Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:08:01.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Discipline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

James M. Estes
James M. Estes
Affiliation:
Mr. Estes is associate professor of history inthe University of Toronto.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ecclesiastical discipline is the one area of church order in which Johannes Brenz, one of the most important architects of the sixteenth-century Lutheran territorial state church, signally failed to achieve his purposes.1 During his career in Schwäbisch Hall (1522–1548) and later in Württemberg (1550–1570) Brenz tried repeatedly, but ultimately without success, to establish an order of ecclesiastical discipline which would include effective use of the penalty of excommunication. An examination of the reasons for this failure may throw some light on the limits of what could be achieved within the context of the state church.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 464 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1972

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. This article, an extensively revised version of material originally included in my unpublished doctoral dissertation, “Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Church Order in the German Reformation” (Ohio State University, 1964), is gratefully dedicated to my teacher and friend, Harold J. Grimm, who this year retired from the Ohio State University after many years of distinguished service to his students and to Reformation scholarship.

2. Koeniger, Alfred M., “Brenz und der Send,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Renaissance und Reformation (Munich and Freising, 1917), pp. 208–224;Google Scholar hereafter cited as “Koeniger.” Otto Matthes, “10 Briefe aus den Jahren 1523–1590 aus dem Besitz Johann Valentin Andreäs,” Part II: “Ein Kirchenzuchtplan Jakob Andreäs,” Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte, 62 (1962), 124–253Google Scholar; hereafter cited as “Matthes.” Brecht, Martin, “Die Ordnung der Württembergische Kirche im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1967);Google Scholar hereafter cited as “Brecht, Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht.” Brecht, Martin, “Anfänge reformatorischer Kirchenordnung und Sittenzucht bei Johannes Brenz,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Kanonistische Abteilung), 86 (1969), 322–347;Google Scholar hereafter cited as “Brecht, ‘Anfänge.’ ”

3. Lietzmann, H., Bornkamm, H. et al. , eds., Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischlutherischen Kirche. 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1952), pp. 456–457.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., p. 457.

5. WA Tischreden IV, 278–280.Google Scholar

6. WA Briefe X, 436–437.Google Scholar

7. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Albert Hauck (LeIpzig, 1896–1913), Vol. 18, 209–215.Google Scholar

8. Richter, Aemilius Ludwig, ed., Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts. Vol. I. (Weimar, 1846), 40–49.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as “Richter I.” The section under discussion here is “Von der Kirchen Straff vom Ban und Synodo,” pp. 45–46. Richter dates this document at 1526. For the recently discovered evidence placing the date at 1527, see Brecht, “Anfänge,” pp. 324–326.

9. Koeniger, pp. 223–224; Köhler, Walther, “Brentiana und andere Reformatoria,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 9 (1911–1912), 82–84.Google Scholar

10. For a summary of the evidence on this point, see Estes, James M., “Church Order and the Christian Magistrate According to Johannes Brenz,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 59 (1968), 5–23.Google Scholar

11. Printed in Köhler, Walther, Bibliographia Brentiana (Berlin, 1904), pp. 391–396.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., pp. 390–391 (Brenz to the city council of Schwäbisch Hall, 28 January 1531).

13. Hartmann, Julius and Jäger, Karl, Johann Brenz (Hamburg, 1840), Vol. I, 396.Google Scholar The “ordnung des Sends” is mentioned (but not discussed) in a memorandum of the Ansbach theologians (including Brenz) dating from mid-February 1531; Stadtarchiv Schwäbisch Hall, 4/54, p. 151b. (I am indebted to Martin Brecht for calling this document to my attention and for providing me with a copy of it.)

14. Koeniger, pp. 214–221, demonstrates this in detail.

15. Pressel, Theodor, Anecdota Brentiana (Tübingen, 1868), p. 117Google Scholar (Verzeichnuss auff die Nünnbergisch pesserung in der gstellten ordnung der Kyrchenbreuch, 15 May 1531). This volume hereafter cited as “Pressel.”

