Berne intervenes
Berne intervenes The Catholic triumph at the disputation of Baden, however transitory, was a setback for all that Zwingli stood for. The forces of opposition had united against him in public discussions from which Zurich had been excluded. An answer there must be, likewise in a public forum, as well as in print, and this happened in January 1528, when the Swiss reformers came into their own. This, it is to be noted, was in Berne, the capital of the largest state in Switzerland.
Sixty miles of relatively difficult country separated Berne from Zurich and brought a greater degree of detachment than is suggested by the distance. Their boundaries nowhere coincided since between them was thrust the tongue of the Freie Aemter, part of the Mandated Territories under joint inter-state control. The two states had indeed been Confederates since 1353, and their inhabitants were German speakers, but their dialects were very different and their traditions almost equally divergent.
Zurich, with its mildly democratic constitution, was an ancient trading centre where transport, commerce and manufactures kept its citizens busy and reasonably prosperous. Berne was an artificially created borough whose affairs were managed in practice by a small number of leading families; it was a rustic place, little more than a convenient cattle market and centre of supplies for farmers from the countryside.1
Berne had been the most successfully aggressive of all Swiss city states and had secured notable gains in central Switzerland. From Brugg in the north east to Meiringen in the south east and Aigle in the south west, a great semi-circle of territories was ruled by Bernese councillors, and further advances were yet to come. After Zurich had been coerced, early in the fifteenth century, into abandoning the Austrian alliance and had been cheated out of the Toggenburg inheritance, Berne had taken the lead in, and had reaped most of the profit from, the overthrow of Charles of Burgundy. This carried with it intimate involvement in French and Savoyard politics, and this for a state that was powerful only conditionally.
1 Thomas Murner described it' utpote civitatem simplicem, rusticam, indoctam, sed pugnacem, bellicosam et potentem'. ZWA xm, 400 n. 2.
Berne intervenes Berne was poor. It had expanded piecemeal and its state rights were limited by custom, law and practicality. Almost a federation in itself, its considerable possessions called for skilled and tactful management.
The rulers of Berne had learnt to exercise a remarkable capacity for government. Orders were issued and enforced; several hundred villages and local communities looked to them for guidance which was received and paid for. There was, indeed, sometimes discontent but it was never really serious for, through their local officers, the government kept a firm and restraining, but also understanding, hand on its subjects. There was consultation and intelligent compliance as well as domination.
As became the governors of a mainly bucolic population, the citizens of Berne had a deserved reputation for slowness, by some misguidedly confused with stupidity.1 They had, in fact, constantly to guard against being overwhelmed by a combination of Pope, Emperor, France and Savoy. Hence the alliance with France, cooperation with Zurich and the recognition that the Reformation enhanced Berne's power as against that of the church. Hence, too, the acceptance by its leading citizens of French money in return for service with French armies in causes that suited
Berne's interests.
With ambivalent policies almost forced upon Bernese governments, it is hardly surprising that their measures were sometimes mistrusted by the other Swiss states, which neither appreciated Berne's difficulties nor sympathised with its western preoccupations. Savoyard claims had to be resisted but Savoy itself had to be protected from absorption by France or the Empire. Berne was interested to maintain a peaceful Swiss Confederation and this was not made easier by the warlike propensities of its subjects. Violence was commonplace, boys were brought up to expect to fight, and war, especially when profitable, was accounted glorious.
There was very little in any way exceptional about the religious life of Berne. Its bishop was far distant - at Constance for all of its territory east of the Aar, at Lausanne for the greater part of the remainder. There was no suggestion of heresy and very little of dissatisfaction; relations with Rome were normal and friendly. Relics were esteemed, pilgrimages were popular, indulgences were purchased and no one doubted that the saints could and did work miracles. There had been some relatively minor differences with the Bishop of Basle, and the clergy and their property were very much under state control, but all without friction. The principal church, St Vincent's, collegiate only since 1485, known as the Minster, was well supported and had all that a great Gothic building could offer in 1 The Bernese were the Bavarians of Swiss history, with Zurich, smart, alert and intelligent, as a foil. 'Die berner beklagend, die Ziircher sien ze hitzig, so klagen die Zurcher, die Berner sien ze witzig.' Anshelm v, 362.
ZWINGLI impressive ritual and splendid decoration. Its clergy, drawn mostly from local patrician families, were not notable either for learning or for piety, and there were occasional clashes over matters of jurisdiction. The 'inferior' secular clergy were at best undistinguished and at worst lazy and ignorant. For the most part they were rather ordinary men of the peasant class, able to read the services and administer the sacraments, not expected to preach and usually living with a permanent housekeeper known to, and accepted by, everyone. Badly paid in many instances, frequently working on their own farms, they were neither admired nor disliked, save when they claimed excessive privileges.
The Regulars were even less esteemed. The monks were, by all credible accounts, idle. They had property rights which were upheld by the government, but they were often corporately in debt and administered their possessions badly; they did little or nothing for the poor, and performed their own statutory services slackly or not at all.1 The friars, more active because they were licensed beggars, confessors and preachers, were not popular.
The complacent piety of the citizens of Berne and the reputation of the Dominican Order were shaken in 1509 by the strange Jetzer affair.2 Hans
Jetzer was a tailor by trade who in 1506 joined the Dominican order in Berne. Plausible, handsome, vain and a considerable actor, he soon attracted a good deal of attention, particularly from women, by his sermons and conversation. Soon he began to tell of his dreams, experiences and visions. First St Barbara, and then the Blessed Virgia herself, appeared before him, weeping tears of blood, giving him a seal with five drops of blood and finally imprinting the stigmata on his hand. She even indicated that she did not support the Franciscans in their insistence upon her immaculate conception. Soon Jetzer was working miracles; the excitement became so great that the city called for a public investigation, with disastrous results. Under pressure and torture, the friars confessed to connivance at deliberate deception, and although Jetzer, as a stranger, was allowed to return to his native Zurzach, four friars were burnt, the reputation of the order in Berne was markedly lowered and a blow was struck at the credibility of miracles. It came at a time, too, when questions were
1 There were friaries at Burgdorf, Zofingen and Konigsfelden, a number of nunneries and some sixteen monasteries including Interlaken, Thorberg, Frienisberg, Riieggisberg and Trub.
The government of Berne regarded itself as the 'protector' or guardian of the monastic property, which made later occupation easy. Feller n, 87, 91-2; K. Guggisberg, Bernische
Kirchengeschichte (Berne, 1958), 24-7.
2 R. Steck, Die Akten des jfetzerprozesses, nebst dem Defcnsorium (Basle, 1904), QSGxxn; N.
Paulus, Einjustizmord an vier Dominikanern begangen (Frankfurt, 1897); &• Steck, Der Berner
Jetzerprozess (1507-Q) in neuer Beleuchtung (Berne, 1902); H. von Greyerz, Der Jetzerprozess und die Humanisten, Archiv des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Bern 31 (Berne, 1932);
Z v, 703 n. 5.
Berne intervenes being asked about both the theory and the practice of monasticism.
Scepticism about local miracles was engendered and also some critical thoughts about the special attraction of the life of the Regulars. There was, however, little obvious anti-clericalism, and the older aristocratic families remained firmly attached to traditional beliefs as expounded by the beneficed clergy, particularly the prebendaries of St Vincent's. Gifts continued to be made to the churches for ornaments, services were reasonably well attended and indulgences were purchased without much comment. The chief supporters of the Catholic cause were the three original Confederate states, Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, which, along with Lucerne, were on Berne's eastern flank and were unswervingly Roman and papal in their spiritual allegiance. The government of France, Berne's ally, in spite of some Lutheran infiltration, remained consistently Catholic, as, to the south, did the Duke of Savoy, son-in-law of the Emperor Charles V.
Berne had profited most from the collapse of Burgundy and had taken a leading part in promoting the 'perpetual' French alliance in 1515, but had been disappointed and frustrated at its outcome. Bernese soldiers, too, had lost their lives fighting for a France which was increasingly unsuccessful in north Italy, and the subsidies promised were frequently unpaid.
The Cardinal Bishop of Sion, Matthew Schiner, although personally disliked and suspected by many leading citizens, had readily recruited soldiers for the papal armies both in Berne and Fribourg, the neighbouring state whose fortunes were so closely linked with Berne that for many purposes they acted in concert. Fribourg, however, remained consistently
Catholic. What makes the outcome of events in Berne1 so significant is that the triumph of the Reformation there meant that Berne and Zurich acted together at a critical moment in the history of Switzerland. If Berne had remained Catholic when the Counter-Reformation came, Catholicism might have been imposed on the whole Confederation, with Zurich coerced into agreement. While Berne acted in harmony with Zurich, or at least maintained a benevolent neutrality, Zurich could feel secure, being strong enough to resist successfully any local attackers.
Zwingli had known Berne well during his youth when he had studied there. There were family connections also and he was in frequent correspondence with some of the more intellectual and enlightened of the priests. At the same time, he was not popular because of his opposition to 1 Feller 11 is the indisputable guide. The documents are assembled in Steck & Tobler. Some additional material is printed in M. von Stiirler, Urkunden der Bernischen Kirchenreform I,
1520-1528 (Berne, 1862), a singularly difficult book to use; E. Bloesch, Geschichte der schweizerisch-reformierten Kirchen I (Berne, 1898). (Bd. n, 1899 is concerned with events after Zwingli's death). A number of facsimiles are helpfully collected in A. Fluri, Die Beziehungen Berns zu den Biichdrnckern in Basel, Zurich und Genf 1476-1536 (Berne, 1913).
ZWINGLI the French alliance and to mercenary service, and he hardly understood the permanent necessities that guided Berne's policy.1 There was, however, very little sign of any direct impact of Reformation thought on Berne before 1523, and its government had refused to be represented at the Zurich religious debates of that year. Luther's writings had, however, circulated in Berne before Zwingli was known there, thus preparing the way for his teaching. In any case, opposition to the papacy was acceptable since the Pope was hostile to Berne's ally, the King of France. Zwingli had, however, some influential supporters living within its city walls. They were, indeed, like Francis Lambert, at first regarded as Lutheran adherents, which meant that the new doctrines were not directly linked with Zurich in the first instance.2 Included among them were Zwingli's own former teacher, the would-be humanist, Heinrich Wolfflin, and the artistorator Niklaus Manuel (Deutsch).3 This latter, a sincere, if slightly disreputable, character, appealed to the low humour of the Gasse-dwellers and was notorious for his jeering verses about the clergy and for his parodies of the mystery plays4 which were enacted at street corners.
A painter by trade, he became almost an artist of repute whose delineation of that strangely popular subject, the Dance of Death,5 round the Dominican cloisters was almost as well known as that in the Basle Dominican cemetery and the superb woodcuts by Hans Holbein the younger. Manuel's noisy exhibitionism was not entirely superficial; he was also a sincere
Bible reader who by 1522 had become convinced that better ways of worship, prayer and religious association were needed. He also recognised that the way to bring this about must lie through city politics, and he acted accordingly with remarkable skill.
Among the grey-robed Franciscans was their Lesemeister or theological instructor, Sebastian Meyer,6 learned and eloquent, who was entranced by the Bible text and determined to base his preaching upon it. There was also the Bavarian, Jorg Brunner, indefatigable in quoting texts against the hierarchy, and Valerius Anshelm, one of the many medical men of the age with an interest in humane letters, which developed into independent
1 Feller n, 186.
2 Feller n, ii3f. As the ally of France (which Zurich was not), Berne was in opposition to the strongly Catholic Habsburg Emperor.
3 Born c. 1484 of Italian extraction, he was connected with the painter known as the 'master with the carnation'. C. A. Beerli, Le peintre poete Nicolas Manuel et revolution sociale de son temps, Travaux d* humanisme et Renaissance m-iv (Geneva, 1953); Feller 11, 79, 88, 97, 11520, 171.
4 The most notorious of these was performed at Shrove-tide 1523, satirising the Pope and the hierarchy with coarse and boisterous vulgarity. Text in J. Bachtold u. F. Vetter, Bibliothek alterer Schriftwerke der deutschen Schweiz, 11, Nicklaus Manuel (Frauenfeld, 1878) 29-111;
Buck/Fabian, 360.
5 J. M. Clark, The Dance of Death (Glasgow, 1950) 71-5.
6 Z 1, 541 n. 2; VII, 611 n. 1; Vad. Br. in, 12, 113.
Berne intervenes views on the nature of the church and the sacraments, and which were reflected in the selectivity of his important chronicle.1 Nicklaus von
Wattenwil, Provost of St Vincent's from 1523, whom many expected to be the next Bishop of Lausanne, and with him Lienhard Tremp, Warden of the Hospital, belonging to the powerful tailors' gild, publicly sympathised with the reforming party.2 Most influential of all was the official
Minster preacher or lecturer, Canon Berchtold Haller,3 a little busybody of a man, restless and passionately determined to share with others his joy and hope in the new-found Bible. Without Haller as his friend and ally,
Zwingli might never have had a real following in Berne - their correspondence is among the most revealing of the surviving letters. Not only did
Haller help to ensure that Berne did not break off diplomatic relations with Zurich, but he was also present at the Baden disputation and demonstrated the confused and tendencious nature of the minutes when these were available.4 It was the refusal of a certified copy of these minutes to the Council of Berne which led to Berne's refusal to be accounted an organising participant and was one of the chief factors in precipitating the Reformation in that city. Having heard the arguments of Oecolampadius at Baden, Haller refused, on his return, to say the Roman mass in the Minster and was, in consequence, later dismissed from his lucrative canonry but allowed to continue preaching.5 This was acceptable because already on 15 June 1523 the council had issued a mandate known from the saints' day on which it was promulgated as the Mandate of St Vitus and St Modestus,6 requiring that preaching should be based on the Bible only, but free of Lutheran or other error. This had been done, as was thought, to protect the church from attack.
The rulers of Berne were thoroughly pragmatic. With matters of piety and religion they were not concerned, but what was said in the pulpit could affect the state and must be safeguarded. Similarly, they were pre1 Anshelm's wife was fined for using wrords discrediting the Virgin Mary, Anshelm's salary as medical officer was reduced by half in January 1524, as a result of which he left Berne for his native Rottweil (Feller 11, 123). He returned in 1529.
2 Feller 11, 129.
3 Berchtold Haller (c. 1492-1536) from Aldingen (Rottweil) graduated at Cologne in 1510, taught Latin as Wittenbach's assistant at Berne from 1513, and was one of the priests attached to the Minster. He was not a notable scholar, but he was entirely honest, expressed his feelings with conviction, and was popular in Berne. In later life he grew so fat that a door in the Chancel had to be widened for him. (Z vn, 484 n. 1; Z ix, 10; xi, 480 n. 6). Myconius introduced him to Zwingli, whose devoted disciple he soon became. M. Kirchhofer, B. Haller oder die Reformation von Bern (Zurich, 1828), 226. He is not be to confused with Johannes
Haller, priest at Amsoldingen, the first priest in Bernese territory to marry, but allowed by the government to retain his benefice, canon law notwithstanding. He later moved to Zurich and was killed at Kappel in 1531. Z vm, 442 n. 18.
4 See above, 237 and n. 7.
5 Feller 11, 143-4.
6 Steck & Tobler, 65-8 (No. 249); Feller 11, 122. A facsimile in A. Fluri, Schweizerisches
Gutenbergmuseum 14 (1928), 3-6 and E. Biichler, Die Anfdnge des Buchdrucks in der Schweiz2
(Berne, 1951), 103-4.
ZWINGLI pared to decide whether clergy should be taxed, whether excommunications from Basle should be effective in their territory, or whether nuns might leave their Houses to be married. Zwingli recognised how the Mandate and the thinking behind it could help his cause and wrote Von gottlicher und menschlicher Gerechtigkeit in July to demonstrate that there was nothing subversive about his own biblical teaching.1 Tithes, rent, interest, if approved by the government, must be paid; human laws are necessary because of the inherent wickedness of mankind. After Adam all men were selfish, and a human magistracy is necessary to keep their worst instincts in check. Human justice is a poor and inadequate substitute for divine righteousness but it must be accepted thankfully. A government serves God by suppressing disorder and bringing peace and security. Its laws must be obeyed, but the preaching of God's word must not be forbidden.
All this was music in the ears of the Bernese councillors. In 1524 their representatives at Federal Diets at Lucerne in April2 and Zug in July3 had heard agreed resolutions recommending the exclusion of 'heretical' participants (i.e. from Zurich, Schaffhausen and Appenzell) from future assemblies.4 'Heretical' in the first instance meant Lutheran, and Zwingli urgently and consistently maintained that he and his followers were not Lutherans, heretics or sectaries. His teaching was orthodox, deriving directly from the word of God interpreted by manifest reason. Even without reference to this argument, Berne was in any case unwilling to agree that any resolution of a majority of the states of the Confederation could be acceptable in matters of faith. This was not in the province of the Confederation and therefore any suggestion of the exclusion of Zurich on such grounds was rejected. It was as if to reinforce this principle that on 22 November 1524 a second order about religion5 was made in Berne, again calling for purely biblical preaching but also upholding clerical celibacy, fasting and recourse to images.
Even so, in 1525 Zurich seemed quite alone.6 If it were cast out from an all-Catholic Switzerland, Berne would obviously take its place as the leading state; but, politically, this would be unwelcome to the others because of Berne's western-orientated expansionist policy. Exclusion was also, in fact, exceedingly difficult to bring about. The Diet had no executive authority. It was a consultative body only, whose deliberations to 1 Z 11, 458(47i)~525; see above, 117-121.
2 EA 4, 1 a, 412-13.
3 EA 4, 1 a, 453-4. See above, 209.
4 Feller II, 126-7; Theodor de Quervain, Kirchliche und soziale Zustande in Bern (Berne, 1906).
5 Steck & Tobler 155-6 (No. 510); Feller 11, 129. The reading of Lutheran books, privately owned, was not forbidden.
6 Koehler, Zwingli und Bern (Tubingen, 1928), 17; G. Stucki, Zurichs Stellung in der Eidgenossenschaft vor der Reformation (Aarau, 1970), 133-5.
Berne intervenes become operative had to be ratified by each constituent government. Thus the formation of a new Bund of twelve states excluding Zurich was almost impossible and Berne was, in practice, able to veto the suggestion.
Berne's traditional inclination to caution was reinforced in 1525 by two notable events. The battles of Novara (30 April 1524) and Pavia (25 February 1525), and the capture of its ally, the King of France, meant an end to Italian expeditions, of which Berne had never fully approved. There was now no immediate danger from north Italy, and the policy of abstention from military adventures advocated by Zurich was seen to have paid off. The Peasants' War in the north was perturbing. Berne had a large peasant population and, although there was no serious trouble because of the skill and reasonableness of the government, still a watch had to be kept and external intervention avoided. On 7 April a third ordinance about religion1 came from the Berne Council, retaining the seven sacraments but again emphasising its own responsibility for, and control of, church affairs. A week later came news that Zurich had prohibited the mass and this was received with marked indifference. It was Zurich's affair and Berne was not prepared to intervene.
In September the six fully committed Catholic states2 together with Glarus formally requested the Zurich Council to re-establish the mass3 and received no answer. Two months later, in association with Solothurn, the attempt was renewed and Berne was now urged to send its own delegation to Zurich.4 And so on 29 November 1525, four leading Bernese councillors5 appeared before the Zurich Biirgermeister and council in the Rathaus. There they urged that in the interests of all it should at least be made possible for a Catholic to hear mass openly somewhere in Zurich.
They were sent away with a courteous reply that further deliberation was needed and that a written answer would follow soon. The drafting of this, a reasoned refusal, was entrusted to Zwingli himself.6
This reiterated the willingness of Zurich to be refuted from the Bible, quoted the now familiar texts (especially John 6. 63, 65) and set out the argument that the mass as a sacrifice was not what had been instituted by Christ but was a human invention, a mere source of clerical revenue, allowed by God to exist because of their past sins. To allow even one priest to say mass within their purified state was impossible, for it would introduce utterly unacceptable divisiveness. Differences about the mass, however, should not, it was urged, be allowed to affect cooperation between 1 Steck & Tobler 1, 190-5 (no. 610).
2 Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Zug and Fribourg. Berne was already regarded by them as of uncertain orthodoxy (Feller 11, 132) and Solothurn tended to act as mediator.
3 EA 4, 1 a, 777.
4 EA4, 1 a, 798.
5 Sebastian von Diesbach, Anton von Erlach, Konrad Willading, Anton Biitschelbach; Z IV,
649; EA 4, 1 a, 806.
6 Z iv, 648(655)-6o.
ZWINGLI states in purely secular matters. What was now advocated was the acceptance of the principle of one state one faith, accompanied by recognition of another faith in a neighbouring state, cuius regio eius religio in fact, the compromise so painfully and unwillingly accepted for all Germany a generation later.
There was no reason, Zurich agreed, why men should not worship differently yet fight in a common defensive cause:' belief should be free and no one (i.e. no state) should be obliged to accept another way of thought unless convinced thereto by biblical proof'.1 If contingents of soldiers were serving together, one group could hear mass while another held an evangelical service, neither interfering with the other. Similarly, it was urged, Lutherans and Zwinglians (but not, by implication, Anabaptists) could cooperate for common ends. There was also a hint in the Zurich document that where, as in Thurgau, the responsible governments were of divergent creeds, local religious autonomy could be acceptable. The supreme need was for Swiss unity in face of threats from the Emperor, the King of France and some German princes. They were united in a common
Christian faith as evidenced by their public instruments, most of which began,' In the name of the Lord, Amen', and they all accepted the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.
The appeal had no immediate effect, and Zurich's opponents were able to engineer the Baden disputation but were unable to prevent a steady advance of the new opinions in Basel, Schaff hausen and elsewhere. Haller had supported the Zwinglian case at Baden, and Berne moved a little nearer to reform after this assembly.2 On Whit Monday, 21 May 1526, the Berne Council in a fresh order had again upheld Catholic services and also maintained evangelical preaching, thus bringing a further approximation to religious freedom for their subjects. The government also continued its rejection of the principle of necessary Federal religious unity based on majority agreement among the states, implying as it did the exclusion of Zurich and the forcible reimposition there of the Catholic faith which could only be brought about by war.
Another sign of the widening gap between the parties was apparent when the oath to uphold the Confederation, agreed by the Stanser Verkommnis (1481), ceased to be sworn. This had taken place with unfailing
1 Z iv, 659:' und glouben lassen, wie ein jeder vermeinte siner seel salikeit ze sind, und desshalb mit niemant weder tzwytracht nach unwillen anfahen; dann der gloub fry, ouch niemant darzu anders dann mit dem waren gottlichen wort genottiget sol werden'. Even with the important final qualification it is a remarkable statement of principle for 1525. Machiavelli, with a totally different approach, had reached similar conclusions ten years earlier, but the Prince (unpublished) cannot have been known in Zurich.
2 Steck & Tobler, 314-15 (No. 892), 'dass jeder glouben mog was in gut beduncke'. See above
236.
Berne intervenes regularity every five years. When in 1525 the turn came round again, the Catholic seven1 were not willing to be associated with Zurich and its supporters in this exercise. To this exclusion, however, Berne was opposed,2 and since the evangelical states were unwilling to take an oath by Mary and the saints, after several meetings and adjournments it was tacitly accepted, after an imperfect conjuration in July 1526, that agreement was impossible. Hence the practice ceased until 1798 and then was renewed only momentarily.3
On 3 February 1527 there was a meeting of representatives from Zurich, Berne, Glarus, Basle, Schaff hausen and the city of St Gall to consider their relations with the Diet of the Confederation which, as Zwingli consistently maintained, could not interfere in matters of faith and conscience.4 Berne, still technically Catholic, a little resented being hurried or pressurised into common action - it was fully competent to manage its own affairs in its own moderate and realistic way.
It was at the Easter elections to the Berne Council in 1527 that a sufficiently large number of evangelically inclined members were chosen for the Great Council and added to the Small Council for these bodies to have for the first time a distinctly 'reforming' slant.5 More priests began to ask, and to receive, leave to marry their housekeepers, and the objections of certain of the gilds to masses for the repose of the souls of former members, in the efficacy of which they no longer believed, were upheld. Another (the fifth) order about religion of 27 May 1527 followed, renewing the insistence on evangelical preaching but still resisting innovations. For the rest, the councillors knew their public and acted with predictable ponderous dilatoriness. In July they began to make preparations for much closer control of the monasteries.6 Nothing was done without consultation with the localities, some of which showed little enthusiasm for married priests; the gilds on the other hand were emphatic in their demand for a public religious debate. This was accepted by the council on 15 November7 to take place on 6 January 1528, and invitations8 went out two days later to all
1 Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Fribourg, Solothurn, Zug.
2 Steck & Tobler, 258-9, 262 (Nos. 813, 814).
3 Wyss, 71 n. 3; Rappard, Renouvellement, 51-79.
4 Beurle, 119-23; EA 4, ia, 1031-2, 1048, 1073; HZ 40 (1878), 127.
5 Feller 11, 149-50; Z ix, 103, including Haller's comments. Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte 98-9; Anshelm v, 199-200. Ritter Niklaus von Miilinen, the leading Catholic supporter, lost his seat.
6 Feller 11, 152-3.
7 Z vi i, 206. For the whole proceedings, vi i, 202-498; Z ix, 290-6, 304-10; Feller 11, 155;
T. de Quervain, Gedenkschrift zur Vierhundertjahrfeier der Geschichte der Bernischen Kirchenreformation I (Berne, 1928); W. Koehler, Zwingli und Bern (Tubingen, 1928); K. Linth,
'Der theologische Gehalt der Berner Disputation'. The latter portion of Anshelm and Bullinger, Ref. 1,395ff, give contemporary, but not invariably accurate, detail. Steck & Tobler,
517 (no. 1368).
8 Steck & Tobler, 518-521 (No. 1371).
ZWINGLI the states of the Confederation and their allies, to a number of south German cities, to the four bishops concerned, Sion, Constance, Basle and Lausanne, and to every beneficed priest within the Bernese territory. To these latter, some 300 or more, it was not so much an invitation as a government order - if they did not attend they would lose their benefices.
The threat, accompanied with assurance of hospitality, was sufficient, but it is an interesting commentary upon the authority assumed by the council that it could have been uttered. Henry VIII of England or Francis I of France could hardly have issued such a decree in 1527.
The considerable and rather aristocratic Catholic party in Berne was now put on the defensive; they were informed that there was real doubt about what faith their government should uphold and that certain major issues needed to be decided by open debate. It was to be an officially sponsored discussion and argument,'eingemeingesprech und disputation**1 on 6 January 1528, the feast of the Epiphany, and, fatal but essential condition, it was to be based on the pure text of the Bible {akin biblische gschrift)2 without reference to any later interpretation or addition by the Fathers or anyone else. An agenda drawn up by Berchtold Haller and Franz Kolb accompanied the guarantee of safe conduct to all those invited.3 The topics were by now very familiar ones. Berne had, as it were, caught up at last. Tradition, vows of chastity and the marriage of priests, purgatory, images, the intercession of the saints, the mass as a sacrifice, the eucharist, the meaning of the church and its head, were collected into the ten articles for public discussion, none of them by now in any way original.4 These were to be discussed in the light of the Bible text, 'the clear pure word of God', after which the Council of Berne would decide on its course of action. The theses (Schlussreden) were written in German and translated into Latin (with modifications) by Zwingli, and a French version was also produced. There was no printing press available in Berne: hence the printing was undertaken by Froschauer in Zurich.
On 2 December 1527, the Biirgermeister of Zurich, Diethelm Roist, gave Zwingli formal leave to attend the Berne disputation, where he was also to be joined by Oecolampadius, from Basle. From that moment the Proceedings took on a new dimension; the Berne disputation was to be the protestant reply to the Catholic-engineered colloquy of Baden, and upon its deliberations would depend the decision of the Bernese government about the religious alignment of the state. The government would not act without popular approval, and everything done must bear public inspection.
1 Or as Anshelm v, 219 put it: 'ein offen, fri, kristlich gegengesprach, disputation gnemt'.
2 Anshelm, v, 221.
3 Anshelm, v, 223-5.
4 Z vi i, 207, translated in A. L. Cochrane, Reformed confessions of the 16th century (Philadelphia, 1966), 49-50.
Berne intervenes Hence, every detail was planned with Bernese precision and punctiliousness. The presidency or chairmanship was to rotate among four respected figures from different states, and after much discussion the indefatigable
Commander Schmid of Ktissnacht, Conrad Schilling, Abbot of Gottstadt, Niklaus Brieffer of Basle (after the more illustrious Dr Oswald Bar had declined) and Vadian from St Gall were nominated. Information1 from Zurich indicated that four2 councillors had consulted with the three stipendiary ministers3 about the policy to be followed.
For Zwingli the Berne disputation was very much the complement to Baden. He had been forbidden (and had declined) to attend this latter and now regarded Berne as the forum from which he could say the things that he had not been able to proclaim at Baden.4 It was to be a public appearance, the outcome was immensely important for the future of the Gospel, and there was a certain conscious finality about it. The traditionalists were to be invited and given every opportunity to state their case.
If, however, they were adjudged to have failed (on scriptural grounds), the toleration previously accorded to their teaching and practices would be withdrawn. The government would be responsible for the (not very great) expenses of its representatives, but not, obviously, of their opponents; and each of them would have a separate safe-conduct.
In the light of events at Baden, very great care was taken to ensure that the records or minutes of the Berne meeting were impeccable. Five secretaries were appointed, Peter Cyro, town clerk of Berne, Eberhard von
Riimlang town clerk of Thun, Johannes Huber of Lucerne (who did not in fact attend), Georg Hertwig of Solothurn and Georg Schoni of Berne.5
Books of reference were made available: the Greek New Testament in Erasmus's now well-known text, the Hebrew (but not the Septuagint) version of the Old Testament, the massive folios, mostly printed at Basle, of Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian, Iraeneus, Cyril and Chrysostom,6 with good Hebrew scholars like Myconius and Hofmeister there in advance to see that the texts were in order. The church of the Franciscan friars was specially fitted out by the city architect with seating for the large numbers expected (perhaps 500 in all).7 The participants were explicitly instructed to speak slowly so that their words could be taken down.
Certain setbacks were anticipated and were forthcoming: from the Imperial court at Speier (28 December 1527) came a declaration that the assembly was illegal, that they should wait for the forthcoming Diet of Regensburg8 and that matters of doctrine should be discussed only at a 1 Z vi i, 211-13, Ratschlag der 4 Verordneten und 3 Leutpriester wegen der Disputation zu Bern.
2 Binder, Spriingli, Uli Funk, Conrad Gull.
3 Zwingli, Jud, Engelhard.
4 As Haller put it, 'Er hat badet, du solt den barentantz furen'. Z ix, 308.
5 Z vi i, 246 n. i.
6 Z ix, 314.
7 Farner iv, 274.
8 RTA vn i, 160-229.
ZWINGLI future General Council.1 This made little difference. The Catholic states, including Fribourg and, with reservations, Solothurn, not only condemned the whole proceedings but announced that delegates would be prevented from crossing {heir territories,2 an action of dubious legality within the Confederation; but nearly all the other recipients of the invitation accepted. Zurich, St Gall, Basle and Schaffhausen were formally and adequately represented; Glarus sent Fridli Bruner and allowed any citizen to attend who wished to do so. The whole roll-call was an impressive one.
Men rode in over the snow from St Gall, Biel, Strassburg, Ulm, Augsburg, Miilhausen, Nuremberg,3 Geislingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Constance and Isny, but not from Rottweil. Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Bucer, Blarer,
Capito, Pellican, Hofmeister,'Haller, Bar, Commander Schmid, Megander and Collin were there to support Zwingli - it would have been hard even for Germany to have produced a similar galaxy of Protestant talent.
In contrast, the Catholic representation was minimal. The four bishops -Constance, Sion, Lausanne and Basle-were absent; The Bishop of Constance insisted that the church should be judge, for it had been there before the New Testament was written and had decided what books were and what were not, canonical. The Bishop of Lausanne set out but had a convenient accident on the way; there was, however, a small party present from Lausanne, all French speakers who remained silent observers throughout. To Zwingli's disappointment, Eck and Cochlaeus from Ingolstadt, who might have been worthy opponents, refused to attend4 for some of the same reasons as had kept Zwingli away from Baden, and their case was left to the able apologist Konrad Trager (or Treyer) from Fribourg, weakly supported by Grat (Ulm), Buchstab (Zofingen), Maurer
(Rapperswil), Huter (Appenzell) and one or two others quite unable to match either the biblical knowledge, the learning or the verbal dexterity of the other side. Eck, indeed, loved publicity, but not of the kind that he was likely to meet at Berne, and his absence was as intelligible as that of Zwingli at Baden.
Zwingli attended a fine New Year's Feast in the hall of the Skinners'
Company (zum Schnecken) before setting off in style for the three day journey.5 He, with the Biirgermeister and a band of faithful clergy, rode on horses; others, well able to walk a good thirty miles a day, went on foot.
Accompanied by carts with provisions and protected by a contingent of 1 Feller n, 158. Berne later said that the imperial answer had been received too late to allow the meeting to be called off'.
2 Z ix, 336-7 n. 10; Feller 11, 156.
3 Nuremberg as a Lutheran city sent Andreas Althamer, who maintained a position of opposition to Zwingli, particularly in the discussions on the eucharist. Anshelm v, 231-2.
4 ZWA vi, 580-88; XIII, 283-5; Z ix, 325, 328.
5 Farner iv, 268. At Mellingen there was a moment of hostility to Zwingli and a shot was fired, but the intruder was ejected.
Berne intervenes men armed with crossbows, swords and halberds, they took the road via
Mellingen and Lenzburg to the Bernese frontier at Aarau, where a Bernese escort of two hundred awaited the party. It was a demonstration, but it was also a precaution, as Zwingli had to cross territory which was under hostile control in the Freie Aemter, and had he been unguarded he could have been taken as a heretic. Berne was reached on 4 January 1528.
Within the city of Berne, Zwingli declined official hospitality and stayed, in somewhat exaggerated simplicity, with Lienhard Tremp with whom there was some family connection.1 The whole business was stagemanaged with great care and skill, and in many ways it marks the highest point in Zwingli's career. His arguments and his presentation of the case were successful. By accepting the Zwinglian teaching Berne joined forces with Zurich, and in spite of all later disasters this was decisive. Berne might have copied its neighbours, Fribourg and Solothurn, and have remained Catholic, or, at best, uncommitted. A Catholic Berne would have meant an isolated Zurich, and Zwinglianism might have gone the way of Socinianism and become a minor sect. It was a Zwinglian Berne that saved
Geneva from Catholic domination and thus made Calvin's work possible.
In some ways the fate of French Huguenots, Dutch and Scots Presbyterians, and perhaps ' Free Churches' all over the world depended upon the outcome of a debate held in Berne in January 1528.
The disputation itself is unusually well documented: by a happy accident, some of Zwingli's own notes, written down while his opponents were speaking, have survived.2 The four secretaries kept the record straight, and their published narrative,3 unlike that of Baden, was prompt, full and fair. With great tactical skill, Zwingli kept himself in the background and let the two local ministers, Kolb and Haller, do most of the talking. At the same time he was always ready to suggest, to prompt and to intervene frequently with a telling phrase, embarrassing question, or logical definition.4
When the sessions opened in the nave of the Franciscan church with Vadian as President on 6 January 1528, the first topic to be faced was that 1 Feller n, 159; Z 11, 473-4. That Tremp was Zwingli's brother-in-law, as sometimes stated, is unlikely. ZWA IV (1928), 21-6.
2 Interestingly, they were written in Latin - Zwingli thought in Latin rather than in German in such a context, further evidence of the powerful influence of his university training in disputation. Some discussions were in Latin because of the presence of French speakers. Z vi i,
215.
3 'Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zu Bernn in Uchtland', Zurich, Froschauer,
1528; A. Fluri, Die Beziehungen Berns zu den Buchdruckern in Basel, Zurich und Genf, 14761536 (Berne, 1913), 35-6.
4 As, for example, commenting on Mark 14. 24 ('This is my blood of the new testament'),
'a liquid cannot be the new testament, the blood of Christ is a liquid and therefore the blood of Christ cannot be the new testament. Hence it was the blood of Christ shed on the cross that was the pledge of the new testament.' Cf. Bullinger, Ref. 1, 436; Z vi i, 350-1.
ZWINGLI of the nature and authority of the church. The Catholics as usual argued that the church had decided which writings constituted the Canon of the scripture,1 and that through the charge to Peter Christ had instituted the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy. Haller and Bucer joined to make the familiar case that the church was the body of Christ and Christ therefore its only head. Moreover, the church was the institutional expression of the humanity of Christ, who in his manhood paid the price of human salvation while in his Godhead he was necessarily also the origin and creator of all things.
When Alexius Grat, the Ulm Dominican from the Bernese monastery zur Insel, tried to defend the power of the keys, Zwingli, for almost the only time, brushed the case aside with a piece of Greek philology involving the accent on the Greek word el? which no doubt sounded very convincing to the simple parsons present but was in fact untenable.2 Conrad Trager advanced the now familiar Catholic allegation that the divisions among the Protestants was evidence in itself of their inadmissibility as true members of Christ's one church; differences among Christians called for an adjudicator and this could but be the church, and this, for the speaker, meant the papacy. It was for him enough to trust the church in matters of belief: the will and intention to submit to the teaching of the Church, 'implicit faith' in the theological sense, was sufficient for salvation, while its absence was evidence of damnation.
Both Bucer and Zwingli sincerely believed that Trager could not only be refuted from the Bible but also was grossly wrong in supposing that it needed supplementation or that everything necessary for salvation was not to be found within its pages. If only men would recognise that the Bible contained no contradictions, that from its words through the guidance of the Holy Spirit all doctrine could be ascertained, the church could once more be united in simplicity and assurance. Christ in both his natures head of the church, the virginity of his mother an attested miracle, the doctrine of the Trinity unmistakable - these were certainties, while other matters such as the conduct of church services or external directions in church affairs could be left to the locally gathered community.
There was a careful exposition3 of the Zwinglian view of the eucharist.
1 Zwingli excluded the 'Revelation of St John the Divine* which he, like Luther but unlike
Bullinger, regarded as supplementary rather than authoritative and argued against the Johannine authorship. (Z vi i, 223, 395, 397, 401-2; Farner iv, 283). He was flatly contradicted by Gilg Maurer of Rapperswil, who insisted that it was part of the Bible equal to the rest. Zwingli was driven to the somewhat weak argument that the Holy Spirit taught true believers which biblical passages were authoritative and which not. He consistently denied the right of the hierarchy (or councils) to make such decisions, nor would he admit the full rights of private judgement claimed by the Baptists. See above 63, 173.
2 Z vi i, 219, 254.
3 For five days 14 to 19 January. Farner iv, 280; Koehler, Z ^ L i , 582-602.
Berne intervenes Burgauer1 from St Gall and Althamer2 from Nuremberg presented the Lutheran case. They agreed to reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, Burgauer himself recognising that Zwingli spoke ' in good Christian fashion' - a sentiment which Luther would hardly have accepted. It was all to be repeated elsewhere, at Marburg in particular. Other decisions taken at the Berne disputation had significant immediate results. That the mass was not a sacrifice, that Christ offered himself but once and thereby completed the work of human salvation was urged by all the reformers and readily accepted by the participants.
There was a lively discussion on the subject of prayers to the saints as mediators. The saints, Zwingli insisted, did not die for us and do not intercede for us; it is we who are enjoined to be constant in prayer.3 There was no scriptural evidence for saintly mediation, and neither pilgrimages nor the miracles worked at shrines were any evidence for the intervention or even for the heavenly presence of saints.
The relatively simple arguments against purgatory and the power of the priests to accelerate release therefrom, Zwingli gladly left to Haller. There was the usual dispute about the interpretation of texts, the nature of sin and the meaning of forgiveness, in which the orthodox case was put by Johann Buchstab, schoolmaster of Zofingen.4 That those whose sins were forgiven went to heaven was conceded, but this depended not on human endeavours, actions or even suffering, but upon God's mercy and a whole faith. All are sinners; believers sin with shame and sorrow, disbelievers do so unashamedly, but that all this assumes an intermediate stage, where souls await not the day of judgement but release in finite time, is a figment of interested ecclesiastical imagination.
Still more briefly the honouring or worshipping of images and representations of the saints was refuted. The plain implications of the first commandment, the impossibility of depicting God the Father, were
1 Benedict Burgauer (c. 1494-1576), formerly priest at Marbach, then at St Laurence, St Gall, was only semi-Lutheran. He had been present at the second Zurich disputation and now
(1528) left St Gall for SchafFhausen. Schmid/Muralt 1; Muralt/Fast, 330; Egli 4, I, 62-8;
Z VIII, 323 n. 1; Allen vii, 526.
2 Andreas Althamer (c. 1500-64) was a faithful supporter of Luther and a severe critic of the Anabaptists.
3 Occasionally we get a good glimpse of the cut and thrust of argument:
MURER: The intercession of the saints in heaven I demonstrate from Jeremiah 15. 1, 'Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me, I would not be moved to pity this people'. Here, plainly, the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the dead as being in heaven, for at the time of writing they were long since dead.
ZWINGLI : Were Moses and Samuel in heaven before the coming of Christ or not ?
MURER : I say not.
ZWINGLI : Then your argument is of no avail.
Z vi i, 400. (According to medieval theology they were in the outer courts of hell, limbus patrum).
4 Z vi i, 286-7.
ZWINGLI readily accepted as decisive. To leave images in the churches was like playing with fire; it was far better to avoid fire than to be burned by it.
The last topic debated, tha{ of the marriage of priests, provided Oecolampadius with an opportunity to exhibit his learning and his mild, yet devastating, logic. Since, admittedly, there were married apostles, bishops and priests in the primitive church, scripture seemed clearly on the side of the Reformers. There were indeed Nazarenes whose devotion had involved chastity, but this was when men were under the law and not, since
Christ's advent, under God's grace. The contrary case was weakly presented, the argument being that priests in the earliest days were permitted to marry because of their earlier ignorance and lack of training, and that this had since been rectified. Just as, in civil law, a promise that is contrary to public policy will not be enforced by the courts, so too, Oecolampadius insisted (following Luther), a vow that was displeasing to God could be ignored. And on that note the assembly dispersed:1 as at Zurich, it was for the council, the government, to act on the advice that it had itself called for.
The days of discussion in the Franciscan church were supplemented, as seemed so natural to that age, by a catena of sermons in the Minster.
There, every other day at least, Zwingli, Sam,2 Gassner,3 Megander, Commander Schmid, Blaurer,4 Bucer and Oecolampadius developed their themes from the pulpit uninterrupted5 by questions and challenges in discourses which were also confessions of faith.
Zwingli used the opportunity to reinforce his orthodoxy by exposition of the Apostles' creed,6 each sentence of which he believed, as most people did, to have been contributed by one of the Twelve. This gave him a renewed opportunity to expound to 'us Germans' what was implied in 1 The formal closure came on 26 January. The French-speaking representatives of the Bishop of Lausanne were not allowed to speak in Latin, and no record of any intervention by them was made, although there was an exchange of words between them and Farel. They left on 11 January. Feller 11, 159-60; Z v, 401 n. 2, 412. Eck, as might have been expected, rapidly produced a confutation of the whole proceedings including an attack on Zwingli's character and methods. Koehler, Z & L\, 597-600, 604. This was printed as Verlegung der disputation zu Bern, mit grund gotlicher geschrift: durch Jf. Eck an die christenliche Ordt der Eydgnosschaft, an action of which Berne later complained. Z vi i, 140.
2 Conrad Sam (1483—1533), Franciscan, studied at Tubingen and Freiburg, from 1526 Zwingli's constant supporter at Ulm. Z vm, 632 n. 1.
3 Thomas Gassner (d. 1548), a moderate supporter of Zwingli, preacher at Lindau from 1524, active also in St Gall, refusing to take sides in the eucharistic controversy.
4 Ambrosius Blarer (Blaurer) 1492-1564, of Constance, M.A. Tubingen 1513, Prior of Alpirsbach, from 1525 reformer (with his brother Thomas) at Constance and its neighbourhood.
Z vm, 97 n. 1.
5 A few Anabaptists who might have become vocal were imprisoned. ZWA v, 409-13. One
Catholic priest who heard the sermons was so impressed that he announced his determination never to say mass again. Bullinger, Ref. 1, 436.
