In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: Bishop Martin Stephan's Journey

by Stephan, Philip

  On March 17, 1836, the consistory issued orders forbidding Pastor Stephan’s participation in any future evening gatherings held in Nitzschke’s home. Stephan was told that the police department would be watching him to see that he did not violate these orders. Stephan appealed this decree through his attorney, Adolf Marbach, to cease police surveillance and not discontinue midweek meetings. Stephan wrote a passionate appeal:

  It is against my freedom and honor to be placed under police surveillance. For 26 years, I have lived in Dresden, and now I should change my habits. This I cannot do without endangering my health. It is eminently unfair to take the word of a policeman, without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. By his brutality and his most uncalled for confiscation of Sekkendorf’s History of Lutheranism, this Potzschke (Potschick) has laid himself open to censure, and his accusation to suspicion. Instead of receiving a well-deserved reprimand, he is made the judicial instrument to institute proceedings against me.... From childhood, I have been in the habit of not finding sleep until several hours after midnight; and, in spite of many earnest efforts, I have not been able to overcome this peculiarity. This condition has influence upon the division of my time. The many duties of my office prevent me from visiting friends or taking recreational walks until late in the evening. Whoever wishes to have me as his guest must inconvenience himself to my long-established custom. I invite no one to join me in my walks or to meet me at some stated place. Quite frequently, I even reject the offer of friends to accompany me, because I wish to be alone and rest my throat; and yet these walks are made the reason for forbidding all evening meetings. The threat, that sterner measures will be used against me, indicates that I am to be exposed to the vexations and insults of the common police. Whatever they will report will be accepted as true, whatever I may say in rebuttal will not matter. I am to be treated as an outlaw who is confined to his house. I cannot comply with your demands as I am in need of exercise in the evening air and of the aroma of the pines.5

  A month later, on April 12,1836, the superintendent sent this protest to privy councilor Behr and to the town council of Dresden, leaving the final decision to them. He noted that while evening meetings remain banned, “the smell of pines during the night is praised as healthful.” He continued to urge that Stephan refrain from “all appearances of evil.”6 However, Stephan was not to be deterred from his walking. He defied the order and continued his walks and visits to the inns at the wineries along the Elbe River of rural Dresden.

  It was while these harassments continued to distract Pastor Stephan and the congregation that the Society Planning Committee decided to leave Germany and emigrate to America. Their reasons were based on the state of the church and the spiritual climate described in a previous chapter. The harassment of the Dresden police and the consistory, though said to be minor, was also a factor in the decision to leave Germany. The plan to emigrate was germinating in Stephan’s imagination since his encounter with Dr. Kurtz who visited from America and was corresponding with Martin since 1827. The harassment continued while Stephan and the Emigration Society were quietly planning their voyage to America. The money they deposited with the Saxon government for the emigration voyage was used to pay salaries and support the ministry and expenses of the congregation. When the government attempted to redirect the money and not allow it to be spent for the previously specified expenses, they aroused such opposition that the plan was dropped.

  A year and a half into their emigration plans, on the fateful day of November 8,1837, Pastor Stephan decided to go on one of his usual evening walks into the countryside and to visit Johann Boerner at his home, the Inn in Hofloessnitz. A few of Stephan’s parishioners rented rooms there for rest and recreation. When Stephan arrived at the inn around midnight, he discovered that some of his friends and “hangers on” arrived earlier and were arrested by eight policemen who were watching people coming to this inn. Those arrested were charged with holding midweek services in the absence of their pastor. The police confiscated church history books and song sheets again. After Stephan arrived at the inn, he too was interrogated at Boerner’s Inn late until early morning. Although these accusations of illegal meetings were vigorously denied, Stephan was ordered to answer charges in court later in the day of November 9. This event received widespread publicity in the press, and the news drew heavy criticism of Stephan from a number of prominent citizens.

  The result of this arrest was that a new superintendent of the church consistory named Heymann decided to investigate these accusations against Pastor Stephan. A full hearing was not held until a week later, November 15. Superintendent Heymann ruled that “they found it necessary to investigate these accusations against Pastor Stephan and had reservations about allowing him to continue in active ministry.” The Dresden Board of District Directors suspended Pastor Stephan from his office until further notice and ordered that he would still receive full salary and other benefits during his suspension. Upon his suspension from his pastorate, Stephan was so infuriated that he refused to testify at the November 15 hearing, and the next day he wrote a letter of protest to the consistory, to the Royal Court of Justice, and to the Dresden city council demanding to know the reason for his suspension. He challenged each of the following charges filed against him:

  Participation in an alleged nocturnal scandalous disturbance in the Priesnitz Valley.

  Disobedience against the interdiction to participate in evening meetings.

  Gadding about Dresden at night with an unmarried female.

  Hiding behind stacked vine props in the Hofloessnitz vineyard until he was detected and brought into Boerner’s house by policeman Mueller.7

  Stephan’s letter of protest raised many questions about the validity of the charges, especially additional events not related to the night of November 8. It began to look like they were piling up the charges just to make sure his ministry would end.

