Reform and reaction
Reform and reaction 1524-6 The remarkable rapidity with which ' the Reformation' was spreading in the years 1524, 1525 and 1526 was perturbing to the Catholics. This was also true, as Campeggio found to his undisguised alarm,1 of the great cities of south Germany, themselves so closely allied to their Swiss neighbours.
If the Catholics did not close their ranks and defend what was left to them, there might be nothing left to defend. Pope and Emperor must find some basis for cooperation, perhaps in a free national council, perhaps in local anti-Lutheran alliances. The bishops of Austria, Bavaria and Wlirttemberg, for example, must concert measures for the repression of heresy, and the well disposed among the princes must cooperate. A preliminary step towards this had been taken at Regensburg (28 June-8 July 1524), where
Ferdinand of Austria, the Dukes of Bavaria, and Campeggio had discussed the situation with a number of south German bishops. At this
'convention' Eck and Fabri were the moving forces, and measures to improve the moral and intellectual conditions of the clergy were agreed.
An active campaign against heresy was mounted2 and assurances of Imperial cooperation were readily forthcoming.
It was a characteristic challenge-and-response situation which had important repercussions in both Germany and Switzerland - in Germany where a number of princes and cities explicitly disassociated themselves from the Regensburg resolutions, and south of the Rhine where the idea of summoning a similar Swiss convention was actively canvassed by Eck.
The Bishop of Constance was ready to join forces with Catholic wellwishers in Zurich and with the now aggressively orthodox central states.
The defeat of the German peasants with its repercussions in the diocese of Constance, the strengthening of the Habsburgs after the battle of Pavia, iconoclasm, the Anabaptists and the explicit rejection of 1 Ranke, Re/., 120, Bd. 11, 95, iO5ff., 120; H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient2 Bd. 1
(Freiburg, 1951), 171-2; A. G. Dickens, The German nation and Martin Luther (London,
1974), 180-97, 218-19.
2 An approved German version of the Bible and an answer to Melanchthon's Loci Communes were also promised. Catholic students were to be discouraged from attending the University of Wittenberg. Ranke, Ref. 11, 121-4.
ZWINGLI transubstantiation by Zwingli and Oecolampadius, all reinforced the call for action.
The prohibition of the mass in Zurich after Easter 1525, the clarification of Zwingli's own views of the Eucharist, their proliferation verbally and in writing, added weight to the opposition. An evangelical revolution in north-eastern Switzerland had in fact now been inaugurated, accompanied, and in part brought about, by public discussions in which the Catholics had either not been represented at all or only very inadequately.
All through 1525, therefore, these latter were preparing for a public showdown or counterblast in a public debate, carefully stage-managed to secure the maximum publicity. This was the more urgent because little help came, or could come, from the Rome of Clement VII, and also because upon the outcome of such a meeting might depend the future allegiance of Berne and Basle. The Zwinglian disease, it began to be apparent, was not to be cured by locally administered medicine: it might have to be left to complete isolation.
This ostracism of Zurich, however, could mean the end of the Swiss Confederation as it had existed for the last two centuries. Loose as this
Commonwealth was, it had common traditions, a common language and a common religion. Without religious solidarity it was everywhere accepted that a political community could not cohere. The Catholics insisted increasingly on the value of unity if only because a federal military force must not be divided against itself over religion. Hence the renewed warnings to Zurich of exclusion from the Diet, hence the pressure to allow the celebration of the mass at least for those who wished to attend, hence the suggestion in September 1525, which came to nothing, that six central states1 together with Glarus should mediate an arrangement. A more serious effort was made in November 1525 when the five central states combined with Fribourg and Solothurn to put pressure on Berne to request that, as a very minimum, some opportunity, if only in some private chapel, might make it possible for a Catholic to hear mass in Zurich. Yet, in spite of the fact that a deputation of leading Bernese patricians headed by Sebastian von Diesbach came to press the case, they could not change the determination of the council to continue to go its own way independently of Rome.
There had been political as well as religious motives for this. The breach with the papacy, so far as Zurich was concerned, had taken place already. Moreover, the opposition to mercenary service which Zwingli championed so strongly was specially applicable to Rome, since the papal
1 Fribourg, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Zug. Z iv, 648, 655: 'die sechss alten und ietz siben ort\ Solothurn made up a seventh opposed to Zurich, but consistently refused to adopt an intransigent attitude.
Reform and reaction armies consisted necessarily of hired mercenaries and Zurich had contributed its share in the past, support which was still urgently needed. But the situation was altered by the opposition from the pulpit, and Zwingli's arguments were reinforced by practical considerations. A contingent from Zurich had taken part in the Piacenza expedition of 1521, but only a small part of the considerable sum of money due as wages had been repaid by the one honest Pope of the decade, Adrian VI, and this only after persistent and prolonged evasions by Cardinal Schiner, Ennio Filonardi, Antonio
Pucci and Caspar Roist. A renewed protest in 1523 had been put off with renewed promises,1 Pucci this time pleading papal poverty. It was further indicated from the Vatican that it was the duty of the citizens of Zurich to cherish, venerate, defend and protect their dearest beloved mother, the Roman Church, and eliminate the nefarious Lutheran heresy. Papal money was scarcely likely to be paid to heretics.
A further embassy from Zurich to Rome2 in July 1524 was equally unsuccessful and brought back only complaints of their 'new faith and changes in church services', to which the council indignantly replied by repudiating any attachment to Lutheranism and insisting that everything that had been done had been entirely in conformity with Bible teaching.3
The futile negotiations continued for the whole of the year with growing exacerbation. Am Griit was sent again to Rome in October 1525 to collect the debt; while there, he showed his personal hostility to Zwingli, thus encouraging the curial officials to renew their accusations of heresy and to promise payment only on condition that Zurich returned to the Catholic faith.4 There was a suggestion from Rome that a discussion of doctrinal differences might take place at Lausanne or Geneva, or better still, in Rome itself, a proposal which was promptly countered by Zurich's insistence that it should be in Zurich itself and nowhere else. The council again repeated that they were true Catholics, keeping only to Christ's words, believing the Creeds, repudiating heresy. In any case the men had been sent on the Piacenza expedition (to which Zwingli had been personally opposed) without any religious strings attached and had fulfilled their contract and so were entitled to payment, failing which, reprisals might be necessary.