16. Ibid., p. 117, see also Köhler, Bibliographia, op. cit., pp. 392, 395–396.

17. Richter I, 46.

18. Pressel, pp. 117–118.

19. Brecht, ‘Anfänge,” pp. 335–340.

20. Pressel, pp. 116–118. See note 15 above.

21. Ibid., p. 118: “Will sich aber weltlich gwallt soleher Sünd zu straffen selbs underziehen, So thue sie es.”

22. Ibid., pp. 110–111.

23. Brecht, , Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht, pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

24. Pressel, pp. 169–170 (ordnung der visitation, 1535).

25. Ibid., pp. 117–118.

26. Westermayer, H., Die Brandenburgisch.Nürnbergische Kirchenvisitation und Kirchenordnung, 1528–1533 (Eflangen, 1894), pp. 85–87Google Scholar; Engelhart, Adolph, Die Reformation in Nürnberg, Vol 2, in Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, Vol. 34 (Nürnberg, 1937), pp. 114–116.Google Scholar

27. Bedenken dee Marggräfischcn Theologen über die Marggräflich-Brandenburg-und Nürnbergische Kirchenordnung; Bayerisches Staatsarchiv Nürnberg, Rep. 111, Tom. IX, 54–61. Printed in Strobel, Georg Theodor, Miscellaneen Literarischen Inhalts … zwote Sammlung (Nürnberg, 1779), pp. 151–162.Google Scholar Brenz is named as author of this memorandum in a letter of the “Statthalter und Räte des Markgrafen Georg von Brandenburg und der Rat zu Nürnberg” to Luther et al., 17 July 1532; WA Briefe VI, 336.Google Scholar

28. Strobel, op. cit., pp. 153–156.

29. Neither Koeniger nor Brecht deals with it at all.

30. Brandenburg-Nürnberg Church Order of 1533, Richter I, 202–204; Württemberg Church Order of 1536, Ibid., I, 268; Schwäbisch Hall Church Order of 1543, Ibid., II, 15–16.

31. In the so-called “Great Church Order” of that year. See August Reyscber, Ludwig, ed., Vollständige, historisch und kritisch bearbeitete sammlung der württemberaischen geseze (Stuttpart und Tübingen, 1828–1851), Vol. VIII. 265–269Google Scholar (“Censur der Kirchen”), and 253–254 (“Visitation Superintendentz”). This edition hereafter cited as “Revscher.”

32. See Brentii Consilium in causa Censurae Ecclesiasticae ad Luseri epistolam (10 September 1554); Pressel, pp. 385–388, especially p. 386. Here Brenz outlines the essential features of the system of ecclesiastical censure then in force and subsequently spelled out in the published order of 1559.

33. The ensuing paragraph is a brief summary of Reyscher VIII, 100–105, 245–256, 269–270, 273–282.

34. See notes 31 and 32 above.

35. Reyscher XII, 195–205.

36. The Church Order of 1553 uses the word “abschlahen,” thus seeming to give the pastor the right to exclude public sinners from communion, but the synod, led by Brenz, interpreted the provision to mean simply the right to admonish such persons not to commune and specifically denied the pastor's right to exclude anyone privato suo arbitrio. Pressel, p. 386. This remained the official interpretation.

37. Matthes provides most of the relevant sources for this topic. See also Brecht, , Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

38. Matthes, pp. 125, 174.

39. In the Consilium cited in note 32 above.

40. Matthes, pp. 174, 178–179, 184–185.

41. Pressel, pp. 385, 386–387.

42. Ibid., pp. 385–386. This Is a particularly weak argument In view of Brenz's own refusal to be bound by the example of the ancient church; see below.

43. What I here call Brenz's “argument” was arrived at by conflating the contents of two documents: the Consilium cited in footnote 32 above and Brenz's draft of the “Vorhalt an Andreä” of 24 November 1554; Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, A63, Büschel 15, pp. 97a-194bb; summary in Matthes, pp. 185–186; hereafter cited as “Vorhait.”

