Report of Hendrik van Zutphen’s Martyrdom

Jacob Probst
Letter to Martin Luther
Circa Middle of December, 1524

Translator’s Preface

See the preface to this previous post for more on the early life of Jacob Probst. After being imprisoned in Brussels for his preaching in December 1521 and interrogated in December and January 1522, Probst caved and issued a public recantation from the pulpit in St. Gudula’s Church in Brussels on Sunday, February 9. After returning to Ypres, his hometown, and cautiously beginning to preach the gospel again, he was arrested and imprisoned a second time, first being detained in Bruges, then in Brussels. But after some of his friends told him that he “would not help the gospel’s cause as much by [his] death in this second imprisonment as [he] would have if [he] had steadfastly persevered in the first,” he escaped “by divine providence and with the help of a certain brother,” probably in June. He fled to Wittenberg, where he assisted the reformers with various tasks, until he was called to serve the Church of Our Lady in Bremen in May 1524. There he became the colleague of Hendrik van Zutphen, who had been preaching the gospel in Bremen since November 1522 and who, like Jacob, had also been an Observant Augustinian.

Van Zutphen had already lived an eventful life, too. Likely hailing from the Dutch town of Zutphen, Hendrik had enrolled at the University of Wittenberg in 1508, probably from the monastery either in Enkhuizen or Dordrecht. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1509 and his Master of Arts in 1511. He stayed in Wittenberg until 1515, when he was sent to be sub-prior in the Cologne monastery. After a short stay there, he was sent to Dordrecht where he participated in the Observant reform of that cloister before becoming its prior in 1516. He relinquished his position in 1520 and returned to Wittenberg to continue his education, receiving his Bachelor of the Bible degree in January of 1521 and Bachelor of Sentences degree in October.

After attending a special chapter meeting in Grimma in early June 1522, he returned to Wittenberg, where he may have been advised by Martin Luther and Wenceslaus Linck, the Wittenberg prior, to go to his Augustinian brothers in the Low Countries, in order to comfort and encourage them in the wake of increasing persecution. In July 1522, the Augustinians in Antwerp, suspected of Lutheranism, were questioned by officials, and a number of the monks were put on wagons and transported to the ducal castle in Vilvoorde, just northeast of Brussels, which was being used as an imperial prison. There they were interrogated, and all but two of them soon recanted and returned to Antwerp. (The two monks who persisted, Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen, ended up becoming the first Lutheran martyrs when they were burned at the stake in Brussels on July 1, 1523.) How the timing of van Zutphen’s trip to Antwerp lines up with this July 1522 deportation is unclear, but we know that he eventually joined the Antwerp monastery and soon became its prior—the position that Jacob Probst had formerly held.

Hendrik initially kept a low profile, but when indulgence salesmen arrived in the city, he began to preach against them publicly, first from the pulpit, then in the streets. On September 29, 1522, he was lured from the monastery under the pretext of being called to visit an ailing parishioner. He was arrested and held overnight in St. Michael’s Abbey for transport to Brussels the next day, where he would appear before the inquisitors. But what happened next almost defies imagination: After sunset a mob consisting mostly of women—several thousand women according to van Zutphen, more than 300 according to another source, and 500 with swords according to another—battered down the doors and broke into the abbey, found van Zutphen, and led him back to his brother Augustinians. He spent three days in hiding with them before fleeing the city.

Hendrik intended to return to Wittenberg, probably stopping at his hometown on the way, and also stopping in Bremen. (He probably took this less direct route for the sake of his own safety.) But while in Bremen, he was asked to give a sermon in one of the chapels of St. Ansgar’s Church. As a result, he was called as a preacher there and helped to introduce the Reformation in the city, in spite of strong and persistent opposing forces. It was, then, due to his influence and that of his supporters that Jacob Probst was called there to strengthen the evangelical cause in May 1524.

In November of that same year, Hendrik received an invitation from Pastor Nicolas Boye of Meldorf in Dithmarschen, together with other pious Christians in Pastor Boye’s parish, to come and preach the gospel there, so as to help weaken the strong Roman Catholic sway in the area. (Boye came from one of the leading families of Dithmarschen. He had enrolled at the University of Wittenberg in May 1518 and was stationed in Meldorf in 1523.) Hendrik held a secret meeting with six of his leading parishioners on November 24. He persuaded them to let him accept this invitation and to explain the reasons for his secret departure to the rest of his parishioners, with the understanding that he would return to Bremen after a few months, once a gospel foundation had been laid in Dithmarschen.

This is where Jacob Probst’s letter to Luther picks up. See also the Postscript below.

December 10 of this year will mark the 500th anniversary of Hendrik van Zutphen’s martyrdom. It is usually claimed that he was burned at the stake, but as you will see, it is unclear whether he died as a result of fire or as a result of trauma from the wounds he sustained. May the triune God use this fresh translation, together with all such accounts, to prepare, fortify, and equip us to boldly witness to his grace and his saving name in our own day and age.

Jacob Probst’s Report of Hendrik van Zutphen’s Martyrdom

Jacob of Ypres, to the true disciple of Christ, Martin Luther:

Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only mediator and a priest into eternity [1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 5:6]. What should I say, dearest brothers? Where should I begin? The soul is in distress, and my spirit cries out to the Lord [Baruch 3:1], and I have no respite. I say: “Behold! How the righteous man passes away, and there is no one who reflects on it in his heart! Men of mercy are gathered up, because there is no one who understands! For the righteous man is gathered up to be taken away from malice!” [Isa. 57:1].

Our brother Hendrik, the intrepid preacher of the word of God, is slain. And he perished in a manner suggesting that he was not beloved by God. Nevertheless, his blood is precious in the sight of the Lord [Ps. 72:14], even if it was made cheap in front of the people of Dithmarschen. O Lord, how long shall we cry out, and you will not answer? Why do you show regard for the despisers and keep silent while the impious tramples underfoot the one more righteous than he? Yes, Father, it is because this was your good pleasure [Matt. 11:26]. For no disciple is above the teacher, nor is a servant above the master. It is sufficient for a student to be like his teacher, and for a servant to be like his master. If they have called the head of the household Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! Therefore we shall not be afraid of them [Matt. 10:24–26]. For this is their hour and the power of darkness [Luke 22:53]. Therefore we, the lovers of the truth, grieve and advance in dejection. The adversaries rejoice and advance with heads held high. We nevertheless grieve like this over the death of Hendrik, in order that we may rejoice just as much in the presence of the Lord, certain of a new martyr of Christ. They, on the other hand, rejoice in the presence of the world, and their joy, I do not doubt, will only be like a moment. But be satisfied with a brief account of what happened, for my soul is too sad for me to write at length.

Hendrik was invited to Dithmarschen by a certain pastor in Meldorf, a Christian and apostolic man, with the consent of several leading men of that place, in Meldorf. Since Hendrik was an eager and true witness of Christ, he set out to go there, confident in the Lord. His friends were against it, but he would not listen, because he was saying that he was being called there by God.

When he arrived, he received a very warm welcome from Christian people. But the monks, hostile to true piety and Christian truth, go running, pursuing, and exerting themselves in a frenzy, and they finally obtain from certain elders of their country a prohibition forbidding Hendrik from preaching. But he, knowing that we must be more obedient to God than to men, preached two sermons on the Second Sunday in Advent [Dec. 4], and all who were present rejoiced and praised God for his gift. He similarly preached two sermons on St. Nicholas’s Day [Dec. 6], with the people flocking to hear them from nearly every corner. He similarly preached two sermons on the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin [Dec. 8], and everyone was astonished at his teaching.

Meanwhile the monks were exerting themselves with the utmost diligence, complaining and inciting commotion, and they achieved what they wanted. For on Friday night, after midnight, before the Third Sunday of Advent, forty or fifty armed men arrived in Meldorf, using the monks’ lamps for their light, and, full of Hamburg beer, they forcibly entered the pastor’s house in a hostile manner and cruelly dragged Christ’s martyr out of bed. After tying him to the tail of a horse, they dragged him with great exaltation to Heide, which is a good mile distant from Meldorf.1 When they arrived there, they threw him into the cellar of a certain priest. Everyone was drinking, singing, and making sport.

When morning came, they dragged him to the fire with the utmost disgrace. This fire died out twice in the sight of everyone, which they attributed to magical arts, as is fitting for such people. Now a certain Christian woman, positioning herself between Hendrik and the fire, offered a thousand gulden to leave him unharmed until he could be convicted legally and burned then. But there was no listening on that point, and the woman, having received a blow to her head, was forced to withdraw. And the verdict was given by someone who was not the judge that year. But he still accepted ten gulden from the man whose duty it was to render verdicts, and he rendered the verdict with these words: “Let this malefactor, who has blasphemed God and his mother, be burned!” Hendrik said, “I have not done these things.” But the shouting prevailed: “Burn him! Burn him!” And when he prayed for them to the heavenly Father, they mocked him and spit on him.

Finally, after he had received a number of wounds, he was thrown into the third fire. And at least twenty wounds were counted on his body. Then his spirit returned to the Father, and his body remained unburned that entire day. But on the next day, which was the Third Sunday in Advent, they cut the head, hands, and feet off the dead man’s corpse and burned them in a new fire they had built. But they are said to have buried the trunk after performing a dance around the corpse.

Thus, thus pass away the servants of Christ; thus the words of the teacher are fulfilled! I am unable to write more. Pray to the Divine Majesty that he would condescend to bestow such steadfastness upon us, too! Oh, if I had had but a tiny drop of this kind of faith and steadfastness, I would now be resting securely in Christ, I who roll along in various miseries, afflictions, anxieties, and sins! Farewell! The Spirit of Christ be with you all.

Martin, dearest father in Christ, I would have written this letter to the people of Antwerp, but the mail carrier had departed and left this letter behind, which I am now sending to Your Paternity, and I entreat your kindness and beseech you through Jesus Christ to comfort us with a single letter addressed to the entire church in Bremen. I beg you, do not deny me, since I am not the only one asking for this, but many people are, and celebrate the martyr of Christ and rebuke the villainy of the monks! Pardon the blathering, I beg you! My soul is sorrowful to the point of death [Matt. 26:38]. For I am weary of living any longer as I witness so much evil all around, and my old Adam is not dead either. Pray for us!

Yours,
Jacob

[Written around the middle of December 1524]

Postscript

Martin Luther did fulfill Jacob Probst’s request early the following year (1525). You can read Luther’s work, The Burning of Brother Henry, in volume 32 of Luther’s Works, pages 261–86. It includes an introductory exhortation, a brief commentary on Psalm 9, and a detailed “history of Brother Henry.”

It is interesting to note that, after this inauspicious beginning for Lutheranism in Dithmarschen, the Council of the Forty-Eight, the elected governing body of the republic, turned the Ditmarsian Catholic Church into a Lutheran state church in 1533, less than ten years later.

In 1830, a monument to Hendrik van Zutphen was erected in Heide at the site of his martyrdom. Restored in 1858, it can still be visited today, though the death date engraved on it is incorrect.

Sources

Bebermeyer, Gustav, Otto Clemen, et al., eds. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel. Vol. 3. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1933. Pages 400–403.

I also consulted one anonymous, contemporary German translation of Probst’s letter: Ein erschreckliche geschicht wie etliche Ditmarschen den Christlichen prediger Heinrich von Zutfeld [sic] newlich so jemerlich vmbgebracht haben. Bamberg: Georg Erlinger, 1525.

Endnotes

1 The German mile was the equivalent of about 4.5 American miles, but “a good mile [milliarium magnum or starke, große, or gute Meile]” could also be an inexact, approximate designation for a distance longer than that. The actual distance between the two cities was about 8.5 American miles.

2 Latin: fraudem, which could also be translated “deceit” or “delusion.” A contemporary German translation rendered it Arglistigkeit, “cunning.”

Martin Luther’s Letter to Christians in the Low Countries

Translator’s Preface

Read the preface here for more information on Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen and the circumstances leading up to and surrounding their execution. Martin Luther had clearly read both that German pamphlet and the Latin one containing two eyewitness accounts (here and here) and the sixty-two articles for which they were condemned before penning the letter below.

Luther penned this letter toward the end of July or beginning of August 1523. The letter is closely connected with his first hymn, a ballad recounting the martyrdom entitled, “A New Song Now Shall Be Begun [Eyn newes lyed wyr heben an].”1 Either preparing this letter planted the seeds of that hymn in his mind, or the letter shows that he had already begun working on the hymn or perhaps had already finished it.

As for “the articles for which the two Christian Augustinian monks were burned to death in Brussels” that Luther appended to the letter, they appear to be a digest and summary of the accounts and articles already available in print. However, the monks’ response to the inquisitor Jacob van Hoogstraten that Luther records—“Those are the words of Pilate, and you would have no authority over me, if it were not given to you from above”—does not appear in either of the martyrdom pamphlets and shows that Luther did possess other reports separate from those pamphlets. (It is therefore also possible that the articles Luther appended to his letter were the reproduction of a digest and summary prepared by one of his sources.)

This concludes the series of translations I specifically prepared in connection with the five hundredth anniversary of the first Lutheran martyrdom. To borrow phraseology from Luther, may these translations lead all pious Christians to give praise and thanks to God the almighty for having bestowed such great grace on these martyrs and all his other holy martyrs and, if divine honor and Christian necessity call for it, to endure the same way they did. Amen.

Open Letter to Christians in the Low Countries

Martin Luther, churchman in Wittenberg,
To all dear brothers in Christ in Holland,2 Brabant,3 and Flanders,4 together with all believers in Christ,
Grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Praise and thanks be to the Father of all mercy, who once again in these days lets us see his marvelous light, which up till now was hidden on account of our sin. In the past he let us be subject to the horrible authority of the darkness and let us serve such disgraceful errors and the Antichrist. But now the time has come again for us to hear the voice of the turtledove, and the flowers are springing up in our land [Song of Sol. 2:12]. What joy, my dearest friends, you have not only taken part in, but have become its foremost partakers—a joy from which we ourselves have derived great joy and delight! For before all the world, you have been given the honor not only to hear the gospel and to acknowledge Christ, but also to be the first who now suffer shame and injury, apprehension and distress, imprisonment and danger for Christ’s sake, and have now matured into such ripe fruit and become so strong that you have also watered and confirmed it with your own blood, since the two noble jewels of Christ among you, Hinricus and Johannes,5 thought nothing of their life in Brussels, so that Christ would be praised with his word. Oh, how despicably those two souls were executed! Yet how gloriously and in eternal joy they will return with Christ and justly judge those by whom they have now been unjustly judged! Ah, how very inconsequential a thing it is to be disgraced and killed by the world for those who know that their blood and their death are precious in God’s sight, as the psalms sing [Psalm 9:12; 116:15]. What is the world in comparison with God? What great pleasure and joy all the angels have taken in the sight of these two souls! How gladly the fire must have helped them to their eternal life from this sinful life, to eternal glory from this shame! God be praised and blessed into eternity, that we have lived to see and to hear true saints and genuine martyrs, we who have previously extolled and adored so many false saints. We up here have not yet been worthy to become such a precious and worthy offering to Christ, although many of our ranks have not escaped persecution and are still being persecuted. Therefore, my very dearest friends, take heart and be joyful in Christ, and let us give thanks for his great signs and wonders, which he has begun to do among us. Here he has set before us brand-new examples of his life. Now it is time for the kingdom of God not to consist in words but in power [1 Cor. 4:10; cf. 1 Thess. 1:5]. Here we are being taught what the saying means: “Be joyful in distress” [cf. Rom. 12:12]. Isaiah says, “For a little while I forsake you, but with eternal mercy I will take you in” [Isa. 54:7]. And God says in Psalm 91, “I am with him in distress, I will deliver him and will honor him, for he has acknowledged my name” [Ps. 91:15, 14]. So then, since we see the present distress, and have such powerful and comforting promises, let us revive our heart, be of good cheer, and joyfully let ourselves be slaughtered for the Lord. It is he who has said it; he will not lie. “Even the hairs on your head are all numbered” [Matt. 10:30]. And although the adversaries will decry these saints as Hussites, Wycliffites, and Lutherans, and will take pride in their murder, this should not amaze us but strengthen us all the more. For the cross of Christ must have blasphemers. But our judge is not far off. He will render a different verdict. We know this, and are certain of it. Pray for us, dear brothers, and pray for and with each other, so that we extend one another a helping hand and all of us cling in one spirit to our head, Jesus Christ. May he strengthen and fully equip you with grace to bring glory to his holy name. To him be honor, praise, and thanks among you and all creatures into eternity. Amen.

The Articles for Which the Two Christian Augustinian Monks Were Burned to Death in Brussels

The above-mentioned Christian men were interrogated by [Jacob van] Hoogstraten and several other heretic-masters (who mainly because of [von groß wegen] their unchristian malice are rightly called masters over other heretics), and they answered their questions as follows:

Question: What do you believe?

Answer: The twelve articles of the Christian faith, the books of the Bible and evangelical writings, also one holy Christian Church, but not the church you inquisitors believe in.

The second question: Do you believe in the laws of the councils and ancient fathers?

Answer: We believe them so far as their precepts are in line with divine Scripture and not contrary to it.

The third question: Do you believe that those who transgress the laws of the pope and the church fathers are committing mortal or damnable sin?

Answer: We believe that divine commands and prohibitions, and not human laws, are what save and condemn.

Verdict: On this basis the above-mentioned interrogators, being men who cannot tolerate divine doctrine because of the practice of their malice, pronounced the two above-mentioned pious Christian men to be heretics and handed them over to the secular authorities for execution (just as the Jews handed Christ over to the heathens). From there they were unjustly condemned to the fire.

Now although it is just and fair for everyone’s crime to be publicly read at their execution, and this is the practice especially in Brussels, this was not done in this case out of shame at the great injustice. But those who were in Brussels at the time learned exactly what these articles were from certain individuals.

Likewise, when Hoogstraten assured the condemned men that if they would recant the above-cited Christian truth, he had the authority or power to set them free, one of them answered him, “Those are the words of Pilate, and you would have no authority over me, if it were not given to you from above,” and both men publicly said that they thanked God for the privilege to die for the sake of his word. And they not only suffered this innocent martyrdom and death willingly, eagerly, joyfully, and resolutely, but besides that they gave, admonished, and taught many good Christian answers during their execution. They also praised God by singing some of the holy psalms and other songs, and they devoutly called upon Christ our Lord, as a Son of David, for grace and mercy as long as they were able to speak, before the fire began to do them serious harm. For such Christian perseverance, it is right for all pious Christians to give praise and thanks to God the almighty (who has bestowed such great grace on these martyrs and all his other holy martyrs) and, if divine honor and Christian necessity call for it, to desire to endure the same way they have. Amen.

