From argument to action

From argument to action

From argument to action Revolutions are notoriously difficult to date with acceptable accuracy.

14 July 1789, for France, or 6 November 1917, in Russia, are commemorated by public holidays but hardly mark more than particular events. So, too, with the religious revolt of the sixteenth century enthusiastically dated by German protestants from 31 October 1517, or, less enthusiastically, by Anglicans from 1534 - in every case the precise moment of change is alike disputable or meaningless.

This applies also to Zurich. In this case, no one now thinks of 1 January 1519, as anything more than a token date. Perhaps the most convenient event in the various Swiss communities to mark a decisive turning point in religious allegiance is the rejection of the Roman mass. After that had happened, their inhabitants, deprived of the mass, could not be regarded by Catholics as other than heretics. Zurich abandoned the mass on 13 April

1525, thus completing a cycle of events which was set in motion by the First Disputation of January 1523. Zwingli was never excommunicated by name, as Luther was, although from 1523 onwards Zwinglians were liable to be treated as Lutherans by their Catholic neighbours, who had no doubt that they were heretics to be burnt alive if circumstances permitted. Prior to 1524 at least, while the gap between Zurich and Rome was widening, it was not unbridgeable. Abstention from meat during Lent, and even marriage of the clergy, were debatable issues, like indulgences. Evangelical preaching could be made acceptable - the friars had always claimed to be offering just that - while the divine inspiration of the Bible was unchallenged. In 1523 and 1524 Zurich still accounted itself a Catholic city state in communion with Rome, while questioning prerogatives claimed by Pope and bishop, and criticising certain aspects of current thought and practice. A very small withdrawal, a little less public criticism from the pulpit, a renewed rejection of Luther's teaching, would have re-established normality. Zwingli had only to follow the lead of Erasmus, stop writing in German and haranguing illiterate artisans, and eliminate bitterness from his attacks on the hierarchy, to be left alone.

Instead of this, opposition was allowed to intensify. The papacy re-

From argument to action luctantly realised that no more mercenary soldiers were to be hired from this important northern source of supply, and ceased to suggest accommodation. The central peasant states added religious antagonism to existing political and economic rivalry and hoped to use the federal bond for their own ends.

Apart from the relatively minor trouble over meat-eating in Lent, three even more controversial matters had been raised - clerical marriage, the retention of representations of saints in churches, and the status, indeed the continued existence, of the Regular orders. The outcome was the 'cleansing' of the churches, the elimination of the altars, the closing of the monasteries and finally the suppression of the mass. All this happened in 1523-5 with manifest general approval but also not without active and vocal opposition. In many places pictures and statues were spontaneously removed by zealous individuals, lights extinguished, glass windows smashed, 'superstitious objects' burnt. The secularisation of the monasteries was facilitated by their willing desertion by many of their members.

All this, the Catholics believed, was the effect of an accessible vernacular Bible and the sermons in the Great Minster.

The exclusive appeal to the text of the Bible provided powerful ammunition for those who wanted to go much further, and in particular to those who were insisting upon examining the principle and practice of child baptism. To these, and to their use of Zwingli's identification of the church with the local community as a claim to set up separated groups with complete freedom of preaching and worship, attention must be given later. The only universal agreement was that the essentials of the Christian faith were impregnable. To attack the Incarnation, resurrection, ascension and the last judgement would be blasphemy, and all were agreed that this was intolerable. The notion of any public toleration for agnostics or atheists was entirely alien to the century.1

Immediately, however, if beliefs and practices based only on tradition were to be dropped, if sacerdotalism was to be replaced by Congregationalism, if processions, lights, organs, choral services, vestments, masses for the dead, were to be replaced by something simpler, a great deal remained to be done. 1523 saw the first clearing of the trail and 1524 the certainty of a breach.

It was in this year (1523) that the Duke of Bourbon, Constable of France, deserted Francis I, that Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein displaced Christian II on the Danish throne (thus allowing Gustav Vasa to become King of Sweden), and that the Knights' War miserably fizzled out in Germany, leaving Ulrich von Hutten to be attacked by Erasmus but 1 Cf. L. Febvre, Le Probleme deVincroyance au XVIe siecle, la religion de Rabelais, coll. L'evolution de l'Humanite (Paris, 1942).

ZWINGLI given hospitality by Zwingli on the Lake of Zurich.1 Throughout both 1523 and 1524 the European scene was dominated by the rivalry of Charles

V and Francis I, symbolised by the renewed efforts of the latter to maintain his position in Milan* and by the growing menace of the Turkish advance. These were the conditions which allowed Zurich to act with the confident independence which ultimately led to a third, presbyterian, force in the Christian world.

The public debate which ended in the late afternoon of 29 January 1523, had been held in order that the Zurich council should be fully informed about Bible teaching, so as to be able to exercise what had long been regarded as its rightful authority in matters appertaining to public worship within its jurisdiction. The immediate outcome was a ruling that Zwingli could and should continue his sermons and that others should preach only what could be supported by the Gospels and Holy Writ.2

Obligatory preaching from the biblical text obviously assumed that every preacher possessed or had access to a copy of the Bible and could read it.3 If Erasmus' New Testament and Paraphrases were too erudite and expensive for some country parsons, the situation was remedied by a German translation of St Paul's Epistles and the Paraphrases by Leo Jud in 1521, although the whole Bible was not available in Swiss-German until

1529.4

1 The remains of Ulrich von Hutten were buried in the church of Ufenau (Inseln Au) and were identified in 1965. He died on 29 August 1523 aged 35. Zwingli, writing to Boniface Wolf hart on 11 October 1523, said, 'he had no books and no furniture except his pen', although others speak of a 'few printed books'. The relations of Zwingli and von Hutten have been studied by H. G. Keller, Hutten und Zwingli (Aarau, 1952). They are hardly mentioned in the English account of him by H. Holborn, Ulrich von Hutten (Gottingen, 1968) which adds very little to the narrative by the same writer in 1929. Z vm, 127.

2 See above 104 n. Egli /, 115 (No. 327): 'Es sollent ouch all andere ire liitpriester.. .anders nut fiirnemen nach predigen, dann was si mit dem heiligen Evangelion und sust (mit) rechter gottlicher geschrift bewaren mogen...' ZWA xin, 567.

3 See above, p. 107 n.

4 Even so, the complete Zwinglian or Zurich Bible preceded the Lutheran. Luther's own translation of the New Testament was completed in February 1522 and was available in September from the press of Adam Petri at Basle. Between 1522 and 1524 at least twelve editions of the New Testament and a number of translations of various parts of the Old

Testament appeared. In 1524 Froschauer twice printed Luther's New Testament ('Das gantz I Nu'rp Testament recht / griintlich vertuscht1), and there was a third edition in 1525 with interesting linguistic variants. Various books of the Old Testament followed, and the Zurich translation of the whole Bible, mainly the result of the 'Prophezei' (below 221-4)was ready in 1529. A small octavo 'pocket' edition followed in 1530 from the Froschauer press and a fine folio illustrated edition in 1531 - Biblia bey der Allt vnd Newen Testamets Teutsch (P.

Schofern, Worms). The whole Lutheran Bible first came from H. Lufft, Wittenberg, in 1534The various editions of the many vernacular Bibles have been diligently studied. J. J.

Mezger, Geschichte der deutschen Bibeliibersetzungen in der schweizerisch-reformierten Kirche

(Basle, 1876). T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical catalogue ofthe printed editions of Holy

Scripture in the library ofthe British and Foreign Bible Society vol. II. Polyglots and languages

From argument to action While the parsons from Zurich were considering how to obey their instructions and, without training, start to expound the pure Bible to rustic audiences, personal attacks, often to be repeated, were being made on Zwingli publicly in Diets at Baden, Berne and elsewhere.1 He was said to have called his compatriots 'bloodsellers and cannibals',2 he had condoned adultery and was the father of illegitimate children, he was the Antichrist of the Great Minster, a pensioner of a foreign power and a heretic whom the governors (Landvogte) of Baden and Frauenfeld had instructions to arrest if he entered their territory.3 He had now become public enemy number one of the Christian faith, of the authority of the church, of the status quo in Switzerland and of the economic welfare of his country. At any rate he had achieved notoriety.

Violent language of this sort was a commonplace of the age. Even kings and magnates, the scholarly Henry VIII or the saintly Thomas More, said such things about intellectual or ideological opponents who were out of their reach, and to the personal charges Zwingli did not answer. But to the Diet of the Confederation meeting at Berne in July 1523 he wrote strongly defending his orthodoxy,4 appealing to his public defence of the Virgin

Mary. He admitted, indeed, that he had attacked the acceptance of pensions and corrupting gifts from foreign powers, but this was because of his care for the good name of his country. Their forefathers had lived simple,

God-fearing lives and had flourished exceedingly because of it; the expensive magnificence which he now found conspicuously flaunted by private individuals he considered utterly demoralising. He appealed (in vain) to the Diet to scotch such rumours, to bring, if they could, some explicit charge against him 'before my lords of Zurich, since I am a citizen-canon, born in the Toggenburg,5 native of Schwyz and Glarus'. There was to be no reconciliation of such varied opinions about him in his lifetime or for long after.

For the area within the jurisdiction of Zurich evangelical preaching was. both secure and fashionable after 1523, although in the countryside, where few ministers had any adequate knowledge of the Bible, there were some other than English (London, 1911). A. Fluri, Luthers Uebersetzung desNeuen Testaments undihre

Nachdrucke in Basel und Zurich 1522-1531 (Schweizerische evangel. Schulblatt, 57, Berne,

1922). J. C. Gasser, Vierhundert Jahre Zwingli-Bibel (Zurich, 1924). W. Hadorn, Die deutsche

Bibel in der Schweiz (Leipzig, 1925) 9-60. P. Leeman-van Elck, 'Die Offizin Froschauer',

MAGZ. 30 (Zurich, 1940) 55-70. Die Bibelsammlung im Grossmunster zu Zurich (Zurich,

1945). Cambridge History of the Bible, 11 ed. S. L. Greenslade (Cambridge, 1963), 94-174.

1 EA 4, ia, 35i, 377, 405; Egli 1 254 (587), 264 (593).

2 EA 4, ia, 295, 378 'Die Eidgenossen verkaufen das christliche Blut und essen das christliche Fleisch... Blutverkaufer oder Blutfresser.'

3 Z vii, 621, 643; Z VIII 108-9; Farner 111, 321. See above p. 89-90.

4 Z 1, 570 (574)~579- *Entschuldiiung etlicher Zwingli unwahrlich zugelegter Artikel, an die

Tagsatzung zu Bern1 (3 July 1523). Cf. VIII, 101-3.

5 Z 1, 578; Z VIII, 206-11 for Zwingli's attachment to Toggenburg.

ZWINGLI manifestations of discontent. There were those who simply accepted the situation as it had always been and wanted no change, caring little for the Bible or its preachers. Others heard the biblical message with excitement.

A necessary corollary to the Schriftprinzip was that simple people could, by divine grace and faith, understand the inner meaning of the scriptures, as well as the most learned of scholars. Faith, indeed, must come first and was indispensable. It did not come as a result of Bible reading but was strengthened and assured thereby.