6 ZH 11, 19-65; Z vi i, 443(45o)-98.
Berne intervenes belief in God, the highest good and perfectly wise and omnipotent, and in his providence {Fursichtigkeit). This was followed by explanations of the Trinity in unity, the implications of'almighty', the nature and wonder of creation, the meaning of eternity and the two natures of Jesus Christ, the only son of God. The virgin birth, with a renewed assertion of Zwingli's esteem for Mary, the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension received brief and cautiously orthodox exposition. There was little attempt to do other than offer a concentrated theological lecture to his interested hearers.
' Sitting at the right hand of God' became the text for a long, if unoriginal, restatement of the preacher's eucharistic teaching. It involved some logic and some metaphysics, all directed to the insistence that the ascended
Christ, in his humanity, remains in heaven until the day of judgement.
This led to the conclusion that the body of the risen Christ in heaven could not be eaten in the communion; transubstantiation was demonstrably false and Luther's concept of Christ's 'ubiquity' was unacceptable. Neither the body of Christ nor the risen Christ is in the bread.1 All this, he insisted, was the belief of the first Christians,2 directly from the Bible and supported by the testimony of antiquity. He was not asking for any innovation. The sermon ended with an unexpectedly mild denunciation of the separation of the Baptists and their mistaken views on the sleep of the soul.
Zwingli's last public statement before he left was expressive of his approval of the elimination of images and altars from the Bernese churches and an appeal for unity and constancy. What had been begun must be carried through; a task left half completed were better not started. Perseverance must be based upon real conviction: it was useless to remove images from the buildings and yet not cast them forth from their own inward thoughts. Let there be no more bickering and arguing; a Christian government had made its decision and should be obeyed. Through difficulties and persecution they had now won religious freedom as their fathers had won political freedom. On to this they must hold, sure of the ultimate victory of truth which would prevail in the end among their confederates as it had among themselves. It was Zwingli at his best. The disputation had lasted three weeks with full opportunity for free expression of views. If conclusions could be reached by debate there was ample and adequate opportunity for this - with the reservation of the initial limitation to the pure Bible text, which was in itself unacceptable to one side.
Zwingli left Berne on 31 January, returning to Zurich via Lenzburg, since 1 Z vi i, 469: 'der lychnam Christi wirt mit keiner gschrifft dargebracht'; 486: 'das weder das brot der lychnam Christi sye, noch im brot...'
2 Z vi i, 487, 'Die uralten lerer der Christen' - to be found also in the writings of Ambrose and Jerome.
ZWINGLI the more direct route through Bremgarten was blocked by Catholic armed forces.
The last days of January 1528 saw Zwingli rising to the height of his powers and influence. He had now worked out his own theology in detail and was ready to defend it and to extend it; he had the complete support of his own government and he had won the confidence of its greatest rival.
The Catholics were in retreat and confusion; the papacy had not recovered from the weakness and shame of the sack of Rome and was confronted with the demands of the English king that he should be set free to give his realm the male heir that it needed. Lutheranism in central Germany was steadily gaining adherents, and Philip of Hesse, temporarily thwarted by the Pack episode, was emerging as a powerful statesman.
The acceptance of the Zwinglian Reformation by Berne was almost as significant as that by Zurich from whence it derived. The Berne disputation was a triumphant answer to the catholic victory at Baden and was to have even more decisive results. It saved the Reformation in Switzerland and perhaps in Europe, for German Lutheranism, left alone, could hardly have developed into an ecumenical faith. It was, moreover, Zwingli's church doctrine that won the day; it did not follow that Berne was prepared, or even able, to follow his political aims also. Bernese external policy was not changed, and from 1528 to 1531, while the partners were agreed on matters of worship and belief, their political and economic interests remained unchanged.
Zwingli's recommendations arising from the debate were adopted almost without alteration.1 The articles that had been presented and debated were declared to be scriptural and therefore entirely acceptable, and the Bernese ministers were charged to say nothing that contradicted them.
For the rest, Berne's patricians were nothing if not practical. The ministers would receive a short Order of Service {Taufbuchlein) which would tell them how to lead their congregations. The Roman mass was not to be said, and altars were to be destroyed, and any remaining images were to be removed forthwith.2 The clergy were permitted, and even encouraged, to marry, the officials of the Minster were released from their oaths to the bishop (itself a singular assumption of power by a lay government but thoroughly in the Berne tradition), some church dues and taxes were
1 Anweisung fur das Berner Reformationsmandat Jan. 27-311528. Z vi i, 499(5O4)-8. The order itselfdas grosse Reformationsmandat - was issued on 7 February. Steck & Tobler, 629-34
(no. 1513); Koehler, Zwingli und Bern (Tubingen, 1928), 21; L. v. Muralt, ' Zwingli als
Begriinder der reformierten Berner Kirche' (Melanges Charles Gilliard, Lausanne, 1944),
325-30.
2 Farner IV, 287; Feller 11, 161-2; Anshelm v, 245; Z vi i, 493 n. 4, 499-508. Mass was said for the last time in St Vincent's church that day (Z ix, 354 n. 8) and the organ played, also for the last time, 'Judas, how you have betrayed your master'.
Berne intervenes abrogated and others diverted to different ends, rural deans were required to watch over, instruct and report on the clergy, Heinrich Wolflin (Lupulus) was restored to his Canonry, and Sebastian Hofmeister (Oeconomus),
Caspar Megander1 (Grossmann) and John Rhellikan were called to Berne to introduce the teaching of Hebrew and Greek and to bring about an improvement in the low standard of education, particularly of the clergy.
A Chorgerkhtsordnung, also copied from Zurich, dealt with matrimonial problems. Monastic property was taken over by the state, pensions and mercenary services were prohibited; and lurid, but unenforceable, prohibitions were issued against immodest dress, blasphemy, swearing, gambling, excessive drinking and carrying offensive weapons. There were to be no unnecessary ejections of incumbents unless they were notoriously provocative and even then, submission might well bring compensation.
The government of Berne proceeded with moderation, caution and great skill to secure the consent of their subjects. By careful collection of opinion, by explanation, conciliation, consultation and a certain amount of pressure, acquiescence, and often willing approval, were obtained. The monasteries, unable to recruit novices, slowly perished of inanition, but there were no forcible ejections.2 Inevitably there was some uncertainty locally about what the new order implied, and as the implications became clearer there were signs of unrest in the still only partly assimilated
Bernese Oberland.
The government of Berne, in accordance with established practice, consulted its subjects about the changes in 1528. All agreed with them except Frutigen, Obersimmental and Lenzburg.
The Benedictine monastery at Interlaken, where there were at one time 300 nuns, and 30 canons to say services in the church, was older than Berne itself and had been rich, powerful and self-governing. It was, however, almost a classical case of mismanagement: in spite of property and jurisdiction, debts mounted and Berne was able to offer both loans and protection. These were gratefully received, but little by little protection became control, essential to Berne if it was to be secure in the Oberland. Thus when the change-over came in March there was no resistance. The monastery had not been popular as a landlord, and the tenants not unnaturally hoped that with its elimination there would be benefits to themselves, but they soon learnt that dues and services were to remain unaltered and that they had gained nothing but a more efficient master.
'My lords of Berne', it was said, 'have become Lutherans for the sake of 1 Z ix, 361 n. 1.
2 Those who had paid money, as was customary, on entry, might have it returned, and some monks who married were granted an allowance from monastic funds to set up house. Feller
11, 164.
ZWINGLI the loot to be obtained'.1 Why should not the local communities take over monasteries themselves ?