Zwingli had a good case against am Griit, who had opposed him on the Eucharist issue and over tithes; am Griit, he insisted, was unreliable, could
1 Egli /, 129: No. 357 'apud quern nil aliud nisi verba invenimus'. See above, 118.
2 The composition is interesting: Jacob Werdmiiller, financier (Leo Weisz, Die Werdmuller,
Schicksale eines alien Ziircher Geschlechtes. 3 Bde. (Zurich, 1949) 16-59), Jacob Grebel
(executed 30 October 1526), Schultheiss Hans Effinger, and the crypto-Catholic Joachim am
Griit, the ablest and most consistent of the defenders of the old regime. They were all to a greater or less degree Zwingli's opponents.
3 Egli 1, 247 (No. 570).
<• Z iv, 722-5. Koehler, Z & L 1, 156.
ZWINGLI not be trusted to present Zurich's case fairly and should be recalled with all his documentation if he failed to apply for an audience with the Pope and to bring back the 15,000 gulden. The outcome of all this considerable exchange of words - and it will be noted that Zwingli was still not excommunicated (except ipso facto as a 'Lutheran' which he was not) nor was Zurich placed under an interdict - was that am Griit died in Rome in 1526 recalcitrant to the last, no attempt was made to repay the debt, but a tenuous political connection between Rome and Zurich continued to be maintained: as late as 1533, nearly two years after Zwingli's death, Enio
Filonardi, as papal legate, was still trying, in vain, to recruit military support in Zurich.1
The repeated suggestion of a public religious discussion embracing the whole of Switzerland was now vigorously taken up by the central states. They had already forbidden, wherever possible, Lutheran preaching, and had burnt Lutheran books. After the Ittingen affair and the popular disturbances that accompanied the Peasants' War, complaints against Zurich increased. The reply, of course, was that the preaching in Zurich was biblical, not Lutheran, and that, far from disturbances being rife among the common people as a result of'Hussite levity', the state was peaceful and well governed. Even so, the Bishop of Constance, who had kept himself largely aloof from the earlier disputes, was now convinced that direct action was necessary.
All this was intensified by the activities of the irrepressible, competent and aggressive Dr John Eck of Ingolstadt, who now came to the fore ready to challenge Zwingli as he earlier had Luther. Eck was perhaps anxious for self-advertisement; he eagerly seized on Zwingli's denial of transubstantiation as manifest evidence that he and his followers ' hated the light and were wandering in the dark'.2 The matter seems to have been brought to his attention by am Griit, and he also knew that Oecolampadius at Basle was writing along lines that were closely parallel,3 if not identical, with those of Zwingli. He further recognised that the Zwinglian position with regard to the Eucharist was not reconcilable with that of Luther, but was closer to the teaching of some of the Anabaptists. Eck, therefore, now sought to widen the gap between Lutheran and Zwinglian, bringing
Lutheranism closer to pre-Tridentine Catholicism, classifying Zwingli with Anabaptists and sectaries and explicitly charging Zwingli and Oecolampadius in December 1525 with heresy.
Thus both Rome and the Confederation were ready for, and even asking 1 z iv, 727.
2 z iv, 746.
3 He had read and commented unfavourably on Oecolampadius' Vber die wahre Erkldrung der
Worte desHerrn: das ist mein Leib... (de gennina verborum Domini) (Basel, 1525). J. J. Herzog,
Das Leben Johannis Oekolampads, und die Reformation der Kirche zu Basel (Basle, 1843) 1,
322fF.
Reform and reaction for, a public debate which should closely follow the pattern laid down by the Zurich Council in 1523. This could not easily be rejected. There were, however, many questions which needed to be answered before it could come to pass. Where was the discussion to take place ? In what language ?
What, precisely, were to be the topics discussed or thec terms of reference' ?
Who might attend ? What was to be the order of speaking ? Who was to preside and what were the chairman's powers of closure ? How were resolutions to be put and how to be decided ? Were 'votes' to be taken and if so how ? What record was to be kept and by whom ? To all intents and purposes what was proposed was 'a Swiss General Council', almost an international conference, and of these there was singularly little experience in western Europe. There was, however, one advantage - that most of those likely to attend were thoroughly experienced in, and competent at, public debate. Those who had been to a university had grown up in an atmosphere of endless disputations; in an age when written examinations were unknown, it was triumph in the ' schools' of the university that spelt success. Every graduate knew the rules of logic and knew how conclusions were reached which were regarded as 'irrefutable'. What, however, was certain was that the disputants could not agree to accept the overriding authority of canon law or of the Pope. Who, then could judge ? Zwingli had his well known answer - Holy Writ, which it was assumed was sufficient. This manifestly was not acceptable to the Catholics, and without agreement upon the judge the exercise was almost necessarily bound to fail. Eck, however, was determined that it should take place. After a good deal of inconclusive skirmishing in the last months of 1525, in which Fabri, as Official of the Bishop of Constance, took part, and of which the Austrian authorities in south Germany were kept fully apprised, it was agreed1 that a special Diet of the Confederation should meet on 1 February
1526 to decide all the questions about a meeting which was to settle the chief matters in dispute.
Both Zwingli and Eck were very much in earnest. The Zurich Council constantly pressed for the discussion to take place in their own city2 where adequate facilies were available and where safe conduct and good treatment for Eck and his friends could be assured. Eck at first insisted that he was willing to argue verbally or in writing with anyone anywhere, but when it came to a decision he declined to go to Zurich. Fabri, more cautious, was on principle not prepared to discuss doctrine with laymen at all3 and, in fact, he rather early recedes into the background. He did, however, throw all his influence against a meeting in Zurich which, in any case, was never likely to be accepted by the other Swiss states. Zwingli
1 At a Diet at Lucerne 18 Jan. 1526. EA 4, ia, 828-9. Muralt, Baden, 49.
2 Muralt, Baden, 56.
3 Helbling, Fabri, 48.
ZWINGLI naturally denounced this as a deliberate insult to the Vorort^ as a cunning ruse to make sure that his followers did not obtain a fair hearing and as an effort on Eck's part to destroy the unity and endanger the freedom of the Confederation. There were long discussions about possible meetingplaces - Basle, Berne, Schaff hausen, Constance, St Gall, even somewhere in Valais,1 were canvassed, but of these only Basle and Berne were within the Confederation, all were agreed that Berne was not acceptable and Basle made it clear that it would prefer not to be chosen. In fact the Catholics had already decided on Baden, while for Zwingli and his friends only Zurich was acceptable. Since there was no preliminary agreement on either the place for the trial or the judge and jury, the concept of an allSwiss religious confrontation was doomed from the outset.
