of this was shattered when, on Allhallows eve, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 7 Utopia, esp. Bk. IX (1516). 8 See his edition of the New Testament in Greek and the Paraphrases. LN O. DUCE ION” 7 theses to the church door at Wittenberg, and thus inaugurated a movement which was to split Ger- many, and all western Christendom as well, into two politico-religious parties. Until recent years it has been commonly held by Protestants that the Lutheran revolt ushered in religious liberty. In a sense that may be true, but not as it is ordinarily understood. The immediate effect was quite dif- ferent. It was a time of bitterness and strife when sharp definition was called for. Men spoke and acted in the heat of passion, and there was little time or opportunity for sober thought or reflection. For the exercise of a spirit of tolerance there was small chance or inclination. The things upon which men differed were emphasized and the spirit of freedom was crushed. For, from an authoritarian point of view, Luther and his followers did but sub- stitute the unimpeachable authority of a sacred book for the authority of the ecclesiastical hier- archy which they repudiated. This was not obvious at first. When Luther sounded the call to war upon the unquestioned abuses existing in the Church, abuses under which Germany had for long groaned, a responsive chord vibrated in the hearts of nearly all thoughtful, earnest Germans who were looking for some relief from papal exactions. His ninety-five theses were ® This question has been carefully discussed by Volker, and with even broader view and deeper insight by Troeltsch in his Bedeutung des Protestantismus fiir die Entstehung der modernen Welt. 8 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM immediately published in the tongue of the common man and swiftly scattered over Germany. Men of all classes welcomed them and praised the Wit- tenberg friar who dared voice so boldly what was in the heart of every true German. And when he was pushed step by step, from mere attack upon ecclesiastical abuses which were recognized by all, to a denial of the infallibility of pope and council, and finally in December of 1520 to a definite break with the Church, the majority still followed him. For that break was preceded by the publication of three great pamphlets, the platform of the Lutheran revolution.*” In these Luther, with bold strokes, painted the sins of the Roman Church and called upon the German nobility to sweep away ecclesi- astical abuses; he cut the foundation from under the hierarchical edifice reared with painstaking care during the past millennium; he rendered un- necessary the office of prelate and priest by his theories of the priesthood of all- believers and of justification by faith alone; and he laid, or seemed to lay, a foundation for freedom of conscience by his denial of external authority in matters of faith, and his insistence upon the competence of the in- dividual to read and understand God’s truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Book. The papal bull of excommunication, followed by 10 These were the well-known pamphlets— Address to the Nobility of the German Nation; Concerning Christian Liberty ; and On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church. INTRODUCTION 9 the burning of that bull on a December morning of the year 1520, gave pause to some. Friar Martin was perhaps a little too aggressive in his methods. But when he stood before the Emperor and the estates of the realm gathered at the Diet of Worms, and professed himself taken captive in his con- science by the Word of God, insisting that he could not retract unless proved in error by texts from Scripture or by right reason, Germany rang with the praise of this doughty champion of the rights of conscience as bounded only by that Word of God. It seemed to men at the time, and indeed some have never been able to rid themselves of the no- tion, that Luther was here championing the rights of conscience for every individual. | Nothing could have been further from Luther’s thinking. Heresy to him was still the deadliest of sins. He had discovered, to his own satisfac- tion, that the papal system as it existed in the sixteenth century was built upon a growth of tradition for which he could find no authority in the Bible and upon a series of forged documents. All this must, then, be discarded; Christian belief and Christian practice must conform to that of the early centuries after Christ. Implicit trust must be placed in the Sacred Book and there must be no deviation from its precepts. Luther was sure that he had come to a true un- derstanding of this Book, and at first there was no doubt in his mind that every other honest man Io RELIGIOUS FREEDOM would understand it just as he had. But disillu- sionment was soon to come. Before 1521 was over he found that there were those who dis- agreed with him and clung stubbornly to their own beliefs. By 1525, thoroughly convinced that men could not be left to interpret the Bible for them- selves, and recognizing that some power strong enough to enforce its will was indispensable if the gains which had been made were to be conserved, he turned to the only efficient power in the empire — to the territorial princes. In the summer of the following year, that union of Luther with the princes was given expression in the famous clause of the Recess of the Diet of Spires. Until the holding of a council, in the matters pertaining to the Edict of Worms, the ruler of each state was to “so live, rule and conduct himself as he hoped to answer to God and his imperial majesty.” ** Men had hoped to see in the movement inaugurated by Luther the effective assertion of the right of the individual con- science to be heard in matters of faith. To these was now given the choice between two institutions equally dominated by external authority — the one the authority of a visible Church, enforced by a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy, the other the au- thority of a Book, enforced by the rulers of terri- torial states. | This development of the Evangelical movement 11 Fourth article of the Recess. Pub. in Liinig, Das teutsche Reichs-Archiv, Vol. TI, p. 461. INTRODUCTION It from a propaganda to an institution, with definite form and determined shibboleths, carried with it the beginnings of a revolt from all constituted eccle- siastical authority. It seemed of little use to break from one authoritarian form of religion merely to adopt another, and thus many returned to the Catholic faith or found themselves in opposition to all organized religion. Among those who re- turned were such men as Conrad Mut, who had for so long been the head of a circle of humanists in central Germany; Crotus Rubeanus, who had enthusiastically supported Luther during the first years of his revolt; and Wilibald Pirkheimer, patrician and man of letters at Nuremberg. The radical opponents numbered a host of men who, during the next few years, were to be found, singly or in groups, in nearly every town or city in Ger- many — the “‘ Ultras of the Reformation.” It is not germane to this study to attempt to trace carefully the origin or the spread of this radi- cal movement. Much has already been done in this field, and while there is still more to do, any further contribution must come from a careful searching of the archives. Though the work which has already been done is in many cases of a very high quality, it has all too often been marred by a tendency toward partisan bias. Students have usu- ally been the champions of one or another of the established forms of religion, they have been blinded by the term “ Anabaptist”? and the opprobrium I2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM which connected itself with that name, and they have failed frequently to see the broader aspects of this movement. Those who make a hero of Luther see in the “ Anabaptists ” only a contentious, sedi- tious body who did all in their power to rob his work of its effectiveness; those who hate him see in them the natural outcome of his propaganda and use them as an illustration of the evil results con- sequent upon the break with the Roman Church.” Attempts to analyze and classify the various shades of opinion existing among those who during these years severed themselves from the authorita- tive churches have, in my opinion, met with but 12 From the time that Urbanus Rhegius published (Septem- ber 6, 1527) his warning against the “Anabaptists” to the present day, they have been the subject of adulation or vitu- peration. Some there are, however, who have attempted to write their history and evaluate their significance without bias. Most notable among early writers is Sebastian Franck, who included in his Geschichtsbibel (1531) a fair-minded account of them. Of recent books may be mentioned the little monograph by Henry S. Burrage, A History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland; the interpretative work of Karl Hagen, Deutsch- lands literarische und religidse Verhdltnisse im Reformations- zeitalter; and the careful studies on Sebastian Franck by A. Hegler, particularly his Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck. Very excellent work has been done by Wappler in the archives of central Germany. He has, during the last few years, given to the world the fruits of his researches in a series of mono- graphs, the last and most ambitious of which is his 7, aufer- bewegung in Thiiringen von 1526-1584. Troeltsch has shown their significance in the whole development of religious thought, more especially in its social aspects, in his Sociallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. In his Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries and in his Studies in Mystical Religion Rufus M. Jones treats interestingly and sympathetically of these sectaries. INTRODUCTION 13 slight success. On the extreme left there have ever existed men and women with all sorts of schemes and a variety of methods for bringing about imme- diate and salutary reforms. And so it was in the case of these sectaries. To return to apostolic sim- plicity in religious life and organization was their ideal. The majority of them asked only that they might be allowed to worship God in their own way. With the state and with organized religion they had no quarrel, were they but permitted to live and work quietly. But there were among them a cer- tain number who put forth fantastic ideas and voiced fanatical principles destructive alike —so thought authority at that time — of all ordered re- ligion and civic peace. These men were the ones who were most in evidence and from them their contemporaries, especially those responsible for law and order, received their impression of the whole movement. As a result all sectaries were to be abhorred and all apostacy was to be rooted out. The name “ Anabaptists,” by which they came to be known, is entirely fortuitous and has created the false impression that they possessed definite organization and fixed tenets. Such a conclusion, for the period covered by this study at least, is wholly unjustifiable. There were certain beliefs which practically all held in common, but the points on which they differed were far more numerous than those on which they were agreed. The name was given them by their foes. When it was thought to I4 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM be necessary to take active measures to suppress dissent, authority began to look about for means of repression. An instrument was found ready at hand. It was observed that one point upon which a large number were agreed was that infant baptism was useless. Baptism, they held, should mark the adult’s conscious acceptance of the Christian life and should be the sign of his union with the Christian brotherhood. In accordance with pre- vailing faith and custom they had all been baptized at birth. Adult baptism, therefore constituted re- baptism. Under Roman imperial law one who rebaptized was subject to severe penalties.‘* This old law proved a convenient weapon to employ against them. It was revived, and as “ Anabap- tists” they were summarily punished. They re- pudiated the name, insisting that infant baptism did not constitute true baptism and that they were not in reality rebaptizers..* Their argument was of no avail. The name was so conveniently elastic that it came to be applied to all those who stood 18 Cod. Justin. Lib, I, Tit. VI,. Si quis rebaptizare quem- piam de mysteriis catholicae sectae fuerit detectus una cum eo, qui piaculare crimen commisit (si tamen criminis per aetatem capax sit, cui persuasum sit) ultimo supplicio percellatur. Law of Honorius and Theodosius, 413 A.D. Cf. Cod. Theodosianus, Lib. XXI, Tit. VI,, where the wording is somewhat different. 14 See a little pamphlet, attributed to Langenmantel, entitled, “Ein Géttlich und grundtlich offenbarung von den warhafftigen widerteuffern: mit Gdéttlicher warheit angezaigt.” Cf. Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion, p. 369, note. INTRODUCTION 15 “/ out against authoritative state religion. As “ Ana- \baptists ” they have been known to this day. It is difficult to come to know these humble folk. The world has given them but scant notice. Their writings are mostly lost; and one has to glean from chance admissions of their enemies, from their state- ments at trials, frequently wrung from them under torture, and from the few bits which remain from the pens of their friends, what manner of men they really were. For the most part, with the exception of some of their leaders, they were artisan folk, men and women who had become dissatisfied with the Church as it then existed and who had no the- ological system to uphold. Nor did their revolt confine itself wholly to religious beliefs; it carried with it a program of social reform as well. The movement arose first and became strongest in the Swiss cantons and in the cities of Upper Germany. And it was no accident that it began there. Trained in a love of freedom and in some measure of self- government, people had there become accustomed to face problems independently. And when, as a result of a combination of forces — the printing press, humanism, the Evangelical movement — the Bible was placed in their hands, they were prepared to read and interpret it in their own way. There they found justification neither for the claims of the old Church nor for the system that was just then being built up and becoming fixed in Evangeli- cal lands. To conserve the results attained by the 16 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM revolt from the Church hierarchy the great leaders shrank from taking what seemed to these less re- sponsible groups the final step. Why, then, should they follow such leaders? Must they not rather follow the dictates of their own consciences? Luther had said that a man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was competent to interpret Scrip- ture for himself and form his own judgment; the humanists had taught them to use their reason; Zwingli had said that all good men of all the ages, whether or not they had ever heard of Christ and the Bible, would be saved. The words of these men they accepted literally. They read and interpreted the Bible by the light of their own reason. If Zwingli was right, then God must speak directly to the human heart, there must be an inner Word supplementing the written Word. Indeed, it is this inner Word, this prompting of the Holy Spirit within, that makes it possible for one to understand the written Word. But if God speaks directly to the individual through this voice within him and through Holy Writ, what is the need of external authority, or of a visible church? The true church consists only of those who consciously accept the will of God as the guiding principle for their lives. Wherever two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ, there will He be and there is His church. The ritual of worship, the miraculous in the sacra- ments, all these are empty, useless forms. They INTRODUCTION 17 are to be discarded except in the case of two or three of the sacraments, which are to be retained as symbols of union with Christ. Baptism is the seal placed upon the conscious entrance of the individ- ual into the brotherhood of Christ, the sign of the putting away of sin and the assumption of the life | of holiness. Infant baptism is not commanded in the Bible, nor is it in accord with the teachings therein found, for a child neither has sinned nor can it consciously choose the Christian life. Infant baptism is, therefore, worthless. Likewise the sac- rament of the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbol, useful as a memorial of the life and death of the Master, but of value only to the man who has experienced the inner renewing of the spirit. There is no miraculous property in the bread and wine. : Apostolic simplicity is the goal at which all Christians should aim. As brotherly love and a spirit of common helpfulness then reigned, so must it now reign among the followers of Christ. As Christ said, ‘‘ Whosoever would be great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all,” so the Christian needs no magistrate, cannot himself be raised above his fellows. Men should be ruled by the precepts of the Bible, and one so ruled will do voluntarily much more than is required of him by any civil authority. This does not necessarily imply hostility to the civil power, it means rather 18 RELIGIOUS (EREEDOM _ that those who put on the life of Christ are to live under a higher law. Let your speech be yea, yea, and nay, nay, said the Master; therefore one may not take oaths. Love shall reign among you; all war, then, must cease. One may not carry the sword. As Christ taught that his followers should keep themselves apart from the world, so the Chris- tian must now keep himself from the world — and in the extreme form this meant that there must be no commerce with “unbelievers” and no inter- matriage.’° It would not be a difficult task to find parallel statements which could be isolated from their con- text, both from orthodox medieval writers and from the leaders of the Evangelical revolt as well. Their objectionable character when thus put forth by un- authorized groups lay in the fact that all such prin- ciples are capable of great exaggeration by over- zealous and fanatical teachers, and in many cases there occurred serious excesses which condemned the whole radical movement in the eyes of all lovers of good order and established authority. It is the blessing and the curse of the philosophy of individualism that it throws men back upon them- selves and their own spiritual resources, and forces them to think and to choose for themselves. In the term individualism, as applied to the revolt of the individual from a religion of authority, this is 15 These general principles are well summarized in Keller, Geschichte der Wiedertaufer, Chapter II. INTRODUCTION 19 equally true.“° Thus one finds every shade of opinion among these sectaries. For some, who had not yet learned to see the essence of the spiritual life apart from the visual garb in which it was clothed, denial of the outward forms of religion was capable of slipping easily into a rejection of Chris- tianity itself. The refusal to accept office, the de- nial of oaths, the theory of the superfluousness of the civil authority for the Christian, could easily degenerate into a repudiation of the whole existing political system; the belief in the aloofness of the Christian community was capable of leading to grave Offenses against the social order. In the view of the exponents of authority in Church and State the more extreme radical posi- tion seemed predominant. They saw only the spec- tacular. It seemed much more simple —and more safe — to suppress than to seek to understand and meet dissent by reason. Any one who could not repeat the shibboleths of established faith became thereby anathema — an enemy of all law and or- der. Such an one must be put where he could not spread his poison throughout the whole body ecclesiastic and politic. 16 Tt should be pointed out that many, perhaps the majority, of these sectaries were by no means thorough-going individ- ualists. In fact in their social theories they tended rather toward communism. But they stood for the right of the individual in questions of religious faith, and some there were who developed a consistent philosophy of individualism, e.g., Sebastian Franck. 20 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM It is upon the shoulders of moderate men that great ideas and principles are frequently borne aloft to the light of day. Those who refuse to unite with one or the other group which may be striving for mastery, who persist in going their own way, are very apt to find themselves cordially hated and looked upon as traitors by both. But by quietly and persistently striving toward an ideal they spread their leaven throughout a community even while that community is focusing its eyes upon the more spectacular phenomena. It is in such light that these radicals of the period of the Reformation should be viewed if one is to arrive at a true under- standing of their significance. Though at times some of their number were guilty of grave excesses, though they were hounded by Catholic and Evan- gelical alike, until bitter persecution drove them into the orgy at Miinster, they none the less carried with them ideas pregnant with meaning for the future. Whether for good or ill they were the humble champions in the sixteenth century of the rights of the individual conscience. CHAPTER II BEGINNINGS OF DISSENT IN NUREMBERG In the heart of Germany on the Pegnitz, a small river tributary to the Main, lies the city of Nurem- berg. Time has not succeeded in divesting it of much of its medieval charm, though the exigencies of an active commercial life have forced its growth far beyond the confines of its ancient walls. It is still dominated by its two great Gothic churches, St. Lorenz and St. Sebald, situated on either side of the river; parts of the walls and the old moat re- main; while narrow, crooked streets, flanked by houses with high peaked roofs, the homes of wealthy burghers of a bygone day, aid in maintaining its medieval character. At present it is one of the commercial centers of southern Germany, and in the later Middle Ages, in the height of its prosperity, it played relatively an even more important part. At that time a free imperial town, it lay on the direct route of trade from the commercial towns of Italy to the cities of the Hanseatic League, and thus became an im- portant distributing center for the merchandise of the East. In manufacture, too, Nuremberg was important; the fame of its wares was wide- spread, the wealth of its citizens proverbial. The aI 22 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM period of its greatest glory was the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, before the new water routes to the East robbed the Italian towns of their monopoly of eastern trade. This, too, was a period of significant intellectual and artistic activity. In art one needs but mention the names of Albrecht Durer, Adam Kraft, Veit Stoss, and Peter Vischer, all of whom did so much to beautify their city and to enhance its fame abroad; intellectually it was the center of an active humanistic group of which mention will be made later. Radical movements generally have their begin- nings in populous centers. There men of differing viewpoints meet and there the old, the traditional, is continually subjected to the dissolving influences of new currents of thought. There, too, in the busy hum of trade, criticism of the existing order tends to remain submerged and maintain itself until grown too strong to be easily eradicated. So it was in the towns that the individualistic movement of the Reformation arose and won most followers. To this rule Nuremberg formed no exception. Played upon by many cross-currents of life and of thought, visited by merchants and travellers from distant lands, a favorite meeting-place of im- perial diets bringing in their train men from scat- tered regions — it is quite understandable that with- in its walls the mystic and the dreamer found food for reflection. In the centuries just preceding the Reformation traces of dissent from the established DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 23 Church were to be found within its confines.1 The Waldensians, the Friends of God, and finally the Hussites found followers among the citizens.? Hus, as we learn from a letter written by him to his friends at Prague, stopped there when on his fateful journey to the Council of Constance.’ On that occasion opportunity was granted him for public discussion of his doctrines and he thus succeeded in winning many friends among the people. This spirit of independence of ecclesiasti- cal control was further manifested in the initiative exercised by the Council in the appointment of pastors and the oversight over morals in churches and monasteries. It claimed for itself the function of instituting reforms when necessary, and for this reason its members were embroiled in continual disputes with their rightful ecclesiastical superior, the Bishop of Bamberg.* As in many another city of Germany a spirit of revolt against the Church was being fanned into life. The influence of humanistic culture in Nurem- berg has, however, more importance for this study than the presence of humble members of heretical sects. Humanism was carried across the Alps from Italy and found its way into the city about the 1 Hagen, Deutschlands religidse und literarische Verhdltnisse, VOLILU DS 177, 2 Haupt, Die religidsen Sekten in Franken vor der Reforma- tion. ‘See esp. pp. 18 et sqq., 27, 37 et seq. 3 Published in part by Hagen, I, p. 178, note. Cf. also Haupt, p. 31. 4 Hagen, I, pp. 178 et seq. 24 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM middle of the fifteenth century. At the beginning of the following century it blossomed forth in great vigor under the leadership of Wilibald Pirkheimer.’ The connection between humanism, with its empha- sis upon the individual reason, and the sectaries of the Reformation period, with their insistence upon the duty of the individual to choose for him- self in matters of faith, was very close. An inter- esting illustration of this is to be found in Erasmus where he expressed the wish that the Bible might be read widely in the vernacular and that men and women might ponder its teachings as they went about their daily tasks.° This wish, shared by practically all German humanists, was destined soon to be fulfilled.” Though bitterly denied in after days by the humanists, the spiritual relationship between humanism and the tendencies toward dis- sent from religious authority must not be over- looked.® At the beginning of Luther’s revolt the sym- 5 Hagen, I, pp. 179-1096. 6 Erasmus, Introduction to the Paraphrase of Matthew, and the Preface to the New Testament (editions of 1516, 1519 and 1522). Cf. Rembert, Die Wiedertaufer im Herzogtum Jiilich, pp. 24 et sqq. 7 See Rembert, pp. 22-23, for details illustrating the influ- ence of Erasmus upon the sectaries. This influence is recognized by Kohler in his Reformation und Ketzerprozess, p. 43. 8 It is interesting to note in this connection that Denck was banished from Nuremberg by the Council, in which sat promi- nent members of the humanistic circle, because he trusted to his own reason and would not be instructed by orthodox divines. And Pirkheimer became one of his bitterest foes! DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 25 pathies of the Nuremberg circle of humanists were immediately and actively enlisted on the side of the Wittenberg friar. Christoph Scheurl — jurist and man of letters, second only to Pirkheimer in influ- ence — it was who introduced Luther to John Eck; Kaspar Niitzel translated the ninety-five theses into German, to be scattered far and wide over the country and read by all;° Wenceslaus Link accom- panied Luther to Augsburg when he journeyed thither to meet the cardinal, Cajetan, who had been sent to Germany to silence the bold professor. His Nuremberg friends were inclined, however, to mod- erate the zeal of Luther and strongly urged him to come to some understanding with the papal party, especially when the moderate Miltitz was sent in 1519 to arrange a compromise with him. The fact that their advice went unheeded did not then lessen their enthusiasm for his cause and when in 1520 the bull threatening him with excommuni- cation was promulgated the names of Lazarus Spengler and Wilibald Pirkheimer appeared among those of the friends who were to share his condem- nation. The course upon which Luther subsequently em- barked, however, cooled the ardor of some of his Nuremberg friends. This is notably true in the case of Scheurl and Pirkheimer, both of whom re- 9 Christoph Scheurls Briefbuch, ed. Soden and Knaake, p. 43. Cf. also Reicke, Geschichte der Reichsstadt Nurnberg, pp. 748 et sqq. 26 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM mained within the Church.