Inevitably there were some who pushed this teaching to what they regarded as its logical conclusions. Confident in their faith, believing themselves to be among those able to expound the new biblical evangelism, they were anxious to force the pace. Attention soon began to be directly focused on the visible representations of the saints that filled the churches. This subject, which was in the background at the January disputation, was now actively advanced. In September 1523 Leo Jud was publicly calling for the removal of the 'idols'1 and found almost embarrassing support. In the Fraumiinster,2 in St Peter's,3 at Hongg and elsewhere,4 there were demonstrations and damage. The leading case, however, was that of the crucifix of Stadelhofen. There, just outside the city walls, and on private property, the local miller had erected at his own expense a great wooden crucifix which was much revered by the local inhabitants. It was also an obvious target for two evangelical extremists, Klaus Hottinger and Hans

Ockenfuss, who incited5 some enthusiasts to pull it down by violence. The owner naturally sought legal protection and a remedy against the trespassers. He was on all the stronger ground in that, whatever objection there might be to the reverence paid to portrayals of dubious or locally admired minor 'saints', the representation of Christ was obviously in a special category. It is scarcely surprising that the Small Council, Zurich's standing executive, showed little sympathy for the attackers, who were placed under restraint in the Wellenberg gaol. This caused immense excitement, and the matter was referred on 29 September 1523 to a commission consisting of the Biirgermeister, eight leading councillors and the three Leutpriester,

Zwingli, Jud and Engelhard, whose views had already been clearly ex1 Egli 1, 160-1 (no. 416).

2 Here the leaders were Lorenz Hochriitiner and Wolfgang Ininger who smashed lamps burning before shrines and splashed the floor with holy water in mockery. They were arrested, and released on bail; but Hochriitiner, from St Gall but also a Burger of Zurich, was later imprisoned. Egli i, 159 (no. 415); Goeters, Vorgeschichte, 261; Sabbata, 96; ZWA xi,

225.

3 Lorenz Meyer was prominently concerned here. Egli J, 158-61 (nos. 414, 415, 416); Sabbata,

954 Thomas Platter burnt a wooden image of St John while church bells were ringing. Lebensbeschreibung, hg. A. Hartmann (Basle, 1944), 61-2. s Morikofer 1, 192; Z 11, 665.

From argument to action pressed.1 Their suggestion, which was adopted on 15 October, was that the accused should be released on bail until the whole matter had been officially dealt with after another public debate.2

This was not to be confined to the one topic of images, but was also to be extended to consider the doctrine of the mass. It was not intended that this should be an exclusively local affair; it was to be a general Swiss gathering from all the states and their allies. As on the earlier occasion, the Bishops of Constance, Chur and Basle, and the University of Basle, were invited directly, together with all ecclesiastics and officials on Zurich territory.3 The decisions, of course, were to be based on 'the divine scriptures of the Old and New Testament'.4

The bishops emphatically repeated their refusal of the previous January to send representatives,5 as did once again the University of Basle and all the states of the Confederation except Schaff hausen.6 Even so, up to 900 men, 350 of them in holy orders, crammed themselves into the hall on 26-28 October.7 From the city of St Gall came Zwingli's friend and correspondent, Vadian; Christopher Schappeler (Sertorius) came from Memmingen and Johannes Zwick from Riedlingen.

The second Zurich disputation was almost an ad hoc, exploratory affair rather than one intended, like the first, to give direct advice to the council.

Zwingli dominated the proceedings even more than at the beginning of the year, and everything went as planned, although the almost complete lack of serious opposition left him at less than his best. Except for Conrad Hof1 Egli /, 167 (no. 424); Z VIII, 124.

2 After the disputation, Hottinger was banished from Zurich for two years (Egli /, 178 No. 442) and, in fact, never returned, being apprehended as a heretic near Baden and put to death at Lucerne on 26 March 1524, thereby becoming 'the first evangelical martyr in Switzerland'

(Egli 3, 256; EA 4, 1 a, 384). Ockenfuss paid a fine and gave trouble later. Hochriitiner, a third principal, was ignominiously expelled, and returned to St Gall. Zwingli regarded his punishment as unnecessarily harsh. Z VIII, 130; Goeters, Vorgeschichte, 272.

3 Z 11, 666, 678.

4 'uss der gottlichen geschrift des alten und niiwen testaments' Egli /, 171 (No. 430).

5 The Bishop of Constance was reported to have sent a spy to report on the proceedings. Z II,

736 and note 10.

6 Its delegate was Sebastian Hofmeister (1476-1533), a Franciscan, D.D. of the University of Paris, who had come to Zurich in 1520, was convinced by Zwingli's doctrine which he tried to teach in Constance and Lucerne, whence he was expelled, and returned to evangelise

Schaffhausen. J. Wipf, Sebastian Hofmeister, der Reformator Schaffhausens, Beitrage zur vaterlandischen Geschichte, Heft 9 (Schaffhausen, 1918) 1-62. St Gall accepted: Berne and Solothurn sent friendly apologies.

7 They were packed so close that they had to stand for prayer, there not being room to kneel.

Farner ill, 435. The proceedings were honestly reported by Ludwig Hatzer and Georg

Binder as Acta oder geschicht, wie es uff dem gespra'ch den 26. 27. u. 28. winmonats in der christenlichen statt Zurich ergangen ist. Z11, 664 (67i)-8o3. Bullinger later wrote a more selectiveiaccount. Ref. 1,129-34. R. C. Walton, Zwingliys Theocracy (Toronto, 1967) 185-6 ;Bergsten,

Hubmaier 116-17. ZSK 48 (1954), 184-5; Ch. Garside, Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven

1966) 129-45.

ZWINGLI mann,1 who had himself complained of the excesses of the hierarchy and opposed mercenary service, the defenders of tradition were conspicuously and deliberately absent. There was, however, a vocal 'left wing', led by Grebel, Hubmaier and Stumpf, who wanted action to come much faster and more spontaneously.2

On the first main topic, images, there was singularly little informed discussion. Their only serious protagonist was Heinrich Liiti from Winterthur, whose arguments from tradition and the Bible3 were readily answered by Jud and Commander Schmid.4 The latter took the opportunity to attack the contention that all papal ordinances were irrefrangible.5 The assembly was readily persuaded that images were specifically condemned in the Old Testament, and should be removed forthwith. However welcome this was to the radicals, especially Grebel and Hubmaier, Zwingli, with his chief supporters, was prepared only for a gradual phasing out of traditional but undesirable practices. There was general agreement that their bishop had failed to act as leader and shepherd and that the duty of guiding and educating the people devolved upon the government.

The discussions about the mass turned mainly upon the meaning of sacrifice, Martin Steinlin of Schaffhausen6 alone coming forward in its defence on the basis both of the Bible and of long tradition. His opponents insisted that at the mass, forgiveness, grace and mercy were requested and received by the faithful; there was no repetition of Christ's sacrifice.The corollary was that masses could not be said effectively for the souls of the faithful departed, thus rejecting the accepted teaching about purgatory.

Scripture supported the claim that the communion should be in both kinds, bread and wine, for laity and clergy alike. There was also some inconclusive discussion of the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, the mixing of water with the wine, placing the wafer in the recipient's mouth, and celebrating mass on mornings only.7 The mode of reception Zwingli was willing enough to leave to the individual parishes, but he was opposed to the wearing of vestments and called for a vernacular rather than a Latin

1 He left Zurich in 1524, was replaced by Ceporinus and died at Bremgarten in 1525. Z vm,

168 n. 1. T. Pestalozzi, Die Gegner Zwinglis am Grossmiinsterstift in Zurich (Zurich, 1918)

37-60.

2 Z 11, 687, 741-7. See below 177-185.

3 Z 11, 693-9.

4 Konrad Schmid (c. 1476-1531), M.A. of Basle, priest at Seengen (Aargau), was Komtur

(Commander) of the house of the order of St John of Jerusalem at Kiisnacht near Zurich.

He had been won to the evangelical cause by Zwingli in 1520 and remained his consistent supporter, preaching at Lucerne and Einsiedeln, presiding at the Berne disputation in 1528, and was killed at Kappel, 1531. S. Vogelin, 'Konrad Schmid Comtur zu Kiisnacht', ZT 1862,

175-208; C. Dandliker, 'Comthur Schmid von Kiisnacht, ein Lebensbild aus der Reformationszeit, ZT 1897, 1-41.

5 Z 11, 697: 'Alles, das der bapst ordnet, macht und insetzt, das ist recht und mag nit falen.'

6 Z II, 684.

7 Z II, 789-92.

From argument to action service. Hubmaier, who was one of the ten doctors present and sat close to Zwingli (who referred to him as his 'dear brother'), also, along with Jud, wanted a German eucharist service and communion in both kinds.1

The second disputation, like the first, was a triumph for Zwingli before a large audience. It was, however, more a demonstration than an exchange of views, a propaganda exercise rather than a debate, and in any case without any effective authority. The outcome was, immediately, disappointing to those who had hoped for some conclusions to be enforced forthwith.

Mass continued to be said in Latin and communion remained in one kind, and, while it was agreed that private individuals might remove particular images quietly, and congregations could do likewise, in fact most of them remained in their places. A commission of fourteen2 was appointed to study the conclusions and their possible implications. Zwingli had in fact further used the opportunity to expound his views on the nature of the evangelical duties of a minister of religion.3 Citizens and clergy now knew what freedom of evangelical preaching implied. In order to help the preachers, Zwingli again set out his own ideas in writing in a Short Christian

Introduction which he had printed in November 1523, primarily for distribution among the ministers who had been required by the government to preach the Gospel.4 By the light of the Gospel and inspired by love, men could recognise sin; and by grace and through faith in Christ, they could avoid its consequences. The law showed the way to righteousness, but its mere observance did not make a man either good or righteous.

Deeds, actions, works, were themselves of no avail, but they were indications of a state of acceptability: it was utterly wrong to teach that, because our works do not save us, but the grace of God alone does so, it followed that we might sin with impunity. The emphasis was on salvation by faith, and everything in the Christian Introduction was still reconcilable with the looser definitions of the pre-Tridentine Church on this matter.

The necessary validity of the demands of the Mosaic Law and the Prophets came to an end when John the Baptist opened a new era: the ceremonial, the sacrifices, the Temple-observances of the Old Testament, all types foreshadowing Christ, now gave way to the law of love. Freed

1 Bergsten, 113; Bullinger, Ref. 1, 130-2.

2 Including Schmid, Joner, Brennwald, Jud, Engelhart and Zwingli. Z 11, 667.

3 See below, 135-6.

4 Eine kurze christliche Einleitung Z II, 626 (628)-663. The enumeration is interesting-prelates, abbots, deans, stipendiary priests, rectors, clerics and exponents of God's word'- 'Prelaten, apten, dechant, liitpriestern, seelsorgeren, pfarrern und des gotlichen wortes verkundern in unsern stetten'. Z 11, 628.

The treatise was accompanied by an order (Mandat) from the Zurich Council for distribution, and thus had official approval.

ZWINGLI from the obligations of the ceremonial law, assured through Christ alone of freedom from the punishment and intolerable burden of our sins, we must show this freedom by humility, patience, peace, care for the salvation of others, and self-effacement.

There were some who talked of killing priests, drowning nuns, burning monks, in their zeal for righteousness without humility. Self-willed, egotistical, quarrelsome, opposed to all men, they cared only for themselves, aspiring to riches and power, bringing disunion with them.1 This was an early allusion to the small number of revolutionary recalcitrants who were soon to be brought together as 'Anabaptists', and was a sign of future anxieties.

