Socialism and ethics of Jesus

Front matter

JAN 24 1912 ‘ di S <a. o6ioq1 se

5 PA

Section «WV “tL

Contents

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION PAGES

Scope of the inquiry— Socialism a philosophy — Socialism has no programme —A_ goal — Socialism not communism— Not anarchy — Vagaries of socialists — Violence unnecessary . : : : : : : : . I-9

Chapter I Socialism In The Time Of The Reformation

First socialist groups — Not all Anabaptists socialists — Non-resistance — Peasants not socialistic — Socialism in Moravia — Chiliasm — First community at Austerlitz — Prosperity — Organization All things in common — Dissensions — Intolerant spirit — Jacob Huter — Communities extinguished — Difficulties of a programme — Wanted: a new man — Economic feasibility of Socialism — Spiritual barrenness — Life more than wealth — Necessity of leisure — Is Socialism compatible with culture? 11-32

CHAPTER: <1

THE BEGINNINGS OF MODERN SOCIALISM IN FRANCE

A philosophy of history — Slavery — Feudalism — Serfdom — Capitalism — The Revolution— Class struggles — Individualism — A political delusion — “Free” yet a slave — A ballot but no bread — All should work — Pure individualism impossible — Steps of social progress — Lazssez faire

, — Rapid advance of capitalism — Effect on class formation — No escape for the poor — Competition and capitalvii viii CONTENTS

PAGES ism — Competition and the laborer— The worker and his

“freedom ”— Value of the Union — Growth of the Trust — Hypocrisy of capitalism — Capitalism necessary — Object of Socialism — Liberty for all — The new privilege — Saint-Simon — Opposes Revolution — His ideal— A cru- ‘cial test — Socialism and Democracy — Collectivism — Private property retained — The new Christianity — Fourier — His pathetic faith — Harmony — The Phalanx — Theory of labor — Results expected — The arts of living — Elimination of waste--An object lesson — Private property permitted — The Guise community — Fourier’s influence — Louis Blanc — His primary ideas — “ Social workshops ” _— Pay of workers — An unsolved problem — Relation of wealth to morals — Unfortunate experiments — Socialism and politicians — Utopianism — Marriage — Jules Guésde — Jaurés. . s : . ‘ : : , 33-71

Chapter III Lassalle: The First Stage Of German Socialism

The two founders — Contrasted characters — Lassalle and Bismarck — Birth and training — Writings — The Hatzfield case — Two great careers — Lassalle’s work — “ The working-men’s programme” — “An open letter” — The Frankfort speech — The working-men’s union — Lassalle’s death — Character — A revolution demanded — “ The iron law of wages” — Ricardo’s fallacy — An automatic regulation— The “law” only a historical generalization — Wants essential to progress — Not an “iron” law, but elastic — Lassalle’s oratory — His programme and Louis Blanc’s — No real solution — Liebkneckt — Bebel — His atheism — Source of error — Socialism and marriage — Governments roused — Bismarck’s repressive measures — His socialistic legislation — Results — State Socialism in Germany: railways—Telegraphs and telephones — Mu-

CONTENTS ix

PAGES nicipal Socialism — Legal restrictions — Strength of Social Democrats — Their propaganda — The Revisionists — Industrial progress — A political lesson — The American’s advantage : ; : : : ‘ 0 OTE ORE TOR

Chapter IV Karl Marx And Modern “scientific” Socialism

Marx’s early years— Friendship with Engels — Founds the International — His philosophy of history — “Das Kapital” —Its affected profundity — False idea of wealth — Doctrine of value — A self-contradiction — Does not apply to land — Contradicts experience — “Proofs” that prove nothing — The modified formula — Important factors . neglected — A false distinction — Cost of production — . The common denominator — What is “labor” ? — Does Marx recognize mental labor ?— Marxians desert Marx — “ Surplus ” value— Simply profit — Factors Marx neglects — Superintendence — An impracticable principle — What constitutes “exploiting” ?— Other errors — Chiefly an agitator — Ignores the agrarian problem — The single tax — Basis of Socialism ethical — Marx’s real service — The class struggle — Marx’s originality — Adam Smith — Marxian Socialism dogmatic, not scientific . . 107-142

