The Dynamics of The Early Reformation in Their Reformed Augustinian Context 9789048550876

The Dynamics of the Early Reformationin their
Reformed Augustinian Context

The Dynamics of the Early
Reformationin their Reformed
Augustinian Context
Robert J. Christman
Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: Image of two Augustinian monks being burned. Taken from the pamphlet
Dye histori, so zwen Augustiner Ordens gemartert seyn tzü Bruxel in Probant, von wegen des
Eua[n]gelj. Dye Artickel darumb sie verbrent seyn mit yrer außlegung vnd verklerung (Erfurt:
Stürmer, 1523). This work is Martin Reckenhofer’s translation of the anonymous pamphlet
Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, ob Evangelij doctrinam exustis Bruxellae, die trigesima
Iunij. Anno domini M.D.XXIII (n.p.: n.p). Ghent University Library BHSL.RES.1007/2
Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden

Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout
isbn 978 94 6372 862 1

e-isbn 978 90 4855 087 6
doi 10.5117/9789463728621
nur 704
© R.J. Christman / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2020
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)
without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
To the memory of Anna Christman Horvath (1968–2017)
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 9
1. Introduction: The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany 11
2. The German Reformed Congregation and its Province of

Lower Germany 21
3. The Antwerp Cloister 47
4. The Authorities Respond: Pope and Emperor Seize the Initiative 75
5. Wittenberg’s Influence on the Events in Lower Germany 91
6. Reformation Ideas in the Low Countries 109
7. ‘Summer is at the door’: The Impact of the Executions on

Martin Luther 135
8. The Impact of the Executions in the Low Countries 155
9. The Impact of the Executions in the German-Speaking Lands

of the Holy Roman Empire 171
10. The Marian Dimension 195
11. The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germanyand the

Dynamics of the Early Reformation 215
Bibliography 233
About the Author 251
Index 253
Acknowledgments
Any project of this length and scope requires a variety of forms of support
– among them financial, intellectual, and not least, emotional. I benefited
tremendously in each of these areas, a true embarrassment of riches, and
I am acutely aware of this fact and deeply grateful for all of it.
Multiple institutions and organizations have helped to f inance this
project, including the Fulbright Scholarship Program, the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation, and Luther College through a variety of means.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge the college’s Marilyn Roverud
Endowed Fellowship in Lutheran Studies. And it should be mentioned
that Dean Kevin Kraus was especially supportive, keeping me informed
of funding opportunities and demonstrating flexibility in my teaching
schedule that enabled time for research.
On the German side of things, Hans-Peter Grosshans of the Institute for
Ecumenical Theology at the University of Muenster must be singled out.
He has been expansively generous, providing a true home for me during my
extended research stays, writing letters of invitation for various granting
agencies, and generally being accommodating to both me and my family.
Suffice it to say that without his support this project would never have been
completed and I hope that one day I will be able in some small way to repay
what has thus far been a one-sided friendship. Albrecht Beutel, likewise
of the University of Muenster, has offered this project his assistance, both
intellectually and as a co-sponsor to my Humboldt application, and I would
like to thank him sincerely. And Frau Christopherson, also at the Institute,
has been truly professional and untiring in assisting on the administrative
side of things. For her efforts I am grateful.
In the Low Countries, Guido Marnef not only read and commented on
substantial portions of the text, but has been a constant promoter of the
project, offering his intellectual expertise and professional connections, all
of which have been essential for its completion. Many others on both sides
of the Atlantic have read portions or all of drafts. Eric Saak gave invaluable
advice and encouragement, as did Marjorie (Beth) Plummer. Marcus Wriedt
provided sound guidance and support. Thomas Kaufmann discussed the
project in its early stages and offered helpful advice along the way. And not
least, I offer my gratitude to the readers to whom Amsterdam University
Press sent the manuscript. Not only did they improve the contents of the
text, but their sharp eyes and excellent linguistic abilities saved me from
countless embarrassing gaffes. I offer my thanks to the Press’s excellent
10 THE DYNAMICS OF THE EARLY REFORMATION
editorial staff in this regard as well and to my brother-in-law Eric Cox, who
gave up his Christmas break to carefully copy edit the page proofs.
My family provided the emotional support necessary to keep plugging
away, even when things were not going very well. Not only did my wife
Victoria offer unceasing encouragement, but also her excellent professional
insights into the history of the Low Countries during this period. One critique
that this book makes is that Reformation historiography has generally
divided the past along current national boundaries, in this case the border
between the Low Countries and the German speaking world. And in the
Christman household until now, the same historiographical borders have
been carefully demarcated, with Victoria taking the Low Countries and
me focusing on Germany. But with this project, Victoria has demonstrated
herself to be more than generous in allowing me to invade her territory and
it is no exaggeration that without her assistance, I would not have dared to
do so. My children, Sophia, Elsa, and Lawrence, provided their support in
multiple ways: their blithe disinterest in the contents of the book offered
welcomed relief to my obsessions; their incredible willingness and ability
to simply meld into a foreign culture during our long research stays in
Germany buoyed my spirits; and their mere existence continues to provide
a goal for my efforts to be a worthy role model.
Finally, I dedicate this book to the memory of my late sister, Anna Christ-
man Horvath (1968–2017). She was there from the beginning and throughout
her earthly existence offered untold support and encouragement for this
and for all of my endeavours. And it must be said that her approach to her
own struggles offered a fine example of how to live and how to die. She
was truly an inspiration.
1. Introduction: The Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany
Abstract
The burnings of the Reformed Augustinian friars Hendrik Vos and Johann
van den Esschen in Brussels on 1 July 1523 were the first executions of the
Protestant Reformation. This chapter challenges the notion that they were
peripheral to the key events of the early Reformation. Personal connections
and frequent interactions existed between the Reformed Augustinians
in the Low Countries (=Lower Germany) and those in Wittenberg, where
Martin Luther was a member; the individuals responsible for the execu-
tions were intimates of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and Popes
Leo X and Adrian VI. An awareness of these connections raises questions
about the importance of this event in the early Reformation and about
how that movement functioned in its earliest stages.
Keywords: Martin Luther, Hendrik Vos (Voes), Johann van den Esschen,
Emperor Charles V, Pope Adrian VI, Congregation of German Reformed
Augustinians, martyrdom
On 1 July 1523, in front of a crowd of spectators, Hendrik Vos and Johann

van den Esschen, were burned alive on the Grand Plaza of Brussels for
adhering to “Lutheran” beliefs. The executions of these two young friars
from the Augustinian cloister in Antwerp were the first of the Protestant
Reformation, and the event was publicized throughout Europe, particularly
in the German-speaking lands. Well-known in scholarly circles, historians
have investigated the executions from a variety of angles and perspectives;1
1 With regard to their local significance see, for example, Duke, ‘The Netherlands’; Kalkoff,
Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation; and Clemen, ‘Die Ersten Märtyrer’. Kalkoff has done a
tremendous amount of spade work on the situation of the Antwerp Augustinians, particularly
in Chapter Six. But because his focus is really on the Counter-Reformation in the context of
the Low Countries, and because aspects of the story are scattered throughout his text, his work
Christman, R.J., The Dynamics of the Early Reformation in their Reformed Augustinian Context.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch01
despite this, very little is known about origins of the event and the details
of its development, and a comprehensive understanding of its overall im-
plications for the early Reformation therefore still eludes us. Most modern
scholars seem to have the following vague impressions about the case: first,
that the executions were an isolated incident without any noteworthy pre-
history; second, that little concrete connection existed between what was
happening in Antwerp and Brussels and what was happening in Wittenberg
and in the early Reformation more broadly;2 and third, that the event’s
impact, particularly within the empire, was limited to what we might call
its potential for propaganda. For these reasons, the case is virtually ignored
in general histories of the Reformation.3
In fact, the execution of these men is merely the most well-known event
in a cohesive narrative, a storyline that revolves around not only the episode
in Brussels but also the seven cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany.
Located in cities across modern Germany (Cologne), Belgium (Antwerp,
Ghent, and Enghien), and the Netherlands (Haarlem, Enkhuizen, and
Dordrecht), these houses comprised one district or province of a broader
association within the late medieval Augustinian Eremite Order, known
as the Congregation of ‘German’ or ‘Saxon’ Reformed Augustinians, whose
members were often referred to as the ‘Observants’ or occasionally the
fails to provide a cohesive view of the role played by the Antwerp Augustinians in the early
Reformation more broadly. In light of Martin Luther’s response to the deaths, see Akerboom and
Gielis, ‘“A New Song”’; Oettinger, Music as Propaganda, pp. 61–69; Kolb, ‘God’s Gift of Martrydom’;
Casey, ‘“Start Spreading the News”’; and Rössler, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben’. For the content of
the pamphlets composed about the executions, their influence on notions of martyrdom, and
the creation of martyr literature of the period, see Gregory, Salvation at Stake; Moeller, ‘Inquisi-
tion und Martyrium’; and Hebenstreit-Wilfert, ‘Märtyrerflugschiften der Reformationszeit’.
For the theological issues separating Luther (and by association, the Antwerp Augustinians)
from the theologians responsible for prosecuting these friars, see Gielis, ‘Augustijnergeloof en
Predikherengeloof’.
2 The one exception to this view is Vercruysse, ‘Was Haben die Sachsen’.
3 Some recent surveys of the Reformation omit any reference to it. None afford it more than a
paragraph or, in a few cases, a page. Allusions to Antwerp in the early Reformation are equally
scarce. For example, the following monographs make no mention of the executions: Pettegree,
Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion; Rublack, Reformation Europe; Wallace, The Long
European Reformation; and Tracy, Europe’s Reformations 1450–1650. Short references may be
found in Hillerbrand, The Division of Christianity, p. 376; Lindberg, The European Reformations,
pp. 283–284; MacCulloch, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided, pp. 134–135; and Cameron, The
European Reformation, p. 357. Even works specifically devoted to the early Reformation make
little or no reference to the executions or to Antwerp in this period. For example, no mention is
made in the following texts: Scott, The Early Reformation; Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation;
Moeller and Buckwalter, eds., Die frühe Reformation in Deutschland; and Chadwick, The Early
Reformation on the Continent.
Introduction: The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany 13
‘Vicarines’. 4 These seven cloisters represented less than one-third of the

group’s total houses, which numbered just over two dozen. Most were located
in the German heartlands of Saxony and Thuringia, among them the Erfurt
house, where Martin Luther joined the Augustinian Order in 1505, and the
Wittenberg cloister, where he lived most of his life. The remainder lay scat-
tered throughout the German-speaking lands of the Holy Roman Empire. At
the height of its expansion, the membership of the modestly-sized German
Reformed Congregation could not have numbered above about 500 friars, of
whom less than 125 resided in the cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany.5
Moreover, as a corporate entity within the German Reformed Congregation,
the Province of Lower Germany existed for eight brief years, from 1514–1522.
For all these reasons, it should come as no surprise that, although general
studies of the Observant movement in Germany and of the Congregation
of German Reformed Augustinians have been undertaken, the Province of
Lower Germany as its own entity has thus far eluded scholarly attention.6
Simply stated, this little group of cloisters on the geographical periphery
of the Congregation’s heartlands played a disproportionately large role in
the early Reformation. Structural ties and friendships bound the Congrega-
tion’s cloisters directly to Wittenberg, and it did not take long for them
to become conduits for Luther’s ideas. Two factors, however, make these
seven houses exceptional. First, four of the seven houses of the Province of
Lower Germany were added to the Congregation in the decade immediately
preceding the executions of Vos and van den Esschen. In other words, Lower
Germany was a growth area for the Congregation, which had recently
developed strategies to expand into that region. And second, these houses
were located by and large in the patrimonial lands of the newly elected Holy
Roman Emperor, Charles V, a committed opponent of the Reformation.7
4 Local studies on some of the individual cloisters have proved indispensable for this
monograph. For the Antwerp cloister see Vercruysse, ‘De Antwerpse augustijnen’; Clemen,
‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster’; for the Cologne cloister see Rotscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die Kölner
Augustiner’; and for the Enkhuizen cloister see Voets, ‘Hebben de Augustijnen van Enkhuizen’.
5 For the year 1500 Michael Wernicke estimates c. 2,000 friars in the Empire’s 112 cloisters of
Augustinian Eremites, for an average of just under eighteen brothers per house. If that number
is multiplied by the 27 cloisters of the Reformed Augustinians, the total comes to 482 members.
Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner Eremiten’, p. 52.
6 Indispensable for this study has been Wolfgang Günter’s overview of the history of the
German Reformed Congregation, Reform und Reformation, which is a considerable expansion
and improvement on Theodor Kolde’s, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation; also helpful is
the seven volume monument by Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten.
7 The exception among the seven cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany was the Reformed
Augustinian cloister in Cologne. However, the economic welfare of that city was so closely tied
What is more, particularly during the Pontificate of Adrian VI (1522–1523),

a native of the Low Countries and erstwhile tutor to Charles, the papacy
worked closely with the imperial authorities to stamp out heretical Lutheran
ideas. The combined forces of the emperor and his administration and
the papacy and its supporters were thus able to exert considerable direct
pressure on these seven cloisters, something that would be impossible in
many of the Reformed Augustinian cloisters elsewhere in the empire. As
a result, the cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany quickly became a
fiercely contested battleground during the early Reformation. On the one
side, the emperor, in conjunction with the pope, realized the danger the
Observants posed and executed a strategy to silence them. On the other side,
the leadership of the Reformation in Wittenberg attempted to promote its
ideas and further its cause through these cloisters. Between 1519 and 1523,
this struggle was the first engagement in which the Reformation left the
world of literary debates and, in the case of the Antwerp cloister, became
a bloody confrontation.
Only when seen from this broader perspective can the deaths of the two
Antwerp Augustinians be understood for what they really were: namely,
the culmination of one of the sharpest and most important engagements
of the early Reformation, one that signalled to all involved the positions
each side would take and the lengths to which they would go, sometimes
in direct contradiction to the declarations they articulated publicly. In
Lower Germany, actions spoke louder than words. Thus, far from being the
inconsequential demise of two essentially unknown friars, to be exploited
for polemical purposes, the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen were the
fallout from a deliberate proxy battle pitting pope and emperor against
Luther and his Augustinian comrades in Wittenberg.
Within this broader narrative, this study addresses five key questions.
The first is: what role did these seven cloisters play in the dissemination
of Reformation ideas and doctrines, and how did that role come about?
The downfall of the two Antwerp Augustinians certainly indicates that
this cloister was involved in the diffusion of such ideas. But although the
Antwerp cloister’s ties to Wittenberg and Luther have been acknowledged,
the depth and significance of these connections has generally been under-
estimated. And although it is well known that, from its foundation in 1513
to Antwerp and other cities in the Low Countries that the emperor was able to exert significant,
if indirect, authority over it. But despite this fact, the Cologne Augustinian cloister remained
a stronghold of Lutheran ideas for a decade after most support for the Reformation had been
eradicated from the cloisters located directly in Charles V’s patrimonial lands. See Scribner,
‘Why was there no Reformation in Cologne’, pp. 218–225.
until its destruction in 1523, key leaders within the Antwerp cloister spent
considerable time in Wittenberg and developed friendships with Luther,
little work has been done on the other cloisters of the Province of Lower
Germany at this crucial moment, and historians seem to have assumed
that the connections between Wittenberg and Antwerp were a historical
anomaly. The first aim of the study is therefore to determine the degree to
which the other cloisters of the Congregation’s Province of Lower Germany
were connected to the Wittenberg Reformation.
Clearly such connections existed, for it did not take long for the most
powerful authorities in Europe, Popes Leo X and Adrian VI and Holy
Roman Emperor Charles V, to recognize these cloisters as threats. The
second question this study seeks to answer is therefore, how did these
authorities respond? Again, the Antwerp cloister serves as the most high-
profile illustration. Having witnessed widespread support for Luther at
the Diet of Worms (1521), the newly crowned emperor returned to the
Low Countries, determined to confront the burgeoning Lutheran heresy
there. Meanwhile, the papal nuncio, Jerome Aleander, who had been
charged with publishing the bull threatening Luther and his followers with
excommunication (Exsurge Domine 15 June 1520), and who had authored
the Edict of Worms (25 May 1521), made common cause with Charles. By
the time their campaign against the Reformed Augustinians of Lower
Germany was over, the Antwerp cloister had been razed to the ground
and the Province’s remaining houses had been administratively severed
from their ties to the German Reformed Congregation. As a result of
these and other steps taken by pope and emperor against the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany, this group must be seen as one of the
earliest targets of anti-Reformation forces, and the actions against it
considered foundational to the dynamics of the early Reformation. The
second objective of this study is to elucidate this campaign against the
Augustinians.
The forces opposing the Reformation were not alone in attempting to
influence what was happening among the cloisters of the Province of Lower
Germany. Martin Luther and much of the hierarchy of the Congregation
of German Reformed Augustinians were actively involved in these events,
and it is here that this study breaks the most new ground. As will become
clear, Luther and his Augustinian colleagues adopted the strategic meth-
ods developed by the Congregation in the 1510s (and earlier) to expand its
influence in Lower Germany, which they now deployed in the service of
the Reformation. In short, they used the knowledge and skills they had
acquired as members of the Congregation – not to mention the assets of
that group – to further the cause of the Reformation in concrete ways.8

Unlike the rather public moves of the pope and emperor, the influence of
Luther and his colleagues was more subtle, but of its existence there can
be no doubt. The third question addressed in this investigation concerns
the origins, parameters, and nature of this understudied aspect of the
Augustinian context of the early Reformation.
In a sense, then, these seven cloisters were pawns in a larger struggle.
But to see the conflict only in these terms disregards the autonomy and
agency of the friars in the Province of Lower Germany. Thus the fourth
question this examination will ask is whether they were merely mouth-
pieces for Wittenberg’s Reformation ideas, or whether the milieu of Lower
Germany shaped their ideas about reform in particular ways? If so, were
their ideas in harmony with Luther’s? The evidence indicates that some of
the Augustinians of the Province of Lower Germany were, in fact, more
radical than Luther and many of his fellow Saxon Augustinians. Reform
thus emanated not only from Wittenberg but, in the Low Countries, took
on a local character, and it seems that such regional variations did at times
influence the speed and content of what was happening in Wittenberg. This
study will document such phenomena.
Having developed a deeper understanding of the significance of these
events, this examination will turn to the question of how this conflict over
the cloisters of Lower Germany impacted the early Reformation. Again,
the high-profile executions of Vos and van den Esschen provide one means
to address this question, and in fact considerable scholarly attention has
been paid to it. The pro-Reformation pamphlets and eyewitness accounts
of their burnings have been analysed for their content, number of editions,
and geographical distribution, thereby providing some insight into the
ways in which the executions were framed and presented to the public.9
Moreover, the reactions of specific individuals, such as Martin Luther and
Erasmus of Rotterdam have also been examined.10 But in the former case,
we learn only what people heard or read about the events, not whether or
8 Recently, Andrew Pettegree has demonstrated conclusively that in the early years of the
Reformation, Martin Luther created new genres of literature and employed the media of print
in new and unique ways and with great intentionality in the service of the Reformation cause.
This investigation complements Pettegree’s discoveries by demonstrating that Luther and his
colleagues likewise employed the resources at their disposal as longstanding members and leaders
within the Congregation of German Reformed Augustinians in the service of the Reformation.
Pettegree, Brand Luther.
9 See note 1.
10 See note 1.
how they actually influenced belief and behaviour. And in the latter case,
the impact of the executions on these intellectual elites takes on a different
complexion when considered in light of the broader events of the conflict.
This study will offer a deeper understanding of the variety of ways and the
degree to which these events shaped the early Reformation.
By integrating the story of the German Reformed Augustinians of the
Province of Lower Germany into the broader history of the early Reforma-
tion, this book transcends modern national boundaries that have artificially
influenced our thinking about the past. In doing so, it helps restore one key
component, a true watershed event, to the history of that movement. It
further shows how, in this Augustinian context, the early Reformation was
not a struggle between groups and individuals unknown to one another,
but rather a battle between acquaintances and associates. Perhaps most
importantly, however, it demonstrates that even in the earliest phases of
the Reformation each side developed and employed strategies to promote
its cause in concrete ways. Finally, it illustrates how, within this context
at least, the Reformation grew naturally out of late medieval Augustinian
efforts at reform – not with regard to the content of that reform, but with
regard to its personnel and its strategies for diffusion.11 These discoveries
bring us closer to the experience of the early Reformation while at the same
time enabling us to acquire deeper insight into the dynamics and workings
of that broad movement in its earliest phase.
The final question this study will address is what this deeper understand-
ing of these events reveals about the broader dynamics of the early Reforma-
tion. By “dynamics of the early Reformation” I mean how the Reformation
functioned as both an elite and popular mass movement, an issue that
includes such questions as: Who was disseminating Reformation ideas
and how was such information transmitted? If we think in terms of the
Reformation movement as having a centre and a periphery, how did the
events in Lower Germany impact Luther’s thinking and that of his colleagues
in Wittenberg? Were those individuals who were “on the periphery”, in this
case the Augustinians of Lower Germany, pushing and shaping Luther’s
thought, or were they merely mouthpieces for his ideas – and in light of the
answer to this question, is it even legitimate to think in terms of a centre
11 As such, this study complements Eric Saak’s recent monograph, Luther and the Reformation.
Saak specifically undertakes an investigation of Luther’s intellectual, theological, and personal
development within the context of the Augustinian Order. This study addresses the development
of the early Reformation, particularly with regards to its administration and diffusion, within
the context of the Augustinian Order.
and a periphery, or does some other model need to replace it? What does
this case reveal about Martin Luther as a strategic leader of a movement?
In short, this study will demonstrate that the experiences of the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany, properly understood, open a new window
into the workings of the early Reformation.
Works Cited
Akerboom, Dick and Marcel Gielis, ‘“A New Song Shall Begin Here…”: The Martyr-
dom of Luther’s Followers among Antwerp’s Augustinians on July 1, 1523 and
Luther’s Response’, in More than a Memory: The Discourse of Martyrdom and
the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity, ed. by Johan
Leemans (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 243–270.
Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Casey, Paul F. ‘“Start Spreading the News” Martin Luther’s First Published Song’, in
Renaissance and Reformation Studies: In Laudem Caroli for Charles G. Nauert,
ed. by James V. Mehl, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, vol. 49 (Kirksville:
Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1998), pp. 75–94.
Chadwick, Owen, The Early Reformation on the Continent (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991).
Clemen, Otto, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner–Kloster bei Beginn der Reformation
(1513–1515)’, Monatshefte der Comenius-Gesellschaft 10 (1901), 306–313.
———, ‘Die Erster Märtyrer des evangelischen Glaubens’, Beiträge zur Reforma-
tionsgeschichte 1 (1900), 40–52.
Duke, Alistair, ‘The Netherlands’ in The Early Reformation in Europe ed. by Andrew
Pettegree (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 142–165.
Gielis, Marcel, ‘Augustijnergeloof en Predikherengeloof: Het conflict tussen de
reformatorische verkondiging van de Antwerpse augustijnen en de scholast-
ieke leer van de Leuvense theologen (ca. 1520)’, Luther-Bulletin: Tijdschift voor
interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 6 (1997), 46–57.
Gregory, Brad S., Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Günther, Wolfgang, Reform und Reformation: Geschichte der deutschen Reformkon-
gregation der Augustinereremiten (1432–1539) (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2018).
Hebenstreit-Wilfert, Hildegard, ‘Märtyrerflugschriften der Reformationszeit’, in
Flugschriften als Massenmedium der Reformationszeit: Beiträge zum Tübinger
Symposion 1980, ed. by Hans-Joachim Köhler (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag,
1981), pp. 397–446.
Hillerbrand, Hans, The Division of Christianity: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century

(Louisville, KY: Westmister John Knox Press, 2007).
Kalkoff, Paul, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in den Niederlanden, 2 vols. (Halle:
Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1903 and 1904).
Kaufmann, Thomas, Der Anfang der Reformation, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus,
Reformation vol. 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).
Kolb, Robert, ‘God’s Gift of Martyrdom: The Early Reformation Understanding of
Dying for the Faith’, Church History 64 (1995), 399–441.
Kolde, Theodor, Die deutsche Augustiner-Kongregation und Johann von Staupitz
(Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 1879).
Kunzelmann, Adalbero, OSA, Geschichte der deutschen Augustinereremiten, 7 vols.
(Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1969–1976).
Lindberg, Carter, The European Reformations, 2nd ed. (Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons, [1996] 2010).
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London:
Allen Lane, 2003).
Moeller, Bernd and Stephen E. Buckwalter, eds., Die frühe Reformation in Deutschland
als Umbruch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998).
Moeller, Bernd, ‘Inquisition und Martyrium in Flugschriften der frühen Reformation
in Deutschland’, in Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, ed. by S.
Seidel Menchi (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 21–48.
Oettinger, Rebecca, Music as Propoganda in the German Reformation (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2001).
Pettegree, Andrew, Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the Reformation
(New York: Penguin Press, 2015).
———, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2005).
Rössler, Martin, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben an: Ein Protestsong Martin Luthers’, in
Reformation und Praktische Theologie: Festschrift für Werner Jetter zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag, ed. by Hans Müller and Dietrich Rössler (Göttingen: Vandehoeck
& Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 216–232.
Rotscheidt-Mörs, Wilhelm, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner und die Wittenberger Reforma-
tion’, Monatshefte für Rheinische Kirchengeschichte 17 (1911), 33–58.
Rublack, Ulinka, Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005).
Saak, Erik, Luther and the Reformation of the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2017).
Scott, Tom, The Early Reformation in Germany: Between Secular Impact and Radical
Vision (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013).
Scribner, Robert, ‘Why was there no Reformation in Cologne’, Bulletin of the Institute
of Historical Research 49 (1976), 217–241.
Tracy, James D., Europe’s Reformations 1450–1650 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield,
1999).
Vercruysse, Jos E., ‘De Antwerpse augustijnen en de lutherse Reformatie, 1513–1523’,
Traiecta 16 (2007), 193–216.
———, ‘Was haben die Sachsen und die Flamen gemeinsam…?’, in Wittenberg als
Bildungszentrum 1502–2002, ed. by Peter Freybe (Lutherstadt-Wittenberg: Drei
Kastanien Verlag, 2002), pp. 9–32.
Voets, B., ‘Hebben de Augustijnen van Enkhuizen invloed gehad op de Hervorming?’,
Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 39 (1952), 219–227.
Wallace, Peter G., The Long European Reformation: Religion, Political Conflict, and
the Search for Conformity, 1350–1750 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Wernicke, Michael (OSA), ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Orden und Klöster im Zeit-
alter von Reformation und katholischer Reform 1500–1700’, Katholisches Leben und
Kirchenreform im Zeitalter des Glaubensspaltung vol. 66, ed. by F. Jürgensmeier
and R.E. Schwerdtfeger (Münster, Aschendorf, 2006), 2: pp. 52–76.
2. The German Reformed Congregation
and its Province of Lower Germany
Abstract
To fully appreciate the events leading to the executions of Vos and van
den Esschen, it is critical to understand the establishment, structure,
and growth of the German Reformed Congregation of Augustinians
(Observants) in the Holy Roman Empire during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. In particular, close analysis of the Congregation’s
expansion into Lower Germany in the 1510s, a result of encouragement
by its leader, Johann von Staupitz, reveals a clear set of tactics at work. An
awareness of this strategy establishes the foundation for one argument of
this monograph: that having learned how the objectives of the Observant
movement could be promoted and disseminated, Martin Luther and his
colleagues repurposed these methods in the service of the Reformation.
Key Words: Augustinian Order, Johann von Staupitz, Observant Movement,

German Reformed Congregation, Hendrik van Zutphen (Heinrich von
Zütphen), Johann van Mechelen
In order to understand the role played by the cloisters of the Province of

Lower Germany in the early Reformation, a brief overview of the history of
the Augustinian Order, the origins of its German Reformed Congregation,
and the Congregation’s administrative structure is necessary. Particularly
relevant in this regard is an examination of the Congregation’s expansion
into Lower Germany in the decade prior to the Reformation and specifically
the tactics employed to increase its influence there, for it was these very
strategies that would be appropriated and redeployed by Martin Luther and
his colleagues to promote the Reformation via the Congregation’s administra-
tive structures and educational procedures. Before the Congregation could
become an instrument to disseminate Reformation ideas, however, its
members first had to encounter and be convinced by those ideas. Therefore
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch02
this chapter also addresses the basic content of Luther’s message at this early
stage and the various means by which it spread through the Congregation
of German Reformed Augustinians.
A Brief History of the Augustinian Order and the Origins of the

German Reformed Congregation
The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine (Ordo Eremitarum Sancti Augustini;

OESA) originated in Northern Italy in the mid-thirteenth century when a
group of established hermitages adopted a structure similar to that of other
mendicant orders, a decision confirmed by Pope Alexander IV in 1256. In that
same year, one of the order’s members, Guido von Stagia, was sent north into
the German-speaking lands with a copy of the papal bull, where he found
a group of monasteries already bound together in an informal association
and convinced them to become Augustinian Eremites. It was not long before
the order comprised sixty houses, growing to eighty within the Holy Roman
Empire alone by 1299.1 In that year, to facilitate its self-governance, the
order’s Province of Germany (Provincia Alemaniae), as it was known, was
divided into four parts: the Provinces of Cologne, Rhenish-Swabia, Bavaria,
and Saxony. Each territory had its own Provincial, a leader who fell under
the direct authority of the Prior General of the entire Augustinian Order.
The Order’s rapid growth soon dissipated, however, leading some in it
to conclude that the decline was due to lax adherence to the Augustinian
rule. One historian has described the situation as follows:
In the second half of the fourteenth century laxity in discipline permeated

the Order. It demonstrated itself through the inadequate performance of
personal poverty and [commitment to] the community of goods and in
the prevalence of dispensations from canonical hours and the common
table. This laxity was connected to the immeasurable loss of life during
the plague years 1348–51 […]and to the lengthy split within the church
and the Order during the Schism (1378–1414).2
1 Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner Eremiten’, pp. 53–54.

2 ‘In der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jh. trat bei den Augustinern weithin ein Erschlaffen der Orden-
szucht zutage. Es zeigte sich in der mangelhaften Durchführung der persönlichen Armut und der
Gütergemeinschaft und im Überhandnehmen der Dispense vom Chorgebet und gemeinsamen
Tisch. Dieses Erschlaffen war mitbedingt durch die ungeheueren personellen Verluste in den
Pestjahren 1348–51 [. . .] und durch die langdauernde Spaltung von Kirche und Orden während
des Schismas (1378–1414).’ Zumkeller, ‘Augustiner-Eremiten’, p. 732.
The German Reformed Congregation and its Province of Lower Germany 23
In consequence, the early fifteenth century saw the beginnings of a reform

movement within the Order, part of a broader effort taking place among the
mendicant and monastic orders and within the church more widely.3 In the
context of monasticism, this reform movement was an effort to return to the
strict observance of the rules and constitutions of their respective orders,
essentially a conservative movement that looked back to a “golden age”.4 But
more than that, ‘Observance’, as it was called, was an effort to realize ‘the
essence of monasticism in all its facets to full effect.’5 Over time, this ideal
of observance became a coherent movement that ultimately engendered
modif ications in the various orders’ administrative structures. As one
historian has noted, ‘there was a gradual and at first scarcely perceptible
shift to the point at which strict observance as an ideal became an Observant
movement, which in turn aspired to varying degrees of independence
within the different orders, in some cases becoming almost an order within
an order’.6 Within the Augustinian Order, it was the cloister at Lecceto in
Tuscany where the Observant movement first took root; by 1400, a handful
of houses had joined together to create the Congregation of Lecceto.
In Germany, calls for closer observance to the Rule of St. Augustine
throughout the second half of the fourteenth century led individual cloisters,
such as Waldheim in Saxony (1404), to commit themselves to reform, but it
was not until 1419 that a broader reform campaign within the Order began
in the empire.7 By 1432, Gregory of Rimini, the Order’s Prior General and
a supporter of Observance, had confirmed the Nuremberg prior, Heinrich
Zolter, as Vicar for all Observant cloisters in the Order’s Province of Saxony
– the first indication that an effort was underway to centralize and organize
this movement in the German Augustinian cloisters.8 In 1433, Zolter was
made prior of the Observant friary in Magdeburg, and at the same time
was given the task of reforming the house in Nuremberg. Eventually he was
3 Katherine Walsh suggests, ‘Common to a number of religious orders of every genre in the
later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries was an Observant Movement of some form.’ Walsh,
‘Papacy and Local Reform: A)’, p. 35.
4 For a general introduction to the Observant movement as well as a helpful historiographical
overview see Mixon, ‘Religious Life and Observant Reform’.
5 ‘[. . .] das Wesentliche des Mönchtums in allen seinen Teilen zur Wirkung.’ Weinbrenner,
Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert, p. 48. This is also a key point made by Günther, namely that
the reform movement among the Observants was not merely the return to a strict adherence
to a set of rules, but the recapturing of a sense of unity and spiritual like-mindedness. Günther,
Reform und Reformation, pp. 266–270.
6 Walsh, ‘Papacy and Local Reform: A)’, p. 36.
7 Zschoch, Klosterreform und monastische Spiritualität, p. 23.
8 Zschoch, Klosterreform und monastische Spiritualität, p. 33.
able to procure a series of papal privileges that to some degree loosened

the affiliations of these Observant houses to the administrative structures
of Germany’s four provinces, but did not erase these connections entirely.
To the Provincials of the German provinces, the easing of such ties was an
act of provocation, an infringement of their authority, and they appealed
to a series of the Order’s Priors General to eliminate any move towards
autonomy among the Observants, believing rightly that such independence
would shatter the unity of the order.9
But in 1459, Andreas Proles, a powerful personality and resolute champion
of the Observance, convinced the Order’s newly elected Prior General,
Alexander Oliva, to allow the reformed cloisters to hold their own chapter
meeting every three years, a key step in emancipating them from the
authority of the Provincials. This move would have established a clearly
delineated and closely connected cohort of reformed houses within the Order
(including Magdeburg, Himmelpforten, Waldheim, Dresden, and Königsberg
in Franken), and although this concession was quickly rescinded, the seed
of the idea now existed. In 1461, and again in 1473, Proles was elected Vicar
General of these reformed houses, giving the Observant friaries their own
leader and thereby edging them closer to autonomy. Proles worked hard to
extend Observance within the Province of Saxony and beyond, winning
new cloisters in the Order’s Provinces of Rhenish-Swabia and Bavaria. Often
the reform of these friaries was initiated by the temporal authorities, with
particular support in Saxony from Duke Wilhelm II, a major patron of the
Observant movement.10 By Pentecost in 1497, those German Augustinian
Eremite houses that had accepted the Observant movement had procured
enough papal privileges – and therefore autonomy – to take part as full
members in the General Chapter meeting of the entire Augustinian Order.
Because its origins lay largely in the Saxon Province and many of its houses
were located there, this group came to be known as the ‘German’ or ‘Saxon’
Reformed Congregation. In that same year, the Congregation achieved
Proles’s goal when it held its own chapter meeting for the first time, the
acts of which were then approved by the Prior General of the Order.11 The
9 Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner Eremiten’, pp. 54–55.

10 For connections to Duke Wilhelm, and for a helpful overview of Proles’s efforts in general,
see Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, p. 106. Günther, too, stresses the necessity and
centrality of the support and backing of local temporal authorities for the successful reform of
a cloister. See Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 30 and p. 77.
11 Chapter meetings generally occurred on a three-year rotation and were held at one of the
Congregation’s cloisters. In attendance were the priors of the various houses, magisters, brothers
with baccalaureate degrees, lectors, and others in its hierarchy. Members elected the Vicar
German Reformed Congregation of Observant Augustinians had become

its own entity and was recognized as such within the broader Augustinian
community.
When Proles became Vicar General of the Congregation, five Observant
cloisters made up its roster. After three decades of intensive labour, now there
were twenty-seven and the group had its own administrative structure.12
Still, the overall number of German Reformed Augustinians was not very
large. In 1500, the year closest to the events of the early Reformation for
which we have statistics, the total number of Augustinian Eremite houses
in the Holy Roman Empire was 112, containing about 2,000 friars for an
average of just under eighteen brothers per house.13 Of course there was great
variation in the size of the houses, but if we use these numbers as a rough
estimate, by 1500, when the Congregation had twenty-seven cloisters, the
total number of German Augustinian Observants would have been around
480, and even in c. 1519 when the Congregation reached the height of its
expansion, it probably never comprised more than about 500 members.14
In 1503, Proles’s successor, Johann von Staupitz, was elected Vicar Gen-
eral of the German Reformed Congregation. Staupitz quickly set about
establishing a new constitution for the group and attempting to expand
its influence. His chief strategy, a rather bold one, came to fruition in 1507
when he succeeded in having himself named as Provincial of the German
Augustinian Province of Saxony, in addition to his position as Vicar General,
thereby uniting the leadership of that Province with the leadership of the
German Reformed Congregation. Staupitz believed that by doing this he
might expand the reform movement to all of the Province’s cloisters.15
General, District Vicars from 1497 on, the visitors assigned to accompany the Vicar General,
and assigned teachers to the Congregation’s various schools, decided which brothers should
study and where, promulgated new rules, and addressed disciplinary issues. Also discussed
were current theological and doctrinal issues (a chapter meeting usually included an academic
disputation), as well as the administrative business of the Congregation. See Günther, Reform
und Reformation, pp. 266–267.
12 Weinbrenner, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert, p. 59.
13 Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten’, p. 49.
14 Even this number may be high, as Günther suggests that the Augustinian Order deemed
the preferred number of brothers living in a given house to be twelve. Reform und Reformation,
p. 244.
15 That the objective of this union was ultimately to win more cloisters for the Observants is
revealed in the cardinal legate’s bull confirming the union. There the legate clearly states that
the hope is to silence the voices of dissent within the Observant Movement by winning more
cloisters to their cause. Zumkeller, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’, p. 42. However, both Schneider and
Günther have pointed out that the plan for union was not entirely a product of Staupitz’s efforts.
The Provincial for Saxony-Thuringia, the Prior General of the Augustinian Order, and the Pope
But the move set off a f ierce struggle between the Observants and the
Conventuals, as Augustinians who were not part of the Observant move-
ment were called. It also split the Observants themselves, many of whom
thought that this strategy would dilute and therefore endanger the reform
movement within the order.16 By 1511, opposition to this union was so strong
that Staupitz abandoned his plan and laid down his role as Provincial of
the Saxon Province. In May of 1512, at a chapter meeting in Cologne, he was
confirmed by his Observant brethren as the Vicar General of the German
Reformed Congregation. Outwardly at least, concord had been restored
within the Congregation.17
It might be worthwhile to pause for a moment and examine the Observant
movement more broadly, particularly as it relates to the argument being
made here. As noted, it was based upon reform in its truest sense – an
effort to return the Order to its spiritual foundations, to the rules and
statutes prescribed for this way of life. Generally this did not involve new
spiritual content, but rather stricter adherence to the Order’s Rule, and
the curtailment of dispensations and exemptions from it. Even Staupitz’s
Constitutiones of 1503, a new articulation of the regulations and practices
of the Congregation, included little innovation, for as one historian has
recently suggested, they ‘followed by and large the content of the Regensburg
Constitutions [1290], while incorporating the Additions and clarifying specific
points. [Just] as the original Constitutions of the Order, Staupitz’s new version
consisted of fifty-one chapters, beginning with the celebration of matins’.18
In other words, Staupitz’s new document was by and large an elaboration,
rather than an alteration, of the traditional documents governing the Order.
None of this is to say, however, that the Observant movement lacked a
spiritual dimension: closer observance of the rule was not meant to be
merely a practice in dutiful obedience, but a true change in mentality to
the pristine fervour of the Order’s founders.19 It was an effort to reinvigorate
and re-enliven the original monastic ideal.
Complicating matters was the relationship between Observants and
Conventuals in the Order. In many cases, Conventual priors carried out
all were party to these efforts. Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 286–356; and Schneider,
‘Martin Luthers Reise nach Rom’, pp. 38–45.
16 Zumkeller, ‘Martin Luther und sein Orden’, p. 265.
17 Eric Saak has demonstrated that the conflict left lasting scars within the Congregation,
particularly with regard to Luther himself. See Saak, Luther and the Reformation, pp. 203–213.
18 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, p. 70.
19 For a helpful discussion of the Observant ideal see Weinbrenner, Klosterreform im 15.
Jahrhundert, especially pp. 24–49.
their own reform programmes, returning to stricter adherence to the Rule

in their own cloisters, but without joining the Observants and their Congre-
gation.20 And often there were communications and positive interactions
between the Conventuals and Observants.21 Although there did appear
to be a distinct Observant “mentality”, essential differences between the
two groups should not be overstated. Often tensions came down to issues
of administration and influence. As the German Reformed Congregation
amassed privileges, increased its independence from the Provincials, and
broadened its geographic scope, it came to be seen as a challenge to the
institutional structures of the Order’s Provinces. Any effort at expansion
by the Congregation, therefore, required some political manoeuvring and
strategic thinking to overcome significant opposition.
Strategies to Expand Observant Influence in Lower Germany
Although Staupitz’s efforts at unifying the Conventual Province of Saxony

with the Observant German Reformed Congregation failed, there were other
ways to win cloisters to the Observant movement and the Vicar General
soon undertook new efforts in this regard. By the early sixteenth century,
the German Reformed Congregation had divided itself administratively
into two Provinces, the Province of Saxony-Thuringia and the Province
of Upper Germany, each with its own leader, who took the title of District
Vicar and reported directly to the Vicar General.22 During Staupitz’s time
as Vicar General (1503–1520), six houses were added to the Congregation:
one in Eisleben, Martin Luther’s birthplace, located in the Province of
Saxony-Thuringia; one in Rappoltsweiler (modern day Ribeauvillé, Alsace),
situated in the Province of Upper Germany; and four in Lower Germany.
Tensions between the Observants and the Provincial of the Rhine-Swabian
Province led to Rappoltsweiler’s addition to the Congregation. There the
prior and brothers were reportedly living lascivious lives, prompting local
20 Weinbrenner, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert, pp. 86–98.

21 The fact that many Conventual Augustinians attended the University of Wittenberg, a
bastion of the Observants, indicates that we should not see the relationship between the two
groups as necessarily antithetical. Moreover there are many examples of excellent rapport
between individuals of each group. For example, see the friendship between the Observant
Hendrik van Zutphen and Conventual Prior of the Osnabrück cloister and Provincial of the
Province of Saxony-Thuringia, Gerhard Hecker. Jung, ‘Gerhard Hecker und die Anfänge’.
22 The terms Provincial Vicar and Regional Vicar were often used for this position as well. See
Wilhelm Winterhager, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’.
authorities to appeal to the emperor, who commanded the Provincial to

reform the cloister. When he failed to do so, the issue was brought to the
newly elected pope, Leo X.23 While in Rome in early 1513, in the service of the
Archbishop of Salzburg and to attend the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517),
Staupitz had the opportunity to consult both the pope and the Augustinian
Order’s Prior General, Aegidius de Viterbo, about various issues facing the
Congregation. As a result of these conversations, in 1514 Pope Leo attached
the house at Rappoltsweiler to the German Reformed Congregation.24
The addition of the Eisleben house, founded in 1515, follows a clearer
rationale. The count of the Territory of Mansfeld (in which Eisleben lay),
Albrecht IV, was in the process of expanding one of the city’s quarters, the
Neustadt. His decision to do so was not uncontroversial, so the establishment
of a monastic house there was one way in which to validate the new quarter’s
creation and ensure its continued existence. What is more, the counts of
Mansfeld were firmly in the orbit of nearby Ducal and Electoral Saxony, the
heartland of the German Reformed Congregation and its patrons. Count
Albrecht especially had close ties to Elector Frederick the Wise, who dem-
onstrated his support for the German Reformed Augustinians by founding a
Reformed Augustinian cloister and university simultaneously in Wittenberg
in 1502, and calling on Johann von Staupitz, soon to become Vicar General
of the Congregation, to play a major role in the establishment of both.25 One
historian has speculated that Luther himself, a native of Eisleben, may even
have suggested to his sovereign that he establish a Reformed Augustinian
cloister there, the dedication of which Luther would eventually attend along
with Staupitz.26 There were thus ample reasons to found the house in Eisleben
Neustadt as a member of the German Reformed Congregation.27
More unexpected, however, is the Congregation’s expansion in Lower
Germany. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Congregation
had a handful of member cloisters there – friaries in Haarlem, Enkhuizen,
and Enghien. But beginning in 1509 the Congregation added more houses,
23 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 339.

24 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 5, p. 470.
25 In fact, the friendship between Frederick the Wise and Staupitz probably went back to the
time the two men spent together as students at the University of Leipzig. Zumkeller, ‘Johannes
von Staupitz’, p. 32.
27 For historical connections between Count Albrecht and Ernestine Saxony see Christman,
Doctrinal Controversy and Lay Religiosity, pp. 25–34. For a more complete description of the
circumstances surrounding the foundation of the Eisleben house see Winterhager, ‘Martin
Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, pp. 734–738.
including Cologne (1509), Antwerp (1513), Ghent (sometime around 1515), and
Dordrecht (1516). Details of the means by which these various friaries were
convinced to join are discussed below, but this rapid expansion into Lower
Germany suggests that Staupitz had that region in his sights.28 Opportunities
for further growth in the Congregation’s heartland of Saxony-Thuringia
appear to have diminished, and in Upper Germany, the Congregation was
in the process of contracting: Staupitz was forced to watch as the Congrega-
tion’s cloisters in Tübingen, Eßlingen, Weil der Stadt, Alzey, and Heidelberg
returned to the authority of the Provincial of Rhenish-Swabia.29 But Lower
Germany offered a new field of endeavour, and during this period Staupitz
worked hard to win houses there to the Observant Augustinians’ cause
and confirm their commitment to reform.30 It is surely no accident that
he chose the newly-added Cologne house as the site for the Congregation’s
1512 chapter meeting, and in 1511, 1514, and 1516 made extended visits to the
Congregation’s houses in Lower Germany.31 As a result of its rapid growth
in this region, in 1514 the Congregation established a new province, the
Province of Lower Germany, and chose a new District Vicar to administer it,
bringing the number of the Congregation’s Provinces and District Vicars to
three.32 Thus for the Reformed Augustinian Congregation, Lower Germany
was the new frontier.
Nor is it surprising that such rapid expansion in Lower Germany met
with signif icant opposition. This came from a variety of quarters, but
28 Both Günther and Kolde emphasize the allure that expansion into the Netherlands had on
Staupitz, particularly after some of his other initiatives failed. Günther suggests that it was an
ideal location because there had not yet been any reform initiatives there, and the self-confident
citizens of its flourishing cities desired pious and committed monastics. Günther, Reform und
Reformation, p. 342. Kolde merely states that from 1512 on, ‘Staupitz beschränkte sich darauf,
in der rheinisch-schwäbisch und der kölnischen Provinz neue Convente zu erwerben.’ Kolde,
Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, p. 242.
29 Zumkeller, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’, p. 44. For an excellent explanation of this event, see
Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 320–324 and pp. 335–341.
30 Günther attributes the Congregation’s success in Lower Germany to a combination of the
following: the longstanding efforts by the cloisters of the Cologne Province to evade reform,
which had produced a sort of log-jam that now broke; the increasing number of highly qualified
friars from the Low Countries, who had studied in Wittenberg and now returned home; and the
support of Charles and his regent, Margaret of Austria, for the Congregation. Günther, Reform
und Reformation, p. 345. While I certainly concur with these explanations, as I will outline
in the following pages, I also see an intentional and strategic effort made by Staupitz and the
hierarchy of the German Reformed Congregation to expand their influence in Lower Germany.
31 Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, p. 230 and pp. 268–269.
32 These were the Districts of Saxony-Thuringia, Upper Germany, and Lower Germany.
Winterhager, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, p. 728.
within the Augustinian Order itself, things became most heated within
the Cologne Province, the Conventual province that overlay most closely
the German Reformed Congregation’s new Province of Lower Germany.
There a fierce struggle was already underway between the Observants and
the Conventuals. Reform was deemed necessary by all, but the Conventuals
were attempting to push through their own brand before the Observants
had a chance to win more cloisters to the German Reformed Congregation.
On 23 August 1518, for example, the new Prior General of the Augustinian
Order, Gabriel de Venezia, urged reform on the Provincial of the Cologne
Province as the only means to escape the control of the Observants.33 On
21 December 1521, Venezia again wrote to the Cologne Provincial announcing
that he was willing, with help of papal authority, to support the Province
against the expanding power of the Observants (who, as he put it, regularly
seized cloisters for themselves) and to try to retrieve those cloisters that
had been lost to the Observants.34
Staupitz’s success in extending Observant reform in the face of such
resistance raises the question of just how he was able to win these houses to
the Congregation’s cause, a question all the more relevant when it becomes
clear that the tactics he developed would later be seamlessly adopted by his
successors in the service of the Reformation.35 One strategy he employed was
to persuade an individual cloister’s patrons of the benefits of Observance.
Once they were convinced, Staupitz himself or some other committed
Observant was sent to carry out the reform. A second tactic, often used in
conjunction with the first, was to place friends and protégés in yet to be
reformed Augustinian houses, with the hope that they would enlist their
fellow friars (and ultimately the house’s patrons) in Observant reform. Of
course once “reformed” there was always the possibility that the brothers
in a particular house would lapse into their former ways. As a result, it was
necessary to carry out repeated visitations in order to ensure adherence
to reform, and to seed newly reformed friaries with priors and brothers
committed to the Observant cause. This necessity led to a third strategy,
namely to send young recruits from recently reformed houses to Wittenberg

34 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 7, p. 15. By this point, the
papacy may well have been responding to the Observants’ close connections to Reformation
impulses.
35 It is worth noting that while much excellent work has been done on the reform efforts of
late medieval Augustinianism and on Staupitz’s theological influence on Martin Luther, little
attention has been paid to the Vicar General’s concrete endeavours to expand Augustinian
Observantism and how they may have impacted Luther. One exception is Posset, The Front-Runner.
(which had been designated by Staupitz as the preferred location of study for
promising young brothers), before returning them to their original cloisters
to support the Observant cause there.36 He also sent young Wittenberg
recruits to other houses to study, particularly to Cologne, the Congregation’s
only cloister outside of Wittenberg and Erfurt with its own studium generale,
a preparatory school for the Congregation’s young friars who had been
selected to attend university.37 A fourth strategy was simply to found new
cloisters as Observant houses, as was the case with the house in Eisleben. A
brief survey of how the cloisters that would come to comprise the Province
of Lower Germany entered the Congregation, particularly those that joined
while Staupitz was Vicar General, demonstrates these tactics in action.
The recruitment of the houses in Enghien, Haarlem, and Enhuizen, already
members of the Congregation before Staupitz’s time, illustrates the first
beginnings of a German Reformed Augustinian strategy for expansion. In all
three cases, these cloisters were relatively new members when Staupitz rose
to the position of Vicar General. The house at Enghien (Edingen), founded
in the mid-thirteenth century, was among the earliest Augustinian Eremite
houses. Not much is known about the early years of its existence, in large
part because in 1474 a fire destroyed all of its original founding documents.
Towards the end of the fifteenth century, however, it became a renowned
pilgrimage site honouring St. Nicholas of Tolentino, complete with a lay
brotherhood dedicated to the saint, established in 1490 in response to the
entreaties of the townsfolk.38 Even so, the cloister never appears to have
been particularly large. Precisely when it joined the Reformed Congregation
and under what circumstances remains a mystery. But in 1521, the Vicar
General of the German Reformed Congregation and his assistant carried
out a visitation there, so by that time the friary was clearly part of that
Congregation.39 Since its addition is not mentioned at any point in the early
sixteenth century, it stands to reason that it must have happened before
36 Posset, The Front-Runner, p. 71. In fact, Staupitz made every effort to encourage young
Augustinians to study in Wittenberg, recruiting thirteen of them in time for the University’s
first semester (Winter 1502/1503). And in the twenty-year period from its founding until 1522,
around 160 Augustinians studied at the University of Wittenberg. Schneider, ‘Johannes von
Staupitz’ Amtsverszicht’, p. 187.
37 Because all friars were expected to know some theology, each house had its own studium
locale. But selected cloisters also had a studium generale for those brothers designated to proceed
to advanced studies, usually in university cities and closely associated with their respective
universities.
39 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 7, p. 401; Kolde, Die deutsche
Augustiner-Congregation, p. 365.
Staupitz became Vicar General. Of all the houses of the Reformed Province
of Lower Germany, however, it appears to have had the least connection to
the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps its position as a place of pilgrimage,
its close association with a saint, and the support among the populace for
these pious practices helped insulate it from Reformation impulses.
Likewise, it is unclear precisely when the Enkhuizen house joined the
Congregation, but it must have occurred at the very end of the fifteenth or
the beginning of the sixteenth century, shortly after the founding of the
cloister, which was initiated by three members of a patrician family and
confirmed on 16 January 1498 by Pope Alexander VI.40 Perhaps it was under
the auspices of Johann van Mechelen, who was prior there for some years
before matriculating at the University of Wittenberg in 1507 and receiving his
diploma as Doctor of Theology in 1511. When van Mechelen joined the order
is unknown, but by 1500 he was already lector of the house in Dordrecht,
and even before his time in Wittenberg it appears that van Mechelen was a
proponent of Observant reform.41 By 1512, upon van Mechelen’s return from
Wittenberg to his post as prior, the cloister was firmly in the orbit of the
Observants. It was also at that point that van Mechelen truly began to labour
in the service of the Observant cause, a cause for which he would become
the Congregation’s greatest champion in the Low Countries. To this end,
van Mechelen immediately sent a young recruit to his alma mater, the first
of two young friars from Enkhuizen who would study in Wittenberg during
the 1510s. 42 A close friend and supporter of Staupitz – who in 1514 named
him prior of the new house in Antwerp43 – van Mechelen would also play
a role in bringing Observant reform to the house in Dordrecht. Although
van Mechelen would eventually break with Luther and the Reformation,
he was by far the highest profile and most broadly engaged supporter of
the Observant reform in Lower Germany, and he represents the earliest
instance of a friar from Lower Germany matriculating in Wittenberg before
returning to his homeland to advance the cause of the Observants there.
40 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 238; Clemen, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster’,

p. 306; and Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, p. 147. Kunzelmann says regarding
the work of Proles: ‘At the beginning of the sixteenth century there were already two cloisters
in the Low Countries that considered themselves to be part of the Saxon Congregation, those
in Haarlem and Enkhuizen.’ ‘Auch in den Niederlanden gab es am Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts
zwei Klöster, die sich zur sächsischen Kongregation bekannten, das zu Haarlem und das zu
Enkhuizen.’ Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 5, p. 432.
41 Duinen, Een augustijnenklooster van aanzien, p. 126.
42 Bünger and Gottfried, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’, p. 446.
As noted, one way to expand the number of houses and the influence
of the German Reformed Congregation was to establish new cloisters as
Observant houses, an attractive prospect given the difficulties in reforming
an existing house. 44 The foundation of the house in Haarlem is one such
case, although the history of its origins survives in two slightly different
versions. One variation suggests that in 1490, led by members of the Guild of
St. James, the citizenry of Haarlem decided to establish a house of Augustine
Eremites. 45 Their initial impulse was to request that some friars from the
Dordrecht house be sent to seed the new cloister, since Haarlem lay within
Dordrecht’s district. Negotiations were begun, but when the Haarlem city
fathers discovered that the Dordrecht cloister had not yet been reformed,
they broke off the talks, turning instead to Saxony and asking the Observants
there for help in their endeavour. This move angered the Dordrecht friars,
who were unenthusiastic about the presence of an Observant cloister in their
backyard, creating a dispute between Dordrecht and Haarlem that would
drag on for years. Johann van Mechelen represented the Congregation’s
interests. In 1492 the Cologne Provincial sided with the Haarlem city fathers,
and Dordrecht was forced to concede part of its district to the new Observant
house. 46 In 1493, the cloister was first inhabited, purportedly by a group of
Reformed Augustinians from Saxony – seven priests and two lay brothers
– who were given a warm welcome to the city and proceeded to settle in
the new house.47 The second version of the founding story suggests that, on
the contrary, the first monks did indeed come from the Dordrecht house,
arriving on 20 October 1489, and that the German Reformed Congregation
acquired the Haarlem house and first sent the above-mentioned Observant
friars there in 1493. 48 In any case, the house was populated at least in part
by Saxon Observants, and Haarlem sent one student to study in Wittenberg
in 1507. 49
The histories of these three houses indicate that, even before Staupitz
became Vicar General of the German Reformed Congregation, the ties to
and influence of Saxony played a role in the expansion of the Congregation.
Under Staupitz, who held a professorship at the University of Wittenberg,
these efforts would continue and multiply, for the Vicar General was a man
with great ambitions for the Congregation and significant experience in

45 Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 237–238.
47 Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, pp. 147–148.
48 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 4, pp. 177–178.
49 Bünger and Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’, p. 446.
ecclesiastical affairs and temporal administration. Whether it was securing

funding for the new University, negotiating advantageous agreements with
princes, prelates, and city councils, procuring a wife for the Elector Frederick
the Wise, or ‘displaying irregularity and disobedience’ by annexing various
houses to the German Reformed Congregation despite being explicitly
prohibited from doing so, the Vicar General knew how to operate.50
Thus when the Cologne city council, in their capacity as patrons and
protectors of the Augustinian cloister there, wrote to Staupitz on 27 January
1509 asking for his help to reform it, he did not hesitate. He travelled person-
ally to Cologne, where he installed as prior Johannes Huysden, a close friend
and a supporter of Observance, a move that would successfully bring the
cloister under the auspices of the German Reformed Congregation.51 Against
the wishes of the Prior General of the Augustinian Order, who twice com-
manded the Provincial of the Cologne Province to eject all Observant friars
from the cloister, and to replace the prior and other officials there, Staupitz
simply annexed the cloister to the Congregation.52 Soon thereafter, the
Wittenberg cloister began sending students to Cologne’s studium generale,
with four attending in 1516.53 In return, the Cologne house sent students to
the University of Wittenberg, at least one of whom, Heinrich Himmel, would
return home five years later to play a key role in disseminating Reformation
ideas there.54 The exchange of individuals and ideas had begun.55
The situation in Dordrecht followed a similar pattern. The Congregation’s
initial activities there are obscure, but of their efforts to bring the house
under their control there can be no doubt, since in 1514 the Prior General
of the Augustinian Order was already finding it necessary to order the
50 For a sample of the scope and nature of Staupitz’s manoeuvring, see Posset, The Front-
Runner, esp. pp. 102–129, here at p. 126. Günther assesses Staupitz’s political, ecclesiastical, and
administrative abilities more negatively, pointing out the repeated failure of his plans, which he
puts down to an inability to think strategically over long periods of time. Günther, Reform und
Reformation, p. 286. However, he also admits that over his lifetime, Staupitz was able to achieve
experience as an administrator and visitor, become a capable diplomat, and have considerable
success as a negotiator. Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 343. My point is not so much to
assess Staupitz’s success or failure, but merely to point out that he was deeply involved in political
and administrative efforts to expand the Congregation’s influence.
51 Rotscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner’, p. 33.
52 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 343; and Posset, The Front-Runner, p. 106.
53 Rotscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner’, p. 37.
54 See chapter 8.
55 Kalkoff seems to go a step further, claiming that Staupitz sent ‘zealous brothers’ (strebsamen
Brüdern) from all over Germany to the Congregation’s newly added cloister in Cologne. Kalkoff,
Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 2, p. 53.
Congregation’s leadership to desist from bothering the brothers there.56 The

accompanying threat of excommunication seems to have had little impact,
for the following year the University of Wittenberg-trained Augustinian
and Dutchman, Hendrik van Zutphen, was sent by the Congregation to the
as yet unreformed Dordrecht house. Having matriculated at Wittenberg in
1508 where he had been a student of Staupitz, and then having spent time
as sub-prior in the newly-reformed house in Cologne, van Zutphen was in
a good position to represent the Observants’ interests in Dordrecht. Shortly
after his arrival there, the Dordrecht city council, in their capacity as the
house’s patrons, wrote to Staupitz asking him to reform the cloister. As a
result, in October of 1516 the Dordrecht house joined the German Reformed
Congregation, a move undoubtedly attributable in large part to the work of
van Zutphen, whom Staupitz now named the house’s prior.57 There were,
however, other reforming influences on this friary. Theodor Kolde has
suggested that the desire for reform must also be attributed to the zeal of
Johann van Mechelen. It was van Mechelen, claims Kolde, who was able to
persuade the Dordrecht city council that the house be reformed.58 However,
whether van Mechelen from outside or van Zutphen from inside (or a combi-
nation of the two) should be given credit is of secondary importance.59 The
point is that, regardless of which man convinced the city council that the
Dordrecht cloister should be reformed, the same dynamics were at work.
Natives of the Low Countries who had studied in Wittenberg were sent back
to their homeland to represent the interests and expand the influence of
the Observant movement there. In turn, shortly after joining the German
Reformed Congregation, the cloister in Dordrecht began sending students
to Wittenberg – one in 1518, another in 1520 – thereby strengthening ties
between the two houses. As with the Cologne cloister, however, Dordrecht’s
decision to join the Congregation was met with resistance by the Conventu-
als. Even as early as 1514, when initial efforts were made to win the cloister
to the Observance, the Prior General of the Augustinian Order threatened

57 Hoop-Scheffer, Geschichte der Reformation, p. 71.
58 Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, pp. 275–276.
59 Günther puts the reform of the Dordrecht cloister down to a request from the young Hapsburg
prince Charles, who was not yet emperor, but already a duke of Burgundy and King of Spain.
In his correspondence register from August 1516, the Prior General of the Augustinian Order
indicates that Charles expressed a desire that the cloister be given over to the ‘reform prior’,
by which Staupitz is meant. Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 344–345. The king’s request
certainly was a key factor in the Dordrecht cloister’s joining the Congregation, but I believe it
is a mistake to dismiss van Zutphen’s and van Mechelen’s manoeuvring in the process.
the Observants with excommunication ‘should they continue to harass

the Augustinians in Dordrecht’.60 Ultimately, however, the Observants
triumphed.
The precise means by which the remaining houses of the Congregation’s
Province of Lower Germany became reformed is not always this clear, but
they likely followed paths similar to Cologne and Dordrecht. In the case
of Ghent, Pope Leo X was involved directly. In letters dated 28 September
1514 sent to the Provincial of the Cologne Province and the Vicar General of
the German Reformed Congregation (i.e., Staupitz) respectively, Leo related
that he had heard evil tidings regarding the moral failings of the friars in
Ghent. The Order’s rule was not being carefully followed there, and this had
led to strife with the citizenry. Fifteen years earlier, the pope claimed, the
Cologne Provincial had already attempted to reform that house, but the
brothers there would not allow it. They had simply expelled the Provincial
from their house. Under threat of punishment, the pope now demanded
a strict reform, warning that if they failed, he would involve the temporal
authorities. He commanded that those brothers who refused to accept
reform be ordered to leave the house, and Observants brought in to take
their places.61 The Prior General of the Augustinian Order also weighed
in, backing up the pope’s demands. In a letter dated 8 October 1514, he
commanded the Vicar General and the Cologne Provincial to reform the
cloister in accordance with the will of the pope. Having been assigned the
task, and despite the fact that the pope had explicitly stated that he did
not want this action used as a pretext to remove the Ghent house from
the oversight of the Cologne Provincial, Staupitz was able to incorporate it
into the German Reformed Congregation by simply annexing it.62 Precisely
when this happened is unclear, but it must have been before 1520, since in
that year the Congregation sent one of its own to be prior in Ghent and four
brothers from Ghent went to study in Wittenberg.63
60 ‘[F]alls sie die Augustiner in Dordrecht weiterhin belästigen’. Zumkeller, ‘Johannes von
Staupitz’, p. 45.
61 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 7, p. 137. In 1493 the Prior
General of the Order had indeed attempted to reform the Ghent cloister. On 17 August, 1493,
he had written to the Cologne Provincial warning him that at the request of the city fathers,
he had until the next Easter to reform the cloister or he promised them he would give the task
to the Vicar General of the Saxon Province. Apparently the requested reform never took place.
Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 5, p. 429.
62 Posset, The Front-Runner, p. 126. Günther suggests that the city fathers had probably already
asked that the cloister be put under the jurisdiction of the Congregation, and that request gave
Staupitz the necessary pretext to annex it. Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 344.
The establishment of the Antwerp house once again demonstrates Johann

van Mechelen’s role as chief representative of the Observants’ interests in
Lower Germany, not to mention the Congregation’s concerted efforts to
expand into the Low Countries. Sources suggest that as prior of Enkhuizen
van Mechelen forged a plan to found a sister-house in Antwerp, convincing
two wealthy citizens there to sell the Congregation a plot of land.64 Brother
George Stephanus was sent from Enkhuizen to Antwerp as the leader of a
small group of Observant Augustinians, who began to lay the groundwork.
Because it is so central to the larger story, the founding of the Antwerp
house will be addressed more fully in the next chapter, but for now suffice
it to say that its origins were not without controversy, for this little group of
Augustinians soon ran into conflict with the powerful local canons of the
Church of Our Lady. Eventually, this disagreement was resolved and in 1514
Staupitz installed van Mechelen as prior of the newly established Antwerp
house, at the same time naming him District Vicar of the Congregation’s new
Province of Lower Germany.65 Among the seven brothers who accompanied
van Mechelen to Antwerp was Johann van den Esschen. His presence on the
list of the house’s original members is the first surviving reference to the
friar who, less than a decade later, would be burned at the stake.66 Between
1516 and 1520, van Mechelen and his successor would send six students from
the Antwerp cloister to study in Wittenberg.67
By c. 1516, the German Reformed Congregation had established itself in
the Low Countries, carving out the reasonably coherent Province of Lower
Germany with its own District Vicar and with seven member houses. The
strategies they used to win established friaries to the Reformed Congrega-
tion and to create new houses were not unique to the territories of Lower
Germany, but can be seen, for example, in the Eisleben friary as well. They
relied heavily on the placement of enthusiastic and energetic individuals
in key positions, and on the recruitment of young friars to pursue studies
in Wittenberg before returning to their home cloisters in Lower Germany
to represent the Observant cause.
This constant rotation of individuals from one Reformed Congregation
house to another deserves to be underscored, for the deck, it seems, was
reshuffled with some regularity. It is especially clear from the Congregation’s
assignment of priorships that the individuals who held them were continually

66 Clemen, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster’, p. 306.
67 Vercruysse, ‘Was haben die Sachsen’, p. 13.
being redeployed, often every three years as a result of decisions made at the
Congregation’s chapter meetings. A few individuals who will be introduced
more fully in later chapters provide examples of this phenomenon. Melchior
Miritsch was named prior in Wittenberg in 1509, Cologne in 1512, Dresden
in 1519, Ghent in 1520, and Magdeburg in 1522. Wenceslaus Linck would
be prior in Wittenberg from 1511 to 1515, preacher in Nuremberg from 1517
to 1520, and finally Vicar General of the Congregation from 1520 to 1523.
Johann van Mechelen was named prior in Enkhuizen in 1507, Antwerp in
1514, and Dordrecht in 1520. Hendrik van Zutphen would become sub-prior
in Cologne in 1514, prior in Dordrecht in 1516, and prior in Antwerp in 1522.
And Jacob Probst was almost certainly prior in Wittenberg from 1515 to
1518, before becoming prior in Antwerp from 1518 to 1521.68 One scholar has
suggested that Staupitz moved individuals to various positions within the
Congregation like ‘pawns on a chess board’.69
No direct evidence for why particular individuals were installed in specific
positions exists, but it is not difficult to see a clear rationale at work in many
cases. Van Mechelen, a man who had studied under Staupitz, possessed
considerable experience as prior in Enkhuizen, and as a native of the Low
Countries seems the obvious choice to be the first prior of the house in
Antwerp. His successor, Jacob Probst, also came from the Low Countries,
had studied in Wittenberg and been prior of the house there for three years
before being sent back to the Low Countries to lead the Antwerp cloister.
Such assignments display a clear logic, and it does not take much imagination
to deduce that certain individuals were probably prepared intentionally for
specific positions. In fact, Staupitz’s habit of grooming promising individuals
for key positions is well-known, not least in the case of Martin Luther himself,
who at the insistence of the Vicar General began the intensive study of the
Bible, attended university, became a Doctor of Theology, and finally took
over Staupitz’s own position as Professor of Theology at the University of
Wittenberg.70 And even if the rationale for such placements is not always
clear, two aspects of Staupitz’s system are: first, these appointments were
68 Bünger and Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’, esp. pp. 460–499.

