Calvinism's First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528-1559 (Studies in Early Modern Religious Tradition, Culture and Society, 4) 1402041934, 9781402041938

Citation preview

S T U D I E S I N E A R LY M O D E R N R E L I G I O U S R E F O R M S

Calvinism's First Battleground Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528-1559

Michael W. Bruening

CALVINISM'S FIRST BATTLEGROUND

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN RELIGIOUS REFORMS VOLUME 4

Editor Irena Backus, University of Geneva Board of Consulting Editors Michael J.B. Allen, University of California, Los Angeles Guy Bedouelle, Université de Fribourg Emidio Campi, University of Zürich Bernard Cottret, Université de Paris-Versailles Denis Crouzet, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne Luc Deitz, Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg Paul Grendler (Emeritus), University of Toronto Ralph Keen, University of Iowa Heiko Oberman, University of Arizona, Tucson Maria-Cristina Pitassi, University of Geneva Herman Selderhuis, Theological University Apeldoorn David Steinmetz, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Christoph Strohm, Ruhr-Universität Bochum Mark Vessey, University of British Columbia Lee Palmer Wandel, University of Wisconsin-Madison David Wright, University of Edinburgh

CALVINISM'S FIRST BATTLEGROUND Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528-1559

by

MICHAEL W . BRUENING Concordia University, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-13

1-4020-4193-4 (HB) 978-1-4020-4193-8 (HB) 1-4020-4194-2 (e-book) 978-1-4020-4194-5 (e-book)

Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springeronline.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2005 Springer No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Printed and bound in the Netherlands.

Dedication

This book is dedicated to Jeanine

Contents

Abbreviations

ix

Preface

xi

Acknowledgments

xv

Introduction

1

Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

17

Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

61

The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

93

From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

133

From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

167

From the Pays de Vaud to France

211

Conclusion

257

Appendix: Timeline of Major Events

265

viii References Index

Contents 267 279

Abbreviations

ACV AVL BDS BHV BNF Calvin-Studienausgabe Chroniqueur CO Correspondance de Bèze EA Guillaume Farel HBBW Herminjard HS MDR MHR OS PL Pierrefleur RCP RHV Ruchat STAB THR Vuilleumier WA Br Z ZSKG

Archives cantonales vaudoises Archives de la ville de Lausanne Bucer, Martin. Bucers deutsche Schriften Bibliothèque historique vaudoise Bibliothèque nationale de France Calvin, John. Calvin-Studienausgabe Vulliemin, Louis. Le Chroniqueur Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia Bèze, Théodore de. Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze Segesser, Anton. Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede Comité Farel, Guillaume Farel 1489-1565 Bullinger, Heinrich. Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel Herminjard, A.-L. Correspondance des Réformateurs Helvetia Sacra Mémoires et documents publiés par la société d’histoire de la Suisse romande Musée historique de la Réformation Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Latina Pierrefleur, [Guillaume de]. Mémoires de Pierrefleur Registres de la compagnie des pasteurs de Genève Revue historique vaudoise Ruchat, Abraham. Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse. 1728 edition Staatsarchive des Kantons Bern Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance Vuilleumier, Henri. Histoire de l’Eglise Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime Bernois, vol. 1: L’Age de la Réforme Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte

Preface

Before his untimely death in April 2001, my Doktorvater Heiko A. Oberman was a strong advocate for an approach to history that he labelled “the social history of ideas.” It is a method that seeks to explain the dynamic interaction between society and ideas, for the fundamental principle behind it is that intellectual currents both affect and are affected by social trends, institutions, and identities. The social history of ideas seeks to steer between the socio-economic determinism of Marxist scholarship and the elitism of traditional intellectual history that charted the course of ideas from the mind of one “great man” to the next.1 I now realize the significant impact that Oberman’s training has had on my own work. I am indeed exploring the social history of an intellectual system, Calvinism, by analyzing how the political and social history of the Reformation in the Pays de Vaud affected Calvinist doctrine, particularly teachings on ecclesiastical discipline. It is an effort to ground Calvinism more firmly in its historical context; indeed, my fundamental premise is that one cannot fully understand early Calvinism apart from its specific historical context as it developed in Geneva and neighboring Vaud. Early in my graduate studies, Oberman asked me to help him edit one of his influential articles: “Calvin and Farel, the Dynamics of Legitimation.”2 In a way, I have been in dialogue with that article ever since. Many of the major themes in this book are the same as those in Oberman’s article: the

1

2

See, e.g., Heiko A. Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), viii-xi. Heiko A. Oberman, “Calvin and Farel, The Dynamics of Legitimation,” Journal of Early Modern History 2 (1998): 32-60

xii

Preface

triumvirate of Calvin, Farel, and Viret, the legitimation of the Reformed movement, and the transformation of Calvin from a city reformer to an international figure. Tragically, Oberman died before I developed my own ideas on these subjects and could discuss them with him. Although I criticize a number of his positions in this book, I am fully cognizant of the fact that he helped prepare me to do so. Oberman always saw his role of Doktorvater (never just “advisor”) as one in which he would provide his students with the training that would allow them to find their own voice in the world of scholarship. I can think of no better way to honor his memory than by what I have tried to do in this book: to develop further his important insights and to critique his views where I believe he was mistaken. Before beginning, some notes on terms and usage are in order. Most of this book will focus on the French-speaking lands conquered by Bern in 1536, which today comprise parts of Canton Vaud in Switzerland and the French départements of Haute-Savoie and Ain in France. In order to avoid anachronistic terminology, I will use primarily the contemporary sixteenthcentury terms for these areas, referring specifically to the Pays de Vaud or simply Vaud, the Pays de Gex, and the Chablais. When referring to Bern’s French-speaking lands in general, I again use the contemporary phrases, pays romands, welsche Länder, or the English equivalent, Bern’s Frenchspeaking lands. I make one exception to the rule on anachronism to avoid needless wordiness; when referring to all the areas which today comprise French-speaking Switzerland, including Vaud, as well as Geneva, Neuchâtel, and their environs, I use either French-speaking Switzerland or the Suisse romande. The reader should be aware that neither Geneva nor Neuchâtel were part of the Swiss Confederation at the time, but these areas were tied closely together through language, religion, and alliances with Bern. With regard to city names, I use standard English equivalents when they exist (e.g., Geneva rather than Genève or Genf). For other Swiss cities, I use the spelling of the city’s dominant language: hence, Fribourg rather than Freiburg, Bern instead of Berne, Basel rather than Bâle or Basle, etc. I follow basically the same rules for personal names: e.g., John instead of Jean Calvin, but Pierre rather than Peter Viret, Guillaume not William Farel, Nägeli rather than Naegueli, etc. One exception is that my use of the French Henri, rather than Henry when referring to the king, is intended to eliminate any confusion with the many other European monarchs of the same name. When in doubt about a name, I have used the spelling in the online Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse.3 Note that the permeability of

3

“Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse/Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz/Dizionario Storico della Svizzera,” online at http://www.lexhist.ch/.

Preface

xiii

the linguistic border in the Swiss Confederation often created mixed French-German family names; “de Diesbach,” for example, is correct. Finally, some preliminary explanation is necessary for more conceptual terminology. I use both the adjective and noun Protestant in the broadest possible sense to refer to people, regions, and churches that officially severed ties to Rome and abolished the Catholic Mass in the sixteenth century. I try to avoid using the vague phrase Protestant theology, preferring to specify theological systems through reference to their founders. The term Lutheran can be tricky; first, it should be remembered that Catholics referred to all “heretics” as Lutherans. Second, Lutheranism itself was not yet firmly defined during most of the time period under consideration; hence, although Bucer and the Lutherans in Bern may not have fit more precise later definitions, they fell into the Lutheran camp at the time. Finally, by ecclesiastical discipline I mean the attempt to enforce doctrinal conformity and moral behavior by an ecclesiastical body, usually the consistory.

Michael W. Bruening Irvine, 21 April 2005

Acknowledgments

I owe a debt of gratitude to the many people who have had a hand in making this book possible. First, I want to thank the people at Springer for the opportunity to publish my work. Irena Backus kindly encouraged me at a number of points during the course of my graduate work, and I am grateful for the chance to publish in her series, “Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms.” Also, my thanks to the editors and staff at Springer, particularly Floor Oosting and Ingrid van Laarhoven, who have been most helpful at all stages in preparing the book manuscript. Thanks also to Springer’s anonymous referee who made many helpful corrections and suggestions. I would like to thank the staff members of the libraries and archives I used during the course of my research for their assistance, particularly at the libraries of Concordia University Irvine, UC-Irvine, UCLA, the University of Arizona, Calvin College, Princeton University, and Princeton Theological Seminary; also, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Bibliothèque du Protestantisme français in Paris, the Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire de Lausanne, the Archives de la ville de Lausanne, the Archives cantonales vaudoises, and the Staatsarchiv des Kantons Bern. Also thanks to the anonymous donor of the Gehrke Reformation Collection of Luther’s works and the Corpus Reformatorum at Concordia University. I am very grateful to those who have provided financial support to assist my writing and research. The Institut d’Histoire de la Réformation in Geneva and the Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids both provided research grants to work at their institutions. Dr. Morris Martin and Mrs. Ora DeConcini-Martin provided a very generous grant to pursue invaluable library and archival research in Europe. The History Department and the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies at

xvi

Acknowledgments

the University of Arizona provided financial assistance throughout my years in graduate school. Concordia University Irvine provided a teaching load reduction that helped to free up time to complete writing the book. I would like to thank all of the many people who have offered lively academic conversation and advice, especially my colleagues from the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies. A few other individuals merit specific mention and thanks. Carlos Eire first inspired me, while an undergraduate at the University of Virgina, to study Reformation history and was the first to suggest studying Pierre Viret, which led directly to my studies of the Pays de Vaud. My graduate advisor at Virginia, H. C. Erik Midelfort, offered invaluable encouragement and support during my first years of graduate studies. And Bernard Roussel warmly welcomed me to Paris and introduced me to the libraries there. Many thanks to those who read my dissertation and made many valuable suggestions for changes in the book, especially Susan Karant-Nunn, who graciously took over the direction of my dissertation upon the death of Heiko Oberman, and the other members of my dissertation committee, Alan Bernstein, and Helen Nader. Thomas A. Brady, Jr. also read part of the dissertation and offered valuable critiques. I especially want to thank those who have helped with the preparation of the book manuscript. Kerri Thomsen, my colleague in the English department at Concordia University, very generously read and copy edited most of the manuscript. Jonathan Reid, a fellow graduate of the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studes, offered many excellent suggestions and a critical eye in reading both parts of the dissertation and the entire book manuscript. Any errors that remain are my own. Sadly, one of the people I most need to thank is no longer with us. Heiko Oberman, died shortly after I had started writing the dissertation. I can only hope that the outstanding training and guidance he provided comes through in this work and that it would have pleased him. I want to thank my parents and brother for their constant love and support over the years. Finally, my most heartfelt thanks go to my beloved wife, Jeanine, who has provided both constant encouragement and material support. She is my life partner and my first editor; she has offered much helpful advice and has read and corrected the entire manuscript several times. I dedicate this book to her.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Calvinism is much misunderstood. The confusion stems primarily from the tendancy, as Richard Muller has described it, to accommodate Calvin to current concerns and theological debates.1 The accommodated Calvin is protean, shifting shape to fit widely varying perspectives. Those outside the Reformed tradition often mischaracterize his theology as a foil to their own or present him as the avatar of repressive moralism, while those who consider themselves the heirs of that tradition tend to impose their own theological views on him. The result has been a Calvinism that can be cited in support of theocracy or democracy, of a symbolic view of the Eucharist or the real presence, of revolution or strict political obedience. The single most important factor behind this confused, multi-form Calvinism has been the neglect of the enormous continuing influence of Ulrich Zwingli and his successor in Zurich, Heinrich Bullinger, on the formation of the Reformed tradition. Instead, Zwingli and Calvin are too often conflated, viewed together as initiator and heir respectively of a unified Reformed tradition. Especially in the English-speaking world, where the specifically Calvinist form of Protestantism has dominated historically, Reformed Christianity is frequently almost equated with Calvinism, as seen, for example, in John T. McNeill’s The History and Character of Calvinism,2 which served for decades as the dominant survey of the Reformed tradition. From this Calvino-centric perspective, Zwingli is understood to have been replaced by Calvin, and Bullinger is portrayed, in a sense, as Calvin’s

1

2

Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954).

2

Chapter 1

lackey. McNeill’s work has recently been superseded by Philip Benedict’s Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed,3 whose subtitle, A Social History of Calvinism, seems to indicate little change, but Benedict, in fact, more clearly recognizes differences among the various Reformed traditions. Recent scholarship among Swiss historians has shown just how independent Bullinger was, and the picture that is starting to emerge reveals Calvin as the junior partner in their relationship. This portrayal has received an important boost in the English-speaking world from Bruce Gordon’s work, particularly his recent The Swiss Reformation.4 Taken together, Gordon’s and Benedict’s surveys make it clear that the terms Calvinist and Reformed are by no means interchangeable. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the conflicts between the followers of Calvin and those of Zwingli in the Swiss Confederation, particularly in the French-speaking region of the Pays de Vaud. Indeed, I will argue that Calvinism emerged as a theological system and cultural identity distinct from the Swiss Reformed Church, principally through a series of conflicts in the Pays de Vaud between the French-speaking ministers who followed Calvin and the German-speaking Zwinglian ministers and magistrates of Bern over the issues of predestination, the Eucharist, and ecclesiastical discipline. Although these three issues can by no means be said to constitute the whole substance of Calvin’s theology, the conflicts that arose over them nevertheless shaped a unique Calvinist identity during the Reformation. The Calvinists insisted on the right to preach about predestination when the Bernese ordered silence on the issue. They believed that Christ’s true body and blood are exhibited in the Eucharist whereas the Bernese favored a more symbolic understanding of the sacrament. And, most

3

4

Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). As the anniversary of Bullinger’s 500th birthday, 2004 was a particularly important year for Bullinger studies. See, e.g., the new biography by Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger: Leben, Werk, und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004, 2005); Emidio Campi, ed., Heinrich Bullinger und seine Zeit, Zwingliana 31 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004); Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi, eds., Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504-1575, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2004). On Calvin’s relationship with both Bullinger and the Swiss Reformation in general, see Peter Opitz, ed., Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002). The continuing publication of Bullinger’s opera omnia, particularly his correspondence (HBBW) will no doubt shed much light on Calvin’s status vis à vis Bullinger and the Swiss.

1. Introduction

3

importantly, they demanded the right of excommunication and the emancipation of the consistories from the control of secular government. The genesis and development of these conflicts can be understood only within the broader context of political struggle in the Pays de Vaud. Three distinct forces competed for control of this region in the sixteenth century. First, the powerful Swiss city-state of Bern conquered the region and imposed Protestantism on it in 1536. The Bernese brought with them Zwinglian theology and a centralizing political philosophy that sought to subsume all aspects of society, including religion, under the control of the Bern city council. Second, the Catholic duke of Savoy, whom the Bernese had defeated, lingered constantly on the horizon, threatening to take back the region from Bern and reinstitute obedience to Rome. Catholicism was deeply ingrained among the people of Vaud, and the possibility of returning to Savoyard rule encouraged them in their resistance to the new government and religion. Third, French-speaking ministers started to descend on the region in the early 1530s, most of them fleeing persecution in France. They increased Bernese influence on the Francophone region before the 1536 conquest and helped to fill the numerous vacancies in the parishes of Vaud afterwards, but many of them preferred to look for leadership to their fellow Frenchman John Calvin, who had arrived in Geneva in 1536, rather than to the German-speaking Bernese. Calvinism developed among the Francophone ministers in response to the other two forces. Since the people of Vaud had been compelled by decree to adopt Protestantism, the ministers were engaged in a constant campaign to encourage genuine conversion, or at the very least abandonment of traditional Catholic practices. In this they were fully allied with Bern, which also wanted its subjects to put away “papist superstition.” They disagreed, however, over the means to do so. The Bernese believed in long-term reform brought about by legislation and the indoctrination of the next generation through catechetical instruction. For the Calvinists, this was not good enough; in their view of the Eucharist, people still attached to Catholicism could not take the sacrament worthily but instead polluted the very body of Christ. Pollution of the body of Christ was not something to overlook for an entire generation, and the pressing need to deal with it immediately led directly to the initial development of the Calvinist understanding of ecclesiastical discipline as well as to the repeated efforts by Pierre Viret and his fellow ministers in Vaud to convince the Bernese to establish it in practice. Consideration of the social and political forces operating in the Pays de Vaud is crucial to a full understanding of the development of Calvin’s theology and of Calvinism more broadly, yet no study has fully explored this regional perspective. Many fine scholars have deepened our understanding

4

Chapter 1

of Calvin as a theologian,5 as a local reformer in Geneva,6 and as an international leader.7 In addition, a few Swiss scholars have looked at Calvin in relation to the Protestant cantons.8 The significance of the relationship between Calvin and the Pays de Vaud, however, has never been sufficiently recognized. Calvin was deeply concerned about events in Vaud, as his extensive correspondence with Pierre Viret in Lausanne indicates. By looking at Calvin in the context of Vaud and the Swiss Confederation, we can see him grow from a local city pastor into a regional religious leader and eventually into a figure of staggering international importance. We can also discern an otherwise unnoticeable yet vitally important shift in Calvin’s reform strategy from seeking to establish a political Reformation in the Swiss Confederation to leading a European-wide “Reformation of the Refugees.” The regional focus on the Pays de Vaud explains why this is not a book about Calvin alone. Although he certainly is a central figure, my topic is not principally Calvin but Calvinism. Calvinism must be understood not simply as one man’s theological system but as a cultural identity, and the first group of Calvinists formed among the French-speaking ministers in Vaud.9 The Reformation in the Pays de Vaud has been reasonably well documented, but the scholarship has not been updated for well over half a century. The standard survey remains Henri Vuilleumier’s magisterial four-volume Histoire de l’Église Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime Bernois from 1927.10 That work, along with many others produced in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is typical of local studies done by Vaudois

5

The most important recent study is Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin. E.g., William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994). 7 E.g., Menna Prestwich, ed., International Calvinism, 1541-1715 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Heiko A. Oberman also fit into this camp; he was particularly proud of his phrase, “The reformer of Geneva returned [after his exile in Strasbourg] to become the reformer out of Geneva.” Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,”, 43 (Oberman’s emphasis). 8 See e.g., Opitz, Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation; Kurt Guggisberg, “Calvin und Bern,” in Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt: zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17. Mai 1970 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern, ed. Martin Haas and René Hauswirth, 266-85 (Zurich: Verlag Berichthaus, 1970). 9 By my use of the term identity, I do not mean to suggest that they called themselves “Calvinists.” The ministers saw themselves as preaching “Reformed Christianity,” not Calvinism. Nevertheless, although they would claim that their views were based on scripture alone and not on Calvin, they uniformly agreed that Calvin was the best contemporary interpreter of the Word of God. 10 Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Église Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime bernois, 4 vols. (Lausanne: Éditions la Concorde, 1927-1933). 6

1. Introduction

5

historians and theologians.11 Much of their work was excellent scholarship, but the authors appear to have had a Vaudois audience chiefly in mind and did not generally examine the implications of their research for the broader history of the Reformation. Moreover, Vaudois scholars appear to have lost interest in the Reformation in recent years. For example, the principal historical journal for the region, the Revue Historique Vaudoise, is full of articles on the Reformation in the volumes before World War II; the number started to decline at mid-century to the point today where one is fortunate to find in the journal an article on the Reformation once every ten years.12 As a result, Vaud itself has fallen almost completely off the radar of international Reformation scholars. In studies of Calvinism today, France receives the most attention. Led by the pioneering work of Robert Kingdon on the missionaries sent into France from Geneva,13 historians have tended to focus on Calvin’s influence on France, especially through the impact of the vernacular religious book, a field exemplified by the work of Francis Higman14 and Jean-François

11

See, e.g., Jean Barnaud, Pierre Viret: Sa vie et son oeuvre (1511-1571) (Saint-Amans: G. Carayol, 1911); Charles Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud par les Bernois, Histoire Helvétique (Lausanne: L’Aire, 1985 [Lausanne: La Concorde, 1935]); idem, Pages d’histoire vaudoise, ed. Louis Junod, BHV 22 (Lausanne: Imprimerie centrale, 1959); Louis Vulliemin, Le Chroniqueur: Recueil historique et journal de l’Helvétie romande, renfermant le récit de la Réformation de ce pays et celui de sa réunion à la Suisse dans les années 1535 et 1536 (Lausanne: Marc Ducloux, 1836). All who work on the Reformation in Vaud owe an enormous debt to the eighteenth-century Vaudois pastor/historian Abraham Ruchat for his Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse, où l’on voit tout ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable, depuis l’an 1516. jusqu’en l’an 1556., dans les églises des XIII. cantons, et des états confederez, qui composent avec eux le corps helvetique, 6 vols. (Geneva: Marc-Michel Bousquet & Co., 1728). One nineteenth-century scholar who did, in fact, look at Vaud within the broader context of the Swiss Reformation and who dealt with many of the same issues I will be looking at in this book was Karl Bernard Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, des Luthertums und des Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche 1532-1558 (Bern: C. A. Jenni, 1842). 12 There has, however, been a recent revival in studies on Pierre Viret, Calvin’s close associate and leader of the Calvinist ministers of Vaud. Most significantly, the Association Pierre Viret has recently begun publishing Viret’s Oeuvres complètes, which will be the first time most of his treatises have been published since the sixteenth century. Pierre Viret, Oeuvres complètes, ed. A.-L. Hofer (Lausanne: L’Age d’homme, 2004- ). 13 Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 15551563, THR 22 (Geneva: Droz, 1956). 14 Francis M. Higman, Lire et découvrir: La circulation des idées au temps de la Réforme, THR 326 (Geneva: Droz, 1998); idem, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511-1551, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Brookfield, VT: Scholar Press, 1996); idem, La Diffusion de la Réforme en France: 1520-1565,

6

Chapter 1

Gilmont,15 and resulting in the ambitious “French Vernacular Book Project” currently being undertaken by Andrew Pettegree and his team at the University of St. Andrews.16 Several historians have also conducted detailed local studies that have greatly enhanced our understanding of Reformed communities in France.17 Particularly in the context of such scholarship, the absence of recent work on the Pays de Vaud encourages either of two erroneous impressions: First, Calvin’s influence appears to have leaped hundreds of kilometers from Geneva to French cities such as Paris, La Rochelle, and Montaubon, but not into the neighboring French-speaking region of Vaud. Or second, if considered at all, Vaud is seen as a vast, relatively unimportant suburb of Geneva. This absence of recent scholarship is all the more regrettable because, as I will argue, the course of the Reformation in Vaud affected Calvinism’s growth in France. Not only were the unique aspects of Calvinism developed in response to conflicts in Vaud, but the attention Calvin and the Genevans paid to France also increased as their influence in Vaud decreased after 1550. As it became clear that the Bernese would not turn Calvinist and establish “true, godly discipline” in Vaud but instead had grown to hate Calvin and his influence over their French pastors, the Calvinists turned their sights westward to France. Of course, Calvin always had a deep, abiding interest in the religious situation in his homeland, but what has gone largely unnoticed is that he initially sought to improve matters through official diplomatic channels and alliances. Only later, after Marguerite de Navarre’s French evangelical network collapsed and neither the Consensus Tigurinus nor the renewal of the Swiss-French alliance gained unanimous support in

Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 17 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1992). 15 Jean-François Gilmont, Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé, Etudes de philologie et d’histoire (Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance) (Geneva: Droz, 1997); idem and Rudolphe Peter, Bibliotheca Calviniana: Les oeuvres de Jean Calvin publiées au XVIe siècle, 3 vols., THR 255, 281, 339 (Geneva: Droz, 1991-2000); Jean-François Gilmont, ed., The Reformation and the Book, Karin Maag, trans., St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998 [Paris: Cerf, 1990]). 16 The goal of the project is to catalogue every book printed in French before 1600. See the project website, “French Vernacular Book Project,” online at http://www.standrews.ac.uk/~www_rsi/book/. 17 See, e.g., Philip Benedict, Rouen during the Wars of Religion, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Kevin Robbins, City on the Ocean Sea, La Rochelle, 1530-1650: Urban Society, Religion, and Politics on the French Atlantic Frontier, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 64 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Penny Roberts, A City in Conflict: Troyes during the French Wars of Religion (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996).

1. Introduction

7

1549 did Calvinism start to become primarily an underground French movement. 18 In this regard, the work of Heiko A. Oberman is both informative and in need of correction. His diagnosis of Calvin as having succumbed to “Arafat Syndrome,” moving away from early aggression and confrontation toward legitimation,19 is exactly backwards. Instead, Calvin started from the beginning down the path to legitimation, from his apologetic prefatory letter to King Francis I in the very first edition of the Institutes (1536) and continuing through his negotiations with Henri II’s ambassadors and his efforts to convince the Swiss to renew the French alliance. Later he moved, if not to aggressive confrontation, at least to mild resistance by supporting and planting churches illegally in France, but he made this shift only once he realized that, first, his brand of reform would never dominate in the Swiss Confederation and, second, the French king would not be pressured diplomatically into supporting or even tolerating the Reformed religion in the realm. Here, Oberman’s concept of the “Reformation of the Refugees” is helpful. Oberman describes Calvin, especially after 1550, speaking increasingly to a refugee community in Europe, forced by religious persecution to flee from their homelands. Calvin found it necessary to reconcile the plight of his new audience with a long tradition in Christian ideology, particularly aimed against the Jews, that interpreted such hardship as a sure sign of God’s wrath. In this context, Calvin’s doctrine of predestination offered hope and the promise of God’s continued faithfulness to his unchanging, eternal election.20 In this, I believe Oberman is correct, and I hope to show that a large part of the reason why Calvin’s message was increasingly aimed at the refugee communities (and particularly at French Protestants) was because his efforts to use legitimate diplomatic channels through the Swiss cantons had failed. He therefore saw that the best hope for his movement lay back in his homeland among small groups of believers rather than with German-speaking Swiss Protestant magistrates. Calvinism was, in the end, a French phenomenon. There was a strong cultural element to the conflicts in the Pays de Vaud, where German- and

18

On Marguerite’s network, see the important dissertation by Jonathan Reid, “King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492-1549) and Her Evangelical Network” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 2001). The Consensus Tigurinus and the French alliance will be discussed in detail below in chapter 6. 19 Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,” 53. 20 See, esp., Heiko A. Oberman, The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 14550; idem, “Europa Afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992): 91-111.

8

Chapter 1

French-speaking Europe met. There also, the German and French Reformations collided when Guillaume Farel came from the evangelical circle at Meaux to work for the Bernese in 1528. There were fruitful partnerships as well as conflicts, but the Allemanic Bernese and their Francophone ministers and subjects would never completely see eye to eye. The trust and camaraderie that often exist only among people who speak the same language and share the same cultural heritage were not present between ruler and ruled in Vaud after 1536. The Bernese struggled to impose their will on the people, and the Calvinists fought to thrust their theology on the Bernese. Both efforts were doomed from the outset, yet in their wake came the perception of the need to compromise. Heinrich Bullinger was the linchpin holding the international Reformed community together in spite of the Calvinists, and two years after Calvin’s death, Bullinger’s successful Second Helvetic Confession, signed by Zurich, Bern, and Geneva, signalled the end of the fight between Calvinism and Zwinglianism and the dawn of a new era for Reformed Christianity.

1.

EUROPE’S INTERSECTION: INTRODUCTION TO THE PAYS DE VAUD

The Pays de Vaud lay at a crucial crossroads of Europe. Linguistically, French- and German-speaking Europe met there. Geographically, it formed a significant conduit for transalpine traffic, linking Italy to northern Europe and Germany to France and Spain. Politically, it lay in a corner at the point where the major powers of Europe met: the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdom of France, the Swiss Confederation, and the dukes of Savoy and Burgundy. Hence, despite a lack of major cities, vibrant commercial life, and significant natural resources, it was a desirable region. Whoever controlled Vaud could control trade, tolls, and troop movements between Italy, central France, and upper Germany. This was especially important in the first half of the sixteenth century, when Europe’s chief political players, the emperor and the French king, were almost constantly at war, usually over Italy. Moreover, the region was proportionally much richer in human resources, arable land, and wine than most of the Swiss cantons. It should therefore come as no surprise that landlocked, mountainous Bern had its expansionist eye on Vaud throughout much of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The history of the Pays de Vaud has been profoundly affected by its chief geographical features, which also mark its approximate boundaries: the Alps to the south and east, the Jura Mountains to the west, Lake Geneva to the south, and Lake Neuchâtel to the north. These elements yield four distinct

1. Introduction

9

Figure 1-1. Lands conquered by Bern in 1536

regions in Vaud: the Jura foothills, the central plateau, the lakeshore, and the Alps foothills.21 In the Middle Ages, the Jura region was centered on the Lac de Joux and its Premonstratensian abbey. Otherwise, it was thickly forested and very sparsely populated; it has been estimated that in 1416 the population density in the lake valley was less than one person per square kilometer.22 The lakeshore and the central plateau were by far the most populous and fertile

21

22

Charles Biermann, “Divisions régionales du Canton de Vaud,” Geographica Helvetica 6 (1951): 182-185. I have translated Biermann’s ceinture Lémanique as “lakeshore” for the sake of clarity in English. The French is more accurately translated “Lemanic belt,” referring to lac Léman, or Lake Geneva, as it is better known in English. Jean-François Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse: Population, Vie rurale, Echanges et Trafics, Monographies d’histoire Suisse publiées par la Société générale Suisse d’histoire 2 (Bern: Franke Editions, 1968), 15.

10

Chapter 1

regions in the late Middle Ages, as they are today, although a higher percentage of the population at that time lived inland where the most fertile cropland lay. The land along the lakeshore is better suited for viticulture than agriculture, and its medieval inhabitants recognized this as well. Indeed, Vaud’s wine was the region’s only major export in the Middle Ages. The Alps region lies southeast of Lake Geneva and included the socalled Four Mandated Territories of Bern (or Quatre Mandements – Aigle, Ormont, Bex, and Ollon). The region had good pastures and was well suited for animal husbandry. Among these four regions, the importance of the Vaudois plateau deserves emphasis. On the one hand, it was a major segment of the Swiss breadbasket that yielded a substantial portion of the crops necessary for feeding the city, mountain, and forest dwellers in the Swiss Confederation. Largely because of the relatively fertile plateau and coast, Vaud’s population at the beginning of the fifteenth century was approximately 55,000-60,000 – almost double that of the cantons of Fribourg, Bern, and Zurich.23 Moreover, late medieval Vaud could be characterized as a semi-urban society. The region boasted thirty to forty villes,24 but most were quite small, housing fewer than 1,000 people. Lausanne was the largest city in the region with a population of around 5,000, approximately the same as the cities of Bern, Fribourg, and Zurich. In the Swiss region beyond the Pays de Vaud, Basel was by far the largest city, holding more than 10,000 people in the fifteenth century. By contrast, around 1500 Lyon and the major south German cities of Augsburg and Nuremburg had populations of approximately 40,000, Paris and Milan about 100,000.25 Swiss cities paled in comparison, and the tiny Vaudois towns would probably have appeared no more than rural hitching posts to a Fugger or Medici passing through. The meager agricultural resources of the Swiss region made the cantons unable to sustain larger urban populations.26 Even in the Pays de Vaud, despite the area’s large number of towns, population density was very low by European standards,

23

Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 15. Bergier estimates the populations of the cantons of Bern and Fribourg at around 30,000, and of Zurich at around 27,000-29,000. 24 Jean-François Bergier defines the medieval ville as having three essential characteristics: 1) it was enclosed by a city wall, 2) it possessed legal privileges that distinguished it from rural populations, and 3) even if the majority of its inhabitants had rural occupations, city life centered on artisanal and commercial activity. Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 24. 25 Jean-François Bergier, Histoire économique de la Suisse (Lausanne: Payot, 1984), 39-40. Geneva’s population also passed ten thousand in the fifteenth century but was not yet part of the Confederation. 26 Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 9-10.

1. Introduction

11

with only about twenty inhabitants per square kilometer. This ratio was slightly higher than the average throughout the Swiss region (17/km2), but less than half that of Italy (about 44/km2) and significantly lower than France (34/km2).27 The agricultural nature of Vaud is most apparent when one considers that even in the largest towns the majority of medieval and early modern residents were farmers. Lausanne itself, the episcopal seat and intellectual center of the region, has been characterized as a “country town” (ville campagnarde), a “large agricultural burg where one should not look for extended commerce, or industry, or any refined good.”28 There was no milking industry, for example, until at least the 18th century; even the bishop had to keep milking animals in the city for his personal use.29 The city was surrounded by vineyards and crop fields that were worked by the city residents. Many citizens also fished for Lake Geneva’s famous perch.30 There were, of course, merchants and artisans in Lausanne but only enough to satisfy the basic commercial needs of the city. Neither the city nor the region had any significant industry, and no organized guild structure evolved in Lausanne as it did in Bern, Fribourg, and the other major Swiss cities; instead, commerce was regulated by the bishop and city council.31 Lausanne’s political situation was unique in Vaud, however, and guilds did, in fact, develop elsewhere in the region; powerful organizations of boatmen were organized in Morges and Yverdon, for example, reflecting the importance of those ports in particular and of the Vaudois water routes in general in the late Middle Ages.32 Morges and Yverdon were particularly important since the overland road between them linked two of Europe’s most important commercial waterways, the Rhine and the Rhône rivers. Morges was the principal port on Lake Geneva, which empties into the Rhône River running south to the Mediterranean, and Yverdon sits at the south end of Lake Neuchâtel, which feeds the Aare River; the Aare in turn joins the Rhine along the SwissGerman border. The potential for linking the two waterways to provide one 27

Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 15-17. “Durant la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle, au XVIIe et plus tard encore, notre vieille cité, bien qu’enserrée de murailles crénelées et fermée de portes, n’est à bien des égards, malgré ces airs de fortresse, qu’un gros bourg agricole où il ne faut chercher ni commerce un peu étendu, ni industrie, ni rien de bien raffiné.” B. Dumur, “Lausanne ville campagnarde,” RHV 11 (1903): 97-115, 129-42; here, 98. 29 Dumur, “Lausanne ville campagnarde,” 99. 30 Danielle Anex-Cabanis, La vie économique à Lausanne au Moyen Âge, BHV 62 (Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1978), 53. 31 Anex-Cabanis, La vie économique à Lausanne au Moyen Âge, 43. 32 Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 82. 28

12

Chapter 1

continuous water route from the Mediterranean to the North Sea was not lost on either the Roman or the Bernese conquerors, both of whom dreamed of building a canal through Vaud to do just that, although no one ever actually accomplished it.33 In addition to serving as a prime connecting point of these two water routes, the Pays de Vaud benefitted from a traffic bottleneck created by the two great mountain chains, the Alps and the Jura. Four main axes of communication cut across Vaud in the Middle Ages.34 In the early medieval period, transalpine traffic was not the most important concern. Instead, the Burgundian and Carolinigian rulers needed to link the two sides of their kingdoms over the Jura mountains; indeed, Vaud was known in the sixth and seventh centuries as the pagus ultrajoranus.35 The route used the pass at Jougne (today in France, dép. Haut-Doubs), and Italian merchants later used this route to access the Champagne fairs. From Jougne, the road into Vaud passed through Les Clées and then either northeast to Yverdon and Lake Neuchâtel or south to the shore of Lake Geneva. The second major route simply followed the north coast of Lake Geneva, passing from Geneva in the west through Lausanne to the strategically placed Château de Chillon at the extreme eastern end of the lake. Perched on a rock jutting out into Lake Geneva and just a stone’s throw away from the steep slopes of the Alps that seem to shoot straight up out of the lake itself, Chillon easily controlled the vast majority of traffic moving between the Simplon and Grand Saint Bernard alpine passes to northern Europe. The only way to avoid passing within a hundred meters of the château was to branch off the road earlier and follow the more difficult and less popular southern coast of the lake. The 33

See Paul-Louis Pelet, Le canal d’entreroches: Histoire d’une idée, Thèse de doctorat, Faculté des lettres, Université de Lausanne (Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1946); cf. Bergier, Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse, 82. 34 See figure 2. On medieval roads through Vaud, see Jean-François Bergier, “Pays de Vaud et trafic international du XIIIe au XVIIIe siècle,” RHV 63 (1955): 198-202; Jean-Pierre Dewarrat and Laurence Margairaz, “Le pays de Vaud bernois: lieu de passages,” in De l’Ours à la Cocarde: Régime bernois et revolution en pays de Vaud (1536-1798), ed. François Flouck, et al. (Lausanne: Payot, 1998), 45-57; V. Chomel and J. Ebersolt, Cinq siècles de circulation internationale vue de Jougne, Ecole pratique des hautes-études – VIe section: Centre de recherches historiques, ports, routes et trafics 2 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1951), see especially the excellent route maps at the end of the book; and Martin Körner, “Les péages vaudois dans les comptes du Trésorier romand à Berne au XVIe siècle,” in La monnaie de sa pièce…: Hommages à Colin Martin, ed. Paul-Louis Pelet and Jean-François Poudret, BHV 105 (Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1992), 235-250. 35 Richard Paquier, Le Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2 vols. (Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1943), 1:63. The designation “Pays de Vaud” originates from the eighthcentury Latin designation Pagus Waldensis (ibid., 1:68).

1. Introduction

13

third and fourth main international routes linked Geneva and points west to southern Germany. The first of these followed the arc of the Jura through Neuchâtel to Basel, while the other major road to Germany passed east of Lake Neuchâtel through Fribourg, Bern, and Zurich to Constance. Although the Gotthard pass east of Simplon drew most of the transalpine traffic moving between Italy and southeastern Germany away from Vaud, German merchants heading to the fairs of Geneva or Lyon, or towards the French Midi or Spain would still have needed to take one of these roads through Vaud. The tolls from these roads provided a significant source of income. Under Bernese rule in the sixteenth century, there were eleven major tolls in

Figure 1-2. International trade routes through Vaud

14

Chapter 1

Vaud.36 In a study of six of these, Martin Körner has calculated that from 1553 to 1555, for example, Bern took in 2,184 pounds, or about 5,500 florins, enough to pay thirty to forty pastors’ annual salaries.37 If I may be so bold as to venture a calculated guess at a modern equivalent based on an average clergyman’s salary today of about $35,000, these tolls (which represented just over half the total number) would have brought in the equivalent of approximately $1-1.5 million, hardly a sum to sneeze at. The Pays de Vaud’s geographical position as a strategic crossroads for a large percentage of transalpine traffic gave the region its principal importance. Control of Vaud would yield significant income from the many tolls in the region and, just as importantly, would allow oversight of troop movements, especially of imperial soldiers and mercenaries from Italy and Spain that were seen as a threat to the independence of the Swiss Confederation. Second, with a population almost double that of canton Bern, Vaud was rich in human resources that could be used to swell the ranks of the famous Bernese army, fill the treasury, and work the land. Third, although lacking in highly profitable natural resources, Vaud’s many farms and vineyards would provide a substantial source of staple goods for Bern.

36

They were at Yverdon, Sainte-Croix, Vallorbe/Les Clées, Nyon, Crissier/Cossonay, Vouvry (near Aigle), Moudon, Morges, Chillon, Villeneuve, and Vevey. Körner notes that the tolls at Moudon, Morges, Chillon, and Villeneuve are not found in the treasurer’s accounts. Körner, “Les péages vaudois,” 236. 37 Körner, “Les péages vaudois,” 240. Conversions are my own, based on 1 lb. = 2.5 florins. For a useful list of old money and measurement conversions, see the appendices in Georges Rapp, La Seigneurie de Prangins du XIIIme siècle à la chute de l’ancien régime: Etude d’histoire économique et sociale, Thèse de Doctorat, Faculté des Lettres, Université de Lausanne (Lausanne: Librarie de Droit, F. Roth & Cie, 1942). I am basing the pastor’s salary equivalent of approximately 150 florins on a variety of sources I have seen indicating that pastors’ salaries in sixteenth-century Vaud ranged between about 50 florins per year for pastors in small parishes to 300 florins or more for those in the larger cities.

1. Introduction

15

Finally, one must also consider that if Bern had any expansionist dreams whatsoever, the Pays de Vaud was the only path toward realizing them. Otherwise surrounded by Confederation allies, Bern’s only legitimate avenue outward was through Savoyard Vaud. The Reformation would be forever shaped by the republic’s march down that road.

Chapter 2 POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY IN VAUD The Pays de Vaud in International Context, ca. 1450-1564

The Pays de Vaud in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was a political plum ripe for the picking. Its geographical location and resources, together with the weakness of its overlord, the duke of Savoy, led neighboring expansionist powers to fight for dominance in the region. Understanding the perpetual tug-of-war over the territory is vital for explaining the course of the Reformation in Vaud and the mentality that informed the response of the Vaudois people. Scholars have given scant attention, however, to the impact of political and diplomatic history on the Reformation in Vaud. There has been some acknowledgment that the Bernese conquest played a role, but this has inspired little close examination. Imperial fortunes in Germany, diplomatic negotiations between France and the Swiss Confederation, the rise of a new duke of Savoy, Emmanuel-Philibert, and the tenuous alliance between Bern and Geneva created an international political backdrop that would shape the priorities, strategies, and fortunes of the reformers and affect the response to their efforts. Variations in the relative strength of these forces left the people of Vaud in a constant state of uncertainty. Between 1536 and 1564, the possibility remained strong that the region would revert to imperial or Savoyard rule and, hence, to Catholicism as well. This chapter presents, first, a description of the political structures in place in late medieval Vaud and, second, a brief history of the political events and diplomatic relations that most significantly affected the region from the late fifteenth to the mid-sixteenth century. Some of this history may be familiar to Reformation historians, but much has remained unexplored, especially in the period after 1536. Standard histories of the Swiss Confederation have addressed in sufficient detail the political situation in the period up to the Kappel Wars, but the thread of political events frays in the 1530s when discussions of the impact of the Reformation on individual

18

Chapter 2

cantons replace the continued examination of the common history of the Confederation.1 Restoring the awareness of the political and diplomatic history in this period will help us to contextualize more effectively the specific course of the Reformation in Vaud.

1.

LATE MEDIEVAL POLITICAL STRUCTURES IN VAUD

From a geographical and economic perspective, the Pays de Vaud in the Middle Ages was always a byway and rarely a destination. Its political position mirrored this economic reality: it was always the conquered but never the conqueror, a pawn to be fought over by the political powers around it but never a political power itself. In the Merovingian period, Vaud was a part of the Frankish kingdom of Burgundy.2 In the eighth century, it became part of the Carolingian empire and was assigned to the central kingdom of Lotharingia in the Treaty of Verdun (832). The Rudolphian kings of Burgundy ruled the territory from 888 to 1032, at which time it came under the authority of the Holy Roman Empire. A few of the early emperors took an active interest in Vaud; Conrad II, for example, was crowned in the abbey of Payerne in 1033. During most of the high Middle Ages, however, the emperors’ attentions were turned chiefly toward the crusades and conflicts with the papacy and rebellious Italian communes. The affairs of Vaud were left largely in the hands of the bishop of Lausanne and other minor lords. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, however, Pierre (1203-1268), count of Savoy, was able to bring most of the Vaudois seigneuries under his authority. Although his immediate successors carved up the inheritance, the region was brought fully under the control of the count of Savoy again during the reign of Amédée VI, le comte vert. In July 1359 Amédée received homage from the nobles and castellans of Vaud, thereby establishing his control over the entire region, excepting only the lands belonging to the bishop of Lausanne. In the fifteenth century, the Burgundian Wars and the expansionist policies of Bern brought the Swiss Confederation into the picture. On the eve of the Reformation, therefore, control over most of the

1

See, e.g., E. Bonjour, H. S. Offler, and G. R. Potter, A Short History of Switzerland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952); Louis Vulliemin, Histoire de la Conféderation Suisse, 2 vols. (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1879). 2 The best study of the medieval history of Vaud is Paquier, Le Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise. See also a good summary by Lucienne Hubler, Histoire du Pays de Vaud (Lausanne: Loisirs et pédagogie, 1991), also available online at http://www.memo.fr/.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

19

Pays de Vaud was divided between the duke of Savoy and the bishop of Lausanne; other areas, called common lordships (bailliages communs, gemeine Herrshaften), were governed jointly by Bern and Fribourg. And finally, the commune of Lausanne itself was beginning to “turn Swiss,” attempting to loose itself from the shackles of the bishop’s authority in favor of a closer alliance with the Swiss Confederation.

1.1

The Duke of Savoy and the Estates of Vaud

From 1359 to 1536, the majority of the Pays de Vaud was ruled by the counts and (after 1416) the dukes of Savoy.3 The entire region was still technically part of the Holy Roman Empire, but as in most parts of Germany, the Habsburg emperors did not have direct control over the territory. Nevertheless, it is important to keep the imperial connection in mind, for as a vassal of the emperor whose lands bordered the kingdom of France and provided a crucial pathway to the much-contested city of Milan, the duke of Savoy was a key figure in the Franco-imperial struggles of the sixteenth century. The administrative structure that emerged in Vaud was known as the Estates of Vaud and included the nobles, the churchmen who held temporal possessions in Vaud, and the free cities (bonnes villes): Moudon, Yverdon, Morges, Nyon, Romont, Payerne, Estavayer, Cudrefin, Rue, Cossonay, Grandcour, Ste.-Croix, Les Clées, and Châtel St.-Denis.4 The free cities had won charters guaranteeing certain libertés et franchises and depended on no authority other than the duke.5 The bishop of Lausanne ruled his lands independently of the duke, and although he could attend the meetings of the Estates in an advisory capacity, he could not vote. The Estates met frequently, about six to nine times a year ordinarily but several times a month during crises.6

3

Amédée VIII was the first to be designated “duke of Savoy.” The most complete study of the Estates of Vaud is Denis Tappy, Les Etats de Vaud, BHV 91 (Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1988). The Estates’ proceedings are published in Armando Tallone, Parlemento Sabaudo, 13 vols., vols. 12 and 13 (sometimes designated part 2, vols. 5 and 6): Assemblee del Paese di Vaud (vol. 12: 1260-1480, vol. 13: 1480-1536), Atti delle assemblee costituzionali italiane dal Medio Evo al 1831, ser. 1, section 5 (Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1928-1946). See also the collection of articles in Agostino Paravicini Bagliani and Jean-François Poudret, eds., La Maison de Savoie et le Pays de Vaud, BHV 97 (Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1989). 5 Many of these charters are published in François Forel, Chartes communales du Pays de Vaud dès l’an 1214 à l’an 1527, MDR 27 (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1872). 6 Denis Tappy, “Les Etats de Vaud: De l’assemblée savoyarde au mythe révolutionaire,” in La Maison de Savoie et le Pays de Vaud, 245-96; here, 247. 4

20

Chapter 2

By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the significant power of the Estates meant that the people of Vaud enjoyed an unusual amount of freedom from the duke. The duke of Savoy could, of course, summon the Estates of Vaud in order to promulgate decrees and seek aid and advice from his subjects and vassals. In this, the Estates of Vaud were similar to other assemblies comprising the three estates in certain areas of France. The Estates of Vaud were remarkable, however, in that they had the right to call a meeting themselves, without the duke’s permission. 7 By the end of the fifteenth century, the people were growing disenchanted with the duke, while the dukes became preoccupied with Geneva and lost interest in Vaud; this created an increasingly tenuous relationship between ruler and ruled in the region. The people suffered greatly from the duke’s disastrous decision to side with Charles the Bold in the Burgundian Wars of the 1470s.8 Several key battles pitting tens of thousands of troops against one another took place in Vaud and inevitably resulted in plundered villages and trampled fields. Worse, the victorious Swiss punished the duke by occupying and ravaging most of the region, in the process burning down châteaux, sacking and looting cities, and generally doing the things that rampaging soldiers are wont to do.9 The destruction suffered by the Vaudois ensured a long-lasting ambivalence toward both the Swiss, who were directly responsible for so much devastation, and the duke, whose diplomatic decisions got them into the mess in the first place. The ambivalence was mutual; the dukes scarcely showed their faces in Vaud after the Burgundian Wars, preferring to reside in the Savoyard capital of Chambéry (today France, dép. Savoie). The single most important factor in the dukes’ tendency to ignore Vaud around the turn of the sixteenth century was their increasing focus on retaining power in Geneva, economically the most vital city in the duchy. There the citizens were straining ever harder for more independence.10 Hence, despite the titular lordship of the House of Savoy, the Estates of Vaud essentially governed themselves. The duke’s authority continued to be represented by a governor, or bailiff, in Vaud. This officer, however, was chosen from among the region’s premier noble families, thus mitigating the people’s perception that their lands were under the control of a foreigner.

7

Tappy, Les Etats de Vaud, 173-79. See below, chapter 2, section 2. 9 Paquier, Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:115-17. 10 Much has been written on this subject. For a good, brief account in English, see William Monter, Calvin’s Geneva, New Dimensions in History, Historical Cities (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967), 29-63. The most detailed account available is Henri Naef, Les origines de la Réforme à Genève, 2 vols. (Geneva: A. Jullien, 1936, 1968). 8

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

21

The governor resided in Moudon, the capital of Vaud, and held authority over all other ducal legal and administrative authorities in the region, including castellans, judges, tax and toll collectors, and prison guards.11 The governor’s job was to ensure that the duke’s decrees were enforced, but the duke’s laissez-faire approach to governance left most decisions in the hands of the Vaudois.

1.2

The Bishop of Lausanne

The second most important secular authority in late medieval Vaud was also the principal spiritual authority of the region, the bishop of Lausanne. The bishop emerged as a temporal power in the eleventh century as a direct vassal of the emperor,12 and throughout much of the High Middle Ages he was clearly the most powerful figure in the region. Although he lost control over a number of cities, such as Murten (Morat), nevertheless the bishop of Lausanne was able to maintain sovereignty throughout the Middle Ages over the city of Lausanne as well as several other areas of Vaud, including the neighboring lakeshore area of the Lavaux, which consisted of the parishes of Lutry, Villette, Saint-Saphorin, and Corsier. This was a particularly important region, for it produced then (as now) some of the region’s best wine. Other areas within the bishop’s jurisdiction included Avenches, Lucens, Curtilles, and Villarzel. Three developments began to sap the bishop’s power starting in the thirteenth century. First, the duke of Savoy’s rise to power in the region necessarily entailed a parallel decline in the power of the bishop. Second, a massive fire in 1219 burned much of Lausanne, destroying 1,374 lodgings, which would have housed approximately 5,500-7,000 people.13 When one recalls that Lausanne’s total population later in the fifteenth century was only about 5,000 people, the effects of that fire appear staggering indeed. In the High Middle Ages, Lausanne may have had a population of around 8,000-9,000 people, which would have made it one of the largest and most important cities in what is today Switzerland. It was far more populous than Geneva (population approximately 2,500 in 1356), which experienced its most significant growth only in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

11

Paquier, Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:156-57. There was one exception to this arrangement: between 1152 and 1219, the dukes of Zähringen were given the right to invest the bishop of Lausanne, which created some tension between the two authorities. See Jean Charles Biaudet, ed., Histoire de Lausanne, Univers de la France et des pays francophones: Histoire des villes (Lausanne: Payot, 1982), 85-86. 13 Biaudet, Histoire de Lausanne, 127. 12

Chapter 2

22

Lausanne’s population did not return to the 1219 level until the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.14 The city’s difficulty in recovering from the catastrophic fire entailed a reversal of fortunes for the region’s cities. Lausanne slipped into decline – and the bishop’s power with it – while Geneva’s fairs and Fribourg’s textile industry placed those two cities on the map.15 The third factor limiting the bishop’s authority was an emerging communal movement in Lausanne. The Lausanne commune was established in 1280 when the citizens broke out in open revolt against the bishop. The emperor himself stepped in to settle the matter, and although he made the citizens pay a fine to the bishop, he did not order the abolition of the commune or the destruction of the city seal.16 From that moment until Bern’s conquest of Vaud in 1536, the city council and the bishop were locked in a perpetual power struggle over the city. In order to defend their rights and freedoms, the citizens sought to make independent alliances with outside powers, first with Savoy and later with the Swiss.

1.3

The Swiss Confederation and the Common Lordships

The Swiss Confederation (Confédération helvétique, Eidgenossenschaft) grew out of the alliance made in 1291 among the small forest cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden.17 Between 1332 and 1353, Lucerne, Zurich, Glarus, Zug, and Bern joined the Confederation to form the “Eight Old States” (acht alte Orte). The Confederation peaked in strength and popularity at the turn of the sixteenth century, after stunning victories over Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy (1476), and Emperor Maximilian I (1499). Thomas A. Brady, Jr. has demonstrated how these events created for many south German cities the very real possibility of “turning Swiss,” and joining the Confederation.18 Indeed, several did: Fribourg, Solothurn, Schaffhausen, Appenzell, and Basel all joined between 1481 and 1513, bringing the total number of cantons in the sixteenth century to thirteen.

14

Biaudet, Histoire de Lausanne, 128. Biaudet, Histoire de Lausanne, 136-138. 16 Biaudet, Histoire de Lausanne, 107. 17 On the history of the Swiss Confederation during the later Middle Ages, see e.g., Bonjour, Offler, and Potter, A Short History of Switzerland; Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450-1550, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Vuilliemin, Histoire de la Confédération Suisse; Walter Schaufelberger, “Spätmittelalter,” in Handbuch der Schweizer Geschichte, 2 vols. (Zurich: Berichthaus, 1972), 1:239-388. 18 Brady, Turning Swiss, 43-72. 15

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

23

Although Brady confines his study to German lands, the potential for turning Swiss extended south and west to French-speaking cities as well, notably Geneva, Neuchâtel, and Lausanne, each of which entered into the orbit of the Confederation by signing treaties of combourgeoisie (Burgrecht) with member cantons Bern and Fribourg. Historians of Switzerland are fond of pointing out – and it bears repeating here – that one must not think of the Swiss Confederation as anything like a modern nation-state. Member cantons maintained almost complete autonomy, and there was no central body with coercive authority. The Confederation’s cohesion stemmed from a common desire for independence from imperial authority. Representatives would meet to discuss issues affecting all the cantons, but no decision made at Confederation diets was compulsory on the individual cantons. It was a federal system in the loosest possible sense, and the independence of the cantons very nearly led to the system’s demise when religious conflict tore the cantons apart in the 1520s.

Figure 2-1. The Swiss Confederation, ca. 1530

It is not surprising, therefore, that religious conflict entered the Pays de Vaud through those areas most closely connected to the Swiss. In the 1520s there were three different types of relationships between the Confederation

24

Chapter 2

and the various regions within the Pays de Vaud. First, there were the Four Mandated Territories of Bern: Aigle, Ormont, Bex, and Ollon. These were ruled directly by Bern as a consequence of the treaty ending the Burgundian Wars in 1476. Second, the same treaty decreed that the cities and surrounding areas of Orbe, Echallens, Grandson, and Murten (Morat) be ruled as common lordships by Bern and Fribourg. And third, Bern and Fribourg had established alliances with Payerne and Avenches as early as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and signed a treaty of combourgeoisie with Lausanne in 1525.19 Combourgeoisie gave similar rights and duties to the signatories as native citizens of a city had, especially concerning military protection and service. Nevertheless, the cities were not treated as equals; Bern and Fribourg were clearly the more powerful partners and retained certain advantages in the treaties. For example, if Bern or Fribourg called upon Lausanne to supply troops, Lausanne was required to comply, no questions asked. If, by contrast, Lausanne sought Bern’s military aid, the Bernese had the right to deliberate on the matter and reject the request if they determined that the request was unwarranted. Moreover, Lausanne had to foot the bill both for sending their own soldiers to Bern’s aid and for Bern’s soldiers to come to its assistance. Despite the unbalanced requirements, Lausanne (and Geneva as well, which signed a nearly identical treaty with Bern a year later in 1526) entered into these agreements with Bern and Fribourg as a way to defend the commune’s rights and liberties from potential encroachment by the bishop. The treaty of combourgeoisie was the first step toward turning Swiss and shaking off the authority of the local prince-bishop. Problems easily arise in three-way relationships, and although Bern and Fribourg were theoretically equal partners, both in these combourgeoisie arrangements and in the common lordships, Bern’s superior military might

19

Fribourg and Avenches were first allied in 1270, Bern and Payerne in 1344. In addition to the general treatment of combourgeoisie, see the list of alliances and treaties in Claude Cuendet, Les traités de combourgeoisie en pays romands, BHV 63 (Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1979), 161-63. See also Andreas Würgler, “Combourgeoisie,” Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse, online at http://www.lexhist.ch/externe/protect/textes/f/ F9829.html. The French text of the Lausanne treaty is printed in Charles Gilliard, La Combourgeoisie de Lausanne avec Berne et Fribourg en 1525 (Lausanne: Imprimeries réunis, 1925), 31-34. The Latin text is found in Danielle Anex-Cabanis and Jean-François Poudret, eds., Les Sources du Droit du Canton de Vaud: Moyen âge (Xe-XVIe siècle), B. Droits seigneuriaux et franchises municipales, I. Lausanne et les terres épiscopales, Les sources du droit Suisse, part XIX: Les sources du droit du Canton de Vaud (Aarau: Sauerländer, 1977), 54-58; also in Fréd. de Gingins-La-Sarra and François Forel, Recueil de chartes, statuts et documents concernant l’ancien évêché de Lausanne, MDR ser. 1, 7, pt. 1 (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1846), 722-724 (No. 102).

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

25

placed it at a distinct advantage, especially after the Reformation severed the religious unity of the two cantons. The Bernese knew this and exploited it to strengthen their influence over their common subjects and allies. After Bern itself officially adopted the Reformation in 1528, it pushed hard for the “free preaching of the Gospel” in the Four Mandated Territories, the common lordships, and with its combourgeois. The Four Mandated Territories did not present any jurisdictional problem since they were directly under the rule of Bern alone. Legally, Bern’s combourgeois were more problematic; since the treaties were orginally drawn up before Bern became Protestant, the religious question had not been addressed. The Bernese solved this problem in Payerne in the 1531 renewal of the treaty, by making the treaty conditional on the city’s willingness to allow the free preaching of the Gospel.20 Bern’s superiority over Fribourg was most clearly seen in Geneva where religious tensions finally resulted in competing ultimatums: Bern insisted that the Genevans allow evangelical preaching, while Fribourg insisted that they stop it. Bern won, and Fribourg was forced to cancel its treaty of combourgeoisie with Geneva in 1532.21 Resistance to Bern was most effective in Lausanne; after a couple of failed attempts by Farel to preach in the city in 1529, he and the Bernese gave up to focus on places that were more clearly within Bern’s jurisdiction. In addition to Payerne and the Four Mandated Territories, these areas included, most significantly, the common lordships. Unlike the combourgeoisie treaties that governed Bern and Fribourg’s relationships with Lausanne and Geneva and could be easily withdrawn, the common lordships yoked the two rival cities uncomfortably together as joint rulers. In practice they managed this by alternating direct governance every five years and leaving the right of appeal to the city not in control at the moment. For example, if Bern appointed the bailiff for the lordship of Orbe, that bailiff would serve for five years; when his term ended, Fribourg would appoint a bailiff of its choosing for the next five years. While Bern’s bailiff was governing, Fribourg held the right of appeal and vice versa. Again, the Reformation complicated matters in these areas, since Bern went Protestant and Fribourg remained Catholic. The problem was partially resolved in the peace treaty ending the first War of Kappel, which stated that in the common lordships, evangelical preaching was to be allowed alongside the Catholic Mass until a majority vote (called le plus or, in German, das Mehr) decided in favor of the Protestants, at which point the Mass would be abolished for

20

EA IV.1b, 1029 (No. 534), Payerne, 4 June 1531; EA IV.1b, 1055 (No. 548), Bern, 28 June 1531. 21 See below, chapter 2, section 6.

Chapter 2

26

good.22 This provision gave the Bernese the right to install evangelical preachers in all of the common lordships. Since neither the duke of Savoy nor the bishop of Lausanne had any interest in allowing evangelical preaching in the Pays de Vaud, it was only through Bern’s influence in the Suisse romande that the Reformation had any chance to take hold there.

2.

THE BURGUNDIAN WARS (1474-76) AND BERN’S FIRST CONQUESTS IN VAUD

Bern’s 1536 conquest of Vaud is incomprehensible if one fails to consider the Burgundian Wars of the fifteenth century. The aggressive advances of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy made abundantly clear to the Bernese how much their security depended on a strong military presence in Vaud. By resisting the efforts of the duke and his Savoyard and Vaudois allies, the Bernese made clear their desire not only to establish a presence in Vaud but also to rule over it. Twice in the course of the Burgundian Wars they rampaged through the Vaudois towns, demanding submission. The 1536 campaign, therefore, was not Bern’s first march on the Pays de Vaud but its third. Almost as soon as he assumed power, the ambitious duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold (r. 1467-1477), set out to re-create and rule over a revived Carolingian kingdom of Lotharingia, stretching from the Low Countries on the North Sea to Provence and Northern Italy on the Mediterranean.23 Charles sought control over the Pays de Vaud because the region commanded the roads to the Alpine passes and would therefore be one of

22

The text of the treaty is printed in EA IV.1b, 1478-83 (Beilage 8), Steinhausen and Kappel, 26 June 1529. These terms were decidedly in favor of the evangelicals; with a Catholic majority, Protestant preaching was to be allowed, but with a Protestant majority, Catholicism was abolished. 23 On Charles the Bold, see Richard Vaughan, Charles the Bold: The last Valois Duke of Burgundy (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2002 [London, 1973]); E. Toutey, Charles le Téméraire et la Ligue de Constance (Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1902); Anne Le Cam, Charles le Téméraire, un homme et son rêve (Neuilly: V & O Editions, 1992). On his relations with the Swiss Confederation, see Norbert Stein, Burgund und die Eidgenossenschaft zur Zeit Karls des Kühnen: die politische Beziehungen in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Struktur beider Staaten, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 3: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 110 (Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 1979); Richard Feller, Geschichte Berns, 4 vols. (Bern: Herbert Lang & Cie, 1946), 1:352-426 . On his relations with Savoy and the effect of the wars on Vaud, see Vulliemin, Histoire de la Conféderation Suisse, 1:245-69; Paquier, Le Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:93-120.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

27

the key links between the northern and southern halves of the kingdom he envisioned. His chief problem was that he was an aggressive expansionist squeezed between two other equally aggressive powers: to the west was King Louis XI of France who sought to extend his kingdom’s borders through Burgundy to the natural boundary of the Jura, and to the east, the Swiss, particularly the Bernese, aimed to push towards the same natural border from the other side. The land in the middle was governed principally by Duchess Yolande of Savoy, sister of King Louis XI. Nevertheless, because of her rivalry with Louis’s ally, Philip of Bresse, Yolande allied instead with her brother-in-law, Jaques de Savoie. Jaques de Savoie was count of Romont, baron of Vaud, and a close childhood friend of Charles the Bold. Savoy and Vaud were therefore allied with Burgundy against the Swiss and the French during the Burgundian Wars.24 In an attempt to stop the flow of Italian mercenaries coming to the aid of Charles the Bold in late spring and early summer 1475, the Bernese seized the area around Aigle, the bottleneck through which all transalpine traffic bound for Burgundy had to pass. They also established garrisons at Orbe and the Jura pass at Jougne. Partly in an attempt to secure these outposts and the lines of communication to them, the Bernese marched on Vaud on 14 October 1475. They did so on the pretext that they were declaring war only on Jaques de Savoie in response to an illegal seizure of goods from a Swiss merchant traveling through Vaud. Technically, they did not declare war on either Savoy proper or Charles the Bold, yet they must have known that both would inevitably enter into the conflict. Together with troops from Fribourg, they marched swiftly through Murten, Avenches, and Payerne before meeting resistence in Estavayer, whose citizens paid dearly for their confrontation, as the Bernese brutally massacred the population, pillaged the town, and burned down the local château. The lesson was learned, and the rest of Vaud submitted by the end of the month. The Bernese exacted a heavy ransom in return for sparing Lausanne (2,000 florins) and the Lavaux (5,000 florins). Geneva was hit even harder with a demand for 26,000 florins. To add insult to injury, on 8 November 1475, the Estates of Vaud were notified that they would have to cover the expenses of the Swiss occupation and swear an oath of loyalty to Bern and Fribourg, which took administrative responsibility over the area. The destruction wrought by the Swiss fueled resentment among the people of Vaud, many of whom eagerly awaited the arrival of Charles the Bold as liberator or even fled over the Jura to join him in advance. The Swiss garrisons in Vaud were small and open to assault. When Charles

24

See Paquier, Le Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:95.

