1

The Kingdom of Zion: The Anabaptists at Münster

Jonathan Harwell

The short-lived Kingdom of Zion of the Anabaptists at Münster in 1534-1535 was

at once one of the most tragic and strangest episodes of the Reformation. It resulted in

the immediate deat h of thousands and the enduring vilification and persecut ion of a

peaceful group. Despite the modern fascination with the event which has resulted in a

proliferation of material, both scholarly and popular, many of the most important

questions about the Münsterites remain unanswered. This paper aims to address the

crucial problem of identifying the factors that allowed, if not caused, the Münsterite

catastrophe. The peculiar gradual development of the kingdom suggests that, far from

being an absolute aberration, it was the product of fairly common factors which

combined together in a dangerous and volatile mixture.

The origin of the Anabaptists is a subject of much controversy, as is the

relationship of the Münster Anabaptists to the wider movement. The early, pragmatic

view equated the Münsterites with the peaceful Brethren; contemporary rulers justified

their persecution of all Anabaptists (or even all Protestants) by conjuring up memories of

the horrors of Münster.1 Recent Mennonite scholarships has aimed to sever the

relationship between the genuine Anabaptists and that “aberration of Protestantism,”2 the

Münsterites. However, this view seems predicated on a defining set of characteristics of

Anabaptism which the Münsterites did not follow; it is difficult to locate that set of

1
Mennonite Encyclopedia 779.
2
Bender 8.
 2

characteristics in history rather than theory, however. “Anabaptism … was by no means

a uniform movement.”3 Consequently, attempts to find inner coherence in the beginning

of the Anabaptists are by necessity revisionist. Walter Klaasen assessed this approach by

writing, “One has the disturbing feeling that by ‘evangelical Anabaptism’ is meant

Anabaptism as it ought to have been … rather than as it actually was.”4 Stayer concludes

that the only uniting feature of the Anabaptists was that they were “members of sects

pract icing bapt ism of believers and forming religious groups on that basis.”5 On these

grounds, then, the Münsterites were certainly Anabaptist, far different in their ending,

perhaps, but little different in their genesis from other Anabaptist groups.

The transformation of Münster from a Catholic stronghold6 in 1529 to the

‘kingdom of Zion’ in 1534 is a complicated one. Münster, located in northwest Germany

not far from the Netherlands, was a “city”7 of about 15,000 in 1531. As a member of the

Hanseatic League, Münster possessed guilds which had come to have unusual power and

opposed the ecclesiastical rulers. During the Peasant’s War of 1525, the guilds rose up

against the monasteries; with the failure o f the War, the guilds were put down and an

insecure ascendancy of bishop and nobility was reestablished. In addition, the years of

1528-1530 were marked by disaster : a failure of crops combined with a reappearance of

the Black Plague. The “Turkish tax” of 1530, created in order to repel an eastern

invasion, placed a hardship on an already burdened populace. This distress, furthering

the latent social antagonisms, made the people more open to change and revolution. The

3
Friedman n 197 0, pp . 38-3 9.
4
Quoted in Stayer 20. An excellent example of this approach can be seen in Bender.
5
Stayer 20.
6
Janssen 453.
7
See Barkun’s discussion of the city of Münster in the context of a tradition of rural, agrarian
millenarianism. As a small pre-industrial city, Münster did not have those buffers and social structures
present in modern cities which prevent outbreaks of millenarianism in troubled times.
 3

spokesman of the people was the wealthy cloth-merchant Bernt Knipperdo lling; the

preacher of choice was Bernt Rothmann. A young, talented speaker, Rothmann gained

fame in 1531 in the outlying town of St. Moritz and began to draw large crowds. He

soon moved to Münster itself and began preaching Lutheran doctrines, protected from the

Bishop by Knipperdolling and the guilds. Soon the guilds, backed by the people, were

able to install Lutheran preachers in all the city’s churches. The ecclesiastical powers,

meanwhile, instead of crushing this burgeoning Protestantism, were having their own

problems : these years saw a resignation of one bishop and the death of his successor. By

the time the third bishop, Franz von Waldeck, was installed, the movement had

progressed too far for him to stop. Negotiations were scheduled to take place in the town

of Telgt, where the Bishop and many of his advisors were located. However, a group of

a thousand men from Münster staged a surprise attack on Telgt, capturing many of the

leaders of the Catholic cause. The Bishop himself escaped only by virtue of an

unplanned absence from Telgt. In order to resolve the situation, he was forced to

recognize Münster as a Lutheran town in 1533.8 The supremacy of the Lutheran cause

was to turn out to be the first step on the path to radicalism.