Farther east, the peasants, whose grazing-lands brought them into direct contact with their neighbours in Lucerne and Unterwalden, were encouraged by these to resist. The disappearance of the mass was not understood; they still had to pay tithe as before, they had neither schools nor hospitals for which purposes some of the money had been diverted, above all they resented interference with established customs by a government which claimed to reverence antiquity while in fact tightening its control over them. In the Hasle district some hoped to remain Catholic and found a separate state of the Confederation. The mass was reintroduced into Frutigen, Obersimmental, Grindelwald, Meiringen and Oberhasle; reforming pastors were ejected,2 orders from government officials disobeyed and lawful payment refused. These districts looked for support from their Catholic neighbours in Valais, Uri and Unterwalden.3 At the end of September 1528 there was open rebellion accompanied by the occupation of Interlaken. On 28 October 800 men from Unterwalden had come over the Brlinig and reached Brienz and Unterseen. To support the rebellious subjects of a neighbouring state against their lawful government was a manifest breach of the Federal pact, explicitly so re-defined in the Stanser Verkommnis.4 A force from Berne was sent to the area, the Unterwaldner hurriedly returned home, the recalcitrant peasants accepted the change in religion and were readmitted to citizenship in November, before Fribourg and Solothurn could offer mediation. The main revolt had lasted only a few weeks, but its consequences were serious.5 The rebels themselves were treated with characteristic mildness. The rulers of Berne were grateful for Zurich's immediate support, writing on 29 October,' We have received to-day your welcome agreement to support us and this we shall never forget.'6
1 Feller 11, 168; Z ix, 411 n. 10.
2 Anshelm v, 281.
3 Moral support was promised in August at a meeting in Lucerne. EA 41a, 1368. Knowledge that Berne could count on support from Zurich was sufficient to prevent action. Oechsli 3, c. 135; HZ 40 (1878) 140-2.
4 After the event, the Unterwalden authorities, who had been promised help from Marx
Sittich of Hohenems, which never came (Vasella 2, 80), hastened to disclaim responsibility with the usual assertion that the 'volunteers' had acted spontaneously. Berne was certainly right in maintaining that the movement of so large a force could and should have been checked and that the action was a manifest breach of Berne's sovereignty and of the Stanser
Verkommnis. It was accepted by all parties that Lucerne, Schwyz and Zug were not involved.
5 See below, 351-2. H. Specker, Die Refortnationsmirren im Berner Oberland 7528: ihre Geschichte und ihre Folgen (Fribourg, 1951) ZSKG Beiheft 9, with a useful map. An early account, very much from the Zurich angle, came from Oswald Myconius, De Tumultu Bernensium intestino
MDXXVIII.
Commentarius (J. LaufFer, Historische und Critische Beytrdge zur Historie der Eidgenossen iv. Teil, Zurich, 1739, 1-163); Vasella /, 280-92; Feller 11, 178-82; Tardent,
221-32.
6 'dess sol in die ewigkeit niemer vergessen werden'. Strickler I, 677 (No. 2134).
Berne intervenes In Berne itself the noble idealism inspired by the sermons and prayers of January was giving way to calculations of self interest, and many of Zwingli's high hopes of active support were rebuffed. It was as much as Berne could do to stamp out revolt in the Oberland, which was to lead it into an unwanted struggle with Unterwalden. The Reformation in 1528 was indeed enforced throughout the wide Bernese territories, but at appreciable cost of manpower, money and energy.
As a result of the events of 1528, Berne had to reorientate some of its policy to suit its Zurich allies, but did so with growing caution, hesitation and even resentment. As soon as the Unterwalden business was more or less settled, Berne became less anxious to help Zurich. Its assistance to Zurich had been made necessary because of danger from the potential enemies around and the lack of support from Solothurn and Fribourg.
The junction of Berne and Zurich meant for the first time that Zwingli's dream of an all-Protestant Switzerland had some possibility of fulfilment.
Before the critical Berne conference, only Biel, Schaff hausen and St Gall supported Zurich. St Gall, however, was but an ally and not a Confederate, and in any case the city had no territory and hence no great influence, particularly while the Prince Abbot was active. Schaff hausen was a recent, distant and relatively minor member of the Confederation, whereas Berne was at its very centre.
At the end of 1528 Berne renewed its alliance for mutual protection and co-citizenship (Burgrecht) with Constance,1 and since there was already a similar arrangement with Geneva,2 the axis Constance, Zurich, Berne,
Geneva, was highly significant, the more so in that Oecolampadius returned from the Berne conference greatly encouraged and confident that the evangelisation of Basle would soon become official. All sorts of possibilities were opening out. Berne, most secular minded of all the states, cautious, realist, thoroughly Swiss, consistently emphasised that the Confederation was one for military, economic and political protection and that religion was in no way its concern. It was for each state to make its own religious arrangements, the preaching of the Gospel should be allowed everywhere, and in cases where territory was held or controlled in common by several powers, each constituent community could choose freely its own form of worship. With this view Zwingli was prepared to concur only for political ends. His objective in 1528 was becoming clear: the protestant cities within and beyond the Confederation would join forces; together they would ensure the undisturbed preaching of the Gospel first in the Mandated Territories and then in the Catholic states
1 Bender, Ref. 164.
2 Cf. L. v. Muralt, Berns westliche Politik zur Zeit der Reformation reprinted in Der Historiker und die Geschichte (Zurich, i960) 88-96.
ZWINGLI themselves. The power of the Word was irresistible: before it the walls of ignorance and prejudice would fall and the Confederation would be united under Zurich-Berne leadership in the Protestant camp.
What he was not prepared to contemplate was the reverse side of the coin. Freedom to preach the Gospel in Catholic states did not mean that Catholic priests could be allowed to say mass in Reformed states, or a house of one of the Regular orders be opened therein. Freedom of conscience was not practical politics in the sixteenth century. Just as no Christian government could tolerate public expression of atheism, so it was not reasonable to expect differences of religious belief to be acceptable within a state. There was but one true Christian faith, and those who departed from it were wandering in error and darkness. At best they must be allowed to exist in the hope that they would see the light, just as Jews and infidels were to be unwillingly tolerated, but no more than this. The Roman mass was increasingly regarded as blasphemous idolatry by the Reformers and therefore could not be allowed to be celebrated in their dominions. Equally, for the Catholics, heresy was the worst of crimes, to be prevented from entering at all costs, to be rooted out by fire and sword when it was detected. The two concepts were irreconcilable, and the Bernese statesmen knew it.
After 1528 Zwingli aimed hopefully and fervently at the triumph of his reformation throughout the Swiss Confederation. This, however, he recognised, was not to be brought about by human power without external help, and it was to securing this that he now turned. He must support and encourage his adherents in Germany, particularly in cities like Constance and Strassburg, and he must join forces with the enemies of Rome wherever they were. He had increasingly become so openly and publicly opposed to the essential teaching and practice of the Catholic church that there could be no compromise with the papacy. If his followers were to be victorious, they must not be confused with the Lutherans, who seemed to be willing to come to terms with the Catholics on some vital principles.
Zurich, he had always rightly insisted, had never been a Lutheran city nor had his teaching been Luther-inspired. His enemies were trying to use this historical fact to regain lost positions by securing Lutheran neutrality until the Zwinglians were crushed. Both the triumph and the maintenance of his cause were at stake in the active and partly successful attempts to encourage his followers and to find new allies.
Once Berne was with him, and Basle reasonably certain as well, full attention could be paid to potential adherents further afield - to Philip of Hesse and, immediately, to St Gall and to the Mandated Territories in eastern Switzerland where the Gospel had already made good progress amid difficulties.