28

Chapter 2

marched on Vaud in February 1476, therefore, he had little trouble routing the few Swiss troops there, at least at first. The Swiss were in an especially precarious position at the time, for in late 1475, Charles had made peace with both Emperor Frederick III and King Louis XI, leaving the Swiss to fend for themselves, together with just a few allies from South German cities like Strasbourg and Basel (which was not yet part of the Confederation) and the dukes of Lorraine and Austria-Tyrol. In March, Charles received reinforcements from England, Picardy, Flanders, Italy, and Savoy and led his army into Vaud with the goal of crushing the stubborn Swiss opposition to his grand plans. Charles easily swept through most of Vaud in early February and massacred the Bernese garrison at Grandson late in the month. In the meantime, however, the Bernese were organizing the opposition among their allies, and soon after word reached them of the slaughter at Grandson, the Swiss army of some 20,000 men (about a third of them from Bern itself) marched towards Charles’ camp.25 The subsequent battles of Grandson and Murten were key turning points both in the war and for the fortunes and reputation of the Swiss Confederation in general. At Grandson, a feigned retreat by Charles was misinterpreted by his own troops as genuine, and the Burgundian ranks broke, leaving a newly reinforced Swiss army to give chase and win the day, without, however, either inflicting or suffering many casualties. In the absence of a definitive victory by the Swiss, Charles withdrew to Lausanne to regroup while the Swiss divided up the considerable loot left behind by the Burgundian army. Bern wanted to march on Vaud again but was restrained by its allies. After nearly three months camped in Lausanne, Charles’ army marched out on 27 May 1476 with approximately 12,000 troops intending to launch a direct assault on the Swiss.26 The Burgundian army laid siege at Murten in early June. Mistakenly believing that the Swiss wanted to fight a defensive war, Charles’ forces were taken almost completely by surprise when the Swiss launched an offensive against his entrenched troops. The Burgundian soldiers were again thrown into confusion, but at Murten, unlike at Grandson, they had no place to run. Backed up to Lake Neuchâtel with the

25

26

After his bitter loss, Charles himself apparently exaggerated his humiliation, claiming 20,000 of his troops lost to 10,000 Swiss. Although the size of Charles’ army is unknown, Swiss sources detailing forces sent from each canton clearly indicate the Confederation’s army was twice the size of Charles’ estimate. Vaughan, Charles the Bold, 374-75. Again, the number of troops has sometimes been skewed to portray a more miraculous Swiss victory. In fact, one of the most important reasons for the Swiss victory was that their force of about 25,000 men far outnumbered Charles’ 10,000-15,000 soldiers. Vaughan, Charles the Bold, 386, 397.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

29

shoreline routes effectively cut off, many of Charles’ soldiers had no choice but to proceed into the lake itself, where they either drowned or were killed by the Swiss in hot pursuit. The Swiss troops showed no mercy and took no prisoners as they slaughtered the scattered remnants of the Burgundian army; in all, Charles lost approximately one-third of his army in a humiliating defeat. The Bernese took advantage of their victory to overrun and occupy Vaud a second time. Finally at the end of July 1476, Charles the Bold entered into peace negotiations with the Swiss in Fribourg. The Bernese made no attempt to mask their expansionist desires and openly sought official control over the Pays de Vaud, Geneva and its environs, and part of the Chablais (the territory just south of Lake Geneva – today in France, dép. Haute-Savoie). The other cantons and the French opposed the move, however, and control over most of the Pays de Vaud reverted to Savoy in return for an indemnity of 50,000 florins. There were a few important exceptions, however. Bern would keep the Four Mandated Territories: Aigle, Ollon, Bex, and Ormont. Fribourg took Illens and Everdes. Murten, Grandson, Orbe, Echallens, and Montagny-sur-Yverdon would be governed jointly by Bern and Fribourg as common lordships. Swiss troops remained as an occupying force in Vaud, however, until 1478, when Duchess Yolande was finally able to raise enough money to satisfy the imposed indemnity. As for Charles the Bold, he resumed his fight with the French until his death on the battlefield at Nancy in 1477, at which point many of his lands passed to the French crown. The Burgundian Wars constituted a defining moment for early modern Vaud. No one could doubt either the strength or the expansionist desires of Bern. By contrast, Savoy’s weakness became evident and was exacerbated by the harsh fines exacted by the Swiss in punitive damages. It would require a concerted diplomatic effort on the part of the other cantons and the French to keep the Bernese from seizing the Pays de Vaud again since the Bernese were looking for any excuse to do just that. In the meantime, the creation of the common lordships in Vaud allowed the Bernese both to keep one eye on the region and eventually to introduce evangelical preaching there in the 1530s. Bern’s possession of the Four Mandated Territories also gave them significant revenue from tolls and allowed them to control much of the transalpine traffic entering Vaud. For the people of Vaud, suffering two conquests in as many years instilled in them a mix of hatred and fearful respect for their Allemanic neighbors who continued to hover over the region like a hawk awaiting the opportunity to swoop down on its prey.

Chapter 2

30

3.

THE SWABIAN WAR, 1499

Although the Swabian War of 1499 did not bear directly on the history of the Pays de Vaud, it must be mentioned briefly as the decisive event in the Swiss Confederation’s struggle for independence.27 The war was instigated by Emperor Maximilian I, who had grown frustrated with the Confederation’s refusal to obey him and kicked off the war with the famous slogan, “The Swiss, too, must have a master.” Brady has characterized the war as “a kind of preventive social war against the spread of masterlessness into Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Swabia, and the Upper Rhine, and it belongs to the prehistory of the Revolution of 1525.”28 In other words, it was an imperial attempt to stem the tide of cities “turning Swiss” and refusing obedience to the emperor, or indeed to any lord at all. The war pitted the emperor and his allies in Tyrol and the Swabian League of South German cities against the Rhaetian League (or the Grisons) and its Swiss allies. Fighting was sporadic and spread out over a long front stretching from the Upper Rhine to the convergence of the Swiss, Austrian, and Italian borders. Nevertheless, the imperial forces could not push through the Swiss pikemen, and as sympathy for the Swiss grew within his own ranks, Maximilian was forced to sign the Peace of Basel on 22 September 1499.29 Although the Swiss Confederation was technically to remain a part of the Holy Roman Empire, the treaty stipulated that the Swiss would remain virtually independent of imperial control. In 1501, in the wake of Swiss success, Basel and Schaffhausen entered the Confederation, and in 1513 Appenzell became the last new area to do so until Bern’s conquest of Vaud in 1536. The Swabian War affected the Pays de Vaud only indirectly, through the region’s later history. Nevertheless, it was important, for since Vaud had been given back to the duke of Savoy and not to the Bernese after the Burgundian Wars, it was still much more closely tied to the empire than to the Confederation. This also explains why later on, for example, Emperor Charles V felt within his rights to write to the Lausanne city council in 1536 in an attempt to forbid them from holding the Lausanne Disputation. As far as he was concerned, Lausanne was still a part of the empire. Hence, as long as the duke of Savoy contested Bern’s control over the Pays de Vaud, the

27

28 29

On the Swabian War, see Brady, Turning Swiss, 57-72; Vulliemin, Histoire de la Confédération Suisse, 1:295-307; Feller, Geschichte Berns, 1:459-91. See also the excellent website with primary sources, edited by Klaus Graf at the Universität Freiburg: “Schwabenkrieg/Schweizerkrieg 1499,”online at http://www.krieg.historicum.net/themen/ schwabenkrieg/. Brady, Turning Swiss, 58. Brady, Turning Swiss, 62-63.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

31

region risked renewed imperial involvement in the affairs of the Swiss, for its status had not been affected by the Peace of Basel that had ended the Swabian War.

4.

THE REFORMATION IN BERN (1522-1528)

The most decisive factor in bringing Protestantism to the Suisse romande was Bern’s decision to accept the Reformation. Without the influence of Bern, it is highly unlikely that any of the lands of Frenchspeaking Switzerland, including Geneva, would ever have become Protestant. As with most cities that opted for the Reformation, Bern’s break with the old faith did not take place overnight. From the early influence of Luther’s, and increasingly Zwingli’s, writings, an influential group of evangelical burghers and churchmen formed by 1522, including priests Berchtold Haller and Franz Kolb, the Franciscan Sebastian Meyer, painter and poet Niklaus Manuel, and doctor and chronicler Valerius Anshelm.30 Through their leadership, the Reformation made fast initial progress. On 27 December 1522, the city council decreed that the evangelical ministers were to be allowed to preach the Gospel freely, and on 15 June 1523, the council issued its first Reformation ordinance, the Mandat von Viti und Modesti. Henceforth, all preachers were to announce only the “pure truth of the Holy Scriptures” (lautere Wahrheit der Heiligen Schrift). This was a compromise solution typical of the early city Reformation. By focusing on the “truth of the Scriptures” or the “pure Word of God,” as opposed to mentioning such individuals as Luther or Zwingli, civil magistrates hoped to ease the tensions and tumults brought about by the passions of the competing parties. And as in most other cities, the compromise did not work well in Bern. The following year, on 22 November 1524, the council issued a second mandate; while maintaining a compromise position, it explicitly forbade the importation, purchase, and sale of controversial religious literature. The evangelical party was steadily gaining strength and influence in the council, but two factors discouraged the Bernese from giving their full support to their Protestant neighbors in Zurich. First, in 1525, the German Peasants’ War spread into the Swiss Confederation, tying together for many

30

On the Reformation in Bern, see Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 101-08; Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel (Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980); Kurt Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeshichte (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958), 55-100; Feller, Geschichte Berns, 2:110-82.

32

Chapter 2

people the Reformation and the prospect of social revolution. Second, Bern did not want to alienate the Catholic cantons. The lack of agreement among the cantons on the religious question led to the 1526 Baden Disputation. Although Bern sent as its representatives the reform-minded preachers Berchtold Haller and Peter Kunz, the city declined to declare itself for either side. Zurich was the only canton to vote Protestant at the disputation, and the Catholics, led in the debate by the formidable Johannes Eck, came away with an easy victory. It was a crushing blow for the evangelicals, and in Bern, the chess match over the religious question was at a stalemate. In June 1526, Haller was summoned before the city’s small council to explain why he had not celebrated Mass since Christmas. He escaped banishment by appealing to the large council, many of whose members came from the guilds, which formed the backbone of the evangelical movement in Bern. Through the guilds’ influence, Bern refused to adopt the conclusions of the Baden Disputation, a decision that enraged the Catholic cantons and kept hope alive for the evangelicals. The turning point came with the council elections on Easter Monday, 1527, in which the evangelicals won a strong majority in the large council. Under pressure from the the guilds, the small council called for a religious disputation to resolve the issue once and for all. Although the council had the numbers simply to issue an edict, it felt that a public disputation was a necessary antidote to the disastrous Baden Disputation.31 The Bern Disputation took place 6-26 January 1528, in the Franciscan church of Bern.32 The council ordered all priests in Bern’s territories to attend and threatened the bishops of Constance, Lausanne, Basel, and Sion with the loss of all their power in Bernese lands if they failed to appear. The priests showed up; the bishops did not. Bern also extended invitations to the members of the Confederation and a number of cities in South Germany. Several Catholic cantons refused to attend, claiming that the Baden Disputation had already settled the matter. The evangelicals appear to have been quite confident of victory; Zurich even invited Eck, who had been instrumental in the Catholic victory at Baden, to come to Bern and fight another round, entirely at the city’s expense, but he refused.

31

Gottfried W. Locher, “Die Berner Disputation 1528,” in 450 Jahre Berner Reformation, 138-55; here, 139-40. 32 On the Bern Disputation, see Locher, “Die Berner Disputation 1528”; Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte, 101-15. The acts of the Bern Disputation were printed soon afterwards in Ulrich Zwingli, et al., Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zu Bern in Üchtland (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1528); also in Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, 2nd ed., 23 vols., ed. Johann Georg Walch (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1880-1910 [Halle im Magdeburgischen, 1740-1753]), 17:1616-1933.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

33

The list of participants on the Protestant side at the Bern Disputation reads like a Who’s Who of the early Reformed movement. Led by Zwingli himself, the evangelical contingent included Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, Ambrosius Blaurer, Guillaume Farel, as well as the Bern ministers. In the absence of Eck, the Catholic party was left without strong leadership. Alexius Grat, a Dominican from Bern, Konrad Träger, the Augustinian Provinicial from Fribourg, and Johannes Buchstab from Zofingen did their best, but the deck was neatly stacked against them from the outset. The final vote of the participants resulted in a landslide victory for the Protestants, and the Bern city council subsequently acted swiftly to abolish the Mass and remove the images from the city’s churches. Guillaume Farel’s presence at the Bern Disputation marks the intersection of the evangelical movements in Francophone and Germanspeaking Europe that would bring the Reformation message to the Pays de Vaud. Farel and Bern soon developed a symbiotic but strained relationship that would continue to characterize the Reformation in Vaud for the next thirty years. After his frustrations in Meaux with Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet, Farel finally found in Bern a patron willing to support openly the spread of the Gospel.33 The Bernese similarly needed Farel to advance the evangelical message in their French-speaking lands. At the same time, however, Bern’s political and diplomatic responsibilities and goals frequently clashed with Farel’s religious actions and ambitions. This early tense relationship between the Bernese and Farel set the stage for future conflict in the Pays de Vaud.

5.

THE WARS OF KAPPEL, 1529-1531

Bern’s adoption of the Reformation was a serious threat to the cohesion of the Swiss Confederation. Zurich was no longer the sole fly in the ointment; it now had the ideological, political, and – most importantly – military support of the most powerful canton of the Confederation. The situation appeared so desperate to the Catholic cantons that they took the astonishing step of securing an alliance with the old arch-enemy of the Swiss, the Austrian Habsburgs.34 Tensions mounted in late 1528, when the canton of Unterwalden gave military support to rebels in the Bernese

33 34

For more on Farel’s early ministry in Bern’s lands, see below, chapter 4. On the Kappel Wars, see Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 122-35; Bonjour, A Short History of Switzerland, 157-62; Feller, Geschichte Berns, 2:196-236; Vulliemin, Histoire de la Confédération Suisse, 2:31-49.

34

Chapter 2

Oberland, and open conflict broke out in May 1529, when Catholics in canton Schwyz executed a citizen of Zurich for preaching in the common lordship of Gaster. In response, Zurich mobilized its forces for a swift attack on the inner cantons (innere Orte): Uri, Schwyz, Zug, Unterwalden, and Lucerne. Bloodshed was avoided in this so-called first “War” of Kappel when the Catholics, on the one hand, sued for peace as it became clear that their Austrian allies would not be able to arrive in time to help and when the Bernese, on the other, made it clear to Zurich that they would only fight in a defensive war. The Protestant forces held a much stronger position, and the peace treaty ending the conflict (Paix de Steinhausen/Erste Kappeler Landfriede) was highly favorable to the Protestants.35 Among the treaty’s provisions that would prove to be vitally important in Vaud was the requirement that evangelical ministers be allowed to preach freely in the common lordships,36 and the stipulation that a majority vote among the male heads-of-household would abolish the Mass in common lordship parishes.37 The treaty furthermore dissolved the Catholic cantons’ alliance with the Habsburgs. The tenuous peace that followed the first Kappel War was upset by news of a renewed alliance between the Catholic cantons and the Habsburgs, both intent on crushing the Swiss Protestants. Zurich and Bern responded with an economic blockade of the inner cantons, which, in turn, launched an attack on Zurich’s forces on 11 October 1531, thus initiating the second War of Kappel. Bern was reluctant to join the fray, and Zurich, without the assistance of the powerful Bernese army, suffered a crushing defeat that left Zwingli dead. The death of Oecolampadius in Basel six weeks later did nothing to soften the blow to the Reformed cause. The situation for the Protestants after the second War of Kappel looked bleak indeed; the evangelicals were left with a greatly weakened eastern end of the BernZurich military axis and without their two intellectual leaders. More importantly, in an age when military victory or defeat was commonly

35

The text of the treaty is printed in EA IV.1b, 1478-83. See above, chapter 2, section 1.3. 37 “Des ersten, von wegen des göttlichen worts, diewyl und niemand zum glouben gezwungen sol werden, daß dann die Oetter und die iren desselben ouch nit genötiget, aber die zuogwandten und vogtyen. Wo man mit einandern zuo beherschen hat, belangend, wo die selben die meß abgestellt und die bilder verbrennt oder abgetan, daß die selben an lib, eer und guot nit gestraft söllend werden; wo aber die meß und ander ceremonia (sic) noch vorhanden, die söllent nit gezwungen, ouch deheine predicanten, so es durch den merteil nit erkannt würt, geschickt, ufgestellt oder gegeben werden, sunder was under inen den kilchgnossen, die uf oder abzetuon, der glichen mit spyß, so gott nit verbotten ze essen, gemeret würt, daby sol es biß uff der kilchgnossen gefallen bliben, und dehein teil dem andern sinen glouben weder frechen noch strafen.” EA IV.1b, 1479. 36

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

35

attributed to God’s approval or wrath – Erasmus himself commented after the deaths of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, “This clearly seems to be an act of God”38 – to many people, and especially to the all-important undecided segment of the population, the Protestants’ defeat must have raised serious doubts about their claims to be the true church. The Kappel Wars had three chief effects on the Reformation in Vaud. First, the treaty ending the first war established the provision that evangelical ministers would be allowed to preach freely in the common lordships. Although this provision was overturned for parties involved in the second War of Kappel, since Fribourg did not participate in this conflict, the requirement remained in place for the common lordships shared by Bern and Fribourg.39 Hence, even after the humiliating defeat in the second war, the Bernese could continue to insist on free evangelical preaching in Orbe, Grandson, and Murten. Second, Zurich as the chief instigator of the second war also bore the brunt of the defeat and was severely weakened. This allowed Bern to emerge as far and away the strongest Protestant canton in the Swiss Confederation, a fact not sufficiently recognized in Reformation scholarship. Bern has been left undeservedly in the shadows of Geneva and Zurich in Reformation history. Nevertheless, the very existence of the latter two cities as Protestant states hinged in large part on Bern’s continued support. The Bernese were well aware of the importance of their new position, and they used it to their advantage whenever possible. Geneva’s decision to choose Bern over Fribourg when faced with an ultimatum, and even Bern’s 1536 conquest of Vaud were made possible by Bern’s clear ascendancy over Zurich in the aftermath of the second Kappel War. Third, defeat in the second Kappel War also had negative ramifications for the Bernese in Vaud. The Reformation had proceeded relatively quickly between 1528 and 1531; the Four Mandated Territories, Murten, Neuchâtel, and Fiez all abolished the Mass in those years. Between the Protestant defeat in 1531 and the 1536 conquest, however, only the small parish of Yvonand (1533) in Vaud embraced the Reformation, despite dramatically increased efforts on the part of the Bernese, Farel, and a growing number of refugee

38

“Res plane geri videtur divinitus.” P. S. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterdami, 12 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906-1958), 9:396 (No. 2579), Erasmus to Lorenzo Campeggio, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 2 December 1531. 39 “Es ist ouch luter zwüschen beiden teilen abgeredt und beschlossen, ob in den selben gemeinen herschaften etlich kilchhörinen, gemeinden oder herlikeiten, wie die genempt möchten werden, wärent, die den nüwen glouben angenomen und noch daby beliben wellten, daß sy es wol tuon mögen.” EA IV.1b, 1573 (Beilage 19b), Bremgarten, 24 November 1531.

Chapter 2

36

French evangelical preachers there. Zurich’s defeat in the second Kappel War, exacerbated by the horrified reaction throughout Europe to the Münster debacle in 1534-35, was a crushing blow to the evangelical cause.

6.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES: GENEVA AND LAUSANNE TURN SWISS (1519-1536)

One fact that we must continue to bear in mind about conditions on the eve of the Reformation is that the vast majority of Vaud was virtually untouched by the evangelical movement before the Bernese conquest of 1536. Farel and fellow evangelical missionaries were active only in a few areas: first, the Four Mandated Territories under the direct control of Bern, second, the common lordships of Orbe-Echallens, Grandson, and Murten, and third, cities allied to Bern by treaties of combourgeoisie which could be pressured into allowing evangelical preaching. In this third category we may place Geneva and Lausanne, and we note that the three-way relationship among the duke of Savoy, the Geneva city council, and the city of Bern led almost directly to the imposition of the Reformation in Vaud. This latter dynamic deserves careful consideration from a broad regional perspective. Geneva and Lausanne were similar in many respects and, therefore, present a useful model for comparison. Both were episcopal cities, both were surrounded by Savoyard lands, and both saw the rise of communes that challenged the authority of the territorial lords. As a means of achieving this goal, both started to turn Swiss in the 1520s, establishing alliances with Bern and Fribourg against the will of their bishops and the duke of Savoy. To be sure, Geneva was much larger and more prosperous than Lausanne. Partly because of this, the commune in Geneva was more powerful and exerted its independence more vigorously than that in Lausanne. The rights claimed by the bishop and duke in the city were also, therefore, much more jealously guarded. Simply put, there was more to gain or lose in Geneva than in Lausanne. Moreover, the duke of Savoy had no jurisdiction in Lausanne as he did in Geneva, and the political threat posed by the bishop of Lausanne to the citizens of that city paled in comparison to the threat posed to the Genevans by Savoy. Because of Lausanne’s relatively inferior status, its bishop, Sébastien de Montfalcon, was more successful than his counterpart in Geneva in keeping the city free of evangelical ministers. Farel attempted to preach in Lausanne on three separate occasions

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

37

in 1529 but was quickly ordered to leave each time.40 In 1533, a Protestant minister from Ormont, Michel Doubté, attempted to preach in Lausanne, but he was literally shipped off from the city’s port of Ouchy after only a short stay.41 When the Bernese decided to impose the Reformation in Lausanne, therefore, they were starting almost entirely from scratch; there the pre-1536 evangelical movement was much smaller and less organized than in Geneva. The one decisive similarity Geneva and Lausanne shared was that each city council was careful not to cross its powerful allies in Bern, even at the expense of alienating its other allies. In 1533, for example, Fribourg asked Lausanne to supply a contingent of soldiers, but the Lausanne city council refused, believing that its men might be used against Bern’s forces in a new religious war.42 Similarly, Geneva was given contradictory ultimatums by Bern and Fribourg in 1534 regarding the continued presence of evangelical ministers in the city; Bern insisted they stay, while Fribourg demanded their

40

41

42

See Guillaume Farel, 188-89; Charles Gilliard, “Les débuts de la Réforme à Lausanne,” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, n.s. 21 (1933): 249-73. “Fuit deliberatum debere rescribere magnificis dominis Bernensibus responsionem litterarum per eosdem missarum quoad magistrum Michaelem predicatorem luterianum, nobis parte prefatorum magn. dom. Bernensium adductum. Fuit renvoyatus magister Michael predicator luterianus qui venerat huc Lausannam ad predicandum absque mandato et scitu communitatis, sed suo bono velle et sua temeraria auctoritate; et fuit eidem predicatori prohibitum ne regrediatur amplius, nisi fuerit eidem mandatum per litteram signatam per secretarium communitatis; qui tamen non predicavit; et ipsum cumcomitavit, parte rev. domini nostri, Christophorus, nuncius domini ballivi, et parte communitatis, dictus Bachouz et solvit expensas omnes borserius communitatis, tam stando in villa, quam ipsum reducendo, nec non eciam pro salario navateriorum.” Ernest Chavannes, ed., “Extraits des Manuaux du Conseil de Lausanne.” MDR, 35 (1881): 122241; vol. 36 (1882): 1-350; series 2, vol. 1 (1887): 1-229; here, vol. 36 (1882): 136-37, 1 April 1533. For the entire history of the Reformation in Lausanne before 1536, see Vuilleumier, 104-21. “Fuit congregatum consilium et retroconsilium, deliberaturi super quadam littera, missa parte magnificorum dominorum Friburgensium, qui mandabant ut haberemus eligere centum hacquebutier bene equippatos ad arma et guerram, quia intellexerunt se invasuros per nonnullos eorum inimicos. Fuit deliberatum et conclusum non debere eligere donec et quousque sciamus contra quos volunt ire.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 36 (1882): 158 (7 November 1533). Fribourg renewed its demand for soldiers, and Lausanne again refused on 19 December (ibid., 158). Chavannes notes, “Les troubles religieux qui avaient eu lieu à Soleure le 30 octobre 1533, et qui nécessitèrent l’intervention des confédérés, furent bien près d’amener une nouvelle guerre de religion en Suisse. Les cinq petits cantons, Fribourg et Vallais avaient entre eux un pacte pour la défense de la religion catholique et avaient noué des négociations avec le pape et l’empereur. De leur côté, les cantons protestants, abattus par la guerre de Cappel, se rapprochaient; Berne s’était entendu avec Bâle. Ainsi dans les deux partis, on se préparait en secret à une lutte armée qui cependant put être évitée.” Ibid., 158-59.

38

Chapter 2

expulsion. The Genevans sided with Bern, Fribourg cancelled its alliance with the city, and the way was open for reform.43 Tensions between the dukes of Savoy and both Geneva and the Swiss Confederation had a long history.44 In 1265, the bishop of Geneva had granted in fief to the House of Savoy the office of vidomne, which included criminal jurisdiction within the city of Geneva. Later, however, the bishop sought to offset Savoy’s encroachment on the city’s independence; in 1308, he recognized the commune of Geneva and in 1387 granted the city a charter of liberties. Duke Amédée VIII’s election as the anti-pope Felix V by the Council of Basel in 1439 inaugurated a nearly eighty-year period of control over the see of Geneva by the House of Savoy. This led to increased tension between the city and the Savoyard prince-bishops. As a measure of protection, Geneva signed a short-lived treaty of combourgeoisie with Fribourg in 1519. Duke Charles III of Savoy (1504-1544) convinced Geneva to renounce the treaty, and his cousin, the bishop of Geneva Jean de Savoie, executed the leader of the pro-Swiss Eidguenot faction, Philibert Berthelier. Meanwhile, the people of Lausanne were likewise locked in a struggle for independence from their bishop. The commune of Lausanne strengthened its opposition to the bishop’s authority in 1481 when the central quarter of the cité (the area around the cathedral and the château de la Maire) united with the lower city (ville inférieur).45 In 1525, to protect its rights further, the Lausanne city council signed treaties of combourgeoisie with Bern and Fribourg. This was the opportunity the Genevan Eidguenot faction had been waiting for, and ignoring the duke of Savoy’s prohibition against making alliances with the Swiss, the city council signed its own treaties of combourgeoisie with Bern and Fribourg the following year. From this point, the movement for freedom from Savoy accelerated. In 1528, Geneva virtually abolished the duke’s office of vidomne and, in 1529, replaced the bishop’s legal tribunal with a new civil court. These two moves left the bishop and the duke virtually powerless in the city.

43

44

45

On the Reformation in Geneva, see, e.g., Naef, Les origines de la Réforme à Genève; Monter, Calvin’s Geneva; Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. Fribourg broke off the alliance with Geneva in May 1534, when the Genevans refused to expel Farel and Viret from the city. See Naef, op. cit., 2:549-63. See Charles Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud par les Bernois, Histoire Helvétique (Lausanne: L’Aire, 1985 [Lausanne: La Concorde, 1935]), 1-31; Monter, Calvin’s Geneva, 29-59. On the struggles for power between the bishop of Lausanne and the commune, see Jean Charles Biaudet, ed., Histoire de Lausanne, Univers de la France et des pays francophones: Histoire des villes (Lausanne: Payot, 1982), 106-14; 152-60.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

39

The duke was not pleased with this turn of events. In 1530, his partisans, the notorious gentilhommes de la Cuiller, which included a number of Vaudois nobles, threatened to attack Geneva. Living up to their end of the alliance, Bern and Fribourg sent over 12,000 men to Geneva’s aid. The treaty of St.-Julien46 ended the conflict in October 1530 and forced Duke Charles III to pay heavy reparations to Bern and Fribourg. The cities charged Geneva itself even more – 15,000 ecus – for their military aid. The financial settlements further depleted Savoy’s nearly empty coffers and strengthened the Swiss cantons’ influence over Geneva. Most importantly for the history of Vaud, the treaty stipulated that if the duke of Savoy were to threaten Geneva again, Bern and Fribourg would be authorized to seize his lands in the Pays de Vaud.47 In Turning Swiss, Thomas A. Brady, Jr. limits his fine study to South German cities. We see in Lausanne and Geneva that the late medieval movement to “live without lords” extended to the Confederation’s Frenchspeaking neighbors as well. The two Francophone cities present a useful point of comparison with Brady’s study, for whereas the South German cities in the 1520s ultimately rejected the option of turning Swiss in favor of closer alliance with the Habsburgs, Geneva and Lausanne both went through with it, albeit with vastly different results. Indeed, because of the contrast between the fates of Geneva and Lausanne, one is left to wonder what would have happened to the German cities had they opted to turn Swiss. Would they have gone the route of Geneva, achieving true independence and eventually membership in the Confederation, or would they have been compelled to follow the example of Lausanne, which after the Bernese conquest was forced simply to shift subservience from one lord to another?

7.

THE BERNESE CONQUEST OF 1536

The watershed event of the Reformation in Vaud was Bern’s conquest of the region in the opening months of 1536. The campaign gave Bern political control over the Pays de Vaud, the Pays de Gex, and the western half of the Chablais. Although Geneva’s exact status with respect to Bern and the Confederation was left ambiguous, the threat of Savoy was temporarily

46 47

The text of the treaty is in EA IV.1b, 1501-05 (Beilage 14), St. Julien, 19 October 1530. “… wo der Herzog (im) unrecht erfunden und nit nach der orten und enden, da dann vormals der rechtshandel angefangen, recht und gewonheit gestraft haben, erwisen und erkennt, daß demnach die herschaft und land in der Wat beiden Stetten [Bern and Fribourg] für ir versangen guot heimgefallen sin söllte.” EA IV.1b, 1504.

40

Chapter 2

removed and Bern’s influence on the city increased. With respect to the Reformation, Bernese dominance in the region transformed scattered evangelical movements in the common lordships and allied cities into a territorial, state-imposed, and state-defined Reformed Church. In the fall of 1535, despite the conditions of the Peace of St. Julien, Duke Charles III of Savoy renewed his assault on Geneva.48 Since Fribourg had canceled its treaty of combourgeoisie with Geneva in 1534, the Geneva city council had no choice but to call on Bern for military aid. After some diplomatic wrangling, Bern officially declared war on the duke of Savoy on 16 January 1536,49 and six days later the Bernese army of six thousand men with sixteen cannon set out under the leadership of Hans-Franz Nägeli. The army marched virtually uncontested through Vaud, extracting oaths of loyalty from each town along the way. The almost complete lack of resistance to Bern’s march through the region is best explained by the fresh collective memory of the devastation wrought by the Bernese and their allies during the Burgundian Wars. Eager to avoid a repetition of those dark days, and with little hope for help from the impoverished duke, the people of Vaud had no choice but to submit to Bernese authority. The one thing many people of Vaud insisted upon as a condition of their submission was the freedom to practice Catholicism, and in a statement of religious freedom truly remarkable for the time, the Bernese promised that they would not compel anyone in matters of faith and that each individual would be allowed to follow the religion of his or her choice.50 This demand for the freedom to continue to follow the “old religion” was repeated often, and each time Bern promised that they would not force anyone to convert. Despite these protests to the contrary, Bern’s march through Vaud clearly brought with it widespread fear that subjugation to the city would entail forced conversion to the Reformed faith. This fear was exacerbated when the Bernese army decided to seize the lands of the bishop of Lausanne in Vaud in addition to the duke’s territories. From the beginning of the war, Bishop Sébastien de Montfalcon had clearly

48

On the Bernese conquest, see Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud. “A ceste cause, puis que toutes raisonnables causes, offres, envers vous n’ont point profité, vous quittons par ces présentes toutes alliances … vous avertissant que à l’aide de Dieu invaderons vous, vos gens et pays, vous défiant par icestes et déclarant la guerre, contre vous et les vôtres, et emploierons tous nos efforts à vous dommager et hostilement aggrédir en corps et en biens et pour autant notre honneur avoir empourvu [read: sauvegardé], témoin.” Pierrefleur, 107, Bern city council to the duke of Savoy, Bern, 16 January 1536. 50 “… ergebenn, und geschworn, mit vorbehalt ir fryheitten und das man sy von irem glouben nit trennge; sy werdenndt dann dessen selb eins ….” Quoted in Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud, 83-84, n. 2. 49

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

41

allied himself with the duke of Savoy, and as the Bernese army marched home, it passed through the bishop’s lands around Lausanne and demanded oaths of loyalty from the towns within his jurisdiction. It is uncertain whether the army was under orders from the Bern city council to do so, but the magistrates certainly did nothing to stop it. The most important of these former episcopal lands was, of course, the city of Lausanne itself. The Bernese delegation entered Lausanne, asked for the former rights of the bishop in the town, and requested permission to place a garrison in the bishop’s château. The Lausanne city council, in a fateful move, acquiesced to Bern’s demands, reserving the commune’s traditional liberties. Unlike the Genevans, who refused to grant Bern any of the powers formerly wielded by the bishop and duke, the Lausannois apparently believed that by yielding “only” the temporal powers of the bishop of Lausanne, the city itself would remain largely free from Bernese interference. They could not have been more wrong. Negotiations between the two cities lasted seven months before they agreed upon the terms set out in the so-called “Largess” (Largition) of Lausanne – although the Lausanne council members found it to be hardly as generous as the name implies.51 Lausanne was granted high, medium, and low jurisdiction in the city and neighboring villages as well as a portion of the ecclesiastical goods confiscated after the Lausanne Disputation. Bern reserved for itself (among other things) the rights of final appeal and regalia (coinage, war, and peace), and the moveable and immoveable goods of the cathedral chapter. Bern also claimed ultimate religious authority over the city. There was no doubt about who was in charge of the city. As Henri Vuilleumier sums up, “From the capital of a vast diocese, from combourgeoise and ally of Bern, from imperial city, finally, Lausanne descended to the rank of a simple local administrative center.”52 The flag of the bear was to fly over Lausanne for the next two hundred fifty years. The anticlimactic ease of Bern’s military conquest should not shroud the very delicate diplomatic environment in which it took place. A great many things could easily have unfolded differently and altered the end result dramatically. The most immediate and important obstacle the Bernese had to overcome was opposition from the Catholic cantons. The duke of Savoy did,

51

52

The text of the Petit Largition is printed in Gingins-La-Sarra and Forel, Recueil de chartes, statuts et documents concernant l’ancien évêché de Lausanne, 768-772 (No. 108), 1 November 1536. A more detailed version, called the Grand Largition, was signed in 1548 (text in ibid., 772-789), but the essential elements of the Petit Largition were unchanged. See Biaudet, Histoire de Lausanne, 160-62. “De capitale d’un vaste diocèse, de combourgeoise et alliée de Berne, de ville impériale, enfin, Lausanne descendait ainsi au rang de simple chef-lieu de bailliage.” Vuilleumier, 127.

42

Chapter 2

in fact, appeal to the Catholic cantons on more than one occasion to come to his aid for the sake of the “old, true Christian belief,” but having already suffered through the two Kappel Wars and fearing a third religious conflict, they refused to enter the fray.53 Another consideration the Catholic cantons had to keep in mind was the Confederation’s alliance with France in contrast to the duke of Savoy’s imperial leanings. One of the most important diplomatic factors in the Reformation era that is consistently ignored by modern scholars is the political relationship between France and the Swiss Confederation. In all of the research on the ties between Geneva and the French Reformed Church, the diplomatic situation within which both groups operated, namely the relationship between the French crown and Geneva’s protectors in the Confederation, is rarely even mentioned, much less analyzed in detail. Our understanding of the actions of the French king and the Confederation will be greatly enhanced if we keep in mind the diplomatic ties connecting the two.54 French-Swiss relations were shaky at best at the beginning of the sixteenth century;55 they turned worse when the Confederation joined the anti-French Holy League in 1511 and reached their nadir at the battle of Marignano in 1515, where French gunpowder and cavalry on the open field revealed the major weakness of the seemingly invincible Swiss pikemen. The battle had two long-term results: First, French claims over Milan were reaffirmed, contributing to a half century of Habsburg-Valois wars. Second, the remaining Swiss troops withdrew from Italy with their tails between their legs, and a strong movement was started in the Confederation against foreign mercenary service, which had for years been the most common path to fame

53

“L’expédition bernoise est non seulement contraire à l’esprit du traité, qui est destiné à empêcher toute opération belliqueuse, mais encore elle tend à la ruine de notre sainte foi que Vos Magnificences se sont toujours montrées prêtes à défendre. Aussi, du fond du coeur, nous vous prions de considérer notre salut commun et le traité qui nous unit, de décider de nous prêter aide et secours, de daigner le faire réellement et promptement, de veiller à ce que cette armée soit rappelée et de ne pas permettre qu’un de vos alliés les plus fidèles soit ainsi injustement attaqué. En quoi nous nous confions à Vos Magnificences….” Charles Gilliard, “A propos de la conquête bernoise: Quelques lettres contemporaines,” in Pages d’histoire vaudoise, ed. Louis Junod, BHV 22 (Lausanne: Imprimerie centrale, 1959), 124-135; here, 127, Duke Charles III to the seven Catholic cantons, Turin, 20 January 1536. See also, EA IV.1c, 645-646, Lucerne, 24-25 February 1536. 54 On French-Swiss diplomatic relations in the sixteenth century, see Edouard Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, de leurs alliés et de leurs confédérés, vol. 1: 1430-1559 (Bern: A. Benteli & Co., 1900). 55 On Swiss foreign relations 1500-1513, see Vulliemin, Histoire de la Confédération Suisse, 1:311-22.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

43

and riches for young Swiss men. The disaster at Marignano did not, however, lead directly to the tradition of Swiss neutrality. Instead, what followed Marignano was clear Swiss partisanship, an attempt to shake off the poor reputation they had earned by selling themselves to the highest bidder and, instead, to return to a consistent anti-Habsburg policy that would make Valois France the Confederation’s natural ally. In May 1521, a thirtyyear French-Swiss alliance was concluded with the participation of all the cantons except Zurich. The alliance gave the king the right to levy 6,00016,000 Swiss troops and promised aid to the Swiss if they were attacked.56 The alliance naturally hit a rough patch in the 1520s and early 1530s, as the Confederation itself nearly fell apart during the Kappel Wars. In 1536, therefore, the Bernese conquest of Vaud renewed concerns about the Confederation’s relationship with France. This was especially important since at exactly the same time that the Bernese were marching through Vaud, French troops were marching towards Savoy as well, seeking to establish a controlled supply line to Milan. The French ambassador, Louis Dangerant, Sieur de Boisrigaut, met Bern’s troops in the Chablais, then attended mediating conferences in Lausanne and Bern at which it was decided to carve up Savoy between the Bernese and the French: Bern would keep Vaud and the lands already conquered in the Chablais, and leave the rest of Savoy for France.57 Some historians have pointed to the dramatic possibility that Francis I could have taken Geneva in 1535-36 for the French crown.58 Considering both the Swiss-French alliance and Geneva’s treaty of combourgeoisie with Bern, however, that would have been only a remote possibility unless the Genevans themselves had chosen to join France. France needed Bern’s friendship as much, if not more, than Bern needed France, and any attempt to steal Geneva from the Swiss would have been out of the question. Because of France’s simultaneous war against Savoy, any attempt by the Catholic cantons to side with Savoy against Bern would have entailed breaking the Confederation’s alliance with France. Moreover, it is important to note that Fribourg and the Valais, both Catholic, played minor roles in the conquest and were also rewarded with former Savoyard lands. Hence, it was never a one-sided religious conflict. The duke of Savoy’s lands were now divided among Catholic France, Fribourg, the Valais, and Protestant Bern. The other Catholic cantons could not have supported the duke’s cause, for it

56

The treaty also gave Swiss merchants the right to establish themselves in the kingdom and live there with their families tax-free, which may have been significant for the later religious book trade in France, although no research has yet been done on this. 57 EA IV.1c, 641 (No. 390), Bern, 16, 18 February 1536. 58 Monter, Calvin’s Geneva, 54-55.

44

Chapter 2

would have entailed fighting against their allies both within the Confederation and without. Because of the duke’s alliance with Emperor Charles V, such support also would have entailed a reversal of the Confederation’s traditional anti-imperial policy. As for the emperor himself, he received a plea for help from the duke of Savoy, but he was with his forces in southern Italy at the time and could not have marched north fast enough to halt the Bernese conquest. His troops would later clash with the French, however, on their Savoy campaign in northern Italy. As a result, no treaties were signed by the emperor acknowledging Bern’s right to its newly conquered land; hence, from the perspective of contemporaries, the fate of the Pays de Vaud was far from sealed by Bern’s 1536 conquest. Many saw it as a temporary and easily reversible change of lordship, which helps to explain why the Reformed faith continued to face strong opposition long after it was imposed. It was commonly expected that the emperor would be along any day to restore the authority of both Savoy and Holy Mother Church in the Pays de Vaud.

8.

THE LAUSANNE DISPUTATION, OCTOBER 1536

I will have occasion to return to the details of what happened during the Lausanne Disputation.59 For now, I would simply like to consider the international factors that led the Bernese to call the disputation in the first place. During the conquest of Vaud, the Bernese repeatedly promised the people freedom of religious choice. It may have been an empty, deceptive promise from the beginning, a ruse to get the towns to capitulate more easily, and Bern may have intended all along to make its new subjects Protestant. Nevertheless, the Bernese likely would have kept to their promise longer if not for two developments: first, the high level of resistance offered by the people threatened not only the future of Protestantism in the area but also Bern’s authority and the very lives of the ministers;60 and second, on 4 June 1536, at the instigation of Charles V, Pope Paul III called for a longawaited general council to open in Mantua in May 1537.61 A general council had the potential to unite the secular forces of Catholicism, including France, against a more clearly defined Protestant heresy to an extent not seen since

59

See below, chapter 5, section 1. See below, chapter 4, section 4. 61 Pope Paul III, “Ad Dominici gregis curam” (4 June 1536), in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 54 vols., ed. Gian Domenico Mansi, et al. (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960 [1759-1927]), 35:359-60. 60

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

45

the start of the Reformation. The Bernese could not risk the possible effects of a general council on their Catholic subjects and decided to hold the Lausanne Disputation in October 1536 as a pre-emptive strike. Word of the upcoming disputation leaked out long before Bern’s official summons on 16 July. More than a month earlier, on 12 June, Fribourg sent a delegation to Bern, demanding clarification of rumors about a religious disputation to be held in Lausanne.62 On 5 July, Emperor Charles V himself wrote to the Lausannois, forbidding them from holding any such disputation: We have learned that in our imperial city … innovations have been made in the matter of our religion and faith, and that, among other things, a certain disputation on these matters has been ordered to take place there soon. We are all the more opposed to these things since we see that they are undertaken against the previous decision of our imperial edicts, in which we have desired that all innovations cease and be suspended until the future council.… And therefore, we order you in earnest not to hold the said disputation nor admit any other innovations in matters of faith and religion. On the contrary, you are to annul and abolish them and return all innovations to their original state, and you are to remit the case to the celebration of the aforementioned future council ….63 The Lausanne city council wanted to obey Charles and tried to dissuade the Bernese from holding the disputation, but the appeal was unsuccessful.64

62

EA IV.1c, 705-706 (No. 433), Bern, 12 June 1536. “Intelleximus in ista Civitate nostra Imperiali, ubi inter caetera ecclesiastica aedificia Cathedralis Ecclesia, a nostris Praedecessoribus dotata, et sub nostra protectione existit, fieri innovationes in Religionis et fidei nostrae causa, et inter caetera institutam esse certam disputationem brevi isthic fiendam super eodem negotio. Quae omnia nobis eo magis sunt adversa, quod ea in praeiudicium Edictorum nostrorum Imperialium (quibus omnes innovationes usque ad futurum Conciliam, iam nostro studio et apud Beatitudinem Summi Pontificis intercessione indictum, et ad futurum mensem Maii inchoandum, cessare et suspensas esse voluimus) attentari videamus. Et proinde vos requirimus serio mandantes, ut dictam disputationem, ut praefertur, institutam, nec non omnes alias innovationes in negotio fidei et religionis nostrae attentatas, ilico annulletis, aboleatis, et omnia innovata in pristinum restituatis, causamque ad futurum Concilium, uti praefertur, celebrandum, remittas ….” Herminjard, 4:68-69 (No. 565), Charles V to the Lausanne city council, Savigliano, 5 July 1536. 64 “Fuit evocatum consilium, retroconsilium et ducentum burgenses, deliberaturi super una lictera parte Caroli imperatoris Romanorum communitati Lausanne transmissa et destinata, incipiente: Carolus divina favente clemencia, etc., coram cunctis personaliter assistentibus in lingua materna et latina lecta et promulgata. Fuit (conclusum) per 63

Chapter 2

46

The emperor’s letter to “our imperial city” of Lausanne indicates that, from his perspective, the Bernese conquest of Vaud was by no means a permanent arrangement. As far as Charles V was concerned, Bern was an illegal occupying power that had no legitimate rights or jurisdiction in the region, particularly with regard to matters of religion. From Bern’s point of view, Charles and the pope were stoking the fires of disobedience among the people of Vaud, and something needed to be done quickly to show the Vaudois who their new masters were and make clear to them that they would be taking instructions from Bern, not from pope, emperor, or even a general council. The Lausanne Disputation was easily won by the Protestant side, and the Bernese moved swiftly to abolish the Mass and remove images and other visible reminders of the old faith from the churches.65 The Pays de Vaud would henceforth be a Protestant land.

9.

SWISS DIPLOMACY BETWEEN POPE, EMPEROR, AND KING, 1536-1547

It turned out, of course, that the general council of Mantua never opened.66 Nevertheless, Catholics across Europe were given new hope in June 1538, when Charles V and Francis I, whose continued fighting had delayed the opening of the council in the first place, agreed in Nice to a tenyear truce through the mediation of Pope Paul III.67 As long as Charles and Francis were at war, Bern could rely on France’s assistance in defending its borders from any attempt by the duke of Savoy to retake his conquered lands with the help of the emperor. The truce, however, had two potential consequences, neither of which would work in favor of the Bernese. First, the emperor could, in fact, help his vassal the duke of Savoy, perhaps with the aid of the Catholic cantons, to reconquer the lands he had lost to Bern. Second, there was the possibility that Francis and Charles could work

maiorem partem assistentium debere et esse bene vivere in pace et bono amore, et quod nulle insolencie neque innovaciones fiant, sed debere expectare concilium tenendum.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 36 (1882): 274 (23 July 1536). 65 See below, chapter 5, section 2. 66 See Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent [Geschichte des Konzils von Trient], 2 vols. [5 vols.], Ernest Graf, trans. (London: Nelson, 1957-1961 [Freiburg: Herder, 19511975]), 1:313-36. 67 See Francis Decrue, Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et connétable de France, à la Cour, aux Armées, et au Conseil du Roi François Ier (Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978 [Paris, 1885]), 342-53; R. J. Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 385-86.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

47

together as a united Catholic front against the Protestants in Germany and the Swiss Confederation. Fears of a united Franco-Imperial front to extirpate heresy from Europe were very soon compounded by the meeting at Aigues-Mortes between Charles and Francis on 14 July 1538. The two rulers agreed to work together to defend Christendom and bring heretics back into the church.68 Now that Charles and Francis appeared to be allied, the Bernese had much to fear if either one of them should decide to turn his forces against the Protestant cantons in an attempt to force the land back into the Catholic fold,69 and the rumor was widespread that the emperor would force both Francis and Bern to give back the lands they had taken from the duke of Savoy.70 Relations between Francis and Charles continued to warm when marriage alliances were arranged and a proposal to work together for the concerns of Christendom was accepted in December 1538.71 A year later, the emperor was given grand entries in towns throughout France, and in March 1540 he struck a deal with Francis that included the return of the king’s conquests in Savoy, raising fears once again that Bern’s conquered lands were also under threat. The fact that none of these fears were realized should not blind us to the extremely tense atmosphere these developments created among Protestants at the time. The Franco-imperial truce failed in 1542 (over Milan, inevitably), which helped matters from Bern’s perspective and gave the Swiss a brief respite from worries between 1542 and 1546. Renewed warfare between Francis and Charles strengthened the French-Swiss alliance and Francis’s desire to keep Savoy out of the hands of the emperor. On the other hand, it meant that Charles V was once again more likely to try to take both the French and Bernese portions of Savoy by force. Boisrigaut, the French ambassador to the Confederation, therefore busily tried to secure Bern’s support during

68

See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron, 386-387; Decrue, Montmorency, 353-56. Anne de Montmorency, the Constable of France, commented after the meeting, “Durant leur assemblée, lui mande-t-il, [les princes] ont faict la meilleure et plus privée chère qu’il est possible, en usant tant de bons et honnestes propoz d’amytié que, en cela, ne se pourroit, si me semble, riens adjouster. Et se sont départiz, ensemble leurs compaignies, au plus grand contentement l’ung d’avecques l’autre que oncques princes. De sorte que, par ce qui se pourra ensuivre de ceste dicte entrevue et grande amytié, se peuvent doresnavant estimer les affaires de l’ung et de l’autre une mesme chose.” Quoted in ibid., 356. 69 See Jacques Freymond, “Les relations diplomatiques de Berne avec François Ier et Charles-Quint après la conquête du Pays de Vaud,” Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte 3 (1945): 210-28. 70 “… sparsus hic est rumor Regem et Bernates necesse habere reddere Sabaudiam Duci.” Herminjard, 5:55 (No. 725), Pierre Toussain to Farel, Montbéliard, 16 July 1538. 71 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron, 387.

48

Chapter 2

1542.72 Nevertheless, the fighting between Francis and Charles did not come close to the Swiss borders, nor does there appear to have been much reaction to the Peace of Crépy (18 September 1544) which temporarily ended the fighting and once again entailed the proposed surrender of French claims to Savoy.73 At least part of the reason for the respite appears to have been the hope fostered by the papacy that the Swiss could serve as a model for the reunification of the church at the upcoming Council of Trent. As early as 1543, Pope Paul III appealed to both the Catholic and Protestant cantons to put aside their differences and send representatives to Trent.74 The period between 1546 and 1547 was tumultuous across Europe, with the opening of the Council of Trent, the start of the Schmalkaldic War, and the deaths of Luther, Francis I, and Henry VIII. The effects were felt in the Confederation as well, as old tensions and fears were renewed. The first signs of trouble came with reports in December 1545 that “Spanish folk” were making military preparations possibly aimed at assaulting the neugewonnen savoyische Land.75 The precarious position of the Swiss is signaled by Fribourg’s desire to know exactly “who the enemy is: the pope, the emperor, or the duke.”76 The Bernese representatives repeated their concerns at the April 1546 Confederation diet,77 where representatives from Zurich also proferred letters from “the princes and followers of the Augsburg Confession” seeking help – particuarly in blocking passage of foreign troops heading to Germany.78 The Lutheran appeal for assistance from the Swiss is a good reminder that despite the failure to agree at the 1529 Colloquy of Marburg, and later over the Wittenberg Concord, amicable

72

Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:327. 73 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron, 493. 74 “Die päpstliche Heiligkeit schreibt ‘er’ habe wegen der Spaltung der christlichen Religion in Deutschland das Concilium nach Trient angesetzt und drei Legaten dahin abgeordnet; da bei den Eidgenossen, die den Titel Beschirmer der christlichen Kirche haben, solcher Zwiespalt auch enstanden, so sollen sie, so viel an ihne, ihre Prälaten auch dahin senden; und wiewohl die von Zürich, Bern, Basel und Schaffhausen noch zur Zeit Papst Julius den christlichen Glauben beschirmt, in der letzten Zeit selber in Uneinigkeit mit der Kirche gerathen, so wolle er doch aus besonderer Liebe zu unserer ganzen Nation alle ermahnt haben, auf dem so ernstlich begehrten Concilium zu erscheinen ….” EA IV.1d, 239 (No. 123), Baden, 16 April 1543. See also the visit of papal legate Albert Rosin to the 1545 Confederation diet, EA IV.1d, 456 (No. 212), Baden, 25 February 1545. 75 EA IV.1d, 580 (No. 270), Fribourg, 21 December 1545. 76 “Man höre wohl von Kriegsrüstung, wünsche aber zu wissen, wer der Feind sei, ob der Papst, der Kaiser oder der Herzog, und welchen Anhang er habe.” EA IV.1d, 584 (No. 273), Bern, 7 January 1546. 77 EA IV.1d, 599 (No. 283), Baden, 12 April 1546. 78 EA IV.1d, 600 (No, 283).

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

49

political discussions between German and Swiss Protestants continued virtually unchecked. Even if they could not agree theologically or reach a full military alliance they still shared a common enemy in Charles V, who needed the alpine passes controlled by the Swiss Protestants to get men and arms to Germany.

Figure 2-2. Religious Differences in the Swiss Confederation

At the beginning of August 1546, as papal and imperial troops moved into Bavaria, it appeared that the Swiss Confederation itself might be heading toward a new religious civil war. On 2 August, representatives from the Protestant cantons met in Zurich to discuss the impending war. They had recently learned of the alliance struck between pope and emperor to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church79 and determined that the emperor’s promises to the Confederation could not be trusted.80 At the same 79 80

See Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, 1:523-26. “Wiewohl der Kaiser hiernach sich gnädig erziegt und gemeine Eidgenossen mit guten Worten vertröstet, so ist hierauf doch nicht zu vertrauen. Das letzte Breve des Papstes, auch das Schreiben seines Boten geben nämlich heiter zu verstehen, daß unlängst zu Rom zwischen dem Papst, dem Collegium und dem Kaiser ein Bündniß zu Stande gekommen sei, vermöge dessen die Betreffenden sich verpflichtet haben, die Anhänger des Evangeliums mit Gewalt zur römischen Kirche zurückzubringen, wobei andern Fürsten, Herren und Communen der Beitritt vorbehalten worden ist.” EA IV.1d, 650 (No. 305), Zurich, 2 August 1546.

50

Chapter 2

meeting the Protestants agreed to prevent passage of foreign troops through their lands and to try to get the Catholic cantons to do the same.81 The next day, the Catholic cantons met and indicated that they had heard Bern was sending troops to help the Schmalkaldic League and that Zurich, Basel, and Schaffhausen would soon follow suit.82 At the next Confederation diet, on 9 August 1546, tensions ran high as representatives from the pope, the emperor, and the Schmalkaldic League met with the divided Confederation. Harsh words, bitter complaints, and accusations ruled the day, although it was clear that no one wanted a new religious war to divide the Confederation.83 The diet on 20 September went more smoothly, and ten cantons agreed to adhere to the old treaties. Only Basel, whose geographical position and economic ties to south Germany, as well as its Lutheran theological leanings and relatively short history in the Confederation, sought a more active role in the war.84 Despite the show of neutrality at the September diet, negotiations continued between the Schmalkaldic League, Francis I, and the Protestant cantons on the one hand,85 and the Catholic cantons and the pope and emperor on the other.86 By the end of January 1547, it was becoming clear that the Lutherans would lose the war, and the Battle of Mühlburg on 24 April sealed their fate.87 It was the most crushing blow for the evangelical movement since the defeat in the second War of Kappel and a clear reaffirmation of imperial power. As Brady reminds us, “The pall of defeat over Charles V’s last years as emperor … makes it difficult to imagine how invincible he appeared in mid-1547.”88 Indeed the swift defeat of the German Lutherans sent another shockwave through the Protestant cantons. Bern’s

81

EA IV.1d, 650-651 (No. 305). EA IV.1d, 653 (No. 306), Lucerne, 3 August 1546. 83 EA IV.1d, 656-671 (No. 307), Baden, 9 August 1546. 84 EA IV.1d, 682-83 (No. 314), Baden, 20 September 1546. 85 EA IV.1d, 710 (No. 324), Königsfelden, 15 November 1546; ibid., 739 (No. 337), Donauwörth, Philip of Hesse and Johann Friedrich to Zurich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, 26 September 1546; ibid., 755, 758 (No. 344), Baden, 10 January 1547. 86 EA IV.1d, 716 (No. 327), Lucerne, 24 November 1546; ibid., 769 (No. 349), Lucerne, 16 February 1547. 87 On the Schmalkaldic War, see Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489-1553) and the German Reformation, Studies in German Histories (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995), 292-327. 88 Brady, Protestant Politics, 328. 82

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

51

representative at the Confederation diet in February betrayed these fears, saying that it was clear that the emperor had plans to attack not just the Protestant cantons but the entire Swiss Confederation in order to return it to imperial rule. Although the warning was duly noted, others told the Bernese, “don’t believe everything you hear from a Landsknecht.”89 The most shocking event of Charles’ campaign in Germany was yet to come, namely, the fall of Constance.90 Throughout the early years of the Reformation, Constance had identified much more closely with the Swiss Protestants than with the German Lutherans and likely would have entered the Confederation if not for the opposition of the Catholic cantons. Although it was not a full member of the Confederation, its leaders thought they could rely on the assistance of Protestant cantons in case of an attack. When the attack came, however, in August 1548, the Swiss were nowhere to be found. Spanish troops occupied the city, and Charles V revoked its status as a free city, annexing it to Austria. The event caused an uproar in the Confederation and led cities in a similar position, such as Geneva, to wonder whether they might suffer the same fate if attacked by the emperor. The eleven years following the conquest of Vaud, from 1536 to 1547, are among the least studied years of the Reformation. The first-generation reformers and politicians had already made the bulk of their contributions, while the next generation had yet to come into its own. The evangelical movement appeared to have ground to a halt, and the counter-reformation had yet to get started. Meanwhile, Charles V, Francis I, and Henry VIII were dancing around each other like sparring partners rather than slugging it out like heavyweights in the title fight. In short, it was a relatively boring decade compared to those that both followed and preceded it. But, if approached from a contemporary perspective, it becomes apparent that it was precisely the steadily growing tension resulting from inactivity that made those years so important. The security of the Swiss Protestants diminished year after year, and Bern’s hold on the Pays de Vaud remained constantly unsure. The Bernese were hemmed in between a clear enemy in Charles V and, in Francis I, a supposed ally whose repeated proposals to cooperate with Charles and to return the conquered land in Savoy, weakened the former close relationship

89 90

EA IV.1d, 773 (No. 350), Baden, 28 February 1547. On the Reformation in Constance, see J. Jeffery Tyler, Lord of the Sacred City: The episcopus exclusus in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Hans-Christoph Rublack, Die Einführung der Reformation in Konstanz von den Anfängen bis zum Abschluss 1531, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 40 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1971); Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 290-93.

52

Chapter 2

between the French king and the Bernese. The Schmalkaldic League was theoretically the best potential ally to the Protestant cantons, but an alliance was not possible without breaking apart the Confederation. Essentially, the Protestant cantons had two choices: seek legitimation within a religiously pluralistic but intact Confederation and give up the pursuit of a religiously based “Protestant politics,” or risk the destruction of the Confederation by throwing their weight fully behind the German Lutherans. The Swiss chose the former, setting an example of a workable model of cuius regio, eius religio that the rest of Europe would spend much of the next hundred years fighting against.

10.

THE RENEWAL OF THE FRENCH ALLIANCE (1547-1549)

On 27 March 1547, ambassadors from Bern appeared before the Fribourg city council and expressed their worries over the fate of their savoyische lands, and they expressed the belief that Charles V wanted nothing less than to “subdue France and the pope and make himself monarch of Christendom.”91 The next day, the French ambassador warned the Confederation diet of an impending attack from the emperor.92 King Francis I died three days later. It was reported that on his deathbed he encouraged the dauphin to rectify the injustice Francis had done to the duke of Savoy by holding his land for the past eleven years.93 Charles V seemed invincible and Bern’s possession of the Pays de Vaud more tenuous than ever; the stage was set for the renewal of the French-Swiss alliance.94 The alliance was not set to expire until 1551, but with Charles V growing more powerful, the young King Henri II wanted to ensure the assistance of the Swiss as soon as possible. At the Confederation diet on 22 November 1547, the French ambassador invited representatives from the cantons to attend the baptism of the king’s newborn daughter and indicated for the first time that Henri wanted to renew the alliance.95 Negotiations on the agreement did not begin in earnest, however, until the summer of 1548. The king was more eager than the Confederation to renew the alliance; Henri II

91

“Dann werde er Frankreich und den Papst zu unterdrücken und sich zum Monarchen der Christenheit zu machen suchen.” EA IV.1d, 816 (No. 371), Fribourg, 27 March 1547. 92 EA IV.1d, 799 (No. 360), Baden, 28 March 1547. 93 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron, 543. 94 On the negotiations for renewing the French-Swiss alliance, see Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:451-68. 95 EA IV.1d, 885, 888 (No. 409), Baden, 22 November 1547.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

53

had few other allies and nothing to lose. The Swiss, on the other hand, were wary; for one thing, the Protestant cantons were unsure whether Henri would follow in his father’s footsteps as a Protestant persecutor. Meanwhile, the Catholic cantons’ resistance to the emperor was wavering, since the idea was growing that the best path to peace and religious unity lay not with the French king but with the pope and the emperor.96 Two other issues soon dominated negotiations on the French alliance. First, the Swiss were reluctant to accept an agreement that bound them to defend the king’s claims to Milan, Asti, and Genoa. Second, they were concerned that the former lands of the duke of Savoy, including the Pays de Vaud, would be included in a new treaty. The latter possibility was complicated by the emergence on the scene of a new player, EmmanuelPhilibert, the successor to Duke Charles III of Savoy. The young duke appealed to the Catholic cantons in August 1548 for a return to the old Swiss-Savoy alliance and the recovery of his rightful lands.97 His ambassadors appealed directly to Bern in December, but they were rebuffed.98 Emmanuel-Philibert’s efforts put a crimp in Henri II’s plans. In November 1548, the king was growing exasperated by the religious divisions in the Confederation that were blinding the Swiss to the “real danger” facing them.99 He had heard that the emperor planned to ask that the lands of the duke of Savoy be returned, 100 and he instructed his ambassadors to recruit advocates (pratiquants) for the alliance by warning them of the possibility that lands taken from Savoy, the empire, and the house of Austria

96

See, e.g., EA IV.1d, 1002(i) (No. 453), Baden, 16 August 1548; ibid., 1034 (No. 463), Baden, 24 September 1548; ibid., 1044-45 (No. 472), Zurich, 22 October 1548. 97 EA IV.1d, 1021 (No. 460), Emmanuel Philibert to [the Catholic cantons], Ulm, 19 August 1548. 98 EA IV.1d, 1079 (No. 483), Bern, 20 December 1548. 99 “Messieurs, vous avez veu ce que je vous ay dernierement escript et instruction que je vous ay envoyee pour faire remonstrance aux Srs. des Ligues, mes bons amys et alliez, du grand dangier et prochaine ruyne ou je les veoy tombee par le moyen des descors et divisions que desja commencent a sourdre entre les cantons protestans et les cantons catholiques, et les veoy si aveugles et leurs jugemens si perturbez quilz nont congnoissance de leur maladie ne dont cela procede.” BNF, Ms. Fr. 17890, fol. 330r°, Henri II to the Ambassadors in the Confederation, Châtillons-sur-Oingt, 3 November 1548. 100 “Cest que je suis adverty que lempereur veult faire demande aux Srs. des Ligues que les pais du duc de Savoye occuppez par ceulx du canton de Berne et Fribourg soient rendus et restitues aud. duc, ou bien que lesd. de Berne et Fribourg soubz mectre quant au faict dicelle restitution au jugement de tous les cantons, par ou il est aise de congnoistre quil se tient asseure de la volente des cantons catholiques, qui est une voye toute apparente pour les faire entrer en guerre et division.” BNF, Ms Fr. 17890, fol. 330r°.

54

Chapter 2

would be restored if the alliance broke down.101 Finally, Henri instructed his ambassadors to tell potential recruits, [The emperor] wants to call the people of Geneva to return to the old obedience they owed to the house of Savoy, promising them impunity for all past events. Be sure to tell them that they will be abandoned by the cantons, who in a matter of much greater importance abandoned without help the people of Constance. And that being thus abandoned, poor, and divided among themselves, they will easily give themselves into the hands of Monsieur de Savoie with a promise of impunity. And when the emperor has recovered Geneva and the lands of the house of Savoy occupied by Bern and Fribourg, he will have good and strong garrisons at Constance and Geneva, as at other neighboring cities.… It is necessary that they be made to understand all these things by men about whom they can have no doubt or suspicion. And when this has been well impressed upon them you will return to the business of renewing the alliance …. But above all, give the order that they must not know that this came from me or my ministers.102 This was a terrifying prospect outlined by the king – the Pays de Vaud and Geneva returned to Savoy and garrisoned with imperial troops! There would be no need to explain the consequences for the religious situation there. Indeed, the prospects were so horrifying that among those men above “doubt and suspicion” whom the French ambassadors successfully recruited

101

“Et affin de conduire cela plus facillement il fauldra que au prealable et devant que entrer en ceste pratique vous choisissez quelques aultres gens fors que mes amys et serviteurs pour leur faire entendre soubz main une aultre chose qui est veritable et dont jay bon et sur adviz.… Cest que je suis certainement adverty que lempereur leur veult faire trois demandes. Par la premiere lad. restitution des pais de Savoye cy dessus descrivez et par la seconde la restitution des pais par eulx occuppez que anciennement estoient de lempire, et par la tierce demande la restitution des pais quilz ont usurpez sur la maison d’Autreyche ….” BNF, Ms. Fr. 17890, fol. 331r°. 102 “…il veult sonner ceulx de Genesves de retourner en leur ancienne obeissance quilz doivent a la maison de Savoie, leur promectant impunite de tout le passe et fait bien son compte quilz seront delaissez par les cantons, qui en chose de trop plus grande importance ont bien delaisse sans secours ceulx de Constance. Et que estans ainsi delaissez et pouvres et divisez entre eulx, ils se rendront facillement avecques une promesse de impunite es mains de monsr de Savoie, et lors ayant lempereur recouvert Genesve et le pais que Berne et Fribourg a occuppe sur la maison de Savoye, il ayant asses bonnes et puissantes garnisons tant a Constance, Genesve, que aultres villes voisines.… Toutes lesquelles choses est besoing leur faire entendre par gens desquelz ilz ne puissent avoir doubte ne suspicion. Et quant cela leur sera bien imprime vous ferez remectre sur la praticque du renouvellement dalliance …. Mais sur tout donnez ordre quilz ne puissent penser que cela vienne de moy ne mes ministres.” BNF, Ms. Fr. 17890, fol. 331r°-v°, 332r°.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

55

to approach the Swiss were none other than John Calvin and Guillaume Farel,103 a fact that has not been addressed in Calvin scholarship. Calvin’s actions on behalf of the French crown went hand in hand with his attempt to secure the Reformed movement’s future politically, and he truly believed it would help evangelicals in France. It seems to have been anathema to suggest that Calvin was in the pocket of King Henri II, the great persecutor of French Protestants, but he was certainly deeply involved in the negotiations on the French alliance, a situation whose full implications we will return to later.104 Negotiations between the French ambassadors and the Swiss dragged on into the spring of 1549. On 4 April, a special diet was convened at Solothurn at the king’s expense exclusively to discuss the alliance. Nine of the twelve cantons had authorized approval; Bern, Basel, and Schwyz abstained; Zurich (which had not signed the original alliance in 1521) was not even present, having declared itself to be utterly opposed from the beginning.105 Prospects appeared even dimmer at the May diet (also gathered at the king’s expense), where a number of cantons that had originally been supportive jumped ship, refusing to include either Milan or Savoy in the treaty.106 Henri II had originally wanted an agreement signed simultaneously by all thirteen cantons; after the disastrous meeting in May, it was clear that this would not happen, and he decided to take what he could get and work on the cantons one at a time. Most of the Catholic cantons signed in June, and despite protests from Bern and Zurich, Protestant Basel and Schaffhausen added their support in August.107 Hence, by the autumn of 1549, Bern and Zurich were isolated diplomatically, while the other cantons had successfully renewed the French alliance after almost two years of talks. The negotiations around this French-Swiss alliance constitute a crucial but unacknowledged turning point in the Reformation. Divisions between former allies became sharper, and the fallout from these differences affected everyone involved. For Bern and Zurich, their refusal to accept the alliance left them isolated in the center of Europe with no military allies except the other, mostly Catholic, cantons in the Confederation. For Henri II, the failure 103

Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:456. 104 See below, chapter 6, section 3.3. 105 EA IV.1e, 60 (No. 22), Solothurn, 4 April 1549; cf. Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:465. 106 EA IV.1e, 72 (No. 30), Solothurn, 9 May 1549; cf. Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:465-66. 107 Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:466-67.