In the years of 1532 and 1533 a number of Anabaptist s sought protection in

Münster. Many of these Anabaptists were followers of the prophet Melchior Ho fmann.

Hofmann, a Swabian furrier, began in 1523 as a Lutheran preacher; in 1525, he, with

Luther, opposed the peasants and the radical Thomas Müntzer.9 After disagreeing with

Luther’s positions on the Eucharist, he became a Zwinglian and was welcomed in

8
Barkun 168-169, Cohn 256 -257, and Kautsky 218-226 all provide the historical background sketched
here.
9
Stayer 211. Stayer provides a good introduction to the thought of Hofmann, especially as regards the
sword.
 4

Strassburg by Bucer. In 1530, he was rebaptized, joined the Anabaptists, to ok up the

cause of adult bapt ism, and was expelled from Strassburg. He soon developed an

apocalyptic vision: interpreting the Revelation of John he saw the end of the world as

rapidly appro aching. History, in his view, had seen t hree great spiritual renewals. The

first came with the Apostles, the second with Jan Hus, and the third with the

Reformat ion, more specifically in Melchior Hofmann’s visions.10 Strassburg was to be

the New Jerusalem and Hofmann was the new Elijah. He predicted that his message

would be rejected and he would be imprisoned; following this, the vict ory over the

“whole house of popery” would take place which would usher in the last days. He

foresaw this as occurring in 1533.11 As predicted, Hofmann was soon imprisoned, but

the millennium did not come. With Hofmann in a cage in a tower in Strassburg, where

he remained until he died, the leadership of the Melchiorite movement was assumed by a

Dutch Anabaptist, Jan Matthys of Haarlem. 12 Under Matthys 13, the entire complexion of

the Melchiorites was to change.

Matthys, a baker, claimed that, just as Hofmann was the new Elijah, he was the

new Enoch, the other figure whose coming presaged the apocalypse. He broke decisively

from Hofmann regarding the role o f the sword in the Anabaptist movement. Where

Hofmann’s vision had seen the punishment of t he whore of Babylon coming from the

Turks, Matthys claimed that it would come from the saints themselves.14 Hofmann did

10
Stayer 216. Hofmann’s vision of the three ages follows the traditional prophetic pattern established by
Joachim of Fiore; see Cohn 108-109.
11
Janssen 451.
12
Cohn 260.
13
The spelling of many of the names of the figures in this narrative vary widely. Matthys is also known as
Matthijsz, Matthyssen, and Mathis. Jan van Leiden is alternately referred to as Jan or Johann Beuckelsz,
Bo cke lsz oon , an d B ock els on. For con ven ien ce’s sak e, I hav e referr ed t hroug hou t to the m a s Jan M att hys
and Jan van Leid en, or, for sho rt, Ma tth ys an d Ja n, r espe cti vel y.
14
Janssen 458 and Kautsky 230.
 5

not realize the magnitude of this difference until it was too late. From prison in

Strassburg, he endorsed Matthys, calling him “one of the divine witnesses.”15 While it

may be true, as Stayer argues, that Matt hys was at best an illegitimate disciple of

Hofmann, 16 what seems most important is that he was perceived as following in the

footsteps of Hofmann (even by Hofmann himself). The once peaceful Melchiorites were

now lead by a man who was decidedly not peaceful. Meanwhile in Münster, the

Anabaptist movement was establishing itself. A number of refugees from the

surrounding areas came to Münster, where, while not yet an Anabaptist city, there was

relatively little persecution of the Anabaptists. The Anabaptist vision became dominant

in the lower classes. Knipperdolling, the leader of the masses, converted. On 6 January

