Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:59:10.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Church, State, and Dissent: The Crisis of the Swiss Reformation, 1531–1536

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

J. Wayne Baker
J. Wayne Baker
Affiliation:
Mr. Baker is professor of history in theUniversity of Akron, Akron, Ohio.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the 1520s the city council of Zurich, with the full cooperation of Zwingli, created a Reformed community in which all powers of discipline were placed in the hands of the city magistrates. Both Zwingli's theory of the Christian community and the council's actions to create such a community had their roots in the late medieval communal idea which viewed the city as a “sacral community.” This corporate ideal led to the blurring of the distinctions between the civil and ecclesiastical communities.Zwingli's theory also had roots in the thought of Marsilius of Padua, Occam, and Zwingli's contemporary, Erasmus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 135 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Moeller, Bernd, Reichstadt und Reformation (Gütersloh, 1962), pp. 12–15;Google Scholar in English translation, Imperial Cities and the Reformation, ed. and trans. Midelfortx, H. C. Erik and Edwards, Mark U. Jr. (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 44–49.Google Scholar

2. Walton, Robert C., Zwingli's Theocracy (Toronto, 1967), pp. 17–29.Google Scholar For a recent, excellent analysis of Zwingli's thought on the state, see Stephens, W. P., The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986), pp. 282–310.Google Scholar

3. Egli, Emil et al. , eds., Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 14 vols. (Berlin/Leipzig/Zurich, 1905–), 4:182–187Google Scholar (hereafter cited as ZW); Egli, Emil, ed., Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–1531 (Zurich, 1879),Google Scholar no. 944 (hereafter cited as Actensammlung). For a detailed study of the court, see Köhler, Walther, Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Consistorium, vol. 1, Das Zürcher Ehegericht und seine Auswirkung in der Deutshchen Schweiz zur Zeit Zwinglis (Leipzig, 1932).Google Scholar

4. ZW, 6:529–534; Actensammlung, no. 1391; Gäbler, Ulrich, Huldrych Zwingli: Eine Einführung in sein Leben und sein Werk (Munich, 1983), pp. 116–117;Google ScholarWalton, Robert C., “The Institutionalization of the Reformation at Zurich,” Zwingliana 13 (1972): 497–515.Google Scholar

5. For an excellent, brief English account of the Bernese Reformation, see Potter, G. R., Zwingli (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 235–265;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also Guggisberg, Kurt, Bernische Kirchengeschichte (Bern, 1958), pp. 55–239.Google Scholar For a brief English account of the Reformation in Basel, see Guggisberg, Hans R., Basel in the Sixteenth Century (Saint Louis, 1982), pp. 19–25;Google Scholar see also Köhler, , Zürcher Ehegericht, pp. 239–245.Google Scholar

6. For a treatment of Zwingli's and Zurich's policies with reference to the Catholic states, Zurich's relationship with Bern on these matters, and the impact of the war on Zurich, Bern, and the Confederation, see Potter, , Zwingli, pp. 371–416.Google Scholar

7. For the morals legislation, see Actensammlung, no. 1853. For previous morals legislation, see ibid., nos. 1077, 1385, 1534, and 1619; for the “Grossen Sittenmandat” of March 1530, see no. 1656; for the mandate on the synod, see no. 1899. For an excellent summary of the new church ordinance, see Bächtold, Hans Ulrich, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat: Zur Gestaltung and Verwaltung des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531 his 1575 (Bern and Frankfurt am Main, 1982), pp. 29–35.Google Scholar

8. This is the judgement of Maeder, Kurt, “Bullinger und die Synode,” in Bullinger-Tagung 1975. Vorträge, gehalten aus Anlass von Heinrich Bullingers 400. Todestag., ed. Gäbler, Ulrich and Zsindely, Endre (Zörich, 1977), pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

9. Bächtold, , Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat, p. 37.Google Scholar

10. De testamento sev foedere dei unico & aeterno Heinrichi Bullingeri brevis expositio (Zürieh, 1534).Google Scholar For a complete study of Bullinger's covenant thought, see Baker, J. Wayne, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens, Ohio, 1980).Google Scholar

11. Von dem unverschampten fraefel ergerlichem verwyrren unnd unwarhafflem leeren der selbsgesandten Widertoeuffern vier gespraech Buecher (Zörich, 1531).Google Scholar

12. Fast, Heinold, Bullinger und die Täufer. Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie und Theologie im16. Jahrhundert (Weierhof [Pfalz], 1959), p. 37;Google ScholarYoder, John H., “Zöfingen Disputation,” The Mennonite Encyclopedia, 4:1035–1036;Google Scholaridem, Täufertum und Reformation in der Schweiz, vol. 1, Die Gespräche zwischen Täufern und Reformatoren 1523–1528 (Karisruhe, 1962), pp. 138–143.

13. Büsser, Fritz et al. , eds., Heinrich Bullinger, Werke. 2. Abt.: Briefwechsel, 3 vols. (Zürich, 1973–1983), 2:127–128Google Scholar (hereafter cited as HBBW).

14. HBBW, 2:130–131. For an English translation, see Fast, Heinold and Yoder, John H., “How to Deal with Anabaptists: An Unpublished Letter of Heinrich Bullinger,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 33 (1959): 83–95.Google Scholar

15. HBBW, 2:132–133.

16. Ibi iam excutiendae circumstantiae, praecedens, consequens, fides, charitas; HBBW, 2:133. Fast and Yoder have translated this sentence as “in the former case, whenever the sense should be sharpened, follow the context; in the latter, follow faith and love,” in “How to Deal with Anabaptists,” p. 90. Although the sentence admittedly presents some problems for the translator, this is an interpretation rather than a translation, and the Latin text in no way supports it.

17. See Baker, , Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, esp. pp. 4–14, 55–82, 142–144.Google Scholar Fast claims that Bullinger first suggested the Love Commandment as an interpretive principle in this letter to Haller in 1532; Bullinger und die Täufer, p. 159. However, Bullinger used the exact same principle as early as 1526 in a treatise directed against the Catholics: “Scripture must be interpreted from itself and through itself, in faith and love”; Verglichung der uralten und unser zyten kaetzeryen (Zürich, 1526),Google Scholar sig. B1.

18. HBBW, 2:167;2:172.

19. Ibid., 3:63, and n. 9. Compare Fast, , Bullinger und die Täufer, p. 38Google Scholar n. 170. In July 1531 Bern had issued its first harsh ordinance against the Anabaptists: it prescribed the death penalty for any Anabaptist who twice returned to Bern after having been exiled twice. See Guggisberg, , Bernische Kirchengeschichte, p. 233.Google Scholar

20. HBBW, 2:234. See Büsser, Fritz et al. , eds., Heinrich Bullinger, Werke. 1. Abt: Bibliographie, 2 vols. (Zürich, 1972, 1977), 1,Google Scholar no. 701; and Haas, Martin, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz. Band IV: Drei Täufergespräche (Zürich, 1974), pp. 67–256.Google Scholar Compare Fast, , Bullinger und die Täufer, p. 37Google Scholar n. 168.

21. HBBW, 2:237.

22. Ibid., 3:62–63; 3:83–84.

23. Bullinger, Fraefel, fol. 137–137b.

24. Oecolampadius had been the first among the Swiss reformers to propose such a court. In late 1531 Jud had received a letter from Oecolampadius on the subject of church discipline and excommunication. The letter has been printed twice: in Huldreici Zuinglii Epistolarum libri IV (Zürich, 1536), p. 212;Google Scholar and in Fuessli, Johann Conrad, Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Kirchen- Reformationsgeschichten des Schweitierlandes, 5 vols. (Züirich, 1741–1753), 3:119–121.Google Scholar Jud also had been privy to the exchange between Zwingli and Oecolampadius in 1530, and he undoubtedly was aware of Oecolampadius's harsh criticisms of Bullinger's position in a letter to Haller in 1531; see Baker, J. Wayne, “Church Discipline or Civil Punishment? On the Origins of the Reformed Schism, 1528–1531,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 2 (1985): 3–18.Google Scholar For Oecolampadius, see DeMura, Akira, “Church Discipline According to Johannes Oecolampadius in the Setting of His Life and Thought” (Th.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1964).Google Scholar Fast offers another possible source for Jud's dissatisfaction—the Confession of the Bohemian Brethren—which had just been published by the Froschauer Press in Zürich; Bullinger und die Täufer, p.33.

25. For the correspondence, see HBBW, 2:57–64, 70–78. For the entire controversy, see Köhler, , Ehegericht, 1:354–356.Google Scholar See also Pestalozzi, Carl, Leo Judä: Nach handschrijtlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen (Elberfeld, 1860), p. 37.Google Scholar For the exchange between Bullinger and Jud, see Pestalozzi, , Heinrich Bullinger: Leben und ausgewählten Schriften (Elberfeld, 1858), pp. 94–100;Google Scholar and Fast, , Bullinger und die Täufer, pp. 33–36.Google Scholar

26. HBBW, 2:58–59; 2:61.

27. Ibid., 2:60.

28. Ibid., 2:59. For the quotations from Bullinger's letter to Haller, see ibid., 1:208.

29. Ibid., 2:70–75; 2:76–78.

30. Ibid., 2:245.

31. Actensammlung, no. 1899. Bächtold, , Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

32. Underschaid des Alten und Newen Testaments/ der Figur und waarhait, in Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, 19 vols. (Leipzig [vols. 1–14], 1914–1936;Google Scholar and Pennsburg, Pa. [vols. 15–19], 1959–1961), 4:417–443 (hereafter cied as CS).

33. CS, 4:750.

34. Ibid., 4:751, 755; 4:752–753.

35. Ibid., 4:756–757, 762, 765; 4:769.

36. Eels, Hastings, Martin Bucer (New York, 1931), PP. 144–145;Google Scholar Jud was not, however, completely alienated from Schwenckfeld, nor had he “changed almost his entire position,” as the editors of CS State; see CS, 4:801–802.

37. CS, 4:804–805; 4:809–811.

38. HBBW, 3:148.

39. Ibid., 3:160. There is some evidence that Capito was still corresponding with Schwenckfeld as late as March 1534; CS, 5:13. For Strasbourg and the radicals, see Chrisman, Miriam Usher, Strasbourg and the Reform: A Study in the Process of Change (New Haven, 1967), pp. 177–200;Google ScholarKreider, Robert, “The Anabaptists and the Civil Authorities of Strasbourg, 1525–555,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 24 (1955): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Bucer, see Mitchell, Charles B.,“Martin Bucer and Sectarian Dissent: A Confrontation of the Magisterial Reformation with Anabaptists and Spiritualists” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1960).Google Scholar For Capito's attitude toward Schwenckfeld and his comparatively tolerant attitude toward dissent, see Kittelson, James M., Wolfgang Capito: From Humanzst to Reformer (Leiden, 1975), pp. 165,171–206.Google Scholar

40. Eells, , Martin Bucer, pp. 139–145.Google Scholar See, especially, HBBW, 2:153–160, 191–232; and 3:27–29, 31–32, 69–71, 119–120.

41. HBBW, 3:213–217, 221. See Mitchell, , “Bucer and Sectarian Dissent,” pp. 242–254,Google Scholar for a detailed analysis of Bucer's position on punishing dissenters in late 1533, 1534, and 1535.

42. CS, 4:836–837.

43. Ibid., 4:829–840.

44. Ibid., 4:829.

45. Capito's letter is lost; for Bucer's letter, see Krebs, Manfred and Rott, Hans Georg, eds., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, VIII. Band: Elsass, II. Teil. Stadt Strassburg 1533–1535 (Gütersloh, 1960), pp. 215–217.Google Scholar

46. HBBW, 3:254.

47. Ibid., 3:255–257.

48. Ibid., 3:257–259.

49. CS, 5:4; for Schwenckfeld's reply, see ibid., 5:6–10.

50. Arbenz, Emil and Wartmann, Hermann, eds., Vadianische Briefsammlung, 7 vols. (Saint Gallen, 1890–1913), 5:144.Google Scholar

51. HBBW, 3:220; 3:239.

52. Staedtke, Joachim, “Blarer und Bullinger,” in Der Konstanzer Reformator Ambrosius Blarer 1492–1564: Gedenkschrifl zu seinem 400. Todestag, ed. Moeller, Bernd (Konstanz and Stuttgart, 1964), p. 195;Google ScholarFast, , Bullinger und die Täufer, p.34Google Scholar (compare p. 133).

53. Arbenz, and Wartmann, , Vadianische Brifsammung, 5:186.Google Scholar

54. Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 18b-20.

55. Ms. Simler 34/190, Autograph, Zürich Zentralbibliothek, Zürich.

56. Clasen, Claus-Peter, The Anabaptists in South and Central Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, their Names, Occupations, Places of Residence and Dates of Conversion: 1525–1618 (Goshen, Ind., 1978), p. 14.Google Scholar

57. This figure is given by Birnbaum, Norman, “The Zwinglian Reformation in Zurich,” Past and Present 15 (1959): 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarDändlicher, Karl, Geschichte der Stadt und Kantons Zürich, 3 vols. (Zürich, 1931), 2:388,Google Scholar says that Zurich's population grew from about 52,000 in 1467 to about 102,000 in 1588.

58. Arbenz, and Wartmann, , Vadianische Briefsammlung, 5:143–144.Google Scholar Neither Schwenckfeld nor Hoffman had anything directly to do with Münster, although Mattijs was Hoffman's disciple. For the relationships among the radicals involved in Münster, see Stayer, James M., Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, Kans., 1972), pp. 211–252.Google Scholar Rothmann was one of the many radicals that had been at Strasbourg and, like so many others, stayed with Capito. See McLaughlin, R. Emmet, “Schwenckfeld and the Stasbourg Radicals,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 59 (1985): 273–274.Google Scholar

59. Bächtold, , Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat, p. 83.Google Scholar

60. Fuessli, Johannes Conradus, ed., Epistolae ab Ecclesiae Helveticae Reformatonbus vel ad eos scriplae, Centuria prima (Zurich, 1742), pp. 191–193.Google Scholar

61. Ibid., pp. 193–201.

62. Ibid., pp. 198–201.

63. Schaff, Philip, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York, 1905), 1:388–389;Google Scholar 3:223–227; Müller, E. F. Karl, Die Bekenntnesschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903), p. xxxvi.Google Scholar

64. Schaff, , Creeds of Christendom, 3:228–230.Google Scholar

65. For a seventeenth-century version of Bullinger's point of view, see Parker, Samuel, A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity (London, 1669).Google Scholar Parker was answered by the Calvinist Independent John Owen, who made a powerful case for religious liberty: Truth and Innocence Vindicated: in a Survey concerning Ecclesiastical Polity, and the Authority of the Civil Magistrate over the Consciences of Subjects in Matters of Religion (London, 1669).Google Scholar