Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:33:34.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Birth of an Empire of Two Churches: Church Property, Theologians, and the League of Schmalkalden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2010

Christopher Ocker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Did the creation of Protestant churches in Germany during Luther's generation follow someone's intentions? Heiko Oberman, appealing to a medieval Luther, portrays the reformer as herald of a dawning apocalypse, a monk at war with the devil, who expected God to judge the world and rescue Christians with no help from human institutions, abilities, and processes. This Luther could not have intended the creation of a new church. Dorothea Wendebourg and Hans-Jürgen Goertz stress the diversity of early evangelical movements. Goertz argues that anticlericalism helped the early Reformation's gamut of spiritual, political, economic, and social trends to coalesce into moderate and radical groups, whereas Wendebourg suggests that the movements were only united in the judgment of the Counter Reformation.

Type
Forum: Religion and Reform in “Late Medieval” Central Europe
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 41 , April 2010 , pp. 48 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Oberman, Heiko A., Die Wirkung der Reformation: Probleme und Perspektiven, Institut für Europäische Geschichte Mainz Vorträge 80 (Wiesbaden, 1987), 46Google Scholar; idem, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (New York, 1992), passim; idem, “Martin Luther zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit,” in Die Reformation: Von Wittenberg nach Genf (Göttingen, 1987), 189–207; Hendrix, Scott, “‘More Than a Prophet’: Martin Luther in the Work of Heiko Oberman,” in The Work of Heiko A. Oberman: Papers from the Symposium on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Brady, T. A., Brady, K. G., Karant-Nunn, S., and Tracy, J. D. (Leiden, 2003), 21–22Google Scholar; Hamm, Bernd, “An Opponent of the Devil and the Modern Age: Heiko Oberman's View of Luther,” in The Work of Heiko A. Oberman, 38, 40Google Scholar.

2 Wendebourg, Dorothea, “Die Einheit der Reformation als historisches Problem,” Hamm, B., Moeller, B., and Wendebourg, D., Reformations-Theorien. Ein kirchenhistorischer Disput über Einheit und Vielfalt der Reformation (Göttingen, 1995), 31–51Google Scholar; Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, Pfaffenhaß und groß Geschrei. Die reformatorischen Bewegungen in Deutschland, 1517–1529 (Munich, 1987), 244–250Google Scholar; idem, Antiklerikalismus und Reformation. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Göttingen, 1995), 18–20.

3 McCulloch, Diarmaid, The Reformation: A History (New York, 2003), 17Google Scholar, my emphasis.

4 Blickle, Peter, Die Reformation im Reich (Stuttgart, 1982), 141Google Scholar. Bernd Hamm has pointed to the postwar “theological and practical stress on the divinely legitimated secular office to care for the ordering of the Church and the ecclesiastical office of the minister of the Church, educated at university and legally appointed—i.e. with the support of the civic authorities.” Hamm, Bernd, The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety, ed. Bast, Robert J. (Leiden, 2004), 218–19Google Scholar.

5 For communalization and its variable relationship to evangelical preaching, see Scott, Tom, Town, Country, and Regions in Reformation Germany (Leiden, 2005), 56–75, 125–148Google Scholar. For city-states in Germany, consider Scott, Tom, “The City-State in German Speaking Lands,” in Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires—Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr., ed. Ocker, C., Printy, M., Starenko, P., and Wallace, P. (Leiden, 2007), 3–65Google Scholar.

6 Peter Blickle, Die Reformation im Reich, 141; idem, Communal Reformation: the Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, trans. T. Dunlap (New Jersey, 1992), 111–52; idem, The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants' War from a New Perspective, trans. T. A. Brady and E. C. E. Midelfort (Baltimore, 1981), 145–54; Brady, Thomas A., Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450–1550 (New York, 1985)Google Scholar. Consider also Tom Scott in the previous note and, for the case of federalism in the imperial diet, see Gabriele Haug-Moritz, “Zwischen Spätmittelalter und Reformation—politischer Föderalismus im Reich der Reformationszeit,” in Politics and Reformations (see note 5), 513–37.

7 Oberman, “Martin Luther zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit,” 204–6. Hamm, “An Opponent of the Devil,” 41.

8 My emphasis. For the quotation, see Scribner, Robert W. and Dixon, C. Scott, The German Reformation, 2nd ed. (London, 2003), 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Consider also pp. 37–42.

