transformation of politics, such a religious consecration of the forms
of public life, is quite another question. That it did not exist in the
days of Christ, that the seed was then only planted in the earth, to
spring up afterward, when watered by the noblest blood, he himself has
acknowledged and declared; but that the hour will yet come, when the
grain of mustard-seed will grow up into a great tree and overshadow all
the earth with its branches, he has also proclaimed; and happy the
rulers, happy the law-givers, who have power to understand their great
mission in the light of true Christianity. Why was the first appearance
of the Reformers hailed with such universal joy, their annunciation of
the Gospel with such hosannas, by the people? Because the presentiment
had been awakened in millions of hearts that the day of freedom was
dawning and the hour of their deliverance from spiritual and corporeal
bondage had arrived. But what could liberty do for minors, who had been
neglected for centuries, for the uneducated, for congregations without
schools and incapable of comprehending the better religious
instruction, which made but slow progress from the lack of qualified
teachers? Fanatics, like the leaders of the Anabaptists, took hold of
their excited minds and caused Luther and Zwingli to tremble at the
consequences of their own boldness. The bands which were loosened, were
partly drawn tighter again by Luther in monarchical Germany, in that he
adhered the firmer to belief upon authority[2], and by Zwingli in
republican Switzerland, in that, from the man of the people, he became
the man of the government. Moreover the necessary enthusiasm among the
people died away, till an hour of later trial, and it became an easier
thing for the active enemies of the Reformation to awaken repentance in
some, produce indifference in others, and win over individuals by means
of promises. To the subjects of the abbot they used language like this:
"What do you gain by casting off allegiance to your former sovereign,
when you only get a severer one in his stead? Far more seldom does an
ecclesiastical government call out its people to war; it gives a more
efficient support to the poor; it does not lessen, nay rather increases
the number of holidays; preaches no austere and gloomy morality; is
patient and long-suffering, provided only no attack be made upon the
faith." There were not a few, who lent open ears to such appeals. At a
conference between their deputies and those of the Glarners at Wyl, the
Zurichers were obliged to feel this. Envoys came also from Luzern and
Schwyz, and the newly reviving party of the old faith rallied around
them. Then arose a tumult among the latter, and for a moment the danger
was so great that the Glarners meditated flight, but the Zurichers
ordered an alarm to be sounded. The people ran in from all sides, and
the majority was found favorable to the Reformation, at least not
hostile to Zurich. This soon appeared in their language and behavior. A
treaty was now concluded between the parties, and the provisional
government of the Zurich captain acknowledged and guaranteed by a
permanent garrison of trusty soldiers in the castle. But Luzern and
Schwyz renowned their complaints before a conference of the Five
Cantons, and it was resolved to appeal to Bern with a full
representation of the faithless conduct of Zurich in the affair of St.
Gall, and an earnest protest against it. Two skillful orators, the
_schultheiss_ Golder of Luzern, and Joseph Amberg of Schwyz, were
commissioned to do this. They behaved with great propriety and
moderation, promising, on their part, a careful guard over their own
people, and a strict observance of the _Landfriede_: "Dear
Confederates," so they said at the close of their speech, "we place in
your hands our fate, as well as our rights. Both we believe have been
grossly violated by the conduct of Zurich. If we are wrong, then point
out to us the rule; if the men of Zurich, then will you not be willing
to support them in it; but believe not us alone, hear also the men of
Zurich; believe not them alone, hear us also. Indeed! we only desire to
abide by sealed treaties." Haller, who immediately reported it to
Zwingli, did not conceal from him the fearful impression, which this
speech made upon public opinion. "They have not," he added with
anxiety, "yet deceived us; but they will." But it was not merely the
affair of St. Gall, which began to awaken discord in the relations
between Zurich and Bern. There was something far more important still.
And here it becomes necessary to give a general sketch of the political
views, which Zwingli had brought back from Marburg.
The Emperor Charles V., after an absence of several years in Spain,
returned to Italy in the summer of 1529. In Genoa, where he landed, he
was met by an embassy from the _landgrave_ Philip and the German
Estates who had signed the Protest against the resolutions of the
Imperial Diet of Spire. This they were commissioned to hand over to him
with respectful representations. But so ill was it received, that the
envoys for a time were concerned for their personal safety. Audacious
in the highest degree must this step of a few princes and cities have
appeared to the head of the Empire, to him, who, not many years before,
had humbled, by the defeat of Pavia, the mighty King of France, whose
sons he still held in a Spanish prison as hostages for the father, who
was set at liberty--him, who had caused the Pope even to feel his
power, but was now reconciled to Rome, and offered his aid for the more
energetic suppression of all ecclesiastical innovations in Germany.