1534, Rothmann did the same.17 Matthys sent representatives into Münster; among these

was Jan van Leiden, a figure destined to play a crucial role in the unfolding of further

events in Münster. The Anabaptists movement began to gain ground quickly. Münster

was now the most open city in the region, replacing Strassburg. As refugees continued to

pour in, Münster replaced Strassburg in a more important way : it became the location of

the promised New Jerusalem of apocalyptic prophecy.18

Jan van Leiden and Knipperdolling quickly formed a close relationship. Jan was

engaged to marry Knipperdolling’s daughter. Together, on 8 February 1534, Jan and

Knipperdo lling ran through the streets, calling all people to repentance. This action

unleashed a frenzy among the people, especially the many former nuns who began to see

apocalyptic visions.19 In this agitated atmosphere, a traveler arrived on 9 February with a

15
Stayer 225.
16
Stayer 223.
17
Stayer 230.
18
Mennonite Encyclopedia 778.
19
Cohn 261.
 6

false report that Bishop Franz von Waldeck was amassing a force of 3,000 soldiers in

order to reestablish order in Münster. The Anabaptists armed themselves and stormed

the city hall. The Lutherans and Catho lics also armed, sent a message to the Bishop

calling for help, and prepared to dislodge the Anabaptists. 20 The Lutheran forces were in

an awkward position. If they let the Bishop into the city, they would undoubtedly

destroy the Anabaptists; however, they would also let the Bishop reestablish Catholic

rule, returning Münster to its condition before Telgt. The Lutherans no more wanted

Münster Catholic than they wanted it Anabaptist. Although the ninth and tenth of

February were marked by some sparse fight ing, the Anabaptists protested, with some

sincerity, that they had only peaceful intentions. The forces of order and the town

council mediated an agreement; henceforth toleration was to be shown to the

Anabaptists. The forces dispersed; the Bishop was not allowed to enter the city. 21

A week later, the Bishop began plans for a siege of the city by calling up feudal

levies; the Anabaptists began preparations to defend it. Between the two opposing sides,

the Lutherans lost all power, “the victim of the forces that inexorably destroy the

moderates in a time of revolution.”22 The annual elections were held on 23 February; the

result was a council overwhelmingly Anabaptist. Knipperdolling was elected

Bürgermeister.23 The migration into Münster of the poor and displaced continued; t he

Lutherans and Catholics began t o leave in great numbers. Matthys also arrived; a tall,

gaunt figure with a long, black beard, 24 he soon established prophetic control over the

town. Jan Matthys and Jan van Leiden, bot h from the Netherlands, gained power; the

20
Ranke 373.
21
Stayer 233.
22
Stayer 234.
23
Stayer 232 and Hsia 54.
24
Cohn 262.
 7

local leaders lost power, a pattern which was continued throughout the reign. Matthys

favored execution of all non-Anabaptists, but Knipperdo lling saw that this would turn the

outside world against them. He persuaded Matthys to take a more moderate, though still

decisive, step. On 27 February, armed men ran through the streets, crying, “Get out, you

Godless people (Gottlosen).” Even though it was a bitterly cold, windy, and snowy day,

the Gottlosen were driven forcibly out of the city, even the sick and pregnant , leaving

their belongings behind.25 All those who remained were compelled to be baptized. The

Bishop, seeing these developments, waited no longer. On 28 February, the siege began.26

Interestingly, the Bishop never formally declared war. This provided grounds for the

Anabaptists to claim that they were merely protecting legitimate authority (they were,

after all, the properly elected officials of Münster) against illegal force. This argument

allowed, for a time, the Anabapt ists to continue to follow, at least ostensibly, Melchior

Hofmann’s ideas about the sword. Even he had argued that the government could bear

the sword against unlawful attack. Although apocalyptic ideas gradually overshadowed

such arguments, at the first the moderates justified themselves as defending against

aggression, 27 even if it is unlikely that Matthys ever did so himself. Many Münsterites

were surprised initially by the siege, but were rallied and organized by Knipperdolling.28