  One of the charges he thought was trumped up dealt with what a forest worker reported some months earlier (July 15, 1837). The forest attendant stated that he saw Stephan in the Priesnitz Valley with a woman lying on a blanket under the trees during the rain. Stephan recalled to the authorities that he had a proven alibi and could not have been in the Priesnitz Valley then, although he did not say where he had been at the time of the alleged incident. He stated that the forest worker was not able to identify him as the man in question. The pastor expressed regret that the authorities did not investigate the scandalous occurrence at the time the report was made, and he was incensed that they suspected him again of this old accusation.

  Stephan vigorously refuted the allegation of holding conventicles in Boerner’s house and inn. He insisted he went to be alone and rest, not to meet with friends. He emphasized his need to rest both his voice and his weak lungs. He acknowledged that some friends were there and had rented a room, and he said, “I could not order those friends away, who were paying the rent of the room, but I never invited any one to come out to the place.” He insisted that this could not justify his suspension, stating,

  I have rarely spoken to those assembled there, and never after ten in the evening. The authorities have never forbidden me to take a walk in the evening. They have forbidden gatherings occasioned by such walks, but not the walks in themselves. In order to avoid all suspicion of disobedience, I have taken my evening walks unaccompanied by friends. I greatly regret that the authorities seem to have me under suspicion of being insubordinate. I can truthfully say that I have done nothing which has been forbidden.8

  Stephan asserted that the charge of gadding about Dresden at night with an unmarried female was absurd and should be dismissed by the court and expunged from the records. Stephan declared the fourth charge, hiding behind stacked vine props, so ludicrous that he could barely conceal his contempt: “a malicious lie, as the members of the court now know, that the vine props were at that time still upholding the branches of the vines and had not yet been removed and stacked for the winter.”

/>   He continued to challenge his suspension, stating,

  At the November 15 inquiry the possibility of grave charges against my character was insinuated. As I did not wish to create the suspicion of trying to shun the light, I submitted to that procedure. But now that nothing of any incriminating nature has been adduced, and the charges of November 15 have either been proven false or have been dropped, I protest most emphatically against my suspension and the substitution of another pastor in my place.9

  Sophie Hoeschel, one of the women arrested on November 8, was also interrogated on November 15. Newly discovered documents provide new information about her interrogation. She was led to an upper chamber of the Justice Hall and asked to identify shoes and blankets and sheets taken from her room at the inn, which she did. She was then held in a lower chamber room, brought back after an hour and questioned about her age, employment, and if she was at the winery eight days earlier. She was asked about the paths she took to get to the Inn at Hofloessnitz. She replied that she could not recount each step as asked. Even though she had been threatened by the police, she could not comply. So they inquired about Pastor Stephan: where he seated himself at the meeting at the inn, and what he talked about. Why was the pastor so late, not arriving with the other people from Dresden? Did she guide Stephan on the walk since it was dark that evening? Was the pastor inappropriate in his remarks or action? She was told that all her remarks and answers would have to be given under oath. She was interrogated about that night for about two-and-a-half hours.

  None of her answers was incriminating to herself or Pastor Stephan, nor did her testimony confirm the charges against her pastor of immoral behavior and holding conventicles during the week. The superintendent and the magistrate then started to ridicule and mock her, making suggestive remarks about her relationship with Stephan and this group. No trial date was set. However, there would be follow-up interrogations to this event the next year.10

  Fellow pastors Gotthold H. Loeber and C. F. Gruber in the Dresden area came to Stephan’s defense, writing in the political newspaper of Gera, Saxony, that their conscience would not allow them to stand by as the many rumors about Stephan were spread, including by this Gera newspaper. They testified to their fellow pastor’s good name and his spotless life as they observed it.

  Meanwhile, the Diet of Saxony, especially the Landtag, took up the issue during its 1837 sessions. Apparently, Stephan’s arrest and his theology kindled heated discussions in their deliberations. Some deputies condemned his doctrine and activities, mostly based on old charges, previous complaints, and public criticism of the midweek services and Stephan’s defense of “Old Lutheranism.” Karl G. von Polenz, a member of the Landtag, who had been an admirer and follower but became a critic, claimed that the Bohemian Congregation had turned into a sect. He was quoted in the Journal of the Landtag of October 10, 1837, where he asked the government to stop the conventicles because they were illegal when they were held outside of the pastor’s home.

  Other members of the Diet defended Stephan and the congregation, suggesting that they had every right to worship as they saw fit and to hold midweek services without harassment. The day after Stephan’s arrest Albert von Carlowitz, Minister of the Kingdom of Saxony for Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction, stated in an open session of the Landtag that he did not think that St. John’s Church in Dresden was a “hot bed of sectarianism.” Von Carlowitz let it be known that he had read the congregation’s statement of faith, and he concluded it would be foolish for the State to prosecute one of the State’s own Lutheran churches who followed Luther’s teaching. After reviewing the charges, he thought it a mistake and an injustice to the church and the clergy to pursue this matter any further. Von Carlowitz said, “he had not found a single case by which the charges might in the most remote manner be established.”11 After all the fanfare and notorious publicity, nothing incriminating came from these charges. The case did proceed to trial, and the suspension that had been imposed remained until the trial was concluded.