69 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, p. 207. Here Saak is talking in particular about Staupitz’s
placement of individuals who had opposed his plan to become both Provincial of the Saxon
Province and Vicar General of the German Reformed Congregation simultaneously.
70 Heiko Oberman has argued that such ‘person politics’, the strategic placement of specific
individuals into positions of power and influence for the purpose of a larger cause, was the method
used by Staupitz in 1512 when he had Wenceslaus Link named prior of the friary in Wittenberg,
and Martin Luther named as sub-prior and Regent of the studium generale. Oberman, Martin
Luther, p. 154.
made by either the Vicar General alone or in conjunction with the advice
of representatives of various houses attending the Congregation’s chapter
meetings. In other words, priors were not necessarily elected by members
of a given cloister; rather they were appointed. And second, the movement
of these men from one post to another was an intentional aspect of the
Congregation’s structure and administration.71
But simply carrying out the reform of a friary at the level of its leader
did not necessarily ensure that it remained reformed or that it retained
close connections to the Congregation. Lasting change required that all
friars in the house were committed to the Observant cause. It comes as
no surprise that in some of the newly reformed houses in Lower Germany
divisions remained between brothers who supported the Observants and
those more inclined towards the Conventuals. As a result, the hierarchy
of the Reformed Augustinians also “seeded” new cloisters with at least a
few staunch Observant brothers, as demonstrated in the foundation of the
Haarlem house and alluded to in the pope’s threat to remove all Conventuals
and replace them with Observants in the Ghent house.
The point is that by c. 1520, the hierarchy of the German Reformed Congrega-
tion had developed a variety of strategies by which to expand its influence to
new cloisters and to promote Observance within them. But most important for
the current discussion is the fact that all of these strategies could be repurposed
by proponents of the Reformation to promote Luther’s teachings within the
Congregation. However, the question arises as to when the Congregation’s
efforts to encourage Observant Augustinianism were transformed into support
for the Reformation, and whether it was even clear to those involved when
reform of the order became the Reformation of the Church.72
The Dissemination of Luther’s Ideas within the Congregation
Before addressing the dissemination of Luther’s ideas within the Congregation,

it is important to emphasize that the argument here is not that the content of
71 According to the Augustinian Order’s Regensburg Constitution, a cloister in need of a new

prior proposed three candidates, and at the Provincial chapter meeting, one was chosen. The
appointed prior then remained at his post until the next chapter meeting either removed him, or
placed him as prior in another cloister. Günther, Reform and Reformation, p. 29. I am suggesting
that within the German Reformed Congregation, however, Staupitz played a leading role in the
placement of priors.
72 Much outstanding work has been done on this topic, most recently by Eric Saak. See his
Highway to Heaven and Luther and the Reformation.
the reform advocated by the promoters of Observance is causally connected

or even necessarily related to the content of Luther’s Reformation. In fact,
as Eric Saak has recently pointed out, in his first course of lectures on the
Psalms (Dictata super Psalterium, 1513–1515), Luther had already ‘launched
out against the monastic observant movement, which included the observant
branch of his own order […] Luther claimed that such “do not truly understand
that they are justified in Christ alone, not in their own works.”’73 What is
more, continues Saak, regarding Luther’s time as District Vicar, ‘the term
‘reformation’ is not found in his letters. He never exhorted a single monastery
to reformation. He never exhorted a single monastery as such to live more in
accordance with the Rule and Constitutiones [of the Order and Congregation
respectively]. There is no religionization attempt seen in Luther’s letters.
There is no evidence he attempted to apply Giles of Viterbo’s reformation
to his district’.74 So the point here is not that the content of Observance and
Luther’s Reformation are directly linked. Rather it is that the expanding
network of Observant houses, though they were indeed a seedbed for Luther’s
ideas, more importantly provided an audience, administrative structure, and
networking assets that could be applied to the dissemination of his ideas.
As a conduit for Luther’s ideas, the Congregation was ideally organized
and the variety of positions he held within it optimized his opportunities to
circulate his views. Luther’s roles within the Congregation and his education
in its ways will be discussed more fully in Chapter Four, but for now it
is enough to highlight a few aspects. The frequent rotation of personnel
throughout the Congregation’s cloisters – but more importantly, to and
from Wittenberg – ensured that personal contacts could be an important
means of spreading ideas. From its foundation in 1502 up to 1522, around
160 Augustinians studied at the University of Wittenberg.75 In his role as
Professor of the Bible, from 1512 onwards, Luther would have encountered
many of the best and brightest young minds that the Order and Congrega-
tion had to offer. In fact, by 1517 Luther would write to his friend Johannes
Lang, ‘By the work of God, our theology and St. Augustine continue to
prosper and reign in our university’,76 a reference to the curricular reforms
beginning to take place at the University of Wittenberg. These reforms
favoured a more humanistic study of languages and the Bible over Aristotle
73 Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke (=WA), 3:155,
quoted in Saak, Luther and the Reformation, p. 121.
74 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, p. 213.
75 Schneider, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’ Amtsverszicht’, p. 187.
76 ‘Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt et regnant in nostra universitate
Deo operante.’ Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr), 1.99.
and scholastic theology, changes that institutionalized instruction in the

disciplines upon which Luther’s positions were built.77 But Luther would
also have connected with many of these students in his position as head
of the Wittenberg’s cloister’s studium generale, a position he held from
1512 onwards; this was one of three such schools within the Congregation
preparing gifted young Reformed Augustinians for entrance to university. In
short, Luther’s academic career brought him into direct contact with many
of the Congregation’s most gifted friars and future “influencers”. Moreover,
he also held the title of District Vicar for the Congregation’s Province of
Saxony-Thuringia from 1515 to 1518, a position that put him in charge of
eleven cloisters and required him to perform visitations to each of them,
further expanding his potential to influence their members with his views.
Finally, it seems probable that his writings would have found an especially
wide circulation within the membership of his own group.
The Heidelberg Chapter Meeting (1518)
In his monograph Luther and the Reformation of the Later Middle Ages,
Eric Saak argues that Luther’s Reformation breakthrough, his discovery
of salvation by faith alone through grace, occurred squarely within the
context of late medieval Augustinianism and essentially remained within
the bounds of orthodoxy, even if various groups within the church opposed
it immediately. It was only in February of 1520, when Luther came to the
conclusion that the papacy was illegitimate and the Roman Church the
administration of the Antichrist, that the real break with Rome occurred.78
Although Saak’s distinction raises some questions, if we take it as generally
accurate, then an important means by which Luther spread the soteriological
components of his thought would have been at the Congregation’s chapter
meeting in Heidelberg in 1518. There Staupitz had decided to allow Luther
to present his views in a disputation that took place in late April as part
of the chapter meeting. For the disputation, Luther composed forty theses
that have been described as a comprehensive attack on scholastic theology,
and therefore a significant departure from the line of argumentation he
had been making in the ninety-five theses and many of his other early
writings.79 In the Heidelberg Theses, Luther addressed such issues as the
77 See Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform, esp. pp. 139–152.

78 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, pp. 345–347.
79 Brecht, Martin Luther, p. 225.
works of God and of man, arguing that those of man, no matter how good
they appeared, were probably sins: for, he claimed, everything that does
not proceed from grace and faith is a curse to God. He further outlined
a new anthropology in which the notion of postlapsarian free will was
nothing more than an empty expression. In what has become his most
famous formulation from these theses, he also set in opposition ‘theologians
of glory’ and ‘theologians of the cross’, essentially arguing that two very
different approaches to theology existed. The scholastic theologians –
theologians of glory – mistakenly focused on works and accomplishments;
true theologians – theologians of the cross – understood that only through
trials and testing did individual Christians achieve faith and hope. And
finally, Luther described his understanding of how salvation was achieved:
no one was made righteous through works, but righteousness came to all
who placed their faith in Christ.80
Because the theses were never published, the Heidelberg Disputation did
not have the same broad public impact of some of Luther’s other works, and
for that reason scholars have paid less attention to them. However, for the
audience members, many of them key representatives of the Congregation’s
cloisters, the disputation appears to have made a powerful impression. As a
result, many of the ranking members of the German Reformed Augustinians
were won over by Luther’s soteriological views,81 and so were a good number
of the guests, among them the future reformers Martin Bucer, Theobald
Billicanus, Johannes Brenz, and perhaps also Erhard Schnepf.82
Luther’s Break with Rome
If the events in the Low Countries are any indication, for the authorities who
opposed Luther a more important aspect of his message than his soteriology
was his view of ecclesiastical authority, as will become apparent in later
80 For a more comprehensive examination of Luther’s Heidelberg Theses, see Brecht, Martin
Luther, pp. 225–229.
81 Others have suggested, however, that widespread support for Luther came only after the
publication of his key treatises of 1520. See, for example, Günther, Reform und Reformation,
pp. 366–367.
82 Bünger and Wentz write that in the wake of the Disputation, ‘the spiritual leadership of
the German Augustinian Hermits was shifted to the Reformer’, ‘war die geistige Führung der
deutschen Augustinereremiten inzwischen an den Reformator übergegangen.’ Bünger and Wentz,
‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’, p. 449. For a list of noteworthy individuals
within the German Reformed Congregation who did not follow Luther’s lead, see Posset, The
Front-Runner, p. 20.
chapters. Of course, issues of ecclesiology and papal power were already

embedded in his criticism of indulgences in 1517, but it was not until February
of 1520 that he came to the realization, as one historian suggested, that ‘[the
entire papal Church was the structure of the Church of the Antichrist. That
which had been seen [by Luther] as the very mouthpiece of Christ, to whom
Christ had given his power, was a diabolical lie’.83 Although little evidence
exists that Luther’s rejection of the Roman Church and its authority was
disseminated through the Congregation in ways that differ from the rest
of his “discoveries”, by March of the following year he would write to an
unidentified brother:
They are working to get me to recant many articles, but my recantation

will be this: previously I said that the pope is the Vicar of Christ, now
I recant and say: the pope is the adversary of Christ and the apostle of the
devil. That most heinous and sacrilegious impiety by which they openly
damn Christ has compelled me to this.84
From this point on, the rift between those fellow friars who would sup-
port the Reformation and those who would remain loyal to the Observant
Augustinian cause would only widen, the division manifesting most clearly
in the highly pressurized world of early Reformation Lower Germany.85
Unsurprisingly, the question of authority would also become the chief bone
of contention between an increasingly vocal group of Reformed Augustinians
who followed Luther and the broader spectrum of forces opposing religious
dissent in Lower Germany.
Nevertheless, for those intent on promoting Luther’s ideas, a wealth of
strategies and methods pioneered by Staupitz and his predecessors were
now available to be repurposed; an administrative and educational structure
stood at the ready. It should come as no surprise that they would eventually
be utilized.
83 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, p. 344. Saak argues that this realization was, for Luther,
his real Reformation breakthrough, and that up until that point his ideas could be understood
as congruent with the teachings of the church, particularly his soteriology: ‘Luther made his
great discovery as a catholic, as a Roman catholic, theologian.’ p. 101. But his conviction that ‘The
Holy Mother Church of Rome had now been revealed as the Church of the Antichrist’, elicited
from him a ‘new departure, a new urgency, and a new intensification.’ p. 345.
84 WABr 2: 293. Quoted from Saak, Luther, p. 247.
85 For more on the nature of this rift and the reasons for it, see Günther, Reform und Reformation,
pp. 381–420.
Works Cited
Brecht, Martin, Martin Luther. Sein Weg zur Reformation: 1483–1521 (Berlin: Evan-
gelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986).
Bünger, Fritz and Gottfried Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’,
in Das Bistum Brandenburg, Part II, Germania Sacra, ed. by Gustav Abb and
Gottfried Wentz, 2 vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929–1941), 1.3: 440–499.
Christman, Robert J., Doctrinal Controversy and Lay Religiosity in Late Reformation
Germany: The Case of Mansfeld (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
Clemen, Otto, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster bei Beginn der Reformation
Duinen, Herman van, Een augustijnenklooster van aanzien: conventus sancti augus-
tini dordracencis 1275–1572 (Dordrecht: Historische Vereniging Oud-Dordrecht,
2010).
Hoop-Scheffer, J. G. de, Geschichte der Reformation in den Niederlanden von ihrem
Beginn bis zum Jahre 1531. Deutsche Originalausgabe, ed. by P. Gerlach (Leipzig:
G. Hirzel, 1886).
Jung, Martin H., ‘Gerhard Hecker und die Anfänge der Reformation in Osnabrück’,
in Miteinander leben? Reformation und Konfession im Fürstbistum Osnabrück
1500 bis 1700, Kulturregion Osnabrück vol. 31 (Münster: Waxman, 2017).
Kruse, Jens-Martin, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: die Anfänge der
Reformation in Wittenberg 1516–1522 (Mainz: von Zabern, 2002).
Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke
(=WA), vols. 1–73 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–).
———, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel (=WABr),
vols. 1–18 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930–1985).
Mixon, James D., ‘Religious Life and Observant Reform in the Fifteenth Century’,
History Compass 11 (2013), 201–214.
Oberman, Heiko A., Martin Luther, Mensch zwischen Gott und Teufel (Berlin: Severin
und Siedler: 1982).
Posset, Franz, The Front-Runner of the Catholic Reformation: The Life and Works of
Johann von Staupitz (Ashgate: Aldershot and Burlington, 2003).

Saak, Erik, Highway to Heaven: The Augustinian Platform between Reform and
Reformation, 1292–1524 (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
———, Luther and the Reformation of the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2017).
Schneider, Hans, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’ Amtsverszicht und Ordenswechsel’,
Augustiniana 66 (2016), 185–231.
———, ‘Martin Luthers Reise nach Rom – neu datiert und neu gedeutet’, in Studien
zur Wissenschafts- und zur Religionsgeschichte, vol. 10.2 (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011), pp. 1–158.
Vercruysse, Jos E., ‘Was haben die Sachsen und die Flamen gemeinsam…?’, in
Wittenberg als Bildungszentrum 1502–2002, ed. by Peter Freybe (Lutherstadt-
Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2002), pp. 9–32.
Walsh, Katherine, ‘Papacy and Local Reform: A) The Beginning of the Augustinian
Observance in Tuscany’, Römische historische Mitteilungen 21 (1979), 35–57.
Weinbrenner, Ralph, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert zwischen Ideal und Praxis:
Der Augustinereremit Andreas Proles (1429–1503) und die privilegierte Observanz,
Spätmittelalter und Reformation vol. 7 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996).
Wernicke, Michael (OSA), ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Orden und Klöster im
Zeitalter von Reformation und katholischer Reform 1500–1700’, 3 vols., Katholis-
ches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter des Glaubensspaltung vol. 66, ed. by
F.Jürgensmeier and R.E. Schwerdtfeger (Münster, Aschendorf, 2006), 2: 49–76.
Winterhager, Wilhelm, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars in der
Reformkongregation der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Vita Religiosa im
Mittelalter: Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Franz Felten
and Nikolas Jaspert (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), pp. 707–738.
Zumkeller, Adolar, ‘Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 36
vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 4: 728–739.
———, ‘Johannes von Staupitz und die klösterliche Reformbewegung’, Analecta
Augustiana 52 (1989), 31–49.
———, ‘Martin Luther und sein Orden’ Analecta Augustiana 25 (1962), 254–290.
Zschoch, Helmut, Klosterreform und monastische Spiritualität im 15. Jahrhundert.
Conrad von Zenn OESA (†1460) und sein Liber de vita monastica, Beiträge zur
Historischen Theologie (Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988).
3. The Antwerp Cloister
Abstract
Being central to the events leading to the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen, the history of the Reformed Augustinian cloister in Antwerp
receives its own chapter. From its controversial founding in 1513 as part
of Staupitz’s push to expand the Congregation’s influence into Lower
Germany, a development that elicited the ire of local ecclesiastics and
their legal representative Adrian Floriszoon (future Pope Adrian VI),
to its destruction in early 1524 at the command of Emperor Charles V,
this chapter traces the brief and troubled history of Lower Germany’s
flagship cloister. It also introduces key actors connected to the cloister’s
early history before it became a leading ‘hearth’ of Reformation ideas in
the Low Countries.
Key Words: Antwerp Augustinians, Jerome Aleander, Margaret of Austria,

Jacob Probst, Hendrik van Zutphen, Inquisition
At the epicentre of the approaching struggle over the Reformed Augustin-

ians of Lower Germany stood the Congregation’s Antwerp cloister. More
than any other of the Province’s seven houses, the actions of the Antwerp
Augustinians demonstrate the Congregation’s expansionist strategy under
Staupitz, the means used to confirm Observance in the new house, and how
the methods to spread Observant Reform were repurposed in the service of
the Reformation. Given this arc, it is not surprising that the forces opposed
to Reformation ideas would focus their sights most closely on the Antwerp
cloister. Because of its pivotal role in this narrative, it is necessary to show
as precisely as possible what happened in and to that cloister in the years
and months leading up of the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, in
order to deconstruct and analyse these events and then examine their
impact in later chapters.
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch03
The Antwerp cloister from its founding to the installation of

Jacob Probst as Prior
Of the six houses to join the German Reformed Congregation during

Staupitz’s tenure as Vicar General, the Antwerp cloister represents the
most audacious example of the group’s expansionist tendencies. For while
there is some evidence that the Congregation’s intervention in the Cologne,
Dordrecht, and Ghent cloisters came as the result of requests from the
patrons of those houses (generally the city councils) – even if the Augustin-
ians themselves had encouraged such requests, as seems to have been the
case in Dordrecht – the impulse to establish the Antwerp house came solely
from within the Congregation. In this regard, Antwerp was unique among
the Congregation’s cloisters.
As the story has been traditionally told, in 1513, Johann van Mechelen,
at that time prior of the Reformed Augustinian house in Enkhuizen, of his
own accord simply forged and then executed a plan to establish a new house
in the thriving metropolis of Antwerp, one of Europe’s largest cities. But
this little narrative seems naive. To my knowledge, never before had the
Congregation simply decided to colonize a new city or town without the
express request of powerful local patrons, as had been the case with the
newly established Eisleben cloister. And there can be little doubt that in
this daring plan, van Mechelen was acting in compliance with the wishes,
or at very least the knowledge of his Vicar General, Staupitz, since in 1511,
Staupitz had visited Holland and Brabant and must have acquired a clear
picture of the situation there. Early the next year, he met van Mechelen in
Salzburg as the latter travelled home from Rome, where he had been on the
Congregation’s business. From there the two men journeyed together to
the Congregation’s chapter meeting in Cologne, which took place in May of
1512. Upon his return from Cologne to Enkhuizen, van Mechelen began the
process of establishing the cloister in Antwerp.1 It is difficult to imagine
that the plans for expansion were not forged either in private conversations
with Staupitz, or more likely at the chapter meeting in Cologne.
Van Mechelen quickly found two merchants, Joost Hoens and Marcus
Mussche, who had bought up large amounts of land in the area that would
eventually become the St. Andreas Quarter and who were willing to sell the
Augustinians a plot with a house on it, half a kilometre from the city centre
and Antwerp’s main church, the Church of Our Lady. Little is known about
these two men other than the fact that Mussche, a wealthy merchant, had

The Ant werp Cloister 49
a son-in-law from Leipzig – Wolf Reitweiser, also a merchant – to whom

Mussche would sell a number of buildings in Antwerp. Reitweiser was just
one of many German traders in the city, a fact that raises the possibility that
the establishment of this cloister had a certain German/Saxon dimension
to it from the beginning.2 With many German merchants operating in the
city of Antwerp, this would certainly have been possible, but there is not
enough evidence to confirm it. Be that as it may, Hoen and Mussche were
essentially land speculators or developers.3 Having procured the land, van
Mechelen sent a small group of Augustinians from Enkhuizen to Antwerp
under the leadership of friar George Stephanus. The group quickly built a
chapel dedicated to the Trinity, which by 1513 was complete enough to host
church services.
It is particularly noteworthy that, unlike the Congregation’s other clois-
ters, when it was founded the new Antwerp enterprise had neither noble
support nor the patronage of the city council. What is more, the chapel
was established without the permission of the powerful canons of the
Church of Our Lady who, to a large degree, dictated the religious life and
ecclesiastical politics of the city. It is inconceivable that van Mechelen, not
to mention Hoens and Mussche, were not aware of their influence and did
not foresee that this new project would cause tensions, raising as it did the
possibility of a reduction in the canons’ income through loss of attendees,
penitents, and donations to the Augustinians. 4 The Augustinians’ strategy
in founding the Antwerp house was thus to beg for forgiveness, rather than
to ask for permission.
And indeed it did not take long for the canons to contact their legal
representative, Adrian Floriszoon, Professor of Theology at the nearby
University of Leuven, Dean of St. Peter’s in that city, and recently elected
dean of the chapter of the Church of Our Lady in Antwerp.5 Most pertinent
to the fate of the Augustinians, however, was the fact that Floriszoon would
later become Pope Adrian VI (1522–1523), under whose pontificate Vos
2 Harreld, High Germans in the Low Countries, p. 91.

3 Prims, ‘Het vette Vlaminkje’, p. 68. It is important to note that Mussche and Hoen were
in no way patrons who had invited the Reformed Augustinians to Antwerp, but rather land
speculators who saw a simple business opportunity.
4 Clemen, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster’, p. 307.
5 In 1513, Floriszoon was elected dean of the chapter of Our Lady in Antwerp. But because the
pope had already offered the position to Jacob de Banisiis, secretary of Emperor Maximillian,
shortly after negotiations over the Augustinian cloister in Antwerp were completed Floriszoon
relinquished his claims to that position. Gielis and Gielis, ‘Adrian of Utrecht’, p. 13; Akerboom
and Gielis suggest simply that Adrian’s position as protector (dean) of the Antwerp chapter was
disputed. ‘“A New Song Shall Begin Here”’, p. 245.
and van den Esschen would meet their demise. Floriszoon responded to
the aggressive tactics of the Augustinians with equal belligerence. On
20 August 1513, he sent Stephanus a letter demanding that he close the
chapel, destroy it, and hand over any profits already earned by the friars.
When Stephanus made no move to comply, the command was repeated on
12 September, this time with the threat of a citation before the papal court
in Mechelen, and ultimately excommunication. Such intimidation appears
to have rattled Stephanus, for on 3 October 1513 he sent the money along
with a letter asking forgiveness and explaining that he had only hesitated
to respond because he had not been given permission to comply by his
superior, Johann van Mechelen.6
Van Mechelen now arrived in Antwerp, immediately demonstrating that
he was not deterred by this turn of events. Together with Hoens and Mussche,
he bypassed the Antwerp city council and, taking the case directly to the
Council of Brabant, the territorial government of Charles V, began a formal
judicial process against the canons of the Church of Our Lady. The conclusion
of this proceeding on 23 February 1514 was that the Council of Brabant gave
permission to the Augustinians to build a cloister on the property they had
received and to retain their chapel. Of course, this outcome displeased the
canons, and they continued to assert their case in the Council of Brabant,
requesting that the Augustinians cease their activities for fourteen days so
that the Antwerp city council could offer an opinion on the issue. But the
Augustinians refused, moving forward with their plans and holding church
services, thereby further embittering the canons.
In the meantime, the Augustinians found an ally in the city council,
which sent messengers to the Council of Brabant indicating support for
the Augustinians in their efforts to establish a cloister. The Council of
Brabant now sent two negotiators to Antwerp, one of whom, Frans van
der Hulst, would preside less than a decade later over the Inquisition that
burned Hendrik Vos and Johann van den Esschen. Thus van der Hulst was
familiar with the Augustinians of Antwerp from their very beginnings.
From April to July the negotiations continued, with multiple meetings in
which representatives of the various groups (the Augustinians, the canons
of the Church of Our Lady, the Antwerp city council, and the Council of
Brabant) met in the canons’ quarters. The city council assured the canons
that if they would drop their case against the Augustinians, the council
would find ways to remunerate them. The canons argued that the presence
6 Visschers, Geschiedenis van St. Andries Kerk, vol. 1, p. 2. Visschers offers the fullest account
of the establishment of the cloister that I have found.
of this new cloister would have a negative impact not only on them but
on the common welfare of the city, and on other churches and cloisters.
Eventually, all sides were convinced to follow the latest ruling of the Council
of Brabant, which finally came on 20 July 1514: the Augustinians, it stated,
were allowed to proceed with their plans. At this point it was clear that,
with the support of the Council of Brabant and the Antwerp city council,
Floriszoon and the canons could do nothing to stop the establishment
of the cloister.7 On 22 July 1514, representatives from the Augustinians
and the canons met in the house of the Chancellor of Brabant, where they
concluded an agreement. That same day, Floriszoon along with two solicitors
went to the Church of Our Lady to obtain the consent of the full chapter
of canons, before proceeding to the Augustinians’ house to acquire that
community’s approval. 8 Thus eight years later, when Vos and van den
Esschen were executed, the Observant Augustinians of Antwerp were not
some abstraction for Pope Adrian VI, then far away in Rome. He had been
to their quarters and met them face to face.
In 1514, Staupitz named Johann van Mechelen the cloister’s first prior
and simultaneously installed him as the German Reformed Congregation’s
first District Vicar of the newly established Province of Lower Germany.9
With van Mechelen ensconced and with the support of various authorities,
the cloister quickly bloomed. Staupitz, too, continued to support the new
house, visiting the Low Countries in 1514 and 1516, spending an especially
long time at the Antwerp cloister, which had quickly expanded to include
about twenty friars.10
Connections to Wittenberg
From the beginning, Staupitz and van Mechelen fostered close ties between
the new cloister and Wittenberg. As previously noted, van Mechelen and
his successor sent young recruits from Antwerp to their alma mater: two
in 1516, three in 1517, and another in 1520.11 But what made the connection
even stronger was that, in addition to the fact that the cloister’s f irst
prior had studied in Wittenberg, Antwerp’s next two priors, Jacob Probst
7 Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 53.

8 Gielis and Gielis, ‘Adrian of Utrecht (1459–1523)’, p. 18. Much of the summary of these
negotiations comes from Visschers, Geschiedenis van St. Andries Kerk, vol. 1, pp. 1–7.
and Hendrik van Zutphen, were also graduates of that University. And
while van Mechelen would eventually break with Luther, Probst and van
Zutphen who were contemporaries of the Reformer, would become his close
personal friends and lifelong supporters. Probst (c. 1495–1562), who hailed
from Ypres, began his career as an Augustinian in the Haarlem cloister.
He came to Wittenberg in 1505 and in 1509 received his Master of Arts
(magister artium) degree. Staying on in Saxony, he was prior in Wittenberg
from 1515 to 1518, where he would have been on hand to experience the
beginnings of the indulgence controversy.12 He succeeded van Mechelen
as prior of the Antwerp cloister in 1518, a post he would hold until 1522.
During this period, Erasmus of Rotterdam described him in a letter to
Luther as follows:
There is a man in Antwerp, prior of the monastery, a genuine Christian,

who is most devoted to you and was once your pupil, or so he says. He is
almost the only one who preaches Christ; the others, as a rule, preach
the inventions of men or their own profit.13
Even Probst’s critic, the papal nuncio Jerome Aleander, connected him
closely to the Reformer, referring to him as ‘the man who preaches only
Luther’s doctrines’. 14 The Antwerp prior’s connections to Wittenberg
were strengthened when Probst returned to his alma mater from May to
September 1521. Hidden away in the Wartburg at the time, Luther wrote to
Melanchthon asking him to extend his greetings to a number of individuals,
but not ‘the fat little Flemish guy’ because, indicated Luther, he preferred
to write to Probst directly.15 This offhand comment suggests a close and
congenial relationship between the two men.
Hendrik van Zutphen, the other key representative of the exchange
between the Antwerp Augustinians and Wittenberg, likely hailed from the
Dutch town of Zutphen and probably joined the Reformed Augustinians in
12 The prior during that period is referred to in the sources only by his first name, Jacob. Of the
three Jacobs who were members of the cloister during this period only Probst had the appropriate
education to hold the position of prior. Bünger and Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in
Wittenberg’, p. 468.
13 ‘Est Antuerpiae Prior eius monasterii, vir pure Christianus, qui te unice deamat, tuus olim
discipulus, ut predicat. Is omnium pene solus Christum praedicat: caeteri fere aut hominum
fabulas aut suum quaestum praedicant’. Erasmus to Martin Luther, 30 May 1519, in Erasmus,
Opus epistolarum, vol. 3, p. 607.
14 ‘[E]l qual sempre predicava la dottrina di Luther’. Aleander to Giulio de Medici, 2 September
1521, in Aleandro, Aleander und Luther, pp. 262–263.
15 ‘[D]as fette Flemmichen’. Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 2:349.
their Enkhuizen cloister.16 He matriculated in Wittenberg in 1508, receiving

his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1509 and his Master of Arts in February of
1511. Thereafter he remained in Wittenberg until 1515, perhaps as a lector in
the cloister’s studium generale. If he did indeed work as a lector during this
period then while honing his skills as a pedagogue he would have worked
closely with Luther, the studium’s regent or director from 1512 onwards.17 In
1515, van Zutphen, whose abilities and whose zeal must have been apparent
to his superiors, was sent back to Lower Germany to be sub-prior in the
Cologne cloister, recently added to the Congregation (1509) and the site of
another studium generale. It seems likely that his orders were to assist in
confirming Observance among the friars there.
After a short stay in Cologne, van Zutphen was sent on to Dordrecht, where
he took part in the Observant reform of that cloister, and in 1516 became its
prior. As prior, van Zutphen began sending students to Wittenberg, one in
1518 and another in 1520, thereby strengthening ties between the two houses
and bolstering the reform agenda. In 1520, van Zutphen relinquished his
position in Dordrecht and returned to Wittenberg to continue his education,
but also, it seems, to seek advice on how to proceed in the face of opposition
in the Low Countries. Beyond basic details, evidence is scarce regarding van
Zutphen’s second stay in Wittenberg. He studied with Luther, earning his
Bachelor of the Bible degree (baccalaureus biblicus) on 14 January 1521, and
16 Duinen, Hendrik van Zutphen, p. 9. Van Duinen speculates that because the Dordrecht
cloister had not yet become reformed and joined the German Congregation, the most likely
location of van Zutphen’s entry into the Observant Augustinians was Enkhuizen.
17 There is some debate as to whether Luther knew van Zutphen during his initial stay in
Wittenberg. Van Duinen thinks it improbable. Referring to a 1516 letter in which Luther wrote
of the Dordrecht cloister, ‘The prior there is the lector Hendrik van Zutphen, who, as they say,
once studied with us’ (‘Prior est ibidem Lector Henricus, noster olim [ut illi dicunt] constudens’.
WABr 1:73), van Duinen suggests that the phrase ‘as they say’ indicates that in 1516, Luther did
not know van Zutphen. Duinen, Hendrik van Zutphen, p. 31. But there is also evidence to suggest
that the two men were at least acquainted during this period. In 1525, Johannes Lang, who came
to Wittenberg in 1511, mentions living and studying there ‘day and night’ with van Zutphen for
three or four years (=1511–1514 or 1515). See letter of Johannes Lang to Casper Schalb in Lang,
Historia wie S. Heinrich von Zutphan, p. 2. If van Zutphen was indeed in Wittenberg during this
period, it is difficult to imagine that he did not cross paths with Luther, particularly in light of the
fact that members of the Augustinian Order were required to live in the cloister and take meals
together. And in the letter referring to the Dordrecht house, Luther designated van Zutphen as
a lector, a position that he would have attained while in Wittenberg. If he not only attained that
position, but also taught in that capacity in Wittenberg, he would have worked directly under
the auspices of the studium generale’s director, Luther himself. Finally, as will be noted below,
in 1519, in his capacity as prior in Dordrecht, van Zutphen wrote directly to Luther to complain
about the situation in the Low Countries, and passing on the news to Staupitz, Luther referred
to van Zutphen in familiar terms, suggesting that the two men were already acquainted.
his Bachelor of the Sentences (baccalaureus Sententiarum) under Andreas

Bodenstein von Karlstadt on 11 October 1521. But we know little more than
this about his activities, which ended in June of 1522 when he returned to
the Low Countries and assumed Probst’s mantel as prior of the Antwerp
house. In any event, by the time he left Wittenberg in early summer of 1522
he had strengthened his ties to Luther and deepened his understanding of
the Wittenberg Theology.18
These connections between Antwerp and Wittenberg naturally raise the
question as to whether Hendrik Vos and Johann van den Esschen were among
those with personal ties to Saxony. Although the two friars do not appear in
the matriculation records of the University of Wittenberg, some evidence
exists to suggest a connection to Luther, albeit a rather oblique one.19 One
contemporary source claims that Vos and van den Esschen spent time in the
newly founded German Reformed Augustinian cloister of St. Anne’s (1515)
in Eisleben in the territory of Mansfeld. Although the men do not appear
on the list of friars at the cloister’s founding, nor on a second list of brothers
composed in 1521, Cyriakus Spangenberg – a Lutheran theologian, pastor, and
historian whose father Johannes had been Mansfeld’s first superintendent
(1546–1550), and who himself lived and worked in the territory for twenty-two
years (1550–1572) – nevertheless claimed that the two men did reside at St.
Anne’s for a time. As members of the newly founded Antwerp cloister (1514),
perhaps they were deemed to have the special knowledge, skills, or ardour
required to establish a new house; as has been demonstrated, the Observant
Augustinians were in the habit of seeding new and newly reformed houses
with zealous, committed, and capable brothers.20 If Vos and van den Esschen
were indeed sent to Eisleben for a time, Luther would likely have met them
when he visited that cloister in 1515 and 1516 as part of his duties as District
Vicar of the Congregation’s Province of Saxony-Thuringia, a position he held
18 During this period, for example, Luther, who was sequestered in the Wartburg, sent his
greetings to van Zutphen via Melanchthon, a deed that suggests a close friendship had developed
between the two men. WABr 2:349. However opinions vary as to which of his “teachers” influenced
van Zutphen’s theology the most, Luther, Karlstadt, or even Erasmus. See Duinen, Hendrik van
Zutphen, pp. 21–26.
19 This is the thesis of Julius Boehmer. See Boehmer, ‘Die Beschaffenheit der Quellenschriften’,
pp. 112–133.
20 It might be noted that this method was not limited to the German Reformed Augustinians.
From the earliest days of the Observant movement within the Augustinian order there is
evidence that newly installed priors were already allowed to bring a few ‘exemplary friars’ and
‘socii’ with them to their new houses in an effort to ensure their authority. Walsh, ‘Papacy and
Local Reform: B)’, pp. 111, 127.
from 1515 to 1518.21 Or perhaps he would have crossed paths with them when
he stayed in St. Anne’s for a few days upon his return from Heidelberg in 1518.
Also relevant to this question is Luther’s initial response to the news of the
executions of Vos and van den Esschen, which comes in a letter dated 22 or
23 July 1523, sent to his close friend George Spalatin (1484–1545), court chaplain
and secretary to the Elector Frederick the Wise. In it, the Reformer indicated
that two Augustinian friars had been burned, then stated specifically that
one of them had been named Johannes Nesse (=Johann van den Esschen) and
that he was not yet thirty years of age.22 Of course, it is possible that Luther
was merely repeating whatever details he had heard. But his reference to
van den Esschen suggests a certain familiarity, for he includes a name and
an age. Had both Vos and van den Esschen been unfamiliar to him, it seems
unlikely that he would have offered Spalatin (to whom both were undoubtedly
unknown) such information, rather than merely noting that two friars had
been burned. Spangenberg’s claim has the further ring of truth in that he
hints that Vos and van den Esschen had a particular connection to Probst, for
he writes that they left Eisleben in order to live under Probst’s leadership in
Antwerp, a post he assumed in 1518.23 As natives of the Low Countries, such a
connection to a fellow Lowlander would be entirely conceivable. If it actually
occurred, was Vos and van den Esschen’s time in Eisleben another case of
young friars being sent to a particular house for a time before returning to
their home cloister, a practice with a long history within the Congregation? It
is certainly plausible. If so, then, like Adrian Floriszoon, when Martin Luther
thought about the Antwerp Augustinians, he could put faces to names.
Critics of the Lower German Augustinians
A key aspect of the exchange between Antwerp and Wittenberg was, of

course, the transfer of information. From his close personal connections with
Probst and van Zutphen there is no doubt that Luther and his colleagues in
Wittenberg had extensive and direct knowledge of the situation in the Low
Countries.24 A key component of this knowledge was a clear understanding
21 Wilhelm Winterhager suggests that as District Vicar, Luther was heavily involved with
establishment and integration of the Eisleben cloister into the Congregation. Winterhager,
‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, p. 737.
22 WABr 3:115.
23 Spangenberg, Mansfeldische Chronica, in Mansfelder Blätter 31–32 (1918), p. 341.
24 In addition to face-to-face meetings, it is clear that extensive networks of correspondence
existed, as can be seen in the letters of Martin Luther, Johann von Staupitz, Wenceslaus Link,
of the forces critical of the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany, for

while Observant students were journeying back and forth between the Low
Countries and Wittenberg, both Luther and his fellow friars in Antwerp
were collecting opponents, among them high-ranking representatives of
the pope and emperor.
Upon his return to the Low Countries from the Diet of Worms in the spring
of 1521, the newly elected Holy Roman Emperor Charles V had established a
state-run inquisition in Brabant, installing a Leuven jurist and member of the
Council of Brabant, Frans van der Hulst, as its head: the same van der Hulst
who had assisted with the negotiations between the Antwerp Augustinians
and the canons of the Church of Our Lady.25 Having witnessed widespread
support for Luther among the German princes and laity in Worms, Charles
was eager to confront this heresy in his ancestral homelands – so eager that
he took this unprecedented step, for under normal circumstances, heresy
trials were the domain of the Episcopal authorities. In this case, however, the
danger was so acute that Charles decided to establish his own inquisition.
What is more, whereas other popes might have balked at this intrusion
on church authority, Charles seems to have realized that he could count
on the support of his former tutor, Adrian Floriszoon, who indeed gave
his imprimatur to the enterprise upon his accession to the papal throne
in 1522.26 But as a layman, van der Hulst was required to enlist the help
Johannes Lang, and George Spalatin, who are constantly passing on the latest news to one
another. And Luther would occasionally receive letters directly from Probst. See for example
Luther’s reference to such missives in a letter of the Reformer to Spalatin dated 1 September
1520, WABr 2:180–181.
25 In the Low Countries there were a variety of levels upon which the repression of religious
dissent could take place (episcopal, papal, etc.), all of which have been referred to at some
point or another as “inquisitions”. Following the lead of Gert Gielis and Violet Soen, I will use
the term only to refer to this particular body, which Gielis and Soen define as ‘a novel sort of
inquisitor-general’, which ‘began to function in the Habsburg Netherlands from 1522–3 onwards.
As a rule, these were appointed by the ruler of the Low Countries and subsequently confirmed
by the pope through an official mandate and instruction’. Gielis and Soen, ‘The Inquisitorial
Office’, p. 51.
26 Much correspondence between Charles and Adrian has survived and it is characterized
by expressions of mutual affection. For example, on 3 July 1522, Charles wrote to Adrian, ‘It is
impossible to render sufficient gratitude on behalf of my brother and myself for the paternal
love that your holiness has bestowed upon us, and the grief that your heart endures on account
of this affair. We offer you our lives, as faithful sons of the church of your said holiness’ (‘Lamour
paternelle que votre sainctete porte a mon frere et a moy, et la payne que avez de prandre noz
affaires tant a cueur, ne vous en scauroye render assez de grace de sa part et de la myenne,
vous offrant noz personnes, comme de bons filz de leglise et de votredite sainctete’). Lanz, ed.
Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl V., p. 59.
of various ecclesiastics, which he did from the ranks of those theologians

who had already been working to stem the tide of Reformation ideas in the
Low Countries. These included the emperor’s father confessor, friar Jean
Glapion; the papal nuncio, Jerome Aleander, recently returned from Worms;
the Leuven Professors of theology, Nicholas of Egmond and Jacob Latomus;
and the well-known Dominican inquisitor, Jacob Hochstraten of Cologne.27
These men, along with their assistants, comprised the short-lived first phase
of the imperial inquisition in the Low Countries.28
By the end of 1521, Luther and his colleagues in Wittenberg had already
interacted with many of the members of this coalition. Luther had stood
before the emperor in April of 1521 and had been officially declared an
outlaw of the empire. At Worms, he had also encountered Aleander, who
had done his utmost to persuade the emperor to forbid Luther from coming
to the Diet, and then to force him to recant once he arrived. And it was
Aleander who drafted the Edict of Worms and ultimately convinced the
emperor to sign it. As to Glapion and Egmond, Luther had referred to the
former as the emperor’s ‘devil’, and the latter as ‘most arrogant and most
Franciscan’, demonstrating that he had already formed clear opinions of
these men.29 The Dominican Inquisitor Hochstraten, well-known for his
opposition to Johannes Reuchlin, had denounced Luther’s last thesis of the
Leipzig Disputation, to which Luther responded in a treatise of 1519.30 As to
Latomus, he was a member of the faculty of theology at Leuven that had
condemned Luther on 7 November 1519. Since the faculty had not included
an explanation of the articles it had denounced, but had merely listed them,
Latomus took it upon himself to lecture on the issue in 1520, then to write
a treatise in 1521 explaining the reasons why those propositions had been
27 Jacob Hochstraten (d. 1527), Dominican and inquisitor from 1510 for the archbishoprics
of Cologne, Trier, and Mainz, bore the chief responsibility for the prosecution of Johannes
Reuchlin, against whom he had proceeded with great vigour. The case of Reuchlin, a convinced
humanist and Hebraist, had captivated the intellectual world of Europe. Reuchlin advocated for
the study of Hebrew and Jewish thought as a means to better understand the Bible. Many of his
opponents believed that only by seizing and destroying their books would the Jews of Europe
ever convert to Christianity. In 1516, the matter was ultimately decided in favour of Reuchlin,
but not before Hochstraten and the faculty of theology at Cologne had done everything in their
power to convict him.
28 By September of 1523, due to procedural errors in the case of Cornelis Hoen, van der Hulst’s
powers were already officially limited. In early 1524, Charles V removed him entirely from office
for the abuse of power. ‘The experiment with a ‘secular’ inquisition and a layman as inquisitor
was’, as historians have noted, ‘not to be repeated’. Gielis and Gielis, ‘Adrian of Utrecht’, p. 20.
29 ‘[D]iablo[us]’ and ‘superbissim[us] et minoritissim[us] monach[us]’. Luther to Lang, 26 June
1522, WABr 2:565.
30 Luther, Abteilung Werke (=WA) 2:384–387.
selected for censure.31 Luther’s response appeared in September 1521 and was
addressed to both the theology faculty in general and Latomus specifical-
ly.32 All this is to say that, far from being unfamiliar with the critics of the
Antwerp Augustinians, Luther and the hierarchy of the German Reformed
Congregation were well acquainted with them.33
What is more, Luther and his colleagues had observed their critics’ work
in the Low Countries in the years and months prior to the executions of
Vos and van den Esschen. By 1520, in response to book burnings carried out
by Aleander in Cologne and Antwerp, Luther had burned the papal Bull,
declaring that since they had burned his books, he was now burning theirs.
Since the promulgation of the Edict of Worms in May of 1521, Aleander had
expanded his efforts in the Low Countries, publishing the Edict there while
overseeing a dozen or so book burnings in major cities – three in Antwerp
alone.34 Furthermore, by candidly labelling him a heretic, these inquisitors
had been able to pressure Erasmus into leaving the Low Countries in autumn
of 1521, never to return.35
Having condemned Luther’s works and intimidated Erasmus, the inquisi-
tors now turned their attention to the Antwerp Augustinians. In December
1521, van der Hulst invited their prior Probst to a “friendly conversation” in
Brussels, only to arrest him upon his arrival. Interrogated repeatedly for
eight weeks, and under constant threat of the stake, on 9 February 1522 he
recanted in front of an overflowing crowd at St. Gudula’s church in Brussels,
concluding with the statement:
And I damn all errors and heresies, especially the Lutheran ones. And
I embrace the Catholic faith as held and preached by the Holy Roman
31 Latomus, Articulorum doctrinae fratris M. Lutheri. For more on the nature of the theological
disagreement between Luther and the theologians of Cologne see Gielis, ‘Augustijnergeloof en
Predikherengeloof’.
32 The condemnation by the theology faculties of Leuven and Cologne along with Luther’s
response may be found in WA 6:170–195. Luther’s response to Latomus, entitled Rationis
Latomianae confutatio, 1521, may be found in WA 8:36–128.
33 Undoubtedly so were many of the reform-minded individuals throughout Europe. In April
of 1518, Wilhelm Nesen sent Ulrich Zwingli a long and scathing description of the ‘Magistri
Nostri’, the key Leuven theologians. See Zwingli, Zwinglis Briefwechsel, in Corpus Reformatorum
vol. 94, pp. 378–401; Erasmus’s letters from this period are also filled with derogatory remarks
about many of these men, especially Egmond. In fact, writes one modern commentator, there is
hardly a letter of Erasmus from the period in which he does not complain about that ‘fanatical
monk’. Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 75.
34 Visser, Luther’s Geschriften in de Nederlanden, pp. 13–15.
35 See Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, esp. Chapter 5, ‘Die Verdrängung des Erasmus
aus den Niederlanden’, vol. 2, pp. 35–56.
Church. And I promise to submit myself in faith to all things that it

teaches. And I now declare, just as I have promised and declared, to
adhere [to it] and to cast Luther with all his dogmas far away from me.36
Probst’s recantation was quickly published in Antwerp, Cologne, Leipzig,

and Strasburg.37 Freed, but prohibited from returning to Antwerp, he was
sent to the Augustinian cloister in his hometown of Ypres, a house not
associated with the German Reformed Congregation.
In Wittenberg, news of the recantation was met with sorrow, but also
with clear recognition of the dangers facing those members of the Reformed
Augustinians in Antwerp and Lower Germany who had embraced Luther’s
teachings. Writing to his fellow friar and good friend, Johannes Lang,
Luther prophesied accurately, ‘This is no longer a joke or a game, but it
will now become serious, and it will exact life and blood’.38 Not long after
arriving in Ypres, Probst began to preach “Lutheran” ideas again, and in
May of 1522 was summoned a second time by the Inquisition. For a while,
Luther thought that his prognostication had come true, that Probst, along
with two others, had been burned.39 But in fact Probst escaped with the
help of friends, and made his way to Wittenberg, arriving in August 1522.
Despite his recantation, Luther remained friends with Probst, and there
can be no doubt that the two men discussed the situation in Antwerp
fully during the twenty months Probst spent in Wittenberg. While there,
Probst also published an extensive description of his interactions with the
Inquisition and an apology for his failure to remain steadfast, a document
that clarified to everyone the situation in the Low Countries. 40 Although
some 700 km distant, the state of affairs in Lower Germany was well known
in Wittenberg.
36 ‘Et damno omnem errorem et haeresim, potissimum Lutherianam, et amplector f idem

catholicam, quam tenet et predicat sancta Romana ecclesia, et ei me in fide et omnibus que
docet, submitto et eidem promitto et jam juro, sicut jam promisi et juravi, adherere et Lutherum
cum suo dogmate procul a me abjicere’. Anathematizatio et revocatio in Corpus documentorum
(=CD), vol. 4, p. 94.
37 Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus, p. 27.
38 ‘Res iam non amplius iocus aut ludus, sed serium erit, et vitam exiget et sanguinem’. Martin
Luther to Johannes Lang, 12 April 1522, WABr 2:494.
39 ‘Jacob, the prior in Antwerp, has been taken captive and it is presumed that he will
now be burned along with two others’ (‘Iacobus, Prior Antverpiensis, denuo captus est, et
praesumitur iam exustus esse, et alii duo cum eo’). Luther to Johann von Staupitz, 27 June
1522, WABr 2:567.
40 Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi in Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus, pp. 42–59.
The Authorities’ Efforts against the Reformed Augustinians of

Lower Germany
Fearing that Probst had spread Lutheran heresy to his fellow Augustinians
in the Low Countries and to the laity in Antwerp, in the spring of 1522
Charles’s inquisitors began a broader campaign against anyone who had
articulated religious dissent. It was at this point that Cornelius Grapheus,
the humanist city secretary of Antwerp, was forced to recant publicly in
the city square in Brussels. A year earlier, Grapheus had published the
work of the fifteenth-century theologian Johannes Pupper von Goch, along
with his own introduction – a work deemed heretical by the Inquisition,
which arrested him in February of 1522. 41 Likewise at this time, the high
prof ile prosecution of Cornelius Hoen, the Dutch humanist, lawyer,
and lay theologian who advocated for a symbolic interpretation of the
Eucharist, also began. 42 Other judicial processes and recantations soon
followed.
But chief among the targets of this campaign were the Reformed Augustin-
ians throughout the Low Countries, particularly those in Antwerp, whom the
inquisitors had clearly marked as a fountain of Lutheran ideas there – or as
the historian Paul Kalkoff has put it, the ‘chief source of the proliferation of
Lutheran teachings in the Low Countries’.43 In fact, the move against Probst
was merely the opening salvo. For at the time of Probst’s second arrest, the
spring of 1522, the inquisitors also apprehended and questioned Melchior
Miritsch, the Reformed Augustinian prior in Ghent.44 Unlike Probst, Miritsch
was able to convince the inquisitors that he posed no threat to the church
and was released. But Luther was not happy. Regarding the news of Probst’s
recantation and Miritsch’s ‘failure’, Luther asserted, ‘Satan rages powerfully
41 Spruyt, ‘Humanisme, Evangelisme en Reformatie’, p. 33.

42 See Spruyt, Cornelius Henrici Hoen.
43 ‘[D]er Hauptherd der Verbreitung lutherischen Lehren in den Niederlanden’. Kalkoff, Die
Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 52. Even Cornelius Grapheus, the humanist-minded
city secretary, indicated in a letter to the chancellor of Brabant that the Antwerp Augustinians
were ‘the originators of these troubles’ (‘d’oorspronck dezer beroerten’). Pont, Geschiedenis van
het Lutheranisme, p. 23, n. 2.
44 Records of Miritsch’s interaction with the authorities are lost. Everything we know of this
event comes second-hand from the accounts in Luther’s letters. See WABr 2: 493, 495, 496,
559. Kalkoff however notes that theologians Coronel and Quintana, both in the service of the
inquisitor van der Hulst, were active in Ghent and Bruges from 8–24 May 1522. He speculates
that their work at this time included interviews with Augustinians suspected of supporting
Luther’s views. Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 2, p. 20, n. 49.
everywhere, but especially in the Low Countries, where power is given to

the sophists to rule over us’. 45
But while Probst and Miritsch were being interviewed in early 1522, the
Augustinian cloister in Wittenberg was in a state of upheaval, a situation
that would have some bearing on events in Antwerp. In Wittenberg, some
of the friars had left the cloister without permission; others refused to
obey their superiors. With Luther in the Wartburg, a radical group led by
the Wittenberg Augustinian Gabriel Zwilling, and closely linked to the
university professor Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, clamoured for the
abolition of the mass and other changes. As a result, the Vicar General of the
Congregation, Wenceslaus Linck (who had succeeded Johann von Staupitz
in 1520), called a chapter meeting for early January 1522 in Wittenberg and,
when that failed to quell the disorder, a second chapter meeting for early
June in the Saxon town of Grimma.
At Grimma, the central issue was how to retain Christian liberty in the
cloisters of the German Reformed Congregation while avoiding anarchy,
but undoubtedly the events in the Low Countries were also discussed, for
Miritsch, who had left his post in Ghent only weeks earlier, was in attend-
ance. Also in attendance was van Zutphen, a native of the Low Countries and
former prior in Dordrecht, to whom I will return to shortly. But absent were
any representatives from the cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany, for
the emperor had strictly forbidden them from attending.46 The combination
of Miritsch’s and van Zutphen’s presence, the fact that Miritsch’s interaction
with the Inquisition was only a few weeks in the past, and the conspicuous
absence of representatives of the Low Countries due to the emperor’s raging
against them (as Luther put it), makes it very unlikely that the situation in
the Low Countries was not thoroughly reviewed. 47
Meanwhile, as this rump group of German Reformed Augustinians was
meeting in Grimma, the emperor was expanding his campaign against
45 ‘Satanas enim ubique irascitur fortiter nimis, praesertim in inferioribus partibus terrae,
ubi sophistis datum est regnum super nos’. Luther to Johannes Lang, 11 June 1522, WABr 2:559.
Nor was this the first time Luther had connected the activity of the devil with the events in the
Low Countries. One month earlier, upon hearing the news of Probst’s recantation and Miritsch’s
actions to avoid arrest, Luther had written: ‘Satan attacks us with all his highest powers’ (‘Satan
summis et omnibus viribus nos petit’). Luther to Johannes Lang, Wittenberg 12 April 1522, WABr
2:495.
46 Little is known about the circumstances surrounding the emperor’s order, only that in a
letter of 5 June 1522, Luther wrote to Spalatin, ‘The emperor rages and forbids our brothers to
come to the chapter meeting’ (‘Et sevit Cesar prohibuitque, ne nostri fratres ad Capitulum Vicarii
venerent’). WABr 2:555.
47 WABr 2:555.
their brothers in the Low Countries. Not only did Charles forbid them to
attend the Grimma Chapter, but through his queen regent, Margaret of
Austria (he himself had left the Low Countries for Spain in May of 1522), he
took concrete steps to drive a wedge between the Reformed Augustinians
of Saxony and those in Lower Germany. At the command of the queen
regent, representatives of the Congregation’s cloisters of the Province of
Lower Germany met on 27 July 1522 in Dordrecht for the express purpose
of electing a counter Vicar General to serve as leader of their seven cloisters.
Dordrecht was the logical choice for this meeting because this cloister,
where van Mechelen was prior, was a stronghold of Observance – but an
Observance that rejected the Reformation. The election of its own Vicar
General was a move designed to remove the houses of the Province of Lower
Germany from the oversight of Linck, the German Vicar General whom the
authorities in the Low Countries deemed tainted by heresy.48 Under pressure
from the emperor, representatives from Ghent, Enghien, Dordrecht, and
Haarlem elected van Mechelen as their Vicar General. Representatives of
Antwerp, Enkhuizen, and Cologne abstained from voting. In a letter dated
22 August 1522, the Ghent magistrate, patron to the cloister there, appealed
to the emperor’s queen regent to urge the pope to confirm this decision, 49
a request granted a few months later by Adrian VI.50 Thus the emperor,
with the support of the papacy, was successful in breaking the institutional
ties between Wittenberg and the Reformed Augustinians of the Province
of Lower Germany.
The Fate of the Antwerp Cloister
There is also compelling evidence that in July of 1522, as part of Charles’s

campaign against the German Reformed Augustinians, the inquisitors
questioned each member of the Antwerp cloister, and all but three recanted
publicly – a scenario that I find plausible. Because much confusion surrounds
this episode, which most contemporary historians have conflated with the
events surrounding the ultimate demise of the cloister in late October of 1522,
48 We know of these events from a letter of the Ghent magistrate to Margaret dated 8 August 1522,
in which the magistrate reports the decisions of the Augustinians’ chapter meeting in Dordrecht.
The letter makes clear how broadly and manifestly the seven Reformed Augustinian cloisters
of ‘Lower Germany’ – not to mention the German Vicar General of Reformed Augustinians,
Wenceslaus Link – were considered to be purveyors of the “Lutheran” heresy. CD, 4: doc. 91.
49 CD, 4: doc. 91.
50 Ennen, Geschichte der Stadt Köln, vol. 4, p. 184. The pope’s letter is dated 23 November 1522.
it requires extended discussion. The main source that addresses the issue
head on is unfortunately rather unreliable. Writing in the late eighteenth
century, but relying on chronicles from the sixteenth, Jean Diercxsens
provides the following account:
The Count of Hochstraten, Jerome van der Noot, the Chancellor of

Brabant, and the Audientiario, van Springens, [all representatives of the
emperor’s Council of Brabant] arrived at the Augustinian cloister at 6:00
AM where, in the presences of the magistrate [representatives of the
Antwerp city council], they declared that the Emperor was convinced
that the cloister had been tainted by a heresy infecting everyone. Since
this was the case, the Body of the Lord [=consecrated host] should not
be permitted to remain in this den of thieves. As a result, all those who
erred were condemned, placed in carts, and taken to Vilvoorde. But they
were quickly dismissed under the condition that they publicly retract
certain articles of Lutheran doctrine from the platform in the Antwerp
Basilica. All, I say, were dismissed with the exception of Hendrik and
Johann s’Hertogenbosch. […] This occurred in the month of July.
These two, Hendrik [Vos] and Johann [van den Esschen], having refused
to accept the conditions and recant, were led to Brussels and put in prison
where they were further examined and judged. The remaining [friars],
having been dismissed, returned to Antwerp and all renounced the Lu-
theran heresy and publicly recanted the errors with which they had been
infected from the platform in the Church of Our Lady. This renunciation
certainly was done in the presence of the inquisitors and commissioners
who are always present in such cases so that [the recantations] could be
proven later.
When all the brothers had professed sound doctrine, the Body of the
Lord was not removed from [the Augustinians’ Church] until having
relapsed into error, all were driven from the city, as described below. In
the meantime, divine services were held in this monastery as before.
The inquisitors and commissioner, however, did not only investigate the
Augustinians, but they summoned and examined many suspect citizens.51
51 ‘Venerunt quoque Comes Hoogstratanus cum Hieronimo van der Noot Cancellario Bra-
bantiae & Audientiario van Springens in Conventum Augustinianorum mane hora sexta: ubi
coram Magistratu dixerunt, mentem Caesaris esse, ut eo loco cogerentur exesse haeretica labe
infecti omnes; neque permittendum esse, ut Corpus domini diutius requiesceret in spelunca
latronum. Ergo, quo ibi errant convicti, impositi curribus Vilvordiam deducti sunt; dimissi
tamen cito sub conditione, ut ex doxali Antverpiensis Basilicae publice retractaret quosdam
The question is, did this event occur? If so, is this a description of an episode
that happened sometime in the spring or summer of 1522 or is it a description
of the cloister’s ultimate fate, which we know occurred in late October of
1522? Although Diercxsens’s account cannot be broadly corroborated with
outside sources, there is good reason to believe that it is accurate. The
level of detail (the precise time of the day it occurred, who was present,
and what was said) makes it seem credible. What is more, the threat that
should the heresy continue, the Eucharistic host would be removed from
the Augustinians’ church did eventually come to pass in the events of late
October, suggesting that such a threat was absolutely plausible. And finally,
there are too many details that do not add up to conclude that this was
merely a misplaced description of what would happen a few months later
when the cloister was ultimately dissolved. For example, after that event the
friars never returned to hold services again. If Diercxsens is talking about
the actions surrounding this later dissolution, why would he stress the fact
that they did return to hold services? Additionally, Margaret’s severe reaction
in October, arresting all of the brothers and destroying the cloister, makes
more sense if the friars had relapsed (a point made by Diercxsens) than if
she was arresting them for the first time. And finally, Diercxsens himself
Lutheranae doctrinae Articulos. Dimissi, inquam, omnes exceptis duobus Henrico & Joanne
Sylvae-ducensibus […] id factum refert mense Julio.
‘Duo isti Henricus & Joannes, quia cum coeteris revocationis conditionem acceptare nolebant,
ducti Bruxellas carceri inclusi sunt, ulterius examinandi & judicandi.
‘Reliqui autem dimissi Antverpiam redierunt, & omnes publice in Ecclesia B Mariae ex odeo
renuntiarunt haeresi Lutheranae, & errores, quibus infecti fuerant, revocarunt. Renuntiatio haec
indubie facta est praesentibus Inquisitoribus & Commissariis, qui in simili casu hoc tempore
praesentes fuisse feruntur, ut infra dicetur.
‘Cumque jam omnes Fratres sanam doctrinam prof iterentur, Corpus Domini inde ablatum
non fuit, donec in errorem relapsi omnes urbe pulsi sunt, ut infra dicetur. Et interim in suo
monasterio officia divina peregerunt ut ante.
Inquisitores autem & Commissarii non tantum Augustinianos, sed & plures suspectos cives ad se
vocarunt & examinarunt’. Diercxsens, Antverpia Christo Nascens et crescens, vol. 3, pp. 364–365.
The first half of Diercxsen’s account, he indicates, comes from Papebrocius Annales Antverpienses,
the Chronicle of Van Cauckerken ad an. 1521 (an unpublished manuscript), and Bertrijn, Chronijck
der Stadt Antwerpen. Of these texts, only the Chronicle of Antwerp is extant and it tells a similar
story. The relevant section of Papebrocius is lost, as is Van Cauckerken. But while Diercxsens places
these events in July of 1522, Bertrijn indicates that they took place in June. However, Diercxsens
follows Bertrijn in relating that some of the Augustinian friars were led away to Vilvoorde, but
soon returned and recanted in the Church of Our Lady in Antwerp. He also notes that two friars,
Hendrik and Johann of s’Hertogenbosch, refused to recant and were taken away to Brussels. See
Bertrijn, Chronijck der Stadt Antwerpen, p. 73. The problem with these descriptions is that we
cannot check Diercxsen’s account against the Paperbrocius and Van Caukerken. And these two
chronicles, along with Bertrijn’s, are notoriously inaccurate, particularly with regard to dates.
is careful to distinguish these events from what would happen later when
‘all were driven from the city’.
Moreover, Luther’s allusions to the persecutions occurring in Lower
Germany throughout the spring and summer of 1522 also seem to corroborate
the events as described, although his first statements about such occur-
rences come in April and May, which would place these events even before
Diercxsens dates in July. In early April of 1522, Luther indicated that ‘many
others’ (multi alii) in the Low Countries were being forced to subscribe to
the recantation of Probst, suggesting that the authorities had already begun
a widespread and systematic effort to eliminate heresy.52 Outside sources
substantiate Luther’s views. As noted, in March Cornelis Hoen had received
a summons to Brussels and in late April, Cornelis Grapheus was forced to
recant in the Grote Markt in Brussels and also in the Church of Our Lady in
Antwerp. In May and June Luther again referred to the many recantations
taking place and to the emperor’s anger, as well as the various other ways in
which the faithful were being persecuted.53 By the end of June 1522, he was
under the impression that Probst, along with two others, had been burned.54
It is tempting to assume that the two others referred to by Luther here were
none other than Vos and van den Esschen, who Diercxsens indicated had
already been incarcerated in July. But there is no evidence to corroborate
this theory. Confusing matters even further is George Spalatin’s diary entry
from a year later about the executions of Vos and van den Esschen. As a
result of information from his own contacts in Antwerp, Spalatin claimed
that van den Esschen was the successor to Jacob Probst because Lambert
Thorn was already incarcerated.55 Thorn, as will be seen presently, was a
senior member of the Antwerp Augustinians, a close adherent of Probst and
Luther, and a logical successor to Probst. But Spalatin suggests that, like
Vos and van den Esschen, he was already in prison by the summer of 1522,
further evidence that a raid on the Augustinian cloister had taken place
at that time. Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence is an invoice
from September of 1522 for the cost of the transport of Augustinians from
Antwerp to Vilvoorde, the location of an imperial prison.56 While there is
always a chance that it has been misdated and actually refers to events of
October 1522, there also exist further invoices from this later date. Finally,
52 WABr 2:495.
53 WABr 2:523; WABr 2:555.
54 WABr 2:565.
55 Spalatin, Excerpta quaedam e Diario, p. 412.
56 CD, 4: doc. 95.
the possibility that some sort of action against the Antwerp Augustinians
took place in the spring and summer of 1522 seems likely in light of broader
efforts by the queen regent to eliminate the overall threat of the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany, as demonstrated above.57
In any case, for the remainder of the summer and into the fall of 1522,
the Antwerp Augustinians appear to have remained quiet. But this would
soon change, largely due to the arrival of Hendrik van Zutphen, who left
Wittenberg shortly after the Grimma Chapter meeting in early June, arriving
in Antwerp sometime in the late summer or early autumn of 1522, where he
was warmly received and soon became prior. There is also some evidence,
although I have not been able to confirm it, that when van Zutphen arrived
in Antwerp, he initially kept a low profile; it was only when indulgence
salesmen arrived in the city that van Zutphen began to preach publicly: first
from the pulpit, then in the streets.58 On 29 September 1522, under the pretext
of being called to visit an ailing parishioner, he was lured from the cloister,
arrested, and held overnight in the Abbey of St. Michael’s for transport to
appear before the Inquisition’s court in Brussels the next day. However, a
crowd of some three hundred enraged supporters, mostly women, broke
down the doors of the abbey, freed him, and returned him to his cloister.59
After hiding for three days, he escaped the city and made for Wittenberg,
taking a detour north to the German city of Bremen. From there, van Zutphen
wrote a number of letters to Luther and Probst explaining his escape, and
asking permission to preach in Bremen, which was granted.60 Van Zutphen
would remain in Bremen until two years later when he was called to preach
in nearby Heide Dietmarsch. Recognized by local inhabitants there, he was
captured and burned on 10 December 1524.
57 One other modern historian has also claimed that the friars were arrested, taken to Vilvoorde,
examined, and convinced to recant prior to the final evacuation and closing of the cloister that
took place in October of 1522. A. de Decker, seemingly following Bertrijn, suggests as much,
placing these events in June of 1522. Decker, ‘Les Augustins d’Anvers’, pp. 380–81.
58 So asserts van Zutphen’s biographer, J. Friedrich Iken; see his Heinrich von Zütphen, p. 27.
Iken cites C.H. van Herwerden, Het Aandenken van Hendrik van Zutphen, p. 78 ff., and says that
Herwerden claims this information comes from ‘Hollandische Berichten’. But I can f ind no
reference to any such reports in Herwerden.
59 Van Zutphen outlines these events in a letter to Probst and Reiner Reynstein, an Augustinian
friar from the Enkhuizen cloister, both at the time residing in Wittenberg. This letter may be
found in ‘Zutphen’s Briefe’, pp. 241–245; or in CD, 4: doc. 110.
60 Luther to Wenceslaus Link, 19 December 1522, WABr 2:632; on van Zutphen’s letters to
Luther explaining the situation, see Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus, p. 199. We know Luther
responded to van Zutphen, but that letter is no longer extant. Luther also passed the information
along to Spalatin and Link. See ‘Zutphen’s Briefe’, pp. 241–252.
But van Zutphen’s liberation and flight were the last straw for the em-
peror’s queen regent and she decided to dissolve the Antwerp Augustinian
cloister altogether, an event in which she participated personally. Multiple
sources tell us that Margaret had come from Brussels to Antwerp to negotiate
a subsidy from the city council (Senatus), and one source indicates that she
stayed for a few days (aliquot dies morata).61 This must have been in late
September 1522. It appears that while she was there, Zutphen preached
a sermon or series of sermons that she found offensive, and she took the
opportunity to have him incarcerated.62 On 6 October 1522, one week after
61 Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Alexander Brassicanus, 15 November 1522. CD, 4: doc. 109.
62 Circumstances surrounding Margaret’s actions in Antwerp are murky, and the descriptions
we have are highly partisan. The reform-minded medical doctor Wolfgang Reichardt wrote the
following to his friend Johann Alexander Brassicanus: ‘Lest she [Margaret] receive nothing, she
was impelled by the demonically-blind monks [probably a reference to the Dominicans and
Carmelites who were part of van der Hulst’s inquisition], and together with her advisors she
invaded the monastery of the Augustinians. There she bawled out a certain monk [van Zutphen]
who had displeased her, but who was highly esteemed by all the people. What happened? The
Augustinian was snatched by force, he was first thrown in chains into the money-house of the
emperor; but when the crowds complained, he was taken in chains and thrown into the cloister
of St. Michael’ (‘Ne nihil ageret, a monachis cacodemonis adacta in monasterium augustinianum
cum suo satellitico irruptionem fecit; indidem monachum quendem, qui, quod dominicastris
displicuit, omni autem alij plebe summe probatur, declamavit. Quid multis? Augustinianus vi
ereptus, primum in Caesaris monetariam domum coniectus in vincula, postea, murmurante
plebe, ad sanctum Michaelem coenobiarchae traditus in vincula coniectus’) Wolfgang Rychardus
to Johann Alexander Brassicanus, 15 November 1522. CD, 4: doc. 109.
That ‘certain monk’ who had displeased her was van Zutphen. Telling his own story, in which he
refers to Margaret as Jezebel, the Old Testament pagan queen married to the evil Israelite King
Ahab, van Zutphen also alludes to Margaret’s economic motives for attacking the cloister: ‘For
that godless Jesabel, melting with greed, discovered false witnesses, sons of Belial, who said that
they heard from my mouth heretical words and things offensive to piety. From this opportunity,
seeking occasion against Antwerp (of course they did not wish to satisfy her greed), she laboured
to turn the city to sedition, so that she might be permitted to extort as much gold as she wanted
as punishment. But God guided all things, lest anything be done by the citizens in a tumultuous
way rather than a prudent way, despite all their efforts at bringing the city to violence’ (‘Invenit
enim impiissima Iesabel, avaritia tabescens, suos falsos testes, f ilios Belial, qui dixerunt, se
audisse de ore meo verba heretica et piarum aurium offensiva, unde occasionem querens contra
Antverpiensis (quippe noluerunt illius avaritiam explere) moliebatur in seditionem vertere
civitatem, ut sic liceret, quantum voluisset auri pro punitione extorquere, sed praecavit omnia
Deus, ne quid ageretur a civibus tumultuosius quam prudentius, quantiscunque violentiis ad
hoc provocatis’). Hendrik van Zutphen to Jacob Probst and Pater Reiner, 29 November 1522. CD,
4: doc. 110; and Zutphen, ‘Zutphen’s Briefe’, p. 16. This economic issue might also be obliquely
referred to by Richard Wingfield, English ambassador to the court of Margaret, in his report of
4 October 1522 to Cardinal Wolsey, where he writes that ‘[Margaret] told me what trouble she
had had with the estates of the country, who are to be here [in Antwerp] again today to make
a full conclusion’. Wingfield, Letters and Papers, vol. 3, part 2, p. 1103.
Zutphen’s flight, Margaret had the remaining friars arrested, then led a
procession of the Eucharist out of their cloister church to the Church of Our
Lady, symbolically demonstrating the heterodoxy of the Augustinians. The
friars who were sons of Antwerp’s citizens were not removed from the city
but remained “imprisoned” in the houses of the Beghards, an act that may
well have been a concession to the city fathers. By tradition, the imperial
authorities could not arrest citizens of Antwerp except under exceptional
circumstances, generally limited to cases of treason.63 The remaining friars
were loaded in carts and taken to prison. A few months later, Margaret
would destroy the cloister and transform its church into the parish church
of St. Andreas, which it remains to this day. That Wittenberg was following
these events closely is clear from Luther’s letter to Linck dated 9 December
1522, in which he wrote:
The brothers have been expelled from the monastery, some imprisoned
in various locations, some let go, having denied Christ, while some have
remained steadfast until now. Those who are sons of the city have been
scattered in the houses of the Beghards. All of the monastery’s goods
have been put up for sale, and the church and monastery have been
blockaded, eventually to be torn down. With great pomp the Sacrament
was transferred to the Church of Our Lady, as if out of a heretical place,
where it was received honourably by Lady Margaret. Several citizens and
women have been harassed and punished.64
Gerard Geldenhauer, the humanist-minded correspondent of Erasmus, who likewise referred

to Margaret as Jezebel, reports the event as follows: ‘There was a certain preacher appointed
by those who call themselves Augustinian Eremites. When he had preached the Gospel for
several days in Antwerp, it was commanded by the Lady Margaret that he be arrested and held
in the monastery of St. Michael. But by force he was removed from there by some women of
Antwerp and restored [to his place]. And, having been urged by his friends, and according to
the Gospel’s admonition to shake the dust from your feet, he fled from the city to the [next] city’
(‘Concionator quidam instituti eorum qui se heremitas divi Augustini vocant, cum aliquot diebus
evangelium Antverpiae praedicasset, jussus est a domina Margarita apprehendi et custodiri in
divi Michaelis coenobio, sed inde per matronas aliquot Antverpianas vi abstractus, suis restitutus
est et, suadentibus amicis, secundum evangelicam admonitionem excutere pulverem pedum
suorum de civitate in civitatem fugit’). Geldenhauer, Collectanea, p. 67. This quotation suggests
that van Zutphen had not preached for very long in Antwerp. It also seems to indicate that his
preaching was the last straw for Margaret, as Geldenhauer’s next sentence is: ‘Therefore the
indignant Lady Margaret commanded that the entire Augustinian monastery be demolished’
(‘Quare indignata domina Margarita jussit totum Augustinensium monasterium demoliri’).
63 Duke, ‘Salvation by Coercion’, p. 149.
64 ‘Monasterio expulsi fratres, alii aliis locis captivi, alii negato Christo dimissi, alii adhuc stant
fortes, qui autem filii civitatis sunt, in domum Beghardorum sunt detrusi; vendita omnia vasa
All of this information is accurate, for at the time it was Margaret’s intention
to destroy the church along with the rest of the monastery.65 And Luther
continued to be updated on the situation between 6 October 1522 and 1 July
1523, while the inquisitors interrogated the captive Augustinians, convincing
all but three to recant.66
Unfortunately, questions remain regarding the captivity of the Augustin-
ians during this period. It is clear that sixteen friars were brought to prison
at Vilvoorde, just outside of Brussels, on 7–8 October 1522, and that at least
some of them were held until 29 May 1523.67 Van der Hulst interviewed them
on 30 October 1522, and released eight of them at the command of the queen
regent, one of whom was referred to as the ‘prior’.68 The identity of this prior
is unknown. Another officer of Charles V also indicated that he had been
paid for holding some of the friars in the castle at de Longue, probably a
reference to Longueville in Brabant, where there was also a prison.69 Thus
it seems as though the friars were broken into groups and held in separate
jails, which would explain Luther’s reference to them being ‘imprisoned
in various locations’, and the claim in one of the pamphlets produced in
the wake of these events that they were ‘held in many places’.70 Eventually
monasterii, et ecclesia cum monasterio clausa et obstructa, tandem demolienda. Sacramentum

cum pompa in Ecclesiam beatae Virginis translatum, tanquam e loco haeretico, susceptum
honorifice a Domina Margareta. Cives aliquot et mulieres vexatae et punitae.’ Luther to Link,
19 December 1522. WA Br 2:632.
65 We know this because on 10 January 1523, the emperor wrote to Margaret: ‘And regarding the
destruction of the cloister and church, which you requested be done as an enduring reminder
of this case, it is my opinion and that of our holy father that the living quarters of the monks be
destroyed, such that only the church itself is retained to serve in the future as a parish church.’
‘Et quant à la démolicion que désirez faire dudit cloister et de l’église pour une perpétuelle
mémoire du cas y advenu, je suis bien d’aviz, quant en aurez eu le congié de nostre sint père,
que les habitacions des religieux soient desmolies en réservant seulement en son entire l’église
pour en faire une paroisse’. Letter from Charles V to Margaret, 10 January 1523. CD, 4: doc 120.
66 Van Zutphen himself writes to Probst (who was in Wittenberg by this time) that a citizen of
Bremen brought him news of the events in Antwerp. For van Zutphen’s letters from this period,
see ‘Zutphen’s Briefe’, pp. 241–242. Ortwin Rudloff claims that in December 1522, three letters
from van Zutphen arrived in Wittenberg, all containing information on the events in Antwerp
and Bremen. However only one, van Zutphen’s letter to Probst mentioned above, has survived.
Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus, p. 77.
67 CD, 4: doc. 118.
68 CD, 4: doc. 119.
69 CD, 4: doc. 119. I am grateful to Guido Marneff for ascertaining the probable location of the
‘castel de Longue’.
70 ‘[I]nn vil orten gefangen geweßt’. Anonymous, Der Actus und handlung, p. 1. Other information
in this paragraph comes from CD, 4: doc. 118. When he finally arrived in Bremen, van Zutphen
recounted hearing the following about the captivity of his former colleagues: ‘A citizen of Bremen
the three who refused to recant, Hendrik Vos, Johann van den Esschen,
and Lambert Thorn, were brought to Brussels, where at the last moment
Thorn, the man originally slated to follow Probst as prior, asked for time to
reconsider and consequently had his sentence commuted to life in prison.71
Vos and van den Esschen were burned in the Grand Plaza of Brussels on
1 July 1523 by the Council of Brabant, the emperor’s imperial authorities,
as a result of the Inquisition led by van der Hulst. The charges against the
men were never publicly stated.
Since the chapter meeting at Dordrecht (27 July 1522), the reformed
cloisters of Lower Germany no longer had any official connection to the
German Reformed Congregation. By early October of 1522, the Antwerp
Augustinians had ceased to exist as a corporate entity. But in its eight
brief, eventful years, many threads of the Reformation, as well as initial
efforts at countering the Reformation, came together there. The history
of the Antwerp cloister bears the marks of Staupitz, Luther, Charles V, and
Popes Leo X and Adrian VI. Its rise had been engineered by Staupitz and
van Mechelen, its demise by the Inquisition of Charles V and the efforts of
his queen regent Margaret. Clear strategies were at work on all sides in its
establishment and in its destruction, and it is to a closer investigation of
these tactics that we now turn.
came from Antwerp the next day who said that princess Margaret, urged by the emperor […] led
all the brothers of our house to Vilvoorde, dismissing a few to Dordrecht and allowing a few who
wished, to go free – who are said to be coming to Wittenberg. Some, however, remained of their
own will, not wishing to be disbanded until they are taught why they have been arrested like a
bunch of thieves’ (‘Venit ex Hantverpia postridie civis quidam Bremensis, qui dixit, principem
Margaretam citatam esse ad imperatorem, […] omnes fratres domus nostre ducti fuerunt ad
Vilvordam, quorum pars dismissa est ad Dordracum, pars in libertatem ire, quo voluisset, qui
dicuntur Wittenbergam venturi, pars autem sua sponte remansisse nec velle dimitti, donec doceat
[sic], quare tam turpissime tanquam latrones sint deducti’.) Zutphen, ‘Zutphens Briefe’, p. 244.
71 It may well be that Vos and van den Esschen had been in prison since the previous summer,
when the imperial authorities first ‘raided’ the cloister. Evidence for this possibility comes from
Dierxcsen’s account (see above). There is also some confusion about Thorn’s status. In his diary,
George Spalatin indicated that Thorn was supposed to succeed Probst but could not because
he had been jailed. Spalatin, Excerpta quaedam e Diario, p. 412; Luther refers to Thorn as the
successor to Probst ‘in words’, (in verbo) suggesting that Thorn was never actually made prior
but was his spiritual and oratory successor. WABr 3:115. This might be why Diercxsens claims
that Lambert Thorn followed van Zutphen as prior of the Antwerp Augustinians. He does not
indicate where he got that information. Diercxsens, Antverpia Christo Nascens et Crescens, vol.
3, p. 376.
Works Cited
Akerboom, Dick and Marcel Gielis, ‘“A New Song Shall Begin Here …”: The Martyr-
Aleandro, Girolamo, Aleander und Luther 1521: die vervollständigten Aleander–
Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen über den Wormser Reichstag, ed. by Theodor
Brieger (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1884).
Anonymous, Der Actus und handlung/ der degradation und ver/prennung der
Christlichen dreyer Ritter und Mer/terer, Augustiner or/dens geschehen zu Brüssel
(Various locations: various publishers, 1523).
Bertrijn, Geraard, Chronijck der Stadt Antwerpen (Antwerp: P. Kockx, 1879).
Boehmer, Julius, ‘Die Beschaffenheit der Quellenschriften zu Heinrich Vos
und Johann van den Esschen’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 28 (1931),
112–133.
Gottfried Wentz, 2. vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1929–1941), 1.3: 440–499.
(1513–1515)’, Monatshefte der Comenius–Gesellschaft 10 (1901), 306–313.
Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitats Neerlandicae (=CD), ed.
by Paul Fredericq, 5 vols. (Gent: J. Vuylsteke, 1889–1902).
Decker, A. de, ‘Les Augustins d’Anvers et la Réforme’, Messager des sciences histor-
iques ou archives des arts et de la bibliographie de Belgique 26 (1883), 373–388.
Diercxsens, Jean, Antverpia Christo Nascens et crescens seu Acta Ecclessiam Ant-
verpiensem ejusque Apostolos ac Viros pietate conspicuous concernentia usque
ad speculum XVIII. 7 vols. (Antwerp: Joannem Henricum van Soest, 1773).
Duinen, Herman van, Hendrik van Zutphen (1489–1524), prior – reformator – mar-
telaar. Bleskensgraaf: Blassekijn, 2004).
Duke, Alistair, ‘Salvation by Coercion: the Controversy surrounding the ‘Inquisition’
in the Low Countries on the Eve of the Revolt’, in Reformation Principle and
Practice. Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, ed. by P.N. Brooks (London:
Scolar Press, 1980), pp. 137–154.
Ennen, Leonard, Geschicht der Stadt Köln, Meist aus den Quellen des Stadt–Archiv,
5 vols. (Cologne: Schwann, 1863–1880).
Erasmus, Desiderius, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami denuo recognitum et
auctum, ed. by Percy Stafford Allen and H. M. Allen, 12 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon,
1906–1958).
Geldenhauer, Gerard, Collectanea, ed. by J. Prinsen (Amsterdam: Johannes Müller,