56

Chapter 2

to overcome Bernese opposition to the alliance was a severe blow. Bern was the most significant canton to the French king: It was by far the most populous and powerful of the confederates, it shared the king’s interest in holding on to the lands of Savoy, and it controlled key access routes from Germany to hotly contested Milan. Moreover, the king had made a particular effort to exploit Geneva’s situation and had Calvin himself in his pocket. Under the circumstances, the failure to secure Bern’s aid in the alliance may well have helped lead Henri II down the path of vengeance and recrimination. William Monter notes that the French parlements “discovered” Geneva in 1549, and the anti-Genevan propaganda coming from France quickly accelerated between 1550 and 1554.108 Furthermore, Henri II issued the Edict of Chateaubriand against heretics soon afterwards, in 1551. Most telling of all, perhaps, was the case of the five French students from the Lausanne Academy arrested in Lyon on heresy charges. The Bernese appealed on numerous occasions to the king that they should be considered Bernese citizens and released, but Henri refused to listen to their requests. The question must be raised whether the king would have done the same had the Bernese signed the alliance. The divisions over the French alliance left a deep rift between Geneva and Bern. The Genevans wanted more than anything security from Savoy; despite their religious differences with France they felt that the Bernese had hung them out to dry by refusing to ally with Henri II. And as a protectorate of Bern, the Genevans could do absolutely nothing about it. They tried to get Bern to sponsor an application to join the Confederation as an independent canton in September 1549,109 but none of the Catholic cantons would agree to it. The division set the stage for the bitter political and theological conflicts that would beset Bern and Geneva in the 1550s. Finally, as for the Pays de Vaud, its future remained uncertain. With Charles V’s seeming invincibility, Duke Emmanuel-Philibert’s star on the rise, and no French alliance, Bernese control over the region continued to hang by a thread.

108

William Monter, Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 123-29. 109 EA IV.1e, 169 (No. 71), Bern, 4-5 September 1549.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

11.

57

IMPERIAL DECLINE, RUPTURE BETWEEN BERN AND GENEVA, AND THE RETURN OF SAVOY (1550-1564)

Few have fallen so far so fast as Charles V between his glorious victory in 1547 and his pitiful flight back across the Alps in 1552.110 He was bogged down in the so-called “armed diet,” which met for eight tedious months from September 1547 to May 1548 and accomplished very little. Meanwhile, his agreement with Pope Paul III was falling apart, as the Council of Trent first relocated to papal territory in Bologna and then faltered altogether, going into recess in 1547. Charles also ran afoul of his brother Ferdinand by trying to secure the inheritance of all the Habsburg lands for his own son Philip. Charles’ final downfall was brought about by two things: the decision of Protestant traitor Maurice of Saxony to return to the Lutheran camp and his ability to win French support for an attack on the emperor. Henri II, frustrated over his negotiations with the Bernese, ironically found the antiimperial ally he needed in the German Lutheran princes. Protestant cities such as Strasbourg, Brady notes, were not heavily involved in this conflict, having returned to “the good, old, safe policy: respectful loyalty to the emperor; strong regional ties … and sturdy self-reliance ….”111 The FrancoSaxon alliance was remarkably successful, and Charles V, in danger of being captured, fled over the Alps in the spring of 1552. In the Pays de Vaud, Protestants breathed a huge, collective sigh of relief. For the moment, the threat that the region might revert to the duke of Savoy seemed to have lifted. The most telling impact on Vaud of Charles’ flight was that in relatively rapid succession between 1552 and 1555, the common lordship parishes of Provence (1552), Oulens (1553), Orbe (1554), Grandson (1554), Montagny (1554), and St. Mauris (1555) all voted to abolish the Mass. Before 1552, no parish had voted to turn Protestant since 1538. There was quite likely a great deal of fear among closet Protestants in these parishes that if Vaud were returned to the duke, they would be punished for their disloyalty to Holy Mother Church. Although in less danger than evangelicals in France at the time, these people in the common lordships of Vaud should also be considered in discussions of Nicodemism. With Charles V out of the picture in 1552, however, these Vaudois Nicodemites finally felt free to vote their consciences. Let us not forget, however, that this addition of six parishes to the Reformed faith brought the proportion of

110

On this period, see Brady, Protestant Politics, 328-70; G. R. Elton, Reformation Europe 1517-1559 (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 250-67. 111 Brady, Protestant Politics, 363.

58

Chapter 2

Protestant churches in the common lordships to only about 50%. Other areas, such as Mex (1570) and Goumoëns (1575), did not abolish the Mass until much later; some, like Echallens, never did. The perception of threat frequently leads to greater unity and stronger resistance among the threatened. Naturally, when the threat is gone, differences rise to the surface again. With the imperial threat to the Swiss gone, the period between 1552 and 1559 saw much petty bickering among the various religious and political factions within the Confederation. At the Confederation diets, the topic of the Protestants’ “slanderous little books” (Schmach- und Schandbüchlein) against Catholicism was raised repeatedly.112 As late as 1557, the Catholic cantons were still complaining about Farel’s incessant proselytization, as he “spread his poison” in the Catholic areas of the diocese of Basel.113 The second Kappel treaty had outlawed both Protestant preaching in Catholic cantons and the printing and distribution of polemical books. Of course, these prohibitions were not always heeded, but they help to explain why a vibrant religious book trade was never established in either Bern or Lausanne. This left the door open for Geneva to monopolize the industry, at least in the French-speaking areas. Squabbling between the Protestant and Catholic cantons was accompanied by troubles within the Protestant camp itself. Relations between Bern and Geneva were particularly strained, over religious issues such as Calvin’s influence in Vaud and the Bolsec affair,114 and by political tensions as the pro-Calvin French-refugee faction in Geneva struggled for and eventually won supremacy in the city.115 The diplomatic result was that Bern and Geneva failed to renew their treaty of combourgeoisie in 1556, which left Geneva entirely without an ally at just the time when Duke Emmanuel-Philibert was growing in power. The Genevans once again expressed their desire to join the Confederation as an independent canton,116 but this was not acceptable either to the Catholic cantons, who feared the entry of yet another populous, urban Protestant member, or to Bern, which wished to keep Geneva dependent on its own protection. This impasse became acute in the late summer of 1557, when EmmanuelPhilibert led Spanish forces in destroying the French at the fortress of St.

112

E.g., EA IV.1e, 711 (No. 239), Baden, 21 October 1552; EA IV.1e, 1322 (No. 409), Baden, 8 September 1555; EA IV.2, 10 (No. 11), Baden, 15 June 1556. 113 EA IV.2, 35 (No. 30), Lucerne, 30 April 1557. 114 See below, chapter 7, section 1. 115 See Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 189-99. 116 See, e.g., EA IV.2, 49 (No. 41), Baden, 5 September 1557.

2. Politics and Diplomacy in Vaud

59

Quentin in the Netherlands.117 The duke sent his ambassador to the Catholic cantons in October, seeking to resolve peacefully his dispute with Bern, Fribourg, and the Valais over his former lands. He made it clear that he had allied himself with Philip II of Spain for the purpose of regaining what was rightfully his.118 Since the Swiss were allied with France, which was at war with both the duke and Spain, this was a clear threat to invade the Confederation should the matter not be resolved diplomatically to the duke’s satisfaction. Geneva was the gateway for a Spanish/Savoyard attack on the Confederation, and since Geneva had no allies at the time, the matter had to be resolved quickly. The threat was perceived just as acutely by the Bernese, whose territories in the Pays de Vaud and surrounding Geneva were suddenly threatened again after the respite following the defeat of Charles V in 1552. The Bernese and Genevans put aside their differences and finally renewed the treaty of combourgeoisie in November 1557.119 Although this helped matters, the Catholic cantons still did not wish to bring Spanish wrath down on themselves for Bern’s sake, and they made it clear that they would not assist Bern and Fribourg in any war over the lands they had seized in 1536.120 Geneva, meanwhile, continued to push for entry into the Confederation121 and was again rejected by the Catholic cantons.122 The feared attack on Geneva and the Confederation did not materialize, and the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis was signed in February 1559, bringing to an end the Habsburg-Valois conflict that had driven European international diplomacy for the first half of the sixteenth century. The treaty returned all of the Savoyard lands in French possession to Duke EmmanuelPhilibert. The treaty came as a severe blow to Bern and Geneva. Despite failing to renew the French alliance in 1549, the Bernese had always counted on tacit French support for their right to the former Savoyard lands, since they were both in the same boat by virtue of France’s possession of the rest of Savoy. After Cateau-Cambrésis, the Bernese had neither a formal alliance with France nor even common cause against Savoy, and their old enemy, the duke, was safely back in Chambéry with full international support. The French-Savoyard relationship was further strengthened – and the duke’s coffers substantially replenished – by the marriage arranged between

117

The Habsburg-Valois rivalry was re-ignited in the spring of 1557, when the Duc de Guise allied with the pope in an unsuccessful attempt to drive the Spanish from Naples. 118 EA IV.2, 53 (No. 43), Lucerne, 26 October 1557. 119 EA IV.2, 57 (No. 46), Baden, 30 November 1557. 120 EA IV.2, 62 (No. 50), Lucerne, 10 February 1558. 121 EA IV.2, 69 (No. 56), Baden, 19 June 1558. 122 EA IV.2, 75 (No. 62), Lucerne, 4 October 1558.

60

Chapter 2

Emmanuel-Philibert and Henri II’s sister, Marguerite, duchess of Berry, a marriage for which the French king pledged an enormous dowry of 300,000 écus to the duke.123 The resurrection of Savoy and peace among the Catholic powers of Europe further isolated Bern and Geneva. Zurich itself, seeing which way the wind was blowing, broke with its old allies and coreligionists and joined with the Catholic inner cantons and Soleure in forging an alliance with Savoy. In return for 50,000 Rhenish florins, the cantons allied with the duke, recognizing his rights in the Pays de Vaud and the other Savoyard areas still held by Bern, Fribourg, and the Valais.124 Abandoned by France and their closest allies in the Confederation, the Bernese had no choice but to sue for peace. The fate of the Pays de Vaud was sealed in the 1564 Treaty of Lausanne.125 Bern agreed to return its lands in the Chablais and the Pays de Gex in return for the duke’s pledge to yield the Pays de Vaud to Bern definitively. At last, Vaud was firmly in Bernese hands. For twenty-eight years, from the Bernese conquest in 1536 to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1564, Bern’s ability to retain control of the region had been constantly in doubt. This political uncertainty had important ramifications for Bern’s efforts to introduce the Reformation in the region. The Bernese magistrates faced two problems in particular: first, the unwillingness to leave the Catholic Church on the part of those who expected a return to Savoyard obedience, and second, the growing challenge to their religious authority by Calvinist ministers seeking to place religious discipline in the hands of the church.

123

124

125

The text of the marriage alliance is found in Solar de la Marguerite, ed., Traités publics de la royale Maison de Savoie avec les puissances étrangères depuis la Paix de CateauCambrésis jusqu’à nos jours (Turin: Imprimerie Royale, 1836), 1:45-50. “… ils conclurent une entière et perpétuelle alliance, par la quelle les Ambassadeurs des dits Cantons rendirent à la Maison de Savoie tout le Pays de Vaux, qu’ils avaient conquêté, tant en vertu et considération des dites perpétuelles alliance et amitié, que par la somme de cinquante mille florins de Rhin, les quels ont été entièrement payés aux dits Seigneurs des dits Cantons.” Marguerite, Traités publics de la royale Maison de Savoie, 1:51-59 (No. 4), Lucerne, 11 November 1560); here, 51-52. The text of the treaty is found in François-Théodore-Louis, Baron de Grenus, Documens relatifs à l’histoire du Pays de Vaud dès 1293 à 1750 (Geneva: Manget et Cherbuliez, 1817), 227-39 (No. 129).

Chapter 3 ZWINGLIANISM AND LUTHERANISM IN BERN Early Confessional Conflicts, 1532-1538

Bern is the most significant forgotten city of the Reformation. Its relative obscurity is seemingly due to the fact that it did not produce a single reformer of the first rank. The major Protestant reformers are inextricably linked to their urban environments: Luther and Wittenberg, Calvin and Geneva, Zwingli and Zurich, Bucer and Strasbourg, and perhaps even Oecolampadius and Basel. But of whom does one think when one thinks of Bern? Nevertheless, Bern was one of the most important Protestant powers of central Europe during the Reformation. At the same time, the lack of a “great man” is indicative of one of the city’s most significant problems at the time, namely the lack of theological unity. Just as no one theologian dominated the Bernese church, so also no single theology could be agreed upon, even by the ministers within the city itself, much less throughout Bern’s vast territories, especially after the conquest of Vaud. Zwinglian, Lutheran, and Calvinist factions (to say nothing of Swiss Anabaptism) all developed and came into conflict with one another in Bern’s lands between the late 1520s and the 1550s. In the Pays de Vaud, although the Lutheran faction never gained a foothold, bitter fights between Calvinists and Zwinglians ultimately would change the face of Calvinism altogether, as I will argue in the following chapters. These conflicts developed over time, and before we can discuss the Calvinists’ battles with Bern, we need to examine the confessional struggles within Bern itself. In particular, in order to understand the deep distrust of Calvin in Bern, we must first recognize that he was forever associated with Martin Bucer, who had alienated nearly all the Swiss Protestants by his actions during the negotiations on the Wittenberg Concord. I will examine the rise of Zwinglian and Lutheran/Bucerian factions in Bern from the 1528 Bern Disputation through the 1532 Berner Synodus, the

62

Chapter 3

1536 First Helvetic Confession, and finally to the 1536-38 debates over the Wittenberg Concord, the last significant attempt to heal the schism between the German Lutherans and the Swiss Reformed. Throughout this discussion, politics, diplomacy, and the interpretation of the Eucharist are crucial. Each side had significant advantages in Bern. The Lutheran faction offered the potential for tighter diplomatic ties and a military alliance with the Schmalkaldic League, which was vital to the interests of the Bernese magistrates, particularly after 1536 when they lived with the constant threat of an imperial invasion to retake Savoy. Sharing this interest most clearly in the Confederation was its newest and largest urban member, Basel. The Zwinglians, by contrast, claimed antiquity and national pride. They believed that any compromise with the Lutherans would tarnish the blessed memory of Ulrich Zwingli, the man who had brought the Gospel to the Swiss in the first place and had died on the battlefield defending it. Although the Bernese magistrates desired cooperation with the Lutherans, they found Zwingli’s political thought more effective in consolidating the city council’s control over all aspects of life, including the religious life, among its people. Just as the councilors’ interests were divided, so also Bern’s ministers separated themselves into two camps. In the absence of a single, acknowledged religious leader in the city, years of debate threatened to tear the Bernese pastorate in two. When the Zwinglian faction finally won in 1548, the stage was set for a new confrontation with the French-speaking Calvinists. The Calvinists presented two chief problems to the Bernese. First, they threatened Bernese authority with their insistence that an ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent of the state hold the right of excommunication. This contradicted the Zwinglian political structure established by Bern from the very beginning of the Reformation. Second, they were forever linked to Martin Bucer, who came to be despised among Swiss Protestants during negotiations on the Wittenberg Concord. Calvin’s friendship with Bucer prejudiced the Swiss against him from the start, making it all the more difficult for Calvinism to gain a foothold in the Confederation. Nevertheless, as I will argue, it was precisely Calvin’s local failure in the Swiss Confederation that helped lead to his international success.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

1.

63

THE BERNER SYNODUS (1532) AND ZWINGLIAN AND LUTHERAN FACTIONS IN BERN

Bruce Gordon’s central contention in his excellent recent survey of the Swiss Reformation is that “Zwingli was the key to the Swiss Reformation.”1 Although I am dealing in this book chiefly with Calvinism, I fully agree with him. Indeed, Gordon’s book provides an important corrective to a common but misleading and anachronistic tendency to view not Zwingli but Calvin as the central figure of the Swiss Reformation, despite the fact that Geneva was not admitted to the Confederation until 1815. Following his rise in Zurich, Zwingli took center stage in Bern, too, literally at the 1528 Bern Disputation and figuratively for many years after his death. As the evangelical movement in Bern grew in the 1520s, Zwingli’s theological influence on the city’s ministers grew as well, but Bern’s magistrates, even the evangelicals among them, were suspicious of him, particularly his overly zealous (to their minds) political ambitions of creating a Reformed Confederation by force. Bern’s city councilmen were nothing if not practical when it came to politics and diplomacy. Zwingli’s theological influence in the city can be seen clearly in the articles drawn up by Berchtold Haller and Franz Kolb for the 1528 Bern Disputation.2 Article 4, for example, states that, “It cannot be proved by Holy Scripture that the body and blood of Christ are received as actual body and blood in the bread of thanksgiving.”3 Article 8 encourages the prohibition of the veneration of images and calls for their removal.4 But perhaps it was Zwingli’s use of the public religious disputation to settle religious questions in the Zurich that had the greatest impact. Zwingli had effectively used the religious disputation to curry favor with the city council and push the city away from Catholicism. The genius of the Zwinglian religious disputation was that it

1

Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 3. A modern German translation of the articles is printed in Locher, “Die Berner Disputation 1528,” 151-54. For Farel’s French translation of the same articles, see Herminjard, 2:5960 (No. 206), Bern to all its subjects, Bern, 17 November 1527. On the circumstances leading up the Bern Disputation, see above, chapter 2, section 4. 3 “Dass im Brot der Danksagung der Leib und das Blut Christi als ebendas, als Leib und Blut, empfangen werde, lässt sich mit biblischer Schrift nicht beweisen.” Quoted in Locher, “Die Berner Disputation 1528,” 151. 4 “Bildermachen zum Zweck der Verehrung verstösst gegen Gottes Wort Neuen und Alten Testaments. Darum sind sie, wenn mit ihrer Ausstellung das Risiko verbunden ist, dass ihnen Verehrung bezeigt wird, zu beseitigen.” Quoted in Locher, “Die Berner Disputation 1528,” 154. 2

64

Chapter 3

exemplified cooperation between church and state and satisfied all parties: The ministers and theologians were able to define the religious issues, largely unfettered by either the secular authorities or an ecclesiastical hierarchy, while the city council exercised unprecedented ecclesiastical control by first approving and then implementing the agreed-upon reforms. This opportunity to exercise religious authority was what brought Bern’s magistrates around to Zwingli’s way of thinking as well. They may not have approved of his rash diplomacy, but his political thought was irresistible. The Bern Disputation thus brought the city into agreement with Zurich theologically and helped to cement a military alliance between the two cantons. This alliance was severely tested by the two Kappel wars, which the Bernese were hesitant to enter, out of fear that they might sever the ties which bound together the entire Swiss Confederation. The low point came in the second War of Kappel when Zurich’s troops were routed by Catholic forces in October 1531. Much of the blame for the defeat was leveled at Bern, since its magistrates had waited too long before sending troops to battle;5 they did not arrive in time, and without their support Zurich simply could not win. In the disorder that followed, the minister Kaspar Megander, who was originally from Zurich and would remain one of Zwingli’s strongest supporters in Bern, accused the Bernese councilors from the pulpit of betraying Zurich and blamed them for the catastrophe. In December 1531, the council ordered him to stop preaching until a synod could be held in order to heal the wounds left by Kappel. The city council’s confrontation with Megander and its desire to restore order meant that the relationship between church and state needed to be more clearly defined. The second War of Kappel and Megander’s challenge to the Bernese magistrates led to the first shift in Bern away from Zwingli and toward the Lutherans. Bern’s strained relationship with Zurich led the council to start looking elsewhere for allies and theological agreement. In the wake of the failure of the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Strasbourg theologians Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito began to look for ways to bring the Lutherans and Zwinglians together. Their more practical, irenic approach to what many councilmen no doubt viewed as theological minutiae was appealing to the Bernese, and the scales began to tip away from zealous Zurich toward Lutheran-leaning Strasbourg.

5

Even Pierrefleur, writing in Vaud far away from the battlefield comments, “Touchant ceux de Berne et de leurs aidants, ils ne furent pas à la bataille, dont iceux de Zurich furent grandement marris contre eux.” Pierrefleur, 53.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

65

This shift became apparent at the Synod of Bern, held in January 1532.6 The synod opened on 9 January, with 230 ministers in attendance under Capito’s leadership,7 and it produced an important document entitled simply the Berner Synodus, which was a cross between a confession of faith and an ecclesiastical ordinance. Since Capito was the principal author, perhaps the best way to describe the Synodus is not as Lutheran or Zwinglian, but “Bucerian.” Capito had worked closely with Martin Bucer in Strasbourg in trying to reach a compromise on issues, particularly the Eucharist, that continued to divide the German Lutherans from the Swiss, and the results of those efforts are apparent in the Synodus. The document combines the strong Zwinglian political theory that was so popular with city councils across southern Germany with Bucer’s compromise view of the Eucharist. There was something for everyone, and it should not, therefore, be surprising that the Synodus satisfied no one but instead allowed for a wide range of interpretations that only fostered future disagreements. The Zwinglian political theory of the Synodus is apparent from the outset, placing the bulk of ecclesiastical authority firmly in the hands of the Christian magistrate. The very first sentence proclaims, “Great men agree that in matters that pertain to the administration of external affairs, nothing may be either instituted or established by the ministers of the Word of God without the administration and authority of the civil magistrate.”8 The document continues by outlining the duties of the Christian magistrate: “The magistrate who rejoices in and boasts of the name of Christ should strive with the utmost zeal to uphold not only the earthly power but also the ministry of the Lord and the evangelical doctrine and life, as far as they

6

On the Synod of Bern, see Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte, 147-54; Gottfried W. Locher, ed., Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982, 2 vols. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988); Henri Meylan, ed., Le Synode de Berne de 1532 (Lausanne: Imprimerie Centrale, 1936). 7 On Capito, see esp., James M. Kittelson, Wolfgang Capito: From Humanist to Reformer, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). Kittelson does not, however, deal at length with Capito’s role at the Synod of Bern. 8 “… ita comparatum est viri celeberrimi, ut in his quae ad externarum rerum administrationem attinent, citra civilis potestatis adminiculum et autoritatem, nihil a verbi dei ministris vel institui, vel confirmari queat ….” Locher, Der Berner Synodus, 1:181 (introduction). I cite Simon Sultzer’s Latin version, also published in 1532, for it is clearer than the original Swiss-German text, and it was the version the ministers in the French-speaking lands knew. For easier reference between versions, I include chapter numbers in parentheses, although these also varied slightly in later editions and translations. See the conversion table in ibid., 1:393.

66

Chapter 3

pertain to external matters.”9 The duties of the ministers, on the other hand, are considered heavenly and holy.10 An internal/external dichotomy between the duties of the magistrate and the minister is continued and explained more fully in a discussion of the two types of government: The greater and more sublime is the spiritual and heavenly government …. The lesser, which belongs to the Bernese magistrates, is the earthly government. The Christian falls under the jurisdiction of both. In his conscience, which God alone judges, he belongs to the spiritual government without the intervention of any creature. But with regard to his body and temporal goods, the Christian is subject to the external sword and human administration.11 By placing the conscience and the spirit in the hands of God but the body and goods under temporal jurisdiction, the Synodus effectively gave all discipline and correction to the secular government and left the ministers very little, despite using traditional language about the “superior” spiritual and “inferior” temporal authorities. The ministers were to encourage the people to follow the religious mandates of the city council,12 but in order to avoid the appearance of a new “papism,” they were to show their parishioners that the Bernese mandates agreed with scripture.13 9

“Addecet sane eum magistratum qui Christi nomine gaudet et gloriatur, studio vigilantissimo incumbere, ut potestas ea non terrenarum modo rerum, sed domini etiam ministra efficiatur, evangelicamque doctrinam et vitam, quatenus ea in externis est sita, promoveat ac tueatur ….” Locher, Der Berner Synodus, 1:181 (introduction). 10 “… necessarium etiam fuerit, iuxta nuper promulgatum pro Evangelii successu a magistratu decretum, ut munus quod a domino delegatum sustinemus, sanctum et coeleste, id omni cura rite atque ordine obeamus et tueamur.” Locher, Der Berner Synodus, 1:185 (ch. 1). 11 “… quae duos in terris constituit principatus, quorum sublimior et augustior est spiritualis et coelestis …. Minor autem, cui magistratus Bernensis, ac alii quoquo versus terrarum praesunt. Utrique autem homo obligatur Christianus, ad conscientiam enim quod attinet, spirituali, quam dominus solus, citra ullius omnino creaturae interventum iudicat. Quod vero ad corpus bonaque attinet temporalia, gladio externo, humanaeque administrationi subiicitur.” Locher, Der Berner Synodus, 1:224 (ch. 30). 12 “Posteaquam autem a magistratu nostro varia mandata et edicta ad Christianam modestiam moresque pertinentia prodierunt, diligenter ea nobis ac pro virili tuenda sunt et propaganda, illorumque ostendenda aequitas, eo quod flagitia eadem, et scripturae iam olim prohibuerint, et ne apud gentes quidem, praesertim honestatis aliquo praeditas studio impune sint admissa.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:226-27 (ch. 32). 13 “Neque ex nobis quenquam, veluti passim vulgi sermonibus iactatur, magistratus tantum praedicare autoritatem convenit, adeo ut pleraque quae docet eo, quod a magistratu praecepta, et observanda et credenda esse dicat: ne qui cognitionis sunt minus solidae, plus Senatus potentiae quam deo studii venerationisque deserant: is enim Papistice tyrannidis vel praecipuus error est.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:219 (ch. 26).

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

67

Hence, from very early on, the Bern city council’s authority over matters pertaining to church and state was established. While opening itself up to charges of caesaropapism, Bern thus avoided what it saw as two less palatable options – first, a separate ecclesiastical hierarchy, like the former Catholic Church, which jealously guarded its own rights, interests, and exemptions from secular control, and second, the radical wing of the Reformation, which left no room whatsoever for the secular magistrate. Bern had learned an important lesson from its experience with Anabaptists.14 Indeed, the Synod of Bern took place immediately after a week-long disputation against Anabaptism at Zofingen, held 1-9 January 1532. The Synod of Bern, therefore, was replete with ministers who had the anti-authoritarian “Anabaptist menace” fresh in mind. Bern thus aligned closely with Zwingli’s thinking on the relationship between, or rather identity of, church and state, most succinctly expressed in the prefatory epistle to Zwingli’s Commentary on Jeremiah: “A Christian is nothing other than a good and faithful citizen, and the Christian city nothing but the Christian church.”15 In contrast to the Zwinglian political theory expressed in the Synodus, its eucharistic theology moved slightly away from Zwingli and toward Luther. As we saw above, the 1528 Bern Disputation’s article on the Eucharist stated that one could not prove the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist from scripture. Although the Berner Synodus does not contradict this article, the exposition on the sacraments reflects Capito and Bucer’s attempts to reconcile the Zwinglian and Lutheran positions. Also reflective of Capito’s position at the time, and Bern’s throughout the early years of the Reformation, the Synodus stresses above all the need to avoid divisive debates over the issue: Concerning the sacraments, we have established that nothing is more important than charity, nor should anyone fall into battle, especially on account of the sacraments, as long as the mystery of Christ is left intact for us, even if it is not clear and evident, lest we lose it altogether through our bickering.… Let us avoid as much as possible those hateful conflicts in which each strives to ensnare the other and drag him over to his own

14 15

See Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 205-10. “Sic principes vestri non turgent fastu, sic prophetae commode, fideliter ac erudite docent, sic plebs tranquilla et doctrinam et imperium capit, ut iam dixisse olim non poeniteat Christianum hominem nihil aliud esse quam fidelem ac bonum civem, urbem Christianum nihil quam ecclesiam Christianam esse.” Z 14:424, Zwingli to the council and people of Strasbourg, Zurich, 11 March 1531.

68

Chapter 3 opinion. Otherwise, so many evils and abominations creep in, and the window is left wide open to error.16

This would be Bern’s attitude for at least the next thirty years; when a contentious issue such as ecclesiastical discipline, the real presence, or predestination started to cause division, the city council’s most common reaction was to order silence. The mysteries of God, they insisted, are called mysteries for a reason, and we should not, therefore, try to penetrate them with weak, human intelligence. The warning against divisions and debates having been given, the Synodus nevertheless takes a position on the sacraments, albeit a vague one. The Synodus makes it clear from the start that the Eucharist is “not only an external ceremony, but the sacrament of mystery is present (mysterii inest sacramentum), by which the body and blood of Jesus Christ who died for us is offered.”17 Hence, the purely symbolic position is clearly rejected. “Wherefore the body and blood of the Lord are certainly in the Supper, but” – and with this but the strong Lutheran position is rejected – “the substantial body (substantiale corpus/leibliche Leib) is not in the bread, nor the corporeal blood (corporalis sanguis/leibliche Blut) in the wine.”18 This sacrament, by its spiritual nourishment, “turns faith to rise up to the contemplation of interior things.”19 Most importantly, however, when rightly understood, “this is a sacrament of reconciliation and communion.”20 This emphasis on reconciliation and communion makes it all the more important to avoid fighting over the sacrament. In trying to steer clear of those

16

“De sacramentis autem sic statuimus, ut nihil nec prius, nec antiquius charitate, quantum id per nos stat, habendum censeamus: neque cum quoque in certamen descendendum sacramentorum praesertim gratia, quantisper mysterium Christi nobis relinquitur intactum, etiamsi tam clarum lucidumque, quam oportebat, non relinquatur: ne per contentionem, ut sit, totum amittamus.… tantum ut odiosas illas conflictationes, quibus alter alterum irretire, inque suam pertrahere sententiam nititur, caveamus: alioquin plurimum et malorum et abominationum, subnascetur, et erroribus fenestra latissima aperietur.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:201, 202 (ch. 19). 17 “In fractione nanque panis non ritus modo externus, sed mysterii etiam inest sacramentum, quo Iesu Christi pro nobis mortui corpus et sanguis offertur, et caetera.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:207 (ch. 22). 18 “Quare sanguis et corpus domini in caena quidem sunt, sed nec substantiale corpus in pane, nec corporalis sanguis in vino ….” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:207 (ch. 22). 19 “… atque hoc corpus hicque sanguis, ita nos interiore cibo potuque in spiritu pascit et rigat, quemadmodum per os corpus pane vinoque saciatur. Ac in hunc modum fides sursum ad internarum rerum contemplationem convertitur ….” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:207 (ch. 22). 20 “ex quo sequitur reconciliationis communionisque hoc esse sacramentum ….” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:207-08 (ch. 22).

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

69

doctrines that had led to theological splits in previous years, the Berner Synodus mediates between the Lutheran understanding of the real presence and the Zwinglian symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. The Berner Synodus was more than a confession of faith, however; it also established practice, which, one could argue, turned out to be just as divisive as the theology. In opposition once again to the Anabaptists, infant baptism was affirmed.21 Baptisms had to be performed in the church on Sunday when the community was gathered together; without the church present, it would be nothing more than a common washing.22 This formulation emphasized, as was also the case with the Eucharist, the communal aspect of the sacraments. Indeed, without the church present, the sacraments lost their power altogether; baptism was a common washing and the Eucharist simple eating and drinking. This was an important departure from the medieval church’s emphasis on the power of the priest to consecrate the sacraments or say the Mass by himself. Furthermore, the Synodus explicitly rejected the late medieval practice of emergency baptisms performed by midwives.23 More controversial was the decision “for the sake of uniformity” to continue the medieval practice of sprinkling water on the head and the use of baptismal fonts,24 both of which Calvin would later reject. The authors appear to have foreseen trouble with these regulations, and thus they are careful to address the conflict between Christian liberty and temporal obedience: Although the Christian is free, nevertheless he strives to conform to all and to offend no one. We are all free but as servants of all through Christ are subject to the minister of justice. But what kind of charity is it that turns away from communion with such a multitude of cities and regions in external matters? But we hope that no one will be so stubborn or

21

22

23

24

“Caeterum in eo quod nostros tingimus infantes, ecclesiae eos dei inscribimus, certo sperantes dominum suum quoque apud illos effecturum opus, inque spiritu sancto baptisaturum: atque hunc paedobaptismum pro vero sacramento agnoscimus.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:204 (ch. 20). “Quamobrem hortamur, ut quisque ex ministris allvefaciat suos, ut infantes diebus dominicis praesente caetera etiam plaebe, baptisandos in templum perferant, nam cum id ecclesiae, quae ex populo Christiano coalescit sacramentum sit, non etiam nisi ea praesente tractari debet: adeoque si absit illa, non iam ecclesiae est sacramentum, sed tanquam commune puerorum blaneum.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:205 (ch. 21). “Eodem pacto si infans a male religiosa obstetrice a partu statim in aedibus baptisetur, quibuscunque id fiat praesentibus, pro baptismo nequaquam haberi debet.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:205 (ch. 21). “Atque ut aequalitatis ubique habeatur ratio, volumus non extra templum, vel medio templi, sed apud baptiserium locumque consuetum baptisari infantes, nec totos, sed capite tantum, reliqua corporis parte involuta manente.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:205 (ch. 21).

70

Chapter 3 inflexible, who, with no respect for others, will strive to introduce or support a private opinion.25

This passage eerily foreshadows the differences in practice that helped lead to the first breakdown in Calvin’s relationship with both Geneva and Bern, although as I will argue, this would not be the principal issue that led to his expulsion from Geneva.26 More important than the baptismal practices outlined in the Synodus were those concerning the Eucharist. Again, contrary to later Calvinist practice, the Synodus prescribes the use of communion wafers, as opposed to common bread.27 The Eucharist was to be administered three times a year, at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.28 It should be celebrated seriously and zealously (graviter studioseque) since “it contains within it the whole of Christianity.”29 This mysterium should be explained by reading scripture, followed by a prayer, and then the distribution.30 Those “who are not participants in the kingdom of God,” as stated in I Corinthians 6 “and elsewhere” should be told to abstain from the Supper.31 Since so many of the later divisions between the Calvinists and the Bernese would revolve around the issue of ecclesiastical discipline, the passage dealing with the subject in the Berner Synodus is worth quoting at length:

25

“Quanquam enim Christianus homo liber sit, idem tamen omnibus sese accommodare, neminemque offendere studet. Liberi sumus omnes, sed ministri iusticiae, omnium per Christum nos servituti subiicientes. Cuius autem sit charitatis aequalem cum tanta urbis ac ditionis multitudine externarum rerum communionem aversari? Verum neminem tam praefractum aut pertinacem fore speramus, qui nullo aliorum habito respectu, tam contumaciter privatam opinionem vel inducere, vel tueri nitatur.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:206 (ch. 21). 26 See below, chapter 5, section 4. 27 “Quod vero ad usum caenae attinet, visum est ut panibus non fermentatis (quas hostias vocant) utamur ….” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:208 (ch. 22). 28 “Solemus autem ter in anno caenam domini celebrare, nempe in Pascatis, Penthecostes, et natalis domini festis.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:208 (ch. 22). 29 “Caenam porro ut dictum, graviter studioseque peragi volumus, praesertim cum totius in se Christianismi negocium contineat.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:209 (ch. 22). 30 “Quare mysterium explicetur, cum praelectione scripturae ad eam rem deservientis, praecipue tamen verborum caenae domini, quemadmodum ea vel Paulus, vel Evangelistae describunt: quae mox subsequatur pia ad deum praessiusque cogitata praecatio. Deinde panis calicisque distributio ….” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:209 (ch. 22). 31 “Verum et hoc quoque moneatur, quibus ab hoc cibo sit abstinendum, ut qui regni dei non sint particeps, veluti a Paulo I Corin. 6. et aliis item locis enumerantur.” Locher, ed., Berner Synodus, 1:209 (ch. 22). I Cor. 6:9-10 says, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (NRSV).

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

71

Since, however, we are working in the early stages of these matters and many do not yet understand their depth, we will look as much as possible to internal edification. Therefore, we have affirmed and established that, with regard to outward sins, no one should be easily excommunicated and we are content with the matrimonial court (foro matrimoniali, German: Chorgericht). Those judges can in some way restrain and drive away bad examples and can lead the wicked to improve. At the same time, nevertheless, we must in no way omit fraternal correction. Moreover, driven by their own nature, men separate themselves from us just as do those who deliberately would never associate with us. But if, however, some are driven by some insanity, so that by their words and deeds they show that they will insolently continue to strive impiously against the Gospel yet do not wish to abstain from communion, in that case the pious minister will easily think of remedies to drive off this evil, lest he be guilty of some laziness.32 We can draw a great many conclusions from this declaration, and it is just as important for what it does not say as for what it does. First of all, we see the recognition that the Reformation is still relatively new and not well understood by the people. For this reason, discipline should be kept to a minimum and pertains not to the ministers but to the “matrimonial court.” It is important to note here that this court, alternately called the consistory (Chorgericht) in Bern as well as in Zurich, was principally conceived of as a secular institution, not an ecclesiastical body of church elders, as it would be understood in Calvinist ecclesiology. The Latin designation is informative, for forum matrimoniale, or “marriage court,” describes its composition and function better than “consistory.” It was chiefly concerned with marriage law and sexual crimes and was conceived of simply as a Protestant version of the Catholic ecclesiastical courts that had dealt with the same issues. The most important phrase in the passage cited above is, “no one should be easily excommunicated (neminem facile excommunicandum esse

32

“Quoniam autem circa harum adhuc rerum primordia laboramus, neque dum plerique negocii profunditatem intelligunt, ad internam potissimum aedificationem respiciemus. Quare ad externa quod attinet flagitia, foro matrimoniali, ut vocant, contenti neminem facile excommunicandum esse statuimus: quando ii iudices prava exempla avertere et coërcere, malosque ad emendationem aliqua ratione pertrahere possunt. Interea tamen fraterna illa correptio nullo pacto nobis est omittenda. Praeterea suapte natura homines celerati seipsos a nobis separant, ut qui ex animo nunquam nobis adhaeserint. Sin autem eo provehantur insaniae aliqui, ut verbis ac factis in eo quod impie in Evangelium moliri coeperunt, tuendo insolenter se perseveraturos ostendant, a communionem tamen temprare [sic] nolint, facile ea in re pius minister, remedia quibus huic male occurrat, excogitabit: ne indiligentiae unquam culpari queat.” Locher, Berner Synodus, 1:209 (ch. 22)

72

Chapter 3

statuimus).” This is problematic, for although it seems to imply that excommunication is, in fact, an option, it nevertheless warns against using it; more importantly, it does not indicate who has the right to impose a sentence of excommunication in the first place. The debate over excommunication would be the most contentious issue in the 1558 crisis between Bern and the ministers of Lausanne. The problematic wording of the Berner Synodus only exacerbated this division. In this ambiguous statement, each side would find support for its position. Instead of excommunication, the Synodus seems to express a remarkable optimism that things will work out on their own. The unfaithful are expected eventually to weed themselves out by voting with their feet and leaving when confronted with the Gospel. Finally – and incredibly – the document dodges the question of what to do when a notorious sinner approaches the communion table, offering only the suggestion that “the minister will think of something.” The Berner Synodus thus left a great deal open to interpretation. Zwinglian in its political theory, Bucerian in its eucharistic theology, and utterly non-commital in its teaching on discipline and excommunication, it invited further debate on all sides. In pushing for peace and harmony after the failure at Marburg and the defeat at Kappel, the Synodus only exacerbated existing tensions.

2.

THE FIRST HELVETIC CONFESSION AND THE WITTENBERG CONCORD

One positive result of the Berner Synodus was the potential for greater cooperation with the Lutherans in Germany. By inviting the Strasbourg reformer Wolfgang Capito to lead the formulation of the document, the Bernese magistrates cracked open a door for the German Lutherans, a portal that had seemed irrevocably barred after the disastrous Colloquy of Marburg. Capito and Bucer were not members of Luther’s inner circle, but neither were they total strangers to it. Between 1531 and 1536, Strasbourg was welcomed back into the Lutheran fold even as its influence grew among the Swiss. The time seemed ripe for reconciliation. Luther had brushed aside Bucer’s attempts to mediate at Marburg, lumping him together with his Zwinglian opponents.33 At the 1530 Diet of

33

On the discussions at Marburg, see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521-1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990 [Stuttgart, 1986]), 325-34.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

73

Augsburg, the Strasbourg contingent led by Jacob Sturm presented Bucer and Capito’s Tetrapolitan Confession as an alternative to Philip Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession.34 As the name implies, the Tetrapolitan Confession was signed by four cities, Strasbourg, Constance, Memingen, and Lindau.35 On the divisive issue of the Eucharist, the Tetrapolitan Confession tried to steer a middle course between the Lutheran and Zwinglian positions by stating that the true body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament but only for believers.36 Although the details would change, as would the understanding of exactly how Christ is present in the sacrament, some form of this compromise position would be a part of every negotiation over the Eucharist in the years to come. Moreover, the real sticking point would almost always be whether or not the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament for the unbeliever. The Lutherans would never make Christ’s presence dependant on human faith, and the Reformed would never allow unbelievers access to Christ’s true body and blood. Although the Tetrapolitan Confession itself did not win many supporters, it encouraged the continuation of talks between the two sides. The first sign of the reevaluation of Bucer from the Lutheran side came later in 1530, when Melanchthon was reported to have said that Bucer’s views on the Eucharist were not as bad as they had been made to seem and were perhaps even compatible with Luther’s.37 Strasbourg moved still closer to Luther’s camp in February 1531 by entering into the new Schmalkaldic League, a move that “sealed the doom of South German Zwinglianism.”38 A year later, just three months after Capito’s work on the Berner Synodus, Bucer signed the Augsburg Confession in a meeting at Schweinfurt, thereby 34

The text of the Tetrapolitan Confession is in BDS 3:35-185. On Sturm’s negotiations at Augsburg, see Brady, Protestant Politics, 75-78. 36 “De hoc venerando corporis et sanguinis Christi Sacramento omnia quae de illo Evangelistae, Paulus et sancti Patres scripta reliquerunt, fide optima nostri docent et inculcant indeque singulari studio hanc Christi in suos bonitatem semper depraedicant, qua is non minus hodie quam in novissima illa Coena omnibus, qui inter illius discipulos ex animo nomen dederunt, Cum hanc coenam ut ipse instituit repetunt, verum suum corpus verumque sanguinem suum vere edendum et bibendum in Cibum potumque animarum et vitae eternae dare per Sacramenta dignatur, ut iam ipse in illis et illi in ipso vivant et permaneant.” BDS 3:123. In general the article tends to lean more toward the Lutheran position, probably because at Augsburg Bucer, Capito, and Sturm were most interested in seeking unification with the Lutherans and/or recognition from Charles V. Nevertheless, the key phrase from the Reformed side is “omnibus, qui inter illius discipulos ex animo nomen dederunt” (“to all who have sincerely enrolled among his disciples”); the rest of the article depends upon being among Christ’s disciples and, hence, eating and drinking worthily. 37 Brady, Protestant Politics, 77. 38 Brady, Protestant Politics, 80. 35

74

Chapter 3

ensuring the doctrinal unity of the Schmalkaldic League behind Luther and Melanchthon.39 The lines connecting the Swiss to the Lutherans were beginning to re-emerge: Bern was indebted to Capito, Capito was linked to Bucer and Strasbourg, Bucer had signed the Augsburg Confession, and Strasbourg was now part of the Schmalkaldic League. Had these been all of the major players, it is possible that Bern, too, might have joined the Schmalkaldic League, which would have turned Vaud Lutheran, and possibly Geneva as well. Indeed, it might have spelled the end of the Reformed tradition altogether. But two crucial Swiss Protestant cities remained, Zurich and Basel. Despite Bern’s perceived betrayal of Zurich in the second War of Kappel, the Protestant cantons always found stronger common cause with each other than they did with any foreign power or alliance. As a minority block within the Confederation, they had to stick closely together to maintain a position of strength in the face of the majority Catholic cantons. Realistically, therefore, Bern was unlikely to enter into an alliance with the Lutherans without Zurich and Basel. Johannes Oecolampadius had led the early Protestant movement in Basel, but he died within weeks of Zwingli’s death in 1531.40 Oswald Myconius took over the leadership of the church there, but he was soon confronted by Luther’s old Wittenberg nemesis, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.41 Karlstadt had rejected many of Luther’s teachings, including his understanding of the Eucharist, and his opposition to Myconius only drove the latter further towards the Lutheran camp. In response to Karlstadt, Myconius drew up the First Basel Confession in 1534,42 which was accepted

39

Brady, Protestant Politics, 81-82. On Oecolampadius, see Ernst Staehlin, Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads, 2 vols., Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 10, 19 (New York: Johnson Reprints, 1971 [Leipzig, 1927, 1934]); idem, Das theologische lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21 (New York: Johnson Reprints, 1971 [Leipzig, 1939]); Karl Rudolf Hagenbach, Johann Oekolampad und Oswald Myconius, die Reformatoren Basels: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche (Elberfeld: R. L. Friderichs, 1859). 41 On Myconius, see Hagenbach, Johann Oekolampad und Oswald Myconius. On the Reformation in Basel generally, see Hans Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century: Aspects of the City Republic before, during, and after the Reformation (St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982); Lee Palmer Wandel, Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 149-89. 42 On the First Basel Confession, see Richard Stauffer, “Das Basler Bekenntnis von 1534,” in Ecclesia semper reformanda: Vorträge zum Basler Reformationsjubiläum 1529-1979, ed. Hans R. Guggisberg and Peter Rotach, Theologische Zeitschrift, Sonderband 9 (Basel: 40

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

75

by the city council and, more importantly, adopted as the basis for the negotiations with reformers from Strasbourg, Bern, and Zurich that would lead to the Second Basel Confession, better known as the First Helvetic Confession. The First Helvetic Confession was the first Reformed Confession accepted by all the Protestant Swiss cantons. At the time, however, its chief importance lay in its potential to help close the rift between Wittenberg and Zurich. The Strasbourg reformers were key to bridging the gap. Bucer’s active role in the construction of the Wittenberg Concord would earn him Luther’s trust. At the same time, Bucer continued to appeal to the Swiss for unity. Moreover, just as Pope Paul III’s 1536 summons to the Council of Mantua had impelled the Bernese to call the Lausanne Disputation, so also it created a renewed sense of the need for unity among the Swiss Protestants and even a desire to seek common ground with the Lutherans, if possible. Bucer saw this as a prime opportunity for concord. His methods, however, occasionally frustrated his intentions, and they would eventually backfire, leaving him as the most reviled man in the Protestant cantons. The root of the failed attempt at unity lay precisely in the two texts Bucer helped to write in 1536, the First Helvetic Confession and the Wittenberg Concord. Bucer used both of them to try to get the Lutherans and the Swiss talking again. He had some initial success, but the confusion over which of the two confessions each side was considering doomed the negotiations; the Swiss thought Bucer was trying to convince Luther to accept the First Helvetic Confession, while Luther believed Bucer was encouraging the Swiss to sign the Wittenberg Concord. When the Swiss became aware of Bucer’s apparent duplicity and it became clear that Luther had no intention of accepting the First Helvetic Confession, Bucer was no longer welcome in the Confederation. He left in his wake serious divisions among the Swiss clergy, especially in Bern where he had most actively encouraged agreement with the Lutherans. Negotiations toward the First Helvetic Confession began late in 1535 at a meeting between pastoral representatives from Zurich and Basel.43 At Aarau, they agreed on five articles on the Eucharist which were subsequently well received by the magistrates in Basel, Zurich, and Bern. A formal meeting was held at the end of January 1536 in Basel, incidentally at the same time that Bern’s army was marching across Vaud and annexing the former Savoyard lands. In Basel, Myconius and Simon Grynaeus played host and

Friedrich Reinhardt, 1980), 28-49. The text of the confession is in E. F. Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903), 95-100. 43 See Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 147-49.

76

Chapter 3

co-authored most of the confession together with Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich. In an apparent shift back toward Zwinglianism, Bern sent Kaspar Megander as its representative. Significantly, Bucer and Capito also were present and had a hand in writing the articles on the sacraments and the Eucharist. In Article XXI on the sacraments in general, the Swiss clearly rejected a purely symbolic understanding, and it is here that Bucer’s influence appears most pronounced: There are two signs that are called sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist. These symbols of hidden things [rerum arcanarum] are not naked signs but simultaneously consist of both the signs and substances [signis simul et rebus]. For in baptism, water is the sign, but the substance is regeneration and adoption into God’s people. In the Eucharist the bread and wine are the signs, but the substance is the communication of the Lord’s body, our accomplished salvation, and the remission of sins. Certainly, as these are signs to the bodily eye, so they are perceived by the faith of the spirit, for the entire fruit of the sacraments is in the substances.44 Immediately after the Basel meeting, Bucer communicated the news to Luther that the Swiss were coming around to his way of thinking. Paraphrasing this passage, he indicated to Luther that the Swiss had come to see “that the sacraments are not just symbols of our association in the Lord but more importantly symbols by which the things that are promised in the words of the Lord are exhibited by the sacrament itself: in baptism, regeneration, in the holy supper, the Lord’s body and blood.”45 He failed to

44

“Signa, quae [in ecclesia Christi] et sacramenta vocantur, duo sunt, baptismus, et eucharistia. Haec rerum arcanarum symbola non nudis signis, sed signis simul et rebus constant. In baptismo enim aqua signum est, at res ipsa regeneratio adoptioque in populum Dei. In eucharistia panis et vinum signa sunt, res autem communicatio corporis Domini, parta salus, et peccatorum remissio. Quae quidem, ut ore corporis signa, sic fide spiritus percipiuntur. Nam in rebus ipsis totus fructus sacramentorum est.” Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, eds., The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988 [1931]), 3:223. 45 “Cumque de his rebus inter nos amice et religiose contulissemus, dedit Dominus, ut omnes unanimiter agnoverint, plene exprimendum esse, Dominum ministerio sacro verbi et sacramentorum dona salutis nostrae exhibere et dispensare; sacramenta non esse symbola nostrae tantum in Domino societatis, sed praecipue symbola, quibus re ipsa exhibentur, quae in verbis Domini promittuntur: in baptismate regeneratio, in sacra coena corpus et sanguis Domini.” WA Br 7:357 (No. 2293), Bucer and Capito to Luther, [Strasbourg], [after 4 February 1536]. Luther does not say anything about this in his letter to Bucer immediately following this (WA Br 7:379 (No. 3001)).

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

77

inform Luther, however, of the more specific language in Article XXIII on the Eucharist itself, which retained a strong Zwinglian denunciation of a local, corporeal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament: [It is] not that the Lord’s body and blood are naturally united to the bread and wine, or locally enclosed there, or are brought to it by any carnal presence. But that the bread and wine from the institution of the Lord are symbols by which the communication of his body and blood are truly exhibited by the Lord himself through the ministry of the church, not in the perishable food of the stomach but in the nourishment of eternal life.46 In the absence of a complete account from Bucer, Luther was willing to admit the Swiss to a hearing on theological unity scheduled originally for 14 May 1536 at Eisenach (although due to Luther’s illness, the meeting was later moved to Wittenberg and postponed until 21 May). This was the beginning of two years of negotiations over the Eucharist between the Lutherans and the Swiss, mediated by Bucer.47 Upon the announcement of the meeting, Bucer set about trying to convince the Swiss and South Germans to attend. The Swiss refused, but Bucer participated together with several representatives of the South German cities that had historically owed more to Zwingli’s legacy and teaching than to Luther’s. Although in hindsight we can see a clear, almost inevitable movement toward Luther among the South Germans beginning with the creation of the Schmalkaldic League, in 1536 there was still a great deal of animosity toward the Wittenberg reformer in the South. Although the Wittenberg Concord

46

“Non quod pani et vino corpus et sanguis Domini vel naturaliter uniantur: vel hic localiter includantur, vel ulla huc carnali praesentia statuantur. Sed quod panis et vinum ex institutione Domini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso Domino per ecclesiae ministerium vera corporis et sanguinis eius communicatio, non in periturum ventris cibum, sed in aeternae vitae alimoniam exhibeatur.” Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:225. 47 On the negotiations on the Wittenberg Concord, one of the most complete accounts remains Hastings Eells, Martin Bucer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931), 190224. For a more specific treatment of the Lutheran side, see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532-1546, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993 [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1987]). For the Bernese perspective, see Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, des Luthertums und des Calvinismus, 59-109. Gordon does not address these negotiations in The Swiss Reformation, and the oversight is a significant weakness in an otherwise excellent work, since the failed negotiations would color forever the relationship between the Swiss and Bucer and, by extension, Calvin. The principal primary sources, including the text of the Wittenberg Concord itself, are found in BDS 6.1: Wittenberger Konkordie (1536), Schriften zur Wittenberger Konkordie (1534-1537). The recently published volumes of HBBW (volumes 6-8, 1536-1538) help enormously to round out our understanding of the period, especially from the Swiss perspective.

78

Chapter 3

ultimately failed to unite the Lutherans and the Swiss, it succeeded in bringing the South German Protestants fully into Luther’s camp. At the meeting in Wittenberg, Luther won the day. The agreement was not a compromise at all but instead a restatement of Luther’s position to which Bucer agreed for the sake of unity.48 Chiefly at issue during the meetings was the perpetually sticky question of whether or not the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament depended upon the worthiness of the communicant. Bucer abandoned his earlier position against the communion of the unworthy, and the final agreement, written principally by Melanchthon, stated, They believe and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, exhibited, and consumed…. They also believe this institution of the sacrament is efficacious in the church and does not depend upon the worthiness of the minister or the communicant. Therefore, just as Paul says that even the unworthy eat, so they believe that the true body and blood of the Lord are offered even to the unworthy and that the unworthy eat where Christ’s words and institution are preserved.49 The Wittenberg Concord was signed on 29 May 1536 by everyone in attendance except the representative from Constance.50 Luther decided not to publish the agreement immediately; instead, Bucer agreed to visit personally the Zwinglian cities in South Germany and the Swiss Confederation and attempt to extract written testimonies of their support for the Wittenberg Concord. By accepting this assignment, Bucer would henceforth no longer play his familiar role of independent mediator between factions; he was Luther’s man now. Negotiations with the Swiss started well. Basel sent Grynaeus and Karlstadt as representatives to Strasbourg in July to discuss the matter, and

48

Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 50-51; see also James M. Kittelson and Ken Schurb, “The Curious Histories of the Wittenberg Concord,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 50 (1986): 119-37; especially 124-25. 49 “Itaque sentiunt et docent cum pane et vino vere et substantialiter adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus christi et sanguinem…. Deinde hanc et institutionem sacramenti sentiunt valere in Ecclesia nec pendere ex dignitate ministri aut sumentis. Quare, sicut Paulus ait, etiam indignos manducare, ita sentiunt porrigi vere corpus et sanguinem Domini etiam indignis et indignos sumere, ubi servantur verba et institutio christi.” BDS 6.1:120, 122-24. 50 The Constance representative, Johannes Zwick, simply was not given authorization from the Constance city council to sign anything. Eells, Martin Bucer, 203. Interestingly, one of the representatives from Augsburg who signed was Wolfgang Musculus, who later moved to Bern and was involved in the disputes in the 1550s with Viret and the Calvinists in Vaud.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

79

they in turn urged Myconius and the city to sign. As happened repeatedly, however, progress toward agreement hit a brick wall in Zurich. On 15 August 1536, the Zurich city council expressly forbade the city’s ministers from signing the Wittenberg Concord. The situation was aggravated three weeks later with the publication of Bucer’s Retractions.51 Luther had insisted that any agreement with the Zwinglians would require them to recant publicly their former “errors.” In writing the Retractions, Bucer wanted to demonstrate to Luther that he truly had abandoned his former Zwinglian teachings on the Eucharist. This indeed helped to satisfy Luther, but it caused no end of trouble with the Swiss. At the 1528 Bern Disputation, Bucer had defended the thesis that “It cannot be proved by Holy Scripture that the body and blood of Christ are received as actual body and blood in the bread of thanksgiving.”52 Now, it seemed that he had abandoned that position. Bucer must have realized that publishing his Retractions might cause trouble with the Swiss, and he very cleverly phrased them so that, in the words of Hastings Eells, “in the same breath Bucer retracted all his errors and refused to admit that he had ever made any to retract by failing to name them.”53 Clever wording aside, anything from Bucer entitled Retractions and written at Luther’s behest was bound to raise the hackles of the Swiss. Nevertheless, Bucer persisted in the task at hand and tried to bring the Swiss into agreement with the Wittenberg Concord. A meeting was held in Basel on 24 September 1536, and Bucer tried to harmonize the new Wittenberg Concord with the First Helvetic Confession to which the Swiss had previously subscribed. The Wittenberg Concord was rejected repeatedly, at Basel and later in October 1536 at synods in Bern and Zurich. The Swiss wondered why there was any need for the Wittenberg Concord if there was no substantive difference between it and the First Helvetic Confession. Surprisingly, new life was breathed into the effort for unity at another meeting in Basel in November 1536 by an unlikely candidate, Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich.54 Essentially, Bullinger tried to turn the tables on Luther; rather than bending to Luther’s will by signing the Wittenberg Concord, the Swiss would send Luther their own confession and place the ball in his court. In January 1537, they sent Luther a long letter in which

51

Both the original Latin text of the Retractions, published 6 September 1536 together with Bucer’s Evangelienkommentars, and his expanded German translation from October 1537 are in BDS 6.1:303-88. 52 See above, n.3. 53 Eells, Martin Bucer, 211. 54 On Bullinger’s role in the Wittenberg Concord negotiations, see Martin Friedrich, “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie: Ein Ökumeniker im Streit um das Abendmahl,” Zwingliana 24 (1997): 59-79.

80

Chapter 3

they included a slight revision of the First Helvetic Confession, agreed upon at the October synod in Zurich.55 It was a power play; both sides wanted unity but not badly enough to swallow their own pride. Neither side was willing to appear to yield to the other by signing a document produced in the other camp. The decision had the unfortunate effect of dragging out the fruitless negotiations for another year and a half. Luther was sick for most of 1537 and as a result was silent on the matter. He did, however, meet with Bucer at Gotha after the February negotiations of the Schmalkaldic League, where Bucer presented him with the letter from the Swiss. After the meeting Bucer reported to the Swiss that Luther was still interested in union with them but required them to meet three conditions: First, they must clearly reject the teaching that nothing is dispensed with the bread and wine, confess that in the Eucharist the true body and blood of the Lord are administered together with the symbols of the bread and wine, and should not quibble over the formal words “substantially” (wesentlich) or “corporeally” (leiblich).56 Second, they must cease slandering and misrepresenting Luther’s position on the sacrament.57 Finally, they must let bygones be bygones, move forward,

55

WA Br 12:241-61 (No. 4268), City councils of Zurich, Bern, Basel, St. Gallen, Mulhouse, and Biel to Luther, Basel, 12 January 1537. The language on the Eucharist is similar to that expressed in the First Helvetic Confession: “So wurt der lib Christi von uns im nachtmaal warlich gäßen und sin blĤt würt warlich getrunken, aber nitt so rouw und fleischlich, wie es die bäpstler bißhar gelert und fürgäben habend, namlich das man in ässe substantzlich, das ist lyblich und fleischlich, also das das brot in das rächt natürlich fleisch verwandlet oder der lyb imm brot verschloßsen werde, sonder geistlich, das ist geistlicher wis und mitt dem glöubigen gemĤt.” Ibid., 255. 56 “Sind aber drÿ stuck, daruff (so fil wir sehen könden) die Concordi endtlich bestohn würt und on die wir nit hoffen mögen, das sie imer recht uffgericht oder bestohn werde. Das erst würt seyn, das uwere Prediger, unser lieben Brüder, einmal schlecht [read: schlicht] und clar als ein irrthumb verdammen, das man im h. Abentmal nichts dann brot unnd win entpfahe, wie es die Täuffer vast alle unnd sunst auch lüt halten, Unnd dagegen getrüwlich leren, das man im h. Abentmal, so man das selbige nach des herren insatzung haltet, mit den zeychen brot und win wahrhafftig auch den Leib unnd das blĤt des Herren entpfahe. Der wörtlin halber ‘wesentlich,’ ‘liblich’ und der glichen würt es kein not haben ….” “Bucers Bericht an die Eidgenossen,” BDS 6.1:274-93, here, 285-86, Strasbourg, 1 April 1537. 57 “Zum anderen, so würt zur waren und satten Concordi von nöten sin, das uwer Prediger, unsere Liebe Brüder, by den iren ußschliessen und verhüten, so wol sie immer könden oder meinen besserlich sin, alle dise grüwel, das Christus solte uß synem himlischen ewig herrlichen wesen wider inn das irdisch, zerstörlich getzogenn und zur buchspyse gemacht, mit brot und win natürlich vermischet oder drin verschlossen Oder …. D. Luther unnd die anderen inn disen kirchen sagen, man finde doch inn iren Bücheren, das sie solche grüwel auch vor uns zum hefftigsten widerfochten haben unnd noch widerfechten. Darumb ihnen je ungütlich geschehe, das wir sie deren verdacht machen

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

81

and forget what had been said and written on the subject in the past.58 In effect, Luther required them to forget Zwingli’s legacy altogether and join with him. Bucer’s letter was not well received in the Confederation. Conditions were most propitious for unity in Basel, where Myconius repeatedly expressed his hope that the two sides could reach an agreement, but even he grew somewhat suspicious after Bucer’s report in April. Nevertheless, he still believed that the need for unity outweighed the remaining theological quarrels.59 In Zurich, Luther’s conditions left Bullinger skeptical. He did not completely give up hope, however, and was pleased both with the Schmalkaldic League’s refusal to attend the anticipated general council at Mantua and with Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.60 In Bern, the pastorate in 1537 was recovering from the loss of its two leading reformers, Franz Kolb and Berchtold Haller, who died in 1535 and 1536 respectively. In light of the new possibility of unity with Luther, the remaining pastors divided themselves over precisely that issue in a struggle for dominance in the city. Sebastian Meyer and Peter Kunz, who had studied in Wittenberg, strongly supported closer ties to Luther. Erasmus Ritter and

wolten, were ihnen auch von wegen ires diensts im wort Gottes gar nicht wann wir gegen ihnen unnd gegen der gegenwertigkheit Christi, die sie setzen, solliche grüwel so filfaltig unnd so angstlich ußschliessenn unnd verhieten wöllenn, wie sie meynen, in uweren bericht an D. Lutheren beschehen seyn.” BDS 6.1:286-87. 58 “Zum dritten, so wille das auch erfordert werden, das man gäntzlich zĤ bedem theyl liesse hin sin, was hin ist, gedächte des gehaltenen streits, so wenig man imer könde, noch alles des im streyt furgangen, es weren reden oder schrifftenn. Dann wie mans machet, so man den streyt und was im selbigen geredt oder geschriben wider äferet, wie bißher beschehenn, und besonders mit onnötigem trucken ettlicher Bücher, so wille es dem anderen theyl oder allen beden zu nahe sin, die lere Christi und der ansehen ringeren und vil lüt verletzen.” “Bucers Bericht an die Eidgenossen,” BDS 6.1:287. 59 “Lutherum non reprehendo, quod nostrum sermonem ferre nolit; non est enim ferendum illi. Nam quamvis confessio communis habeat Christum corpus et sanguinem suum in coena mystica suis offerre et ad edendum et bibendum tradere et Lutherus paenitus idem dicat, non tamen idem confitemur, dum ad mentem respicimus partium…. Responsum Lutheri vereor quomodo tui sint recepturi. Igitur, nisi tu mitigabis omnia, timendum, ne sit actum de concordia. A qua si excludemur, vide tu, quae sint mala consequutura. Dabimus ansam confoederatis amplius saeviendi. Antichristo spem faciemus triumphandi quondam adversus evangelium.” HBBW 7:141-42 (No. 990), Oswald Myconius to Bullinger, Basel, 11 April 1537. 60 “… ea de re ne verbum quidem commemoravi, quam maxime desyderare te nihil ambigo, quomodo placuerint nostris per principes acta Schmalkaldiae et ab Argentorato missa. Quae igitur responsa sunt caesari per confoederatos super consilio Mantuano, placuerunt maxime. Quae adiecta sunt de primatu papae et episcoporum iurisdictione, non minus placuerunt.” HBBW 7:165 (No. 1001), Bullinger to Oswald Myconius, [Zurich], 25 May 1537.