The central states were first and foremost out for Zwingli's blood; if they could succeed in removing the arch-heretic they could hope to turn the tide of reform in their own land. There might well be promises to him of a bodyguard or a safe conduct,2 but faith need not be kept with heretics, and Hus had been burnt at Constance in spite of a guarantee of safety from the Emperor Sigismund himself. More recently there had been serious fears for Luther's safety at and immediately after the Diet of Worms, while nearer home Klaus Hottinger and the Wirths, father and son, had been put to death in March and September respectively (1524) in spite of the fact that the Confederation had no jurisdiction in religious matters.
Eck intended to restate the catholic position on transubstantiation, the mass as sacrifice, the honour due to the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the doctrine of purgatory. Then having demonstrated to a sympathetic audience that Zwingli was a worse heretic than Luther, he hoped to have him carried off for immediate burning.
In January 1526 the Zurich council set out its case in a formal communication to Eck.3 For over a year Zwingli had been prepared to answer personally the errors and misrepresentations of his opponents, and he had produced his own rejoinder to Eck in writing.4 As things were, the government was not prepared to give Zwingli any leave of absence or permission to dispute outside its own territories, while guaranteeing a free safe-conduct to anyone who would meet him in his adopted city.
This notification had not the slightest effect on the other side. After the acceptance of Baden as the agreed place for the public debate, two months of meetings5 and negotiations followed, Basle and Zurich being again rejected as meeting places. On 20 March Baden was finally named by a 1 Z iv, 748; Muralt, Baden, 65, 67.
2 Muralt, Baden, 86.
3 Z iv, 755-63. A copy with minor variants is in the British Library, 3908 cc. 42.
• Z in, 305-21.
5 3 Feb. 1526 at Baden, 27 Feb. 1526 at Einsiedeln, 20 March at Lucerne. EA 4, ia, 838ff,
855$ 866-7.
Reform and reaction majority of the representatives of the Orte as the meeting place,1 all the Swiss states and their associates2 were to be invited to send delegates, as were the Universities of Tubingen and Freiburg and the Bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne, Sion and Chur. Eck and Fabri were known to be the nominees of the Bishop of Constance, and the persons most concerned. The invitation3 came, as was intended, directly to Zurich, where, on 31 March 1526, the council appointed a committee of eight4 to draft a reply and sent its refusal to the Diet at Einsiedeln in April.5
In the first place they asserted that after the Zurich public debates of January and November 1523 no additional gathering was necessary.6 Well knowing that this was an unacceptable ex parte assertion and knowing too that efforts7 to get the Baden gathering postponed had failed, Zwingli renewed his assertion that the proposed Baden debate would be no fair, free and open discussion but that he would be pleading before a tribunal consisting of his known opponents who had never shown any intention or desire to listen to any other side of the case.
In this he was almost entirely right. The Baden debate was never intended to be, what its Zurich predecessors very largely had been and some of its successors were to be, a plain statement of a case with reasonably full opportunity for the presentation of the opposing point of view. No public discussion or confrontation has ever, probably, entirely satisfied all parties since, where vital issues are at stake, neither side is likely to feel that its case has been fully and effectually presented. Nor could any judge or arbitrator be entirely impartial or competent. Accustomed as the sixteenth century was to academic discussions and the rules of logic, 'clear reason' ('dieklaren Warheyt\ the phrase used) could mean that the clarity was all too easily apparent to one side only. Further, in the case of the truths of religion this method was not acceptable: God's purpose and intention were not to be subject to the syllogisms of the schools. For the Catholics, the church, which in practice could mean the Pope, was the supreme arbiter; for the Protestants, the word of God to be found in the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible must be decisive, and the Confederates could not set their collective judgement above God's word.
Zwingli also set out this familiar argument in his 'friendly letter to the 1 EA. 4, 1 a, 867.
2 Zugewandte - Valais, Graubiinden, Miilhausen, Biel, Rottweil and the city and abbey of St Gall.
3 Muralt, Baden, 59.
4 Egli j , 454 (No. 947); Z v, 2-3. s The invitation made it clear that no genuine discussion was intended - the Baden meeting was thought of from the outset as a forum on which to stage a public condemnation of Zwingli and his dangerous heresies. Muralt, Baden, 60.
6 EA4, 13,878.
7 By Berne, Basle, Solothurn, Zug and Unterwalden. Z v, 2.
ZWINGLI Confederates'1 which was adopted as Zurich's official reply. For him and his supporters no individual or human judge could override Scripture wherein difficult, obscure or controversial passages were to be interpreted by clear ones. In addition to this manifestly inadmissible precondition, he insisted that the meeting must be in a 'free' city,2 which Baden certainly was not since it was under the legal jurisdiction and practical control of the Inner States,3 where he had already been declared a heretic whom they would burn if caught, as they had already burnt his books and his effigy.