1901).
Gielis, Gert and Violet Soen, ‘The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth–Century
Habsburg Low Countries: A Dynamic Perspective’, Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 66 (2015), 47–66.
ieke leer van de Leuvense theologen (ca. 1520)’, Luther–Bulletin: Tijdschift voor
Gielis, Marcel and Gert Gielis, ‘Adrian of Utrecht (1459–1523) as Professor at the
University of Louvain and as a Leading Figure in the Church in the Netherlands’,
in Adrian VI: A Dutch Pope in a Roman Context, ed. by Hans Cools and others
(Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2012), pp. 1–22.
Harreld, Donald J., High Germans in the Low Countries: German Merchants and
Commerce in Golden Age Antwerp (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004).
Herwerden, C. H. van, Het Aandenken van Hendrik van Zutphen (Groningen: J.
Oomkens, 1840).
Iken, J. Friedrich, Heinrich von Zutphen, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsge-
schichte 12. (Halle: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1886).
Lang, Johannes and others, Historia wie S. Heinrich von Zutphan newlich yn Dittmars
vmbs Euangelions willen gemartert vnd gestorben ist. Jtem ein Sendbrieff desselbigẽ
was er zů vorne anderßwo derohalben erlitten habe. (Altenburg: Gabriel Kantz,
1525).
Lanz, Karl, ed. Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl V. Aus dem königlichen Archiv und der
Bibliothèque de Bourgogne zu Brüssel, 3 vols. (Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1966).
Latomus, Jacobus, Articulorum doctrinae fratris M. Lutheri per theologus Lovanienses
damnatorum ratio ex sacris literis et veteribus tractoribus (Antwerp, n.p. 1521).
(=WA), vols. 1–73 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–).
Papebrocius, Daniel, Annales Antverpienses ab urbe condita ad annum 1700 (Ant-
werp: J.E. Buschmann, 1895).
Pont, Johannes, Geschiedenis van het Lutheranisme in de Nederlanden tot 1618
(Haarlem, De Erven F. Bohn 1911).
Prims, F., ‘Het vette Vlaminkje’, Antverpiensia 3 (1929), 66–73.
Probst, Jacob, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis in Bonae
Literae et Lutherus: Texte und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie
des Bremer Reformators Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff, Hospitium Ecclesiae:
Forschungen zur Bremischen Kirchengeschichte 14 (1985), 42–59.
Rudloff, Ortwin, Bonae Literae et Lutherus: Texte und Untersuchungen zu den
Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer Reformators Jakob Probst (= Hospitium Ec-
clesiae: Forschungen zur Bremischen Kirchengeschichte) 14 (1985), 11–274.
Spalatin, Georg, ‘Excerpta quaedam e Diario Georgii Spalatini MSto’ in Amoenitates
Literariae Quibus Variae Observationes Scripta item quaedem anecdota & rariora
Opuscula exhibentur, ed. by J. Schelhorn, 4 vols. (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Daniel
Bartholomaei, 1725), 4: 389–432.
Spangenberg, Cyriakus, Mansfeldische Chronica in Mansfelder Blätter 27, 28, 30,
31, 32 (1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1918).
Spruyt, Bart J., Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and his Epistle on the Eucharist (1525):
Medieval Heresy, Erasmian Humanism, and Reform in the Early Sixteenth–Century
Low Countries (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006).
———, ‘Humanisme, Evangelisme en Reformatie in de Nederlanden, 1520–1530’,
in Reformatie in meervoud : congresbundel 1990, ed. by W. de Greef and M. van
Campen (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1991), pp. 26–54.
Wittenberg als Bildungszentrum 1502–2002, ed. by Peter Freybe (Lutherstadt–Wit-
tenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2002), pp. 9–32.
Visschers, P., Geschiedenis van St. Andries Kerk te Antwerpen, 3 vols. (Antwerp:
P.E. Janssens, 1853).
Visser, Casper, Luther’s Geschriften in de Nederlanden tot 1546 (Assen: van Gorcum,
1969).
Walsh, Katherine, ‘Papacy and Local Reform: B) Congregatio Ilicetana: The Au-
gustinian Observant Movement in Tuscany and the Humanist Ideal’, Römische
historische Mitteilungen 22 (1979), 105–146.
Wingfield, Richard, Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry
VIII, 21 vols. (London: Longman, 1864–1932).
Reformkongregation der deutschen Augustiner–Eremiten’, in Vita Religiosa im
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zutphen’s Briefe‘, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken Bremisches
Jahrbuch 2. 1 (1885), 241–252.
Zwingli, Ulrich, Zwinglis Briefwechsel, Die Briefe von 1510–1522 in Corpus reforma-
torum vol. 94, ed. by Georg Finsler (Leipzig: M. Heinsius, 1911).
4. The Authorities Respond: Pope and
Emperor Seize the Initiative
Abstract
Chapter Four investigates the responses of various opponents of Ref-
ormation ideas emanating from the Reformed Augustinian cloisters of
Lower Germany. After the Diet of Worms (1521), pope and emperor made
common cause with forces already arrayed against religious dissent in
Lower Germany. This chapter traces the development of the campaign
against the Antwerp Augustinians, which quickly expanded to include
the other six Reformed Augustinian cloisters of Lower Germany. It also
explores the pope’s response to these Augustinians as it relates to his
capacious efforts to limit Reformed Augustinian influence throughout
the empire. The chapter demonstrates that key authorities understood the
Reformed Augustinians as a threat, and that the response to that threat
was an important element in the early Reformation.
Keywords: Jerome Aleander, book burnings, Inquisition, Frans van der Hulst
A simple narration of the events surrounding the rise and fall of the Ant-
werp Augustinian cloister reveals its connections to the highest levels of
temporal and ecclesiastical authority of the era, the Holy Roman Emperor
and the Roman Pontiff respectively. It further indicates that Luther and the
hierarchy of the German Reformed Augustinians were keenly aware of what
was happening. But if one argument of this book is that the fight over the
cloisters of the Province of Lower Germany must be seen as a proxy battle,
it is necessary to investigate more closely the precise roles played by the
emperor and pope in the events surrounding the cloisters of that province
– especially the Antwerp house – and to consider their actions against the
background of broader events in the early Reformation. An analysis of the
nature and extent to which they were involved will demonstrate not only
an awareness of, but a considerable direct participation in these events.
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch04
Efforts to Control Religious Dissent in the Low Countries Prior to

1521
Prior to pope and emperor entering the struggle against Reformation

impulses in Brabant, the lines there had already been drawn. A coalition
comprised of the faculty of theology from the University of Leuven, rep-
resentatives of the mendicant orders, and the inquisition of the Bishop of
Cambrai (with significant overlap among these three groups) had already
censured Luther’s ideas and confronted humanist-minded reformers in
the Low Countries. Following the lead of its colleagues at the University
of Cologne, the Leuven faculty of theology had been among Luther’s first
critics, censuring his teachings in 1519. But there was some disagreement
among these professors over how to proceed: whether to simply condemn
Luther or to respond to his teachings more precisely.1 Another sticking
point was the issue of papal primacy. The Bull of Excommunication against
Luther robustly emphasized the pope’s powers, particularly as interpreter
and arbiter of scripture and doctrine. Some of the Leuven professors were
reluctant to cede so much authority to the pontiff.2 Others, particularly the
Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans, were absolutely in favour of such
papal primacy. Their critique of Luther had gone beyond restrained academic
disputation, and was now being disseminated from the pulpits, where one
mendicant reportedly stated that if he had stabbed Luther with his own
hands, he would not hesitate to perform the mass (with those same hands), as
both actions were a worthy service to God.3 A like-minded Dominican took
things a step further, allegedly declaring in a sermon that ‘If I ever have the
chance to tear out Luther’s throat with my own teeth, I would not hesitate
to perform the mass with bloody lips’.4 And the mendicant orders in Leuven
1 Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vo. 1, p. 73.

2 Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 78. The Bull reads, ‘With the advice
and consent of these our venerable brothers [Augustine and Cyprian], with mature deliberation
on each and every one of the above theses [which condemn Luther], and by the authority
of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and our own authority, we condemn,
reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous,
false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth’. http://
www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm. Accessed 8/22/2019.
3 ‘[W]ann er den Luther mit seiner eygen handt erstochen hett, so wolte er nit dester minder
meßlesen, ja auch got daran ein dienst thun’. Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia, in Rudloff,
Bonae Literae et Lutherus, pp. 42–59.
4 ‘Wenn ich doch mit meinen Zähnen dem Luther die Gurgel zerreißen dürfte, ich würde
mich nicht scheuen mit noch blutigen Lippen das Meßopfer zu vollziehen’. Quoted in Kalkoff,
The Authorities Respond: Pope and Emperor Seize the Initiative 77
had been emboldened by the arrival of the Dominican Jacob Hochstraten

from the University of Cologne, who had come to the University of Leuven
seeking support for his institution’s condemnation of Luther. Throughout
Europe, Hochstraten was already famous for his outspoken and relentless
pursuit of those deemed religious dissenters.
Early Efforts of the Papacy and Emperor Against the

Augustinians
Into this scenario arrived Jerome Aleander, the papal legate, on 26 September
1520, going first to Antwerp where the emperor was holding court. The Low
Countries were not entirely foreign to the forty-year-old Italian, celebrated
as one of the most learned men of his time. A little over a decade earlier,
in 1508, he had accepted an invitation from King Louis XII of France to
teach Greek at the University of Paris, becoming Rector there in 1513 and
being appointed secretary to the Bishop of Paris and Vice-Chancellor of
France at the same time. But it was on entering the service of Eberhard,
Prince-Bishop of Liège shortly thereafter that Aleander came to know the
Low Countries. Liège lay less than 100 kilometres from Brussels, right next
door to the Diocese of Cambrai in which both Brussels and Antwerp were
located. From this vantage point, the bishop’s secretary was well placed to
observe the lay of the land. In fact, Aleander would retain a residence in Liège
even after returning to Rome and becoming papal secretary and librarian
under Pope Leo X in 1517. Three years later, the pope assigned to him the
causa Lutheri, the case of Martin Luther. He was charged with publicizing in
the Low Countries the bull Exsurge Domine (15 June 1520) threating Luther
with excommunication, and convincing the emperor and princes to enact
forceful measures against Luther and his followers. Having left Rome on
27 July 1520, Aleander stopped in Florence to see Giulio de Medici, cousin
of Pope Leo X and a future pope himself (Clement VII, 1523–1534). At the
time, de Medici was Leo’s principal minister and confidant. He was also
Aleander’s immediate superior. Throughout his time at the emperor’s court,
whether in the Low Countries or at Worms, Aleander would write frequent
reports back to de Medici informing him of news, the status of negotiations,
and his own efforts, and asking questions on how to proceed. De Medici
thus served as a conduit to his cousin Leo through which information was
passed on to the pope, and directives from the pontiff back to Aleander.
On 20 September 1520, at the encouragement of Aleander and in support
of the condemnations by the theologians of the Universities of Cologne and
Leuven, Charles V promulgated his first edict against Luther’s teachings.5

A few weeks later, on 8 October 1520, Aleander was able to convince Charles
V to allow him to burn Luther’s books in Leuven, a spectacle that took place
with members of the faculty of theology and representatives of the mendicant
orders in attendance. The coalition of these three bodies (papacy, faculty of
theology, and mendicant orders) was already beginning to take shape. But
this book burning was just a precursor to a more comprehensive campaign
against heterodox ideas in the Low Countries. Not long thereafter, Aleander
travelled to Aachen for the emperor’s coronation (22 October 1520), then
on to the Diet of Worms (28 January 1521–25 May 1521). It was only after
the Diet that the pope and emperor took control of the struggle against
Luther’s ideas in the Low Countries, leading eventually to the executions
of Vos and van den Esschen.
Following his return to the Low Countries from the Diet of Worms
Aleander immediately began a tour of its most important cities, in which
he publicized the Edict of Worms (25 May 1521), burned Luther’s books,
and censured key representatives of Reformation doctrine and religious
dissent. It was not long before he had Jacob Probst firmly in his sights; as he
proceeded against the Augustinian prior, he turned to the papacy for advice
and to the emperor for support, as evidenced by correspondence among
Aleander, de Medici, and Jean Glapion, the emperor’s father confessor. On
9 September 1521, Aleander wrote to de Medici that Erasmus and Probst
were the two key problems in Brabant, adding that Probst was ‘of that type
of demons who requires a stick’.6 Nine days later he received a reply from
de Medici: Aleander should make common cause with Glapion and other
like-minded individuals in order to discipline ‘the damned Lutheran prior
in Antwerp’.7 Nine days thereafter, de Medici repeated this order, adding
that ‘as for the villainous prior who has just returned [from Wittenberg], see
if you can chastise him without scandal’ (for there was fear that a tumult
would arise if they proceeded too harshly), and reminding Aleander to work
closely with the emperor.8 In fact, wrote de Medici, Aleander should make
5 For a helpful summary of this and Charles V’s other anti-heresy edicts see Goosens, Les
Inquisitions modernes, vol. 1, pp. 48–68.
6 ‘[E]st ex eo genere Demonum che ha bisogno di baston’. Aleander to Vice-Chancellor Medici,
8 September 1521, Monumenta Reformationis, p. 289.
7 ‘Quel maledicto Lutherano priore di Augustiniani’. Vice-Chancellor de Medici to Aleander,
18 September 1521, Monumenta Reformationis, p. 292.
8 ‘Quanto a quel ribald priore che è tornado in Antwersa, vedete se senza scandalo si potesse
gastigare’. Vice-Chancellor de Medici to Aleander, 27 September 1521, Monumenta Reformationis,
pp. 292–293.
clear to the emperor that energetic steps must be taken against Probst so
the disease of heresy did not spread throughout the land and destroy the
church.9 For de Medici, and therefore for the papacy, failure to act against
the Augustinian prior could set off a domino effect. Aleander immediately
wrote to Glapion, informing him of the papacy’s wishes and asking for
the emperor’s support. By 10 October 1521, the papal nuncio received the
emperor’s permission to start legal proceedings against Lutherans. Glapion
wrote that ‘[i]f two or one are legally condemned’, they should suffer the
punishment they deserve.10 But Glapion also reminded Aleander that this
must all take place in full accordance with the laws of the state. Up to this
point Aleander, representing the interests of the papacy, was the key force
behind the burgeoning efforts to discipline the Augustinian prior.
Charles V and the Augustinians of Lower Germany
But the emperor had no interest in merely ceding the problem of heresy to
the papacy, or to the local bishops. His father confessor’s insistence that any
judicial procedures against vocal supporters of Luther be done in accordance
with the laws of the state intimated that he saw heresy as a political matter
and desired to retain judicial control over it.11 Realizing the grave danger
posed by heterodoxy, Charles thus took the unusual step of establishing
his own secular inquisition, as noted in the previous chapter. Under the
directorship of Frans van der Hulst, this new body fell under the jurisdiction
9 De Medici writes, ‘Make sure that, along with the protonotary, you make it clear to his
majesty the Emperor, that they will also infect all the rest of the country, and ultimately rebel
from the obedience to the Church and to His Majesty, and multiply to the degree that between
them and the Turks they will become a scourge to all the Christians’ (‘vedete ogni modo voi
et il Prothonotario con la Maestà Cesarea che vi si proveda vivamente, che altramente infet-
teranno tutto ’l resto del paese, et per ultimo et dalla ubbidientia della Chiesa et di Sua Maestà
si rebellerano, et potrebbero in tanto multiplicare che fra loro et Turchi guai a tutti i Christiani’).
Vice-Chancellor de Medici to Aleander, 27 September 1521, Monumenta Reformationis, p. 293.
10 ‘[W]enn zwei oder einer gesetzmäßig angezeigt worden sein’. Kalkoff quotes this letter from
Glapion to Aleander, citing Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 18 (1907), 131 as his source. Although
I have found the periodical, I have been unable to identify any letter of Glapion in it. Kalkoff,
11 Among historians of the Inquisition in the Low Countries it is a widely accepted position
that early modern inquisitions (as opposed to their medieval counterparts) were among the
principle motors of the establishment of princely sovereignty, and that Charles V’s attempt at a
‘secular inquisition’ was, in part, an attempt to increase his authority and control at the expense
of ecclesiastical power. See, for example, Goosens, Les Inquisitions modernes, vol. 1, p. 12; and
Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie, vol. 1, pp. 10–11.
of the emperor’s Council of Brabant.12 Van der Hulst’s status as a layman

required him to employ spirituals, and in order to appease the local bishop
he chose Egmond and Latomus to assist him, both of whom had previously
been employed by the Bishop of Cambrai’s inquisition.13 It was this group,
working directly with Glapion and some of his advisors, that arrested and
interrogated Probst.
With the death of Leo X on 1 December 1522, Aleander was recalled to
Rome, although not before presiding over Probst’s public recantation in
Brussels on 9 February 1522. With Aleander out of the picture, the papacy’s
direct influence on the case against the Antwerp Augustinians waned for a
time. On 23 April 1522, Charles publicly confirmed van der Hulst in his posi-
tion as secular inquisitor for Brabant and the rest of the emperor’s territories
in the Low Countries (although he was never referred to specifically in any
official documents as ‘inquisitor’), whereupon responsibility for controlling
heresy in the Low Countries fell firmly into the hands of the emperor, and a
new assault began.14 Thus it was under imperial auspices that van der Hulst
(in conjunction with Margaret, the Queen Regent), questioned Miritsch,
sponsored the chapter meeting at Dordrecht in 1522 that severed the Au-
gustinians of Lower Germany from the German Reformed Congregation,
arrested van Zutphen, and dissolved the Augustinian cloister in Antwerp.
The responsibility for the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, however,
is a more complicated matter.
Pope Adrian VI and the Campaign against the Congregation of

German Reformed Augustinians
The degree to which the new Pope Adrian actively promoted the actions
taken by the secular inquisition is difficult to gauge.15 But two points are
12 For a broader description of Charles V’s ‘secular inquisition’, its organization, and procedures,
see Aline Goosens, Les Inquisitions modernes, vol. 2, pp. 77–100, and Gielis and Soen, ‘The
Inquisitorial Office’.
13 Kalkoff, Der Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 2, p. 63.
14 Fühner, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorischen Religionspolitik, p. 225. Fühner also provides
a helpful summary of the precise provisions of van der Hulst’s appointment and responsibilities.
See pp. 226–227.
15 It is worth noting that already under Leo X, there is some evidence that the Congregation
was the cause of papal suspicion and dissatisfaction. In 1519, Leo recommended to the observant
cloisters in Southwest Germany (Alzey, Esslingen, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Weil der Stadt),
which had severed themselves from the Congregation over Staupitz’s plans for a union between
Conventuals and Observants, that they not rejoin the German Reformed Congregation, but accept
beyond question. First, that Adrian – who came from Utrecht, had been
a member of Leuven’s theological faculty and the tutor of Charles V, had
represented the canons of the Church of Our Lady against the nascent efforts
of the German Reformed Augustinians to establish a cloister in Antwerp,
and had been a friend, mentor, and colleague to van der Hulst – possessed
an intimate knowledge of what was happening in Brabant and was well
aware of the steps being taken against the Antwerp Augustinians.16 Second,
despite the fact that his pontificate was cut short by his untimely passing
after less than two years, that Adrian clearly recognized the threat posed
by the German Reformed Congregation: for at the time of his death (as will
be demonstrated), he was in the process of developing a campaign against
them throughout the empire, but especially in the Low Countries.
Adrian’s knowledge of the situation in the Low Countries most likely
came from a variety of sources. He was a towering figure in the ecclesiastical
and political life of the Low Countries before being sent to Spain in 1516
(to represent Charles V’s interests there), and then on to Rome in 1522.
As vice-chancellor of the University of Leuven, he had been mentor to
many of the men now in positions of power in Leuven’s theology faculty,
some of whom would eventually act as judges in the case of Vos and van
den Esschen.17 As evidence of their continued deference to Adrian, the
faculty had sent its condemnation of Luther’s teachings to him in Spain
asking for his approval, which they received in the form of a letter shortly
the reform as offered by the Conventual Province of Rhenish-Schwabia. It is unclear whether

this was connected to Luther and the air of suspicion he brought to the Congregation or other,
unrelated issues. What is clear, however, is the fact that Prior General of the Augustinian Order,
Gabriel de Venezia, had no misgivings about what Luther’s teachings could mean for the Order.
In 1520, he wrote to Staupitz indicating that not only was Luther giving the Order a bad name, but
that his actions had the potential to impact in particular the German Reformed Congregation,
which stood to lose its privileges, exemptions, and immunities. Schneider, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’
Amtsverszicht’, pp. 200–201.
16 At the University of Leuven in 1483, van der Hulst and Adrian had already struck up a
friendship, and in 1505, Adrian assumed the guardianship of van der Hulst’s children, who had
not yet come of age. For Adrian’s connections to van der Hulst see Gielis and Gielis, ‘Adrian of
Utrecht’, pp. 16–22.
17 In one of the pamphlets published immediately after the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen, the following men are named as their judges: Frans van der Hulst, Jacob Hochstraten,
Nicolaas Baechem from Egmond, Godschalc Rosemondt, Jacob Latomus, Ruard Tapper, and Jan
Pascha. With the exception of Hochstraten, all had been Adrian’s students. See Anonymous,
Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 8. For Adrian’s specific connection to each of these men
see Gielis and Gielis, ‘Adrian of Utrecht’, esp. pp. 5–22. For Adrian’s broader association with the
University of Leuven see Geurts, De Nederlandse Paus Adrianus, esp. pp. 68–88; and Verweij,
Adrianus VI, pp. 17–38.
thereafter.18 The missive subsequently served as the introduction to the

condemnations of Luther published by the faculties of theology at Leuven
and Cologne. With so many local connections, the pope was surely kept
well appraised of the developments in the Low Countries. If perchance
these failed him, then his papal legates undoubtedly kept him informed.
As early as 5 November 1522, just weeks after the queen regent had closed
the Antwerp Augustinians’ cloister, Francesco Chiericati, Papal Legate to
the Diet of Nuremberg, described the events surrounding van Zutphen’s
arrest and the incarceration of the remaining Antwerp Augustinians in
a letter to an acquaintance. After outlining how the women had rescued
van Zutphen, and how the queen regent had responded by dissolving the
cloister, Chiericati ended his account claiming confidently that as a result
of these severe measures, all the Lutherans now trembled in fear.19 It stands
to reason that if Chiericati had precise knowledge of these events, so too did
Adrian – if for no other reason than that the legate was tasked with passing
such information on to the pope.
Of the pope’s next move, there can be no doubt. In a letter dated 1 June
1523, one month prior to the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, Adrian
officially named van der Hulst a papal inquisitor, in addition to his position
as head of Charles V’s secular inquisition. In his letter of appointment, the
pope indicated that van der Hulst’s morals and extensive learning were well
known to him, so despite the fact that he was not a cleric van der Hulst was
nonetheless well qualified to direct the inquisition in the lands of Charles V.
Although he was required to enlist the services of clerics, he was vested with
the same inquisitorial powers as an episcopal or papal inquisitor.20 Thus,
when van der Hulst condemned Vos and van den Esschen four weeks later
and gave them over for execution, he did so with the full authority of both
emperor and pope.21
18 Meyer, ‘Adriaan Florisz. Van Utrecht’, pp. 4–6.

19 Francesco Chiericati to Isabella D’Este Gonzaga, 5 November 1522. Chiericati, Vescovo e
Diplomatico, p. 104.
20 He was promoted to ‘universal and general inquisitor with complete power and authority
in all its forms’ (‘universalis et generalis inquisitor et investigator cum plena ac omnimoda
potestate et auctoritate’). See the papal bull appointing van der Hulst as papal inquisitor, CD,
4: doc. 136. Fühner sees this as a move by the curia to reassert the supremacy of ecclesiastical
authority over the prosecution of heresy. Fühner, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorische
Religionspolitik, pp. 228–229. But it is noteworthy that Charles’s advisors carefully vetted the
pope’s letter appointing van der Hulst before it was allowed to be publicized.
21 It is interesting to note that this experiment was short-lived and Charles’s attempt to
establish a secular imperial inquisition in the Low Countries was ultimately a failure. Prior to
the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen, van der Hulst had already begun a judiciary process
The close chronology of the papal appointment and the executions begs
the question as to whether the two events were related. It seems suspicious
that after holding Vos and van den Esschen for about a year, van der Hulst
suddenly decided to push their case forward mere weeks or even days after
the pope’s letter appointing him papal inquisitor arrived in Antwerp. And
indeed, one of the pamphlets produced in the wake of the executions seems
to suggest such a connection. The anonymous author writes that only after
letters arrived from Rome censuring all who held “Lutheran” views were
the Augustinians burned.22 Beyond dispute, however, is the fact that in
condemning Vos and van den Esschen to death, van der Hulst was operating
in his new position as papal inquisitor, for Charles V did not make heresy
a capital crime until 1529.23 Thus, without having been named the papal
inquisitor, van der Hulst would have had no power to execute these men.
Was Pope Adrian aware that, at the moment he made this inquisitorial
appointment, three recalcitrant German Reformed Augustinians from
Antwerp were being held prisoner by van der Hulst? It is difficult to believe
that he was not. Did he have them specifically in mind when he conferred
the powers of papal inquisitor on van der Hulst? The sources do not permit
us to answer this question.
But while it remains unknown whether Pope Adrian directly authorized
the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, even before these events occurred
he had officially approved various measures taken by van der Hulst and the
against Cornelius Hoen, a Christian Humanist in the Province of Holland. So violently did he
proceed against Hoen that the States in the Low Countries protested to Queen Regent Margaret,
insisting on their privilege de non evocando (by which their citizens were exempt from being
called to answer before a court outside of the territory), and entreating her to remove van der
Hulst from his position as inquisitor. In September of 1523 she wrote to Adrian, requesting
that he deprive van der Hulst of his commission. By early 1524, she herself had removed him as
inquisitor. The case was an important victory for the States. Charles V never again established
a tribunal for the prosecution of heresy, a task that now devolved to the secular courts at the
provincial level and to the ecclesiastical courts. For more on the precise nature of van der
Hulst’s fall, see Spruyt, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), pp. 75–84. For broader information
on the establishment and subsequent demise of the Emperor’s inquisition, see Tracy, Holland
under Habsburg Rule, pp. 152–155.
22 ‘Then other monks and ecclesiastics bribed the Regent with money against the pope so
that an edict arrived from Rome in which the pope condemned all who held such opinions to
the stake’ (‘Nun haben andere münniche und geystliche so vil durchs Gelt mit den Regenten
gehandelt auch gegen dem Babst daß ein Mandat von Rom kommen ist dar in der Bapst alle die
so auff dißer meynung sind verurteylt hatt die selben zuverprennen’). Anonymous, Der Actus
und handlung, p. 3. And indeed, in the text of van der Hulst’s appointment, the unorthodox
teachings of Luther are clearly articulated. CD, 4: doc. 136.
23 Christman, Pragmatic Toleration, 25.
queen regent against the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany. In a

letter dated 23 November 1522, Adrian provided his imprimatur for the vote
at the chapter meeting in Dordrecht that severed the Reformed Augustinian
Province of Lower Germany from the German Reformed Congregation’s
hierarchy in Saxony, establishing Johann van Mechelen as Vicar General of
Lower Germany.24 And he was soon to give his blessing to the destruction of
the Augustinians’ cloister and the conversion of their church into a parish
church.25 While it is tempting to assume that someone as overburdened as
Adrian probably had assistants who made such decisions, this is unlikely.
Adrian was well-known for his micromanaging style, which caused one
historian to remark that ‘[the pope] tended to personally handle as many
affairs as possible and hardly delegated anything’.26 The actions taken against
the Reformed Augustinians indicate not only that the pope was aware of
the specific situation of the Antwerp friars, but also that he understood the
broader threat posed by the cloisters that made up the Province of Lower
Germany.
The probability that a papal strategy against the Reformed Augustinians
was at work in the Low Countries becomes even greater when these events
are viewed against the backdrop of Adrian’s other moves against the German
Reformed Augustinians. As noted, due to his untimely death the pope had
only a narrow window to use his particular personal knowledge of this
group. He had received news that he was chosen pope on 24 January 1522
while in Spain, but did not arrive in Rome until 28 August 1522. Just over one
year later, on 14 September 1523, he would breathe his last. And while it is
true that during his short pontificate he did not enact any bulls against the
Congregation of German Reformed Augustinians, there are indications that
he was preparing to do so in the correspondence of Prior General Gabriel
de Venezia from this period. Three times in his register of correspondence
Gabriel mentions an expected papal bull that would have returned control
of the Congregation’s houses to the respective provincials, a move that
would have essentially ended the German Observant movement. In the first
24 Pope Adrian VI confirmed the decision made in Dordrecht and at the same time conferred
powers on this new Vicar General for Lower Germany equal to those of the German Reformed
Congregation’s Vicar General. Leonard Ennen, Geschichte der Stadt Köln, vol. 4, p. 184.
25 Although we do not have the document, we know that Adrian VI did confirm this decision
because on 10 January 1523, Charles V wrote to Margaret informing her that she should wait to
destroy the cloister until permission was received from the pope; what is more, she should not
destroy the cloister church but, as per the request of the pope, turn it into a parish church. CD,
4: doc. 120.
26 Hulscher, ‘The Pontificate of Adrian VI’, p. 55.
reference, Gabriel merely forwards to the pope the Provincial of the Cologne’s
request for the Prior General to help recuperate the monasteries that had
been ‘usurped’ by the Observants by requesting that the pope promulgate
a Bull to that effect.27 A few months later on 12 June 1523, corresponding
with the Provincial of the Cologne Province, the Prior General refers to the
requested bull, indicating that he hopes it will be finished any day now.28 And
only days later, on 15 June 1523, the Prior General writes to the Provincial of
Rheinish-Swabia, encouraging him to root out all members in his province
who have become infected with the Lutheran heresy, and promising the
imminent appearance of ‘apostolic letters’ (litteras apostolicas) ‘through
which that entire [German Reformed] Congregation and their houses will be
subjected to the General Provinces’.29 From Gabriel de Venezia’s perspective,
Pope Adrian was preparing to take drastic steps to break up the German
Reformed Congregation by returning authority over its houses into the
traditional structures of the order.30 But the anticipated Bull never came.
Was all this talk merely wishful thinking on the part of the Prior General?
Other actions taken by Adrian regarding individual Augustinian houses
27 Cited in Meyer, ‘Adriaan Florisz. van Utrecht’, p. 52, n. 2.

28 ‘In addition, I informed him [the Provincial of the Cologne Province] of a pontifical bull being
drafted for the recovery of the monasteries which I hope will be completed shortly’ (‘Preterea
significavimus illi bullam pontificam cudi pro monasteriorum recuperatione quam prope diem
confectam fore speramus’). Cited in Meyer, ‘Adriaan Florisz. van Utrecht’, p. 52, n. 2.
29 ‘[Q]uibus tota illa congregatio et eorum domus Generali provincialibusque subiicietur’.
Cited in Meyer, ‘Adriaan Florisz. van Utrecht’, pp. 52–53, n. 2.
30 If the pope needed one more source of information regarding the German Reformed Augustin-
ians and the situation in Wittenberg, he certainly could have called on Gabriel de Venezia directly,
for the Prior General of the Augustinian Order was keeping close tabs. In early 1523, de Venezia
reported to the Provincial of the Saxon Province that in Rome he daily heard the shameful
reports coming out of Germany. Most of these reports have been lost, but a newly discovered
letter dated November 1522 from Nicolaus Coci, an Augustinian studying in Wittenberg, to the
Prior General himself, provides direct evidence regarding de Venezia’s knowledge of the situation
in Saxony. Coci, himself from Saxony, had been studying in Rome while holding the position
of sub-prior at the Convent of St. Augustine, which was also de Venezia’s residence. In autumn
of 1522, on his return home to Germany, he was sent by de Venezia to deliver a message to the
Provincial of Saxony, but then went to study at the University of Wittenberg, already considered
a hotbed of heresy by this point. Why would the Prior General allow this? Hans Schneider sees
only one possible rationale: that Coci was sent to Wittenberg to gather direct information.
He was a spy. In his one surviving letter to the Prior General, sent just days after his arrival
in Wittenberg, he gives a broad, if not particularly deep description of the lay of the land. The
point is that de Venezia, and therefore Rome, were directly informed about the circumstances
in Wittenberg and even in the Black Cloister itself, where Coci would have resided during his
time in Wittenberg. See Schneider, ‘Zwei Briefe über die Situation in Wittenberg’, 11–34. I am
thankful to Dr. Schneider for sharing his work with me.
suggest that it was not, but that the pope was broadly engaged in a critical
response to the German Reformed Augustinians, particularly those with
“Lutheran” notions. Adrian’s efforts regarding their cloister in Cologne
demonstrate that he was keenly aware of the danger they posed and was
willing to move against them, even when it brought him into conflict with
the cloister’s local patrons, the city council, not to mention the wishes
of the imperial authorities. Cologne was one of three cloisters that had
abstained from voting to secede from the German Reformed Congregation
at the chapter meeting in Dordrecht in July 1522. As a result, the cloister was
immediately deemed suspect by the faculty of theology at the University of
Cologne. These powerful professors soon instituted a rule that no one coming
from Wittenberg to study or teach at the university would be allowed to
proceed unless they swore an oath damning Luther’s heresy and promising
not to disseminate it. When friar Heinrich Himmel arrived from Wittenberg
in October 1521, having been assigned to teach in the Cologne cloister’s
studium generale – a task that also included lecturing at the University – he
refused to swear the oath and was not allowed to take up his position.31
Yet, as will become apparent in the following chapters, this move did not
hinder the emergence of a considerable group of supporters of Reformation
doctrines in that city’s Reformed Augustinian cloister. Various efforts were
made to rein in this small but vocal minority, all of which failed. New, more
aggressive measures were required.
In theory, the cloister fell under the spiritual authority of Johann van
Mechelen, now Vicar General of the newly established autonomous Reformed
Augustinian Province of Lower Germany. However, because he did not
initially undertake action to address the problems in the Cologne cloister,
on 28 April 1523 Pope Adrian promulgated a bull that removed the cloister
from obedience to van Mechelen and placed it directly under the joint
authority of the Apostolic See and the faculty of theology of the University of
Cologne. This was a deliberate effort by the pope to increase control over the
cloister and eliminate heresy, a move undertaken despite the fact that van
Mechelen was a convinced opponent of Luther and had the support of the
imperial government. But due to his status as an Observant, van Mechelen
apparently retained an air of suspicion for Adrian.32 And although the
pope’s attempt ultimately failed, it signalled his awareness of the situation
in the Lower German cloister of Cologne, and his rather forceful efforts to
bring the Reformed Augustinians there to heel.
31 Rotscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die kölner Augustiner’, p. 38.

32 For the text of the Papal Bull, see Rothscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner’, pp. 44–45.
The scenario in the Munich cloister, another German Reformed Augustin-

ian house with pro-Reformation impulses, presents an even starker example
of the pope’s recognition that the friars were a threat. That cloister had joined
the ranks of the German Reformed Congregation in 1481, when Observant
friars were brought in and the Conventuals expelled. In 1488, the cloister
was placed under the authority of Andreas Proles, Staupitz’s predecessor as
Vicar General of the Congregation. In 1500, Staupitz himself became prior, a
role that Wenceslaus Linck would eventually fill from 1515 to 1517.33 It would
not be an overstatement, then, to suggest that the Munich cloister played
a leading role within the German Reformed Congregation. But in March
1522, when Linck, in his capacity as Vicar General, invited representatives
of all of the Congregation’s cloisters to meet in Eschwege, the prior of the
Munich cloister refused to attend. Instead he forwarded Linck’s invitation
to the Duke of Bavaria, a convinced opponent of the Reformation who had
forbidden the cloister all contact with the German Reformed Congregation.
At the request of the Duke, the pope now got involved. On 7 August 1523,
he issued a bull removing the Munich cloister from control of the German
Reformed Congregation and placing it directly under papal authority.34 The
document provides some insight into Adrian’s impression of the German
Reformed Congregation a little over a month since the executions of Vos
and van den Esschen. The Congregation, he asserted, was ‘formerly a holy
congregation, but now is a synagogue of Satan’, their head and many of
their brothers following the schismatic and heretic, Martin Luther, to their
destruction.35 As his actions regarding the Cologne and Munich cloisters
make clear, Adrian was aware of the role of the German Reformed Augustin-
ians as purveyors of the early Reformation. Why he never promulgated the
bull that would have brought the entire Congregation firmly under the
control of the Provincials is unknown – perhaps he just ran out of time;
however, his actions with regard to the cloisters in Cologne and Munich
demonstrate that he understood the threat they posed.
When all the pieces are put together it becomes apparent that, by the
summer of 1523, the papacy had its sights trained on the Congregation of
German Reformed Augustinians. In early November of 1522, Chieriecati
had reported that as the result of the arrest of van Zutphen, the closing
of the Antwerp cloister, and the incarceration of the Antwerp friars, the
33 Hemmerle, ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in Bayern’, p. 433.

34 Dreher, ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in München’, p. 123.
35 ‘olim sancte congregationis, nunc vero synagoge sathanae’. For a text of this letter see Meyer,
‘Adriaan Floriz. van Utrecht’, pp. 68–70, here at p. 68.
Lutherans now cowered in fear. On 23 November 1522, Pope Adrian gave his
imprimatur to the establishment of a Vicar General for the Province of Lower
Germany, the outcome of the Dordrecht Chapter meeting. On 28 April 1523,
the pope made his first direct move against the Augustinians, decreeing
the Cologne cloister be placed under joint control of the papacy and the
University of Cologne faculty of theology. On 1 June 1523, he gave van der
Hulst full powers as papal inquisitor, undoubtedly aware that some of the
friars from the Antwerp cloister were still incarcerated. On two occasions
after this, 12 and 15 June, the Prior General of the Augustinian Order referred
to the papacy’s efforts to produce a bull that would essentially dissolve the
German Reformed Congregation. On 1 July, Vos and van den Esschen were
burned in Brussels. On 4 August, Adrian removed the Munich cloister from
control of the ‘synagogue of Satan’ and placed it under his direct control.
And early in 1524, the pope gave permission to the queen regent to have
the Augustinian cloister in Antwerp destroyed and its church turned into
a parish church.
All of these moves suggest a multifaceted campaign against the Con-
gregation of German Reformed Augustinians, particularly those in Lower
Germany. Both pope and emperor targeted them as purveyors of Reformation
heresies and religious dissent and did their best to eliminate the threat.36
These cloisters, then, cannot be considered peripheral to the action of the
burgeoning Reformation, but must be understood as an early battleground,
part of a conflict that reached into the highest ecclesiastical and temporal
circles in Europe. However, the forces supporting the Reformation, par-
ticularly the hierarchy of the German Reformed Congregation, were not
about to abandon their brethren in Lower German. The battle would be
waged on both sides.
36 It is perhaps worth noting that not only did the pope and emperor perceive the threat
posed by the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany, but the local authorities did as well.
The magistrate at Ghent in their letter to Margaret of Austria describing the outcome of the
Dordrecht Chapter meeting, claimed that actions had been taken ‘[…] in order to root out the
error and heresy of Martin Luther from these Low Countries of the emperor, our lord, and also
from the reformed Augustinian [Observant] cloisters, which number seven and have come
under suspicion of the said heresy of Martin Luther since they fell under the authority of the
Vicar of Germany [=Wenceslas Link], himself also suspected and condemned [of heresy]’ (‘pour
extirper lerreur et hérésie de Martinus Luther de ses pays dembas de lempereur nostre sire, et
mesmement des cloisters de la réformacion [=Observants] de lordre de St Augustin estans en
nombre de sept couvents, lesquelz estoient suspectz dud. erreur de Martinus Luther, à cause que
lesd. couvents estoient dessoubz lobédience du vicaire dAllemaigne [=Linck], que dud. erreur
estoite pareillement diffamé et suspect’). CD: doc. 91.
Works Cited
Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, ob Evangelij doctrinam exustis
Bruxellae, die trigesima Iunij. Anno domini M.D.XXIII (n.p.: n.p).
Chiericati, Francesco, Vescovo e Diplomatico del Secolo Decimosesto Lettura, ed. by
Bernardo Morsolin (Vicenza: Tip. Naz Paroni, 1873).
Christman, Victoria, Pragmatic Toleration: The Politics of Religious Heterodoxy in
Early Reformation Antwerp (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2015).
Decavele, Johan, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565), 2 vols.
(Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975).
Dreher, Max, ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in München im Zeitalter der Reformation
und des Barock (16. Bis Mitte 18. Jahrhunderts)’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Salzburg, 2002. Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Ennen, Leonard, Geschicht der Stadt Köln, Meist aus den Quellen des Stadt-Archiv,
Fühner, Jochen, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorischen Religionspolitik Kaiser
Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Geurts, Twan, De Nederlandse Paus Adrianus van Utrecht 1459–1523 (Amsterdam:
Balans, 2017).
Gielis, Gert and Violet Soen, ‘The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth-Century
History 66 (2015), 47–66.
Goosens, Aline, Les Inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux 1520–1633,
2 vols. (Brussels: Editions de l’ Université de Bruxelles, 1997–1998).
Hemmerle, J., ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in Bayern’, Augustiniana 6 (1956), 385–489.
Hulscher, Hans, ‘The Pontificate of Adrian VI (9 January 1522 – 14 September 1523)’, in
Adrian VI: A Dutch Pope in a Roman Context, ed. by Hans Cools, Catrien Santing,
and Hans de Valk, (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2012), 47–66.
Meyer, A. de, ‘Adriaan Florisz. Van Utrecht in zijn Contacten met de Augustijnen’,
Archief voor de Gescheidenis van de Katholieke Kerk in Nederland 2 (1960), 1–72.
Monumenta Reformationis Lutheranae ex tabularis s. sedis, 1521–1525, ed. by Petrus
Balan (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1883).
Papal Encyclical, “Bull of Excommunication” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
Leo10/l10exdom.htm. Accessed 13 July 2019.
des Bremer Reformators Jakob Probst, ed by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae:
Schneider, Hans, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’ Amtsverszicht und Ordenswechsel’,
Augustiniana 66 (2016), 185–231.
———, ‘Zwei Briefe über die Situation in Wittenberg 1522 und 1524 im Register
des Ordensgenerals der Augustinereremiten’, Lutherjahrbuch 83 (2016), 11–34.
Medieval Heresy, Erasmian Humanism, and Reform in the Early Sixteenth-Century
Tracy, James D., Holland under Habsburg Rule, 1506–1566: The Formation of a Body
Politic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990)
Verweij, Michiel, Adrianus VI (1459–1523) De tragische paus uit de Nederlanden
(Antwerp–Apeldoorn: Garant, 2011).
5. Wittenberg’s Influence on the Events
in Lower Germany
Abstract
Chapter Five shifts the focus to Martin Luther and the Reformed Augustin-
ian leadership in Wittenberg. Traditional historiography insinuates that
these men merely observed the tragedy unfolding in the Low Countries
from afar and lamented its outcome. But this chapter argues for a more
proactive involvement, demonstrating that not only were Luther and
his colleagues aware of the events in Lower Germany, they sought to
influence them. Moreover, they employed the strategies developed by
Staupitz in the 1510s to expand the Congregation’s influence, this time
in the service of the Reformation. Thus by 1521, Luther and his colleagues
were already using the assets of the Augustinian Order under their control
to disseminate Reformation ideas.
Keywords: German Congregation of Reformed Augustinians, Jacob Probst,

Hendrik van Zutphen, Augustinian Education
Both the emperor and pope understood the threat posed by the Congregation
of German Reformed Augustinians, particularly those in the Province of
Lower Germany, and because these authorities possessed the necessary
influence to proceed against them, they were able to silence the friars
there. Despite this, it is clear that the networks the Congregation forged in
the first decades of the sixteenth century, along with the tactics employed
by Staupitz in his efforts to expand the influence of the group, offered the
Congregation’s pro-Luther elements an opportunity: they could use those
assets in the service of Reformation ideas. Previously, historians appear to
have assumed that any actions taken by Congregation members in Lower
Germany in support of the Reformation were motivated by individual
conscience and personal conviction, not the consequences of any formal
or even loosely devised plan. But a closer look at the interaction between
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch05
the Congregation’s hierarchy and their members in the Province of Lower

Germany reveals that not only were Wenceslaus Linck, Martin Luther,
Johannes Lang, and other key members keenly aware of what was happening
in the Low Countries, they were working to control, or at the very least to
influence the situation.
Education in the Ways of the Congregation
To understand their actions in support of their ‘Lower German’ brethren, it is

important to recognize that these men stood at the top of the Congregation’s
hierarchy. By 1520, each of them had spent well over a decade in the Reformed
Augustinians’ system under the tutelage of Johann von Staupitz, who was
in many ways a role model for the actions they would now undertake.
Theologians and historians have often pointed to Luther’s debt to Staupitz
in the area of doctrine, not least because Luther himself acknowledged it
with gratitude.1 But it is difficult to imagine that these men did not also
observe and benefit from Staupitz’s other aptitudes, in particular his skill
in ecclesiastical politics. Brief biographical sketches of Linck, Luther, and
Lang as relates to their time as Augustinians indicate the degree to which
they were products of the Congregation’s administrative environment, and
party to its inner workings.
A direct contemporary of Luther, Wenceslaus Linck (1482–1547), who
would ultimately succeed Staupitz as Vicar General, was a Saxon who had
joined the Augustinians in their Waldheim cloister. He must have shown
academic promise, for in 1508 (the same year that van Zutphen arrived) his
cloister sent him to study at the University of Wittenberg, where Luther had
just arrived for his first Wittenberg phase. Linck received his Doctorate
in Theology in 1511, the year before Luther. In 1512, at the Congregation’s
chapter meeting in Cologne, Staupitz appointed his two young protégés
to lead the Wittenberg cloister: Linck as prior, Luther as sub-prior. Linck
was also given the position of Dean of the Faculty of Theology and District
Vicar for the Congregation’s Province of Saxony-Thuringia from 1512 to
1515, while Luther was named regent or director of the cloister’s studium
generale. Johannes Lang, who was likewise sent from Erfurt to Wittenberg
at this time, was installed as Luther’s assistant in the studium generale.
1 Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 3:155–156. Much has been written on Luther and Staupitz. For
a few works to orient the reader see Saak, Highway to Heaven, pp. 637–660; Hamm, ‘Johann von
Staupitz’; and Wriedt, Gnade und Erwählung.
Wittenberg’s Influence on the Events in Lower Germany 93
It was during this period that the three men became close friends. When
his duties as District Vicar ended in 1515, Linck accompanied Staupitz on
several visitations of the Congregation’s cloisters. A gifted preacher, he was
called to Nuremberg in 1516, where he effectively assumed leadership of the
intellectual circle that had once gathered around Staupitz, promoting reform
ideas there among the likes of Willibald Pirckheimer, Lazarus Spengler, and
Albrecht Dürer. In 1518, Linck attended the Heidelberg chapter meeting
at which the Heidelberg Disputation was held, after which he travelled
with Staupitz and Luther to the Reformer’s famous meeting with Cardinal
Cajetan in Augsburg. In 1520, Linck was chosen by the Congregation to be
Vicar General, successor to Staupitz himself. In a variety of ways Linck was
a product of Staupitz’s grooming and a gifted intellectual, but also someone
who evidently had the administrative and political skills necessary to be
selected for the Congregation’s top position.
Due to his clear intellectual aptitude, Staupitz kept Luther on more of
an academic track within the Congregation, but this does not mean that
administration and ecclesiastical politics were foreign to him. Luther had
entered the Congregation’s cloister in Erfurt in 1505 and soon developed a close
relationship with Staupitz, who singled him out for advanced studies. Over
the next decade, Staupitz would become a mentor, father-figure, teacher, and
confessor.2 But as has been noted, in addition to his academic duties, Staupitz
named Luther sub-prior and director of Wittenberg’s studium generale. And
it is in this second capacity that Luther came into direct contact with many
academically gifted young Augustinian friars sent from the Congregation’s
cloisters to study at Wittenberg.3 Three years later, in 1515, Staupitz added
the role of District Vicar for the Congregation’s Saxony-Thuringia province to
Luther’s responsibilities, a position he would hold until 1518. As District Vicar
he was given oversight of ten monasteries, to which an eleventh, the newly
established cloister of St. Anne’s in Eisleben, was soon added. He was thus
responsible for well over one-third of the Congregation’s cloisters, located in
the heartland of the Observant Movement. Furthermore, in the administrative
structure of the Congregation the District Vicar was not merely a representa-
tive of the Prior General, but had considerable power of his own, particularly
with regard to visitations – power that, in extreme circumstances, included
2 See Saak, Highway to Heaven, pp. 637–660.

3 Günther makes the important point that after 1512, Erfurt increasingly lost its prestige
as the Congregation’s intellectual centre. Wittenberg took its place, where Martin Luther, a
representative of the new generation, held the Congregation’s most important Chair of Theology.
Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 335.
the removal of unfit priors.4 And as one of the group’s three District Vicars,
he was one small step from the leadership of the entire Congregation.5
In addition to presiding over the integration of the new St. Anne’s
cloister during his time as District Vicar, Luther would have witnessed the
Congregation’s incorporation of the newly established Antwerp cloister,
as well as its expansion into the Ghent and Dordrecht cloisters. Of course,
his fellow District Vicar of the Province of Lower Germany, Johann van
Mechelen, would have been more intimately involved in these affairs, but
it is nonetheless probable that Luther would have been privy to discussions
involving these events at the Congregation’s highest levels. If his letters
are any indication, Luther kept a close eye on the news and politics of the
Congregation, noting who was being placed where and in what position
within the Congregation, and commenting on the status of its various
cloisters. It is clear that Luther took his role as District Vicar seriously and as a
result received a thorough education into how the Congregation functioned.6
In his missives he mentions his various duties, including the punishment
of wayward brothers, responding to questions regarding assorted cloisters’
finances and inventories, settling cases of discord within houses, and ad-
monishing cloisters under his authority to make the instruction of young
friars a priority.7 Describing his varied responsibilities in a 1516 letter to
Lang, one gets a sense of how thoroughly he had been incorporated into the
Congregation’s administration: he was his convent’s preacher, a reader at
table, a parish preacher and priest, director of the studium generale, District
Vicar – which, as he put it, was like being a prior eleven times over – a
collector of alms, a judge, and a lecturer on Paul, all the while trying to
prepare his lectures on the Psalms for publication. ‘But the greatest portion
of my time’, complained Luther, ‘[was] taken up writing letters’,8 most of
which were undoubtedly related to his role as District Vicar.
4 Winterhager, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, p. 718.

5 Scholars are quick to point out that Luther only rose to a modest position within the
Augustinian Order. But within the little German Reformed Congregation, he must be counted
among the leading members from 1515 onwards. Regarding the position of ‘Regional Vicar’,
another name for District Vicar, Wilhelm Winterhager claims that ‘Under and next to the Vicar
General, they embodied the leadership echelon of the entire Congregation’ (‘Unter und neben
dem Generalvikar verkörpern sie die Leitungsebene der gesamten Kongregation’). Winterhager,
‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, p. 716.
6 For a fuller discussion of Luther’s work as district vicar, particularly in his duties as visitor,
see Winterhager, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars’, pp. 729–738.
7 Saak, Luther and the Reformation, pp. 210–213.
8 ‘[Q]uod iam dixi maiorem partem occupare temporis mei, epistolarum scribendarum
negotium’. WABr 1:72.
As a result of his growing responsibilities, Luther could not help but be

swept into the politics of the Augustinian Order. The Erfurt cloister, where he
had first joined, was among the chief representatives of the Observant move-
ment in the German-speaking lands. As noted previously, Staupitz’s initial
plan to expand the Congregation’s influence, one apparently supported by
the Prior General of the Order, was to have himself named as both Provincial
of Saxony and Vicar General of the Congregation, with the ultimate goal of
ending the strife between Conventuals and Observants and reforming all of
the cloisters. But the plan had been met with scepticism by a group of seven
Reformed cloisters, Erfurt chief among them. These opponents to Staupitz’s
plan feared that this move would dilute the Observant movement within
the Order, and considered Staupitz’s assumption of these two positions
simultaneously to be illegal. Thus Luther found himself caught between
the plans of his mentor and the position of his fellow Erfurt friars.
In 1510, Luther and a colleague travelled to Rome, a journey tradition-
ally explained as part of this opposition group’s resistance to this union;
however, this explanation is no longer tenable. In fact, as Hans Schneider
has convincingly argued, Luther went to Rome at the behest of Staupitz.
He was sent to accompany the senior and more experienced Johann van
Mechelen, and their assignment was to respond critically to the repeated
appeals to the pope that had been articulated by the seven oppositional
cloisters (his own among them) – and perhaps to give Luther experience in
ecclesiastical diplomacy as well as opportunity to take spiritual advantage of
a pilgrimage to Rome.9 What van Mechelen and Luther talked about during
the two months they walked the 1,600 km to Rome in late 1511, and on their
return in early 1512, is anybody’s guess, but there certainly would have been
ample time for Luther to hear from van Mechelen about the Low Countries
and the situation there. Luther’s decision to side with Staupitz against his
Erfurt brethren would arouse some negative reactions among those opposing
the union, but in the long run it does not appear to have been detrimental
to his standing in the Congregation.10 In fact, his loyalty ultimately worked
to his advantage, for when Luther was awarded his Doctorate in Theology a
few years later, Staupitz called him to Wittenberg as Professor of the Bible,
the academic position that up to that point Staupitz himself had held. By
1520, Luther was not only a veteran of monastic administration, particularly
9 See Hans Schneider’s careful explanation and reinterpretation of this event in ‘Martin
Luthers Reise nach Rom’, esp. pp. 111–116.
10 For the tensions with his erstwhile brothers in Erfurt caused by this event see Saak, Luther
and the Reformation, pp. 203–213.
within the Congregation, but someone with first hand experience of broader
ecclesiastical politics.
A third Augustinian who seems to have gravitated into the pro-
Reformation brain trust of the Congregation in the period after 1520 is
Johannes Lang (1488–1548). Lang entered the Augustinian cloister in
Erfurt no later than 1506, the year after Luther arrived, where he pursued
humanist studies; in this regard he influenced Luther, with whom he had
a burgeoning friendship. Together with Luther he was sent to Wittenberg
in 1511, where the two worked closely together in the cloister’s studium
generale.11 Already well versed in classical languages, Lang studied Hebrew
and would become a close adviser to Luther on the translation of the Old
Testament. In Wittenberg Lang obtained his Bachelor of the Bible degree
(baccalaureus biblicus), before returning to Erfurt as temporary prior in 1516,
a position that he would take up permanently that same year as the result of
Luther’s confirmation in has capacity of District Vicar. Lang himself would
succeed Luther as District Vicar from 1518–1520. In 1519 Lang also received
his Doctor of Theology degree at the University of Erfurt, but he remained
closely connected to events and individuals in Wittenberg. For example,
Luther sent him an original copy of the Ninety-Five Theses, supported
him in his efforts against the champions of Aristotelian education at the
University in Erfurt, and remained in constant correspondence with him.
Lang also accompanied Luther to the chapter meeting in Heidelberg (1518)
and the Leipzig Disputation (1519), before becoming one of the leaders of the
Reformation movement in Erfurt. Although he was eventually expelled from
the faculty of theology at Erfurt, Lang worked to reorganize Erfurt’s church,
became pastor at St. Michael’s, and was eventually made superintendent in
that city. Further research on his life is warranted, as many of even the most
basic facts are contested, but he certainly had the opportunity to observe
the politics and methods used at the highest levels of the Congregation.
All this shows that by 1520, Linck, Luther and Lang must be considered
veterans within the German Reformed Congregation, occupiers of its key
positions, and possessors of a keen understanding of how it functioned.
While Luther’s formal position of District Vicar in the Congregation ended
in 1518, the same year in which Staupitz released him from his vows of obedi-
ence, Luther’s correspondence from this period continues to demonstrate
an active interest in the administration of the Congregation. He frequently
disseminated news regarding various brothers, passed judgement on the
actions of fellow friars and decisions made regarding their placement in
11 Zumkeller, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’, p. 43.

the Congregation’s various cloisters, and in the end appears, through his
towering presence, to have become the spiritual father and de facto leader
of this group. Even more concretely, one historian has noted that during his
time as Vicar General of the Congregation (1520–1523), Linck often went to
Luther for advice – underscoring the de facto nature of this leadership.12
Through all of this, Luther also became increasingly involved in the events
taking place among the German Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany,
particularly those in Antwerp.
The New Generation Assumes Control
In 1520, there was a changing of the guard in the German Reformed Con-
gregation. At their chapter meeting in Eisleben, Staupitz – whose superiors
in the Augustinian Order had placed him in the unenviable position of
censuring Luther – decided to lay down his office as Vicar General. Chosen
to replace him was Linck, who immediately proved himself a good student of
his predecessor by undertaking a thorough visitation of the Congregation’s
cloisters in Thuringia and Saxony; he continued on to Lower Germany in
the spring of 1521, where he visited the cloisters in Cologne, Ghent, and
Enghien.13 As indicated by his companion Nikolaus Besler, who documented
the journey, he also visited the cloisters in Holland, Flanders, and Brabant,
which undoubtedly included the remainder of the houses of the Reformed
Province of Lower Germany.14 By early 1521, Linck possessed first-hand
knowledge of the situation in each cloister in Lower Germany, and probably
a pretty clear understanding of the broader state of religious and political
affairs there as well. As to Luther, we know that in addition to whatever news
he was getting from Linck, Spalatin, and students from the Low Countries,
he was also receiving letters directly from Probst, for on 1 September 1520
he passed along correspondence to Spalatin that he had received from
the Antwerp prior outlining the steps being taken by those authorities

14 By this point Besler was well-established as a leader within the German Reformed Congrega-
tion. He had served as prior of cloisters in Munich and Nuremberg, had been sent on Congregation
business by Staupitz to Rome, had been District Vicar of the Congregation’s Province of Upper
Germany, and had accompanied Staupitz twice on visitation journeys. Shortly after his trip
with Linck, he would break with the supporters of Luther and remain faithful to the church.
See Besler, ‘Die Autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen’, p. 119.
attempting to silence religious dissent.15 There can be no doubt that Linck,

Luther, and others in leadership positions had a clear, accurate, and broad
knowledge of what was happening in and to the cloisters of the Province
of Lower Germany.
However, there is also evidence that these men attempted to influence
the outcomes there by employing Staupitz’s method of placing key individu-
als in positions of influence to represent specific interests. In particular,
Linck’s installation of two men into important positions in the Province of
Lower Germany suggests that this strategy was indeed being utilized. At the
Congregation’s Eisleben chapter meeting in 1520 it was decided that Lang
should become prior of the Dresden cloister (a move that did not, in fact, take
place), while Melchior Miritsch, a former student at Wittenberg, former prior
in Cologne (1514–1517) and Dresden (1518–1520), and committed Observant
was to be installed as prior of the Ghent cloister. Historian Paul Kalkoff has
suggested that the purpose of sending Miritsch to Ghent was to ‘strengthen
the position of the Observants in the Low Countries’16 and Johan Decavele
has referred to him as an active promoter of the Saxon Observance.17 But
Luther himself, in relaying this information to Spalatin, sounds a little less
certain about the reasoning behind these changes: ‘Everything is so muddled
for the reign of the new vicar [Linck] that I do not know whether these things
[including Miritsch’s installation as prior in Ghent] are done in the spirit of
fortitude’.18 In time, however, Luther would come to see Miritsch’s placement
in Ghent as a move made in the service of the Reformation.
Upon his return to Wittenberg after visiting the Congregation’s cloisters
in the Low Countries in summer of 1521, Linck sent another individual
back to Lower Germany, this time to Cologne. Heinrich Himmel returned
to his cloister of origin for the express purpose of joining the faculty of the
studium generale there, which was closely associated with the University
of Cologne. It may be recalled that Himmel, a native of Emmerich, a city
on the Rhine in Lower Germany, was among the f irst friars from the
Cologne cloister sent to study in Wittenberg after that Lower German
15 ‘I send [along] letters from Antwerp from the prior there so that you might see what is
happening [there] concerning me’ (‘Mitto literas ex Antwerpia datas a priore loci eiusdem, ut
videas, de me quid agatur’.) WABr 2: 180.
16 ‘[U]m die Stellung der “Vikarianer” in den Niederlanden weiter zu befestigen’. Kalkoff, Die
Anfänge der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 55. Here Kalkoff is in agreement with Kolde and the editors
of the WABr. See Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, p. 362; and WABr 2:181, n. 9.
17 Decavele, ‘De noodlottige zestiende eeuw’, p. 69.
18 ‘[N]escio, an spiritu fortitudinis acti sint, adeo turbata sunt omnia ad nouum regnum novi
vicarii’. WABr 2:180.
cloister was reformed. Since Himmel’s arrival in 1516, Luther in his capacity
as regent of the studium generale had prepared him for his exams. In
1517, Himmel received his Bachelor of Arts degree (baccalaureus artium),
and in 1518 his Master of Arts degree (magister artium). On 1 October
1521, Himmel matriculated in theology at the University of Cologne, but
when he refused to sign the oath not to teach Luther’s doctrines, he was
forbidden from holding lectures. Nonetheless, he soon began to promote
Luther’s teachings within the cloister itself, as will be explained more
fully in Chapter Eight.
Were the deployments of Miritsch and Himmel done in support of
Observant reform or Reformation? From these two placements it seems
likely that the Congregation was in something of a transitional phase at
this time. While it is clear that in Ghent, where the membership of the
cloister was split between Observants and Conventuals, the appointment
of a convinced Observant like Miritsch could well have been made in the
cause of Augustinian reform. But Luther saw the situation differently. For
him, Miritsch was expected to represent and defend Reformation ideas, as
demonstrated in the Reformer’s response to Miritsch’s interrogation by the
Inquisition in August 1522. Following this interview, Miritsch sent news back
to Wittenberg describing the questions he had been asked and the answers
he had given, information that made its way into Luther’s hands. Luther
was furious: ‘I read the letters of Miritsch, that most prudent apostate’, he
told Spalatin, ‘and as much as I suffer concerning the miserable fall of Jacob
[Probst]19, so much I resent [Miritsch’s] most impious sham’.20 And to Lang,
Luther wrote, ‘Melchior Miritsch did not recant, but he writes that he acts
prudently so that he might preserve their favour – that is – he worships Satan
and pretends to know Christ, charming boaster!’21 And again to Linck, ‘You
have read the letters of the most glorious Solon among us. I speak of Miritsch
who denies Christ thus far so prudently, so that no one might dare to call it
a denial of Christ’.22 Clearly Luther believed that Miritsch had betrayed the
cause, a cause that now must be understood as encompassing Reformation
19 This is a reference to Probst’s public recantation.

