The Protestant Reformation in Europe (Seminar Studies) [1 ed.] 0582070201, 9780582070202

Citation preview

The Protestant ReforlIla tion in Europe Andrew Johnston

First published 1991 by Pearson Education Limited This edition published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 1991, Taylor & Frands. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. ISBN 13: 978-0-582-07020-2 (pbk)

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Johnston, Andrew The Protestant Reformation in Europe. I. Europe. Christianity. Reformation I. Tide 274

Library of Congress Catalogäng-in-Publication Data

Johnston, Andrew. The Protestant Reformation in Europe / Andrew Johnston. p. cm. - (Seminar studies in history) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-582-07020-1 I. Reformation. I. Title. 11. Series. BR305.2.j646 1991 91-12726 274' .06 - dc20 CIP

Set in 10/11 point Baskerville (Linotron)

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES MAP OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE IN 1519

1

2

IV V VI

Part One: The Background THE LA TE MEDIEV AL CHURCH

Causes and origins? Popular piety Theology Christian humanism Antipapalism and anticlericalism Heresy Part Two: The Progress of Reform LUTHER AND THE GERMAN REFORMATION

Luther's early life Luther in revolt, 1517-21 The impact of Luther's revolt

I I I

5 7

10

12

15 15 19 26

3 THE URBAN REFORMATION Zwingli and Zurich Basel and Strasbourg

34 34 40

4

44 45 48 50

5

ANABAPTISM

The Swiss Brethren U pper German sects North-west Germany and the Netherlands CALVINISM

Calvin's early life and conversion The Institutes Geneva The impact of Calvinism

54 54 57 61 66

Contents

6

Part Three: Assessment CONCLUSIONS

72

Part Four: Documents

78

GLOSSARY BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

108 110 118

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the governors of King Edward VI School, Southampton, for granting me a sabbatical term to work on this project. Whilst on leave I enjoyed the hospitality of the U niversity of Southampton and Merton College Oxford. I am grateful to Dr G. W. Bernard and Dr A. C. Duke for their comments and, as always, to my wife Janet for her unstinting support.

IV

Seminar Studies

In

History

Introduction The Seminar Studies series was conceived by Patrick Richardson, whose experience of teaching his tory persuaded hirn of the need for something more substantial than a textbook chapter but less formidable than the specialised full-Iength academic work. He was also convinced that such studies, although limited in length, should provide an up-to-date and authoritative introduction to the topic under discussion as weH as a selection of relevant documents and a comprehensive bibliography. Patrick Richardson died in 1979, but by that time the Seminar Studies series was firmly established, and it continues to fulfil the role he intended for it. This book, like others in the series, is therefore a living tribute to a gifted and original teacher. Note on the System oj References:

A bold number in round brackets (5) in the text refers the reader to the corresponding entry in the Bibliography section at the end of the book. A bold number in square brackets, preceded by 'doc.' [doc.6] refers the reader to the corresponding item in the section of Documents, which follows the main text. From the beginning of Part Two a word followed by an asterisk indicates that the term is defined in the Glossary.

v

DENMAAK

The Holy Roman Empire in 1519

Lubeck

NETHERt..A.NOS

Bremen

Am sterdaio I

POlAHO POUND POlANO

-SRANDENBUAG -BRANDENBUFIG

Magdaburg Munster

Antwerp

Wittenbeig

HESS Mulhausen "BrU5M!(\

Cologne

Leipzig Erfurt SAXONY

Breslau

oS',,< .$'k

Schmalkalden

~oS'/", ~.$'I-4

Prague BQHEMIA MORAVIA Nuremberg

UPPER PALATINATE

LOWER PALATINATE Heidelberg

• Pans Pafls

Strasbourg

Augsburg

FRANCE Basel Zuric~ ßerne SWISS CONHDERATION Geneva Gene"a Lyons

HUNGARY TYAOl

SAVOY

Tunn TUfin

o

100

200

300 km

Boundary of tM Holy Romarl Empire

Habsburg dominions Habsburg dominions Church Church lands lands

VI

AUSTRIA

Vie(lna" VK\1lna"

Part One:

The Background

1 The Late Medieval Church

Causes and origins? In examining the conditions which prevailed in the Church in the late middle ages, the terms 'causes' and 'origins' of the Reformation ought to be avoided; they are too beset with problems and difficulties. First, they tend to imply a sense of retrospective inevitability, with historians looking for factors, events or personalities which make the Reformation bound to occur. Such an approach is both unhelpful and unhistorical. Moreover, the search for causes and origins has led to numerous false conclusions. Early historians of the Reformation were churchmen - propagandists for a cause, whether it be Catholic or Protestant - who identified 'causes' to score theological points. 'Abuses' in the late medieval Church were a scapegoat for polemicists of both confessions, absolving post-Tridentine Catholics of guilt and justifying Luther's attack on a corrupt institution in the eyes of Protestants (69). Finally, when we identify 'origins' do we mean the origins of Luther's thought, the origins of the dispute which engulfed the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg between 1515 and 1519, or the origins of the Reformation as a whole, both Lutheran and Reformed? The relationship between these three is difficult and perhaps impossible to disentangle, but they are by no means synonymous. The Reformation was not a single event but a complex process. Rather than describing 'causes' and ·'origins' it is much more helpful to use the image of tributaries converging together as one river (1l3, ch. 3). In this way we can paint a picture of the conditions which prevailed within the late medieval Church on the eve of the Reformation without apportioning blame or suggesting either that the Reformation was bound to occur or that it had to take the forms it did.

Popular piety The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were a profoundly religious age. That is not to say that everyone was devout, but rather that

1

The Background the religious presuppositions of the age were virtually universal. Heaven and hell, God and the Devil, the angelie hosts and the demonie hordes were all very real. Indeed, amongst the saintly there was a hallowing of everyday life whieh bordered on the ridieulous. The fourteenth-eentury German mystie Henry Suso, for example, when he ate an apple would eat it in quarters, the first three for eaeh person of the Trinity and the last in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary (85). By almost every eoneeivable measure popular piety was strang, indeed intensifying on the eve of the Reformation. The eentral foeus of la te medieval religion, the mass, was as popular as always. New endowments ofmasses in Upper Austria were inereasing faster than ever before, peaking in 1517, whilst in Hamburg in north Germany there were ninety-nine bratherhoods devoted to saying masses for the dead, most of whieh had developed sinee 1450 (115, eh. 2). Numbers present at mass were no doubt inereased by the popular belief that the ageing proeess was suspended during the time spent in attendanee. Moreover, new movements and developments served to augment la te medieval piety. The la te fourteenth eentury had seen the birth in the Netherlands and the lower Rhineland of a movement known as the devotio moderna (modern devotion) founded by Gerard Graote. Essentially this was a lay religious movement whieh sought to bridge the gap between seeular and religious life. Members of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, the main braneh of the movement, lived in eommunity, eommitted to the monastie ideals of poverty, ehastity and obedienee, but avoided taking formal vows. The ideals of the devotio moderna - inner eontemplation and meditation and devotion to the saerament of the altar (holy eommunion) - are epi tomised in the Imitation of Christ by Thomas cl Kern pis [doc. 1]. The invention of printing (e. 1450) was a further stimulus to devotion. The first text printed by Gutenberg was, of course, the famous forty-two line Bible, and before 1517 there were some twenty-two different editions of the Bible printed in Germany. Printed in even greater numbers were parts ofthe Bible, partieularly the Psalms and the Gospel and Epistle readings for Sundays. However, perhaps the most influential form of devotionalliterature was the lives of the saints such as those reeorded by Jaeob of Voragine in his Golden Legends, written between 1255 and 1266 but popularised in a variety of languages in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth eenturies. It is true that the Protestant reformers made great use of the printing press. Luther went so far as to deseribe it as 'God's

2

The Late Medieval Church

highest and extremest act of grace whereby the business of the Gospel is driven forward'. However, it is equally true that printing was a considerable stimulus to Catholic devotion prior to 1517

[doc.2].

What then were the hall marks of late medieval piety? First, there was an intense devotion to the Virgin Mary, Mary being seen as an appeasing mediator between mankind and Christ theJudge. Indeed, so powerful a force was this Mariology that it might even be said that late medieval man was justified by faith in Mary. In his Miracles ofthe Blessed Virgin Mary (l435-40)Johannes Herolt compiled stories of wicked and criminal types spared from human and divine retribution by their trust in Our Lady [doc. 3]. This cult of the Virgin was very much a hall mark of popular religion, permitted but not endorsed by the Church hierarchy. Beliefin the Assumption ofMary (i.e. that she was taken up into heavenly glory without death) was common, but it did not become Catholic dogma until 1950. Linked to this cult of the Virgin was a more general devotion to the saints, again because of their supposed intermediary role. Not only was the veneration ofthe saints increasing, it was also becoming more real and tangible through the belief that relics - material remains of saints and sacred objects - had miraculous powers. In 1231 whilst the recently deceased Saint Elizabeth of Hungary was lying in state she was li te rally ripped apart by worshippers eager to get their hands on parts of her body and c10thing for relics. Strips of linen covering her face were tom off, her hair was cut off as were her nails and even her nipples (85)! Moreover, this craving for relics was not limited to the simple, for Frederick the Wise, Elector ofSaxony and Luther's political protector, was an eager collector. By 1518 he had amassed 17,000 relics which included thirty-three fragments of the cross and as many as 204 pieces of the Holy Innocents (the children of Bethlehem slaughtered by Herod after the birth of Christ). Very much apart of this cult of the saints was the desire to go on pilgrimage. The main centres for pilgrimage in Europe were Santiago de Compostella, Mont-St-Michel, Aarehen and Rome, but in the fifteenth century regional shrines to local saints were becoming increasingly popular (150). Folk went on pilgrimages for a variety of reasons, with religious motives playing apart, for visitation of holy shrines might gain hoped-for eures and miracles. However, pilgrimages also performed a valuable social function, enabling people to travel in relative security. Yet not all pilgrims went voluntarily, since some went as a public penance, and for others it was a judicial

3

The Background

senten ce more or less akin to banishment. In 1536 the Dutch printer Adriaen van Berghen was sentenced to a pilgrimage to Nicosia, Cyprus, for selling Lutheran books - a particularly inconvenient place to travel to, which fitted the seriousness of his crime. On other occasions it is the overwhelmingly voluntary nature of the pilgrimage which is striking. This is particularly true of the children's pilgrimage to Mont-St-Michel in 1457 on which the majority of pilgrims were South Germans and for which there is no discernible cause (115, ch. 2). Two final hall marks of late medieval piety are indulgences and the doctrine of purgatory. Indulgences were made possible because Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints had an abundance of merits which far exceeded the number required for salvation. The surplus merits constituted a reservoir of grace which, according to the bull of Clement VI Unigenitus (1342), the Church was able to dis tribute to the faithful. Indulgences became popular in the late middle ages as a means of being credited with having performed the act of penance required by the priest, satisfaction being the third part of the sacrament ofpenance (see below). The danger was that in the popular mi nd they could be associated with the forgiveness of the sin itself. In 1476 Pope Sixtus IV extended indulgences to purgatory, an intermediary place where the dead were purged of unforgiven sins. This meant that the faithful, through the purchase of indulgences, could shorten the time spent by their dead loved ones in purgatory. These teachings on indulgences were to provide the occasion for the initial conflict between Luther and his opponents in 1517. What then was wrong with late medieval piety? Wh at objections were made to it and how much dissatisfaction was there prior to 1517? One charge al ready hinted at in respect to the cult ofthe saints is that late medieval religion was too physical, and was becoming too much apart of ordinary life. It is true that there were fraudulent elements and this was seized upon by reformers such as Calvin who wrote a satire on relics, but such illicit trade would not have arisen had there not been a demand, a yearning for salvation. Yet the swiftness with which the cult of the saints evaporated in the sixteenth century, both in Protestant circles where it was furiously denounced and in the post-Tridentine Catholic Church where it was drastically pruned, suggests that this exotic flower oflate medieval religion had grown too large. If the cult of the saints was overly physical, then a second charge which can be laid is that late medieval Catholicism was excessively

4

The Late Medieval Church

burdensome. This is particularly true in regard to the sacrament of penance to which beliefs on indulgences and purgatory were linked. For anyone who treated the sacrament of penance seriously the system was very demanding. There were three distinct parts to the sacrament: confession (which was required annually by the fourth Lateran Council of 1215), absolution, and satisfaction, and even after these processes had been undertaken forgiveness was uncertain and salvation not guaranteed. Moreover, evidence from confessors' manuals suggests that conscientious priests would ask detailed personal questions, many of a sexually explicit nature. Sexual sins were graded from unchaste kisses to bestiality, with masturbation being ranked as worse than incest because ofits waste ofsemen (117 and 118). Ifsuch manuals were used with any degree offrequency - and this is highly conjectural - then Luther's teachings, particularly on Christian freedom, must have come as a welcome relief to the faithful. Not only was the sacrament of penance excessively burdensome, but it demonstrated a third failing of late medieval religion - its inability to outline a distinct concept of a life style for the laity. This is seen primarily in the preoccupation with sexual sins, but also in the penances imposed, which were invariably of a clerical nature. Fundamental to medieval religion was the belief that the clerical, particularly the monastic, way of life, was superior to that of the lay estate. Even the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life of the devotio moderna, a specifically lay religious movement, adopted strict monastic-type practices, avoiding only the taking of vows. All this is in sharp contrast to Protestantism which elevated the lay estate and restricted clerical privileges. Theology Medieval theology was rooted in scholasticism which may be understood as a systematic method of inquiry, both theological and philosophical, aiming at a better understanding of Christian doctrine through rational argument. Within this definition two broad schools ofthought may be identified. Between about 1200 and 1350 the 'realism' of the via antiqua (old way) dominated. Theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) and Duns ScotuS (c. 12651308), who placed much stress on the Greek philosopher Aristotle, believed that universal concepts are expressions of reality - 'Men extst as individuals because "mankind" exists as a universal reality' (114). Nominalism, on the other hand, the dominant school from

