70-13,974

AUSMUS, Harry Jade, 1937- CHRISTOPH OF WURTTEMBERG'S ATTEMPTS TO UNIFY PROTESTANTISM: 1555-1568

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 History, modern

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

©Copyright by

Harry Jack Ausmus

1970 •

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED CHRISTOPH OF WURTTEMBERG'S ATTEMPTS TO UNIFY

PROTESTANTISM: 1555-1568

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Harry Jack Ausmus, B.A., B.D., M.A. ******

The Ohio State University 1969

Approved by

Department of History ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of a doctoral dissertation would be inconceivable without thoughtful assistance and patient guidance from others. For my wife, Linda, there is no limit to my appreciation. My colleague and long-time friend, Arthur R. Kelsey, has been of tremendous encouragement to me. Professor Harold J. Grimm, my dissertation adviser, has graciously provided me with his lucid advice and his mature guidance, and, moreover, he has given me the opportunity to learn from a distinguished scholar.

Harry J. Ausmus VITA

June 14, 1937 Born - Lafollette, Tennessee

1959 . . . . B.A., East Tennessee State University Johnson City, Tennessee

1963 . . . . B.D., Drew University, Madison, New Jersey

1963 . . . . M.A., East Tennessee State University Johnson City, Tennessee

1966-1967 . . Graduate Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1967- . . Assistant Professor of History, Southern Connecticut State College, New Haven, Connecticut

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Renaissance and Reformation

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Europe

Nineteenth Century Europe TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... iii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. CHRISTOPH, THE LUTHERAN DUKE: HIS LIFE TO 1555 ...... 8

III. CHRISTOPH, THE FAITHFUL L U T H E R A N ...... 41

IV. CHRISTOPH'S EFFORTS: 1555-1559 77

V. THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE: 1560-1568 138

VI. C O N C L U S I O N ...... 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 169

iv CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the major concerns of churchmen in the twentieth century has been a search for the means of healing the divisions within western Christendom, the historical roots of which are to be found in the sixteenth century with the attempt at reform of the church by Martin Luther. In general, the Reformation era has been viewed as a time of dissension and disunity which resulted in the separation of the western world into two major religious camps, the Catholics and the

Protestants. Protestantism itself has frequently been considered the source of this disunity because of the multiformity of theological positions and the proliferation of various religious organizations and sects.^ That there were important and significant unitive efforts among the Protestants of the sixteenth century, however, has generally been given lesser consideration than the more obvious characteristics of

As John T. McNeill maintained: "According to common opinion, the Protestant spirit is essentially one of atomic individualism." John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964) , p. 9.

1 2 the diversity of religious doctrine and the increasing 2 power of the territorial princes.

Many of the princes of the sixteenth century understood the importance of achieving religious unity.

Harmony among Protestants was considered to be not only an ideal religious goal but also a means of forming a united political front against the Catholics. One of the more important and enthusiastic advocates of religious unification in the sixteenth century was Duke Christoph of wiirttemberg. His efforts toward unity and his role in the Reformation, however, have received little attention by historians in the twentieth century.

Sources on the life and thought of Christoph are significantly sparse in English. A basic reference is the multi-volume set of the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

2 Two sources which are important exceptions are of course McNeill's book and Stephen Charles Neil's A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967). 3 According to Viktor Ernst: "Keiner aber hat die Einigung der evangelischen Kirche so sehr in den Mittel- punkt seiner Lebensaufgabe gestellt, wie der eigentliche Begrunder des wurttembergischen Kirchentums, Herzog Christoph. Wo man die fruheren Vorkampfer des Einheitsgedankens aufzahlt, wird rneist auch sein Name mitgenannt; dariiber, wie er den Gedanken verwirklichen wollte, fehlt es bis jetzt an naheren Angaben,” Viktor Ernst, "Herzog Christoph von Wiirttemberg und die Einheit der evangelischen Kirche," Schwabische Kronik (No. 466, October 6, 1906), p. 9. 4 of Religious Knowledge which provides a brief biographical

account of Christoph's life written by Gustave Bossert.

A general description of some of the Duke's early

activities can be found in the English edition of Leopold

von Ranke's History of the Reformation in Germany.^

Volume seven of the English translation of Johannes

Janssen's History of the German People** provides frequent

references to Christoph's role in German history from 1555

to 1568. John Constable's "Johannes Brenz's Role in the

Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century" and

James Estes' "Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Church Order

in the German Reformation" furnish important background

material for the role of Christoph's major theological 7 adviser.

No biography of the Duke of wiirttemberg has been

written in the twentieth century. The most recent was the

4 Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1353).

^Leopold von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, 2 vols. (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1966).

^Johannes Janssen, History of the German People, 16 vols. (London, 1896-1916). 7 These two sources are unpublished Ph.D. dissertations at The Ohio State University, completed in 1967 and 1964, respectively. 4 two-volume edition by a former professor of history at the University of Tubingen, Bernhard Kugler, entitled O Herzog Christoph zu Wirtemberg and published in 1872.

Based upon his research in the Staatsarchiv in Stuttgart,

Kugler's work is more comprehensive and definitive than the earlier biographies by Johann Christian von Pfister and Johann Friedrich Rosslin, both having relied largely upon Christian Friedrich Sattler's five-volume Geschichte des Herzogthums WurteAberg unter der Regierung der g Herzogen, published in 1769-1772. A brief biographical sketch can also be found in the Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Albert

Hauck.10

The most important and most useful source is the collected letters of Christoph. Edited and with a valuable introduction by Viktor Ernst, the four-volume set,

O Bernhard Kugler, Herzog Christoph zu Wirtemberg, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Ebner und Seubert, 1868-1672). g Johann Friedrich Rdsslin, Leben Herzog Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: Erhard und Loflund, 1792). Johann Christian von Pfister, Herzog Christoph von Wirtemberg (Tubingen, 1819). Christian Friedrich Sattler, Geschichte des Herzogthums Wiirtenbsrg unter der Regierung der Herzogen, 5 vols. (Tilbingen: deorg Heinrich Reiss, 1759-1772)/"

^Albert Hauck (hrsg.), Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 24 vols. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1898). 5

which was published at the turn of the twentieth century,

provides essential material on the political and religious

activity of the Duke from 1550 to 1560."^ Unfortunately,

the letters of Christoph during the period 1560-1568 12 have, as yet, not been published. With specific

reference to Christoph's idea of Christian unity, Ernst

alone has written on the subject in the Schwabische 13 Kronik in 1906. Ernst concentrates primarily upon the

Duke's understanding of religious unification and upon

his motivations for seeking religious reconciliation.

Significantly, in this article, Ernst recommends that the

details of Christoph's unification efforts ought to be 14 considered.

The histories of the territory of Wurttemberg are

numerous, with most of them utilizing Sattler's five-

volume study. In this regard, Christoph Friedrich von

Stalin's Wirtembergische Geschichte and Julius Rauscher's

■^Viktor Ernst (hrsg.), Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg, 4 voli"! (Stuttgart: W. Kohlnammer, IB'9'9)'.------12 Reliable sources have informed me that the letters do exist in the Hauptstaatsarchiv in Stuttgart, but that they have not been issued as a collection. 13 Cf. footnote number 3, above. 6

Wurttembergische Reformationsgeschichte are notable.^

In addition, Eugen Schneider's Wurttembergische

Reformationsgeschichte and his four-volume Wurttembergische

Geschichtsgue1len are helpful.*® The most recent work is Karl Weller's Wurttembergische Geschichte, published 17 in 1963. For extensive bibliographical listings on the history of Wurttemberg and Christoph, Karl Schottenloher's edition of the Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im

Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 1517-1585 and Wilhelm von

Heyd's compilation of the Bibliographie der wurttembergischen 18 Geschichte are indispensable.

15 Christoph Friedrich von Stalin, Wirtembergische Geschichte, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta *sche Buchhandlung, 1870). Julius Rauscher, Wurttembergische Reformationsgeschichte, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1934).

*®Eugen Schneider, Wurttembergische Reformations­ geschichte (Stuttgart: R. Roth, 1867). Eugen Schneider (hrsg.), Wttrttembergische Geschichtsquellen, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1887-1891). 1 7 Karl Weller, Wurttembergische Geschichte (Stuttgart: Silberburg-Veriag, 1963). 18 Karl Schottenloher (hrsg.), Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung l£l7-li>85, Vols. I-VI (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1933-1966). Wilhelm von Heyd, Bibliographie der wurttem- bergischen Geschichte, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1895-I9T57. ------1

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a detailed study of Christoph of Wiirttemberg1 s role, as seen primarily through his letters, in attempting to unify Protestantism during the years 1555-1568. In order to achieve this, an inquiry will be made into the historical background of his accession to the ducal seat of the territory and the development of his eminent position as mediating prince in Germany during the mid­ sixteenth century. Prior to considering the details of his unification efforts, an analysis of his view of the role of the Christian prince in establishing a unified church will be provided against the background of the views held by Martin Luther and Johannes Brenz. CHAPTER II

CHRISTOPH, THE LUTHERAN DUKE:

HIS LIFE TO 1555

His Childhood and Youth

In 1515, when Martin Luther was lecturing to his students at the university in Wittenberg on Paul's letters to the Romans, Christoph was born on May 12 in the small city of Urach, approximately twenty-two miles southeast of

Stuttgart.^ The son of Duke Ulrich of Wurttemberg (d. 1550) and of Sabina (d. 1564), the daughter of Duke Albert IV of

Bavaria, Christoph's life encompassed the major events of 2 the Reformation era. The religious ferment of the age had important implications for the political events of the sixteenth century. This relationship can be witnessed in the life and character of Christoph.

The actions of Christoph's father during the early years of his life would have a profound effect upon his own political and religious career. Only five days prior to

^"Albert Hauck ; (hrsg-), Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, IV (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1898), p. 57. 2 Sabina's mother was the daughter of the sister of Emperor Maximilian I. Johann Friedrich Rosslin, Leben Herzog Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: Erhard und Loflund, 1792), p. 2. 9

Christoph's birth, Ulrich, described by Bernhard Kugler as

a "restless head," was suspected of having murdered his 3 hunting companion, Hans von Hutten. Reportedly, the Duke 4 had expressed his affection for the latter's wife. An

important result of this incident was that Sabina,

described as a "gentle wife," became distrustful of her

husband and began to fear for her own life.'* By November,

the breach between the two was irreconcilable and

consequently Sabina fled to her native country of Bavaria,

leaving Christoph and his sister, Anna, in Wurttemberg.6

This episode contributed to the lowering of Ulrich's

3 Bernhard Kugler, Christoph, Herzog zu Wirtemberg, I (Stuttgart: Ebner und Seubert, 1868-72), p. 3. 4 The word "reportedly" is used advisedly, because the authenticity of the details of the story is questionable. For example, Rosslin (p. 2) wrote that Hans von Hutten, a relative of the humanist, Ulrich von Hutten, was killed by a hunter, while Kugler (I, p. 4) and Gustav Bossert (Realencyklopadie, IV, p. 57) clearly assert that the Duke of Wiirttemberg was the murderer. Leopold von Ranke (in History of the Reformation in Germany, I (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 164-165) admitted the evidence for the story is dubious, but nevertheless gave a detailed description of the murder itself. Regardless of the guilty party, Duke Ulrich's reputation was apparently well known within Wurttemberg. Rosslin (p. 3) wrote that the Duke was also suspected of having an affair with the wife of the bailiff (Obervogt) of Urach, Dietrich Spat. 5 Kugler, I, p. 3. 6 Realencyklopadie, IV, p. 57; Samuel Macauley Jackson (editor-in-chief), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, III (Grand Rapids: £aker Book House, 1953), pi 66. lo

10

esteem before Emperor Maximilian I and especially Duke 7 Albert IV. Furthermore, Ulrich's subsequent actions did

little by way of enhancing his own popularity. In 1519,

he besieged the city of Reutlingen, where the Reichstag was 8 in session, and proclaimed it to be a part of Wurttemberg.

With the aid of French money, he enlarged his army and

negotiated with the Swiss for an alliance against the Q Swabian League. Before this could be accomplished, the

League attacked Wurttemberg with a superior force and

captured the city of Tubingen, where Christoph and his

sister were residing. Ulrich was forced to retreat to

McJmpelgard, an Alsatian possession of Wurttemberg.

While Ulrich was preparing to re-conquer the duchy,

Sabina appealed to the recently crowned Emperor, Charles V,

seeking to secure the territory of Wurttemberg for her

son.*® The members of the League, however, were unable to

convince Charles that he should take the duchy as well as

Ulrich's children under his care. Wurttemberg thus

remained in the hands of the Hapsburg-Austrians from 1520

7 Kugler, I, p. 6. O Rosslin, p. 4; Kugler, I, p. 6. Presumably, Ulrich took this action as a retaliation for the killing of one of his officials by a member of the Swabian League. 9 Ranke, I, p. 180.

*®Rosslin, p. 10. )l

11

to 1534. Christoph was sent to Austria to be trained in

the court of King Ferdinand and forfeited his claim as heir

to Wurttemberg. His sister was placed in the custody of

Sabina, who had recently accepted residence in Urach.^

In March, 1520, Christoph went to Innsbruck where

he remained for a period of nine years, while under the

tutorship of Wilhelm von Reichenbach, who taught him to

speak and write Latin. In 1529, he moved to Vienna-

Neustadt, where he came under the care of Michael Tiffernus,

who, according to Johann Rosslin, was as much a father as a 12 teacher to the future duke. By the age of fxfteen,

Christoph was introduced at the court of Charles V, who

was impressed by his facility with Latin and his knowledge

of the sciences, and who consequently appointed him as a

roll-caller in the chancellery. Under the increasing favor

of the Emperor, Christoph was frequently taken on journeys

with Charles which gave him the opportunity to meet many

of the royalty and important political persons of the

Empire. In 1530, he travelled to the Reichstag in Augsburg

where he first became aware of his true position in Europe,

1 1 Kugler, I,pp. 8-9; Julius Rauscher, Wurttem­ bergische Reformationsgeschichte (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1934),pp. 49-50. 12 Rosslin, p. 14. for there several people encouraged him to make a rightful 13 claim to the duchy of Wiirttemberg. At the Regensburg

Reichstag of 1532, he was repeatedly urged, especially by the dukes of Bavaria, to assert his birthright to this 14 south German territory.

The Emperor and King Ferdinand in the meantime had decided to send Christoph to a cloister in Spain where he could receive a Catholic education and thus be better prepared to become heir-prince to Wurttemberg. Christoph, however, wanted no part of the sedentary life of a monastery and managed, with the aid of his tutor,

Tiffernus, to flee from the Emperor's party while enroute to Spain. Taking the road to Salzburg and guided by peasants through the mountain passes, they travelled some distance before the court party missed them and sent

Spanish troops to overtake them. According to the information provided by Rosslin and Johann Pfister,

Christoph's horse became ill while they were being pursued, and in order not to be discovered Tiffernus gave Christoph his horse, drowned the other horse, and hid among the

13 Rosslin,pp. 8— 9; Ranke, II, p. 700; Kugler, I, pp.12-13.

"^Rfisslin, p. 16. \1

I3

15 bushes of a swamp. After a long journey, Christoph

himself reached the security of an uncle's home, probably

one of the dukes of Bavaria, where he was subsequently

re-united with his tutor. On October 18, 1532, he wrote

to his mother that he would remain temporarily in hiding

and that apparently the members of the imperial court had

assumed that he had fallen among a band of robbers or 16 peasants in the mountains.

For some time Ulrich had been attempting to regain

the land from which he had been expelled in 1520. While

residing in Mompelgard he had become increasingly

sympathetic to Protestantism and had permitted Lutheran

ministers within his jurisdiction. He had also attended

the Marburg Colloquy as a friend and colleague of the

Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who was a strong supporter of

the Lutheran movement. Because of Ulrich's Protestant

leanings, many of the people of Wurttemberg, who had come

under the influence of Protestantism, especially

Zwinglianism, began to desire the return of the Duke to

15 Ibid.; Johann Christian von Pfister, Herzog Christoph zu Wirtemberg (Tubingen, 1819),pp. 80-81.

16Kugler, I, p. 15; Christian Friedrich Sattler, Geschighbe des Herzogthums Wurtenberc; unter der Regierung der Herzogen (Tubingen; Georg Heinrich Reiss, 176>9-72), II, pp. 256-229. 14

17 his previous status. Thus, in 1534, Philip of Hesse,

as head of the Schmalkaldic League, which the Protestants

had formed in 1531 to meet the threat of Charles V who

had demanded that the Protestants return to the Catholic

Church, and with the aid of French money, re-conquered 18 the duchy of Wiirttemberg for Ulrich. A month later,

the Treaty of Kaaden was signed in which Ferdinand agreed

to recognize Wiirttemberg as a Lutheran state with Ulrich

as its duke, but with the reservation that the territory

would remain a fief of Austria and that Zwinglianism would 19 not be introduced.

The conclusion of this peace signified a great

victory for the Protestants. It resulted in securing one

of the largest German principalities for the Lutheran

cause. In addition, it displayed the military power of

the Schmalkaldic League. The people of Wurttemberg, on

the whole, were also pleased. As Leopold von Ranke wrote:

The people were delighted to see once more the Huntinghorn [the emblem of the house of Wiirttemberg], after which they had so long

17 Rauscher,pp. 49-50.

■^Rauscher, pp. 111-113; Rosslin, p. 20; Harold J. Grimm, The Reformation Era (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), p." 506“

^Grimm, p. 214; Kugler, I,pp. 25-26; Rosslin,pp. 20-21. 15

yearned; and proclaimed in their songs the happiness of the country that had recovered its native prince.20

Immediately upon returning to the duchy, Ulrich began a religious reform. He divided the territory in half, instructing Ambrosius Blarer, a man of Zwinglian

leanings, to reform the southern part, and Erhard Schnepf, a Lutheran and former professor of theology at the 21 university in Marburg, to reform the northern part.

Because of the presence of Blarer, King Ferdinand accused

Ulrich of violating the Kaaden Treaty, disavowed Ulrich's right to maintain the duchy, and placed the matter before the Imperial Supreme Court. In 1538, Ulrich dismissed

Blarer for his refusal to accept the interpretation of the

Lord's Supper in the Schmalkaldic Articles. Nevertheless,

Ferdinand kept the legal question before the courts until

1552.

Christoph, who since 1533 had made several attempts 22 to proclaim his own right as heir to the duchy, returned

20 Ranke, II, p. 707. 21 Rauscher,pp. 114-115. 22 For example, cf., Kugler, I, pp. 17-25, for Christoph's efforts at the Bundestag in Augsburg, November, 1533. Cf., also, Walter Hubatsch (hrs’g.)# Europaische Briefe im Reformationszeitalter (Ritzingen/Main: Holyner, 1^49), p. 1°6, for the efforts of Margrave Albert of Brandenburg-Ansbach on behalf of Christoph at the Augsburg Reichstag of 1534. to Wiirttemberg for the first time since 1520 in the hope of winning the confidence and trust of his father. Ulrich, however, continued to mistrust his son because of his

former relationship with the Emperor and also because of his continued allegiance to his mother, Sabina. The

French king, Francis I, who had supported Ulrich in his return to power, suggested that Christoph be considered for the position as heir to Wurttemberg and be sent to the French court in order to receive training in states- 23 manship and diplomacy. Although Ulrich was not prepared to insure that Christoph would be his heir, he agreed that such a visit in the French court might be beneficial and that he would support his son financially (to the sum of 24 5,000 gulden per year) while he was there. Christoph, seeking to win the confidence of his father, thus entered the service of the king of France, where he remained for the next eight years.

Although his experience in France proved valuable, he frequently found himself in the position of having to

23Kugler, I, p. 28. 24 This promise of financial support was never completely fulfilled. Indeed, Christoph went into debt while in France, a situation which was relieved only through the efforts of Philip of Hesse, who acted as mediator between Christoph and his father. Cf., Rosslin, p. 24. 17

17

placate not only his father but the king of France and

the Emperor as well. For example, in the third Hapsburg-

Valois war of 1535-1538, Christoph hesitatingly sided with

the French against the Emperor primarily to please his

father. Although his participation in the war as a

commander was limited because of ill health, he nevertheless

sought to regain the confidence of the Emperor. Consequently,

when negotiations began at Nice in June, 1538, Christoph

very earnestly requested of Francis I that he be permitted

to attend. The King agreed and, at the proceedings,

Christoph very cleverly seated himself near the Emperor.

Admiring his skillfulness and talent, Charles V offered

Christoph the position of supreme commander of 10,000

soldiers and 3,000 horsemen. Christoph accepted the

position but only with the reservation that he would never

be placed in the position of having to fight the Germans,

whom he considered to be his blood brothers (Blutsverwandten).

In this manner, Christoph demonstrated that he was an ally

of the French king, a friend to the Emperor, and a 25 patriotic German. All that remained was to win the

complete favor of his father.

25 Kugler, I, pp. 33-42. In addition, the Emperor bestowed upon Tiffernus, Christoph's tutor and attendant, a coat of arms, because he had been gifted with "honorable­ ness, propriety, good sense, youth,and reason." Quotation from Kugler, I, p. 42. ?

18

His Accession to the Duchy

One of the important considerations of Ulrich was

whether his son was a Catholic or a Protestant. In this

regard Philip of Hesse took upon himself the task of

mediating between father and son. He informed Christoph

that, if he would affirm Lutheranism to be his faith, he

could receive the complete approval of his father with

respect to the succession in Wurttemberg. On the other

hand, Philip informed Ulrich that, if he befriended his

son, Christoph could then more readily be persuaded to 26 become a Lutheran. The duke subsequently sent an envoy

to France in order to ascertain Christoph's precise

religious position. He was informed that Christoph not

only opposed the customs of the Catholic Church but that 27 he had even refused a meeting with the Pope.

Two events occurred in 1541 which decisively altered

Ulrich's attitude toward his son. The first was concerned

with the increasing bitterness between the dukes of Bavaria

and Wurttemberg over the fate of some Bavarian subjects

who lived in Ulrich's domain but who had been indentured

^Kugler, I, p. 43; Pfister, p. 139. 27 Kugler, I, pp. 44-46. Gustav Bossert (Realencyklo­ padie, IV, p. 57) suggested that Christoph had only refused to kiss the feet of the Pope. 19 to Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria in 1515. Acting as mediator,

Philip of Hesse called for a conference in Donauworth.

The Bavarian dukes, who had supported Christoph in his claim as the rightful heir of Wurttemberg, insisted that

Christoph should be present in the negotiations. Seeking to avoid any conflict with his father, Christoph requested that the Bavarian dukes not involve him in this difficulty.

This action enhanced the prestige of Christoph in the eyes of his father. The dispute was finally settled in

Lauingen on October ,9, 1541.

Ulrich now began to consider the problem of his own successor. He, at first, decided that, upon his death, Wurttemberg would be equally divided between his son and his brother, Count Georg, who had remained faithful during the years of Ulrich's banishment. Furthermore, the

Duke concluded that a marriage between Georg and Anna

Maria, the daughter of the Margrave Georg of Brandenburg-

Ansbach, would lead to greater security for his territory.

The Margrave, however, opposed this marital arrangement on the grounds that his daughter would be exposed to the potential struggles which could ensue in a divided territory. Moreover, Ulrich's own brother was opposed to a division of the land. Consequently, Ulrich now turned completely to his son and wrote to him that, if he would accept the Evangelical faith and marry Anna Maria, he would inherit all of wiirttemberg. To this Christoph readily

agreed, hurried to his native land, and signed an

agreement with his father on May 17, 1542, in JO Stuttgart.

Christoph was twenty-seven years of age when he

finally returned to Wurttemberg. At first he was offered a position in the army, which he refused only to

accept the post as governor (Statthalter) of Mompelgard.

His new duties afforded him the opportunity to study the

theological foundations of the Evangelical faith. His

earlier religious education had been meager and mostly at the insistence of Philip of Hesse, but he had already 29 concluded that "we will all be Lutheran sane day."

Now he studied more extensively the writings of Luther,

Melanchthon, and Brenz, which he compared with the writings of Zwingli, the Bible, and the Catholics.^®

Exactly when Christoph accepted the Augsburg Confession

is not known. While in Mompelgard, however, he did

invite Johann Engelmann, a Wurttemberg minister, to institute the Wurttemberg Church Order, which had been

^®Kugler, I, pp. 48-52; Rosslin,pp. 27-28. 29 • Realencyklopadie, IV, p. 57; quotation cited in Kugler, I, p. 62. "in Kugler, I, pp. 62-64. 21

31 established earlier by Johannes Brenz.

The religious question receded into the background

when the fourth war between the Hapsburgs and Valois

began in 1542. Christoph once again took a mediating

position. Although he was inclined to join the French,

he sent an emissary to Francis I with the explanation

that he must give his undivided attention to his new

position. When he was requested to join ranks with the

Emperor, he excused himself by maintaining that he must

first follow his father's will and, moreover, that he

received a much needed pension from the French (about

33,800 gulden per year). In this manner, he hoped not 32 to offend Francis I or Emperor Charles V.