82

Chapter 3

Kaspar Megander argued vehemently against concord. Nationalistic considerations may have helped to confuse the situation. On the one hand, Kunz was a native son but supported closer ties with the Germans. On the other, Megander and Ritter represented the traditional Swiss view but were both foreigners to the city republic, and Megander had already proved to be a troublemaker after the second Kappel War. Megander was possibly more vehemently opposed to negotiations with Wittenberg than anyone else in the Protestant cantons. In March 1537, as Bullinger, his former colleague in Zurich, expressed optimism about a future agreement, Megander characterized the concord as a dangerous catastrophe into which the Baselers were leading everyone.61 After Bucer’s report on his meeting with Luther, Megander claimed that the negotiations were doing more harm than good.62 In the summer of 1537, the dispute between the Lutheran and Zwinglian parties in Bern broke open, and the city council responded the only way it knew how: it forbade the use of contentious terms such as substantially, corporeally, personally, etc., when discussing the Eucharist.63 Moreover, the council nearly killed the Wittenberg Concord for good by prohibiting the acceptance of any confessions apart from the First Helvetic Confession and the conclusions of the Bern Disputation.64 It may have been better for everyone involved had this really been the end. Bucer, however, refused to give up and successfully encouraged the Bernese to grant him a hearing in September 1537. It was a fateful decision, for more than anything else it was

61

62

63

64

“Videor mihi, charissime mi Bullingere, omnino fabulae catastropham videre, hoc est, quomodo concordiam quidam sancitam velint. At, quo verum tibi aperiam, nos obscura et ambigua, quemadmodum et vos, plane non recipiemus, atque ita nec urbium quatuor neque Saxonicam (ut aiunt confessionem). Praeterea, quo me totum teneas, vereor, ne Basilienses nos in aperta pericula secum contrahant. Nunquam viri et fratres suspecti mihi fuere; at timeo nonnihil a nobis defecisse, id quod tibi dictum esse cupio.” HBBW 7:9394 (No. 965), Megander to Bullinger, Bern, 8 March 1537. “Inter caetera enim concordiae negocium magis inpedivisse quam promovisse nobis retulit, quantumcunque hinc inde, huc atque illuc cursitarit.” HBBW 7:137 (No. 989), Megander to Bullinger, Bern, 11 April 1537. “Quantum ad modum concionandi de sacramentis attinet, decretum et deliberatum est modum in ecclesiis nostris hucusque servatum plane non mutandum, sed ut hactenus servandum, videlicet simpliciter, aperte, suetis et nobis usitatis voculis de sacramentis disseramus omissis et neglectis raris et noviter, ut ita dicam, inventis, nempe substantialiter, realiter, corporaliter, personaliter, inefabili, imprehensibili et miraculoso modo, et si quae sunt alia ecclesiis nostris insueta et inusitata.” HBBW 7:177 (No. 1010), Megander to Bullinger and Leo Jud, Bern, 26 June 1537. “Quod vero concordiam attinet, praeter communem nostram confessionem ultimam Luthero transmissam atque disputacionem Bernae habitam non quicquam aliud.” HBBW 7:178 (No. 1010).

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

83

Bucer’s actions in Bern in the fall of 1537 that led to his complete vilification among the Swiss. Just before Bucer’s arrival in Bern, the strife among the ministers hit a fevered pitch. Johannes Rhellikan, the schoolmaster and an ally of Zwinglians Megander and Ritter, reported to Bullinger that there had been attempts to remove the three of them from office; Kunz had even gone before the city council with the ultimatum that it would have to choose him or Ritter: one of them would have to go.65 From Basel, Myconius conveyed his deep concern about events in Bern, saying that he feared for the Gospel itself.66 On 7 September, Megander reported that Bucer and Capito were on their way to the city; Megander feared that Bern would be forced to accept the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist and possibly have their traditional ties to Zurich cut off: But who can doubt that this substantial presence and exhibition of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine in the holy supper will be forced on us?… Not only are we divided, but all things have been condemned and confused, all things so full of jealousy, hatred, malice, strife, contention, and I may almost say factions, uproar, and sedition that I have no idea what counsel to take…. It is greatly to be feared that our church will be segregated from you; if that happens it will not be without great danger.67 Bucer was able to convince Myconius and Grynaeus in Basel to accompany him to strife-ridden Bern. On 17 September, he and Capito presented themselves before the large and small councils of Bern together with the city’s ministers, where Bucer made the extraordinary claim that, in

65

“Sed interim conticere nequeo Buceranos (Bernates puto) omni insidiarum genere, technis et machinis conatos esse primo Megandrum, deinde Erasmum, postremo et me offitio et loco movere … Cunzenus publice coram senatu protestatus esse(t) se nolle Erasmi collegam in verbi ministerio agere, et ni ipse aman(da)retur, se iam missionem petere.” HBBW 7:222 (No. 1032), Rhellikan to Bullinger, Bern, 21 August 1537. 66 “Bernensium fratrum dissidium nescio quid tandem allaturum sit. Video, qui timent inde evangelio. Sunt partes et utraeque fortes; verendum de malo certe non parvo.” HBBW 7:226 (No. 1034), Oswald Myconius to Bullinger, Basel, 29 August 1537. 67 “At dico verum esse, quod scribis, charissime Bullingere, Capitonem et Bucerum ad nos venturos…. At quis dubitat, quin substancialem hanc corporis et sanguinis Christi cum pane et vino in sacra coena praesenciam et exhibicionem nobis obtrusuri sint?… Sumus non modo divisi, sed sunt omnia deplorata et perturbata, omnia item invidia, odio, livore, contencione, pene dixerim faction(ibus), tumultu et sedicione adeo plena, ut, consilii quid capiam, omnino nesciam…. Timendum est idque maxime ecclesiam nostram a vobis segregatum iri; quod si fit, non sine magno periculo.” HBBW 7:231, 232 (No. 1038), Megander to Bullinger, Bern, 7 September 1537.

84

Chapter 3

actuality, there were no differences among Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Luther, nor among the Wittenberg Concord, the First Helvetic Confession, the Berner Synodus, and the Bern Disputation.68 He presented the city council with yet another new confession on the Eucharist that claimed “that the true body and true blood of Christ with the symbols or visible signs are truly received and enjoyed (frui), with the whole Christ (integro Christo), not broken up, true God and man, not as perishable food for the stomach but for the nourishment of the soul in eternal life.”69 He impressed the assembly sufficiently for the Bern city council to issue a vote of confidence in him. It was an extraordinary breakthrough. With Basel and Bern willing to follow Bucer’s lead, Zurich was becoming increasingly marginalized, and it appeared as if the Swiss might actually turn Lutheran. But Bucer went one step too far. Flush with his victory before the Bern city council, he insisted that Kaspar Megander’s catechism, which was in wide use in Bern’s lands, had to be changed to agree with the new teaching on the Eucharist. The city council asked Megander to change it, and he said he would, but Bucer did not trust him and seized the opportunity to cut and paste together a new catechism (a catechismum a Capitone et Bucero contaminatum in the words of Megander et al.)70 Megander was utterly humiliated and outraged. He, Ritter, and Rhellikan made an impassioned appeal to the ministers of Zurich for the Swiss churches: Therefore, most beloved brothers in Christ, if you care for the wellbeing of the Swiss churches and the truth in the matter of the sacrament, and if you, the princes of the pastors, wish to render a worthy account to Christ Jesus, who once was not only diligently cherished for the sake of the flock but also guarded from the terrible attacks of the wolves, we ask, pray, and beg you through him and implore you through Christian charity, that you follow our advice in removing this disease from the

68

69

70

“Hiemitt hatt butzer sich eröffnet, wie verr er bewilliget habe, Luther nitt verrer noch wÿdters wenn Zwingli, oecolampa(d), alle fromm, alte vätter, marterer, und (er) blÿbe unverruckt bÿ der disputatio, dem Sÿnodo im 32. jaar, der Confession gen basel geschickt unnd dem luther etc.” “Bucers Vortrag in Bern vor dem Rat und 200 Bürgern und Prädikanten von Straßburg, Basel, und Bern am 17. September 1537 (Montag) zur Erläuterung seiner Confessio,” BDS 6.1:298-99; here, 299. “… verum Corpus et verum sanguinem Christi tunc cum symbolis sive signis visibilibus vere accipere iisque frui, non separato sed integro Christo, vero deo et homine, non ad perituram ventris escam sed ad alimoniam animarum in vitam aeternam ….” “Confessio Buceri et Capitonis aus dem Abschied der Berner Synode vom (17.) September 1537,” BDS 6.1:294-97; here, 294, 296. HBBW 7:319 (No. 1074), Megander, Ritter, Rhellikan, and deacon Jakob Meyer to the Pastors and Teachers of Zurich, Bern, 28 November 1537.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

85

church or that you quickly prescribe some other more beneficial remedy that may be devised. For unless this is done, the church will perish by the Lutheran and Bucerian plague.71 The Bernese Zwinglians found a sympathetic audience in Zurich. Already in October, Bullinger had finally broken his relatively long silence on the matter by sending a scathing letter to Bucer, chastizing him for his duplicitous dealing in telling Luther one thing and the Swiss another.72 Chiefly at issue was the letter that Bucer had sent Luther soon after the agreement on the First Helvetic Confession, a copy of which had recently surfaced in Zurich. Bucer had told Luther that the Swiss had agreed “that the Lord’s body and blood are substantially (substantialiter) distributed and received”; Bullinger retorted, “Not only do we deny having said that to you, but always and from the beginning have we denied saying that.”73 Moreover, in August 1536, Bucer had told Bullinger that simply sticking to the First Helvetic Confession would be sufficient for agreement, but then later insisted on subscription to the Wittenberg Concord.74 Bullinger had had enough; he would forever stand by the First Helvetic Confession agreed

71

72

73

74

“Si ergo, fratres per Christum dilectissimi, salus Helveticum ecclesiarum et veritas in re sacramentaria curae est et pastorum principi Christo Iesu olim pro grege non solum diligenter pasto, sed etiam a gravibus lupis ingruentibus custodito dignam rationem reddere vultis, per eundem vos rogamus, oramus, obsecramus et per christianam charitatem obtestamur, ut illud nostrum consilium in sublevando ecclesiae morbo sequamini vel aliud commodius repertum remedium in tempore adhibeatis. Nisi enim hoc fiat, Lutherana et Bucerana peste interibit.” HBBW 7:321-22 (No. 1074). HBBW 7:262-80 (No. 1053), Zurich, 8 October 1537. Hastings Eells must have misread the date on the manuscript. He indicates that Bucer received it just as he was leaving Strasbourg for Bern at the beginning of September and “no doubt it was one of the causes for the biting decisiveness of his actions there.” Eells, Martin Bucer, 219. Assuming the editors of the HBBW are correct about the October date, it is more likely that Bullinger’s harsh tone was affected by the recent events in Bern, although it is curious that he does not say much at all about these events. “Ais praeterea: ‘… si solide credant et pleno ore doceant in eucharistia ipsum domini corpus et sanguinem vere et substantialiter distribui et accipi’ etc. Id vero te dixisse tandem non negamus, semper autem et ab initio dixisse, negamus.” HBBW 7:270 (No. 1053). Bullinger’s quotation of Bucer’s letter is accurate; see the intial letter from Bucer in WA Br 8:13 (No. 3128). “At postquam a Wittenberga allati essent articuli, 8. augusti superioris anni datis ad me literis in haec verba ad me scribebas: ‘Perfecta est concordia, si sustineatis vestrae ipsorum confessioni vos accommodare in omnibus et, quae idem cum ipsa pollent, non reiicere.’ Nullam his subscriptionis mentionem faciebas. Caeterum, ubi ad 24. septembris Basileae convenissemus, veluti superiorum oblitus petebas a nobis subscriptionem.” HBBW 7:271 (No. 1053).

86

Chapter 3

upon “by the common votes of all the churches.”75 Then, to add insult to injury (and likely to the regret of ecumenically minded Protestants everywhere), Bullinger indicated his approval of Melanchthon’s treatment of the sacraments in the 1535 edition of the Loci Communes: “In this matter, I like Melanchthon’s treatment more than yours. For with Melanchthon everthing is simple and plain; with you everything is intricate and obscure.”76 Who would have guessed? Real hope for Protestant unity apparently may have lain not at Marburg with Luther and Zwingli nor in Basel through Bucer’s mediation, but with Bullinger and Melanchthon; what might have happened had they met we will never know. As for the Wittenberg Concord, however, Bucer’s machinations were arousing ever greater distrust of him and diminishing the chances that the agreement would be accepted in the Confederation. Zurich did, in fact, attempt to intervene in Bern but to no effect; despite letters begging the city council to reconsider, on 21 December 1537 the council gave the order to print and distribute the catechism as altered by Bucer.77 Megander decided immediately to leave Bern and sought permission from Bullinger and his colleague Leo Jud to move back to Zurich.78 He left Bern a few weeks later, but his allies Erasmus Ritter and Johannes Rhellikan remained in the city, which meant that the city’s pastorate would remain divided, as indeed it did for many years to come even as individual ministers came and went. By the time of the eucharistic

75

76

77

78

“Perseverabo enim in illis, quae sunt veritatis confessae. Extant, quae Basileae communibus omnium ecclesiarum suffragiis conscripta sunt. In his ero semper.” HBBW 7:276 (No. 1053). “Nuper legi, quae de sacramentis in genere et quae spetiatim de baptismo et de coena domini scripsit doctor Philippus Melancton in Locis communibus ultimo aeditis, et nisi quis ea pervertat et detorqueat interpretatione malitiosa, placent admodum…. Plus mihi in hac causa Melanctonica quam tua placent. Melanctonis enim omnia simplicia et plana sunt, tua vero intricata et obscura.” HBBW 7:274, 275 (No. 1053). “Pridie quam haec scriberem, doctissime Bullingere, senatus populusque Bernensis propter aucti et immutati catechismi aeditionem coactus est. In quo cum et communes vestrae literae ad nos communes huius ecclesiae ministros diligentissime a Cyrone, huius urbis a secretis, recitatae essent, diu et multum perpensae, tandem sic uterque senatus decrevit: Praedictum catechismum omnino publicandum ac typis statim excudendum.” HBBW 7:339 (No. 1083), Rhellikan to Bullinger, Bern, 22 December 1537. “Et qui hactenus in vado haesi, quid agerem, nescius, nunc tandem, quo me vertam, deus comonstrare apertissime videtur, Tigurum videlicet, ad charissimos vos fratres meos. Per dominum igitur oro, rogo et obtestor, ut vestro consensu ad vos me recipere ac comigrare queam.” HBBW 7:338 (No. 1082), Megander to Bullinger and Leo Jud, Bern, 22 December 1537.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

87

disputes of 1548, there was a completely different set of ministers in Bern, but exactly the same issues continued to divide them.79 At the beginning of 1538, the fate of the Wittenberg Concord was still in doubt. Basel continued to support it. Bern, although divided, had a majority of council members willing to embrace it, and Megander’s departure made things considerably simpler. Finally, in December 1537, Luther himself responded to the overtures made by the Swiss via Bucer in February, and he declared that he was in favor of continuing negotiations toward concord.80 Soon afterwards, however, he indicated privately to Bucer his continued unease with the Swiss teaching on the Eucharist.81 Meanwhile, Bucer maintained his efforts to encourage Luther by telling him that the majority of the Swiss understood and taught “the truth about the holy Eucharist.”82 Capito, Bucer, and those Swiss who were in favor of the Wittenberg Concord tried to use Luther’s favorable response to pressure Bullinger and the Zurichers to return to the negotiating table.83 Bullinger indeed found Luther’s response favorable enough to continue to seek unity, but he still had reservations about the “Bernese tragedy” and insisted that Bucer remain silent, for “he does more to harm than to help the negotiation.”84 Bullinger’s disgust with Bucer grew throughout the spring, and hope for negotiations might have been allowed to fade away, but on 18 March 1538 the French

79

See below, chapter 6, section 3.1. “Ich hab nu zwar wiederumb E. E. Schrift gelesen, und bin erstlich des hochlich erfreuet, daß ich vernommen, wie, hintangesetzt aller vorigen Schärf und Verdacht, so wir mit Euern Predigern gehabt, Euer ganzer großer Ernst sei, die Concordia anzunehmen, und zu fördern beschlossen seid.” WA Br 8:151 (No. 3191), Luther to Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, St. Gallen, Mulhouse, and Biel, [Wittenberg], 1 December 1537. 81 “Latinam Helvetiorum Confessionem paulo minus probo quam Germanicam Civitatum [probably the Swiss confession sent to Luther in January 1537], praesertim in Sacramento altaris. Caetera satis placent pro hoc tempore.” WA Br 8:158 (No. 3193) Luther to Bucer, [Wittenberg], 6 December 1537 82 “Ne dubites enim: quam plurimi sunt et apud hos [the Bernese] et apud alios Helvetios, qui veritatem de sacra eucharistia et tota ratione ministerii ecclesiastici cum ipsi plene intelligunt, tum aliis constanter praedicant.” WA Br 8.154 (No. 3192), Bucer to Luther, Strasbourg, 3 December 1537. 83 See, e.g., HBBW 8:35 (No. 1092), Capito to Bullinger, Strasbourg, 12 January 1538; ibid. 8:42 (No. 1096), Oswald Myconius to Bullinger, Basel, 24 January 1538. 84 “Vehementer afflixit nos Bernensis tragoedia, sed consolata est nos iterum amicissimum optimi viri doctoris Lutheri responsum…. Responsum dedit Lutherus candidum, simplex, minime fucatum et plane christianum…. Quod attinet explicationem Buceri, obscurior est Lutheri sententia, quae plana est…. Apud me et nos omnes ea est de Bucero sententia, ut praestet illum in hoc negotio quiescere. Plus enim negotio incommodabit quam commodabit.” HBBW 8:59, 60 (No. 1104), Bullinger to Oswald Myconius, [Zurich], 22 February 1538. 80

88

Chapter 3

ambassador to the Confederation announced that Charles V and Pope Paul III had invited Francis I to peace negotiations in Nice.85 On 27 March, Zurich invited representatives from the Protestant cantons to a meeting, beginning 28 April. Clearly, the question of the Wittenberg Concord and agreement with the Lutherans would be discussed, but it is important to note that the conference was not intended strictly to discuss Bucer’s agreement but to decide on a response to the new threat of a Francoimperial Catholic alliance. Soon after the announcement, Bullinger repeated to Grynaeus his misgivings about Bucer and his possible role there: “We will care for our church; let him care for his…. I seek concord, not discord. But if Bucer comes to that diet or meeting called for only the Swiss cities, I fear a great uproar. Perhaps the negotiation would be better completed without him.”86 Bullinger makes a point of saying that the conference has been called “for only the Swiss cities” (conventum Helveticis tantum urbibus indictum), implying that the Strasbourg theologians were not welcome. Bullinger was growing weary of the seemingly endless debates; citing the frequent meetings and disputations at Bern, Zurich, Marburg, and Basel, he asked rhetorically, “When will it be enough? We hold the sum of the true religion, and we will persevere in this. We will not dispute about this forever.”87 At the insistence of Basel and Bern, Bucer was, in fact, present at the conference in Zurich, which was held from 28 April to 4 May, but Bullinger and his colleagues ensured that he was completely marginalized. They never discussed seriously the Wittenberg Concord, and the debates on the Eucharist “soon developed into a trial of Bucer.”88 After the conference, the Swiss sent a letter to Luther indicating their goodwill and friendship toward him but without promising to subscribe to the Wittenberg Concord.89

85

EA IV.1c, 946 (No. 572), Baden, 18 March 1538. See also above, chapter 2. “Porro nostram ecclesiam curabimus, ipse suam curet…. Concordiam, non discordiam quaero. Quod si Bucerus ad diem illam sive conventum Helveticis tantum urbibus indictum venerit, metuo magnam concertationem. Forte negotium melius sine eo perficeretur.” HBBW 8:116, 117 (No. 1118), Bullinger to Grynaeus, Zurich, 30 March 1538. 87 “Convenerunt Bernae; disputatum est diebus 20. Convenerunt saepe Tiguri, saepe Basileae, item Marpurgi. Nos ter convenimus Basileae. Wenn wers ouch gnĤg? Nos tenemus religionis verae summam. In hac perseverabimus. Non disputabimus de hac ut incerta in dies.” HBBW 8:117 (No. 1118). The editors point out that the “summa religionis verae” probably refers to the First Helvetic Confession, or its interpretation in the Protestant cantons’ letter to Luther on 12 January 1537. HBBW 8:117 (No. 1118), n.9. 88 Eells, Martin Bucer, 222. 89 WA Br 8:211-14 (No. 3224), The Evangelical Cantons to Luther, Zurich, 4 May 1538. 86

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

89

Most historians present this as the last word on the affair and suggest that the hope for unity with the Lutherans simply faded slowly away afterwards.90 That interpretation, however, ignores a number of bitter letters exchanged soon after the Zurich conference, which reveal not a gradual but a decisive and acrimonious suspension of negotiations. Luther himself dealt the first major blow. In March 1538, Bullinger had sent Luther his De scripturae sanctae authoritate, “against the papist priests, our common enemies.”91 After the Zurich conference, on 14 May, Luther returned Bullinger’s letter together with his book, which he had not bothered to read, claiming that he and Bullinger were “different in judgment and disposition.”92 Luther chastized Bullinger for publishing Zwingli’s Fidei expositio, which “offended not only us but all pious people,”93 and he concluded: I write these things so that you might see that I am dealing with you in true candor and without any pretense. Perhaps you believe that we are mistaken. I commend judgment to God. We certainly cannot approve of

90

See, e.g., Eells: “After the Conference of Zurich Bucer gradually relinquished all efforts to develop the Wittenberg Concord into unity between Lutherans and Zwinglians…. he decided that the only course possible was to wait until circumstances became more favorable.” Martin Bucer, 223, 224; Martin Greschat: “Bucer hat nie die Hoffnung aufgeben, die Schweizer eines Tages doch noch für die Konkordie gewinnen zu können. Aber andere, weitergespannte Unionspläne beanspruchten in den folgenden Jahren zunehmend seine Zeit und Arbeitskraft.” Martin Bucer: Ein Reformator und seine Zeit (Munich: Beck, 1990), 152. 91 “Nihil hic ambigo de tua facilitate et humanitate, quin amantem tuique studiosissimum plena caritate sis prosecuturus et animum erga me tuum epistolio aliquo testaturus, certe quo felicioribus auspiciis coiret amicitia mutua et nunquam rumpenda, dono munus chartaceum offerre institui, libros, inquam meos de verbo Dei et ministris eius editos contra antistites papisticos, communes hostes nostros.” WA Br 8:207 (No. 3222), Bullinger to Luther, Zurich, [ca. 26] March 1538. The full title of Bullinger’s book is De scripturae sanctae authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, deque Episcoporum, qui verbi dei ministri sunt, institutione et functione, contra superstitionis tyrannidisque Romanae antistites, ad Sereniss. Angliae Regem Heinrychum VIII (Zurich: Froschauer, 1538). 92 “Redditae mihi sunt literae tuae, mi Bullingere, una cum libro tuo De authoritate scripturae et functione episcoporum. Librum sane nondum perlegi aliis et multis occupatus …. Nosti vero alias nobis non displicere stilum et argumentum rerum, in quibus versamini, sed sensu et affectu sumus dissimiles.” HBBW 8:129 (No. 1126), Luther to Bullinger, Wittenberg, 14 May 1538; WA Br 8:224 (No. 3229). 93 “Et id quoque dolebat, quod sub nomine tuo postea aedidisti Zwinglii librum ad regem christianum scriptum mira laude celebrans, cum in eo libro esse nosses quam plurima, quae non modo nos, sed omnes pios offendunt optimo iure.” HBBW 8:129-30 (No. 1126); WA Br 8:224 (No. 3229).

90

Chapter 3 all your ideas unless we wish to burden our conscience, which, I have no doubt, you do not demand from us.94

Although Luther mentioned neither the recent Zurich conference nor the Wittenberg Concord, such a letter left little room for further negotiation. Having already received reports about the Zurich conference, Luther appears to have made up his mind that the time for negotiating with the Swiss was over. In kinder terms, he announced this to the Protestant cantons in June. He thanked them for their letter following the Zurich conference but said that he had heard the true story from Bucer and Capito.95 He continued to hold out hope for unity but left no doubt that for such a hope to be realized, the Swiss would have to concede fully to him.96 Bullinger made one final, last-gasp effort toward unity in September 1538. He wrote to Luther, asking that if he had approved of the confession they had sent to him at Schmalkald in February 1537, “how could our faith and belief seem different from yours?”97 Luther never wrote back. Nor would he ever again make any serious effort to unite with the Swiss. The Wittenberg Concord negotiations had run their course in the Swiss Confederation and, in the process, exhausted nearly everyone to the point where no one, not even Bucer himself, had a strong desire to push further for Protestant unity. The Lutherans would go their way, and the Swiss would go theirs.

94

“Haec scribo, ut videas me candore vero sine omni simultate tecum agere. Vos fortasse creditis nos errare. Id commendo dei iuditio. Certe nos etiam non possumus vestra omnia probare, nisi conscientiam vellemus onerare, quod non exigetis a nobis, ut non dubito.” HBBW 8:130 (No. 1126); WA Br 8:224 (No. 3229). 95 “Ich hab Euer Schrift, am vierten Tag des Maiens gegeben, empfangen, darin ich fast gern vernommen, daß Euer aller Herzen zur Concordia bereit, und Euch meine Schrift gefallen hat …. Was aber schriftlich nicht künnt so klar gegeben werden, verstehe ich mich, D. Martin Bucer und D. Capito werden’s alles mündlich besser dargeben ….” WA Br 8:242 (No. 3240), Luther to the Ambassadors of the Reformed Swiss Cantons, [Wittenberg], 27 June 1538. 96 “Denn so viel ich immer vertragen kann, will ich sie für gut halten, bis sie auch herzu kommen. Bitte demnach, Ihr wollet auch, wie angefangen, solchs göttlich Werk helfen vollführen, zum Friede und Einigkeit der christenlichen Kirchen, als ich denn nicht anders spüre, daß Ihr mit allen Freuden und Lust zu tun bereit seid.” WA Br 8:242 (No. 3240). 97 “Conceperamus hic spem certissimam, fore, ut porro voces illae, schismatis inter nos certissimi indices, non exaudirentur. Nam fratres Argentoratenses diserte apud nos testati sunt, confessionem nostram simul et expositionem, quam Basiliae conscipsimus et tibi per Bucerum ad Comitia Schmalkaldica transmisimus, a vobis non improbari. Quod si ita habet, ut omnino habere credimus, profecto non video, quomodo nostra sententia aut fides tibi possit diversa aut aliena videri.” WA Br 8:283 (No. 3256), Bullinger to Luther, [Zurich], 1 September 1538.

3. Zwinglianism and Lutheranism in Bern

91

Despite the ultimate failure of the accord, the negotiations had a number of serious consequences. First, Bucer was never trusted again in the Confederation, yet this has gone largely unnoticed in scholarship. Complicating the story is the central role that Calvin would later play within Reformed Christianity. The fact that Bucer and Bullinger practically became mortal enemies during the course of the Wittenberg Concord negotiations has not been easy to reconcile with Calvin’s friendship with both men, and hence, their enmity has been simply and conveniently forgotten. This has had the unfortunate effect of skewing our understanding of Calvin himself. As I will argue in more detail in chapter six below, a major (or perhaps the major) reason for Calvin’s constantly strained relationship with the Swiss Protestants was his association with the hated Martin Bucer. Bucer’s actions were seen by the Swiss as duplicitous and his theology as hopelessly mired in obscure formulations, clever word play, and intellectual trickery. Anyone who could argue that Luther’s theology of the Eucharist was not substantially different from Zwingli’s simply could not be trusted. Calvin and Farel were at the Zurich conference in May 1538, just after they had been banished from Geneva. Calvin sought to plead his case there and asked Capito and Bucer to help. When Geneva would not take him back, he moved to Strasbourg, further ingratiating himself with Bucer while alienating himself from the Swiss. No place emerged from the fruitless negotiations with more scars and wounds than Bern. The city’s pastors would remain deeply divided for years. The Zwinglians had triumphed in 1528 at the Bern Disputation. The Lutherans made headway in 1532 with Capito’s Berner Synodus. The Zwinglians regained the lead when Kaspar Megander was selected to write the city’s catechism but lost it again when Bucer rewrote it after convincing the council to support the Wittenberg Concord. When efforts toward union with the Lutherans collapsed after the Zurich conference, naturally the pendulum began to swing back toward the Zwinglians, who, as we will see, won an important victory in 1542. By then there was yet another major faction in Bern’s lands: the followers of Calvin in Vaud. The theology and future of Calvinism itself would be forged in Vaud during later conflicts between Calvin’s followers and the Bernese, but we will not understand those developments without first appreciating these earlier struggles between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism in Bern.

Chapter 4 THE CLASH OF THE OLD AND NEW FAITHS Catholicism and the Evangelical Challenge in Vaud, 1528-1536

What Zwingli was for the Swiss Confederation, Guillaume Farel was for the Suisse romande. Yet, while Zwingli’s influence continued to affect the Confederation long after his death, Farel fell under the shadow of another man, John Calvin, during his own lifetime. Farel is usually seen as the forerunner of Calvin, the initiator of the Reformation in Geneva, Neuchâtel, and Vaud. The “forerunner” designation certainly has its merits, but it also obscures the differences between Farel’s aggressive early ministry and mature Calvinism. Farel himself willingly embraced Calvin both as friend and as theological leader of the Reformed movement in Francophone Europe, and in so doing he adjusted his approach and theology to fit Calvin’s. The differences are also obscured because the change in leadership from Farel to Calvin did not occur suddenly with the publication of Calvin’s 1536 Institutes; it was a more subtle and gradual shift, taking place between Calvin’s arrival in Geneva in 1536 and his expulsion from the city, together with Farel, in 1538. By the latter date, the ministry of the Reformed leaders in the Suisse romande differed markedly in both message and tactics from Farel’s early missionary work between 1528 and 1536, which is best characterized as aggressive, deceptive, and often violent. Farel and his colleagues employed such methods because they found little sympathy for the evangelical cause in Vaud. Late medieval Catholicism was alive and well in the region, where the people did not even seem to be aware of the Reformation before the German Peasants’ War of 1525, much less enthusiastic about its central messages. Farel had to fight an uphill battle from the start, and he focused his assault on the very center of late medieval Catholicism: the Mass. Indeed, I have chosen to designate his early approach as sacramentarian rather than Zwinglian, for although, from a theological perspective, one might be justified in labelling Farel a Zwinglian in these

94

Chapter 4

years with regard to theology, the label has the unwarranted and misguiding effect of portraying Farel as the same kind of urbane, humanist, city reformer Zwingli was, when nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of Zwingli’s humanist approach to theology and his politically savvy partnership with the city council, Farel and his associates attacked the Catholic Mass both verbally and physically, casting the sacrament as the greatest abomination of the old faith. The term sacramentarian was originally a polemical designation used to describe those who held a “sacramental” understanding of the Eucharist and, hence, rejected the real presence. This understanding certainly applies to Farel and his associates, and the term captures better than any other the early evangelical movement in the Suisse romande. With the unrelenting assault on the Mass as the common denominator, preaching, printing, and iconoclasm were all bound together in the early 1530s in an attempt to change the minds of people little inclined to abandon the “old faith.”

1.

LATE MEDIEVAL CATHOLICISM IN VAUD

Most scholars who have written about the Reformation in Vaud have tended to portray the late medieval church there as corrupt and badly in need of reform.1 Stemming in part from early twentieth-century confessional history, this view was also a product of available source material. The only published late medieval visitation record of Vaud, for example, focused on problems of concubinage, education, and moral lifestyle among the clergy in the Lausanne diocese.2 The published correspondence from the Reformation era, available primarily in A.-L. Herminjard’s invaluable collection, drew almost exclusively from the evangelical perspective. More recent scholarship and publications have done much to improve our understanding of late medieval Catholicism in Vaud, and indeed throughout Switzerland, especially through the excellent, painstaking work done by the authors and editors of the multi-volume Helvetia Sacra.3 Moreover, the Lausanne visitation records of 1453 (those most immediately preceeding the

1

2

3

E.g., Vuilleumier, 8-21; Oskar Vasella, Reform und Reformation in der Schweiz: Zur Würdigung der Anfänge der Glaubenskrise (Münster in Westfallen: Aschendorff, 1958). La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1416-1417, MDR 2nd ser., 11 (Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1921). P. Rudolf Henggeler and Albert Bruckner, eds., Helvetia Sacra (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1972- ).

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

95

Reformation) were published in 1993.4 These paint a significantly different, more positive picture of the state of the church than did the earlier 1416-17 visitation. This is not to say that late medieval church in Vaud was characterized by an especially deep piety or that its clergy were irreproachable. There were problems, but they were no worse in Vaud than elsewhere in Europe. For example, there were several small but active monasteries in Vaud, neither more corrupt nor more vibrant than monasteries in France. Confraternities played a role in the communities, even if not quite as prominently as did those in Italy. Lay people participated actively in religious life, albeit not with the zeal of the Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life in the Low Countries. Clerics were generally neither illiterate nor especially well-educated. There were complaints about the clergy, but there were not nearly as many “manifestations of discontent” as in Germany.5 In short, late medieval religious life in Vaud was entirely unremarkable. And that seemed to suit the people just fine.

1.1

Episcopal Authority

The bishop of Lausanne, in addition to being an important temporal authority in Vaud, was the spiritual leader for most of the region. There were two exceptions: the bishop of Geneva held spiritual jurisdiction over the western part of the region, including the present-day districts of Aubonne, Rolle, and Nyon, and the bishop of Sion had authority over the district of Aigle in the region of the Four Mandated Territories. The diocese of Lausanne extended well beyond the Pays de Vaud to include all the land within the present-day cantons of Neuchâtel and Fribourg, and parts of canton Bern on the left bank of the Aare River.6 Administratively, the diocese was broken down into nine deaneries (décanats).7 In addition, the Lausanne cathedral chapter assisted in the everyday affairs of the diocese. All of the bishops of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were appointed by the pope. The late medieval bishops of Lausanne were as undistinguished as their flock; they were generally well educated but not

4

Ansgar Wildermann, ed., La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 2 vols., MDR ser. 3, 19-20 (Lausanne: Société d’histoire de la Suisse romande, 1993). 5 See, e.g., Gerald Strauss, Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971). 6 On the diocese of Lausanne, see HS I/4. 7 The deaneries were Lausanne, Avenches, Soleure, Vevey, Neuchâtel, Outre-Venoge, Ogo, Fribourg, and Bern. See Peter Rück, “Die Entstehung der nachreformatorischen dekanalen Jurisdiktion in der Diözese Lausanne,” ZSKG 59 (1965): 297-327.

Chapter 4

96

intellectually outstanding. Among the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century bishops were one doctor, one licenciate, and one bachelor in law, as well as two former law students.8 Most came from noble families, but none was a purely political appointee or an especially powerful figure in his own right, as were, for example, the fifteenth-century bishops of Geneva, all of whom hailed from the House of Savoy. The last two Lausanne bishops before the Reformation, Aymon de Montfalcon (1491-1517) and his nephew Sébastien de Montfalcon (1517-1560), were friends but not kinsmen of the dukes of Savoy. There were no scandals involving simony or nepotism in the selection of the bishops of Lausanne in the late Middle Ages; all appear to have been legitimate selections of the papal curia. None of the bishops kept a concubine, few held more than one episcopal benefice, and most appear to have resided in the diocese during their episcopacies. In other words, few of the most frequent complaints about clerical abuses on the eve of the Reformation applied to the bishops of Lausanne. They were legitimate and competent if unexceptional.9

1.2

The Cathedral Chapter

One of the most frequently misunderstood medieval ecclesiastical bodies is the cathedral chapter. Those who do not specialize in the institutional history of the church may know only that the chapter is somehow associated with the bishop and plays a role in running the diocese. It is important to understand, however, that the canons who comprised the cathedral chapter had specific rights and responsibilities and were in many ways independent from – and often opposed to – the bishop. The cathedral chapter, therefore, constituted an important ecclesiastical authority in its own right. In Lausanne, this body consisted of a maximum of thirty clerics, among them, ideally, ten priests, ten deacons, and ten sub-deacons.10 At the head of the chapter was a provost, who was required to pledge homage to the bishop and promise him that the canons would fulfill their duties to the bishop. In addition to the provost, the chapter also counted a treasurer and a chanter among its officials. The principal duties of the chapter were liturgical and administrative. The canons celebrated masses at the cathedral and participated in various processions and other urban rituals. They directed

8

HS I/4, 36. A significant exception was the notorious Giuliano della Rovere, the future Pope Julius II, who was bishop of Lausanne from 1472-1476 – and also bishop of Catania and Avignon during this period – but who never set foot in the diocese. 10 On the Lausanne cathedral chapter, see HS I/4, 358ff. 9

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

97

construction and repair of cathedral buildings and guarded the cathedral treasure, ornaments, and furniture. Perhaps most significant, the chapter held rights to tithes and to the appointment of priests in several parishes of Vaud.11 Moreover, the chapter held a number of important temporal possessions, including three castellanies (Dommartin, Essertines, and SaintPrex) as well as numerous villages. It was in large part due to the chapter’s wealth and power that the Bernese went so far as to imprison the canons in 1537 while waiting for the collection of their charters.12 The chapter’s wealth and power generated conflicts with the bishop himself. The canons involved themselves in the struggles between the city commune and the bishop, often siding with the former. In the late fourteenth century, the chapter began to pursue independence from the bishop and won complete exemption from episcopal jurisdiction in 1397, a decision that was reaffirmed under Duke Amédée VIII of Savoy in 1453. Chiefly at issue was the right of the bishop to visit parish churches held by the chapter. Such visits were a manifestation of the bishop’s moral and spiritual authority, as well as a means by which he retained significant control over parochial finances. Not only was it often costly for each parish to host the episcopal entourage, but the bishop might conclude as a result of his visit that various improvements or repairs were necessary to preserve the function and dignity of the church. The expense of such projects would be borne by the individual or institution who held the church, in many cases the cathedral canons. In the sixteenth century, the Reformation emerged as an even more dangerous threat to the wealth and power of the chapter, for Protestant authorities usually disbanded the cathedral chapter and seized its goods for themselves. Hence, although the Lausanne chapter was frequently at odds with the bishop, the Bernese posed a much greater risk to its very existence. Because they had so much more to lose than most other clerics in Vaud, the canons were also the most strident opponents of Protestant reform in the region.

11

In the 1453 visitation, the chapter is listed as having the right of presentation in eighteen parishes in Vaud: Chavornay, Corcelles-sur-Chavornay, Daillens, Donneloye, Eclépens, Gressy, Joulens, Lonay, Moudon, Penthalaz, Penthaz, Sugnens, Tolochenaz, Ursins, Vevey, Vidy, Vufflens-le-Château, and Yvonand. Data compiled from Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453. 12 See below, chapter 5, section 3.

Chapter 4

98

1.3

Monasteries

On the eve of the Reformation, there were forty-six active monastic houses in Vaud. Most were very small, housing fewer than ten regulars, and relatively poor. They were also overwhelmingly male. Only three women’s monasteries operated in Vaud: the Poor Clares of Orbe and Vevey and the Cistercians of Bellevaux (just outside Lausanne). Despite their small size, the monasteries were an important presence in the region and, together with the cathedral chapter, offered some of the strongest resistance to the Reformation. Three houses stood out from the others in Vaud as relatively rich and powerful: the Cluniac priories of Romainmôtier and Payerne and the Benedictine priory of Lutry. By far the oldest and most venerable monastic foundation in Vaud was the monastery of Romainmôtier, founded in the middle of the fifth century.13 Originally dependent directly on Rome and later on a Burgundian royal house, the house had been subject to Cluny since the late tenth century. Romainmôtier had accumulated considerable land holdings over the years, both in Vaud and in Burgundy, and it had established priories in several of its territories.14 In 1453, the prior held the right of presentation at three parishes in Vaud.15 In the early sixteenth century, however, Romainmôtier, along with other houses in the region, came under secular rule again when the duke of Savoy received from Pope Julius II rights to income from Romainmôtier as well as the abbey of Lac de Joux. Although the monastery housed nearly thirty monks in the thirteenth century, by the time of the Reformation, only ten to twelve remained.

13

14

15

On Romainmôtier, see HS III/2, 511-65; Jean-Daniel Morerod, ed., Romainmôtier: Histoire de l'abbaye, BHV 120 (Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 2001); the monastery’s twelfth-century cartulary is available in Alexandre Pahud, Le cartulaire de Romainmôtier (XIIe siècle): Introduction et édition critique, Cahiers lausannois d'histoire médiévale 21 (Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1998). On the eve of the Reformation, its dependent priories in Vaud (at Apples, Mollens, Vufflens-la-Ville, Valleorbe, and Bursins) had all shut down. Only Bevaix and Corcelles in canton Neuchâtel, as well as Lay-Damvautier in the Franche-Comté, remained. The parishes were Apples, Colombier, and Mollens. Data gathered from Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453. I should note that the visitation records divide authority over appointing parish priests between the “right of presentation,” or the right to choose the priest, and the “right of institution,” or the right to install the priest in his position. The right of institution frequently, though by no means always, belonged to the bishop, even if he did not possess the right of presentation. For example, of these three parishes, the bishop of Lausanne had the right of institution at Apples and Colombier, but the Prior of Romainmôtier retained that right at Mollens.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

99

The other major Cluniac house in Vaud was the abbey of Payerne.16 Although younger than Romainmôtier by several centuries, Payerne came to be even more powerful than its sister house. A tenth-century foundation, Payerne, like Romainmôtier, was ceded to Cluny thanks to Empress Adelaide, wife of Emperor Otto I. According to the 1453 visitation records, Payerne held the right of presentation at six parishes in Vaud17 in addition to the rights to many tithes, making it one of the wealthiest houses in the region despite enormous debts acquired in the fourteenth century.18 Nevertheless, wars, disease, and poor financial management took their toll on Payerne, and its population of monks dwindled from over twenty in the thirteenth century to only a dozen at the time of the Reformation. The monastery of Payerne was at the forefront of the religious clashes in the early Reformation, for the city of Payerne had signed a treaty of combourgoisie with Bern and Fribourg and was pressured by the Bernese to allow evangelical preaching in the city. The Benedictine priory of Lutry likewise was deeply involved in the early Reformation clashes due to its proximity to Lausanne and its relationships with the city, bishop, and chapter.19 Lutry was donated to the abbey of Savigny-en-Lyonnais in the eleventh century. Although it lacked the venerable royal and imperial ties of Payerne and Romainmôtier, Lutry possessed the right of presentation at nine parishes in Vaud,20 more than any other monastery in the area, and it was one of the largest Vaudois monasteries at the time of the Reformation, with thirteen monks and two novices. The priory of Lutry had an especially close relationship with the town, for the monastery church also served as the town’s parish church. Those ties, together with the fact that the prior, Jean de Montfalcon, was a close relative of the bishop of Lausanne, help to explain why Lutry presented some of the strongest resistance to the Reformation in Vaud. From this brief examination of just three monasteries in Vaud, I would like to highlight three points in particular. First, monasticism was declining in the region. All of these monasteries housed about half the number of monks at the time of the Reformation as they had at their height in the thirteenth century. This trend was not necessarily an indication of moribund spirituality in Vaud; rather, it is probably best explained by the impact on

16

On the abbey of Payerne, see HS III/2, 391-460. For most of the Middle Ages, Payerne was a priory of Cluny; it received the title of abbey in 1444. 17 Baulmes, Corcelles-près-Payerne, Montcherand, Orbe, Payerne, and Pully. Payerne also possessed this right in several parishes in the cantons of Fribourg and Bern. 18 HS III/2, 398. 19 On the priory of Lutry, see HS III/1, 803-31. 20 Belmont-sur-Lausanne, Bioley-Magnoux, Cossonay, Demoret, Saint-Christophe, St.Martin-du-Chêne, Villars-Mendraz, Villette, and Yverdon.

Chapter 4

100

Vaud of the Burgundian Wars, which devastated much monastic land. Second, the regular clergy were by no means isolated from the religious life of the broader community, as seen, for example, in the many parishes where the monasteries held the right of presentation.21 And third, the monasteries were frequently at the forefront of the battle against the Protestant Reformation. Although the houses were not extraordinarily rich, and although the Bernese allowed clerics who “accepted” the Reformation to keep their benefices and prebends, almost all of the lands, tithes, and rights of monasteries would be handed over to the Bernese authorities.22 The monks and nuns, therefore, were more profoundly threatened by the Reformation than were most parish priests. Like the canons of Lausanne’s cathedral chapter, the regular clergy of Vaud stood to lose the lands and privileges that defined and empowered their communities.

1.4

Parish Religiosity

The religious life of the common people was liveliest in Lausanne, the seat of the diocese and the largest city in Vaud. The grands pardons de Notre-Dame de Lausanne were particularly popular; every seven years, pilgrims from the region flocked to the city, seeking the plenary indulgence offered to all who visited the chapel of Notre Dame in the cathedral, confessed their sins, and gave alms.23 In the absence of guilds in Lausanne, the city’s six confraternities were popular.24 The dearth of source material about them, however, makes it nearly impossible to gauge exactly where these confraternities stood on the continuum between social club and spiritual association. For most people in Vaud, the center of religious life was the parish, and in most parishes of Vaud, religious life does not seem to have been extraordinary in any sense. Richard Paquier explains succinctly: “Our fathers acquitted themselves with devotion of all the religious practices prescribed by the church.”25 Overall, late medieval residents of Vaud appear to have been generally happy with their priests and religious life. There were 154

21

Of the 121 parishes in Vaud listed in the 1453 visitation records, 52 (43%) were held by monasteries, 48 (40%) by the bishop, and 18 (15%) by the Lausanne cathedral chapter. Data culled from Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453. 22 See below, chapter 5, section 2. 23 Paquier, Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:187. 24 There were three confraternities of the Holy Spirit, and one each of Ste-Catherine, StNicholas, St-Sebastien, and St-Jacques. Paquier, Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:177. 25 Paquier, Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise, 2:178.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

101

parishes in Vaud on the eve of the Reformation.26 The average population of each parish was about 390 persons, but the size of individual parishes varied greatly. The visitation records are unfortunately not consistent in describing the size of all the parishes, but in 1453, the smallest one mentioned was Treycovagnes, with only 4 households (or about 20 people); the largest was Vevey with 500 households (or about 2,500 people).27 In addition, Lausanne’s population of around 5,000 was served by 6 parishes. Clerical non-residency was an issue in Vaud, as elsewhere in Europe. In the 1453 visitation, 48 of 122 curates (or about 40%) were absent from their parishes.28 The percentage was similar to the rate of non-residency in the diocese of Geneva (43%) around the same time.29 I believe historians have tended to exaggerate the so-called “problem” of non-residency. There seems to be a common misconception that non-residency implied one of two things: either the parish was left completely without a priest, or the vicar who was left in charge was clearly inferior to the appointed curate. In Vaud, at least, neither seems to have been the case. Vicars are named explicitly in most cases (77%), and when their status is given, it is usually as presbiter, or priest.30 Neither the visitors nor the general population appears to have been particularly concerned about either the number or quality of the vicars in place. Misconceptions about non-residency stem partly from the Catholic Church’s own efforts in the sixteenth century to halt it. For example, in

26

For a detailed study of the numbers of parishes and Catholic clergy in Vaud before and after the Lausanne Disputation, see Christine Lyon, “Le sort du clergé vaudois au lendemain de la Réforme,” Mémoire de licence en histoire moderne, University of Lausanne, 1998. The statistics below are culled from the 1453 visitations records of the 121 Vaud parishes in the Lausanne diocese. The remaining parishes lay in the dioceses of Geneva and Sion. 27 The largest of the other parishes listed were Montreux (300 households), Orbe (200 households), Villette (200 households), and Corsier-sur-Vevey (160 households). Figures are not provided for other notable cities of Vaud, such as Moudon, Morges, Yverdon, or, of course, Nyon, which was in the diocese of Geneva. 28 The figure of 31% provided by the editors applies to the entire diocese (Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 1:14). The rate of non-residency in Vaud appears to have been somewhat higher than average because eight of the forty-eight non-resident priests were Lausanne cathedral canons, whereas few canons had benefices in either Fribourg or Bern. 29 Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 1:14. 30 The status of the appointed curate or the vicar is not given in most cases; it is only specified for thirty-six curates (30%) and seventeen vicars (35%). Of those seventeen vicars, fourteen are listed as presbiter, the other three are a Premonstratensian monk, a Canon-regular of Grand-Saint-Bernard, and the curate of Warrens. Data from Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453.

102

Chapter 4

1537, Pope Paul III’s “blue ribbon commission” produced the famous Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, which indicated that [T]he most fundamental abuse in need of reformation is that bishops and priests must not be absent from their churches, but must be resident for they are entrusted with their care. What can be more piteous than deserted churches? Almost all the shepherds have deserted their flocks or abandoned them to hirelings.31 The picture we get in Vaud, however, is not one of churches either “deserted” or “abandoned to hirelings” but of parishes competently served by properly ordained priests, whether the appointed curate or a suitable vicar. Since, the visitors did not address the moral character of the priests, it is impossible to assess the prominence of such issues such as concubinage and and illiteracy. They focused instead on the physical structures and resources of the churches. Common injunctions from the visitors included the requirement to enclose the parish cemetery “so that animals cannot enter into it” and to place a cross at each of its four corners.32 They paid a great deal of attention to the state of the reliquaries and ciboria (vessels holding the consecrated host). The visitors ordered these to be cleaned up and properly decorated and for a “light to shine on the body of Christ day and night.”33 Walls, dirtied by years of smoke from candles, were to be cleaned.34 And each parish was to ensure that it had the proper liturgical books according to Lausanne usage and the books of the Bible.35 This fifteenth-century visitation could be interpreted in either of two ways. One could take the whig historian’s view that the focus on externals reveals the superficiality of late medieval religiosity. No concern was shown by the visitors for the Gospel, morality, or spirituality. Before this view is dismissed out of hand as a relic of older confessionally-driven history, one must remember that this may well have been the position of many nearcontemporary northern humanists such as Erasmus, who likewise lambasted the church for neglecting inner spirituality at the expense of external

31

Denis Janz, ed., A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 347. 32 Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 2:12, 136, 138, 143, 144, 151, etc. 33 Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 2:10, 137, 143, 144, 145, 150, etc. 34 Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 2:245, 502, etc. 35 Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 2:143, 144, etc.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

103

conformity. Nevertheless, a more profitable view is well expressed by Pierette Paravy in the preface to the published visitation records: It is the desire to express a conception of faith exalting the real presence in the transubstantiated host, perceptible in the place reserved for it in the choir of the structure, and as a privileged manifestation of the annual liturgical cycle.… Thus, it is important to note that the most modest parish church, in its structures, in its interior ornament, and in its furniture, is conceived of as a carrier of a message that the liturgy, placed into its service, is called to express.36 In other words, one should not look back disdainfully on the “superficiality” of the ecclesiastical visitors but should instead see it as reflective of the period’s devotion to the true body of Christ as the center of parish life. Indeed, a neat parallel can be drawn between late medieval Catholicism and early Calvinism in Vaud in that both strove to avoid staining or polluting the body of Christ. The difference lay in each faith’s conception of what constituted the body of Christ. For the late medieval Catholic episcopal visitors, the body of Christ was the consecrated host, which was dishonored by insufficient attention paid to its surroundings – a lack of light, a ciborium in poor repair, or general inattention to the condition of the parish holding it. For the Calvinists, the body of Christ became the congregation itself, not the building, yet it too could be polluted by unworthy communicants. As the problem was similar, so was the solution: clean up! For the Catholics, the objects surrounding and in contact with the body of Christ had to be purified. For the Calvinists, the effort had to be made to cleanse the people forming the body of Christ. Consistorial discipline including excommunication replaced episcopal visitations emphasizing spit and polish, but the goal was the same: to preserve the body of Christ from contamination. Although the later Calvinists may well have believed that the entire late medieval Christian community in Vaud was polluted, the people themselves do not seem to have shared that view. When the evangelical movement broke out among the Swiss in the 1520s, very few Vaudois were eager to join in. On the contrary, most were hostile to the “new religion” and wished to live and die in the faith of their forefathers. That the Reformation came to be an issue at all in Vaud was entirely due to Bern’s initial influence on and later conquest of the region.

36

Pierrette Paravy, “Préface,” in Wildermann, La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453, 1:16.

Chapter 4

104

2.

CATHOLIC RESISTANCE BEFORE THE BERNESE CONQUEST, 1525-1535

The Pays de Vaud was ill-prepared to receive the Reformation. Throughout the 1520s, the evangelical movement in Europe was largely confined to German-speaking lands. According to Francis Higman, none of Luther’s writings appeared in French before 1525. By 1530, there were sixteen French editions of his work. 37 This figure may seem substantial enough until one considers that Luther’s first best-seller, the Sermon on Indulgence and Grace, alone saw over twenty German editions from 1518 to 1519.38 Furthermore, most of the sixteen French editions of Luther’s work were printed in Paris or Antwerp; none appeared in the Suisse romande. Nor can neglect of Luther’s writings be explained by a preference for Swiss Reformers; by 1530, no French edition of Zwingli’s work had yet been printed anywhere. There is no mention of Luther or of any problem with heresy in the published records of the Estates of Vaud until 1525, eight years after Luther’s Ninety-five Theses. Because of the Peasants’ War, the Estates issued the following decree as a preventative measure against similar uprisings: The nobles and ambassadors of the bonnes villes … have considered and proposed that close attention must be paid to the wicked, disloyal, false, and heretical allegations and opinions of this accursed, disloyal heretic and enemy of the Christian faith, Martin Luther, which, as is commonly rumored, have caused huge uprisings and abuses of the Christian faith in nearby lands. And wishing to avoid all of these things, and also to uphold the Christian faith, as true Christians ought, by the order and command of my lord the governor and bailiff of Vaud, the Estates have established and ordained, and ordain by these present letters, that no mediate or immediate subject of our most excellent lord [the duke of Savoy], regardless of rank or condition, may possess, buy, or keep any book by the aforementioned Martin Luther, and if any book be found that it be burned.39

37

Higman, Piety and the People, 288-300. Josef Benzing, Lutherbibliographie: Verzeichnis der Gedruckten Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod (Baden-Baden: Librarie Heitz, 1966), 16-19 (Nos. 90-114). 39 “… Messieurs les Nobles et Ambassadeurs des Bonnes Villes … a mis en avant et proposé que l’on dehust avoir regard et advis sur les maulvaises, déléales, faulces et hérétiques allégations et opinions de ce mauldit et déléal hérétique, et ennemy de la foy chrestienne, Martin Leuter, par lesquelles, comme il se dit communément, eis lieux circonvoysins sont 38

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

105

The statute also forbade anyone even to mention Luther in favorable terms, on pain of three days in prison, public whipping, and court costs. Obstinate offenders were to be burned.40 Just one year earlier, the Estates of Vaud had passed a series of decrees that, with respect to religion, indicated punishments only for blasphemy and wise women/cunning men (charmeurs).41 No mention was made of “sects,” “heresy,” or lutheriens. It appears that the Peasants’ War for the first time forced the Estates of Vaud to confront the potential for the Reformation to creep into their territory. The timing and the language of the decree suggest that the Estates’ greatest fear was that the religious movement might instigate a similar social revolution in their lands. After 1525, the Reformation was forever linked to social uprising, a terrifying prospect for rulers and nobles throughout Europe. In areas that had seen no evangelical movement arise before 1525, it was highly unlikely that the Reformation would succeed unless imposed by the ruler. In the French-speaking world, the evangelical movement made early headway chiefly in the Paris region through Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet’s reform circle at Meaux under the patronage of King Francis I’s sister, Marguerite de Navarre.42 In Vaud, a decade into the Reformation, there was no reason to expect that Protestantism would ever take root.

été faits de gros esc[l]andres et abus contre la foy Chrestienne. Et desirant obvier à toutes les choses dessus dite, et aussi pour maintenir la foy Chrestienne, ainsin que vrays Chrestiens doivent faire, par le mandement et commandement de mon dit Sr. le Gouverneur et Baillif de Waud, [les dits Estats] ont statui et ordonné, et ordonnent par ces présentes, – que nulle personne de quelque estat ou condition que ce soit, subjets de nostre très-redoubté Seigneur, tant médiats que immédiats, ne doige avoir, acheter ne garder point de livre fait par le dit Martin Leuter, et si point s’en trouve, que le dit livre soit brûlé.” Herminjard, 1:354-55 (No. 148), the Estates of Vaud to their subjects, Moudon, 23 May 1525; the full text of the decree is printed in Tallone, Parlemento Sabaudo, 13:347-48 (No. 7784). 40 “Item, que nulle personne de quelque estat, degrez ou condicion que ce soit, ne doige parler en manière quelconque du dit Leuter, en le favorisant et maintenant, ou en maintenant et affirmant aulcunes de ses mauldictes et dampnables oppinions et allégations, – et ce sous la peine d’estre griefvement incarceréz trois jours durant, et, au bout de trois jours, de recepvoir trois estrappades de corde publiquement, et doige payer, avant que sortir de prison, les despenses et missions faites adcause de la ditte détention. Et si celui qui auroyt voulsuz soubtenir et maintenir les faulces et décepvables oppinions devant dictes, en tout en partie, après avoir recephu les dictes estrapades, si veult estre indurcy et obstiné, qu’il doige estre brûlé, comme faulx et déléal hérétique, avec son livre, si point en avoyt.” Herminjard, 1:355-56. 41 Tallone, Parlemento Sabaudo, 13:337-40 (No. 7772), Moudon, 20 May 1524. 42 For a general treatment of the early Reformation in France, see Denis Crouzet, La Genèse de la Réforme française 1520-1562, Regards sur l’histoire: Histoire moderne (Paris: Sedes, 1996), chapters 1 and 2. A still useful short survey of the French Reformation is Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987). For a more detailed study of Marguerite and her evangelical network, see Reid, “King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent.”

106

Chapter 4

The situation changed in 1526 when Guillaume Farel arrived in Aigle,43 the principal town of Bern’s Four Mandated Territories.44 Together with the other three (Ollon, Bex, and Ormont), Aigle was governed by Bern’s resident bailiff. Although no supporter of the “new religion,” the bailiff reluctantly granted Farel license to open a school for children and to preach, as long as he preached the “pure Word of God” and said nothing against the Catholic sacraments. Farel met with a chilly reception from the people. In June 1527, the syndics of Aigle, Ollon, and Bex asked Bern to remove Farel from their midst.45 The Bernese – at this point still officially Catholic but with a definite evangelical majority in the council – responded by ordering their officers to “see to it that he preaches the Word of God in public assemblies without any obstacle.”46 It was a request that they would have to make repeatedly over the years to the various towns visited by Farel and his companions. The outcome of the 1528 Bern Disputation put considerable pressure on the Four Mandated Territories to accept the Reformation. Farel was charged with translating into French the announcement of the disputation and the articles to be debated, and he attended the disputation in January. Since it was held in German, Farel may not have understood a word of the debate itself, but he surely received reports in Latin from his friends Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, and Zwingli. On his return to Aigle in February, both he and the decision of the disputation itself met with fierce resistence from the citizens.47 Once again, Bern had to order its officers to

43

On Farel’s ministry in Aigle, see Guillaume Farel, 173-78; Vuilleumier, 35-52. See above, chapter 2, section 1.3. 45 “Parmi eux se font surtout remarquer les trois Syndics, qui, ne tenant aucun compte des ordres de leurs supérieurs et des lois du pays, sollicitent de ceux qu’on appelle les jurés du Gouverneur mon renvoi et l’interdiction de me laisser prêcher.” Herminjard, 2:25 (No. 198), Farel to the Bern city council, Aigle, [end of June 1527]. 46 “Ob id vobis omnibus et singulis, praecipue hiis mandamus, ut illum in publicis concionibus Verbum dominicum praedicare sinatis, absque omni obstaculo ….” Herminjard, 2:29 (No. 199), Bern city council to Jacques de Rovéréa, Bern, 3 July 1527. 47 “… [nous] avons par rumeur entenduz, à celluy nostre mandement non estre sattisfaict, de quoy avons très-hault regrect, principalement que summes adverty[s] que le dict prêcheur [Farel] par aulcuns des nostres en Alie est esté receuz en dérision, et, que plus est, nostre mandement mesprisé et déshonoré, et daventaige, que aulcuns de noz sujectz d’Alie, lesquelx par cy-devant et présentement soy sont oposé contre nous et [contre le] faict de la vray foy christiène [sic], en faissant secrètes assemblées, conseil et machinations contre nous, servantes à tumulte, et aussy soy monstre[nt] désobéissant à nous, en détourbant le simple peuple par dolz et menasses.” Herminjard, 2:105-06 (No. 220), Bern city council to Felix de Diesbach, Bern, 14 February 1528. 44

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

107

“to keep [Farel] safe and well guarded, so that he is not harmed in any way by word or deed” and to ensure that its mandates were enforced.48 Bern did not force all of its territories to abolish the Mass immediately, but the preaching of the Gospel was to be allowed without restriction. The Mass could, however, be abolished in parishes where a majority voted for the Reformation. The towns of Aigle, Bex, and Ollon did just that in March – under the watchful eye of Bern’s ambassadors. Considering the loud opposition that had greeted Farel on his return from Bern just one month earlier, one has to wonder whether the people were truly voting their consciences. Indeed, the official vote to abolish the Mass did not wipe out popular opposition to the new religion. For one thing, the nearby parishes of Ormont, Noville, and Chessel voted in spite of Bern to keep the Mass. The Bernese allowed them to continue in the Catholic faith but only until Pentecost (31 May 1528). Moreover, Farel continued to be harassed in the newly “Protestant” towns. Less than a month after the vote in Ollon, Farel was attacked by a group of dissenters.49 Not long afterwards, trouble erupted once again in Aigle when the Catholic opposition spoke out against the removal of images and the breaking of altars in the churches and began “to harass and upset those who want to live like us [evangelicals].”50 In Bex, the castellan refused to allow a minister chosen by Farel to preach, appointing instead a Catholic priest.51

48

“A ceste cause à toy très à certes comandons le dit prêcheur tenir en seurté et bonne guarde, que ne luy soyt faict oultraige quelconque de faict ne de parolles.… Sur ce est nostre vouloir, que au mandement que à luy puis naguère avons donné soyt valide et celluy exéquuté, aussy le présent, et que nully soyt si présumptueulx de faire allencontre, ne permectre de faire, soubz peina de nostre male grâce et indignation.” Herminjard, 2:107 (No. 220). 49 “Pour biens que par cy-devant plusieurs foys avons envoyé mandement, à cause de maistre Guillaume Farel, de le tenir et conserver en seurté, et le laissé prêcher la Parolle de Dieu sans obstacle quelconque, ce non obstant summes advertis des aultraiges et violences que Guillaume Jajod et certains hommes et femmes d’Olon ont faict au dict Farel, de quoy summes très-déplaisant.” Herminjard, 2:125 (No. 229), Bern city council to Felix de Diesbach, Bern, 3 April 1528. 50 “Nous summes certainement advertis, comme certains hommes et femmes, nous soubgectz de nostre jurisdiction d’Alie, tousjours fravaileusement [read: impudemment] parlent et de faict soy monstrent contre nous, à cause qu’avons ousté les idoles et abbatus les aultés, et toutellement ambrassé la Parolle de Dieu et sainct Évangiles. Et davantaige, que molestent et fâchent iceulx que veulent vivre comme nous.” Herminjard, 2:129, (No. 251), Bern city council to Felix de Diesbach, Bern, 25 April 1528. 51 “… nous summes adverti comme le chastellain de Bex est fait inhibition au prescheur que maistre Guillaume Farel az envoyé à Bex, de non prescher, – de quoy nous mervillions, veuz qu’avons expressément donné charge et commission au dict Farel de créé et ordonné

108

Chapter 4

A further problem in squelching opposition to the Reformed faith in the Four Mandated Territories was that Bern’s two main officers there, Jean de Rovéréa and Felix de Diesbach, were not entirely sympathetic to their superiors’ decision to adopt the Reformation. In order to rectify this situation and bring order to the region, Bern’s council appointed the ardent evangelical Hans-Rudolf Nägeli to take over Rovéréa’s position as governor of the region.52 On the same date, 27 May 1528, Bern wrote to Ormont, ordering the parish to abolish the Mass, but the people completely ignored the demand. To deal with the rebels, the Bernese ordered representatives from the other towns in the region together with Nägeli to “go to Ormont and advise them to consider carefully what might happen to them because of their rebellion and disobedience, and to conform to us and to you by taking the oath to obey us in all matters without any reservation whatsoever.”53 The issue at stake here was not so much the citizens’ insistence on retaining the Mass but their refusal to swear the oath of obedience, for the Bernese backed off from their earlier demand and allowed that “if they do not want to abolish the Mass at the moment, they must at least allow the Holy Word of God to be preached until God enlightens them by his grace.”54

prescheurs idonées en nous quatres mandemens d’Alie, pour publié la Parolle de Dieuz. Davantaige, entendons que Columbi est constituy prescheur à Bex, luy non estant souffisant, ne conforme à nostre mandement et X articles.” Herminjard, 2:135-36 (No. 234), Bern city council to [lieutenants in Aigle], Bern, 15 May 1528. 52 “Et pour ce que puissons tenir les dicts nous soubgectz en deuë obéissance et leur administrer bonne et brieffve justice, avons créé ung aultre noveau Gouverneur, assavoir nostre Conseillieur Hanns Rüdollff Nägeli, lequel commencera l’administration sur le jour Sainct Jaque[s] prochain.” Herminjard, 2:142 (No. 238), Bern city council to Jean de Bex, Bern, 27 May 1528. The Nägeli family was one of the most important patrician families of Bern. Hans-Rudolf later served as the first bailiff of Thonon and had the same name as his father, who died in 1522. His brother Sebastian became the first bailiff of Lausanne, and their brother Hans-Franz led the 1536 conquest of Vaud and served as Bern’s bürgermeister from 1540-1568. Rovéréa, by contrast, came from a noble Savoyard family. See Marcel Godet, et al., eds., Dictionnaire historique et biographique de la Suisse, 7 vols. (Neuchâtel: Administration du Dictionnaire historique et biographique de la Suisse, 1921-1933), 5:73-75 (Nägeli) and 580 (Rovéréa). 53 “Touchant ceulx d’Ormont que soy sont monstré rebelles, est noustre vouloir que vous elissés certains honestes personnaiges entre vous, lesquelx, ensemble nostre moderne Gouverneur, soy transpourtent en Ormont, et les admonestoint de bien considérer la chose que leur pourroit advenir, à cause de la dicte rebellion et désobéissance, et ainsy les admonester de soy fayres conformes à nous et à vous, faisant le sérment de nous obéir en tout et partout, sans réservation que soit.” Herminjard, 2:147 (No. 242), Bern city council to the communes of Aigle, Bex, and Ollon, Bern, 17 July 1528. 54 “Toutteffois, sy ne veulent laisser la messe pour le présent, que ausmoings y souffrent que la Saincte Parolle de Dieu leur soit prégée jusque atant que Dieu par sa grâce les illuminez.” Herminjard, 2:147 (No. 242).