5

The Background

about 1350 to 1500, stressed particulars. Its adherents argued that universal concepts such as 'mankind' have no independent reality. What is real is the individual man. This belief caused problems as it led some to question such 'universal' beliefs as the doctrine of the Trinity. Difficulties were only circumvented by arguing that what might be true philosophically need not necessarily apply theologically. Within the nominalist tradition there were two distinct and different trends. First there was the via moderna* (modern way), established by the English theologian William of Occam (c. 12851347). The most important fifteenth-century exponent of the v{a moderna was Gabriel Biel (c. 1420-95), professor of theology at the University of Tubingen and author of the Canon 01 the Mass, later used and studied by Luther. The second group of nominalists were the schola Augustiniana moderna* (modern Augustinian school) which included Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358) who taught at the University of Paris. The main difference between the via moderna and the schola Augustiniana moderna was in their attitude to human abilities, with followers of the former school being very optimistic and those of the latter distinctly pessimistic. Theologians of the via moderna argued that man could contribute something, albeit small, towards his justification (being made righteous before God). When a man did his very best, that is, performed good works, God was obliged to justify hirn, not on the basis of the works themselves, but by the covenant which God had es tablished. This teaching laid the theologians of the via moderna open to the charge of Pelagianism, a doctrine in the early Church condemned as heretical by Augustine, which asserted that man by his own efforts could take the initial steps towards salvation. They refuted this charge by arguing that the works themselves were little, but were considered of high er value by God, rather as a medieval king was obliged to treat lead coins as gold when issuing new currency. The schola Augustiniana moderna - as one might expect from a doctrine based on a revival of Augustine's teachings - emphasised man's sinfulness and total dependence on God for his salvation. Only God could bring justification (104). What then emerges from these theological complexities? First, that there was a divergence of opinion in the late medieval Church, especially on doctrines such as justification. Luther did not initiate a new debate, but rather continued one which had already been in existence for some considerable time. When Luther challenged some of the teachings of the via moderna on issues such as justification, the

6

The Late Medieval Church

Church, lacking a clear and uniform theology, was unable to respond with one voice. Second, and this is a much more controversial point, it has been argued by some historians seeking to explain Luther's revolt, that it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Luther had been educated in the traditions of the via moderna, with all their stress on the contribution man could make to his own salvation. Luther, so the argument runs, distorted Catholic doctrine by isolating the teaching of the via moderna from the whole. He confused the theological opinions of the via moderna with the fondamentals, the official teaching of the Church. He therefore wrongly believed that the entire Church was infected with Pelagianism (101). Meanwhile, the whole approach of scholastic theology was being challenged from another direction - Christian humanism. Christian humanism

In its broadest sense Christian humanism is best seen as a cultural programme which appealed to classical antiquity. Christian humanists were primarily concerned with the source and mode of ideas how they were obtained and expressed - rather than with the substance of the ideas themselves (96). This helps explain why Christian humanism expressed itself in such a wide variety of Vlews. Although it is something of a generalisation, it is nonetheless true that there were substantial differences between south European, particularly Italian, humanism wh ich exhibited more secular, indeed pagan, tendencies, and north European humanism, which had an altogether stronger religious content. North European humanism is best exemplified by the life and writings of Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), a native of the Netherlands. This is not to say that he was the only spokesman for Christian humanism north of the Alps. Rudolf Agricola (1444-85), Jacob Wimpheling (1450-1528) and Johannes Reuchlin (1453-1522), to name but three, were all important voices, particularly within the German-speaking lands (60). Nevertheless, Erasmus stands head and shoulders above his contemporaries in the combination of his scholarship with his concern to implement a practical reform programme to revive Christendom. His attack on contemporary Christianity had two different objectives: to discredit scholastic theology and to reduce the importance of popular superstition. He aimed to construct a Christianity which 7

The Background

was practical and designed for the laity, and his ideas in this regard were epitomised in the Enchiridion Militis Christiani ('Handbook/ Dagger of the Militant Christian'). First published in 1503, this short treatise became especially popular between 1515 and 1522 when twenty-three editions were published; thus its popularity more or less coincided with the advent of the Lutheran movement. In it Erasmus employs the Pauline metaphor ofthe Christian soldier. The Christian must be vigilant but not despairing, for Christ has ensured the ultima te victory. The main weapons available to the Christian are prayer and the Bible and, with these in mind, Erasmus establishes twenty-two general rules of Christianity. He criticises the scholastics for their obscurantism: I do not mean to condemn modern theologians: I am merely pointing out that in view of our purpose, namely, a more practical piety, they are hardly to be recommended (9). He encourages reading ofthe Church Fathers - Origen, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. He attacks all mere outward forms and practices ifthey are performed with a wrong attitude, and he is especially critical of the cult of the saints. Although he does not condemn outward veneration completely, he stresses that purity of life is better [doc. 4]. Finally, following his emphasis on lay piety, he shows extreme wariness of monasticism, but again stops short of complete rejection: If they [i.e. monks] ever get their hands on a man ... they try to drag hirn into the monastic life, as if one were not a Christian without a cowl. Monasticism is not holiness but a kind of life that can be useful or useless depending on a person's temperament or disposition. I neither recommend it nor do I condemn it (9). Erasmus' other major area of eoneern, and this was a eommon feature ofChristian humanism, was adesire to get back to the original sourees of Christianity, the Bible and the Church Fathers. Erasmus showed great eoneern for the text ofthe Seriptures. Glosses and eommentaries were by-passed in favour of study of the text ad flntes (in the original sourees). This led hirn to produee the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516. The work was far from perfeet. It was hurried and produced from only four manuseripts, all ofwhieh were post-eleventh eentury. Erasmus' aehievement was not in mere publication - another scholar was working on a similar project and had actually completed it by 1514 although it was not published until 1520 - but in the problems he raised concerning the

8

The Late Medieval Church

text, translation and interpretation of Scripture. He was certainly not afraid to provoke controversy and did precise!y that with his translation ofMatthew 4: 17. In the Vulgate text Christ admonished the people literally to 'do penance', but in 1516 Erasmus rendered this 'be penitent' and later as 'change your mind'. Thus he removed any connection the verse was thought to have with the sacrament of penance and suggested rather that Christ was concerned with inner attitudes (29). Erasmus was also concerned to make the Scriptures available to the masses, 'the farmer, the tailor, the traveller and the Turk', and he sought to do this through his paraphrases. Erasmus was deeply mistrusted by many ofhis religiously conservative opponents. His ridicule of contemporary re!igious practices smacked ofheresy, and his concern to get back to the sources threatened to take the study oftheology out ofthe hands ofthe established theologians. Moreover, initially he showed great re!uctance to condemn Luther. This led men such asJerome Aleander (1480-1542), the papal envoy at the imperial court, to fee! that Erasmus had 'laid the egg which Luther hatched'. Certainly, the support ofhumanists between 1518 and 1521 gave Luther an important platform and transformed a debate over scholastic theology into a major controversy (106, ch.2). After the Heide!berg Disputation of 1518 Martin Bucer, misunderstanding Luther entire!y, wrote to his humanist correspondent Beatus Rhenanus telling him that the German reformer mere!y stated Erasmus' views more forcefully. In a similar vein, the artist Dürer, on hearing a false report of Luther's death in 1521, expressed the ho pe that Erasmus might take up the German reformer's cause [doc.5]. In reality there was a wide gulf between Erasmus and Luther. Both mistrusted the scholastic theologians, but Erasmus for reasons of style, Luther for wrong doctrine. Both placed considerable emphasis on the Bible, but whereas. for Erasmus it was one of several educational sources, for Luther it was the sole authority. Finally, both men valued the Church Fathers, but Erasmus for their antiquity and Luther because they were expositors of Scripture. Moreover, Erasmus preferred Origen and Luther Augustine (104). If there is a link between humanism and the Reformation it is not to be found in Luther but in Reformed Protestantism (see Chapter 3). Yet such profound differences between Erasmus and Luther were not discernible even to the educated public until Erasmus published his tract Conceming the Freedom 01 the Will in 1525 and Luther responded with his Bondage 01 the Will. 9

The Background

Antipapalism and anticlericalism In its own eyes the papacy was the vicar (representative) ofChrist's power on earth. This power had been gran ted to Peter by Christ Hirnself: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' (Matthew 16: 19). During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, the papacy fell into increasing difficuIties. Bankruptcy, caused by the King of France's refusal to allow the export of gold to Rome, resuIted in the papacy's transference to Avignon in 1305. The papacy's residence in Avignon from 1305 to 1378 was known as the Babylonish Captivity, because it corresponded roughly to the ancient captivity of the Jews. During this time all the popes were French. The authority ofthe papacy was called into further question by the Great Schism (1378-1417). The death ofGregory XI led to the election of the Italian Urban VI, but when he began a programme of reform beginning with the college of cardinals the result was a head-on collision and the election of a riyal French candidate, Clement VII. This division continued until the Council of Constance elected Martin V in 1417. The Great Schism had two major consequences. First, it increased the belief that the hierarchy of the Church was corrupt and thereby encouraged an upsurge in heresy. Second, it led to demands for a general council of the Church to deal with the problem, which promo ted the growth of conciliarism. Conciliarism itself was not new, but it was increasing in strength after 1378 as a means of solving the difficuIties of the papacy. Conciliarism was not perceived by its supporters as opposition to the papacy, but rather as a means of enabling it to reform itself. Unfortunately, the papacy feit threatened and concentrated its efforts on outmanoeuvring the Council ofConstance when it met eventually, and so missed a vital opportunity to reform (32). In the fifteenth century the Renaissance papacy became increasingly secularised. Its vision became narrow as it concentrated on its local ambitions, competing against other Italian powers. Theology at times seemed to be clearly linked to cash benefits - hence Sixtus IV's extension of indulgences to include those souls already in purga tory in 1476. At the same time key documents justifying papal supremacy were demonstrated to be forgeries - the Donation ofConstantine by Lorenzo Valla (c. 1406-57) and the Isidorean Decretals by Nicholas of Cusa (c. 1400-64). This further weakened the spiritual authority of the see of Rome. Alongside this decline in papal power, a growth in the power of 10

The Late Medieval Church

the European monarchies was taking place. Kings were gaining military control of their own kingdoms and were reducing and eliminating foreign influences such as that of the papacy. This was especially true of England, France and Spain. Germany, however, lacking a strong centralising monarchy, was unable to assert her authority against Rome. In Germany, therefore, the papacy was seen essentially as a foreign, specifically Italian, power. This is not to say that antipapalism was the cause of the Reformation. Rather it explains why, when Luther began to challenge the power of the pope, he attracted such a large following. He struck the same patriotic chord as the German humanists who had already aroused latent national feelings against Rome: The Luther affair became linked with the thousand oppressive and arrogant tyrannous actions of the curia [papal court]. People were ready to subscribe to Luther's heretical views for the sake of protesting against such injustices or of being avenged for them (101). The taxation of Rome was particularly resented. Annates, for exampie, were payable by the new incumbent of a bishopric to the curia. This fee could be half the annual income of the diocese. If a vacancy occurred frequently - as at Pass au in 1482, 1486, 1490 and 1500this could speIl financial ruin for a diocese. When Luther published his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in 1520 he drew heavily on fifteenth-century grievance literature. In addition, he was adopting a conciliarist argument. He attempted to persuade the German princes to take a lead by summoning a general council to reform the Church (23). In Luther's view, the weakness of the papacy prevented it from taling the initiative in the reform of the Church. If antipapalism did not cause the Reformation but helped fuel it once it had arrived, the same is also true ofthe related but somewhat different phenomenon of anticlericalism. Anticlericalism may be defined broadly as criticism of'abuses' within the Church and of clergy who led 'immoral' lives. The Reformation attacked the dogma of the late medieval Church, not the 'evil' lives of its priests. However, in the popular mind wrong thinking quickly became associated with wrong living. In the first place, there was a huge gulf between the higher and lower clergy. In contrast to the humble origins of the parish priest, bis hops and archbishops were, almost without exception, men of noble birth. Many did not reside in their dioceses. Antoine du Prat,

11

The Background Archbishop ofSens, for example, visited his cathedral only once and that was for his funeral! Non-residence was also a problem amongst the lower clergy. In Germany only one parish in fourteen had its pastor in residence. In addition, many priests, despite their formal commitment to celibacy, lived in concubinage with a woman companion and, due to poor education, were able to provide only the most rudimentary spiritual guidance. The mass would be said, but preaching, where it existed at all, was usually ofa very poor quality. Monasticism was an easy target for Christian humanists. Wealth, strife between the various o;ders, immorality, private property and extramural involvement had in many cases replaced the life of poverty, chastity and obedience. Yet it is important not to view abuses with modern eyes. True, many monasteries were corrupt, but there were those which had a reputation for strict devotion to their rule. It was such a reputation which may have persuaded Luther to join the Augustinians. Admittedly, there was a gulfbetween the higher and lower clergy, but such social divisions were not necessarily shocking to contemporary opinion, being regarded as ordained by God. Concubinage was certainly a cause for concern amongst reformers in the Church, and in 1512 the Council of Seville requested priests to absent themselves from the marriages of their children (79). Yet many priests lived with their concubines in a relationship similar to marriage and there was little scandal attached to this. Finally, pluralism and absenteeism were not necessarily pernicious. They could be a valuable means of oiling the wheels of ecclesiastical politics and were defended as such by contemporaries. It was possible to be both a pluralist and areformer, as was the case with Charles ofGuise in France (58). In many ways anticlericalism was a consequence oflate medieval piety. Intensity of devotion led to a multiplication of the priesthood. In Breslau, for example, at the end of the fifteenth century two churches alone numbered 236 chaplains whose sole task was to say mass daily (101). Given such numbers, it was very difficult for the clergy to live up to contemporary expectations. Thus anticlericalism was the product of religion, not of irreligion (115, ch. 2). Heresy Heresy may be defined as continued public deviation from the official teachings ofthe Church. The concept ofmedieval 'forerunners' of the Reformation was developed by Catholic and Protestant polemicists alike. From the beginning Catholics sought to prove 12