On the immediate practical level the fact that the canon law of the church of Rome was no longer acceptable was not to be taken to imply that tithe, rent-charges, rent or interest need not be paid: on the contrary, civil contracts must be properly honoured. What the government declared to be a debt or obligation must be accepted, obedience being the first duty of a citizen. It was for the government to decide about the disposition of superfluous property of the covetous and exhibitionist clergy, where practicable, for the benefit of the poor. Again and again the Christian Introduction insisted on the duty of the government to make decisions, and on the subjects to obey. Images should be removed without disorder, after quiet instruction about their worthlessness. Even after a repetition of the denunciation of the treatment of the mass as a sacrifice, of the denial of the cup to the laity and of the abuse of the ceremony as a means for making money, the writer accepted, until the government decided otherwise, that the mass priests must be allowed to go about their work undisturbed. Zwingli did not advocate either quietism or passive obedience, but Zurich was now on its way to becoming a model Christian polity, and for this he was well prepared to wait and work.2 He also accepted that there should be initially a kind of standstill on the image issue - reliquaries were not to be placed on the altars, statues and pictures were to be covered over where practicable until further order was given, but they were not to be forcibly removed by private individuals. The Latin mass continued to be said, so that where the chantry priests continued to fulfil their contracts no impediment was to be placed in their way until some regulation was issued by the council. It was in fact fairly obvious that this must soon come and what form it would be likely to take; many priests simply abstained from their former duties with impunity. Such negation was not good enough, and Zwingli, along with 1 z ii, 650-2.

2 A good deal of rather unnecessary discussion has been devoted to the precise moment when a decisive break was made. E.g. H. J. Hillerbrand, ZwinglVs Reformation turning-point^ Bibliotheque d'humanisme et Renaissance 31 (1969), 39-46; MQR 32 (1958) 108, 128-40; 45

(1968) 45-56.

T34

From argument to action Wolfgang Joner1 and Commander Schmid, toured the parishes of the city and its immediate neighbourhood2 to offer explanations and advice. In particular, there was a general demand that Zwingli's own statement or sermon made at the opening of the second public debate should be available for all, and, with the conventional reluctance of the busy scholar who would prefer further study to writing articles, the sermon was put into print as The Shepherd? This was an ingenious combination of advice and exhortation, defence and attack. By setting out what the true pastor, the ideal shepherd, the efficient bishop, should do, and contrasting this with the actions of the false hirelings, a great deal could be said.

The little tract was dedicated, at Vadian's suggestion, to Jacob Schurtanner ('Ceraunelateus'), by whose ministrations from Teufen, Appenzell,4 the smallest and newest of the cantons, cin faith last but not least', was receiving the Gospel, evidence of the rapid progress of the new ideas eastwards. Following the Bible, the only sure guide, the ideal minister will renounce self completely so as to be entirely and merely God's agent.

He should set an example to his people in his own life, in the sobriety of his dress, in his upbringing of his own children. Covetousness, greed and hypocrisy were to be avoided, hypocrisy being the special characteristic of the followers of the Pope.5

Most of all, he must teach and preach, for preaching is the sign of the true pastor, and for this he needed knowledge in order, with God's guidance, to understand the Scriptures. Obedient to good government, he must also preach qualified resistance to those who impeded the progress of God's word or who overburden their subjects with taxes. There was a wealth of Old Testament encouragement for the prophet to speak in no uncertain terms to the ungodly ruler. The times were hard, inflation all too prevalent, the world was wicked.6 Yet faith and love must assuredly prevail

1 Joner (Riippli), abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Kappel, was an early supporter of the Zwinglian reform. When the abbey was taken over by Zurich, he became headmaster of the school there, with the former prior, Peter Simmler, as his assistant. He died at Kappel on I I October 1531.

2 Morikofer 1, 199; Staehelin 1, 348; Farner in, 453. Joner went to the Albis area, Schmid to the Griiningen district (the lake communities), Zwingli to SchafFhausen and the north.

3 Der Hirt Z in, 1 (5)-68 (March 1524).

• Eglij, 358-9; Zvm, 131.

5 Z in, 23.' Here I do call papistes al the sorte of the that are called spirituall, or the clergye, the beyng excepted, which preache purely and sincerely the word of God.' This is from the translation into English published as The ymage of hot he Pastoures, sethe forth by that mooste famouse clerck, Huldrych Zuingliusy and now trdslated out of Latin into Englische by John Wernon

Sinonoys.. .Cum privilegio 1550. STC 26142, 26143. Copy in Zurich Zentralbibliothek ZW,

2 5 C'

6 Z in, 29. 'Die gantz welt ligt in bossheit, und er soil sy aber nit beschelten.' 'Behold, y whole world doth lye buried in the stinking puddel of synne, & is all togeather drowned in vyces*

(in the English transation). At the same time, Zwingli proclaimed that the word of God was spread abroad now as never before.

ZWINGLI with divine help in the end. The preacher should go as far as example and persuasion could, but no further: men were not to be compelled to believe.*

From the true shepherd, Zwingli turned, with perhaps some gusto, and at much greater length, tp the false variety, most obviously characterised by pride, pomp, extravagance of dress and manifestations of wealth. He first welcomed the way in which the monasteries were being deserted by monks and nuns as manifest evidence of the success of Gospel-preaching.2

Then, from monasteries, he turned again to his definition of the church, the congregation, known to God alone, of all who truly believe in Christ and secondarily the local community of worshippers. The church of Rome

('if they believe in Christ there') was but one church among many, like the church of Appenzell or that of the Corinthians.3 Hence it followed that Rome could not impose conditions on other communities of equal stature with itself. It was a bold claim but one scarcely relevant to an account of the duties of a minister of religion, and one which was not to be maintained in his own state. Zurich, in many cases, was not prepared to allow any such independence to the Gemeinden under its own jurisdiction. Then quite abruptly the theme moves back to the individual pastor. By his sermons rather than by his works he should be judged; mere public prayer, psalm-singing, 'pypinge, lulling, belowinge and roaring', masses paid for by endowments, indulgences4 given for money, manifest falsehoods in his sermons, were signs of the worthless incumbent.

Wherever necessary the minister should marry, yet avoid the temptation to enrich himself or his family, being ready to suffer, never causing trouble or warfare. After a fling at the Pope, who has been erected into a kind of God,5 Zwingli ends on a note of warning against any attempt to eliminate unworthy preachers by individual action. If their doctrine was wrong, it should not be heard; and if the whole congregation (Kilchhore) was unanimous in its condemnation, then the pastor should leave, but action must be taken by proper public authority, and until this came people must wait patiently for God to intervene. The last advice to the hireling priests was that they spare those poor oppressed people who were hungry for God's

1 Z in, 38.' Christus nit wil, mit gwalt ieman zu dem glouben bezwungen werden.' They could, however, be prevented from listening to false doctrine. This, like other aspects of Zwingli's thought and practice, was to be developed more fully under pressure of later events.

2 At the same time, Zwingli asserted that without monasteries evangelical preaching made easier and more rapid headway. Z111,46. * Wo in einem volck wenig klostren sind, da wirt dem wort Christi wenig widerfochten.' He appears to have overlooked the fact that in the neighbouring state of Zug, as in Uri, there were very few monastic establishments yet the allegiance of its people to Rome was unshakable.

3 Z in, 48. The English version reads, * after the same maner, we cal the churche of London, the same congregatyon, that is in London.'

4 Z in, 52: 'das der ablas nut anderst denn ein erloubnus aller lastren xin ist', a categorical and (if unqualified) unfair definition.

5 Z in, 62: 'Aber die Bapstler habend iren abgott, den bapst, ein irdischen gott genennet.'

From argument to action word. Thus, ceasing to rely upon temporal princes, they might yet repent in time.

It was not, for all its good advice, an eirenicon, and some of its recommendations were in fact already embodied in a document sent by the Town

Clerk of Zurich to the Swiss Diet assembled at Lucerne in the first week of April, 1524.1 This gathering, whose members were by no means well disposed to clerical pretensions, received what the council of Zurich had applied for in vain, a deputation from the Bishops of Constance, Basle and Lausanne, within whose jurisdiction the whole of the then Confederation was. They complained of the steady and increasing alienation of growing numbers from the teachings of the Church, and asked for support from the secular arm, particularly over action to be taken against recalcitrant priests. That no effective answer was given or action taken may have been in part due to the stinging note received from Zurich2 and in fact written by Zwingli. This time he did not conceal his hostility.

What had been set forth in Zurich was no innovation but a return to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles from which they would not be divorced and which they hoped the Confederates would allow to be proclaimed freely. The insolence and arrogant pretensions of the prelates were intolerable; they disliked the obedience which the Gospel bade them give to the civil governments;3 they have gathered riches and power at the expense of the poor, speaking as if they constituted the church of Christ, sometimes talking of a General Council, but too busy with war to allow its summons; they sell for money spiritual services which should be given freely; they have made profitable their invention of purgatory and their witholding the chalice from the laity; they have forbidden priests to marry in order to benefit by the concubine-tax. The Bishop of Constance had declined invitations to appear at Zurich, departing, with his fellows, from his duty to uphold the word of God and entrusting the statement of their case to such defenders as Eck, Fabri, Cochlaeus, Caspar Schatzgeyer and King Henry

VIII of England.4 Instead of acting as shepherds, they have become ravening wolves, dividing the Confederation, continuing to deceive the Swiss people as they had so notoriously done in 1499.5 If, in addition to allowing the Gospel to be preached freely, the Confederates should also follow the example of Zurich in forbidding mercenary service, so much the better. There was no mistaking the earnestness of the appeal, but, so 1 EA 4, 1 a, 398-406; Z in, 69 (76)-85.

2 The fact that it was printed and sold was later made a cause of offence. Egli j , 262.

3 'Die weltlichen wol regierenden obergheit.' Z in, 76.

4 Z in, 81-3.

5 During the Swabian War, the Swiss victory at Schwaderloo (11 April 1499) had been followed up by a victorious advance which had been checked by opposition from the castle of Gottlieben of which the Bishop of Constance was overlord.

ZWINGLI far as any action was concerned, it fell on deaf ears. Zurich must continue the struggle alone.

There, early in 1524, a number of incidents indicated the way things were going. Candlemas (2 February) was not celebrated with a choral service and solemn consecration of lamps and candles,1 processions of robed clergy with lights and crucifix round the outside of the churches ceased, worshippers did not go with palms and relics on Palm Sunday to the Lindenhof,2 there was no creeping to the cross on Good Friday, the altar-pictures (triptychs for the most part) covered or closed in Lent remained so.3 These were indications of the direction in which public thinking was more and more moving, and these opinions spread rapidly.

One outcome of the religious position taken up by Zurich in 1523 was to leave an enduring impress on the whole country. The group of Inner

States - Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Lucerne and Zug - agreed to arrange for common action after consultation in a local assembly or Diet, the first of which met at Beckenried on 8 April 1524.4 This was but one of many examples of local cooperation for particular purposes. Out of this meeting, however, grew the regular Catholic conventions or Diets which became influential in the administration of central Switzerland. After 1524 the Five States (die funf Orte) formed a permanent group within the Confederation.

