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.”

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 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.

The Evangelical Lutheran Salzburgers

By Christian Friedrich David Erdmann

Translator’s Preface

I do not know how any historical development and events such as those described in the article below can create such a sensation in their time, yet fly so low under the popular radar in the present, even within the confines of the Christian church. I pray the triune God that this translation helps to put this significant historical blip back on the screen, and that souls redeemed by Christ’s blood thereby also derive the rich spiritual benefits that familiarity with these events is sure to breed.

I translated David Erdmann’s article below from the Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1884), vol. 13, pp. 323-335. The endnotes are mine.

Erdmann did a lot of reading and was clearly passionate about the subject, but his article does have several weaknesses:

  1. As with many scholarly writers of the time, Erdmann, wittingly or not, writes not just to communicate information but also to show off his scholarship and linguistic mastery. Even with my efforts to untangle and simplify his sentences, an extra measure of concentration is likely required in order to read with comprehension.
  2. Here and there Erdmann did not carefully reproduce what he read. Some corrections I have made in the text; others I have relegated to the endnotes. Where I was unsure of Erdmann’s information (as, e.g., with the name of Archbishop Paris Hadrian, which most online sources give as Paris Count von Lodron), I left his material alone without comment.
  3. In the first part of his article he sets off important names with increased spacing (equivalent to italics today, including in this translation). But as the article continues, the practice falls off. I attempted to make the practice more uniform throughout.
  4. He mentions nothing of the few hundred Salzburg emigrants who sailed overseas and founded two different settlements named Ebenezer in Georgia, U.S.A. – the first along Ebenezer Creek in 1734 and the second along the Savannah River in 1736, after the first site failed.
  5. Erdmann has a palpable Protestant bias. True, it is not wrong to write with bias. Contrary to the opinion of many historians, there is such a thing as a correct historical bias, and strenuous attempts to write completely unbiased history will inevitably result in completely uninteresting and unreadable history. However, the bias ceases to be helpful when it affects one’s presentation of the facts and casts doubt on the veracity of the material. Erdmann’s strong bias calls the factuality of several of his anecdotes into question, especially toward the end.

In reading this article, it will help the reader, first of all, to familiarize him- or herself with the geography of the Archbishopric of Salzburg (today western Austria) – which purpose I hope the map inserted below will serve. The Salzach River (somewhat redundant, since Ach comes from the Latin aqua meaning water) with its many mountain tributaries was more or less the backbone of the territory.

Secondly, it will help to orient oneself southward instead of northward when thinking of the territory geographically. Since Salzburg, the capital city of the archbishopric, was in the northern part of the country, with the Salzach flowing down toward the city from the Central Alps in the south and southwest, this is also the way the Salzburg mind and the mind of the German foreigners to the north oriented themselves. “Going up” in the archbishopric generally meant going down on a map, and vice versa. As Mack Walker points out in The Salzburg Transaction, this separation, distance-wise and geographical formation-wise, was certainly one of the chief contributors to the failure in communication, or in helpful communication, between prince-archbishop and subjects. It also doubtless contributed to the surprise and sensation when the subjects were expelled, as hundreds and thousands of people, hitherto both out of sight and out of mind, came pouring down out of the mountains to give the Western world a religious wakeup call.

Soli Deo Trinitati Sanctissimae gloria:

Johann Baptist Homann, The Principality and Archbishopric of Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire (Nuremberg, 1716). I have superimposed symbols representing places mentioned in this article. Key: PROVINCES (sym. white dotted ovals): Salzburggau (T), then (L to R) Pinzgau, Pongau, Lungau. VALLEYS (sym. green mountain, L to R): Tux(er), Ziller (mentioned in “Sources and Literature” at the end), Krimmler Achen, Defereggen, Fusch, Gastein. DISTRICT SEATS (sym. black courthouse, T to B): Mühldorf, Werfen, St. Johann, Radstadt, Wagrain, Gastein, Windisch-Matrei. OTHER CITIES or market towns (sym. orange city silhouette, L to R): Mittersill, Altötting, Schellenberg, Dürrnberg, Schwarzach, Schladming in Styria. The SALZACH River is represented by the two blue symbols, and the city of SALZBURG with its Fortress Hohensalzburg by the castle. Note that clicking on the image will take you to a higher definition close-up where the symbols are not included.

The Evangelical Salzburgers

Salzburgers, the Evangelical. Fairly early in the beginning of the Reformation period, the bright light of the gospel had already broken into the marvelously beautiful and majestic Alpine region of the Archbishopric of Salzburg with its four chief divisions. From the time of Charlemagne these divisions bore the names Salzburggau, Pinzgau, Pongau, and Lungau.1 The good news that people are saved only by the grace of God in Jesus Christ had especially found a glad reception among the down-to-earth, honest people living in the gorgeous Salzach Valley and the numerous adjoining valleys to the south, particularly the Krimmler Achen,2 Fusch, and Gastein Valleys, from the archiepiscopal seat of Salzburg right up to the vast, rocky wall of the High Tauern Mountains with their snow-capped peaks and far-flung glaciers. This populace was made up of tillers of the soil, shepherds, foundry workers, miners, and merchants. We know that early Hussite teachings had already infiltrated these valleys and were welcomed with full approval by their spiritually active inhabitants, who were dissatisfied with the church’s superficiality. As proof of the wide dissemination of these teachings, Archbishop Eberhard III already felt compelled in 1420 to issue a stern decree in order to suppress the “Hussite heresy” that had infiltrated his archbishopric. Both through the early reformatory writings of Luther and through Saxon miners who had sought and found work in the renowned ore and rock salt mines and in the marble quarries, the first news of the dawning of the new day made its way into these mountain valleys. There the seed of the pure word of God found fertile soil in minds that were open and receptive to the truth.

Albrecht Altdorfer (?), Archbishop Cardinal Matthäus Lang von Wellenburg, oil on vellum on mahogany wood, 1529.

The Archbishop of Salzburg, Matthäus Lang, son of a respected citizen of Augsburg, had formerly been elected chancellor by Emperor Maximilian I on account of his diplomatic abilities and the diplomatic services he had rendered to the emperor, and as such had then been elected as provost of the Cathedral of Augsburg under imperial influences, before being promoted to archbishop and cardinal. At first the archbishop did not adopt a hostile attitude against the reformatory movements proceeding from Wittenberg; indeed, he did not have much interest in religion. He was a jovial man of the world, who at times would even condescend to a little dancing and was not exactly particular about the laws of Christian morality. He could certainly also make an appearance as a man-at-arms, as he did in 1523, when he personally came riding into his archiepiscopal seat on horseback, decked out in shining armor and a military tunic with vibrantly accented slits, at the head of several companies of trained soldiers, in order to suppress an uprising among the people that was occasioned by an overly harsh tax burden and was threatening to do him personal harm. But at first he sided with the humanistic party, for whom Luther’s emergence in opposition to indulgences and ecclesiastical abuses was not unwelcome, and who nevertheless were far removed from the deep religious roots from which the inauguration of Luther’s reformation was proceeding. Already in 1513 Lang had taken the side of the humanists over against the Dominicans in Cologne who had launched a crusade of extermination against Johann Reuchlin and Hebrew literature. Paolo Sarpi aptly characterizes Lang’s early religious stance when he says in Book 1 of his Tridentine history that the archbishop considered a reformation of the mass to be fitting, the ecclesiastical laws about fasting to be unnatural, and the liberation of Christians from the yoke of human regulations in general to be right and reasonable, but he simply could not get past the fact that “a miserable monk” was undertaking the reform; that was insufferable to him.3

Frantz Dückher, Saltzburg, copperplate engraving, 1666. The city is viewed from the north with Capuchin Mountain in the foreground on the left, the Salzach River dividing the city, and Fortress Hohensalzburg, the symbol of the archbishop’s power, on the hill in the background overlooking the city. The Benedictine Abbey at St. Peter is represented by the two lower steeples to the immediate right of the taller twin steeples of the Salzburg Cathedral. The tallest single steeple, to the right of the abbey, belongs to the Franciscan Church.

Toward this “miserable monk” the haughty archbishop, who was skilled in all the diplomatic arts of both the political and ecclesiastical spheres, at first did not adopt an unkind attitude. He allowed Luther’s writings access to his territory. Luther himself still had enough of a favorable opinion of him in 1519 that, after his negotiations with Karl von Miltitz, he repeatedly names the Archbishop of Salzburg as one of the bishops to whom he would like to surrender his case for an arbitrational verdict (de Wette, Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, nos. 108, 112, 115).4 That same year Lang called Johann von Staupitz to be his court chaplain, the man who had shone the first gospel ray into Luther’s soul through his spoken consolation and had defended and strengthened Luther in Augsburg in 1518 over against Cardinal Cajetan. Staupitz subsequently resigned his post as vicar general of the Augustinian Order, and a few years later Lang even prompted him to leave this order and join the Benedictine Order and become the abbot of the Benedictine Abbey at St. Peter in Salzburg (1522). Lang took Paul Speratus into his personal service by calling him to be the cathedral preacher at the archiepiscopal cathedral. Speratus had met with hostility as the chapter preacher in Würzburg on account of his undaunted, vigorous proclamation of the evangelical truth, and had been banished from there as a result. And in Salzburg Speratus proclaimed the gospel with the same outspokenness and the same results. Urbanus Rhegius of Langenargen on Lake Constance, who had been given an excellent humanistic education, was banished from Augsburg and preached “the unknown path of true repentance” in Hall and Innsbruck and, as a roving fugitive, carried the torch of the pure gospel through the Etsch and Inn Valleys to the Tux(er) and Defereggen Valleys belonging to the Archbishopric of Salzburg. The superstitious devilry in Altötting, which was promoted with a miracle-working image of Mary for the purpose of profiteering from pilgrimages to that Bavarian town in the Salzburg diocese, compelled Wolfgang Russ, originally from Ulm, to testify to the evangelical truth there. Johann Staupitz was not a man of bold action. He never decisively stepped forward to confess and testify to his deeper life of faith in God’s grace as the only source of salvation, even though Luther had been permitted to draw the comfort of divine grace so deeply and fully from that life of faith when his own life of faith was just beginning, as Luther repeatedly acknowledges in gratitude towards his spiritual father.