9 Contra William Montgomery McGovern, , From Luther to Hitler (New York, 1941)Google Scholar; Marcuse, Herbert, Ideen zur einer kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt, 1969), 57–58Google Scholar; Hayes, Carlton J. H., Christianity and Western Civilization (Stanford, 1954), 32–36Google Scholar. For various critiques of the association of Luther with absolutism, consider Kaufmann, Thomas, “Luther zwischen Wissenschaftskulturen,” in Luther zwischen den Kulturen, ed. Medick, H. and Schmidt, P. (Göttingen, 2004), 475–78Google Scholar; Deppermann, Klaus, Protestantische Profile von Luther bis Francke (Göttingen, 1992), 14Google Scholar; Tracy, James, “Luther and the Modern State: Introduction to a Neuralgic Theme,” in Luther and the Modern State in Germany, ed. Tracy, J. D. (Kirksville, MO, 1986), 9–19Google Scholar. For problems with the association of Melanchthon with absolutism, see James Estes' discussion of this view and its problems: Estes, James Martin, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden, 2005), xii with n. 7Google Scholar.

10 Wolgast, Eike, Hochstift und Reformation (Stuttgart, 1995)Google Scholar; idem, Die Wittenberger Theologie und die Politik der evangelischen Stände. Studien zu Luthers Gutachten in politischen Fragen (Gütersloh, 1977); Heckel, Johannes, Cura Religionis. Ius in Sacra. Ius circa Sacra (Darmstadt, 1962)Google Scholar. James Estes has corrected exaggerated views of Luther and Melanchthon's defense of unbridled temporal power: Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, passim. For confessional state building, see Schilling, Heinz, “Confessional Europe,” Handbook of European History, 2 vols., ed. Brady, Thomas A., Oberman, Heiko A., and Tracy, James D. (Leiden, 1995), 2:641–81Google Scholar.

11 Karlheinz Blaschke has argued that the Reformation provided an opportunity for increased bureaucratic control of society by the state, but a state in transition from “the territorial dominion of the Middle Ages to the territorial state of the early modern era.” He concludes, “The Reformation tied these together. It advanced the construction of the territorial state, while the rising territorial state fostered—not to say, made possible—the victory of the Reformation.” Karlheinz Blaschke, “The Reformation and the Rise of the Territorial State,” in Luther and the Modern State in Germany (see note 9), 74–75. Ernst Schubert has pointed out that the transition from medieval dominion to state in fact took place in a much longer time frame, and it was not very far advanced in the first half of the sixteenth century. Schubert, Ernst, “Vom Gebot zur Landesordnung,” in Die deutsche Reformation zwischen Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 50, ed. Brady, Thomas A., with the assistance of Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (Munich, 2001), 19–61Google Scholar. Martin Heckel has argued that after 1555 there developed a confessionally neutral state-law for the church, whereas common law absorbed canonical norms. Heckel, Martin, Staat und Kirche nach den Lehren der evangelischen Juristen Deutschlands in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1968), 71–72Google Scholar. Consider also Sieglerschmidt, Jörn, Territorialstaat und Kirchenregiment (Cologne, 1987), 126–29, 283–85Google Scholar; Ritter, Gerhard, Luther. Gestalt und Symbol (Munich, 1925), 114, 159Google Scholar; Deppermann, Protestantische Profile von Luther bis Francke, 9–10, 16–29. Voltaire, Diderot, and Hume thought that the religious controversy was a squabble between Dominicans and Augustinian Hermits, the religious orders of Tetzel and Luther. See Dickens, A. G. and Tonkin, John M., The Reformation in Historical Thought (Cambridge, 1985), 112, 128, 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For the political importance of church property, see Brady, Thomas A., Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German Reformation (Atlantic Highlands, 1995), 162–74Google Scholar; Ziegler, Walter, “Reformation und Klosterauflösung. Ein ordensgeschichtlicher Vergleich,” Reformbemühungen und Observanzbestrebungen im spätmittelalterlichen Ordenswesen, ed. Elm, Kaspar (Berlin, 1989), 597–98Google Scholar.

13 For example, a clergy memorandum published by the Schmalkald diet of Frankfurt in April 1539, Stadtarchiv Braunschweig, B III 5:5 f. 589r–v.

14 Fühner, Jochen A., Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande, 1515–1555 (Leiden, 2004), 89–165Google Scholar. For the emperor's faith, see Fühner, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik, 167–72, and Schilling, Heinz, “Charles V and Religion: The Struggle for the Integrity and Unity of Christendom,” Charles V, 1500–1558, and His Time, ed. Soly, Hugo and Blockmans, Wim (Antwerp, 1999), 285–363, esp. 296–328Google Scholar.