44. See footnote 47 below.

45. Pressel, p. 385.

46. Ibid., p. 386; Vorhalt, pp. 100a-102b.

47. Vorhalt, pp. 102b-103a: “Dieweill dann die bemellte Excommunicatio Maior gantz weitleuffig und allerley wichtiger ursach halben fürzunemen beschwerlich, ja auch nach gelegenheit diser zeit unerheblich, und doch die gemeine ergerliche laster nicht ungerechtfertigt und ungestraft bleiben, dahin fürnemlich, als zum haubstück, alle eusserliche ordnung beid in der kyrchen und in der weltlichen policey stehen, so hatt hochgenemter unser g. f. und h. vor diser zeit gleich im anfang seiner f. g. Regierung als der Nutricius Ecclesiarum dises fürstentumbs ein Superattendentz Ordnung mit gutem stattlichen Rhatt fürgenommen und angericht …” There follows a brief description of the functioning of the synod, here called the “Conventus”. See also Pressel, p. 387: “Si quis excommunicatione dignus fuerit … causa rite et legitime cognita ac perspecta ex permissu et concessione Illustriss. vestrae Celsitudinis excommunicetur.”

48. Pressel, p. 388: “Nec dubito, quin cum omnia in Ecclesiis Vestrae Celsitudinis ad tuendam disciplinam morum tam iuxta Regulam Christi quam iuxta politicas ordinationes recte et sufficienter, quantum quidem praesentia tempora ferre possunt, constituta sint, Vestrae Celsitudo iudieabit pro singulari sna prudentia, multo utilius esse veteres et bene constitutas ordinationes conservare, quam his neglectis novas et hisce temporibus insolitas ac periculosas instaurare.”

49. Ibid., p. 387.

50. Vorhalt, pp. 97b-98a. See also note 48 above.

51. In volume 5 of the Opera, pub. 1582, pp. 343–346; see Köhler, Bibliographia, op. oit., no. 554. Date of writing from Brecht, “Anfänge,” p. 344.

52. Contra Brecht, “Anfänge,” p. 346.

53. Brecht, who regards the consistory and the synod as “staatskirchliche” bodies standing between church and state, views Brenz's justification of the “alleinige Gerichtsbarkeit des Staates” over public excommunication in the Matthew commenary not as a justification of the established order of ecclesiastical censure in Württemberg, but rather as something which completely ignores and indeed contradicts it. Brecht consequently speaks of a “Nebeneinander zweier Konzeptionen” which casts doubt on the clarity of Brenz's intentions. See Brecht, “Anfänge,” p. 346. Brecht's own alternative suggestion that Brenz may in fact have understood the consistory and synod as institutions of the government seems to me to be more in harmony with the available evidence. The Church Order of 1559 refers to both consistory and synod as parts of the ducal chancery (Reyscher VIII, 269, 273), and Brenz's title as chairman of the synod was “Oberster Superattendent unser Kirchensachen in unser Cantzley” (Ibid., VIII, 269). Since the chancery was certainly in politia; since there is no reason to assume that the Church Order of 1559 presents a conception of things that was not already held in 1554; and since Brenz himself clearly distinguished between public excommunication “in the church” and excommunication by the magistrate through the organs of the state church (see above, pp. 470–71; 474–75), there is no reason not to regard the reference to the senatum that already exists in politia as a reference to the synod.

54. Reyscher VIII, 268–269.

55. See above pp. 466–67.

56. It is perhaps significant that in his Confessio Virtembergica of 1551 Brenz does not even mention excommunication in discussing the powers of the church. See Reyscher VIII, 159.

57. Matthes, pp. 193–196; Brecht, , Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

58. Matthes, pp. 230–231; “Dann, so wahr Gott Gott ist, nit tut stetigs mit dem Turm und Seckel zu strafen und die geistlichen Sachen dem politischen Magistrat aufzubürden, sondern es muss ein mehrere Ecclesiastica Censura angericht werden …”

59. Brenz's memorandum of 8 December 1564; summarized with extensive quotations in Hartmann and Jäger, op. cit., II, 293–295; original in Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, A63, Büschel 15, pp. 113ff.

60. See above p. 475.