Further, he insisted that the matters to be discussed must be agreed beforehand and no alterations or additions allowed. There must also be full and adequate safe-conducts for all participants, with special security precautions for named individuals. The May Diet at Einsiedeln did indeed attempt to meet this point by promising a special guard of twenty to thirty men for Zwingli, but this was really inadequate. Finally, in his address to the Confederates, Zwingli appealed strongly to Swiss local patriotism. The managers at Baden would be Eck and Fabri, strangers, former opponents of the Swiss, whereas he himself was a born member of the Confederation on whose behalf he had suffered much.4
This was one aspect of his appeal. While it was being written, Zwingli learnt of a letter (Sandbrief) supposedly sent to him by Fabri, never in fact delivered,5 but an example of the 'open letter' so often resorted to for publicity purposes. He at once realised that it had a double intention, to discredit him with the Confederation as a whole and to entice him away from the security of Zurich. In his reply he noted Fabri's efforts to divide him from Luther, a vain hope in the overall picture when they both had basically the same faith derived from Christ6 and the same rejection of the papacy. What had been done in Zurich was not the setting up or formation of a separate church but the firm establishment there of the one church of Christ;7 images and pictures had been removed in orderly fashion, there had been no incitements to popular discord, even the recalcitrant Ana1 'Ein friintliche geschrift an gemein Eydgnossen der 12 orten unnd zugwandten, die disputation gen Baden.. .betreffende.' Z v, I(IO)-27; Muralt, Baden, 66.
2 Constance, Schaffhausen, St Gall, Basle, Berne, as well as Zurich, came under this description.
3 Since 1415 the county of Baden had been a Mandated Territory, or common bailiwick
(Gemeine Vogtei) ruled collectively by Berne, Glarus, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden,
Zug and Zurich, each in turn appointing a governor for two years. The rights of jurisdiction were complex. J. I. Hochle, Geschichte der Reformation und Gegenreformation in der Stadt und
Grafschaft Baden bis 1535 (Zurich, 1907), 10-17.
4 Z V, 27, 104: 'der ein gborner Eydgnoss bin'. Cf. L. v. Muralt, Zwinglis Reformation in der
Eidgenossenschaft, ZWA xm (1969), 19-33. The whole appeal is redolent of a Swiss patriotism quite unusual at the time. Zwingli was always deeply conscious of the federal ties that should have united his countrymen, and he now made the most of his Toggenburg origins of which he was proud. Strictly speaking, of course, he was not a native of one of the thirteen Federated states. s Muralt, Baden, 66; Z v, 35.
6 Z v. 37, 70; Muralt, Baden, 73.
7 Zv, 46-7.
Reform and reaction baptists had been very moderately treated,1 and within the city of Zurich education2 was forwarded and the poor were admirably cared for in a community where public morality had markedly improved. As to the statement that all twelve of the Federated States had called for a meeting at Baden, this had been the result of a deceitful intrigue, and neither
Berne, Basle, Solothurn, Unterwalden nor Zug had been in favour of it.3
He went on to insist that in all his teaching there was nothing unChristian, nothing unbiblical, nothing contradictory, even if the claims of the papacy were unacceptable. All this he was prepared to defend in person and in writing; if any of his books were shown to be erroneous, he would gladly burn them - but not at Baden, where people gathered to 'take the waters': 'it's wet there and the books wouldn't burn well'. The choice of Baden was an obvious trick; there would be no free debate there, anyone who spoke against the Pope would be imperilled at once, safeconduct or no safe-conduct; only Rome would hope to gain. Once again he pleaded for a fair hearing in Zurich, Berne or St Gall.
Turning from Fabri's 'open letter', on 10 May 15264 Zwingli renewed his appeal, based on peace and patriotism, to the representatives of the Confederation. Again he defended his own probity, desiring friendship rooted in honestry, reason and affection. Although he was Swiss-born, one of those whom Eck had defamed at Rome as cowherds or worse (kughyer), his writings were suppressed while those of Eck were widely circulated.
Any impartial person would recognise the moderation and the desire for peace that his writings showed. If, for security, he came to Baden with a great company of armed men, it would be highly inappropriate, he had no intention of coming to an insignificant place of entertainment, although any large strong city would be acceptable.
This was directed to the Swiss representatives: within the same week, on 15 May 1526, he was writing to Fabri once again, reminding him of his bishop's failure in the past to be represented when invited to the two
Zurich debates, showing the strong self-confidence in his own cause which was never wanting when he was under attack, accusing his opponent of cowardice, greed, insincerity and intimidation.' I speak the truth and you tell lies':5 rather than face the Bible, Fabri, like his friends Eck and Emser, did nothing but retreat. Moved by greed, anxious to divide a 1 Compared, that is, with the burning for heresy which faced them in any Catholic state. The imprisonment of some in the Wellenberg prison had been precautionary and had not been recommended by Zwingli.
2 Z v, 37.
3 Z v, 45, 65.
4 Z v, 95(99)-io8. Muralt, Baden, 83-4. Bullinger, Ref. 1, 540-2, writing much later tried to show that the date 10 May 1526 had special significance because on that day Hans Hiiglin of Lindau had been executed for heresy after a trial at Meersburg. This was a mistake for 1527 as v. Muralt, Baden, 153 following Egli, ZWA 11, 381-2, shows.
5 Z v, 135; Strickler, Actensammlung, 1, 468-70 (No. 1439) for Fabri's answer.
ZWINGLI peaceful community, Fabri was stupid, ignorant and an oppressor. When it came to personal abuse there was little to choose between the two antagonists.
When, just before the Baden Conference opened on 16 May, a safeconduct arrived for Zwingli and his friends,1 it was rejected as inadequate, as had been expected. The principle had long since been established that no citizen could be brought to trial outside his own state. The Federal
Diet had no jurisdiction in matters of faith, and on legal, as well as political, grounds, Zurich's position was impregnable.
If Fabri and Eck may be regarded as counsel for the prosecution, their clerk or junior was the Franciscan from Lucerne, Thomas Murner. This ambitious friar had established a small printing press there, and in print and from the pulpit had been virulent in his coarse denunciations of Zwingli and his followers.2 He now prepared the case for his superiors, sifted and arranged the evidence, collected testimony to attacks on church property, suppression of monasteries, marriage of nuns, rejection of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, iconoclasm, interference with the text of the Vulgate, as well as details of the challenge to the mass which was known to be the chief topic of discussion. It was this same Thomas Murner who was also to provide his own account of what happened in a narrative that he printed at Lucerne almost a year later.3
The proceedings at Baden were skilfully managed by Eck and Fabri, with Eck consistently holding on to the lead and arranging the business to bring the maximum discredit to the Zurich cause. The Diet of the Confederation4 was already in session when Eck and Fabri arrived on 18 May, accompanied by an impressive military and ecclesiastical escort. There were alsonominees of the Bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne and Chur (but not Sion), and of the Abbots of St Gall and Engelberg. In all, some 118 priests, including a number from south Germany, crowded into the little pleasure resort as direct participants, of whom 87 could be counted upon to support Eck.