After the Peace of Crespy of September 14, 1544,

Francis I expressed his displeasure with Christoph because of his equivocation during the war. Aware that Charles V was preparing for a confrontation with the Schmalkaldic

League, Christoph informed the King that he would not ally 33 himself with the Protestants in the event of conflict.

31 John Constable, "Johann Brenz's Role m the Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century," Ohio State University, p. 106; James M. Estes, "Church Order and the Christian Magistrate According to Johannes Brenz," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte (Jahrgang 59, 1968), pp. 10-11.

^Kugler, I, p. 65.

^Kugler, I, p. 67. 22

When the war began in the autumn of 1546, Christoph fled to Basel where he subsequently became acquainted with his future theological adviser, Johannes Brenz, who, after the enforcement of the Augsburg Interim, had fled

<5 A from Schwabisch-Hall. Ulrich's brother, Count Georg, also escaped to Switzerland when the pro-imperial forces 35 of the duke of Alba penetrated Wurttemberg. By

January 8, 1547, Ulrich, who had sided with the

Schmalkaldic League, decided to negotiate early for peace and signed a provisional agreement at Heilbronn to pay the Emperor 300,000 gulden and to relinquish the 36 fortresses of Asperg, Schorndorf, and Kirchheim. The

League was finally defeated in the spring, resulting in the imprisonment of Philip of Hesse and Elector John

Frederick of Saxony.

Ulrich's participation in the Schmalkaldic War led to difficulties for Christoph, especially with regard to his claim to the duchy of Wurttemberg. King Ferdinand, who since 1534 had continued to seek legal rights to the

34 .. Julius Hartmann and Karl Jager, Johannes Brenz, II (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1840) ,pp. 186-3:87.

^Rosslin, p. 31.

^®Kugler, I, pp. 70-71; Rosslin,pp. 31-32. 23

land, suggested to the Emperor near the end of 1547 that 37 Wurttemberg should be his as a re-conquered land.

Ulrich, however, re-affirmed that Christoph was his heir'

in an agreement signed in Mompelgard on April 7, 1548.

On May 18, he sent Christoph to the Diet in Augsburg to

mediate on the Ferdinand "Process," or "Felony," namely, 38 Ferdinand's claim to Wurttemberg. The problem was not

settled, and would remain an important issue for Christoph

until 1552. Thus, even after Ulrich's death on November 5,

1550, when Christoph came to power, this legal matter

would remain as one of the most difficult tasks confronting

him during the first years of his rule.

^Kugler, I, pp. 73-74; RSsslin, pp. 31-32; Sattler, III, pp. 247-248. 38 Kugler, I, p. 74; Rosslin, p. 32. With respect to Ferdinand's placing the matter of Wurttemberg's succession before the Imperial Supreme Court, the German word used is "Rechtfertigung," which means a "legal justification" or "justification of the realm." Both Kugler and Rosslin refer to this as "Ferdinand's Process," which term will be used hereafter. 9-4

24

The Reign of Christoph:

1550-1555

Four days after the death of his father, Christoph

wrote to Charles V, Ferdinand, and the Bishop of Arras,

who was one of the chief imperial ministers, in order to

inform them of his father's expiration and that he was

now in the position of governing Wurttemberg. Both the

Emperor and the Bishop replied in a pleasant and gracious 39 manner, wishing him the best of fortune. Ferdinand,

however, was not as cordial, and returned the letter 40 unopened. Christoph had hoped that Ferdinand would not

hold him responsible for a claim the King held against

Ulrich. He now decided not to become directly involved

in the Process unless there was the possibility of an 41 unfavorable court decision. Should this occur, he

would advocate his right to WiJrttemberg as a fief of 42 Austria on the basis of the Kaaden Treaty.

39 Viktor Ernst, Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg, I (Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer,

1899 - 1907)7 n o s . 32, 19, 42, 44.

^Sattler, IV, p. 6; Kugler, I, p. 140.

^Ern s t , I, nos. 6, 10, 61.

^Ernst, "Einleitung," I,pp. xi-j

The final decision rested with Emperor Charles, who at the time was having a disagreement with Ferdinand over the succession of his son, Prince Philip, in Germany.

Christoph thus attempted to gain the recognition of the imperial court by establishing a favorable relationship with his subjects, in addition to having the support of friendly princes, members of the Reichstag, and Queen 43 Maria. In this regard, the question of religion invariably arose. If Christoph were to proclaim

Catholicism as his faith, then the Emperor would give him 44 his complete approval. Efforts to influence Christoph in this direction came from the Imperial Marshal Wilhelm

Bocklin and Cardinal Otto of Augsburg, as well as from his mother, Sabina.4^

Although Christoph was certain of his own position on the religious question, he nevertheless did prefer not 46 to have the matter discussed openly. Rather, he

4^Ernst, I, nos. 53, 74, 112, 130, 135, 134 n. 2.

44Ernst, I, nos. 19, 20, 29, 34. If Christoph had made the decision to become a Roman Catholic, he would have also undergone a period of trial, prior to the Emperor's complete approval. Cf., Ernst, I, nos. 53, 57, 67.

4^Kugler, I, pp. 140-141; Sattler, IV, pp. 6-7.

4^Christoph, for example, did not want to attend the diet in Augsburg for fear that a discussion of his religious position would occur. Cf., Kugler, I, p. 142; Ernst, I, nos. 99, 106, 117. He suggested that he would only go to Augsburg at the request of the Emperor. Ernst, "Einleitung," I, p. xiv. 26 concentrated upon winning the support of his people. On

January 9, 1551, he called a meeting of the Landtag and suggested that, if Ferdinand succeeded, the nobility of

Wurttemberg could rule the land on the basis of the

Duke's Letters (Herzogsbriefe) of 1495, which placed the government in the hands of twelve prelates, knights, and burghers in the event the Wurttembergian line was broken.

This proposal won Christoph the praise of his subjects, who decided to send a delegation to Augsburg in his 47 behalf. The mission, however, was not a complete success and Christoph subsequently felt it necessary to go to Augsburg himself in order to attain an agreement 48 with the Emperor. The negotiations proved fruitless because the demands of both Christoph and Ferdinand were apparently irreconcilable. Finally, in June, Christoph grew weary of the futile procedures and instructed his adviser, Albrecht Arbogast von Hewen, to continue the 49 discussions in his place.

47 •• Kugler, I, p. 143; Sattler, IV, p. 10. Rosslin (p. 33) wrote: "Die Unterthanen waren zwar dem Herzoglichen Hause, und besonders Christoph, von Herzen zugethan; und von dieser Seite war nicht zu befurchten, dass die fur Christoph zu nehmende Huldigung Schwierigkeiten finden wiirde...." 4ft Ernst, I, nos. 159, 162 n. 4. For the respective demands suggested at Augsburg, cf., Ernst, I, nos. 162-162h and Nos. 175-175c. Also, Sattler, IV, Ep. 14-15. 49 Ernst, I, no. 201. 27

In the fall of 1551, the political situation was altered favorably for Christoph. The eruption of new hostilities between the Hapsburgs and Valois became imminent. Because of the need of additional troops in

Italy, Charles V decided to withdraw his forces from 50 the fortresses of Kirchheim and Schorndorf. Christoph received the two fortresses which had been occupied by imperial troops since the Schmalkaldic War. The third fortress, Asperg, would remain under the rule of the

Emperor but the troops stationed there were to be supported by Christoph. In addition, Christoph agreed to establish the Augsburg Interim more completely than before and, as a display of loyalty, he was to avoid any further political connections with France. The two fortresses would be returned to the Emperor upon request, and if Christoph should refuse, his claim to Wurttemberg would no longer receive the support of the Emperor.

Although this agreement apparently had little effect toward changing the position of Ferdinand, the inclination of Charles V toward Christoph was clear.^

For the details of this negotiation, cf., Ernst, I, nos. 250, 251-251d, 252. Also, Sattler, IV, p. 18; Kugler, I,pp. 149-E>(0; R&sslin, p. 39.

^Ernst, I, no. 288. Christoph's theological adviser, Johannes Brenz, also expressed great joy over the 28

Realizing that the continuing favor of the Emperor was his only sure means of success in his struggle to obtain the duchy, Christoph agreed to send delegates to the Council of Trent in the fall of 1551. Charles V had encouraged Pope Julius III to invite the Protestants to the council, and he did not want to discourage the possibility of religious re-union at this time by offering to support his brother, Ferdinand, in the question of 52 Wurttemberg. Johannes Brenz at first opposed sending delegates to the council for fear that such an action would be interpreted as Christoph's submission to the

Catholic Church. He realized, however, that if

Wurttemberg did not send representatives the Emperor might view this as disobedience. Consequently, Brenz suggested to Christoph that they should participate in the hope of gaining new followers and if necessary to display

removal of the Spanish troops from the two fortresses: "Wir danken daher Gott, dem Vater unseres Herrn Jesu Christi, von ganzem Herzen und bitten ihn, dass er uns durch seinen heil. Geist regiere, damit wir nicht diese grosse, ja fast unerwartete Wohlthat missbrauchen." Hartmann and Jager, II, p. 196. In addition to relinquishing the two fortresses, Charles V, in the same year, granted to Christoph the imperial fief of Mompelgard and the areas of Grange, Clerval, and Passavant. Cf., Ernst, I, no. 241.

52 Ernst, "Einleitung," I, p. xv. >1

29

martyrdom. He moreover recommended that the Wurttemberg

Confession be given to the members of the council as an 53 example of the Protestant faith.

Christoph had already made plans in April for

sending delegates to the council and had attempted to

create interest in a meeting of Protestant princes who

would agree upon a uniform confession which could be 54 presented at Trent. Elector Maurice of Saxony, however,

declined Christoph's invitation and recommended instead

that a group of theologians meet in Wittenberg to seek a 55 union on the basis of the Saxon Confession. Feeling

that the Wurttemberg Confession, which Brenz had recently

completed, was worthy of equal consideration and not

wanting to meet on Saxon territory, Christoph suggested

that theologians of both parties should meet either in 56 Konigsberg, Langensalza, or Schleusingen. Maurice

replied on July 9 that he could not spare all of his

^Hartmann and Jager, II,pp. 197-198;Kugler, I, pp. 152-156.

^Ernst, I, no. 169. 55 Ernst, I, no. 188. Philip Melanchthon at first opposed this idea but later supported it and worked toward this goal throughout the summer of 1551. Cf., Ernst, I, no. 247 n. 4; C. G. Bretschneider (ed.), Corpus Reforma- torum, VII (Halle und Brunswick, 1834-1900), p. 4852. 56 Ernst, I, no. 202. 30 theologians at the time, but would send Joachim Camerarius to Langensalza on August 19 in order to compare the two 57 confessions. Christoph appointed the theologian,

Jacob Beurlin, and the minister, Johann Isenmann, to meet with the Saxon representative. Although the two confessions agreed on all essential points, Christoph's desire to present a united Lutheran front at the Council 58 of Trent was not achieved.

In the latter part of September, 1551, Christoph sent two emissaries, Hans Dietrich von Plieningen and

Hans Hecklin von Steineck, to Trent with a copy of the

Wurttemberg Confession and for the purpose of securing 59 safe conduct for his theologians. Although the two political advisers were at first received cordially, the arrival of Beurlin and the minister, Jodocus Neobulus, was greeted with less enthusiasm. The prelates at the

Council refused to let them speak, maintaining that a debate with Protestants would be endless. After persistent requests by the political advisers from Wurttemberg and

^Ernst, I, nos. 216, 217. 58 Cf., for example, letters between Brenz and Camerarius of August 8 and October 15 in Theodor Pressel (hrsg.), Anecdota Brentiana (Tubingen: J. J. Heckenhauer, 1868), pp. 314, 321. Also, Ernst, I, nos. 238, 247.

^Ernst, I, no. 262; Kugler, I, pp. 166-178. 31

Saxony as well as imperial representatives, the theologians were granted a hearing in March of 1552. Brenz, Beurlin, and other theologians were, however, not permitted to present and to explain the Wurttemberg Confession. The political situation surrounding Elector Maurice's War of

Liberation interfered with the proceedings of the Council, which was postponed, and the Wurttemberg delegates departed from Trent during the middle of April without having been heard.

The Elector Maurice, who had been awarded his title for the assistance he had given Emperor Charles during the Schmalkaldic Wars, had by 1551 begun to fear the power of the Emperor, as did other German princes.

Charles had recommended that his son Philip be heir to the Austrian throne when Ferdinand succeeded the Emperor, while the princes preferred Ferdinand's son, Maximilian.

Moreover, Maurice had not been granted the bishoprics of

Magdeburg and Halberstadt as promised in 1547. He also feared that Charles might release the former Saxon elector,

John Frederick, from prison and might aid him in regaining his territory. Consequently, an alliance, mainly of

60 Hartmann and Jager, II,pp. 211-232; Pressel, pp.326-327; Realencyklopadie, IV, p. 57; Rosslin,pp. 62-62; Sattler, IV, pp. 20-28; Schaff-Herzog, II, p. 261. 32

north German princes, including the Landgrave William of

Hesse, the son of the captive Philip, was formed, which

in January, 1552, received the military and financial

support of Henry II of France. By March the war had

begun, with Maurice already having captured the city of

Magdeburg in November.^

Christoph once again took the position of mediator,

although he was in sympathy with Maurice's designs to

free Germany from the Interim and to liberate Philip

of Hesse from prison. Yet, he was in no position to

anger the Emperor, inasmuch as a final decision had not

been made concerning Ferdinand's Process. He even had

informed the imperial court prior to the outbreak of war

that such an event was imminent, although his warnings 6 2 were not heeded. As early as December, 1551, Christoph

had sought a union of south German princes, specifically with Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and Duke Albert

of Bavaria, who would remain neutral but attempt to act

61 Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), pp. 236-241. Also, Grimm,pp. 259-260.

62Ernst, I, nos. 295, 298, 303, 308 n. 4, 317, 333, 372. For example, Christoph recommended that the Emperor should station one hundred additional soldiers in each of the fortresses at Schorndorf and Kirchheim (no. 372). Cf., also, Kugler, I,pp. 182-183; Sattler, IV, p. 32. 33

6 3 as mediators between the warring princes and the Emperor.

These three southern princes subsequently formed the basis of the Heidelberg Union. Meanwhile, they agreed that they would attempt to seek peace, and accordingly

Christoph's adviser, Hewen, was appointed to negotiate 64 with Maurice m Heidenheim. The northern princes demanded that Christoph join them, maintaining that if he refused support he would be considered an enemy unless he 65 took a position of friendly neutrality. His advisers, as well as Elector Frederick, suggested that in view of

Christoph's tenuous position with Ferdinand and Charles he should reply to the princes only with an offer of neutrality.

King Ferdinand, who had been preoccupied with his defense in Hungary against the Turks, also confined most of his efforts to mediation. He succeeded in getting peace negotiations with Maurice started in Passau, soon 6 7 after the release of Elector John Frederick. In response

63Ernst, I, nos. 302, 312, 313, 321, 323, 334, 335.

^Ernst, I, nos. 477, 478, 479.

^Ernst, I, nos. 344, 345, 347, 357-358.

^®Ernst, I, nos. 493, 494.

^Kugler, I,jp. 199-20l(V Holborn,pp. 239-240. 34

34

to a request from the Emperor, Christoph agreed to 68 send his advisers to the proceedings. In addition,

Christoph asked that Charles V, as well as the Bishop

of Arras, intercede at Passau in his behalf with respect 6 9 to the question of Ferdinand's Process. Both replied

to Christoph favorably.

The conference in Passau opened on May 26, 1552,

and a settlement was reached on August 1. Philip of

Hesse was to be freed from prison, and the Interim was

abolished. The resolution of the religious question was

deferred until the next Reichstag. Meanwhile, the 70 Lutherans were granted religious freedom.

Aside from the larger question of the settlement

of peace, there was also the question concerning the

dispute between Ferdinand and Christoph. The imperial

envoys had been instructed to work in Christoph's behalf,

although their main concern was settling the peace while

®®Ernst, I, nos. 540, 570.

^ Ernst, I, nos. 557, 558, 559, 603.

70 •• Kugler, I, pp. 217-225; Hartmann and Jager, II, pp.228-229; Ernst, "Einleitung," I, pp. xxiv-xxvi. Cf., especially, Christoph's letter to Philip of Hesse congratulating the Landgrave for having received his freedom. Cf., Ernst, I, no. 820. 71 not offending Ferdinand. The King proposed that an

agreement could be reached if Christoph would relinquish

his rights to Asperg and Hohentwiel, pay 300,000 gulden,

and remain a vassal of the house of Austria (Afterlehen- 72 schaft). Christoph would pay only 130,000 gulden, and

had his advisers protest the severity of the demands.

The King withdrew his requirement for Asperg, but raised

the cash payment to 600,000 gulden, which he later

reduced to 400,000 gulden. Christoph now agreed to pay 73 200,000 gulden.

In August, Ferdinand made a new offer. Christoph

should recognize his vassalage to Austria, agree not to

enter into any alliances against the King, the Emperor, or 74 Austria, and pay 300,000 gulden. Despite intervention

by Duke Albert of Bavaria and the Emperor, Ferdinand

refused to lower the amount of the cash payment.

Christoph consequently convened the Landtag on October 17

for the purpose of seeking the appropriation. The Landtag,

^Ernst, I, nos. 616, 627, 672, 677, 701; Kugler, I, pp. 227-228. 72 Ernst, I, no. 618 with notes 1 and 2, no. 621; also, Sattler, IV, pp. 40-42; Kugler, I, pp. 225-236; Rosslin, pp. 42-43.

"^Ernst, I, no. 681. 74 Ernst, I, no. 746 n. 1. 3 &

36

75 however, agreed only to pay 150,000 gulden. Finally,

Christoph, ignoring the Landtag, reached a settlement

with Ferdinand in which he would pay 250,000 gulden

over a three year period: 100,000 gulden the first year

and 75,000 gulden per year for the succeeding two 76 years.

The Duke's strife with the King was thus over,

but the peace at Passau had not proved lasting. Charles V

had merely used the added time to re-arm and re-fortify 77 his forces. On the other hand, Margrave Albert

Alcibiades of Kuhnbach-Bayreuth, who had supported the

Saxon Elector in his War of Liberation, had not participated

in the negotiations and had continued to pillage the land

in hope of gaining more territory. Under these conditions

Elector Maurice and Emperor Charles suggested that the

Princes of Wurttemberg, the Palatinate, and Bavaria unite

for security, with Charles recommending a union similar

^Ernst, I, no. 828.

^^Ernst, II, nos. 26, 55, 80. 77 Ernst, I, no. 770. Christoph's own feeling about the Passau Treaty was expressed in a letter to Elector Friedrich, dated August 10, 1552. Of the ratification, he wrote: "...das es eben misslich und ganz zweifelhaftig gnug gestellt ist, welhes alles aber die zeit zu erkennen geben wurd." Ernst, I, no. 752. 78 to the Swabian League.

Christoph opposed a renewal of the Swabian League, but directed his efforts toward the development of a smaller union composed of major south German cities and states. The negotiations began in March, 1553, in

Heidelberg where an agreement of mutual assistance was reached, involving the Princes of Bavaria, the Palatinate, 79 Wurttemberg, Mainz, Trier, and Jlilich. The final details of the Heidelberg Union were completed with the

Heilbronner Declaration of September, 1553, which opposed 80 the expansion of one's own faith into other territories.

With respect to the continuing war, the Heidelberg

Union and especially Christoph maintained a position of neutrality and only took modest defensive precautions.

Elector Maurice, on the other hand, formed an alliance with other north German princes and King Ferdinand. In

July, the powerful forces of this league defeated the army of Margrave Albert at Sievershausen. Elector Maurice was killed in the battle, and order did not return to the empire until Albert finally fled to France in

78Ernst, I, nos. 740, 749, 784, 839, 876.

78Ernst, II, no. 98; Kugler, I, pp. 243-257.

80Ernst, II, no. 349. Politically, the latter half of 1553 and most of

1554 was marked with anticipation of the forthcoming 82 Reichstag which had been promised at Passau. The

Emperor had given full authority to Ferdinand to conduct the proceedings. The King arrived in Augsburg on

December 29, 1554. Christoph, who had promised to attend the Reichstag, arrived on January 27 of the following 8 3 year. The formal discussions began in March, with

Christoph proposing that the basis of the peace should be a reconciliation of the two major religious factions, believing that all other problems and grievances could 84 be resolved after the dissolution of this division.

The council of Electors, however, disagreed, and felt that the question of law and order throughout the empire 8 5 was of the utmost importance. Christoph complained of the "confused heads" and subsequently departed from

pi For further details cf., Kugler, I, pp. 260-267. 82 Ernst, III, nos. 1, 2. 83 Ernst, II, no. 591; Ernst, III, nos. 10, 11; Kugler, I, pp. 343-365. 84 Ernst, III, nos. 26, 28, 41, 42. OC Ernst, III, nos. 42 n. 2, 50a n. 4, 70. 39

Augsburg on April 25, after having been accused by

Ferdinand of being a trouble-maker for the Protestants.

He decided to remain aloof from the negotiations and even remarked that he wished "he had broken a leg on 86 the way to Augsburg." He informed his advisers who remained in the city that religious unity should be their primary aim, and he also instructed them to attempt a reconciliation among the Protestants in May, but without 87 success.

After leaving the Reichstag Christoph interfered very little in the course of events and, with some 88 reservations, was rather satisfied with the conclusions.

The religious unity, which he had not been able to pursue at Augsburg, remained his most important goal.

He looked forward to the resolution of the religious division, a task which he undertook with vigor during the years after the Religious Peace. His desire for unity must, however, be viewed with respect to his own

88Ernst, III, nos. 6 6 , 48 n. 1, Ernst, "Einleitung," III, p. xlvi. 87 Ernst, III, nos. 70, 84, 95, 96.

88Ernst, III, nos. 74, 80 n. 3, 107, 176, 177, 179, 188, 192, 194, 202. Christoph's major concern was with respect to the principle of ecclesiastical reservation, which he considered to be dangerous to one's conscience. theological position which was expressed in the trans­ formation of the Church in Wurttemberg after the Peace of Passau. CHAPTER III

CHRISTOPH, THE FAITHFUL LUTHERAN

The Reformation of the sixteenth century was primarily based upon the resolution of a common theological question: "How can I be saved?" The answer which Luther provided, namely, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, resulted not only in the disruption of the traditional ecclesiastical structure but also in far- reaching implications for the world of political affairs.

As a consequence, one of the more important developments of the era involved the development of the relationship between church and state. Christoph of wQrttemberg, as

Lutheran and as prince, was confronted with this issue.

Related to this problem was the question of the nature of Christian unity. In an age which greatly emphasized that the individual conscience must decide in matters of faith, the difficulties in achieving the unification of Christendom became particularly acute. One of Christoph's major goals was to achieve a "unanimous, godly Church" (einhellige, gottselige Kirche).^ The manner

^References to this phrase are numerous in Christoph's letters. Cf., for example, Viktor Ernst (hrsg.),

41 in which he sought this reconciliation was dependent upon

his view of the relationship of church and state. In

order to appreciate his position, it should be considered

against the background of the views held by Martin Luther

and Johannes Brenz.

Luther on Church and State

That the Reformation would have to deal with the

doctrine of the church was suggested in the early years

of Luther's appeal for religious change. The Ninety-Five

Theses implied a deviation from former views of the church

in that Luther questioned the traditional interpretation 2 of the sacrament of penance. Sylvester Prierias, a

confessor to the Pope, immediately recognized that the

Theses were subversive to the prevalent notion of the

Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stutt- g'ar £7 W. TW'hlhamme'r, Iff99-1'907), H i ; no. 188, and IV, nos. 240, 366, 398, 606. Cf., also, "Einheit der evangelischen Kirche" in the index. 2 As Charles M. Jacobs maintained: the Ninety-Five Theses demonstrated "an important deviation from the doctrine of the Church held by the Church of Rome." This was so for two reasons: "In the first place, Luther assumes the right to interpret Scripture for himself; and in the second place, he ventures to criticize the interpretation which the Church has actually put upon a passage of Scripture, for the Church did interpret Christ's word, Poenitentiam agite, to mean sacramental penance." Charles M. Jacobs, "The Genesis of Luther's Doctrine of the Church," Lutheran Church Review, 34 (1915), 142-143. 43 church. In his attack on the Ninety-Five Theses, Prierias shifted the emphasis from the doctrines of sin and grace to the doctrine of the church and thus developed the position which the Roman Catholics maintained throughout 3 the Reformation era. By the time of the Leipzig

Disputation (1519) with Johannes von Eck, the professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt, Luther had developed his criticism of the papacy more forcefully and was thus led to define the nature of the church.

Luther maintained that the church has two major 4 characteristics: invisibility and visibility. The

According to Jacobs (ibid.), the importance of Prierias' Dialogue "lies in the fact that it shifts the ground of controversy from the indulgences and the doctrines of sin and grace to the doctrine of the Church, and establishes the line of Roman defence against the whole Reformation movement."

