Hans Denck, Hans Hut, and Caspar Schwenckfeld

Chapter 7 Hans Denck, Hans Hut, and Caspar Schwenckfeld

Geoffrey Dipple i Mysticism and Reformation Radicalism

The logical starting point for any discussion of the intersection of late medieval mysticism and Reformation radicalism is Steven Ozment’s Mysticism and Dissent. According to Ozment, mysticism was a revolutionary force in the sixteenth century, breaking the bonds of institutional and intellectual authority and laying the foundations for modern individualism and subjectivity. He describes the mystical enterprise as “transrational and transinstitutional,” with the potential for an “anti-intellectual and anti-institutional stance, which can be adopted for the critical purposes of dissent, reform, and even revolution.” Mystical theology, derived especially from the Theologia Deutsch (German Theology), declared and justified the “priority—if not sovereignty—of indi- vidual experience and insight in religious matters.” This process he traces from Thomas Müntzer, through Hans Hut, Hans Denck, and Sebastian Franck in the early years of the Reformation, and on to Sebastian Castellio and Valentin Wei- gel later on.1 In assembling his list of mystically inspired dissenters, Ozment ignores typological distinctions between different groups and individuals in the radical Reformation, arguing that similarities of dissent among these men outweighed other differences in their thought.2 However, as Emmet McLaugh- lin notes, typology is particularly valuable in the study of Reformation radicals who did not have recognized theological authorities, tightly organized in- stitutions, or the coercive power of the state available to enforce uniformity on their movements.3 Especially important in this context has been Ernst Troeltsch’s distinction between biblicist, sectarian Anabaptists and mystically inspired Spiritualists. According to Troeltsch, the former emphasized the law of Christ, external organization of the community and its ceremonies, and their identification with the church of the gospel and primitive Christian- ity. By way of contrast, the Spiritualists, the “highest and noblest expression

1 Ozment, Mysticism and Dissent, especially 8, 59–60. 2 Ibid., x. 3 McLaughlin, “Reformation Spiritualism,” 123.

140 Dipple of Protestant mysticism,” were intensely individualistic and generally dismis- sive of the external forms of religious life.4 Subsequently developed typologies of Reformation radicals—for example, those by George H. Williams—have maintained the basic distinctions between these two groups. And despite the work of scholars like Werner Packull, Klaus Deppermann, and Arnold Snyder, who have highlighted the importance of mystical elements in different Ana- baptist traditions, Troeltsch’s categories continue to influence discussions of mysticism and the radical Reformation.5 The present chapter drops from Ozment’s list of early Reformation dissenters Müntzer and Franck, both of whom are the subjects of separate chapters in this volume, and adds to it Caspar Schwenckfeld. Denck, Hut, and Schwenck- feld in no way form a cohesive group, either historically or typologically. Denck and Hut knew each other, but neither ever met Schwenckfeld. Schwenckfeld was aware of, and apparently endorsed some of Denck’s ideas, but this in no way implies that they constituted any sort of organized or even informal school or tradition. According to Troeltsch’s basic typologies, Schwenckfeld qualifies as a Spiritualist; Hut as an Anabaptist; and Denck as something in between, a Spiritualist Anabaptist or Halbtäufer. In Williams’s more nuanced typologies, Schwenckfeld is an Evangelical Spiritualist, Hut an Anabaptist, and Denck a Contemplative Anabaptist.6 Nonetheless, comparing the thought of these three men yields some inter- esting insights into both the relationship between mysticism and dissent and the typologies through which we view Reformation radicals. Ozment’s analy- sis highlights the subversive potential of late medieval mysticism especially in three areas: soteriology and Christology, the authority of Scripture, and the efficacy of the sacraments and their significance for ecclesiology. Despite noteworthy variations, there is remarkable agreement between Denck, Hut, and Schwenckfeld on many of these subjects. Interestingly, though, of the three men studied here, it is Schwenckfeld, the archetypal Spiritualist, who is missing from Ozment’s list of dissenters, and whom McLaughlin describes as perhaps the least influenced by late medieval mysticism of all the Reformation- era Spiritualists.7

4 Troeltsch, Social Teachings, i:334, ii:729–53. 5 Packull, Mysticism; Deppermann, Melchior Hoffman; Snyder, “Anabaptist Spirituality.” In Bernard McGinn’s recent survey of mysticism and the Reformation, the radicals continue to be represented exclusively by Spiritualists; see McGinn, “Mysticism and the Reformation,” 57–59. 6 Williams, Radical Reformation, 1238, 1252, 1268, 1275. 7 McLaughlin, “Spiritualism,” 127, 134–35.