20 ‘Literas mirisschii, prudentissimi apostate, legi, et, quantum de miserabili lapsu Iacobi
doleo, tantum huius fuco impiissimo indignor’. Luther to George Spalatin, 12 April 1522, WABr
2:493.
21 ‘Melchior Mirisch non revocavit, sed scribit se prudenter egisse, ut gratiam eorum servaret,
hoc est, Satanam adoravit, et Christum simulavit se scire, bellus gloriator!’ Luther to Johannes
Lang, Wittenberg, 12 April 1522, WABr 2:495.
22 ‘Epistolam gloriosissimi Solonis apud nos leges, Mirischium loquor, qui Christum adeo
prudenter negavit, ut nemo audeat id negatum Christum appellare’. WABr 2:496.
theology and ecclesiology. Luther even went so far as to accuse Miritsch of

collusion with the emperor against the Augustinian Order.23
But if the precise reason for Miritsch’s appointment to Ghent was not
entirely clear, the same cannot be said about Himmel’s placement in Cologne,
for there could have been no question of his doctrinal loyalties. By 1521 he
had been working on his studies in Wittenberg for five years. His fierce
loyalty to Reformation theology was displayed immediately after his arrival
in Cologne when he refused to take the oath to avoid referencing Luther’s
views. His willingness to put himself in harm’s way on this account would
become increasingly clear during his time at the cloister in Cologne. He
certainly must have been well-known as a supporter of Reformation theology
and ecclesiology before Linck sent him to teach in Cologne. Thus the new
Vicar General chose a convinced adherent of Luther’s ideas for the influential
position of preparing the next generation of young Reformed Augustinians
for the University. In other words, Linck was using Staupitz’s method of plac-
ing individuals in particular positions to encourage Reformation doctrine
among the Reformed Augustinians in the Province of Lower Germany.
The Cases of Jacob Probst and Hendrik van Zutphen
Against this backdrop, Luther’s and Linck’s role in the events affecting
the Antwerp cloister becomes increasingly clear, as can be seen in the
behaviour and actions of Jacob Probst and Hendrik van Zutphen. It should
be remembered that these two men were known quantities in Wittenberg,
so it comes as no surprise that in a letter to Staupitz dated 3 October 1519,
Luther spoke of them familiarly:24
Both priors from Lower Germany have written to me, Jacob and Henry,
desperate and complaining, beseeching you that nothing is being done by
their [District] Vicar [van Mechelen]. But they say they will send someone,
or rather they will come themselves. But this has not happened since the
letters are dated from Eastertime, and they have not yet arrived.25
23 ‘Melchior Miritsch, that blessed theologian, is an agent of the emperor against the Augustinian
Order’ (‘Melchior Mirisch est executor Caesaris contra nostros de ordine Augustini, sanctus ille
theologus’). WABr 2:559.
24 For Probst’s and van Zutphen’s many connections to Wittenberg, see Chapter 3.
25 ‘Scripsit mihi uterque Prior querulosissime ac desperate prorsus, tete implorantes, nihil
agi per eorum Vicarium, missuros tamen dicunt se fratres, imo se ipsos venturos; sed non fiet,
cum in paschalibus datae sint literae, nec dum comparent’. WABr 1:513–514.
This short quotation alludes to three important issues. First, that Probst and van
Zutphen saw the situation in Lower Germany as one requiring fervent action.
Second, that a rift existed between the two priors and the District Vicar van
Mechelen, who was increasingly critical of Luther and his cause. And third,
that the two priors were intent on going over the head of their District Vicar,
whom they saw as obstructionist, writing instead directly to Luther, who passed
on their concerns to the Vicar General. Probst and van Zutphen were looking
to Luther and Staupitz for support and answers. As an aside, it is noteworthy
that Luther had never been their District Vicar, nor was he District Vicar in
Saxony anymore. In fact, by the end of 1519, he had no official standing in the
administration of the Congregation, and yet these two priors nevertheless
chose to write to him. His de facto authority, it seems, was growing.
Although neither was able to accomplish this journey at the time they
wrote, both men would return to their alma mater, Probst from May to
September 1521 and Zutphen from 1520 until sometime in June of 1522.
We might ask why Probst would leave Antwerp at this critical moment,
with the pressure on the Antwerp Augustinians increasing, and come to
Wittenberg. The traditional answer has been that he returned to continue
his education, and while in Wittenberg he did indeed receive his Bachelor
of the Bible degree (baccalaureus biblicus) on 13 May 1521, followed by his
promotion to Lizentiaten on 12 July 1521. But from Luther’s reference to the
letter he had received from Probst, it was clear that the Antwerp prior was
not simply coming to Wittenberg to brush up on his theology.
We must assume that Probst also had discussions in Wittenberg over how
to proceed in the increasingly unsafe atmosphere in the Low Countries. Who
precisely he spoke with and what he was told remains a mystery, as Luther
himself was away in the Wartburg. But that does not mean that Probst was
not on the Reformer’s mind, or that a meeting between the two did not take
place. In fact, there is some evidence that Luther had Probst spirited into
the Wartburg to visit him.26 In the same letter to Melanchthon in which he
indicated that he would address ‘the fat little Flemish guy’ directly,27 Luther
referred to the Antwerp prior again using opaque language: ‘It is enough for
Flemish Jacob that he see you, and may he not be too happy, seeing everything
that he wants [to see]’.28 Is this Luther’s imprimatur to allow Probst to visit
the Wartburg should he desire it? Or is he providing an answer to another
26 This is Braekman’s theory. Braekman, ‘Luther et les chrétiens’, p. 151.

27 See Chapter 2.
28 ‘Iacobo Flemmichen satis est te videre, et uti ne nimio felix sit, omnia quae vellet videns’.
WABr 2:348.
of Probst’s inquiries? It is difficult to know, but clearly Probst was searching

for answers. If he did meet Luther secretly, did the two men now discuss
strategy in light of the promulgation of the Edict of Worms (26 May 1520)?
If not, did Probst converse with other Wittenberg Augustinians about his
return to Antwerp? It is difficult to imagine that he did not.
Aleander, for one, noted Probst’s return to Antwerp and was convinced
that he had gone to Wittenberg to confer with Luther as a result of the Edict
of Worms.29 What is more, the papal nuncio detected a distinct change in
the prior’s approach after his return from Wittenberg; no longer did Probst
mention Luther’s name overtly, even if he did expound on many of the points
Luther was making.30 Shortly thereafter, Aleander noted that Probst ceased
preaching publicly, limiting himself to covert activities to disseminate
heresies.31 From Aleander’s point of view, Probst’s behaviour had changed
as the result of strategic advice he had received from Wittenberg.
Van Zutphen’s journey from Dordrecht to Wittenberg in summer of 1520,
his activities there during the next two years, the timing of his return to the
Low Countries, and his renewed activities in his homeland, all raise even
greater questions about the role that Linck, Luther, and their colleagues
played in guiding the situation in Antwerp. Van Zutphen’s time as prior
in Dordrecht (1516–20), the subject of some scholarly debate, suggests that
before his return to Wittenberg, he was already moving in the direction of
Reformation theology. An earlier scholarly tradition, claiming that the clois-
ter in Dordrecht was among the first locations in the Low Countries where
outspoken Reformation-oriented critiques (particularly of indulgences) were
sounded, thereby bringing the friars into conflict with the Dordrecht city
council, has been disproven.32 But this does not mean that all was well there,
or that the cloister was necessarily absent any Reformation-related impulses.
29 ‘This prior [Probst] went to find Martin [Luther] after the Edict of Worms [was promulgated],
and has now returned’ (‘Hor questo prior era ito a trovar Martino dopoi il decreto di Wormes
et al presente è ritornato’). Aleander to the Vice Chancellor, 2 September 1521. Monumenta
Reformationis, p. 286.
30 ‘[A]nd now he never mentions Luther in his sermons or speaks of him’ (‘et benchè publi-
camente in suoi sermoni mai nomina Luther nè parla di lui’). Aleander to the Vice Chancellor,
2 September 1521. Monumenta Reformationis, pp. 286–287.
31 ‘The second [individual causing problems for the church in addition to Erasmus of Rotterdam]
is the Augustinian prior in Antwerp who no longer [infects people] with his public sermons (as
before), but now infects many secretly’ (‘L’ altro è il Prior di Augustini in Antwersa, el qual non
già in publicis sermonibus (ut prius) sed clam multos inficit’). Aleander to the Vice Chancellor,
9 September 1521. Monumenta Reformationis, pp. 289.
32 Herman van Duinen argues that this tradition has its origins with Schotel, Kerkelijk
Dordrecht, pp. 15–17, whom all subsequent historians appear to have followed. But van Duinen
Although we do not know the precise nature of van Zutphen’s (and

Probst’s) complaints articulated in their letters to Luther, clearly they saw
the situation in Lower Germany as deteriorating and requiring immediate
action. It might also be noted that Erasmus had already stated five months
before this that Probst was publicly connecting himself to Luther. Now
suddenly Probst and van Zutphen appear together with a similar complaint.
Thus it seems as though van Zutphen was already gravitating toward the
new Wittenberg theology during his time in Dordrecht. In the emerging
struggle between Observants who were faithful to the church and those
who supported Luther’s ideas, he stood among the latter.
Van Zutphen’s ardent zeal for the Reformation cause would be demon-
strated again during his time in Wittenberg. He studied with Luther and
earned his Bachelor of the Bible degree (baccalaureus biblicus) on 12 January
1521. We know little more about his activities until his departure for the
Low Countries in June of 1522, but for much of this period Luther was in the
Wartburg, and as the situation among the Wittenberg Augustinians became
increasingly chaotic, van Zutphen was almost certainly among those friars
pushing for radical reform.33 While in Wittenberg, van Zutphen also would
have been on hand for the Wittenberg chapter meeting in January 1522,
as well as the Grimma chapter meeting that began on 8 June 1522, where
he took part in a theological disputation. It is after Grimma, we are told,
that van Zutphen returned to the Low Countries, by which time Probst
had recanted and been sent to Ypres. The only surviving reference that
gives any indication as to why van Zutphen decided to return from the Low
Countries comes from Linck, who writes: ‘when [van Zutphen] arrived back
in Wittenberg [from Grimma] and heard there how his Augustinian brothers
in Antwerp and other pious Christians were suffering so much persecution
on account of the Gospel, his spirit could find no rest. So he prepared himself
and went off to console the sad and abandoned Christians’.34 Taken at face
value, Linck’s letter, a sort of biography/hagiography published after van
Zutphen had been burned in 1524, makes it sound as if his decision to go to
has convincingly demonstrated that the unrest attributed by Schotel to the Augustinian cloister
in Dordrecht was actually taking place in the city’s Franciscan cloister, and the claim that the
disorder was related to Reformation impulses is merely an assumption. Duinen, Hendrik van
Zutphen, pp. 14–17.
33 This point will be addressed further in Chapter Six.
34 ‘[G]en Wittemberg kam, und alda erfur, wie die Augustiner brüder zu Handtwerp vil
verfolgunge duldeten des evangelii halben mitsampt andern frommen christen etc. da hatte sein
geist nit ruwe, machete sich auff und zog hinab die betrübten verlassenen christen zu trösten’.
Linck, ‘To the Christian Reader’, p. 202.
Antwerp – a cloister where he had never been a member – was entirely of

his own choosing, a simple question of individual conscience. But in fact
van Zutphen does not appear to have gone directly to Antwerp, but rather
to his old cloister in Dordrecht, where he would have arrived at about the
time of the chapter meeting held there on 27 July 1522 – the meeting that
severed the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany from the control of
the German Vicar General.35 On the surface it seems odd that van Zutphen
would go to a cloister where the anti-Lutheran prior van Mechelen was
firmly entrenched. But there is a plausible explanation. We know that the
emperor had forbidden the Augustinians of the Low Countries to attend
the Grimma Chapter six weeks earlier, where, I have argued, the situation
in the Low Countries must have been discussed.36 I believe that Linck and
Luther sent van Zutphen to the Dordrecht Chapter meeting to represent the
Congregation’s interests, and perhaps even suggested that he move on to
Antwerp if Dordrecht proved unwelcoming – a scenario made all the more
likely since, immediately upon arriving in Antwerp, van Zutphen was made
prior of that cloister. It even seems reasonable that he arrived in Antwerp
with the imprimatur of the Congregation’s hierarchy for that position. At
very least, the brain-trust of the German Reformed Congregation certainly
provided advice on how he should conduct himself against the opponents
of the Reformation in Lower Germany, for van Zutphen’s biographer claims
that when he arrived in Antwerp he kept a low profile at first, just as Probst
had initially done upon his return from Wittenberg.37 Is this evidence of a
strategy emanating from Wittenberg? It seems likely.
But the most compelling piece of evidence that Luther and Linck were
guiding these events comes from van Zutphen’s time in Bremen following
his escape from Charles’s inquisition. From that North German city, van
Zutphen wrote a number of letters to Luther and Probst explaining his
actions, and one to Linck asking the Vicar General’s permission to remain
and preach there. But it was Luther who took the initiative to respond to this
request. This is evident because on 13 December 1522, van Zutphen wrote
from Bremen to a friend: ‘From Dr. Martin I have received consolation [for
my troubles] and approval for my calling’ – a reference to the Bremen city
35 Van Zutphen’s precise itinerary remains somewhat speculative. His biographer, Iken,
suggests that he likely went first to Dordrecht then on to Antwerp, but does not provide any
evidence. Probst’s biographer agrees. See Janssen, Jacobus Praepositus, p. 100. Daniel Gerdes
states plainly that van Zutphen went f irst to Dordrecht and then on to Antwerp, but again
without any reference to his source. Gerdes, Origines Ecclesiarum in Belgio Reformatarum, p. 23.
36 See Chapter Three.
37 Iken, Heinrich von Zütphen, pp. 26–27.
council’s request that van Zutphen remain.38 Six days later, in a letter to
Linck, Luther corroborated van Zutphen’s claim. The Reformer noted that
he had received (intercepted?) a letter from van Zutphen to Linck in which
van Zutphen obediently asked Linck’s permission to remain in Bremen.
Because Linck could not be reached immediately, Luther added: ‘therefore
[I] have, [myself], given [a letter of permission] to him in your name, under
the seal of our prior. If you wish, you can conf irm [my] actions’.39 This
episode is revealing in a number of ways. First it demonstrates definitively
that van Zutphen did not see himself as a free agent, someone simply fol-
lowing the dictates of his conscience, but as a member of a group with its
own hierarchy. He felt obliged to ask permission to take up a new position.
I believe this makes it all the more likely that van Zutphen’s return to the
Low Countries following the Grimma Chapter meeting was not purely a
personal decision, but a corporate one. But this exchange also indicates
that Luther had assumed a rather central, if de facto role in the hierarchy
of the Observant Augustinians. Although he had no official position or
standing in the Congregation, Luther had no compunction about reading
Linck’s mail and then assuming the Vicar General’s authority to make a
significant decision. What is more, in his letter to his friend, van Zutphen
indicates that it was Luther who approved his calling to Bremen, suggest-
ing that from van Zutphen’s perspective, Luther possessed this authority.
Finally this interaction reveals that the hierarchy of the German Reformed
Augustinians was no longer working in the service of the Observant cause.
By approving van Zutphen’s request to remain and preach in Bremen, a city
lacking any Augustinian cloister, Luther was deploying his fellow friar fully
in the service of the Reformation. 40
When observed from the perspective of those attempting to prevent the
spread of Reformation ideas in the Low Countries, Probst and van Zutphen
returned from Wittenberg at key moments in the struggle. Aleander noted,
for example, that when Probst arrived in Antwerp in late summer 1521, he,
38 ‘De doctore Martino brevi recepi consolatorias et vocationis mei probatorias’. van Zutphen
to Gerhard Hecker, 13 December 1522, in Zütphen, ‘Zütphen’s Briefe’, p. 247.
39 ‘Ideo dedimus nos ei sub tuo nomine, sigillo Prioris nostri; tu, si voles, poteris confirmare
nostrum factum’. Luther to Wenceslaus Linck, 19 December 1522, WABr 2:632.
40 It is worth noting here that, as Wolfgang Günther has pointed out, Luther took an active
role either directly or via trusted associates, in helping to dissolve cloisters that were part of
the Congregation. For example, in June of 1524, he appeared personally in Magdeburg to help
negotiate the handing over of that cloister to the city council. Günther, Reform und Reformation,
pp. 410–411. Issues associated with the Congregation, it seems, were still very much on his mind
during this period.
the papal nuncio, had finally ‘pacified’ the city and now the recalcitrant
prior was back, stirring up trouble again. 41 As for van Zutphen, his arrival
in Antwerp in late summer 1522 occurred shortly after the authorities had
raided the Augustinian cloister for the first time, interrogated its inhabitants,
and convinced all but three to recant publicly. They were in desperate need
of an experienced and forceful leader and suddenly one materialized. It
seems eminently plausible that Aleander was right: Wittenberg was offering
some guidance. Linck’s continuation of Staupitz’s tactic of sending particular
individuals to specific cloisters to represent the interests of the Observants
– or in this case of the burgeoning Reformation – appears to be at work here.
It is clear that the moves made by Probst and van Zutphen, and their support
for Reformation ideas, were not purely the result of personal convictions.
Rather, the hierarchy of the Reformed Congregation, with Luther playing
a central role, was using them in the service of the Reformation cause. If
this is the case, then the executions of Vos and van den Esschen must be
understood as more than a local or even regional event. They were, rather, a
key point of conflict in the broader narrative of the early Reformation, one
that set the tone for what was to follow, hardening each side’s impressions
of the other.
Works Cited
Besler, Nikolaus, ‘Die Autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen des Nürnberger

Augustinereremiten Nikolaus Besler’, ed. by Hans Schneider Augustiniana 62
(2012), 119–152.
Braekman, Emile Madeleine, ‘Luther et les chrétiens des Pays-Pas d‘après sa cor-
respondance’, Bulletin de la Societé d‘Histoire du Protestantisme belge 8 (1983),
149–196.
Decavele, Johan, ‘De noodlottige zestiende eeuw’, in Zeven eeuwen Augustijnen,
Een kloostergemeenschap schrijft geschiedenis, ed. by Werner Grootaers and
Marc Mees (Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1996), pp. 69–81.
Gerdes, Daniel, Origines Ecclesiarum in Belgio Reformatarum, sive historia ecclesi-
astica evangelii seculo decimo sexto in Belgio renovati, doctrinæque reformatæ,
quam usque ad excessum Imperatoris Caroli Quinti descripsit D.G. (Groningen:
Hajonem Spandaw, 1749).
41 Aleander to Vice Chancellor de Medici, 2 September 1521. Monumenta Reformationis, p. 287.


Hamm, Berndt, ‘Johann von Staupitz (ca. 1468–1524): spättmittelalterlicher Reformer
und ‘Vater’ der Reformation’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 6–41.
Iken, J. Friedrich, Heinrich von Zutphen, Schriften des Vereins für Reformations-
geschichte 12 (Halle: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1886).
Janssen, Hendrik, Jacobus Praepositus, Luthers leerling en vriend: geschetst in zijn
lijden en strijden voor de Hervormingzaak (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen, 1862).
was er zů vorne anderßwo derohalben erlitten habe. (Altenburg: Gabriel Kantz, 1525).
Linck, Wenceslaus, ‘To the Christian Reader’, in Johannes Lang, Historia wie S.
Heinrich von Zutphan newlich in Dittmars umbs evangelions willen gemartert
und gestorben ist. Item ein sendbrieff desselbigen was er zu vorne andersswo
erlitten habe. Mathei 10. Sihe, ich sende euch wie die schaffe mitten unter die wölffe,
darumb seit klug wie die schlangen, und on falsch wie die tauben, etc. This text
may be found in Bremisches Jahrbuch, Zweite Serie 1 (1885), 191–221.
Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel
(=WABr), vols. 1–18 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930–1985).
Schneider, Hans, ‘Martin Luthers Reise nach Rom – neu datiert und neu gedeutet’,
in Studien zur Wissenschafts- und zur Religionsgeschichte, vol. 10.2 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2011), pp. 1–158.
Schotel, Gilles, Kerkelijk Dordrecht: eene bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der vaderland-
sche Hervormde Kerk sedert 1572. D. 1 (Utrecht: van der Monde, 1841).
Reformkongregation der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Vita Religiosa im
Wriedt, Markus, Gnade und Erwählung. Eine Untersuchung zu Johann von Staupitz
und Martin Luther (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1991).
Zumkeller, Adolar, ‘Johannes von Staupitz und die klösterliche Reformbewegung’,
Analecta Augustiana 52 (1989), 31–49.
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zütphen’s Briefe‘, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken, Bremisches
Jahrbuch 2. 1 (1885), 241–252.
6. Reformation Ideas in the Low
Countries
Abstract
While the premise of Chapter Five was that the leadership of the Reformed
Augustinians in Wittenberg influenced the Reformation in Lower Germany,
Chapter Six examines whether the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Ger-
many influenced Luther and his colleagues in Wittenberg. While Luther
was sequestered in the Wartburg (1521 to early 1522), Wittenberg seethed
as extremists agitated for radical reform. Among the chief instigators was
a cadre from within the Reformed Augustinian cloister, a dozen or so friars
from the Low Countries studying in Wittenberg. Their willingness to support
revolutionary change suggests a perspective on reform that differed from
that of many of their German-speaking counterparts. This chapter explores
the reasons for their more extreme approach and its impact on Luther.
Keywords: late medieval critique of indulgences, Jacob Probst, Hendrik

van Zutphen
If one contention of this book is that the cloisters of the German Reformed
Augustinians’ Province of Lower Germany served as the arena for a proxy bat-
tle between pope and emperor on the one side, and Luther and the hierarchy of
the Congregation on the other, then by definition the Reformed Augustinians
of Lower Germany are placed in a passive position. In such a version of events
they come to Wittenberg, imbibe Luther’s ideas, and are sent back to articulate
them in their homeland. And while there can be no doubt that they acted
as a persistent and forceful mouthpiece of religious dissent, a ‘Hauptherd of
Luther’s ideas’ as Aleander put it, such a simplistic narrative raises questions.
Were they merely messengers or did they demonstrate some autonomy from
Wittenberg by offering their own version of or putting their own particular
emphases on Reformation doctrines? Or if they did merely serve as a conduit
for Wittenberg’s ideas, did they influence reform in other ways, with regard
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch06
to its speed and intensity for example? And is there something essentially
different about openly espousing the same ideas emanating from Wittenberg
in the very different context of Brabant and the Low Countries?
Exploring the content of the message articulated by the Reformed
Augustinians in Lower Germany also offers the opportunity to assess the
response of the authorities, both ecclesiastical and temporal. How did these
authorities hear and understand the friars? What in their preaching was
deemed most intolerable? And what “counter-message” did they favour to
refute it? Answers to these questions provide a deeper understanding of
the essence of the Reformation debate at this early point, particularly as it
was being played out in the public arena of the Low Countries.
The Disposition of the Antwerp Augustinians and its Origins
To begin with the question of context, it is safe to say that due to their very
circumstances, the German Reformed Augustinians in the Low Countries
were in a qualitatively different position from their Wittenberg brethren, and
this fact could only have impacted their view of the situation. For although
in some ways, Antwerp was a ‘Wittenberg on the Schelde’, as one historian
has suggested, in others, the circumstances of the Reformation-minded
forces in the two cities were drastically different.1 Whereas Wittenberg
was a relatively safe haven for anyone with Reformation impulses, Brabant
must be understood as an epicentre of the anti-Reformation forces during
this period, where Charles V had demonstrated his commitment to the
eradication of heresy and Aleander had had great success in forging an
alliance of churchmen against the Reformation. 2 So while Luther and
his comrades carried out literary battles from the relative safety of Wit-
tenberg, the Reformed Augustinians of the Province of Lower Germany
fought on the front lines, with spies everywhere.3 This fact alone accords

2 In a letter of 1524, Luther acknowledged the security felt by all who lived in the lands of
the Elector of Saxony, juxtaposing it with other places where supporters of the Reformation are
being persecuted. ‘Among us who are under the rule of our prince, there is peace’ (‘Apud nos
sub ducatu principis nostri pax est’). Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 3:239. A year earlier, he had
also suggested to Linck, who at the time was in Neustadt an der Orla and apparently in some
danger of arrest, that he come to Wittenberg because there was no safer place to be. Günther,
Reform und Reformation, p. 402.
3 For example, just prior to Probst’s arrest, Margaret, the Queen Regent, sent the theologian
and inquisitor Egmond to Antwerp to surreptitiously attend the Augustinian prior’s sermons and
Reformation Ideas in the Low Countries 111
them an important role in the early Reformation and raises the possibility,
that operating in this context of conflict, they might have had a different
attitude with regard to the intensity and the tactics with which the fight
should be waged.
In fact, there is ample evidence that they were willing to push more
forcefully and vocally than their brethren in Wittenberg: in short, that they
were inclined to more radical action. In 1521, with Luther in the Wartburg, the
Reformed Augustinians in the Wittenberg cloister hinted at this tendency
when they began to agitate for rapid theological and liturgical change.
A close examination of just who was behind these impulses is revealing.
During any given moment between the years 1516 and 1522, the inhabitants
of the Wittenberg cloister included fifteen to twenty students from houses
across the empire and Low Countries who had come to Saxony to study in
that cloister’s studium generale or at the university. In 1521, approximately
ten to twelve of these “outsiders” hailed from cloisters of Lower Germany,
primarily Antwerp, Dordrecht, and Ghent. 4 Under the leadership of the
fiery Wittenberg Augustinian Gabriel Zwilling, himself closely allied to
the equally ardent Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, the Augustinians
in Wittenberg began to make significant changes to religious practice.5
In mid-October 1521 they discontinued the mass in the cloister church. In
early November, twelve friars left the cloister altogether, with others soon to
follow, and Zwilling himself removed his monastic garb. Such innovations
quickly caught the attention of the Elector of Saxony who demanded an
explanation. In response, the prior of the Wittenberg Augustinians, Conrad
Held, himself deeply dismayed by the changes, described the group agitating
for such reforms as follows:
the majority of that party are from the Low Countries, and do not belong
to the cloister of your Electoral Grace. They are only here for the purpose of
education, having been sent by the leaders of our order. With the exception
of two, they are merely guests who have no power to enact the slightest
change. Because they have dared such wanton presumption against my
will and without the permission of our leader, [I ask] that your Electoral
Grace for God’s sake not fail to punish the actions of the friars here, or
report back, which he did in early November, 1521. Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation,
vol. 2, p. 61.
5 The actions of the Wittenberg Augustinians took place in a larger context of ritual and
theological change and unrest in that city. For an overview, see Krentz, Ritualwandel und
Deutungshoheit.
the others throughout the city. They have occurred by force and without
my approval or that of my superior.6
Clearly Held was troubled by the actions of the Augustinians who had come
from the Low Countries, not to mention by their insolence. And although
Probst had left Wittenberg six weeks before Held wrote this letter, van
Zutphen, who had received his Bachelor of the Sentences (baccalaureus
Sententiarum) degree under the tutelage of Karlstadt only a fortnight
earlier, was undoubtedly among those backing Zwilling.7 It was in this
atmosphere that Vicar General Linck called the Congregation together for
a chapter meeting at Wittenberg in early January 1522 to address reform in
the cloisters. At the same time Luther dedicated On the Misuse of the Mass
to the Augustinians in Wittenberg, then published On Monastic Vows a few
weeks later – both treatises that addressed issues surrounding the uproar.8
But neither Luther’s publications, intended to calm the situation, nor the
chapter meeting with similar goals, had much success stilling the radical
elements among the Augustinians in Wittenberg; in early January 1522,
again under the leadership of Zwilling, they destroyed altars and images
of the saints, and burned the oil for last rites.9 It was just such actions, part
6 ‘der meyste deyl gener parthey niderlender seyn, vnnd disem ewer churfurstlichen gnaden
closter nichczet zukörich, Vnnd allein vmb der lernung willen vom vnserm öbersten her gesanndt.
Vnnd hie nicht anders (zwen aus geschlossenn) den gest gehalten werden, Vnnd gar kein gewaltt
haben, sich des aller wenigsten zubemechtigen. Die weil si sich ie wider meinen willen Vnnd an
ersuchung vnser obersten einer solchen vermessenheit muthwilligklichen vnderstannden, E. C. G.
wol es vmb gottes willen weder den orden, noch das Kloster, hie czu wittenberg gelegen, entgeltten
lassenn. Es ist ie mit gewalth vnd an mein vnnd meiner öbersten verwilligung geschehenn’. Conrad
Held to Frederick the Wise, 30 October 1521. Müller, ed., Die Wittenberger Bewegung, p. 56.
7 Duinen, Hendrik van Zutphen, p. 23. It is also noteworthy that Probst had recently received
both his Bachelor of the Bible degree (13 May 1521) and Licentiate (12 July 1521) under the auspices
of Karlstadt. In other words, both he and van Zutphen had close ties to Karlstadt.
8 Vom Mißbrauch der Messe was published on 1 November 1521. Luther, Abteilung Werke (=WA)
8:477–563; De votis monasticis Martini Lutheri iudicium was published on 21 November 1521. WA
8:564–669.
9 ‘The day after the end of the Augustinian chapter meeting in Wittenberg, on Monday,
if I am not mistaken, six days after the feast of the Epiphany, the remaining members of the
Congregation of the Augustinians at Wittenberg, perhaps with Gabriele [Zwilling] as instigator,
were not content to overturn the altars, but what is more, they set fire to images and paintings and
burned up the oil for extreme unction’ (‘Die postridiano abitionis Augustinianorum ex Synodo
Vuittenbergensi, Feria, nisi fallor, VI. proxima post Festum Epiphaniae, reliqui Augustinianorum
Wittenberge, autore fortassis Gabriele, non contenti subvertisse altaria, praeter summum,
exussisse imagines Duorum & tabulas depictas, etiam unctionem extremam combusserunt’).
Spalatin, ‘Chronicon sive Annales Georgii Spalatini’, col. 628. See also Krentz, Ritualwandel und
Deutungshoheit, p. 153.
and parcel of the radical movement led by Karlstadt, that compelled Luther
to leave the Wartburg and return to Wittenberg on 6 March 1522.
A less dramatic, but still telling example of the tendency by the friars from
Lower Germany to be assertive in the implementation of reforms comes from
Luther’s Table Talk. Thinking back on the early days of the Reformation, the
Reformer explains how, after he had publicly denounced many monastic
practices (i.e. wearing the cowl, celibacy, fasting) as neither obligatory nor
salvific, the ‘papists’ ridiculed him, saying, ‘If what he teaches is true, then
let him also act on it’.10 At some point during his two-year stay in Wittenberg
(1522–1524), after having escaped the Low Countries, Probst decided to press
the issue. Luther explained, ‘on Palm Sunday, among other dishes [Probst]
prepared a chicken for me and said, “If we teach it, why do we not do it?”’,
a reference to the breaking of the Palm Sunday prohibition to eat meat.11
Clearly the Augustinians in the Province of Lower Germany were willing
to push the pace and parameters of change, apparently more forcefully
than Luther and many of the Wittenberg Augustinians. Why might this be?
One answer can be found in the immediate context. Unlike their brethren
from the Wittenberg cloister, the Augustinians of Lower Germany had
experienced oppression and persecution first hand. As has been demon-
strated, from 1519 onwards they were under increasing and direct pressure
from a variety of ecclesiastical and temporal authorities, observed multiple
burnings of Luther’s books in their cities, and experienced arrests and
detentions of their colleagues and supporters. Some had been forced to recant
publicly. The two leaders of the movement among the cloisters of Lower
Germany, Probst and van Zutphen, had their own histories that undoubtedly
increased their fervour. Van Zutphen had struggled in Dordrecht to the
point that he was forced to write desperately to Luther. Probst was under
increasing pressure from the Inquisition. And when the friars from Lower
Germany who followed Karlstadt and Zwilling engaged in iconoclasm in
Wittenberg in January of 1522, they would have been acutely aware that at
that very moment, Probst sat in prison at the mercy of the Inquisition. The
Augustinians in the Wittenberg cloister who did not hail from the Low
Countries never experienced this type of pressure first hand. In short, the
experiences of the Augustinians from the cloisters of Lower Germany on
the front lines of the Reformation, in danger of life and limb, seem to have
increased their intensity and desire for radical change.
10 ‘Wehre es recht, das er leret, so thet ers auch!’ Luther, Tischreden (=WATr) 4:303 (no. 4414).
11 ‘[I]n die Palmarum inter alia fercula gallinam mihi apparavit dicens: Si docemus, quare
non facimus?’ WATr 4:303 (no. 4414).
What the Augustinians in Lower Germany Preached
But perhaps it was not just the immediate atmosphere of oppression that
heightened their zeal, but the broader environment of church critique
common in the Low Countries prior to the Reformation. For over a century,
groups such as the Modern Devotion and more recently, biblical humanists
and chambers of rhetoric, had not only fostered lay piety, but had criticized
abusive financial practices of the church and certain pious practices that they
considered superstitious. If we take the issue of indulgences, for example,
long before Luther began to speak against them in the German-speaking
lands there was a tradition of opposition to them in the Low Countries.
And although criticism of indulgences is increasingly seen by historians as
part and parcel of the early sixteenth century, in the Low Countries it was
especially pronounced.12 Already by the late fourteenth century the spiritual
father of the Modern Devotion, Geert Groote (d. 1384), had chastised the dioc-
esan authorities for using indulgences to siphon off revenues that normally
would have gone to support the poor. Nor did Thomas á Kempis (d. 1471),
another giant of that movement, hold them in much regard.13 Although
these two men both focused their critique on the abuses of indulgences, by
the late fifteenth century, Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489) challenged the notion
of their very existence, not to mention the concept of papal infallibility.14
On an even more popular level, in 1498 a Franciscan friar was condemned
for preaching against them, and by the 1510s, earthy vernacular critiques
of the practice were widespread.15 Historian Charles Casper connects this
burgeoning critique of indulgences to a deeper phenomenon:
What is striking in the mentality of the urban and intellectual elites –

already emerging in the fifteenth century and maturing further in the
early decades of the sixteenth century – is that the critique of indulgences
is a consequence of the critique of the institutional church. After hav-
ing been witness for generations to the pact between church and state,
12 Much has been written on late medieval indulgence practices and the critique of indulgences
in the Low Countries. For a helpful introduction, see Caspers, ‘Indulgences in the Low Countries’;
on the criticisms of indulgences specifically, see Clemen, ‘Das Antwerpener-Kloster’, pp. 308–309.
13 Caspers, ‘Indulgences in the Low Countries’, pp. 78–79.
14 See Winterhager, ‘Ablaßkritik als Indikator’.
15 For example, a vernacular pamphlet was published in Deventer in 1516 in which the ghost
of a dead monk appeared on the day after his death to one of his former monastic brothers
warning him that despite the fact that the deceased had procured a letter of indulgence, he was
now eternally damned to hell. Clemen, ‘Das Antwerpener-Kloster’, p. 308.
many people in the Low Countries no longer had confidence in the moral
integrity of the clergy. In particular the letters of indulgence […] which
from the second half of the fifteenth century had been sold much more
than ever before, became the focus of criticism as documents which were
of no value in the salvation of souls but served only to fatten the purses
of the indulgence-mongers and those for whom they worked.16
Thus when the Antwerp Augustinians began to disparage pious practices

such as indulgences, they were not introducing new ideas, but drawing
on themes that had been around for decades – and to significant success.
By 1520 and perhaps earlier, the Antwerp Augustinians had already come
out forcefully against indulgences. As a result, their preaching became so
popular that balconies had to be built in their church to accommodate the
masses, and crowds stood outside to hear their sermons.17 Moreover, efforts
to silence the friars had little effect. When the Antwerp Augustinians were
forbidden from preaching in their church, they were not averse to taking
their message into the streets.18 And even their enemies had to admit that
they were excellent preachers. In a letter to de Medici, Aleander identified
Probst as ‘a most gifted orator in the Flemish language’.19
But where the content of their message seems to have struck the hardest
was in their absolute rejection of all church practices lacking scriptural
precedent, and in their denunciation of ecclesiastical authority.20 Although
we do not possess copious evidence for precisely what the friars of Lower
Germany preached to the populace, a few extant sources shed some light on
the matter. In 1521, after he fled back to Wittenberg, Jacob Probst published
a work entitled ‘The Story of both his Captivities for the sake of the Word
16 Caspers, ‘Indulgences in the Low Countries’, pp. 87–88.

17 See Corpus documentorum (=CD) 4:36.
18 Regarding the summer of 1522, Theodor Kolde writes, ‘The friars were probably forbidden to
enter the pulpits. So they preached in the streets, and chief among them, Henrik van Zutphen’
(‘Vermutlich war den Brüdern verboten worden, die Kanzel zu betreten. Nun predigten sie auf
den Straßen. Allen voran Heinrich von Zutphen’). Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation,
p. 390.
19 Aleander says of Probst that he is ‘in questa lengua fiammenga facundissimo homo’. Aleander
to the Vice Chancellor Medici, Brussels, 2 September 1521. Monumenta Reformationis, p. 287.
20 A comprehensive examination of the theology of the Augustinians of Lower Germany lies
outside the bounds of this study, but appears to include elements foreign to Luther’s teachings.
For example, in Probst’s theology Ortwin Rudloff has found evidence of Erasmus’s influence,
particularly with regard to “accommodation theory.” See Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus,
pp. 152–153; and in van Zutphen’s theology, van Duinen has detected the influence of Karlstadt,
specifically with regard to the former’s understanding of the Eucharist. Duinen, Hendrik van
Zutphen, p. 24.
of God’, essentially an account of his interactions with the Inquisition.21

Attached to the document was his ‘Letter in which the Aforementioned
Brother Jacob Probst Exhorts all those who Heard his Sermons, Particularly
those in Antwerp’. In it, Probst expressed shame for his failure to die for
the Gospel, but also rehearsed once more to his followers the key points of
his message, before ending with the assertion: ‘My miserable failure and
my sacrilegious and impious recantation are mine; the preaching you have
heard from me is not mine [i.e., it is God’s]’.22
It is in reminding his supporters in Antwerp of his message that we
get some sense of what he preached there. First, Probst insisted salvation
comes to sinners through Christ alone, not via good works or anything
that the human being does. Second, he reminded his followers to treat one
another with love, just as Christ had done with them, so that their fellow
believers would benef it from their prayers, words, and works. Having
articulated Luther’s central teachings regarding justification and its ethical
consequences, Probst then attacked the Roman church directly, telling his
followers that they should not be deceived into believing that the following
could contribute to their salvation: food and drink, clothes, shaving, cells,
cords, fast days, little prayers, rosaries and the like, which he referred to
as the ‘lies of the mendicants’ and the ‘devil’s tricks’.23 ‘Cincturing a cord
does not make you a Christian’, wrote Probst, ‘because the same thing
can be demanded of a pig and each day it obeys. Nor are you [a Christian]
because you don’t eat fish on a certain day, for the Turk can do likewise’.24
Finally Probst ended by undermining ecclesiastical authority altogether,
juxtaposing it with the authority of Christ: ‘Therefore, most beloved, obey
this leader and master [Jesus Christ] and follow Him resolutely, and do
21 Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis.

22 ‘[M]eus quidem est ille miserabilis lapsus et revocatio sacrilega et impia, sed sermo, quem
audistis per me, non est meus’. Probst, Epistola ad Auditores Suos, p. 62.
23 ‘Observe the novel omens, which are the traditions of base men, so that you might guard
against them. These concern eating and drinking, clothing and hair cutting, cells, rules for
fasting, specif ic ornaments, rosaries, and whatever deceits are contrived by the mendicant
friars. For these things are tricks, artifices of Satan, by which the conscience is led away from
faith and charity’ (‘Portenta autem novissima, quae sunt traditiones hominum reproborum de
esca et potu, de veste et rasura, de funibus, de cellis, de statis ieiuniis, de certis praeculis, de
rosariis et quicquid finxerunt mendaces fratres mendicantes, videte, ut caveatis. Hae enim sunt
fallaciae, hae technae Satanae, quibis conscientias a fide et caritate abducit’). Probst, Epistola
ad Auditores Suos, p. 64.
24 ‘Non enim ideo christianus es, quod cordula stringaris, quando et porcus id peti potest, et
cottidie parit nec ideo, si piscis certo die edas, quod et Turca potest’. Probst, Epistola ad Auditores
Suos, p. 64.
not fear or honour the bulls of popes or anyone else (contrary [to Christ])
for they are mere bubbles’ – a play on the dual meaning of the Latin word
bulla, which can refer to a papal document or a bubble. 25 In this brief
overview, we see Luther’s doctrine of justification, but also a great deal
of critique of traditional pious practices and a rejection of the Roman
church’s authority.
During his interrogations, Hendrik Vos made similar statements about
the limitations of ecclesiastical and even temporal authority, statements for
which he was ultimately executed.26 He declared that, ‘Neither the pope nor
any other prelate may command or prohibit anything that sacred scripture
does not contain or that God has not commanded or prohibited, by which
the conscience might be offended’;27 and that ‘the pope does not have any
power other than the preaching of the Word of God, and the shepherding
of his sheep by the preaching of the Word of God’.28 Finally, he insisted that
‘The secular power is able to command and prohibit such things as pertain
to the body, but not that which pertains to the conscience’.29 In short, the
power of all clerics was limited to the ministry of the word, their ability to
oblige certain beliefs and actions was held in check by the Scriptures and
this included fasting or the observance of festival days. Such statements
severely circumscribed ecclesiastical authority, and while we do not know if
Vos ever preached them publicly, they certainly correspond with what Probst
was expressing, suggesting that they were held by many of the Antwerp
Augustinians.
But it is van Zutphen who appears to have been the fieriest in his rejec-
tion of ecclesiastical authority and his anti-clericalism. An account of his
sermons provides some insight into the way such ideas were expressed by
25 ‘Hunc ergo ducem et magistrum audite et confiantes sequemini, amantissimi, bullas autem
istas, sive papae, sive quascunque alias contrarias, nec timete nec suscipite, bullae enim sunt’.
Probst, Epistola ad Auditores Suos, p. 65.
26 This observation comes from one of the pamphlets produced in the wake of the executions
of Vos and van den Esschen, which includes a section entitled ‘Articuli Asserti per fratrem
Henricum etc.’. What follows is a list of sixty articles or statements by Heinrich Vos that the
inquisitors found heterodox. Although the precise origin of the document is unknown, from
its content it appears to be genuine. Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, pp. 6–12.
27 ‘Nec papa, nec quicunque alius praelatus potest aliud praecipere vel prohibere, quod sacra
scriptura non continent, vel quod deus non praecepit, vel prohibuit, quo laederetur conscientia’.
Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 7.
28 ‘Papa non habet aliam potestatem, quam praedicandi verbum dei, & pascendi oves suas
praedicatione verbi dei’. Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 11.
29 ‘Secularis potestas potest talia praecipere & prohibere quo ad corpora, sed non quo ad
conscientiam’. Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 8.
the Augustinians. Unfortunately, the only description of his preaching to

have survived comes from a critic, so on the one hand, it is not without
potential for bias. But on the other hand, it was considered a legal docu-
ment and its author therefore constrained to recount van Zutphen’s words
accurately. The document originates from van Zutphen’s time in Bremen.
Once there, it did not take long for him to arouse the interest of the local
clergy, particularly the canons of the Cathedral. They sent one of their
own, the Doctor of Law Paul Bähr, to listen to van Zutphen’s sermons and
take notes regarding any heretical utterances.30 During the months of
January and February 1523, Bähr observed van Zutphen, compiling a list
of thirty-two heretical statements the friar had made in his sermons.31 In
many of them, van Zutphen colourfully rejects ecclesiastical authority.
The bishops he refers to as ‘thieves, robbers, murderers, oil salesmen, and
deceivers of souls’,32 and the pope as the ‘antichrist’ whose status should
not be above that of any priest. Moreover, both pope and emperor ‘subvert
divine law and the gospel with their sanctions and constitutions, and lead
men miserably to blackest hell’.33 Those individuals commonly considered
prelates trample the Gospel of Christ, while true prelates are those who
preach the Gospel and are persecuted for it. What is more, all of the spirituals
should be subject to the temporal authorities, because each soul is to be
subject to the higher powers.34 Finally, van Zutphen asserted ‘that there is
no difference or distinction between priests or those ordained in priestly
orders and the laity’.35 From a private letter of the period it is clear that
30 Although Bähr (or one of his representatives assigned the task) was certainly a critical
spectator at van Zutphen’s sermons, and therefore his report must be viewed with discrimination,
two factors suggest that in its essence it may be deemed credible. First, as a canon and doctor of
law, Bähr was producing a legal brief, one that included legal language swearing to the fact that
its author heard van Zutphen firsthand and that the document was a truthful representation
of what he said. See Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 78. Therefore Bähr possessed both the expertise
and the motive to be accurate. Second and more importantly, to the degree that we know
van Zutphen’s doctrinal and ecclesiological positions (as well as those of his fellow Antwerp
Augustinians) Bähr’s report appears to reflect them accurately; what is more, in their turn of
phrase and in the passion with which they are articulated, Bähr’s report reflects a style and
intensity for which van Zutphen was famous.
31 Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 71.
32 ‘fures, latrones, homicidas et olei venditores ac deceptores animarum’. Bähr, Häretische
Sätze, p. 72.
33 ‘[Q]ui suis sanctionibus et constitutionibus legem divinam seu evangelicam subvertunt et
homines miserrime ad atra tartara ducunt’. Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 73.
34 Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, pp. 74–75.
35 ‘[N]ullum est discrimen et distinctio inter sacerdotes vel in sacerdotii ordinibus constitutos
et ipso laicos’. Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 73.
behind such public pronouncements stood even more strident beliefs, as

van Zutphen writes to a friend:
Concerning the Roman pontiff and the universal papacy, that is [concern-
ing] the embodiment of the reign of the anti-Christ, I am able to predict
nothing other than destruction and its ejection into the utmost abyss on
Judgement Day […] I hold this as more certain than my own life, that the
Roman rule that they call the spiritual estate is the power of darkness,
of spiritual wickedness concerning salvation in the heavens, external
to and the last enemy of Christ, two times the complete opposite of any
Christian institution.36
For van Zutphen, the church was no longer merely corrupt but entirely
illegitimate, its rule the work of Satan. It is not difficult to imagine that
such language would be disturbing to the ecclesiastical authorities, not to
mention the emperor himself.
We have no direct evidence to demonstrate whether the laity of Antwerp
were attracted to the doctrine of justification espoused by the Augustinians,
or their ethic of love for neighbour. We have, however, seen demonstrations
of the popularity of their critique of church practice, and in particular of
indulgences. But the actions of the laity also demonstrate that they had
imbibed and were ready to act upon the Augustinians’ rejection of ecclesiasti-
cal authority. On three separate occasions the masses rose up, or offered to,
in order to defend the Augustinians when they were threatened.37 The first
instance occurred when Frans van der Hulst summoned Probst to Brussels
in December of 1521. Before his departure, Probst preached one last sermon,
after which his audience pleaded with him not to go to Brussels then offered
to protect him from the authorities. But he told them that it was the will of
God that he go and asked them not to interfere.38 And when van Zutphen
was arrested a few months later, a crowd formed outside the monastery
where he was being held, and eventually intervened. Van Zutphen himself
36 ‘De Romano pontif ice et universico papistici, id est anti-christiani regni corpore nihil
aliud quam perditionem et ad novissimum barathrum dejectionem augurari possum […] Tam
certum habeo, Romani regni quod vocant spirituale dominium esse potestatem tenebrarum,
spiritualis nequitiae in coelestibus, extraneum et novissimum adversarium Christi, δίς διά
πασῶν ab omnibus christianis institutis dissidere, quam certum habeo, me vivere’. Hendrik
van Zutphen to Gerhard Hecker, 13 December 1522. Zütphen, ‘Zütphen’s Briefe‘, pp. 246–247.
37 For a discussion of popular support for the Augustinians, see Marnef, ‘Tussen tolerantie en
repressie’, p. 195.
38 Planitz, Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment, p. 60.
describes his rescue: ‘In the evening, after the sun had gone down, there
broke into the monastery in which I was detained several thousand women,
together with some men. Having battered down the doors, they led me out
and restored me to my brothers with whom I spent three days’.39 Other
sources suggest a much more modest number involved in the rescue – 300
women, 40 500 women with swords, 41 or just ‘some women’, 42 though all
suggest that the crowd was comprised mostly of women. 43 And finally,
when all the members of the Antwerp cloister were arrested just one week
39 ‘Vespere, dum sol occubuisset, irruperunt in monasterium, quo detinebar, aliquot mulierum
milia, concurrentibus simul viris, et ruptis foribus eductum me restituerunt fratribus meis, cum
quibus egi triduo’. Van Zutphen to Probst and Reiner in Wittenberg, 29 November 1522. This
letter may be found in Zütphen, ‘Zütphen’s Briefe‘, pp. 241–245; or in CD, 4: doc. 110.
40 ‘And from here the rumor spread, as the result of which some members of the community
came and assisted by three hundred women, assailed his room with such violence that they
were able to extract him [van Zutphen] and take him back to his cloister’ (‘Hier duere rees het
rumoere voors., so datter sommighe vander ghemeenten quamen, geassisteert wel met iijc
vrauwen, ende deden up die camere sulck een ghewelt, so dat sy en daer wt creghen ende leyden
hem weder in sijn cloostere’). CD, 4: doc. 97.
41 ‘The entire city raging, this unavenged crime of the lady was almost allowed to transpire.
But in the end, more than 500 women with swords (as it is said) and with torches besieged the
monastery of St. Michael. Rummaging about, they burst in and finally succeeded in freeing the
Augustinian from his chains. Then they returned him to his own monastery. Having received
news of this crime, Lady Margaret with her “a” and “b” and ambassadors put several of the
women who had been the standard-bearers of the tumult into prison’ (‘Tota urbs tumultuans vix
facinus hoc inultum dominicastris transire sinit. Sed tandem plus amplius quingentae mulieres
gladijs (ut aiunt) et fustibus sancti Michaelis monasterium obsederunt, effodiendo irrumpendo
tandem augustinianum e vinculis liberarunt pristinoque monasterio restituerunt. Hoc facinore
agnito, domina Margareta cum suis alpha et beta atque satellitibus aliquot mulierculas tumultus
vexilliferas in carcerem abdidit’). Letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Alexander Brassicanus,
25 November 1522, CD 4: doc. 109.
42 ‘There was a certain preacher appointed by those who call themselves Hermits of St.
Augustine. When he had preached the Gospel for several days in Antwerp, it was commanded
by the Lady Margaret that he be arrested and held in the monastery of St. Michael. But by force
he was removed from there by some women of Antwerp and restored [to his place]. And, having
been urged by his friends in accordance with the Gospel’s admonition to shake the dust from
your feet, he fled from one city to the next city’ (‘Concionator quidam instituti eorum qui se
heremitas divi Augustini vocant, cum aliquot diebus evangelium Antverpiae praedicasset,
jussus est a domina Margarita apprehendi et custodiri in divi Michaelis coenobio, sed, inde per
matronas aliquot Antverpianas vi abstractus, suis restitutus est et, suadentibus amicis, secundum
evangelicam admonitionem excutere pulverem pedum suorum, de civitate in civitatem fugit’).
Geldenhauer, Collectanea, p. 67.
43 This is one of five recorded events during the early years of the Reformation in which large
groups of women intervened in the defense of Reformation preachers. For information on
the other four, all of which occurred in the German-speaking lands see Scott, ‘The Collective
Response of Women’.
later on the evening of 6 October 1522, the day in which the monastery was
closed, a woman named Margaretha Boonams from Mechelen organized
a demonstration in front of the monastery to support the friars being held
there. As a result, she herself was arrested and a week later sentenced by
the Antwerp city council to do penance by undertaking a pilgrimage to
Cyprus. 44 In short, among the local laity, the Antwerp Augustinians had
widespread and vocal support that was not beyond disregarding and even
disobeying the authorities or using mob action to foil their plans.
To conclude this discussion of the Antwerp Augustinians’ preaching, it is
worth noting that long-standing tradition of criticizing church practice and
authority in the region from which they hailed may well have encouraged
them to emphasize and accentuate this aspect of the Reformation message,
with the result that they were more willing to push for radical change than
their counterparts from the Wittenberg cloister. What is more, this tradi-
tion provided a foundation upon which the Reformed Augustinians could
build, one that translated into widespread and potentially radical popular
support, creating an atmosphere that emboldened anarchy and lawlessness,
or at least rapid and drastic change. 45 If we combine this scenario with
the fact that the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany had directly
experienced repression and persecution and had watched first hand as
their compatriots suffered, the result is an intensity in their willingness to
induce reform – even in the face of powerful opposition, and even if that
meant that extreme steps must be taken.
If we pan out to look at the big picture, it becomes clear that the Reformed
Augustinians of the Province of Lower Germany influenced the Reformation
at its Wittenberg centre, pushing reforms forward at a pace and in a manner
unwelcome to many, Luther among them. Put another way, reform did not
merely emanate from Wittenberg, but was promoted by the Augustinians
coming from the Low Countries in ways with which Luther and others were
not entirely comfortable. The Reformed Augustinians of the Province of
Lower Germany were not merely pawns in a larger conflict, but actors in
their own right.
44 Margaret, Queen Regent, responded forcefully to the intervention of these women, for which
her nephew, Charles V, would later praise her. CD, 4: doc 120.
45 It is important to note that critique of the church in the Low Countries had not only a long
history, but that during the period of the early Reformation, it took multiple forms that fed
off of and encouraged one another. Various scholars, for example, have observed the overlap
between humanism’s calls for reform and those of Luther. See Spruyt, ‘Humanisme, Evangelisme
en Reformatie’, pp. 26–54. Others have detected the influence of humanism in the theology of
Probst and van Zutphen. See note 17.
The Response of the Authorities
The aggressive efforts to silence the Augustinians of Lower Germany under-

taken by the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities in the Low Countries
have already been recounted in Chapter Four. But having rehearsed the
message of the Augustinians, it is worth noting here the aspects of it that
most deeply troubled these authorities, as demonstrated by their public
response or counter-message. Such a response allows us to better understand
the crux of the Reformation conflict at this early stage, and not surprisingly,
it illustrates that the real issue revolved around questions of authority.
Of the aforementioned sources used to outline the message of the Au-
gustinians of Lower Germany, only Probst’s open letter was composed by
the author himself for public consumption and without duress. So if we use
this admittedly limited sample as a general indicator of what was preached
publicly in Antwerp we can distill the friars’ message down to four themes:
Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, a Christian ethic emphasizing
love of neighbour based upon that doctrine, a claim that all religious practices
without Biblical origins were ineffectual and should not be compulsory,
and an outright rejection of papal and ecclesiastical authority in favour of
biblicism. If this was indeed the thrust of their message, it is interesting to
consider just what the authorities found most offensive in it.
The best source by which to do so is the recantation of Jacob Probst.
On 9 February 1522, in the presence of a capacity crowd that included the
papal legate Aleander, representatives of the imperial government and
of various ecclesiastical foundations, and members of the local temporal
government, Probst recanted at St. Gudula’s Church in Brussels following
a protocol that had been established by tradition. First, he listed those
assertions he had made that he now deemed heretical; then he went
back and described his current, orthodox beliefs on each one. It is the
recounting of his ‘current beliefs’ that provides insight into what the
authorities found most distressing in Probst’s preaching and what the
Inquisition wanted the people to hear in response to it. By this I mean that
public recantations of the period were hardly designed for the personal
edification of the individual recanting, but rather for the instruction of the
crowd, a lesson in orthodoxy and heresy. In his case, Probst’s recantation
was practically a sermon. What is more, having a crowd on hand was
important – so important, claims Probst, that the inquisitors ensured
a packed church with promises of money to anyone who attended. 46
46 Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis, p. 54.

And in order to achieve maximum distribution of these ideas, Probst

was required to read his recantation in both Latin and Flemish, after
which the Inquisition quickly had it printed and distributed in both
languages. 47 Moreover, Probst asserted that the inquisitors had composed
the recantation according to their own desires, with the result that he,
Probst, was shocked when he heard it, insisting that he had never preached
those things, nor had they ever entered his mind. 48 As a result, when
the ceremony began, Probst began to speak extemporaneously, causing
the inquisitors to quickly stop him, ‘and put the sacrilegious document
[=revocation] that I was forced to read into my hand, as if [I were] a boy’.49
Because of its importance for understanding how the public battle over
Reformation ideas was being framed in Lower Germany, this document
will be quoted at length.
Probst began as follows:
1. Having made my revocation, it is expedient that I now clearly declare,

in so far as I am able, my faith and my beliefs concerning those things
which I have preached, taught, and believed, of which I will now speak:
I assert and pronounce my faith concerning the sacraments of the church,
that I believe those things that the holy Roman Mother Church holds
and believes, namely that the seven sacraments, baptism, penance, the
Eucharist, confirmation, ordination, marriage, and extreme unction were
instituted by Christ. But in anything else I have taught or preached, I have
erred in faith reducing the number of sacraments established by Christ.50
The issue here is the doctrine of the sacraments; but equally, it is the question
of who has the authority to define them. Probst admits the holy Roman
Mother Church does.
47 Anathematizatio et revocatio fratris Iacobi Praepositi was published in Latin and Flemish
in Antwerp, and in Latin in Cologne, Strasburg, and Leipzig.
48 Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis, p. 54.
49 ‘et tradiderunt in manus velut puero sacrilegas illas schedulas, quas legi victus’. Probst,
Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis, p. 55.
50 ‘Quoniam videtur expedire post revocationem factam aliquantisper eam declarare, potis-
simum ut ego lucidius manifestem fidem et credulitatem meam circa ea quae predicavi, docui
vel sensi vel de quibus confabulatus sum, manifesto et pronuntio fidem meam de sacramentis
ecclesie, et assero me credere quod de illis tenet et credit sancta mater ecclesia Romana, esse
videlicet septem sacramenta, scilicet baptismum, penitenciam, eucharistiam, confirmationem,
ordinem, matrimonium et extremam unctionem, instituta a Christo. Quod autem aliter docui vel
predicavi, erravi in fide, numerum sacramentorum a Christo traditum minuens’. Anathematizatio
et revocatio, p. 33.
2. I regard it as a heresy to say that laity are priests, and I believe those
men are priests who go through ordination by a bishop according to
the rites of the church; it is not sufficient to be a priest just by offering
yourself to God. But when I proclaimed otherwise, I erred, denigrating
the priestly dignity, bringing confusion into the statutes of Christianity.51
Here the institutional church’s authority to ordain clergy, thereby making

them distinct from the laity, the foundation of the church’s hierarchical
structure, is confirmed. Rejected as unorthodox is the Reformation doctrine
of the “priesthood of all believers.”
3. Concerning indulgences, moreover, I believe they ought to be under-

stood in those ways which the church allows, by which the sins of men
are absolved from the debt of penalty in purgatory, and I assert that the
pope is able to assume for himself the authority of divine tradition, and
therefore I have erroneously said in the past that indulgences are nothing,
and that they are not efficacious. Indeed, everything that is written in
letters of indulgence is efficacious and surely has an impact and ought
to reflect consolation to the soul and the conscience.52
In other words, the church defines practice and ensures the efficacy thereof,
and the papacy asserts the right to base decisions on tradition, itself referred
to as “divine”.
4. Concerning the merits of the saints I believe firmly that they can be
applied to others, as can be proven by many passages of Holy Scripture.
But whatever I have said and preached otherwise, I was mistaken. Indeed,
on account of the merits of the saints we obtain from God those things
that can be applied to us, so that on account of their merits, our debt of
penalty is removed. In no way should it be supposed, nor do I any longer
51 ‘Dico heresim esse laicos esse sacerdotes et credo esse precise sacerdotes ordinatos ab
episcopis secundum ritum ecclesie, nec suff icere ad sacerdotium quod quis se Deo offerat.
Quod autem aliter predicaverim, erravi dignitati sacerdotali derogans et confusionem in statu
christianorum inducens’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 33.
52 ‘De indulgentiis autem credo conf idendum esse in eis ad intencionem, qua in ecclesia
conceduntur, quibus homines peccatores absolvuntur a penis debitis in purgatorio, et assero
eas posse summum pontificem concedere auctoritate sibi divinitus tradita, et ideo erronee dixi
indulgentias esse nullas et non esse efficacies, quinimo, positis illis quae in litteris indulgentiarum
exprimuntur, efficacies sunt et suum sortiuntur effectum, et solatium anime et conscientie sunt
reputande’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, pp. 33–34.
believe that all works of the saints are sins, requiring remission. But
I believe and assert that their works were meritorious toward eternal
life, that they are all free from blame. But when I preached otherwise,
I erred, by denigrating the works of the saints and by insulting them.53
Mentioned for the first time, Scripture is used to justify the notion that the
merits of the saints are transferable, and this article represents the first
reference to the doctrine of justification.
5. Concerning the treasury of the church, I believe it to be the treasury

of merits of Christ and the saints, which can be applied to the faithful
as I said before. But whenever I have spoken otherwise, I have erred,
diminishing the treasury of the church.54
This doctrine of the treasury of merits, articulated in the papal bull Unigeni-
tus, was itself heavily contested. Here Probst recognizes papal authority in
defining this doctrine and rejecting the idea of sola scriptura.
6. Concerning the apostolic condemnation by which Luther and his

dogmas were damned, I believe and assert it to be the legitimate law
of God, consonant with the holy councils and the sacred doctors, just
as I have said repeatedly in my recantation. But when I have preached
or said the opposite, I erred impiously, and I rashly damaged the holy
apostolic faith.55
In other words, legal rulings of the church are spiritually binding, a reflection
of divine law.
53 ‘De meritis autem sanctorum credo firmiter posse alijs applicari, ut ex multis passibus Sacre
Scripture constare potest; quod autem aliter dixerim vel predicaverim, erravi; quinimo propter
merita sanctorum multa impetramus a Deo, quod possint ea nobis applicari, ut propter eorum
merita nobis pene debite relaxentur. Nullo pacto censendum est nec ego jam credo omnia opera
sanctorum fuisse peccata, indigentia remissione; sed credo et assero opera eorum fuisse sic
vite eterne meritoria, quod omni culpa carerent; quod autem aliter predicaverim, erravi, opera
sanctorum denigrando et eis contumeliam inferendo’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 34.
54 ‘De thesauro autem ecclesie credo esse ecclesie thesaurum merita Christi et sanctorum,
quae possunt f idelibus applicari, ut predictum est; quod autem oppositum dixerim, erravi
thesaurum ecclesie diminuens’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 34.
55 ‘De condemnatione autem apostolica, qua Lutherus cum suo dogmate est damnatus, credo
et assero fuisse legittimam legi Dei, sacris conciliis sacrisque doctoribus consonam, sicut in mea
revocatione peramplius dixi; quod autem oppositum predicaverim vel dixerim, impie erravi et
sacrosancte fidei apostolice injuriam temerarie intuli’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 34.
7. Concerning the freedom of the will, I believe and assert that it actively
engages and works freely to do good works. But when I spoke and preached
otherwise, I erred, withdrawing liberty from free will, contrary to the
Holy Scriptures and the doctrines of the sacred doctors.56
This article and the next directly address the issue of justification. Here the
freedom of will is asserted, and the scriptures are employed as the operative
authority, along with the church’s traditional interpretation of them.
8. Concerning the works of free will, I believe that not all of them are
sins, but that some are meritorious to eternal life. But whenever I have
spoken and preached otherwise, I erred impiously and scandalously in
faith and morals. Nor do I believe that everything a man does before being
justified by grace is a sin. Rather, he is able to push himself toward grace
without sin, and to do many works which are not imputed as blame. But
whenever I have preached and taught otherwise, I have erred rashly by
asserting [these things] and by denying the ability of a sinner to correct
his own sins.57
This article refers again to the church’s doctrine of justification, this time
in response to its stance on free will. Justification requires good works for
salvation, works fully within the capacity of the sinner.
9. Concerning the observance of fasts and the abstention from meat at

certain times, I hold and believe them to be reasonably enjoined on the
faithful of Christ, and to assist with the observation of the divine law, the
mortification of the flesh, and the elevation of the mind toward God. And
Christians are to be held to this type of observance established by the
church and [are to be considered] in mortal delinquency for transgressing
it, unless they are excused for the sake of some legitimate reason. Nor
56 ‘De libero autem arbitrio credo et assero, quod active concurrit et coagit ad actus bonos
libere; quod autem aliter dixerim vel predicaverim, erravi, auferens libri arbitrii libertatem
contra Sacram Scripturam et sacrorum doctorum doctrinam’. Anathematizatio et revocatio,
p. 34.
57 ‘De operibus autem liberi arbitrii credo non omnia esse peccata, sed aliqua esse vite aeterne
meritoria remittente; quod autem aliter dixerim vel predicaverim, erravi impie et scandalose
in f ide et moribus. Non credo quod quicquid homo agat ante gratiam justif icantem, peccet;
imo, sine peccato posset se ad gratiam disponere et multa opera agere, quae non imputantur
ad culpam; quod autem aliter predicaverim vel docuerim, erravi temerarie illud asserendo et
peccatores peccatorum suorum emendatione retrahendo’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 34.
ought this type of work be eliminated. And I believe that a person is

able, by his own vows to oblige himself to be abstinent. But whenever
I have preached otherwise, I have erred against the law of God and of
his church, inciting rebellion against the means of mortifying the flesh
and enticing souls toward those things that impede them from being
elevated toward God.58
Behind this article is the church’s authority to establish practices and statues,
which then take on the necessity of divine law and the transgression of
which therefore incurs mortal punishment.
10. I believe that prelates are able to oblige their subordinates so that
if they transgress any precept, they are mortally delinquent, nor does
ignorance or any passion excuse them, even if they did not cause scandal
or ignominy. But wherever I have spoken and preached otherwise, I have
erred in faith and morals, drawing the subordinate away from the debt
of obedience and subjection to the prelates, seditiously destroying the
positive laws.59
The article asserts the authority to judge and to coerce according to the laws
and traditions of the church, and to hold parishioners mortally accountable.
11. I believe the canon Omnis utriusque sexus, in which it is ordered that
at least once a year confession ought to be made, to be most reasonable
and wholesome. Nor should it be judged unreasonable on account of the
determination of time.60 But wherever I have preached otherwise, I have
58 ‘De observantia autem jejuniorum et abstinencia a carnibus certo tempore teneo et credo esse
rationabiliter injunctas christifidelibus et facere ad observantiam legis divine et macerationem
carnis et mentis elevationem in Deum, et christianos teneri ad hujusmodi observantiam ab
ecclesia traditam et transgredientes mortaliter delinquere, nisi legittime rationabili causa
venirent excusandi, neque hoc cujuslibet arbitrio est dimittendum. Et credo hominem posse ex
voto ad hujusmodi abstinentiam obligari; quod autem aliter predicaverim, erravi contra legem
Dei et ejus ecclesiam, tollens modum reprimendi carnis rebellionem et alliciens ad illud per
quod impeditur anima ne in Deum elevetur’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, pp. 34–35.
59 ‘Credo prelatos posse taliter subditos obligare, quod si transgrederentur preceptum, mor-
taliter delinquerent, nec omnis ignorantia vel passio eos excusat, etiam ubi non fuerit scandalum
nec contemptus; quod autem aliter dixerim vel predicaverim, erravi in fide et moribus retrahens
subditos a debita obedientia et subjectione prelatorum, leges positivas seditiose destruens’.
Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 35.
60 This a reference to Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which requires every
Christian who has reached the age of discretion to confess his or her sins at least once a year to
his or her own priest.
erred rashly and brought injury to the holy council, drawing men away
from the necessity of the sacrament of confession.61
A church council may establish a rite; once confirmed, that rite attains the
power of divine authority.
12. I believe that the apostle Peter was established by Christ as first among
the apostles, and I assert that whoever is his successor is the head of the
church under Christ by divine authority.62
The article affirms the papacy’s claims of the Roman bishop’s primacy as
a divinely instituted office.
13. In addition, I declare that not all bishops are equal, particularly with
regard to external issues. But wherever I have preached otherwise, I have
erred, diminishing the principle of apostolic superiority, withdrawing
the authority from his successors, and altogether perverting the ordered
hierarchy.63
The article verifies the notion that there is a hierarchy within the spiritual
estate, and that the pope sits at its apex above all bishops.
14. Other articles that I believed, that I did not openly preach, I refrain
from declaring, for the revocation of them appears to be sufficient.64
15. So that the cause of my errors and perverse sermons might be made
known to all, everyone should know that they are on account of my too
great affection for Luther. For with his perverse dogmas, I appear to have
61 ‘Capitulum Omnis utriusque sexus, quo cavetur semel saltem in anno confitendum, rationi
consonum et saluberrimum censeo nec propter determinationem temporis est irrationabile judi-
candum; quod autem oppositum predicaverim, erravi temerarie et injuriam sacrosancto concilio
intuli a debita sacramentali confessione homines retrahens’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 35.
62 ‘Petrum apostolum inter apostolos supremum a Christo institutum credo et assero quemlibet
ejus successorem auctoritate divina esse caput ecclesiae sub Christo’. Anathematizatio et
revocatio, p. 35.
63 ‘Judico insuper non omnes episcopos esse equales potissimum in foro exterior; quod autem
aliter predicaverim, erravi principis apostolorum superioritati derogans et ejus successoribus
auctoritatem adimens, ordinem hierarchicum omnino pervertens’. Anathematizatio et revocatio,
p. 35.
64 ‘Aliorum autem articulorum quos senseram, quos me predicasse non recolo, declarationi
supersede; sufficere enim videtur eorum revocatio’. Anathematizatio et revocatio, p. 35.
enmeshed the people in errors that I have preached and believed, about
which I have spoken. Having by the grace of God come to know the truth
and having been instructed by others, I recant and retract all errors that
I have preached and believed, and about which I have spoken. And I damn
all errors and heresies, particularly the Lutheran ones, and I embrace the
Catholic faith, which the Holy Roman Church holds and preaches. And
I submit myself in faith to all things that it teaches. This I promise. And
I now declare, just as I have promised and declared, to adhere to it and
to cast Luther with all his dogmas far away from me.65
The recantation ends with a formulaic condemnation of Luther as originator

of his heresies, and a confirmation of the notion that the Roman Church is
the receptacle and guardian of truth.
Two aspects of these articles prove noteworthy. First, Probst proclaims
the church’s doctrine of justification: the human being possesses free will
to do good works and these works merit salvation. But he does so in only a
handful of the fifteen articles, tucked into the middle of the recantation.
Second, the preponderance of the articles addresses the issue of authority.
References to the Scriptures are few and far between; references to the
Roman Church’s right to articulate doctrine, practice, and binding laws
abound: laymen may not assume the role of the priests; the pope, backed
by scripture and tradition, has the authority to define doctrine, institute
and regulate church practice and custom, and assign binding punishments
on pain of eternal damnation. The church is a hierarchical institution with
authority ultimately residing with the papacy. Simply put, the conflict is
not first and foremost over the doctrine of justification; it is about the
institutional authority of the church.
A final source articulating the church’s public response to the message of
the friars, one that encapsulates that response in its most crystalized form,
supports this contention. It is another recantation allegedly made by Hendrik
Vos and Johann van den Esschen with their dying breaths. Shortly after
65 ‘Ut autem omnibus innotescat mei erroris et perverse predicationis causa, noverint omnes,
quod propter nimiam meam erga Lutherum affectionem, et quia videbar populo dogmate illo
perverso placere, in errores turpiter incidi et predicavi. Cognoscens igitur per Dei gratiam
veritatem et instructus aliter sensiens revoco et retracto ut dixi, omnes errores, quos predicavi
et sensi et de quibus confabulatus sum, et damno omnem errorem et haeresim, potissimum
Lutherianam, et amplector fidem catholicam, quam tenet et predicat sancta Romana ecclesia,
et ei me in fide et omnibus quae docet, submitto et eidem promitto et jam juro, sicut jam promisi
et juravi, adherere et Lutherum cum suo dogmate procul a me abjicere’. Anathematizatio et
revocatio, p. 35.
their deaths, the rumour spread (as will be discussed in detail in Chapter
Ten) that at the last moment, in the midst of the flames, the men recanted.
The content of that recantation comes from a letter of the chief inquisitor,
Frans van der Hulst, composed the same day that they died. Writing to a
fellow cleric, van der Hulst communicates the breaking news that at the
very last moment before their deaths,
They embraced once more the holy Catholic church, adding of their own
accord “Roman” to this phrase. [And] they entreated the bystanders […]
[to remain] in the faith of their parents, their predecessors, and of the
prelates of the church, convinced that our lord, the pope, was the true
successor to Peter, etc.66
Van der Hulst encouraged the recipient of the letter to spread the news
of the recantation which, he claimed, had saved their souls from eternal
damnation, if not their bodies from death. It is interesting to note how
the men’s final words reaffirm the authority of the Church, specifically
the Roman Church. They also endorse the legitimacy of the traditions of
the church (the faith of parents, predecessors, and prelates), and confirm
the primacy of the papacy. A more condensed and overt declaration of
ecclesiastical and papal authority is difficult to imagine: and it is precisely
that allegiance – so the rumour went – that Vos and van den Esschen had
emphasized with their dying breaths.
Conclusion
Whether these two recantations, those of Probst and of Vos and van den
Esschen, provide an accurate description of these men’s true convictions is
highly unlikely. But in any case, the authorities’ efforts to publicize them
indicate that the powers that be had found a beneficial public response to the
preaching of the Augustinians. If these recantations are any indication, then
the essence of the dispute was not so much the doctrine of justification, or of
good works, but the issue was simply one of the Roman church’s authority.
66 ‘[E]t praesertim eos quos ipsi tenuerunt, credentes nedum in sanctam ecclesiam catholicam,
se addentes Romanam; rogantes assistentes ne quis proprio sensu staret praesumptuose, unde
et ipsi se deceptos fatebantur, sed in fide parentum, praedecessorum et Ecclesiae praelatorum;
credentes dominum nostrum papam verum esse Petri successorem, etc.’. Frans Van der Hulst
to Jan Pascha, 1 July 1523, CD 4: doc. 144.
Works Cited
Anathematizatio et revocatio fratris Iacobi Praepositi, olim prioris fratrum heremi-

tarum Sancti Augustini opidi antverpiensis, in Bonae Literae et Lutherus: Texte
und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer Reformators
Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff, [= Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen zur
Bremischen Kirchengeschichte] 14 (1985), pp. 27–37.
Bähr, Paul, ‘Häretische Sätze aus den Bremer Predigten Heinrichs von Zütphen,
Januar und Februar 1523’, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen
zur Bremischen Kirchengeschichte 15 (1987), 71–104.
Bünger, Fritz and Gottfried Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’
Caspers, Charles, ‘Indulgences in the Low Countries c. 1300 – c. 1520’, in Promissory
Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. by R.
N. Swanson (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 65–100.
Geldenhauer, Gerard, Collectanea, ed. by J. Prinsen (Amsterdam: Johannes Müller,
1901).
Krentz, Natalie, Ritualwandel und Deutungshoheit – Die frühe Reformation in der
Residenzstadt Wittenberg (1500–1533) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
(=WA), vols. 1–73 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883-)
———, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Tischreden (=WATr),
Marnef, Guido, ‘Tussen tolerantie en repressie: Protestanten en religieuze dis-

sidenten te Antwerpen in de 16de eeuw’, in Minderheden in Westeuropese steden
(16de-20ste eeuw), ed. by Hugo Soly and Alfons K.L. Thijs (Brussels and Rome:
Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 1995), pp. 189–213.
Müller, Nikolaus, ed. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522. Die Vorgänge in
und um Wittenberg während Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt, 2nd ed. (Leipzig:
Heinsius, 1911).
Planitz, Hans von der, Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in Nürnberg, 1521–1523, ed.
by Ernst Wülker & Hans Virck (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1899).
Probst, Jacob, Epistola ad Auditores suos Antuuerpienses in Bonae Literae et Lutherus:
Texte und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer Reforma-
tors Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen zur
Bremischen Kirchengeschichte 14 (1985), 60–65.
———, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis in Bonae Literae et
Lutherus: Texte und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer
Reformators Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen
Scott, Tom, ‘The Collective Response of Women to Early Reforming Preaching: Four
Small Communities and their Preachers Compared’, in The Early Reformation
in Germany: Between Secular Impact and Radical Vision (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2013), pp. 117–141.
Spalatin, Georg, ‘Chronicon sive Annales Georgii Spalatini A M. Augusto Anni
MDXIII usque ad finem fere Anni MDXXVI ex autographo auctoris descripti’,
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum prœcipue Saxonicarum 2 (1728), cols. 589–662.
———, ‘Excerpta quaedam e Diario Georgii Spalatini MSto’ in Amoenitates Lit-
erariae Quibus Variae Observationes Scripta item quaedem anecdota & rariora
Bartholomaei, 1725), 4: 389–432.
Spruyt, Bart J., ‘Humanisme, Evangelisme en Reformatie in de Nederlanden,
1520–1530’, in Reformatie in meervoud : congresbundel 1990, ed. by W. de Greef
and M. van Campen (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1991), pp. 26–54.
Wittenberg als Bildungszentrum 1502–2002, ed. by Peter Freybe (Lutherstadt-
Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2002), 9–32.
Winterhager, Wilhlem, ‘Ablaßkritik als Indikator historischen Wandels vor 1517:

Ein Beitrag zu Voraussetzungen und Einordnung der Reformation’, Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 90 (1999), 6–71.
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zütphen’s Briefe’, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken Bremisches
Jahrbuch 2. 1 (1885), 241–252.
7. ‘Summer is at the door’: The Impact of
the Executions on Martin Luther
Abstract
In this chapter, Martin Luther’s response to the executions of Vos and van
den Esschen is examined with the benefit of a clear understanding of the
Reformer’s close connections to the case. His reaction can be observed
on two levels, theological and temporal/political. A close analysis of his
first musical composition, ‘A New Song’, a ballad recounting the history
of the two executed friars, illustrates how he understood these events
in theological terms. However, they also provided Luther with evidence
that Adrian VI, who had ascended to the papacy on a platform of church
reform and personal piety, was a hypocrite. The result is that the executions
become a true watershed for Luther in the early Reformation.
Keywords: Martin Luther, ‘A New Song Here Shall Be Begun’, Pope Adrian
VI, Luther’s hymns
If the administrative assets, not to mention individual members of the

Congregation of Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany, were utilized by
Linck, Luther, and the rest of the hierarchy in the service of the Reformation,
and if the Lowlanders also played a role in the pace and even content of
reform in Wittenberg, the outcomes of their experiences and the profound
impact of these events also belong to the story of the early Reformation in
its Reformed Augustinian context. Such influence is especially true of the
executions of Vos and van den Esschen, which were broadly publicized
throughout the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. This chapter assesses these
varied and continuing consequences for the Reformation. Given that these
events impacted diverse individuals and groups to varying degrees over vast
swathes of space (and time), quantifying and evaluating their influence
raises significant organizational challenges. The following assessment is
structured on the model of concentric circles, beginning in this chapter
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch07
with the impact of these events on a key individual, Martin Luther, before
moving on in subsequent chapters to their consequences locally in the Low
Countries, and finally more broadly throughout the empire.
Of the many individuals affected by the news of the burning of Vos and
van den Esschen it would be difficult to find anyone more deeply moved
than Martin Luther, or anyone whose response itself had a broader impact.1
In the past, scholars have evaluated the impression made by the executions
on the Reformer, but without a complete understanding of the parameters
of the situation, and lacking a realization of how deeply and directly he was
involved.2 When these factors are taken into consideration, Luther’s reaction
becomes clearer and may be analysed from two perspectives, themselves
reflecting two aspects of the Reformer’s disposition. On the one hand Luther
responded theologically, processing the events in Brussels through the lens of
the Bible. As a man whose life was ‘lived in the shadow of eternity’ and with
the full conviction that God was the ruler of history, Luther saw this event as
evidence of divine intervention, essentially biblical in nature.3 But Luther also
understood the world in concrete and practical terms, as demonstrated by his
work in the service of the German Reformed Augustinians and dramatically
underscored in his recent efforts to foster and support the printing industry
in Wittenberg and throughout Germany. 4 He knew ecclesiastical politics,
he knew how power was exercised, and he knew how to reach the masses.
So on the other hand, he could assign blame for the deaths of these men to
the machinations of those individuals and entities he saw as responsible
for or complicit in the executions – a political understanding of the case.
Luther’s response demonstrates that for him, the burning of Vos and van
den Esschen was a watershed in the history of the Reformation, both as a
divinely governed episode and as a very worldly and temporal matter.
Luther’s Theological Understanding of the Events of 1 July 1523 in

Brussels
With his knowledge of the situation in the Low Countries, Luther must
have been aware of the likelihood that the first individuals executed for
1 Parts of this chapter have been previously published as Christman, ‘“For he is coming”’.
2 See Chapter 1, note 2.
3 This aspect of Martin Luther’s nature is best portrayed by Oberman in his biography Martin
Luther.
4 See Pettegree, Brand Luther.
‘Summer is at the door’: The Impact of the Executions on Martin Luther 137
their Evangelical beliefs would die there. But who was to suffer that fate and
how they were to go to their deaths appear to have surprised him. Luther’s
initial response to the news of the burnings was disappointment that he was
not the first deemed worthy to die for the Gospel.5 Having overcome this
reaction, it was these unexpected aspects of the story that most influenced
his response and informed his theological interpretation of the event. In
the days after the news arrived in Wittenberg, Luther would refer to the
executions in a series of letters,6 but it was his ballad, ‘A New Song Here
Shall be Begun’, and to a lesser degree his Open Letter to the Christians in the
Low Countries, that reveal his conviction that the Reformation had entered a
new phase of divine history.7 Something novel was happening, something
that required expression in song. An analysis of his ballad, particularly
in light of our new understanding of his close connections to the case,
demonstrates Luther’s awareness of these new things and reveals how he
was inspired by Scripture to articulate them in song.
For many scholars, ‘A New Song Here Shall be Begun’ falls outside the
parameters of the rest of Luther’s hymn writing corpus in a variety of ways.
It predated his ‘initial’ outpouring of hymns in 1523–1524, which came as
a pointed response to Thomas Müntzer’s musical efforts.8 Most of Luther’s
hymns are transpositions of a section of Scripture or the catechism into
5 Johann Kessler, a Swiss student studying in Wittenberg at the time, noted that when Luther
heard about the deaths ‘he began to cry inwardly and said, “I thought that I would be the first
person martyred for the holy Gospel, but I was not counted worthy”’ (‘hatt er angefangen
innerlich zů wainen und gesagt, ich vermaint, ich solte ja der erste sin, der umb diß hailig
euangelion wegen solte gemarteret werden, aber ich bin des nitt wirdig geweßen’). Kessler,
Sabbata, p. 241. This was not the first time Luther connected the events in the Low Countries
to what he thought was his own imminent execution. Karel Rose, an erstwhile member of
Luther’s cloister in Wittenberg who at the time was in the Augustinian cloister in Nuremberg,
commenting on the arrival of Probst there in September 1522, claims that when Luther heard
from Probst about his difficulties in the Low Countries he replied: ‘If such flames are flying out
of the fire, I won’t remain unburned for very long’ (‘Wen solche flammen aus dem feuer fligen,
so wirdt ich noch lang nicht verprent’). Karel van Rose to Nicolaas van Kniebys, September,
1522, Corpus documentorum (=CD), 4: doc. 96.
6 See Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 3:114–116; WABr 3: 116–117; and WA 12:68–72.
7 The original title of Luther’s song was, ‘Eynn hubsch Lyed von denn zcweyen Marterern
Christi, zu Brussel von den Sophisten zcu Louen verbrandt,’ but it was quickly changed to ‘Ein
neues Lied wir Heben an’. Luther, Abteilung Werke (=WA) 35: 411–415. The song has been translated
multiple time into English. The translation employed here is from Leupold, ed. Luther’s Works,
vol. 53, pp. 214–216; Luther, Ein brief an die Christen, also in WA 12:77–79.
8 In 1523, Thomas Müntzer had made some initial attempts at writing lyrics and music.
Realizing, it seems, that if no one responded in kind, the people might very well be seduced by
Müntzer, Luther called on his colleagues to write hymns, then answered the call himself with
an outpouring of compositions. Veit, Das Kirchenlied in der Reformation, pp. 36–40.
music or were based upon medieval Latin or German precedents. ‘A New

Song’ is not. It is his only composition that employs the musical form of a
ballad.9 And it is his only song about a contemporary event, causing one
historian to describe its focus ‘not on sacred material, or even immediately
on the Word as such, but on a historical, highly politicized event in distant
Brussels’.10 In short, it is something of an enigma.11 Most scholars focus on
Luther’s summary of a political event, and his attempt to broadcast it using
a musical form commonly employed at the time for publicizing news quickly
and widely. The result is that Luther’s political savvy is accentuated, as is
his ability to deftly use the media in the service of his cause, certainly both
important elements in understanding his reaction.12 But in coming to this
conclusion, historians have focused predominately on two of the ballad’s
three chief elements: the recounting of the event itself, and the musical
genre employed by Luther.13
To truly understand the work’s stimulus and meaning, however, it is
necessary to include the third element of the song: namely its scriptural
inspiration, which, once comprehended, clarifies Luther’s broader theological
reaction to the executions of Vos and van den Esschen. In addition to being
a polemical statement articulated in a well-established secular genre, the
ballad is, in fact, very much biblically grounded, its scriptural elements no
mere afterthought but central to its inspiration and essential to its framework
and structure. To begin with, it seems unlikely that Luther, who by 1523 had
lectured twice on the book of Psalms, recited them thousands of times in his
life as a friar, and undoubtedly knew them by heart, could write the words,
9 One might argue that Dear Christians one and all Rejoice, his second hymn, shares many of
the characteristics of this form.
10 Casey, ‘“Start Spreading the News”’, p. 79.
11 Rössler, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben an’, p. 221.
12 Such impressions are found widely in the literature. For example, Paul Casey writes, ‘Luther
constructed his ballad as an argument aimed directly at advancing the evangelical cause’ and
argues that ‘[Luther] could use this unanticipated event to broadcast the joyous message that
people were willing to die for their faith in the Word.’ Further, ‘Luther seized the opportunity
presented by the events in Brussels to exploit this sign of success of his interpretation of the
Word’. Casey, ‘“Start Spreading the News”’, pp. 83, 90. Rebecca Oettinger writes of Luther, ‘He
wished to discredit [the Catholic Church’s] version of the events and spread the news about the
executions and the brave conduct of the Augustinians as quickly as possible’. Oettinger, Music as
Propaganda, p. 64. And Martin Brecht surmises, ‘It is ultimately a gripping ballad the purpose of
which is doubtlessly also to serve as propaganda’ (‘Es handelt sich um eine ergreifende Ballade,
die zweifellos auch dem Zweck der Propaganda dienen sollte’). Brecht, Martin Luther, p. 107.
13 For discussions of the song’s form as it fits into the genre of the Zeitungslied see Rössler, ‘Ein
neues Lied wir heben an’, esp. pp. 217–221; and Casey, ‘“Start Spreading the News”’, pp. 76–77
and 83–84.
‘A New Song here Shall be Begun’ without thinking of ‘O sing unto the Lord
a new song’, the opening line of Psalms 96 and 98. Indeed, an analysis of
the ballad in light of these Psalms, particularly Psalm 98, reveals Luther’s
work to be a response to the Psalm that employs the events in Brussels
as its material. This discovery helps us to see his work for what it truly
is: not merely a piece of political propaganda couched in religious terms,
but certitude that God was at work, something that required Christians
to sing in response. It further highlights what Luther found so new and
spectacular about the events of 1 July 1523 in Brussels, and how they served
to demonstrate a divine turning point in history. And finally, it offers a
new understanding of how, theologically speaking, Luther understood the
Reformation as an historical event.
Psalm 98 begins with the imperative, ‘O sing unto the Lord a new song’.14
But what is the impetus to sing? What conditions have presented themselves
that call for not just song, but a new song? For the Psalmist the answer is
fivefold: first, because God ‘has done marvellous things’; second, and more
specifically, ‘his right hand and his holy arm have gotten him victory’; third,
‘he has made known his victory’ and ‘revealed his vindication in the sight of
the nations’; fourth, ‘he has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness’,
and fifth, ‘he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with
righteousness and the peoples with equity’. As a result of these divine
actions, the Psalmist encourages ‘all the earth’ to ‘make a joyful noise to the
Lord’, and ‘break forth into joyous song and sing praises’ with lyre and horn
accompanying. Moreover not just humanity, but all creation is invoked in
this chorus: ‘Let the sea roar […] Let the floods clap their hands […] Let the
hills sing together for joy’. Luther chose to write about the events of 1 July
1523 in Brussels because he saw in them the hand of God, an exceptionally
vivid fulfilment of the criteria set forth in the Psalm. Thus Luther’s first
line, ‘A new song here shall be begun’, may be seen as a direct response to
the Psalmist’s imperative: ‘O sing unto the Lord a new song’.
The subject of the ballad is not, then, the story of the executions per se,
but a presentation of those executions as a miracle of God or the ‘marvellous
things’ ascribed to him by the Psalmist. In his own translation of Psalm
98, Luther used the phrase ‘does miracles’ (thut Wunder) to describe God’s
actions, literally ‘O sing unto the Lord a new song for he has done miracles’.
In the ballad, he employs the same term to describe the actions of God
in Brussels, namely ‘what God himself has done’ (‘was Gott hat gethan’),
and what he has done is to ‘show the wonders of his hands’ or translated
14 Bible quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
more literally, ‘he has made his miracle known’ (‘Hat er sein Wunder macht
bekannt’). Thus the active agent in these events is God and the action he
performs is a miracle. However, God does his work ‘by two boys, martyrs
youthful […] whom he with favour truthful, so richly hath adorned’ (‘durch
zween junge Knaben […] die er mit seinen Gaben so reichlich hat gezieret’),
and this is where the power and work of God intersects the events in Brussels.
Luther employs the same terminology when he consoles the citizens of the
Low Countries: ‘Therefore my dearest friends, be comforted and joyful in
Christ, and let us be thankful for his great signs and wonders that he has
begun to work among us’.15
What surprises Luther, it seems, are the particular vehicles God has
chosen to demonstrate his power, and their steadfast demeanour. Prior to
these executions, all of Vos’s and van den Esschen’s more senior colleagues
had demurred in the face of possible martyrdom: Probst had recanted;
Miritsch had talked his way out of trouble; van Zutphen had escaped; and
Lambert Thorn, the third and most senior of the Antwerp Augustinians who
remained jailed, had decided he needed time to ‘reconsider’. Yet these two
unknown ‘boys’ ( junge Knaben) had courageously gone to their deaths. In
verses three, four, six and seven, Luther recounts how the theology faculty
at Leuven had attempted in vain to convince the men to recant. When the
fires were finally lit, writes Luther, ‘Great wonder seized on every man, For
with contempt they [the friars] view the [approaching] torments’ (‘Es nahm
gross Wunder Jedermann, Dass sie solch’ Pein veracht’ten’). He continues,
‘To all with joy they [Vos and van den Esschen] yielded quite, With singing
and God-praising’ (‘Mit Freuden sie sich gaben drein, Mit Gottes Lob und
Singen’). It is these actions in particular that Luther sees as novel, for he
refers to them as ‘new things’ (neuen dyngen). Thus the seemingly asym-
metrical power held by each side – the advanced degrees of the members
of the theological faculty, the inquisitors who represented both pope and
emperor, against the convictions of two mere youths, indicates for Luther
that God must be at work. So the marvellous deeds of God referred to in
the Psalm are given a concrete form in the unexpected steadfastness of the
young friars in Brussels.
Next the Psalmist defines in greater detail the works of God that should
give rise to song, namely ‘his right hand and his holy arm have gotten him the
victory’. References to a victory necessarily assume an enemy or opponent
and some sort of contest, both of which Luther introduces in verse three. The
15 ‘Darumb, meyn aller liebsten, seyt getrost und frolich ynn Christo, und last uns dancken
seynen grossen zeichen und wundern, so er angefangen hat unter uns zu thun’. WA 12:78.
opponent, learns the reader, is ‘the old fiend’ or enemy (Der alte Feind), the
designation for Satan found in Matt. 13:39. But like God, he acts through his
earthly agents, the inquisitors and the ‘sophists’ from the University of Leuven.
In fact, Luther conflates Satan and the inquisitors into one, repeatedly using
the term ‘old fiend’ to refer to all of them together. This ‘Satan,’ then, ‘gather[s]
[the Sophists] to the game’ (‘versammelt er zu diesem Spiel’). In stanza three
Luther also foreshadows the outcome of the tilt, again demonstrating God’s
agency: ‘The Spirit [of God] fools doth make [of the Sophists] – They could get
nothing by it’ (‘Der Geist sie macht zu Thoren, Sie konnten nichts gewinnen’).
Throughout the ballad, the devil reappears occasionally, again amalgamated
with his subordinates. In verse four, he chafes because the men, referred to
here as ‘youngsters’ ( jungen) refuse to recant.16 In verse ten he hopes that
by executing the men, he can silence them. But their very ashes shame and
disgrace him (‘Sie macht den Feind zu Schanden’), with the result that he
is forced to allow the story to be told in every land. So the general victory
referred to by the Psalmist is given specific expression in the outcome of the
events in Brussels, which constitute a showdown between God and the devil.
And it is worth remembering here that Luther saw the devil as exceptionally
active in the Low Countries during this period.
The author of the Psalm further enjoins the reader to sing in response
to the fact that God ‘has made known his victory’ and has ‘revealed his
vindication in the sight of the nations’. Already in stanza one of the song,
Luther underscores the point that God has ‘showed the wonders of his hands’
and ‘he has made his miraculous power known’ (‘Hat er sein Wunder macht
bekant’). Without the Psalm as his inspiration, this phrase makes little
sense, for it would be more pointed just to say, ‘God has done a miracle.’
But the Psalm and Luther’s ballad both emphasize not just the miracle, but
the openness of the deed – that God has publicized his miracle as if it were
an object lesson. In verse eight Luther underscores the public nature of the
event when he writes that ‘Great wonder seized on every man’ (‘Es nahm
gross Wunder Jedermann’) at the steadfastness of the friars as they faced
the fire. This short phrase reveals that there was an audience, and that the
burnings were held in a public forum, a point Luther made repeatedly in
his correspondence regarding the event.17 In verse eight, Luther returns
16 ‘Den alten Feind das sehr verdross, Das er war überwunden von solchen Jungen, er so gross;
Er ward vol Zorn von Stunden’.
17 To Spalatin Luther writes, ‘Facta est hec res Bruselle in publico foro’. WABr 3:115. To Jacob
Montanus he writes, ‘Ex Flandria bona accepimus nuncio, esse duos ex nostris fratribus pro
verbo dei exustos Brusselle in foro publico spectaculo’. WABr 3:117.
to this idea that God reveals or makes his miracle known, writing that
the Sophists’ courage melted before these new things ‘that God was thus
revealing’ (‘da sych Gott liess so mercken’). In verses nine and ten Luther
further addresses God’s role in spreading the news about the event, insisting
that the Holy Spirit, through the blood and ashes of the men, bears witness
to the executions everywhere: ‘The Spirit cannot silent be: Good Abel’s
blood out-poured, Must still besmear Cain’s forehead’ (‘Doch kan der geyst
nicht schweygen hie: des Habels blut vergossen, es mus den Kain melden’).
Luther develops the thought further in stanza ten where the ashes of the
dead announce the crime everywhere: ‘Leave off their ashes never will; into
all lands they scatter’ (‘Die Aschen will nicht lassen ab, Sie stäubt in allen
Landen’). It seems worth repeating that the emphasis is not only on the
events themselves, but equally on the fact that God publicizes his victory.
Moreover, in response to the Psalmist’s urging to ‘Make a joyful noise unto
the Lord, all the earth’, Luther introduces a great chorus from all around that
joins with the voices of the dead men who nevertheless continue to sing. In
verse ten, Luther describes how the devil, who had attempted to silence the
men with death, must ‘allow them to sing very joyfully’ ‘in every land’ and
‘in tongues of every people’ (‘Gar frohlich lassen singen’, ‘an allem Ort’, and
‘mit aller stym und zungen’). It is as though the men, who themselves sang
as the fires burned around them as one eyewitness claims, raised a new
song that now is joined by a chorus of people all over the earth.18
Having encouraged the people of the earth to praise God, the Psalmist
then enjoins nature to join the chorus: ‘Let the sea roar, and all that fills
it […] Let the floods clap their hands; let the hills sing together for joy’. In
the final stanzas of the ballad, Luther picks up on this notion that nature
itself joins the new song in two ways. First, nature refuses to engage
in the cover-up of the executions, thereby helping to declare them. No
‘stream, hole, ditch, grave’ (‘Die hilft keyn bach, loch, grub noch grab’),
says Luther, will hide the ashes of the departed. But more importantly, in
the final verse, nature itself sings the new song by changing from winter
into summer, and by bringing forth tender flowers (‘Der Sommer yst hart
fur der thur, der winter yst vergangen; die zarten blumen gehn erfur’).
This vision, which has its origins in Ecclesiastes, acts as a metaphor for
the impact of the re-emergent Gospel, not unlike the flowers that often
bloom under the manger in medieval depictions of the nativity.19 But it
18 Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 3.

19 Song of Songs 2:11–12, ‘For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone, the flowers appear
on the earth, the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard
also provides an example of nature praising God. What better way for
nature to declare the great works of God than to break forth into renewed
life and growth?
Much ink has been spilled about the f inal couplet of this ballad and
its relationship to this vision of springtime: ‘His hand when once ex-
tended, withdraws not till he’s f inished’. One translation renders it as
a positive prognostication for the future, a happy ending: ‘And He who
winter banished, will send a happy summer’. 20 But Luther’s German is
more ambivalent. Literally translated, the couplet means: ‘He who has
begun this [work] will bring it to a successful conclusion’ (‘Der das hat
angefangen, der wirt es wol volenden’). But what does Luther have in
mind here? What is this successful conclusion?21 The Psalm offers some
insight. With all creation having rejoiced before the Lord, the Psalmist
ends his work by articulating to the reader that the marvellous works
of God are merely a prelude to his return: ‘For he is coming to judge the
earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with
equity’. 22 The progression of Luther’s thought follows the same steps:
nature praises God, not because He brings better days, but because he
will conclude these events, and for Luther a successful conclusion means
that God comes to judge the world.23 In his Open Letter to the Christians
in the Netherlands, Luther underscores this message by juxtaposing the
in the land’. Luther also refers to these verses in Ein Brief an die Christen im Niederland, when
he writes ‘But now the time has come again when we hear the voice of the turtle dove and the
flowers bloom in our land’ (‘Aber nu ist die zeyt widder komen, das wir der dordel tauben stym
hören und die blumen auffgehen ynn unserm land’). WA 12:77.
20 This is Richard Massie’s translation in Martin Luther’s Spiritual Songs, p. 44; Rössler sees
it as a rather vague foreshadowing of ‘eternal summer’ or the last day. Rössler, ‘Ein neues Lied’,
p. 228.
21 That the ending to the song draws its inspiration solely from Song of Songs 2:11–12, as has
been argued by Dick Akerboom and Marcel Gielis, does little to explain the song’s very last line,
‘Der das hat angefangen, der wirt es wol volenden’. My argument is simply that to understand
the final couplet we must look to the Psalm. See Akerboom and Gielis, ‘“A New Song Shall Begin
Here…”’, p. 265.
22 Psalm 96 ends similarly: ‘For he is coming, for he is coming to judge the earth. He shall judge
the world with righteousness, and the peoples with his truth’.
23 Reference to the aptness of van den Esschen’s first name, Johann, may very well be further
evidence of Luther’s eschatological understanding of the event. In verse two he writes that ‘The
first [Augustinian] right fitly John was named’ (‘Der erst recht wol Johannes heißt’), which Paul
Casey sees as a reference to John the Baptist, martyred forerunner of Jesus. ‘“Start Spreading
the News”’, p. 84. Rössler, however, interprets Luther’s words to refer to the actual meaning of
the name ‘John,’ which is ‘God is merciful’. ‘Ein neues Lied’, p. 221. It is impossible to ascertain
whose interpretation is correct, as both are apt.
decisions of the inquisitors with the judgments of God when he writes,

‘But our judge is not far off, and he will offer another judgment. We know
this and it is certain’.24
Why, then, did the f irst executions of the Reformation – which to
someone with Luther’s knowledge of the situation should have come as
no surprise – make such a big impression on Luther, and what was the
nature of that impression? The simple answer is that he did not see them
merely as the obvious and inevitable outcome of the struggle in which he
was involved, with two sides unwilling to compromise, but rather a striking
example of the hand of God at work. What stunned him most was not that
the inquisitors in Brussels executed someone for the sake of the Gospel,
but rather the identity and steadfastness of their victims: two young,
seemingly vulnerable friars, men who had lost not one, but two forceful
and committed leaders in Probst and van Zutphen, both of whom had fled
the Inquisition, one of whom had publicly recanted. These were men who
had watched the prior in the nearby Ghent cloister, Melchior Miritsch,
talk his way out of arrest by the Inquisition; men who had heard all but
three of their cohort recant and had seen the third of their small number
of holdouts, Lambert Thorn – the most senior and the one seemingly best
equipped to stand up to the Inquisition – ask for time to reconsider and
be spared; men who could easily have saved their own lives; and men
who were up against some of the most formidable imperial and papal
representatives of their age. If these two seemingly unremarkable young
men could succeed with such resolve and courage where so many others
had failed, God must have been at work!25 This for Luther was indeed a
miracle. Responding to the urging of the Psalmist that the observation of
such an event should elicit song among God’s people, Luther wrote a song:
a new song about what he saw as the new works of God, for what looked
like a stunning defeat in human terms was to Luther’s mind a marvellous
victory on the level of the divine.
24 ‘Aber unser richter ist nicht ferne, der wirt eyn ander urteyl fellen, das wissen wir, und sinds
gewis’. WA 12:79.
25 I am not the first to make this point. Robert Kolb has argued convincingly that Luther’s key
realization in this and other martrydoms was that in such an asymmetrical power relationship,
God reveals himself when the seemingly weaker and defeated party comes out the winner. Kolb
attributes this observation of Luther to the Reformer’s broader ‘“theology of the cross”, a theology
of paradox which equates God’s wisdom with what seems like foolishness and God’s power with
what seems like impotence’. Kolb, ‘God’s Gift of Martyrdom’, p. 401. And Martin Rössler has put
what most impressed Luther about the case succinctly: ‘It is in the apparent impotence of the
confessor that God demonstrates his power’ (‘In der offensichtlichen Ohnmacht der Bekenner
zeigt Gott seine Macht’). Rössler, ‘Ein neues Lied’, p. 221.
Luther’s Political Understanding of the Events of 1 July 1523 in

Brussels
While this explains how Luther understood this event in theological terms,
its impact on Luther’s thinking about the more concrete developments in
the early Reformation must also be addressed. The executions of Vos and
van den Esschen appear to have confirmed his views of Pope Adrian VI,
thereby offering him a public opportunity to condemn the man despite his
reputation for piety and his considerable, if short-lived, efforts to reform
the church.
Adrian was well-known for his frugality (he had few servants and ate
like a pauper) and for his piety (many contemporaries mention the fact
that, for example, he celebrated Mass each day), in stark contrast with his
predecessor.26 Upon his arrival in Rome, as one historian has put it, ‘The
entire splendour and glory of the days of Leo X came to an abrupt halt;
the music fell silent; Leo’s ostentatious banquets, enlivened by song and
instrumental music, disappeared; the cardinals, who had made themselves
at home in the Vatican palaces, wandered away’.27 Indeed, on the day after
his coronation, Adrian held his first consistory, in which he announced
that he intended to concentrate on two matters in particular: reforming the
Curia and uniting the Christian rulers against the Turks. He further noted
that Rome’s evil reputation had reached the ends of the earth, and urged the
cardinals to remove the perverted elements from their palaces, be satisfied
with an annual income of six thousand ducats, and acknowledge their holy
duty to be an example to the world, setting a tone for his pontificate that
one historian has suggested ‘was unparalleled throughout papal history’.28
What is more, Adrian established a committee of reform-minded individu-
als devoted to the examination of the issue of indulgences.29 And Adrian
understood, like few others in Rome, how much of a threat Luther’s challenge
to the church was.30
Perhaps even more exceptional, however, were his instructions to the
papal legate, Francesco Chiericati, who was attending the Diet of Nuremberg
26 Hulscher, ‘The Pontificate of Adrian VI’, p. 53–54.

27 ‘Die ganze Pracht und Herrlichkeit der Tage Leo’s X. hörten auf, die Musik verstummte, die
glänzenden Mahlzeiten Leo’s X., belebt durch Gesang und Instrumentalmusik, verschwanden,
die Cardinäle, welche im vaticanischen Palaste sich häuslich niedergelassen, wanderten fort’.
Höfler, Pabst Adrian VI, p. 209.
29 For a broad discussion of these efforts, see Höfler, Pabst Adrian VI, pp. 203–306.
30 Geurts, De Nederlandse Paus Adrianus, p. 232.
(1522).31 Just a few months prior to the executions of Vos and van den Es-
schen, Adrian ordered Chiericati to read a letter to the estates gathered in
Nuremberg in which he addressed the delegates of the German Empire as
‘his own people’ (Volk), and expressed such deep desire for the peace and
the unity of the church that, as he put it, he was willing to shed his own
blood for this cause if need be.32 He praised the Germans for having been
enemies of heresy throughout the ages, raising the example of those men
who had personally dragged the heretic Jan Hus to the stake. With Luther,
they had another opportunity to demonstrate their piety, for heretics were
a cancer that must be excised so that the body might return to health.33
At this point, however, the address took an unprecedented turn. Speaking
in the name of the pope, Chiericati delivered a first person confession or
confiteor (I confess) of the abuses of the church and the necessity of reform.
The pope admitted that the worst of the church’s problems had begun in the
head (papacy) and had now spread to the limbs, so that the real source of
the current crisis was not Germany, but Rome. Such a statement, suggests
one historian, was a ‘papal first’ not to be repeated until the Holy Year 2000
when Pope John Paul II ‘expressed a mea culpa for the grave errors made
by the Church’.34
In his words and deeds, Adrian expressed an authentic form of church
renewal, one that contrasted dramatically in its theological underpinnings
with Luther’s view but was still intent upon addressing many of the most
egregious abuses. It took a hard line against heresy, but also admitted the
papacy’s guilt for the sorry state of the church. In sum, Adrian offered a clear
path to reform that did not require a break with the church. This, indeed,
was a challenge to Luther’s Reformation.
Adrian also made direct contact with Frederick the Wise, sending him at
least two letters through the mediation of Chiericati in which he attempted
to persuade Frederick to honour the promise he had made years earlier in
1518: namely that if Cardinal Cajetan should find Luther guilty of heresy,
he, the Elector, would be the first to hand him over for prosecution.35 The
second letter especially was carefully worded and has been described as
31 For helpful overviews of Adrian’s instructions to Chiericati at the Diet of Nuremberg,

see Guerts, De Nederlandse Paus Adrianus, pp. 238–247, and Verweij, Adrianus VI (1459–1523),
pp. 86–93.
32 Höfler, Pabst Adrian VI., p. 269. For the text of the letter see Hortleder, ed., Der Römischen
Kayser-, pp. 2–4. For a summary, see Redlich, Der Reichstag von Nürnberg, pp. 97–99.
33 Hulscher, ‘The Pontificate of Adrian VI’, pp. 56–57.
35 The letters may be found in Brieger, ed., ‘Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte’, pp. 202–227.
being very affectionate (liebesvoll) toward the Elector.36 Thus in many ways,
Adrian was the opposite of his predecessor. He was learned, pious, frugal,
a champion of church reform, and he was now attempting to convince the
empire’s leadership, not least of all Frederick the Wise, that handing over
Luther was the right course of action.
But in all of these efforts, Adrian never once entertained the possibility
that Luther was anything but a heretic. He had been lawfully condemned
by learned men from the best institutions of higher learning in Europe,
excommunicated by Pope Leo X, and outlawed by the Holy Roman Emperor.
Now it was the responsibility and obligation of the authorities to hand him
over for punishment. But instead of fulfilling their duty, Adrian complained,
Luther was allowed to continue to spew his poison, gaining supporters not
only among the common folk, but even among the nobles.37 In a third letter
to Frederick the Wise, which modern historians consider to be a forgery
but which Luther himself believed to be authentic, Adrian attacked the
person of Luther, calling him ‘a miserable wretch who only vomits out
drunkenness and noise’ and accusing him of preaching a life of complete
licentiousness.38
For Luther, the execution of Vos and van den Esschen offered an op-
portunity to respond directly to Adrian’s efforts, and perhaps even to settle
the score on a more personal level. For despite the pope’s public persona,
Luther also had some “insider” information on him. From his position
within the German Reformed Congregation, Luther would have heard
about Floriszoon’s attempts on behalf of the Canons of the Church of Our
Lady to resist the establishment of the Antwerp Augustinian cloister. And
he would undoubtedly have known that van der Hulst, in his prosecution
of Vos and van den Esschen, was proceeding under the authority of the
papacy since at the time Charles’s secular inquisition did not have the right
of capital punishment. So for Luther, the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen demonstrated Adrian’s true colours, and not long after the pope’s
death, he took the opportunity to expose them in writing.39 In May 1523,
Adrian had declared Benno, the eleventh-century Bishop of Meissen, to
36 Otto, ‘Ueber ein Breve’, p. 240.

37 Pope Adrian’s Letter to the Diet of Nuremberg, 1522. Hortleder, ed., Der Römischen Kayser-,
p. 3.
38 Quoted in Bezold, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation, p. 416. For Luther’s reference to
this letter of Adrian see, WABr 3:110. See also Kalkoff, ‘Das unechte Breve Hadrians’.
39 Already in September of 1523 Luther had demonstrated his dim view of Adrian, referring
to him as an ass in one of his letters to Spalatin: ‘Nam pro mea parte facile ex bucca tanto asino
responderim’. WABr 3:146.
be a saint – a decision made in large part as a statement against Luther’s

ideas and in support of the anti-Reformation Duke George of Saxony. 40
Luther responded with a treatise in June of 1524 in which he condemned
the canonization as the creation of a new idol, and juxtaposed true saints
of God like Vos and van den Esschen, who died loyal to their faith in the
gospel message, with false saints like Benno, whose legendary life was
undoubtedly spurious.
Luther also took the opportunity to attack Adrian directly, juxtaposing
the pope’s public persona with the “true” Adrian, and at the same time
pointing out the irony that the pope had failed in his attempt to transform
Benno, ‘this Satan from Meissen’, into a saint, but in endeavouring to make
heretics out of Vos and van den Esschen, he had transformed them into true
saints. Relevant to Luther’s critique are the names by which he addresses
Adrian. First he claims that ‘Pope Adrian’ was not the Vicar to Christ, but
rather Satan’s ‘special helper’ (sonderlichen diener). Next he observes that
‘Adrian’ was not a pious man, but an accessory to murder:
For however much I hear about this Adrian, that to all appearances he
led a pious life (as such hypocrites always try to make it appear), he was
nonetheless the worst enemy of God and his word, and what is more, he
allowed two murders to occur in Brussels, but Christ, without Adrian’s
knowledge or permission, made these two martyrs into saints [.]41
‘And’ continued Luther, ‘although I do not desire to nor am I able to judge

how he died, nonetheless my assessment is correct’, that if he did not ‘recant
this murder or do penance and grasp onto our Gospel, he is certainly [now] a
child of damnation’.42 Here Luther turns the tables by suggesting that it was
Adrian who needed a last-second ‘recantation’, which can only be considered
a thinly veiled reference to the claim made by members of the Inquisition
that at the moment before they died, Vos and van den Esschen had come
40 For the circumstances surrounding the canonization of Benno of Meissen, see Oettinger,
Music as Propaganda, pp. 69–88.
41 ‘Denn wie wol ich höre von dem selben Adrian, das er sey eynes scheynbarlichen berumbten
lebens gewest, so ist er doc (wie solche heuchler pflegen) der ergest feynd gewesen Gottes und
seynes worttes, und daruber die zween mord lassen begehen zu Brüssel und Christo zween
merterer gemacht und die selben on seinen willen und wissen recht zu heyligen erhaben’. WA
15: 184.
42 ‘Und wie wol ich nicht richten soll noch kan, wie er gestorben ist, So ist doch das mein urteyl
recht, das wo er […] solche morde nich widder ruffet odder gepüsset hat und unserm Evangelio
hold worden ist, so ist er gewislich eyn kind der verdamnis’. WA 15: 184.
to their senses, recanted, and returned to the arms of the church. A little
further on Luther writes simply that, just as previous popes had done with
other true saints, ‘Master’ Adrian now does the same: ‘He burned Johann
and Hendrik, true saints, in Brussels’. 43
Luther’s critique of the papacy is clear. It has been inverted into its evil
opposite, the Antichrist. But why refer to the Pope by three names – Pope
Adrian, Adrian, and Master Adrian? Since 1520, Luther had been using the
term ‘Antichrist’ in relationship to the papacy, but for a time he had made
a careful distinction between the office and the individual holding that
office. In fact, in 1520 he could appeal directly to the person of Leo X in an
open letter appended to his treatise The Freedom of a Christian, at the same
time referring to the papacy as the Antichrist. But in this treatise against
the canonization of Benno, the distinction is blurred and he attacks the
person of Adrian. As pope, he is the servant of Satan or the Antichrist. As an
individual, Adrian is a hypocrite. And as Master Adrian, the old professor,
he is a murderer. These last two accusations are purely ad hominem attacks,
essentially character assassinations, and one is left with the impression
that for Luther this was personal. At the same time, for Luther, Adrian’s
actions revealed that all of the papacy’s efforts at unity and reform were
merely an illusion.
Thus, in the final analysis, the first executions of the Reformation, coming
as they did in the broader context of a campaign against the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany, had both a positive and a negative impact
on Luther’s thinking. On the one hand, he saw the deaths of Vos and van
den Esschen as the hand of God at work in the Reformation, confirmation
that the Lord of history was behind this movement. On the other hand,
the executions validated his judgement of the absolute corruption and
illegitimacy of the traditional church, whose hostility to the Gospel message
was on full display in its efforts to silence the Augustinians. And finally, on
a personal level, these deaths revealed that Adrian Floriszoon was nothing
more than a hypocrite.
43 ‘Johannem und Heinricum, die rechten heyligen, hat er zu Brüssel verbrand’. WA 15: 184.
Appendix: A New Song Here Shall Be Begun
1. A new song here shall be begun –44

The Lord God help our singing!
Of what our God himself hath done,
Praise, honour to him bringing.
At Brussels in the Netherlands
By two boys, martyrs youthful
He showed the wonders of his hands,
Whom he with favour truthful
So richly hath adorned.
2. The first right fitly John was named,

So rich he in God’s favour;
His brother, Henry – one unblamed,
Whose salt lost not its savor.
From this world they are gone away,
The diadem they’ve gained;
Honest, like God’s good children, they
For his word life disdained,
And have become his martyrs.
3. The old arch-fiend did them immure

With terrors did enwrap them.
He bade them God’s dear Word abjure,
with cunning he would trap them:
From Louvain many sophists came,
In their curst nets to take them,
By him are gathered to the game:
The Spirit fools doth make them –
They could get nothing by it.
4. Oh! they sang sweet, and they sang sour;

Oh! they tried every double;
The boys they stood firm as a tower,
And mocked the sophists’ trouble.
The ancient foe it filled with hate
44 Martin Luther, ‘A New Song Here Shall Be Begun’, ed. by Ulrich Leupold in Luther’s Works,
vol. 53, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 211–216.
That he was thus defeated

By two such youngsters – he, so great!
His wrath grew sevenfold heated,
He laid his plans to burn them.
5. Their cloister garments off they tore,

Took off their consecrations;
All this the boys were ready for,
They said Amen with patience.
To God their Father they gave thanks
That they would soon be rescued
From Satan’s scoffs and mumming pranks,
With which, in falsehood masked,
The world he so befooleth.
6. Then gracious God did grant to them

To pass true priesthood’s border,
And offer up themselves to him,
And enter Christ’s own order,
Unto the world to die outright,
With falsehood made a schism,
And come to heaven all pure and white,
To monkery be the besom,
And leave men’s toys behind them.
7. They wrote for them a paper small,

And made them read it over;
The parts they showed them therein all
Which their belief did cover.
Their greatest fault was saying this:
‘In God we should trust solely;
For man is always full of lies,
We should distrust him wholly:’
So they must burn to ashes.
8. Two huge great fires they kindled then,

The boys they carried to them;
Great wonder seized on every man,
For with contempt they view them.
To all with joy they yielded quite,
With singing and God-praising;

The sophs had little appetite
For these new things so dazing.
Which God was thus revealing.
9. They now repent the deed of blame,45

Would gladly gloze it over;
They dare not glory in their shame,
The facts almost they cover.
In their hearts gnaweth infamy --
They to their friends deplore it;
The Spirit cannot silent be:
Good Abel’s blood out-poured
Must still besmear Cain’s forehead.
10. Leave off their ashes never will;

Into all lands they scatter;
Stream, hole, ditch, grave – nought keeps them still
With shame the foe they spatter.
Those whom in life with bloody hand
He drove to silence triple,
When dead, he them in every land,
In tongues of every people,
Must hear go gladly singing.
11. But yet their lies they will not leave,

To trim and dress the murther;
The fable false which out they gave,
Shows conscience grinds them further.
God’s holy ones, e’en after death,
They still go on belying;
They say that with their latest breath,
The boys, in act of dying,
Repented and recanted.
45 The broadsheet version, as well as the Erfurt Enchiridion version, do not include stanzas 9
and 10. They were probably a later addition, meant as an alternate ending to the original ending
in verses 11 and 12 here. See WA 35:94.
12. Let them lie on for evermore –

No refuge so is reared;
For us, we thank our God therefore,
His word has reappeared.
Even at the door is summer nigh,
The winter now is ended,
The tender flowers come out and spy;
His hand when once extended
Withdraws not till he’s finished.
Works Cited
Bezold, Friedrich von, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation (Berlin: G. Grote, 1890).
Brieger, Theodor, ed. ‘Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte: Das zweite Breve
Andrians an Friedrich den Weisen von Jahre 1522’, in Kirchengeschichtliche Stu-
dien. Hermann Reuter zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Leipzig, J. C. Henrichs’sche
Buchhandlung, 1868), pp. 202–227.
Casey, Paul F. ‘“Start Spreading the News”: Martin Luther’s First Published Song’,
in Renaissance and Reformation Studies: In Laudem Caroli for Charles G. Nauert,
Christman, Robert, ‘“For he is coming”: Revisiting Martin Luther’s Reaction to the
Reformation’s First Executions’, Lutherjahrbuch 83 (2015), 11–41.
Balans, 2017).
Höfler, Constantin, Pabst Adrian VI. 1522–1523 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1880).
Hortleder, Friedrich, ed. Der Römischen Kayser- und Königlichen Maiestete, Auch
deß heiligen Römischen Reichs Geistlicher und Weltlicher Stände, Churfürsten,
Fürsten, Graven, Herren, Reichs- und anderer Städte, zusampt der heiligen Schrifft,
Geistlicher und Weltlicher Rechte Gelehrte Handlungen und Außschreiben,

Rathschläge, Bedencken, Send- und andere Brieffe, Bericht, Supplicationschrifften
[…] (Frankfurt am Main: Endter, 1617).
and Hans de Valk, (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2012), pp. 47–66.
Kalkoff, Paul, ‘Das unechte Breve Hadrians VI. an Friedrich … eine Flugschrift
Hochstratens’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 90 (1917), 231–273.
Kessler, Johann, Sabbata. Chronik der Jahre 1523–1539, ed. by Ernst Goetzinger (St.
Gallen: Scheitlin & Zollikofer, 1866).
Kolb, Robert, ‘God’s Gift of Martyrdom: The Early Reformation Understanding of
Dying for the Faith’, Church History 64 (1995), 399–441.
Luther, Martin, Ein brief an die Christen ym Nidder land (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1523).
———, Luther’s Works, ed. by Ulrich S. Leupold, 78 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1955-).
———, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke (=WA),
vols. 1–73 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883-).
Massie, Richard, trans., Martin Luther’s Spiritual Songs (London: Hatchard and
Son, 1854).
und Siedler, 1982).
Oettinger, Rebecca, Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2001).
Otto, C. ‘Ueber ein Breve des Papstes Hadrian VI. an den Kurfürsten Friedrich von
Sachsen im Jahre 1522’, Der Katholik: Zeitschrift für Katholische Wissenschaft
und Kirchliches Leben 53 (1873), 237–242.
Redlich, Otto, Der Reichstag von Nürnberg 1522–1523 (Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1887).
Rössler, Martin, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben an: Ein Protestsong Martin Luthers,’ in
& Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 216–232.
Veit, Patrice, Das Kirchenlied in der Reformation Martin Luthers: Eine thematische
und semantische Untersuchung, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europaische
Geschichte Mainz 120 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1986).
(Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Garant, 2011).
8. The Impact of the Executions in the
Low Countries
Abstract
Chapter Eight questions the general scholarly consensus that the vigorous
response of the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities in the Low Coun-
tries was largely successful in limiting the spread of Reformation ideas
there (at least initially). In particular, this chapter examines the impact
of the authorities’ campaign against religious dissent in the Reformed
Augustinian cloisters of Lower Germany, demonstrating that in most cases
that campaign was successful, but not always. In the Cologne cloister,
the tactics employed by Wittenberg to spread Reformation ideas had
an important and extended impact; what is more, the memory of these
events and of the friars’ executions continued to influence the religious
sensibilities of the laity in the Low Countries.
Keywords: Claes (Nicolaas) vander Elst circle, Cologne Augustinian

Cloister, Heinrich Himmel, Lambert Thorn
A previous generation of scholars has argued that the earliest Reformation

impulses in the Low Countries were, to a large degree, eradicated by the
comprehensive efforts of Charles V and his representatives. The emperor’s
broad campaign swept up reform-minded humanists, adherents of Luther’s
ideas, printers and booksellers, and anyone else with Reformation tenden-
cies.1 More recent studies, including this one, suggest that early Reformation
impulses survived these efforts, at least in some localities and among some
groups.2 As an institution, certainly the Reformed Augustinians must be
counted among the success stories of the authorities’ campaign. With the
1 See, for example, Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation, particularly Schlussbetrachtung,
vol. 2, pp. 82–85.
2 See, for example, Christman, Pragmatic Toleration.
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch08
burning of Vos and van den Esschen, the destruction of the Augustinian
cloister in Antwerp, the formal separation of the Province of Lower Germany
from the control of the German Reformed Congregation, and the installation
of Johann van Mechelen as Vicar General of the new autonomous province,
the anti-Reformation forces were able to prevent the cloisters of the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany becoming beachheads of the Reformation.
For this reason these friars have received little attention in histories of the
Reformation, particularly those that focus on the Low Countries.
But to suggest that the events leading up to and including the executions
of Vos and van den Esschen had no impact on the Reformation in the Low
Countries would be false. For while the forces attempting to eliminate
religious dissent did destroy the institutional framework of the Reformed
Augustinians, or at least sever it from its connections to Saxony, the op-
ponents of the Reformation could not remove the memory of these events
from the minds of the friars who experienced them, nor from the laity
who had witnessed them. They lived on, continuing to inspire and arouse
individuals to action.
The Cloisters of Lower Germany after the Dordrecht Chapter

Meeting (27 July 1522)
From the decisions made at the Dordrecht Chapter Meeting in July of 1522,
it appears that the prevailing viewpoint in the Ghent, Haarlem, Enghien,
and Dordrecht cloisters, each of which voted to sever ties with the German
Reformed Congregation, was opposed to the Reformation. Their support
for Johann van Mechelen as new Vicar General of the Province of Lower
Germany further indicates that they had little stomach for Luther’s cause.
A closer look at each of these houses confirms this supposition.
Since 1520, when van Mechelen assumed the priorship of the Dordrecht
cloister, that house had fallen under control of the Observant branch of the
German Reformed Congregation opposed to Luther and his ideas. Although
the idea of Dordrecht as an early outpost for Reformation-oriented critiques
is no longer accepted, this does not mean that cloister lacked Reformation-
related impulses.3 But despite the fact that the details are hazy, at some point
3 Herman van Duinen has argued that this fallacious claim has its origins with Schotel, Kerkelijk
Dordrecht (1841), 15–17, whom all subsequent historians appear to have followed. But van Duinen
has convincingly demonstrated that the unrest attributed by Schotel to the Augustinian cloister
in Dordrecht was actually taking place in the city’s Franciscan cloister, and the claim that the
The Impact of the Executions in the Low Countries 157
after van Mechelen’s arrival it appears that those friars from Dordrecht
supportive of the Reformation fled to Wesel, Germany. We know this because
the presence of “Lutheran” Augustinians in Wesel has been noted in the
sources (albeit not until 1528), and these individuals have been identified
specifically as those expelled from the Dordrecht cloister. According to one
contemporary in Wesel, at that time they were being accused of preach-
ing and distributing the sacrament in private homes. 4 Their departure or
expulsion from Dordrecht appears to have left that cloister firmly in the
hands of van Mechelen and his supporters.
As to the cloister in Ghent, in 1521 Aleander had claimed that the Reformed
Augustinians there ‘preach Luther’s teachings in every alleyway as [if they
were] the words of the Apostle Paul or even Christ himself’.5 But such a
statement must be tempered by another of Aleander’s observations regarding
the Ghent Augustinians later that year. As he assessed the orthodoxy of the
various Augustinian cloisters in the Low Countries he turned his attention to
Bruges, a house associated neither with the German Reformed Congregation
nor the Observant movement. That cloister, he noted,
has not yet been infected with heresy like all the Augustinians in Antwerp
have and a part of those in Ghent. The reason for this is that the Bruges
cloister belongs to the order’s older associations [the Conventuals], but
the Antwerp Augustinians, like Luther, [belong] to the Observants, while
the Ghent Augustinians are divided between both parties. There the
Observants are always trying to drive out the Conventuals, with both
camps fighting against one another with bitter hatred.6
Thus the Ghent cloister was split between Conventuals, who opposed both
Observant and Lutheran reform, and Observants, who from Aleander’s
previous statement were supporters of the Reformation. Although he sent
three friars from the Ghent house to study in Wittenberg, in his time as
disorder was related to Reformation impulses is merely an assumption. Duinen, Hendrik van
Zutphen, pp. 14–17; see also Meijer, ‘Augustijnen in Conflict met Dortse Magistraat?’.
4 Wolters, Reformationgeschichte der Stadt Wesel, p. 42.
5 ‘Luthers Lehre auf allen Gassen verkündigen, als die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, ja als die
Christi’. Quoted but with no citation provided in Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation,
vol. 1, p. 28.
6 ‘gli quali non sono già così infetti come tutti li Augustini di Anversa et una parte di quelli
di Gand, et questo me dicono perchè li Augustini di Bruges sono della antiqua institutione, et
li de Anversa del Vicariato, come è Martino et quelli di Gand sono divisi in queste due fattioni,
donde li vicariani cercano sempre scacciar li altri, però intra loro è grandia odio’. Aleander to
Giulio de Medici, 2 September 1521, in Aleandro, Aleander und Luther, p. 262.
prior there Melchior Miritsch was unable to strengthen the position of the
Observants as had been hoped, perhaps because his sub-prior, Gedeon
van der Gracht (who would follow him as prior and eventually become the
spiritual advisor to Mary of Hungary, successor to Margaret as Charles V’s
queen regent in the Low Countries), was a committed Conventual.7 Miritsch’s
brief encounter with the Inquisition and subsequent departure from Ghent
in the spring of 1522 appear to have definitively given the Conventuals the
upper hand there. Meanwhile, the cloister’s patron, the city council of Ghent,
enthusiastically supported the faction opposed to Reformation impulses.8
The result was that any Reformation tendencies in the cloister were quashed.
I have been unable to find any evidence regarding the situation of the
Enghien cloister, but their vote for separation from the German Reformed
Congregation suggests opposition to Reformation ideas there as well. In the
case of the Haarlem cloister, one last-gasp of Reformation-inspired resistance
occurred. The account books of the court of Holland from July of 1525 indicate
that two of its officials were sent to the Haarlem house to investigate what
the court called a disturbing incident. Although the authorities there had
forbidden the friars to preach, one member of the Augustinian Order had
climbed over a locked gate into the pulpit of Haarlem’s main church. There
he preached a sermon, after which he fled the town dressed as a layman,
with the help of a number of lay accomplices. Although there is no reference
to what the friar preached, clearly he was willing to defy the injunctions of
the authorities.9 Perhaps his decision to engage in such an act of defiance
before vanishing signalled an awareness that further resistance was futile,
however, for the sources do not indicate the occurrence of any other such
incidents by members of the Haarlem cloister.
With regard to those houses of the Province of Lower Germany that had
abstained from the decision to split from the German Reformed Congrega-
tion, Antwerp was no more, and after briefly providing shelter for the fleeing
Hendrik van Zutphen, Enkhuizen appears to have forgone any further
Reformation activities.10 Johann van Mechelen had been prior in Enkhuizen
7 Decavele, ‘De noodlottige zestiende eeuw’, p. 70.

9 Corpus documentorum (=CD), 4: doc. 326.
10 Van Zutphen writes that after fleeing Antwerp, he set off through Flanders and Westphalia.
As part of this journey, he stopped in Enkhuizen where he stayed for a few days before slipping
away just before the authorities discovered him there. See van Zutphen’s letter to Probst and
Reiner Reynstein. This letter may be found in Zütphen, ‘Zutphen’s Briefe’, pp. 241–245; or in CD, 4:
doc. 110. It is perhaps noteworthy, however, that in 1524, Luther sent Magister Heironymus Anger,
an Augustinian from Enkhuizen to support the Lutheran-sympathizing prior Johann Steenwyck
on and off since the 1490s, whenever Staupitz was not deploying him to
found a new cloister (Antwerp), reform an established one (Dordrecht), or
represent the Congregation’s interests in some other way. His steadfast loyalty
to Staupitz and concomitant rejection of Luther’s Reformation appear to have
influenced the overall attitudes of the friars there so that, as one historian
has noted, the Enkhuizen cloister never had any significant involvement
with the Reformation.11
But in Cologne, the only cloister among the Province of Lower Germany’s
seven houses that lay beyond the emperor’s direct grasp, we find a different
situation. There Heinrich Himmel and his followers would continue to
espouse Reformation doctrines for more than a decade, to the great conster-
nation of the city council, the local bishop, the pope, and the emperor. As may
be recalled, in 1516 Himmel had been among the first young recruits from
the newly-reformed Augustinian cloister in Cologne sent to Wittenberg to
continue his education. In his capacity as director of the Wittenberg cloister’s
studium generale, Luther himself had prepared Himmel for entrance to the
University of Wittenberg, and Himmel would have been on hand for the
controversy over the Ninety-Five Theses and the fallout it engendered. He
may also have been among those friars from Lower Germany studying in
Wittenberg who supported the radical changes of Gabriel Zwilling regarding
the mass and other ecclesiastical rites. In any case, it is clear from his actions
after Linck sent him back to Cologne in the autumn of 1521 that during his
time in Wittenberg, Himmel had become a convinced follower of Luther.
Denied the right to hold lectures there as he refused to swear an oath not
to teach Luther’s ideas, Himmel nonetheless quickly gathered a group of
fellow friars in the cloister who became sympathizers of Luther.12
A power struggle ensued between the Cologne city council (the Augustin-
ians’ patron), the archbishop of Cologne, the pope, and the emperor, over who
should take the lead in eradicating heresy within the cloister. On 22 April
1523 the archbishop informed the city council that he planned to interrogate
Himmel and asked them not to interfere, a request with which they complied.
Though the interview did indeed take place, the event does not appear to have
frightened Himmel into submission, as the situation in the cloister remained
(probably also from the Low Countries) at the Congregation’s house in Sternberg: see Günther,
Reform und Reformation, pp. 412–413. This suggests that perhaps there were Lutheran-minded
refugees from the house in Enkhuizen who made their way to Wittenberg.
11 Voets, ‘Hebben de Augustijnen van Enkhuizen’, p. 227.
12 Seven men are named as supporters of Himmel: Brother Lambert, Reiner von Jülich, Arnold
von Mirweiler, Engelberg von Deventer, Franz von Breda, Adam Aldenhofen, and Herman von
Bonn. Rotscheidt-Mörs, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner,’ p. 42.
unchanged. As a result of this failure, on 28 August 1523, Pope Adrian VI

formally removed the cloister from the authority of the new Vicar General
of the Province of Lower Germany (van Mechelen), and placed it directly
under the supervision of Holy See and faculty of theology of the University
of Cologne.13 But the friars must have gotten wind of this change before it
occurred, and because they opposed it, they appealed to the city council to
be allowed to retain van Mechelen as their spiritual overlord, rather than
accept the theology faculty. They further declared that neither they nor van
Mechelen were followers of Luther. The request, it seems, went unanswered.
But in May of 1524, van Mechelen himself arrived in Cologne to execute a
visitation of the cloister, bearing a letter confirming his authority as Vicar
General with the oversight for the spiritual welfare of the cloister from the
emperor’s queen regent, Margaret of Austria. The city council, however,
saw this action as an infringement of its rights of patronage and refused to
allow van Mechelen entrance to execute the visitation.
The city council now took matters into its own hands, sending a series
of individuals (among them some of their own members) along with repre-
sentatives of the bishop’s court to address the conflict within the cloister.
Occurring over the course of June 1524, these efforts, too, ended in failure,
eliciting a letter to the new Vicar General of the Congregation of German
Reformed Augustinians, Johann Spangenberg who, unlike his predecessor
Linck, was a well-known opponent of Luther.14 Spangenberg agreed to come
to Cologne himself. Once there, he joined forces with the city council. After
carrying out a visitation of the cloister, two friars were expelled, but soon
returned to Cologne against the wishes of the authorities. In September
1524, members of the city council again entered the cloister with the goal of
eradicating heresy and ending conflict among the friars, all of whom were
required to sign a document stating that they would neither preach nor
represent the Lutheran heresy and would desist from forming conventicles
and practicing discord. Failure to adhere, the council stated, would lead to
arrest and exile. Meanwhile, Spangenberg remained in the cloister until
early 1525, working to end the conflict. But none of these steps succeeded
in eliminating Lutheran teachings there.
In May of 1525, the city council again questioned a number of the broth-
ers, and on 2 August they interviewed Himmel and Brother Lambert of
13 See Chapter Four.