Immediately it was resolved to ascertain which other states would support them in their resolve to ' suppress, punish, pursue and root out to the utmost of their power the pernicious, erroneous, Lutheran, Zwinglian and Hussite doctrine'.5 They were assured that all the Confederates except

Zurich and Schaffhausen were willing to insist upon fasting during Lent, celibacy of the clergy, and the exclusion of 'Lutheran' teaching and practices. Attention, however, was diverted from religion to foreign affairs. A French army, under Bonnivet, weakened by the desertion of the Duke of Bourbon, had entered north Italy in the summer of 1523, and every state of the Confederation except Zurich had supplied Francis I with soldiers.6 None the less the French siege of Milan had been a failure, the general was incompetent, the Venetian alliance wras not renewed, the renowned Chevalier Bayard was killed, and the whole expedition an inglorious defeat. Although not many Swiss lives had been lost, it had been a highly unsatisfactory business, retreating in the snow with very little plunder to be obtained from poor and hostile Italian peasants, while even the pay promised by France was not forthcoming.

1 Z in, 92.

2 Egli 3, 264.

3 Morikofer I, 200.

4 See below, 209 n. 6.

5 EA 4, 1 a, 410-11; Egli 3, 257, 262; W. Oechsli, Die Anfdnge des Glaubenskonflikts zwischen

Zurich und den Eidgenossen 1521-1324 (Winterthur, 1883), 15.

6 Some 6,000 men in all, in accordance with the Paix perpetuelle of Fribourg, 29 Nov. 1516

(EA 3, ii, 1406-15) and the alliance (Vereinigung) of 5 May 1521 (EA 4, ia, 1491-1500).

From argument to action This growing discontent seemed a suitable opportunity for another

Zwinglian attack on the whole policy involved. In May 1524 there appeared an anonymous pamphlet1 by an 'absent patriot', the authorship of which was at once and rightly attributed to the Zurich preacher. Once again he put forward the familiar argument that the acceptance of foreign money for military service had brought corruption, division and greed in return for loss of lives. Their forefathers had lived in freedom and security and had proudly refused to have foreign masters, but now their successors were selling obedience for lucre. Some lost their lives, leaving their relatives destitute; some lost the land which they had mortgaged to equip themselves for battle; while those who prospered returned to flaunt their wealth and ape the nobles, demoralised themselves and demoralising others, contributing, it was believed, to the price-rise which was being felt everywhere. Farms had been deserted and productive land left uncultivated, in the shameless endeavour to get rich by bloodshed. How much better if they gained a livelihood as their forefathers had done, from the produce of the land. Work was a most valuable discipline, good, even divine,2 and they should not neglect it. As to complaints about the new teaching,3 die nuwen leer, being erroneous and unable to survive, the opposite is true.

They should ignore those who say 'that is heretical, Lutheran', but they should seek the honour of God and the good of their neighbours, abandon greed and selfishness, and allow the word of God to be preached freely. It was an eloquent appeal to Swiss patriotism but it met with little response.

Meanwhile, in and around the city of Zurich, men were demanding to know when some final official action was to be taken about the images so plainly denounced by their spiritual guide and leader. This was the more urgent because, in fact, an episcopal defence of the images (on the conventional lines that no reverence was paid to the objects but that these were there in order to help to lift men's thoughts to the eternal and invisible values which they illustrated) was on its way from Constance.4 As late as May 1524, in a seven-point mandate issued by the council forbidding dancing except at public weddings, noise at night, street singing, indiscriminate shooting by youths, excessive drinking, fanciful clothes, there was, mixed in with this thoroughly medieval paternalism, a stern injunction to 'men and women, young and old, seculars and clergy', to do nothing about images until the council gave its orders.5

1 Eine treue und ernstliche Vermahnung an die Eidgenossen, Z m, 97 (i03)-ii3.

2 Z in, 106. 'Und ist doch die arbeyt so ein gut, gotlich ding'. Cf. R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise ofCapitalism (London, 1926) (Pelican Books reprint, 1938, 217) 'Labour... is a spiritual end, for in it alone can the soul find health, and it must be continued as an ethical duty long after it has ceased to be a material necessity.'

3 Z in, n o ; EA 4, 1 a, 225. The reformers consistently maintained that not they, but their opponents, were innovators.

4 Staehelin 1, 376.

5 Egli /, 230-1 (No. 530).

ZWINGLI Consideration needed also to be given to the form, purport' and meaning of the mass, but this much larger issue was very properly kept separate. By the end of May 1524, Zwingli had reiterated with growing distinctness his demands. Charitably and without bitterness the images should be removed from the church buildings. Where they were known to be the property of the fabricator or donor, these should be given eight days notice to remove them, after which the images should be put outside by the verger or sacrist.

Where the owners were the whole community or congregation, this should decide, by a majority if necessary,1 whether the images should remain or be removed. If they were allowed to remain, no candles or incense should be burnt before them or reverence shown, and no new ones should be made. The crucifix, as signifying the humanity of Christ, was acceptable,2 and in any case personal interference with it should be punished.

This was moderate and practicable enough, and on 15 June3 1524 the council ordered, with exactly Zwingli's conditions and exceptions, the images to be removed forthwith :4 any endowments attached to their maintenance were to be used for the benefit of the poor, who were themselves in God's image.5 It was apparent that this was another challenge to the Bishop of Constance, who, after long delays, had stated his case,6 insisting upon his determination to avoid if in any way possible, a breach with c das vorderste Ort' of the Confederation, whose great Collegiate Church was second only to the Bishop's own Cathedral within his large diocese. 'We cannot sufficiently marvel', the City Fathers wrote to the Pope, 'that your holiness suspects us of belonging to the Lutheran sect whereas in fact we have suffered nothing to be preached save the pure word of God and nothing that cannot be defended from the Old and New Testament.

Where we can be shown to be wrong we will most gladly abandon it.'7

1 'an gmeynen kilchgnossen oder dem merteil ston\ Z m, 116.

2 * An invisible God cannot be depicted.' Z in, 226. Morikofer 1, 230. Zwingli rather reluctantly parted with the crucifix from his own room. He claimed that personally he found works of art, fine pictures and carving exceptionally agreeable: he was of course opposed to any superstitious or even formal reverence paid to them.

3 Staehelin 1, 376-7; Egli 1, 234-7 (nos543> 546); Bullinger, Ref. 1, 173-4. By chance this was the feast of St Vitus, himself the recipient of many hoary legends (St Vitus' dance) and frequently depicted. It also saw the appearance of a comet. Wyss, 39-40.

4 The city of Zurich and the countryside were, as usual, treated separately. Removal was to be by authority and in orderly fashion.

5 Egli /, 237 (No. 546) - the order is well set out and of interest. It is translated in C. Garside,

Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven, 1966).

6 * Christenliche vnderrichtung des Hochwirdigen Fiirsten vnd Herren, Herren Hugo, Bischoffen zu Costantz, die Bildtniissen vnd das opffer der Messz betreffend, Burgermeister vnd

Rhat zu Zurch vff den ersten tag Junij diss vierundtzweintzigsten jars vbersendt.' This answer, presumably written by Fabri, in fifty pages of manuscript, was not received in Zurich until the beginning of June 1524; it was examined carefully by an ecclesiastical commission

(9 ministers and 8 councillors) and then read to the council. Farner in, 483; Egli 3, 271.

7 Egli /, 247 (No. 570).

From argument to action The parallel between idols, images and other representations was then set out at length; tradition, Fathers, the Third Council of Constantinople

(680), were easily put out of consideration - a gathering that does not follow the Bible is not a church of Christ, Christ did not order images as aids to devotion, the argument from antiquity is 'foolish', Popes and councils have differed from one another, the miracles supposed to have been worked by images are irrelevant, teaching should be by words, not by pictures, for only the word can penetrate the heart. The council had removed the images because they had impeded access to God and because they had been abused. The money that had been attracted to them would in future help the poor.1 It was the now familiar story.

Direct action had started at Zollikon2 on Whit Sunday, 15 May 1524, when a gang pulled down the high altar and broke up the images in the church. The church committee of fourteen Zurich councillors and advisers met on the following day3 to consider Zwingli's recommendations.

Finally on 15 June the council ordered4 that in every commune which, after proper instruction, wished, by a majority, the images to be removed, this should be done forthwith, exception being made of the crucifix. If the commune wished to retain its images, these were not to be honoured and candles were not to be burnt before them.

In the city of Zurich itself, official action followed, and for two weeks individuals were taking their own images to their private houses, after which, carpenters, smiths, stonemasons and locksmiths descended in orderly gangs on the churches and forcibly removed the pictures and statues.5 Some of these were known to be valuable, particularly those from the comparatively newr Wasserkirche, and there was real concern at their loss; but, in general, there was thorough satisfaction. There were some fine bonfires6 of the carved wooden representations, and the stone ones were broken up. The bones found in the reliquaries were buried in the churchyards.7 When the workmen had finished, white clean walls looked

1 H. v. Campenhausen, Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation, ZKG 68 (1957) 98-128.

2 Morikofer 1, 227; Z in, 114-15. Zollikon was an entirely separate village-it was not until the nineteenth century that it began to be included in the Zurich conurbation.

3 16 May, Whit Monday, when, until this year, there had been a general pilgrimage to Einsiedeln which was now intermitted. Wyss 52 n. 1.

• Egli /, 236, 237 (Nos. 544, 546).

5 The deaths on 13 and 15 June of Felix Schmid and Marx Roist, who had been opposed to removal of the images, made the transition easier. There was no violence, no looting and no public disturbance - it was a kind of public slum clearance operation from 20 June to 2 July.

6 Possibly also of some small organs. It would be interesting to know which of the seven churches (apart from the Great Minster) had an organ and what became of it.

7 This took place towards the end of June 1524. The suggestion by P. S. Allen (Allen v, 547 n.) that the date 'des 20 Juny' (20 June) given by Bullinger (Ref. I, 175) for the official removal of images was a mistake for 20 July, is ingenious but unlikely. Wyss, 42-3, esp. 40 n. 5; Farner in, 487 and notes. Staehelin 1, 377 speaks of an 'image war' of two weeks, from 2 to 17 July

PZI

ZWINGLI down on such little seating as private initiative left in the naves; the stalls of the canons in the choir remained, often in mutilated form. It was a striking public demonstration of the implications of the Zwinglian teaching.

It was also in fact a declaration of open revolt: after Whitsun 1524 compromise was almost impossible: notice had now been served on the Bishop of Constance (and consequently on Rome) that the greatest Swiss state had left the fold. The door had been closed: it was ultimately to be bolted and barred by the abolition of the mass, although this was deferred until Easter of the following year so that the ground could be fully prepared.

One result of the iconoclasm in Zurich was that Lucerne, Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden, Zug and Fribourg formally refused to meet its representatives in Diet in Zurich or elsewhere.1 They were, however, unable to carry with them Berne, Basle, Solothurn and Glarus, and the Confederation was not dissolved.2 Berne was already insisting that questions of religious observances were not matters that concerned the Confederation, where internal harmony and secular cooperation should prevail. Basle, Berne and Solothurn, while maintaining their catholic orthodoxy, were prepared to countenance evangelical preaching,3 and Schaffhausen and Appenzell sided openly with Zurich, as did the city of St Gall and much of Thurgau.

Berne, anxious in any case to retain the allegiance of its own conservative and somewhat recalcitrant subjects in the eastern Oberland, was determined to restrain its neighbours from direct or violent action for as long as possible.

There was likewise little danger in 1524-5 of external intervention: imperial and French forces were preparing for the confrontation in the Milanese which was to lead to the capture of Francis I: Clement VII was more than fully occupied in upholding the precarious independence of the States of the Church (for which he constantly needed Swiss military support and the funds to hire it), and in Germany the rumblings of the coming

Peasants' Revolt were becoming louder.