15 Henze, Barbara, “Orden und ihre Klöster in der Umbruchszeit der Konfessionalisierung,” Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung. Land und Konfession 1500–1650, 7 vols., ed. Schindling, A. and Ziegler, W. (Münster, 1991–1996), 7:91–02Google Scholar.

16 Wilks, Michael J., The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge UK, 1963)Google Scholar; Burns, J. H., Lordship, Kingship, and Empire. The Idea of Monarchy, 1400–1525 (Oxford, 1992), 97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ercole, Franceso, “Impero e papato nella tradizione giuridica Bolognese e nel diritto pubblico Italiano del Rinascimento (sec. xiv– xv),” Atti e memorie della r. deputazione di storia patria per le provincie de Romagna series 4, vol. 1 (Bologna, 1911), 1–233Google Scholar.

17 Legation Lorenzo Campeggios 1530–1531 und Nuntiatur Girolamo Aleandros 1531 part 1, supplementary vol. 1 of Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1533–1559, nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken (Tübingen, 1963), 106, 138, 141, nos. 27, 34, 36. For the reorganization of the court, see Mencke, Klaus, Die Visitationen am Reichskammergericht im 16. Jahrhunmdert (Cologne, 1984), 41–44Google Scholar. Charles V demanded in 1530 that the Protestant estates comply by 15 April 1531 with Catholic practice on the points of disagreement, while he also indicated that he would try to arrange for a church council with the pope. Fuchs, Thomas, Konfession und Gespräch. Typologie und Funktion der Religionsgespräche in der Reformationszeit (Cologne, 1995), 363–88Google Scholar.

18 Ranieri, Filippo, Recht und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter der Rezeption, 2 vols. (Cologne, 1985), 1:130, 198–99Google Scholar; Diestelkamp, Bernhard, Recht und Gericht im Heiligen Römischen Reich (Frankfurt, 1999), 257Google Scholar.

19 Die Schmalkaldischen Bundesabschiede, 1530–1532, ed. Ekkehart Fabian (Tübingen, 1958), 18–23. For their power of attorney (9 June 1531), see Fabian, Ekkehart, ed., Urkunden und Akten der Reformationsprozesse, part 1: Allgemeines 1530–1534 (Tübingen, 1961), 31–34 no. 4Google Scholar. For the League's use of the court in defense against legal attack, see Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 277–87. For the work of procurators, see Sprenger, R. M., Viglius van Aytta und seine Notizen über Beratungen am Reichskammergericht (1535–1537) (Nijmegen, 1988), 58–60Google Scholar.

20 Brecht, Martin, Martin Luther, 3 vols. (Minneapolis, 1985–1993), 1:239–73, 306–7Google Scholar for this and the following, and Becker, Hans-Jürgen, Die Appellation vom Papst an ein allgemeines Konzil (Cologne, 1988), 244–60Google Scholar.

21 Hefele, Charles-Joseph, Hergenroether, J., and Leclercq, H., Histoire des conciles, 11 vols. (Paris, 1907–1952), 8:1145Google Scholar; Reinhard, Wolfgang, “Die Kirchenpolitischen Vorstellungen Kaiser Karls V., ihre Grundlagen und ihr Wandel,” in Confessio Augustana und Confutatio. Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche, ed. Iserloh, Erwin (Münster, 1980), 62–100, 70–86Google Scholar; Kohnle, Armin, Reichstag und Reformation (Gütersloh, 2001), 266–69Google Scholar; Fabian, Die Schmalkaldischen Bundesabschiede, 1530–1532, 18–23.

22 Adapting Tilly, Charles, The Politics of Collective Violence (New York, 2003), 44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Luther, Martin, Die Lügend von St. Johannes Chrysostomo (1537), D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe (hereafter WA), 4 parts, 127 vols. (Weimar, 1883-), 50:52–54Google Scholar, and the treatises gathered in vol. 50. Consider also Antonius Corvinus's 1537 challenge to conciliar authority, Geisendorf, Georg, Bibliotheca Corviniana. Eine bibliographische Studie (Nieuwkoop, 1964), no. 106Google Scholar, and Melanchthon, Philip's 1537 treatise, De ecclesia et de auctoritate verbi Dei, Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider, C. G. et al., 88 vols., (Halle, 1835–1906), 23:595–642Google Scholar.

24 The best accounts are Brady, Protestant Politics, 142–327, and Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 43–92. I make my own attempt in Church Robbers and Reformers, 112–31.

25 Ocker, Church Robbers and Reformers, 238–56.

26 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 536–37.

