Abstract
Luther’s preaching and reforming activities produced the greatest excitement in Central Germany. In their wake appeared a number of radical movements, both unwanted and unexpected by the Reformer himself. He was forced to take issue with the extremists in order to guide the Reformation into more conservative channels. The examination of these unruly elements, called the Schwärmer by Luther, must begin with the Prophets of Zwickau. They were the first to trouble the peaceful progress of reform in Wittenberg. We will begin with their development in Zwickau itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
The Taborites were the extreme party of the Hussites. They wanted no compromise with the Catholic Church. The Beghards were a lay-monastic group who held goods in common and practiced works of charity. The Lollards were the followers of Wycliff who exercised a significant influence on the later Hussites of Bohemia.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 6.
James Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation (4 vols.; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 2930 ), II, 264.
Letter of Nikolaus Hausmann, pastor at Zwickau, to the Duke, December 18, 1521, in Theodore Kolde, “Ältester Bericht über die Zwickauer Propheten,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, V (1881–82), 323–25.
Wappler, op. cit., pp. 12, 20, 39.
Ibid., p. zo.
x Ibid., p. 3o, who uses Marcus Wagner’s Einfettiger Bericht wie durch Nicolaum Storcken die Auffruhr in Thüringen und vmbligenden Revir angefangen sey worden, etc. (Erfurt, x597). Wagner obtained his information, according to his own testimony, from Johann Chiomusus (Schneesing), pastor at Friemar. Wagner claimed that Chiomusus disputed with Storch and knew him quite well. Wappler believes that Wagner took some liberty in interpreting the oral and written reports of Chiomusus. Wappler, op. cit., p. 36. Wagner’s formal presentation of Storch’s doctrine included matters not mentioned in other documents — for example polygamy and free will. It is obvious that Wagner was a hostile critic whose account must be used with caution. He considered Storch to be the founder of Anabaptism, the accepted Lutheran view by his time.
Letter to the Duke, December 18, 1521, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, V, 323–25. 8 Wappler, op. cit., p. 38, quoting Wagner.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 28, 3o, 38.
Wagner in Wappler, op. cit., pp. 37–38.
Ibid., p. 19.
Ibid., p. 36.
Stübner was a nickname. The man’s real name was simply Marcus Thomae. He was called Stübner because his father managed a Bathstube in Elsterberg.
Alluded to in Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector, January r, 1522, CR, 1, 533–34. 8 Wappler, op. cit., p. 25.
Ibid., pp. 28–29.
Amsdorf’s report to Einsiedeln, CR, I, 534–35. Luther also cautioned the Elector, through Spalatin, against the use of force. Letter to Spalatin, January 17, 1522, WB, II, 444.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 27, quoting Frederick from Georg Spalatin’s Historische Nachlass und Briefe, eds. Neudecker and Preller (Jena, 1851 ), I, 3o.
CR, I, 535–38.
I can find no copy of such a report. It is obvious from Luther’s letter of January 13, 1522 to Melanchthon that he was writing in response to some communication about the Prophets from Melanchthon. In 1911 Müller declared that the letter was not extant. Nikolaus Müller, Die Wittenberger Bewegung, 1521 und 1522 (Leipzig: Heinsius Nachfolger, 1911 ), p. 135, n. 7.
Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28. Translated and printed in part in Preserved Smith and Charles Jacobs, Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1918 ), II, 84–86.
See Elector Frederick to Jerome Schurff, March 7, 152z, Smith and Jacobs, op. cit., II, 96–97, and Luther to Elector Frederick, March 12, 1522, ibid., 98–101.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 33, and Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911), p. 15o, who quotes from Bindseil, D. Martini Lutheri Colloquia (Lemgo and Detmold, 1863–66), II, 21.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 35.
Ibid.
Most of the factual detail in the following account of Müntzer comes from Theodore Kolde, “Thomas Müntzer,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1956 ), VIII, 47–50.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 35.