The Late Medieval Church Luther's deviation from orthodoxy by identifying hirn with medieval heretics. This explains Eck's pursuit of Luther during the Leipzig debate of 1519 as a follower of the Bohemian heretic Jan Huss (c. 1372-1415). Conversely, on ce the breach with Rome seemed permanent, Protestant polemicists were anxious to establish a continuity between themselves and medieval heretics in order to demonstrate that the 'true Church' had always existed alongside the 'Church of Antichrist'. This is particularly the case for the martyrologistsJohn Foxe [doc. 6], Jean Crespin, Adriaen van Haemstede, Ludwig Rabus and the anonymous author ofthe Anabaptist Sacrifzce ofthe Lord. On the eve of the Reformation three distinct heretical groups have been identified. Lollardy, the popular movement descended from the Oxford reformer John Wyclif (c. 1330-84), being exclusively English, falls outside the scope ofthis study. Even so, it is worth noting that historians are increasingly sceptical of the old view that Lollardy provided aspringboard for the transmission ofLutheran ideas in the I 520s. Indeed, it has become difficult for historians even to agree on the definition of a Lollard. There is greater consensus over the Hussites, followers of Jan Huss, condemned at the Council of Constance in 1414. Huss hirnself derived many of his views from Wyclif, but, unlike the Lollards, the Hussites became a movement of national protest in Bohemia. Huss stood for a biblically-based Church and challenged the authority of the existing hierarchy. In particular, he rejected papal claims over excommunication and indulgences (97). Luther did acknowledge the similarity of his ideas and those of Huss, particularly the rejection of papal authority and desire for communion in both kinds. Yet there is no evidence at all that Luther derived his theology from Huss. Rather there was a coincidence ofideas in certain areas. Only after the Leipzig debate did Luther read Huss's work On the Church and then acknowledge in February 1520 that 'We are all Hussites without knowing it' (30). The third clearly identifiable heretical group is the Waldensians, the spiritual descendants ofPeter Valdes (d. 1205-18), concentrated in the Alpine regions of Savoy and Piedmont. Here again there is little evidence that late medieval heresy was aprecursor of the Reformation. The Waldenses were not a counter-church, for they did not totally reject Catholic worship. Rather they were a close-knit group of people who espoused a communal vision and distrusted outsiders. Waldensianism was a popular movement with inherent contradictions. Despite doubts about purgatory, Waldenses still prayed for the dead, and despite criticism of the cult of the saints, 13

The Background

feast days and prayers to the saints were not completely rejected (45). Such confused theology is totally at odds with the Reformation, which began, at least, as a movement of the intelligentsia. Some historians, notably C.-P. Clasen, have sought to establish a link between medieval heresy and Anabaptism. Clasen traces a doctrinal link between the thirteenth-century Brethren of the Free Spirit and the sixteenth-century groups in Thuringia known as the 'Dreamers' and 'Bloodfriends' (28). Certainly there seem to be si milar traits such as sexual promiscuity, stemming from a belief in the sinlessness ofthe believer. However, Clasen uses little evidence from the fifteenth century and fails to establish a definite link across the centuries. Coincidence of ideas is not necessarily proof of a continuity of heretical tradition. The most that can be claimed is that old heresy helped undermine the authority ofthe Church and thus made future generations susceptible to future heresy. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that heresy was a spent force by 1470. With one exception there was no heresy trial in Germany in the fifty years before Luther.

14

Part Two: 2

The Progress of Reform

Luther and the German Reformation

Luther's great achievement was the Reformation and, largely as a response to Luther, the Catholic Church set its own house in order through the Counter Reformation. Such has been the verdict ofhistorians of the sixteenth century. Yet Luther hirnself would have had none ofthis. For Luther, who believed he was living in the last days, the Counter Reformation came first. The Counter Reformation was an unleashing of all the powers of evil - the Devil and the Antichrist - into the world. As he saw it, Luther was not trying to establish a Reformation; this was God's work and would be accomplished at the last judgement. Rather he was initiating reforms to ensure survival until J udgement Day (114). This hel ps explain Luther's bitter invective against enemies of the Gospel such as Jews and papists, for such people by their actions were hastening God's judgement. Seen in this light Luther is a somewhat paradoxical figure. In his terms he sought to delay the Reformation, but in our terms he accomplished it. How then did Luther's Reformation come about?

Luther's early life According to Catholic polemic Luther was the product of a union between his mother and the Devil. In reality, of course, his ancestry was rather more mundane. He was born in Eisleben in the county of Mansfeld, probablyon 10 November 1483, the son of Hans and Margarete Luder. His father was ofpeasant stock but he was unable to farm because, according to Thuringian law, the family farm went to the youngest son Heinz, so Hans therefore became a copper smelter. Luther - he changed the spelling ofhis surname in later life - therefore came from a humble but not adestitute background. When his father died in 1530 he left a substantial fortune of 1,250 gulden, although at various times in his career he also owed considerable sums to the copper processing company. It is true that Hans feared poverty in his old age and this was why he wanted Martin to become a lawyer, but he was able to finance his son's education. Luther's early life is characterised by nothing out ofthe ordinary. 15

The Progress oJ Reform He went to three different schools, at Mansfeld, Magdeburg and Eisenach. In later life he was to criticise the brutality of his educational experience, for he was beaten frequently. He also received corporal punishment from his father and mother, sometimes for trivial misdemeanours. This has led so me people to conclude that Luther was driven into the monastery by the rigours ofhis upbringing (68). Yet such psychoanalytical judgement has little firm evidence to support it. Beating of children was not unusual in this period and in later life Luther was clearly strongly attached to his parents. The first really notable event in Luther's life was his decision to become a monk. There is nothing to prepare us for this because for Luther his entry into monastic life was the result of divine compulsion rather than a free choice. On 2July 1505 Luther was travelling from Mansfeld to Erfurt when a bolt oflightning struck nearby. His response was immediate: 'Help, St Anne, I will become a monk'. The monastery he chose was that of the Augustinian hermits at Erfurt. In all probability he joined the Augustinians for a combination of two reasons. First, they were known to be astriet order and for someone who feit driven into the cloister by a vow this would surely count for something. Second, and perhaps more importantly, joining the Augustinians at Erfurt would involve no break with the nominalist training he had al ready been receiving in the faculty of liberal arts at the University of Erfurt since 1501 (114). After one year as a novice, Luther was accepted as a fully-fledged member of the order, and it was also decided by his superiors that he should become a priest. This decision led to the second great experiential encounter of his life - his first mass in February 1507. After careful preparation and study of Gabriel Biel's Canon oJ the Mass (1499) he spoke the words 'We offer unto thee the living, the true, the eternal God ... '. Luther was filled with holy dread. Who was he to stand before Almighty God? I t was this fear of God, along with its associated doubts, despairs and panies, which was to characterise Luther's early years in the monastery. Luther called this experience his Anfechtung: 'being under attack' is perhaps the nearest English equivalent. Luther's career in this period can be traced easily enough. After his ordination to the priesthood he was assigned to study theology and then, in October 1508, at the behest of the Vicar General of the order, Johanes Staupitz, he was transferred to Wittenberg. There he began lecturing in the faculty of arts whilst continuing his biblical studies. In March 1509 he received the degree of bachelor of biblical studies and later that year he returned to Erfurt where he 16

Luther and the German Reformation

taught a course on the Sentences of the twelfth-century theologian Peter Lombard. In November 1510 he and another monk were sent to Rome to protest against reforms which were taking pi ace within the Augustinian order. They were unsuccessful in their pleas and, on his return to Erfurt, Luther was moved back to Wittenberg. In 1512 he became a doctor of theology and accepted the appointment of Professor of Biblical Studies. He was now settled at Wittenberg and, alongside his lecturing responsibilities, he was engaged in preaching activities and took a leading role within the Augustinian order. Far more difficult to disentangle are the convulsions which took place within Luther's own soul. Entrance into the monastery was, according to contemporary opinion, the surest way of ensuring one's salvation. Thomas Aquinas had called it a second baptism which restored a man to his former state of innocence. Luther followed the monastic rule meticulously. He preferred Lent to Easter because of the fasting it involved, he prayed with great earnestness and he nearly froze to death at night - such were the deprivations he imposed upon hirnself. He made considerable use of the sacrament of penance. As a monk he was required to make one general confession, but Luther made three. He would confess his sins to Staupitz, his confessor, for as long as six hours. Staupitz failed to understand hirn and labelIed Luther's sins 'weak excuses', denying that he was afflicted with 'real' sins such as murder, theft and adultery (27). None of this brought Luther inner peace. He had been trained in the nominalism * of the via modema*. According to this school, the doing of one's best, because of the covenant God had established, brought an infusion of grace. This meant that man was able to perform acts which satisfied God's justice and thus he could be made righteous*. Vet Luther found this unworkable. He was unable to do his best because he was acutely aware of his own sinful nature. He was unable to love God above all else. This brought hirn to the point of despair [doc. 7]. God was unattainable, an arbitrary tyrant whose justice could never be satisfied. Luther's image of Christ was of a judge. He had encountered this when preparing for his first mass. Gabriel Biel in his Canon 01 the Mass quotes Psalm 72: land refers it to Christ: 'Give the king thy justice, 0 God, and thy righteousness to thy royal son' (40). As a result, Luther ca me to hate God. He felt abandoned and feared that he was eternally reprobate, condemned by God to eternal judgement even before his birth. Luther, then, was grounded in the nominalism of the via modema with all its emphasis on the power of the human will. Vet in the

17

The Progress 01 Reform period 1509-18 this was not the only influence on hirn. Through his mentor Staupitz, who had been trained in an altogether different school, the via antiqua*, Luther came into contact with a different stream of thought which stressed the design and grace of God. Staupitz also encouraged Luther to read the German mystics who emphasised abandonment of the soul to the will of God. Luther showed great interest in the sermons ofJohann Tauler (c. 1300-61) in the spring of 1516 and in December ofthe same year he published part of the Theologia Deutsch, an anonymous fifteenth-century mystical work which he greatly admired. Mystic influences can also be discerned in Luther's Seven Penitential Psalms (1517). From as early as the autumn of 1509 Luther also began to study Augustine. This was not because of any loyalty to the Augustinian order, for such reading was not compulsory. Augustine's emphasis on the sinfulness of man and the inabilities of the human will would have provided a sharp contrast with Occamist theology. Luther mayaiso have come into contact with the schola Augustiniana moderna*, although we have no firm evidence that he came across the writings of Gregory of Rimini before 1519. In addition, Luther made use ofhumanist tools of scholarship. After the spring of 1516 he used Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament with its annotations, but even at this stage he was aware of differences with the great humanist scholar (40). However, by far and away the most significant influence on Luther in this period was the text of Scripture itself. With his appointment as Professor of Biblical Studies at Wittenberg in 1512 Luther intensified his study of the Bible. As a result he became increasingly critical of Occam, particularly his teachings on grace and justification. Luther's development from this point on can be traced through his lectures. He began with the Psalms, then in 1515-16 he moved on to Romans, in 1516-17 to Galatians and in 1517-18 to Hebrews. In his own account ofhis conversion or 'tower' experience, written much later in his life in 1545, Luther implies that it was a dramatic and single moment [doc. 8]. Perhaps the final realisation was instantaneous. However, his sermons show that Luther experienced a number ofbreakthroughs from 1513 to 1518. Between 1513 and 1516 Luther's image of God as a judge beg an to recede, although he remained acutely aware of his own sinfulness and inability to change. By the time of his Theses Against Scholastic Theology (1517) Luther had broken with traditional scholasticism*. These theses are, in fact, much more radical than the better known ninety-five theses of

18

Luther and the German Reformation

31 Gctober 1517, but at this point Luther had not found anything to replace the old framework. The culmination ofLuther's understanding ca me probably as la te as the summer of 1518. Luther had always understood the righteousness of God as a standard which man had to attain to. Study of Romans 1: 17, 'The righteous [i.e. the just] shall live by faith', led hirn to realise that, far from something to be achieved, the righteousness of God was imputed to the believer through faith. Rather than a standard to be reached it was something wh ich God worked in you. Luther was later to compare it to a cloak. As Boaz covered Ruth with his cloak (Ruth 3:9-11), so Christ clothes the believer with his righteousness; it is completely extrinsic. Luther saw that Augustine had taught a similar thing, though in fact Luther went much further. Augustine believed that man was in the process of being made righteous. For Luther, this process of being made righteous was sanctification*, the perfecting work of God in the believer after he has been j ustified (102). Justification* by faith alone was the corners tone of the Lutheran Reformation. It was a position adopted by no medieval theologian. Its novelty meant that it was misunderstood by contemporary opponents of Luther. For the medieval theologians the key issue was how to deal with the status of the Christian as a viator or traveller. Man, as they saw it, was a pilgrim who looked back to God's past mercies with hope and joy, but was fearful and uncertain about the judgement that awaits hirn at the end of his journey. Theologians taught that fides charitate flrmata, faith formed by love, could justify the unrighteous and thereby open the way to salvation. But Luther appeared to say thatfides informis, or unformed faith, could perform the same function. Thus, in their eyes, he was blaspheming. Indeed, Jacob van Hoogstraten (d. 1527), the Dominican inquisitor of Cologne, believed that Luther's teaching seemed so appalling that he likened it to Christ entering into marriage with a prostitute or an adulteress (115) [doc.9]. Yet it was not his doctrine of justification by faith alone which first brought Luther into prominence, but his questioning of the value of indulgences. Luther in revolt, 1517-21 That Luther should find hirnself in revolt against the Church as a result of the ninety-five theses is, at first sight, somewhat surprising. He was not the first theologian to express doubts about indulgences

19

The Progress oJ Reform which seemed to do away with the need for penance. Moreover, Luther's criticism ofindulgences in 1517 was not a new development in his theology. He had complained as early as c. 1514 in his lectures on the Psalms that they were making grace cheap. Yet in 1517 Luther did not condemn indulgences per se; rather he criticised their misuse as he saw it. Luther disliked the implication that escape from punishment in purgatory could be purchased. In addition, although indulgences in theory could only remove temporal punishments (including purgatory) and not guilt, in the popular mind it was believed that indulgences absolved the guilt of sin. In other words, forgiveness could be bought. It is important to note that in the ninety-five theses Luther took the existence of purgatory for gran ted , and attacked neither the Church nor the pope: indeed as late as 1541 Luther claimed that he had been seeking to deftnd the pope. Nor was Luther appealing to German public opinion, but rather he was trying to clarify the Church's teaching on indulgences through academic debate. He sought to do this through the normal process of presenting a number of theses for discussion. He would not necessarily even have held to all ninety-five theses with great conviction. Theses presented for disputation traditionally had a good deal of licence (134). How then did these theses provoke such a controversy? The particular indulgence Luther criticised was Pope Leo X's plenary indulgence of 1515, as it was marketed by a Dominican monk called Johan Tetzel on behalf of the Hohenzollern prince Albrecht of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz. Pope Leo intended the indulgence to pay for the building of the new St Peter's basilica in Rome which had been begun under Julius 11. Albrecht of Brandenburg was allowed to seIl it in his archdiocese as a means of repaying a huge debt he owed the Fugger banking family of Augsburg. In 1513 Albrecht had become Archbishop ofMagdeburg and administrator of the diocese of Halberstadt. When Mainz fell vacant the following year he had the opportunity to become primate of all Germany. To gain the see he agreed to pay the pope 21,000 ducats as an entry fee and 10,000 ducats for confirrnation in all his offices. Albrecht did not possess such a large sum so he borrowed it from the Fuggers who had a monopoly of all papal finances in Germany. The rate of intereSt was 20 per cent and Albrecht therefore needed to repay the loan as quickly as possible. He therefore agreed to allow the sale of Leo X's plenary indulgence in his provinces on condition that half the proceeds would go to Rome and the other half to the Fuggers. The Dominican friar Tetzel was not permitted 20