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

109

The situation in Ormont illustrates the Bernese magistrates’ complex attitude toward their subjects in the early days of the Reformation. First and foremost, they demanded the oath of obedience. This was particularly important in the Mandated Territories whose former overlord, the Catholic duke of Savoy, controlled the Chablais, just across the Rhône, and neighboring Vaud, whereas Bern was 100 kilometers from Aigle. With the Peasants’ War still fresh in memory, the possibility of a similar uprising so far away would have been a real threat to Bern, whose troops at this time, just before the first War of Kappel, were concentrated much farther north against the threat of attack from the inner cantons. At the same time, these very threats were probably part of the reason why Bern was reluctant to force the Reformation upon them. By allowing their subjects a degree of independence in the decision-making process, the Bernese effectively cut off the possibility of organized, territory-wide Catholic resistance under Savoyard protection. Finally, Bern seems to have been operating under the assumption that if the people would only listen to Farel and his fellow preachers, they would understand the Gospel and would willingly abandon the “superstitions” of the Catholic Church. Bern’s most frequently repeated demand throughout 1527 and 1528 was simply that Farel be allowed to preach freely and publicly. When Ormont refused to abolish the Mass, for example, Bern accepted their decision as long as they allowed Protestant ministers to preach “until God enlightens them by his grace.”55 Bern’s willingness to await God’s grace, however, was evidently limited. By December 1528, when Ormont still had not abolished the Mass, the Bernese gave the direct order to accept the Gospel and abandon Catholic ceremonies.56 This time the people of Ormont sent a favorable response,57 but it appears to have been insincere, intended only to get Bern off their backs. Six months later – more than a year after Bern first demanded that Ormont abolish the Mass – the town’s Protestant minister complained to Farel that his sermons were being purposely drowned out by bell-ringing and that death threats were being made against the person who had recently destroyed the altar.58 These events in Ormont show just how resistant to 55

See above, n.54. “A ceste cause vous rescripvons ces présentes, vous mandans et commandans que vous [vous] faissiés conformes à nous et tous aultres nous soubgectz, en acceptant l’Évangile et délaissant les cérimonies des hommes que n’ont point de fundement en la saincte Escripture, ains controuvées pour accomplir l’avarice des prestres, à grande perdition des âmes.” Herminjard, 2:158 (No. 249), Bern city council to the parishioners of Ormont, Bern, 5 December 1528. 57 Herminjard, 2:159, n.3. 58 “Claudius frater noster die Jovis habuit concionem coram populo, quae, meo iuditio et aliorum piorum, digna fuit auditu; sed Sathan, qui semper nititur vineam Domini sabbaoth ac eius sepes dissipare, per eius servos voluit aures auditorum sono cimbali implere. Heri etiam, antequam explevissem concionem, etiam similiter operatus est per unum illorum qui semper, a die quo coepi hic concionari, Verbo restiterunt.… Altaria Baal, sive Antichristi, noviter fere destructa sunt, sicuti ab horum latore audies, de quo fuit maximus populi murmur. Minabantur enim aliqui mortem illi qui hoc ausus est attentare ….” Herminjard, 2:181-82 (No. 258), Jacques Camrol to Farel, Ormont, 28 June 1529. 56

110

Chapter 4

Protestantism many people were in Vaud, to the point of defying the most powerful canton in the Swiss Confederation. Bern ultimately won, of course, and forced an unwilling populace to abolish the Mass. With the Four Mandated Territories at least nominally Protestant, Bern sought to introduce its other allies and subjects to the Reformed religion. Although we cannot overlook the possibility that certain evangelically minded Bernese magistrates had a bonafide, unselfish desire to spread the Gospel, we likewise cannot ignore the political motivations behind their actions. The most important of these was their rivalry with Catholic Fribourg. In contrast to Bern’s Four Mandated Territories, all of the common lordships in Vaud were jointly controlled by Bern and Fribourg. Moreover, all of the French-speaking towns that had treaties of combourgeoisie with Bern – such as Geneva and Lausanne – also had such agreements with Fribourg. Although Bern and Fribourg were allies themselves and generally on good terms, Bern’s decision to turn Protestant brought a new dynamic to its relationship with both Fribourg and their common subjects. The Bernese must have been aware that their turn away from the old faith naturally gave Catholic Fribourg the upper hand in the relationships with the common lordships and the combourgeois, which all remained Catholic as well. At least part of Bern’s interest in sending Farel to the common lordships and to its allies stemmed from a desire to help tilt the scales back in its favor. The Bernese could ill afford to allow Fribourg, solely by virtue of religious differences, to dominate the pays romands, especially since they themselves still had designs on taking the region for themselves. This helps to explain the swiftness with which Bern dispatched Farel to the common lordships, almost as soon as the Four Mandated Territories were nominally Protestant. The need to transfer Farel to the other contested areas outweighed the desire to see through to a definitive conclusion the establishment and smooth operation of the church in and around Aigle. Bern’s modus operandi with respect to religion in this period was to plant the Gospel, start an evangelical community, and then move on to the next place as quickly as possible.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

111

Between 1530 and 1533, therefore, Farel was almost constantly on the move,59 and everywhere he went, he ran into fierce opposition from Catholics who viewed him not as a preacher of the Gospel but as a serious threat to their very way of life. Of 154 parishes in the Pays de Vaud before 1536, I have found evidence for the existence of evangelical communities in only 12.60 Of these, only the Four Mandated Territories, Fiez, and Yvonand abolished the Mass before 1536. The other 149 parishes in Vaud remained staunchly Catholic. Vaud was not a region where either widespread anticlerical attitudes or humanist learning had created fertile soil for “planting the Gospel.” The Catholic roots in the region were still strong, and from the reformers’ perspective, only a slash-and-burn strategy would allow the seeds of the Gospel to flourish.

3.

“THE HUGE, HORRIBLE, AND UNBEARABLE ABUSES OF THE PAPAL MASS”

I have taken the title for this section from the famous placards posted in Paris in October 1534. This will not be a discussion of the affaire des placards, but the title – and indeed the action of posting the placards – perfectly expresses the attitude of Farel and his fellow sacramentarians and accounts for their heavy-handed approach. From the outset, Farel pulled no punches in pummeling what he saw as the greatest evil ever to creep into Christendom: the Catholic Mass. Nearly as bad were those supporters and defenders of this “heinous idol,” the Catholic priests themselves. Farel was not the first to attack the Mass; all of the Protestant reformers singled out the Mass as a particularly egregious example of the Catholic Church’s alleged renunciation of the Gospel of Christ. Their attack stemmed from two concerns. First, they rejected the “idolatry” encouraged by the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, the reformers argued, led the people to worship a “bread God” (dieu de pâte) rather than the risen Lord. The Son of God could not possibly be enclosed in a bit of bread but is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Second, they pointed to the “denial of Christ” inherent in the Catholic understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice, arguing that this effectively renounced the original sacrifice Christ had made on the

59 60

See Guillaume Farel, 191-297. The Four Mandated Territories (4), the common lordship main parishes of Orbe and Grandson (2), Yvonand, Provence, and Fiez – all parishes within the common lordship of Grandson (3), and Avenches, Payerne, and Lausanne, each of which had treaties of combourgeoisie with Bern (3).

112

Chapter 4

cross once and for all. It was, they charged, a meritorious “good work” that annulled the work Christ had already done for humankind. We must also acknowledge the practical, political factors that motivated the reformers to oppose the Mass so strenuously. In particular, the Swiss system established by the first Kappel Peace Treaty, whereby parishes in the common lordships could vote in the plus to abolish the Mass made reform a local, political issue.61 This must be understood as one of the most important influences driving early sacramentarians such as Farel, Viret, and Antoine Marcourt. Only the votes of the male heads-of-household in Vaud against the Mass could allow the Reformed culture of the Gospel to replace the Catholic culture of the Mass. In the contested common lordships, one was not so much either “Protestant” or “Catholic”; instead, one stood (quite literally when the vote was taken) on the side of either the Mass or the Gospel, and the results could alter the entire religious identity of the parish. Hence, the abolition of the Mass was not merely one aspect of a shift towards Protestantism; it was the prerequisite for instituting a complete reform of religious culture and doctrine along evangelical lines. The sacramentarians recognized this fact and used all the weapons at their disposal, especially preaching, printing, and iconoclasm, to go straight for the jugular of the medieval church.

3.1

“Villains, Murderers, Thieves, Renouncers of Christ’s Passion!” Polemic against the Priests

In September 1530, Farel went on the offensive in Neuchâtel with a mini “Affair of the Placards,” which may have inspired Antoine Marcourt in the famous 1534 Paris Affair.62 He posted his placards on the street corners, accusing “all those who say the Mass of being villains, murderers, thieves, renouncers of Jesus Christ’s passion and seducers of the people.”63 The

61

See above, chapter 2, section 1.3. Regarding the influence of Farel’s placards on Marcourt, Arthur Piaget remarks, “Marcourt eut le tort sans doute de croire que ce qui s’était passé à Neuchâtel pouvait se faire ailleurs avec la même impunité et le même succès.” Arthur Piaget, ed., Les Actes de la Dispute de Lausanne 1536, publiés intégralement d’après le manuscrit de Berne, Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel 6 (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1928), xxii. Gabrielle Berthoud is less inclined to make the connection: “Exemple qui, d’après A. Piaget aurait influencé Marcourt; mais il n’avait pas, je crois, besoin de ce modèle.” Gabrielle Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt: Réformateur et Pamphlétaire du ‘Livre des Marchans’ aux Placards de 1534, THR 129 (Geneva: Droz, 1973), 178, n.78. 63 “… tous ceux qui disent la Messe d’être méchants, meurtriers, larrons, renieurs de la passion de Jésus-Christ et séducteurs du peuple.” Quoted in Guillaume Farel, 222. 62

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

113

Catholic clergy in town sued Farel for libel (atteinte d’honneur), which gave him the opportunity to explain his views more fully in a document he prepared for court entitled Reprimands on the state of the pope, which contained seven articles attacking the Catholic Church.64 He repeats his accusation that “every priest who says the Mass renounces the suffering and death of Jesus Christ and is a robber and murderer” (Article 3), and in the following article he broadens this denunciation to include the laity: “Everyone who hears the Mass, understanding and consenting to what the priest says, renounces the suffering and death of Jesus Christ” (Article 4).65 Farel leaves even the laity no excuse (except ignorance) for continuing to attend the Mass. Because of the plus voting system in the common lordships, the reformers needed everyone possible to make a public declaration against the Mass. By announcing to the people that they were renouncing Christ’s death by continuing to attend the Mass, Farel was letting them know that it was by no means acceptable to embrace the Gospel with their hearts and idols with their hands. In town after town, Farel and his associates railed against the “murderous priests” they thought guilty of killing souls with their false promises of meritorious masses.

3.2

Polemic and Deception: The Use of the Printing Press

The reformers soon turned to the printing press, and there, too, the message was directed more often than not against the Mass. One of their first treatises, De la tressaincte Cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus, probably written by Farel and Viret, set the tone for future attacks: Oh my God! Have we all been so deceived and blinded that we have not seen such a clear and evident blasphemy? And you wicked priests, have you not thought at all about this? Is the authority of the pope so great to

64

65

Guillaume Farel, Aulcunes remonstrances prêchées par Guillaume Farel de l’estat du pape, affin que ceulx qui par ignorance ont estez abusez retournent à purté évangélique, délaissant leurs iniquités et Dieu leur sera propice, in “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel et sur la Réformation dans le Comté de Neuchâtel,” ed. Arthur Piaget, Musée Neuchâtelois (1897): 100-01. “III. Tout prestre disant messe renunce la mort et passion de Jhesucrist et est larron et murtrier. IV. Tout homme oyant la messe sachant et consentant ad ce que le prestre dit renunce la mort et passion de Jhesucrist.” Farel, Aulcunes remonstrances, 100. As for the legal case, on 24 September 1530, the Neuchâtel judges, not wishing to alienate either Bern or the city’s clergy, referred it to the higher court in Besançon, which deemed the matter too serious and, in turn, referred it to either the emperor or a general council, neither of which ever considered it. Guillaume Farel, 223.

114

Chapter 4

you that you cannot understand that this is contrary to God? Do you not see that in offering the Mass, which is done for the redemption of souls, that you plainly renounce the suffering and death of Jesus …? Do you not renounce Jesus, denying that he is the perfect and entire savior, since you trust in something else for salvation? Therefore the Mass should not be called a “sacrifice of praise” but the “abyss of wickedness,” the “sea of outrages and blasphemies of God’s name.”66 The authors had to go to Basel to find a printer for this work, but the reformers’ printing campaign was soon greatly facilitated by the arrival of the French printer, Pierre de Vingle.67 After a brief stay in Geneva, Vingle established his press in Protestant Neuchâtel, where he worked together with the reformers to produce, among other things,68 Pierre Olivétan’s French Bible, translated from the Hebrew and Greek and containing an early preface by Calvin; the Articles veritables sur les horribles, grandz et importables abuz de la Messe papalle, made famous in the 1534 Paris affaire des placards; and several other scathing polemical treatises, many of them directed against the Mass, and many of them composed by Farel’s associate Antoine Marcourt.69 In addition to penning the placards, Marcourt composed the Petit traicté tres utile et salutaire de la saincte eucharistie de nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist, the work involved in the “second affair of the

66

“Ha mon Dieu! avons nous esté tous si abusez et si aveuglez que une blaspheme si tresevidente et si tresclaire on n’aye veu? Et malheureux prestres, ne avez vous sceu penser une foys sur cecy? L’autorité du pape vous a elle esté si grande que ne peussiez entendre cecy estre contre Dieu? Ne veoit on pas qu’en offrant la Messe, et ce qui est faict pour la redemption des ames, qu’on renunce tout plainement la mort et passion de Jesus, et qu’on la tient pour inefficace et sans valeur, puis qu’on cherche autre chose? N’est aussy Jesus renuncé, et dit n’estre pas parfaict et entier sauveur, puis qu’on prent autre chose pour avoir salut? Pourtant fault appeller la messe, non pas ‘Sacrifice de louenge,’ mais ‘Abysme de vitupere,’ ‘Mer d’outraiges et de blasphemes du nom de Dieu’: et est ung tresgrand miracle comment tout ne parfonde, quant on ne diroit que une seule messe par tout le monde.” [Guillaume Farel? and Pierre Viret?], De La Tressaincte Cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus: Et De La Messe quon chante communement ([Basel]: [Thomas Wolff], [1532]), text and analysis in Francis Higman, “Les débuts de la polémique contre la messe: De la tressaincte cene de nostre seigneur et de la messe qu’on chante communement,” in Le Livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel (Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987), 35-92; here, 72-73; reprinted in Higman, Lire et décourvrir, 233-88. 67 On Vingle, see E. Droz, “Pierre de Vingle, l’imprimeur de Farel,” in Gabrielle Berthoud, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, THR 28 (Geneva: Droz, 1957), 38-78. 68 For a list of the works published by Vingle in Neuchâtel, see Higman, Piety and the People, 481-82. 69 On Marcourt, see Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

115

placards.”70 On 13 January 1535, nearly three months after the initial posting of the placards in and around Paris, “despicable books repeating the blasphemies and heresies mentioned above were found at the château of the Louvre and around the city.”71 This affair seems to have raised the ire of King Francis I even more than the October event; he called the great procession of 21 January 1535 in response to this second affront to the honor of the Mass.72 Shortly after the publication of Marcourt’s Petit traicté, an expanded version of the treatise appeared under the title Declaration de la Messe.73 This revised edition contained a prefatory letter and an epilogue written by the pseudonymous “Cephas Geranius.”74 The bulk of Geranius’ critique is leveled against Nicodemite priests, whom he challenges to follow their beliefs and abandon their benefices: And above all, you scoundrel who completely understands the truth, how dare you procure, hold, and retain benefices that should justly be called benefices proceeding from this filthy, vile, and abominable source of Rome? You know that these are the goods of anathema, more horrible than those of conquered Jericho. You know very well that in accepting bishoprics, abbeys, parishes, and canonries, you consent to all the abominations against God’s honor that take place daily in those places. What excuse can you make before God and men, seeing as you know by the Word of God that these are nothing but abuses?75

70

[Antoine Marcourt], Petit traicte tres utile et salutaire de la saincte eucharistie de nostre Seigneur Jesuschrist ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1534). This treatise, moreover, identifies Marcourt as the author of the placards. 71 “[Au] chasteau du Louvre [le] 13e jour de janvier … et sur le matin furent trouvez et par la ville, livres infames, reiteratifz des blasphemes et heresies susditz.” Nicole Gilles, Annales, cited in Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, 187. 72 See Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, 189-99. 73 [Antoine Marcourt] [and Pierre Viret?], Declaration de la Messe, le fruict dicelle, la cause et le moyen pourquoy et comment on la doibt maintenir ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], [1534]). On the dating of the text and its relationship with the Petit traicté, see Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, 223-27. 74 “Geranius” may well have been Pierre Viret. See Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, xii-xviii; Robert Hari, “Les Placards de 1534,” in Berthoud, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 79-142; here, 133-38. Gabrielle Berthoud prefers to leave the question open, saying there simply is not enough evidence to name Viret as the author. Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, 244-51. 75 “Et encore sur tout toy miserable qui as entiere intelligence de verite, comme ose tu procurer, prendre, et retenir les benefices que justement on debvroit nommer benefices procedans de ceste orde, villaine, et abominable source de Rome? Tu scais que ce sont biens de anathema plus horrible que celuy de Hierico, conquis. Tu ne ignore point en

116

Chapter 4

Drawing on the tradition of the cura animarum, whereby the priest is held responsible for the fate of the souls in his care, “Geranius” explains why the priest must abandon the idolatrous Mass: “Not only do you commit idolatry, but you turn others into idolaters, serving an idol, when you say by words or deeds about a bit of bread, ‘Here is your God, your savior who redeemed you.’”76 The priest must either flee “Babylon” or stay to try to bring about change by preaching the Word of God. Three years before Calvin’s first anti-Nicodemite writing, De fugiendis impiorum illicitis sacris,77 and ten years before his more famous Excuse à Messieurs les Nicodemites,78 “Geranius” presents the same fundamental objections to Nicodemism that Calvin would later adopt; similarly, just as Calvin would do later on, he demands that clerics renounce their benefices and follow one of only two possible courses: flee, or stay and fight against idolatry by means of the Word of God. It is impossible to say whether anyone was convinced by these arguments to join the evangelical cause, but it was not for lack of trying on the reformers’ part. One of the tactics they used was to adopt deceptive titles that sounded neutral or Catholic but contained vicious attacks on the Mass and the established church: The Book of Merchants;79 A Very Useful and Salutary Short Treatise on the Holy Eucharist of our Lord Jesus Christ;80 A Declaration of the Mass, its Fruit, and the Reason Why and Means How it Should Be Maintained;81 The Confession and Account of Faith of Master Noël Beda, Doctor in Theology and Syndic of the Holy University in Paris,

recevant Evesche, Abbaye, Cure, Chanoinerie, que tu consens a toutes les abominations qui se sont journellement esdictz lieux contre lhonneur de Dieu. Quelle excusation peulx tu pretendre devant dieu, et devant les hommes, veu que tu scais par la parolle de dieu que ce ne sont que abuz?” Marcourt and Viret, Declaration de la Messe, F3rq-F3vq. 76 “Car comme aveugle et conducteur des aveugles, mettant offense et scandale devant ton prochain, tu ne idolatre pas tant seulement, mais fays les autres idolatrer, servant a lidole, quand tu dis par parolles ou faictz dung peu de pain: Voicy ton dieu, ton sauveur qui ta rachete.” Marcourt and Viret, Declaration de la Messe, F4rq-F4vq. 77 Published together with De sacerdotio papale in Epistolae duae de rebus hoc saeculo cognitu necessariis (1537), text in OS I:288-328; CO 5:233-78; Calvin-Studienausgabe, 1.2:274-304. 78 CO 6:589-614; Calvin-Studienausgabe 3:222-64; Francis M. Higman, ed., Three French Treatises (London: Athlone Press, 1970), 131-51. 79 Antoine Marcourt, Le livre des marchans, fort utile a toutes gens nouvellement compose par le sire Pantopole, bien expert en tel affaire, prochain voysin du seigneur Pantagruel ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1533). 80 Marcourt, Petit traicté. 81 Marcourt and Viret, Declaration de la Messe.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

117

Sent to the Most Christian King of France, Francis I.82 All of these works were sharply polemical and clearly supported the sacramentarian position. The Declaration de la Messe, for example, tried to show why the Mass should be abolished, not, as the title indicates, “its fruit and why it should be maintained.” And the Sorbonne’s arch-enemy of all things heterodox, Noël Beda, certainly had nothing to do with the very heretical book bearing his name. The printer Vingle himself took part in the deceit, placing a false name and address on the title page of the Confession of Beda: “Printed in Paris by Pierre de la Vignolle, residing on the Rue de la Sorbonne.”83 The purpose of the deceptive titles and addresses was both to bypass potential censors and to put the books into the hands of unwitting Catholic booksellers and readers who might then be convinced by the reformers’ arguments.84 The sacramentarians’ early printing campaign can thus be characterized as one of deception and confrontation. The fraudulent titles and printer’s marks of the works, together with the impersonation of Catholic authors, constituted an unabashedly deceitful attempt to lure Catholics into buying the books. Anyone tricked by this ruse would then be confronted with a highly charged polemic against the Catholic Church and particularly the Mass. Marcourt’s placards summed it up: the papal Mass was an unbearable abuse and an intolerable idol that had to be destroyed; its renunciation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross had led thousands of souls to eternal damnation, and anyone who continued to attend it would share their fate.

3.3

Icono- and “Altaro”- clasm

The sacramentarians did not hesitate to match their words with deeds in the form of iconoclasm. Their iconoclasm differed markedly from earlier image removal in German-speaking Protestant lands. In areas influenced by Zwingli, image removal was usually carried out immediately after the city council’s decision to adopt the Reformation.85 I use the phrase image

82

83

84

85

La confession et raison de la foy de maistre Noel Beda Docteur en theologie et Sindique de la sacree universite a Paris: envoyee au treschrestien Roy de france, Francoys premier de ce nom ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1533). For a detailed study of the authorship of this work, see Gabrielle Berthoud, “La ‘Confession’ de Maitre Noël Beda et le problème de son autheur,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 29 (1967): 373397. “Imprime a Paris par Pierre de la Vignolle, demourant en la rue de la Sorbonne.” La confession de Beda, A1vq. See Gabrielle Berthoud, “Livres pseudo-Catholiques de contenu Protestant,” in idem, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 143-54. Most Lutherans, by contrast, left images alone in the churches. Luther thought with Gregory the Great that images were the “books of the illiterate” and could be tolerated in the churches as long as they were not worshiped.

118

Chapter 4

removal rather than iconoclasm, for in most cases, the “purification” of the churches took place in an orderly fashion, under the close supervision of the city councils, which would then either return items of value to the original donors or sell them to Catholic lands for a profit.86 In contrast to this organized activity, the destruction of images in the Suisse romande was usually carried out illegally and sometimes covertly by a single individual or a very small group of people who were in the religious minority. It was, in effect, a kind of “evangelical terrorism,” a means of violently upsetting the religious status quo in a way that could not be ignored by the Catholic majority. Regardless of the usually negative initial reaction of the people, these subversive acts forced the people to confront the reformers’ opposition to images and the alleged idolatry that they fostered. These physical assaults on the symbols of the Catholic Church once again highlight the aggressive, confrontational tactics of the sacramentarians. Although the early iconoclasm in Vaud is well documented in the published sources, no one has yet attempted to analyze it in detail. Although I cannot provide here the complete analysis that the subject deserves, I would like to examine it briefly and make some preliminary observations. At least at first, many acts of iconoclasm were covert and carried out anonymously under cover of night. I alluded to one such instance above, when the altar in Ormont was destroyed: “The altar of Baal, or Antichrist, was nearly destroyed recently … which caused the greatest grumbling (maximus murmur) of the people. Some threatened to kill the one who dared to do such a thing.”87 The perpetrator appears to have been unknown; no one claimed responsibility, but it would have been obvious that it had been an evangelical. The “grumbling” of the people indicates that the action did, in fact, get people talking, and their outrage over the event reveals how far they really were from embracing the Reformed faith, despite the promises they had made to the Bernese to do so. Similarly, the Catholic chronicler of Orbe, Pierrefleur, relates several instances of anonymous iconoclasm in and around Orbe, commenting on one such occurrence: The following Thursday [11 May 1531], the Lutherans toppled over two stone crosses, a beautiful one in the cemetery of Saint-Germain, which had been very expensive to make, the other was no meaner and was not

86

On this iconoclasm in the early Reformation, see, esp., Wandel, Voracious Idols and Violent Hands. The city of Basel was an exception. A majority of Basel’s citizens wanted the Reformation firmly established, and when they thought the city council was dragging its feet, on 9 February 1528, over two hundred people stormed the churches on a threehour iconoclastic rampage. Ibid., 149-89. 87 See above, n.58.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

119

far from the city gate …. This was done at night, so that no one would know who had done it. The custom of the Lutherans was such that if they would have seen an image, whether of God, the Virgin Mary, a saint, or a crucifix, with a painted devil on it, they would have broken the crucifix or image without touching the devil at all ….88 In addition to serving as another example of anonymous, nocturnal iconoclasm, this episode makes clear that the evangelicals were interested in destroying not only the images in churches but any “idol” they could find in a public place. Pierrefleur’s assertion that they performed these acts at night to avoid punishment was probably right on the mark. The iconoclasts possibly feared violent recrimination by the townspeople, however, more than official punishment by the governmental authorities, at least initially. The Bernese did not look kindly on unauthorized iconoclasm by their preachers or subjects, but they did little more than issue threatening letters to halt such activity. This realization seems to have encouraged the evangelicals to act more aggressively and openly. Later in May 1531, Christophe Hollard, a native of Orbe and an evangelical, destroyed an image of the Virgin Mary and a crucifix in front of ambassadors from Bern and Fribourg. Pierrefleur was “astounded at the patience of the ambassadors of Fribourg, who were present and made no resistance besides a complaint.”89 Two months later, Hollard knocked down the altar in Orbe’s main church, “with the people present, who all looked on with great regret and did not do anything to him because they thought that he had some mandate from the lords of Bern.”90 The next

88

“Le jeudi suivant [11 May 1531] furent dérochés par les luthériens deux croix de pierre, dont l’une était sur le cemetière de Saint-Germain, fort belle et qui avait été de grand costange [coût] à faire, l’autre qui n’était pas guère moindre et non guère distante de la porte de la ville, en une croisée de chemin tendant pour aller aux Clées et l’autre chemin pour aller à Rances. Cela se fit de nuit, par quoi l’on ne put savoir qui avait fait cela. La coutume des dits luthériens était telle que s’ils eussent vu une image, fût de Dieu ou de la Vierge Marie, ou de saint, ou un crucifix, auxquelles images il y eusse eu un diable peinté, ils eussent gâté crucifix et autre, sans faire aucun attouchement au diable ….” Pierrefleur, 31. Pierrefleur is, of course, following the common contemporary Catholic practice of referring to all evangelicals as “Lutherans,” without distinction among followers of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. 89 “… à Orbe … prêcha Farel en présence des dits ambassadeurs, en la présence desquels Christophe Hollard brisa une image de Notre-Dame, dont la réparation avait coûté la dite année six écus, et gâta un crucifix sans avoir aucun regret; dont grandement je m’émerveille de la grand soufferte des ambassadeurs de Fribourg, qui étaient présents sans faire aucune résistance, fors que ils se plaignirent.” Pierrefleur, 32 (May 1531). 90 “La dimanche fête de la Vierge Marie, qui est 2e jour de juillet, fut déroché et mis par terre le grand autel étant au choeur de la grande église de Notre-Dame en la ville d’Orbe par

120

Chapter 4

day, Hollard and “about eleven or twelve accomplices” destroyed a total of twenty-six altars in the area, but “the divine office did not cease in the town,” Pierrefleur notes resiliently, “for instead of altars, tables were brought in for the chanting of the Mass.”91 From these examples, we get a better idea of which objects were being targeted for destruction. Contrary to what one might expect, they were not primarily images or statues of the saints, but altars and crucifixes. The focus on altars brings us back once again to the sacramentarians’ assault on the Mass. Just as their chief theological and practical concern was with the abolition of the Mass, so their iconoclastic activity centered on the physical locus of the sacrament: the altar. The evangelicals saw the altar as the place where the priest performed his ultimate act of deception, pretending magically to transform the elements of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering him up to God in a sacrilegious oblation that denied Christ’s original sacrifice on the cross. Pierrefleur himself recognized that the iconoclasts’ chief goal was the disruption of the Mass. The Orbe iconoclasts’ targeting of the altar is representative of iconoclasm in other areas of Vaud. Also in 1531, the townspeople of Grandson complained that the preachers were “violently destroying the altars, crosses, images, the baptistry, and other decorations in the church.”92 Later in the year, they issued a new grievance that the preachers and “several other foreigners” were “violently destroying with force of arms, like senseless madmen, the altars, images, crosses, and reparations in the parochial church and priory of Grandson and other neighboring villages.”93

Christophe Hollard, présent le populaire, qui tous le regardaient à leur grand regret, et sans lui rien faire; la cause était pour ce qu’ils pensaient que le dit Christophe eût aucun mandement des seigneurs de Berne.” Pierrefleur, 37 (2 July 1531). 91 “Successivement le lundi suivant [3 July 1531], le dit Christophe, joints et avec lui environ onze ou douze de ses complices, dérochèrent tous les autres autels étant tant en la dite église [de Notre-Dame] que ès autres églises, qui sont en nombre sept, c’est à savoir la grande église de la ville, le convent de Sainte-Claire, l’hôpital, Saint-Germain, SaintMartin et Saint-Alloy, Notre-Dame des Vignes, laquelle depuis fut par eux dérochée et mise à fleur de terre, dont ce fut dommage: car elle était belle et de grande dévotion pour lors d’adonques. En icelui jour furent dérochés 26 autels, mais pour ce le divin office ne cessa point en la dite ville, car au lieu des autels, on portait tables sur lesquelles on chantait la sainte messe.” Pierrefleur, 37-38 (3 July 1531). 92 “… toutes icelles ordonnances par les dits évangélistes et leurs prédicateurs, sans en avoir l’occasion, sont esté tousjours rompues, en destruisans violentement les aultelz, croix, ymaiges, baptistière et aultres décorations d’esglise.” Herminjard, 2:367 (No. 357), Catholics of Grandson to the deputies of Bern and Fribourg, Grandson, [7 October 1531]. 93 “Mais des prédicans sus-nommés [Guillaume Farel and Claude de Glant], ensemble plusieurs aultres estrangiers journellement sourvenans … aye esté fait … plusieurs voulentés, scandalisacions, tribulacions et empeschemens, tant à leur sermons, messes, et

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

121

We note, first of all, the repetition of “altars” at the beginning of both lists of destroyed objects, an indication that they were the chief targets of the iconoclasts in Grandson, just as they had been in Orbe. Second, we note the repetition of the phrase “violently destroying” (détruisant violentement), and the application of the label “senseless madmen” (gens forcenés et dehors de sens). This shows that these were public displays of iconoclasm, since there were apparently witnesses, and that it was nothing like the organized removal of images that had been the norm in German-speaking lands. These were violent iconoclastic rampages, full of emotional zeal for purging churches of “idolotry.” Likewise, Georges de Rive reported in 1530 to the countess of Neuchâtel on the emotional, frenzied iconoclasm undertaken by the evangelicals in the city: [S]ome citizens of Neuchâtel tore down certain images in your church and broke them into pieces; others they hurled down to the floor of the cloister; and they cut off the noses and pierced the eyes of the painted images, even of Our Lady of Pity …. The next day, some [soldiers] armed with pikes, axes, and hammers, furiously came into your church and destroyed the crucifix of Our Lord, the image of Our Lady and of Saint John and took the paten which held the body of the Lord and threw it onto the ground in the cemetery and distributed the hosts to each other to eat like common bread. They destroyed the altars without leaving a single one, and the church was polluted and violated, and even some canons and chaplains in the church were beaten and oppressed.94

offices accoustumés, que en destruisant violentement à main armée, comme gens forcenés et dehors du sens, les aultelz, ymaiges, croix et reparemens de l’esglise parrochiale d’icelle vostre ville de Granson, aussi du Prioré du dit lieu et d’aultres villaiges circonvoisins.” Herminjard, 2:390 (No. 364), the town of Grandson to the Bern city council, Grandson, [end of 1531]. 94 “… aucuns bourgeois de la ville de Neufchastel renversèrent certaines images dans vostre église et les rompirent par pièces, et d’autres qu’ils ruèrent et jettèrent en bas le cloître; et aus tableaus avec instrumens ont coupé les nés aus images et percé les yeux, mesmement à Nostre Dame de pitié …. Néanmoins, le lendemain, aucuns armés de pioches, de haches et de marteaus vinrent en vostre dite église furieusement et abbattirent le crucifix de Nostre Seigneur, l’image de Nostre Dame et de Saint Jehan et prirent les patènes où estoit corpus Domini, et les jettèrent en bas le cimitière et donnèrent à manger les hosties comme simple pain les uns aus autres. [Ils] ont rompu les autels, sans en laisser un, et la dite église polluée et violée, et voire battus et opprimés aucuns chanoines et chapelains dans la dite église, et illec commis plusieurs autres maux que trop prolixe seroient à escrire.” Herminjard, 2:292, 293 (No. 317), Georges de Rive to the countess of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, 20 November 1530.

122

Chapter 4

Both this passage and the one above regarding iconoclasm in Grandson bring yet another element into the picture: the use of weapons. It was as if the evangelicals really were, as the title of Carlos Eire’s study indicates, declaring “war against the idols.”95 This was not merely an ideological war but an actual physical assault with weaponry on the centerpieces of Catholic worship. We note again in Neuchâtel the destruction of “every altar,” and in this case we also see the soldiers attacking the paten and mocking the doctrine of transubstantiation by passing around the consecrated host to eat like common bread. Considering all the above episodes together, we see that, apart from the altars, the other targets of the iconoclasts were most frequently crucifixes and images of the Virgin Mary, the two most widely venerated church ornaments among Catholics. From the evangelical perspective, the veneration of the cross and Mary, given the stamp of approval for “super-veneration” (hyperdulia) by the church, drew poor, ignorant Christians away from the true worship of Christ.96 We should note that absent from all these descriptions of early iconoclasm in the Suisse romande are accounts of the destruction of images of saints besides Mary. The assault on the image of Saint John in Neuchâtel is the only specific reference we have encountered to an attack on a saint other than Mary. Protestant opposition to the veneration of a wide array of saints and the intercessory prayers offered to them has become a commonplace in any general overview of the Reformation. The actions of these early iconoclasts, however, indicate that these were relatively minor concerns. Far more important for them was, first, the heinously idolatrous

95

96

Carlos M. N. Eire, War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Eire is more concerned with the philosophical and theological opposition to images in the thought of major figures at the time. He does not examine the actions of these Swiss iconoclasts in detail. Before attacking it as confusing and dangerous, Viret explains accurately the tripartite division of adoration in his Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments: “Ils [the sophists] la [adoration] divisent en trois parties, desquelles ils appellent la premiere Latria, laquelle ils disent appartenir au seul Dieu.… Ils appellent la seconde Dulia, qui est aussi un nom Grec, comme le premier, et signifie service, ou servitude. La troisieme est appellé Hyperdulia, qui est un nom composé en partie de ce second icy, pour signifier quelque degré davantage qu’iceluy. Suivant cette division, ils prennent la premiere espece, pour la plus excellente, reservée au seul Dieu. La seconde, pour la moindre; laquelle ils ottroyent à tous les saincts personnages, et à leurs reliques et images. En apres ils prennent la troisieme pour moyenner entre ces deux, et l’attribuet aux creatures qu’ils estiment les plus excellentes, entre celles qui ont servy à la gloire de Dieu: lesquelles ils ne osent pas du tout comparer à Dieu, ny eslever en semblable dignité …. Ils ont controuvé expressement ceste troisieme espece, pour la vierge Marie, et pour la Croix en laquelle Jesus Christ a esté crucifié. Pierre Viret, Exposition familiere sur les dix Commandemens de la Loy, faite en forme de Dialogues (Geneva: Jean Gerard, 1554), 109-10.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

123

and sacrilegious sacrifice of the Mass and, second, the hyperdulia offered to the crucifix and the Virgin Mary.

4.

CATHOLIC RESISTANCE BETWEEN THE BERNESE CONQUEST AND THE LAUSANNE DISPUTATION, 1536

The sacramentarians’ aggressive techniques do not seem to have won many followers in the Pays de Vaud. Small evangelical communities were established in a few towns, but, as noted above, only two parishes in Vaud apart from the Four Mandated Territories voted to abolish the Mass before 1536. The reformers were, of course, successful in encouraging the major cities of Neuchâtel and Geneva to abolish the Mass, but their victories in these two places have obscured the fact that they were largely ineffective almost everywhere else. Catholic opposition in Vaud was fierce and would likely have remained so for many years to come if not for one watershed event: Bern’s conquest of Vaud. Since the Bernese initially promised their new subjects freedom to continue practicing the “old faith,” Catholic resistance to Protestant worship continued and intensified in the months between the conquest and the Lausanne Disputation that put an end to the short-lived experiment of religious freedom in Vaud. In the early months of 1536, the Bernese easily conquered the Pays de Vaud.97 The ease of the conquest, however, left the Bernese unprepared for the difficulties encountered in the aftermath, particularly concerning religion. At the beginning of the campaign, Bern established its religious policy for the newly conquered lands: Catholic worship was to be allowed in all areas as long as the towns would allow evangelical ministers to preach unhindered.98 As they had done in the Four Mandated Territories, the Bernese refrained from compelling their subjects in matters of conscience, and they seem to have been operating once again under the naïve assumption that once the people heard the Word of God from Protestant preachers, they would embrace the Reformed faith with open arms. They were sorely mistaken. The months between the conquest and the Lausanne Disputation were marked instead by widespread resistance to the evangelical ministers.

97 98

See above, chapter 2, section 7. The one exception to this was Yverdon, which had been the only city in Vaud to put up a fight during the conquest. As punishment, the Bernese did not allow them the same freedom of worship and abolished the Mass immediately after the town capitulated in late February 1536. See Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud, 161-63.

124

Chapter 4

In Lausanne, Pierre Viret arrived in the middle of March 1536. The bishop had already vacated the city, but on 16 March, his representatives asked the council to expel Viret. With the Bernese army mustering its forces for a march on Chillon that would pass close to Lausanne, the city council deferred to the absent bishop’s judgment.99 The Bernese army’s arrival in Lausanne two weeks later ensured that Bishop Montfalcon would never return, and Viret’s position in town was secured under Bern’s protection. This is not to say that he did not encountered no difficulties. Just three days after the city’s capitulation to Bern, the Lausanne city council drafted ordinances to deal with the “impertinence taking place in the churches”; everyone was to be allowed to attend either the sermon or the Mass, the divine service was not to be interrupted, no one was to preach in the taverns or on the street, and no one was to deride anyone else.100 The clause prohibiting preaching in the streets and taverns must have been aimed primarily at Viret. Henceforth, he was to preach only in the appointed place, the church of la Madeleine. Nine days later, Viret himself went on the offensive, accusing the Dominican preacher Dominique de Monbouson of “preaching false things” and “seducing the poor simple people who hear him,” and he suggested holding a disputation.101 When confronted with the

99

“Comparuerunt nobilis Franciscus Gimel, ballivus Lausanne, Johannes Gignilliati, commissarius, et Michael Francisci parte R. D. N. episcopi, propter eius absenciam, exponentes, quod est nunc hic Lausanne unus predicator luterianus, petentes, super hoc debere habere bonum advisum et bonam deliberacionem; et super eo quod sunt nonnulli stranei qui ipsum conducunt; dicens ulterius dom. Ballivus quod policia pertinet communitati. Similiter comparuerunt ven. Domini Amedeus Raveri, P. Perrini, P. Brisseti et Jo. de Bioleis, canonici, proponentes parte ven. Capituli, quod venit quidam predicator qui predicavit in conventu fratrum minorum S. Francisci; dicentes quod non est consuetum habere duos predicatores; petentes illum expelli debere. Quibus fuit responsum quod habeant advidere cum R. D. nostro, cui pertinet spiritualitas.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 36 (1882): 202-03 (16 March 1536). 100 “Fuit congregatum totum commune per sonum cymballi et voce preconis, visuri et deliberaturi super occurentibus et insolenciis que fiunt in ecclesiis et de modo bene vivendi. Fuit communis oppinio, omnes bene vivere debere in pace et bono amore unus cum alio. Item, quod quis voluerit ire et audire predicatorem, quod vadat et audiat; et qui voluerit audire missam, quod audiat. Item, quod nulle insolencie fiant. Item, quod non impediatur divinum officium. Item, quod eligatur unus ex duobus conventibus ad predicandum. Item, quod non predicet in tabernis neque carreriis, sed in loco deputato. Item, quod nullus audeat deridere de alio, neque improperare aliqua verba.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 36 (1882): 246 (4 April 1536). 101 “Et ainsi que je me submectz, et offre devant vous, aussy je vous prie qu’il soit vostre bon plaisir de m’administrer bonne justice … de cestuy Jacopin, qui presche au grand temple: contre lequel je veux prouver par la Saincte Escripture comme il a presché choses faulses, et qu’il séduict les povres simples gens qui l’oient. Et ne demande pas que aucun

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

125

charges, Monbouson answered that he would only dispute before a university.102 Although not ready for a religious disputation, the city council ordered Monbouson to stop preaching, and he left town.103 It is not entirely clear why the council made this decision, but it is unlikely that the majority had transferred their allegiance to the Reformed faith a mere two weeks after the Bernese army marched into town. The more credible explanation is that the Lausannois feared upsetting their new lords, especially since negotiations with Bern over the city’s rights and liberties were just beginning. We cannot, of course, dismiss the possibility that Viret and his colleagues were, in fact, winning some converts in the newly conquered lands. Indeed, they seem to have had some initial success. In April, Christophe Fabri reported to Farel from Thonon, “The number of the faithful grows daily …. I hope that many will see the light shortly, who freely and eagerly listen and argue reverently enough.”104 Farel responded, “Christ has given Viret success similar to yours.”105 Nevertheless, the evangelicals remained a small minority. Fabri related that, with the Bernese commissioners in Thonon, over six hundred of the town’s Catholics held a procession in demonstration of religious unity.106 Contrary to Fabri’s early hopes, the situation in Thonon continued to deteriorate. The minister Denis Lambert and his wife were nearly killed after being thrown into a sack filled

dommaige luy soit faict, ou aucun mal, combien qu’il se trouvera au tort, mais que vous mectez si bon ordre, qu’il mainctiène sa doctrine. Et si je ne puys prouver ce que je mectz en avant, punissez-moy comme un calumniateur et imposeur de faux crimes; et au contraire, s’il ne sçait mainctenir son cas, que miséricorde luy soit faicte. Car je ne demande sinon que le povre peuple ne demeure poinct en ces erreurs, et que la faulte de cestuy Jacopin soit congneue et le scandale osté.” Herminjard, 4:30 (No. 548), Viret to the Lausanne city council, [Lausanne], [13 April 1536]. We can get some idea of Viret’s accusations against Monbouson from their later confrontation at the Lausanne Disputation. See Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 38-39. 102 “Viret: Et quand le jacopin les [articles written by Viret] eut veu, il dist qu’il ne vouloit pas icy disputer, ouy bien en quelque université, comme a Paris, a Dole, et en Avignon, la ou fussent juges non suspectz.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 37. 103 “Monbouson: Mais, messeigneurs me defendirent que je ne preschasse plus, et qu’on m’en feist aller, ce que je feiz.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 38. 104 “Numerus tamen fidelium in dies crescit …. Spero brevi multos ad lucem accessuros, qui libenter et avide audiunt et satis reverenter arguunt.” Herminjard, 4:32 (No. 549), Fabri to Farel, Thonon, 18 April 1536. 105 “Vireto Christus successum dat quo tu non cares.” Herminjard, 4:37 (No. 551), Farel to Fabri, Geneva, 22 April 1536. 106 “Aversarii nihil non moliti sunt, ut nos horis adstringeremur; dissipata sunt eorum consilia; et, cum nil aliud possent, domatim sese invicem praemonuerunt, ut circuitibus (quos processiones vocant) nemo non adesset, quo fidem suam nondum deperditam publice ostentarent; adeo ut plusquam tercentum virorum, mulieres vero plures, numerare liceret.” Herminjard, 4:32 (No. 549).

126

Chapter 4

with ashes and broken glass.107 When Farel arrived in the town soon afterwards, his first report expressed fear and frustration: “We are in danger working here. We are having little or no success. Today, several armed men were prepared to attack us when we feared no such thing.… I don’t know what to hope for.”108 Three days later, he was even more despondent: We are always in the midst of the tempest here, with what success among the people, God only knows. It almost seems to be a complete waste of time and labor. I wish that Viret were here, but his presence is all the more necessary in Lausanne. I don’t know what can be done with such a lack of ministers. May Christ be with us!109 When Fabri returned two days later, the situation erupted into full-scale violence. One of the townsmen yelled at him in the pulpit, “Devil! wicked devil, get down from there!” Fabri’s host hit the man with the broad side of his sword, and mayhem ensued. Fabri narrowly escaped a crowd of people who were hurling rocks at him110 and was forced to suspend his preaching for several days while waiting for a delegation from Bern.111 The chaos was

107

“Dionisium rursus sacculis cineribus reffertis et frustis vitraeis immixtis fere ad mortem usque ceciderunt; viri hujus urbis eo concesserunt, ut eum huc advehendum curent; uxor quoque eius non fuit expers huiusce tragoediae, nam laesa fuit satis graviter.” Herminjard, 4:44 (No. 553), Fabri to Farel, Geneva, 29 April 1536. 108 “Hodie paratis erant non pauci armati in nos insurgere, cum tale nihil vereremur.… Quid sperem, nescio.” Herminjard, 4:50 (No. 555), Farel to Fabri, Thonon, 2 May 1536. 109 “Nos hic agimus semper in procellis, q(uali cum successu) ad plebem, Deo notum est. Pene mihi videor oleum oper(amque perdere. Viretum) hic esse vellem, sed plus satis Lausannae est necess(arius. Quid in) hac Ministrorum penuria agendum sit, ignoro. Christus (Jesus) nobis adsit!” Herminjard, 4:51 (No. 556), Farel to Fabri, Thonon, 5 May 1536. 110 “Heri, inter tertiam et quartam, concionem nobis turbavit unus ex his civibus, clamans in templo: ‘Diabole, inique Diabole, descende illinc.’ Stephanus, hospes noster, hunc ad vestibulum templi sequutus, evaginato gladio semel impetiit ea gladii parte quae est plana, nec laesit eum. Ubi absolvissemus concionem, nihil erat dissidii, sed moleste omnes ante templum invicem colloquebamur…. Cumque in templo me sic proxime sectarentur, ego potius volans quam currens, per medium adversariorum, ex altera latiori ianua templi, ad domum Praefecti subito velut raptus fui; cumque eo usque prosequerentur me, ingressus [sic] in domum, protinus uxor Praefecti januam occlusit. Illi vero ensibus et pedibus eam aperire tentabant, proiicientes undique lapides. Mirum quoque quod sic fuga mihi consulens, lapidibus undique iactis nihil laeserunt me.” Herminjard, 4:52-53 (No. 557), Fabri to Farel, Thonon, 7 May 1536. 111 “Novissime tragoediam illam, seu potius rebellionem, quae eo die quo hinc solvisti accidit, ad te utcunque scripsimus, et adhuc domi Suffectus et ipse heremus, cum legatus Berna nondum redierit. Quamvis id fratribus multis argumentis causae nostrae profuturum videatur, mihi tamen molestum est publicas conciones sic intermittere; quod

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

127

due in part from the fact that the Bernese had not yet installed bailiffs in all of their new lands,112 but when they learned of the situation in Thonon, they did not mince words: What is this sedition? And how do you think our lords will view it? Be advised, if you do not know already, that with the first favorable wind, they will send you armed men and will punish you in such a way that you will be talked about for years to come as an example of merited severity. We will not let the guilty escape punishment.113 Although the punishments meted out were not as harsh as threatened (the syndic of Thonon was fined 50 crowns),114 the arrival of the Bernese legates appears to have restored order in the town, and the Protestants were given their own church.115 Thonon was by no means the only area upset by religious resistence. On 9 April 1536 the council of Lutry declared that anyone requesting a Protestant minister for the town would be fined 10 florins and that if a minister should arrive, no one was to listen to him; acts of iconoclasm were forbidden as well.116 In the Pays de Gex, the only minister active there, Jacques Hugues, was having an extremely difficult time; Farel reported, “Jacques believes the people and clergy of Gex are horribly disposed against Christ. They utterly reject the Word; worse, they hate it as much as possible.

videant adversarios hac occasione maxime anxios ac suspensos.” Herminjard, 4:54 (No. 558), Fabri to Farel, Thonon, 12 May 1536. 112 Bern appointed its new bailiffs on 13 May 1536. See the “Décret d’institution des bailliages,” in the Chroniqueur, 273-74. On the administrative organization in Bern’s new lands, see Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud, 221-59. 113 “Qu’est-ce que cette sédition? et comment croyez-vous que l’envisagent nos seigneurs. Apprenez, si vous l’ignorez, qu’au premier vent qui se relèverait, ils vous enverraient des hommes d’armes, et qu’ils vous châtieraient de telle sorte que vous seriez cités longtemps comme exemple d’une rigueur méritée. Nous ne laisserons pas les coulpables sans les punir.” Chroniqueur, 280. 114 Herminjard, 4:58, n.3. 115 “A discessu tuo, traditum est nobis Hypoliti templum, idque ex consensu totius Consilii.” Herminjard, 4:60 (No. 561), Fabri to Farel, Thonon, 27 May 1536. 116 “Le Dimanche des Rameaux, 9 avril, le conseil général de Lutry décida: 1º que nul ne devait faire venir un prédicant, sous peine de 10 florins d’amende; 2º s’il s’en introduisait un, qu’on n’irait point l’entendre prêcher, mais qu’on ne lui ferait aucune insulte; 3º que nul ne devait gâter ou vitupérer les images dans les églises ou ailleurs, ni commettre aucune violence ou indécence dans les églises, sous la même amende.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne, MDR 36 (1882): 250.

128

Chapter 4

They will hardly be corrected unless it is by the whip.”117 In June, the Bern city council ordered the town of Avenches to reinstate its banneret, whom the Avenches council had deposed for requesting a Protestant minister. Avenches had apparently also appealed for help to Fribourg, the natural ally for those in Vaud who wished to remain Catholic. Bern declared in no uncertain terms that the town was not to appeal to Fribourg in the future; the Bernese were now their “lords and superiors.”118 The greatest resistance, not only to Protestantism but to Bernese authority itself, came from the people of Moudon, the former Savoyard capital of Vaud. On 20 April 1536 the Bernese summoned representatives from Moudon before them for taking an oath to remain Catholic and refusing to allow the Protestant minister Jean de Tournay to preach there. The representatives were ordered to bring with them all of their “rights, letters, seals, and privileges,” a clear threat to take away the commune’s traditional liberties.119 The Moudon ambassadors protested that they had understood that no town would be compelled to have a Protestant preacher if the people did not want one. Furthermore, it was only the peasants in the surrounding area who had gathered together, apart from the townspeople, to declare “that they

117

“Jacobus Giaci plebem ac rasos habet pessime in Christum affectos. Verbum prorsus spernunt, imo summe oderunt; vix nisi flagris emendabuntur.” Herminjard, 4:39 (No. 551), Farel to Fabri, Geneva, 22 April 1536. 118 “Nobles, chiers et féaulx, nous summes advertis des innovations que, ces jours passés, avés faictes en déposant vostre banderet, et envoyans vostre ambassade à Frybourg: de quoy avons très-grand regraict, qu’estes sy présumptueux. A ceste cause est nostre vouloir et exprès commandement, que incontinant remettés le dict Banderet en son office, sy ne l’avés pour aultres raison déposé, sinon pour ce qu’ilz a desmandé ung prédicant, – et vous dépourtez cy-après de tieulles présumptions, en tant que desirrés d’éviter nostre indignation. Pareillement, quant vous sourviendront aulcunes choses sur lesquelles aurés besoing de bons advis, ne vous recourrir à aultres que à nous, vous Seigneurs et Supérieurs. Vous advertissans que les particuliers entre vous que desmènent tieulles pratiques, en tieulle sourte chasteieront [read: châtierons], que les aultres y prendront exemple, et cella en brieff.” Herminjard, 4:65-66 (No. 563), Bern city council to the Avenches city council, Bern, 19 June 1536. 119 “Nous somes esté advertis des oprobres, injures et violences que, ces jours passé[s], havés dictes et faictes à ung prédicant annunciant la Parolle de nostre salut en nostre ville de Mouldon; semblablement, à nostre ballifz et officier … ce tout ad cause de la Parolle de Nostre Seigneur et Créateur, contre laquelle vous estes ungnis [read: unis] et joincts, par sèrement sur les Saincts Évangilles d’icelle exterminer et non permectre d’estre prêchée…. Pour ce, vous mandons et commandons très-acertes, que, sur peine de nostre griefve punition et perdition de nostre grâce, vous doibjés transporté en ce cartier, pour comparoir par devant nous, ce Lundi prochain 24e de ce mois, avecque tous vous drois, lettres, séaulx et priviliéges; et, yceulx nous estans présantés, y adviserons de sorte que scelon équité sera en tel cas requis. En ce ne fairés faulte.” Herminjard, 4:35-36 (No. 550), Bern city council to the Moudon city council, Bern, 20 April 1536.

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

129

did not want to have a preacher, but that they wished to live and die in the faith and law of their good predecessors,” and this declaration was not made under oath.120 It appears that the Bernese were reasonably satisfied with their response and ordered the Moudon city council to punish the offenders.121 When ambassadors from Bern visited the town in May, however, the people of Moudon complained that the Bernese were usurping the town’s traditional liberties, and they reiterated their objection that their delegates had taken the oath of fidelity only because “they were promised that no one would be compelled to have a preacher if one was not desired.”122 To this, the people of Moudon added the grievance that “the bailiff, against our way of life, prohibited the vicar from saying the Mass in the great parochial church, and that this church had been ruined and the altar destroyed, making it impossible to perform the accustomed office there.”123

120

“Pour ce que … les nobles, paysans et sujets, tant de la ville, châtellenie, que du ressort, vinrent faire le serment et fidelité à nos dits Seigneurs, leur fut expressément réservé … que l’on ne compelliroit nul d’avoir prédicant, si on ne le vouloit avoir.… Alors furent mandés ceux de la terre et ressort, pour les avertir du cas …. Laquelle congrégation ne se trouvera être faite nullement par mauvaise intention, effet ni vouloir, et n’a été fait chose contre l’autorité de nos dits Seigneurs, mais seulement les susdites conditions d’avertir les dits paysans de la venue du dit prédicant, et si leur plaisoit l’avoir ou non. Sur quoi, ceux de la ville étant retirés à part, les dits paysans conclurent entre eux et puis vinrent dire à ceux de la ville, qu’ils ne vouloient point avoir de prédicant, mais qu’ils vouloient vivre et mourir en la foi et loi de leurs bons prédécesseurs …. Et ne se trouvera point que alors fussent été faites par ensemble nulles promesses, sermens … de non aller ouïr la Parole de Dieu, mais resteroit chacun en sa liberté comme auparavant ….” Herminjard, 4:35-36, n.1, instructions from the Moudon city council to the Bern delegation. 121 “C’est pour nous punir, dites-vous, de l’assemblée que nous avons faite après Pâques des hommes de la châtelainie et du ressort, en quoi nous aurions agi contre l’autorité de nos seigneurs.” Chroniqueur, 274, complaint to the Bernese commissioners, 14 May 1536. 122 “Nos seigneurs, nous ne voulons ni ne pouvons être que ce qu’il vous plaît; mais nous vous supplions qu’il vous plaise observer nos franchises et commander à M. le bailli de cette ville qu’il en fasse le serment, comme les baillis et officiers l’ont toujours fait par le passé.… Sur ce point supplions la grâce de nos seigneurs vouloir entendre comment ce pays de Vaud, et nommément Moudon, en a usé selon ses grandes libertés, tant écrites que non écrites, approuvées et confirmées par les princes de Savoie.… Or quand par l’ordre de M. de Villardin, pour lors bailli, les nobles, paysans et sujets du ressort sont venus faire fidélité à nos seigneurs, il leur a été réservé expressément de les laisser en tel mode de vivre et telles libertés èsquelles nos seigneurs les avaient trouvés. En outre il leur a été promis que l’on ne compellirait nul d’avoir prédicant s’il ne le voulait; sous cette condition avons fait serment.” Chroniqueur, 274-75. 123 “Vous faisons enfin doléance et quérimonie de M. le bailli, lequel contre le mode de vivre a défendu au vicaire de dire plus messe à la grande église paroissiale, et de ce qu’on a ruiné cette église, détruit les autels, et rendu impossible d’y faire l’office accoutumé.” Chroniqueur, 275.

130

Chapter 4

These were not the reactions the Bernese were hoping for after their conquest of Vaud. Their experiment in religious freedom had done little but incite violence against the evangelicals. Pope Paul III’s announcement of the Council of Mantua sealed the deal. A disputation would be called to settle religious affairs once and for all, and no one had any doubt about what the result of that disputation would be. The “old faith” was on the way out, in spite of the popular enthusiasm for it. The shift to the “new faith” occurred by governmental fiat. The Bernese simply could not afford to allow their new subjects the luxury of religious freedom any longer. The Vaudois may have rolled over easily in the face of Bernese military pressure, but they showed considerably more resistance to the attempts to evangelize the region, which was seen by Bern as a threat to its political authority; if the people refused to obey a simple command to allow a Protestant minister to preach freely in town, what order would they disobey next? Bern’s early experience with the people of Ormont in 1528 established the pattern: Bern would insist that a town in its jurisdiction allow evangelical preaching. The town would resist initially but ultimately give in. The Bernese would encourage the people to listen to the sermons and hopefully gain a majority of evangelicals. This only strengthened Catholic opposition to the new faith. Bern perceived this religious resistance as political disobedience and forced the town to abolish the Mass. The people did so grudgingly, turning superficially Protestant, but they tried to hold on to their traditions as long as possible, cooperating with Bern’s religious decrees only as far as they had to. This pattern was repeated all over Vaud after the 1536 conquest, and if the Bernese had learned their lesson, they would have anticipated the religious resistance that continued after the decision of the Lausanne Disputation. From the reformers’ point of view, Bern’s conquest and the Lausanne Disputation changed everything. From 1528 to 1535, Farel and his associates had Bern’s backing and support, but since Bern could not simply impose the Reformation on either the common lordships or the combourgeois it shared with Catholic Fribourg, the reformers struggled to tear people away from the old faith. The centerpiece of this conflict was the Mass. The combination of the political realities of the plus system that asked (male) parishioners to stand either for or against the Mass, together with the sacramentarians’ theological abhorrence of what they saw as the central idol of Catholicism, placed the sacrament at the center of the religious firestorm that erupted in Vaud in the early 1530s. The sacramentarians used every weapon in their arsenal in a no-holds-barred attack on the Mass. They preached against it in the taverns and posted placards in the streets. They turned the printing press into an anti-Mass propaganda machine, and they attacked the sacrament in acts of iconoclasm aimed primarily at destroying altars, the physical locus of

4. The Clash of the Old and New Faiths

131

the rite. Bern’s abolition of the Mass in Vaud after the Lausanne Disputation, therefore, rendered the sacramentarians’ confrontational methods obsolete. Resistance to Protestantism would continue, but new strategies would need to be devised that would focus not on attacking the old faith, but on indoctrinating the people in the teachings of the new religion.

Chapter 5 FROM SACRAMENTARIANS TO CALVINISTS From Aggression to Elucidation and Discipline, 1536-1539

Farel’s aggressive sacramentarianism was a strategy that could only be effective within a Catholic context. Although it forced the established church to defend itself against charges of idolatry, it also ran the risk of stirring up hostile reactions to the new religion. Not everyone who desired change agreed with the confrontational strategy. Calls were also heard for the orderly removal of images and a positive elucidation of the faith, rather than violent iconoclasm and negative attacks on the Mass. Moreover, the watershed events of the fall of 1536 – the Lausanne Disputation, and Bern’s edicts of Reformation – officially established the Reformed faith in Vaud. The new situation demanded a new approach by the reformers. Since the sacramentarians’ strategy had focused so intently on the Mass, once the Mass was gone the reformers had to adopt a method that would build up rather than tear down. The visible remnants of Catholicism were quickly purged from the churches of Vaud, but a great deal of work remained to ensure, as John Calvin put it after the disputation, that “idolatry be removed from the hearts of all!”1 A rising star who had published the first edition of his famous Institutes and had arrived in Geneva earlier in 1536, Calvin began to replace the aggressive Farel as the leader of the evangelical movement in the pays romands, just as the goal of the reformers shifted from confrontation with the old order to education and discipline within the new. During this process, between 1536 and 1539, Calvin’s theology itself matured, and a noticeable

1

“Iam ex multis locis idola et altaria labefactari coeperunt, ac brevi futurum spero, ut quod adhuc superest repurgetur. Faxit Dominus ut ex omnium cordibus idololatria corruat!” Herminjard, 4:89 (No. 573), Martianus Lucanius [Calvin] to François Daniel, Lausanne, 13 October 1536.

Chapter 5

134

shift in his thinking is evident in the 1539 edition of the Institutes.2 Thus, as Richard Muller has suggested, the years between 1536 and 1539 demand the closer attention of scholars.3 The present chapter will investigate this period in detail and explain how circumstances shaped Calvin’s thought on ecclesiastical discipline. He and his colleagues quickly realized that neither the preaching of the Gospel nor the mandates of rulers were sufficient to produce the godly society the reformers desired. Even education had limited value in the short term; catechesis of the young was a start, but it would only bear fruit after a generation. Attempts to educate the former Catholic clergy likewise had disappointing results. Indeed, leading the continued fight against the new religion were hundreds of priests, monks, and nuns who had supposedly “accepted” the Reformation and by doing so were able to remain in Vaud and retain their benefices. Their continued resistance to Protestantism ensured that change among the people of Vaud would be painfully slow. This realization was brought home most acutely to the Reformed ministers at the 1538 Synod of Lausanne. A Bernese visitation had been conducted just before the synod and indicated that the Reformation was not yet solidly established in Vaud. It was principally Calvin and Farel’s insistence on the need for discipline immediately after the Synod of Lausanne, rather than their oft-cited refusal to conform to Bern’s ceremonies and practices, that most directly led to their expulsion from Geneva.

1.

FROM AGGRESSION TO ELUCIDATION

The tactics of the early evangelicals were not uniformly violent and deceptive; nor were they consistently directed against the Mass. If I have surprised my readers by insisting upon the originally polemical term sacramentarian, it has only been to counter the traditional – and in my view more misleading – image of the “kinder, gentler” evangelical proferred by Reformed apologists. Yet, there were more moderate currents attached to the evangelicals’ program, and as communities began to abolish the Mass, sacramentarian aggression began to yield to evangelical argumentation. Iconoclasm itself had opponents within the evangelical camp, first and foremost the secular authorities. In the early 1530s, increasingly widespread iconoclasm and the complaints it generated forced Bern and Fribourg to draft ordinances for the peaceful coexistence of the two religions in the

2 3

Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 118-30. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 186-87.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

135

common lordships of Orbe and Grandson.4 With regard to iconoclasm, they stated, “We expressly prohibit anyone of his own authority to be so rash as to break, knock down, deface, or destroy altars, images, and church reparations where the vote has not been made to establish the Word of God.”5 The key problem with iconoclasm from Bern’s perspective was that it was being carried out without proper authority, i.e., Bern’s authority. The Bernese had no great love of images, but loose cannons taking matters into their own hands undermined not only the public peace but also Bern’s political authority. In addition to mandates from Bern and Fribourg, some of the reformers themselves began to question the legitimacy of unauthorized iconoclasm and agreed that image removal should be left to the Christian magistrate, not undertaken by preachers and certainly not by individual laymen. This is most clearly apparent in the appendix to Antoine Marcourt’s 1534 treatise, Declaration de la messe, written by “Cephas Geranius,”6 who tells priests sympathetic to the evangelical cause that they should attempt to abolish idolatry “by the living and powerful Word of God, as it pertains to you; princes and governors, on the other hand, are enjoined to ruin and wipe out such idolatry by any means necessary.”7 Geranius specifically distinguishes

4

Pierrefleur reproduced the ordinance for Orbe, Pierrefleur, 61-63 (30 January 1532). The ordinances for Grandson are printed in Herminjard, 2:401-04 (No. 371), Bern and Fribourg to their subjects in Grandson, Bern, 30 January 1532. Herminjard notes that the ordinance for Orbe, unlike that for Grandson, does not mention the surrounding villages, “ce qui prouve que les doctrines réformées comptaient encore bien peu de sectateurs à Montcherand, Chavornay, Épendes, Goumoëns-la-Ville, Échallens, etc.” Ibid., 404, n.6. 5 “Aussy deffendons expressément que nulli de sa propre auctorité soyt si hardi de rompre, abbattre, gastéz et destruire les aultelz, images et réparations des églises out [sic] le plus ne sera faict de prendre la Parolle de Dieu.” Herminjard, 2:404 (No. 371). The ordinance against iconoclasm for Orbe is identical. Pierrefleur, 62. 6 On Geranius, see above, chapter 4, n.75. 7 “Parquoy delaissez et abandonnez telle idolatrie, sortans de Babylonne: ou bien ostant le mal dentre vous resistez de vostre povoir et labolissez, comme ce vray ministre Moyse, et ces vrays Roys Asa, Josaphat, Josias, Ezechias, et Manasse. Mais plus par la vive et puissante parolle de dieu: ainsi que a vous appartient, combien que aux Princes et gouverneurs est enjoinct de ruiner et aneantir telle idolatrie, par tout moyen qui soit.” Declaration de la Messe, F4vq. Christopher Elwood, in arguing that the reformers were issuing a call for action on the part of the laity, badly distorts the meaning of this passage with his translation: “Cephas Geranius,” the pseudonymous editor of Marcourt's Declaration de la messe, implores those in “danger of perdition” to “forsake and abandon such idolatry, leaving Babylon…. And what is more, the living and powerful word of God enjoins you just as much as it does princes and governors to ruin and destroy such idolatry by any available means.”