All this caused some nervous apprehension. The danger to every sixteenth century government was local separatism: the subordinate units, whether nobles or localities, must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands: hence the firm control by the administration of the cleansing of the churches in Zurich territory. Among the obvious possible foci of resistance, there remained the recalcitrant monasteries. Zwingli, like Luther, stood for the freedom of the Religious to emancipate themselves from their monastic vows, and this most of those living within the jurisdiction of Zurich proceeded to do. Many of the younger nuns married, most of 1 EA 4, 1 a, 457-8.

2 Staehelin 1, 387.

3 Egli 3, 263, 309.

From argument to action the friars and monks obtained employment, many of them as ministers of religion or as teachers; those who wished to remain cloistered were allowed to do so, but no more novices were to be received and the monastic properties were to be administered for the future by government-appointed agents on behalf of the poor.

On these terms the dissolution of the monasteries in the city of Zurich proved relatively simple. Augustinians, Franciscans and Dominicans were for the most part won over by persuasion. On 3 December 1524 all the monks and friars of Zurich who had not left the cloister already were brought together at the Franciscan friary, while the houses of the Dominicans and Augustinians came under state administration. There they were told that the younger members could learn a trade or, if suitably equipped, pursue Bible-study, while the old ones would be allowed to enjoy their revenues but not to recruit new members and would cease to wear the monastic habit.1 The same principles applied to the nuns, whose 'dowries' would be returned to them. The Dominican nuns of Oetenbach2 proved a little more recalcitrant. They were subjected unwillingly to a good deal of preaching, cajoling and near bullying by Leo Jud, who had been made responsible for their spiritual ministrations in 1523 as part of his duties at St Peter's.3 When he mounted the pulpit, he was threatened with a knife by Hans Walder, after which the Dominican Fathers were forbidden access to the conventual buildings.4 Permission to leave the cloister was given by the council in June;5 those who left (e.g. to marry or become nurses in the hospital) were not allowed to return, no novices were to be received, and those who were permitted to remain were provided with work and required to attend sermons and abandon their habits.6 The submission of the few ladies of the Fraumlinster has already been described; their cloister became a schoolroom and lecture room, and their church a place for sermons to those living on its side of the Limmat. The monasteries outside the city, Riiti, Kappel, Embrach and Toss, accepted their fate with resignation or even alacrity.

Adjoining Zurich was Thurgau. This Habsburg territory, formerly held 1 Bullinger, Ref. I, 228-9; Wyss, 56; Z in, 505-6; Egli /, 265 (No. 597, $<$)\Gerold EdlibacW s

Chronik hg. v. J. M. Usteri (Zurich, 1847), 272. (MAGZ IV). Begging was forbidden, and a kind of soup-kitchen for the poor was set up in the Dominican cloisters.

2 Oetenbach was technically outside the city. Many were unwilling to follow the example of their Prioress, Kungolt von Landenberg, who, suitably pensioned, gave up the veil on 24 November 1524. H. Zeller-Werdmiiller, Die Stiftung des Klosters Oetenbach, ZT 1889,

213-76.

3 Wyss, 21.

^ Egli /, 120 (No. 345), 122, 123 (Nos. 346, 348), 131 (No. 366). s Egli /, 131-2 (No. 366).

6 Egli /, 279-81 (No. 630). They were joined by some nuns from the Grimmenturm and the ancient Cistercian foundation at Selnau. By 1535 only one representative remained of what had been a characteristic social group in the state. Wyss 37, 38, 59 and n. 4; Z m, 385-6 and notes. Bullinger, Ref. 1, 110 is unreliable, in spite of the fact he later married one of the nuns.

6-2

ZWINGLI from the lords of Kiburg, had been conquered in 1460 by Confederate forces acting in self-defence, and retained initially as a guarantee against further attacks. It was the largest of the Mandated Territories (gemeine

Herrschaften) and its administration was the joint responsibility of the ten occupying powers. In practice the individual states took it in turn to nominate local governors for two years; these were responsible foi civil and criminal jurisdiction, defence of the castles and the collection of the customary dues and taxes.

The new evangelical preaching found willing hearers in Frauenfeld, Winterthur, Diessenhofen, Bischofszell and Stein am Rhein.1 People like

Erasmus Schmid (Fabricius), canon of the Great Minster, and Hans (Johann Ulrich) Oechsli from Einsiedeln actively spread the doctrine that the Bible, and not the hierarchy, was infallible and irresistible. The practical results of this evangelical teaching were soon apparent. Zurich, from whence it came, accompanied by attacks on images and on the cloisters, was only one of the ruling powers. In the Federal Diet, a gathering of representatives of sovereign powers, there was an overwhelming Catholic majority which was not prepared to tolerate, let alone facilitate, this evangelisation. The Diet itself, however, had no direct responsibilities there and could act only through the particular state responsible at the time for administration. The local governor had wide discretionary powers, but how far these extended to religion was not clear.

Local authority was often shared with monasteries, ecclesiastics and nobles, while some districts, such as Frauenfeld and Diessenhofen, looked to all the occupying powers for guidance and control. In Thurgau there were monasteries at Fischingen (well known to Zwingli because of family connections there), Tanikon, Tobel, Griesenberg, Kalchrain, Miinsterlingen,

Steckborn and Ittingen. These were also considerable landowners and were natural centres of resistance to teaching which threatened them with elimination. Further, if Thurgau could be 'reformed', thus accepting the leadership of Zurich in religious matters, it might well come under its control politically. Such an outcome would bring an important accession of strength and wealth, and would alter the balance of power within the Confederation.2 This, however, would not suit the interests of Berne and it would deprive the other protecting states of opportunities for enrichment.

All these considerations had to be taken into account. Zwingli's supporters now publicly advocated freedom of Gospel preaching, the freedom

1 The process is well described in Knittel I.

2 Provided it was Thurgau only that was to be reformed, this might not be too serious, but it could not stop there. It had been generally assumed that Thurgau was a sphere of special interest to Zurich. Morikofer I, 234.

From argument to action of the local community to choose its own form of worship and to cast off the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constance. From many Thurgau Gemeinden came vigorous complaints of the episcopal courts at Constance, especially of the high fees, intolerable delays and the use of excommunication for the collection of small debts. Religious and secular obedience, they now maintained, should be kept separate - a notion unacceptable to the age, and impracticable. Nor could any government (in this case the occupying powers working through agents) tolerate violent self-help by subjects: discontent was far too near the surface and far too dangerous for that.

All over northern Switzerland, the question of local responsibility for law and order was a complicated one. This was particularly the case in relation to the town of Stein am Rhein which had come in 1484 within the territory and jurisdiction of Zurich. In the neighbouring countryside and in the extension of the town across the liver, Burg bei Stein, it was only jurisdiction over minor offences {niederen Gerichte) which rested with Zurich, responsibility for serious offences involving life and limb (pbere

Gerichtsbarkeit, Blutgericht, Blutbann, Hochgericht) remaining with the Protecting Powers of Thurgau. The effective local administrative officer was the governor (Landvogt) residing at Frauenfeld.

A similar dual jurisdiction existed a few miles away at Stammheim.1

There Zurich was represented by an assistant governor {Untervogt), Hans Wirth, who was also lay administrator of St Anne's Chapel, where his son, another Hans, was Chaplain.2

On 17 June 1524, following the lead from Zurich, the Stammheim community agreed to 'cleanse' their church of images, pictures and ornaments, which was done on Midsummer day in spite of a little opposition.3

The movement spread rapidly to neighbouring places, Waltalingen, Nussbaumen and, instigated by another enthusiast, Zwingli's friend Hans

Oechsli, to Burg and Eschenz.

The governor4 properly reported all this to his masters meeting at 1 Strictly there were two communities, Oberstammheim, where there was a small ancient church dedicated to St Gall, and Unterstammheim, where the presentation to a newly-built church lay with the abbot of St Gall. There was also nearby the popular pilgrimage chapel of St Anne. Egli 3, 272.

2 A second son, Adrian, was also ordained and had been an assistant at the Zurich Great

Minster, and all three were faithful supporters of Zwingli. The reorganisation of this latter foundation left Adrian redundant, and he returned home to Stammheim with a letter of introduction from Zwingli, eager to preach. The elderly incumbent of the parish church,

Dean Adam Moser, a strong traditionalist, refused to accept him, but pressure from the parishioners secured him a hearing. He attacked the Roman mass, pilgrimages and the veneration of images in his sermons, and also married an ex-nun from Winterthur.

3 Egli 3, 274; Farner ill, 493-4; Z HI, 512-13; A. Farner, Geschichte der Kirckgemeinde Stammheim und Umgebung (Zurich, 1911), 134. A graphic description of the whole proceedings follows, 142-74.

4 Joseph Amberg from Schwyz who had abandoned earlier evangelical convictions. Bullinger,

Ref. I, 180-1.

ZWINGLI Baden. There, complaints against Zurich were already under discussion.1

The attack on images and the mass, attempts to prevent the reservation of the sacrament, cases of individuals dying unconfessed and without the viaticum, were causing the Catholic-committed states2 to repeat the demand for the expulsion of Zurich from the Confederation. In the midst of argument, excitement3 and deferment, the Diet determined to exercise all the authority it could in Thurgau, and through its agent, the governor, take proceedings against those responsible for iconoclasm.

This involved a challenge to Zurich, which was determined to secure freedom for the preaching of the Gospel in the Mandated Territories and to protect its rights and those of its subjects. Locally this was connected with an existing agreement between Stammheim and Stein that in the event of danger of fire or of any attempt to interfere with the preaching of the Gospel, mutual assistance summoned by ringing the church bells should be available.

On 4 July, Hans Wirth senior4 was on his way home from Stein when he received a warning that the Governor's officers were waiting to arrest him at St Anne's Chapel. A messenger brought the news to Stein and Stammheim, the bells pealed, men appeared in arms, and the bailiffs moved away without making any arrest. The Governor again reported the incident to the Diet at Zug, complaining that he had been impeded in the execution of his duty.5 Hence Zurich was again invited to refrain from countenancing religious innovations in territory over which it had joint control. Zwingli refused to recommend any compliance - the state must protect its subjects, and it was the duty of ministers of the Gospel to preach the scriptures whatever the opposition. Both sides sent observers to watch the situation.

The governor now (12 July) received explicit instructions to punish those guilty of heretical teaching, and specifically to arrest Hans Oechsli who by now was almost notorious as a trouble maker.6 This time there was no mistake, and on the night of 17 July the minister was arrested in his home in Burg, partly because of his own negligence.7 The scuffle attending his apprehension was heard at nearby Stein and the castle of Hohenklingen. Again the bells rang, men came together, but too late and 1 EA 4, 1 a, 444-50.

2 Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug and Fribourg.

3 How exciting things were can be seen from the adventures of Vadian, who had to flee for his life from Zug and escaped trial as a heretic only by adroitness and good fortune. Sabbata

117-18; Naf, Vadian n, 201-2.

* Egli 3, 280. s EA 4, 1 a, 454.

6 Egli 3, 277; EA 4, 1 a, 460, 462-3, 588-9, 593. Johannes (or Hans) Oechsli (c. 1485-1536), known as Bovillus, came from Einsiedeln to Eschenz and Burg in 1508. He actively promoted the * cleansing' of his church and was very popular. He moved later to Elgg, Zurich, Weesen and finally to Biilach where he was highly respected. Z ix, 106.