*° But the majority went with him; and in this group were the men who were to have the deciding voice in the con- duct of religious affairs in the city during the next few crucial years. There was Lazarus Spengler, secretary to the Council and a leader in the defi- nite action taken by that body in 1524 and 1525 to abolish Catholic worship. With him were Hieronymus Ebner and Kaspar Nutzel, the former president of the Council after 1524, both most in- fluential members of that body. Their influence was exerted wholly on the side of Evangelical re- form. Wenceslaus Link also remained a close per- sonal friend of Luther and a staunch supporter of his movement. Like Luther he was a member of the Augustinian Order. He had been Prior of the Convent at Wittenberg and in 1520 followed Stau- pitz as Vicar of the German Congregation. In 1523 he was appointed by Frederick, Elector of Saxony, as Evangelical pastor at Altenburg, and two years later he returned again to Nurem- berg to accept the appointment to the pastorate of the New Spital, one of the large churches of the city. With the above names should be mentioned other leaders of revolt in Nuremberg. Andreas Osiander, 10 R. Hagen in his Wilibald Pirkheimer, pp. 147 et seq., quotes an interesting letter of Pirkheimer’s written in 1528. In this he explained his position in the religious controversy, main- taining that his attitude toward reform had remained constant, but that Luther had changed. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 27 active, able, but narrow and domineering, was preacher at the church of St. Lorenz. His energy, fearlessness, directness and combativeness quickly won him a position of leadership. Others of the same group were Dominicus Schleupner, pastor at St. Sebald, Klemens Volkamer, and Christoph Kress, the latter two members of the Council and employed frequently on diplomatic missions. No city in Germany accepted the leadership of Luther more whole-heartedly or carried through Evangelical reform more rapidly and thoroughly. In their zeal the Nurembergers even surpassed their leader in fearless acceptance of the new conditions imposed by the break with Rome. In open de- fiance of the claims urged by the papal legates at the diets held at Nuremberg, 1522-24, the ministers persisted in their Evangelical teaching and in abolishing Catholic forms of worship. With their propaganda the Council was secretly in accord, though promptings of expediency moved it to com- ply, albeit rather tardily, with the terms of the im- perial mandate ordering the destruction of Luther’s writings. During the year 1524 and the spring of 1525 the final steps in the break with Rome were pushed through despite every effort put forth by the Bishop of Bamberg to retain control over that portion of his diocese.** 11 The documents for this may be found in Strobel, Mzis- cellaneen, Bk. III, pt. II. See also the letters of Planitz to the Elector of Saxony in his Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in 28 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM So great was the contention between the Catholic and Evangelical parties and so serious the need for some settlement whereby peace and uniformity of worship might be restored, that the Council or- dered a conference to be held in March of 1525, at which the opposing claims of both might be heard and decided. The result of such a meeting could scarcely be in doubt. On 14 March the Council declared the Evangelical party, championed by Osiander, entirely victorious. Evangelical pas- tors were appointed for the monasteries, the inmates of which were now free to leave if they chose, in- deed in some cases were forced to leave. The ad- ministration of ecclesiastical property and revenues was provided for by the Council. Upon the advice of the theologians that body assumed supreme con- trol over religious affairs. The Lutheran reforma- tion in Nuremberg was complete.” One further element which entered into the spiritual background of the radical movement should here be noted. This is the growing spirit of independence shown among the peasants, and Niirnberg, pp. 80 passim, for a fuller statement of the facts chronicled above. 12 For these final steps see Roth, Die Einftihrung der Refor- mation in Nurnberg, esp. pp. 194-210. Cf., Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Vol. II, pp. 350-364. Charitas Pirk- heimer’s Denkwiirdigkeiten gives a melancholy picture of con- ditions in Nuremberg, especially with reference to the attacks of the Evangelical party upon monasteries and convents. See, too, articles by Pickel and Kolde in B. B. K. G., 1912 and 10913, where interesting details are brought to light. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 29 the activity of popular peasant preachers, in the region about Nuremberg.’** Diepold Peringer, the “peasant of Wohrd,”’ who claimed to be unable either to read or write and asserted that he was in- spired by the Holy Spirit, won a considerable fol- lowing in Wohrd and Thon, villages in the vicinity of Nuremberg, and even in the city itself. He seems to have possessed much native ability as a popular preacher. Spalatin, chaplain to Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, heard him and was greatly impressed by the appeal which he made to imagination and conscience.'* The Council, on com- plaint of Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and brother of Emperor Charles, ordered him to cease preaching and banished him from Nuremberg terri- tory. Traces of his influence remained, however; doubts and questionings raised by him could not be eradicated by the simple expedient of banishing their author. This religious disaffection was bound up with the political and social unrest among the peasantry of south-central Germany during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, which ended with the outbreaks of 1524 and 1525. As a result two were put to death in the summer of 1524.*° It has not seemed necessary to enter in any de- tail upon a discussion of these various trends of 13 Roth, op. cit., pp. 130 ef sqq.; Kolde, Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Niirnberg, pp. 2 et sqq. 14 Enders, 5, p. 153 and note 2, p. 154. 15 Will, Beytrége zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus in Deutschland, pp. 137 et sqq. 30 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM religious thought in Nuremberg. The aim has been simply to indicate something of the ferment that was everywhere apparent. All these elements exerted a distinct influence upon the separatist movement which was quietly taking shape, parallel to the changes in religion officially recognized in the city. For such a movement, directed as it was against all external authority in religion, the soil was well prepared.*® Men had now to choose not only between their old Catholic faith and the new ideas of Luther, but among those of independent thought there was the necessity of choice, when the new movement began to limit itself and harden into a system, between the freedom of humanism and the straight lines of the Evangelical faith. The disputes and the defiance of regularly constituted ecclesiastical authority attendant upon the meet- ings of the imperial diets in Nuremberg must have impressed greatly men who were thoughtful spec- tators. Those whose minds were imbued with a reverence for authority might break with the au- thority of the past, but would be quite satisfied to accept the substitute offered by the great leader of the German revolt. It would scarcely occur to 16 See for instance Janssen II, p. 357: “ Welchem neuen Glauben, fragte [Charitas Pirkheimer], solle man denn folgen, da die Pradicanten einander widersprachen und ein jeder be- haupte, er allein habe Recht.” See also Capito to Zwingli, 6 Feb., 1525: “ Apud imperii civitates (Norlingae et Nurnberge) quidam concionatores agunt inconsultius; quos puto causam dedisse, ut nunc pleraque ferveant studiis acerrimis.” C. R., DOV MTZ O2: DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 31 them to exercise independent judgment on anything except minor points. But how would this affect the man whose thought was really emancipated? More than once questions must have arisen which were not easy of solution. Why all this endless debate and recrimination? Why this emphasis upon formalism and the incidents of religion? It was evident that some reformation was needed, but was this to come through a shifting of authority? The answer that was almost certain to suggest itself would be that external authority was not essential. When authorities quarrel among themselves, the thoughtful layman may be pardoned for reserving judgment, and it would not be at all surprising if he should reach a solution other than that of the majority. Among those men who were quietly observing the ferment and innovation in Nuremberg none is more interesting and worthy of consideration than Hans Denck, the rector of the school connected with the church of St. Sebald, one of the two most important churches in Nuremberg. He was among the most sweet-spirited, sane, and withal the most lovable of the men of his time, and none showed more independence in attacking and attempting to solve the problem of man’s relation to his God. Almost nothing is known of his early life. Born in the little town of Habach in Bavaria, probably about 1495, he matriculated at the University of Ingolstadt in 1517, receiving his baccalaureate de- 32 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM gree two years later.” He is next heard of in Augs- burg, where he identified himself with the human- istic circle, under the patronage of Veit Bild and Adelmann of Adelmannsfelden.** The following year (1521) he seems to have spent as a school- master at Sterzing in Tyrol.*® In 1522 he turned up at Basel as a proof reader, first for the press of Cratander and later for Curio. At the same time he attended some lectures by CEcolampadius on the prophet Isaiah.” The young student commended himself highly to the humanist and reformer, and a warm friendship sprang up between the two men.** When in 1523 the Nurembergers were look- ing about for a new rector for the school at St. Sebald’s Denck was, on the recommendation of (Ecolampadius, chosen for the place. In the fall of that year he entered upon his new duties at Nuremberg. There he lived and worked quietly in friendly relationship with humanists and reformers. 17 Such scraps of knowledge as can be found concerning Denck’s early life have been gathered by Keller. See especially his biography of Denck, Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer. 18 Adelmann was a friend of Pirkheimer’s, and like him was named in the bull condemning Luther. But he, like Pirkheimer, drew back from Luther’s bold revolt. 19 Kolde, p. 21. See also Denck’s letters to Veit Bild pub- lished by Keller in his Johann Staupitz, pp. 401 et sqqg. The name of the town is there given as Stotzingen. (See Kolde, p. 21, note 3.) 20 Ccolampadius to Pirkheimer, 25, Apr., 1525. (Opera Pirk- heimeri, p. 306.) 21 Herzog, Leben Ctkolampads, vol. II, App. nos. VI and VII, pp. 272 et seq. Denck to C£colampadius, Oct., 1527, in Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, pp. 257 et seq. j Hy, DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 33 Pirkheimer, who later became a bitter foe to Denck, was instrumental in securing the young teacher and seems to have taken an especial interest in him.” Of his life during the first few months of his stay in Nuremberg, however, but little is known. One or two references to him are all that can be found. Most important of these is his own report of a dis- pute which he had with Osiander regarding the Eucharist.** This is of interest since it indicates that he was something more than a passive spec- tator of the events that were transpiring about him, and also that he was not afraid to think and to speak with independence. That he was deeply in- terested in the religious ferment is further attested by the rapid development of his ideas during the few months of his stay in Nuremberg.”* The situ- ation was one well calculated to provoke thought. ' As indicated in the preceding pages two factions were there contending for mastery and both were appealing to the Bible as authority; each at the same time insisted that the other was wholly in error. One possible inference might easily be, therefore, that there must be some subjective norm by which the individual may test Scripture. This 22 Keller, Staupitz, pp. 210 et seq. 23 Denck to the Council of Augsburg in Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, p. 250. Also Denck to (C&£colampadius in Keller, ibid., p. 251. 24 That Denck was not in the least suspected of radical views when he came to Nuremberg may be gathered from letters of CEcolampadius to Pirkheimer, in Herzog’s Leben (CEkolam- pads, app. VI and VII, pp. 272 et seq. 34 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is precisely the conclusion arrived at by Denck dur- ing these months. It was not long before he was brought into con- tact with other elements which were to exert a powerful and permanent influence upon his thought, and through him upon the radical movement as a whole. Two streams of opposition to organized re- ligion met at Nuremberg during the summer and fall of 1524. From the north came influences domi- nated by the teaching and personality of two of the most revolutionary of all the leaders, Karlstadt and Munzer. These men were radical chiefly in the sense that they opposed the existing authority — both in religion and society. They demanded tolerance for themselves and their own opinions, but were far from believing in tolerance as a prin- ciple. Their attempt was to establish their own orthodoxy, and it is of some significance that Luther and his followers got their first introduction to the groups of opposition through contact with these men and their tenets. It is very probable that their attitude toward all dissent was embit- tered and their condemnation of the “ Anabaptists,” when later they met them, was conditioned by these experiences. From the south there came the more sane, less dogmatic influence of the leaders from the upper Rhineland. With men from both these groups Denck seems from the first to have been in friendly relations, though spiritually much more akin to those from the southland. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 35 In the summer of 1524, Hans Hut, an early dis- ciple of Miinzer, was at Nuremberg, plying his trade as a bookbinder.”® A native of the village of Hain, Hut became a vestryman at Bibra.*® Early won to the Evangelical faith, however, he enthusiasti- cally embraced his new creed and was tireless in propagating it while wandering from place to place as a bookpeddler. In this capacity he travelled through Saxon, Thuringian, Franconian and even Austrian lands.” During his wanderings, through in- fluences not now traceable, he came to have doubts regarding the efficacy of infant baptism and sought enlightenment on this question from the Wittenberg theologians. Their explanation failed to satisfy him. With characteristic impetuosity he thereupon jumped to the conclusion that, since they could not answer clearly and satisfactorily a question so funda- mental, their preaching was powerless to work regeneration of life.* Returning to Bibra he was soon forced to move thence because of his refusal to have his child baptized.” Shortly thereafter he became connected with Miinzer and made it his 25 See his confession of 5 Oct., 1527, app. IV in Meyer, Die Anféinge des Wiedertéuferthums in Augsburg, p. 230. Meyer’s study and the documents appended thereto contain our most complete information concerning Hut. 26 Meyer, pp. 215 et seg. Hain is in eastern Saxony, Bibra is a town in electoral Saxony northwest of Naumburg and but a short distance from Allstedt. 27 Wappler, Tdauferbewegung in Thiiringen von 1526-1584, Dw2e. 28 Meyer, p. 224 (hearing of 16 Sept., 1527). 29 Ibid., p. 238. 36 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM task to disseminate the latter’s writings.*® Denck he met during his stay in Nuremberg in the sum- mer of 1524,°' and it is possible that he also met at this time Wolfgang Vogel, pastor at Eltersdorf, with whom at a later time he became closely asso- ciated.** How long he remained in Nuremberg during this visit of 1524, it is impossible to ascer- tain, but that he was well known in the city and that he discussed religious questions at this time is evident from his statements at Augsburg during the fall of 1527. He then said that he had been known in Nuremberg jor the past ten years; he affirmed that he was well acquainted with Denck and had stopped at his house, and had also been at the homes of various other Nurembergers.** It was impossible, however, for him to remain for any length of time in one place; everywhere he quickly made himself obnoxious to the authorities. With tireless energy he travelled throughout central and southern Germany, preaching, baptizing, and dis- tributing tracts. His power as a popular preacher was astonishing. At Augsburg alone his converts numbered thousands.** He was there apprehended by the authorities in September, 1527, and died the 30 Jbid., pp. 240 et sqq. 54) Tbtd..° ppi iaeany 229: 82 Tbid., p. 243. Eltersdorf was a little town situated in Nuremberg territory between Nuremberg and Erlangen. 33 Tbid., pp. 229 et seq. 84 Ibid. p. 220. Cf. also Wappler, Tduferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 28. The documents which Wappler appends to his work bear eloquent testimony to Hut’s tireless activity. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 37 following winter — accidentally burned to death, it is believed, in an attempt to escape.*® Hut, in the first enthusiasm of his revolt, had accepted Munzer’s revolutionary teaching in regard to the state,** and had a share in his activity dur- ing the peasants’ revolt. Escaping the avenging sword of the princes, which ended Miinzer’s rest- less life, he boldly continued to preach inflamma- tory doctrines to the peasants. His later inter- course with Denck at Augsburg seems to have modified considerably his theories, but he never outgrew his chiliastic notions. By the exponents of law and order he was always looked upon as a dangerous fanatic; the fear of his influence did much to inspire the action taken by the Nurem- berg Council to stamp out the sectarian movement. Among the leaders of the “ Anabaptist ” move- ment, with the exception of Denck, there was no one who exerted a more direct influence upon the radical element in Nuremberg than did Hut. Others there were, however, who visited the city during the summer and fall of 1524. Hans Schlaf- fer, who was put to death at Schwatz in the valley of the Inn, either in 1527 or 1528, tells in his con- fession how he had met at Nuremberg Hans Denck and Ludwig Hatzer.*’ This meeting must have 85 Aigentliche beschreibung der handlungen so sich mit den widerteufern zu Augsburg sugetragen und verlaufen hat. Pub. by Meyer in Z. K. G. 17, pp. 251-258, esp. pp. 255 et seq. 86 Some notice of Miinzer appears on pp. 42-46. 87 Van Braght, Martyrology, Eng. ed., Vol. I, p. 50; Ottius, Annales, p. 46. 38 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM taken place in the summer of 1524. Hatzer had been at Zurich, leaving there early in the summer, bound for south Germany.** It is probable that he was in Nuremberg either in July or August.* Of Schlaffer’s activity there nothing is known. Hatzer, however, may well have exerted a consid- erable influence upon Denck. ‘Though Zwingli speaks approvingly of him in his letter to Frosch,*° he none the less belonged to the more radical party in Zurich, and Zwingli had already found it diffi- cult to keep him in hand.** Keller believes that Denck and Hatzer had become acquainted in Basel, where both were engaged in reading proof for a publishing house.*” If such is the case they must have there read together much of the literature of humanism and of revolt which was then coming from the Basel presses, and it is not difficult to imagine the subject matter of their discussion when they met again after two years. Their conversa- tion could scarcely have failed to turn upon the religious innovations just now being pushed through both at Nuremberg and at Zurich. And Hatzer 88 Letter of Zwingli to Frosch, C. R., XCV, p. 200. 39 Cf. Heberle, “Johann Denck und sein Biichlein von Gesetz.” In Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1851, pp. 128 et seq. 40 As noted above, C. R. XCV, p. 200. 41 Article on Hatzer by Keim (revised by Hegler) in P. R. E. VII, p. 236, also Kolde, p. 23. 42 In his Staupitz, p. 210. But see Roth, Augsburgs Re- formationsgeschichte, vol. I, p. 231, where he says that Denck and Hatzer had not met until they were together in Augsburg, 1527. Roth seems clearly to be in error. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 39 must certainly have acquainted Denck with the ideas of those people at Ziirich who were opposing infant baptism, and who were urging upon Zwingli more radical action.” It must have been about this same time that Leonard Schiemer came to Nuremberg, where he learned the trade of tailor. Schiemer had been a Franciscan friar, but had become weary of con- ventual life and had left his monastery. From Nuremberg he went to Nickolsburg, which in 1526 became a recognized haven for “ Anabaptists,” and later to Tyrol. He was there charged with ‘“ Ana- baptism ” and was put to death, together with a number of his followers, in 1528. Of his life in Nuremberg nothing significant is discoverable. From the few known facts, however, the indica- tions are that, even while in Nuremberg, he was a member of the radical group, and even something of a leader of that group.** The men who have thus far been mentioned were young men with their ideas still fluid. They were merely groping their way toward principles which would in the next few years make them leaders in 43 See Will’s discussion of Hiatzer’s stay in Nuremberg in his Beytrdge zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus in Deutschland, pp. 27-30. Will is such an earnest opponent of all “ Anabap- tists” that it is necessary to accept his testimony with great reserve. He had access to good sources, however. 44 Beck, Die Geschichtsbiicher der Wiedertaufer in CEster- reich-Ungarn, pp. 59 et sqq.; Martyrology, pp. 46 et sqq. (his name is here given as Schoener). Some six of his books are still extant. Cy. Keller, Staupitz, p. 227, note 1. 40 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM the “ Anabaptist ” movement. Feeling keenly the need for a more thorough revolt from the old eccle- siastical system than was being achieved under the leadership of either Luther or Zwingli, they none the less had not yet arrived at settled convictions. In the autumn of 1524 there came to Nuremberg one whose doctrines had already been evolved into a system and become established by conflict. This man was Thomas Miinzer. Formerly Evangelical pastor at Zwickau, Munzer had found it wise, and indeed necessary, to change his place of abode be- cause of the prominent part he had played in the activities of the “ Zwickau prophets.” After wan- dering about for some time he finally, in the spring of 1523, secured appointment to the Evangelical pastorate at Allstedt. There he carried on a reli- gious propaganda tinctured with political and social tenets of a radical nature. This brought him into conflict with his prince, the Elector of Saxony. Luther, to whom appeal was made, bitterly at- tacked Miunzer, but urged that, unless guilty of actual sedition, he should not be prosecuted by the civil authorities. The prince, however, insisted upon the necessity of adopting measures adequate to suppress the propaganda, and as a result Miin- zer found it necessary to set forth once more upon his wanderings. He shook the dust of Allstedt from his feet on 7 August, 1524. Thence he jour- neyed to Mulhausen where a friend of his, Hein- rich Pfeiffer (called also Schwertfeger), had been DISSENT IN NUREMBERG AI teaching radical doctrines since the spring of 1523. Here he hoped to be able to carry out his plans for setting up a politico-religious state. But the soil was not ready for his seed; he and Pfeiffer were both forced to leave Miilhausen, 27 September.* From Mulhausen Miinzer travelled south, stopping at Nuremberg in order to get printed a defense of his position directed against the Wittenberg re- formers, more especially against Luther. In this he was successful... The pamphlet appeared, prob- ably late in October, under the title, ‘‘ Hoch verur- sachte Schutzrede und antwwort, wider das Gaist- losse Sanfft lebende fleysch zu Wittenberg, welches mit verkarter weysse, durch den Diepstal der heili- gen schrift die erbermdliche Christenheit, also gatz jamerlichen besudelt hat.” The title of this work expresses well the writer’s point of attack. He can find no words too bitter to apply to Luther, whom he characterizes as revel- ling in sensuous indulgence and charges with having invoked the civil power to silence him. Munzer had received his first impulse to a new interpretation of Scripture from Luther, but he had also drunk deep of the German mysticism of the later Middle Ages.*® His was a more stern, more uncompromising belief than Luther’s. With the latter’s theory that the Christian will achieve eter- 45 For this date I follow Wappler, Tduferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 15. Enders in his Aus dem Kampf der Schwérmer gegen Luther, p. vii, gives the date as 20 Sept. 46 Wappler, zbid., pp. 13 et seq. 42 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM nal happiness through the free grace of Christ, Miunzer could not concur. For him such a doc- trine took the earnestness out of religion. Every Christian must carry his own cross, must work out his own salvation.** From this idea he derived the belief in the Christian community as a people apart, the small group of the chosen.** He attacked also the thesis toward which Luther was rapidly tending that the Bible is the sole, absolute, and final authority in matters of faith. The Word is not a closed book but a continuous revelation of God to His children.*® This belief regarding the immediacy of the relationship between God and the faithful carried with it an indifference to, even a prejudice against, accepted religious rites and forms of worship. All such “ idolatrous ” practices must be done away — by the prince if he will, by the people themselves if the prince refuse to act.*° With these extreme religious ideas he combined so- cial and political theories subversive of the estab- lished order. It was inevitable that concepts such as Miinzer held would bring him into conflict with constituted authority. Later they led him into the excesses of the peasants’ revolt.°* Miuinzer’s part in that up- 47 Miller, Kirchengeschichte, II, pp. 310 et seq. 48 Wappler, Thomas Miinzer in Zwickau und die “ Zwickauer Propheten,” p. 12; Miiller, II, pp. 310 et seq. 49 Wappler, ibid., p. 12. 50 Miiller, ibid., pp. 312 et seq. 51 That the peasants were justified in the demands which were embodied in the “Twelve Articles” and in taking up arms DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 43 rising is well known and it has tended to discredit him greatly in the estimation of his own and of later times. But in his fight with Luther the lat- ter was not always right nor was Munzer always wrong. Luther won by the aid of the civil power, but he paid dearly for the victory. He lost much of the popular support which had been his during the early years of his revolt; many were prepared now to follow a Miinzer rather than a Luther.” Among these were some of the citizens of Nurem- berg. In a letter to Christoph Meinhard of Eis- leben, written after his visit to that city in the fall of 1524, Miinzer says: ‘‘I could have played a pretty game with the people of Nuremberg had I cared to stir up sedition, an accusation brought against me by a lying world. Many people urged me to preach, but I replied that I was not there for that purpose, but rather to answer my enemies through the press.” °° It is not known how long Miinzer remained in Nuremberg before continuing his journey south- ward. But it could scarcely have been more than a few days.°* He did, however, leave two of his in defense of them, is scarcely open to dispute today; but that they were guilty of grave excesses is also true. Perhaps, how- ever, the chief count against them is their failure. In general the only justification of revolt, in any age, is success, and victory fled from their standards. 52 Cf. Wappler, Tduferbewegung in Thiringen, p. 12. 