Here the author formulates right from the start a theology that equates God entirely with the human individual: “Er solle Gottes sein, vnd nicht sein selbst eigen” (4; He ought to be part of God, not his own self). Only through a complete self-denial and destruction of the individual would the reunification with God be possible (5). Very similar to Franck, but also to the teachings by the medieval mystics, Weigel insists that the external being should not matter, only the internal being (7). No external, physical actions could help to bring about blessedness; only the faith could contribute to that goal. He argues that the old person in us, Adam, would have to die and would have to make room for the new one in us, “der newe mensch in vns” (9). But most people would not understand this concept because the world is caught in blindness, making it impossible for the individual to recognize him/herself (14). Learnedness would be helpful, but not enough until one would have accepted Christ in oneself and drawn consolation from Him (15). Weigel does not talk here about other faiths or other religions, but only about the inner self, which could easily merge with Christ if the individual would simply merge with Him. “Wich Jch dan Christum im hertzen haben muß, im glauben, vnd nicht im maule schweben lasse, wie den Geist auf dem Waßer” (16; I must have Christ in the heart, in the faith, and must not let Him hover in the mouth as the spirit on the water). On that basis, however, so it seems, he proposed a purely spiritual approach to God, which then set the stage for a non-doctrinal theology. Weigel demonstrated his spiritualist approach when he insisted on the need for an eternal struggle in oneself to overcome the old Adam and the “Weltmensch[ ]” (24; worldly person), that is, the “Maulglauben[ ]” (24; faith determined by spoken words only). Whoever would not be willing to take up this inner fight would not find his way to Christ (25). Only a faith firmly anchored in the heart could achieve the desired effect of taking the soul directly to Christ. External works would be simply futile (29). This form of spirituality would, hence, be open to anyone, though Weigel does not discuss these implications here in specific details. Irrespective of all teachings both by heathens and Christians, the only way to God would be through the honest faith (36).
In fact, Weigel expresses very little concern for the worldly differences among people—they could be Jews, heathens, servants, free people, men, or women—since of only relevance would be the faith (38–9). Of course, here we face a deeply Christian thinker, but in his effort to remove external distinctions in order to find Christ, he incorporates, ultimately, all people and indicates ways for them all to discover God in themselves. Weigel does not even discuss religion as an institution or as a community held together by specific rituals and scriptures. All he aims for is the return to Christ in spirit, within oneself. Formal declarations would be as useless as foam floating on a glass of beer (39). “Nein, der glaube ist ein lebendig, wesentlich dieng, machet den menschen gantz newe, wandelt ihme den mutt, vnd kehret ihn gantz vnd gar vmb” (39–40; No, the faith is a living, essential thing, makes the person completely new, transforms his mind, and turns him altogether around). However, he then also insists that the true faith would manifest itself through good deeds carried out freely for the neighbor, without any hope to gain profit (40).
Neither Jews nor Christians could claim to have the right faith if they rely on formal criteria, such as circumcision or public confession. The true believer would be the one who holds faith in his/her heart (44), “Denn das Reich Gottes stehet nicht im ohre, oder maule, Sondern im Hertzen, oder Geiste, im innern grundt der Seelen” (45; God’s kingdom does not rest in the ear or in the mouth, but in the heart, or in the spirit, inside at the bottom of the souls).
