. ¦ , ¦ .

"" '

 Whi&-
'"MtmSl

tmnummnnim

W.

iiii

s = -

Wfflfflm

i;.»-?i :-i":;:,':f:,' -,. o

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE BELATION

STATE AND CHURCH

IN

ZURICH — 1519 TO THE FIRST DISPUTATION.

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY
or THE
UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOE OF PHILOSOPHY
BY

FREDERICK A. REMLEY.
> 'i

LEIPZIG 1895.
PRINTED BY ERNST HEDRICH.

PREFATORY NOTE.

Since this thesis was written and submitted to the University
the first volume of a new Life of Ulrich Zwingli, by Prof. R. Staehelin
of Basel, has appeared. It is a pleasure to find that Prof. Staehelin's
investigation of the same original sources as were used by me led
him to conclusions which in many points harmonize with what was
presented in this thesis; he does not, however, emphasize some in
fluences as it seems to me should be done, and in some instances
he reaches other and different conclusions. After reviewing the
subject and after a careful re-examination of the original sources
I am still unable to agree with all of Prof. Staehelin's conclusions.
Where it has seemed necessary his positions have been considered
either in additions to the text or in foot notes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PREFATORY NOfE  3
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION  5
CHAPTER II.
ZURICH — THE SITUATION IN 1519  17
CHAPTER IH.
1520. ZURICH REMAINS CATHOLIC. — ZWINGLI MEETS WITH
OPPOSITION  31
CHAPTER IV.
THE OPPOSITION TO ZWINGLI CONTINUES. HIS FIRST VICTORY
(1521-1522)  55
SUMMARY  76
LITERATURE  gj

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.
Zurich in her development toward mational existence carried
on many and severe struggles. At times these struggles were of
a popular, revolutionary character, being the contests for personal
rights and liberties carried on by the people against their local
rulers; at times they were the struggles of the local rulers and
people united together against the Empire or some other power;
and at other times the claims of the papal hierarchy were resisted,
and bishops, cardinals and even popes were obliged to make con
cessions to the independent spirit of the hardy Swiss. It is not
necessary for our present purpose to narrate the history of these
struggles, but so much of the history of Zurich may be here reviewed
as may be needful to recall to mind the spirit and temper of the
people, and to make the relation of church and state in the years
before the Reformation more evident.
From occupying a dependent position and being largely subject
to certain cloisters and abbeys Zurich gradually developed toward
national existence; and along with this national spirit there grew
up among the people an independent, democratic spirit and so a
republican form of goverment with strong democratic tendencies was
gradually developed.1) The abbey of Fraumunster in Zurich, which
was founded by King Lewis, the German,2) not only owned land
on which freemen and slaves lived, but the King took it under his
special care; liberated it from the courts of the land; and gave it
many special privileges. In the 10th century we find that the abbey
collected taxes, levied duties, coined money, controlled the markets,

*) The historical summary given in this chapter is largely based on
Bluntschli, Geschichte der Republik Zurich (1847—1856), 3 vols; Bluntschli,
Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zurich (1838), 2 vols;
and Wirz, Helvetische Kirchengeschichte (1808—1819), 5 vols.
2) Copy of patent see Bluntschli, Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte etc. Vol. I
Appendix I, pp. 477, 478.

— 6 —
regulated weights and measures, had its own courts and named
its own judges.
According to Bluntschli the city council of Zurich probably had
its origin in an advisory board which the abbess appointed to assist
her in the government. The abbey and the city council for a long
time had the same seal. Before the middle of the 12th century the
abbess, with the consent of those of her immediate house, named
the council which consisted of 12 members. In the latter half of
the same century the council was elected by the nobility, knights,
and the citizens. In the next century the council still acknowledged
the feudal rights of the abbess, but was no longer under immediate
churchly control. Its members, however, in the oath of office swore
to protect the church. 1)
An insurrection in Zurich, in 1251, was followed by changes
in the government. The incription on the seal, "Seal of the Zurich
Council" was changed to "Seal of the Zurich Citizens". We find
that, at about the same time, the merchants became free and eli
gible to membership in the council. The council, which still con
sisted of 12 members, was elected every four months. The council
selected a large committee of citizens (probably 100 and later on 200)
to help them and from this body the "Great Council" developed. On
the death of Rudolf I., the "Great Council" decided that they would
recognize no one as sovereign i. e. Emperor,, without advising with
all the citizens of Zurich2) which gives further indication of the
development of the independent, democratic spirit in the city. In
1336 there was another revolution and at a mass meeting of the
people the old government was overthrown and the officers deposed.
A new and more liberal constitution was adopted; and the city
council re-organized and enlarged. The, mechanics and workmen
became free and elected representatives to sit in the council.
The next popular uprising or revolution came in 1370 and
resulted in a revision of the constitution, the government becoming
more democratic, and a treaty — the "Pfaffenbrief" — with the
other cantons was adopted. In 1393 the mayor and the smaller
council (the aristocratic element) without consulting the Great Council
or the citizens entered into a treaty with Austria. This aroused

!) Bluntschli, Geschichte Zurich, Vol. I p. 75 sq.
2) Ibid. 126.

-— 7 —
universal indignation and a stormy mass meeting of the citizens
was held; the treaty was annulled, and the Great Council given
power to try and judge the offenders. The mayor and seven
councilmen were removed from office and punished. All citizens
now became eligible to membership in the city council;1) and other
constitutional changes were made. It was still considered necessary
to have the Abbess Beatrix who was still the nominal feudal mistress
of Zurich approve the new constitution.3) By the beginning of the
following century the council had become in every particular the
ruler of Zurich. It was also a court of appeal and had the power
of imposing fines and of inflicting capital punishment.
In the stormy year of 1489 the heavy waves of popular indig
nation and revolution swept away the then existing government
of Zurich. The mayor was beheaded; the council was overthrown;
a temporary council was elected by the citizens; the constitution
was changed; new officers were chosen; and the citizens swore
allegiance to the new council. The Great Council was vested with
all the powers of state. The Great Council consisted of 2 mayors,
48 "Rathe" and "Zunftmeister" — the so-called small council, —
the "eighteen" of the Konstafel, and the 12 "twelves" (144) from
the guilds, together 212 persons.3) This was what was known as
the "Two Hundred" of Zurich. The mayor and the two smaller
councils, being elected every -six months, alternated and so only one
mayor and one-half of the councilmen (one small council) ruled at
one time. The minority could remove most matters, except legal
processes, from the small council to the Great Council; however, in
matters concerning the city's liberties, rights, and certain other
things a majority was deemed to be necessary to such removal.
Certain matters, such as taxes, treaties, etc. must be brought before
the Great Council. The Abbess was not asked to approve these
changes. The council was now in all respects the recognized and
independent government of Zurich.
Such in brief were some of the internal struggles in the devel
opment of the Zurich Republic, which show the independent spirit
of her people. In the course of her development Zurich resisted
J) Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. I, 273 sq.
2) Hilty, Bundesverfassung d. schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft (1891), p. 88 (Note).
3) For the organization of the council more fully see Bluntschli, Ge
schichte, etc. II, 94 sq., also his Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, I, 357 sq.

many of the claims of the Catholic church, and her relation to the
church underwent great and radical changes. The Zurich people
not only liberated themselves from the temporal rule of the church
and established a republic, but they also subjected the church in
many ways to the control of the state. Some of the facts bearing
on the changes in the relation of church and state in Zurich may,
here, be given.
About the year 1230, during the time of the struggle between
Frederick II and the Pope, Zurich, which was loyal to the Emperor,
decided to repaire the city walls and fortifications. The council
attempted to compel the clergy, especially those of Grossmiinster,
to pay taxes and to perform the same duties as other citizens in
making the repairs. The clergy refused. Then a conflict between
the citizens and the clergy arose. The citizens, among other griev
ances, charged the clergy with being licentious and with keeping
concubines and mistresses in their houses. The citizens sought to
introduce rigid discipline and to banish the concubines and mistresses
from the city. In a communication of May 23d 1230 the Bishop
of Constance forbade the collection of taxes, the punishment or
banishment of the women, and instructed the citizens that the dis
cipline of the clergy did not belong to them, but to the Bishop's
court.1) The Bishop was obeyed, but the desire to make church
property bear its share of the public burdens remained and spread
among the citizens. Zurich remained faithful to Frederick n and
as a result was placed under the papal ban. The priests with few
exceptions refused to hear confession, say mass, administer the
sacrament, or hold divine services. As the citizens were about to
compel the Dominican priests to say mass they withdrew from the
city. In January 1248 in accordance with the Emperor's orders,
the citizens expelled from the city all priests who declined to per
form their usual duties They were treated as traitors and disturbers
of the peace, and their property was seized by the courts. This
property was not returned until all demands were fully satisfied.
In this contest with the papal hierarchy the city won a complete
victory. In 1338 an imperial law declared that the Empire received its
power directly from God, and was independent of papal authority
J) See quotation from letter, Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. I 82.

— 9 —
The Emperor Lewis removed the papal ban which was at that time
resting on himself and the Empire. Zurich then, for a second time,
banished all priests who sought to enforce the papal interdict. The
priests of Grossmunster remained in banishment until the death of
the Emperor. x)
In 1340 Zurich, Constance, and St. Gallen entered into a treaty
the purpose of which was to strengthen and defend their liberties
and governments and to exalt the authority of these cities over the
bishops and other spiritual rulers.2)
"To fulfill a vow and to thank God for the wonderful deliverance
and great victory" on the battle field ofTatwyl, in 1351, the Zurich
Council established a yearly pilgrimage to Einsiedeln. One man
from every household was required to go on this pilgrimage. This
pilgrimage was kept up through the years and continued to receive
the sanction and approval of the church, the people and the govern
ment until in the Reformation, when it was finally abolished by
act of the council (May 14. 1524). 3)
The popular uprising of 1370 was occasioned by two priests
of Grossmunster violating the right of free attendance on the Zurich
market. They seized some citizens of Lucerne, and, keeping them
in custody, refused to recognize the authority of any court except
the ecclesiastical courts. The entire city was aroused; the storm
bells were rung; and the citizens armed and rushed forth in order
to rescue the prisoners. The offending priests were banished for
life; and a treaty — the "Pfaffenbrief " — made with the other
cantons subjected the clergy in worldly matters to the temporal
courts. 4)
In 1423 Zurich and Bern entered into a new treaty. Among
other things they agreed that in worldly matters no one should be
held to answer to any foreign court of any kind — temporal or
spiritual — and, further, they promised to assist each other against

*) Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. I, 182.
2) Ibid. 183.
3) Egli, Actensammlung z. Geschichte d. z. Ref. No. 527. Cf. Bullinger I,
160. Bluntschli (Geschichte, etc. I, 212), says that this pilgrimage was observed
for the last time in 1527, which is probably a mistake, for the Reformed council
would hardly have allowed the procession to be kept up three years after its
order abolishing it.
4) Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. 1, 247 sq. ; also Hilty, Bundesverfassung, etc. 84 sq.

— 10 —
the clergy should any attempt be made to compel any one in worldly
matters to appear before a spiritual court. *¦)
The church in the struggle with the Empire for political su
premacy forgot her duty of improving the morals of the people, of
correcting the wild and dissolute lives, and restraining the wicked
and the licentious. The clergy, high and low, set the most miserable
examples; in fact the church which should have been the physician
was herself the patient suffering with the most malignant maladies
of immorality and licentiousness. So immoral were the people and
clergy becoming that the city government saw itself compelled, in
the latter part of the 15th century, to take steps to restrain the
evil, and to improve the social and moral condition of the people.
Some of the regulations affecting the church were: — Laws setting
limits to the greed of the church in the matter of acquiring prop
erty by gift or will were passed. The drinking room where the
priests met to drink and spend the evening was ordered closed at
9 o'clock in the evening. Priests were forbidden to play with dice
and cards, and they were excluded from the rooms where the
different guilds met to drink and discuss matters of interest. The
priests were ordered "zu thun als solche, die die Wollust der ver-
ganglichen Welt hinter sich haben und wie sie ihrer geistlichen
Wiirde und Pfunde wegen zu thun schuldig sind." The officers of
Fraumiinster were compelled to depose an unworthy abbess, and
assisted by the representatives of the council, to elect a new abbess.
The too intmate relations between the monks and nuns in Oeten-
bach were investigated. The monks were forbidden to hear con
fession for the nuns; a new costume for the monks was introduced-
and the provost's accounts were examined. At a number of differ
ent times immoral monks were expelled by the council from the
cloisters. 2)
The church was not only obliged to submit to all this, but
according to the so-called Waldmann concordat8) it made many and
') Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. 318.
2) Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. II p. 17, and 18. For copy of "Ordnung der
priesterschaft zu der probsty und der stuben daselbs", see Jahrb. fm- schwe"
Geschichte IV (1879) p. 30 sq. On Oetenbach cloister cf. also Rohre^61'2
Jahrb. as above pp. 14, 15.
3) As to date of the "Concordat" and how it describes the condition
things and what the government sought to attain in the, close of the lSth" °

— 11 —
important concessions to the independent spirit of the Zurich people.
Among the concessions were: — Zurich was to control the livings,
grant them, and introduce priests into their livings. When a priest
in the city died the council took charge of his estate (the same as
it did for other citizens) and saw that it was legally disposed of —
given to heirs or debtors. In case of a vacancy in a living the
income during the vacancy did not go to the other priests, but must
be used in the erection of churches. No one who already possesses
a living can acquire other livings. Priests guilty of criminal offenses
whether against priests or laymen are amenable to the city courts.
All contests in regard to tithes, whether between priests, or between
priests and laymen must be tried in the city courts. All cloisters
and church property and also the clergy could be taxed to pay tho
cost of war for the church or the Roman Empire, and also to pay the
necessary expenses of the land; the city on her part was to pro
tect said property and clergy from injury. The city was further
authorized to examine the accounts of the churches and cloisters
in the city, to appoint an inspector, and to see that they (the clergy,
monks and nuns) do that which is proper and profitable for the
churches and cloisters. The clergy could be compelled to keep their
houses in repair, the same as other citizens. All priests and church
officers, and all persons under the control of the church must obey
the ordinances and laws of the city.1)
The council, in 1480,. decided to repair and improve Gross
munster and the clergy as well as the citizens were taxed to pay
for the improvements.
The city council possessing the executive and judicial as well
as the legislative functions of government was the supreme power
in Zurich and exercised a minute and fatherly watch-care over the
inhabitants and institutions of the little city. In 1499 after the

the beginning of the 16th century see Franz Rohrer, "Das sogenante Wald-
mannische Concordat" in Jahrbuch f. schweiz. Geschichte Bd. IV (1879) p. 1 sq.
Rohrer regards this document as the outline for a Concordat with the Pope
(the concordat not being . completed). It shows, however, what the Zurich
government really claimed, and is a good picture of the actual situation. Rohrer
suggests 1510 as its date. Compare Staehelin, Huldreich Zwingli I, 120.
*) For the terms of the concordat see Bluntschli, Geschichte, etc. II,
p.. 19 sq. Compare Wirz, Helv. Gesch. Ill, 281 sq., als© Rohrcr's article referred
to in note 3 above.

— 12 —
victory over the Empire, the council, "zum Lobe Gottes und zum
Troste der in dem Kampf Gefallenen", established an annual church
service or festival, renewed the pilgrimage to Einsiedeln and ordered
a certain number of priests and citizens to participate in this annual
pilgrimage.1) Laws against swearing, cursing, profanity and blas
phemy are found in the "Verbotbuch" of 1500; and in the same
book are laws regulating and controlling dancing; and also laws
against immodest clothing (zerhownen hosen).2) Witchcraft was
punished by death.8)
Zurich as she gained her own independence also gained certain
rights over the adjoining districts and parishes. The city council,
which was elected by the citizens of the city, did not and from the
nature of the case could not govern the county districts in just the
same way as the city was governed. It had long been the custom
of the council to consult these rural districts on matters which greatly
concerned them4) the same as it did the citizens of the city, but
in many ways its control over the country districts was not as great
as that which it exercised over the city. In regard to the right of
the council to control the priests in the country parishes, Zurich
had a special treaty with the Bishop of Constance. By this treaty.
which was made in 1506, the council was given the exclusive juris
diction over "frid versagen, fridbruche, schlahen, zuchen, werfen,
wunden", or any other offenses or misconduct which should arise
in the territory outside of the city, between the clergy and laymen
with the exception of offenses to which the death penalty or ban
was attached. In the matter of offenses with the death penalty the
Bishop had jurisdiction over the priests, and the city council over
the laymen. All fines imposed upon the clergy in the country went
to the Bishop and those imposed upon the laity went to the city.
The council, by this treaty, was given the right not only to decide
') At least one man from each house in the city and 24 priests (4 from
Fraumunster, 12 from Grossmunster, 2 St. Peter, and 2 each from the three
orders of monks) were required to go with this procession. Bluntschli Ge
schichte, etc. II, 156.
2) Egli, No. 82 (Note), 126 (Note), also 530 (Note)
3) Ibid. No. 124.
4) For example pensions, and foreign service; and frequently during the
Reformation religions matters were referred to the country districts in -d
find out their views, etc. See Egli, Nos. 169 (Note), 557, 589 996 * ' a^c. °
quently. n

— 13 —
when charges were preferred, but was also authorized to make in
vestigations on its own motion and to decide all such matters.1)
It was a settled principle of the Zurich government that the
council was to maintain order in the city and to punish offenders.
To do this each member of the council swore when he took his
oath of office. The council was not only to investigate and punish
when charges were preferred, but, by laws enacted long before the
Reformation, it was made the duty of the council whenever any
member heard of a crime, offense, or disturbance, to cause the
matter to be investigated. A committee was usually appointed to
make an investigation, hear testimony and to report to the council. 2)
It was thus made the special duty of the council to see that order
was maintained and that all crimes and offenses recieved their due
punishment; how -important this fact was to Zwingli and how he
took advantage of it in order to introduce the Reformation is seen
from his letter of January 3d 1527 to Oecolampadius.3)
A brief summary of the marriage laws as they existed before
the Reformation will throw light upon the relation of church and
state, and assist in forming a correct judgment of the changes in
troduced during the period we are studying. Up to and during
the period of the Reformation we are studying no special marriage
ceremony was necessary to a valid marriage, but the mere fact of
a man and woman living together as husband and wife constituted
such a marriage. That the contracting parties promised each other
to live together as man and wife and did so live together was
considered to be all that was essential to a valid marriage, and yet
it was customary to have the blessing of the church pronounced
upon the relation into which the parties had previously entered.4)
It had become customary for mere children to marry, and so the

J) Bluntschli, Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, etc. I, p. 386. Egli, No. 332.
The treaty is printed in full in Jahrbuch fur schweiz. Geschichte, Vol. IV
(1879), p. 29 sq.
2) Bluntschli, Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, etc. I, 404 — 406.
3) Opera VIII, 8.
4) "Bis zur Zeit der Reformation sogar nach Durchfuhrung derselben finden
sich noch deutliche Spuren, dass die Ehe, deren Vollzug freilich gewohnlich
eine kirchliche Einsegnung folgte, doch schon vor dieser als vollendet angesehen
wurde, somit wesentlich auf dem ehelichen Zusammenleben beruhte." Bluntschli,
Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, etc. I, 424. See also Egli, No. 145, and the
Marriage "Ordnung" of 1525, Egli, No. 711. Z. Werke II n, 356 sq.

— 14 —
council enacted laws in regard to the ages at which marriage was
permissible and lawful.1) In the earlier times the marriage of a
bondsman and a free woman or vice versa was prohibited by the
council, but notwithstanding this prohibition such marriages took
place. The council because these marriages were recognized by
the church as valid was finally obliged to recognize them, and yet
it imposed fines upon all persons so marrying.2) The council had
long exercised jurisdiction in cases of adultery, and punished the
same by fines, banishment, or in other ways as it saw fit. 3) As
an example of the different ways adultery was punished we may
mention that in Dec. 1522 several members of the council because
of adultery were suspended from office; should they correct their
lives before a given date they might be reinstated and admitted to
the council again. 4) Before the Reformation both the Bishop's court
at Constance and the Zurich city council had jurisdiction in the
matter of granting divorces. Some times the city council would
hear divorce matters and grant divorces, B) and some times it would
investigate a case and then send the parties to the Bishop's court
to be divorced,6) and on the other hand the Bishop's court seems
at times to have consulted with the Zurich council about such
matters. 7)
The other Swiss cantons and the Diet of the Swiss Confederation
treated the church in a very independent way. In the latter part
of the 15th century the Swiss Diet claimed that its right to govern
the priests in the same way the laymen were governed was an
ancient right. s) It controlled the sale of indulgences and forbade
their sale, without the consent of the "Obrigkeit" ; 9) and it did not
hesitate to order bishops and priests to absolve people from the

') Bluntschli, ibid. I, 426.
2) Ibid. I, 190.
3) Ibid. I, 426 sq.
*) Egli, No. 306.
6) Ibid. No. 8, cf. also No. 153.
6) Ibid. Nos. 183, 205.
') Ibid. No. 145. Cf. Staehelin, Leben Zwingli, I, 120,- where 'S seems
to overlook the fact that the Bishop's court still had jurisdiction in divorce
matters. Concerning the "Ehehandel" compare, Prof. Rohrer's "Das sogenannte
Waldmannische Concordat", Jahrb. f. schweiz. Geschichte Bd IV Ifi ™
8) Wirz, III, 331. ' ' q'
9) Ibid. HI, 420, cf. 285.