27 In 1531, the papal nuncio Girolamo Aleandro suggested that Philip of Hesse would abandon the schism if he could retain the properties he confiscated, and the legate Lorenzo Campeggio, trying to mobilize the emperor to make war on the Protestants, suggested the war could be funded by church property. Legation Lorenzo Campeggios 1530–1531 und Nuntiatur Girolamo Aleandros 1531 part 1, supplementary vol. 1 of Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1533–1559, nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken (Tübingen, 1963), 427 no. 120, 253 no. 71.

28 Brady, Protestant Politics, 169–74. Körber and Sieglerschmidt have also noted that the imperial Diet of 1544 anticipated the permanent settlement of 1555. Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat, 155; Körber, Kurt, Kirchengüterfrage und Schmalkaldischer Bund. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1913), 148Google Scholar.

29 Schindling, Anton, “Der Passauer Vertrag und die Kirchengüterfrage,” in Der Passauer Vertrag von 1552. Politische Entstehung, reichsrechtliche Bedeutung und konfessionsgeschichtliche Bewertung, ed. Becker, Winfried (Neustadt a.d. Aisch, 2003), 105–23, here 108Google Scholar.

30 Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat und Kirchenregiment, 160–67, 173; Ruthmann, Bernhard, Die Religionsprozesse am Reichskammergericht (1555–1648) (Köln, 1996), 484–580 and passimGoogle Scholar.

31 Lagus, Conrad, Iuris utriusque traditio methodica (Frankfurt, 1543), ff. 96v–97rGoogle Scholar for the definition of sequestration.

32 For Leisnig, WA 11:401–16; 12:1–30; Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat, 223–54. For Eisenach, D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, Section 4, Briefwechsel (hereafter WABr), 3:274–75 no. 732. For the responsibility of communities to pay for pastors, WABr 4:133–34 no. 1052.

33 Johannes Brenz, Rhattschalg und Guttbedunckhen herrn Johann Brentii über der Bauren gestelte und für Euangelische dargegebene Zwölf Articul Ahn Pfaltzgraff Ludwigen bey Rein, Churfursten, in Brenz, Johannes, Werke, ed. Brecht, Martin and Schäfer, Gerhard, 3 vols. (Tübingen, 1970), 1/1:132–74Google Scholar, here 144–47.

34 Brenz, Werke, 1/2 :197–210.

35 Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, 53, 55–58.

36 For example, in briefs composed in connection with the 1530 imperial Diet by Hessian theologians and by the evangelical preachers of Nürnberg. Cahill, Richard Andrew, Philipp of Hesse and the Reformation (Mainz, 2001), 141–50, 152Google Scholar; Köhler, , “Actenstücke der hessischen Reformationsgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für historische Theologie 37 (1867): 217–47, here 217–20, 222–44Google Scholar; Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Augsburgischen Glaubensbekenntnisses, ed. Wilhelm Gussmann, 2 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin, 1911–1930), 1/1:291–93.

37 For example, the Landgrave in his instructions to the Hessian embassy to the 1530 Diet. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Augsburgischen Glaubensbekenntnisses, 1/1:327–42.

38 WABr 6:4–10 no. 1766.

39 Melanchthons Briefwechsel (hereafter MBW), 11 vols., 6 parts, ed. Heinz Scheible (Stuttgart, 1977-), 2:90 no. 1307, 1308; WABr 6:428–9 no. 1999; MBW 2:252 no. 1739; CR 3:224–29. MBW 2:215 no. 1653, 2:217 no. 1658.

40 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 517.

41 Decretum C. 12 q. ii.70 Corpus Iuris Canonici (hereafter CICan), 2 vols., ed. E. Friedburg (Graz, 1955), 1:710, quoting a famous passage of Ambrose, De officiis ii.140–41. Ambrose, , De officiis, ed. and trans. Davidson, Ivor J., 2 vols. (Oxford, 2001), 1:347Google Scholar. See also Decretales Gregorii IX III.xiii.1–III.xix.9, CICan 2:512–25, Liber Sexti III.ix.1–2, CICan 2:1042–3, Liber Clementinarum III.iv.1–2, CICan 2:1160, Extravagantes Johannis XXII III.iv.1, CICan 2:1269, Decretales Gregorii IX III.xlix.2, 4, 7. Fourneret, P., “Biens ecclésiastiques,” Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, ed. Vacant, A., Mangenot, E., 16 vols. (Paris, 1908–1972), 2/1:843–78, here 857, 874Google Scholar. But also Gewirth, Alan, Marsilius of Padua: The Defender of Peace, 2 vols. (New York, 1956), 2:266–67Google Scholar. A maxim of Pope Boniface VIII summarized the nonrevocability of a gift to the church: “semel deo dicatum non est ad usos humanos ulterius transferendum.” Sexti Decretales, De regulis iuris, li. Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat, 113.