53 Quoted from Seidemann, Thomas Muinzer, pp. 48 et seq. 54 Enders, Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther, n'a € 44 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM associates, Pfeiffer and Hans Romer, to look after the publication of the booklet.** It was not long before the city Council learned that Pfeiffer was pushing his propaganda in the hope of gaining fol- lowers. On the 26th of October an investigation was begun.*® It had been previously ascertained that he had with him in manuscript two pamphlets which he wished to have printed. It was suspected that these might carry inflammatory material. Copies were therefore secured by the authorities and were turned over to the preacher of St. Lorenz, Osiander, for his opinion in regard to the ortho- doxy of the views therein expressed. On the same day, 29 October, Pfeiffer was expelled from the city “because he was attempting by discussion to win followers.” Since “the Council and commu- nity are well supplied with good preachers” he may ‘spend his money elsewhere.” So read the official minutes of the Council.°’ In his discussion of the pamphlets Osiander at- tacked Pfeiffer on the ground that he appealed to the Mosaic Law, which, according to the Nurem- berg theologian, everyone knew had been super- seded by Christ’s law of love. Such teaching is °° Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 38. Pfeiffer later suffered a fate similar to that of his leader. Romer lived to be a powerful factor in the introduction of the “ Anabaptist ” movement into Thuringia (see Wappler, esp. pp. 38-47). 56 Kolde, p. 11, note 4. °T Pub. in Kolde, p. 12, note 1. The concluding phrase evi- dently refers to the money he was offering for the printing of his pamphlets. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 45 “not only at variance with Scripture but is con- trary to reason also.” The Mosaic Law provides that false prophets be killed, and this Pfeiffer would do, killing as such all those who disagree with him. In the second place, he pointed out that the author opposed those preachers who hold to the true Word of God in Scripture, calling them bandiers of words and blind guides. “So they [Pfeiffer and his kind | would make Jews of us; when they will and when it is of worth for their fanaticism [rumorn] they stand upon the Mosaic Law. But where Scripture is against them, they ridicule it and point us to their spirit [inner Word] and deny that this spirit is given through the ear of faith.” They introduce murder, sedition, the overturning of rightful author- ity, and out of the spiritual realm of Christ they make an earthly kingdom that is not ruled by God’s Word but by the sword and force.” °”* 58 “ Wa aber die Schrift wider sie ist, dieselben verspotten und uns auf ihren gaist weisen, und verleugnen, das der gaist durch das gehér des glaubens geben werd.” (Kolde, p. 30.) 59 Printed by Kolde as App. II, pp. 28-30. Also printed in part by Moller in his Osiander, pp. 64 et sqq. The latter dates the document 20 October. That date Kolde has shown to be impossible, since the Council did not commence its inquiry until 26 October. Kolde does not attempt to date it. I have ven- tured 29 October as the date on which the pamphlets were handed to Osiander. In the Ratsverlasse for 29 October (Kolde 12, note 1) occur these words, “die auffgehobenen pucher be- halten bis die besichtigt werden.” Osiander in his Gutachten says, “ Es sein mir sambstag nechst verschinen zway geschriebene buchlin . . . zugeschickt.” Since 29 October fell on a Saturday it is probable the pamphlets were sent him on that day. If this be true, the reply of Osiander should be dated sometime the following week. 46 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM It has seemed worth while to summarize this document at some length because it shows so clearly the feeling of the dominant Evangelical leader in Nuremberg toward any tendency in the direction of dissent. In passing, it may be noted that he condemns Pfeiffer’s appeal to the Mosaic Law. It will not be long, however, until that same law will be invoked by the Lutherans against the sectaries. He is even more outspoken than Luther in denouncing these men as seditious. This is im- portant, for it was this fear of sedition which dominated the thought and influenced the action of the authorities in their dealings with the sectaries. The action taken against Pfeiffer was induced by two considerations of expediency.” The first of these was the growing tension born of the peasant unrest, of which mention has been made above, and which seemed to demand vigilance on the part of constituted authority; the second was the neces- sity, felt by the members of the Council, of em- ploying every possible means of keeping religious innovation within bounds. Technically, Nurem- berg had not yet gone over entirely to the Evangeli- cal faith; the Council felt constrained to maintain some form of loyalty to the Catholic Church. Com- plying with frequent complaints of Archduke Fer- dinand, brother and representative in Germany of 60 Hans Romer was included in the same decree against Pfeiffer, but was not expelled from the city. (Kolde, p. 12, note 1, and Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 309, note 3.) DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 47 Charles V, a decree had been issued, in accordance with the Recess of the first Diet of Nuremberg, ordering that Luther’s writings be suppressed. The Council apparently made no attempt to enforce this decree, but the fact that it was allowed to remain a dead letter rendered all the more necessary the suppression of propaganda carried on by the extreme radicals.°* Meanwhile measures were taken to suppress Miinzer’s booklet. On 29 October, Dominicus Schleupner, preacher at St. Sebald, was asked by the Council to read the pamphlet and report on its contents.** The Council then sought to punish the author and the publisher who put out such a work uncensored. As Miinzer had left the city, they took up the case of the printer, Herrgott, at whose press the book was printed. It was found, however, that he was absent and that the work had been done by a foreign bookseller, Mellerstadt, with the aid of four of Herrgott’s workmen. These latter were accordingly locked up in the tower and the copies of the book, in so far as possible, were destroyed. There seemed to be little disposition to push the case, however. On 2 November the prisoners were released on the promise never again to print any- thing that had not been passed upon by the authorities.*° 61 Soden, Christoph Scheurl, II, pp. 174 et seg., 201 et seq. 62 Minutes of Council. Kolde, p. Io, note 1. 63 For this discussion see Kolde, pp. 9 et seg. and the ex- cerpts from the minutes of the Council which he there publishes. 48 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM It remains to mention one other leader of the radical movement who exerted a considerable in- fluence in Nuremberg at this time — Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt.** During the early years of the Lutheran revolt he had been a friend and co-worker with Luther and he counted many friends among the Lutheran leaders at Nuremberg, with whom he seems to have achieved a considerable degree of popularity. This friendship had been more firmly cemented by the dedication of his book- let, “Von Anbetung und Ehrerbietung der Zeichen des neuen Testaments,” to his “ beloved patron ” Albrecht Diirer.°° It was, then, probably not by mere chance that, after he had gone into revolt against Luther and his system, and had in Septem- ber, 1524, been expelled from the territories of the Saxon Elector, his book defending his position got itself into the hands of the Nuremberg printer, Hieronymus Hoétzel, by whom it was published, probably in November.®* Ho6tzel testified to hav- Will, in discussing the incident, states that he has been unable to find a copy of the book. But it is enough for our good Lutheran “dass die kluge Vorsicht der niirnbergischen Obrigkeit sie untergedriicket und hiedurch einen Theil der verruchten munzerischen Absichten gliicklich vereitelt hat.” (P. 46.) Kirch- hoff has written a little monograph on Herrgott, who appears to have been himself a follower of Miinzer, entitled Johann Herrgoit, Buchfiihrer zu Niirnberg, und sein tragisches Ende, 1527. P 6¢ Andreas Bodenstein was born at Karlstadt. I follow here the general custom of calling him simply Karlstadt, 65 Kolde, p. 16. 66 The title of the book is Von dem widerchristlichen Miss- brauch des Herrn Brot und Kelch. (Barge, Karlstadt, II, pp. 240 et Seq. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 49 ing received the manuscript from a “ foreign travel- ler’ [frembden landfarer]. It is possible that this “foreign traveller” was one Martin Reinhart, a former Lutheran preacher at Jena. The relations between Karlstadt and Reinhart had previously been close,** and when the former had gone into opposition to Luther he carried the latter with him. In order to get his books printed Karlstadt set up a press at Jena and secured Reinhart’s assistance in carrying on this work. The disciple shared the fate of his master at the time of Karlstadt’s expulsion from Saxon territories.°* He seems to have come immediately to Nuremberg with his family, hoping apparently that earlier pleasant re- lations with influential citizens would gain him a friendly welcome.*® His connection with the radi- cal propaganda in Saxony was, however, well known 67 Z. K. G. 1886, pp. 283 et sqq. Article by Kolde on Karl- stadt in Ddanemark. 68 He had printed a report of the debate between Luther and Karlstadt (Jena, 21 August). It is probable that this called the attention of the authorities sharply to him. See Luther to Amsdorf, 27 October, 1524 (Enders, 5, p. 39): Orlamundae acta nequiter edidit Martinus Reinhardus Jhenensis praedicator in meam ignominiam et Carlstadii gloriam. Also his letter to Spalatin, 3 Oct. (Enders, 5, p. 32). The report is to be found Inn West 5.4). 334. 69 In March, 1524, Reinhart had published a little leafiet containing articles presented by the Bohemian Brethren at the Council of Basel in 1430. This he had dedicated to Pirkheimer, Anton Tucher, Hieronymus Ebner, and the whole Nuremberg Council. This fact was taken by Keller as proof of his theory that direct connection may be traced between the “ Anabap- tist” movement and the “Old Evangelicals.” (See his Staupitz, pp. 202 et seg.) There can be no question that the ‘“ Ana- baptists”” had much in common with the earlier heretical bodies, but the sources which make definite that connection must 50 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in Nuremberg. Immediate measures were there- fore adopted to rid the city of his presence. On 17 December the following decree was issued: “Doctor Martin Reinhart, former preacher in Jena, who was connected with the fanatical movement at Allstedt, and who for this reason was expelled from Saxony ... is here without permission from the Council. He shall, therefore, leave this city before tomorrow morning, together with his wife and chil- dren, and spend his money outside the jurisdiction of this Council.” “° If he failed to comply he would be dealt with accordingly, in what manner the reader is left to surmise. But that Reinhart had no doubt of the adequacy of the methods that would be employed is attested by the fact that nothing further is heard of his work in Nuremberg. But to return after this slight digression to Karl- stadt. On the day preceding the expulsion of Rein- hart the Council ordered that all copies of Karl- stadt’s book should be secured, and that it should be ascertained by whom it had been printed. When be read with much reserve. (Cf. Wappler, Tauferbewegung in Thiiringen, p. 2, and also Will, pp. 49 et seq.) The title of the pamphlet is of some interest: “ Antzeygung wie die gefallene Christenheit widerbracht miig werden in jren ersten standt in welchem sie von Christo und seynen Aposteln erstlich gepflantzt und auffgebawet ist. Vor hundert jaren beschrieben und yetzt allererst gefunden und durch den Druck an tag geben.” 1524. 70 Kolde, p. 18, note 1. The decree here quoted connects Reinhart with the propaganda at Allstedt. This is very evidently an error on the part of the Nurembergers. So far as can be learned he had no direct connection with Miinzer’s work. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 51 it was found that Hotzel had printed the pamphlet, he was at once arrested. It was further decreed that all books of Karlstadt and Miinzer should be confiscated and Hotzel was ordered to tell whence he secured the manuscript. Booksellers were for- bidden to offer for sale any books except such as should have been favorably passed upon by the Council.” Such were the measures employed by the authori- ties in defense of their faith. Agitators were quickly expelled; by a strict censorship of the press a de- termined effort was made to prevent their doctrines from gaining a foot-hold among the people. Like measures were taken by Margrave Casimir of Brandenburg-Ansbach, whose territories nearly sur- rounded those of Nuremberg. On 5 December, 1524, he issued a mandate forbidding the publication of any works by either Karlstadt or Miinzer, or those of any other sect.” In January of the follow- ing year he followed this by a decree of banishment against Karlstadt, who had been hovering about Rothenburg on the Tauber."* Early in March a little pamphlet got itself into print at Rothenburg in which the writer complains bitterly of the ac- tion taken by the authorities, deploring especially the attitude of the preachers at Nuremberg. These, he believes, would themselves carry the wood to 71 Kolde, p. 17, note tr. 72 Barge, II, p. 243. 73 Enders, Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther, pp. 12 éb seq. 52 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM burn any one who erred.’* Between the preachers and the civil authorities life was made difficult for the free lances of religious thought in and about Nuremberg. It was impossible, however, to crush out the radical propaganda. The seed sown by these wan- derers — some merely groping toward a more in- dividualistic point of view, some already in open revolt — had fallen on rich soil. It sprouted, grew, and during the next few years was to produce a harvest. Gradually there was formed in Nurem- berg a group who discussed religious questions to- gether and who were unable to find themselves in complete agreement with the prevailing doctrines.” How large this group was we have no means of knowing, nor is it safe to assume that the men com- prising it recognized any particular bond of unity.”® But that there was a considerable number who found themselves at variance with the orthodox 74 Tbid., p. 51. The pamphlet in question was written by Valentine Ickelschamer and is entitled, ‘“ Clag etlicher briider: an alle christen von der grossen ungerechtickeyt und Tirannei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo von Luther zu Wittenbergk geschicht.” (Pub. by Enders, op. cit.) 75 See, for example, Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler” von WNiirnberg, ed. by Kolde, PP. 236, 244, 246. 76 Keller (in Staupitz, ch. 8) discovers a definite “ brother- hood,” adducing in proof the fact that Denck at his trial in January, 1525, spoke of the gefangene Bruder and also circulated his written statement at the trial among the people, or rather among a certain group. But Keller, in my judgment, goes too far. Such a theory rests on the belief that this group of radi- cals was a direct lineal descendant from the “ Old Evangelicals.” DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 53 Evangelical views there can be little doubt. Some of them had met with Reinhart,’ were reading and distributing Karlstadt’s and Miinzer’s works,’* and were carrying on propaganda both in the city and throughout the countryside."” There were among them those in whom revolt confined itself to reli- gious questions alone, others mingled political and social ideas of a radical nature as well.*° Though there was no one set of principles to which all sub- scribed, there seems to have been a distinct com- munity of interest. And among them the one who took the leading place and who is of most interest to us is Hans Denck. It is Denck’s figure and the part that he played as one of the pioneers and leaders in the sectarian movement as a whole, that lends peculiar interest to the study of just this period in the development of the radical revolt in Nuremberg. Whence he drew his peculiar ideas it is difficult to determine. His biographer finds many traces of German mysti- cism — of the works of Tauler, of the Theologia Germanica and the Imitation of Christ. These works of earlier mystics were just at this time be- ing put out in printed editions,” and it is probable 7™7 Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen Maler” von Niirnberg, p. 246 and note 2. 78 Ibid., p. 246. TTD) 237. ov 10id. D0. 245, 250. 81 Keller, Ein Apostel der Widertaufer, pp. 30-32. 82 The influence of the printing press, making available books in relatively cheap editions and in greatly increased numbers, can hardly be overstated. 54 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM that Denck had become familiar with them as a proof reader at Basel.** But he was not alone in his debt to the earlier German mystics. Luther testified in warmest terms to the worth of the Theologia Germanica and accords it a high place in the moulding of his thought.** Munzer too had drawn much inspiration from the mystics.*° The attempt, in fact, to conceive religion as a personal and immediate relationship with God is common to all ages. If there be any distinguishing feature in Denck’s thought it lies perhaps in the fact that he was able to see a little deeper than his fellows into the essential meaning of this relationship. Earlier in the chapter it was pointed out that there is no indication that Denck had displayed radical tendencies before coming to Nuremberg. Pirkheimer, who had been instrumental in securing him as a teacher in 1523, complained bitterly to (Ecolampadius that his pupil had proved to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and blamed his old friend for ever having recommended such a man to them. This called forth from Ccolampadius a strong dis- claimer of any knowledge of radical tendencies in Denck. He warmly denied also the veiled hint that Denck had imbibed some of his heretical notions from him. “If Denck,” he wrote, “has drunk 83 Hegler, Franck’s Paraphrase of the Theologia Germanica, pp. 4. eb seq. 84 See the Vorrede to his edition of the Theologia Germanica, DLA AS a Walp BB Mic ic dy fe 85 Seidemann, p. 55. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 55 poison it is not from me. I don’t know that I ever discussed religious questions with him to any ex- tent. He heard some lectures on Isaiah, but the reader may judge for himself what their nature was. .. . [Concerning the Eucharist] I have never spoken with him.” *° It must have been in Nuremberg that he first openly developed radical tendencies. His connec- tion with the leaders of opposition who from time to time visited the city has already been indicated. It seems clear that these outside impulses came much more largely from the north than from the south. With the social teachings of the northern radicals he had little in common, but with their religious views he was in much closer accord. Kolde has attributed much significance to .a sermon preached in January of 1524 by Simon Haferitz, a pastor at Allstedt. This sermon later appeared in pamphlet form. It cannot be proved that Denck ever read it, but the ideas which he voiced at his trial about one year later show a striking similarity to the ideas there put forth, and it is quite possible that he had, in some way, become familiar with its contents. Hiaferitz attacks boldly the belief in the letter of Scripture. A man must experience the 86 (colampadius to Pirkheimer, 25 Apr., 1525. (Op. Purk., p. 306.) See also a letter of Gcolampadius to Pirkheimer, Apr., 1525 (written before the above and before Pirkheimer’s accus- ing letter had reached him) in which he expresses great sur- prise and concern regarding the report that had come to him of Denck’s heresy. Pub. in Herzog, Leben Ckolampads. II, De.374, 56 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM power of God working in and through him, must hear the living Word spoken to him directly. It is absurd to tell a man to believe what the Book tells him, as a sure means of salvation. One must have the Holy Spirit working in him as a regenerating force to purify his life. ‘It is senseless foolery to assert that pope, bishop, emperor, prince or lord, should order or forbid what the people are to believe or not to believe. A godless, reprobate knave can- not have faith, even though he had the whole ocean poured over him, and though he used up all the consecrated oil with which the whole world is anointed. . . . The holy Christian faith does not enter the heart till a man bids farewell to all his passions — both of the flesh and of the spirit, yes, even the cravings for the gifts of God, such as the Holy Scriptures, good words and works.” * A complete denial of the efficacy of mere form and ritual in religion, an insistence upon earnest- ness and morality, emphasis upon the personal re- lationship of the believer to God, assertion of the responsibility of each individual to choose for him- self — these are the characteristic arguments of the sermon. Infant baptism avails not, “ for how can an irresponsible child, who has neither wits, reason, 87 Kolde, pp. 23 et seg. Hiaferitz had been a Carmelite monk; later, during the year 1522, he had studied at Witten- berg. He came to Allstedt as pastor of the Wibertskirche, prob- ably before Miinzer’s arrival there. After weathering safely the peasants’ revolt, he appears to have returned to the orthodox Lutheran faith. DISSENT IN NUREMBERG 57 nor understanding to know what he lacks, accept the Christian faith.” The notion of the “ inner Word” is clearly brought out.** A tendency to spiritualize religion, to get away from organization, ceremony, and ritual, is also apparent. This marks the direction of Denck’s thought during the next few years. But he was to develop these ideas con- siderably further before his death.*° To these external influences — the study of the mystics and the radical propaganda— must be added in Denck’s case the strong personal equation. He had been trained in the school of humanism and had there learned to trust his own reason. In Nuremberg he saw religious leaders quarreling among themselves, but all none the less appealing to the Bible as authority. To him Scripture seemed impossible of correct interpretation unless one had some guide that would assist in finding the true meaning. He discarded the interpretation of au- thority and sought a more personal guide. This he found in the Holy Spirit — the “ inner Word ” by which God communicates directly with the hu- man heart. By its help the written Word is made clear. Much the same idea may be found in Luther’s 88 [bid., pp. 23, 27. Kolde calls this the first clear voicing of the fundamental tenets of ‘ Anabaptism.” 89 This is evident from his letter of Oct., 1527, to Gicolam- padius, to which reference has already been made. In this he insists that he cares not how one worships; form and ritual count for nothing. He belongs simply to the brotherhood of the followers of Christ. (Pub. by Keller in Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, pp. 251 et sqq.) 58 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM early utterances, but Luther found himself under the necessity of greatly limiting his theory to meet the needs of a practical system. Denck had no system to uphold; his was a message for the in- dividual, and the keynote of that message was freedom.*° ; | 9° Cf. Jones, Spiritual Reformers, p. 22. CHAPTER III THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY From the discussion in the preceding chapter it would appear that the presence of Denck, during the first critical years in the growth of dissent from Lutheran orthodoxy, gave special significance to the religious situation in Nuremberg. A further reason for its claim to our attention is to be found in the fact that here, as early as 1525, the Council was brought face to face with the problem of concert- ing some definite proposals for action to be taken in regard to these anarchists in religion. Nurem- berg was one of the first cities to embrace the Evangelical faith. For a considerable period prior to March, 1525, the Council was engaged in form- ing plans for the final break with the Catholic hierarchy and for the abolition of Catholic rites. It was inclined to look sharply at any movement which would tend to discredit the new faith. The part which Miinzer and his followers were playing in the peasant risings of 1524 and 1525 must greatly have increased the uneasiness in the city, and strengthened the desire to quench any spark of revo- lutionary doctrine before it should break into flame. Social and religious unrest was growing all over Germany. Men everywhere were putting forth fan- 59 60 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM tastic and impossible notions, and were appealing to Scripture in support of them.t Such propaganda tended to cast discredit upon the Evangelical move- ment as a whole, and Lutherans had not as yet any organization with which to meet the growing danger. According to the then prevailing custom there had been nothing unusual or revolutionary in the action of the Nuremberg authorities in the case of the foreign agitators, who were expelled and the sale of whose books was forbidden. They had, by swift and decisive action, guarded against possible sedition and protected the citizens from foreign propaganda. Such action was not a subject of es- pecial comment, as it was considered one of the proper and normal functions of a state. But how to deal with its own citizens who had embraced radical views was another matter; and this more difficult problem now presented itself. Under the old laws, both secular and ecclesiastical, heresy — and the radical movement would have been con- sidered such — had its swift and sure punishment. Heretics were tried in ecclesiastical courts and, if they proved stubborn, turned over to the secular arm for punishment. The Council at Nuremberg, however, now recognized no ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion in its territories; it had connived with the preachers in their refusal to obey the Bishop of 1 Note for instance the letter of Urbanus Rhegius to Am- brosius Blaurer in Briefwechsel der Briider Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, ed. by T. Schiess, Vol. I, no. 66. Mite CLASH WITH AUTHORITY. | 61 Bamberg when he attempted to exercise his juris- dictional function.2, The whole of Luther’s teach- ing, since the nailing up of the theses, had been to the effect that the civil arm must not be employed in dealing with heresy. During the past summer, in reply to a letter of Duke John Frederick of Saxony, he had written, “‘ There must be sects,” and had advised that no measures be taken against them by the civil power.* Lutheranism had no theory or machinery at hand which could be employed in such a case. With ecclesiastical sanctions at an end, the question now to be settled was whether the civil authority —the state—should assume full jurisdiction, or whether false doctrine should be left for the clergy to handle through teaching and preaching. At Nuremberg, during the months from October, 1524, to January, 1525, the Council was forced to at least a partial solution of that problem. The first member of their own community with whom the authorities had to deal was one Hans Greiffenberger, a painter, who employed spare mo- 2 Documents in Strobel, Miscellaneen, Bk. III. Pt. II. See esp. p. 59, art. 14 of questions asked by the Bishop of Bamberg of the Provosts of St. Sebald and St. Lorenz, and the Prior of the Augustinians, 12 Sept., 1524. “Item ob sie sich erkennen untter des Bischoffs jurisdiction zu seyn. Antwort: Wir haben keyn herrn, dann Gott alleyn. Aber umb des willen seyn wir aller creatur interworffen, also dem nach das uns auch entgegen dem wort Gottes wirt oder wider unser gewissen.” 8 Yon dem aufruhrischen Geist, July 1524, W. A., 15. Luther’s thought in this field will be dealt with at some length in the following chapter. 62 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ments writing religious tracts. Of his life almost nothing is known, but of his writings no less than seven pamphlets, written during the years 1523 and 1524, are still extant. The contents of these pamphlets show that the writer was in accord with the main tenets of the Lutheran faith. In some he takes his stand definitely on the side of Luther, basing his argument on the latter’s Freedom of a Christian Man; in regard to the others scholarly opinion is divided, though the weight of evidence seems to indicate that little if anything can be found in them contradictory to Luther’s viewpoint.