They had a strong position; they were well fortified and supplied both with provisions

and the courage of warriors of God, while the Bishop had little money or supplies.29

Under the siege conditions, Matthys instituted a social revolut ion which had the

additional effect of consolidating his power. The belongings of the emigrants was

25
Ranke 375 and Janssen 471.
26
Cohn 263.
27
Stayer 236.
28
Cohn 253.
29
Janssen 462.
 8

seized; seven deacons were appointed to distribute the belongings to the poor.30 The

preachers began to preach institutionalized communism. Rothmann avowed, “It is

completely God’s will that we bring our money, silver, and gold together.”31 This was

accompanied with the full establishment of the reign of terror which was to last until the

fall of Münster. A blacksmith named Hubert Ruscher, reacting against the new measures

established by the foreigner Matthys, accused him of being possessed by the Devil.

Matthys had him arrested, brought him to the marketplace, denounced him in front of a

crowd, and then stabbed him and shot him personally. A few citizens protested against

this illegal punishment; Matthys had t hem thrown in jail.32 The terror was utilized to

implement his communist ideals. The money system was abolished by force and many

meals were served in common. All houses became open. 33 At the height of his power,

however, Matthys met his death. On 5 April, during an entertainment, he had a divine

vision and arose, crying, “Father, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” He left the party

immediately, and the next day took a handful of companies on a sortie against the

besieging forces.34 He evidently saw himself on the model of the ancient Israelites,

defeating the Philistines with God’s help and only a few men. On Easter, he and his men

were routed and slaughtered; he was beheaded and his head was raised on a pole outside

the city.35

The death of Matthys was decisive for the Münsterite kingdom. Hsia calls it the

“turning point” of the regime.36 With the death of Matthys, his disciple, Jan van Leiden,

30
Cohn 264 and Ranke 376.
31
Howard 59.
32
Howard 59 and Cohn 264.
33
Cohn 265.
34
Mennonite Encyclopedia 79.
35
Howard 60.
36
Hsia 55.
 9

was given an opportunity to seize the reins of power as the new “and even greater

prophet.”37 Jan had earlier been content to follow his master Matthys, but now, with his

master dead, he was free to give Münster a infamous flavor all his own. Jan was, and

remains, the most fascinating character of the Münsterite episode. He was born out of

wedlock, the son of a Dutch village mayor and a female serf. He acquired a minimal

education, started work as a tailor, and then failed as a merchant.38 Exceptionally good-

looking and eloquent by all accounts, he enjoyed poetry and the theater. His character

was “a mixture o f shyness, ambition, and maniacal wickedness and yet not without germs

of religious feeling.39 He was, depending on the source, either insane,40 an “evil

genius,”41 a megalomaniac combining “sincere fanaticism” and “calculating hypocrisy,”42

or, more complimentarily, one given to “enjoyment of life and of the beautiful.”43 He

was twenty-six years old in 1535.

In May, he ran through the streets naked, falling into a period of ecstatic silence

which lasted three days. When he again spoke, he proclaimed that God had presented

him with a vision. The vision announced that the const itution of Münster must be

abolished and reestablished on the guidelines of the Old Testament. Twelve Elders and

Jan himself were set over the city. Knipperdolling was appointed executioner.44 The

social revolution of Matthys was continued and a puritanical morality was established.

37
Janssen 462.
38
Cohn 267.
39
Mennonite Encyclopedia 78.
40
Dickens 134.
41
Mennonite Encylopedia 78.
42
Cohn 268.
43
Kautsky 232. Kautsky, of course, while generally accurate on the historical background before the
establishment of the New Jerusalem, biases his whole account in order to present the Münsterites as
harmless communist forerunners forced into war by the Bishop.
44
Cohn 268-269.
 10

Sins subject to capital punishment included blasphemy, disrespect of parents, adult ery,

gossiping, and complaining.45

Additionally, Jan instituted polygamy, an establishment which reflects the

contradictions and complexities in Jan’s character. The establishment of polygamy was

at once a personal, religious, and social maneuver. Matthys’ wife Divara, the daughter of