— 15 —
ban.1) The whole people were self-willed and independent. The
shepherd people, in the middle of the 15th century, claimed the lib
erty of eating butter and "Milchspeisen" on fast days, and Pope
Calixtus because they would not obey his prohibition was obliged
to allow it and sanction it.2)
In 1485, before the canton Uri could be induced to approve
of the proposed Swiss treaty with the Pope, the papal legate was
compelled to promise to secure the absolution of the ban which
had been placed upon the Uri people by the Bishop of Milan.3)
At about the same time, not only Zurich, but also Bern and
other cantons passed stringent laws regulating the private conduct
of the people; and the Swiss Diet also followed the example of
these cantons. 4) The different cantons in their national development
had struggles with the church for their independence and greater
freedom, and at times a tendency toward secularization of church
property was manifested.5) In Bern four priests, who attempted "to
impose a religious fraud upon the people and in their deception
had cruelly mistreated a man, even trying to poison him, were,
after an examination by a churchly commission, condemned by the
temporal courts to be burned alive. Some desired to submit the
whole matter to the Pope, but the city council would not consent
and in 1509 the death sentence was executed upon these priests.6)
The Swiss continued to seek to restrain the immorality of the
priests, and the Pope, in 1522, in order not to lose the friendship
of this people, authorized them to punish the crimes of the priests
as those of the laymen were punished. About three weeks after
this papal permission was made public in Baden, the Bern author
ities beheaded one priest for his crimes. 7) The bold, sturdy spirit
of the Swiss and the independent way in which they treated the
Pope may be further seen from an incident out of the year 1518.
The Pope wanted 12000 Swiss soldiers for a war against the Turks.

>) Wirz, Helv. Gesch., Ill, 326. Bullinger I, 18.
2) Ibid. HI, 240 sq. This liberty was also approved in 1504 by the Pope.
Ibid. 286.
3) Ibid. Ill, 278.
4) Ibid. Ill, 417 sq., 266, 276.
5) Compare pages 9 and 11, above. Cf. Staehelin's Leben Zwingli, I, 15.
6) For this Jetzer swindle see Wirz. Helv. Gesch. Ill, 387—403.
') Ibid. IV, 57.

— 16 —
The Diet, on condition that other Christian princes who were under
obligations to send soldiers should take the lead, promised to send
10 000 men, and added that, if these were not enough, they would
gladly send the Pope 2000 priests from Switzerland to make up
the desired number. J) The right of the state to watch over and
in many ways control the church was generally recognized in
Switzerland; and even the Catholics of Switzerland, in the Refor
mation time, continued to recognize this right, as is evident from
the reform measures proposed by the representatives of nine- cantons
and Wallis at a meeting of the Diet held, January 1525, at
Lucerne. 2)

J) Ibid. IV, 33; Geseler, III,,, 130.
2) Eidgenoss. Abschiede (Strickler): IV 1 a, p. 570 e., 572 sq. Cf. 674 g,
where the Diet, at a meeting in Baden, authorized the publication of the
"Artikel" drawn up in Lucerne.

CHAPTER II.

ZURICH. — THE SITUATION IN 1519.
The democratic spirit, as we have seen, was dominant in Zurich,
and the form of government was republican. Never in her history
did this city have less of the aristocratic spirit than at the time of
the Reformation.1) Zurich was a member of the Swiss Confederation
and yet this did not deprive her of her rights of sovereignty and
self-government. The Holy Roman Empire still claimed the right
to rule Switzerland, but this was a claim which could not be en
forced and so the Swiss cantons were practically independent. The
tenacity with which this claim was maintained, however, rendered
the intrigues and politics of the Imperial court very important to
the Swiss Confederation. The Imperial plans and ambitions were,
also, of great importance to the Zurich people and awakened a
lively interest among them. This was true not only of the events
of 1519 — the death of Maximilian I, the struggle between the
aspirants for the crown, and finally the selection of Charles of Spain —
but it was especially true of Charles' eventful reign with its restless
plans for world dominion, for protecting the church, and for exter
minating heresy.
It is important to remember that the church had fallen into
the deep and foul abysses of spiritual and moral degeneracy. It had,
through its system of selling indulgences, become a sort of moral
insurance company which for a few farthings guaranteed the most
debased, immoral, and lowest of wretches a safe passage through
purgatory into the joys and happiness of paradise.2) The priests and

') Ochsli, Z. als poi. Theoretiker, "Turicensia" etc. p. 108.
2) On indulgences in Switzerland see, Wirz, Helv. Kirchengeschichte III,
pp. 279, 285, 290, 376, 381; P7, 159 sq. Bullinger, I, 13 sq.
Concerning the Catholic church Dr. Hilty says (Die Bundesverfassung der
Schweizer. Eidgenossenschaft, p. 216): "Bis die Ideen des Christenthums zu uns
gelangten, hatten sie bereits einen Jahrhunderte andauernden Filtrationsprozess
durch griechische Spitzfindigkeit, romisch-byzantinische Staatsreligion und ger-
2

— 18 —
monks were worldly, immoral, licentions, corrupt and vile.1) Such
were the moral leaders; and "like priest, like people" was again
proven to be true. The people were wild and rough, and many
of them were deep in the mire of drunkenness, licentiousness,
bestiality, and all kinds of immorality.2)
The Swiss were naturally industrious, frugal, and peaceable,
but, through long years of service as mercenary soldiers, they became
lazy, prodigal, fierce, and war-like. Abandoning their flocks upon
the hills and deserting their peaceful valleys they sold themselves
to the highest bidder to butcher their fellow men. They had no
grievances, no rights to defend, no wrongs to be avenged; they
fought not for principle nor for home, but, that, through their
slaughter of men, they might earn their wages and have opportunites
to rob, plunder, and steal. Priests, as spiritual advisers, always
accompanied them on these murderous expeditions. The church not
only approved of the accursed traffic in mercenary soldiers, but the
Pope was one of the chief bidders for, and employers of such
troops. The pensions, wages, and spoils obtained through such
service corrupted and ruined the moral and social life of the people.
It was a notorious and crying evil. The entire people seemed to be
rushing headlong to destruction.
Notwithstanding all this the people of Zurich were zealous and
faithful Roman Catholics, making many pilgrimages, and observing
all the ceremonies of the church. It must be remembered that the

manische Ursprimglichkeit, um nicht zu sagen Rohheit, durchgemacht; sie waren
uberdies im Abendlande weit fiber ein Jahrtausend lang das ausschliessliche
Eigenthum einer machtigen Organisation gewesen, welche die Maeht behauptete
und besass, 'davon dem Volke auszuspenden, so viel, so wenig ihr gefiel'. Man
muss sich das bei Beginn der Reformationsepoehe lebhaft vorstellen."
*) In 1521 Dr. Hofmann a priest in Zurich complains that Zwingli said,
that "under hundert oder tusend geistlichen personen, priesteren, munchen,
klosterfrowen, briiederen und schwestren und deroglichen, die kfischheit gelopt
oder verheissen habend, kum ein person mocht funden werden, die nit unkiisch-
heit trybe und vollbrachte," etc. Egli, No. 213 (page 62). For Bishop Hugo's
description of the immorality of the clergy see his pastoral letter dated
March 3d 1517 in Simler's Sammlung Bd. I, Iiper Theil pp. 779—783. Cf. also
Morikofer Leben Z., I. 67; Wirz, Helv. Geschichte in, 329; Egli, No. 157.
2) Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte I, 373 says, that "Zurich before the
preaching of the Gospel [the Reformation] was as Corinth was in Greece." For
a description of the condition of Zurich see Morikofer I, 42 sq., especially
43 sq. were a disgusting example of the roughness and licentiousness is given.

— 19 —
Catholic church at that time had a twofold nature, (a) It was a
temporal, political power, with the Pope as a crowned prince at
its head, and (b) It was a system of doctrines, beliefs, and
practices — in short an institution, which looked after the religious
welfare of its members and secured their eternal salvation. This
is a distinction which the free democratic spirit of the Zurich
people clearly recognized. With the latter, the people had the
utmost confidence and the fullest sympathy; but with the former,
so far as it conflicted with their local rights and interests, they were
restive, distrustful and rebellious. They treated the Pope as a
foreign prince, and made treaties with him, or making treaties with
his enemies they fought against him, doing the one or the other
as their own interests seemed to dictate.1)
It was at this time, in Zurich, a well-settled principle, that the
council in worldly and temporal matters was superior to the church;
further, that it had the right to look after, control, and tax church
and cloister property; manage church livings; subject priests, monks,
and nuns to all civil laws the same as the laity, and to correct their
immoral lives. The council also exercised the right of reforming
and changing the regulations of the cloisters. That this right was
recognized by the church may be seen from the fact that, in 1518,
John Faber, the Vicar General of Constance, asked the Zurich council
to help to make certain changes and reforms in the Order of the
Mendicant Friars. 2) The state, on the other hand, had certain duties.
She must protect the property and landed interests of the church;
enforce the collection of tithes; and decide all disputes in regard
to the same. She must defend the life, liberty, and rights of the
priests. She must build and repair church buildings, using therefor
public funds. She recognized the rights and authority of the clerical
courts in spiritual matters, and she was expected to lend her power,
for the enforcement of spiritual decrees. As showing the extent
to which religions ideas influenced, or were the controlling motives
in much of Zurich's legislation it is interesting to note that, as we

») Bluntschli, Geschichte der Republik Zurich II, 182 sq. gives the terms
of the treaty of 1510 between the Pope and the Swiss Confederation. See also
"Acten und Information zii den Papst. Bfindnissen, etc. wahrend d. J. 1510—1565,
aus dem Luzerner Staats-Archiv", in Archiv f. d. s. Ref.-Geschichte IH, 475 sq.
Cf. also Bullinger I, 33 sq.
2) Morikofer, Leben Z. I, 68. 2*

— 20 —
have already seen, long before Zwingli had any thing to do with
the city, there were laws forbidding and punishing such things as
profanity, blasphemy,1) and witchcraft. The Council, after the war
of independence (1499), "zum Lobe Gottes und zum Troste der in
dem Kampf Gefallenen" — (truly a religious motive) — established
an annual "Kirchenfest".2) According to the "Verbotbuch" of 1500
dancing was forbidden "in order that God the Lord might protect
the grain (friicht) which is in the field, and give good weather".3)
In this relation of church and state we see, on the one hand,
how much the independent, democratic spirit had changed and
modified the rigid outlines of the Romisch hierarchical system, and,
on the other hand, how largely the Catholic faith controlled and
dominated the thoughts and actions of the council. When we re
member that the city council exercised the judicial functions of
government it becomes evident, that it must have been often called
upon to decide questions the decisions of which must have, to a
greater or less extent, carried with them opinions or decisions on
matters of church organization, dogma and practice. This will
explain what otherwise is very difficult to understand, namely, that
from the very first both the reformers and the Catholics of Zurich
were agreed in recognizing the right and authority of the council
to hear such matters.4) Even the Bishop of Constance seems to a
certain extent to have recognized this right, for so late as May 1522
he wrote to the Zurich Council and requested it to compare the
"argernuss" and "widerwartigkeit" with "the holy church's ordinances
and good customs" and what it should find contrary thereto
to put aside. 5) Any decision which the council might make in the
matter would necessarily carry with it an opinion or judgment as
to what such "ordinances" and "customs" etc. were.
Zwingli came to Zurich in December 1518 and preached his
') Egli, No. 126 (Note) Dancing was also punished; and profanity and
blasphemy had been forbidden for many years, at least since the "Verbotbuch"
of 1500. Cf. Egli, No. 530 (Note).
2) Bluntschli, Geschichte Zurich II, 156.
3) Egli, No. 82 (Note).
4) See Egli, No. 213 (p. 65) where Hofmann, who was the leader of the
Catholic party in Zurich, says he is willing to dispute with Z. before the council.
Compare below (p. 73 Note 1).
5) Egli, No. 251. Fussli, Beytrage zur Erlauterung d. K. Ref. Geschichte
d. Schweizerlandes, etc. IV, p. 125.

— 21 —
first sermon in his new pastorate on the first of January 1519.
As Zwingli was the new element in the religious, social, and
political problem in Zurich it becomes of interest and importance
to know how he stood in relation to the church and the public
policy of the Zurich government. The story of Zwingli's life —
his youth, early education, classical studies, humanistic tendencies,
etc. — is too long to be here narrated. As a man can never free
himself entirely from the bias and influences of his early training
and education, it is, therefore important to remember that Zwingli
from his youth was educated for a Catholic priest, that he became
a priest, and until he was 31 or 32 years old continued to be a
good Catholic, whose orthodoxy could not be doubted. Zwingli
did not deny his former beliefs, but frankly admits, that "vor dem
jar 1516 hanget ich noch etwann vii an des papsts oberkeit".1)
That Zwingli was an orthodox Catholic, at least until about 1516,
may be further seen from the fact that he, during his pastorate at
Glarus, received an indulgence from Pope Leo X. 2) When Zwingli
went to Einsiedeln he was still in harmony with the Catholic church
and did not have a true conception of evangelical truth. This is
made evident by the agreement with the cloister authorities, which
was signed April 14th 1516. In this agreement Zwingli promised
to obey the cloister superior (in other words subjected himself to
all the rules and regulations of the cloister) ; to protect and promote
the interests of the cloister; and to be faithful in his pastoral office.
Zwingli, however, occupied a subordinate position, and no special
duties were assigned to him. For his services he was given free
room and board, in the cloister, and also 20 florins a year in money.
The agreement specifies that this money should come for the most
part from "free-will offerings and money received as pay for hearing

>) Werke, I, 354.
2) Leo was crowned March 11th 1513 and Zwingli left Glarus in 1516, so
the indulgence which bears no date must come some where between 1513 and
1516. It is addressed to Z. and several others. Just what weight Z., at that
time attached to papal indulgences cannot now be determined, but the fact
that the Pope addressed an indulgence to him would indicate that Z. was then
considered to be an orthodox Catholic. For indulgence see, Archiv f. d. s.
Ref. Geschichte III, 600 sq. That this indulgence should remain in private
hands all through these centuries and first in Aug. 1873 find its way into an
archive is very remarkable and tends to create a suspicion as to its genuineness.
The original is in the church archives in Weesen.

— 22

confession and for saying mass for the souls of the dead."1) These
things can hardly be regarded as indicative of a genuine evan
gelical faith. ,
It was some time during this year (1516) that Zwmgh, at
Einsiedeln, began to preach the gospel. As this is what Zwingli,
seven years afterward, considered to be the beginning of his reform
atory work it is important to know what he meant by "preaching
the gospel". Fortunately he has explained it. He says that in 1516
he preached the gospel of Christ in that he never entered a pulpit
without taking the passage, which on the same morning had been
read as a gospel lesson in the mass, and interpreting it according
to Biblical writings alone.2) We must remember that the priests at
that time, in Zwitzerland, studied very little, and were almost
entirely ignorant of the contents of the Bible. For the most part
they used sermons which were prepared and published by the
monks. The few priests who studied gave their attention to the
ScMastimm theologkum and jus pontificum. Aristotle was mixed
up with their theology, and the works of Peter Lombard, Thomas
Aquinas, and the like formed the basis for their preaching.3) Zwingli
did not with a mighty effort break loose from Scholasticism and the
study of the church fathers. It was a gradual process. He says
that, at first, in 1516 at the same time that he Avas "preaching the
gospel", he clung tenaciously to the old teachers, however much
they at times troubled him.4) Zwingli at this time advised the
study of Jerome ; and, as he himself testifies, he continued to study
Jerome all the time he was in Einsiedeln.5) He did not neglect the
study of the Bible. In 1517 he copied the Pauline Epistles in
Greek and committed them to memory. On the margin of the
pages he placed citations from the church fathers, and also Erasmus
His love for the Word of God grew gradually. According to Bullinger,
i) Archiv fur etc. I, 787. Cf, Morikofer, Leben Z. I, 31.
2) "Ich hab * * angehebt das evangelium Christi zfi predgen in jar MDXVI;
also das ich au dhein canzel gegangen bin, dass ich nit die wort, so am selben
morgen in der mess zu eim evanglio gelesen werdend, fur mich name und die
allein us biblischer gschrift usleite". Werke I, 253.
3) Bullinger, I, 3.
4) "Wie wol ich am anfang derselben zyt noch treffentlieh den alten
leereren anghangt als den lutreren und klareren, wiewol mich jro zu zyten
ouch verdross". Werke I, 253.
») Ibid. 253 sq.

— 23 —
he sent a request to the Bishop of Constance (the Bishop who was
over him) that the "rein und klar wort Gottes" might be preached
in his bishopric. J) Baur suggests that Bullinger has here made a
mistake.2) His reason for this is that he can find no mention of
such a request in Zwingli's writings. I can see no necessity for
such a supposition, but on the contrary when one considers, (a) that
the church was practically without the Bible; (b) Zwingli's especial
and deep interest in the study of the Pauline Epistles; and (c) His
use of the Bible in his own preaching, the conclusion that Bullinger's
statement is correct seems to be inevitable, especially as nothing
tending to prove the contrary can be found, and further we know
that Zwingli at that time held such views as to the importance of
the Bible. But from Bullinger's statement one is by no means
justified in drawing the conclusion that Zwingli while in Einsiedeln
felt himself to be a Reformer. On the contrary, the fact that he
looked to the Bishop as the one authorized to bring the Bible into
general use in the church services and to correct abuses, proves
that he still recognized the authority of the Bishop, and that he
did not then consider himself to be a Reformer with the special
duty and destiny of reforming the church. Zwingli's complaint
seems to have been, that the Bible — "das rein und klar wort
Gottes" — had been crowded out of its proper place in the divine
services by philosophy, and scholastic teachings and writings. He
wanted to see the gospel preached, that is to say, he wanted the
Bible to take the place of scholastic writings, etc. and be made the
basis for the sermons ; and he, also, wanted the abuses, which grew
up because of such neglect of the Bible, corrected. This, however,
was to be done by an order from the proper church official. His
desire to correct the abuses in the church grew out of his study
of the Bible, and also from his own personal religious experience,
united with his feeling of duty as a priest, and his love for the
people. While in Einsiedeln he gave unmistakable evidence of an
awakening evangelical faith; he, also, reached the conclusion that
the entire Papacy rested on very poor grounds, and this too he
proved from the Bible. He even spoke privately with Cardinal
Sitten about it, 3) but he at that time had no thought of being a Reformer.
]) Bullinger, I, 10.
2) Baur, Zwinglis Theologie, I. p. 60 (Note).
3) Z. Werke II lf 7.

— 24 —
He lacked one important element, namely, he had not yet accepted
the Bible as the absolute and only standard for faith, doctrine, and
life, but as we have seen he continued to reverence and study the
church fathers, and also to observe all the customs and ceremonies
of the church. Zwingli's use of the Bible in his preaching, it is
true, contained the germ of the Reformation, but it did not develope
into an open opposition to or reformation of the church until several
years afterward when, in Zurich, Zwingli came fully to accept the
Bible as the only and absolute standard by which • all creeds,1
doctrines, and practices were to be judged.
During the year 1518 Samson, on the Pope's special commission,
sold indulgences in different parts of Switzerland. Bullinger is
authority for the statement that Zwingli while in Einsiedeln preached
"hefftig" against Samson and indulgences. I can find no other
evidence corroborating Bullinger. Zwingli makes no mention of
such preaching.1) Salat, who in 1530 was appointed by the Catholic
cantons to write his "Chronicles", knows nothing of such preaching.
Salat's only complaint against Zwingli during his stay in Einsiedeln
is that he "fing ettwas an riitelen, namlich in einer Engelwyche,
doch so listigklich, das er nit zu begriffen was, darzu sich ouch
niemand keins andern, dann dem Christenglouben gmass vnd glych,
zu im versechen hette".2) When we consider Zwingli's relation to
the cloister in Einsiedeln, his subordinate position, the state of his
religious development, and the further fact that it was a marked
characteristic of Zwingli to be cautious and to allow his acts to
tardily loiter far behind his knowledge and convictions3) — when
we consider these things Bullinger's uncorroborated statement seems
to be worthy of little credence, and his statement if accepted must
be received with great caution.

') He mentions, however, preaching against indulgences in 1519 when
Samson came to Zurich and for so preaching he is praised by the Bishop.
Werke II „ 7. Cf. Morikofer I, 63 sq.
2) Archiv fur d. schweiz. Ref. Geschichte, I, 28. Salat says, however, that
Zwingli soon commenced in Zurich (bald als er Zurich anstund) to preach
against indulgences. Ibid. I, p. 29.
3) As an illustration of this we may mention that after Zwingli had long
proclaimed the gospel liberty in regard to eating meats, even when his Mends
were eating meat, in his presence, on fast days (April 1522) he still refrained
from violating the rules of the church in this matter. Egli, No. 233.