14 Despite the fact that the Cologne cloister no longer technically belonged to the Congregation
of German Reformed Augustinians, nonetheless the Cologne city council asked for the Vicar
General’s help.
Bonn regarding their preaching and behaviour – all in vain. Confounded,

the city council turned to local Carmelite and Dominican priors asking
their advice. As a result, some of the Augustinian friars were removed
from the Cologne cloister, and Spangenberg was once again summoned
and asked to either take up the priorship himself or send a representative
whom he believed could handle the situation. Spangenberg enlisted the
help of Nikolaus Besler, another Observant Augustinian deeply opposed to
Luther.15 In autumn of 1525, Besler and Spangenberg travelled to Cologne,
where Spangenberg installed Besler as prior against the will of the majority
of brothers. It has been speculated that at this point Himmel left the
cloister for good.16 Despite Himmel’s departure and four years of effort
by Besler to eliminate Lutheran ideas from the cloister, the new prior
was also unsuccessful. In 1529, he was called away to a chapter meeting,
a move that caused anxiety among members of the city council. They
immediately sent a letter to the Vicar General Spangenberg, asking him
to ensure that in Besler’s absence no brothers be sent to the Cologne
cloister from elsewhere who were even remotely suspected of Lutheran
tendencies, because they were afraid of an outbreak of heresy while the
prior was away. As late as 1532, there appears to have been a significant
Lutheran presence in the cloister. In February of that year, the city council
was forced to take up the issue of Brother Lambert’s preaching, which was
described as wholly Lutheran. Exacerbating the problem was the fact that
the friars in the Cologne cloister had elected Brother Lambert as their
new prior, a move that suggests he had a great deal of support within
the house. As one might imagine, however, the city council saw this as
an affront and refused to let him take up that position.17 How long the
presence of Reformation ideas survived in the Cologne cloister is unclear,
but it must be concluded that Linck’s efforts to support the Reformation
there by sending Himmel in 1521 had been highly successful in the face
of considerable opposition.
Clearly the Cologne Augustinians’ ability to remain an outpost of
Lutheran teachings was exceptional among the Reformed cloisters of
Lower Germany. Generally speaking, by 1523 the off icial institutional
and administrative networks of the Congregation of German Reformed
Augustinians were quickly disappearing as a means by which to disseminate
15 For more on Besler and his efforts to resist the Reformation see Schneider, ‘Die autobiog-
raphischen Aufzeichnungen’.
16 Clemen, ‘Ein Brief von Augustin Himmel’.
Reformation ideas. In 1523, Linck resigned as Vicar General of the Congrega-

tion to take up the position of Evangelical preacher in the city of Altenburg
and was succeeded by Spangenberg. The leadership of the German Reformed
Congregation thus fell into the hands of the Reformation’s opponents. By
now, though, only a handful of cloisters remained. Many of the Congrega-
tion’s cloisters, like Luther’s in Wittenberg, had simply ceased to exist.
Some, particularly in areas like Ducal Saxony, where the prince remained
staunchly Catholic, or Cologne, where loyalty to the church remained strong,
were retained through the efforts of the Conventuals, their patrons, or the
papacy itself (as the case of the Munich cloister and the attempts regarding
the Cologne cloister indicate). But even in those places, friars who supported
the Reformation left, decimating the cloisters’ numbers.18 As institutions
then, by 1523, the houses of the Reformed Augustinian Province of Lower
Germany were no longer conduits for Reformation ideas (with Cologne
the one exception).19 But individual friars who supported the Reformation
would continue to be motivated by events they had experienced there, with
many following Linck and Luther to careers as reformers and Evangelical
pastors in the empire.20
Impact on the Laity in the Low Countries
If the events that transpired in the Reformed Augustinian Province of

Lower Germany between 1519 and 1523 remained an inspiration for many
Reformation-minded friars, they had also been etched into the memories
of the local laity and would continue to encourage Reformation impulses.
Erasmus of Rotterdam concluded as much in a series of letters in which he
commented on the execution of Vos and van den Esschen. Even before the
executions took place he had already been a fierce critic of the inquisitors
and their methods due to his own experiences in the Low Countries.21 At
the end of August 1523, just weeks after the burnings in Brussels, he wrote
to Ulrich Zwingli, the Reformer of Zurich, noting the steadfastness of Vos
and van den Esschen as they faced the fire, but questioning the beliefs for

19 For a detailed account of the dissolution of various houses and the demise of the German
Reformed Congregation, see Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 421–436.
20 See Chapter Nine.
21 Kalkoff claims that hardly a letter written by Erasmus in 1521 did not include complaints
about the inquisitors, and in particular about the ‘fanatical monk’ Egmond. Kalkoff, Die Anfänge
der Gegenreformation, vol. 1, p. 75.
which they died, which he referred to as ‘Luther’s paradoxes’ (paradoxa

Lutheri).22 Eighteen months later and in subsequent years, however, Erasmus
raised the event in order to critique the actions of hardline churchmen. In
a letter to Duke George of Saxony, a vocal critic of Luther, Erasmus wrote,
‘What worries me now is that these common remedies, that is, recantations,
imprisonment, and the stake, will simply make the evil worse. Two men
were burned at Brussels and it was precisely at that moment that the city
began to support Luther’.23 The following year Erasmus again suggested that
such tactics produced the opposite of their intended effect: ‘The infection
spread with every blow and took strength and courage from our cruelty’.24
The severe approach, he claimed, had so invigorated the Protestants that
the progress of the Reformation looked like the work of heaven. By 1529,
he added a further accusation, recounting how the inquisitor at the time
of the executions had disseminated the ‘ridiculous lie’ (ridiculam fabulam)
that the condemned friars had recanted at the last moment and made
supplications to the Virgin Mary, but that even the executioner denied this.25
The ‘ridiculous lie’ Erasmus refers to here was alluded to in the last chapter
and will be addressed more fully in Chapter Ten, but for now suffice it to say
that, as the event receded into the past, for Erasmus it increasingly became
a cautionary tale about how the church should not proceed against the
Lutheran heresy. Although his support for the church as a whole remained
undimmed, the case of Vos and van den Esschen provided real life proof of
the wrongheadedness of those who would proceed with fire and sword. The
results were often precisely the opposite of what they intended.
Some evidence exists that confirms Erasmus’s claims. In Brussels and
Antwerp, the executions of Vos and van den Esschen remained a deep
source of inspiration among some of the Reformation-minded laity. This
assertion is confirmed by documents produced in 1527 when a group of
laity with Reformation beliefs was discovered in Brussels. Such conven-
ticles were fairly widespread in the Low Countries, where their members
would typically meet in secret to read the Bible, discuss religious ideas,
22 Erasmus to Huldrych Zwingli, 31 August 1523, in Erasmus, Opus epistolarum, 5:327. For an
insightful analysis of this statement, see Gregory, Salvation at Stake, p. 321.
23 ‘Nunc magnopere vereor ne vulgaribus istis remediis, hoc est palinodiis, carceribus et
incendiis, malum nihil aliud quam exasperetur. Bruxelle primum exusti sunt duo: tum demum
cepit ea ciuitas favere Luthero.’ Erasmus to Duke George of Saxony, 12 December 1524. Erasmus,
Opus epistolarum, vol. 5, p. 606.
24 ‘Damno crevit pestis, et a saeuicia duxit opes animumque nostra.’ Erasmus to Johann
Henckel, 7 March 1526, Erasmus, Opus epistolarum, vol. 6, p. 275.
25 Erasmus to Charles Utenhove, 1 July 1529, Erasmus, Opus epistolarum, vol. 8, pp. 211–212.
and exchange prohibited writings. Often they were centred around house
churches.26 The leader of this particular conventicle was Claes (Nicolaas)
vander Elst, born in Brussels to a wealthy family. As a young man, vander
Elst had studied theology at the University of Leuven under, among others,
Adrian Floriszoon and Nicholas Egmond.27 In 1524 he was named pastor at
the St. Jacob’s Parish Church in Antwerp, not far from the Church of Our
Lady. From the pulpit and in private, he decried the excesses of the church,
criticizing the clergy as sexually promiscuous, the church’s practice of
indulgences as shameful, and many other church rituals as senseless and
devoid of Christian love – reproaches very similar to those espoused by the
Reformed Augustinians. As a result, vander Elst quickly became popular
among the people, and with his good connections to Brussels individuals
were soon making their way from there to Antwerp to hear him preach. It
took only four months from the time of his appointment at St. Jacob’s for the
inquisitors to knock on his door. In the spring of 1524 he was summoned to
answer for certain “Lutheran” ideas he had proclaimed during his Lenten
Sermons. As a result of his interrogation, he recanted in the presence of the
entire faculty of theology at the University of Leuven. Allowed to return
to his position at St. Jacob’s Church, it did not take long for news to reach
the inquisitors that he had reverted to his old ways. When the inquisitors
arrived in Antwerp a second time, they immediately dismissed him from his
post. He fled to Wittenberg, where he heard the sermons of Luther himself,
and remained there until 1526 before making the trek back across Northern
Germany. To disguise himself from the authorities upon his return to the
Low Countries, vander Elst is said to have worn a beard and dressed in a
hooded Spanish cloak. He was brought to Brussels by his supporters, to the
home of the artist, Bernard of Orley. In short order he preached a series of
nine sermons at the homes of various artists and artisans, sometimes once
or twice a day, sometimes as long as three hours at a stretch, and for up to
fifty people at a time.28 Within a year of vander Elst’s return, the authorities
in Brussels arrested sixty-three members of this conventicle, questioning
them extensively about their religious beliefs and practices.
It is from the conventicle’s depositions that the connections of this group
to the Antwerp Augustinians are revealed. Vander Elst’s immediate circle
26 Christman, Pragmatic Toleration, p. 37.

27 Gielis, Verdoelde schaepkens, p. 152.
28 Decavele, ‘Vroege reformatorische bedrijvigheid’, pp. 19–20. For a more thorough description
of these events and the content of vander Elst’s sermons see Decavele, De eerste protestanten,
esp. pp. 56–59.
was all relatives, but more than that, they appear to have come together
as a group of like-minded individuals in the wake of the executions of the
Antwerp Augustinians.29 Three conventicle members claimed to have been
in the crowd when Vos and van den Esschen were burned, and described
how deeply moved they had been by the experience. Two of these men
expressed revulsion at the event and asserted that the friars were true
martyrs.30 Moreover, with regard to the subsequent trial of Jan der Kinderen,
(a Cameryck lawyer and leader of the little group who had also been present
at the executions), one witness testified to having heard der Kinderen say
the two victims did not deserve to die, adding, ‘If I had to die, then I can only
hope that I would die in a similar condition’.31 Der Kinderen was a learned
man who had read works of Luther, Melanchthon, and Oecolampadius.
Clearly the steadfast way in which Vos and van den Esschen had met their
fate, loyal to their religious convictions, had deeply impressed him and
many others.
The impact of the events surrounding the Antwerp Augustinians can
also be seen in the fate of Lambert Thorn, about whom there has been
considerable confusion. Thorn is sometimes referred to as one of the four
priors of the Antwerp cloister, but this does not appear to have been the case.
The confusion may come from the fact that Luther describes him as Probst’s
successor ‘in words’, suggesting that although he taught as Probst had, he
was not officially named prior.32 As may be recalled, when Vos and van den
Esschen were executed, Thorn escaped capital punishment by requesting
time to reconsider his beliefs. For a while thereafter, it was thought that Thorn
was secretly burned or strangled in prison shortly after his two fellow friars
were executed.33 But in fact his sentence was commuted to life in prison
29 Decavele, ‘Vroege reformatorische Bedrijvigheid’, p. 16.

30 Decavele, ‘Vroege reformatorische Bedrijvigheid’, p. 16.
31 ‘Soude ick moeten sterven en soude wel willen / in hueren staet sterven’. Algemeen Rijk-
sarchief, Brussels, Audientie, 1177/6, fols. 1–102, here at fol. 47–47v.
32 Luther to Spalatin, 22 or 23 July 1523, Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 3:115; Spalatin himself
seems to suggest that Thorn was slated to become prior after Probst, but could not because he,
Thorn, was imprisoned, presumably already in summer of 1522. Spalatin, ‘Excerpta quaedam
e Diario’, p. 412. Diercxsens, however, lists Thorn as a prior of the Antwerp house. Diercxsens,
Antverpia Christo Nascens et crescens, vol. 3, p. 376.
33 This rumour was widely reported in the two most broadly distributed pamphlets describing the
executions. In its title, one pamphlet already refers to three Augustinians being martyred (Thorn
being the third), and the author claims, ‘Thereafter on the third day [after the burning of Vos and van
den Esschen] they took the third monk [presumably Thorn] who had requested time to reconsider
and burned him also. And they treated him in the same way as the others. He was a seemingly
learned man who, at the pyre, preached a long sermon. And thereafter he became a martyr. And
even when they lit the fire he continued to preach until the fire and flames overcame him. He
on a diet of bread and water. On 15 September 1528, he died in his cell and
was buried under the scaffold in Brussels.34 During Thorn’s imprisonment,
Luther sent him a letter of consolation, encouraging him to conclude that
he had survived when Vos and van den Esschen died not because he was not
worthy of martyrdom, but because God had willed it so, and urging him to
rejoice that he had been found worthy to suffer incarceration for the sake
of the Gospel. Luther also sent along greetings and encouragement from
Probst and other Augustinian refugees who had gathered in Wittenberg.35
But while Luther and his comrades sent their fellow friar spiritual support,
it was vander Elst, and even more so der Kinderen, who made certain that
he was not forgotten, that his bodily needs were met, and that he continued
to be spiritually and intellectually fed. In depositions taken from members
of his conventicle it is revealed that in an Easter Sunday sermon, vander Elst
encouraged his followers to support Thorn, calling him their ‘brother-in-
arms’ (medebrueder) whom they were obliged to help. This exhortation led
to the establishment of a sort of support group for Thorn, and a collection
was taken up.36 What is more, until his death, members of the vander Elst
circle continued to bring him food, money, and beer and wine, or simply
went to visit him, some of them frequently. This included individuals from
Antwerp who visited so much that an anonymous chronicler reported that
from prison this third Augustinian generated much mischief, ‘because
many merchants from Antwerp who were from this sect came to visit him
secretly in order to be instructed by him’.37 As Thorn himself would testify
likewise departed, blessed by God’ (‘Dar nach auff den dritten tag, Hat man den dritten munch der
im ein bedacht genomen hat auch verprent und mit im gehandelt wie mit den andern der ist fast
ein gelert man geweẞent hat er by dem holtzhauffen ein lange predig gethon. Und ist darnach an
die marter gangen. Und da sie das fewer angezund haben hatt er noch gepredigt biss das feur und
flamen uber in aussgeschlagen hat und ist auch also seligklichen in got verschiden’). Anonymous,
Der Actus und handlung, p. 3. The other pamphlet demonstrates less certainty about the matter,
saying of Thorn regarding the day of the executions, ‘The third [Augustinian – presumably Thorn]
was not led forth, but why this was, I do not know. Some say he came to his senses [i.e., returned to
the church]. But because he was not led back to the crowd to make a public recantation, this is not
credible. Some believe he was secretly murdered’ (‘Tertius [Augustinian = Thorn] productus non
fuit, id quare factum sit, compertum non habeo. Quidam hunc resipuisse narrant, verum quando
ad populum reductus non fuit publice recantaturus omnibus id persuaderi non potest. Quiddam
suspicantur clam necatum’), Anonymous, Historia de Dvobvs Avgvstinensibus, p. 4.
35 Martin Luther to Lambert Thorn, January 19, 1524. WABr 3:238.
37 ‘want vele cooplieden van Antwerpen die van dier seckten waeren, quamen hem seere
secretelycken besoecken om van hem onderwesen te syne’. Quoted in Decavele, De eerste
protestanten, p. 61.
as part of the same proceedings, they also gave him books, many of them
banned, including Oecolampadius’s commentary on Isaiah, a work by
Bugenhagen on the Psalter, and Melanchthon’s commentaries on Romans
and Corinthians.38 Thorn’s sacrifice for the Gospel and the memory of the
executions clearly moved many to defy the laws of the emperor and offer
their support. Through the efforts of such networks, it appears that the
memory of the Antwerp Augustinians was kept alive among the laity well
after that cloister ceased to exist.
Conclusion
As an established organization then, the influence of the German Reformed

Augustinians of Lower Germany in support of the Reformation ended, with
the exception of the Cologne cloister, in 1522. But the memory of their words
and deeds lived on. Under investigation for heresy themselves, some of the
laity pointed directly to the executions of Vos and van den Esschen as a
source of their own sympathy for Luther’s ideas. When coupled with the
continued support for Thorn it is clear that, in certain circles at least, the
events surrounding the elimination of the Antwerp Augustinians retained
a lasting impact. It is only through the Inquisition’s discovery of the vander
Elst circle and the deposition of its members that historians have been
given a glimpse into the impact of these events on the local people. But if
the widespread lay support for the Reformed Augustinians before 1522 is
any indication, such influence undoubtedly was much broader and deeper
than these limited sources reveal.
Works Cited:
Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA), Brussels: Audientie, 1177/6, fols. 1–102.

Aleandro, Girolamo, Aleander und Luther 1521: die vervollständigten Aleander-


Clemen, Otto, ‘Ein Brief von Augustin Himmel’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
21 (1924), pp. 127–132.
Decavele, Johan, De eerste protestanten in de Lage Landen: Geloof en heldenmoed
(Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2004).
———, ‘De noodlottige zestiende eeuw’, in Zeven eeuwen Augustijnen, Een kloost-
ergemeenschap schrijft geschiedenis, ed. by Werner Grootaers and Marc Mees
(Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1996), pp. 69–81.
———, ‘Vroege reformatorische bedrijvigheid in de grote Nederlandse steden:
Claes van der Elst te Brussel, Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Leiden (1524–1528)’,
1906–1958).
Gielis, Gert, Verdoelde schaepkens, bytende wolven: Inquisitie in de Lage Landen
(Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2009).
(=WABr), vols. 1–18 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930–1985).
Meijer, Albéric de, ‘Augustijnen in Conflict met Dortse Magistraat? Eerste tekenen
van Lutheranisme in Nederland’, Archief voor de geschiedenis van de Katholieke
Kerk in Nederland 5 (1963), 343–350.
Rotscheidt-Mörs,Wilhelm, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner und die Wittenberger Reforma-

Schneider, Hans, ‘Die autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen des Nürnberger Au-
gustinereremiten Nikolaus Besler’, Augustiniana 62 (2012), 119–152.
Bartholomaei, 1725), 4: 389–432.
Wolters, Albrecht, Reformationgeschichte der Stadt Wesel bis zur Befestigung ihres
reformirten Bekenntnisses durch die Weseler Synode (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1868).
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zütphen’s Briefe‘, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken Bremisches
Jahrbuch 2. 1 (1885), 241–252.
9. The Impact of the Executions in the
German-Speaking Landsof the Holy
Roman Empire
Abstract
This chapter argues that the executions of Vos and van den Esschen im-
pacted the German-speaking lands more broadly. The first half addresses
the dissemination of news of the burnings via published eyewitness
accounts, as well as evidence from personal letters, revealing networks of
correspondence that paralleled print as a means of diffusion. The second
half of the chapter is devoted to a case study of Ingolstadt, a university
city in southern Germany where booksellers and intellectuals employed
the executions to demonstrate the corruption of the church. At the same
time, opponents of Luther’s reform utilized them to condemn aspects of
Reformation theology. The case reveals how news of the burnings worked
its way into the fabric of the Reformation debates there.
Keywords: University of Ingolstadt, Argula von Grumbach, Martin

Reckenhofer, Reformation pamphlets (Flugschriften)
Within the confines of the Low Countries – a comparatively small, urban, and
highly interconnected society, and one that was experiencing first-hand the
efforts of pope, emperor, and other forces to eradicate the Lutheran heresy
– the memories of the German Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany
could be kept alive by word of mouth. If the case of the vander Elst circle
is any indication, such recollections continued to circulate, at least within
certain groups. But the situation was different in the German-speaking lands
of the Holy Roman Empire. Not having witnessed these events directly, any
impact on the populace there would necessarily come from printed sources
or, in a limited number of cases, via personal contacts. In the wake of the
executions of Vos and van den Esschen especially, the German-speaking
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch09
lands were flooded with accounts of this event. Modern scholarly attempts
to evaluate their impact have relied almost entirely on inventorying such
publications and analysing their contents. From the numbers of editions
and knowledge of their places of publication, much insight has been gained
into the dissemination of news regarding the event, despite the fact that a
comprehensive list still eludes us. Yet although an analysis of these materials
has provided clarity regarding how the executions were portrayed,1 little
work has been done on the reception (and therefore the impact) of this
information outside its influence on a few exceptional individuals.2
What is more, it is clear that in addition to printed sources, more personal
exchanges with individuals who had been party to these events in Lower
Germany also account for some of their impact. For as has been alluded
to throughout this study, when Reformation-minded Reformed Augustin-
ian friars of Lower Germany found themselves in trouble, they fled to the
German-speaking lands of the empire, most often to Wittenberg itself.
There many went on to successful careers as Evangelical preachers and
reformers, carrying their experience of the events of the early 1520s with
them for the rest of their lives.
The following chapter is a broad evaluation of the impact of these events
on the German-speaking lands of the Holy Roman Empire. To demonstrate
the degree to which the empire was blanketed with accounts of the burnings
of Vos and van den Esschen in particular, the first section catalogues the
printed materials devoted to this event and briefly relates their contents.
There follows an account of what I have been able to discover about the
distribution of information on the burnings via means other than printed
sources, primarily letters. Having established some sense of the degree to
which this story was disseminated, the second section of the chapter turns
to a case study of the German city of Ingolstadt where, as a result of these
printed materials, the executions of Vos and van den Esschen encouraged
local Reformation impulses. The chapter’s final section provides a brief
overview of the roles played by Augustinian friars with Lutheran sympathies,
as they made their way to the German-speaking lands and became reformers
and pastors. As a result of these three investigative strands, it becomes
1 See Chapter One, note 1. Brad Gregory has taken these efforts a step further by exploring the
impact of these literary portrayals, particularly of the executions of Vos and van den Esschen,
on the content and production of martyr literature on all sides in the Reformation. Gregory,
Salvation at Stake.
2 Two notable exceptions are the reactions of Erasmus, which Brad Gregory has explored (see
Gregory, Salvation at Stake, p. 321), and Martin Luther. See my Chapter Seven and the reference
to the literature in Chapter One, note 1.
The Impact of the Executions in the German-Speaking L ands 173
clear that the fallout from the events in Lower Germany had a substantial
influence on the appeal and shape of the early Reformation.
Printed Accounts of the Experiences of the Antwerp

Augustinians
Prior to the events of 1 July 1523 in Brussels, the public already had some
access to what was happening among the Reformed Augustinians of Lower
Germany. Probst’s recantation had been published in Flemish in Antwerp
and in Latin in Cologne, Leipzig, and Strasbourg.3 Moreover his own
explanation of his experiences, entitled The History of My Two Captivities, in
which he carefully detailed his interactions with the Inquisition in Brabant,
had been published in Latin in Wittenberg and in German in Colmar.4 For
anyone with access to these writings, the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen already had some context.
But it was the pamphlets describing the burnings themselves that really
became bestsellers.5 The most widely distributed among them, written in
German, runs a mere four pages and is entitled An Account of the Divestment
and Burning of the three Christian Knights and Martyrs of the Augustinian
Order, which occurred in Brussels on 1 July 1523.6 Published sixteen times
during the second half of 1523, its places of publication reflect the chief
printing centres of the Reformation, with two-thirds emanating from
southern Germany (Nuremberg, Augsburg, Speyer, Bamberg), others from
eastern Germany (Leipzig, Erfurt, and Wittenberg); for two editions, the
place of publication is unknown.7 The pamphlet briefly describes the events
leading up to the executions as well as the key charges made against the men,
before providing a more detailed account of the executions themselves. It
includes the information (which we now know is false) that Lambert Thorn
was also burned three days later. Although there is no overt editorializing,
so that the pamphlet has the feel of an objective first-hand account, clearly
3 Rudloff, Bonae Literae et Lutherus, p. 27. Rudloff does not mention the Strasbourg edition,
but it may be found at Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16.
Jahrhunderts (VD 16) ZV 24290.
4 Probst, Fratris Iacobi Praepositi; Probst, Ein schone vnd clegliche history.
5 Much of the information in the following discussion of the pamphlet literature comes
from the study by Hebenstreit-Wilfert, ‘Märtyrerflugschriften der Reformationszeit’. See also
Boehmer, ‘Die Beschaffenheit der Quellenschriften’.
6 Anonymous, Der Actus und handlung.
7 Hebenstreit-Wilfert, ‘Märtyrerflugschriften der Reformationszeit’, pp. 432–436.
the author is sympathetic to the friars and their cause and a critic of the
church, as can be seen from the title.
A second, longer pamphlet, entitled The Story of two Augustinians Burned
in Brussels for the sake of the Gospel on 30 June 1523, survives in only two
editions, both published anonymously in Latin without any reference to the
place of publication.8 Its description of the event, considerably longer than
the one found in the aforementioned pamphlet, is comprised of two letters,
purportedly from unnamed eyewitnesses to the executions. The first letter
focuses on the proceedings immediately surrounding the execution, and the
demeanour and responses of the friars themselves throughout their ritual
degradation and executions, events that the author claims took about four
hours. The second letter, much shorter than the first, adds the names of the
authorities who carried out the executions. Also included in this pamphlet
is a list of sixty-two articles or assertions made by Hendrik Vos that were
judged heretical, although it is unclear how the anonymous editor obtained
this document.9 The pamphlet ends with a long treatise rebuking some
unnamed person who had recanted his beliefs in order to save his own life.
A third pamphlet, entitled The History of the two Augustinians martyred
for the sake of the Gospel in Brussels, Brabant. The Articles for which they were
executed, along with their interpretation and explanation is, broadly speaking,
Martin Reckenhofer’s translation of the second pamphlet into German, but
excluding the final reprimand to the recanter. It does, however, include
the sixty-two articles for which Vos was burned, along with Reckenhofer’s
lengthy rebuttal to each of them.10 But Reckenhofer also modifies the original
accounts. Gone are all first-person, eyewitness references. Inserted is a short
Foreword appealing to the reader to learn from this event about the cruel
workings of the Endchrist, and to observe how to behave in the event that
one is forced to die for one’s beliefs.
A fourth document, of unknown origin but ostensibly from someone
close to the proceedings, was included in two editions of Luther’s Open
Letter of Consolation to the Christians in the Low Countries, referred to in
Chapter Seven.11 The work consists of three questions asked of Vos and
van den Esschen by the inquisitors, the friars’ answers, and a short, highly
8 Anonymous, Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus; for publication information, such as it is,

see Hebenstreit-Wilfert, ‘Märtyrerflugschriften der Reformationszeit’, p. 437.
9 Cramer and Pijper indicate that the inquisitors in the Low Countries often produced such
lists of heretical theses during judicial processes. Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 8,
p. 25.
10 Anonymous, Dye histori so zwen Augustiner Ordens.
11 Luther, Abteilung Werke (=WA) 15: 75–76.
critical description of the actions taken by the authorities in response.12

Two editions of this work were published in Wittenberg in 1523.
Taken as a group, these four pamphlets went through a total of twenty-
three editions, all in 1523. If a conservative estimate of the number of copies
produced in a typical print run in the sixteenth-century was about 1,000, that
would mean that a minimum of 23,000 pamphlets dedicated to this event
were produced and distributed in the German heartlands.13 To give some
perspective on these numbers it is worth comparing them to the spread
of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses. The principal way in which these ideas
reached the masses was not via their original Latin version (which went
through only four editions in 1517) but rather through Luther’s Sermon on
Indulgence and Grace of 1518. Written in German, the sermon was published
in nineteen editions in 1518, nine in 1519, and another nine in 1520, for a
total of thirty-seven.14 In other words, speaking solely in terms of copies
produced, Luther’s seminal ideas articulated in the Ninety-Five Theses went
only through about one-third more printings than the pamphlets dedicated
to the executions. They were, we might say, bestsellers.
Another means for spreading the news of event in its immediate
aftermath was via what we might call “second-hand interpretations” of
the executions, most prominent among them the works of Luther. By far
the most influential was Luther’s musical composition, ‘A New Song Here
Shall be Begun’.15 Printed first as a broadsheet, thereafter the ballad was
regularly included in German hymnals for the remainder of the sixteenth
century, editions of which number well over 1,000.16 And as noted above,
Luther also responded to the event in his Open Letter of Consolation to
the Christians in the Low Countries. In it he consoled and encouraged his
followers there, and expressed joy that they had been able to experience
these first martyrdoms. The work went through nine editions in various
formats in the months immediately following the executions.17 Other
important writers from across the doctrinal spectrum also commented
on the burnings in printed sources. Especially influential among them
was Erasmus of Rotterdam who referred to the executions in a number
12 WA 15: 79–80.
13 This is the estimate used by both Andrew Pettegree and Mark Edwards (described as
conservative) for the typical print run of a Luther pamphlet. See Pettegree, Brand Luther, p. 145,
n. 2; and Edwards, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther, p. 39.
14 WA 1:239–246.
15 See Chapter Seven.
16 Brown, Singing the Gospel, 8.
17 WA 15: 75–76.
of his letters, all of which were printed in the sixteenth century.18 Other
less well-known individuals also made brief mention of the executions
in print.19 But in the immediate aftermath, word of mouth and letters
were the means by which news spread most quickly. As had been the
case all along, the connections within the Congregation of German
Reformed Augustinians remained a key means by which information
was disseminated. Once again it travelled these well-worn paths, as can
be seen in the correspondence of men like van Zutphen, Luther, Probst,
Linck, and Lang.20
It was not just the Augustinians who were interested in the event. Others,
too, referred to it in private missives, and to the situation in the Low Coun-
tries more generally. In the summer of 1522, the Bavarian noblewoman and
Luther sympathizer Argula von Grumbach sent a letter to Luther recounting
the incredible fury with which the “sophists” and representatives of the
emperor persecuted the gospel in the Low Countries.21 Wolfgang Reichart, a
doctor from Ulm, sent a description of the closing of the Antwerp Augustin-
ian monastery to the young humanist Johann Alexander Brassicanus, who
was studying in Ingolstadt at the time.22 How the information on these
events – much of which was not included in the pamphlets – made its
way to Reichart in Ulm and Grumbach near Ingolstadt is anyone’s guess.23
Moreover, as mentioned above, one of the pamphlets devoted to the event
included two letters from purported eyewitnesses, the first of which, it has
been speculated, was addressed to Erasmus,24 the second of which asks its
18 Erasmus, Opus epistolarum, vol. 5, p. 325; vol. 5, p. 606; vol. 6, p. 275; vol. 8, pp. 211–212.
19 See Coct, as quoted in Lambert, Evangelici in Minoritarum, p. 1; Emser, Annotationes Hieronymi
Emser, pp. 182–183; and Hauer, Drey christlich Predig.
20 See Luther’s letters to Lang, Linck, and Gabriel Zwilling regarding Probst’s recantation,
Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 2:494–496, WABr 2:496–497, and WABr 2: 523–524; Luther’s
letters to Lang regarding Probst’s second arrest, WABr 2:558–559 and WABr 2:565–566; and to
Staupitz regarding the same issue, WABr 2: 566–568; Luther to Linck regarding the closure of
the Augustinian monastery in Antwerp, WABr 2: 632–635; Hendrik van Zutphen to Jacob Probst
and Reiner Reyenstein regarding his capture, 29 November 1522 in Zütphen, ‘Zütphen’s Briefe’,
pp. 241–245.
21 We know this because Luther informs Paul Speratus in a letter dated 13 June 1522 that von
Grumbach has written to him regarding the current state of affairs in the Low Countries. WABr
2:559.
22 Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Alexander Brassicanus, 25 November 1522 in Analecta
Lutherana, pp. 49–50; this letter may also be found in Corpus documentorum (=CD) 4:157–159.
23 That Reichart was in Ulm at the time he wrote is confirmed by the fact that on the same day
he wrote a letter from there to his son in Tübingen. See Wolfgang Reichart an Zeno in Tübingen,
Ulm, 25 November 1522 in Ludwig, ed. Vater und Sohn, p. 120.
24 This is Cramer’s and Pijper’s conjecture. Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 8, p. 24.
recipient to pass along greetings to Johannes (sic) Zwingli and Hutten.25 As

early as 24 August 1523, Johann Botzheim, a humanist friend of Erasmus,
could write in a letter that preliminary information on the burning of three
(sic) monks in Brussels had reached Konstanz via Nuremberg, but that he
did not yet know the details.26 Clearly the news of these events made the
rounds in private correspondence.
As might be expected, high-placed government officials had their own
information-gathering networks. Richard Wingfield, the English ambassador
to the imperial court in Brussels, kept Henry VIII and his ministers in
London fully informed about the situation of the Augustinians in Antwerp.27
Likewise George Spalatin, court chaplain and secretary to Luther’s Prince,
Elector Frederick the Wise, noted that Lambrecht Mulmann, an official
at the court in Brussels and another eyewitness to the events, had written
to him describing the burnings.28 Moreover Hans von der Planitz, another
advisor to Elector Frederick and member of the imperial court, who was
in Nuremberg at the time of the executions, included news of them in a
report to the Elector. Along with his account, he also sent his own source,
a letter (since lost) that he describes as ‘written in the merchant style, and
not very readable’.29 It seems that he had a contact in Brabant (apparently
a merchant) who kept him informed of the latest news. Although he did
not discuss the executions themselves, we have seen that the papal legate
to the Diet of Nuremberg, Francesco Chiericati, knew all about the arrest
of van Zutphen and the remaining Antwerp Augustinians shortly after
these events occurred.30 In Paris, an anonymous burgher who left behind
a diary for the years 1515–1536 included news of the burnings, remarking in
25 The author is most likely referring to the reformer of Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli, and the German
humanist and fervent supporter of Luther, Ulrich von Hutten. Anonymous, Historia de Duobus
Augustinensibus, p. 5.
26 ‘The bare details of the story of the burning of three monks in Brussels, printed in Nuremberg,
have arrived. I hear that a more careful description will be produced shortly’ (‘De exustis
tribus monachis Bruxellae delata est nuda historia Norimberge excusa, quam audio propediem
prodituram accuratissime conscriptam’). Johann Botzheim to Erasmus, 24 August 1523, Briefe
an Desiderius Erasmus, p. 27.
27 Wingfield, Letters and Papers. Comments on the situation in Antwerp as it regarded the
Augustinian cloister there may be found in missives from 30 September and 4 and 7 October
1523. vol. 3, part 2, pp. 1103–1109.
28 Spalatin, ‘Excerpta quaedam e Diario’, p. 412.
29 ‘ist auf kaufmennisch geschriben, nich woll leßlich’. Planitz, Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment,
pp. 493–494.
30 Francesco Chiericati to Isabella D’Este Gonzaga, 5 November 1522. Chiericati Vescovo e
Diplomatico, p. 104.
particular that the men had met their deaths with joy. How precisely news
of these events made its way to this diarist remains a mystery.31
If one considers the case purely in terms of the dissemination of informa-
tion, the numbers are staggering. Pamphlets, Luther’s ballad and his open
letter, and references in private missives and published works cascaded
across the empire. In fact, it is difficult to imagine two non-elites more
broadly recognized in the early sixteenth century than Hendrik Vos and
Johann van den Esschen.
The Impact of the Pamphlets: The Case of Ingolstadt
With so much information on and interpretations of the executions of Vos

and van den Esschen available, one can only conclude that there was broad
interest in this event. If interest of this magnitude existed, it stands to
reason that these deaths influenced public opinion and private convictions.
Unfortunately, for the most part, the sources necessary to demonstrate such
influence (like the depositions taken by the inquisitors in the case of the
vander Elst circle) are lacking for the German-speaking lands. Nonetheless,
evidence from the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt provides a glimpse into how
these executions moved groups of people and infiltrated the broader debate
surrounding early Reformation ideas within the empire.
Despite the fact that, as far as we know, none of the pamphlets were
printed there, evidence from Ingolstadt indicates that the story of the execu-
tions in Brussels was widely spread, and that the case worked its way into
the local fabric of the conflict between adherents of the church and those
clamouring for reform. Already on the Festival of the Assumption of Mary,
which occurred in mid-August 1523, six weeks after the burnings, George
Hauer, a theologian from the University of Ingolstadt and preacher at the
Church of Our Lady in that city, referred to Vos and van den Esschen in a
sermon. Among those things on his mind was Martin Luther’s critique of the
church’s conception of the Virgin Mary and her role within Christianity – a
critique that left not only Hauer, but, he claimed, God himself deeply angry.
It happened, dear friends, as a result of divine anger and punishment,

that these blind people [i.e. Luther and his followers] attacked Mary; yes
Mary I say, the best intercessor, who never bothered anyone, who is always
ready to support and help [today’s] Christians in their time of great need
31 Anonymous, Journal d’un Bourgeois, p. 185.

(as she did for those in her own lifetime as the story of the holy martyr
Ignatius, her contemporary, has demonstrated) […] Thus there are already
some who have attacked Mary in a most dishonourable manner [and who]
have been punished, namely with the loss of their minds, swift death, and
other such plagues. And this summer the executioner rewarded some on
the eve of Mary’s Visitation, for they were not worthy of the day itself.
For in Brussels, two Augustinian monks were burned to ashes. They did
not go to the fire willingly and of their own accord as the Lutherans say,
rather they had to be dragged there by the executioner. And the Lutherans
claim that these men are knights and martyrs. But God Almighty did not
miraculously intervene with them as he does in the cases of those who
are his own.32 [And he did not intervene] so that these beginnings of
their cause should not accomplish any progress, as it happened [with the
death of martyrs] in the early church, and so that these new teachings
that had been preached were confirmed by such signs.33
The context in which Hauer made this reference to the executions is signifi-
cant. Ingolstadt was among the earliest municipalities to mount a concerted
response to the challenge of Luther and his like-minded colleagues, in large
part due to the efforts of the Dominican Johann Eck, one of Luther’s earliest
and sharpest critics. Eck was a professor of theology at the University of
Ingolstadt and canon at the cathedral in nearby Eichstätt. He had been
Luther’s opponent at the Leipzig Disputation (1519), after which he had
reported on this confrontation to the papal curia. On 17 July 1520, the day
on which the papal bull threatening Luther with excommunication was
32 The claim that God did not intervene as he does with his own is, I believe, a rejection of the
rumour that at the last moment, via the intervention of the Virgin Mary, God had given them a
change of heart – something Hauer suggests God does in the case of true knights and martyrs.
The implication is, of course, that neither God (nor Mary) considered these men to be Christians.
33 ‘Es geschicht allerliebsten/ aus götlichen verhengen vnd straff/ das diß verplendt volck/
Mariam der massen angreift/ mariam sag ich/ die allergüetigisten/ fürbitterin/ die nie niemant
belaidigt/ die alweg/ dem christlichen volck (auch im leben/ wie der hyelig martrer Ignatius
der zu irer zeit gelebt/ anzaigt) in grossen nöten bey gestanden uvd hilf than hat […] Also sein
schon etlich/ die mit sondern vnern Mariam angriffen haben/ gestraft worden/ nemlich mit
vnsinnigkait/ Jähem todt und der gleichen plag. Es hat auch disen sumer der hencker etlich
belonet/ als am abent der haimsuechung Marie (sy wurden des tags nit wirdig) zu brussel zwen
Augustiner münch zu pulver verbrent/ die nit willig/ und von in selbs/ wie die Lutherischen
außgeben/ in das fewr gangen/ sonder von im dem hencker darein gezogen worden/ und sohl
Ritter und martrer sein/ mit welhen got der almechtig nichts wunderperlichs/ wie er mit den
seinen pfligt/ gewürckt hat/ das doch im anfang von nöten solt anderst ir sach ain fürgang
gewinnen/ wie es dan in erhebung der kirchen gescheen/ und die so newe leer predigren/ die
selben mit nachvolgenden zaichen bestätteten’. Hauer, Drey christlich Predig, p. A iij.
promulgated, two men were charged with its publication and distribu-
tion. Just as Aleander had been given responsibility for disseminating the
bull in the Low Countries, Eck was given the task of publicizing it in the
German-speaking lands. While Aleander was making his way to Antwerp,
Eck headed for Saxony, where he published the bull in Meissen, Merseburg,
and Brandenburg. However, he soon ran into considerable opposition and
was essentially forced to abandon the project and leave the area. He then
made for Bavaria, where with like-minded individuals such as Hauer he
was able to make much more headway in his task.
His first order of business was to send the bull to the rector and Senate of
the University of Ingolstadt, insisting that they enforce it and burn Luther’s
works. At a meeting of the full Senate on 29 October 1520, Hauer gave an
address in which he insisted the university demonstrate their allegiance
to their colleague, Eck, who was now also a papal nuncio. He then had
the Bull read by a secretary along with a written request by Eck that it be
implemented. Immediately thereafter, the bull was also related from the
pulpits of the city’s two main churches, including the one at which Hauer
would later deliver the sermon from which the passage above is taken.34
After the promulgation of the Edict of Worms in 1521, Eck was again
in Ingolstadt, and along with Hauer and another colleague helped draft
the area’s first anti-Lutheran edict. Because both pope and emperor had
banned Luther, the edict forbade disputations of Luther’s ideas and required
that all university members remain loyal to the faith of their fathers and
obedient to the emperor. The decree also warned that students suspected of
holding Lutheran ideas and all booksellers who sold Luther’s works would
be brought to the attention of the Inquisition and the elector. As a result of
this legislation, a group of professors loyal to Eck established an Inquisitional
Tribunal, a body whose oversight reached well beyond the walls of the
powerful university. In the coming years, it would try a series of professors
and laymen suspected of Lutheran sympathies, and its members would
write Gutachten for the cases of suspected heretics throughout Bavaria.35
In 1524, just as the faculty of theology at the University of Cologne had done,
this tribunal would also implement the requirement that, before they were
allowed to matriculate, all students coming from ‘suspect lands’ where
Lutheran ideas proliferated must sign an oath not to disseminate or hold
34 Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, vol. 1, pp. 146–147.

35 Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, vol. 1, pp. 148–149; for example, one
of their number wrote the Gutachten upon the basis of which a baker in Munich was beheaded
for his Lutheran leanings. Kolde, ‘Arsacius Seehofer und Argula von Grumbach’, p. 55.
Luther’s ideas.36 Due to such measures, the University of Ingolstadt became

an early bulwark against the spread of Luther’s ideas, its faculty taking the
lead in anti-Reformation efforts throughout Bavaria. It is no exaggeration
to say that, like the Low Countries, Ingolstadt offered one of the earliest
and most forceful responses to the Reformation.
However, there was also support for reform among various constituencies
there. Within the student body Johann Alexander Brassicanus, recently
arrived from the University of Leuven, had already demonstrated his Ref-
ormation impulses in no uncertain terms. While in Leuven, Brassicanus
had witnessed one of Aleander’s first public actions against Luther, a book
burning in the city square in 1519.37 In a short pamphlet recounting various
reactions to the upheavals of the early Reformation, Johann Oecolampadius
described this young man’s exuberant response to the book burning:
When it was over, a most depraved Carmelite [this was probably the
future inquisitor Egmond], devoid of all modesty, exposed his evil nature
by publicly urinating on the fire and ashes. When Brassicanus, a young
man who had witnessed this detestable spectacle, saw this, he waited for
the [Carmelite] to return to his monastery. When he was about to enter,
[Brassicanus] grabbed him by the cowl and pulled a knife on him, yelling,
“Come here, come with me, come on, brother!” After kicking and beating
him, he left him half dead. Brassicanus did not stay in the city that night
because of the pandemonium, but escaped, returning the next day when
the uproar had subsided – but wearing different clothes.38
36 Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, vol. 1, p. 159.

37 That Brassicanus was in Ingolstadt at this time we know, for Joseph Ritter von Aschbach
says that after his time in Leuven he went to Ingolstadt before he was called to Vienna in 1524.
Aschbach, Die Wiener Universität, pp. 127–128. If he were still in Leuven, it would not make sense
that Reichart would write to him to pass along news from Leuven. See below.
38 ‘Venit postremo Carmelita nequissimus et postposita verecundia, quo animum suum
inquissimum cunctis patefaceret, in ignem publice et cineres urinam projecit. Videns hoc Bras-
sicanus junior, qui tam nefario spectaculo aderat, fratrem observat redeuntem ad monasterium.
Qui cum vellet intrare, apprehenso pallio fratris et gladiolo extracto, ‘huc, huc mecum, perge,
frater!’ Calcans, percutiens et semivivum relinquens abiit. Nec illa nocte propter tumultum in
civitate permansit. Sed exiens in crastino mutata veste rediit, et conticuit omnis tumultus’.
Oecolampadius, Oecolampadii Judicium, p. 4. See Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation,
vol. 1, p. 22; and Raupach, Evangelisches Oesterreich, p. 29. Brassicanus was the son of a humanist
professor at the University of Tübingen. At the time he was studying law at the University of
Leuven. He would go on to have a successful career as a poet and professor at the University
of Vienna. For more on Brassicanus, see Aschbach, Die Wiener Universität, pp. 126–135. The
quotation is taken from Raupach.
It seems that not only was Brassicanus a sympathizer in the early Reforma-
tion, but he was also an ardent critic of the mendicant orders. His impression
of them had not improved since moving to Ingolstadt, if the letter of the Ulm
doctor Reichart mentioned above is any indication. Reichart, who seems
to have made a point of keeping up on events in the Low Countries, wrote
to Brassicanus on 25 November 1522, informing him of the arrest of van
Zutphen and the dissolution of the Augustinian Cloister, but interpreting
these actions as the result of the machinations of the mendicant orders.
‘Concerning the monks about whom you have written’, begins Reichart,
‘not only did they impose darkness on the liberal arts, but they poured it
on the morals and business dealings of all ages: they are a plague worse
than the harpies. But I have just heard news from Antwerp’ (Reichart then
proceeds to describe the actions of Margaret, Queen Regent against the
Augustinians there).39 With young men such as Brassicanus among the
student body, it is not difficult to see why the University’s Senate would
demand an oath of allegiance to the church from incoming students hailing
from “suspect lands”.
Nor was there disaffection only among the student body; even some
members of the faculty disagreed with Eck, Hauer, and others like them.
In August of 1523, the Senate of the University arrested the former student
and young professor, Arsacius Seehofer, because he had lectured on the
epistles of Paul using notes from Philip Melanchthon, with whom Seehofer
had studied in Wittenberg. From papers seized during a search of his resi-
dence, the University Senate compiled seventeen articles deemed heretical,
and on 7 September 1523 Seehofer was forced to recant them. The entire
event, performed publicly, occurred in the immediate wake of the events
in Brussels. 40
Seehofer also had his defenders, among them Luther himself. 41 Locally,
however, his most prominent supporter was the noblewoman, Argula
von Grumbach. In a series of open letters addressed to the Senate of the
University, the Elector of Bavaria, and the city council of Ingolstadt, she
39 ‘De monachis autem quod scribis, qui non solum Bonis artibus imposuerunt verum etiam
omnium seculorum moribus et negotiis impendio tenebras offuderunt: pestis illa plus quam
harpiea. Sed audi quid iam noviter Antwerpie novi speciminis sue alee designarint’. Wolfgang
Rychardus an Joh. Alex. Brassicanus, 25 November 1522 in Analecta Lutherana, pp. 49–50; this
letter may also be found in CD 4:156–157.
40 For more on Seehofer and this affair see Matheson, Argula von Grumbach; and Kolde,
‘Arsacius Seehofer und Argula vom Grumbach’.
41 Martin Luther, Wider das blind und tolle Verdammniß der 17 Artikel, von der elenden,
schändlichen Universität Ingolstadt ausgegangen, WA 15:110–125.
argued for the primacy of Scripture which, she asserted, accomplished

all things. There was thus no reason to use coercion in matters of faith.
If Seehofer was wrong, his errors should be demonstrated via scripture,
not by force or tyranny. 42 Von Grumbach undoubtedly had the events in
the Low Countries in mind when she wrote this, for we know that she
had been following the news of the ‘unbelievably furious’ persecution of
the gospel there since at least summer of 1522. 43
But it is Seehofer’s second defender, Martin Reckenhofer of Clausen,
who brings the story full circle. Little is known about Reckenhofer, who
appears to have studied at the University of Ingolstadt and was probably
a member of the clergy. At some point he may have heard Luther directly,
as in his published work he recounts various statements Luther had made
that are not found in the Reformer’s writings, and in a manner that suggests
that he heard them first hand. 44 But whoever he was and whatever his
relationship to Luther, he knew the situation in Ingolstadt, and had heard
Seehofer speak. He was also quite familiar with the executions of Vos and
van den Esschen. In fact, Reckenhofer has only two known publications to
his credit: the first we have already encountered, namely his German version
of the anonymous Latin pamphlet The Story of two Augustinians Burned in
Brussels. How Reckenhofer came to possess a copy of this pamphlet we do
not know, but it moved him enough to not only translate it, but to add his
own commentary on the sixty-two articles for which Vos was executed.
The second of his publications, similar in its structure to the first, was a
reproduction of the seventeen articles for which Seehofer had been accused
of heresy, along with Reckenhofer’s own refutation of each of them. 45 Thus
for Reckenhofer, it seems, the two cases were linked.
With members of the student body, faculty, clergy, and nobility openly
supporting reform, it is not surprising that the story of the Augustinians
excited enough interest in Ingolstadt to elicit a response from churchmen
faithful to Rome, particularly those at the University. It is clear that the
pamphlets describing the executions had circulated widely there, since
although we do not know where Reckenhofer’s translation of The Story of
two Augustinians Burned in Brussels was published, it stands to reason that
it was somewhere in the area. What is more, at the end of Hauer’s sermon
42 Grumbach, Schriften.
43 ‘incredibil[is] furia’. Letter of Martin Luther to Paul Speratus, 13 June 1522, WA Br 2:559.
44 Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 8, p. 60. For the little information that is known
about Reckenhofer see Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 8, pp. 59–64; and Ewald,
Geschichte der Pfarrei Plech.
45 Reckenhofer, Die Artickel, warumb der rector.
quoted above he stated that the Lutherans claim these men ‘are supposed to
be knights and martyrs’, a direct reference to An Account of the Divestment
and Burning of the three Christian Knights and Martyrs of the Augustinian
Order, the most popular pamphlet produced recounting the executions. 46
Clearly, Hauer had read it and was confident that his audience had, too. It
seems reasonable, then, to conclude that word of the executions spread
widely in Ingolstadt.
More concrete evidence for the pamphlets’ impact in that city comes from
mid-August 1523, when two booksellers were accused of peddling Lutheran
writings there. In response to their actions, the rector of the University had
them arrested and imprisoned overnight, then sternly warned them not to
sell any more ‘Lutheran books’, adding, especially those ‘libels concerning
the three [sic] friars burned in Brussels’, thereby singling these works out
as particularly problematic. 47 A mere six weeks after the executions, these
pamphlets had reached Ingolstadt. One of the booksellers, Jacob Focker,
gave up the names of two more booksellers whom he claimed were selling
Lutheran works, with the result that these men were quickly arrested and
held in the University’s prison. George Hauer led the investigation in which
not only were the prisoners interrogated, but teachers, students, and Focker
and his wife were deposed. Ultimately, the two booksellers were found
guilty of holding Lutheran views on indulgences, fasting, the bann, and
relics, and after being forced publicly to recant in front of the prison, they
were banished from Bavaria. 48
Then there was the immediate context in which Hauer gave his sermon. As
he climbed the steps to the pulpit on that mid-August day in 1523, the festival
of the Assumption of Mary, he was in the middle of presiding as judge over
the Seehofer case. 49 In fact, three of Seehofer’s influential family friends,
all from Ingolstadt, had just petitioned the university for his release.50 In
his sermon regarding the Virgin Mary, Hauer gave them his answer: the
46 ‘sohl Ritter und martrer sein’. Hauer, Drey christlich Predig, p. A iij.
47 ‘ceterorum libellulorum de tribus religiosis in Brussl combustis venditorum’. Universität-
sarchiv München: UA D III/4. S 147. See also Hofmann, Geschichte der Stadt Ingolstadt, pp. 705
-706. The rector was probably referring to the pamphlet An Account of the Divestment and Burning
of the three Christian Knights and Martyrs of the Augustinian Order because it was only in that
pamphlet that the claim was made that three friars were killed.
48 Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, pp. 152–153.
49 The University Senate had ordered Seehofer’s arrest and the search of his residence on
11 August 1523. Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, p. 150.
50 See Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, pp. 150–151; and Kolde, ‘Arsacius
Seehofer und Argula von Grumbach’, 55.
Augustinians had been justly rewarded for their deeds.51 Their fate before
God and the executioner had become a warning to all who thought likewise.
Seehofer was given the choice: recant or burn.
In Ingolstadt, although the extant sources do not give the impression that
the burning of Vos and van den Esschen became the central issue in the
early Reformation struggle, they do appear to have become an important
theme in the broader conflict. Knowledge of the case was widespread. Pro-
reform individuals like Reckenhofer attempted to publicize it, as did various
booksellers; on the other side, Hauer referred to the pamphlet literature in
a sermon, while the University Senate attempted to stop the sale of such
materials. It also became part of the immediate backdrop to the case of
Arsacius Seehofer. In short, it worked its way into the fabric of the early
Reformation conflict in Ingolstadt.
Reformed Augustinians from the Low Countries in the

German-Speaking Lands
From the reactions of Martin Luther and members of the vander Elst circle,
from the zeal expressed by the friars from the Low Countries studying in
Wittenberg, from the events in Ingolstadt, and from the general widespread
interest in the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, it is clear that these
harrowing and traumatic incidents shaped peoples’ perceptions, often in
long-lasting and decisive ways. How much more so for the men who actually
lived through these events, some of whom had stood against a future pope,
and experienced threats, arrests, interrogations, and incarcerations at the
hand of an emperor? Certainly, such experiences shaped these men. As
the Reformation developed, their voices must have carried extra weight, a
51 ‘Likewise, because the Holy Scripture promises death as wages so that God be not mocked,
the same [fate awaits those who mock] his saints in whom [God] resides. And whoever despises
these saints, despises God. And whatever anyone does to the least among [these saints], he does to
God himself. Indeed, the angel Michael did not allow the devil to mock. So the blasphemers and
mockers of the saints who speak and act against divine majesty should be punished in body and
with their lives in the very same way and even more so than those who commit crimes against
earthly majesty [i.e., temporal princes]’ (‘Item die weyl auch die heylig schrift bey dem todt
verbeüt das got/ nit sol gelestert werden/ der gleichen auch seine heyligen in denen er wonet/
und wer die selben verschmecht/ got verschmächt/ und was ainer den wenigsten auβ inen thuet/
Christo selbs thuet/ Ja der engel Michael den teufl nit hat wellen lestern/ so sollen unnd mögen
die gotlestrer und heylig schender/ als die wider götlich maiestat handeln und reden/ an lieb
und leben/ als wol und mer/ dan die/ so wider irdisch maiestat verprechen/ gestraft werden’).
Hauer, Drey christlich Predig, pp. 4–5.
certain authenticity as the result of these encounters. So while the admin-

istration of the German Reformed Augustinians could be dismantled by
its opponents and dissolved from within as the entire monastic enterprise
was called into question, the efforts of individual former friars involved in
the events that culminated in the executions of Vos and van den Esschen
could not be stopped. Many went on to significant careers in the service
of the Reformation, one more way in which the events in the Reformed
Augustinian Province of Lower Germany continued to exert their influence
in the empire.
Like many others over the course of the Reformation, some of these Au-
gustinians found refuge in Wittenberg. There Luther and his colleagues acted
as a clearing house for refugee clerics, finding them temporary positions in
Wittenberg, then recommending them for permanent posts in various lands
where the Reformation was taking root, a practice that had been alluded to
by Luther already in a mid-1522 letter to George Spalatin in which he wrote,
‘Everywhere people are thirsting for the gospel. On all sides they are asking
us for evangelists’.52 To my knowledge, no study of this phenomenon has been
undertaken, nor have the criteria by which Luther and his colleagues decided
whom to send where been examined. But it stands to reason that the placement
of specific individuals in particular posts was the result of some strategizing
– one more way in which Staupitz’s legacy lived on in the Reformation.
The cases of van Zutphen and Probst offer evidence of just such planning.
Having fled Antwerp for Wittenberg, van Zutphen veered 120 km out of
his way to the north German city of Bremen.53 Asked to preach there by a
52 ‘Vbique sititur Evangelion. Vndique petuntur a nobis Evangeliste’. WABr 2:580.

53 Why van Zutphen went to Bremen is the source of some speculation. His own explanation is
vague and not particularly convincing. He suggests that along his way to Wittenberg, he decided
to visit the brethren in Holland and Westphalia. Van Zutphen to Jacob Probst, 29 November 1522,
in Zütphen, Zütphen’s Briefe, p. 242. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Bremen had
no Augustinians, much less Reformed Augustinians who were members of the Congregation.
Aschoff, ‘Bremen Erzstift und Stadt’, vol. 3, p. 46; Moeller, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen’, p. 52. So
who were the brethren there? Was it those individuals with whom he and Probst had studied
in Wittenberg – for van Zutphen, in a letter to Probst who was now safely back in Wittenberg,
sent along greetings from fellow alumni of the University of Wittenberg known to both van
Zutphen and Probst? Heyne, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen’, p. 15. Or were merchant connections
and networks at work here? It is well known that Bremen and Antwerp were connected via trade
routes, so it is possible that the merchants of Bremen who did business in Antwerp would have
known of van Zutphen. Hill, Die Stadt und ihr Markt, pp. 208–229. In a letter written shortly after
his arrival in Bremen, van Zutphen remarks that news of the fallout from the events surrounding
the Antwerp cloister was delivered to Bremen by a citizen of that city recently returned from
Antwerp, a fact that suggests van Zutphen may have had connections in the merchant community.
Van Zutphen to Jacob Probst, 29 November 1522, Zütphen, Zütphen’s Briefe, p. 244. Iken refers to,
number of leading citizens, he soon received the offer of an official post from
the mayor and city council as preacher in St. Ansgar’s Church – a call, as we
have seen, confirmed by Luther. Despite the efforts of the Bishop of Bremen
to expel him, he was able to remain and can be credited with first bringing
the Reformation to that city. As has been recounted, while there, he received
a request from the patron of the church in nearby Dietmarsch to preach, and
soon gathered great crowds to his sermons. When they discovered who he was,
however, the local Dominicans responded forcefully and had him captured in
what was essentially a mob action, before burning him on 9 December 1524.54
Meanwhile, after his ordeal in the Low Countries, Probst had arrived
back in Wittenberg in April 1522. After spending almost two years there
he, too, was called to Bremen at the recommendations of van Zutphen and
Luther to preach at the Church of Our Lady. The two former colleagues in
Lower Germany thus overlapped in Bremen for more than half a year. In
1532, Probst became superintendent of Bremen and preacher in what, to that
point, had been the cathedral – a career that places him at the forefront of
Bremen’s reformers. The main point, however, is that reuniting these two
Augustinian comrades in the same city was no chance occurrence. It was
done with the clear intent of spreading the Reformation in mind, and it
was probably done with the full cognizance that the two men worked well
together and that they knew the lay of the land and the nature of the people
in that region so near the Low Countries.
Be that as it may, the careers of van Zutphen and Probst also indicate
that the events of the early 1520s continued to influence their lives and
work. Other Reformed Augustinians from Lower Germany also went on
to significant careers in the Reformation. A list of former friars of the Ger-
man Reformed Congregation ‘whose contributions to the Reformation
movement in the cities where they worked, were deemed so impressive as to
but dismisses, an old seventeenth-century tradition that the merchants of Bremen brought van
Zutphen there, and while it does not seem to be the case that merchants were directly involved
in transporting him to Bremen, it is indeed possible that some of them invited him to Bremen.
Iken, Heinrich von Zütphen, p. 32.
Finally, as we have seen, van Zutphen was part of a larger network through which information
traveled. At its center was Wittenberg, which kept track of the conditions as they related to
the Reformation in various cities. It seems likely that through this network, van Zutphen was
somehow given to know that certain constituencies in Bremen saw the situation there as fertile
ground for the Reformation. I think it probable that via one of these avenues van Zutphen was
led to believe that he could expect a warm welcome in Bremen.
54 The most comprehensive description of these events is Martin Luther’s text Von Bruder
Henrico in Ditmar verbrannt samt dem zehnten Psalmen ausgelegt (Wittenberg: Klug, 1525), and
WA 18.2:215–250.
merit individual entries in the Protestant dictionary of Reformers’ has been

compiled by Franz Posset.55 Twenty-two names appear on the list (which
Posset admits is incomplete), four of which belong to men who experienced
the events in the Low Countries that are the subject of this book.56 The
deficiencies of Posset’s list are demonstrated by the fact that my own limited
attempt to discover the later careers of members of this group quickly yielded
three additional names. Moreover, Martin Jung has recently compiled a list
of forty-three names (which he also admits is incomplete) of Augustinian
friars who played significant and public roles in the Reformation.57 Clearly
Luther’s message resonated widely among both Observant and Conventual
Augustinians, but particularly among those who had been party to the
events in Lower Germany.58
What is more, occasionally groups of Reformation-minded refugee friars
from the Low Countries now working in the German-speaking lands are
mentioned, suggesting that the number of seven (the total from Posset’s list
and my efforts) is far too low. First, there are the friars from Dordrecht who
went on to foster the Reformation in the German city of Wesel.59 Second, in
one of his letters from Bremen, van Zutphen mentions that a group of the
friars from the Antwerp cloister who had been released by the inquisitors
were making their way to Wittenberg.60 Thus it comes as no surprise that
Martin Luther ends his 1524 letter of consolation to the imprisoned Lambert
Thorn with greetings from Probst and ‘your other brothers from Antwerp’,
suggesting that a number had found their way to Saxony.61 What became of
these men is for the most part unknown, but it stands to reason that Luther
found them positions in new Reformation Churches.
The fates of those few friars about whom something is known bear out this
supposition. On 17 July 1524, Luther sent Hieronymus Anger of Enkhuizen,
one of the young friars originally picked to study in Wittenberg when the
Enkhuizen cloister was reformed, to support the efforts of his fellow Low-
lander and Luther sympathizer, Prior Johann Steenwyck of the cloister in
Sternberg. Together the two men presided over the dissolution of the cloister.
55 Franz Posset has compiled the list from the Reformatorenlexikon, ed. Stupperich. See Posset,
The Front-Runner, pp. 19–20.
56 These are Adrian Buxschott, Heinrich Himmel, Jacob Probst, and Henrik van Zutphen.
57 Jung, ‘Gerhard Hecker und die Anfänge’, pp. 80–84.
58 For helpful discussion of what many Augustinians may have found appealing in Luther’s
message, see Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 398–402.
59 See Chapter Eight.
60 Zutphen, “Zütphen’s Briefe,” p. 244.
61 ‘et fratres ex Antwerpia tuisque’. WA Br 3:239.
Anger had already worked in the cause of the Reformation in Neustadt on the
Orla.62 Heinrich Himmel, who probably left the Cologne cloister in 1525 when
Nicholas Besler was appointed prior there, returned to Wittenberg, where
he married and was installed as pastor at the Castle Church. In 1527, Luther
recommended him for the position of pastor in Neustadt on the Orla, where
he served for two years before moving on to a similar position in Colditz.
Other posts followed and in the end he had a long career as an evangelical
pastor, dying in 1553.63 Melchior Miritsch, erstwhile prior in Ghent, would
also go on to a modest career as a reformer. Before Miritsch’s sojourn in
the Netherlands, Luther had written positively about him,64 but during the
events of Spring 1522 in the Low Countries the Reformer had repeatedly
expressed his deep disappointment with Miritsch.65 But the two men seem
to have reconciled as Miritsch moved to Magdeburg, set aside his monastic
cowl, married, became the pastor, and co-authored a series of theses against
“the papists”.66 In some ways, Lambert Thorn’s career in the service of the
Reformation came to an end in 1523 when he received his life sentence. But
as has also been noted, he remained an inspiration for Reformation-minded
laity in Antwerp and Brussels until his death in 1528. In 1531, another former
friar from the Antwerp cloister, referred to only as Brother Hadrian, also
met his death at the stake, this time in Flanders. The brother in question
was probably Adrian of Antwerp, who had matriculated along with Himmel
at the University of Wittenberg in October 1516. Although little is known of
his life, Luther mentioned him in August 1517 as one of seven candidates he
was priming for master’s exams.67 Nothing more of him is known outside of
Luther’s comments in the Table Talk, where upon hearing of his execution
Luther noted that his blood now shed would provoke God to send someone
who would give his murderers their own taste of murder.68
62 Günther, Reform und Reformation, pp. 412–413. See Luther’s letter to Johann Steenwyck,
WA Br. 3:323–324.
63 Clemen, ‘Ein Brief von Augustin Himmel’, p. 129.
64 See Luther to Spalatin, 14 January 1519. WABr 1:5.
65 In fact at one point, Luther accused him of being a traitor: ‘Melchior Miritsch, that blessed
theologian, is an agent of the emperor against the Augustinian Order’ (‘Melchior Miritsch est
executor Caesaris contra nostros de ordine Augustini, sanctus ille theologus’). WABr 2:559.
66 See Janicke, Miritz, Melchior, vol. 21, p. 779.
67 In July of 1517, Luther wrote to Lang, mentioning that he was preparing six or seven candidates
for their master’s exams, one of whom, Adrian of Antwerp is, deo volente, composing theses that
will shame Aristotle. WABr 1:100.
68 ‘When it was announced to [Luther] that in 1531 in Flanders a certain Adrian of his order
and from among his students was burned by the Dominicans he said: “Oh! His blood which has
been shed will incite God to send someone to give those murderers [their just reward]”’ (‘Cum
Finally there is Adrian Buxschott, another Antwerp Augustinian who

apparently escaped prosecution, either because he was a citizen of Antwerp
and therefore not subject to arrest by the imperial authorities, or because he
recanted to save his own life. He fled to Wittenberg, where he gave up his
monastic cowl and lived in Luther’s house for a few years until the count of
Hoya requested a learned and experienced man to help with the Reformation
in his lands. Luther recommended Buxschott. Upon arriving in the territory of
Hoya, Buxschott is said to have gone directly to the main church in Neinburg
where a monk was preaching against Luther, and declared: ‘I have been sent
here by the well-born Count Jodocus of Hoya to punish you and your fellow
liars. So tell me you evil monk in front of this whole congregation, where,
when, and in which places has Luther erred?’69 The monk fell silent, left the
pulpit, and was never seen in the territory again. A short time later, Buxschott
challenged all the monks of the territory to a disputation. Because none of them
would engage him, the Reformation of Hoya was carried out, and Buxschott
became a pastor there.70 While this account has a hagiographic feel to it,
Buxschott did play a significant role in the Reformation in Hoya for years to
come. In 1538, with the help of Johannes Timann, pastor in Bremen and fellow
Lowlander, he produced a Church Ordinance for the Lippish Lands. When sent
to Wittenberg, it met the approval of Justas Jonas, Martin Luther, Johannes
Bugenhagen, and Philipp Melanchthon, who referred to it as ‘Christian and
proper’.71 Buxschott remained active in Hoya until his death in 1561.72
Many of the friars who had experienced the events in Lower Germany
in the 1510s and early 1520s retained their fervour for their entire lives. Of
these eight examples, two (in addition to Vos and van den Esschen) met
their fate on the pyre; one died in prison; and if there is any truth to the
story of Buxschott’s interaction with the monk in Neinburg, he certainly
remained zealous. How the authentic experiences of these men in the early
nuntiaretur ei in Flandrias anno 31. Adrianum quondam sui ordinis et discipulum suum exustum
a praedicatoribus monachis esse, dicebat: Wola, ille sanguis, qui nunc funditur, provocabit
Deum, das einer kommen mus, der wird ihn mordens gnug geben’), Luther, Tischreden (=WATr)
1:119f., n 286.
69 ‘Ich bin von dem Wohlgebornen Grafen von Hoya, Herrn Jodoco, zu dem Ende hierher
gefordert worden daß ich dich und deines gleichen Lügen straffe. Darum sage an du boßhaffter
Münch und zwar vor dieser gantzen Gemeinde wo, wenn, und an welchem Ort Lutherus geirret
hat?’ Lehnemann, Historische Nachricht, p. 19.
70 Lehnemann, Historische Nachricht, p. 20.
71 ‘christlich und recht’. These may be found in Robert Stupperich, ed. ‘Melanchthoniana
inedita III’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 52 (1961) 91–93, here at 93.
72 Stupperich, ed., Melanchthonia ineditia, p. 91; Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Kongregation,
p. 390.
Reformation battle in the Low Countries influenced their parishioners and

audience members is difficult to say, but they surely must have.
Conclusion
The case of the German Reformed Augustinians of the Province of Lower

Germany and particularly the executions of Vos and van den Esschen would
reverberate across the German-speaking lands in pamphlet and song. If the
events in Ingolstadt are any indication, it would work itself into the broader
conversation of the early Reformation in the empire, and the zeal and intensity
of those who experienced the conflict in Lower Germany would persist in
influencing colleagues and parishioners alike as these former friars took up
leadership positions in the Reformation. Martin Luther and his colleagues
in Wittenberg would continue to employ the methods used to promote
the Observant cause during the first two decades of the sixteenth century
by sending specific individuals to key posts where they could work in the
service of the Reformation. Both the nature of the events experienced by the
Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany and the administrative strategies
they employed would feed into the dynamics of the early Reformation.
Works Cited
Analecta Lutherana. Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte Luthers, ed. by Theodor
Kolde (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1883).
Anonymous, Dye histori so zwen Augustiner Ordens gemartert seyn tzu Bruxel in
Probant von wegen des Evangelj. Dye Artickel darumb sie verbrent seyn mit yrer
asẞlegung und verklerung, etc, trans. by Martin Reckenhofer (Erfurt: Stürmer, 1523).
Anonymous, Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris sous le règne de François Premier
(1515-1536), ed. by Ludovic Lalanne (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1854).
Aschbach, Joseph Ritter von, Die Wiener Universität und ihre Gelehrten, 1520 bis
1565 (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1888).
Aschoff, Hans-Georg, ‘Bremen Erzstift und Stadt’, in Der Nordwesten. Die Territorien
des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung, Land und
Konfession 1500-1560, ed. by Anton Schindling and Walter Ziegler, 7 vols. (Münster:
Aschendorf, 1991), 3: 44-57.
Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica. Geschriften uit en tijd der hervorming in de
Nederlanden, ed. by Samuel Cramer and Fredrik Pijper, 10 vols. (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1903-1914).
Boehmer, Julius, ‘Die Beschaffenheit der Quellenschriften zu Heinrich Vos und
Johann van den Esschen’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 28 (1931), pp. 112-133.
Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam, in Beiheft zum Zentralblatt für Bib-
liothekswesen 27, ed. by Joseph Förstemann and Otto Günther (Leipzig: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1904).
Brown, Christopher, Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the
Reformation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).
Clemen, Otto, ‘Ein Brief von Augustin Himmel’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
21 (1924), 127-132.
Coct, Anemond de, as quoted in Francois Lambert, Evangalici in Minoritarum
Regulam Commentarij, Quibus, palam sit, tam de illa, quam de alijs Monarchorum
Regulis et constitutionibus sentiendum sit (Wittenberg: n.p., 1523).
by Paul Fredericq, 5 vols. (Gent: J. Vuylsteke, 1889-1902).
Edwards, Mark, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1994).
Emser, Hieronymus, Annotationes Hieronymi Emser uber Luthers naw Testament
gebessert und emendirt (Dresden: Emser, [1524] 1525).
1906-1958).
Ewald, Paul, Geschichte der Pfarrei Plech und Umgegend (Bayreuth: Buchner, 1841).
Grumbach, Argula von, Schriften, ed. by Peter Matheson (Güterloh: Güterloher
Verlaghaus, 2010).
gregation der Augustinereremiten (1432-1539) (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2018).
Hauer, Georg, Drey christlich Predig vom Salue regina, dem Evangeli unnd heyligen
schrift gemeß (n.p: n.p., 1523).