Knipperdolling, was now a beautiful and important young widow. Jan, who had left a

wife back in the Netherlands, wanted to marry her. His personal desires were coupled

with a need to solidify his power; marriage with Divara would accomplish both. On 23

July Rothmann, complying with Jan’s wishes, announced the discovery of a new

commandment. True Christians, he proclaimed, could and would have several wives.46

Jan married Divara (and fifteen others). On religious grounds, the establishment of

polygamy was consistent with many of the Münsterite beliefs. Having lessened the

difference between the Old and New Testaments, Rothmann was to claim that, while

certain practices of the Old Testament were no longer applicable, the majority of the

commandments are not obsolet e. Polygamy, permissible in the Old Testament, was

nowhere forbidden in the New.47 Under Matthys, all books other than the Bible were

outlawed and burned; now, the Bible was the sole guide to matters of government, ethics,

and social institutions. Following the injunction to “be fruitful and multiply,” the

Münsterites began their attempt to supply the 144,000 who were to conquer the world.

Finally, on social grounds, polygamy was practical. With a total population of

about ten thousand people, Münster only had about two thousand men, the rest being

most ly women. Anabaptism, traditionally appealing to women, drew especially from the

45
Dickens 133.
46
Hsia 55 and Janssen 463.
47
Wray 235.
 11

now-vacated cloisters. Furthermore, when the Lutherans and the Catholics had fled, their

wives often remained behind, joining the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists provided them

with the attractive freedom to divorce non-believing husbands and marry again. One

woman, Hilla Feicken, was so zealous for the Anabaptist cause that she attempted to

assassinate Bishop v. Waldeck in the besieging camp, an effort after the pattern of the

Old Testament heroine Judith. Not all women were as committed and Jan feared their

power. As prophets and ecstatics, they could unsettle the power structure that Jan was so

carefully constructing. The institution of polygamy provided a way to control these

unattached women Promising freedom to them, the Münsterites quickly subjugated them

instead. For example, when Jan met with opposition from one of his many wives, he

executed her himself, as he and his court, according to some accounts, danced around her

corpse singing.48 Roper sees the polygamy of the Münsterites as more ascetic than

libertine. With the abundance of women, the dangers of female lust would be loosed on

the community unless they could be constrained. Like other reformers, the Münsterites

saw marriage as the only possible constraint; polygamy was the only way to ensure

marriage of all women. “Polygamy,” in this view, “proved t o be compatible with a rigid

sexual moralism.”49 This argument, although presented in the light of larger Reformation

views on marriage (especially Luther’s advice to Philip of Hesse to commit bigamy),

does not necessarily hold up throughout the Münster reign. With the permission of

divorce, polygamy degenerated into “something not very different from free love.”50

Jan encountered his greatest opposition when he implemented polygamy. An

armed uprising, led by a blacksmith named Mollenhecke, succeeded for a while in

48
Hsia 58 and Janssen 465.
49
Roper 407.
50
Cohn 270.
 12

imprisoning Jan, Knipperdolling, and some of the preachers. However, the uprising was

put down, over fifty insurrectionists executed, and Jan van Leiden was now established

beyond any danger of revolt.51 He was not satisfied with mere power, however; he

wanted to be nothing less than King.

In late August, the Münsterites repelled an assault from the Bishop’s forces.

Shortly thereafter, as the people continued to rejoice about the victory, Jan Dusentschur,

a goldsmith from neighboring Warendorf, called them together to t he marketplace. He

announced that he had received a vision from God which told him that Jan van Leiden

was to be king of the whole world, ruling over all other mighty powers. He was to

“receive the throne and sceptre o f his father David, which he would hold till God should

take the kingdom away from him.”52 Jan quickly claimed that he, too, had received t his

vision but had waited to announce it until it was confirmed. Dusentschur took the Sword

of Justice from the Twelve Elders and gave it to Jan as he pronounced him to be King of

the New Jerusalem. Jan proclaimed, “Now I am given po wer over the all nations of the

earth, and the right to use the sword to the confusion of the wicked and in defence of the

righteous.”53 As usual, Jan organized his propagandists, the preachers, who filled the

streets declaring that Jan was the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament in such passages

as Jeremiah 23:2- 6. With the anointment of Jan as king of the new Zion, a clean break

was made with Münster’s past. The streets were renamed, as were the days of the week.