Luther and the German Reformation

in electoral Saxony because its mler, Frederick, did not relish competition with his own collection of relics at All Saints' Church, Wittenberg, which also provided indulgences. However, Wittenbergers could cross the border into Brandenburg and visit the towns of Zerbst and Juterborg. It was reports from such Wittenbergers that first alerted Luther to the indulgences campaign. He was concerned not only as a theologian, but also as a pastor (26). In response to what he heard Luther posted the ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg, probablyon 31 October 1517. They were in manuscript form and written in Latin. In addition, he sent letters and copies of the theses to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and to his own diocesan bishop, Jerome Schulze of Brandenburg. The theses seem dull by comparison with what later came from Luther's pen. They contain no great statements of faith, although at times he did criticise more than indulgences, suggesting that the treasure of the Church is, in fact, the Gospel (doc. 10). The importance of the theses was in their impact. Without Luther's knowledge or approval the theses were translated into German and printed in Nuremberg. This meant that they came within the public domain and the whole affair got out of Luther's control. What had been intended to initiate a university debate had now set off discussion in the marketplace. As a result Luther felt compelled to darify his position and did so in his Explanations to the Ninety-Five Theses (1518). There is littIe doubt that if Leo X had immediately corrected the worst abuses surrounding indulgences, the affair could have been settled quickly. However, such darification was not forthcoming until November 1518. Albrecht of Brandenburg had forwarded his copy of the ninety-five theses to Rome as early as February 1518, but the pope was slow to act. Leo took up the matter with Gabriel Venetus, the head of the Augustinian order, and the request to silence Luther was then passed on to Staupitz. However, when the Augustinians failed to deal with the issue at the meeting of their order at Heidelberg in 1518, at which Luther was present, the Dominicans took up the cause. The Domil;licans were the natural rivals and enemies of the Augustinians and they leapt to Tetzel's defence. One of their number, Sylvester Prierias, drafted a reply to Luther and it was he who shifted the focus from indulgences to papal authority. He argued that whoever did not accept papal authority was a heretic. Since indulgences were backed by the authority ofthe pope the inference was dear. This was a major escalation of the

21

The Progress of Reform conftict and a li ne taken by all subsequent cntlcs of Luther. On 7 August 1518 Luther was given sixty days to appear in Rome on charges of heresy. It was at this point that Luther sought political protection from his secular ruler, the Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony, requesting a hearing on German soil. Without such protection it is extremely unlikely that Luther would have lived beyond 1521. Luther did not deal with Frederick direct but through the court chaplain, George Spalatin, which allowed Frederick room for manoeuvre. The Elector was no friend of heresy; indeed, his orthodoxy is attested by his huge collection of relics. But it was far from clear at this stage that Luther was a heretic, and the Elector was anxious to protect his recently founded University ofWittenberg. Moreover, in Germany there was a deep mistrust ofRomanjustice. The papacy was forced to go along with Frederick because it needed his support in the vote for the successor to Emperor Maximillian I. Maximillian was already working for the election ofhis grandson Charles ofSpain and the curia was anxious to avoid this. Finally, the pope was planning a crusade against the Turks and needed the support of the German princes (27). Thus a combination of factors gave Luther a hearing at the Diet of Augsburg in October 1518. Luther was given safe conduct to Augsburg by the Emperor. Nevertheless, he faced considerable danger there. Huss had been guaranteed safe conduct to the Council of Constance in 1414, but had nevertheless been burnt at the stake. At Worms in 1521 Luther was a public figure. In 1518, however, he was a largely unknown friar suspected of heresy. In going to Augsburg Luther expected to die. Moreover, his opponent was Cardinal Cajetan, an arch-papalist and a far more formidable figure than Prierias. Luther was examined four times by the cardinal, who was reluctant to enter into dialogue with hirn and demanded a simple recantation. However, when Luther requested to know what his false teachings were, so me discussion became inevitable. Like Prierias, although with considerably more skill, Cajetan focused on the question of papal authority. In particular, Luther had denied the Church's treasury of merit as established in the papal bull Unigenitus of Clemen t VI in 1342. Cajetan applied this to the merits of Christ and the saints in respect to indulgences and purgatory, but Luther argued that the treasury of the Church was the Gospel. Luther refused to recant. Fearing for his life, Luther's supporters bundled hirn out of the city at night. On 28 November he appealed to a general council of the Church. 22

Luther and the German Reformation Luther returned to Wittenberg where he waited for the bull of excommunication. He was resigned to leaving Saxony, probably for Paris which was renowned for its antipapalism. Cajetan demanded that Luther be banished or sent to Rome. However, Frederick eventually decided that Luther should stay in Wittenberg until tried and properly convicted. At this point Rome's aim was to gain Frederick's support. To this end a papal emissary, Charles von Miltitz, had been despatched with power to grant Frederick papal honours and legitimacy to his bastard children. The papacy was to tread even more carefully after the death of the Emperor Maximillian I on 12 J anuary 1519, for Frederick was one of the electors responsible for choosing a new emperor. Even after the election of Charles V on 28 J une the pope was still anxious to retain Frederick's goodwill. Thus again the papacy's policy towards Luther was determined by reasons of political expediency. Alongside these political manoeuvrings, the religious controversy moved on. InJuly 1519 a debate was staged betweenJohannes Eck, Professor of Theology at the U niversity of Ingolstadt, and Luther and Andreas Carlstadt, Luther's senior colleague in the faculty of theology at Wittenberg, who was later to part company from hirn and move in an increasingly radical direction. On the appearance of the ninety-five theses Eck had attacked Luther in a work entitled Obelisks (1518). During Luther's absence at the Augustinian convocation at Heidelberg (see above), Carlstadt responded to Eck with aseries of 406 theses. Eck's response was to challenge Carlstadt to a debate and he managed to persuade the University of Leipzig to act as host. This venue was to his advantage as there was a strong rivalry between Leipzig and Wittenberg, which were in ducal and electoral Saxony respectively. On 29 December 1518 Eck had twelve theses printed which he wished to debate with Carlstadt. It was clear from these that his real target was Luther. The theses covered purgatory, indulgences, absolutions, the treasure of the Church and, most important, papal authority. These were subjects Carlstadt had not touched in his 406 theses. The debate was significant for a number of reasons. First, in his preparation for discussion on papal primacy Luther spent a good deal of time studying papal decretals. This led hirn to the conclusion that the pope was Antichrist, a belief which naturally made reconciliation with Rome increasingly unlikely. Indeed, the ultimate consequence of the debate was the pope's decisive intervention against Luther. Second, in the debate itself Eck managed to corner Luther into acknowledging that he believed that Huss had been right

23

The Progress of Reform

on certain points. Thus by his own admission Luther became identified with medieval heretical tradition. Eck failed to get the universities of Erfurt and Paris to condemn Luther as he originally planned, but Luther was condemned by Cologne (30 August) and Louvain (30 November). Luther and Carlstadt returned to Wittenberg believing they had lost the debate, and in many ways they had. Nevertheless, through the Leipzig debate Luther became a nationally renowned figure. His writings were widely disseminated and he began to attract support from German nationalists such as Ulrich von Hutten. In addition, Eck came off badly in the eyes of Christian humanists. Philip Melanchthon, a young professor of Greek at Wittenberg, also attended the debate and he later portrayed Eck as a scholastic, which did the Ingolstadt theologian no good at all (40). Luther was now notorious. On 15 June 1520 Rome issued the papal bull Exsurge Domine which condemned forty-one articles ofLuther as heretical and gave hirn sixty days in wh ich to recant or be excommunicated. Luther's response was to burn the papal bull on 10 December, thus signalling a complete breach with Rome. He was formally excommunicated on 3 January 1521. Between the issue and the burning of the papal bull, Luther published three of his most important works. In August 1520 ca me his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. U nlike his other writings, this tract was not primarily theological in content. Rather, it was an appeal to the new emperor Charles and to the German nobility to stop the activity of the pope. The foundation of this appeal was the priesthood of all believers [doc. 11]. On the basis of this doctrine Luther asserted that three Roman walls must tumble down; the assertions that spiritual power is above temporal, that the pope alone can interpret scripture, and that the pope alone can call a council. To the Christian Nobility was an indictment ofthe worldiness of the Church and it recommended a long list of necessary reforms It was enormously popular. The first edition of 4,000 copies sold out within two weeks. Luther's most radical work was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (September 1520). The tide suggested that the Church was a prisoner in exile like the Jews in Babyion. For Luther, she was held by a clerical domination of the sacraments. He reduced the traditional seven sacraments to three - baptism, holy communion and penance. The remaining sacraments were redefined. Most radical of all was Luther's view of holy communion. Luther asserted that communion should be given to the laity in both kinds, bread

24

Luther and the German Reformation

and wine. He also cündemned the doctrine of transubstantiation. This belief was based on Thomas Aquinas' distinction between the 'substance' (universal concept) and 'accidents' (external properties). From the fourth Lateran Council (1215) the Church had asserted that the substance of the bread was changed at the eucharist while the accidents remained unaltered (48). For Luther this was scholastic nonsense, although he maintained his belief in the real (physical) presence ofChrist in the Lord's Supper. Third, the sacrificial nature of the mass was rejected. F or hirn the eucharist was the last will and testament of Christ, not a good work performed in order to gain merit in the eyes of God. This was not the first time Luther had espoused such views. It was the vehemence with which he expressed them in the Babylonian Captivity wh ich shocked contemporaries [doc. 12]. Even at the Diet of Worms there were opponents who showed some sympathy for Luther, but the Babylonian Captivity proved a stumbling block. Finally, in November 1520, Luther published his Freedom oJ the Christian Man. Here Luther expounded on the life of faith. He rejected the necessity of obedience to canon law. Only faith l in the word of Christ can make a man righteous. Hence, 'a Christian Man is a free lord over all things and subject to none'. Nevertheless, Christian freedom should not produce idleness but genuine good works, for 'a Christian Man is a bounden servant of all things and servant of all' (134). With the burning of the papal bull, Luther had broken with Rome. He now hoped that reform would come from the new Emperor Charles. The Elector Frederick urged that Luther should not be üutlawed before being given a chance to defend hirnself, and pressed Charles V für his case to be given a public hearing at a meeting üf all the German states in the forthcoming Diet to be held at Worms. The Papal Nuncio, Jerome Aleander, opposed this on the grounds that Luther had already been condemned as a heretic, but after some hesitation Charles agreed to grant Luther a hearing. Luther arrived at Worms on 16 April 1521, having been given safe conduct by the Emperor. The following day he appeared before the assembled diet. He was presented with a pile of books and asked if he was prepared to acknowledge his authorship. He did so and was then asked if he would recant the teachings contained in them. Luther asked for time to consider and was given twenty-four hours. In all probability Luther was not being evasive, but was rather taken by surprise. He was expecting a list of statements to repudiate, not his entire literary output. 25

The Progress of Reform

Even at this stage Luther could have pursued amiddie course by repudiating the Babylonian Captivity and concentrating attention on the power of the papacy in Germany. Jean Glapion, the Emperor's confessor, had wanted Luther to adopt such a position, but he was not prepared to do so. When Luther gave his reply on 18 April he divided his works into three C'ttegories; devotional tracts which even his enemies would not expect hirn to retract; polemic against the papacy; and polemic against individuals, neither ofwhich latter two categories he was prepared to recant. His defence was, first and foremost, an appeal to Scripture. Charles, however, condemned Luther, and gave hirn only twenty-one days in which to return to Wittenberg. Thereafter he would be under imperial ban and sentence of death. Yet only four out of six electors signed the Edict of Worms, for Ludwig of the Palatinate and Frederick of Saxony left the city before Aleander had drawn up the final version. This meant that in Saxony Frederick could ignore the edict and he did precisely this, thereby once again saving both Luther and his work. Yet Frederick was weH aware ofthe danger Luther was in. Thus, on Luther's return journey to Wittenberg the Elector arranged for his capture and had hirn held at Wartburg castle where he would be out of the reach of his enemies.

The impact of Luther's revolt It is wrong to imagine that Luther's break with Rome was perceived as permanent in 1521. Certainly Luther did not see it as such, but believed that he was reforming one universal Church. Care must be taken, therefore, to avoid anachronistic labels such as 'Catholic' and 'Protestant'. The term 'Protestant' should not be used to describe adherents to Luther's teaching before 1529, for it was first used during the Diet of Speyer of that year. The word 'Lutheran' is also unhelpful, originaHy being designated as a term of abuse (142). 'Evangelical', implying a preference for the Gospel, is preferable, but is also a somewhat loaded term, implying that Luther's opponents were opponents of the Gospel. Yet 'evangelical' was used by the followers of Luther to describe themselves and it does embrace both foHowers of Luther and Christian humanists* who were often indistinguishable in the early years of the Reformation. Finally, on terminology, the rigid demarcation of evangelicals into various camps - Lutheran, Zwinglian, etc. - should be avoided, at least before 1525. Luther's survival from 1518 to 1521 was, in large measure,

26

Luther and the German Reformation

dependent on political support. The progress ofthe reform movement in the 1520s also benefited from princely assistance. In these years Luther gained the support of a number of German princes. These included Albert of Hohenzollern (1525), the Landgrave Philip of Hesse (1526), the Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, the Count of Mansfeld, the Duke of Schleswig and the Duke of Brunswick (all 1528). In Wittenberg this princely and official Reformation became a new orthodoxy. This was largely in reaction to the radical tendencies that came to the fore during Luther's absence - including the destruction ofimages, 'iconoclasm', to which Carlstadt gave his approval, and the activities of the mysterious Zwickau prophets (see p. 46). When Luther returned in 1522 he felt compelled to act as arestraining inftuence. The Peasants' War of 1524-25 seemed to hirn to provide further proof of the danger of unregulated reform. The causes of the war were rooted in the social and economic grievances in German society, but they acquired a religious gloss through the reform movement, as can be seen in the Twelve Articles of Memmingen (March 1525) which formed the basis of the peasants' demands. Luther's doctrines of the priesthood of all believers and Christian freedom could be interpreted in socio-economic terms to mean equality of social status and freedom from seigneurial dues. This caused Luther great concern. After an initial period of evenhandedness, he came down firmlyon the side of authority, condemning the revolt in no uncertain terms in his tract Against the Murdering Thieving Hordes 01 Peasants (1525) and urging princes to put down the revolt with all severity. The result of these experiences was an official Reformation guided and directed from above. Luther drew up a vernacular liturgy in 1526, the Deutsche Messe, which was a modified version of the old Latin rite. This was complemented by German hymns and a German Bible, the New Testament appearing in 1522 and the Old Testament in 1534. New ecclesiastical structures were established, the bishops being subject to visitation by a group of theologians and councillors responsible to the territorial ruler for establishing the new faith. The first visitations took place in 1528-29. Wittenberg also became a centre of missionary activity. Many foreign students, such as Hans Tausen from Denmark and Robert Barnes from England, came to study at the university and took back evangelical ideas to their native lands. Meanwhile Lutheran Church orders or constitutions were drawn up to be adopted elsewhere, notably by Johannes Bugenhagen, the leading organiser in the Lutheran camp. The Lutheran princes also created political structures to protect