136

Chapter 5

between the duties of ministers and secular authorities. Ministers are to preach against idolatry, but the task of “annihilating idolatry” by forcibly removing images belongs to the secular authorities. This is clearly a critique of the unorganized iconoclasm common in the early years of the evangelical movement in Vaud.8 With regard to the printed word, not all the works rolling off of Pierre de Vingle’s press were bitter diatribes against the Mass. In addition to French Bibles, Vingle also published a number of morality plays, poems, and songs, particularly by Matthieu Malingre,9 in addition to Farel’s catechetical Sommaire10 and liturgical La Maniere et fasson.11 Some of these works had a polemical edge to them, but they also served didactic purposes.

Christopher Elwood, The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 49, emphasis added. Elwood disregards, in the first place, the fact that this is specifically addressed to the clergy, not the laity. Secondly, he mistranslates the italicized portion of the text, rendering “mais plus” as “And what is more” rather than “but more by” and ignoring both the “ainsi que a vous appartient” (“as it pertains to you”) and the “combien que” (“although”), a clear mark that the duties of princes and governors are different from those of the clergy. 8 This critique also, I believe, supports the hypothesis that Pierre Viret was Geranius. At the very least, Viret later adopted the same ideas with regard to iconoclasm, e.g., “... il [the minister] n’est pas tenu ny obligé, d’empoigner les armes et le glaive, et d’usurper à soy, l’office du Prince et du magistrat, et de se mesler de faire ce qui est proprement et specialement commis au magistrat, pour garder ordre entre les hommes. Il ne luy appartient donc pas, d’aller de son autorité abatre et ruiner les idoles, et de punir au corps, ceux qui contreviennent à la parole de Dieu. Car cela n’est pas de l’office du ministre ecclesiastique, et encore moins, d’un homme particulier.” Pierre Viret, Remonstrances aux fideles, qui conversent entre les papistes: et principalement à ceux qui sont en court, et qui ont offices publiques ... (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1547), 29-30, emphasis added. Calvin would later take the same position. See Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,” 51-56. Oberman’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Calvin’s position, however, is overstated. As we see here, criticism of unauthorized iconoclasm had been expressed within the French-speaking movement as early as 1534. Nor, as seen in the above quote, is he accurate in his characterization of Viret’s method as one of “agitation and confrontation.” Ibid., 59. 9 See the list of Malingre’s works in Higman, Piety and the People, 301-03. 10 [Guillaume Farel], Summaire, et briefve declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien, pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu… ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1534). Modern edition by Jean-Guillaume Baum, ed. (Geneva: Jules-Guillaume Fick, 1867). 11 [Guillaume Farel], La maniere et fasson quon tient en baillant le sainct baptesme… (Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1533). Modern edition by Jean-Guillaume Baum, ed., La Maniere et fasson quon tient es lieux que Dieu de sa grace a visites: Première liturgie des Églises Réformées de France de l’an 1533, publiée d’après l’original à l’occasion

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

137

The most important contrast to the aggressive, iconoclastic methods of the reformers took the form of the religious disputation. Reformation disputations are frequently maligned as pre-determined formalities instead of “real” debates, set up by city authorities to put a religious spin on what was, in effect, a decision by the city council to introduce the Reformation.12 Although this is true in some situations, it is by no means accurate in all cases. Moreover, even when the outcome was indeed a foregone conclusion (as in the Lausanne Disputation, for example), the religious disputation served an important pedagogical purpose and was not “mere formality.” Disputations required the reformers to sharpen their theological arguments. Merely to assert and repeat the claim that “the Mass is evil” would not suffice when arguing against a Paris-trained Catholic theologian. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the difference between the 1526 Baden Disputation and the 1528 Bern Disputation. Irena Backus has convincingly shown how the severe beating taken by the Protestants at Baden at the hands of Johannes Eck led them to address their weak points and come much better prepared to Bern.13 Farel and his associates went through similar trials by fire in the religious disputations in Geneva. First, in 1534, the Bernese called on Farel and Viret to dispute with Guy Furbity, a Sorbonne doctor and Dominican who had preached against the Bernese in Geneva during advent.14 Although this was not a public disputation per se, the Bernese brought in Farel and Viret specifically to debate with him.15 Bern’s political pressure was chiefly

troisième jubilé séculaire de la constitution de ces églises l’an 1559 (Strasbourg: Treuttel et Wurtz/Paris: J. Cherbuliez, 1859). 12 Steven Ozment’s off-hand comment on the 1523 Zurich Disputation appears to have had more influence than he probably intended: “To make scripture the only court of appeal, excluding the authority of church history and tradition, was to make the outcome something of a foregone conclusion, as all parties to the Disputation … knew full well in advance.” The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to SixteenthCentury Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 146. 13 Irena Backus, The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the Early Church, Studies in Reformed Theology and History, vol. 1, no. 1 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993). 14 On the Furbity affair, see Naef, Origines de la Réforme à Genève, 2:469-509; see also the account of the debate by the reformers, likely written by Farel and/or Viret, Letres certaines d’aucuns grandz troubles et tumultes advenuz à Genève ([Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], [1534]). 15 “Et, à cause que le dit caffard soy vante et (s’est) ouffert de maintenir ce qu’ilz a presché, contre tous et ung chescung que vouldront dire le contraire, avons donné charge à nous ambassadeurs d’y pourvoir, et à Maistre Guillaume Farel, qui de présent est à Genesve, aussy à toy, de disputer contre luy, comme plus amplement entendrés de nous dits ambassadeurs.” Herminjard, 3:125 (No. 443), Bern city councils to Viret, Bern, 31 December 1533.

138

Chapter 5

responsible for Furbity’s banishment, but the process gave Farel and Viret a chance to debate with a learned Catholic rather than the local citizens and parish priests they encountered on a daily basis throughout the Suisse romande. Second, and more directly related to Geneva’s decision to abolish the Mass, the Rive Disputation in 1535 pitted Farel against the Sorbonne doctor Pierre Caroli, whose heart clearly was not in the debate and who would break with the Catholic Church almost immediately afterwards.16 Both of these events better prepared Farel and Viret for their most important debate, the Lausanne Disputation. Although the outcome of this disputation was more or less assured, it was not mere formality. The Bernese intended from the beginning for the Lausanne Disputation to be a forum in which the people of their newly conquered territory could be taught the tenets of the Reformed faith.17 Bern’s intention that the disputation serve a pedagogical purpose is made even clearer in its appointment of four secretaries to record the entire proceeding with a view to publication. It was catechism as live theater, and for those who could not be there in person, the planned publication (which was not realized until the twentieth century) would provide a theological justification for Bern’s religious decrees.18 There was thus all the more need for the reformers to act as expositors rather than revolutionaries. The Lausanne Disputation thus marks a crucial turning point in the shift of the reformers from sacramentarians to Calvinists. Attached to Bern’s convocation of the disputation, dated 16 July 1536, were ten “Conclusions,” indicating the points to be debated at the disputation, which began on 1 October.19 The procedure adopted was that one of the Protestant ministers, usually either Viret or Farel, would read one of the ten conclusions and argue in support of it. After that, the floor would be open for debate. When the discussion subsided, the participants would be

16

For Farel’s account of the Rive Disputation, see Guillaume Farel, Un opuscule inédit de Farel: Le Résumé des actes de la dispute de Rive (1535), ed. Théophile Dufour (Geneva: Charles Schuchardt, 1885); see also the contemporary chronicle by Michel Roset, Les Chroniques de Genève, ed. Henri Fazy (Geneva: Georg & Cie, 1894), 197-99. 17 See Bern’s summons: “Et affin que tous noz subjectz puissent estre plainement advertiz de la pure verité, et que les prebstres, comme ilz ont de coustume, ne donnent a entendre les choses avoit esté dictes ou faictes aultrement qu’il n’est, voulons et commandons que les procureurs de toutes les paroisses a nous subjectes se trouvent pour ouyr ce que sera dict d’une partie et d’autre, et comme il sera conclud, affin que de tout et publiquement la verité en effect soit avancee et aye lieu.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 4. 18 Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, vi-viii. 19 The summons and conclusions are printed in Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 3-7.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

139

asked three times if anyone had anything further to argue against the conclusion. If not, the conclusion would be read again and summarized by Viret or Farel.20 Following Farel’s defense of the first conclusion, the Lausanne cathedral chapter brought the debate to a sudden halt by lodging a protest against the entire disputation, claiming that, first, it could not be carried out without contention or discord,21 second, it could be dangerous to members of the audience,22 and third, it was dangerous to the church itself, which is only permitted to dispute when gathered together as a whole.23 The chapter’s representative then declared their refusal to participate and their intention to refer the entire controversy to the upcoming general council, already summoned by Pope Paul III: Therefore, let no one charge us with foolishness, weakness, or ignorance, if we refuse … to dispute outside of the general council of the faithful, [that is,] of the most certain and firmest holy ministries of our holy Catholic faith. For it is not licit for us to usurp the judgment that pertains to the one universal church; on the contrary, it is expressly prohibited to us and to all.… Therefore, we remit the controversy of this disputation to

20

“Et de rechief il fut crié si personne voulloit rien dire contre la premiere conclusion. Et ce par troys foys. Et après avoyr longuement attendu, sans que nul se presentast, de rechief la premiere conclusion fut leue par maistre Guillaume Farel, et faicte une recapitulation des choses dessus dites.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 137. See also ibid., 145, 244, 273, 282, 289, 296, 354, 394. 21 “La doctrine de Jesuchrist, les oracles des prophetes et les escriptures des apostres nous enseignent, exhortent et admonnestent de aymer verité et recepvoir la paix, dont saint Pol nous exhorte de laisser les oeuvres des tenebres et de vestir les armes de lumiere, sans dissention ou emulation. Certes, la disputation ne se peult exercer sans contention, emulation et discorde, repugnantes a la paix, pour autant que la dicte disputation est accoustumee d’estre faicte des actes contentieux, consistans en parolles de ceux qui ont contraires voluntez a la victoire.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 24. 22 “Aussy, souventesfois, la disputation est perilleuse a la subvertion des auditeurs. Et, pour ce, l’apostre preallegué [Paul] deffend la disputation, escripvant a Timothee au second chapitre de la 2e epistre: ‘Garde toy de contendre de parolles, car ce n’est a rien utile que a la subvertion des auditeurs.’” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 24-25. 23 “D’autre part, la disputation est dangereuse a l’eglise particulière. A laquelle congregee au nom de Jesuchrist, combien qu’il y assiste, si peult elle toutesfoys tumber en erreur, comme il est escript en sainct Mathieu. Donques, a ces respectz et aultres, les canoniques sanctions et les loix imperiales ont defendu la publique disputation de la foy catholique. Et jaçoit que survenantz doubtes en la foy qu’est unique, tesmoing sainct Pol au 4e chap. aux Ephes., la sentence se doibt donner selon le sens parfaict de la saincte escripture, et ce neantmoins ce n’appartient ny n’est licite a aucun, sinon a l’eglise universelle de Jesuchrist qui n’est subjecte a aucunes erreurs.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 25.

140

Chapter 5

the future general council, already canonically instituted and ordered, and universally published and promulgated.… Therefore, we the provost, canons, and chapter of this holy church, for us, the clergy, and all others wishing to adhere to it [the church], publicly make this solemn protest instead of disputing or responding.24 The chapter’s protest set the stage for the entire disputation. It appears that the Catholic clergy were threatened with excommunication for speaking up during the debates,25 although it is not clear by whom. The Protestants, therefore, encountered very little opposition in the week-long affair.26 There was no Eck for the Catholics in Lausanne, and the “debate” was decidedly one-sided. The one person who did, in fact, argue consistently for the Catholic side was a medical doctor named Claude Blancherose, whom even his co-religionist Pierrefleur characterized as “a man howling at the moon and quite fantastic, who mixed up medicine with theology in his disputes and made everyone laugh.”27 Viret, only twenty-five years old at the time,

24

“Par ainsi, nul ne nous veuille imputer ne adscripre a imprudence, ou pusillanimité ne ignorance, si nous recusons de revoquer en dubitation, et de rechief disputer, hors de la generalle congregation des fideles, les trecertains et tresfermes sacrés ministeres de nostre saincte foy catholique. Car il ne nous est licite de usurper particulierement le jugement appartenant a la seulle universelle eglise, ains a nous et a tous est expressement prohibé.… Pourquoy, nous remectons la controversie de ceste disputation au prochain futur concille, desja canoniquement institué et ordonné, et universellement publié et promulgé.… Nous donques, les prevost, chanoines et chapitre de ceste saincte eglise, pour nous et le clergé d’icelle, et tous autres veuillans ad ce adherer, faisons publiquement ceste solennelle protestation, au lieu de disputation ou de response.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 25. 25 “[Jacques Drogy, vicar of Morges]: On m’a bien dict que j’estoye excomunié de parler et disputer avec vous, mays cela ne m’a pas empesché, combien que me ayez receue amerement, de revenir pour parler a vous gratieusement. Et si, par cela, je suis excomunié, je m’en absoubz moy mesme.” Piaget, Les actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 385-86. 26 Alistair McGrath distorts the historical record when he writes, “Even though pitted against representatives of the local catholic clergy, Farel and Viret found the debate hard going.” A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 96. 27 “Entre tous les opposants, qui fort se présenta, ce fut un médecin nommé Blanche Rose, homme tenant de la lune et fort fantastique, lequel en ses disputes mêlait le médecine avec la théologie et faisait incontinent à rire.” Pierrefleur, 124. Irena Backus has analyzed Blancherose’s argumentation during the disputation more closely, concluding that he was drawing on the works of the “médecin-alchimiste-joachimite,” Arnaud de Villeneuve. Irena Backus, “Médecine et théologie: L’argumentation de Claude Blancherose à la Dispute de Lausanne,” in La Dispute de Lausanne (1536): La théologie réformée après Zwingli et avant Calvin, Textes du Colloque international sur la Dispute de Lausanne (29 septembre-1er octobre 1986), ed. Eric Junod, BHV 90 (Lausanne: Presses Centrales Lausanne, 1988), 178-88.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

141

led the Protestant side, providing the initial support for seven of the ten conclusions28 and offering the bulk of the support during the open debates. He was accompanied by Farel, Christophe Fabri, Antoine Marcourt, Pierre Caroli (the Sorbonne doctor whom Farel had previously argued against in the Rive Disputation in Geneva), and John Calvin. Calvin’s involvement in the disputation has been blown out of proportion by some scholars.29 He spoke only twice during the entire week, and although his first intervention was lengthy and powerful, he hardly “turned the tide of the debate,” as Alister McGrath suggests.30 Viret and Farel had the situation well in hand long before Calvin opened his mouth. Nevertheless, Francis Higman has a point in calling the Lausanne Disputation the “crossroads of the French Reformation.” More important than Calvin’s own minimal contributions to the disputation was the reformers’ overall shift in approach from aggression to elucidation. Everyone knew what the result of the disputation would be, and the abolition of the Mass in most of Vaud, as well as in Neuchâtel and Geneva, required a new modus operandi, one that sought not to provoke but to educate.

2.

THE EDICTS OF REFORMATION

On 19 October 1536, just two weeks after the end of the Lausanne Disputation, Bern issued its first edict of Reformation for Vaud, thus

28

Farel gave two and Christophe Fabri one. E.g., Alister McGrath: “On 5 October Calvin finally intervened. He turned the tide of the debate.… [H]is catholic opponents at Lausanne (and, indeed, as time would prove, elsewhere) lacked the ability to refute him. Calvin emerged from the Lausanne Disputation with a new-found (and, it must be said, a fully merited) reputation as an orator and religious controversialist. Perhaps more importantly, his success at Lausanne appears to have persuaded him that he possessed more abilities than he had hitherto suspected.” McGrath, A Life of John Calvin, 96-97. Francis Higman: “L’effet de cette intervention est profond, et immédiat. Le débat, qui depuis deux jours semblait tourner en rond, paraissait maintenant clair, réglé, – la précision des références que donne Calvin, jointe à la lucidité de l’exposé, offrent un moyen de persuasion autrement puissant que les longs dialogues de ses confrères. Bref, on assiste ici à un changement de cap qui, plus que tout autre, définira l’avenir de la réforme suisse, de la réforme francophone, et même, j’ose le dire, de la réforme mondiale: Calvin arrive en scène.” Higman, “La Dispute de Lausanne, carrefour de la Réformation française,” in La Dispute de Lausanne, ed. Junod, 23-35; here, 34-35. If, however, Calvin’s intervention on October 5 boosted his profile and selfconfidence to such an extent, and if it marked a “changing of the guard,” one must wonder why he spoke only once more, and briefly, during the remaining three days of the disputation. 30 McGrath, A Life of John Calvin, 96. 29

142

Chapter 5

initiating the process of dismantling the Catholic religion in the region. The first order of business was the organized physical removal and/or destruction of all Catholic ornamentation, including altars, images, and vestments. The Bernese hoped to weaken attachments to the old faith by eliminating all visible remnants of it. Only when that process was fully under way did Bern issue a second edict, which defined the religious and moral laws the people were to follow. In Lausanne, the destruction of images started prematurely, almost immediately following the disputation. On 10 October the cathedral canons complained of the iconoclasm before the city council and handed over the keys to the cathedral, which would remain closed to the public until February 1537.31 For the most part, however, the destruction and removal of images took place in an orderly fashion under the auspices of Bernese officials moving from town to town between October 1536 and January 1537. Images of stone and wood were destroyed. Items of value, including clerical vestments, were confiscated and many were sold to neighboring Catholic lands, vastly enriching Bern’s coffers.32 Much of the Lausanne cathedral’s ornamentation ultimately ended up in the Historisches Museum Bern.33 Lausanne itself likewise profited from the sale of ecclesiastical vestments and ornaments. Although Bern had reserved for itself the goods of the cathedral, it granted the property of the parish churches to the Lausanne city council.34 Lest the profits made from the sale of this ecclesiastical merchandise encourage undue cynicism about Bern’s motivations for dissolving the Catholic Church in its lands, it should be pointed out that a significant portion of the profits went toward providing salaries for both the

31

“Tunc ibidem fuit conclusum, eo quod domini de capitulo exposuerunt quod nonnulli habitatores et burgenses qui vocantur evangeliste qui maiorem ecclesiam saltem altaria dirruere volebant, et quod ipsi dom. de capitulo deprecabant ipsos de consilio ut haberent ecclesiam recomendatam, et quod darent claves ipsius ecclesie cui placeret consiliaribus. Et promiserunt qui supra non facere innovationes, eo quod tradite fuerunt claves burgimagistro dicte ecclesie, et iuraverunt.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 36 (1882): 300-01 (10 October 1536). 32 “La vente qui se fit au plus offrant des biens séquestrés des couvens, produisit, selon le compte qu’établit la Notice sur les cures du pays de Vaud une somme de L[ivres]. 145,000. La vente des ornements et habits sacerdotaux donna [L.] 2515. Les vases d’or et d’argent … ensemble faisant [L.] 16,195. [Total]: L. 165,710.… Mais ce chiffre est loin de représenter la réalité. La seule cathédrale, selon les inventaires que nous avons donnés de sa richesse, renfermait 275 marcs 5 ½ onces or, 1668 marcs 6 ½ onces argent; c’est plusieurs fois la valeur des 16,195 livres portées ci-dessus,” approximately an additional 39,600 pounds. Chroniqueur, 355. 33 See Jacques Stammler, Le trésor de la cathédrale de Lausanne, trans. Jules Galley, MDR, 2nd ser., 5 (Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1902). 34 See Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 1 (1887): 10-11.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

143

new Protestant ministers and the old Catholic clergy who chose to remain in Bern’s lands.35 The Bernese forced the Vaudois towns themselves to pay for the labor involved in removing the images. Few areas were eager to yield or destroy the symbols of the old faith. At Saint-Saphorin, whose church had been enriched by gifts from the bishops of Lausanne, armed men rebuffed Bern’s bailiff, initially preventing him from carrying out his task. The townspeople later gave in and sent a deputation to Bern to beg for mercy.36 Other places resisted more subtly. The people of Lutry, for example, decided to hide the great crucifix, the baptismal font, and the consecrated host.37 Despite these setbacks, the purging of ornamentation from the Catholic churches and monasteries went fairly smoothly. The abolition of the Mass, however, presented a different problem, for it was much more difficult to enforce. Publicly removing images from a church was one thing; preventing priests from saying the Mass secretly was quite another. Moreover, there were not enough Protestant ministers available to lead Reformed worship services, and many priests continued to celebrate the Mass exactly as before.38 Even in

35

See Vuilleumier, 227-30. Vuilleumier, 191. 37 On 31 October 1536, Aimé Deprez reported to the Lutry city council, “comment Monseigneur le bailli de Lausanne gâte toutes les églises dans la région de Lucens et fait brûler les images. Sur ce, on a chargé le banderet … de descendre le crucifix et de le cacher.… Plus, le vicaire de Monsieur le Curé a comparu et demandé l’avis du Conseil sur ce qu’il doit faire de la conche de l’eau baptismale, du corpus domini, de la custode et aussi des vêtements sacerdotaux appartenant à la paroisse. Il a été conclu que le corpus domini sera déposé dans la crotte [a vault in the town hall], d’une façon honnête, décente et digne et qu’on y allumera la lampe, comme s’il était dans l’église. On y joindra aussi la dite conche afin que le tout soit retrouvé quand besoin sera. Quant aux vêtements d’église appartenant à la paroisse, le vicaire devra les remettre au banderet et à Guillaume Carrat, qui ont été chargés d’exécuter le présent arrêté.” Quoted in F.-Raoul Campiche, “La fin du culte catholique à Lutry,” MDR 24 (1916): 280-88, 315-18, 321-36; here, 284-85. 38 In November 1536 Farel refers to instances in the Chablais in a letter to Hans Rudolf Nägeli: “Il semble que, jusques à ce qu’on puysse donner ordre plus plainement, sera bon que instituez Froment à Colonges et lyeux là prochains, faisant que les prestres ne se meslent plus du peuple, ne d’enseigner, ne d’administrer les sacremens, ne des cures, ne autres, et singulièrement les gros loupz et qui plus ont séduict et pressé le povre peuple. Davantaige, Monseigneur, je ne puys rien entendre de la chastellanie de Terny [Ternier]: il me semble proprement que c’est une mocquerie. Le chastellan, vous le congnoissez qu’il vault; il y a ung lieutenant que je crois estre peu songneux ne de l’honneur de Dieu, ne de Messeigneurs. Les uns chantent, les autres je ne sçay qu’ilz font.” Herminjard, 4:103 (No. 580), Farel to Nägeli, Geneva, 14 November 1536. In December, Christophe Fabri reported to Farel that he had heard that three parishes near Nyon were still celebrating the Mass: “Audivi a quibusdam rusticis Missas superstites esse in tribus pagis Niduno proximis, quos vocant Bourcin [Bursins], Machicy 36

144

Chapter 5

Lausanne, where Pierre Viret and Pierre Caroli were both active as Protestant ministers, the city council imposed a ten-pound fine on anyone caught celebrating or attending the Mass, since members of the council had heard that “certain individuals had arranged to celebrate the Mass, baptize children, and perform marriages and other papal ceremonies.”39 To bring order to the chaos, Bern issued its second major edict of Reformation for its French-speaking lands on 24 December 1536. Whereas the first edict had merely outlawed the Mass and images, the Christmas Eve edict expanded the number of prohibited Catholic activities and set out more clearly the ecclesiastical order and way of life that was to be followed.40 The edict stated, first, that only ministers approved by Bern would be allowed to preach in its lands and that they were to preach only the pure Word of God, but it left the task of electing ministers to the existing Protestant clergy.41 The Bernese overturned Catholic prohibitions on clerical marriage and the eating of meat during traditional times of fasting, and it

[Marchissy] et Longeroz [Longirod].” Herminjard, 4:126 (No. 589), Fabri to Farel, Thonon, 8 December 1536. Likewise, in December, Bern had to order the town of Chardonne [northwest of Vevey] to stop celebrating the Mass: “Chiers et féaulx, nous avons entenduz que, non obstant la deffense que nous ambassadeurs à tous vous de la parroiche de Corsy ont faicte, et les promesses que vous députés à nous dicts ambassadeurs ont faictes, de nous obéyr en l'endroit du commandement que vous ont faict de désister des toutes cérémonies papales, – vous comme obstinés, laissés chanter au [read: ou] disre messe en vostre chapelle, ce que nous est grand regraict et mesprissance. Dont vous commandons tresacertes, de vous incontinant dépourter de cella, en tant que désirés d'éviter nostre indignation et grieffe punition.” Herminjard, 4:138-39 (No. 593), Bern city council to the parishioners of Chardonne, Bern, 17 December 1536. 39 “Le vendredi XXII de décembre convoqué le Conseyel, Rière Conseyel et IIc, auxquieulx fut exposé par le bourguemeystre en la mode qu'il s'ensuyt: Magniffiques signieurs, vous estes yci invoqués pour cella que messeigneurs de Conseyel ont entendu que aulcuns particuliers, habitans de Lausane et bourgoyes, feysiont célébrer messe, baptiser enfans, fère mariage et aultres sérmonies papales, lesquelles sont différentes et répugnantes à la loy évangélicquez, à laquelle sommes conformés et à ycelle volons vivre; pourquoy fut par ledit signieurs bourguemeystre prié aux dit signieurs acistans [read: assistans] vouloyer sur cella avoyer advis et avoyer leurs opinions. Et alors fut conclud: Ordonéz de crier publiquemant que ung chescun feysant telles sérimonies papales, comme dessus, et ausi ung chescun allant hoïr messe hors du ballivage, ny allieurs, soyet tenuz poyer, à scavoyer X lib. pour une chescune foyes.” Chavannes, "Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne," MDR 1 (1887): 18-19 (22 December 1536). 40 The full text of the edict is printed in the Chroniqueur, 348-50. 41 “Premièrement que nul soit mêle d’annoncer la Parole de Dieu en nos dits pays que ne soit sur nous à ce député. Toutefois l’élection desdits ministres se pourra faire par les prédicans et iceux à nous présentés pour les confirmer. 2) Que iceux ministres purement annoncent la Parole de Dieu en tant que désirent éviter notre male grâce.” Chroniqueur, 348.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

145

reiterated the ban on going to Mass “or other papal ceremonies.”42 Additional prohibitions were made against taking oaths in the name of saints,43 reciting the Ave Maria,44 and wearing the rosary.45 Several moral laws followed, outlining punishments for adultery, fornication, prostitution, blasphemy, gambling, luxurious clothing, and immodest dancing. Realizing that lasting change would require the indoctrination of the youth, the Bernese called for their education “in God’s law,” or the teaching of the catechism.46 The most significant article concerned the existing Catholic clergy: Concerning those who are called churchmen (gens d’église), we have ordered that all those who wish to live their entire lives according to God and the form of our Reformation may and should enjoy their benefices and prebends …. And since large sums are needed due to the great number of these churchmen, as well as to support the preachers, and since we must equally consider the poor of this country, we have ordered that all revenues of the church remain as they are, and everyone must continue to pay them as in the past, until we order otherwise upon the deaths of the churchmen.47 It may seem surprising that Bern allowed the Catholic clergy who agreed to “convert” to continue to hold their benefices and prebends, but Bern’s decision stemmed from a desire to recruit the Catholic clergy to help fill the

42

“Nous avons aussi ordonné que vous vous déportiez d’aller à la messe et autres cérémonies papales sous le bamp, l’homme de dix florins et la femme de cinq.” Chroniqueur, 349. 43 “Nous établissons que quand vous ferez serment, que le fassiez par le nom de Dieu sans nommer les saints.” Chroniqueur, 349. 44 “Nous sommes tous certains que tous sont d’opinion que nul doive adorer autre, sinon un Seigneur Dieu, comme notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ nous a appris, à cette cause voulons que l’on ne dise l’Ave Maria en lieu de prière et que l’on ne les sonne plus comme du temps passé.” Chroniqueur, 350. 45 “Pour éviter le scandale et noise avons ordonné que nul doive porter paternoster sous peine, l’homme de trente sols et la femme de quinze sols.” Chroniqueur, 350. 46 “Et afin que les enfans soient instruits en la loi de Dieu, et appris à prier, avons avisé de vous envoyer la forme comme nous la tenons pour icelle ensuivre.” Chroniqueur, 350. 47 “Concernant les gens qu’on appelle gens d’église avons ordonné que tous ceux d’icelle qui voudront vivre selon Dieu et la forme de notre réformation, leur vie durant puissent et doivent gaudir de leurs bénéfices et prébendes, toutefois les pensions et absences deneguetes. Et à cause qu’il est grand nombre desdits gens d’église, et aussi pour entretenir les prédicans, il faut beaucoup de biens, pareillement est de nécessité d’avoir considération sur les pauvres dudit pays, avons ordonné que tous les biens d’église demeurent en leur être, et chacun les payer ci-après comme du passé, jusques à tant qu’après les décès desdits gens d’église, nous y ordonnions autrement." Chroniqueur, 348-49.

146

Chapter 5

many open preaching positions in the parishes. At the close of the Lausanne Disputation, there were only about thirty active Protestant ministers serving one hundred fifty-four parishes.48 Former priests were not accepted as Protestant ministers without suitable training and examination, but an avowal of religious conformity together with the promise of financial security seemed a good way to begin transforming Catholic priests into Protestant preachers. In addition, local pastoral colloquies were established that met publicly at least once a month to discuss the Bible and doctrine in order to instruct the laity and former priests. These colloquies were intended to recruit new ministers from among the Catholic clergy, as is clear in a 1539 letter from Bern to the Lausanne city council: It has come to our notice that there are various priests and monks among you who have accepted the Reformation and are living off of the goods of the church. In the future they could serve in the ministry of the Gospel if they would only study Holy Scripture. Therefore, we order and command that they go to lectures and studies if they wish to enjoy their prebends ….49 The “lectures and studies” referred to the colloquies. Bern’s hopes proved to be ill-founded, however: only four former Catholic clergymen out of over two hundred ever became Protestant ministers.50 What the Bernese got instead were a couple hundred former clergymen continuing to draw ecclesiastical income while – at best – doing little to help the new Reformed

48

This number includes the eleven ministers elected at the 1536 Synod of Yverdon (See Herminjard, 4:62-63 (No. 562), [The Synod of Yverdon] to the Bern city council, [Yverdon], [8 June 1536]), the fourteen appointed after the Lausanne Disputation (see Herminjard, 4:91-92 (No. 574), Bern city council to the new pastors in the pays romands, Bern, 19 October 1536), Jacques Hugues in the Pays Gex, Viret and Caroli in Lausanne and Fabri and Farel in the Chablais. There may have been a few others, but there were certainly not nearly enough to cover all the parishes. 49 “Et vous faysons sçavoir estre venuz à nostre notice, comme rière vous soyent aulcuns devers [Herminjard, “jeunes”] prestres et moynes que ont accepté nostre réformation, et en vigeur de ce vivent des biens d’Esglise: lesquels à l’advenir pourroint servir au ministère de l’Évangile, sy ainsy feust que voulsissent estudié en la Saincte Escripture. A ceste cause, vous mandons et commandons iceulx enduisre d’aller ès lections et estudiéz, en tant que desirent de jouir de leurs prébendes, affin que puissent, comme dict est, servir et ministrer [Herminjard, “servir au dict ministère”].” Herminjard, 5:288-89 (No. 783), Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 21 April 1539; STAB AIII 159, fol. 114vº. I note the differences between my transcription of the letter in the Bern archives and the published letter in Herminjard because Bern did not want only the young (“jeunes”) clergymen to be trained but all of them (“aulcuns devers”). 50 Lyon, “Le sort du clergé vaudois au lendemain de la Réforme,” 62-66.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

147

Church or – at worst – causing disruptions in the churches and continuing to celebrate masses secretly.

3.

CATHOLIC CLERGY IN A PROTESTANT LAND

The first thing the Bernese had to do with regard to the existing Catholic clergy was to find out which were willing to follow the edicts of Reformation and would therefore be allowed to stay, and which should be banished from their territories. A visitation commission was sent out in January 1537 both to examine the clergy and to take account of the existing ecclesiastical incomes.51 In most cases, the Bernese visitors simply noted which individuals decided to stay and accept the Reformation and which wanted to leave or had already left.52 The monks at Lac de Joux begged for an extension, based once again on the promise of an upcoming general council: The abbot and two monks from Lac de Joux appeared; the commissioners wished to know if they intended to conform to the Reformation. They responded, after reading the act of submission signed by the abbot during the war, that they wished to live in the ecclesiastical state until after the council. They were refused.53 Despite their desire to live in the “ecclesiastical state,” the abbot and monks eventually promised to accept the Reformation.54 From this brief exchange, we can note, first, that the monks had no great desire to follow the

51

Translated excerpts from the commissioners’ journal have been published in French by Robert Centlivres, “Fragments du Journal des Commissaires Bernois (janvier-mars 1537),” RHV 33 (1925): 257-69; 289-97; 345-50; 375-80; vol. 34 (1926): 19-27; 55-59; 88-92. 52 See, e.g., the list of monks at Haut-Crêt: “Les noms de l’abbé et des moines qui ont accepté la Réformation à Haut-Crêt: L’abbé Petrus Morellus (†), l’abbé élu Claudius Morellus, Jean Marcens, prieur, Jean d’Yverdon (quittavit), Gaspardus Cevet [Levet?] (abiit), Johanes Villerum (abiit), Ludovicus Clerici (†), Anthonius Malliard (abiit), Petrus Hugnetus, Johannes Visinandi (abiit), Anthonius Ballif, Johanes Convert, Galesius Farqueti, Villermus Perrodus.” Centlivres, “Fragments du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:296. 53 “L’abbé et deux moines du lac de Joux ont comparu: Messieurs les commissaires ont désiré savoir si leur intention était de se conformer à la Réformation. A quoi ils ont répondu, après lecture de l’acte de soumission signé par l’abbé durant la guerre, qu’ils désireraient vivre dans l’état ecclésiastique jusqu’après le concile, ce qui leur fut refusé.” Centlivres, “Fragments du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:269. 54 Centlivres, “Fragments du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:290.

148

Chapter 5

Reformation; their acceptance of Bern’s edicts was a last resort, only offered after their plea to continue in the religious life was rejected. Second, the episode shows that the clergy still held out hope that the promised general council would solve the religious question once and for all. And third, the monks threw back in the faces of the Bernese the act of submission signed during the war against Savoy. It seems surprising that there is not more evidence of other towns and individuals doing likewise. During the campaign the Bernese had promised not to compel anyone in matters of faith, an assurance they quickly withdrew. By reminding the Bernese of their untrustworthiness, the monks likely represented a widely held opinion among Bern’s new subjects and caused the visitors some embarrassment. The Lausanne cathedral canons proved to be the most intractable among the Catholic clergymen. After their request for a delay was denied,55 they were asked by the Bernese if they were willing to accept the edict of Reformation. The canons replied that they had no quarrel with the articles on morality, but “as for the rest, our conscience binds us to live and die according to God and the determination of the universal church ….”56 The commissioners then ordered them to leave, noting that although they had caused Bern enough grief to deserve punishment, the canons would be free to go if they would immediately hand over all their moveable and immoveable goods.57 The canons replied that they had never harmed or 55

56

57

“Les chanoines de Lausanne qui ont accepté la Réformation de LL. EE. [leurs excellences]: Claude de Praroman, Etienne Gimel, Claude Blanc. Les autres ont demandé un délai jusqu’à la St-Jean, ce qui leur fut refusé; ils ont eu le temps et le loisir de réfléchir depuis la Dispute ….” Centlivres, “Fragment du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:375. “Interrogati an vellent acceptare et tenere eorum legem seu Reformacionem.… Et premierement ont respondu jote ce que dicte leurs conscience. Tant qui touche les articles de glothonie, adultayre, palliardise, maquerellage, blasfeme, jeuz, vestementz, benitions, dances, abolicions des pensions, et guerres. Iceulx voullons et desirons tenir et observé cellon le commandement de Dieu. A la reste nostre conscience nouz rapporte de debvoer vivre et morir cellon Dieu et la determination de l’esglise universale en la quelle nous croyons en observacion de l’article du simbole aut quel n’entendons de voulloer devier, mays totalement observer.” Peter Rück, “Un récit de la captivité du Chapitre de Lausanne en février 1537,” RHV 78 (1970): 43-67 (text 62-64); here, 62, 63. Rück found this document, entitled De detentione et incarceratione dominorum de capitulo, in the Bürgerbibliothek in Bern. He surmises, “… l’auteur est très probablement – après l’écriture et le contenu – le chanoine Michel Barbey (Barberii), qui dut rédiger son texte immédiatement après les événements, soit à la fin du mois de février 1537” (Ibid., 45). “Puisqu’ils se refusent à admettre la Réformation, les commissaires continueront à traiter avec eux et ils devront sur l’ordre de LL. EE. quitter le pays. On leur a représenté qu’ils avaient assez travaillé contre l’intérêt de LL. EE. pour mériter d’être traités avec plus de riguer; cependant on les laissera aller à la condition expresse qu’ils mettent immédiatement à la disposition des commissaires tous les titres du Chapitre, les

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

149

conspired against the Bernese and that they could not hand over all their titles and goods since some had been placed in the care of the city and others sent to Fribourg and the Valais.58 The exasperated commissioners then locked up the canons – at the canons’ own expense – in the château Saint-Maire until the titles could be retrieved.59 One canon was released to cross Lake Geneva to collect titles that had been sent to Evian,60 but he returned with only a fraction of the chapter’s goods.61 Having spent nearly two weeks in Lausanne already, the Bernese commissioners finally released the canons from their incarceration and banished them from Bern’s territories without having received all the chapter’s titles. On the eve of the Lausanne Disputation, there had been approximately five hundred fifty members of the Catholic clergy in Vaud.62 By the time the Bernese visitors had finished their investigations, about half the clergy had left the country and half had chosen to stay. One must, of course, question the motives of the approximately two hundred fifty who remained, for only

reconnaissances et le reste, avec les habits, ornements, vêtements sacerdotaux, coupes, ostensoires, statues d’argent, etc.” Centlivres, “Fragments du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:375-76. 58 “Les chanoines ont essayé de jurer qu’ils n’avaient jamais nui à Leurs Excellences, ni conspiré contre elles. Ils ont declaré qu’une partie des titres étaient à Fribourg, une autre partie au Valais. Ceux de la ville ont la majeure partie des habits et ornements.” Centlivres, “Fragments du journal des commissaires bernois,” RHV 33:376. 59 “Necnon sub eorum manibus reposuerunt et detinuerunt omnia et singula bona mobilia et immobilia, eciam iurisdictiones totius Capituli et dominorum predictorum. Et nichilominus eosdem in dicto castro detentos retinuerunt et carceratos ianuis clausis et cum custodia prime ianue et camere seu aule in qua erant repositi custodes vero circa octo vel decem donec et quousque omnia iocalia, thesaurum iuraque et titulos dicte ecclesie integre restituerint et eisdem deliberaverint. Expense vero eorundem dominorum ab eorum domibus fuerunt aportate.” Rück, “Un récit de la captivité du Chapitre de Lausanne,” 63. 60 “Dictus vero D. Michael Barberii dicta die sabbati hora meridiana fuit relaxatus pro eundo ultra lacum ad querendum ea que erant in sua potestate de consensu tamen prefatorum dominorum detentorum. Et inibi permansit usque in diem mercurii sequentem propter ventum vallidum in lacu, qua die rediit cum iuribus, titulis et bonis.” Rück, “Un récit de la captivité du Chapitre de Lausanne,” 64. Evian was, at this time, part of the Valais, a Catholic region allied to but not yet part of the Confederation; it had aided Bern in its war against Savoy and took over the eastern half of the Chablais, from Evian eastward, while Bern seized the western half of the region. 61 “Unnd sÿe nit an, dz sÿ einen gan Efian geschickt hatten, der nun dz so sÿ daselbs gehept bracht und uns dasselbig für gelegt, dz nit mer dann zweÿ erkandtnuss bücher und ettlich brieff gewäsenn.” Rück, “Un récit de la captivité du Chaptire de Lausanne,” 65, letter from the commissioners to the Bern city council, Lausanne, 22 February 1537. 62 Lyon, “Le sort du clergé vaudois au lendemain de la Réforme,” 53. Lyon bases her number on 476 clergy she has been able positively to identify, plus an estimate of about another one hundred – vicars and curates primarily – who do not appear in the extant records.

150

Chapter 5

twelve had previously accepted the conclusions of the Lausanne Disputation.63 There were three main reasons for clergymen who had no interest in joining the Reformed Church to remain in Vaud. First, they may have wished to retain their benefices and property. Bern presented the clerics with the option to stay and keep their incomes or go into exile penniless. Many during the Reformation faced this same option, which led to widespread Nicodemism among French Protestants and other religious minorities. It should hardly seem surprising that many of the Catholic clergy in newly Protestant Vaud opted for economic security over religious conviction. Second, many of them may have believed that they were not, in fact, truly compromising their beliefs. We have seen how keenly aware the clergy were of the upcoming general council, scheduled to open in just a few months. Many no doubt thought that if they could persevere until then, the conclusions of the council would overturn the outcome of the Lausanne Disputation. And third, as we have seen, there was always the possibility that the Bernese would be pressured into giving the Pays de Vaud back to the duke of Savoy and the bishop of Lausanne, thereby releasing the members of the clergy from their Protestant oppressors and allowing them to return to their jobs. Years later when that possibility receded after Charles V was forced to flee back over the Alps, the reactions of the Catholic clergy were markedly different. When the town of Orbe abolished the Mass in 1554, for example, every one of the town’s priests and nuns left Bern’s lands.64 In 1536-1537, even if the clergy decided to stay and “accept” Bern’s Reformation, the vast majority of them had absolutely no interest in furthering the Protestant cause. Rather than a potential pool of ministers, therefore, the Bernese found a coterie of disaffected clerics waiting out the

63

Following the disputation, a roll was taken of all the Catholic clergy in attendance to see if they accepted the conclusions. Of the 211 for whom a response is recorded, only 12 are marked as confirming (confermans) or accepting (acceptans) the conclusions. Of the remaining 199, 135 are recorded as opposing (opponens) and 65 as obstinate (contumax). “Rôle des gens d’église du Pays de Vaud, du Pays de Gex, du Chablais cités à la Dispute de Lausanne,” in Piaget, Les Actes de la Dispute de Lausanne, 427-43. Contumax, in this context, is a legal term indicating those who do not even recognize the authority of the judge, in this case, the Bernese ambassadors: “Vere contumax dicitur qui expresse dicit iudici vel eius servienti scilicet nuncio ipsum citanti quod non comparebit coram ipso, vel qui dum comparet illicenciatus recedit.” Vocabularius juris (Venice: Peregrinum de Pasqualibus, 1493), 5vº 64 The Catholic chronicler Pierrefleur notes with local pride, “Et est ici à noter qu’il n’y eut aucun prêtre ni moine, ni aussi religieuses ni converses, qui étaient en la dite ville d’Orbe, qui voulût renoncer à sa religion, quelque parti que les dits seigneurs de Berne leur présentassent. Ce qui n’a été fait par tout leur pays: car là où la dite religion est, tous ou la plupart des gens d’église ont renoncé à leur loi première ….” Pierrefleur, 232.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

151

Reformation until the general council or the emperor effected Vaud’s return to Holy Mother Church.65 Indeed, former priests continued to celebrate the Mass in secret, apparently with little fear of the consequences. In July 1537, André Ansel was arrested in Lausanne for performing “certain Papal ceremonies” in his home on the feast of Mary Magdalene and was sentenced to be “marked” (se submisit marcationi) for his offense. All who performed or attended such ceremonies were to be punished “according to the content of the established edict.”66 It is not clear, however, whether the council was referring to the statutes it had established the previous December or to Bern’s edict of Reformation. The Bernese were not pleased about the activity of the priests in Lausanne. In August, they warned the city council, We hear to our great regret that you are still supporting priests who did not wish to accept our Reformation and that they continue to carry on, wholly filled with idolatry. We expressly advise you to administer to them immediately and without delay the oath to leave your city and territory and to reside there no longer, notifying them that if they do not wish to obey, we will determine what further action must be taken.67

65

66

67

One key indicator of the utter lack of Protestant conviction on the part of the Catholic clergy is that we know of only twelve who ever married. Lyon, “Le sort du clergé vaudois au lendemain de la Réforme,” 68. “Die Martis praescripta fuerunt congregati Retro Consilium numero sexaginta Burgenses deliberaturi super detentione Domini Andraeae Anselli qui est arrestatus in domo villa, occasione certarum seremoniarum Papalium factarum in domo sua die Dominica festi Beata Maria Magdalena. Fuit deliberatum et conclusum quod illi qui fecerunt tales serimonias pugniatur iuxta continentiam cridarum factarum. Et quod illi qui fuerunt praesentes, solvant iuxta contentum articulorum et cridarum factarum. Item, idem Dominus Andraeas Anselli se submisit marcationi de dicta offensa, et promisit solvere id quod erit marciatum, moderatione Dominorum Consiliariorum reservata.” AVL Chavannes, D 12, fol. 30vº (24 July 1537). It is unclear what sort of mark he was to receive, but it could have been as serious as a brand: cf. Charles du Fresne, Seigneur du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, 10 vols. (Paris: Librarie des sciences et des arts, 1938 [1883-1887]), 5:265: “MARCATIO: Nota, inustio, stigma … Stat. Crimin. Saonae cap. 17. pag. 19: Puniatur talis delinquens et condemnatur ad frustram et Marcationem; et uno die fustigetur publice per civitatem Saonae, alio die ferro ignito marchetur in frontis.” “Entendons comme soubstenés tousjours les prestres que n’ont voulsu accepter nostre réformation, et que iceulx acomplissent ancores tout plain d’idolâtrie, dont avons trèsgrand regret. Vous admonestans expressément, sans aulcung délays, de leur donner incontinant le sèrement de vuider vostre ville et seigneurie, et n’y plus fayre résidence, en leur notiffiant que sy ne veulent obéhir, que adviserons comme ly fauldra en oultre besognier.” Herminjard, 4:279 (No. 652), Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 24 August 1537.

152

Chapter 5

Ambassadors from Lausanne replied that they had always exercised “extreme diligence” in enforcing the Reformation and that there were only a few non-conformist priests who remained in town simply because they were debilitated by old age or sickness.68 By October 1537, Lausanne still had not lived up to Bern’s demands and received another stern admonition to banish the priests.69 A month later, the discovery of another cleric who had secretly performed the Mass in Lausanne aggravated the situation. The Dominican Jacques Daux had celebrated the Feast of All Saints’ Day secretly and was fined by the city council but not banished.70 This was the last straw for the Bernese. They summoned representatives from Lausanne to appear in Bern “to hear our will and final resolution.”71 A summons to appear before the Bern city council was a grave prospect. The magistrates were irate, and they wanted the troublesome priests out. This time, Bern apparently got through to the Lausannois, for no more angry letters on the subject exist. Nevertheless, priests remained in Lausanne; Bern only wanted those who had not accepted the Reformation to be banished. Still, the Lausanne magistrates’ reaction throughout the affair is telling. For one thing, it shows that they were not eager to evict former priests from the city. Even after at least two stern warnings and an appearance in Bern, they saw fit only to fine Jacques Daux for celebrating 68

“En apprès, vous pleutz aussy nous rescripre que ancore [il y] avoyt dans Lausanne plusieurs prestres non conformes à vostre réformation. Vous advertissans que tousjour avons fayctz extrême diligence, et ancoure, par le moyan de vostre susdicte lettre, avons cherché par toutte nostre ville. Si n’avons trouvé en icelle que certayns prestres malaysés, lesqueulx tant par vielliesse et impotence ne pourriont cheminer; sil se sont ouffertz vivre jouste icelle [réformation], et eulx contrevenans estre griefvement punis.” Herminjard, 4:289-90 (No. 656), Deputies from Lausanne to the Bern city council, Bern, [towards the beginning of September 1537]. 69 “… vous derrechieff et très-acertes commandons que à icelle incontinant soit donné lieuz: … Secondement, que les prestres que n’ont voulsuz accepté nostre réformation, lesquels debviës bannis atout le sèrement [read: avec serment] hors de nous pays, incontinant mettés en prison et captivité, et de là leur donnés sèrement de vuider incontinant nous pays et jurisdictions.” Herminjard, 4:302 (No. 662), Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 8 October 1537. 70 “… Frere Jaques Daux détenu en prison à cause qui avoit chanté le jour Feste Toussainct en sa chambre, comparu et à deux genoulz en terre demandy pardon de ladite offence. Et se submist a la misericorde et ordonnance de Messrs de Conseil, de tout cella que sera ordonné, et a promist de poyer ce que sera ordonné.” AVL Chavannes D 12, fol. 35vº (13 November 1537). 71 “A ceste cause avons estably journee pour comparoistre par devant nous et nostre grand Conseil, assavoir Lundi iii de decembre prochain. Sur ce sçachés envoyer vous commis avecq plaine et entiere charge d’entendre nostre voulenté et finale resolution, et à icelle sans plus delayer donner lieuz. A ce ne faicte faulte.” STAB AIII 159, fol. 46rº, Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 21 November 1537.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

153

the Mass. More than ten years later, in 1551, when a former cathedral canon came to request his pension, the Lausanne council denied it “since it came out of poor relief funds … and since he had not accepted the Reformation (ipse non in Reformatione).”72 The council, therefore, while not encouraging Catholicism, certainly did not go to the lengths the Bernese desired to keep its lands free of non-conformist priests. In the exchange between Bern and Lausanne over the problematic priests, we should note that jurisdictional authority was not altogether clear. Both cities had issued edicts concerning the Reformation; Lausanne’s edict prescribed a simple fine of ten pounds for saying or attending the Mass. Bern’s edict of Reformation imposed a similar fine on those attending the Mass but implied that any priest who continued to celebrate the Mass had not, in fact, accepted the Reformation and must be banished. The Largess of Lausanne had given the city a measure of independent jurisdiction, but it did not address all matters of religion in specific terms. Years later, this confusion over competing jurisdictions would lead directly to Pierre Viret’s banishment. If Catholic priests continued to pose a problem in Lausanne, which was closely watched by resident Bernese officials and Protestant ministers, how much greater a threat to the “new religion” did they pose in rural towns and villages where no officials or ministers resided? Indeed, the actions of the Bernese officials suggest that in the countryside the priests continued to say the Mass for their former congregations exactly as before. The continuing problems in the region led Bern to conduct another visitation to investigate the religious situation in their lands at the beginning of 1538. This time the visitors were instructed to banish priests who accepted the Reformation only in order to keep their prebends, in addition to those who continued to perform Catholic rituals in secret.73 Upon the visitors’ return, the Bernese called for a synod to take place in Lausanne on 31 March 1538, under the leadership of the Bernese pastors, Peter Kunz and Erasmus Ritter. All of the Protestant clergy in Bern’s French-speaking lands were asked to attend, and Calvin and Farel were also invited, as long as they agreed to adhere to Bern’s liturgical forms.74 The

72

“Eadem die dominus Glaudius de Prez alias Corcelles petiit sibi solvi retentas centum ffl [florins] pensionis. Et fuit conclusum viso quod dicta pensio est de bonis pauperum quod nihil habebit, viso etiam quod ipse non in Reformatione, sed fuit remissis ad mensem.” AVL Chavannes D 12, fol. 231rº (5 February 1551). 73 Ruchat, 6:474. 74 “Nous avons, pour bien et union de nous prédicans, avisé de tenir ung synode à Lausanne sur le dymenche d’en my-caresme, qu’est le dernier jour de ce moys, – vous sur ce prians notiffier à maistre Guillaume Farel et maistre Jehan Calvinus, et [leur] permectre de soy trouver illaicq sur le dit jour.” Herminjard, 4:403, n.1 (Bern to Geneva, 5 March 1538).

154

Chapter 5

Synod of Lausanne did not paint a rosy picture of the state of religious affairs in the land. The ministers complained that Bern’s bailiffs were not strict enough in weeding out priests who did not truly accept the Reformation. The priests continued to wear their habits, to keep their concubines, and to say the Mass. People still kept statues of the saints, and women still wore rosaries. Townspeople rarely if ever went to the Protestant church services or communion, and they were not baptizing their children. In Aubonne, the nobles rejected the Reformation altogether; the priests accepted it, but only superficially in order to keep their prebends. The priests did not go to the sermon, but waited until the Protestant service was over to enter the church and say their old Catholic prayers.75 We must recognize that the synod’s report reflects the high expectations of a group of ministers intent on accomplishing a “true Reformation” of the church, and it may therefore have exaggerated the extent of the problems in order to get the Bernese magistrates to crack down on religious non-conformity. Nevertheless, one should not expect a Reformation imposed from above to enjoy much initial success, and the complaints are detailed enough that they must have been largely valid. Two years after Bern’s conquest of Vaud, the majority of the priests and the people had not come close to embracing the new religion. Monks and nuns represented yet another obstacle to the Reformation in Vaud. Like the priests, they were allowed to stay in Bern’s lands and keep their property if they declared their acceptance of the Reformation. In most cases, they simply followed the decision of their abbot or abbess,76 an ironic response for those who accepted the Reformation; released from their vows, these monks and nuns became “Protestant” precisely due to their adherence to the Catholic monastic vow of obedience. Unlike priests, the regular clergy lived together in communities. The question soon arose of whether they would be allowed to remain in their communities, where they would present a highly visible reminder of the old faith, or whether their communities would be broken up, just like the material remnants of Catholicism (e.g.,

“… toutteffoys par condition que premièrement eulx et aultres vous prédicants et vous, vous accordés de vous conformer avecque nous touchant les cérémonies.” Herminjard, 4:403 (No. 694), Bern city council to the Geneva city council, Bern, 20 March 1538. The churches in Bern’s lands used baptismal fonts and unleavened bread in the Eucharist, whereas in Geneva, leavened bread was used and baptismal fonts were not. Moreover, the Bernese continued to celebrate the feasts of Christmas, New Year’s, Annunciation, and Ascension Day, but the Genevans abolished all feast days except Sundays. See Ruchat, 6:476, Vuilleumier, 306-07. 75 Ruchat, 6:480-85. 76 Vuilleumier, 226.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

155

images, statues). In Lausanne, a compromise position was reached: the regular clergy were brought within the city walls but allowed to live communally. The Cistercian nuns of Bellevaux had lived in their convent for a year after the Lausanne Disputation before they were moved en masse into a single dwelling within the city walls.77 Only after the 1538 Synod of Lausanne were they required to exchange their monastic habits for secular garb.78 Despite these restrictions, it appears that the nuns continued to live together in Lausanne for years; the Lausanne city council increased their pensions in 1539 and 1540, and provided new clothing for them in 1541 and 1544.79 Likewise, the Cistercian monks of Montheron were forced into the city in 1538, where “it would be easier for them to go to the lectures and sermon in Lausanne.”80 Although both houses were forced to move inside Lausanne, it is revealing that the men were not relocated until a full year after the women. The magistrates obviously thought that the nuns required closer supervision than the monks. The double standard is even more striking when one considers that the convent of Bellevaux lay a mere half kilometer outside the city walls, whereas Montheron is ten kilometers north of Lausanne. The collective decisions of these monastic communities to remain together despite having accepted Bern’s Reformation underscore their Catholic, monastic identities. Whatever their individual religious convictions, they were first and foremost monks and nuns who would not abandon their communities. Although the pope’s proposed general council of Mantua did not meet as planned, the Catholic clergy in Vaud, together with everyone else who wished to return to the Catholic Church, found new hope in June 1538, when Charles V and Francis I agreed in Nice to a ten-year truce through the mediation of Pope Paul III.81 The truce produced a considerable uproar among Bern’s French-speaking subjects. An important letter from the Bernese magistrates to Lausanne, which has received little scholarly

77

Ruchat, 6:365; Vuilleumier, 198. Ruchat, 6:365. 79 Ruchat, 6:365-66. 80 “In retro consilio, eo videlicet quod ballicus Neyguilliz parte dominorum Bernensium petebat et instanter volebat quod religiosi de Montheron de cetero et amplius non haberent moram in docto loco de Montheron, sed in Lausanna, videlicet eo quod essent plus apti et plus conveniens pro ipsis religiosis ire in lectionibus et sermonibus qui fiunt Lausanne. Eo tunc fuit conclusum, ipsos monachos ut haberent relinquere locum de Montheron et veniant Lausannam, et eo mediante quod habeant et habere debere eorum pensiones, prout fuit eisdem promisum.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne.” MDR, 1 (1887): 8-9 (28 November 1538). 81 See above, chapter 2, section 9. 78

156

Chapter 5

attention, sheds much light on this situation. The Bernese begin by claiming their right to issue ordinances in religious as well as civil matters: Since the good, eternal, and omnipotent God, by his grace and assistance, has ordained that you be placed under our government and obedience, it therefore applied and pertained to us to prescribe and give commands, edicts, and ordinances conforming to Holy Scripture and natural rights, not only regarding external matters, but also religion, in the hope and complete confidence that you would have observed them. Nevertheless, we have been advised that certain individuals not only do not keep and honor them, but entirely mock and despise them, to our great regret.82 The declaration that God had placed the Bernese over their newly conquered subjects with the right to legislate religion is indicative of their caesaropapist political philosophy. Similarly, their repeated use of the phrase our Reformation reveals their conviction that the changes they had wrought in religion constituted an act of state. Disobedience to their religious edicts was, therefore, a matter for civil jurisdiction. Little more than six months after the Lausannois were summoned to Bern for flouting the order to banish priests who did not accept the Reformation, Leurs Excellences once again complained that their commands were not being obeyed. They go on to explain: We think and believe, however, that some do this from fear and others out of hope for their former lord. With regard to this, those especially who used to be priests proudly raise their horns, puff themselves up, and make threats, chiefly about the uproar over the ten-year truce made in Nice between the Roman emperor and his Royal Majesty of France.83

82

83

“Puisque le bon, éternel et tout puissant Dieu, par sa grâce et ayde, a ordonné que vous estes mis soub nostre gouvernement et obéissance, à ceste cause [il] nous a convenuz et appartenuz, non-seulement touchant les choses extérieures, ains aussy touchant la religion praescripre et donner mandement, édict et ordonnances, à la Saincte Escripture et droicts naturels conformes, en espoir et entière confiance [que] vous yceulx eussiés observer. Ce que touteffoys, comme summes advertis, aulcungs non-seulement ne gardent et ne l’estiment, ains toutellement s’en moquent et les mesprisent, chose de quoy avons trèsgrand regraict.” Herminjard, 5:51 (No. 724), Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, [Bern], 14 July 1538. “Ce néansmoings, pensons et estimons, de cousté ce, que aulcungs facent cella par craincte, les aultres sur espérance de leur seigneur passé; et, sur ce, singulièrement ceulx que sont esté prestres eslevent les cornes, et soy font fiers et menassent, principallement sur le bruict des treves de dix années faicte à Nyce entre Romainne Impériale et Royale Magesté de France.” Herminjard, 5:51.

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

157

The most intriguing aspect of this passage is the claim that some people are disobeying Bern’s ordinances out of fear. But fear of what? or of whom? One would think that those who disobeyed the religious ordinances had more to fear than those who followed them. The explanation must be either that the disobedient feared either eternal damnation for following the new religion, reprisal from their neighbors, or future punishment from the bishop of Lausanne, should he return to power. Any one of those interpretations indicates the continued presence of a strong current of Catholic belief in Lausanne. That others were disobeying Bern’s edicts out of “hope for their former lord” reveals that some were, in fact, hoping for a reversal of Bern’s conquest and the restoration of the bishop of Lausanne. The bishop’s return would be ideal for the Catholic clergy in the city, and it appears from this letter that the clergy were the chief instigators of the commotion. The laity would have greeted the prospect of the bishop’s return with more ambivalence. Those who wanted to return to the Catholic Church would have had their wish; on the other hand, the Lausanne magistrates had been locked in a struggle with the bishop over rights and jurisdiction before Bern’s conquest, and the people might understandably have worried that, as punishment for so swiftly handing over the bishop’s powers to Bern, the bishop might seize many of the commune’s “liberties and franchises” that the Bernese had left intact. The Bernese then insisted that their orders be obeyed, despite the menaces of the priests: This has forced us to admonish and even command each and every one of you by this letter to better yourselves and entirely observe our commands, edicts, Reformation and ordinances, insofar as you wish to avoid our ire, indignation, and severe punishment.84 The threat of attack and the potential reversal of the religious situation was no excuse for disobeying Bern’s ordinances. The Bernese also wanted to convey to the Lausannois that they had no intention of abandoning the city in case it was assaulted: We assure and comfort you that, since God has placed you in our hands, with His help we are entirely and steadfastly resolved to defend and protect you with all our power from all violence, injustice, tyranny, and oppression, and as it pertains to Christian Superiors, to protect you

84

“Ce que nous nécessairement occasionne vous très-tous et ung chacun, par ceste escripture, vous admonester, voire expressément commander de vous meillieurer, et entièrement observer nous dits mandemens, édicts, réformation et ordonnances, en tant que desirés d’éviter nostre male grâce, indignation et griefve punition ….” Herminjard, 5:51-52.

158

Chapter 5

against each and every worry, trouble, quarrel, and assault, and in no way abandon you, nor drop you from our hands ….85 The Catholic clergy in Lausanne apparently used the news of the truce and possibly of the upcoming meeting at Aigues-Mortes to threaten the people of Lausanne with the consequences of continuing to obey their Protestant lords in Bern. The Bernese would soon send a delegation to address the matter in person but wished by their letter to “admonish and console” the people of Lausanne.86 They would not abandon the city militarily, and for that very reason, the people should ignore the priests and conform to Bern’s Reformation. Unfortunately, little evidence exists to show how Lausanne responded to this letter or how the Bernese followed up on their warning; the Lausanne city council records say nothing about it, and Bern’s instructions to the delegation later sent to Lausanne do not indicate what was to be done with the priests.87 The ambassadors did not expel all of the former priests, for a year later Bern ordered former clerics to start attending lectures if they wanted to keep their prebends. Nevertheless, the letter captures the spirit of the time: the rumors and uncertainty in military and diplomatic affairs, Bern’s resolve to maintain the lands they had taken from the duke of Savoy, the priests’ desire to return to the old order, and the people’s anxiety over following either religion with too much zeal. We do not know what happened to the Catholics who had caused the uproar on the arrival of the Bernese ambassadors in Lausanne, but a year later, the Bernese tried to put an end to clerical grumblings in their lands once and for all. In September 1539, they issued an ordinance commanding all of the former Catholic clergy to appear in church and declare not only whether they wished to follow Bern’s edicts of Reformation, but also “if the Mass is good or not.”88 Some responded that “the Mass was good and

85

“… par ycestes vous asseurans et confortans, que summes d’entier, invariable vouloir, propost et couraige, puis que Dieu vous a mis entre nous mains, avec son ayde de vous deffendre et garder de tout nostre pouvoir de toutes violences, injustices, tyrannies et oppressions, et, comme à chrestiens Supérieurs apartient, [vous] garder contre chescungs de tous ennuys, troubles, fâcheries et molestements, et en nulle sorte vous abandonner, ne laisser de nous mains ….” Herminjard, 5:52. 86 “… comme cy-après plus amplement, par nous ambassadeurs qu’envoyerons vers vous en temps convenable, à ce vous pouvés et debvés hardiment fier et vostre confiance funder, etc. Car présentement nous a semblé estre bon vous seulement, par ce brieff contenu, vous admonester et conforter.” Herminjard, 5:52. 87 See Herminjard, 5:52, n.4. 88 “Au mois de septembre fut faite publication et ordonnance par tout le pays de Vaud appartenant ès seigneurs de Berne, que tout prêtres, gens de religion et autres gens qui se

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

159

ordained by God, and they wished to live and die in that faith”; they were subsequently banished from Bern’s lands.89 Others claimed it had no worth and were allowed to stay.90 Still others responded obliquely that, Such a question pertained to the lords of Bern, who were their lords and superiors, and that they had the power to learn from the great doctors the answer to their question; it did not pertain to those who were poor and simple priests. Nevertheless, they always wished to live according to the Reformation of their lords and superiors.91 Even Pierrefleur could not hide his disgust at these priests who succumbed to the Bernese: “Above all, we see that avarice, which is the root of all evil, blinded so many of the priests that almost all of them caved in to the will of the lords of Bern, as much from fear of leaving the country as from fear of losing their benefices.”92 Unfortunately, we do not know exactly how many pronounced for or against the Mass on this occasion, but Pierrefleur indicates that the majority agreed to stay and follow the Reformation, whatever their actual views on

disent d’église, doivent être cités personnellement à devoir comparaître aux prêches au dimanche suivant, pour répondre aux pétitions et demandes des prédicants, et aussi étaient cités les curials et scribes, pour devoir réduire par écrit les demandes et réponses des demandants et répondants. Le dimanche suivant, que les dits prêtres et gens d’église étaient au dit sermon, le prédicant, présent le bailli, ou châtelain, ou autre officier, selon les lieux où il était, et présents toujours les curials, lors le prédicant, étant en chaire, faisait pétition et demande à tous les dits prêtres, aux uns après les autres, s’ils étaient à ce vouloir de toujours vivre à la réformation des seigneurs de Berne, leurs supérieurs. Item que de leur spontanée volonté dussent dire et confesser devant tous, à savoir si la messe est bonne ou non.” Pierrefleur, 142. 89 “Dont les uns faisaient réponse qu’elle [the Mass] était bonne et ordonnée de Dieu, et en icelle foi voulaient vivre et mourir. A ceux-là était fait incontinent commandement de vuider et être bannis du dit pays des dits seigneurs de Berne, leurs bénéfices confisquées, et quant à leurs biens paternels, iceux leur étaient réservés.” Pierrefleur, 142. 90 “Les autres faisaient réponse et disaient que la messe était de nulle valeur et contre Dieu; à ceux-là était permis de demeurer au dit pays, comme gens de bien, savants et de grande connaissance, les laissant jouissant de leurs bénéfices, si en avaient.” Pierrefleur, 142. 91 “Les autres faisaient réponse que eux ne sauraient dire mal ni bien de la messe, et qu’icelui interrogat était et appartenait aux dits seigneurs de Berne, qui étaient leurs seigneurs et supérieurs, et qu’ils avaient puissance de savoir envers les grands docteurs la résolution de telle demande, non pas à eux qu’étaient pauvres et simples prêtres, nonobstant qu’ils étaient toujours à ce vouloir de vivre à la réformation des dits seigneurs, leurs supérieurs.” Pierrefleur, 142-43. 92 “Or sur le tout est à savoir que l’avarice, qui est la racine de tout mal, offusqua tant les dits prêtres que quasi tous se condescendirent à la volonté des dits seigneurs de Berne, tant pour crainte de non abandonner le pays que aussi pour crainte de perdre leurs bénéfices.” Pierrefleur, 143.