Children were named according to a system which Jan devised. The function of money

was abolished and new purely ornamental coins were st ruck with such slogans as “One

51
Cohn 269.
52
Janssen 464.
53
Cohn 271.
 13

righteous King over all the Earth.”54 Jan began to wear an emblem which depicted a

globe pierced by two swords with the words “One king of righteousness over all” written

above the globe.55 Spiritual and temporal authority had been melded into one, and Jan

van Leiden possessed this absolute, combined authority over the city of Münster.

His anointment inaugurated a reign of splendor and lavish displays. The King

dressed in fine robes, wearing extravagant gold jewelry. In the marketplace, he built a

throne where he, surrounded by his suite of followers, his bodyguards, his queen Divara,

and his harem, held judgment over t he citizens. Knipperdo lling became chief minister

and Rothmann the royal orator. Significantly, the throne was flanked by two pages, one

holding a copy of the Old Testament, the other holding a naked sword. Jan was justified

by both the Scripture and the sword, and also had power to use the Scripture and t he

sword any way he pleased. The majority of the people, of course, did not experience

such splendor. In fact, their gold and silver were collected in a show of communism,

Dusentschur proclaimed a divine abomination for excess in dress, and all surplus clot hing

and bedding were collected.56 Jan was not subject to these measure because he, as

Messiah and King, was dead to t he world and the flesh. He continued to reinforce his

authority by increasing the terror which Matthys had set in motion and Jan had

continued. Executions were held in great numbers; on 3 June at least fifty people were

beheaded.57 This terror, claims Cohn, was “above all a political weapon wielded by a

foreign despot against the native population.”58 The siege was having its effect; famine

was spreading acro ss all the city (except, of course, Jan van Leiden and his court, who

54
Janssen 464.
55
Howard 61.
56
Cohn 273.
57
Janssen 482.
58
Cohn 275.
 14

remained well supplied to the end). The Bishop was firing leaflets into the city

encouraging revolt. It was, however, pointless; Jan held on to his power so tightly that

any internal opposition was impossible. Amid the death and starvation, the former actor

held dramatic performances, parodies of the Mass, social moralities, and at hletic

competitions.59

Jan, by all accounts, was a shrewd and cunning military leader. Even in the

middle of the extravagances of his regime, he kept the defense o f the city capable and

well-organized. However, he realized that he could not hold out against the besieging

forces. He attempted to organize uprisings in the surrounding region in hopes that the

pressure on Münster would be lessened.60 His emissaries, sent out from Münster,

fomented rebellion in a variety of locations. In January 1535, for example, over a

thousand armed Anabaptists in Groningen began to march to Münster. Before they got

there, though, they were defeated. Likewise, three ships filled with Anabaptists sailing

toward Münster were sunk. An attempt to seize Amsterdam was put down after bloody

conflict.61 With t he failure of these attempts, the situation in Münster became desperate.

Jan allowed those who wished to leave the town to do so, and many did, though they

were massacred by the forces of the Bishop. Jan prepared to fight to the end.

His preparations for fighting, however, were all for naught. On 25 May, Heinrich

Gresbeck, one of the Münsterites, defected to the Bishop’s forces, giving information

about a weakness in the cities fortifications. The forces easily penetrated the city and

slaughtered the half-starved Anabaptists. Those capt ured were executed. Knipperdolling

59
Cohn 278.
60
Stayer provides a nice overview of these efforts.
61
Cohn 277.
 15

and Jan van Leiden were taken and interrogated.62 Jan was exhibited around the region

for some time; finally, in January 1536, he was returned to Münster. He and

Knipperdo lling were tortured to death with burning irons; Jan remained completely silent

throughout the torture. Following their death, their bodies were suspended above the

town in cages. At the hands of the Bishop, t he city was returned to its previous Catholic

status, 63 decimated by its experiment with Anabaptism.

