der liebe unpartheiische Gott noch heut alle zugleich herzlich [liebt] ohne Ansehen der Person, der Namen und der Völker, die Heiden wie die Juden, die Heiden durch die Juden etwa, damit sie von ihrer Abgötterei, die in der Not läßt, abfielen zu dem einigen starken Gott Israels, der alle Abgötter schlägt und ihr Volk, Opfer, Gottesdienst durch sein Volk zuschanden macht, auf daß beide (Heiden und Juden) ein Volk Gottes würde.
(120–21)
[the dear, non-partisan God [still loves] today everyone heartily without regard of the person, the names, or the people, that is, the heathens and the Jews, and the heathens on behalf of the Jews, for instance, so that they leave their superstition behind in their need, and turn to the one strong God of Israel, who defeats all false gods and shames their people, sacrifices, and church services, so that both (heathens and Jews) become one people of God.]
The example of Abraham served God, so Franck, as an illustration for humankind throughout the world that He loves all people. This notion is not being understood by the Jews and by many Christians, especially by many members of sects who all insistently swear an oath that only they know the true God. Even St. Peter could not understand this, as Franck points out, that God loves all people and simply hopes that they all will come to Him. Only few people have the slightest idea about God’s true love for all mankind: “Also sucht Gott auch der Heiden Heil und ist allenthalben ein Gott, gerecht gegen alle Völker” (121; Thus, God is also looking out for the salvation of the heathens and is a God for all, just toward all people). He would demonstrate even more mercy for the heathens than the Christians if they misbehave or commit an error because the former would not know about their error, whereas the latter would act against their own better understanding (121).
In fact, as Franck comments, all heathens are supposed to be included in God’s fold. Having selected the Jews as his chosen people did not serve the purpose to highlight the latter’s piety, but to appeal to the heathens to return to their true father. The Jews, by contrast, would often deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing so that the heathens would not think God to be unjust.44 But the author does not target Jews in the traditional sense, does not harbor anti-Judaic feelings, and only considers the Jews as worthy of punishment like all other people who are subject to committing mistakes and errors. We can claim here an early but unmistakable effort to explore the terrain of toleration, if not tolerance.
Globally speaking, Franck highlights that God is mostly incomprehensible, as miraculous as He might be. Hence, those individuals here in this world who are regarded as wealthy and wise really have to be identified as poor, miserable, and living in suffering (152). Only those who are wise in God can truly claim wisdom, whereas all others turn out to be fools and ignoramuses (152). “Wer Gott nicht hat, der hat nichts” (152; He who does not have God, has nothing). The author, thus, defines God in such global terms that he leaves behind all ecclesiastical concepts and propagates a religious perspective that can be applied by everyone here on earth. Those who rely on their material possession in this life without God own really nothing: “Darum könnten sie auch ohne Gott den Kern aller Dinge nicht haben” (153; Therefore they could not have the core of all things without God).
In paradoxes 92 and 93, Franck emphasizes that God has created all people equally, irrespective of differences in customs, clothing, and language. All people share the same heart, mind, and will (155). Consequently, Franck claims that the Turk or the Hungarian, the Spaniard or the French are all the same, despite their unique features (155). Everywhere here on earth people are the same, in our mindset, all victims of the material drives, and no one is better than anyone else (155).
Unfortunately, considering human weakness, he also reaches the conclusion that in reality, all people are vain, deceptive hypocrites, and useless; no one can be called honest (155): “Es ist alles Adam. Wer in einer Stadt ist, der ist in der ganzen Welt” (155: It is all Adam. He who is in a city, is in the entire world). Disregarding the multiplicity of formal differences, in their mentality and spirituality, all people are the same (156). This would also explain why poor people, for instance, would be more able to enjoy their simple food to satisfy their hunger and thirst than rich people could profit from their luxurious meal (157).