Source

Kawerau, Gustav, Paul Pietsch, and Georg Buchwald, eds. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Vol. 12. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1891. Pages 77–80.

Endnotes

1 Weimarer Ausgabe 35:91–97, 411–15. English translations of this hymn can be found in Luther’s Works 53:211–16 and in Peter C. Reske, ed., The Hymns of Martin Luther (St. Louis: Concordia, 2016), 10–12. Additional insightful commentary on the hymn can be found in Robert J. Christman, The Dynamics of the Early Reformation in their Reformed Augustinian Context (Amsterdam University Press, 2020), 137–44, 207–8.

2 The Countship of Holland included Rotterdam, Delft, The Hague, Haarlem, Enkhuizen, and Amsterdam. Today the territory belongs to the Netherlands.

3 The Duchy of Brabant included Louvain, Brussels, Antwerp, and ’s-Hertogenbosch. Today the territory belongs to Belgium and the Netherlands.

4 The Countship of Flanders included Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres. Today this territory belongs to Belgium, France, and the Netherlands.

5 That is, Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen.

First Lutheran Martyrdom (Third Account)

Translator’s Preface

Read the preface to the First Account for more information on Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen and the circumstances leading up to and surrounding their execution.

In addition to the German pamphlet translated there, another account of the martyrdom was published in Latin, Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, ob Evangelii doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. [sic]Anno domini M. D. XXIII. (History of the Two Augustinians Burned at the Stake in Brussels for the Doctrine of the Gospel on the Thirtieth Day of June [sic], in the Year of the Lord 1523). This Latin pamphlet included four parts:

  1. An eyewitness account of the martyrdom penned on July 10, 1523
  2. An eyewitness account penned on July 14, 1523
  3. A list of sixty-two “articles asserted by Brother Hendrik and the others” compiled by a member of the Inquisition.
  4. “A Pious and Christian Expostulation with [or Strong Rebuke of] a Man Who Was Finally Compelled by the Tyranny of the Impious and the Terror of Death to Deny the Truth Which He had Professed. (The man in question was Lambert de Thoren, who had asked for time to reconsider after being degraded and before being led to the stake.)

What follows is a translation of the second part of this Latin pamphlet, which provides more of a summary report of what happened and names the inquisitors. We do not know the identity of the author. The final sentence suggests his home was in Basel but he had taken a trip to Brussels and was in the city for the burning of the two Augustinian monks.

To the glory of the triune God and in commemoration of the courage and steadfastness he bestowed upon Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen:

Summary Report of the Two Augustinians Burned at the Stake in Brussels

Concerning the two Augustinians who were burned to death here in Brussels, I believe that others have written about it at length. With unbelievable steadfastness or perseverance1 they endured a most painful death. The chancellor affirmed that he had never seen anything like it among so many condemned and executed in his time.2 From within the fire, they were reciting the Creed and calling upon Jesus again and again. The judges were [Jacob van] Hoogstraten, Egmondanus [Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond], Hodscalcus [Godschalk Roesmont van Eyndhoven], [Jacob] Latomus, and Ruard [Tapper]. Also present was [Johannes] Pascha [or Jan van Paesschen], a Carmelite of Mechelen. Francis [van der] Hulst was commissioned by an official papal letter to appoint an inquisitor himself; he just had to be a prelate or a theologian. He immediately named Egmondanus. All these are said to be going to Holland, to [Cornelis Henricxz] Hoen and the schoolmaster in Delft,3 who was thrown into prison a long time ago. Apart from that, they are very concerned that a disturbance will arise there,4 as are the people, although the example will frighten most, as they hope. They do not yet agree whether they all want to go; some are formulating other cases. Pass along my greetings to Johannes,5 Zwingli, and Hutten [in Basel]. Once matters here have been sufficiently investigated, I will return to you, and we will reflect on everything there in the baths. From Brussels, July 14, etc.

Source

Anonymous. Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, ob Evangelii doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. [sic] Anno domini M. D. XXIII. Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1523. Fol. a 4 recto.

Endnotes

1 Latin: constantia aut pertinacia. Since the author uses aut instead of et, perhaps it should be translated, “perseverance or stubbornness.”

2 Hieronymus van der Noot was chancellor of the Duchy of Brabant from 1514–1531. He was fifty-nine at the time.

3 Friedrich Hondebeke (see Otto Clemen, Beträge zur Reformationsgeschichte aus Büchern und Handschriften der Zwickauer Ratsschulbibliothek, vol. 1 [Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1900] 41, n. 2).

4 The “there” seems to be referring back to Brussels, not Holland.

5 Probably Johannes Oecolampadius, who had been in Basel since November of 1522.

The First Lutheran Martyrs’ Sixty-Two Articles

Translator’s Preface

Read the preface to the First Account for more information on Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen and the circumstances leading up to and surrounding their execution. Read the preface to the Second Account for more information on the source of the sixty-two articles below.

The content of these articles clearly shows that they were compiled by a member of the Inquisition, and doubtless before the two monks were degraded and burned, though how it was obtained or copied so that it could be printed and disseminated is unknown.

I am deliberately presenting these articles today, the five hundredth anniversary of the degradation and burning of Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen. These are the articles of truth for which these first Lutheran Christian martyrs willingly gave up their lives. To my knowledge, they have never before appeared in English in their entirety. May the triune God give Christians today the same conviction of the truth and the same perseverance and steadfastness, even to the point of death, that he gave to these two young men.

Articles Asserted by Brother Hendrik and the Others

  1. No one is obligated to abstain from reading the books of Luther by the mandate of the pope or the emperor.
  2. Those commanding us to abstain from reading the books of Luther are commanding more than the Spirit of God requires.
  3. Those commanding us to abstain from reading the books of Luther are acting contrary to the Scripture passages, “Test everything” [1 Thess. 5:21], and, “Test the spirits and see whether they are from God” [1 John 4:1].
  4. In a manner insulting to the commissary, he tells him that he [the commissary] was trying to deceive him with flattering words.
  5. The books of Luther showed him the light of Sacred Scripture more than other teachers whom he had read.
  6. Luther brought him closer to the gospel of Christ than Augustine or Jerome.
  7. It cannot be proven from Sacred Scripture that the pope or any bishop possesses anything beyond simply the ministry of the word of Christ.
  8. Neither the pope nor any other bishop is able to command or forbid something else that Sacred Scripture does not contain or that God does not command or forbid, if the conscience would be injured by it.
  9. Secular authority can command and prohibit such things with respect to bodies, but not with respect to the conscience.
  10. The church has not yet forbidden the books of Luther. And after the passages, “Test everything,” and, “Test the spirits and see whether they are from God,” were explained to him, he found a way into the same point, saying, “The church has not rejected the books of Luther.”
  11. Some articles [taught by Luther] are found condemned in Pope Leo the Tenth’s bull even though they are true, and are thereby wrongly condemned until he [Hendrik] was better instructed.1 And he gave examples of this:
  12. All people2 are priests before God.
  13. All people are able to remit the sins of any Christian whatsoever, if they know how to fraternally admonish their neighbor.
  14. Women are able to absolve people of their sins. He deduces this from the evangelical absolution contained in the passage: “If your brother sins against you, etc.” [Matt. 18:15].
  15. The evangelical authority contained in the passage, “Those whose sins you remit, etc.” [John 20:23], is an authority common to all people.
  16. In the mass, the body of Christ is not sacrificed by man, since what is given to him as a medicine and remembrance is not sacrificed.
  17. When interrogated whether the words of the canon of the mass are false, he says, “Whatever the case may be with the words of the canon, the body of Christ is not sacrificed in the mass, but is only taken in memory of him.”
  18. He does not know whether the bread remains in the sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration of Christ, and when the text of Chapter Damnamus of “De summa Trinitate & fide catholica” from canon law was cited,3 he responded, “If it can be found in the Sacred Scriptures, then I believe that, otherwise I do not.”
  19. Nothing should be believed, at risk to the conscience, except what is recorded in the words of God, or what can be drawn out from the words of God.
  20. If a council should define something4 that is not contained in Sacred Scripture, it should be treated with suspicion.
  21. He refused to respond any further whether he should believe [what canon law said] or not.5 But after being repeatedly interrogated, he said that whatever the case may be with Martin Luther, he knows and says that he has come to know the gospel through his writings. When he was interrogated whether Martin Luther himself had the Spirit of God, he refused to respond.
  22. When interrogated if he thinks there is a difference between the priests and the laypeople in the consecration of the Eucharist, and whether consecrating belongs to the priesthood of Christ and to the priesthood of the New Testament, he said he did not understand [intelligere].6
  23. He insultingly said, “Christ will mark well your threats,” etc.
  24. If everyone had considered the matter well up till now, all laypeople would have been regarded as priests just as much as those consecrated as priests by themselves [namely, by bishops].
  25. He did not understand [intellexit] whether a bishop who consecrates someone for the priesthood imparts any new power to consecrate [the elements of the Eucharist].
  26. It is greater to take the body of Christ, which is fitting for all the faithful, than to consecrate it, which only belongs to the administration of the Sacrament itself. He did not understand, however, whether a layman, if a bishop were to tell him to consecrate the body of Christ, could do so without any other ordination.
  27. It is not part of God’s law nor is it commanded by God that all mortal sins should be confessed to a man, since no human is able to know his sins [Ps. 19:12], much less confess them.
  28. Baptism, the Eucharist, and repentance rest on the promises of Christ, which kindle faith. He therefore believes that they confer faith and grace.7
  29. The other four sacraments—confirmation, ordination, marriage, and last rites—do not have a word of promise, but are rather anciently observed rites. Therefore they do not confer grace and can be relinquished as non-sacraments.
  30. The just-mentioned sacraments do not confer any more grace than other rites of the church that the church does not regard as sacraments, since grace is conferred by the word of God alone.
  31. The priesthood is not a sacrament. It is nevertheless a necessary ministry.
  32. Last rites does not have a promise.
  33. Neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other prelate in the church whatsoever is able to obligate a person to things that are not included in God’s law, so that the person would commit a mortal sin by transgressing them. They cannot, for example, obligate anyone to fast during Lent, to confess their sins once a year, to celebrate feast days, etc., excluding offense to brothers.8 This was his position until he was better instructed.
  34. Christ works every good work in humans and through humans, so that humans do nothing good actively. They rather merely allow Christ to work in them as his instruments.
  35. The Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter, was not instituted by Christ himself in the person of blessed Peter as Christ’s vicar over all the churches in the whole world. For Christ did not institute a vicar, but a minister as the highest pontiff.9
  36. All perpetual vows made outside of Christ’s command, such as the vows of the monastics, have been imprudently made out of ignorance of Christian liberty, and thus are not binding.
  37. Now that he has become familiar with Christian liberty, he does not think that his conscience is restrained by vows.
  38. The true, Christian, and catholic10 faith is not able to be separated from love, since love is a fruit of faith, and Christian faith without love is dead.
  39. The sacrament in the mass only benefits the recipient.
  40. When God releases the sinner from his sins, then for the sake of Christ’s death he also releases him from every penalty his sins deserve. And he devoutly believes this.
  41. He does not know whether or not there is a purgatory.
  42. He said, “My lords, you have dealt with us unfairly, and not according to the gospel.”
  43. The sacrament of the Eucharist does not contain a sacrifice on the altar; the sacrifice was only made once on the cross.
  44. After the sinner has confessed and been absolved, he is not obligated by divine law to any penance, provided that he does not offend a brother Christian by causing him to stumble, or offend the church by some public or private crime. Repentance therefore only consists of two parts.
  45. He does not know whether the prayers of the living benefit the dead.11
  46. It is better to observe the manner of celebrating mass that the church observed in its earliest days than to be entangled in these regulations that have been issued apart from God’s command.
  47. These regulations made by the church regarding the mass have been instituted contrary to the command of God and of Christ.
  48. If the just-mentioned regulations or ceremonies have been put in place by humans and do not originate with a divine command, then they are contrary to divine law.
  49. We are not obligated to read the canonical hours on pain of committing mortal sin.
  50. He himself always acted contrary to God’s law when reading the canonical hours, since he never prayed to the Father in spirit and truth [John 4:23–24].
  51. He would prefer to be beheaded, even if he had ten heads,12 than to respond to the questions put before him.
  52. If a sinner believes that he is truly absolved, then he is released from his sins.
  53. It is better not to deny the laypeople what Christ left behind to be distributed to everyone, that is, Communion in both kinds.
  54. Those who prohibit the laypeople from being communed in both kinds are acting contrary to God’s intention.
  55. The words of consecration should be spoken loudly.
  56. When interrogated whether the saints may be adored, he said that he did not wish to respond any further.
  57. When interrogated whether he had been led astray by Luther (and such interrogations are being put before him because it is feared that he has been led astray by Luther), he said, “I have been led astray just as much as Christ led his apostles astray.”
  58. It is contrary to divine law that the clergy are exempt from the jurisdiction of the emperor.
  59. The pope does not have any other authority than to preach God’s word and to feed his sheep with the preaching of God’s word.
  60. He sees well that the word of God is not in the esteemed commissaries.
  61. He cares little for life. He commends his soul to God.
  62. He did not understand how he could solemnly renounce each and every error he had confessed. And when he was demanded and ordered to renounce them, he refused.

Source

Anonymous. Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, ob Evangelii doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. [sic] Anno domini M. D. XXIII. Articuli LXII. per eosdem asserti. Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1523. Fols. a 4 verso—a 7 verso.

I also consulted two German translations:

Reckenhofer [printed Heckenhofer], Martin., tr. and ed. Dye histori / so zwen Augustiner Ordens gemartert seyn tzu Bruxel in Probant / von wegen des Evangelj. Erfurt: Wolfgang Stürmer, 1523. Fols. A iii recto—H iv recto.

Rabus, Ludwig. Historien der Heyligen Außerwölten Gottes Zeügen / Bekennern vnd Martyrern. Vol. 2. Strasbourg: Samuel Emmel, 1554. Fols. 117 verso—121 verso.

Endnotes

1 This phrase, which appears again later, does not imply that Hendrik thought he was poorly educated. It rather has the sense: “until he was proven wrong from clear and thorough demonstration from the Scriptures.”

2 That is, all Christians, not just ordained priests. This sense of “all people” also applies to Articles 13 and 15.

3 Either the interrogator or the recorder cited the incorrect chapter from canon law. The Corpus Juris Canonici (Body of Canon Law) was generally published in six collections at this time. The first was Gratian’s collection of church laws and decretals, the Decretum Gratiani. The second was a five-book collection of decretals promulgated by Pope Gregory IX, the Decretales Gregorii Noni. The third was a collection of decretals compiled by Pope Boniface VIII, the so-called Liber Sextus. The fourth was the Constitutiones Clementinae or Clementine Constitutions of 1314. The fifth was a collection of supplementary decretals of Pope John XXII, the Extravagantes Joannis XXII, and the sixth another collection of supplementary decretals, the Extravagantes Communes. The chapters cited from canon law were commonly named after the first word of the chapter. The chapter cited here is Chapter 2, Damnamus, of Title 1, “De summa Trinitate & fide catholica,” of the Decretales Gregorii Noni. However, the topic under discussion—the presence (or lack thereof) of Christ’s body and blood and of the earthly elements in the Eucharist—is discussed in Chapter 1, Firmiter, of Title 1. See, e.g., Decretales D. Gregorii Papae IX (Rome, 1582), col. 10.

4 In Catholicism, to define something is to make an irrevocable decision and decree about something pertaining to faith or morals, which is binding for the whole Catholic Church.

5 This seems to refer back to Article 18. Articles 16–21 are closely related in thought.

6 This could also be translated: “he said he did not see any difference.” However, the repeated use of “he did not understand” in subsequent articles makes clear that “not understanding” is a pregnant, disparaging version of “not knowing.” Whoever recorded these articles wanted to imply that the monks not only did not know the answer (the fault of which could potentially be the unclarity of the interrogators or the convoluted content of their questions), but did not know the answer because they were simpletons lacking in education and intelligence.

7 Latin: ideo credit eorum fidem & gratiam conferre. Reckenhofer translates: hyerumb glaubtt ehr das der glaub bey den selben auch gnad bring—“he therefore believes that the faith accompanying the same [namely, these sacraments] also brings grace.

8 In other words, one should not rashly forgo such customs at the expense of a brother or sister Christian’s conscience.

9 Rabus’s translation switches the objects and predicate: “For Christ has not instituted supreme bishops to be vicars [or substitutes], but rather servants and ministers.”

10 Latin: catholica. Reckenhofer translated this word gemeyn.

11 Rabus incorrectly translates: “He does not know whether the intercession of the dead is of any benefit to the living.”

12 Lit.: “He would prefer that his neck be cut off, even if he had ten necks.”

First Lutheran Martyrdom (Second Account)

Translator’s Preface

The Burning of Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen, woodcut printed in Rabus, Historien der Heyligen Außerwölten Gottes Zeugen, vol. 2 (1554). While it incorrectly portrays the monks tied to the same stake, it does capture Hendrik’s smoother appearance and Jan’s rougher appearance.

Read the preface to the First Account for more information on Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen and the circumstances leading up to and surrounding their execution.

In addition to the German pamphlet translated there, another account of the martyrdom was published in Latin, Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, ob Evangelii doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. [sic] Anno domini M. D. XXIII. (History of the Two Augustinians Burned at the Stake in Brussels for the Doctrine of the Gospel on the Thirtieth Day of June [sic], in the Year of the Lord 1523). This Latin pamphlet included four parts:

  1. An eyewitness account of the martyrdom penned on July 10, 1523
  2. An eyewitness account penned on July 14, 1523
  3. A list of sixty-two “articles asserted by Brother Hendrik and the others” compiled by a member of the Inquisition.
  4. “A Pious and Christian Expostulation with [or Strong Rebuke of] a Man Who Was Finally Compelled by the Tyranny of the Impious and the Terror of Death to Deny the Truth Which He had Professed. (The man in question was Lambert de Thoren, who had asked for time to reconsider after being degraded and before being led to the stake.)

What follows is a translation of the first part of this pamphlet, the most detailed eyewitness account of the burning that we possess. I strongly suspect that the anonymous author of this account was a woman, due especially to the author’s description of the appearance of the three men and the author’s comment that he/she had “always been naturally adverse to such spectacles and gladly stayed away from them.” This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Lutheranism seems to have found a particularly devoted following among women in the Low Countries, as evidenced by the rescue of Hendrik van Zutphen from confinement, detailed in the preface to the First Account, and the demonstration organized by Margaretha Boonams from Mechelen on October 6, 1522, when the remaining Reformed Augustinian friars at the monastery in Antwerp were arrested.