  The investigation of Stephan continued and on February 21, 1838, three months after Martin’s arrest, his wife Julia was summoned by Church Superintendent Heymann to testify regarding the events at the winery in November of the previous year. The questions and the testimony are surprising and candid, as Julia testifies about Martin’s relationship with someone who was attending Martin as a “housekeeper.” Justice Behr was present again as presiding judge. Under oath Julia Stephan replied to a series of questions about this event and about some highly personal questions involving the nature of their marriage. She spoke simply, without accusation or bitterness, but with some sad regrets about their estranged marriage.

  My name is Julie Adelheid, nee Knoebel, and I am 50 years old. I have been married to Pastor Stephan since 1810 and have borne 12 children by him, of whom 8 are still alive. If truth be told, the relationship between me and my husband is a disturbed one. At present he has disassociated himself from me completely, and although I have offered him my hand in peace and consolation, my efforts in this regard have been in vain. On one occasion in particular I went to him when he was at the Radeberg health resort and offered to care for him, as he needed. He alone was the one to reject this offer in a most authoritarian tone. In my opinion, therefore, infatuation is to be blamed for the entire episode, causing my husband to be biased and encouraged in the matter by his German friends. The main reason for our marital discord is my husband’s association with Louise Guenther. I have absolutely no proof that my husband should be charged with violation of our conjugal fidelity. It is in itself unseemly that my husband lives alone in such a manner with Frl. Guenther. I have often tried to bring him around to seeing that he should abandon any relations with the person, but he has been the one to ignore my urgings. Even when I was at his side in Radeberg and trying to persuade him, he said he didn’t need me. Louise Guenther was the one who knew his needs best. I was given no alternative, therefore, but to return to Dresden. Incidentally, my husband’s apartment was so cramped that I couldn’t have lived there as well. Louise Guenther was with him at the vineyard residence in Loessnitz, just as she always accompanied him when he was staying in Radeberg. I did not notice at all that my husband’s behavior towards their servants in my house was in any way improper or would have given rise to any detrimental reports.12

  Julia recounts one particularly difficult confrontation with Martin that reveals how distanced they had become. Martin’s increasing distance and hurt was reflected in an angry tone:

  My husband furnished an attic belonging to our quarters in the Bohemian parsonage for a girl (I know nothing more about this person other than that she was called Sophie). I encountered this girl there as I was carrying fruit from the garden into the house. I forced her to leave this room, locked the door to it and took the key with me. Afterwards, my husband told me he had assigned that girl the room and, if I refused to surrender the key he would have it opened by the locksmith. And indeed, he did this because I kept the key. Whether this person continued staying there I do not know. I avoided going near this attic. I wasn’t allowed to ask the reason for things. His usual reply was: “I’m the master of the house.”13

  Her participation in her husband’s activities, even church services, had diminished over the years:

  On the visits to the vineyard at Loessnitz under the Spitzhouse, I participated only once and I must admit I was, to a certain extent, forced to do so. That was around 12 years ago. I can’t put the time more precisely. Otherwise, I didn’t take part in such visits. When I said just now that I was, so to speak, forced to go on the one vineyard visit, I must explain that I only participated because my husband persuaded me to do so. What I said above should, therefore, not be misinterpreted; as there was in fact no real force (was used).

  On the [question] of the “Erbauungsstunden” [conventicles], I only took part in those husband’s devotions a few times, and that was earlier in my life.14

  She was asked what she knew a
bout Mr. Renner, a friend of Stephan who allegedly advised Martin to leave his wife. She replied that she knew none of her husband’s friends, because they only came to visit him. Then she spoke of her children and declared herself loyal to her husband:

  My husband is in the habit of going to bed late, but recently this has increased. My older daughters were with my husband for some time at his request when he visited Radeberg 2 years ago; at least this is true of one daughter. That I have lured my daughters away from my husband is completely unfounded. Indeed, it is a mother’s duty to see that the children devote themselves to their father. My husband is the one who is withdrawing from them. He takes no interest in them. I have nothing more to say about the matter. I only came to answer the questions put to me, but by no means to appear as plaintiff against my husband.15

  Julia reveals a “steel hand inside a velvet glove” with her testimony. She discloses for the first time that she felt Martin’s interest in Louise caused a deep rift in their marriage, and she warned him about his association with her. Julia’s testimony proved to be a subtle judgment and raised the suspicions of the court as well. She exposed another side of Martin’s person, one known only to her. The previous picture of the successful and kind Pastor Stephan, the compassionate and caring counselor and preacher is in stark contrast with his abruptness with Julia and his defensive way of addressing her inquiries about who lived in their attic. Their relationship was embattled and the marriage seriously fractured as evidenced by their own testimony.

  Julia’s testimony did not become public until a hundred years later. Only the Stephan attorneys Marbach and Krause and a few friends knew the story of a disintegrating Stephan marriage and Julia’s suspicion about Martin’s relationship with Louise Guenther.