Chapter V Anarchy: The School Of Proudhon And Kropotkin

Proudhon’s writings — Fundamental ideas — Property is robbery — Abolition of capital— His National Bank — Abolition of government — Abandonment of Utopias — Profoundly religious — Anarchy a goal — Bakunin — “ God and the State” — His collectivism — Kropotkin — “ Conquest of Bread” — Anarchistic communism — Economic possibility of anarchy “The sacred right of insurrec-

CONTENTS acter — Poverty a necessity — Thrift—A broken reed —

PAGES

Social significance of wealth— Two basic principles of |

Socialism — The friend of civilization — The Superman — A mirage — Prophecy — Revolution or evolution — Equal and equitable — The highest ethics — Compensation — The socialist point of view — Socialism economically infeasible ? — Race suicide— The economic proof — Increased production — A suicidal policy — Scientific efficiency — Instructive instances — Costs to be eliminated — Alleged superiority of private enterprise — A practical test— The problem of direction— A suggested solution — Mr. Mallock’s objection — Greed not the sole incentive — Other motives — The creative impulse — Greed a subordinate _motive—The craving for work — Invention — Literature — Socialism a stimulus — Advance of intelligence — Objections that neutralize each other — Source of political corruption — The new aristocracy — Socialism and the higher callings — Effect on the professions — Art — Journalism —“‘ The New Slavery” — The paradox of freedom — The laborer’s “freedom” — The life of the poor — What Socialism promises — Socialism and crime — Vice— Our drink biJl— The loss of life— The error of socialists — Prohibition — Socialism and the family — Coming status of women — Economic equality of the sexes impossible — Social equality necessary — Effect on marriage — Prostitution — Divorce — Socialism and “so-

CHAPTER IX

THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS— GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Need of inductive study — True criticism and false — Need of sympathetic study — Exegesis that misleads — Practical

- ethics, not scientific — Ethics of Jesus grounded in religion

— Jesus’ conception of his mission — Salvation — The

CONTENTS Xili

PAGES Kingdom — Essentially a social gospel — The Good News and the individual— The Good News and society — The synthesis — Jesus and Privilege—A new world— The apocalyptic element — Not interim ethics merely — Jesus reveals God—A universal Father — Sonship — Brotherhood — Anthropomorphism — God’s holy love — Salvation — Repentance — Faith — “ Eternal” life —The New Man — What is a Christian >— The New Law — Its wide scope — The Great Paradox — Not a code, but a life — Unconscious disciples — A reconciliation — Nietzsche — Darwinism that is not Darwinian— The corner-stones —Jesus and Aristotle — Righteousness — Regeneration — The social quality of righteousness— The error of Pharisaism — Lowering the standard — The Golden Rule — Obedience impossible now — Jesus and the ethics of Socialism — A unique method — Conversion — Wanted : a cure — Allies, not opponents — Socialism and religion — Materialism — Not form, but spirit . ‘ - 335-386

CHAPTER X

THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS — APPLICATIONS

Not Reformer, but Revealer — Uniqueness of method — His social ethics fundamental — The social unit, the family — Marriage a divine institution — Rooted in human nature — Not a concession to weakness — Monogamy — The union of spirit — Divorce — Wrong exegesis — What Jesus forbade — His significant silence — Our problem — Ethics not too severe — Persistence of his ideals — The modern divorce problem — The false ideal of happiness — Effect on family life—A misinterpretation— When one must “hate” — The sanity of Jesus — Slavery — Mohammed — Drunkenness — What is moderation ? — Jesus and wealth — Providence — “Be not anxious” — Jesus not fanatical — His teaching interpreted by his conduct — The xiv CONTENTS

PAGES law of renunciation— Wealth not owned — Stewardship — The standard of wealth — Judaism socialistic — The narrow view of service— The Middle Ages as an object lesson — Giving as a fine art—The State — Non-resistance — Bearing of the law of love — War — Arbitration — An ideal of Socialism also ’ , ; : - 387-434