Chapter 5

160

the Mass might have been. The order to investigate the former Catholic clergy was repeated in 1543 and 1545,93 an indication that problems with the clergy continued. They presented a constant reminder of the old faith and an institutional presence that could rapidly return religious affairs to their former state should the lands revert to their old lords, the duke of Savoy and the bishop of Lausanne.

4.

THE BIRTH PANGS OF CALVINIST DISCIPLINE

In the wake of such persistent opposition to the new religion and popular hopes for a return to Savoyard and episcopal rule, reformers and magistrates agreed that creating the kingdom of Christ on earth required coersion. At almost the same time that the Bernese promulgated their second edict of Reformation, Calvin and Farel were trying to enact reforms in Geneva, particularly with the 1537 “Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship in Geneva”94 and Calvin’s first catechism.95 The efforts in Geneva and Vaud were not entirely unrelated. Although the Genevans had successfully warded off Bernese political control after the 1536 conquest, the cities were still allies, and precise definitions had not yet been agreed upon in religious matters, especially regarding jurisdictional rights. The Bernese had grown accustomed to exerting political pressure on their allies to accomplish their religious goals, and the ministers saw themselves as a band of brothers united across the nebulous political boundaries between Vaud, Geneva, and Neuchâtel. After all, most of the leaders at Bern’s Lausanne Disputation were ministers of Geneva; even Viret, although he had been in Lausanne most of the year, had previously served Geneva. In 1537, both Geneva and Vaud faced a similar problem: how to ensure that the Protestant faith would take hold among the people. Bern’s approach was to issue ordinances, require catechetical instruction, and conduct visitations. At first, the reformers in Vaud seem to have accepted this method. In Geneva, however, Calvin and Farel began to consider a more

93

Vuilleumier, 391. John Calvin and Guillaume Farel, “Articles concernant l’organisation de l’église et du culte à Genève, proposés au conseil par les ministres” (16 January 1537), OS I:369-77 (CO 10/1:5-14, Calvin-Studienausgabe 1.1:114-28; Herminjard, 4:154-66). 95 John Calvin, “Instruction et confession de foy dont on use en leglise de Geneve,” OS I:378-417; Calvin-Studienausgabe 1.1:138-206. See also the English translation and commentary: I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). 94

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

161

intensive approach that called for greater ecclesiastical involvement. Here we see the beginnings of the teaching on ecclesiastical discipline that would become central to Calvinist ecclesiology. At the heart of Calvin’s call for discipline, from the very beginning, was the doctrine of the Eucharist. In order to prevent unworthy communicants from taking the sacrament, the use of excommunication was deemed necessary: It is certain that a church cannot be said to be well ordered or well regulated unless the Holy Supper of our Lord is celebrated often. It must be so well regulated that no one dare to presume to present himself there except in a holy manner and very reverently. And for this reason, in order to maintain the church in its integrity, the discipline of excommunication is necessary, whereby those who do not wish to conform willingly and in all obedience to the holy word of God may be corrected.96 Already we see the cracks beginning to develop between Calvin’s understanding of excommunication as “one of the most profitable and salutary things the Lord has given his church”97 and the belief expressed in the Berner Synodus that “no one should be easily excommunicated.”98 The need for excommunication stemmed from Calvin’s redefinition of the primary meaning of the “body of Christ” from the consecrated host, as was commonly understood in the medieval church, to the church itself, properly understood as Christ (the head) and the faithful (the members). And just as the medieval church went to great lengths to prevent the pollution of the consecrated host, so also Calvin required ecclesiastical discipline to prevent similar pollution of the body of Christ. Whereas the visitors of the churches in fifteenth-century Vaud required detailed attention to the altars and vessels containing the corpus Christi,99 Calvin demanded detailed attention to the individuals who comprised the corpus Christi. Since this body came together most completely in the celebration of the Eucharist,

96

“Il est certain que une esglise ne peut estre dicte bien ordonnee et reiglee synon en la quelle la saincte Cene de nostre Seigneur est souventefoys celebree et frequentee. Et ce avecq si bonne police que nul ne ose presumer de soy ny presenter synon sainctement et en singuliere Reverence. Et pour ceste cause est necessayre pour bien maintenir lesglise en son integrite la discipline de l’excommunication par laquelle soyent corrigez ceux qui ne se veulent renger amyablement et en toute obeyssance a la saincte parolle de Dieu.” OS I:369. 97 “… ce soyt une des choses des plus prouffitables et salutayres que ayt donne nostre Seigneur a son esglise.” OS I:372. 98 See above, chapter 3, n.32. 99 See above, chapter 4, section 1.4.

162

Chapter 5

Calvin demanded, first, that it be celebrated frequently and, second, that it be kept free from pollution by unworthy members of the body: But the principal order that is required and to which we must pay the closest attention is that the Holy Supper, ordained and instituted to join the members of our Lord Jesus Christ with their head in one body and one spirit, not be soiled and contaminated by the participation of those who by their wicked and sinful lives clearly show that they in no way belong to Jesus. For in this profanation of his sacrament, our Lord is greatly dishonored.100 This teaching lay at the core of Calvin’s understanding of ecclesiastical discipline and would remain essentially unchanged throughout his life. Calvin scholars tend to focus on the reformer’s time in Strasbourg and the influence of Bucer as decisive in the development of Calvin’s thought, but often missed completely is Calvin’s involvement in Vaud in 1537 and 1538. The Genevan magistrates’ unease with the ideas of excommunication and frequent communion are well known. His clash with Pierre Caroli, the first chief Protestant minister of Lausannne, and his involvement in the 1538 Synod of Lausanne are less so, yet these were more important to the reformer’s development. After the 1536 Lausanne Disputation, the Bernese named the former Sorbonne doctor Pierre Caroli the first chief pastor of Lausanne, over the objections of Farel and others who thought that Viret deserved the appointment. Just four months after the Reformation was imposed in Vaud, Caroli began to teach that prayers for the dead were effective. His young colleague Viret opposed him, and Caroli struck back against Viret, as well as Calvin and Farel, by accusing them all of Arianism. It should have been an open and shut case, resolved quickly by the Bernese visitors in Lausanne after a brief hearing. The fact that it was not annoyed Calvin most of all. While the Bernese bureaucracy was dragging its feet, waiting for a synod to address the matter, the church was at risk, and some people were even calling the ministers imposters.101 At the end of February 1537, a meeting

100

101

“Mays le principal ordre qui est requis et du quel il convient avoyr la plus grande sollicitude cest que cest saincte Cene ordonnee et instituee pour conjoindre les membres de nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist avecq leur chefz et entre eux mesmes en ung corps et ung esprit ne soyt souillee et contaminee, si ceux qui se declairent et manifestent par leur meschante et inique vie nappertenir nullement a Jesus, viennent a y communiquer. Car en ceste profanation de son sacrement nostre Seigneur est grandement deshonore.” OS I:371. “Legati conventu generali opus esse dixerunt, ubi haec discuterentur, quem etiam receperunt se curaturos. Neque ego verbis satis assequi possum, neque tu cogitatione, quantum Ecclesiae periculi immineat, si diutius differatur.… Iam vocantur quidam ex

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

163

was held in Bern to try to resolve their differences, and Caroli’s teaching on prayers for the dead was condemned. But the affair was not over, for the Bernese insisted on evaluating Caroli’s accusations of Arianism. They called another meeting, which did not take place until 14 May. At that synod, Caroli was denounced and removed from his position in Lausanne. He appealed the decision, and yet another synod was scheduled for the end of May. This was the last word, and the previous decision was upheld; Caroli was removed, and Calvin, Farel, and Viret exonerated. The fact that it took the Bernese nearly four months to conclude the affair was Calvin’s first hard lesson in the drawbacks of a state-controlled church. In addition to the length of time it took to prove he was not an Arian heretic, Calvin also became acutely aware that Bern’s secular magistrates had the final word on what was clearly a theological matter. In his first catechism, written in January before the Caroli affair, Calvin appears to yield a great deal of religious authority to the secular magistrate: They are ministers of God, to praise those who do good and to take the vengeance of the wrath of God on the wicked.… Now, almost all of their care should lie in this: that they preserve the public form of religion in true purity, that they order the life of the people by good laws, and that they procure the peace and well-being of their subjects both in public and private.102 The Bernese would have had little argument with this definition; after all, what else had they been doing since the beginning of the Reformation besides “preserving the public form of religion” and “ordering the life of the people by good laws”? Calvin would always see the secular magistrates as ministers of God whose duty was to reward the good and punish the wicked. In terms of their power to decide doctrine and exact discipline, however, he later stressed the independent jurisdiction of the church against the rights of the magistrates. It seems likely that he was influenced in this by his experience with the Bernese in the Caroli affair. Calvin’s involvement in the Synod of Lausanne the following year supports the likelihood of such influence. His participation in the 1538 synod

102

nostris impostores, qui pro mortuis orandum non dissimularint modo, sed confidenter negarint.” Herminjard, 4:189, 190 (No. 611), [Calvin to Kaspar Megander], [Geneva], [ca. 20 February 1537]. “… ilz sont ministres de Dieu, pour louange a ceulx qui font bien et pour faire la vengeance de lire de Dieu sur les maulvais.… Or quasi toute leur solicitude doibt estre en cecy, cest quilz conservent en vraye purete la forme publique de religion, quilz instituent la vie du peuple par tres bonnes loix et quilz procurent le bien et tranquilite de leurs subjectz tant en publiq quen prive.” OS I:416.

164

Chapter 5

is one of the most important events in his pre-exile life that has gone almost completely unnoticed in Calvin scholarship. The dispute between Calvin and Bern over ceremonies and feast days is well known, highlighted by Beza himself in his biography of Calvin.103 Influential scholars such as François Wendel have perpetuated the notion that this dispute lay behind the conflict that pitted Calvin against the newly elected syndics of Geneva and eventually led to his banishment.104 The Synod of Lausanne was not principally about ceremonies, however; it was about taking stock of the progress of the Reformation in Vaud. Attendees reported that the religious situation was not encouraging and that something needed to be done to improve matters. If one keeps in mind Calvin’s attendance at the synod, one understands much better his refusal to administer the Easter Eucharist in Geneva just over two weeks later. He had heard an extremely discouraging report on the progress of the Reformation in the lands that bordered Geneva. When he returned to Geneva, he found a city council more opposed than ever to his ideas and a populace not much better educated theologically than the people of Vaud. Calvin’s earlier attempt to require all Geneva’s citizens to sign a confession of faith had also turned many citizens and councilors against him. Hence, when he continued to preach after refusing to administer the Easter Eucharist, he was expelled from the city. As he told the Bernese just three days after his expulsion, As for our refusal to administer the Easter Supper, we have publicly protested before the people, that this was not because of the [Bernese use of unleavened] bread, adding that this is an indifferent matter belonging to the freedom of the church; rather, a great problem moved us to do this, namely that we would have profaned so holy a mystery without the people being better disposed for it. We cited the disorders and abominations that reign today in the city, in both the deplorable blasphemies and mockery of God and his Gospel and the troubles, sects, and divisions; for without any punishment meted out publicly, there would be a thousand derisions of the Word of God and the Supper.105

103

104

105

Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin, The Ages Digital Library, version 1.0 (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 11. François Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper and Row, 1963 [Paris, 1950]), 55-56. “Ce que nous n’avons point administré la Cène de Pasque, nous avons protesté publicquement devant le peuple, que ce n’estoit point à cause du pain, adjoustans que c’est une chose indifférente qu’est en la liberté de l’Esglise, mais que nous avions grand difficulté que nous mouvoit à ce faire, c’est assavoir que nous eussions profanés ung sy

5. From Sacramentarians to Calvinists

165

The frequent claim that Calvin refused to conform to Bern’s rites is misguided. Calvin says explicitly here that the ceremonies are adiaphora. The real problem was the lack of ecclesiastical discipline and the resulting profanation of Christ’s body. Calvin was forced to leave Geneva just as a specifically Calvinist identity was beginning to take shape among the French-speaking ministers. It had been a long and difficult road for the French-speaking ministers, from the sacramentarians’ early attacks on the Mass to the Synod of Lausanne, but a new sense of unity was beginning to emerge among them that centered on Calvin’s leadership. The old “idols” had been torn down in most places, but mandates from the Bern city council now commanded the people’s allegiance. “Papism” had been replaced by caesaropapism, yet both systems marginalized the Reformed clergy in the Suisse romande. Those clergy first had to confront a populace that had never wanted to become Protestant in the first place and that was well aware of Bern’s tenuous political hold on the region. Second, they had to cope with Catholic clergymen who were exploiting the people’s fears in actively resisting the new faith. The solution that the Protestant ministers began to develop was a form of discipline that would serve both to educate the people and to enforce morality. At the same time, we recall that the ministers in Bern itself were divided theologically between Zwinglian and Lutheran factions. At first, the Frenchspeaking ministers were of secondary importance. Farel and his companions were useful tools for evangelizing Bern’s neugewonnen Land, but they were hardly seen as theological heavy-weights, and indeed they were not. By the spring of 1538, however, Calvin had arrived on the scene, and the Caroli affair revealed that the Calvin-Farel-Viret trio was becoming a theological force to be reckoned with. The field was prepared for a prolonged battle among the emerging factions: Catholic, Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Calvinist.

sainct mystère, sinon que le peuple feust mieulx disposé, allégant les désordres et abominations que règnent au jourd’huy à la ville, tant en blasphèmes exécrables et mocqueries de Dieu et [de] son Évangille, que en troubles, sectes et divisions; car publicquement, sans ce que aulcune punition en soit faicte, il soit [read: il se] faict mil irrisions contre la Parolle de Dieu et mesmement contre la Cène.” Herminjard, 4:425 (No. 705), Farel and Calvin to the Bern city council, Bern, 27 April 1538.

Chapter 6 FROM POLITICAL CALVINISM TO THE REFORMATION OF THE REFUGEES Failed Calvinist Diplomacy, 1540-1549

With the notable exceptions of Scotland, the Netherlands, and Geneva itself, the Calvinist movement was, in contrast to state-sponsored Lutheranism, the Reformation of a persecuted minority. Heiko Oberman has labelled it the “Reformation of the Refugees,” explaining Calvin’s doctrine of predestination as a comforting message bringing the assurance of salvation to people forced to flee their homelands.1 Oberman dates this “third Reformation” (following, first, Luther’s Reformation and second, the city Reformation) from 1548-49, with the Lutheran defeat in the Schmalkaldic War and the influx of refugees in Geneva following the Augsburg Interim.2 I believe that his dating is correct, but for the wrong reasons. I will argue instead that a series of events from 1547-49 led to a shift in Calvin’s conception of the Reformation from one of state-sponsored expansion around a regional core centered on Geneva, Bern, and Zurich and linked to Paris, to one of a persecuted Reformation of the Refugees. This move resulted in a particular focus on encouraging immigration and promoting the unauthorized evangelization of France. There were four main reasons for this shift. First, there was indeed a growing influx of refugees in Geneva at this time, from France as well as Germany. Second, Calvin’s efforts to establish a closer relationship with the French crown proved fruitless. He failed utterly to persuade Bern and Zurich to form an alliance with Henri II; indeed, the attempt only strained his relationship with the Swiss ministers. As a result, Calvin’s hopes faded that Henri II might curb

1 2

See, esp., Oberman, The Two Reformations, 145-50; idem, “Europa Afflicta,” 91-111. Oberman, The Two Reformations, 147.

168

Chapter 6

the persecution of French evangelicals, and his ability to influence the shape of the Reformation in the Swiss Confederation was compromised. A third factor prompting Calvin to reshape his reform ideals was the conflict that followed the composition of the Consensus Tigurinus. Although Calvin and Bullinger had managed to hammer out an agreement on the Eucharist in this document, tensions with the Swiss were further exacerbated by the ratification process in Bern, where the struggle between Lutheran and Zwinglian factions was decided around the same time in favor of the Zwinglians. Fourth and finally, hopes for a unified Reformed effort were dashed when Pierre Viret and the Lausanne ministers not only failed repeatedly in their efforts to persuade the Bernese to adopt Calvinist ecclesiastical discipline but simultaneously found themselves more firmly under the control of the Bernese magistrates and alienated from the Bernese ministers by the 1549 abolition of the weekly theological colloquies. These events led Calvin to move his focus away from the Germanic Swiss Confederation and towards his native France, altering the entire dynamic of the Calvinist Reformation. In the 1540s, Calvin worked principally through the Pays de Vaud to span the divide that separated him and his followers from the Swiss. Until 1549, his energies were chiefly directed eastward toward Vaud, Bern, and Zurich, and only secondarily westward towards France. If Calvin, Farel, and Viret could unite the French-speaking ministers in Vaud together with the Zurich ministers, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the divided pastorate of Bern to win over the Bernese, not just as the military protectors of Geneva but as a central European political force for effecting religious change along Calvinist lines. Next, the renewal of the French alliance would allow the Bernese to put further pressure on Henri II, at the very least, to turn a blind eye to Protestants in the realm and, at best, to unite with the Swiss in an alliance against Savoy, the Habsburgs, and ultimately Rome. Moreover, such an alliance was crucial for ensuring the continued security of the Pays de Vaud and Geneva itself against the renewed ambitions of Duke Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy to retake the lands his father had lost to Bern and France. By the end of 1549, however, Calvin’s plans had crumbled. The key cantons of Bern and Zurich had rejected the alliance with France. The Vaudois pastorate remained divided between the partisans of the Zwinglian André Zébédée and those of Calvin and Viret. And the Bernese repeatedly denied attempts both to teach a Calvinist understanding of the Eucharist and to enact a Calvinist form of discipline; in fact, they moved further in the opposite direction, reinforcing the rights of the magistrates. Moreover, they appeared to establish a religious hierarchy in their lands, headed by the Bernese ministers themselves, that flew in the face of the Reformed

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

169

convictions about the equality of ministers. The hopes for a central European political Reformation were crushed, and Calvin increasingly saw that the means to bring about a truly reformed faith would be found only within the self-regulated church, which could exist with or without the political support of the secular magistrate, either as a stable, politically enfranchised body or as a disenfranchised refugee community.

1.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN VAUD

Since the Reformed Church in Vaud was central to Calvin’s conception of a core Francophone Protestant church, it is important to examine the ecclesiastical structure established by Bern at the start of the Reformation in order to understand more fully what he and his supporters wanted to change.3 The most basic ecclesiastical unit was the parish. At the close of the Lausanne Disputation, there was only one Protestant minister for approximately every five parishes in Vaud. Although the situation improved over the years, some ministers continued to be pressed; in 1541, the minister of Vullierens, for example, still had to serve seven separate parishes.4 By 1558, the number of ministers and deacons had grown to ninety-three, triple the number in 1536 but still barely more than one for every two parishes.5 The need to recruit new pastors and to retain those already established remained a high priority throughout the 1540s and 1550s. The administrative organization of the pastorate reflected regional divisions; the pastors were grouped into ecclesiastical departments called classes, which generally followed the political boundaries of the administrative bailiwicks: 1. The classe of Lausanne encompassed the northeastern shore of Lake Geneva, from Lausanne through Vevey and Montreux to the Four Mandated Territories southeast of the lake.

3

In this section, I follow the extensive treatment by Vuilleumier, 267-305. “Vous advertissans, très redoubtés Seigneurs, que m’avés donnés charge de Veilleren, Aclen, Romané, Gueillon et Gransi, Collombiers, Sainct-Saphorin, Claremont, qui ont esté sept églises parrochiales.” Herminjard, 7:37 (No. 948), Jean Bonivoye to the Bern city council, [Vullierens], [February 1541]. 5 Deacons in Vaud were more akin to the deacons of the Catholic Church, understood as clerical assistant ministers, than to those in Geneva, who were laymen charged primarily with poor relief. 4

170

Chapter 6

2. The classe of Payerne covered northeastern Vaud, from Moudon northwards to the linguistic border in the common lordship of Murten (Morat). 3. The classe of Yverdon, in the northwestern part of Vaud, included the area of Yverdon and Romainmôtier, as well as the Protestant parishes in the common lordships of Orbe-Echallens and Grandson. 4. The classe of Morges extended along the north shore of Lake Geneva west of Lausanne to Nyon. 5. The classe of Gex included Bern’s lands in the western crescent around Geneva, in what is now part of France, from Divonne northeast of the city to Ternier in the southeast. 6. The classe of Thonon comprised the rest of Bern’s lands in the Chablais, along the southwestern shore of Lake Geneva. The primary purpose of the classe system was to ensure that the ministers in each area were doing their jobs: preaching correct doctrine, celebrating rites in conformity with practice in Bern, and living morally upright lives. Each classe was headed by a dean (doyen, Lat. decanus), a member minister elected by his colleagues whose duties were to preside over the meetings of the classe and to mediate disputes. In addition, each classe elected four jurés, who did the leg-work, performing visitations to check up on the ministers’ preaching and way of life. Originally, the classes were to meet weekly, but this was impractical since many of the pastors had to travel long distances. The classe of Lausanne, for example, normally met in Vevey, nineteen kilometers from Lausanne to the west and twenty-two kilometers from Aigle to the southeast. In order to rectify this situation, in 1539 the classes were subdivided into colloquies (colloques), each centered in a major town. The classe of Lausanne, for example, was divided into the colloquies of Lausanne, Vevey, and Aigle. In addition to serving as a forum for the public education of the laity and former Catholic clergy, the colloquies allowed ministers in the immediate region to discuss concerns that they could then bring before quarterly gatherings of the entire classe. Bern suppressed the colloquies in 1549 because they provided a public platform for both sides of the doctrinal controversies that flared up at the time. The Bernese felt that public instruction was useful only if the ministers themselves were in agreement with one another. The colloquy of Lausanne alone was reinstated on the conditions that no one contradict the scriptural interpretation set forth by the presiding minister and that absolutely no “innovations” be introduced, which

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

171

effectively cut off all discussion and debate, much to the chagrin of the Lausanne ministers. I will address this conflict in detail below.6 The largest unit of ecclesiastical organization in Bern’s lands was the synod, to which all of Bern’s clergy would be summoned. The 1532 Berner Synodus called for synods to be held annually to resolve disputes and discuss matters of doctrine and church practice.7 The Bernese government’s decision to prohibit the use of Latin in all official business, however, meant that the German- and French-speaking ministers would each hold separate synods; each synod required the presence of ministers and public officials from Bern. At first, the synods did, in fact, meet regularly in Lausanne. In November 1536, one was held soon after the Lausanne Disputation to appoint ministers to the newly Protestant lands. Bern’s representatives established the classe system and discussed other administrative concerns at the 1537 Synod of Lausanne, held in May.8 The 1538 synod, as we saw in the previous chapter, dealt with the general religious climate in the Frenchspeaking lands and led the ministers to seek greater ecclesiastical discipline.9 The ministers’ demands, which went unfulfilled, quite likely seemed excessive to the Bernese and may well have led them to abandon the annual synods. Another synod was not held until March 1549, this time in Bern. Despite the persistent pleas of the ministers of Lausanne, no further

6

See below, chapter 6, section 3.4. “Ut autem Christianae huiuscemodi exercitationi diligentius incumbanus, quotannis celebrari talis Synodus, ab omnibus parrochis, et qui urbi praesunt, et qui agro, ipsis Calendis Maiis debet, qua semper memorata instituta renoventur. Ad haec duo Capitula cogantur annis singulis, quatenus hoc dominis nostris visum fuerit, in quibus similiter id agemus, quod pertinere cum ad nostri, tum ad gregis prefectum videbitur, quemadmodum amplius cum dominis nostris deliberare ac decernere constituimus.” Locher, Der Berner Synodus, 1:252. 8 The classe system, drawn up by the Bernese minister Kaspar Megander, was based on the system in place in Bern’s German-speaking lands. There were two principal differences between the systems in the German- and French-speaking areas. First, the geographical boundaries in the German lands followed the former Catholic deaneries rather than political bailiwicks, such as those newly constructed in Vaud. Second, in the Frenchspeaking lands, the ministers themselves elected the dean for their classe, whereas these were state-appointed positions in the German lands. As Glenn Sunshine has demonstrated, in contrast to the company of pastors in Geneva’s small urban environment, Viret found the classe system useful for territorial administration, and he was largely responsible for importing the system into France in the early 1560s. Glenn S. Sunshine, Reforming French Protestantism: The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557-1572, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 66 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003), 78-82. 9 See above, chapter 5, sections 3 and 4. 7

172

Chapter 6

synods were convoked for the French-speaking lands until the end of the sixteenth century. Bern established consistories in the pays romands at the very beginning of the Reformation, but until 1558 they were only in the chief administrative towns, in contrast to its German-speaking territories where every parish had a consistory. The Bernese consistories were supposed to enforce morality, marriage law, and the Reformation edicts by watching over the behavior of the people, reprimanding them for continued practice of “papist” ceremonies or failure to attend the sermon, and judging cases of marriage, adultery, and fornication. Divorce, however, could be granted only by the consistory in Bern itself. There were several important differences, however, between the Bernese consistories and those later implemented in Geneva and France by Calvinist reformers. Both in conception and in fact, the Bernese consistories were chiefly instruments of the state rather than of the church; Calvinist consistories, on the other hand, were understood to be ecclesiastical bodies comprising the body of church elders. In Lausanne, the consistory reflected the Bernese view and included the two pastors of the city and seven members of the city council, and it met largely at the whim of the councilors (unlike Geneva’s consistory which met every Thursday without fail). Moreover, the Lausannois were not at all eager to enforce ecclesiastical discipline. Despite warnings from the Bern city council that the consistory should “treat, as we do in our city, all cases regarding marriage, games, drunkenness, dancing, blasphemy, inappropriate dress, debauchery, prostitution, and other matters contained in our Reformation,”10 the Lausanne city council obstinately decided that “only three types of cases should be treated in the consistory, namely, marriage, adultery and divorce, and fornication.”11 The difference that would prove to be most significant in the struggle between the Calvinists and Bern was that the Bernese consistories did not have the power of excommunication, whereas this power was essential in the Calvinist conception of the institution.

10

“Aussy nous vient à notice comme ne traictés quasy aulcunes causes au consistoyre, sinon tant seulement celles concernantes mariages, par avanture pource que nostre bally est coauditeur. Vous notiffians que doigés en cela fayre comme fesons ici en nostre ville, pour toutes causes, tant matrimoniales, jeux, ivrogneries, dances, blasphèmes, déchéquetures de vestement, putherie, maquerélaige, que aultres comprises en nostre réformation, et en ce ne vous fayre difformes à nous, et vous nous ferés plaisir.” Herminjard, 4:279 (No. 652), Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 24 August 1537. 11 “Conclusum in consistorio non debere deduci nysi tres cause, videlicet: cause matrimonii, divorsii et adulterii vel pailliardise.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 1 (1887): 66 (27 January 1539).

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

173

One final institution merits special attention here: the Lausanne Academy. Established in 1537, it was the only institution of its type in French-speaking Europe until the opening of the Geneva Academy twentytwo years later. Bern decided to open the school shortly after the Lausanne Disputation as a means to overcome the shortage of ministers in the pays romands. The school started modestly with only two instructors, Viret and Pierre Caroli. Viret lectured on the New Testament and Caroli taught the Old. After Caroli’s banishment in the summer of 1537, Viret was left to teach both parts of the scriptures. Soon afterwards, chairs in Greek and Hebrew were filled, but for the first few years, there remained only three professors and a handful of students. The fortunes of the academy turned around in 1545, however, when Mathurin Cordier was placed in charge.12 Cordier had been one of Calvin’s former teachers at the Collège de la Marche in Paris; he had come to Geneva to teach at the Collège de Rive and left the city with Calvin in 1538. The Lausanne school grew rapidly under Cordier’s leadership. In 1547, the Leges scholae Lausannensis were drawn up by a commission in Bern, which included Simon Sulzer (who would be banished by the city council soon thereafter in the Lutheran-Zwinglian power struggle), and these guidelines served as the prototype for the future Reformed academies in Geneva and France.13 The Leges were divided into two parts, one for the schola classica sive privata, the school where basic grammar and rhetoric were taught, and one for the lectiones publicae, the academy proper, which offered advanced work with chairs in Greek, Hebrew, the arts, and theology.14 We can get some idea of the extent of the academy’s growth since its inception from one of Theodore Beza’s letters to Farel in 1558. Beza apologizes for not writing sooner, explaining, “For apart from the fact that I returned at the time when we usually examine the students one by one (and there are about seven hundred), you also know the type and magnitude of the affairs occupying us.”15 Vuilleumier estimates the total number of

12

On Cordier, see Emile Puech, Un professeur du 16 siècle: Mathurin Cordier, sa vie et son oeuvre (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970 [Montaubon: Marius Bonneville, 1896]); JeanJules le Coultre, Maturin Cordier et les origines de la pédagogie protestante dans les pays de la langue française (1530-1564), Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel 5 (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1926). 13 Vuilleumier, 408. 14 See Louis Junod and Henri Meylan, eds., L’Académie de Lausanne au XVIe Siècle, I: Leges Scholae Lausannensis 1547, Études et documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Université de Lausanne, 5 (Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1947). 15 “Nam praeterquam quod incidit reditus meus in id tempus quo solemus in singulos scholasticos inquirere (sunt autem hi ad septingentos) nosti etiam quae et quanta sint

174

Chapter 6

students to have been around a thousand, since not all of them would have had to take the examination.16 Beza later reported 1,200 students in Geneva’s schola privata and 300 in the schola publica.17 If we apply the same ratio to Vuilleumier’s figure of 1,000, the Lausanne Academy had approximately 800 students in the lower school and some 200 in the academy – a rough estimate to be sure, but it gives us some idea of Lausanne’s importance in the critical task of training ministers for the Reformed Church in the days before the establishment of the Geneva Academy. Unlike the ministers trained in Geneva, however, those trained in Lausanne were meant to serve in Bern’s territories, rather than undertake missionary work in France, as some scholars have assumed.18 If the Lausanne Academy’s missionary role has been overemphasized, its status as the intellectual center of the Francophone Reformed Church in the 1540s and 1550s has scarcely been noticed. By the mid-1540s, the early evangelical movement in France centered on Marguerite de Navarre’s network was dying out. Before 1558, Geneva was home to relatively few leading Protestant intellectuals apart from Calvin himself. In the years between the collapse of Marguerite’s network and the opening of the Geneva Academy, Lausanne was the place to be. In addition to Viret, Beza, and Cordier, the Greek scholar Conrad Gessner and noted legal expert François Hotman also taught at the Academy.19 The talented faculty drew visiting intellectuals to the city as well. Renowned Parisian jurisconsult Charles du

negotia quae nunc versamus.” Correspondance de Bèze, 2:187 (No. 137), Beza to Farel, Lausanne, 29 April 1558; emphasis added. 16 Vuilleumier, 427. 17 Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 15. 18 E.g., Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,” 53, n.78. The five Lausanne students who were tried and burned for heresy in Lyon in 1553 were the exception, not the rule. See Jean Crespin, Des cinq escoliers sortis de Lausanne bruslez à Lyon (Geneva: Jules Fick, 1878); Martial Alba, et al., Correspondance inédite des cinq étudiants martyrs brulés à Lyon en 1553, retrouvée dans la bibliothèque de Vadian, à St-Gall, et suivie d’un cantique attribué à Pierre Bergier (Geneva: Emile Beroud, 1854). I have found no evidence of any other students from Lausanne on missionary work in France, although, as we will see, after Viret was banished from Lausanne, a great many of those who followed him into exile in Geneva then went into France. On the missionary activity of Genevan ministers in France, see Robert Kingdon’s groundbreaking study, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion. 19 On Gessner, see Hans H. Wellisch, Conrad Gessner: A Bio-Bibliography (Zug: IDC, 1984). On Hotman, see Donald R. Kelley, François Hotman: A Revolutionary’s Ordeal (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973). The faculty also included Jean Raymond Merlin (professor of Hebrew), Jean Ribit (professor of theology), Eustache de Quesnoy, and Celio Secondo Curione.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

175

Moulin20 resided in Lausanne for a time, as did the contentious Reformed theologian, Jean Morély.21 Jean Crespin, the printer and author of the History of the Martyrs, lived briefly in Lausanne as well, but Bern’s restrictions on printing led him to return to Geneva before he had a chance to set up shop in Lausanne.22 The Bernese did not allow any printing in their French-speaking territories except books intended for use in the Academy,23 most likely as a result of the restrictions in the Swiss Landfriede against printing theologically contentious works. Robert Estienne, another famous French printer, wanted to go to Lausanne in 1548 but was likewise discouraged by the Bernese.24 These printing restrictions go a long way toward explaining why the Lausanne Academy has been so neglected by modern scholars. Beza, Hotman, Cordier, and especially Viret were actively writing while in the city, but they had to have their works printed in Geneva. The faculty of the Lausanne Academy played a significant role in the debates with Bern over doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline throughout the 1540s and 1550s. As a group, with the exception of André Zébédée’s brief tenure in Lausanne, they were fully aligned with Calvin in Geneva. Indeed, Calvin saw the Lausanne faculty as crucial allies in his struggles, at first, to win over the Bernese to his thinking, and later, when that effort failed, to fight against his increasingly vocal detractors in Bern’s lands.

20

See Jean-Louis Thireau, Charles Du Moulin (1500-1566): Etude sur les sources, la méthode, les idées politiques et économiques d’un juriste de la Renaissance, THR 176 (Geneva: Droz, 1980); Donald R. Kelley, “Fides Historiae: Charles Dumoulin and the Gallican view of History.” Traditio 22 (1966): 347-402; Thierry Wanegffelen, Ni Rome ni Genève: Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle, Bibliothèque littéraire de la Renaissance, ser. 3, 36 (Paris: H. Champion, 1997), 133-47. 21 See Philippe Denis and Jean Rott, Jean Morély (ca. 1524 - ca. 1594) et l’utopie d’une démocratie dans l’Église, THR 278 (Geneva: Droz, 1993); Robert Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement 1564-1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory, THR 92 (Geneva: Droz, 1967), 37-137. 22 “Lesdits Seigneurs ont admis certain Imprimeur habitant en leurs ville nommé Johan Crepin, l’ont accepté.” AVL Chavannes D10, fol. 297vº (27 December 1554). Since Crespin appeared before the city council, he very likely intended to move his printing press from Geneva to Lausanne. The fact that he did not indicates that he was somehow discouraged from doing so. On Crespin, see Jean-François Gilmont, Jean Crespin: Un éditeur réformé au XVIe siècle, THR 186 (Geneva: Droz, 1981). This brief interlude in Lausanne, however, is not mentioned by Gilmont. 23 Vuilleumier, 428. 24 Vuilleumier, 428.

176

2.

Chapter 6

CALVINIST STRUGGLES OF THE EARLY 1540s

Calvin’s biographers tend to pass quickly over most aspects of his life in the 1540s. For at least the past half-century, no one has sufficiently treated Calvin’s activity in the period from approximately 1542 until 1549, a period when he was working closely in concert both with Viret in order to establish a Calvinist Reformed Church in Vaud and with the Swiss in order to achieve unity among the Protestant churches. Perhaps his biographers have simply been unable to resolve the contradiction between Calvin’s eventual stature as one of the great international reformers of the sixteenth century and his early role as a city reformer with limited personal influence beyond Geneva. Calvin always hoped for the establishment of the Reformation in his native land, and his books circulated internationally, especially in France. From his French and Strasbourg contacts, he was certainly better known internationally than his colleagues in the Suisse romande. Nevertheless, in the early- to mid-1540s, his relatively limited number of correspondents reveals that Calvin was still chiefly a local and regional reformer.25 Knowledge of his later direction of international reform is too often allowed to distort our understanding of his immediate goals during these early years. At this point, “international Calvinism” could have been no more than a distant dream, the potential outcome of a process that had to begin with successful local and regional reform. The first step in this process was to ensure that Geneva and the Pays de Vaud were solidly reformed, and to do this Calvin needed the assistance of his colleague in Lausanne, Pierre Viret. Three events, in particular, brought Calvin and Viret closely together in a common cause. The first was the Lausanne Disputation and, more importantly, its aftermath. Bern’s decision to impose the Reformation on Vaud, along with the opening of the Academy, made Lausanne the new center for the French-speaking Reformed Church in Vaud and arguably in all of Europe. Lausanne’s new prominence demanded a closer working relationship between the city’s leading reformer, Viret, and his counterpart in Geneva. Although Viret started his Lausanne ministry under the senior Pierre Caroli, his disputes with the former Sorbonne doctor constituted the second major factor that brought Calvin and Viret together. Defending themselves against accusations of Arianism and blasting Caroli’s teaching on the efficacy of prayers for the dead was, to use modern parlance, a “bonding experience.” This was particularly true for Calvin and Viret, for

25

See Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 111, Map 4: “The Pattern of Calvin’s Correspondence, 1542-63.”

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

177

although each had already developed a close relationship with Farel, the two had not worked closely together until the Caroli affair. The third and most important factor in cementing Calvin and Viret’s friendship was their ministry together in Geneva upon Calvin’s return from exile. In January 1541, while Calvin was still living in Strasbourg, Geneva had called Viret to the city as his replacement, anticipating that Viret would help pave the way for Calvin’s hoped-for return.26 When Calvin arrived in the city in September, he found Viret’s continued presence there to be indispensable: “If Viret leaves me, I am completely finished: I will not be able to keep this church alive. Therefore, I hope you [Farel] and others will forgive me if I move every stone to ensure that I am not deprived of him.”27 Calvin was able to keep Viret in Geneva for another eight months, during which time the two men constructed the foundations of the Genevan church: the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances28 and the Genevan liturgy.29 Calvin was chiefly responsible for the composition of these texts, but Viret seems to have played a significant role in drafting them. With regard to the ordinances, Viret wrote to Calvin on his return to Lausanne, asking him to “send me the form of ecclesiastical discipline that we established [instituimus] there.”30 It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Viret’s 1541-1542 stay in Geneva. First of all, Calvin had found the prospect of returning to the city from Strasbourg so abhorrent at first that he likely never would have returned to Geneva if Viret had not been there months beforehand to restore order in the church.31 Second, Calvin and Viret’s friendship deepened during

26

On Viret’s 1541-1542 stay in Geneva, see Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 203-20. “Itaque si mihi Viretus auferatur, prorsus perii: nec ecclesiam hanc salvam retinere potero. Quare te et alios ignoscere mihi par est, si omnem moveo lapidem, ne eo spolier.” Herminjard, 6:334 (No. 1064), Calvin to Farel, Geneva, [11 November 1541]. 28 “Les ordonnances ecclésiastiques,” CO 10/1:15-30; OS II:328-64; Calvin-Studienausgabe 2:238-79. 29 “La forme des prières et chantz ecclésiastiques,” OS II:11-58; CO 6:165-210, CalvinStudienausgabe 2:148-225. 30 “Nihil aliud addam, nisi ut … per hunc tabellarium ad me mittas formam disciplinae ecclesiasticae quam isthic instituimus.” Herminjard, 8:88 (No. 1144), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 8 August 1542, emphasis added. 31 See, e.g., Calvin’s response to Viret’s request that he return to Geneva: “Eam vero epistolae partem non sine risu legi, ubi tam bene valetudini meae prospicis. Genevamne, ut melius habeam? Cur non potius recta ad crucem? Satius enim fueri semel perire quam in illa carnificina iterum torqueri. Ergo, mi Virete, si salvum me esse cupis, consilium istud omittas.” Herminjard, 6:228-29 (No. 865), Calvin to Viret, Strasbourg, 19 May 1540. The appeal to Viret’s success in Geneva became a staple argument accompanying the usual appeals to God’s will for Calvin’s return. E.g., “Ne ergo tarderis venire, ut videas Genevam, hoc est, gentem novam renovatam sane opera (Dei gratia) D. Petri 27

Chapter 6

178

these ten months together in Geneva to the point where Viret clearly replaced Farel as Calvin’s closest confidant in the following years. According to the extant record, Viret and Calvin exchanged only fourteen letters between Calvin’s exile and his return (1538-1541).32 During the same period, sixty-five letters survive between Farel and Calvin. In the years following Viret’s departure from Geneva in 1542, however, the figures are reversed. From 1542 to 1549, Calvin was in contact with Viret more than twice as often as with Farel.33 By 1550, the frequency of Calvin’s correspondence with Viret drops to the level of that with Farel,34 precisely, I suggest, because of the failure of political Calvinism which I am exploring in this chapter. Once Calvin had given up on the Bernese in 1549, he no longer required such close correspondence with Viret in Vaud and, instead, began to develop more extensive international contacts. In 1542, however, Viret left Geneva a devoted disciple of Calvin, eager to bring his theology and ideas on church practice back with him to Bern’s territories. And Calvin was most keen on seeing him succeed.

300 250 200 150

Farel

100

Viret

50 0 15381541

15421549

15501558

Figure 6-1. Calvin's correspondence with Viret and Farel: Total number of letters exchanged

Vireti.” Herminjard, 7:23 (No. 941) Jacques Bernard to Calvin, [Geneva], 6 February 1541. See also Herminjard, 7:7 (No. 937), Farel to Calvin, Neuchâtel, 30 January 1541; Herminjard, 7:130 (No. 985), Geneva city council to the Zurich city council, Geneva, 26 May 1541. 32 I have compiled the following figures for Viret from all published and unpublished sources of Viret’s correspondence known to me. See my forthcoming “Répertoire de la correspondance de Pierre Viret,” Cahiers Pierre Viret, 1 (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, forthcoming). For the numbers on Farel, I follow the table that I compiled for Oberman in “Calvin and Farel,” 34, n.5. 33 There are 290 letters exchanged with Viret, or about one letter every ten days, and 113 letters with Farel, or just over one letter per month. 34 From 1550-1558, Calvin exchanged 116 letters with Viret and 119 with Farel.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

179

Viret found the state of the church back in Lausanne abysmal. Paraphrasing Julius Caesar immediately after his return, he quipped, “I came, I saw, I was dumbfounded (veni, vidi, obstupui). If only what we had heard about the state of this church were not so true.”35 He decided at the beginning of August 1542 to travel to Bern to appeal for greater ecclesiastical discipline. Viret’s timing could not have been worse, for at the very same time, a dispute over the Eucharist which had been simmering among the ministers of Bern in the years since the Wittenberg Concord broke wide open.36 The Zwinglian Erasmus Ritter accused his colleagues Peter Kunz and Simon Sulzer of preaching a Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist contrary to the one established in the 1528 Bern Disputation. The Bern city council pardoned the accused ministers but took a strong Zwinglian stance on the Eucharist and ordered that in the future, the ministers should not “introduce any new doctrines, ceremonies, or previously unaccustomed ecclesiastical practices contrary to the ten conclusions of our Disputation ....”37 It is significant that they appealed to the conclusions of the Bern Disputation, which were decidedly Zwinglian, rather than to the Berner Synodus, whose teaching on the Eucharist was closer to Bucer’s – and also to Calvin’s. With this Zwinglian shift in Bern, it was not the time for Viret to be asking for a completely new form of ecclesiastical discipline based on Calvin’s theology. It is possible that Viret himself may have recognized the futility of his mission and decided not to take his proposal before the Bern city council since there is no mention of his appearance in the council records.38 The day after the Bern city council decided the Ritter case, it summoned all of the deans of the French-speaking classes to Bern to hear its final decision on the Eucharist in person.39 It was a formative moment for the future of the Reformation in Vaud, and Calvin knew it. He counselled Viret to stand up to the Bernese:

35

“Veni, vidi, obstupui, atque utinam non tam vera essent quae de huius ecclesiae statu audiveramus.” Herminjard, 8:68 (No. 1136), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 21 July 1542. 36 See Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums, und Calvinismus, 165168; Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 224-228. 37 “Pareillement, les dits prédicants [ne devront] introduisre aulcunes nouvelles doctrines, cérémonies, ny aulcuns aultres cas d’église par cy-devant non accoustumés, contraires aux dix conclusions de nostre dite Disputation ….” Herminjard, 8:101 (No. 1147), Bern city council to its French-speaking pastors, Bern, 15 August 1542. 38 Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 227. 39 Herminjard, 8:102-103 (No. 1148), Bern city council to the deans of the French-speaking classes, Bern, 16 August 1542.

180

Chapter 6

The very magnitude of the matter does not permit me to remain silent.... We hold that communion with Christ is not only symbolized in the Supper but also exhibited. Words alone are not given to us there by God, but the truth and the substance [veritatem ac rem] go together with the words. Furthermore, this communion is not imaginary, but through it we gather together into one body and one substance with our head.40 The Vaudois ministers failed to follow Calvin’s advice, however, and accepted the decision of the Bern city council and, hence, the conclusions of the Bern Disputation. Calvin was outraged, not only because the Zwinglian interpretation of the Eucharist would now hold sway in Bern’s lands, but also because of a clause in the decision forbidding new doctrines, ceremonies, and church practices: “Who does not know that they intend under this title the very things – excommunication, more frequent celebration of the Supper, and many other things – that we want and desire to be restored.”41 Viret was more optimistic, if somewhat naïve. He thought that the Bernese were so concerned about avoiding “papism” and Lutheranism that for the moment there was little hope for better ecclesiastical discipline. Nothing concrete had been said in the Bern or Lausanne disputations about excommunication, however, and Viret claimed that others shared his and Calvin’s concerns.42 Nevertheless, Viret took

40

“Magnitudo tamen ipsa causae tacere me ac quiescere non patitur. Duo hic spectanda esse vides: statum ipsum quaestionis et rationem agendi, quae partim ex circumstantiis pendet. De causa non opus est te monere, ut cum decano vestro diligenter conferas. Hoc tamen velim tibi curae sit apud eum efficere, ut apud quoscunque loquatur, non dubitet hoc testatum relinquere: non modo figurari in Coena communionem quam habemus cum Christo, sed etiam exhiberi, neque verba illic nobis dari a Domino, sed veritatem ac rem constare cum verbis. Hanc porro communionem non imaginariam esse, sed qua in unum corpus unamque substantiam cum capite nostro coalescamus.” Herminjard, 8:110 (No. 1150), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 23 August 1542. Viret himself did not actually go to Bern, for the dean of the Lausanne classe at the time was François Martoret, the pastor of Vevey. 41 “Deinde quid putas illic [at the Bern Disputation] fuisse disputatum, nisi Christum non esse inclusum in pane? Id autem Senatus perinde accipit, ac si nihil aliud foret quam signum. Quidquid sit, non ausim credere, mysterium Coenae illic fuisse bene ac rite explicatum…. Vetant enim ne de ullo novo ritu aut novis ceremoniis verba posthac fiant. Quis autem nescit, eos et excommunicationem, et frequentiorum Coenae usum, et multa alia hoc nomine comprehendere? quae nos desideramus, ac restituta cupimus.” Herminjard, 8:122, 123 (No. 1156), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 11 September 1542. 42 “Colligis multa incommoda, quae tametsi satis aperte inde consequi videantur, non arbitror tamen eo spectare autores. Toti eo rapiuntur ut papismum et lutheranismum excludant: quam causam ita agunt, ut praecludere viam ad omnem disciplinam ecclesiasticam videantur, quamvis certo sciam plurimos esse ex eorum numero, qui non postremas partes in hac controversia tenuerunt, qui secus sentiant. Nam cum de aliis quibusdam ritibus, ac

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

181

Calvin’s criticisms to heart and sent a sharply worded letter to Bern, signed by the entire classe of Lausanne, chastising the magistrates for usurping ecclesiastical rights and dictating doctrine, both of which, he believed, properly belonged to the body of ministers.43 Not surprisingly, the magistrates summoned Viret and his colleagues to Bern,44 where the ministers pleaded their case. A decision was made in February 1543: First of all, with regard to ecclesiastical discipline, also called excommunication, many discussions and meetings have been held about the subject by my lords and their adherents who follow the Gospel, but they have never found it useful to establish such a discipline in the form requested by the ministers of Lausanne for several reasons. Fearing to order something that could not be perpetually maintained or supported, they preferred to establish the consistories, rather than establishing more rigorous punishments for vices … for it is much better always to advance than to retract things once established.45 The Bernese magistrates’ equation of ecclesiastical discipline with excommunication is telling. By contrasting ecclesiastical discipline with the

43

44

45

praesertim excommunicatione, nihil actum sit in Disputatione, ne putes eos tam late voluisse suum edictum extendere, neque minus penes nos eius interpretationem quam ipsos autores futuram arbitror.” Herminjard, 8:136 (No. 1160), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 19 September 1542. “Ni nobis iam satis persuasum esset, quam benevolo animo et quanto zelo accensi sitis erga ecclesiam Dei, ut eam in sua libertate conservetis, et ministros Christi in ea dignitate qua Pastorum et Ministrorum Evangelicorum Princeps eos constituit, ut et vestris postremis literis amplius testificati estis, potius quam eam dura tyrannide opprimere, ansam ac occasionem haberemus vos admonendi, non esse Principum qui in hoc saeculo agunt, quamlibet potentium aut cuiuscunque conditionis, praescribere sola sua auctoritate Ministris, quae docere debeant, neque Ecclesiae quae credere debeat et sequi, sed soli Deo per suam Ecclesiam iuxta verbum eius convocatam, atque ordinem ab eodem constitutum.” Herminjard, 8:172 (No. 1174), Classe of Lausanne to the Bern city council, Vevey, 1 November 1542. Herminjard, 8:238 (No. 1194), Bern city council to the dean and jurés of the classe of Lausanne, Bern, 2 January 1543. “Premièrement: quant à la Discipline ecclésiastique, autrement nommée excommunication, – que plusieurs pourparlemens et journées en ont esté tenues par mes Seigneurs et leurs adhérans qui tiennent le parti de l’Évangile, sans avoir jamais trouvé commodité de dresser telle discipline à la forme requise par les ministres de Lausanne, pour plusieurs raisons: dont craignans ordonner chose que l’on n’ait pu maintenir ni entretenir en perpétuelle exécution, leur a semblé convenable le mode d’exercer les consistoires, plustost que d’entreprendre plus rigoureuse punition des vices, sans icelle pouvoir pousser avant ni mettre en effet: car trop mieux vault soy tousjours avancer, que des choses une fois présumées reculer.” Herminjard, 8:280-81 (No. 1204), Bern city council to its deputies in Lausanne, Bern, 12 February 1543.

Chapter 6

182

consistory, they showed that they did not consider the consistory to be an ecclesiastical body but a secular one. The composition of the Bernese and Genevan consistories was essentially the same, consisting of lay members drawn from the city council together with the ministers. In contrast to Bern’s understanding of the consistory as a civic body, however, the Calvinist ministers conceived of it as a meeting of the elders of the church.”46 For them, consistorial discipline was ecclesiastical discipline; for the Bernese, it constituted social discipline. For the time being, Viret and his Calvinist colleagues accepted Bern’s decision and thought it best not to push too hard for change.

3.

THE CRISIS YEARS: 1547-1549

As zealous as Calvin, Farel, and Viret could be, all were fully aware that change could take time. In 1542-1543 they realized that a direct assault on the Zwinglian-leaning Bernese magistrates would be fruitless. But the battle was rejoined in the late 1540s, a time of crisis throughout Europe. It is no coincidence that the theological conflict in Vaud came to a head just as the military crisis erupted in Germany, where Charles V finally launched his long-feared assault on the Schmalkaldic League. The climate of fear created in the Swiss Confederation by the emperor’s wild successes led to a renewed sense of the need for theological unity and strengthened military defense. We must remember that with the Schmalkaldic League’s defeat and the imposition of the very Catholic Augsburg Interim in the empire, it appeared to many that Lutheranism was dead and that the final hope for the success of the Reformation, therefore, lay in the Swiss Confederation. Here at last, in the face of imminent danger to the very existence of “God’s true church on earth,” was the perfect opportunity, born of necessity, to unite the Protestant cantons with Geneva behind Calvin’s vision of reform. It failed. If anything, by the spring of 1550, the differences among the Protestant cantons had grown sharper. Calvin’s correspondence with Viret dropped off dramatically at this point, not because of any personal falling out but because of an important shift in Calvin’s thought, exemplified by the preface to his 1550 treatise, De Scandalis, addressed to his fellow French refugee, Laurent de Normandie. He was now convinced that the hope for the Reformation no longer lay with the city councils of Bern, Zurich, and Basel, but with the persecuted followers of the Gospel in France.

46

See, e.g., Calvin, Institutes IV.xii.2.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

3.1

183

The Zébédée Affair

The initial crisis in Vaud was the little-known Zébédée affair in Lausanne. In 1547, a rift among the ministers of Vaud began to develop which highlighted the differences between the Calvinist faction led by Viret and the Zwinglian faction led by André Zébédée. It started with Calvin and Viret’s attempt to have Farel appointed as professor of theology at the Lausanne Academy.47 Viret, who had served in that capacity since the opening of the school, stepped down in order to focus on his ministry. In consultation with Calvin, he proposed Farel for the post with his old friend André Zébédée as an alternate. The Bernese refused Farel “for certain reasons” but were satisfied with Zébédée.48 Zébédée took up his post in Lausanne and soon became the leading anti-Calvinist minister in Vaud, a mantle that he would wear for years. Although Zébédée and the Calvinist ministers of Lausanne appear to have maintained cordial relations throughout 1547, the preparation and publication of Viret’s De la vertu et usage du ministère de la Parolle de Dieu et des sacrements49 stirred up a hornets’ nest. This was Viret’s first truly Calvinist writing. His earlier treatises had been primarily antiNicodemite or polemically anti-Catholic, warning the people in Catholic lands and newly Protestant Vaud against specific religious practices. With De la vertu et usage du ministère, however, Viret took on both the Bernese magistrates and the Zwinglian ministers. To Bern’s magistrates he addressed a prefatory letter in which he argued strongly for the limitations of the state’s role in the affairs of the church. In the treatise itself, Viret tackled the most hotly debated issues of the time, notably the theology of the Eucharist and ecclesiastical authority. Here Viret expressed a clear Calvinist understanding of the Lord’s Supper:

47

See Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 309-10; Vuilleumier, 640-43. “… sur le premier [point], touchant maistre Guillaume Farel, lequel avés esleuz pour estre lecteur en theologie en nostre college de Lausanne, pour certaines raysons, ne le scavons accepter ne admetre. Dont est nostre vouloir que vous advisés de trouver et nous presenter ung aultre. Quant à maistre Zebedee, summes contants que icelluy soit mis ou lieuz de cely, ce que luy avons aussy signiffié ….” STAB AIII 160, 125vº, Bern city council to Viret, Bern, 15 December 1546. 49 Pierre Viret, De la vertu et usage du ministère de la Parolle de Dieu et des sacremens dépendans d’icelle, et des différents qui sont en la chrestienté à cause d’iceux ([Geneva]: [Jean Girard], 1548). There were two printings of this work, one with the preface and one without. See Calvin’s letter to Viret, dated 18 July 1548: “Liber tuus sine praefatione exiit, neque id meo consilio, sed praepostera Girardi et sociorum festinatione.” CO 13:9 (No. 1048), Calvin to Viret, [Geneva]. The citations that follow are from the edition without the preface. 48

184

Chapter 6

We recognize, therefore, that we truly eat the flesh and the body of Jesus Christ and drink his blood in the Supper, and not only in the imagination…. It follows that the manner of communicating with Jesus Christ, and of eating his flesh and drinking his blood must be spiritual. When I say spiritual, I do not mean only … that the spirit is there, but also the body and Jesus Christ entirely. But I call it spiritual because this body of Jesus Christ that we eat is spiritual and spiritual food.50 Viret also discussed the pollution of the Eucharist by unworthy recipients and the need for excommunication: To avoid these problems, Christian excommunication must have a place. Those who hinder and resist it, under whatever pretext they may allege, clearly resist God and his word and the pure ordinance of Jesus Christ. They also make themselves culpable for all the scandals that are in the church due to this lack of discipline.51 With this barely disguised criticism of the Bernese magistrates, who had forbidden the use of excommunication, Viret laid the blame for ecclesiastical scandal right at their feet. The word scandal in the sixteenth century had implications beyond the modern connotation of public embarrassment or misconduct. In the Calvinist context, the word implied no less than the hindrance of the Gospel – a roadblock on the path toward the complete reform of the church.52 This was, according to Viret, precisely the problem caused by Bern’s refusal to grant the ministers the right of excommunication:

50

“Nous recognoissons donc, que nous mangeons vrayement la chair et le corps de Jesus Christ, en la Cene, et que nous y beuvons son sang, et non seulement par imagination…. Il s’ensuit bien, qu’il faut que la maniere de communiquer à Jesus Christ, et de manger sa chair et boire son sang, soit spirituelle. Quand je dy spirituelle, je n’entendz pas seulement, comme il a desja esté dit, que l’esprit y soit, mais le corps aussi, et Jesus Christ tout entier: mais je l’appelle spirituelle, pource que ce corps de Jesus Christ, lequel nous mangeons, est spirituel, et viande spirituelle.” Viret, De la vertu et usage du ministère, 536, 538. 51 “Pour obvier donc à ces inconveniens, l’usage de l’excommunication Chrestienne, devroit icy avoir lieu, et ceux qui l’empeschent, et qui y resistent, quelque couleur que ilz puissent alleguer, ilz resistent manifestement à Dieu, et à sa parolle, et à la pure ordonnance de Jesus Christ, et se rendent coulpables, de tous les scandales qui sont en l’Eglise, par faute de ceste discipline ….” Viret, Du la vertu et usage du ministère, 333. 52 See, e.g., Calvin’s De scandalis, CO 8:1-84, also the French translation, Des scandales, ed. Olivier Fatio (Geneva: Droz, 1984). The classic biblical reference is Jesus’ rebuke to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan. You are a stumbling block (Vulgate: scandalum) to me; you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men” (Matthew 16:23)

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

185

I am sure that if we follow this rule that [Jesus] gave us in such cases, there would not be such great and villainous scandals in the church, and the ministry and sacraments would not be so dishonored. God would not be as offended as he is, and his furor would not be so great over all of Christendom, and especially over those who boast of the Gospel and the Reformation of the church, which cannot be perfect and whole without this discipline.53 This statement makes clear reference to contemporary religious and political conditions. First, the “great and villainous scandals” no doubt point to the poor moral behavior and continued “papism” of the former Catholic clergy and people of Vaud. According to Viret, proper discipline had not yet been established, and without it he was unable to bar unworthy individuals from the sacrament. “God’s furor” clearly refers to the Schmalkaldic War in Germany, in which the Lutherans had recently been defeated.54 To nearly everyone in Europe, the victory of Charles and the Catholics was a sign of God’s wrath against the Protestants. For Catholics, it signified the just punishment of the wicked heretics. For Protestants – especially the Calvinists – on the other hand, it indicated God’s displeasure with the continuing lack of discipline in the supposedly “reformed” church. The Lutherans had not stressed the need for church discipline, and their defeat in the Schmalkaldic War indicated God’s displeasure with them. Viret was warning the Bernese that they might well suffer a similar fate if they did not establish true ecclesiastical discipline in their lands. In the tense diplomatic climate of 1547-48, when no one yet knew whether Charles V would launch an assault on the Swiss Protestants, Viret’s words may well have sounded like those of an Old Testament prophet. There had already been a good deal of suspicion among the Swiss about Calvin and Viret’s interpretation of the sacrament. A former colleague of Viret, the humanist teacher Celio Secondo Curione, left the Lausanne Academy in 1547 and privately complained to Bullinger that Calvin and

53

“Je suis bien asseuré, que si nous suyvons celle reigle, qu’il nous a baillée en tel cas, qu’il n’y auroit pas de si grans et vilains scandales en l’Eglise: et que le ministere et les Sacremens, ne seroyent pas tant deshonnorez: et Dieu n’y seroit pas tant offensé qu’il est: et sa fureur ne seroit pas si grande sur toute la chrestienté, et principalement sur ceux qui se glorifient de l’Evangile, et de la reformation de l’Eglise, laquelle ne peut estre parfaite et entiere, sans ceste discipline.” Viret, De la vertu et usage du ministère, 336. 54 Viret most likely wrote the book in the immediate aftermath of the war. The first clear reference to the completed work is in Calvin’s letter to Viret, dated 25 August 1547, “Librum de ecclesia et sacramentis, cum voles, mitte.” CO 12:582 (No. 941), Calvin to Viret, Geneva.

186

Chapter 6

Viret followed Bucer on the issue of the Eucharist.55 Moreover, the uproar over Viret’s book began before it was published, and it was instigated by his new colleague in Lausanne, André Zébédée. The first evidence of trouble appears in a letter dated 23 February 1548, written to the ministers of Zurich by Viret’s former fellow minister in Lausanne, Béat Comte, who explains that they have been summoned to Bern because Zébédée “dared to resist him to his face.”56 Comte indicates that the reason for the confrontation was that Viret, while interpreting the Gospel of Luke at the weekly colloquy, indicated that the ascension of Christ “does nothing against the real and corporeal presence of Christ in the Supper.”57 In writing to the ministers of Zurich, Comte appeals to the “blessed memory” of doctissimus Zwingli, whom he believes Viret and Calvin are assaulting, and he cites Calvin’s words condemning Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist as “false” and “pernicious.”58 The stage was set for a showdown. Ever since the debates over the failed Wittenberg Concord in 1536-38 and the renewed divisions of 1542, the Bernese clergy had quietly divided themselves into opposing camps. One favored the Zwinglian theology of the Bern Disputation, represented in 1548 by Jodocus Kilchmeyer and Eberhard von Rümlang; their opponents, Simon Sulzer, Beat Gering, and Konrad Schmidt, subscribed to a Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist that was much closer to Calvin and Viret’s. At the same time, in Bern’s French-speaking regions, Viret was promoting Calvin’s theology at the Lausanne Academy, thus influencing the future pastors of the Pays de Vaud. And in Zurich, the people distrusted nearly everyone, having suffered years of abandonment by their supposed allies in Bern, first militarily in the second War of Kappel and then theologically in

55

“… neque enim me cum Calvino et Vireto volo coniungere in ea quaestione, quos audio Argentorati Bucero subscripsisse, etiamsi domi aliter sapere videantur.” CO 12:585 (No. 943), Celio Secundo Curione to Bullinger, Basel, 27 August 1547. 56 “Atque inter eos primas tenet Viretus Lausannensis episcopus, cui quoniam in faciem resistere ausus est Andreas Zebedaeus, collegii Lausannensis primarius, Bernam in ius ab eodem ipso Vireto vocatus est ….” CO 12:662 (No. 996), Béat Comte to the Ministers of Zurich, Baden, 23 February 1548. 57 “… nimirum quod ausus fuerit [Zebedaeus] repugnare asserenti Vireto locum illum Lucae, qui est de ascensione Christi in coelos, nihil facere contra realem ac corporalem eiusdem Christi in coena praesentiam.” CO 12:662 (No. 996). 58 “Huic novo antagonistae supra fidem favet Calvinus, archiepiscopus Gebenensis, qui non ita pridem ausus est in haec verba de doctissimo atque beatae memoriae viro, D. Zwinglio, scribere: Alii, inquit, in eo sunt toti ut salvus sit Zwinglius: falsa tamen eius et perniciosa fuit de re eucharistiae opinio, ut qui verum eius usum disiecerit et dissiparit. Haec ille. Quae quam sint impia et blasphema, vos, o venerandi episcopi, iudicate ac cogitate, ut sancto Christi spiritu impiis istis daemonibus resistatur.” CO 12:662 (No. 996).