All this serves Franck to determine how much God truly loves and accepts all people, which transform Him into an “unparteiische[n] Gott” (157; non-partisan God) who accepts everyone without distinction, just as the sun shines on the poor and on the rich in equal measure. The rich do not own anything in reality, whereas the poor prove to be rich in the eyes of God (158). Wealth does not take away fear and suffering, and those who live outside of God will never enjoy peace until they return to God (159). In short, “wir sind und leben einander so gleich, so ungleich wir einander sehen unter den Augen; und wie ungleich alle Dinge von außen scheinen, so gleich ist es alles inwendig in der Wahrheit” (159; We are and live in equal measure, as different we appear before our eyes; as distinctive all things appear on the outside, in truth it is all the same inside).
Franck does not talk about Christian principles, does not argue against any particular religion, and he does not attempt to explain reality through a Christian lens. Instead, his paradoxes 92 and 93 outline a universal perspective integrating all people on the globe who are called upon here to live according to ethical standards and to recognize that external aspects matter little or not at all in comparison with spiritual aspects. Franck predicated his Universalist approach on the concept that God loves all and that only a spiritual embracing of God would lead to fulfillment of the human existence. Religious, cultural, linguistic, or political difference would not matter at all, since the focus would rest on the individual’s soul and mindset. Pious people versus impious people do exist everywhere, irrespective of their belonging to any particular church or religion.
Those who reject God will be condemned, and those who accept God will be blessed, and this among all people, globally, and all times: “was dem Fleische abgeht, soll dem Geiste zugehen” (158; what is lacking in flesh, will be granted to the spirit). We cannot tell whether Franck also kept Muslims and heretics, or other religious people, in mind in his discussion, but the theoretical framework outlined here explicitly claims a universal validity and inclusivity. He addresses a Christian audience and talks about the situation of Christians, but ultimately the central concern rests on the relationship between all people and God.
The subsequent paradoxes address a multitude of subsequent ideas as expressed in the biblical texts, in philosophical treatises from antiquity through the Renaissance (Thomas Aquinas, Petrarch) and outline fundamental religious concepts that follow from the universal perspective, as outlined above. Undoubtedly, Franck focuses especially on Christianity and ways on how Christians can live up to their own ideals, but the overarching concept continues to be universal, refusing to categorize the various religions and addressing fundamental concerns for all people. He addresses, for instance, the dialectics of peace and its absence, emphasizing the importance of the latter so that the individual must strive all of his/her life to reach God (paradoxes 145 and 146); he also comments that those who own nothing are really to be regarded as wealthy (paradox 147), and he warns against excessive religious righteousness. In fact, when the Jews aimed to please God the most, they crucified, as he underscores, Christ (paradoxes 150 and 151).
This has tremendous implications for Franck’s global approach to religious deviance and alleged hereticism: “wenn die naseweise Welt aus Eifer die Ketzer töten will, so würgt sie Christum und seine Gesalbten” (246; when the impudent world overeagerly wants to kill the heretics, it strangles Christ and his blessed disciples). Those who would judge strictly by the letter of the law would easily become a prey of injustice themselves because the law constitutes only a formal arrangement, whereas the true decision about right and wrong would have to be made according to the sense and idea of a certain behavior or situation (247).
Those who insist
excessively on their own wisdom or justice would easily commit the error of creating injustice themselves. In fact, hypertrophic piety could cause grave danger and would have to be identified as the work of the devil (247). Laws are to be acknowledged, but they are all constructed and not written in stone. The individual would always have to make personal decisions and consider the unique circumstances. He presents the fascinating case of coming across a wounded enemy who would die without receiving the necessary help quickly. In that situation, the enemy would have to be treated with full love, even in disregard of the needs of their own family members or the members of the own religious community: “Die Not hat kein Gesetz; die Liebe hat mich hierher abgefordert und mit dem Gesetz dispensiert” (248; The suffering knows no law; love has demanded my involvement, and dispensed me off the law).