^Luther's works on this subject are: An den Christ- lichen Adel deutscher Nation von des Christlichen Standes Besserung (1520), in D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883- ), VI, 380-469 (hereafter designated as WA); Von weltlicher Uberkeytt, wie weyt man yhr gehorsam SchuldTg sey (1523), WA,XI, 229-281; Das eyn Christliche versamlung odder gemeyne recht und macKt habe, all lere tzu urteylen, und lerer tzu beruffen, eyn uncT abtzusetzen... (1523), WA, xi, 4ol-41(>. c£., also, the preface t o Unterricht der Visitatoren an die Pfarhern ym Kurfurstenthum zu Sachssen (1528), WA, XXVI, 195-200. Some English translations of some of the sources are readily available: e.g., Martin Luther's "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian State," in Three Treatises by Martin Luther (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, IsT43) , 1-114; and Martin Luther's "Secular Authority: To What Extent it should be Obeyed," in John Dillenberger (ed.), Martin Luther (New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1961), 'JSMOT.---- 44 invisible church was the church in its essence, composed of a "community of saints" (communio sanctorum) who had been justified by the Word of God and consequently participate in the mystical body of Christ (corpus mysticum). Although the church was considered to be invisible, Luther nevertheless conceived of it as existing concretely on earth, perceptible only to those who had been justified by faith alone and who were consequently united in Christ. For Luther, the church was the "new 5 heaven and new earth," in no way identified with an ecclesiastical organization but nevertheless consisting of the "holy people of God"*’ and known only by God. In this manner, Luther opposed the idea that mere membership in a religious organization inevitably meant that one was a

Christian. On the contrary, a person, according to Luther, could have all the outward characteristics of a Christian, while in truth not being a member of the invisible church, which alone is sinless because it is controlled solely by

Christ.^

5WA, IV, 189, VI, 293.

6WA, L, 628-629. 7 In opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, Luther wrote: "It is clear that external fellowship with the Roman Church does not make men Christians. . . . To be a member 45

Although Luther's major emphasis was upon the

invisible church, he did not, like the Anabaptists,

completely deny the importance of the external and

visible church. Indeed, he considered the church to be O "an outward thing with outward actions." The visible

church was related to the invisible church as the body was

related to the soul. It could be found where there were

preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the

sacraments. Since a community ruled by the devil could accomplish these tasks, Luther added that the preaching and the administration of the sacraments must be done

according to the pure teachings of the Gospel. As he maintained:

The Church on earth— we speak of the external community— is the assembly of people who hear, believe, and confess the true doctrine of the Gospel, and who have the Holy Spirit who sanctifies them and works in them by means of the Word and sacrament.9

of the Roman Church does not mean that the person is in true faith, and if a person is outside of it, it does not mean that he is in unbelief. . . . The real, true, essential Christendom is a spiritual thing, and not anything external or outward, by whatever name it may be called. For a person who is not a Christian may have all those other things, but they will never make him a Christian if he does not have faith, which alone makes Christians." WA, VI, 294-295.

8WA, VI, 296-297.

9WA, XXII, 344, 12. The unity of the invisible church was established by

Christ, while the unity of the external and visible church was established by pure doctrine based upon scriptural studies. According to Luther, if pure doctrine was preached and the sacraments rightly administered, then the conditions existed for the communio sanctorum.

The basic unit of church organization was the local congregation.*® Each congregation would act autonomously in seeking to achieve its major goal, namely, the most effective means of spreading the Gospel. Uniformity among the various congregations was not a necessity. Rather, he recommended that one congregation should not follow the example of another, but that it should be directed solely by God's Word in preaching and in administering the sacraments.** Although Luther emphasized the independence of the local congregation, he in addition suggested the idea of a national church (Volkskirche), in which the political community would be equated with the

J. C. Evjen, "Luther's Idea Concerning Church Polity," Lutheran Church Review, 45 (1925), 228;,and Uuras Saarnivaara, "The Churchof Christ According to Luther," Lutheran Quarterly, V (1953), 152.

**WA, XXVI, 175. Although Luther increasingly realized the need for the development of church polity along congregational lines, the task of church organization was generally delegated to his co-worker, John Bugenhagen (1485-1558), the pastor of Wittenberg. visible church. This view was consistent with Luther's belief that all men were basically religious and that all baptized persons were technically Christians. For these people a national church could be developed. Affiliation in such an organization, however, did not comprise inevitable membership in the invisible church, which could only be accomplished by those who had been justified by f a i t h . ^

An important theme in Luther's theology regarding the visible and external church was his notion of "calling"

(Berufung). The minister of the local congregation was generally elected by its members to fulfill the specific task of teaching and preaching according to the Scriptures.

The status of the minister, however, was not considered to 13 be a special calling. As the "holy people of God," every individual had been chosen by God for a specific task.

Some are called to be lawyers, cobblers, teachers, and storekeepers, while others are called to be ministers, theologians, or princes. In short, all vocations are

12 George W. Forell, "Luther's Conception of 'Natural Orders,'" Lutheran Church Quarterly, 28 (1945), 164-166.

13As Dillenberger (p. xxxiii) wrote: "The ministry [according to Luther] is functionally, not ontologically, distinct. It implies no special status." Cf., also, WA, VI, 440; VIII, 173. 48 selected to fulfill God's purpose on earth.

Luther thus did not deny the value of secular occupations. He indeed readily conceded that one of the highest callings was to serve the state, by which means 14 the Christian could benefit his neighbor. The state was divinely instituted by God in order to maintain law and order and it had a sacred task of improving the social and cultural conditions, and of instituting and securing 15 a beneficial educational system. It had no authority, however, in the realm of religion and in matters of faith.

Here, the individual conscience was supreme and only the

Word of God was helpful and acceptable. If all men were truly Christian and members of the invisible church, there would be no need for secular authority.^ For Luther, the non-Christians were considered the disruptive elements of

14WA, XI, 253.

^ A s Lewis Spitz pointed out, the modern notion of the "state" was not current in Luther's time. Luther's view of the state was more appropriately comprehended by the word "authority" (Obrigkeit). Lewis W. Spitz, "Luther's Ecclesiology and His Concept of: the Prince as Notbischof," Church History, XXII (June, 1953), 115. The separation of the two realms, church and state, was asserted in Luther's essay. On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed 7KZ3T.------16 Luther used I Timothy 1:9 as a proof-text: "The law is not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous." Cf. Dillenberger, p. 369. 49

society, and against these elements God ordained the

rulers to keep peace and order. Since the secular rulers

have a divine calling, the Christian must assist them in

the preservation of social and political harmony. In

this manner, the Christian would aid in creating the

conditions whereby the Gospel could spread, while at the

same time he would express his obligation to his neighbor by helping to rid society of chaos and disorder.

In general, Luther considered rulers and princes to be among the "greatest fools or the worst knaves on 17 earth. ..." His primary concern, however, was with the Christian prince whose calling was to serve the state 18 in the spirit of Christian charity. In Luther's view, the prince should have no responsibility in introducing religious reform, a task which was better undertaken by the local congregations. But with the increasing influence of the territorial ruler in spiritual affairs, the practical

■^Dillenberger, p. 388. 18 Concerning the role of the prince in Luther's theory of church and state, Lewis Spitz wrote: "Properly speaking there is no Christian authority but only Christians in authority." Spitz, p. 125. Note should also be taken of Luther's division of the secular realm into various offices, vocations, and ranks, all of which were considered to be divinely ordained: "All ranks and professions of society are instituted by God to serve him." WA, 31, I, 22. ro

50

application of reform was placed in the hands of the

secular authorities. In his Address to the Christian

Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of

the Christian Estate, Luther himself suggested the idea

that the prince was the representative of the congregation-

at-large and he voiced the notion of the prince as 19 "emergency bishop" (Notbischof). According to this

view, the prince had the authority to act, only temporarily,

when the church failed to bring about proper and immediate

reform.

The most obvious application of this formula can be

found in Luther's support of the Visitations of 1527 and

1528, in Saxony, where, after the Peasants Revolt, the

religious and moral conditions of the church were less than

ideal. Although Luther did not initiate the idea of the 20 visitations, he nevertheless did not oppose them. In the

19 For an excellent recent study of this idea, cf. the article by Spitz. Also it should be noted that Luther was not the only reformer to develop this idea. Melanchthon had suggested that the prince was the "prominent" (praecipua) member of the congregation. Cf., C. G. Bretschneider, et al., Corpus Reformatorum (Halle und Brunswick, 1834-1900), III, 244; also, Reinhold Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 333. 20 Evjen (pp. 229-230) maintains that the idea of visitations was first suggested by Luther's friend and the minister of the church in Zwickau, Nikolaus Hausmann. r/

51

preface to the instruction for the Saxon Visitations,

Luther wrote that the Elector of Saxony should be supported

until the Holy Ghost brought about more favorable circum­

stances :

For although his Electoral Grace is not commanded to teach and rule spiritually, nevertheless he is responsible, as secular ruler, to maintain things so that dissension, bands, and disorder do not arise among the subjects.2^

Although Luther viewed this merely as a temporary measure,

the Diet of Speyer in 1526 had already strengthened the

principle of cuius regio, eius religio (the religion of

the prince is the religion of the territory), which was

permanently established by the Religious Peace of Augsburg 22 in 1555. This principle was heartily accepted by both

Christoph and Johannes Brenz, as will be shown.

Before a description of the respective positions of

21WA, XXVI, 196-197. 22 Cf., below, Chapter IV, pp.78-7*9. Since the fifteenth century the German princes had increasingly exercised their power in reforming the churches of their respective territories, and had asserted the right of imperial advocatio ecclesiae, "church advocate," in their realms. Thus by the end of the fifteenth century, territorial control of the church was not uncommon. Duke Eberhard of Wiirttemberg could even maintain in 1495 that he was the pope in his territory. Cf. James M. Estes, "Church Order and the Christian Magistrate According to Johannes Brenz," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, Jahrgang 59, Heft 1 (1968), 7; and Julius Rauscher, Wiirttembergische Reformationsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1934) , pTTT, ------52

Christoph and Brenz on the relationship of church and state are exanihedfhbrief review of Luther's idea of Christian unity should be provided. As already indicated, Luther held that all Christians were unified, not by the Pope, but in Christ, who was the true head of the invisible 23 church. He therefore expressed little concern for an outward union, believing that he had never initiated a new ecclesiastical organization but only had sought to purify Christendom by restoring the Gospel and the 24 sacraments to their status in primitive Christianity.

When Luther did agree to seek outward unification (as, for example, at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529), he did so on the basis of a conciliar theory rather than through 25 dictatorial efforts. Similar to William of Ockham and

Marsilio of Padua, Luther maintained that not only was the

23WA, II, 313-314; VI, 292-294. 24 As E. G. Schwiebert wrote: "There was as yet no thought that the Lutherans and the Reformed groups had started new church bodies. . . . [This] does not come to its full realization until several decades after Luther's death." E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), p. 7T4. 25 Witness Luther's support of the Leisnig Order of 1523, where the members of the church had established a "fraternal union" in order to manage the affairs of the local congregation. Evjen, p. 229. Cf., also, WA, XI, 409; and John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964) , pp. 139-144. ra

53

authority of a council superior to that of a Pope, but

that, like a Pope, a council could err. This was suggested

at the Leipzig Debate, where Luther asserted that the

Council of Constance (1415) had erroneously condemned

John Hus. Moreover, from the beginning of Luther's reform

movement, he had consistently called for a council where

his views could be discussed openly. In his Address to

the Christian Nobility, he called for the imperial rulers

to summon a council inasmuch as the Roman Church had not

done so. Prior to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, he

expressed the hope that the Emperor would succeed in

establishing harmony among Roman Catholics and Protestants.

When his expectations were not fulfilled, he nevertheless

continued to request a "truly free council," uncontrolled

by papal authority and represented by all Christendom.

His desire for either a general or national council was

repeated in the Schmalkaldic Articles of 1537. In his

later years, his demand for a council was less adamant 26 and vocal, but it was no less present.

26 McNeill, p. 102. Luther's desire for a "truly free council" was first enunciated in his Address to the Christian Nobility. WA, VI, 413. 54

Brenz on Church and State

Although Martin Luther was doubtless the most outstanding personality of the Reformation era, numerous reformers must be considered when dealing with the entire movement. In the history of the Protestant Church in

Wurttemberg, Johannes Brenz was among the most important.

Born near Stuttgart in 1499, he was educated at Heidelberg

University and was present, along with his friend, Martin 27 Bucer, when Luther defended his new theology in 1518.

Although he was ordained a priest in Speyer in 1520, he was criticized for his Lutheran tendencies and consequently moved to Schwabisch-Hall where he began celebrating the

Lord's Supper according to the new evangelical doctrines.

In 1526, he developed, at the request of the city council of Schwabisch-Hall, one of the first Protestant church 28 orders. He subsequently was influential in the establishment of church orders at Ulm, Niirnberg, Branden­ burg, and Esslingen. He constructed the first Wurttemberg church order in 1536 for Duke Ulrich, which was based upon the consistorial system of ecclesiastical organization.

27 Julius Hartmann and Karl Jager, Johannes Brenz (Hamburg, 1840), I, pp. 17-32; cf., also, Johann Friedrich Rosslin, Leben herzog Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: Erhard und Loflund, 1792), p. 72. 28 Rauscher, pp. 64-67. r r

55

It was abolished during the Interim, when Brenz was forced

to flee to Switzerland. He returned to Wurttemberg and

became Duke Christoph's lifetime counsellor and the 29 provost of the cathedral in Stuttgart. He was the major

architect of the famous Wurttemberg Church Order of 1559.

In the field of education, his most important achievement

was the reform of the university at Tubingen in 1536,

which he accomplished at the invitation of Philip 30 Melanchthon. Upon his death in 1570, he was buried

under the pulpit of the cathedral in Stuttgart, but his 31 grave was later destroyed by the Jesuits.

With respect to his position on the relationship

of church and state, Brenz departed significantly from 32 Luther's idea of the prince as "emergency bishop." He

29 For the story of Brenz's flight to Switzerland, see Hartmann and JAger, I, pp. 169-176.

^Rauscher, pp. 140-143; CR, III, 169. 31 Samuel Macauley Jackson (editor-in-chief), Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, l£53), II, 261. Viktor Ernst suggested that, from the point of view of the imperial court, Brenz was "one of the most hated men of those days. ..." Ernst, "Einleitung," I, p. xiv. 32 For the most recent studies of Brenz's theology, cf. Martin Brecht, Die Friihe Theologie des Johannes Brenz (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966), and James M. Estes, ARG, 5-24. It should be noted that Luther had a high regard for Brenz, especially after 1525 when Brenz defended Luther's doctrine of the real presence. WA, Briefe IV, 285. 56 opposed the view that the secular authorities have little or no concern with ecclesiastical life, and maintained, on the contrary, that secular intervention in religious 33 matters was a desirable state of affairs. Developed in reaction to the Peasants Revolt of 1524-25, his theory of church-state relations was clearly asserted:

Since God our Savior has graciously permitted - Christians to secure secular power over their own territories, cities, and villages, the secular rulers, as members of Christ and children of God, both for their souls' salvation and by virtue of their office, are responsible for regulating and ordering all those things which Christ commanded to be observed in a Christian community [i.e., preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments], for the benefit of their subjects (according to secular power) and their brothers (according to Christ, for they are also co-heirs with them).34

Accepting Luther's idea of "calling," Brenz thus felt that the secular rulers had been ordained by God to preserve peace and order on earth, and to insure that the Gospel was preached and the Sacraments administered according 35 to the pure teaching of the Word of God.

33 As Estes (p. 6 ) noted, Brenz became "one of the principal sixteenth-century architects of the Lutheran territorial state church (landsherrliche Kirchenregiment)." 34 Quotation cited m Estes, ARG, p. 5. 35 Theodor Pressel (hrsg.), Anecdota Brentiana (Tubingen, 1868), p. 167. 57

Brenz based his position upon what he considered to

be the clear instructions of the Bible. The reason provided

to explain the revolt in 1524 was, according to Brenz, that

the peasants had not understood Scripture. Contrary to the

opinion of the rebels, revolution was not sanctioned by God

because evil cannot overcome evil and because Christians

were admonished to "render unto Caesar the things which are 36 Caesar's." Since lawlessness and disorder arise from a

misunderstanding of the pure Word of God, the prince has

the task to assure that the pure Word is taught. Unlike

Luther, Brenz maintained that this function of the secular 37 authority was a permanent, not a temporary, task. The

reputation, character, and even the religion of the

magistrate was of little importance so long as he had

concern for his subjects and made certain that the Gospel 38 was being taught in its pristine purity.

36Matthew 2 2 :2 1 . 37 According to Brenz: "Since all authority is ordained for the sake of the common weal, and since the common good is best promoted by an honorable, peaceful, and godly life among the subjects, the office of government [Obrigkeit] demands that the ruler establish and provide for its subjects the divine word and the preaching of the gospel, by means of which an honorable and godly life are produced." Pressel, p. 42. 38 Brecht, p. 313. As Brenz maintained: ”... even if the Emperor were personally a complete pagan, all his subjects would still owe him obedience in those things in rf

58

Brenz accepted the Lutheran distinction between

the invisible and visible church. Only faith could make

a person a Christian and it alone defined an individual's

membership in the invisible church. In this regard, the

prince could not interfere in matters of conscience nor

could he become directly involved in the resolution of

strictly theological problems, for this was not his

calling. Thus, for Brenz, the authority of the magistrate

ended where the invisible church began.

With respect to the external church, the prince

had indeed a divine duty. Although Brenz held that the

secular ruler should not become involved in matters of

theology, he nevertheless maintained that the results of

theological conferences should be promulgated by the

prince. Above all, the prince had the task of insuring

that the common man could not be confused by the

proliferation of various forms of liturgical ceremonies.

Thus, church orders, according to Brenz, should be

established at the prerogative of the Christian magistrate

who would earnestly seek true preaching and worship, not

which an emperor, by virtue of being an emperor, has authority, and which are not contrary to the will of God." Johannes Brenz, "Booklet on the Turk," as translated in John W. Bohnstedt, The Infidel Scourge of God (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1^68), Appendix II, p. 46. 59 only to assure peace and order, but also to fulfill his own obligation to God's calling. Unlike Luther, the

Swabian theologian therefore recommended that the prince should appoint the ministers of the local congregations, although the local church members had the right of appeal to the government. Taxes, income, church property, and all those characteristics of the church which were considered external, should be regulated by the secular government. In this manner, Brenz made the peacefulness of the secular order dependent upon the Word of God, and consequently the authority of the Christian 39 state was one aspect of the authority of God's Word.

The prince was not alone in having a divine calling.

For Brenz, all Christians were called to aid in the building of Christ's Church. The means to this end varied with each individual. The common man supported the church through his prayers; the ministers were responsible for preaching and administering the sacraments; and the government had the obligation of regulating the clergy and developing church orders. Every vocation, however, remained under the judgment of God as revealed in Scripture.

39 Brecht, p. 316; Pressel, pp. 40, 156, 167. 60

Christoph on Church and State

Christoph of Wurttemberg cannot be construed as a formal theologian, although he had studied theology while acting as the governor (Statthalter) of Mdmpelgard.

Upon his accession to the ducal seat, however, his theological studies necessarily diminished because of the obvious pressure of his responsibilities. Increasingly he relied upon his theologians to keep him informed, especially Brenz, who, consistent with his own theology, 40 generally obeyed his prince. Indeed, m order to have ready access to his chief theological adviser, the Duke had an archway built between Brenz's living quarters and 41 the ducal palace.

Although the Duke did not receive any formal theological training, his letters nevertheless reveal a consistent and persistent theological motif. As a prince called by God, he sought the establishment of a "unanimous, godly Church" by which the harmony of Protestantism would be achieved. He became acutely aware of the need for

40 As Bernhard Kugler wrote: "... Duke Christoph, who earlier had followed no exclusive Lutheran direction, in older age left himself entirely in the hands of reformers like Brenz." Bernhard Kugler, Christoph, Herzog zu Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: Ebner und Seubert, 1868-1872), II p. 161, note 152. 41 Rauscher, p. 182. Protestant unity prior to the Diet of Augsburg of 1555, maintaining that the Protestants should exert a unified front against the Catholic rulers and powers. For

Christoph, the disunity among Protestants, rather than the homogeneity of the Roman Church, was the primary 42 detriment to the complete victory of the Gospel. His concern with respect to the division in Protestantism was not merely with the variations in beliefs and church ceremonies, but above all the effect that this external disunity would have upon the common man, whether he be technically a Protestant or still in the fold of the 43 Catholic Church. The existing state of affairs, he feared, would only bring ridicule and contempt upon the church. In response to the existing state of affairs, he recommended the "unanimous, godly Church."

Christoph's view of the relationship of church and state was generally similar to that of Brenz's. For the theologian, the prince had a divine task to insure

A O Viktor Ernst, "Herzog Christoph von Wurttemberg und die Einheit der evangelischen Kirche," Schwabische Kronik, no. 466 (October 6 , 1905), 9. Also, Ernst, III, no. 175. 43 Christoph was constantly expressing his concern over the common man. For example, after the conclusion of the Religious Peace of Augsburg he feared that those who could not move to a territory of their respective religion might be tortured. Ernst, III, nos. 176, 177. the pure teaching of the Word of God. For the Duke, the

"unanimous, godly Church" could only be achieved by the establishment of one immutable dogma, acceptable to all

Christians. This, he felt, could be attained, not by the theologians and secular advisers, but by an assembly of the Evangelical princes. "As truly as God is God," he wrote to Melanchthon in 1557, "if the magistrates do not 44 come together all is fruitless. ..." In seeking to reconcile the diversity of opinion among Protestants, a meeting of advisers and theologians should serve only as a prelude to a meeting of the princes. Moreover, if conferences composed of theologians failed to achieve religious harmony, then the princes themselves should undertake the task of eliminating theological contro- 45 versies. Admittedly, the secular ruler should seek the advice of theologians and counsellors, but in the final analysis the prince himself faced the judgment of God and 46 must consequently follow his own conscience.

44 Ernst, IV, no. 364.

45Ernst, III, no. 62. 46 For example, after 1555, Christoph's advisers frequently warned him against threatening the Religious Peace because of his enthusiasm in seeking Protestant unity. His attitude was that one should not be hypocritical in religious matters and that he himself had to follow his conscience. Ernst, III, no. 184 n. 6 . Christoph clearly held that one of the highest of divine callings was that of the prince. Believing that God had revealed the truth of the Gospel in his age, he maintained that the task of the secular ruler was to render certain the reformation of the church. Princes have been appointed by God for this purpose, and to do otherwise 4 7 ' would endanger one's soul and salvation. The immediate goal of the Christian prince was to purify the church in his own realm in order that it might serve as an example 48 to others.

Christoph's affirmation of the high calling of the prince was based upon his undying faith in the reality of the Gospel. As magistrate, he felt compelled by his faith to seek means of realizing the visibility of the invisible

Ernst, II, no. 606; III, no. 3 n. 25. In the preface to the Church Order of 1559, Christoph wrote that he recognized "ungeachtet das Erzlicher Vermeinen nach der weltlichen Oberkeit allein das weltlich Regiment zustehen sollt" before God himself as guilty and believe "als sein Amt und seinen Beruf, vor alien Dingen seine untergebene Landschaft mit der reinen Lehre des heiligen Evangeliums zu versorgen und erst dann und daneben in zeitlicher Regierung Ruh, Einigkeit und Wohlfahrt anzustellen und zu erhalten so that "die strittige Religion zu entlicher Christ- licher Vergleichung gehracht werden mdchte." Cited in Christoph Friedrich von Stalin, Wirtembergische Geschichte (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung, 1870), IV, p. 735. Cf., also, Christian Friedrich Sattler, Geschichte des Herzogthums WurtenbQrg unter der Regierung der Herzogen (Tubingen: George Heinricn Reiss, 17

The major obstacle according to Christoph was the variety in the interpretation of Scripture and the lack of uniformity in church orders and ceremonies. Luther's emphasis upon the individual conscience in matters of faith had led to numerous, often conflicting, positions in 49 Protestantism. In opposition to this diversity, Christoph recommended that a standard of doctrine and ceremonies should be universally accepted. For the Wurttemberg Duke, this standard was the Augsburg Confession which he considered to be not only an expression of God's Word, but 50 Lutheran, Catholic, and Christian. Practically elevating

4Q Cf., below, Chapter IV, pp.,82-90.

^ A s Christoph wrote to Count Ottheinrich of the Palatinate in 1554: "Daraus werden E.l. vernehmen, das ihre 1 1 . und wir in den hauptpuncten der rechten evangelic sCten, katholischen, christlichen lehre des heiligen, allein seligmachenden worts Gottes zu alien teilen durch vorgehende und ietzige schriftliche uberschickte, unterschriebene und besiegelte zeugnisse, Gott habe lob, auf die wahre christ- liche religion der A. C. [Augsburg Confession] mit einhelligem, gottseeligem zusammenstimmen dermassen vereiniget und verglichen, das ihre 11. und wir mit Gottes segen und stHrkung bis in unsern tod dabei zu bleiben und zu verharren, auch dieselbige mit Gottes wort zu vetteidigen, zu beschirmen und auszubreiten christlich entschlossen, inmassen wir dann E.l. des orts auch gutherzig wissen." Ernst, II, no. 773. 65 the Augsburg Confession to the status of canonical literature, he believed that it should be the basis of the church and that acceptance of it was a presupposition 51 to any negotiations for unification.

Christoph readily recognized, however, a difficulty in making the Augsburg Confession the sole standard of the "unanimous, godly Church," because it too was subject 52 to varying interpretations. In order to overcome ambiguous and troublesome points in the confession, the

Wurttemberg Duke recommended a certus methodus docendi, a standardized account of all quarrelsome doctrines (such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, faith and works), which would be held uniformly throughout Protestantism and which would 53 be applicable to schools as well as the church. Such a clear and unambiguous teaching norm (Lehrnorm) would not only be a comfort to the common man who lacked acuity in

Ernst, ill, nos. 4, 62; IV, nos. 162, 166, 240, and 292 with appendix 1, 358, 366, 398. Christoph also included the Apology, the Schmalkaldic Articles, and the Apostles' Creed. In order to suggest the universality of the Augsburg Confession for Christoph, it should be noted that in 1555 he preferred the word Evangeliumsverwandten to Augsburger Konfessionsverwandten in the decrees of the Religious Peace. Ernst, "Einleitung," III, p. xli. Cf., also, Rosslin, pp. 83-84. 52 This was demonstrated at the Naumburg Convention of 1561. Cf., below, Chapter V, pp. 142-145.

53Ernst, III, no. 188; IV, nos. 240, 358, 364 (especially), 366, 398, 606. 66

comprehending sophisticated theological distinctions, but

it would also protect the pure teaching of the Gospel and

would avoid unending debates among theologians. Thus,

like Brenz and Luther, Christoph sought purity in religious

doctrine.

In order to insure the continued uniformity of

this teaching norm, Christoph suggested strict measures.

First, theological writings were to be censored. If the

theologians could not reach general agreement upon a given

point, the matter would be discussed with neighboring

theologians and princes. Should this fail, a convention

of all the Protestant estates would take the necessary steps

to resolve the difficulty and would execute the orders

required to alleviate the situation. Punitive measures

would be taken against any serious offender of the final 54 resolutions.

Secondly, the clergy and laymen would be closely

scrutinized concerning the purity of their doctrines.

Church visitations would be established for this purpose.

Ordinations would be carefully regulated throughout the

territory. If a minister moved from another territory, precautions would be taken to insure that he was not promulgating doctrines contrary to the established teaching

^Ernst, IV, nos. 240, 398. >7

67

norm. He would be examined not only by the local

theologians, but he would also be required to present a

certificate from his previous ruler, stating his qualifi­

cations and providing information about his life and

doctrinal purity.

In addition to his concern about the purity of

religious doctrine, Christoph was also convinced that the

morals of a Christian should be exemplary. Consequently,

he recommended the establishment of a church discipline

(Kirchenzucht), which would be uniformly used throughout 55 Protestantism. It would allow the clergy and the secular

rulers to cooperate in maintaining the purity of Christian

life. In effect, excommunication was possible, and an

offender could be restricted from participating in worship

and sacraments until he had made a public confession. If

he never made a confession, he was, upon his death, to be

refused a Christian burial.

Similar to Brenz, Christoph was not impressed by

the argument that variations in liturgy and religious

ceremonies were an expression of Christian freedom.^®

He was, once again, concerned for the common man who could

^Ernst, IV, nos. 300 with note, 358.

^Ernst, I, no. 221 note 2; Pressel, pp. 312-314. become puzzled by the complexity and variety in ceremonies.

This, according to the Duke, would do dishonor to God.

Thus, he demanded a uniform procedure for all religious ceremonies, a certus ordo which he felt would complement and lend support to the certus methodus docendi. Not only must the sacraments be regulated, but even the choice of hymns, the use of choirs, matrimonial ceremonies, and the schedule of holidays, would be consistent throughout 57 the entire church. in short, the whole church would be ordered uniformly, and the "unanimous, godly Church" would be based upon one immutable dogma as well as standardized ceremonies.

Christoph, similar to Luther and Brenz, believed that in essence pure teaching was already the basis of the church. As magistrate, he must seek to make visible that which already existed in the invisible church. The differences of opinion which were obviously prevalent in the visible church concerned, from the Duke's point of view, only peripheral matters promoted by "uncompromising 58 heads." He persistently hoped that the existing disagreements could be eliminated if all would display

57Ernst, III, no. 188; IV, nos. 240, 398. 58 Ernst, SchwSbische Kronik, p. 9; Ernst, IV, nos. 203, 206, 2?0,"fSd T'CGG'. 69 good will, so that the church could become unified and remain undisturbed.

The church organized and united in the fashion envisaged by Christoph would inevitably have political consequences. The Protestants would form a united political front in the diets and in other political assemblies. In Christoph's opinion, the princes could achieve this end if they would only cooperate with one another, constantly corresponding, and working together to assist those who were still under the domain of the Pope, whom Christoph, in the tradition of Luther, considered 59 to be the anti-Christ. Given the unanimity of the princes, who would execute the orders and rules necessary for the church, Protestantism could achieve unity and harmony. In this way, they could establish the "unanimous, godly Church."

Ernst, II, no. 724; III, no. 188; IV, nos. 366, 606. For Christoph's view of the papacy cf. Ernst, III, nos. 1, 31, 94. In this regard, note should be taken of the fact that Christoph, at the Diet of 1555, sought to eliminate the bishop's oath of allegiance to the Pope. Ernst, IV, nos. 50, 85, 86. 70

The Organization of the Church

in Wurttemberg

Christoph was not the first to introduce the

Reformation into the duchy of Wurttemberg. As suggested

above, his father, Ulrich, had begun the development of

Protestantism in the territory soon after the Treaty of

Kaaden. The progress he made, however, was prevented

from further development because of the Schmalkaldic Wars

and because of the Interim.The task remained, therefore,

for Brenz and Christoph to insure the continuance of the

Reformation in the duchy, which could not be undertaken

in full until after the suspension of the Interim at the

Peace of Passau in 1552. The church which was finally

erected bears a remarkable resemblance to the theories held by the Duke and his theological adviser.

The decisive beginning of Christoph's reform of

the church in his realm can be dated from 1552. On

January 22, the Augsburg and Wurttemberg Confessions were

established as the basis for religion in the territory.

60 As RBsslin (p. 59) wrote: "... Ulrich made a glorious beginning in the important enterprise of the reformation in his state? but further implementation was prevented by the operations of the Schmalkaldic Wars, and by the Interim which was placed there by the Emperor." C f ., also, Gustave Bossert, Das Interim in Wvirttemberg (Hall, 1895), p. 23. u

71

On June 30, the Duke ordered that the Catholic Mass could

no longer be practiced.^ Thus began the reform which

would ultimately be summarized in the greater Church

Order (Kirchenordnung) of 1559, which became the basis of the wSrttemberg Church and which served as a model for

numerous other church orders in the latter half of the 62 sixteenth century.

The organization of the church under Christoph

reflected the influence of Ulrich who had divided the

land into twenty-three administrative areas, with each

composed of an assigned number of ecclesiastics and 6 3 teachers. Re-established by the Visitation Order of

1553, which was later contained in the Church Order of

1559, each administrative area was controlled by special

This demand was not applicable to the cloisters. Albert Hauck '( hrsg.), Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, IV (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrlchs'sche Buchhandlung, 1898), p. 57.

62 •• StSlin (IV, p. 738) pointed out that the Wiirttem- berg Church Order of 1559 was based upon the Church Order of 1543 in Hall, which was also established by Brenz. Cf., also, Brecht, p. 318. 6 3 „ For the organization of the Wurttemberg Church, cf., Rosslin, pp. 59-88; Stalin, IV, pp. 738-849; Kugler, I, pp. 383-394; Karl Muller, "Die AnfSnge der Konsistorial- verfassung im Lutherischen Deutschland," Historische Zeitschrift, 102 (1909),1-30; Hauck-HerzogJ IV, 57-60; Sattler, IV, p. 214. superintendents who, with the aid of local authorities,

supervised the church and the schools. Their purpose was

to insure the purity of doctrine as expressed in the

Church Order and to report all cases of malpractice to

the higher authority, namely, the general superintendents, of which there were four. These were attached to the prelates of Adelberg, Bebenhausen, Denkendorf, and

Maulbronn, who also had the responsibility of reporting to the provincial diet (Landtag). The general superin­ tendents composed the synod (Convent), which met twice a year and forwarded all reports to the Consistory. The

latter was a tripartite council composed of the Steward of the Land (Landhofmeister), the Provost of Stuttgart

(in this case, Brenz, who was the overseer of the entire consistorial system), a secular director, three theologians, four secular advisers, and a lawyer. The Consistory was responsible to the Duke, who approved all decisions of the council. Even proposals of a theological nature did not become law until approved by the Duke. In effect, the consistorial system created by Christoph and Brenz virtually made the church a department of the state.

Each of the areas under the control of the special superintendents contained an ecclesiastical court of morals (Sittengericht), composed of six to eight members who met weekly to judge the clergy, teachers, and laity 73 on the purity of their life and doctrine. If, in matters of morality, a person was found guilty of what was considered immoral action he was requested to repent.

If he refused, the case was forwarded to the special superintendent and the individual could be restricted from participation in the Lord's Supper. Ultimately, the accused could be excommunicated, but only with the final consent of the Duke.

In order to maintain purity of doctrine, Christoph, in 1554 and 1558, issued edicts against what were considered the erroneous teachings of the Sacramentarians, 64 Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldians. An example of

Christoph's firmness in this respect was the case of

Bartholomew Hagen. A minister in Dettingen and confessor to Christoph's mother, he was accused of Calvinistic leanings in his interpretation of the Lord's Supper. In

1559, a synod was summoned, Hagen's view was condemned, and all theologians were instructed to accept Brenz's interpretation of the sacrament. Another means of securing the purity of dogma was the requirement that all ministerial

64 Cf., below, Chapter IV, pp. 82-87. Christoph also opposed the Flacianists: "... there is no other spirit in them than that of pride, envy, selfishness, and turbulence." Cited in kugler, II, pp. 164-165. 94

74

candidates and school teachers had to be examined for

their devoutness and morality.

Christoph was also concerned with the establishment

of an educational system in his duchy. For the building

and maintenance of schools and for the payment of teachers'

salaries, he utilized funds derived from the income of

the church. Wurttemberg contained one hundred ninety-four

schools by 1559, all of which were placed under the

control of Brenz and the Consistory. Furthermore, Brenz,

who was also in charge of the University of Tubingen,

re-instituted the Stipendium for prospective theological

C. C students who were in need of financial assistance. In

1556, Christoph directed his theologians to base their

course lectures upon humanism.

Although Christoph secularized approximately

sixty-eight abbeys and monasteries, his treatment of the

Catholic religious orders was less harsh than that in

other territories.®® On July 11, 1552, he wrote to the

65 The stipend for needy students was first established by Ulrich. Christoph, however, raised the number of stipends from seventy to a hundred. Stalin, IV, p. 756.

^ ®®At least this was the opinion of Rosslin (p. 70) and Stalin (IV, p. 739). Johannes Janssen, however, held a slightly different view: "Like the Palatine Elector [Frederick III] and other Protestant princes, Duke Christoph, so often celebrated by his Lutheran associates 1 <

75

prelates of the cloisters and directed them not to

complain about the Wiirttemberg Confession and not to 6 7 initiate any new prospective monks into their orders.

He, however, took no immediate measures to dissolve the

cloisters. Rather, after the conclusion of the Religious

Peace of Augsburg, he issued his Cloister Ordinance of

1556 in which Catholic prelates were allowed to remain

until their deaths, if they so desired, whereupon their

positions would be relinquished to Protestant clergymen.

In one instance, in Stuttgart specifically, the cloister

was converted into a school. In general, the same

principle applied to the nunneries. The nuns were

encouraged to accept the evangelical faith, but otherwise

they were permitted to remain until death or retirement.

Christoph also regulated marriage and divorce.

as a beneficent and righteous prince, behaved with special cruelty and inconsiderateness toward the nuns. ..." Johannes Janssen, History of the German People (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1905), VII, pp. 79-80. This view seems a little harsh, especially since Christoph's orders concerning the cloisters and nunneries were comparatively lenient, as witness below. Moreover, any comparison of Christoph's treatment of Catholic religious orders with that of Elector Frederick's seems a little exaggerated in view of the fact that Christoph was displeased with the Elector's treatment of the nuns and indeed offered his support t6 the nuns in the Palatinate in 1564. Cf. below, Chapter V,pp.i53-4, with Footnote 37. 6 7 Ernst, I, no. 689; Sattler, IV, Beilagen, pp. 86- 98. 76

In the Marriage Ordinance of 1553, he established courts

whereby divorces could be more uniformly controlled.

The court consisted of two secular advisers and two

theologians who would judge the feasibility of particular

cases. In order to account accurately for marriages, the

Church Registry was instituted to keep a permanent record

of the event.88

In organizing the Wiirttemberg Church along these

lines, Christoph sought to realize his idea of the

"unanimous, godly Church” in which a certus methodus docendi would be supported by a certus ordo. His continuous concern was that the church would be structured in such a manner so as not to confuse the common man. He did not consider his view of the church to apply to his territory alone, but rather it was universal in its implications,

inasmuch as all Christian rulers should have the same concern for the common man. To achieve the realization of this universality, Christoph labored vigorously for the unification of Protestantism during the years 1555 to 1568.

68Stalin, IV, p. 749; Bettzdg^Hauofc, IV, p. 59. CHAPTER IV

CHRISTOPH'S EFFORTS: 1555-1559

Duke Christoph experienced both success and frustration during the period 1555-1559. In his own territory, he continued to work toward the consolidation of the Church of wiirttemberg which was finally expressed in the Church Order of 1559. With regard to the achievement of Protestant unity, his efforts were hampered by two factors: the difficulties arising from the conclusion of the Religious Peace of Augsburg of 1555 and the continuing strife among theologians over religious doctrine. His labor toward religious harmony during these years should be considered against the background of these important factors.

Problems Resulting from the Religious Peace

The Religious Peace of Augsburg brought an uneasy relief to a futile war which Luther had anticipated prior to his death. The negotiations lasted from February to

September, 1555, and a relative calm remained throughout

Europe until the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War in the early half of the seventeenth century. The peace was achieved without the presence or direct influence of either 78 the Pope or Emperor Charles V. Weary of the war and tiring from the failure to re-unite Christendom, Charles preferred to relinquish the authority of negotiating the peace to his brother, Ferdinand, and to retire to his villa in

Spain. In effect, Charles had resigned, but he waited until 1556 to abdicate formally, after insuring that his brother would become Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, while his son, Philip, would become king of Spain, the

Low Countries, and part of Italy.^

The initiative at the Augsburg negotiations, which were attended by both Lutherans and Roman Catholics, was taken by the council of princes. Consequently, the territorial interests of the respective princes were 2 paramount. An accommodation to these various interests can be noted in the adoption of the principle of territorial control of religion, permitting the religion of the prince to be the religion of the territory (cuius 3 regio, eius religio). In short, each estate could choose

^Harold J. Grimm, The Reformation Era; 1500-1650 (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), p. 264.

^Ibid., pp. 262-263. 3 The notion of cuius regio, eius religio had been adopted at the Diet of Speyer In the summer of 1526. Cf., Grimm, p. 201; E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), p. 54; and E. G. Schwiebert, in Church History, XII (1943), 105-106. Schwiebert further pointed out that the notion was not unique to the Diet of Speyer, but indeed had a Medieval precedent. n

79

either Lutheranism or Catholicism. Protestants, who

adhered to the Augsburg Confession, would be tolerated in

Catholic ecclesiastical territories, and a citizen was

given the privilege, however impractical, of moving to a

territory of similar religious conviction. In addition,

the princes received the power to effect religious reform 4 within their own realms (jus reformandi), and land

which a prince may have acquired prior to the Peace of

Passau could be retained. With respect to free cities,

toleration was to be observed between Protestants and

Catholics, while the political power would be divided

proportionally.

A serious debate arose over the question as to what

should be done with Catholic ecclesiastical territories

if the Catholic ruler should convert to Protestantism.

Indeed, Ferdinand considered disbanding the negotiations,

until finally he virtually demanded the principle of

Schwiebert, in Luther and His Times, p. 468, maintained that the idea of jus reformandi-was first enunciated by Luther in his Address to the Christian Nobility, and that it was upon this principle that the Church Visitations were based, Albert Hyma, in his description of the Peace of Augsburg (1555), pointed out that Luther held an entirely opposite view in On Civil Government: In How Far One Should Obey It? Hyma explained that Luther and his followers were being "carried along in the tide toward absolutism. ..." Cf., Lefferts A. Loetscher, et_al., Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955), p. §7. 80. ecclesiastical reservation, which held that an ecclesiastical ruler who became Protestant would lose his title, land, and privileges, and the territory would be retained by Catholic authority. The Lutherans, who had hoped to gain territory on the basis of cuius regio, eius religio, at first opposed this notion, but reluctantly accepted it after Ferdinand agreed not to 5 make the principle retroactive.

Although the Religious Peace of Augsburg had ended the war, several problems emerged from the terms of the treaty. The principle of ecclesiastical reservation had not been clearly defined.® After 1555, many Protestants argued that the principle did not include the possibility of a Protestant leader being elected as the ruler of an ecclesiastical territory. The debate over the meaning of ecclesiastical reservation continued, even after the attempts at clarification during the diets of Regensburg

(1557) and Augsburg (1559), in both of which Christoph took an active part.

Another tenet of the treaty, cuius regio, eius

C Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation, Vol. I (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), p. 244. CF., also, Chapter II, above, for Christoph's involvement in this matter.

6Ibid., p. 245. Pi

81

religio, led to difficulties, especially with regard to

religious toleration. In the north German states, which

were largely Protestant:,, the principle was easily

applied. However, in the southern states, where both

Protestants and Catholics lived under the same ruler,

its implementation was more difficult, since some

princes were not tolerant.

The nature of political power in the free cities

had not been clearly delineated. For example, the treaty

did not specify whether the city would have the right of

reform (jus reformandi). Moreover, assuming that it did

have the right, clarification was lacking as to where the

power of reform would reside. The absence of needed

guidelines led to difficulties in some cities, especially

where, in subsequent years, alterations in the religious 7 constituency occurred.

The Religious Peace had concluded with a declaration

that Christian unity and religious toleration should be

sought by all Christians, but any realization of these

goals was only superficial. The Calvinists, Anabaptists,

and Socinians had been excluded from the negotiations.

7 A good example of this was the city of Aachen where, in 1581, the Emperor sought to exclude Protestants from public office. Cf., Holborn, p. 288. 82

The Catholics continued to believe in the correctness of their dogma, while the Lutherans held firmly that their faith would ultimately achieve universal acclaim.

Nevertheless, the members of the Catholic Church and the members of the Augsburg Confession strongly felt that, in the future, the re-union of Christendom would be achieved and that the division of Christianity, which had been legalized by the Religious Peace, would be resolved.

The Continued Disunity Among Christians

The desire for harmony was one of the more pressing issues immediately following the conclusion of negotiations.

Theologians, Catholic and Protestant, turned to a clarification and definition of their own respective theologies. The Catholics, armed with a new scholasticism which had been sharpened by their contacts with Protestants, had already established a rigid explanation of their position at the Council of Trent. The Protestants, on the other hand, had the urgent task of resolving their own internal religious controversies which were, in large part, a result of Luther's emphasis upon the individual conscience. In addition, parochial-minded evangelical theologians had begun to reflect the narrowness of their respective 'territorial churches' which had been established after the Peace of Passau of 1552. 83

One of the earliest manifestations of the lack of

theological harmony among Protestants was the debate

between Luther and the Swiss theologian, Ulrich Zwingli O (1484-1531). The discussion centered around the correct

interpretation of the Lord's Supper, specifically with Q regard to the words of institution, "This is my body."

In general terms, Zwingli argued that these words were

not to be understood literally for, in typically

nominalistic fashion, the human understanding could not

comprehend how Christ could be both present in the bread

and wine while simultaneously sitting "at the right hand

of God." Moreover, he suggested that other personal

references by Jesus (e.g., "I am the vine."^) could

O Schwiebert, in Luther and His Times, p. 695, suggested the seriousness of the issue: "Regrettable as was the break between Erasmus and Luther, its schismatic effect on the Reformation movement was mild compared with that of the disagreement within the fold of Protestantism between Luther and Carlstadt and, finally, between the Lutherans and Zwinglians, culminating in the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 and the Wittenberg Concord of 1536." g The quotation is from Matthew 26. For a recent thorough discussion of the Sacramentarian Controversy, refer to the unpublished dissertation by John Constable, "Johann Brenz's Role in the Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century," Ohio State University, pp. 35-69.

■^The quotation is from John 15. 84

clearly not be taken in a literal sense.^ The words

of institution therefore are "not literal but figurative 12 and symbolical."

Luther's position is more difficult to assess.

He was inclined to accept the symbolical view but

nevertheless defended firmly the notion that the words of

institution were to be taken literally in order to

preserve the mystery. In short, he considered that

Christ was not only spiritually, but really, present in 13 the elements of the Holy Communion. Yet, he would not

admit the Medieval Catholic concept of transubstantiation

nor did he accept the idea that grace in the sacrament was

given mechanically, or ex opere operato. Rather, he

asserted that Christ was present with the bread and wine, 14 in the sense that the God-Man was eternally omnipresent.

The efficaciousness of the sacrament depended, not upon

11Ulrich Zwingli, "On the Lord's Supper," in G. S. Bromiley (trans.), Zwingli and Bullinger, The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXIV (Philadelphia: The West­ minster Press, 1953), p. 190.

12Ibid., p. 199. 13 Grimm, p. 194. 14 Constable, in the "Sacramentarian Controversy," p. 49, pointed out that the word 'ubiquity' was not a term originally used by Luther, but was rather a term of derision applied to Luther's notion of the Lord's Supper. Gradually, Luther himself began to adopt the word. the mere performance of the liturgy, but upon the faith of the believer.

Although the debate between Luther and Zwingli continued until the latter's death, there was an attempt at reconciliation. Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse and a recent convert to Protestantism, called a meeting of the

Protestant theologians to assemble at Marburg in March,

1529. He had hoped to reconcile the positions of the two theologians in order that Protestantism might present a united political front against the Catholics. The major 15 Protestant theologians were present, as well as Philip and Christoph's father, Ulrich. Although agreement was reached on several points, the differences between

Luther and Zwingli with respect to the Lord's Supper were not resolved. The result was a division in

Protestantism which would henceforth be composed of two parties, the Evangelicals and Reformed. As the Lutheran historian, E. G. Schwiebert, wrote:

. . . the resulting bitterness did great harm to the cause of the Reformation. It may even have been a contributing factor to the successful rise of the Jesuits and the Counter Reformation in central E u r o p e . 16

The major theologians were Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Brenz, Agricola, Osiander, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, and other minor figures.

^Schwiebert, Luther .and His Times, p. 695. u

86

Although the Lutherans and Zwinglians mutually agreed

to treat each other with Christian charity, Luther

himself would not acknowledge that the two parties

constituted one brotherhood. The pro-8winglian, Martin

Bucer (1491-1551), later attempted a synthesis of the

two positions, but the gulf had already grown too large.

One of the important presuppositions to the

debate over the Lord's Supper, and indeed one of the most

important theological points of conflict of the

Reformation movement, was the doctrine of the nature of

grace. By the end of the Peace of Augsburg of 1555,

several disagreements over this doctrine had served only

to exaggerate the disunity among the Protestants. One

such disagreement centered around the theology of

Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), who had also attended the

Marburg Colloquy as a supporter of the Lutheran position.

He agreed with the Lutheran notion of justification by

faith, but added that the man of faith was already

genuinely and completely regenerated by his faith. In

contrast to the Lutheran view that God's righteousness is

imputed to man, Osiander suggested that the man of faith 17 had already achieved holiness. The justification of

17 Gustav Wolf, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Protestanten 1555-1559 (feerlin; 6 swald Seehagen, 1888), pp. 4-5. ■n

87

man implied the regeneration of man through the indwelling 18 spirit of Christ. This theological position created

such difficulties among Christians in eastern Prussia

that Duke Albert (1525-1568) subsequently had Osiander's 19 son-in-law and successor, John Funck, executed in 1566.

Closely related to the theology of Osiander was

that of Caspar von Schwenckfeld (1489-1561), a nobleman

who had supported Zwingli in the discussion concerning 20 the nature of the Lord's Supper. Fearing the decline

of morals by those who were, in his opinion, superficially

committed to the cause of the Reformation, he stressed

the importance of the works of Christ through the 21 believer. His position found sympathy especially among 22 the nobility of Silesia and Lusatia.

18 Samuel Macauley Jackson (editor-in-chief), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. Vlll (Grand Rapids: Baker Book tiouse, 1953),pp. 280-281. 19 Grimm, p. 486. 20 For an explication of Schwenckfeld's view of the Lord's Supper vis-a-vis Luther's, cf., George Hunston Williams and Angel M. Mergal (editors), Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XkV (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), pp. 161—181.

21Wolf, p. 5. 22 Von Ranke admitted the possibility that Schwenck­ feld 's theology may have been a formative influence upon the Anabaptist movement. Cf., Leopold von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, Vol. II (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 19(>6), p. 730. 88

A far more divisive controversy was that between

Georg Major (d. 1574) and Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483-

1565). Major, a professor at the University in

Wittenberg and a supporter of the Leipzig Interim, had

asserted that ethical deeds were necessary in order to

obtain salvation, a position which was in complete

opposition to the early Lutheran emphasis upon the 23 doctrine of justification by faith alone. Major did

not, however, maintain that good deeds were alone

sufficient, but that grace and merit together were

necessary for the achievement of salvation. Amsdorf had been a close friend of Luther's and had accompanied him

to Worms in 1521. He considered Major's position to be

too near the Catholic notion of grace and consequently

attacked him by seeking "to demonstrate the perniciousness 24 of good works. . . and by arguing that man was incapable, because of his sinful nature, of earning his own salvation.

This dispute was of particular importance because

Melanchthon, the assumed leader of the Reformation movement in Germany after Luther's death, was brought

23Wolf, p. 5. 89

25 into the discussion. His position was that God and man are co-workers, a view which is referred to, in theological terms, as synergism. In a semi-Pelagian manner, Melanchthon stressed the importance of grace and

simultaneously emphasized the dignity of man. Differing, however, from Major's view of good works, Melanchthon suggested that good works were not necessary for 26 salvation, but were nevertheless important. In opposition to the mediating tendencies in his theology was the position held by the former professor of Hebrew at Wittenberg, Matthias Placius (1520-1575). He took issue not only with Melanchthon,,but Osiander and Major 27 as well. Flacius insisted upon the radical transformation of the 'old' man to the 'new' man, a conversion which could only take place through the activity of God's intervening grace, independent of man's own act of will.

The major result of this controversy was the division of the Evangelicals into two factions: the

"philippists," or those who supported the views of

Melanchthon; and the "genuine,"or "Gnesio-Lutherans,"

25Wolf, p. 6 . 26 John Dillenberger and Claude Welch, Protestant Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954), ppVsz-W— 27Wolf, p. 6. 90 which referred to those who held the theological positions of Flacius and Amsdorf as the orthodox Lutheran view.

Princes and dukes, like Christoph, sought a reconciliation of these various Protestant theological positions, because of and in spite of the complexity of the theological and political conditions created by the various religious factions and by the Religious Peace of

1555. Christoph's first efforts at re-union occurred during the years 1555-1559, and his first important action was to participate in the Regensburg Diet of July, 1556.

The Diet of Regensburg of 1556-1557

Christoph’s attempt to reconcile Protestantism 28 began before the meeting of the Diet. In May, 1555,

Duke John Frederick of Saxony married the widow of Elector

Maurice, Electress Agnes. Realizing that many of the princes would be present at the ceremony, Christoph decided that this would be a good opportunity to confront them with the importance of calling a meeting of the evangelical leaders, who adhered to the Augsburg Confession, for the purpose of bringing about unity in the evangelical ranks

28 Christoph had earlier made the proposal for a national church council to regulate disputes between Protestants. Cf., Chapter II, above. in order to present a united front to the Roman Catholics 29 during the negotiations at Augsburg. Accordingly, on

May 6 , he wrote to his adviser, Albrecht Arbogast of

Hewen, and directed him to attend the wedding on May 26 and to discuss with those princes present the need for a meeting of the Lutheran rulers (Zusammenkunft der Stande

Augsburgischere Confession) for the express purpose of discussing intensively the religious problems of the realm.

The efforts of Christoph's adviser, however, were futile.3®

The princes informed him that such an assembly would excite the opposition, who would fear a gathering of the

German princes at this time. Moreover, the Lutheran theologians would oppose a conference in which princes were called upon to make theological decisions.3'*’

29 Viktor Ernst (hrsg.), Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer, 1899- 190^), lii'7 noi."7 0 , "84.'

30Kugler, I, p. 357. 31 Ernst, III, no. 96. In June, Albrecht Arbogast von Hewen reported on the outcome of his efforts at the wedding in Weimer. His report included a description of his discussions with Duke Wolfgang of Zweibriicken, Margrave Hans of Brandenburg, Philip of Hesse, Ponikau and Mordeisen (advisers from Saxony), and Stachius of Schleiben and Adam Trott (advisers from Brandenburg). According to Albrecht, Philip's reaction was: "...dan es mochten dei anderen diser religion nit zugewandten, vilerlai argwon darus schepfen...." If the opposition became suspicious, it might lead to a disruption of the negotiations in 92

Another opportunity arose in the fall of 1555, after 32 the conclusion of the Religious Peace. On October 17,

Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and Landgrave William of Hesse, Philip's son, visited Christoph and recommended that a colloquy be called prior to the Regensburg Diet for 33 the sake of uniting the evangelical ruling classes.

Although nothing definitive was concluded at this

Augsburg. In addition to attending to Christoph's original request, Albrecht also presented Duke Johann Frederick with Christoph's apology for not being able to attend the wedding.

That Christoph assumed that the princes would have to make theological decisions was suggested in Ernst, III, "Einleitung," p. XLVII: "Dann bewegt ihn wieder das Problem der Religionsvergleichung; als Mittel zu diesem Zwecke wunscht er ein Kolloquium, bei welchem schliesslich die Fursten selbst ihre theologischen Kenntnisse. aufbieten und so die ersehnte Einheit herbeifiihren sollen."

32Kugler (II, p. 7) and Wolf (p. 8) suggested that Christoph proposed another meeting of the evangelical princes while he was still at the Diet in July. Moreover, Kugler and Wolf stated that it was at this time that Christoph suggested the meeting should be held in Koburg during the latter part of February, 1556. The Briefwechsel, however, made no mention of this, and suggested that the first occasion in which Christoph proposed Koburg as the meeting place was in November while attending the second meeting in Worms which was concerned with the Hesse-Nassau dispute. In this regard, Kugler cited Heppe, and Wolf cited both Kugler and Heppe. However, Heppe, I, pp. 110- 111, did not mention that Christoph made the suggestion in July, but rather he cited Wilhelm's letter to Christoph of 19 November 1555 (Ernst, III, no. 192). Apparently Kugler made a mistake and Wolf compounded the error.

33Ernst, III, no. 179. 93 discussion, the three agreed that a meeting of this kind was needed and that serious consideration would be given to the suggestion. Immediately, Christoph wrote to his advisers and directed them to express their opinion on 34 the feasilibility of such a conference. In a letter of October 28, they replied negatively, maintaining that a gathering of this nature would merely serve to frighten both the Emperor and King, as well as the Catholics, so soon after the conclusion of the Religious Peace of

Augsburg.35

Christoph, however, was apparently not in full agreement with this advice. He informed his advisers that if the electors and princes who adhered to the

Augsburg Confession felt the need of a convention, then it 36 was time to have it. More significantly, Christoph's

34Ernst, III, no. 181. The advisers were Fessler, Knoder, Gultlingen, and Kaspar Ber. 35 Ernst, III, no. 184. 36 Ernst, III, no. 184, note 6 . Christoph wrote: "Es last sich in gottlichen sachen nit heuchlen und offentliche abgo'tterei gestatten oder gedulden, sonder- lichen uber unsere offentliche bekannte und dem trientischen concilio uberschickte confession. 1st dann ihe der A.C. [Augsburg Confession] verwandten chur-: Und fursten beisamenkunft von nb'ten gewest, so ist es diser zeit und aus mer dann in euwerm schreiben vermelten ursachen." It should be noted, however, that Christoph did not take himself too seriously on this point, inasmuch as he added: "Aber solches zu weiterm bedenken und suo loco." 94

desire for unity was so great that he decided to develop

his own plan by which the Evangelicals might seek 37 harmony. In a memorandum, he recited a description of

the constant battles between theologians and ministers,

which he considered to be contrary to the agreement at

Naumburg in 1553 whereby the theologians and ministers

had consented not to reprimand each other in public.

He suggested that a meeting should be called prior to the

Diet and that it should include princes and electors along

with their theological advisers. Furthermore, he

recommended that such matters as the uniformity of

ecclesiastical ceremonies, including a common ritual and

discipline, be considered, and that a council be established

for the purpose of settling religious disputes.

At the writing of this memorandum, Christoph was

in Worms attending the second assembly of the princes concerning the territorial negotiations between Hesse and

Nassau. He decided to appeal to the princes at this time

in the attempt to implement his plan, and he suggested to

them that they gather in Coburg during the month of February

in order to seek a means of uniting the Protestants. The place and date would be opportune inasmuch as many of them

37Ernst, III, no. 188. 95 would be in nearby Gera attending the wedding of Reuss von Plauen and Dorothea Katharina, the sister-in-law of 3 8 Margrave George Frederick of Brandenburg.

Unlike Christoph's first effort in May, he now had the support of Landgrave William and Elector Frederick, and William had promised to present Christoph's plan to his father, Philip. Philip, however, was opposed to this plan, believing that a meeting of theologians and advisers would be sufficient, while a conference of the princes was not advisable so soon after the conclusion of the religious peace. He was willing, nevertheless, to meet either in

Coburg or Schmalkalden in February or March, but only if 39 the electors and princes of Saxony agreed to attend.

Elector August of Saxony felt that such a conference was entirely unnecessary because in his opinion most members of the Augsburg Confession would continue to remain faithful

• * 40 to it.

This growing opposition to Christoph's plan was further complicated by the rumor that John Frederick, the

38 Ernst, III, no. 203, note 1. Cf ., also, footnote 32, above.

39Ernst, III, no. 192.

^°Ernst, III, no. 202, note 3. 96

Duke of Saxony and supporter of Flacius, had attempted

to bring the theological differences in Protestantism

into focus by suggesting that Amsdorf publish a treatise 41 attacking the theology of Brenz. Both Christoph and

Philip wrote to the Saxon Duke and requested that 42 theological disputes of this kind be avoided. The Duke

replied that he had heard nothing about a proposed

publication by Amsdorf and added, moreover, that he himself 43 had no appreciation for unnecessary theological debates.

Although the rumor proved to be false, it was

nevertheless indicative of the increasing disagreement with

Christoph's proposal. The Elector Frederick, who had

originally supported the Wurttemberg plan, now sought a 44 mediating position between Christoph and Philip. He recommended that a meeting of advisers and theologians

should precede a gathering of the rulers who adhered to the Augsburg Confession. Both Philip and Christoph agreed, although the latter felt that an assembly of theologians and advisers would prove less successful than a conference of rulers.

41Ernst, III, no. 192, note-2.

43Ibid., and Kugler, II,pp. 8-9.

43Ernst, III, no. 192, note 2.

44Ibid. n

97

One of the major opponents of this new plan was

Elector August, the guardian of the Ernestine princes

and at that time a supporter of Philipism. Aware of his

prominence in the political life of Germany, Christoph

directed his emissary, Wolf von Dinstetten, to make a 45 specific appeal to the Saxon leader. August, however,

could not be persuaded. Repeating an opinion expressed by

Christoph's advisers in October, he too insisted that a

convention of the princes and rulers would have the

appearance of a political alliance which could only be

viewed by the Emperor and King as a threat to the Religious 46 Peace of Augsburg, so recently gained. August had also

discussed the matter with Melanchthon, who felt that a

meeting of theologians and advisers would serve only to

accentuate the disagreements which already existed among

them. He further recommended to the Elector that he delay

any action toward theological unity, at least until the 47 Diet in Regensburg. Afterwards, a religious conference

might be called to achieve a reconciliation among the

Protestants, which could be followed by an attempt to

45 Ernst, III, no. 202; Ernst, IV, no. 8 , note 4.

46Wolf, p. 10.

47Wolf, pp. 12-14. 98 establish unification with the Catholics. The reason

for delaying a synod, according to Melanchthon, was that the more pressing issue at the moment was for the Diet to consider means of dealing with another possible Turkish invasion of Austrian lands, a threat which had persisted throughout the century. The goal of theological unification should therefore be temporarily suspended.

In view of this opposition, Christoph decided that 48 a meeting could be held without the support of the Saxons.

Elector Ottheinrich, the successor of Frederick of the

Palatinate, and Count Wolfgang of Zweibrucken, both of whom were steady supporters of Christoph's efforts, opposed this notion, however, on the grounds that the primary reason for calling a conference was to seek the unification 49 of all Evangelicals. As a consequence, Ottheinrich requested that Philip of Hesse send an emissary to the

Saxon ruler in the hope of convincing him to support the mediating proposal which had been suggested by Frederick.

The attempt proved futile, because Elector August simply 50 refused to agree to a convention prior to the Diet.

48 Ernst, IV, no. 8 , note 3; and no. 10, note 4. 49 Ernst, IV, no. 17.

50Ibid. 99

For the moment, Christoph's plan for Protestant unity had been brought to a stalemate, but his hope of finding a reconciliation did not diminish. He wrote to

Philip on April 1 that they should entrust themselves to a loving God in their search for unity, so that the 51 Almighty might thus be glorified throughout the land.

In May, Christoph and Ottheinrich participated in the Visitation at Speyer. Several of the theologians present recommended, with the approval of Calvin and

Bullinger, that an attempt should be made to mediate between the Swiss and German Protestants and that the best means of achieving an accord would be through a 52 convention of theologians. The Polish theologian,

John ef Lasco, approached Christoph and requested the Duke's assistance in achieving this aim. Christoph, however, had apparently heard of a Lasco's interpretation of the Lord's

Supper and decided that, before he would make a decision about cf Lasco's invitation, the theologian should accompany him to Stuttgart where he could be interviewed by

Ernst, IV, no. 44: "...so miessens wir auch dem gelieten Gott befelhen, der dise und alle andere sachen zu seiner allmechtigkeit glori und eer richten wolle. Dann, seiner allmechtigkait sei lob, in unserm land und zwischen unsern theologen ainicher stritt und spaltung nit ist...." 52 Ernst, IV, fp. xxxv-j&ocvi/io. 37, and no. 71, note 1. 100

Brenz.^ An explanation of efLasco's position had been forwarded to Christoph's major theological adviser, in which the Polish theologian had maintained that, since the humanity in Christ was not omnipotent, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper could not fully convey the grace of

God. After hearing from Brenz that a Lasco still persisted in this unorthodox view, Christoph informed him that he would not be willing to convene the proposed theological convention by himself, and furthermore he added that a Lasco should consider entering into the religious community which held to the Augsburg Confession.

The dukes of Saxony meanwhile proposed that a meeting of advisers be called, prior to the Diet, in order to consider the larger question of mediation between the 54 Protestants and Catholics. This plan was not as extensive as Christoph's first proposal of October, 1555, which had recommended that an assembly of the Lutheran political leaders should be called in order to unify the Evangelicals first. Christoph, however, admitted that he would be willing to send his advisers to Regensburg prior to the

Diet if that was the Saxon wish, and he so instructed his advisers, Severin von Massenbach and Balthasar Eisslinger,

53 Ernst, IV, no. 71, note 1. 54 Ernst, IV, p. xxxvi. Cf., also, Wolf, pp. 217-218. 101

55 on June 2. This conference did not take place, once again, because of the political opposition of Elector

August who, having discussed the matter with King Ferdinand, maintained that the reconciliation of religion should not be attempted prior to the Diet and that greater consideration should be given to the threat of the Turks.

The Diet, which had been summoned by Ferdinand at the conclusion of the Religious Peace of Augsburg, met on

July 13, 1556, in Regensburg. It lasted until March of the following year. As for Christoph, his primary concern throughout the remaining six months of 1556 was over the problems created by the principle of ecclesiastical reservation. His position, which received the support of

Ottheinrich, was to urge for the removal of the principle because it had served only to create mistrust between the people, rulers, and clergy.56 His advisers continually argued that the Duke would not have to concern himself with the problems derived from this provision because he 57 would never have to implement it. They further feared that his continued insistence upon seeking a means for

55Ernst, IV, nos. 75, 77.

56Kugler, II, p. 28.

5 ^Ernst, IV, no. 138, note 5; nos. 146, 157, 158. 102

5 8 its removal might jeopardize the Religious Peace.

This, however, was no argument to Christoph who simply 59 asserted that he could not go against his conscience.

By October, 1556, Christoph wrote to his advisers in Regensburg and instructed them to inform King Ferdinand that he would agree to aid in the efforts against the

Turks, if the King would seek for the removal of the principle of ecpbsia^ticaL reservation.Ferdinand's reaction was to send his emissary, Otto von Neideck, to

Wurttemberg to speak with Christoph.^ The purpose of this visit was to encourage Christoph to make a personal appearance at the Diet and more importantly to inform the Duke that the King was more concerned with the threat of the Turks than with the abolition of this tenet of the

Peace of Augsburg. As a consequence, the efforts of

Christoph and his advisers were ineffective. The matter of ecclesiastical reservation was held in abeyance until

CO Ernst, IV, no. 146. 59 According to Ernst, IV, no. 146, Christoph's reaction to the suggestion by his advisers was: "Ursach: soil ich wider mein gewissen ratschlagen oder schweigen, is mir nit zu thun."

^^Ernst, IV, no. 155, note 3.

^Ernst, IV, no. 156; Kugler, II,pp. 29-30; wolf, p. 37. 0 3

103

the Diet of Augsburg of 1559, where attempts at its removal

also proved in vain.

The Diet agreed to provide Ferdinand with assistance

against the Turks, but most of the estates insisted that,

in return for their aid, some means of reconciliation

between Catholics and Protestants should be instituted.

The Catholics felt that only a general council could heal

the wounds between the two religious parties, while most

Protestants believed that a religious colloquy would be 62 more beneficial. Through the influence of the electors

of Saxony and Brandenburg, Ferdinand leaned more to the

side of the Protestants and was able to pressure the

Catholics into submitting to a religious conference which 6 3 was to meet in Worms on August 24, 1557. Each party at

the colloquium would have six debaters, six adjuncts or

associates, six auditors, and two notaries. At first the

chairmanship of the religious conference was given to the

Bishop of Speyer, Rudolph von Frankenstein, but ultimately 64 it fell to the Bishop of Naumburg, Julius von Pflug.

62 Janssen, VII,pp. 29-30. Christoph also preferred a colloquium; cf., Ernst, IV, no. 78 and no. 198, note 3; and also Wolf, p. 44.

63Wolf,pp. 44-45.

64Kugler, II,pp. 36-37; Schaff-Herzog, XII, p. 432. A complete list of the representatives can be found in Wolf, p. 56 and also Ernst, IV, no. 220 and no. 226 with note 3. OJf

104

The most important Protestant representatives at the

council would be Melanchthon, Brenz, Schnepf, and Flacius;

while the most important Catholic representatives would

be Pflug, Helder, and the Jesuit, Canisius.

On January 14, 1557, Christoph went to Regensburg

for the avowed purpose of attending a wedding, but also

to observe the members of the Diet and to reflect upon

his own plans for unity.66 He found the spirit of the

Diet to be lacking in the desire and determination to

continue to seek for peace in the realm.6® He also became

aware of the hope of the Catholic opposition that the

Protestants would continue to be disunited and thus

diminish their advantage at the Worms conference.

Consequently, Christoph began once again to promote the

idea of a meeting of the German rulers with their theologians

and advisers prior to Worms in order to insure a unified

65 Ernst, IV, p. xxxix, and no. 240 with note 1. In his summary, which was later sent to Elector August, Christoph stressed the need for evangelical reconciliation, especially in the areas of justification versus good works (Osiander), the Sacraments (Zwingli), the problem of baptism, the lack of uniformity in church order and ceremonies, and the theology of Schwenckfeld. 66 As he wrote to Maximilian: "...und wie mich der handel ansicht, so will mich bedunken, das der beruembt gaistlich haufen wenig begirde und naigung hat zu dem anmuetigen und hochnotwendigen bestendigen friden und vertrauen im reich." Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 211. 6 7 Protestant front.

With the knowledge that King Ferdinand would be in

Eger on the first of May, Christoph recommended to his advisers that they inquire whether a gathering of the evangelical rulers and theologians would be feasible at 6 8 that time. After consultation with several of the theologians at Regensburg, Christoph's advisers, Severin and Eisslinger, informed the Duke that the theologians opposed such a convention but that they would agree to arrive in Worms on August 1 with other theologians in order to attempt some reconciliation among the Protestants prior to the beginning of the colloquium. They suggested, moreover, that if agreement could not be reached prior to the religious conference then problems among Evangelicals 69 should be taken up in a provincial synod. The advisers further explained to Christoph that the theologians considered the current theological difficulty, especially

67 Christoph had earlier suggested a meeting of the Augsburg Confession rulers prior to the Worms Conference, but the mood of the Diet was not receptive at that time. Cf ., Ernst, IV, nos. 197, 203. Even Ottheinrich, Christoph's main supporter, had not been in favor of such a meeting. Cf., Ernst, IV, p. xxxix. 6 8 Ernst, IV, no. 225, note 1; no. 226 with note 6 .

69Ernst, IV, no. 228. oC

106

the one between the Philipists and the Flacianists, as

one of misunderstanding and not a disagreement over an 70 article of faith.

The Colloquium of Worms of 1557

The Regensburg Diet in the meantime had ended,

and one of its final acts, on March 16, was to call for

a meeting of the evangelical theologians prior to the 71 conference of Worms on August 1. Christoph, however,

was still determined that a meeting of the evangelical 72 rulers should precede the religious conference. He

felt that an assembly of theologians would fail without

the political assistance and aid of the princes who could

insure the suppression of theological bickering. For

this reason, the rulers should meet prior to the gathering

of theologians on August 1 for the purpose of establishing

a means whereby theological disagreement could be settled.

The opportunity for the fulfillment of this plan 73 was presented to Christoph on March 26. Ulrich Mordeisen,

70 Ernst, IV, no. 233. 71 Ernst, IV, no. 233, note 1. Also, cf., Heppe, I, pp. 140-141. 72 Ernst, IV, no. 228, note 9.

73Heppe, I, p. 142. 107 the chancellor for the Elector of Saxony, wrote to

Eisslinger requesting that he suggest to Christoph a meeting of the princes in June at Frankfurt. According to the chancellor, this would be a convenient moment, because the rulers of Nassau and Hesse would be there at that time discussing their continuing disagreement over the area of Katzenelnbogen. He indicated that this would offer an opportunity for Christoph and the Elector of Saxony to negotiate their differences with respect to 74 the means of reconciliation. Immediately upon hearing of this suggestion, Christoph wrote to Philip of Hesse and recommended that the Lutheran political leaders gather in Frankfurt about the 20th of June, after the meeting concerning the Hesse-Nassau dispute, for the purpose of arriving at a unanimous instruction for the theologians and representatives who would attend the conference at 75 Worms. Philip subsequently agreed to Christoph's proposal.

The Elector of Saxony, to whom Christoph also wrote, 76 was less agreeable. Under the influence of Melanchthon

7 *Ernst, IV, no. 235.

75Ernst, IV, no. 237. 76 Christoph had written to August on April 3. Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 239. Christoph told August that the purpose of the meeting was so "...das die dissidia und unnotige gezenk, auch spaltung der theologorum under inen ufgehaben of

108

and fearing that a meeting of rulers would frighten the

King, August informed Christoph that he could not attend

because his wife was expecting a child and he would have

to remain in Saxony for the baptismal ceremonies.

Christoph, remembering that August had thwarted his

plans before, wrote to the Elector sarcastically 77 remarking that August was not a mid-wife, and that the

reconciliation of religion was just as important as his

child's baptism if not more urgent. This argument had

little effect upon August's : decision. Despite this

failure, however, Christoph was able to encourage the

full support of Ottheinrich, who in turn influenced 78 others to attend.

The conference began in Frankfurt on June 13,

Christoph having left Stuttgart on the previous Thursday

und also einhellicjlichen ein instruction den theologis und politischen rathen auf vorstehend colloquium gegeben werde...." In this letter, Christoph attached a long statement of his ideas concerning unification of the Evangelicals around such subjects as the problem of good works and justification, the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeld, baptism and anabaptism, Visitations, etc. Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 240.

77Cf., Ernst, IV, nos. 242, 246, and 247 with note 2; cf., also, Wolf, pp. 70-71. 7ft Ernst, IV, no. 245; no. 258 with note 2; no. 265 with notes 2 and 3. 109

79 (June 10) in order to arrive on time. The dispute between Hesse and Nassau was soon settled because

Christoph had agreed in advance to help Philip of Hesse 80 pay for the reclamation of the Katzenelnbogen territory.

On June 19 the religious meeting began, with Christoph and Ottheinrich delivering a statement of general purpose in which they expressed the hope that some means of presenting a united front at the Worms conference might be achieved. They suggested that an instruction based upon the Augsburg Confession and the Schmalkaldic Articles be forwarded by all Lutheran rulers to their theologians and advisers attending the meeting in Worms prior to the beginning of the colloquium. Secondly, they recommended that some resolution be forthcoming with respect to the uniformity of the various methods in religious ceremonies and that some jurisdiction be established which would

Ernst, IV, no. 284. A list of those who attended the meeting can be found in Heppe, I, pp. 143-145. Although emissaries from Saxony attended the meeting on the Hesse- Nassau dispute they did not participate in the religious negotiations. Cf., Wolf, p. 71. It should be noted that Christoph wanted the Swiss Protestants to send a delegate to the Frankfurt meeting, specifically Beza and Farel. When Bullinger opposed the idea, the matter was dropped. Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 274 and no. 291, note 1.

®°Ernst, IV, no. 293; Rosslin,pp. 113-114; Heppe, I, p. 143. n o

110

81 eliminate theological disputes in the future.

The theologians present were pleased with Christoph's

first public presentation of his plan for unification.

They especially appreciated, to the point of applause,

his notion that some means of preventing continued 82 theological quarrels should be sought. Despite the

initial enthusiasm, however, the major proposal for

eliminating theological disputes was rejected. Nikolaus

Gallus, a Regensburg theologian, offered a resolution that

a general superintendent be appointed as a negotiating

director of theological differences in each area, similar

•• 03 to what already existed in Wurttemberg. This recommenda­

tion was readily dismissed because of the fear that a

superintendent might virtually become another Pope and,

moreover, because this procedure would require more funds

81 For the entire proceedings of the meeting, cf., Ernst, IV, no. 292; Heppe, I, pp. 142-156; Kugler, II, pp. 47-52; Wolf, pp. 68-74.

82Ernst, IV, p. xlii and no. 292 with appendix 1. Christoph's hope for the meeting was: "...das auch bedacht wurde, welcher gestalt ainhelligkeit in der lehr und sovil meglich in kirchenceremonien furgenomen mochte werden, item die schmechungen und spaltungen der theologen aufgeho- ben, ainigkait gepflanzt, ain christenliche, lobliche ecclesiastical censura angericht und also dem hern Gotte ain ainhellige, gottselige kircke angericht wurde." Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 292, note 3. 83 Ernst, IV, no. 292, appendix 1, note 4. 111

from the churches.

The meeting in Frankfurt was hampered throughout

by the fact that it was not represented by all the

Evangelical rulers, but was composed mainly of southern

German leaders.8* Full agreement on uniformity in dogma

and ceremonies was difficult to achieve. With respect

to the liturgy, an accord was reached to develop a

uniform Agendabuchlein for the specific ceremonies of

Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and weddings. Freedom with

regard to all other ceremonies would be granted to each 85 geographical area. Further, those present agreed that

lawyers would be appointed where necessary to assist

religious refugees from oppression by Catholic rulers.

This proposal would be primarily effective in the southern

states because of the presence of both Catholic and

Protestant political leaders. In the event of religious

disagreements in the southern states, particularly, a

committee consisting of Frederick of the Palatinate,

George Frederick of Brandenburg, and Christoph would be responsible for summoning an assembly of rulers and 86 theologians to resolve the difficulties.

84Ernst, IV, no. 292, note 3.

8^Ernst, IV, p. xlii. 86 Ernst, IV, no. 292, appendix 3. I<2~

112

The most important accomplishment of the Frankfurt

convention was the agreement that the theologians who

attended the Worms colloquium would and should be

instructed by their respective rulers to adhere to the

Augsburg Confession and the Schmalkaldic Articles. Thus,

if the Catholics should point to the impossibility of

uniting because of Protestant disunity, then the

Evangelicals could assert that they were unified on the 87 major doctrines as specified in the Augsburg Confession.

A weakness of this resolution was expressed by the

representatives of Philip of Hesse. They pointed out

that the Augsburg Confession was not held by all Protestants

everywhere and, furthermore, that the Confession was

subject to varying interpretations, similar to the

Scriptures. Finally, they maintained that, inasmuch as

all of the princes and rulers were not present in

Frankfurt, the results of this assembly should not be 88 binding upon all. Because of this latter suggestion,

87 Cf., Wolf, pp. 70-75; Ernst, IV, no. 292, appendix 1 , with notes 10b and 1 1 . 88 Ernst, IV, no. 292, appendix 2 with note 3. As the Hessian report stated: "S.f.g. haben aber in erstem anfange diser handelunge alhie anzeigen lassen, was hie bedacht und gestelt wurde, das solchs nicht fur einen endlichen schlus solte gesezt werden, sondern also werde gestelt, das die andern mitreligionsverwanten chur-fursten, fursten und stende, welche diser zeit hir nicht zugegen, II

113

the resolution was adopted that the rulers not present in

Frankfurt but who nevertheless adhered to the Augsburg

Confession should be apprised of the conclusions of

this conference and should so instruct their theologians

and advisers who would attend the Worms colloquium.

Accordingly, on July 2, Christoph and Ottheinrich

informed those rulers not present of the arrangements 89 which had been agreed upon at Frankfurt. Christoph's

hope that the Frankfurt resolution would lead to a

unified evangelical position at Worms was soon dispelled.

The recommendation to adhere to the Augsburg Confession

served only to create greater discord among the theologians,

which resulted in their failure to appear in Worms on

August 1, as the Regensburg Diet had decreed. More

specifically, the differences between Melanchthon and

Flacius became more intense. Flacius, in particular,

objected to the conclusions of the Frankfurt meeting

because the Philipists and sectarians had not been condemned.

sampt diser stende botschaften, so den 1 . augusti zu Wormbs zusamenkumen werden, solchs zu mindern und zu mehrern oder gar absuthun und ein neues aus izigem diser theologen und anderem irem selbst mehrerm bedenken zu machen hetten." Cf., also, note 3: "item das man die A.C. [Augsburg Confession] nit so gar der heiligen schrift gleich schetze." OQ Ernst, IV, no. 295 with note 1. ■n4

114

Indeed, he referred to the Frankfurt resolution as "a 90 betrayal of the Church."

The ruler who posed the greatest opposition to the

results at Frankfurt was Duke John Frederick of Saxe-

Weimar, a pro-Flacianist in theology. He was reluctant

to send his envoys to Worms for the meeting of the

Evangelicals on August 1 unless he himself was given an

opportunity to explain his position on the resolution at 91 Frankfurt at a conference of the Lutheran princes. When

this did not occur he, on the basis of a suggestion given

to him by Flacius, instructed all his delegates and

theologians who attended the Worms colloquium to strive

for the condemnation of all sects, including Anabaptist,

Zwinglians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Schwenckfeldians, and

those who were in sympathy with the Interim, specifically

the Philipists.^

Christoph had hoped to avoid an open evangelical

dispute at the assembly of theologians in Worms. Conse­

quently, upon hearing that Duke John Frederick was

90 Quotation taken from Janssen, VII, p. 32, who cited Corpus Reformatorum, IX, pp. 213-215. Cf., also, Heppe, I,g>. 156-^57. 91 Ernst, IV, no. 300. Cf., also, Kugler, II, p. 52.

^ W o l f , pp. 304, 316-326; also, Ernst, IV, no. 300, note 1 . traveling to southern Germany in order to take a vacation

in the Black Forest, Christoph wrote to him that they

should become acquainted. The confrontation, however,

proved to be inconvenient for John Frederick who, instead, 93 met with Ottheinrich. But their conversation did little

to relieve the intensity of the present situation.

For a cordial and friendly negotiation at Worms,

it was already too late. Because of the debate which

had been aroused in the aftermath of the Frankfurt meeting, 94 many of the delegates arrived late, including Melanchthon.

When they finally gathered in the city, the Weimar

theologians and advisers began immediately to move for

the condemnation of all sects, in accordance with John

Frederick's instruction. Christoph's adviser, Eisslinger, who had come to Worms on August 1, wrote to him on

August 13 and suggested that John Frederick be influenced

to withdraw his instruction and that Christoph should

come to Worms and meet with both the Saxon Duke and 95 Elector August on the whole matter. August, however, would not attend, and Christoph decided that to further a

93 Ernst, IV, no. 313? also, Kugler, II, p. 53. 94 Ernst, IV, no. 303, note 1. 95 Ernst, IV, no. 313, note 4. IU

116

conference in these circumstances would be fruitless.

He did write to John Frederick and requested that he

withdraw his instruction, that they should unite around

the Augsburg Confession, and that particular theological

grievances could be worked out at a later date in a

general Evangelical synod. The purpose of agreement now,

Christoph stressed, was obviously to present Evangelical

harmony in order "to confound the papists with a saintly, 96 godly writing," namely, the Augsburg Confession. John

Frederick remained unconvinced, despite even the attempts 97 by Ottheinrich and Wolfgang.

The delegates assembled in Worms, however belatedly,

on September 11 for the opening of the conference. The

discussion began with a verbal attack upon the Catholics

by Melanchthon, who opposed "all the godless decisions of go the so-called synod of Trent. ..." He asserted that

96 Ernst, IV, no. 313. As Christoph wrote: "...das bapstumb mit hailiger, gottlicher schrift zu sturzen." Christoph also sent a copy of this letter to Landgrave Wolfgang and requested that he attempt to influence John Frederick. This too proved in vain. Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 313, note 7; no. 317; and no. 321, note 4. Cf., also, Kugler, II,pp. 53-54.

^Ernst, IV, nos. 318, 321, 322, 326. Cf., also, Kugler, II,pp. 54«-55,. Heppe, I,pp. 159-160; and Wolf, pp.85-86. 98 Janssen, VII, p. 34. Gotthold Neudecker, Geschichte des Evangelischen Protestantesmus (Leipzig: K. J. Kohler, 1844), II,pp. 694-695. the Protestants were opposed to all idolatry and to the adulteration of the sacred Word of God. The Jesuit theologian, Peter Canisius, replied to Melanchthon's charges indirectly by referring to the division among the Evangelicals and by reading a document describing the theological differences between Osiander and Major.

The Flacianists, in keeping with the Weimar instruction, unwittingly found themselves on the side of the

Catholics by criticizing the disunity in Protestantism because of the failure to condemn the sectarians. The zeal of the Flacianists could not be eased by the remaining Evangelicals. Finally, the suggestion was made that the Flacianists be excluded from the negotiations and that agreeable representatives be chosen in their 99 stead. This consideration by the Evangelical majority led the Flacianists to depart from the colloquium, under protest, on October 1. The Catholic representatives then raised the question as to whether the remaining

Protestants could speak for all the adherents to the

go Ernst, IV, no. 318, note 3; also, Kugler, II, pp.59-6Q. As Kugler pointed out, Christoph's advisers at Worms (i.e., Brenz, Andrea, and Eisslinger) had feared already in August that if the Flacianists were excluded from the conference, it would be crushed. Worthy of note is that Christoph supported the Evangelical majority. C f ., Ernst, IV, no. 336. l / t

118!

Augsburg Confession, including the Flacianists. The

conference was thus at a stalemate. Notwithstanding

King Ferdinand’s instruction that the Flacianists

should be reinstated, the Catholics withdrew from the

assembly on November 28, maintaining that they could

not discourse with the disunited Protestants and

referred the whole matter to the subsequent diet at

Augsburg.k 100

Christoph was of course not indifferent to all

the events which occurred in Worms. John Frederick, in

a letter to Christoph and Ottheinrich, vehemently

denounced the manner in which his theologians had been

treated and suggested that the Wurttemberg theologians,

Brenz and Andrea, had been extremely deceitful in not

denouncing the sectarian theology of Osiander. Rather

than reply to this letter himself, Christoph instructed 102 his advisers to do so. More important, however,

Christoph directed them to prepare a report on those

For further details on the dispute a m o n g the theologians at the Worms conference, cf., Heppe, I, pp. 157-230; Wolf, pp. 75-115; Schaff-Herzog, XII, pp. 432-433; Janssen, pp. 32-45; Kugler, II, pp. 52-67.

101Ernst, IV, no. 338 with note 3. i o? Ernst, IV, no. 344; and, cf., Kugler II, pp.62-63. Mr

119

theological points which were in dispute at Worms in 103 order to prepare for a future synod.

The Frankfurt Recess of 1558

Because of the continual quarreling of the

theologians, Christoph increasingly realized that if the

unity of the Evangelical Church was to be attained it

would have to be through a meeting of the Lutheran rulers.

As truly as God is God, Christoph wrote to Melanchthon

on December 20, a convention of advisers and theologians

alone would only continue the disunity among the

Evangelicals; there should be a general synod of all

rulers as well as theologians who adhered to the Augsburg

Confession. Melanchthon agreed that a conference of

princes would be in order, but he opposed a general

assembly of Protestants in a synod on the grounds that

it would only accentuate the differences in the various 104 religious parties. Philip of Hesse was also disturbed

103 Ernst, IV, no. 345, note 3.

■^^Janssen, VII, p. 46. Cf., also, Christoph's letter (Ernst, IV, no. 364) to Melanchthon of December 1, 1557: "Und is gewiss nit one, das der sathan nit feiret, sonder durch alie mittel und weg trachtet, wie er derselbigen kirchen Gottes und dem rainen evangelio abbruch und wider stand thon konde, welchem meines verstands nicht bas zu begegnen, dann das die vorsteher Gottes worts mit allem ernst und fleis sich bearbeiten, with the disunity among the theologians which had been demonstrated at Worms, and was in complete agreement with Christoph that a conference of the princes and rulers should be called in order to resolve this disharmony. He furthermore informed Christoph that he would seek to exert his influence upon Elector August 105 in that direction. Christoph wrote to August and pleaded with him about the necessity of calling a convention of the Lutheran political leaders in an attempt to unify the Protestants and he recommended that the meeting should be held while the electors were in Frankfurt in March, 1 5 5 8 . Unlike previous attempts to get the support of the Elector, Christoph had little difficulty this time. August replied immediately that he, too, was displeased with the Worms conference, stated that he was in full agreement with Christoph, and that he

daz sie eintrechtig mit einander seien und falsche leer nit einschleichen lassen, das auch politicus magistratus in deme auch eiferig und fleissig, damit nun solliche kirchen Gottest je lenger je mer erbauwen, das einigkeit under uns erhalten...es komme dann der magistratus personlichen zu hauf mit teren schidlichen theologis und politischen rathen, und vergleichen sich einhelliglichen mit einander data fide, [bei] der angenommen und erkannten leer des allein seligmachenden evangelii, wie das in der A.C. [Augsburg Confession], Apologia und Schmakaldischen artikeln begriffen...."

105Ernst, IV, nos. 351, 355, 368, 370.

106Ernst, IV, no. 366. 121

107 would be willing to meet in Frankfurt, at the time of

Ferdinand's coronation as Emperor. The negotiations

would consist mainly of the rulers from Wurttemberg,

Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, the Palatinate, and „ . 108 Zweibrucken.

Ferdinand arrived in Frankfurt during the latter part of February where he remained until his coronation

on March 14. Those who were participating in the discussion concerning the unity of the Evangelicals also

came at that time. Christoph, however, did not appear

in the city until March 9, having instructed his adviser,

Eisslinger, to negotiate with the other rulers in the 109 meantime. This delay led to lost opportunities for

the Duke of Wurttemberg. He directed his adviser to propose that several theologians should be allowed to attend the discussions in order to seek clarity on some

■^^Ernst, IV, nos. 369, 375. Kugler, II, p. 77. 108 George J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publications Society, l9l£), p. 82 n.; Janssen, VII, p. 47. The specific representa­ tives were Ottheinrich, August, Joachim of Brandenburg, Christoph, Wolfgang, and Philip. The latter, for a while, considered the possibility of holding the meeting in Butzbach rather than Frankfurt, but admitted that he would comply with the wishes of the majority. Cf., Ernst, IV, no. 380, note 2.

109Ernst, IV, no. 398, note 1. 122 of the existing theological issues. Elector August, however, had already appointed Melanchthon to write a position paper concerning the calling of a general synod, which Christoph desired, as well as other theological matters.Christoph likewise asked his theologian,

Brenz, to write a report which essentially agreed with

Melanchthon*s, differing only slightly with respect to an interpretation of the Lord's Supper.The rulers, however, preferred Melanchthon's statement, apparently because of its greater clarity and, in their eagerness to finish with the business of the negotiations, adopted 112 it as the basis of agreement. On March 18, the

Frankfurt Recess was signed.

In reaction to the Catholic criticism which had been expassed at the Worms conference, the Recess affirmed that the Evangelicals were not in disagreement, but were . in accord in holding that the Augsburg Confession was the

**°Ernst, IV, no. 375; also, Kugler, II,pp. 80-81.

1 ‘L1Kugler, II, p. 81; Ernst, IV, no. 398. IIO Kugler suggested (II, p. 81, note 22) that the rulers present at this meeting were eager to bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible. He does not provide any justification for this assertion, except to refer to a letter of Ottheinrich's to Philip of Hesse of April 6 . 113 basis and foundation of the Evangelical position.

Concerning doctrine, justification by faith alone was

reasserted, but good works were considered to be necessary

in the sense that "works are the necessary effect of the

Holy Spirit received in conversion. Hence many good 114 works follow after conversion." With respect to the

Lord's Supper, both the Catholic Mass and the Zwinglian

interpretations were condemned, and the princes asserted

that the correct view was that of the Augsburg Confession:

". . . in this institution Christ is truly, livingly,

essentially present with the bread and wine; we Christians

receive them to testify that we are His members.

Regarding the adiaphora, the Recess proclaimed that minor

variations in ceremonies would be admitted as long as

the pure doctrine of the evangelical faith was retained.

In addition, the Frankfurt Recess maintained that

no ruler should tolerate any deviation from the Augsburg

Confession, and that anyone teaching in contradiction to

113 For the resolutions adopted at the Frankfurt meeting, cf., Kugler, II, pp. 83-84; Janssen, VII, pp. 47-48 Fritschel, pp. 82-83; Wolf, pp. 120-121; Heppe, I, pp. 269- 270; Schaff-Herzog, IV, p. 371; and Hauck-Herzog, VI, pp. 169-170.

^^Fritschel, p. 83. 115iMd. ; 124

it should be deposed from his position. All theological

treatises were to be approved prior to their publication

by the consistories and superintendents. If they

contained any disputable assertions their publication

should be prohibited. The Recess concluded with an appeal

to the other estates to join with those of the Frankfurt

agreement in the affirmation of all the above points.

Although Christoph agreed to join with the members

of the Frankfurt Recess, he nevertheless was not completely

satisfied with the results of the meeting.His original

reason for wanting a meeting of the princes in Frankfurt

was that it might serve as a preliminary conference for 117 a future assembly of all Protestant rulers. He had

Kugler (II, pp. 79, 83) suggested that Christoph was satisfied with the Frankfurt Recess. However, Viktor Ernst in his introduction to the Brldfwechsel (IV, p. xliv) more accurately maintained: "Der Frankfurter Tag, der im Marz 1558 stattf&nd, erfullte aber in keiner Richtung die Hoffnungen, die Herzog Christoph daran geknupft hatte." 117 Ernst, IV, nos. 366, 368, 373, 375. As Christoph had written to Elector August on December 22, 1557: "Dann [after Frankfurt] dieweil Gottlob under den oberlendischen churfursten und fursten, auch stenden, einiche s?weiung in der religion nit ist, und sie sich dessen einhelliglichen zu Frankfort verglichen und dann bei E.l. und dereh anrainenden fursten und stend der A.C. [Augsburg Confession] ausserhalb der neuen erweckten genischen theologen dissidien auch einigkeit, so wurd solliche christliche einhelligkeit nit allein wie gemelt in der leer, sonder auch volgentz in den andern mitteln und freien stucken christlich und wol zu finden sein werden." 125 also hoped that certain criteria for judging theological points which were in dispute might be established, along with a standardization of the church ceremonies and discipline. These plans, however, were merely tabled, and the complaints of other rulers were referred to the 118 next diet, usually at the insistence of Elector August.

Also, Christoph had wanted to have a personal discussion with the Saxon Elector in order that they might reach a closer understanding of their respective aims. But

Christoph arrived too late at the gathering and the 119 Elector had departed early.

The more serious difficulty which had led to the meeting in Frankfurt, the strife created by the Flacianists, had not been repaired by the Recess. In fact, it served only to intensify the division among the Evangelical ranks. Duke John Frederick, along with some of the princes, advisers, and theologians of Pomerania, Mecklen­ burg, Regensburg, Anhalt, Henneberg, Hamburg, Lubeck, 120 Luneburg, and Magdeburg opposed the Frankfurt decree.

Flacius wrote essays against the Recess for not having

lift Ernst, IV, p. xlv. 119 Ernst, IV, nos. 358, 389, 402. 120 Kugler, II,pp. 89-90. 126

condemned the various sects within Protestantism. John

Frederick considered calling an assembly of theologians

at Magdeburg on May 16 in order to protest the conclusions 121 of the conference m Frankfurt. The convention,

however, did not take place because many of the northern 122 Saxons did not share the Duke's enthusiasm. The

result, therefore, was that the unification of the

Evangelicals was not achieved. In July, King Maximilian wrote to Christoph that he abhorred the division among

the leaders of the adherents to the Augsburg Confession,

and affirmed the need to make new efforts at a 123 reconciliation. Christoph assured him that he would 124 try to fulfill this wish to the utmost.

The Duke did not hesitate for long. On August 28,

he wrote to the Saxon Elector and Philip of Hesse and

suggested that a meeting be held in Pforzheim, October 2,

at the time of the wedding of Margrave Karl von Baden

to the daughter of Rupert von Lutzelstein of the

121Ernst, IV, no. 410 with note 4. 1 99 Kugler, II, p. 91; Ernst, IV, no. 414. l 51 Ernst, IV, no. 445. 124 Ernst, IV, no. 450. ^7

127

125 Palatinate. The purpose of the gathering would be

to seek church unity and also to attempt to answer the

charges of John Frederick and Flacius against the

Frankfurt Recess. This idea was received enthusiastically

by both Philip and August, who agreed to send a legation

to the conference. Elector Joachim of Brandenburg,

however, was not overly enthused about the proposed

convention because he felt that no one should be forced

to answer the criticism of John Frederick and he also

felt that Christoph, and his colleague, Ottheinrich, had 126 acted too hastily. Ottheinrich himself was unable to

attend the meeting and so the proposal was dropped.

Christoph nevertheless hoped that an assembly could be

held prior to the next diet which was planned by Emperor 127 Ferdinand for January 1, 1559, in Augsburg.

John Frederick had not been idle. After the

failure of the Magdeburg convention in May, he took the

advice of his major theologian, Flacius, and decided to

publish a pamphlet condemning all opinions which diverged

l 25 Ernst, IV, no. 453, 454; cf., also, Wolf, pp. 141-143.

126Wolf, p. 143; Ernst, IV, no. 462 with note 3. 127 Ernst, IV, no. 478 and no. 463 with note 1. 128 from genuine Lutheranism. The project was turned over to several of his theologians under the direction of

Flacius. It was completed November 28, 1558, and was published under the title of the "Confutation Book of 128 the Duke of Saxony." The pamphlet was a scathing attack upon all forms of sectarianism, denouncing those who, like the Schwenckfeldians, Anabaptists, Majorists, and Melanchthonists, had strayed from the true Word of

God and had thereby become more dangerous to the Christian faith than the papists. The Duke required the reading of this pamphlet in all of the parishes within his domain, maintaining that failure to condemn the sects according 129 to his pamphlet could lead only to a severe penalty.

Elector August called upon his theologians at the university in Wittenberg to prepare, under the direction of Melanchthon, a refutation of John Frederick's

128 Actually, the complete title was as follows: "Johannes Friedrichs V. des Mittleren, Herzogen zu Sachsen, in Gottes Wort, prophetischer und apostolischer Schrift gegrundete Confutationes, Widerlegungen und Verdammung etlicher ein Zeit her zuwider demselben Gotteswort und heiliger Schrift, auch der Augsburgischen Confession, Apologien und der Schmalkaldischen Artikeln, aber zu Fo‘rderung und Wiederanrichtung des antichristischen Papsthums eingeschlichenen und eingerissenen Corruptelen, Secten und Irrthumen." Cf., Janssen, VII, p. 52. 1 oq Janssen, VII,pp. 53-54; Kugler, II, p. 96; Wolf,pp. 145-146, 129 condemnation. Landgrave Philip of Hesse wrote to the

Saxon Duke censuring the "Confutation Book/' and he suggested that Christians should not argue about Christian truth and that a Christian synod should be called to remedy the matter. Christoph was pleased with Philip's letter and ordered his own advisers to prepare a 130 Wurttemberg answer to the Saxon pamphlet. Consequently, the breach among the Evangelicals was becoming greater than it had been before the Frankfurt Recess.

Christoph, Ottheinrich, Philip of Hesse, and the

Elector August of Saxony were, in the meantime, corres­ ponding with regard to the possibility of calling a meeting of the Lutheran rulers which would convene in

Fulda for the purpose of seeking a means of reconciliation with John Frederick. The idea of a conference was more probably presented by Ottheinrich, but Christoph was enthusiastically prepared to participate in the 131 assembly. The date of the convention was arranged 132 for January 20, 1559. John Frederick agreed to attend

1 30 Kugler, II,pp. 95-96; Wolf,pp. 51-52; Heppe, I, pp. 298-299; and Ernst, IV, no. 523. 131 Ernst, IV, no. 490, note 1; Kugler, II, p. 93. 132 Ernst, IV, no. 492. 130

133 in order to defend his own position. As before,

however, Elector August, who had at first consented to

the conference, became extremely skeptical about

gathering in Fulda. He had originally assumed that the

conference would consist of only those princes who

adhered to the Frankfurt Recess, with the addition of

Duke John Frederick. When he learned that the meeting would include other princes as well as their theologians, he wrote to Christoph, Ottheinrich,and Philip that he now 134 objected to the proposed gathering, and he suggested

that the whole question be referred to the forthcoming

Diet. The Elector of Brandenburg and the Margrave Hans

of Brandenburg emphatically supported the Elector in his

recommendation. In view of this opposition to the Fulda

conference, Philip of Hesse wrote to Christoph that the

attempt to heal the breach among the Evangelicals should 135 also be referred to the Diet. Ottheinrich and

Christoph thus had to give up the project, and on

January 9 the Wurttemberg Duke wrote to Landgrave Wolfgang of the Palatinate and informed him that the Fulda meeting

133 Cf., appendix no. 77 m Wolf,pp. 431-432.

134Ernst, IV, no. 497 with note 1. 135 Ernst, IV, no. 500. '3/

131

had been abandoned. On January 28, Christoph wrote

to Elector August expressing the hope that that, which

should have occurred in Fulda, would find fulfillment 137 at the next Diet.

The Diet of Augsburg of 1559

The Diet of Augsburg opened March 3, 1559, having

been delayed by the late arrival of some of the more 138 important officials. Even so, the Diet began without

the presence of one of Christoph's greatest allies,

Ottheinrich, who had died on February 12. His successor

was the Landgrave Frederick of Simmern, who took the

title of Elector Frederick III. Christoph wrote to the

new elector on February 15 and expressed his regret at

the death of Ottheinrich and requested that Frederick III

continue in the footsteps of his predecessor in earnestly

seeking for the unification of the Evangelicals and for 139 the peace of the Fatherland. This appeal was not

136 Ernst, IV, no. 501 with note 1; also, Kugler, II, p. 95.

Ernst, IV, no. 513.

138Wolf, p. 162. 1 19 Ernst, IV, no. 524. '■$>

132

motivated by the fear that Frederick III would be

opposed to the reconciliation of Protestantism. Indeed,

he justifiably hoped that the new elector would become a

mediator between the two evangelical parties, especially

since the elector was the father-in-law of Duke John

Frederick and had also supported the Frankfurt Recess.

More significantly, one of the first letters which

Frederick III wrote to the Saxon Duke was to express the

sentiment that religious reconciliation ought to be 140 achieved at the Diet.

The immediate discussion at the Diet centered 141 around the quarrels between Catholics and Protestants.

Each blamed the other for the failure of the Worms

colloquium; each accused the other of violations of the

Augsburg Religious Peace; and the Protestants, including

Christoph, expressed their opposition to the continuation

of the notion of spiritual reservation. With respect to

the latter, the matter was finally resolved by Emperor

Ferdinand who asserted that he would not eliminate the

principle because it was in keeping with the ancient

140 Kugler, II, p. 112. 141 For a detailed discussion of these debates, cf ., Kugler, II, pp. 109-129; Wolf, pp. 162-214; Heppe, I, pp. 325-332. /3 5

133

tradition of the Catholic Church of which he himself 142 was a devoted member, both by choice and by heredity.

Various debates arose as to how the religious

schism might be healed. The possibility of a colloquium

was quickly dismissed upon comparison with the results

of the Worms conference. Ferdinand suggested that a

general synod should be called in order to overcome the

existing religious division. Christoph at first favored

this move and instructed his advisers to support the

Emperor in this regard. He reasoned that the Emperor

was not seeking to favor one party over another but he

was simply acting as a ruler ordained by God to seek 143 means of keeping peace and order throughout the realm.

However, other Protestant leaders were inclined to accept

this approach only upon the condition that the papacy

and Catholic prelates would all be subject to the

conclusions of the council. This qualification led to

such a heated debate that Ferdinand finally postponed the 144 whole matter to a more opportune time.

Christoph's primary concern was the achievement

142 Kugler, II, p. 125. 143 Kugler, II,pp. 118-119.

144Janssen, VII, p. 123? Kugler, II, p. 123. I 31/

134

of Evangelical unity. Within nine days after the

beginning of the Diet, he wrote to Frederick and Wolfgang

and suggested that a meeting of the rulers who adhered

to the Augsburg Confession should take place after the 145 Diet in order to deliberate upon religious matters. 146 Wolfgang favored the notion, as did the Elector. In

a communique to the latter on April 12, Christoph

recommended that the conference be summoned as soon as

possible inasmuch as the conclusion of the Treaty of

Cateau-Cambresis had freed the Catholic countries of

Spain and France which could now pose a threat to the 147 Protestants. With a stronger sense of urgency for

reconciliation, Christoph wrote to Philip of Hesse and

requested that, since he, Wolfgang, and Margrave Charles

would be in Augsburg within the week, the Landgrave might

send his emissaries to meet with them in order to promote 148 a gathering of the Augsburg Confession rulers. Philip,

however, had already suggested that a convention of all

Protestants, German and Swiss, should be called in order

145 Ernst, IV, no. 538. 146 Ernst, IV, no. 545. 147 Ernst, IV, no. 538, note 3; no. 553 with note 2. 148 Ernst, IV, no. 554, note 1. 135

to unite against the papacy. This position was opposed by Brenz and Melanchthon on the grounds that it would only lead to an extension of theological disunity and 149 dissension. The Hessxan leader consequently wxthdrew his proposal and supported Christoph's because his greater 150 concern was for the elimxnation of dissension.

The agreement of Elector August was more difficult to obtain. On April 30, he had instructed his advisers to seek unity, not in a meeting of the Augsburg Confession rulers after the Diet, but rather to seek unification during the Diet by allowing the Frankfurt Recess to be 151 the ground of reconciliation. The Saxon emxssarxes also reported to Christoph that they were determined to 152 stand by the conclusions of Frankfurt. In order to preserve the unity already achieved by the results of

Frankfurt, of which Christoph had taken an active part, the Wurttemberg Duke found himself in the position of

^^Ernst, IV, no. 556, notes 1 and 3; no. 558. Cf., also, Kugler, II, p. 142, note 118.

^■^Ernst, IV, no. 562a with note 3; Kugler, II, p. 143 with note 119.

*5*Ernst, IV, no. 562a, note 2; no. 566, notes 1 and 2 . 152 Ernst, IV, no. 566a, note 1. 153 agreeing with the Saxon proposal. Wolfgang soon

followed in Christoph's steps and accepted the Saxon 154 plan also. The opposition now came, not from John

Frederick primarily, but from Elector Frederick III,

Ottheinrich's successor. His rejection of the Saxon proposal was not directed so much against the Frankfurt

Recess, which incidentally he did not consider to be a document to which one must necessarily assent. Rather, he felt that the Saxon plan was untimely, in that it would place John Frederick, who clearly opposed the

Recess, in an embarrassing position before all of the estates at the Diet. Philip of Hesse, Wolfgang, and

Christoph tried in vain to convince John Frederick to sign the Frankfurt Recess and thereby change the opposition of Frederick III to the Saxon plan. The result was that, once again, the attempt to unify the Evangelicals arrived 155 at a stalemate.

Christoph departed from Augsburg during the second week of June, but his strong Lutheran faith did not permit him to leave discouraged. He merely

153 Ernst, IV, no. 568 with note 1. 1 Ernst, IV, no. 570, note 1. 1 Ibid. Also, Kugler, II,pp. 145-146.

^■^Ernst, IV, nos. 572, 575. 2 1

137

continued the work which he had begun four years before,

namely, the attempt to arrange a meeting of the Protestant

princes. In July he wrote to Philip of Hesse and explained

that he still held it to be of the highest necessity that

a gathering of the princes, which was frustrated by the 157 Saxon proposal at the Diet, should nevertheless occur.

Although Christoph did not achieve this goal in the

years 1555-1559, it nevertheless continued to be his

prime motivation, which was now fortified with four years

of practical experience.

157 Ernst, IV, no. 595 with note 2. CHAPTER V

THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE: 1560-1568

No significant gains had been made toward the accomplishment of Protestant unity during the years 1555 to 1559. Indeed, the differences among the Lutherans had only been accentuated. Christoph continued to maintain that the reconciliation of religion was his primary moral aim, but in the next eight years a new dimension was added to this commitment. The French and

Spanish had settled the fourth of the Hapsburg-Valois rivalries at the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, and the Duke feared that they might begin to exert force against the Protestants, not only militarily but also at the next meeting of the Council of Trent.* Increasingly he recognized the need for a political basis to religious unity, which would include not only the Protestants in

Germany but also those Protestants in Switzerland, 2 Denmark, Sweden, England, and Scotland. Before this

■^Viktor Ernst, Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wittemberg, IV (Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1899-1967),'nos. 553, 554 n. 2 , 556, 562 n. 4, 562a. 2 Ernst, IV, no. 516; Bernhard Kugler, Christoph, Herzog zu Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: Ebner und Seubert, 1868-72), II, pp. 84-^5, 185-188. As Walter Hollweg wrote: "Christophs

138 3C/

139

could be accomplished, however, the German Protestants

should be united, and to this end Christoph continued

to work for a conference of the princes.

The Convention of Naumburg

The major source of resistance to such a meeting

was Elector August of Saxony. With the aid of Wolfgang,

Christoph persuaded Philip of Hesse to use his influence 3 upon the Elector. Although Frederick III and John

Frederick agreed that a gathering of princes (Fiirstentag)

would be fruitful, Elector August replied to Philip that

he would not consider attending a conference unless Duke 4 John Frederick accepted the Frankfurt Recess. In the

meantime, Christoph and Wolfgang, at the suggestion of

Philip, drafted an instruction in which they recommended

that the princes should convene and re-sign the Augsburg

Confession of 1530. Furthermore, they suggested that

the time and place of the convention should be assigned

Ziel und Hoffnung war: Gewinnung der auslandischen Kirchen fur das Luthertum." Cf., Walter Hollweg, Der Augsburger Reichstag von 1566 (Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs- vereins GmbH, ldf>4), p. 353.

"^Kugler, II, pp. 148-151. For the efforts of Hans Ungnad, an Austrian statesman, and Baron of Sonnegg, cf., also, Ernst, IV, no. 606.

4Ernst, IV, nos. 606 with notes 9 and 10, 613. I H o

140

5 by Elector August. The Saxon Elector, however, rejected

the proposal on March 9, 1560, on the grounds that he

still unconditionally acknowledged the Frankfurt Recess

and that, although he had no objections to a second

signing of the Augsburg Confession, he nevertheless

saw no need for the convening of the princes and

electors.®

In May, Elector Frederick, who was disposed to

accept Christoph's notion of a Protestant alliance,

wrote to the Duke suggesting a meeting of the two, along

with John Frederick, in Speier. Christoph was reluctant

to accept this suggestion at first, feeling that little

could be accomplished so soon after the failure of his

own proposal. Frederick consequently requested that he

and his son-in-law be permitted to meet with Christoph

and Wolfgang in Wurttemberg. They finally consented to

5Ernst, IV, no. 613 n. 2; Kugler, II, pp. 142-143.

^Kugler, II, p. 151. Both Melanchthon and Brenz also opposed the Furstentag, maintaining that such a meeting would only increase the bitterness which already existed. Cf., Kugler, II, p. 158; Albert Hauck (hrsgv), , Realencyklopcldie ffir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XIII (Leipzig; J. C. Hinrichs1sche Bundhandlung, 1898), p. 662; C. G. Bretschneider (heraus.), Corpus Reformatorurn, IX (Halle und Brunswick, 1834-1900), ppT 987-988; Johannes Janssen, History of the German People, VII (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1905), p. 213. 7 meet together in Hilsbach on June 29, where they all agreed to promote equilaterally a convention of the princes in Naumburg during January, 1561, for the second signing of the Augsburg Confession and to prevail upon Q the other Evangelical estates to support these efforts.

Christoph himself expressed the hope that means could be found to encourage the countries of Denmark, Poland,

Sweden, and England to subscribe to the Augsburg Confession 9 also. This idea was, however, rejected by the others because of the extraordinary effort required in convincing even the German princes to agree to the meeting.

Philip of Hesse at first preferred a meeting of theologians instead of princes. However, fearing that the new Pope, Pius IV, was ill-disposed to the Protestants and wanted to call a new session of the Council of Trent, he finally consented to the convention at Naumburg as a means of achieving unity prior to a Catholic council.

"j Kugler, II, pp. 188-189; Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 662. Q Kugler, II, pp. 189-190; Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 662; Janssen, VII,pp. 213-214.

^Kugler, II, p. 195.

*®On November 20, the Pope finally called the Council to reconvene in Trent on April 6 , 1561. Realency klopadie, XII, p. 663. 142

The greater task was to secure the support of

Elector August, a project which Duke John Frederick personally undertook. The latter hoped that a convention of this nature would negate the Frankfurt Recess through a re-signing of the Augsburg Confession. Thus, he met with Elector August in Schwarzenberg during the month of

August and proposed a signing of the Confession as a means to achieving Protestant unity. The Elector agreed, maintaining that no other confession had won the favor of the Emperor in 1530 and with the provision that there would be no condemnation of religious sects at Naumburg.^

The convention opened at Naumburg on January 21,

1561. Christoph was extremely optimistic, because he had, for years, wished for a meeting of this nature, in which 12 the princes were dedicated to seeking unity. The program

Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 662. It should be noted that the Flacianists were increasingly coming into disfavor with John Frederick. Indeed, by November, 1560, Flacius was ordered by the Duke to remain silent. The Duke himself took over control of the Church in his realm. Moreover, John Frederick took none of the Jena theologians with him to Naumburg. Cf. Henry W. Reimann, "Matthias Flacius Illyricus: A Biographical Sketch," Concordia Theological Monthly, 35, 1964, p. 84. 12 As Kugler (II, pp. 213-214) wrote: This conference "war sein Werk, wenigstens insoweit, als kein anderer der protestantischen Fursten so unermudlich fur die^Einigung der Parteien gearbeitet, kein anderer so nachdrucklich und so zSh wie Herzog Christoph immer und immer wieder nach dem allgemeinen Furstentag und der Unterzeichung der Augsb. Conf. verlangt hatte." 143

revolved around two issues: the second signing of the

Augsburg Confession and the measures to be taken with

regard to the forthcoming Council of Trent, which had

been called to open on April 6 . Among the princes

present were August, Frederick III, Philip of Hesse,

Christoph, John Frederick, Wolfgang, Margrave Charles

of Baden, and Ernst and Philip of Braunschweig-Grubenhagen.

Envoys were sent from Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Lauenburg,

Holstein, and Anhalt. Christoph brought with him some

notes (Memorialzettel) which expressed his desire to

achieve religious unity by establishing a universal code

of Christian doctrine (Lehrnorm), a defensive military

league, an accord with Denmark, Sweden, England, and

Scotland on the Council of Trent, and uniformity in 13 religious ceremonies. These suggestions, however,

remained in the background and the proposals of Elector

Frederick occupied a greater portion of the twenty-one

sessions of the convention. His recommendations consisted

of four: (1) compare all editions of the Augsburg

Confession in order to decide which one should be signed;

(2 ) upon selecting the edition, attach a preface stating

13 Kugler, II, p. 218 n. 73. For a complete description of the proceedings cf. Robert Calinich, Der Naumburger Furstentag (Gotha, 1870), pp. 136-137. 144 the purpose of the meeting; (3) forward an explanation to the Emperor concerning the intent of the convention; and (4) suggest how those princes not present could be 14 persuaded to sign the Confession.

The theological differences of those present soon became evident. Elector August promoted the adoption of the 1530 edition of the Augsburg Confession. On the other hand, Elector Frederick, whose religious sympathies increasingly had inclined toward Reformed theology, felt that this edition supported the doctrine of transubstantia- tion in the Lord's Supper. Consequently he endorsed the edition of 1540 which provided for a more liberal interpretation of the sacrament. Christoph and the rest of the rulers preferred the 1531 edition as a means of mediating the dispute. Further difficulties arose when John Frederick and Ulrich of Mecklenburg recommended that the Schmalkaldic Articles also should be signed.

The theologian, Flacius, who was not present at the convention, forwarded a request that the Apology as well should be signed.^ Agreement was finally reached on the

14 Kugler, II,pp. 221-222; Samuel Macauley Jackson (editor-in-chief), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, VIII (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 6 6 . 15 Reimann, pp. 84-85. edition of 1531, with a preface to be written by Electors

Frederick and August which would contain no reference to the Schmalkaldic Articles or the Frankfurt Recess.^

The preface was completed on January 30 and was to be presented to Emperor Ferdinand. Dukes John

Frederick and Ulrich, however, refused to sign it because it had not condemned the sects, especially the Sacramen- tarians, and because disputed articles had not been clarified. Moreover, John Frederick wanted the Calvinist tendencies of his father-in-law, Elector Frederick, condemned. Since his demands had not been met, the Duke secretly departed from Naumburg on February 3. Elector

Frederick now explained that his position on the Lord's

Supper was the same as Melanchthon's. With this clarification, the two electors, Philip, Christoph, and

Margrave Charles signed the preface. In addition, the respective advisers signed for Brandenberg, Zweibrucken, 17 Pomerania, Anhalt, and Henneberg. On February 6 , the princes in Naumburg sent five advisers to secure the signature of John Frederick, but he refused.

^ Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 665.

*^Janssen, VII, pp. 220-221; Schaff-Herzog, VIII, p. 61; Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 66ITI 146

On January 5, 1561, Emperor Ferdinand had recommended to the papal nuncios, Commendone, Bishop of Zante, and

Delfino, Bishop of Liesina, that they attend the Naumburg conference in order to invite the assembled princes to the forthcoming Council at Trent. The letter of invitation from the Pope, however, was addressed "beloved son"

("dilecto filio"), and consequently the princes returned the letter unopened, maintaining that they were not the sons of the Pope. Moreover, Christoph and five other princes were assigned the task of informing both Emperor and Pope that they would not participate in a council which had, in the past, condemned their own faith and that they preferred a national German council in which they 18 themselves would be given a vote. The Naumburg princes rather agreed that a conference of theologians and councilors should be held in Erfurt on April 22 to discuss 19 what measures should be taken toward the Council of Trent.

In addition to this positive stand concerning the

Catholic council, the princes settled other issues.

They consented to intercede with King Charles IX of

France and King Anthony of Navarre on behalf of the

18Kugler, II, p. 224; Stalin, IV, p. 589.

19Kugler, II, p. 230; Janssen, VII, p. 272. 47

147

Huguenots. An ambassador from Queen Elizabeth of England

arrived at the convention, spoke with Christoph, and

requested greater union with the Evangelical churches,

suggesting that they form a common approach to the

Council of Trent. To this, the princes also agreed.

Further, they set up regulations regarding the publishing

of questionable literature, and agreed to persuade those

princes not present to accept the Augsburg Confession 20 along with the preface.

The Naumburg Convention thus resulted in two

prominent features. On the one hand, the aim of unity

for which the conference was designed was not achieved.

Christoph's assessment of the meeting was that the

foundation of unity rested on the containment of the Saxon 21 theologians by their duke. John Frederick, however,

continued his opposition to the conclusions of the

convention, while the cities of Regensburg, Augsburg,

and others refused to sign the preface. In July, a

gathering of theologians convened in Luneburg, representing

20 * * Kugler, II, p. 229; Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 6 6 8 ; Schaff-Herzog, VIII, p. 61; Stalin, IV, pp. 589-590. 21 Theodor Pressel (hrsg.), Anecdota Brentiana (Tubingen: J. J. Heckenhauer, 1868) , pp. 493-498. kugler, II, p. 249. NT

148

the cities of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Rostock,

Magdeburg, and Braunschweig, and unanimously agreed to

condemn the Naumburg resolutions. Christoph and Philip

of Hesse debated the nature of the Lord's Supper,

especially since the latter had for some time been

corresponding with the Swiss theologian, Heinrich 22 Bullinger. On the other hand, the convention displayed

the common characteristic of the Protestants to disapprove

of the Catholic Church. The meeting of advisers in

Erfurt lasted from April 28 to May 1, and resulted in the

drafting of a letter to the Emperor suggesting that he

abolish the Council of Trent and call for a general

German synod, which finally met in Fulda on September 12, 23 1562. Thus, the Naumburg Convention's most positive

result was the registering of a protest against the

Council of Trent.

22Janssen, VII, p. 273; Realencyklopadie, XIII, p. 668.

23Kugler, II, pp. 239-248, 258-278. 149

The Colloquy of Maulbronn

After the Naumburg Convention failed to achieve unity among the Evangelicals, the Palatinate Elector

Frederick, who had raised the question of the nature of the Lord's Supper at the meeting, entered into active relations with Swiss theologians. Christoph had feared the inroads of Calvinistic and Zwinglian teachings in the

Palatinate as early as December, 1559, but had hoped that 24 the Elector would not depart from the Augsburg Confession.

Three years later, on the day of Maximilian's election as Emperor at the Frankfurt Diet, Christoph, however, expressed his concern over the tendencies of the Elector's 25 religious convictions. He recommended that all the estates join together in attempting to convince Frederick to relinquish his Reformed sympathies, but the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg refused to concur. Furthermore, at the request of Christoph and Wolfgang, Ferdinand and

Maximilian wrote to Frederick and appealed to him to renounce the Reformed position, but the Elector did not i 26 reply.

^ Ernst, IV, no. 633; Kugler, II, p. 439; Hollweg, p. 33.

^Hollweg, p. 41.

^ I b i d . ; Janssen, VII, p. 340. )C?Q

150

Frederick's intentions were made explicit on

January 19, 1563, with the publication of the Heidelberg

Catechism which had been drafted by Caspar Olevianus

(1536-87) and Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83), two Calvinist

theologians whom the Elector had appointed to the

University of Heidelberg. Christoph, Charles of Baden,

and Wolfgang, all relatives of Frederick, wrote a letter

to him on May 4, expressing their desire that he would

seek religious unity by adhering to the Augsburg Confession

in which they could-be brothers and friends in Jesus 27 Christ. Philip of Hesse also appealed to Frederick on

May 19, but the Elector only replied that he must follow 2 8 God's Word and what is revealed to him.

In October of the same year, Christoph, Wolfgang,

and Charles proposed to the Elector that they hold a 29 conference in order to discuss their religious differences.

Frederick, however, refused, not wishing to become involved

27 Hollweg,pp. 42-43/ Kugler, II, p. 441;^Christian Friedrich Sattler, Geschichte des Herzogthums Wurtenberg unter der Regierung der Herzogen, IV (Tubingen; George Heinrich Reiss, 1759-72), pp. 274-237; Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-1581 (Marburg; 1853), II, pp. 36-73. 28 Hollweg, pp. 43-44, with notes.

OQ Sattler, IV, Beilagen, letter of October 9, 1563. in needless theological disputes. Christoph was nevertheless able to persuade the Palatinate ruler to meet with him in Hilsbach on February 16, 1564. At that time, Frederick consented to a secret conference in

Maulbronn where their respective theologians could discuss the words of institution in the ceremony of the 30 Lord's Supper. The colloquium was held during the week after Easter, April 10 through 17, with the sessions beginning about six o'clock in the morning. Aside from

Christoph and Frederick, those present were Brenz,

Osiander, Andrea, Schnepf, Ursinus, Olevianus, and some 31 others of lesser note.

The conversations were largely concerned with the doctrine of the uniquity of the body of Christ. The

Wurttemberg theologians argued for the consubstantial presence of Christ in the bread and wine, while the

Palatinate theologians held to the Zwinglian symbolical interpretation of the elements and further maintained that Luther, immediately prior to his death, had informed

Melanchthon that the latter view was closer to the

^Kugler, II, p. 455; Realencyklopadie, XII, p. 443; cf., also, letter to Philip of Hesse of February 27, 1564, in Heppe, II, Beilagen. I For a complete list cf., Realencyklopadie, XII, p. 443. i

152

32 Scriptures. A fruitless debate continued until, on

April 17, the two princes brought an end to the conference

by signing respective protocols and by exchanging

statements of respective beliefs.

Despite the agreement to secrecy, the Heidelberg

delegates spread the rumor that the Wurttemberg

theologians had suffered a great theological defeat at

Maulbronn and that Christoph had in fact become a 33 subscriber to the Heidelberg Catechism. The result

was a theological debate concerning the colloquium

expressed in numerous tracts, pamphlets, and publications 34 throughout the next two years. Christoph forwarded a

copy of the Maulbronn protocol, along with a defense by

Brenz and Andrea, to Elector August and requested that

his theologians be allowed to prove that they remained

faithful to Luther on the Lord's Supper. The Saxon

theologians, however, merely answered with a sharp censure

of Christoph's letter. Philip of Hesse, on July 2, 1564,

wrote to Christoph and suggested that he forbid his

33Janssen, VII, p. 325.

