![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In 1575, the evangelical estates of the Czech lands presented their king, Maxilimian II, with an irenic confession of faith. This document was the product of cooperation among the Czech Utraquists, Lutherans, and the Unity of Brethren, and its composition entailed theological and ecclesiological negotiations among all three parties. This article excavates the sources for the confession of 1575 in order to examine the long history of religious negotiation and pragmatic toleration that characterized the Bohemian reformation. In doing so, it seeks to illuminate an alternative trajectory of reform in east-central Europe that cuts against the grain of the confessionalization paradigm that has featured centrally in reformation scholarship for the past four decades. This alternative conception of reform accepted religious co-existence and prized the extended search for theological common ground, rather than exclusivist truth claims, and created a framework for toleration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 In the sixteenth century, the kingdom of Bohemia, duchy of Silesia, and margraviates of Moravia, Upper Lusatia, Lower Lusatia comprised the lands of the Bohemian crown. This essay is primarily concerned with Bohemia and Moravia, and while ‘Bohemia’ will occasionally be used as a synecdoche for the Czech lands as a whole, matters pertaining directly to Moravian territories will be designated as such. For a detailed account of the Bohemian crown lands in this period, see Bahlcke, Regionalismus und Staatsintegration.
2 There is no single, book-length treatment of the Bohemian reformation as a whole. On the movement’s revolutionary era, see the magisterial treatment by: Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution; and the essays collected in Pavlíček and Šmahel, A Companion to Jan Hus. For the later history of the Bohemian reformation, see the collected essays in Palmitessa, Between Lipany and White Mountain and Van Dussen and Soukup, A Companion to the Hussites.
3 The former conception was most famously elaborated in: Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation; cf. the more recent intervention in this topic by Benrath, “Die sogenannten Vorreformatoren.” On the latter representation of the Bohemian reformation, see Haberkern, “Was the Bohemian Reformation a Failure?”
4 In making this argument, I am following the work of Válka, “Die ‘Politiques’” and Maťa, “Vorkonfessionelles, überkonfessionelles, transkonfessionelles Christentum.”
5 There is a substantial literature on the applicability of the confessionalization paradigm to the Czech lands, Poland, Hungary, and Austria. See, e.g. Bahlcke and Strohmeyer, Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa; Deventer, “‘Confessionalisation’ – A Useful Theoretical Concept?” and Michael Müller, “Toleranz vor der Toleranz.”
6 On the earliest Hussite synods, see Hlaváček, “Husitské sněmy” and Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 253-265.
7 On these interactions, see recent work by Burnett, “The Hussite Background to the Sixteenth-Century Eucharistic Controversy;” Haberkern, “The Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation;” and Craig Atwood, “The Bohemian Brethren and the Protestant Reformation.”
8 The composition of this confession has generated a substantial historiography. The foundational work remains Hrejsa, Česká konfesse. Cf. the more recent overviews in David, “Utraquists, Lutherans, and the Bohemian Confession” and Palmitessa, “Sixt of Ottersdorf’s Diarium.”
9 On the intertwined political and religious motivations behind the Confession, see Pánek, Stavovská Opozice, 101–19 and Bůžek, “From Compromise to Rebellion.”
10 On the early history of religious coexistence in the Czech lands, see Skýbová, “Politische Askpekte der Existenz zweier Konfessionen” and Eberhard, “Der Weg zur Koexistenz.”
11 On the Compactata and their role in establishing a bi-confessional regime in the Czech lands, see Thomas Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen des Basler Konzils mit den Böhmen und die Prager Kompaktaten als Friedensvertrag,” 249–308 and the introductory essay in Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten.
12 See, e.g. the recent work by Červenka, “One Church or Two Churches?”
13 The most fulsome, if borderline apologetic, history of the Utraquists can be found in David, Finding the Middle Way. This account is best balanced against that found in Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Ständeand idem, Monarchie und Widerstand.
14 On the resurgence of the Catholic church under Maximilian, see Kavka and Skýbová, Husitský Epilog na Koncilu Tridentském, especially chs. 7 and 8; Pánek, “Maximilian II. als König von Böhmen;” and Bahlcke, Regionalismus und Staatsintegration, 227–60.
15 On the early history of the consistory, see Fudge, “Reform and the Lower Consistory of Prague”: See also the magisterial work by Krofta, “Boj o konsistoř.”
16 For an overview of this treaty, see Just, “Die Kuttenberger Religionsfrieden von 1485” and Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Stände, 46–60.
17 For a critique of the Peace of Augsburg’s normativity as establishing a framework for religious toleration in central Europe, see Müller, “Toleranz vor der Toleranz,” especially 65–69.