To the glory of the triune God and in commemoration of the courage and steadfastness he bestowed upon Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen:

History of the Two Augustinians Burned at the Stake in Brussels for the Doctrine of the Gospel

Quite a spectacle has been shown to us in these recent days. I would call it a miserable one, if those whom the spectators felt sorry for had seemed miserable to themselves rather than most blessed. If you have the time and inclination to listen, here is a brief summary of what happened.

Map of Brussels from Braun, ed., Civitates Orbis Terrarum (1572), modified. The Grand Plaza and city hall are circled by a red oval, and St. Gudula’s Church, where Jacob Probst had been forced to recant in 1522, is circled in yellow.

From that group of Augustinians who had been arrested and conducted from the city of Antwerp to Vilvoorde, three of them persisted in their heresy, with the rest singing a palinode [i.e. recanting]. No effort was spared in the attempt to get them to sing the same song their brothers had sung. When those to whom that part of the business had been entrusted saw that, though they were doing everything, they were accomplishing nothing, they decided to deliver the exceedingly obstinate men to the ultimate punishment. They are transported to Brussels and carefully guarded in prison. Our teachers [magistri nostri] from Louvain1 meet together there. Because hardly any news preceded the day of the punishment, what little news there was did not draw many outsiders here.

Melchisedech van Hoorn, Dit stadhuys triumphant staet te Bruessel in brabant (Brussels City Hall), 1565, engraving.

On the day before the Visitation of the God-Bearing Virgin,2 there is a stampede to the marketplace.3 Three mendicant orders are meeting, and of course there are not any more than that, as you know.4 Here they come, with the banner of the cross leading the way, as is their custom when they march in solemn procession. Now the professors of sacred theology, the abbots with their miters and jeweled croziers, who were present in place of the bishops, and some other men are seated in order on a platform. For a very large platform had been erected in front of the basilica, which is what people commonly call the city hall.5

At eleven o’clock, the youngest of the three men6 is led through the marketplace. Although he was surpassed by the other two in years, he was their superior in learning and eloquence. After being led inside and staying there a little while, he comes out onto the platform, clothed in priestly array. A table had been set up in the middle, decorated and covered like an altar. In front of it he goes down to his knees. There everyone fixed their eyes on him, as though struck senseless. No sign of consternation or of a troubled heart could be detected. The guardian of the Minorites,7 standing behind the table, starts preaching a sermon, and the bishop,8 opposite him in front of the table, begins the ceremonies with an open book.9 For a whole hour, as the latter performs the ceremonies and the former continues preaching, the young man was remaining in the same posture with the same facial expression. Since I could not understand the preacher due to the commotion, which was also the case for others, I was focusing entirely on the accused. Why would we try to hide what is well established to be true? His face was composed and calm. He was displaying not only scorn for death, but also the utmost modesty and gentleness. He looked like a man intent on prayers and sacred contemplations. Afterwards, when he was ordered to do this and that, it was amazing how promptly and how ungrudgingly he complied. Incidentally, he is reported to have said that he would be obedient even to the point of death. After those ceremonies had been performed, in which he had been removed from the priesthood and turned into what the common people call a layman or man of the world, he goes inside, dressed in different attire.

After that the other two men10 come out—rougher in appearance, truly bearded. (The young man I already mentioned did not have bristly chin, but an appearance that was wonderfully well formed and quite attractive.11) Anyway, they come out, with facial expressions attesting the same steadfastness and cheerfulness. Why go on at length? From these, too, the priesthood and the sacrament of monasticism are taken away. Having been removed from the sacred and rendered profane, they leave the platform.

After a little while two men are brought out—the first one I mentioned and one of the other two. They proceed to the fire, which was being prepared in the same marketplace where these things were done. In the meantime, as they are being led there, as they are undressing themselves, many things could be heard from them which would have been very clear evidence to all of their sound and pious minds, minds belonging precisely to people eagerly desiring to be released from their body and united with Christ. It would only have been unclear to someone already convinced that they were convicted of heresy. They repeatedly testified that they were dying as Christians, that they believed in the holy catholic Church. They were saying that this was the day they had been awaiting for a long time.

Now stripped of their clothes, leaving only their underwear, they stood for a long time, more embracing the stakes themselves rather than being bound to them. The fire was being kindled rather slowly; whether this was done by design or by chance, I would certainly not dare to affirm. What then, you ask? Were they not growing faint, distressed by such a long delay? Were they not letting their spirits sink already as the smoke was flying up in their faces, soon to be followed by the flame? Actually, if it is appropriate to judge from gestures, eyebrows, eyes, and finally from the entire face—which all do a sort of talking, and not infrequently disclose what is in the heart more surely and with better reliability than the tongue—confidence, steadfastness, and cheerfulness, which had always been very high, appeared to receive a boost! And then there was the joyfulness, of a kind I do not know, that was especially springing up within them, to such an extent that they seemed to many people to be laughing! Among other things, they were reciting the Apostles’ Creed and the ecclesiastical song, “We Praise You, O God [Te Deum laudamus],” and this they were saying in turns. The second man, as he was looking at the fire burning under his feet, was saying that roses seemed to be strewn beneath him.

At last the rising flame cut off the voices of both.

I myself have always been naturally averse to such spectacles and gladly stayed away from them, and I would not have been able to be a spectator here, if the very men whose lives were on the line had not, by their noble spirits and joyful faces, driven all uneasiness away from me, who was idly watching them in safety.

The third man was not brought out; I do not know for sure why that was. Some say that he came to his senses, but since he was not brought back out to the people to recant publicly, not everyone is able to be persuaded of this. Some suspect that he was killed secretly. Whatever the case may be, it cannot stay a secret for long.12

Since the next day was dedicated to the divine Virgin,13, the Minorite14 admonished the people in a sermon here that, if someone should happen to ask them how the men they had seen being burned had met their end, they should say that they had died in the erroneous faith of Luther. At the same time he was repeatedly asserting that he had learned from certain men that they had abandoned their errors at the last moment, which he said had in fact happened by the prayers of certain people and by the help of the divine Virgin, who had performed a miracle. The same thing was basically affirmed in Louvain, for our teacher [magister noster] Nicolaus Egmondanus had returned there, telling in an afternoon sermon that at eleven o’clock he had received a letter from the honest and excellent man Francis van der Hulst, to whom the emperor had entrusted the responsibility of investigating and persecuting the heretics. He said it was indicated in the letter that those Augustinians condemned of heresy and burned at the stake had rejected their errors and returned to a healthier mind, after the fire was already going beneath them. But since all those who stood closest to the fire consistently deny this, it probably would have been better to say nothing, unless anyone thinks it was done out of the abundance of the charity that hopes for all things.15

Farewell.

Brussels, July 10, 1523.

Source

Anonymous. Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, ob Evangelii doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. [sic] Anno domini M. D. XXIII. Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1523. Fols. a 2 recto—a 3 verso.

I also consulted a German translation published three decades later: Rabus, Ludwig. Historien der Heyligen Außerwölten Gottes Zeügen / Bekennern vnd Martyrern. Vol. 2. Strasbourg: Samuel Emmel, 1554. Fols. 114 verso—117 recto.

Endnotes

1 “Our teachers [magistri nostri, abbreviated M. N.]” appears to have originated as a term of respect for the professors of theology at the University of Louvain, who were considered theological experts and rendered judgments on theological debates.

2 The Visitation was on Thursday, July 2, 1523, so the day before was Wednesday, July 1.

3 That is, the Grand Plaza in Brussels (Grote Markt in Dutch), today an UNESCO World Heritage Site.

4 The you is singular. It is unclear whether this letter was originally intended for a broader audience, and the author is simply addressing the readers individually, or if it was addressed to one person and then shared more broadly by the recipient. The author must be implying that there are not any more than three orders of mendicants in the city of Brussels (Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans), since the Augustinians were also a mendicant order.

5 The city hall, an example of Flamboyant architecture, was completed in 1455 and is still standing.

6 Probably Hendrik Voes (or Vos)

7 Minorites (sing., Minorite; Latin: minorita, sing., minoritae, pl.) was a nickname for members of both the conventual and observant branches of the Franciscan Order (Order of Friars Minor).

8 Adrien (or Adriaan) Aernoult of Bruges, auxiliary bishop of Cambrai, the diocese to which Antwerp and Brussels belonged

9 Robert J. Christman, quoting the sixteenth century historian Johannes Sleidanus, describes these ceremonies (The Dynamics of the Early Reformation in their Reformed Augustinian Context [Amsterdam University Press, 2020], 203–4, with slight emendations based on my translation of the original source cited):

Once a person who is a priest is condemned as a heretic by a spiritual judge, he is clothed in his priestly robe. A chalice filled with water and wine and a paten on which sits unleavened bread are placed in his hands. With these things, he kneels before the bishop’s vicar, who takes one after the other away and forbids him henceforth from saying mass for the living and the dead. After that, the vicar takes a glass shard and slices his fingers and forbids him from giving the blessing any longer. Then the robe is removed and each [heretic] is given a special curse. And when one is defrocked from the priesthood, all the other grades and ordinations through which one becomes a priest are also taken away. So having been undressed and re-clothed in secular clothes, he is handed over to the temporal authorities. And the bishop’s vicar requests that nothing further be done for his life and body.

10 Lambert de Thoren and probably Jan van den Esschen

11 This sentence is one of the factors leading me to surmise that the author of this report was a woman. A man could have described their appearance in this kind of detail without it necessarily being considered inappropriate (and I do not know if the Latin phrase “quite attractive [satis venusta]” had the same overtones it does in English), but it is more likely that a woman would do so.

12 See the preface to the First Account for more on the fate of Lambert de Thoren.

13 Thursday, July 2, 1523, was the Feast of the Visitation of Mary.

14 Or a Minorite. Ludwig Rabus translated it, “the aforementioned monk.”

15 See Christman, op. cit., 130. Francis van der Hulst’s claim is disproved not only by this account, but also by:

  • Georg Hauer, a theologian from the University of Ingolstadt and preacher at the Church of Our Lady in that city, who preached a sermon on August 15, 1523, the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, in which he ignored the rumors of the monks’ last-second recantation and simply maintained that their punishment was well deserved and that God did not miraculously intervene with them to relieve their suffering, as he had in the cases of the martyrs of old (Hauer, Drey christlich predig vom Salve regina [1523], fol. A iii recto), and
  • the famous Erasmus who, in a July 1, 1529 letter to Charles Utenhove, criticized the church’s habit of spreading the rumor that a condemned heretic had recanted at the last moment whenever that heretic remained steadfast in the fire. In support of his criticism, he cited the “ridiculous lie [ridiculam fabulam]” that the Augustinian friars burned in Brussels had recanted at the last moment, which even the executioner denied (quoted in Christman, op. cit., 163, 205).

First Lutheran Martyrdom (First Account)

Translator’s Preface

The biographical information we have on Hendrik Voes (or Vos) and Jan (or Johannes) van den Esschen is scant. From the little and sometimes conflicting information we have, it seems best to assume that Jan van den Esschen was in fact, as his name suggests, from Essen in modern-day Belgium, located in a geographical region called the Campine.1 He seems to have been born around 1494, and was thus about twenty when he participated in a legal agreement in 1514 between the Antwerp Augustinians (of which Jan was one of eight representatives) and the chapter of the Church of Our Lady (Onze Lieve Vrouwekerk), effectively making him one of the Antwerp monastery’s charter members, and about twenty-nine when he was executed in 1523.2 Hendrik Voes appears to have been born around 1499 in ’s-Hertogenbosch,3 making him twenty-four when he was executed.4

In his history of Mansfeld, the Lutheran theologian and historian Cyriacus Spangenberg (1528–1604) claimed that the “two young brothers” spent time in the recently founded (1515) Reformed Augustinian monastery of St. Anne’s in Eisleben, apparently in or around 1521. But he does not specify whether they stayed there as guests while traveling on monastery business or were actually members there for a time.5 This does, however, suggest that the two young men were already close before being arrested, interrogated, and executed together.

Virgilius Bononiensis, Urbs Antverpia, 1565, modified. The map is oriented to the west-northwest. The Church of Our Lady is circled in purple. St. Andrew’s Church, the site of the former Reformed Augustinian monastery, is circled in red. St. Michael’s Abbey, where Hendrik van Zutphen was held prisoner until hundreds of women broke in and rescued him, is circled in yellow.

In 1522, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s inquisitors were ramping up their efforts to suppress “heretical” ideas in the wake of the May 1521 Edict of Worms. In July 1522 Antoine I de Lalaing (1480–1540), Count of Hoogstraten, Hieronymus van der Noot, Chancellor of Brabant, and a notary public named van Springens arrived at the Augustinian monastery in Antwerp (which stood where St. Andrew’s Church now stands) at six in the morning. There, in the presence of members of the city council, whom they had apparently scheduled to meet there, they said that the emperor wanted all those infected with the stain of heresy to be forced to leave, and that the “den of thieves” should no longer be permitted to distribute the Lord’s Supper. The monks were then apparently questioned, and a number of them were put on wagons and transported to the ducal castle in Vilvoorde, just northeast of Brussels, which was being used as an imperial prison.6 There they were interrogated, and all but two them, Hendrik and Jan, were soon dismissed and permitted to return to the monastery, under the condition that they publicly renounce and recant certain articles of Lutheran doctrine from the apse of the Church of Our Lady in Antwerp, which they did. The monastery was then permitted once again to conduct mass their chapel.7

Hendrik and Jan were taken to nearby Brussels and imprisoned there for further questioning and judgment. The inquisitors in their case included some of the same men involved in their former prior Jacob Probst’s case: Francis van der Hulst, about fifty-three years old; Jacob van Hoogstraten, about sixty-three; Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond, about fifty-three; Jacob Latomus, about forty-eight; Jan van Paesschen (or Johannes Pascha, a Carmelite of Mechelen), perhaps in his sixties; and Godschalk Roesmont van Eyndhoven, about forty.8

In the meantime Hendrik van Zutphen arrived in Antwerp. He had attended a special chapter meeting in Grimma in early June of 1522. He had then returned to Wittenberg, where he had been studying since 1520. There he was probably advised by Martin Luther and Wenceslaus Link, the Wittenberg prior, to go to the “sad and abandoned Christians” in the Low Countries, namely his Augustinian brothers, in order to comfort and encourage them.9 How the timing of his return trip lines up with the first deportation of monks from Antwerp to Vilvoorde is unclear, but we know that he eventually joined the Antwerp monastery and soon became its prior. He initially kept a low profile, but when indulgence salesmen arrived in the city, he began to preach against them publicly, first from the pulpit, then in the streets. On September 29, he was lured from the monastery under the pretext of being called to visit an ailing parishioner. He was arrested and held overnight in St. Michael’s Abbey for transport to Brussels the next day, where he would appear before the inquisitors. But what happened next almost defies imagination: After sunset a mob consisting mostly of women—several thousand according to Zutphen, more than 300 according to another source, and 500 with swords according to another—battered down the doors and broke into the abbey, found van Zutphen, and led him back to his brother Augustinians. He spent three days in hiding with them before fleeing the city. Initially intending to return to Wittenberg, he ended up in Bremen.10

On the evening of October 6, one week after van Zutphen’s flight, Margaret of Austria, governor of the Low Countries, had the remaining friars arrested—there appear to have been more than twenty. Monks who were sons of Antwerp’s citizens were placed with the Beghards.11 Of the others, sixteen were put on wagons and transported to the castle in Vilvoorde, and the rest were taken to Hoogstraten (perhaps to the castle belonging to the Count of Hoogstraten).12 “A few months later, Margaret would destroy the cloister and transform its church into the parish church of St. Andreas, which it remains to this day.”13

Ducal Castle of Vilvoorde, engraving in Jacques Le Roy, Castella et praetoria nobelium Brabantiae (1696).

The details of the outcome for this second deportation of monks are murky. By the end of October Francis van der Hulst had interrogated those at Vilvoorde and “the prior…and seven others” were released.14 Others, perhaps the rest except one, were released (or perhaps transferred elsewhere) on May 29, 1523.15 That one exception was Lambert de Thoren (also simply called Lambert Thorn). His identity is not entirely clear. Spalatin called him the successor of Jacob Probst.16 Luther called him “the successor in the Word of our Jacob Probst.”17 Since someone identified as the prior is said to have been released (he must have been a sort of prior pro tem after van Zutphen’s flight), it seems best to assume that Lambert, like Probst, was the monastery’s regular preacher. Lambert persisted in his “heresy” and was thus sent to Brussels to join Voes and van den Esschen.18

The exact process of their interrogation is not recorded, but it was doubtless similar to Jacob Probst’s—one-on-one conversations, two- or three-on-one conversations, appearances before the entire Inquisition, cajoling, flattering, pleading, bullying, ridiculing, and plenty of time alone with their own thoughts, doubts, and fears. The account of their execution below says that after their degradation ceremony, the clergymen “handed them over to the tribunal in Brussels [and t]hey in turn handed them over to Lady Margaret’s councilors, who took them and gave them to the executioner in ropes.” This suggests that the monks may have also appeared before representatives of the city and of Governor Margaret, so that their persistence would be tantamount to defiance against both ecclesiastical and secular authority.

Pope Leo X had passed away on December 1, 1521, and on January 9, 1522, Adriaan Floriszoon, himself a native of the Low Countries and former professor of theology at the University of Louvain, was elected his successor. (He had been involved in the aforementioned 1514 agreement between the Reformed Augustinians and the chapter of the Church of Our Lady in Antwerp.) Adriaan was crowned Pope Adrian VI on August 31. On June 1, 1523, exactly one month before the burning of Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen, Pope Adrian officially named Francis van der Hulst a papal inquisitor, after he had already been publicly confirmed in his position as a secular inquisitor by Emperor Charles in April of the preceding year. As a layman, he was still required to enlist the services of clergymen, but he was now “vested with the same inquisitorial powers as an episcopal or papal inquisitor.”19 It was probably no coincidence that van der Hulst proceeded with the monks’ degradation and burning not long thereafter.

What follows is one account of the monks’ degradation and burning on July 1, 1523. While it initially gives the impression of an eyewitness account, some of the details and especially the final paragraph, which describes events that did not actually happen, suggest that the author is reporting what he heard from others, who were probably eyewitnesses in some cases and sharing gossip and rumors in others. The account I will publish here tomorrow, God willing, was definitely authored by an eyewitness, probably a woman, and she says that hardly any notification of the burning preceded the event, so the attendees and eyewitnesses were mostly locals. The author of this account does not appear to have been a local, but someone with local connections.