The thoroughly worldly minded archbishop soon confronted the testimony of the evangelical truth as an adversary, after Rome directly granted his wishes for the unconditional right of patronage for certain bishoprics annexed to his diocese. He succeeded in loosening the inner bond between Staupitz and Luther, the bond of faith and evangelical disposition that Staupitz knew had earlier connected himself to the reformer. Lang was so successful that Luther repeatedly and bitterly complains about this estrangement by Staupitz from his person and his cause. Staupitz was a peace-loving man, bottling up his evangelical faith, and Lang knew how to bring his activity to a standstill, as far as any observable spreading of the gospel was concerned. At the behest of a higher authority, Lang even asked him, since he had been accused of heresy because of his connections to Luther, for a formal declaration against Luther’s heresy. Staupitz could not and would not provide one directly, but in a sense it was still produced in reality by his submission to the judgment of the archbishop. Luther wrote to him about this in bitter grief: “I fear that you are hovering in the middle between the pope and Christ… [Y]our submission shows me a completely different Staupitz from the proclaimer of grace and the cross I once knew” (de Wette, no. 292).5 In the quiet of the abbey Staupitz most likely continued to share Luther’s writings with his monks. Other than that, he did not come out publicly with reformatory thoughts, words, or deeds in any way, while the archbishop was coming out more and more viciously against the evangelical movings and shakings by persecuting the preachers of the gospel. In reference to this, Luther writes to Staupitz: “It doesn’t pain me and your best friends that you have become a stranger to us, so much as it does that you have become the property of that monster, your cardinal. The world can scarcely endure his tyrannical raging, but now you are forced to endure it in silence. It will be a miracle if you do not run the risk of denying Christ” (September 17, 1523; de Wette, no. 530).6 When Staupitz died (1524), St. Peter’s Abbey recovered no small number of writings by Luther and other reformers. These were collected from his estate and burned in the abbey courtyard.

The archbishop saw the powerful influence that the zealous preachers were exerting on the people and now began launching vehement persecutions against them. Already in 1520 Paul Speratus had to yield to his vicious proceedings, and Speratus found no support in Johann Staupitz. In the dedication of his work On the Noble Vow of Baptism and Others, addressed to the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg, and dated September 16, 1524, Speratus says the following about the occasion of his departure: “That fierce behemoth and wide-eyed leviathan, who sits there in his nest as if in a paradise, could no longer tolerate or endure me, but tried whatever he knew and could until he finally bit me off of himself. What I mean is that I was crying too loudly in his ears against his unrighteous mammon, which is his only god and helper in need. …” Another undaunted witness to the gospel was born in the archbishop’s immediate environs and became his court chaplain and father confessor in Staupitz’s place, namely Stephan Kastenbauer, or Latinized, Agricola. Having come to the evangelical persuasion through Luther’s writings, he preached against the abuses of the Roman Church. For that he was thrown into the dungeon in Mühldorf on the Inn River. When he remained unwavering in his confession, a devilish plan was hatched. He was supposed to be transferred to a tower filled with gunpowder along the Salzburg city wall and be blown into the air with it once he was inside, since they wanted to give the people the impression that fire had fallen from heaven on the heretic. But the slow match was thrown in prematurely and the explosion went off too soon, while Agricola was still on the way to the tower. The hired murderer was unnerved and confessed the foul plan to the people. After a three-year custody Agricola was released and went to be an evangelical preacher in Augsburg.

Around the same time another preacher of the gospel made his appearance in Salzburg, Matthäus the priest. On account of his Lutheran heresy he was to be led to Mittersill to be thrown in the dungeon for lifetime imprisonment there. While the officers escorting him were carousing in an inn in Schellenberg (today Marktschellenberg), he was set free by two peasant youths. The archbishop had these young men imprisoned in the main stronghold of Fortress Hohensalzburg and then early one morning led down through the vineyard into the meadow of the abbot of St. Peter in the Nonntal, where they were secretly beheaded. When the executioner was hesitating because the condemned prisoners had not been legally convicted, the archbishop’s official said, “Do as I tell you; let the prince and the authorities answer for it” (Zauner, Chronik von Salzburg 4:380-382).7

Frantz Drückher, Radtstatt, copperplate engraving, 1666.

In Radstadt, the chief stronghold of the archbishopric, a former Franciscan monk, Georg Schärer (or Scherer), had proclaimed the gospel since 1525 with the happy approval of the residents and those who poured in from the surrounding neighborhood to listen to him. He was asked to recant. When he remained steadfast, he was beheaded on April 13, 1528. He was the first martyr for the gospel.8 Certainly, for a number of successive years beginning in 1525, some thirty more persons of both sexes were executed by methods of torment that were slow and terrible. But these people were not confessors of Luther’s doctrine, but Anabaptists (s. Veesenmeyer in C. F. Illgen, ed., Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 2/2:243ff), people who got so lost in fanaticism that they ended up rejecting the basic truths of the gospel. These Anabaptists called themselves Gardening Brothers, because they rejected all traditional worship in temples of stone made by human hands and held their religious assemblies in gardens out in the open. Against better knowledge, the enemies of the gospel put not only these religio-ethical aberrations, as they developed among those poor people whose religious needs had been shamefully neglected on the part of the church, but also the rebellious activities of the Peasants’ Revolt, which extended to Salzburg, on the same plane as the evangelical-reformatory movement, so that they could brand the latter as a revolt against the authorities and a rebellion against the ecclesiastical and civil estates and could persecute it violently. The archbishop himself was threatened by the miners, when they rallied at the churches of Salzburg at the call of the alarm bell to demand relief from their oppressive circumstances. They triumphantly surged up to the archiepiscopal Fortress Hohensalzburg and expertly besieged it, until they were forced to bow to the might of the Swabian League. They did so, yet not without first obtaining very generous terms for the suspension of their siege. Thus the archbishop was filled with ever-increasing hostility and hatred toward the relentlessly advancing reformatory movement. He sought at first to eliminate its heads and leaders who lived in his diocese (Sprengel) using harsh and violent measures. But he also instigated or tolerated persecutions against all those among the common people who adhered to the message of the gospel, received the Sacrament in both kinds, and raised their voices against the ecclesiastical abuses that he himself had once condemned over against Rome. In connection with this ruthlessly hostile attitude of his toward the evangelical movement in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, it is worth mentioning the remark he made in 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg. He said, “Why would you even try to reform us priests? We priests have never been good. In this affair there are only four possibilities: the first, that we follow you Lutherans—that we don’t want to do; the second, that you Lutherans yield to us—that you say you cannot do; the third, that we reconcile the two paths—that is impossible; which leaves then only the fourth, that each party think of how to do away with the other one.” So fight to the death! That was the watchword.

The title page from Paul Speratus’ 1524 German translation of Martin Luther’s 1523 work De instituendis ministris Ecclesiae (left), and the first page of Speratus’ accompanying dedication “to each and every pious Christian in Salzburg and Würzburg” (right).

Speratus, who continued to keep in contact with the evangelicals in Salzburg territory from afar, is no doubt alluding to their dangerous situation in the letter he wrote to accompany Luther’s writing How People Should Choose and Arrange for Ministers of the Church,9 which Speratus translated and dedicated to them. In his letter to them he speaks of the Antichrist’s pester-police and jailers, who were sitting on their necks and by whom no one needed to be disturbed. But it also testifies to the extensive reach that the reformatory movement had already gained among the people when he advises them to procure the necessary edification from God’s word in their spiritual need on their own by combining like-minded families, yes, even to have their children baptized by the head of the household.

In spite of all the oppressions and persecutions that extended to all the evangelicals in the Salzburg valleys under the successors of Matthäus Lang, the evangelical movement continued its advance, to the dismay of those in power in the church. And it did so precisely through adherance to Paul Speratus’ advice, who had encouraged the evangelicals to put the universal priesthood of believers into practice by appealing to the most holy concerns of the salvation of souls and Christian fellowship. In vain were the evangelical preachers banished; in vain were the administrators of the evangelical fellowships that organized according to Speratus’ directive expelled; in vain were visitations orchestrated, e.g. in 1555, in order to track down and punish the heretics. There were cases where clergymen would exchange their celibacy for marriage, but then such a step would be punished by the church authorities as gross immorality, even as blatant concubinage among the clergy continued to be tolerated. The demands of the people for the cup in the Lord’s Supper grew louder and louder, and Archbishop Johann Jacob let himself be coerced into permitting the cup also to the laity. But a short time later, in 1571, he likewise saw himself forced by higher powers to forbid the giving and receiving of the cup again, on pain of banishment and dishonorable burial. For Rome was keeping a sharp eye on this revolution—a term people also liked to use here for the reformatory movement.

Kasper Memberger the Elder, Archbishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau (r. 1587-1612), painting, 1589. The archbishop is perhaps best known today for the beautiful mistress he kept, Salome Alt, with whom he fathered 15 children.

It had gained so much ground in Salzburg territory that Archbishop Wolf Dietrich felt compelled by this concern to travel to Rome to obtain instructions there. After returning, he issued a “Reformation Mandate” on September 3, 1588, which commanded all the residents of the city of Salzburg who were “antagonistic to the only saving religion” either to return to the Catholic faith or to leave the country within a month. They were, however, still permitted at this point to sell their real estate and to convert their property into money before their departure. He was able to take the loss of many wealthy people in stride by saying, “Better to have a country pure in faith than one with great treasures.” But when almost all of the wealthy and well-to-do people preferred to emigrate rather than return to the Catholic Church, a second mandate was issued which declared their goods to be confiscated.

The result of this was that not a few of the most well-to-do residents emigrated to Austrian lands and the imperial free cities in Franconia and Swabia, while others held fast to Luther’s doctrine even as they maintained outward membership in the Roman Church, while certainly still others let themselves be alienated from the evangelical faith and did public penance in the Salzburg Cathedral with candle in hand and returned to the Roman Church. Under the succeeding archbishop, Markus Sittich, this so-called Reformation Mandate, which had in part only applied to the city of Salzburg, was expanded from 1613 to 1615 to include all of Salzburg territory, since the number of those confessing the evangelical faith had steadily escalated everywhere. Throughout the Pongau people would leave the Catholic churches standing empty and make the trip over to Schladming in Styria to take part in the Lutheran service there and to receive Word and Sacrament in the Lutheran manner. Luther’s writings and the devotional and instructive writings of other theologians, such as Urbanus Rhegius and Cyriacus Spangenberg, were being devoured by individuals everywhere. They were also eagerly read in the frequent gatherings for edification which the evangelicals joined both in certain chief locations where they were already in the majority and in secret sites on secluded farms or in deep mountain valleys. The more spiritual needs were met in such reading- and prayer-gatherings, the less people were inclined to take part in Catholic services, to receive the Supper in one kind, to have masses read for the dead, and to invoke the saints. Yes, in Radstadt those in the evangelical camp were so convinced of the justice of their new religious conviction that they even tried, by way of the prefect there, to petition the archbishop himself to give them preachers of the pure gospel.