See Carl Hinrichs, Luther und Müntzer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1952), pp. 5—ro. An otherwise excellent piece of research and interpretation is marred slightly by an overemphasis upon Müntzer’s rivalry with Luther. The fact of the rivalry is undeniable. But Hinrichs goes too far when he tends to suggest that the principal, and indeed sole, motivation for Müntzer’s constructive work was the intense desire to wrest leadership of the Reformation from Luther and carry it himself.
Ibid., pp. 57–65. XXV of The Library of Christian Classics, eds. J. Baillie, J. T. McNeill, and H. van Dusen ( Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957 ), pp. 49–70.
Letter translated and printed in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 241–47.
See letters Nrs. 88 and 89, May 12, 1525, H. Bcehmer and P. Kirn, Thomas Miintzers Briefwechsel (Berlin: Teubner, 1931), pp. I22–24 for examples of Müntzer’s boldness with the princes before the battle. He commanded them to cease their tyranny else they would experience the wrath of God. He signed his letters “T. M. with the sword of Gideon.”
Hinrichs, op. cit., pp. 54–56.
Ibid., passim, in chapter i.
Boehmer and Kirn, Briefwechsel, p. 161, for Müntzer’s confession at his trial, May 16, 1525.
See his Protestation printed in Otto Brandt, Thomas Mfintzer, sein Leben und seine Schriften (Jena: Diederichs, 1933), PP. 134–35.
See below, p. 107, n. 7.
Much of the factual information on Carlstadt is taken from H. Barge, “Carlstadt,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, II (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908), 413–16. Barge is not an unbiased observer. In attempting to counteract the hostile view of Carlstadt perpetrated by generations of Luther admirers, he tends to attribute too
H. Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (2 vols.; Leipzig: Brandstetter, 2905 ), I, 7o - 72.
Ernest Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 195o ), pp. 396–97.
Luther intended to return to Wittenberg anyway by Easter of x522. For his projected translation of the Old Testament he wanted help from the Hebrew scholars among his Wittenberg colleagues. The disturbances provided the occasion; the town council issued the invitation; Luther accepted. Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 195o), pp. 210—II.
It is only fair to note that Luther also did not anticipate the amount of disorder the changes would provoke. On his secretive return to Wittenberg early in December, 1521, he reported himself pleased with the changes that had been made up to that point (some marriage of priests, cup to the laity, non-celebration of private masses in some places). He warmly supported the marriage of priests, and his theses concerning monastic vows were the most important influence in emptying the cloisters in Wittenberg. He objected to private masses, and considered it Scriptural to give the cup to the laity. When rioting accompanied these changes, Luther wanted an abrupt return to the traditional church practices to ensure public order. Clearly in his mind change would have to be introduced slowly, with the utmost caution. See ibid., pp. 198–204.
Carlstadt’s position as archdeacon at the parish church at Wittenberg brought with it the income of the parish at Orlamünde. Part of that total income of course went to the vicar at Orlamünde. Barge declares that Carlstadt went to Orlamünde because of the pressure of friends and for conscience sake: the religious leader should aspire to the highest religious office, namely, the preaching of the Word. (Barge, Frithprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum, pp. 228–31.) Karl Müller suggests that Carlstadt went to Orlamünde for financial reasons: in order to be assured of a regular income of sufticient size. (Karl Müller, Luther and Karlstadt, p. 143.) It seems reasonable to expect Carlstadt to leave Wittenberg at least partly because he had lost his influence there.
The selection of issues which divided Luther and Carlstadt plunges one into an immediate controversy. Luther and Carlstadt and their respective twentieth-century supporters did not agree in their analyses of the differences between them. See Barge, Karlstadt, II, 267. For this study the twin issues of the Lord’s Supper and the appropriate tempo for changes in religious practice are the most significant.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 151–52. The first one appeared late in 1523.
Ibid., II, 153–56.
Ibid., chapter viii. 8 Ibid., II, 154–56.
