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