CHAPTER XI

An unrealized ideal— The Gospels and their social ethics — Jesus founded no Church — Social ethics at Jerusalem — Social teachings of the Fathers — Deacons — Bishops — Social meetings — The vast change — Paul— His divergence from Jesus denied — Inspiration — “ Back to Christ ” — Jesus or Paul ? — Paul’s experience — Legalism — The forgiveness of sins — Paul’s theologizing — Jesus and sin— The historical fact — Theology above ethics — The Fathers — Heresy — Arianism — Eclipse of ethics — Paganism — Syncretism — Effect on Christianity — Effect on institutions — Submergence of the ethics of Jesus — Persecution — Unity paramount — Constantine — The transformation and the anomaly— Church and State — A forgotten mission — Disappearance of the Kingdom idea — Asceticism — Monachism — Protestantism also a failure — Luther’s spiritual conflict— His disparagement of ethics—The Anabaptists—Calvin’s theology — The long neglect — The present obstacle— Are the ethics of Jesus impracticable ? 4 : ‘ , ; - 435-479

CHAPTER XII

THE ATTITUDE OF CHURCHES AND MINISTERS TO SOCIAL QUESTIONS

No Fabian policy possible—The problem — Mission of the Church — What is the Church doing ?— Modern Phari-

CONTENTS , seeism — The Church and men of wealth— Function of the preacher—Is he faithful ?— Religion imperishable, but not the Church — Socialism as a religion — The Church on trial — Regeneration — “ Awake, thou that sleepest ’? — The Church’s attitude — Opportunism — The practical question — The true ideal — Estrangement of the workers —Is the Church misunderstood ?— History repeating itself — Estrangement of the thoughtful — The remedy — The “old gospel” — The lack of reality — Judged by its fruits — The struggle for social betterment — The preacher and the toilers— The Church and social legislation — Philanthropy — Socialism and Christianity — Agreements and disagreements — Allies, not enemies — The peril and the

XV

PAGES

Some general works by socialists : — KauFMANN, What is Socialism? New York, 1g10. SPARGO, Socialism. New York, 1906.

KeELLy, Twentieth Century Socialism. New York, 1910.

Critical but non-partisan : — Krrkup, History of Socialism, 4th ed. New York, 1908. GRAHAM, Socialism New and Old, “International Scientific Series,” 189Q1.

STODDART, The New Socialism. New York, 1910. SKELTON, Socialism: a Critical Analysis. Boston, 1911.

Critical and hostile : — SCHAEFFLE, The Quintessence of Botan, “Social Science Series,” 1908.

Fiint, Socialism. New York, 1895.

Notre. —It would have been easy greatly to extend these bibliographies, but it was believed that they would be more helpful to the largest number of readers, if limited mainly to books of recent publication, easily accessible, and wholly limited to books in the English language.

I PURPOSE in the following chapters to attempt three things: first, to sketch briefly the history of socialistic principles and parties in modern times; second, to examine with sufficient thoroughness the fundamental principles of present-day Socialism; third, to inquire in what respects these principles correspond to the ethics of Jesus, and wherein the two differ. I purpose to make this investigation, not as the champion of any social theory, or the briefed defender of any social system, but in as impartial and candid a spirit as possible, as a student of history, of the Scriptures, of economics, of social institutions.

The critical examination of the principles of Socialism will come later, but at the very outset of our inquiry some definition of our subject-matter is highly desirable. There is great mental confusion concerning the nature of Socialism, and we must try to comprehend clearly just what we are to study. Socialism is first of all a philosophy, a theory by which the phenomena of society are explained. More precisely, it is the philosophy of the effective production and distribution of wealth, and the results thereby produced on all social institutions. Socialism is also a practical movement, intended to bring about the condition of things required by the philosophy. We shall be compelled to give our attention to both these phases of Socialism; for it is impossible to understand either theory or movement, unless they are studied together.

Since Socialism is at bottom a philosophy, it has no programme, properly speaking. Some socialistic groups have a programme, and in the past socialists have quite generally put forward programmes which we shall subject in turn to critical examination in the course of our study. But there has been a great change within a generation: intelligent socialists no longer profess a programme. ‘They have no faith in the possibility of establishing Socialism to-morrow or next week. It is true they have a goal: a social state in which every person shall contribute to the common good in proportion to his ability, and in return shall be guaranteed an equitable share in what is produced. But this goal socialists now expect to reach by a gradual process, not by any sudden and violent overturning of existing institutions, or even as the immediate result of legislation. It is evolution rather than revolution that is their reliance. — cr