The opposition in Zwingli's absence, was reluctantly, but far from inadequately, led by Oecolampadius from Basle. It is doubtful whether a better man could have been found, although this ' Hans Husschin' was less forceful in debate than Zwingli would have been. Basle was still a catholic
1 Muralt, Baden, 85-6; Z v, 155-8; EA 4, ia, 896-7.
2 Muralt, Baden, 75-7. Some of his satires are in ZB Zurich, RE, 198.
3 Muralt, Baden, 92-3.
4 The Diet opened on 14 May. Representatives of all 13 One were present, together with delegates from Miilhausen and the Abbot and City of St Gall. Valais and the Graubiinden had been invited, but declined to appear. Zurich sent Rudolf Thumisen and Hans Bleuler,
Berne sent Caspar von Miilinen, and Lucerne sent Hans Hug, a bitter opponent of the reformers. EA. 4, 1 a, 89off. Muralt, Baden, 95-6.
Reform and reaction city, and Oecolampadius, while basically in agreement with his friend
Zwingli, was certainly not his mouthpiece or agent. His own views on the eucharist, for example, which he had set out at some length, harmonised with the Zwinglian viewpoint but were not identical with it.1 Gentle and retiring, he was none the less determined and devoted to the cause for which he risked his life amid a throng of hostile, petulant and noisy opponents. 'Would that that tall fair man had been on our side', one of the latter remarked,2 and, in fact, he held his own admirably. That he could do little was clear from the outset. As soon as mass had been sung at 5 a.m. on 19 May, procedure was discussed, or, more accurately, dictated by Fabri and Eck. Oecolampadius' submission that the text of the Bible was decisive in the event of disagreement, was brushed aside, and he was given no adequate opportunity to state his case.
There were to be four alternate chairmen or presidents3 only one of whom, Dr Ludwig Bar of Basle, was not completely committed to the Catholic cause. There were to be four notaries to record the course of the speeches, and careful precautions were taken to see that no other notes were made and that no independent report of the proceedings was sent to any printers. These initial arrangements underlined the fact that the gathering at Baden was a Catholic demonstration rather than a public enquiry. Each day's meeting opened with the celebration of mass, but evangelical sermons were prohibited. The Catholic case was presented under pre-arranged headings, and the expression of contrary opinions treated as offensive, provocative and evidence of heresy. For the period of the debate the participants were prisoners in Baden, strictly prohibited from communicating in writing with their friends outside. Zurich was but fourteen miles off, and Zwingli was impatient for news and ready with exhortation and advice. The walls and gates of Baden were carefully guarded by fifty men against spies and emissaries, but the hundreds of additional visitors had to be fed, and every morning at daybreak countrymen and women would be admitted with fresh milk, eggs, butter, chickens and other supplies. Among these was Zwingli's friend and admirer Thomas Platter.4
This young man managed not only to get inside the walls but also to hear, or hear of, a good deal that was said, which he reported to Zwingli. Letters
1 J. J. Herzog, Das Leben Johannis Oekolampads und die Reformation der Kirche zu Basel, 2 Bde.
(Basle, 1843), is admirable for its date, but almost is entirely superseded by E. Staehelin,
Briefe, and Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads (Leipzig, 1939) (QFRG xxi). G. Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (London, 1969), 3-46.
2 Morikofer, 11, 35.
3 Barnabas, Abbot of Engelberg, Jakob Stapfer (St Gall), Hans Honneger (Bremgarten),
Ludwig Bar (Basle). (For the latter, Z vn, 321-2.) 4 Muralt, Baden, 120; Thomas Platter Lebensbeschreibung hg. A. Hartmann, (Basle, 1944), 74.
O. Farner, Die grosse Wende in Zurich (Zurich, 1941) 55-6. Zwingli also received information from Hieronymus Zimmermann (or Walschen) of Winterthur. Knittel, 130.
ZWINGLI thus went to and fro and Zwingli was able to exchange notes with Oecolampadius and to send his supporters some help and advice.
Eck had drawn up a list of seven propositions1 for discussion aimed at the destruction of his opponents under the general headings of transubstantiation, the mass as a sacrifice, mediation of the Virgin Mary and the saints, images, purgatory, original sin and the efficacy of infant baptism, the regular stock-in-trade of the hardened controversialist. It was to these carefully drafted propositions that Oecolampadius and his few supporters were required to speak; even so, they were given no facilities, and faced frequent interruptions intended to divert attention from the remarks of certain fair-minded Catholics to the effect that the opposing case was well stated. The presidents always allowed Eck the final word; he had advisers and books of reference constantly at hand and delighted in shouting down opposition, punctuating his overbearing insolence with coarse humour.
To this he added the occasional appeal to Swiss sentiment: they were united in admiration of a glorious and entirely orthodox past, while division marked the ranks of their opponents. Luther, the arch-heretic, taught differently from Zwingli, the Anabaptists were anathema to both,
Oecolampadius's own eucharistic teaching was not precisely that of Zwingli.
From Catholic Berne, characteristically a little late, came a party which included Peter Kunz and Berchtold Haller.2 This latter trusted emissary, who had been a canon at the Berne minster but was no great scholar, had read the Bible carefully, had been accounted a 'Lutheran', and now supported Oecolampadius. His rather ineffective interventions were consequently received with contumely and disdain which was resented in Berne.
On the main eucharistic issue nothing new was heard; Eck could triumph over an absent opponent the more easily in that it was ruled that silence implied consent, and most were content to be unheard.
On one theme, that of justification, Oecolampadius had upheld the Zwinglian and Lutheran view that if man could attain salvation by his own efforts ('works') then Christ had died in vain. This provoked an exchange of texts, authorities, assertions and counter-arguments, but to little effect.