7 Farner m, 495-6; Staehelin 1, 391; Knittel 1, 73.

I46

From argument to action in insufficient numbers to intervene, while Oechsli was hurried off to Frauenfeld where Zurich could claim no jurisdiction.

By the early morning of 18 July, at least 3,000 men had gathered on the banks of the Thur, the men of Stein under the Blirgermeister, Konrad

Steffan, and the indefatigable Erasmus Schmid, those of Stammheim under Wirth jnr., those of Nussbaumen under Untervogt Riitimann. They demanded the release of their pastor, which the Governor, safe behind the walls of Frauenfeld, refused even to discuss. The crowd, hot, thwarted and discontented, halted their march at Ittingen, five miles from Stein, where there was a Carthusian monastery. This was a Catholic stronghold where two monks, Valentine and Alexius, had recently been disciplined for asking advice of Zwingli about how to leave their house. The prior,1

Peter Thaler, who was known to be a friend of the Governor, refused to give food and drink to the insurgents, spoke darkly of divine punishment and told them to go home. The result was that the mob broke into the monastery, stole the keys from the prior, took food and drink, and then, thoroughly out of hand, looted, smashed windows, pictures and church ornaments, defaced and tore up books and documents, drove off cattle, drained the fish pond, and finally set fire2 to the monastic buildings. Hans

Wirth and his two sons from outside the monastery vainly tried to restrain the mob which was urged on by Erasmus Schmid. For a moment it seemed as if there might be bloodshed when the governor's supporters arrived in some numbers, but the rioters went home and a force of some 4,000 from Zurich prevented any further disorder. The connection with the recent peasant violence in south Germany was not overlooked, and a potentially dangerous rising was nipped in the bud.

The consequences were however of the utmost significance. For Zurich this proved the point of no return. Zwingli's original challenges to the bishop over fasting and clerical celibacy had grown to a denial of episcopal, and then of papal, authority in religious matters. The government had supported Bible preaching and iconoclasm, had taken over the monasteries, allowed its clergy to marry, and had accepted the exclusive authority of Holy Writ in religious affairs. For all this Zurich was being ostracised by its fellow Swiss states. Zurich was fully capable of defending itself, and its government was well aware of the fact that there were still

1 He was supported by the administrator (Schaffner) Iodocus Hesch, who had * entered religion' late in life, after marriage, was a good scholar who corresponded with Luther (whom he much respected) and Zwingli (see the interesting letter Z vm, 158-65). He resisted all efforts to convert him, maintaining the Catholic cause with passionate conviction and great sincerity, abstaining entirely from the personal abuse that was so common. Morikofer 1, 237-41,

Staehelin I, 359-61.

2 The fire was said to have been started by a man whose child had been killed by a boar belonging to the Prior which he had refused to remove or restrain. Staehelin 1, 391; Knittel, 79.

ZWINGLI many orthodox catholics within its frontiers who disliked the changes, retained earlier observances and heard mass where possible. The Ittingen incident led to provocative retaliation from the Catholic side. The Diet, somewhat surprisingly supported in this by the titular Abbot of Kappel,1 requested Zurich to punish the rioters since they came from Stammheim and were subject to its jurisdiction.2 Four known leaders of the rioters were thereupon imprisoned3 and examined, and proceedings were opened against seven more; iconoclasm might be condoned, but looting and burning could not. There the matter could well have rested, but the leaders of the Catholic states would not hear of it. They insisted at Baden that sacrilege and heresy were involved, that the prisoners were therefore guilty of felony (malefizisch, an uncertain term) and that their punishment was a matter for the whole Confederation. The legal situation was, in fact, extremely complex, and there was much discussion and bargaining in early

August. Finally, after long debate, and against Zwingli's advice,4 the council reluctantly handed over four of the six accused, on 19 August

1524, to the Federal officers, on condition that they were to be punished as rioters and not for their beliefs or religious practices. No notice was taken of this, and three of the accused were condemned to death as heretics, iconoclasts and rioters.5 The Catholics had forced a showdown,6 and Zurich took up the challenge.

The Ittingen riot and its fatal consequences has a significance out of all proportion to the particular episode. In addition to nice questions of local jurisdiction, politics and religion were deeply involved. Politically, Zurich had received a setback; its wishes had been ignored, it had not been able to protect its supporters, and its influence in Thurgau had been diminished.

The Reformation seemed in real danger. The consistent claim from Zurich that the removal of images from the churches was in accordance with the Bible was emphatically rejected, and those who followed Zwingli's

1 Wolfgang Joner.

2 EA 4, ia, 465.

3 Hans Wirth sen. (Untervogt), Adrian and Hans Wirth jim. and Burkhart Riitimann of Nussbaumen. Farner in, 496-7. E. Schmid and Konrad Steffan managed to get away to safety in Constance.

* Z in, 527-8; Bullinger, Ref. 1, 187-8.

5 They were subjected to lengthy questioning under torture, and confessed to heresy, but consistently maintained that their beliefs were derived from independent Bible-study and that Zwingli was not responsible for them. Adrian Wirth and Oechsli were acquitted, but the Hans Wirths, father and son, and Riitiman were executed on 28 September. They met their fate cheerfully and, as so often, affected many by their heroism and impressive piety in their last moments. O. Vasella in E. Iserloh u. K. Repgen, Reformata Reformanda (Miinster i.W.,

1965) 1, 379-8o.

6 After long negotiations compensation was paid at Ittingen for the damage done; a silver cross was restored, and the monastery was unwillingly rebuilt by compulsory local labour. Orthodox Catholic priests replaced the * heretics', and everywhere in northern Switzerland from Basle to St Gall felt the Catholic backlash. W. Oechsli, Die Anfdnge des Glaubenskonfliktes,

33-4-

From argument to action teaching were executed as heretics. It was no longer possible, after July

1524, to think in terms of any compromise on religion within the Confederation. It is partly for this reason that in his observations on the Ittingen affair Zwingli reopened in the widest terms the question of the mass.1

Public Christian worship in the middle ages centred on the mass. Mass was said in most churches every day, and good Christians were present frequently, certainly on Sundays and the many saints' days. The service, or liturgy, had a long and complicated history, far longer and far less simple than Zwingli, who had little sense of history, realised. The celebration of the holy eucharist was thought of as the primary duty of the priesthood; only a properly ordained priest could do this. That the service was in Latin, that it followed an almost invariable pattern, that the congregation was expected to play a passive part, the ordinary man seldom communicating more than the statutory once a year, and then receiving the bread only, that the priest performed a miracle in that with the words of consecration he held the body and blood of Christ in his hands, all this had become commonplace long before the sixteenth century.

The mass, for the middle ages, was above all a sacrifice, an 'unbloody' one, at which Christ was offered ceaselessly many times daily for the sins of the world. This Zwingli, as a Catholic priest, had accepted, and for more than ten years he had assisted at the normal services and followed the prescribed liturgical forms. With growing intensity of Bible study, doubts arose, first about the restriction of the cup to the celebrant alone, then about the nature of the 'sacrifice', and finally about the validity of the accepted doctrine of transubstantiation.

Zwingli first gave some attention to the connection between the mass and the meaning of Christ's death upon the cross when the matter was raised almost incidentally at the first Zurich disputation of January 1523.

The argument then had been concerned primarily with masses for the departed and with the concept of the mass as a constantly renewed sacrifice. There had been the inevitable discussion about the meaning and use of the words sacramentum, testamentum, missa. Christ, the unique High

Priest,2 had once and for all offered himself as the full, perfect and completely sufficient sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Zwingli now reiterated

1 Z in, 533-8.

2 Hebrews 6. 20: 'Jesus, having become a high priest for ever in the succession of Melchisedek\ Psalm no. 4, Genesis 14. 18. Sixteenth century biblical exegesis interpreted the whole of the Old Testament as anticipating the New Testament. The sacrifices of the Old Testament are treated as promises and tokens of the one sacrifice by which Christ saved the human race. Any connection between the word 'missa' and 'sacrifice' has long since been abandoned.

J. A. Jungmann, Missarum solemnia; eine genetische Erkldrung der romischen Messe* (Freiburg,

1952) 1, 225-33; Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart* IV, 885-93.

ZWINGLI his view that the mass cannot be a sacrifice; is man to sacrifice Christ again and spare himself? The mass was not a sacrifice, even an 'unbloody' one, but a memorial or remembrance of Christ's death on the cross. The implications of all this were applied in the first place to advocate communion in both kinds for the laity and then to call for the elimination of the chantry priests. The restoration of the cup to the laity had scriptural support and was clearly not heresy. The restriction of distribution to the wafer only was a relatively recent innovation and inadequately explained away by the teaching that the whole of Christ's body and blood was contained in each particle of the whole and the cup denied because of the possibility of spilling.1 The doctrine of purgatory and of the 'treasury of merits' was likewise relatively new and unacceptable.

As late as June 1523 Zwingli was prepared to accept the orthodox teaching about transubstantiation as defined at the Fourth Lateran

Council (1215).2 Further reflection and the attacks of his opponents led him towards a position in regard to the eucharist which he could reconcile with his own realist philosophical training while rejecting the implications of the viaticum and the reserved sacrament. Names, he said, like consecration, benediction, tiansubstantiation, did not worry him. 'I know that if I act and teach as Christ has bidden that I do right, and relying upon his word, may be free from sin, whatever name you like to use.'3

The first direct evidence of an essential change of view appears on 15 June 1523, when he wrote to his former tutor at Basle, Thomas Wittenbach,4 now married and living in Biel, that he rejected transubstantiation.

'Just as you can dip someone a thousand times in the water of baptism but if he has no faith it is in vain, so too, I think, the bread and wine remain unchanged to the unbeliever.'5 It is possible to make too much of one

1 Zwingli knew from his visits to Lombardy that the Ambrosian rite differed from the standard pattern.

2 Koehler, Z S ' L i , 21-2. This indispensable commentary on every detail and aspect of Zwingli's sacramental teaching lacks the author's revision of the second volume. It also has to be read in conjunction with Baur, Zwinglis Theologie, of which it is frequently critical. This does not mean that there is not much useful information in Baur's volumes.

3 Z 11, 157. This rejection of * names' may reflect the * realist' claim: *nos imus ad res, de terminis non curamus'.

4 Z vm, 84-9.

5 'Ego haud aliter hie panem et vinum esse puto, quam aqua est in baptismo, in qua frustra millies etiam ablues eum, qui nori credit.' This long and important letter was not intended to be a full discussion of the subject but an indication of the way Zwingli's thoughts were moving. He does however indicate clearly that it is the faith of the recipient that is effective and alone matters. It is unprofitable to enquire how it works for the believer: 'quicquid hie agitur, divina virtute fieri, modum autem nobis penitus ignotum, quo deus illabatur anime,, neque curiosos esse in hac re oportere, quam soli fideles sentiant.' It is apparent that it was the problem of the veneration paid to objects, to images and statues, which was the urgent issue at the moment. This forced a consideration of the veneration of the reserved sacrament, and hurriedly and without any full argument Zwingli comes out against this practice. For him the believer received the body and blood of Christ at the time of reception, but there was no opus operatum irrespective of any faith, and the bread, after consecration and apart from the

From argument to action private letter,1 but the trend of thought was unmistakable, and the letter itself would have satisfied most Inquisitors that its contents were heretical.