The archbishop did not fail to take increasingly drastic countermeasures to suppress the evangelical movement. He dispatched Capuchin monks to bring the renegades back to the church. In Radstadt two monks took especially great pains to do so. But to no avail. People ridiculed them “as rotten, stale fish.” Neither there, nor in Wagrain, nor in the districts of Werfen, St. Johann, and Gastein did the archiepiscopal emissaries accomplish anything with their incentives and threats. Then more stringent decrees were issued: Those who were evangelically minded had to return to the old faith within four weeks or fourteen days,10 or else be banished from the country and forfeit their goods. At the same time a search for and confiscation of evangelical books was ordered, as well as incarceration for those disseminating them. Finally, soldiers were sent to the places inhabited mostly by evangelicals in order to root out the heresy completely. Through protracted, costly billeting and perpetration of all sorts of atrocities against the evangelicals, not a few of them, being not yet sufficiently anchored in the faith for a public martyrdom, were forced into a visible return to the Roman Church, even as they secretly retained their anti-Roman views. But a considerable number also went into exile and forfeited property and possessions in order not to deny the faith. Approximately 600 evangelically minded people left Radstadt and the surrounding area and went over into Austrian territory and to Moravia, where a milder treatment of evangelicals was observed at that time. Of the approximately 2500 persons in the valleys and mountains of Gastein, there were perhaps only 300 who let themselves be intimidated into declaring that they would live and die on the Roman Catholic faith. The archbishop believed that the heresy had been entirely rooted out, and proclaimed a special festival of thanksgiving and celebration.

But the outward appearance had deceived him. The public gatherings for edification certainly ceased. Spies and policemen made it impossible for the evangelical preachers to go around from valley to valley. But many who outwardly associated with the Catholic Church out of fear and compulsion fed their souls in private and in secrecy between their four walls by reading Holy Scripture and the magnificent devotional writings of the evangelical church, which they had kept hidden and saved from confiscation, together with Bible and hymnal, in the ground, under the floorboards, in cellars, in lofts under hay and straw, or in concealed cabinets. Children were secretly instructed in the faith of their fathers. After those persecutions were over, the evangelical truth once again quietly began to spread out still further within Salzburg territory.

Joannes Jenet, Archbishop Paris von Lodron, copperplate engraving, 1627.

That especially took place under the mild governance of Archbishop Paris Hadrian, during his long and peaceful rule (1619-1653). The horrors of the Thirty Years’ War did not affect Salzburg territory. Behind the protective wall of its mountains, the gospel quietly spread out further, as the population enjoyed a long religious and civic peace and an undisturbed well-being. And the Peace of Westphalia worked to the evangelicals’ advantage: While the territorial prince was granted the authority to expel subjects of a dissenting faith from his province, any atrocity on his part was prevented by the stipulation that those expelled were to be permitted three years’ time to get their affairs in order and sell their real estate (Article V, Sections 34-37).11 At the Diet of Regensburg in 1653, the ambassadors of the Protestant estates established an agency, known as the Corpus Evangelicorum, whose responsibility, among other things, was to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Peace.12

Title page of the 1595 Nuremberg edition of Habermann’s popular prayer booklet

But in spite of all this, these rights were trampled underfoot in Salzburg territory under Archbishop Maximilian Gandolf. In 1683 a congregation of secret Lutherans, consisting of simple miners and farmers, was discovered by Jesuit spies in the Defereggen Valley, located on the southern border of the archbishopric along the border of the Tyrol, encircled and secluded by high mountains. In spite of all the earlier tracking down and persecuting of heretics under Archbishop Markus Sittich, this congregation had preserved and anchored themselves in their evangelical faith through covert gatherings for edification and by secretly reading the Bible, the postils of Luther and Spangenberg, and other devotional writings, especially Urbanus Rhegius’ Spiritual Medicine13 and Johann Arndt’s True Christianity14 and Little Garden of Paradise,15 and by singing and praying from Starck’s and Habermann’s prayerbooks,16 while outwardly following the forms and customs of the Catholic Church. The violent measures taken against them, the fervent attempts at conversion by the Capuchin monks who were incited against them, and the judicial persecutions on the part of the prefect of the district of Windisch-Matrei had the opposite effect of what was intended. Under the guidance of one of their fellow members, Joseph Schaitberger from Dürrnberg by Hallein, a simple miner firmly grounded in the faith and truly enlightened by the Spirit of God, they now resolutely stepped out into the open with their profession of the pure gospel without flinching, and bravely and dauntlessly refused to participate in Catholic services, masses, or pilgrimages. The archbishop cunningly attempted to get them to be considered as a special sect, belonging neither to the Augsburg nor to the Reformed confession, so that the aforementioned stipulations of the Peace of Westphalia would not apply to them. But when their representatives, Joseph Schaitberger among them, were summoned to appear in Hallein and then in Salzburg, they did not let themselves be confused by the tricky questions that were posed to them.17 They openly and freely professed the doctrine of Luther and the Augsburg Confession. They were detained in prison for a long time, at the same time being harassed by the Capuchins with their threats and attempts to convert them. All efforts at persuading them to recant were in vain. Then they were released, but required by the archbishop to deliver him a written presentation of their faith. Joseph Schaitberger prepared this as clearly and thoroughly as it could possibly be; he was well versed in the Bible, deeply grounded in evangelical knowledge, and well-informed by Luther’s writings of the contrast between Roman and Lutheran doctrine. He delivered it to the archbishop with the request that they be left undisturbed in their worship and returned the children of whom they had been robbed. With this presentation the archbishop in his cunning had gotten what he wanted. In the simple, evangelical-biblical confession of the faith of these people, he had the proof of their heresy and their apostacy from the church in his hands in black and white. Now he felt justified in taking the cruelest measures. He deprived them of their mining income, forbade them from selling their family properties, had their Bibles and evangelical books taken away and burned, and tried to frighten them with heavy fines and penal labor. To no avail. The vast majority refused to be rattled in their religious allegiance or flinch in their profession of the Augsburg Confession. Only a small number of the weaker ones let themselves be induced into a sham retreat to the Catholic Church. Then the archbishop issued that cruel edict, driving those who refused to recant out of the country in the middle of the harsh winter of 1685 and forcing them to leave their children and their belongings behind. The poor mothers cried for their children in vain; nearly 600 children in total were held back. Married couples were torn apart; children and infants were taken away from their grieving fathers and mothers to be brought up in the Catholic faith. In troops of 50 to 60 people, the miserable outcasts marched over the snow-covered mountain passes, poverty-stricken, robbed of the most basic necessities, in severely cold weather, in order to find refuge in Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, and even further into Swabia and Franconia. According to the later testimony of Johann Martin Zandt, an ambassador from Württemberg, not including those who escaped secretly, 429 known persons emigrated with government passes from the Defereggen Valley alone, and there were 311 children and a fortune of 6000 Gulden withheld just from them, while the total number of emigrants amounted to more than 1000. Zandt obtained his information on this execrable treatment by the archbishop from the records of the high court in Salzburg in 1688, when by order of his duke he had to investigate the case of the expellees on location.

Portrait of Joseph Schaitberger, sketched by P. Decker ad vivum and printed by Martin Engelbrecht in 1732

Joseph Schaitberger, the spiritual father and leader of the Salzburg exiles, found asylum in Nuremberg, where, separated from his children, he eked out a living with his wife as a woodworker and wire-drawer. But he recognized and exercised his spiritual calling, to which he had been directed by God, by sending repeated, Spirit-anointed circulars to his fellow believers back in his homeland to strengthen and establish them in their faith and to refresh them in their sufferings with the comfort of the gospel. A page of core and vital church history was written by this simple miner through his spiritual and pastoral works; they cannot be read without deeply moving the heart and eliciting an emotion both poignant and joyful. He is the author of the gripping exile’s hymn, which has also been incorporated into evangelical hymnals. It reflects every aspect of the distress experienced by those witnesses to the faith and their rich, gospel-centered comfort in his simple, touching words. It reads in part: “I am an exile, sadly banned— | This my new designation— | From cherished home and fatherland— | God’s Word the sole causation. • Yet I, Lord Jesus, contemplate | Your like humiliation. | If I now you must emulate, | Fulfill your inclination. • With your will, Lord, I shall agree, | In patience persevering. | I shall subscribe to your decree | Willingly, without fearing. • Time now, in Jesus’ name, to leave; | All has from me been taken. | Yet I know one day I’ll receive | The glorious crown of heaven. • So step I from my house away | New, foreign streets to wander. | But Lord, my children! Forced to stay! | I sigh and sob to ponder. • If in this vale of tears I must | Live in prolonged privation, | In heaven God will give, I trust, | Far better habitation.”

Title page of the enlarged 1710 Schwabach edition of Schaitberger’s Evangelical Circular

He made repeated circular trips through the Salzburg valleys at great risk in order to strengthen in faith and in patience his oppressed fellow believers who had stayed behind. In vain he sought to recover his two daughters. The older one, already married by now, set out for Nuremberg to persuade her father to return to the Roman Church. But the opposite happened. In the process of her endeavor she herself was brought to the evangelical faith by her father, and from then on she stayed with him to help support him. For his fellow believers in the homeland he was and remained the blessed lay preacher and spiritual shepherd through his numerous circular letters, which he addressed to them concerning truths of the faith and questions pertaining to Christian living. They deal with, e.g., the narrow way of the cross on which pious children of God should follow after Christ, the spiritual Christian mirror, and the evangelical art of dying of the children of God. All of these circulars were printed together and comprise in this collection the famous Evangelical Circular (Evangelischer Send-Brief) by J. Schaitberger (1702).18 Next to Luther’s and Spangenberg’s postils and Johann Arndt’s True Christianity, it was the most treasured devotional book of the Salzburgers. The emigrants would later ask for it often as they were passing through Augsburg: “Hobts kain Schaitberger? [You don’t by chance carry a Schaitberger?]” Besides his exile’s hymn, two of his other hymns, “Du Spiegel aller Tugend [O mirror of all virtue]” and “Jesu meine Lieb’ und Leben [Jesus, my love and life],” were especially dear to the Salzburgers. He died in Nuremberg in 1733 at age 76, after the magistrate had removed all cares from his waning years by providing him with a place to live in the hospital of the Carthusian monastery.

Jacques Vaillant, Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, oil on canvas, c. 1680.

While an outcry of indignation over the cruel treatment of the Salzburg Protestants rang throughout evangelical Germany, Friedrich Wilhelm, “the Great Elector” of Brandenburg, was the first Protestant prince to espouse their cause against the archbishop and to reproach him for his grave injustice (February 12, 1685). But it had just as little effect as the repeated, earnest objections of the evangelical estates in Regensburg. One marvels at how warmly the elector welcomed sectarian and rebellious people in foreign countries.

The rule of that cruel persecutor’s successor, Archbishop Franz Anton, from 1709 to 1727 was a more peaceful period for the evangelical Salzburgers. During this period the evangelical religious life regained strength in the Salzburg valleys, effected by the reading of the best evangelical writings and Schaitberger’s circulars, which made the rounds from congregation to congregation, and in particular by the numerous gatherings for prayer and edification that were now tolerated. But the battle was renewed all the more vehemently and cruelly under the frivolous, avaricious, pleasure-seeking Archbishop Leopold Anton Baron von Firmian beginning in 1727. The old oppressions and persecutions were repeated, which showcase the same sorry spectacle again and again: extortion of ostensible conversions through the cunning and wiles of the Jesuits; seizure and burning of Bibles and devotional writings; utterly false accusations of those who steadfastly confessed the evangelical faith as dangerous rebels and insurgents; lengthy incarceration of unyielding witnesses to the faith in prisons that jeopardized health and life, e.g. at the High Fortress above Salzburg and at the castle in Werfen; imposition of exorbitant, harsh fines; deprivation of work in the mines, workshops, marble quarries, and forests; occupation of evangelicals’ homesteads and houses by executive soldiers; and forced emigration minus belongings and children, who had to be left behind. The evangelicals were treated with particularly fierce hostility for refusing to give the proper response to the greeting prescribed by the pope in 1728. The greeting was, “Blessed be Jesus Christ,” and the response was, “from now into eternity.” They would not make themselves complicit in the sinful misuse of Jesus’ name that they saw in the greeting, since Rome had promised 200 days of indulgence from purgatory for each time it was used.

Copperplate engraving of the Diet of Regensburg held from January 10-20, 1663

But all these sufferings steeled the courage of these poor people. They put up brave resistance to the attempts, made with deep guile and great might, to bring them back to the Roman Church, and they devoutly and firmly stuck together as a single evangelical nation of brothers. The two farmers Hans Lerchner and Veit Bremen, from the districts of Radstadt and Werfen respectively, were the first to bemoan their distress to the evangelical estates in Regensburg in January 1730 and to ask them to intercede with the archbishop so that those banished might be permitted to sell their property and bring their belongings and children along.19 But the Corpus Evangelicorum, an ecclesiastical agency that was already paralyzed by its tedious business routine, was unsuccessful in its negotiations with the archiepiscopal ambassadors and with the archbishop himself. Their objections to his violation of the already mentioned paragraphs of the Peace of Westphalia were in vain. Incited by the Jesuits, the archbishop consistently stuck to the strategy he had once affirmed with an oath after a few glasses of wine, exclaiming that he would have the heretics out of the country and that thorns and thistles would grow in their fields.

In 1731 the evangelicals formed a coalition to dispatch a number of delegates to Regensburg from the districts of Radstadt, Wagrain, Werfen, St. Johann, and Gastein with a new grievance concerning their unjust, cruel treatment and with the petition that either they be granted freedom of conscience and evangelical preachers or that they be permitted to sell their belongings and emigrate with wife and children. But the delegates waited in vain in Regensburg for their grievance and petition to be settled. In the meantime the archbishop knew how to use cunning to bring them unreservedly out into the open with their profession of the pure gospel and their testimony against Rome. That way he could gauge the extent of the movement and the number of heretics, and take his additional measures accordingly. Under the appearance of a favorable disposition, he announced in the districts from which the grievance had proceeded that the case of the complainants would be investigated by a commission. The commissaries sent from Salzburg issued a summons that all who did not wish to belong to the Roman Church should appear before them. Having answered the summons, the evangelicals now declared to them that they would be obedient and subservient to the archbishop as their sovereign in all secular matters, but in regard to their faith they were compelled to beg him to grant them freedom of conscience, since in religious affairs one must obey God more than men. And when they were asked to which of the three publicly recognized confessions they belonged, they testified unanimously that they were evangelical Lutheran Christians. The commissaries now further required them to submit a list of all their names within three days. How astonished they were, then, as was the archbishop, when the number of Protestants recorded in the lists within that three-day deadline came to more than 20,000.

The archbishop now felt that much more compelled to exert all guile and might to root out the heresy. So the evangelicals also now had to band together that much more firmly, in order to defend their faith as one man. Approximately 300 men assembled on August 5, 1731, in the small market town of Schwarzach as representatives of the entire host of witnesses. Around a round table, on which a saltcellar had been placed, sat the elders of the congregations; the rest formed a large circle all around them. One of them now solemnly called for the contracting of a life-and-death covenant of loyalty to the evangelical faith. Then they all, one by one, stepped forward and dipped their oath fingers20 into the salt, touched the salt to their mouths, then swore with right hand raised toward heaven that they would adhere to the evangelical faith even to the point of death. And they did this with reference to the statement in 2 Chronicles 13:5, which says that Jehovah contracted a “covenant of salt” with David and his sons. Afterward the men knelt down to pray and committed the cause of their religious covenant to the Lord.

Archbishop Leopold Anton Baron von Firmian

They resolved to send a delegation to the emperor21 in Vienna. But the 21 delegates were arrested on the way and brought back to Salzburg for lacking passes and for this “act of rebellion” against their sovereign. In Salzburg they received cruel treatment as insurgents and rebels. In vain had the evangelical ambassadors in Regensburg made new remonstrances with the archbishop’s ambassadors against the unjust treatment of the Salzburg Protestants. They could not expect any help from the emperor. Then the evangelical ambassadors turned to their princes with the request for their intervention. Of these, it was the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I who immediately stepped in for the cause of the oppressed with intense religious zeal. In an order dated October 23, 1731, he assigned his ambassador, Baron von Danckelmann,22 in conjunction with the rest of the evangelical ambassadors, the task of threatening the Archbishop of Salzburg, by way of his ambassadors, with countermeasures against the Catholic subjects in evangelical lands. The king also had the baron add the assurance that he was prepared to implement these countermeasures at once, once they had been decided upon by the Corpus Evangelicorum. However, due to the incompetence and impotence of this agency, no decisive steps were taken on behalf of the ever more harshly persecuted Protestants. The cruelties against them were renewed. The evangelical estates now complained to the emperor over the illegal actions of the archbishop. The emperor answered that he had already warned him to observe the imperial laws. Then, in disdain and defiance of everyone, the archbishop issued his infamous Emigration Proclamation (Emigrationspatent)23 dated October 31, 1731, in which all evangelicals were publicly ordered to move out of the country, under the charge of holding public gatherings for edification contrary to the archbishop’s prohibition, and under the false accusation of contracting a seditious covenant for the extermination of the Catholic religion and calumniating this religion along with their sovereign. All non-settled persons, domestic servants, day laborers, mine workers, foundry workers, and lumberjacks over 12 years old were dismissed from their jobs without pay, effective immediately, and had to vacate the country within eight days. The burghers and artisans were deprived of their citizenship and professional licenses, effective immediately, and together with all settled persons had to sell their real estates and houses and then clear out within a period of 1-3 months. The proclamation’s aim was the economic ruin of the propertied people and the forced conversion of those who were dependent and lived from hand to mouth through their work. But with few exceptions they stood their ground. The non-settled were hoping to gain a deferral until spring through the intercession of the evangelical estates, but in vain. They were mercilessly driven out into the winter cold. The settled obtained a deferral until St. George’s Day, April 23, 1732, as the final deadline, but they were so harassed and persecuted by soldiers, district officials, and priests in the meantime that a good portion were already deserting the country in the middle of the winter. The negotiations of the evangelical estates of Germany, which were constantly being conducted with the archbishop and his ambassadors from the Regensburg base, and the intercession with the emperor by the Protestant powers outside of Germany on behalf of the hard-pressed Salzburgers were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, by God’s providence, they did receive comfort and aid in their distress, which by now had intensified in the extreme, through the King of Prussia.

Two 1732 Prussian coins commemorating the Salzburg Emigrants. Rf. endnote 24 for source information. Actual comparative size not reflected.

A Prussian commemorative coin from the year 1732 shows on the front the portrait of Friedrich Wilhelm I. On the back it shows the arrival of the Salzburgers in Prussia with wife and children, opposite them the figure of Prussia in military attire with a shield, and above them the radiant eye of God. The inscription beneath them reads: “GÆD. DER SALZB. EMIGRANTEN. 1732.” (Commemorating the Salzburg Emigrants, 1732), and encircling the scene are the words of Genesis 12:1: “GEHE IN EIN LAND DAS ICH DIR ZEIGEN WILL” (Go into a land that I will show you) (Spies, Münzbelustigungen 1:217-218).24 The poor Salzburgers with no country saw it as God’s guidance and the answer to their prayers when the Prussian king granted them refuge in his country and thereby put an end to every illusion of rescue on the part of the evangelical estates, on which their hopes had hitherto been based.

Already in November 1731 two of their delegates had set out for Berlin in order to invoke the king’s assistance in their great distress, Peter Heldensteiner and Nikolaus Forstreuter. They and their fellow countrymen had been slandered by the Catholics as heterodox sectarians. But an examination of them ordered by the strictly religious king and conducted by his consistorial councilors Johann Gustav Reinbeck and Michael Roloff revealed, to the king’s great satisfaction, their articulateness and firmness in the evangelical faith. They proved themselves to be genuine allies of the Augsburg Confession, all Roman Catholic lies notwithstanding, and the king informed them that even if several thousand were to come into his lands, he would welcome them all; give them house and farm, fields and pastures out of supreme favor, love, and pity; and treat them as his own subjects.

Antoine Pesne, Friedrich Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, oil on canvas, after 1733.

Now in February 1732, as the persecutions in Salzburg were at their worst, the king issued a proclamation in which he declared that he would lend his evangelical brothers and sisters in the faith, who were being so fiercely oppressed and persecuted, a kind and helping hand and welcome them into his lands out of Christian, kingly pity and heartfelt compassion. He had not merely implored the archbishop to grant them free departure and to consider them as his prospective subjects, but he was also imploring all the princes and estates of the empire to let them have free, safe, and undetained passage through their lands and to render them that which a Christian owed his neighbor, so that they could continue their arduous journey. Moreover, he was even going to have his commissaries in Regensburg and Halle count out traveling money for them—5 groschen per man per day; 3 groschen, 9 pfennig per woman or maid per day; and 2 groschen, 5 pfennig for every child per day. If these people who were henceforth his subjects were denied free departure or wronged in their goods and chattels in any way in their forsaken homeland, he would demand an accounting and ensure redress. He threatened to sequester equivalent Catholic property belonging to the monasteries of Magdeburg and Halberstadt for any loss they experienced. Following Prussia’s lead, Denmark, Sweden, and the States-General of Holland threatened similar countermeasures. The king ordered that the emigrants be escorted to their new homeland on the most direct routes. In troops large and small they now marched through German lands, after the king had dispatched a special commissary in the person of his councilor Johann Göbel to receive them and to guide their platoons to Regensburg.

Johann Georg Schreiber, Salzburg Emigrants Departing from Leipzig on September 5, 1732, engraving, 1732. The composer Johann Sebastian Bach was employed as the St. Thomas Cantor in Leipzig at the time and may have witnessed this scene, which took place about 1 km to the southeast of St. Thomas Church.

Everywhere they went, once they had set foot on evangelical soil, they received a joyful welcome and were sent on their way with the most touching tributes and demonstrations of love. Church services were arranged in the marketplaces, in the churches, and on the country roads to accompany their reception. The poor, helpless, and weak were all rendered assistance and relief that one can only dream of. They were seen off on the successive stages of their migration amid festive services, hymn singing, prayers, and blessings. And when, in a short period of time, not just several thousand – 4000 initially – but more and more thousands kept on setting out for Prussia, the king did not grow weary of it. In response to a petition asking that he might also take pity on the additional thousands who did not know where else they could set foot while staying together with their countrymen, he wrote in his own hand: “That’s just fine! God be praised! What grace God is showing to the House of Brandenburg in this! For God is certainly the one behind this.” He commanded the commissary to admit as many as would come, even if it were 10,000. But it did not stop there either. The city of Berlin became the rallying point for those who had come that way on various routes and the place where everyone sought to outdo the tenderhearted brotherly love that had been shown to the migrants thus far. And from April 30, 1732, through April 15, 1733, via that city alone, no less than 14,728 exiles advanced towards Lithuania, their new homeland in far-eastern Prussia. When the first drove of emigrants had arrived in Potsdam in an orderly file on April 29, 1732, singing their hymns, the king, who had himself just arrived, had them ushered into his palace courtyard and had them report on their journey and the commissary’s guidance. When the report given was favorable, he also asked his court preacher to report to him on the condition of their faith and their doctrine. In fact, he himself examined some of them on the truths of the Christian faith and was stunned by their clear answers grounded in Holy Scripture. For instance, the king asked a 14-year-old boy who had left his father and mother for the sake of the evangelical faith how he could justify the action he had taken. The boy answered, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). And when the king went on to ask how he was going to manage without father and mother, the boy immediately answered, “Father and mother forsake me, but the Lord takes me in” (Psalm 27:10). The king was delighted with the impression the pilgrims made on him, and he lavished gifts on them and in particular had a whole bunch of cloth for clothing distributed among them in Berlin. When it was time for them to depart, he called out to them, “It’s going to be alright now, children. It’s going to be alright with us.” On June 25 of the same year he saw another drove of Salzburg emigrants marching along on the road between Potsdam and Berlin; he found himself in that vicinity while out on a hunt. He immediately headed their way and began to converse with them, particularly about the hymn with which they had been keeping step, and he asked them to sing him the tune, “In God, my faithful God, | I trust when dark my road; | Though many woes o’ertake me, | Yet he will not forsake me.” The commissary remarked that they could not take up the songs with their proper melodies, because they were unfamiliar to them. Then, to everyone’s amazement, the king himself started in. Little by little they all joined in and continued past the king singing the song. And the king called out after them, “Go with God!”

Johann Michael Franz and Johann Georg Ebersberger (Homann’s Heirs), Prussian Lithuania, 1735. I have superimposed dots with different-colored centers to identify important cities more easily: Memel (today Klaipėda; aqua), Tilsit (today Sovetsk; brown), Ragnit (Neman; silver), Georgenburg (Jurbarkas; green), Insterburg (Chernyakhovsk; black), and Gumbinnen (Gusev; pumpkin). All of these cities except Georgenburg and Gumbinnen were district seats, and the districts were named after them. The lake in the southeast corner is the Wischtiten or Wystiter See (today Lake Vištytis). The map also includes an inset of the newly laid out Gumbinnen city plan, since a considerable number of Salzburg emigrants settled there. Note that clicking on the image will take you to a separate site where you can zoom in much closer.

One drove followed the next. Even those who were still weak and wavering in the faith left their Salzburg homeland behind to exchange it for Lithuanian territory, strengthened and emboldened by the assistance the Prussian king was giving. The poor exiles received much comfort and strengthening in their faith as they passed through the German lands and cities, but their loyalty to the faith and martyrdom for the gospel also redounded in turn to the shame, revitalization, and strengthening of German Protestantism. The sight of these droves of honest people marching along with their hymns and holding their services on the country roads, trusting in God with simple, childlike faith, was a powerful testimony to the faith for evangelical Germany, and it did not fail to produce a revitalizing and uplifting effect. And how their distress aroused and stirred up everwhere not just such genuine edification but also Christian brotherly love! At the instigation of the King of England,25 a public collection for them was organized in all evangelical countries, which brought in 900,000 gulden. There were competing efforts between southern and northern Germany to welcome and retain them and to prepare a new homeland for them. Many young people quickly formed intimate connections, and many a young female exile found happiness by joining a German household or family. All the essentials of the story of the young couple in Göthe’s lovely epic poem, “Hermann und Dorothea,” actually happened when the exiles passed through the Altmühl Valley in Franconia, except that the poet portrayed the scene against the political background of the French Revolution instead of the original religious background on which it is based.

The emigrants preserved Christian humility and modesty amid the many tributes and accolades that were bestowed upon them everywhere. They stuck to strict discipline among themselves and admonished each other to show Christian dignity, simplicity, and self-abnegation in the face of the demonstrations of love that could at times be a bit obtrusive and extravagant; they wanted to keep any harm from threatening their inner life. It was with this in mind, e.g., that one of their most respectable leaders said, as he was witnessing the tokens of love that were being heaped on them in Berlin, “Stop, you are doing way too much for us! We must thank God and ask him to keep us in the grace in which we stand. I am very concerned that many of us will be spoiled by the kindnesses being showered on us. Everywhere we are praised way too much. We are not confronted enough with our failings and sins. Our young people cannot handle this. May God in his grace please keep us from falling!”

They humbly and politely declined nearly all the invitations they received to settle in the various regions and cities through which they traveled. They wanted to remain together under the scepter of the Prussian king who had been the first to open his country to them and to welcome them as his subjects and children. They wanted to remain as they found themselves reassembled in Berlin, their great rallying point, after the long separation caused by their departure from Salzburg and by their variously routed passage through Germany. From Berlin they proceeded to their new, remote homeland. More than 20,000 Salzburg colonists populated the broad plains of Lithuania, which were empty and desolate as the result of a terrible plague. The sacrifices that the king made for their reception and colonization were more than richly repaid through the blessing bestowed upon that poor land by receiving these diligent, industrious, intelligent, shrewd, firm-in-faith, and truly God-fearing Salzburg emigrants. In 1882 their grateful descendants, as loyal subjects, sent a salute of homage from Lithuania to their beloved Emperor and King Wilhelm, whose ancestor 150 years earlier had been the instrument that God used to fulfill his words, “Go into a land that I will show you” (Genesis 12:1), and to do so precisely through that numerous host of staunch witnesses to the faith from the Archbishopric of Salzburg.

Johann Georg Schreiber, Salzburg Emigrants Arriving at Königsberg in Prussia, engraving, 1732. Today Königsberg is Kaliningrad, the administrative center of Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia.

Sources and Literature

Accurate Marching Map of the Salzburg Emigrants (Nuremberg: Peter Conrad Monath, 1732)

  • Johann Georg Schelhorn, De Religionis Evangelicae in Provincia Salisburgensi Ortu Progressu et Fatis Commentatio Historico-Ecclesiastica (Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf, 1732); translated into German and supplemented by Friedrich Wilhelm Stübner (ibid.)
  • Johann Jacob Moser, ed., Derer Saltzburgischen Emigrations-Acten (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Johann Paul Rothens, 1732)
  • Gerhard Gottlieb Günther Göcking, Vollkommene Emigrations-Geschichte Von denen Aus dem Ertz-Bißthum Saltzburg vertriebenen Und größtentheils nach Preussen gegangenen Lutheranern, part 1 (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Christian Ulrich Wagner, 1734); part 2 (ibid., 1737)
  • Samuel Urlsperger, Ausführliche Nachrichten Von der Königlich-Groß-Britannischen Colonie Saltzburgischer Emigranten in America, part 1 (Halle: Waysenhaus, 1741); part 2 (ibid., 1746). Note (trans.): These two volumes contain the first through twelfth of the 18 total continuations of Urlsperger’s Nachrichten or reports.
  • Johann Baptist de Caspari, Aktenmäßige Geschichte der berühmten salzburgischen Emigration, trans. Fr. Xav. Huber (Salzburg: Mayersche Buchhandlung, 1790)
  • Karl Panse, Geschichte der Auswanderung der evangelischen Salzburger im Jahre 1732 (Leipzig: Leopold Voß, 1827). Note: includes a list of sources.
  • Georg Veesenmeyer, “Etwas zum Andenken an die Auswanderung der Evangelischen Salzburger im Jahre 1732, und von den Wiedertäufern im Salzburgischen im sechzehnten Jahrhunderte” in Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie, ed. Christian Friedrich Illgen, vol. 2, part 2 (Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1832), pp. 243-258
  • Friedrich Stehr, Die Vertreibung und Auswanderung der evangelisch gesinnten Salzburger und ihre Aufnahme in Preußen (Königsberg: Hartung’sche Hofbuchdruckerei, 1831)
  • Christian Ferdinand Schulze, Die Auswanderung der evangelischgesinnten Salzburger, mit Bezug auf die Auswanderung der evangelischgesinnten Zillerthaler (Gotha: Carl Gläser, 1838)
  • Johann Karl Friedrich Obstfelder, Die evangelischen Salzburger, ihre Auswanderung nach Preußen und ihr Durchzug durch Naumburg 1732 (Naumburg: Louis Garcke, 1857)
  • Theodor Krüger, Die Salzburger-Einwanderung in Preußen mit einem Anhange denkwürdiger Aktenstücke und die Geschichte des Salzburger-Hospitals zu Gumbinnen nebst dem Statute desselben (Gumbinnen, 1857)
  • Carl von Kessel, “Die Vertreibung der Protestanten aus Salzburg im Jahre 1732” in Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie, ed. Christian Wilhelm Niedner, vol. 23, no. 2 (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1859), pp. 235-274
  • Rudolf Baxmann, “Die Vertreibung der Evangelischen aus dem Erzstifte Salzburg” in Protestantische Monatsblätter für innere Zeitgeschichte, ed. Heinrich Gelzer, vol. 16 (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1860), pp. 194-206
  • Ludwig Clarus, Die Auswanderung der protestantisch gesinnten Salzburger in den Jahren 1731 und 1732 (Innsbruck: Vereins-Buchhandlung & Buchdruckerei, 1864)

Endnotes

1 Erdmann, or perhaps his editor, had Turgau for Lungau, but this is incorrect. In more recent times, the northern Salzburggau has been subdivided into the Flachgau and the Tennengau. Gau means province.

2 Erdmann simply had Achen, which appears to be the older, simpler name of the Krimmler Achen (see e.g. A Handbook for Travellers in Southern Germany, rev. 9th ed. [London: John Murray, 1864], pp. 354-355).

3 Erdmann cited p. 90, but I was unable to identify the edition to which he was referring. The quote is found on p. 60 of the 1621 Frankfurt Latin edition (Historiae Concilii Tridentini Libri Octo); p. 62 of the 1622 “new edition” in Latin; p. 228 of the 1761 German Halle edition (Historie des Tridentinischen Concilii, erster Theil); p. 102 of the 1757 Italian “London” edition (Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, tomo primo; actually printed in Lyon or Geneva); and p. 52 of the 1676 English London edition (The History of the Council of Trent).

4 Erdmann cited the volume, no. 1, and the page numbers: 208, 213, and 216, respectively.

5 I have supplied the citation here (vol. 1, p. 558), since Erdmann omitted to do so. My translation is of Erdmann’s somewhat free German rendition of Luther’s Latin.

6 Erdmann cited the volume and page number: 2, 408. Regarding the translation, rf. endnote 5. Cf. Luthers Works (AE) 49:48-49; no. 135.

7 I have reproduced this account from Zauner in greater detail, since Erdmann, by abridging it, gave the impression to those unfamiliar with the geography of western Austria that the carousing, liberation, and beheading all took place in and around Mittersill.

8 This statement needs to be qualified in order to stand. Schärer does appear to have been the first martyr for the gospel in the Archbishopric of Salzburg. Christ himself identifies Abel and Zechariah as martyrs in the Old Testament (Luke 11:50,51). Many consider Stephen to be the first Christian martyr in the New Testament period (Acts 7:54-60), though an argument could be made on behalf of the holy innocents of Bethlehem for that title (Matthew 2:16-18). In the time of the Reformation, Luther himself considered the Augustinian monks Hendrik Vos and Johannes van den Esschen to be the first martyrs for the sake of the gospel, saying, “I thought I would be the first to be martyred for the sake of this holy gospel, but I am not worthy of it” (rf. Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, pp. 102-103). They were burned at the stake in Brussels on July 1, 1523, almost five years before Georg Schärer’s beheading, and Luther penned his first hymn in their memory (cf. LW [AE] 53:211ff).

9 Rf. St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works, vol. 10, cols. 1548ff. In the American Edition, this work is titled Concerning the Ministry (vol. 40, pp. 3ff).

10 Apparently referring to separate decrees

11 Rf. Peace of Westphalia Texts and Translations (accessed 27 Dec 2017).

12 While the Corpus Evangelicorum was organized as a corporation and agency of the Empire at the 1653 Diet, the diet that convened in Regensburg ten years later (1663) never dissolved, out of fear that the Emperor, who now (as of the Peace of Westphalia) had to abide by all its decisions, would no longer convene a diet, he being the only one who could legally do so. The 1663 Diet thus became a perpetual diet until the Empire fell in 1806. Erdmann’s original sentence, which includes “ever since 1663,” may refer to the perpectual efficacy of this agency beginning in that year.

13 First edition titled Seelenn ärtzney für gesund vnd krancken zu disen gafärlichen zeyten (Augsburg: Alexander Weyssenhorn, 1529).

14 First edition, consisting of the first of the eventual four books, printed in 1605 in Brunswick. All four books printed together in 1610 under the title Vier Bücher Von wahrem Christenthumb (Magdeburg: Joachim Böel).

15 First edition published in Magdeburg in 1612. A 1625 edition bears the title Paradiß-Gärtlein Voller Christlicher Tugenden (Strasbourg: Paulo Ledertz).

16 Erdmann is doubtless referring Johann Friedrich Starck’s immensely popular Tägliches Handbuch, but erroneously so. These Defereggers cannot have been acquainted with that book, since Starck had only been born three years earlier and his famous work was not published until 1727. The other reference is to Johann Habermann’s (or Avenarius’) Christliche Gebett für allerley Noth und Stände der ganzen Christenheit (1st ed.: Wittenberg, 1567). It underwent a second edition that same year and was frequently reprinted thereafter. It was often called simply Habermanns Betbüchlein (Habermann’s prayer booklet), and it is commonly recognized as the highest-selling Lutheran prayer book in history.

17 Throughout Schaitberger, a resident of Dürrnberg, is associated with the evangelical Defereggers, even though they were certainly involved in separate, even if related, incidents. Dürrnberg is separated from the Defereggen Valley by more than 100 miles.

18 Erdmann has 1708, and there was perhaps another printing that year, but the first printing appeared in 1702. The more well-known second edition, the Newly Enlarged Evangelical Circular (Neu-vermehrter Evangelischer Send-Brieff), made its debut in 1710 (see picture of title page above).

19 Erdmann has “so that those banished might be permitted to go and retrieve their wives and children,” which falsely gives the impression that a) Lerchner and Bremen had already been banished, and b) that those banished were also deprived of their wives in some cases.

20 The thumb, index finger, and middle finger of the right hand

21 Charles VI, r. 1711-1740.

22 Carl Ludolph Baron von Danckelmann, privy councilor to the king and only 32 years old at the time

23 This is usually inaccurately translated “Edict of Expulsion” with obvious Protestant bias. It certainly was an edict of expulsion, but that is not how the archbishop wished to present it.

24 Johan Jakob Spies, Die brandenburgischen historischen Münzbelustigungen, part 1 (Ansbach: Hofbuchhandlung, 1768). Erdmann mistakenly gives the date of the inscription as 1737. He also mistakenly cites p. 210. Pages 209-210 do feature another 1732 coin commemorating the Salzburg emigrants, with Friedrich Wilhelm’s portrait on the front and the words of Psalm 37:5 encircled by a garland on the back (see coin pictures above).

25 George II, r. 1727-1760, more properly titled the King of Great Britain

Hymn of Comfort for an Exile

By Joseph Schaitberger

Translator’s Preface

In Professor Wagenmann’s article on Joseph Schaitberger in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, he identifies Schaitberger’s Salzburg Exile Hymn as “his most well-known.” “[It] reflects both every aspect of the distress experienced by those witnesses to the faith and their gospel-centered comfort, in simple, touching words.”

A depiction of the Salzburg Emigrants from the front of Christoph Sancke’s Ausführliche Historie Derer Emigranten Oder Vertriebenen Lutheraner Aus dem Ertz-Bißthum Saltzburg, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1732). The passage on the top is Matthew 24:20: “But pray that your flight does not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.” A sermon by Luther on this section of Scripture was one of the emigrants’ inspirations. The man on the left is carrying a sack on which is written: “God is with us in distress” (paraphrase of Psalm 91:15). In his arms are the Augsburg Confession and Johann Arndt’s True Christianity, a popular devotional work. The lady is carrying a sack on which is written: “The Lord has done great things for us” (Psalm 126:3). In her arm is a Bible. The rhyme on the rectangular scroll reads: “Because of faith in grace alone | We banished are to realms unknown. | We leave behind our fathers’ land, | Still safely in our Father’s hand.”

“Those witnesses to the faith” include primarily two waves of Lutherans exiled from the Archbishopric of Salzburg. A group of 1000+ were exiled by Archbishop Maximilian Gandolf between 1684 and 1686, with 600+ of their children, including Schaitberger’s children, being confiscated from them. And a group of 30,000+ were exiled by Archbishop Leopold Anton von Firmian between 1731 and 1734, around 12,000 of whom emigrated in 1732 to Prussian Lithuania in the area in and around Gumbinnen (present-day Gusev, Russia), where King Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia gave them a good start to a new life. Archbishop von Firmian’s original edict of explusion was signed on October 31, 1731 – a deliberately insulting way to “celebrate” the 214th anniversary of the Reformation – and publicly read on November 11, the anniversary of Martin Luther’s baptism. The 1731 edict also implied confiscation of children under 12 years old. Some of the harsher stipulations of his edict were later mitigated under pressure from the Protestant states in Germany, but it does appear that many children were forced to stay behind.

I translated Schaitberger’s Exile Hymn on the basis of the text as printed in his Neu-vermehrter Evangelischer Sendbrief (Nuremberg, 1733), pp. 131-133. The hymn is not found in the original 1710 edition of the Sendbrief, and thus it appears that Schaitberger composed it specially for the 1732 emigrants, on the basis of his own experience and the facts of the 1731 expulsion as he knew them. Schaitberger himself recommended singing it to the tune of “Ich dank dir schon durch deinen Sohn” or “Hör, liebe Seel, dir ruft der HErr!” (four melodies given on pp. 154-155 here). My only hesitation in presenting it is my rhyming of “unerring” with “unsparing” in st. 7, which I know some linguistic perfectionists will not appreciate. Nevertheless, dictionaries do legitimize both pronunciations of “unerring.”

Multiple sources say that Schaitberger’s hymn was one of the most oft-sung hymns by the emigrants during their journey. The emigration created a sensation especially in all the cities and towns through which the emigrants passed. Many townspeople sang with them in the town squares. The aging Schaitberger himself was able to greet some of the exiles in Nuremberg; one can easily imagine him singing his hymn with them or teaching it to some of them.

Hymn of Comfort for an Exile

1. I am an exile, sadly banned—
This my new designation—
From cherished home and fatherland—
God’s Word the sole causation.

2. Yet I, Lord Jesus, contemplate
Your like humiliation.
If I now you must emulate,
Fulfill your inclination.

3. Through foreign streets I now must stray;
A pilgrim I am branded.
Therefore, my Lord and God, I pray
You never leave me stranded.

4. Stay with me, mighty God, I plead;
To you I am commended.
Forsake me not in all my need,
Though life itself be ended.

5. Freely the faith did I confess—
What cause, then, for compunction?
Let men me “Heretic!” address
And seek my life’s expunction.

6. Fettered and bound in Jesus’ name—
What honor such expulsion!
Thus not my crimes, but this to blame—
True doctrine’s vile revulsion.

7. Though Satan and the world divest
Me of my means unsparing,
This jewel I’ll ne’er be dispossessed:
God and the faith unerring.

8. With your will, Lord, I shall agree,
In patience persevering.
I shall subscribe to your decree
Willingly, without fearing.

9. Though I should stay in misery,
I shall not show resistance;
Still, God, do give good friends to me
E’en in the far-off distance.

10. Time now, in Jesus’ name, to leave;
All has from me been taken.
Yet I know one day I’ll receive
The glorious crown of heaven.

11. So step I from my house away
New, foreign streets to wander.
But Lord, my children! Forced to stay!
I sigh and sob to ponder.

12. Please, let my new town be a site
Where your Word is permitted;
By it my heart, both day and night,
Shall then be benefited.

13. If in this vale of tears I must
Live in prolonged privation,
In heaven God will give, I trust,
Far better habitation.

14. The man shall here remain disguised
Who did these verses fashion;
He papal doctrine has despised
But Christ professed with passion.

Joseph Schaitberger: Life and Work

By Julius August Wagenmann

Translator’s Preface

Portrait of Joseph Schaitberger, sketched by P. Decker ad vivum and printed by Martin Engelbrecht in 1732

Until recently, the term “Salzburgers” as it relates to Lutheran history had completely escaped me, to my own detriment. The history of Lutheranism in the former Archbishopric of Salzburg (whose land now comprises part of Austria since being annexed in 1805) is one of repeated persecution, dating back to the expulsion of Paul Speratus in 1520, for expressing his evangelical views too openly, and the beheading of Georg Scherer (or Schärer) in Radstadt on April 13, 1528, for refusing to recant the Lutheran doctrine he was preaching. There were also exiles decreed in 1588 and 1613-15.

The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 was supposed to put an end to such persecution, but in the Archbishopric of Salzburg it did not. The article below – translated from the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot, 1890), vol. 30, pp. 553-555 – describes the cruel banishment of Joseph Schaitberger and more than 1000 others in 1685-1686. And thus Joseph Schaitberger became an inspiration to the many more thousands who were banished by a later archbishop on October 31, 1731 (not a coincidental date), and who emigrated in 1732.

God willing, this is the first in a series of translations pertaining to Schaitberger and the Salzburg exiles that will appear here. I pray that these translations remind us just how precious our gospel-centered faith is, and strengthen us in the conviction that it is founded on the pure Word of God and is therefore worth any distress we might have to undergo for believing it and sharing it.

Joseph Schaitberger: Life and Work

Joseph Schaitberger, as depicted in a 1733 Nuremberg edition of his Neu-vermehrter Evangelischer Sendbrief, probably based on the portrait above.

Schaitberger: Joseph S. (or Scheitberger), Salzburg exile and evangelical author of devotional literature, born on March 19, 1658, in Dürrnberg by Hallein in the Salzkammergut, died on October 2, 1733, in Nuremberg. — His parents were the peasant and miner Johann Schaitberger and Magdalena née Danner from Berchtesgaden, both devoted to the evangelical religion, which had already found acceptance in Salzburg territory in the 16th century and from then on always had many secret allies among the mountain dwellers. Educated in reading and writing by his brother, who was schoolmaster in Dürrnberg, he devoted himself to the miner’s vocation and married Margarethe née Kümmel from Berchtesgaden when he was 25. In addition to working hard as a miner, however, he constantly and fervently occupied himself with the reading of Holy Scripture, Luther’s House Postils, and other evangelical devotional writings. When a religious persecution broke out in 1686 under Archbishop Maximilian Gandolf in the Tefferecker [or Tefferegger or Defereggen] Valley against the secret Protestants there, Schaitberger was also arrested along with others of his fellow believers, brought to Hallein in fetters, from there was delivered to the royal court in Salzburg, and was imprisoned there under harsh conditions for 50 days. During this time two Capuchin monks made fruitless attempts to bring him back to the fold of the Roman Church. Thereafter he was set free again, with an order to draw up his confession of faith in writing and submit it to the Archbishop of Salzburg. He openly and freely professed Luther’s doctrine and the Augsburg Confession and petitioned the archbishop that he and his fellow believers be left undisturbed in their worship and be returned the children that had been robbed from them. Instead he was dismissed from his mining job, divested of his possessions, condemned to fourteen days of penal labor on bread and water, and finally, since he refused to solemnly renounce his evangelical faith, was driven from the country with other evangelical Teffereckers [or Defereggers], more than 1000 in number, being forced to leave their possessions and children behind. He found a place of refuge in Nuremberg, where he was cordially welcomed and where he remained until the end of his life, earning his living as a day laborer, woodworker, and wire-drawer. After the death of his first wife (d. 1687), he entered into a second marriage with Katharina Prachenberger from Berchtesgaden, who bore him four sons but died already in 1698. Twice he dared to return to his homeland secretly and at risk to his life, partly to strengthen in faith and patience the fellow believers he had left behind there and partly to get his children out. Only one of his daughters followed him back, with the intention of winning him over to the Roman Church. But the opposite happened: She became convinced of the truth of the evangelical faith and decided to stay with her father, where she made a meager living by knitting. Schaitberger himself, once he grew old and was no longer able to work, was accepted by the Nuremberg council into the so-called “Mäntel Foundation of the Twelve Brothers [Mäntel’sche Stift der zwölf Brüder],” a charitable institution otherwise dedicated only to Nuremberg citizens. He also received financial assistance from friends abroad, who respected him highly for his simple piety and his unwavering confession of the evangelical truth, including the Augsburg preacher and senior Samuel Urlsperger, as well as the Memmingen Preacher J. G. Schelhorn, who gathered a generous collection for him in December 1732 and refreshed him with it shortly before his blessed end. Not long before his death he also greeted in Nuremberg the new Salzburg emigrants, who had been banished from their homeland in 1731 by Archbishop Firmian and were once again seeking a place of refuge in Germany.

Soon after his arrival in Nuremberg, Schaitberger had begun to write a series of evangelical tractates at the instigation of a certain Preacher Ungelenk there. Schaitberger did this partly for his own edification and partly for the instruction and strengthening of the fellow believers he had left behind in his Salzburg homeland. At first he had them printed individually as pamphlets (Schwabach, 1688ff) and sought to distribute them in many thousands of copies, especially among his countrymen. He finally issued them in a collected edition (2nd ed.: Schwabach and Nuremberg, 1710) under the title: Neu-vermehrter Evangelischer Send-Brieff, Darinnen zwei und zwantzig nutzliche Büchlein enthalten, Geschrieben an die Lands-Leut in Saltzburg und andere gute Freund, dadurch dieselbige zur Christlichen Beständigkeit, in der Evangelischen Glaubens-Lehr, Augspurgischer Confession, in ihrem Gewissen, aufgemuntert werden1 (Newly Enlarged Evangelical Circular, Containing Twenty-Two Valuable Booklets, Written to Countrymen in Salzburg and Other Good Friends, Through Which Their Consciences Are Encouraged to Christian Perseverance in the Evangelical Doctrine of the Augsburg Confession). This “Circular,” next to Luther’s and Spangenberg’s postils and Arndt’s True Christianity, became the most treasured devotional book of the evangelical Salzburgers, such as the inhabitants of the Ziller Valley who emigrated from their homeland in the Tyrol in 1837. It was later repeatedly printed, e.g. in Nuremberg in 1732 et al. and up to the most recent times, and was more broadly distributed as a devotional book; a so-called jubilee edition of it just appeared in 1889 with a short biography and portrait of the author (Reutlingen: Baur, 608 pages in octavo).2 The contents are as follows: 1) Schaitberger’s circular to the countrymen he has left behind, containing the confession of faith he had composed earlier, 2) account of the Salzburg reformation of 1686, 3) religious conversation between a Catholic and an evangelical Christian, 4) spiritual Christian mirror or guide for Christian living, 5) golden nourishing art of the children of God, 6) useful meditations on death, 7) evangelical dying school for the children of God, 8) Christian art of dying, 9) repentance-blaring trumpet of judgment, 10) two short consolations, 11) melancholy circular to his children still in Salzburg territory, 12) circular to his brother, 13) biblical passages of comfort, 14) evangelical Christian duty, 15) consolations for distressed consciences and afflicted souls, 16) report on religion, 17) answers to four religious questions, 18) simple questions on the parts of the Catechism with which fathers can instruct their children, 19) evangelical repentance-alarm bell, 20) traveling conversation between an Old Lutheran and a new Pietist, 21) four Christian reflections, and 22) miscellaneous hymns and prayers.3 He also composed a number of hymns, of which two were included in the appendix of the Coburg Hymnal (1717), “Du Spiegel aller Tugend [O mirror of all virtue]” and “Jesu meine Lieb’ und Leben [Jesus, my love and life].” His most well-known hymn, however, is his hymn for Salzburg exiles, which reflects both every aspect of the distress experienced by those witnesses to the faith and their gospel-centered comfort, in simple, touching words. The original text of this “Hymn for Salzburg Exiles” begins and ends as follows (according to a printing from 1732): “I am an exile, sadly banned— | This my new designation— | From cherished home and fatherland— | God’s Word the sole causation. • Yet I, Lord Jesus, contemplate | Your like humiliation. | If I now you must emulate, | Fulfill your inclination. … Please, let my new town be a site | Where your Word is permitted; | By it my heart, both day and night, | Shall then be benefited. • If in this vale of tears I must | Live in prolonged privation, | In heaven God will give, I trust, | Far better habitation.”4

Cf. Samuel Urlsperger, Joseph Schaitberger (1732). • J. G. Schelhorn, De Religionis Evangelicae in Provincia Salisburgensi Ortu Progressu et Fatis Commentatio Historico-Ecclesiastica (Leipzig, 1732). • J. G. Schelhorn, Ergötzlichkeiten aus der Kirchenhistorie und Literatur (Ulm und Leipzig, 1762), I:494ff. • Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexicon (Nuremberg und Altdorf, 1757), III:481ff. • Hirsching, Friedrich Carl Gottlob and Johann Heinrich Martin Ernesti, Historisch-literarisches Handbuch berühmter und denkwürdiger Personen, welche in dem achtzehnten Jahrhundert gelebt haben (Leipzig, 1808), X/2:227ff. • Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste (Halle und Leipzig, 1742), XXXIV:815ff. • Johann Caspar Wetzel, Historische Lebens-Beschreibung Der berühmtesten Lieder-Dichter (Herrnstadt, 1724), III:29ff. • Christian Friedrich David Erdmann, “Salzburger” in Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1884) XIII:323ff. • Karl Panse, Geschichte der Auswanderung der evangelischen Salzburger (Leipzig, 1827).

Endnotes

1 I edited the title Wagenmann gave to reflect that found in the 1710 edition at my disposal and available online. The title Wagenmann gives, which he appears to have taken from a later edition, reads: Neuvermehrter evangelischer Sendbrief, darinnen 24 nützliche Bücher enthalten, geschrieben an die Landsleute in Salzburg und andere gute Freunde, darin dieselben zu christlicher Beständigkeit in der evangelischen Glaubenslehre Augsburgischer Confession in ihrem Gewissen aufgemuntert werden. Wagenmann does not have “2nd ed.” The first edition was titled Evangelischer Send-Brief, Samt noch etlich andern Unterricht-, Vermahnungs-, und Trost-Schrifften an seine liebe Lands-Leute in Saltzburg und Tefferecker Thal. Darinnen dieselbige zur Christlichen Beständigkeit in der Evangelischen Glaubens-Lehr Augspurgischer Confession, nach ihrem Gewissen angemahnt werden. Of the contents enumerated above, it included only 1-7 and 9-11. It first appeared in 1702 and appears to have been reprinted in 1708, but neither of these were available to me.

2 These later editions were expanded to include “Twenty-Four Useful Booklets,” and the “Hymn of Comfort for an Exile,” which Wagenmann mentions later, was also inserted. The two extra booklets were “Comfort for the Dying” and “Comforting Thoughts for the Dying.”

3 I also edited Wagenmann’s summary of the contents (cf. endnote 1). Wagenmann’s summary reads: 1) Schaitberger’s circular to the countrymen he has left behind, containing the confession of faith he had composed earlier, 2) an account of the Salzburg reformation, 3) religious conversation, 4) tractate on the young man and the old man, 5) Christian mirror, 6) the golden nourishing art of the children of God, 7) meditations on death, 8) the art of dying, 9) comfort for the dying, 10) repentance-blaring trumpet of judgment, 11) circular to his children in Salzburg territory, 12) to his brothers [sic], 13) evangelical Christian duty, 14) conversation about true and false Christianity, 15) tractate on perfection, 16) consolations for distressed and afflicted souls, 17) report on religion, 18) religious questions, 19) traveling conversation, 20) tractate on infant baptism, 21) on the appearances of angels, 22) works of repentance, 23) reply to the letter of a Nicodemite, 24) on the certainty of faith and the true knowledge of Christ. The content listed by Wagenmann is all in Schaitberger’s work, with the exception of “works of repentance [Bußwerke],” which appears to be a misspelling of “Buß-Wecker.” But much of what he labels as its own booklet is actually a sub-theme of a different booklet. For example, his #4 (which, however, should be “conversation between a young man and a poor man”) is included in what he labels #10. His #14 and #15 are both included in what he labels #13, and his #20, #21, #23, and #24 are all included in the actual #21, “Four Christian Reflections.”

4 In all the editions of Schaitberger’s Sendbrief at my disposal in which his hymn for exiles is found, there is one more stanza after the one with which Wagenmann concludes: “The man shall here remain disguised | Who did these verses fashion; | He papal doctrine has despised | But Christ professed with passion.” However, at the time of this posting, I did not have access to any 1732 edition.

Life of Tilemann Heshusius

Tilemann Heshusius, taken from Leuckfeld's 1716 biography. The caption reads: "This is Heshusius, a man of great gifts | Whom few truly appreciated; many rejected him | My reader, read this work; consider it impartially | And see whether or not people have done too much to Heshusius."

Tilemann Heshusius, taken from Leuckfeld’s 1716 biography. The caption reads: “This is Heshusius, a man of great gifts | Whom few truly appreciated; many rejected him | My reader, read this work; consider it impartially | And see whether or not people have done too much to Heshusius.”

Translator’s Preface

My first introduction to Tilemann Heshusius (also spelled Heshus or Heshusen) was in either Survey of Theological German or European Lutheran German Writings – two courses I took at Martin Luther College. From time to time the professor would hold Fluffstunden or “fluff classes,” so named because we had no homework due for those classes. In the “fluff classes,” he would tell us about the life and work of various famous Lutherans, usually the Lutheran author of whichever work we happened to be working through at the time.

The detail that stuck out for myself and many students during the “fluff class” on Tilemann Heshusius was that Heshusius supposedly got kicked out of one of his positions for decking a Crypto-Calvinist. (This same professor, now retired, also likes to tell the story of the student who was unfamiliar with Crypto-Calvinism and thus erroneously thought that what the professor found so amusing about Heshusius was that he had decked a “crippled Calvinist.”)

I recently had the opportunity to glean from Heshusius’ knowledge in preparation for a sermon on Isaiah 40:31. God willing, I will post the fruits of that labor later this week. In the process, I thought it would also be a good idea to review Heshusius’ life, which was indeed characterized by battles with Crypto-Calvinism, although I was unable to confirm the story of his physical altercation. Crypto-Calvinists were Calvinists posing as Lutherans who undermined and weakened especially the biblical (and Lutheran) teaching about baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The definitive biography on Heshusius is Johann Georg Leuckfeld’s Historia Heshusiana oder Historische Nachricht von dem Leben, Bedienungen und Schrifften Tilemanni Heßhusii (Quedlinburg and Aschersleben, 1716), available at the Post-Reformation Digital Library. Lacking the time to translate Leuckfeld, I opted to work through “Tilemann Heshusius’ Leben,” a relatively short piece that was copied from the preface of an 1862 reprint of one of Heshusius’ works and printed in the October 29, 1862, issue (vol. 19, no. 5) of Der Lutheraner (ed. C. F. W. Walther). The endnotes below are my own.

Men like Heshusius always make me as a pastor wonder just how soft we American Lutherans have become in adhering to and defending the truth. May the Lord of the Church use the example of Heshusius at the very least to urge us on to a more zealous promotion and defense of the true and pure doctrine of his Word.

Life of Tilemann Heshusius

In the last issue we advertised the little book by Heshusius, Who Has the Authority, Eligibility, and Right to Call Preachers? [Wer Gewalt, Fug und Recht habe, Prediger zu berufen?], which had just been published.1 We also promised to acquaint our readers with the turbulent life of this noteworthy man.2 We will do this by sharing the short biography that can be found in the preface of the just-mentioned little book, which we hereby strongly recommend to our readers yet again. In the preface just referred to, it reads as follows:

Tilemann Heshusius, the author of this little book, not only generally occupies a place among the most learned, brilliant, godly, and experienced theologians and among the most forceful and faithful warriors for the pure doctrine of Luther in our church, but it was precisely many of his particular experiences that taught him especially how important it is that the right to call and depose preachers be administered by those to whom God himself has awarded it in his word, namely, by the church or congregation. The entire life of our Heshusius was namely, as Heinsius notes in his church history, “an almost continual wandering,” and in fact for this reason in particular: At his time partly the secular government and partly the so-called religious leaders [Geistlichkeit] almost exclusively arrogated to themselves all ecclesiastical authority, and especially the authority to call and depose public ministers [Kirchendiener]. If this authority had been in the hands of his congregations, who mostly stuck by him as a highly gifted and zealous preacher of God’s word, then he would not have taken the walking stick in his hand as often as he did, and would not have had to experience the distress of abandoning his cherished congregations and surrendering them to false teachers.

The life and activity of our Heshusius occurred mainly in that period immediately after Luther’s death, during which the Crypto-Calvinists (that is, the secret, disguised Calvinists) were infiltrating many Lutheran churches, while the faithful followers of Luther were using all kinds of tricks in an attempt to eliminate them from their positions, and in the process were getting secular authority on their side. Now the more zealously Heshusius held tightly to the jewel of the pure Lutheran doctrine and to the church discipline that was grounded in it and continued to expose and battle for his flock the wolves in sheep’s clothing that had snuck in everywhere, those wolves were all the more furious in assailing him and causing him every sorrow one can only imagine, along with their fellow party members. One counts at least seven exiles which this valuable witness had to endure during his life for the sake of the truth.

He was born on November 3, 1527, in Wesel in the Duchy of Cleves. After he had attended various German and French universities, he became a master in 1550 at the University of Wittenberg, and a doctor of theology there in 1553, after he had already become superintendent in Goslar the year before.3 But since he would not discharge his ministry according to the instructions of the burgomaster of Goslar, he experienced his first exile here as a result of the burgomaster’s intrigues. This happened in 1556; yet he received a call to Rostock as preacher and professor of theology that same year. Here too he only had a resting-place for a short time. Controversies arose over the introduction of a better Sunday celebration and over the abolition of certain papistic ceremonies that were still being retained there. Here too Heshusius found the burgomaster to be a decided opponent, who also finally brought it about, even against the duke’s will, that Heshusius had to leave the city after only a year had passed. But still in the same year (1557) he received the honor of being a professor primarius, a president of the church council, and a general superintendent in Heidelberg. Scarcely had he taken up these positions when he got wrapped up in a harsh battle with the Calvinists who had infiltrated there, particularly with his deacon, named Klebitz, a battle which ended yet again with his deposition in 1559.

He then became superintendent in Bremen, but since the council there would not dismiss the Calvinist Hardenberg, Heshusius himself resigned and went from there to Magdeburg, where in fact he received the pastorate at the Church of St. John in 1560 and the position of superintendent in 1561. But he would not refrain from publicly testifying against the Crypto-Calvinists, Synergists, and others, and he felt compelled to pronounce the ban on the city council. So finally in 1562, after he continued preaching in spite of the prohibition he had received, one day (it was October 21) he was suddenly and forcibly conducted out of the city in the middle of the night.4 He then stayed for a while in Wesel, the city of his birth, until he also had to withdraw from this city in 1564 on account of his stern writings against the papists.

Now after he had lived for a brief period in Frankfurt, he became court preacher of the Count Palatine of Zweibrücken in Neuburg, then in 1569 professor of theology in Jena until 1573, when he was again dismissed from his position on account of his zeal against Crypto-Calvinism, but was soon thereafter chosen to be the Bishop of Samland. But this honor was also taken back away from him already in 1577 on account of a theological controversy with Wigand. After he had then withdrawn to Lübeck for a brief period, he followed a new call to be professor primarius in Helmstädt, where he then remained until his blessed end, which followed on September 25, 1588. In 1578 he had had the misfortune of falling into a cellar, as a result of which he had to limp until his death.

For those who are unfamiliar with the period in which Hehusius lived and with the intrigues of the enemies of the pure Word that were rampant within the Lutheran Church at that time, Heshusius may appear to be a quarrelsome man judging from what precedes. But anyone familiar only with Heshusius’ Little Prayer Book [Betbüchlein], for example, will soon note that, while this cherished man was engaged in a constant battle with men that was forced upon him, he was living in the peace of God and finding in God’s lap the rest that the hostile world was denying him.

Endnotes

1 The book was advertised in the October 15 issue thus: “The following little book has just been published: Who Has the Authority, Eligibility, and Right to Call Preachers? By Dr. Tilemann Heshusius. Printed unaltered according to the original edition of 1561. St. Louis, Mo. Publishing House of L. Volkening. 1862” (p. 32). The reprinted book was 40 octavo pages [Seiten] and cost 15 cents.

2 This promise was made in a footnote.

3 This accords with Leuckfeld’s biography (p. 4-5), but according to the Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (2nd ed.), Heshusius became superintendent of Goslar in 1553 and obtained his doctorate on May 5, 1555. A footnote at this point in the Der Lutheraner article says that around this time Heshusius married the daughter of the well-known zealous theologian Simon Musaeus, but he did not marry Barbara Musaeus until 1566 after he was widowed. His first wife was Anna Berthen, the daughter of the burgomaster of Wesel.

4 Leuckfeld says that the border warden (Marckmeister) and 30 to 40 armed citizens invaded Heshusius’ parsonage property, and they “occupied house, property, garden, and everything, so that no one could get out or in, while nearly 500 fully armed citizens had to be stationed at the door, since he [Heshusius] was then forcibly driven out of the city by them at three o’clock at night as far as the cloister [bis zur Cluß],* along with his very pregnant wife, whose developing child [Frucht] they also did not spare even in the womb” (p. 33). * Cluß appears to be a variant for Klause, which means cell, cloister, hermitage, or (narrow) mountain pass.