Surrounded by Spanish counsels, by the clergy of that nation and
Italians, he was busily engaged in forming various plans for future
action, and only lingered yet in Italy, until he could be crowned Roman
Emperor, by Clement II., which event occurred at Bologna on the 24th
of February, 1530. Meanwhile reports, warnings of the coming tempest
having reached Germany and Switzerland, produced an active
correspondence between the Protestant princes, the _landgrave_ Philip,
Duke Ulric of Wurtemberg and the authorities of the more important
cities. A personal interchange of opinions took place at Marburg, and
the danger which threatened the free preaching of the Gospel and the
Reformation was acknowledged on all sides, even by Luther and
Melanchthon; but as in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, so now also,
on the field of politics, Luther and Zwingli stood decidedly opposed to
each other, and so little did the former share in the bold views of the
latter, that the enterprising _landgrave_ wholly despaired of an
understanding with Luther, and communicated his plan of resistance
against the Emperor first of all to a narrow circle, composed of
Zwingli, Sturm and a few trusty friends of like mind.
The Saxon Reformer had, it is true, approved of the protest, made by
the princes and cities favorable to the Gospel, against the resolutions
of the Imperial Diet at Spire, but to go further, to offer actual
resistance, he regarded as unlawful. He saw in Charles the consecrated
head of the Empire, to take up arms against whom appeared to him
rebellion. It had first to be proved to him by lawyers, better
acquainted with the Imperial Constitution than he, that the individual
Estates of the Empire had full authority to preserve their independence
in spiritual matters, in every possible way, and then only did he yield
a reluctant consent to the league afterward formed among the
Protestants at Schmalkald. He was strongly opposed to inviting the
Swiss to take part in it, until they were reconciled to his view of the
Lord's Supper. More genial than Zwingli, trained to implicit obedience
in the monastery, in earlier life a hard student of the church-fathers;
whilst the Switzer in those years, when the most vivid and lasting
impressions are made, had devoted his attention to the history of the
ancient republics, the study of Roman and Grecian authors; Luther,
although he publicly and resolutely condemned the severity and
arbitrary conduct of princes, and warned them with boldness and power,
was yet far more inclined to the doctrine of passive resistance against
evil, the disarming of the enemy by innocent suffering, submission to
every existing form of government, even though unjust and tyrannical--a
doctrine which lies in the spirit of the Gospel, and was not only
preached but practised by Christ himself, and confirmed by his own
example. It is worth our while to hear the two Reformers on this
fundamental point. Their peculiar views of it have naturally influenced
their judgment in political matters.
"It is the law of Christ," says Luther, "not to resist evil, not to
grasp the sword, not to defend ourselves, not to revenge ourselves, but
to give up life and property, that he may take, who will. For we have
yet enough remaining in our Lord, who will not forsake us, since he
hath so promised. Suffering, suffering--the cross, the cross is the law
of Christ; this and nothing else. Will ye thus fight and not agree to
let the coat go with the cloak, but try to get back the cloak again,
though you should wish rather to die and leave the body, than not to
love your enemies and do them good? O ye easy Christians! Dear friends,
Christians are not so common, that they can be gathered in a heap; a
Christian is a rare bird! Would to God the most of us were only good,
pious heathen, observing the natural, to say nothing of the Christian
law! Christians are not to fight for themselves with the sword or
harquebusses, but with the cross and patience; even as their general,
Christ, does not wield the sword, but hangs upon the cross. Hence their
victory does not lie in conquest and dominion or power, but in defeat
and weakness, as St. Paul says: 'The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but in God,' and again, 'His strength shall be made perfect in
our weakness.' According to the Scripture, it is not proper for any
one, who will be a Christian, to set himself up against the authority,
which God has placed over him, be it just or unjust; but a Christian
should suffer violence and wrong, especially from his sovereign; for
although Imperial Majesty does wrong and violates duty and oath, his
imperial sovereignty is not thereby abolished, nor the allegiance of
his subjects, as long as the realm and the Electoral Princes regard him
as Emperor and do not depose him. Yet though an emperor or prince break