Nevertheless, the account does not contain any overt editorializing and seems to be reliable on the whole, and it certainly played an important role in the Reformation movement. It was published sixteen times during the second half of 1523, in Nuremberg, Augsburg, Speyer, Bamberg, Leipzig, Erfurt, and Wittenberg, among others, and its sale got some booksellers arrested.20

As for the final paragraph, which claims that Lambert de Thoren was also burned to death on July 4, the reality is that, after yielding and asking for time to reconsider, his sentence was commuted to life in prison on a diet of bread and water, though sympathizers and supporters would bring him additional food and drink. Martin Luther himself wrote him a letter of comfort and encouragement on January 19, 1524.21 He would die in his cell on September 15, 1528.22

To the glory of the triune God and in commemoration of the courage and steadfastness he bestowed upon Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen:

The Performance und Proceedings of the Degradation and Burning of the Three Christian Knights and Martyrs of the Augustinian Order, Which Took Place in Brussels on the First of July in the Year 1523

How the three Christian knights and martyrs of the Augustinian order gave up their spirit to God, etc., in a tragic manner, with great expressions of thanksgiving, for the sake of the evangelical truth:

Of the monks of the Augustinian order who were expelled in Antwerp, three of them were imprisoned in many places for the sake of Christian truth. Several articles [of doctrine] were put forward for them to retract. But none of them consented to do this. Now other monks and clergymen made a number of deals with the regents involving money, and also gave money to the pope, so that a mandate was issued from Rome in which the pope condemned all those who were of this persuasion to be burned to death. On this basis, those at the ducal court in Brussels had the monks brought to trial and charged them with several articles that they should retract. Two of these were cited the most—that the pope did not have the power to forgive, bind, or loose a person’s sin, but only God did, and that the pope was just as sinful a person as other people and had no more power than any other priest. And they were also supposed to retract all the other evangelical articles. Then they stood and said no, they would not deny God’s word, but would much rather die for the sake of Christian belief. Then they were told they would have to be burned to death. They were fully ready for that and said they were glad that God had given them the grace to die for the sake of Christian belief. Then one of the three asked for a four-day reprieve to deliberate whether to retract or not. He was led back to the prison.

The Two Augustinians Martyred in Brussels, woodcut printed on the title page of Dye histori / so zwen Augustiner Ordens gemartert seyn tzu Bruzel in Probant / von wegen des Evangelj (Erfurt, 1523), Martin Reckenhofer’s German translation of a Latin pamphlet printed in Basel. Though the woodcut leaves something to be desired in accuracy (one of the martyrs had a beard and both were burned in their underwear), it was the first artistic depiction of the burning and it accurately captures the monks’ pious resignation and endurance, and the acts of worship with which they met their end.

They took the other two and dressed them up as if there were about to conduct mass, and then set up an altar, at which bishops and other church prelates were stationed. They then divested the two monks of their consecration as priests and put a different garment on them—a pale yellow robe on the youngest one and a black robe on the other. After that, they handed them over to the tribunal in Brussels. They in turn handed them over to Lady Margaret’s councilors, who took them and gave them to the executioner in ropes. Then four father confessors accompanied them—the head inquisitor from Cologne, a Dominican;23 a Carmelite monk from Brussels;24 and two other monks. These four went along with them in order to advise them strongly to retract. They responded and praised God for giving them the grace to die for the sake of his word. When they now arrived at the fire, the four father confessors began to cry. Then those two said they did not need to cry for them, but for their own sin. They also said, “Cry about the great injustice that you are committing by proceeding against divine righteousness this way.” And with that they went into the fire quite joyfully, with beaming faces. When they were stripped of their robes, they gave each other excellent comfort and went into the fire together. Then the father confessors asked them one more time if they still intended to persist in their preferred25 faith or not. They said, “We believe in God and in one Christian church. But your church we do not believe.” And they stood in the middle of the wood like this a good half hour before it was kindled. During that time they continually said that they were willing to die in the name of Christ. Then the four father confessors called out to them that they should convert or they would go to the devil and they would die in the devil’s name. Then the two men said they were willing to die for the sake of the evangelical truth, as pious Christians. After that the fire was kindled. They cried out nothing other than this: “Lord, Lord, O Son of David,26 have mercy on us!” And the ropes around their body burned up before they suffocated. Then the one finally fell to his knees in the fire, put his hands together, and cried out, “Lord Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us!” After that they both passed away and were completely burned to ashes. This event lasted nearly four hours.

The third day after that, the third monk who had taken time to deliberate was also burned to death, and he was treated as the others were. He was a very learned man. At the pile of wood he gave a long sermon, and after that went to his torture. And after they kindled the fire, he kept on preaching until the fire and flames leapt up and covered him, and in this way he, too, passed away blessedly in God.

Source

Anonymous. Der Actus vnnd hendlung der Degradation vnd verprennung der Christlichen dreyen Ritter vnd Merterer Augustiner ordens. Augsburg: Melchior Ramminger, 1523.

Endnotes

1 In the 1514 agreement mentioned in the next sentence, Jan is recorded as Joannes de Essendia (H. Q. Janssen, Jacobus Praepositus, Luthers Leerling en Vriend, 9th ed. [Amsterdam: G. L. Funke, 1866], 12). One of the inquisitors in the case of him and Hendrik, Jan van Paesschen, recorded him as Joannes van den Esschen (Jean Charles Diercxsens, Antverpia Christo Nascens et Crescens, tome 4 [Antwerp: Joannes Henricus van Soest], 2). The assumption that his hometown was therefore Essen seems to be confirmed by the fact that an ancient Antwerp chronology says that one of the martyrs was from the Campine (Kaspar Verstockt, Antwerpsch Chronykje [Leiden: Pieter vander Eyk, 1743], 23), which includes Essen. (The etymology of Campine denotes uncultivated flat land.)

2 Georg Spalatin, Elector Frederick the Wise’s secretary and Luther’s friend, reported that Jan (“Johannes Nesse”) was the younger of the two martyrs, and he says that he got his information about the men from Lambert Mulmann, an imperial courtier present at the burning (“Chronicon sive Annales Georgii Spalatini a M[ense] Augusto Anni MDXIII. usque ad Finem Fere Anni MCXXVI,” in Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Praecipue Saxonicarum, tome 2, edited by Johann Burchard Menke [Leipzig: Johann Christian Martin, 1728], col. 628). Luther wrote in a letter to Spalatin that one of the two monks was “Iohannes Nesse, not yet thirty years old” (Weimarer Ausgabe, Briefwechsel 3:115), and he called both of them “young boys [iunge knaben]” in the hymn he penned about their martyrdom (Weimarer Ausgabe 35:411). Another account written by an eyewitness says that the youngest of the three men—Jan, Hendrik, and Lambert de Thoren, who eventually yielded and was not burned—was degraded in a separate ceremony from the other two, apparently as the leader and chief speaker of the three. We might therefore assume that Jan was the chief speaker and was in his late twenties, and that the others were older. But we also possess a list of sixty-two “Articles Asserted by Brother Hendrik and the Others,” which gives the impression that Hendrik was the leader and chief speaker and therefore the younger of the two martyrs. And the French martyrologist Jean Crespin wrote in 1556 that Hendrik Voes was twenty-four years old—a specific number as opposed to Luther’s approximate one—and he says nothing about Jan’s age (Acta Martyrum [Geneva, 1556], 178). If, hypothetically, Crespin got Hendrik and Jan switched around, that would mean that Jan participated in the 1514 agreement at the age of fifteen—not impossible, but unlikely. It therefore seems safe to assume that Spalatin was incorrect about Jan being the younger of the two.

3 The inquisitor Jan van Paesschen recorded him as “F[rater] Henricus Vos ex Busco-ducis,” that is, from ’s-Hertogenbosch (Diercxsens, op. cit., 4:2). However, in the Antwerp chronology mentioned in endnote 1, when talking about Jan and Hendrik’s arrest, the author says that both men were from ’s-Hertogenbosch, and later, when describing their execution, he says that “the one was from the Campine and the other was from Zeeland” (Verstockt, op. cit., 19, 23). Zeeland was a countship at the time that basically corresponds to the modern day Dutch province of the same name, but it does not have any connection to either Essen or ’s-Hertogenbosch. Some uncertainty therefore remains about the martyrs’ places of origin.

4 See endnote 2.

5 Rudolf Leers, ed., Mansfelder Blätter 31/32 (1918) 341. Spangenberg wrote his history in 1572. He gives the monks’ names as Joannes Nesse and Heinrich Voes, and says that Joannes (Jan) was “scarcely thirty years old [kaum 30 Jahr alt].” But since Spangenberg’s spelling of his name is identical to Luther’s and since Spangenberg also refers the reader to a collection of Luther’s letters for more information on the two monks, he appears to have lifted the remark about van den Esschen’s age straight from the letter of Luther cited in endnote 2.

6 The castle was demolished in 1775, having become dilapidated.

7 Diercxsens, Antverpia Christo Nascens et Crescens, tome 3 (Antwerp: Joannes Henricus van Soest, 1773), 363–64.

8 Diercxsens, op. cit., 4:2. Another source also mentions Ruard Tapper, thirty-six, and says that “Francis [van der] Hulst was commissioned by an official papal letter to appoint an inquisitor himself; he just had to be a prelate or a theologian. He immediately named Egmondanus [Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond].”

9 Robert J. Christman, The Dynamics of the Early Reformation in their Reformed Augustinian Context (Amsterdam University Press, 2020), 66, 103–5.

10 Ibid., 66, 119–20.

11 The Beghards were a lay order of men that lives in semi-monastic religious communities but did not take formal vows. The communities were not bound by a uniform rule; each community was only subject to their particular superior.

12 Diercxsens, op. cit., 3:375.

13 Christman, op. cit., 67–68.

14 Paul Fredericq, ed., Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis Haereticae Pravitatis Neerlandicae, vol. 4 (Ghent: J. Vuylsteke, 1900), 174, doc. 119; Christman, op. cit., 59.

15 Fredericq, ed., op. cit., 4:173, doc. 118; Christman, op. cit.

16 Spalatin, op. cit.

17 Weimarer Ausgabe, Briefwechsel 3:115.

18 Diercxsens, op. cit., 3:375; 4:1–2.

19 Christman, op. cit., 80, 82.

20 Ibid., 173, 184.

21 Weimarer Ausgabe, Briefwechsel 3:237–39, no. 707; St. Louis Edition 10:1924–27.

22 Christman, op. cit., 165–66.

23 Jacob van Hoogstraten. It is interesting that he is called the head inquisitor, since elsewhere Francis van der Hulst and Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond are called head inquisitors.

24 Probably either Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond, who had formerly been prior in Brussels, or Jan van Paesschen, who was not from Brussels but Mechelen.

25 This could also be translated superior, in which case the father confessors would be speaking sarcastically.

26 German: Domine/domine. O ain Sun Dauid erbarme dich unser. Addressing Jesus as “a Son of David” seems to have been a local or cultural peculiarity. It could also be translated “one or only Son of David,” but that address would also be peculiar.

Jacob Probst’s Exhortatory Epistle (1522)

Translator’s Preface

This is the second in a series of translations I am posting in preparation for the 500th anniversary of the first Lutheran martyrdom on July 1, 2023. See the preface of the first translation in this series for more on Jacob Probst, the author of this epistle, the unhappy circumstances in which he wrote it, and its connection to the first Lutheran martyrs. I will repeat here that if this epistle made it into the hands of Probst’s fellow Augustinian monks in Antwerp, which is not at all unlikely, then it would be impossible to overstate its impact on the men who would become the first Lutheran martyrs. It would have prepared, fortified, and equipped them for what they were about to undergo.

Jacob Probst’s Exhortatory Epistle

Exhortatory Epistle to his Hearers, and Especially to the People of Antwerp

Brother Jacob Probst, a useless servant of Christ,
To all the faithful of Antwerp in Christ,
Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Although I am so humiliated in my iniquities, dearest friends in Christ, that I dare not lift up my face in your sight or lift my eyes up to heaven, since I denied my Lord Jesus Christ and his word out of the fear of death and of the destruction of your city, and did so in the presence of impious and sacrilegious tyrants, nevertheless my conscience does not permit me to be silent. It forces me to disregard my shame and to be concerned for your salvation. I am concerned that many of you will be scandalized by my example, perhaps very many, and as a result of my case will depart from the pure and holy word of Christ, which he began to sow among you through my ministry. It is admittedly unbecoming for a man who has fallen himself to exhort others to steadfastness, when as a leader and pastor he should have been the first to take a stand and to lay down his life for his brothers. But if the leading roles must be denied to me, I will function1 in the secondary and common ones, so that I at least may warn strangers of the danger I myself fell into. However, it is clearly not new or rare for leaders and those who should especially stand firm to sin and fall. For we read that the majority of kings, princes, priests, and prophets made mistakes and acted impiously, yes, that nearly all of the best and holiest men fell at some point. Moses and his brother Aaron sinned. David sinned, and he was a man chosen after God’s own heart. Job sinned, even though he was extremely blameless in all his temptations. The apostle Peter sinned, not just before but also after the Holy Spirit was given. How much more are we able to sin and fall, when we are the bottommost dregs in comparison with those men? Not that I want my sacrilege to be excused or mitigated by these examples. No indeed, it is extremely deplorable that I can only be numbered with the impious or with the falling saints. Rather, I am saying this because these have been recorded for all of us as universal examples of fear and hope, fear regarding God’s judgment and hope regarding his mercy, in order that those who have fallen may not despair, whether they are pastors or sheep, and on the other hand that they may fear the judgment of God, and that those who are standing firm may take heed that they do not fall, whether they are pastors or sheep.

Then, too, the unsearchable depths of divine goodness and wisdom allow those who are superior to sin with a more noticeable fall, so that we realize that everyone must stand on his own, and as Paul says in teaching the Galatians, “Let each person test his own work, and then he will have a boast in himself, and not in another” [Gal. 6:4]. For if the wisdom of God did not do this, some would think that they were excused if they perished by following the example of their superiors. Others, on the other hand, would be arrogant and trust that they were standing firm by the good example of their superior. For right away in the early church, the Corinthians began to boast in men this way, saying, “I belong to Paul”; “I belong to Apollos”; “I belong to Cephas”; “I belong to Christ” [1 Cor. 1:12]. And the people of Israel sinned by asking for a king, not because it was evil to have a king, since God had promised kings from the seed of Abraham, but because they trusted in a human king more than in the only God, as he says to Samuel, “They have not rejected you, but me from being king over them” [1 Sam. 8:7]. Therefore the zeal of the Lord of hosts does this, so as to chastise his bride and train her in such a way that she will not cling in faith to either a good overseer [praeposito] or an evil one, rely on his good example, or fall by his bad example, but will boast only in the Lord and look for nothing from her ministers except the word of her Lord. For she lives in safety and security by his word alone, not by the work of any human. So too, she dies by the lack of his word alone, not by the sin of any human. Although each person will pay for his own bad example, no one else can somehow be excused by it before the just Judge, who will repay each person not according to what belongs to someone else, but according to what belongs to that person.

I wish and pray with all my strength that this is the fruit my offense will bear for all of you, dearest friends, that you may turn your eyes away from me whether I am standing or falling, and cling faithfully and steadfastly only to the message you heard through my mouth, and that you do so all the more, the more fiercely Satan now rages among you through the sophists and the devourers of the world, the mendicant brothers. That miserable fall and sacrilegious and impious recantation is indeed my own, but the message that you heard through me is not my own, and however guilty I have been by falling, those who have fallen by my falling will not be excused for that reason, just as those who have stood firm by my standing firm will not be crowned for that reason. For indeed neither have planted their feet on that rock, Jesus Christ, but on me, that is, on the sand. But those people will be saved who both then and now have planted themselves on the rock. And who knows? Maybe it was necessary for me to fall, so that those who have planted themselves on me would also fall. Awesome is God in his decisions over the sons of men [Psalm 66:5].

Therefore, dearest and tremendously longed-for friends in the Lord, let us humble and pardon each other, pray for one another and bear each other’s burdens. Instructed by this experience of mine, let us learn to leave behind all respect of persons and to trust in, rely on, and cling to the pure word of God alone. And with the apostle let us rejoice that Christ is preached in every way, whether sincerely or insincerely [Phil. 1:18]. For it is the Lord who judges the peoples, and he judges the whole world with justice [Psalm 9:8; 96:13; 98:9]. All others are only ministers and messengers of his word, so that those who boast may boast in the Lord and not in men.

So then, I implore you by the mercy of Christ, dearest friends in the Lord, to grow and persevere in that which you have received by the Lord’s blessing. You especially received what I also received from the Lord and passed on to you, namely that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, in order that everyone might know this trustworthy message worthy of all acceptance, that we are unable to be justified and saved by our own strength or works, and that all the things a person does and can do on his own are truly sins. They are so untrustworthy that they are all the more deplorable, the greater the show they put on trying to sell themselves as good works and hiding wolves under every kind of mask. For if what Paul writes in Romans 14 stands firm—“Everything that is not from faith is sin” [Rom. 14:23]—how much more is that sin that is against faith? That is exactly what those presumptuous works are by which the impious desire to become good and to merit grace. They don’t just do works without faith; they rave against faith with downright impudence. But this is righteousness, salvation, and redemption, and our wisdom—to know Christ, that we are redeemed and cleansed by his blood alone, that his works, his death, and all that is his are ours. These are the things in which we should boast, take pride, and presume upon.2 But we should be confused, anxious, and hopeless in ourselves. This is the glory of Christian knowledge; these are the riches of our faith. Then we should also show the same kind of love to our neighbors, whether they are friends or enemies, that he showed to all, in order that they too may be helped by our prayers, our speech, and our work, and that they may not believe anything about us and what is ours except that we believe in Christ and the things that are Christ’s. This is the highest doctrine and knowledge, and the only one that is necessary for and useful to humans.

But as for those extremely recent fictions, which are the traditions of disreputable men, about food and drink, about clothing and shaving, about cinctures, about cells, about regular fasts, about specified short prayers, about rosaries, and whatever the lying mendicant brothers have thought up, see that you guard against them. For these are deceits, these are tricks of Satan, by which he leads consciences away from faith and love. For the inventions, statutes, and commandments of men nullify faith, and those who think that they are justified by them have fallen away from grace [Gal. 5:4]. For you are not a Christian because you tie a small rope around you, when even a pig can be asked to do that and has that done to it every day. Nor are you a Christian if you eat fish on a certain day, which a Muslim Turk can also do. Indeed, as Christ says, nothing that enters the mouth defiles a person [Matt. 15:11], so nothing that clothes a person’s body can defile a person either.