1981), pp. 397-446.
Heyne, Bodo, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen 1522-1524. Am Vorabend – Der Beginn
– Die Bahnbrecher’, Hospitium ecclesiae 8 (1973), 7-54.
Hill, Thomas, Die Stadt und ihr Markt, Bremens Umlands- und Außenbeziehungen
im Mittelalter (12.-15. Jahrhundert) (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004).
Hofmann, Seigfried, Geschichte der Stadt Ingolstadt 1506-1600 (Ingolstadt: Donauku-
rier Verlagsgesellschaft, 2006).
Iken, J. Friedrich, Heinrich von Zütphen, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsge-
schichte 12. (Halle: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1886).
Janicke, Karl, Miritz, Melchior in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 56 vols. (Leipzig:
Duncker and Humblot, 1875-1912).
1500 bis 1700, Kulturregion Osnabrück vol. 31 (Münster: Waxman, 2017), pp. 65-98.
Kolde, Theodor, ‘Arsacius Seehofer und Argula vom Grumbach’, Beiträge zur
bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 11 (1905), 49-77; 97-123; 149-187.
———, Die deutsche Augustiner-Kongregation und Johann von Staupitz (Gotha:
F.A. Perthes, 1879).
Lehnemann, Johannes, Historische Nachricht von der vormahls im sechzehenden
Jahrhundert berühmten Evangelisch-Lutherishcen Kirche in Antorff, und der
daraus entstandenen Niederländischen Gemeinde Augspurgischer Confession
in Franckfurt am Mayn (Frankfurt am Main: Johann Friedrich Fleischer, 1725).
Ludwig, Walther, ed. Vater und Sohn im 16. Jahrhundert: Der Briefwechsel des Wolf-
gang Reichart genannt Rychardus mit seinem Sohn Zeno (1520-1543) (Hildesheim:
Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1991).
(=WA), vols. 1-73 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883-).
vols. 1-18 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930-1985).
vols. 1-6 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921).
Matheson, Peter, Argula von Grumbach Eine Biographie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2014).
Moeller, Bernd, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen’, Jahrbuch der Wittheit zu Bremen 17
(1973), 51-73.
Oecolampadius, Johann, Oecolampadii Judicium de Martino Luther (n.p: n.p., 1520).
Planitz, Hans von der, Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in Nürnberg, 1521-1523, ed.
Johann von Staupitz (Ashgate: Aldershot and Burlington, 2003).
Prantl, Karl von, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität in Ingolstadt,
Landshut, München, 2 vols. (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, [1968] 1972).
Probst, Jacob, Ein schone vnd clegliche history bruder Jacobs probst Augustiner ordens vor
zeiten Prior zu Antdorff an gemeine fromme Christenheit von beiden gefencknissen so
er von wegen des worts gottes vnd vmb des heyligen Euangeliumß willen erlitten hatt.
Ein Epistel darinnen obgemelter bruder Jacob probst vermanet alle die so seine predig
geh[oe]rt habenn vnd sonderlich die zu Antdorff (Colmar: Amandus Farckall, 1524).
———, Fratris Iacobi Praepositi, Augustiniani quondam Prioris Antuuerpiẽsis
historia vtriusque captiuitatis propter verbum Dei. Eiusdem etiam Epistola ad
Auditores suos Antuuerpienses (Wittenberg: Johann Rhau-Grunenberg, 1522).
Raupach, Bernhard, Evangelisches Oesterreich, das ist Historische Nachricht von
den vornehmsten Schicksalen der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchen in dem Ertz-
Hertzogtum Oesterreich (Hamburg: Theodor Christoph Felginers Wittwe, 1736).
Reckenhoffer, Martin, Die Artickel, warumb der rector und Rethe der Hohenschul zu
Jngolstatt zwungen und genöttigt haben zum widerspruch Meyster Arsacium See-
hofer von München, mitampt des lauts der widerrüffung und seiner erklerung. Die
erklerung der Sibenzehen Artickel, durch Mayster Arsacij von München christlich
gelert, und wie unbillich und wider Gott eer gezwungen ist zum widerspruch durch
den Rectorn und Räthe der hohenschul zu Ingolstat, mitsampt dem Lautt seiner
widderfüng, aynem yetlichen wol zubehertzen (Augsburg: Philipp Ulhart, 1524).
Reformatorenlexikon, ed. by Robert Stupperich (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984).
clesiae: Forschungen zur Bremischen Kirchengeschichte) 14 (1985), 11-274.
Bartholomaei, 1725), 4: 389-432.
Stupperich, Robert, ed. ‘Melanchthoniana inedita III’, Archiv für Reformationsge-
schichte 52 (1961), 91-93.
Universitätsarchiv München: D-III-4, S. 147 fols.; and D-III-6, 5, fol. 212 v.
VIII, 21 vols. (London: Longman, 1864-1932).
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zütphen’s Briefe‘, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken Bremisches
Jahrbuch 2. 1 (1885), 241-252.
10. The Marian Dimension
Abstract
Chapter Ten investigates the influence of these events on the Reforma-
tion dispute over the proper understanding of the Virgin Mary within
Christianity. Vos and van den Esschen were executed on the eve of the
festival of Mary’s Visitation and it did not take long for the rumour to
spread that at the last moment, they recanted, a turn of heart attributed
to Mary’s miraculous intervention and a demonstration of her agency as
a saint. Aware of the dangers posed by an overly aggressive critique of
Marian piety, supporters of Reformation theology responded in gentle and
subtle ways. This chapter offers an example of how these events became
embedded in a broader Reformation debate about sainthood and the role
of Mary within Christianity.
Keywords: Marian Piety, Virgin Mary, Inquisition, Protestant Marian

Antiphons
As news of the events that ended with the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen rippled outward, key individuals like the anonymous pamphlet-
eers, Martin Luther, Claes vander Elst, and George Hauer interpreted and
explained it in various ways, ascribing to it diverse meanings that then
went on to have their own impact.1 Up to this point, I have investigated
the influence of these interpretations from the perspective of geography:
in concentric circles beginning with the person of Martin Luther, then
moving to the region of the Low Countries, then the German-speaking
lands more broadly. But the executions of Vos and van den Esschen also
became fodder for both sides in some of the broader doctrinal arguments
of the period. For example, reactions to the event became a forum for ques-
tions surrounding martyrdom and sainthood, as has been noted by several
1 Much of this chapter has been previously published as ‘The Marian Dimension to the First
Executions of the Reformation’, Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015), 1–27.
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch10
historians.2 Such uses of the executions should come as no surprise, for

one side declared the men heretics, while the other, with Luther leading
the way, immediately christened them the Reformation’s first martyrs.
But what historians have failed to adequately note is that this dispute also
became an arena for the debate regarding the nature, role, and powers of the
Virgin Mary that was already underway between adherents of the church
and those pressing for Reformation. This is but one more way in which the
events that transpired among the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany
impacted the Reformation.
The figure of Mary, the loving and longsuffering mother of Jesus, em-
pathetic and compassionate intercessor for humanity before a righteous
and sometimes wrathful God, and virtuous and eternally pure maiden
favoured by the divine and called blessed by an angel, was among the most
ubiquitous, prominent, and attractive aspects of late medieval Christianity.
Evidence of her mass appeal could be found throughout Europe: by 1500, most
churches had at least one altar dedicated to her, and news of her miraculous
intervention could promptly inspire a new pilgrimage site that would attract
armies of admirers.3 Seven feast days commemorating key events in Mary’s
life were celebrated during the church year, and confraternities devoted
to the Virgin and to the rosary abounded. Among the clergy, there even
raged a debate as to whether Mary should be named co-redemptrix, equal
with Christ in the work of saving humankind from eternal damnation, a
position favoured in particular by many in the Franciscan Order. Devotion
to Mary, it seems, crossed geographical, social, intellectual, and cultural
boundaries. Although a few scattered individuals voiced uneasiness about
the tendency to focus on Mary rather than Christ, or were embarrassed
by the suspect nature of the legends that had grown up around her life, it
would be difficult to overstate her popularity.4 The Virgin Mary was deeply
beloved by Christian Europe.
2 For the executions’ impact on notions of martyrdom see especially Gregory, Salvation at
Stake; for their impact on disputes over the nature of sainthood, see especially Oettinger, Music
as Propaganda, p. 61–69.
3 In the Bavarian city of Regensburg, for example, news in 1519 that Mary had miraculously
restored the health of a worker injured during the demolition of a synagogue brought a reputed
50,000 pilgrims to a quickly-erected shrine within the f irst month. MacCulloch, ‘Mary and
Sixteenth-Century Protestants’, p. 197.
4 In 1509, for example, while criticizing the superstitions he saw in lay religiosity, Erasmus
of Rotterdam raised the point that ‘the common person comes close to attributing more to
[Mary] than to her son’ (‘cui vulgus hominum plus prope tribuit quam filio’). Erasmus, Morae
Encomivm, p. 124. For pre-Reformation critique of the cult of the Virgin, see MacCulloch, ‘Mary
and Sixteenth-Century Protestants’, pp. 192–196; and Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 47–53.
The Marian Dimension 197
For this reason, the reformers had a problem. Criticizing such a popular
and ubiquitous object of piety was an undertaking fraught with danger,
especially because, unlike other forms of popular piety whose origins
could easily be dismissed as non-biblical or tenuously connected to events
of the Bible, Mary played a central and venerable role in the narrative of
salvation. Thus with regard to Mary, the magisterial reformers desired
to offer a corrective, not a rejection. Their objective was to prune away
the intercessory powers attributed to Mary and the extra-biblical legends
surrounding her life while retaining and even celebrating her humility,
acceptance of God’s plan, loyalty, human suffering, status as a model of
chastity and domesticity, and most importantly her faith in her son as the
only means of salvation. This was a delicate undertaking.5 And it did not
take long for some of the reformers to find themselves on the defensive
over their pronouncements regarding Mary.6 Moreover, it is no accident
that as the Counter-Reformation gathered steam later in the century, Mary
became ‘an emblem of Catholic allegiance, a rallying point for the Catholic
cause’.7 As a result of the difficulties surrounding the critique of Marian
piety one historian has suggested that, ‘Magisterial reformers […] were
always uncomfortably conscious that they were skating on thin ice when
they took to cutting Mary down to size’.8
How, then, does the issue of Marian piety connect with the executions
of Vos and van den Esschen? Although their views on Mary contributed
to their demise, both supporters and critics of the friars agreed that their
deaths were primarily the result of their refusal to accept the authority of
the Roman church. But that is not to say that their critique of Mary played
no part: in his letter confirming Frans van der Hulst as papal inquisitor,
Pope Adrian VI recounted the errors of Luther and his followers for which
5 Martin Luther points to the difficulty of criticizing Marian piety when he begins his 1522
sermon on the feast of Mary’s birth with the admission: ‘You know, my friend, that the honor
afforded to the Mother of God is deeply entrenched in people’s hearts, and that no one wants
to hear anything contrary to it, but rather only that which increases and enlarges it’ (‘Ir wißt,
mein freünd, das gar tieff in die hertzen der menschen gebildet ist die ere die man thut der
mutter gotes, also auch das man nicht gern dawider hort reden, sonder allain meret und grosser
macht’). Luther, Abteilung Werke (=WA) 10:3, 313.
6 Already in the early 1520s, Luther, Zwingli, and Erasmus all found themselves refuting
statements that they had allegedly made about Mary. Zwingli was forced to respond to the
accusation that he had referred to her as a stupid woman and had ridiculed her purity, rumours
used by his opponents to discredit him. Luther had to defend himself against the charge that
he had preached against Mary’s perpetual virginity. Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 63.
7 Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 149.
8 MacCulloch, ‘Mary and Sixteenth-Century Protestants’, p. 205.
van der Hulst must now be on the lookout, among them the claim that
prayers to the Virgin Mary were not efficacious.9 But more importantly,
after the executions took place, some commentators claimed that Mary had
intervened at the last moment, causing a change of heart in the condemned.
As a result, her veneration became a point of contention in the literature
produced after the event, and the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen one
platform on which the debate over Mary was played out.
Before addressing the case directly, it is important to note that Antwerp
was as suffused with Marian piety as anywhere in late medieval Europe.
For anyone visiting the modern-day city on the Scheldt, it is difficult not to
be struck by the ubiquity of Marian images, evidence of the city’s long and
close relationship with the saint that began in 873 when Vikings destroyed
a local castle, among the ruins of which a miraculous statue of the Virgin
appeared. Since then, Mary has been the patron saint of Antwerp, with
all the successive iterations of its main church dedicated to her. Today’s
iteration, the Church of Our Lady, boasts a massive side-chapel centred
around a spectacularly adorned, life-sized statue of Mary saved by local
citizens during the outbreaks of iconoclasm of the later sixteenth century.
But images of the Virgin are not confined to the city’s sacred spaces. On
many of the street corners, niches have been cut into the second-story
corners of buildings in which are exhibited statues of various saints, with
Mary by far the most popular.10 Evidence of the legal enforcement of Marian
veneration also remains. Ordinances of Emperor Charles V from 1 November
1517 and 5 January 1519 criminalize blasphemy against God, but also against
the glorious and pure Virgin Mary.11 In 1525, Michiel Bramaert learned to
his detriment that Charles and his queen regent, Margaret, were serious
about such laws when, having been convicted of blasphemy against the
Virgin for the second time, he was banned from Antwerp, required to go
on a pilgrimage, and had his tongue bored through.12 All of this material
culture and evidence of legal enforcement speaks to a society in which
Marian piety was deeply engrained.
9 Corpus documentorum (=CD) 4: doc. 136.

10 The standard, if flawed, work on the relationship of the city of Antwerp to the Virgin Mary
is Thijssen, Antwerpen Vermaard.
11 See ‘Ordonnance de Charles, roi de Castille, contre les blasphémateurs’ (30 November 1517)
and ‘Ordonnance de Charles, roi de Castille, mitigeant les peines comminées par l’ordonnance
contre les blasphémateurs’ (5 January 1519) in Laurent, ed., Des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas,
pp. 602–603, 665.
12 See AAVII, 6/9/25 in Antwerpsch Archievenblad, vol. 7, p. 142; and Ullens, Antwerpsch
Chronykje, p. 26.
It was against this backdrop that the Antwerp Augustinians preached

during the early years of the Reformation, and their close association with
Luther makes his views on Marian piety a logical starting point. It is perhaps
worth noting that when Augustinian friars took their vows, they promised
obedience not only to God and their prior but ‘to blessed Mary, ever virgin’.13
Despite this, by 1522 Luther had questioned the church’s understanding of
Mary in multiple sermons and treatises,14 and in that year he published his
Sermon on the Birth of Mary, the Mother of God, in which he directly criticized
Marian piety and the veneration of the saints. He asserted that the church
had been treating Mary as if she were a goddess, argued that the true way
to honour the saints was to care for poor Christians, and recommended
that Mary should indeed be held in esteem, but not above others. She,
like everyone else, was made righteous by Christ.15 In particular, Luther
criticized the two well-known Marian antiphons, the Salve Regina and the
Regina Coeli:
Look at the declarations we make concerning the Holy Virgin Mary in

the Salve Regina. Who is to blame for insisting that she is our life, our
consolation, and our sweetness when she [herself] thought it sufficient
to be considered a humble vessel? Such prayers are sung throughout the
world with church bells accompanying them. And the same goes for the
Regina Coeli, which is no better, where she is called the queen of heaven.
Does it not dishonour Christ to give to a creature what belongs to God?
So let us cease with such incompetent formulations. I am glad to have
her pray for me, but that she is my consolation and life, I do not want;
and your prayer is appreciated as much as hers.16
13 Saak, Highway to Heaven, p. 635.

14 See, for example Martin Luther’s sermons In die conceptionis Marie (1519), WA 9:432–434;
Mariae Heimsuchung (1520) WA 9:474–475; In die purificacionis marie (1521), WA 9:565–571;
and his treatise Das Magnificat verdeutschet und ausgelegt, (1521), WA 7:538–604. For more on
Luther’s views on Mary see especially Brooks, ‘A Lily Ungilded?’; and Düfel, Luthers Stellung zur
Marienverehrung.
15 Martin Luther, Sermon von der Geburt Maria, WA 10:3:312–331.
16 ‘Secht nu was das fur wortt seind, die wir der heiligen jungfrawen Marie zu legen im Salve
Regina. Wer wyl daz verantwurten das sy unser leben, unser trost, unser süssykeit sein sol, so sy
sich doch last benügen daß sie ein armes gefesz sey. Solch gebet singt mann durch dye gantzen
welt und leutt gross glocken dartzu. Der gleichen ist es mit dem Regina Coeli, weliches nit besser
ist do man sy ein kunigin des himels nent. Ist das nit ein on ehr Christo gethon daß einer creatur
wirt tzu gelegt das allein got gebirt. Darum last von solchen ongeschickten worten. Gern will
ich haben dz sy für mich bit. Aber das sey mein trost und leben sey wil ich nit und dein gebet
ist mir gleych als lieb als das ir’. WA 10:3:321–322.
While Mary is not denigrated in these passages, Luther did attempt to reduce
her to the status of a woman in need of God’s grace like every other woman,
one whose prayers are welcomed, but not more than anyone else’s. At the
same time, he elevated the spiritual status of his audience by increasing
the value of their prayers to the level of the petitions of the Virgin, an ap-
proach that would appear in a slightly altered version in the preaching of
the Antwerp Augustinians.
As noted in Chapter Six, although limited evidence regarding precisely
what these Augustinians preached has survived, it is clear that they spoke
in a manner similar to Luther against the veneration of saints in general and
Mary in particular. Like Luther, they demonstrated a clear understanding
of the sensitive nature of critiquing Marian piety, approaching the Blessed
Virgin with exceptional restraint. Our best evidence for this tactic comes
from the mouth of Hendrik van Zutphen, who as we have seen was not in
the habit of practicing moderation in his preaching. Evidence from the
report of the Bremen Cathedral canon, Paul Bähr, regarding his ‘heretical’
preaching includes the following article:
Contrary to the Holy Mother Church, Brother Hendrik was not afraid to
preach and teach publicly that the undefiled Virgin Mary should not be
venerated as holy by Christians, nor is she most blessed, as the church
sings. For she is not referred to as ‘most blessed’ in the Gospels.
‘But’, continues Bähr in response to van Zutphen’s assertion, ‘it does [in fact]
say in a certain passage of the Gospel: “Blessed is the womb that carried
you and the breasts which gave you suck.” [Luke 11:27] And the angel calls
her full of grace, just as it is written concerning St. Stephen: “[He was] full of
grace and courage [Acts 6:8]”’. Bähr adds that, ‘[van Zutphen] said likewise
that an evil mother was able to carry a good child, so he dared to remark
to a boy or man of great virtue, “Blessed is the womb that carried you.”
Thus [he implied] that an evil woman is equal with the Virgin Mary’.17
17 ‘Item ponit et dicit, quod prefatus assertus frater Hinricus non formidavit publice predicare
et docere contra sanctam matrem ecclesiam, quod intemerata virgo Maria non esset adeo sancta
prout a christianis veneraretur nec esset beatissima, ut ecclesia caneret; quia non venit scriptum
in evangelio, ubi nominaretur beatissima, sed legit quidem in certo passu evangelii: Beatus
venter, qui te portavit, et ubera, que sumisti et cet. Angelus nominavit eam plenam gratia, sicut
de sancto Steffano etiam legitur: plenus gratia et fortitudine. Et addidit idem, quod Hinricus in
simili, quod mala mater quemque bonum puerum portare posset, ut indies audiretur dici ad
iuvenem sue virum virtutibus pollentem: Beatus venter qui te portavit, ita equiparando malam
mulierem virgini marie’. Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 73.
It seems reasonable to assume that van Zutphen did not essentially alter
his message on the way from Antwerp to Bremen, a supposition made all
the more probable when it is noted that, as Bähr went on to indicate, with
regard to the images of saints, van Zutphen’s rhetoric remained militant:
they ought to be burned or thrown down a well.18 Thus it does not appear
to be the case that, having been forced to flee one city, a chastened van
Zutphen toned down his message in the next.
Van Zutphen’s references to Mary are striking. First, it should be noted that
he focuses solely on the issue of Marian veneration, grounding his critique in
Scripture. Van Zutphen claims there is no evidence in the Gospels to suggest
that she was ‘most blessed’ or holy, a point Bähr disputes. Such an argument
consists simply of the application of Luther’s assertion of sola scriptura, the
pruning away of any characteristics attributed to Mary that had not been
explicitly stated in the scriptures. Second, in attempting to reduce Mary
to the level of all humanity, van Zutphen not only suggests that an evil
mother could give birth to a good child, implying that Mary suffered from
the same sinfulness as all of humanity but still gave birth to a sinless child,
but he implies its inverse as well, namely that every woman was equal with
Mary. It is just this point that van Zutphen seems to emphasize. By using
the words of the woman who said to Jesus, ‘Blessed is the womb that carried
you’ (Luke 11:27) to refer to various women of Bremen with exceptionally
virtuous children, he is in fact elevating them to the status of Mary, albeit
a status that he has reduced.19 In comparison with the normally fiery van
Zutphen’s calls for iconoclasm against the images of the saints, his comments
about Mary are restrained and measured. What is more, in his approach
to the Virgin he seems to have found a way to advance the standing of all
women. Precisely how this message was received by his female audience is
unknown, but it bears repeating that in Antwerp, van Zutphen was freed by
a mob of angry women, and the Antwerp Augustinians found significant
support among the laity in general.20
18 Bähr, ‘Häretische Sätze’, p. 73.

19 This statement appears to reflect and amplify the strategy of Luther exhibited in the quotation
above, namely to reduce the status of Mary while at the same time elevating the status of the
audience to her level.
20 Another aspect of the Antwerp Augustinians’ message that may have resonated with the
female population was their assertion that not only laymen, but also lay women could hear
confession. Evidence for this claim is found among the articles for which Hendrik Vos was
condemned, which included the following: ‘All men are able to remit sins – any Christian
whosoever, as long as he understands how to correct a neighbor in a brotherly way’; and ‘Women
are able to absolve men from sin. He [Vos] claims this regarding evangelical absolution,’ continues
the scribe, ‘because it follows from the verse, ‘If your brother should sin against you, etc. [Matt.
Prior to the executions of Vos and van den Esschen and the closing of
their cloister, the Antwerp Augustinians’ criticism of medieval Marian piety
had been but one aspect of their message. During and after the executions,
however, the conflict over the status of the Virgin became increasingly
central in the case. The first question that arises regarding this transforma-
tion is just why these two men were executed on the 1 July, the eve of the
festival of the Visitation of Mary? Was this a case of ritual violence in which
the timing was imbued with meaning, so that the burning of the men on the
eve of a Marian feast became an act of symbolic retribution? In other words,
because the men had “attacked” Mary, they would now be burned on the
eve of Mary’s day? Or did the authorities hope to encourage the miraculous
intervention of the Virgin? Unfortunately there is no direct evidence from
those who carried out the executions to indicate why they decided on this
particular date after the men had already sat in prison for eight months.21
But it seems plausible and even likely that the authorities picked the date
in order to send a message, for meaning-filled ritual pervaded the case of
the Antwerp Augustinians from the beginning.
Already eight months earlier on 7 October 1522, the day after all the friars of
the Observant Augustinian convent in Antwerp had been arrested, the queen
regent had presided over the procession that ritually removed the host from the
Augustinian cloister church and solemnly processed it to the Church of Our
Lady. The message of these actions seems clear: the friars had lapsed into heresy,
transforming their church into an unclean space and necessitating the transfer
of the host to a place befitting its holiness. This action was a mere precursor to
what Margaret hoped would be the destruction of the Augustinians’ church, an
act that would have sent a pretty clear message had not Charles V intervened
and, with the consent of the pope, turned it into a parish church.
It should come as no surprise that the actual burning of Vos and van den
Esschen was filled with all of the ritual and meaning normally associated
with the execution of heretics.22 The anonymous pamphlet entitled The Story
18:15]’ (‘Omnes homines possunt remittere peccata cuiuslibet Christiani, qui sciunt corripere
fraternaliter proximum. Mulieres possunt absoluere homines a peccatis, quod intelligit de
Evangelica absolutione, quae continetur ibi: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus etc.’). Anonymous,
Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, p. 7. Thus, it seems, Vos included women under the biblical
category of ‘brother,’ a fact that may indicate that the Augustinians used what we might call
“gender-inclusive” language more broadly in their preaching.
21 As mentioned in chapter four, the decision to execute them must have been made shortly
after van der Hulst was appointed papal inquisitor on 1 June 1523. But this does not explain the
precise date that was chosen.
22 The question of the meaning of the rituals surrounding the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen is somewhat complicated by the nature of the authorities who executed them. They
of two Augustinians Burned in Brussels for the sake of the Gospel describes
the scene:
It occurred in the plaza on the day before the Visitation of the Virgin
Mother of God. Three orders of mendicants arrived, as those familiar with
this know, proceeded by banners with crosses, just as they are accustomed
to arrive with solemn pomp. The professors of sacred theology having
been seated in order, with abbots’ mitres and bejewelled feet visible, they
arrived at the place of the bishop, [where they took up positions] with
quite a few others on the platform, for a very large stage had been erected
in front of the basilica that the common people call the senate building.23
The narrator continues, noting that in the middle of the stage was a table
decorated as if it were an altar before which the action would take place.
First the ceremony of degradation was completed, with one priest performing
the ritual actions while another preached a sermon that lasted about an
hour. The sixteenth-century historian Johannes Sleidanus, in his account
of the execution of Vos and van den Esschen, describes such a ceremony:
Before [Vos and van den Esschen] were executed, their ordination was
removed and they were ‘defrocked’ as one commonly puts it. This process
goes as follows: once a person who is a priest is condemned as a heretic
by a spiritual judge, he is clothed in his priestly robe. A chalice filled with
water and wine and a paten on which sits unleavened bread are placed
in his hands. With these things, he kneels before the bishop’s vicar, who
takes one after the other away and forbids him henceforth from saying
were members of the short-lived (1521-1523) secular inquisition established by Charles V, the
head of which, Frans van der Hulst, was also named papal inquisitor on 1 June 1523. This judicial
body does not yet seem to have established a clear protocol for executing heretics. Despite
this fact, the executions incorporated some elements of an auto de fe. For example, there was
a procession that included members of the mendicant orders and nobility, temporary seating
erected for the dignitaries and a stage for the ritual degradation, an important site chosen to
enhance the dignity of the event, and the condemned dressed in yellow, the colour signifying
treason. For contemporary descriptions of the executions see Anonymous, Historia de Duobus
Augustinensibus, pp. 1–4; and Anonymous, Der Actus und handlung. For a thorough description
of the auto de fe ritual and its meaning, see Bethencourt, The Inquisition, esp. pp. 246–314.
23 ‘Pridie Visitationis Deiparae uirginis concurritur in forum. Conueniunt ordines mendi-
cantium tres, neque enim plures, uti nosti, hic sunt, praeeunte uexillo crucis, veluti solent cum
solenni pompa incedunt. Considentibus ordine iam sacrae Theologiae professoribus, abbatibus
mitris et gemmatis pedis conspicuis, quo loco Episcoporum aderant, & alijs nonnullis in pulpito.
Nam pulpitum erectum erat peramplum ante Basilicam, quam vulgo senatoriam domum uocant’.
Anonymous, Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus, p. 1.
mass for the living and the dead. After that, the vicar takes a glass shard
and slices his finger, cutting it so that he can no longer give the blessing.
Then the robe is removed and each [heretic] is given a special curse. And
when one is defrocked from the priesthood, so all the other grades and
ordinations through which one becomes a priest are taken away. So having
been undressed and re-clothed in secular clothes, he is handed over to the
temporal authorities. And the bishop’s vicar requests that nothing further
be done for his life and body. Such ceremonies are performed so that the
spirituals […] are not despised as guilty of such punishments and his blood.24
Each step in this ritual was meant to remove a different aspect of priestly
ordination and its concomitant powers: the ability to consecrate the bread
and the wine, the authority to say masses for the living and the dead, the
capacity to bless, and finally the robe signifying priestly status. Although
we do not know what the cleric preaching the sermon said as these actions
were taken, undoubtedly his words further accentuated the meaning of the
ritual being performed. In the end, the ecclesiastical authorities arranged
on the dais withdrew their spiritual connections to the men, washing their
hands of the violence that would befall them.
In both cases – the removal of the Eucharist from the Augustinians’
church and the rituals surrounding the friars’ degradations and executions
– who was involved, in what order they processed, what they wore, and what
actions they took were all matters saturated with meaning, a meaning so
clear to the participants and spectators that no one bothered to explain
it. Was the decision to execute the men on the eve of the festival of Mary’s
Visitation, a point made prominently in the above-mentioned description,
24 ‘Ehe man sie aber hinrichtet hat man ihnen zuvor die Weihe abgenomen und sie degradieret,
wie man es gemeiniglich denn nennet. Dasselbig gehet also zu. So einer der Ketzerey halben
vom Geistlichen Richter verdammet wird, und ein Priester ist, so leget man im Preisterliche
Kleidung an und gibet im einen Kelch in die hand darin Wasser und Wein ist, sampt einer
guldenen Paten darauff ungesewert Brodt liget. Mit solchem kniet er vor des Bischoffs vicari
nider, der nimpt im dann eines nach dem anderen ab und verbeut im das er hinfurt nicht mehr
opffere für die lebendingen und die todten. Darnach nimpt er ein glasscherben und schabet
im die finger und leget im auf dass er hinfurt nichts mehr gesegene. Nach solchem nimpt er im
auch die Kleider ab und brauchet zu einem jeden einen sonderlichen fluch. Und so einer also
entweihet ist von dem Priesterthumb, so zeucht man im auch alle andere gradus unnd Weihe
ab durch welche er zu dem Preisterthumb kommen ist. So er den also abgezogen und man im
andere Weltliche Kleider angelegt hat, uberantwortet man in der Weltlichen Oberkeit und bittet
des Bischoffs Vicari das man im an seinem liebe oder leben nichts weiteres thun wolle. Solche
Ceremonien geschehen darum damit die Geistlichen […] an solcher straffe und seinem Blut
nichts als schuldig geachtet werden’. Sleidanus, Warhafftige beschreibung, p. 76.
similarly meaningful? It seems likely, particularly when it is noted that in

the popular imagination the eve of a festival would have been regarded as
integral to its observation, since a vespers service on the evening prior to
the festival day marked the beginning of its celebration.25 What is more,
at least one contemporary also suggested that the date of the executions
was not chosen randomly. As has been noted in the last chapter, six weeks
after the event, the Ingolstadt cleric Georg Hauer asserted that the men had
been executed ‘on the eve of Mary’s Visitation, for they were not worthy of
the day itself.’26 Although not involved in the planning of the event, Hauer
assigned a clear motive to the decision on the timing of the executions.
Moreover, it would not be without precedent that the authorities were
actually hoping for a change of heart by the men, a change that might then
be attributed to the saint on whose festival day the conversion took place.
A year and a half earlier when Jacob Probst had recanted, his decision to do so
fell on the festival of Conversion of St. Paul (25 January 1522). The inquisitors
in this case, the same ones who would execute Vos and van den Esschen
eighteen months later, immediately credited Probst’s change of heart to the
merciful intercession of St. Paul.27 A few years after the two Augustinians
were executed, Erasmus would write that when a victim of the church’s
inquisition remained steadfast in the fire, the rumour was often spread
that he recanted at the last moment. ‘In this way,’ claimed Erasmus, ‘[the
authorities] hope to rob a man of any praise for standing by his beliefs and
to escape the hostility of the multitude and their suspicions that the charge
was false’.28 Erasmus then went on to describe how this had occurred in the
case of Vos and van den Esschen: the authorities had insisted that the friars
had recanted at the last moment due to the miraculous intervention of the
Virgin Mary. If it was common practice to attribute the decision to recant to
the saint on whose day that “recantation” took place, or (if we are to believe
Erasmus) to start rumours of last-second recantations, it does not seem
far-fetched to assume that some forethought was given by the authorities
to the timing of the executions.29 In fact it is likely that the decision to burn
the men on the festival of the Visitation of Mary was made intentionally.

26 ‘als am abent der haimsuechung Marie (sye wurden des tags nit wirdig)’. Hauer, Drey christlich
Predig, p. 4.
27 Probst himself makes this claim. Probst, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia, p. 54.
28 ‘[Q]uo simul et vindicatae religionis laudem auferant, et multitudinis inuidiam calumniaeque
suspicionem effugiant’. Erasmus to Charles Utenhove, 1 July 1529, Opus epistolarum, vol., 8, p. 211.
29 Although I have found no evidence that during the early modern period heretics were burned
intentionally on saints days, or more specifically on Marian holidays, their executions were not
As Erasmus’s letter indicates, immediately following the executions,

references to the Virgin’s miraculous intervention began to appear, and it is
possible in some cases to track their origins. One of the first reactions to the
news comes in a letter by Frans van der Hulst. On the day of the burnings he
wrote a letter to a colleague who had been active in the case but was not on
hand for the deaths. In it, van der Hulst relates his joy at having been told by
the confessors who had accompanied the men to the stake that, with their
last breaths, the friars had recanted their heresies and returned to the church.
This retraction was done with such fervour and conviction, claimed van der
Hulst, ‘that to the bystanders, it appeared almost miraculous’.30 He ended his
letter by urging his colleague to publicize this information.31 It seems that the
colleague did, and coming on the eve of the festival of Mary’s Visitation it did
not take long to connect an event that was ‘almost miraculous’ to the Virgin.
From one of the pamphlets produced in the wake of the executions we
learn one origin of that connection. The festival of the Visitation was a
mandatory holiday, meaning that Christians were required to celebrate
it. Tradition suggests that it would have been marked by the opening of
altarpieces to illustrate the story of the festival, with the altars decorated
with Marian images and the clergy clothed in richly embroidered chasubles;
masses would include sermons in the vernacular, highlighting key Marian
themes.32 It was during just such a sermon in Brussels on the day after the
executions that a cleric claimed that ‘at the last moment the men had rejected
their errors due to the prayers of certain people and by the intercession of
the Virgin Mary, which was a miracle’, before going on to say that the clerics
in Leuven had asserted the same thing.33 This claim of the last second
change of heart not only served to delegitimize the “Lutheran” doctrines the
men had been preaching, but more specifically it demonstrated that their
scheduled randomly. Often they were performed on a Sunday due to the day’s special hallowed
nature. And the highest proportion were carried out in Lent, often on the f ifth Sunday, the
most solemn day prior to Holy Week, because the first verse of that Sunday’s Psalm was ‘Judge
me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and
unjust man.’ (Psalm 43:1). Thus, as Francisco Bethencourt has noted, ‘the choice of date […] was
a crucial element in the spectacle’. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, pp. 253–254.
30 ‘ita ut ferme miraculose istud accidisse visum sit’. Letter of Frans van der Hulst to Jan Pascha,
1 July 1523, CD 4: doc. 144.
31 CD 4: doc. 144.
33 ‘[I]n extremo momento defecisse eos ab erroribus, quod quidem precibus quorundam &
divae Virginis benef icio, quae miraculum aedidisset’. Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus,
p. 4. It is unclear whether this last phrase regarding the clerics in Leuven refers to the Marian
involvement in the last-minute conversion or only the last-minute conversion itself.
teachings regarding Mary (that she had no miraculous powers, nor was she
able to intercede on behalf of a sinner) had been false. Mary could indeed
save a suppliant in the hour of death. And it appears that the assertion of
the Blessed Virgin Mary’s role in their conversion was spread not only via
this pamphlet, but more broadly by the churchmen involved in the case, for
as noted in Chapter Eight, six years later when Erasmus recalled the event,
he claimed that the judges had spread the ‘ridiculous lie’ that at the last
moment the men had recanted due to the intercession of the Virgin Mary.34
The inquisitors, it seems, set the stage for Mary’s connection to this event,
crediting her with saving the two men from the fires of hell.
George Hauer, as we have seen, had a different interpretation.35 In his
sermon on the festival of the Assumption, he claimed that the Virgin had al-
lowed the two men to be rewarded for their attacks with wretched deaths. But
instead of repeating the earlier interpretation that her miraculous interven-
tion caused the men to recant, he noted that they had to be dragged to their
deaths, thereby insinuating that Mary did not save them, but abandoned them
to damnation. These Augustinians were thus punished precisely for their
disrespect for the Virgin, not only with death but with eternal damnation, as
signified by the fact that they refused to accept their fate, demonstrating fear
rather than peaceful resignation. Clearly, their consciences were troubled.
It did not take long for pro-Reformation forces to respond to the Church’s
claims regarding Mary’s participation in this event, but instead of addressing
the rumour directly, something difficult to disprove, they chose to reply
in subtle and implicit ways. In ‘A New Song Here Shall Be Begun’, Luther
himself addressed the men’s alleged recantation, boldly stating that it was
a lie fabricated by the authorities to cover their crime, but he did not take
up the issue of Mary’s purported intervention.36 Nonetheless, historians
34 Erasmus to Utenhove, Opus epistolarum, vol. 8, pp. 211–12.

35 See Chapter Nine.
36 ‘But yet their lies they will not leave,
To trim and dress the murther;
The fable false which out they gave,
Shows conscience grinds them further.
God’s holy ones, e’en after death,
They still go on belying;
They say that with their latest breath,
The boys, in act of dying,
Repented and recanted’. Luther’s Works, vol. 53, p. 216.
‘Noch laßen sie yr lugen nicht,
denn grossen mordt zu schmucken,
Sie gehen fur eyn falsch getycht,
Dick Ackerboom and Marcel Gielis have argued that Luther did indeed
respond to such claims in both the final stanza of his ballad and in his Open
Letter to the Christians of the Low Countries, where he employed imagery
from the first nocturne of the matins for the festival of the Visitation of
Mary. The reading is Song of Songs 2:11–12: ‘For, lo, the winter is past, the
rain is over and gone, the flowers appear in the earth, the time of singing
of birds is come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land’. In the
last stanza of his ballad, Luther uses precisely this imagery to describe the
re-emergence of the Gospel, a blossoming that he insists is demonstrated
by the deaths of these two men:
Even at the door is summer nigh,

The winter now is ended,
The tender flowers come out and spy.37
And in his letter to the Christians of the Low Countries, he refers to this
passage even more explicitly: ‘But now the time has come that we hear the
voice of the turtledoves and the flowers bloom in our land. Of this joy, my
friends, you are not only partakers, but are the first ones through whom we
have experienced such joy and delight’.38 The reading describes the effect
of Christ’s birth on the peoples of the earth. Is Luther here carefully but
artfully responding to the inquisitors’ claims regarding Mary’s intervention
by applying this reading from the celebration of her Visitation to support
his own interpretation of events – namely, that Christ has returned because
the Gospel is once again being preached? It is impossible to say, but Dick
Akerboom and Marcel Gielis have argued that he is.39
Perhaps more direct evidence that the executions became a battleground
for the burgeoning Reformation debate over the Virgin Mary may be found in
instances where pamphlets describing these events were published together
yr gwissen thut sie drucken;

die Heylgen Got’s auch nach dem todt
von yn gelestert werden,
Sie sagen in der letzten nott
die knaben noch auf erden
Sich sollen han umbkeret’. Luther, Ein neues Lied wir heben an, WA 35:414.
37 ‘Der Sommer ist hart für der Thür / Der Winter ist vergangen, / Die zarten Blümlein geh’n
herfür’. WA 35: 414.
38 ‘Aber nu ist die zeyt widder komen, das wir der dordel tauben stym hören und die blumen
aufgehen ynn unserm land. Wilcher freud, meyn liebsten, yhr nicht alleyne teylhafftig, sondern die
furnehmsten worden seyt, an wilchen wyr solche freude und wonne erlebt haben’. WA 12:77–78.
39 Akerboom and Gielis, ‘“A New Song Shall Begin Here”’, p. 265.
with other materials, as so often happened during the Reformation. In at least

one, but probably two editions of An Account of the Divestment and Burning
of the three Christian Knights and Martyrs of the Augustinian Order, a second
text entitled ‘The Proper Christian “Salve”’ is also included.40 Printed first in
Latin, then in German, this text is a reworked version of the Salve Regina in
which supplications to Mary are replaced with appeals to Christ. Thus the
whole Salve Regina is transformed into an entirely Christocentric appeal
in which Christ is repeatedly referred to as ‘our only mediator.’ In 1523, the
Nuremberg rector, Sebald Heyden, had prepared a Christological version
of the Salve Regina, which was then sung at the Diet of Nuremberg in that
year, and the version published together with the account of the burnings
appears to be his work in a slightly altered form. 41 When compared with
the first verse of the traditional Salve Regina, the method used by Heyden
becomes clear. The traditional Salve goes as follows:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,

Our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we send up our sighs,
Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, o most gracious advocate,
Thine eyes toward us;
And after this, our exile,
Show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
40 Hildegard Hebenstreit-Wilfert refers to only one edition of the pamphlet that includes the
‘Recht christliche Salve’, an edition from Speyer designated VD16 A 177 in Verzeichnis der Drucke
16. Hebenstreit-Wilfert, ‘Märtyrerflugschiften der Reformationszeit’, p. 399. In this version, the
German ‘Recht christliche Salve’ precedes the Latin version. But Cramer and Pijper, who include
the ‘Recht christliche Salve’ in their published edition of the broadsheet associated with the case,
print the Latin version first, followed by the German. So either Cramer and Pijper arbitrarily
switched the original order, a seemingly improbable occurrence, or they used an edition different
from the one referred to by Hebenstreit-Wilfert that also included the ‘Recht christliche Salve’,
thereby indicating that at least two editions of the pamphlet contained that work. Bibliotheca
Reformatoria, vol. 8, pp. 18–19.
41 The difference between Heyden’s version and the one in the pamphlet is that Heyden
addresses Christ directly (‘Salve Jesu Christi’), while the version in the pamphlet addresses
Mary directly (‘Salue Regis mater misericordie’), but then proceeds to refer to the work of her
son. Thus the version we find in this pamphlet is one step closer to the original in that Mary is
still the individual to whom the prayer is prayed. For more on Heyden’s text and the Lutheran
use of such ‘cleansed’ Marian antiphons, see Frandsen, ‘“Salve Regina/Salve Rex Christe”’, esp.
pp. 147–149.
Thus the entire text is devoted to Mary, urging her to intercede for the
sinner. The text paired with an account of the burnings addresses Mary,
but changes the focus of the appeals to Christ.
Hail Mary, O mother of the King of mercy, of life, of sweetness, and of

our hope – be greeted. To him we suffering children of Eve cry; we sigh
in lament to him, weeping in this valley of tears. Ah, therefore, O Christ,
our intercessor, turn your merciful eyes to us. And show us yourself, Jesus,
who makes us blessed after these our miseries. 42
Why pair an account of the burnings of Vos and van den Esschen with
a Christocentric version of the Salve Regina? Although the anonymous
printer referred to both works on his title page (so this is not a case in which
one work was simply bound together with another, but rather the two
were intentionally coupled), he offers no rationale. Perhaps it is merely a
question of efficiency or of economics. But the speculation regarding Mary’s
intervention in the executions raises the logical possibility that ‘The Proper
Christian “Salve”’ was included precisely in response to such rumours. The
pairing seems to underscore the claim that Christ, not the Virgin Mary, was
the sole consolation of Vos and van den Esschen. 43
One more example of such an assembly of texts serves to underscore
this point. In 1523 another pamphlet consisting of two texts was produced,
which like the previous example, included both works on its title page. The
first was Luther’s Sermon on the Birth of Mary, the Mother of God referred to
42 ‘Hiss gegrüsst (Maria.) Du mutter des Künigs der Barmhertzikeit, des lebens, der sussegkeit.
Vnd vnsser hoffnung, Sey gegrusst, Zu jm ruffen wir elende kinder Eue, Wir seufftzen, zu jm
klagende vnnd weynent in dissem tall der threhern. Eya darumb (O Christe) Vnnsser fursprech
disse dine barmhertzige augen kore zu vns. Vnd erzeyg Vnss dich Ihesum (das ist ein Seligmacher)
nach dissem elende’. Anonymous, Der Actus unnd hendlung der Degradation und verprennung der
Cristlichen dreyen Ritter und Merterer/ Augustiner ordens geschehen zu Brussel/ Anno M.D.xxiii.
Prima Julii. Ist darbey das recht Christliche Salve (Speyer: 1523).
43 Although I have been unable to find any commentary on why printers paired certain texts, the
more general issue of printers’ motivations for printing has been widely addressed. One school of
thought sees their motives as primarily monetary. They printed what they thought would sell. See,
for example, Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading, pp. 22–23. But such an objective does not negate
the possibility that they intentionally paired certain texts along thematic lines. In fact, it supports
such a notion, for if a printer thought a particular topic would appeal to his readers, no doubt two
texts that addressed that topic would be even more attractive. A second school of thought suggests
that printers sometimes had an ideological agenda and printed works that supported it. See, for
example, Cole, ‘The Reformation Pamphlet’, p. 150. In either case, the printer appears to have been
aware of the connection between the Augustinians’ case and the Virgin Mary. If the latter scenario
was the reality of the situation, the printer was also intentionally making a statement about it.
above, in which Luther criticized those aspects of Marian piety that he saw as
beyond the scope of orthodoxy and addressed the issue of true sainthood.44
The second was Luther’s Open Letter to the Christians of the Low Countries, in
which he referred to the two friars as ‘two noble jewels of Christ’ (zwey edle
Kleynod Christi) and encouraged his readers to praise God because ‘we have
heard and seen real saints and true martyrs, we who until now have raised
up and worshipped so many false saints’. 45 Why pair these texts? Again,
pure chance cannot be ruled out, but it is more likely that the printer was
cognizant of the ways in which Mary had been connected to the case, and
believed that the texts spoke to one another. By including Luther’s views
on the proper understanding of the Virgin Mary, whoever produced the
pamphlet responded to the claim of her miraculous intervention without
taking it up directly. Mary had not intervened. Rather the friars, martyred
for their faith in Christ, had themselves become true saints of God. This
implicit rather than explicit approach had the advantage that no one needed
attack the claims about Mary’s role in the executions directly.
Conclusion
Although the essence of the church’s condemnation of the Antwerp Augus-

tinians was really their refusal to accept the authority of its hierarchy and
tradition, by claiming that Mary’s miraculous intercession resulted in their
last-second change of heart (or not, as the case may be) when presenting the
case to the laity, the authorities shifted the focus to questions surrounding
the Virgin Mary, her love for humanity, and her ability to intercede with
her son. This transformation indicates the importance of Marian piety as a
tool for responding to the challenge of the early Reformation, particularly
with regard to the laity. While we can never know for sure, it seems likely
that the executions took place when they did to allow for the miraculous
intervention of the Virgin, or at least the claim of her intervention. In any case,
the authorities charged with the executions used the proximity to a Marian
44 Martin Luther, Ein merklicher Sermon von der gepurt Marie, der muter gottes, wie sie und
die heyligen sollen geeret werden von eynem yegklichen Christen menschen. Ein brief an die
Christen im Nyderlandt, und an die am hoff zu Prussel von den vorbranten München. Actus und
handling (Speyer: 1523). For a reference to this work, see WA 15:76. It is designated VD16 L 5494
in Verzeichnis der Drucke 16.
45 ‘[W]yr erlebt haben rechte heyligen und warhafftige merterer zu sehen und zu horen, die
wyr bißher so viel falscher erhebt und angebetet haben’. Luther, Ein brief an die Christen im
Nyderlandt, WA 15:78.
festival to bring the Virgin Mary into this event. The inquisitors appear to have
seen the treatment of Mary as a potential weak point in the Augustinians’
platform, one that might drive a wedge between them and the laity. Current
scholarship locates the Catholic response to the reformers’ criticism of Marian
piety primarily in the Counter-Reformation and period of confessionalization,
both phenomena that began in the mid-sixteenth century.46 But in the case
of the Antwerp Augustinians, a case of empire-wide and even Europe-wide
significance, the churchmen already appear to have understood the potential
of traditional Marian piety as a potent response to the Reformation in 1523.
The events that transpired in the German Reformed Congregation’s
Province of Lower Germany not only influenced those who heard about
them directly: they also worked their way into other polemics of the early
Reformation period. As we have seen in the last chapter, this phenomenon
occurred in the specific case of Arsacius Seehofer. But it also transpired in
broader debates concerning martyrdom and sainthood, and more specifi-
cally the debate about the Virgin Mary. This is undoubtedly a testament
to the breadth and depth of the story’s appeal and impact. Capturing the
imagination of so many people across the empire, it stands to reason that
such a dramatic moment in the history of the early Reformation as the
deaths of Vos and van den Esschen would be employed in many ways and
for many purposes by its interpreters. As such, it is difficult to overestimate
its impact.
Works Cited
46 For example, Brigitte Heal’s discussion of the Catholic response to the Protestant critique
of Marian piety begins with Peter Canisius’s 1577 text De Maria Virgine incomparabili, in which
Canisius attacks those who have fabricated lies about Mary. And although some of Heal’s evidence
for such a response reaches back to the late 1540s, there is little reference to any Catholic response
in the first two and a half decades of the Reformation. The exception is her discussion of Georg
Hauer’s sermons of 1523. See Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 262–263.

Antwerpsch Archievenblad, ed. by Paul Génard, 30 vols. (Antwerp: Guil. Can Merlen,
1864–1893).
Januar und Februar 1523,’ ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen
zur Bremischen Kirchengeschichte 15 (1987), pp. 71–104.
Bethencourt, Francisco, The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478–1834, trans. by Jean
Birrel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1995] 2009).
Martinus Nijhoff, 1903–1914).
Brooks, Peter, ‘A Lily Ungilded?: Martin Luther, the Virgin Mary and the Saints’,
Journal of Religious History 13 (1984), 136–149.
Cole, Richard, ‘The Reformation pamphlet and the communication process’, in
Flugschriften als Massenmedium der Reformationszeit. Beiträge zum Tübinger
Symposion 1980, ed. by H. J. Köhler (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981), pp. 139–161.
Documenta Reformatoria Neerlandica. Geschriften uit en tijd der hervorming in de
Düfel, Hans, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1968).
Erasmus, Desiderius, Morae Encomivm id est Stvltitiae Lavs ed. by Clarence Miller,
in Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Ordinis quarti, vol. 4:3 (Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979).
———, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami denuo recognitum et auctum, ed.
by Percy Stafford Allen and H. M. Allen, 12 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906–1958).
Frandsen, Mary E., ‘“Salve Regina/Salve Rex Christe”: Lutheran Engagement with
the Marian Antiphons in the Age of Orthodoxy and Piety,’ Musica Disciplina
55 (2010), 129–218.
Heal, Bridget, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant
and Catholic Piety, 1500–1648 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

1981), pp. 397–446.
Hirsch, Rudolf, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450–1550 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967).
Laurent, Charles, J. Lameere, and H. Simont, eds. Des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas.
Deuxième Série. 1506–1700. Règne de Charles-Quint 1506–1555, 6 vols. (Bruxelles:
J. Goemaere, 1893–1922).
Luther, Martin, Luther’s Works, ed. by Ulrich S. Leupold, 78 vols. (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1955-).
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘Mary and Sixteenth-Century Protestants’, in The Church
and Mary: Papers Read at the 2001 Summer Meeting and the 2002 Winter Meeting of
the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. by R.N. Swanson (Woodbridge: Ecclesiastical
History Society, 2004), 191–217.
Oettinger, Rebecca, Music as Propoganda in the German Reformation (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2001).
des Bremer Reformators Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff, Hospitium Ecclesiae:
Sleidanus, Joannis, Warhafftige beschreibung geystlicher und weltlicher sachen/
under Keyser Carolo dem Fünfften verloffen (Straßburg: Josias Rihel and Theo-
dosius Rihel, 1557).
Thijssen, Augustin, Antwerpen Vermaard door den Eeredienst van Maria: Geschied-
kundige Nota’s over de 500 Mariabeelden in de Straten der Stad, 2nd edition
(Antwerp: Buerbaum, [1902] 1922).
Ullens, Franciscus Godefridus, Antwerpsch Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders
te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574, ed.
by Pieter vander Eyk (Leiden: Pieter vander Eyk, 1743).
11. The Reformed Augustinians of Lower
Germanyand the Dynamics of the
Early Reformation
Abstract
After summarizing the evidence that the events in Lower Germany were
a watershed in the early Reformation, this chapter turns to an analysis of
how the story of Reformed Augustinians deepens our understanding of the
dynamics of the early Reformation. It demonstrates how ideas were passed
via Augustinian networks, and the strategic element to their dissemination.
It also indicates that impulses from Lower Germany influenced Luther,
raising fundamental questions about a simplistic model of the Reformation
that places Wittenberg at its centre and understands Martin Luther as its
sage. Finally, the chapter shows the importance of the Augustinian context,
not only for its impact on Luther’s theology, but for its institutional and
administrative structures, and how they facilitated the early Reformation.
Keywords: Early Reformation, Protestant martyrologies
Although it falls outside the parameters of this study, when evaluating

the impact of the struggle over the cloisters of the Reformed Augustinians
of Lower Germany and especially the demise of Hendrik Vos and Johann
van den Esschen, it is worth noting that these events became notorious
all over again in the 1550s when the burnings were included in English,
French, Dutch, and German martyrologies. John Foxe’s English martyrology,
Actes and Monuments, was first published in full in 1563, and thereafter in
eight more editions and a handful of abridgements by the late seventeenth
century.1 The French-speaking world gained access to the event through
1 Foxe, Actes and monuments; for information on subsequent editions see King, Foxe’s Book
of Martyrs, pp. 92–157.
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_ch11
Jean Crespin’s Histoire des Martyrs persécutez et mis à mort, first published
in 1554 and then in more than fifteen editions, including translations into
Latin, Dutch, English, and German, during the next twenty years.2 The
Dutch-speaking world was reminded of the executions through Adriaan van
Haemstede’s De Gheschiedenisse ende den doodt der vromen Martelaren, pub-
lished first in 1559 then reprinted a half dozen times by the mid-seventeenth
century.3 And German speakers, if they had not already heard about it via
the pamphlets or Luther’s ballad, gained access to the event through Ludwig
Rabus’s Historien der Heyligen Auszerwöllten Gottes Zeugen, Bekennern und
Märtyrern, published first in Latin in 1552, then subsequently in a handful
of German editions.4 Via the martyrologies, a new generation of Protestants
from across Europe were introduced to the struggles of the Augustinians
of Lower Germany.
But the presentation of these events in the new context of the later
sixteenth century was limited in its scope. While each of the four major
Protestant martyrologists included the story of Vos and van den Esschen in
some detail, their approach was rather straightforward and limited to the
fates of these two men. They took their evidence entirely from the eyewitness
accounts, which they paraphrased, synthesized, or even translated word for
word.5 None included more than the barest historical context. As a result,
the event was almost entirely divorced from the broader developments of
the Reformation.
We might explain this treatment in two ways. First, it is well known that
these authors borrowed from one another, thereby raising the likelihood
that their entries would be similar. But second, and more importantly,
the goals of the martyrologists coincided so well with those of the early
eyewitness accounts that they simply allowed the pamphlets to speak for
themselves. Much has been written on the role of martyrologies in the
construction of group identities.6 By their very nature they were meant to
tell the story of a confession’s heroes in order to inspire the faithful, provide
2 Crespin, Histoire des Martyrs; for information on the subsequent editions see Olson, ‘Jean
Crespin, Humanist Printer’, pp. 328–329.
3 Haemstede, De Gheschiedenisse ende den doodt.
4 Rabus, Historien der auserwählten heiligen.
5 Crespin, Haemstaede, and Foxe paraphrase and synthesize the eyewitness accounts, while
Rabus’s entry is a word-for-word translation of Anonymous, Historia de Duobus Augustinensibus;
with regard to the similarities between the original accounts of executions during this period
and what is found in the martyrologies, Brad Gregory asserts, ‘The most important themes of the
famous Protestant martyrologies […] were already in place by the 1520s or early 1530s’. Gregory,
Salvation at Stake, p. 139.
6 See especially Gregory, Salvation at Stake, pp. 139–196.
The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany 217
legitimacy for the group, and in the process delegitimize the authority of
those doing the persecuting – goals very similar to those of the authors of
the eyewitness accounts. Emphasizing the steadfastness of the victims in
the face of persecution by treacherous churchmen fit the objectives of the
martyrologists; allowing the eyewitnesses to speak for themselves gave
their works a further air of objectivity.7 Simply put, the broader historical
context was immaterial to their goals.
Like the martyrologists of the mid-sixteenth century, contemporary
historians have largely taken the cue for their interpretation of these events
from the early pamphleteers. As a result, the struggle of the Reformed
Augustinians of the Province of Lower Germany has been reduced to the
story of Vos and van den Esschen and the literary impact of their dramatic
demise. It goes without saying that this is an important consequence of their
deaths. But restricting the encounter to this one event has obscured the
roots of their executions, made it impossible to assess accurately the overall
importance of the German Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany for
the early Reformation, and comprehend the breadth and depth of the impact
their actions and story exerted across large swathes of Europe.
The Deaths of Hendrik Vos and Johann van den Esschen: Roots
and Ramifications
If we concentrate first on the central event of this investigation, the deaths

of Hendrik Vos and Johann van den Esschen, this study has demonstrated
that, far from being a self-contained or anomalous curiosity, these executions
represent a sharp, fatal, and precedent-setting clash in the early Reformation,
with deep roots and broad repercussions that would reverberate for decades.
An examination of the conflict that led to these executions reveals three
important preconditions: the aggressive expansion of the Congregation of
German Reformed Augustinians into Lower Germany; the tactics employed
by the Congregation to enable that expansion (which will be addressed
in the next section); and the overall religious climate of Lower Germany.
Of the six houses added to the Congregation in the 1510s, four were
located in Lower Germany. While the founding of the cloister in Eisleben
and the annexation of the Rappoltsweiler cloister were not particularly
controversial, the addition of the Ghent, Cologne, and Dordrecht houses
7 Brad Gregory has analyzed the use of the executions of Vos and van den Esschen as literary
topoi in great detail. See Salvation at Stake, esp. pp. 139–196.
and the establishment of the Antwerp cloister all raised tensions with the
Conventuals and with the local ecclesiastical authorities. This is particularly
true in the case of the Antwerp cloister, where the canons of the Church
of Our Lady were infuriated, leading them to engage their lawyer, Adrian
Florizsoon – future Pope Adrian VI – who threatened the Augustinians with
excommunication. Ultimately, Frans van der Hulst, the future imperial and
papal inquisitor, was brought in to mediate. With regard to the ecclesiastical
politics of Lower Germany then, the situation was by no means a tabula
rasa when the Reformed Augustinians began to preach “Reformation” ideas.
Friction already existed; key individuals on both sides had a history. This is
not to say that the actions taken against the Augustinians of Lower Germany
between 1521 and 1523 were merely the settling of old scores. However, it must
be said that the sharp response of the ecclesiastical authorities, particularly
after the papal bull threatening Martin Luther with excommunication
(1520) and the Edict of Worms (1521) were promulgated, was not without
its prehistory.
Second, when considering the background of the conflict that ended in
the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen, it is worth noting that the general
religious atmosphere in Lower Germany was likewise by no means a clean
slate. Critique of the late medieval church was widespread. Indulgences
had been roundly criticized for decades. The Reformed Augustinians of
Lower Germany simply picked up on many of the criticisms already extant,
and as a result they developed a significant following among the laity. The
ground had been well-prepared for Luther’s ideas, many of which were not
novel at all. Thus the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen were not purely
the result of the preaching of “Reformation Doctrines”. They were rooted in
a broader struggle and wider religious milieu. This realization begins the
process of reintegrating this event into its broader historical context, and
demonstrates that it was not simply an historical anomaly.
Beyond providing a new understanding of the important prehistory to the
executions of Vos and van den Esschen, this investigation has also afforded
new insight into the events themselves, and therefore the importance of
the Reformed Augustinians of the Province of Lower Germany in the early
Reformation. Far from being a series of random occurrences on the periphery
of Luther’s geographical and mental worlds, the conflict that ended in the
executions of these two friars was fully comprehended, immediate, and
personal for Luther and his Augustinian colleagues in Wittenberg. Travelling
back and forth from the Low Countries across Northern Germany, many
of the men intimately involved in these events were not just colleagues,
but close friends of the Reformer. For Luther, the prosecutions of Probst,
Miritsch, van Zutphen, and Thorn, not to mention Vos and van den Esschen,
were practically a family affair. We are left to wonder whether those charged
with silencing them were also aware of this. Certainly Jerome Aleander, the
papal legate, scrutinized Probst’s movements, commenting that he went to
visit Luther just after the promulgation of the Edict of Worms, and returned
employing a new strategy of no longer speaking the name of Luther publicly,
while at the same time preaching Luther’s ideas.8 Such observations suggest
that he fully understood the personal dimensions of this affair.
Not only did these executions take place in the heart of Luther’s social
world, but the conflict leading up to them provided Luther and his colleagues
with an arena in which to meet their opponents not just in the world of
literary debates, but on the ground. Even if it was only for the short period
from c. 1519 until late 1522 (though longer in the case of the Cologne cloister),
through their connections to their brethren in Lower Germany Luther, Linck,
and the pro-Reformation brain trust of the German Reformed Augustinians
had both a venue and the means by which to promote their theology and
ecclesiology in the face of the enemy. Using the methods Staupitz and other
predecessors pioneered to encourage Observant monastic reform, Luther
and his Reformed Augustinian colleagues fostered the proliferation of
their critique of the church and their understanding of theology. Due to
the counter-efforts of their opponents, it soon became almost impossible
to disseminate Reformation ideas by these means in the Low Countries.
But for a crucial period the Reformed cloisters of the Augustinians of Lower
Germany were the front lines of the early Reformation.
If the Reformed Augustinians were a tightknit group closely connected to
Luther, this study has also demonstrated that their array of opponents was
likewise comprised of close friends and acquaintances. Far from being the
result of some overzealous prosecutor, the deaths of Vos and van den Esschen
were the consequences of a broad coalition of interests and individuals tied
directly to the most powerful temporal and spiritual powers of the early
modern period. The emperor’s inquisitor (who on 1 June 1523 also became a
papal inquisitor), Frans van der Hulst, was a close associate and mentee of
Pope Adrian VI. Adrian, who had represented the Canons of the Church of
Our Lady in Antwerp against the interests of the Reformed Augustinians, was
himself an erstwhile colleague of the faculty of theology at the University of
Leuven and remained their highly respected adviser. What is more, Adrian
had been the tutor of Charles V, and continued to have close ties to him. All
8 Aleander to Vice-Chancellor de Medici, 2 September 1521. Monumenta Reformationis

Lutheranae, pp. 286–287.
this emphasizes that both sides of the dispute were characterized by close
personal ties. Knowledge of this fact heightens the importance of these
events because they all take on a personal edge. As a result, their impact
on those involved is more profound than might otherwise be the case. We
see this most clearly with Luther. For him, Adrian was not just the pope on
whose watch Vos and van den Esschen were executed. He was a hypocrite
and murderer.
What is more, for both pope and emperor, the campaign against the
Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany represented an early and
important effort in their response to the Reformation. By establishing an
imperial judicial body designed to meet the growing threat in his ancestral
lands, Charles sought to seize control of the situation, bringing the issue of
religious dissent into the realm of temporal politics. Although ultimately
abortive, the case indicates how acute the emperor considered the threat,
and perhaps even how shrewd he was in attempting to expand his powers
over and against the local and ecclesiastical authorities. For the papacy,
the Low Countries offered a venue in which to respond to the challenge of
Luther and his allies which lacked many of the obstructions set in its path
by the city and territorial authorities in the Empire. This is not to say that
pope and emperor had free reign in the Low Countries, but it is to suggest
that they had more room to manoeuvre than in many of the territories of
the Empire. As a result, the campaign against the Reformed Augustinians
of Lower Germany exposed the papacy’s desired response to the theology
and ecclesiology of Luther and his followers. With the deaths of Vos and
van den Esschen, Pope Adrian’s contention that condemned heretics of the
Lutheran stripe deserved death became a reality. Cognizant of the threat
posed by the German Reformed Augustinians, his confirmation of van der
Hulst as papal inquisitor represents just one move in a broader strategy to
eliminate their influence. In other words, the executions of Vos and van
den Esschen exemplify the desired responses of pope and emperor to the
threat of the Reformation.
In addition to its prehistory and the nature of the event itself, this study
has revealed more fully the impact of the struggle surrounding the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany. The publicity generated by the deaths of
Vos and van den Esschen rippled across the Low Countries and the Empire,
moving and inspiring individuals and groups from across society in a variety
of ways. For Martin Luther and other German Reformed Augustinians, with
their intimate connections to these friends and colleagues, the event had
a clarifying effect: this struggle was no longer theoretical or literary, it had
become mortal. But beyond that, or perhaps because of it, when Luther
observed the events in the Low Countries and pondered the totality of the
situation, he was moved to the theological conclusion that God himself
was at work in the Reformation. By equating the deaths of Vos and van den
Esschen with God’s victory as described in Psalms 96 and 98, Luther looked
past the politics and temporal concerns that led to the executions and saw
the workings of the Almighty in a most vivid and biblical way. With his
thorough knowledge of the situation he concluded that the only possible
explanation for the tremendous resolve demonstrated by Vos and van den
Esschen, the two men in this story perhaps least expected to be heroic, was
the miraculous hand of God at work. This conviction undoubtedly provided
him with comfort and renewed confidence in the struggle in which he was
involved. But these events also laid bare for him what he came to see as the
true character of Pope Adrian VI, whose overtures toward reform, Luther
concluded, were mere hypocrisy in light of the way he had treated Vos and
van den Esschen. For Luther, then, the executions of Vos and van den Esschen
represent a divine affirmation of his work, and a clear confirmation of the
papacy’s opposition to the Gospel.
Not only did the experiences of the Augustinians of Lower Germany
significantly impact Luther, they deeply influenced the public’s perception
of the Reformation movement and the traditional church. While historians
have long assumed this to be the case due to the amount of press the execu-
tions received, this study has provided concrete evidence of such impact
as well as insight into the nature of it. In Antwerp and Brussels, memories
of these executions were kept alive by eyewitnesses appreciative of the
Augustinians and their message, some of whom credited the deaths with
having influenced their own religious loyalties. The steadfastness with
which Vos and van den Esschen clung to their beliefs as they faced the pyre
inspired many of their local contemporaries, confirming for them the truth
of the Augustinians’ message. As a result of Claes vander Elst’s portrayal of
Lambert Thorn, the third Augustinian defrocked and imprisoned – but not
burned – Thorn became a living paradigm of a Christian life lived under
persecution, and support for him as a Christian brother in need became
a means of resistance to the traditional church, as well as a way to fulfill
Christ’s command to visit those in prison.
As the case of Vos and van den Esschen entered the world of Reformation
polemics via the many pamphlets, Luther’s ballad, and personal commu-
nications, its impact manifested itself not only in the widespread interest
displayed in the story of these events, but in other concrete and palpable
ways. In the public debate over the Reformation in Ingolstadt, the executions
of Vos and van den Esschen became a means by which the supporters of
reform could denounce the ecclesiastical authorities and critique clerical

power. On the other side, opponents of Luther’s reform understood the story’s
power to influence public opinion against them and did their best to silence
those who would publicize the deaths. But they also held the case up as an
object lesson: Vos and van den Esschen had received the just rewards of their
disloyalty to the church. With this claim, a note of warning was sounded.
Others who held similar views would be handled in like manner. Thus the
executions worked their way into the fabric of the Reformation contest in
Ingolstadt, and the degree to which the Empire was inundated with news of
these events makes it difficult to believe that this was the only city where
the executions came to influence popular opinion in concrete ways.
Finally, when assessing the impact of these events, particularly the burn-
ing of Vos and van den Esschen, it is important to note how the executions
were interpreted in ways that in themselves could be employed as arguments
for diverse purposes. A short list of such interpretations serves to illustrate
this phenomenon. Luther saw the event as proof that God himself had
entered the fray and as evidence that the pious reputation of Pope Adrian VI
was mere hypocrisy. Erasmus considered it a warning about how a hardline
approach to the Reformation by the church would have the opposite of its
intended effect. The physician Wolfgang Reichart saw it as evidence of the
duplicitous and intimidating nature of the mendicants. Colleagues of Frans
van der Hulst deemed it evidence of the mercy, intercession, and salvific
power of the Virgin Mary, while George Hauer considered it a demonstra-
tion Mary’s anger with the Protestants and employed it as a warning to
Ingolstadt’s would-be “Lutherans”. The key point is that the “use” of the
burning of Vos and van den Esschen went well beyond the propaganda
articulated in the pamphlets recounting the event. It was imbued with a
variety of meanings which were then deployed in a range of arguments
current in the period – perhaps none more so than the conflict over the
proper understanding of the nature and role of the Virgin Mary.
Fifty years ago, Gerhard Ebeling described the Reformation as engendered
by Martin Luther as a Sprachereignis, a ‘language event’. While Ebeling used
the term to refer specifically to Luther’s role as university professor and
preacher being the basis for his many other activities such as polemicist,
publicist, churchman, and educator of the people (Volkserzieher), the term
has become a sort of shorthand among historians to denote the enormous
role played by language in the theological controversies of the Reformation
and in the spread of Reformation ideas.9 More recently, much research on
9 Ebeling, Luther: Einführung in sein Denken, p. 5.

the Reformation has focused on confessionalization, the process by which

various groups developed and codified their confessional positions, then set
about applying the results to daily life and culture, often in close alliance
with the state.10 Neither approach places much emphasis on historical events
as shapers of opinion and stimulators of change. Most historians would
undoubtedly agree that there are some: Luther at Worms, his marriage in
1525, outbreaks of iconoclasm, the Peasants’ War, the debacle at Münster,
the Schmalkald War, and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. But generally
speaking, the Reformation is understood as a movement in which words
and ideas were applied to the religious, political, and social issues of the
time, and those words are what produced change. This investigation has
demonstrated that the executions of Hendrik Vos and Johann van den
Esschen offer another exception to this rule. Their deaths, along with the
events leading up to the executions and their subsequent impact, prove
to be among the most important and broadly influential events of the
Reformation. As such, they enrich our understanding of the Reformation
in its earliest phases, and deserve a place in future studies of this period.
The Dynamics of the Early Reformation
The findings of this examination range beyond a more comprehensive

understanding of an important event in the early Reformation. They open a
new window into the dynamics or workings of that entire movement during
a crucial period in its history. Areas and issues elucidated in this examina-
tion include: a concrete understanding of the means by which ideas of the
Reformation were disseminated via the Reformed Augustinian networks;
the impact of this event on any model of the early Reformation that views
Wittenberg as the centre and reform as emanating from it (or framed slightly
differently, the dynamic between the Reformation as it played out at its
centre in Wittenberg and as it was experienced “behind enemy lines”); the
significance of the Low Countries as a strategic site of early confrontation;
the German Reformed Augustinian context, such an important crucible for
the development of the Reformation; Luther’s role in the early Reformation,
not only as a source of its content, but as someone who worked strategically
10 Confessionalization may be more closely defined as the process by which various states
and territories incorporated confession-building and state formation in the second half of the
sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries. See Schilling, ‘Confessionalization
and the Empire’, p. 208. For a broader discussion, see Lotz-Heumann, ‘Confessionalization’.
to disseminate his ideas using the assets at his disposal; and the resulting
insight gained into the character and abilities of the Reformer. In many
ways, the confrontation over the Reformed Augustinian cloisters of Lower
Germany presents a microcosm of the early Reformation itself.
In his monumental investigation of the early Reformation, Thomas
Kaufmann has described its earliest days as a dynamic process in which
events and insights experienced by groups and individuals were publicized
along various communication networks, many established already prior to
the Reformation. But he admits that ‘often the first and earliest mobility
actors [those who transmitted ideas] of the Reformation remain cloaked in
darkness; it is only seldom that we know concretely who was responsible
for the fact that far from the provincial city in Electoral Saxony, Luther’s
texts began to be read, discussed, and publicized’.11 The first way in which
this investigation has added to our broader understanding of the workings
of the early Reformation movement is by providing one clear example
of who was disseminating Reformation ideas and how such information
was transmitted. The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany used
their established networks to communicate the ideas of the Reformation.
While it is clear that Luther’s writings were circulated among them, this
investigation has demonstrated that much communication took place via
direct contact – word of mouth. Young Reformed Augustinian friars came
to Wittenberg, learned at the feet of Luther and his colleagues, and carried
their ideas and convictions back to their home cloisters. Although this study
has concentrated on the seven cloisters of Lower Germany, it is difficult to
imagine that similar dynamics were not at work with respect to the other
houses of the Congregation, but perhaps also to the Conventual Augustinian
houses, many of which had sent young recruits to Wittenberg as well. From
its efforts to silence all the houses of the Congregation, it is clear that the
papacy certainly considered this to be the case.
In addition to these younger and undoubtedly more impressionable
members of the Reformed Congregation, a cadre of Luther’s Augustinian
contemporaries also travelled to Wittenberg to study, to converse, and to
seek advice. Undoubtedly these men interacted on a more collegial level
than their younger contemporaries, bringing news of the situations in
their home cloisters, not to mention their own views with regard to theol-
ogy, ecclesiology, and the general state of Christianity. At the Heidelberg
Disputation (1518), Luther provided some of these mature leaders of the
Congregation with an argument for his soteriology, which, it appears, many
11 Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation, p. 3.

found convincing. But soteriology was not the real issue for those prosecuting
the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany; it was a critique of traditional
ecclesiology and church authority, and specifically Luther’s conviction
that the papacy was an illegitimate institution. By early 1520, Luther had
come to the conclusion that the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist (he
says as much in a private letter to Spalatin on 2 February 1520),12 and by
the end of the year he had articulated this view publicly and forcefully.13
What is more, in late 1520, works such as Adversus Execrabilem Antichristi
Bullam had already found some distribution in the Low Countries.14 It may
be that the Antwerp Augustinians had simply read some of these works,
but I think it more likely that Luther convinced his colleagues from Lower
Germany in conversations that occurred during those early years when
many of them lived together in Wittenberg’s Black Cloister. And perhaps
it didn’t take much convincing. The zeal and absolute conviction of a man
like Hendrik van Zutphen regarding his own views on the papacy suggest
that such discussions were not one-sided; Luther’s colleagues both gave and
received. And it is important to note that these contemporaries of Luther,
men like Probst, van Zutphen, and Miritsch, were themselves influencers
in the context of their own cloisters. Within these Augustinian networks,
word of mouth based upon direct contact with Luther was a key means by
which the early Reformation spread.
The second dynamic of the early Reformation that this study reveals
concerns the relationship between the centre and the periphery, so to
speak. If we think spatially for a moment, understanding Wittenberg as the
intellectual centre or “hearth” of the Reformation and Lower Germany in
this case as the periphery, the traditional way to understand the dynamic
between the two has just been alluded to: ideas are produced at the centre
and emanate outward. But as the previous paragraph also hints, this in-
terplay was not uni-directional. At the very least the experiences of those
on the periphery, in this case the Augustinians of Lower Germany, directly
impacted the thoughts and ideas at the centre.15 The most overt example of
this phenomenon illustrates the point. When Martin Luther received news
of the executions of Vos and van den Esschen, the result of a series of events
12 Luther, Briefwechsel (=WABr) 2:48.

13 See Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy, pp. 105–120.
14 Visser, Luther’s Geschriften in de Nederlanden, p. 131.
15 Marjorie Plummer has made a similar point with regard to the issue of clerical marriage.
Luther was reluctant to address it, but the actions of many of his clerical supporters, particularly
‘rural, seemingly unimportant clergy and their parishioners’ who simply decided to marry,
pushed him to engage the issue. Plummer, From Priest’s Whore to Pastor’s Wife, p. 53.
that he had been closely following, they convinced him that God himself
had become directly involved in the Reformation, that the Almighty, in
his own paradoxical way, was working in support of it. Here events on “the
periphery” directly and significantly influenced the thought at “the centre”.
But the influence of the Augustinians of Lower Germany on “the cen-
tre” went beyond Luther merely observing what was happening on “the
periphery”, then processing it, assigning meaning, and disseminating that
meaning. Long before Luther published against indulgences in 1517, the Low
Countries had been a hotbed of critique of the church and of the practice of
indulgences in particular. With the presence of Erasmus, himself a product
of Low Countries’ renewal movements (such as the Brethren of the Common
Life), Christian humanism’s criticism of the church was widespread and
influential, a fact attested by Papal Legate Aleander when he claimed that
the two biggest problems in the Low Countries were Erasmus and the prior
of the Antwerp Augustinians, who was of the genus of demons that required
a stick.16 How did the experiences and ideas of those Augustinians of Lower
Germany – individuals who, as we have seen, were closely connected to
Luther – influence his ideas regarding indulgences, and perhaps even his
views regarding the legitimacy of the contemporary church? It is impossible
to say, but it strikes me as naive to think that no conversations about such
topics were taking place in Wittenberg during the 1510s. Even if Luther
himself never visited the Low Countries (the closest he came was attending
the chapter meeting in Cologne in 1512), their religious context and the
ideas circulating there were brought home to him via his colleagues in a
very direct way. The “periphery”, too, it seems, generated ideas that would
become aspects of Reformation thought.
The influence of the Augustinians of Lower Germany on Wittenberg is on
full display in the events that took place in the Black Cloister while Luther
was sequestered in the Wartburg from 4 May 1521 to 6 March 1522. The con-
tingent of students from the Low Countries, as well as near-contemporaries
like van Zutphen, pushed the pace and nature of reform to levels that made
him uncomfortable. Whether their fanaticism was the result of the longer
tradition of church criticism in the Low Countries or the more recent phe-
nomenon of living there under the constant fear of persecution is hard to
say. But they were clearly a more radical element among the inhabitants of
Wittenberg’s Reformed Augustinian cloister. Although Luther returned from
the Wartburg expressly to quiet the situation, it is difficult to imagine that
the impulses and zeal of the cloister’s inhabitants from Lower Germany did

not impact his thinking. They were pushing him forward. Once again events,
ideas, the general fervour of those involved, as well as the experiences they
brought with them from “the periphery”, influenced “the centre” – not the
other way around. At very least, they became grist for Luther’s mill.
Such observations raise some fundamental questions about any model
that presumes de facto that Wittenberg was at the centre, another way in
which this investigation addresses the dynamics of the early Reforma-
tion. This centre/periphery model to which I refer is not based upon any
specif ic discussion by historians, but is rather an articulation of what
appears to be a common assumption, an assumption that finds expression
in almost every textbook on the Reformation and every biography of
Luther. The general arc of such studies is, broadly speaking, as follows: late
medieval European/German discontent; Luther’s childhood, education,
and existential struggles; Luther’s breakthrough; the dissemination and
impact of Luther’s ideas. Whether intentionally or not, Luther becomes
the movement’s intellectual guru, Wittenberg the capital or centre of
the Reformation from which ideas emanate. While such a model is not
entirely inaccurate, evidence derived from the experiences of the Reformed
Augustinians of Lower Germany suggests that it is far too simplistic. For
not only were these Augustinians on the front lines of the Reformation,
their experiences there and their vision of reform influenced Luther’s
thought and the direction of the Reformation.
Such a realization raises another fundamental question: what do the
events in Lower Germany in this investigation mean for our understanding of
the role of the Low Countries in the early Reformation? In the early twentieth
century, Paul Kalkoff published his study Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation
in den Niederlanden, in which he examined the response by imperial, papal,
territorial, and local ecclesiastical authorities to the earliest impulses of
the Reformation there.17 Building on the work of Dutch historians who had
already investigated the early Reformation in the Low Countries, Kalkoff
demonstrated that this area of Europe was a key point of conflict in the
early Reformation. He identified the array of forces in the Low Countries
that worked to contain the spread of the Reformation, their interaction
with one another, and the specifics of these efforts. By necessity he also
identified individuals and groups who attempted to support and disseminate
Reformation ideas. But as the title of his book suggests, his efforts ended
at the borders of the Low Countries, which defined the parameters of his
investigation.
17 Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation.

This study has taken one key element of Kalkoff’s investigation, the
conflict surrounding the Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany, and
followed its trail beyond the confines of the Low Countries to Wittenberg,
Rome, Ingolstadt, and wherever influences from outside the Low Countries
resided and news of these events travelled. The result is that the executions of
Hendrik Vos and Johann van den Esschen are transformed from an important
clash in the history of the Reformation in the Low Countries to a key episode
in the Reformation as a whole. If we understand the Reformation not as a
movement in which ideas emanated outward from a specific point, but as a
Europe-wide clash of beliefs, the events in the Low Countries begin to take
on a different complexion. No longer are they merely episodes in a regional
conflict, but a key flashpoint on a European scale. Put another way, for the
brief period 1519–1523, some of the Reformation’s most important battle
lines were drawn there. In a sense, then, it was the Low Countries that were
the centre of the Reformation during this period. This is not to say that
anti-Reformation forces in other lands and territories were not forcefully
reacting to the spread of Reformation ideas. The situation in Ingolstadt clearly
demonstrates that they were. But it does suggest that it would be difficult
to find many places in Europe where the fight over Reformation ideas was
pursued with more vigour and with more direct involvement by important
and powerful individuals and entities. It is perhaps no coincidence that the
trail of controversy over the executions of Vos and van den Esschen and
their interpretation manifested itself most strongly in the Low Countries
and Ingolstadt – precisely the locations where Jerome Aleander and Johann
Eck, the papal legates charged with publicizing the bull Exsurge Domine,
had their greatest success.
The Augustinian Context of the Early Reformation
The preceding discussion of the dissemination of Reformation thought

via Augustinian networks, the relationship and nature of the “centre” and
“periphery” of the movement, and the importance of the Low Countries in the
early Reformation all take place within the context of the German Reformed
Congregation of Augustinians. This observation raises the question of the
importance of the Augustinian context for Luther’s development and for
that of the early Reformation. Although excellent studies on Luther’s thought
as it relates to and was influenced by late-medieval Augustinianism exist,
especially as Luther’s thought connects to that of Johann von Staupitz, the
intellectual environment tells only part of the story. This investigation has
demonstrated that the broader Augustinian context – one that includes the
whole ethos of the German Reformed Augustinians, their social, cultural,
and administrative traditions – must be taken into consideration. Eric
Saak has done groundbreaking work in this area, focusing specifically on
Luther’s development within this broader Reformed Augustinian context.18
This study moves the camera back even further to take a wider view of the
dynamics of the Congregation of German Reformed Augustinians during
this period. By placing Luther and the early Reformation more broadly in
this frame, the influence of that group and its role in the dynamics of the
early Reformation are revealed.
It becomes increasingly evident that, despite his eventual denunciation
of the Augustinians and his removal of their cowl in 1524, Luther’s time
as a friar provided him an opportunity not only to make his key theologi-
cal discoveries, but to hone his skills as a preacher, educator, pastor, and
administrator, while providing him with insight into ecclesiastical politics,
all experiences that would benefit him in his work on the Reformation. In
particular, this study has elucidated the strategies pioneered in the decades
prior to the Reformation by the hierarchy of the Congregation of German
Reformed Augustinians for the expansion of their influence, and shown how
they were assumed and repurposed by Luther and his colleagues during the
Reformation. Drawing young men from across the German-speaking world
to Wittenberg for training, before returning them to their homelands to
spread what they had learned; installing specific individuals in key positions
within the Congregation to support and expand reform; convincing powerful
princes and city councils of the need of reform – these were all strategies
established not in the early days of the Reformation, but in the decades
prior to it. Luther and his colleagues, with their years of experience in the
Congregation, merely employed them in the service of the Reformation:
first within the Congregation itself, then more expansively in the broader
Reformation. Such strategies for the dissemination of Reformation ideas
would permeate that entire movement.
Not only does this study shed new light on the Augustinian context of the
early Reformation, it provides insight into Martin Luther as an individual and
reformer. In the events encompassing the Reformed Augustinians of Lower
Germany, Luther proves to be a theologian and intellectual, but also someone
deeply emotionally invested in the struggles of his fellow friars. Even more
important, however, is his active observation of the personalities and events
occurring in the Low Countries, and his strategizing with regard to the best
18 See Saak, Luther and the Reformation; and Saak, Highway to Heaven.
way to respond to the opposition there and promote Reformation ideas. Luther
was deeply engaged not only with the content of the Reformation, but its dis-
semination as well. As Andrew Pettegree has recently demonstrated, Luther
harnessed the power of the printing press by becoming directly involved in
the day-to-day operations of the printers, not to mention the aesthetics of
his own printed works. In other words, Luther took a keen interest in the
concrete ways in which his ideas were broadcast.19 The present study has
revealed a similar phenomenon with regard to the assets available through
the Congregation of German Reformed Augustinians. Like the printing press,
Luther harnessed the Congregation in the service of the Reformation cause.
Clearly, he was not only an intellectual leader but a tactician in the effort to
promote Reformation ideas in concrete and explicit ways.
By the end of 1522 and the beginning of 1523, the burgeoning Reformation
in its Reformed Augustinian context had largely passed away.20 Since 1517,
this movement that began within the Reformed Congregation had been
exceeding those boundaries. But in the short period from 1519 through
1523, the Reformed Augustinian context of the Reformation was still an
important arena, one characterized by personal ties and interactions, and
by first-hand knowledge of events and movements. Nowhere was this more
the case than in Lower Germany, which might be likened to a test tube
for the Reformation struggle. What happened there set a precedent and
19 See Pettegree, Brand Luther.

20 It is easy to forget that up through about the time of the executions of Vos and van den
Esschen, much of the Reformation took place in the context of the Augustinian Order. It is worth
remembering that Luther only removed his cowl in 1524. A quick overview of his correspond-
ence during this period drives this point home. Volume 1 of the Weimar Edition of Luther’s
Briefwechsel covers letters from the years 1501–1520. Of the 202 letters to 43 people or groups he
wrote to during that period, 38 (or 18%) were to fellow Augustinians. If one subtracts letters to
Spalatin and the Elector of Saxony from these numbers (106), then Luther sent 38 of 96 (40%)
to fellow Augustinians. Given the early stage in his life, this high percentage should come as no
surprise. A look at Volume 2 of Luther’s correspondence, covering the years 1520–1522, suggests
that Luther was still very much in the world of the Augustinians during this period. Of the 273
letters Luther wrote to 74 individuals or groups, 34 (or 12%) were to fellow Augustinians; if we
exclude the 135 sent to Spalatin and the Elector, then 34 of 138 of Luther’s letters were sent to
fellow Augustinians or 25%. By the time we get to Volume 3 of Luther’s correspondence, the
prominence of the Augustinian world, and perhaps the Augustinian world itself, had faded for
Luther. In the years 1523–1525, Luther wrote a total of 347 letters to 122 individuals or groups,
only 15 of which were to fellow or former Augustinians. In other words, only 4% of his letters
were to fellow Augustinians, and even when we exclude the 136 letters to Spalatin and the
Elector, that percentage rises only to 7%. Although this overview is entirely quantitative, and
completely reliant upon what documents survived the ravages of time, this unscientific and
number-reliant overview suggests that after 1522, Luther and the Reformation rapidly outgrew
the Augustinian context.
helped lay the groundwork for all that would follow. If we are to properly
understand the historical unfolding of the early Reformation as experienced
by those parties involved on both sides, the dynamics of the struggle over
the Reformed Augustinian cloisters of Lower Germany must be a part of it.
Works Cited

Crespin, Jean, Histoire des Martyrs: persecutes et mis a mort pour la verité de
l’Evangile, etc. (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1554).
Ebeling, Gerhard, Luther: Einführung in sein Denken (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2006 [1964]).
Foxe, John, Actes and monuments of these latter and perillous dayes, etc. (London:
John Day 1563).
Haemstede, Andriaen Cornelis van, De Gheschiedenisse Ende Den doodt der vromer
Martelaren die om het ghetuyghenisse des Euangeliums haer bloedt ghestort
hebben, van den tijden Christi af, totten Jare M.D.LIX. toe, by een vergadert op
het kortste (Antwerp: n.p. 1559).
Hendrix, Scott, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981).
Reformation vol. 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).
King, John N., Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Early Modern Print Culture (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Lotz-Heumann, Ute, ‘Confessionalization’, in Reformation and Early Modern Europe:
A Guide to Research, ed. by David Whitford (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century
Publishers, 2008), pp. 136-157.
(=WABr), vols. 1-18 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1930-1985).
Monumenta Reformationis Lutheranae ex tabularis s. sedis, 1521-1525, ed. by Petrus
Olson, Jeannine, ‘Jean Crespin, Humanist Printer’, in The Harvest of Humanism in
Central Europe: Essays in Honor of Lewis W. Spitz, ed. by Manfred Fleischer (St.
Louis: Concordia, 1992), pp. 317-340.
Plummer, Marjorie, From Priest’s Whore to Pastor’s Wife: Clerical Marriage and
the Process of Reformation in the Early German Reformation (Aldershot and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012).
Rabus, Ludwig, Historien der auserwählten heiligen Gottszeugen, Bekenner, und
Martyrer (Straßburg: Samuel Emmel, 1555-1556).
Reformation, 1292-1524 (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Schilling, Heinz, ‘Confessionalization and the Empire’ in Religion, Political Culture
and the Emergence of Early Modern Society: Essays in German and Dutch History,
ed. by Heinz Schilling (Leiden: Brill, 1992).
1969).
Bibliography
Archival Sources
Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA), Brussels: Audientie, 1177/6, fols. 1–102.

Universitätsarchiv München: D-III-4, S. 147 fols; and D-III-6, 5, fol. 212 v.
Primary Sources
Aleandro, Girolamo, Aleander und Luther 1521: die vervollständigten Aleander-

———, Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstage 1521, ed. and
trans. by Paul Kalkoff (Halle: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1886).
Analecta Lutherana. Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte Luthers, ed. by Theodor
Kolde (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1883).
Anathematizatio et revocatio fratris Jacobi Praepositi, olim prioris fratrum her-
emitarum Sancti Augustini opidi antverpiensis, in Documentorum Inquisitionis
Haereticae Pravitatis Neerlandicae, ed. by Paul Fredericq, 5 vols. (Gent: J. Vuyl-
steke, 1889–1902).
Anathematizatio et revocatio fratris Iacobi Praepositi, olim prioris fratrum heremi-
tarum Sancti Augustini opidi antverpiensis, in Bonae Literae et Lutherus: Texte
und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer Reformators
Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff [= Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen zur
Bremischen Kirchengeschichte] 14 (1985), 27–37.
Anonymous, Dye histori so zwen Augustiner Ordens gemartert seyn tzu Bruxel in
Probant von wegen des Evangelj. Dye Artickel darumb sie verbrent seyn mit yrer
asẞlegung und verklerung, etc, trans. by Martin Reckenhofer (Erfurt: Stürmer,
1523).
doi 10.5117/9789463728621_biblio

Anonymous, Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris sous le règne de François Premier
(1515–1536), ed. by Ludovic Lalanne (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1854).
Antwerpsch Archievenblad, ed. by Paul Génard, 30 vols. (Antwerp: Guil. Can Merlen,
1864–1893).
Arnold, Gottfrid, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Histori: von Anfang des Neuen
Testaments biss auff das Jahr Christi 1688, 4 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Bey Thomas
Fritsch, 1699–1700).
Januar und Februar 1523,’ ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen
Bertrijn, Geraard, Chronijck der Stadt Antwerpen (Antwerp: P. Kockx, 1879).
Besler, Nikolaus, ‘Die Autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen des Nürnberger Augusti-
nereremiten Nikolaus Besler’, ed. by Hans Schneider, Augustiniana 62 (2012), 119–152.
———, Vita Nicolai Besleri Augustiniani ab ipso conscripta, ed. by Valentin Löscher
in Fortgesetzte Sammlund von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen darinnen
von Büchern, Uhrkunden, Controversien, Veränderungen, Anmerckungen und
Vorschlägen (Leipzig: Johann Freidrich Brauns, 1732), pp. 356–371.
Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam, in Beiheft zum Zentralblatt für Bib-
liothekswesen 27, ed. by Joseph Förstemann and Otto Günther (Leipzig: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1904).
Brieger, Theodor, ed., ‘Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte: Das zweite Breve
Andrians an Friedrich den Weisen von Jahre 1522’, in Kirchengeschichtliche Stu-
dien. Hermann Reuter zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Leipzig, J. C. Henrichs’sche
Buchhandlung, 1868), pp. 202–227.
Bucholzer, Abraham, Index Chronologicus. Cura secunda Gottfridi Bucholzeri F.
Grunbergensis Silesii locupletatus, & accessione eventuum insigniorum, ab eo
tempore ubi pater desiit, usque ad finem anni 1598. Fideliter continuatus (Gorlitz:
Johannis Rhambae, 1599).
Coct, Anemond de, as quoted in Francois Lambert, Evangalici in Minoritarum
Regulam Commentarij, Quibus, palam sit, tam de illa, quam de alijs Monarchorum
Regulis et constitutionibus sentiendum sit (Wittenberg: n.p., 1523).
Bibliography 235
Crespin, Jean, Histoire des Martyrs: persecutes et mis a mort pour la verité de
l’Evangile, etc. (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1554).
Eber, Paul, Calendarium Historicum cum Conscriptum (Wittenberg: Georg Rhau, 1556).
Eck, Johannes, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios
hostes ecclesiae (1525–1543), ed. by Pierre Fraenkel, Corpus Catholicorum, vol.
34 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979).
Emser, Hieronymus, Annotationes Hieronymi Emser uber Luthers naw Testament
gebessert und emendirt (Dresden: Emser, [1524] 1525).
Erasmus, Desiderius, Morae Ecomivm id est Stvltitiae Lavs ed. by Clarence Miller in
Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Ordinis quarti (Amsterdam: North-
Holland Publishing Company, 1979).
———, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami denuo recognitum et auctum, ed.
by Percy Stafford Allen and H. M. Allen, 12 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906–1958).
Foxe, John, Actes and monuments of these latter and perillous dayes, etc. (London:
John Day 1563).
Gedicke, Lambert, Kurtzer Historischer Unterricht von dem gantzen Reformations-
Werck, so durch der Dienst Lutheri sich anno 1517 angefangen […] (Berlin: Gedicke,
1718).
Geldenhauer, Gerard, Collectanea, ed. by J. Prinsen (Amsterdam: Johannes Müller, 1901).
Grumbach, Argula von, Schriften, ed. by Peter Matheson (Güterloh: Güterloher
Verlaghaus, 2010).
Haemstede, Andriaen Cornelis van, De Gheschiedenisse Ende Den doodt der vromer
Martelaren die om het ghetuyghenisse des Euangeliums haer bloedt ghestort
hebben, van den tijden Christi af, totten Jare M.D.LIX. toe, by een vergadert op
het kortste (Antwerp: n.p. 1559).
Hortleder, Friedrich, ed. Der Römischen Kayser- und Königlichen Maiestete, Auch
deß heiligen Römischen Reichs Geistlicher und Weltlicher Stände, Churfürsten,
Fürsten, Graven, Herren, Reichs- und anderer Städte, zusampt der heiligen Schrifft,
Geistlicher und Weltlicher Rechte Gelehrte Handlungen und Außschreiben,
Rathschläge, Bedencken, Send- und andere Brieffe, Bericht, Supplicationschrifften
[…] (Frankfurt am Main: Endter, 1617).
Kessler, Johann, Sabbata. Chronik der Jahre 1523–1539, ed. by Ernst Goetzinger (St.
Gallen: Scheitlin & Zollikofer, 1866).
Kirchner, Johann Georg, Historische Nachricht von dem Märtyrertode der ersten
Lutherischen Blutzeugen Jesu Christi, Heinrich Voes, Johann Esch und Lamperti
Thorn: welche die durch Lutheri Dienst wieder ans Licht gebrachte Warheit des
Evangelii in den Niederlanden im Jahr 1523 mit ihrem Blute freudigts versiegelt
haben (Halle: In Verlegung des Wäysenhauses, 1755).
was er zů vorne anderßwo derohalben erlitten habe. (Altenburg: Gabriel Kantz,
1525).
Lanz, Karl, ed. Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl V. Aus dem königlichen Archiv und der
Bibliothèque de Bourgogne zu Brüssel, 3 vols. (Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1966).
Latomus, Jacobus, Articulorum doctrinae fratris M. Lutheri per theologus Lovanienses
damnatorum ratio ex sacris literis et veteribus tractoribus (Antwerp, n.p. 1521).
———, Opera quae praecipue adversus horum temporum haereses eruditissime, ac
singulari iudicio conscripsit (Louvain: Gravius, 1550).
Laurent, Charles, J. Lameere, and H. Simont, eds. Des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas.
Deuxième Série. 1506–1700. Règne de Charles-Quint 1506–1555, 6 vols. (Bruxelles:
J. Goemaere, 1893–1922).
Linck, Wenceslaus, ‘To the Christian Reader’, in Johannes Lang, Historia wie S.
Heinrich von Zutphan newlich in Dittmars umbs evangelions willen gemartert
und gestorben ist. Item ein sendbrieff desselbigen was er zu vorne andersswo
erlitten habe. Mathei 10. Sihe, ich sende euch wie die schaffe mitten unter die
wölffe, darumb seit klug wie die schlangen, und on falsch wie die tauben, etc. in
Bremisches Jahrbuch, Zweite Serie 1 (1885), 191–221.
Ludwig, Walther, ed. Vater und Sohn im 16. Jahrhundert: Der Briefwechsel des Wolf-
gang Reichart genannt Rychardus mit seinem Sohn Zeno (1520–1543) (Hildesheim:
Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1991).
Luther, Martin, Ein brief an die Christen ym Nidder land (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1523).
———, Luther’s Works, ed. by Ulrich S. Leupold, 78 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1955-).
Massie, Richard, trans., Martin Luther’s Spiritual Songs (London: Hatchard and
Son, 1854).
Melanchthon, Philipp, Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Corpus
Reformatorum, ed. by Carl Bretschneider (Halle: C.A. Schwetschke et Filius, 1834).
Müller, Nikolaus, ed. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522. Die Vorgänge in
und um Wittenberg während Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt, 2nd ed. (Leipzig:
Heinsius, 1911).
Bibliography 237
Neander, Michael, Compendium Chonicorum sive historiarum omnium aetatum:

conscriptum in schola Ilfeldens (Leipzig: Defner, 1586).
Nigrinus, Georg, Ein wolgegründe Rechnung vnd Zeitregister, von anfang der Welt,
die Jarzal vnd Zeit begreiffend bis auff vns: Aus heiliger Schrift vnd bewertsten
Historien vnd Büchern der Gelerten zusam gezogen (Ursel: n.p., 1570).
———, Papistiche Inquisition und gulden Flüs der Römischen Kirchen, das ist,
Historia und Ankunfft der Römischen Kirchen, und sonderlich vom antichris-
tischen Wesen, inn Siben Bücher verfaßt nach anweisung der geheimen, und
doch außgetruckten zahl inn der Offenbarung Johannis: darinn aller römischen
Bischoffen, Ertzbischoffen, Patriarchen, Bäpst und entlich Antichristen Leben
und Händel kurtzlich angezogen (Straßburg: Jobin, 1582).
Oecolampadius, Johann, Oecolampadii Judicium de Martino Luther (n.p: n.p., 1520).
Osiander, Lucas, Epitomes historiae Ecclesiasticae Centuria, 16 vols. (Tübingen: G.
Gruppenbach, 1592–1603).
Papal Encyclical, ‘Bull of Excommunication’ http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
Leo10/l10exdom.htm. Accessed 6/26/2019.
Planitz, Hans von der, Berichte aus dem Reichsregiment in Nürnberg, 1521–1523, ed.
Probst, Jacob, Ein schone vnd clegliche history bruder Jacobs probst Augustiner
ordens vor zeiten Prior zu Antdorff an gemeine fromme Christenheit von beiden
gefencknissen so er von wegen des worts gottes vnd vmb des heyligen Euangeliumß
willen erlitten hatt. Ein Epistel darinnen obgemelter bruder Jacob probst vermanet
alle die so seine predig geh[oe]rt habenn vnd sonderlich die zu Antdorff (Colmar:
Amandus Farckall 1524).
———, Epistola ad Auditores suos Antuuerpienses in Bonae Literae et Lutherus: Texte
und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer Reformators Jakob
Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen zur Bremischen
Kirchengeschichte 14 (1985), 60–65.
———, Fratris Iacobi Praepositi, Augustiniani quondam Prioris Antuuerpiẽsis
historia vtriusque captiuitatis propter verbum Dei. Eiusdem etiam Epistola ad
Auditores suos Antuuerpienses (Wittenberg: Johann Rhau-Grunenberg, 1522).
———, Fratris Jacobi Praepositi historia utriusque captivitatis in Bonae Literae et
Lutherus: Texte und Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen der Theologie des Bremer
Reformators Jakob Probst, ed. by Ortwin Rudloff Hospitium Ecclesiae: Forschungen
Rabus, Ludwig, Historien der auserwählten heiligen Gottszeugen, Bekenner, und
Martyrer (Straßburg: Samuel Emmel, 1555–1556).
Reckenhoffer, Martin, Die Artickel, warumb der rector und Rethe der Hohenschul
zu Jngolstatt zwungen und genöttigt haben zum widerspruch Meyster Arsacium
Seehofer von München, mitampt des lauts der widerrüffung und seiner erklerung.
Die erklerung der Sibenzehen Artickel, durch Mayster Arsacij von München
christlich gelert, und wie unbillich und wider Gott eer gezwungen ist zum wid-
erspruch durch den Rectorn und Räthe der hohenschul zu Ingolstat, mitsampt
dem Lautt seiner widderfüng, aynem yetlichen wol zubehertzen (Augsburg:
Philipp Ulhart, 1524).
Seckendorf, Vitus Ludovicus, Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheran-
ismo: Sive de reformatione religionis ductu D. Martini Lutheri in magna Germaniae
parte alliisque regionibus (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Gleditsch, 1692).
Salig, Christian August, Vollständige Historie der Augspurgischen Confession und
derselben Apologie, aus bewährten Scribenten, und gedruckten zum Theil auch
ungedruckten Documenten genommen, 3 vols. (Halle: Rengerische Buchhandlung,
1730–1735).
Scultetus, Abraham, Abrahami Sculteti Annalium Evangelii passim per Europam
Saeculo XV Renovat. Decades I et II (Heidelberg: Jonas Rosa, 1618).
Sleidanus, Joannis, Warhafftige beschreibung geystlicher und weltlicher sachen/
under Keyser Carolo dem Fünfften verloffen (Straßburg: Josias Rihel and Theo-
dosius Rihel, 1557).
Spalatin, Georg, ‘Chronicon sive Annales Georgii Spalatini A M. Augusto Anni
MDXIII usque ad finem fere Anni MDXXVI ex autographo auctoris descripti’,
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum prœcipue Saxonicarum 2 (1728), cols. 589–662.
———, ‘Excerpta quaedam e Diario Georgii Spalatini MSto’, in Amoenitates
Bartholomaei, 1725), 4:389–432.
Spangenberg, Cyriakus, Mansfeldische Chronica in Mansfelder Blätter 27, 28, 30,
31, 32 (1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1918).
Stupperich, Robert, ed. ‘Melanchthoniana inedita III’, Archiv für Reformationsge-
schichte 52 (1961), 91–93.
Surius, Laurentius, Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, ab anno salutis M.D.
usque in annum M.D.LXXIIII. Ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus congestus, & nunc
recèns non parùm auctus & locupletatus (Cologne: Johann [Erben] Quentel, 1574).
Ullens, Franciscus Godefridus, Antwerpsch Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders
te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574, ed.
by Pieter vander Eyk (Leiden: Pieter vander Eyk, 1743).
VIII, 21 vols. (London: Longman, 1864–1932).
Zütphen, Heinrich von. ‘Zütphen’s Briefe’, ed. by Johann Friedrich Iken Bremisches
Jahrbuch II. 1 (1885), 241–252.
Zwingli, Ulrich, Zwinglis Briefwechsel, Die Briefe von 1510–1522 in Corpus reforma-
torum vol. 94, ed. by Georg Finsler (Leipzig: M. Heinsius, 1911).
Bibliography 239
Secondary Sources
Akerboom, Theodorus, ‘“A new song we raise”: On the first martyrs of the Reforma-
tion and the origin of Martin Luther’s first hymn’, Peri 4 (2006), 53–77.
———, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben an: Over de eerste martelaren van de Reformatie en
het ontstaan van het eerste lied van Martin Luther’, Lutherbulletin 14 (2005), 27–43.
Aschbach, Joseph Ritter von, Die Wiener Universität und ihre Gelehrten, 1520 bis
1565 (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1888).
Aschoff, Hans-Georg, ‘Bremen Erzstift und Stadt’, in Der Nordwesten. Die Ter-
ritorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung, Land
und Konfession 1500–1560, ed. by Anton Schindling and Walter Ziegler, 7 vols.
(Münster: Aschendorf, 1991), 3: 44–57.
Bethencourt, Francisco, The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478–1834, trans. by Jean
Birrel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1995] 2009).
Bezold, Friedrich von, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation (Berlin: G. Grote, 1890).
Boehmer, Julius, ‘Die Beschaffenheit der Quellenschriften zu Heinrich Voes und
Johann van den Esschen’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 28 (1931), 112–133.
Braekman‚ Emile Madeleine, ‘Het Lutheranisme in Antwerpen’, Bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis 70 (1987), 23–38.
———, Het protestantisme te Brussel: van de oorsprong tot aan het overlijden van
Leopold I (Brussel: Koninklijke Bibliotheek Albert I, 1980).
———, ‘Luther et les chrétiens des Pays-Pas d’après sa correspondance’, Bulletin
de la Societé d’Histoire du Protestantisme belge 8 (1983), 149–196.
Brooks, Peter, ‘A Lily Ungilded?: Martin Luther, the Virgin Mary and the Saints’,
Journal of Religious History 13 (1984), 136–149.
Brown, Christopher, Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the
Reformation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).
Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Casey, Paul F. ‘“Start Spreading the News”: Martin Luther’s First Published Song’,
in Renaissance and Reformation Studies: In Laudem Caroli for Charles G. Nauert,
Caspers, Charles, ‘Indulgences in the Low Countries c. 1300 – c. 1520’, in Promissory
Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. by R.
N. Swanson (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 65–100.
Chadwick, Owen, The Early Reformation on the Continent (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991).
Christman, Robert J., ‘“For he is coming”: Revisiting Martin Luther’s Reaction to
the Reformation’s First Executions’, Lutherjahrbuch 83 (2015), 11–41.
Christman, Robert J., Doctrinal Controversy and Lay Religiosity in Late Reformation
Germany: The Case of Mansfeld (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
———, ‘Die Erster Märtyrer des evangelischen Glaubens’, Beiträge zur Reforma-
tionsgeschichte 1 (1900), 40–52.
———, ‘Ein Brief von Augustin Himmel’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 21
(1924), 127–132.
———, ‘Zu Jacobus Praepositus’, in Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte aus
Bücher und Handschriften der Zwickauer Ratsschulbibliothek, 3 vols. (Berlin:
C.A. Schwetschke, 1900–1903), 1: 33–39.
Cole, Richard, ‘The Reformation pamphlet and the communication process’, in
Flugschriften als Massenmedium der Reformationszeit. Beiträge zum Tübinger
Symposion 1980, ed. by H. J. Köhler (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981), pp. 139–161.
Decavele, Johan, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565), 2 vols.
(Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1975).
———, De eerste protestanten in de Lage Landen: Geloof en heldenmoed (Leuven:
Davidsfonds, 2004).
———, ‘De noodlottige zestiende eeuw’, in Zeven eeuwen Augustijnen, Een kloost-
ergemeenschap schrijft geschiedenis, ed. by Werner Grootaers and Marc Mees
(Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1996), pp. 69–81.
———, ‘Historiografie van het zestiende-eeuws Protestantisme in België’, Ned-
erlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62 (1982), 1–27.
———, ‘Vroege reformatorische bedrijvigheid in de grote Nederlandse steden:
Claes van der Elst te Brussel, Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Leiden (1524–1528)’,
Decker, A. de, ‘Les Augustins d’Anvers et la Réforme’, Messager des sciences histor-
iques ou archives des arts et de la bibliographie de Belgique 26 (1883), 373–388.
Bibliography 241
Dreher, Max, ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in München im Zeitalter der Reformation
und des Barock (16. Bis Mitte 18. Jahrhunderts)’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Salzburg, 2002. Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Düfel, Hans, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1968).
Duinen, Herman van, Een augustijnenklooster van aanzien: conventus sancti augus-
tini dordracencis 1275–1572 (Dordrecht: Historische Vereniging Oud-Dordrecht,
2010).
———, Hendrik van Zutphen (1489–1524), prior – reformator – martelaar. Bleskens-
graaf: Blassekijn, 2004).
Duke, Alistair, ‘The Netherlands’, in The Early Reformation in Europe ed. by Andrew
Pettegree (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 142–165.
———, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries (London: Hambledon Press,
1990).
———, ‘Salvation by Coercion: the Controversy surrounding the ‘Inquisition’ in the
Low Countries on the Eve of the Revolt’, in Reformation Principle and Practice.
Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, ed. by P.N. Brooks (London: Scolar
Press, 1980), pp. 137–154.
Ebeling, Gerhard, Luther: Einführung in sein Denken (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2006 [1964]).
Edwards, Mark, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1994).
Ennen, Leonard, Geschicht der Stadt Köln, Meist aus den Quellen des Stadt-Archiv,
Ewald, Paul, Geschichte der Pfarrei Plech und Umgegend (Bayreuth: Buchner, 1841).
Frandsen, Mary E., ‘“Salve Regina/Salve Rex Christe”: Lutheran Engagement with
the Marian Antiphons in the Age of Orthodoxy and Piety’, Musica Disciplina
55 (2010), 129–218.
Fühner, Jochen, Die Kirchen- und die antireformatorischen Religionspolitik Kaiser
Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Gemeinhardt, Peter, ‘Märtyrer und Martyriumsdeutungen von der Antike bis zur
Reformation’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 120 (2009), 289–322.
Gerdes, Daniel, Origines Ecclesiarum in Belgio Reformatarum, sive historia ecclesi-
astica evangelii seculo decimo sexto in Belgio renovati, doctrinæque reformatæ,
quam usque ad excessum Imperatoris Caroli Quinti descripsit D.G. (Groningen:
Hajonem Spandaw, 1749).

Balans, 2017).
Gielis, Gert, In gratia recipimus: Nicolaas Coppin (ca. 1476–1535) en de inquisitie in
de Nederlanden (Leuven: Peeters, 2018).
———, Verdoelde schaepkens, bytende wolven: Inquisitie in de Lage Landen (Leuven:
Davidsfonds, 2009).
Gielis, Gert and Violet Soen, ‘The Inquisitorial Office in the Sixteenth-Century
History 66 (2015), 47–66.
ieke leer van de Leuvense theologen (ca. 1520)’, Luther-Bulletin: Tijdschift voor
———, ‘Erasmus, Latomus et le martyre des deux Augustins’, in Erasmus of Rot-
terdam, The Man and the Scholar, ed. by J. Sperna Weiland and W. Th. H. Frijhoff
(Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 61–68.
———, ‘Leuven Theologians as Opponents of Erasmus and of Humanistic Theology’,
in Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, ed. by Erika
Rummel (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 197–214.
Goosens, Aline, Les Inquisitions modernes dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux 1520–1633,
2 vols. (Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1997–1998).
Gregory, Brad S., ‘Late Medieval Religiosity and the Renaissance of Christian
Martyrdom in the Reformation Era’, in Continuity and Change: The Harvest of
Late Medieval and Reformation History, Essays presented to Heiko A. Oberman
on his 70th Birthday, ed. by Robert Bast and Andrew Gow (Leiden: Brill, 2000),
pp. 378–399.
———, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Halkin, Léon E., La Réforme en Bélgique sous Charles-Quint (Bruxelles: La Renais-
sance du livre, 1957).
Hamm, Berndt, ‘Johann von Staupitz (ca. 1468–1524): spättmittelalterlicher Reformer
und “Vater” der Reformation’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 92 (2001), 6–41.
Hammer, Gerhard, ‘Der Streit um Bucer in Antwerpen. Ein rätselvoller Textfund
und ein unbekannter Lutherbrief’, in Lutheriana. Zum 500. Geburtstag Martin
Bibliography 243
Luthers, ed. by Gerhard Hammer and Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen (Cologne and
Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 1984), pp. 393–454.
Harreld, Donald J., High Germans in the Low Countries: German Merchants and
Commerce in Golden Age Antwerp (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004).
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, ‘Märtyrergedanken in der evangelischen Kirche’, Zeitschrift
für Kirchengeschichte 120 (2009), 323–339.
Heal, Bridget, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant
and Catholic Piety, 1500–1648 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
1981), pp. 397–446.
Hemmerle, J., ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten in Bayern’, Augustiniana 6 (1956), 385–489.
Hendrix, Scott, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981).
Herwerden, C. H. van, Het Aandenken van Hendrik van Zütphen (Groningen: J.
Oomkens, 1840).
Heyne, Bodo, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen 1522–1524. Am Vorabend – Der Beginn –
Die Bahnbrecher’, Hospitium ecclesiae 8 (1973), 7–54.
Hill, Thomas, Die Stadt und ihr Markt, Bremens Umlands- und Außenbeziehungen
im Mittelalter (12.-15. Jahrhundert) (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004).
Hillerbrand, Hans, The Division of Christianity: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century
(Louisville, KY: Westmister John Knox Press, 2007).
Hirsch, Rudolf, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450–1550 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1967).
Höfler, Constantin, Pabst Adrian VI. 1522–1523 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1880).
Hofmann, Seigfried, Geschichte der Stadt Ingolstadt 1506–1600 (Ingolstadt: Do-
naukurier Verlagsgesellschaft, 2006).
Hoop-Scheffer, J. G. de, Geschichte der Reformation in den Niederlanden von ihrem
Beginn bis zum Jahre 1531. Deutsche Originalausgabe, ed. by P. Gerlach (Leipzig:
G. Hirzel, 1886).
and Hans de Valk, (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2012), pp. 47–66.
Iken, J. Friedrich, Heinrich von Zütphen, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsge-
schichte 12 (Halle: Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1886).
Janicke, Karl, Miritz, Melchior in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 56 vols. (Leipzig:
Duncker and Humblot, 1875–1912).
Janssen, Hendrik, Jacobus Praepositus, Luthers leerling en vriend: geschetst in zijn
lijden en strijden voor de Hervormingzaak (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen, 1862).
1500 bis 1700, Kulturregion Osnabrück vol. 31 (Münster: Waxman, 2017), pp. 65–98.
Kalkoff, Paul, ‘Das unechte Breve Hadrians VI. an Friedrich … eine Flugschrift
Hochstratens’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 90 (1917), 231–273.
———, ‘Der Inquisitionsprocess des Antwerpener Humanisten Nikolas von
Herzogenbusch’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 24 (1903), 416–429.
———, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in den Niederlanden, 2 vols. (Halle:
Verein für Reformationsgeschichte, 1903 & 1904).
Reformation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).
Knappert, L., Het ontstaan en de vestiging van het protestantisme in de Nederlanden
(Utrecht: Oosthoek, 1924).
King, John N., Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Early Modern Print Culture (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Kist, Nicolaas Christiaan, ‘Het lied van Luther op den marteldood van Henrik Voes
en Joannes Esch, den 1 Julij 1523 te Brussel verbrand’, Nederlands archief voor
kerkgeschiedenis 5 (1934), 461–485.
Kolb, Robert, For all the Saints: Changing Perceptions of Martyrdom and Sainthood
in the Lutheran Reformation (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987).
———, ‘God’s Gift of Martyrdom: The Early Reformation Understanding of Dying
for the Faith’, Church History 64 (1995), 399–441.
Kolde, Theodor, ‘Arsacius Seehofer und Argula vom Grumbach’, Beiträge zur
bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 11 (1905), 49–77; 97–123; 149–187.
———, Die deutsche Augustiner-Kongregation und Johann von Staupitz (Gotha:
F.A. Perthes, 1879).
Kooiman, Willem Jan, Luther’s kerklied in de Nederlanden (Amsterdam: ’t koggeschip,
1943).
———, ‘Terechtstelling van Hendrik Voes u. Jan van Essen’, Documenta Reforma-
toria: teksten uit de geschiedenis van kerk en theologie in de Nederlanden sedert
de Hervorming 1 (1960), 25–48.
Köstlin, Julius and Gustav Kawerau, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften,
2 vols. (Berlin: Wiegandt & Schotte, 1889).
Krentz, Natalie, Ritualwandel und Deutungshoheit – Die frühe Reformation in der
Residenzstadt Wittenberg (1500–1533) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).
Kruse, Jens-Martin, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: die Anfänge der
Reformation in Wittenberg 1516–1522 (Mainz: von Zabern, 2002).
Bibliography 245
Lehnemann, Johannes, Historische Nachricht von der vormahls im sechzehenden

Jahrhundert berühmten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Antorff, und der
daraus entstandenen Niederländischen Gemeinde Augspurgischer Confession
in Franckfurt am Mayn (Frankfurt am Main: Johann Friedrich Fleischer, 1725).
Leyder, Dirk, Monasticon Augustinianum Belgicum (Brussel: Algemeen Rijksarchief,
1998).
Lindberg, Carter, The European Reformations, 2nd ed. (Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons, [1996] 2010).
Lotz-Heumann, Ute, ‘Confessionalization’, in Reformation and Early Modern Europe:
A Guide to Research, ed. by David Whitford (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century
Publishers, 2008), pp. 136–157.
Marnef, Guido, Antwerpen in de tijd van de Reformatie (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff
and Antwerp: Kritak, 1996).
———, ‘Tussen tolerantie en repressie: Protestanten en religieuze dissidenten te
Antwerpen in de 16de eeuw’, in Minderheden in Westeuropese steden (16de-20ste
eeuw), ed. by Hugo Soly and Alfons K.L. Thijs (Brussels and Rome: Institut
Historique Belge de Rome, 1995), pp. 189–213.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘Mary and Sixteenth-Century Protestants’, in The Church
and Mary: Papers Read at the 2001 Summer Meeting and the 2002 Winter Meeting of
the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. by R.N. Swanson (Woodbridge: Ecclesiastical
History Society, 2004), pp. 191–217.
———, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: Allen Lane, 2003).
Matheson, Peter, Argula von Grumbach Eine Biographie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2014).
———, ‘Augustijnen in Conflict met Dortse Magistraat? Eerste tekenen van
Lutheranisme in Nederland’, Archief voor de geschiedenis van de Katholieke
Kerk in Nederland 5 (1963), 343–350.
Meyer, A. de, ‘Adriaan Florisz. Van Utrecht in zijn Contacten met de Augustijnen’,
Archief voor de Gescheidenis van de Katholieke Kerk in Nederland 2 (1960), 1–72.
Meylan, Henri, ‘Martyrs du Diable’, Revue de theologie et de philosophie 9 (1959),
28–44.
Mixon, James D., ‘Religious Life and Observant Reform in the Fifteenth Century’,
History Compass 11 (2013), 201–214.
Moeller, Bernd and Stephen E. Buckwalter, eds., Die frühe Reformation in Deutschland
als Umbruch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998).
Moeller, Bernd, ‘Die Reformation in Bremen’, Jahrbuch der Wittheit zu Bremen 17
(1973), 51–73.
———, ‘Inquisition und Martyrium in Flugschriften der frühen Reformation in
Deutschland’, in Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, ed. by S.
Seidel Menchi (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pp. 21–48.
Nave, Francine de, ‘Antwerpen, dissident drukkerscentrum in de 16e eeuw: algemene

synthese?’, in Antwerpen, dissident drukkerscentrum: de rol van de Antwerpse
drukkers in de godsdienststrijd in Engeland (16de eeuw), ed. by D. Imhof (Antwerp:
Stad Antwerpen, 1994).
———, ‘Hervorming en boekdrukkunst. Antwerpen als typografisch centrum in de
16. Eeuw’, in Protestantse Drukken en Prenten uit de Hervormingstijd te Antwerpen,
ed. by Francine de Nave and E. M. Braekman (Antwerp: Herdenkingscomité
Protestantse Kerken, 1985), pp. 5–15.
und Siedler: 1982).
Oettinger, Rebecca, Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2001).
Olson, Jeannine, ‘Jean Crespin, Humanist Printer’, in The Harvest of Humanism in
Central Europe: Essays in Honor of Lewis W. Spitz, ed. by Manfred Fleischer (St.
Louis: Concordia, 1992), pp. 317–340.
Otto, C. ‘Ueber ein Breve des Papstes Hadrian VI. an den Kurfürsten Friedrich von
Sachsen im Jahre 1522’, Der Katholik: Zeitschrift für Katholische Wissenschaft
und Kirchliches Leben 53 (1873), 237–242.
———, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2005).
Pfannmüller, D.G., Leid-, Spruch- und Fabeldichtung im Dienste der Reformation
(Leipzig: Philipp Reclam, 1938).
Pichal, E., De geschiedenis van het protestantisme in Vlaanderen (Antwerp: Standaard
Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij, 1976).
Pijper, Frederick, ‘Het martelaarschap van Hendrik Voes en Joannes van den
Eschen’, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica 8 (1911), 3–42.
Plummer, Marjorie, From Priest’s Whore to Pastor’s Wife: Clerical Marriage and
the Process of Reformation in the Early German Reformation (Aldershot and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012).
Pont, Johannes, Geschiedenis van het Lutheranisme in de Nederlanden tot 1618
(Haarlem, De Erven F. Bohn 1911).
Johann von Staupitz (Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003).
Prantl, Karl von, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität in Ingolstadt,
Landshut, München, 2 vols. (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, [1968] 1972).
Prims, F., ‘Het vette Vlaminkje’, Antverpiensia 3 (1929), 66–73.
Raupach, Bernhard, Evangelisches Oesterreich, das ist Historische Nachricht von
den vornehmsten Schicksalen der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchen in dem
Bibliography 247
Ertz-Hertzogtum Oesterreich (Hamburg: Theodor Christoph Felginers Wittwe,

1736).
Redlich, Otto, Der Reichstag von Nürnberg 1522–1523 (Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1887).
Reformatorenlexikon, Robert Stupperich, ed. (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984).
Robinson-Hammerstein, Helga, ‘The Lutheran Reformation and its Music’, in
Transmission of Ideas in The Lutheran Reformation, ed. by Helga Robinson-
Hammerstein (Blackrock: Irish Academic Press, 1989), pp. 141–171.
Rössler, Martin, ‘Ein neues Lied wir heben an: Ein Protestsong Martin Luthers’, in
& Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 216–232.
Rublack, Ulinka, Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005).
Schilling, Heinz, ‘Confessionalization and the Empire’, in Religion, Political Culture
and the Emergence of Early Modern Society: Essays in German and Dutch History,
ed. by Heinz Schilling (Leiden: Brill, 1992).
Schneider, Hans, ‘Die autobiographischen Aufzeichnungen des Nürnberger Au-
gustinereremiten Nikolaus Besler’, Augustiniana 62 (2012), 119–152.
———, ‘Johannes von Staupitz’ Amtsverszicht und Ordenswechsel’, Augustiniana
66 (2016), 185–231.
———, ‘Martin Luthers Reise nach Rom – neu datiert und neu gedeutet’, in Studien
zur Wissenschafts- und zur Religionsgeschichte, vol. 10.2 (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011), pp. 1–158.
———, ‘Zwei Briefe über die Situation in Wittenberg 1522 und 1524 im Register
des Ordensgenerals der Augustinereremiten’, Lutherjahrbuch 83 (2016), 11–34.
Schultz, Jacob, ‘Naamlijst van Nederlanders die van 1502 tot 1560 aan de Hogeschool
te Wittenberg zijn ingeschreven’, in Oud en nieuw uit de geschiedenis der Ned-
erlandsche Lutherse Kerk, ed. by Johann Christoffel Schultz Jacobi (Rotterdam,
1862), pp. 20–77.
Scott, Tom, ‘The Collective Response of Women to Early Reforming Preaching: Four
Small Communities and their Preachers Compared’, in The Early Reformation
in Germany: Between Secular Impact and Radical Vision (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2013), pp. 117–141.
———, The Early Reformation in Germany: Between Secular Impact and Radical
Vision (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013).
Scribner, Robert, ‘Why was there no Reformation in Cologne’, Bulletin of the Institute
of Historical Research 49 (1976), 217–241.
Soen, Violet, ‘De reconciliatie van “ketters” in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden’,
Traiecta 14 (2005), 337–362.
Medieval Heresy, Erasmian Humanism, and Reform in the Early Sixteenth-Century
———, ‘Humanisme, Evangelisme en Reformatie in de Nederlanden, 1520–1530’,
in Reformatie in meervoud : congresbundel 1990, ed. by W. de Greef and M. van
Campen (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1991), pp. 26–54.
Thijssen, Augustin, Antwerpen Vermaard door den Eeredienst van Maria: Geschied-
kundige Nota’s over de 500 Mariabeelden in de Straten der Stad, 2nd ed. (Antwerp:
Buerbaum, [1902] 1922).
Tracy, James D., Europe’s Reformations 1450–1650 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).
———, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 1506–1566: The Formation of a Body Politic
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).
Ter gedachtenis van de eerste martelaren voor de Hervorming: Hendrik Voes en Jan
van Esschen (Brussels: Evangelisatie-Drukkerij, 1923).
Verachten, L., ‘De Augustijnen in de Nederlanden van ontstaan tot opheffing’, in
Zeven eeuwen Augustijnen: een kloostergemeenschap schrijft geschiedenis (Gent:
Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1996), pp. 31–49.
Veit, Patrice, Das Kirchenlied in der Reformation Martin Luthers: Eine thematische
und semantische Untersuchung, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europaische
Geschichte Mainz 120 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1986).
Vercruysse, Jos E., ‘De Antwerpse augustijnen en de lutherse Reformatie, 1513–1523’,
Traiecta 16 (2007), 193–216.
———, ‘Was haben die Sachsen und die Flamen gemeinsam…?’, in Wittenberg als
Bildungszentrum 1502–2002, ed. by Peter Freybe (Lutherstadt-Wittenberg: Drei
Kastanien Verlag, 2002), pp. 9–32.
Verheyden, A.L.E., Le martyrologe Courtraisien et le martyrologe Bruxellois (Vil-
voorde: Imprimerie R. Allecourt, 1950).
———, Le martyrologe protestant des Pays-Bas du sud au XVIe siècle (Brussels:
Éditions de la Librairie des éclaireurs unionists, 1960).
Bibliography 249

(Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Garant, 2011).
Visschers, P., Geschiedenis van St. Andries Kerk te Antwerpen, 3 vols. (Antwerp:
P.E. Janssens, 1853).
1969).
Wallace, Peter G., The Long European Reformation: Religion, Political Conflict, and
the Search for Conformity, 1350–1750 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Walsh, Katherine, ‘Papacy and Local Reform: A) The Beginning of the Augustinian
Observance in Tuscany’, Römische historische Mitteilungen 21 (1979), 35–57.
———, ‘Papacy and Local Reform: B) Congregatio Ilicetana: The Augustinian
Observant Movement in Tuscany and the Humanist Ideal’, Römische historische
Mitteilungen 22 (1979), 105–146.
Weinbrenner, Ralph, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert zwischen Ideal und Praxis:
Der Augustinereremit Andreas Proles (1429–1503) und die privilegierte Observanz,
Spätmittelalter und Reformation vol. 7 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996).
Wernicke, Michael (OSA), ‘Die Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Orden und Klöster
im Zeitalter von Reformation und katholischer Reform 1500–1700’, 3 vols.,
Katholisches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter des Glaubensspaltung
vol. 66, ed. by F. Jürgensmeier and R.E. Schwerdtfeger (Münster, Aschendorf,
2006), 2: 52–76.
Winterhager, Wilhlem, ‘Ablaßkritik als Indikator historischen Wandels vor 1517:
Ein Beitrag zu Voraussetzungen und Einordnung der Reformation’, Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 90 (1999), 6–71.
———, ‘Martin Luther und das Amt des Provinzialvikars in der Reformkongre-
gation der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter:
Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Franz Felten and Nikolas
Jaspert (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), pp. 707–738.
Wolters, Albrecht, Reformationgeschichte der Stadt Wesel bis zur Befestigung ihres
reformirten Bekenntnisses durch die Weseler Synode (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1868).
Wood, Diana, ed. Martyrs and Martyrologies, Studies in Church History vol. 30
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).
Wriedt, Markus, Gnade und Erwählung. Eine Untersuchung zu Johann von Staupitz
und Martin Luther (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1991).
Zschoch, Helmut, Klosterreform und monastische Spiritualität im 15. Jahrhundert.
Conrad von Zenn OESA (†1460) und sein Liber de vita monastica, Beiträge zur
Historischen Theologie (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988).
Zumkeller, Adolar, ‘Augustiner-Eremiten’, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 36

vols., (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 4: 728–739.
———, ‘Johannes von Staupitz und die klösterliche Reformbewegung’, Analecta
Augustiana 52 (1989), 31–49.
———, ‘Martin Luther und sein Orden’, Analecta Augustiana 25 (1962), 254–290.
Zwanepol, Klaas, ‘Luther en Antwerpen’, Lutherbulletin 16 (2007), 57–92.
About the Author
Robert J. Christman is Professor of History at Luther College in Decorah,

Iowa, USA. His publications include Doctrinal Controversy and Lay Religiosity
in Late Reformation Germany: The Case of Mansfeld (2012) and numerous
articles. His research focuses on the Reformation in the German speaking
lands and in the Low Countries.
Index
Adrian (Hadrian) of Antwerp: 189 Eisleben (1520): 97-98
Adrian VI, pope (Adrian Floriszoon): 14-15, Grimma (1522): 61-62, 66, 103-104
49-51, 56, 62, 80-88, 145-149, 160, 164, Heidelberg (1518): 41-42, 224
197-198, 218-221 Wittenberg (1522): 103, 112
Aegidius de Viterbo: 28 Cloisters:
Akerboom, Dick: 208 Antwerp: 12, 14-15, 37-38, 48-70, 110,
Albrecht IV, Count of Mansfeld: 28 217
Aleander, Jerome: 15, 52, 57-58, 77-79, 102, 105, Cologne: 12, 34, 38, 62, 86, 159-162, 217
115, 122, 219, 226, 228 studium generale: 34, 86, 98-99
Alexander IV, pope: 22 Dordrecht: 34-36, 38, 62, 102, 156-157,
Alexander VI, pope: 32 217
Anger, Hieronymus: 188-189 Dresden: 38
Antichrist: 41, 43, 119 Eisleben: 27, 37, 54-55, 93-94, 217
Antwerp: 48-49, 66, 164, 198 Enghien (Edingen): 12, 31-32, 62, 158
Canons of the Church of Our Lady: 37, 49-51 Enkhuizen: 12, 32, 37-38, 49, 62,
Church of Our Lady: 198, 202 158-159
City Council: 50-51, 67, 121 Erfurt: 13, 95
laity of: 119 Ghent: 12, 36, 38, 62, 99, 157-158, 217
Antwerp Augustinians: 110-121 Haarlem: 12, 33, 62, 158
Argula von Grumbach: 176, 182-183 Magdeburg: 23, 38
Aristotle: 40 Munich: 87
Augustine, St.: 40 Nuremburg: 23
Augustinian Order: 12, 21-22 Rappoltsweiler: 27-28, 217
Lecceto, Congregation of: 23 Waldheim: 23
Province of Germany: 22 Wittenberg: 13, 30-31, 38, 40, 61-62
Province of Bavaria: 22, 24 studium generale: 41, 53, 92-93,
Province of Cologne: 22, 30, 36, 85 96, 111
Province of Rhenish-Swabia: 22, 24, 27, 29 Province of Lower Germany: 12-16, 30-39,
Province of Saxony: 22-24 75, 98, 110-111, 121
Province of Saxony-Thuringia: 27, 41
Bähr, Paul: 118, 200-201 Province of Upper Germany: 27
Beghards: 68 Cologne:
Benno, Bishop of Meissen: 147-149 Archbishop of: 159
Bernard of Orley: 164 City council: 33
Besler, Nikolaus: 97, 161 confessionalization: 212, 222-223
Billicanus, Theobald: 42 conventicles: 163-167
Botzheim, Johann: 177 Conventuals: 30, 157, 162
Brassicanus, Johann Alexander: 176, 181-182 Council of Brabant: 50-51, 56, 70
Bremen: 66, 104-105, 118, 186-187 Counter-Reformation: 197, 212
Brenz, Johannes: 42 Crespin, Jean: 215-216
Brussels: 11, 58, 122, 163
Bucer, Martin: 42 Decavele, Johan: 98
Buxschott, Adrian: 190-191 Diercxsens, Jean: 63-64
Diet of Worms: 15, 78
Cambrai, Bishop of: 76 Diet of Nuremburg: 145-146, 209
Casper, Charles: 114-115 Dietmarsh (Heide Dietmarsh): 66, 187
Charles V, emperor: 13, 56, 61-62, 79-80, 83, Dürer, Albrecht: 93
104, 198, 202
Chiericati, Francesco: 82, 145-146, 177 Ebeling, Gerhard: 222
Cologne, city council of: 159-162 Eck, Johann: 179-180, 228
Congregation of German Reformed Augustin- Edict of Worms: 15, 57, 102, 219
ians: 12-13, 21-43, 224 Egmond, Nicholas of: 57, 80, 164, 181
Chapter Meetings: Elst, Claes (Nicolaas) vander: 164-167, 221
Dordrecht (1522): 62, 70, 84, 104, Erasmus of Rotterdam: 16, 52, 58, 78, 103,
156-157 162-163, 175-175, 205, 207, 222, 226
Esschen, Johann van den: 11-12, 37, 54-55, 63, Luther, Martin: 13, 15-18, 21, 38, 41, 57-60, 65,
65, 70, 129-130, 217-223 68-69, 93-101, 104-105, 112, 159, 219, 220-221,
Exsurge Domine, papal bull: 15, 77 225-227, 229-230
as District Vicar of Saxony-Thuringia: 54,
Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517): 28 93-94
Focker, Jacob: 184 The Freedom of a Christian: 149
Foxe, John: 215 journey to Rome: 95
Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony: 28, 33, ninety-five theses: 41, 96, 159, 175
111, 146-147 Heidelberg theses: 41-42
free will, doctrine of: 126, 129 ‘A New Song Here Shall Be Begun’: 135-155,
175, 207
Gansfort, Wessel: 114 Open Letter to the Christians in the Low
Gielis, Marcel: 208 Countries: 137, 143-144, 174-175, 208, 211
Giles of Viterbo: 40 ‘priesthood of all believers’: 124
Glapion, Jean: 57, 78-80 sola scriptura: 125
Goch, Johannes Pupper von: 60 soteriology: 41-42
Grapheus, Cornelius: 60, 65 Virgin Mary, understanding of: 199-200
Gregory of Rimini: 23
George of Saxony, Duke: 148, 163 Mansfeld, Territory of: 28
Gracht, Gedeon van der: 158 Margaret of Austria: 62, 64, 67-68, 198, 202
Groote, Geert: 114 martyrdom: 135-153
martyrologies: 215-217
Haemstede, Andriaan van: 216 Mary of Hungary: 158
Hauer, George: 178-180, 184-185, 205, 207, 222 Mechelen, Johann van: 32-33, 35, 37-38, 48-52,
Held, Conrad: 111-112 62, 86, 95, 101, 104, 160-161
Heyden, Sebald: 209-210 Medici, Giulio de (Pope Clement VII): 77-79
Himmel, Heinrich: 34, 86, 98-99, 159-162 Miritsch, Melchior: 38, 60, 98-100, 144, 158,
Hochstraten, Jacob: 57, 77 189
Hoen, Cornelius: 60, 65 Modern Devotion: 114
Hoens, Joost: 48-50, Mulmann, Lambrecht: 177
Hulst, Frans van der: 50, 56, 58, 69-70, 79-80, Müntzer, Thomas: 137
82-83, 119, 130, 197-198, 206, 218-219 Mussche, Marcus: 48-50
Huysden, Johannes: 34
Nicholas of Tolentino: 31
indulgences: 43, 66, 102, 114-115, 218 Nuremberg: 38
Ingolstadt: 178-185, 228
inquisition: 56-70, 82, 122-130, 140-141, 147 Observant Reform (Observance): 23-39
Observants: 12, 21-39, 157
Jodocus, Count of Hoya: 190 Oecolampadius, Johann: 181
John Paul II, pope: 146 Oliva, Alexander: 24
Jung, Martin: 188
justification by faith: 122, pamphlets: 173-175, 183-184, 202-203, 208-211,
216-217
Kalkoff, Paul: 60, 98, 227-228 Pettegree, Andrew: 230
Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von: 54, 61, Pirckheimer, Willibald: 93
111-113 Planitz, Hans von der: 177
Kaufmann, Thomas: 224 Posset, Franz: 188
Kempis, Thomas á: 114 Probst, Jacob: 38, 51-52, 55, 58-59, 78-79,
Kinderen, Jan der: 165-167 100-102, 112-113, 115-117, 119, 122, 140, 144, 173,
Kolde, Theodor: 35 186-187, 205
Proles, Andreas: 24-25, 87
Lambert of Bonn: 160-161 purgatory: 122
Lang, Johannes: 96-97
Latomus, Jacob: 57-58, 80 Rabus, Ludwig: 216
Leipzig Disputation: 57, 179 Reckenhofer, Martin: 174, 183
Leo X, pope: 15, 28, 36, 145, 149 Regensburg Constitutions: 26
Linck, Wenceslaus: 38, 61-62, 87, 92-93, Additions: 26
97-100, 103-105, 112, 161-162 Reichart, Wolfgang: 176, 182, 222
Index 255
Reitweiser, Wolf: 49 Unigenitus: 125

Reuchlin, Johannes: 57 University of Cologne: 99
Rule of St. Augustine: 23, 26-27, 40 faculty of theology: 76-77, 82, 86, 160
University of Erfurt: 96
Saak, Eric: 40-41 University of Ingolstadt: 178-185
sacraments: 123 University of Leuven: 81
St. Andreas Church (Antwerp): 68 faculty of theology: 57, 76-77, 82, 164
Salve Regina: 199, 209-211 University of Wittenberg: 34, 36-38, 40, 51-55
Schneider, Hans: 95
Schnepf, Erhard: 42 Venezia, Gabriel de: 30, 84-85
scholastic theology: 41 Vicarines: 12
Seehofer, Arsacius: 182-185, 212 Vilvoorde: 63, 65, 69
Sleidanus, Johannes: 203-204 Virgin Mary: 163, 178-179, 184-185, 195-212, 222
Spangenberg, Cyriakus: 54-55 Visitation, Feast of: 202-206, 208
Spangenberg, Johann: 160-162 Vos, Hendrik: 11-12, 54-55, 63, 65, 70, 117,
Spalatin, George: 55, 65, 177 129-130, 217-223
Spengler, Lazarus: 93
Staupitz, Johann von: 25-26, 31-34, 36, 38, 40, Wesel: 157, 188
48, 51, 92-93, 228-229 Wilhelm II, Duke of Saxony: 24
Steenwyck, Johann: 188 Wingfield, Richard: 177
Stephanus, George: 37, 49-50
Zolter, Heinrich: 23
Thorn, Lambert: 65, 70, 140, 144, 165-167, 189, Zutphen, Hendrik van: 35, 38, 52-54, 61,
221 65-68, 100-106, 113, 117-121, 140, 144, 186-187,
treasury of merits: 124-125 200-201, 225
Zwilling, Gabriel: 61, 111-113, 159
Zwingli, Ulrich: 162

The Dynamics of The Early Reformation in Their Reformed Augustinian Context 9789048550876

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dynamics of The Early Reformation in Their Reformed Augustinian Context 9789048550876

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dynamics of the Early Reformationin their

Reformed Augustinian Context

Amsterdam University Press

Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden

isbn 978 94 6372 862 1

© R.J. Christman / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2020

1. Introduction: The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany 11

2. The German Reformed Congregation and its Province of

3. The Antwerp Cloister 47

4. The Authorities Respond: Pope and Emperor Seize the Initiative 75

5. Wittenberg’s Influence on the Events in Lower Germany 91

6. Reformation Ideas in the Low Countries 109

7. ‘Summer is at the door’: The Impact of the Executions on

8. The Impact of the Executions in the Low Countries 155

9. The Impact of the Executions in the German-Speaking Lands

10. The Marian Dimension 195

11. The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germanyand the

About the Author 251

On 1 July 1523, in front of a crowd of spectators, Hendrik Vos and Johann

‘Vicarines’. 4 These seven cloisters represented less than one-third of the

What is more, particularly during the Pontificate of Adrian VI (1522–1523),

that group – to further the cause of the Reformation in concrete ways.8

Hillerbrand, Hans, The Division of Christianity: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century

Key Words: Augustinian Order, Johann von Staupitz, Observant Movement,

In order to understand the role played by the cloisters of the Province of

A Brief History of the Augustinian Order and the Origins of the

The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine (Ordo Eremitarum Sancti Augustini;

In the second half of the fourteenth century laxity in discipline permeated

1 Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner Eremiten’, pp. 53–54.

In consequence, the early fifteenth century saw the beginnings of a reform

able to procure a series of papal privileges that to some degree loosened

9 Wernicke, ‘Die Augustiner Eremiten’, pp. 54–55.

German Reformed Congregation of Observant Augustinians had become

their own reform programmes, returning to stricter adherence to the Rule

Strategies to Expand Observant Influence in Lower Germany

Although Staupitz’s efforts at unifying the Conventual Province of Saxony

20 Weinbrenner, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert, pp. 86–98.

authorities to appeal to the emperor, who commanded the Provincial to

23 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 339.

33 Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. 7, p. 15.

40 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 238; Clemen, ‘Das Antwerper Augustiner-Kloster’,

44 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 252.

ecclesiastical affairs and temporal administration. Whether it was securing

Congregation’s leadership to desist from bothering the brothers there.56 The

56 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 344.

the Observants with excommunication ‘should they continue to harass

The establishment of the Antwerp house once again demonstrates Johann

64 Günther, Reform und Reformation, p. 346.

68 Bünger and Wentz, ‘Das Augustinereremitenkloster in Wittenberg’, esp. pp. 460–499.

The Dissemination of Luther’s Ideas within the Congregation

Before addressing the dissemination of Luther’s ideas within the Congregation,

71 According to the Augustinian Order’s Regensburg Constitution, a cloister in need of a new

the reform advocated by the promoters of Observance is causally connected

and scholastic theology, changes that institutionalized instruction in the

The Heidelberg Chapter Meeting (1518)

77 See Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform, esp. pp. 139–152.

Luther’s Break with Rome

chapters. Of course, issues of ecclesiology and papal power were already

They are working to get me to recant many articles, but my recantation

Rotscheidt-Mörs, Wilhelm, ‘Die Kölner Augustiner und die Wittenberger Reforma-

Key Words: Antwerp Augustinians, Jerome Aleander, Margaret of Austria,

At the epicentre of the approaching struggle over the Reformed Augustin-

The Antwerp cloister from its founding to the installation of

1. Introduction: The Reformed Augustinians of Lower Germany 11

3. The Antwerp Cloister 47

4. The Authorities Respond: Pope and Emperor Seize the Initiative 75

5. Wittenberg’s Influence on the Events in Lower Germany 91

6. Reformation Ideas in the Low Countries 109

8. The Impact of the Executions in the Low Countries 155

10. The Marian Dimension 195

About the Author 251