When, on 8 June, a final count was made, Eck's original propositions were agreed by 84 supporters, with 24 opponents and 8 abstentions. What was noted with glee by the Catholics was that all four Lutherans present,3 two from Miihlhausen, supported Eck. From this moment, Koehler rightly maintained, the Lutheran cause was lost in Switzerland, and the suspicion,
1 EA 4, 1 a, 927; Muralt, Baden, 100-1; Bullinger, Ref. 1, 351.
2 Z viii, 691; Feller, 11, 142-3. See below, 249 n. 3.
3 Matthias Kessler, Benedikt Burgauer, Johannes Glotherus, Augustinus Kromer (or Kramer).
Muralt, Badeny 119.
Reform and reaction later heightened by Melanchthon, that there could be a Lutheran 'sell out' to Rome, was born.
Neither the theological arguments of Oecolampadius, nor letters from Zwingli, had any serious effect. The Reformers' case rested upon their conviction that they were opposed only to papal innovations and were otherwise entirely orthodox. They also pointed out that the security of the Confederation was threatened by the now avowed papal-imperial alliance, but Eck and Fabri had no difficulty in securing support. When the last of the delegates took horse for their homes, the final attempt at a peaceful settlement had failed. In the light of the decision, the suppression of Zwingli's writings was again demanded,1 together with the prohibition in every state of Lutheran preaching.2 A final, official text of the whole debate was to be circulated.3 There never was, in fact, an agreed account or minutes of this colloquy. Four secretaries or scribes had been appointed to take notes of the speeches and to compile an agreed version4 in four copies of what was said, to be deposited with the governor {Landvogi) of Baden, who would then be responsible for a transcript which was to be circulated to all states as the accepted version. To the four official reporters the Schultheiss of Lucerne added a fifth, Hans Huber,5 town clerk of the city of Lucerne, thus ensuring a Catholic majority among the reporters and the prevalence of the Catholic 'line' in the event of a dispute. Even so, when the minutes were available in print6 the authenticity of this account was at once challenged. A request from Berne, Basle and Zurich for a sight of the original notes of the official reporters was refused,7 thus enabling
Zwingli to maintain that a full narrative of the debate would prove the validity of his case.
After the disputation, each state had, then, to decide on a course of action, since, whatever deference might be paid to the conclusions of an all-clerical assembly, they lacked any binding power. The politicians had to have the final word, and it soon became apparent that the sovereign components of Federation would each move its own way. Berne soon made
1 EA4,1 a, 914.
2 EA 4, 1 a, 922-37.
3 It took almost a year, until May 1527, for the minutes to be printed and circulated, and even then in an unacceptable version. E. Staehelin, Zwei private Publikationen iiber die Badener
Disputation undihre Autoren, ZKG xxxvn (Gotha, 1918), 378-405; Muralt, Baden, 92, 131-2.
4 Z v, 310.
5 Muralt, Baden, 125; ZWA v, 41-6.
6 As Die Disputacion vor den xij Orten einer loblichen Eidtgnoschafft.. .MCCCCC undxxvi... vollendet (Lucerne, 1527).
7 Feller 11, 147-8; Muralt, Baden, 131. Writing in July 1526 to the Confederates, Zwingli insisted that Murner was 'cooking' the evidence in Lucerne - ' Alle ding in Murners henden und gwalt sind, der aber trucken mocht, was er wolt oder die imm so wol vertruwend.'
Z v, 315; Z vii, 708; Muralt, Baden, 131; T. Murner. Caussa Heluetica orthodoxae fidei.
Disputatio Heluetiorum in Baden... (Lucerne, 1528).
PZI
ZWINGLI clear its intention to act independently. Nine states1 were prepared to come into line, and adopted the resolutions, so far as applicable to them, of the Regensburg Convention,2 thus accepting the Edict of Worms (1521) as operative in part of Switzerland: Zwingli as a heretic like Wyclif and Hus and as a Lutheran adherent (which he was not) was ipso facto excommunicated and an outlaw in their eyes.3
Zwingli realised that at Baden the ranks of his opponents had been closed and that Zurich was still more isolated when the nine3 states again threatened to refuse to join it in taking the common oath of allegiance to the Confederation.4 Few things better illustrate the inextricable entanglement of religion and politics than this episode. The Baden colloquy had been a public discussion about church dogma carried on by a selected group of committed ecclesiastics, yet it immeditaely led to political action.
The nine states (among which, Glarus was soon to revise its opinions) agreed to treat the inhabitants of Zurich as outcasts, but they were only minor states. Basle, Schaffhausen, and above all Berne, had yet to declare themselves. In Basle, Erasmus, who had refused an invitation to be present at the discussions,5 found the current of popular opinion running against him and against the patrician families with whom he loved to associate.
Oecolampadius returned to his preaching and writing with enhanced prestige, and the Rhine city became more alienated than ever from its bishop and one-time overlord. It was not Lutheran, nor Zwinglian yet, but it was not Catholic either.6 Schaffhausen7 had close economic and political ties with Zurich, and was well content that the Gospel should continue to be preached and the monasteries remain closed - Sebastian Hofmeister had put church affairs there safely on the Zwinglian path three years previously. Berne was still Catholic, but was moving towards the reformation that was urged by Haller, and in its own time and at its own pace was to arrange its own decisive public debate. There remained the complex of legal rights in the Mandated Territories, over which some nominal cooperation was indispensable, and of the varying alliances, some almost amounting to protectorates, all of which helped to prevent clear-cut division. There was, too, the ever-present tradition of Habsburg hostility. The 1 Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Zug, Solothurn, Fribourg, Appenzell, Glarus.
2 Muralt, Baden, 136-7; EA 4, ia, 935-7; see above p. 225.
3 Koehler, Z (5 L 1, 337; Zwingli, 166-7.
4 Rappard, Du renouvellement, 53-6.
5 Allen vi, 337-42 (correcting the date by Koehler, Z t$ L I, 146). Allen (338) mistakenly supposed that Zwingli was present at Baden.