Although Weigel’s treatise continues for several more chapters, those do not yield essentially new insights. Hence, next I am turning to his Daß das Wort Gottes in allen Menschen sei, which has survived in two manuscripts, Gotha, Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek, Chart. B 893, 143r–153v, and Copenhagen, Der Kongelige Bibliothek, Thott. 119 4v–115v. Weigel, here, insists that the true faith can only be found in the soul, and it would not even be guaranteed through baptism. God and word are the same, and so are the word and light. From this follows that God is in all human beings, “dan sein Geist erfüllet alle Creaturen, vndt Gott ist selber das Wortt” (75; since His spirit fills all creature, and God Himself is the word). This has tremendous implications for Weigel’s global perspective because he argues that God’s word illuminates all people here on the earth: “er sey Jüde oder grieche Christ oder Türcke, alles was nur ein mensch ist, vnd heißet, dasselbe hatt in ihm das Wortt, Liecht vndt Leben” (77; may he be Jew or Greek[-Orthodox], or Turk, everyone who is human and is called human contains in itself the word, light, and life). God’s eternal spirit rests in all people, especially because they are all created in His image (77). Fundamentally, the individual would have to turn to himself, toward the inside, “dan alles was Gott von vns fördert, das hatt er in vns geleget” (77; since everything which God demands from us He has placed in us). True illumination would be possible simply through an internal quest in the own soul, whereas an external quest all over the world or even in the clouds would be useless (77–8). However, Weigel also adds that Christ must be in the soul before the soul can enter Christ (84).
In his treatise Wie der Glaube aus dem Gehör komme, he emphasizes that no formal learning can bring about faith since it would have to grow on the inside with the help of the Holy Ghost (90). As important as the office of the minister would be to present sermons, in essence, the true faithful just would have to listen to his inside and learn from there (91). With reference to children, the author underscores that no ceremonies, that is, no formal rituals or customs, would help in creating faith, otherwise “würden alle vnbeschnittene vndt vngetauffte kinder verdambt. Die kinder sein vnser Vorbildt, sie sein glaubig vom innern gehör” (92–93; all uncircumcised and unbaptized children would be condemned. The children are our role model; they are faithful based on what they have heard from the inside).
Undoubtedly, Weigel still addresses a Christian audience, but the global implications underscore the extent to which he really aimed at all people and did not want to make a distinction between Christians, Jews, or Muslims. As he then concludes, “der glaube ist die wiederbeguhrt im geiste” (94; faith is the rebirth in the spirit). He does not reject the entire Christian Church, but he certainly insists on a spiritual approach to all faith and warns that even ministers could not create faith through their sermons.
Weigel does not embark anywhere on a specific strategy to undermine the differences between the various religions. He does not emerge as an explicit defender of Jews or Muslims. But he voices throughout considerable skepticism, if not outright criticism, of the institutional church and its formalities, insisting on the only feasible approach toward God, through the faith, deeply implanted in the heart. Little wonder that Weigel kept his treatises for himself, since they were almost as radical in their theological approaches as were the ideas by Sebastian Castellio, when he demanded publicly in a manifesto the introduction and maintenance of religious tolerance.76
Of course, none of these theologians, including Franck and Servet, were willing to accept Jews and Muslims as equals within their society. They all solidly subscribed to Christianity, but within that framework, they aimed for a much more spiritual, individualistic, personal, and, hence, more tolerant faith based on the internal experience in the soul, and mostly in disregard of the formalities of any church. In his treatise Quinque impedimentorum (1555), Castellio bitterly complained that the authorities allowed Jews, Turks, go-betweens, and traitors, among other criminals, to live among them all, whereas individuals who were declared Christians but sought an individualistic understanding of God would be persecuted. Just as in the case of Weigel, he argued on the basis of Christianity and did not tolerate anyone who might reject the Christian faith, the belief in resurrection, the immortality of the soul, and other principles. However, he rejected the death penalty for those who had left the fold of the Chr