42 Novellae 46, Corpus Iuris Civilis (hereafter CICiv), 3 vols., ed. P. Krueger (Berlin, 1954), 3:280–83. Novellae 120.9–10, CICiv 3:601–3.

43 Nicely summarized in instructions to his embassy to the 1530 Diet of Augsburg, note 37, above.

44 Hilpert, Alfred, Die Sequestration der geistlichen Güter in den kursächsischen Landkreisen Meißen, Vogtland und Sachsen 1531–1543 (PhD diss., University of Leipzig, 1911)Google Scholar; Mager, Inge, “Reformatorische Klosterpolitik im Dienste der Bildung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Herzogin Elisabeth von Calenberg-Göttingen und des Herzogs Julius von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel,” in Kloster und Bildung im Mittelalter, ed. Kruppa, N. and Wilke, J. (Göttingen, 2006), 561Google Scholar.

45 Brandis, Wolfgang, “Quellen zur Reformationsgeschichte der Lüneburger Frauenklöster,” in Studien und Texte zur literarischen und materiellen Kulture der Frauenklöster im späten Mittelalter, ed. Eisermann, Falk, Scholtheuber, Eva, and Honemann, Volker (Leiden, 2004), 357–98Google Scholar.

46 Ocker, Church Robbers, 94–101 for additional examples and literature.

47 Brecht, Martin and Ehmer, Hermann, Südwestdeutsche Reformationsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1984), 215–22Google Scholar for a brief overview. The detailed account: Deetjen, Werner-Ulrich, Studien zur Württembergischen Kirchenordnung Herzog Ulrichs 1534–1550 (Stuttgart, 1981)Google Scholar.

48 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 119.

49 Ibid., 510.

50 Ibid., 518–19, 524

51 24 February 1537, MBW, 2:297–98 no. 1853 = CR 3:288–90 no. 1532; Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 530.

52 Roth, F., “Zur Kirchengüterfrage in der Zeit von 1538 bis 1540,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 1 (1903): 299–336, here 299–300 n. 3Google Scholar.

53 Roth, “Kirchengüterfrage,” 299–336; Hortleder, Friedrich, Handlungen und Ausschreiben. Von den Ursachen des teutschen Kriegs, book 5, chapter 8, 2 vols., (Gotha, 1645), 2:2002–14Google Scholar; Hermelink, H., “Zwei Aktenstücke über Behandlung der Kirchengüter in Württemberg zur Reformationszeit,” Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte, n.s. 7 (1903): 179Google Scholar. The Gutachten is now included in Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 17 + vols., numerous parts, ed. R. Stupperich (Gütersloh, 1960-), 12: 79–99, along with other relevant texts. For the relationship of the two memoranda, consider Ocker, Church Robbers, 184. See also Seebaß, Gottfried, “Martin Bucers Beitrag zu den Diskussionen über die Verwendung der Kirchengüter,” in Martin Bucer und das Recht. Beiträge zum internationalem Symposium vom 1. bis 3. März 2001 in der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden, ed. Strohm, Christopher (Geneva, 2002), 167–83Google Scholar.

54 Ocker, Church Robbers and Reformers, 186–201. For Bucer's use of canon law and his concept of law, see Seebaß in the previous note.

55 Roth, “Kirchengüterfrage,” 317.

56 Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat, 158.

57 Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, ed. Gustav Kawerau, 2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1964 reprint of the Halle, 1884–1885 edition), 1:305.

58 WABr 8:325–26 no. 3275.

59 CR 3:608–9 no. 1752.

60 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 113, 193, 531 n. 11; Stadtarchiv Ulm, A1214, ff. 576–618, discussed in Ocker, Church Robbers and Reformers, 202–9, and now identified as a work of Martin Bucer and edited by Stephen Buckwalter in Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 12:151–85.

61 In his instructions to his embassy to the League's diet of 5 November 1539. Franz, Günther, Urkundliche Quellen zur hessischen Reformationsgeschichte, 3 vols. (Marburg, 1954), 2:322–23 no. 399Google Scholar.

62 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 520–21.

63 Hermelink, “Zwei Aktenstücke,” 180.

64 Haug-Moritz, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 523.

65 Ibid., 524.

66 Ibid., 534–35; Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, 2+ vols., ed. Klaus Ganzer and Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen (Göttingen, 2000 + ), 1/2:1127–28 no. 395.