27

The Progress

01 Reform

themselves against the power of the Emperor. In 1525 they formed the League of Torgau to prevent the enforcement of the Edict of Worms. They appeared to have achieved this goal at the Diet of Speyer in 1526 when Charles V, preoccupied with France and Turkey, was forced to concede a decree of toleration. This success was shortlived, however, for at the Diet ofSpeyer of 1529 the 1526 decree was repealed and the Edict of Worms reimposed (67). This led to the formation of the Schmalkaldic League in February 1531, whereby the Lutheran princes and cities promised each other mutual assistance in the event of a religious war. Yet this official Reformation is only half the story. It is wrong to see the early Reformation as simply imposed from above by princely rulers(58). Two features characterise the movement in the 1520s. First, it was anarchic (69), which does not mean that it was revolutionary in a socio-economic sense, rather that it was heterodox and diverse in its composition. This heterodoxy las ted longer in some pi aces than others. In territories such as electoral Saxony it did not survive the institutionalisation of the 1520s. Nonconformity in regard to the doctrine of the real presence*, for example, was suppressed, which resulted in the triumph of Luther's doctrine against the symbolic interpretation of Zwingli. In areas such as the Netherlands and France, however, where the Reformation was opposed by the secular authorities, various dissident theologies could exist side by side and did so for decades. Indeed, in such areas it was the more readily comprehensible theology of Zwingli - who interpreted Christ's words 'This is my body' to be 'This signifies my body' - which was to triumph. His commonsense interpretation was more accessible to the laity. Moreover, in such territories evangelical opinions could be held within the context of the Roman Church. In 1523 the anonymous Dutch author of the Sum 01 Holy Scripture advised parents to send their children to mass and to hear the sermon of the 10caI evangelical preacher. As late. as 1557 Angelus Merula, a Catholic priest in a village in South Holland, was preaching against intercession to the saints, pilgrimages and the adoration of the Virgin and had been doing so for twenty-four years. Just as Luther did not perceive hirnself as schismatic in 1521, the same can be said of other evangelicals over thirty years later. The second characteristic feature of the Reformation in the 1520s is its urban nature. Indeed, it has been described as 'an urban event' (60). As early as 1525 Luther's followers had established control in Erfurt, Gotha, Magdeburg, Nuremberg, Bremen and Altenburg. Over a longer time period, out of sixty-five imperial cities of 28

Luther and the German Reformation

Germany (those ruled directly by the Emperor), more than fifty recognised Protestantism in some way and over half became and remained Protestant (106). Clearly, the Reformation had a particularly urban appeal. It is difficult to generalise but, for the most part, where the Reformation was adopted it came as the result ofreligious pressure from below. This is true even in towns which might have been harmed by the Reformation, such as Nuremberg and Augsburg. At Nuremberg the council was suspicious of the Reformation initially because it would place the town in opposition to the Emperor and this confIicted with its ancient loyalties. It was also feared that it would be damaging to trade. By 1520, however, Luther's pamphlets were circulating widely. The appointment of the evangelicals Andreas Osiander and Dominikus Schleupner as preachers in the parish churches mean t that by 1522 the broader mass of the population had become exposed to Luther's teachings. At Easter in 1524 thousands of citizens took communion in both kinds, and when the town council staged a colloquy to debate the religious issue in 1525 the result, as it had intended, was a complete victory for the evangelicals. The council's overriding concern was public order; Hence it was willing to follow the wishes of the evangelicals once it had been established that they constituted the views of the majority of the community. This also had the benefit of enabling the council to argue to the Emperor that popular press ure prohibited the enforcing of anti-Luther legislation. Anxious not to cause offence, however, the town did not side with militant Protestant forces led by Philip ofHesse and so did notjoin the Schmalkaldic League (106 and 44, ch.2). The city of Augsburg faced similar political dilemmas. By 1533 most of the population and the council supported reform, but the city was surrounded by Catholic rulers who controlled its food supplies and trade routes. From 1525 onwards the council had followed amiddie course, permitting evangelical preachers to work in the city but forbidding iconoclasm* or action against the Catholic clergy. Like Nuremberg, Augsburg pursued amiddie course at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, refusing to ally with either the Emperor or the protesting (i.e. Protestant) states. Only when it felt that resistance to popular pressure was no longer possible did the council give way. In 1533, in order to maintain itself in power, it agreed to restrict Catholic worship. Yet this decision was to have dire consequences in 1548 when, at the Diet of Augsburg, Charles V was able to impose the Interim on the defeated Protestant estates (41, ch. 4). Nuremberg and Augsburg should not be thought of as typical

29

The Progress 01 Reform Reformation cities. Indeed, in many ways they are atypical. Nuremberg was more or less unique as a south German town which remained within the Lutheran orbit. In addition, cities where artisans had a larger share in government tended to accept the Reformation more quickly, yet Nuremberg's council was patriciandominated. Nevertheless, they are examples of the implementation of reform due to popular press ure and thus demonstrate the initial appeal of Luther's teachings. Motives for reform were not, however, universally religious. In the Hanseatic cities of the north there were strong anticlerical traditions, and economic as weIl as religious resentments featured large in attacks on the clergy. In addition, the Reformation coincided with an attempt by the guilds to recover their influence in the two councils there. Both preachers and followers tended to come from lower social groups than their counterparts in south Germany. Moreover, the Reformation did not always triumph over local government. Successful resistance was possible. At Cologne the council opposed the Reformation because it was anxious to preserve trade with Antwerp and therefore needed a good relationship with Charles V, the ruler of the Netherlands. The councillors, having only recently ousted the prince-archbishop from the city, felt particular need to remain on good terms with the Emperor, and there were strong links between the council and the university which was a fierce and early opponent of Luther. At Cologne, therefore, effective censorship prevented a grass-roots Reformation (143, ch. 10). Several theories have been put forward as to why the Reformation made its initial impact in the towns. Certainly the Reformation did establish an equality between clergy and laity through the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. This meant that ecclesiastical persons and institutions could be integrated into the urban community with theological justification (106, ch. 3). However, this explains why the Reformation might appeal to a town council, not why it was popular with the masses. It may be true that late medieval religion imposed in tolerable burdens through the sacrament of penance, and that men and women felt liberated by evangelical teachings and the lighter burdens they imposed (1l7). Yet we have little evidence J:o confirm that the heavy demands of late medieval confession manuals were actually being carried out on the eve of the Reformation. In addition, this does not explain why the Reformation should have had such an appeal in urban rather than in rural areas. There are more straightforward reasons to explain the success of

30

Luther and the German Reformation the Reformation in the towns. First, the Reformation in its initial phase was an intellectual movement - arevolt against scholastic theology. It found its first adherents within intellectual, particularly Christian humanist*, circles. Such groups existed in most towns. In Nuremberg, Luther's ninety-five theses were greeted enthusiastically by a circle of humanists who met to study the sermons of Staupitz. At Antwerp, Cornelis Grapheus, the humanist town secretary, read Luther's books enthusiastically and even passed copies on to the visiting Nuremberg artist Albrecht Dürer. Second, the Reformation was a preaching revival, and whilst preaching was not exclusively an urban phenomenon it was more urban than rural. This is apparent on the eve of the Reformation in the work of Savonarola in Florence and Geiler von Kaiserberg in Strasbourg. Preachers were interested in conveying their ideas to substantial numbers of people. They could find their largest audiences and therefore maximum numbers of potential converts in the towns. Moreover, many early evangelical preachers came from the mendicant orders which had strong traditions of popular vernacular preaching (142), and the friars had always been associated with the towns. The large number of preachers, the 'little men' of the Reformation, also helps account for the diversity of ideas in the Reformation. Such men were not 'mini-Luthers', but would add to and interpret the Wittenberg reformer's message as they saw fit. Third, the publication and dissemination of evangelical tracts took place in the towns, and pamphlets were a vital means of communicating the message of the Gospel. Some historians have played down the role of the printed word and emphasised the role of woodcuts, pointing out that perhaps only 4 or 5 per cent of the German population as a whole could read (141 and 142). This is unhelpful and misleading. The literate population was much greater in the towns, and books could be read by more than one person. They were often read aloud in small groups called conventicles; thus a bridge was formed between the literate and illiterate classes. Finally, the ideas gleaned from a book could be discussed in the tavern, the workplace and the market square. Oral transmission ofideas was undoubtedly important, but the original reference point was often the printed word. As in Germany, Luther's initial. impact on the rest of Europe was in the towns. An Italian bookseller sold works by Luther and Melanchthon at Pavia as early as 1519. By 1520 Luther's books were being published in Antwerp and in 1523 Lutheran books belonging to Louis de Berquin were seized by the parlement ofParis. Evangelical

31

The Progress of Reform sermons had also been preached in Antwerp by 1525, and in Denmark Herman Tast was preaching at Husum perhaps as early as 1522. The survival ofthe Reformation abroad, however, was very much dependent on political goodwill. The Lutheran Reformation succeeded in Scandinavia because it could be imposed from above. The Danish Church Ordinance of 1537, approved by Luther and supervised by Johannes Bugenhagen, established anational Lutheran Church. In Sweden the King, Gustavus Vasa, established the free preaching of Lutheranism and religious toleration at the Diet of Västeras (1527). In Norway and Finland Lutheranism made slower inroads but also had the important benefit of state backing. In those areas where state support was not forthcoming it was more difficult to sustain a Lutheran Reformation. Outside Germany, Luther's greatest initial impact was in the Netherlands. More than forty different works by Luther had been translated into Dutch by 1540. This compares with sixteen French and eight English translations in the same period. Evangelical ideas made strong inroads in Antwerp in particular. Antwerp was the centre ofthe Dutch printing trade, it \Vas a hive of intellectual activity, and the monks of the Augustinian house in the city were natural and early converts to Luther's cause. In regions of princely support for Luther in Germany Charles V was unable to impose the Edict of Worms. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, where he was hereditary ruler, he could oppose the Reformation by fire and sword. The earliest bookburnings in response to the papal bUll Exsurge Domine (l5June 1520) took place at Louvain as early as 8 October 1520. The protomartyrs of the Reformation, Johann von Essen and Heinrich Vos, two Augustinians from Antwerp, were executed at Brussels on 1 July 1523. By 1529 even possession of a proscribed book could result in death for a first-time offender. In such circumstances evangelicals found it hard to survive and remain loyal to Luther. Two options were available. Firstly, the secular authorities could be resisted by force of arms, although the evangelicals were not sufficiently strong for this to be a practical possibility. In addition, Luther was a firm believer in the authority of the secular power. Until 1530 he even sought to restrain the princes who supported hirn from armed resistance against the Emperor. In other words, Luther would not have sanctioned resistance even if it had been possible. This left only the alternative of underground organisation. Yet Luther was extremely reluctant to sanction illegal meetings or conventicles. For hirn this smacked of schism, 32

Luther and the German Reformation

fanaticism and extremism, the hallmarks of the Anabaptists. Luther was very concerned at the plight of persecuted evangelicals in the Netherlands, and wrote the first hymn ofthe Reformation, aballad, to commemorate the execution of the two Augustinians in 1523 [doc. 13]. He was unable, however, to offer his persecuted followers any practical solutions to their problems, In a curious way the plight of suffering evangelicals in the Netherlands was also proof to Luther of the rightness of his cause. Persecution was, for hirn, a characteristic of the true Church. Martyrdom was success, not failure, a vindication of the truth of the Gospel and a sign that Judgement Day was approaching (114). Finally, by the mid-1530s Lutheranism faced internal doctrinal conflicts. From 1536 onwards Luther was in dispute with one of his former disciples, Johann Agricola, over the latter's assertion that the Gospel freed people from the Law. Luther accused his former disciple of antinomianism*. After the founding father's death a schis m arose between the strict Lutherans and the followers ofMelanchthon, who modified Luther's eucharist teaching and gave the human will a limited role in conversion. Such conflicts seemed irrelevant to evangelicals suffering intense persecution. Lutheranism then, failed to materialise where it lacked princely support and, to so me extent, even where it had it. In such regions it was overtaken by Reformed Protestantism.