6 P. Roth, Durchbruch und Feslsetzung der Reformation in Basel (Basle, 1942) (Basler Beitrage zur Geschichtswissenschaft Bd. 8), 8-10; Die Reformation in Basel, 1. Teil, Die Vorbereitungsjahre (1525-8), Basler Nbl. 114 (Basle, 1936), 38, 46, 49.
7 J. Wipf, Reformationsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Schaffhausen (Zurich, 1929); ZWA v, n-41.
Reform and reaction Archduke Ferdinand, brother of the Emperor, had not accepted as permanent the loss of his family possessions south of the Rhine, and Switzerland was not to be internationally recognised as anything more than a German league within the Holy Roman Empire until 1648.
The Catholic triumph at Baden brought these considerations sharply to the fore. Berne with its French-orientated policy, with its need to secure the obedience of its frequently recalcitrant rural subjects, and with its determination that Aargau should remain under its de facto control, was forced to take a hard look at the implications of May and June 1526. Just as Basle upheld its leading preacher Oecolampadius, so Berne was not prepared to withdraw support from Berchtold Haller or even take action against the inspired cartoonist and rhymster, Niklaus Manuel.1 Berne, likewise, could not accept the isolation of its mighty neighbour Zurich; and Berne, Zurich, Basle, Schaffhausen, together had valuable resources and strong positions. Just as the Colloquy of Baden did little more than proclaim the unity of the committed Catholic states, so the meeting of the Swiss Diet at Baden that same week reinforced the determination of the individual states to maintain their independent state rights. There was no majority vote which could commit others, the representatives reporting to their respective governments, each of which was free to choose its path.
The patricians of Berne strengthened their defences and reconsidered their interests, while the Council at Zurich rejoiced that Zwingli had remained at home. He now became more vocal than ever, for he was near the apex of his influence there. The Catholics had little cause to be jubilant over their success, such as it was. They had, in fact, slammed the door on further discussion, had wrecked the cause of unity within the Confederation, and had demonstrated their dependence on external support. Eck had indeed carried everything to his own satisfaction, but he was an alien and disliked by many even of his own followers, whereas the reputation of his antagonist, Oecolampadius, was much enhanced. Baden forced the pace, but to the ultimate disadvantage of the victors.
Was Zwingli right to absent himself from Baden? Technically and juridically, yes - there was no need for him to attend and the Zurich government explicitly forbade it. His presence could have made little difference to the outcome and, at best, he must have suffered personal humiliation. The whole machinery of the disputation was constructed to crush and thwart him; he was to be declared a heretic and to suffer the fate of one.
None the less, morally, he had run away. If he had perished in the flames at Baden as a Confessor, in spite of the protection of a solemn safeconduct, his influence might have been magnified tenfold, not diminished
1 K. Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte (Berne, 1958), 57-9, 71-5.
9-2
ZWINGLI as it was to be by the dubious politics of the next five years. Zurich would have been the stronger for such a martyr: his doctrine was safe there, his disciples could maintain the cause, and his example would have convinced many more. Speculation is unprofitable, but so, too, are some of the arguments adduced in favour of the action he took. More reasonably, he might have maintained that providence directed his footsteps away from Baden in 1526 and to the field of Kappel in 1531. Humanly speaking, however, he neglected the opportunity to use his great abilities to state his case before a hostile audience, and seemed to lack the courage needed to meet
Eck and the Catholic supporters and to face the consequences of his convictions.1
Koehler rightly regarded the remaining five years of Zwingli's life as a fatal compromise with the world of politics. If his teaching was to survive, it must have not only continued government support, but his government must have backing from outside - from the favourably inclined Swiss cities, from St Gall and Constance and thence from Wiirttemberg and south
Germany. Religious freedom in Switzerland could merge into the Protestant-Catholic struggle for the control of western Europe. If the evangelical cause was not to suffer from the Catholic triumph at Baden, some decisive counter-measures were required. First,of all it was necessary for the distinction between Lutherans and Zwinglians to be more clearly and sharply defined. This meant reopening and elaborating the differences about the eucharist, showing, if possible, that the Lutheran teaching was dangerously close to that of Rome. Secondly, the sectaries had to be scattered and their plea for a separated church or series of churches rendered untenable, both in Zurich territory and beyond it. Thirdly,
Zurich must now intervene actively to help the evangelicals in eastern Switzerland and take up the problem of monastic foundations there which included its relations with the city and the abbey of St Gall. The two other important governments impinging upon Zurich territory were Basle and Berne; at the time of the Baden colloquy, they were still officially Catholic;
Erasmus was defending the Catholic cause against Luther from his house in Basle, and there, as in Berne, the powerful and respected patricians on their smaller councils were unwilling to depart from the faith of their forefathers. This situation was not to last much longer.
Constant attention also needed to be paid to the south German cities, where the cause of the Gospel had made such an encouraging progress in 1 It is interesting to note that Heinrich Hug of Villingen, who recorded Swiss events with some interest, merely noted Zwingli's wilful absence.' Aber der Zwingle, pfarer zu Zurich, wolt nit ge Baden'. He describes Zwingli's end with great coolness - 'keczersen bredicanten, genempt der Zwyngle... do fand man den Zwingle, den bredycanten, der alle kecery hatt geiibt, der hatt ain grun klaid an und zock under dem huffen wie ain ander kriegsman'. Heinrich Hugs
Villinger Chronik von i4g$ bis 1533, hg. v. C. Roder (Tubingen, 1883), 156, 198, 200.
Reform and reaction Constance, Isny, Memmingen, Ravensburg, Biberach, Ulm, and as far north as Esslingen. The Austrian-Habsburg administrators had indeed succeeded in retaining southern Alsace, including Waldshut and Rheinfelden, for Rome, but the great imperial Rhine city of Strassburg,1 with close trading and political relations with the Swiss, had already rejected papal authority without finding the whole of Lutheran teaching acceptable. Much might turn upon the form of worship finally adopted there, and this seemed likely to depend upon the impact made by Bucer.2 If, as was easily possible, Strassburg, Miilhausen, Rottweil and Constance were to become closer allies, almost constituent parts of the Confederation, its strength would be greatly enhanced. That they never did so was a measure of the success first of the Counter Reformation and then of Louis XIV.