Franck demands that the personal needs and individual situations must be considered, even in disregard of the laws and obligations: “Die größte Gerechtigkeit ist von seinem Stuhlkissen weichen und einen anderen darauf sitzen lassen, wie man in Christo erfüllt sieht” (248; The greatest justice is to get up from one’s chair cushion and to let someone else sit on it, as we see it being done by Christ). Hence, it would be better at times to let go of one’s own legal prerogatives and to grant them to others, since, thereby, a greater form of justice could be achieved (paradoxes 151b and 152). To pursue justice at all costs and to demand to receive one’s rights without any deviation would ultimately create the greatest form of injustice and would be the “Ursache und Wurzel allen Übels” (251; cause and root of all evil).
Franck, thus, moves from his theological reflections to social-ethical ideas according to which he claims a universal perspective irrespective of religious differences, for instance. Justice proves to be a most subtle phenomenon, especially in light of Christ’s teachings, which most people do not understand anyway and who would, thus, pursue a narrow-minded form of righteousness that would ultimately cause more damage and destruction than bringing about real justice. In this regard, Franck emerges as a most significant sixteenth-century voice arguing for a radical reform of the way of how people interact with each other, placing more emphasis on love and mutual help than on justice and the laws. He criticizes monetary accumulation (paradox 154) and promotes generosity out of love (paradoxes 155 and 156).
Acting out of love can never be seen as transgressing the laws (paradox 157), so he concludes that those who break the law really uphold it (paradoxes 158 and 159), especially when they act out of love (paradoxes 179 and 180). In many respects, Franck formulates most puzzling, yet deeply insightful, observations, challenging most cultural, religious, and legal traditions in order to find new ways to realize God’s teachings. He does not hesitate at all to offer a completely integrative perspective and addresses all people here on earth, although he casts his ideas certainly in Christian terms. The world appears as contradictory and disagrees with itself (paradox 188), but in light of that observation, we can recognize how much Franck, thus, also lays the foundation for an early form of tolerance even within the Christian context.
While he seems to address a Christian audience above all, he has humankind in mind in reality, alerting his audience repeatedly how much good Christians have always been around, even if they did not know about it themselves, or belonged to another religion (paradox 231), because they lived in Christ’s love and followed indirectly all of His commands, “ob sie gleich die Geschichte [Christi]… nimmer inne geworden sind” (345; although they have never become aware of the history of Christ). Christianity did not arise with Christ at first, but had been around forever: “Der ist nicht gleich ohne Christus oder ohne Adam, der ohne die Schrift und das äußerlichhue Wort ist und nie von Christo oder Adam äußerlich gehört oder gelesen hat” (346; He is not immediately without Christ or without Adam who knows nothing of the Scripture and the external word who has never heard or read from Christ or Adam in the external way).
Inversely, those who have known about Christ and claim to be Christians, but act differently, cannot be called thus and will die as Adam and in Adam (346). In ethical terms, if we translated this concept more broadly, Franck outlined an approach to all people free from all religious-institutional concepts. A Jew or a Muslim could, hence, be a better Christian than a traditional Christian who proclaims his faith only nominally. Franck does not mention these representatives of different faiths, but his paradox clearly entails this notion.
Consequently, Franck warns of the false prophets who have always been around and can never be trusted (paradoxes 236 and 237), while the true prophets are regarded as insane and foolish (356). No one can be forced to convert to any religion (419), but sinfulness happens even when the individual does not commit sins. Even having made up one’s mind would constitute a sin, wherefore the focus has to rest all over the world and in all societies on the purity of the mind and true spirituality, which can be achieved in many different forms—and, hence, also religions (419).
Theologically speaking, Franck creates a new foundation for the good person, who predicates his/her entire life on the spirit: “alle Sünde und Gerechtigkeit ist inwendig ein geistlich Ding im Herzen, von Gott oder dem Satan gepflanzt” (420; all sin and justice is internal, a spiritual matter in the heart, planted by God or by Satan). In other words, as he formulates subsequently, the fruit of the spirit do not make someone spiritual or pious, but the spirit of the tree itself is responsible for that (421). He exemplifies this in the case of a rape scene. The woman who has never had an opportunity to enjoy sex, or is so ugly that no one ever wanted to rape her, or who could have had sex without any reproach, would not be pure or pious. Having the inner willfulness, however, would be enough to constitute lack of piety (422).