all the commandments of God, he still remains an emperor and prince,
and is bound to God by oath in a higher, and then to man in a lower
degree. Were it right to resist Imperial Majesty when it does wrong,
then we might do so in all cases, and remain without any authority or
any obedience in the world, since every subject could use this
argument, that his sovereign broke the laws of God. How then shall we
act? Thus shall we act: Let it be granted to Imperial Majesty, that no
prince or lord shall defend us against him, but that the land and
people lie open to the Emperor as his own, and God commands this, and
no one should desire otherwise of his princes and lords. Every one
should then stand for himself and maintain his faith at the risk of his
body and his life, and not drag the princes into danger with him, or
trouble them with petitions for aid, but let the Emperor do with his
own as he will, so long as he is Emperor. But if the Emperor desire,
beyond that, though the land and people lie open to him, to compel the
princes also to attack, besiege, slay and banish their subjects for the
Gospel's sake, and the princes know that in this the Emperor is wrong,
and against God, then it falls back upon their own faith, for they
should not obey the Emperor, in what they do not approve, nor help him,
nor become partners of his sin; it is enough that the land and people
are left unprotected and the Emperor unhindered, and they should say:
If the Emperor wishes to persecute our subjects, as they are also his
own, he may act according to his conscience; we are not able to prevent
him. But we will not help him in it, nor approve of his course; for we
must obey God rather than man."[3]
In regard to the impropriety of all individual resistance to authority,
Zwingli agreed with Luther, and just as severely condemned everything
that bore the character of riot or rebellion; but entertained, on the
other hand, far more liberal views concerning the rights of the people,
in their collective capacity, against their rulers; and here, supported
by passages from the Old Testament, whilst Luther relied exclusively on
the New, he developed a theory (an assemblage of propositions), which
must have no doubt appeared suspicious to the German Reformers, living
as they did under monarchical forms of government, and indeed, just as
readily as his freer exposition of the words of the Lord's Supper,
might have called forth that saying of Luther: "You have quite another
spirit than we."
"Where a prince is overbearing and a wanton spendthrift," so he writes,
"and the people undutiful and devoted to their own advantage, there
tumults break out. But this also does not happen without that Divine
Providence, which has numbered all the hairs of our heads, and by
which the wantonness of the tyrant and the recklessness of the people
are alike controlled. A seditious people are led only by wild passions;
by rage and fury, not by reason. Rulers should then take care not
to give occasion to the people to rebel. If they are truly wise and
God-fearing, if they practice justice and equity, then God will not
give them up to the wrath of the multitude; for He is mightier than
they and does not forsake them, who trust in him and serve him. And we
must warn the people also not to plunge themselves into ruin by
sedition. Tumults are generally excited by those who aspire after
honors and riches. Now, that it may not seem as if Christians care more
for the human than the divine, they should obey even tyrants in things,
that only oppress the body, and pay taxes to them, so that the Gospel
may not be reviled on their account. A whole nation, on the other hand,
can and should, in a lawful manner, with moderation and the fear of
God, resist the unjust power of the tyrant, and if they do it not, then
will they be punished by God along with the wicked prince. And how we
may deal with such rulers, is shown by the clear example of Saul, whom
God repudiated, although he had chosen him at first. Indeed if such
wanton kings be not thrust away, the whole nation will be punished for
it. Hence, when Manasseh, King of Judah, had done the most wicked
abominations, 'thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold I am bringing
such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both
his ears shall tingle.' In short, if the Jews had not suffered their
King to riot thus unpunished, God had not punished them. We must pluck
out the offending eye and cut off the diseased hand and foot. How this
is to be done, it is easy to observe. Not by death-blows, wars,
tumults, but by quite other means, for God hath called us to peace.
Does the king or the lord of the common hand choose to do evil? then
let the common hand put him away, or be punished with him. Has he been
elected by a small number of princes? then let those princes know that
his wicked life can be borne with no longer, and he must be deposed.