The matter was constantly in his thoughts for the rest of that year.2

Soon after writing this letter he was called upon to give some practical advice about the form of service which might be suitable for those who were no longer prepared to use the whole text of the standard mass book.

Leo Jud had already introduced a modified baptismal service in German in Zurich,3 and enquiries or requests for something similar for the mass were coming in. To help them and to answer criticism of those who were omitting parts of the mass, Zwingli wrote in four days (19-23 August) a Latin essay, Epichiresisf one of those Greek words so singularly acceptable to the age, on the Canon of the mass. This he now sent, or dedicated, to Diebold of Hohengeroldseck, administrator of Einsiedeln. Basing his knowledge apparently on Platina's History of the Popes,5 Zwingli tried the historical approach and outlined what he thought had been the development of the liturgy under Popes Alexander I (121-32), Gregory I (590604), Leo II (682-3) and Sergius (687-701), indicating (incorrectly, it is to be feared) that it was all of less antiquity than commonly believed. He renewed his objections to the word missa and insisted that eucharistia had no direct biblical sanction. It was easy for the humanist to show on grounds of style alone that the Canon could not be of the time of the primitive church and that the words of consecration were not directly scriptural.6 The service, also, he insisted, contained too many irrelevant piayers for Pope, saints and monarchs.7 The words of the Canon he analysed sentence by sentence with a certain display of etymological learning, considering derivations, grammar, style and logical construction.

The conclusion again was for a complete and direct rejection of the possibility of a repetition of Christ's sacrifice. commemorative act of the Last Supper, remained plain bread and could not be adored without idolatry. Farner in, 417, goes too far in his deductions from this one letter that Zwingli had already destroyed all his bridges behind him. l Kohler, Z S ' L i , 23, 28-9.

2 Zwingli's views were set out with increasing emphasis and detail in: (i) Auslegen und Grtinde der Schlussreden (July 1523), Z 11, 111-57; ZH in, 143-202; (ii) De canone missae epichiresis

(August 1523), Z 11, 552 (556)-6o"8; (iii) Eine kurze christliche Einleitung (November 1523),

Z 11, 626 (628)-663; (iv) Ratschldge betreffend Messe und Bilder (December 1523) Z 11, 804

(808H15.

3 Z 11, 553; Wyss, 36-7 n. 3; F. Schmidt-Clausing, Zwingli ah Liturgiker (Gottingen/Berlin,

1952). Ulrich Aberlin (or Buebli) was the first child to be christened in the Great Minster in German. Bullinger, Ref. 1, 112.

4 Z11, 552 (556)-6o7. For a translation into German with useful notes see F. Schmidt-Clausing,

Zwinglis Kanonversuch eingeleitet.. .und komntentiert (Frankfurt a. M., 1969). The urgency was because printed copies were needed for the Frankfurt fair in September.

5 Bartolommeo Platina, who was Vatican librarian until his death in 1481, wrote Opus de vitis ac gestis summorum pontificum and Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum. L. A. Muratori,

Rerum Italicarum scriptores m, pt. 1, ed. G. Gaida (Citta di Castello, 1913-32).

6 Z 11, 558-9.

7 Z 11, 559, 573; Farner in. 415.

ZWINGLI A considerable section of the treatise is concerned (relying on a controversial quotation from Origen)1 with the argument that because a prayer for the dead was included in the Canon, therefore purgatory must exist.

Zwingli insisted that this was, at best, a human conjecture. It was the invention of the theologastri: the New Testament admitted the existence of heaven and hell only, and this should be sufficient. The destiny of the souls of the departed is unknown to us, and we must be content to have it so.

Vestments, later to be emphatically rejected, Zwingli at this time was willing to tolerate as matters of indifference. They might be allowed to have some symbolical significance, although their elaboration and expensive ornamentation seemed unnecessary. This seems to have caused comment, and in a kind of postscript written three months later2 he agreed that their use was undesirable but might be tolerated for those unwilling to renounce them. Similarly, he had been willing to maintain a number of the traditional prayers and even a certain amount of Latin, but more and more he was moving towards greater simplification.3 Singing, for the time, he accepted, again with the reservation that the words should be exactly those of the Bible, and even this concession he was later to withdraw altogether.

In many respects these are two interesting little tracts.4 Zwingli recognised the need for some standard form of service and the importance of the words used in it. The Canon of the mass was the central portion of the service including the consecration of the host. Hence to many it was even better known than the Bible. Judged by modern standards, Zwingli's critical analysis is thin and superficial, but it must have been impressive to the often ill-educated Swiss clergy, and it marks a further stage in the writer's reliance upon scripture alone.

From August 1523 onwards controversy about the mass continued, until the matter was settled for Zurich by the abolition of its celebration according to the Roman rite in April 1525. All the well-known theologians

- including Luther, Erasmus, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius and Bucer - were involved in discussions, one outcome of which at one time seemed likely to be a kind of parity-compromise in Zurich in which some churches retained the old form of service and some modified it. This indeed existed throughout 1524, with the mass-priests becoming increasingly anxious about the permanent security of their employment. In the sixteenth century, however, no state that was to be strong - and Zurich certainly needed to be so in view of the gathering opposition - could afford a 1 Z 11, 593-4 and n. 2.

2 Z n, 617 (62o)-625 De canone missae libelli apologia.

3 Farner in, 423-4.

4 F. Schmidt-Clausing, Zwingli ah Liturgiker (Gottingen, 1952), Zwinglis Kanonversuch

(Frankfurt a.M., 1969) and Zwinglis liturgische Formulare (Frankfurt a.M., 1970), has demonstrated that Zwingli continued to be interested in liturgy to the end of his life.

From argument to action religious two-party system. The government - which, in Zurich, meant the majority of the council - must decide the religion for the state. It was not until January 1525 that Zwingli's supporters, led by Diethelm Roist and Heinrich Walder, had a majority there, and there was for long after that a considerable number of Catholic sympathisers occupying important positions.1 Piominent among these was Joachim am Griit, Unterstadtschreiber or Deputy Town Clerk, an unobtrusive conservative administrator who did everything that an official could do to prevent religious change.

He was probably jealous of Zwingli's talents and influence; he knew everyone who mattered, and he understood the realities of power. He had been sent to Rome by the council to negotiate with the Pope, Clement VII, about the payment of arrears of wages owing to mercenary soldiers, and although he was unsuccessful in this he returned a totally convinced defender of the Roman church.2

Other active and dedicated defenders of the Catholic church were not lacking either, equally willing to state their case in print. By their restless activity and by their anxiety to fasten the epithet of Lutheran heretic on to their opponent, they helped to clarify Zwingli's thought in a more radical direction. Two such antagonists made themselves prominent in 1524,

Emser and Eck, men of very different character and background, neither especially well equipped for his self-imposed task but both competent and self-confident. The first of these, Jerome Emser (1478-1527), had been a student at the University of Basle,3 which he had to leave, somewhat under a cloud, having insulted a don, Gregory Biinzli. He had also while there been a notorious supporter of the Swabians in their hostility to their

Swiss neighbours and he now, a quarter of a century later, gave vent to similar feelings in a pamphlet, A defence of the Canon of the mass against Ulrich Zwingli.4 In this there was little serious argument, merely statements that his opponent, who had set himself up against the saints of the Catholic church (universa ecclesia sanctorum) was a shameless and self1 The valuable study of Jacob has applied the 'Namier technique' to an analysis of the leading citizens of Zurich, and emphasises, what Koehler first pointed out, the weight of opposition to the Reformation.

2 am Griit, who returned to Zurich with a letter from Clement VII (Egli /, 221-2 (No. 505)), remained in close contact with the conservative Constaffel. He is a somewhat shadowy figure; there seems not to be any useful recent monograph. There are other examples of visitors to Renaissance Rome (e.g. Fabri) who, unlike Luther, returned strengthened in their faith.

Koehler, Z & L 1, 156.

3 B.A. 1497, M.A. 1499. He was often known as 'Ibex' because of his persistent use of the family coat-of-arms which included this device. Wackernagel, Matrikel I, 249-50. A. H.

Hartmann, Die Amerbachkorrespondenz (Basle, 1942) 1, 113; Wackernagel Basel HI, 15, 137;

K. A. Strand, Reformation Bibles in the crossfire (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1961) 21-8.

4 Canonis missae contra Huldricu Zuingliu Defensio.. .MDXXIIII.

This little 32 page quarto, printed at Dresden, 1524, came to Zwingli's notice only because a traveller from St Gall,

Georg Vadian, happened to see it at the Leipzig fair and brought a copy home with him.

Z in, 230.

ZWINGLI contradictory juggler or actor, as over-rated as Karlstadt or Luther and equally heretical.

In his reply1 Zwingli repudiated any appeal to historical continuity; the Bible was the sole authority to be recognised, since through it the Holy

Spirit guided the communities of true believers who formed the particular churches which together made up the one church.2 The earlier arguments against merits, the repeated mass sacrifice, the mediation of individual saints, the existence of purgatory, were restated. It was all set out in the excellent Latin of which Zwingli could be a master when he allowed himself scope and opportunity. On the question of purgatory, Emser had quoted in his support John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, but Zwingli had never heard of him.3 The paragraphs dealing with the mass were brief and biblical; the writer had not read Emser's refutation of Luther, and the marginal note 'Eucharistia cibus spiritualis est' sufficiently summarises the passage. Setting such thoughts on paper and answering challenging questions was a sure way to building up an independent body of doctrine, and Zwingli's answer to his other opponent of 1524, John Eck, did just this.

Eck was a more serious opponent than Emser, a finer scholar and by 1524 almost a professional controversialist. He had initially been attracted in the Erasmian direction, and had obtained some distinction at the University of Ingolstadt as a humanist,4 but after a visit to Rome he became renowned foi the verbal dexterity of his conflicts with Luther. In 1523 he first turned his attention to Switzerland, and, after the second Nuremberg

Diet of January 1524 where there had been renewed talk of a national church council5 preceded by provincial councils, his interest increased.

In the light of this discussion, and with the encouragement of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Campeggio, the papal legate, and a number of South

German bishops, Eck addressed himself to the Swiss Diet at Baden6 (August 1524) with an attack on Zwingli's 67 theses, claiming to have

1 Adversus Hieronymum Emserum antibolon. Z in, 230 (24i)-87. Further study may have convinced Zwingli that the Roman mass had a longer continuous history than he had supposed, and that an appeal to antiquity might not help his case very much.

2 Z HI, 257. 'He,c est ilia ecclesia, qu? errare non potest, quod sibi pontifices tarn falso quam impudenter arrogant.'

3 Z in, 276-7. ' Sed ad Roffensem quendam remittis, quern an homo sit, an fortasse deus aliquis, ignoramus.' It was through Oecolampadius that Fisher's writings became known in Switzerland. See G. R. Potter, 'The initial impact of the Swiss Reformers on England', Discordia Concors, 11 (Basle, 1968) 391-400.

4 His treatise, Chrysopassus, had been one of the books read by Zwingli at Glarus in 1514.

Zwingli's copy, with numerous marginal annotations, survives. Koehler, Bibliothek, 13. The standard biography of Eck (1486-1543) is still T. Wiedemann, Dr.Jfohann Eck. Eine Monographie (Regensburg, 1865). Cf. Gedachtnis, 274-5; Neue Deutsche Biographie iv, 273-5,

5 H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient2 (Freiburg, 1951) I, 171; S. Skalweit, Reich und

Reformation (Berlin, 1967), 169, 173.