33Kugler, II, p. 458; Heppe, II, pp. 73-94.

3^For a complete list cf., Schaff-Herzog, VII, p. 256. 153

theologians to engage in any further theological

bickering.^

The Diet of Augsburg of 1566

Fearing the increasing inroads of Calvinism and

Zwinglianism, Christoph, in August, 1565, appealed to

all the Lutheran princes in Germany to find a means of

confronting these blasphemies (Gottslasterungen). He

called for all the electors, princes, and theologians who accepted the Augsburg Confession to act as one man 36 in protecting the evangelical faith against them.

This appeal was in great part prompted by and directed against the actions of the Palatinate Elector, who had 37 recently begun a vigorous reform in his territory.

Although others had sought reform, the special character of Frederick's was determined by the resolute manner in which he pursued it and was magnified by his relatively

35 Realencyklopadie, XII, p. 444. 36 As Christoph wrote: "Derwegen dann vnsers erachtens seer gut, vnd ain notturft, dass wie bissher die Chur vnd Fursten Augspurgischer Confession in Religionssachen fur ain Mann stuenden...also auch die Theologi...fur ain Mann stuenden vnd gemeinen feinden zu schrecken und abbruch, der gemeinen Kirchen aber zu trost vnd sterckh sich mehrer Anzahl vnd Christlichem eyffer vnd ernst erklereten, vnd ein ander die hand buten." Hollweg, p. 46.

"^Hollweg, p. 47. s y

154

radical theological position. He consequently offended

both Catholics and Lutherans, some of the former 38 complaining to the Emperor. Christoph himself was

displeased with the Palatinate Elector1s ruthless

treatment of the nunneries, and offered his support to 39 them.

Emperor Maximilian 11,^® by the time of his

accession, also was strongly opposed to Calvinism, as

well as to other Protestant groups not included in the 41 Religious Peace of Augsburg. Specifically, he was

displeased with Elector Frederick, not only because of the

latter's religious tendencies but also because of his 42 opposition to his own election in 1562. Moreover,

Frederick had refused a request made by Maximilian and

Ferdinand, at the insistence of Christoph and Wolfgang,

38 Hollweg, p. 48.

^Hollweg, p. 49.

^^EmperOr Ferdinand died on July 25, 1564, and was immediately succeeded by Maximilian. 41 Hollweg, pp. 52, 62, 72. As Hollweg wrote (p. 64): "Nicht nur Zwinglianer und Calvinisten lehnte er grundsatzlich ab, auch den Bohmischen Briidern, den Schwenckfeldern und anderen Gemeinschaften sprach er jedes Existenzrecht ab." 42 Janssen, VII, p. 338. 155

43 that he renounce his Calvinism. Nevertheless, in

September, 1564, the Elector wrote to the Emperor congratulating him upon his accession to the throne and recommending that Maximilian turn his efforts to rooting out the evils of Catholicism and call a council to eliminate evils derived from the quarrels and dissensions 44 among the theologians. Maximilian, however, had already informed Frederick that he would summon a meeting of the 45 Diet to deal with religious issues.

On October 12, 1565, Maximilian invited the rulers to attend the Diet which would begin January 14, 1566, in

Augsburg. Among the nine topics to be discussed were the questions of the right understanding of the Christian 46 religion and the restriction of religious sects.

Numerous rulers prepared in advance answers to these questions. Elector Frederick suggested that the papacy was responsible for the increase of religious sects and therefore be abolished along with the principle of 47 ecclesiastical reservation. Philip of Hesse agreed

^Kugler, II, p. 455; Hollweg, p. 72.

44Hollweg,pp. 72-73; Janssen, VII, pp. 342-343.

4 ^Hollweg, p. 241.

4 ^Kugler, II,pp. 481-482; Hollweg, p. 104.

4^Heppe, II, p. 113; Janssen, VII, pp. 345-346. IS 6

156

with the abolition of ecclesiastical reservation, but

feared that because of the Palatinate's stand on the

Lord's Supper the Catholics would point to Protestant

disunity and felt that the abolition of the papacy was

not within the realm of possibility. Elector Joachim

of Brandenburg asserted that the Protestants should

openly condemn Frederick's position on the Lord's

Supper as not in keeping with the Augsburg Confession.

Duke John Frederick had already suggested to his father-

in-law, Frederick III, that if he did not denounce his 48 heresies he would suffer in hell.

Christoph feared that the negotiations in Augsburg

would lead to a schism among the adherents to the

Augsburg Confession, a fear which was also shared by

Elector August of Saxony. The Duke was prepared to

acknowledge Frederick as an adherent of the Augsburg

Confession if he would publicly accept the presence of

the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He,

however, informed his advisers that the Elector of the

Palatinate himself should not be condemned, but rather 49 the doctrine which he held. Realizing, of course, that

40 Janssen, VII, pp. 346-347. 49 Hollweg, pp. 120, 259. For Christoph's position vis-a-vis Brenz's, cf., Hollweg, p. 116. Also, Kugler, II, pp. 478-480; Heppe, II, p. 114; Pressel, pp. 551-557. f7

157

a condemnation of the doctrines held by the ruler of the

Palatinate might lead to a break among the Estates,

Christoph preferred to let the initiative be taken by

others, specifically, Duke John Frederick, Count

Wolfgang, and the representatives from Pomerania, 50 Mecklenburg, and some of the towns.

Because many of the delegates arrived late, the

procedures did not begin until March 23. The opening

address was delivered by Duke Albert of Bavaria for the

Emperor. In it, he requested that the members of the

Estates suggest to the Emperor their recommendations on

how to eliminate effectively those religious sects which

were excluded from the Religious Peace of Augsburg.^

On March 29, agreement was reached to let the Catholics

and adherents to the Augsburg Confession meet separately

in order that each group could submit its respective

grievances to the Emperor in writing. Thus subjects

which were essentially theological were to be omitted 52 from discussion by the general assembly.

On March 31, Christoph, Wolfgang, Duke John

50Ibid.

^Janssen, VII, pp. 349-350; Hollweg, p. 264.

^Hollweg, p. 267. 158

Frederick of Pomerania, and the Margraves of Baden and

Brandenburg met in the quarters of Elector August and

agreed that they would disassociate themselves from the

Palatinate ruler unless he made a public declaration 53 . . on the Lord's Supper. Frederick, however, arriving

in Augsburg on April 2, ignored their decision, and, in

subsequent meetings on April 12, 13, and 14, was successful

in convincing the Protestant estates that they should 54 petition the Emperor to oppose the papacy. The petition

further stated that true religious doctrine could be found in the Augsburg Confession and in the Apology, and that any notion of disunity among the Lutherans was promoted by the Papists. Finally, the Protestants recommended a national council headed by the Emperor as a means of eliminating superstition and idolatry and requested that ecclesiastical reservation be abolished.

The petition was presented to the Emperor on April 25, 55 signed by all members of the Protestant estates.

^Kugler, II, p. 483; Hollweg, p. 302. 54 Hollweg, p. 304; Janssen, VII, p. 352. 55 Hollweg, p. 312. It should be noted that Christoph and Wolfgang made public that they were not in full agreement with Elector Frederick inasmuch as the Palatinate ruler continued to attack the idea of the real presence in the Lord's Supper. 159

As had been agreed, Maximilian forwarded this petition to the Catholics for their reply. They, of course, resented the attacks upon their ancient Church, which, as was pointed out, held among its members the forefathers of those who adhered to the Augsburg

Confession. Moreover, they could see no need for a national council which would only breed further schism and anarchy. Instead, the Emperor himself should seek a means of establishing religious unity. With respect to the principle of ecclesiastical reservation, they reaffirmed the Religious Peace of Augsburg.^®

In the meantime, various complaints concerning the actions of Elector Frederick were presented to the

Emperor, specifically accusations from the Bishops of 57 Speyer and Worms and from Margrave Philibert of Baden.

After a review of these complaints by a committee of the

Estates, Maximilian issued an edict against the Palatinate ruler on May 14, in which the latter was warned to relinquish all tendencies toward Calvinism or be subjected 58 to enforcement according to the Religious Peace.

56Janssen, VII, pp. 358-361; Hollweg, p. 317.

^Hollweg, p. 331. CO Janssen, VII, p. 362; Hollweg, pp. 338-340. )4 o

160

Frederick replied that he acknowledged no other authority

than God and His Word, and that he stood by the Frankfurt

Recess and the Augsburg Confession which had been signed 59 at Naumburg.

On May 17, Christoph, Wolfgang, and Duke John

Albert of Mecklenburg declared that, unless Frederick

openly accepted the interpretation of the Lord's Supper

as found in the Augsburg Confession, they could not

consider him to be a brother in the faith. They wanted

to know whether he stood with the sects or with the

adherents to the Augsburg Confession.The councilors

of Elector August, who had departed from the Diet on the

morning of May 14, maintained that Frederick should not

be exposed to the dangers of exclusion from the Religious

Peace because of disagreement over one article of the

Augsburg Confession. This view received the support of

others among the Protestants, and together they informed

the Emperor that they would call a convention with the

Palatinate ruler to deal with the matter of the Lord's

Supper.®'*' Furthermore, the Emperor was informed that

59 Elector Frederick's reply is cited in Hollweg, pp. 342-343.

®®Hollweg, p. 362.

®^Hollweg, pp. 366, 373. the Protestant estates considered the edict of May 14 merely as an admonition for Frederick to renounce his

Calvinism.

The council which was promised never met, and, despite Maximilian's reiteration that the edict would be fulfilled, Frederick remained free to continue expanding 6 2 Calvinism throughout the Palatinate. He departed from

Augsburg May 24, certain that no coercive action would be taken against him. On May 30, the Diet decrees were presented to the Emperor, reaffirming the Religious

Peace of 1555.63

The Aftermath of the Diet

of Augsburg of 1566

Christoph was so disappointed with the Diet that 64 he resolved never to attend another. During the last two years of his life much of his enthusiasm toward the achievement of Protestant unity was lost and in general

^3Janssen, VII, pp. 374-376; Hollweg, p. 382. 63 Christoph Friedrich von Stalin, Wirtembergische Geschichte, IV (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung, 1870), p. 676; Hollweg, p. 411.

64Kugler, II, p. 494; Stalin, IV, p. 676 with note 2 . 162

65 he remained rather reserved and cautious. On September 1,

several political advisers assembled in Erfurt to work out

the details for a synod or a colloquium concerning the

differences in the interpretation^of the Lord's Supper.

Christoph informed his advisers that they should not seek

a condemnation of Elector Frederick. He even recommended

that the Emperor be requested to suspend the decree of

May 14, for fear that any persecution of the Palatinate

Elector might incite persecutions of Protestants in 6 7 France, Spain, the Netherlands, and other places.

Moreover, he feared that a synod would only lead to

further strife. This fear was shared by Elector August

who had no desire to see Frederick excluded from the 6 8 Religious Peace. Because of this lack of desire to

take a firm position, the only significant decision

reached at Erfurt was that any further arrangements should be made by the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg.^

65Stalin, IV, p. 676; Hollweg, p. 392.

®^Cf. complete list in Hollweg, p. 393; Kugler, II, p. 494.

^Kugler, II, pp. 495-497; Hollweg, p. 393; Stalin, IV, p. 676.

^®Hollweg, p. 391. £ Q Kugler, II, p. 496; Sattler, IV, p. 232. 163

Subsequent attempts to deal with the question of the Lord's Supper also proved in vain, in great part because Elector Frederick refused to compromise. At a conference in Nordlingen during March, 1567, means were sought whereby Frederick could conform completely to the Augsburg Confession. These discussions were without positive results. Philip of Hesse was unable to attend because of an illness which resulted in his death

March 31. Christoph's proposal to suggest to the 70 Emperor that he call a colloquium remained unfulfilled.

At the end of May, a conference in Heidelberg involving the theologians from the Palatinate, Hesse, Baden, and wSrttemberg led only to further division on the matter 71 of the Lord's Supper.

The most lasting result of Christoph's efforts to unify Protestantism occurred in June, 1567. Feeling that the only solution to evangelical disunity was the development of a new confession, he, in agreement with

Landgrave William of Hesse, commissioned his theologian,

Jacob Andrea, to draw up a formula concerning faith, good works, free will, adiaphora, and the Lord's Supper.

7 °Kugler, II, p. 506; Stalin, IV, p. 677.

71Kugler, II, pp. 510-513. Hopefully, it would be acceptable to all theologians of

the Augsburg Confession. In 1568, Andrea met with

other evangelical theologians in the attempt to seek

a consensus. Thus began a period of evangelical history which finally resulted in the Formula of Concord of 72 1580. Christoph, however, did not live to see Andrea's efforts realized. He died during the evening of 73 December 28, 1568.

72Kugler, II,pp. 529-530; Schaff-Herzog, I, pp. 169- 170; Schaff-Herzog, IV, pp. 342-344. 73 Sattler (IV, p. 237) wrote that Christoph was able to partake of the Lord's Supper on Christmas day and that he died three days later between the hours of eight and nine o'clock in the evening. CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

Christoph's efforts to unify Protestantism ended

in failure, but the responsibility for this outcome was not solely his. The Religious Peace of Augsburg of

1555 had recognized and legalized the division of western Christendom and had in effect permitted the

Protestants and Catholics to agree to disagree.^" The attempts at unification among the Protestants themselves were hampered by the self-interest of the territorial princes whose power had been strengthened by the establishment of the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. Lacking the cohesive ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church and stressing the importance of the individual conscience in matters of faith,

Protestantism tended to proliferate into ever more numerous sects and religious groups, some of which were supported by sympathetic princes. As a consequence, the unity of the visible church became not only difficult to achieve but, for some, even undesirable. Against such

Hastings Eells, "The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte (Jahrgang 42, 1951), p. 16b.

165 166 seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Christoph's discouragement over the futility of his unification efforts after the Diet of Augsburg of 1566 appear to be justified.

One of the major doctrinal barriers to unification concerned the nature of the Lord's Supper. In 1527,

Martin Bucer had unsuccessfully sought to mediate the disagreement between Luther and Zwingli. By 1564, the issue was still being debated, and Christoph, who had settled the problem for his territory in the Church

Order of 1559, failed to reach a rapprochement with

Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate at the Maulbronn

Conference. Even after the Diet of Augsburg of 1566, the nature of the Lord's Supper continued to be a divisive doctrine.

Viktor Ernst suggested that one of the major reasons for the failure of the unification movement in the mid-sixteenth century was the absence of a popular leader who could command the common allegiance of all 2 the princes in the search for unity. This view has much to commend it, but the emphasis has apparently been

2 Viktor Ernst, "Einleitung," Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1899), W ; p. 'xlix.------167

misplaced. In view of the rising power of the

territorial princes, qualified leadership was not the

only important consideration. Rather, as Christoph

repeatedly pointed out, what was needed was a common

commitment by all the princes to the task of achieving

religious unity. For this reason, Christoph insisted

that the only means of attaining this agreement was

through a meeting of the Evangelical princes.

The desire for a united Protestant political front

against the Catholics was one of the major motivations

in the search for religious unity. Philip of Hesse had

sought this as early as the Marburg Colloquy of 1529,

and Christoph frequently expressed this idea during

his efforts toward unification. For example, in the

fall of 1566, the Duke reversed his approval of the Edict

of May 14 against Elector Frederick because he believed

that its fulfillment would create further political

divisiveness among the Protestants. Some princes,

however, used this desire for political unity to their

own advantage. Duke John Frederick of Saxony, for

example, refused to sign the Frankfurt Recess and

continued to promote Flacianist doctrines in his own

territory without fear of coercive action from other

Protestants who did not want to jeopardize the political unity already achieved. u

168

Some territorial rulers may have been guided

by political reasons in converting to Protestantism, but 3 others were motivated by a sense of religious duty.

For Christoph, there was little doubt as to the

importance of the church in his life, and he considered

it his divine calling to insure the purity and uniformity

of the church. His devotion to the church and to

Christian unity, however, was based upon his feeling of

responsibility toward and his sympathy for the religious

and moral life of the common man. For this reason,

Gustav Bossert considered Christoph "one of the ablest 4 princes of Germany. ..."

As Hans J. Hillerbrand wrote: "Some rulers . . . exhibited a genuine religious commitment. There were men who had been touched by the new evangel and their public policies were but the outward expression of their inner conviction." Hans J. Hillerbrand, Men and Ideas in the Sixteenth Century (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1569) ; fp'.~"31-J2.

4In Albert Hauck (hrsg.), Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, IV (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs*sche Buchhandlung, 1398), p. 60. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Bibliographies

Heyd, Wilhelm von (hrsg.). Bibliographie der wurttembergischen Geschichte. 4 vols. Stuttgart: W. IKohlhamSier, 1895-1-9I5’:---

Kohler, Walther. Bibliographia Brentiana. Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke una Sohn, 1904.

Schottenloher, Karl (hrsg.). Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 1517- 1585. 6 vols. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1533-1966.

II. Primary Sources

Brenz, Johannes. "Booklet on the Turk," in John W.Bohn- stedt (trans.), The Infidel Scourge of God, Appendix II. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968.

Bretschneider, C. G. (ed.)f etal. Corpus Reformatorum. 28 vols. Halle und Brunswick, 1634-1506.

Bromiley, G. W. (trans.). Zwingli and Bullinger, Vol. XXIV, The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953.

Dillenberger, John (ed.). Martin Luther. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 196i.

Ernst, Viktor (hrsg.). Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg. 4 vols. Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1899.

Hubatsch, Walter (hrsg.). Europaische Briefe im Reforma- tionszeitalter. Ritzingen/Main: Holyner, 1949.

Kohler, P. H. (hrsg.). Wirtembergisches Urkundenbuch. Stuttgart, 1849-1913.

Krausler, Eduard von (hrsg.). Briefwechsel zwischen Christoph, Herzog von Wurttemberg, und Petrus Paulus Vergerius. TUbingen: Liiterarischer Verein, 1875.

169 170

Luther, Martin. Dr. Martin Luther's sSmmtliche Schriften. 23 vols. Edited by J. G. Walch. St. Louis: Concordia, 1881-1910.

______. Three Treatises. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1943.

______. Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 83 vols. Weimar: Hermann Bohlau, 1883-. .

Pressel, Theodor (hrsg.). Anecdota Brentiana. Tubingen: J. J. Heckerlauer, 1868.

Sattler, Christian Friedrich. Geschichte des Herzogthums Wurtenberg unter der Regierung der HerzoqenT 5 vols. Tubingen: Georg Heinrich Reiss, 1760-1772. This source is of great importance because of the helpful appendices.

Schneider, Eugen (hrsg.). wtirttembergische Geschichts- quellen. 4 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer, 1887-1891.

Williams, George Hunston, and Angel M. Mergal (eds.). Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, Vol. XXV, The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957.

Wolf, Gustav. Quellenkunde der deutschen Reformations- geschichte. Gotha: I. A. Perthes, 1915-1923.

______. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Protestanten, 1555-59. Berlin: Oswald Seehagen, 1888. This source has a very useful appendix.

III. Secondary Sources: Books

Bossert, Gustav. Das Interim in Wurttemberg. Hall, 1895.

Brandi, Karl. The Life of Charles V. New York: Knopf, 1939.

Brecht, Martin. Die FrShe Theologie des Johannes Brenz. Tubingen: Mohr, 1966.

Calinich, Robert. Der Naumburger Furstentag. Gotha, 1870.

Carsten, F. L. Princes and Parliaments in Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959. V 171

Dillenberger, John, and Claude Welch. Protestant Christianity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954.

Pritschel, George J. The Formula of Concord. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publications Society, 1916.

Griiran, Harold J. The Reformation Era: 1500-1650. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1954.

Hartmann, Julius, and Karl Jager. Johannes Brenz. Hamburg, 1840.

Hauck, Albert (hrsg.). Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirchel 24 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1 S 9 6 - 1 5 T 3 . ------

Hauswirth, Rene. Landgraf Philipp von Jessen und Zwingli. Tubingen: Kommissionsverlag Osiander, 19(58.

Heppe, Heinrich Ludwig Julius. Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-1581. 4 vois. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1852-1859.

Hillerbrand, Hans J. Men and Ideas in the Sixteenth Century. Rand McNally and Company, 1968.

Holborn, Hajo. A History of Modern Germany. Voi* I? The Reformation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959.

Hollweg, Walter. Per Augsburger Reichstag von 1566. Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs- vereins GmbH, 1964.

Jackson, Samuel Macauley (editor-in-chief). The New Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge! 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.

Janssen, Johannes. History of the German People. 16 vols. London: Kegan Ehul, 'french, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1905.

Kantzenbach, Friedrich W. Das Ringen um die Einheit der Kirche im Jahrhundert der Reformation. Stuttgart, 1957.

Kugler, Bernhard. Christoph, Herzog zu Wirtemberg. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Ebner und Seubert, 1868-1872.

Loetscher, Lefferts A. (ed.), et al. Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge! 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book riouse, 1955. 172

McNeill, John Thomas. Unitive Protestantism. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964.

Neudecker, Gotthold. Geschichte des evangelischen Protestantismus in Deutschland. 2 vols. Leipzig: K. I. Kohler, 1844.

Pfister, Johann Christian von. Herzog Christoph zu Wirtemberg. Tubingen, 1819.

Preger, Wilhelm. Matthias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit. Erlangen: T. Biasing, 1859-1861.

Ranke, Leopold von. History of the Reformation in Germany. 2 vols. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1966.

Rauscher, Julius. Wurttembergische Reformationsgeschichte. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1934.

Rosslin, Johann Friedrich. Leben herzog Christoph von Wirtemberg. Stuttgart: Erhard und Loflund, 1792.

Rouse, Ruth, and Stephen Charles Neill. A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948. Philadelphia: ' ‘ The Westminster Press, 1967.

Schneider, Eugen. Wurttembergische Reformationsgeschichte. Stuttgart: R. Roth, 168?.

Schnurrer, Christian Friedrich von. Erlauterungen der wiirtembergischen Kirchen- reformations- und gelehrten- geschichte. Tubingen: J. G. Cotta, 1798.

Schwab, Gustav Benjamin. Aus dem Jugendleben Herzog Christophs von Wurttemberg. Stuttgart:' J. G. Cotta, 1889. ------

______. Romanzen aus dem Jugendleben Herzog Christophs von Wurttemberg. Stuttgart und TObingen: J. G. Cotta' sche Buchhandlung, 1819.

Schwiebert, E. G. Luther and His Times. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, I960.

Seeberg, Reinhold. History of Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956. 173

Stalin, Christoph Friedrich von. Wirtembergische Geschichte. 4 vols. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1841-1873.

Weller, Karl. Wurttembergische Geschichte. Stuttgart: Silberburg-Verlag, 1963.

. Wurttembergische Kirchengeschichte. Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1936. -

Wille, J. Philipp der Grossmutige und die Restitution Ulrichs von Wirtemberg^ TQbingen, 1882-18 8 8 .

IV. Secondary Sources: Articles

Eells, H. "The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation," Archiv fur Reformations­ geschichte, 42 (1951), 160-173. !

Ernst, Viktor. "Herzog Christoph von Wurttemberg und die Einheit der Evangelischen Kirche,” Schwabische Kronik, 466 (October 6 , 1905), 9-10.

Estes, James Martin. "Church Order and the Christian Magistrate According to Johannes Brenz," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, 59 (1968), 5-24.

Evjen, John 0. "Luther's Ideas Concerning Church Polity," Lutheran Church Review, 45 (1925), 207-237.

Farel, G. W. "Luther's Conception of Natural Orders," Lutheran Church Quarterly, 28 (1945), 160-177.

Jacobs, C. M. "The Genesis of Luther's Doctrine of the Church," Lutheran Church Review, vol.34 (1915), 141-152.

Muller, Karl. "Die Anfange der Konsistorialverfassung im Lutherischen Deutschland," Historische Zeitschrift, 102 (1909), 1-30.

Pauck, Wilhelm. "Luther's Conception of the Church," in The Heritage of the Reformation. Free Press of Glencoe, T5ZT. ------

Reimann, Henry W. "Matthias Flacius Illyricus: A Biographical Sketch," Concordia Theological Monthly, 35 (1964), 69-93. 174

Ruckert, Hans. "Die Bedeutung der wurttembergischen Reformation fur den Gang der deutschen Reformations- geschichte," Blatter fur Wurttembergische Kirchen- geschichte, 3$ (1934), 257-280.

Saarnivaara, Uuras. "The Church of Christ According to Luther," Lutheran Quarterly, 5 (1953), 134-154.

Schwiebert, E. G. "The Medieval Pattern in Luther's View of the State," Church History, XII (1943), 98-117.

Spitz, Lewis W. "Luther's Ecclesiology and His Concept of the Prince as Notbischof," Church History, XXII (1953), 113-141.

V. Unpublished Sources

Constable, John Wesley. "Johannes Brenz's Role in the Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century." Unpublished dissertation at The Ohio State University, Department of History, 1967.

Estes, James Martin. "Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Church Order in the German Reformation." Unpublished dissertation at The Ohio State University, Department of History, 1964.