Listen therefore to this Leader and Master, and steadfastly follow him, most beloved friends. But do not be afraid of or put up with those bulls [Bullas], whether the pope’s or any others opposed to this Master, for they are only bubbles [Bullae]. And may the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our Leader and Light and Salvation, educate and preserve your minds in all spiritual wisdom and knowledge, keeping them pure and blameless up until that great day, and may he crush Satan under your feet very quickly [Rom. 16:20]. Amen. Pray for me, dearest friends, and for all who labor in the Word. The grace of Christ be with you. Amen.

Source

Probst, Jacob. Fratris Iacobi Praepositi Augustiniani quondam Prioris Antvverpiensis historia utriusque captivitatis propter verbum Dei. Eiusdem etiam Epistola ad Auditores suos Antvverpienses. Wittenberg: Johann Rhau-Grunenberg, 1522.

I also consulted the anonymous German translation published the following year: Ein schone und clegliche history bruder Jacobs probst Augustiner ordens vor zeiten Prior zu Antdorff / an gemeine fromme Christenheit / von beiden gefencknissen / so er von wegen des worts gottes / und umb des heyligen Euangeliumß willen erlitten hatt. Colmar: Amandus Farckall, 1523.

Endnotes

1 Or let me function

2 Latin: in his praesumendum. Probst may seem to be going a step too far here in making his point, but praesumere was also used in the sense to believe, trust, be confident. In other words, it could denote taking for granted in both a godly and ungodly sense.

Jacob Probst’s Unhappy Story (1522)

Translator’s Preface

Jacob Probst was born in 1486 in Ypres, Flanders. By the early 1500s he had joined the Reformed Augustinian cloister in Haarlem. In 1505 he enrolled at the University of Wittenberg (where the Vicar General of the Reformed Augustinians, Johann von Staupitz, was Professor of the Bible) and received his Master of Arts degree in 1509. He served as prior of the Reformed Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg (Luther’s eventual home) from 1515–1518, a critical time in Luther’s theological development and his launching of what would become known as the Reformation. (Luther would affectionately refer to him as “the fat little Flem”—a Flem being a native of Flanders.) Probst then succeeded Johann van Mechelen as prior of the Reformed Augustinian monastery in Antwerp in Brabant, which had been founded in 1513 and given official standing within the Augustinian Order in 1514. In Antwerp he even made an impression on Erasmus of Rotterdam, who wrote to Luther from Louvain on May 30, 1519:

There is in Antwerp a prior of its monastery, a genuinely Christian man, who has a strong and singular affection for you. He was once your pupil, according to his preaching. He is almost the only one who preaches Christ out of all the preachers. The others generally preach either the fictions of men or their own gain.1

After Emperor Charles V, whose titles included Lord of the Netherlands, issued the Edict of Worms against Luther and his sympathizers in May 1521, he established a state-run inquisition, installing Francis van der Hulst as its head. Francis, a jurist, had studied theology and law at the University of Louvain and was a member of the Council of Brabant in Brussels. While Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg, Probst returned to Wittenberg to continue his education and to discuss with friends there how to proceed in the increasingly unsafe atmosphere in the Low Countries. He returned to Antwerp by the beginning of September and took a more moderate approach, no longer mentioning Luther in his sermons. But the papal nuncio Girolamo Aleandro (or Jerome Aleander) and those helping van der Hulst with his inquisition weren’t buying it. Margaret of Austria, governor of the Low Countries and the emperor’s aunt, sent Nicolaas Baechem of Egmond (also known simply as Nicolaas Egmond or Egmondanus) to spy on Probst’s sermons and to report back, which he did in early November. Not long thereafter Francis van der Hulst set out from Brussels for Antwerp to initiate proceedings against Probst.

On July 1, 1523, two monks from the Antwerp monastery where Probst had been prior were burned at the stake in Brussels by Roman Catholic authorities. The 500th anniversary of this event, the first Lutheran martyrdom, is fast approaching. We will better understand the context in which they were burned if we understand Jacob Probst’s two imprisonments, interrogation, and recantation. What follows is the account of Probst’s “unhappy story” that he himself published after escaping from his second imprisonment and returning to Wittenberg. God willing, tomorrow I will post the “exhortatory epistle to his hearers, and especially to the people of Antwerp” that he appended to this account. If his account and epistle made it into the hands of his fellow monks, which is not at all unlikely, then it would be impossible to overstate its impact on the first Lutheran martyrs. It would have prepared, fortified, and equipped them for what they were about to undergo.

May the triune God use his account to prepare, fortify, and equip us to boldly witness to his grace and his saving name in our own day and age.

Jacob Probst’s Unhappy Story

In the name of Jesus.

Brother Jacob Probst, Augustinian, formerly a preacher in Antwerp, wishes the Christian reader grace and peace in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Until now I have been ashamed to occupy pious ears, ears more happily occupied in the Lord, with my unhappy history. But I see that the enemies of the gospel are taking endless pride in rejoicing over my most miserable ruin, and that they are daily becoming more and more insolent against the glory of the gospel (which is once again resurfacing throughout the world), boasting about my sacrilegious recantation, and publishing it in both languages in every corner in the most hateful manner.2 I myself am therefore compelled, in defense of the truth I have preached, to make the history of my unhappiness public and to bring their efforts to light. I am telling the truth with God as my witness, who knows my conscience, that I was not overcome by the Scriptures or by any reasoning, but solely by the fear of being burned and of Antwerp being destroyed on my account (as they were threatening).

And permit me to start there. When Luther’s pamphlets were being spread throughout the world and were sowing everywhere that sword and fire which Christ came to send upon the earth [Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:49], and the priests, monks, and our teachers [magistri nostri] in Louvain3 were in an incredible uproar and fury over them, I was teaching in Antwerp for my own part as moderately as I could, refuting their various and manifest lies against the Christian doctor.4 Yet the people, eager for the word of God, were flocking together to hear it. This is where that envy came from; this is the fountainhead of this tragedy. For when they could not withstand the truth and were lamenting their diminished glory, after many attempts to silence me (which envy usually makes in vain), they finally incited the emperor’s power against me.

At this time the councilor Francis van der Hulst, a man both eager for and worthy of the proceedings to be carried out, eagerly set out for Antwerp, armed with imperial letters, to break everything up and to subvert the gospel. But he was rebuked for his madness on the way when that dumb animal, the horse, shook his rider and dragged the injured man for a good distance of the journey, endangering his life. In short, the horse told him to return reluctantly to Brussels. But there, having paid no attention to this divine warning, he renews his resolve and decides to execute his plans at another time. And so he arrived in Antwerp, still lame, on the vigil of St. Nicholas [Dec. 5]. As for me, when I was summoned, I went to meet the man, perhaps overly confident in myself and fancying myself prepared to face death and imprisonment for Christ. He handed the letters to me; I took them and read them. While I was deliberating how to respond, he preempted me—the good man who speaks peacefully with his neighbor while harboring evil in his heart [Psalm 28:3]. He deceitfully said, “You have nothing to fear or suspect. No harm is waiting for you. You are being summoned for your own good. Besides, if you want, you will be entertained in my house and treated like a brother.” This voice was truly in a persistent mouth. I gave my consent to the fraudulent man, being naïve and ignorant of what was happening. My friends, who knew the man inside and out, dissuaded and opposed me in vain, since it was the Lord’s will to crush me.

The next day, the Feast of St. Nicholas [Dec. 6], after first giving a sermon, while the people were crying and working hard to get me released, I did not give my assent to the man’s lying words as a prisoner, but was driven away and arrived in Brussels.5 There, after holding many meetings, they finally see to it that I am kept in custody, with me protesting in vain that it was dishonorable to hold a man in prison who had come voluntarily. But this was Francis’s deceptive assurance and promise: These were the emperor’s orders, and they didn’t want my fate to be in my own hands but in his. My mind quickly began to sense that something bad was going to happen. And here I acknowledge my misery, timidity, and weakness of faith, and as the psalm says, even my pillar of strength was terror [Psalm 89:40]. For the fear of death fell upon me, and darkness covered me [Psalm 55:5].

My brotherly Francis, instead of his assurance that I would be returned to Antwerp, was now occasionally comforting me by saying, “You will not be burned unless you are stubborn.” This consolation from my faithful friend stuck so firmly in my sick guts (by now I had fallen internally from my rock) that I was even dreaming about fire and could think of nothing else. These indeed were the scriptures, these the arguments, by which I was miserably conquered. These are the only things in which those men are skilled, and this is all they offer for disputing, for they zealously strive to destroy with fire. But I am vainly holding out hope, since they are unable to prove any wrongdoing by reasoning or from Scripture. Added to this was the rumor and fable that people were crying out everywhere, “That heretic who led Antwerp astray with his perverted doctrine has come here to be burned.” This made me even more agitated and overwhelmed, since the delay was lending strength to my fear and timidity.

Then came the royal father confessor, [Jean] Glapion the Minorite,6 carrying six articles he said I was being accused of before the emperor, scarcely one of which was mine. But whether they had deceived the emperor this way or dealt with me on their own in the emperor’s name unbeknownst to the emperor, they themselves knew and God will be the judge. What is certain is that so many illustrious men came to testify against me in defense of the Church (that is what they boast) armed with lies.

At the same time another gentleman also came, the Spaniard Louis Coronel. And so we conferred for several hours, mainly about human regulations. I said that the distinction of foods was not suited to such strict regulation, and that it contributed nothing to Christian piety, although I had never taught that this distinction should not be observed. I simply preferred those things that are the chief matters of our Christian religion, namely faith and love. I was lamenting, “On account of these human regulations, these things that are the sum and substance have been neglected and obliterated, and the people of God have been completely led away from divine things to human things, from the yoke of Christ to pontifical decrees.” In opposition to this, both the Confessor and the Spaniard were contending for the regulations of men, judging it a crime and the worst sin to go against pontifical regulations. The argument of Joshua pronouncing anathema was cited [Josh. 6:17], which proves absolutely nothing. For who does not know that Joshua did not dare to command anything under threat of mortal sin if he had not received it from the Lord? Not even Paul dares to speak of anything if it is not being effected through him by Christ.

But when I as a prisoner saw that I was not being dealt with honestly, I tried to overcome them with kindness by refraining from a lot of arguing, mindful of the advice of friends, who wanted me to try everything to get back out of their custody. The least of my fears was that this, my indulgence and downfall, would produce so much talk, influence, or scandal.

But Glapion, returning to Ghent puffed up by my gentleness, was spreading among those who had not heard me that I was ignorant and that he was victorious. How is that for the holy humility of the Minorites? For when he was with me, he was saying that the case was not a difficult one, but was going to have a quick and happy ending, and that humble despiser of glory was telling me to be of good cheer and was falsely getting my hopes up. And so I returned to my confinement amazed at these things, that so many men were getting so very bent out of shape over nothing, but it is no wonder that men make little of divine matters when they make much of human matters. Then, in a joint council, they undertook to wear me out with questions, so as to snatch from my mouth something they could misinterpret and pass along to the emperor. For this purpose two Spanish doctors of theology from the school in Paris were summoned, Juan Quintana and Louis Coronel, instigated by Glapion. To these were added two men from Louvain, [Jacob] Latomus and that Carmelite [Nicolaas Baechem] of Egmond, whose fame, or rather madness, has long since preceded him above the sky.7 The monks are priding themselves in their man Glapion; through him they can do as they wish with the emperor. The Louvainians are priding themselves in Francis van der Hulst. For since they were being oppressed by the Scriptures and the arguments of the truth, they needed to boast in and be puffed up by these patrons. They were meeting together in the monastery of the Franciscans, who were diligently insisting and most humbly begging more than the others (though they were all pursuing it) that I not somehow be allowed to escape unharmed, since they were quite zealous for their devotion to the gospel.

Now while these scribes and Pharisees were sitting in this house of Caiaphas and consulting with their man Francis about the false testimonies against me, I was standing outside in the midst of the servants as if already about to be condemned to death. Then I was summoned and entered with my accompanying brother monk, the steward of the monastery in Antwerp. They soon drove him out of the room, so that there would not be any witness taking part in the proceedings, which they wanted to be so secret that they ordered me under threat of anathema not to speak a word of them to anyone, and indeed they did not want my companion to know anything about them either. But whether they did this by fraud, in order that I might more freely pour out what I thought for certain should be kept secret, or out of the fear of having a witness to their ignorance and tyranny, God knows and so do their own hearts. For who can believe that this was done with honest intentions and a desire for the truth, when it is written, “Whoever does what is evil hates the light” [John 3:20]?

Thus they now attack the lonely man, the man depressed in spirit and pleading with them obsequiously, and do so in a domineering and authoritative manner. They began by asking what I thought about the sacraments. I responded more from Augustine than from Luther that three sacraments are found in the Scriptures, and that the rest were ordained by the church. They noted this down, then asked about indulgences. I responded that they should not be trusted in any way, and that the treasury of the church was not in the pope’s control in such a way that he could distribute it for the sake of money (that is, a very cheap thing), and could deny it to those who had none, but that it was faith which, without money, made each of the faithful a partaker of all Christ’s blessings. They noted this down too, and this is how they proceeded to the remaining questions. For they had in their hands those distinguished condemnations (and worthy of men like themselves) of the three universities,8 and they proceeded point by point from these articles, decreeing what was heretical and writing down whatever was contrary to them. At the same time they all had good laugh together whenever I said something that their school did not have, omitting nothing that could serve to confuse me and oppress the gospel truth, although I really did not perceive that at the time, for I believed that simplicity was needed in diligently searching for the truth.

But when I refused to answer, or said that I did not know, they would rebuke me with a stern face and menacing eyes quite domineeringly and fraternally, saying, “Don’t you want to be taught? Don’t you want to be informed?” So many plots and schemes for my death those virtuous and pious defenders of the Church were calling “teaching” and “informing.” After a while Egmond, in order to show his expertise, learning, and refinement above the others, after I said “lots [plerumque]” instead of “often [sepe]” several times, wrinkled his nose and creased his eyebrows and pompously inquired, “What is ‘lots [plerumque]’?” To which our teacher [magister noster] Latomus says, “‘Lots’ is ‘frequently’ or ‘often’ [plerumque est frequenter vel sepe].” The former then exclaimed with a twisted mouth, “Why doesn’t he say ‘frequently’ or ‘often’? What are we supposed to do with his ‘lots’?” With comforts like these those magnificent teachers were encouraging me to be ridiculed and despised, secure and puffed up by the emperor’s power and majesty.

In the meantime the Minorite monks were also not lacking in their duty. Indeed, among other things, when a certain merchant of Antwerp had sent a letter for me and a naïve messenger was looking for me among the Franciscans, the doorkeeper named Angelus took the letter, promising that he would bring it to me himself. Instead he happily brought it to his guardian,9 who was such an impudent enemy of the truth that he had declaimed on a public platform that if he had killed Luther with his own hands, he would not on that account be deterred from eating the spotless Lamb,10 but would rather be rendering him obedience.

This holy man therefore sends his man Angelus to Francis van der Hulst with the letter, in the meantime having my guards forbidden under threat of anathema from saying anything to the messenger, for he was afraid that the evil of his fraud might reach me. Angelus calls Francis out of the room and eagerly hands him the letter, as if he had brought the most certain grounds for my death and could say, “He is guilty of death.” Francis, returning to the room and swelling with authority, said, “Brother, since you are a prisoner of the emperor, you are not allowed either to send a letter or to receive this letter that was sent to you without our knowledge. Therefore you yourself will read this letter in our hearing.” I was afraid and unable to get out of it, being at the same time all jumbled up inside. So I was forced to read the letter to that venerable assembly, which they then snatched from my hands as a testimony and pledge by which, after subduing me, they could also harass my friends, which is exactly what they did later in their eager desire for their salvation, that is, their money. There were many things like this that took place, which I will pass over in silence for the sake of brevity and to relieve the tedium, for I think this will be enough to show the intentions those lying men acted with in this affair.

At the end they were asking me if I had any Scripture passages or arguments; the subject was fasting and the distinction of foods. I quoted Paul in Romans 14, where he says that the strong eat whatever they like, but the weak eat vegetables. Here they were saying that it is those who are weak in body who should eat vegetables so that their physical weakness will not be aggravated by food. Secondly, they were saying that this should be understood of Jewish foods. In this way they were mocking and spitting on Christ in the house of Caiaphas, that is, by mocking and disdaining his clear word in these passages: “Let no one judge you in food and drink” [Col. 2:16]. Again, “the kingdom of God is not food and drink” [Rom. 14:17]. Also, “eat whatever is available in the meat market” [1 Cor. 10:25]. They wanted all these Scripture passages and many others to be understood with regard to Jewish foods, which neither satisfied me nor quieted my mind. Then there are the passages besides those I cited: “See that you do all I command you. Do not add to it or take away from it” [Deut. 12:32]. And that passage: “They worship me in vain by teaching the doctrines and commandments of men” [Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7]. How they would have responded to these I still do not know.

But seeing that I was contending in vain and could not escape by any Scripture passages, but was being exhausted and oppressed by force alone, I said that I was satisfied11—I call upon God as my witness, to whom all things are known—and then I fell down in misery and surrendered, but with no change having taken place in my heart. But they were seriously delighted when I said I was satisfied, and after several days those who had gotten what they wanted were requiring me to sign the articles which they had organized and embellished to their liking without my knowledge. I signed them naïvely and ignorantly, holding out the unrealistic hope that they might have to be retracted, especially since they had previously commanded under threat of anathema that all these things should remain most secret. Soon those eager to report the glorious triumph they had with me send two men to the emperor (that’s what they told me) to show him the articles which they had snatched from me, and to request a judgment.12 But when I was afraid of what was going to happen and asked to be given an audience with the emperor, they asserted that the emperor could speak neither Latin nor German, nor understand anyone speaking in either language. But they said that because they did not want the emperor to become acquainted with the other party. In the meantime they were strengthening my custody, prohibiting anyone from speaking or writing to me, and prohibiting me from sending letters to any one—all under threat of severe penalties. Since I was suspicious of my case and was subject to the same judges as witnesses, I was requesting different judges to examine my case. I was also expressing the desire to freely debate on my sermons in Louvain before the entire university. But all of this was denied. I added that this was the not the way to do anything except oppress the truth. But Francis, to whom these tactics were most agreeable, said, “On the contrary, there is no other way to discover it.”