But the socialist holds, too, that evolution may be hastened by intelligent action. Because existing social institutions are the result of age-long process of development, of which men have been hitherto mainly unconscious, it by no means follows that man is the mere sport of economic forces and may do nothing to determine his own destiny. Neither determinism nor fatalism is a necessary part of Socialism. Man has always done something, he may henceforth do much more, to direct the line of his development and the evolution of social institutions. We may steer, and not simply drift, toward the ideal social order. Accordingly Kautsky, one of the ablest of German socialist leaders, warns laborers that they have something to do besides ‘‘sit down with open mouths and wait for the roast pigeons to fly in.” Just as Burbank, by careful selection of seeds and plants, and skilful cross-breeding, is able to hasten the processes of nature and produce in a few months what ordinary evolution would require years, perhaps centuries, to bring forth, so the socialist believes that if we can gain a clear conception of the goal to be reached, and arouse in men desire to reach it, the end may be greatly hastened. Socialism is concerned to-day, therefore, not with Utopias, but with realities. It is a purposeful attempt to assist evolution, not a vain striving to shape society after an ideal pattern.

Socialism might be more scientifically named col-_ lectivism. ‘The key to all its theories and parties is, codperative production and equitable distribution. It is the opposite system on the one hand to individualism, and on the other to competition. It is but carrying one stage further a process of social reorganization that has been transforming the world ever since the decay of the feudal system.

We have thus seen what Socialism is; let us still further define it by seeing what Socialism is not.

Socialism is not communism, though the two are frequently confounded, even in the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, who misstated the essential principle of Socialism by confusing it with Communism. Of what value is infallibility to a pontiff who lacks common sense, or common knowledge? It must, however, be admitted that socialists themselves are in large part responsible for this confusion of ideas. There was a time in the movement when the name ‘‘socialist”’ did not have its present precision of meaning, but was used to describe persons and movements that differed widely, and sometimes were in sharp conflict with each other. To distinguish their proposals from these ill-defined schemes, when Karl Marx and Frederic Engels issued their famous declaration in 1847, well named ‘‘the birth-cry of modern Socialism,” they called it ‘‘The Communist Manifesto.”’ Their ideas were quite distinct from communism, and therefore the choice of that name was most unfortunate, since it naturally tended to prolong misunderstanding and confusion.

The two systems are easily distinguishable. Com-. munism would distribute all wealth equally; Socialism would secure to every man as nearly as possible the full product of his own labor. Communism aims at the abolition of all private property; Socialism -does not object to private property, except ownership of the means of producing wealth; these, it holds, should be owned by the whole community, and not by individuals or small groups. But wealth once produced and equitably distributed, Socialism recognizes the right of each person to his own portion; he may consume it, or he may accumulate a surplus, or he may give part of it to others. Socialism offers greater personal freedom than communism, therefore, and better opportunity for the maintenance of family life. The best examples of actual communism are furnished us in some of the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church, in which the individual does not own even the clothes that he wears, but everything belongs to the community.

Socialism is not anarchy, but its antipodes.t Anarchy

1 “Socialism isnot Anarchism, but order; not Communism, but justice; it does not propose to abolish competition, but to regulate it; nor to is the extreme of individualism, the negation of all social organization. It professes as its goal that men shall live together without government and without law. ‘There are both evolutionary and revolutionary groups of anarchists, both individualists and communists among them. They do not oppose collectivism in production, but hold that it should be voluntary, like everything else. But while anarchy would thus entirely free men from law, Socialism would greatly extend the scope of law. So much is this the characteristic of Socialism that Herbert Spencer called it ‘‘the new slavery.” Anarchy is a centrifugal force, Socialism is a centripetal. Under anarchy a man might work or not, as he pleased; under Socialism every man must be an active producer, and means must be found to persuade the unwilling and coerce the lazy. No two systems could be more thoroughly unlike than Socialism and anarchy, and there is no good reason why they should be so continually confounded. The confusion is not always honest; the words are promiscuously applied as epithets of opprobrium, with so abolish property, but to consecrate it; nor to abolish the home, but to make the home possible; nor to curtail liberty, but to enlarge it.”” — Edmond Kelly, p. 7. “Nor to abolish religion,” he might have added, “‘ but to make it practical.”