istian Church and ‘only’ argued for a monetary penalty.77 In the sixteenth century, at a time of most intense religious debates and conflicts, tolerance had become an important issue for the Spiritualists, especially because they demanded breathing space for their own teaching. But even they, like Franck and Weigel, had their own limitations and were not ready yet to embrace true tolerance.78 After all, to return to Weigel once again, “Denn so wir nicht mit Christo sterben wolletten durch ware busse im glauben, so were Christus vmb sonst gestorben, die Taufe vnd das nachtmal were vmb sonst ein gesetzt” (If we do not want to die with Christ through rue repentance in faith, then Christ would have died in vein, baptism and the Eucharist would be a useless law).79
Many times Weigel does not even address religious differences outside of Christianity and focuses, instead, consistently on the constant tension between body and soul, the external and the internal. The role of Judaism or Islam is, thus, not even addressed. In fact, considering his major geographical treatise Vom Ort der Welt from ca. 1576, first printed in 1613, we notice that he takes the entire world, the globe, into view, discussing the geometric dimensions and the shape of the earth, without ignoring data on populations and climate, but religion and culture do not matter here at all.80 Although he theoretically measures and outlines the continents of Asia and Africa, his focus remains solidly on the mathematical dimensions and then on the relationship between God and the soul. He compares the globe with an egg, consisting of egg white and the yolk (6). He outlines the various zones of the world and how they can be measured (9–11). He emphasizes the round shape of the earth and that it simply hovers in space, not able to fall down anywhere (26–34), and so forth. The scientist and the theologian in Weigel come forward and share the space equally, and he also addresses the situation in the future world, where no knowledge, no languages, no sciences, etc. will be necessary (65–7). But nowhere does he, hence, address spiritual matters or conflicts between the rituals of the Christian Church and the spiritualist perspective. And yet, keeping some other treatises in mind (see above), we can clearly recognize in Weigel a follower of Franck and other radical thinkers during the age of the Reformation, pursuing a new theology of interiority, which is indirectly predicated on the notion that all people can perceive God and find Him in themselves, as he outlined it also in his treatise Seligmachende Erkenntnis Gottes from 1574, where he explained the threefold eye that all people possess, one like that of an animal to see objects, one like that of a person to recognize reason, and one like that of an angel to observe the interior, the soul.81
In a way, Weigel here presents his own epistemology, which goes far beyond all Church teaching and certainly would have aroused his superiors’ ire about this independent thinker: “eine Jede kunst, weisheit Verstandt oder Vermogen, ist nicht im eussern, sondern Jm Jnnern menschen” (45; every art, wisdom, reason, or ability does not rest in the exterior, but in the interior human being).
In his Handschriftliche Predigtensammlung from 1573 to 1574, which has survived only in one posthumous manuscript from after 1610, Weigel observes only global differences between those who are blessed in God and those who are without faith in God. The tragedy for the latter is that God has entered their soul, while they have not recognized him and do not return his love for them. Drawing from a metaphor, a beggar would not be able to profit from a piece of gold if he were not to perceive it. Gold, that is, God, must be found and realized in ourselves. In fact, as Weigel states, “Daß Reich gottes ist in vnß, was hilffts vnß aber, So wir daselbe nit erkennen, daß wir auch hinnein kommen?” (171; God’s realm is in us, but what good does that do for us if we do not recognize it and cannot enter it).82 The absolute emphasis on the spiritual interiority in the reaching out to God undermines, of course, all church authority, and it is not surprising that Weigel was vehemently attacked posthumously.
For our purposes, however, we recognize here his new theological approach that made the experience of God possible for everyone. He does not consider Jews or Muslims here, but theoretically everyone was considered as a potential member of the divine community. There is no need for him here to specify God in greater detail, which Weigel was to offer in his Informatorium from 1576.83 What matters, by contrast, which is the central concern throughout his entire œuvre, is the realization that every individual carries God in himself and only would have to understand this and then to embrace Him (171–72)—and this basically without the help of any church institution. Even though he does not address toleration specifically, his Christian-Spiritualist concept constituted a forum for efforts to integrate all people of this world, and this, of course, under a Christian umbrella. In other words, just as in the case of Franck or Castellio, Weigel operated entirely within the framework of his own church, and he would never have been able to transgress those limits. Yet, the emphasis on the spiritual approach to God opened new perspectives free from external authoritarian control mechanisms.
Secular Voices
Intriguingly, Franck and Weigel were not the only ones who embraced such concepts, since there were numerous other individuals who tried to keep a free mind and refrained from joining the Catholic or the Protestant Church despite enormous pressures by the various authorities. In December 1598, for instance, the famous Augsburg goldsmith David Altenstetter, the furrier Martin Küenle, and his son (?) Potiphar were apprehended, taken to court, and threatened with torture because they had stayed away from all church services and were suspected of belonging to the Spiritualists. Courageously and self-consciously, Altenstetter testified that “er sei der Religion halben biß hero frei gewesen” (he had been independent regarding religion until now).84
As he commented, he could not fully make up his mind regarding the Catholic and the Protestant faith, and in order to find an alternative, he had turned to a private reading of religious books, probably some works by late medieval mystics, such as Tauler. He might subscribe to Catholicism, but would need more instructions. He had been born in Switzerland, where the teachings of Zwingli had dominated, but in Augsburg, he faced a different religious situation of a rather complex nature.
Küenle openly admitted his leaning toward the Schwenkfeldian faith, without rejecting the Lutheran or the Catholic religion, though he strongly disliked the bickering among the representatives of both. In fact, he had, as he declared, attended both types of church service and had found good things in both. Küenle requested that the authorities would not force him to sign up with either church since he needed more time to learn from both. However, if he were required to make up his mind there and then, he would join the Protestants since “er bißhero jn der Catholischen Religion nit genugsam Bericht hab” (he had not learned enough about the Catholic religion).85
He did not hide the fact that he liked Schwenckfeld’s teachings, but he himself had never attended any secret meetings with the disciples of that Spiritualist. Instead, he had studied some of Schwenckfeld’s texts in private, and he had never forced any of his family members or employees in his business to join him. In fact, some of them were Catholic, others Protestant (109). Surprisingly, both accused men were then released and not charged. Altenstetter was forced to make up his mind only ten years later, in 1609, and so he turned to Protestantism.86
Again, here we do not face an example of a tolerant mind, but an example of religious individuals who fought for individual freedom in religious matters and, hence, for a remarkable degree of openness through which representatives of other faiths would obviously have to be accepted as well. Altenstetter and Küenle fought for their personal privilege to decide on their own to which church they wanted to belong, and they read their own text selections without subjecting themselves under any authority, at least until 1609, when Altenstetter, for instance, joined the Protestant Church.
While not working toward establishing a tolerant society as such, these two (three) individuals claimed space for tolerant ideas and concepts and insisted on the freedom to find their own way to God. They personally fought for tol
erance, without necessarily resorting to that term in their testimonies. Indirectly, however, they boldly insisted on their individual right to decide which church they wanted to join, which, hence, implied that they regarded this privilege as fundamental for all people. Küenle defended himself well also by pointing out his important contributions, even physically, in protecting the civic authorities against riotous people (60).87 The way of how both craftsmen testified confirms the extent to which they enjoyed freedom to search for their own religious path toward God, and this in an important imperial city in Southern Germany, at a time of growing and severe religious conflicts.
As the follow-up report about the second summon in 1609 indicates, he had been given plenty of time to inform himself about the one church he wanted to join. By then, the city authorities demanded that he make a decision, which he happily accepted. The only issue for both men was whether they had attended any secret Schwenkfeldian meetings, but since they both denied it, they were cleared of this suspicion and hence released. Küenle, however, had already died by that time (62). Altogether, here we observe a most fascinating case in one of the central German imperial cities where individuals were free to study religion on their own and to make a decision which church they would want to join after an extensive, even long-term study, period. Of course, Altenstetter and Küenle were citizens and craftsmen, whereas Franck and Weigel were ministers, and they had hence to observe much more caution. Franck, however, spoke up very clearly, whereas Weigel kept his spiritualist leanings to himself.88
Toleration and Tolerance in Medieval European Literature Page 42