They returned after the Feast of the Nativity, having obtained the victory and gotten from the emperor what they wanted, earnestly demanding a recantation. But I wanted to see what I would be recanting. “The articles you signed,” they say. Although many words were exchanged back and forth and I resisted as much as I could, I made no headway, since they were asserting that there could be no disputing with a heretic, that I had led Antwerp astray, and that I had endorsed the man whom the church had condemned.13

But they were arranging the form of recantation as they desired, and with such polished language opposed to good education and Luther that I was completely terrified when I heard it, for they did not permit me to read any copy for myself. Instead, using only fraud and force, they were misusing the emperor’s power to bring disgrace upon the truth and to oppress Christian liberty. For my part, I humbled myself before them on bended knees, with tears welling up and with folded hands, and begged them to have mercy on me. I told them that I was in the hands of Almighty God and the emperor, that they could do with me as they pleased, that I could not furnish a recantation like that, that in committing this crime I would be acting against conscience, provoking God, and detracting from the truth of the gospel. Soon there was talk of the dark prison, except that the chancellor,14 an otherwise mild man, yet too attached to men, pursued a milder course of action and consented to have me kept at his house under the watch of four guards.

On the day before the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul,15 prison cells were being prepared for me and my companion the steward, in order that they might use threats and terror to break those whom they could see were already fainthearted. Midday came; I was called to lunch and had tears as my bread [see Ps. 42:3; 80:5]. After giving thanks and dismissing the servants, the chancellor began to discuss the recantation with me alone, affirming that the ultimate danger was about to befall me. But I was citing my feeble conscience, which I could not go against, as well as the absurdity of the things they were ordering me to recant, some of which had never entered my mind, and none of which I had preached the way they had attributed them to me. But he says, “Unless you recant, you will put yourself and the city you have led astray in the utmost danger.” When I heard this, I said with excessive humility that I preferred to be imprisoned eternally, yes, I preferred to face the sword, as though I were already most humbly resigned to death. But I asked in vain, for it was either recant or perish in the fire. This was the consolation they were giving me. But having been ordered to my place of confinement, I went up to it groaning.

Meanwhile, those who call themselves spiritual meet together in order to finally hand over the degraded man to the emperor to be burned. On hearing this, some friends, moved by a cruel compassion, approached this council of the elders, asking to be admitted to converse with me. But those men, with a well-feigned reluctance, were unwilling to admit anyone, unless they agreed to subvert me and persuade me to recant. Upon being admitted, they began arguing with me with tears and groans, adding that I did not need to understand more than was necessary or rely on my own wisdom, that those holy men delegated by the emperor were representing the Church and eagerly desired my salvation, that they were more learned than I, having been raised in the world of theology, and also that they were men of such piety that they would never for the whole world even think about inviting me to recant unless they knew with absolute certainty that I was in error. With these words and many others I was assailed by this faction.

And indeed Satan was not content for me to be variously wearied internally by weakness of faith, and externally by terrors and flatteries, and for the solitary man to be subdued by these tactics. He also stretched out his hand and touched the inner parts of my life and the secrets of my conscience, and was tormenting me with these most dangerous scruples: “What if because of your sermons, either misunderstood or imprudently delivered, some have gone backwards, and have turned Christian liberty into an occasion for the flesh?” So I was afraid where there was nothing to fear, since I was not aware of any perverse doctrine. One thing I do know: I taught less than the truth of the gospel requires. At the same time, that intolerable temptation about my predestination rushed in, and since I did not possess sufficient strength to overcome death, sin, and hell, I was overcome and fell down and lay on the floor in misery. And while there was no one to raise up the fallen man, I yielded to the counsel of others, and I said that I was willing to listen and to be quiet, consoling myself with the false hope that I did not believe that they could not make that great of a triumph from this.

My friends, rejoicing and making excited gestures as if they were looking for an omen, give thanks to God because they believed I had changed. Then the chancellor and many others also came to hear what I had decided to do. I said that I would recant those things by which the people had been offended, or by which Antwerp had been misled (as they were telling me).

But since they saw that my resolution was lacking, they urged me more eagerly to recant everything, though I was pleading in vain that they not force me to recant what I had neither thought nor taught. I told them I had poured out too much in the secret examination out of desperation, and never from the will of my heart. But they wanted everything to be recanted, or else that I should die. Thus, since I saw there was no room for appeals or anywhere I could escape now that I had already begun to fall, I now despaired and fell all the way down. I consented to this most impious recantation, with my mouth alone and not at all with my heart. Everyone is joyful; they rejoice over the sheep that has been found, and over St. Paul, whose conversion is celebrated on that day. My repentance is accepted and reported, but I was silently deploring my wretched state.

And so while some officials are meeting with a certain bishop who was once my friend, but is now strenuously working to suppress the truth,16 I privately recant and am forced to take an oath before them, after first protesting that I was recanting on the basis of their conscience rather than of my own will. But those men who were swallowing this camel [Matt. 23:24] were not moved at all; I should just recant. Soon the rumor of my recantation is spread to the people of Antwerp, but it did not move them at all (for they knew well of the force that was used). Afterwards they devise another plan and translate the articles into Dutch [in germanicam linguam], adding an atrocious explanation, abusing me as an instrument of their wickedness.

I am accordingly summoned by the chancellor at a late hour on a certain Saturday, completely ignorant of what was to become of me. But when I asked the reason for being summoned, they are all quiet. The chancellor pretends not to know anything else. The aforementioned bishop, who was present, also refused to disclose what was about to happen to me. And behold, when the hour of rest arrives,17 they notify me that I am to preach and then read the document of recantation the following day by order of the emperor. I would then be restored to liberty. I was eager for this and, unable to see into the future, I consented. The next day, at the very moment when the people assembled in the church18 were expecting me, they write an explanation, adding to it nothing but the worst words that seemed best for extinguishing the truth.

Now the people had been summoned to that place in huge numbers by means of pecuniary injunctions19 announced from each of the city’s pulpits. I stood there as a spectacle, surrounded by a very large crowd of Pharisees,20 and I began the sermon this way: “You turned your face away from me, and I became troubled” [Psalm 30:7], hinting that I, who had once said in my prosperity, “I will never be shaken” [30:6], was now recanting the truth as a troubled and afflicted man, since the Lord had left me alone and was not providing the light of his presence that was necessary for a steadfast confession of the truth.21

But since they were extremely worried that the people would be moved by my sermon, they interrupted me and put those sacrilegious documents in my hands as if I were a child. I was compelled to read them, preserving the truth in my heart and thinking the opposite there, while lying to myself with my mouth out of the fear of death. But the people were making a commotion and keeping little silence, so that what was expressed in the recantation reached few people.

But the chief enemies of the gospel were present, the mendicant brothers. They had showed up there most eagerly and in procession (as they say). Thus I unhappily delighted all the accomplices of the papal bulls and grieved the spirits of those who support the gospel. May Christ mercifully forgive me for this and grant that I may make amends for it by confessing the contrary. Amen.

After consulting about me for a week, I am sent to Ypres, and behold, the abominable recantation soon follows, printed in both languages. Whenever a sinner accused me, I was speechless and humiliated, and I backed off from what was good. Nevertheless, I once again began to preach the word of God to the people of Christ, who were exceedingly desirous of it and thirsty for it. I made absolutely no mention of human regulations or of the pontiff. I only said that Christ was our true pontiff or high priest, and that he should be approached with confidence, that he could sympathize with our weaknesses, that he himself was tempted in every way, etc. [Heb. 4:15–16].

Here the mendicants once again went mad and were shouting, slandering, and revealing my case to everyone. But when the people, with the gospel shining in their hearts, began to loathe the excrements of men, they were not very affected by their detractions.

Therefore the guardian of Ypres, an extraordinarily uneducated man, went to the provost of that city, who presides over spiritual matters there (as they call them), and asked for an interdict against me. He said that my sermons were suspect, since I once had to recant; I did not preach that people needed to fast under threat of mortal sin; I did not preach the distinction of foods; I did not preach that Christians should be clothed in dark garments [ceruleis vestibus], at least in death; I did not preach that generous alms should be given to the mendicants. (For these are the tokens of the sermons preached by this scum of humanity.) But the provost was unmoved by this and responded, “Unless he has taught contrary to the gospel or Holy Scripture, I will not prohibit him.” A short report is therefore written to that courteous and brotherly man, Francis van der Hulst, deserving of and most greedy for fraternal poison and falsehood, a man who singularly thirsts for my salvation, that is, my death for the sake of the gospel.

I also preached in a certain village near the Dominicasters22 or Preachers (as they boastfully call themselves). They, too, when they heard the rumor that the word of God was being preached, began filling the air with frantic cries, fearing that some of their business or reputation might be ruined. They did not let up until, by the agency of my friend Francis, I was once again arrested on account of the gospel and led away to Bruges to be burned (which was their hope).

Here I went to Glapion, who washed his hands and told me he was ignorant as to why I was arrested this second time. But Francis was not satisfied with having opened a blasphemous mouth and having assaulted Christians in Brabant;23 he had accepted the commission to do the same in Flanders.24 Having entered the Franciscan monastery, with contempt, threats, and letters he bombastically asserted that I had been accused a second time before the emperor, namely of having relapsed. And when I asked him for witnesses, he told me that it would be shown from letters I had written. But they were unable to produce them as he was hoping; so they had people they could assault and eviscerate with fines, since the people I had written were rich. And so I am guarded among the Franciscans with a kindness consistent with their brotherliness. After the emperor set out for Spain, I am dragged back to Brussels, the butcher’s block for Christians, and am fed for four days in Francis’s house. There I am guarded with an extremely watchful eye; he had ordered each of his servants to guard the doors with the utmost diligence. Here I will be silent about how fraudulently my friend Francis dealt with me, using cunning speech in an effort to obtain anything he could interpret to my disadvantage. He himself knows what I mean and how he conducted himself with me when talking about my accompanying brother monk, the steward.

Our teachers [magistri nostri] from Louvain finally arrive, Latomus and Egmond, the madman. They begin to deal harshly with me after supper is finished. The Carmelite Egmond was saying that I deserved the stake because I had described the force used against me. Such people could only be converted by fire, he was thundering domineeringly and fraternally. But I replied, “So why are you all delaying? You have the power to do away with my body; I am prepared to endure what you inflict.” Francis, as if pitying me, says, “Our teacher [Magister noster], you are attacking too harshly.” But he replies, “This is how it must be done. You cannot deal with wounds of this kind with a gentle hand. If he were fully converted, he would love me, since open correction is better than hidden love. For indeed he is still a heretic and not fully converted. The people of Antwerp are hoping for his return, but that is not going to happen. He supports the heretics and his friend Erasmus of Rotterdam, who is a heretic, an arch-heretic, and a Lutheran. If he were here, I would tell him so, for how can his translation of 1 Corinthians 15 be anything but heresy—‘We will not all sleep in death’?25 Woe, woe to such men! Such great heresy can only be destroyed by fire.” I replied that that was also what Stapulensis26 held, as did all who knew Greek, and they say that is how the Greek text reads. But the ferocious man laid into me, saying, “This is why you fall into various errors, because you have abandoned our teachers and have been seduced by innovations.” I was forced to listen to these and similar lectures.

The next day, the Tuesday before the Ascension of the Lord,27 I am summoned to appear before those three aforementioned men in a council they had formed. They have many papal bulls in front of them. I am then handed over to three attendants or guards, who lead me through the middle of the city like a notorious robber. After taking away even my little food knives, they deliver me to an extremely narrow prison cell, having not even been convicted. The basis for all their actions was their own pleasure and tyranny. I gave thanks to the divine majesty and was waiting for death. I was still troubled by my sins, yet by the grace of God was not concerned about escaping, even though, if I had wanted, I could have escaped and been free on the third night. But afterwards some friends of the truth of the gospel were advising me to escape. They felt that I would not help the gospel’s cause as much by my death in this second imprisonment as I would have if I had steadfastly persevered in the first. Therefore, while the commissaries were harassing the pious in Holland,28 by divine providence and with the help of a certain brother, I left the prison unharmed and thus escaped their hands in the name of the Lord, though the monks were hoping for and expecting a different outcome.

Now, pious reader, you have the history of my unhappiness and ruin, which I have somehow managed to put down accurately and in order.29 You can use this to oppose those boasting Thrasonians,30 who say, do, and twist everything in a childish and womanly manner. And pray for me, that in place of this grievous downfall I may be able to exhibit a happy resurrection, and to confirm the sermons I preached in Antwerp with my blood and death in the strength of Christ, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Source

Probst, Jacob. Fratris Iacobi Praepositi Augustiniani quondam Prioris Antvverpiensis historia utriusque captivitatis propter verbum Dei. Eiusdem etiam Epistola ad Auditores suos Antvverpienses. Wittenberg: Johann Rhau-Grunenberg, 1522.

I also consulted the anonymous German translation published the following year: Ein schone und clegliche history bruder Jacobs probst Augustiner ordens vor zeiten Prior zu Antdorff / an gemeine fromme Christenheit / von beiden gefencknissen / so er von wegen des worts gottes / und umb des heyligen Euangeliumß willen erlitten hatt. Colmar: Amandus Farckall, 1523.

Endnotes

1 Percy Stafford Allen, ed., Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 606–7, no. 980. Eramus was later suspected of Lutheranism due partially to this letter.

2 Probst’s recantation had been published in Flemish (a dialect of Dutch) in Antwerp and in Latin in Cologne, Leipzig, and Strasbourg.

3 “Our teachers [magistri nostri, abbreviated M. N.]” appears to have originated as a term of respect for the professors of theology at the University of Louvain, who were considered theological experts and rendered judgments on theological debates. But by this point Lutherans were using the familiar term ironically.

4 Namely, Martin Luther, who was a doctor of theology.

5 The 1523 German translation reads: “On St. Nicholas Day I preached and made the people aware of this affair afterwards. They cried and worked to get me released, but I followed Francis’s lying words rather than the faithful advice of the pious. So I was driven away to Brussels.”

6 Minorites (sing., Minorite; Latin: minorita, sing., minoritae, pl.) was a nickname for members of both the conventual and observant branches of the Franciscan Order (Order of Friars Minor).

7 This expression is borrowed from Vergil’s Aeneid, 1.379.

8 Namely Paris, Louvain, and Cologne

9 The guardian (Gardianus) of a Franciscan monastery was that monastery’s superior.

10 That is, partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

11 Namely, with their answers and explanations.

12 There seems to be one or more typographical or grammatical errors in this sentence, which begins: Mox ille gloriosum de me relaturi triumphum mittunt ad Caesarem duos. I have read illi for ille and taken the future participle relaturi as expressing readiness or eagerness.

13 Namely Luther

14 Hieronymus van der Noot was chancellor of the Duchy of Brabant from 1514–1531.

15 The Conversion of St. Paul is observed on January 25, which fell on a Saturday in 1522.

16 This seems to have been Adrien (or Adriaan) Aernoult of Bruges, auxiliary bishop of Cambrai (Antwerp and Brussels belonged to the diocese of Cambrai), whose name is mentioned in the preamble of Probst’s published recantation, and who would preside at the degradation of the Augustinians Hendrik Voes and Jan van den Esschen the following year.

17 Latin: instante quietis hora. Hora quietis might be the Latin equivalent of die Schlafglocke, a bell that rang at a certain evening hour (probably the final bell of the day) and marked the close of business, after which it was forbidden to conduct business. The 1523 German translation reads: “But when other people were going to sleep…”

18 St. Gudula’s Church in Brussels

19 Latin: mandatis pecuniariis. Some scholars interpret this phrase to mean that the people were bribed, but the 1523 German translation captures it better with the translation: bei einer summ geltz, “under threat of a fine.” (Bei was used like the Latin sub in the sense of “under threat of” or “on pain of.” This usage is still evident in the legal phrase bei Todesstrafe, “on pain of death.”)

20 The 1523 German translation reads: “and a large crowd of monks stood around me.” Probst was certainly being carefully watched by the officials and monks involved in his inquisition, but he seems to be referring here to the crowd as a whole, who was not there to be edified by God’s word, but because they had been threatened and were eager to see the spectacle of Probst’s recantation.

21 Probst is probably not so much blaming God here as he is being honest about how he felt at the time.

22 Dominicaster was a pejorative term for a Dominican monk. The Latin suffix -aster denotes something imitating, and usually inferior to, the real thing. (For example, oleaster is a wild olive tree, also called the Russian olive, an imitation version of the olea. Erasmus coined the name Ambrosiaster for the anonymous author of writings falsely attributed to, and sounding like, Ambrose.) In this case, those employing the term do not seem to have had the actual etymology in view; the Dominicans were called such after their founder St. Dominic. They seem rather to have been thinking of the adjective Dominicus, “of or belonging to the Lord” (doubtless the origin of Dominic’s name). The connotation of Dominicaster is therefore something like, “a would-be Lord’s man or would-be follower of the Lord.”

23 It is unclear whether Probst is here using “blasphemous” with God as the implied object or the Christians in Brabant. The 1523 German translation understood it in the former sense. If the latter was intended, the clause would be better translated: “…with having opened a libelous mouth and assaulting Christians in Brabant.”

24 The Duchy of Brabant included Louvain, Brussels, Antwerp, and ’s-Hertogenbosch. The Countship of Flanders included Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres. Today these territories comprise lands that belong to Belgium and parts of the Netherlands and France.

25 The Vulgate of 1 Corinthians 15:51 read: “We will all rise again, but we will not all be changed.” Erasmus had translated the verse the way we are now familiar with it on the basis of better manuscript evidence.

26 That is, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (c. 1455–c. 1536), Latinized as Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, a French theologian and humanist.

27 In 1522, Ascension fell on Thursday, May 29.

28 The Countship of Holland included Rotterdam, Delft, The Hague, Haarlem, Enkhuizen, and Amsterdam. Today the territory belongs to the Netherlands.

29 Latin: vere a meipso utcunque digestam. The utcunque, which I have attempted to capture with “somehow managed,” seems to refer to the difficulties Probst had reliving all these events and exposing his conduct to the public.

30 Thraso was a realistically portrayed, swaggering soldier in Terence’s (II cent. BC) comedy Eunuchus. Thraso’s reputation as a braggart lives on in the English adjective thrasonical.