67 For Catholic and Protestant maneuvering before that meeting, see Ocker, Church Robbers, 216–23.

68 Melanchthon, , Epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epsitolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, ed. Bindseil, Heinrich Ernst (Halle, 1874; reprint Hildesheim, 1975), 142–46Google Scholar; Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 9/1:79–90. Ocker, Church Robbers, appendix 1.

69 Staatsarchiv Marburg Beistand 3 No. 538, ff. 59r–60v and Ocker, Church Robbers, 228–29 n. 49.

70 Roth, “Kirchengüterfrage,” 301–2. Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche, 2:1105–6 no. 393.

71 Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 9/1:80; Johannes Calvin, Ep. 218, CR 38/2:39. A shortened version was first printed at Granvelle's request. It is reproduced in Hortleder, Ursachen, book 1, chapter 5, 1:1124. The longer, original version, in German translation, may be found in Luther, Martin, Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Walch, Johann Georg, 23 vols. (St. Louis, 1901), 17:338–53Google Scholar; Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche 1/1:81–89 no. 21 (the Latin version). See also CR 3:989. The pamphlet version: Johann Friedrich I and Landgraf, Philipp, Responsio, quam in causa religionis dedimus ad instructionen, quae allata est Smalcaldiam (Wittenberg, 1540)Google Scholar, Flugschriften des späteren 16. Jahrhunderts fiche 1007 no. 1766.

72 Fühner, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik, 89–165.

73 The memorandum of note 60, above.

74 Luther, Sämmtliche Schriften, 17:364–72.

75 Gleason, Elisabeth, Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome, and Reform (Berkeley, 1993), 203Google Scholar.

76 Luther, Sämmtliche Schriften, 17:707–30 no. 1384.

77 Ibid, 17:734–36 no. 1387; CR 4:507; Henze, “Orden und ihre Klöster,” 99–102.

78 Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 452.

79 Brady, Protestant Politics, 249–327; Sieglerschmidt, Territorialstaat, 156, 159.

80 Brady, Protestant Politics, 306–7; Barnes, Robin Bruce, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Palo Alto, 1988), 60–99Google Scholar.

81 Blockmans, Wim, Emperor Charles V, 1500-1558, trans. van den Hoven-Vardon, Isola (New York, 2002), 97Google Scholar; Neumaier, Helmut, “Simultaneum und Religionsfrieden im Alten Reich. Zu Phänomenologie und Typologie eines umkämpften Rechtsinstituts,” Historisches Jahrbuch 128(2008): 137–76Google Scholar; Head, Randolph C., “Fragmented Dominion, Fragmented Churches: The Institutionalization of the Landfrieden in the Thurgau, 1531–1610,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 96 (2005): 126–34Google Scholar; Scott, Tom, Town, Country, and Regions in Reformation Germany (Leiden, 2005), 62–63Google Scholar; Hacke, Daniela, “Der Kirchenraum als politischer Handlungsraum: Konflikte um die liturgische Ausstattung von Dorfkirchen in der Eidgenossenschaft der Frühen Neuzeit,” Konfessionen im Kirchenraum. Dimensionen des Sakralraums in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Wegmann, Susanne, Wimböck, Gabriele (Korb, 2007), 137–58Google Scholar. For simultaneous churches today, see Henke, Heinz, Wohngemeinschaften unter deutschen Kirchendächern: Die simultanen Kirchenverhältnisse in Deutschland − eine Bestandsaufnahme (Leipzig, 2008)Google Scholar.

82 Schrader, Franz, Ringen, Untergang und Überleben der katholischen Klöster in den Hochstiften Magdeburg und Halberstadt von der Reformation bis zum Westfälischen Frieden (Münster, 1977), 30–31Google Scholar.

83 Ocker, C., “Calvin in Germany,” in Politics and Reformations: Histories and Reformations—Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr., ed. Ocker, C., Printy, M., Starenko, P., and Wallace, P. (Leiden, 2007), 332–33Google Scholar. Consider also, Nischan, Bodo, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia, 1994), 5–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 138–52; Rabe, Horst, Reichsbund und Interim. Die Verfassungs- und Religionspolitik Karls V. und der Reichstag von Augsburg 1547/1548 (Cologne, 1971), 260–72Google Scholar; Luttenberger, Albrecht Pius, Glaubenseinheit und Reichsfriede. Konzeptionen und Wege konfessionsneutraler Reichspolitik 1530–1552 (Kurpfalz, Jülich, Kurbrandenburg) (Göttingen, 1982), 425–501Google Scholar; Berger, Thomas, “Johannes Wild (1495–1554),” Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, 6 vols. (Münster, 1984–2004), 6:110–31Google Scholar.