1 The Republican platform for 1908 contained these words: ‘‘Socialism would destroy wealth; Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possessions which would soon leave no one anything to possess; Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions.”?’ The object of statements so notoriously false can, of course, be nothing else than to create political prejudice and influence voters against Socialism. We have come to expect this in political platforms, but it is not seldom found in what purports to be the serious literature of the subject.

much indifference and lack of discrimination as to indicate either gross ignorance or moral obliquity in those who bandy the names about so freely.

Socialism should not be confounded, as it often is, with the private and personal vagaries of some socialists. People of widely differing opinions about art, science, philosophy, and religion have agreed in approving collectivism as the most equitable principle to govern the production and distribution of wealth. Some have been atheists, but collectivism has no necessary or inherent connection with either atheism or theism. The Erfurt Congress (1891) declared explicitly that religion is a private concern of the individual, with which Socialism as such has nothing to do. Some socialists have advocated the abolition of marriage and the family, but col- _lectivism has no essential affinity for such a theory of ' social reorganization. And while some socialists would ed substitute the ethics of the barnyard for the ethics of Jesus, that is conspicuously not true of all socialists. Since they are disagreed on this point, yet are equally socialists, the only fair deduction is that of a recent socialistic writer, ‘‘There is no such thing as a socialistic view of marriage, any more than there is a Republican or Democratic view of marriage; or any more than there is a socialist view of vaccination, vivisection, vegetarianism, or homeopathy.”?! Among the advocates of So-

1 Spargo, “Socialism,” p. 293. In spite of numerous disclaimers of this kind from recognized authorities, the London Municipal Society in its book called “‘The Case Against Socialism” makes a deliberate attempt to discredit Socialism by arguing that all socialists are violent revolutionists (in the teeth of protests by leading socialists that they neither seek nor desire revolution); and that Socialism is the necessary and determined foe of marriage and the family, as well as of all religion, especialism are many orthodox Christians, and many others who, without being orthodox, are not at all disposed to surrender marriage and the family as effete institutions. Too many Protestants are ready to define Socialism, as the ss has defined Modernism, as ‘‘the synthesis of | all errors.””’ This frame of mind Tees the pursuit of truth impossible. No helpful discussion can be conducted, still less can any helpful investigation be pursued, in this spirit of wilful or ignorant confounding of things that differ. Let us clearly comprehend, therefore, at the very outset of this inquiry, that collectivism is essentially an economic theory, with certain limited but important social and ethical implications, but that it has no direct connection with purely religious or ethical ideas and institutions. In particular, Socialism does not imply assassination, though it is true that some impatient professors of socialist ideas have betaken themselves to the bomb and thedagger. Of course, the socialist reserves the right, common to all men and asserted by all as an inalienable privilege of mankind, in the last resort to rebel against existing government and use whatever force may be necessary to establish a new order. But the right of revolution is in no sense a doctrine peculiar to Socialism. He who cannot or will not get the point of view that has been thus indicated, will waste his time and but add to his mental fog by further attending to the subject.

cially of Christianity. The book is manifestly published in the interest of the Tory landowners; and its bitterness and mendacity may be taken to be a good measure of the present spread of Socialism in England, and its menace against the time-dishonored rule of a class whose political and social dominance is founded on the fact that while numbering one-tenth of the people they own nine-tenths of all the land in Great Britain. The landowners are certainly badly frightened.

Wir iNet

SOCIALISM

I

SOCIALISM IN THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION

The literature of this subject in English is very scanty. KavuTsky, Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation. London, 1897.

Bax, Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists. London, 1903. Heatu, Anabaptism. London, 1895.

I

SOCIALISM IN THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION I

Ir is during the early years of the Reformation that the first groups of socialists, in the modern sense, are found. .The distinctive feature of these new groups was that they proposed what was then a novel principle to govern the ownership of property and the production of wealth. They announced as their basis of social organization what has since been named collectivism. The soil, tools, and other means for the production of wealth were to be owned by the community as a whole, not by individuals, and the product of the common industry was to be shared equally by all. As the development of these groups coincided with the Reformation, it is not surprising to find these economic and social ideas combined with religion. The men who proposed this new social order were men who desired religious liberty also, and had thrown off allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. They had studied the Scriptures diligently, if not wisely, and they had become convinced that their proposed social order was in conformity, not only to sound economic principles and natural equity, but to the teachings of Jesus and the life of the primitive Church. We need not pause here to inquire if this conviction were well founded, since inquiry into that matter is provided for in a later chapter. It is at present important only to note that this was an honest and earnest religious belief of these people.