18 The early history of the Unity has generated a substantial secondary literature. Due to its incorporation of the relevant primary sources, the older work of Joseph Theodor Müller remains essential: Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. More recent, helpful introductions can be found in Brock, The Political and Social Doctrines; Erhard Peschke, Kirche und Welt; and Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren. Cf. the exhaustive introduction to Czech historiography on this subject in Halama, “The Unity of Brethren.”
19 On the persistence of this issue, see Haberkern, “The Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation” and Atwood, “The Bohemian Brethren and the Protestant Reformation.”
20 On the history of religious coexistence and toleration in Moravia, see Mezník, “Tolerance na Moravě” and Josef Válka, Dějiny Moravy II.
21 On this schism, see Halama, “Konflikt, Schisma und theologische Diskontinuität” and Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren, ch. 7.
22 For a full catalogue of these texts, see Strupl, “Confession Theology.” See also Just, “Die Bewahrung des Ursprungs.”
23 Odložilík, “A Church in a Hostile State” and Pánek, “The Question of Tolerance.”
24 Generally, see: Heymann, “The Impact of Martin Luther” and Just et al., Luteráni v českých zemích, ch. 1. On the Lutheran center of Joachimstal, see Brown, Singing the Gospel and Just et al., Luteráni, 59–65.
25 On the evolution of the Utraquist church in the second half of the sixteenth century, see Vorel, “Die Aussenbeziehungne der Böhmischen Stände” and Eberhard, “Bohemia, Moravia, and Austria,” 30–4.
26 David, Finding the Middle Way, 198–200. For a more measured assessment of the continuing vitality of Utraquism in dialogue with other evangelical confessions, see Maťa, “Vorkonfessionelles, überkonfessionelles, transkonfessionelles Christentum,” especially 311–4.
27 Such was the central insight of Josef Válka, which has informed all subsequent scholarship. For a summary of his position, see: “Tolerance, či coexistence?”
28 Pánek, “Maximilian II. als König,” 64–9. Cf. Just, Luteráni v českých zemích, 75–7.
29 On the nobility’s role in patronizing and protecting the various non-Catholic churches in the Czech lands, see Pánek, “The Religious Question” and Maťa, “Constructing and Crossing Confessional Boundaries.”
30 See the recent analysis and bibliography in Landová, “Ekklesiologie der Böhmischen Brüder.”
31 This formulation is Josef Válka’s. For reference, see note 4, above.
32 Pánek, “Maximilian II. als König,” 65–6 and Fichtner, Maximilian II, 193–9.
33 On the 1571 negotiations, see Bahlcke, Regionalismus und Staatsintegration, 181–4 and David, Finding the Middle Way, 170–2.
34 On the process of writing the Confession at the diet, see Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 49–55 and Hrejsa, Česká Konfesse, 143–62.
35 David, Finding the Middle Way, 178–86.
36 On these earlier negotiations in Poland, see Schram, “Ein Meilenstein der Glaubensfreiheit” and Müller, “Der Consensus Sendomirensis.”
37 Maximilian had adopted a similar strategy during his negotiations with the Austrian estates over the legalization the Augsburg Confession from 1568 to 1571. See Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 147–54 and Hengerer, “The Monarch and Court.”
38 On these negotiations, see Krofta, “Boj o konsistoř,” 409–16. The relevant sources have been published in Sněmy České, vol. 4, 365–80.
39 On this agreement, see Hrejsa, Česká konfesse, 234–8 and Pánek, Stavovská opozice, 113ff.
40 On the Letter of Majesty, see Just, 9.7.1609; and the historiographical summary in Pánek, “Majestát z roku 1609.”
41 This phrase, as well as the larger argument about noble politics in the last two decades of the sixteenth century, is taken from Bůžek, “From Compromise to Rebellion,” here p. 38.
42 On the emperor’s desire to avoid association with such violence, see Fichtner, Maximilian II, 184–5.
43 All citations to the text of the Confession are taken from the modern, critical edition prepared by Just and Rothkegel (see note 35, above).
44 This analysis of the two confessions’ overlap is taken from Otter, “Ökumenische Aspekte der Böhmischen Konfession aus dem Jahre 1575,” 13–26.
45 On these precedents, see Fichtner, Maximilian II, 154 and Hrejsa, Česká Konfesse, 67–74.
46 See, e.g. the older Czech historiography disapprovingly cited by David in “Utraquists, Lutherans, and the Bohemian Confession,” 294–5. Cf. the more measured evaluation in Just and Rothkegel’s introduction to “Confessio Bohemica,” 56–8.
47 Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 146–7.
48 Haberkern, “The Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation,” 410–6.
49 Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 119–20. On Luther’s ecclesiology and the marks of the church, see the overview and extensive bibliography in Daniel, “Luther on the Church.”
50 Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 120.
51 On the Brethren’s early interactions with Bucer and Calvin in 1541, see Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, vol. 2, 116ff and Atwood, “The Bohemian Brethren and the Protestant Reformation.”