There is a tendency to regard the Münsterite revo lt as an ano maly, the

“catastrophic fringe of lunacy.”64 This viewpoint is especially favored by modern

Mennonite scholars who wish to dissociate themselves from it. After centuries of painful

identification with the Münsterites, these scholars display a very understandable

viewpoint. Indeed, any episode as bizarre as Münster is subject to dismissal.

Explanations, not readily apparent, are often easier overlooked. However, it seems, in

hindsight, that Münster was a amalgamation of a number of inclinations which were

widely prevalent in the day. Leopold von Ranke described this “monst rous aberration”

as a “mixture of piety, hedonism, and bloodthirstiness.”65 I would like to analyze it as a

combination of religious beliefs, social forces, and charismatic personalities.

There is a connection between the militant Anabaptists at Münster and t he

peaceful Anabaptists elsewhere. It is not the connection often assumed and used to

persecute the Mennonites and Hutterites, but there is a relationship nonetheless. The

Münster movement began just as many Anabaptist movements began. Rothmann was,

initially, a Lutheran who became convinced that infant bapt ism was not Scriptural and

62
Howard 64.
63
Cohn 280.
64
Chadwick 191.
65
Ranke 390. “V on allen Erscheinungen einer so ungeheuren Verirrung ist diese Vermischung von
Frömm igkeit, Genuß sucht und B lutdurst die w iderwär tigste.”
 16

joined the Anabaptists for that reason. There is little evidence to suggest that Münster

was, from the start, characterized by any different brand of Anabaptism than anywhere

else. It seems evident, then, that there must have been some elements of Anabaptism

which, although not a direct cause, rendered the Münsterites susceptible to the chiliastic

message of Jan Matthys and Jan van Leiden. I would posit that one, perhaps the central,

element is the priority of the individual over the group. Luther gave individual spiritual

vision a role it never had under t he Catholic church. His vision led him to the belief in

justification by faith, but there was no guarantee that others’ visions would not be more

extreme. Melchior Hofmann had a vision of a coming millennium; worse yet, he

acquiesced in the mor e violent vision of his follower Jan Matthys. With a profusion of

inspired visions and no authority like the Church to restrain the prophets, the conditions

were ripe for an eruption of dangerous prophecy. I focused on the gradual nature of the

development of the Münsterites; they first became Lutherans, then pacific Melchiorites,

then militant Melchiorites, then the violent elect of the New Jerusalem. Without a rock-

bed of authority, the Münsterites were easily led from one vision to another, perhaps not

realizing that the visions were progressively more dangerous and radical.

Seco ndly, there were profound social forces at work. Cohn, in an examination of

the millenarian movements of the Middle Ages, noted that they usually started among the

rootless poor who were beset by disasters like those which afflicted Münster in 1528-

1530.66 Barkun agrees, saying, “Men cleave to hopes of imminent worldly salvation only

when the hammerblows of disaster destroy the world they have known and render them

susceptible to ideas which they would have earlier cast aside.”67 Such groups have no sort

66
Cohn 282.
67
Barkun 1.
 17

of social structure to support them; in their desperation, they are easily drawn to prophets

who offer them identity and group organization. Many of the arrivals in Münster were

unattached, having no family. The call that went out of Münster, “Come, for here you

will have enough to satisfy all your needs,”68 offered precisely what these rootless poor

needed, and they came in droves. Their arrival, combined with the departure of many of

the affluent and conservative leaders of the town, turned Münster into a hotbed of

revolutionary visions. The wartime conditions of the siege further heightened a sense of

isolation. The whole outside world was against them, so t hey bound together even more

tightly and accepted the authority of their leaders even more unthinkingly. It was not a

communist community, as Kautsky tries so hard to establish. Rather, it was a community

founded on the proclamations of those who claimed to be connected with Go d. The

inhabitants of Münster accepted Rothmann’s preaching at the beginning, Matthys’

visions until he died, and Jan van Leiden’s assertions of authority until they no longer

had the ability to disagree.