But here the difficulty arises: the tyrant may rush forth and murder
them. That matters not; it is far more glorious to be put to death for
well-doing, according to God's will than afterward to be slain with the
guilty by the hand of God. But canst thou not endure the way, nor
venture on it? then suffer with the wanton tyrant and be punished at
last along with him, and still the hand of God is stretched-out and
threatening. Is the tyrant chosen by no one? Has he inherited the
kingdom? I do not know what reason such kingdoms have to spare him; for
suppose the born-king is a child or a fool, still they must take him as
their lord. But how can he rule? It must follow, that he is not,
according to the common proverb of a king's son, either a fool or a
king, but both together, a fool and a king. Moreover, the kingdom must
be governed by other wise ones. Were it not better then to make a wise
man king? for 'wo to thee, O land, when thy king is a child!' They
describe a tyrant as one who rules by his own power and after his own
notion. Thus, I do not know whence it comes, that thrones are
hereditary, unless from the common consent of the people. If now there
be a tyrant, this or that individual should not undertake to kill him;
a tumult would arise and the kingdom of God is 'righteousness, peace
and joy in the Holy Ghost.' But if the entire mass of the people with
one accord, or the greater part of them, though they may be far from
anarchy, depose the tyrant, then God is with them."[4]
Now, in Zwingli's eyes the Emperor was a tyrant of this very stamp,
especially since his reconciliation and close alliance with the Pope.
From this he augured the worst results--the suppression of the
Reformation and the freedom of the Gospel, all political liberty and
even the subjugation of the Confederacy itself. "The Emperor," says he
in a communication to his intimate political associates, "arrays friend
against friend, or foe against foe, and then thrusts himself in between
as a mediator, though all the while a partisan, ever intent on
upholding the Papacy, and promoting, first of all, his own power and
interests; and if he make war in Germany, he will do all he can to
marshal the Castellan of Musso[5] against the Confederacy, the Bishops
of Constance against the city of Constance, the Bishop of Strassburg
against the burghers of Strassburg, the Five Cantons against Zurich,
the abbot of St. Gall against the city, Duke George of Saxony against
Duke John, to usurp his position as electoral prince, the Bishops on
the Rhine against the _Landgrave_ of Hesse, and similar enemies
everywhere against the Evangelical Cities--and then he will march into
Germany as a mediator, and with fair but hypocritical words befool the
cities and lords, till they submit to him." To provide and arm against
such plans he regarded as lawful, yea as an imperative necessity,
desired a European alliance for this purpose, and publicly censured
those who remained careless and inactive. "Ruined or lazy," he wrote to
Conrad Zinck of Constance, a member of the Council, "are they, who look
on idly and never trouble themselves about raising up a force
sufficient to make the Emperor feel, that he will labor in vain to
restore the dominion of Rome, occupy the Free Cities and conquer us
Helvetians. Rouse Linden; rouse your neighbors to action. He is a fool
who builds upon the friendship of a tyrant. Long ago Demosthenes
observed, that nothing is so hated by such a despot, as the freedom of
the cities." Ever since the Marburg Conference, his connection with the
_Landgrave_ Philip was very intimate. Their correspondence, relating
more to politics than to articles of faith, was carried on partly by
signs mutually agreed upon, the name Pharoah being used for that of the
Emperor. Indeed Zwingli went a step further than the German prince
himself. He seriously thought of the possibility of removing Charles,
and even wished it. "So great," he wrote to Jacob Sturm of Strassburg,
"is the wickedness and perversity of the Emperor, that I believe the
whole world should join together to rid itself of such a burden, in any
way possible," and to the _Landgrave_ Philip, in a style full of dreamy
hope: "Our kind, gracious Lord causes me to write thus freely like a
child, to Your Grace, for I am confident in God, that he has appointed
Your Grace to great things, which I may indeed think of, but not
speak."
Such being the disposition of the Reformer, it was not to be expected,
that after his return from Marburg he would confine himself to the
sphere of theology, or even to political affairs within the limits of
the Confederacy. More and more did he accustom himself to look beyond
the boundaries of the fatherland, and gradually induced a portion of
the Zurich statesmen to do the same. In Marburg already, the
fundamental features of a close alliance, to check the growing
preponderance of the Emperor, was agreed upon. The _Landgrave_
undertook to advocate the cause among his own princes; Zwingli among
the Free Cities in Southern Germany, by means of influential clergymen
and councillors, of whom he counted a considerable number among his
correspondents. Through Switzerland a bridge was sought to Italy. The
powerful republic of Venice was to hold the Emperor in check there, at
least to aid in preventing the employment of all his forces against
Germany; but a progress so daring, so foreign to the peaceful and
cautious policy of the Cantons, as set forth by Zurich herself, some
years before, when the defensive alliance was concluded with France,
could not but awaken suspicion and discord among the Confederates;
hence it could only be discussed in the most confidential circles.