Franck does not write a new Christian theology, and he does not pursue a new religious openness, but he outlines a concept of spirituality that could be subscribed by any religious person, whether Christian or not. After all, many heathen books could be adduced, as he finally comments, to confirm his general insights (431), which opens a global perspective even in practical terms. Franck’s insistence on the spiritual dimension of all religion proves to be most inviting and integrative, in many respects a kind of propaedeutic for tolerance as it was to emerge more clearly in the following centuries.45
The 1690 edition of the Paradoxa, obviously a very late witness of the long history of reception of Franck’s works,46 contains a short reflection following the long treatise, entitled Darreichung der gemeinen Liebe in der Bruederlichen / Exemplificiert In LiebreicherEroerterung und Verneinung der Frag / Ob alle Juden / Tuercken und Heydenn / welche sich ihrer Vernunfft schon zu gebrauchen wissen / nicht aber zu der sichtbaren Kirche Christi auf Erden bekandt haben / verdammt und verlohren seyen? (Presentation of the Shared Love in Brotherhood, exemplified by a loving discussion and rejection of the question whether all Jews, Turks, and heathens, who know already how to employ their reason, but have not yet committed to the visible Church of Christ here on earth, would be condemned and lost?). The author does not identify himself, but he seems to have been deeply influenced by Franck and composed his text in a very similar vein. For this reason, I will follow his arguments to some extent as a complementary continuation of the discourse on toleration/tolerance from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century. That, in turn, might have been an important stepping-stone for Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, although we cannot affirm this at all at this point.47
Right from the start, the author insists that it would be wrong to judge fellow citizens from different cultures and religions since this would contradict the ideal of love and would be comparable to the hypocritical behavior of the Pharisees, especially if the foreigners would have already demonstrated basic values, such as patience and love of God (paragraph 2). According to Christ’s teachings, one should abstain from condemning others in order to avoid being condemned oneself (3). It would be more important to try to understand, feel, and learn instead of applying rational concepts, which would lead to t
he problem “deß Geistes Sinn nicht vernehmen” (4; not to comprehend the meaning of the spirit). Hence, it would be necessary to distinguish between spiritual and material judging (5). The proper approach in this matter would be to think in terms of love (9). Those people, then, who do not belong to the Christian Church but demonstrate a pure mind still can become blessed. By contrast, many who have claimed to be good Christians, and yet denied it in essence, “hinaus gestossen und verdammt werden sollen” (22; are expelled and condemned). In explicit contradistinction to common religious opinion, God’s message in the Old and the New Testament was directed toward all people, not only toward the Jews and the Christians, though with the proviso “wo sich gleichmaessigs Ursachen und Eigenschafften finden” (23; where there are same causes and properties).
Quoting St. Peter, the author draws from the biblical word (Acts 10.5.34–5) that God does not make any distinction among people and welcomes and accepts all who fear and recognize him. Consequently, the heathens are just as much embraced by God as the Christians (25), as long as they demonstrate the correct mindset. The miracle of the Pentecost supports, as the author emphasizes, this phenomenon (26). As long as individuals would recognize God and submit under His rule, they would be accepted by Him, whether they were Jews, Christians, or heathens (27).
Anyone filled with the Holy Spirit would belong to God’s people. Over and over again, we hear the key term upon which a person would be judged: “Gottesfuerchtig” (27). In essence, then, anyone could find the way to God, either outside or inside the Church, as long as his/her behavior and mind would be directed toward Him. Specifically, as we learn in paragraph 28, God has granted the same gifts to all people, and loves both the faithful and the heathens.
Toleration and Tolerance in Medieval European Literature Page 38