33

3

The Urban Reformation

Zwingli and Zurich Luther's revolt sprang from a dialogue with scholastic theology and a constructive misunderstanding of Augustine's doctrine of justification*. Ulrich Zwingli's Reformation sprang from altogether different sources. Luther was virtually untouched by Christian humanist* influences, but Zwingli was greatly indebted to the new lear~ing, particularly to Erasmus. Luther had been a monk, secluded from the world. Zwingli was a secular priest and an army chaplain. Luther's life and work was rooted in electoral Saxony; he was the subject of a territorial prince. Zwingli, on the other hand, was a citizen of Zurich, a city state within the Swiss confederacy. As a result of all these factors the theology and progress of the Zurich Reformation took very different forms from the movement at Wittenberg. Little is known of Zwingli's early life. He was born on 1 January 1484 at Wildhaus in the Toggenberg valley in the canton of Glarus, and he was thus almost an exact contemporary of Luther. His schooling took place at Basel and Berne. Then, at the age of fourteen, he went to study at the U niversity of Vienna. There he came into contact with the east European humanism of men like Konrad Celtes andJoachim Vadian. In 1502 he moved on to the University of Basel where he remained until 1506. As a result of his university education Zwingli came into contact both with the via antiqua* and the via modema. * In 1506 he became a parish priest at Glarus, the chief town of his native canton. He served in this capacity for ten years, during which time he also acted as an army chaplain in two campaigns in Italy. However, in 1516 Zwingli was forced to quit Glarus for political reasons. His support for the military alliance between the Swiss confederacy and the papacy against France had made hirn unpopular after the Battle of Marignano (1515). The town ofGlarus had suffered heavy los ses and had become convinced that it should throw in its lot with the victorious French. He therefore left for Einsiedeln 34

The Urban Reformation

where he took up the position of people's priest or common preacher at a Benedictine abbey. There he had two responsibilities: to provide pastoral care for the local population, and to meet the spiritual needs of pilgrims to the local shrine of the Virgin Mary. In late 1518 Zwingli was chosen as people's priest by the canons of the Great Minster in Zurich. This may have been partly for political reasons, for Zurich, like Zwingli, was hostile to France. More importantly, Zwingli was already a man of recognised theological ability and a known member of the Swiss circle of humanists (71). Zwingli first met Erasmus at Basel in 1516, an encounter which made a tremendous impact on the future Zurich reformer [doc. 14]. He was to claim later that he only began to preach the Gospel in that year. By this he did not mean that by that date he was a 'Protestant'; rather that it was at this point that he reaIly turned to the Scriptures. He particularly admired Erasmus' work in producing the Greek New Testament in 1516. Zwingli's successor as leader of the Zurich reform movement, Heinrich BuIlinger, later claimed that his predecessor had committed to memory Paul's letters in the original Greek from Erasmus' New Testament (99). When Zwingli began his ministry in Zurich on 1 January 1519 he did so by announcing that he would preach systematically from the New Testament, beginning with St Matthew's gospel. This systematic exposition of Scripture is indicative of a Christian humanist approach. Luther preferred to retain the tradition al method, preaching from the set Gospels and Epistles of the Church calendar. Zwingli's high regard for Erasmus can be seen in the large number of the great scholar's works in his personal library, which contained more books by Erasmus than any other contemporary author. Moreover, there are signs that they were weIl read, for they contain fairly extensive marginal notes. Even after Zwingli had broken with Erasmus and had moved decisively from humanism to reform, his esteem for his mentor remained high. Yet he came to compare hirn to Eli in the Old Testament, for just as the old priest was incapable of dealing with his evil sons, so too Erasmus, in Zwingli's eyes, was a weak man, unable to carry his foIlowers into the fuIlness of reform (99). Erasmus' inftuence on Zwingli's theology may be discerned in a number of areas. First and foremost, as already indicated, it is evident in the supremacy of Scripture accorded to reform in Zurich. For Luther the central issue was justification by faith alone; for Zwingli the key to reform was sola scriptura, Scripture alone. Zwingli also adopted methods of interpretation of Scripture in line with

35

The Progress of Reform

Christian humanism. He was a firm believer in using the best possible exegetical aids, particularly knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Zwingli also followed Erasmus in distinguishing between the natural and non-literal senses of Scripture and emphasised philological and historical methods of interpretation. Second, Zwingli tended to follow Erasmus in his admiration for Jerome and Origen among the Church Fathers. For example, he marked passages in Origen's Homilies which gave a spiritual or symbolic understanding of the bread and wine. Third, like Erasmus, Zwingli emphasised the spirituality of God, stressing the gulf between creature and creator. He once said, 'We know as little about God as a beetle about man'. Finally, both men believed that sincerity of heart and freedom of mind were more important than observance of religious ceremonies. In Zurich this had a practical outcome in the simple ceremony of the Lord's Supper and an absence ofcongregational singing (103,147 and 99). Zwingli always claimed that God's word had been his teacher, not Martin Luther. There is every reason to believe hirn. In Zurich his systematic preaching quickly established hirn as a controversial figure. He attacked 'superstitious' elements ofpopular devotion such as indulgences and the veneration of the saints. So me time in 1519 or 1520 he advanced beyond Christian humanism, yet it would be wrong to describe hirn as a follower of Luther. He certainly read Luther and admired hirn for his stance against the papacy at Leipzig inJuly 1519. Even so, like other humanists, Zwingli appears to have misunderstood the German reformer and assumed he was a kindred spirit. He read and interpreted Luther's writings as products of Christian humanism and used them to find support for his own views on Church organisation and politics (71). It is this area ofChurch organisation and government together with Zwingli's eucharistie doctrine which characterise the Zurich Reformation. Although Zwingli renounced his papal pension in 1520, the Zurich Reformation cannot be said to have begun until 1522. By this time Zwingli had a fully-developed Reformation theology. He believed Scripture was the sole basis ofauthority, no longer acknowledging the power of popes or councils. By this stage he also had a clear sense of the liberating grace of God in Christ. This theology persuaded a group of evangelicals during the Lenten fast of 1522 to contravene canon law by eating sausages at the house of the printer Christoph Froschauer in order to proclaim their liberty in the Gospel. Zwingli was present but did not eat. Even so, he defended their action in a sermon on 23 March, arguing that since breaking a fast was not a sin, those involved could not be punished by the

36

The Urban Reformation

Church. His sermon Freedom 01 Choice in Eating was published on 16 April [doc. 15]. The Bishop of Constance, within whose jurisdiction Zurich fell, sent a delegation to the city on 7 April to protest at the course of events. From an early stage, however, the city council was sympathetic to the evangelical party. When mendicant preachers began to attack Zwingli's criticism ofthe veneration ofthe saints, they were told on 21 July to preach scriptural sermons like Zwingli. Zwingli was re-appointed as a preacher by the council on 10 October. He was also given the chance to defend his views in a public debate in January 1523, at which he put forward sixty-seven articles summarising his position. They were accepted by the council and the evangelical party was triumphant, although the debate was something of a charade. Arguments were confined only to Scripture, which again indicates that the council was already inclined towards Zwingli's position. From this point on Zurich can be considered an evangelical city. This co-operation between the secular and the spiritual was the corners tone ofthe Zurich Reformation. Indeed, in Zurich it is wrong to see the two as separate. Church and state were one, under the sovereign rule of God. The statue of Zwingli which still stands in Zurich shows hirn holding a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other, thus symbolising the union of Church and state. Everything followed from this union. A second disputation took place in October 1523 to settle the issue of images in the Church. Radical followers of Zwingli were taking this matter into their own hands by committing acts of iconoclasm. * Men such as Conrad Grebel and Simon Stumpf rejected the town council's authority in spiritual matters such as the mass and images. Zwingli, on the other hand, recognised the government's right so that it could proceed 'without rebellion'. Zwingli won the argument. On 15 June 1524 the council agreed to the orderly destruction of images and pictures. This state-ordained iconoclasm marks an important point of divergence with the Wittenberg Reformation and was perhaps the result of a more thorough-going biblicism, the Old Testament injunctions against image worship being taken more literally. In April 1525 the mass was finally abolished, again by order of the counci!. Also in 1525 the monasteries were dissolved and provision was made by the council for education, care of the sick and poor relief. In areas of public morals too the magistrates took control, establishing the Court of Domestic Relations (1525) and the Court ofMorals (1526). Even in the area ofChurch discipline, exclusion from the Lord's Supper and

37

The Progress of Reform complete excommunication, Zwingli accepted the authority of the town council, although initially he was not altogether happy about this. Zwingli has been accused of abandoning the Church to the state. This is misleading. He held a corpora te view of society in which the Church congregation could not be separated from the body of citizens as a whole. The magistrates, as he saw it, exercised delegated authority on behalf of the whole people. Therefore they had the power to reform. Moreover, only the council could guarantee the success of the Reformation in Zurich, and Zurich was a first step towards winning the whole Swiss confederacy for the Gospel. Yet there was always a balance to be struck between Zwingli the prophet who proclaimed divine righteousness, and the council who administered the human variety. Zwingli was conditioned, to a large extent, by the medieval conception of the Swiss city state. Only the denial of secular power to the clergy and the rejection of papal supremacy and therefore the authority ofthe Bishop ofConstance were really new. Before the Reformation the council would not have interfered with matters of doctrine and worship, for these had been the responsibility of the bishop and the pope. Yet in other areas of Church life the council already played an important role prior to 1522. Zwingli's radical followers claimed that he began with a view of the Church as a gathered congregation*, and only changed his mind under press ure from the magistracy during the second disputation. This is unlikely. Even before October 1523 Zwing1i identified the Church with Israel in the Old Testament. For Zwingli, the congregation was always identified with the whole of the community (154) . The union ofChurch and state espoused by Zwing1i may help to explain why so many of the cities of Upper (south) Germany were to adopt the Reformed rather than the Lutheran faith. Clearly geographical proximity was important. Once a large town had opted for the Reformed model, others in the locality would be inclined to follow suit. Each town, however, tended to view itself as a miniature corpus christianum*. Councils believed that unity of faith was essential to unity of the city. Luther, through his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, legitimised civic control of ecclesiastical affairs, but at the same time his concept of the Church distanced hirn from the cities. He distinguished between the Church and the state, between Christian and citizen. Although the visible Church was a mixture of wheat and tares, the invisible Church was a persecuted minority of true believers. In addition, Luther's doctrine of justification by

38

The Urban Reformation faith alone ran contrary to urban concerns about public morality. The Reformed emphasis on the totality rather than the individual both in its doctrine of the Church and its concern for ethics was of greater appeal (106, eh. 3). Zwingli's model at Zurich may have been difficult to reproduce elsewhere because of the inseparability of Church and state it implied, but nevertheless it served as an example to those of like mind. The divergence between Zwingli and Luther in their eucharistie theology should not be seen in isolation. It was part and parcel of their different mentalities. Zwingli was always more rational, more influenced by the Erasmian emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter. Luther, a conservative by nature, was more concrete in his approach. It was their theology of the Lord's Supper, however, which marked the decisive schism in the Reformation movement. Initially, there was no divergence between the two men. In the eighteenth of his sixty-seven articles in the disputation of January 1523 Zwingli denied the sacrificial nature of the mass, calling it 'a memorial of the suffering of Christ and not a sacrifice'. This was to go only as far as Luther had gone. At this stage Zwingli showed no interest in the nature of Christ's presence in the bread and wine. By 1524, however, Zwingli had come to see the bread and wine as symbolic of Christ's body and blood. The key to this interpretation was a letter by a Dutch humanist named Cornelis Hoen. Hoen used the term 'signifies' to interpret Christ's words 'This is my body'. The bread and wine did not become the body and blood of Christ when the priest spoke the words Hoc est corpus meum, but should be thought of as representing or signifying them [doc. 16]. As a bridegroom gives his bride a ring as a sign of his love, so, in Hoen's view, Christ ins ti tu ted the Last Supper for His bride the Church. The letter had in fact been shown to Luther by a friend of Hoen named Hinne Rode, but Luther, insisting on the real presence*, had rejected the interpretation out of hand. However, Rode turned south to Basel, Strasbourg and Zurich and there he received a much more favourable reception. For Zwingli this was the direction he had already been moving in, but Hoen had made sense of the words of Christ's institution. Zwingli edited the letter and published it at Zurich, probably in September 1525. Even before Luther entered into dialogue with Zwingli, the German reformer faced opposition in Wittenberg of a similar nature. This was to condition Luther's approach to Zwingli. According to Carlstadt, when Christ said 'This is my body' he was pointing to Himself. 'This' referred not to the bread, but to Christ's physical

39

The Progress 01 Reform body. Luther denounced such 'sacramentarianism', as spiritualistic views of the Lord's Supper came to be called. For Luther, then, Zwingli was equated with the renegade Carlstadt (71). He was an enemy of the Gospel, and his views were an attack of the Devil. Zwingli and Luther engaged in a literary dialogue in 1527-28 with Luther declaring that he 'would rather receive sheer blood with the pope than have mere wine with the fanatics' (114). The two men met for the first and only time at Marburg in 1529. The Marburg Colloquy was arranged by Philip of Hesse who hoped for a general evangelical alliance against Charles V. Division amongst the reformers alarmed Philip, particularly by 1529 when the Emperor had come to peace with France and the papacy and so was able to turn his attention to Germany. Neither Luther nor Zwingli wanted a debate, nor expected anything to be achieved by it. At Marburg Wittenberg was represented by Luther and Melanchthon and the Swiss by Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius from Basel. Whilst so me suspicion and mistrust were cleared up, neither party was prepared to shift its position on the Lord's Supper. The impasse is epitomised in Luther's chalking of the words Hoc est corpus meum on the table in front ofhim. Agreement on fourteen out offifteen articles did not disguise the gulf between the two sides. However, Mart>urg was not the cause of the division. The theological, political and intellectual gulfwas apparent long before 1529. Marburg did not bring disunity, but highlighted existing differences and led to the formation of two distinct Protestant confessions. After Marburg Zwingli's career was shortlived. Attempting to convert the Catholic cantons, he imposed an economic blockade on them. Their response was to declare war and, with the Protestant forces outnumbered more than three to one, Zwingli died on the battlefield at Knappel on 11 October 1531. Zwingli's use of the sword was not repeated by his successor, Heinrich Bullinger.