— 25 —
It is worthy of mention, in passing, that only four months before
Zwingli went to Zurich the Pope's legate, in a communication full
of praise and flattery, appointed Zwingli to the position of chaplain
at the Pope's court; and that Zwingli when he went to Zurich
(and for several years before) was receiving an annual pension from
the Pope. The trust-worthy sources give no evidence, that Zwingli
before going to Zurich had broken with the church, that he had
preached contrary to the command of the Bishop who was over
him, or that as he preached the gospel he spoke, as a Reformer,
against the abuses of the church.1)
Zwingli was uncompromisingly and bitterly opposed to the
nefarious traffic in mercenary soldiers.2) His open and severe
denunciations of the practice gave him a reputation, but also awakened
great opposition and made him hosts of enemies. Zwingli's opposition
to service in foreign armies and to the pension system was one of
the principal causes of his being called to Zurich. Indeed so great
a part did it play that one would not be far wrong in considering
Zwingli's call to Zurich as a victory for patriotism. s) ¥fe
Zurich had long forbidden the indiscriminate enlistment of her
people in the service of foreign powers, and allowed enlistment
only when the approval of the council had previously been given.4)
Zwingli was not only in sympathy with the Zurich people in the
matter of the growing public sentiment against all such foreign
service, but he was also in full sympathy with the democratic spirit
which ruled in Zurich and with the republican form of government.
In our further study it must be kept in mind, that, when
Zwingli went to Zurich, he went as a Catholic priest who enjoyed
the confidence and sympathy of his Bishop and the church officers
over him, and, also, of the democratic Catholic people whom he
was to serve. We must, also, remember that he brought with him
a personal, evangelical faith; and that he had a growing and ever

*) Cf. Morikofer, I, 31, and Stahelin's Huldrich Zwingli und sein Re-
formationswerk (Halle 1883), p. 25 sq. See Salat's statement p. 24 above. Salat
says (Archiv f. d. s. Ref. etc., I, p. 40) that Zwingli came "da dannen gen
Ziirch, da sin vnglouben angfangen, vslies vnd inn truck gan"
2) Cf. Salat in Archiv, f. etc., T, p. 29.
3) Bullinger, I, 11. Cf. Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte, III, p. 45.
4) For a sample of the. ordinances against foreign service, see Egli,
No. 167 (Note).

— 26- —
increasing confidence in the value and power of the Word of God.
He, at first, found his new position as priest of Grossmunster nearly
like his ideal in that the independent, democratic spirit of Zurich
accorded him perfect freedom of speech in his preaching. Besides a
deep sense of duty, Zwingli had a keen appreciation of his respon
sibilities as pastor. For his awakened soul Christianity was practical,
and the Christian faith should transform and reform the corrupt and
wicked lives of the people. He sought, at this time, not the reformation
of the church creeds and ordinances, but the reformation of the
lives of individuals through the transforming power of the preached
Word of God. For undertaking this work of reforming the private
life of the individual there were for Zwingli two principal impelling
motives; (a) the salvation of the soul through personal faith in Christ,
and (b) his patriotic love for his fatherland. And so in perfect
harmony with the democratic spirit in Zurich, he began his work
by conscientiously giving his attention to the individual and by
seeking the reformation and renovation of the life and conduct of
those entrusted to his pastoral care. He discarded the prescribed
pericopes, and, at once, began a series of sermons on the gospel
of Matthew. Beginning with the first chapter he explained the entire
gospel chapter by chapter. In like manner, during the entire year,
he continued to preach, and to explain the New Testament. Zwingli
repudiated the idea that this was an innovation, and silenced all
objections by referring to the church fathers who had preached
in the same way.1). We must remember that Zwingli was still a
Catholic priest, and as such continued, during this first year in Zurich,
to say mass, hear confession, and to observe all the ceremonies
and regulations ' of the church. 2) Zwingli was hardly installed in
his office when an incident occurred (Feb'y. 1519) which is of impor
tance to us because it throws light upon the relation of church and
state. This was the arrival of the indulgence peddler Samson.3)
He was met at Zurich with almost universal opposition. The public
sentiment was against him. Zwingli preached against him.4) The
J) Bullinger, I, 12.
2) Ibid. I, 30.
3) Concerning the sale of indulgences in Zurich, Cf. Bullinger, I, 13 sq.-
Morikofer, I, 63 sq.; Bluntschli, Geschichte Zurich, II, 244 sq.
4) Bullinger, I, 17; Zwingli, Werke, II, lt 7. Cf. Salat's Chronik, Archiv
fur die schweiz. Ref. Geschichte, etc. I, p. 29.

— 27 —
Bishop of Constance, who himself sold indulgences, worked against
him. The Bishop appealed to the Zurich council and sent special
messengers to it. A committee of the Zurich council met Samson
outside of the city and did honor to him as representative of the
Pope (Zurich at this time was by treaty an ally of the Pope), but
refused to grant him admission into the city. The Diet of the
Swiss Confederation, which was then in session of Zurich, ordered
Samson to absolve a priest from the ban, and within a set time
to leave the country. A messenger was sent to the Pope. The Pope
yielded every point and ordered Samson to obey the Swiss authorities.
Zwingli's preaching against indulgences was done as a Catholic
priest with the knowledge and entire approval of his Bishop,1) and,
whatever his private motives for opposing Samson may have been,
it is a mistake to consider him at this time to be an open Reformer
of the church. The Bishop, the Zurich priests, the Zurich Council,
and the Diet of the Swiss Confederation all united in opposing Samson.
For the civil authorities in Switzerland to regulate and control the
sale of indulgences was nothing new, and cannot here be considered
to be a reformatory act. If this matter can, on the part of the
Swiss church, be considered to be a reformation, then it must be
considered to be a reformation by the church authorities within the
church and not without it or against it; but it cau hardly be
considered to be a reformation at all. This conflict concerning the
sale of indulgences in Zurich was, in one phase, a contest between
the Bishop of Constance, who sold indulgences, and the papal legate
who refused to recognize the Bishop's rights and authority. The
Bishop's appealing to the council was a tacit admission that the
civil authorities had a right to decide the dispute. The decision
against Samson was brought about under the influence of different
persons who were actuated by different motives — personal, religious,
social, and political — and cannot justly be considered to be a
condemnation of indulgences, nor a denial of the righj of the church
to grant them. The fact that Zwingli in his preaching probably
opposed Samson because he (Zwingli) had changed his views as to
the value of indulgences does not alter the case, for there is not a
particle of proof that the Zurich council, the Diet of the Swiss
Confederation and the Bishop of Constance were reformed, and

i) Zwingli, Werke II l( 7. Cf. Bullinger, I, 15.

— 28 --
doubted the right of the church to grant indulgences. This decision
is, however, an emphatic denial of the right of the Pope to send a
special commissioner to Switzerland to sell indulgences, and it may
possibly be considered to be a condemnation of the way in which
this commissioner carried on his business.
All through this year (1519) the same relation between State
and Church, which had existed for years, remained unchanged. In
order to make this, relation clearer and the dominating influence
of the State in church matters more evident let us consider a few
more facts. It may be remarked in passing that the council used
the churches of the city, as was common at that time, as a means
of making known or publishing new laws. For example Feb'y. 9th
1519, the council ordered that it be published in the three
churches of the city that whoever sells or buys a calf which is not
old enough will be fined one silver mark, etc.1) In December 1518
the council appointed a committee which was instructed to see who
had been admitted (as nuns) into the convent Toss, and also to demand
an accounting from the nuns as to how the finances of the convent
had been managed; and the committee were instructed to make
their report to the council.2) At another time the council refused
to approve the election of a Lady Superior for the same convent
and appointed another one in her stead. 8) A dispute arose between
the priest and convent of Kiinach on the one side and the "Ge-
meinde" of Erlibach on the other. A brother from Erlibach had
placed an ornament around a hole in the choir wall near the altar,
and placed a burning lamp before it as though it were a shrine
for holding the consecrated host. Thereby some of the Christian
people were led to worship the same, as they worshiped the host.
The priest ordered the ornament and lamp removed. The people of
Erlibach protested. The matter was brought before the Zurich
council. As it was a matter which concerned the church and the
clergy it was referred to a committee of six, consisting of the "probst"
and priest of "Minister", the two priests of "Frowenmiinster" and
St. Peter, and two members of the city council. This committee
was given power to hear and decide the matter. The committee
decided that the ornament and lamp should be, removed. The council
') Egli, No. 18. Cf. Nos. 52 and 82.
2) Ibid. No. 1.
3) Ibid. No. 1.

— 29 —
(Feb'y. 15th 1519) made the order accordingly.1) Two women charged
with being witches were put in prison, and the council banished
them (June 7th) from Zurich.2) June 11th a committee of two was
appointed by the council to go with the annual pilgrimage to
Einsiedeln. 3)
From a communication (Sept. 18th 1519) of the Priors of the "Pre-
diger Congregation" of Wiirzburg, Freiburg, and six other cities addressed
to the Zurich council we learn some interesting facts concerning the
power and influence of the council in church matters. The Zurich
council had secured Pope Leo's approval of the Bull of Alexander VI
concerning this "Congregation", and had invited the Superiors to
come together at Zurich in order to choose a vicar. The Superiors,
in this communication, thank the council for its trouble and labor,
and also for the invitation. Because of the plague which is raging
and from which their order has already suffered much, they have
decided to omit the meeting. They ask the council to secure the
Pope's approval of the election of Dr. John Faber, who, at Constance
the year before, had been chosen vicar of their order, and, also,
if it be thought necessary, to secure the approval of the General of
the Order..4) The officers of the church petitioned the council to
have the towers of Grossmunster repaired. The council postponed
the matter, but appointed a committee to see what repairs were
needed and how much they would cost.5) The council continued to
control the temporal affairs of the church, decide concerning tithes,6) etc.
and also to compel priests to do their duty.')
Notwithstanding the fact, that the council exercised such a
controlling influence over the church, Zwingli was independent and
free in his preaching. His work was, however, greatly interrupted
and hindered by the plague which broke out, in Zurich, in the
summer and continued during balance of the year. Zwingli's pastoral
experience during the plague, and also his experience during his own
sickness, quickened, no doubt, his spiritual life and "strengthened his

>) Egli, No. 22.
2) Ibid. No. 61.
3) Ibid. No. 64.
4) Ibid. No. 95.
5) Ibid. No. 100.
8) Ibid. Nos. 25, 27, 93, 96, and 98.
') Ibid. No. 99.

— 30 —
confidence in God.1) As to the nature of Zwingli's preaching we
will speak in another place, but we may, here, say that in his
preaching, during this year, he did not offend, or antagonize the
church officials who were over him. In a letter dated Dec. 17th 1519
Faber, the Vicar General of Constance, congratulated Zwingli on his
recovery from the plague and said that so zealously did he work
in the vineyard of the Lord, that when he was in danger the Christian
Church was threatened with a loss.2)

*) See verses composed by Zwingli at this time. Werke II u, 270 sq.
Bullinger, I, 28 sq. Cf. Morikofer, Z. I, 70 sq.; SchafF, History of the Christian
Church Vol. VII, p. 43 sq.
2) Zwingli, Opera VII, 101, "Nam adeo propense in vinea Domini desudas,
ut etiam Te periclitante non mediocrem christianae reipublicae iacturam
imminere videam."

CHAPTER in.

1520. ZURICH REMAINS CATHOLIC —
ZWINGLI MEETS WITH OPPOSITION.
The political, social, moral and religious conditions in Zurich had
not, by the beginning of this year, materially changed. Francis I
of France, the German Emperor, and the Popp still looked to
Switzerland for soldiers with which to carry on their wars, and
Zurich as well as Switzerland was rent with conflicting interests
and opinions. Social and moral corruption continued to curse the
people whose impetuous, independent natures did not take kindly
to restraint. The period of history we are considering was an unsettled,
transition period in which the public mind of Zurich, as well as all
Europe, was stirred with conflicting religious and political motives
and opinions. It is important to keep this transitional nature of
the times in mind and to seek to keep in touch with the rugged,
impulsive, democratic spirit of the people. A short year before, a
Roman Catholic priest had begun his work in Catholic Zurich.
This priest was independent and democratic in spirit and soon found
himself in sympathy with the people. He was earnest, conscientious,
and faithful in his calling and, at once, set to work to instruct the
people in the principles of the Christian faith, and to reform their
dissolute and impure lives. He preached what was then considered
and is still considered to be good Catholic doctrine — "Jesus Christ
the Savior of the World" — said mass and faithfully performed all
the duties of a Catholic priest. He explained the Gospels, chapter
by chapter, from the pulpit, but placed more stress on the necessity
of faith in Christ than was usual with the priests of that period.
Such was Ulrich Zwingli during the first year of his stay in Zurich.
He at this time, had no thought of breaking with the Romish

— 32 —
Church,1) but was seeking rather to correct some abuses in the
church, and to reform the private lives of the people. Zwingli,
through these months of study, preaching, and pastoral work in
Zurich, was gradually developing, perhaps unconsciously to himself,
into an open reformer, and antagonist of the church; and his
Catholic parishioners were being gradually led toward his views.
Some other phases of his preaching, dui'ing his first two years in
Zurich, must also be noticed. From a "Klagschrift" of Conrad
Hofmann, who was a bitter and yet honorable opponent of Zwingli, 2)
we learn that Zwingli in his preaching not only preached against
sin in general, but even mentioned particular sins and the persons
who had committed them. He pointed out and rebuked, in his
preaching, the disturbances, sins, and crimes committed on the streets,
in the drinking saloons, and in the cloisters. He also defended himself,
from his pulpit, against the attacks of those whom he offended by
his personal preaching and reproofs. He talked too fast, so Hofmann
thought. He preached in an earnest tway; and with sharp, even
severe, language reproved sins both small and great. He preached
with full confidence in the truth of his teaching, as though "er sich
selber gelerter und wyser diichte, dann ander predger und lerer
syent". He declared many of the institutions and regulations of
the church to be useless, foolish and without value, and affirmed that
these should be corrected by the Holy Scriptures. Hofmann thought
that Zwingli approached Luther in his teachings, but does not at
this time accuse him of being a heretic. Zwingli condemned the
tithing system and criticised it in a latin address (but not in German),
and this brought him the opposition of his chapter, as we learn
from one of his letters dated Feb'y. 20. 1520. 3) He was, as we have
seen, violently opposed to the system, then in vogue, of hiring troops
to foreign princes, and the receiving of pensions from foreign powers.
In Zurich, from the very first, he took a stand against these evils
and preached against them. 4) Such preaching awakened great opposition

») As late as June 24. 1520 Zwingli hoped, by his personal influence with
the Pope's representative, to keep the bull from being issued against Luther.
Opera VII, 144.
2) Hofmann was canon at Grossmunster. For Klagschrift see Egli No 213
(pp. 60—62). & '
3) Opera VII, 116 sq.; cf. Morikofer, I, 80. Baur, Zwingli's Theologie, I, 75.
) Cf. Salat's Chromk, Archiv fur die schweiz. Ref. Geschichte, etc. I, p. 29.

— 33 —
all over Switzerland1) and even in Zurich itself. Before we describe
the storm which, in 1520, broke over Zwingli's devoted head we
must briefly review the state's continued controlling influence in
church and religious matters
During the year 1520 the Zurich council continued to exercise
its authority in the matter of church livings and property,2) and to
decide disputes concerning the same. 3) It also continued to announce
or publish its laws in the churches.4) That the council continued
to exercise a very great control over the church and priests may
be further seen from the following: By an order dated March 12th
1520 the council compelled the priest in Henggart, at his own
expense, to absolve three men from the ban, and also to pay certain
other costs.8) On the same day the council ordered another priest
to say two masses each week, in order that, thus, one mass a day
may be said. Every time he should fail to do so "hat er den
armen Kindern 5 s. an ihren Tisch zu geben".6) The council, also,
enacted that when a priest is unfitted for his position he may be
given a vacation or furlough, and another priest can be taken in
his place.7) In June 1520, the city council tried a woman who
was charged of being a witch. The woman, on the trial, admitted
that she had denied the first God, the Amighty, and his worthy
mother, and that she had given herself entirely to the devil. She
had made a cross on the ground and had stamped upon it with
her left foot. The devil then gave her a black salve with, which
she anointed a stick on which she took her seat and rode up the
Hengberg. She could deprive men of their manly strength and give
it again ; could make lame and, by incantations and baths of different
herbs, heal again. The devil was her lover and she had five times
slept with him. She had brought frost and hail stormes five times,
and ten times had ridden from Andelfingen and Schaffhausen up
the Hengberg. The council, because of such "witchcraft, wicked

*) See letter of Myconius, written in the Summer of 1520. Opera VII, 135,
also below p. 35. Cf. Morikofer, I, 80 sq.; Baur, ibid. I, 76.
2) Egli, Nos. 109, 122, 125, compare 123.
3) Ibid. Nos. 115, 125.
*) Ibid. No. 138.
5) Ibid. No. 117.
6) Ibid. No. 118.
7) Ibid. No. 118 (2). ' 3

— 34 —
and infamous beliefs, great evil, and misdeeds", ordered the woman
to be burned.1) This trial not only gives a picture of the super
stitious beliefs of that day, but it also shows the way the city
council protected religion and punished erroneous beliefs. One of
the offenses of the woman was that she had denied the "worthy
mother" of God, which would indicate that the council still held to
the Catholic faith. In August of the same year the council banished
a woman who was charged with being a witch.2) A man saw, in
a tavern, a picture of "the figure of our Lord God on the cross
and under it on one side our dear Lady and on the other St. John".
He struck his dagger into it. and, saying, "the idols are of no use,
they are not able to help", destroyed it. For this crime he was
ordered by the city council to be beheaded.3) In July of this year
a man was beheaded for the crime of cursing. He had used such
expressions as, "God's five wounds", "God's power", "God's sacra
ment", and "God's five sufferings".4) Some tailors' apprentices wanted
to reverence a holy saint — Guotmann — by taking a holiday and
by dancing. They were ordered by the council to honor their saint
"by praying, giving alms, and other goods works, and not by taking
holidays and dancing."5)
Zwingli's position in Zurich was at this time (1520) very peculiar.
He was a Roman Catholic priest, on good terms with his Bishop
and also the Pope, and yet in his preaching and emphasizing the
necessity of faith in Christ he often spoke slightingly of, and in
opposition to some of the church's practices, ordinances, and regul
ations. He was not a citizen of Zurich, u) and yet he freely criticised

J) Egli, No. 124.
2) Ibid. No. 130.
3) Ibid, No. 126.
4) Ibid. No. 127.
5) Ibid. No. 139.
6) In the spring of 1521 Henry Engelhardt surrendered his canonicate and
living in Grossmunster in favor of Zwingli; and April 29. 1521, Zwingli was
chosen by the chapter to fill the vacant position. (Egli, p. 897, No. 164 b. cf.
letter of Glareanus to Z. Opera VII, 182.) The right of citizenship was united
with this living. But from this, one is not justified (without further proof) in
saying that Z. became a citizen at that date, as Morikofer (I, 94) and Bluntschli
(Gesch. Rep. Z. II, 251) do. Baur (Z. Theol. I, 76 note) blunders in giving
1520 as the date. Kaspar Wirz in his "Etat des Zuricher Ministerium" (Zurich
1890) says (pp. 56, 64) that Zwingli received the living and with it the rights

— 35 —
the public policy of the government, and often severely criticised
and censured the private lives of the citizens. He was a regular
priest in a church which was largely supported by tithes, and yet
he was opposed to the tithing system. He was receiving a pension
from the Pope, who was recognized in Zurich as a foreign prince
with whom treaties were made, and yet in his preaching and pri
vately he violently opposed the receiving of pensions from foreign
powers. Zwingli, when he, by his criticism of the private fives of the
people, or by his teachings, or otherwise, was led into disputes with
different people, would notice these things and such personal matters
from the pulpit, defending himself and answering his opponents. This
mode of procedure awakened discussion and tended to arouse bitter
feelings. Besides speaking slightingly of some of the church's practices,
teachings, and customs, he was accustomed, in his preaching, to
belittle other preachers,1) and this too added to the growing discord
in the city. His political preaching and his preaching against pensions
and foreign service offended a great many people, especially those
who were supported by pensions and the foreign service. Myconius
wrote Zwingli, near the middle of 1520, at the request of Grebel who
was Zurich's representative at a meeting of the Diet held in Lucerne,
warning him and telling him how the people were complaining and
what they were saying. He wittily says that Zwingli's voice, which
is generally so feeble that it can hardly be heard three steps away,
is, now, heard all over Switzerland, and jokingly refers its increase
of strength to the Zurich wine. He tells Zwingli that the people are
saying, that "the affairs of the Swiss Confederation do not concern
you. Your business is to interpret the Gospel, to declare it to the
people, and to exhort and rebuke, but briefly, and not to repeat
the same in every sermon as though you had determined to do
nothing else than to make yourself hated all over Switzerland."
Myconius adds, "Among the people who so think there are in
numerable priests who say: 'We priests must remain priests and let
worldly matters alone. Our rulers have such great insight and

of citizenship in 1522. The chapter could nominate candidates for livings, but
with many livings the city council must give its approval and bestow them
which would naturally follow the nomination, and so Wirz statement may
possibly be correct.
») Cf. Hofmann's Klagschrift. Egli, No. 213 (pp. 60, 61).