* Though his pamphlets offer no definite clue to any radical principles, the result was to show that he had somewhere imbibed unorthodox notions regard- ing the Eucharist. The most probable source from which to trace this new influence is Karlstadt’s pamphlet, mentioned in the previous chapter, the teachings of which Reinhart was busying himself in propagating. 4 I have been able to examine none of these pamphlets my- self. A list of them is given in Kolde, pp. 12-24. Will, Gelehrten Lexicon I, p. 570 et seq., gives a slightly different catalogue containing one book not listed in Kolde. Will says of Greiffenberger, “He is worthy of a more careful treatment than can be given here because of lack of material. He is one of the first who in Nuremberg maintained the truth of the Evangelical position.” Keller in his Stawpitz (p. 231 et seq.) sees in his pamphlet, “ Ob das evangelium seine Kraft von der Kirche habe,” a voicing of the position of the “ Evangelical” groups against Luther. Moller (Oszander, p. 66) holds that in his “ Ein kurtzer begrif von gutten werken ” he attacks the Lutheran idea of the Eucharist; but Kolde does not so read the pamphlet (p. 15, note 1). THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY (63 With the Council he came into collision because of some caricatures drawn by him and directed against the Pope. As one of the chief counts in the charge against him was irregularity in his belief concerning the Eucharist, it seems highly probable that these caricatures had satirical verses appended in which he made some reference to this sacrament.” However that may be, the minutes of the Council show that he was taken to task because of the cari- catures and because, as they alleged, he was entic- ing people into a new sect.° A written reply to this charge was required from him. When this was received it was turned over to Osiander for his judgment and advice regarding the proper action to be pursued. The reply of Osiander, handed to the Council some time early in November, merits careful atten- tion.’ Osiander’s advice had already been sought by the Council regarding the two pamphlets which Pfeiffer had been scattering about the city. In that instance he was appealed to as an expert to examine the pamphlets and report on the character of their contents. The Council merely sought advice, which he gave. In the case of Greiffenberger, however, he went further. He was asked not only to pro- nounce upon the orthodoxy of the painter’s reply Mer ROlde, “pees, 6 This second count against Greiffenberger is interesting in that it seems to imply the presence of a definite group of radicals. 7 This appears in full as App. II in Kolde, p. 30 et seg. 64 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to the charge brought against him, but he was also invited to suggest, or at all events did suggest, a policy to be pursued by the Council in dealing with the case. It is one thing to render an expert opin- ion; it is quite another to point out a mode of procedure. It marks the beginning of the union of civil and religious authority for the suppression of heterodoxy in Evangelical Nuremberg. The lat- ter advises, the former acts on that advice. That Osiander was inclined to be lenient with the accused appears in his reply. He affirms that he finds in the statement of Greiffenberger nothing to which exception could be taken, “‘ except where he says that the holy sacrament of the altar is simply bread and wine, not flesh and blood.” All else therein is written in a perfectly Christian spirit. He professes himself surprised that Greiffenberger could thus have been led astray. Acting upon the suggestion of a friend he discussed the matter with him and found him to be in serious error. But in so far as this is simply a matter of personal belief it~ ‘is to be opposed by God’s Word alone.”” However, since the painter has openly expressed his views and has given others cause for doubt, careful cognizance must be taken of the matter for the sake of the community, provided he refuses correction. To- gether they have carefully gone over the whole mat- ter; the true belief has been expounded to him from Scripture; his errors have been pointed out; he has confessed his errors, and has given assurance that THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 65 he will from now on cling to the true faith and will give no one else cause to deviate therefrom. Now, concluded Osiander, since it is necessary to consider not alone the future, but even more the present possibility of others falling into like error, it seems to me better to accept his promise of cor- rection — provided there are no other counts against him. For one who has erred, but has truly re- pented, is of more value to us as an example of such error than ten who might cling to their fault and be punished by the authorities. Therefore it seems best to me that he should be dealt with in all kindliness. It would have been well had Osiander remained true to this spirit of forbearance. Especially to be noted in this opinion is his argument that. wrong be- lief is not in itself a matter over which the civil au- thorities have any jurisdiction. In this he was one with Luther; he held that God’s Word must con- tend in this field. But the propagation of error must not be tolerated. In case one proved a source of contamination to the community some appro- priate action should be forthcoming. What that action should be we are not informed, but that the civil power might in such cases proceed to punish- ment seems never to have been doubted. (he question of when and how far it might act was merely a matter of expediency.* 8 Upon what grounds the civil power would act we are left to conjecture. I suspect, however, that there was an ill-defined 66 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM The Council accepted the advice of the preacher, trusting apparently in the thorough character of Greiffenberger’s conversion. Though considered worthy of punishment he was allowed to go free, the Council contenting itself with a warning. He was told that his actions would be watched; that he was to desist from painting any more carica- tures; that he must avoid any return to the group through whom he had fallen into error; and, finally, that he was to make full retraction.° On the same day, 11 November, that his case was disposed of, the Council was considering that of a certain Marx von Weiblingen. Marx kept a public house, and word had come to the authori- ties that among his guests there had been loose talking concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. He was ordered to give an account of the proceedings at his tavern and to give the names of the guests there present.'° No further action was taken, however. The incident simply serves to in- dicate the continued agitation due to this radical element. sense that the propagation of error constituted sedition. Luther, however, only a few weeks before had stated clearly that this was not sedition and that the civil power was not competent to take action in such matters. (See letter to John Frederick of Saxony, W. A., 15, pp. 210-221.) But Luther himself had already been constrained to modify his views somewhat in the case of Karlstadt. That the theory here voiced is, however, more drastic than Luther’s at this period there can, I think, be no question. ® Minutes of Council, 11 November. In Kolde, p. 15, note ee 10 Kolde, p. 16, note 2. THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 67 When Osiander made his report to the Council regarding Greiffenberger, he at the same time handed it a “short account of the causes which may have led the common, untutored man to con- sider the holy sacrament of the altar bread and wine only, and not the flesh and blood of Christ; together with a short discussion of the passages of Scripture against which such errors beat and break themselves in vain.” ** By this means he hoped to strengthen the faith of any who might be wavering on the brink of error. But such efforts were ren- dered nugatory by active propaganda from outside and the increasing fondness exhibited by some mem- bers of the community for questioning accepted doc- trines. Scarcely a day passed without the Council having to do with some question concerning irreg- ularity in religious belief.** Continual vigilance was required. On 28 December Erasmus Wisperger, a clerk, was taken into custody for reading aloud in the market-place from one of Karlstadt’s pamphlets, despite the decree of the Council forbidding the possession of his books.** ‘Three days later Hans Platner, an otherwise unknown painter, together with several other persons, was accused of some loose talking in regard to the Eucharist.” 11 Moller, Andreas Osiander; Leben und ausgewahlte Schrif- ten, p. 67) eb sqq. 12 Kolde, p. 12. 13 Minutes of the Council, 28 Dec. (Kolde, p. 18 et seq. and note 1, p. 19.) To Dominicus Schleupner was given the task of instructing him in the true faith. 14 Minutes of the Council, 31 Dec., “ungeschickte red von sacrament geredt lassen annemen.” (Kolde, p. 19, note 1.) 68 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM All this came suddenly to a head early in the fol- lowing month. It was then brought to the attention of the authorities that two painters had been guilty of voicing extreme views regarding the nature of the Eucharist. These two men were the brothers Bartel and Sebald Behaim, of the school of Albrecht Diirer.° On the 1oth January the Council held a 15 One is struck by the fact that the majority of those whose radicalism was brought to the attention of the Council at this time were painters. Kolde (p. 19) explains this on the ground that the introduction of the Evangelical faith into Nuremberg had greatly injured their profession inasmuch as the sale of saints’ pictures and the like fell off immensely. This threw them into opposition to all religion. Keller explains it in a manner entirely different. According to his view Direr, along with a number of other leading men of Nuremberg, if not whole- heartedly a Waldensian, had, at least, strong leanings in that direction. The Behaim brothers were pupils of his and drew much of their inspiration, both artistic and religious, from him. The question is interesting but is very much in the air, and is not sufficiently essential for our present purpose to justify its discussion here. For the differing points of view of Keller and the Lutheran theologians championed by Kolde, see especially Keller’s Johann von Staupitz (chap. 8), Die Waldenser und die Bibeliibersetzungen, and Grundfragen der Reformationsgeschichte: eine Auseinandersetzung mit litterarischen Gegnern; Kolde’s Johann von Staupitz ein Waldenser und Wiedertaufer in Z. K. G. VII, p. 426 et sqq. Biographers of the various leaders — Karlstadt, Miéiinzer, Denck, et al.— make a point, properly enough, of seeking to trace the influence of their respective subjects upon the radical movement as a whole. For two reasons no such attempt is made here. In the first place, the important thing for our study is to discover the relations between the sectaries, of what- ever complexion, and the Evangelical authorities; and in the second place, any attempt to differentiate, further than has already been done, between various lines of thought would necessarily proceed from the investigation of all available source material, much of which remains still hidden in the archives of central Europe. THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 69 preliminary examination of these men. At this hear- ing another painter, Georg Pentz, and the rector of St. Sebald, were indicated as having been in the groups where the Behaim brothers had expressed their doubts [Mangel] in regard to certain points of doctrine.*® The odium of being the inspirer and leader of this group seemed to attach itself to Denck. He was, therefore, immediately taken into custody. His preliminary hearing proved unsatisfactory.*’ He was thereupon required to put into writing his belief regarding various points of Christian doc- trine, and this document was then turned over to a group of five preachers for their opinion upon the points there set forth.** 16 The documents are given in Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler” von Nurnberg, pp. 244 et sqq. But since they are undated it is impossible to deter- mine with complete accuracy just when the hearing was held at which Denck was implicated. (Cf. ibid., p. 243.) In the minutes of the Council for 12 Jan., however, three painters (Behaim brothers and Pentz) are mentioned (ibid., p. 230). It seems probable, therefore, that the hearing of 10 Jan. was the one at which Denck and Pentz were implicated. 17 Ibid., pp. 237, 243. 18 Die syben artickel, mir fiirgehalten sind dise: was ich von der schrift, siind, gerechtigkeyt gottes, gesetz, evangeli, tauff, und nachtmal halte. (Denck to Council of Augsburg, 1526. In Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, p. 250.) Denck here says that Osiander was to reply to this discussion of his on these points. But they are identical with the points mentioned in the Gutachten of the five preachers. (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei Gottlosen Maler,’ p. 237 et sqq.) Keller inclines to connect Denck’s trial with an earlier disagreement with Osiander concerning the Eucharist, and Denck’s letter to the Council of Augsburg seems to bear out this contention. 7O RELIGIOUS FREEDOM This confession of faith — for such it amounted to — indicates how fluid were Denck’s ideas at this time. In some places it is vague and obscure al- most to the point of being unintelligible. Through the whole of it there runs a mystical strain. Most prominently expressed is the belief in the imme- diacy of the relationship between the individual and his God, and the uselessness of forms and sacra- ments as a means of attaining to a state of grace. It is worth while to consider this statement with some care as it shows clearly with what manner of revolt the magistracy was called upon to deal. A paraphrase, therefore, of the main points will not be out of place. I find, he writes, that I am innately a wretched person, subject to every illness of body and soul. But I feel also within me something which power- “Ich bin bey anderhalb jaren daselb schulmeister gewesen und hinden nach mit Osiander, daselbst prediger, ettlicher wort halben vom sacrament sonderlich zwispennig worden und darauff fir einen E. rat gefordert und erschinen zu verantworten... .” Keller assumes that it was at the instance of Osiander that Denck was cited before the Council in December. (Op. cit., p. 37, and Reformation und Ketzerschulen, p. 39.) The docu- ments as Kolde has edited them tell no such story. Osiander does not appear as the accuser of Denck nor is there any in- dication that the latter was apprehended before 1o Jan., at the earliest. Just why he should write as he did to the Council at Augsburg it is difficult to determine. It is probable, how- ever, that he never knew the true reason for his arrest, and simply attributed it to his quarrel with Osiander. That he would attempt to make the charge against him seem minor, inasmuch as he was urging that he be allowed to settle in Augsburg, is also probable. (Cf. Kolde, p. 50, note 2.) DMEACLAS Hr WET AU DOR DT Y y i fully opposes this innate wretchedness and shows me the way to life and blessedness to which it seems as impossible for my spirit to rise as it seems impossible for my body to rise to the visible heavens. It is said that by faith one may attain life. That may be, but how comes one to that faith? If it is innate then must “ life” also be in- nate, but that cannot be. From childhood I learned the faith’? from my parents by word of mouth, 19 This probably means the Credo of the Catholic faith, or at least the traditional beliefs which he had imbibed as a child. Kolde (Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler, p. 53) comments thus on the passage: “Er habe von Kindheit an von seinen Eltern “den Glauben” gelernt und deutlich iden- tifiziert er in romischer Weise das Credo oder das Fiirwahrhalten desselben mit dem von ihm bekamften aber vollig unverstandenen evangelischen Glaubensbegriff.” On this cf. also Keller, Staupitz, p. 233, note, where is suggested a different interpretation. The whole of this important passage is obscure. It reads as follows: Ich Johann Dengk bekenn das ich in der warhayt befinde, fiil and spiir, das ich angeborner weysz ein armutseliger mensch bin, nemlich der aller kranckheyt leybs und der seelen under- worffen ist. Spiir aber doch darneben auch ettwas in mir, das mir meinem angebornen muttwillen krefftig widerstand thut, und zaygt mir an ain leben oder seligkait dahin es mein seel so unmiiglich gedunkt zu kommen, als es meinen leyb unmiuglich gedunckt in den sichtigen himel zu steygen. Man sagt, durch den glauben kumme man zu dem leben. Lass ich sein. Wer gibt mir aber den glauben? Ist er mir angeborn, so miisst ich doch das leben von angeborner weysz haben, das ist nit. Ich hab von kindheyt auff von meinen eltern den glauben gelernt im mund umbgezogen, darnach auch durch menschliche bucher gelesen und noch vil mehr mich eins glaubens gerimbt, aber in der warhayt das gegentayl so mir von natur angeborn ist, nye recht betracht, wie wol es mir zu vil malen fur geworf- fen ist. 72 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM later read books that discussed it, and even more I boasted thereof. But in truth, though it had often troubled me, I had never rightly considered the opposite which is inborn in me. This innate wretch- edness shows me clearly that it was a false faith to which I clung. ~ For indeed, the more I strive, the more I am gripped by this inborn sickness or wretchedness. I would gladly have faith, a faith that is life, but since such a faith does not seem to be a part of my being, I cannot deceive myself or others. In truth, should I say today that I have faith, to- morrow I might prove myself false — and yet not I but the truth [die warhayt] which I experience within me. This voice within me I know to be the truth; therefore, if God wills, I shall obey it and will permit no one to take it from me. Disen falschen glauben strafft gewissz vorgemelte angeborne armutseligkayt. Damn ich sihe in der warheytt, das alle die weyl dise angeborne kranckhayt oder armutseligkayt nicht im grund abnymbt, ye mer ich mich butz und mutz, ye mer sy von notten zunymbt. Ich wollt gern das ich glauben, das ist leben hette. Aber dieweyl sichs nit griindtlich in mir erfindet, mag ich weder mich noch ander leut betriegen. Ja wann ich heut saget, ich glaube, so m6cht ich mich morgen doch selbs lig straffen, aber nit ich, sonder die warhayt, so ich in mir zum teyl empfinde. Dises weysz ich bey mir gewisz, das es die warhayt ist, darumb will ich im ob gott will zu héren, was es mir sagen wolle, und wer es mir nemen will, dem will ich nit gestatten. (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler,” pp. 231 et seq.) - THE CLASH WITH AUTHORITY 73 When I attempt to interpret Scripture by my own powers, I can understand nothing. Of myself I cannot believe Scripture. But this power within me that drives me without my will or assistance, that it is which forces me to read Scripture as a wit- ness of the truth.”° And as I read it I find therein witness to the fact that the power that thus drives me is Christ, to whom Scripture bears testimony as the son of the All-Highest. Therefore I hold with Peter that Scripture is a light that shines through the darkness. But that darkness will not be en- tirely dispelled until the everlasting light shines forth, when the sun of Christ’s righteousness ap- pears and lightens our hearts, then will the dark- ness of unbelief be driven away. But such light is not yet in me. Since such darkness is still in me, how can I of myself understand Scripture? and, aecinrel how can I from Scripture attain to faith? One must await the revelation from God. Where a man will not await such revelation, but takes to himself work which appertains to the spirit of God and Christ, he makes of the secrets of God an abomination before Him, and makes of the grace of God mere lewdness, as can be learned from the Epistle of Jude and from II Peter 2. It is through this that so many sects have arisen since the apostles, which 20 Von natur kan ich ye der schrifft nit glauben. Aber das in mir, nit das mein, (sag ich) sonder das mich treybt, on allen meinen willen und zuthun, das treybt mich die schrifft zu lesen umb zeugknusz willen. (Jbid., p. 232.) 74 : RELIGIOUS FREEDOM have all armed themselves with misunderstood texts of Scripture, because they have trusted to their own presumption, and have of themselves assumed a false faith before they have received true faith from God. Therefore, said Peter, Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation, but belongs to the Holy Ghost who was also the first to give it. “Of this interpretation of the Holy Spirit each individual must first make sure by himself. When he does not do this, it is false and of no account. What is false and worthless can be refuted by other texts from Scripture.” ** This is the fundamental basis of Denck’s belief. Instead of the man by nature wholly evil, he feels within him an impulse struggling toward goodness and light. ‘This must be aided by the spirit of Christ working through the individual soul and compelling it toward the right. This is the “ inner Word,” so-called, and by its aid Scripture is to be understood. This thought is not so radically dif- ferent from Luther’s early belief in the Word of God in Scripture. But while Luther was gradually being driven to seek some form of external author- ity Denck, on the other hand, had advanced to the thought of a subjective norm; the spirit of Christ which made possible the correct understanding of Scripture was within the individual. Luther, too, 21 Dieser auszlegung des geysts musz ein yeglicher zu vor bey ym selbs gewissz sein, wo nit, so ists falsch und _ nichts. was falsch und nichts ist, kan man mit anderm gezeugknusz der schrift niderlegen. (bid., p. 233.) Pi A bAS Haw it WAT DH OR TTY 75 had said that through the aid of the Holy Ghost the individual should read and interpret the Scrip- tures for himself. That such a theory would lead to varying interpretations he had not foreseen. But what he claimed for himself another was sure to demand, with the inevitable result that unanimity in belief would be shattered. There was one point, however, at which Denck’s thought was opposed to Luther’s, and this the Nuremberg theologians were not slow to seize upon. Denck felt within himself an impulse toward good- ness. Man is not therefore by nature wholly evil and incapable of any good thing. More than Luther he stressed the responsibility of the indi- vidual. It is incumbent upon him to give ear to the inner voice and to seek to become right with God, and to him God may speak directly without the mediation of a priesthood or even of a book. _ Upon this foundation Denck built his conception of sin, God’s righteousness [Gerechtigkeit Gottes], the law, the gospel — the special points upon which he was interrogated by the preachers.” The time allowed him did not permit a discussion of bap- tism and the Eucharist.” As these were two of the principal points in question, the Council gave him more time in which to complete his statement. His belief concerning baptism clearly shadows the later “‘ Anabaptist” viewpoint. It is only as the outward sign of a spirit right with God that bap- . 22 Ibid., p. 233 et seq. 2ee TDi Daves ts 76 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM tism has any meaning or efficacy. The belief of the individual must precede the act; he who be- lieves and is baptized, he is made blessed. To the man who is essentially unclean in body and soul, outward washing avails nothing; the cleans- ing process must proceed from within. The al- mighty Word of God must find lodgment in the heart of man. The baptism of Christ is of the spirit, a consummation of His work, the sign of a conscience at peace with God. Outward baptism is .not essential for salvation, but the baptism of the spirit is essential. “‘ Therefore it stands written, he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved ” (Mk. 16:16).* Nor is his belief concerning the nature of the sacrament of the altar any less revo- lutionary. To partake of the Eucharist with profit one must first become one with Christ. It is a very wholesome reuniting with Christ if partaken of by a believer. Faith, however, is necessary. It must be partaken of in both kinds, and is thus the outward expression of inner love and faith. One can live without the “ outward bread ” through the power of God, as did Moses on Sinai and Christ in the Wilderness, but without the “ inner bread ” can no one live, for by faith live the righteous. ‘Who believes not, lives not.” *° | All this, concludes Denck, I confess before God invisible, upon whom I cast myself without reserve. On 16 January this confession of faith was turned “a0 Did: he 2sA ner sede 20e 1010.5) Dp. 235 cet seu: Dade CA oe WD Re eAtUE EO RE TY ris over to the preachers for their judgment.”® Their answer was handed to the Council a few days later.2” This document is as interesting as is the statement which called it forth. While the latter indicates the ideas that the defenders of the Lutheran faith considered it necessary to suppress, the former serves as a key to the developing Evan- gelical policy of repression. In it one finds none of the moderation shown by Osiander in the case of Greiffenberger a few months previously. In their view matters have now gone too far. It is no time to discuss leniency when the faith that one has struggled to establish is endangered and the good name of one’s city as well as the whole Evangelical cause is being brought into disrepute by hare- brained fanatics.” | After rehearsing how Denck had been spreading error among the people, had been examined orally by the preachers without satisfactory results, and had then been required to answer in writing ques- tions regarding his faith, they proceeded to take sharp exception to this written reply. He had not given a straightforward answer to the questions pro- pounded to him, but had exerted himself to render Seri ids) D237 ana note. I. 27 Probably 20 Jan., not 11 Jan., as in Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertéufer, p. 39. Cf. Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und “drei gottlosen Maler,’ p. 237 and note 2. The document is there printed, pp. 237-242. 28 Note the statement of the theologians, found in Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler,” p. 248. 78 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM his thought abstract, “for the written statement is not so pointed as his speech”’ [dann die schrifft redet nicht so spitzig als er thut]. The way in which he has colored his ideas makes it evident that an alien spirit impels him, and not at all the spirit of Christ which has worked through all the proph- ets and apostles in a far different manner. It is possible to construe his written reply so as to make it seem orthodox and in such wise that his words might be tolerated, but we know well the wiles of Satan, who thus seeks to nullify the power of God.” Where one holds partly to Scripture as expounded by the Holy Ghost and partly to his own vague notions, the inevitable outcome is division, argu- ment, and mutual distrust. Thus it was that the tower of Babel could not be built after people be- gan to talk in different tongues. Even so we can- not rightly interpret the Holy Gospel if we do not speak in the same terms — terms which we must learn from the Holy Spirit through Scripture. 