A final factor was the emergence of the charismatic leader. Altho ugh it has been

argued that Matthys and Jan van Leiden follow the Weberian pattern of transition from

charisma to bureaucracy, there is little evidence to suggest that Jan van Leiden’s rule was

not as charismatic, if not more so, than Matthys’. 69 Matthys and Jan van Leiden, and

Hofmann before them, were characterized by their ability to manipulate the masses.

Matthys established a clear hold on power by means of a base among the people. Jan van

Leiden won the people to his side in such force that they permitted him to be crowned

King. Only when he was completely ensconced in power could he let his fantasies run

68
Janssen 459.
69
Howard discusses the Weberian analysis in detail, agreeing that a strict framework like that held by
Otthein Rammstedt does not work for Münster.
 18

wild. His extravagant tendencies were only fully manifested when the possibility of

opposition had been eliminated, an elimination which was generally accepted by the

people. Without Matthys and Jan van Leiden, it is unlikely that the Melchiorites in

Münster would have ever been nearly as radical as they were in actuality. Without the

King of the new Zion and his desires, the name of Münster would not be eternally tainted

by the wild excesses and dissipation that occurred under his rule. Views about Jan van

Leiden vary widely; it is likely that they all contain a grain of truth. He displayed a wide

array of characteristics, from deep religious conviction to cynical manipulation to

uncontrolled carnality to military acumen. Deriving its characteristics from its leader, the

New Jerusalem at Münster displayed these same features.

These elements have accompanied many of the most infamous episodes of

history, most notably the Third Reich of Germany. With a near-religious fervor attached

to nationalistic ideology, a social disaster unleashed by the loss of the First World War

and the Great Depression and aggravated by the conditions of war, and, above all, a

charismatic megalomaniac as its leader, Nazi Germany followed closely, if on a much

larger scale, the pattern set four hundred years earlier in Münster. Any one or two of

these characteristics might not have determined the outcome, but it appears that the

combination of all three conditions is unifo rmly dangerous. Humanity was quite right to

shy away from the pattern of Münster, but it mistakenly attributed t he danger to the

peaceful elements of Anabaptism rather than the more common circumstances which

were the real cause. Recent developments like those in Bosnia are disheartening, but one

must continue to hope that humanity will eventually learn this lesson of history.
 19

Bibliography

Barkun, M ichael. Disaster and the Millennium. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale UP, 1974.

Bender, Harold S. “The Anabaptist Vision.” Church History . March 1944 : 3-24.

Chadwic k, Owe n. The Reformation. New York : Penguin, 1972.

Cohn, N orman. The Pursuit of the Millennium. New York : Oxford UP, 1970.

Dickens, A.G. Reformation and Society in Sixteenth-Century Europe. New Y ork : Harc ourt, Brac e, &

World, 1970.

Howard, Tal. “Charisma and History: The Case of Münster, Westphalia, 1534-15 35.” In Essays in History

vol 35. Charlottesville : University of Virginia, 1993.

Hsia, R. Po-chia. “Münster and the Anabaptists.” In The German People and the Reformation. Ed. R. Po-

chia Hsia. Ithaca, NY : Cornell UP, 1988.

Janssen, Johannes . History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages. Vol. 5. Trans. A.M.

Christie. London : Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. LTD., 1903.

Kau tsk y, Karl. Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation. Trans. J.L. and E.G.

Mulliken. New York : Russell & Russell, 1959.

Menn onite E ncyclo pedia . Vol. 3. Hillsboro, Kansas : Mennonite Brethren Publishing House, 1982.
 20

von Ranke, Leopold. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. Vol. 3. Leipzig : Verlag von

Dunker und Humblot, 1873.

Roper, Lyndal. “Sexual Utopianism in the German Reformation.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History. July

1991 : 394-418.

Stayer, Jame s M. Anabap tists and the Sword. Lawrence, Kansas : Coronado Press, 1972.

Wray, Frank J. “Bernhard Rothmann’s Views on the Early Church.” In Refo rma tion Stu dies : E ssays in
Honor of Roland H. Bainton. Ed. Franklin H. Littel. Richmond, VA : John Knox Press, 1962.