Above all, everything depended upon Zurich, which must remain secure for the faith. Even if he had wished it, Zwingli could not have avoided close involvement in internal and external politics, and this, in turn, meant personalities. Luther, safe under the protection of an autocratic German
Elector, could, in his later years, very largely leave politics alone and concentrate on his ministry and writings; his attitude of detachment from secular affairs, for which he could find New Testament support and precedents, came easily to a born Saxon. There were good reasons to urge in its favour and, in Wittenberg at any rate, it was both sensible and simple.
Such an approach, however, was not practicable for Zwingli; his 'Prince' was 'die Obrigkeit', the Government, the 212 pieces that made up his kaleidoscopic Great Council. Without its support his cause was lost, and therefore he felt obliged to concern himself more and more with public affairs. The Colloquy of Baden was a manifest setback from which he must recover, and this soon. His strength within the city of Zurich lay in the support he received from the leaders and rank and file of the gilds or companies who were in effective control of affairs and for whom, as for so many early-sixteenth-century city dwellers, religion, being right with God, was all-important.
The former patricians of the ConstafFel were mostly traditionalists, and there was a considerable group among and around them (of whom Am
Griit had been representative) who were both satisfied with, and prepared to revert to, the conditions of 1519. There was Catholic reaction under the 1 J. Adam, Evangelische Kirchengeschichte der Stadt Strassburg bis zurfranzoesischen Revolution.
(Strassburg, 1922) 1-43. W. Andreas, Strassburg an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit
(Elsass-Lothringisches Jahrbuch, 13 (Frankfurt a.M. 1934). R. Reuss, 'La Reforme a Strasbourg 1525-1530, 1530-1536' (Bulletin de la societe de l'histoire du Protestantisme
Francais 67 (1918), 249-80, 68 (1919) 257-75). A. Baum, Magistral und Reformation in Strassburg bis 152Q (Strassburg, 1887).
2 Bucer is how he came to be known in Cambridge from the Latinised form of Butzer which is nowadays preferred by some writers.
ZWINGLI surface, and it was indispensable to keep it there, and this meant no compromise. It must be made abundantly clear that Zurich was even further apart from Rome than was Wittenberg. This involved a resumption of the eucharistic controversy. It also meant raising again the issue of gifts, retainers and pensions from foreign powers, the more so since many of those who were suspected of receiving gifts from foreign powers were also opponents of evangelism. All through the summer of 1526 the ministers were raising their voices in the pulpit, calling again for denunciation and punishment of the pensioners. Names began to circulate - there was
Heinrich Rahn, who everyone knew had taken money from Ulrich, pretender to the Duchy of Wiirttemberg,1 while Heinrich Rubli, Ludwig
Tschudi, Cornel Schulthess, Hans Peter Wellenberg, Hans Escher, all well-known names of famous local families, were all reported to be in the pay of the King of France, whose call for an all-Swiss alliance had been emphatically rejected by Zurich, and of Pope Clement VII who had refused to pay his lawful debts and was now identified by the reformers with anti-Christ. The most significant name among them, possibly, was that of Junker Jakob Grebel whose son was a leading figure among the Reformation Radicals.2 The old man (he was 66) had, it was asserted, already pocketed 4,000 crowns and was asking the papal agent, William Falconer,
(Guillelmus de Falconibus) for more.
From the pulpits the matter was taken up in the council chamber: these and similar allegations led to a committee of enquiry3 on 22 September
1526, which found sufficient evidence of flame as well as smoke to ask for and obtain the appointment of a formal court or tribunal of n 4 to receive explicit evidence. Zwingli and any others who had information were invited to supply actual names, dates and figures to justify their allegations.
These were produced, some necessarily based on hearsay, which, however, was good enough for the age, which relied much on verbal reports, and there was sufficient direct evidence to substantiate a number of charges and to cause the tribunal to fear something worse.
Three of the many suspects were committed for further investigation, Hans Escher and Heinrich Leu being confined in the Wellenberg,5 Grebel being detained more honourably in the Rathaus. Proceedings against him
1 Z v, 409; Wyss, 66. See below 380-1.
2 Z v, 402-12.
3 Z v, 403. The four members were Seckelmeister Jakob Werdmtiller, Konrad Gull, Hans
Schneeberger, M. Jeckli. Egli J, 489 no. 1042.
4 Z viii, 779-80. Heinrich Walder, Diethelm Roist, Rudolf Thumysen, Hans Ochsner, Jakob
Werdmiiller, Hans Jaggli (Jackli) ('bonus et incorruptus'), Ulrich Kambli, Thomas Spriingli,
Konrad Gull, Hans Schneeberger, Rudolf Binder - the hard core of Zurich businessmen and experienced politicians. For the individuals see H. G. Wirz, Ziircher Familienschicksale im
Zeitalter ZwingliSy ZWA vi (1938), 537-574 and G. Gerig, Reisldufer und Pensionenherren in Zurich i$ig-i532 (Zurich, 1947). s They were soon released on bail. Leu was a well known artist.
Reform and reaction were continued; after torture, the white-haired old man was found guilty of pension-taking and treason, and on 30 October 1526 he was executed.
It was entirely a decision by the council, with which Zwingli technically and administratively had no concern;1 but had he suggested mercy the knight's life would assuredly have been saved. It is significant that his influence grew and that his two leading opponents were removed, as indeed they would have been in most other countries, on grounds which were not more than dubiously adequate. The safety of the state in the case of the father, the purity of the Gospel in the case of the son; in each case
Zwingli seems to have looked with blinkered eyes upon what happened.
The Grebel family was powerful in Zurich, and by his action Zwingli had demonstrated once again the extent of his influence and his opposition to the patricians. He had secured, as it were, a vote of confidence and further evidence that the government was behind his preaching. It meant also that he was becoming more closely involved in politics, and he failed to make the appeal for mercy which would better have become the minister of God.
At a price, the way was now clear for the expansion and extension of his teaching over the whole of northern Switzerland and beyond. In particular, he must turn his attention to events in Berne and in St Gall.
1 For a review of the evidence see L. Schelbert, 'Jacob Grebel's Trial Revised', ARG 60
(1969), 32-64.