Luther on Beer: Collection of Authentic Quotes

Fancy Recently I was browsing an online retail store for a customizable mug to give as a gift to a fellow pastor. There was already a mug available for purchase called the “Martin Luther Beer Stein,” which contained two alleged Luther quotes. One of them sounded obviously apocryphal and the other sounded suspect. So I decided to dig a little and to compile and translate a relatively comprehensive list of authentic Luther quotes on beer and drinking. (It turned out to be a good project to work on during a terrible blizzard.) My compilation has a twofold bent:

  1. It provides quotes that could be used on customized mugs, glasses, steins, or tankards (a Christmas gift to you from Red Brick Parsonage). Incidentally, the quotes you glean here for this purpose don’t necessarily have to be the ones that portray beer (or wine) favorably. Any of Luther’s warnings against drunkenness would also be appropriate for drinkware.
  2. It provides rarely cited quotes about beer, wine, and drinking in general that are of historical interest and/or provide insight into Luther’s life, character, and views.

This isn’t the sort of project I would normally publish on this site. It’s liable to end up becoming one of my most popular posts, and I’d rather have people visiting this site to dine on hearty doctrinal meat that will nourish their souls than to satisfy their curiosity about a topic of worldly, everyday interest. The fact that some of these quotes also contain scriptural admonition and instruction helped to allay my concerns. But I would also ask any conscientious reader who appreciates this collection to do me the honor of reading at least one other post on my site, if you have not already. If you’re looking for suggestions, “Luther’s House Sermon on the Canaanite Woman” and “Martin Luther’s Favorite Christmas Hymn?” should prove to be enriching without unduly taxing your time.

In compiling this list, I verified that the apocryphal-sounding quote on the Martin Luther Beer Stein was in fact apocryphal. (Luther never said, “It is better to think of church in the ale-house than of the ale-house in church.”) The quote I was suspicious about, however, turned out to be an actual Luther quote (included in #4 below), though reading it out of context can give a mistaken impression about what Luther was saying. I do my best below to provide context for the quotes that require it.

I was somewhat surprised to discover that, as you will see, there are not many quotes where Luther praises beer outright. In fact, he commonly has three complaints about beer. The first will no doubt disappoint many Lutherans: Luther says more than once that he wishes beer had never been invented, primarily because of the waste of barley that would have been able to “keep all of Germany alive” in other forms. (A home-brewing friend of mine confirmed that brewing is indeed “a fairly inefficient use of grain.”)

His second complaint is much more gratifying to beer aficionados: Luther did not like light beer, and there was a lot of light beer to be had, even in his own cellar (by necessity). One of the most common beers in Luther’s day was kofent, which derives from the Latin word conventus, “convent,” because apparently monks were the first to brew it. Proper kofent was made by pouring water onto the draff (spent grain) from a previous batch of actual beer—akin to using a used tea bag to make a new pot of tea or the same coffee grounds to brew a new pot of coffee. But the term could also be used for any beer that was weaker or didn’t taste quite right, no matter how it was made. Kofent was also called thin or weak beer (Dünnbier), after-beer (Nachbier or Afterbier), table beer (Speisebier, Tafelbier, Tischbier), and other names. So basically, whenever Luther rails against kofent, just imagine him shredding Busch Light, Bud Light, Miller Lite, etc., or for that matter the regular flagship “beers” produced by those companies.

His third complaint pops up later in his life when brewers started lining their barrels with pitch to prevent them from absorbing the beer into their wood and admitting the atmospheric air through their pores. The pitch gave the beer a peculiar flavor, which apparently the peasants liked, but Luther claimed it caused chest congestion. Unfortunately, the table talk where Luther rails against “the new invention of pitch” (#24) is undated; if this quote could be confidently dated, it would be critical to beer brewing history. Since there is another quote about the peasants’ fondness for pitch dated February 1539 (#25), #24 probably dates to the late 1530s.

Luther was not a drunk, as many other historians have also noted. He in fact regularly rebuked and lamented drunkenness both in private conversation and from the pulpit, including one particularly memorable sermon (#28). He did not even shy away from admonishing princes and their courtiers against it. Not to mention that Luther simply could not have accomplished everything he did if he were a drunk. Luther did, however, regularly enjoy alcoholic beverages, and it is untrue that the historical record never documents Luther getting drunk, as some have maintained. The most obvious example dates to the end of May 1536, when a number of Protestant theologians gathered in Wittenberg to hold discussions and attempt to reach agreement on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Among those attending was Wolfgang Musculus, who wrote a daily report of the negotiations to bring back to Augsburg. Musculus reported the following events for May 29, the day the so-called Wittenberg Concord was signed (Theodor Kolde, ed., Analecta Lutherana [Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1883], 229):

At 1 o’clock our brothers [namely, the other southern German theologians] left to make it to [Bad] Düben, leaving me and [Martin] Frecht with [Justus] Menius and [Friedrich] Myconius in Wittenberg. After they departed, Philipp [Melanchthon] led me to the university and showed me the Greek Epiphanius, two books written very long ago. For dinner Dr. Luther and Philipp and Lucas [Cranach] the painter were at our lodging, where Dr. Luther told us about the deceits with which he had been repeatedly tested. After dinner we went over together to the abode of Master Lucas the painter and drank some more. After leaving the painter’s house, we brought Dr. Luther home, where we continued doing the Saxon thing and drank some more. He was in marvelously fine spirits and was making benevolent promises of every kind.

Luther was riding a high from the successfully concluded negotiations—negotiations concluded with an agreement that had sided with his position almost entirely—and if this isn’t a description of him getting drunk, I don’t know what is. I am sure that countless Christians still today could be identified who, like Luther, are otherwise known as sober people who, if they drink, drink in moderation and acknowledge drunkenness as a sin and are against it, and who nevertheless have drunk too much on occasion. This doesn’t excuse the drunkenness; those Christians themselves would not excuse it. (Remember that Luther continued practicing private confession with Pastor Johannes Bugenhagen until his death, and doubtless would have also confessed the times he got drunk as sins.) But Christians are sinful humans too; they, too, are known to abuse God’s good gifts now and then. Christians are not defined by perfection, but by repentance. In addition, Luther himself noted that he would rather live in the joy and freedom of the gospel and have one too many beers on occasion than live under the law and paralyze himself with scrupulous worry “about committing any little sin” (see #4). (If you think that means he took a soft stance on drunkenness and other sins, just read the quotes below.)

We also need to remember that alcoholic beverages were also viewed and used medicinally in Luther’s day (as they are to an extent still today, e.g. hot toddies); there was no Robitussin for sale. If someone is knocked out by prescription or over-the-counter medication today, we think nothing of it, if it gives the person relief or helps him or her to rest and recover. But when people did the same with beer or wine back then, we tend to shake our heads and call them drunks. Luther was often ill, especially toward the end of his life, and often drank to allay his illnesses and pain. This also helps to explain the large amount of alcohol he appears to have consumed during his final days in Eisleben (see #37).

All the translations below are my own, except for #2. WA stands for Weimarer Ausgabe (Weimar Edition of Luther’s works), Br for the Briefwechsel (Correspondence) volumes in that series, and TR for the Tischreden (Table Talk) volumes in that series. I have generally organized the following quotes chronologically. If any Luther scholar or aficionado thinks there are other quotes that should be included in this list, please comment below or use the information on the About page to submit them. I will be happy to give them my serious consideration.

With that, please enjoy these Luther quotes on beer and drinking. You don’t need to enjoy these quotes in moderation, but please do so enjoy the beverages they describe. “[It is false, deceiving teachers who] order people to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is consecrated through the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:3–5). “Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12). “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

Luther on Beer and Drinking

#1

We must begin by correcting the modern marketing narrative created by the Einbecker Brewery. At some point relatively recently, one of their marketing agents came up with this rhyming jingle: “Der beste Trank den einer kennt, wird Ainpöckisch Bier genennt!” (“The best of drinks to all is clear: It bears the name Einbecker beer!”) Luther is supposed to have spoken this rhyme on the spot after Duke Erich of Brunswick had a servant send him a silver tankard of Einbecker beer after his famous stand at the Diet of Worms on April 18, 1521.

Luther said no such thing. However, the context in which Luther is supposed to have said those words is legitimate. Duke Erich did have a servant send Luther a silver tankard filled with Einbecker beer to refresh himself after his famous stand. But what Luther actually said in response was (source):

As Prince Erich has thought of me today, so may Christ think of him in his final battle [i.e. in his final hours].

According to Franz von Kramm, one of Duke Erich’s page boys who attended him, Duke Erich did in fact remember Luther’s words on his deathbed and had Franz “revive him with evangelical comfort.”

These circumstances not only automatically make Einbecker beer the official beer of the Reformation, but they also make this quote one of the best candidates for a custom drinkware printing or engraving for the diehard Lutheran in your life. Yes, the quote says nothing about beer. Yes, it requires explanation. But it is at the heart of one of the most pivotal events of church history, and it came from the heart of the Church’s greatest post-biblical reformer as he held a tankard of Germany’s finest.

#2

Immediately after returning from the Wartburg, Luther preached a famous series of daily sermons from March 9–16, 1522, in order to restore order in Wittenberg. In his sermon on Monday, March 10, he preached these well-known words (Luther’s Works 51:77):

In short, I will preach [the Word], teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man [to believe it] by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip [Melanchthon] and [Nikolaus von] Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything.

#3

In a letter to Landgrave Philip of Hesse on or around May 20, 1530, about the Sacramentarian Controversy, Luther said that even his adversaries would prefer to take back some of their hastily-published and poorly-thought-out arguments at this point, if they could (WA Br 5:311, no. 1573):

If the beer were back in the barrel, they would just leave it in there at this point.

In a work written three years earlier, Luther similarly used the concept of wishing the beer were back in the barrel as a metaphor for wishing an ordeal had never been started (Luther’s Works 37:19).

#4

In July of 1530, while staying at the Coburg Fortress during the Diet of Augsburg, Luther penned a letter to Jerome Weller. Born in 1499, Weller matriculated at Wittenberg in 1525. From 1527 to 1536, Weller and his family lived in Luther’s house and ate at his table, in return for which he tutored Luther’s children. Weller struggled badly with depression, which Luther addressed in this letter (WA Br 5:519, no. 1670).

Therefore be of good cheer and stouthearted, and drive these terrible thoughts right out of your mind. And as often as the devil vexes you with these thoughts, right then and there seek out conversation with people, or drink a larger amount, or joke, jest, or do anything else more cheerful. Sometimes a person needs to drink a larger amount, play games, jest, and even commit some sin in hatred and contempt of the devil, so that we do not give him any opportunity to give us a bad conscience about extremely trivial matters. Otherwise we are conquered, if we end up too anxiously worrying about committing any little sin. Accordingly, if the devil should ever say, “Do not drink,” you should respond to him this way, “Instead, precisely because you prohibit it, I will drink, and I will drink an even larger amount.” Thus one must always do the opposite of whatever Satan forbids. Why else do you suppose it is that I drink wine so undiluted, converse so freely, and devour food so often like I do, other than to mock and vex the devil, who is determined to vex and mock me?

#5

On Saturday, July 29, 1531, Luther preached a sermon on John 7:32–35, during which he made this illustration (WA 33:417–18):

When a good beer is available, everyone makes a rush for it and does not dawdle, for they know that it will not last long; they won’t have it every day. Therefore people get it while it is available. If it were available for a long time, then our mouths would spoil us anyway, so that we didn’t appreciate it. But here people think that the Word will remain eternally, even though it remains and lasts a very short time.

#6

At his table in December of 1531, Luther, no doubt with a beer in hand, spoke these words recorded by Veit Dietrich (WA TR 1:60, no. 139):

If our Lord God can forgive me for crucifying and martyring him for some twenty years, he can certainly also make allowances for me when I take a drink to his glory now and then. God grant it! The world can interpret it however it wants and tends to do.

Luther is referring to his years as a priest performing the so-called sacrifice of the mass.

#7

Toward the end of that same month, Luther said these words at his table, recorded by Johannes Schlaginhaufen and Conrad Cordatus (WA TR 2:23, no. 1281; 2:425, no. 2344):

The man who invented beer brewing has been the bane of Germany. Rye can’t be anything but expensive in our territories. The horses eat the majority of our grain in oats, which are planted everywhere, for we cultivate more oats than rye. After that, the pious peasants and townspeople use up the vast majority of grain with their beer-swilling. In the splendid land of Thuringia, which is very fertile land, they have learned this piece of worthlessness: Wherever good, high-quality grain used to grow, dyer’s woad must now grow, which burns up and drains the soil to an extent beyond all measure.

#8

On February 27, 1532, Luther wrote home to his wife, Katharina or Käthe (Katie or Katy), while on a visit in Torgau (WA Br 6:270, no. 1908):

I am sleeping extremely well, some six or seven hours consecutively, and afterwards two or three hours more. It is due to the beer, I think. But I am sober, just like in Wittenberg.

#9

In the spring of 1532, Luther said these words at his table, recorded by Veit Dietrich (WA TR 1:107, no. 254):

Wine is blessed and is attested in Scripture, but beer is a human tradition.

#10

In the fall of 1532, Cordatus recorded Luther commenting at his table once again on the inventor of beer brewing (WA TR 2:613, no. 2716):

I have frequently cursed the first beer brewer. So much barley is ruined in brewing which could have been used to keep all of Germany alive. And it should be ruined like that if we are going to make such a shameful joke out of it which we then piss against the wall afterwards. There are three pecks in every quarter of beer, and for every one city that brews good beer, there are a hundred of them that brew table beer. The high cost and lack of beer will cause the university to move somewhere else. For the waters here are not healthy at all, but deadly. We will therefore be forced to leave.

According to the Grimm Brothers’ Deutsches Wörterbuch, in Saxony a quarter (Viertel) was equal to a ton (Tonne) or ninety quarts (Kannen; see entries “Tonne,” 2, a, α, and “Kanne,” 2), roughly twenty-two and a half gallons. (Kanne is also the word for “tankard.”) The capacity of a quarter varied by region; for instance, in Westphalia a quarter was synonymous with Stübchen (see #37) and roughly equivalent to a gallon.

#11

Around the same time, Luther made one of his most humorous, and nerdiest, criticisms of Wittenberg’s beer, also recorded by Cordatus (WA TR 2:638–39, no. 2757):

I have lived to see the end of the beer we cherish. It has all turned into kofent. And I ask God to destroy every cause of it—material, formal, efficient, and final—or if it still must be brewed, that a tenth of it would please turn out as beer. In ten years they have never been able to find the trick to it.

Material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause are all philosophical terms.

#12

Late that same fall, Cordatus recorded him saying the following at his table (WA TR 3:5, no. 2810b):

I believe that Adam was an extremely simple and extremely modest man. I also do not think that he lit candles; he didn’t know that the ox had tallow in his body, and he was not yet sacrificing cattle. I do wonder where he got the skins that he wore. This man Adam was, therefore, without a doubt extremely handsome—living to such an old age that he could see his eighth grandson—without a doubt the wisest man up until Noah, and well practiced in various trials, living in the utmost temperance, drinking neither wine nor beer. I wished that beer brewing had not been invented, for a whole lot of grain is spent in the process and nothing good is brewed.

#13

On November 24 that same year, Luther preached a sermon on 1 Timothy 1:5–7 in Wörlitz (WA 36:356).

If you can sit day and night in the tavern or elsewhere with good companions, chattering and gossiping, singing and shouting, and not grow tired or feel the work that goes into it, then you can certainly also sit in church for an hour and listen, to serve and gratify God.

#14

In the early part of 1533, Cordatus recorded these words of Luther (WA TR 3:113, no. 2948):

It is actually true that kofent is the strongest drink in my cellar, for even though many people drink it, one ton of kofent still outlasts three barrels of beer.

On the “ton,” see #10 above.

#15

While staying in Dessau to minister to Prince Joachim of Anhalt-Dessau, Luther wrote home to his wife on July 29, 1534 (WA Br 7:91, no. 2130):

Yesterday I drank some bad beer. Then I had to sing, “I don’t drink well, sorry to say, though I should like to dearly.” And I thought, what good wine and beer I have at home, besides a beautiful wife or, I should say, overlord. And you would do well to send over to me the entire cellarful of my wine and a bottle of your beer, as soon as you can, otherwise the new beer will prevent me from returning.

Luther’s little ditty appears to be an excerpt from a folk song or folk chant of some sort. I tried to retain his meter in my translation.

#16

In July of 1535, the University of Wittenberg had to be moved to Jena because of the plague. Luther stayed in Wittenberg and continued some of his teaching duties by letter. On August 18, 1535, he wrote to his colleague Justus Jonas (WA Br 7:232, no. 2223):

Here the loneliness of the city is strange, but we are alive and well, by God’s grace, living comfortably enough, except that there is absolutely no beer in the city. Blessed is my belly, which still has quite a bit in the cellar. Certainly the citizens are suffering from the shortage of drink. What would have happened if the school had stayed here? Anything new that’s brewed is drunk while it’s still quite warm right in front of the live coals, so that all those who could possibly brew are compelled to do so by thirsty force. [Alternate translation: so that all those who have drunk it are compelled to brew by thirsty force.]

#17

By September the plague was at an end, and plans were being made for doctorates to be conferred in Wittenberg on two students. Colleagues from the university were expected to return, including Justus Jonas, and Luther was excited at the prospect of having guests. He wrote to Jonas on September 4, 1535 (WA Br 7:249, no. 2234):

Then, if you are able to buy any hares or similar meats, or hunt them for free, send them, since we are planning on filling all of your bellies, if only that drink which they call zythum is successful. For my Katie has brewed seven quarters (as they are called), into which she has mixed thirty-two pecks of malt, wishing to satisfy my palate. She hopes it will turn out to be good beer. Whatever it turns out to be, you will taste it along with the others.

On “quarters,” see #10 above. Note also that Luther’s palate required about four and a half pecks of malt per quarter of beer, compared to the standard three pecks per quarter he mentions in #10. Zythum was a kind of malt liquor brewed by the Egyptians, but it is unlikely that Katie was attempting to brew an ancient recipe. Luther himself later refers to it as beer. In his excitement, he is simply using zythum in a playful way to refer to beer.

#18

In the fall of 1536, Anton Lauterbach and Jerome Weller recorded Luther musing on the following question (WA TR 3:350, no. 3483):

Why is it that the first drink from the tankard tastes the best? Perhaps on account of sin, since the flesh and the mouth are sinful.

#19

Around that same time, the following conversation took place at Luther’s table one evening (WA TR 3:344, no. 3476, anonymously recorded):

“Tomorrow I am supposed to lecture on the drunkenness of Noah [Genesis 9:20ff]. Therefore this evening I will drink enough so that I can then speak from experience about the wicked deed.”

Doctor Cordatus responded, “By no means! You should rather do the opposite.”