84 Mager, “Reformatorische Klosterpolitik,” 565.

85 Brandis, “Quellen,” 357–98, with excerpts from the Wienhausen and Lüne chronicles.

86 Brandis, “Quellen,” 367. The same provost had a history of liquidating monastery properties without the convent's approval over the previous five years. The properties were: a stud farm, four horses and three oxen with tackle, twelve young steer, thirty-two cows, large numbers of pigs (160 in 1525, 120 in 1528), etc. Brandis, “Quellen,” 393–94.

87 Brandis, “Quellen,” p. 371.

88 Ibid., 364.

89 Ibid., 391.

90 Sitzmann, Manfred, Mönchtum und Reformation. Zur Geschichte monastischer Institutionen in protestantischen Territorien (Brandenburg-Ansbach/Kulmbach, Magdeburg), (Neustadt a.d. Aisch, 1999), 80–170Google Scholar.

91 Abray, Lorna Jane, The People's Reformation: Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in Strasbourg, 1500–1598 (Ithaca, NY, 1985), 42Google Scholar.

92 Schrader, Reformation und katholische Klöster, 85–138, 164–222.

93 Immenkötter, Herbert, “Die katholische Kirche in Augsburg in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhundert,” Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfelfd, ed. Schwarz, Reinhard (Gütersloh, 1988), 9–32Google Scholar; Scheib, Otto, Die Reformationsdiskussionen in der Hansestadt Hamburg, 1522–1528 (Münster, 1975), 180–88Google Scholar.

94 Logemann, Silke, “Grundzüge der Geschichte der Stadt Halberstadt vom 13. Bis 16. Jahrhundert,” in Bürger, Bettelmönche und Bischöfe in Halberstadt. Studien zur Geschichte der Stadt, der Mendikanten und des Bistums vom Mittelalter bis zur Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Berg, Dieter (Werl, 1997), 81–138, here 128–38Google Scholar.

95 Roth, Paul, Durchbruch und Festsetzung der Reformation in Basel (Basel, 1942), 71–79Google Scholar.

96 Wendehorst, Alfred and Benz, Stefan, Verzeichnis der Säkularkanonikerstifte der Reichskirche (Neudstadt an der Aisch, 1997), passimGoogle Scholar.

97 Wendehorst and Benz, Verzeichnis, s.v. Bielefeld, Herford, Minden, Möckmühl, Soest, Wetzlar.

98 Ibid., s.v. Grossenhain/Ozzek, Karlstein/Karlštein, Lipnitz/Lipnice, Melnik/Mĕlník, Moldauthein/Týn and Vltavou.

99 For this and the following, see Jürgensmeier, Friedhelm and Schwerdtfeger, Regina Elisabeth, eds., Orden und Klöster im Zeitalter von Reformation und katholischer Reform 1500–1700, 3 vols. (Münster, 2005–2007), 1:14–16, 50–52, 76–77, 102–5, 128–29, 144–45Google Scholar.

100 The following information is compiled from Schlegel, Gerhard and Hogg, James, eds., Monasticon Cartusiense, vol. 2 (Salzburg, 2004), passimGoogle Scholar. Nürnberg 1525, Mariefred 1526 (by the King of Sweden), Eppenberg 1527, Bern 1528, Eisenach 1529, Konradsburg 1530, Crimmitschau 1531, Güterstein 1535, Frankfurt (Oder) 1540, Letanovcde 1543, Legnica 1548, Darłowo 1548, Szczecin (Stettin) 1551, Lövöld 1552, Świdwin (Schivelbein) 1552.

101 See Monasticon Cartusiense vol. 2, s.v. Nürnberg, Eppenberg, Eisenach, Konradsburg, Crimmitschau, Güterstein, Frankfurt (Oder) (but it took 8 years at Legnica and 13 years at Szczecin and Świdwin).