These socialistic groups are generally called Anabaptists in the literature of the period, a name not at all descriptive of them as collectivists, and often inaccurate as a designation of their religious affiliations. That is to say, not all those composing these socialistic groups were Anabaptists, though probably members of that religious party were more numerous than any others among socialists. Nor is the inference that some have drawn warranted, namely, that most Anabaptists of the period were socialists. Some of the most influential men among the Anabaptists did not sympathize with this collectivist experiment, and gave it no support.

In the earlier stages of their movement, so far as the Anabaptists avowed any social principles, they were inclined rather to communism than to Socialism. They were impelled to communism by their ideal of Christian brotherly love, and by the example of the Church at Jerusalem. It was supposed that this example of the Jerusalem saints laid an obligation on all Christians to go and do likewise —that among true Christians all things must be held in common, to the extent at least that every brother must use his possessions for the advancement of the common Cause and the relief of the more needy brother. Some went so far as to say that the law of brotherly love forbade any Christian to be rich. But there were many among the Anabaptists, demonstrably some of their ablest leaders, who did not take this view of the case. The example of a single group of believers in the apostolic age, in a peculiar emergency, was not believed to be sufficient to impose a universal obligation. And so we find in most of the Anabaptist literature now extant, either silence on this subject or opposition to communism.!

What is more certainly known is, that many of the Anabaptist groups held the doctrine of_non-resistance later advocated by the Friends. The Anabaptists were more thoroughgoing in their logical deductions than the Friends, however, for they held that Christ’s prohibition of violence included more than the use of force to resist personal injury, or the collective force of war — that it also included all civil government, which rests on force. They differed from the interpretation of Tolstoi, in that they conceded that “‘the powers that be are ordained of God,” but for the world, to be administered by the worldly. In the kingdom of heaven, ‘‘Resist not the evil man”’ is to be literally obeyed. Among the saints there is no more place for policeman and judge than for the soldier, because no force is to be used to repel evil, and punishment of the evil-doer is to be left to God. As there should be no courts, there is no need of oaths, and so “‘Swear not at all” is to be literally obeyed. Consequently, the Anabaptists consistently forbade a Christian man to be a magistrate, or to seek protection or redress through the law; while the Friends, less consistently, accepted the protection of the law, even while refusing to obey it. In these doctrines certain Anabaptists anticipated modern anarchy, rather than modern Socialism.

1 The Schleitheim Confession is silent about community of goods, and so are the other fragmentary statements of belief in Beck’s Geschichtsbiicher. The extant writings of Denck, Grebel, and other leaders are equally silent, and when Hiibmaier was charged with advocating community of goods, he indignantly denied the accusation.

It is also an error to look for Socialism, as some recent writers have done, in the efforts of the peasant class to better their lot, culminating in the armed insurrection of 1525, known as the Peasants’ War. The Twelve Articles set forth the ideals, as well as the practical demands, of the peasants’ movement, and prove beyond a doubt that it had an agrarian basis rather than a socialistic. The one article that has any apparent socialistic quality is the demand that the lords restore to the people those lands that were once common, but had been appropriated by force or fraud to private use, without color of either law or equity. These common lands were meadows for grazing cattle and woodlands, and their restoration would not have advanced a particle any scheme for socialized production. Temporary communism may be found in the peasant insurrection, as at Miihlhausen during the brief domination of Thomas Miinzer, but no hint of true Socialism. The same is true of the Anabaptist attempt to set up the new kingdom of Christ at Miinster — communism, extending even to community of wives, may be found there, but no Socialism.

II

The first truly socialistic groups of the sixteenth century are found in Moravia, and their history begins with the coming to Nikolsberg of one Jacob Widemann, about the year 1526. This man, popularly known as ‘‘Oneeyed Jacob,” is said to have been a native of Ens, in Salzburg, and he had acquired some fame as a preacher among the Anabaptists before coming to Nikolsberg. Here a large number of the sect had found refuge, owing to the fact that the lords of the region, the Counts Lich-