Basel and Strasbourg Zurich was not the only model for other cities seeking to establish the Reformed faith. Variants were established elsewhere, notably at Basel and Strasbourg. Such cities derived much from Zurich, but their Reformations were by no means identical. Zwingli's aim of winning Switzerland for the Gospel depended to a significant extent on the attitudes of other cities such as Berne and Basel. Both cities were won eventually for the evangelical cause, an official Reformation being established at Berne by 1528 and in

40

The Urban Reformation

Basel in 1529. At Basel the evangelical cause was led by J ohannes Hussgen, better known as Oecolampadius. Like Zwingli, the Basel reformer was .a great devotee of Erasmus and Christian humanism. He was a fine scholar, possessing a good knowledge of Greek and Hehrew. Oecolampadius assisted Erasmus at Basel in a number of projects ineluding the production of the Greek New Testament in 1516 and an edition ofSaintJerome in 1515-16. His friends ineluded other well-known humanists such as Willibald Pirckheimer, Veit Bild, Christoph Schleurl and Bernard and Konrad Adelmann. Significantly, all these men were also early admirers of Luther. Somewhat surprisingly, bearing in mind the cireles in which he moved, Oecolampadius entered a Briggitine monastery at Altomünster on 23 April 1521. His motives were probably academic, but he was soon disillusioned and he left the following year. By 1522 he was in contact with Zwingli and this developed into a elose friendship. In June 1523 he was appointed to achair in theology at the University ofBasel and by this stage he was committed to the evangelical cause. The following year he defended the new theology in two public disputations. When the people's priest at St Martin's church fell ill, Oecolampadius assumed his preaching responsibilities. As at Zurich, then, the Reformation at Basel was centred on the preaching of the Gospel. In other areas, however, there was a divergence from Zurich. The magistrates of Basel, for example, were much slower than those of Zurich to give exelusive recognition to the Reformed faith. Considerable pressure had to be exerted by the craft guilds of Basel before the council acted in 1529. On the eucharist the difference between Oecolampadius and Zwingli was largely temperamental. Both men understood Christ's words of institution in a spiritual sense. However, the Basel reformer was anxious to stress the true spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper and played down the more polemical aspects of the controversy. On the question of election* Oecolampadius was also less dogmatic than Zwingli. He did not deny the doctrine of predestination*, but was less speculative. On the question of double predestination, election and reprobation, for example, he chose to make no judgement. Finally and most importantly as far as the model of the Reformed city is concerned, Oecolampadius also differed from Zwingli on the question ofChurch discipline. After so me initial hesitation, Zwingli had allowed this to be imposed by thc civil authorities. Oecolampadius, on the other hand, insisted that it should be part of the pastoral responsibility of thc Church. For hirn the civil authorities were inappropriate since 41

The Progress

01 Reform

their concern was with external actions and not inner mot;ves. However, Oecolampadius had some difficulty in implementing his ideals, the Basel magistracy being anxious not to replace one species of clerical domination with another (135 and 129). Strasbourg enjoyed the status of a free city within the empire. She had a preaching tradition dating back to the sermons of Geiler von Kaiserberg in the town between 1478 and 1510. It is hardly surprising, then, that as in Zurich and Basel, the Strasbourg reform was first proclaimed from the pulpit. The man chiefty responsible for this was Matthaus Zell, people's priest in the chapel of St Lorenz in the cathedral, who began his evangelical preaching in 1522. Yet the Reformation at Strasbourg was not the work of one man but four. The dominating figure was the former Dominican monk, Martin Bucer, who had first heard Luther's message at Heidelberg in 1518, and interpreted the Saxon reformer in a Christian humanist sense. Christian humanism was central also in the thought ofWolfgang Capito. Like Oecolampadius, Capito was a friend and admirer of Erasmus, and had assisted in the production of the Greek New Testament in 1516. Caspar Hedio was the least important of the four Strasbourg reformers, but he too was indebted to Christian humanism *, having been introduced to Erasmus and the Basel circle through Capito (49). As in Basel, the magistrates moved slowly with the Strasbourg Reformation. The mass was not finally abolished until 1529. When this was achieved, it was not the result of an alliance between the reformers and the magistrates, but of pressure by the reformers and a militant minority of burghers on a reluctant magistracy. Three distinct religious factions have been identified on the Strasbourg city council (the Rat). On the one hand there were those who remained loyal to the old faith, and on the other there were two groups committed to reform. In the 1520s it was the more militant evangelicals inclined towards Zwingli's theology and a pro-Swiss foreign policy who gradually became the dominant force. However, this led to Strasbourg's isolation at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), for she felt unable to conform to the pro-Lutheran Confession of Augsburg. This meant that Strasbourg could not benefit from membership of the Schmalkaldic League, created for common defence, and as a result she felt distinctly vulnerable. The 'politiques' in the council now asserted their authority. These were moderates in theology who saw the political importance of alliance with the Lutheran princes. They persuaded the council to accept the Confession of Augsburg and this opened the way for admittance to the Schmalkaldic League in 42

The Urban Reformation

1531 (39). Like Zurich, the Strasbourg Reformation was influenced strongly by Christian humanism. Bucer, Capito and Hedio all held Erasmus in the highest esteem and the result of this was aReformation theology decidedly humanist in outlook, even more so than Zwingli's Reformation in Zurich. Luther's doctrines of justification and e1ection, for example, were modified by Bucer, since as a humanist they seemed to hirn to threaten the basis of morality. Bucer believed that the justified sinner was a new creation in Christ. If a man believed, he could know that he was a member of the e1ect, and faith was obtainable through the word ofGod (103). Bucer also was greatly concerned for peace and unity in the Church and here again his humanist thinking came to the fore. He never saw the breach with Rome as permanent, but was convinced that unity would eventually be restored. Despite her imperfections, the Roman Church remained part of the universal Church of Christ. His colleague Wolfgang Capito advised Dutch evangelicals not to quit the Roman Church on these grounds in the early 1540s. Initially, Bucer was also ecumenical* in his approach to the Anabaptists, receiving them as guests in his horne and seeking to persuade them of their errors. His later denunciations of them stemmed largely from the threat to the unity of the Church posed by their view of a gathered congregation. Bucer's ecumenicalism can be seen further in his eucharistic theology. His main aim here was to unite the Lutherans and the Swiss. Thus he was deliberately ambiguous, asserting that in communion 'We are offered His (Christ's) real body and His real blood' but 'the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood and ... these are in no way enclosed locally' (50). Neither Luther nor Zwingli were persuaded by Bucer's formulation. Besides differing from Zwingli in his understanding of the Lord's Supper, Bucer also held a different view on discipline from the Zurich reformer. Like Oecolampadius, Bucer believed that the authority to discipline lay in the Church and not with the magistrates [doc. 17]. Foreshadowing Calvin's ecclesiology*, Bucer identified four scriptural offices in the Church - pastors, teachers, e1ders and deacons. The responsibility of discipline rested with the e1ders, a lay ministry, but they would exercise this function as members of the Church, not as magistrates. Unfortunately for Bucer, the Strasbourg Church Ordinance of 1534 did not fulfil his vision. The Rat was not prepared to give discipline into the hands of the Church. It was left to Calvin to fulfil Bucer's vision of the Apostolic Church where discipline ca me from within (49). 43

4

Anabaptism

Anabaptism has been described as the 'radical Reformation' and the 'left wing' ofthe Reformation (157,30). In some ways such descriptions are apt. The Anabaptists were more radical than the mainstream or magisterial reformers in their break with the medieval concept of corpus christianum*, identifying the Church as a gathered congregation rather than as embracing the whole community. Some Anabaptist groups, notably the Hutterites of Moravia, even practised a form of communism, believing that common property was one of the marks of the true Church. But the terms 'radical' and 'left wing' also throw up a number of problems. In many areas the Anabaptists were more conservative and closer to medieval Catholicism than the mainstream reformers. Also it is difficult to generalise since Anabaptism was never a cohesive or unified movement. It was an amalgam of different sects which held a variety of views. Anabaptism literally means rebaptism. Adult baptism on profession of faith was the hall mark of the movement and marked a decislve break with the Roman Church. With it came fierce persecution from almost every secular power because it implied a divided community or town. In addition, rebaptism had been considered one of the most sacrilegious acts possible ever since Augustine's battle with the Donatists in the fourth century. Some radicals, spiritualists*. such as Sebastian Franck and Caspar Schwenckfeld, never openly broke with the Roman Church, since they regarded external forms as unimportant. Although such figures have much in common with some Anabaptists, particularly in their indebtedness to la te medieval mystical theology, they themselves cannot be considered Anabaptists. However, some Anabaptists, notably Hans Denck and David Joris, were essentially spiritualistic in their approach and therefore have much in common with the 'spiritualists' . Broadly speaking, the Anabaptists can be divided into three distinct and independent groups: the Swiss Brethren, the Upper German sects of Austria, Moravia, south and central Germany, and

44

Anabaptism

the 'Melchiorites' of north-west Germany and the Netherlands (56).

The Swiss Brethren The original Anabaptists were Zurich radicals, led by Conrad Grebel, who parted company from Zwingli in 1523. Baptism was not the cause of the schism. The first rebaptism, that of George Blaurock by Grebel, did not take place until 21 January 1525. Baptism on profession of faith was simply the logical progression of the schism which had developed with Zwingli's Reformation; it was an opting out of the reform initiated by the Zurich magistrates. The first hint of conflict with Zwingli came in the summer of 1523 over the radicals' refusal to pay tithes. Tension mounted during the second Zurich disputation of October 1523 on the questions of the mass and images. The Catholic mass and images in the churches were condemned by the spokesmen at the disputation. However, Zwingli was prepared to leave the timing of the necessary changes to the town council. This caused some disquiet, although in general the radicals were still prepared to go along with Zwingli at this point. The df:cisive break came in December 1523 (82). Zwingli had planned to hold on 'evangelical communion' on Christmas Day, but when the council decided against this Zwingli accepted the decision. For Zwingli this was not offundamental importance, since the theological issue had already been settled, and it was better to wait than to destroy unity of worship in the town. However, for the radicals this was proof of Zwingli's lack of serious intent. The establishing of a biblical pattern was, in their eyes, more important than political expediency. Zwingli was a false prophet who had made unacceptable concessions. The radicals now rejected public services and began to meet privately to discuss the Bible and break bread. Their initial aim was not to form a gathered church*, but to capture the whole Zurich Reformation from Zwingli. They wished to establish autonomous congregations led by elected ministers. However, they failed to convince the Zurich authorities. By the spring of 1524 they were beginning to question infant baptism, but they lost a public debate on the issue on 17 January 1525. Nevertheless, four days later they pressed ahead and began to rebaptise members of the group and thus developed into a sect. In addition, they began to adopt literalist interpretations of Scripture on the question of secular law and government. Following Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the 45

The Progress of Reform Mount they refused to swear oaths. They also refused to perform any civic duties and began to exercise control of their members through a strict interpretation of Christ's teaching on excommunication as set out in Matthew 18. Clearly, the Anabaptists constituted a serious theoretical and doctrinal chaBenge to the Zurich authorities, who responded by imprisoning or banishing their leaders. The death sentence was introduced for aB Anabaptists in 1526, ironicaBy by drowning. InJanuary 1527 Felix Mantz became the first ofmany Anabaptist martyrs [doc. 18]. From this point on the main impact of Anabaptism was outside Switzerland. The Anabaptism of the Swiss Brethren, however, was never simply a radical form of Zwinglianism. It drew on a whole variety of sources not found in Zwingli's teaching. The demand for congregational autonomy voiced strongly by the rural communities of the extra-mural territory of Zurich had been heard long before the Zwinglian Reformation. Anticlerical traditions also [ound new expression. One of the most extreme members of the Swiss Brethren, Simon Stumpf, apparently argued that attempts to reform the Church would 'be in vain if the priests were not slain' (145). In addition, late medieval apocalyptic* visions were revived. In J une 1525 groups from Zollikon came to Zurich shouting in the streets 'Woe, woe, dreadful woe to Zurich!'. They condemned Zwingli as the red dragon of Revelation and his pastors as the seven heads. They warned the city of the imminence of judgement unless it repented and gave the citizens forty days to make up their minds (52). These 'un-Zwinglian' radical strains ofReformation no doubt had native roots in Zurich. However, the Swiss Brethren were also in contact with other radical reformers who may have urged them in similar directions. Conrad Grebel, for example, was in correspondence with Andreas Carlstadt, and Carlstadt actually visited Zurich in 1524. Although he was never rebaptised himself, Carlstadt too was against infant baptism, and his humble life style at Orlamünde from February 1523 onwards indicates his belief in equality between the congregation and its minister (81, 123). A more potent source of radicalism, however, was Thomas Müntzer, for it was Müntzer who caught the popular imagination. Thomas Müntzer had been an early disciple of Luther. However, in 1521, as a priest in Zwickau, he came under the inftuence of the prophets in the town, particularly a weaver named Nicholas Storch. Müntzer broke with Luther, criticising hirn for easy living. His attachment to Luther, however, had only ever been superficial compared to the depth of his indebtedness to German mysticism. 46

Anabaptism

Müntzer was strongly influenced by M~ister Eckhardt, John Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch (116, 136.3). Whereas Luther broke radically from the mystics in his doctrine of justification by faith alone, Müntzer followed the mystical tradition, believing that justification was a process of deification or divinisation achieved through suffering. For Luther, the final authority was the Scriptures, but like the mystics Müntzer emphasised the 'inner word'. Müntzer was also apocalyptic in his vision. He drew on the Taborite (radical Hussite) belief in the imminence of the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. In addition, he was influenced by the world view of Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202) who espoused a tripartite scheme of history in which the ages of the Father (Old Covenant) and the Son (New Testament) were to be superseded by the coming age of the Holy Spirit (130, 131). Forced to leave Zwickau, Müntzer went first to Prague and then settled at Allstedt in Saxony. InJuly 1524 he preached his 'Sermon before the Princes' which epitomised his militant apocalypticism. In this exposition of the second chapter ofDaniel, Müntzer saw the feet of the statue in King N ebuchadnezzar's dream as the symbol of the fifth earthly kingdom, feudal-papal Christendom. The stone which broke the feet was God's elect, and Müntzer encouraged the princes, as part of the elect, to join in the des truction of the wicked [doc. 19]. The violence of the sermon shocked his listeners and Müntzer was forced into exile at Muhlhausen, where he was in residence when the Peasants' War (1524-25) broke out. Müntzer did not cause the Peasants' War, yet whereas Luther condemned it Müntzer took part in the rising, seeing it as an apocalyptic sign. He was captured at Frankenhausen in May 1525, following the defeat of the peasant army, and was executed shortly after. The influence of Müntzer amongst the Swiss Brethren must not be exaggerated. For the most part the Brethren rejected the violen ce Müntzer espoused, However, the idea of a suffering Church which renounced all political activity was not universally accepted. As the movement spread beyond Zurich some Anabaptists, notably in Grüningen and Waldshut, took part in the Peasants' War, including Simon Stumpf, formerly of Zurich. Like Müntzer, the Zurich radicals were committed to a restitution ofthe Church as a congregation of true believers separate from the ungodly. A lax requirement for Church membership, such as the admission of children through baptism, was aperversion of Christianity. Certainly correspondence between Grebel and Müntzer shows agreement on the question of baptism [doc. 20]. It also indicates Grebel's awareness ofa number 47

The Progress oJ Reform

of Müntzer's pamphlets, notably Against the False Faith and Baptism, On the Imaginary Faith, Unmasking the False Faith and Protestation

(146.5).