6 EA4, 1 a, 473 ;Z in, 290.

From argument to action found errors and misunderstanding amounting to Lutheranism and therefore manifest heresy. He suggested that he should confront Zwingli before a committee appointed by the Diet which would judge the validity of the case, and by whose decisions Zwingli should be bound. The latter's immediate reaction was one of indignation and anger: Eck, he insisted, was a mere impudent self-seeker, frustrated at not having been made a bishop, and a man of notoriously evil life.1

His opponent had attacked Swiss interests in the matter of the papal bodyguard, and had dabbled in magic. He was ready enough to meet him in argument, but at Zurich, and with the Bible, not the Pope, as the supreme judge. The suggestion that the meeting should be at Baden was entirely unacceptable. If Eck refused to come to Zurich where he would be perfectly safe, why should Zwingli thrust himself into the power of the six states which had already prohibited the reading of his works in their territories, had burnt him in effigy and had already decided that his teaching was heretical ? For them, the Pope was the sole interpreter of the Word of God, and he knew already what this would mean. There was indeed to be a religious debate at Baden, but this was not to be for another year, by which time the Zurich Council had declared its intentions much more clearly.

While the argument with Eck was being continued by Sebastian Hofmeister of Schaff hausen, Zwingli turned his attention a little more closely to the problem of the eucharist. He had already, in article 18 of the 67 theses, rejected the Roman view of the mass as a sacrifice, but had given no clear indication of his constructive thought about the eucharist. Partly, he had not yet reached a firm conclusion, partly he was anxious not to lead others before they were ready to be led, but in the light of the situation in 1524 the need for a decision as to whether the mass should be prohibited or allowed to continue in Zurich was becoming urgent. To allow it was more difficult after Eck's attack and after Zwingli's criticisms. Zwingli indeed was convinced that Luther's 'consubstantiation' interpretation of the eucharist was not acceptable, and there were now increasingly good reasons why he should make his own position plain. He was not a Lutheran; of that he was certain. How then did he stand in relation to other contemporaries who were all engaged on the same problem ?

Andrew of Bodenstein (c. 1480-1541),2 known as Karlstadt from his birth place, had, like Luther, studied at Erfurt, and while quite young had become Archdeacon and Professor of Theology at Wittenberg. At first he supported Luther, opposing Eck at Leipzig in 1519, preaching reform in 1 Z viii, 216-18.

2 The standard biography is H. Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 Bde. (Leipzig, 1905), cf. E. Hertzsch, Karlstadt und seine Bedeutung fur das Lutherturn (Gotha, 1932).

ZWINGLI Wittenberg while Luther was in the Wartburg translating the Bible. He married in 1522, renouncing his Archdeaconry, and was obliged to leave

Wittenberg when Luther denounced him as a sectary. He went off, dressed as a simple layman, to preach a personalised form of the Gospel to the common people. He also inaugurated a simple vernacular communion service without elevation or vestments and with all sharing the bread and wine.1 In November 1524, five treatises on the eucharist came from Karlstadt's pen and the printing presses of Basle2 - the printers got into trouble for distributing them - which were eagerly seized upon by the more enthusiastic of Zwingli's supporters or rivals.

It was apparent that Karlstadt, somewhat crudely, was putting forward a view of the eucharist so similar to Zwingli's (and Oecolampadius') that unless some clear guidance was forthcoming Zurich might move in an unwelcome direction.3 Hence, on 16 November 1524, Zwingli set out his position more clearly than ever before in an open letter to Matthew Alber.4

Matthew Alber was minister at Reutlingen, one of the south German cities more within Zurich's orbit than that of Wittenberg, and was supported by a slightly more explicitly Lutheran colleague, Konrad Hermann,5 with whom Zwingli had already had some dealings.

The open letter was, in fact, a curious literary device; although Matthew Alber was a real person, the letter was neither actually sent to him nor intended for him.6 It was not printed until March 1525, by which time it had been copied a good many times and had been circulated widely in manuscript.

In November 1524, advanced thinkers in Zurich, perhaps following Hubmaier,7 were demanding an evangelical form of the Last Supper such as Karlstadt had distributed in Wittenberg until Luther had driven him out. This could easily have led to civil commotion and in turn have imperilled the whole reforming enterprise. The opponents were only too anxious to show that Zurich was 'going Lutheran' or 'going Anabaptist', and much of Zwingli's effort was directed to showing that it was not doing so.8

1 He had celebrated thus in Wittenberg on Christmas Day 1521 in Luther's absence. He wandered round south Germany, earning a living by manual labour, until Zwingli secured a place for him as deacon at the Zurich hospital and then as minister at Altstetten. In 1534 he joined Myconius as Professor at Basle. Wackernagel, Matrikel 11, 7.

2 Allen v, 596.

3 Koehler Z. (5 L. 1, 68-9; Baur 11, 293-306; see below, 293 n. 4.

4 Z in, 335-54. Staehelin 1, 417. Koehler Z ^ L i , 72-4; see below 293 n. 6.

5 A former Franciscan who later adopted Zwingli's eucharistic teaching and used his liturgical forms at Esslingen.

6 M. Brecht, 'Hat Zwingli seinen Brief an Matthaus Alber iiber das Abendmahl abgesandt?',

ARG 58 (1967) 100-2.

7 Bergsten, 2146*"; Baur 11, 293-306.

8 W. Walther, Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation (Leipzig, 1908), 211-56, answered by W. Koehler, 'Die Schweizer Taktik gegen Luther im Sakramentsstreit', ZWA 11 (1912),

356-62.

From argument to action By then he had repeatedly rejected the Roman mass: he now had to produce something, some corpus of teaching, that was not Lutheran and yet was biblical and suitable for a form of worship which could be approved by the government. The Latin mass was still being said in the Great Minster, although any priest who wished (as many did) could abstain. Time was becoming short. If he circulated his views to those who could understand the problem, he might gain sufficient adherents without upsetting the public. It was all part of Zwinglian-Fabian tactics not to advance too fast or too far: the open letter was a very skilful performance.

The key text to his present and future argument was John 6. 63, spiritus est qui vivificat; caro non prodest quidquam.1 The Word was infallible : hence the attention paid to certain combinations of words in the Bible. There now began a kind of evangelical card game between Luther and Zwingli with texts for cards, each trying to trump the opponent's ace.

The Letter to Alber was the first hand in the game.

God, His risen Son and the Holy Spirit, one eternal God, was a spirit.

This was commonplace Christian orthodoxy; only in the emphasis that Zwingli laid upon it was he 'spiritualist'. Christ was the bread of life, the living bread, and just as human food fed the human body so the spiritual food fed mind and soul. In this sense to eat Christ was to believe in him and vice versa; spiritual eating was not the same as physical consumption.

Faith alone gives spiritual life, and therefore when Christ spoke of eating he spoke of believing: edere est credere.2 Salvation lay through Christ, not through the consumption of material bread and wine - ' What else is it to be a Christian but to believe that Christ, the son of God, suffered for us ? '3

And so the argument, which was to rage long after Zwingli's death, turned on the simple words of institution spoken at the Last Supper.

There, Zwingli now insisted, the operative word was the verb, is; and is was used in the sense of signifies. Edere, credere; est, significat - the basic

Zwinglian minimum was now for the first time plainly stated in this Latin epistle. Parallel passages could be adduced from the Bible4 and the early

Fathers.5 Similarly, the cup or chalice and the wine therein signified the testament, the remembrance of the shedding of the life-giving blood of Christ. Manifestly it followed that the consumption of the elements had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins; it was the symbol or sign that 1 Vulgate 64. 'The spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail.' This 'proof text' reappears endlessly.

2 This was one of the many Latin jingles which became so popular - ' Quid hie Christus per

"edere", nempe "credere" intelligat'. Z in, 341.

3 * Quid est aliud Christianum esse, quam credere Christum dei filium pro se passum esse ?'

Z in, 342. This fundamental conviction was shared by all sides.

4 As they were, constantly repeated: Foxe's 'Acts and Monuments' is full of them.

5 Especially Tertullian, one of Zwingli's favourite writers, ' a man of wonderful piety, most singular linguistic ability and amazing eloquence' Z in, 346.

ZWINGLI it was through Christ's death that, for true believers, their sins had been forgiven.1

The letter to Alber marks a further stage in the development of Zwingli's thought: in the sixty-seven theses he had rejected the notion of the mass as a sacrifice, but his words were at any rate not entirely irreconcilable with acceptance of transubstantiation.2 The letter to Wittenbach implied that he had abandoned this doctrine after June 1523 and thenceforward he was opposed to the reservation of the sacrament since it was the action (usus) alone that mattered.3 Hence, likewise, the notion of a miraculous or semimagical opus operatum was unacceptable. Influenced by Erasmus, Luther,

Rode, Hoen and Karlstadt, he made it clear by November 1524 that he regarded both the Catholic and the Lutheran sacramental positions as untenable.4

Everything was involved - both the conviction that heresy imperilled the soul and that its promulgation could be followed by loss of faith upon which salvation depended. Only those who rejected immortality, and they were very few, and silent at that, could be indifferent to these discussions.

There were indeed abstractions included which have occupied the human mind across the ages, the implications of appearance and reality, the name and the thing, mind and matter, the particular and the universal. Argument raged over the meaning and nature of presence, substance and reality among men fully acquainted with formal logic and philosophical terms, knowing what induction and proof could imply. Inevitably, therefore, the disputes turned on the meaning of words, but to see in this mere verbal fencing, discussion for discussion's sake, is completely to misapprehend the age. They were desperately in earnest, since upon a right judgement of the meaning of Christ's death on the cross and his words at the Last Supper eternal life depended.

Inherited traditions and human and personal factors were inevitably present as well: Scotist opposed Thomist, the nominalist-trained theologian yielded no ground to the realist, school fought school, and whole communities were easily involved. The war of words, behind which lay convictions for which men and women willingly died, was to continue and 1 Z in, 351. 'Symbolum eorum esse, qui firmiter Christi morte exhaustum et deletum esse peccatum credunt et gratias agunt.'

2 Koehler Z & L I, 20.

3 Koehler, Z & L 1, 22.

4 There has perhaps been too much of a tendency to search out' influences': what C. W. Dugmore said of the English Reformers - 'as if they had no theological training, no knowledge of the Schoolmen or of the Fathers, and were utterly incapable of thinking for themselves' (The Mass and the English Reformers (London, 1958), vii) can be applied to Zwingli in relation to other writers. For a fuller discussion see below p. 292-3; Koehler Z & L, 1, 26ff; A. Peters,

Realprasenz, Luthers Zeugnis von Christi Gegenwart im Abendmahl (Arbeiten zur Geschichte und

Theologie des Lutherturns, Bd. 5, Berlin, i960); C. C. Richardson, Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist (Evanston 111., 1949).

From argument to action to become intensified. The leaders lacked neither self-assurance nor a certain natural human vanity, but they honestly believed that truth was on their side and that truth must prevail. Zwingli, like many others, knew that he was right and that his cause would triumph. It was therefore worth fighting for; if wars seemed to turn upon struggles about the eucharist it was because this seemed to them at least as important as freedom, liberty, self-government or democracy did to later generations. In Zurich, at any rate, the word of God, now available to all in an open Bible, should prevail. How it was to be interpreted was not as simple as it seemed, and it was soon apparent that other leaders beside Zwingli were to seek and to find different meanings in the word of God.

↑ Back to top