— 36 —
business experience that they know best what ought to be done
and what ought not to be done'."1)
The feeling against Zwingli's political and personal preaching
became very bitter, and the opposition, strife and discord created by
such preaching, united with the dissatisfaction caused by his new
religious notions, became so great that the council, in order to restore
peace and quiet,2) issued an order instructing all the preachers in
the city and country that they were free to preach and explain the
Gospels and Epistles according to the Spirit of God and the Holy
Scriptures, but that they must let all incidental innovations and
human affairs alone. This ordinance, though addressed to all the
priests, was in fact intended for Zwingli. As this order has been
so generally misunderstood we must examine it more in detail.
The Order of 1520.
Our knowledge of this document, as the original cannot be
found, is very limited. We find references to it in a circular or
address of the city council addressed to the other cantons (dated
March 21. 1524), and one addressed to the different parishes (July
1524) and also in Bullinger's history of the Reformation.
In these circulars, the council in answering certain questions,
or complaints of the parishes and cantons, reviews some of its past
action in reference to ecclesiastical matters, in the following language : —
"Auf diesen ersten Artikel, getreue, liebe Eidgenossen! geben wir
die Antwort, dass wir nicht zweiflen, dann dass ihr uns diesen
Artikel in frommer und guter Meynung vorhaltet, jedoch haben
unsere Predicanten jetzt bey vier oder funf Jahren die heiligen
Evangelia und das Gotteswort bey uns geprediget und hat uns an-
fanglich, wie ihr meldet, ihre Lehre auch seltsam und fremd bedunket,
sintemal sie dem, so wir von unseren Altfordern gelehrnt, ungleich
ist. Desshalben sind dann unter uns bey Priestern und Leyen zehn
mahl ungleiche Meynungen gewesen, dardurch Zweyungen, am meisten
unter denen, welche wenig zur Predig gehen, entstanden sind.
Dazumahl haben wir, vor und eh wir von des Luthers Lehre gewilsst
oder gehort haben, ein offentliches Mandat an alle Leutpreister,
») Opera VII, 135.
«?• ^w^T' *' 32' m- FflSSliD' "' 237" Cf 229' EidSen- Abschiede
(Stnckler) IV, 1 a, p. 399 sq.

— 37 —
Seelsorger und Predicanten in unserer Stadt und auf dem Lande
ausgehen lassen, dass sie alle insgemein frey, wie dieses auch die
pabstliche Rechte zugeben, die heiligen Evangelia und Epistel der
Apostel, gleichfdrmig nach dem Geiste Gottes und der rechten gott-
hchen Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes predigen, und was
sie mit gemeldter Schrift erhalten und bewahren mogen, verkiindigen,
und von andern zufaligen Neuerungen und Satzungen schweigen
sollen."1) Bullinger (vol I, p. 32) says, "Die einfaUt vnd warhafft leer
Zwingli bracht Zurych, wie wol vii widerstrytens was, so vii dass
in dem 1520 jar ein Ersammer Radt Zurych ein offen mandat in
der Statt vnd vff dem Land, an alle Luthpriester, Seelsorger vnd
predicanten, lies vssgan, vnd gebot, das sy all gemeinlich, vnd fry
die heyligen Evanglia, vnd der heyligen Apostlen Sendbrieff glych-
formig, nach dem geist Gottes, vnd rachter gottlicher geschrifft beider
testamenth, predigen sollend, vnd was sy mitt ermallter geschrifft
bewaren vnd erhalten mogind, das sollind sy verkunden und leeren.
Was aber Nuwerungen vnd von menschen erfunden sachen vnd
Satzungen syend, dess sollind sy geschwigen."
I.
The usually accepted view of this order of 1520 is, that it is a reform
atory ordinance, and that, by it, the city council intended to and really
did introduce and officially recognize the Reformation. The following
historians fairly represent those who hold this view: —
Bluntschli says, "Mit diesem Mandat [of 1520] war die Reformation
dem Princip nach bereits eingefuhrt. Im Bewustsein seiner Macht
innerhalb seines staatlichen Gebietes und im Glauben an den christ-
lichen Gehalt seiner Verordnung erliess dor Rath dieselbe. Er fiihlte
sich nicht nur politisch souverain, er fiihlte sich auch kirchlich von
der Autoritat des Bischoffs, des Pabstes unabhangig. Wie Zurich sich
gelost hatte vom Reichsverband, so war die Stadt damals schon
heraus getreten aus der romisch-katholischen Kirche." 2)
') Fiisslin, II, 237 sq. ; compare page 229. See also for circular, Egli,
No. 557 (only an outline), Bullinger, I, 177 sq. (incomplete and without date).
Circular found in Fiisslin, II, 228—264. The circular addressed to the other
cantons in Eidgen. Abschiede (Striclder) IV, 1 a, 398 sq. The same paragraph
as that quoted is found (with no material variations) on pages 399, 400.
2) Zeitschrift fur deutsches Recht und deutsche Rechtswissenschaft, article
"Zur Geschichte der ref. K.-Verfassung". Bd. VII, p. 175.

— 38 —
Bluntschli bases this statement on Bullinger's quotation alone,
as given above.
Orelli: "Durch das Mandat von 1520 an alle Leutpriester, Seel
sorger und Pradikanten wurde die Reformation von Staatswegen ein-
gefuhrt." x) He makes this statement on Bullinger's authority as quoted
above; the only other authority he cites is to quote Bluntschli approvingly.
R. Stiihelin : "Ja im Jare 1520 war der Rat der Zweihundert
in seiner Mehrheit schon so weit gekommen, dass or an die samt-
lichen Prediger zu Stadt und Land das Mandat erliess: die Evangelien
und Sendbriefe der Apostel frei und uborall gleichformig nach dem
Geiste Gottes und der rechten gottlichen Schrift beider Testamente
zu predigen," etc. quoting Bullinger. He adds, "Der Sieg war gross,
aber noch keines wregs durchschlagend."2) His only authorities are
Bullinger and Fiisslin as quoted above.
Ranke: Im Jahrc 1520 ging Zwingli bereits sehr weit und
erfreute sich einer nicht geringen Anzahl entschiedener Anhanger.
Wirklich hat der Rath schon damals den Leutpriestern und Pradi
kanten in der Stadt und auf dem Lande die Erlaubniss gegeben,
nach der gottlichen Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments zu pre
digen, zufallige Neuerungen und Satzungen fahren zu lassen, eine
Anordnung welche schon den Abfall von der romischen Kirche in sich
schliesst."8) Ranke's only authorities are Fiisslin and Bullinger as above.
Kurtz: "Bald darauf (1520) erteilte der Rat den Priestern und
Pradikanten in Stadt und Landschaft die Erlaubnis, allein nach der
Schrift A. und NTs. zu predigen. Das alles geschah unter den
Augen zweier in Zurich anwesenden piipstl. Nuntien und blieb dennoch
ungeahndet, denn," etc.4) He cites no authority for his statement.
I am unable to agree with this view which regards the order
of 1520 as a reformatory ordinance in Zwingli's favor, and which
considers that the Reformation was commenced, on the part of the
State, at this time. Some objections to such a view of the order
may here be given.

]) Die evangelisch-ref. Landeskirche des Kantons Zurich, etc p 5
(Zurich 1891).
2) Real-Encycl. fur P. Theo. und Kirche, Article "Zwingli", Bd 17 p 591
(Leipzig 1886). Cf. below p. 52, sq.
3) Deutsche Geschichte etc. Ill, p. 48. His printer makes a mistake in
citing Bullinger as p. 20 instead of p. 32.
4) Kirchengeschichte II 1( 41. Similar views of this ordinance held by
Witz. "Ulrich Zwingli" p. 29; and Wirz, Helvet. K. G. IV, p. 180.

— 39 —
1) A majority of the population of Zurich Avas, at this time, Roman
Catholic. Just what the population of Zurich was we do not know,
but it could not have been less than 7,000, for according to a
statement of Zwingli's made in 1525 there were that many members
of the church in that city.1) In a letter dated Dec. 31st 1519,
Zwingli writes his intimate friend Myconius, that over 2000 souls in
Zurich are being nourished with spiritual milk (qui lac spirituale
sugentes) and that they will soon desire and be able to receive
stronger food.2) If we suppose that all of those who were under
Zwingli's influence and were receiving "spiritual milk" were Reformed
Christians, the orthodox Catholics would, in 1520, still have had a
majority of some two or three thousand in Zurich.
2) The city council was, ' at this time and for nearly two years
thereafter, controlled by the Roman Catholics, and continued to
protect the church. On the face of it, it is improbable that the city
council could at this time have been Reformed. Out of a population
of 7,000 or more, Zwingli did not claim that many more than two
thousand were receiving the "spiritual milk" and were under his influence.
When we consider this, and when, in addition, we remember that

') De Eucharistia, Opera III, 339. For Zwingli's German translation of
the part referred to, see Fusslin, II, 13, also Hundeshagen, "Beitrage" etc.
p. 200 sq. (where the German and Latin are given). This is in Zwingli's
explanation of his use of the city council in church matters. Zwingli says,
"Dicam hie obiter de usu Senatus Diacosiorum, propter quem quidam nos
calumniantur, quod ea, quae totius Ecclesiae esse debeant, nos per Ducentos
agi patiamur, quum totius urbis et vicinorum ecclesia sit plus minus septem
millium". In the German apology which Z. issued he says, "Hier will ich im
Vorbeigehen sagen, wie wir des Raths der Zweihundert brauchen, darum uns
Etliche so iibel schelten und verklagen: wir lassen dass, so die ganze Kirche
antrifft, in deren bei Siebentausend seien in der Stadt und davor, durch Zwei
hundert verwaltet werden". If Zwingli did not include the unconfirmed
children among the church members who were thus deprived of their rights of
ruling the church, by the city council; or if, as Hundeshagen (Beitrage etc. 203.)
supposes these 7000, who were deprived, by the action of the council, of their right
of ruling the church, were adult males (erwachsene mannliche Personen) then
the population of Zurich must have been larger than historians generally suppose.
Schaff (Hist, of the Christian Ch. VII, 39) says that the population of Zurich
was 7,000; and Staehelin (Huldreich Zwingli Bd. I, 123) says that there were
7000 citizens in Zurich at that time.
2) Opera VII, 104.

— 40 —
at least two-thirds1) of those who attend church are usually women
and children we see how utterly improbable it was that Zwingli
could, at this time in democratic Zurich, have secured the election
of enough of -his friends to have given him a majority in the city
council. In Sept. 1520 some persons - - clerical and lay -^- sub
mitted to the city council a draft of a law, or bill for a law regulating
and controlling the giving of alms. This bill assumes that the Chatholic
Church and the entire old order of things still existed in Zurich.
We find such language as the following used: "Sitmal das almuosen,
uss rechter guoter liebe, meinung und barmherzigkeit sinem eben-
menschen erzeigt und mitgeteilt, ein ubertreffenlich guot furderlich
werk ist, gnad, tugent und alle guote niitze ding zuo erfolgen und
alle bose schadliche ding zuo vermiden und Gott dem allmachtigen
so gefallig und angenem, dass er denen will geben das ewig leben, die
sich damit iiebent, und denen den ewigen tod, die das versument,
findet man gar viel menschen, die", etc. etc. According to this
proposed law all could not receive alms. Among those who were
excluded were: — "i) Item ouch denen nit, die das herrlich gebett
Vatter Unser und den engelschen gruoss: gegriiesst seyest Maria und
den glouben und die zechen gebott Gotts nit konnent oder wiissent,
und aber alters halb und geschickligkeit halb dieselben wol hettent
mogen lernen und begrifen. k) Item ouch denen nit, die uf sunntag
und firtag nit flissig predig, mess und vesper horent und doch kein
verniinftige redliche ursach habent, die si deran hindern. 1) Item
ouch denen nit, die nit alle jar zum minsten einest ihre siind bichtend
irem eignen priester. in) Item ouch denen nit, die zuo der oster-
lichen zit nit gand zuo dem heiligen sacrament, * * n) Item ouch
denen nit, die in dem bann sirid und sich uss ir versumlicheit nit
darus losent. o) Item zum letsten ouch denen nit, die da gewonlich
groblich und argerlich fluochent und schwerent und Gott und die
heilgen lastrent;" * * Those who received alms were ordered to
pray, before eating and afterward, for all men "si sygent lebendig
oder tod".2) That a bill with such motives and provisions should
be submitted to the city council would seem to indicate not only

') Concerning the attendance on Zwingli's preaching Bullinger (I, 12) says
that there was "ein tr&ffenlich glduff von allerley menschen, insonders von dem
gemeinen man".
2) For Bill, see Egli, No. 132. As to authorship of bill compare p. 54 below.

— 41 —
that the old order of things still existed but also that the council
itself was still in sympathy with and faithful to the old church.
That the city council was at this time still true to the Roman
Catholic church may be seen from many of its acts. In June 1520
the city council beheaded a man for saying concerning a picture,
in a tavern, which represented Christ, the Virgin, and St. John, "the
idols are of no use, they are not able to help", and for destroying
it. The council this same year compelled a priest to say mass twice
a week. Among the charges against a witch whom the council
ordered to be burned was the one of denying the worthy Mother
of God. A mass had been provided for in Marthalen by a gift,
"zuo trost und heil des liblos getanen seel", and the priest of Rheinau
wanted to say this mass at Rheinau, but the council, in May 1521,
ordered that the mass be said in Marthalen in accordance with the
gift for that purpose.'1) In July 1521 the council recognized the
authority of the ecclesiastical courts, and it ordered a man and his
wife to live together, or "vor dem geistlichen Gericht zu Constanz
sich scheiden zu lassen". In November of this year the council
ordered the same couple to have the money matters decided by the
judges, but "in andern Dingen vor geistliches Gericht kehren, 'dahin
es billich gehore'."2) In the same year Zurich, keeping her treaty
with the Pope, sent an army of 2,700 men to help the Pope in his
wars, and this was done notwithstanding Zwingli's violent opposition. 8)
Some two years later, Zwingli in discussing his Thirthy-seventh
Article gives his testimony concerning the Catholicity of the city
council. In speaking of this treaty and the council's keeping of it,
he says: You were opposed to all foreign alliances with princes,
and he adds "hangtend sie dennoch noch so vii an des papsts gewalt
und oberkeit, dass sy im hieltend".4) In January 1522 the council
as a condition for making the punishment of certain persons lighter,
ordered them to go to Einsiedeln to confession and to bring their
certificates of confession back to the council. Some of these certificates 5)
") Egli, No. 168. 2) Ibid. No. 183, 205.
3) Werke I, 355; Bluntschli, Geschichte der Rep. Zurich II, 258 sq.;
Bullinger, I, 51 sp. Egli, No. 195 ef. 199.
4) Werke I, 355. On relation of Bishop and council cf. Bishop's letter
addressed to the council, Nov. 4. 1521, asking that the council compel all
priests to pay the subsidium. Simmler, SammluDg, etc. Bd. I, Ill'er Theil,
pp. 783—786, also Egli, No. 201.
5) Egli, No. 217.

— 42 —
are still extant. In February of this year a man was tried before
the city council for slandering different persons — among the persons
slandered are mentioned the Pope and the Cardinal of Wallis. J)
April 9th 1522 the council issued an order, at the request of the
Bishop and church authorities, commanding all people to observe
the church fast-days and not to eat meat on such days; it punished
those who were found guilty of violating the regulations in regard
to fasting: and it was laid upon the consciences of all those who
had eaten meat on fast-days to confess their sins to their Father
Confessors and to perform the penances which they might require.2)
3) The "Gospel" and "preaching the Gospel" did not at this time
have the special meaning, which they afterward acquired, of Reformed
doctrine, but were them commonly used in the sense of the Gospel
and its preaching as understood by the Catholic Church; and tho
Catholics of that period strenuously claimed that their church did
"preach the Gospel". A few instances illustrative of this may be
here given.
The Italian Bishop who made the closing address of the Fifth
Lateran Council (March 16. 1517) declared the Gospel to be the
original source of all doctrine and holiness; and that all creatures
are called to preach the evangelical truth — "the Gospel, I say the
Gospel".3) That the "gospel" in Switzerland, at this time, generally
meant the Catholic doctrines is evident from what Myconius wrote to
Zwingli: ^'They say that the matters of the Confederation do not
concern you. Your business is to interpret the gospel (Evangelium
interpretari), to declare it to the people", etc.4) Hofmann in 1521
takes Zwingli to task for claiming that he preaches the gospel better
than others, and that it has long been hid by the church. He says :
"Ketzerisch sei es, zu sagen, man habe das Evangelium unterschlagen
verborgen, oder nicht gepredigt; * * Andere Lehrer haben das
Evangelium und die iibrige Schrift so gut wie Zwingli verkiindet
wenn sie sich auch nicht iiber ihresgleichen erhoht und andere ver-
l) Egli, No. 225.
2) Ibid. Nos. 236, 237, cf. Morikofer I, 97, where the date is wrongly given
as March 19, 1521. In correcting this, Egli's printer makes the mistake of
referring to vol. II instead of I. Witz (Ulrich Zwingli p. 30), and Escher
(Glaubensparteien, etc. p. 12), make the same mistake as to date.
3) Bezold, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation p. 176. See also p. 440.
4) This is what the Catholic said. Opera VII, 135. Cf. above p. 35 sq.

r

— 43 —
achtet haben." J) John Faber, Vicar General of Constance, in the
first Disputation in Zurich declared, "dass ich nit kummen bin evan-
gelische oder apostolische leeren ze widerfechten, sunder die, so
wider die leer des heiligen Evangelii redend oder geredt hattend,
ze horen und giitiglich (so etwas uneinigkeit entstiind, oder entstanden
ware) helfen entscheiden", etc.2) The reform programme adopted,
in 1525, by the representatives of the LX cantons and Wallis,
demanded that "das Evangelium, das Gotteswort und die hi. Schrift"
be preached, adding, however, "in dem rechten Sinne, den die heiligen
alten Lehrer in vielen beriihmten und griindlichen Biichern hinter-
lassen". 3)
4) The council, in the circular of 1524 (see above p. 36 sq.) when
it unquestionably held the Reformed doctrine, referring to what the
preachers had been preaching in Zurich for "four or five" years,
says, that "their teachings did at first, as you' say, seem to us to be
peculiar and strange, since they are not like that which we learned
from our forefathers". The expression, "as you say" (wie ihr meldet)
clearly shows that the "complaint", which the council was answering,
charged the council with being inconsistent and now allowing what
it had formerly condemned. The council justifies its action and
answers the charge of inconsistency by saying, in effect; Before we
had heard any thing of Luther, when our preachers' doctrine seemed
to us "seltsam' und fremd", because of dissensions and discord in
the city, we told our preachers, letting innovations and human affairs
alone, to preach "the holy Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles",
which was also a good Catholic position (wie dieses auch die pabstliche
Rechte zugeben), and now we command the same thing.
They go on to show that they do not belong to the Lutherans
or any sect, but hold to the Word of God and that their present
(1524) position is the result of their loyalty to the Scriptures.4) So
they are still consistent in their action.
The theory that this order of 1520 was Reformed and in
Zwingli's favor is in direct conflict with the positive evidence of the
\
i) Egli, No. 213 (p. 64).
2) Werke I, 120. — Salat's Chronik, Achiv f. d. schweiz. Ref. Geschichte,
etc. I, 46; Fiisslin, II, 93-97 (§ V).
.3) Eidgen. Abschiede. IV, 1 a, p. 573 (10). ;.-¦¦¦¦>
4) Fiisslin, II, 239 sq. ' :

— 44 —
city council. x) They say, that when we issued this order we did it
in accordance with the Catholic rights; and that it was issued because
of the dissentions and discord which grew out of the preaching of
the preachers. This preaching they say seemed to us "seltsam" and
"fremd" and not like that which we had learned from our forefathers
(i. e. was not in harmony with Catholic teachings and the usual
Catholic preaching) and we commanded our preachers to let "zufalige
Neuerungen" alone. If this order was Reformed and in Zwingli's
favor why did the council four years afterward feel compelled to
say that the teaching of their preachers did seem "seltsam" and
"fremd" und not like that which their fathers had taught (i. e. un
orthodox)? and why did they say that this order was issued in
conformity with "pabstliche Rechte"? II.
Another view of this order of 1520 is, that the city council
did not at this time intend to take sides for or against Zwingli and
that this "Mandat" must be considered as neutral. This theory was
advanced some thirty years ago by Prof. Hundeshagen in his
"Reformations -Werk Ulrich Zwingli's, oder die Theokratie inZiirich",2)
and has been followed by a number of historical writers. It has
recently received the approval of Dr. Philip Schaff in his "History
of the Swiss Reformation".3)
In regard to the present value of this work of Hundeshagen two
things may be noted: (1) His work is not based upon a thorough
or exhaustive study of the original sources, either as published or
in the archives. Aside from Zwingli's Works and Bullinger's History4)
he quotes, excepting in two or three cases, no original sources.
He makes no use, whatever, of Fiissli's "Beytrage zur Kirchen-
*) It is worthy of note that the Catholic writer Salat in his "Chronika"
of this period (see Archiv f. d. S. Ref. ge. I, 1—382) makes no mention of this
"Mandat" of 1520, which he certainly would have done had it been reformed
and in Zwingli's favor.
2) Beitrage zur Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte etc. I, 193 sqv
3) pp. 46, 66.
4) Bullinger is by no means an impartial writer, and does not accurately
reproduce the original documents, but handles them in a very free way (Cf.
Egli, No. 702 Note). While he gives very much that is valuable, he is not
always reliable (Cf. Baur, Zwingli's Theo. I, 59 Note) and to follow him im
plicitly will give a one-sided and incomplete view of the Zurich Reformation history.