52 Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 113.
53 On the place of good works in the Unity’s thought, see Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, 280–3; see also David, Finding the Middle Way, 222–4.
54 On the early publication history of the Confession, see Hrejsa, Česká Konfesse, 671–81 and Just and Rothkegel, “Confessio Bohemica,” 59–69.
55 On the Acta as a source for the history of the Unity, see Bahlcke et al., “Die kleine Herde als wahre Kirche.” For a classical account of the authors who composed and initially preserved the Acta, see Krofta, O Bratrském dějepisectví.
56 It is worth noting that all of the citations to Hus were from his pastoral, rather than polemical, work, with the exceptions of his best-known works, De Sex Erroribus and De Ecclesia. For a full catalogue of Hus’s writings, see Bartoš, Literární Činnost M. J. Husi.
57 On the commemoration of Hus in the Utraquist and Lutheran traditions, see Haberkern, Patron Saint and Prophet. On the Unity’s commemoration, see Halama, Otázka svatých, especially ch. 7 and idem, “Biblical Pericopes for the Feast of Jan Hus.”
58 On this diet, see Heymann, “The National Assembly of Čáslav;” and Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution, pp. 1158-1188.
59 On the Four Articles, see most recently: Veverková, The Four Articles of Prague. See also the foundational accounts of this text in František Bartoš, Do čtýr artikulů and Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 361-383.
60 The articles promulgated by this synod were preserved in the chronicle of Lawrence of Březová, a moderate Hussite author who recorded the history of the Hussite revolution until the end of 1421. See Lawrence of Březová, “Kronika Husitská,” 499–505.
61 For a summary of this scholarship and its pro-Lutheran conclusions, see Heymann, “The Impact of Martin Luther upon Bohemia.” The Candlemas Articles themselves were preserved in the chronicle of a Prague artisan, Bartoš Písař, who recorded events that occurred in the city from 1524 to 1537. See Písař, “Kronika,” 21–5.
62 David, Finding the Middle Way, 64–9; cf. the more measured evaluation of the Articles in Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung, 139–49.
63 The contents of the Antiqua et Constans Confessio Fidei have been reprinted in Chaloupecký, “Pře kněžská z r. 1562,” 158–9.
64 Collinus, “Narratio de Statu Religionis.” On Collinus, see Urbánek, “Novoutrakvistický humanista M. Matouš Kollin z Chotěřiny.”
65 Collinus, “Narratio,” 126.
66 Collinus, “Narratio,” 129.
67 I worked with this text as printed in a German edition of the Bohemian Confession published as Confessio Bohemica Evangelica, 7–11, here 8.
68 Confessio Bohemica Evangelica, 9–10.
69 Confessio Bohemica Evangelica, 9.
70 Confessio Bohemica Evangelica, 11.
71 This text was published in both Latin and Czech in 1573 and 1574, respectively. The Czech edition appeared as: Confessio Fratrum Bohemicorum. Citations to this text are from the Latin edition published as Confessio Fidei et Religionis Christianae. On these publications, see Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, vol. 3, 413–23.
72 The original publication was written by the Unity’s seniors Jan Roh and Jan Augusta. It was published as Confessio Fidei ac Religionis Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemiae. On the publication history of this text, see the translation and introduction to Luther’s preface in LW 60: 214–219.
73 Confessio Fidei ac Religionis, A3r.
74 Confessio Fidei et Religionis, 16.
75 Confessio Fidei et Religionis, 11.
76 Confessio Fidei et Religionis, 21–7. On the persistent equation of the Unity with the Adamites and Picards in sixteenth-century literature, see Wernisch, “Luther and Medieval Reform Movements” and Atwood, “The Bohemian Brethren and the Protestant Reformation.”
77 Confessio Fidei et Religionis, 28–9.
78 The older of these texts was Lukáš of Prague’s Apologia Sacre Scripture, which he first wrote in 1503, expanded in 1507, and published in Nuremberg in 1511; the second of these texts was a confession written primarily by Jan Roh and translated into German by Michael Weisse. It appeared as Rechenschafft des glaubens: der dienst und Ceremonien, Bruder in Behmen und Mahren. On these texts, see Atwood, “The Bohemian Brethren and the Protestant Reformation” and Strupl, “Confessional Theology.”
79 Confessio Fidei et Religionis, 32.
80 Such was the argument that emerged from the collective essays in Bahlcke et al., Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa; see also the works by Maťa, Müller, and Válka cited above.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Phillip Haberkern
Phillip Haberkern is an associate professor of history at Boston University. He is the author of Patron Saint and Prophet: Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), and he is currently writing a book on the history of religious reform in the Czech lands from c.1350 to c.1650. Along with teaching courses on medieval and early modern history at Boston University, Phillip is also the faculty director of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program.