Ibid., II, 153.
Matt. 26:26–28; Luke 22:19–20.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 156–57.
Ibid., II, 161–6a, 169.
Ibid., II, 171–73. Carlstadt tended to regard any external religious act, any sacrament in the Roman tradition, as a sign, having no power in itself. The act of baptism to him conveyed therefore no grace. I have chosen not to discuss his views on baptism primarily because Luther did not try to refute them so much as he opposed Carlstadt’s views on the Lord’s Supper. Luther met views on baptism which were determinative for his Anabaptism in the Zwickau Prophets.
Ibid., II, 270.
Ibid., I, 290.
Ibid., II, 145.
Ibid., I, 357–61; Bainton, Here I Stand, pp. 205–207.
The ordinance applied only to the Pfarrkirche.
Barge, Karlstadt, I, 386–9o; K. Müller, op. cit., pp. 49, 64–65.
Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28.Also letter to Spalatin,May 29, 1522, WB, II, 545–47.
Wappler, op. cit., p. 31.
Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.; letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, WB, II, 545–47.
Ibid.
Müntzer also displayed a subjectivism which was extremely distasteful to Luther. Müntzer, in Luther’s estimation, relied overmuch on the Spirit. This Spirit could indeed be found in the Scriptures, but it
Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28.
I John 4: r.
Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28.
See above, pp. 15–16.
Hinrichs, op. cit., pp. 44–45.
Julius Köstlin, Luthers Theologie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (2 vols.; 2d revised ed.; Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, 1901 ), II, 22o; Letter to the Princes of Saxony concerning the revolutionary Spirit, Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 241–47.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 24–25.
Luther’s “Wider die himmlischen Propheten” as paraphrased and quoted in Barge, Karlstadt, II, 272.
In “Wider die himmlischen Propheten.”
Everything that I see and hear pleases me very much. Letter to Spalatin, early December, 1521, Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 79.
Ibid.
An Earnest Exhortation for All Christians, translated and printed in Works of Martin Luther (6 vols.; Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1930), III, 206–22.
I I Cor. 6:12.
The Second Sermon, translated and printed in Works, II, 398–99.
Ibid., PP- 399–400.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 268. Probably Luther’s reception by the parishioners of Carlstadt at Orlamünde in 1524 influenced his estimation of Carlstadt’s riot-stirring potential. Luther was met with stones and mud and verbal threats to his safety. Letter to the Christians at Strassburg, December 17, 1524, trans. and printed in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 278.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 269, quoting from “Wider die himmlischen Propheten.”
Hinrichs, op. cit., pp. 146–48; 156–58; 163.
Letter to the Princes of Saxony concerning the Revolutionary Spirit, July, 1524, trans. and printed in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 241–47.
Ein schrecklich Geschieht und Gericht Gotes über Thomas Müntzer, darinnen Gott offenlich desselbigen Gayst Lügenn strafft vnnd verdammet, EA, LXV, 12–22.
Köstlin, op. cit., I, 402.
Letter to the Christians of Strassburg, December 27, 1524, trans. and printed in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 277.
Köstlin, op. cit., I, 405; Schwiebert, op. cit., pp. 702–703.
Luther used I Cor. ro: r6 as the best explanation.
Schwiebert, op. cit., p. 866, n. 121, quoting Luther from WA, XVIII, 87.
Köstlin, op. cit., I, 405.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 277, 272.
Wider die himmlischen Propheten. I have used Barge’s paraphrases of, and quotations from, it. Ibid., II, 264–77, especially p. 267. See also Letter to the Christians of Strassburg, December 17, 1524, in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 276–78.
Hinrichs, op. cit., pp. 152–53.
Letter to the Princes of Saxony, Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 242.
Barge, Karlstadt, II, 265, interpreting Luther’s “Wider die himmlischen Propheten.”