— 45 —
Reformation Geschichte des Schweizerlandes" (5 vols.) published
over a century before he wrote and containing very much impotant
and valuable information. J) He quotes freely from other writers and
historians, and learnedly discusses their opinions, but this, valuable as
it may be, is, in itself, not sufficient. (2) Since Hundeshagen wrote,
many volumes of valuable and important original sources, have been
published ; and these original sources, which were inaccessible to him,
throw a flood of light upon the Reformation history of Zurich.2)
Notwithstanding this, it is indeed quite a little surprising to know
that Hundeshagen bases his opinion concerning the neutrality of
this order of 1520 upon the fact that two years after (in 1522) the
council was still Roman Catholic by a small majority, and ordered
Zwingli to quit preaching against the monks, and the further fact
that not long after this the council decided in Zwingli's favor. 3) His
reasoning is: There we're two parties in the city council. In the
middle of 1522 the party holding to the old order of things had a
small majority and a short time afterwards the party in favor of
Zwingli had a majority. This shows a division in the city council
*) Hundeshagen knows Salat's ChroniU . only (through other writers) as a
"handschriftl. Beschreibung" (Beitrage, etc. 146 Note 1).
2) Among the original sources published since Hundeshagen wrote the
more important are: Egli, "Actensammlung zur Zmicher Reformation in den
Jahren 1519 — 1533" (Zurich 1879) giving the ordinances, acts, communications
etc. of the Zurich council bearing on the church matters during these years:
"Archiv fur die schweiz. Ref.-Geschichte" by the Swiss "Piusverein", 3 Vols
(Solothurn 1869—1875); "Die Eidgen. Abschiede" by Strickler, 2 Vols (Brugg
1873 — 1876); and "Actensammlung zur schweiz. Ref.-Geschichte'' by Strickler,
5 Vols. (Zurich, 1878—1884). Among the lives of Zwingli, Morikofer's (2 Vols)
and Staehelin's (only one volume has yet appeared) may be mentioned.
3) He says that the council did not intend to help Zwingli and adds
"noch weniger ist es als ihre Absicht vorauszusetzen damit Partei zu ergreifen.
Vor Allem ware dazu im Schoosse der Magistratur selbst eine grossere Ein-
muthigkeit in Auffassung der Religionsangelegenheit erforderlich gewesen, als
dort wirklich vorhanden war. Dass es an dieser mangelte, die Rathscollegien
dieselbe Spaltung in sich trugen, wie die Bevolkerung, beweisl eine Thatsache,
welche sich fast zwei Jahre spater, um Mitte des Jahres 1522, zutrug. Von
den Monchen in Zurich wird um jene Zeit vor dem Rath Beschwerde gefiihrt
fiber Angriffe Zwingli's auf den klosterlichen Stand und die Monchstheologie.
In Folge dessen fasst die Obrigkeit zwar nur mit einer Mehrheit von wenigen
Stimmen, aber doch immerhin mit einer Mehrheit den Beschluss, dass Zwingli
diese Polemik zu untersagen sei, so dass sich daraus das Verhaltniss der ent-
gegenstehenden Parteien im Schooss der Behorde selbst erkennen lasst", etc.
Beitrage, etc. 194 sq.

— 46 —
and that the parties were nearly equally divided. From this it is
evident, that the council was not united enough to pass any order
which was not a compromise, hence this order of 1520 must be
considered to be neutral — a compromise, favoring neither party.
Stating the above in a simpler and plainer way, it resolves itself
into this: — The parties in the city council were nearly equally
divided in 1522, therefore they were nearly equally divided in 1520.
The Catholic majority passed an order, in 1522, against Zwingli;
not very long after Zwingli's friends gained a majority and passed
an order against the Catholics, which shows that an order passed
two long years before could have been nothing but a compromise
between opposing parties.
The only other evidence adduced by Hundeshagen to prove the
neutrality of this order is an analogy drawn from the history of Bern.
"At least such was the case", he says, „wlth a very similar order
issued, June 15th 1523, by the Great council of Bern".1)
If our knowledge of the facts of this history were limited to
what Hundeshagen himself gives, we would be compelled to deny
that his conclusions necessarily follow from his premises. His theory,
moreover, ignores three important things : (a) the democratic spirit in
Zurich, and the democratic-republican form of government in which
the council could be easily changed; (b) Zwingli's personality and
preaching during the intervening two years (1520 — 1522); and (c) The
many well -authenticated facts of history which go to show that the
city council was at this time (1520) Roman Catholic, and for nearly
two years thereafter was united enough to continue to protect the
church, punishing violations of the church's rules and regulations,
compelling priests to say mass, and in many ways exercising a
controlling influence over the church. IH.
Was this order or "mandat" of 1520 hostile to Zwingli? and if
so, in what way and how far? are questions which yet remain to
be considered. There were in Zurich great differences of opinions
(ungleiche Meynungen), quarrels (Zweyungen), and great discord (vii
zangs und widerwillens, vii widerstreytens), 2) and on account of this
condition of things this order of 1520 was issued, as the council
*) Beitrage etc. 194, Note.
2) Bullinger, I, 177, cf. 32. Fiisslin, II, 228 sq.

— 47 —
itself testifies. ]) And so we see that the motive for the issuance of
this "mandat" was the restoration and preservation of good order,
peace and quiet in the city. The causes of the disorder and
disturbances in the city are, according to the council, to be found
in the preaching of the preachers. Zwingli occupied tho most pro
minent place in Zurich, and we have seen that, in his preaching of
gospel he not only emphasized the evangelical faith and doctrine,
but he also spoke lightly of and criticised many of the church's
customs,regulations,and practices. This preaching seemed to the Catholic
city council to be unorthodox (seltsam und fremd — sintemal sie dem,
so wir von unseren Altfordern gelehrnt, ungleich ist) and so in this
ordinance we find that the preachers are told to let all innovations
alone. The "zufaligen Neuerungen" and "von menschen erfunden sachen"
which the council prohibited must refer to the innovations Zwingli
was making and to his way of preaching, and not to the dogmas,
institutions, and practices of the Catholic church. Look at the situation.
The members of the council, at this time, still observed all the forms
of the Catholic worship; the council this year condemned a' man to be
beheaded for destroying a picture representing Jesus, the Virgin, and
St. John and for calling it an idol; it commanded priests to say
mass; for a long time afterward it continued to recognize the authority
of the Bishop and the spiritual courts; about a year afterward it
sent over two thousand men to help .the Pope; and two years after
ward it compelled the observance of church regulations in regard to
fasting, ordered those guilty of violating such regulations to confess
their sins and submit to the penalties imposed by the spiritual
authorities; and a number of times after that, it threatened to punish
those who should violate such regulations. 2) That a council which
afterward did such things could, at this time, have declared the
time-honored customs, ordinances, regulations, and forms of worship
aye the Roman Catholic Church itself, long centuries ago hoary with
age, to be "incidental innovations (zufaligen Neuerungen) and "matters
of human devising" (menschen erfunden sachen) is to me an absolutely
incredible proposition. That the council would, in so many ways,
thus defend the Catholic Church and at the same time call it an
"incidental innovation" seems still more improbable when we remember

») Compare p. 36 sq. above.
*) Fiisslin, II, 21 also 52: Egli, Nos. 339, 498, 499, cf. 285.

— 48 —
that the orthodox Catholics in Zurich out-numbered Zwingli's hearers
by some two or three thousand; and any such action against the
CathoKc Church would have occasioned a violent storm, of which
we hear nothing.1) That these "neuerungen" und "von menschen
erfunden sachen" can not refer to tho teachings and practices of the
Catholic Church of that period is, we think, made evident by a
careful reading of that part of the circular of 1524 2) which refers to
the "mandat" of 1520. Let us examine the passage a moment. The
council says that our preachers "jetzt bey" four or five years have
preached "die heiligen Evangelia und das Gotteswort" and their
teaching at first seemed to us "seltsam und fremd" because it was
not like that which we had learned from our forefathers. The city
council at the time that it regarded the teaching of the preachers
(which was unlike that which they had learned from their forefathers)
to be "seltsam und fremd" was, beyond all doubt, Roman Catholic.
That the council would declare the preaching of the preachers (as
they were preaching the Gospels and Epistles) to be peculiar and
strange and unlike that which they had learned from their forefathers
and at the same time call the teachings of their forefathers i. e. the
teachings, dogmas, and practices of the Catholic church "incidental
innovations" is incredible. But this is what tbe council must have
done if the "zufaligen Neuerungen" and "von menschen erfunden
sachen" refer to the teachings and practices of the Catholic church.
Reading connectedly what the council says we have: Our preachers
preached the Gospels and the Word of God and their preaching seemed

J) It is a well-known fact that the ordinary members of the Catholic Church
are extremely sensitive for the honor of their church and are very ready to
resent, with blows and riot, disparaging and adverse public criticism of the
church. Such riotous action and uproars actually took place in Zurich in 1523
when Zwingli was urging forward the Reformation — See Leo Jude's inter
ruptions of the preaching of the monks and the disturbances which followed,
Egli, Nos. 344, 345, 346, 373. See also the conspiracy against Zwingli in 1522.
Egli, Nos. 238, 242, 245, 246, 248. - Cf. below p. 62. As further showing
the temper of the common people, at the time of the Reformation it is interesting
to note, that in Jan. 1524, when the Catholics wanted to arrest a preacher of
the new doctrine in Weiningen, the storm bells were rung and some 300 peasants
gathered around their pastor and prevented his arrest. Eidgen. Absch. IV 1 a,
360, 369, Strickler, A. S. No. 739. Fiisslin, II, 234 sq. Such popular demon
strations occured a number of times during the Reformation. Cf. Ochsli, An-
fange des Glaubenskonflikts, etc. p. 10.
2) Cf. p. 36, sq. above.

— 49 —
to us to be "peculiar and strange because it was not like that which
we had learned from our fathers". On account of this preaching
there arose differences of opinion and quarrels, and at that time
"dazumahl" — (j. e. at the time of the quarrels which were
caused by the preaching which seemed to us "peculiar and strange")
we issued an order that the preachers should harmoniously preach
the holy Gospels and Epistles of the apostles according to the
spirit of God, and what they could prove by said Scriptures, but
concerning "zufaligen Neuerungen und Satzungen schweigen sollen"
In view of the fact that the council was undoubtedly Roman Catholic
and in many ways protected the church, and in view of the further
fact that the council at that time considered the teaching , of the
preachers to be "seltsam und fremd" and unlike that which they had
learned from their forefathers it seems to me that the "zufaligen
Neuerungen" must of necessity refer to said teaching, and not to
the teachings and practices of the Catholic church.
These "Neuerungen" of Zwingli's were a fruitful source of much
of the difficulty and hard feelings at that time, but they were not
the only cause of the disorder in the city. Zwingli, as we have
seen, spoke (in his preaching) slightingly of and belittled those
preachers who continued to preach in the old way; in making the
applications of his sermons he reproved crimes and sins of the
private people wherever committed; he exposed to public view the
impure lives of priests, monks, and nuns; when any one said any
thing against him or his teaching he would make answer and defend
himself from the pulpit; and he freely and frequently discussed
political matters in his preaching, by which many were greatly
aggrieved and angered. To meet the whole situation the council
commanded the preachers to let "Nilwerungen vnd von menschen
erfunden sachen vnd Satzungen", as Bullinger expresses it, alone.
The council in the circular of 1524 says that the preachers were
commanded to let "Neuerungen und Satzungen" alone. In order
to effectually stop the quarreling and bickering, and to allay the
bitter feelings, discord and strife arising from the innovations, and
the personal and political preaching the council not only com
manded that "innovations" should be stopped, that the "von menschen
erfunden sachen", and that the "Satzungen" should be let alone, but
it also informs the preachers that they were to preach that and that
only which could be proved by the holy Gospels and the Epistles of
4

— 50 —
the apostles, and that they (instead, of quarreling among themselves)
were to, harmoniously (gemeinlich), preach the Gospels and Epistles
according to the Spirit of God and the Old and New Testaments.
The council in this "Mandat" is setting limits to the liberty of the
preachers and restricting them in their preaching; it informs them,
however, that their liberty of preaching the Gospels and Epistles of
the apostles is not to be limited, provided they harmoniously preach
according to the spirit of God and the Old and New Testaments,
and provided, further, that they let "incidental innovations", and
"von menschen erfunden sachen", and "Satzungen" alune. It is a
mistake to consider, as some do, that the council is, here, giving
the preachers new rights and liberties. Ranke says that the council,
here, gave the preachers permisssion (Erlaubniss) to preach the Holy
Scriptures, etc. The right to preach the Holy Scriptures was a right,
which the church not only in Zurich, but also in every Christian
land, had for centuries possessed. It was a right which no one
disputed and it would be meaningless for the council to give such
permission. In the light of the situation in Zurich all becomes plain.
There were not only quarrels between the preachers, but; the people
also took sides and there was "vii zang und widerstreytens"; some
of the preachers were suggesting or making innovations, and others
opposed them; there was much personal preaching and reproving
of sins and also much political preaching; and there were
great differences of opinion, quarrels, and great discord- The city
council which still remained Catholic wanted to restore order,
peace and harmony and so issued this "Mandat" setting limits to
the liberty of the preachers in their preaching. In restricting their
liberty in preaching the council does not propose to interfere with
their rights and duties as priests but tells them that they are free
to preach the Gospels, etc. It is worthy of note that the council did
not say preach the Gospel but "the Holy Gospels [i. e. Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John.] and the Epistles of the Apostles". By the
command to let "innovations", and "von menschen erfunden sachen",
and "Satzungen" (which may refer to human institutions — the
government, as well as to the church) alone, and by the command- to
preach the Holy Scriptures and only that which could be proved by
them, the council evidently intended to cut off all innovations, to
silence all personal and political preaching, and, bringing the preachers
back within the limits of their priestly duties, to thus restore peace

— 51 —

and quiet to the city. In view of all this and the further fact of the
Catholic city council having long been accustomed to control the
priests ^ (this very year commanding priests to says mass, etc, and
the following year trying Zwingli for receiving a pension) — in view
of all that we have presented we believe that the question whether
the. "Mandat" of 1520 was hostile to Zwingli must be answered in
the affirmative. In support of this, we may further mention that
Zwingli, at this time, complained bitterly from the pulpit that one
did not dare to preach the holy gospel and the Christian truth; and,
also, that the liberty of speech was restricted. These facts we learn
from Hofmann, Zwingli's bitter opponent. In his "Klagschrift", he
says, "Ferner soil Zwingli an der Kanzel nicht klagen, 'dass man
das heilig Evangelium und die cristenlich warheit hie desselben
halb lib und leben miiesse wagen und dessglichen'. Damit werde
die Obrigkeit verunglimpft; auch habe weder geistliche noch weltliche
Gewalt die freie Predigt je gehindert oder werde sie, ob Gott will,
zu hindern wagen, '¦sofer die cristenlich warheit niitzlich und zimlich
verkiindet wird'."1) Zwingli's complaints must refer to the action of
tlie city council, otherwise they could not be considered as a slander
of the "Obrigkeit"; and, further, the fact that Hofmann denied that
the worldly powers had restricted the freedom of the pulpit shows
that Zwingli felt and charged that the government in its action was
hostile to him. Here, then, we have Zwingli's view of the council's
action. He complains that it interferes with the preaching Of the
gospel and the freedom of the pulpit. Hofmann, on the contrary,
being an orthodox Catholic can see nothing wrong in the council's
action, and affirms that "neither the churchly nor the worldly powers
have ever interfered with the' freedom of the pulpit", adding this
very important limitation, "when the Christian truth has been preached
in a profitable and becoming way".
In what way and how far did this hostility to Zwingli go? In
that the council prohibited "innovations" it was evidently protecting

J) Egli, No. 213 (p. 61). Hofmann spent three years in the preparation of
this "Klagschrift". It was completed toward the latter part of 1521. Just
when the first part, from which this quotation is taken, was written cannot be
definitely determined, but it was probably written some months before the
completion of the document. This, however, is not important as Hofmann by
completing the document in 152k, and giving it to the officials of Grossmunster
virtually makes his statement as of that date. 4*

— 52 —
the church and opposing Zwingli's too liberal ideas, and too free
criticism of the church's regulations, customs, and teachings. In
that it further commanded the preachers to let the "von menschen
erfunden sachen", and "Satzungen" alone, and ordered them to preach
only what they could prove and defend by the Holy Scriptures, the
council, it seems to me, wanted to cut off Zwingli's too severe personal
contests and preaching and to hold in check his too free discussion
of political matters.
Staehelin in his new life of Zwingli has abandoned the opinion
he formerly held concerning this "Mandat" of 1520, and now admits
that "die Lehre Zwinglis war damit noch keineswegs gebilligt", and
that the council disapproved of Zwingli's attacks on the existing order
of things. He adds, however, "aber es war doch durch jenes Mandat
wenigstens der Grundsatz der Schriftautoritat, mit welchem Zwingli
seine Abweichungen rechtfertigen zu konnen behauptete, unumwunden
bestatigt".1) Is this true? Was it the . intention of the city council
to approve of and did the council, by this "Mandat", actually approve
of the principle which Zwingli afterwards so emphasized and considered
to be so fundamental, namely, that the Bible alone is the only standard
by which life, doctrine, and practice and all things should be judged?
The purpose of the order was something very different. The council,
which beyond all doubt was still Roman Catholic, in this ordinance
protected the church, prohibiting innovations; and, it seems to me,
that the council intended to restore peace and harmony in the city
by putting a stop to the personal quarrels and personal and political
preaching, and this was to be done by commanding the preachers to
preach the Holy Scriptures (according to the Spirit of God) and that
which they could prove by them. All' the preachers, both Zwingli
and his apponents, recognized, at least in theory, the authority of
the Bible — this was a common ground, a Catholic ground — and
they also^ considered it to be their duty to preach the gospel; and
the Catholics of that period claimed that their church did preach
the gospel. The council in this ordinance, it seems to me, recognized
the authortiy of the Holy Scriptures, as Roman Catholics, and in the
same way that the Roman Catholics of that period did; and, further
the limiting of the preaching of tho preachers to the Holy Scriptures
and what could be proved from them was the result of the necessities
of the case in order to restore peace and quite to the city, and is
>) Huldreich Zwingli: I, 183 sq.

— 53 —
not to be regarded as a recognition of the exclusive authority of
the Bible. J) The council in 1524 when it was without question
Reformed in answering the complaints of its Catholic subjects and
neighbors and defending its action in regard to the Reformation,
admits that it was Catholic at the time the "Mandat" of 1520 was issued,
and affirms that the command for the preachers to preach the Holy
Scriptures and what could be proved by them, was issued in accordance
with the Catholic rights (wie dieses auch die pabstliche Rechte zugeben).
And they attempt to justify their action and the preaching of their
preachers by affirming that they have been true to the Word of God,
which the Catholics also claimed for themselves and their preachers.
That the Reformed council should afterward, in a contest with its
Catholic subjects and neighbors try to justify its action by referring
to the order of 1520 which was well known to have been issued in
accordance with "pabstliche Rechte" by no means warrants- the con
clusion that the council in that order recognized the principle of the
exclusive authority of the Scriptures. That this "Mandat" should in
the end prove to be of advantage to Zwingli and should aid him in
the introduction of the Reformation was fartherest from the thought
and purpose of the council. They were at this time protecting the
old church, reproving Zwingli for his innovations and setting limits
to his freedom in discussing personal and political matters from
the pulpit. Prof. Staehelin apparently abandoned his former position, in
regard to this order of 1520, with reluctance and still clings to his
old opinion in part by holding that this order recognized Zwingli's
"Grundsatz der Schriftautoritat". This theory of Zwingli's influence
over the city council, which led to the council's recognition (as
Staehelin supposes) of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, needs
substantiating, and in seeking to do this Staehelin is betrayed into
making a blunder. He says: Offener und entschiedener als in
Bezug auf die Lehre ausserte sich die Zustimmung zu Zwinglis Reform-
bestrebungen auf dem sittlichen und sozialen Gebiet. Zur Bekampfung
der in der Stadt herrschenden Ueppigkeit und Ausgelassenheit
wurde ein Gesetz gegen die unanstiindige Kleidung erlassen". 2) I am

*) When the council wanted to declare in favor of the exclusive authority
of the Scriptures, it did so in no uncertain language. Fiisslin, IV, 41 sq.
Bullinger, I, 77 sq.: Cf. p. 67 below.
2) Ibid. 184 sq.