29 IT cannot wholly agree. with Keller (Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, p. 40) when he says that the preachers are here saying that Denck might be tolerated were it not for the neces- sity of maintaining unity in the Lutheran Church. There is no question that the maintenance of unity was the compelling motive with them, but that they further condemned his teach- ing as unchristian and therefore not to be tolerated, is shown by the preceding sentence. ‘Also das es billich einem yeden Rechten Christen umb der ursach willen solt argwonig sein, dann das sein red nicht die art sey, die der heilig gaist. In der schrifft allenthalben furet, ist so klar unnd offenbar, das wir unns gentzlich versehen, er selbs konns und werds nicht laugnen.” (Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen Maler,” p. 237. Cf. also ‘Kolde, p. 60, note.) Ra VST AS HOW TT HA Uris EO RIT Y 79 Here it will be noted the theologians took issue with Denck’s notion of the “inner Word.” There is but one way to interpret Scripture. He should have recognized the absolute authority of the Bible. There is no difficulty in understanding Scripture if one honestly wishes to comprehend its meaning. Only when one has no desire to follow the pre- cepts therein found does one experience difficulty in interpretation. God is the master; the Bible or sermon, the tool; as little as the master can accom- plish anything without the tool, will God give faith to one who despises Scripture or preaching. ‘Thus would the good Lutheran divines dispose of Denck’s appeal to a subjective norm, an “ inner Word.” With this prelude the theologians then launched a specific attack against Denck who held that Scrip- ture simply bears testimony to the truth of God, which he felt to be immediately within him. Were this the spirit of Christ within him, then he must have faith. But he admitted that he has not at- tained faith. That something within him, then, must be the devil. | In his answers to the specific questions put to him regarding law, sin, the gospel, etc., the theo- logians found Denck to be, in their view, hope- lessly in error. Not only did he contradict himself, but his error was in some cases worse than that of the Papists, nay, even than that of the Jews. His notion of the “inner baptism ” was absolutely false. One cannot hold that the baptism of water 80 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is unnecessary. This is entirely capable of proof from Holy Writ. Regarding the Eucharist, he has answered: at length with arguments spun from his own head rather than grounded in Scripture. His examiners seem to assume that Denck had accepted Karlstadt’s notion of the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, since their argument consists chiefly in showing that the body and blood of Christ is ac- tually present in the bread and wine. From Denck’s utterances one may easily gather that he was tending toward a rationalistic explanation of this sacrament; he makes the partaking of it a matter of no great importance, but it is not possible to find that he anywhere denies the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.*° From these errors the theologians affirm they tried diligently to win Denck, but to no avail. To all instruction from them he turned a deaf ear. He has asserted in his statement that he has the truth and will permit no one to take it from him. More- over, he has circulated a copy of that statement throughout the community, a thing which he cer- tainly would not have done had he wished to show himself amenable to instruction. From his attempt thus to spread broadcast his subversive doctrines it is clear that there is a whole group of people who are propagating these errors and who would be inter- 80 Kolde has pointed this out, p. 61, note. The documents are in Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “ drei gottlosen Maler ’”’ — Denck’s view, p. 235 et seqg., the theologians, p. 241 et seq. Pere u ASH IWLUH AWLHORIT YY - The times were such that calm judgment was scarcely possible. It is regret- table, however, that in times of strife the men who are most sure that they are right seem ever ready to prove their championship of truth by the logic of the club, and so it is unfortunate that the rep- resentatives of orthodoxy, Lutheran as well as Catholic, quickly saw in this socio-religious propa- ganda an attack upon both Church and State and were so ready to meet it with force. For Luther’s words, where he urged that the spirits should be allowed to fight it out among themselves and that God’s Word must alone contend in such affairs, were still ringing in men’s ears as the exe- das got solhs nit verpoten hab, und das sy der Oberkait sollen gehorsam sein, dann etlich hetten vernaint, Christen sollen nit fechten noch in krieg ziehen, hette er inen dagegen die schrift anzaigt, das sy solhs, diweil sy under der oberkait sein wolten, zu thun schuldig wern, wie auch Christus gethan und sich under die oberkait begegen hete, wa sy aber solhs nit thun wolten, mochten sy verkauffen, was sy hetten und weck ziehen.” 108 See, for instance, the letter of the Nuremberg Council to the Margrave of Brandenburg, 23 Sept.: ‘Dann unnsers achtens hinter dieser verpundtnus mer schendlichs giffts, dann sich yemand vermutten mag verporgen ligt.” (Nicoladoni, Johannes Biinderlin, p. 232.) See also sentence on Hut (6 Dec.) in Meyer, p. 253, and Eck to Duke George of Saxony (27 Nov.) in Seidemann, p. 150: “dann gar sorgklich ist Dise sect, unnd wie mein g. h. unnd seine rat erwegen, mer schadens da zu férchten, dann bey der iiingst peiirischen auffrur; dann dise sect wurtselt ein in stetten: wann nun die auffrur anging, wurde die in stetten sich erheben: da wurden sy geschitz, pulver und harnisch, auch kriegs geiibte knecht haben: unnd wurd das pauren volck auff dem lannd, vie vor zu fallenn: wurd es alles unnder ibersich geen, wider die geistlichkeit, fiirsten und Adel.” 164 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM cutioner’s sword cut short the life of one who thought and taught on religious subjects other than did the authorities in whose territories he lived. Evidence adduced at Vogel’s trial pointed clearly to the existence of a considerable group of radicals in Nuremberg territory, and the fear of further evil consequences spurred the authorities to action. Jacob Dolmann was implicated by Vogel at his trial. He was therefore brought before the Coun- cil and examined, but was able to clear himself, though special watch was kept to see that his future utterances gave no further cause for complaint.*® Search made to ascertain the extent of the error was rewarded by the apprehension of a number of ‘poor peasant folk who had not themselves rebap- tized but had been led astray by leaders of the sect, because of simplicity rather than that they were possessed of an evil nature or were a party to the conditions of the league.” "'° These people the Council did not consider dangerous and appar- ently took no measures against them. That the au- thorities were fully alive to the situation, however, is shown by their correspondence with other south German towns during 1527 and the early part of the following year."* 100} SOCen 1 27a: 110 Council to Margrave of Brandenburg, 23 Sept., 1527 (Nicoladoni, p. 232). See also Seckendorff to Margrave of Brandenburg, 13 Sept., 1527 (Nicoladoni p. 225). 111 Ludewig, G., Die Politik ie Maat im Zeitalter der Reformation, p. 77. TOWARDS A POLICY OF REPRESSION 165 When it was learned that Hut had been caught in Augsburg in September, that city was communi- cated with in the hope that from him some informa- tion might be elicited concerning the movement in and about Nuremberg. The testimony extracted from him was of little value. The Augsburg Coun- cil, in sending it, tried to explain the meagreness of the report on the ground that he had not told the whole truth.” The substance of that confes- sion, in so far as it touched upon his relations with Nuremberg, has already been discussed. It served to show how great was his activity in and about the city and confirmed the Council in its belief that everything possible should be done to root out of the “ new poisonous sect of Anabaptists,” both for the “ honor of God ” and for the “ common good.” 114 Up to this point action against the sectaries in Evangelical lands was occasional and sporadic, merely a groping toward a consistent and settled 112 Jorg, Deutschland in der Revolutions-Periode von 1522 bis 1526, p. 699, note. The “ Urgicht” is in Meyer, pp. 229 et sqq. 113 In addition to Denck he there mentioned Vogel, Dol- mann, and a certain Leonhard Dorfbrunner from Nuremberg, who had become a leader of the sectaries. (Meyer, p. 230.) But the latter’s activities seem not to have been connected in any way directly with the city of Nuremberg. (Cf. Urgicht of Dorfbrunner, Nicoladoni, pp. 205 et sqq.) 114 Other hints there are of radical activity in and about Nuremberg during the year 1527. It is stated that Denck and Hiatzer stopped there on their way to Augsburg after their banishment from Worms in July. (Roth, Augsburg, I, p. 231; 166 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM policy. The following year, 1528, will mark a notable advance toward the perfecting of the policy which was to be pursued in later years. Kolde, p. 63, note.) But we see Ziirich to Augsburg (Egli, Acten- sammlung, no. 1247) where mention is made of their being in Ziirich. If they went from Worms to Ziirich it would seem to cast a possible doubt on their visit to Nuremberg on their way to Augsburg. A letter from Venatorius to Pirkheimer, 25 April, concerning the sectaries and their tenets serves further to indicate the activity of this group and the interest and ap- prehension they were arousing. (Opera Pirkheimeri, pp. 244 et seq.) CHAPTER VI DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED From the preceding discussion it should now be evident that, in Evangelical as well as in Catholic states, the conviction was ever deepening that dis- sent must be crushed out at all costs. If a milder policy was pursued in the former than in the latter, it was rather because of circumstances than be- cause in these states divided loyalty in religious affiliation was looked upon with more friendly spirit. We have seen how, gradually under the stress of need, a theory of repression was evolved, and how tentative steps were taken looking toward a policy of state coercion — first, because these people were seditious, but also because their teach- ing was blasphemous, and it is the duty of the prince to maintain the first table of the Mosaic Law as zealously as the second.’ Even were a ruler dis- posed to act leniently, practical necessity tended always to induce concurrent action among the vari- ous states; persecution in one state served only to drive the separatists into states where there were no drastic laws against them. Thus in general every state felt itself obliged, as a measure of pro- tection, to devise means of combating their spread 1 Vide supra, p. 117, et sqq. 167 168 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and influence. However much a prince or town council might hesitate to apply penalties to these seemingly erratic folk no responsible authority would long tolerate with equanimity having its ter- ritory, because of leniency, made the dumping ground for all the “ undesirables” from neighbor- ing states. In nearly every case, however, the civil authorities resorted to extreme action only after milder methods in the form of warnings and in- struction failed to halt the activity of the leaders. Thus the edicts at Zurich came after disputations between Zwingli and the radicals; at Strassburg action was taken after a debate with Denck seemed to have proved unavailing; at Augsburg after Urbanus Rhegius had, through pamphlets and from the pulpit, warned against the new sectaries and, for the strengthening of the faithful, refuted their tenets... At Nuremberg we have seen the same method employed ever since Greiffenberger was charged with heterodox utterances in 1523. Even after comprehensive edicts had been issued against the “ Anabaptists ” by neighboring cities, the policy of dealing individually with such of the members of the sects as could be found was continued. In the letter to George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, in 2 Important is his pamphlet: ‘‘ Wider den newen Taufforden | notwendige Warnung an alle Christgleubigen Durch die diener des Evangelii zu Augsburg.” (Pub. 6 Sept., 1527.) In this he says it is the duty of the preachers to meet the wolves that are creeping in with the sword of the Holy Spirit (p. Aiii verso). But the Council soon found other means. DISSENH MUST) BE “GRU S HED) (1T60 which the necessity of devising measures for com- bating the activities of the sectaries was pointed out, the Council stated that it had decided to issue a warning to the citizens in its territories. With the letter was enclosed a copy of this warning, not to indicate a policy for the Margrave to pursue, but rather out of good will and that he might have greater reason to act advisedly in the matter.” This letter, written in the fall of 1527, seems to mark the beginning of concurrent action on the part of Nuremberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach in the formation of a definite policy to be pursued relative to the radicals. Within a few months there proceeded from the chancelleries of both states comprehensive and carefully drawn instruc- tions for their pastors advising them how, in their preaching, to combat the new errors, “ for whoever brings to light the fickle spirit has already more than half conquered it.”* The Instruction of Duke George was issued 3 January, 1528; ° that from the Council of Nuremberg is undated.° 8 The letter is published by Nicoladoni, p. 232. 4 Grundtliche Untterrichtung, p. Ev. verso. 5 It is entitled “ Ein kurtze untterricht / den Pfarherrn und Predigern / Inn meiner gnedigen Herrn der Marggraffen zu Branndenburg, etc., Fiirstenthumben un Landen / hieniden in Francken und auff dem Gebirg verordent / wes sie das volck wider etliche verfiirische lere / der widertauffer / an den Feyer- tagen auff der Canntzel / zum getreiilichsten und besten / auss Gétlicher schrifft vermanen / und unterrichten sollen.” And at the end —“ Beschehen am Suntag nach dem Newen Jarsstag / UA be Be 6 The full title of this pamphlet is “ Grundtliche untterrich- 170 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM That both pamphlets were published at about the same time can be confidently affirmed. Some direct connection between the printed Instruction which has come down to us and the warning mentioned by the Council in the letter to the Margrave on 23 September might at first be assumed. The In- struction, however, contains an allusion to the death of Hut, which occurred early in December, 1527," and cannot, therefore, have been identical with the warning issued in the fall. The one that is pre- served is apparently the more comprehensive state- ment, conceived in an attempt to make an end finally of unauthorized propaganda. It indicates a strong disposition on the part of the Nuremberg- ers to eradicate error by pacific means. The some- what drastic action of 1525, and the still more sum- mary punishment of Vogel, had not established a precedent for repression, nor had there been any comprehensive edicts, such as had gone forth from the Councils of some of the other cities, issued against the sectaries. Such measures as were adopted were defensive in character; greater care tung /eins ebern Rats der Statt Niirmberg / Welcher gestalt / jre Pfarrher un Prediger in den Stetten un auff dem Land / das volck / wider etliche verfiirische lere der Widertauffer / in jren predigen auss heyliger Gotlicher schrifft / zum getreiilichsten ermanen unnd unterrichten sollen.” At the end “ Gedriickt zu Nirmberg durch Jobst Gutknecht.” 7 P. D. recto. For a discussion of the date of this Unter- richt, see Will, pp. 90 et seg. Will seems to think that the paper was written by Wenceslaus Link; and Roth, Nurnberg (p. 260), follows him in this. DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED I7I was exercised to exclude radicals exiled from other states and cities. Especial anxiety was manifested concerning exiles from Augsburg, whence it was learned that several, driven out probably as a re- sult of the Edict of 11 October, were intending to come to Nuremberg.’ Finally, more careful meas- ures were taken for the suppression of heretical books. The above-mentioned Instruction was to complete the work. It contains: (1) a mention of certain warnings and injunctions previously issued by the Council relative to the ‘‘ Anabaptists ”’; *° (2) a short warning against “ Anabaptism’”’; (3) the true teaching regarding baptism, discussed at length with copious citations from Scripture; (4) the doctrines of the sectaries, gathered under twelve heads; (5) refutation of these doctrines. ‘““We have,” declared the Council, “ with great difficulty and labor, with great danger to life and limb, honor and possessions, freed ourselves by the grace of God from the laws of the Pope, in which he commands and forbids that which God neither commanded nor forbade. We have made ourselves sure in our consciences and now shall such igno- 8 Roth, Nurnberg, p. 260. See also Aigentliche beschreibung der handlungen, so sich mit den widerteufern zu Augsburg zugetragen und verlaufen hat.’ Ed. by Myer in Z. K. G,, 17, p. 257. 9 Roth, Nirnberg, p. 260. 10 The Council contents itself with the mere mention that such warnings have been issued (p. Aii verso). Whether there were any other than those mentioned in the earlier pages of this study it has been impossible to discover. 172 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM rant, inconstant, seditious folk again set up a like tyranny over our consciences by holding infant baptism to be powerless and against Scripture? ” ** These fanatics have nothing at the root of their doctrine but pure wantonness and violence.’” Theirs is the most horrible blasphemy.” ‘The true baptism is forsaken and a baptism of the devil is put in its place, the devil is therefore their God, whom they worship and follow.** In their hearts is murder, robbery and sedition; they would murder all the pious and make themselves the possessors of the earth. Their leaders were those who incited the peasants to sedition and must be guarded against as the real fomenters of attack upon constituted authority.” The Instruction presents, then, a bitter arraign- ment of the sectaries as seditious and blasphemous, but there is no hint as to the means to be employed in dealing with them in case instruction failed to meet the issue. But such a condemnation of the leaders and teachings carries with it the necessity of developing a more active policy of suppression. This question it was imperative that the Council Should face definitely in the near future. On 4 January, 1528, there was promulgated an imperial mandate commanding all civil authorities and magistrates to guard more earnestly against this error of “ Anabaptism”’; to forbid such practices AP al) verso: 14 P. Eni verso. 12 P; E ‘recto. 15 Pp. Ev recto ez seq. 13 P, Eiii recto. DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 173 as ‘“ Anabaptists ” were indulging in; to warn and instruct their subjects from the pulpits, and to pro- ceed against those who persisted in error with such penalties as might be found necessary. If they failed in this they would jointly and severally in- cur high displeasure and penalties from the Em- peror.*® The issuance of this mandate ushered in a new period in the repression of separatist activity. Defi- nite measures against the sectaries now became a matter not only of expediency, but of obedience to the expressed commands of the Emperor. On 17 January the Elector of Saxony issued an order threatening with serious penalites [“‘ wirklicher und ernster straff’’] those who persisted in error.” Other states quickly promulgated like decrees, — Duke George of Saxony on 7 January,’® Arch- bishop Albert of Mainz on 31 January,’® Archduke Ferdinand on 24 February.*° These were, in gen- eral based upon former edicts, which were now ex- tended and in some cases made more drastic. The action which most vitally influenced decisions at Nuremberg was that taken by the Swabian League on 16 February.** At Augsburg the League on that 16 Mandate pub. in Wappler, Taduferbewegung in Thiiringen, pp. 268 et seq. 17 Pub. in Wappler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozess, pp. 164 et seq. 18 Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. §. 19 Mandate in Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, pp. 236 et sqq. 20 Beck, p. 60, note 1. “1 Urkunden zur Geschichte des schwabischen Bundes, Vol. 174 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM date decreed that the sectaries were to be hunted down by armed bands — one hundred knights for each quarter —in the same way as were the peas- ants during the revolt of 1525. They were to be summarily put to death without process of law. Those who had recanted were to be beheaded, those who remained firm were to be burned. Women were to be drowned or burned. This decree was noticeably lacking in the quality of mercy, and against such a harsh decision the representative of Nuremberg, Volkamer, protested vigorously. The members of the Nuremberg Council were unwilling to give their consent to the forging of a weapon which in Catholic states might be turned against their own co-religionists, as had already been done, they contended, in the bishopric of Wiirzburg.” Nothing could be more simple than to capture the sheep under the appearance of hunting down the wolves. A ready means would be at hand to dis- pose of Evangelical preachers. In their judgment it would, therefore, be sufficient to examine separa- tists on one point only, that of rebaptism.?* Such II, pp. 316 et seg. Schornbaum, Zur Politik des Markgrafen Georg von Brandenburg, pp. 17 et seqg., and esp. pp. 264 et seq., Will, pp. 224 et sqg. (excerpt from Miillner’s Annals). 22 Will, p. 225. See, too, the letter of Eck to Duke George of Saxony mentioned above, op. cit. pp. 150 et seg., where is recounted the execution of heretics, Lutheran and “ Anabaptist,” in Catholic lands. 23 Ibid., p. 225; Schornbaum, p. 265. Schornbaum has ex- amined the manuscript documents bearing on this incident and gives a brief but apparently exact account of it. DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 175 a solution was born, not of a spirit of tolerance, but of a policy of toleration dictated by fear that the same measures taken against the sectaries might be employed against themselves. There was, how- ever, at least on the part of some, a real conviction that the measure proposed for the consideration of the League was too severe. Those who recanted should, members of the Council insisted, suffer only light punishment, and no one should be put to death without a hearing in a court of law.” In this protest Volkamer acted for the Council in close accord with the two delegates from the Duchy of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Hans von Schwar- zenberg and George Volger.** On 4 March he was instructed to seek concurrent action on the part of other states, notably Hesse and the Palatinate, in an attempt to secure a milder policy. These attempts failed, however, to secure any abatement of the terms of the edict. The efforts of Duke George and the Council of Nuremberg were there- upon concentrated upon an attempt to get their candidate chosen as leader of the hundred knights in their quarter, and thus assure a liberal execution of the mandate. In this way they hoped to escape the danger which seemed to them to threaten the Evangelical faith; and in this plan they were suc- cessful.”° Though the Council of Nuremberg was not ready 24 Will, p. 227; Schornbaum, p. 265. 25 Schornbaum, pp. 265 et seq. 26 Schornbaum, pp. 266 ef seq. 176 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to resort to such extreme measures as those adopted by the Swabian League, its members held no less strongly the conviction that the sectaries must be suppressed. Some few who were apprehended dur- ing the spring of 1528 were forced either to recant or to leave the territory.” At the same time a church visitation, on lines similar to those marked out by the Saxon visita- tion, was being planned.** George of Brandenburg- Ansbach had discussed such a visitation with Elector John of Saxony in the fall of 1527. In the spring he was commencing active measures to make it a reality when, at the instance of Spengler, the Nurembergers proposed joint action.*® This was agreed upon, and in June representatives of the two states met at Schwabach to discuss the question and to draw up the Articles of Visitation.*® Ac- cording to the Instructions the visitors were to con- cern themselves with the regulation of the lives of the clergy and with the defining and ordering of the office of preacher. Further, there was to be instruction for the clergy in the fundamentals of doctrine.** The visitors were to see that the abuses of “ Papists” and the so-called ‘“ Evangelicals ” were abolished, and were to have oversight over the installation of new pastors.** In other words, as in 27 Will, pp. 223 et seq.; Soden, p. 310. 28 See for this Westermayer, Die brandenburgisch-niirn- bergische Kirchenvisitation und Kirchenordnung. 29 (1 bidi? DP. 2 et Sad. BAM O20 eens: BO TDI DDih Men sed. Se LUI Ce vEG: DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 177 Saxony the year previously, there was to be unity of teaching and uniformity of ceremony, enforced by the agents of the civil power.** At Nuremberg the competence of the Council to assume control over such matters was unquestioned. This action was entirely in line with that taken in 1525, at the time of the final break with Rome. It is the duty of the civil magistrate, stated the Coun- cil in a letter defending this visitation, before God and the world to see not only that its subjects are maintained in the Word of God and the gospel, but also to see that errors, present and to come, touch- ing holy belief and religion, are done away. Divi- sions, quarrels, sedition are to be guarded against and citizens are to be protected both in body and soul. Nor has the civil authority the right to wait upon a church council or the pleasure of any other state in this matter; each state, since it has this duty laid upon it by God, must give account for itself before God.** With such a theory, with an impending visitation designed to discover any irregularity in religious profession and having as one of its avowed objects 83 Jbid., p. 14. 34 City of Nuremberg to the rulers of the Palatinate and Bavaria, 30 Oct., 1528. Pub. by Gerhard Kolde in B. B. K. G. 19, p. 278. In the letter the statement is made that each one must stand before Christ at the judgment and give account for himself, of his belief, his works, and his life. But the Council is here arguing for magistrates rather than for individuals, else how would a state have the duty of protecting its subjects in body and soul. 178 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM the securing and maintaining of uniformity, and with the ever increasing need of active measures against sectaries because of the stiffening policy of surrounding states, the Council could not now hesi- tate long before employing measures similar to those already in force elsewhere. This immediately raised questions regarding the penalties to be imposed. The imperial edict by implication, and the decree of the Swabian League by definite statement, de- manded capital punishment for dissent. The Lutherans were not yet ready, however, to put these people to death unless it could be shown that they held tenets injurious to the state, and it was be- coming increasingly clear that in many cases dis- sent involved questions of religion only and that there was no disposition on the part of the sec- taries to deny the authority of the civil magistrate in the performance of his secular functions. Such is the problem with which the Nuremberg- ers were faced in the summer of 1528. In their attempt to solve it they appealed to the two great leaders of the Evangelical movement in Germany — Luther and Johann Brenz. Luther’s reply forms part of a letter to Wenceslaus Link; the reply of Brenz is a document of some fifteen pages. It should be pointed out that there is no direct evi- dence which makes absolutely certain that these two opinions were written in response to an official request from Nuremberg, but when all the circum- stances involved are considered the conclusion that DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 179 such is the case seems entirely justified.*’ Both statements were written early in July; both were directed to the same general question; both were explicit in statement —the carefully wrought-out expression of men who were weighing their words; 35 As to Luther’s letter there is some question, both as regards its date and the person to whom it was addressed (cf. Burr, p. 723, note 15). Recent writers, in referring to it, generally accept without comment the date as given in Enders (6, pp. 298 et sqqg.). See, for example, Kohler, p. 25, Paulus, p. 31 (but see also p. 115, note 2); Smith and Jacobs, Luther’s Correspondence, Vol. Il, p. 446; Faulkner, p. 150; Murray, Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude to Toleration, p. 267. It may be worth while, however, to state the critical points in- volved. In his edition of Luther’s letters published in 1556, Aurifaber (II, pp. 381 et seg.) includes, under the date 14 July, 1528, a letter to Link. He is followed by De Wette (III, pp. 347 et seq.) and Enders. The letter as a whole is translated in Walch (XVII, c. 2697 et sqq.) and is found also in German, but without date, in Reinhard, Beytrdge zu der Historie Frank- enlandes (1, pp. 145 et sqq.) As printed in these collections the letter is a long one of 146 lines. There is extant no manu- script copy of it as a whole. Lines 12 to 118, or parts thereof, appear separately in the extant MSS and, when dated, carry the date 27 May, 1530. To this there is one exception. The MS used by Schiitze in his edition of Luther’s letters, and which the editor thought was the original, is dated anno 1544 post Johannem Baptistam (25 June). ‘These lines appear also, without date, in several of the early collections of Luther’s works (Cf. Wittenberg edition, XII, p. 211; Jena edition, VIII, p. 374). Whether or not this central portion, of which the passage of interest to us comprises lines 12 to 29, forms another and a later epistle Enders, in his critical comment, leaves un- - decided. But he is inclined strongly against this view by the fact that Reinhard found in the archives at Ansbach the copy from which he made his transcript, sent apparently contempo- raneously with the writing for the information of Duke George. This seems, therefore, to offer independent corrobora- tion to Aurifaber. Ov. the other hand Hartmann and Jager in their Johann 180 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM the form of Brenz’s Bedenken clearly implies that it was in response to an official inquiry; Luther’s was in direct response to a query from Link, who was in close touch with the authorities in the city; this was the normal procedure resorted to fre- quently in such cases. Government action against Brenz (Vol. I, pp. 301 et seqg.), quote Brenz as saying that he had received from Luther, in response to a query regarding the punishment for dissent, a reply identical with lines 12 to 29 in the letter which purports to be to Link. Going over the same ground some twenty years later (1862) for the briefer life of Brenz which he contributed to the Leben .... der Vater .... der lutherischen Kirche, Hartmann found no reason to modify this statement (p. 108). Enders lifts this supposed letter from Hartmann and Jager and prints it as a fragment under the caption Luthers Bedenken an Brenz wegen der Todesstrafe der Ketzer (7, p. 211), apparently quite unconscious of the fact that he had included the same material in the letter to Link, printed in the preceding volume. What is the solution of the problem? The weightiest reason for rejecting the dates of the MS copies is that Luther’s thought in this field had by 1530 proceeded much beyond the position taken in this letter. Since he was then ready to inflict the death penalty it is inconceivable that he could have then written as he did. As to whether the letter was written to Link or Brenz, Paulus (p. 115, note 2) dismisses summarily, as an error, the statement in Hartmann and Jager. These latter, however, wrote from manuscript sources, some of which remain still unpublished; their testimony cannot, therefore, be ignored. But they do discuss in few pages the attitude of Brenz toward the “ Anabaptists,” and in so doing pay little attention to chro- nology. They recognize no development in his thought; they are unaware of the correct date of his Bedenken, thinking that it was written late in 1529 and thus bringing it into close connec- tion with the correspondence between Brenz and Spengler on the same subject, in 1530. The supposed reply of Luther to him they embody in an analysis of his Bedenken and they quote him as saying, “ Das ist auch meine Meinung, die Obrigkeit soll mit Bescheidenheit, und nichts aus Tyrannei handeln.... Es DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED I8I the sectaries, recounted above, must have called forth, sooner or later, such statements, especially from Luther, and the situation in Nuremberg fur- nished an excellent occasion. On 12 May in a let- ter to Link he had written, “I have had many letters from other places also concerning the Ana- ist besser es wird vier oder zehnmal ein unrechter Glaube geduldet, denn nur einmal ein rechter verfolgt” (p. 302. The last sentence is quoted directly from Brenz’s Bedenken). It seems impossible that Brenz could have made such a statement at the time he wrote his Bedenken, for Luther argues for the banishment of “ pseudo-prophets and_ heretics’? whereas the whole tenor of Brenz’s argument is that only in the case of sedition might the government banish, and then not as pro- ceeding against a sect, but only against individuals. Any such direct correspondence between Luther and Brenz would be of extreme interest, but the authors of the life of Brenz give no hint as to where they found the letter, though they publish as appendices numerous letters either written or received by Brenz during this period. Until it is possible to follow them back to their source it is my judgment that their statement must be accepted with great reserve. They are not always accurate in their quotations; they include in the summary of Brenz’s Beden- ken material which is not found there (compare pp. 308-310 with the Bedenken as printed in Bidenbach). That Enders publishes the fragment as from Luther to Brenz does not seem to me to carry much weight. His only authority is Hartmann and Jager, and he does not follow them very accurately. In his prefatory comment he says that Brenz wrote in the Bedenken, published in Bidenbach, that he had sought counsel from Luther and had received the reply in question. He seems to have failed to verify even that fact, since no such passage occurs in the Bedenken as printed. The editing of the fragment shows no such careful workmanship as was expended on the letter to Link, All things considered, I incline strongly to the judgment that the letter was written to Link in July of 1528. It is possible that, after the promulgation of the imperial mandate against the “ Anabaptists” at the second Diet of Spires in 1520, Brenz wrote to Luther for his views in the matter, that Luther 182 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM baptists,” °° a comment which indicates that Link had even then approached him on the subject. Al- ready the arguments of Master Hans had been employed, in Evangelical as well as in Catholic lands, for the silencing of dissent. What should be the decision of the leader of the Evangelical party? It is forthcoming, on 14 July, in the following terms: “But as to your question whether the magistrate should put to death false prophets. I am rather slow to the judgment of blood, even where it is richly de- served. For in this matter the consequences, as ex- emplified among the Papists and, before Christ, among the Jews, terrify me. Wherever the law provided that pseudo-prophets and heretics should be put to death, in the course of time it has come about that only the most holy prophets and innocent people were sacrificed by the authority of that very law. Relying upon this, evil magistrates have made pseudo-prophets and heretics of whomsoever they pleased. I fear the same outcome among us, if once by a single precedent it could be sent him a copy of the letter which had previously been sent to Link, and that he could then concur in the sentiments therein expressed. The Bedenken of Brenz is entitled “Ob ein weltliche Obrigkeit in géttlichen und billichen Rechten die Wiedertaufer durch Feuer oder Schwert vom Leben zum Tod richten lassen moge?” It was several times reprinted and can be found ~ most easily perhaps in Bidenbach’s Consilia Theologica. A MS | copy, the only one known to be in existence, is in the possession of the Library of Cornell University. This MS supplies the correct date, 7 July, 1528. For a fuller discussion of this see the Bibliographical Note, pp. 203 et seq. 86 Enders, 6, p. 263. DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 183 proved right to put false leaders to death, as we now see among the Papists, who, by abuse of this law, shed innocent blood for the guilty. Therefore I am not ready to consent that false teachers should be put to death. It is enough to banish them. If posterity wishes to abuse this penalty their sin will be less and they will injure only themselves.” In this letter Luther shows that he has travelled far in the direction of persecution during the three years since he answered much the same question addressed to him by Spengler. At that time he did not consider the radicals as blasphemous; un- less they denied the authority of the civil magis- trate, the rule to be applied is that laid down by Jesus (Matt. 18:15-17). It is a matter to be dealt with by the religious community. By 1528, however, there was no question that false teachers should be punished by the civil authorities as the leaders of the religious community, but none the less acting in their civil capacity. He still hesitated to advise the death penalty, though his reluctance was more from fear that his own followers might suffer the consequences of placing such a weapon in the hands of the government than from any religious scruple against the employment of force. There was no question in his mind that some of these people merited death; and he hesitated not at all to counsel banishment. This was little more than a means of escaping the responsibility for frankly applying the death penalty. For in an age when 184 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM banishment meant fearful privation and very prob- ably death to people proscribed as were the sec- taries, the death penalty would seem almost more humane.*’ This letter of Luther’s marks a period in the development of his thought regarding repression. It is, therefore, extremely important; but more in- teresting for our study is the reply of Brenz. A preacher in Swabian Halle (‘“‘ Schwabisch Hall ’’) and recognized leader of the Lutheran movement in southern Germany, his advice was much sought by George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and he was like- wise in close touch with the situation in Nuremberg. His influence had already been exerted on the side 87 The beneficium emigrandi for non-conforming minorities may seem like a considerable advance in the direction of leniency, and that is unquestionably true in the case of a minority sufficiently well established to have a safe place to which its members may migrate (cf. Volker, p. 234). This was not the case, however, with the sectaries of the Reforma- tion. They were everywhere proscribed. Moreover the vari- ous states had a way of warning neighboring states against any whom they had recently banished. (Strickler, Actensamm- lung I, no. 1878; Egli; Actensammlung, no. 1247; Rohrich, pp. 32 et seg.) Luther and his followers were probably en- tirely honest in looking upon banishment as less drastic than the death penalty. Their point of view is clear enough; sec- taries must simply conform to the true faith or betake them- selves hence. (Enders, 7, pp. 150 ef seg.) But Luther prob- ably never allowed himself to consider the consequences of such a policy. For its results from the standpoint of the sec- taries, see the pathetic letter of Denck to Cicolampadius (Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertéiufer, pp. 251 et seq.). The story of the wanderings and death of Sebastian Franck bears eloquent testimony to the suffering imposed by the sentence of banish- ment. DISSENT US TBE CRUSIB ED: 1185 of moderation. During the peasant uprising he had written a pamphlet counselling leniency in dealing with revolting peasants.** Three years later, when he is asked for his judgment regarding the “ Ana- baptists ” and the policy to be adopted toward them, his reply is a carefully reasoned argument in which he embodies a strong plea for kindliness and forbearance. His viewpoint is much like that of Luther, when, a few years previously, he was claim- ing tolerance for his own faith. Brenz proposes to discuss the question from two points of view, and it may be well to follow his argument with some care. He first asks if Scrip- ture warrants the view that “ Anabaptists ” or other heretics are to be punished by the secular authority, and then whether the imperial law gives the right to condemn them to death. Sins are of two sorts, he says, spiritual and earthly. Under the former are to be included unbelief, doubt of God, despera- tion, misinterpretation of Scripture (simple heresy), secret envy, covetousness — those things which ap- pertain to God’s kingdom and which are in no way injurious to the peace of the civil community. Among the earthly sins are to be included treason, murder, robbery, theft, adultery, etc., which men- ace the peace of the state. Now, for the punishing of these two types of sin, God has ordained two 88 Von Milderung der Fiirsten gegen die aufriihrischen Bauern, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” Vol. p EEO 186 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM swords — for spiritual sins, the spiritual sword, which is the Word of God; for the sins of this world, the sword of the Emperor. Spiritual sins are so subtle, and the worldly sword so rude and carnal, that more harm than good is done by at- tempting to apply it against them. They are rather strengthened than weakened. The way to combat spiritual sins, which are usually bolstered up by texts from Holy Writ, is by clear argument to lay bare their falsity. So soon as the light of truth breaks in upon the lies, the prince of darkness must flee. The use of the carnal sword simply confirms heretics and unbelievers in their errors. For by using compulsion one does not remove the false basis in Scripture which they have built up, and they seem to be martyrs for the Word of God. The gospel and the Holy Scriptures alone should, there- fore, be used against heresy. Moreover, unbelievers and heretics may be just as good citizens of the state as those who hold the true faith. When they live in peace and perform the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, the civil magistrate has no right to punish them. Where Paul says the civil magistrate is a servant of God and an avenger to punish those who do evil, he means those who break the civil law, not those who are guilty of spiritual unbelief. Christ also teaches the same thing where he tells his disciples that the tares must be allowed to grow up with the wheat until the harvest (Matt. 13). When one DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 187 punishes with the worldly sword, not alone the body is killed but the soul of the unbeliever also, and all possibility of winning the erring one from unbelief and error is destroyed. They should be avoided, as Paul teaches, but they should not be put to death. The heresy of the Anabaptists has been strengthened by no one thing more than by this attempt to employ the worldly sword in the realm of the spiritual. It has simply furthered the error. What is the sense in studying the Scriptures if heretics are to be silenced by force? In such case the “executioner would be the most learned doctor.” The Mosaic Law, which is invoked for the pun- ishment of heretics, has no longer any force. We live under another dispensation. There are many other commands of the Mosaic Law which we do not now consider binding. Some one will say, it is true that the clergy should not punish with the worldly sword, but does the same limitation apply to the civil magistrate? Should he not administer corporal punishment to the heretic? That the temporal sword should be confined to the punishment of secular offenses has already been shown. What has it to do with un- belief or heresy? Moreover, should one grant any such power to civil magistrates, we should soon find that true believers would be punished by un- believing rulers —a thing which happened in the case of the Arians. It would be ten times better 188 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM that error should be tolerated than that true faith should be persecuted. It is urged further that Anabaptism is not mere heresy, but that it implies a denial of the functions of the state and thus becomes a menace to the civil authority. Anabaptists hold goods in common, re- fuse to swear allegiance to civil authority, and main- tain that no Christian may hold office. What of that? Like charges may be brought against the monks and priests, but no one in all these centuries has ever thought to fear tumult from them on any such grounds. If one is going to fear the gatherings of these Anabaptists, then must one forbid all gath- erings on market days and all church gatherings, on the ground that tumult might result? To be sure, there are evil spirits among them; let such be punished just as one would punish any evil-doers. But that is no reason for decreeing wholesale pun- ishment for all the innocent men and women who have fallen into this error. If they refuse to take the oath of obedience to the civil magistrate and will not perform their duties as citizens, they should be treated as foreigners who have never taken the oath of citizenship. “The highest penalty that one may properly impose on such a one is this, that he be forbidden the exercise of his, privileges as a citizen [birgerliche Hantierung]; any penalty above this is tyranny, violence, and lawlessness.” Let us turn in the second place to the imperial law, which is the most important base upon which DLS SENS Pipe OR US tke D 189 the theory of the competence of the civil magistrate to punish Anabaptists is founded. By the provi- sions of this law of Honorius and Theodosius any one baptizing another, or any one who is rebap- tized, makes himself liable to the penalty of death. Such a law cannot possibly apply to the present Anabaptists. In the first place it was aimed par- ticularly at servants of the Church who rebaptized, and in the second place it must have been designed to cover some breach other than appears in the text. For Emperor Theodosius was a godly man, well versed in Scripture, and he would never have pro- mulgated a law so palpably contrary to right and to Holy Writ. Moreover the acts of other less godly emperors impose much lighter penalties for offenses as great or even very much greater, such as apos- tacy. If these poor people are to be put to death, the Pope and all the clergy, who have misinter- preted other commands of Scripture, such as that regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, should also be killed. Strictly, too, these people are not rebaptizers. They do not believe in infant baptism and hold that theirs is the only true bap- tism. This law, therefore, does not properly apply to them. And even had it been passed against rebaptizers as such, and granting that it may apply to the pres- ent sectaries, it is the business of the civil power to act as a Christian government and not as a tyrant. And what is it but tyranny when a government Igo RELIGIOUS FREEDOM corrects, by means of the executioner’s sword, poor folk who have misunderstood the Scriptures? One need fear no sedition from these people if the civil authorities act justly. It is therefore no part of the work of a magistrate to punish Anabaptists as such, when they mingle with their error no seditious tenets.*? Such was the remarkable document which came from the pen of Brenz in the summer of 1528. I have summarized it at considerable length because of its importance for later years. At a time when the trend of Evangelical thought had turned strongly in favor of repression of religious error by the civil authorities, Brenz threw his weight into the other side of the scale and dared to plead for tolerance. These were arme leute —poor folk — who in the majority of cases meant no harm. He had no patience with diversity in belief, but these people should, with thoughtfulness and kindliness, be in- structed in the true faith. The state should re- strict itself to suppressing sedition and open denial of its authority. | It was hardly to be expected that such ideas would find favor with the other leaders of Evangeli- cal reform. Melanchthon (nearly two years later, it is true) complained that Brenz was too mild.*° 89 This qualification is, of course, important. For, despite the doubts of Brenz, most responsible heads of states had con- vinced themselves that sedition was one of the chief counts against these sectaries. #0 Melanchthon to Myconius, Feb., 1530, C. R., I, no. 664. DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED IgI After the action taken at the second Diet of Spires (1529) with reference to the sectaries, and influ- enced by the subsequent need of using stringent means for maintaining the position won by the Lutherans, Brenz himself came to other views.” This did not prevent his treatise from going forth into the world and teaching its quiet message of tolerance. It was put into print in the autumn of 1528, and was twice later printed in full during the sixteenth century.” Parts of it were used, too, by Sebastian Franck in his Geschichtsbibel* for his chapter on heretics, in which he argues against their punishment. In 1554 it was used again in a work even more notable in the history of tolerance — 41 Paulus, Protestantismus und Toleranz, chap. 9, esp. DP. 117. Paulus is answered, though to my thinking not very suc- cessfully, by Bossert. Bossert himself states that Brenz had no tolerance for a faith that he knew was wrong. If that be true, little room is left for tolerance, for no one will deny that Brenz considered Lutheranism the only true faith. I am in- debted to Professor Burr, however, for a reference showing clearly that Brenz never abandoned wholly his earlier position. In 1558, when the Protestants were prepared to condemn any and all sects the Catholics chose to specify, he still protested. “ Der Herr Philippus,” reported Erasmus Sarcerius to the Count of Mansfield, “letzlich auch der meinung gewesen, alle secten von den Papisten specificiret, umb verhiittunge willen der Zertrennung, zuverdammen, wo er von Brentio nicht wer abgehalten worden, welchen er auch umb Gottes willen gebet- ten er wollen die secten helffen verdammen. Hierauf Brentius geanthwortet, er wolle es nicht thun, und da nu solches der Herr Philippus gehdret, hatt er die sach also mit betriibtem hertzen bleiben lassen.” (Hummel, Epistole historico-ecclesiastice saeculo XVI... scriptae, Halle, 1778). 42 Kohler, Bibliographia Brentiana, pp. 11, 155. 43 Published in 1531. IQ2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Sebastian Castellio’s De Haereticis, an sint perse- quendi. What effect, if any, did the advice of Luther and Brenz have upon the deliberations of the Council in Nuremberg? On 18 July a decree was passed offering amnesty- to all who would recant; those who refused were to be banished forthwith.‘ This action accords with the suggestion contained in Luther’s letter and was probably influenced DYtites Brenz’s statement seems to have had less direct in- fluence upon the action of the authorities, though the policy of moderation in the treatment of those who recanted may have been due in part at least to his influence.* On the strength of the decree some twenty per- sons were apprehended during January of the fol- lowing year, and later in the same year several 44 Ludewig p. 78. Soden, p. 319, gives the date as 14 July. If Luther’s letter is correctly dated and if the surmise that it was in response to a query from the Council holds (vide supra, p. 178 and note 35), that date seems impossible. Ludewig worked from the archives and is a careful student. I have therefore followed him. #5 It is interesting to note in this connection Luther’s letter to Joseph Levin Metzsch, 26 Aug., 1529, in which he discusses the proper method of dealing with dissent, and remarks “So haben die zu Niirnberg, und wir zu Wittenberg gethan.” (Erlangen, 54, p. 97.) *6 It should be noted that, though their attitude changed from time to time, the Lutherans were inclined to leniency toward those who recanted. An illustration of this is to be found in a letter from the Wittenberg theologians to Elector John Frederick, dated 24 July, 1 539, regarding one Hans Miiller. “Erstlich bitten wir, E k f g wolle im umb gottes willen gnad DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED 193 more were arrested. Of these the majority proved amenable to instruction and were dismissed with light penalties; a few were banished.” If the Council, through these various measures adopted during the year 1528, was as successful in the suppression of radical activity as some writers would have us believe, there would be nothing fur- ther to chronicle.** Is it not, however, possible to find at work some forces, born of the struggle of the preceding years, which might have significance for those following? Had there been no results other than to give to the world the treatise by Brenz, the fight for a fuller degree of religious liberty in Nuremberg would not have been in vain. For Brenz had clearly pointed out that there was a realm into which the arm of the state could not properly reach—a principle which had become almost totally lost to the thinking of other leaders in the movement for reform — and, what is equally sig- nificant for our present purpose, had argued that people could hold different religious beliefs and still remain good citizens. Such ideas paved the way for erzeigen und im das leben gnediglich lassen, Andere zu_bes- serung und bekerung zu reitzen. Denn so zugleich die bekerten und unbekerten solten getodt werden, wie im Nidderland ge- schicht, wurde inen zu mber verstockung dadurch ursach gegeben.” They urge that he should be forced publicly to abjure his error, that he should be imprisoned for a short time, as an awful warning to others, and that he should attend regularly the Evangelical Church. (Enders, 18 pp. 35 et sqq.) 47 Soden, pp. 320 et seq. 48 Cf. Roth, Nurnberg, pp. 260 et seq. 194 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM a more liberal interpretation of the duty of the state in the realm of religion. At Nuremberg the jurists and theologians debated the question as to the proper method to be pursued in dealing with the sectaries, from July 1528 to January 1520, and the only conclusion which they then reached was that the problem was impossible of solution.*® Who can measure the possibilities for the development of a wider tolerance, when men will admit that no conclusion can be reached regarding the suppression of a despised sect! It was the sureness that they had the only true faith, and the certainty that all dissent from that faith must be crushed out, that led to the building up of a theory, and of a practice, of persecution in Evangelical lands. Even before that policy was matured they began to hesitate. A new spirit was quietly at work among them. 49. Jorg, Dp. 704; cf. Ludewig (p. 78), who says that the theo- logians urged that the government should punish dissenters while the jurists felt that the defensive measure of banishment was sufficient. CuHaPTer VII DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED Two years after Brenz penned his opinion on the subject of dissent, Spengler wrote both to him and to Veit Dietrich, Luther’s friend and secretary, com- plaining that there was a party in the city composed of men — respectable, not fanatics, friends of his — who held that all forms of religious belief, whether of Turks, Jews, heathen, ‘“ Anabaptists,” or Catholics, should be tolerated. According to the theories of this group men should be permitted to hold what beliefs they chose and worship as they pleased, so long as they did not conspire against the government or stir up sedition.’ In accordance with the suggestion of Spengler to Dietrich the question of the function of govern- ment in the suppression of dissent was stressed by Luther in a commentary on the 82nd Psalm, upon which he was then at work.? During the interval between this and his letter of July, 1528, addressed to Link, there had taken place the second Diet of Spires, March-April, 1529. At that Diet an im- 1 Letters in Hartmann and Jager, Johann Brenz, pp. 452 et sqq. and W. A., 31,, pp. 183 et seg. Cf. also Paulus, p. 32 et seq. BONN Werk pnG kot Dail og: 195 196 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM perial mandate directed against all sectaries was favorably acted upon and given to the world. By the terms of this decree all those who refused to conform to established religion were to be sum- marily executed. At this Diet, too, the Evangelical estates protested against the decision of the major- ity to enforce the Edict of Worms; but those es- tates that thus protested, ostensibly in behalf of the individual conscience,’? stated in their Protest that the article concerning the sectaries they con- sidered in every respect proper. The death pen- alty for dissent was now ratified by the estates of the Empire, Protestant as well as Catholic. It was at this Diet, moreover, that the princes definitely assumed the leadership in the Evangelical move-. ment. ‘There was nothing left for the theologians but to fall into line, whether they would or not. No direct evidence is available to show that Luther changed his theory in regard to repression as a re- sult of the action taken at Spires. Indirect evi- dence, however, points in that direction. By 1528 he had come to advocate banishment for those who refused to conform, but he then protested against the death penalty. At the time the Diet was sit- ting, Hans Sturm, an “ Anabaptist” of Zwickau, was, by the advice of Luther and other theologians, sentenced to life imprisonment as a blasphemer and 3 Ney, Geschichte des Reichstags zu Speyer, pp. 284 et seg. * Die Appellation und Protestation der evangelischen Stande. From “Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus,” vol. V, p. 75. DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED 1097 leader in sedition.” This marks some advance toward severity in the theory of repression. But a still greater change was to take place. The Protest at Spires placed the protesting es- tates in grave peril. It behooved them to see that, in so far as possible, everything that might in any way create disturbance and bring down upon them the condemnation of the Catholic states should be sternly repressed. To them the fate of a minority of discontented folk who could not be satisfied with religion as authorized by the various states, was of small consequence as compared with the vastly more important matter of maintaining their own position and independence, as well as the authorized Evan- gelical faith. Had there been any hesitation in pro- ceeding to drastic measures, the desire now to mol- lify the Emperor and the Catholic majority would have acted as a powerful aid in stilling troubled consciences. Every consideration of policy would demand that the mandate against the sectaries be enforced. Thus toward the end of 1529 we find Luther writing to the Elector of Saxony urging against any union with the Zwinglians as “ un- christian,” and maintaining that no one had been more assiduous than his supporters in the repres- sion of sectarian propaganda.’ By the beginning of the following year he was ready to advise the death penalty for sectaries on the ground that they 5 Wappler, Inquisition, p. 54. 6 Erlangen, 54, pp. 80, 82. 198 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM were guilty both of blasphemy and of sedition.’ A few weeks later Veit Dietrich, writing to Speng- ler in reply to the letter mentioned above, stated that Luther would not have the civil magistrate tolerate sectaries, whether or not they held seditious tenets. For erroneous teaching is blasphemy, and blasphemy must not be tolerated.® In his commentary on the 82nd Psalm Luther defined clearly what he meant. by blasphemy. Those who teach against an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture, the creeds, or the early Fathers, and generally believed, are blasphemous. Moses commanded that blasphemers, all false teachers, be stoned. In the same way should we refuse to indulge in long disputations, but “ un- heard and unanswered condemn such open blas- phemy.”® The appeal to the Mosaic Law leaves little doubt as to the means which Luther would employ when necessity arose. A few pages further on he becomes more explicit where he urges that unauthorized preachers, who insist on continuing their propaganda, be turned over to “ Master. Hans." 3° But Luther was attempting to turn back the 7 Luther to Menius and Myconius (Enders, 7, p. 236). The letter is here dated in March but Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. 15, note 1, thinks it was probably written in February. 8 Letter in Haussdorff, Lebensbeschreibung Lazari Spenglers, p. 192. 9 W. A., 31,, pp. 208 et seq. 10 [bid., p. 212. The stand here taken was substantiated the DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED _ 199 hands of time. Already a new force was being born into the world. The revolt from Rome had in- creased consciousness of selfhood. More and more men were coming to feel that external force was not the proper means to employ for the inculcation of Christian doctrine. The executioner’s block was proving a poor substitute for the teacher’s desk. This spirit grew only gradually, but none the less steadily. It was at work among the group at Nuremberg of whom Spengler complained. It had other champions. Wolfgang Capito, amazed at the steadfastness with which the condemned sectaries met their death, questioned whether after all it was not the Holy Spirit within them which gave them such strength.** John Odenbach, Evangelical preacher at Moscheln in the Rhenish Palatinate, pleaded for the sectaries so effectively that the judges at Alzey refused to hear cases against them on the ground that this was a spiritual matter over which they had no jurisdiction.” Philip of Hesse following year by his placet mihi Luthero affixed to the Gutachten of Melanchthon, in which the death penalty is definitely advocated. C. R. IV, c. 737 et sqq. The date here given is 1541, but Wappler (Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, p. 25) has shown that it must have been written in October, igh 11 In his Apologia pro Anabaptistis, quoted from Enders, 6, p. 264, note 3. Luther was sure they were strengthened by Satan (Enders, 6, p. 262) and the Nurembergers expressed surprise that women should so readily suffer death for their faith. (David von Watt to Vadian, 28 Jan., 1528. In “ Vadianische Briefsammlung,” Mitteilungen zur vaterliandischen Geschichte, 8, p. 86.) 12 Hege, Die Tadufer in der Kurpfalz, pp. 52 et sqq. The 200 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM opposed the execution of the imperial mandate pro- mulgated at Spires against them, insisting that lighter penalties were sufficient."* Where men saw two, or even three systems of faith each claiming to be the only true religion and each sparing no effort to gain the mastery, it is little wonder that they began to ask if it was worth while to put a man to death because he adhered to a belief differ- ing on some points from that of the authorities of the state in which he happened to live. It is not meant to imply that persecution ceased about this time. On the contrary it became even more bitter, but these instances serve to show how difficult, nay, how impossible, it was to carry through a consistent policy of repression even after it was evolved. At almost precisely the same time that Luther was writing his commentary on the 82nd Psalm, ad- vocating stringent repression, Sebastian Franck, a pioneer in an entirely different school of thought, was penning his Geschichisbibel, in which he em- bodied a chronicle of the heretics. The world, he says, calls one whom it does not understand a heretic.** And prominent in his roll of honor is the name of the Christ himself. The spirit that title of Odenbach’s booklet is Ain Sendbrieff und Ratschlag an verordnete Richter / uber die armen gefangnen zu Altzey so man nennet Widerteuffer, 1528. It is a notable little plea for justice for these persecuted folk. 13 Ordnung of Philip of Hesse, Oct., 1531 (pub. in Wappler, Stellung Kursachsens und Hessens, pp. 154 et seq.). 14 Chronica, Zeytbuch und Geschychtsbibel, edition of 1531, P. 336. DISSENT CANNOT BE CRUSHED 201 breathed through this work of Franck’s was the spirit of a later age. It was the insistence upon the rights of the individual conscience in opposition to the dictates of dogmatic authority. The fight for long was an unequal one, but gradually some ground has been won. Following generations have made some attempt to understand the heretic. The lesson is a difficult one and is far from being learned, but for such measure of success as has been at- tained, for such measure of freedom from the dic- dates of authority as the individual spirit has achieved, credit in part is due to the “ultras ” of the period of the Reformation — men who braved bitter persecution, accepting death rather than deny their consciences. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Tus study traces the growth of a theory and the development of a policy. For the former one may go to the writings of the various leaders of the Evangelical movement; for the latter one must turn in large part to scattered official papers. The literary materials are abundant and easily avail- able. Complete or partial editions of the works of the leaders of the Protestant revolt are within easy reach of all. The most important single source is Luther. His writings exist in numerous collections, ranging from the little single-volume edition put out by Froben in 1518 to the great Weimar edition at present in the course of publication. The works of others of the re- formers, while not so carefully edited, are still adequate. Much critical work has been done in this field and the texts, except for minor points, are trustworthy. Care must, however, be exercised in their use. They con- sist, for the most part, of sermons, exegetical works, pamphlets, and letters. It is necessary always to ex- amine the circumstances under which a sermon was de- livered, a pamphlet or a letter written. Failure to do this may lead to serious error in interpretation. A letter, for example, dashed off by Luther to a friend or in answer to the attack of an enemy may not always be granted the same authority as a reasoned statement in reply to a query from his prince. Literary sources are always difficult to handle; they become increasingly 202 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 203 so at a time of hot passion, such as the early years of the Lutheran revolt. The documentary material is not so readily available. Much there is in various collections, but much must be culled from scattered sources; some lies still buried in archives. Very important evidence for this study has been gathered in recent years and has been published either as appendices to monographs or in separately bound volumes. This study could not have been written had it not been for such materials published by Kolde, Nicoladoni, Wappler, and others in connection with their own researches. These consist of records of court proceedings, including the depositions of sectaries, together with decrees of emperor, princes, city councils, or diets directed against them. To arrive at any just estimate of the life, character, and work of the leaders of the radical movement is a difficult matter. Almost without exception the material which has come down to us is hostile. Some fragments favorable to them may be gathered from scattered sources — the chance admission of an enemy, their de- positions at court hearings, a few pamphlets in their de- fense. These, taken in connection with the mass of hos- tile writings, make it possible to approximate a true picture. Notable among this class of materials is the Bedenken of Johann Brenz. This has been discussed in the text, but an interesting and unique manuscript copy should be more fully described here. This copy is in the Cornell University Library. It is in the handwriting, not of Brenz, but of a professional scribe. A pleasing and perhaps not altogether impos- sible guess is that it was copied, at the time it was re- 204 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ceived in Nuremberg, by one of the secretaries for the permanent records of that city. The date and occasion of its writing has been the subject of much speculation. Until supplied by this manuscript the earliest date known for it was that of its first printing, October, 1528. (See Kohler, Bibliographia Brentiana.) The manu- script is dated ‘‘ 1528, in siebenden tag des Heumonats ” (7 July, 1528). The various conjectures as to its occa- sion seem now to have been set at rest. It is clearly in answer to a question of the Nurembergers, written prob- ably by Spengler at the same time that Link sent a like query to Luther regarding the method of procedure to be adopted in reference to the sectaries. Collation of the manuscript with the printed text, as it appears in Biden- bach’s Consilia Theologica, shows no important varia- tions. The various reprints are listed by Ko6hler in his Bibliographia Brentiana. The classification of the material in the bibliography is more or less arbitrary, but is, I trust, clear. A word should be said in regard to the pamphlets. It seemed like useless duplication to list separately Luther’s pam- phlets which were of value for this study. They may be found in his collected works and are discussed in the text. The chronicles of the period were of little use for this study. Those that were found to have any value at all will be found listed in a separate category. It is impossible to attempt to do any work on the Reformation without becoming well-nigh overwhelmed with literature on the subject. The list of works com- piled below makes no claim to comprehensiveness. Only those which have proved in some way valuable or which seemed, because of the subject matter, to belong in such BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 205 a bibliography have been noted. Some there are which would have found no place here had it not been for an appendix containing an important letter or document. The special study of the Lutheran revolt in its rela- tion to the growth of religious liberty was begun by Kohler in his admirable little monograph, Reformation und ‘Ketzerprozess, published in 1901. Other scholars have recognized the importance of this field and have followed his lead, none more successfully than Volker in his Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der Reforma- tion. The field has not been left entirely for German scholarship, however; careful surveys have been made by Professors Burr and Faulkner, and more recently an English scholar, R. H. Murray, has contributed a volume to the discussion. Until comparatively recently it has been the fashion in writing of the sectaries to follow the judgment of their contemporary opponents. Keller raised his voice in strong protest late in the last century. It was special pleading, however. Only within the last three decades, and notably by Wappler, has really critical work been done on them. It now becomes possible to get at some- thing approaching their true significance for their own and for later times. No bibliography on this subject would be complete without reference to the valuable material which may be found in the numerous periodicals, devoted wholly or in part to the period. Not only is critical work of a high order to be found in their pages, but there are frequently to be found, also, stray bits of source mate- rial which have come to light and which are not avail- able elsewhere. Such material, when it was of value for this study, has been listed in the bibliography. 206 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM A list of the abbreviations used in text and _ bibli- ography —except those clearly self-explanatory — is here appended. WWE BRIM GS oh eh Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. Leip- zig, 1875. HORE Sea CUS ea te Archiv fir Reformationsgeschichte. Ed. Friedensburg, Leipzig, 1905-. B.B.K.G.....Beitrige zur bayerischen Kirchenge- schichte. Ed. Th. Kolde and H. ~ Jordan. Erlangen, 1895-. Cg RNa aur Corpus Reformatorum. TeNGers ae Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel. Ed. by. Enders, carried forward by Kawerau, Flemming and. Albrecht. Frankfurt a.M., Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1884-1923. Erlangen ...... Luthers vermischte deutsche Schriften. Vols. 53 to 56 of the Erlangen edition of Luther’s works. LSA OAD Realencyclopddie fir protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Ed. Herzog- Hauck. 3d ed. Leipzig, 1896-1913. Sch. V. R. G. ..Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformations- geschichte. Halle, 1883-. Wialchiue tna ee Dr. Martin Luthers ... . sdmtliche Schriften. Ed. by Walch. Halle, 1740-1755. Wi CAE gen Lenin Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. ‘Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Weimar, 1883-. PA Th EAT BL Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. BIBLIOGRAPHY I Sources A. Miscellaneous Collections BIDENBACH, Ferx, Consilia Theologica. Frankfurt, 1612. Contains valuable pamphlets of the Reformation period. Most important the “ Bedenken ” of Brenz (1528). Ecut, Emin, Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zurcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519-1533. Zurich, 1879. A summary of documents with excerpts from the more important. Useful especially for some corre- spondence, Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation. 4 vols., ed. by Otto Clemen. Leipzig and New York, 1907-1910. The most important pamphlets of this collection have been mentioned separately below. FORSTEMANN, CARL Epuarp, Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchen-Reformatton. Hamburg, 1842. But one volume of what was intended to be a com- prehensive work was ever published. Important for documents relating to Thomas Munzer. Korner, Tu., Zum Prozess des Johann Denck und der “drei gottlosen Maler” von Niirnberg. In Kirchen- geschichtliche Studien dedicated to H. F. Reuter. Leipzig, 1890. 207 208 BIBLIOGRAPHY A very important body of sources gleaned from the archives at Nuremberg and comprising all the available archival material concerning the trial of Denck and the painters, together with other scat- tered testimony concerning the radicals in Nurem- berg, 1524-1525. Of highest value for this study. LUNIG dae. Das teutsche Reichs-Archiv. 24 vols. Leipzig, 1710-1722. A large and important collection made up of offi- cial papers — political and religious — relating to the empire and the various German states. Volume II contains the recesses of the diets held during the period of the Lutheran revolt. Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus. Ed. Kunze and Stange. Leipzig, 1904— Comprises valuable material illustrative of Protes- tant thought, re-edited with notes and introductions. Confined to no special period. Twelve volumes have thus far appeared. Vol. V contains the “ Pro- test” of the Evangelical states at Spires (15209). REINHARD, J. P., Beytrige zu der Historie Franken- landes und der angranzenden Gegenden. Bayreuth, 1760. : A miscellaneous collection of source material for the history of central Germany. RicHTER, AEMILIus Lupwic, Die evangelischen Kirchen- ordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts und der Ver- fassung der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Vol. I, Weimar, 1846. RouricH, T. W., “ Zur Geschichte der strassburgischen Wiedertaufer in den Jahren 1527 bis 1543. Aus den BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 Vergichtbiichern und andern archivalischen Quellen.” Zettschr. f. hist. Theologie, Vol. XXX, 1860. Most useful are the decrees of the Council regard- ing the “Anabaptists,” 1526-1528. SEHLING, E., Die evangelischen ‘Kirchenordnungen des XVI Jahrhunderts. Vols. 1-5. Leipzig, 1902-1913. Planned to be complete in 8 volumes. Supersedes the older and much smaller collection of Richter. STRICKLER, DR. Jou., Actensammlung zur schweizer- ischen Reformationsgeschichte (1521-32). 5 vols., Zurich, 1878-84. Supplements the collection of Egli, covering a wider field. Vol. I covers the period from 1521 to 1528, the other four from 1528 to 1532. STROBEL, GEORG THEODOR, Miscellaneen literarischen Inhalis. Nurnberg, 1778. A miscellaneous body of material thrown together in haphazard fashion. Contains some material of value for the story of the Evangelical revolt in Nuremberg. Urkunden zur Geschichte des schwabischen Bundes. Ed. by K. Klupfel. Stuttgart, 1853. Published as volumes 14 and 31 in the Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart. Vol. 31 covers the years 1507-1533. A register with ex- cerpts from important documents. Valuable for the action taken by the League with reference to the “ Anabaptists.” VAN Bracut, T. J., 4 Martyrology of the Churches of Christ commonly called Baptists during the Era of the Reformation. Tr. and ed. for the Hanserd-Knollys Society by E. B. Underhill. London, 1850. 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY B. Collected Works and Correspondence of Individual Authors BuLAURER, Briefwechsel der Briider Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer. Ed. by Traugott Schiess. Bd. I (1509-1538). Freiburg, 1908. An interesting body of correspondence between the Blaurer brothers and the Evangelical reformers of south Germany. Numerous references to the “ Ana- baptists.”’ Lets, “ Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien.” Ed. by Joseph Schlecht. Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, vol. 7. Miinster, 1909. A bitter arraignment of the whole Evangelical re- volt and especially of the sects. Valuable as illus- trating the Catholic point of view. LuTHeErR, Dr. Martin Luthers sowol in Deutscher als Lateinischer Sprache verfertigte und aus der letztern in die erstere tibersetzte simtliche Schriften. Ed. by Johann Georg Walch. Halle, 1740-55. An old but still useful collection of Luther’s works in 24 volumes. Contains, beside his works, other documents illustrative of the Protestant revolt. Must be used with care because of errors. Largely superseded by the later editions, especially the great Weimar edition. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamt- ausgabe. Weimar, 1883. The definitive edition of Luther’s works. Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken. Ed. by De Wette and Seidemann. Berlin, 1825-56. BIBLIOGRAPHY 211 LUTHER (continued), Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel. Ed. with notes by Enders, Kawerau, Flemming, and Albrecht. Frankfurt a.M., Calw and Stuttgart, 1884- 1923. The best edition of Luther’s letters. Well edited, with copious critical and explanatory notes. It must be supplemented, however, by the Erlangen edition, as the letters in German there published are not included. Dr. Martin Luthers vermischte deutsche Schriften. Ed. by J. K. Irmischer. Vols. 53 to 56 of the Erlan- gen edition of Luther’s works. Frankfurt a.M. and Erlangen, 1853. Useful as a supplement to the Latin letters in Enders. Care in their use is necessary, however, as they are often misdated. The Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther. Ed. and tr. by Wace and Buchheim. London, 1883. Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters. Vol. I (including letters from 1507-1521) tr. and ed. by Preserved Smith. Vol. II (letters from 1521-1530) by Smith and Jacobs. Philadelphia, 1913 and 1918. MELANCHTHON, Purtuipp, Opera. Ed. by Bretschneider and Bindseil, 1834-60. Letters as well as sermons, pamphlets, and exegeti- cal works. His letters furnish the chief matter of interest for this study. Some inaccuracies occur, especially in the matter of dating. PIRKHEIMER, Opera. Ed. by Goldast. Frankfurt, 1610. One folio volume of the works of Pirkheimer. Val- uable for the letters which it contains. 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY PLANITZ, HANS VON DER, Berichte aus dem Reichsregi- ment in Nurnberg, 1521-1523. Leipzig, 1899. Interesting body of letters from the representative of the Elector of Saxony at the Diet. RuEcIuS, URBANuS, D. Urbani Regii, . . . Bicher und Schriften. Frankfurt am Mayn, 1577. SCHEURL, Christoph.Scheurl’s Briefbuch. Ed. by Soden and Knaake. Potsdam, 1872. Vol. II comprises letters of the period from 1517 to 1540. Contains some few letters of value for the study of the sectaries. Scheurl was for long Secretary to the Council of Nuremberg, but his letters are not so important as one might expect. VADIAN (JOACHIM voN Watt), Briefsammlung. Ed. by Arbenz (Emil) in Mitt. zur vaterlandischen Ge- schichte herausgegeben vom historischen Verein in St. Gallen, 3 Folge. Vols. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10a. 1890—- 1913. An important body of correspondence for the his- tory of the Swiss Reformation; a few letters of direct value for this study. ZWINGLI, Opera Omnia. Ed. by Schuler and Schulthess. 8 vols. Ziirich, 1830-1842. The first two volumes comprise his German works; vols. 7 and 8 his letters. Useful chiefly for the letters. Samtliche Werke. Ed. by Egli, Finsler, Kohler. Berlin, 1904-. A much needed edition of Zwingli’s works now in course of publication. Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli. Ed. by S. M. Jackson. Philadelphia, 1901. BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 A convenient translation of a few of Zwingli’s works. Contains his Refutation of the Tricks of the Cata- baptists (1527). C. Books and Pamphlets “ Aigentliche beschreibung der handlungen, so sich mit den widerteufern zu Augspurg zugetragen und ver- laufen hat.” Ed. by Chr. Meyer under the caption “‘Wiedertaufer in Schwaben ” in Z. K. G., 17, pp. 248 et sqq. Of considerable value for the life of Hut and con- tains some direct references to the ‘‘ Anabaptists ” in Nuremberg. BRENZ, JOHANN, ‘‘ Ob ein weltliche Obrigkeit in gott- lichen und billichen Rechten die Wiedertaufer durch Feuer oder Schwert vom Leben zum Tod richten las- sen moge,” in Bidenbach, Consilia Theologica. 1612. A manuscript copy of the same opinion is in Cor- nell University Library. See p. 203 for description. “Von Milderung der Fiirsten gegen die aufrihr- ischen Bauern,” in Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation. Vol. III. Leipzig, 1909. Interesting in this connection as showing Brenz’s tolerant point of view. “ Bruderlich Vereinigung etzlicher Kinder Gottes, sieben Artikel betreffend. Item ein Sendbrief Michael Sat- tlers an eine Gemeine Gottes samt seinem Martyrium (1527). Ed. by Walter Kohler in Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation. Vol. II, Pt. 3, Leipzig, 1908. These are the ‘Seven Articles of Schlatten am Rand” drawn up by a group of ‘“ Anabaptists ” 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY in 1527. Important for a knowledge of the tenets of one group, at least, of the sectaries. Written apparently by Michael Sattler. BULLINGER, HEINRICH, Der Widertoufferen ursprung, fiirgang, secten, wadsen, etc. Zurich, 1561. A history of the “ Anabaptists” by one of the leaders of the “Swiss revolt. Like all the contem- porary histories of the sectaries it must be used with caution, though Bullinger tries to be fair. More important for the period subsequent to that of this study. Denck, Hans, Von der wahren Liebe. Elkhart, Indi- ana, 1888. One of the few extant pamphlets from the pen of Denck. Ein gehapter Raischlag Lucipers des firsten der fin- sterniiss mit seinen amptleuten und miterben der ewigen verdamniss. 1529. A rare “ Anabaptist ” satire. Purports to be the report to Lucifer of the minions whom he has sent to stir up dissension among his foes at Spires. De- picts his joy upon learning that Luther and his followers are now the foes of the ‘‘ Anabaptists.” (A copy in Cornell University Library.) Ein Gottlich unnd grundtlich offenbarung von den warhafftigen widerteuffern: mit Géttlicher warhait angezaigt. MDXXVII. Another rare pamphlet, attributed by Uhlhorn (Urbanus Rhegius, p. 123) to Langenmantel. De- fends the sectaries against the charge of ‘“ Ana- baptism.” Apologetic but not polemic, it is a fair statement of the position of the sectaries, appar- BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 ently with the hope of stemming the tide of perse- cution. (The copy consulted by me is in the British Museum. ) Ein kurtze untterricht / den Pfarherrn und Predigern . . / wes sie das volck wider etliche verfirische lere / der widertauffer . . . vermanen / und unter- richten sollen. Suntag nach dem neuen Jarsstag (3 Fan yyor 528. ENpERS, Lupwic, “Aus dem Kampf der Schwirmer gegen Luther: drei Flugschriften (1524, 1525).” In Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit, X. Halle, 1893. Reprints, with careful introductions, three pam- phlets of the years 1524-25. FRANCK, SEBASTIAN, Chronica, Zeytbuch und Ge- schychtsbibel, Strassburg, 1531. A substantial volume of highest value for the study of the sects. Franck was an individualist. He stood aloof from all parties, but he was sympathetic with the sectaries and like them was hounded by the authorities. He was their one really favorable contemporary critic. Grundtliche untterrichtung / eins erbern Rats der Statt Nurmberg / Welcher gestalt / jre Pfarrher un / Prediger in den Stetten un auff dem Land / das volck / wider etliche verfiirische lere der Widertauffer / in jren predigen auss heyliger Gotlicher schrifft / zum getreulichsté ermanen unnd_ unterrichten — sollen. Gedriickt zu Niirmberg durch Jobst Gutknecht. (Jan., 1528.) Handlung eynes Ersamenn weysen Rats zu Niirnberg mit tren Predicantten newlich geschehen. MDXXV. 216 BIBLIOGRAPHY A report of the final break of Nuremberg with the Catholic Church. ICKELSCHAMER, VALENTINUS, “ Clag etlicher briider: an alle Christen von der grossen ungerechtickeyt und Tirannei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo von Luther zu Wittenbergk geschicht.” 1525. Pub. by Enders in Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther. A bitter arraignment of the Lutheran movement, by a follower of Karlstadt. MeEntus, Justus, “ Der Widerteuffer lere und geheimnis aus heiliger Schrifft widerlegt durch Justus Menius.” MDXXxX. Published in Vol. II of the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s works (1551). Written at the suggestion of Luther to expose the “ Anabaptist ”? movement and to furnish arguments to combat it. The volume of Luther’s collected | works in which it is found contains other pamphlets directed against the ‘“ Anabaptists.” Munzer, Tuos., “ Hoch verursachte Schutzrede und antwwort wider das Gaistlosse Sanfft lebende fleysch zu Wittenberg, welches mit verkarter weysse, durch den Diepstal der heiligen schrift die erbermdliche Christenheit, also gatz jamerlichen besudelt hat.” 1524. Pub. by Enders in Aus dem Kampf der Schwarmer gegen Luther. A violent attack upon Luther. ODENBACH, JOHANN, Ain Sendbrieff und Ratschlag an verordnete Richter uber die armen gefangnen zu Altzey so man nennet Widerteuffer. 1528. A notable plea for forbearance addressed by a Lutheran pastor at Moscheln in the Rhenish Palati- BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 nate to the judges of Alzey. One of the very few contemporary pamphlets in defense of the sectaries. PIRKHEIMER, CHaritas, Der hochberiihmten Charitas Pirkheimer, Aebtissin von S. Clara zu Nurnberg, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter. Ed. by C. Hofler. Bamberg, 1852. Interesting as representing the attitude of an ortho- dox Catholic toward the Evangelical revolt in Nuremberg. A good corrective of the extreme Protestant viewpoint. RueEcius, UrsANus, Wider den neuen Taufforden / Notwendige Warnung an alle Christgleubigen Durch die diener des Evangelu zu Augsburg. 1528. A good statement of the Lutheran position. D. Chronicles Die Geschichtsbiicher der Wiedertaufer in Oesterretch- Ungarn. Ed. by Dr. Joseph Beck. In Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, vol. XLIII, Vienna, 1883. The first few pages cover the period of this study. © Die Wiedertaufer in Mahren.”” Ed. by Gregor Wolny in Archiv fir Kunde osterreichischer Geschichts-Quel- len, vol. V, 1850. KeEssueR, Johannes Kesslers Sabbata. Chronik der Jahre 1523-1539. Ed. by Dr. Ernst Goetzinger in Mitt. zur vaterlindischen Geschichte herausgegeben vom hist. Verein in St. Gallen, vols. 5-10. St. Gallen, 1866-8. Ottius, Jou., Annales Anabaptistici. Basel, 1772. Scarcely gets under way before 1530, but of some value. 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY SLEIDAN, A famous chronicle of oure time, called Sleidanes Commentaries, Eng. trans. by John Daws. 1560. Il Later Works Acton, J. E. F. D., The History of Freedom and Other Essays. London,*1907. Essays II and V, “ history of freedom in Christian- ity”? and “ Protestant theory of persecution,” are interesting discussions of the subject from the pen of a Catholic scholar. Lectures on Modern History. London, 1906. ALBRECHT, Otto, “ Beitrage zum Verstandnis des Brief- wechsels Luthers im Jahre 1524,” in Beitrége zur Reformationsgeschichte — Festschrift fiir Kostlin. Gotha, 18096. ARNOLD, GOTTFRIED, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer- Historie, vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments bis auf das Jahr Christi 1688. 3 vols. Vol. I. Schaffhausen, 1740. Valuable in the present connection for the writings of Miunzer and Denck, which are to be found in Vol. I, Bk. II. Most important is Denck’s Widerruf. BARGE, HERMANN, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1905. The standard life of Karlstadt. BEARD, CHARLES, The Reformation of the 16th Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. London, 1883. BoNIN, BURKHARD VON, Die praktische Bedeutung des tus reformandi, Stuttgart, 1902. Bossert, Gustav, “ Johann Brenz, ‘der Reformator BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 Wiirttembergs ’ und seine Toleranzideen,” in Bldtter fiir wiirttembergische Kirchengeschichte. Stuttgart, IQII-I2. BRANDENBURG, ErIcH, Martin Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft. In Schr. V. R. G. Halle, 1g9or. BRIEGER, THEODORE, Der Speierer Reichstag von 1526 und die religidse Frage der Zeit. Leipzig, 1909. Insists, in opposition to Friedensburg, that the Recess gave to the princes the right to carry out religious innovations. BucuoutTz, F. B. von, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdt- nands des Ersten. 9g vols. Vien, 1831-38. BurkuHarpt, C. A. H., Geschichte der sdchsischen Kir- chen- und Schulvisitationen von 1524 bis 1545. Leipzig, 1879. Burr, G. L., ‘ Anent the Middle Ages.” American His- torical Review, vol. XVIII, July, 1913. A brilliant survey of the Middle Ages. Its value for this study lies chiefly in the acute summary of Luther’s views on tolerance. BurraGE, Henry S., A History of the Anabaptists in Switzerland. Philadelphia, 1882. Sympathetically inclined toward the sectaries. Cornetius, C. A., Geschichte des miinsterischen Aufruhrs. Leipzig, 1855. Written by a Catholic scholar who saw no good in the “‘ Anabaptists,” and who was fully convinced that they were the offspring of Luther. Of little present value. Drews, P., Wilibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reforma- tion. Leipzig, 1887. 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY ErpkaM, HEINRICH WILHELM, Geschichte der protes- tantischen Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation. Hamburg u. Gotha, 1848. Has been superseded by later works. FauLKNER, J. A., “Luther and Toleration.” In Papers of the American Society of Church History. 2nd Series. Vol. IV. -New York and London, ro1q. A careful discussion of Luther’s thought in the field of tolerance. Leans heavily upon Kohler. FRIEDENSBURG, WALTER, Der Reichstag zu Speier, 1526. Berlin, 1887. ——‘ Der Speierer Reichstagsabschied von 1526 und die religidse Frage.” A. R. G., vol. 7 (1909). FUssuin (or Fiissli), JoHANN Conran, Beytrége zur Erliuterung der Kirchen-Reformations Geschichten des Schweitzerlandes. § vols. Ziirich, 1741-1753. Contains much original material embedded in its pages. GERBERT, CAMILL, Geschichte der Strassburger Sekten- bewegung zur Zeit der Reformation, 1524-15 34. Strassburg, 1880. Grisar, HARTMANN, Luther. 3 vols. Freiburg 1.B., IQII. One of the latest and most scholarly of the lives of Luther. From the pen of a Catholic scholar, it is hostile toward Luther and sees in his movement no forward step in the growth of religious liberty. Hacen, Karu, Deutschlands literarische und religiose Verhaltnisse im Reformationszeitalter — mit beson- derer Rucksicht auf Wilibald Pirkheimer. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Frankfurt a.M., 1868. An acute study of the cultural life of Germany in BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 the 16th century. Furnishes an excellent back- ground. HaceEn, R., “ Wilibald Pirkheimer in seinem Verhaltnis zum Humanismus und zur Reformation.” In Mitt. des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg, vol. 4. 1882. Harnacxk, ApotpH, History of Dogma. Tr. from 3rd Ger. ed. by Neil Buchanan. 7 vols. Boston, 1895- 1900. HARTMANN, JULIUS, and JAGER, Karu, Johann Brenz. Hamburg, 1840. A new biography is much needed. Haupt, HERMANN, Die religidsen Sekten in Franken vor der Reformation. Wirzburg, 1882. HaussporFF, Gottiies, Lebens-Beschreibung Lazart Spenglers. Nurnberg, 1741. Of value especially because of letters which are included in the footnotes. HEBERLE, URBAN, “ Johann Denck und sein Biichlein vom Gesetz.” In Theologische Studien und Krittken, 1851. —‘ W. Capito’s Verhaltnisse zum Anabaptismus.” In Zeitschrift d. hist. Theol., 1857. HEcE, CuristT1an, Die Tadufer in der Kurpfalz. Frank- furt a.M., 1908. Hecuer, A., Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck. Freiburg i.B., 1892. A careful analysis of an exceedingly interesting character. Sebastian Francks lateinische Paraphrase der deut- schen Theologie und seine hollandisch erhalienen Trakiate. Tubingen, 1gor. 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY HERMELINK, H., Die religidsen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus. Tiibingen, 1907. Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter. In Schr. des Vereins f. Ref. Gesch., 1908. Attempts to show that Lutheranism was a long step in the direction of religious freedom. ‘Zu Luthers Gedanken iiber Idealgemeinden und weltliche Obrigkeit.” Z. K. G., vol. 29, pp. 267-322, 1908. Hinscuius, Pauu, Katholisches Kirchenrecht, vols. I- VI, 1, Berlin, 1869-1897. The standard work from the Protestant viewpoint. Left unfinished at the author’s death. Hou, K., Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregi- ment. Supplement to Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche. Tubingen, 1911. JANSSEN, JOHANNES, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters. 6th ed. Vols. I- III. Freiburg i.B., 1880-81. A brilliant work by a Catholic scholar, but marred by special pleading. Jones, Rurus M., Studies in Mystical Religion. Lon- don, 1909. ——Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries. London, 1914. These two books, from the pen of a man who is spiritually much akin to the men of whom he writes, furnish a good background in English for the present study. Jorc, Jos. Epmunp, Deutschland in der Revolutions- Periode von 1522 bis 1526. Freiburg i.B., 1851. Inaccurate, but of some value because dealing espe- cially with the situation in central Germany. BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 KELLER, Lupwic, Ein A postel der Wiedertdufer. Leip- zig, 1882. Denck is Keller’s hero. Letters and documentary material of importance are appended. Especially important is Denck’s letter to Cicolampadius, Oct., 1527. Die Anfinge der Reformation und die Ketzerschu- len. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Waldenser beim Beginn der Reformation. Berlin, 1897. -——Geschichte der Wiedertaéufer und thres Reichs zu Minster. Munster, 1880. Grundfragen der Reformationsgeschichte: eine Auseinandersetzung mit litterarischen Gegnern. Ber- lin, 1897. Johann von Staupitz und die Anfdnge der Reforma- tion. Leipzig, 1888. Has some documents relating to Denck in appen- dices. Die Reformation und die dlteren Reformparteien in thren Zusammenhange. Leipzig, 1885. Since writing his first book on: the ‘“ Anabaptists ” in 1880 Keller has been their most consistent and able champion. An archivist himself, he has based his work largely upon careful archival studies. His championing of the “ Anabaptists,” and his attempt to connect them with earlier reforming sects, has led him into sharp conflict with Lutheran historians, and has tended to give his work something of the character of special pleading. To him, however, we owe the beginning of the fair-minded study of the sects of the Reformation. Kircuuorr, “ Johann Herrgott, Buchfuhrer zu Nurn- berg und sein tragisches Ende, 1527.” From 224 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arch, f. Gesch. des deutschen Buchhandels. Leipzig, 1875. KOHLER, W., “ Barge, Karlstadt,’ in Gdttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, No. 9, 1912. Bibliographia Brentiana. Berlin, 1904. ‘“ Brentiana und andere Reformatoria.” A. R. G., IQII-I2. : Reformation und Ketzerprozess. Tubingen and Leipzig, 1901. An able essay by a thorough scholar. It broke new ground, but its conclusions have been generally sub- stantiated by later researches. KotpE, Geruarp, “ Zur brandenburgisch-niirnbergischen Kirchenvisitation, 1528.” B. B. K. G., vol. 19, pp. 275 et seq., 1912. An important letter from the Nuremberg Council to the rulers of Bavaria and the Palatinate regarding the church visitation of 1528. Kovpe, Tu., ‘‘ Carlstadt und Danemark.” In Z. K. G., vol. 8. pp. 283-289, 1886. Friedrich der Weise und die Anfinge der Reforma- tion. Erlangen, 1881. Prints an important letter from Spalatin to Elector John ,Octe iris 25 ies) ——“ Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Niirn- bereca a niBiB yA Soon A little monograph based upon researches in the Nuremberg archives, and very well done. Espe- cially valuable for its footnotes, where are printed excerpts from the sources, and for its appendices. “ Uber das Kirchenwesen in Niirnberg im Jahre 1525.” B. B.'K..G., vol, 19, pp. §7—74. BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 KostLin, Jutrus, Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine Schriften. 2 vols. Revised by Kawerau. Berlin, 1903. Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. 3 vols. New York, 1888. Lecxy, W. E. H., History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols.; revised ed. New York, 1870. Linpsay, Tuomas M., A History of the Reformation. 2 vols. New York, one: LipEMANN, HERMANN, Reformation und Tiufertum in ihrem Verhdlinis zum christlichen Princip. Bern, 1896. Lupewic, G., Die Politik Niirnbergs im Zeitalter der Reformation. Gottingen, 1893. Mever, Cur., “ Die Anfange des Wiedertaufertums in Augsburg.” In Zeitschr. d. hist. Vereins f. Schwaben u. Neuburg, I, 211-253. 1878. The best study of Hans Hut. Appends documents of much importance for the history of the sects in central Germany. Mouier, W., Andreas Osiander: Leben und ausge- wahlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1870. Chiefly valuable for excerpts from the sources. Mier, Ernst, Geschichte der bernischen Tdaufer. Frauenfeld, 1895. Miurer, Karu, Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigheit nach Luther. ‘Tubingen, 1910. Best survey of an important question. Kirchengeschichte.. Freiburg i.B., 1892-. Still in process of publication. Murray, R. H., Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude to Toleration. London, 1920. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Argues that Luther was never “a persecutor on purely religious grounds.” NEWMAN, ALBERT H., A History of Anti-Pedobaptism, from the Rise of Pedobaptism to 1609. Philadelphia, 1897. Of little critical value. Ney, Jutius, Geschichte des Reichstags zu Speier im Jahre 1529, mit einem Anhange ungedruckter Akten und Briefe. Hamburg, 1880. NICOLADONI, ALEXANDER, Johannes Biinderlin von Linz und die oberosterreichischen Tdufergemeinden in den Jahren 1525-1531. Berlin, 1893. Pages 160-301 consist of important source mate- rials, culled from various archives, regarding the ‘“ Anabaptists.” OWEN, JoHN, Evenings with the Skeptics, or Free Dis- cussion on Freethinkers. New York and London. 1881. The Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance. WLondon and New York, 1893. Pauutus, Nixouaus, Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrhundert. Freiburg i. B., 1911. A strong but salutary arraignment, from the pen of a Catholic scholar, of the current Protestant viewpoint. RANKE, LEoPoLD von, History of the Reformation in Germany. 2nd ed., tr. by Sarah Austin. Vols. 1-3. London, 1845. REICKE, Emin, Geschichte der Reichsstadt Niirnberg. Nurnberg, 1896. REMBERT, Karu, Die “ Wiedertdufer” im Herzogtum Julich. Berlin, 1899. BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 Emphasizes the influence of the humanists, and es- pecially of Erasmus, upon the sects of the 16th century. Rouwricu, T. W., Geschichte der Reformation im Elsass und besonders in Strassburg. 2 vols. Vol. I. Strass- burg, 1830. Largely superseded. Rotu, FRriepricH, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte. 4 vols. Vol. I. Miinchen, root. Die FEinfuhrung der Reformation in Niirnberg. Wurzburg, 1895. Very important for the present study. RuFFINI, FRANcEscO, Religious Liberty. Tr. by J. Parker Heyes, New York, 1912. Industrious, but uninspired. Written from a legal- istic point of view. ScuirF, Otto, “ Thomas Miinzer und die Bauernbewe- gung am Oberrhein.” In Hist. Zeitschr., Vol. 110, 1913. SCHWABE, Lupwic, “ Uber Hans Denck.” In Z. K. G., 12 (1891), pp. 452-493. Contains fragments of Denck’s writings. SCHORNBAUM, K., “Zum Aufenthalte Joh. Polianders und Joh. Schwanhaussens in Niirnberg.” In B. B. Fe yy. Dy a 1b: Prints an important letter from the Nuremberg Council to Poliander. “Zur brandenburgisch-niirnbergischen Kirchenvisi- tations 2528." oan B.- Books (Gyo 11, ppk 2m 222. Zur Politik des Markgrafen Georg von Branden- burg vom Beginne seiner selbstandigen Regierung bis 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY zum Nurnberger Anstand, 1528-1532. Miinchen, 1906. Die Stellung des Markgrafen Kasimir von Branden- burg zur reformatorischen Bewegung in den Jahren 1524-27 auf Grund .archivalischer Forschungen. Nurnberg, 1900. The author of the above works bases his studies upon extensive research in the archives of Nurem- berg and Bamberg. His writings are voluminous, but not very significant for this study. SEIDEMANN, J. R., Thomas Miinzer. Dresden and Leip- zig, 1842. Valuable documents in the appendices. SMITH, P., The Age of the Reformation. New York, 1920. SODEN, F. von, Beitrége zur Geschichte der Reforma- tion und der Sitten jener Zeit mit besonderm Hinblick auf Christoph Scheurl II. Niirnberg, 1855. From good sources and in general reliable. TROELTSCH, Ernst, “ Die Bedeutung des Protestantis- mus fur die Entstehung der modernen Welt.” In Hist. Zeitschr., Vol. 97, 1906. Die Soziallehren der, christlichen Kirchen und Grup- pen. Tibingen, 1912. UHLHORN, GERHARD, Uybanus Rhegius: Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1861. The standard biography. VACANDARD, E., The Inquisition: a Critical and Histori- cal Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. Tr. from 2nd ed. by B. L. Conway. New York, 1908. VepDER, Henry C., Balthasar Hiibmaier, the Leader of The Anabaptists. New York, 1905. BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 Contains a translation of Hubmaier’s “ Von Ket- zern und ihren Verbrennern,” pp. 84-88. VOLKER, K., Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zeitalter der Reformation. Leipzig, 1912. A very careful study. WALTHER, WILHELM, Fiir Luther wider Rom: Hand- buch der Apologetik Luthers und der Reformation den rémischen Anklagen gegenitiber. Halle a. d. S., 1906. Claims for Luther large-hearted tolerance. WappLer, Pau, Inquisition und Ketzerprozess in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit. Dargestellt im Zusam- menhang mit der Entwickelung der Ansichten Luthers und Melanchthons tiber Glaubens- und Gewissens- freiheit. Leipzig, 1908. Important documents (pp. 164-213). A careful discussion, based upon fresh material from the archives, of the attitude of the two leaders of the Wittenberg movement. Die Stellung Kursachens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Tduferbewegung. In Re- formationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, ed. by Greving. Miinster, 1g1o. Appendices of documents, pp. 129-246, especially illustrative of the attitude of Philip of Hesse towards the sectaries. Shows the conflict of opin- ion between Philip of Hesse and John Frederick of Saxony regarding their treatment. ——Die Tauferbewegung in Thuringen von 1526-1584. Jenaprror3: The most careful of all the special studies of the “ Anabaptists.”” Not the least valuable part of his 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY work are the pages (228-524) in which are found documents — reports of court proceedings, man- dates against the ‘ Anabaptists” and reports con- cerning them. ——Thomas Miinzer in Zwickau und die “ Zwickauer Propheten.’ Zwickau, 1908. WERNLE, Paut, Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16 Jahrhundert. ‘Tubingen and Leipzig, 1904. Renaissance und Reformation. ‘Tubingen, 1912. WESTERMAYER, H., Die brandenburgisch-niurnbergische Kirchenvisitation und Kirchenordnung, 1528-1533. Erlangen, 1894. Wii, G. A., Beytrage zur Geschichte des Antibaptismus in Deutschland. Niirnberg, 1773. An important little book for the study of the sec- tarian movement in Nuremberg. Will was a good Lutheran and strongly disliked the sectaries. He had access to good sources, however. Appendices contain important documents, most valuable being such parts of Millner’s Annals as mention the ‘“‘ Anabaptists.” Miillner lived in the 16th century and was employed by the Council at Nuremberg. The Annals are unprinted. These pages therefore form a valuable source. This volume is identical with the author’s Beytrage zur Frankischen Kirchen- historie, Nurnberg, 1770. Nurnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexicon. Nurnberg und Altdorf, 1755. WINTER, Vitus ANTON, Geschichte der baierischen Wiedertaufer im sechszehnten Jahrhundert. Miinchen, 1809. Has a number of documents appended; otherwise of little worth. INDEX Albert, Archbishop of Mainz, VEN Albert of Brandenburg, 132. Allstedt, 40, 108. Altenburg, 26, 106, 130, 132, he Altenerlangen, 155, 159. “ Anabaptists”’ (see also Sec- taries): attitude of historians towards, 11-12; champion individual conscience, 18-20; difficulty of classification, 12-15, 19; general tenets of, 15-20; loose use of name, 12-14; on the state and society, I5, 17-18, 145, 158- 159, 172; rapid spread of, 97, 142-144, 150; should be tolerated, 195; significance of for later times, 20; ‘‘ synod ” Of, 1444145," 1503" | their theories exaggerated, 18-10; theory of sacraments, 17, 75; laws against: in Catholic lands, 147, 173; in Evan- gelical lands, 146-147, 1438- I5I, 153, I71, 173, 192; decree of Swabian League against, 173-174, 178; Im- perial mandates against, 172- 173, 178, 195-196, 200. Augsburg, 32, 36-37, 144, 150, 155, 156, 168, 171, 173. Augustine, Saint, 99, 102. Baptism, 14, 17, 56-57, 75-76, 79; 83, 84, go, 158, 17!I, 172. 231 Basel, 32, 54. Bible, The: authority of, 10, 33, 42, 55-56, 98-99, 108— 109; interpretation of, 15, 74-75. Bibra, 35, 154, 157 (note 94). Blasphemy, 93-04, I15, 118— 123, 124, 132, 142, 149, 172, 198. Blaurock, 146. Bodenstein, Andreas, see Karl- stadt. Brenz, Johann, 178-180, 184- 185, 190-194, 195; his Bedenken, 178-180, 182 note, 185-190, 191, 203-204. Brisger, 124. Brismann, 122. Cajetan, Cardinal, 25. Capito, Wolfgang, 199. Casimir, duke of Brandenburg- Ansbach, 51. Castellio, Sebastian, 192. Censorship of the press, 47, 50- Ty Church lands, confiscation of, 132, 133-134, 138-139. Civil law, The, condemned rebaptizers, 14, 188-190. Conscience, claims of, 4-5, 8- TOV 10,20; azole Crotus Rubeanus, 11. Denck, Hans: and Hatzer, 37- 39; and Hut, 36-37; and northern radicals, 55; and 232 INDEX personal religion, 57-58; 64-65, 103-105, 109-114, banishment of from Nurem- 170-172, 185-190. berg, 81-82; “bishop” of Eucharist, The, 17, 33, 62, 63, “ Anabaptists,”’ 97; borrows from earlier mystics, 53-54; Career.\)) Of) mnain=33. his .. Bekenntnis, 70-76; inde- pendence of, 33-34, 57-58; leader of radicals in Nurem- berg, 53-55, 69; not guilty of sedition, 82 (note 34), 88, 96; trial of, 69-81. Dietrich, Veit, 195, 1098. Dissent, punishment for: in Catholic lands, 147, 174; in Evan- gelical lands, 146-147, 149; banishment, 81-82, 86-87, 141, 143, 146, 150, I5I, 176, 183-184, 193; death, 146, 148, 150, 159, 174-175. suppression of: in Evangel- ical states, union of Church and State for,,64, 91; grounds for, 88-94, I00, 142, 190 (note 39), 195; in Middle Ages, 3, 60. Dolmann, Jacob, 155, 164. Diirer, Albrecht, 22, 48, 68. Ebner, Hieronymus, 26. Bek; jJohn, es; 121: Eltersdorf, 36, 156. Emperor (Charles V), 9, 20, 47, 135. Emser, 121. Erasmus, 6. Error, Religious: not to be eradicated by force, 199; to be fought by carnal weapons, 65, 82-83, 88-94; to be fought by spiritual weapons, 66, 67, 68, 75-76; 80, 83, 84, 90, 152, 154, 158. Ferdinand, Archduke of Aus- tria, 29, 46, 135, 147, 173. Franck, Sebastian, 191, 200- 201. Friends of God, 23. Greiffenberger, Hans, 61-67, 77, 88, 92, 153, 168. George, duke of Brandenburg- Ansbach, 168-170, 179, 184. Haferitz, Simon, 55-56. Hain, 35. Hatzer, Ludwig, 37-309. Heresy, 60, 93, 102, 104, 124, 185-187. Herrgott, Johann, 47. Hesse, 175. Hotzel, Hieronymus, 48-49, oh) Hubmaier, 145. Humanism, 23-25, 30, 57. Hus, John, 23. Hut, Hans, 35-37, 144, 150, 154-156, 165, 170. Idolatry, 115. Imitation of Christ, 53. Imperial Diets: Nuremberg, 30, 473, Spires, (1526)410, 135-137; Spires (1529), Ig, 195-197; Worms, 9. “Inner Word,” 16, 45, 57, 74, 79. Intolerance: basis of 1-2; en- joined for Christian rulers, 99-100. INDEX Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein of, 34, 48-51, 53) 62, 67, 80, 89, 90, 108, 152. Keller, Ludwig, 38. Ko6nigsberg (in Saxony), 148, 155, 159. Kraft, Adam, 22. Kress, Christoph, 27. Link, Wenceslaus, 25-26, 178, 180, 195. Luther, Martin: and “ Ana- baptists,” 16, 144, 160; and Denck, 57-58, 74-75, 98; and the individual, 10, 30-31, 105-109; and mysticism, 54; and the princes, 8, 10; and Scripture, 9-10, 16, 106- 109; and tolerance, 98-100, 105; attitude toward heresy, Opes OF, 19G3, 102-865," 122; break with Church, 6-9; consistency of, 125-126; definition of blasphemy, 115, fio-123," 108; failure . to satisfy radicals, 11, 30-31, 40, 143, 145-146; letter to Link (1528), 178-185; on conscience, 9, I20, 123; on the civil power, 96, 109-114, II5-1I16, 117, 123-125, 128- 129, 133-134, 138-139, I41- 142; on the death penalty, 197-198; opposed by Karl- stadt, 48-49; opposed to Zwinglians, 197; relation with Nurembergers, 23-27, 94, 123-126, 178-183, 192; reverence for authority, 98- ror; theory of Church unity, 116; versus Miunzer, 34, 40-43; writings of, 202- 203. 233 Manz, Felix, 146. Marx von Weiblingen, 66. Melanchthon, Philipp, 91, 108, EIO11 8255 0l 24571008 Miltitz, 25. More, Thomas, 5-6. Mosaic Law, The: invoked in defense of persecution, 44- AS, 46, I17-118, 128, 167, 198; not applicable to sup- pression of ‘ Anabaptists,” 187. Miilhausen, 40-41. Miinster, 20. Miinzer, Thomas, 34, 35, 37; 40-44, 47, 51, 53, 54, 59, 89, TOOMP 21257154; Mut, Conrad, 11. Mysticism, and religious ‘re- volt, 41, 53-54. Nicholas of Cusa, 5-6. Nickolsburg, 39, I15. Nuremberg: counsels modera- tion in Swabian League, 174-176; moderates in, 195; sectaries in, 22-23, 151-165, 168-182, 192-194; seeks ad- vice for suppression of dis- sent, 178-179; theories of theologians and jurists in, regarding suppression of dis- sent, 77-81, 84-87, 89, g2—- 93, 124, 194. Council of: adopts Luther- anism, 27-28, 95-96; and Greiffenberger, 63-66; as- sumes authority in religious questions, 23, 59-61, 177; attempts to steer a middle course, 46-47; banishes painters, 87; expels foreign agitators, 50, 60; issues in- 234 structions for the combating of error, 169-172; suppresses heresy, 61; tries Denck, 81- 82. Niitzel, Kaspar, 25, 26. Odenbach, John, 199. (Ecolampadius, John, 32, 54- 55. . Osiander, Andreas, 26-27, 28, 33; 44-46, 63-65, 67, 77) 88, 92, 124, 154. Painters, The (Bartel and Sebald Behaim, Georg Pentz, Hans Platner), 67, 68, 60, 83-01, 93-94, 152-153. Palatinate, The, 175. Parish, The, independence of, 129-132. Peasants’ Revolt, The, 209, 37, 42-43, 59, 91, 116, 159, 172, 174. Peringer, Diepold, 20. Pfeiffer, Heinrich, 40-41, 44- 46, 124. Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, 132, 136, 199-200. Pirkheimer, Wilibald, 11, 24- 25, 54. Prince, The: responsible for spiritual welfare of subjects, 127-128, 131-132, 135-139; to correct abuses in Church, 8, 123-124. Protest, The, of Evangelical states at Spires, 196-197. Reinhart, Martin, 49-50, 53, 89. Religious liberty, Protestants and, 7, 196. Renaissance, The, 5. INDEX Rhegius, Urbanus, 168. Romer, Hans, 44. Rothenburg (on the Tauber), he: Salzmann, Thomas, 149-150. Sattler, Michael, 145. Saxony, 40. Electors of: Wise, 209, Frederick the T3417; 20: 131-132; John, tty 432; 134, 136, 137, 139-140, 148, 173, 176, 197. Dukes of: John Frederick, 61, 112; George (Alber- tine), 147, 173. Schaubis, 124. ‘ Scheurl, Christoph, 25, 80, go. Schiemer, Leonard, 39. Schlaffer, Hans, 37-39. Schleupner, Dominicus, 27, 47. Schwartzenberg, Hans von, 175, Schwertfeger, see Pfeiffer. Sectaries: attempted classifica- tion of, 68 note; connection with pre-Reformation groups, 68 note; courage of, 199; grounds for punishment of, 45-46, 65 (note 8), 167—- 168, 1095; oppose external authority in religion, 30-31; seditious nature of teachings, 53, 122, 157 (note 94), 159- 160, 190 (note 39). Spalatin, George, 29, 109, 120, 134, 137. Spengler, Lazarus, 23-26, 122, 152, 176, 183, 195; 198, 199. | Staupitz, John, 26, 102. Stoss, Veit, 22. Strassburg, 144, 149, 168. INDEX Sturm, Hans, 196-197. Swabian League, The, measures of to suppress dissent, 173- 176, Tauler, 53. Theologia Germanica, 53-54. Thuringia, 148. Tolerance: basis of, 1-2; in later Middle Ages, 5-6; Brenz and, t1go-191 (also note 41); Luther and, 99- I0o, Torgau, League of, 136-137. Torture, 83 (note 36), 150, 160 (and note 105). Vischer, Peter, 22. Visitation: of Nuremberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach, 176- 235 177; Saxon, 112, 138, 140- I4I 176. Vogel, Wolfgang, 36, 155-159, 162, 164. Vogler, George, 175. Volkamer, Klemens, 27, 175. 174, Waldensians, 23. William, duke of Bavaria, 147. Wisperger, Erasmus, 67. Worms, Edict of, 10, 135, 147, 196. Ziirich, 39, 143, 146, 153, 168. “ Zwickau prophets,’ The, 40, 108, IOQ—IIO, I21. Zwilling, Gabriel, 130, 132. Zwingli, Huldreich, 16, 39, 143, 148, 152, 168, nceton Theolo iii iil DATE DUE EE EEE ee eee ‘ } Vi | ubeaal iit i 1 vi tilt 1] | i Hitt PIS Se Ta Se ——S~ =