102 Rostock 1557, Basel 1564, Ahrensbök 1564, Wesel 1590, Strasbourg 1591, Pleterje 1595.

103 Prague closed in 1419. But another 4 Carthusian monasteries were plundered in the Hussite wars: Frankfurt (Oder) 1432, Letanovce 1433, Brno 1428, Olomouc 1425 and 1437. In other wars, Kartuzy (Danzig) was plundered during the conflict between the Teutonic Order and the Pommerellenstädtebund in 1455, in 1458 by Polish troops, and in 1466 by the Teutonic Order. Mauerbach, in 1462, was plundered by the Austrian duke and in the 1480s by the Hungarians, then in 1529 by the Turks, in 1619 by the Bohemians, and again in 1683 by the Turks. The seventeenth closure was Christgarten (Nördlingen) in 1648. But 36 Carthusian monasteries were secularized between 1772 and 1848, the majority in 1802–1803. Kartuzy (Danzig) 1772, Hildesheim 1777, Jurklošter (Gairach) 1780, Mainz 1781, Žiče (Seitz) 1782, Bistra (Freudenthal) 1782, Lechnic (Lechnitz) 1782, Mauerbach 1782, Gaming 1782, Brno 1782, Aggsbach 1782, Olomouc (Olmütz)-Dolany 1782, Schnals 1782, Freiburg (Briesgau) 1782, Valdice 1782, Roermond 1783, Molsheim 1791, Rettel 1792, Koblenz 1802, Trier 1802, Köln 1802, Vogelsang 1802, Xanten 1802, Grünau 1803, Würzburg 1803, Tückelhausen 1803, Erfurt 1803, Buxheim 1803, Astheim 1803, Ilmbach 1803, Prüll (Regensburg) 1803, Weddern 1804, Gidle 1819, Bereza 1831, Ittingen 1848.

104 Kunzelmann, Adalbero, Geschichte der deutschen Augustinereremiten, 7 vols., (Würzburg, 1969–1979), 5:516–18Google Scholar. See also, Ibid., 6:1–8 and 7:113–62.

105 Eight from 1523 to 1524 (in no particular order): Gewitsch, Zürich, Antwerp, Eisleben, Sternberg, Rössel, Quedlinburg, Patollen. 11 in 1525 alone: Wittenberg, Erfurt (but restored within months, only to die out in 1560), Königsberg i.Fr., Himmelpforten, Windesheim, Magdeburg, Neustadt a.O., Herzberg, Gotha, Zerbst, Nürnberg. Fifteen from 1526 to 1538, the period from the end of the Peasants' War to just before the second expansion of the League of Schmalkalden: Helmstedt, Alsfeld, Eschwege, Gartz a.O., Anklam, Kulmbach, Grimma, Constance, Tübingen, Neustettin, Stargard, Königsberg i.N., Königsberg i.N., Wilster, Friedeberg.

106 From the second expansion of the League after 1537 through its defeat in 1547 and to the Leipzig Interim in 1548: Einbeck, Sangerhausen, Waldheim, Langensalza, Dresden, Schmalkalden, Herford, Osnabrück, Lippstadt, Appingedam.

107 Nürnberg 1525, Windsheim 1525, Mindelheim 1526, Klosterneuburg 1529, Memmingen 1531–8, Marchegg 1537, Radkersburg 1542, Kornenburg 1545, Baden bei Wien 1545, Judenburg 1545, Bruck an der Leithe 1546, Kulmbach 1547, Ramsau 1549, Hohenmauthen 1549, Völkermarkt 1550, Laibach 1555, Schönthal 1559, Rattenberg 1560, not including the cloisters of Silesia, which were all lost as a result of Prussian secularization. Ibid., 3:51–63.

108 Nürnberg 1525, Neustadt/Kulm 1527, Esslingen 1531–1536, Augsburg 1534, Heilbronn 1535, Sparneck 1537, Rothenburg am Neckar 1538, Nördlingen 1538.

109 Of the 24 cloisters of the Carmelite province of Upper Germany, which extended from southwest Hungary through Austria, Bavaria, and Franconia into Swabia, 8 were closed as a result of the evangelical movement (Nürnberg 1525, Neustadt (Kulm) 1527, Esslingen 1531–1536, Augsburg 1534, Heilbronn 1535, Sparneck 1537, Rothenburg am Neckar 1538, Nördlingen 1538). An additional cloister died of attrition with no apparent connection to evangelical preaching (Gösing, 1548), another was relocated to Vienna due to the Turkish occupation of parts of Hungary (Fünfkirchen), and another was destroyed in the Turkish occupation (Priwitz). Deckert, Adalbert and Hösler, Matthäus, Acta des Karmelitenprovinzials Andreas Stoss (1534–1538) (Rome, 1995), 46–112Google Scholar.

110 Beales, Derek, Prosperity and Plunder: European Catholic Monasteries in the Age of Revolution, 1650–1815 (Cambridge, 2003), passimGoogle Scholar.