— 54 —
not able to find that any such a law was enacted this year, but
do find that such a law against indecent clothing was in the
"Verbotbuch" and was one of the laws which ever since 1500
was read every six months in the Minster. J) Staehelin, as his
only other proof of the agreement and sympathy with Zwingli's
„Reformbestrebungen, etc.", refers to the bill for a law concerning the
giving of alms, which was submitted by some clergymen and laymen
to the city council; and he supposes Zwingli to have been one of
the principal authors of thisi bill, or proposed law. 2) As no evidence
can be found that Zwingli helped in the preparation of this bill, nor
that this bill ever became a law, it can be of little value as a proof
of the "Zustimmung (at least on the part of the city council) zu
Zwingli's Reformbestrebungen auf dem sittlichen und sozialen Gebiet"
I fail to find any evidences of Zwingli's supposed control of or
predominating influence over the city council at this time, nor can I
find anything tending to prove that the council was at this time in
sympathy with any of Zwingli's "Neuerungen" 8)

J) Egli, No. 530 (§ 6 and note).
2) If Staehelin's conjecture, that Zwingli took a prominent part in the
preparation of this bill, be true then this bill would prove that Z. was not at
that time so far advanced in his development toward being an open Reformer
of the church as historians have been wont to suppose. The bill on its face
shows that its authors were Roman Catholics. Cf. p. 40 above.
3) Morikofer, (Leben Z. 1,81) says: "Offenbar war dicser Erlass [of 1520] noch
keine Erklarung zu Gunsten einer kirchlichen Reformation, wie man denselben ge-
wohnlich auffassen wollte; denn sowohl mit den Hinweisungen auf die Schrift,
als mit der Warnung vor Neuerungen sollte Zwingli auf das kirchliche Gebiet
verwiesen werden, in dessen Schranken er sich zu halten hatte" Morikofer
makes this statement without citing any authority or offering further proof.
Cf. also Escher, Glaubensparteien, etc. p. 12.

CHAPTER IV.

THE OPPOSITION TO ZWINGLI CONTINUES.
HIS FIRST VICTORY. (1521—1522.)
The external relation of the state to the local church may,
generally speaking, be said to have remained unchanged during
these years. The city council continued to decide and control in
the matter of church livings1) and tithes,2) the same as it had, for years,
been doing. In 1521 it punished priests and monks for their crimes8)
and compelled priests to say mass.4) In the fall of 1522 the Bishop
of Constance had summoned the priest of Knonau to appear before
the spiritual court. The priest appealled to the Zurich council for
protection. The council demanded that the case be dismissed, or that
the charges contained in the summons be submitted for the council's
consideration, assigning as a reason that to summon any one without
disclosing the charges made, was against ecclesiastical rights and also,
contrary to the treaty5) between the Bishop's throne and the priests
of Switzerland. The Bishop in his letter to the council disputes its
position (excepting as to the "priesterschaft der meren stiff in iiwer
stadt, denen wir hierumb zuo zyten uss gnaden gewillfart"), but this
time he would comply with their request; and so he enclosed a bill
of specifications of the charges against the priest. 6) From this letter
of the Bishop we see that the Zurich council had been accustomed
(with the Bishop consent) to control the priests of the city. Tho
case from the country which the Bishop thus submitted to the
council to review was a ban (and the reasons for it) which had
been issued against a priest. The city council had been accustomed

') Egli, Nos. 149, 151, 158, 182, 190, 287.
•) Ibid. Nos. 178, 247, 263, 267, 273, 284.
3) Ibid. Nos. 157, 209.
4) Ibid. No. 168.
5) Compare p. 12 above.
«) Egli, No. 270, cf. 271.

— 56 —
to exercise its authority in such matters, as had also the Diet of
the Swiss Confederation.1) In November of this year the Bishop
continued a case, in the ecclesiastical court, in a matter between
the Abbot of Wettingen and a priest, in order that the Zurich
council might have time to hear and determine the same matter.
The Bishop cheerfully consents to the jurisdiction of the council. 2)
Thus it was that the Zurich council, which had long exercised a
great control over the priests of the city, had, also, gradually
extended its jurisdiction over the priests and churches in the country
districts. During these years (1521 — 1522) the council passed laws
prohibiting and controlling dancing, and regulating the sale of wine. 3)
Imprisonment and fines were the common forms of punishment for
different offenses, and yet some very peculiar penalties were imposed;
for example, in one instance, in 1522, the council compelled several
offenders to go to Einsiedeln in order to confess their sins, and they
were also to bring the certificates of having been to the confessional
and give them to the council. 4) At another time in this same year the
council compelled (as a punishment) a man to take an oath that he
would not take "dasMorgenbrod, den Imbiss und den Schlaftrunk" (with
certain exceptions) until the council should pardon him. 5) Underneath
the formal continuation of the relation of state and church as it had
long existed, great changes took place and it now becomes our task,
as briefly as consistent with clearness, to study these changes and
the forces which wrere at work producing them.
Dr. Escher finds in Zwingli's conception of the preacher and
his office the key to the solution of the political situation during
Zwingli's activity in Zurich. fi) This is a step in the right direction,
but it does not go far enough and so fails to furnish a satisfactory
explanation. The real solution of this problem is rather to be found
in the democratic spirit — the democratic spirit as we see it mani-
f'ested by Zwingli, the city council, and the people. Zwingli's political
ideas grew from democratic soil; his conception of the preacher and

') Compare p. 14 and 27 above. Bullinger, 1, 18.
2) Egli, Nos. 300, 323, 326; Fiisslin, IV, 130.
3) Ibid. Nos. 170, 185.
4) Ibid. No. 217.
5) Ibid. No. 225. .
6) Glaubensparteien, etc. 19. Cf. Orelli, Die evang.-ref. Landeskirche des
Kantons Zurich, etc. p. 4.

— 57 —
his office is the child of this democratic spirit; and without this same
democratic spirit ruling among the people and the city council of
Zurich, the position which Zwingli as a preacher actually assumed
would have been absolutely impossible. Zwingli's sermons criticising
the public policy of the government, condemning princes, denouncing
the sins not only of the common people but also the rulers, and some
of the radical views which he expressed, for example his advocacy
of the right — nay the duty of the people to rebel and overthrow
a corrupt government would, under other circumstances, have been
met with severe rebukes. J) Such sermons and the public expression
and advocacy of such views were possible only because of the inde
pendent, democratic spirit of the Zurich people.
It does not come within the purpose of this Study to give a
biography of Zwingli, to trace the changes made in doctrine and
dogma, nor even to give the history of the Reformation. We shall
narrate only so much of the story of the Reforrhation as may be
necessary for the proper understanding of our subject. We shall
seek to put ourselves in touch with the times, in order to watch
the growth and development of the Reformation in its bearing upon
the relation of church and state.
When we, in spirit, put ourselves in democratic Zurich, and go
about with Zwingli and hear him preach, the growth and develop
ment of the Reformation are . the most natural things in the world.
We see him going about with the people, rich and poor, high and
low, in the most familiar and confidential way. At the rich man's
sumptuous banquet and at the frugal meal in the poor man's humble
cottage he is equally at home. 2) He associates freely with all people,
even in the most common walks of life. He is ever thoughtful of
the sick and never neglects the poor. His cheerful, kind disposition
and his superior musical abilities3) make him every where a welcome
') Bernhard Weis, a contemporary of Zwingli in Zurich says of him; "an
der Cantzel sah er keinen an, weder Papst, Keyser, Konig, Herzog, Fiirsten,
doch Herren, auch die Eidgenossen nicht, wider deren Pensionen er so manlich
redete", etc. Fiisslin, IV, 36. For Zwingli's views of the right of a people to
rebel cf. Werke I, 369 sq.
2) Bernhard Weis (Fiisslin, IV, 36): "Er ass und trankmit alien Menschen, die
ihm luden, verachtete niemand, er war barmhertzig gegen arm en Leuten, und allwegen
in Freud und Widerwartigkeit eines frolichen mannlichen Gemiiths, der sich kein
Uebel erschrecken liess , sondern war allwegen trostlichen G emflths und tapferer Red".
3) Fiisslin, IV, 35, Bullinger, I, 31.

— 58 —
guest and open many a door of usefulness for him. He was a faithful,
sympathetic pastor, who entered into the daily lives of his parishioners ;
participating with them in their joys and sorrows, he gained a powerful
influence over their lives. Not only did Zwingli, in his pastoral work,
sympathize with and recognize the rights of the individual, but also
in his preaching he appealed to the judgment and conscience of
each individual and did not seek to overawe by churchly authority.
This is very evident from Zwingli's exposition of the XX Article.1)
Concerning the praying to saints, he say, that at first he did not
preach against saint worship, but allowed the people to continue to
pray to the saints until God should show them better. He began by
preaching Jesus Christ, the true Savior; that they should ask him
for all good things, and go to him in all their troubles. He preached
the love of God to man and that Christ died for sinners. He
preached in full confidence that the Word of God would accomplish
its work. As to the way he recognized the rights of the individual
conscience he says: "hab ouch den einfaltigen vorggeben, also, dass
ich oft gesprochen hab, so sy hasslicher strittend: Wolhin! wellend
jr uberein iiwer anligen den seligen klagen; so will ich mines allein
gott klagen. Lasst sehen, welcher fart den gwiisseren weg. Und
hab sy also mit milch erzogen, bis dass jro etlich, die vor stark
wider mich war end, stark darnach allein gott anhangtend".
Thus Zwingli, by preaching the truths of the Word of God,
sought to reform the lives of the people. He preached the truth, as
he understood it, to the people and left them free to accept or reject
it as their judgments might dictate. As a natural result there con
stantly arose among the people differences of opinion. Some would
accept Zwingli's views and some would hold to the old way of
thinking. From these differences of opinion hard feelings would
arise, and bitter quarrels and disputes would take place. Daily
newspapers were then unknown, and the means of travel and com
munication were slow and limited and so Zurich formed a little
world of itself. In this little world Zwingli's sermons, new views,
and political sayings would be important news, and were frequently
and eagerly discussed on the streets, in the saloons and drinking
places, in the homes and every where. 2) These discussions would at
times become very bitter and the discord become so great that the
») Werke, I, 268 sq.
*) Cf. Bullinger, I, 48 sq.

— 59 —

city council would have to interpose in the interests of public peace.
Thus it was in 1520, that such great differences of public opinion,
acjmpanied by such hard feelings, arose because of Zwingli's preaching.
So bitter were the quarrels and disputes, and so great were the con
fusion and discord, that the city council in order to restore peace
and quiet issued the "Mandat" against Zwingli, which we have
considered in the preceding chapter. Zwingli was allowed to con
tinue his expository preaching of the Bible. His method of preaching
was to explain the books of the Bible chapter by chapter. He would
first read a chapter or passage and then he would go over it again
explaining it by other passages of Scripture. On the following Sunday
that the people might not lose the connection, he would give a brief
summary of his last sermon, and thus it was that he preached the
Word of God to the people.1) It is interesting to see how Zwingli
appealed from the decision of the city council to the court of public
opinion. In his preaching he vigorously protested against having
limitations put to his liberty of speech and right of private judgment. 2)
He had been ordered by the city council not to introduce any
innovations, and he appealed from this order to the judgment of his
hearers as to whether his teachings were innovations. Hofmann in
his "Klagschrift" complains that at Easter 1521 Zwingli had discussed
certain questions from St. Thomas and Scotus, from the pulpit, and
had condemned their views; and Hofmann here enters a vigorous
protest against Zwingli's calling the teachings of the church writers
of the last 380 years "neue". 3) He complains that Zwingli had
called these writers "auf den Kanzel 'toll fantasten' und ihre Lehren
'wiiest pfutzen, oder mistlachen oder dessglichen' genannt und geredet",
and had said that what they wrote was contrary to the Gospel.
Thus we see that when Zwingli was commanded not to introduce
any innovations (Neuerungen) he took the position that his teachings
were not innovations because they were the teachings of the Bible,
and he finally took the bold position that the teachings of the church
writers of the later centuries were really innovations. And so it was

») Fiisslin, IV, 36.
s) See above page 51 sq.
*) This protest is found in that part of the "Klagschrift" which was
written in 1521, and is not mentioned in the part which was written first,
which would indicate that this was a new ground of complaint against Zwingli.
Egli, No. 213 (p. 63).

— 60 —
that Zwingli appealed his case from the city council, not to the
ecclesiastical courts, but to the popular court of public opinion.
Some events of 1521 made Zwingli, again, discuss political
matters from the pulpit. It was proposed that a treaty be made by
which mercenary soldiers were to be furnished to France. Zwingli
tliundered from the pulpit against mercenary soldiers and the proposed
French treaty. His enemies accused him of being the cause of Zurich's
refusal to enter into this treaty. During the discussion of this matter,
party feeling ran high and Zwingli was heartily abused by those
who favored the treaty. All kinds of slanderous and abusive placards
were secretly posted all over town — on the streets, in the drinking
places, etc. Zwingli's friends retaliated by posting opposition placards.
The parties opposed each other iu this way, and by singing rough
and rude songs, and also in bitter and abusive personal disputes.1).
In the summer of this year the question arose concerning the
treaty with the Pope, and whether Zurich should send soldiers as the
Pope demanded. The discussion of this question, by bringing the
political side of the Hierarchy into prominence and by giving Zwingli
an opportunity to expose the corruption and wrorldliness of the church
leaders, helped on the cause of the Reformation. Zwingli vigorously
preached against pensions and the mercenary service; he held up
the cardinals, etc. to ridicule; and insisted that the treaty with the
Pope should be annulled;2) but with all his eloquence and influence
he could neither control the city council nor stem the tide of public
opinion, and so Zurich sent over two thousand men to help the Pope.
The final outcome of this expedition proved to be of great advantage
to Zwingli in that it helped to open the eyes of the people to the
real nature of the Hierarchy.
During the stormy contest concerning the keeping of this treaty
the papal party endeavored to silence Zwingli's opposition by driving
him from the city. In order to accomplish this they charged that
until recently Zwingli had been receiving a pension from the Pope,
]) Bullinger, I, 48 sq. The following is a sample of the placards; —
"Der Zwingli vnd sin rott,
Sind heilig vor Gott,
Wie Judas der Zwolffbott.
Der war ein verrather vnd ein Dieb,
Gang du hin, vnd heb den Zwingli lieb".
2) Werke, I, 355, Bullinger, I, 51.

— 61

and this they proved by making public Zwingli's receipt for money
received from the Pope, and his letter written the year before in
which he declined to, longer, take tho pension. The council summoned
Zwingli to appear before it and to answer the charge of unlawfully
receiving^ a foreign pension. This trial, which had been postponed
several times, took place in the latter part of August 1521, being
the very time in which preparations were being made, in Zurich, to
send the soldiers as the Pope desired. We do not see, here, as some
have supposed a Reformed city council in sympathy with Zwingli,
jealous for the "Gospel" as the Reformed church afterwards under
stood it, investigating the question of the way the gospel was preached.
The majority of the council were, still, Roman Catholic. Zwingli
himself says that at this time "hangtend sy noch vii an des papsts
gewalt unci oberkeit", in fact so much so that they kept the treaty
with the Pope. Zwingli proved by one witness that he had told the
papal legate that for the sake of money he would not work to advance
the Pope's (political) interests. He, also, proved that he had not
"weder von des Papsts, noch Kaiser, noch anderer Herren wegen",
deviated so much as a finger's breadth from his duty as a priest;
and, further, that if he had been willing to advance the Pope's
affairs (Sachen) according to his ability he would have received great
rewards, in fact he had been offered a large pension, and a fine
position with a large income in Basel. The council which at this
time was not only opposed to but had also decided against Zwingli's
position in the matter of keeping the papal treaty, and which was
even then preparing an expedition to send to help the Pope, decided
in Zwingli's favor and completely exonerated him.1)
From that part of Hofmann's complaint which was written in
the latter part of this year (1521), we learn something of the progress
Zwingli was making in his development toward being an open
reformer of the church. He now denied that the teachings of the
church writers and fathers were authoritative and declared that the
writings of many of them were contrary to the Gospel. He attacked,
from the pulpit the immorality of the monks. He placed very little
stress upon the worship of the Virgin, so little, indeed, that Hofmann
was afraid that Zwingli might by some be suspected of being a
') On this matter see Opera VII, 178—180. Cf. I, 353 sq.; II j, 8; also
"Archiv f. d. schweiz. Ref. Ge," I, 788, where Zingk's letter is also given —
Zingk was Zwingli's witness.

— 62 —
heretic. Zwingli rejected the legends and histories of the saints.
He seemed to think slightingly of the rosary. He would not allow
the Lord's Prayer to be addressed to the saints, and said that he
could not find any proof in the Scripture that the saints pray to
God for the living and the dead. He affirmed the salvation of
unbaptized children. The doctrine of purgatory could not be proved
by the Bible. Hofmann suspected Zwingli of being unorthodox in
regard to the ban, and he thought it heretical to say that "man habe
das Evangelium unterschlagen, verborgen oder nicht gepredigt". 2)
When we remember that Zwingli's method of introducing the Re
formation 2) was not to antagonize the people by harshly condemning
what they considered to be sacred, but to preach the truth and
thus to lead them gently along, we readily see that Zwingli must
have been personally farther advanced in his thinking than Hofmann' s
complaints would indicate. These complaints, however, show that
Zwingli at that time had not urged the violation of, nor sought to
change the church's ordinances and regulations. He had declared
that different things could find no support in the Bible, and so by
training the people to test every thing by the Word of God he was
preparing them for a revolt against churchly authority.
Early in 1522 Zwingli, in his preaching, declared that he could
find no Scripture which required the keeping of fast-days. His
preaching carried conviction to the hearts of many of his hearers,
and some of them since eating meat was not forbidden by the Bible,
ate meat on fast-days, but Zwingli himself did not eat meat and so
did not violate the church's regulations. 3) This violation of the
church regulations aroused a great storm among the people. Those
who had eaten meat were derided as "fleysch frasser" and were
regarded as great sinners and heretics. Bitter strife and quarrels ensued.
The Bishop issued an order to the clergy; and Zwingli preached
on the liberty of the Christian in such matters. Zwingli was cursed and
roundly abused, by many people, as a heretic and threats were made of
mobbing him and carrying him away some night so that no one
would know where to find him. 4) The discord, confusion and strife in

') Egli, No. 213 (pp. 63, 64).
') Werke, I, 268 sq.
8) Egli, No. 233.
4) Concerning the threats and conspiracy against Zwingli, see Egli Nos
238, 242. 245, 246, 248, compare 243.

— 63

the city become so great ]) that the city council was obliged, in the
interests of good order2) to step in between the opposing parties.
The council made an investigation. One man, a book printer, who
had eaten meat made a written statement to the council justifying his
action by the Scriptures, and appealed to the council for protection
against the spiritual authorities should they wrongfully seek to
punish him. 3) As this matter of the violation of the fast regulations
concerned the church, the council, as was usual in such cases, 4) asked
the Probst and chapter of Grossmunster and the three "Leupriestern"
for their advice. Their reply was, that according to the divine law
no kind of food was forbidden, but that it did not seem to them
that the "somlicher loblicher bruch, fleisch, eier und kas nit ze essen
in der fasten" should be done away with by the people. They had
instructed their preachers to publicly and earnestly warn the people
not to commit such sacrilege again. They asked the city council
to take charge of this matter. They say: "(Wir) mogent ouch wol
liden, dass iiwer ersam wisheit nach irem bedunken darin und (in)
dessglichen sachen in etlicher gstalt handle, wie das si guot werde
bedunken, mit iiwerem offnen gebott in alien pfarrkilchen; denn wir
je willens sind, in gehorsame zuo beliben so lang, bis unser obern
somlich ansehen gemeinlich abstellent oder andre machent. Wir
habent (daftir), ouch entphelen(t), mit den bichtvattern zuo reden,
dass si nach gstalt des frevels oder notdurft mit den iibertrettern
giietlich und erlich entseheident. (Wir wollen) damit ouch nieman-
(dem) in diser oder andern desglichen sachen entzogen haben den
gewalt siner Straf : nit unsrem heligen vatter dem Bapst, nit unsrem
gnadigen Herren (dem Bischof) von Constenz, noch iiwern ersamen
wisheiten, besunder jedem (den) bruch siner straf vorbehalten." 5)
While the investigation of these matters was still going on, the
Bishop of Constance sent messengers to Zurich. They first appeared
before the Provost and Chapter and demanded that the church
regulations in regard to fasting be enforced. Zwingli here explained
and defended his position. The next day the Bishop's representatives
») Egli, Nos. 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237. Cf. Bullinger, I, 69 sq.
2) The council assigns the "vii zanks, unrow und widerwartigkeit" as the
reason for its "Mandat" in this matter. Egli, No. 237, see also No. 236 and
Fiisslin, II, 5 sq.
») Egli, No. 234.
«) Cf. p. 28 above.
») Egli, No. 235.

— 64 —
asked the city council (the small council) to punish those who had
eaten meat on fast days and to see that the church's regulations be
observed. Zwingli was refused admission and so could not defend
himself. The next day the matter was transferred to the Great
council ') and Zwingli was give an opportunity to defend his position
that eating meat was not forbidden by the Bible. 2)
After this hearing the city council ordered that the church's
commands in regard to fasting be observed; thanked the Bishop for
his watch-care, und requested him to have the question of the proper
Christian teaching determined by the holy Pope, the Cardinals, the
Bishops, a council, or the proper Christian scholars. The council
also ordered, that a warning against violating the fasting regulations
be given the next Sunday in all the churches in the city. Many
of those, wdio had eaten meat, had done so in secret, and the council
in order that all, who had been guilty of violating the church
regulations, should be punished decreed; "Es ist ouch hiemit denen,
so das fleisch gessen haben, iren conscienzen ufgelegt, das iren
bichtvattern zuo bichten, welche si als geistliche handlung mit uf-
gelegter buoss strafen mogen."3) The council punished those who
were found quilty of violating the regulations in regard to fasting;4)
and under severe pains and penalties prohibited the further violation
of said regulations; and, also, ordered, "dass sich niemas einichs
zanks und haders oder widerwartiger, ungeschickter worten gegen
einandern nit anneme, belade, noch gebruche, es syg des fleischessens,
des predigens, oder derglich sachen und handlen hab, sonders manklich
fridlich und riiewig sye" 5)
That this matter was removed from the more hostile Small
council to the Great council and that Zwingli was here given a
chance to defend himself clearly indicate that the tide had commenced
to turn in Zwingli's favor. Even though the institutions of the old
') After Jan. 11. 1524 the Great Council alone had jurisdiction over matters
concerning the preaching of the preachers. Egli, No. 480. — Several years
later the small council again had jurisdiction. Egli, No. 1254.
2) Cf. Egli, Nos. 236, 251; Fiisslin, II, 5 sq.; IV, 125. Werke I, 1, see
also Bullinger, I, 70; compare Wirz, Helvet. K.-G., etc. IV, 222 sq. Morikofer,
Z. I, 97 sq. Staehelin. Zwingli (1895) I, p. 206 sq.
3) Egli, No. 236 (3).
*) Bullinger, I, 69.
5) Egli, Nos. 237, 236. Fiisslin, II, 5-17. Cf. Bullinger, I, 69 sq. This
mandat is dated April 9'h 1522.

— 65 —
church were still protected, and the violations of the church's regu
lations were punished by the city council, yet this decision, in that
it did not directly condemn Zwingli and his position, showed that
his influence was increasing and that- he had reason to hope for a
complete triumph in the not very distant future.
During the last two years Zwingli had been rapidly developing
into an open and hostile reformer of the church; and as he had not
only from his pulpit, but also publicly before the city council
commenced his reformatory work, and further as he had reason to
believe that he could eventually win the support of the city council,
he could not, now, quietly submit and consent that this decision
of the council should be final. He immediately appealed to the
poeple to sustain him. From the pulpit he vigorously defended his
position in regard to the liberty of the Christian in the matter
of eating meats and keeping fast days. ]) Within the week following
this decision he published his sermon concerning Christian liberty
in the matter of eating food. 2) This book was addressed neither
to the Church authorities, nor to the city council asking a rehearing
of the matter, but it was addressed "to all the pious Christian people
of Zurich" (alien frommen Christenmenschen zu Zurich); and so the
democratic Reformer again appealed his case from the ecclesiastical
and state authorities to the judgment of his parishioners and the
people of Zurich.
How this action on the part of Zwingli would affect the agitated
condition of the public mind is evident. The bitter feelings, con
tentions, and disputes became more intense and violent. The next
month the Bishop of Constance wrote to the city council requesting
it to compare the present discord and condition with the holy church's
ordinances and requirements and to enforce the church's regulations. 3)
Several weeks after this, the Bishop again wrote to the Zurich
council and complained of the scandal, confusion, and doubt among
the common people and says that they think themselves wise enough
to live without spiritual and temporal masters. He urged the council
to exercise its power, to warn, and to punish all who violate the
church's ordinances and time honored customs.4) These requests
') Bullinger. I, 69.
2) Von erkiesen und fryheit der spysen. (April 16. 1522.) Werke I, 1 sq.
3) Egli, No. 251. Strickler, A. S. I, 428. Fiisslin, IV, 125.
*) Fiisslin, IV, 127 sq ; Strickler, A. S. 464. 5

— 66 —
(with the Bishop's order or letter addressed to the clergy) may be
considered as the Bishop's answer to Zwingli's appeal to the people.
The agitation and discussion of these questions were not confined
to the educated classes alone, but, assuming a popular democratic
form, were carried on by the common people. Events were rapidly
rushing on toward an open break with the church. Zwingli made
one more attempt to secure a Reformation, which should be brought
about within the church by and with the consent of the proper
ecclesiastical authorities. With some of his fellow pastors he addressed
(July 2) a Latin petition to the Bishop asking that the Gospel might
be freely preached in his bishopric and that the priests be allowed
to marry. x) But it was of no avail.
The monks, whose immoral lives Zwingli lost no opportunity to
condemn, still had a great many friends in the city and also in the
city council. Encouraged by the Bishop's activity against Zwingli,
and by the action of the council in the matter of the violation of
the fast regulations, the monks now entered complaint against Zwingli
before the city council. The council (July 7) ordered Zwingli not
to preach in the pulpit against the monks, and that they should not
dispute and discuss these matters any more. 2) Zwingli refused to
submit to this order, and again appealed to the people. He vigorously
attacked the monks and their teachings, from his pulpit. He immediately
(July 13) published, anonymously, his work "Ein frimdlich bitt und
ermanung", 3) which he addressed to the civil authorities of all the
Swiss cantons. In this work he pleads for the preaching of the
Gospel, and the marriage of the priests, and discusses these subjects
fully and in a clear way, in the German language, so the people
could understand it. He continued to disobey the order of the
council and from his pulpit thundered against the monks. The strife
between Zwingli and the monks became so bitter4) that the city
council was compelled to interpose its power. It appointed a committee
— three members of the council and the city clerk — with power
to summon the parties, and to investigate and settle these quarrels

') Opera, III, 17 sq. Compare I, 30 sq.
2) Fiisslin, IV, 39; Bullinger, I, 77; MSrikofer, I, 118. Fiisslin and MBrikofer
give this date as July 7»h , Bullinger als June 7*h . Compare Egli, No. 254.
3) Werke, I, 30 sq. Cf. Ill 17 sq. Other priests joined Zwingli in this as
in the petition addressed to the Bishop.
4) Bullinger, I, 77.

— 67 —
and disputes, which were threatening the public peace. This committee
met, July 21st, to hear the matter. All interested parties from both
sides, including church officers, were present. After a hearing and
a full discussion, the committee, at first, decided that Zwingli and
the monks must live peaceably together, that they must not preach
against each other, and that all matters of dispute must be sub
mitted to the Provost and chapter of Grossmunster. A majority of
the chapter were still opposed to Zwingli, and so he then and there
absolutely refused to submit to this decision. Among other things
he said, "I am Bishop and Pastor, in this city of Zurich, and the*
care of souls is entrusted to me". He further declared that he had
taken an oath to faithfully perform this duty and that the monks
had not. Should they preach what is untrue he would oppose them
and from their own pulpits would contradict their false teachings.
He, also, planted himself upon the order which had been issued
against him in 1520, and declared that in accordance w4th that
"Mandat" he proposed to preach the holy Gospels; that if he had
preached anything contrary to them he was willing to have his
Chapter, or any private citizen prove it, and that he would cheer
fully submit to any punishment that the city council might inflict.
After further hearing, argument and discussion, the committee, in the
name of the council, reconsidered their action and instructed the
monks to preach "das heil. Evangelium, den heil. Paulum und die
Propheten, das die heil. Schrift ist, und lasset den Scotum und
Thomam, und solche Ding liegen". x)
By this decision of the, committee the tide began to turn.
The power and influence of the council which hitherto had been
opposed to any changes, from this time on began to make
themselves felt, at first but slightly it is true, in favor of Zwingli.
This decision was a great victory for Zwingli, but it was by
no means decisive.2) It was but the prelude to a gigantic struggle
*) On this trial or hearing before the committee see Fiisslin, IV, 41 sq.
Bullinger, I, 77 sq. Cf. Morikofer, I. 118 sq.
2) Staehelin used similar language concerning the "Mandat" of 1520 in his
Encycl. Article (see above p. 38). He has changed his opinion of the order
of 1520. For his present view of this order (of 1520) see his new life of Zwingli
Vol. I, p. 183 sq., and 230. Cf. also p. 52 sq. above. For Staehelins view
of this order of the committee cf. Ibid. I, p. 230. He says that the council
by issuing this order (of July 1522) abandoned its former "neutral position",
The position of the council up to this time had, as we have seen, been far
5*

— 68 —
which was destined not only to shako Zurich to its very center, but
also to involve all Switzerland in mighty social and religious con
vulsions. Zwingli encouraged by this decision preached with more
boldness and continued to oppose the monks and their teachings.
The monks, on ^he other hand, did not respect the . recommendation
of this committe, x) but continued to preach as they had done and
oppose Zwingli; and so the contest between Zwingli and the monks
and others who held to the old ways of thinking became sharper.
Zwingli gained another victory (in August) by the clergy of "Zurich-
see", or "Ruralkapitel Zurich", as it was also designated, at a con
ference in Rapperswyl deciding to preach nothing but what is con
tained in the Word of God.2)
The monks had exercised, exclusively, the privilege of preaching
to the nuns in the convents. Zwingli in accordance with his threat
obtained permission from the city council to preach in these convents.
This was met with violent opposition on the part of the monks and
many of the nuns. Zwingli preached in the convent Oetenbach on
the "clearness and certainty of the Word of God", and Sept. 6th
published his sermon in book form, with an introductory letter
dedicating it to the Sisters of that convent. 3) He immediately
(Sept. 17) followed this with his book on the Holy Virgin.4) Zwingli's
teachings found acceptance on the part of some the nuns, who now
wanted to leave the convent and to change the order of things.
This created great disturbances and discord. The convent authorities

from neutral. The "Mandat" of 1520 against "Neuerungen" (whatever inter
pretation is given to "Neuerungen") was not neutral; beheading a man for calling
a picture of Christ, the Virgin and St. John an idol was not neutral ; punishing
those who ate meat on fast days was not neutral; and ordering Zwingli not to
preach against the monks was not neutral. Up to the time of this order the council
had protected the Catholic church and the Catholic forms of worship, but at the
same time the free democratic spirit of Zurich demanded and in the main
secured for the preachers liberty of speech. As long as the Catholic forms
of worship, and the church regulations were observed the council seldom inter
fered, but when these were violated it made its power felt.
') Fiisslin, IV, 42.
2) Bluntschli, Rep. Zurich, II, 274. Wirz, Helvet. K.-Ge. I, 314 sq. Werke
I, 30, 125 (Note).
3) Werke, I, 53 sq.
4) Ibid. I, 83 sq.

— 69

appealed to the city council to enforce the convent rules.1) During
these months, the contests and strife became so very severe that
Zwingli often declared from the pulpit that he would give up his
position as priest of Grossmunster. In the midst of this conflict he
actually did do so, and the council (Nov. 12) "for the sake of peace
and quiet" authorized the Provost and Chapter to select another
priest, but at the same time requested Zwingli to continue to supply
the pulpit.2) The Bishop in a letter (Nov. 13) requested the city
council to investigate the difficulties in Oetenbach and. to enforce
the convent discipline.3) The council appointed a committee to in
vestigate the matter. If this committee should fail in securing peace
they were instructed to summon all parties to appear before the
city council.4) The matter was brought before the council. After;
a hearing the council decided (Dec. 1, 1522) that until next
Whitsuntide (Pfingsten) both parties must live together in peace and
love, in the hopes that in the mean time it might be decided by.
the spiritual or temporal power (geistlich oder weltlich oberkeit)
what things are to be done and what can be omitted; that the nuns
can select their own confessors; that the priests as- well as the monks
can say mass, preach and hear confession in the convent, but that
as soon as their duties are done all monks and priests must leave
the convent ; and that those who preach in the convent must preach
only "was si mit dem heiligen mund Gottes und Evangelio beschirmen
mogen und sust andrer liechtfertiger red stillstan". 5) Three things,
in this decision, which throw light upon the development of the
Reformation should be noted; first, the council which had asked the
Bishop to have these rehgious disputes settled by the proper authorities,
now, sets a limit as to the time (next Whitsuntide) in which this
decision must be made; second, the council distinctly intimates that
the temporal powers (the state) have the right to decide such matters;
and, third, until such decision is made the sermons of those who
preach in the convent must conform to the Word of God. It was

i) Egli, Nos. 291, 301; Fiisslin, IV, 129, 130.
2) Ibid. No. 290.
3) Fiisslin, P7, 129; Egli, No. 291.
*) Egli, No. 298.
5) Ibid. No. 301; Fiisslin, II, 17—21. Quarreling must cease, so those who
preach in the convent must preach that only, which can be proved by the
Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures were recognized by both sides as authoritative.

— 70 —
evidently the intention of the council to maintain the status quo
in the convent until an authoritative decision could be reached, and
to silence all quarrels and disputes; but the storm which was raging
not only in the convent but also among the people of Zurich could
not be checked by an order of the city council. The storm continued
to gain in intensity and increase in velocity. The city council tried
to quiet the public mind and to preserve peace. It, at once, turned
its attention to the matter of foreign pensions1) which had been and
still were a fruitful source of discord and trouble. The council
(Dec. 13, 1522) appointed a committee to wait upon the Provost
and Chapter of Grossmunster and to inform them of the ordinance
which it had passed in regard to the receiving of pensions. This
committee was instructed to report to the council what the chapter
might say in regard to the ordinance.2) On the second Sunday
thereafter Zwingli preached a sermon against pensions, and in the
evening all the priests, canons, chaplains, and helpers of the churches
in the city, were assembled before the mayor and had to swear
not to accept any pensions from any foreign power whatever including
the Emperor and Pope; and also to swear allegiance to the govern
ment (the city council).3) On the following day the members of
the city council also took an oath not to receive any foreign pensions. 4)
The council by its decision in the matter of the Oetenbach
convent showed itself to be in sympathy with Zwingli and his funda
mental principle that in religious matters the Word of God is the
*) Some of the canons (Chorherm) were still receiving pensions from
the Pope and other powers. Cf. Bullinger. I, 83.
2) Egli, No. 305.
3) Bullinger, I, 83; Fiisslin, IV, 44, where there is an evident mistake in
giving the year as 1523. It is incorrect to say that this action in regard to
pensions is the effect of Z. one sermon as Bullinger (I, 83, cf. also Wirz, Helvet.
K.-G., IV, 359) seems to do. There was, in the latter part of the 15th century
already quite a feeling against public officials receiving pensions (Bluntschli,
Rep. Zurich, II, 35); "Reislaufen" was forbidden as early 'as 1517 (Egli, No.
167 Note) and again in 1521; and we have seen the investigation concerning
Z. pension; and further the council itself had taken the initiative and sent its
committee to the chapter with the instruction, "inen miner Herrn satzung
eroffnen", over a week before the sermon was preached. Z.'s continued opposition
to the pension system and the foreign service was undoubtedly a factor in
bringing about this result, but to say that this sermon was the cause of this
action is an error.
4) Fiisslin, IV, 44i

— 71

standard by which all things, are to be judged. Zwingli was not
slow in appreciating this and advanced his reformatory ideas with
greater persistency than ever; and as a very natural consequence
met with great opposition. His teachings were by many considered
to be the most impious blasphemy and he was derided as a corrupter of
the people, a teacher of error, and a godless heretic.1) The public
mind was thoroughly aroused by the discussions and the decision of
the council in this matter, and so the bitterness and animosity could
not be confined to the priests and the educated classes, but spread
among the common people.2) Disturbances and breaking of the
peace were daily occurrences which the council was obfiged to in
vestigate and punish.3) Things kept growing worse and would not
quiet down.4) Zwingli, smarting under the abuse heaped upon him
by the Catholics and seeing the confusion and discord daily increasing,
was very restive under the restraints which the city council had
imposed,6) and he was not content to wait until the Bishop or the
church authorities should decide what was according to the Word
of God and what was not. From his pulpit he boldly appealed to
the judgment of his hearers as to whether his teachings were in
accord with the Word of God, and often declared himself ready to
defend his views before the representatives of the Bishop and before
the learned and the unlearned, and he persistently demanded a
public debate where he could meet and answer those who were
deriding him as a corrupter of the people and a heretic. He appealed,
also, to the city council; complained of the abuses and insults he was
obliged to endure, and the condition of things in the city; declared
himself ready to answer for his teachings before the representatives
of the Bishop or any one; and demanded a disputation so that he
could defend his position, declaring at the same time that he was

x) Werke I, 115 sq.; Egli, No. 318; Salat's Chronika, Archiv f. d. schweiz.
Ref. Ge., I, 43 sq. Cf. Fiisslin, II, pp. 84, 88; Bullinger, I, 84 sq.
2) See speech of Mayor at the first disputation Werke I, 116 sq. Cf.
Salat's Chronika, Archiv f. d. schweiz. etc., I, 44; Fiisslin, II, 87 sq.; also III,
86, Note. 3) See mayor's speech. Cf. also Egli, Nos. 313, 316, 317. The exact dates
of these references in Egli are uncertain, but the facts there given show the
condition of things in Zurich. Fiisslin says (III, 86 Note) that preachers
were frequently interrupted in their sermons.
4) See mayor's speech.
<>) Cf. above p. 69.

— 72 —
perfectly willing to be shown his error and that if he had taught
anything contrary to the Word of God he was willing to submit to
any punishment which the council might impose.1) Zwingli's preaching
produced a popular demand and clamor for a disputation; even the
Catholics of Zurich desired it;2) such a strong pressure of public
opinion was brought to bear, 3) and so great was the discord and
strife in the city, that the city council was compelled to take action.
In the spring 'of 1522 the majority of the council were still
Roman Catholic and referred the disputes concerning religious matters
to the Bishop and the proper ecclesiastical authorities, ordering all
persons to observe the church's regulations and to await an authoritative
decision from the church rulers. In December of the same year a
majority of the council favored Zwingli, but the council still referred
the religious questions to the church authorities, with the intimation
that the temporal rulers have a right to decide such questions; and
it also set a limit to the time it would wait for the church offieials
to render their decision. Until such decision should be made, or
until said limit should be reached all priests and monks were ordered
by the council to preach, in the convent, only what could be proved
from the Word of God. But, now, because of the necessities of the
situation in Zurich and under the pressure of public opinion the
city council decides that it can not wait for the ecclesiastical
determination of the matter in dispute,4) and so (Jan. 3rd 1523) it
issued a call for a public disputation to be held on the 29th of the
month, in order that all questions of dispute might be fully heard
and determined. 5) The council itself had no doubts as to its authority
J) Bullinger, I, 84 sq.; Werke, I, 116; Salat's Chronika, Archiv, etc. I, 44;
Fiisslin, II, 88.
2) Egli, No. 213 (p. 65).
3) Kasper von Miilinen (June 1523) in urging the Swiss Diet to action
against the new faith and in excusing the action of the Zurich Council says;
"unser predikanten hand uns in unser stadt dahin gepracht, (dass), so es mine
Herren gem wollend wenden, so mogent si es nit". Egli, No. 370; Eidg.
Abschiede IV, 1 a, 310; Fiisslin, II, .26; Cf. Morikofer, I, 174 where he gives
a wrong date — July instead of June; also Ochsli, Anfange der Glaubens-
konflikte etc. p. 6.
4) In the first disputation the Vicar tried to get the council to postpone
action until a church council should decide the matter, but the council was not
to be moved.
5) For call see Werke, I, 115; Egli, No. 318; Fiisslin, II, 84 sq.; Archiv
f. d. etc. I, 43. Concerning the occasion for the issuance of this call, and the

— 73 —
and right to hear and decide all such matters. Its right and authority
to, at least, hear these matters, were fully recognized and acknowledged-
by the leaders of both parties in Zurich;1) and the common people,
who had long been accustomed to seeing the council exercise its
authority in church and religious matters, eagerly looked forward
to the coming disputation, hoping to see the name and honor of the
Holy Church vindicated, or the new teachings triumph, as they held
to one or the other of the opposing factions. The council was strictly
within the limits of the law and was simply performing its duty in
appointing a time for hearing the matters in dispute ,— matters which
were causing such confusion and uproar among the people, for, as
we have seen, the law made it the duty of the council to investigate
all disturbances and to preserve peace. The council itself declares
first disputation Staehelin in his new "Huldreich Zwingli", I, 259 says: "Die
unmitttelbare Veranlassung zur Disputation gab ein sttirmischer Auftritt in der
Augustinerkirche, indem Leo Jud die Predigt eines Monches wiederholt unter-
brach, so dass es beinahe zum Handgemenge gekommen ware". This statement
was formerly considerd to be correct (see Wirz, Helvet. K. G., V., 17 sq.; also
the editor's note 1, to Z.'s letter to Oecolampadius, Jan. 3d 1527, Opera Vni, p. 9),
but the recent investigations show that the scene described by Staehelin, did
not take place until in June 1523 about five months after this disputation was
held. Egli, No. 373. There was a disturbance in the Oetenbach church in March
1523 in which an assault on Leo Jud was attempted. Egli, Nos. 344, 345, 346,
348. The plan for the Introduction of the Reformation, which Zwingli describes
in his letter to Oecolampadius, was the programme he followed especially
after the first disputation. Zwingli's action before the first disputation was
not so aggressive, for at that time, the council had not unreservedly committed
itself to his position.
l) A year before this, Hofmann the leader of the Catholic opposition had
demanded a disputation, with Zwingli, before the city council and church
authorities. Egli, No. 213 (p. 65). Compare Hofmann's disputation. Egli, No.
483; Bullinger, I, 139 sq.; also Egli, No. 484; Fiisslin, III, 83—105. The usual
Catholic position was, that it was the duty of the city council to compel the
observance of the church's ordinances and regulations, and to punish blasphemy,
witchcraft, heresy and kindred evils. Hofmann further held that these disputes
and quarrels concerning questions of doctrine, or the correctness of the church's,
ordinances might be heard by the city council. That it should seek to settle
such disputes (which of course meant sustaining the Catholic Church), but if it
did not succeed it should report all that was said on both sides to the Bishop
(Egli, No. 213, p. 65), or other proper authority — as the University of Paris
(Fiisslin, III, 89 sq., Egli, No. 484, p. 200) for decision. This, in short, was
recognizing the right of the city council to hear such matters, and also \the
right to decide, provided such decision agreed with Catholic teaching.

— 74 —
in the call, for the disputation, in its judgment after the disputation,1)
and by i the mayor in his opening speech, that this hearing, or dis
putation was ordered because of the confusion and uproar in the
city, in order that matters might be settled and peace restored.
The fact that Zwingli who was the cause of these disturbances
demanded this hearing does not change the case; neither does the
fact that the individual members of the council were actuated by
different motives — the Catholic Councilmen confidently anticipating
a humiliation of the heretics, and the Reformed Councilmen a triumph
for the "Gospel".
The disputation was held in the city hall before the city council.
Some 600 persons, among them the representatives of the Bishop,
and prominent clergymen and citizens of Switzerland, were present.
After hearing both sides the council decided that Zwingli had been
preaching according to the Word of God; and he was told to con
tinue to preach "so lang und vii bis er eines bessern bericht werde".
And also all other preachers in the city and in the country were
commanded "not to undertake,2) or preach any. thing which they
could not prove by the Holy Gospel" and "sust rechter gottlicher
geschrift", and to stop slandering and abusing each other.3) The
council in the matter of the Oetenbach convent had committed itself,
it is true with considerable hesitancy, to Zwingli's views, but made
its decision applicable to the convent church alone. It now (that
is a majority, for the council was divided into two. factions — the
larger one favoring Zwingli and the smaller one contending for the
old faith)4) fully and unqualifiedly accepts Zwingli's position that the
Bible is the absolute standard to which religious teachings should
conform, and by which the church should be guided; and it makes
its decision apply to all preachers and churches within its jurisdiction.
This was a complete victory for Zwingli, and his reformatory ideas.
*) Egli, No. 327; Werke, I, 143 sq.; Archiv, etc., I, 50; Fiisslin, II, 133 sq.;
cf. Bullinger, I, 103.
2) i. e. make changes or introduce innovations.
3) On Disputation see Werke I, 105 — 168. Salat's Chronika, in Archiv f.
d. schweiz. Ref., etc. I, 42 sq. Cf. Fiisslin's Salat, with notes, in vol. II. Baur:
Die erste Ziiricher Disputation, also his Z. Theologie, II, 174 sq. Bullinger, I, 97 sq.
4) Cf. Wirz and Kirchhofer, Helvet. K. G. V, pp. 17, 18 Note. This division
was seen at the contest over the violation of the fast regulations (p. 63 sq. above)
and in the different decisions of the council in July 1522 (p. 66 sq. above).
That this division continued for several years see Egli, Nos. 434 (480), 975, 1535.

75

Zwingli's position in the community and his influence with the
council may be seen in the conduct of the disputation, and also from
the fact that the same day the call for the disputation was issued
the council appointed him, with one other priest and two members
of the council a committee which should exercise a censorship over,
and control of all that should be printed in Zurich. It was Zwingli's
preaching that had started the Reformation, that had let loose
discord among the people, and set in motion those forces which
made the disputation a necessity; his mind controlled and led the
discussion; and he was the power which brought about the final
results. So great was Zwingli's influence, on this question, with the
city council, that the Catholic Chronicler, Salat, complains that he
was "in diesem handel schon Zurich biirgermeister, schryber, raat iic
rums, tantz und der gantz gwalt".1) It is a mistake, however, to
assume from this, and from the decision, of the council at the first
disputation, that the council was a unit in this matter and that from
this time on it unitedly and harmoniously worked together in lending
its power to Zwingli in order to introduce the Reformation. The
council itself, at this time and for several years after, was not united,
but was divided into two hostile factions — the larger one favoring
Zwingli, and the smaller one contending for the old faith. It is, also,
a mistake to make this statement of Salat's that Zwingli was the
mayor, clerk, council, and the entire government, apply to the general
condition of things and to the management of public affairs in Zurich
at this time. The error in so doing is manifest from Salat's statement
alone, for he distinctly limits it to the first disputation (in diesem handel).

*) Archiv f. d. Schweiz. Ref. etc., 1, 43. Cf. Fiisslin's Salat's Chronika.

SUMMA.RY.

The following review of some of the principal facts in the relation
State and Church, which we have seen in our present study, may
serve to make that relation clearer. We have briefly sketched some
of the facts in Zurich's history, which show the development of the
national and also the independent democratic spirit among the people ;
and we have also studied the relation of church and state, in Zurich,
before the Reformation. And have seen that Zurich freed herself
from the rule of the church — cloisters, abbeys, etc. — and that
she acquired the right to control the church in many ways. She
subjected priests to the laws of the state the same as laymen; taxed
church property; controlled cloisters; corrected the immoral lives of
priests, monks and nuns; established church festivals and pilgrimages;
made priests say mass and perform other duties; reformed cloisters
and convents; controlled church livings; decided concerning tithes;
made and executed marriage and divorce laws; compelled priests
to absolve men from the ban; punished profanity, blasphemy and
witchcraft; and in many ways controlled and protected the church.
1) This relation of church and state,' which had existed in Zurich
for many years underwent very little change during the period we
have been studying. In 1519 the council continued to control the
property of church and cloisters as it had done, and decided con
cerning tithes, livings, etc. It, banished some women charged with
being witches; appointed a committee of councilmen and clergymen
to investigate a certain religious question and made its decree accor
ding to the committee's report; and sent a committee on the pil
grimage to Einsiedeln. In this year there was no change in the
relation of state and church. This relation also remained unchanged
in 1520, during which year the council continued to exercise its
authority over church livings and property. It compelled a priest

— 77 —
to absolve three men from the ban; compelled another priest to 'say
mass; issued an order setting limits to the liberty of the preachers
m their preaching and forbidding the introduction of innovations;
burned one witch and banished a woman charged with being a
witch; beheaded a man for insulting a picture of Christ and the
Virgin; and also beheaded a man for profanity.
In 1521 the Council continued its jurisdiction over church
property, livings, tithes, etc.; punished priests and monks for their
crimes; compelled priests to say mass; and sent its soldiers to help
the Pope in his wars. All through the following year (1522) the
council continued to protect the Catholic Church and to compel,
with fines and imprisonment, the observance of the church's rules
and regulations. 2) Zwingli began his work in Zurich as a Roman Catholic and
during 1519 said mass and performed all the duties of a priest.
As he gradually developed into an open reformer of the church he
was met with the hostile action of the city Council. As early as
1520 the council rebuked him for his innovations and for the way
he was preaching. In 1521 the council investigated the matter of
1 Zwingli's pension, and it was not until the middle of 1522 that the
opposition of the council to Zwingli's agitation ceased, and the council
did not fully commit itself to Zwingli's views until the beginning of
the next year. The Reformation gradually developed in a democratic
way along religious, social, and political lines. Zwingli assumed an
independent attitude, and, as a public agitator, he instructed and led
the people, being always careful to avoid any personal (public)
violation of the church's regulations ; had he violated these regulations
he would have met with opposition for during these years the city
council punished all open of transgressions of the church's regulations
and customs.
3) For over half of this period (1519 — 1523 to the end of the
first disputation) the city council was under treaty obligations to aid
the Pope in his wars. And during the whole of this period the
priests remained subject to the laws of the land the same as other
citizens; Zurich's treaty with the Bishop concerning the government
of the country priests remained in force; the council continued to
officially recognize the jurisdiction of the Bishop's court at Constance;

— 78 —
and the violation of the church's outward forms and ceremonies was
punished by the city council. Beneath this external conformity and
underneath this formal continuation of the existing conditions, or
relations between Zurich and the Hierarchy, great changes were
going on. Zwingli had developed from a Catholic priest into a
hostile reformer of the church. As he changed his beliefs and views
he carried many of the people — finally a majority — with him.
These changes did not take place in a day, but the development
was gradual and natural. Along with the religious changes there were
political changes. The national spirit was quickened and stimulated.
Foreign alliances by which mercenary troops should be furnished
to the emperor, king, or pope were abandoned. Priests who held
foreign pensions were obliged to surrender them. The council became
dissatisfied with its treaty with the Bishop and began to assume a
greater control over the country preachers. Zwingli's democratic
way of appealing to the individual judgment, and his position that
the Bible, which each could read, was the absolute standard and
final judge not only augmented the democratic spirit among the
people, but also stimulated the national spirit and made the people
restive under the spiritual rule of the Pope, Bishops and Cardinals.
The first disputation may, in a sense, be regarded as a triumph of*
the national spirit.
4) As the people of Zurich were divided into two factions so
was the city council. The Reformed party gradually gained the
ascendency. In 1522 the council's policy toward the Hierarchy under
went a change. In the spring of this year the council requested
the Bishop to have the religious disputes and questions authoritatively
decided by the proper church authorities, and it compelled the ob
servance of the church's regulations. In December it renews the
request, but sets a limit as to the time it will wait for a decision,
and (in order to stop all trouble in the convent) orders all persons
preaching there to preach what they can prove by the Bible, and
nothing else; and in the following January the council refuses to
wait any longer, and hears and decides the matter. Its determination
to hear, as well as its decision in the matter, was an open break
with the Bishop, and produced radical changes in the relation
between the Zurich government and the Hierarchy, and also in the
council's official position toward the Catholic faith. The council,

— 79 —
now accepts the Word of God (as interpreted by Zwingli and his
co-laborers) as of more authority than the decision of Popes, Bishops,
and church councils. The local church and the Bible, now take the
place of the Catholic Church and its traditions. The city council
breaks with the Hierarchy and assumes the right to decide questions,
which the Hierarchy claimed could only be decided by the church
or a general council. The Catholic forms of worship, however, still
remain, and are still protected, as of old, by the city council.
5) The relation of the city council (the state) to the Hierarchy
underwent, at this time, greater changes than did the council's relation
to the local church. As the council had protected the Catholic faith
and forbade innovations, so now it is ready, in like manner to
protect whatever could be proved by the Bible, and to allow only
those changes to be introduced which could be proved and sustained
by the Word of God. The council several years before this in
rebuking Zwingli's preaching und his innovations (Niiwerungen) must,
to some extend^ have decided whether what was preached was in
accJ>rd with CathoKc doctrines and practices, or not; it now decides
whether what is preached can be proved to be in accord with the
Word of God, or not. The council has changed its belief and
position (as has the majority of the local church), but its relation to
the local church remains very much the same. Formerly it had
controlled, and limited the preachers, it does the same now; formerly,
on the basis of Catholic doctrines and practices it decided concerning
Zwingli's preaching, now it makes its decision concerning his preaching
on the basis of the Word of God; it did not, then, decide what the
doctrines and practices of the Catholic church ought to be, nor does
it now enunciate dogmas and doctrines — its position is, simply,
that the preachers must preach only what they (the preachers) can
prove and defend by the Holy Scriptures. The city council and the
local church were, at this time, both in the process of changing the
positions which they occupied toward the Catholic Hierarchy and
were together moving away from it, but the relative position which
they occupied toward each other had not materially changed.
That which was new and carried with it the germs of still
greater changes was that the city council assumed the right, on the
authority of its local preachers and in opposition to the officials of
the Catholic Church to change the basis of preaching (which of

— 86 —
course allowed changes of belief), or perhaps better expressed, it
assumed the right to sanction and approve the changes which had
already been made by some of the preachers and the people. This
increased the influence and power both of the local preachers and
the city council. This action of the city council was, however, not
so much the assumption of a new right, as it was a somewhat
different and more extensive application of a right which the
government, in its contests with the Hierarchy and in its control of
the local church, had in principle claimed and exercised.

LITERATURE.
Ihis list of books gives the original sources used, and also some of
the literature which has been used in the preparation of this thesis,
but it lays no claim to being a complete bibliography of the subject.
SOURCES.
Simler: Sammlung alter und neuer Urkunden zur Beleuchtung der Kirchen-
gescliichte, vornehmlich des Schiveizerlands. Zurich, 1757 — 1763.
2 vols in 6 parts.
Huldrich Zwingli: Opera, Edition Schuler and Schulthess. 8 vols. Zurich,
1828 — 1842.
Egli (Emil): Actensammlung zur Geschichte der ZUricher Reformation in den
Jahren 1519—1533. Zurich 1879.
Bullinger (Heinrich): Reformationsgeschichte, nach dem Autographon heraus-
gegeben von Hottinger und Vogeli. 3 Vols. Frauenfeld, 1838—1840.
Fiisslin : Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Kirchenreformationsgeschichten des Schiveizer
lands. 5 vols. Zurich, 1740—1753.
Archiv fur die schweizerische Beformationsgeschichte, herausgegeben auf Veran-
staltung des schweiz. Piusvereins. 3 vols. Solothurn, 1869 — 1875.
Strickler: Actensammlung zur Schweizerischen Beformationsgeschichte in den
Jahren 1521—1532. 5 vols. Zurich, 1878—1884.
Strickler: Die eidgenossischen Abschiede. Band P7 1 a. 1521—1528. Brugg, 1873.
Edlibach (Gerold): Chronik  nach dem Original copiert und mit einer
gleichzeitig verf. Abschrift genau verglichen u. verm. u. ergdnzt von
Joh. Martin TJsteri. Zurich, 1847.
BIOGRAPHY.
Morikofer: TJlrich Zwingli nach den urkundlichen Quellen. Leipzig 1867 — 1869.
2 vols.
Stahelin: Beal Encycl. filr prot. Theol. und Kirche, Article, Zwingli, Vol. 17.
Leipzig, 1886. This is Stahelin's revision of Giiders article.
Stahelin: Ruldreich Zwingli und sein Beformationswerk. Halle, 1883.
Stahelin: Euldreich Zwingli. Sein Leben und Wirken, etc. Basel 1895. Vol. I.
See Prefatory Note above.
Finsler: TJlrich Zwingli, Festschrift 400jahrigen Geburtstages. Zurich, 1883.
(A great deal of Zwingli literature was called out by the 400«h anniversary
in 1884.) HISTORIES.
Bluntschli: Geschichte der BepuUic Zurich. Zurich, 1847—1856. 3 Vols.
Bezold: Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1890.
Fisher: The Beformation. New York, 1893.

— 82 —
Gieseler: Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Bonn, 1840.
Hagenbach: Geschichte der Beformation 1517 — 1555. Leipzig, 1887.
Kurtz: Lehrbuch fiir Kirchengeschichte. 11th Edition, Leipzig, 1890.
Ranke: Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Beformation. Sixth Edition
Leipzig, 1881.
Schaff: History of the Christian Church. Vol. VII. The Swiss Beformation.
New York, 1892.
Wirz and Kirchofer: Helvet. Kirchengeschichte. Aus Hottingers dlteren Werke
und anderen Quellen neu bearbeitet. Zurich, 1808 — 1819. 5 Vols.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Bluntschli: Staats- und Bechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zurich.
Zurich, 1838. 2 Vols.
Bluntschli : Zur Geschichte der reformirten Kirchenverfassung. In Zeitschrift fur
deutsches Becht, etc. von Beyscher und Wilda. Vol. III. Leipzig, 1841.
Baur: Zwingli's Theologie, ihr Werden und ihr System. Halle, 1885 — 1889. 2 Vols.
Baur: Die erste Zuricher Disputation. Halle, 1883.
Bachofen: Essai sur L'ecclesiologie de Zwingle. Geneve, 1890 (Dissertation).
Egli: Die ZUricher Wiedertdufer zur Beformationszeit. Zurich, 1878.
Escher: Die Qlaubenspartien in der Eidgenossenschaft und ihre Beziehungen zum
Auslande von 1527—1531. Frauenfeld, 1882.
Friedberg: Lehrbuch des katholischen und evangelischen Kirchenrechts. Third
Edition. Leipzig, 1889.
Hundeshagen: Beitrage zur Kirchenverfassung und Kirchenpolitik. Vol. I.
Wiesbaden, 1864.
Hilty : Die Bundesverfassung der schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft. Bern, 1891.
Hatch: Die Grundlegung der Kirchenverfassung West Europas. (Translated by
Harnack.)
Lenz : Zwingli und Landgraf Philipp, in Brieger's Zeitschrift fiir Kirchen-
Geschichte. Vol. Ill, 1879.
Orelli: Die evangelisch-reformirte LandeskireJie des Kantons Zurich und ihre
Stellung zum Staat. Zurich, 1891.
Oechsli: Zivingli als politischer Theoretiker. In Turicensia. Beitrage zur
ziircherischen Geschichte, etc. Zurich, 1891.
Oechsli: Die Anfdnge des Glaubenskonfliktes zwischen Zurich und den Eidgenossen
1521—1524. (Schulprogramm). Winterthur, 1883.
Odinga: Das deutsche Kirchenlied der Schweiz im Beformationszeitalter. Frauen
feld, 1889.
Rieker: Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwickelung bis zur Gegenwart. Leipzig, 1893.
Rohrer: Das sogenannte Waldmannische Concordat in .Tahrbuch fiir sehweizerische
Geschichte, Bd. IV. 1879.
"Wirz (Easper): Etat des Zuricher Ministeriums von der Reformation bis zur
Gegenwart. Zurich, 1890.

VITA.
Ich, Frederick Alderson Remley, wurde am 11. December 1858
zu Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A. geboren als jiingster Sohn des Predigers
James Remley. Ich bekenne mich zur evangelischen Lehre und
gehore der Baptistischen Kirche an. In den stadtischen Schulen
und in zwei hoheren Lehranstalten meines Heimathsortes erhielt ich
die Vorbereitung fur die Universitat. Ich besuchte die State Uni
versity of Iowa (Iowa City) von September 1876 bis Juni 1880 und
erwarb mir da den Titel Bachelor of Arts (Baccalaureus). Von
1880 bis 1882 studirte ich, in Iowa City, Jura und im Juni 1882
bestand ich das juristische Staatsexamen. Ich war von November
1882 bis April. 1884 als Stenograph, Lehrer der Stenographie und
Zeitungs-Berichterstatter beschaftigt, und von April 1884 bis September
1887 war ich als Theilhaber der Firma Remley & Remley in Iowa
City, Iowa, als Advocat thatig. Im Juni 1888 erhielt ich von meiner
Alma Mater den Titel Master of Arts (Magister). Von September
1887 bis April 1890 studirte ich Theologie an der Divinity School
(Morgan Park) of the Chicago University und erwarb den Titel
Bachelor of Divinity (Baccalaureus der Theologie). Im Mai 1890
erwarb ich das akademische Biirgerrecht an der Universitat Leipzig,
und in den folgenden 6 Semestern horte ich Vorlesungen bei den Herren
Professoren Brieger, Buhl, Gregory, Hauck, Luthardt, Maurenbrecher
und Masius. Wegen der Krankheit und des Todes meiner Mutter
war ich gezwungen, iiber ein Jahr lang mein Studium zu unterbrechen ;
von Ostern 1894 bis August 1895 horte ich an der Leipziger
Universitat Vorlesungen bei den Herren Professoren Lamprecht, Marcks,
Miaskowski und Volkelt.
Von alien den genannten Herren wurde ich durch empfangene
wissenschaftliche Belehrung zu grosstem Danke verpflichtet; besonders
forderten mich die Herren Professoren Brieger, Buhl, Gregory und
Marcks durch freundliche Anleitung und personliches Entgegenkommen
in der anerkennenswerthesten Weise.

]''¦!..{.

warn