U pper German sects Five major Anabaptist groups can be distinguished in Austria, Moravia, and south and central Germany between 1526 and 1550. They all held basic beliefs in common - namely, separation from the world, a gathered and pure Church through baptism and discipline, a lay ministry, and the restriction of secular government to secular affairs. However, each of these five groups also held distinctive beliefs. The followers of Hans Hut were strongly eschatological* in their emphasis. The disciples of Pilgram Marpeck stressed love and faith to distinguish themselves from the legalism* of the Swiss Brethren. The Thuringian Anabaptists were particularly inßuenced by the beliefs of Thomas Müntzer. The group around Georg Schnabel recognised government as Christian and permitted military service and the swearing of oaths. Finally, the Hutterites were social revolutionaries in outlook, holding property in common and more or less abolishing family life. These groups were bitterly divided. This was partly the result of power struggles between ambitious leaders, but there were also communication problems. Anabaptism spread in aperiod of primitive communication, which meant that groups in elose proximity could be unawl1re of each other. Congregational autonomy also meant that it was difficult to impose uniformity, for there was no generally recognised oversight. In addition, by its very rejection of human authority and government force in religious affairs Anabaptism left its members open to develop new beliefs and practices in accordance with their own interpretation of Scripture. After aperiod of rapid initial expansion in Upper Germany between 1529 and 1531, Anabaptism found it difficult to make further headway. Groups rarely constituted more than a hundred people and in three-quarters ofthe towns affected by Anabaptism fewer than ten people were converted in nearly a hundred years. Partly this was due to the success of government persecution. However, Anabaptism made strenuous political, religious and moral demands, and thus may have reduced its appeal (52). The origins ofUpper German Anabaptism can be traced to Augsburg. There in April 1526 Balthasar Hubmaier, a member of the Swiss Brethren banished from Zurich, came into contact with Hans

48

Anabaptism Denck. Denck was a former associate ofThomas Müntzer and had taught at Mühlhausen in the spring of 1525. He was essentially a spiritualiser who came to reject all extern als in religion. He was to die ofthe plague at Basel in 1527, but in the meantime he managed to win Hans Hut, also a former associate of Müntzer, for the Anabaptist cause. Converted at Augsburg in May 1526, Hut soon came to quarrel with Hubmaier, rejecting obedience to secular authority and refusing to pay war taxes. Both men died in 1528. Hubmaier was executed in Vienna and Hut died in prison in Augsburg. Clearly the Swiss Brethren in general and Balthasar Hubmaier in particular were important in the early years ofUpper German Anabaptism. Yet the influence of Thomas Müntzer was perhaps of greater significance. Müntzer's ideas had some impact amongst the Swiss Brethren, but his views did not predominate. However, through Denck and Hut Upper German Anabaptism was permeated with mystical and apocalyptic ideas. The founding fathers of Anabaptism in this region died early. Their successors, men like Pilgram Marpeck, came to adopt more or less Protestant positions on issues such as justification and the authority of Scripture in their controversies with spiritualists such as Schwenckfeld. But this was not for some years. In the early period, Upper German Anabaptists followed the mystics in believing that man had a role to play in his justification*. They held that true justifying faith was born in suffering and inner deansing and saw justification and sanctification* as one. These views led them to assert the freedom of the human will and to deny predestination*. On the question of authority Denck and Hut rejected both the Reformation dogma of sofa scriptura and the Catholic principle ofScripture plus tradition. They believed that final authority res ted with the 'inner word' (121). Through Hut, apocalypticism exerted a strong influence. He believed that Christ's return was imminent, interpreting Daniel and Revelation to suggest that there were three-and-a-half years to the parousia*. The starting date was either the restitution of baptism or the outbreak of the Peasants' War. In the end it was the biblicist pacifistic tradition which prevailed within the Upper German Anabaptist movement under Jacob Hutter in the Tyrol and Moravia, and Pilgram Marpeck in the south German cities. Mystical and spiritualist thinkers deserted the movement as it came to adopt more orthodox Protestant theology within the context of a gathered church*. However, Anabaptism in this region was neither simply an offshoot ofProtestantism nor ofthe Swiss Brethren. It had much deeper medieval apocalyptic roots.

49

The Progress 01 Reform

North-west Germany and the Netherlands Anabaptism came to north-west Europe via Strasbourg, where it had been taken via the Swiss Brethren in the late 1520s. Its origins can be pinpointed to the north German town ofEmden in 1530. Yet the Anabaptism of this region bore little resemblance to that of the Swiss Brethren. This is largely due to the beliefs and personality of the founder of Dutch Anabaptism, the Swabian furrier Melchior Hoffman. Hoffman began as a Lutheran preacher in Livonia in north Germany in 1523. At this stage he espoused the classic Reformation doctrines ofjustification by faith alone and predestination. However, from the first he combined the Reformation message with anticlericalism and apocalypticism* mixed with medieval spiritualism and an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. In his Commentary on Daniel Chapter 12 (1526), for example, he predicted that two periods, each of three-and-a-half years, would usher in the end of the world in 1533. By 1526 he was also at odds with Luther's teaching on the real presence*, and by the time of the Flensburg disputation with Bugenhagen in 1529 his divorce from Luther was complete. Hoffman's apocalypticism and mysticism were incompatible with his initial embracing of Luther. He believed that through selfsurrender man could gradually become divine, a process of divinisation. This could not be squared with Luther's view of the justified sinner. Hoffman also taught that in the process of divinisation man was tested by suffering. This ran counter to Luther's doctrine of predestination. In addition, he asserted that sins committed after enlightenment, the second stage of justification, could not be forgiven. This went against both justification by faith alone and predestination. Hoffman's belief in a two-stage process of justification was built on the ideas of the universality of grace and free will which he derived from the followers of Hans Denck in Strasbourg in 1529. By 1529, therefore, Hoffman had rejected virtually all of Luther's message. The one last vestige which remained was his upholding of Luther's doctrine of obedience to secular authority (57). During his visit to Strasbourg in 1529 Hoffman's apocalyptic ideas changed as he came into contact with the 'Strasbourg prophets' centred around Lienhard and UrsulaJost. He came to believe that the return of Christ would be prepared by a war in which the 'New Jerusalem' would defeat the 'Hellish Trinity' of emperor, pope and false prophets. When the war was won the 144,000 apostolic 50

Anabaptism

messengers of Revelation 14 would fill the world with the true Gospel, establishing a theocracy which would usher in the return of Christ. However, he still held his beliefs within the context of obedience to secular powers. During a controversy with Caspar Schwenckfeld, Hoffman also came to adopt a monophysite (single nature) Christology*, arguing that Christ did not 'take Resh' from Mary. If he had shared Mary's nature, Hoffman asserted, then Christ would also have been tainted with original sin. It is not known for certain how Hoffman reached this view. It may have medieval roots. The fifteenth-century Dutchman Alain de la Roche described Christ's birth through Mary as like that of a pearl from a shell (57). Early sixteenth-century dissenters were more crude, comparing Our Lady to a cinnamon or pep per bag without the spices, alantern without a candle, and even to achamber pot and a chimney, thus implying that she was merely an empty vessel (63). These twin traits of apocalypticism and unusual Christology were to become the hall marks of Melchiorite Anabaptism. In April 1530 HofTman presented a petition to the Strasbourg council demanding that a church in the city be given to the Anabaptists, and shortly afterwards he was baptised. The city council ordered his arrest, fearful of the inRuence of his apocalypticism, and he Red to Emden. There he began to baptise, and from Emden Anabaptism spread rapidly through the Netherlands. Unlike Upper Germany, in the Netherlands Anabaptism became a mass movement. The fundamental causes of this rapid growth were religious. Hoffman's apocalyptic message touched the popular imagination. As we have already seen, Reformation ideas made rapid inroads into the Netherlands but, without organisation, converts to the new theology remained in the Roman Church or expressed their dissent by absenting themselves from mass. Hoffman's preaching on the imminence ofthe LastJudgement forced people to make a choice between the gathered church* of the Anabaptists and the Roman Church which Hoffman identified as the Whore of Babyion (63). Economic factors - rising prices, fixed wages and unemployment - played a part, but largely in an apocalyptic sense. Famine, plague, Roods and the appearance of three comets between 1531 and 1533 were in terpreted as signs of the coming end of the world. Hoffman's apocalyptic message had a particular appeal to the lower orders of big towns such as Amsterdam, but it was not simply the 'Protestantism of the poor' for it also touched the high er echelons of urban society. Although Hoffman insisted on obedience to secular powers, within 51

The Progress of Reform

four years his apocalyptic fervour had produced the revolutionary chiliasm* of the Kingdom of Munster. His prophecies and revelations provided extremists with their opportunity. With HofTman's imprisonment in Strasbourg in May 1533 the leadership of the Melchiorites was assumed by Jan Matthijs of Middelburg. Matthijs was a revolutionary who believed in the use ofthe sword to destroy the unrighteous, and though a few Anabaptists such as Obbe and Dirk Philips refused to join hirn for this reason, Matthijs managed to gain the support of most of the movement. In January 1534 two Anabaptist 'apostles' visited Munster in north-west Germany. As a result two leading radical Lutherans in the town, the minister Bernhard Rothmann and a merchant, Bernhard Knipperdolling, were baptised. Events seemed to indicate Munster as the 'New Jerusalem' of HofTman's prophecies. Anabaptism won legal recognition quickly and on 23 February an Anabaptist town council was elected. Many Lutherans and Catholics had left the town by this stage. Jan Matthijs was killed by the Bishop of Munster's troops attacking the city on 4 April, and his leading role passed to Jan Beuckels Oohn of Leyden), a tailor from Leiden in the Netherlands. Matthijs had already established communal ownership of property to cope with the siege of the city, but Beuckels went much further. A new town constitution was introduced on the model of Old Testament Israel; there were twelve ruling elders and harsh laws such as the death penalty for backbiting or complaining. Polygamy was introduced and Beuckels was crowned king of the New Jerusalem. His rule lasted only till June 1535, however, when Munster was recaptured by the Bishop's troops. Revolutionary apocalyptic Anabaptism lived on in the Netherlands after the fall of Munster. Its chief advocate was Jan van Batenburg, who held to a full Munsterite theology, including community of goods and wives and the slaughter of the godless. Even after Batenburg's execution on 5 April 1538 the Munster spirit survived. In May 1546 two Anabaptists were burned at Amsterdam. One claimed to be the new chosen king and the other his treasurer. The 'king' had pushed his wife from a moving wagon and then murdered her to prevent her discovering his incestuous relationship with their daughter. Later he killed the daughter also and, when he was arrested, a huge quantity of silver was found which he had plundered from various churches. Some Dutch Anabaptists drifted into spiritualism in the postMunster period, rejecting violence but maintaining HofTman's

52

Anabaptism

apocalyptic and mystical emphases. David Joris, for example, had joined the Melchiorites in 1534, but after Munster he came to reject water baptism in favour of a baptism of the Spirit and preferred the 'inner light' of revelation to Scripture. He believed hirnself to be a Spirit-anointed prophet, a third David, who would reign over the Kingdom ofGod on earth. He also held toJoachim ofFiore's belief in the three ages of history. Similarly, Hendrik Nidaes, founder of the mystical sect the Family of Love, believed that he was living in the third age and that the kingdom of Israel was about to begin. God had sent a second 'new man' (Christ being the first) to prepare for the New Jerusalem. This new man (Homo Novus) was none other than Hendrik Nidaes hirns elf (80). A third group of Melchiorites, the followers of Menno Simons, rejected both the violen ce of Munster and the mystical apocalyptiCism of Hoffman and his spiritual descendants. Menno was a priest from Friesland who came late to Anabaptism. He was not rebaptised until 1536. Menno felt that his hand had been forced by the gross ex ces ses of Munster, for the Melchiorites had been left as 'sheep w'ithout the shepherd'. Joining the movement after the Munster debade was an advantage to hirn as he came untainted by the events of 1534-35. Menno's Foundation of Christian Doctrine (1539) became the cornerstone of Mennonitism, as Dutch Anabaptism came to be known. He developed a theology based on the Bible, which embraced pacifism and non-resistance to lawful authority. Central to Menno's ecdesiology was a gathered church, kept pure through the discipline of the ban (excommunication). Indeed, the frequency and ferocity of the use of the ban eventually led to division in the movement, the Waterlanders breaking with the more rigorous Mennonites in 1556 (157). Yet even the Mennonites did not disown totally all ofHoffman's heritage. Menno and his followers continued to hold strictly to Hoffman's peculiar Christology, the doctrine of Christ's celestial flesh. One Mennonite leader, Adam Pastor, was even exduded from a congregation in 1547 for denying this teaching (57). Thus even amongst the most peaceful and biblical Anabaptists the influence of Hoffman and perhaps that of late medieval heresy lingered on in to the second half of the sixteen th cen tury [doc. 21].

53

5

Calvinism

Calvin's early life and conversion Calvin was born at Noyon in Picardy on 10 July 1509. This simple statement teIls us a good deal about Calvin. First, he was a Frenchman. Although he spent over half his life in exile, for the most part in Geneva, Calvin feit a great attachment to his native land and to the progress of the Reformation there. The date of Calvin's birth is also instructive. He was twenty-six years younger than Luther and was thus very much a second-generation reformer. It would be wrong to see the Reformation as permanent by the time Calvin began his work at Geneva in 1536. Calvin hirnself took part in the Colloquy ofRegensberg in 1541 which was an attempt to re-establish unity between Catholics and Protestants. Even so, as time passed the Reformation acquired a greater sense of permanence. A movement which is to last needs structures. Hecce, one ofCalvin's prime concerns was the organisation of the Church, and it is here perhaps that he left his greatest mark. Calvin showed considerable gifts from an early age. Consequently, his father, Gerard Cauvin, was ambitious for hirn and, being on good terms with the local cathedral chapter, he managed to obtain two benefices for hirn. From an early age, then, Calvin seemed destined for an ecclesiastical career. Enjoying a certain degree of financial security through his benefices, Calvin was able to study at university. In 1523 he matriculated at the U niversity of Paris. There he was taught in the nominalism* of the via moderna*, first at the College de la Marche, and then at the College de Montaigu. He was, for a short while, a contemporary of the famous Scottish theologian John Major at Montaigu and may have been taught by hirn. Certainly nominalism was to exert a lasting inAuence on Calvin. In his later career he was, as one would expect, a fierce critic of scholastic theology. Even so, long after his conversion traces of nominalism can be discerned in Calvin's thought, notably in his doctrine of God (156). However, Calvin's experience was not that of Luther. His

54

Calvinism

Reformation theology was not the result of a dialogue with scholasticism*, rather it developed out of a combination of Lutheranism and Christian humanism*. Like other Reformed theologians, notabIy Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Bucer, the pervading inftuence of Calvin's intellectually formative years was Christian humanism. The Parisian circles Calvin moved in were distinctly Erasmian. Early on he came under· the inftuence of Guillaurne Cop of Basel, physician to King Francis I, friend of the French scholar Guillaurne Bude and correspondent of Erasmus. Some time in 1528 or 1529 Calvin's father had a change ofmind regarding his son's career and Calvin was sent to study law at Orleans. This may have been because of a dispute between Gerard Cauvin and the cathedral chapter or because he anticipated a more lucrative career for his son in the legal profession. At Orleans also Calvin moved in humanist circles, developing friendships with the evangelically minded Fran