For the satanic origin of:
a. the Prophets, Letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, WB, II, 424–28.
b. Carlstadt, Letter to Nicholas Gerbel, December 17, 1524, trans. and printed in Smith and Jacobs, Correspondence, II, 273–74; Letter to the Christians of Strassburg, December 17, 1524, ibid., 278.
c. Müntzer, Letter to the Saxon Princes, ibid., 241–47; “Ein schrecklich Geschicht vnd Gericht Gotes,” EA, LXV, 12–22.
Report to Spalatin and Einsiedeln, January 1, 1522, CR, I, 533–34.
Record of conference between Einsiedeln, Spalatin, Melanchthon, and Amsdorf, January 2, 1522, CR, I, 536–37.
Letter to Spalatin, December 27, 1521, CR, I, 514–15. Cellarius’ dreams were inconsistent with his doctrine. He denied the existence of Purgatory, yet dreamed of Chrvsostom suffering in Purgatory and apparently considered the dream a valid indication of Chrysostom’s disposition after death. Melanchthon found this ridiculous. Joachim Camerarius, De Philippi, Melanchthonis orty, totius vitae cvrricvlo et morte… (Leipzig, n.d.), p. 50.
Report to Spalatin and Einsiedeln, January I, 1522, CR, I, 533–34•
Ibid.
Record of conference between Einsiedeln, Spalatin, Melanchthon, and Amsdorf, January 2, x522, CR, I, 537–38.
Georg Effinger, Philipp Melanchthon, Ein Lebensbild (Berlin: Gaertner, 1902), pp. 164–66 for a good discussion of Melanchthon’s reactions to the Prophets.
Ibid., pp. 148–49.
Chancellor Brück to Elector Frederick, October, 1521, CR, I, 459–61; Manschreck, op. cit., pp. 73–75.
Müller, OP. Cit., pp. 188–89.
Letter to Einsiedeln, February 5, 1522, CR, I, 546.
Letter to Spalatin, printed by Manschreck, op. cit., p. 79. Melanchthon later tried to give the impression that he had disapproved earlier of the activities of Zwilling in particular. Ellinger, op. cit., p. 151.
EynSchrifft Philippi Melanchthon widder die Artickel der Bawrschafft, 1525, CR, XX, 641–62. Elector Ludwig of the Palatinate had requested Melanchthon’s advice in treating the demands of the peasants expressed in the twelve articles because Melanchthon was a native of the Palatinate, because he was well-versed in Scripture, and because he had been named as arbitrator by the peasants themselves. Ludwig wanted Melanchthon to attend the session of the Palatine Diet when the question would be discussed. Melanchthon declined the invitation but sent his written opinion. Letter from the Elector to Melanchthon, May 18, 1525, CR, I, 742–43.
Philipp Melanchthons Historie Thomae Müntzers, printed in Johann Walch, D. Martin Luthers… sämtliche Schriften (24 vols.; Halle: Gebauer, 1739–1753), XVI, 199–217. Melanchthon’s authorship of the brochure has been questioned in recent years. See Brandt, op. cit., p. 223. Boehmer’s view seems to me the most plausible. Melanchthon wrote it, not so much as history, but to give his students an example of humanist public speaking. Heinrich Boehmer, Zur Feier des Reformationsfestes und des Übergangs des Rektorats… Studien zu Thomas Müntzer (Leipzig: Edelmann, 1922), pp. 3–4. Melanchthon was at some pains to show that Müntzer’s revolutionary goals were the natural result of Schwärmerei. The connecting link between a milder radicalism and the wild civil revolt was of course the devil.
A gossip sheet of the times, the “Zeitung aus Wittenberg,” declared that Melanchthon spent much time with Stübner. The latter lived in Melanchthon’s house for a time. Melanchthon came to his defense when the students teased him. N. Müller, op. cit., p. 16o.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oyer, J.S. (1964). The Schwärmer, Luther, and Melanchthon. In: Lutheran Reformers Against Anabaptists. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9285-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9285-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8535-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9285-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive