INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough* substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproductioiL

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these wül be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Nnsaber 9816176

‘‘Ordo et lîbertas”: Church discipline and the makers of church order in sixteenth century North Germany

Jaynes, JefiErey Philip, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1993

Cqpyrigiht ©1993 ty Jaynes, Je&ey Philip. All ri^ ts reserved.

UMI SOON.ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

"ORDO ET LIBERTAS;" CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND THE

MAKERS OF CHURCH ORDER IN SIXTEENTH

CENTURY NORTH GERMANY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Psürtial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Jeffrey P. Jaynes, B.A., M.Div.

***********

Ohio State University

1993

Dissertation Committee Approved by

James Kittelson

Joseph Lynch Adviser John Rule Dflpeurtment of History Copyright by Jeffrey Jaynes 1993 To Cathy, Timothy, and Andrew

and our families

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is the culmination of a lifetime of experience cind several years of research. I am extremely grateful for the consistent guidance and prodding of my advisor. Dr. James Kittelson. Without his invaluable insights, lunch conversations, and contacts on two sides of the Atlantic, this project would have never taken shape.

Furthermore, I am grateful for the assistance of Dr. Joseph

Lynch and Dr. John Rule in providing a broader historical context for this work. The staff of the Herzog August

Bibliothek in Wolfenbuttel, Germany, made my research an enjoyable experience while I was far from home. Finally, without the continual affirmation and understanding of my wife, Cathy, and the encouragement of my sons, Timothy and

Andrew, I would have retreated long ago. Thanks to you all.

I l l VITA

June 25, 1954 ...... Born, Walnut Creek, CA.

1976 ...... B.A., California State University, Fresno

1980 ...... M. Div. , Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA

1980-87 ...... Associate Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Sanger, CA

1988-92 ...... Graduate Associate, Department of History, Ohio State University

1992-present ...... Visiting Instructor in Church History, Methodist Theological School, Delaware, OH

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History Studies in Early Modern Europe ... Dr. James Kittelson Dr. John Rule

Studies in Medieval Europe ...... Dr. Joseph Lynch

Studies in Colonial America ..... Dr. Carla Pestana

IV TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

VITA ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

ABBREVIATIONS ...... VÜ INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE INCEPTION OF THE C H U R C H ..... 8 ORDER PROCESS

II. CHURCH ORDERS IN AN AGE OF ..... 83 EXPANSION

III. THE CHURCH ORDERS IN THE ...... 148 CONFESSIONAL AGE

IV. DISCIPLINE AND THE CHURCH ...... 215 ORDERS

V. VERFASSER DER KIRCHENORDNÜNGENz .. 303 THE MAKERS OF CHURCH ORDER CONCLUSION ...... 339

APPENDIX ...... 345

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 373 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Birth Dates: Church Order Authors ..... 308

2. Universities A t t e n d e d ...... 321

3. Highest University Degree Attained 323 and Institution

4. Church Order Authors and Religious 327 Orders

5. Superintendents and Other Church ...... 330 Positions

VI ABBSEVX&TXONS

ADB Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Leipzig, 1890-1924

CR Corpus Reformatoren, Edited by Carl Bretscheider and H. Birdseil. 99 vols. Halle, 1834-60

K m m w i e d e Hans-Walter Krumwiede. "Kirchengeschiclite. " In Geschichte Niedersachsens, 3: 2. Edited b y Hems Petze. Hildesheim, 1983 NDB Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin, 1953-.

RE Realezizyklopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Leipzig, 1899-1915.

Richter A. L. Richter, ed. Die evangelische Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts. Nieuwkoop, 1967.

Sehling, EKO E. Sehling, et. a l . , eds. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhundeirts. Leipzig and Tubingen, 1902— .

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopadie. Berlin, 1977-.

WA D. Martin Luthers Werke^ Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar, 1883-.

W A B r D. Martin Luthers Werke, Briefwechsel. Weimar, 1930-.

V I 1 INTRODUCTION

In 1977 the eminent German historian and Reformation scholcur, Gerhcird Müller, presented a paper at the Coburg in

Bavciria during one of several events commemorating the 450th cumiverscory of the signing of the Lutheran Formula of

Concord. The title of his presentation, in translation, reveals the truly mixed configuration of sixteenth century

European society: "Alliance and Confession: the Theological-

Historical Development and Ecclesiastical-Political

Significance of Reformation Confessions.Any student of early modern European history can appreciate the complexities of a society that so thoroughly blended confessional matters with almost every other facet of life.

In a very admirable fashion, Müller points out in this essay that confessional roots were both theological and historical, and that theological formulations influenced both the political and religious spheres of life. The same case that Müller meikes for the influence of "Reformation confessions" could be directly applied to another type of document that resulted from the Reformation: the evangelical or Lutheran church orders. These church orders or 2 constitutions not only gave institutional shape to the

Lutheran movement, but also addressed a range of social and religious questions. In several instances these documents stood as the most significant policy statements of their respective cities or territories. As official statements, the evangelical church orders clearly represented the first attempts to give form and substance to the new institutions of the Lutheran church.

Thus the orders reflected a type of establishment religion that valued principles of order: social, religious, and political. However, the church orders were also the product of a break-away movement that had championed notions of personal and religious liberty. Furthermore, Luther and other reformers seemed almost too willing to discard the time—honored institutions of the church. A fundamental tension between order and freedom, ordo et libertés, therefore, characterized the emergence of the entire protestant reformation, and this applied above all to the task of composing church orders: the documents that established new ecclesiastical institutions. Understanding how Lutheran authors of church orders attempted to balance their commitments to order and liberty, and somehow retain both of these elements in the documents they wrote and the institutions they established is the goal of this dissertation. 3

Alttiough, evangelical church orders were written for all parts of the Holy Roman empire during the sixteenth century^ this study will concentrate on the orders written for northern Germany between the years 1520 and 1580. North

Germany is a somewhat arbitrary, but customairy and useful designation for those German territories and cities which lay north of the Main River, and were bounded by the Rhine

River in the west and the Oder River in the east- Focusing on this region will limit the scope of this study and provide the opportunity to investigate a group of reformers whose careers centered in North Germany. Furthermore, this region has not received the same kind of scholarly attention that has been given to the German Southwest. Thus, these reformers and their works are less recognized. The chronological limits of the study, i.e. approximately 1520 until 1580, reflect an interest in observing the contributions of North German church order authors over the course of two generations. Both the individuals who initiated the task of composing the church orders and those who built upon these early efforts will be investigated.

Three fundamental considerations will guide the substance of this investigation into the North German church orders and their authors; the process of composing the church orders; the people who accomplished this task; and their contributions to the problem of church discipline.

Focusing on these three elements will result in a better 4 iinders'tcinding of what was involved in composing a church

order, and how these reformers, in particular, addressed the tension of order and liberty. Chapters One through Three will emphasize the overall task of composing the church orders for North Germany.

Chapter One will discuss the inception of the church order process and focus on how Luther and his contemporaries gave

increasing attention to institutional matters. From the very outset, these individuals advocated the need for

ecclesiastical form and order, but sought to guarantee what

they perceived as the critical aspects of "Christian”

freedom. For them, the church orders were a means to maintain this balance. Chapter Two will consider the

tremendous expansion of the church order effort during the

decades of the 1530s and 1540s. In contrast to traditional

family analysis of church order texts, greater attention to

the interrelationships of the individuals, the true "family"

that composed the documents, will highlight the dynamic

dimensions of the church order process. This emphasis on

the role played by the authors of the church orders will

continue in Chapter Three. This chapter will discuss the emergence of a second generation of church order authors

during the decade of the 1550s and trace their contributions

until 1580. Even in an era of increasing secular and

territorial control of ecclesiastical affairs, the church order authors decisively influenced the direction of 5 religious policy. Overall, these three chapters will present a narrative of the church order enterprise that offers a more dynamic understanding of the process and gives far greater attention to the people who composed the church o r d e r s .

The problem of church discipline had special

implications for the task of composing the church orders. Church discipline directly affected the notions of order and freedom, and was one of the most difficult and delicate subjects addressed by the authors of the church orders.

Chapter Four will serve as a case study on how the church order authors influenced the substance of what was contained in the church orders by analyzing what they wrote about church discipline. This chapter will present what the

Vcirious authors said about discipline in their church orders and will develop the different conclusions they provided on this subject. Despite their differences, a fundamenta1 concern for the notion of pastoral care provided a generally uniform emphasis that continued to inform their desire to blend order and freedom.

Having considered the overall church order process, and the details involved in the problem of church discipline.

Chapter Five will conclude the study with a final analysis of the people involved, the makers of the North German church orders. In this chapter both personal and professional backgrounds will be analyzed to provide a more 6 concrete understanding of who assumed the responsibilities for composing the church orders and what factors brought these individuals together. A much clearer picture of the corporate network of these individuals will emerge from this discussion. As was characteristic of the age, the task of composing the church orders was multi-dimensional. As indicated by

Müller, theological, institutional, and political concerns converged in unique ways during the sixteenth century and the church orders reflected these varied concerns. The need to coordinate vital religious concerns with city or territorial policies, especially during an era of critical social and ecclesiastical change, required the skills of a unique group of individuals. Those that assumed this responsibility in the regions of North Germany were the authors of the church orders. The following pages will present their accomplishments and contributions, and will evaluate their attempts to balance principles of order with the promise of freedom. NOTES

1. See Gerhard Müller, "Alliance and Confession: the Theological—Historical Development and Ecclesiastical- Political Significance of Reformation Confessions," Sixteenth Centvury Studies VIII (1977): 123-40. CHAPTER I THE INCEPTION OF THE CHÜRCH ORDER PROCESS

In the early morning of 10 December 1520 a group of students and faculty members of the University of Wittenberg, at the request of Philip Melanchthon, congregated at the city's Elster gate in order to participate in a public demonstration. Luther's 60 day period of grace, granted in the bull Exsxirge Domine,^ had just expired and the Wittenberg reformers commemorated the event by burning the "books of the Pope and his disciples." Signif icant sections of the canon law, along with some recent writings from several of Luther's enemies were cast into the morning blaze. Luther later reported to Spalatin that he had concluded the protest by burning the papal bull itself.^ The next morning the reformer attempted to clarify the real issues of the previous day when he met with a group of rather bewildered students. In his classroom and in a subsequent writing, Luther argued that such behavior was not without biblical precedent (a tradition Rome knew all too well) and pointed out that those who had recently burned his writings at Louvain and Cologne did so without imperial permission.^ The event itself began to assume exaggerated,

8 9 almost mythic proportions.^ Luther's approaching showdown with Emperor Charles V would later symbolize the convictions and defiance of a man bound by his conscience. In a similar fashion, the burning of the canon law was hailed by many of

Luther's contemporaries as a declaration of freedom from ecclesiastical tyranny.

The Wittenberg book burning culminated in dramatic fashion a year filled with the statements about Christian freedom. In October of 1520, while his own writings burned in Louvain, Luther charged that the church's sacramental system had no sound scriptural basis and served only the enslaving interests of its hierarchy. "All these [the sacraments] have taken us into a miserable servitude promulgated by the Roman curia, and the church has been robbed of all her liberty"®— for Luther, the true llbertas ecclesiae stood in stark contrast to what he branded the captivitas Babylonlca ecclesiae, A month later Luther took his case to the masses in his treatise On the Freedom of a

Christianf a "little book" that he claimed "contains the whole of the Christian Life in brief form."® According to

Luther this totality was lodged in the now familiar paradox:

"A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all." Christian freedom meant the end of works designed to merit divine approval, yet compelled the

Christian to respond in loving service to one's neighbor. 10 Perhaps Luther's strongest summons to freedom, however, occurred earlier, during the summer of 1520, when he composed his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German

Nation. Luther's appeal to the German nobility coincided with the news that Rome had issued the bull Exsvxrge Domine and intended to deal decisively with the inflammatory German monk.^ Confronted with this kind of ecclesiastical opposition, Luther turned to the German princes and challenged them to act as emergencies bishops (Notbishofe) for the sake of a genuine reformation of the church. Luther blasted the "three walls" of Roman tyranny and corruption and he reserved especially harsh comments for the corpus of canon law, which in his opinion, harbored "heretical, unchristian, and even unnatural practices."® Later that year when the Wittenbergers threw available portions of the canon law into the flames, they simply validated the threats

Luther made in this treatise and had reiterated throughout the year.® The Wittenberg reformer's understanding of freedom clearly meant eliminating the institutional forms that he associated with the prescriptions of canon law. In much the same way that Machiavelli ' s The Prince undermined the guest for the ideal form of government or republic,

Luther discarded divinely sanctioned church polity. The message of the gospel must endure, but matters of form were to remain the free domain of human necessity and ingenuity. 11

Along with the cries of freedom y however, Luther and other evangelical reformers repeatedly echoed St. Paul's counsel to the Corinthian Christians, "Let everything proceed in a decent and orderly fashion," (lasset allés ziichtlgllch und ordentlicb zugehen) . Freedom could never usurp the place of order in society since institutional anarchy posed a threat just as dangerous as papal tyranny. Luther's Address to the Christian Nobility pleaded not only for ecclesiastical freedom, but supplied sufficient examples of his own commitment to order. The frequently overlooked twenty-seven proposals that Luther suggested to the princes provide a preliminary outline of his own ideas on church order. In these proposals Luther discussed the call and duties of the pastoral office, the regulation of worship and feast days, changes in regard to marital policy, and an agenda for educational reform— all matters linked to proper church order.Luther even praised the bishop of

Strasbourg for attempting to "put his chapter into seemly order, and to introduce certain improvements in divine

services.Clearly, Luther realized the benefits and

necessity of sound church order and did not seek merely to

raze ecclesiastical structures.

Ordo et libertas, order and freedom, thus emerged as the paired concerns of Luther and other German Lutheran

reformers. From the very outset, these reformers

championed their understanding of evangelical freedom, but 12 always in the context of appropriate ecclesiastical and. even social order. They continually emphasized the substance of their message over the forms that conveyed it— their message always overshadowed its medium— but their commitment to r eformatio meant that matters of form could never be far behind. The tension between these concepts of freedom and order, and the need to maintain an appropriate balance between the two, was the particular concern of the church order process. The attempts of the Lutheran theologians, superintendents, and pastors who composed the major sixteenth century North German church orders to blend order

(matters of form) with freedom (their approach to Christian faith) as they created new ecclesiastical structures is the theme of this dissertation. Historians, especially in the twentieth century, have readily identified with the message of "freedom" advocated by Luther and his contemporaries.

The idea of liberation from tyranny, secular or ecclesiastical, and the notion of a free conscience

{libertas conscientiae) which no person has the right to judge, sounds surprisingly modern. When the reformers start to talk about order, however, twentieth century observers are repulsed; the whole enterprise seems trapped in antiquated notions of hierarchy. To put the matter differently, the ideas linked to order are seen as fundamentally medieval. The reformers believed they could maintain a legitimate balance between notions of freedom and 13 order, contemporary interpreters have for the most part condemned these attempts as impossible or judged them as failures. A brief look at how several historians have depicted this institutional tension between freedom and order will help to clarify these issues.

In his Reformation in the Cities, Steven Ozment has contrasted the reformers initial summons to freedom— "the original protestant message"— with their subsequent commitments to order.Ozment charges that the "religious freedom fighters" of the 1520s became the "new papists" of the 1530s and 40s. He further remarks that even though several of these reformers attempted to cling to their earlier ideals, especially their interest in the gospel of freedom, they nonetheless continued down a path of religious repression. From Ozment's perspective, the church orders in particular reveal how, "protestant leaders now undertook the extremely awkward task of making religious discipline and enforced orthodoxy prominent in a religion that had succeeded primarily in the name of freedom from religious tyranny.

While Ozment portrays the development of church orders as the inevitable, yet lamentable evolution of the protestant faith, Gerald Strauss sees the church orders as blatant counter-revolution. Although Strauss's recent Law,

Resistance, and the State offers an insightful and much- needed assessment of the problems surrounding the reception 14 of Roman law in sixteenth century Germany, he fails to depict accurately the social-religious dimension. Strauss agrees with Ozment that the protestants abandoned the early message of freedom aind indicates that coercion became the modus operand! of the reformers. For Strauss, ’’'order* in early modern Germany, meant social discipline above all else,” and the church accomodated the "new” territorial state in accomplishing this unfortunate task. He presents

Luther's own legal thinking as ambivalent at best, if not embarrassingly inconsistent.^® Melanchthon, on the other hand, fares somewhat better as a legal mind, but the events of 1525 caused him to support the demands for order even more forcefully than Luther. Thus the reformers operated as counter-revolutionaries, seeking to subvert a movement they had unleashed without realizing what they were doing.

Strauss reduces the entire church order process to an attempt by the ’’Lutheran states” to alter the definition of

Christian freedom in order to subdue social and political t u m u l t .

Peter Blickle, along with Strauss, argues that the evangelical message changed significantly during the 1520s, and points in particular to the "revolution” of 1525 as the decisive turning point. Blickle*s case for the fundamental programmatic coherence of the Peasant's War of 1525, which he has already recast as the "Revolution of the Common

Man,receives greater attention and development in his 15 more recent work, Gemeinderefoziaatiozi: Die Menschen des 16.

Jahrhunderts auf dem Weg zu Hell. Blickle presents a convincing case for the convergence of rural euid urban aspirations in the early reformation or the period prior to

1525. He champions his idea of Gemeindereformation, a reformation rooted in both village aund city communalism, as a replacement for terms like Volksreformation and

Stadtreformation, since these have tended to segregate similar agendas in town and country. As a counterpoint to the Gemeindereformation, Blickle points to the familiar

Fiirstenreformation, the reformation associated with the princes and territorial authorities. Predictably, the reformers ideas on church order eire associated with the

Fiirstenreformation and the church orders themselves are depicted as essentially an additional weapon in the arsenal of the secular authorities.^^ As in his first work, Blickle remains appalled at how the theologians, Luther in particular, rejected the chance to provide theological leadership to this original movement of the "common man."

He also faults Luther for abandoning his own early support for community controlled pastoral elections, one of the main aspirations of the Gemeindereformation. Blickle even goes so far as to suggest that after 1525 the evangelical theologians reversed themselves entirely and began to assert the necessity of good works for salvation I For Blickle,

Luther and his followers opted for the princes and order. 16 While they sold out the common man and the original promise of freedom.

From these comments it would seem that any movement by the evangelical reformers in the direction of order,

stability or institutionalization violated the very principles they first articulated, especially those related to liberty. For Ozment, Strauss, and Blickle the demand for

order, whether emerging from the tumults of 1525 or out of a reprehensible return to former practices of ecclesiastical

coercion, became the leading concern of the theologians as they retreated from the dangers unleashed in their doctrine of Christian freedom. Others have concurred with these conclusions. According to Ernst Zeeden, the protestant movement lost its original élan in 1525 and thereby failed to surface as a vital force for change. In his Luther biography, Marc Lienhard derides the period beginning in the mid-1520s as the "time of the church orders.Thus one is

left with the clear impression that freedom and order simply did not mix.

These generally negative appraisals of Lutheran church order and its retreat from the preliminary promise of

Christian freedom are not especially new observations, but echo statements made earlier in the twentieth century by the great German sociologist and theologian, Ernst Troeltsch.^®

Troeltsch's contention that Christianity is fundamentally social experience (das Chrlstentum 1st Praktik) resulted in 17 a critical evaluation of the social teachings of Christianity in its various forms, one of which was

Lutheranism. The few remarks here cannot do justice to the breadth of Troeltsch's ideas, but can provide an overview of the issues that relate to the topic of order and freedom.

According to Troeltsch, the fact that Luther embraced the claims of a universal church (for Troeltsch, the "church- type") , and avoided the narrowness of sectarianism created a structural problem which Luther's spiritualized vision of the church could not resolve. Troeltsch argued that, "this extremely 'spiritual' conception of the church, with its miraculous faith which staked everything on the power of the word, " because of its commitment to universality and the need for uniformity, found itself entirely dependant on the secular state.Lutheranism, thus evolved naturally

(though regrettably for Troeltsch) in the direction of the territorial church system. According to Troeltsch,

"Thus it came to pass... that the purely spiritual church-order was supplemented by a purely secular order of law and authority, which by means of compulsory secular methods of the brachium saeculare is able to exercise that authority which the church, as a purely spiritual institution of love and freedom, neither can nor desires to procure by coercion."

The coercive demands of the state, initiated in support of the church, led to an ethic of submission and obedience, and ultimately a stagnant social-religious system, which

Troeltsch pointed to as the final fruits of Lutheran church order. Thomas Brady is essentially correct when he comments 18

■that for Troeltsch, "German Lutheranism... was mostly an

ossified remnant of medieval ecclesiastical culture, while

Calvinism and the sects prepared the social-cultural ground for 'modernity.'*^®

Although "the conclusions of Troeltsch continue to

influence "the perceptions of many current historians, they

have not endured without serious challenge. Theologians

have assumed a leading role in the attempt to revitalize the

significance of Luther and his reformation and "the most

prominent early critic of Troeltsch was the former Berlin

professor of theology, Karl Roll. In the first place, Holl

challenged the entire Weber—Troeltsch notion of looking

primarily at Christianity's social manifestations.

According to Holl, religion could not be ultimately reduced

to either economics or politics. However, Holl also desired

to confront Troeltsch on his own terms and sought to

undermine Troeltsch's social-political interpretation of the

Reformation by reconsidering the teachings and influence of

Luther.Holl agreed with Troeltsch that Luther stimulated

a more "profound concept of the state," one which "did not

hinder, but rather encouraged the growth of absolutism in

Germany."^® Nevertheless, Holl contended that, "it was the

Reformation that first set a rigid limit to the absolute

power of "the state," which he connected to Luther's

insistence on the freedom of the conscience. Thus, Holl

contended that the Lutheran doctrine of order guaranteed by 19 the state did not eradicate the commitment to freedom, but

even encouraged a first step in the direction of general religious toleration.

While Holl focused almost exclusively on Luther to make his case, Werner Elert turned to a variety of sources in his attempt to identify the overall structure of Lutheranism.^^

Elert grounded Lutheran confessional and cultural experience in his idea of "the impact of the Gospel" (der evangelische

Ans a t z ). He then used this concept to explain Lutheran theological as well as institutional developments, and in so

doing, protected the reformers emphasis on freedom— an idea he linked with the impact of the g o s p e l . I n terms of

order, Elert maintained that since "worship is order," the

fact that Luther and his followers championed the principle

of order was only natural. He also noted that ideas of

Christian freedom received continual attention in the

confessions and church orders, because, "one must

differentiate between the concept of order and that of

church law.The evangelical reformers insisted on the

former, yet sought to avoid the later. Most importantly, in

building his case, Elert was one of the first to get beyond

the generally recognized theological pronouncements of

Luther or Melanchthon and include a broader spectrum of

confessional literature, catechisms, hymns, sermons, and even church orders. 20 Even though the tendency to interpret Lutheran church order as either archaic or repressive remains, several historians have joined theologians like Holl and Elert in attacking the virtual segregation of freedom and order. Interest in the didactic and structural elements of the numerous church orders has opened the door to a more thorough understanding of the entire process. Several studies reflect this emerging understanding. Anneliese Sprengler-Ruppenthal has argued that growing concepts of protestant church law (Kirchenrecbt) contained in the church orders, despite the apprehensions of Luther, stood at the cutting edge of evangelical theology and varied significantly in their methods of legitimization.^^ She notes that significant theological concepts, like the doctrine of justification (Rechtfejrtigungslehre) , the proper teaching of the divine word (gottliche Wort), and the church as the kingdom of Christ (Reich Christi) , rather than notions of princely rule, served to authenticate the legal status of the church.^® Thus to understand Lutheran ecclesiology and its social implications, one has to consider the "dynamic character" of the church orders. In a similar fashion. Luise Schom-Schütte maintains that Johann Bugenhagen's ideas on ministerial office, contained in the Braunschweig (1528), Hamburg (1529), Lübeck (1531), and Stralsund (1535) church orders, created an entirely new status for the evangelical clergy.In the 21 office of mediator or watchman {WacTxter) between magisterial authority and the congregation (the Gemelndel) , Bugenhagen*s clergy actually retarded the development of a territorial church system. The concepts contained in Bugenhagen's Braunschweig church order have also attracted the attention of Hans- Walter Krumwiede. Krumwiede contends that Bugenhagen's proposals for a reformation of education in Braunschweig had more far-reaching revolutionary consequences than any of Thomas Miintzer's radical notions, since they presented a comprehensive program for educating the youth.Thus the work Krumwiede, along with those of Sprengler-Ruppenthal and Schom-Schütte, challenge the contention of Troeltsch and his contemporary disciples that the evolution of the Lutheran church system can be reduced to a triumph of concepts of order over those of freedom. This question surrounding the paradox of freedom and order in the message of the evangelical reformers also contains important legal implications that must be addressed before summarizing these current perspectives. These legal concerns have been admirably addressed in the work of the late canon law specialist, Johannes Heckel. Heckel has argued that ideas of law, more particularly divine law (gottliche Recht) , were as important to the reformers as theological concepts like justification by faith and the kingdom of God. He has attacked both theologians and 22

historians (most noteibly Rudolph sohm), who have attempted

to separate issues of faith from concerns for law, by

contending that legal notions clearly influenced the best

thinking of the evangelical reformers. Heckel has made

this argument especially for Luther, indicating that one may

find evidence of his own legal thinking as early as the

controversy surrounding indulgences.^® These legal insights

concerning Luther have even won the admiration of Strauss,

although the conclusions of Strauss and Heckel are entirely

at odds. Above all, Heckel has clarified the difference

between the Lutheran understanding of church law

(Kirchenrecht) and the ideas of the decretalists and canon

lawyers. He has argued that the protestants, and Luther in particular, promoted an idea of church law, but one which

limited divine sanctions to the realm of the spirit (and the homo splrltualls). Therefore, according to Heckel, "the difference between the divine law of the ecclesia abscondlta and the human church order of the ecclesia universalis produced in this respect new modes of legal thinking, which were completely alien to canonical law."^^ Heckel thus maintains that one simply cannot separate notions of order, especially as it pertains to law and even church law

{Kirchenrecht) , from the rest of the message of Luther or other evangelical reformers.

To summarize these current assessments of the relationship between freedom and order in the message of the 23 Lutheran reformers, it would seem that at present, there Eire

essentially two positions. On the one side are those who cirgue that the reformers first appealed to yeeumings for

liberty, but either they Eüaandoned this message for the sake

of order and ultimately a form of repression (i.e. Strauss, Blickle) , or they failed to restrain its evolution

(devolution?) in this direction (i.e. Ozment, Troeltsch).

From this perspective, the church orders reveal a commitment to doctrinal uniformity and religious coercion that ultimately saw the church entirely subordinated in the

Lutheran territorial church system (das landesherrliche

Kirchemreglmexrt) . This view tends to be generally

subscribed to by historians of early modern Germany,

especially on this side of the Atlantic. On the other side are those who argue that commitments to order were

consistent with the intentions of the reformers from the very outset. Furthermore, they would maintain that the

fundamental issues of the evangelical message did not

change, even though institutions evolved. Although theologians have assumed a leading role in articulating this position (i.e. Holl, Elert), a number of historians have

recently looked more closely at the issues involved in

Lutheran church order (i.e. Sprengler-Ruppenthal, Schom-

Schütte, Krumwiede) and have found evidence of institutional vitality and creativity. These scholars have also rehabilitated the intentions and contributions of the church 24 orders by considering how they attempted to implement divergent aspects of the evemgelical message.

. The relationship of freedom and order clearly stood at the heart of the effort to create Lutheran ecclesiastical institutions during the sixteenth century in Germany. The first church orders written during the 1520s, and those that were composed throughout the remainder of the century, gave formal expression to these institutional endeavors. By looking carefully at the inception and development of the church order process, and paying particular attention to the persons who directed this enterprise, i.e. the authors

(Verfasser) of the church orders, it becomes apparent that a shcired commitment to Christian freedom and an interest in sound church order continued. For these reformers freedom not only could, but must blend with proper order.

Having established this thematic tension, the remaining objective of this present chapter is to analyze the first steps in the development of the Lutheran church orders.

Luther's own commitment to church order has already been

introduced, but the growth of his thinking on these matters and his contributions to the process itself require further clarification. Luther, however, was only one member of a network of individuals who engaged vitally in the creation of church orders. One major flaw in the current understanding of Lutheran church order has been the inability to look beyond Luther, or to a lesser degree 25 Melanchthon, and consider the numerous superintendents, pastors, and theologians involved in the composition of the church orders. Scholars as diverse in their opinions as

Troeltsch, Strauss, and Heckel all err in this direction.

Therefore, it is imperative to investigate not merely the thoughts and ideas of Luther, but to give due consideration to others whose contributions guided the formation of the initial church orders. This chapter will focus on the beginnings of the church order process in the 1520s and the following two chapters will trace the efforts of the makers of church orders through the first two generations, or until approximately 1580.

Luther and the Background to the First Kirchenordnunaen Although, as indicated above, Luther should be considered as only one of several when investigating the beginnings of the evangelical church orders, he clearly exerciesed a formative role in this process. Emil Sehling recognized this and began Volume One of his comprehensive collection of church orders— Die Evangelischen

Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhanderts— with a section devoted to Luther.Before discussing this early evolution of church orders, and the breadth of individuals involved, it is necessary to consider further the development of

Luther's own thinking during the critical early years of the 1520s. 2 6

The pace of Luther's thinking and writing regarding changes and innovations in the institution of the church did not diminish following the dramatic public events of 1520.

His status both as a member of the church and as a citizen of the empire, however, had changed significantly: he was officially declared a heretic in January of 1521 eind months later, was placed under imperial ban by Emperor Charles V.

In the midst of these personally unsettling circumstances,

Luther continued to advocate his message of Christian freedom and found reason to reflect even more extensively on the need for order, both in church and society.

Luther's own experience as a "captive" at the Wartburg seemed only to intensify his admonitions regarding the necessity of freedom. In a letter to Spalatin during the summer of 1521, he restated his profound dislike for the constraints of canon law and expressed his hope that his

Saxon protectors would show courage and completely abolish,

"the ecclesiastical jurisdictions and punishments in their own territories."^^ Later that year Luther escalated his attack against the institutions of the Roman Catholic church when he challenged the entire monastic system in his treatise On Monastic Vows (De votis monasticis) . Although

Denifle's exaggerated (and rather contentious) claim that De votis monasticis offers the "sum total" of Luther*® must be disregarded, the treatise is especially significant because it reveals how far Luther had come and was willing to go in 27 his proposals. In this indictment against the foundations of the monastic system, Luther once again discussed his understanding of Christian freedom. Luther argued that monastic vows violated the essential tenets of evangelical

liberty (Vota adversari l±b&2rtati evangelicae) because they constrained, rather than liberated the conscience.^® Luther answered his own question, "What is Christicin freedom?" by declaring that the fundamental characteristic of Christian freedom is the "freedom of conscience that liberates the conscience from works." Thus, Luther again made it completely clear that the freedom that stood at the heart of his message had fundamentally religious rather than social or political implications. However, it did contain certain institutional implications since in terms of ceremonies and other matters of church form, "Everything not specifically commanded by God is abrogated and made a matter of free choice.The Christian stood free before God because of grace and obligated only by what God, and not man had instituted. Luther * s position on the difference between divine order and human order surfaced once again in 1522 in an argument that recalled an earlier dispute with Emser over these scime issues.^® While Luther challenged a critical institution of the Roman church in De votis monasticis, this time he set his sights on the real sources of ecclesiastical might in his tract. Against the Falsely-named Spiritual 28 Estate of the Pope and the Bishops. Although his preface hinted at humility and moderation— Luther said he did not want to be seen as going too far^®— he quickly blasted the church hierarchy with prophetic rigor. Luther continued to attack the canon law, which he considered idolatrous, and he repeated his rejection of the church's power to "kill souls with bans and with tyranny." In this tract, Luther sought to counter claims of papal and episcopal authority by making a historical case that each of these offices had assumed powers which never existed in the early church. For Luther, not only the word of God, but even traditions of the primitive church authenticated his claim against the overly inflated authority of the Rome, and thereby furthered his argument for freedom in the human affairs of the church. Even though Luther continued to rail against the church's claim to divine order, he did not retreat from his own commitment to the need for order in church and society. Christian freedom could not be misconstrued as license in the system of Luther. He had made that clear in his first writing devoted to the topic. The Freedom of a Christian, and he repeated this emphasis in De votis monasticis. He cautioned, "the Freedom of the Gospel is valid only in matters relating to the relationship between you and God, and not in matters between you and your neighbor. Faith was to be the operative word for the relationship between man and God, while love directed the relationship of person 29 to neighbor. Love of neighbor was thus the key to social order as well as proper ecclesiastical life.

Beyond these rather abstract notions, Luther offered practical suggestions about church order. In a subsequent letter to Spalatin from the Wartburg, Luther expressed his wish that Melcinchthon would preach in the afternoons on feast days in order to provide the Wittenbergers an alternative to drinking and geunbling. From his perspective,

"this could become a custom which would introduce freedom and restore the form and manners of the early church. It could not be more clearly stated; for Luther, freedom and order went hand in hand and were mutually served by the responsibilities of proclamation. When he left the Wairtburg the following March (1522) to return to Wittenberg, he relied on preaching to bring order and renew freedom in a city filled with turmoil.

The spirit of rebellion that Luther encountered first hand in Wittenberg, and indirectly through his association with Nicholaus Hausmann at Zwickau, were the most evident examples of a movement towards a type of liberty the reformer categorically rejected. Luther had already spoken out specifically against sedition,then used some of the same arguments in a second treatise addressed to the German nobility and their subjects. On Temporal Authority, the

Extent to which it Should Be Obeyed (1523). In this tract,

Luther reformulated some of the earlier thinking of St. 30 Augustine into h.is own understanding of the two kingdoms;

the kingdom of God, ruled by Christ and the Gospel; and the kingdom of the world, ruled by the sword.®® Defending

Christian freedom, Luther chastised the princes for seeking to "lord it over men's conscience and faith, and put the holy spirit to school according to their mad brains."®®

True faith could never emerge from compulsion and the sword,

and whenever a prince attempted to proceed in this fashion, he overstepped his authority. On the other hand, Luther defended the general use of secular might in the kingdom of the world, especially given the fact that "the wicked under the name of Christian abuse this freedom of the gospel."®^

Thus for Luther, even secular magistrates must balance the need for order with protecting the principles of Christian freedom.

The task of a genuine reformation of the church, however, could not be ultimately entrusted to the princes or any other magistrates. As the possibilities of a reconciliation with Rome diminished and the effectiveness of primarily a campaign of criticism eroded, Luther and those who shared his vision, both in and beyond Wittenberg, begem to more seriously address specific institutional questions.

The commitment to church order and the desire for appropriate forms had been present from the outset; now it was time for action. 31

One crucial consideration in the development of new

ecclesiastical structures was that of worship. Even the earliest Christian communities linked the issues of worship

and order as noted previously in the Apostle Paul’s

injunction to the church at Corinth, "Let everything be done decently and in order," (I cor. 14:40). Heckel has recently

affirmed that matters of worship essentially controlled the first institutional and legal aspirations of the evangelical

reformers.®® During the same year that Luther issued his

second appeal to the evangelical princes of Germany, he

composed his first complete version of the evangelical mass:

Formula missae et communionis pro ecclesia WiHenbergensi

(1523). Three yeeirs later Luther reworked the order of

worship (now a divine service, Gottesdienst) and translated

the setting into German: Deutsche messe und ordnung gottis

dienst (1526). Others joined Luther in composing new orders

for worship, including Müntzer, whose German service endured

even after his own demise at Mühlhausen in 1525.®®

Worship, however, was merely one aspect of the multi­

faceted church orders that began to appear in the early

1520s. Those who analyze the sixteenth-century German

church orders have divided the varied issues addressed in

these documents into three overall categories: matters

pertaining to worship and general regulations of liturgy and

ceremonies (Agenda); matters of doctrine and confession of

faith (Credenda); and details of church organization. 32 educational reforms, amd community chest regulations (Adminxstranda) A given church order might contain only one of these divisions or incorporate several elements, which has made diversity one of the more remarkable characteristics of these documents. The process of composing church orders, thus, emerged as one of the most significant ecclesiastical and theological developments of this period. At this point, Luther must be viewed as only one contributor to a phenomenon that had roots in other critical dimensions of the social-religious and political structure of early modern Europe. Luther served in a sense as both instigator and beneficiary in the early development of the church orders. On the one hand, his evangelical insights inspired and influenced the institutional efforts that were associated with the creation of church orders. However, his thinking on matters of church order, and the entire development of the orders within the evangelical sphere, relied on constitutional patterns that clearly preceded the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation. In particular, the various Lutheran church orders first emerged from one of three currently recognized approaches to addressing the institutional affairs of the church: 1) city constitutions {Stadtverfassung), either for territorial or free imperial cities {Land- or Relchstadte); 2) synodal statutes {Statuta synodalla) associated with the bishop and 33 his court; and, 3) territorial legislation {Lsndesordnungen, Pollzelordnungen) promoted by the princes and their

bureaucracies. These three approaches helped to legitimize

the establishment of independent evangelical structures and

provided viable patterns for accomplishing these objectives.

An analysis of how evangelical reformers worked with each of

these patterns as a basis for composing the very first

evangelical church orders will both clarify the issues

involved and demonstrate more specifically the actual

evolution of the early church order process.

Kirchenordnungen and Stadtverfassuna

Throughout the period of the later middle ages, the

magistrates of German cities had battled with bishops and

princes for authority over the religious affairs of their

communities. The introduction of the evangelical message

prompted numerous city councils to assume an even more

active posture in regulating public worship, either in

support of the evangelical movement or to prohibit

tendencies in this direction.®^ As early as 1522, the city

of Wittenberg sought to clarify acceptable forms of worship

within the city's jurisdiction and approved a

”Kirchenordnung f ” composed in Luther ' s absence by

Karlstadt.®^ For the first time the idea of a church order,

and even the familiar terminology, was associated directly with the reforms of the evangelicals. However, neither 34 Luther nor the Wittenberg council stood by the rather tentative reforms proposed in this document, and therefore the Wittenberg church order has not been generally regarded as the first of the evangelical church orders.

A much stronger case can be made for the community chest order {Gemexzikastenordnung) for the city of Leisnig (1523) . Like the Wittenberg order, the Leisnig order centered on a very typical religious concern of an early modern German town, that of poor relief and the development of an appropriate strategy for administering the funds of the newly created community chest.®* The issues addressed in this document, however, were not limited merely to regulation of the community chest, but the first article of this order outlined the responsibilities of community officials to insure the proper teaching of God's word, especially within the context of the Christian household.®® These more extensive concerns of the Leisnig Gemexhkastenordimng have prompted several scholars to refer to it as true church order and not merely a community chest regulation. ®® Luther himself followed closely the events in Leisnig and his interest in the institutional efforts of the town resulted in a series of significant writings. Although the authorship of the order itself is uncertain, ®^ Luther promoted its publication in Wittenberg and even supplied a preface commending the citizens of Leisnig on their interest 35 in good order.®® Luther also used the situation in this territorial city to introduce his prelimineiry ideas on pastoral elections in his treatise. That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, and to further develop recommendations in regard to worship.^® Despite Luther's consistent support and personal attention to Leisnig, the council quickly retreated from the poor relief proposals outlined in their church order. Early constitutional efforts for the reformers would continue to advance tentatively, but the Leisnig order clearly represents the early union of the city constitution with the developing interests of the evangelical church orders. The archiépiscopal city of Magdeburg also adopted policies that coupled its own regulatory interests with the structural innovations of the evangelicals. In the spring of 1524, a series of articles composed by the evangelical sympathizer and preacher at St.Jacob's, Eberhard Widensee, were submitted to the Magdeburg council.Essentially, these articles sought both to justify the suspension of the mass and to invalidate any church practice or policy that did not have an explicit biblical precedent. A similar list of reforms appeared later that summer compiled by the former Ghent evangelical Melchoir Mirsch, Johann Fritzhans, and Widensee.Luther even supported this more formal victory for the evangelical movement with a personal appearance in 36 Magdeburg during early July. By the end of the month, the city had enacted its first official evangelical order and

like the city of Leisnig, it took the form of a community chest order. The council designated the churches of St.

John and St. Augustine as sites for the chests, while assigning other parishes, like the important evangelical parish at St. Ulrich's, responsibilities for collection.

The order for Magdeburg contained no references to

evangelical teaching per se, and specific changes in regards to worship did not occur until the arrival of Nikolaus von

Amsdorf at St. Ulrich in September of 1524.^^ Nevertheless, the community chest order established an initial foothold

for institutional aspirations of the evangelical party in

Magdeburg and provided a basis upon which leaders like Amsdorf could build their ministry.

Possibly the best early example of a city ' s attempt to

incorporate the emerging structures of the Lutheran reformers was the Kirchen- und Schul-ordnung adopted by the

Pomeranian city of Stralsund in 1525. The 51 articles

contained in this document clearly presented a greater range

of concerns than the community chest orders of cities like

Leisnig or Magdeburg. The arrangement of these articles

into three general categories, "Concerning the office of preacher," "Concerning schools," and "Concerning the

community chest, " demonstrated a preliminary attempt to

include matters of creed (Credenda), along with 37 administrative affairs (Admlnistranda.) Th,is arrangement provided a general pattern for countless subsequent church orders, and has thereby encouraged at least one scholar to refer to the church order for Stralsund as the first evangelical church order.

Another noteworthy feature of the Stralsund church order is the rather prominent role played by its author,

Johann Aepinus. Aepinus arrived in Stralsund from the territory of Brandenburg, which he had abandoned following a series of confrontations with Elector Joachim I. Pomerania proved to be a more hospitable environment for Aepinus, who first assumed responsibilities at the University in

Griefswald, then relocated at Stralsund.The Stralsund city council commissioned Aepinus to compose its church and school order and formally accepted his completed work on 11

November 1525.^® Aepinus's efforts in Stralsund immediately resulted in a new position as rector in the reorganized

Latin school and established a reputation in administrative affairs that would accompany this reformer throughout the rest of his life. Starting in Stralsund, Johann Aepinus was one of the first of many who devoted a major portion of their careers to the business of church orders.

The examples of Leisnig, Magdeburg, Stralsund, and to a lesser extent, Wittenberg, all reveal how a city's constitutional arrangements could be used to assist the institutional efforts of the evangelical churches. The 38

attempts of cities to address issues like poor relief,

education, pastoral office, and worship, blended readily

with the teachings of the protestant reformers and thus,

provided a basis for legitimizing the presence of evangelical structures. The Lutheran reformers did not

retreat from these developments, but seized the

opportunities to esteOalish a recognized presence in the various cities of the Empire. Luther praised cities such as

Leisnig for their efforts in creating sound church order.

Other reformers, like Aepinus at Stralsund and even Amsdorf

at Magdeburg, developed a particular expertise in matters of

church order, which they later carried to other towns, and

even territories. Therefore, the concerns of the city

constitutions served as a critical source for some of the

earliest evangelical church orders.

Kirchenordnungen and Statuta. Svnodalia

The protestant reformers did not rely on secular

avenues alone in their attempt to alter ecclesiastical

structures, but made use of the Roman church * s own method

for addressing the need to be an institution semper reformanda.— the right of reform (lus reformandi) associated with diocesan synods and their statutes. The authority of

the bishop to act as ludex ordlnarlus had been authenticated

at least as early as Gratian's Decretum^^ and given even more formal recognition at the Fourth Lateran council in 39 1215.®° The 1433 council at Basel specifically instructed bishops to convoke the diocesan synod on the octave following Easter, but the practice never took hold on a consistent basis.Generally supported by Pope Leo X, the matter of regular diocesan synods was addressed once again at the Fifth Laterein Council (1512) , but these attempted reforms also proved ineffective.®^ Despite the sporadic adherence to these ecclesiastical pronouncements, however, the synods eind their statutes provided one of the more effective methods for the church to address issues of faith and practice at a local level. Johan of Bavaria, archbishop of Magdeburg from 1464 until 1476, did not neglect the responsibility of presiding over the synods convoked in his bishopric, and the published synodal statutes of Magdeburg clearly depict the kinds of issues addressed in these documents before the advent of the evangelical movement. A first and fundamental concern of the statutes for Magdeburg was to rid the bishopric of heretical teaching.®® Those who transgressed in this regard were threatened with excommunication, as were those guilty of stealing church property or murder. The offense of clerical concubinage (fama publxca) also received special attention in the Magdeburg statutes, with the bishopric lending its force to prohibitions already enacted at the council of Basel.®* 40

Although the protestant reformers would reject the general regulatory structure of these synodal statutes, which emphasized prohibitions (mandamus and inhibemus) and penalties (sub excommunlcatxonls pena) , some of the issues addressed, remained. Like the Magdeburg statutes, most protestant church orders included a section devoted to the regulation of feast days. Furthermore, the attention given to the archdeacon and his responsibilities would find parallels in the subsequent Lutheran office of superintendent.®® The synodal statutes thus provided another method for enacting the structural innovations of the evangelical reformers.

Connecting the protestant reformation with synodal statutes in an epicopal city like Magdeburg, however, was entirely untenable, especially given the fact that Albert of

Brandenburg, the elector of Mainz and Luther*s opponent, held the office of archbishop. Therefore, as noted earlier, the reformation in Magdeburg relied primarily upon city ordinances to support its first institutional efforts. This was not the case in the territory of Prussia. The combined support of the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Albrecht of Hohenzollern, and the bishops of Samland and Pomerania, enabled the church in Prussia to use regular ecclesiastical structures and processes in its effort to establish the evangelical movement. The early church orders written for

Prussia were, therefore, the first to emerge from the 41 contemporary pattern of the synodal statutes. As early as 1522, Albrecht had developed sympathies for the evangelical position, which had resulted from his encounter with the preaching of Andreas Osiander during his stay at the diet of Nürnberg.®® In 1523 Albrecht dispatched his councillor, Johann Oeden, to Wittenberg in order to solicit Luther's opinion on a series of proposed reforms for the Teutonic Order and its Prussian holdings. Luther recommended dramatic, rather than subtle changes, and his treatise— An Admonition to the Knights of the Teutonic Order, That They Lay Aside False Chastity and Assume the True Chastity of Wedlock.— encouraged Albrecht to secularize his territories. In contrast to the rather cautious advice he gave in other situations, Luther encouraged Albrecht to act both swiftly and boldly in order to "give weak consciences a comforting example."®’ Albrecht responded favorably to these ideas and invited one of Luther's Wittenberg associates, Johann BrieBman, to serve as the first evangelical preacher in Konigsberg.®® The ecclesiastical changes that were adopted in Prussia, and the church orders that gave formal expression to these matters, resulted from the efforts of BrieBman, George Polentz (the Bishop of Samland), and Erhard of QueiB (the Bishop of Pomerania) . Ecirly in 1524 BrieBman introduced a Kastenordnung for Konigsberg which followed the general pattern of the Leisnig order.®® His teaching also 42

deepened the evangelical commitment of Bishop George

Polentz, and the Bishop's Reformatiozismandat of 1524, a type of synodal statute, revealed this altered confessional

allegiance.The Pomeranian Bishop, Erhard of QueiB,

shared the Lutheran sympathies of BrieBman eind Polentz. He published his own reform program in the statutes Themata

episcopl Riesenburgensls at the end of 1524, and his

proposals evidenced a much broader incorporation of

evangelical reforms than the previous work of Polentz emd

therefore, have been considered the first church order for

Prussia.The majority of the twenty-two articles focused

on eliminating a variety church practices already condemned

by the evcingelicals (i.e. abuses of the ban, suspension of

auricular confession, ceremonies for the dead, etc. ) . The familiar anathema was directed only against those who

believed, "one could do satisfaction for his own sin and

could save himself without the mediation of Christ.

Thus, the pattern of condemnation remained, but now it was

applied to those who preferred the doctrine of the Roman

church.

An even better example of how an evangelical church

order combined with the model of a synodal statute, however,

is the Articel der ceremonien und anderer Kirchen ordzmng adopted in Konigsberg at the end of 1525. As was customary

for all synodal statutes, the names of both bishops, Polentz and QueiB, were formally attached to this document. Much of 43

the actual structure of this church order, however, was the work of BrieBman, assisted by the Konigsberg preacher,

■Johannes Poliander and the Lutheran hymnist, Paul Speratus. Though no synod in the traditional sense acted

on these statutes, it was considered by an assembly of the

Prussian clergy and adopted 10 December 1525.®^ The synodal

pattern for approving this Prussian church order remained

essentially intact, but the shift in favor of the

evangelical movement eliminated some of the familiar

terminology and institutions. The order attended above all

to matters of public worship (Agenda) and relied heavily on

the earlier innovations of Luther, especially his Fonaula

missae.^^ In this regard, it is important to note that the

authors directly addressed the issue of Christian freedom.

They indicated that they had no intention of retreating from

the message of evangelical liberty by introducing some new

method of coercion. Rather, they desired simply to

guarantee that "external ceremonies and customs follow the

manners established by Christ" through a typical, and even

discretionary (wlllkorliche) , community ordinance.^® One

can see in this order for the new Prussian church the

difference, noted earlier by the jurist Heckel, between the

canonist's notion of divine law (gottliche Recht) , and the

more occasional legal thinking that served to legitimate the

church orders. These Prussian articles followed the pattern

of the synodal statutes, but lacked the binding 44 ecclesiastical force that characterized traditional diocesan or provincial legislation.

Before proceeding to the third model that served as a basis for the church orders, the territorial decrees, a

critical matter must be noted. Scholars like Blickle,

Strauss, cuid Zeeden have all pointed to 1525 as a year of dramatic and far-reaching significance for the progress of the evangelical movement. They maintain, though with different emphases, that the early movements of reform characterized as a people's movement (Volksrefojrmation) , an urban movement (Stadtreformation) or combination of the above (Gemeinderefoirmation) , succumbed to the designs and desires of the princes (_Fiirstenreformat±on) . In order to consolidate their sovereign claims and prevent further threats to social order, the princes used the church and manipulated the theologians into creating the territorial church orders. This argument simply will not stand, however, in the face of the evidence already presented. The patterns of church order in city constitutions, in adaptations of synodal statutes, and even in preliminary territorial legislation, had already been established prior

to the beginnings of the peasant uprising in February of

1525. Obviously cataclysmic events like the "revolution" of

1525 influenced thinking about the nature of a church order.

The same can be said for later developments like the

struggle with the anabaptists, the Münster affair, the 45 Schmallcaldic War and tb.e subsequent confessional battles— the composition of the church orders did not occur in a social or theological vacuum. However, the essential outlines of church order thinking belonged to the period of the ecirly 1520s, and occurred not only in Wittenberg, but in places like Leisnig, Magdeburg, Stralsund, and Konigsberg.

One ought to view the process itself as evolution, as opposed to counterrevolution, and the documents themselves as more dynamic than reactionary.

Kirchenordnunaen and Landesordnunaen

The fact that evangelical church orders beccime associated with the various territorial and policy decrees

(Landes- vtnd Pollzeiordnungen) of the German princes should come as no surprise. Luther's blanket appeal to the

Christian nobility in 1520, his subsequent treatise on the nature of temporal power (1523), and his advice to individual rulers such as his own lord. Elector Frederick,

Albrecht of Prussia, or Christian II of Denmark, all supported the understanding that reform in general, and the issue of church order in particular, had vital territorial implications. Although certain leaders like Philip of Hesse or Mcirgrave Casimir of Brandenburg-Ansbach had begun to consider enacting general instructions for reform, legal support for proceeding along these lines within the Holy

Roman Empire remained somewhat obscure in the early 1520s. 46 Outside of the traditional boundaries of the Empire, however, one could proceed without the threat of a summons before the Reicbskammergericht or of sanctions by the emperor. This opportune situation enabled Albrecht of

Prussia to proceed with his plan for the secularization of his territories and made Prussia the first to adopt a territorial church order in its Landesordnung of 1525. At the same time that Bishops Polentz and QueiB presented their articles to the assembled clergy of Samland and Pomereinia, a territorial diet met at Konigsberg and adopted some 80 articles, the bulk of which focused on church reforms. Once again, Johann BrieBman and Bishop Polentz played a significant role in the composition of these articles, especially those which were selected for publication in

1526.^® In contrast to the episcopal statutes, the

Landesordnung contained only a passing reference to ceremonial matters, while emphasizing structural interests like parish rents and clerical compensation. The order also addressed the question of pastoral elections, and while generally supporting the lus patronatus of the local lords

(Lebenherm) , it did not overlook the prerogatives of the congregation. The order specified that any disputed elections should be adjudicated by the bishop or a designated authority so that the best person could be selected for the office, regardless of whether the person in question had support of the lord or the parishioners.®^ 47 Pastoral intent, as opposed to mere territorial self- interest, stood at the heart of this territorial legislation. The situation within the Holy Roman Empire was different. Despite the efforts of their jurists, princes with evangelical sympathies did not yet believe they had legal power to adopt policies similar to those of now Duke Albrecht of Prussia. All of this changed, however, with the recess of the Diet of Speyer in 1526. Although certain territorial privileges in regard to religious legislation were implied in both the Edict of Worms (1521) , euid in the Recess of the Diet of Nürnberg (1524),^°® the Recess at

Speyer gave explicit recognition to these interests of the princes. The Recess stated that the estates were to attend to the religious affairs in their own territories, "so that Christian faith and proper Christian tradition and order could be maintained until the future deliberations of a free Council.This was all the permission that was required, and several protestant princes quickly seized the opportunity to promote their own territorial church orders. The first to move aggressively forward in the matter of church order was Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Philip's support for the evangelical cause had been secured as early as 1524, primarily influenced by a meeting of the Landgrave with Philip Melanchthon. Almost immediately, Melanchthon sent a lengthy treatise addressed to Philip, Epitomae 48 renavatae ecclesiasticae doctrinae. This writing not only encouraged the Landgrave to consider how one might implement ecclesiastical change, but provided a first opportunity for the Wittenberg theologian to reflect on issues of church order. When the Diet of Speyer concluded in 1526, Philip used the opportunity to act on Melanchthon * s recommendations.

Even more central than Melanchthon to the subsequent developments in Hesse, however, were the efforts of the former Franciscan Francis Lambert, originally from Avignon.

Lambert arrived at Marburg in Hesse via Zurich, Basel,

Wittenberg and Strasbourg, and accompanied Philip to the

Diet at Speyer in 1526.^°^ It was Lambert who convinced

Philip to summon a synod in order to introduce proposed changes in church doctrine and practice so that the formal reformation in Hesse could follow the pattern of synodal statutes.The synod convened in Homberg in October of

1526 and the articles adopted at this meeting reflected primarily the thinking and innovations of Lambert.^®® The synod that met at Homberg used Lambert * s Paradoxa as the basis for its discussion, and it was Lambert who composed the summary Reformatio Ecclesiarum Hassiae. Even though the entire process of reformation in Hesse proceeded in the name of the Landgrave, Philip could not have been more dependant on his principal theological advisor, Francis Lambert. 49 Hesse was really the first territory within the empire to introduce measures of reform on a territorial level, and because of this, the Landgrave assumed a primary role in the process. Unlike the situation in Prussia, there was no bishop to preside at the Homberg synod, so Philip took on this responsibility himselfThus, these synodal articles for Hesse were more like territorial legislation than ecclesiastical statutes. Philip also buttressed the theological designs of the Homberg synod with an accompanying piece of territorial legislation. This Reforma-tlonsordnxzng focused specifically on various threats of social disorder, i.e. "tasteless drunkenness, troublesome divorces and premarital affairs, unchristian swearing, illegal confiscations of property, and general disorderly living," and avoided matters of church doctrine and structure.^®® Taken together, the articles of the Homberg synod and the Refoirmatlonsordnung of 1526 reveal an attempt by Philip and his theological advisors to link the concerns of a church order with territorial policy. ,An escalating lack of support for this first church order in Hesse doomed the effort almost before it got started. Lambert's rather inflated view of his unique role as reformer had already earned the suspicions of Luther, and apparently offended other evangelical leaders in Hesse. Understandably, this only eroded support for the reform program. Landgrave Philip's own reservations about the plan 50 laid out in the Reformatio Ecclesiainxm Hassiae led him to seek additional counsel ^ and he submitted the document to Wittenberg. Luther responded almost immediately with his opinion that Philip should delay publishing the Reformatio- -a proposal Luther faulted for presenting "a pile of laws burdened with too many words. Luther, however, did not back down on his support for composing church orders. He simply felt it was better to limit the pastors initially to a few matters, "possibly just one, three, five, or even six sections... the kind that could be kept in a small book," and then to build "in breadth and extent, as the situation itself demanded." He concluded with his often cited observation that a church order should be "short and sound, restrained, yet complete, well—conceived and steady.

For Luther, Hesse's attempt to provide a territorial church order was a positive step, but Philip, and especially Lambert, looked to accomplish too much, too quickly. Even a prince as influential as Philip could not simply impose his ecclesiastical designs on his territory. This initial failure of the Hessian general program only served to fortify institutional efforts on a smaller, local scale.

A more successful union of church order with territorial design occurred in the duchy of Braunschweig- Lüneburg with the support of Duke Ernest (the Confessor) .

Ernest, who had studied in Wittenberg (1512), maintained a close relationship with electoral Saxony and because of 51 this y became a relatively early supporter of the evangelical movement.In 1524, Ernest welcomed the first evangelical preacher to his territory, Gottschalk Kruse, who arrived in Celle with a recommendation from Luther. With the support of Ernest and the council at Celle, Kruse engaged in a series of disputations with the Franciscans in Braunschweig-Lüneburg, and managed to win broad support for the evangelical movement. As a result of these efforts by Kruse, Ernest not only closed the monasteries in 1527, but severed the ecclesiastical relationship of the churches in Braunschweig-Lüneburg with the bishops at Minden, Verden and Hildesheim. The actions of Duke Ernest in opposition to traditional church hierarchy paved the way for the introduction of the first evcoigelical church order in his territory, the so- called Article Book of 1527.^^^ On 3 July 1527, the clergy of Celle assembled to deliberate on matters of church reform euid Kruse compiled the results of this meeting in the Article Book.^^^ The articles were then submitted to Duke Ernest and issued as religious policy in the territory, despite a territorial diet's reticence to approve these measures in August of 1527. The generally conservative nature of these proposals, which emphasized reforms in frequently abused church practices— clerical absenteeism (Article 1) ; confusion regarding days of religious observance (Articles 5 and 9) ; private masses (Article 52

Articles 15 and 16) ; and inappropriate veneration of

"consecrated” elements (Article 19)— rather than weightier doctrinal issues, may explain why Ernest could implement these proposals without the full support of his estates.

The Article Book also made it clear that Ernest saw himself as responsible "directly to God" for the spiritual as a well as the temporal welfare of his subjects, and as one cheirged with defending God*s honor.These statements have led one historian to conclude that this Braunschweig-Lüneburg

Article Book offers "one of the first examples of the territorial church system (the landesherrliche

Kirchenregiment) . Even though these observations seem rather premature, the territorial nature of reform in

Braunschweig-Lüneburg, and the joining of Kirchenordnung with Landesordnungf reveal a pattern of institutional reform that would emerge with increasing frequency.

In summary, the process of composing evangelical church orders, a vital institutional endeavor that began in the early 1520s, relied on familiar constitutional patterns in order to legitimize the effort. The three different sources that have been presented: city constitutions, synodal statutes, and territorial decrees, all contributed in differing ways to this early evolution of the church order phenomenon. At times these various approaches converged as was the case in the territory of Prussia during the years 53

1524-1525. In Other situations, competing interests prevented this kind of combined effort. This is precisely what occurred in Magdeburg where the evangelical tendencies of the city and its congregations conflicted directly with the commitments of the archbishop and forced the city council to use its own limited powers to introduce institutional change. Overall, those who encouraged the development of new ecclesiastical structures encountered unforeseen problems and numerous setbacks as they created these first evangelical church orders. Both failures and successes accompanied the composition of the various church orders, and from what has been discussed already, it is apparent that the course of development was neither direct nor smooth. Nevertheless, church leaders attended closely to the need for coordinated and creative thinking on matters of church form and the composition of church orders emerged as one of the most influential tasks of the next several d e c a d e s .

Unfortunately, a general failure to recognize the various dimensions involved in establishing the first church orders has led to all kinds of erroneous conclusions. One needs only a brief glance at the early chronology of the church orders to eliminate the commonly held opinion that these were primarily reactionary documents designed to promote stability following the turmoil of 1525. Likewise, greater attention to those involved in the process, above 54 all due consideration to the individuals responsible for composing the church orders, challenges the notion that princes, or authorities in general, manipulated the effort to their own ends. Even a prince as vitally involved as

Philip of Hesse had to depend upon his theological advisor

Francis Lambert to create a territorial church order and

Lcimbert*s overly ambitious model clearly thwarted the intentions of Philip. Finally, it should be clear that the fundamental issues addressed in these various church orders were neither new formulations nor retractions of previous teaching. Above all, the repeated attention given in these church orders to the notion of Christian freedom, and how to balance this message with the realistic demands of institutional order did not diminish in the least. The evangelical reformers remained committed to both freedom and order as they devoted increasingly greater energies to the structural questions. Before concluding, an analysis of how these concerns influenced the formation of the first church orders for two critical regions— Electoral Saxony and

Brandenburg-Ansbach-Niimberg (a union of territory and imperial city) — will provide an opportunity to summarize the beginnings of the church order process.

The Saxon ünterricht der Visitatoren

Although Electoral Saxony was not the first territory within the empire to adopt a church order, the church order 55 that was enacted in 1528 served as one of the most significant models for numerous church orders that would follow. The constitutional approach of this Saxon church order was obviously territorial by design, even though several cities (i.e. Wittenberg, Altenberg, Leisnig), with varying degrees of success, had adopted city ordinances of reform. The church order for Saxony also relied upon ecclesiastical precedent, in particular the responsibilities of visitation associated with the church ' s hierarchy and especially the office of bishop. The use of ecclesiastical visitors to insure proper adherence to orthodox doctrine and practice had a well-developed history by the sixteenth century, and had been advocated earlier by the bishop of Meissen as a means to combat evangelical teaching. However, visitations in support of the Lutheran cause had occurred in Saxony as early as 1524, under the direction of Jacob Strauss, and became more prevalent when John assumed the electoral office in 1525.^^^ These preliminary visitations, however, yielded to a more systematic territorial effort in early 1527 that was accompanied, for the first time, by a list of instructions composed by Melanchthon and the Wittenberg jurist Jerome Schurff.^^® At the conclusion of this visitation, Melanchthon reworked the first series of articles into the more formal (and familiar) ünterricht. cLer Visitatoren an die pfarrherrn Im karfiirstenthvaa zu Sachsen. Luther supplied the preface to 56 the document, while Johann Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, and

Schurff assisted in the overall composition.^^® In 1528, this first church order for electoral Saxony was published. From the very outset, controversy surrounded the plans of the Saxon visitation and the subsequent church order.

The heart of the concerns that were raised centered on how the visitation, and the prescriptions that accompanied the effort, could be reconciled with the teaching of Christian freedom, especially in matters of conscience. The primary critic within the ranks of the evangelical reformers was

Johann Agricola, rector of the Latin school at Eisleben and a personal favorite of Elector John. Agricola harbored pairticular concerns for the freedoms he associated with the evangelical cause and had written his very first treatise in defense of both Luther and the notion of Christian freedom. As he surveyed the current proposals in Saxony,

Agricola believed that the whole process of visitation and the threat of compulsory adherence to the teaching of the

Gospel violated liberties that he and others had championed.

He was especially critical of Melanchthon ' s emphasis on the necessity of preaching the Law and repentance prior to the message of Grace, and criticized Luther for concurring with this approach. Luther responded that these measures were necessary to rid the territory of the real threat to tyranny, the teachings of the Romanists, and indicated that

Agricola had confused the demands of love (Charitsts) with 57 those of liberty. He encouraged Agricola to be patient with the process and restrained in his criticism since both the Agricola's friend. Elector John, and the other

Wittenberg theologians supported the effort.

Luther's success in winning at least tacit support for the visitations from Agricola, however, did not stop the mounting criticisms that came from the reformer's Roman Catholic opponents. News of dissention in the evangelical camp over the visitation proposals resulted in several attempts to depict this fragmentation and to underscore the pliable nature of evangelical teaching. Johannes Cochlaeus wrote the most prominent of these treatises entitled The

Seven-Headed Luther. Cochlaeus labeled one head of his

Lutheran beast "Visitor" and ridiculed the introduction of evangelical visitations as the same kind of tyranny Luther and his associates had earlier rejected. Luther did not respond directly to Cochlaeus, but it is clear that he had an entirely different understanding of the validity of the visitations. Luther had no particular problem with the role of "Visitor," whether applied to himself or others that shared his views. When Luther attacked the spiritual offices of pope and bishop earlier in 1522, he made it clear that the most important (and for him, most historically defensible) responsibility of the episcopacy was visitations.The work of visitation had characterized the early church and it was only natural that these duties 58

should continue in the present. For Luther, visitations did

not violate the freedom of the gospel, but provided the

opportunity for genuine liberty to emerge.

The church order that culminated the initial visitation

and guided the resumption of the process, the ünterricht. der

Visitatoren, addressed several institutional matters that

were critical to the evangelical reformers. The preface

supplied by Luther sought once again to provide both

biblical and historical precedent for the visitations and

called for reestablishing the "legitimate episcopal

office. Luther concluded his introductory comments by

indicating that his overriding hope was to ensure "spiritual

unity" based in "love and peace. Melanchthon shared

this objective and argued later in the document that "some

church orders have been established in order to promote good

order and peace. This Saxon church order was also the

first to provide a table of contents and a quick glance at the list of topics demonstrates that confessional matters

(Credenda) received the most attention with only minimal

consideration to administrative affairs.

One of the more obvious doctrinal concerns was the question of Christian freedom. Melanchthon warned against various misinterpretations of Christian freedom^^’ and summarized true Christian freedom as "the forgiveness of sins in Christ, without our own merit or effort, through the

Holy Spirit. " He then expanded his understanding of 59 Christian freedom into three parts: 1) Christian freedom based in the rule of Christ who has liberated the Christian from the power of sin and the Devil; 2) Christian ceremonial freedom to utilize whatever form is customary and not in violation of Scripture; and 3) Christian freedom in regards to temporal church affairs like fasting and feast days, which do not in themselves make one godly. From these observations, Melanchthon derived three kinds of church orders: 1) orders that cannot be observed without sinning, such as the prohibition against marriage, 2) orders which are useful for growth in Christian faith and understanding cuid not to earn God's favor, and, 3) orders designed specifically to earn grace. For Melanchthon, Luther, and the other Saxon theologians, proper church order found its true purpose in the second category, thereby connecting the value of church order with the need to protect Christian

freedom.

The Brandenburg—Nümbera Kirchenordimncr

A need to elaborate on the matter of Christian freedom

also characterized the influential church order composed

jointly for the territory of Brandenburg-Ansbach and the

imperial city of Nürnberg. Although this church order did

not achieve its final form until 1533, several

considerations justify including it within the present

discussion of the earliest church orders. First, the final 60 1533 Brauldenbxxrg-Nümberg church order was preceded by a series of preliminary documents that do belong to the early and middle 1520s. Much of what was recorded in 1533 merely reiterated issues discussed and resolved previously. In addition, the individuals who composed this church order— Andreas Osiander and Johannes Brenz— played a formative role in the early development of the church orders and it seems appropriate to include their contributions from the outset. Finally, and most importantly, the Brandenburg-Nürnberg church order adopted one of the more comprehensive statements in regards to the matter of Christian freedom and in so doing has something to contribute to the current discussion. As noted previously, the territory of Brandenburg- Ansbach, first under Margrave Casimir, then under Margrave George, was one of the first to pursue territorial policies in support of the evangelical movement. The cautious moves of Margrave Casimir in the direction of reform, first introduced in the recesses of the territorial diets in 1524- 25, became even bolder following the decisions at Speyer (1526). In contrast to his brother, Albrecht of Prussia, Casimir seemed more interested in the prospect of heightened ecclesiastical control, than in promoting any particular confessional agenda. His moderate position did provide the opportunity for Lutheran sympathizers to gain a firm foothold in his territory. However, formal religious 61 reforms remained limited to matters such as changing the mass from Latin to German and other similar liturgical proposals. This situation changed significantly when

Casimir died in 1527 and was succeeded by his younger brother George, a more openly committed evangelical.^^®

George's interest in establishing essentially Lutheran institutional forms became apparent at the territorial diet which met in Februacry of 1528 and was followed by the

Margrave's own "Mandat" to implement the reformation.

Margrave George also assumed a leading role in promoting a united reform effort within his territories and those of the imperial city of Nürnberg. By 1528, Nürnberg had already gained a reputation as one of the leading centers of the new teaching among the various German cities.

The preaching of Andreas Osiander at St. Lorenz church

(since 1522),^^^ and the steady efforts of Nürnberg city clerk, Lazarus Sprengler, resulted in a formal victory for the evangelical party following a series of disputations in 1 5 2 5 . The decision of the Nürnberg council to embrace the teachings of the Wittenberg theologians encouraged the adoption of new forms of worship and led directly to the innovations associated with the church orders. Nürnberg had already adopted its own community chest order (1522), and in

1525 changes in the worship service were introduced, primarily the work of Andreas Dober, chaplain of the

Hospital Church. 62

Encouraged by Margrave George, the Nürnberg council,

and especially Sprengler, a plan to combine the forces of Brandenburg-Ansbach and Nürnberg in order to provide a united evangelical front took shape in 1528.^^* The example

of the visitations that had occurred in electoral Saxony provided a model of reform that appealed to the interested parties in Ansbach and Nürnberg. In Nürnberg, Osiander

composed a series of instructions— similar to Melanchthon ’ s visitation articles— designed to ascertain the theological

capabilities of the parish clergy. These articles were

combined with a group of questions supplied by the Ansbach

clergy^^® to establish the confessional agenda of this visitation. Guided by these documents, the visitors carried

out their duties during the late summer and fall of 1528. The visitations concluded by the end of the year and resulted in the first Brandenburg-Nürnberg church order.

Almost no one felt satisfied with the brief 1528 church order for Brandenburg-Nürnberg and plans to complete a more extensive and detailed document formed shortly after the

first order was issued.These intentions were delayed, however, by developments within the empire that demanded more immediate attention. The decisions announced at the

Diet of Speyer in 1529, which prompted the protestation of the evangelical estates, and the lengthy negotiations that took place in Augsburg the following year took precedence over local institutional concerns.Nevertheless, with a 63 degree of confessional unity achieved in the Lutheran

Angsburg Confession and the renewed support of the Nürnberg

council, interest in completing the church order effort resurged in 1530-31.

Two individuals worked together to bring the

Brandenburg-Nürnberg order into its final form— Osiander and Johannes Brenz of Schwabisch-Halle. Brenz had won the

admiration of Margrave George and even accompanied the

Margrave to the Diet of Augsburg (1530).^®^ George

appreciated Brenz for the theological skills he displayed both at the Marburg Colloquy (1529) and at Augsburg, but

grew especially dependent on the organizational skills of

the reformer. Brenz had already composed a church order for

the imperial city of Schwabisch-Hall^®^ and because of this

experience, George insisted that he work with Osiander on

the church order for Brandenburg-Nürnberg. Although bulk of

the effort involved reworking drafts already composed by

Osiander, the two met repeatedly in their attempt to finish

the project. A preliminary draft was completed by the end

of 1531, submitted to various bodies for their approval and

comments (including Wittenberg^®®) , then given a final

overhaul by Osiander and Brenz. On 1 January 1533 the

completed church order was introduced within the city of N ü r n b e r g . ^®®

The Brandenburg-Nürnberg church order addressed a host

of issues and like Melanchthon's ünterricht der Visitatoren, 64 served as a model for several subsequent church orders.

The order focused on confessional matters first (Credenda)

then discussed matters of liturgy at some length {Agenda) .

Administrative affairs were intentionally neglected in this

church order, primarily because of the differences between

the territory and the imperial city, but the order did

include a rather lengthy catechism composed by Osiander and

Dominikus Schleupner. Although a couple of lingering

issues continued to stimulate both concern and controversy

regarding this church order, the teaching and practice

outlined in the order provided a generally sound structure.

One of the most significant issues addressed in the

Brandenburg-Nürnberg order was the idea of Christian freedom and its relationship to order. In general, Osiander and

Brenz used the outline of Melanchthon ' s Unterricht in

assembling this document. In certain sections they borrowed

heavily from the earlier Saxon order; this was particularly

true in the section on Christian freedom {'*Von Christlicher

freihei t” ) which repeated the arguments of the Unterricht

almost word for word.^®° However, in the introduction to

the order, one can see more clearly the special concerns of

Osiander and Brenz in regards to this tension of freedom and

order. These reformers expressed their understanding that

disorder, more than tyrannized consciences, threatened the

well-being of the church and the individual Christian. They

advocated their understanding of harmonious church order as 65 a way to avoid divine displeasure^ to silence detractors and critics, and to guarantee personal and spiritual health. Ultimately church order was necessary to insure "the two critical components of church life: preaching and the sacraments." Brenz and Osiander had not abandoned their own commitment to religious liberty, they just believed deeply in the value of "the honorable, orderly discipline of a typical congregation." With this kind of confidence in the merit of their efforts, it is little wonder that both Brenz and Osiander committed significant portions of their remaining professional lives to the task of creating church orders. Shortly after the completion of his work in Brandenburg— Nürnberg, Brenz assumed similar responsibilities in Dinkelsbühl (completing a church order in 1533), then in the restored duchy of Württemberg where he would spend the rest of his life. Osiander, in addition to his ongoing leadership in Nürnberg, composed a church order for the Palatine-Neuburg (1542) and finished his life attempting to influence the form of the church in Prussia,

These two reformers, Brenz and Osiander, joined with others like Johann BrieBman, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Johannes Aepinus in an expanding network of church leaders actively engaged in creating church orders in both cities and territories. Although Luther assumed a vital role at the 66 beginning of this process, and therefore has received considerable attention in this chapter, it will become clear that the church order enterprise was much larger than Luther or even the other Wittenberg theologians. Judgements rendered on the nature of Lutheran church order or about the formation of protestant institutions in general that focus almost exclusively on Luther do a serious injustice to the breadth of individuals who were involved. Exploring the network of authors of church orders, considering their particular contexts and interrelationships will occupy the next two chapters.

Above all, an attempt has been made to analyze the critical beginning of the church order process. The approaches to establishing church orders— grounded in civic ordinances, ecclesiastical statutes, and territorial policy statements— began neither with Luther, nor his contemporaries, yet they all used these forms to support their institutional efforts. Although the church orders did not arise as reaction to the events of 1525, it is evident that they were influenced by these and similar circumstances. Even the overall political climate within the empire, which tended to favor the role of the territorial princes, had obvious repercussions for the development of the church orders. Nevertheless, the authors of the church orders took responsibility for creating the shape of the new church and did not take their initiative 67 either from the princes or the peasants. The church order task obviously demanded the best efforts of those who demonstrated skills in organization and recognized specialists begem to emerge. Most importantly, the reformers involved desired to provide the best possible church order, but did not abandon their commitment to

Christian freedom in the human affairs of the church. For

Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, Osiander, BrieBmem, Aepinus emd other pioneers authors of church orders, order and freedom could and must coexist in the institutions of the church.

The undenisLble tension between these notions of order and freedom was a matter that attracted attention repeatedly. Luther recognized this paradox and the preface he wrote for the Gottingen church order (1531) underscores precisely this point. Just ten years earlier, Luther had burned the canon law in Wittenberg as a demonstration of freedom in the institutional affairs of the church. Now he commended the citizens of Gottingen for their fine church order noting that one "could never have too much good order, good law, and good teaching. His encouraging words to those in Gottingen and his constant support of similar efforts made it clear that Luther in no way derogated the importance of this task. However, Luther also offered a severe, and somewhat unsolicited warning to those in

Gottingen against deriving any sense of false security from their own organizational efforts. Not only must the 68

-townspeople guard against Satan, "who also wants to be a prince in Gottingen,” but they had to realize that God himself could turn the whole enterprise on its head. Luther

argued that, "the gospel is not God's order alone, but the power of God." For Luther, the notion of freedom, implied, but not stated in this church order, meant not only human

freedom to adapt and change institutions, but the freedom of God to bring the best human efforts to naught. Thus, the value of church order balanced by the need to recognize

freedom, both human and divine, remained the primary concern

of Luther and the other authors of the evangelical church

orders. These concerns marked not only the beginning of the

church order effort, but carried into the tremendous era of

expansion that would characterize the next decades. 69 EKDNOTES

1. The Bull Exsurge Domine was first issued in Rome on 24 June 1520 after a series of meetings of the consistory at Rome, and granted Luther 60 days to reccint his teachings. The Bull first airrived in electoral Saxony in late September of 1520, proclaimed by Eck, emd finally reached Luther in Wittenberg 11 October 1520— exactly 60 days before the Wittenberg book-burning. See Martin Brecht, Martin Lutber: His Road to the Refojcmation, 1483-1521, trans. James Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 389-405, and WA Br 2: 195. 2. WA Br 2l 234. 3. Luther defended his actions in the treatise. Why the Books of the Pope and his Disciple were Burned, published in late December, 1520, see WA 7: 161—82. 4. The event inspired a number of engravings (Kupferstiche) and even an anonymous Flugschrift, "The German Requiem for the Burned Bull and the Papal Books," recorded in Eduard Booking, ed., Ulrichs von Hutten Schriften 3 (Leipzig, 1859), pp. 470-72. For examples of the various engravings see Roland Bainton, Here I Standz A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1955) , p. 128; and Martin Treu, Die Lutherhalle Wittenberg (Leipzig, 1991) , p. 51. As a part of the 500 year commemoration of Luther's birth, the book burning was reenacted in Wittenberg, see Merle Severly, "The World of Luther," National Geographic 164: 4 (1983): 434- 35. 5. "Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta et tantum tria pro tempore ponenda, Baptimus, Poenitentia, Panis, et haec omnia esse per Romanam curiam nobis in miserabilem captivitatem ducta Ecclesiamque sua tota libertate spoilatam...," WA 6: 501. 6. Stated in the accompanying letter addressed to Leo X, WA 7: 11. 7. Luther's conceived his to appeal to the German nobility in early June, 1520, when he first learned of the deliberations about his teaching that had occurred in Rome. He did not fulfill this intention, however, until the early part of August when the document (which had been completed as early as June 23) went into print for the first time. See James Kittelson, Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and his Career (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986) , pp. 150-51; and Brecht, Luther, His Road, p. 369, and WA 6: 392. 70

8. WA 6: 411. 9. "Was sol ich viel sagen? sein doch in dem gantzen gey S t 1 ichen Bapsts gesetz nit zwo zeyllen, die einen frummen Christen mochten nnterweyszen, und leyder soviel yrriger und ferlicher gesetz, das nit besser weere, man mecht ein Rotten hauffen drauszl" WA 6: 443, See also, W A B r 2: 137.

10. Machiavelli completed The Prince, along with most of the Discorsi, shortly after he was forced to leave his Florentine office in 1512, thus preceding Luther's writing by about five years. See Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardiniz Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), pp. 153-4.

11. Note in particular the suggestions outlined in proposals 14, 18, 19, 25, and 27, WA 6: 440-43, 445-47, 457-62, 465-67.

12. W A 6: 422-23.

13. Ozment points to several sources that proclaimed this so-called early message of evangelical liberty in Chapter 3, "The original protestant message," see Steven Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 47-120.

14. Ozment, Refonaation in the Cities, p. 152.

15. Gerald Strauss, Law, Resistance and the Statez The Opposition to Roman Law in Reformation Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 162.

16. Strauss, Law, pp.201, 223.

17. Strauss, Law, p. 231.

18. See the author's earlier work, Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525z The German Peasants' War from a New Perspective (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1982).

19. See Peter Blickle, Gemeindereformationz Die Menschen des 16. Jahrhunderts auf dem Weg ztan Heil (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1985), pp.110-16.

20. See his concluding discussion, "Fürstenreformation versus Gemeindereformation, " Brickie, Gemeindereformation, pp. 205- 15.

21. Blickle, Gemeindereformation, p. 214. 71

22. Blickle's evidence here comes from a series of instructions provided by Margraves Casimir and George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, "und was heiBt 'reines Evangelium* jetzt? Es ware ein MiBverstandnis anzunehmen 'das der Glaub allain in Got und Jesum Christum... zu Erlangung der ewigen Seligkait genug sei, * die guten Werke sind fur das Heil unverzichtbar, 'dann wo dieselben guten Werk nit volgen. da sei auch kein warer, rechter, liebreicher, seligmacher Glaub.• Auch was christliche Freiheit sei, wird den Geistlichen eingescharft. Christliche Freiheit heiBt 'aus einem freien, willigen Herzen und mit Lust die Gebot Gottes ha It en und gute Werke tun... der Oberkait gehorsam sei," Blickle, Gemeindere formation, p. 215.

23. E. W. Zeeden, "Deutschland von der Mitte 15. Jahrhunderts bis zum Westfalischen Frieden," in Theodore Schneider, ed. , Eandbucb der europalscben Gescblcbte 3 (1971), p. 519.

24. Marc Lienhard, Martin Lutber. Un Temps, Une Vie, Un Message (Pciris, 1983), p. 427.

25. Troeltsch's thinking on these matters is found primarily in his two volume, Tbe Social Teachings of tbe Christian C h u r c h e s .

26. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. Olive Wyon, 2 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1931), pp. 489-494, 518.

27. Troeltsch, Social Teachings 2, p. 519.

28. See Thomas Brady, "Social History," in Steven Ozment, e d . , Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research (St. Louis, 1982), p. 165.

29. Although the title of Holl*s work, The Cultural Significance of the Reformation, suggests an overall appraisal of the Reformation, the focus is clearly the ideas of Luther, with little attention to other Lutheran theologians, to say nothing of Calvinism or the notions of other reformers.

30. See Karl Holl, The Cultural Significance of the Reformation (New York, Meridian Books, 1959), pp. 60, 95.

31. Holl, Cultural Significance, p. 53.

32. Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, trans. W. A. Hansen (St. Louis, 1962).

33. Elert, Structure of Lutheranism I, pp. 50, 75-175.

34. Elert, Structure of Lutheranism I, p. 332. 72

35. Anneliese Sprengler-Ruppenthal, ”Zu den theologischen Gnindlagen reformatorischen Kirchenrechts : Studie an einigen Beispielen," Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für niedersachlsche Klrchengeschlchte 85 (1987): 67-85.

36. For example, in commenting on the church order for Braunschweig-Calenberg, one of the most important early territorial orders, Sprengler-Ruppenthal argues, "Doch 1st das landesherr 1 iche Kirchenregiment nicht eigentlich die Quelle des Kirchenrechts, so sehr es auch in den groBen Landesordnxingen hervortreten mag. Corvinus laBt in der Kirchenordnung auf die Vorrede der Herzogin erstes ein Kapitel folgen, 'Von der lere, das man allein Gotts wort in der kirchen predigen und das volk auf die rechtschaffene gottsdienst weisen sol,'" Sprengler-Ruppenthal, "Kirchenrecht," pp. 83-4.

37. Luise Schom—Schütte, " 'Papocaeserismus ' der Theologen? Von Amt des evangelischen Pfarrers in der frühneuzeitlichen Stadtgesellschaft bei Bugenhagen," Archiv für Refojcmatxonsgescblcbte 79 (1988) : 239-60.

38. Hans—Walter Krumwiede, "Bugenhagens Braunschweiger Kirchenordnung (1528) als Dokument des Pr otest ant ismus zwischen Reformation und Revolution," Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für niedersachlsche Klrchengeschlchte 77 (1979) : 13-24.

39. For an excellent historiographical summary which includes the specific concerns of Heckel see, Johannes Heckel, L e x Charltatls: Elne jurlstlsche Untersuchung über das Recht In der Theologle Martin Luthers (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), pp. 3-31.

40. Heckel, Lex Charltatls, p. 420.

41. Note the comments of Strauss regarding the work of Heckel, Strauss, Law, pp. 201-02.

42. See the abstract of Heckel's "Initia iuris ecclesiastici Protestantium," in Heckel, Lex Charltatls, pp. 420-25.

43. This initial section by Sehling includes Luther's Formula mlssae et communlonls pro eccleslae Wlttenbergensl (1523), the Deudsche messe und ordnung gottls dlenst (1526), two articles concerning baptism (1523 and 1526), and separate rites for marriage (1534?) and ordination (1535), Sehling, EKO I: 1- 28.

44. W A B r 2: 368-69; July 31, 1521. 73

45. See P. Heinrich Denifle, Luther und Luthertuxa^ zwelte Aaflage I; 1 (Mainz, 1904) , pp. 29-30; and the comments of Elert, Structure of Lutheranism, p. 10.

46. W A Bi 605-17.

47. W A Bi 613.

48. As a consequence of statements made at Leipzig, Emser accused Luther of Bohemian sympathies and saw Luther as attacking the very foundations of the church. Luther countered Emser in his tract Ein Widerspruch D. Luthers seines Inrtums, erzwungen durch den allerhochgelebrtesten Priester Gottesj, H e r m Hieronymous Emser, Vikarien zu Meissen, see Brecht, Luther, His Road, pp. 332—35.

49. WA 10^: 107-08.

50. WA 10^: 122-23.

51. Luther defused the possible objection that if vows violate Christian freedom, then the same case could be made for marriage vows as he wrote, "Respondeo: Libertas Euangelica regnat in iis solum, quae geruntur inter deum et te ipsum, non inter te et proximum commodum, " WA 8; 615.

52. W A B r 2l 388; 9 Sept. 1521.

53. In the mid—1520s only Spalatin and Luther's princes received as much correspondence from Luther as Nicholaus Hausmann, the evangelical preacher of Altenburg, then Zwickau. See W A Br, 3 and 4, passim; and, Susan Karant-Hunn, Zwickau in Transition (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975).

54. See the treatise, Eine treue Vermahnung M. Luthers zu alien Christen sich zu hiiten vor Aufruhr und Emporung W A 8: 676-87; and, Kittelson, Luther, pp. 173-75.

55. WA 11: 245-81.

56. WA 11: 245-47. 57. WA 11: 251.

58. As Heckel introduced the diverse concerns of the church orders, his first consideration was worship, "Als Themen einer Kirchenordnungen seien genannt das gemeindliche Kultusrecht (Gottesdienstordnungen) , das Amts- und Standesrecht der Kirchendiener, inbesondere der Prediger, das Recht der gemeindlichen Diakonie, namentlich der Armenpflege, die Mitwirkung bei der Ordnung des Schulwesens, die Kirchenzucht, 74 inbesondere die Verbângiing des kl einen Bannes oder die Versagiang des kirchlichen Begrabnisses, die Verwaltung des Kirchenguts, die Errichtung der hôheren kircbenlichen Aufsicht. Allen solchen Vorschriften ist gemein, daB sie— anders als das kanonisches Rechti— kein "notiges Gesetz" sind, Heckel, L g x Charltatls, pp. 404-06.

59. Müntzer composed his Deutsches Klrchenamt for dally worship in 1523, at the same time Luther was completing his Formula Mlssae, then completed the Deutsch Evangellsche Messe in 1524. The later was adopted in several later church orders, see Eric Gritsch, Reformer Without a Churchz The Life and Thought of Thomas Muentzer, 1488 (?)-1525 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 75—78.

60. Note Sprengler-Ruppenthal * s survey of church order content's in TEE 18, pp. 686-699; for Sehling, see RE 10, p. 460.

61. See Bemd Moeller, Imperial Cities and the Reformation, Three Essays, trans. Erik Midelfort and Mark Edwards (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), pp. 58-68; emd, Alfred Schultze, Stadtgemelnde und Reformation (Tübingen, 1918) .

62. Nicholaus Amsdorf, Jerome Schurff, Justus Jonas and Melanchthon also assisted in composing this church order, see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521—1532, trans. James Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 38; and Jcimes Preus, Carlstadt’s Ordlnanclones and Luther's Liberty: A Study of the Wittenberg Movement, 1521-22 (Ccunbridge: Heurvard University Press, 1974), pp. 25-34 .

63. Richter only included this document as an appendix to Volume II of his church order collection, Richter II: 484- 85. Note also the comments of Sehling, EKO I: 696.

64. See Hsurold J. Grimm, "Luther's Contribution to Sixteenth-Century Poor Relief," Archiv für Reformatlonsgeschlchte 61 (1970): 222-33; and Frank Lane, "Poverty and Poor Relief in the German Church Orders of Johann Bugenhagen, 1485-1558" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1973), pp. 126-40.

65. Note in particular the sections, "Bestellunge des pfarrampts," and "Von anhoren gottliche worts," Sehling, EKO I: 598.

66. See the conclusions of Sprengler-Ruppenthal regarding the Leisnig order, "Wenn nun die Ordnung selbst als erstes nicht die Regelung der Kastenverhaltnisse, sondern die 75

Bestellung des Pfarramts, die Verpflichtung der Kirchenspieler zur Aiihorung des gottlichen Wortes sowie zu christlicher Hauszucht behandelt und damit ihren Character über die Kastenordnung hinaus zur Kirchenordnugn erweitert... " in Sprengler-Ruppenthal, "Zu den theologischen Grundlagen reformatorischen Kirchenrechts," p. 68. See also Sehling, EKO I: 596-97.

67. Sehling suggested the Leisnig preacher, Heinrich Kind, as the most likely possibility, Sehling, EKO I: 596.

68. WA 12: 1.

69. See WA 11: 401-16. Blickle argues that Luther*s subsequent retraction of the principles eleiborated here completely undercut the communal force of the early reformation, Blickle, Gemeindereformation, pp. 135-38.

70. See Luther's tract. Von Ordnung Gottesdienst in der Gemeine W A 12: 35-7.

71. See Sehling, EKO 2: 448; and "Die Historia des Mollenvogtes Sebastian Langhans," in Die Chroniken der niedersachischen Stadte: Magdeburg 2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962), pp. 144-46.

72. Ibid., p. 161.

73. Sehling, EKO II: 449.

74. See Robert Kolb, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483-1565), Popular Polemics in the Preservation of Luther*s Legacy (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1978) , p. 36; and "Die Historia des Mollenvogtes," p. 182.

75. The articles were given the general arrangement: "Van den predigem," 1-12; "Van der schole," 13-17; and, "Van den gemein kasten," 18-51, Sehling, EKO IV: 542-45.

76. This is the position of Hans Düfel, "Die Kirchenordnung des Aepinus wurde am 5.11.1525 eingeführt. Sie ist die erste bekannte evangelische Kirchenordnung," see THE 1, p. 537.

77. See Robert Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), p. 17.

78. Sehling, EKO IV: 540.

79. See Stanely Chodrow, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid—Tvrelfth Century: The Ecclesiology 76 of GraZlan's Decretum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

80. For the development of these issues see Francis Donnelly, Tbe Diocesan Synod: an Historical Conspectus and Commentary, in Catholic Universities of America, Cemon Law Studies (Washington: Catholic Universities of America, 1932), pp. 25-45.

81. Ibid, p. 37.

82. The need to promote regular diocesan and provincial synods was part of a reform program presented to Pope Leo by the Venetian Camaldolese monks Tommaso Giustiniani and Vincenzo Quirini at the Fifth Lateran. Rome’s preoccupation with internal affairs essentially subverted this and several other reform proposals which had been considered at the council. See Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent I, trans. Dom Ernest Graf (St Louis : B. Herder Book Co., 1957), pp. 128-32.

83. "Quatenus omnes et singulos hereticos eorumgue fautores notorios/ ac apostates qui habitum sue professionis fraudulenter deposuerunt,” Statuta slnodalla metropolltane eccleslae Magdeborgensls (Magdeburg, 1501), sig. Aij.

84. Statuta slnodalla, sig. Bij.

85. Statuta slnodalla, sigs. Aiv-v.

86. See Gottfried SeebaB, Das reformatorlsche Werk des Andreas Oslanders (Nürnberg, 1967) pp. 90-4.

87. WA 12: 228-41.

88. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 44-45.

89. See Robert Stupperich, Die Reformation Im Ordensland Preussen 1523/24: Predlgten, Traktate und Kirchenordnungen (Ulm, 1966), p. 12.

90. See ibid., pp. 108-11; and Sehling, EKO IV: 5.

91. Sehling, EKO IV: 29-30.

92. Sehling, EKO IV: 30.

93. See Sehling, EKO IV: 6; and Stupperich, Reformation Im Ordensland, pp. 12-13. 77 94. Note the reference, ”...und hirinne mit rathe unserer mitbriidere, der prediger zu Konigsberg, und bewegung aller umstende, nachvolgende ordnung begriffen,. . Sehling, EKO IV; 30.

95. Sehling, EKO IV: 6.

96. "Nicht das hiemit so vil unsere ordnung belangt der christlichen freiheit zuentgegen einiche not Oder gezwang gemacht, und also den gewissen, wie vormals durch menschen satzung geschehen, stricke gelegt werden solle, sonder alleine das wir hierinne als durch ein biirgerliche willkorliche ordnung, formlichen und ordentlichen, auch so vil es moglichen, einerlei weise handeln und gebahren mogen, angesehen das solche eüsserliche cerimonien und geberde zum teil von unserm heiland Christo selbst aufgesetzt, als nemlichen die heiligen sacrement der tauf und seines leibs und bluts etc. auch et1iche sonst in der schrift gegründet als ehe, und ehe scheidung, darinne dann ane das nimands anders dann nach dem worte zuhandelen macht hat,..." Sehling, EKO IV: 30.

97. Philip began to explore the implementation of territorial reform in conversation with Melanchthon during 1524, see CR I: 703; and Wilhelm Maurer, D e r junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation, Band 2: Der Theologe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1969), p. 452—53. For Casimir of Brandenburg-Ansbach, note the reform interests addressed in the "Recesses" of the territorial diets of 1524 cind 1525, Sehling, EKO XI: 80-87.

98. See Stupperich, Refoxrmatorenlexikon, p. 45 and 169; and, Sehling, EKO IV: 6-7.

99. See the section, "Von erwelung der pfarrer," Sehling, EKO IV: 38.

100. Despite the sharp condemnations of Luther in the Edict of Worms, the provisions of enforcement outlined in the Edict essentially left the matter in the hands of the territorial Lords and allowed the evangelical movement to evolve without any real interference in several imperial territories, see Leopold Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (Cologne: Phaidon Verlag, 1934), pp. 240-41. Likewise, when the third diet of Nürnberg (1524) promised a national assembly to address the religious question, certain territorial princes took this as permission to address confessional matters in their own territories. For further discussion of the consequences of this failed attempt to summon a national assembly of the German nation, see Heiko Oberman, Martin Luther: Man Between 78

God and Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 27-29. 101. See Deutsche Relchstagsakten,^ Jungere Reihe. Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V. 6 (Gotha, 1893; reprint, Gottingen, 1965), p. 225.

102. See Hans Hildebrand, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, 1504— 67 (St. Louis: Sixteenth Century Studies emd Essays, 1967), p p . 5-15.

103. See Gerhard Muller, Francis Lambert von Avignon und die Reformation in Hessen (Mcirburg, 1958) , pp. 15-20.

104. See Sehling, EKO VIII: 11; and Wilhelm Maurer, "Francis Lambert und das Verfassungsideal in der Reformatio ecclesiae Hassiae," Zeitschrift für Klrchengeschlchte 48 (1929) : 222.

105. See Maurer, "Reformatio ecclesiae Hassiae," pp. 225- 27. Lambert also encountered strong opposition to his intentions, especially from his fellow Franciscan Nicholaus Herbom, see Edmund Kusten, Franz Lambert von Avignon und Nicholaus Herbom in ihrer Stellung zum Ordengedanken und zum Franziskanertam im Besonderen (Münster, 1950) .

106. Müller, Lambert, pp. 75-79.

107. Sehling, EKO VIII: 12.

108. Sehling, EKO VIII: 37.

109. See W A B r 3: 200; and Heinrich Bomkamm, Luther in Mid—Career, 1521—1530, trans. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) pp. 282-84.

110. Luther wrote, "1st das mein trewer und untertheniger Rad, das E. f. g. nicht gestatte, noch zur Zeit diese ordnunge auszulassen durch den druck, Denn ich bin bisher und kan auch noch nicht kune sein, so ein hauffen gesetze mit so mechtigen worten bey uns furzunemen," W A B r 4: 157.

111. W A B r 4i 158.

112. Note the subsequent orders for Hesse in Sehling, EKO VIII: 15, 66-74.

113. Braunschweig-Lüneburg was the official designation for the entire duchy, which retained a figurative tie to the leading city of Braunschweig. Since the fifteenth century, the duchy had been divided into four spheres, one of which maintained the designation for the entire territory. 79 Braunschweig-Lüneburg. The other three territories within the duchy during the sixteenth century were Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel, Braunschweig-Calenberg (or Calenberg- Gottingen) , emd Braunschweig-Grubenhagen, see Sehling, SKO VI ; 1: x ii- x i i i . 114. See Krumwiede, p. 29.

115. Kruse had been forced to flee the city of Braunschweig in 1523 by Ernest's cousin, Duke Heinrich of Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel, Krumwiede, pp. 29—30; also, stupperich, Refoxrmatorenlexikon, p. 124.

116. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 484-85.

117. The 1527 print of these curticles lists the title as, "Artikel, darinne et 1 iche mysbruke by den parr en des fôrstendoms Lüneborg entdecket unde dcurjegen gude ordenynge angegeven werden mit beweysynge und vorklarynge der schrift.” Although Richter questioned the status of these articles as a true church order, Sehling and most subsequent scholars have not shared this opinion, see Richter I, p. 70; Sehling, VI: 1: 484; and Krumwiede, p. 30.

118. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 492.

119. Sehling, EKO VI: I: 493-521.

120. ”Nu werden ungetwyffelt J. F. G. vor Godde sick schüldig erkennen, yn einer wolgeschickten Idfflyken landordeninge duth vor aff alien dingen hogestes emstes tho vorschaffen, dat de geborliche warhaftige goddesehre ynt erste, negest dem overst rechtes unde der byllicheit ordeninge unde wege upgerichtet, gefordert und gehandhavet werden,...” Sehling, EKO VIi 1: 492.

121. So for Krumwiede, p. 30.

122. Visitations played an important role in the reform plans advocated by Nicholas of Cusa in the previous century, see Jedin, History of Trent I, pp. 123-24.

123. See the reference in Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1955) , p. 162.

124. Sehling, EKO I: 33-36.

125. See, ”Instruction und befelch dorauf die visitatores abgefertiget sein. Vom 16. Juni 1527" in Sehling, EKO I: 142-49. 80 126. See Brecht, Luther: Shaping and Defining, pp. 264-67.

127. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 18.

128. In an anonymous pamphlet. Agricola blasted Luther's enemies— Mumer, Eck, Emser, and Aleander— and claimed that the truth of the evangelical message, grounded in the freedom of the Gospel, would prevail in spite of the sufferings the reformers endured for the present. See Johann Agricola, Eyn kurtze anred zu alien mlBgunstlgen Doctor Luthers und der Christlichen freyhelt (Basel: Valentine Curio, 1522).

129. See Kittelson, Luther, pp. 214-17. Kjeldgaard- Pedersen has recently argued that the differences between Luther emd Agricola on the relationship between Law and Gospel, as well as the role of repentance, had developed well before the question of the visitations (and the so- called first antinomian controversy). See Steffen Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, Gesetz, Evangelium und Busse: Theologlegeschlchtllche Studlen zum Verhaltnls zwischen dem jungen Johann Agricola (Elsleben) und Martin Luther (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983), pp. 25-36.

130. "Nihil est itaque charitatem iactare, ut libertatem laedas, nam si hoc licebit charitati in libertatem, licebit idem totum euangelion, quod quaerunt tyranni, " W A B r 4: 241.

131. See Johannes Cochlaeus, Sleben Kopffe Martini Luthers Vom hochwlrdlgen Sacrament des Altars (Valentin Schumein, 1529) , wi t h the fcuaous woodcut attributed to Hans Brosamer of Leipzig. Note also, Peter Brooks, "Visitatator: Luther as Visitor," in Peter N. Brooks, ed., Seven-Headed Luther: Essays In Commemoration of a Quincentenary, 1483-1983 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 147-64. 132. WA 10^: 105.

133. "...hatten wir auch dasselbige recht bishoflich und besuchampt, als auf hdhest von noten, gerne wider angericht gesehen." Sehling, EKO I: 150.

134. "Darrumb lasst uns wachen und sorfeltig sein, die geistliche einickeit (wie Paulus 1eret) zu haIten im bande der liebe und frides, Amen," Sehling, EKO I: 151.

135. Note Melanchthon ' s development of these issues in the section, "Von menschlichen kirchenordnung," Sehling, EKO I: 163—65. For general background see also Maurer, D e r junge Melanchthon, pp. 470-81. 8 1

136. The exceptions here were the sections on the office of superintendent and the discussion of school reforms (Schulordnung), see Sehling, EKO I: 171-74. 137. He specifically chastised those who defined Christian freedom as "das sie keine oberkeit sollen haben," emd others who used their freedom only to indulge themselves, "denn fleisch essen, nicht beichten, nicht fasten, und der gleichen," Sehling, EKO I: 166.

138. Sehling, EKO I: 156-67.

139. See the "Abschied unnd maynung" which concluded the territorial diet in 1526 in Sehling, EKO XI: 88-97.

140. See, Sehling, EKO XI: 70; and, Brecht, Luther:Shaping and Defining, p. 353.

141. For the recess of the 1528 territorial diet and the subsequent "Mandat zur Durchfuhrung der Reformation, " see Sehling, EKO XI: 102-05.

142. See SeebaB, Osiander, pp. 90-4.

143.See Harold Grimm, Lazarus Sprengler: A Lay Leader of the Reformation (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1979).

144. For a brief account of the confessional realignment in Nürnberg, see Gerald Strauss, Nuremberg in the sixteenth Century (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), pp. 170-79.

145. See Eins Rats der Stat Niirmberg ordnung des grossen allmusens HauBarmer leut, Sehling EKO XI: 23-32; and. Von der evangelischen meB, wie sie zu Nürnberg, im Newen Spital, durch Andream Dober, gehalten wurdt, caplan doselbst, Sehling, EKO XI: 51-5.

146. Sehling, EKO XI: 113-14.

147. Luther wrote to Sprengler encouraging him to consider the value of the visitations, but warned that people could not be compelled to believe, W A B r 4: 209.

148. See Die Numberger 23 Lehrartikel, Verzaichnus etlicher umbstende, darin die pfarherm auf dem land examinirt und underricht mogen werden, Sehling, EKO XI: 128- 34.

149. The Ansbacher 30 Fragen were most likely the work of Crailsheim preacher Adam WeiBand the Margrave's chancellor George Vogler, Sehling, EKO XI: 113-14. 82 150. See Die brctn.denburg±sch~~niimbergische Kirchenordnung von 1528, Sehling, EKO XI; 135-39.

151. See Sehling, EKO XI: 116.

152. For Osiander's involvement in these matters of imperial policy see SeebaB, Osiander, pp. 135-43.

153. For Brenz and his relationship with George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, see James M. Estes, Christian Magistrate and State Church z The Reforming Career of Johannes Brenz (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), pp. 8-10.

154. Brenz completed this order in 1527, see Richter I, pp. 40-9.

155. Note the comments of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen in W A B r 6: 338-42.

156. Sehling, EKO XI: 122.

157. For an overview of this sphere of influence see Sehling, EKO XI: 122-24.

158. See Sehling, EKO XI: 119, 206-82.

159. Note especially concerns regarding the validity of celebrating Mass without communicants (Winkelmesse or sicca missa) , questions regeirding the use of the ban, and Osianders position on the role of absolution, see W A B r 6: 339-42; and Sehling, EKO XI: 120-22.

160. See Sehling, EKO XI; 169-71.

161. Sehling, EKO XI: 140-41.

162. Sehling EKO VI: 2: 906; see also Kittelson, Luther, 245-46. CHAPTER XI

CHDRCH ORDERS IN AN AGE OF EXPANSION

"For although, the events of the present are occurring everywhere so rapidly that church orders cauinot be drawn up and instituted everywhere as quickly as necessciry; nevertheless, one must still heed pure teaching, along with external Christian discipline and behavior, emd guard against much injustice, seeking daily to improve on the situation until the Almighty grsmts more peace and unity both in ecclesiastical and secular governments."^

The process of creating the new church and providing it with a revised constitutional basis, which had commenced in the 1520s, accelerated dramatically in the years that preceded the Schmalkaldic War. At times the reformers themselves were alarmed at the how quickly changes were occurring. When Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas and Bugenhagen responded to a request of the Nürnbergers to examine their recently composed church order, they emphasized their commitment to sound church government. Once again they balanced the need for evangelical freedom, which would emerge from pure teaching (die reine iehre) with proper attention to order or "matters of external Christian discipline and behavior." Church orders were to be instituted for this very purpose and, according to these

83 84

•theologians, could not be drawn up too rapidly.

An expanding network of individuals met this need by

creating tbe new ecclesiastical constitutions -that provided

form and substance to the evangelical church in the various

North German territories and cities. In the critical early

years from 1528 until 1546 a well-connected group of

pastors, theologians, and superintendents composed the numerous documents that accomplished "this task.

Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about the collective

effort of those who composed "the church orders, but it was

their efforts that secured the existence, if not the

success, of the evangelical movement in "these regions. The

vital role of this network of church leaders, which has been

only marginally recognized, ^ must be analyzed more

adequately to understand the breadth of evangelical thought

and institutional formation.

Part of the blame for •the oversight accorded the makers

of church order must be attributed to Sehling himself. In

the forward to Volume One of his monumental Die

Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts,

Sehling addressed the problem of organizing these disparate

documents into some coherent format. He concluded that the

best approach would be an arrangement based upon

territories.^ In stating this preference, he rejected

outright an earlier attempt by Masch^ to use the authors of

the church orders as a point of reference and organization. 85

Sehling argued, "One need only consider how frequently there

are multiple authors, how uncertain the part of these

individuals is to prove, and how often the author is

completely unknown or doubtful. Although these

observations about the role of individual authors accurately describe some of the composition process, they cleeurly overlook the numerous instances where an author or group of authors can be not only identified, but also studied.

Unfortunately, Sehling minimized the authors of the church orders and consequently, few have been interested in assessing their combined ideas and contributions.

The territorial nature of the church, on the other hand, from its very inception, captured the attention of

Sehling. Several scholars have echoed his conclusion that

"the orders for the church were authoritarian, that is territorial or magisterial."® The fact that ecclesiastical leaders both constituted and implemented religious policy and functioned in Sehling's own words as "the actual authors of the orders" had little bearing.’ He argued that the princes controlled the entire process of reform by instituting visitations, by ordering the initial instructions, and by commissioning the summary

Kirchenordnungen. The role of the theologians was carefully and consciously circumscribed by the secular authorities.

Sehling's analysis of the church order process solves certain problems, yet creates others. Confronted with the 86 need to organize the Kirchenordnungen and their support documents, Sehling*s choice of an arrangement based on territories makes sense. Likewise, his observation that the church orders furthered the interests and aspirations of authorities, both city and territorial, and could not exist without their support, cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, by deprecating the role of the authors of these documents,

Sehling has created an illusion of the territorial nature of reform that clearly did not exist throughout much of the sixteenth century. Conversely, Heinz Schilling has argued that reformation research must consider the trans­ territorial nature of the protestant movement by focusing on the movements of pastors and urban elites.® The makers of the church orders represent just the kind of group that will meike this type of analysis profitable.

In order to compensate for the lack of attention to the authors of church orders, several scholars have looked at the interrelationships of the orders by means of analysis based on the so-called "families" of church orders.

Aemilius Richter, whose edition of church orders in the middle of the nineteenth century prompted the more extensive work under the direction of Sehling, was one of the first to attempt to assess the relationships among the church orders.® In the conclusion to his two volume collection of church orders, Richter listed the various orders alphabetically and then noted two aspects of what he termed 87 a "relational matrix" {Vervrandtschaftsverhaltnis) : 1) he identified which church orders preceded or influenced the development of a given order, and 2) he noted which orders proceeded from the same order.Richter's list was really only suggestive— since he offered no real discussion or justification for his conclusions— but it did provide a sense for the connectional nature of the documents themselves.

Sehling extended these observations by discussing what he termed the family groupings {Famlllengmppen ) of church orders.Essentially, Sehling singled out two large families of church orders. The first of these groupings originated with the 1528 Saxon Unterricht der Visitatoren and Bugenhagen ' s subsequent order for the city of Braunschweig, also of 1528. The Braunschweig order, the

Wittenberg order of 1533, and the territorial order for

Braunschweig—Wo If enbiitt el of 1543 served in turn as the basis for several other orders within this family. His

second ”groBe Famille” of church orders began with the visitation instructions for Schwabach as well as Margrave

George's 1528 articles for Brandenburg-Ansbach. The

influential orders for Brandenburg-Nürnberg (1533) and for

Württemberg (1553 and 1559) grew out of this network. In

addition to these two major family groupings, Sehling

connected a series of orders to that of Ducal Saxony

( 1 5 3 9 ) , and noted the predecessors to the divergent church 88 order for the Palatinate (1563).

Although Sehling provided more substance to the discussion of church order families, a few glaring problems remained. As was the case with Richter, Sehling's configuration failed to be comprehensive. His list completely ignored several key orders, i.e. any of the church orders for Hesse (1526, 1539, 1566), the orders for Magdeburg (1524, 1554), the Strasbourg church order (1534), and the orders of Johann Aepinus for both Stralsund (1525) and Hamburg (1539/56). Furthermore, in categorizing these families, he refered to only one of the authors involved in the entire process— Johann Bugenhagen 1 Thus, one is left with the clear impression that the church orders were fundamentally a territorial enterprise.

Subsequent discussion of the church order families has paid slightly more attention to the authors of the documents. It has become common to refer to a series of relatively distinct groups of orders which stem from one of five models: 1) Bugenhagen's Braunschweig order; 2)

Osiander's Brandenburg-Nürnberg order; 3) Brenz‘s

Württemberg order; 4) Bucer's order for Strasbourg (1534) and Hesse (1539); and, 5) the Palatine order (1563) influenced by the earlier London church order of John a

Lasco (1550) The fact that these families bear the names of particular reformers along with references to specific locations is misleading. This is only a more subtle way of 89

concealing a continuing preoccupation with models and

systems. No one has attempted to pursue the validity of this family typology beyond a few cursory observations and these established family groups have been repeated more

frequently than analyzed.Furthermore, recent attempts to analyze the true nature of church order family have had difficulty maintaining this traditional classification.^®

Overall, the fundamental (and usually the only) question that has interested scholars influenced in this direction has been: When was a particular system

incorporated into a given city or territory? A corollary to this question has likewise received attention: Which system was most effective? Several studies have proceeded along this line. Karl Müller*s early 20th century study of

Lutheran consistories, for example, posited two influential consistorial systems, one which originated in Saxony, and the other in Württemberg.More recently, Martin Brecht's study of church orders in Württemberg recognizes the importance of Müller's analysis, but champions the significance and accomplishment of Brenz's "wiirttembergishe

Syst em ," especially for the second half of the sixteenth century.Even Walter Kohler's influential study of the

Zürich marriage court and the Genevan consistory analyzed the extension of these models into cities of the German

Southwest and the Swiss confederation with precisely this kind of question in mind. 90

This preoccupation with systems of church government or

fcimilies of church orders is not wrong, it is simply

incomplete for several reasons. First, it fails to pay

church leaders their due in the efforts they made to create a viable church structure. The network of authors is replaced by an analysis of a patchwork quilt of parts that were borrowed and reproduced to create the later church

orders.^® Furthermore, it hides the local concerns and

interests which make even the orders themselves interesting reading and valuable sources for understanding sixteenth century social and religious experience. Above all, the

concern for church government as system predisposes one to

evaluate ecclesiastical issues using categories like "social

control" or"state building" since individuals and their

circumstances are no longer in view. The dynamic of the church order process is reduced to a rather simplistic exchange of formalities.

In order to recapture the drama of the process of creating the new church, greater attention must be accorded to the individuals that functioned as principal actors— the makers of the church orders. This chapter will analyze the relational network that established the various church orders for North Germany from 1528 until 1545 and discuss the circumstances that surrounded these efforts. Luther,

Melanchthon, Jonas and Bugenhagen evidently witnessed the events of their time as an unfolding episode. Antonius 91 Corvinus, one of the most significant church order authors of this period, also captured the dynamic of this process in a tract he wrote in 1529 detailing the expansion of the evcingelical movement into the cities of Braunschweig and Goslar.^^ This tract provides an excellent introduction into how this process occurred, and will be discussed before considering the breadth of individuals that created the church orders. Corvinus wrote his "True Account" {Wahrha.fft.ig Bericht) of the events that had recently transpired at Goslar and Braunschweig, as a response to allegations against the evangelical movement that had been forwarded at the recently recessed Diet of Speyer (1529). He contended that the ecclesiastical changes that had occurred in both of these communities did not stem from civil disturbance {auffmhr) and that the evangelicals should not be confused with the "enthusiasts" {schwermer) whom Corvinus associated both with Zwingli and Miintzer.^^ On the contrary, church leaders in these cities had insisted on legitimate channels of authority and the need to be responsive to civil magistrates. There were, however, important differences between Goslar and Braunschweig that influenced the progress of reform and these differences centered around the ability of each to implement sound church order. For Goslar, the successful introduction of reform, which began with the 92 preaching of Nikolaus von Amsdorf, degenerated under the leadership of Johannes Amandus. Although Corvinus commended his friend Amandus for his willingness to rebuke errant monks as well as members of the Goslar council ^ he indicated that the pride of Amandus drove him to push for change too rapidly. Corvinus complained that Amandus had violated good order by seeking to introduce his own liturgical innovations and by deviating from the advice and forms that the evangelicals in Goslar had already received from Nürnberg. Amandus failed to act moderately {gllmpfllch) for the purpose of good order eind the city itself struggled for an additional two years until Amsdorf returned to compose its church order in 1531. Corvinus saw the situation at Braunschweig differently and recorded that matters there were handled skillfully. Although he noted the important contributions of Braunschweig jurist Auctor Sander^^ and those of

Braunschweig preacher (and first superintendent) Martin Gorlitz, the decisive role in Braunschweig belonged to the Wittenberger Johann Bugenhagen. According to this treatise, Bugenhagen worked effectively with the divergent factions of the city and by means of "friendly conversation" was able to win support for his ceremonial ideas. These innovations served as the basis for his church order.Despite the reports that tumult had accompanied these events in Braunschweig, Corvinus reported that matters had proceeded 93 peacefully (fridlich). In considering this tract by Corvinus, it is important to observe how he recounted the implementation of reform into these two urban centers. Reform was more than just preaching, shifting theological affiliation, or confrontation of social groups; it also involved this critical process of establishing a new ecclesiastical constitution. Corvinus paid close attention to these details of order. Documents like the Nürnberg order of

1528, which was primarily liturgical, were borrowed and adapted for use in new communities like Goslar. Thus, the idea of church order families that focuses on the documents that were exchanged and adapted in different settings has a degree of validity.

When Corvinus considered the process of introducing a church order, however, he emphasized the individuals who were responsible for creating these documents. One simply cannot understand the evolution of evangelical movement in these regions and the process of church building that accompanied this without looking at the makers of church order. Having established the need to give emphasis to the makers of church order, the remainder of this chapter will be devoted to describing the work of these individuals beginning in 1528 and continuing until the Interim settlements of 1548. 94 In many ways, the pioneer of this effort in northern

Germany was the reformer of Braunschweig, Johann Bugenhagen.

Bugenhagen, a former Premonstratensian from Wolin in Pomercinia, had the linguistic and organizational skills to

be uniquely effective in lower Saxon Braunschweig and other

North German territories that utilized variations of low

German (nieder- or plattdeutsch) . Even before he left

Wittenberg for Braunschweig in May of 1528, Bugenhagen's

services had been requested by the city of Hamburg.

Confusion about his marital status and the tenuous provisions surrounding the recess of the Diet of Nürnberg in

1524 prompted the city council to withdraw its initial request.Luther and the congregation that Bugenhagen

served at St. Mary' s in Wittenberg were relieved since they were reluctamt to allow their city pastor to leave.

Despite these setbacks, Bugenhagen did not intend to abcoidon the aspirations of the citizens in Hamburg. With this in mind, he dedicated one of his most significant t r a c t s , Von dem Christenlichen glavtben, to the Hsunburg congregation of St. Nicolas.Bugenhagen*s exposition of evangelical theology was thoroughly consistent with Luther. He sought to rescue the emphasis on the primacy of faith over good works from accusations of antinomianism which had been leveled against the evangelicals in Hamburg.^®

However, while there was little that could be considered novel theologically, the treatise did provide the first 95 glimpse into Bugenhagen's ideas about church order. In particular, Bugenhagen emphasized the three issues that would typify all of his subsequent church orders: 1) the necessity of proper oversight of the office of preaching; 2) the erection of Christian schools, and, 3) the creation of a community chest.Even though Bugenhagen would have to wait to visit Hamburg in person, he was able to dispatch his thoughts on a topic that would highlight the rest of his professional life.

Bugenhagen*s career as church organizer on loan from

Wittenberg began in emest with an expedition to

Braunschweig in the spring of 1528. His preaching mission during the month of May at the parish church of St. Magnus was essential to the success of the protestant sympathizers in Braunschweig.^® Almost immediately Bugenhagen set about composing the church order for Braunschweig which he completed at the end of August. With the support of the guild masters and the chief members of the five districts

(Weichbilde) of Braunschweig, this document, written in low

German, was adopted by the city council on 5 September

1 5 2 8 .^^

Bugenhagen's order for Braunschweig, which has been described as "one of the most significant documents of the

Lutheran reformation,"^^ allowed the reformer the opportunity to develop his thinking on proper church order which began with his treatise to the congregation in 96

Hamburg. He continued his emphasis that three things were necessary to ensure sound reform: good schools (grude scholen uptorichten) , trained preachers {predlkere, de Gades wort reyn dem volke vordragen, antonemen) , and a community chest

{gemeyne kasten antorichten mit kerkenguderen und anderen g a v e n ) . 3 3 Bugenhagen countered the criticism that he was introducing a "new order" by insisting that he advocated only minimal and necessary changes and that his order merely restated what Christ and the Apostle Paul had already instituted.The order in its original low German edition contained 140 octavo leaves, significantly longer than the

Saxon Unterricht or any previous church order. Bugenhagen

indicated that the reason for the length of this "large book" (grot boch) was instructional. He pointed out that his ideas on the sacraments deserved particular attention in order to avoid both error and misunderstanding. Clearly, this order was thoroughly Bugenhagen's effort, but one directed to the needs and circumstances at Braunschweig.

When Bugenhagen departed from Braunschweig in September of

1528, he left not only his order, but leaders installed in offices first developed in the order: Superintendent Martin

Gorlitz and his assistant (Coadjutor), Heinrich Winkel.

Bugenhagen did not return to Wittenberg immediately, but continued further north to accept a renewed invitation from the city of Hamburg. The relationship with Hamburg had never subsided following the reformers tract Von dem 97

Cbristenlicben glauben— the one he had previously dedicated to the city. Bugenhagen rekindled his contact with Hamburg before he left for Braunschweig when he published an open letter to Hamburg in the spring of 1528.^® In this treatise

Bugenhagen defended his position that Christ alone "is our righteousness" against the attacks of the Lüneburg

Franciscan, Augustine of Getelen.^^ Doubtless Bugenhagen*s continuing concern for the progress of reform in Hamburg resulted in the request he received while in Braunschweig during the summer of 1528.

When Bugenhagen arrived in October of the same year, he immediately set to the task of creating a church order for

Hamburg. This document was completed in the spring of the following year and formally adopted by the council and citizens of Heimburg 15 May 1529.^® Although Bugenhagen reproduced much of the material he had incorporated into the order for Braunschweig, his attention to matters unique to

Hamburg was apparent. Whereas Bugenhagen followed his introductory comments in the Braunschweig order with a discussion of the sacraments, in the order for Hamburg, he gave first place to educational issues. The church order spoke not only of establishing schools for children, but also laid the groundwork for the revival of the lectorium for advanced education within the city.®® Thus the dependency of the Hamburg church order on the earlier

Unterricht der Visitatoren and Bugenhagen's own Braunschweig 9 8 order did not preclude incoporating concerns of a more local nature into this document.

Unlike the church order for Braunschweig, the Hamburg church order was not published separately. Instead, significant sections of both of these earlier orders were circulated along with parts of Bugenhagen's next influential church order: the Liibeck church order of 1531.^° After nearly a yeair's stay in Wittenberg, Bugenhagen had returned north in October of 1530, this time to the Kanseatic capital of Lübeck. Bugenhagen *s arrival on October 28 culminated a tumultuous year in Lübeck. Stirred by the progress of the reformation in Hamburg the previous year, and encouraged by evangelical preachers who were active in the neighboring territory of Holstein, the burghers of Lübeck demanded the suspension of the mass and the adoption of evangelical forms of worship.A reluctamt council finally conceded to these demands in June of 1530 and began the process of establishing a new church order. Naturally, the Lübeckers looked to Wittenberg and Bugenhagen responded favorably to their invitation.

The overall ministry of Bugenhagen in Lübeck was similcir to what he had accomplished in the previous situations. Herman Bonnus, who later chronicled the events in Lübeck, summarized the work of Bugenhagen when he wrote. 99

"Ttien Doctor Johann Bugenhagen Pomer came to Lubeck and preached there, and through a church order established true divine worship in the church ; furthermore, the poor were aided in the Burg cloister and a school was erected in St. Catherine ' s cloister. **

The themes of proper church order, care for the poor and the necessity of schools again featured prominently in the efforts of Bugenhagen. The order itself however was not the work of Bugenhagen alone for he was assisted by three members of the patrician council, four members of the burgher assembly (the 64) and four at—large citizens.

Although the document was completed and adopted 18 February

1531 Bugenhagen remained in Lübeck— despite the protestations of Luther— an additional year to add stability to the reform effort.

The work that Bugenhagen conducted in cities like Braunschweig, Hamburg, and Lübeck was being replicated in other member cities of the North German Hanse. Bugenhagen was only one member of a emerging network of individuals

involved in the church order process. While in Lübeck,

Bugenhagen took a keen interest in events that were

occurring in Rostock. Reform Ccone to Rostock in the late

1520s primarily through the preaching of Joachim Slüter. A

preliminary church order {Ratsordimng) was composed in 1530

and formally adopted by the council in 1531.^® The author

of this document was Rostock syndic and former professor of

law at Greifswald, Johann Oldendorp. 1 0 0

A series of circumstances brought the Wittenberg reformer Bugenhagen indirectly into a relationship with

Oldendorp. Earlier, Oldendorp had preceded Bugenhagen in

Braunschweig, preaching in the pulpit at St. Magnus that

Bugenhagen would later utilize so effectively.^® Like

Bugenhagen, Oldendorp followed the situation in Hamburg and dedicated a treatise to the city, although Oldendorp's writing focused more on civil than religious issues.

Therefore, it was not surprising when Oldendorp and the

Rostock council sought advice from Bugenhagen in Lübeck on how to develop Oldendorp's rather limited document.

Bugenhagen's advice to their proposals included a statement defending the role of confession (Beicht) and an argument for the propriety of worship in German, including the sacraments.^® In regards to issues of worship, Bugenhagen recommended they consult his published church order for

Lübeck and the subsequent Von mancherley Christenlichen s a c h e n .

Despite these efforts, no substantial changes to the

Ratsordnung for Rostock were forthcoming. However, two years later, a more complete church order was produced for

Rostock by the Lübecker, Herman Bonnus. Bonnus, a former pupil of Bugenhagen's at Treptow, had taught at Greifswald with Oldendorp before setting out for Denmark, Holstein and

eventually, Lübeck. Bonnus labored with Bugenhagen during his stay in Lübeck and was appointed rector of the Latin 1 0 1 school at St. Catherine's prior to Bugenhagen's departure.

In the late summer of 1533, Lübeck loaned Bonnus to the city of Rostock for the purpose of composing a church order.

During his two week stay Bonnus produced an order that, primaily because of the proposals surrounding the office of superintendent, failed to fully satisfy the desires of the

Rostock council. Meiny of the ideas regarding worship, on the other hand, were adopted in Rostock and thereby served as the de facto church order for the city.®^

The progress of reform in Hanse port cities like

Hamburg, Lübeck, and Rostock influenced the situation at

Bremen. Bugenhagen, along with Luther and the other reformers in Wittenberg, engaged in extensive correspondence with the council at Bremen.Following the civil tumult that had occiarred in the city from 1530-32 and the victory of the evangelical party over the cathedral chapter, the city prepared to clarify its religious stance by means of a church order. The council sought the assistance of Johann

Timann who had served as pastor of St. Martin's since

1525.®^ Timann, a former Wittenberg student of Luther and

Melanchthon who hailed from Amsterdam, composed the Bremen church order over the summer of 1533. He then submitted his work to Wittenberg where it passed under the careful eye of both Luther and Bugenhagen, who commented "that this ordinance is godly, Christian, reasonable, and useful.

The order appeared in a published edition the following 10 2 year, at the same time it was adopted by the Bremen council.

While individuals like Bugenhagen, Oldendorp, Bonnus and Timann directed the process of reform in the port cities of the Hanseatic League, others provided a similar service to the inland cities of the league. The territorial city of

Lüneburg, which controlled vital salt deposits, was important both to the Hanseatic League and to the divided duchy of Braunschweig-Lüneburg. Duke Emest (the Confessor) of the Lüneburg brainch of the Braunschweig duchies, closely monitored the situation in the city of Lüneburg from his residence in Celle.®® When Ernest returned from the Diet of

Augsburg, where he had boldly supported the evangelicals with his signature on the Confessio Augustana., he had secured the services of the former Augsburg preacher,

Urbanus Rhegius. As soon as Rhegius arrived in Celle in the fall of 1530, the citizens of Lüneburg requested the assistance of this illustrious theologian for their own reform efforts, but he turned down their initial invitation. ®® He finally consented to their demands early in 1531 and by June, had composed the church order for the city. The order was given legal stature by the council at the end of the summer.®^

In his church order for Lüneburg, Rhegius built on the early work of Stephen Kempe as well as policies that had been informally adapted from Bugenhagen *s church order for

Hamburg. Although conversant with the work of Bugenhagen, 103 who also had the support of Duke Emest, the order that Rhegius composed for Lüneburg did not follow the typical outline of Bugenhagen *s work and placed an even stronger emphasis on education. The introduction to this work revealed both similarities and differences. Rhegius wrote,

"My faithful and true preceptor, Ulricus Zasius, Doctor of Imperial law at Freiburg, once told me that there are three things necessary for an honorable city or community: a learned schoolmaster, a pious and competent preacher, and a wise council."

This reference to the priority of schools and the preaching

office could have come straight from Bugenhagen, but Rhegius

attributed these insights not to the Wittenberg reformer,

but to his former teacher, Ulrich Zasius. Rhegius was

certainly familiar with the work of Bugenhagen, but his own

interests and emphases differed from those of the

Wittenberger, and Rhegius refused to indicate that his work

somehow derived from Bugenhagen. Thus, in this

constitutional document that would be adopted as policy in

the city of Lüneburg, Rhegius labored to insure that the

ideas it contained reflected his particular training and

background. Even though Rhegius, like other authors of

church orders, borrowed ideas and replicated the work of

predecessors, the finished product almost always bore the

unique stamp of its author.

Rhegius continued to engage in this kind of work

throughout the next ten years of his life. As territorial

superintendent (since 1531) headquartered in Celle, Rhegius 104 returned to Lüneburg in 1532 to finalize the implementation of the church order for the city. In the same year he oversaw the composition of a church order for the Westphalian city of Soest. Rhegius added a forward and his own comments to this work written by his close friend, Gerd Omeken.®° The council of Soest accepted the completed document in June of 1532 and later that year it was published in Lübeck under the direction of Herman Bonnus. Although this order for Soest has traditionally been associated with the "Bugenhagen" family of church orders, it is obvious that the actual relational network is both more complex and revealing. While Rhegius labored in Lüneburg with the support of Duke Ernest, he encountered an entirely different situation when he was summoned to assist the reform effort in Hannover in 1535. Hannover was one of the principal cities of the neighboring Braunschweig duchy of Calenberg-Gottingen, currently under the rule of the Roman Catholic sympathizer, Erich I. Duke Erich supported efforts to suppress the evangelical movement in his region, but was compelled to make certain concessions to the citizens of Hannover in 1533.^^ An attempt by the Braunschweig Coadjutor, Heinrich Winkel, to provide a church order for Hannover failed in 1534 and Rhegius was summoned the following year.®^ The council of Hannover accepted the -ompleted work of Rhegius in 1536 and had it published immediately in Magdeburg. 105

The church order that Rhegius assembled for Hannover, a

community that had defied its prince, differed significantly

from the work done for Lüneburg. The typical discussion of

details regarding church structure and administration was

relatively brief. However, Rhegius devoted nearly three-

quarters of this document to an exegetical, and especially a historical, defense of the independent existence of the

evangelical church in opposition to Rome. In particular, he

sought to provide a basis for legitimate ministry in

Hannover despite the fact that they were alienated from Duke

Erich and technically under the ban. Rhegius argued that worldly authority was always bound by the limits of the

Gospel and that authorities had been established by God only to restrain evil, not the good.®^ Above all, one should note that Rhegius provided church orders for these two very different settings. His role was clearly creative and not merely conformist since he could both support the efforts of one prince (Duke Ernest) cind challenge the will of another

(Duke Erich).

At the same time as Rhegius began to compose his church order for Lüneburg, a church order was underway for another significant territorial city of Duke Erich I— Gottingen. By

1529 the evangelical movement had already gained the support of the council in Gottingen, some three years before its initial success in Hannover. The process for Gottingen culminated in the composition of their church order in the 106 later part of 1530.^® As noted early, Luther’s dedicatory letter that was published along with this treatise in 1531, both praised the citizens of Gottingen for their fine effort, cuid warned them of reliance merely on matters of form.

The question of authorship of this particular document remains somewhat uncertain cind thus illustrates the legitimate concerns that Sehling expressed over categorizing these documents solely on the basis of the author. Richter,

Stupperich and Sprengler-Ruppenthal have posited the

Braunschweig pastor Heinrich Winkel as the the most likely candidate.®® winkel had arrived in Gottingen early in 1530 and was evidently involved in reworking earlier articles composed by the Hessian reformer, Justus Winther. The frequent references to the Braunschweig order (1528), which seem to permeate this document, further support the idea that Winkel composed this document and utilized the work that Bugenhagen had left for Braunschweig. On the other hand, Kittelson and Sehling have argued for Johann Sutel as the order’s author.®^ Sutel arrived in Gottingen from

Altenmarsch in Hesse later in 1530 than Winkel, and was installed as the first evangelical preacher at St. Nicolas.

Sutel, who would eventually serve as the pioneer superintendent for Gottingen, directed his administrative skills to giving final form to the order. Luther’s own correspondence indicates that Sutel played an important, if 107 not a determinative role in the composition of this work.®® Putting all of this together, it seems that the order for Gottingen resulted from the initial efforts of Winkel and the subsequent refinements of Sutel. The lack of certainty regarding which of these two reformers was finally responsible for the order should not diminish the fact that both of these individuals contributed to the process and were themselves part of a network of church leaders who engaged in this kind of work. Even where the details are uncertain, one can gain a sense for the personal dimension of the church order task. At the same time that the Gottingen order attained its final form, Nikolaus von Amsdorf returned to the nearby city of Goslar to complete its church order. Although Goslar was one of the few Reichstadte in the regions of lower Saxony, like Gottingen and Hannover, this city maintained a decidedly strained relationship with its territorial prince, Duke Heinrich the Young of Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel. Heinrich's battle with Goslar (also a Hanseatic city) for control of the rich silver mines located in the neighboring Harz mountains was further exacerbated by confessional issues. The tentative victory of the evangelicals in Goslar under the leadership of Amsdorf— the issues mentioned previously in Corvinus*s "True Account"— was threatened by the recent decisions of the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. With renewed enthusiasm, Duke 108

Heinrich sought to redirect the city's faith towards Rome and to consolidate his hold on the city's mining trade.

Amsdorf returned to Goslar in 1531 to strengthen the resolve of its citizens for the evangelical cause and to establish ecclesiastical uniformity by means of a church order. Amsdorf battled not only those who wished to remain faithful to the old church, but contended with those who manifested Zwinglian tendencies as well.^® In the very first article of the Goslar order Amsdorf condemned those he

labeled as "Schwermer" and further warned pastors and other clergy that,

"Should one confess publicly, that he honors Zwingli, Caspar Schwenkfeld, Jacob Cautium, or any of their disciples in their teaching on the sacraments aind the external word and sign, that one shall be regarded as a heretic.

Amsdorf ' s order in 1531 provided the city of Goslar with confessional stability and during the same year, Goslar affiliated with the newly formed Schmalkaldic league to obtain protection and political stability.

The concern for Zwinglians, Sacramentarians, and

Anabaptists, which Amsdorf addressed so forcefully in his

order for Goslar, received even greater attention in the north German Kirchenordnungen composed during the second half of the 1530s. The lamentable events that had transpired in Münster from 1534-35 intensified the efforts

expended in the church order process. Although the

evangelical movement in northern Germany was not entirely 109

insulated from the "revolutionary" events of 1525, nor from

earlier radicals like Müntzer, Schwenkfeld or Hoffman, it was the Munster incident that truly generated activity.

The forces of the displaced bishop of Münster, Francis von

Waldeck, supplemented by troops of Philip of Hesse and other members of the Schmalkaldic league quickly crushed the rebellious Münsterites during the summer of 1535.^^

Although defeated, the excesses of Münster associated with the more radical tendencies in ecclesiastical reform had created a vivid memory.

As the military forces of the protestant Schmalkaldic

League were assisting the Catholic bishop in his battle against the Münster Anabaptists, numerous protestant church leaders assaulted these sectarian "heretics" with the pen.

Those who had committed themselves to the creation of church orders stood at the forefront of this effoirt. Amsdorf,

Bugenhagen, and Rhegius, along with Luther and Melanchthon, all published treatises condemning the events and teachings that had become associated with M ü n s t e r . Philip of Hesse also dispatched two of his leading theologians to engage the defeated leaders of Münster in a disputation in the winter of 1535/36. Antonius Corvinus, who had previously worked with Amsdorf in Goslar, and the Marburg-educated Johann

Kymaeus reported the results of this disputation to the

Landgrave and to Elector John Frederick.The need for church order to guide both the pace and agenda of reform was 11 0 never more apparent.

While this conflict was raging, Bugenhagen, who had previously disputed with Melchoir Hoffman at Flensburg

(1529) and written against Hoffman's understanding of the sacraments,^® headed north once again. On this occasion,

Bugenhagen traveled to his home region of Pomerania. With the support of Dukes Bamim and Philip, Bugenhagen completed his first territorial church order in December of 1534 and it was subsequently accepted by a territorial diet at

Treptow.^®

Bugenhagen remained for an additional eight months and assisted in the visitation process that in this instance followed the adoption of the church order. The

Wittenberger's efforts encountered resistance in the Hanseatic seaport of Stralsund, which already had a church order in place, composed by Johann Aepinus (1525).

Stralsund, like many important territorial cities, maintained a quasi-independent status in its relationship to its local territorial prince. For the citizens of

Stralsund, the more viable connections were to the other

Hanse "Seestâdte": Hamburg, Lübeck, Wismar, Rostock, and

Bremen. Rather than imposing the church order which had been created for the rest of Pomerania, Bugenhagen worked with the council in Stralsund and succeeded in modifying the previous order of Aepinus.Stralsund agreed to introduce the office of "Stadtsuperintendent which was designed to Ill insure doctrinal integrity in Stralsund and more formally connect the city to the rest of the territory.

While Bugenhagen reworked the order of Aepinus in Stralsund, Aepinus did precisely the same for Bugenhagen's church order in Hamburg. The relationship between

Bugenhagen and Aepinus was more than merely coincidental.

Aepinus had already arrived in Hamburg when Bugenhagen introduced his church order in 1529. Aepinus eventually served as the first superintendent in Hamburg which was an office created by Bugenhagen*s order. He did not assume the position immediately, however, because the council in

Hamburg wanted to assure itself that Aepinus had the proper credentials (i.e. a doctoral degree) to carry out the varied duties of this position. In June of 1533, Aepinus received his doctoral promotion at Wittenberg— under the direction of

Melanchthon and Justus Jonas— along with Caspar cruciger and

Bugenhagen.

As superintendent in Hamburg, Aepinus directed the

religious affairs of this important city and influenced its

Hanseatic neighbors. In April of 1535, Aepinus responded

directly to the deteriorating situation in Münster by sponsoring a conference of theologians from the Lübeck,

Bremen, Rostock, Stralsund, Lüneburg, and Wismar, which was

commissioned to address this situation. The authors of

other important church orders attended this conference, but

Aepinus himself composed the articles that resulted from 11 2 this meeting.These seventeen articles condemned the major tenets of Anabaptism and reemphasized the agreement of

these church leaders with the positions presented in the

Augsburg Confession.®® Aepinus also composed a new church

order for Hamburg in 1539. This church order paid greater

attention to ecclesiastical offices within the city along with introducing several liturgical changes.®^ The

Anabaptist threat clearly stood behind these adjustments to

Bugenhagen*s previous order.

The year 1539 also marked the entrance of Antonius

Corvinus into the network of church order authors. As noted

above, Corvinus, under the direction of the Landgrave

Philip, had participated directly in a series of

disputations with the Münster Anabaptists in 1536. When the

residual effects of this teaching threatened the city of

Northeim in 1539, Philip recommended that Duchess Elizabeth

of neighboring Braunschweig-Ca 1 enberg utilize the skills of

his theologian, Corvinus. Corvinus left his parish in

Witzenhausen, the northernmost city in Hesse, and spent

several weeks in Northeim during the winter of 1539.

Although Northeim claimed a degree of autonomy within the

territory of Braunschweig-Calenberg— just like its neighbors

Hannover and Gottingen— Duchess Elizabeth clearly supported

the efforts of Corvinus and the Northeimers in this attempt

to secure confessional stability.®^ Corvinus worked with a

local preacher, George Thomas, along with several guild 113 leaders to compose a diurch order for Northeim, which was

adopted on March 15.®^

In composing this document for Northeim, Corvinus met the perceived threat of the Anabaptists head on. The eschatological tension between the true preaching of the gospel and the appearance of false prophets and *'teuffels lere" dominated Corvinus's introduction to the order. The conclusion to the order contained the same kinds of warnings, and reproduced a letter of admonition against false teaching previously sent by Corvinus to the

Northeimers.®^ Corvinus even devoted an entire section of this order to how one should respond to the Anabaptists.

The experience with the Anabaptists thus profoundly influenced the thinking of Corvinus regarding the necessity of church orders.

A similar response to Anabaptism may be noted in the church orders that were written for Hesse. At the very time that Corvinus wrote his order for Northeim, several of his associates in Hesse provided the seime service for the

Landgrave. Although revisions in the Francis Lambert’s

Hessian church order had already been introduced in 1532,®® the events of Münster occasioned further changes at the end of the 1530s. Philip initiated visitations in 1537, but the most significant documents produced were the Ziegenhain

Zuchtordnung and the church order for Kassel, both in 1539.

Philip’s approach to ecclesiastical, as well as 114

"territorial adminis"tration, beginning with the Homberg Synod

(1526) , was to monitor the situation as closely as possible and he continued to esteem his role as princely

**Zuchtmeister.”^^ The Hessian church orders, consequently, tended to be more the product of joint effort than any of the church orders considered thus far. For example, "the

Ordnung der Christ:lichen Kircheim zucht, that was adopted by a Hessian synod meeting at Ziegenhain, bore the signatures of ten different church leaders. Nevertheless, the names of several individuals, who had or would serve as authors of significant church orders, appeared on this list: Adam Kraft of Fulda; Tileman Schnabel; Johann Kymaeus; Johann

Pistorius; and Theodore Fabricius.®® Thus, the role of importcoit individuals was not entirely lacking in Hesse.

One important name was also missing from the list of those who subscribed to the Ziegenhain Zuchtordnung— -that of

Martin Bucer. While Philip had loaned Corvinus to assist the reform effort in next-door Northeim, he imported "the services of Bucer from Strasbourg. Bucer's contributions to the earlier church order for Strasbourg (1534) and his first hand experience in dealing with the Anabaptists were considered invaluable by the Landgrave as he addressed these problems in his own territory.®® Bucer composed the introduction to this order, in which made use of the

Biblical shepherd imagery and described how a pastor should protect his sheep against the dangers of the wolves (i.e. 115 enthusiasts and Anabaptists) Bucer also promoted the concept of the "elder” to assist the ministers of the word in their efforts to encourage proper Christian discipline.®^

Bucer's work in Hesse allowed him the opportunity to experiment with slightly novel ideas in this church order.

Bucer contributed less directly to the other important document for Hesse, the church order for Kassel. Instead,

Johcuin Kymaeus, the superintendent of Marburg, assumed the primary responsibility for this work. Previously, Kymaeus had participated with Corvinus in the disputations against the Münster Anabaptists and then served as an ecclesiastical visitor in Hesse (1537-38) . It was here that he first came into contact with B u c e r . T h e order that Kymaeus assembled for Kassel made use of Bucer's work for Strasbourg along with important sections of the Brandenburg-Nürnberg order (1533) . The church order for Kassel was not implemented within the entire principality of Hesse, but it did provide important liturgical models for the territory, especially in the longer Erfurt edition (1539) Above all one must note that even though Philip remained vitally involved in the oversight of ecclesiastical affairs in his territory, the actual ideas outlined in the church orders belonged to individuals like Bucer, Kymaeus, and the other church leaders in Hesse.

Further opportunities for expansion and consolidation of the evangelical movement occurred at the end of the 1530s 116 in territories that had been more or less loyal to Rome: Albertine Saxony and the Electorate of Brandenburg. As in Hesse and Braunschweig-Lüneburg, the princes supported the process of confessional transition. However, the substance of changes that were introduced resulted from both the efforts and ideas of those intimately involved in the details of church order. For Albertine Saxony, the death of Luther’s antagonist Duke George on 17 April 1539 and the accession of Duke Henry supplied the opportunity to formally introduce reform within the territory. The Wittenberg professor and former dean of the theology faculty, Justus Jonas, assumed primary responsibility for directing this process. Jonas was certainly no stranger to this kind of endeavor. He participated in the first Saxon visitations in 1527—28 (under Elector John) as well as the later visitations of 1533 (under Elector John Frederick) Jonas had also ventured into the neighboring region of Anhalt when he helped Prince George introduce evangelical ideas into his

territory. Jonas Ccune to Anhalt in January of 1538 and by June had composed a church order for the city of Zerbst in which he had concentrated his ministry.®® The order for

Zerbst, which was intended as a model for the other cities of Anhalt, exhorted the pastors of Zerbst to guard against false teaching, specifically the "rotten teaching of the anabaptists, Carlstadt, the Zwinglians and the like."®® 117

Jonas, thus, addressed the situation in Zerbst in the same way that others had in places like Hesse and the territorial

cities of Braunschweig.

This common agenda is not really so surprising since

Jonas was also vitally connected to the network of those who

composed church orders. Jonas was obviously well acquainted with his fellow Wittenberger Johann Bugenhagen and had even supervised his doctoral promotion in 1533. As noted

earlier, Bugenhagen himself shared this event with the

Hamburg superintendent, Johann Aepinus and with Caspar Cruciger, Jonas's later co-worker in Ducal Saxony- Jonas relationship with Aepinus developed further when he participated with Aepinus in attempts to secure a political and confessional alliance with the English in 1536.®^ While these efforts were underway, Jonas also lent his support to the efforts of Corvinus and Kymaeus in their disputations with the Münster Anabaptists. Jonas provided important guidance to the early literary endeavors of these two reformers and closely followed their involvement in the events that had occurred in Münster.®® Even as Jonas was completing his order for Zerbst, he received a timely visit from these two Hessian friends.®® These relational bonds repeatedly crossed territorial boundaries.

With this kind of background and interest, Jonas was certainly the right person to assist the process of reform in Albertine Saxony. Jonas left Zerbst briefly in the 118

spring of 1539 to preach the first evangelical sermons at

the ThomasJclrche in Leipzig and returned during the summer

of 1539 to participate in the territorial visitations-

By the end of the summer Jonas, along with Cruciger, had

completed the church order for the territory of Duke Henry.

Although much of the content of this order depended heavily

on the earlier electoral Saxon Unterrlcht der Visitatoren,

Jonas placed an even stronger emphasis on the power and

authority of the preaching office. Pastors were not to

function as merely pawns of princes or popes.

The death of another powerful opponent of the

Reformation, Joachim I, also occasioned important changes in

Electoral Brandenburg. The chcinges, however, progressed

somewhat more slowly than they had in Ducal Saxony.

Although evangelical ideas had been introduced in certain

cities during the reign of Elector Joachim I, i.e., at

Cottbus, Frankfurt a.d. Oder, and even Berlin, the religious

situation for the territory changed little until the beginning of the reign of Joachim II in 1535. Joachim II

even hesitated until 1539 before he sought to address the question of church structure within his territory.

The church order that was composed for Electoral

Brandenburg maintained a generally conservative tone.

The order itself was adopted and published in 1540, the same year that Charles V initiated his imperially sanctioned

colloquies between representatives of the evangelical and 119 Roman Catholic territories.^®^ Joachim II wanted to insure that his church order would do nothing to threaten the progress of these negotiations. The actual work of creating the church order, however, belonged to the theologians, and the elector gathered a rather diverse group to complete this task. The order itself borrowed heavily from the Brandenburg-Nürnberg order (1533), but important contributions were made by the Wittenberg educated George Buchholzer and the reformer of Meirk Brandenburg, Jacob Stratner.^®^ In addition, Johann Agricola, who now served

as court chaplain for the Joachim II, not only contributed to the order but even served as a territorial visitor-^®® Most surprising of all was the role of George Witzel, who had defected from the evangelical ranks in 1533. Witzel influenced much of the liturgical thinking contained in the Brandenburg order. ^®® The document itself was ultimately

submitted to Luther, Melanchthon, and Jonas. These reformers generally supported the effort, but complained about the numerous ceremonies retained from the old church. ^®^

The break with Rome was significantly more decisive in the territory of Joachim's sister, Elizabeth of Braunschweig-Calenberg. Elizabeth had assumed virtual control of this territory in 1540 as regent for her son, Erich II. The important cities of the Braunschweig- Calenberg, i.e., Gottingen, Hannover, and Northeim, had 120 already allied themselves to the evangelicals but now Elizabeth sought to make this transition a territorial reality. Plans to introduce reform across the breadth of the territory began as early as 1540, but Elizabeth did not seriously pursue creating a new church order until 1542.^°® Once again, Elizabeth sought the services of Antonius Corvinus and when Corvinus left his Hessian parish in Witzenhausen this time, the move was permanent. Corvinus assembled the comprehensive church order for Calenberg—Gottingen during the first half of the year and then oversaw the visitations that began in November, 1542. Elizabeth, who to a certain extent embodied Luther's idea of the Notblshoff also contributed directly to the process and wrote the forwards to both the church order and subsequent cloister order.

Corvinus himself personally supported the spiritual leadership that Elizabeth sought to provide to her duchy and argued that the visitations within Calenberg-Gottingen occurred as a legitimate extension of her authority. Nevertheless, Corvinus did not subscribe to the notion that the church functioned as merely an appendage to princely policy nor would his ideas validate the appearance of the landesherrliche Kirchenr&glment.. The very first article that Corvinus composed for the Calenberg-Gottingen order insisted that preachers must not deviate from preaching "allein Gotts wort" for their accountability was not to 1 2 1 worldly authorities but to God.Corvinus also furthered his own position as leading ecclesiastical official within the territory by summoning and directing a series of synods which m e t at Pattensen and Miinden in 1544 and 1 5 4 5 . Even with the activity of pious Elizabeth of Braunschweig-

Calenberg, the substance of church policy belonged to her territorial superintendent, Corvinus.

Corvinus's work in the Braunschweig territories quickly earned him a reputation as one of the most influential church administrators in Northern Germany, but Bugenhagen, who had pioneered so many church orders in this region, continued to make his contributions. In 1537 Bugenhagen crossed not merely a territorial, but a national boundary, when Christian III invited him to oversee the creation of a church order for Denmark. Five years later he returned to provide a church order for Christian's German duchies of

Schleswig-Holstein. Although representative clergy from

Christian's duchy had subscribed to the Danish church order, the need for a separate work that addressed local concerns prompted Christian to re-enlist the services of

Bugenhagen.Once again, Bugenhagen would prepare this work, which was primarily a revision of the Danish church order, with local assistance. King Christian, however, knew that this work could not be accomplished by just any individual, and thus he sought the experience and expertise of Bugenhagen. 1 2 2 Efforts to provide new church, orders in the early 1540s did not belong exclusively to important territories like electoral Brandenburg, Braunschweig-Calenberg, and

Schleswig-Holstein, but included several important cities in

Northern Germsmy. One of these communities was the

Reicbstadt Muhlhausen on the northern border of Albertine

Saxony. The legacy of Thomas Miintzer continued to haunt Miihlhausen through the 1530s and the confessionally divided supervision of the community by Landgrave Philip of Hesse,

Elector John of Saxony, and Duke George of Saxony kept religious reform stalemated.The death of Duke George

(1539) finally allowed Philip and Elector John Frederick the opportunity to send evangelical representatives to

Muhlhausen.

Although visitations had occurred in the villages surrounding Muhlhausen as early as 1541, the city itself did not receive a delegation of evangelical clergy until

1542.^^® Leading this group was Justus Menius, superintendent of Eisenach in Thuringia since 1529 and a co­ worker with Jonas and Cruciger on the previously mentioned church order for ducal Saxony. Menius preached the first evangelical sermon in Muhlhausen ' s Marienkirche and was the primary force behind the church order that was adopted in the fall of 1542.^^® Menius was assisted by the Hessian,

Valentine Toll and Justus Winther— the same Winther who had drafted a preliminary church order for Gottingen. 123 Although. Miihlhausen remained subordinate to the Hessian and

Saxon princes, the eighteen articles of their church order provided a renewed sense of stability in the city's religious affairs.

Due south of Miihlhausen, stood the Reichstadt

Schweinfurt, another community that underwent earlier social and religious up^.eaval. Landgrave Philip of Hesse also exercised political influence in this city and sought to secure it for the evangelical cause. With his theologians

Toll and Winther active with Menius in Miihlhausen, Philip encouraged the former superintendent of Gottingen, Johann

Sutel, to assist the process of reform in Schweinfurt.

Sutel arrived in Schweinf urt in 1542 and completed a church order for the city the following year.^^® He attacked

Sacramentcirian and Schwarmer tendencies in his order for

Schweinf urt and insisted that the Augsburg Confession serve as the norm for sound pastoral teaching. The order was written for Schweinfurt, but throughout the order Sutel noted his reliance on the earlier Saxon Unterrlcht der

Visitatoren and the Brandenburg-Nürnberg order. The skills

Sutel developed earlier in Gottingen proved effective in Schweinfurt.

Justus Jonas also directed his church administrative

abilities to an urban environment in 1543 when he composed the church order for Halle. Halle's status as a

Resldenzstadt for Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz limited the 124 early progress of evangelical ideas, and clergy with Lutheran sympathies had been banned since 1534.^^° The city council, however, issued a call to Jonas in the spring of 1541, and despite the protests of Archbishop Albrecht, Jonas conducted worship services using Lutheran forms at both St. Mary's and St. Moritz. By 1542 Jonas had assumed the position of Stadtsuperintsndent in Halle, and in this capacity drafted its church order. In the introduction to this relatively short document, Jonas neatly counterpoised the matters of order with the concern for freedom. On the one hand he championed order, "that one hold to the promotion of godly honor in everything by attending to useful, good order," yet argued that one preserve "Christian freedom, without disadvantage and without damage to the conscience"Jonas's own struggle for the right to preach and believe without external constraint— by Archbishop, Coadjutor or even city council— shaped the church order the reformer wrote for Halle. The intensity of the effort to extend reformed ideas by means of church orders during the early 1540s was directly influenced by the provisions implied in the Decree of the Diet of Regensburg (1541). The failed colloquies of 1540- 41, the hope that a general council was imminent, and the need for support from the protestant estates to combat the Turkish threat, compelled Charles to make certain concessions to the estates of the German empire. 125

Essentially, authorities were allowed to implement measures

of reform within their boundaries, but any changes made would be contingent upon the conclusions of the impending general council of the church.While this certainly

influenced the pursuit of reform in areas like Brandenburg or Braunschweig-Calenberg or even the Reichstadt Miihlhausen, the greatest implications were for ecclesiastical territories. Halle was one such ecclesiastical territory that seized the opportunity to direct its own reform, but two more influential examples were Osnabriick and Cologne.

The prince-bishop of Osneüsrück was Franz von Waldeck who also served as ecclesiastical overlord for Münster and

Minden. Von Waldeck's relationship with Philip of Hesse, who had previously helped him to subdue the Münster

Anabaptists, led the bishop to pursue the introduction of protestant ideas.To accomplish this confessional shift.

Von Waldeck solicited the services of both Rhegius and

Corvinus.Rhegius's unexpected death in 1541 and

Corvinus commitment to the church in Braunschweig-Calenberg eliminated these individuals so von Waldeck redirected his invitation to the Lübecker, Herman Bonnus.

The council of Lübeck loaned its superintendent Bonnus to von Waldeck for nearly the entire year of 1543. Bonnus *s most effective work was the church order he composed for the city of Osnabrück. Changes in the substance and style of worship, including a reform of the mass, received the 126 primary attention of Bonnus.Along with the church order for Slzadt Osnabrück, Bonnus completed a type of territorial order for the Stift Osnabrück that was intended to include von Waldeck's other bishoprics of Minden and Münster.

Resistcince from the cathedral chapter in Münster, however, essentially voided the influence of this order in that community.Nevertheless, Bonnus's church order had secured the city of Osnabrück for the evangelical cause.

The Decree of the Diet of Regensburg also prompted the introduction of protestant forms into the eirchiepiscopal electorate of Cologne, but these efforts would prove even more fleeting than some of what von Waldeck initiated in

Osneibrück and Münster. The Archbishop of Cologne, Herman von Wied, sympathized with the evangelical movement and desired to foster the reformation within his territory.

For the elector of Cologne, as for the bishop of Osnabrück, the provisions of the Regensburg recess permitted him to assume more substantially his role as xudex ordinarlus within the boundaries of his diocese. Sponsoring a church order was the logical means to enact the changes von Wied desired.

The archbishop collected a group of notable theologians to compose the church order for Cologne. Leading this effort were Melanchthon and Bucer, who themselves had collcdsorated effectively during the disappointing imperial colloquies, especially at Regensburg in 1541. Melanchthon 127

spent only a limited time in the electorate, preferring

instead to make his contributions through correspondence, while Bucer relocated in Bonn with his associate Kaspar

Hedio.^^® Rounding out the group of those responsible for

the Cologne order was the Hessian theologian, Johann

Pistorius, who had recently replaced Tileman Schnabel as

superintendent in Nidda.^^° Pistorius knew the process,

since he had assisted in the creation of the Ziegenhain

Zuchtordnving in 1539. He also knew the people involved for

he, along with Corvinus, had served as Landgrave Philip's

representative to the colloquy at Regensburg.

The group completed the order for Cologne during the

summer of 1543, but von Wied was never able to introduce its

provisions. Emperor Charles arrived in the electorate on 17

August and insisted that Bucer and Hedio leave Bonn

immediately.The presence of the emperor further

strengthened the resolve of the cathedral chapter of Cologne against the elector. Even several protesteint reformers

attacked the church order for Cologne. Amsdorf— already at

odds with Melanchthon over concessions made during the

colloquy at Regensburg— criticized the document at the

request of John Frederick.Luther was appalled at what

was and what was not said about the sacrament of the Lord ' s

Supper. Even though some of the ideas of the order

received later attention in Hesse, the Cologne church order

was a doomed affair. The previously cooperative network of 128 those composing church orders began to demonstrate its own signs of strain.

A different set of imperial concessions granted in conjunction with the Diet at Regensburg resulted in evangelical expansion into another north German territory:

Braunschweig-Wolfenbuttel. With the death of Duke Erich I in 1540, Duke Heinrich the Young of the Wolf enbuttel line found himself the sole supporter of the old church in the

Braunschweig duchies. For political (and financial) reasons, more than confessional, Heinrich had continued his attempt to control the Reicbstadt Goslacr, even after the

Emperor withdrew imperial sanctions against the city in

1541.^^^ Heinrich's attacks on Goslar were offered as the primary justification for the military action of the protestant League of Schmalkald against Heinrich during the summer of 1542. The League's troops, primarily those of

Philip of Hesse and John Frederick of Saxony, forced

Heinrich completely out of his duchy, and Braunschweig-

Wolf enbuttel was placed under League administration.^^®

The defeat of Heinrich provided the opportunity to conduct a formal ecclesiastical visitation within the territory. Philip and John Frederick assigned Bugenhagen,

Corvinus, and Martin Gorlitz, the city superintendent of

Braunschweig, the responsibility of leading the visitation which commenced in October of 1542. The three church officials composed the preliminary visitations articles and 129 the summary territorial church order which was adopted in

1543. The experience of living in a period of rapid change

(noted above in the correspondence of the Wittenbergers to

the council of Nürnberg) was never more in evidence for both

Bugenhagen and Corvinus. Bugenhagen had just returned to

Wittenberg from the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, when he was

immediately summoned to begin his work for Braunschweig-

Wolf enbuttel in the episcopal city of Hildesheim.

Bugenhagen knew immediately that he and Heinrich Winkel, an old associate from Braunschweig, needed assistance in a city plagued with "ignorant monks" and he longed for the arrival of Corvinus.Corvinus, however, had his hands full composing the order for Braunschweig-Calenberg. He did spend the month of October assisting Bugenhagen with the visitations in Braunschweig-Wolfenbuttel, but hurried home in eaurly November to oversee a similar process in

Braunschweig-Calenberg. It was certainly not surprising then, that Corvinus wrote to Philip of Hesse indicating that he would have to pass on Bishop von Waldeck’s invitation to lead the reform in Osnabrück and Münster.

The collaborative effort of Bugenhagen and Corvinus, included not only the territory of Braunschweig-

Wolf enbüttel, but the episcopal city of Hildesheim in which

Bugenhagen first concentrated his ministry. The city of

Hildesheim, like the episcopal cities of Osnabrück and even 130 Cologne, belonged to the Hanseatic league, but already

Hildesheim had claimed a greater degree of independence from

its bishop and the city hoped to extend control of its

ecclesiastical affairs.Despite the lamentations of

Bugenhagen, the citizens of Hildesheim were not strangers to

the evangelical message and had sought the support of

Rhegius in their own reform efforts as early as 1531.

The realization of these aspirations, however, would have to

wait until the exile of Heinrich the Young and the arrival of the reformers, Bugenhagen and Corvinus.

The church order written for Hildesheim followed the

essential outline of the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel

territorial order. However, while the Braunschweig-

Wolf enbüttel order linked ecclesiastical authority to the

territory, the Hildesheim order indicated that true

authority in the church belonged to the community, the

"children of God.Bugenhagen composed the majority of the Hildesheim church order, while Corvinus supplied the

forward. The work was completed by the end of 1542, but was not published until 1544 when a second round of visitations gave the Hildesheim order official status.The nearly parallel careers of the North German reformers, Bugenhagen and Corvinus, had finally merged in Braunschweig-

Wolf enbüttel and Hildesheim.

Bugenhagen returned to Wittenberg after the second set of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel visitations in 1544 just in 131 time to add his signature to the final church order that would be composed in North Germany before the onset of the Schmalkaldic war: the Wittenbergische Refozrmation of 1545. Although Bugenhagen, Luther, Cruciger, and George Major signed this document, the bulk of the work belonged to Melanchthon. In a certain sense the Wittenbergische Reformation was not really a church order and even Sehling felt it necessary to explain why he included it in his edition. The document resulted from a request by Elector

John Frederick to his Wittenberg theologians for a type of Apologia he could use to explain and defend evangelical ideas on church government and structure to the emperor. Thus, the circumstances that occasioned this piece differed significantly from those surrounding other church orders. Melanchthon • s work was for the most part a theological proposal that dealt with issues of church order in an abstract fashion and paid no attention to matters of local concern. The sequence of events that led to the Wittenbergische Reformation was also unique. In contrast to places like Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel, Schleswig-Holstein, Hildesheim, or Halle, all of which had recently adopted their first church order, Wittenberg was undergoing at least a fourth refinement in matters of church order. The 1528 Unterrlcht der Visitatoren, the articles surrounding the Saxon visitations of 1533, and the recent Conslstorlal-Ordnung for 132

Wittenberg (1542) all preceded the Wittenbergische

Reformation. Thus, Melanchthon's work naturally reflected the culmination of a process rather than a beginning. The first era of expansion of church orders was coming to a conclusion, and in much of North Germany, the focus of future efforts would be on confessional stability.

For nearly a decade after the Wittenbergische

Reformationf no new church orders were composed. Beginning with Bugenhagen ' s trip to Braunschweig in 1528 until 1545 not a single yeenr had passed without the appearance of at least one significant church order in northern Germany. The situation throughout the German empire, however, changed draunatically after the year 1545. The initial campaigns of

imperial troops in southern Germany during the summer of 1546 signaled the beginning of war and the decisive defeat of the Protestant League at Mühlberg the following April crippled the evangelical movement.

The network of those involved in creating church orders was not spared from the turmoil that surrounded these

events- The group itself changed in terms of composition

and character. By the time of the Interim settlements in

1548, Rhegius, Cruciger, BrieBman, and Myconius, along with

Luther, were all dead. Several other leaders had been

forced out of their communities: Jonas fled Halle, Sutel

left Schweinfurt, Menius departed Gotha, and Amsdorf was

driven from his bishopric at Naumburg. Those who remained 133

often did so in tenuous circumstances as was the case for

Bugenhagen in Wittenberg, Kymaeus in Kassel, Agricola in

Brandenburg, and Corvinus in Braunschweig-Calenberg, who was

ultimately incarcerated for his opposition to Duke Erich II.

Nearly two decades of institutional expansion, thus,

ended temporarily with the onset of the Schmalkaldic War.

During this period dozens of church orders had been written,

encompasing most of Northern Germany. Sehling's contention

that those who carried out this effort had very little

influence on its development and outcome could not be

farther from the truth. Although princes and city councils

both summoned and supported these endeavors, it was the

pastors, theologians, and superintendents who actually

directed the church order process. These individuals defied the territorial tendencies of reform by criss-crossing

political boundaries and carrying out their work in widely

varied settings. Even though some have attempted to

recognize lines of influence by discussing families of

church orders, it is obvious that attention to systems, and

not people have held this notion together. The true church

order family, those who did the work of composing the church

orders and won respect for their skills, is far more

involved than has been generally suspected.

However, the whole process of composing church orders was severely disrupted right at the middle of the sixteenth

century. The disruption of the process occurred because the 134 network of authors itself suffered from the es^erience of war and its aftermath. For a time this true "family" of pastors, theologians and superintendents, which had invested its effort in creating the new structure of the church, eind more than any city council or prince was responsible for the form of the evsmge1ica1 church, found itself torn asunder.

When the Peace of Augsburg finally settled the confessional battles of the previous decade, the process of composing church orders resumed. The emphasis differed, however, for the rapid expansion that chauracterized this earlier period, yielded to concerns for consolidation in an age seeking confessional stability. 135

ENDNOTES

1. "Lutlier, Jonas, Bugenhagen und Melanchthon an die margraflich brandenburgischen Statthalter und Rate und den Rat zu Nürnberg. Wittenberg, 1 August 1532," WA B r 6: 340.

2. Note the comments of Anneliese Sprengler—Ruppenthal, "Die Aufreihung etlicher Verfasser von Kirchenordnungen lieB bereits erkennen, daB mancherlei verwandschaftliche Beziehungen zwischen den Kirchenordnungen bestehen, daB man von Familien von Kirchenordnungen sprechen kann," TEE 18, p. 679.

3. "Das richtige scheint mir die Gruppirung nach Territorien zu sein," Sehling, EKO I: xviii.

4. O. Masch, Beitrage zur Geschichte merkmirdiger Bûcher (Wismar, 1769) .

5. "Man denke auch nur daran, wie gross oft die Zahl der 'Verfasser* 1st, wie unsicher der Antheil des Einzelnen ist, wie oft der Verfasser überhaupt unbekeinnt oder zweifelhaft ist. " Sehling, EKO I: xviii.

6. Sehling, EKO I: vii. See also Evangelisches Klrchenlexikon, (Gottingen, 1958) s.v. "Kirchenordnungen" by Hannelore Jahr, p. 772; and Sprengler-Euppenthal in TEE 18, pp. 670-72.

7. "Dass die Fürsten bei dem Erlasse ihrer Ordnungen mehr Oder weniger durch ihrer Theologen beeinflussen liessen, ja dass diese haüfig als die eigentlichen Verfasser der Ordnungen zu bezeichnen sind, andert daran nichts [italics mine]," Sehling, EKO I: vii.

8. Heinz Schilling, "The Reformation in the Hanseatic Cities," Sixteenth Century Journal XIV (1983): 443-56.

9. So Sprengler-Ruppenthal, TEE 18, p. 683.

10. Richter II, pp. 509-11.

11. Sehling, EKO I: ix. An even more concise presentation of Sehling *s conclusions may be found in his article "Kirchenordnungen" for the Eealenzyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Klrche, see EE 10, p. 460.

12. The most important connections he noted were to the later Wittenbergische Eeformatlon (1545), and the order for Mecklenburg (1552), ibid. 136

13. The predecessors to this important work were identified as the Brandenburg-Nürnberg order (1533), the ducal Saxon order (1539), the Genevan liturgy (1541) as mediated by Frankfurt order of 1554, and the church order for the niederlander in London, 1550, ibid.

14. See, Evangelische Kirchenlexikon, (Gottingen, 1958) s.v. "Kirchenordnungen,” by Hannelore Jahr, pp. 772-73; and. Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, s.v. "Church Orders" by Siegfried Grundmann.

15. The problem of repetition without further study reveals itself in a curious fashion in the article on Kirchenordnungen written by Hannelore Jeihr for the Evangelische Kirchenlexikon, Jahr included in his system a reference to the Braunschweig- Wolf enbüttel order of 1534, however the proper date for this order is 1543. The root of this confusion lies in the fact that Sehling also misrepresented the date of this document in the previously mentioned forward to volume I of the EKO, p. ix. Sehling*s apparent transposition of the date for this order, i.e., 1534 for 1543, was subsequently reproduced by Jahr— nearly sixty year after the first mistake1

16. Sprengler-Ruppenthal has provided the most thorough recent analysis of the Kirchenordnungen in her THE article. Although she refers to the ideas of the family nature of these documents, at no point does she attempt to utilize the traditional five family groupings identified above. See TRE 18, pp. 670—86.

17. Karl Müller, "Die Anfange der Konsistorialverfassung im lutherischen Deutschland," Historische Zeitschrift 102 (1909): 1-21.

18. Martin Brecht, Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Stuggart: Calwer Verlag, 1967).

19. Walter Kohler, Züricher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorivua, 2 vols., Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Schweizerischen Reformationsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1942) .

20. A noteworthy example of this type of approach is Theodore Jungkuntz's Erlangen dissertation. Die Brandenburg- Nümbergische Kirchenordnung von 1533 und ihre Auswirkung (Erlangen, 1964). Jungkuntz sought to examine all of the component pieces that went into assembling the order for Brandenburg-Nürnberg, then considered how and where these were utilized in a series of subsequent orders. The diagram and table (pp. 142, 143) are especially illuminating. 137 21. Antonius Corvinus, Warhafftig bericht/ Das das wort Gotts/ ohn tvmult/ ohn schvrermerey/ zu Goslar und Braunschweigk gepredigt wird (Wittenberg: George Rhau, 1529).

22. Corvinus, Warbafftig Bericht, sig. Aij^.

23. "O wie wo It en wir so g e m auch glimpflich handel... das sie [Amandus] nich welter thun denn der Nürmberger ordenung..." Corvinus, Wabrhafftig berlcbt, sig. Di j . For an additional reference to the order of Nürnberg, probably introduced by Amsdorf, see Wahrbafftig bericbt, sig. Biii j. The request from Goslar to Nürnberg is also mentioned in Harold Grimm, Lazarus Sprengler, a Lay Leader of the Reformation (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1978), p. 87.

24. Corvinus structured the tract itself as a dialogue between himself and the jurist Sander. For more on Sander see Paul Tsckackert, "Autor Sander, der 'grosse Freund' des Euangeliums, ” Zeltscbrlft der Gesellscbaft fiir nledersacbslscbe Kircbengescbicbte (1904) : 1-21.

25. "Denn das sie ein freuntliche underredung mit dem herrn Pomerano [Bugenhagen] gehabt haben, der Ceremonia halben, welche denn endlich deüiin komen ist." Corvinus, Wahrbafftig bericbt, sig. Dv.

26. See Sehling, EKO V: 482; and, Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 50.

27. The original niederdeutscb edition is Johannes Bugenhagen, Van dem Cbristenloven unde recbten guden wercken, wedder den falscben louen unde erdicbte gude werke. An die ebrentrike stadt Hamborcb (Wittenberg: Hans Barth, 1526).

28. Further references based on the high German edition of Bugenhagen's work printed the same year. Von dem Cbristlicben glauben und recbten guten wercken, Widder den falscben glauben und erdicbtete gute wercke... An die Ebrentreicbe Stad Hamburg (Wittenberg: George Rhaw, 1526) , sig. Aij.

29. For the Bugenhagen's discussion of the task of preaching see Von dem Cbristlicben glauben, sigs. [Pviij ]- Riiij; in regard to schools note sig. Rv- [Rviij].

30. Georg Geisenhof, Bibliotbeca Bugenbagiana: Bibliographie der Druckscbriften des D, Job. Bugenhagen 138 (Leipzig, 1908; reprint ed. Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1963), p. 271. 31. Krumwiede, p. 10. 32. So Krumwiede, "Die erste der groBen Bugenhagenschen Kirchen-ordnungen ist eines der bedeutendsten Dokumente der lutherischen Reformation und als solches auch immer wieder gewiirdigt worden," Krumwiede, "Bugenhagens Braunschweiger Kirchenordnung, " 13. Earlier, Richter had also stated that Bugenhagen*s Braunschweig order was, "eines der wichtigsten Dokumente fiir die Geschichte der deutschen Kir chenref ormat ion, " Richter I, p. 106. 33. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 350.

34. "Etlike scry en over nye ordeninge. Wat is hyr in disen stucken nyes?. . . " Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 348. 35. "unde hebbe darmank gescreven mit velen worden etlike stucken myner lere uth Gades worde, to wehren etliken erdomen van den sacramenten... " Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 349, 50. 36. Johann Bugenhagen, An de Erentrike Stadt Hamborch, eyn breff J’oannis Bugenhagens Poners, wedder de logene dorch eyn schandbock, synem ersten boke, dat he an de hamborgere gescreven hadde, upgelecht (Wittenberg, 1528). 37. Bugenhagen never mentions Getelen by name because this work itself was appeirently published anonymously. On Getelen see Geisenhof, Bugenhagiana, p. 269. Geisenhof indicated that Getelen was a Frainciscan, however Krumwiede argues that he was a Dominican who was expelled from St. John's parish, Lüneburg, in 1529, see Krumwiede, p. 17. 38. Geisenhof, Bugenhagiana, p. 304. 39. Sehling, EKO V: 495—500. For a comprehensive treatment of Bugenhagen * s agenda in regards to education see, Kurt Hendel, "Johannes Bugenhagen's Educational Contributions" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1974). 40. See the tract, Johann Bugenhagen, Von mancherley Chrxstlichen sachen, trostlxche leren, sonderlxch von beiden Sacramenten, nemlxch, der Tauffe und des lexbs und blut Jhesu Christ!, wider die irrigen Secten, gezogen aus der Lübecker, Hamborger und Brunswiger Ordenunge (Wittenberg; Hans Luft, 1531). 139 41. See Herman Bonnus, Chronica, der vomemellkesten geschicbte unde handel der Keyserliken Stadt Liibeck (Magdeburg: Hans Walther, 1539), sig. [Kvi- Kvii]. Earlier in a letter to Conrad Cordatus, Bugenbagen listed Lübeck as one of several cities that had recently adopted the evangelical cause, but noted his concerns, "Sexto Lubeck, quae magna civitas est et inter Saxonicas valde potens, quotidie bis praedicsins Evangelium et sincere, et ante et post praedicationem canens nostra Germanica cantica. Orandum pro eis, ne in seditionem ruat civitas, id quod minime futuram spero." The letter is dated February, 1530, see O. Vogt, Dr, Johannes Bugenhagens Briefwechsel (Stettin, 1888), p. 92.

42. Bonnus, Chronica Liibeck, sig. L^.

43. Sehling, EKO V: 328.

44. Bugenhagen returned to Wittenberg 30 April 1532, see Brecht, Luther: Shaping and Defining, p. 429.

45. Sehling, EKO V; 271-72.

46. Geisenhof, Bugenhagiana, p. 271.

47. Johann Oldendorp, Van Radtslagende, wo men gude Politie und Ordenunge ynn Steden und Landen erholden moghe. An den Erbajm Radt unnd ghemeyne tho Hamborg (Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1530).

48. Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, pp. 107-121.

49. "Sulk is alle recht, alse ick van den Cerimonien in der Lubeschen ordeninge, unde noch mehr in dem boke den drei ordeninge [i.e.. Von mancherley Christenlichen sachen"\ bescreven hebbe," ibid., p. 115.

50. Hendel, "Bugenhagen*s Educational Contributions," p. 52.

51. This document was overlooked by both Richter and Sehling, but has been recently recovered by Pettke who refers to Bonnus's contribution as a ”Behelfs— kirchenordnung", see Sabine Pettke, "Des Lübecker Superintendenten Herman Bonnus Behe1fskirchenordnung fur Rostock," Schriften des Vereins fiir schleswig-holsteinische Kirchengeschichte 43 (1987): 13—25.

52. Note in particular Bugenhagen's open letter to Bremen (1528) in which he counsels them to follow the example of Nürnberg, Johann Bugenhagen, An den erbaren Radt tho Bremen, 140 ein Sendebref£ Jdhajmls Bugenhagens Pomers, wedder de Schwermere (Magdeburg: Hans Barth, 1528), sig. [Bij]. Interest in Bremen peaked again in 1533, see Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, pp. 125-26; and, Luther, W A B r 6; 428-31, 516-17.

53. Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, p. 208.

54. Geisenhof, Bugenhagiana, pp. 333—34; for Luther's comments see W A B r 6: 516.

55. Ernest's attempt to introduce the articles for territorial reform, which he had promoted in 1527 (see previous chapter), had proven unsuccessful in the former residence city of Lüneburg, see Krumwiede, p. 17.

56. See Maximilian Liebmann, ürbanus Rhegius und die An fange der Reformation (Münster, 1980) , p. 312; and, Richard Gerecke, "Studien zu Urbanus Rhegius' kirchenregiment1icher Tâtigkeit in Norddeutschland. Teil 2: Die Neuordnung des Kirchenwesens in Lüneburg, " Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fiir niedersachische Kirchengeschichte 77 (1979): 25.

57. Sehling, EKO VI: l: 627.

58. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 633-

59. Zasius himself might have been surprised, even offended, at this recollection by his former student, Rhegius. Zasius despised the drastic institutional change that the church orders represented. See in particular, Steven Rowan, Ulrich Zasius: a Jurist in the German Renaissaince, 1461-1535 (Frankfurt: V. Klostermann, 1987) .

60. See s.v. "Gerdt Omeken," in Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 159; and, Gerhard Ulhorn, Urbanus Rhegius Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 296-97.

61. Richter I, p. 168. 62. Kru m w i e d e , p. 14.

63. winkel was also assisted by the former Braunschweig jurist, now a syndic in Hannover, Auctor Sandor, Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 941.

64. See Sprengler-Ruppenthal "Kirchenrechts," pp. 77-8.

65. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 949. 141

66. Richter I, p. 142; Sprengler— Ruppenthal in TRE 18, p. 680; and Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 221.

67. See Kittelson, Luther the Reformer, p. 245; and, Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 902.

68. W A B r 6: 11-12, 43—45. Luther's comments in the first of these letters dated 11 January 1531, regarding matters of liturgy, suggest that Sutel contributed significantly to at least this section of the Gottingen order.

69. Krumwiede, p. 12.

70. See Kolb, Amsdorf, p. 42. 71. Richter I, p. 154.

72. See R. Po-chia Hsia, Society and Religion in Münster,. 1535-1618 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 6— 9.

73. See Nicholaus Amsdorf, Widder die Widderteuffer und Sacramentirer, Etliche sprüche odder schlussrede (Erfurt: Wolf Henning, 1535) , and, Ein schoner Sezmon von dem Wort Zeichen und Sacrament (Wittenberg, 1535) ; Johann Bugenhagen forward to Heinrich Dorp, Warhafftige Historié, wie das Euangelium zu Munster angefangen, und damach durch die Widderteuffer verstoret, widder aufgehort hat (1536) ; Urbanus Rhegius, Widderlegung der Munsterischen newen Valentianer und Donatisten bekentnis an die Christen zu Osnabrugk inn Westpalen (Wittenberg, 1535); Philip Melanchthon, Propostiones wider die Leer der Widertauffer, contra anabaptists (1536); and Luther's forward to Newe zeytung von dem Wydertaufferen zu Munster (1535) . For Luther, not also his earlier "On Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers," WA 30 : 518-27.

74. Corvinus submitted a record of these proceedings for publication, Antonius Corvinus, Acta: Handlungen: Legation und schriffte: so durch den durchleuchtigen hochgeboren Fürsten und Herm, H erm Philipsen, Landgrauen zu Hessen ect. Inn der Munsterschen sache geschehen zusamen gepracht (Wittenberg: Georg Rhau, 1536).

75. While in Lubeck, Bugenhagen wrote his treatise attacking Hoffman's sacramental theology, see Johann Bugenhagen, Wider die Kelch Diebe (Wittenberg, 1532).

76. Sehling, EKO IV: 344.

77. Sehling, EKO IV: 541-42. 142

78. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 17; and, Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, pp. 127-30.

79. Others attending included Herman Bonnus of Lübeck and Johann Timann of Bremen, Sehling, EKO TV: 482, 543.

80. The articles began, "Satis testantur istis temporibus exempla guorundam, quantam calamitatem non solum ecclesiae, sed respubl. quoque sentiat ex perversissimo illo doctrinae genere aneibaptisarum, et similium haereticorum... " Furthermore, the text of Article I reads " Concionatores in docendo earn doctrinam sequi debent, quae in articulis Augustae caesêiri exhibita est anno 1530." Sehling, EKO IV: 540-41.

81. The order of Aepinus was not formally recognized and published until 1556, but had been implemented in Hamburg since its composition in 1539, see Richter, p.315; and TRE 18, p. 677.

82. See especially the correspondence from Corvinus to the Elizabeth, Paul Tschackert, Briefwechsel des Antonius Corvinus (Hannover, 1900), pp. 67—70.

83. Sehling, EKO VI; 2: 920, 23.

84. Corvinus*s warning begem, "Ein ermanung am die achtbaren und wolweisen bürgermeister, radt, gildemeister und ganze gemeine der loblichen stad Northeim, das sie bey der angenomen warheit bleiben und sich weder drauen dieser welt noch falsche lere verfuren Oder auf ander wege zihen lassen, mit widerlegung einer schwermerey von werken..." Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 939.

85. See the section, "Von den widderteuffern, wie mem mit denselbigen hemdeln sol," Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 928, 29.

86. Sehling, EKO VIII: 75-79. Note too the new community chest order of the following yeeur (1533), Richter I, p. 212.

87. In this regard see Willieim Wright, Capitalism,, the State and the Lutheran Reformation (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1988), p. 15.

88. The others signatories were: Gerardus Noviomagus, Dionysius Melemder, Johann Lenning, Daniel Greserus, and Bartholomew Grentzebach, Sehling, EKO VIII: 111-12.

89. In this regard, see John Stalnaker, "Anabaptism, Martin Bucer, emd the Shaping of the Hessian Protestant Church," Journal of Modem History 48 (1976): 601-44. Stalneiker argues that Bucer's contribution to Hesse was really more 143 administrative than constitutive and that his ideas clearly emerged in response to his encounters with the Anabaptists, see esp. pp. 628—41. 90. Bucer's introductory comments read, "Unser ampt und pflicht, lieben h e r m und brüder, erfordert insonderheit, daB wir uber die herd Christi unsers Herrn stetigs wachen und mit hdchsten treun versehen, daB allem einfall der hellischen wolf zeitig begegnet und geweret..." Sehling, EKO VIII: 101. 91. For the explanation of this office see Sehling, EKO VIII: 102-105. Note also Stalnaker, "Anabaptism," p. 632- 38; and Amy Nelson Burnett, "Penance and Church Discipline in the Thought of Martin Bucer," (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1989), pp. 224-65.

92. Stupperich, Refo2rma.torenlexikon, p. 124. 93. The shorter first edition of the Kassel church was published in Marburg under the direct supervision of Kymaeus, Sehling, EKO VIII: 21- 22, 113. 94. Sehling, EKO I: 51. 95. Walter Delius, Justus Jonas, 1493—1555 (Gütersloh, 1952), p. 63—4; Gustav Kawerau, Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas I (Halle, 1884), p. 291. 96. Sehling, EKO II: 544. 97. Delius, Jonas, pp. 61-2. 98. Note Jonas forward to Antonius Corvinus, Ludus Sylvan! Hess! In defectionem Georgli Vuicelll ad Paplstas (Wittenberg: Nicolas Schirlentz, 1534); and Johann Kymaeus, Von der priester Ehestand aus den heiligen schrxfft und Canonlbus, mit sonderlichen vleis zu samen bracht (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1533); also, Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas I : 225, 240-42. 99. Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas I: 293. 100. Delius, Jonas, p. 66. 101. Jonas used unusually forceful expressions when he referred to the pastor as "ein gewaltig siegmann, ein konig und herrscher uber die grosse macht und schrecklichs reich des satans...," yet retained the kind of pastoral emphasis, noted by Bucer, when he added, " Es ligt ein treu seelsorger alle stunde zu felde, im heer des herrn Zebaoth, bewacht. 144 errettet, und schützt seine pfarkinder... ” Sehling, EKO I; 264.

102. So argues Sprengler-Ruppenthal in THE 18, p. 672.

103. For the colloquies see W.H. Neuser, ed., Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgesprache von Worms und Regensburg, 1540/41 (Neuenkirchen, 1974).

104. Sehling, EKO III: 6-7; Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 203.

105. See Sehling, EKO III: 6; and, Steffen Kjeldgaard- Pederson, Gesetz, Evangelium und Busse, p. 23.

106. See John Patrick Dolan, The Influence of Erasmus, Witzel, and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchy of Cleve During the Middle Decades of the 16th Century (Münster, 1957), p. 7.

107. Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas I: 375-76; and W A B r 9: 7- 8.

108. For Elizabeth’s policies in regards to this church order see, Teresa Bailey, "From Piety to Politics: Elizabeth of Braunschweig and the Introduction of the Reformation in Braunschweig-Calenberg, 1540—1545,” (Ph.D diss., Stanford University, 1988), pp. 116-20.

109. See especially chapter 2 of Bailey, "Elizabeth of Braunschweig-Calenberg," pp. 57-85.

110. Corvinus opinion in these matters may be observed in his defense of the visitations in Braunschweig-Calenberg, Antonius Corvinus, Apologia der Christlichen Visitation, in hertzogen Erichs fiirstenthumb geschehen, wider ins Grawen Miinchs lasterschrifft und etlicher Papisten schandliigen gestellet (Hildesheim; Henning Rudem, 1543). In defending Duchess Elizabeth, Corvinus countered the attacks of a local Franciscan by stating, "Und ich Corvinus sage, on rhum, zu dieser lesterung, dagegen also, das die Christliche, ehrliche, und tugentreiche furstin, mehr Gottlicher erkentnis, verstandnis, klugheit, und weisheit, hab in einem finger, weder du Wollf, mit alien Wolffen dans gantzen Barfusser ordens," sig. C^.

111. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 710-715. See also, Sprengler- Ruppenthal, "Kirchenrechts," pp. 83-84. 145

112. Corvinus submitted summaries of these meetings to Elizcibeth which were published separately as Constitutiones aliquot synodales, see Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 866— 77.

113. Christian requested that Bugenhagen overhaul the Danish church order, "zu bestatigen, zu renovieren und zu vollziehen, demit alle Ceremonien und Gebrauche der Kirchen ordentlich und gleichmassig gehalten, " Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, p. 229. See also Richter I, p. 354.

114. See Gustav Schmidt, Justus Menius, Der Reformator Thiiringens I ( Gotha, 1867; reprint ed., Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1969), pp. 273-83.

115. Sehling, EKO II: 384.

116. Schmidt, Menius I, p. 288.

117. Sehling, EKO II: 388-89.

118. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 206.

119. Sutel wrote, "Weil aber diese lezten, sorglichen fehrlichen zeiten vil irriger Geister, Schwermer, Sacramentirer mitbringen... sollen allhier keine andem Prediger und Capellan auffgenomen und bestetiger werden, denn die, so der Augspurgischen Confession verwand und anhengig sind," Richter II, p. 22. 120. Delius, Justus Jonas, pp. 70—2.

121. Note the letter of Albrecht to the emperor, and the emperor's response in Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas II: 31- 33; 41-42.

122. Sehling, EKO II: 434.

123. In this regard see Karl Brandi, The Emperor Charles V, trans. C. V. Wedgewood (London: Jonathan Cape, 1939), pp. 444—53.

124. Von Waldeck was clearly not the faithful catholic depicted by Hsia, Religion in Münster, pp 8-9; 16-19. While the Bishop did favor the renewal of the old church in Münster, he proceeded differently in Osnabrück, Krumwiede, pp. 61-62. Hsia fails to note this contrary strategy of the B i s h o p .

125. Von Waldeck petitioned Elizabeth for the services of Corvinus and if this proved impossible, asked for other recommendations, Tschackert, Briefwechsel Corvinus, p. 127- 28. 146

126- Richter II, pp. 23-24.

127. TRE 18, p. 680.

128. Ibid., p. 672.

129. Richter II, p. 30.

130. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 166, 189.

131. Brandi, Charles V, p. 502.

132. Kolb, Nicolaus Amsdorf, p. 55.

133. For Luther's response see RE 12, p. 521, s.v. "Melanchthon."

134. This concessions were granted in conjunction with the Diet of Regensburg in 1541, Brandi, Charles V, p. 483. 135. Sehling, EKO VI: l: 4.

136. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 12.

137. Bugenhagen was in Wittenberg from June until September of 1542, Hendel, "Bugenhagen's Educational Contributions," pp. 67— 68.

138. Bugenhagen described the situation in Hildesheim to Elector John Frederick with the following, "Die Stadt ist vol pfaffen und Monnichen. Unter den pfaffen aber war nicht einer, den man wozu konte gebrauchen. Sie sind klotze, das sie nichts wissen, auch nicht des Pabstes lere, die meisten sind auch so gotlos, das sie auch nicht gutes thun willen, ob sie schon konten," Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, p. 242, see also p. 248.

139. Tschackert, Briefwechsel Corvinus, p. 130-31.

140. Krumwiede, p. 57.

141. Note the response of Rhegius in Urbanus Rhegius, Trostbrieff an alle Christen zu Hildesheym, die umbs Euangelium willen schmach und vorfolgung leiden (Magdeburg: Hans Walther, 1531). Even Bugenhagen was surprised when he discovered the familiarity of the Hildesheimers with evangelical hymns, Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, p. 239.

142. See Richter II, p. 80; and Sprengler-Ruppenthal, "Kirchenrechts," pp. 70-71.

143. Richter II, p. 79. 147 144. TRE 18, p. 680.

145. He argued that he decided to include this document because of the arguments it advanced and because of its influence on later church orders, especially the Mecklenburg order of 1552, Sehling, EKO I; 59. CHAPTER IXX

THE CHURCH ORDERS IN THE CONFESSIONAL AGE

The experience of the Schmalkaldic War and the varying responses to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims severely disrupted the interpersonal network that had established the early church orders. Even the process of composing the church orders themselves— an activity that highlighted the fast-paced changes of the 1530s and early 1540s— vanished for nearly a decade. When the work of creating new church orders resumed in the mid—1550s, not only was the process markedly different, but so were the people involved. From

1552 until 1580, a second generation of superintendents, theologians, and pastors invested their careers in writing church orders. In many instances they built upon the ideas of their predecessors, while at other times they introduced patterns not previously established. Not surprisingly, the collective efforts of this new network of individuals have been almost completely ignored. While the initial authors of evangelical church orders are poorly understood, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, the situation for those who continued this process is even worse. ^ The task of this chapter is to recapture the dynamic of the process

148 149 in which these individuals engaged and to restore the role of their own contributions. The process of composing church orders following the end of the Schmalkaldic Wcir changed as did the mood of this later period. Before considering the new events, individuals, and efforts made to secure sound church order, one must reflect on the mood or Zeitgeist, that characterized these later endeavors. Tracts written by Antonius Corvinus and Johann Bugenhagen, two of the most influential authors of the earlier church orders, offer an insightful probe into the religious climate of the 1550s.

After nearly three years in the Festung at Calenburg,

Corvinus was released by Duke Erich II in October of 1552.

His career as an author of church orders was over, even though Duke Albert still hoped to bring Corvinus and his highly prized organizational skills to Prussia.^ Corvinus did, however, compose one final tract that not only culminated his life's work, but revealed his perceptions of the current situation facing the evangelical church throughout Germany. The work, which he dedicated to his former patroness and friend, Elizabeth of Braunschweig (now in Henneberg) , was a prayer book based upon the familiar symbols of the Christian faith entitled, Alle fiirneme

Artickel unser Christlichen Religion.

For understanding the religious climate of the second half of the sixteenth century, Corvinus's introductory 150 comments are most important. Corvinus surveyed the events

of the past few decades and offered his own historical assessment of the problems the church had recently encountered. He noted that despite the fact that the

"beloved Gospel" had been proclaimed in a fashion "so completely pure and clear. .. like no other time since the days of the Apostles," serious opposition had continually daunted the progress of the reformation church. He listed

in chronological order several of these difficulties:

Müntzer, the sacramentarian disputes, and finally, the debacle at Münster. Corvinus could speak firsthand about the situation at Münster cind he recalled his own earlier efforts with Kymeaus.^

These external threats were familiar, but next Corvinus addressed several internal factors that divided and hindered the proclamation of the Gospel. He pointed first to the disputes in Hamburg surrounding Johannes Aepinus's understanding of the second article of the Apostles Creed, the article which referred to Christ's descent into Hell.^

For Corvinus, this was the first altercation among adherents to the Lutheran faith, but it paled in comparison to the divisions that resulted from the attempted Interim settlements initiated during the Schmalkaldic War. Corvinus recorded his personal disappointment with the impact of this controversy as he wrote. 151 "Likewise concerning the quarrel of the middle things, or as ones says, the adiaphora. On this I cannot say much, but for me, never has anything, even in my highest griefs, so greatly afflicted my heart as such a quarrel in the midst of the brethren.

He attributed these disputes, along with the pestilence, warfcure, smd bloodshed so recently encountered, to divine retribution (gottlicbe Straffen) . To counteract these perils, the church must pay attention not just to sound teaching, but to proper Christian behavior.® Thus, Corvinus confronted the difficulties that now plagued the evangelical church, both external and internal, with a renewed emphasis on the necessity of church order and even Christism discipline.

Corvinus ' s former co-laborer in the duchy of

Braunschweig-Wolfenbuttel, Johann Bugenhagen, said essentially the same thing in his last treatise written in

1556: Vermazmng an alle Pastoren und Predicanten des

Euangelij ±m Churfiirtenthumb zu Sachssen. Like Corvinus,

Bugenhagen recoiled in horror at the social and political disorder that had accompanied the recent conflict.

Bugenhagen bemoaned that despite ten years of conflict in

Germany, peace remained as elusive as ever and he feared that the end of the world was fast approaching.^ Above all,

Bugenhagen attacked the degenerating moral climate in

Germany, a matter well suited to this tract based on the Ten

Commandments. Bugenhagen was especially concerned with problems associated with marriage— a subject he had 152 emphasized throughout his ministry®— and he cried out against vices like "whoring, adultery, and incest." He specifically chastised, "the many swinish men, especially the young lords (jungen JunckhBrm), students, farmers, and craftsmen, who consider it a great impudence to live like lazy pigs, drinking and stirring up trouble."® Bugenhagen was appalled at the way these people "under the guise of Christian freedom" merely indulged their own wanton behavior- Once again, the tension between freedom and order featured prominently in the message of the reformers. For the most part, Bugenhagen' s response to these crises followed traditional counsel. He called on the authorities to fulfill their office by punishing the wicked, he encouraged parents to faithfully teach their children the catechism, and of course, he summoned the church to continue to confess its faith, even in the face of opposition. One can detect, however, in Bugenhagen*s comments about the church a subtle, but important shift in emphasis. Even though Bugenhagen continued to frame his arguments with the kind of pessimistic apocalypticism so characteristic of earlier reformation pamphlets, he emphasized that the church had and would endure as an "honorable assembly. The kinds of events Luther had predicted as early as 1531,^^ and that he and Bugenhagen had again prophesied in 1543,^^ had come to pass. Bugenhagen had personally witnessed these various calamities and yet, the church had weathered the 153 storm. Furthermore, it still had a task to accomplish.

Bugenhagen drew an interesting parallel between his circumstances, having just passed his seventieth birthday, and those of St. Augustine who at the age of seventy—six witnessed the fall of Hippo to the Vandals.For both of these servants of the church, a time of tribulation had brought noteworthy change, but not the anticipated parousial

The comments of both Corvinus and Bugenhagen clearly point to an unfinished task in regards to the process of church order. Despite the internal confessional strife that

Corvinus mourned and the rather tenuous political situation that Bugenhagen discerned (even given the legal guarantees provided in the Peace of Augsburg) , the church needed to bolster its institutional efforts. They acknowledged that misunderstandings, and even mistakes, had been made previously and from their perspective, God himself had intervened to discipline the errant. This divine judgement, however, was also a "refiner's fire" and this process of refinement emerged as the prevailing task of those who assumed the organizational mantle from Bugenhagen, Corvinus, and their contemporaries.

Scholars of sixteenth-century Germany have had a difficult time interpreting this transition into the later half of the century. Many have elected to avoid this period altogether and have contented themselves, in the words of one scholar, "with starting and restarting the German 154

Reformation without investigating its conclusions."^^

Frequently, when this period is discussed, the

characterization tends to be negative. The following

comments by Heiko Oberman typify this type of assessment,

"When Justus Jonas, Luther's lifelong friend and witness to his death, himself died on October 9, 1555, two weeks after this 'religious peace [Augsburg] , ' the 'renewal of the church' had been reduced to— and ensnared in— the reform of regional and territorial churches. Jonas was forced to watch Luther's Reformation evolve into Luther emism. "

Despite the fact that Oberman has spent much of his life

mediating the transition from the middle ages to the age of

Reformation, he cannot avoid the temptation to reflect

derisively on this transition into the second half of the

sixteenth century. In this evaluation, Oberman is not

alone.

The problem with the second half of the sixteenth

century in Germany reveals itself further in an ongoing quest for appropriate terminology. One solution has been

offered by Peter Barton who refers to this period as the

"late Reformation" (Spatreformation) . By doing so. Barton

seeks to retain the historical and theological unity of the

sixteenth century and distinguishes this continuing process

of reform from early Lutheran Orthodoxy {Friihorthodoxie) , which he pushes back into the early seventeenth century.

While Barton has emphasized Lutheran confessional dynamics, others have considered the response of Rome as determinative for the era, and hence have employed the term "Counter­ 155 reformation.Still others have focused on the preference of several formerly Lutheran territories for Calvinism, a movement which occurred late in the sixteenth century. These scholars have attempted to formulate a general understanding of the period based upon the notion of a "second reformation" (die zweite Reformation)The limited application of both of these later notions— i.e. Counter Reformation and 'second' Reformation— along with the essentially confrontational tone of these terms, however, has prompted several scholars to abandon these concepts and to replace them with something more representative of the diversity in the German territories. A term that seems to best capture the diverse religious experience of the second half of the sixteenth century, and one that has currently gained the strongest consensus of scholarly opinion, is that of "confessionalization" (Konfessionalisierung). Both historians and theologians have embraced this understanding because it allows them to consider the process of religious change and consolidation which transcended the political (and hence confessional) boundaries of the sixteenth century. From the perspective of the Lutherans, confessionalization is roughly synonymous with what Barton identified as the late reformation. Likewise the Counter Reformation and the second Reformation become Roman Catholic confessionalization and Reformed confessionalization respectively. Delumeau has applied the 156 same type of thinking to France, albeit with a more pessimistic assessment of the role of institutional Christianity in the middle ages, and termed the process: Christianization. The de facto tripartite confessional configuration of Germany, however, makes it the more intriguing subject for the purpose of analyzing confessionalization. Armed with this more comprehensive understanding of religious change, and one that can more effectively incorporate political and social developments, historians have only recently begun to study the process of the reformation in the second half of the sixteenth century. Unfortunately, a preference for southern as opposed to northern German regions, and the tendency to ignore territories that remained confessionally Lutheran, has severely limited the overall understanding of confessionalization. The best regional investigations to date have focused on regions that adhered eventually to some type of Reformed confession, notably the electoral Palatinate, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau-Dillenberg, and Lippe. Brecht has investigated confessional dynamics in the Lutheran region of Württemberg, but here again, the territory lies in southern Germany. The same is true for Rublack's study of southern episcopal cities that eventually reverted to Roman Catholicism.^^ Blaschke's work on Saxony

remains the only recent study of a Lutheran North German 157 territory - In regards to Lutheran territories, interest in confessionalization tends to stall on the question of the introduction of the territorial church system, the landesherrlldhe Kirch&nregiment, Essentially, historians of Lutheran territories have been preoccupied with determining when the church of Luther and his contemporaries became the territorial church of the Lutheran princes. Although certain tendencies toward territorial control of ecclesiastical affairs had commenced prior to the Reformation,^® for the most part the development of the landesherrliche Kirchenreg’iment has been correlated with ideas attributed to Luther, and especially Melanchthon.^® Even Sehling, however, was reluctant to admit that the territorial church system fully emerged within the lifetime of Melanchthon (d. 1560), let alone Luther, but he did view this as the prevailing direction for Lutheran churches.

Other historians have attempted to identify more specifically the events associated with the inauguration of the landesherrliche Kirchenregiment, and only recently have many of these conclusions been seriously challenged.^® It should be obvious that the issues of confessionalization are significantly greater than the narrow discussion that surrounds the appearance of the territorial church. The process of creating and implementing church orders lies at the very heart of this late reformation phenomenon 158

of confessionalization, and deserves much more careful consideration. Certainly, the territorial nature of reform was encouraged by the provisions of the Peace of Augsburg cuid many princes assumed an even more active posture in religious affairs, as witnessed by their deliberations at

Naumburg in 1561. The princes pressed for political stability which was impossible to separate from the need for consensus in confessional matters. From the perspective of civil authority, the church orders were a means to this desirable end. In a few instances, the church orders have been so closely associated with a particular prince that they have carried his name, e.g. the Braunschweig-

Wolf enbuttel church order of Duke Julius (1569) and the

Saxon order of Elector August (1580).

Nevertheless, the fact that in many cases these documents aided efforts at political centralization must not diminish their true intent which was to assist the church in its ongoing effort to ensure sound teaching and inform

Christian practice, both individually and corporately. The

North German church orders of the latter half of the sixteenth century did not belong primarily to the princes, but resulted from the pastors and theologians who composed them. In order to evaluate this dynamic of confessionalization, one must give first consideration to these makers of church order. 159

An expamding network of individuals guided the process of composing the church orders in the second half of the sixteenth century. Although the first post-war church orders all resulted primarily from authors who had prior experience in these matters, by 1555— the fateful year of the peace of

Augsburg— their contributions had concluded. Beginning in the middle of the 1550s, a new network of authors assumed responsibility for the composition of church orders. Their efforts lasted roughly a generation, until the middle of the

1580s, and the entire period may be characterized as an age in quest of stability.

The first church order composed in Northern Germany following the War of the Schmalkaldic League was a territorial order for the duchy of Mecklenburg in 1552.

Duke John Albert, who had formed an alliance for the preservation of the evangelical faith with Albrecht of

Prussia and John of Brandenburg-Küstrin at Konigsberg

(1550), determined to fortify the Mecklenburg churches early

in 1551.^® Mecklenburg, like many neighboring North German

cities cind territories had been speared the onslaught of

imperial troops and the disruptive introduction of the Interim. Nevertheless, John Albert felt it wise to proceed

with a visitation and significant revisions of the 1540

church order.To accomplish this task John Albert relied

on the skills of his professor of theology at Rostock,

Johann Aurifaber of Breslau. Aurifaber, a former pupil and 160 later faculty associate of Melanchthon in Wittenberg, had been recently ordained by Bugenhagen (1550). During that same year that he also received his doctoral promotion at Rostock. Territorial superintendent Johann Riebling^^ emd Güstrow superintendent, Gerd Oemeken— author of the earlier church order for Soest— assisted Aurifaber in composing the Mecklenburg order. These individuals completed the church order in 1552 and Aurifaber submitted the document to Melanchthon for his comments.

In many ways the church order for Mecklenburg was really the work of Melanchthon; Aurifaber essentially applied Melanchthon's insights to Mecklenburg. The Mecklenburg order itself followed the outline of Melanchthon's Wlttenberglsche Reformatio (1545), but it emphasized the details of church order as opposed to the theological principles Melanchthon sought to articulate in his earlier treatise written for John Frederick. Furthermore, the extensive first section of the Mecklenburg order circulated subsequently as Melanchthon's tract Examen ord.inand.em a doctrinal piece designed to screen candidates for pastoral and other teaching offices in the territory.^®

With further adaptations, the order for Mecklenburg reappeared as the Wittenberg church order in 1559, which was the first of several communities and territories to adopt the pattern of this significant work. Thus, the church order for Mecklenburg, while utilizing the skills of Johann 1 6 1

Aurifaber— one who represented the new generation of church order authors— depended heavily on the efforts of

Melanchthon and even Oemeken, seasoned veterans in the work of composing the church orders.

Another church order author of the first generation also resumed his efforts immediately following the

Schmalkaldic War: the Hamburg Superintendent Johann Aepinus.

Even though Aepinus and Melanchthon shared a commitment to ecclesiastical consolidation and the ongoing necessity of proper church order, the two had assumed opposing positions on the question of the Interim. Aepinus, who was no stranger to theological controversy, quickly condemned the provisions of the Augsburg Interim and influenced other

North German church leaders to join in his attack.

Aepinus found the concessions of the Wittenbergers contained in the subsequent Leipzig Interim no less offensive, and immediately accused Melanchthon of abandoning the first principles of the evangelical faith.The rabies theologorum did not leave the network of authors of church orders unaffected.

These controversies, however, did not prevent the council of Buxtehude from inviting Aepinus to compose a church order for their community in 1552, the same year that the Mecklenburg church order appeared.^® The Hanseatic city of Buxtehude aligned itself religiously with its neighbor to the west, the Reichstadt Hamburg, yet remained territorially 162 subordinate to the archbishopric of Bremen. Thus it was only natural to rely on Aepinus, the Hamburg superintendent, to consolidate its religious affairs in a church order.

No degree of uncertainty clouded the question of authorship in this order for Buxtehude. Aepinus made certain to emphasize the leadership he gave to the effort and he relied heavily on his previous order for Hamburg ( 1 5 3 9 ) In the introduction to the Buxtehude church order, Aepinus reaffirmed the need for engaging in these kinds of activities. He emphasized that church orders were necessary to avoid God's wrath or displeasure, certainly a response to the tumult that surrounded the recently concluded conflict, and indicated that an appropriate "order of divine worship and Christiem discipline" provided a sense of religious consistency eimongst neighboring principalities and cities.He rejected outright,

"the thinking that through this [church order] something should be adopted, that might demand any person a offense, euinoyance, or disadvantage. On the contrary, one must give priority to that which brings God's honor alone, and establish those things that bring honor emd spiritual welfare to ourselves and our citizens."

For Aepinus, church orders should not be used as a means to secure questionable forms of compromise. Furthermore, he insisted that the eirrangements and guarantees, which normally comprised the church orders, must continue until they were settled either by a "truly free" church council, or by common consent of the empire.In this order for 163

Buxtehude, Aepinus demonstrated once again that he took no task, more seriously than that of creating church orders.

Like Aepinus and Melanchthon, Justus Jonas had not yet

completed his career as an author of church orders. The

departure of imperial forces from the Reichstadt Regensburg

and the opportunity to dispense with the provisions of the

Interim prompted this city to request the services of Jonas

in August of 1552.^^ The war years had taken their toll on

Jonas, personally and professionally, as he was compelled to continually relocate both his ministry and family. He had

fled Halle following the defeat of Elector John Frederick

and sought refuge in his hometown of Nordhausen. He then

served for roughly six months as preacher at St. Andreas in

Hildesheim— a position arranged by Melanchthon and

Corvinus^^— before returning to Halle almost a year after

his forced departtire. The stay was only temporary, for

continuing tensions with Elector Maurice convinced Jonas to

relocate in Ernestine Saxony under the patronage of Prince

Johann Ernest at the Coburg.

It was to this Saxon Duke that Regensburg directed its request for organizational support, and Jonas enrrived in

Regensburg in time to preach a New Year's sermon at the

Neupfarrkirche in 1553 Jonas remained in Regensburg

until the summer and with Nicholas Callus, the Magdeburg

associate of Matthias Flacius Illyricus who had recently

returned to Regensburg, he restructured the city's 164

Protestant community. The church order that Jonas composed for Regensburg was a relatively short document, especially when compared to the lengthy works of Bugenhagen,

Corvinus, or Rhegius, and it emphasized primarily liturgical, rather than doctrinal or administrative matters.

In the church order for Regensburg, however, Jonas managed to contribute one last time to his lifelong career as one deeply involved in creating evangelical church structures.

Justus Jonas died only two years after completing this work in Regensburg, yet he did not die lamenting the evolution of "Lutheranism” nor resenting territorial church structures, as implied in the above comments by Oberman.

His efforts in Regensburg, a call that he probably should have declined given his own ill health, demonstrate the depth of his commitment to ensuring viability, as well vitality to Lutheran ecclesiastical structures.

Furthermore, while in Regensburg Jonas preached an Easter sermon that became the basis for his final treatise: Eyn fast trostliche Predigt, rind auslegung der Historien von den wunderbaren XL, tagen. In Actis Aposto: Cap. 1. The death of his friend, former elector John Frederick in 1554,

induced Jonas to publish this piece which he dedicated to the younger dukes of Saxony— the John Frederick’s (the

Middler and the Young) and John William.^® Jonas's Easter message, based on the post-Resurrection encounters of the disciples with the pre-ascended Christ and now applied to 165 the death of John Frederick, championed the apostolic doctrine of the bodily resurrection. He assaulted the "Roman epicureans" who "do not believe in a future life" and who denied the "eternal, heavenly existence that our beloved lord Christ began here on this earth. In writing this treatise of consolation Jonas exhorted the sons of John Frederick to remain faithful to the evangelical message, just as their father had modeled, and he contended one last time with those whose doctrine he found fatally flawed. There is a paradox here in the ministry and message of Jonas that warrants clarification. On the one hand, one would have to regard much of this talk about resurrected life and hope for the future as "other worldly," and several scholars have focused recently on the apocalypticism that they argue, characterized many sixteenth century reformers, especially in Germany.In reading the tracts written by evangelical church leaders one cannot avoid the urgency they associated with living in the eschaton or the "last days, nor can one deny their fears of larger-than-life enemies manifested in writings against Rome, the Turks, schwaœmerex, or even apostate brethren. At times Jonas wrote and apparently thought this way, as did Luther. The same was true for Corvinus and Bugenhagen, as noted above, especially in their own final testaments. However, having conceded this perspective, it would be erroneous to deduce that these reformers had thereby abandoned their concerns for the 166 Chur ch in the here and now, or even approached institutional

endeavors with ambivalence. Jonas offers a perfect example

of one whose last words looked to future, but whose last

labor, i.e. the church order for Regensburg, addressed present organizational needs. In assessing the careers of these various reformers, one must balance the pessimistic

tone of their rhetoric with the optimism that would summon

even their final energies. Jonas, Aepinus, and Melanchthon bear a special

distinction as authors of North German church orders. Their

collective efforts spanned the early evolution of the church

order process to this point. Each of these reformers

contributed significantly to the very beginning of this

enterprise— Aepinus in Stralsund (1525) , Melsmchthon and

Jonas in electoral Saxony (1527-28)— and they extended their efforts during the expansive 1530s and 1540s. Of the various individuals discussed in the previous chapter, these

three numbered among the very few who composed church orders both before and after the Schmalkaldic War.

One other author of North German church orders also

distinguished himself in this fashion; Nikolaus von Amsdorf.

Amsdorf *s final contribution to a lengthy career in church

building was the church order he helped to assemble for the

city of Magdeburg— a city that had benefitted from his

earlier ministry and one that welcomed his return when he was forced to leave the bishopric at Naumburg.^^ The church 167 order for Magdeburg^ however, was not the result of Amsdorf's efforts alone, but involved significant contributions from a pair of individuals who were new to the network of church order authors: Joachim Morlin and Erasmus Sarcerius. One encounters, therefore, in the church order for Magdeburg this important transition from first to second generation. The city of Magdeburg, despite its earlier association with Archbishop Albert of Mainz and its former position as one of Rome's most important representatives in northern Germany, gained the reputation, during the Schmalkaldic War, as the guardian of Lutheran orthodoxy. Magdeburg welcomed not only Amsdorf from Naumburg, but especially those who opposed the Interim settlements, i.e. Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Nicholas Callus, Matthaeus Judex, and Johann Wigand, and hence became the center of the so-called Gnesio- Lutheran party.In order to silence the critical presses of Magdeburg, imperial troops conducted a nearly year long campaign against the previously banned city (1550-51), under the leadership of Maurice of Saxony. The city finally yielded to the attacking armies and became the joint political responsibility of the electors of Brandenburg and Saxony, who shared this right with the archbishop.®^

Despite the defeat, Magdeburg managed to retain control of its own religious affairs. Plans to introduce the Interim into Magdeburg never materialized, due primarily to 168 the untimely death of Elector Maurice at Sievershausen and the election of the progressive Sigismund of Brandenburg, the last archbishop of Magdeburg, in 1553.®® The city held

fast in its commitment to Lutheram forms of worship and doctrine, which rekindled a previous battle with the

cathedral chapter, but found it necessary to make changes in the provisions of its earlier church order. Von Amsdorf, himself no stranger to conflict with the cathedral chapter

in Magdeburg, ®® was summoned once again by the city council,

even though he had already "retired" to the office of

superintendent in Eisenach (1552).

The church order that Amsdorf provided for Magdeburg

focused almost exclusively on the issue of church discipline. The typical discussion of what constitutes true teaching, of arrangements in liturgical affairs, and of details regarding church administration were entirely absent

from this document. Instead, the first three of the five articles concentrated on questions such as who should be admitted to the Lord's table, how one should regulate the privileges surrounding baptism, and what kind of burial was

appropriate for those who rejected the sacraments.®^ These

articles, which were adopted by the Magdeburg "synod of all the pastors and ministers of the word" in April of 1554, underscored the particular concerns and expertise of

Amsdorf's collaborators: Joachim Morlin and Erasmus

Sarcerius. 169

In both, practice and prescription, the ministries of

Morlin and Sarcerius paid special attention to the matter of church discipline. Morlin, who had served with Corvinus in the duchy of Braunschweig-Calenberg until he was forced to flee Gottingen (1548), currently served as superintendent in the city of Braunschweig. His battles with two princes,

Erich II of Braunschweig—Calenberg and Albrecht of Prussia,^® had caused Morlin to give special attention to the independence and power of the pastoral office.®® The matter of church discipline, thus, featured prominently in the understanding of Morlin and this was even more true for the Mansfeld superintendent, Sarcerius. Like Morlin,

Sarcerius was forced to relocate because of controversies surrounding the Interim. In 1548 he left the county of

Nassau-Dillenberg, in which he had exercised an extraordinary degree of ecclesiastical supervision, for

Saxony.®® Sarcerius served briefly at St. Thomas in

Leipzig, but escalating tensions with Melanchthon and his supporters led Sarcerius to seek a more congenial setting, which he found at Eisleben in the county of Mansfeld.

Sarcerius not only directed ecclesiastical affairs in Mansfeld, but began to write extensively on administrative issues and especially on the topic of church discipline.®^

Although others like Bugenhagen, Corvinus, and Aepinus had written occasional tracts on subjects related to discipline,

Sarcerius was the first to do so in a comprehensive fashion. 170

In this 1554 church order for Magdeburg, therefore, one encounters a complete reversal of the circumstances which accompanied the 1552 Mecklenburg church order. The relationship between the pioneers of the church order process and the next generation had changed. In the

Mecklenburg order, the newcomer Aurifaber directed and adapted the document, but its essence belonged to the veterans Melanchthon and to a lesser degree, Oemeken. In

Magdeburg, however, the substance of the document reflected the ideas of Sarcerius and Morlin, rather than Amsdorf.

Having Amsdorf involved in the process maintained a sense of continuity in this city which still revered the aging reformer, but a new network of church order authors now assumed the responsibilities of leadership.

It would be somewhat misleading, however, to characterize Sarcerius as an entirely new entrant to this process- As noted above, Sarcerius had supervised the ecclesiastical affairs of Nassau—Dillenberg during the 1540s and had assisted Bucer and Melanchthon with the church order for Cologne.Sarcerius had even boasted to his friend, the Magdeburg centuriator Johsinn Wigand, that he had composed over twenty-four church orders during the course of his life, cind certainly many of these would have been written prior to the Schmalkaldic War.®^ Unfortunately, what little is known of Sarcerius*s career cannot fully substantiate this claim, nor give details as to when these 171 activities might have occurred. However, Sarcerius's contributions to the church order process in the 1550s are more certain and it seems that the thrust of his career occurred during this later period. The same year that Sarcerius contributed to the church order for Magdeburg, he composed a series of visitation cirticles for the county of Mansfeld: Form und Welse einer Visitation fur die graft und herschafft Mansfelt. The confusing political situation in Mansfeld had merited the personal attention as well as a visit from Luther just before his death,®* and the even more difficult religious situation following the Schmalkaldic war likewise warranted expert assistance. Sarcerius was just the kind of person Luther had envisioned when he challenged the factious counts to establish the office of superintendent in 1546.®® He was named to the position in 1553, replacing the problematic Wittenberger, George Major, and vigorously pursued the duties associated with the office until 1559. Under the leadership of Sarcerius, the first extensive visitation occurred in Mansfeld and the visitation articles composed by the reformer directed this process. A brief glance at the articles for Mansfeld reveals that Sarcerius was both Reformer and Reformater. He attacked deviant Christian behavior as strongly as defective Christian doctrine and his articles offered a rather lengthy catalogue of vices.®® His administrative efforts were realized in a series of 172 ecclesiastical synods that were held in Mansfeld from 1554- 1559. Another aspect of Sarcerius's plan for Mansfeld was the introduction of a consistory. Once again, the idea itself originated with earlier reformers, i.e. Luther and Jonas. However, the Schmalkaldic War had hindered the attempt of the first superintendent, Johann Spangenburg, to establish a church court, and theological controversy paralyzed the efforts of his successor George Major.Even Sarcerius, who lobbied for this idea from the outset of his ministry, and had written generally on the subject of consistories,®® struggled to win support for his position. The consistorial order for Mansfeld was not adopted until 1560— the year Sarcerius died in Magdeburg— and was implemented under the direction of the next Mansfeld superintendent, Jerome Mencel. The county of Mansfeld was only one of several territories and cities that sought to create some form of church courts or consistory in the later half of the sixteenth century. The first attempts to establish consistories actually occurred in the early 1540s, but the disruptions associated with the Schmalkaldic War essentially aborted of these early endeavors. Nevertheless, in order to place these developments in their appropriate context, it is necessary to briefly consider the background and early evolution of the consistorial courts. Once this earlier 173

history has been discussed, it will be possible to

incorporate the various consistorial orders into the larger

church order process in the later reformation period.

The collapse of episcopal authority and the numerous

responsibilities associated with the office of bishop

precipitated a crisis in the 1 5 3 0 s . T h e bishop’s courts

or consistories had previously handled most of legal and

moral problems surrounding marriage and since the

introduction of the reformation, no adequate substitute for

responding to these issues had materialized. Initial

attempts to assign marital jurisdiction either to visitation

commissions or to secular courts quickly proved ineffective.

This institutional failure was keenly felt in Electoral

Saxony and attracted the attention of both Luther and the former canon law specialist, Justus Jonas. In 1538 Jonas,

with the assistance of Luther and Saxon Chancellor Briick,

sent a recommendation to Elector John Frederick calling for

the institution of a consistory to deal with marital issues,

especially infidelity, abandonment, divorce, clandestine marriages and blood-relatedness. A proposed consistory to

supervise affairs in the areas surrounding Torgau and

Wittenberg never really developed, but the idea itself persisted.An actual consistorial order for Wittenberg,

the first of its kind, was adopted in 1542, with Jonas as the primary author. In contrast to the sporadic nature of

the visitations, the consistory was to operate as a standing 174

court of two theologians, two jurists, a noteiry, and a few additional minor administrators. Questions regarding

jurisdiction, however, continued to plague the Saxon

consistory until the onset of Schmalkaldic War entirely

suspended its operation.

Jonas's role in establishing the evangelical church in

Albertine Saxony in 1539 also encouraged Duke Heinrich to

consider the creation of a consistory in his territories, but it was up to his son Maurice to act on these ideas.

Maurice went so far as to consider completely restoring the

office of the bishop, but instead settled for reforming the

ecclesiastical court system. The Saxon Duke installed

Prince George of Anhalt as bishop/ coadjutor in Merseburg and gave him fundamental responsibility for developing the consistory. The jurisdiction of the consistory in

Albertine Saxony extended beyond merely marital affairs and

included concern for the financial welfare of the clergy and oversight of doctrine within the territory. From 1545 until

1548 Prince George supervised the consistorial courts in

Merseburg and Meissen, but as in Ernestine Saxony, the war yecurs circumscribed the efforts of these institutions. In

1550 the consistory was transferred to Leipzig, but

contemporary reports indicate that the consistory's role had

in fact already lapsed.^®

It is evident, therefore, that despite the interest in promoting consistories, and the need for these institutions. 175 the political insteüaility of the later 1540s curtailed their development. This first attempt to combine the escalating authority of the territorial government with the constitutional needs of the Luther am church proved precarious to all the parties involved; theologians, jurists, and their overlords. However, the need for consistent policy in important matters like marriage, and the general acceptability of the consistorial model in northern Germany— one that clearly combined secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction— insured the eventual resurgence of these bodies. Once the process of composing church orders resumed following the Peace of Passau, the notion of a consistory was incorporated into nearly every church order. Melanchthon and Aurifaber's church order for

Mecklenburg referred to establishing a consistory,^’ and

Sarcerius advocated this not only in Mansfeld, but encouraged the new Saxon elector August to make every effort to re-institute the consistory in his territories.’® Thus, the matter of the consistory became an important consideration for all subsequent authors of church orders.

The first official post-war consistorial order, however, was not adopted in a territory, but in the imperial city of Goslar in 1555. The Goslar order was composed by another new member of the network of church order authors:

Tileman Heshusius. Heshusius was truly a member of the 176 second generation of reformers. Like his predecessors, his educational pursuits took him to Wittenberg, but he arrived as a student in April of 1546, just months after Luther’s death. Melanchthon took a special interest in Heshusius and not only secured his position as professor in the arts faculty at Wittenberg, but assisted in Heshusius*s first call outside of the academic community as superintendent in

G o s l a r . A s superintendent, Heshusius fulfilled the duties outlined in the first church order composed by Amsdorf.

However, the council felt it necessary to refine the earlier church order, and in particular, desired the introduction of a consistory. Heshusius took responsibility for composing the document, and much like the earlier Wittenberg articles, it focused almost exclusively on matters pertaining to marriage.Heshusius generally supported the idea of the consistory, but as one who championed freedom in ecclesiastical affairs, he sought to hinder secular jurisdiction in what he regarded as religious issues. An undercurrent of tension between Heshusius and several Goslar magistrates finally surfaced the following year and resulted in Heshusius's dismissal from office. He relocated in

Magdeburg (despite his continuing personal loyalty to

Melanchthon) in what was the first of several periods of exile for this volatile reformer,®^

As a free imperial city attempting to insure its own religious affairs, Goslar was unique in the second half of 177 the sixteenth centxiry, especially in northern Germany.

Supported by the formula of the Peace of Augsburg— the familiar cuius reglo, eius rellglo— territorial authorities, primarily princes, tended to dominate in the religious, as well as political arena. Although there were exceptions,

like Goslar, Magdeburg, and later, Lüneburg, the creation and implementation of church orders beceime almost exclusively a territorial enterprise. Even the introduction of consistorial courts pushed ecclesiastical developments in this direction. The actualization of the landesherrliche

Klrchenregiment had commenced in northern Germany, yet the authors of the church orders still directed the process.

The conclusion of the Schmalkaldic Weir also prompted

Hesse to introduce further refinements in its church order. Following his release from the imperial prison, a more subdued Landgrave Philip returned to his territories in

1552.®^ Despite the defeat he suffered for the greater

Lutheran cause in Germany, Philip remained committed to insuring the best for the church in Hesse. With Philip's encouragement, a new church order was drawn up for Marburg in 1557. Of the four individuals whose names appeared on this document, only one— that of Marburg superintendent Adam

Kraft— also appeared on the earlier Ziegehhaln Zuchtordnung

(1539). Kraft, who was the chief architect of the Marburg church order, found himself in the company of a much younger group which included Nicholas Rodingus, Matthew Arnold, and 178 Euchar-ius Linker.®* In Hesse, as in other territories and cities, the work of church building passed on to the next generation.

Duke Albrecht of Prussia was another long term adherent of the evangelical faith who sought to support further revisions of the church order within his territory.

Matthias Vogel and Johann Aurifaber, the former Rostock professor amd editor of the Mecklenburg church order, drafted a new territorial order in 1558. Aurifaber had maintained his relationship with Melanchthon, and as he had with the Mecklenburg order, he submitted the document to

Melanchthon for his comments.®® Even Melanchthon's insights could not spare this church order which was published, but rejected by both the Prussian clergy and the territorial diet at Konigsberg.®® Critics denounced the document, especially the initial section on teaching, because of alleged inclinations toward Calvinism and Osiandrianism.

Unfortunately for Aurifaber, his own brother Andreas had been one of Osiander's greatest supporters while on the faculty at Konigsberg, and detractors could not disassociate the t w o .®^

While Aurifaber remained loyal to Melanchthon, but was unfairly linked to Osiander, the same was not the case for

Duke Albrecht. Albrecht had consistently supported Osiander since his arrival at the new university in 1549, and the failure to adopt the 1558 church order reflected these 179

suspicions about Albrecht. The rejection of this 1558 order

for Prussia clearly demonstrates that princely authority

could still be thwarted in ecclesiastical affairs.

An earlier casualty in Osiandrian conflict in Prussia was the now superintendent of Braunschweig, Joachim Morlin.

Morlin had vigorously opposed Osiander and his party in

Prussia, especially Aurifedier's co-worker Matthias Vogel.®®

Morlin*s reputation for uncompromising faithfulness to the

teachings of Luther was the primary reason he had been

invited to Magdeburg in 1554. He continued as an advocate

for doctrinal purity throughout his ministry in Braunschweig

and directed the important synod at Lüneburg in 1561. It

was Morlin who assumed primary responsibility for composing

the Lüneburg Declaration at the end of this meeting, a

document noted for its harshly polemical Condemnaiaus

Ironically, differences of opinion surrounding the Lüneburg

Declaration in Magdeburg resulted in the suspension of

Morlin's former Magdeburg associate, Johann Wigand, and

created irresolvëible problems for the current

superintendent, Tileman Heshusius. Merlin’s ministry seemed

perennially close to the center of controversy, but he was

valued, especially in lower Saxony, as a competent church administrator.

The cities of Peine and Steurwolt, jurisdictional

municipalities for the bishopric of Hildesheim, sought the

organizational support of Morlin in 1561, the same year he 180 was active with the Lüneburg declaration- The protestant Adolf of Schleswig-Holstein, a relative of Denmark's Christian III, controlled the districts of Peine and Steurwolt, even though he had lost a 1557 episcopal election to the catholic Burchard von Oberg.®° The Duke, along with the local clergy, invited Morlin to conduct a visitation in the two centers— which began in November of 1561— and then to compose a church order. The church order that Morlin provided for Peine and Steurwolt paid particular attention to the role of the pastoral office and also reproduced significant sections of a catechism Morlin had composed while serving in Gottingen. ^^ Like his predecessors Corvinus and Rhegius, Joachim Morlin had gained respect for his expertise in matters of church order. 1561 was a particularly significant year for the Lutheran church throughout the empire and especially in northern Germany. Morlin's efforts in Peine and Steurwolt were clearly overshadowed by his earlier contributions at the Lüneburg synod. The synod’s declaration, with its emphasis on the necessity of condemning false doctrine in all of its manifestations (nine categories of error were elaborated in the document), was essentially a response to the recently concluded Naumburg colloquy of evangelical princes. This attempt to resolve the religious/political problems of the evangelical half of the empire by leaving the theologians at home proved as ineffective as all the 181

earlier attempts at confessional reconciliation.^^ Elector

Frederick III of the Palatinate returned home more firmly committed to his Reformed inclinations and encouraged his theologians to draft a new church order for his territories.

Two year later the "most significant German reformed church order" was adopted in Heidelberg, the Electoral Palatine church order of 1563, which contained the influential

Heidelberg Catechism.®^

Frederick's most vocal opponent at the Naumburg colloquy, Duke John Frederick (the Middler) , did not wait for the disappointing proceedings to conclude, but walked out on the conference, as did Duke Ulrich of Mecklenburg.

However, John Frederick's failure to win support for his position on the necessity of condemning false teaching, which was given formal expression in the Weimar theologians

Book of Confutation, did not weaken his resolve to insure his ideas in his own territory. He had already demonstrated how seriously he took his ecclesiastical responsibilities when he placed Viktorin Strigel under house arrest for his failure to subscribe to the Book of Confutation, J o h n

Frederick also dismissed Jena superintendent Balthasar

Winter for his refusal to allow a university law faculty member, Matthias Wesenbeck, to serve as a baptismal s p o n s o r .

In 1561, the Saxon duke decided to further consolidate his supervision of ecclesiastical affairs by establishing a 182 consistory at Weimar. Unlike the Goslar consistorial order, the Weimar eurticles did not focus primarily on marital issues, but demonstrated a more ambitious attempt to control the religious life of the territory. A primary objective of this court, over which the Duke himself intended to preside, was to limit matters in regards to church discipline.^® The theologians at Jena— the real targets of this action— sharply criticized what they perceived as secular interference in ecclesiastical affairs.®® The whole episode prompted Jena professor Matthaeus Judex to publish a treatise attacking princely censorship. De typographiae inven-tione et de praelorum légitima Inspectlone, llbellus brevis et utllls,^^ For these theologians, John Frederick had transgressed the subtle balance between principles of order and evangelical freedom. Nevertheless, John Frederick got his consistory, while a host of territorial clergy who supported the Jena theologians sought refuge elsewhere.®®

The church order process during the remainder of the

1560s consisted in the main of refining previously established church orders. Revisions in the 1535 church order of Bugenhagen was the explicit goal of the Pomeranian

Dukes in 1563.®® Greifswald professor and territorial general superintendent Jacob Runge served as the principal author of the new Pomeraniem order. Runge had become acquainted with his fellow Pomeranian Bugenhagen during his theological studies at Wittenberg in the late 1540s, but 183 preferred the compainy of Melanchthon.In composing this

later church order for Pomerania, Runge relied heavily on the work of the former general superintendent, Johannes Knipstro. Knipstro, a disciple of Bugenhagen in Pomerania, had overseen a series of synods in the duchy, instituted a consistory (in Stettin), and even composed his own visitation articles following the Peace of Augsburg.

Range's extensive church order gave formal expression to these earlier efforts by Knipstro. Although a draft of the church order was completed in 1563, the order was not given formal status in the territory until 1569, when it was published along with an Agenda, also a product of Runge. In contrast to Saxe-Weimar, the dukes of Pomerania encountered firm resistance to what some perceived as incursions into ecclesiastical authority, especially in Stralsund, Greifswald, and Stettin. The landesherrllche Kirchenregxment had yet to appear in Pomerania^®^ and only the consistent efforts of Runge secured institutional credibility for the church in Pomerania. In completing his final revisions for the Pomeranian church order (1569), Superintendent Runge consulted a number of previous documents one of which was the revised church order for the duchy of Braunschweig-Liineburg. Dukes Heinrich and Wilhelm, the sons of Ernest the Confessor, wanted to rework the earlier territorial orders (primarily the works of Urbanus Rhegius) and to create greater 184 uniformity in church, ceremonies.^®* Celle Superintendent Martin Ondermarck took responsibility for composing the new territorial church order which was completed and published in 1564. Ondermarck had served in Celle since completing his education at Wittenberg in 1525, and had assumed Rhegius's office in Braunschweig-Liineburg shortly after his death (1541) In addition to the numerous ceremonial issues addressed in this territorial church order, Ondermarck established the first consistorial court at Celle, yet continued to emphasize annual visitations.^®® Superintendent Ondermarck, a figure almost entirely ignored, could not have contributed more to the institutional development of the church in Braunschweig-Liineburg. Two years after the appearance of the Braunschweig- Liineburg order, the territory of Hesse also published an extensive revision of its church order, the last such work during the reign of Landgrave Philip (d. 1567). Philip commissioned the project as early as 1559,^®^ but it took several years to complete what began as an attempt to modify the previous church orders. Consistent with all of the previous Hessian church orders, several of Philip's prized Marburg professors and theologians contributed to the 1566 church order. The six current Hessian superintendents, led by the veteran Johann Pistorius of Alsfeld,^®® formally adopted the document, but the composition belonged primarily to Nicholas Rodingus and Andreas Hyperius. Rodingus had 185 gained experience working with the now deceased Adam Kraft on the earlier 1557 order. Hyperius, a particular favorite of Philip, came to Marburg from Flanders via France and

England.^®® Although Hyperius died before the order was adopted in Hesse, his background in canon law and concern for the sacraments and ordination thoroughly informed this work.

The goal of this Hessian church order was to recapture as much of the form of the primitive church as possible.

Philip, along with several of his theologians, deplored the ceremonial confusion that existed in the territory. The introduction to the order specifically noted how some churches relied on the more conservative Saxon church order

(1539), while others preferred the official church order adopted at Kassel (also 1 5 3 9 ) This resulted not merely in an embarrassing lack of consistency, but brought about sharp criticism from Roman Catholic leaders, both within and outside of the territory. To combat these accusations, the

Hessian theologians sought to ground their own institutional thinking based in historical precedent. At this point the contributions of the canonist Hyperius were most significant for he endeavored to connect the Hessian church order with the thoughts of the ancient church fathers, and even with the less objectionable elements of the canonists pseudo-

Isiodore and Gratian.^^^ Although Luther's ideas were often noted in the order, references to the typical Lutheran 186 confessional symbols were kept to a minimum. Despite the protests of Pistorius, the 1566 church order for Hesse stepped in the direction of a reformed church order, auid

Hyperius in pairticular was accused of Calvinist tendencies.

While the Hessian territorial church drew somewhat closer to the reformed position in 1566, exactly the opposite occurred in Prussia at roughly the same time. In fact the new church order for Prussia, finally approved in

1568, specifically condemned "Calvinist and enthusiast" inclinations along with "papist, blasphemous, and superstitious" ceremonies. The individual most responsible for this reversal, and the bulk of the new church order, was Joachim Morlin, who had been recalled from

Braunschweig in 1567. Morlin, assisted by his Braunschweig associate Maurtin Chemnitz, worked with the Genera 1-synod at

Konigsberg to establish a revised Corpus doctrlnae for

P r u s s i a . A n aging Duke Albrecht (d. 20.03.1568) finally realized that he could not undermine the commitments of the majority of the Prussian clergy. In conjunction with the acceptamce of the new church order, Morlin was elected bishop of Samland, and Georg Venediger, another major contributor to the 1568 Prussian church order, was elected

Bishop of Pomerania.The Prussian church clearly resisted being reduced to a mere component of the princely bureaucracy, 187 Morlin‘s position in Prussia opened the door for Martin Chemnitz to assume his office as superintendent in Braunschweig—Wolfenbüttel. The Wittenberg educated Chemnitz had served as Morlin's coadjutor in Braunschweig since his arrival in 1554, the same year he was ordained by Bugenhagen. Morlin had initially returned to Braunschweig with Chemnitz in the summer of 1567 after their prearranged three month loan, but ultimately yielded to the urgings of a delegation from DuJce Albrecht to relocate permanently in Prussia.The council in Braunschweig conceded to Morlin's request with the understanding that Chemnitz would take his place. The circumstances provided Chemnitz the opportunity to strengthen the office of superintendent and to hinder city council interference in ecclesiastical affairs.The council's primary expectation from Chemnitz was to further his educational credentials which he accomplished by completing his doctorate at Rostock the following year. Chemnitz returned to Braunschweig after completing his degree in 1568 to face a major task, creating a new church order not just for the city of Braunschweig, but for the entire territory of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel. While Chemnitz matriculated at Rostock, the infamous Duke Heinrich the Young had died and was succeeded by his son Julius, a long-standing supporter of the evangelical faith. Julius seized the opportunity to restore Lutheran ecclesiastical 188 forms within his territory and to complete the work initiated by the reformers Bugenhagen and Corvinus in the 1540s.Chemnitz was essential to the success of this enterprise, but Chemnitz knew from the outset that he needed help. Duke Julius had someone already in mind— the Tübingen reformer and Württemberg court preacher Jacob Andreae. Like Chemnitz, Andreae had a proven track record in the details of administration necessary for creating a sound church order. As the disciple of Johannes Brenz, Andreae had worked on the innovative Württemberg orders completed in 1553 and 1559.^^° Furthermore, the territory of Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel was not the first to pursue the assistance of Andreae. The Württemberger had composed previous church orders for the Reichstadt Rothenburg/ Tauber in 1558^^^ and for the duchy of Pfalz-Neuburg in 1560.^^^

Duke Julius thus selected wisely when he requested the services of Andreae from his cousin Duke Christoph of Württemberg. The collaborative effort of Chemnitz and Andreae commenced with a month long visitation, which the two reformers supervised during the fall of 1568. As a result of the visitation, the church order was composed in 1569, and presented to Duke Julius to introduce into his territories. The document itself encompassed almost every aspect of religious life in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, and 189

followed Bugenliagen * s feimiliar pattern of including

educational and poor relief matters in the church order.

The initial doctrinal statements, which became the basis for

the subsequent Corpus doctrinae Julium, was almost entirely

the work of Chemnitz.Andreae contributed to the

extensive discussion of marital issues {Ordnung in eesachen)

and influenced the form of the consistory— modeled after the Württemberg church councils.Andreae also worked to

reform the religious communities in the territory, and at

the request of the Duke, composed a lengthy cloister

o r d e r . E v e n Duke Julius, whose motto "aliis in servo

consumor" typified the active posture of a prince who

allowed nothing to avoid his personal attention, could not

create the church in his territory. Although the document

itself gave first place to his name, the church in the

territory of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel bore the image of

Chemnitz and Andreae.

The invitation to Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel was also the catalyst for Andreae*s efforts on behalf of theological

concord.These initial efforts by Andreae encountered

early opposition, especially from the Wittenberg theologians at the Colloquy of Zerbst (1570) . Even Chemnitz found

Andreae's tactics somewhat heavy-handed and resented the

fact that Andreae had arrived in Braunschweig-WoIfenbüttel with a predetermined confessional formula.But Andreae

did more than just seek support for his theological program 190 during his travels in the 1570s, he also extended his contributions as an author of church orders. One of his most significant accomplishments in this regard took place in the county of Lippe. The new church order for Lippe, which sought to reestablish the Lutheran forms first developed in the 1538 church o r d e r , w a s first composed by

Detmold Superintendent, Johann Exeter in 1571, then submitted to Andreae for revisions. Andreae *s ideas regarding the Klrchenrat, later referred to as the consistory, were incorporated into the Lippe church order as a result his efforts. The less recognized activity of creating church orders, thus, continued to occupy a prominent place in the Icüaors of Andreae.

The decade of the 1570s was a period dominated by the quest for theological concord. Throughout the empire, and especially in the northern German territories and cities, this matter received foremost consideration and not surprisingly, the steps leading to the creation of the

Formula of Concord remain the most recognized chapter of the late reformation period in Germany.However, as has already been noted with Andreae, and even Chemnitz, confessional harmony was not the only concern of these reformers. The important work of establishing new church orders continued and it demanded the careful consideration of the theologians and superintendents engaged in this pr o c e s s . 191 Like Andreae and Chemnitz, David Chytraeus has received considerable attention as one of the "Formulators of

Concord,” yet played an equally important role in the network of authors of church orders.Chytraeus, a former associate of Andreae*s in Tübingen, spent the majority of his life as a professor of theology at the University of

Rostock. He had accompanied Johann Aurifaber-editor of the 1552 Mecklenburg order and the 1558 Pirussieui church order— from Wittenberg to Mecklenburg's university at Rostock in

1550 and later supervised the doctoral promotion of

Chemnitz.Chytraeus*s position at Rostock also acquainted him with the Pomeranian reformer Jacob Runge, and with fellow theology professor Tileman Heshusius, whom

Chytraeus deeply respected even after his "second exile"

(this time from Rostock) in 1557.^^^ Thus, Chytraeus was well-connected to others who shared the task of creating church orders.

Chytraeus's major contribution to the church in

Mecklenburg was the consistorial order he composed in 1570.

Although Aurifaber's earlier church order for Mecklenburg

sought to establish a consistory (1552), important territorial cities like Rostock blocked its development.

Later Heshusius attempted to alter the Mecklenburg order, using the lessons he had learned in creating the Goslar

consistory, but his efforts were quickly thwarted. The

stcüaility that Chytraeus provided, both in the articles he 192 composed and in the duration of his ministry in Mecklenburg

(necirly 50 years of his life in Rostock 1 ) , proved successful where others had failed. Similar to Heshusius’s order for

Goslar, the Mecklenburg consistorial articles paid primaory attention to marital affairs.However, the consistory, once again a combination of ecclesiastical and territorial representatives, was also responsible for the oversight of doctrine. The church order asserted that teaching must accord with "the genuine Augsburg confession, the

Schmalkaldic articles, and our published church order

[1552]."^^® Chytraeus's abilities in these matters of church administration did not go unnoticed and even Emperor

Maximillian II invited the Rostock professor to Austria to compose an evangelical church order.The efforts of

Chytraeus in Austria, which clearly stand outside of the boundaries of this present study, eventually proved a disappointment, but his leadership in Mecklenburg helped secure a climate of religious stability.

Nicholas Selnecker, another reformer most noted for his contributions to the Formula of Concord, also played a part in the development of church orders. His contribution was the first church order for the county of Oldenburg, which he composed at the request of Dukes John and Anton. In 1573,

Duke Anton, a firm supporter of the Lutheran faith but one who moved cautiously in religious affairs,summoned

Selnecker from Gander she im where he was teaching at the 193 newly established academy of Duke Julius of Braunschweig- Wolf enbüttel. Herman Hamelmann, another former Rostock student of Chytraeus, followed Selnecker from Gandersheim to Oldenburg and assisted in composing the territorial church order. Like Chytraeus, Selnecker had been profoundly influenced by Melanchthon and the church order for Oldenburg was the first (outside of electoral Saxony) to accord confessional status to the Corpus doctrinae Phillipicum or Misnlcum.^^^ The doctrinal section of this truly eclectic work, however, did not focus on Philip alone, but borrowed heavily from the Rhegius tract, Wie man forsightiglich an ergemis reden soil (1535), and Chemnitz's Kurzer einfeltige bericht.^^^ A section devoted to church ceremonies followed the extensive doctrinal segment and it also incorporated previous works, notably the church orders for Mecklenburg (1552), Braunschweig-Lüneburg (1564), Braunschweig- Wolf enbüttel (1569), and Lippe (1571) Although the church order for Oldenburg has been described as one of the earliest examples of princely absolutism {Friihterritorialisims) this conception of territorial authority appears rather exaggerated. Duke Anton died the satme year the church order was adopted and his son John soon beceime ensnared in territorial squabbles with his brother. Without the highly regarded expertise of Selnecker and the leadership of Hamelmann, who remained as general superintendent in Oldenburg, this territory would 194 have waited still longer for the successful introduction of a church order.

Further evidence that the landesherrliche

Kirchenreglment had not yet been widely accepted, even in a territory such as Braunschweig-Lüneburg— one of the very first to adopt a territorial church order (1527)— may be found in the church order for the city of Lüneburg (1575) ,

Following the adoption of its first church order composed by

Rhegius (1531) , the territorial city continued to pursue an independent course in terms of religious affairs, a privilege generally conceded by Dukes Ernest (the

Confessor), Franz Otto (1546-59), and William V (1559-92).

City superintendent Caspar Godeman sought to build on the work of Rhegius, and with the support of the Lüneburg council, assumed responsibility for composing the new church order. The primary objective of this revised document was to regulate the call, installation, and conduct of the preaching office within the city, and to assure that no one accepted a position without the "foreknowledge and consent of the current city officials and superintendent."^^® In establishing the need for oversight, Godemann recalled the counsel of Luther to the Christians in Livonia in which

Luther defended freedom in "external matters" (ceremonies), yet at the same time argued that concessions must be made for the sake of "the simple people. Lüneburg*s church order, thus, defended its own religious liberties in 195 relationship to the territory, but looked to further the cause of order as it addressed confessional issues within the city.

Lutheran theologians and superintendents devoted the later half of the 1570s almost exclusively to the issue of confessional concord. Concurrently with his work on the

Lüneburg church order, Godeman participated with several other lower Saxon theologians in drafting the preliminary

••Scixon-Swabian Concord” of 1575.^*^ These articles, along with the Maulbronn Formula, underwent further refinements at

Torgau (1576) and at Bergen abbey (1577) , and from there emerged as the familiar Formula of Concord (1577) . The principals of these final deliberations included Chemnitz,

Selnecker, Andreae, and to a lesser extent, Chytraeus. Duke

Julius of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, and especially Elector

August of Saxony, thoroughly supported this vital effort of their leading theologians.

In the midst of these crucial negotiations, Andreae still managed to continue his institutional efforts as an author of church orders. In 1577, Andreae received an invitation from Margrave George Friedrich of Brandenburg-

Ansbach-Kulmbach, to assist in revising the Kapltelsordnung for his territory.The Württemberger worked with several local clergy to make the necessary changes in the earlier order, which included esteJslishing the first territorial consistory at Ansbach.^^® Andreae's proposals regarding the 196 consistory for the territories of Margrave George Friedrich mirrored the design he had incorporated into a much more ambitious project, the church order for Electoral Saxony, completed in 1580. Elector August had already withdrawn his support from the extremist tendencies he believed to exist both at Jena and Wittenberg, and looked to Andreae not only for guidance in the work of Concord, but for his organizational skills as well. Although the Elector supported the ongoing work of the visitations, the territory still lacked a comprehensive church order and the Elector entrusted this task to Andreae.

The church order for Electoral Saxony was a massive undertaking and Andreae devoted almost am entire year to the project.^®® The result was a Sumaa of church orders, or what several historians have described as a Codex von

Kxrchenordnungen.^^^ The order included all the previously noted elements of a church order: Credenda, Agenda, amd

Adminlstranda, although the confessional section primarily indicated conformity to the subsequent Book of Concord

(first appearing in June, 1580). There can be little question that the Saxon Church order exemplified the now recognized territorial church system. Nevertheless, referring to this document as the church order of Elector

August completely misrepresents the critical role played by

Andreae. Andreae's composition of the entire introductory section of the order, his contribution in the formation of 197

the Saxon consistory, and his expertise in refining amd

revising the thoughts of previous church orders— especially the Saxon Agenda of 1539 and the Württemberg order of 1559-

-all underscore the fact that this document resulted primarily from the efforts of Andreae.While Elector

August stood as the orgamizational head of his Saxon church, the form it assumed belonged to an individual who had left his organizational imprint in numerous other cities and territories, Jacob Andreae.

The church order for Electoral Saxony was the last true project of the second generation of reformers who carried

out their work in Northern Germany. The adoption of

subsequent important church orders either occurred in other regions of the Empire (i.e. the Nassau church order of 1586, the Strasbourg order of 1598) or resulted from a third generation of reformers. Thus the year 1580 marked not only the accomplishment of confessional unity on behalf of the

Lutheran theologians, but saw the final efforts of a second generation of church order authors who had labored to provide institutional stability.

Some sixty years after Luther burned the canon law, his own territory of electoral Saxony adopted the most detailed evangelical church legislation to date. The process of composing church orders had witnessed an amazing, and certainly unforseen evolution over the course of these two generations. Luther * s advice to Landgrave Philip that a 198 chiorch. order should be "short and sounds restrained, yet complete," had given way by 1580 to one of the longest church orders of the era. Yet Luther himself had indicated that a church order should fit the times, and even though he warned Philip and the community of Gottingen about attempting too much, he realized that more could be expected and accomplished as the times permitted. Church orders could never be binding and the fact that Lutheran church orders continued to evolve reveals the dynamic component of their institutional thought.

Above all one must note that the growing territorial nature of the Lutheran church system depended on a network of church order authors who continued to cross territorial boundaries. It was their ideas on matters such as consistories, pastoral elections, the office of superintendent, and church discipline that informed and directed policies adopted in both cities and territories.

Following the peace of Augsburg, a second generation of

Lutheran reformers took on these responsibilities and while generally supporting the interests of the princes, individuals like Joachim Morlin and Tileman Heshusius challenged encroachments of the secular into the spiritual.

Thus, the growth of ecclesiastical order continued to be counterbalanced by an emphasis on evangelical liberty.

These first three chapters have introduced the initial and continuing efforts of a critical network of church order 199 authors. Clearly greater consideration must be given to them in order to understand the nature of Lutheran church order. Having surveyed the church order authors as a group encompassing two generations, the next chapter will consider how this relational network influenced their thinking and writing on a matter common to all the church orders, that of church discipline. 200

ENDNOTES

1. As noted in the last chapter, the best recent description of the breadth of the church order process has been provided by Anneliese Sprengler-Ruppenthal. However, when developing the second generation of church orders, she mentions only Jacob Andreae (who receives the most attention) , Martin Chemnitz, and Joachim Morlin. See TRE 18, p. 682.

2. Albrecht was especially anxious to utilize Corvinus in resolving the controversy that had erupted surrounding Osiander, Tschackert, Briefvechsel Corvinus, pp. 278, 284.

3. Antonius Corvinus, Alle f u m e m e Artickel unser Christlichen Religion, so einem jeden Christen zuwissen von noten, Gebets weise gestelt, und also begriffen, das man in und unter den Gebeten und Bitten, dieselbige Artickel auch fas sen und lemen kan, (Frankfurt a. M. : Peter Braubach, 1556), sigs. A^-A^. Corvinus indicated that he wrote this treatise in Januaury, 1553.

4. See E. Vogelsang, "Der Apinsche Streit," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 38 (1941): 107-20.

5. Corvinus, Alle fiimeme Artickel, sig. A^^.

6. Corvinus emphasized, "reiner lere im waren glauben, un in einem Christlichen wandel bey rechter Christlicher liebe," ibid., sig. Ag V .

7. Johainn Bugenhagen, Vermanung an alle die Pastoren und Predicanten des Euangelij in churfurstenthumb zu Sacbssen, (Wittenberg, Veit Creutziger, 1556) , sigs. Aiij- Aiiij^.

8. Note in particulcir Bugenhagen's tracts: De coniugio episcoporum et diaconorum ad venerandum doctorem Wolffgangum Reissenbusch monasterij Lichtembergen... (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1525) ; Vom Ehebruch und weglauffen. D. Johan Bugenhagen Pomer/ an Konigliche Maiestat zu Dennemarcken, in Martin Luther, Von Ehesachen (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1540) ; and, Trewen wamung und vezrmanung in den Sabbath und Sontag der Christen heilig zu halten/ und mit den Sontags hochzeiten zu verschonen, in Johannes Wentz el, Ein Kurtzer und griindlicher bericht aus Gottes Wort... (1576).

9. Bugenhagen, Vermanung, sig. Cij .

10. Bugenhagen, Vexrmanung, sig. B^. 201

11. See th.e Luther's tract, Wamung an seine lieben Deutschen (1531), WA 30^: 252-320.

12. Luther and Bugenhagen circulated a tract to the Wittenberg clergy in response to the Turkish threat in the early 1540s, Martin Luther and Johann Bugenhagen, Vermanung an die Pfarrherxn in der Superattendenz der Kirchen zu Wittenberg (Wittenberg, 1543).

13. Bugenhagen, Vermanung, sig. Aij^.

14. Note the summary of current resecirch devoted to the second half of the sixteenth century cited in James Kittelson, "The Confessional Age: The Late Reformation in Germciny," in Steven Ozment, ed., Refojcmation Europe: a Guide to Research (St.Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982) , pp. 361-81. Barton has voiced the same concern about the apparent lack of interest in this later period, "Die wissenschaftliche Erf orschung der Reformations-geschichte hat sich fast ausschlieBlich mit deren Beg inn, nicht aber mit deren Ausgang und Ausklang beschaftigt, so daB die Spatreformation weithin im Dunkel liegt," Peter Barton, Um Luthers Erbe. Studien und Texte zur Spatreformation, Tilemann Heshusius (1527-^1559) , (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1972), p. 10.

15. Oberman, Luther, p. 10.

16. Barton further subdivides the "late Reformation" into three periods: 1) 1549-59, i.e. the period between the Consensus Tigurinus (which he emphasizes over the adiaphoristic controversy) and the accession of Palatine Elector, Frederick III; 2) 1559-68, the events culminating in the conflict surrounding Flacius; and, 3) 1568-77, the period leading to the Formula of Concord, Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, p. 7—15. Kittelson also uses the term "late Reformation," see note 14.

17. This tends to be true especially for general histories of Europe, see A. G. Dickens, The Counter Reformation (London, 1969); Marvin O'Connell, The Counter Reformation, 1559—1610 (New York, 1974); and for Germany, Ernest W. Zeeden, Das Zeitalter der Gegenreformation (Freiburg, 1967) .

18. For the best summary of the issues and events that lend substance to this conception see, J. F. Gerhard Goeters, "Genesis, Formen und Hauptthemen des reformierten Bekenntnisses in Deutschland. Eine Übersicht," in Heinz Schilling, ed., Die refojcmierte Konfessionalisierung— Das 202 Problem der ^Zweiten Reformation' (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1986), pp. 44-59.

19. See the section, "Schlussdiskussion," in Schilling, Konfessionalisierung, pp. 439-67.

20. See Jean Delumeau, Catholicism Between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the Counter-Reformation,, trans. J e r e m y M ois e r (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976) .

21. See the following: Volker Press, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat. Regierung und Zentralbehorden der Kurpfalz, 1559-1619 (Stuttgart, 1970); Paul Munch, Zucht und Ordnung, Reformierte Kirchenverfassungen im 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: Nassau—Dillenberg, Kurpfalz und Hessen—Kassel (Stuttgart, 1978); and Heinz Schilling, KonfessionskonfliJct und Staatsbildung. Eine Fallstudie iiber das Verhaltnis von religiosen und sozialem Wandel in der Friihneuzei t am Beispiel der Grafscbaft Lippe (Gütersloh, 1981).

22. Martin Brecht, Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1967).

23. Hans-Christoph Rublack, Gescheiterte Reformation, Fruhreformatorische und protestantische Bewegungen in sud— und westdeutschen geistlichen Residenzen (Stuttgart, 1978).

24. Karlheinz Blaschke, Sachsen im Zeitalter der Reformation (Gütersloh; Gerd Mohn, 1970) .

25. See Munch, Zucht und Ordnung, p. 12; and Brecht, Kirchenordnung, p. 10.

26. Luther connections to the territorial church tends to center on his concept of the "Notbischof” first discussed in his treatise. An den christlichen Adel (1520). Melanchthon's association with this direction in German religious affairs have been linked to his reference to the prince as "praecipium membrae ecclesiae," and "custodius totius legae,” see Heckel, "Die Cura Religionis des Evangelischen Fürsten," in Lex Charitatis, pp. 307-15.

27. Sehling, EKO I: 56.

28. See James Kittelson, "Strasbourg eind the Landesherrlichekirchenregiment, " Locus (1989); and Schorn- Schutte who argues that Bugenhagen *s understanding of the pastoral office challenged princely absolutism and "daB es Bugenhagen nicht um Etablierung geistlicher Herrschaft durch die Prediger (=Papocaeairie) ging," Luise Schorn-Schütte, "'Papocaesarimus' der Theologen," pp. 242, 260. 203 29. See Franz Lau ana Ernest Bizer, A History of the Reformation in Geirmany to 1555, trans. Brian Hardy (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1969) , p. 224; and, Sehling, EKO V: 132.

30. The 1540 church order was in fact essentially a low German reprint of the 1533 Brandenburg-Nümberg order, see Sehling, EKO V: 130-31. The other significant church order for Mecklenburg was that of Rostock noted in chapter 2.

31. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 30; and Sehling, EKO V: 132.

32. Riebling, who was pastor at St. Catherine’s in Braunschweig during Bugenhagen*s visit in 1528, had translated the Brandenburg-Nümberg church order for Mecklenburg in 1540, Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 177.

33. For the comments of Melanchthon see, CR VTI: 1007, 1016, and 1032.

34. This is especially true for the later part of the church order which discussed appropriate worship patterns for the rural areas of Mecklenburg, specified the details of the visitation, and regulated days of religious observance. See the sections: ”Von den Kirchengerichten, " ”Von der Visitatio," Ordenung der ceremonien in pfarkirchen der stedt, und da schulen sind, ” and ’’Kirchenordnung uff den dorfen,” Sehling, EKO V: 197-202.

35. See Sehling, EKO V: 161-90; and, CR XXIII, xxxv-cx.

36. Johann Aepinus was the principal author of the anti­ interim treatise, Bekentniss uxmd Erklarving auffs Interim, durch der Erbam Stedte, Liibeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, etc. Superintendenten, Pastoren, uxmd Prediger zu Christlicher •and Notwendiger untexrrichtung gestellet... (Magdeburg: Christian Rodinger, 1548).

37. Aepinus wrote to Melanchthon 23 January 1549, shortly after the meetings sponsored by Maurice of Saxony produced the articles subsequently referred to as the Leipzig interim, ’’Meeim tibi sententiam misi, nec mutabo guicquam in doctrina Ecclesiarum nostrarum, nec corruptelas ullas purae doctrinae recipiam,” CR 7: 315. See also CR 7: 366-86.

38. Sehling, EKO VII: 1: 64.

39. Aepinus made certain to stress his responsibility for this order both in its title and conclusion. The beginning of the order reads, ’’Angenamen kerkenordeninge eynes erbaren 204

rades der statt Bvixtehiude, gestellet dorch den erwerdigen, hochigelerten Doctorem Johaimem Epinxm, super intendenten der statt Hamborcli." Aepinus likewise concluded the order commending the council of Buxtehude and taking credit for his contributions, "Sovele alBe na gelegenheit düBer stadt Buxtehude to bestellinge der kerken- unde scholenamptem, versorginge der armen unde etliken andem artikeln... heft ein erbar rat ut wichtigen, christliken, ehrliken, billiken und notwendigen orsaken dorch Johannem Aepinum, theologiae doctorem und superintendenten der kerken Hamborg, ao. 1552 to der meynunge laten stellen..." Sehling, EKO, VII: 1: 68, 91.

40. "...eine ordinantie des gatesdienstes unde christlicher tucht in ehr en kerken vortostel lende und sik in der religion glikformig to makende den benaberden forsten, her en und Staten, de dat saligmeikende evangelium in ehren gebeden laten predigen unde de sakramente na des H e r m befehl vorriken," Sehling, EKO VII: 1: 68.

41. Aepinus ridiculed the efforts associated with the council of Trent— recently reconvened for its second session— and instead insisted on a free and representative assembly, "so in tokamender tied dorch eine gemeine, frie, christlike general-edder nationalconcilium edder sunst dorch gemeine bewilligung des rykeB..." Sehling, EKO VII: 1: 68- 9.

42. Delius, Justus Jonas, p. 105—106.

43. See Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas II: 229-35.

44. Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas II: 322-23; Delius, Justus Jonas, p. 104-106.

45. Sehling, EKO XIII: 376.

46. In addition to the church order for Regensburg, Jonas helped to implement a form for clerical ordination and a prescription of clerical responsibilities. See, "Form der ordination oder priesterweihe in der neun pfarrkirchen zu Regensburg," and "Ordnung der kirchendiener und ihrer ampter," Sehling, EKO XIII: 429-31, 434.

47. Sehling, EKO XIII: 376.

48. See Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas II: 323-25.

49. Jonas wrote in particular that Acts 1 provided, "ein herrlich zeugnis, wider die Epicurische sewe, und verruthte Weltkinder, welche kein künfftig Leben gleuben, das hie auff erden unser lieber Herr Christus, das himmelische ewige 205

wesen angefangen...” Justus Jonas, Eyn fast trostlxche Predlgt, und auslegung der Historien von den vninderbaren XL. tagen. In Actis Aposto: Cap 1 (dergleichen Tage nie auff Erden gewesen) . Item von der aufferstehung der Todten, (1554), sig. Bij.

50. See especially, Robin Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988).

51. Jonas reminded the Saxon dukes of the New Testament's frequent references to "the appointed day, a time he sensed lay not far off, Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas II: 325-6.

52. Kolb, Amsdorf, p. 79.

53. See Oliver Olson, "Theology of Revolution: Magdeburg, 1550-51," Sixteenth Century Journal 3 (1972): 67-75.

54. Magdeburg's persistence culminated in a negotiated settlement (Vertrag) rather than a complete capitulation, see TRE 17, p. 683; cind Magdeburg Schossenchronik in Die Chroniken der niedersachsischen Stadte 27, pp. 76-9.

55. Sigismund, the son of Joachim II of Brandenburg, was elected following the death of his brother, Friedrich. His concurrent election as Bishop of Halberstadt was contested, but confirmed by Rome, Sehling, EKO II: 400.

56. Note the tracts of von Amsdorf, Widder die liigen prediger des hohen Thumbs zu Magdeburg (Wittenberg: Nicholas Schirlentz, 1525); and, Unterricht warumb die Thumprediger zu Magdeburg nicht disputim wollen, und doch uns offentlich auff der Cantzel geeischet und gefordet haben (Magdeburg: Hans Barth, 1528) .

57. Sehling, EKO II: 450-51.

58. Morlin found himself on the front lines of the controversy surrounding Osiander when he arrived in Prussia in 1550. Osiander's novel position on justification was the one issue that both Phillipists and the Gnesio-Lutherans attacked. Morlin wrote several treatises critical of Osiander, notably, Epistolae quaedam loachimi Morlin doctoris theologiae, ad D. Andream Osiandjcum (1551) and, Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische Schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben und wie dieselbe verhandelt ist (Magdeburg, 1554). Morlin's teaching alienated him from Duke Albert and resulted in his dismissal from Prussia in 1553. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 146-47. 206 59. Note especially the pamphlet, Joachim Morlin, Vom dem bemff der Prediger. Und wie fern Weltliche Oberkeit macbt hat/ dieselbigen jres Ampts zu entsetzen/ Notiger Christlicher bericht... (Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1565). 60. Sarcerius's provided unparalleled leadership to the numerous synods that took place in the county of Naussau- Dillenberg from 1540-48, Munch, Zucht und Ordnung, p. 48-9. 61. See Erasmus Sarcerius, Ein Büchlein von dem Banne und andem Kirchenstraffen/ aus Gottes wort/ aus Apostolischen lere und thaten/ aus der Vater Bûcher/ und aus unserer fumemesten theologen Schrifften zusamen gezogen für dieses so uns itzigen kirchendiener beschuldigen... (Eisleben: Urbanus Raubisch, 1555). 62. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 184. 63. Wigand recorded, "das er von vielen hohen leuten/ Regenten/ Stetten/ und kirchen in Schweren sachen/ fümemlich die Religion betreffend/ umb radt ersucht und gebeten worden... Ich habe von ime selbs gehort/ das er vier und zwentzig Graffschaften/ habe kirchen ordnung gestellet." Wigeind also noted Sarcerius contributions to the discussion of church discipline, "Erbeit er sonder 1 ich in der kirchen disciplin und weltzucht/ wie er mehr Bûcher davon geschrieben/ denn zu unsem zeiten kein cinder Lehrer gethan hat " Johann Wigand, Leichpredigt bey den Begrabnis Erasmi Sarcerii/ des Gottseligen und berhumpten Lerers in der Kirchen Christi/ nutzlich zu lesen (Magdeburg: Ambrosius Kirchner, 1560), sig. Cij^. Note too the verse composed by Zacharius Praetorium, "In vier und zwentzig Herrschaften/ Und erst in Bisthumb zu Cdllen/ Dem Bischoff Hermein visitiert/ Der solche vom im hat begert/ Zu Siegen zu Dillenberg Sechzehen jar trieb Gottlich werck/ Zu Leiptzig sech jeir/ Und sech jar Superattendent zu Eisleb war," in Zachcirius Praetor ium, William Seircerius, and Paul Spenlinum, Piae Lamentationes de Morte reverendissimi et sancti viri D. Erasmi Sarcerii (Eisleben: Urbanus Gaubisch, 1560) sig. Aii. 64. See Kittelson, Luther, p.292-6. 65. Luther, along with Jonas, recommended, "Namlich es sollen und wollen i.g. in der kirchen zu Eisleben, St. Andrea, die fümehmste person, welche pfarrer und superintendens sein, und von wohlgemeldetem grafen, i.g. 207 erben und nactücommen berufen und angenommen warden soil, binfort unterhalten,'• Sehling, EKO 2: 188. 66. Sehling, EKO 2: 191-92. 67. Sehling, EKO 2: 184-87. 68. See Erasmus Sarcerius, Von Cbristlicken notlgen/ und natzen conslstoren oder geistlichen gerichten/ Erasmi Sarcerii einfeltiges bedencken (Eisleben, 1555). 69. For a more through discussion of the development of the German consistories see Müller, "Die Anfànge der Konsistorial Verfassung," pp. 1-30. 70. "Der Theologen Bedenken von wegen der Consisterien, " see Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas I, p. 308; and A. L. Richter, Geschichte der evangelische Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1851), pp. 82-96. 71. Jonas continued to champion this idea to Spalatin in 1541, see Kawerau, Briefwechsel Jonas I: 425. 72. See, "Constitution und artikel des geistlichen consistorii zu Wittenberg, aus befehlich, weiland des durchleuchtigsten hochgebomen fürsten und herm, hern Johans Friedrichen herzogen zu Sachsen " Sehling, EKO I: 200-208. 73. The creation of a consistory was first commended in the Landesordnung of 1543, and then more thoroughly discussed at the Laterekonferenz (1544), Sehling, EKO I: 92-97. See also, Günther Wartenburg, Landesherrschaft und Refoxnaation. Moritz von Sachsen und die albertinische Kirchenpolitik bis 1546 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988) pp. 212-17. 74. Wartenburg ar^es, against Sehling, that Maurice's ecclesiastical policies were initially more influenced by the reform-minded catholics, Simon Pistorius, Ludwig Fachs, and especially George von Keirlowitz, than the protestant, George von Anhalt, Wartenburg, Landesherrschaft und Reformation, pp. 63-76. 75. See Sehling, EKO I: 97. 76. In a memorial sermon for Maurice (1553), Sarcerius lamented the failure of Saxon consistory along with the general decline of other religious institutions in Albertine Saxony, Erasmus Sarcerius, Einige Predigte auff dem grossen Landtage zu Leipzig/ gethan/ des jars MDLIII (Leipzig, Jacob Berwaldt, 1553), sig. Eij. 208 77. Note the section in the Mecklenburg church order, "Von den kirchengerichten," Sehling, EKO V: 193-94.

78. Sarcerius, Einige Predigi:, sig. D i j .

79. See Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, 31-39, 49-53; and CR 8: 159.

80. One of Heshusius's responsibilities as Stadtsuperintendant was to read weekly from the earlier church order. Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, p. 49.

81. See "Goslarische Consistorial-Ordnung," in Richter II, pp. 163— 67.

82. See K. von Helmolt, Tilemann HeBhus und seine Sieben Exila (Leipzig, 1859).

83. See Hans Hillerbrand, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, pp. 33-4.

84. Kraft was nearly thirty years older than Rodingus, the eldest of the other three, Sehling, EKO VIII: 165.

85. Sehling, EKO 4: 23-4; see also, CR 9: 546, 658.

86. See Richter II, p. 197; and Sehling, EKO IV: 24.

87. stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 30-1.

88. Note in particular Merlin's tracts. Apologia. Auff die vermeinte vriderlegung des Osiandrischen Schwejcmers in Preussen/ AT. Vogels. Sampt griindlichen kartzen bericht/ Was der Haubtstreit und die Lere Osiandri gewesen sey... (1558); and, Wieder die Antwort des Osiandrischen Schwejrmers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ Auff meine Apologiam... (1559).

89. Joachim Morlin, Erkleirung aus Gottes Wojct/ und kurtzer Bericht/ der Herren Theologen/ welchen sie der Erbaren Sechsischen Stedten Gesandten/ auff den Tag Liineburgk/ im Julio dieses 1561 gehalten (1561). Others subscribing to this document included Tilemein Heshusius (currently at Magdeburg), Joachim Westphal (Hamburg), Martin Chemnitz (with Morlin at Braunschweig), Frederick Henning (Lüneburg), and Johannes Freder (Wismar).

90. Sehling, EKO VII: 2: 1: 758-60. 209 h.is subsequent tract, Vom dem Bemff der Prediger, would suggest that the author was the Braunschweig superintendent Morlin, Sehling, EKO VII; 2: 1: 760-61.

92. For the Naumburg Colloquy and its consequences see Hans-Wemer Gensichen, We Condemn. How Luther and 16th- Century Lutheranism Condemned False Doctrine, trans. Herbert Bouman (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1967), pp. 138-52, and Robert Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concordz Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (St. Louis : Concordia, 1977), p. 42.

93. So Sprengler-Ruppenthal, TRE 18, p. 682-83; and, Richter II, p. 257-75.

94. For these incidents see Kolb, Amsdorf, pp. 201-210; and Sehling, EKO I: 65.

95. Duke Johcum Frederick left little doubt regarding his policies in such matters, "In solchem consistorio, wollen wir, als der landesfürst, der oberste president sein, auch demselbigen in eigener furstlichen person, mit gottes gnediger hülf, jedes mal beiwohnen," Sehling, EKO I: 230- 31.

96. See Kolb, Amsdorf, pp. 212-25.

97. Judex died in 1564, but the document was published posthumously in Copenhagen in 1566. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. Ill; and especially, Robert Kolb, "Matthaeus Judex's Condemnation of Princely Censorship of Theologians* Publications," Church History 50 (December, 1981): 401-14.

98. Sehling indicated that as many as 40 pastors relocated, EKO I: 66.

99. The preface of the Pomeranian church order specified the debt owed to Bugenhagen*s eairlier work, yet noted the desire for revisions, "Anvenglick up dem landdage to Treptow anno M.D.XXXV geslaten [i.e. Bugenhagen's order for Pomerania] unde itzund verner dorch de dorchlüchtigen hochgebamen forsten unde herren... up rat der theologen unde bewi 11 iginge der landstende vorniet unde vormeret. Anno M.D.LXIII," Sehling, EKO IV: 376.

100. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 181-2.

101. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 119; and Sehling, EKO IV: 371. 210 102. In describing the situation in Pomerania, even Sehling conceded, "so war doch diese leindesherrliche Gewalt nicht stark genug entwickelt, um ihren Willen [the Pomeranian dukes] iiberall durchzusetzen, " Sehling, EKO IV: 316; see also 317-20. 103. Sehling found a draft of the Pommeranian order in which Runge indicated he had used, "Die Pommersche Agende, die Niimbergische Agenda Viti [the frequently consulted pastoral handbook of Veit Dietrich] , die Wittenbergische Kirchenordnung, die Schwabisch-Haller Kirchenordnung, Colnische Kirchenordnung, Pfalzgraf Otto-Heinrichs Kirchenordnung, die Mecklenburgische Kirchenordnung, die Braunschweigische Kirchenordnung, die Mcinsfelder Agende Scurcerii, Unterricht der Visitatoren Heinrich’s von Sachsen, Unterricht der Visitatoren Kurfürstenthum zu Sachsen, die Liibische Kirchenordnung..., Pfalzgraf Wulfgangs Kirchenordnung, Sundische ordnung, durch D. Knipstro gestellt, Liinebxirgische Kirchenordnung, Leiflandische Kirchenordnung, Herzog Heinrich’s von Sachsen Agende," Sehling, EKO IV: 326. 104. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 486. 105. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 488. 106. Note the church order section in which Ondermarck introduced the consistory, "Von kirchengericht und visitation," followed by a section devoted exclusively to visitations, "Von der visitation", Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 537- 38. 107. Sehling, EKO VIII: 25-6. 108. Pistorius was the only one to have subscribed to the earlier Ziegenhain Zuchtordnung, see chapter 2, p. 114. The other current superintendents were Kasper Kaufing at Kassel, Kaspar Tholde at Meirburg, Christian Grau at Rothenburg/ Fulda, Peter Voltius, superintendent for the Obergrafschaft and Melchoir Schott for the Niedergrafschaft, Sehling, EKO VIII: 26-7; 179. 109. Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 107. 109, 110. The introduction stated that the widespread use of the Saxon church order had actually hindered the reception of the Kassel order, ’’.. .haben sich etliche stedt und dorfer derselbigen Casselischen Ordnung nicht gebraucht, etliche aber seind bei der vorigen Sechsischen Agenda geblieben... Daraus erfolget, daB oftmals in dorfen und stedten, so ganz nahe beieinandergelegen, eine groBe ungleichheit der 211 ceremonien, action, ubung der kirchenzucht ist gehalten worden." Sehling, EKO VIII: 183-84- 111. See Sehling, EKO VIII: 27-31. 112. Stupperich, Reforma.torexilex±kon, p. 107. 113.Sehling, EKO IV: 73. 114. Sehling, EKO IV: 25. 115. For the election, note the articles "Von erwehlung der beiden bischoff Samlandt und Pomezan, im hertzogthumb Preussen, auch von irem ampt 1568 in Sehling, IV: 107- 22. Benediger also had a previousacquaintance with the church order process. He collaborated with Paul Runge on the 1563 Pomeranian church order, Richter, II, p. 229. 116. See Philip J. Rehtmeyer, Aatiquitas Ecclesxastlca Inclyta Urbls Brxinsvlga, Pars VII (1756) , pp. 172-207. 117. The deliberations surrounding the dismissal of Morlin and call of Chemnitz were formalized as the, "Acta inter senatum et ministerium in dismissione D. Joach. Morlini," Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 459-70. 118. The 1543 territorial church order composed by Bugenhagen sind Corvinus had been abandoned when Heinrich was restored to his duchies in 1547, Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 5. 119. Krumwiede, p. 39. 120. See Estes, Brenz, pp. 97-101, 121. See Sehling, EKO XI: 564-97. 122. Andreae followed the efforts of both Osiander and Brenz in this territory, see Sehling, EKO XIII: 22-41; see also TRE 18, p. 682. 123. See the section and note, "Kurzer, einfeltiger und nothwendiger bericht von et lichen fümemen articklen der lehr, wie dieselbige mit gebürlicher bescheidenheit zur erbauung fürgetragen und wieder alle verfelschung verwahret mogen werden." Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 92. 124. See Estes, Brenz, pp. 102-04; and Sehling, EKO VI 1: 8-9. 125. Christlicher und grundlicher bericht, welcher gestalt die h e r m und jungfrauenkloster im herzogthumb Braunschweig, 212

Wulffenbütlischen thells, reformlert... Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 281-335. 126. For a full discussion of these efforts by Andreae see Kolb, Andreae, 43-57.

127. See Kolb, Andreae, pp. 56-7. 128. The first church order for Lippe was assembled in 1538, the work of Johann Timann and Adrian Buxschot, see Richter II, pp. 489-502.

129. Richter II, p. 337. 130. See Kittelson, "Confessional Age," pp. 362-63.

131. See Theodore Jungkuntz, Formulators of Concord z Four Architects of Lutheran Unity (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), pp. 69-87.

132. Theodor Pressel, "David Chytraeus," in Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften der Vater und Begiiinder der lutherischen Kirche VIII (Elberfeld, 1862), pp. 7-18.

133. Heshusius, who had accepted a call to the University of Rostock in 1556 following his problems in Goslar, was forced to leave Rostock the next year when again conflicts with the city council undermined his support. Heshusius served as the focal point for a dispute between the Rostock "Predigerpartei" and the "Ratspartei." The reformer's stance against elaborate wedding celebrations on Sundays and religious holidays (the nuptiae dominicales) offended several key citizens in Rostock and resulted in Heshusius dismissal from the University, Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, p. 126-27; 142-57.

134. Barton, Um. Luthers Erbe, p. 228-30.

135. See esp. "Tit. VIII" on marital matters, Sehling, EKO V: 237-41.

136. Sehling, EKO V: 231.

137. See Pressel, "Chytraeus," pp. 28-36.

138. Sehling, EKO VII: 2: 1: 957.

139. Jungkuntz, Formulators, p. 96-7.

140. Along with the familiar apostolic and Lutheran confessions, the Oldenburg order subscribed to "dem Corpori Doctrinae, vom Philippo seligen geschrieben, inseriert und 213 einverleibet seind, als da sind die repetition der Augspxargischen Confession [Augsburg variata], Loci communes. Examen der ordinanden [see the 1552 Mecklenburg order] , und wiederlegung der papistischen bairischen artikel [Melanchthon's treatise vs. papal power] Sehling, EKO VTI: 2: 1: 988. 141. Sehling, EKO VII: 2: 1: 986-1162. 142. Note the introductory comments by Sprengler- Ruppenthal, and the Oldenburg church order section "Die Agenda" in Sehling, EKO VII: 2: 1: 961, 1084-1133. 143. See the comments of Sprengler-Ruppenthal in Sehling, EKO VII: 2: 1: 957. This understanding also depends upon the notion of the prince as "unicus fons iuris," see Johannes Heckel, Das blinde, undeutliche Wort,'Kirche' (1964), p. 609. 144. Lüneburg played host to several important theological discussions as evidenced by the Interim declaration of Aepinus and the Lüneburg declarations of Morlin. 145. See Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 653; and, Krumwiede, p. 19. 146. Godemann's citation of Luther reads, "Dan obwohl die eusserlichen weisen frey seind und, dem glauben nach zu rechnen mit gutem gewissen mugen cihn alien orten, zu aller stunde, durch alle personen geendert werden, so seid ihr doch, der liebe nach zu rechnen, nicht frey, solche freyheit zu volziehen, sondern schuldig, acht darauf zu haben, wie es dem armen volke leidlich und besserlich sey..." Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 650. 147. The "Saxon-Swabian Concord" resulted from a reworking of Andreae's Swabian articles (1574) completed by primarily by Chytraeus and Chemnitz. Godeman was one of several lower Saxon theologians consulted in the process, see Jungkuntz, Formulators, p. 38-9. 148. The first Kapitelsordnung for the territory was composed in 1565, see Sehling, EKO XI: 295-300. 149. Sehling, EKO XI: 346-59. 150. The territorial diets were first informed of the project and of Andreae's role in February of 1579 and the work was completed at the beginning of 1580, see Sehling, EKO I: 130-31. 151. See Sehling, EKO I: 132-33; TEE 18, p. 682. 214 152. See Sehling, EKO I: 130-36. CHAPTER XV

DISCIPLINE AND THE CHURCH ORDERS

In 1539, Corvinus concluded his order for the city of Northeim with a citation from Sallust that could summarize much of the church order process noted in the preceding p a g e s : "Concordia, res parvae crescunt, discordia magnae dilabuntvir"— "With harmony, little affairs prosper, while great affairs dissolve into discord.The numerous individuals that engaged in the process of composing the church orders for northern Germany during the sixteenth century demonstrated a particular interest for the details, the "little affairs" of church life and practice. Their ongoing commitment to the various aspects of church life contained in the church orders— Credenda, Agenda, and

Administranda— enabled Lutheran ecclesiastical structures to evolve in the midst of social instaibility, political uncertainty, and confessional hostility. However, in many ways these minor figures of the reformation, who focused on the more mundane aspects of religious experience, profoundly influenced the form and substance of the Lutheran movement as it was expressed in the church orders. One can readily

215 216 discern ttiis influence by considering their contributions to the important, yet perplexing problem of church discipline.

For several reasons, the issue of church discipline will provide an opportunity to observe how the authors of the church orders informed the contents of the orders themselves and generally guided the entire process. In the first place, nearly all of the church orders written for

Northern Germany contain some discussion of this topic.

Although the authors of these documents emphasized different aspects of church discipline and incorporated their discussion into divergent sections, i.e. discussions of

confession/ absolution, the ban, Christian burial, the

office of superintendent, and church courts or consistories; their attention to these topics indicates their interest in disciplinary matters. More importantly, the issue of church discipline was one of the most likely areas for conflict to

emerge between the desires of the respective authorities—

city magistrates, local lords, or territorial princes— and

the interests of the theologians and pastors who composed

the church orders. Thus, attention to the various

formulations of this subject can reveal how the authors

either succeeded in implementing their aspirations or

compromised their ideals in deference to the demands of the

authorities. Finally, the whole subject of church

discipline required continual attempts at education and

clarification in order to meike this potentially divisive 217 subject palatable to congregations, pastors, and seculcir rulers. In no other aspect of the church orders were the tensions of freedom and order more acutely felt than in this concern for Christian discipline. To summarize, analyzing what the various church orders, and those who wrote them, had to say about discipline offers a critical case study of how the balance of ordo and libeirtas characterized the breadth of the church order process.

It will probably come as no surprise that the general depiction of the disciplinaury features of the church orders has been overwhelmingly negative. Those who espouse the commonly held opinion that the church order authors betrayed the original intent of the eveingelical movement in their attempts to reintroduce a well-regulated, if not tyrannical religion, have supported their position by citing the topic of discipline. For Ozment, a preoccupation with discipline distinguished those who had emerged as the "new papists" and regrettably,

"Protestant church ordinances and catechisms of the late 1520s and 1530s saw to a disciplining of religious life. Doctrinal purity was maintained by regular examinations of clergy and visitations of the schools— Public immorality was sternly policed and the spiritual ban enforced against what the popular Wittenberg catechist Johannes Bugenhagen characterized as, 'public adulterers, whores, troublemakers, drunks, and blasphemers.'"

In a similar fashion, Strauss faults Melanchthon for a legal understanding that encouraged an "obedience at once unquestioning and willing" and that promoted the "Lutheran 218 establishment's new stress on law as 'teacher' as well as

'taskmaster' and 'disciplinarian.'"^ Strauss points to

MelcOichthon's Saxon church order, the ünterrlcht der

Visitatoren, as a document containing some of the best examples of this reactionary discipline. For these authors, church discipline serves as the most telling example of the corrosive affect of the Lutheran church orders.

Recently historians have treated the features of church discipline under the more general notion of "social discipline" (Sozlaldisziplinlemng) which has been repeatedly associated with the state-building and centralizing efforts of the so-called "magisterial" reformation. Gerd Oestreich, one of the leading proponents of this interpretation, has argued that the guest for

"discipline and order" (Zucht und Ordnung) emerged as one of the most significant features of Europeem absolutism.^ The emphasis on church discipline, contained above all in the vcurious evangelical church orders, neatly served the prince's attempts to insure a well-regulated and subdued population. Although the goal of the "well-ordered police state" often proved more elusive them attainable,® the disciplinary policies of the church have been repeatedly depicted as an important, if not critical, aspect of this objective. Furthermore, much of the discussion surrounding the idea of the "second Reformation" has grown out of a generally unchallenged assumption that Refoirmed policies and 219 ethos served these state—building interests somewhat more effectively than those of the Lutherans.® Yet, regardless of the confessional perspective, church discipline has been fundamentally reduced to a means of social control. Tentler

interprets church discipline, in the form of confession, as primarily social control on the eve of the reformation, while Strauss, Munch, Press, and Schilling link discipline with social control during the reformation.^

The understanding of church discipline, especially

among the evangelicals, has been further impeded by a tendency to restrict the discussion to the thoughts of

Luther amd Melanchthon, with only occasional references to more recognized individuals like Bucer and Brenz. Erich

Roth, for example, has analyzed the disciplinary aspects (die Schliiss&lgewaJ.'t) of private confession in the theology

of the reformers, but limits his discussion to major

sixteenth century figures, i.e. Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer,

Zwingli, and Calvin.® The individual contributions of these

reformers in regards to church discipline have likewise been

well documented. Luther*s position on church discipline has

been analyzed both from a theoretical perspective® and in

terms of actual implementation and practice.^®

Melcinchthon * s ideas on church discipline have also been

evaluated with an emphasis on his notion of the

responsibility of a prince to guard both tables of the law

(custodia utriusque tabulae) in his position as praecipuum 220 mejnbrxim ecclesiae.^^ In the sphere of the evcingelical reformers, recent attention has also been directed to the disciplinary ideas of Bucer^^ and to the church-state policies of Brenz.What has resulted from all of this is a much better understanding of how these more recognized proponents of the evangelical faith approached the topic of church discipline. Yet, without considering the additional, and in some instances more extensive, contributions of the church order authors to this topic, the picture of Lutheran models of church discipline remains grossly under- represented.

The task of this present chapter is, therefore, to examine how the evangelical church orders themselves presented this matter of church discipline. The pastors, superintendents, and theologians who wrote these documents worked at the most practical level as they attempted to introduce and implement new ecclesiastical structures. Thus their contributions on a topic like church discipline had the most immediate impact on a local level. Clearly the discussions of discipline contained in the church orders reflect the ideas of Luther, Melanchthon, and those of other leading figures, and for the most part subscribe to the general confessional formulations contained in documents like the Confessio Augustana and the Schmalkald articles.

However, the notion of libertas that accompanied the formation of evangelical institutions did allow room for 2 2 1

experimentation and for the development of a range of

opinions on this topic. Furthermore, the matter of

discipline received increasingly greater degrees of

consideration over the course of the approximately sixty

year period (from the early 1520s to the 1580s) during which

the first and second generations of authors composed their

church orders for Northern Germany. Thus, for the purposes

of church discipline, one must pay particular attention to

the second half of the sixteenth century, the era of

confessionalization, when Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, and

Bucer were no longer present.

For the purpose of analysis, one Ccin discern roughly

two periods that correspond to the discussion of church

discipline. The dividing point fell around the time of the

Schmalkaldic war. In the first period, which included the

beginnings of the church order process through the end of

era of expansion, the topic of church discipline was

approached tentatively and sporadically, with escalating

concerns for the particular social dilemmas that faced the

emerging evangelical movement. The cautious innovations of

these early church orders also reflect the fact that

Lutheranism had no legal recognition within the empire. In

the period following the Peace of Passau, and especially

after the formal concessions made to the Lutherans at

Augsburg in 1555, authors wrote more candidly and

systematically on the subject with a much greater concern 2 2 2 for procedural affairs.

Church Orders and Church Discipline. 1523-1545

This first period devoted to the task of composing church orders, one that has been previously described as an era of expansion, witnessed numerous attempts to address the issue of church discipline. It was during these years that

Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, and Bucer made their most important contributions to this matter, cind much of what they said significantly influenced how this subject was treated in the North German church orders. However, the authors of the church orders were not completely limited by the models of Wittenberg, Strasbourg, or Württemberg, but relied upon their own backgrounds and experiences to generate new ideas eind generally extend the discussion of church discipline.

From the very outset, discipline was included in the various features addressed in the church orders. One of the earliest church orders, the community chest order for

Leisnig, made discipline the particular responsibility of the household. Not only were the lords and ladies {bausvrlrt tind hauswlirtln) charged with insuring opportunities to hear the true word of God, they were also instructed to diligently attend to all in their household, making sure that God's honor was preserved. In particular, those guilty of "public blasphemies against God, overindulgence in drink. 223 fornications, huckstering, and other sins and slanders," were to be singled out and avoided. The authority to deal with such problems was communally based (eine gauze eingepfarte versamlvmge) , yet the help of the authorities

(die obrigkei't) was also recommended to insure "an appropriate punishment and improvement in holiness." Thus the Leisnig order looked not only to domestic measures as a basis for proper Christian discipline, but it included the worshipping community and the proper civil authorities as it

discussed these matters. The mutual responsibility of these three spheres of life— what Lutheran reformers constantly

referred to as oeconomla, politica, and ecclesia— converged

in this order in the attention that must be paid to

discipline.

The church order that Aepinus composed for Stralsund

(1525), previously noted as one of the earliest evangelical

orders, was the first to emphasize the office of the

superintendent as a means to insure discipline.^® Aepinus

charged the superintendent (de averste Prediger) with

oversight of the clergy in order to guarantee that both

pastoral teaching and living were above reproach. If the

superintendent found either doctrinal or moral problems with

a particular pastor, he had the authority, in consultation

with the council, to dismiss the errant cleric and install a

replacement.^® Even neighboring landlords were instructed

to bring all of their concerns regarding the clergy before 224 the Stralsund superintendent (Article 12). Thus, the superintendent assumed important responsibilities for the sake of disciplining the clergy and in a sense retained the stature of a "bishop," while exercising a role similar to that of an archdeacon.

As in the Leisnig order, Aepinus viewed Christian discipline as a matter that demanded both religious and secular intervention. In words that echoed the ideas expressed in Luther's tracts On the Freedom of a Christian and On Secular Authority, Aepinus indicated that Christendom was founded on two principles, "that one hears God's word and believes it, and loves his neighbor. Preachers had primary responsibility for the former, and according to

Aepinus, the authorities were charged with the later.

Within this context of responsibility or "love" for one's neighbor, the order introduced further consideration of the concept of discipline. Aepinus urged the authorities to direct appropriate penalties against, "those who blaspheme

God or the gospel,... adulterers, playboys, drunks, and the wicked who assault or cheat their neighbors. " The authorities should proceed confidently (ohne scherz) in these matters for "without a doubt, such 'gentiles' are not to be tolerated. Outside of the duties and authority of the office of superintendent, Aepinus did not designate any obligations for discipline to the pastors who were serving in churches. Instead, in this order for Stralsund, he relied 225 primarily on the civil authorities to oversee the matter of discipline.

The orders that Johann BrieBman wrote for Prussia

(1525), in conjunction with the Bishops of Samland (George

Polentz) and Pomerania (Erhard of QueiB), however, placed a greater emphasis on the clerical responsibilities for discipline. The early synodal statutes for Pomerania

(Themata episcopi Rxsenburgensls) condemned the use of the papal ban because it exceeded biblical instruction and relied on merely "human laws,yet the order retained the necessity of private confession prior to communion as an appropriate element of discipline. BrieBman*s subsequent

Prussian order extended this discussion on the relationship between the Lord's Supper and discipline. Essentially, parishioners were prohibited from participation in the sacrament unless they had attended a pre-communion service with the pastor for the purpose of instruction and confession.The sacraments were to be administered in view of the entire congregation so that no one could participate who had not attended both the entire Sunday service (especially the sermon) and the instructional meeting. In view of this, BrieBman indicated that two features distinguished the true Christian ban from it papal counterpart: nothing was to occur without a prior warning, and the judgement of the congregation and the clergy must con c u r . 226

The Prussian order also incorporated discussion of church discipline into its section on penance. BrieBman noted a particularly widespread problem in the territory, that of mothers crushing their children in bed, which prompted some general recommendations on discipline.

BrieBman wrote that the Christian community was obligated to confront such a "gross evil" with the appropriate use of the "Christian penalty of the ban- and not to recognize or accept such a person as a Christian member, until presenting public penance. The order insisted on the necessity of public reconciliation and even included a form to be used on such an occasion.However, these clerical and congregational measures involved no specific civil penalties. The Prussian Landesordnung (issued the same year) affirmed the rights of the clergy to "strongly punish" those found guilty of this particular offense but instructed the clergy to inform the civil officials (unser amtleuten) of grievous cases so that they could pursue penalties "of body and property. In this way BrieBman’s Prussian order affirmed the role of the civil authorities in matters of discipline in much the same way as the Stralsund and Leisnig order, yet argued for the ongoing necessity of the ban and recognized the Strafamt of the pastoral office.

Before proceeding it is worthwhile to reaffirm that even in these very first North German church orders, written in the early 1520s, themes related to church discipline 227 merited important consideration. From the outset the necessity of Christian discipline, a concept clearly related to the ordo which these reformers prized, found a place in the structural thinking of Aepinus, BrieBman, and even

Heinrich Kind (for Leisnig) . They approached the matter of discipline cautiously, especially the volatile issue of the

ban, but they all insisted that the church, as well as the

secular authorities, must heed their respective

responsibilities for congregational and community oversight.

While the orders for Leisnig, Stralsund, and Prussia

presented rather restrained statements on church discipline,

this was not the case for the first Hessian church order

assembled by Francis Lambert. In fact, Lambert's position

on the necessity of church discipline lay beneath much of

his vision for the church revealed in his order, the

Reformatio ecclesianm Hassiae,^^ and may have been the

primary reason Luther found this order so burdensome. In

some ways the Hessian order seems to be very moderate on the

role of discipline when compared to BrieBman *s order for

Prussia The Hessiam order's section on confession failed to

incorporate any disciplinary features, although it did

stress the public nature of confession.^®

Lambert's most unique contribution, however, was an

entire section devoted to the topic of the ban: Section 16,

De excowmunlcatlone» This was the first North German church

order to include a specific section dedicated to discipline. 228

Lambert: argued that the church was in a sense powerless

unless it had the right "to sepeirate false brethren,"^® and

in maintaining this position, he ignored the customary

Lutheran/ evangelical understanding that discipline was essentially a declarative rather than a constitutive aspect

of church order.In the case of notorious transgressions

(crimina. n o t o r l a ) , Lambert called for the imposition of

church sanctions emd even included a ceremony for

excommunication.These manifest public sins were

separated from private offenses, in response to which

Lambert reiterated the methods of admonishment outlined in

Matthew 18. Lambert further indicated that civil cases were not generally subj ect to religious sanctions

(excommunication) and stated that serious disputes between

church members should be brought to "the Christian magistrate."^® Although Lambert's Refoirmatlo encountered resistance and ultimately failed in Hesse, his unique

emphases, and especially his teaching on discipline, would reemerge in the subsequent efforts of Bucer and Calvin.

Without a doubt, the most influential early church

order for Northern Germany was Melanchthon ' s Unterrlcht der Visitatoren. The issues which this document presented

surrounding church discipline were especially important

since they both summarized the ideas of Melanchthon, Luther, amd the Wittenbergers in general, and provided a basis for

speaking about this subject that was repeated in a host of 229

subsequent church. orders. The disciplinary components of

this church order surfaced in three rather typical sections:

confession, the Christian ban, and the office of

superintendent. Each of these subjects will be analyzed in

order to grasp the order’s essential teaching on church discipline.

Melanchthon first addressed the topic of church

discipline proper in his section on confession. The

reformer endeavored immediately to distinguish ’’true

Christian confession” from what he labeled ’’papist

confession,” i.e. the meaningless eind pointless narration of

all of one’s transgressions. However, Melanchthon sought to

maintain the role of private confession and the order stated

that no one should be admitted to the Sacrament of the altar without having first met with one’s own pastor.The

purpose of this meeting was to insure that the communicant

understood the meaning of the sacrament and to provide an

opportunity to comfort those with weeik consciences. Given

the order’s general insistence on the necessity of preaching penance, the position that Luther and Melanchthon defended

in their dispute with Agricola, this private and personal

encounter served an important function. In terms similar to those contained in BrieBman’s Prussian order, Melanchthon

linked an emphasis on Christian discipline with a strategy that featured both instruction and consolation. 230

As h.e had with confession, when Melanchthon spoke of the ban he attempted to distinguish the "true Christian ban" from the kind of abuses Luther had already condemned in the preface to the Unt&jcricht.^^ The order warned that it would be wise not to abandon the type of ban outlined in Matthew

18 and I Corinthians 5.^^ Instead, those involved in blatant sin were to be warned, and if they proved unrepentant, the ban should be proclaimed against them.

However, the banned person was not to be prevented from hecoring the sermon, since even Jews and Gentiles had this privilege. In contrast to the Lambert's order for Hesse,

Melanchthon' s section on the ban was very brief, and he made no attempt to indicate who was to act in these matters nor how this discipline was to be implemented. Thus, even though Melanchthon affirmed the bem in principle in this

Saxon order, his discussion was highly restrained.

The subject of discipline was also incorporated into the section devoted to the office of Superintendent.

Melanchthon's understanding of this office essentially agreed with what Aepinus had proposed in the Stralsund order, although Melanchthon introduced the title: superintendent. The superintendent was to exercise direct oversight over the clergy, paying particular attention to their teaching, administration of the sacraments, and personal conduct. Melanchthon specifically counseled the superintendents to be alert to potentially seditious 231 behavior or instruction, eind demanded that any clergy suspected of "false or rebellious teaching, " were to be brought before local officials and ultimately to the attention of the Elector.Thus, Melanchthon essentially

limited the power of the superintendent to that of admonition, while more specific penalties remained the prerogative of the Elector.

Overall, Melcinchthon presented a rather restricted approach to church discipline in the Saxon Unteirrlcht.

Although this church order brought together several elements

of discipline contained in earlier documents, i.e. the relationship of discipline and confession, a specific

section on the ban, and the disciplinary duties of the

superintendent, Melanchthon, like Luther, preferred not to

introduce too much, too quickly.Discipline was regarded

as a necessary element of sound church order, but one that was best approached with moderation. When Bugenhagen left

Wittenberg in the summer of 1528 on his first church order mission to the north, he carried a similar emphasis on

discipline first to Braunschweig, then to Hamburg and Lübeck.

with slight modifications, Bugenhagen incorporated the seme elements of church discipline into the various North

German church orders that he composed. However, since

Bugenhagen's first church order for the city of Braunschweig

was nearly three times as long as the Saxon Unterrlcht, the 232 reformer quite naturally expanded the discussion of church discipline. Like Melanchthon, Bugenhagen recommended establishing the office of superintendent, but provided more detail in his description of this position. Bugenhagen wanted the superintendent to pay particular attention to any pastors who might subvert the role of civil authorities— those who argued that "one need not obey the authorities, or that Christians had no real obligations to temporal rulers.In general, Bugenhagen praised the council and citizens of Braunschweig for their orderly reformation and hoped that the situation in Braunschweig would remain

"peaceful and united.Civil authorities must exercise their office in punishing flagrant sinners for without proper authorities in the world, neither "spouse, children, or property" was safe. However, while Bugenhagen indicated that civil authorities operated with divine sanction (Romans

13, I Peter 2), he insisted that temporal rulers must yield to God's word, for God alone remained the highest authority.^® For Bugenhagen, recognizing and maintaining this kind of balance was the special responsibility of the superintendent.

In his section on the office of superintendent

Bugenhagen also noted the responsibilities for discipline that belonged to the pastors of Braunschweig. Bugenhagen contended, "the preachers should freely punish (straffen) sin, yet without reference to individuals, which should lead 233

to improvement and not to offense." Bugenhagen pointed to

the example of Christ who confronted Judas in private,

seeking to avoid personal embarrassment, but still punished

his betrayal. Consequently, Bugenhagen insisted that those

guilty of public sin should be beurred from communion, and

not received as members of the Christian community.

Oversight of this pastoral duty also fell within the sphere of the superintendent, and Bugenhagen even recommended that

an additional office of ”coadjutor” be created to assist the

superintendent with these and other duties.

In the Braunschweig order's section on the ban,

Bugenhagen reemphasized the pastoral responsibilities of

church discipline. He indicated that those openly guilty of

"adultery, whoring, wickedness, regular drunkenness, and

blasphemies against God," must be prevented by the pastors

from communion lest they partake to their own

condemnation. Although Bugenhagen reiterated the words of

Christ that such a person should be "treated as a gentile or

a condemned person," he argued that they must still be

accepted as both a neighbor and fellow citizen for the sake

of communal harmony. Thus, the ban must not include any

specific civil sanctions or restrictions on business.

Nevertheless, Bugenhagen contended that it must be apparent to the community at large that the Christian congregation

itself would neither tolerate nor accept those living in

flagrant sin. Tolerating an individual as a citizen of the 234 community meant something very different from being received as a Christian.For Bugenhagen, nothing more than this could be considered as a legitimate expression of what Christ intended with the bem. After delineating the disciplinary limits of the pastors, Bugenhagen turned again to the civil authorities. Bugenhagen wrote that any additional sanctions or judgement against sinners properly belonged to temporal rulers. For excimple, in referring to the offense of adultery, Bugenhagen noted another kind of "ban” which was grounded in both divine and imperial law. Furthermore, Bugenhagen cited precedents in Braunschweig's own legal code which called for both fines and/or incarceration in cases of adultery.*^ Bugenhagen mentioned similar kinds of civil penalties for cases of rape and prostitution. Thus, Bugenhagen sought to promote a shared approach in matters of discipline. To a greater degree than Melanchthon, Bugenhagen instructed the clergy in the proper use of the ban instituted by Christ. However, he insisted that fines and corporal penalties belonged only to the civil authorities, who in carrying out their office, also exercised a type of ban. Bugenhagen ' s subsequent church orders for Heimburg (1529) and Lübeck added nothing of consequence to what he had already written about church discipline. The Hamburg order was substantially shorter than the Braunschweig document, and consequently contained a much more constrained 235 discussion of the office of superintendent. Bugenhagen featured none of the disciplinary matters that he had included in the Braunschweig order.However, Bugenhagen did not condense his section on the ban, but repeated almost word for word what he had written for Braunschweig. Likewise, the church order for Lübeck closely followed the pattern established in the Hamburg order in matters of discipline. In all three orders, church discipline was limited to the ban that the clergy oversaw both in the practice of private confession and in the suspension of open sinners from communion. Though cautious in his approach, it is evident that church discipline played a prominent role in the church orders of Bugenhagen, and when he republished sections of these orders in his Von Mancherley Christlichen Sachen (1531), he gave special recognition to what he had already written about this subject.**

The church orders that were most directly influenced by Bugenhagen’s Braunschweig order, such as that of Johann Sutel for Gottingen, adopted the same approach to discipline. The Gottingen order established a superintendent to oversee clerical teaching and behavior, and especially to guard against sectarian threats to unity.*^ Monks were forbidden from hearing "secret confessions," for only those with responsibility for preaching should administer the sacraments and hear confession.*® Sutel also included Bugenhagen's teaching on 236 the ban, what he now called the "reasonable and evangelical ban," and recommended its use against public sinners.*’ Although Sutel insisted on the propriety of this "christicin ban," he abbreviated the comments of Bugenhagen and demanded the suspension of what he called the "illegitimate and tyrannical money-ban ( g e l t b a x m ) Furthermore, like Bugenhagen, Sutel placed additional sanctions firmly in the hands of the authorities.*® Discipline, however, remained a perplexing issue for both religious and secular leaders and some areas had real difficulty incorporating anything meaningful on the subject into their church orders. A perfect example was the Brandenburg-Niirnberg order (1533) of Osiander and Brenz. Osiander and Brenz had different ideas about how to effectively implement church discipline, and especially the practice of the ban. Although Osiander concurred with the moderate application of the ban (i.e. minor excommunication) established in the Saxon ünterrlcht, and even incorporated similar statements into both his NUmberger 23 Lehrartikel^^ and the Nürnberg church order of 1528,®° he preferred to address matters of discipline through an emphasis on private confession and absolution prior to receiving communion. Brenz, on the other hand, had more ambitious hopes for matters of discipline, but his initial attempts to introduce his ideas in Schwabish Hall, especially his proposal to introduce a "purified" version of a church court (his synod 237

or sendgericht) encountered, early opposition from the

authorities.

When the city counselors of Nürnberg and Margrave

George of Brandenburg-Ansbach decided to combine forces in

creating a new and more extensive church order, the issue of

discipline received more consideration than almost any other

subject. The Nürnberg council, and especially a faction of

jurists under the leadership of Johann Hepstein, refused to

grant the clergy any kind of disciplinary power that might

be abused as it had in former days. Osiander, along with

the other city clergy, argued for the legitimacy of the proper Christian ban, but an even stronger advocate for this position was the city clerk, Lazarus Spengler. Spengler

composed an extensive opinion on the ban in which he

defended the proper use of the practice, based in the

congregation, and insisted that fesirs of abuse should not

invalidate the clear instructions of the New Testament.

Either Spengler's opinion or a subsequent treatise^^ were sent along with the rest of the proposed church order to Wittenberg for comment in 1532. Luther and the other

Wittenbergers generally commended the efforts of those in

Nürnberg and Brandenburg-Ansbach, but expressed concern over

a couple of items in the proposed order, one of which was the ban. The Wittenberg reformers reaffirmed their commitment to suspending public sinners from the sacrament

(unser Bann) , but felt that attempts to include additional 238 civil sanctions {der offentllch Bann) would, at least for

the time, present real problems in larger territories and

cities. Thus the debate over the ban in Nürnberg had so

extended the subject of discipline that Luther, Melanchthon,

•Jonas, and Bugenhagen, were uncomfortable with the proposed

conclusions. When Osiander and Brenz drew up the final

draft of their church order, they completely omitted the

section on the ban at the insistence of the Nürnberg

c o u n c i l .

The conclusions reached in the Brandenburg-Nümberg

order— to say less rather than more about church discipline-

-however, countered the prevailing tendencies of the church

orders composed during the remainder of the 1530s.

Escalating confrontations with Zwinglian sacramentarians and

Anabaptists typically prompted greater discussion and

further refinements regarding matters of discipline.

Bugenhagen, for instance, published his church order

compendium. Von Mancherley Christlichen Sachen^ with

precisely these problems in mind. He indicated that along with providing the common person (der gemeine man) a simple

and clear explanation of the basics of church order, he also

intended to "shut-up the blasphemous mouths of those who

opposed the Gospel.Several church orders likewise

referred specifically to the Aneibaptist threat as they

addressed the problem of church discipline. 239 Matters of discipline occupied an especially prominent position in Nicholas Amsdorf's church order for Goslar (1531). As noted previously in the account by Corvinus, the beginning of the reformation in Goslar was anything but smooth.®® Amsdorf, who had initiated the evangelical movement in Goslar, returned to the city in 1531 to compose a church order in order to provide a stable basis for the church to move forward. Amsdorf began his church order by emphasizing the duties of preachers and insisted that the superintendent must pay attention both to the demeanor and teaching of the local clergy. Any preacher who exhibited "Zwinglian or anabaptist" tendencies was to be treated "as a heretic" and suspended from office. Even the superintendent was required to take an oath in the presence of the "council and the preaching elders" that he would introduce no new teaching or ceremonies without their consent.®* Amsdorf's concern for discipline, however, extended beyond what was expected of the clergy and the superintendent. He supported the necessity of meetings between pastor and parishioner prior to communion to guarantee both adequate understanding and appropriate behavior. Those "who lived in hatred and anger, or who engaged in promiscuity, adultery, or gluttony" should not be admitted to the sacrament.®® However, prohibition from the Lord's Supper was only one means of discipline at the disposal of the congregation. Amsdorf also stated that 240 those "who live landisciplined or dishonorable lives, or who reject and blaspheme our teaching, or never receive the

sacraments” would neither be allowed to serve as baptismal

sponsors nor be permitted a Christian burial.Amsdorf

even concluded the order by restating this three-pronged

approach to discipline, i.e. no sacraments, no sponsorship, no Christian burial, and directing these sanctions against

clandestine marriages. Thus in a climate of potentially divisive teaching and disreputable conduct, Amsdorf

emphasized discipline in a fashion that moved well beyond the small ban associated merely with confession and communion.

Similar concerns stirred the efforts of Johann Timann

in the city of Bremen. A period of turmoil had preceded the adoption of the Bremen church order composed by Timann in

1534, and even Bugenhagen recognized that the city had weathered a time of testing characterized by "false teaching and fanatics who rebelled against any authority and seduced both body and soul."®^ To combat these problems, Timann's order presented the customary combined approach to

discipline which recognized the responsibilities of both

civil and religious leaders. However, Timann devoted most

of this document to developing the specific disciplinary duties of the pastor and especially to an emphasis on "the two keys of the preachers." 241 Although Timann began his discussion referring to the "loosing key" (the proclamation of forgiveness) , he quickly directed his attention to the "binding key" which he described as the proclamation of God's wrath against godlessness and hypocrisy. The order insisted that preachers must "punish, shame, rebuke, and terrify" godless people not to ruin them, but to startle them out of their sin and pride. For Timann, the ban, or suspension from the sacrament, was the "power of the binding key" and should be boldly employed by the preachers.®* Nevertheless, the primary responsibility of the clergy was that of proclamation and Timann demanded that "all the preachers diligently punish (straffen) " the blatant sins of "the common man. " Timann even outlined specifically how to preach against a whole series of public maladies including sedition, adultery, prostitution, gluttony, superstition, and sectarianism.®® Thus Timann emphasized the concept of discipline, but in doing so, stressed that admonishment and rebuke were the primary weapons in the arsenal of the clergy. The Bremen church order provided at least one person's interpretation of how one should go about preaching the law as well as the gospel. An increased emphasis on discipline was also one of the features that distinguished Rhegius's later church order for Hannover (1536) from his first order written for Lüneburg (1531). In the church order for Lüneburg, Rhegius viewed 242 discipline almost entirely as an educational concern.

Rhegius's emphasis on learning and its prospects for social

improvement concurred with the approach of a reformer like

Agricola, or even Erasmus, and contrasted markedly with the

emphasis of Timann. The only explicit reference to matters

of ecclesiastical discipline in this document concerned the

familiar responsibilities of the superintendent to check

pastoral teaching and behavior.

However, the latter church order for Hannover paid far

greater attention to matters of discipline. Rhegius

extended his discussion of the office of superintendent, and

even included a section on the ban, an element that had not

appeared at all in the Lüneburg order. He insisted that the ban must be reintroduced (wider aufrlchten) because of the rampant blasphemies that characterized "these last days," but he approached the ban moderately, limiting the sanctions to withholding communion and referring to the ban itself as a "brotherly punishment" {brxiderlxcber straffe) A n y offense that warranted further punishment of "body or property" belonged to the secular authorities. Rhegius said more about church discipline in the Hannover order because he discerned that the situation had changed since writing his order for Lüneburg. His awareness of the situation in

Münster, his collaboration with the troubled efforts of

Timann in Bremen and Omeken in Soest,®® and his own writing against the Anabaptists (Widderlegiing der Miinsterschen 243 Tâxifer) , encouraged him to adopt a more decisive approach to discipline. Nevertheless, Rhegius still separated the need for laws that promote good order, which one must accept willingly, from the "customs, ceremonies, and constitutions" that serve only to bind a person's conscience and thus violate Christian freedom.®® Some of the strongest statements on the role of church discipline during this period may be found in the Hessian church orders of 1539. The contributions of the Strasbourg reformer, Martin Bucer, both directly in the Zlegenhain Zuchtordnung and indirectly in the church order for Kassel, stirred this emphasis on matters of discipline. At the request of Landgrave Philip, Bucer had engaged in a series of confrontations with the Hessian Anabaptists euid his own sensitivity to their criticism of the church on disciplinary matters prompted Bucer to affirm the position that "without discipline, there is no church."^® However, Bucer's own position on discipline, which stood surprisingly close to that of the eeirlier Hessian reformer Francis Lambert, was more than mere reaction to the anabaptists. Bucer's thinking on this subj ect had been evolving steadily over the course of the 1530s and manifested itself in his early contributions to the church orders for Ulm (1531) and Strasbourg (1534),in his gospel commentaries, and especially in his treatise on pastoral care. Von dem Warsn Seelsorge,^^ The Zlegenhain Zuchtordnang allowed Bucer the opportunity to 244

introduce aspects of discipline that had been rejected in

Strasbourg.

The image of pastor or shepherd permeated Bucer ' s

Ziegenhain order and thus exemplified his own understanding of the responsibilities of Seelsorge. One of Bucer ' s main contributions in this regard, however, was his notion that pastoral care was the joint responsibility of ministers of the word and of lay elders, a concept borrowed from

Oecolampadius and later adapted by Calvin. Bucer indicated that catechization played a prominent role in this disciplinary duty of pastors and elders and he made a special (and the first) case for the ceremony of Lutheran confirmation.^^ Yet discipline had to be more than

instruction, which was the same conclusion that Rhegius had drawn, and Bucer devoted the longest segment of the order to how one should use the ban. Again, Bucer emphasized the shared responsibilities of "preacher and elder" who were to employ the ban essentially to protect the integrity of the

Christian community. ^^ Bucer did not believe that sanctions that restricted participation in the sacrament of communion were sufficient; in fact, Bucer was especially concerned with those who refused to go "to the Lord ' s table. "

Therefore, he included prohibitions surrounding baptismal sponsorship, Christian burial, and even public office holding, in his agenda for discipline.’® Bucer's more extensive sanctions for church discipline were reminiscent 245 of those estcLbllshecl by Amsdorf at Goslar. However, Bucer's constant attention to the nature of the Christian community

(die chrlstlxche Gemelnschaft) and how the ban should be interpreted given that context, more clearly reflects a reaction to Anabaptist ecclesiology.

In composing the Ziegenhain Zuchtordnang, Bucer did not act alone, but worked with several leading Hessian theologians and jurists, especially the three Hessian superintendents: Adam Kraft (at Marburg) ; Tilemann Schnabel

(at Alsfeld) ; and Johann Kymaeus (at Homberg) . Kymaeus assumed the leading role in composing the church order for

Kassel that was completed during the same year. In matters of church discipline, the Kassel order reiterated much of what had been stated in the Ziegenhain order.However,

Kymaeus did incorporate a longer and more detailed discussion of those that should be barred from the sacraments, primarily communion.Kymaeus also extended the discussion of discipline and sponsorship by stating that not only behavioral, but doctrinal lapses could result in a prohibition from participation.’® Thus, the typical separation of public or manifest sin, for which one could be excommunicated, from matters of conscience became more and more difficult to maintain.

The progress of events in Hesse also directly influenced the ministry and thinking of Corvinus.

Discipline was a topic that concerned Corvinus very early in 246 his career,^® and he developed even stronger views as a consequence of his own disputations with the Anabaptists. When he wrote his first church order for Northeim, he justified the ban as both scripturally established and useful, but argued that restraint was necessary because "the gospel is as yet new to us."®° As he discussed this subject, Corvinus followed the lead of Bucer and the Hessian orders and entitled the appropriate section, "On church discipline," rather than "On the ban," i.e. the terminology used in the orders of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and Rhegius. However, Corvinus avoided the more expansive disciplinary program of Bucer with its reference to isolation from the Christian community and additional penalties beyond suspension from communion. Instead, Corvinus returned to the disciplinary possibilities of private confession and absolution (the power of the keys) , an approach that Bucer found problematic. Thus in this church order for Northeim, Corvinus combined the terminology of Bucer with an emphasis on sanctions more typical of Bugenhagen. Once again, this kind of theological and ecclesiological synthesis achieved by the church order authors weakens the usefulness of referring to church order family models. Surveying this discussion of the North German church orders written during the 1530s, it is apparent that the subj ect of discipline merited important consideration throughout the period. A variety of situations encouraged 247 these developments: early confrontations with Zwinglian interpretations of the sacraments; residual urban strife; and Anabaptist disorders (especially those associated with

Münster) ; so that gradually the authors of the church orders proposed more rigorous models of discipline. Ironically, the Anabaptist insistence on the necessity of the ban— which for them generally meant ostracism from the Christian community ("no discipline, no church")— encouraged some evsmgelical leaders to assume a stronger position on discipline that was in turn used against the Anabaptist conventicles!

Thus, a variety of obstacles continued to maüce discussion of church discipline a difficult and dangerous subject for those involved in writing church orders. If one said too much, or approached discipline too rigorously, a reformer risked the danger of violating the notion of

Christian liberty, and of exposing oneself to the charge of re-instituting "papal tyranny." On the other hand, if one said too little about discipline or did too little to check public scandals and licentiousness, the door opened to charges of hypocrisy or of the general moral ineptitude of the evangelical movement. Some, like those in Nürnberg, attempted to avoid the subject altogether in hopes that saying nothing specific aüDOUt discipline or the ban would avoid direct confrontations, but allow the clergy to act where they felt they should and could. 248 The 1540 church order for electoral Bramdenbxirg , assembled with the support of Joachim II, addressed matters of church discipline in this very cautious and essentially conservative manner. The document that resulted from the contributions of several theologians— Jacob Stratner, George

Witzel, George of Anhalt, and even the Brandenburg bishop,

Matthew von Jagow— relied heavily on the earlier

Brandenburg-Nümberg church order. As was the case for the

Bremdenburg-Numberg order, this church order for the electorate contained no section on the ban. The sections on confession and penance, which were developed in a moderately evangelical fashion, briefly noted the relationship of discipline and receiving communion. Since the reform- minded Bishop Matthias retained his position in Berlin,®^ there was no need to introduce the office of superintendent, and the church order even ignored developing the responsibilities of the pastoral office or possible reforms of ecclesiastical courts. The growing interest in matters of church discipline thus found no real place in the

Brandenburg church order.

The model of reform that occurred in Brandenburg was what Duchess Elizabeth hoped to foster in her territory as regent for Braunschweig-Calenberg. In her introduction to the territorial church order (1542), she elevated "the example of the highly praised lord Joachim, Margrave of

Brandenburg” and other princes who had proceeded 249 forthrightly to eliminate ecclesiastical abuses and false teaching, and to restore the "preaching of the pure word of God.To accomplish this, as noted in chapter two, Elizabeth relied on the services of Corvinus who eventually assumed the position of territorial superintendent. As Corvinus composed the church order for Braunschweig- Calenberg, he followed the general pattern of the electoral Breindenburg order, but injected his own understanding of proper church order, especially regarding matters of discipline. Corvinus supported the need for preachers to rebuke sin by preaching repentance, but developed a much more thorough discussion of the entire relationship between Law and Gospel.®* Corvinus also connected the duties of church discipline with the notion of confession, but was more specific in his presentation of the ban. Along with personal confession to God, and private confession to a pastor (primarily for the purpose of consolation), Corvinus promoted a kind of public confession that he argued characterized the early church and was based on the Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5 passages. Although one should first approach sinners in private, those who remained unrepentant and obstinate should be brought before the church (Die ecclssiae). For Corvinus, the scriptures themselves demanded that, "one erect again such a punishment and ban, and to the degree it is possible, do so in the fashion of the first church."®® However, Corvinus rejected the notion 250 of public penance or satisfaction for sin and insisted that restoration "of known, public blasphemers" should be based only on repentance and belief. Corvinus's discussion of the topic of discipline was, therefore, not limited by the patterns of the Brandenburg order. Even though the

Braunschweig-Calenberg order, like the Brandenburg and

Brandenburg-Nümberg, did not have an explicit section on the ban, Corvinus gave the subject the same kind of attention he had in his earlier order for Northeim.

The following year Corvinus worked closely with

Bugenhagen and Heinrich Winkel (superintendent in

Braunschweig) in composing the church order for neighboring

Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel. The sense that the now exiled

Duke Heinrich had allowed the religious life of the territory to degenerate substantially®® made discipline ein important consideration for both Corvinus and Bugenhagen.

Their ideas about what was proper in these matters, however, were somewhat different. Bugenhagen was accustomed to operating in close relationship with the civil authorities in electoral Saxony. He maintained a strong relationship with Elector John Frederick, who liked to keep his hands on as much as possible in church matters, and had grown familiar with the close scrutiny of the Saxon chancellors like Brück.®^ Corvinus, on the other hand, had exercised a much freer hand in the administration of the church, even though Duchess Elizabeth followed the progress of reform 251 closely. Furthermore, Corvinus*s earlier experiences in

Hesse had exposed him to ideas concerning church discipline, especially Bucer * s ideas about discipline and the Christian community, that continued to play a role in his own thinking about the nature and power of the church.

As the two reformers worked on the church order for

Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel, some of these differences became apparent. The section on the ban, for instance, retained most of what Bugenhagen had incorporated into his previous church orders for the cities of Braunschweig and Hamburg, but revealed some subtle differences. In keeping with the spirit of the church orders written during the middle of the

1530s, the section began by openly condemning "enthusiasts, those who blaspheme the truth and the gospel of Christ.'*®®

In his previous church orders Bugenhagen had indicated that those under the ban were to be regarded as unbelievers and forbidden from communion. However, the church order for

Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel indicated that those under the ban were baurred from "the sacraments of the Christian community." This greater emphasis on the corporate aspect of discipline reflected the understanding of the Hessian

Corvinus more than the Saxon Bugenhagen. On the other hand, the order was very clear in condemning the implementation of the "large ban" (grote ban or excommunxcatio maxor) , and argued that this kind of penalty was reserved for the authorities alone.®® Neither Bugenhagen nor Corvinus had 252 stated their opinion on this subject so explicitly before.

Despite the relatively moderate statements about the ban,

Bugenhagen obviously was uncomfortable with how this section might appear to Elector John Frederick and sent him a letter in which he reiterated his own condemnation of the "ban of the priests" (Pfaffenbaime) , which he linked with the old church.®®

Bugenhagen*s letter to John Frederick also mentioned another controversial aspect of the Braunschweig-

Wolf enbüttel church order, the discussion surroxinding the introduction of a consistory. In his letter, Bugenhagen indicated that he had to deal with the subject at some length and had encountered opposition from the cathedral chapter at St. Blasius. Nevertheless, Bugenhagen insisted that this kind of structure, which combined both "spiritual and secular government," was both Christian and useful.®^

Bugenhagen's comments are somewhat misleading since the proposed consistory for Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel did not combine secular and ecclesiastical administration, but incorporated only the canons of the cathedral chapter to create "a common ecclesiastical consistory (gemeln conslstorium ecclesiaticum) for the entire territory."®^

The order outlined a fairly detailed hierarchy which placed five regional superintendents over the clergy of the territory and under the oversight of a "territorial" superintendent (overste superintendentia). The consistory 253 stood above all of these offices and was charged with handling various disputes, especially difficulties surrounding marriage.In terms of discipline, it was the consistory that had the power to "punish in accordance with the rule of Christ," yet the consistory was expected to coordinate its disciplinary efforts with the secular authorities.

In retrospect, one can detect the ideas of both

Bugenhagen and Corvinus in this attempt to establish a consistory for Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel. Bugenhagen imported the terminology of the "consistory" from electoral

Saxony and directed it primarily towards marital problems, which was a concern Bugenhagen shared with Luther and

Jonas.However, the strength of the cathedral chapter in

Braunschweig forced Bugenhagen to mute the emphasis on shared civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and thus the proposed consistory still retained the form of a church court. In this way, the consistory for Braunschweig seemed much closer to the synods that would assemble under the leadership of Corvinus in neighboring Braunschweig-

Calenberg . Furthermore, the office of "over" superintendent was precisely the kind of position Corvinus held in his territory. Despite this combined effort of

Bugenhagen and Corvinus, support for the consistory never materialized and this attempt to address discipline in a more programmatic fashion was completely aborted with the 254 return of Duke Heinrich, in 1547.*^

Although the particular solutions advocated in the Braunschweig—Wolfenbüttel order failed, an interest in matters of discipline and marriage continued to increase during the 1540s. The authors of several church orders commented on this critical concern. In his church order for the imperial city of Mühlhausen (1542) , Justus Menius chastised the "former evils" of the bishop's courts, but argued that marriages required special attention. In response, he instructed a gathering of both "syndics and pastors" to meet once every fourteen days to hear marital cases, and to direct special problems to Wittenberg,

Leipzig, or Marburg.®® Johann Sutel's order for Schweinfurt

(1543) provided no special process for addressing marital problems, but insisted that marriage and Christian discipline were inseparable. For Sutel, one should never use the gospel to undermine, "natural law, discipline, honor, good morals, policy, government, order, ceremonies or ultimately obedience," and meirriage involved each of these considerations.®® Herman Bonnus cirgued in the Osnabrück church order (1543) that honorable meirriage was the most important aspect of clerical discipline.^®® Likewise in his article for Quakenbrück, Bonnus directed the "highest penalties" against those guilty of marital infidelity.^®^

Obviously, a concern for marriage greatly influenced the ongoing discussion of church discipline. This concern 255 was particularly acute in Saxony where Jonas, along with Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and others had begun to seek an appropriate meems for dealing with these special problems. Addressing marital problems was the primeiry goal of the Wittenberg consistorial êirticles (Constitution und artikel des geistlichen consistorii zu Wittenberg), drawn up by Jonas in 1542. The consistories, joint commissions of theologians and lay persons (primarily jurists) were charged with responsibility for a whole range of meirital matters. The relatively sporadic visitations were bolstered by ein emphasis on regular and systematic investigation ("Inquisition"), which was designed to ascertain both clerical competence and to address moral problems for which the ban should be implemented.^®^ The document even

included an official form of excommunication and a list of cases that could result in this penalty. ^®^

As was the case with the Braunschweig consistory, this model for Saxony failed to materialize. Even though the concept was reinforced in principle in Melanchthon's Wittenbergische Reformation (1545)— the last church order of this early period— the disruptive influence of the Schmalkaldic war halted its early evolution. Only after the Peace of Passau and the more formal Peace of Augsburg would these kinds of issues again assume a prominent place. Despite the fairly rigorous notions contained in these later Wittenberg articles, one would have to characterize 256 the general approach to discipline throughout this period as moderate. All of the evangelical reformers and authors of church orders embraced the necessity of church discipline, yet they differed as to how and when to implement particular measures. Timing, as well as location, were important considerations in determining how best to speak of discipline. The scriptural texts, especially Matthew 18 and

I Corinthians 5, demanded that these biblically-minded reformers heed the subject of discipline, yet for the most part they refused to see discipline as anything more than declarative.

Above all, discipline was conceived as a necessary means of pastoral care. In his church order for Zerbst,

Jonas elevated this notion of pastoral care in citing the proverb, "ars sartlum, cura, anlmarum.”^^^ In these early years, this was clearly the leading concept behind the idea of discipline, and this idea is further supported by the fact that many of the church orders discussed visitation of the sick immediately after their discussion of the ban.

This pastoral, yet tentative discussion of church discipline, however, would be challenged in the years ahead in growing battles between religious and secular authority surrounding the proper use of church discipline. 257

C^Ech_Org^s_^Sd=^^g^h_£isci£line^_i552^158^

The years following the conclusion of the Schmalkaldic

war afforded a climate of relative political stability in

which Lutheran religious institutions were allowed to

develop. The territorial aspects of the evangelical

movement were heightened by the provisions of the Peace of

Augsburg, yet the substance of actual religious policy

continued to be profoundly influenced by the trans­

territorial network of individuals who composed the church

orders. The opportunity to focus on the form of the new

church had never been greater and because of this, topics

like church discipline received increasing eunounts of

attention. Tentative and cautious statements about church

discipline and the former concern for attempting to

introduce too much too quickly yielded to bolder and more

programmatic statements on the subject. The increased

attention to the subject of discipline also opened the door

to new conflicts regarding how best to address this topic.

Nevertheless, by the time the second generation of Lutheran

reformers completed their church order contributions,

roughly in the year 1580, the fundamental features of

Lutheran church discipline were thoroughly entrenched.

The earlier reticence regarding the topic of discipline

did not disappear instantly, however, as is evident in the

church order that Jonas composed for the Relchs-tadt

Regensburg (1553) . In this relatively brief order, Jonas 258 had little to say about church discipline and introduced nothing new on the subject- Instead, Jonas focused his attention on the traditional importance of confession. He recommended holding special Saturday evening services both for the purpose of instruction of the parishioners, especially while in the confessional (beichthaus) , and in preparation for celebrating the Lord’s Supper on Sunday. Despite the encouragement of Jonas and other contemporary Lutheran church leaders, the evangelicals seemed to be losing the battle in their attempts to retain a "purified” version of private confession. One can discern pastoral intent in the questions (Intarrogationes) Jonas composed for the purpose of private confession, which he designed to affirm faith and provide assurance of forgiveness.^®® Nevertheless, public support for the practice of private confession seemed to be diminishing, even though most church orders continued to reaffirm the practice. For the purposes of church discipline and pastoral care, other approaches were now required. In contrast to the moderate stance of Jonas, Johann Aepinus paid far more attention to discipline in his order for Buxtehude (1552) than in any of his previous church orders. Like Jonas, Aepinus began his discussion of discipline by emphasizing the need for private confession, but then bolstered his position by linking absolution and excommunication.^^® Aepinus derived his position from the 259 customary teaching on the power of the keys— binding and loosing sin. Aepinus argued that former papal abuses had been generally overturned, and that now the church should re-institute the practice of excommunication; or at least do so until a "common reformation" of the church established something better. Preachers, as well as chaplains, were instructed to stand at the altar and prohibit "godless, unrepentant, and wild people," who had been previously warned, from sharing in the sacraments.

Aepinus*s emphasis on discipline applied especially to the city clergy. He encouraged the city pastor to carefully scrutinize the other clergy and to "admonish and punish" those guilty of lapses in personal or professional behavior. Particular problems were to be brought to the attention of the city council, a group that was also charged with supervising the conduct of the city pastor. Thus,

Aepinus stressed the policies of church discipline for both clergy and laity within the city of Buxtehude.

The 1554 church order for Magdeburg offers an even better example of how church discipline became a predominant theme in these later documents. As noted earlier, the

Magdeburg articles were the joint effort of Nikolaus von

Amsdorf, Joachim Mori in, and Erasmus Sarcerius. In the introduction to the articles, the authors indicated that the social disorders that had accompanied the Schmalkaldic war and a general disregard for "both tables of the law" made it 260

"the highest necessity to return to the proper use of the ban in the church, according to the command of Christ.

Thus, these reformers focused on the practice of discipline.

To accomplish this objective, the order outlined five general principles or articles of discipline. The first article insisted that public sinners, i.e. those guilty of obvious adultery, fornications, secret marriages, or murder, be barred from the sacrament of the table and forbidden from serving as baptismal sponsors or participating in a church wedding. The authors argued, essentially, that public transgressions jeopardized the entire church and therefore required public forms of recognition and reconciliation.

However, they also stated that their intent was to insure divine honor along with corporate and personal integrity, and not to bring shame on an individual.With this goal

in mind, the next two articles focused on additional church

scuictions. Article two expanded the prohibitions regarding baptismal sponsorship to include those guilty of prostitution, abandonment of a marriage partner, usury, or violations against church property. Article three stated

that those who had "never, or at least within the past two

years did not receive the sacrament of the body and blood of

Christ," were not eligible for a Christian burial. The

fourth article continued the discussion of proper Christian

burial, but extended the restrictions to include those who

remained loyal to the Roman church. Those who maintained a 261 clear commitment to the old church were to be buried in a sepeorate area of the church yard without a Christian ceremony. Furthermore^ article five stated that any of the beneficiaries of "papist sacraments or consecrations" were prohibited from sharing in the sacraments and privileges of the evangelical community. Thus, more than matters of conduct merited the disciplinary measures of the Christian community since one's confessional loyalties could also result in religious sanctions. The Magdeburg articles clearly displayed a more rigorous emphasis on discipline.

Sarcerius was obviously a primary force in this renewed emphasis on discipline, as was also apparent in the visitation articles he composed for Mansfeld during the same year. Sarcerius sought to reinvigorate the whole approach to visitations in this problematic county, and called for biannual visitations (late spring and fall) conducted by properly instructed clergy aoid civil authorities.^^®

In contrast to a docxuaent like the Saxon visitation articles, Sarcerius paid far more attention to religious behavior than to matters of belief. Pastors were accountable to the ministerial synod which was responsible for investigating both their competence as preachers and their conduct in personal affairs. Church parishioners were subject to the same kind of careful oversight and Sarcerius instructed the clergy to report noteworthy problems to the visitors. To facilitate this effort, Sarcerius included an 262 astounding list of offenses that were to be brought before the visitation commission. This extensive list Of vices included such elements as blaspheming God's name, dishonoring the sacraments, engaging in magic and witchcraft, participating in godless processions, public drunkenness or visiting taverns on Sundays, keeping one's children from baptism, dishonoring parents and elders, and other typical immoral practices; to name only a few of the items mentioned by Sarcerius. In the time between visitations, Sarcerius recommended that four local officials

(Senschepffen) assist the pastor in ferreting out

"immoralities and blasphemies."^^® However these individuals, and even the pastors, had no real authority to enact any means of discipline other than admonishments or possible suspension from the Lord's supper. Sarcerius indicated that the "prince and his council" intended to

"personally" review the entire visitation process and it was up to them to assess appropriate penalties.

For Sarcerius, the best way to handle the various behavioral and confessional problems uncovered during the visitations was to establish a consistory that would combine religious and secular authority. While the Magdeburg articles emphasized the disciplinary duties of individual clergy as well as the corporate ministerium, Sarcerius's visitation articles for Mansfeld relied on consistorial courts. In 1555, the year after he introduced the Mansfeld 263 visitation articles, Sarcerius dedicated an entire treatise to the suh j ect of consistories : Von Cbristlichen not-xgen/ und nutzen consistorien oder geistlichen gerlchten.

Sarcerius's response to the religious climate of the 1550s echoed the sentiments of Bugenhagen contained in his treatise, Vermanung an aJLle Pastoren und Predlcanten des

Euaxigelll Im Chur, zu Sachsen. He characterized the time as both dangerous and morally inept, and felt that an uneasy peace had followed the years of fighting. Given this situation, Sarcerius challenged the princes to meet matters head on by establishing proper consistories or spiritual courts.

Sarcerius argued that a consistory was the perfect blend of civil and religious authority and summoned the princes to fill these positions with their best civil and ecclesiastical personnel. He insisted that consistories were no mere innovation, rather they were "an old means and method to establish both things related to God's kingdom and the present age."^^^ Princes should not regard these institutions as a threat to their authority for a consistory could be considered the ”Nutrlcll Eccleslae”— "the tutors of the church. " From a religious point of view, the consistory was a programmâtic aid to penance and a way to bolster religious sanctions like the ban.^^^ For Sarcerius the ban was still viewed as primarily medicinal, i.e. a means to aid the lost soul, yet he clearly placed greater emphasis on the 264 community aspect of church penalties. On the secular side, the consistory held the prince's "power of the sword," but did not have the right to impose monetary or property penalties. Thus, Sarcerius attempted to avoid what he considered the abusive policies of the old church, while at the same time elevating discipline to a much higher level.

Attempts to blend the disciplinary authority of the church and that of the civil magistrate proved to be a difficult if not impossible proposition, and the evolution of Lutheran consistories in several North Germaoi cities and territories supports this conclusion. The first official consistorial order to be composed during the second half of the sixteenth century was the work of Tileman Heshusius for

Goslar. Like Sarcerius, Heshusius took the matter of church discipline seriously and devoted much of his career to developing ideas on the subject.However, Heshusius was

far more skeptical concerning the role of civil authorities

in matters of church discipline and his consistorial order avoided the more aggressive disciplinary features proposed by Sarcerius. The document that Heshusius composed for

Goslar focused exclusively on marriage concerns; i.e. determinations regarding marital promises, cases of divorce and abandonment; and specifications concerning degrees of blood-relatedness. Marriage questions were the critical

issues that had prompted Jonas and Luther to consider

introducing the consistorial model in the late 1530s and 265

Heshusius believed that the consistory should continue to limit itself to precisely these concerns. On the other hand, in his role as Goslar superintendent, Heshusius was insistent on the direct disciplineiry responsibilities of the clergy, especially as it pertained to the sacraments.

Conflict with certain members of the city council on this very issue resulted in his dismissal from Goslar in 1556,^^®

Conflicting ideas on responsibilities of discipline and the role of the consistory became even more evident in

Ernestine Saxony during the reign of John Frederick (the

Middler) . In 1561, Duke John sponsored a consistorial order for his territory that severely limited the disciplinary powers of the Saxon clergy. The duke intended to preside directly over the consistory at Weimar and to use this body as a means to check the authority of his territorial superintendents.^^® This was just the kind of secular interference that Heshusius feared in Goslar, and the new policy directly affected the Jena theologians, notably

Matthias Flacius, Johann Wigand, Simon Museus, and Mattaeus

Judex. These policies were moderated somewhat following the death of John Frederick when his brother, Johann Wilhelm, established a new consistory at Jena.^^® In either case, it is apparent that the Saxon princes intended to weld matters of discipline to their own territorial policy.

The strains surrounding the proper jurisdiction of civil and religious authorities, especially in an 266 institution like a consistory, could be greatly reduced if recognized ecclesiastical leaders directed the church order process. This was one of the remarkable accomplishments of David Chytraeus in the territory of Mecklenburg. Chytraeus built on the earlier proposals of Johann Aurifaber^^° to establish a territorial consistory in 1570, headquartered at Rostock. The consistorial order was published in the names of Dukes Johann Albrecht and Ulrich, but they deferred supervision of the body to their trusted superintendent, Chytraeus. In composing the order, Chytraeus identified three general concerns that should come before the consistory: problems involving Christian faith and belief; public scandals; and marriage problems. Thus Chytraeus incorporated more than Heshusius ' s limited concerns for marriage, yet emphasized that this was no mere extension of civil bureaucracy since the real authority of this body was grounded both in the church and in the Scriptures. Chytraeus devoted the final two chapters of the consistorial order to matters of discipline. In chapter eleven, Chytraeus emphasized the authority of the consistory to enact its judgements and determine appropriate penalties. Chapter twelve, "On Excommunication," focused specifically on ecclesiastical measures. From the outset, Chytraeus indicated that discipline required both the actions of the clergy, even individual pastors, as well as the more formal intervention of the consistory. He wrote. 267 •’i t is not enough, that a pastor, even with the most emest intentions and sound actions, have the duty of church discipline and sanctions, but one must also establish a fit, orderly process, clearly based in divine law. Chytraeus did not envision using the consistory as a means to subvert pastoral discipline. However, he quickly pointed out that

••a faithful pastor and curate (Seelsorger)” must distinguish public sin and scandals from those that were merely private matters. Once again, the ban applied only to those guilty of blatant offenses {notarxa crimlna).

Chytraeus divided the implementation of discipline into four steps (gradus) First, the offender should be diligently and earnestly rebuked by a pastor, either privately in the confessional, or if necessaury in public, and when appropriate, barred from the Lord's table. In any case the consistory must be notified of the action, and if no improvement resulted, more formal steps leading to a public pronouncement of the ban were to be initiated.

Chytraeus made it clear that neither the clergy nor the superintendent could act independently in issuing "a public ban" or excommunication from the Christian community, although they did have the right to public admonishments and suspension from the sacraments. The next step involved bringing the offender before the consistory. According to

Chytraeus, the consistory should represent the "most distinguished members of the true church," and include 268

"competent Christians from all stations of life." Step number three essentially reinforced the actions of the consistory taken as the second measure. Those found persistent in their behavior were subj ect to further sanctions. However, step three also emphasized the opportunities and process for reconciliation and restoration of the sinner that could result from the action of the consistory.

The whole process culminated in the fourth step— a public declaration of excommunication. In the case of an obstinate offender who remained unmoved by the entire process, the consistory instructed the local church or parish to announce from its chancel, the ban against the

individual. Chytraeus included a formal statement of

excommunication (Forma, der excommunication) which he derived

from the work of Sarcerius and the earlier Jena consistory articles.The ban was intended to separate the

individual from the Christian community which meant more than a suspension from the sacraments of the church. A person under the bein was also barred from attending weddings, visiting inns, or joining in any civic

organizations.^^® However, in an attempt to maintain the

distinction between religious and civil communities and their respective jurisdictions, the order stated

specifically that the ban carried no business or trade restrictions. It is difficult to imagine that such a 269 distinction was ever effectively maintained.

ConsidereQjle attention has been given here to

Chytraeus *s Conslstorlalordnung' for Mecklenburg in order to illustrate how far thinking on matters like church discipline had evolved. When Luther and Jonas first wrote about consistories, they could not have envisioned the kind of refinements that this order for Mecklenburg represents.

In contrast to their occasional thoughts and writings on a topic like church discipline, Chytraeus spoke at far greater length eind with more precision on the subject. The formal excommunication that Chytraeus instituted was much more than the "small ban" Luther had defended nearly a half century earlier. Nevertheless as a craftsman of church order,

Chytraeus sought to build on the perspectives and experiences of others while remaining consistent to his

Lutheran convictions. In a unique fashion he balanced

Heshusius's emphasis on pastoral authority with the territorial and programmatic thrust of Sarcerius, while at the same time endeavoring to maintain Luther's perhaps too subtle distinction between the powers of civil and religious authorities. The task was nearly overwhelming and thus led to ever more complex discussion and refinements.

The development of consistories was one means to address concerns for discipline, yet there were other strategies to reach this same objective. While a consistory tended to distribute the disciplinary authority of the 270

ctixarch, strengthening the office of superintendent provided the opportunity to consolidate this responsibility. This was precisely what occurred in Mecklenburg, when the year

after the Conslstorialordnung was adopted, Chytraeus

composed a new "constitution” for the territory. Chytraeus used this document to clarify his own office and to designate six regional superintendents.^^® A similar tack had been adopted earlier in Hesse, when Marburg

superintendent Adam Kraft composed a new church order in

1557.^®^ Following the conclusion of the Schmalkaldic war, the suspension of the Interim, and even the return of

Landgrave Philip, Kraft believed that the official position of the superintendents offered the best hope for ecclesiastical steibility, especially in matters of discipline. He instructed the superintendents to be particularly diligent in their supervision of the clergy, and encouraged local congregations to adopt a similar emphasis by designating elders (seniores) — what he referred to as the "eyes of the bishops." Thus for both

Kraft and Chytraeus, leadership— either as superintendents or even parish elders— offered an effective alternative for meeting the demands of church discipline.

One of the strongest statements regarding the office of superintendent resulted from the efforts of Martin Chemnitz in Braunschweig. Following the departure of Morlin to

Prussia (1567), Chemnitz found himself in the enviable 271 position of being able to solicit special guarantees from both the ministerium and council in Braunschweig before agreeing to accept the office of superintendent. These arrangements were recorded as the Acta inter senatum et ministerium in dismissione D. Joach. Morlini, or more commonly, the Bestallungsordnung for Chemnitz. From the clergy, Chemnitz sought to assure support for his position and wcumed against factions within the ministerium.

Chemnitz insisted on pastoral unity for the "colloquium should be and remain one body, " and stated that he did not expect deference to his position but the kind of respect that comes from brothers.

When Chemnitz turned his thoughts to the council, he gave special emphasis to the place of discipline. Chemnitz instructed the civil authorities to diligently exercise their responsibilities in punishing sin {straffampt) , a duty they had before God-^^^ He cautioned against employing an all too common double standard— avoiding the city's elite

{groBen HanB) , yet pursuing and punishing the powerless

{kleinen Sand) . Furthermore, he encouraged the council to coordinate its disciplinary efforts with the leadership of the church. However, he made it clear that the church had its own disciplinary duties and the council should not interfere with properly administered church discipline.

Chemnitz stated that hindering church discipline crippled the authority of the ministerium and indicated that he would 272 refuse to accept the office of superintendent if the council did not recognize the validity of this church responsibility. Chemnitz won support for his position from both the council and the Braunschweig ministerium. His rather unique concessions proved that the office of superintendent could effectively coordinate the complicated issues surrounding the topic of church discipline. Visitation commissions, consistories, ministeriums, and superintendents all participated in the responsibilities that surrounded the administration of church discipline. North German territories and cities generally delegated the duties of church discipline to one or more of these groups, yet did so in a highly varied and localized fashion. For the past several pages particular attention has been given to each of these structures, especially to consistories and superintendents, in an attempt to understand the disciplinary functions that they exercised. In most instances the documents that outlined these issues were more specialized types of orders than the typical church orders considered previously. However, comprehensive church orders— those that balanced and blended the traditional elements of Credenda, Agenda and Administranda— continued to be the customary fashion of enacting religious policy on matters like church discipline. Examining several prominent examples of these kinds of documents, which were composed during the later half of the sixteenth century, will provide 273 the opportunity to see how instructions and thinking on church discipline were more formally incorporated into the church orders. In these documents, the second generation of church order authors contributed their own perspectives and ideas to the topic of discipline.

The Pomeranian revision of Bugenhagen's 1535 church order devoted one of its six articles to concerns of church discipline. The title of this section, put into final form by general-superintendant Jacob Runge (1569), indicates how concerns for discipline had become directly connected to procedural matters: "Concerning church discipline and spiritual courts.Although Runge supported a systematic and forceful approach to discipline, he challenged

"preachers, superintendents, and the consistory," to keep private offenses out of formal disciplinary proceedings.

The "spiritual courts" or consistories were to be established in three locations (Stettin, Greifswald, and

Cammin), but Runge insisted these institutions must not interfere with the duties of the superintendent.^^®

Furthermore, the eirticle on church discipline included a special section devoted to the superintendent that concentrated on the oversight and discipline of the clergy.Thus Runge, like Chemnitz, placed special disciplinary emphasis on the office of superintendent. He supported the disciplinary power offered in an institution like a consistory, but did not intend to see the authority 274

of the church eroded by seculeur jurisdiction. Runge's

insistence that the power of the "sword and keys" (Schwert

jjjid Schliissel) be kept separate, and not seized by the

prince, resulted in this attempt to juxtapose the office of

the superintendent with the creation of the consistory.

Matters of discipline were not, however, limited to this article of the church order. In a section that focused

on duties of the preachers, Runge emphasized the need for private confession and eibsolution not only as a means for

instruction and discipline, but as an opportunity for pastoral counseling interventions.^^® A Saturday evening

service, to prepare for receiving the sacreunents on Sunday, was once again the form recommended by Runge.

A separate Agenda, which was attached to the final form of the 1569 Pomeranian order, also included references to discipline, primarily in a section entitled "On the

Christian Ban." The order reiterated the position that the power of the keys belonged to the church, i.e. to the pastors cind preachers; yet, no pastor was allowed to proceed with any form of "public excommunication, without the advice and knowledge of the superintendent and the consistory.

Nevertheless, the order did provide the clergy an additional step in the disciplinaory process, prior to a formal and public declaration of excommunication by the consistory.

Following a series of warnings and confrontations with the offending party, the pastor was instructed to announce from 275 the pulpit the attempts that had been made to restore the "erring brother" and to request the support of the congregation in admonishing the recalcitrant individual.^®®

If after four weeks no reconciliation had occurred, the official process of excommunication, which required the action of the superintendent and the consistory, was to be implemented. The Agenda included a specific "Form of Public Excommunication," similar in most respects to that of

Chytraeus for Mecklenburg, as well as a "Form for public absolution and reconciliation."^®^ In summary, Runge*s church order for Pomereinia provided an extensive and multi­ faceted approach to church discipline.

The new church order for Prussia which was finally adopted in 1568 also highlighted the topic of discipline.

Given the authors of this document, this emphasis should come as no surprise. Joachim Morlin, the former

Braunschweig superintendent, had paid close attention to discipline throughout his career beginning in Gottingen, continuing during his work at Magdeburg, and most recently in Braunschweig. Martin Chemnitz, Morlin*s Braunschweig successor, assisted in the composition of the order as did George Venediger, who had worked with Jacob Runge in preparing the church order for Pomerania ; ^®^ both of these individuals were solid advocates of effective church discipline. 276

The order's initial statements on the topic of discipline were predictable and conservative. Special attention was given to various preaching opportunities and occasions for worship, one of which was a Saturday evening service specifically designed to promote confession. Morlin balêuiced the disciplinary focus of confession with an emphasis on the necessity of reinforcing catechetical instructions, especially for children.Morlin insisted that those who consistently avoided confession eind the sacraments (for "two, three, or more yeaurs") should be personally admonished from the pulpit, yet those guilty of

"shameful, damnable and horrible blasphemies” should be denied outright the sacraments and absolution.

The union of discipline with confession continued in the order's most explicit article on the topic, "On the ban and public penance." Morlin grounded his understanding of this authority in the traditional power of the keys. He referred to the first of these as the "power of order"

{potestas ordinis) or "teaching key" {lebrschliissel) of the church which he associated with the duties of procleunation.

However, he contended that the other key "is the one called the power of jurisdiction (potestas jiurisdictlonis) , in which one publicly separates manifest sinners and transgressors from the congregation, until they repent.

Having established this authority, the order then listed five instances in which the penalty of the ban should 277 be employed: 1) against parents who crush their children in their sleep; 2) against murderers; 3) against those who practice witchcraft, fortune-telling, or other superstitious behaviors; 4) against those who ridicule God's word and the sacraments; and, 5) against those who engage in general blasphemies, adulteries and offenses against the community. It is interesting to recall that item one, the sanctions directed against this particular form of infanticide, appeared in BrieBman's 1525 Prussian church order, but not in any other church order that has been examined in this study. The special concern for parents, especially mothers, crushing their children, may likewise be noted in the fact that Morlin incorporated his statements of reconciliation, including a formal statement of absolution, into his discussion of this offense rather than as a conclusion to all of the various cases.Nevertheless, even though Morlin ' s statements on the use of the ban seem rather rigorous, they maintained the evangelical intent of disciplining behavioral rather than confessional problems. Unlike other territories in northern Germany, Prussia had retained the office of the bishop and thus, there was no need to reflect further on an office like that of superintendent. This may also explain the rather traditional approach to matters like that of discipline, i.e. connecting discipline with statements on penance or using the language of canon law (potestas ordinis/ 278 jturisdictionis) , even though Morlin, with the help of Venediger and Chemnitz, cleairly incorporated his own emphasis on the power and authority of the evangelical clergy. The whole process culminated in the election of Morlin as Bishop of Samland and Venediger as Bishop of Prussian Pomeremia. This event strengthened their position both in the territory and with the clergy and provided the opportunity to follow through with their instructions on proper church discipline. Having witnessed these developments in Prussia,^®® one can certainly understand why Chemnitz was so insistent on his role as superintendent when he returned to the city of Braunschweig. The following year— the year that Duke Julius succeeded his father Heinrich the Young— the opportunity to compose a church order for the entire territory of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel presented itself, and Chemnitz quickly agreed to provide leadership to this important project. Julius also secured the services of the Tübingen chancellor, Jacob Andreae, and the two theologians collaborated on the 1569 church order. The question of church discipline was an important consideration for both of these reformers,and they incorporated this matter into several facets of their church order. Chemnitz was responsible for composing a brief statement of evangelical doctrine (corpus doctrlnae) which was placed at the beginning of the church order. In these 279 articles, Ctiemnitz referred to discipline when he discussed

the necessity of preaching the law, and in the article on

confession and absolution.Thus, the preliminary

confessional statements on discipline maintained a solidly

Luther am orientation.

The weightier discussion of aspects of church

discipline occurred in the sections dedicated to

administration. Influenced by Andreae and the Württemberg

church system, the Braunschweig church order outlined a rather elaborate hierarchy of pastors, special

superintendents, general superintendents, all of whom were

accountable to a territorial superintendent.^®^ In contrast

to the Württemberg order which emphasized the role of the

ecclesiastical council (Kircheirrath) or consistory, the

Braunschweig order gave more disciplinary authority to the

general superintendent. In this respect the interests of

Chemnitz, who stayed in the territory and fulfilled this peirticular role, superseded the more politically-centralized policies of the itinerant Andreae. Nevertheless, the order

included a lengthy article describing the duties of the

consistory and Andreae contributed an important segment

devoted exclusively to marital issues.Thus the church

structure created for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel did not

simply import patterns from Württemberg in the way that has

been suggested by both Müller and Brecht,^®® but resulted

from a creative synthesis of the ideas of both Chemnitz and 280

A n d r e a e .

In additionf the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel order

contained a special section on church discipline, ”Censtir

Oder disciplin der kirchen.” Although the authors stressed the need for "ecclesiastical penalties" that would

complement civil sanctions, they warned against anything that might done in a disorderly fashion or merely as an

individual act (privato judicio) The process they

outlined for dealing with problems was typical in many respects. However, actions of the clergy, superintendents, and even the general superintendent were all to precede the

interventions of the consistory. In this way, discipline remained an ecclesiastical affair until the final step, when one needed to proceed with public excommunication.

Furthermore, the section concluded with an admonition to the

clergy that they should never discipline someone without

first informing the special and general superintendents.^®®

Chemnitz’s advocacy of the church’s control of its own

affairs was thus carefully combined with Andreae’s emphasis

on process.

The church orders for Pomerania, Prussia, and

Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel all managed to coordinate

difficult concerns for church discipline into more general

territorial religious policy. The 1575 church order for the

city of Lüneburg provides an important example of how these matters were addressed on a much smaller scale. As noted 281 earlier, this order for Lüneburg, composed by Caspair

Godemann, expressed a special sensitivity to the obvious tension between evangelical freedom and the need for church order. This interest and emphasis also influenced the order’s discussion of church discipline.

Although Godemann included discussion of church discipline in several predictable places, i.e. in the articles relating to confession and on burials, he reserved most of his comments for a separate chapter on the subject,

"XXJX. caput. Von der Kirchenzucht.” The section on discipline was the last article of the document and was over twice as long as any of the earlier articles.One reason for the length of this section was that Godemann spent far more time than any other author of the church orders probing the biblical and historical bases for the use of church discipline. Godemann, like Heshusius previously, emphasized the need for the church to be distinct, or separate from the rest of the world. Godemann even referred to a "third mark" of the church— what he called "Christian obedience"— that must accompany the typical "two marks" of the church noted by other Lutheran theologians, i.e., the preaching of the word and proper administration of the sacraments. Godemann went so far as to insist that without these three marks, one could not speeik of the presence of the true church.

The emphasis on church discipline as a distinctive mark of the church and the implication that discipline was 282 primarily for the protection of the Christian community rather than for the benefit of individual did not concur with what others had said about this matter in their church orders. With the exception of those in Hesse, Lutheran authors of church orders avoided referring to discipline as a constitutive element of church order. For many of them this would be more characteristic of a reformed or Calvinist approach to church order.Nevertheless, along with his references to several church fathers, Godemann continued to insist that Luther himself had championed this particular emphasis on church discipline, especially in his treatise, "On the Keys.Thus, Godemann elevated the role of church discipline, but still maintained that such matters should never be pursued in a frivolous manner. After thoroughly analyzing the basis for proper church discipline, Godemann addressed the process that the church should follow in implementing particular sanctions. The order identified three categories of individuals that should be sub j ected to church discipline: 1) those who are persistent in false teaching and publicly undermine the Christian faith; 2) those who reject or avoid the sacraments of the church; and, 3) those who engage in unchristian, godless, and wicked behavior.Although Godemann did refer to matters of belief as well as behavior in this list, church discipline applied only to those who stirred up public controversy with their convictions. The process of 283 discipline involved a familiar series of warnings leading to a formal separation of the offender from the community. It is interesting to note that the terms "ban" and

"excommunication" were never used in this context. Furthermore, the process that was outlined ignored civil authorities and focused exclusively on the ecclesiastical community. Specific steps were assigned to pastors or confessors (beich'tvatter) and ultimately, the ministerium.

Even though much of this discussion regarding church discipline supported concerns for order, Godemann did not completely neglect the concept of freedom that he believed was essential to sound church order. This emphasis on liberty may be subtly detected in five limitations that he placed on the use of church discipline.First, Godemann maintained that the pulpit was not the place to designate individual offenders; instead, one should preach against sin in a general fashion. Like Luther, Godemann insisted that those who were subject to church discipline should not be prohibited from attending worship, nor should they be treated as enemies, but warned as "brothers." With this in mind, the order also reinforced the notion that church discipline should not interfere with the conduct of one's business (item four). Finally, Godemann instructed the

Christian community to continue its fellowship and ministry with those who were undergoing discipline, especially when 284 peirticulcir calamities called for Christian compassion. Thus

the overall disciplinary agenda of the Lüneburg order was clearly moderated by these limitations. For Godemann,

discipline was still, above all else, pastoral care with

implications for both the clergy and the congregation.

Whether it was territorial policy, as was the case in

Pomeremia, Prussia, and Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, or an

element of civil constitution, as evidenced in the church

order of Lüneburg, church discipline emerged as an issue

that one simply could not ignore, especially during the

latter half of the sixteenth century. Obviously the early

cautious statements on this subject gave way to much longer,

and more carefully articulated statements on the subject

that included extensive discussion of offenses, processes, and penalties. The general emphasis on church discipline

was uniform, but differences on how best to accomplish this

objective became even more pronounced. Some, like

Sarcerius, Kraft, euid Andreae looked to centralized

structures, especially to consistories, to provide the

proper balance of civil and religious jurisdiction and to

prevent a return to ecclesiastical tyranny. Others, like

Heshusius, Morlin, and Godemann were more concerned with the

potential tyranny of an unchecked magistrate, and thus

emphasized the need for the clergy and ecclesiastical bodies

to exercise their proper disciplinary authority. The

greatest success seemed to belong to trusted ecclesiastical 285 administrators, like Chemnitz, Chytraeus, and Runge, who provided a kind of institutional stability in their own offices (territorial superintendents), and whose church orders combined the most workable elements of civil and religious policy. Thus the effectiveness of a church order, especially in regaords to a difficult matter like church discipline, depended to a large degree on the person or persons involved in creating the policies established in the document.

In retrospect, this entire discussion of how the matter of church discipline was incorporated into the process of composing the church orders has provided an opportunity to observe how ecclesiastical policies came about. This case study of a particular aspect of the church order phenomenon has revealed the dynamic and divergent contributions of the church order authors. As has been demonstrated throughout this discussion, the question of discipline involved a variety of spheres of life— home, church, and the community or the what the reformers designated oeconomla, ecclesla, and polltica. It was the task of the authors of the orders to blend these elements in documents that focused on religious matters, but which had clear implications for other dimensions of personal and corporate experience.

With this emphasis in mind, a few important observations may be offered in conclusion. 286

First of all, attempts to link chxirch. discipline exclusively, or even primarily with the question of early modern political centralization reflects a rather artificial understanding of the church order process. In a few places such as Electoral Scixony or Mecklenburg, institutions like consistories effectively served the state-building interests of the magistrates and the princes encouraged their success.

However, the disputes over the role of discipline in places like Goslar, Magdeburg, Prussia, and Ducal Saxony were more typical than exceptional and underscore the primarily religious objectives that were intended. Furthermore, in approaching an issue like discipline, the first question of the authors of the church orders was not "What would make effective religious policy?," but "What do the scriptures teach on this subject and how Ccin one best apply this, and the statements of our own confessions, to my church, city or territory?" What was subsequently enacted on issues like confession and discipline, the bcin, Christian burial, sponsorship, and the range of other disciplinary questions, derived from this biblical and pastoral orientation.

Discipline related above all to church-building, not state- building.

In a similar fashion, the unbalanced depiction of church discipline as a means of social control must be restrained by greater attention to the notion of pastoral care. Discipline was not an element of church order that 287 was tacked on when evangelical leaders felt things were getting out of hand. Church discipline featured in the very first orders written for places like Leisnig, Stralsund, and

Prussia, well before social turmoil challenged the evolution of the Lutheran institutions. Certainly, one cannot deny that discipline did in fact receive more and more attention in the church orders during the subsequent half century.

Nevertheless, the escalating discussion of church discipline was more than a mere reaction to social revolutioneuries, sectarian "heretics," or an apathetic and immoral public, but emerged from the need to offer better understanding and more effective institutional approaches. Luther*s early appeal to discipline as a means of social justice and fairness did not escape the attention of Chemnitz who demanded discipline for the same reason. Devoting attention to discipline was one way to assure that stemdards and sanctions were clear to all and applied to all. Thus the process of order could also serve the purpose of freedom by clcirifying the boundaries of Christiam faith, for both individuals and communities.

Finally, this religious orientation to the issue of discipline makes sense since the persons who were establishing these policies were pastors, superintendents and theologians. Their orientation was both pastoral and practical and this reveals itself repeatedly in the church orders. In church order after church order, it is clear 288 that they incorporated their own unique perspectives and conclusions,

Thus fcir the investment of these individuals in the breadth of the church order process, and their particular contributions to the problem of church discipline have been

identified eind analyzed. The next chapter will conclude the

study by examining in greater detail the network of church order authors. Evaluating their personal and professional backgrounds, the course of their careers, and the

interrelationships and experiences that held this group together will support the development of the church order enterprise established in this dissertation. This

collective appraisal will provide clear evidence of a

special kind of expertise that one might refer to as

"church—craft." It was as those charged with this responsibility of church-craft that these reformers

attempted to fashion institutions that continued to balance the notions of ordo and libertas. 289

ENDNOTES

1. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 939; see also, Cr. Sallust, Bellum lugurthlvua (Loeb Classical Library) 10,6.

2. Ozment, Reformation in the Cities, p. 155.

3. Strauss, Law, p. 229. 4. Gerd Oestreich, Strukturprobleme des europaischen Absolutismus (Münich, 1932) , p. 338.

5. Scribner has written of the subtle yet important difference between prescriptive ideals and the realities authorities, both secular and religious, were able to accomplish. However Scribners use of the term "Police state" for to refer to the Polizeiordnungen of the 16th century is misleading. See Robert Scribner, "Police- and Territorial State in Sixteenth Century Württemberg," in E. I. Kouri, ed., Society and Politics in Reformation Europe (London: McMillan Press, 1987), pp. 103-05.

6. This general conclusion has been recently challenged by Munch who examined the confessional changes in Nassau— Dillenberg, Hessen-Kassel and the electoral Palatinate, see Munch, Zucht und Ordnung, pp. 116— 18.

7. See Thomas Tentler, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977); Gerald Strauss, Luther’s House of Learning, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1978) ; Paul Munch, Zucht und Ordnung: Reformierten Kirchenverfassungen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert ( Stuttgart : 1978) ; Volker Press, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat. Regierung und Zentralbehorden der Kurpfalz 1559—1619 (Stuttgart, 1970); and, Heinz Schilling, Konfessionskonflikt und Staatsbildung. Eine Fallstudie fiber das Verhaltnis von religiosem und sozialem Wandel in der Friihneuzeit am Beispiel der Grafschaft Lippe (Gutersloh, 1981).

8. Erich Roth, Die Privatbeichte und die Schliisselgewalt in der Theologie der Reformatoren (Gutersloh, 1952). 9. See especially Johannes Heckel, "Initia iuris ecclesiasticum Protestantium, " in Lex Charitatis, pp. 420- 25.

10. See Ruth Gotze, Wie Luther Kirchenzucht ubte: Eine kritische Untersuchung von Luthers Bannsprechen und ihrer exegetische Grundlegung aus der Sicht unserer Zeit (Gottingen, 1958). 290 11. See Heckel, "Kirche und Kirchenrecht nach der Zwei- Reiche-Lehre," in Lex Charitatis, pp. 354-408; and Munch, Zucht uzid Ordnung, p. 12. 12. See Amy Nelson Burnett, "Penance and Church Discipline in Bucer." 13. See both Brecht, Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht, pp. 9-52, and James Estes, Christian Magistrate and State Churchz The Reforming Career of Johannes Brenz (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982), pp. 59—104. 14. Sehling, EKO I: 598. 15. See Werner Elert, "Der bischofliche Charakter der Superintendentur—Verfassung, " Luthertum 46 (1935): 353—67. 16. See Article 6 of the Stralsund Kirchen- und Schulordnung, "De averste prediger schall darup sehen, dat de prediger gades wort recht vohem und datsulvige mit enem gottlicken leven zieren." The order further noted that when problems were found, "schall ein ersam rath dessulven [the superintendent] orloff geven, un nah rade dessulven aversten predigers enen anderen vodem, dat nene orsacke blive den gottlosen, gades wort to lastem des bosen levendes halfen der prediger," Sehling, EKO IV: 542. 17. See esp. Article 43 of the Stralsund order, Sehling, EKO IV: 545. 18. So Article 46, Sehling, EKO IV: 545. 19. Article 2 stated, "Es soil forthin kein bann mehr sein noch gelten, der ohne grund des gottlichen wortes die gewissen beschwere und durch menschen-satzung allein zwinget," Sehling, EKO IV: 29. 20. This service could occur after the morning matins or at another appropriate time so that, "der jenigen, so das hochwirdige sacrament zuentpfahen gedenken, warten, sie kürzlich underrichten, und widerum samtlichen und sonderlichen nach gelegenheit horen etc.," Sehling, EKO IV: 33. 21. See the section, "Von offentlicher busse," Sehling, EKO IV: 34. 22. See Sehling, EKO IV: 38, 70. 23. See Sehling, EKO IV: 41. 24. See Sehling, EKO VIII: 14-15. 291 25. See section 6, "De confessione, •* Sehling, EKO VTII; 48.

26. "Quia sint non potest, ut ecclesiae sint ordinatae, nisi ab eis falsi fratres..." Sehling, EKO VIII: 54.

27. For a summary of the Lutheran reformers on this matter see. Barton, Urn Luthers Erbe, pp. 62-80; and the article "Kirchenzucht," in THE 19, pp. 420-32.

28. Sehling, EKO VIII: 54.

29. Sehling, EKO VIII: 55.

30. See Muller, Francis Lambert von Avignon, p. 47.

31. WA 26: 220.

32. Luther lamented the devolution of the episcopal office that fostered the ecclesiastical immunities of the "Send odder Synodus" emd noted further, "Denn das man [any ecclesiastical official] die leute umb gelt, schuld und zeitlich gut geladen und verbcinnet odder einen divinum ordinem von den antiphen und versicklen ynn kirchen zu loren gestellet hat," WA 26: 196.

33. "Es were auch gut, das man die straffe des rechten und Christlichen Banns, geschrieben stehet Matthei am achtzehenden, nicht ganz liesse abgehen," WA 26: 233. 34. "...sonderlich zu erweckung falscher lere und des auffruhrs, so sol der Superattendens solchs unverzuglich dem Amptman anzeigen, Welcher denn solchs furt unserm Gnedigsten h e r m dem Churfürsten vermelden sol, Damit seine Churfürstliche Gnaden hirynn ynn der zeit billichen versehung fiirwenden miigen," WA 26: 235.

35. Note Luther's earlier comments to Philip of Hesse, W A B r 4: 157-58.

36. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 373.

37. See Bugenhagen's introductory comments, Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 348-50. Note too the comments of Corvinus, Wahrhafftig bericht, sig. D^.

38. "Alleyne wedder Gades wort schole wy nicht dohn umme der overicheit willen, wente dar is Got de hogste overicheit, alse Christus leret, dat me deme keysere geve, wat dem keysere gehort, unde Gade, wat Gade gehort, de schal alleyne over unse herschen, darbey schole wy laten allent, wat wy sint unde hebben," Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 373. 292

39. "Vortierden se, so late me den christenban over sen gan, dat se nicht mehr vein unser bruderschop vor Christene werden geholden, ock nicht mehr to gelaten tome sacramente...” Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 374.

40. Bugenhagen stated that the pastors (predicanten drdel) were to act in the name of the congregation (imme namme der gemeyne) , Sehling, EKO VI: l: 384.

41. **...mit em handelen mit eyneme borgere unde nit mit eyneme Christene,” Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 384—85.

42. See note 86 for a reference to Braunschweig's historic civil code in Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 385.

43. See the section, "Vam superattendenten und synem hulper,” Sehling, EKO V: 501.

44. See Bugenhagen, Von mancherley Chrlstensachen, sig. Aij^.

45. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 909.

46. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 909.

47. Sutel argued that one should have no fellowship with, "eyn boler, gytziger edder eyn affgodischer edder eyn schelder edder eyn drunkenbolthe edder eyn rover," Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 911.

48. "Derjennigen aver, szo ahn Godes worth sick nicht betthem willen unde der ghemeyne straffe verachten, de schullen doch von der overicheyt ohre vordeynhen straffe uppet alleremst 1 igesthe entfangen, ” EKO VI: 2: 911.

49. See Sehling, EKO XI: 130, 132.

50. Sehling, EKO XI: 138.

51. See Estes, Christian Magistrate, pp. 82-89.

52. See in particular, the comments of Gottfried SeebciB in Andreas Osiander, Gesamtausgabe 4, Gerhard Müller, ed. (Gutersloh, 1981), pp. 344-48.

53. See Spengler's introduction and opinion in Osiander, Gesamtausgabe 4, pp. 349-64.

54. The second opinion on the ban is recorded in Osiander, Gesamtausgabe 4, pp. 364-69. 293

55. W A B r 6z 338-41.

56. See Sehling, EKO XI: 118—22; SeebaB, Andreas Osiander, pp. 237-40; Estes, Brenz, p. 91.

57. See Bugenhagen, Von Mancherley Cbristlichen Sachen, sig. aij^. This emphasis was further supported by the full frontpiece of this treatise which indicated the tract was written, "wider die irrigen secten..."

58. See Corvinus, Warbafftige bericht, sigs. [Biiij]- [Ciiij^]

59. The oath read, "Ich rede und gelobe, daB ich cihn WiBen und willen der Pfarrherren nicht neues lehr en, predigen und amheben wil, noch mit Ceremonien oder sonsten, was wieder Gottes Wort und diese gestalte Ordnung ist," Richte r I, p. 154.

60. Richter I, p. 155.

61. Amsdorf defined a non—Christian burial as, "ohne Creuz und Gesang, ahn Begleitung der Predicanten begraben sollen... sollen sie ahne Schuler begraben werden..." R i c h t e r I, p. 156.

62. Bugenhagen's preface to the Bremen church order stated, "ock dat juwe Stadt Got gnedichlich bewaret hefft vor falsche lere/ und Swermerye/ de uprorisch ys/ wedder de overicheit/ und verforet beide liff und seele," Johemn Timann, Der Erentrlken Stadt Bremen/ Chrlstllke Ordenlnge (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1534), sig. Aiij^.

63. "De byndt Slotel ys eyn Godtlick drouwer word dar mede alle den godtlosen/ halstarben/ vorstockenden/ unbotverdigen graven sunders/ unde huchlers/ ere Sunde unde ogen gestellet werden/ unde drouwet mit Gades tom/ unde holscher vordomenisse..." Timann, Bremen, sig. Biiij.

64. Timann, Bremen, sigs. Bv-v^.

65. See the sections "Wedder vornemlike Sunde, " "Wedder de uprorischen, " "Wedder Eebreckers unde horenyegers, " "Wedder de Swelgers," "Wedder de Affgôdeschen, " and "Wedder de Secten makers," in Timann, Bremen, sigs. C-[Cvij].

66. See the section, "Van predychampt, " Sehling, EKO VI: i: 648-49.

67. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 1008. 294 68. See Stupperichi, Reforma.torenlexikon, pp. 159, 208.

69. Note both the introductory and concluding comments to the order, Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 998-1000; 1013-17.

70. See Gunter Franz, ed., Urkiznllcbe Quellen zur Refoirmationsg-eschicbte, 4, Wlederbauferakten, 1527-1626 (Marburg, 1951), p. 234.

71. This emphasis on the development of Bucer ' s thought is the point of Bumett, "Penance and Church Discipline in the Thought of Bucer," pp. 170-223.

72. "Nun diesen eltesten solle neben und mit den dienem des worts die gemeine seelsorg und der hirtendienste in jeden kirchen aufgelegt und befohlen ist..." Sehling, EKO VIII; 102. For more on this office see J. Oecolampadius, Ordnung die aln Ersamer Ratb der statt Dim, in Ricbter, I, pp. 157-59. For Bucer see also, Gottfried Hammann, Entre la Secte et la Cité. Le Projet d ’Église du Réformateur Martin Bucer (1491-1551) (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984).

73. Sehling, EKO VIII: 104. See also, Wilhelm Maurer, Gemeindezucbt, Gemeindeamt, Konfirmation. Eine Hessiscbe Sakularerinnerung (Kassel, 1940).

74. Sehling, EKO VIII: 105-6.

75. See Sehling, EKO VIII: 108.

76. See the section "Von der Kirchenzucht," Sehling, EKO VIII: 127.

77. Several of features may be noted in a textual variant of the original church order, which was also printed in 1539. See Sehling, EKO VIII: 113, 122.

78. Sehling, EKO VIII: 118.

79. Note the response of Melanchthon to Corvinus's inquiry about the propriety of secular authorities, i.e. a council, initiating a form of the ban (politica excommunicatio) , CR II: 813.

80. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 938.

81. Sehling, EKO III: 47-50.

82. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikonf p. 109.

83. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 736. 295 84. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 717-28.

85. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 751-52.

86. Note in particular the comments of Bugenhagen in Vogt, Briefwecbsel, p. 259. See also the tracts written against Duke Heinrich, Nicholaus Amsdorf, Eine Getichte darin angezeigt wird wie from Hertzog Heinrich von Braunschweig vind wie hose die Lutherischen sein (Wittenberg, 1541) ; aoid Martin Luther, Wider Hans Wursiz, in WA 51: 469-572.

87. For several examples of these relationship, see Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, pp. 199-200, 239-40, 261-63.

88. Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 67.

89. "Wente de grote ban, dar sick de pawest und papen tho ingedrungen hebben, gehort slicht der wertliken overicheit tho," Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 67.

90. Vogt, Bugenhagens Briefwechsel, pp. 260-61.

91. Ibid.

92. Sehling EKO VI: 2: 48.

93. Note the problems surrounding the institution of the consistory in Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 47-8.

94. "Darumme scholen se ock macht hebben, tho citeren und tho straff en na Christus regel, Matth. 18. Volt overst de sake der weltliken overicheit tho straffende, so scholen se yd darhen wysen. Und der overicheit scholen se antogen, dat se straffen schal offentlike horerye, ehebrekerye, woker etc." Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 49.

95. Note the comments of Sehling regarding Jonas's, "Der theologen bedenken von wegen der consistoren, so ufgericht sollen werden, in Sehling, EKO I: 55-8.

96. See Corvinus's Constitutiones aliquot synodales, in Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 866-77.

97. See Krumwiede, p. 38; and Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 5.

98. Sehling, EKO 2 : 393.

99. See the section, "Von eheleuten, wie man die einleiten sol," Sehling, Xlt 642

100. Sehling, VIIi 1: 225. 296 101. See cirticles 7 and 8, Settling, EKO VII: 1: 227.

102. Consistories were to be erected not only at Wittenberg, but at Zeitz and Zwickau, Sehling, EKO I: 201,

103. See the section, "Artickel der inquisition," Sehling, EKO I: 205-06.

104. Sehling, EKO I: 206-07.

105."Entlich nachdem kirchen regiment nit so ein geringe sach ist,als solle sich die kirchen selb regieren, selb in ordnung christlich zucht bauen und erhalden, sonder ein hohe gott lich cunpt ist, zu bewachen, zu weiden die scheflin und herde Christi, wie der apostel Paulus in act 20. anzeigt, und wie auch gottfurchtige christliche lerer ein sprichwort gehabt, ars artium cura animarum, so ist nit allés mugi ich in korz schrift zu fassen," Sehling, EKO II: 547.

106. Seethe church orders of Corvinus for Northeim(1539) , or Morlin for Prussia (1568). Several church orders included sections on the ban just after discussing policies of care for the sick, see the orders of Bugenhagen for Braunschweig (1528), Hamburg (1529), and Lübeck (1531); as well as the order of Bucer, et. al., for Cologne (1543).

107. Sehling, EKO XIII: 419-20.

108. The questions were to be addressed to individuals, but their intent was to elicit a clear statement of faith. The questions began, "Nun, N., du solst mir itz zu deinem trost auf etliche fragen emtwort geben..." Sehling, EKO XIII: 426.

109. Tentler argues that Luther*s exclusive emphasis on the role of consolation in confession undermined any disciplinary quality of former sacramenta1 confession. Thus, even though Luther and other evangelicals continued to insist on the need for private confession, they had already effectively subverted its value by linking absolution with personal faith, Tentler, Sin and Confession, pp. 349-63. Unfortunately, Tentler falls into the all too common trap of trying to explain the breadth of evangelical thought and experience exclusively through the eyes of Luther.

110. See the section, "Van der absolution und excommunication," in his Buxtehude church order, Sehling, EKO VII: 1: 81.

111. See "Van tucht und ehrbarheit der kerkendenere," Sehling, EKO VII: l: 86.

112. Richter I, p. 147. 297

113. "Solchs gereichet auch nicht zu schaden oder schande (denn man sich bereit zu schanden gemacht) sondem zu ehren Gott und den menschen, und zu gedeien an leib und seele, welchs wir denn auch nach unserm ampt all eine darinnen suchen," Richter II, p. 148.

114. Richter II, p. 148. 115. See both Article 4, "Von denen lautere Papisten sein und biss an ihr ende bleiben," and Article 5, "Von denen, so von den Papisten ordines oder weihe Oder prebenden fur sich, ire kinder oder Freundschaft empfahen, " Richter II, pp. 148- 49. 116. Erasmus Sarcerius, Form und Weise einer vlsitailon fiir die graff und herschafft Mansfelt (Eisleben, 1554) sig. A^.

117. For tAe entire list see, Sarcerius, Foorm und Fi^eise, sigs. A.^-B^4 118. "Damit auch durch das gantze jar, bis auff ein ide Visitation, Gottesfurcht, zucht, tugend und ehrbarkeit erhalten werde, so mus man dieser Visitation vier Senschepffen in einer jeden Gemeine verordenen..." Sarcerius, Form und Welse,

119. See Sarcerius, Form und Weise, B^.

120. "Denn sie neben den Geistlichen/ in den Consistoriis/ ire weltliche Rethe mogen und sollen zuordenen/ gelerte/ geschickte/ weise/ kluge/ und erfame leute/ die alle sachen von wegen fürsten und herren mit handeln/ und sehen und horen darzu/ was man handelt," Erasmus Sarcerius, Von christllchen notigen/und nutzen consistorlen oder geistlichen gerichten/ Erasmi Sarcerii einfeltiges bedencken (Eisleben, 1555), sig.

121. Sarcerius, Von Consistorien, sig. A^.

122. See Sarcerius, Von consistorien, sigs. B-B^^.

123. Ibid.

124. For a more extensive survey of Heshusius's thinking and teaching on this subject see Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, pp. 80-119.

125. Note in particular the issues identified in Richter II, pp. 164—67.

126. See Barton, Dm Luthers Erbe, pp. 54-55. 298

127. See Kolb, "MattJieus Judex,” pp. 403-4; and Sebling, EKO I: 65-66.

128. See the section, "Form und ordnung, der execution und volstreckung des consisterii, bannes oder anderer befelch,” Sehling, EKO I: 232.

129. See Sehling, EKO I: 66, 233-41.

130. Aurifaber*s, using the ideas of Melanchthon, sought to establish a consistory for Mecklenburg; see the order, Kirchenordnung^ so in unsem, Johann Albrechts, von gottes gnaden herzogen zu Mecklenburg, Sehling, EKO V: 193-95.

131. "Das consistorium ist als ein gemein kirchen-gericht erwelt und geordnet, darum hat es auch im namen der kirchen macht und gewalt..." Sehling, EKO V: 234.

132. "Tit. XI. Von execution der urtheil, strafen und vertragenen sachen," Sehling, EKO V: 241-42.

133. Sehling, EKO V: 242.

134. Sehling, EKO V: 243-45.

135. See Erasmus Sarcerius, Ein Bizchlein/ von dem Banne/ und andem kirchenstraffen/ Aus Gottes wort/ aus Apostolischen lere/ aus der Vater Bûcher/ und aus unserer fumemsten Theologen Schrifften/ zusamen gezogen (Eisleben, 1555) , sigs. E^; and, "Die Form der excommunication" of the Jena articles in Sehling, EKO I: 240-41.

136. See "Von execution des bannes," Sehling, EKO V: 246.

137. Luther sought to distinguish between the proper use of the ban and abuses, most of which centered on sanctions that transcended proper church jurisdiction. See Martin Luther, "Ein Sermon von dem Bann," (1520), WA 6; 63-75.

138. See Constitution der hertzogen zu Meckelburgk... Wie es hinfüro mit den superintendentzen, auch kirchenpersonen und giitern und etlicher dabei befunder mengel halben in I. F. G. landen gehalten werden sol, Sehling, EKO V: 247-50.

139. See, Ordenung Christlicher Lehre und Zucht, Sehling, EKO VIII: 161-65.

140. Here Kraft reiterated the offices established for Hesse in Bucer * s Zeigenhain Zuchtordnung, see Sehling, EKO VIII: 164. 299

141. Chemnitz noted at least one instance where the fraternal nnity of the colloquium had been fractured. The incident involved the alleged Calvinist Joheinn Becker, "Articuli propositi reverendo ministerio ecclesiae Brunsvicensis," Sehling, EKO VI; 1: 461—62.

142. See in particular item two under the section “Articuli propositi amplissimo senatui praemissis praemittendes,” Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 463-65.

143. "Das ein ehrbar rath die kirchendisciplin nicht wolte hindem, sondem for de m helfen, weil die bindeschlussel ein notig stuck und tiel ist des ministerii, ohne welliches das ministerium nicht kan recht gefuhret werden," Sehling EKO VI: 1: 465.

144. See the Pommeraniem church order, "Dat driidde deel. Van der kerken disciplin unde geistlicken gerichte," Sehling, EKO IV: 388-95.

145. "Unde darmit dises gerichtes halven de superintendens sines amts to war en nicht vorhindert, schal de direction aller saken einem van den deputerten juristen bevalen werden, de ock de citationes, affscheide unde andere nodtroft vorverdigen schal," Sehling, EKO IV: 389.

146. The article even included a special section on semctions against clergy, "Van strafe der kercken personen," Sehling, EKO IV: 390-91.

147. Runge's position on this matter actually impeded the adoption of this church order. Some believed that Runge was actually advocating a restoration of episcopal power with all of its attendant problems. Runge, however, was more interested in some ecclesiastical authority to check secular power. See Sehling, EKO IV: 323-24.

148. Note the subsection, "Von der bicht und absolution" Sehling, EKO IV: 387-88.

149. Sehling, EKO IV: 454.

150. Sehling, EKO IV: 454-55.

151. For these statements see, Sehling, EKO IV:455-58.

152. In fact, Venediger had also served since 1563 in the position of general-superintendent im Pomerania, see Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 213.

153. Note in particular item 5 in the section "Von der beicht und absolution," Sehling, EKO IV: 77. 300 154. Sehling, EKO IV: 95. 155. For the list and comments on each item see Sehling, EKO IV: 95-98. 156. See "Form der reconciliation und absolution," Sehling, EKO IV: 96. 157. Their duties and authority, especially in relationship to the clergy in Prussia were outlined in the document. Von exrwehlvmg der beiden bischoff Samlandt und Pomezan, im hejrtzogthumb Preussen, auch von irem ampt. This order substituted for the typical discussion of the office of superintendent one would find in other orders, see Sehling, EKO IV: 107-22. 158. Although Chemnitz had already returned to Braunschweig by the time of the episcopal elections and before the formal adoption of the church order, he had been present for the beginning of the process. Chemnitz worked with Morlin to assemble a new "Corpus doctrinae" for Prussia, and assisted with the early stages of the church order, see Sehling, EKO IV: 25. 159. Andreae had disputed with Brenz earlier in his career over the benefits of congregational vs. territorial policies in regards to discipline, see Estes, Christian Magistrate, pp. 97-100. 160. See the beginning of the section, "Von unterscheid des gesetzes und evangelii," Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 98-99. 161. Sehling, EKO IV: 1: 120. 162. See Kolb, Andreae, p. 43; and Müller, "Die Anfange der Konsistorialverfassung," pp. 16-21. 163. Note in particular the "Verzeichnis" of this structure reproduced in Sehling, EKO VI:1: 203-05. 164. These type of centralization was Brenz's objective earlier in Württemberg. See Brecht, Kirchenordnung, pp. 32- 9; and Estes, Christian Magistrate, pp. 73-80. The structure established by Brenz for Württemberg (1559) incorporated a group of ecclesiastical councillors called the Kirchenrate; the name for this council was changed to the more conventional consistory when it was adapted for the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel order, see Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 6- 7, 210. 301

165. Andreae*s "Ordnung in eesachen" covered a variety of issues including proper marriage arrangements and contracts, problems of divorce and eibandonment, and list of rules surrounding blood-relations. See Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 214- 25.

166. See Brecht,-JCirchenordnimg xmd Kirchenzucht, 9-10; and, Müller, "Die Anfange der Konsistorialverfassung," 13- 30.

167. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 206.

168. "Jedoch, da die miBhandlung so lesterlich und ergerlich, das die straff nicht wol one merklichen nachteil und ergemiB der kirchen verzogen und obgemelter massen nacheinander gehandelt werden mocht, so sol ohne vogehende ermanung der pfarher des orts, da die ergerliche person gesessen, solches seinem verordenten special und derselb volgends dem generalsuperintendenten mit guten umbstenden berichten..." Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 208.

169. The next longest section was chapter four which included the responsibilities of the preaching office and several liturgical matters, see Sehling, EKO VI: l: 656— 64.

170. "Darumb wo gemelte drey kennezeichen [the marks] nicht vorhanden seind, oder eins von denselben mangelt, da kan gewislich keine rechte, wahre, heiliche, christliche kirche sein..." Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 677.

171. Note the discussion of Calvinist models of discipline in TJRE 19, pp. 177—79; 181-82. See also, Gottfried Galli, Die Lutherischen und Calvinischen Kirchenstrafen gegen Laien in Reformationszeitalter (Breslau, 1879) ; Heinz Schilling, Reformierte Kirchenzucht als Sozialdisziplinierung? Die Tatigkeit des Emder Prebyteriums in des Jahres 1557-1562 (Cologne, 1983); and Raymond Mentzer, "Disciplina nervus eccesliae: The Calvinist Reform of Morals at Nimes," Sixteenth Century J'oumal 18 (1987) : 88-99.

172. Noted the repeated references of Gddemann to this document, and Luther's "Sermon on the Ban," Sehling, EKO VI: 2: 679-84.

173. "Auch soil darin nicht leichtfertigerweyse aus bosem argwon furgenohmmen werden, damit nicht clavis errans daraus werde, wie in papatu geschehen ist, sondern soil allés mit besonderem bedacht und fursichtigkeit aus gutem grunde geschehen," Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 684.

174. Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 685. 302 175. See the steps of discipline, one through four, in Sehling, EKO VI: l: 685-86.

176. See Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 686-87.

177. For Luther, see WA 6: 300. On Chemnitz, see Sehling, EKO VI: 1: 225. CHAPTER V

VERFASSSR DER KIRCHENORNUNGENi THE MAKERS OF CHURCH ORDERS

One of the most well known paintings by the younger

Lucas Cranach depicts Luther in the midst of several of his contemporaries eind collaborators*^ Cranach entitled the picture ”Lather mit Reformatoren” or "Luther with the reformers." Among those poised around Luther, Cranach included several individuals who have featured prominently in this study: Philip Melanchthon, Justus Jonas, Caspar

Cruciger, and Johann Bugenhagen. This rather unique collective portrait of the Lutheran reformation represents the kind of emphasis that has been developed over the past several chapters. The church order process, as only one vital element of this multi-faceted reform movement, required contributions from a network of individuals much greater than a single person or even the small circle gathered around Luther. Meleuichthon, Jonas, Cruciger,

Bugenhagen and even Luther directly influenced the institutional growth associated with the church orders, but they were only part of a much larger group that created the

North German church orders. The task of this present chapter is to add greater clcurity and definition to the 303 304 collective portrait of church order authors that has already been outlined.

Some of the approach that will be employed in this group analysis has been adapted from Lauro Martines's engaging study. Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance

Florence (1968). Martines argues that the study of groups of individuals has two particular benefits. On the one hand, focusing on groups "allows the historical to observe individuals, to get away from impersonal forces to the men who made decisions. On the other hand, the study of groups affords a check on the all too common tendency to become lost entirely in individual contributions, which frequently results in a failure to see critical common factors that can enable broader conclusions and generalizations. In his study, Martines describes the personal backgrounds, training, and diverse duties of the

Florentine Arte dei Giudici e Notae and develops their influence on the internal and external policies of the

Florentine state during a 150 year period (1380-1530) .

Overall, Martines' work effectively weds elements of biography with a greater appreciation for shared experience and corporate identity.

The model that Martines employs is especially helpful for understanding the collective effort of the church order authors. However, some important differences in circumstance change the dynamics of the present 305

investigation. First of all, by selecting Florence,

Martines offers a much, neorrower geographical center for his research. Even though this dissertation focuses generally

on northern Germany, the range of territories is far more

complicated than was the case for Martines. Fortunately, however, the group itself is smaller. While Martines was

confronted with over 200 persons who had some relationship to the guild of lawyers,^ the network of church order

authors is confined to the approximately 35 individuals who have been identified during the course of this study and who

are represented in the Appendix. In addition, Martines

investigates a century and a half of Florentine politics while the present study is limited to two generations or 60 yeeirs (1520-1580). Finally, there was no formal guild of

church order authors. Nevertheless, the informal network

that emerged among the individuals who assumed this particular responsibility created a unique form of professional fraternity. The objective of this chapter is

to describe the fundamental aspects of this fraternity and

to note crucial elements of similarity and divergence.

In order to analyze the network of church order

authors, it will be necessary to consider several important

factors. The first issue to be addressed will be that of

basic chronology. Chapters one through three have

chronicled the evolution of the North German church orders with particular attention to who was involved when, as well 306

as where. In that discussion, peirticular periods were designated and reference has been made to the idea of a

first and second generation of authors. These designations warrant further investigation and clarification in an attempt to connect individuals who contributed to the process at roughly the same points in time. In the next

section, matters of personal background will be examined with an interest in correlating places of origin, social position, cind subsequent family experience. This analysis of personal background will be followed by a discussion of educational preparation. Specific attention will be given to where academic and professional training occurred, what courses of study were pursued, and what degree levels were achieved. Finally, and most importantly, discussion will be devoted to the careers of the makers of church orders. The various ecclesiastical, academic, and civic duties of these

individuals will be compared and contrasted with an eye to identifying typical duties and common career moves.

Professional connections will be further evaluated by observing where individuals worked and wih whom they interacted.

Emerging from this investigation will be a much clearer picture of how the individuals who composed the church orders formed an informal, but clearly influential network.

Martines has indicated that the Florentine lawyers contributed in a remarkable way to the development of 307 statecraft in Italy.^ In a parallel fashion, and adapting the definition of Martines, the church order authors initiated and developed their own expertise in church-craft, i.e., the skill in the management of ecclesiastical affairs.® Their special contributions to matters like church discipline and their ongoing attempts to balance a concern for sound church order with the evangelical concept of liberty emerged from their abilities in this area.

I. The_^uestio^_of_^^o^logr_^and__^he_^wo^_^nerations Throughout this study, special emphasis has been given to the evolution of the church order phenomenon. Both in outlining the process of composing the North German church orders, and in discussing the development of the concept of discipline, close attention has been paid to chronology. Thus, it seems entirely fitting to continue this cinalysis of who was involved in the task by beginning with an appraisal of when these reformers were active. Attention to matters of chronology supports the idea that two fairly distinct generations of individual composed the bulk of the North German church orders. One way to gauge the validity of this generational designation is to consider the factor of age by surveying dates of birth. Table 1 summarizes the available information on birth dates and several observations may be drawn from this data. 308

TABLE 1

BIRTH DATES: CHURCH ORDER AUTHORS Year of Birth Reformer ( 1485 Bugenhagen 1486 1487 Lambert 1488 Amsdorf, BrleBman, Oldendorp 1489 Rhegius 1490 Myconius 1491 Bucer 1492 1493 Jonas, Kraft, Winkel 1494 1495 1496 1497 Melanchthon 1498 Kymaeus, Osiander 1499 Aepinus, Brenz, Menius 1500 Omeken 1501 Corvinus, Sarcerius, Timann 1502 1503 Pistorius 1504 Bonnus, Sutel, Cruciger 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 Morlin 1515 1516 1517 Aurifaber 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 Chemnitz 1523 1524 1525 Hamelmann 1526 1527 Heshusius, Runge 1528 Andreae 1529 Godemann 1530 Selnecker 1531 Chytraeus 3 0 9

Although it is impossible to generate precise generational boundaries based solely on the criteria of birth dates, one can discern important clusters of individuals. The first generation of church order authors consists of those who wrote most of their documents prior to onset of the Schmalkaldic War (1546-52) . Those who fit into this category were born during a twenty year period extending from 1485 until 1504.® Bugenhagen was the oldest member of this group while Bonnus, Sutel and Cruciger were the youngest. Twenty years is a rather broad time designation, as it comprises nearly a generation in itself, yet the composition of this group represents individuals who clearly worked together as contemporaries. Within this first generation, one may discern a further aspect of age clustering, or what might be designated as an older and younger group. The members of the older group were all born within a decade of Luther (1483) , with Bugenhagen (1485) again the elder of the group, while Jonas, Kraft, and

Heinrich Winkel— all born in 1493— were the junior members.

The younger group within the first generation had birth dates that clustered around the year 1500, with Melanchthon

(1497) the oldest, and Bonnus, Sutel and Cruciger— all born

in 1504— the youngest.

In reflecting on this first generation, a few observations call for comment. As one might expect, the older members of the this network composed the very first 310 chxirch orders. Amsdorf, BrieBman, and Lambert were the oldest of the group (after Bugenhagen) and pioneered the church order effort with their works for Magdeburg (1524) , Prussia (1525), and Hesse (1526) respectively. Exceptional in this regard, however, was the work of Johann Aepinus who at the age of 26 wrote the first church order for Stralsund ( 1 5 2 5 ) Nevertheless, within this first generation itself, age really played a very limited role, for these individuals worked together closely as associates. Repeatedly, members of the "older" and "younger" groups collaborated on composing a church order, i.e. Bugenhagen and Corvinus in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (1543) and Hildesheim (1544); Amsdorf and Sarcerius in Magdeburg (1554); Rhegius and Omeken in Soest (1532), Bucer, Melanchthon, and Bonnus in Cologne; or Kraft and Kymaeus in Hesse (1539). This spirit of cooperation and collaboration seemed to permeate the inception of the church order process. Before concluding these comments on the first generation, it is appropriate to reiterate a point made in chapter three. Of the twenty-five reformers who comprised this first generation of North German church order authors, only a handful continued to write church orders after the conclusion of the Schmalkaldic war.® Following the settlement of the Peace of Augsburg, only three were still active— Kraft, Kymaeus, and Pistorius, all in Hesse. After the yeeir 1560, only the Hessian Pistorius continued to play 311 an active role in this institutional effort and he

contributed his last church order for Hesse 1567.® Thus,

although a few members of the first generation aided in

revitalizing the church order effort in the decade following

the war, their real accomplishments belonged to the previous

years of expansion, especially to the 1530s and early 1540s.

Returning to the information contained in Table 1, one

can observe a very obvious gap that distinguishes members of

the first generation from those of the second. Almost two

decades separate the birth dates of the last members of the

first generation— Bonnus, sutel, and Cruciger— from that of

the youngest member of the second generation, Martin

Chemnitz. Only two individuals born during the decade of

the 1510s subsequently contributed to the church order

process, Joachim Morlin (b. 1514) and Johann Aurifaber (b.

1517) . One can only speculate as to why so little

institutional leadership emerged from those born during the

decade and a half from 1505 until 1520, but evidently both

external and internal factors had changed.

Fortunately for the evangelical movement, a resurgence

of commitment to the church order enterprise was offered by those born during the decade following 1520. With the

exception of Morlin, these were the real members of the

second generation of authors. Chemnitz (b. 1522) occupied the position of elder statesman of this group while his co­ worker in the process on the Formula of Concord, David 312

Chytraeus (b. 1531) , was the youngest. Virtually all of the important North German church orders composed during from the decades of the 1560s and 1570s (including Andreae*s

Saxon order of 1580) resulted from the efforts of this group. Although a few lingered to encourage them in this process, they clearly controlled the process.

Before concluding this discussion of personal chronology, it may be helpful to say something about dates of death since so much attention has been paid to birth dates. No table of death dates has been provided because almost nothing truly conclusive, or even suggestive can be derived from this material. For the most part, death interrupted the careers of these individuals in a typically unpredictable fashion. A few had their careers cut tragically short by disease. This was the case for Lambert, who died at the age of 47, and for Cruciger (44) , Bonnus

(44), and Rhegius (51).^° Lambert died in 1530, nearly a decade before any of his contemporaries (the next was

Rhegius in 1541), while David Chytraeus, the youngest member of the entire network lived until the year 1600. The

Hessian, Johann Pistorius, lived the longest, the only octogenarian of the group, but the majority lived until their late 50s or early 60s.

Although this discussion of death dates offers little more than anecdotal insights, the question surrounding dates of birth is another matter. The previous discussion of 313 these issues has illustrated in a very direct fashion that it is highly appropriate to distinguish two generations of church order authors. A significeint chronological gap separated these groups, with only a few individuals emerging as transitional figures. Attending to these different generational dynamics will be important as additional factors are ainalyzed. Nevertheless, although the network was somewhat divided by generation, they shared a common task in composing the church orders and it was their commitment to this effort that held the group together even over time. Thus far an attempt has been made to say something about who was involved in the church order process by focusing on when they were active. The next section will consider another aspect of this collective representation by discussing matters of personal background.

II. ^e^on^^_^n^_^^il^^a^^ound

As one might expect, the personal backgrounds of the authors of the church orders varied significantly. In analyzing these matters, it is difficult, if not impossible to identify general patterns that can be applied effectively to the entire group. Nevertheless, one can use the available data about family social standing, place of origin, and subsequent family commitments and obligations to further inform the discussion of the church order network.

As was frequently, if not always the case in early 314 modem Geirman societies, social standing in the community was determined by the position of the father.In almost

every instance the fathers of the church order authors were townsmen, German burghers, but citizens whose status within the community ranged widely. The most influential

individuals were probably the fathers of Brenz, for a time mayor (Schultheiss) in the imperial city of Weil der

Stadt,^^ and of Jonas, a ranking official in the Reichstadt

Nordhausen. One might also place Lambert at the head of this list since his father worked as a prominent jurist and secretciry with the papal delegation that remained at

Avignon.Several other church order authors had fathers who were city councillors or served other equally important civic functions, i.e. Aepinus, Bonnus, Bugenhagen,

Hamelmann, Omeken, and Selnecker.^^ The rest of the families of the church order authors were almost all townspeople who served in various craft and trade capacities.

Exceptions to the preponderance of this burgher or bourgeois stock were rare, but a few examples are noteworthy. Nikolaus von Amsdorf was the only person of truly noble blood within the ranks of the church order authors; his grandfather had served as a leading official in the court of Frederick of Saxony. Antonius Corvinus had a similar heritage as his father, von Canstein, held title in the tiny county of Warburg. However, Corvinus was born out 315 of wedlock and missed out on the privileges of his family status.^® A father with a commitment to professional academics was also surprisingly rare. Only the father of Joachim Morlin, a professor of metaphysics and philosophy at Wittenberg, held this distinction. A family background in ecclesiastical affairs was likewise nearly non-existent, of the numerous church order authors of the first generation, Rhegius was the only son of a priest. For those of the second generation, only Chytraeus had a father who had served as a protestant pastor. Thus, the overwhelming majority of church order authors came from burgher families who generally had the means to further eind encourage the education of their children.^® This similarity in background and perspective subsequently influenced the issues they would address in the church orders. Noting the town or territory of origin will also enhance this discussion of personal backgrounds and provide an opportunity to consider other aspects of inter­ relationship. To begin with, almost all of the authors of the numerous North German church orders came from some region of northern Germany. Only Francis Lambert of Avignon and Johann Timann of Amsterdeun hailed from outside of the empire. Within the boundaries of the empire, Rhegius travelled the farthest from his home (Langenargen on Leike Constance) to take on ecclesiastical duties when he relocated in Braunschweig-Lüneburg. Although they did not 316 travel as far, other South Germans, like Andreae, Brenz, Bucer, and Chytraeus also assisted the church order efforts in the North. However, all of these individuals eventually returned to their own territories (Württemberg or Strasbourg) with the exception of Chytraeus. City or territory of origin likewise served as a basis for relationship among several of the church order authors. This was particularly true for the episcopal city of Fulda, the home of Kraft, Kymaeus, and Menius. Both Kraft and the younger Menius received their early education at the Franciscan cloister school in Fulda and then pursued university training at Erfurt. The Fulda-to-Erfurt connection exposed both of these reformers to the humanist circle of Mutian, the esteemed canon at Gotha.Through this Erfurt-Gotha experience, both became associated with a network of individuals that included the humanists Eobanus Hessus and Crotus Rubeanus as well as other church order authors like Jonas and Camerarius. Kymaeus on the other hand, did not follow the path to Erfurt, even though he attended the same Franciscan school in Fulda. However, he was swayed to the evangelical cause by his former fellow townsman Kraft. Under Kraft's influence and direction, Kymaeus later relocated in Marburg (1529), and attended the university that Kraft had helped to establish.Thus, both directly and indirectly, the episcopal city of Fulda provided a starting place for three influential members of 317 the church order network. Fulda was clearly exceptional in the influence it had on these native sons; no other city could boast having produced three church order authors. Even Wittenberg yielded only one church order author: Joachim Morlin. Nevertheless, several other cities and territories of origin fostered important connections. In addition to the transplanted Hessians, Kraft and Kymaeus, Hesse served as a noteworthy common denominator for Johann Pistorius and Johann Sutel, both of whom retained particular loyalties to their prince, the Landgrave Philip.As noted earlier, the territory of Württemberg united the careers and concerns of Jacob Andreae and Johannes Brenz. Likewise the duchy of Pomerania was the birthplace of Johann Bugenhagen and Jacob Runge, who, although members of different generations, became acquainted in Wittenberg and shared common concern for their homeland. In several instances, reformers returned to their city or territory of origin to assist in the creation of a church order. This was true for both Bugenhagen and Runge who composed territorial church orders for Pomerania in 1535 and 1563 respectively. In addition to his efforts in Cologne and Osnabrück, Herman Bonnus returned to his home town of Quackenbrück to compose a church order in 1 5 4 3 Caspar Cruciger, originally from Leipzig, and Johann Pistorius, from Nidda in Hesse both invested significant portions of 318 their careers in their home territories and aided in

composing territorial orders, Cruciger in 1539 for Albertine

Saxony aoid Pistorius in 1539 and 1566 for Hesse. Thus place

of origin not only connected individuals within the network of church order authors, but occasionally determined the

location of their efforts.

In general, family and territorial origins helped to establish a context for the careers of the church order authors. In almost every instance these authors were very competent individuals with significant levels of ecclesiastical responsibility and the relative prominence of their families helped to secure the necessary training.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the authors of the

North German church orders were themselves from the various territories and cities of northern Germany. Thus, the special linguistic sensitivities that one needed to communicate in variations of low German (Plattdeutsch) and a familiarity with the fundamental political configurations were almost second nature. Finally, in several instances common places of origin served as a basis for the kind of inter-relationships that would make this collective effort effective. Personal background, combined with the subsequent educational background, helped to weld a unique group committed to the craft of the church. 319 III. E ^ c a t i ^ a ^ _ B a ^ ^ ^ ^ d Educational preparation was obviously a necesseiry prerequisite for the kind of ecclesiastical responsibilities that accompanied composing a church order. Analyzing where these individuals studied, especially which university/ies they attended, along with what course of study they selected, affords the opportunity to observe formative influences and connections. Furthermore, a discussion of the degree structure and levels of achievement will help to highlight the special nature of this group of reformers. Prior to the university experience, several preparatory schools, Latin schools, and padaegogia, provided a basis for common experience and relationship. The influence of the Franciscan cloister school at Fulda on the careers of Menius, Kraft, and Kymaeus has already been recognized. The Franciscan school at Annaberg served a simileir function for Myconius, Pfeffinger, and Sarcerius.^® Even more decisive in its influence on several North Germein reformers was the school in Treptow associated with the Premonstratensian Cloister at Belbuck. The abbot of the cloister, Johannes Boldewan, was responsible for bringing Johann Bugenhagen to serve first as rector of the Latin school in Treptow, cind subsequently as a lecturer in the college of the cloister.

In this capacity, Bugenhagen directed the early education of two other important North German reformers, Johann Aepinus and Herman Bonnus. Years later when Bugenhagen conducted 320 his organizational work in Hamburg (1529) and Liibeck (1531) , he left these cities with Aepinus and Bonnus in the office of superintendent. Thus, even ecirly education established vital links emong the authors of the church orders. The most important professional relationships as well as ecclesiastical training developed in the context of the universities. Table 2 summarizes the available information regarding university matriculation and the church order authors.All of the German universities attended have been listed and to highlight differences that developed, the list is divided into first and second generation authors (Aurifaber and Morlin have been listed with the second generation). Very few of the group under investigation attended institutions outside of the empire. Heshusius ventured briefly to Oxford and Paris,while Chytraeus,

Menius and Oldendorp studied briefly in Italy.There is no record of any of these individuals attending the oldest university within the empire, at Prague, and only Sarcerius matriculated at the equally historic Vienna, although this is disputed.

Several features surface in studying this table of university attendance. Wittenberg was quite obviously the institution of choice for these individuals, which in itself is not particularly surprising. More interesting, however is the difference between the first and second generations 321

TABLE 2

UNIVERSITIES ATTENDED

First Generation

Wittenberg Leipzig Rostock Greifswald Aepinus Amsdorf Oldendorp Bugenhagen Amsdorf Corvinus Omeken Bonnus Bonnus Cruciger Sarcerius Oldendorp Bugenhagen Myconius Cruciger Osiander Jonas Pfeffinger Menius Winkel Omeken Pfeffinger Saorcerius Timann

Erfurt Marburg Freiburg Frankfurt/Oder Jonas Corvinus Rhegius BrieBman Kraft Kymaeus Sarcerius Menius Sutel

Ingolstadt Heidelberg Cologne Basel osiander Brenz Omeken Rhegius Rhegius Bucer

Second Generation

Wittenberg Leipzig Rostock Tübingen Aurifaber Hamelmann Chemnitz Andreae Chemnitz Chytraeus Chytraeus Chytraeus Hamelmann Hamelmann Heshusius Morlin Marburg Cologne Frankfurt/Oder Runge Morlin Hamelmann Chemnitz Selnecker 322 in regards to the role of Wittenberg. For those of the first generation, roughly half never matriculated at

Wittenberg, yet for the second generation only one person,

Jacob Andreae, had no formal relationship with the

University at Wittenberg. Thus one could infer that in order to advance effectively in areas of ecclesiastical administration, especially in northern Germany, some contact with Wittenberg was increasingly essential-

A rather startling observation, however, is that none of the numerous Hessian reformers and church order authors-

-Corvinus, Kraft, Kymaeus, Lambert, Pistorius, Sutel, and even Bucer— studied at Wittenberg. For the younger members of this group, the foundation of the university at Marburg

(1527) provides at a least partial explanation for this occurrence. Whatever the reason, the slightly different evolution of evangelical institutions, and different ideas on topics like discipline, may be more adequately explained given this difference.

In addition to which university one attended, another important consideration for the church order authors involved the level of educational achievement. The various individuals and their degrees, focusing on the highest degree attained, as well as the institution involved has been summarized in Table 3. The obvious degree of preference was the Doctor of Theology, with nearly half receiving this degree or the closest to it. Licentiate in 323

TABLE 3

HIGHEST UNIVERSITY DEGREES ATTAINED AND INSTITUTION

Doctor of Theology

Aepinus (Wittenberg) Jonas (Wittenberg) Andreae (Tübingen) Morlin (Wittenberg) BrieBman (Wittenberg) Pfeffinger (Leipzig) Bugenhagen (Wittenberg) Rhegius (Basel) Chemnitz (Rostock) Selnecker (Wittenberg) Chytraeus (Rostock) Cruciger (Wittenberg) Heshusius (Wittenberg)

Licentiate in Tneoloav

Amsdorf (Wittenberg) Hamelmeinn (Rostock)

Baccalaureate in Theology

Brenz (Heidelberg) Runge (Wittenberg) Menius (Wittenberg)

Master of Arts

Bonnus (Greifswald) Menius (Erfurt) Corvinus (Marburg) Sarcerius (Vienna) Kraft (Marburg) Sutel (Erfurt) Melanchthon (Tübingen)

Doctor of Civil and Canon Law

Jonas (Wittenberg) Oldendorp (Greifswald) 324 theology. Several city councils and/or territories required that their superintendents, or those who would fulfill similar responsibilities, hold this degree. The emphasis on theological training in general may be rounded out by noting those awarded the Baccalaureate : Brenz, Menius, and Runge.

Despite the evident preference for advanced studies in theology, several church order authors opted for different degrees. Only two individuals had advanced training in law,

Jonas and Oldendorp, both of whom held the dual degree in

civil and canon law. A number of other church order authors held the more general master of arts degree. Only a hsuidful

of individuals had not been granted a formal degree,

Pistorius who studied with Johann Strum at the Strasbourg

academy^^ and Laimbert, Myconius, Osiander, and Timann, all

the products of monastic education and again, all members of

the first generation of church order authors.

In summary, education served a dual purpose for the

authors of the church orders. First, it established a

relatively standard course of preparation and advancement

for those who intended to influence church structures, and

thereby territorial policy. Second, common university

experiences furthered the kinds of relational dynamics that

consistently accompanied the church order process.

Wittenberg was the great magnet for this type of experience,

especially among members of the second generation, but even

institutions like Leipzig and Rostock wedded the careers and 325 lives of the reformers. Bringing together these important aspects of education and combining them with elements of family and personal background helped to solidify the interpersonal components of the church order enterprise, and served as a basis for subsequent professional developments.

IV. Careers of the Church Order Authors

In many ways, those who wrote the church orders were exceptional as reformers. Although their personal backgrounds might not set them apart from others who served the church, their devotion to education and their degree of accomplishment in these fields began to distinguish their capabilities. The progress of their careers, and the important offices that they filled, completed the foundations of a recognizable group that engaged in the task of building ecclesiastical institutions. This final section will look more peirticularly at which professional activities were common to the authors of the church orders, and will briefly identify some of the common locations in which these responsibilities were carried out. Considering both the what and where of professional life will complete the collective portrait of church order authors that has been developed in this chapter.

Several church order authors, but only those of the first generation, began their careers as members of 3 2 6 religious orders. In the early stages of the protestant movement, this monastic vocation took precedence over a more secular understemding of profession, and thus must be recognized in the lives of these reformers. Table four identifies the religious orders (and cloister when known), and the corresponding individuals who were involved. Two orders, the Franciscans and the Augustinians (both Observant and Premonstratens ian), contributed most to the subsequent energy and effort that accompanied the church orders. Some of the most significant early leadership of the evangelical movement, and even its institutional formation, was

Franciscan. The Franciscans BrieBman in Prussia, along with

Kraft and Lambert in Hesse, helped to fashion the earliest form of the evangelical movement.Luther's own

Augustinian background certainly won support from individuals like Winkel at Halberstadt, Timann in

Amsterdamm, or even the Premonstratensians at Belbuck. The reforming elements of both of these religious communities fit quite naturally into the emerging institutional thrust of the Lutherans. 327

TABLE 4

CHURCH ORDER AUTHORS AND RELIGIOUS ORDERS

Franciscan Augustinian

BrieBman (Cottbus) Timemn (Amsterdam) Lambert (Avignon) Winkel (Halberstadt) Myconius (Annaberg)

Premonstratensian Cistercian

Aepinus (Belbuck) Corvinus (Riddagshausen) Bonnus (Belbuck) Bugenhagen (Belbuck)

Dominican

Bucer (Schlettstadt)

In contrast to the few who had experienced life in a religious order, the majority of the church order authors

invested significant portions of their professional lives in education. The high levels of educational achievement that typified these individuals obviously moved quite naturally

into additional academic contributions. Several church order authors began their ceireers as the rector of a Latin school or teacher in a gymnasium. This was true for Aepinus

in Stralsund, Bonnus in Liibeck, Bugenhagen in Treptow, Cruciger in Magdeburg, Omeken in Güstrow, Osiander in

Melsungen, auid Sarcerius in Siegen.^^ Thus, the basics of education, one of the items that would be repeatedly recognized in the church orders, received the immediate attention of these reformers. 328 On a much higher level, one would be hard-pressed to find a church order author who did not lecture in a university at some point in his career. Even someone who lacked proper academic credentials like Osiander managed to make a contribution to university life and for Osiander that occurred in the new Prussian university at Konigsberg.^* Several church order authors actually devoted most of their professional life to academic pursuits, notably, Aurifaber at Rostock and Konigsberg; Cruciger, Jonas and Melanchthon at Wittenberg: Chytraeus at Rostock; Oldendorp at Greifswald, Cologne, and Mcirburg; Selnecker at Jena and Leipzig; and the gadfly Heshusius at Wittenberg, Rostock, Heidelberg, and finally Helmstedt. Academic rigor and the credentials necessary for creating church orders seemed to go hand in hand. The level of leadership that existed among the authors of the church orders is further evidenced by the fact that these men not only taught at universities, but did much of the ground work necessary to found new protestant institutions. An impressive array of reformers accompanied their church order accomplishments with this commitment to establishing universities: BrieBman and the university at Konigsberg; Bugenhagen and the university of Copenhagen; Chemnitz and Selnecker and the university at Helmstedt; and Kraft and the university at Marburg. In engaging in this level of activity, these church order authors demonstrated 329 that they were clearly at the forefront of the evangelical movement.

The commitment to education, institutions, and reform transcended even the explicit involvement in schools and universities. Teaching and education were Ccirefully woven

into nearly all of the pastoral and ecclesiastical duties these individuals carried out. The most common and

important office for discharging these kinds of responsibilities was the office of superintendent.

The office of superintendent was clearly the most logical expression of the kind of esteem and authority the authors of the church orders held within the church. With very few exceptions, all of the church order authors served as superintendents, territorial superintendents, or bishops. The office of superintendent in its varied forms

is graphically presented in Table five. This table represents very clearly how pervasive this office had become, especially within the ranks of those who helped to constitute and orgeinize the church. Although the majority of these positions are represented as city superintendents

(which generally included surrounding areas), the trend in the second half of the sixteenth century was in the direction of territorial superintendents. 330

TABLE 5

SUPERINTENDENTS AND OTHER CHURCH POSITIONS

Superintendent (City)

Aepinus (Hamburg) Morlin (Braunschweig) Amsdorf (Magdeburg, Eisenach) Pfeffinger (Leipzig) Andreae (Goppingen) Pistorius (Nidda) Bonnus (Liibeck) Rhegius (Celle) Bugenhagen (Wittenberg) Sarcerius (Siegen) Heshusius (Goslêur, Hildesheim) Selnecker (Leipzig) Jonas (Halle) Sutel (Gottingen) Kraft (Homberg) Menius (Eisenach, Gotha)

Territorial Superintendent fTerritory1

Chemnitz (Braun. -Wolfenbiittel) Hamelmann (Gandersheim) Bugenhagen (Saxony) Heshusius (Heidelberg) Corvinus (Braun.-Calenberg)

Bishops and Office

Amsdorf— Naumburg Morlin— Samland Heshus ius— Samland

Included in the list of superintendents are those who at some point in their career received the more formal designation of bishop. Although a few of these situations were plagued with problems, such as Amsdorf in Naumburg, or

Osiander in Samland, the authors of the church orders offered the kind of visible church leadership that one might associate with a Lutheran understanding of this office.

Further support for this conclusion is offered in a study by

Markus Wriedt on Luther's use of the title bishop in his correspondence 36 In analyzing Luther’s use of the title. 331 Wriedt concludes that Luther employed the title in a liberal and somewhat arbitrary fashion so that one cannot really distinguish between the episcopal and the pastoral office in general.However, in his list of twenty-five persons whom

Luther addressed as either bishop or archbishop, Wriedt fails to note that the overwhelming majority of these persons wrote church orders i Many of the individuals that have received attention throughout this study feature prominently in Wriedt*s list; Nicholaus Amsdorf, Martin

Bucer, Johann Bugenhagen, Martin Gorlitz, Justus Jonas,

Johann Kymaeus, Justus Menius, Joachim Morlin, Friedrich

Myconius, and Johann Pfeffinger; and these are only the authors of North Germans orders. Thus, in a somewhat indirect way, Luther himself has affirmed the pivotal role of the makers of the church orders. They were not bishops in the old sense of the term, but clearly they occupied a unique and influential position within the emerging evangelical community.

Both education and ecclesiastical supervision, therefore, tended to be the typical emphases of the church order authors. Although they ceirried out these responsibilities in vastly different settings, the basic outline of these commitments provided a further sense of shcired ministry and experience. Occasionally they passed these offices, especially that of superintendent, from one individual to the next as was the case for Morlin and 332

Chemnitz in Braunschweig, Amsdorf and Heshusius in

Magdeburg, or Bugenhagen and Bonnus in Liibeck.

Nevertheless, despite the similcority of their duties

and a common commitment to the ministry of the church, tensions and controversies arose repeatedly. Amsdorf

commissioned Heshusius in Magdeburg, then chastised the rigidness of his ministry.^® In a similar fashion, Morlin was embraced on his return to Prussia, yet as he was elected

Bishop, some feared the authority he had and how this might

be abused.Especially for those of the second generation

so committed to the idea of Concord, true hairmony in the

details of church life seemed as elusive as ever. This made

it all the more importeint for these church order authors to

continue to seek institutional solutions both through

education eind ecclesiastical oversight.

For both the first generation of church order authors

and their successors in later years, the responsibilities of

teaching and of supervision required a constant kind of

balancing, for in many ways education was the key to

liberty, while supervision, and even ideas linked to

discipline, promised order. Thus the professional

commitments of those who wrote the church orders indicate

that their concerns and involvement transcended mere

attempts to formulate religious or church policy. They

acted upon what they wrote and sought to see their efforts

through to completion. Although the network itself still 333 managed to work across territorial boundaries, even for those of the second generation, the necessity of attending to business at home required pastors and superintendents who, like Chytraeus and Chemnitz, remained firmly committed to their own territory.

The collective representation of the authors of the church orders may now be drawn to a conclusion. Rather than a nondescript group of individuals who contributed only marginally to the process, the picture that has emerged is one of dynamic network that vitally influenced the formation of institutions and religious policy. Two fairly distinct generations of reformers cairried on with this effort in northern Germany for a period of just over 50 years. Those who initiated the process and worked during the decades of the 1530s and 1540s cooperated across a breadth of ages and created the first constitutional basis for the Lutheran church. A second generation, encouraged in some instances by their predecessors, carried this task through to its completion.

It is possible now to appreciate the unique accomplishment of the group of church order authors and to understand the factors that gave the network its substance.

Personal background played a formative role in establishing this group by providing a kind of shared understanding, some of which centered in similar family backgrounds and 334 communities of origin. More importantly, in several instances personal backgrounds provided the opportunity for interpersonal relationships to develop and thereby gave a kind of pr el iminary shape to the group at large. Much of the creation of a network resulted from common, if not identical educational experiences. Furthermore, education is also an element that one could use to distinguish the unique qualifications and achievements of this group. Those involved in establishing church orders were not just any reformers, but in general had stronger academic credentials and greater levels of ecclesiastical responsibility. They not only received some of the first theological doctorates in what became protestant universities (as was the case for

Aepinus, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger at Wittenberg) , but also founded new universities and educational institutions. There social cind religious stature was rather extraordinary.

The personal and professional factors that converged in making the church order authors who they were quite naturally influenced their own standing in the ecclesiastical community. Their high levels of academic training helped to secure their positions in universities or similar institutions. This in turn, encouraged these persons to assume important church functions and thus the dramatic numbers who worked as superintendents, territorial superintendents, or even bishops. It should not be surprising then, that the real "craft” of the church was 335 theirs. They had the background, the education, the ecclesiastical position, and certainly the inclination to make a difference in these kinds of affairs. Therefore, these individuals truly were the makers of church order. 336

ENDNOTES

1. The original of this is displayed as a permanent part of the Lutherhalle collection. For a description of this work see Treu, Lutherhalle, pp. 92-3; and A. G. Dickens, Reformation and Society in Sixteenth Century Europe (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1971) , p. 86.

2. See Lauro Meurtines, Lavyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), p.4.

3. Note esp. the concluding appendix, "Lawyer in Florence: 1380-1530," Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, pp. 481-508.

4. See Mcirtines, Lawyers and Statecraft, pp. 464-76.

5. Meurtines defines statecraft as, "the art of government, or skill in the management of state affairs," Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, p. 3.

6. One could also include Luther, the oldest member of this group, b o m in 1483.

7. Brenz also contributed early to the process with his first church order for Schwabisch-Halle (1526) , completed whe n h e was 27, see Estes, Christian Magistrate, pp. 4-8.

8. Those of the first generation who composed church after 1552 include Aepinus, Amsdorf, Brenz, Jonas, Kraft, Kymaeus, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Omeken, and Sarcerius, see Appendix.

9. For Pistorius, see Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, pp. 166-67; and Sehling, EKO VIII: 130.

10. See TRE 8, p. 239; TRE, 19, 416; D h l h o m , Rhegius, 333- 38.

11. See Steven Ozment, When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Hairvcird University, 1983) .

12. See Estes, Christian Magistrate, p. 3; Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 43.

13. See Müller, Lambert von Avignon, pp. 25-6.

14. These individuals and their families are noted in the Appendix. 337

15. See Kolb, Amsdorf, p. 32.

16. See Robert Stupperich, "Antonius Coirvinus," Westfalische Lebensbilder 7 (Münster, 1959) : 20-1. ; and Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, p. 62.

17. See Theodor Pressel, "David Chytraeus," in Leben ixnd ansgewahlte Schrlfften der Vater und Begriinder der lutherischen Kirche VIII (Elberfeld, 1862), pp. 3-5.

18. Nevertheless, both Chemnitz and Omeken complained of the sacrifices they had to make to for their education, probably due to the deaths of their fathers. For Omeken, See ADB 24, p. 346-7; and for Chemnitz, see exceptions Jungkuntz, Formulators, p. 47-9.

19. For Menius see Schmidt, Menius, pp. 4-21; for Kraft, see NDB 10, p. 646.

20. For Mutian and his circle see. Contemporaries of Erasmus: a Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986) , pp. 473- 4. ; and Lewis Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963) , pp. 130- 39.

21. See Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, p. 124.

22. Pistorius remained in Hesse for his entire career, a faithful supporter of Philip, see ADB 26, pp. 197-98. Sutel consented to Philip's request to lead the reform effort in Schweinfurt in 1543, and though he worked primarily outside of Hesse, continued to serve the Landgrave, see RE 19, pp. 176-77.

23. See Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, p. 181-2.

24. See Sehling, EKO VII: 1: 216, 229-31.

25. Annaberg, along with its renowned cloister school, has been described as, "eine gut papstliche Bergstadt und hatte viele Reliquien." See ADB 23, p. 124; and Stupperich, ReformatorenlexiJcon, pp. 153, 165.

26. See TRE 1, p. 336

27. Additional information on dates of attendance is available in appendix one.

28. See Barton, Um Luthers Erbe, p. 30. 338

29. Oldendorp, however, was the only one to receive a degree from em Italian university, he was promoted to Licentiate in Bologna, 1515, see ADB 24, p. 265.

30. Sarcerius ' s name does not appear on the Vienna matriculation list, but when he arrived at Rostock, he was listed as having a Master's from Vienna, (Magister Vienne promotus), see BE 17, p. 483.

31. See Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, p. 166.

32. See especially BrieBman's adaptation of Luther's theses on faith cind justification, Floscnli de homine interiore et exteriore^ fide et operibus, in stupperich, Refoinaation im Preusseiif pp. 36—53.

33. For a more complete analysis, see the individual outlines in the Appendix.

34. See Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen^ 1549-1552 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), pp. 28-33.

35. Exceptions to superintendents.

36. Markus Wriedt, "Luthers Gebrauch der Bischoftitulator in seinen Brief en," in Martin Brecht, Martin Luther und das Bischofsamt (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. 73-100. 37. See his conclusions, ibid, pp. 90—2.

38. Much of this battle once again, concerned the proper exercise of church discipline, see Tileman Hehusius, Notwendige entschuldigung ... wider den erdichten bericht der alten Stadt Magdeburgk (1562).

39. See Sehling, EKO IV: 25-6. CONCLUSION

"Men who live in democratic societies are not connected with each other by any tie; whilst, in aristocratic society, it is enough to convince the few, the rest follow. If Luther had lived in an age of equality, and had not had princes and potentates for his audience, he would perhaps have found it more difficult to change the aspect of Europe.

In his monumental Democracy in America, de Tocquevilie asserted, in a section devoted to the topic of

"revolutions," that these kinds of events will become increasingly rare as societies embrace democratic principles. In this context, de Tocqueville's recorded the these remarks about the "success" of the Lutheran movement, or perhaps protestantism in general, and linked Luther in particulair with a type of aristocratic triumph. De

Tocqueville has stated explicitly what so many before him, and since, have argued. Luther*s success, from this perspective, was essentially a product of political power, emd thus one can correctly employ terms like "magisterial reformation," or the "princes* reformation." To illustrate and underscore this interpretation, scholeurs have turned to the church orders, for to many these documents most certainly represent the interests of the few imposed on the masses. What could be more contrary to "democracy," or more

339 340 appropriately, liberty, than a church order?

The sensitive, yet essential, balance between order and liberty and how these concepts were represented in the form and content of the church orders, has been the theme of this dissertation. An attempt has been made to address this tension emd the entire evolution of Lutheranism as an

institution on several levels. In the first place, attention was given to the process of composing the church

orders and to identifying the people who were most directly

involved in creating these documents. Chapter One discussed the inception of the process, noting not only the

contributions of Luther, but of an emerging spectrum of

individuals that comprised a first generation of church

order authors. In this context, it became apparent that the

reformers did not replace a message of liberty with one of

order and discipline, but did give greater and greater

attention to institutional problems and to the task of

composing the church orders.

Chapters Two and Three focused on the escalation and

expansion of this church order effort. The critical role

that was assumed by the authors of the church orders was

developed in the second chapter. Sehling’s contention that

the authors of the church orders actually had little

influence on the process was challenged by a more careful

narrative analysis of the numerous individuals who composed

the church orders. The network that engaged in this 341

activity played an important, if not the most important role, in that they provided both the form and substance of

the church order process. Furthermore, attention to the

inter-relationships of individuals within this group has more accurately represented the dynamic aspects of the

church order phenomenon than previous attempts to analyze

families of documents.

To a certain extent, these relationships continued

after the disruptive yeeirs of the Schmalkaldic war.

However, Chapter Three presented the emergence of a second

generation of church order authors who continued the

institutional task during this last half of the sixteenth

century, the age of confessionalization. Although the

growth of the Lutheran territorial state system (das

landesherrllche Kircbenregiment) accelerated during this

period, several church order authors used the documents they

produced to subvert secular interference in ecclesiastical

affairs. Thus the church orders could either serve or

hinder the aspirations of princes and magistrates.

Individuals like Mori in, Chemnitz, and Heshusius advocated

church orders as a means to guarantee a degree of autonomy

in ecclesiastical affairs, and had no interest or desire to

contribute to the centralizing policies of princes like

Albrecht of Prussia or Julius of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel.

The special problems surrounding the topic of church

discipline, and how these matters could be effectively 342 incorporated into the church orders was the topic of Chapter

Four. Church discipline challenged the church order authors as they attempted to find solutions to social and religious problems during an era of tremendous transition. Their discussion of this topic did not emerge from an attempt to enable princes or city councils to more effectively control their populations. Pastoral' care, or cura, anlmarum, was the approach they consistently embraced, rather than particular forms of social control. As they addressed discipline, they continued to seek a balance between the demands of freedom-

- one did not want to say too much— and their emphasis on order— one could not say too little.

Finally, Chapter Five presented an analysis and overview of those who wrote the numerous North German church orders that have been investigated in this dissertation.

The network that had been identified previously was investigated in an attempt to more intentionally reckon with the authors of the church orders as a group. This chapter clarified the previous designation of generations' of authors, and developed a sense for those who worked as associates in contemporary settings. Both their personal and professional backgrounds were explored, which affirmed the assertion that the authors of this documents were in fact a group that can be identified emd investigated. Thus,

Chapter Five added substance to the notion of a trans­ territorial network, and demonstrated the importance of the 343

authors* contributions to the entire church order

phenomenon.

As a consequence of this study, the kind of observation

made by de Tocqueville, and generally supported by scholars

of early modern Germany, must be abandoned. De Tocqueville,

like so many others, has drawn conclusions about the

religious changes of the sixteenth century by focusing on

two very limited parties: Luther and the princes. As has

become evident throughout this dissertation, any

understanding based on this approach is faur too limited. On

the one hand, the role of the princes, especially in terms

of church formation and institutionalization has been

greatly exaggerated, even by someone like Sehling. Although

the church orders emerged within the web of the religious

dimensions of civil and territorial policy, the substance of

the issues addressed in these documents reflected the

concerns of those who wrote them: the authors of the church

orders. On the other hand, the growth of the evangelical/

Lutheran church was also much larger than the life or legacy

of Luther. The church order authors contributed their own

emphases on matters like church structure and church

discipline from backgrounds and circumstances that were

varied. In doing so they contributed to the diversity of

the Lutheran movement, especially in institutional matters.

Thus, when one wants to address in a comprehensive fashion the social implications of the Lutheran movement, as was the 344 case for Troeltscli, one cannot simply refer to Luther and be done with the matter. Troeltsch's dismal appraisal of the social implications of Lutheranism fails to recognize the dynamics involved in the development of this movement. Even

Elert's attempt to advocate a "Form of Lutheranism" (Die

Morphologie des Lnthertum) inadequately represents the variety, and vitality that one finds in the church orders.

Thus, neither the princes nor even Luther, offer the best insights into the evolution of the North German church orders. Certainly, the church orders would never have been created or adopted without the impetus of Luther and the support of secular authorities. Nevertheless, the shape of

Luther cm institutions, and especially the documents that established and continued to refine elements of belief and behavior, i.e. the church orders, resulted above all from the network of church order authors. Their contributions to the general "craft" of the church, their instructions on church discipline, and their repeated attempts to balance order and liberty, ordo et libertésf is an accomplishment that may now be more thoroughly recognized and appreciated.

NOTES

1. From Part II, Book 3, section 48 of Democracy in America, "Why Great Revolutions Will Become More Rare," Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Richard D. Heffner (New York: Mentor, 1956), p. 270. AFPEHDIZ

AUTHORS OF SIXTEENTH CENTURY NORTH GERMAN CHURCH ORDERS

Johann Aepinus (1499-1553)

Personal Background: Father: City magistrate, Ziesar Mother: Not Known Married: Twice, first wife died 1549

Education: Premonstratensian abbey at Treptow, Belbuck Wittenberg, Bacc. Theol. 1520; D. Theol., 1533 Career Outline: 1520, returns to Brandenburg 1523, lectures at Greifswald 1524, rector in Latin school in Stralsund 1529, Flensburg disputation with Hoffman 1529, to Hamburg, preacher at St. Peter's 1532—53, superintendent in Hamburg 1534, participates in Lutheran delegation to England 1536, leads meeting at Lüneburg 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, subscribes to Articles 1541, attends theological colloquy at Regensburg 1548, publishes opposition to Interim settlements

Church Orders:

1525: Church order for Stralsund

1539/56: Church order for Hamburg

1539: Church order for Bergedorf

1552: Church order for Buxtehude S o u r c e s : NDB 1, p. 91; THE 1, pp. 535-41; ReformatorenlexlTcon, p. 17.

Elert, Werner. "Der bishoffliche Chareikter der Superintendentur-Verfassung." Luther 46 (1935): 353-67.

3 4 5 346

Nieholas von Amsdorf (1488-1565)

Personal Background: Father: Son of territorial chancellor, Torgau Mother: Sister of Staupitz Married: No

Education: Latin school, Leipzig, 1500, Wittenberg, Bacc. 1502; Mag. 1504; Bacc. Theol. 1507; Lie. Theol. 1511

Ccureer Outline: 1508, Canon in Wittenberg 1519, Leipzig disputation with Luther 1524, leaves academic post to lead ref. in Magdeburg 1525, superintendent in Magdeburg, controversy with Ciclops 1528, assists reform in Goslar 1536, refuses to subscribe to Wittenberg Concord 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, subscribes to Articles 1541, disputes with Melanchthon and Bucer over Regensburg book 1542, Bishop of Naumburg 1548, retreats to Weimar with Saocon dukes, involved with formation of University at Jena 1550, returns to Magdeburg 1552, retires as Superintendent in Eisenach Church Orders:

1531: Church order for Goslar

1543 : Church order for Einbeck

1554: Articles on church discipline for Magdeburg

S o urces : NDB 1, p. 261; THE 2, pp. 487-97 ; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 25-6.

Brunner, Peter. Nicholaus von Amsdorf als Bischof von Navaaburg, Gütersloh, 1961.

Kolb, Robert. Nicholas von Amsdorf. Nieuwenkoop, 1978. 347

Jacob Andreae (1528—90)

Personal Background: Father: Jacob Endris, craftsman in Waiblingen Mother: not known Married: Anna WeiBkopf, 1546 (d. 1583) ; Regina Brenziger, 1585; 21 children

Education: Paedigogium, Stuttgart, 1539 Tubingen, MA, 1545; theol., 1545-46; D. Theol., 1553

Career Outline: 1546, Deem of Hospital church, Stuttgart, leaves at Interim 1548, Tübingen Stift:sklrche; city pastor 1552-62, Goppingen, general superintendent 1557, attends colloquy at Worms; visits from Farel and Beza 1561, leads visitations in Lauingen 1561, religious colloquy at Poissy 1562, professor of theology at Tubingen and provost 1563, Strasbourg disputation with Zanchi 1564, attends Maulbrunn conference 1568, assists reform in Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel 1570, leads colloquy at Zerbst, fails to win consensus 1577, Conferences at Bergen sü)bey, completes Formula of Concord 1580, Book of Concord adopted 1586, attends Colloquy of Mumpelgart

Church orders:

1558/ 59: Church order for Rothenburg o.d. Tauber

1566: Visitation order for Pfalz— Neuburg

1569: Church order for Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel

1571: Church order for Lippe, Pyrmont, and spiegelberg

1576: General articles for Pfalz- Neuburg

1576: Church order for Nordlingen

1578: Church order for Brandenburg- Ansbach- Kulmbach

1580: Church order for Electoral Saxony

So u r c e s : NDB 1, p. 277; THE 2, pp. 672-80; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 27 348 Kolb, Robert. Andreae and the Formula of Concord. St. Louis, 1977.

Müller-Streisland, R. "Tbeologie und Kirchenpolitik bei Jacob Andreae bis 1568." Blatter fiir wiirttembergische Kirchengeschlchte. 60/61 (1960-61): 224-45.

Jobzum Aurifzüser (1517-68)

Personal Background: Father: not known Brother: Andreas, professor in Konigsberg Married: Sarah HeB, 1544; 3 children Education: St. Elizabeth's in Breslau Wittenberg, 1534; MA, 1538; D. Theol., 1550

Career Outline: 1540, arts faculty in Wittenberg 1545, deem of faculty, leaves during Schmalkaldic war 1547, rector at Breslau 1548, lectures in phil. faculty at Wittenberg 1550, professor of theology and pastor at St Nicholas, Rostock; ordained by Bugenhagen 1554, professor of theology at Konigsberg, and president of Bishopric of Samland; Osiandrian controversy 1558, attempts at new Prussiem church order 1565, returns to Breslau, pastor at St. Elizabeth Church Orders:

1552: Church order for Mecklenburg

1558: Church order for Prussia, but not adopted

Sources: NDB 1, pp. 456-57; RE 2, pp. 288-90; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 30-31.

Herman Bonnus (1504-48)

Personal Background: Father: Arndt von Bunne, Ratsherr, in Quackenbrück Mother; Hilla Dreckman Married: Catherine; 4 children 349 Education; Munster, city school; With Bugenhagen at Treptow; Wittenberg, 1523; MA, 1525 Career Outline: 1525, lectures in Greifswald, travels to Denmark 1529, returns to Wittenberg, attends Marburg colloquy 1530, to Liibeck, rector in Latin school 1531, named superintendent in Lübeck 1534, Lübeck controversy with Wullenwever 1543, Lübeck loans to Münster, Osnabrück for under Bishop Franz von Waldeck Church Orders: 1543 : Church order for city and bishopric of Osnabrück 1543 : Church order for Quakenbrück Sources: NDB 2, p. 448-49; RE 3, pp. 313—16; Reformatorenlexikon, p.41.

Johannes BrieBmann (1488-1549) Personal Background: Father: Son of Cottbus, Burgermeister Mother: not known Married: Elizabeth Sackheim, 1524 Education: Franciscan school, Wittenberg Frankfurt/ Oder, 1518 Wittenberg, 1520; Bacc. Theol., 1521; D. Theol, 1522 of Career Outline: 1510, Francisccin in Wittenberg 1519, at Leipzig disputation 1520, leaves Breindenburg for Wittenberg 1522, teaches in arts faculty at Wittenberg 1522, pastor in Cottbus 1523, to Konigsberg to work with Albert of Brandenburg 1527, relocates in Riga, works with Bugenhagen and Knopfen 1531, again in Konigsberg, cathedral preacher 1541, assists work in Rostock 1544, involved with establishing University at Konigsberg, controversy with Willhlem Gnapheus 1546, President of Bishopric of Samland 350

Ctiirrch Orders:

1525: Chiurch order for Prussia, with Speratus and Poliander

1530: Church order for Riga

1540: Revisions of Prussian Landesordnung

Sources: NDB 2, pp. 612-13; RE 3, pp. 398-405; Reformatorenlexikoiif pp. 44-6.

Stupperich, Robert. *’Johann Briesmans reformatorische Anfânge." Jahrbuch fiir brandenburgiscbe Kirchengeschlchte 34 (1939) : 3—21.

Johann Bugenhagen (1485-1558)

Personal Background: N Father: Gerhard Bugenhagen, ratsherr in Wolin Mother: not known Married: Walpurga, 1522; 4 children

Education: Greifswald, 1501; then with Premonstratensians at Treptow Wittenberg, 1521; D. Theol., 1533, under Jonas

Career Outline: 1504, Treptow, rector of Latin school 1507, lectures at Premonstratensian cloister at Belbuck 1509, ordained as Premonstratensian by Bishop of Cammin 1520, first reads Luther 1521, lectures at Wittenberg 1522, pastor of St. Marys church, Wittenberg 1526, opposes Zwingli on sacraments 1528, to Braunschweig, then Hamburg (1529) 1529, disputation with Hoffman at Flensburg 1530-32, travels north again, to Lübeck 1532, named superintendent in Wittenberg 1534, leads visitations in Pomerania 1537—39, aids Christian III in Denmark 1539, named general superintendent in electoral Saxony 1541, work in Schleswig- Holstein 1542-44, to reform in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel and Hildesheim 1547, remains in Wittenberg during war 1549, attempts to reform University in Wittenberg 1554, controversy with Gnesio-Lutherans, Amsdorf 351

Church Orders;

1528: Church order for Braunschweig

1529: Church order for Hamburg

1530: Assists with church order for Minden

1531: Church order for Lübeck 1535: Church order for Pomerania

1535: Revisions of church order for Stralsund

1537: Church order for Denmark

1542: Church order for Schleswig-Holstein

1543: Church order for Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel, with Corvinus

1544: Church order for Hildesheim, with Corvinus Sources : NDB 3, p. 9—10; TRE 7, pp. 354—63; Reform&lzorenlexikon, pp. 49-51.

Geisenhof, Georg. Blbllotheca. Bugehhaglana, Nieuwkoop, 1963.

Leder, Markus. "Bugenhagen: Von Reformer zu Reformater” Luthe r (1985): 79-98.

Martin Chemnitz (1522-86)

Personal Background: Father: Paul, merchant in Treunbrietzen Mother: Euphenia Married: Anna Jaeger, 1555; 10 children

Education: Wittenberg, 1536-38; Magdeburg, 1539-42 Frankfurt/ Oder, 1543; Witt., 1545-46, with Melemchthon Rostock, D. Theol., 1568 352 Career Outline: 1547, leaves Wittenberg for Konigsberg 1550, librarian for Duke Albert at Konigsberg 1554, returns to Wittenberg after controversy with. Osiander 1554, ordained by Bugenhagen, to Braunschweig as Coadjutor with Moriin 1557, attends theological colloquy at Worms 1566—67, assists Morlin with reforms in Prussia 1567, superintendent in Braunschweig 1572—76, helps found and teaches at University at Helmstedt 1574-77, participates in negotiations leading to Formula of Concord 1578, dismissed from Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel consistory 1583, retires at Quedlinburg Church Orders: 1567/ 68: Church order for Prussia 1569: Church order for Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel

Sources: NDB 3, p. 201; THE 7, pp. 714—20; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 58-9. Jungkuntz, Theodore. Formulators of Concord. St. Louis, 1977. Krumwiede, Hans-Walter. Znr Entstehung des landesberrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen und Braunschweig- Wolf enbüttel. Schriften Kirchen Geschichte Niedersachsens 16, 1967.

David Chytraeus (1531-1600) Personal Background: Father: Matthew Kochhafe, pastor in Swabia Mother: Barbara Neuberger Married: Margaretha Smedes, 1553; 7 children; Meurgareta Pegel; 2 children

Education: Tübingen, 1539; MA, 1544 Wittenberg, 1546; during war to Heidelberg return to Witt., 1548 Rostock, D. theol., 1561 353

Career Outline: 1550, to Rostock with Aurifaber 1551, arts faculty at the University of Rostock, remains for 50 years 1557, participates in colloquy at Worms 1561, attends Naumburg princes diet with Duke Ulrich 1569, travels to Austria to aid reform, support of Meix. II 1571, chair of Mecklenburg consistory 1574, returns to Austria, establishes gymnasium at Graz Church orders:

1552: Assists Aurifaber with Mecklenburg church order 1570: Mecklenburg consistory articles

1571: Church order (Agenda) for Austria

S o urces: NDB 3, pp. 254; TRE 8, pp. 88—90; Ref 0 2 rmatorenlexlkon, p. 59.

Jungkuntz, Theodore. Foinaulators of Concord, 1977.

Pressel, Theodor. "David Chytraus." In Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften der Vater und Begriinder der lutherischen Kirche. Elberfeld, 1862.

Antonius corvinus (1501-53)

Personal Background: Father: Junker, von Canstein in Warburg Mother: sister of Lambert von Balven Married: Mcorgarethe Metz, 1533; 3 children Education: Leipzig, 1518; Cistercian cloister at Riddagshausen, Marburg, MA, 1536 3 5 4

Career Outline: 1519, novice at Riddagshausen, Cistercian, 1526, to Marburg, preacher in Hesse 1528, pastor at St. Stephen's, Goslar 1529, first visit to Wittenberg, delegation from Goslar 1530—42, pastor at Witzenhausen, Hesse 1536, confrontations with anedjaptists at Münster 1537, represents Hesse at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1540—41, attends imperial colloquies. Worms and Regensburg 1542, assists visitations in Lippe and Hameln 1542, assumes office of territorial superintendent in Braunschweig—Calenberg 1549-52, imprisoned by Erich II at Calenberg 1552, released from prison, declines invitation to Prussia

Church Orders:

1539: Church order for Northeim

1542: Assists with church order for Lippe

1542: Church order for Braunschweig—Calenberg

1543: Church order for Braunschweig-Wolf enbüttel with Bugenhagen

1544: Church order for Hildesheim with Bugenhagen

1545: Synodal statutes for Braunschweig-Calenberg

So u r c e s : NDB 3, pp. 371-72; TRE 8, pp. 216-20; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 62.

Geisenhof, Georg. Bibliotheca Corviniana. Nieuwkoop, 1964.

Stupperich, Robert. "Antonius Corvinus." Westfalische Lebensbilder 7 (1959) 20-39.

Caspar Cruciger (1504-48)

Personal Background: Father: Georg, Leipzig burger from Bohemia Married: Elizabeth von Merseritz (d. 1535), poetess, 1524; Apollonia Günterode, 1536; 3 children Education: Leipzig, 1516 Wittenberg, 1521; D. Theol., 1533 355 Career Outline: 1524, lectures in philosophy faculty at Wittenberg 1525, rector of St. Johns school in Magdeburg 1528, returns to lecture at Wittenberg, preaches at Castle church 1533, to theology faculty 1537, attends meetings at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1539, aids reform effort in Albertine Saxony 1540-41, attends imperial colloquies at Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg 1546, rector of University at Wittenberg 1548, dies before onset of Interim battles Church orders: 1539: Assists Jonas and Myconius with Church order for Saxony 1542: Wittenberg Consistory articles Sources: NDB 3, 427—28; THE 8, 238-40; Reformatorenlexikoii, pp. 63— 4. Pressel, Theodore. "Caspar Cruciger," in Leben und ausgewalxlte Schriften der Vater und Begriinder der lutherischen Kirche. Elberfeld, 1862.

Herman Hamelmann (1525-95) Personal Background: Father: notary, then canon, in Osneibrück Mother: not known Married: Elisabeth (d. 1555) ; 1557, Eliscibeth (d. 1573); 1574, Clara; 5 children, 4 from last marr. Education: Osnabrück, Münster, and Emmerich Cologne and Mainz; later in Wittenberg, Leipzig and Magdeburg; Rostock, Lie. Theol., 1558, under Chytraeus Cêireer Outline: 1553, first interest in protesteuits, earlier opponent 1555, preacher in Bielefeld, then Lemgo 1566, visit to Antwerp 1568, general superintendent at Gandersheim, Braunschweig- Wolf enbüttel 1573, to Oldenburg 1574, elected superintendent for Oldenburg 356

Churcti orders :

1573: Church order for Oldenburg with Selnecker

S o urces : NDB 7, p. 585; RE 1, p. 385; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 94-5.

Txleman Heshusius (1527-88)

Personal Background: Father: Gottfried, Merchant in Wesel Mother: not known Married: Anna, 1553; 6 children; 6 children 1566, Barbara Museus

Education: Ecirly in Antwerp then Wittenberg; 1549, travels to Oxford and Paris; Wittenberg, MA, 1550; D. Theol., 1553

Career Outline: 1552, lectures in philosophy faculty at Wittenberg 1553, call to Goslar, superintendent 1556, leaves Goslar, conflict over discipline, briefly in Magdeburg 1556—57, professor of theology at Rostock 1557, briefly, superintendent at Hildesheim 1557, superintendent at Heidelberg, arremged by Melanchthon 1559, removed by Frederick III, opposes Calvinization 1560—62, superintendent at Magdeburg, shifts to Gnesio- Luthercui party 1565, at ZweibrCicken, under Wolfgang von Pfalz-Zweibrücken 1569, forced out, to professor of theology at Jena 1571, elected last Bishop of Samlemd in Prussia, further conflicts with Crypto- Calvinists 1574, expelled, returns to Saxony, controversy with Elector August’s and the Consensus Dresdensus 1578, to Helmstedt, professor at new university

Church orders;

1555: Consistorial order for Goslar

1557: Visitation articles for Mecklenburg 357 Sources : NDB 9, pp. 24—5.; TRE 15, 256—60; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 102. Barton, Peter. Din Luthers Erbe. studien und Texte zur Spatreformation: Tilemann Heshusius. Witten, 1972.

Justus Jonas (1493-1555)

Personal Background: Father: Jonas Koch, Nordhausen, councillor Mother: not known Married: 1522, Kathsorina Falk (d. 1542); 13 children; 1543, Magdelena

Edu cation: Erfurt, 1505, Mutian's circle; BA, 1507; MA, 1510; Wittenberg for law under Hennig Goede, 1511; Bacc. in Law, 1513; D. Civil and Canon law, 1518; Wittenberg, D. Theol., 1521

Career Outline: 1518, Erfurt, professor of canon law 1519, lectures in theology. Rector at Erfurt, attends Leipzig disputation 1521, to Wittenberg, canon law professor 1521, late, to Dean of theology faculty 1527, assists with visitations 1529, attends Marburg colloquy 1533, presides Doctoral degrees given to Bugenhagen, Cruciger, and Aepinus 1536, assists reformation in Naumburg 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1538, visitations in Anhalt 1539, leads visitations and reorganization in Albertine Saxony 1541, to Halle to compose church order 1542, superintendent in Halle 1547, leaves Halle during Schmalkaldic war; to Mansfeld, Nordhausen, then Hildesheim 1550, Coburg superintendent and Hofprediger, involved in Osiander controversy 1552, Regensburg, composes church order 1553, retires in Mansfeld 358

Church Orders:

1533: Visitation Articles for Saxony

1538: Church order for Zerbst, Anhalt

1539: Church order and visitation articles for Albertine Saxony

1540: Church order for Meissen

1542: Assists with Wittenberg consistorial order

1543: Church order for Halle 1553 : Church order for Regensburg

S o urce s: NDB 10, p. 593; TRE 17, pp. 234-38: Ref 0 2 rmatorezilexikon, p. 110

Delius, Walter. Lehre und Leben. Justus Jonas, 1493-1555. Gütersloh, 1952.

AdzuiL Kraft (1493-1558)

Personal Background: Father: Hans, Burgermeister, Fulda Mother: not known Married: 1526, Agnes in Marburg: 6 children; 1548, Atra WeiBman; 4 children

Education: Franciscan Cloister school, Fulda; Latin School, Neuburg; Erfurt, 1512, studies with Mutiam's circle; BA, 1514; MA, 1519

Career Outline: 1519, at Leipzig disputation 1521, rector at Franciscan school in Fulda 1525, to preacher in Hersfeld, Hesse 1526, attends Homberg synod with Philip, court preacher and super intendent 1527, professor at Marburg, first dean of theology faculty 1529, attends Marburg colloquy 1533, nconed inspector of the Hessian church 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, sign Articles 1548, opposition to Interims 359 Church orders; 1531; Church officals order for Hesse 1539; Ziegenhein Zuchtordnung with Bucer and Kymaeus 1557; Church order for Marburg and Hesse with Amoldus Sources; NDB 12, p. 646-47; RE 11, p. 57-8; Reformatorenlexxkon, pp. 122-23; Sehling, EKO VIII; 71. Schafer, W. Adam Kraft: landgrafliche Ordimng und bischofliches Amt. Kassel, 1976. jTohzum Kymaeus (1498-1552) Personal Background; Father; Burger in Fulda Mother; not known Married; 1520s Education; Franciscan school in Fulda Marburg, 1529; MA, 1536 Career Outline; 1527, leaves Francisem cloister in Fulda, influenced by Kraft, to preacher in Soden 1530, preacher in Homberg 1535, Aneibaptist disputations at Münster with Corvinus 1537, attends meeting at Schmalkalden 1538, superintendent in Kassel 1539, leads visitations in Kassel 1541, participates in colloquy at Regensburg 1548, forced to relinquish office because of illness Church orders; 1539; Ziegenhain Zuchtordnung with Bucer and other Hess isms 1539; Church order for Kassel

Sources; ADB 17, p. 446; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 124-25; Sehling, EKO VIII; 113. 360

Francis Lambert (1487-1530)

Personal Background: Father: papal office holder, Avignon Mother: not known Married: 1523, in Herzberg Education: Avignon, Observant Franciscans

Career Outline: 1502, enters Fremciscan cloister, Avignon 1516, leaves order,travels as preacher 1522, to Switzerland— Geneva, Bern, Zürich 1523, in Wittenberg, translates Luther into French 1524, to Strasbourg, opposition from humanists 1526, invited by Philip to Marburg, lead Homberg synod 1529, attends Maurburg colloquy, some sympathy for Zwingli

Church Orders:

1526: Articles of the Homberg synod and church order for Hesse

Sources: NDB 13, pp. 435-36; TRE 20, pp. 415—18; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 126

Müller, Gerhard. Francis Lambert von Avignon und die Reformation in Hessen. Marburg, 1958.

Justus Menius (1499-1558)

Personal Background: Father: merchant in Fulda Mother: sister (?) of Mutiaoi at Gotha

Education: Fulda, Franciscan school Erfurt, 1514; Bacc., 1515; MA, 1516 To Italy, 1519, then Wittenberg 361

Career Outline; 1523, vicar at Mühlberg, near Erfurt 1525, lectures at Erfurt, pastor at St. Thomas 1526, controversy with. Franciscan Konrad Kling 1528, first visitations in Thuringia, then at Gotha 1529-47, superintendent at Eisenach 1529, participates in Marburg colloquy 1536, subscribes to Wittenberg Concord 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1539, assists reforms in Albertine Saxony 1540-41, involved in imperial colloquies. Worms and Regensburg 1545, conducts visitations in Naumburg and Schwarz burg 1546-56, superintendent at Gotha, after death of Myconius 1548, opposition to Interims 1554, assists with visitations in Ernestine Saxony; controversy with Amsdorf, Gnesio-Lutherans, supports Major 1556, teaches at Jena, but controversy with Saxon dukes 1558, to Leipzig, pastor at St. Thomas Church orders;

1539: Albertine Saxon visitation articles with Jonas

1542: Church order for Miihlhausen, with Winther and Toll

S o urces : ADB 21, pp. 345-47; RE 12, pp. 577—81; Reformatorenlexikon, 143-44.

Schmidt, Gustav. Justus Menius, der Reformater Tîmrlngens. Gotha, 1867.

Joachim Morlin (1514-71)

Personal Background: Father: Jodocus Morlin, professor at Wittenberg Mother: not known Married: daughter of S. Cordus, 1536; 12 children

Education: Early in Meurburg Wittenberg, 1532; MA, 1536; D. theol., 1540 362 Career outline: 1537, preacher in Coburg 1539, Chaplain at Wittenberg 1540, superintendent at Amstadt, county of Schwarzburg 1544—48, superintendent at Gottingen, leaves with Interim 1550, briefly to castle preacher for Count of Henneberg 1550, to Prussia under Duke Albert of Brandenburg, Konigsberg cathedral preacher, controversy with Osiander 1551, disputations with Osiander 1553, publishes pamphlet attacking Osiandrianism, dismissed by Duke 1553—67, superintendent at Braunschweig 1557, pcurticipates in colloquy at Worms 1561, leads lower Saxion conference at Lüneburg 1567, to Prussia, elected Bishop of Samland Church orders:

1554: Articles on church discipline for Magdeburg with Amsdorf and Sarcerius

1561: Church orders for Steurwolt and Peine

1568: Church order for Prussia Source s: ADB 22, pp. 322-24; RE 13, pp. 237-39; Refojrmatorenlexlkon, pp. 146—47.

Roth, Erik. "Bin Braunschweiger Theologe des 16. Jahrhunderts. Joachim Morlin und seine Rechtsfertigungslehre. " Jahrbuch Gesellschaft fiir niedersachsische Kirchengeschichte 59 (1952) : 59-81.

Friedrich Myconius (1490-1546)

Personal Background: Father: Burgher in Lichtenfels Mother: not known Married: Margaretha Jacken, 1525; 9 children Education: Latin school in Annaberg Leipzig; humanist circle at Gotha 363

Career Outline: 1513, rector of Franciscan school in Thuringia 1516, ordained priest, serves in Weimar 1524, to evangelical faith, preaches in Bucholz and Zwickau, called to preach in Gotha 1529, attends colloquy at Marburg 1530s, assists with visitations in Thuringia 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1540, participates in imperial colloquy at Hagenau

Church orders:

1539: Assists with Church order for Albertine Saxony

Source s: ADB 23, pp. 123-26; RE 13, pp. 603-07; Refoirmatorenlexikon, p. 153. johzum Oldendorp (1488-1567)

Personal Background: Father: Craftsman in Hamburg

Education: Rostock, 1504; then to Cologne; Bologna, Lie. Law, 1515 Greifswald, D. Jur., 1518 Career Outline: 1516, professor of law, Greifswald 1517, rector of university 1524, leaves for Rostock, religious differences with faculty at Greifswald 1529, elected syndic at Rostock 1530, involved in reform, church order 1534, in Lübeck, associated with Bonnus 1538, teaches philosophy emd law at Cologne 1540, law faculty at Marburg 1543, assists Bucer, Melemchthon with reform in Cologne 1546, named city councillor in Marburg 1553, Reformator of university at Meurburg

Church orders;

1530: Church order for Rostock

1543: Assists Bucer emd Melanchthon with church order for Cologne 364 Sources : ADB 24, pp. 265-67

Gerd omeken (1500-62)

Personal Background: Father: Gerlach Omeken, judge in Cleves Mother: remarries after fathers death

Education: Cologne, 1520 Rostock, 1522, secretary of jurist N. Lowe Wittenberg, 1524 Career Outline: 1523, influenced to Luther, leaves Rostock for Lübeck 1526, preaches in Büderich 1528, to Lippstadt 1532, called to Soest, aids in church organization 1533, preaches in Lemgo, St. Nicholas church 1535, superintendent at Minden, recommendation of Rhegius 1537, represents Minden at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1538, serves in Braunschweig-Liineburg at Dannenberg and G i f h o m 1547, to Schwerin in Mecklenburg 1552, superintendent emd cathedral preacher in Güstrow 1557, leads visitations in Mecklenburg

Church orders:

1532: Church order for Soest

1552: Church order for Mecklenburg with Aurifaber and Melanchthon

S o urces: ADB 24, 346-47; Reformatorenlexxkon, pp. 159-60.

Andreas osiander (1498-1552) Personal Background: Father: smith in Gunzenhausen Mother: not known Married: 1525

E d u cat ion: Leipzig; Altenburg; Ingolstadt Influence of Reuchlin and Eck; no theology degree 365

Career Outline: 1520, ordained as priest, lectures Hebrew in Nürnberg Augustinian cloister 1521, pastor at St. Lorenz church 1525, conflict with Franciscans in Nürnberg 1529, attends Marburg colloquy, opposition to Zwingli 1530, negotiations at Augsburg 1537, participates in Schmalkald conference 1540-41, participates in imperial colloquies at Hagenau, Worms, and Regensburg 1542, helps organize reform in Pfalz-Neuburg 1547, leaves Nürnberg, approach of imperial army, brief time in Breslau 1549, to Prussia; Konigsberg under Duke Albrecht; teaches theology at University 1550, disputations, controversy over justification separates justification from redemption Albert seeks to 1551, promoted to superintendent, Morlin refuses sacrament 1552, dies as controversy rages

Church orders:

1528: Church articles for Nürnberg

1533 : Church order for Brandenburg-Ansbach-Nümberg with Brenz

1542: Church order for Pfalz- Neuberg So u r c e s : ADB 24, p. 473; RE 14, 501-09; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. ISO- 61.

Seebass, Gottfried. Das refoxrmatorischa Werk des Andreas O s i a n d e r s . 19 67

Stupperich, Martin. Osiander in Preussen^ 1549-55. 1973.

Johann Pfeffinger (1493-1573)

Personal Background: Father: Burgher, Wasserburg Mother: not known Married: Elisabeth Kühlstein, 1527; 4 children Education: School at Annaberg Salzburg, 1515; Wittenberg, 1523 Leipzig, D. theol., 1543 366 Career Outline; 1518, ordained as priest 1521, preacher in Passau 1523, leaves for Wittenberg 1527, pastor in Sonnenwalde 1530, es^elled by bishop in Meissen; to monastery of Eicha 1532, pastor in Belgern 1539, Leipzig, superintendent and pastor at St. Nicolas 1542, leads ref. at Glauchau 1543, first D. theol. from new theology faculty, Leipzig chief advisor to Maurice, role in Saxon consistories 1548, canon of Meissen, drafts Leipzig interim 1556, later consistory meetings 1571, promotes Dresden convention Church orders: 1539: Assists Jonas eind Cruciger with Albertine Saxon Church order 1570: Reprints Saxon visitation articles Sources: ADB 25, p. 624; RE 15, pp. 252-54; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 165 Wartenburg, Gunther. Landesherrschaft und Reformation. Mojrtiz von Sachsen und die albertinische Kirchenpolitik bis 1546. 1988.

Johann Pistorlus (1503-83) Personal Background: Father: Burgher in Nidda Mother: not known Married: 1530s; son Johann, pastor in Hesse Education: Academy at Strasbourg with Sturm Career Outline: 1526, pastor in Nidda 1527, elected superintendent 1529, at Marburg colloquy 1540-41, participates in colloquies at Worms and Regensburg 1541, to superintendent at Alsfeld 1543, assists Bucer with reform in Cologne 1548, opposition to Interim in Hesse 1557, participates in colloquy at Worms 1558, inherits role of Kraft in Hesse 367 Church orders: 1539: Assists Bucer, Kraft, et. al. church order for Hesse 1543 : Assists Bucer with church order for Cologne 1557 : Church order for Hesse Sources: ADB 26, pp. 197-99; RE 15, pp. 415—18; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 166—67.

Urbemus Rhegius (1489-1541) Personal Background: Father: priest in Langenargen Mother: not known Married: Anna Weisbrücker, 1526 Education: Lindau, Latin school Freiburg, 1508, under Zasius; Ingolstadt, 1510; Bacc. theol., 1512 under Eck Basel, D. theol., 1520 Career Outline: 1519, ordained priest in Constance, serves bishop 1520, replaces Oecolampadius at Augsburg, protestant inclinations 1521, travels in Austria 1524, returns to Augsburg, cathedral preacher 1529, attends Marburg colloquy, middle position 1530, leaves Augsburg after Charles V forbids evangelical preachers in city 1530, invited to Braunschweig-Liineburg by Duke Ernest 1531, superintendent at Celle 1536, subscribes to Wittenberg Concord, assists visitations in Lippe 1537, attends diet at Schmalkalden, signs Articles 1540, participates in first imperial colloquy at Hagenau Church orders: 1531: Church order for Liineburg 1532: Assists Omeken with church order for Soest 1536: Church order for Hannover 368 Sources: ADB 28, pp. 374-78; RE 16, pp. 734-41; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 176-77 DtiUioim, Gerhard, ürbanus Rhegius, Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. Elherfeld 1861. Liebmarm, Maximilian, ürbanus Rhegius und die Anfange der Refojcmation. Munster, 1980.

Jacob Runge (1527-95) Personal Background: Father: Cloth weaver in Stargard, Pomerania Mother; not known Married: Anna Gerschow; 8 children Education: Padegogium at Stettin, 1542 Wittenberg, 1545 Caireer Outline: 1547, teaches in arts faculty at Wittenberg, then in Greifswald 1552, Returns to Wittenberg, pastor at St. Meirys, professor of theology 1556, general superintendent in Pomerania, follows Knipstro 1557, attends colloquy at Worms with Melancthon 1558, involved with Csiandriein controversies in Pomerania 1577, battles surrounding Formula of Concord Church Orders: 1563; Church order for Pommerania Sources: ADB 29, pp. 689-90; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 181-82.

Erasmus Sarcerius (1501-59) Personal Background: Father: guildsmem in Annaberg Mother: not known Mcurried: 1525 369

Education; Freiburg, 1515; Leipzig, 1522, under Mosellanus Wittenberg, 1524; Vienna, MA, 1525 (?) Rostock, 153 0

Career Outline; 1530-36, works with Bonnus in Lübeck 1536, invited Count Wilhelm to Nassau-Dillenberg, rector of Latin school, court chaplain at Siegen 1537, superintendent in Siegen, leads visitations 1541, named Dillenberg court chaplain, superintendent of county 1543-46, supports work of Bucer and Melanchthon in Cologne 1545, to work in Babenhausen 1548, Interim forces out of Nassau, to preacher at St. Thomas, Leipzig 1551, approves Sêixon confession but opposition to Melanchthon 1553, to Mansfeld 1554, superintendent at Eisleben, 1554, succeeds Major 1557, pairticipates in colloquy at Worms 1559, pastor of St. Johns in Magdeburg

Church orders;

1554; Articles on church discipline for Magdeburg

1554; Visitation articles for county of Mansfeld So u r c e s ; RE 17, pp. 482-86; Reformatorenlexikon, pp. 184-85

Munch, Paul. Zucht und Ordnung. Stuttgart, 1978.

Micholaus Selnecker (1530-92)

Personal Background; Father; Notary in Hersbruck, friend Melanchthon Mother; not known Married; Margarathea (1559) , daughter of Daniel Greiser; 15 children Education; Nürnburg gymnasium with Linck and Dietrich Wittenberg, 1550; M.A., 1554; D. Theol., 1570 370

Career Outline: 1554, lectures in theology at Wittenberg 1557, court preacher at Dresden, conflicts with nobility 1565, professor of theology at Jena 1567, forced out as Philipist, when "Flacian" faculty restored by Duke Johann Wilhelm, 1567 1567, pastor of St. Thomas and professor, Leipzig 1570, Wolfenbiittel, court preacher and general superintendent 1572, to teach theology at Gandersheim, Julium 1573, to Oldenburg 1573, returns to Leipzig 1574, inaugural lecture in theology at Leipzig 1576, installed as superintendent by Andreae 1576-77, works on Concord, Bergen Abbey 1583, participates in colloquy at Quedlingburg 1589, dismissed from Leipzig 1590, brief in Hildesheim as superintendent 1592, returns to Leipzig after death of Elector Christian I

Church orders:

1573: Church order for Oldenburg

Sourc es: ADB 33, pp. 687-92; RE 18, pp. 184-91; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 194 Jungkuntz, Theodore. Formulators of Concord, 1983.

Johann Sutel (1504-75)

Personal Background: Father: in Altenmorschen Mother: not known Married: first wife d. 1547; remarries twice; 17 children

Education: Erfurt, 1518; MA

Career Outline: 1520s, Rector at Latin school in Melsungen 1530, called to Gottingen, first evangelical city preacher 1531, completes church order and assumes office of superintendent, serves at St. Johns 1542, summoned by Landgrave Philip to Schweinfurt 1547, left Schweinfurt during Schmalkaldic war, family stays 1548, to Allendorf, home of Winthur 1548, to Gottingen, St. Albans church and superintendent 1555, tensions with Erich II, leaves for Northeim 371

Church orders;

1530/31: Church order for Gottingen

1543: Church order for Schweinfurt

Source s: ADB 37, pp. 339-40; RE 19, pp. 176-77; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 206

Beyschlag, Walther. "Zxir Lebensgeschichte des Schweinfurter Reformators Johann Sutel." Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fiir niedersachsische Klrchengeschichte 2 (1897): 91-99.

Johann Timann (1500-57)

Personal Background: Father: Burgher in Amsterdamn Married: not known

Education: Augustinian in Amsterdcunn Wittenberg, 1522

Career: 1520s, Bremen with Hans Probst, 1525, elected preacher at St. Martins, follows work of Zutphen 1529, called by Count Enno to dispute Anabaptists at Emden 1530-32, return to Bremen, social struggeles, pastors with council 1534, seeks stability with church order 1537, represents Bremen at Schmalkalden, signs articles 1538-41, trips to Hoya, work on church order, visitations for Lippe 1540-41, participates in colloquies at Worms amd Regensburg 1548, opposition to Interim 1557, call to superintendent at Nienburg, Hoya

Church Orders:

1529: Church order for East Frisia with Johann Pelt

1534: Church order for Bremen

1538/ 40?: Church order for Lippe with Adrian Buxschot

Sources : ADB 38, pp. 352-55; RE 19, pp. 778-81; Reformatorenlexikon, p. 208. 372 Heinrxcli Wlxxkel (1493-1551)

Personal Background: Father: Small burger in Wemig Mother: not known

Education: Augustinian Cloister at Halberstadt, 1507 Leipzig, 1511 Wittenberg, 1525

Career Outline: 1522, influenced by reforms of Eberhard Widensee at Halberstadt 1523, elected Prior, then pastor at St. Martins 1525, leaves order, protestant sympathies 1528, preaches in Braunschweig, after work of Oldendorp; assists Bugenhagen with church order, coadjutor with Gorlitz 1530, aids with work in Gottingen 1531, returns to Braunschweig, still active at Halberstadt 1542, aids with reform in Hildesheim 1543, involved with territorial visitations in Braunschweig- Wolf enbiittel

Church orders:

1528: Assist Bugenhagen with Braunschweig church order 1531: Church order for Gottingen with Sutel

1542: Assists Bugenhagen and Corvinus with church order for Hildesheim.

Sources: ADB 43, pp. 337-38; Reformatorenlexlkonf pp. 221-23. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published Primary Sources; Aepinus, Johann. Untejrricht von gottloser Leute Begrabnxs. Lübeck, 1547. Agricola, Johann. Ain Kurtze anred zu alien misgünsizlgenn der Christliche freiheit. Basel: Valentine Curio, 1522. Die Bekenntnisschrlften der evangelisch-lutherxschen Kirchen. 9th ed. Gottingen; Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1963. Bonnus, Herman. Chronica der vomemliksten geschichte unde handel/ der Keyseliken Stadt Lübeck/ Up dat kojrteste voruatet unde mit vlite vortenkent. Magdeburg; Hans Walther, 1539. Bugenhagen, Johann. Von dem Christenlichen glauben und rechten guten wercken. Widder den falschen glauben und erdichtete gute v/erke An die Ehrentreiche Stad Hamburg. Wittenberg; George Rhaw, 1526. ______. Von mancherley Christlichen sachen/ trostliche leren/ sonderlich von beiden Sacramenten.. .wider die jrrigen Secten/ gezogen aus der Lubecker/ Hamburger und Brunswiger Ordenunge. Wittenberg; Hans Luft, 1531. Vermanung an alle Pastoren und Predicanten des Euangelii im Churfürstenthumb zu Sachssen. Wittenberg; Veit Creutzer, 1556. Die Chroniken der niedersachischen Stadte: Magdeburg. 2 Bd. Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, no. 27. Gottingen; Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962. Corvinus, Antonius. Warhaffting bericht/ Das das wort Gotts/ ohn tumult/ ohn schwermerey/ zu Gosier und Braunschweigk gepredigt wird. Wittenberg; Georg Rhau, 1529.

373 374

. Apologia der Christlichen Visitation, in Hertzogen Erichs fiirstenthimb geschehen, wider eins Grawen Miinchs lasterschrifft, und atlicher Papisten schandlügen gestellet. Hildesheim: Hennig Rüdem, 1543

. Constitutiones aliquot syonodales, das ist. etliche satzunge, so in zweien geistlichen versamltingen, deren eine zu Pattensen im 44. jar am. 16 Julii und die andere zu MUnden im 45 jare am Donnerstage nach Epiphanie in herzogen Erichs fUrstenthume gehalten... Item ein kurzer bericht vom christlichen Banne. Hannover: Hennig Rudem, 1545.

Alle flimeme Artickel unser Christlichen Religion/ so einem jeden Christen zuwissen von noten/ Gebets weise gestelt und also begriffen/ das man in und unter den Gebeten und bitten, dieseblige Artickel auch ssissen und lemen kan/ Durch Antonium Corvinum nach seiner erledigung. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Braubach, 1554. Kawerau, Gustav. Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas. 2 vols. Halle, 1884.

Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-.

D. Martin Luthers Werke, Briefwechsel. 15 vols. Weimeir, 1930-78.

Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut Lehmann, et. al. St. Louis and Philadelphia, 1955-.

Melanchthon, Philip. Philippi Melanchthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Carl Bretschneider and H. Bindseil. Corpus Reformatoren. 28 vols. Halle/ Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1834-1860.

Morlin, Joachim. Vom dem Beruff der Prediger. Und wie fern Weltliche Qberkeit macht hat/ dieselbigen jres Ampts zu entsetzen/ Notiger Christlicher bericht. Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1565.

Osiander, Andreas. Gesamtausgabe. 4 vols. Edited by Gerhard Müller. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981.

Richter, Aemilius Ludwig, ed. Die evangelische Kirchenordnungen des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts. Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte des Rechts und der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche. 2 vols. Weimar, 1846; reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1967. 375

Sarcerius, Erasmus. Einigo Predigte axiff dem grossen Landtage zu Leipzig/ gethan/ des jars MDLIII. Leipzig: Jacob Berwaldt, 1553.

. Form und Weise einer visitation fiir die graft und berscbafft Mansfelt, Eisleben, 1554.

. Ein Biicblein von dem Banne und andem Kircbenstraffen/ aus Gottes wort/ aus Apostoliscben lere und thaten/ aus der Vater Biicber/ und aus unserer fumemsten tbeologen Scbrifften zusamen gezogen fiir diese so uns itzigen kircbendiener bescbuldigen, Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1555.

Von Cbristliken notigen/ und nutzen consistoren Oder geistlicben gericbten/ Erasmi Sarcerii einfeltiges bedencken, Eisleben, 1555.

Sehling, Emil, et. al, eds. Die evangeliscben Kircbenordnung des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Vols. 1-5: Leipzig, 1902-13. Vols 6 et. sep.: Tübingen, 1955— .

Statuta sinodalia metropolitane ecclesiae Magdeborgensis. Magdeburg, 1501.

Stupperich, Robert, ed. Die Reformation in Ordensland Preussen 1523/24 z FredLigten, Traktate und Kircbenordnungen. Ulm, 1966.

Tappert, Theodore, ed. Tbe Book of Concord: Tbe Confessions of tbe Evangelical Lutheran Churcb. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959.

Timann, Johann. Der Erentriken Stadt Bremen/ Cbristlike Ordeninge/ na dem billigen Euangelio/ tbom gemenen nutte/ sampt etliker Cbristliker lere erer Predicanten. Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1534.

Tschackert, Paul. Briefwechsel des Antonius Corvinus. Hemnover, 1900.

Vogt, Otto. Dr. Johannes Bugenbagens Briefwechsel. Stettin, 1888; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Dims, 1966. 376

Secondary Literature:

Bailey, Teresa. "From Piety to Politics: Elizabeth, of Braunschweig sind the Introduction of the Reformation in Braunschweig-Calenberg, 1540-45." Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1988.

Bcimes, Robin. Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.

Barton, Peter. Um Luthers Erbe. Studien und Texte zur Spatreformation^ Tilemann Heshusius (1527—1559) . Witten: Luther Verlag, 1972.

Bizer, Ernst. Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962.

Blaschke, Kcurlheinz. Sachsen im Zeitalter der Reformation. Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformationsgeschichte 185. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1970.

Blickle, Peter. The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants* War from a New Perspective. Tremslated by Thomas Brady cind Erik Middlfort. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1982.

. Gemeindereformation: Die Menschen des 16. Jahrhundeirts auf dem Weg zum Eeil. Miinich, R. Oldenbourg, 1985.

Brecht, Martin. Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1967.

. Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521-1532. Translated by James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Contemporaries of Erasmus. A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation. Edited by Peter Bientenholz. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985“.

Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism Between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the Counter-Refoirmation. Translated by Jeremy Moiser. Philidelphia, Westminster Press, 1976.

Delius, Walter. Justus Jonas, 1493-1555. Gutersloh, 1952. 377

Dolan, John Patrick. The Influence of Erasmus, Wxtzel, and Cassander in the Church Ordinances and Reform Proposals of the United Duchy of Cleve during the Middle Decades of the 16th Century. Münster, 1957. Donnelly, Francis. The Diocesan Synod: an Historical Conspectus and Commentary. Catholic Universities of America, Canon Law Studies. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Universities of America, 1932 Elert, Werner. "Der bishoffliche Charakter der Superintendentur-Verfassxmg." Luthertum 46 (1935): 353-67. . The Structure of Lutheranism. 2 vols. Translated by W. A. Hansen. St Louis, 1962. Estes, James. Christian Magistrate and State Church: The Reforming Career of Johannes Brenz. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Geisenhof, Georg. Bibliotheca Corviniana: Eine bibliographische Studie. Braunschweig, 1900; reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1964. Bibliotheca Bugenhagiana: Bibliographie der DrucJcshriften des D. Joh. Bugenhagen. Leipzig, 1908: reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1963. Gensischen, Hans-Werner. We Condemn. How Luther and 16th- Century Lutheranism Condemned False Doctrine. Translated by Herbert Bouman. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1967. Gerecke, Richard. "Studien zu Urbanus Rhegius kirchenregimentlicher Tatigkeit in Norddeutschland. Teil 2: Die Neuordnung des Kirchenwesens Lüneburg." Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fiir niedersachische Kirchengeschichte 77 (1979): 20-46. Gotze, Ruth. Wie Luther Kirchenzucht ubte. Eine kritische Untersuchung von Luthers Bannsprechen und ihrer exegetische Grundlegung aus der Sicht unserer Zeit. Gottingen, 1958. Grimm, Harold. Lazarus Sprengler: A Lay Leader of the Reformation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1979. 378

Gritsch., Eric. Reformer without a Church: The Life and Thought of Thomas Muentzer, 1488 (?)-1525. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Heckel, Johannes. Lex Charitatis: Eine juristische Untersuchung fiber das Recht in der Tbeologie Martin Luthers. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973.

Das blinde, undeutliche Wort ••Kirche:" Gesammelte Aufsatze. Edited by Siegfried Grundmann. Cologne: Bohlau Verlag, 1964.

Helmolt, K. von. Tilemann HeBhus iind seine sieben Exila. Leipzig, 1859.

Hendel, Kurt. "Johannes Bugenhagen*s Educational Contributions." Ph.D. diss., Ohio state University, 1974.

Hildebrand, Hems. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, 1504-67. St Louis: Sixteenth Century Studies and Essays, 1967.

Holl, Karl. The Cultural Significance of the Reformation. Translated by Karl and Bcirbara Hertz, and John Lichtblau. New York: Meridian Books, 1959.

Hsia, R. Po-chia. Society and Religion in Münster, 1535- 1618. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Jedin, Hubert. A History of the Council of Trent. 4 vols. Translated by Dorn Ernest Graf. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1957-61.

Jungkuntz, Theodore. Die Brandenburg-Niimbergische Kirchenordnung von 1533 und ihre Auswirkung. Erlangen, 1964.

.Formulators of Concord: Fo u r Architects of Lutheran Unity. St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1977.

Karant-Nunn, Susan. Zwickau in Transition. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975.

Kittelson, James. "The Confessional Age: The Late Reformation in Germany." In Reformation Europe : A Guide to Reseeirch. Edited by Steven Ozment. St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982

. Luther the Reformer: the Story of the Man and his Career. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. 379

"Strasbourg and the Landesherrliche— Icirchenregiment." Lacas (1989)

Kjeldgacurd-Pedersen, Steffen. Gese-tz, Evangelivtm u n d Busse, Tbeologiegeschichtllche Studien zum Verhaltnis zwischen dem jungen Johann Agricola (Eisleben) und Martin Luther, Leiden, 1983.

Klaus, Bemhcird. Veit Dietrich: Leben und Werk, Nürnberg: Vereins fiir bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1958.

Kohler, Walter. Züricher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, 2 vols. Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Schweizerischen Reformationsgeschichte. Leipzig, 1942. Kolb, Robert. Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity, St L o u i s : Concordia Press, 1977.

. Nicholaus Amsdorf (1483^1565), Popular Polemics in the Preservation of Luther’s Legacy, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1978.

. "Matthaeus Judex's Condemnation of Princely Censorship of Theologians' Publications." Church History 50 (1981): 401-14.

Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530—1580, St. Louis: Concordia, 1991.

Krumwiede, Hans-Walter. Zur Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen und Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel, Gottingen, 1967.

______. "Bugenbagens Braunschweiger Kirchenordnung (1528) als Dokument des Protestêintismus zwischen Reformation und Revolution." Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur niedersachische Kirchengeschichte 77 (1979): 13-24.

"Kirchengeschichte. Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche von der Reformation bis 1803." In Geschichte Niedersachsensf 3: 2: 1-259. Edited by Hans Patze. Hildesheim: August lax, 1983.

"Kirchenverfassung und Christian Existenz bei Bugenhagen." Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fiir niedersachische Kirchengeschichte 84 (1986): 105- 22.

Lane, Frank. "Poverty and Poor Relief in the German Church Orders of Johann Bugenhagen, 1485-1558." Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1973. 380 Ley, Roger. Kirchenzucht bei Zwingli. Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des schweizerischen Protestantismus 2. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1948. Liebmann, Maximilian, ürbanus Rhegius und die Anfange der Reformation. Münster, 1980. Mcirtines, Lauro. Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968 Maurer, Wilhelm. "Francis Lambert und das Verfassungsideal in der Reformatio ecclesiae Hassiae." Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 48 (1929): 219-30. Gemeindezucht, Gemeindeamt, Konfirmation. Eine Hessische SaJcularerinnerung. Schriftenreihe des Pfarrvereins Kurhessen-Waldeck 2. Kassel: Stauda, 1940. McNeill, John Thomas. A History of the Cure of Souls. New York: Harper, 1951. Mentzer, Raymond. "Disciplina nervus ecclesiae: The Calvinist Reform of Morals at Nimes." Sixteenth Century Journal 18 (1987): 88-99. Moeller, Bemd. Imperial Cities and the Reformation, Three Essays. Translated by Erik Midelfort êind Mark Edwards. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. Müller, Gerhard. Francis Lambert von Avignon und die Reformation in Hessen. Meurburg, 1958. "Allicince and Confession: The Theological- Historical Development and the Ecclesiastical-Political Significcince of Reformation Confessions." Sixteenth Centnry Journal 8, 4 (1977) : 123-40. Zwischen Reformation und Gegenwart II: Vortrage und Aufsatze. Hannover: Lutherisches Verlaghaus, 1988. Müller, Karl. "Die Anfange der Konsistorialverfassung im lutherischen Deutschlemd. " Historische Zeitschrift 102 (1909): 1-21. Müller-Streisland, Richeird. "Theologie und Kirchenpolitik bei J. A. bis 1568." Blatter fiir wiirttembergische Kirchengeschichte 60/61 (1960-61): 224-37. 381

Münch, Paul. Zucht und Ordnung^ Refonalerte Kircbenverfassïingen im 16. und 17 Jahrhundexrtsz Na.ssa.u- Dillenberg, Kurpfalz und Hessen-Kassel. Stuttgart, 1978.

Nelson Bumett, Amy. "Penance and Church Discipline in the Thought of Martin Bucer." Ph.D. diss.. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1989.

Oberman, Heiko. Lutherz Man Between God and Devil. Tramslated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbamt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Oestreich, Gerd. Struckturprobleme des europaischen Absolutismus. Munich, 1932.

Olson, Oliver. "Theology of Revolution: Magdeburg, 1550- 51." Sixteenth Century Journal 3 (1972): 67—75.

Ozment, Steven. The Reformation in the Citiesz The Appeal of Prostestantism to Sixteenth Century Germany and Switzerland. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.

When Fathers Ruledz Family Life in Reformation Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983

Pauck, Wilhelm. The Heritage of the Reformation. N e w York, 1961.

Pettke, Sabine. "Des Lübecker Superintendenten Herman Bonnus Behelfskirchenordnung fiir Rostock." Schrifften des Vereins fiir schleswig-holsteinische Kirchengeschichte 43 (1987); 13-25.

Press, Volker. Calvinismus und Territorialstaat. Regierung und Zentralbehorden der Kurpfalz, 1559-1619. Stuttgart, 1970.

Pressel, Theodor. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften der Vater und Begriinder der lutherischen Kirche VIII. Elberfeld, 1862.

Preuss, James. Carlstadt's Ordinanciones and Luther’s Libertyz A Study of the Wittenberg Movement, 1521-22. Cambridge: Harvaurd University Press, 1974.

Ranke, Leopold. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. 2 vols. Cologne; Phaidon Verlag, 1934.

Realencyklopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 24 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. 19— 382 Rhetmeyer, Philip J. Aatiquitas Ecclesiastica Inclyt-a Urbls Brunsvlga, Pairs VII. Braunschweig^ 1756.

Richter, Aemilius L. Geschichte der evangelische Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland. Leipzig, 1851.

Roth, Erich. Die Privatbeichte und die SchlUsselgewalt in der Theologie der Reformatoren. Giitersloh, 1952.

Rublack, Hans-Christcph. Gescheiterte Reformation, Friihreformatorische und protestantische Bewegungen in Slid— und westdeutschen geistlichen Residenzen. Stuttgart, 1978.

Schilling, Heinz. Konfessionskonflikt und Staatsbildung. Eine Fallstudie liber das Verhaltnis von religiosen und sozialem Wandel in der Friihneuzeit am Beispiel der Grafschaft Lippe. Gutersloh, 1981.

. "The Reformatation in the Hanseatic Cities." Sixteenth Century Journal 14 (1983): 443-56.

. Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland— Das Problem der "Zweiten Reformation.*’ Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformationsgeschichte, no. 195. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1986.

. "'History of Crime' or 'History of Sin'? Some Reflections on Early Modern Church Discipline." In Society and Politics in Early Modern Europe. Edited by E. I. Kouri. London: McMillan Press, 1987.

Schmidt, Gustav. Justus Menius, der Reformater Thiiringens. Gotha, 1867; reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1969.

Schorn-Schiitte, " 'Papocaeserismus ' der Theologen? Von Amt des evangelischen Pfarrers in der friihneuzeitlichen Stadtgesellschaft bei Bugenhagen." Archive for Reformation History 79 (1988): 239-60.

Scribner, Robert. "Police- and Territorial State in Sixteenth Century Württemberg." In Society and Politics in Reformation Europe. Edited by E. I. Kouri. London : McMillan Press, 1987.

SeebaB, Gottfried. Das reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osianders. Nürnberg: Vereins für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1967.

Strauss, Gerald. Luther’s House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1978. 383

______- Law, Resistance, and the State: the Opposition to Roman Law in Reformation Gemaany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Sprengler—Ruppenthal, Anneliese. ”Zu den theologischen Grundalgen reformatorischen Kirchenrechts : studie an einigen Beispielen.” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fiir niedersachische Kirchengeschichte 85 (1987) : 67-85.

Stalnaker, John. "Anadjaptism, Martin Bucer, and the Shaping of the Hessian Protestant Church. " Journal o f Modern History 4S (1976): 601-44.

Stupperich, Martin. Osiander in Preussen, 1549—1552. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973.

Stupperich, Robert. "Antonius Corvinus." Westfalische Lebenshilder 7 (1959): 20—39.

Reformatorische Verkundigung und Lebensordnxmg, Bremen:an • Cairl nan! Schunemann .Cr^Viiinom^inn Verlag, V erl aCT. 1963.

. Reformatorenlexikon. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984

Tent 1er, Thomas. Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.

Treu, Martin. Die Lutherhalle Wittenberg. Leipzig, 1991.

Troeltsch, Ernest. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. 2 vols. Translated by Olive Wyon. New York: MacMillan Company, 1931.

Tschackert, Paul. Analecta Corviniana. Quellen zur Geschichte des Niedersachsen. Leipzig, 1910.

Uhlhom, Gerhard. Urbanus Rhegius. Leben i2nd ausgewahlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1861.

Wartenburg, Gunther. Landesherrschaft und Reformation. Moritz von Sachsen und die albertinische Kirchenpolitik bis 1546. Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1988.

Wriedt, Markus. "Luthers Gebrauch der Bischoftitulator in seinen Brief en." In Martin Luther und das Bischofsamt. Edited by Martin Brecht. Stuttgart, 1990.

Zeeden, Ernest w. Das Zeitalter der Gegenreformation. Freiburg, 1967.