Whether any one in the government of Bern knew anything about it, is
uncertain. That it should be attempted is indeed almost incredible, did
we not remember, how very easy it is for great minds, encouraged by
former results, to persuade themselves that everything is possible to
their own powers. In what a narrow circle the resolution to send an
envoy to Venice was passed is evident from the fact, that he was not a
statesmen who was appointed, but Professor Collin, Zwingli's intimate
friend, and the companion of his journey to Marburg, a man of no
political experience, yet one who, in various walks of life, as canon,
tradesman, partisan and public teacher, had tried his fortune, and
proved himself useful in all; and who, besides dexterity and boldness,
was also possessed of a thorough knowledge of the Italian language.
Provided with credentials, somewhat ambiguous in their form,[6] he set
out from Zurich alone; on the 11th of December, put to flight luckily
two robbers, who attacked him on the plain of Brescia, and was
introduced to the Doge and Council in Venice on the 28th of the same
month. In his report to the Privy Council of Zurich may be found his
address on that occasion. He represented himself as a deputy of the
Council of Zurich in agreement with the cities of the Christian
_Buergerrecht_, communities living jointly under free constitutions,
like that of Venice. Natural and common interests bound them to resist
a universal, all-devouring monarchy, such as the Emperor aimed at. He
expressed the wish that Venice would enter into correspondence with
Zurich, who would act for the other allied cities, to communicate to
them what happened in Italy on the side of the Emperor, or what
transpired of his dangerous schemes. He excused the sending of a
solitary, youthful, undistinguished man, to such an enlightened
republic by the necessity of the case, the desire to avoid notice,--to
conceal the movement toward a close alliance between two free states
from the watchful glance of the Emperor and his assistants.
But Venice herself had just then concluded a treaty of peace with the
Emperor. This was disclosed to the deputy, and a reply made to his
offer in very general terms, so that the distrust, which a mission of
such doubtful appearance awakened in the minds of the Doge and the
Senate, could not escape his notice. He was strictly questioned as to
what Confederate cities composed this _Buergerrecht_, what opposed it,
and what remained neutral. Everything was written down. The ceremonies
with which he was dismissed, and a present of twenty crowns show also
that no great importance was attached to the embassy. Far otherwise did
they receive the ambassadors, who in former years had appeared before
them in the name of the whole Confederacy. Although an attempt was made
to keep the matter secret, it yet became known, and produced
indignation among those who were not privy to it, and chagrin at the
sorry roll which such crooked dealings obliged them to play. Zwingli
alone and his princely confidents were not discouraged. "The
transaction with the Venitians," he wrote to Duke Ulric of Wuertemberg,
"is greatly despised, but, as I observe from your letter, may yet turn
to our advantage. For with my cousin (the _Landgrave_) there is no lack
of devotion in person and property, as you can in some degree learn
from his letters. Therefore he is willing to aid as much as possible
toward a settled understanding, especially on account of the Venitians;
for we may depend very much on the wheel of fortune to bring about,
what we never have been able to accomplish hitherto with great cunning.
Time and opportunity are gone; they will not wait. The raging hand also
is not idle; he prepares one grave after another." Pursuing his design
with unshaken resolution, Zwingli hoped in the end to make it
intelligible to the Swiss cities, who had formed the Christian
_Buergerrecht_, that the alliance must be increased, in order to array
against the great powers pledged for the destruction of liberty, great
ones for its maintenance. In fact, at the close of the year, Strassburg
was also admitted into the _Buergerrecht_; but when this city along
with Zurich and Basel proposed that it should be extended likewise to
the _Landgrave_ of Hess, Bern raised difficulties, and at last refused
consent, with the remark, that she could not justify before her own
subjects the admission of so remote a prince. Zwingli was highly
displeased. "Bern always," he wrote to a friend, "sends _bears_ to
negotiate," and to another: "The Bear is lying in the pains of
travail,--is jealous of the Lion (Zurich) and acts very unfairly
towards him; but in the end she will have done with her tricks and take
the manly resolution to bear away the victory." Certainly the Bernese
government would have reason for anxiety in regard to the growing
preponderance of Zurich in the _Buergerrecht_, if Zwingli could be
supported in it both by Strassburg and the _Landgrave_; but its
reluctance no doubt was just as much owing to its peculiar policy,
which was always less concerned about the infusion of philosophical or
theological principles into the national life, than about the
maintenance of existing treaties and friendly relations as far as
possible with all the Confederates.