Then Luther said, “One does have to make allowances for the failings of every country. The Bohemians gorge, the Wends steal, the Germans have no qualms getting drunk. After all, dear Cordatus, how else could you outdo a German right now, except in drunkenness, especially one who does not love music and women?”

Tappert, in volume 54 of Luther’s Works, translates, “…except by making him drunk.” But that does not seem to be the sense. Luther’s point is that, if you want to best a German, there’s only one arena in which besting him will matter to him and others—drinking.

#20

On January 2, 1538, Luther spent the evening, together with Justus Jonas and apparently Anton Lauterbach (the recorder), in the house of Blasius Matthäus, a Wittenberg councilman. Lauterbach records:

Then absinthe beer was brought out. He responded, “Oh no! People are sending me absinthe beer from France, Prussia, and Russia in my own house! It’s becoming plenty bitter to me.”

Absinthe beer was beer to which absinthe was added to give it a bitter flavor. This must have been somewhat similar to the current IPA craze which, for the record, is dumb.

#21

About a week later, between January 8–10, Lauterbach recorded this conversation between Philipp Melanchthon and Luther (WA TR 3:537, no. 3693):

Then [Melanchthon] was talking a great deal about his love of wine, and that there is no good wine to be had anywhere. Luther responded, “That’s because we abuse its abundance for our own extravagance. This results in diseases—leprosy, kidney stones and gallstones, gout in the foot, and gout in the hand. Those who are always drinking wine very often have gout in the foot, but beer produces dropsy.”

#22

On February 12, 1538, Luther wrote to Justus Jonas, who was in Zerbst at the time (WA Br 8:197, no. 3216):

Your house is safe—thanks be to Christ—but your beer is ruined, if the same beer is in your cellar that you gave me as a gift. But let the beer be ruined and along with it the old man himself—the container, or rather skin, of this martyred water—provided that the incorruption of the inner man, who drinks living water and the fountain springing up to eternal life, increases from day to day. Amen.

“This martyred water” refers to Jonas’s ruined beer, with Jonas himself, or rather his old Adam, being the skin (leather flask) that held some of it. Luther is combining serious theology with goofiness.

#23

On June 13 that same year, Luther wrote to Anton Unruhe, a judge in Torgau, to thank him for honoring his request to give a certain poor woman justice, and to thank him for something else (WA Br 8:237–38, no. 3238):

But, dear Judge Anton, wasn’t it sufficient for you to hear my request and intercession and give me comforting news of your love and willingness? Did you also have to live in remembrance of my person with a gift, and even do so with an entire vat of Torgau beer of your own brewing? I am not worthy of the kindness, and although I know that you are not poor, but that God has blessed you with good things and abundance, I would have preferred to see you give the beer away to your poor people, who together have brought you more blessing with their prayers than poor Martin has by himself.

A vat (Kufe) was ordinarily a stationary wooden container, open on top and somewhat broader and wider at the bottom than at the top, in which beer was brewed. But the term was then also used for a large enclosed beer barrel with two bottoms, or for the equivalent capacity of beer—some 600 quarts or 150 gallons.

#24

An undated (though probably from the latter half of the 1530s), anonymously recorded comment from Luther’s table (WA TR 5:697, no. 6501):

“Beer is the best drink, especially in winter, whenever it has not evaporated. But it requires a tremendous amount of barley. One-third of the harvested grain is consumed in drink.” Then he began railing against the new invention of pitch, since it caused congestion of the chest. “May God make us all content! If only we wouldn’t pervert his gifts so badly through greediness!”

I am unsure what the “evaporation” refers to, and would appreciate any insights from those with more brewing knowledge than I. That phrase could also possibly be translated: “when it doesn’t evaporate.”

#25

In the middle of February 1539, Lauterbach recorded Luther commenting on Torgau beer at his table. However, in order to understand what he says, we have to go back in time to a story Luther told at his table in January 1537, recorded by Lauterbach and Weller (WA TR 3:384, no. 3539a):

There was a merchant who sold “prophet’s berries” with a lot of hype, saying that if you ate them, you would soon be prophesying. When the Jews heard about this, they were paying an extremely high price for them, and when they put them in their mouths, they were soon prophesying, “This is crap!”

Now back to the February 1539 remarks (WA TR 4:247–48, no. 4347):

Torgau beer was once the distinguished queen above all others. Now it has so degenerated that in Leipzig they call it “prophet’s beer,” since as soon as it hits your tongue, it tastes like kofent, just as the “prophet’s berries” that were sold to the Jews in Frankfurt betrayed that they were crap once they were on the tongue; they were unpleasant in appearance and smelled nice. There’s a nice play on words there—prophet’s berries and prophet’s beer. The peasants now desire and go after the kind of beer that is thinned out and roasted [macerata et assata], dried and roasted [gederret und gebrathen], has a bright, thick, red color, and is pitched. This is what the peasants call a lovely beer.

Gederret und gebrathen” might simply be Lauterbach rewriting in German what he had already recorded in Latin, “macerata et assata.” (Luther doubtless spoke German most of the time in his house, but recorders often recorded his words in Latin, since Latin was more conducive to taking notes.) On “pitched,” see my introductory remarks at the head of this post.

#26

Probably that same night (in February 1539), Luther was once again talking about Torgau (WA TR 4:248, no. 4349):

[Luther] was lamenting the debauchery of the city of Torgau, the fuel of whose corruption was the tavern. That general assembly of drinking completely corrupted the townspeople. “There people learn to be idle, gamble, gorge, and guzzle; whoring follows afterwards. What harm does it do if they would make even more taverns there—one for the councilmen, another for the townspeople, a third for the women, and a fourth for the servants, so that it would at least be broken up into classes? Then the employees of the court would also have a really nice assembly that is very lively! They themselves would prefer that there were one church in Torgau and five taverns. We definitely saw that during the first visitation, how unpleasant it ended up being for them to have to accommodate us in the tavern for so long. In summary, the world—she is going to the dregs. God help her!”

“The first visitation” to which Luther refers began at the end of April 1529. It was part of an effort to visit the churches in Electoral Saxony in order to learn what condition they were in and what sort of pastors they had. A note on the translation of this table talk: The original has the potential to be misunderstood, because Trinkstube, “tavern,” is a feminine word, and Luther often uses the form Trinkstuben here, which is a plural form in modern German. (Feminine singular and all plural nominatives and accusatives use the same form of the definite article, die.) So the reader must note that Stube used to have a weak declension, that is, all forms except the nominative singular ended in -n. In other words, there was only one tavern in Torgau where everyone from all classes met, and Luther wishes, if the debauchery can’t be stopped, that it would at least be moderated by the existence of additional taverns, which would each be intended for specific classes.

#27

Between May 16 to 18, 1539, Lauterbach recorded Luther comparing German drunkenness to Turkish temperance (WA TR 4:401, no. 4607):

Then he was talking about the sobriety and temperance of the Muslim Turks, who lived in moderation and had a drink brewed from herbs and honey, like our mead, which they call maslach, which has three forms. [Alternate translation: maslach, that is, “threefold.”] One form of it, the strongest, they drank when they were about to go to war. The second form was for daily use, and the third form was for sex—their version of Torgau beer.

According to the second edition of Robley Dunglison’s Medical Lexion: A New Dictionary of Medical Science (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1839), 379.2, maslach was a medicinal excitant, “much used by the Turks,” which contained opium. But I have no idea if this is the same product to which Luther is referring. 

#28

Luther also compared the Germans to the Muslim Turks in his famous sermon on 1 Peter 4:7–11 on Exaudi (Easter 7), May 18 (WA 47:763, 764–65, 766). There are a couple quotes from this sermon excerpt that could be printed or engraved on beer mugs and tankards and viewed as encouraging the enjoyment of a good drink, but as you can see, such quotes would be ironically used, considering the larger context of the sermon.

Eating and drinking are not forbidden, but every kind of food is permitted, and you are allowed to have a modest drink for pleasure. But if you wish to go beyond that and be a sow, as if you were born to gulp down beer and wine, then you should know that you are not going to be saved. It’s no wonder that everyone is a beggar! How much money people could save if they didn’t spend it on drink! … Do not think that you are going to be saved if you are a drunken sow day and night. Everyone should know that drunkenness is such a great sin that it is a hindrance to your baptism, faith, and eternal salvation. … If you are weary and dejected, have a drink. But do not think that you are a Christian if you wish to be a sow and do nothing but gorge and guzzle.

#29

After 1529, the children of one of Luther’s sisters, who had married Klaus Polner, lived with him. One of those children was Hans Polner, who was not only mentally slow, but was also given to drink. In the late spring of 1540, Johannes Mathesius recorded this confrontation between Luther and his nephew (WA TR 4:636, no. 5050):

The doctor was remonstrating with his drunken nephew [Hans] Polner: “On account of you and your friends,” he says, “I have a bad reputation among outsiders. For my adversaries scrutinize everything, and when I let out a fart, they smell it in Rome. What if you should ever injure someone? Don’t you stop to think about what a mark you could brand on me, on this house, on this city, on the church, and on the gospel of God? The other drunks are cheerful and pleasant, like my father. They sing and crack jokes. But you are turned completely into a rage. People like that should abstain from wine as if it were poison, and wine is an instant poison to natures of that sort. Cheerful people can drink a larger amount of wine now and then.”

Apparently at a later date, he referred to his nephew’s “feeble head” and said: “His father was as drunk as a sow when he made Polner. A shameful thing! Drunken people should sleep and leave their wives undisturbed, as even Plato writes that men should not marry and bring a wife home unless they are sober” (WA TR 5:332, no. 5725).

#30

Luther’s friend and colleague Philipp Melanchthon traveled to a colloquy in Hagenau after Philip of Hesse’s bigamy became known and was causing a scandal for the Lutherans. The sensitive Melanchthon was so troubled by the scandal that by the time he reached Weimar he had already become so sick that he could not continue the trip. He contracted a bad fever and was bedridden. Luther personally went to see him and arrived in Weimar on June 23, 1540. He found Melanchthon deathly ill, unrecognizable, and unable to hear or speak. Luther later said that Melanchthon’s eyes had already dimmed like a dead person’s. Luther prayed some of his most intense prayers and Melanchthon recovered. In good spirits, Luther wrote home to his wife on July 2, 1540 (WA Br 9:168, no. 3509):

I submissively tender to You and Your Grace the notice that things are going well for me here. I am gorging like a Bohemian and guzzling like a German—God be thanked for this. Amen.

Luther wrote something similar in another letter to his wife on July 16, this time from Eisenach, but in a more qualified and reserved way (WA Br 9:174, no. 3512):

Your grace should know that—God be praised—we are spry and healthy, gorging like the Bohemians (though not excessively), guzzling like the Germans (though not much). But we are happy, for our gracious lord from Magdeburg, Bishop [Nikolaus von] Amsdorf, is our table companion.

#31

On July 26, Luther wrote his wife again from Eisenach (WA Br 9:205, no. 3519):

We would be happy if Your Grace would arrange for us to find a good drink of beer at your place. For, God willing, we will head out for Wittenberg Tuesday morning.

#32

In the summer 1540, Luther composed a number of (spontaneous?) verses, including this set (WA TR 5:108, no. 5375r):

Trinck und iß, / Gott nicht vergiß.
Bewar dein ehr / Dir wirt nicht mehr
Von deiner hab / Den ein tuch zum grab.

Modern version:
Trink’ und iß, / Gott nicht vergiß.
Bewahr’ dein’ Ehr’ / Dir wird nicht mehr
Von deiner Hab’ / Denn ein Tuch zum Grab’.

Drink and dine / with God in mind.
Guard honor, for / there’s nothing more
you’ll have of worth / save a shroud ’neath earth.

#33

People were paid in beer back in Luther’s day too. On April 25, 1541, Luther penned a letter to Elector Johann Friedrich, in which he asked the elector for some recompense for Georg Kleinschmidt, a physician in Wittenberg.

I myself have still never given [Doctor Kleinschmidt] anything for many services, except a drink of beer.

Luther actually refers to him as Doctor Cubito, his frequent misspelling of Kleinschmidt’s alias, Curio.

#34

In lecturing on Genesis 41:45 in 1544 (WA 44:446):

The Germans have a proverb: “The beer tastes like the barrel. If the mother is a whore, the daughter is not pious either.”

#35

Luther’s sermon on June 14, 1545, made such an impression on Anton Lauterbach that he wrote about it later. Even though Georg Rörer’s transcript of that sermon doesn’t include this precise example, Lauterbach recalled that Luther cited offering kofent as actual beer as an example of theft or stealing (WA TR 5:646, no. 6406; cp. WA 49:790, 791). I suppose if you wanted to paraphrase this Luther quote and turn it into a dynamic equivalent for a drinkware (or even a T-shirt) printing or engraving, you could use:

Selling light beer as beer is theft.

#36

In his final visit to Eisleben toward the end of January and into February, 1546, Luther was attempting to resolve a dispute between counts. On February 1, 1546, he wrote home to his wife (WA Br 11:276, no. 4195):

I am drinking Naumburg beer that nearly tastes like the beer from Mansfeld that you recommended to me once. It suits me well, and in the morning it gives me about three bowel movements in three hours.

#37

On February 7, eleven days before his death, Luther wrote home to his wife again (WA Br 11:287):

We are living well here and the council gives me a half-gallon [halbstubigen] of Rebula [Reinfal] at each meal, which is very good. Sometimes I share it with my companions. The local wine here is likewise good, and the Naumburg beer is very good, except that I think that it causes congestion in my chest with its pitch. The devil has ruined the beer in the whole world for us with pitch, and by you he has ruined the wine with sulfur. But here the wine is pure, except what the local method [or the nature of the land] gives to it.

Reinfal was highly valued sweet wine from the Istrian peninsula and is today known as Ribolla Gialla in Italy and Rebula in Slovenia, though it is now principally a dry wine. Stubigen is not a form of Stübich (which was a shipping barrel roughly equivalent to a ton [see #10]), but an old form of its diminutive, Stübchen. According to the Grimm Brothers’ Deutsches Wörterbuch, a Stübchen was “at the most four quarts” or a gallon. Even though Luther was sometimes sharing it, he was still drinking relatively heavily if he was drinking a good portion of a half-gallon of wine (two and half bottles in today’s terms) at every meal and some Naumburg beer besides. But one must also remember that Luther was not doing well at the time, and he and his companions probably viewed his drinking as also serving medicinal purposes. See my comments in the introduction at the head of this post.

Dealing with Demons

In the same vein as my last post, I found the following section from Joannes Aurifaber’s (1519–1575) original edition of Martin Luther’s Table Talk interesting and instructive. Since Aurifaber dates this table talk and was with Luther in Eisleben when he related it, it is one of the more reliable accounts from his collection. (I have double-checked the German spellings in brackets, and they are all original, even though they are sometimes inconsistent and incorrect by modern standards.)

Poltergeists Harassing Dr. Luther at the Wartburg

Lutherstube (1907) 2

The Martin Luther Room at the Wartburg in the early 20th century, printed in Carl Alexander, Die Wartburg (Berlin, 1907). Note the whale vertebra footstool on the floor by the chair—the only item in the room that was in the castle’s possession at Luther’s time. The bed-frame, which is not original and not present in the Luther Room today, is probably approximately where Luther’s bed was during his stay, though there was apparently a wall at the time separating that part of the room from the rest of the room. (The furnace was apparently located back then about where the desk is in the picture.) Note also the damage to the wall where there was once a blue ink spot—damage caused by the unverified legend of Luther throwing ink at the devil (or, as the “Wartburg” entry in Zedler’s 1747 Universal-Lexicon has it, the devil throwing ink at him).

In the year 1546, when Dr. Luther was in Eisleben, he related the following stories about how the devil had harassed him at Wartburg. He said, “When I departed from Worms in the year 1521 and was captured near Eisenach and was sitting in Patmos1 at the Wartburg Castle, I was isolated from people in a room [Stuben], and no one could come to me except two pages, who brought me food and drink twice a day. Now they had bought me a sack with hazelnuts, which I would eat from time to time, and I had locked them up in a chest. When I was going to bed one night, I got undressed in the room [Stuben], put out the light, and went into the bedroom [Kamer] and lay down in bed.2 I pass over the hazelnuts in the process, and it starts up and one nut after the other goes whizzing against the rafters really hard and knocks against my bed. But I didn’t do any investigating.

“Now when I had fallen asleep for a little bit, such a racket starts on the stairs, as if someone were throwing a bunch of barrels down the stairs. Even though I knew very well that the stairs were well secured with chains and irons so that no one could come up, so many barrels were falling down that I get up and go to the stairs to see what it was. The stairs were closed there. Then I said, ‘If it’s you, so be it,’ and I entrusted myself to the Lord Christ, about whom it stands written, ‘You have placed all things under his feet,’ as Psalm 8 says, and I went back to bed.

“Now Hans von Berlepsch’s3 wife came to Eisenach and had sniffed out that I was in the castle. She really wanted to see me, but that wasn’t possible. Then they brought me to a different room [Gemach] and put Mrs. von Berlepsch up in my room [kammer]. Throughout that night there was such a commotion in her room that she thought there were a thousand demons in it.

“But the best trick for driving him away is when a person calls upon Christ and despises the devil; he can’t stand that. You have to say to him, ‘If you are a lord over Christ, then go ahead!’ For that’s exactly what I would say in Eisenach.”

Source

Joannes Aurifaber, ed., Tischreden Oder Colloquia Doct. Mart: Luthers (Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1566), fols. 289 verso—290 recto.

Endnotes

1 Since Luther was not imprisoned at the Wartburg and not bound to the rules of any order there, and yet was confined at the castle itself (and always had to be accompanied if he left), he called the castle and his room there Patmos, after the island where the apostle John had been exiled (Revelation 1:9).

2 This sentence has historical value for understanding the layout of Luther’s room at the time. There is a Kämmerchen or closet-sized room that adjoins the Luther Room today at the southwest corner, but this does not seem to have been large enough to serve as a bedroom. Plus, see Schwiebert’s discussion of this problem in Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), pp. 515–17. An 1817 floor plan printed there shows that there was once a narrow chamber running all along the north side of the room (the right side as you enter). The plan also shows that the furnace used to be more in the center of the room than it is today. The staircase leading down to the bailiff’s residence was to the right (south) immediately after exiting the room.

3 Hans von Berlepsch was the castellan or bailiff of the Wartburg for the duration of Luther’s stay. He was one of the knights who took Luther captive, but he treated Luther well during his confinement at the castle. His residence was directly beneath Luther’s room.