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

187

the negotiations on the Wittenberg Concord. The great legacy of Zwingli, who had brought the Gospel to the Swiss Confederation in the first place, was in danger of being trampled by foreign influences, first from Germany (Bucer) and now France (Calvin). All the while, Charles V was just across the border, probably plotting how best to force the rebel Swiss, or at the very least the heretical Protestants, back into submission. Zébédée’s confrontation with Viret in Lausanne in the spring of 1548 had the potential to destroy the entire Protestant endeavor in the Confederation at precisely the moment when the reformers most needed unity. In Lausanne, the debate soon turned not only on the interpretation of the Eucharist but also on the power of the ministry. Viret and his allies prepared 99 theses on the power of the keys described in Matthew 16:18-19.59 This was an important doctrine for the Calvinists and marked another crucial departure from Zwingli’s theology. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had to grapple with the interpretation of the scriptural verses that for a thousand years had been understood to refer to the pope’s powers of excommunication and absolution. Zwingli, as on so many other issues, rejected altogether the Catholic Church’s interpretation and asserted that the power of the keys was nothing more than the preaching of the Gospel.60 For the Calvinists, by contrast, the power of the keys remained a vital characteristic of the public ministry and was interpreted as the minister’s ability both to announce through his preaching the forgiveness of sins received through faith in Jesus Christ (the “loosing” aspect) and the church’s ability to “bind” the sins of the wicked through the sentence of excommunication. This interpretation was seen by the Zwinglian ministers, however, as nothing short of a revival of “papism.”61 Zébédée told the Bernese about Viret’s theses, and the Calvinist contingent in Lausanne was summoned to Bern. Viret was “horrified” at

59

Unfortunately, the full text of these theses appears to be lost; there is an excerpt from a copy in Bullinger’s hand in CO 12:673-75 (No. 1005). 60 See, e.g., Zwingli, De vera et falsa religione: “Clavium materia cum non modo cognata sit evangelio, sed nihil penitus aliud sit, quam ipsum evanglium.” Z 3:723. Zwingli, Auslegung des 50. Artikels: “Und ist der sinn diser worten Christi: Ich würd dir, o felser, das wort gottes, das evangelium, empfelhen ze predigen, welchs den menschen anzeigt und uffschlüßt, wie sy sälig werdind.” Z 2:375. See also, Robert M. Kingdon, “La discipline ecclésiastique vue de Zurich et Genève au temps de la Réformation: L’usage de Matthieu 18,15-17 par les réformateurs,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 133 (2001): 343-55. 61 See, e.g., Viret’s comments to Calvin after his summons to Bern: “Sed quae alii adprobarunt ab aliis ita sunt exagitata, ut omnibus paene persuasum videatur, non novum voluisse papatum revocare et erigere ….” CO 12:694 (No. 1015), Viret to Calvin, Bern, 3 May 1548.

188

Chapter 6

Zébédée’s “impudence,”62 but Calvin encouraged Viret to fight, going so far as to tell him that if he caved in, “God will punish your inertia.”63 The situation was aggravated when the Bern city council banished the Lutheran ministers, Sulzer, Gering, and Schmidt, on 24 April 1548, just days before Viret’s scheduled hearing in the city.64 And indeed, the Lausanne uproar appears to have led to their dismissal. Upon hearing that the Lausannois were “introducing Bucerianism in the school at Calvin’s suggestion” and after receiving the 99 theses, the Bern city council decided that all the city’s ministers should examine each proposition and indicate whether they approved or rejected them.65 Eberhard von Rümlang happily reported to Bullinger, “The truth (o joy!) won out, and falsity was confused and fell.”66 Sulzer, Gering, and Schmidt were forced to leave town. On hearing about the situation, the Zurich minister Johann Gast was astounded by the “French disposition [that] so far has hindered the Gospel a great deal. They always have innumerable questions. Our church is nearly buried by those new men.”67 Gast’s comments are telling. They remind us that at this point Calvin was still the new kid in town, by no means universally perceived as the intellectual giant that history remembers. Furthermore, they demonstrate that an ethnic struggle lay behind this conflict, pitting – from the Swiss perspective – the original, Swiss, Zwinglian church against those (with the derogatory isti) upstart, quarrelsome, theologically suspect Frenchmen. Calvinism very nearly died in the Swiss Confederation in late April and early May 1548.

62

“Valde horreo ad hominis impudentiam.” CO 12:683 (No. 1009), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 18 April 1548. 63 “Nolim tamen quoad de toto negotio pronunciatum erit, vos quiescere. Nam si in hoc cardine cessatum fuerit, nova subinde certamina pullulabunt. Et Dominus vestram inertiam puniet.” CO 12:685 (No. 1010), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 23 April 1548. 64 On the situation in Bern itself, see Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus, 207-09. 65 “Et Lausannenses quoque, non sine Calvini suggestione, Bucerianismum in scholam invexerant. Id posteaquam senatus rescivit, coacti sunt Lausannenses conclusiones, quas nos tanquam suspectas a reliquis selectas reposueramus, probationibus stabilire, quibus tueri eas confiderent. Id deinde a nobis in germanicum translatum et a magistratu auditum est. Unde profecto gravitate offendebatur quot tot scripturarum loci essent citati. Verebatur etiam nos fortassis non suffecturos iis omnibus confutandis. Verum obtinuit ea sententia ut nos omnia examinaremus, et singulis pensiculatis deinde suffragio nostro aut probaremus aut reprobaremus.” CO 12:691 (No. 1014), Eberhard von Rümlang to Bullinger, [Bern], 28 April 1548. 66 “Obtinuit (gaude!) veritas et confusa est ceciditque falsitas.” CO 12:692 (No. 1014) 67 “Gallica ingenia multum hactenus evangelio incommodarunt. Habent perpetuo quaestiones innumerabiles. Ecclesia nostra fere adobruitur novis istis hominibus.” CO 12:697 (No. 1017), Johann Gast to Bullinger, [Basel], 8 May 1548.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

189

Calvin was shocked at this “horrendous calamity that threatens so many churches.”68 And Viret, writing from Bern, was understandably afraid that he, too, would be removed from his ministry in Lausanne but told Calvin that “we are prepared for whatever the Lord decides.”69 The appearance before the Bern city council did nothing to soothe his fears, and on his return to Lausanne he fretted to Calvin that “our case is so tied up with the Bernese ministers [who were expelled], that I can hardly see how those who ejected them could uphold their honor if they keep us, unless we ourselves wish to retract.”70 Although Viret probably did not realize it, the Bernese magistrates, despite their apparently confident crackdown on theological dissent, were deeply worried about the impact of this situation on their churches. In order to help settle matters, they appealed to Zurich to lend them the services of the minister Johannes Haller.71 Despite his youth (he was only twenty-five years old), Haller was well respected, and although he supported Zwingli’s theology, he was not carrying the baggage of more than ten years of theological division in Bern. In all likelihood, it was only because of Haller that Viret and his allies were not, in fact, banished from Lausanne as they had feared. Haller himself was probably influenced by the reports of his fellow ministers in Zurich, who had recently welcomed Calvin and Farel when they appeared there to appeal Viret’s case. Viret had one ally in particular in Zurich, Rudolf Gwalther, who had lived in Lausanne briefly to learn French while studying at the Academy. Gwalther wrote Viret to tell him about Calvin and Farel’s visit, and to indicate to him the general climate in Zurich. The distrust of Viret stemmed primarily from the belief that he and Calvin supported Bucer, who in the course of the Wittenberg Concord negotiations had publicly condemned Zurich’s teaching on the Eucharist.72 It did not help matters that “books have been printed in Geneva in both French and Latin, in which the teachings of Zwingli and Oecolampadius on the Supper have been expressly rejected by

68

“De horrenda ista calamitate quae tot ecclesiis imminet ideo nihil dico quia moerore impedior.” CO 12:690 (No. 1013), Calvin to Farel, Geneva, 30 April 1548. 69 “Nunc paramus nos ad ea quae volet Dominus de nobis statuere.” CO 12:695 (No. 1015), Viret to Calvin, Bern, 3 May 1548. 70 “Nam causa nostra ita implicita est cum causa ministrorum Bernensium, ut vix videam qua ratione qui eos eiecerunt suo honori consulere possint si nos retineant, nisi ipsi velimus quod semel proposuimus abnegare.” CO 12:699 (No. 1019), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 9 May 1548. 71 EA IV.1d, 941 (No. 429), ca. 5 May 1548. 72 “Cum enim vobis cum Bucero, ut multi firmiter credunt, conveniat, is autem nostrarum ecclesiarum doctrinam de coena publice damnet, non mirum videri debet si multis suspecti sitis.” CO 12:710 (No. 1027), Gwalther to Viret, Zurich, 1 June 1548.

190

Chapter 6

name.”73 Gwalther ends on a more positive note, however, advising Viret to “keep it simple” and not introduce new and ambiguous formulas into theological debates.74 The result of all these appeals and negotiations was that when Viret returned to Bern at the beginning of July 1548, he had by all accounts a successful meeting with Haller, and the threat of banishment seems to have been lifted.75 In the wake of these events, however, Viret proved – as so many others have in the past – that there is a fine line between boldness and folly: He had printed his controversial treatise De la vertu et usage du ministère, the main theses of which had kicked off the entire affair to begin with. His bête noir in Lausanne, André Zébédée, promptly translated excerpts into Latin and sent them to Bern.76 Haller was astounded: I had hoped that Viret’s case was settled. But behold, while these things were taking place, he published a book in French on the power and practice of the ministry of the Word of God…. Zébédée translated certain excerpts into Latin and sent them to us. Once again, Viret has irritated everyone, for certain things are clearly contrary to us, and others doubtful, confused, and obscure. With other things, although true, it is neither the time nor the place to bring them up. For it is not at all helpful now to stir up the hornets. Although he is otherwise pious, I fear that he will be released and dismissed.77

73

“Nec id obscurum est, cum Genevae libelli et gallice et latine editi sint, in quibus Zwinglii et Oecolampadii de coena doctrina, expressis etiam illorum nominibus, reiicitur.” CO 12:710 (No. 1027). 74 “Puto igitur, mi Virete, ad pristinam simplicitatem redeundum esse, ne, dum indies novas loquendi formulas etiam pacis studio recipimus, et ecclesiae suspecti reddamur, et pacem inter ecclesias coire, si formulis utantur ambiguis ….” CO 12:711 (No. 1027). 75 “Fuit hic mecum hisce diebus D. Viretus…. Cupiunt habere pacem nobiscum. Praecipue Viretus admodum familiariter mecum agit. Pauca habuit quae in expositione illius moderanda potius quam reprehenda viderentur.” CO 13:2 (No. 1042), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 9 July 1548. “Quid Bernae egerim scribam alias latius, cum plus otii nactus fuero. Hoc solum te in praesentia scire volui, bonam esse spem de exitu negotii nostri. Omnes utriusque partis me humanissime exceperunt. Hallerum conveni, de quo mihi bona spes est.” CO 13:4 (No. 1044), Viret to Calvin, Orbe, 10 July 1548. 76 These excerpts and Viret’s responses to them are published in Robert Centlivres, “Les Capita Calumniarum de Zébédée et la réponse de Pierre Viret,” in Mélanges d’histoire du XVIe siècle offerts à Henri Meylan, THR 110 (Geneva: Droz, 1970), 107-26. 77 “Cupivissem Vireti causam leniri: sed ecce interim, dum haec facta sunt, ipse edit libellum in lingua gallica de vi usuque Ministerii verbi Dei sacramentorumque ab illo dependentium. Ex quo libello excerpta quaedam et in linguam latinam versa ad nos transmisit Zebedaeus. Quibus denuo omnium irritavit animos. Sunt enim quaedam

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

191

Viret set off for Bern again on 10 August. In Bern, Zébédée showed the Zwinglian ministers letters from Calvin “from which you can see what those troublemakers think about the sincere evangelical doctrine, which they call ‘Zwinglian.’”78 Viret and his allies appear to have met with stronger opposition this time,79 yet the Bernese were still reluctant to strip him of his office. This time two circumstances likely kept them from doing so: first, the options continued to be limited by the critical shortage of ministers in the French-speaking churches. The Bernese realized that if they ousted Viret, others would follow, and they simply could not afford that. Second, Charles V’s troops took Constance on 6 August 1548, just days before Viret’s appearance in Bern.80 Suddenly, diplomatic considerations trumped religious bickering, and the last thing the Bern city council needed was division among its subjects. Viret’s case was put on the back burner, and the longer it stayed there the more likely the parties involved would eventually resolve their differences. Viret, however, continued to complain about Zébédée, who was mustering opposition not only in Lausanne and Bern but also in Orbe and Neuchâtel.81 Finally, on 4 February 1549 – six months after the appearance of Viret’s controversial De la vertu et usage du ministère – the Bernese called for a synod to be held in Bern, starting on 20 March, to resolve the issue.82 This was the first synod called since the 1538 Synod of Lausanne and would turn out to be the last one of the sixteenth century.

prorsus nobis contraria, quaedam dubia, confusa et obscura: quaedam, etsi vera, tamen non in tempore et loco scripta. Nam non conveniebat magis nunc irritare crabrones: ut valde metuam pro eo, nam alias pius est, ne et ipse dimittatur et ablegatur.” CO 13:24 (No. 1057), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 8 August 1548. 78 “Heri mihi tradidit Andreas Zebedaeus, Lausannensis scholae professor, literarum fasciculum qui continet epistolas aliquot a Calvino et aliis ad se datas: quas describam et unam et alteram ad te mittam, ex quibus poteris cognoscere quid sentiant perturbatores illi de sinceriore doctrina evangelica, quam ipsi Zuinglianam vocant.” CO 13:29 (No. 1061), Niklaus Pfister (a.k.a. Nicolaus Artopoeus) to Bullinger, [Bern], 14 August 1548. 79 See Christophe Fabri’s narration, CO 13:29-30 (No. 1062), Fabri to Farel, Bern, 18 August 1548. 80 See above, chapter 2, section 9. 81 “In mea quam ad Orbanos et Neocomenses suscepi mira audivi de Pyrrho nostro. Non possum satis mirari hominis impudentiam et calumnias.” CO 13:91 (No. 1086), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 24 October 1548. Viret frequently refers to Zébédée as “Pyrrhus noster” in the letters from this period. 82 “A cause des occurrents et des faultes que presentement sont, tant touchant la doctrine que aultres raisons, summes avec les ministres de nostre eglise icy estez occasionés et d’advys d’assembler et tenyr ung synode, et à ce effect, estably jour, assavoir mardi xix du moys de Mars prochainement venant à comparoir icy en nostre ville de Berne au soir.” STAB AIII 160, 201rº, Bern city council to the French-speaking classes, Bern, 4 February 1549.

192

Chapter 6

Despite Zébédée’s smear campaign, opinions were beginning to shift in favor of Viret and the Calvinists because of the continued support of Bullinger and the publication of Calvin’s treatise against the Augsburg Interim.83 In it, Calvin seemed to move closer to a more symbolic understanding of the elements, apparently backing off of his earlier insistence that the corporeal body of Christ is exhibited in the Eucharist. Even the staunch Zwinglian Bernese minister von Rümlang was impressed with Calvin’s treatise, “especially concerning the Eucharist.”84 In preparation for the upcoming synod, Haller sought Calvin’s advice, likewise expressing his satisfaction with the treatise against the Interim.85 It seems that Calvin had finally been able to overcome, at least partially, the prejudices of the Swiss ministers who had previously seen him chiefly as a follower of the “traitor” Bucer. The moment was ripe for reconciliation and unity. Calvin seized the day by pursuing negotiations with Bullinger that would lead to the Consensus Tigurinus. Viret shared his optimism. “There is hope for us of harmony with the Bernese ministers,” he wrote to Farel in February. “I don’t think the way has ever been clearer for me to publish a confession of faith, in which I might explain clearly and unambiguously what I believe about these controversial matters of the sacraments and the ministry.”86 But his hopes were short-lived; the wrangling in Bern and Lausanne continued unresolved and ultimately undermined Calvin’s efforts to establish unity throughout the Confederation. Before the synod of Bern, the Bernese sent Haller and councilman Hans Steiger to investigate the situation in Lausanne itself. Haller reported to Bullinger, “I have never seen more contentious men in my life. They are preoccupied with minutiae and

83

84

85

86

John Calvin, Interim adultero-germanum ([Geneva]: [Jacques Bourgeois], 1549), CO 7:545-674; on the Eucharist, 620-26. “Eberhardus plurimum commendat tuam responsionem ad Interim Caesarianum, praesertim in negotio eucharistiae.” CO 13:178 (No. 1136), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 6 February 1549. “Te, ut dixi, rogo ut quae ad synodum, considerationes ecclesiasticas et censuram ministrorum facere putaveris in tempore ad me perscribas, ne ad tantum opus sim imparatus, qui nihil aliud (teste conscientia mea) quaero quam salutem et correctionem ecclesiae, et pacem quae sinceritati doctrinae non deroget. Talem me experieris semper. Porro scriptum tuum contra interdecretum Caesaris vidi, legi, relegi: perplacet.” CO 13:169 (No. 1131), Haller to Calvin, Bern, 25 January 1549. Although the letter summoning the French-speaking classes to the synod is dated 4 February, this letter clearly indicates that the Bernese ministers knew about it already in January. “Spes nobis est concordiae cum Bernensibus ministris…. Viam non putat commodiorem ullam quam ut edam fidei confessionem, qua explicem clarissime et minime ambiguis verbis quid ego sentiam de iis rebus quae sunt in ministerii et sacramentorum negotio controversa.” CO 13:180 (No. 1137), Viret to Farel, Lausanne, 7 February 1549.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

193

unbending rules.”87 Likewise, Viret’s former optimism is absent from his next letter to Farel: “I do not see clearly what the future will bring…. If the gods are unmoving and poorly disposed toward us, we hope the Lord will be easily moved and favorable to us.”88 Two weeks later, Viret had grown even more despondent, and after telling Farel not to bother coming to the synod, he expressed his hopelessness in a remarkable statement laced with sentimentality and frustration: “We saw and we lived in those times when the Bernese, the Neuchâtelois, and the Genevans were one church. Times have changed.”89 The synod of Bern went better than expected for Viret; although no definite decision was made about Zébédée, Viret sensed that his side had won and that at the very least Zébédée would be transferred out of Lausanne.90 He got his wish … eventually. Viret announced to Calvin in June 1549 that Zébédée had, in fact, been ordered to transfer from Lausanne to Yverdon, although not without opposition in Bern.91 In one of Calvin’s less generous moments – both to Zébédée and the people of Yverdon – he replied sarcastically, “He is most worthy of such a people; no harm can come to people who deserve such a pastor.”92 Zébédée apparently was quite

87

88

89

90

91

92

“Lausannae haec egimus…. Homines contentiosiores non vidi unquam, qui minutissima quaeque rigidissimo iure prosequi satagant.” CO 13:214 (No. 1158), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 7 March 1549. “Ego vero quid sit profutura non satis video…. Si dii sunt nobis tam male propitii et inexorabiles, speramus Dominum nobis propitium et exorabilem futurum.” CO 13:206 (No. 1154), Viret to Farel, Lausanne, 1 March 1549. “Si non vocamini, vos vero ultro accurreretis, cogitate quibus exponemini vestrorum hominum ludibriis. Nam non spero vos in eam admittendos…. Vidimus viximusque illis temporibus quibus Bernenses, Neocomenses et Genevenses una erant ecclesia. Mutata sunt tempora.” CO 13:219 (No. 1162), Viret to Farel, Lausanne, 13 March 1549. “Quod ad reliqua attinet, felicius cesserunt quam ausi fueramus sperare…. Dominum multa in hac synodo suae in nos benevolentiae specimina atque signa edidisse, quamvis alioqui multa desiderari possent…. Quid de Pyrrho nostro [Zébédée] statutum aut statuendum sit, nondum certo didicimus. Hoc saltem existimo nos esse assequutos ut, si durius nihil aliud in eam statuatur, alio transferatur.” CO 13:227-228 (No. 1170), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 31 March 1549. “Hodie sunt mihi literae Halleri redditae quibus quid senatus statuerit de Zebedaeo significat. Scribit, se iussum de eo transferendo cogitare. Negotium ei difficile videtur. Ait, non deesse qui eius translationem impedire moliantur, quod metuant ne eo exploso nimium nobis permittamus. Decretum est tamen ut transferatur.” CO 13:298-99 (No. 1204), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 12 June 1549. “De Zebedaeo nihil habeo consilii nisi ut ecclesiae Iverdunensi reddatur siquidem impetrari hoc poterit. Ipse tali populo dignissimus, nec iniuria populo fiet qui talem pastorem meretur.” CO 13:300 (No. 1205), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 15 June 1549. I do not know the origins of Calvin’s negative opinion of the people of Yverdon.

Chapter 6

194

reluctant to leave Lausanne, however, and the Bernese had to reiterate their demand at least twice before he finally left in August 1549.93 The conflict between Viret and Zébédée had lasted more than a year, and its significance stretched well beyond the Lausanne city walls. What had started as a local debate over scriptural interpretation in the Lausanne colloquy had quickly grown into a fight over the future of the Reformed churches in the Confederation. Would they, with Zébédée, remain faithful to the legacy of Zwingli? Or, like Viret, would they follow Calvin’s new voice calling out from Geneva? At first, when the three ministers most sympathetic to Calvin and Viret were removed from Bern, it looked like the old guard would stand firm. In the middle of the fray, however, stood Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich. He has not been centerstage in our story, yet he, in fact, plays the hero. Only Bullinger had the respect of both sides, and it was only his mediation and the advice he passed to both Calvin and Haller that prevented the situation from imploding. Calvin himself started to show signs of a willingness to compromise in order to achieve unity in the Confederation, and soon the Viret-Zébédée squabble turned into a serious attempt to come to an agreement on the single most divisive issue of the Reformation: the Eucharist.

3.2

The Consensus Tigurinus

Modern commentators have completely missed the connection between the Zébédée affair in Lausanne and the Consensus Tigurinus, or “Zurich Agreement,” between Calvin and Bullinger on the Eucharist.94 This is to miss a large part of the genesis of the accord, which must be understood, together with the publication of the Augsburg Interim in June 1548, as the

93

94

“Zebedaeo statuit senatus ut transferretur, sicuti iam ante decretum fuerat.” CO 13:329 (No. 1225), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 17 July 1549. “Iterum statutum est et confirmatum serio totius senatus mandato et omnium ministrorum professorumque Bernatium consensu, ut semel tandem a nobis Zebedaeus transferatur.” CO 13:361 (No. 1242), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 15 August 1549. Paul Rorem, for example, provides an otherwise solid history and analysis of the negotiations leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus but nowhere mentions Zébédée or Viret and puzzles over why the final draft was based on articles Calvin sent to the 1549 Synod of Bern rather than on a series of twenty-four propositions he and Bullinger had been debating previously. Paul E. Rorem, “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Did Calvin Compromise?” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor/Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture: Die Referate des International Congress on Calvin Research vom 20. bis 23. August 1990 in Grand Rapids, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 72-90; here, 84-85.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

195

critical event that would demand theological concord among the Swiss Confederation’s Protestant members and their allies if the evangelical movement was to survive. Although Calvin had always much preferred Luther’s theology to Zwingli’s, in the wake of the Schmalkaldic War it seemed that Luther’s movement was dead. A compromise agreement with the Lutherans on the Eucharist, therefore, was pointless; the Interim had completely marginalized them. Calvin’s critique of the Interim marked a vital turning point. With it, he definitively threw his hat in with the Swiss rather than the German Lutherans. In doing so, he made some compromises, but he saw an important opportunity to win concessions from what had previously appeared to be a stubborn, unmoving core of Zwinglians, particularly in Bern where the theological clashes involving his friend Viret were threatening the French-speaking churches of Vaud. Viewed in strictly theological terms, Calvin’s compromises in negotiating for the Consensus Tigurinus could be characterized as a surrender of doctrinal purity, but historically, they must be understood as the single boldest move in his effort to unite the Protestant cantons on the issue of the Eucharist. His actions had the potential to move the Swiss away from their natural federalist tendency to maintain separate churches, just as they did politically independent cantons, and toward the creation of a single Reformed Church that might eventually be persuaded to welcome other Calvinist views on issues such as discipline, the power of the keys, and predestination. The result was a discouraging partial success that probably did more harm than good. Calvin and Bullinger did indeed come to a theological accord, but the Bernese, whose agreement had been a chief goal of the negotiations, were hesitant to subscribe to it. There had been a real window of opportunity for unity in 1549, but the Bernese did not subscribe to the agreement until 1551, and by then it was too late. Moreover, the Consensus Tigurinus shattered any hope there might have been for reconciliation with the German Lutherans once their fortunes turned around. Calvin was seen as having betrayed his early affinity for Luther and was now firmly associated with the “sacramentarians” (from the Lutheran perspective) of Zurich. Negotiations toward the Consensus Tigurinus began in earnest with the Zébédée affair in Lausanne. The dispute between Zébédée and Viret reached its climax in April 1548; at the end of the month, the Lutheran ministers were expelled from Bern, and Zurich became involved soon thereafter by sending Johannes Haller to Bern to help smooth things over. Calvin and Farel traveled to Zurich at the end of May 1548 to appeal for help on Viret’s behalf, and although Calvin and Bullinger had previously corresponded about the subject of the Eucharist, this meeting must be seen as the origin of serious negotiations toward the Consensus Tigurinus.

196

Chapter 6

Only days before Calvin arrived in Zurich, Bullinger related the bad news to Calvin about the Interim, exclaiming, “I fear the true religion in Germany is finished.”95 Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin continued the negotiations on the Eucharist in written correspondence with Bullinger. It is unnecessary for our purposes to examine closely the theological issues debated in their correspondence.96 Suffice it to say that their chief disagreement arose initially from the fact that Calvin saw the sacraments as instruments of God’s grace, whereas Bullinger preferred to view them as testimonies. And whereas Calvin believed that God worked through the sacraments, Bullinger thought this language was too close to the Catholic doctrine because he thought it ascribed too much to material objects and not enough to God. By March 1549, although Calvin appears to have been somewhat discouraged – quite possibly out of trepidation, shared with Viret, over the outcome of the upcoming Synod of Bern – there were enough points of commonality that Bullinger could tell Calvin, “I do not see how you disagree with us” and pressed him on the need for unity: The church of Christ is dispersed throughout the whole world, but there are so few churches today that openly retain the name of Christ. Almost all the German churches, certainly those of upper [i.e., southern] Germany, have adopted the Interim. Let us pray for them, I beg, and let all men in Helvetia come together so that our churches might be of one accord.97 The favorable outcome of the Synod of Bern in March appears to have lifted Calvin’s spirits once again and would explain why he and Bullinger based the Consensus Tigurinus on the synod’s articles concerning the Eucharist rather than on the propositions they had discussed previously. It was essential that the Bernese approve this accord, and by using a document already approved by the synod, Calvin and Bullinger reasoned, the chances of gaining such an endorsement were much improved.

95

96

97

“Vereor in Germania actum esse cum religione vera. Nam Caesar iuvantibus et consentientibus principibus et ordinibus Imperii, pauculis demptis, composuerunt Interim.” CO 12:706 (No. 1025), Bullinger to Calvin, Zurich, 26 May 1548. These exchanges and the theological points under scrutiny are described well by Paul Rorem, “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549),” 80-84. “Dicis te sic a nobis dissentire, ut animo minime sis disiunctus. Ego vero non video cur a nobis dissentias…. Ecclesia Christi quidem dispersa est per totum terrarum orbem, sed pauculae restant hodie quae palam ecclesiae Christi nomen retineant. Ecclesiae germanicae fere omnes, certe superioris Germaniae, receperunt Interim. Oremus pro illis, obsecro, et huc conferamus vires omnes in Helvetia ut ecclesiae nostrae sint concordes.” CO 13:221, 223 (No. 1165), Bullinger to Calvin, [Zurich], [ca. 15 March 1549].

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

197

Hence, in May 1549, Calvin once again left Geneva. On this occasion he had two purposes: Officially, he planned to encourage the governments of Bern and Zurich to sign onto the French alliance with Henri II. In addition, he intended to hold the final discussions on the Consensus Tigurinus with Bullinger in person.98 The meeting in Zurich was a success, and although there was some further alteration to the wording, Calvin and Bullinger indeed reached a consensus. That, it turned out, was the easy part; the real challenge was to persuade the churches of the Confederation to subscribe to the agreement as well. The Bernese were reluctant from the very beginning. Having learned of Calvin’s meeting with the ministers of Zurich, and having seen the draft of their agreement, the Bernese ministers expressed their approval of the content.99 They would not hinder its publication; nor, however, would they officially adopt it “lest that unexpected agreement stir up more suspicion and disturbance than peace.”100 Their use of the word unexpected, or perhaps more accurately, un-hoped-for (insperata) implies some criticism; it indicates not “pleasant surprise” but slight indignation that they were not consulted on a matter of such import. The reason for their reticence became clearer some weeks later when the Bernese found it necessary to explain themselves again to Zurich, saying specifically that “most of the members of our small council already have their eye on Calvin and Farel and are quite suspicious of them, and if we should refer anything about this matter to the council, a dangerous cabal will be formed.”101 In explaining Bern’s position to Calvin, Haller was yet more explicit, reminding him of “that unfortunate concord of Bucer [the Wittenberg Concord] which brought so much discord to this church.”102 Once again, the persistent distrust of Bucer, with whom

98

See CO 13:264, and n.2 (No. 1185), Calvin to Farel, [Geneva], 7 May 1549. “… nihil tamen habemus quod in re ipsa … reprehendamus. Sed videntur omnia bene docte et christiane dici, maxime cum in posteriore parte diligenter reiiciantur ea quae hactenus huic contentioni materiam suppeditarunt.” CO 13:288 (No. 1197), Ministers of Bern to the Ministers of Zurich, Bern, 2 June 1549. 100 “Hoc ergo unanimi consensu omnibus nobis videtur, non hac tempestate confessio ista in lucem eat, sed sufficiat in praesentiarum mutuus ille inter vestras et nostras ecclesias consensus, ne insperata illa concordia plus suspicionis pariat et perturbationis quam pacis. Quod si vero omnino vobis consultum videtur ut edatur publice, per nos quidem licebit: nihil praescribimus.” CO 13:288 (No. 1197). 101 “D. Calvinus et Farellus plerisque senatoribus nostris et noti et suspecti sunt, et perniciosa moveretur camerina si quidquam hac de re ad senatum referremus.” CO 13:314 (No.1214), Ministers of Bern to the Ministers of Zurich, 27 June 1549. 102 “Et si de pace et concordia dicamus, ipsum etiam pacis et concordiae vocabulum ita eis suspectum est propter infelicem illam Buceri concordiam, quae omnem huic ecclesiae peperit discordiam, ut nullum sit dubium quin reclamaturi sint omnes.” CO 13:326-27 (No. 1224), Haller to Calvin, Bern, 12 July 1549. 99

198

Chapter 6

Calvin was forever associated, along with the painful memory of the divisions over the Wittenberg Concord, held the Bernese back. Unwilling to give up, however, Calvin and Bullinger applied pressure once again in September 1549 but received the same response from Bern.103 By the end of the month, Calvin started to despair. “About the formula of our consensus,” he told Viret, “I do not know what I ought to hope for. The Bernese … persistently withhold their subscription.”104 A week later, Bullinger informed Calvin that although Schaffhausen and St. Gall approved, Basel would not sign since they had only recently re-issued their own confession of faith.105 Hopes for Swiss unity were vanishing into the thin Alpine air. Without the support of Bern and Basel, the two most important Protestant cantons besides Zurich, the Consensus Tigurinus was a dead letter, just another theological agreement on paper rather than the force for unity that Calvin and Bullinger had intended. By the time Bern at last subscribed to the Consensus Tigurinus in 1551, the opportunity to unite the Swiss Protestant cantons had passed; as we shall see, new conflicts had arisen that would galvanize the opposing factions. But the agreement had further consequences; not only had it failed to reconcile Swiss Protestants, but it also ensured that Calvin could not turn back to the Lutherans after they rallied to force Charles V back over the Alps. Before 1549, there had been the potential for Calvin to come to an agreement on the Eucharist either with Bullinger and the Swiss, or with Melanchthon and the Lutherans. In fact, he might more likely have gone with the Lutherans, since he clearly preferred Luther to Zwingli. The concessions he was forced to make to the Zwinglians for the Consensus Tigurinus, however, spelled the end of any possible agreement with the Lutherans. Consequently, the

103

104

105

See, e.g., CO 13:386-87 (No. 1262), Haller to Calvin, Bern, 12 September 1549; ibid., 391-92 (No. 1266), Ministers of Bern to the Ministers of Zurich, Bern, 14 September 1549. “De formula nostri consensus quid sperare debeam nescio. Bernates, ut ex Halleri literis intelliges, constanter subscriptionem recusant.” CO 13:397 (No. 1270), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 23 September 1549. “Iam quod sententias fratrum attinet sic habe. Ministris ecclesiae Basiliensis nihil huius communicavimus, non aliam ob causam quam quod intra anni spatium ediderunt, imo repararunt, fidei suae confessionem, cui cum haec nostra probe consentiant, supervacaneum videbatur ab eis postulanda confessio aut sententia, quam non ita pridem ediderant. Ministri ecclesiarum Schaffhusii et Sangalli cum gratulatione approbarunt omnia.” CO 13:404-05 (No. 1276), Bullinger to Calvin, Zurich, 30 September 1549.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

199

disputes between Calvin and Lutherans such as Joachim Westphal grew ever more bitter in the 1550s.106 Within the Confederation itself, the initial refusal of Bern and Basel to sign the agreement reflected the deep divisions that were growing among the Protestant cantons. Rather than serve as a unifying document, therefore, the Consensus Tigurinus merely exacerbated existing divisions. Zurich tried to play mediator. Bern did not trust any document or doctrine they did not produce themselves. And Basel, whose location on the German border left it more susceptible than either Bern or Zurich to an imperial attack, leaned ever closer to their Lutheran neighbors in southwest Germany. Only Zurich and Geneva were brought closer together by the Consensus Tigurinus, and Bullinger would continue to talk to Calvin, and later his successor Theodore Beza, for many years to come while remaining the theological leader of the German-speaking Reformed Church. The Pays de Vaud, as a subject of Bern, was caught in the middle. Viret and his colleagues in Lausanne were coming increasingly under Calvin’s influence at the same time that Calvin was being viewed ever more suspiciously by the Bernese. Having grown out of the Zébédée affair in Lausanne, the Consensus Tigurinus nevertheless failed to take hold in the one officially Protestant French-speaking region outside Geneva. Meanwhile, Vaud’s fortunes were at the mercy of international politics as the region became a bargaining chip in efforts to renew the French alliance.

3.3

The French Alliance

Perhaps no major episode of Calvin’s life has been so understudied as his role in the effort to renew the alliance between France and the Swiss Confederation.107 The almost complete lack of secondary literature on the subject left Heiko Oberman grasping at straws in trying to identify the mysterious foedus gallicanus mentioned repeatedly in the surviving correspondence. Oberman leaves the impression that Calvin was making private overtures to the French crown in order to come to an agreement that would legitimize the evangelical movement in France.108 Although Oberman was correct in his description of Calvin’s goals, the foedus gallicanus was no mysterious, clandestine plot, nor was it of Calvin’s making. The phrase

106

See David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 172-86. One exception is the brief discussion in Bruce Gordon, “Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches,” in Calvinism in Europe 1540-1620, ed. Andrew Pettegree, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 64-81; here, 73-74. 108 Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,” 52. 107

200

Chapter 6

refers simply to the alliance between the Swiss Confederation and France that had been signed in 1521 and was up for renewal in 1548-1549.109 It is difficult to assess Calvin’s role in the process, for he was careful to remain discrete. This should come as no surprise since he had recently been accused in Geneva of being a French agent.110 Ironically, it turns out that Calvin actually did become a French agent, in a manner of speaking, but probably not before the time he was accused. What the sources make clear is that Calvin met privately on a number of occasions with the French ambassadors to the Confederation and that he publicly supported the French alliance, despite knowing full well that Henri II was acting just as cruelly as his father against evangelicals in the realm.111 Calvin’s efforts in this regard should be viewed together with his simultaneous negotiations toward the Consensus Tigurinus as an attempt, first, as Oberman has pointed out, to legitimize the evangelical movement in France and second, to legitimize Calvinism in the Swiss Confederation. He hoped to establish what I am calling “political Calvinism.” The goal was to build a solid, central Calvinist base in the Confederation allied to France. Such an arrangement would both pose an effective military defense against papal-Habsburg ambitions and allow the freer flow of Reformed ideas outward from the Swiss Confederation into France, northern Italy, and the recently conquered (and demoralized) Lutheran cities and territories of southern Germany. In September 1547, Calvin reported to Bullinger, “I am compelled to hear more than I would wish about the calamity in Germany.”112 Even then he saw that the future lay in alliance with France: “There are many things that might deservedly deter you [Zurichers] from French association. But just as you do not want to be implicated too deeply with them, at the same

109

See above, chapter 2, section 10. See Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 103. 111 Edouard Rott also indicates that Calvin received payment from the French crown as one of the local pratiquants recruited by the French ambassadors to push for renewal of the alliance. Rott, Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, 1:456. Rott refers to a manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale (ms. fr. 16,947): “A Monsr le chastelain Merveilleux la somme de 40 L. 10 s. tz … à luy ordonnée pour son remboursement de semblable somme qu’il a payée pour despense faicte par Maistre Jehan Calvyn et Guillaume Farel pour estre allez ès quantons des protestans pour le faict de la dicte alliance ….” It is unclear whether this was payment for Calvin and Farel’s support for the alliance or simple reimbursement for costs of attending the Confederation diets at which the alliance was discussed. 112 “De Germaniae calamitate plura audire cogor quam vellem.” CO 12:590 (No. 946), Calvin to Bullinger, Geneva, 19 September 1547. 110

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

201

time I do not see why you refuse all connections.”113 Zurich had been the only canton that had refused to join the 1521 alliance with France. For the Zurichers, therefore, the question was not one of renewing the alliance, but of joining it in the first place. Under the circumstances, the Zurichers were much harder to convince than other members of the Confederation. Henri II began to make overtures to the Swiss in November 1547. In January 1548, Calvin had his first visit from the French ambassador, who “urged concord between us and favored friendship with the Swiss.”114 Calvin makes no further remark about the visit or his thoughts on the subject at the time, and the ambassadors did not begin to push for serious negotiations with the Swiss until after the emperor’s occupation of Constance and the return of Duke Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy to the international scene in August 1548. These events made the matter all the more pressing for the Swiss. Oswald Myconius wrote to Calvin from Basel to report rumors that Charles V intended to continue his conquests by sweeping through Lotharingia and Burgundy to wage war on Henri II and Bern in response to their occupation of Savoy.115 There was no need to add that Geneva, too, would be threatened if such rumors were true. On 3 November, Henri II played on precisely these fears in the letter he sent to his ambassadors in which he told them to recruit local pratiquants who were above reproach and who would encourage the renewal of the alliance.116 It appears that the ambassadors were able to recruit Calvin and Farel. As final negotiations were heating up in the spring of 1549, Bullinger and Zurich remained steadfastly against the alliance, citing “the king’s blood-thirsty persecutions of Christians.”117 Just before leaving Geneva in

113

“Multa sunt quae merito vos deterreant a societate francica. Sed quemadmodum vos cum illo penitus implicari minime expedit, ita cur omnem coniunctionem refugiatis, non video.” CO 12:591 (No. 946). 114 “Eo ipso die quo hinc abiistis venit a Rege nuncius cum fiduciariis, ut vocant, literis…. Hortatus est etiam inter se concordes forent, et cum Helvetiis foverent amicitiam.” CO 12:651 (No. 988), Calvin to Viret, [Geneva], 15 January 1548. 115 “Rumor est occupasse in Pedemonte oppidum munitissimum: Binerol vocant. Et constat, praemissis Spiram tormentis, glandibus, pulvero bombardico multo, et ipsum eo intendere animum cum suis, quo, ut ferunt, per Lotharingiam et Burgundiam invadat Regem, et Bernenses propter Sabaudum.” CO 13:38 (No. 1068), Basel, 28 August 1548. 116 See above, chapter 2, section 10. 117 “Tigurini in praesenti nullam legationem miserunt ad comitia Salodorensia Regis, cum quod non sint in foedere de cuius reparatione tractabitur, tum quod foederis capita aliquot huiusmodi esse videantur, ut non possint a nobis recipi…. Multorum animos terret exemplum foederis Iosaphat icti cum domo Achab, et dolet multis cruenta illa persequutio Regis in Christianos.” CO 13:222 (No. 1165), Bullinger to Calvin, [Zurich], [ca. 15 March 1549].

202

Chapter 6

May to meet with Bullinger on the Consensus Tigurinus and to try to convince the Bernese and the Zurichers to agree to the French alliance, Calvin gave Bullinger a fuller explanation of his support for the alliance. He acknowledged that such alliances are not to be entered into lightly but must be considered if necessity demands it.118 They were living, Calvin believed, in a time when “such great impending calamities are threatening almost the entire church.”119 He told Bullinger that his greatest fear was that if the Swiss were not to join with Henri II, then Charles V might well seek out the French king once again.120 Although such an overture may have been unlikely, the two Catholic monarchs of Western Europe had previously shown some willingness to work together against the Protestant heresy, especially during their meeting at Aigues-Mortes in 1538.121 And although Calvin was fully aware of Henri’s cruelty against French evangelicals, he believed that this was all the more reason to embrace the alliance: “If I were to consult my own life or private reasons, I would immediately think otherwise, but when I carefully consider how much this particular moment in time could help the propagation of the kingdom of Christ, I am rightly moved to support it.”122 It is not entirely clear why Calvin thought the French alliance was such a wonderful opportunity for the “kingdom of Christ.” There seem to be two possibilities. First, he may have thought that it would simply allow the Protestant cantons to exert more diplomatic pressure on the king to cease the persecutions. The weakness of this interpretation is that Bern and Basel had been allied with France for more than twenty-five years, and several prior attempts to pressure Francis I had been useless. Why should Henri II react any differently? The second and more likely scenario is that the French ambassadors may have promised Calvin that if he would help them convince the Protestant cantons to renew the alliance, the king would either cease the persecutions or at least ease the way for French Protestants to leave France.

118

“Sic quidem statuo: minime appetenda esse eiusmodi foedera, quoniam plurimum semper in se periculi contineant. Verum si qua nos iusta ratio impellat, imo etiam urgeat, non esse cur in totum abhorreamus.” CO 13:267 (No. 1187), Calvin to Bullinger, [Geneva], 7 May 1549. 119 “At rursus, dum mecum reputo quam afflictae sint res nostrae, quantae adhuc calamitates impendeant, quae propemodum ecclesiae vastitatem minantur, multum vereor, ne si ea subsidia quae modo licita sint negligamus, nimiae id magis securitati tribuatur quam piae fiduciae.” CO 13:267 (No. 1187). 120 “Hoc primum timeo ne Pharao noster [Charles V], omni spe contrahendae vobiscum amicitiae exclusus, ad Antiochum [Henri II] se conferat.” CO 13:267-68 (No. 1187). 121 See above, chapter 2, section 9. 122 “Ego si vitae meae aut privatis rationibus vellem consultum, alio me statim conferrem. Sed dum expendo quantum habeat hic angulus momenti ad propagandum Christi regnum, merito sum sollicitus de eo tuendo.” CO 13:268 (No. 1187).

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

203

Bullinger did not buy it. “I have no doubt,” he explained to Calvin, “that within a few years we will annihilate the Gospel and all religion and true discipline if we once again open the door to the king’s military service through alliances of this kind.”123 The Zurichers still lived with the painful memories of the slaughter of Swiss soldiers at Marignano and the crushing defeat of their forces at Kappel, and they remained steadfastly isolationist: “Our people do not wish to be yoked together with Caesar or the Frenchman or with any other prince by alliance.”124 Likewise, although Haller acknowledged that “all France depends on Calvin,” he was amazed that Calvin and some supporters of the alliance in Basel, “try to persuade that the French alliance must be concluded by reason of those persecuted by the king” and that “they believe that the ways of the Antichrist and the priests can thus be broken.”125 For Haller and Bullinger, Calvin seemed to be brokering a deal with the devil. Calvin himself was aware of the precariousness of his position and expressed concern on a couple of occasions that letters containing his views on this matter might fall into the wrong hands.126 Most of the Catholic cantons signed the French alliance in June 1549. In July, Calvin still hoped that the Bernese would do so as well.127 His hopes proved futile. His optimism was briefly revived in August when Basel and Schaffhausen were finally persuaded to sign. In September, Calvin met again with the French legate “familiarly and at length” and expressed to Viret his wish that “The Lord will see to it that the Zurichers and Bernese will turn around.”128 The very next day, however, Haller indicated to Calvin that

123

“Neque ego dubito quin amisissemus intra paucos annos evangelium et omnem religionem et disciplinam veram, si militiae regiae per huiusmodi foedera rursus aperiremus ianuam.” CO 13:280 (No. 1194), Bullinger to Calvin, Zurich, 11 May 1549. 124 “… intelliges nihil spei apud nostros superesse, quod unquam vel cum Caesare, vel cum Gallo, vel cum ullo principe coniungantur foedere.” CO 13:279 (No. 1194). 125 “Certe, ut scribis, magnus est Calvinus, cui multum deferendum. Universa ab ipso pendet Gallia …. Quod vero illi tentarunt persuadere foedus gallicum pangendum esse ratione afflictorum a Rege, miror illos existimare hac ratione Antichristi mores et pfafforum frangi posse.” CO 13:290 (No. 1198), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 2 June 1549. 126 “Nobis interea cavendum ne in tales manus incidant nostrae literae.” CO 13:305 (No. 1211), Calvin to Bullinger, Geneva, 26 June 1549; “… mitto ad te epistolae exemplar, qua ingenue testatus sum quid de gallico foedere sentirem: ne si in aliquem incideris qui imbutus sit falsa opinione, tibi desit quod respondeas. Nolo tamen vulgari quae illic continentur. Et exemplar diligenter servabis ut mihi remittas. Neque enim perire volo.” CO 13:319 (No. 1218), Calvin to Viret, Geneva, 6 July 1549. 127 “Quod ad foedus attinet, si quid meae coniecturae valent, tandem allicientur Bernates.” CO 13:325 (No. 1223), Calvin to Farel, Geneva, 9 July 1549. 128 “Nudius tertius colloquutus sum regio legato prolixe et familiariter…. Basileam et Schaffusiam non ignoras novum esse gallici foederis auctarium. Valesiani quoque tandem compositis motibus se ad societatem iunxerunt. Sic versatur huius mundi alea. Faxit Dominus, ut Tigurini et Bernenses in suo cardine insistant.” CO 13:385 (No. 1261), Calvin to Viret, 11 September 1549.

Chapter 6

204

Bern’s magistrates were dead set against it.129 Finally, at the end of October 1549, Calvin abandoned all expectation for the alliance.130

3.4

The Abrogation of the Colloquies

The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back of political Calvinism was Bern’s decision to abolish the weekly colloquies in Lausanne. As a postscript to the Zébédée affair, the Bernese ministers and magistrates determined that these weekly meetings at which pastors and professors discussed doctrine and biblical interpretation encouraged the heated debate and disagreement that had splintered the Lausanne pastorate for the previous year and a half; henceforth, the colloquies were to be held only four times a year.131 For Viret and his Calvinist colleagues, this was the ultimate, twisted, Zwinglian expression of the state’s power over the church; if the pastors were not even allowed the opportunity to discuss the Bible and Christian doctrine together, what was left for them? Viret set off on another trip to Bern to appeal the decision, and Calvin expressed his disbelief to Wolfgang Musculus, a noted theologian who had recently arrived in Bern from Augsburg, that he and Haller approved of and had perhaps even encouraged such “un-ecclesiastical” action.132 Viret later confirmed the shocking news that Musculus and Haller not only had approved the decision but had been

129

130

131

132

“Domini nostri constanter foedus gallicum respuunt.” CO 13:387 (No. 1262), Haller to Calvin, Bern, 12 September 1549. “Nihil hic novi, nisi quod Tigurum et Berna spem omnem foederis Gallo absciderunt.” CO 13:440 (No. 1297), Calvin to Bucer, [end of October-beginning of November 1549]. “Erat autem huiusmodi ut posthac colloquia singulis hebdomadibus repetita, propter molestiam et laborem multorum ministrorum, quem et longitudine itineris et aliis abusibus percipiebant, abrogentur, neque deinceps saepius quam quarter unoquoque anno habeantur, in quibus sacrae scripturae loci tractari possint, et iis explanari ac declarari qui de re quapiam dubitarint: ea tamen lege et conditione ne quidquam disputationi ac reformationi ac iureiurando in hac urbe nostra habitis ac praestitis contrarium aut repugnans proponatur.” CO 13:375 (No. 1254), Bern city council to the Ministers of Lausanne, Bern, 2 September 1549. “Interea tristis nuncium hic spargitur: vetari fratres ditionis Bernensis ne ad scripturam tractandam ex more conveniant. Ne quid dissimulem: cum haec agendi ratio minime sit ecclesiastica, te et Hallerum eius autores vel approbatores fuisse valde miror et molestius fero.” CO 13:433 (No. 1294), Calvin to Musculus, Geneva, 22 October 1549. On Musculus, see Reinhard Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563): Destin d’un autodidacte lorrain au siècle des Réformes, THR 343 (Geneva: Droz, 2000).

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

205

chiefly responsible for it.133 Around the same time, Calvin passed along Viret’s greetings to Bucer (since Viret did not dare write Bucer himself): “You would not believe,” Calvin told him, “how wickedly he is being treated.”134 The Bernese backed off somewhat from their initial decision by allowing colloquies in Lausanne to be held more frequently, but they insisted that no one be compelled to attend, that no controversies be discussed, that no one disagree with the biblical interpretation offered by the selected expositor, and that no “innovations” be introduced.135 This did not go far enough for Viret and only prompted him to return to Bern yet again. Farel commented on the situation to Calvin, “As I hear, the builders are tearing down the edifice of the Lord and constructing ruins.”136 On his return from a largely unsuccessful mission, Viret was dejected and anxious about the future: What will ever be certain in the church, and what harmony and steadfastness can we hope for if all things are ruled at the nod of the Bernese ministers? if they – no longer brothers but lords – establish and impose laws for all the brothers concerning foreign churches, abrogate synodal resolutions, and rescind those things that have been ordained by

133

“Heri literas accepi a Musculo et Hallero quibus aperte se fatentur autores eius consilii quod sequutus est senatus de abrogandis colloquiis, in quo sibi mire placere videntur, me vero graviter peccare arbitrantur qui hac de re conquerar, et pium senatus institutum non approbem.” CO 13:443 (No. 1300), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 4 November 1549. 134 “Farellus tibi scribit copiose, ut videbis. Viretus non audet: non enim credas quam inique tractetur. Et tamen quam potest officiosissime te salutat, petitque ut se habeas excusatum.” CO 13:440 (No. 1297), Calvin to Bucer, [Geneva], [end of Octoberbeginning of November 1549]. 135 “Si quando tamen eius classis ministris saepius quam quarter convenire videatur, posse quidem id se permittere, ea tamen conditione ut ne quis ad eos extraordinarios conventus cogatur. Quoties vero ita fuerit conventum, ferre se nullo modo posse ut controversiis et contentionibus res agatur, quemadmodum quidem olim est factum, adeo ut litigationum potius quam colloquiorum speciem hi conventus habuerint. Hunc igitur ritum se probare: Ut semel aliquis scripturae locum aliquem tractet, mox discedat, caeterique fratres tum doctrinae tum morum ipsius censuram agant, ut eorum quae necessaria videbuntur decanus eum admoneat, nec postea quidquam repugnans proponere liceat. Possint quoque hebraicae et graecae linguae professores eundem scripturae locum tractare atque declarare.… Eaque etiam conditione ut serio admoneantur ut ab omni innovatione caveant, ne magnificentissimis Principibus occasio praebeatur, non hoc tantum colloquiorum iure ipsos privandi, sed ipsa quoque eligendorum ministrorum potestate.” CO 13:444 (No. 1301), Bern city council to Viret, Bern, 9 November 1549. 136 “Viretum quamvis valde festinans, redeuntem Berna assequi hic non potui. Siquidem prius hinc solverat, nec recta Lausannam repetiit. Ut audio, aedificatores diruunt Domini aedificium et ruinas aedificant.” CO 13:449 (No. 1305), Farel to Calvin, 14 November 1549.

206

Chapter 6

others, without the consultation of all the brothers and neighboring churches, except the churches with which they agree? If I am in error, please lead me back to the right way. I say what I feel, and I see what the future will be.137 Viret had been in repeated struggles with the Bernese magistrates for years. New to this debate was what he saw as the betrayal and newfound power of the Bernese ministers as well. He had always seen his quest for discipline chiefly as a “church-state” issue and believed the ministers in Bern were his allies against the power-hungry civil authorities. When the ministers Musculus and Haller began to make laws for the Lausanne church, the Reformed ecclesiology of the equality of ministers was completely undermined. Viret’s reference to the “nod of the Bernese ministers” plainly recalls the medieval discussions of the pope’s authority in the context of the “two-swords theory,” according to which the spiritual sword was wielded by the priest and the temporal sword ad nutum sacerdotis, at the nod of the priest.138 Viret’s use of this phrase and his remark that the Bernese ministers are non iam fratres sed domini (no longer brothers but lords) were clearly intended to call to mind the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Bernese, once the strongest opponents of “papism” in the Confederation, had slipped into a Catholic, hierarchical ecclesiology themselves in which the ministers of Bern ruled over all other ministers in the canton and dismissed the opinions of neighboring churches, such as that in Geneva. In subsequent weeks, months, and years (as we will see in the next chapter), conflict between the Bernese and the Calvinists in Lausanne and Geneva continued to drive a wedge ever deeper between the factions. Haller told Bullinger that there was no longer any hope for peace, and although he personally had reconciled with Viret, he said, “I know that there will be no further room for Viret among us.”139 Calvin put Bullinger in the middle once

137

“Quid unquam certum erit in ecclesia, et quae nobis speranda est concordia et constantia, si ad ministrorum Bernatium nutum regantur omnia? si de alienis ecclesiis ipsi statuant et fratribus omnibus, non iam fratres sed domini, leges imponant, synodorum placita abrogent, et quae ab aliis sancita sunt rescindant, inconsultis fratribus omnibus et vicinis ecclesiis, nisi quas libuerit? Si hic erro, quaeso te me ut in viam reducas. Loquor quod sentio. Provideo quid futurum sit.” CO 13:452 (No. 1307), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 18 November 1549. 138 See, e.g., the famous excerpt from Bernard of Clairvaux’s De consideratione: “Uterque ergo Ecclesiae et spiritualis scilicet gladius, et materialis; sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero et ab Ecclesia exserendus: ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis, et iussum imperatoris.” PL 182:776C. 139 “Hinc nulla prorsus nobis speranda fuit pax.… Post longam vero contentionem, datis mutuo dextris, reconciliati sumus. Factus est hoc inter nos privatim: alioqui, si caeteri scirent, scio nullum Vireto futurum amplius apud nos locum.” CO 13:478, 480 (No. 1320), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 30 November 1549.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

207

again, complaining to him that the “Bernese brothers are behaving more imperiously than fraternally toward them [the Lausanne ministers], in such a way that they are ministers in name only.”140 But perhaps the most telling comment came from Viret, who told Calvin, “The counsels and invectives of Haller and Musculus against our nation never cease to amaze me.”141 It is difficult to say exactly what Viret meant by nostra natio. The phrase clearly did not include Bern, despite the fact that Viret had been born and raised in the common lordship of Orbe and, hence, a subject of Bern his entire life. It could apply only to Vaud, but since he is addressing Calvin and uses the first person plural, “our nation” seems to be larger than that, extending at least to Geneva and probably to French-speaking Europe as a whole. The truth came out: This was not just a theological battle for the Pays de Vaud, this was a culture war between the French- and German-speaking evangelical movements in Europe. The fight for the soul of the Confederation was decided in 1549 in favor of the Germans. Calvin and his followers would need to look elsewhere.

4.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

Not long after the triple disaster of 1549 – the failure to ratify the Consensus Tigurinus, the failure of the French alliance, and Bern’s abrogation of the Lausanne colloquies, along with its “papist pretensions” in ecclesiology, Calvin dedicated his latest book, De Scandalis, to the recent French immigrant to Geneva, Laurent de Normandie.142 In it, Calvin praises Laurent’s courageous flight from persecution in France in order to follow the Gospel in Geneva. He encourages other French evangelicals to follow his example: Just as Satan has built for you a labyrinth of infinite scandals, you have come out to its end, not only in order to encourage others but also to be a

140

“Fratres interea Bernenses imperiose, ut audio, magis quam fraterne erga eos se gerunt, ut nihil in calculum praeter ipsum ministerii nomen veniat.” CO 13:489 (No. 1324), Calvin to Bullinger, Geneva, 7 December 1549. 141 “Non possum satis mirari Musculi et Halleri consilia et invectivas in nostram nationem ….” CO 13:494 (No. 1327), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 11 December 1549. 142 The text of De Scandalis is in CO 8:1-84. See also the contemporary French translation, Calvin, Des Scandales.

208

Chapter 6

mirror for those who are too weak to have the heart and the courage to follow you.143 Laurent’s emigration and Calvin’s dedicatory preface to him mark a new phase for Calvinism in Europe, one that no longer sought the political establishment of Calvinism in the Swiss Confederation but rather understood the Reformed Church as a refugee community “under the cross.” Despite the fact that Francis I had been just as ruthless a persecutor of Protestants in France as his son, Geneva did not begin to see the first major waves of immigration from France until 1547, and especially after 1549.144 It is possible (although I have found no hard evidence of this) that Calvin’s negotiations with the French legates over the French-Swiss alliance had led to a more relaxed attitude on the part of Henri II, prompting him to allow evangelicals to emigrate more easily from France. Whatever the cause, as William Naphy and others have pointed out, the waves of French immigrants substantially altered the political dynamic within Geneva. I would argue that they operated together with the events of 1549 to change the theological dynamic as well. As hopes faded for closer cooperation with the Swiss, Calvin turned his sights directly westward towards his native land. He had never lost sight of France completely, of course, but by the spring of 1550, Calvin realized he had lost the culture war with the “Germans.” Hope for true reform lay in “his nation,” best understood as Francophone Europe. T. H. L. Parker claims in his biography of Calvin that “by 1550 Geneva had taken the position formerly occupied by Zürich and become the centre of evangelical Christianity, Calvin the leader of the non-Lutheran evangelical Churches on the Continent.”145 I would argue, by contrast, that Calvin hit rock bottom in the winter of 1549-50. Zurich, Bullinger, and increasingly Bern strengthened their pre-eminence among the Swiss as Calvin’s influence among them grew weaker and his allies in the Lausanne church found themselves under the domination of the Bernese ministers. Outside of the Confederation, Calvin had been in contact with King Edward VI and his regents in England, but little came of that correspondence, and anyway

143

“… comme ainsi soit que Sathan vous eust basti un labyrinthe d’une infinité de scandales, vous en estes tellement venu à bout, que non seulement vous estes pour exhorter les autres, mais pour estre un miroir à ceux qui sont trop debiles, pour leur faire prendre cueur et hardiesse à vous ensuyvre.” Calvin, Des Scandales, 50. 144 Pre-1549 statistics are difficult to establish since the Livre des habitants was not begun until that year. On French immigration and the ambivalent attitudes of the Genevans toward the new arrivals, see Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 121-43. 145 T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 139.

6. From Political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees

209

Bucer was at Cambridge and actively involved with Thomas Cranmer in reforming the church there. He had been in touch with Melanchthon in Germany, but the Consensus Tigurinus quashed hopes for reconciliation with the Lutherans. Most of his other international contacts, however, did not develop until after the beginning of 1550.146 All of his major initiatives from the previous year had failed, and let us not forget that his wife had died in 1549 as well. It must have been a cold and lonely winter indeed for Calvin in Geneva. The summer of 1549 had been the “Calvinist Moment” in the Confederation. There had been an open window of opportunity to bind the Protestants in the Confederation together theologically, tie them militarily to France, and influence the demoralized Protestant areas of Germany under the Augsburg Interim. Although Henri II continued to persecute French evangelicals, it seems likely that Calvin was given assurances by the French ambassadors that persecutions would cease if the Swiss agreed to renew the alliance. It was indeed an attempt at legitimation, as Oberman has pointed out,147 but Calvin’s efforts in 1549 should be viewed not as the beginning, but as an end of his effort toward political legitimation, an effort that had begun with the prefatory apologetic letter to Francis I in the very first edition of the Institutes (1536). Calvin did not by any means move toward open aggression against the crown afterwards, but the failure of the French alliance meant continued persecution, which was strongly reaffirmed in the Edict of Chateaubriand issued by Henri II in 1551, the same year Bern’s alliance with France officially expired. If the French nation was to be reformed, it would have to take place through the movement of refugees and the illegal establishment of churches in the realm. In 1550, political Calvinism had failed. The Reformation of the Refugees had just begun.

146

See Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 111, Map 4: “The Pattern of Calvin’s Correspondence, 1542-63.” This series of maps illustrates clearly how Calvin’s correspondence expanded broadly across Europe after 1550. A quick look at the table of contents in Jules Bonnet’s edition of Calvin’s French letters also confirms the rapid expansion of new correspondents after 1550. John Calvin, Lettres de Jean Calvin: Lettres françaises, 2 vols., ed. Jules Bonnet (Paris: Ch. Meyrueis & Cie, 1854), 1:449-51. 147 Oberman, “Calvin and Farel,” 51-56.

Chapter 7 FROM THE PAYS DE VAUD TO FRANCE The Collapse of Calvinism in Vaud, 1550-1559

Events in Vaud in the 1550s bolstered Calvin’s inclination to direct the energies of his reform movement away from the Swiss Confederation and towards France. The divisive theological issue was no longer the Eucharist; as Bern’s ministers pointed out, their unwillingness to subscribe immediately to the Consensus Tigurinus stemmed not from theological reservations, but from a desire to keep the peace. Indeed, Bern finally adopted the Consensus officially in 1551. In the new decade, however, the issues that would most sharply divide the reformers were ecclesiastical discipline and predestination. The Calvinist doctrine of double predestination, whereby God is believed to have predestined all humans to either election or reprobation, has been the subject of much theological and historical debate. Particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars argued over whether or not it was the central doctrine of Calvin’s theology.1 More recently, that question has been put aside, and a cluster of new debates has come to dominate Calvin studies. In particular, scholars have questioned whether one can even speak legitimately of a central doctrine in Calvin’s theology. Related to this is the further question of whether one can properly distinguish sharply between a “humanist” Calvin and later “scholastic” Reformed orthodoxy.2 Meanwhile, a dispute has been ongoing between those who argue that

1

2

On the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century debates on this issue, see Paul Jacobs, Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968 [Neukirchen, 1937]), 15-49. On this debate, see especially Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 11-14; idem, “Calvin and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 345-75; vol. 31 (1996): 125-60.

212

Chapter 7

Bullinger and Calvin stood in essentially the same Reformed tradition with regard to their teachings on predestination,3 and those who contend that Bullinger taught a covenantal understanding of the Christian faith and the milder notion of single predestination, thus representing a fundamentally different perspective and constituting “the other Reformed tradition,” as J. Wayne Baker, the chief advocate for this position, has labeled it.4 Missing from many of these discussions has been close attention to historical context. Too often scholars still approach Calvin from the narrow perspective of the final edition of the Institutes (1559), an approach that tends to ignore the significance of events and influences on Calvin during his own lifetime. There have been exceptions, however. Richard Muller’s close attention to contemporary theological influences on Calvin has more firmly grounded the reformer within the intellectual currents of his day.5 With regard to the doctrine of predestination itself, Heiko Oberman formulated the concept of the “Reformation of the Refugees” in an effort to explain Calvin’s doctrine of predestination in the context of the all-too-common experience of persecution and exile in the sixteenth century. In the previous chapter, I argued against some details of Oberman’s analysis, but I maintain that his fundamental argument and timeline are correct. Of central importance to the chronology is the fact that, after 1549, Calvin and his followers in Vaud increasingly emphasized the doctrine of predestination. Although the seeds of the doctrine already existed in the young Calvin, we must not fail to recognize that predestination emerged as a far more important issue in the 1550s than it had been in the previous decade and that divisions over the doctrine further separated the Calvinists from the Swiss, particularly in Vaud. The principal reason for the eruption of predestination discourse and polemic can be summed up in one name: Jerome Bolsec, the former Carmelite monk who, having embraced Protestantism and moved to the environs of Geneva, dared to criticize Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination by claiming that it made God the author of sin. The “Bolsec Affair” subsequently set off a firestorm of charges and countercharges, position papers, lengthy letters, and vicious polemic among Protestants in

3

See, e.g., Cornelis Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “The Other Reformed Tradition”? Texts and Studies in Reformation and PostReformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002). 4 J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980). 5 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

213

Geneva, Vaud, and the Swiss Confederation.6 In the end, Calvin’s already questionable standing among most of the Swiss theologians, particularly those in Bern, was further diminished; he merely reinforced their prejudice against him as another Bucer. Calvin’s relationship with Bern hit an all-time low in 1555, when the Bernese prohibited their ministers from preaching about predestination and even went so far as to order the burning of Calvin’s books.7 Hence, at almost exactly the same time that Calvin was able to consolidate his authority within Geneva itself through the crucial city council election in 1555,8 he lost absolutely all support in Bern. Nevertheless, Calvin still had supporters in Bern’s lands, notably among the ministers and professors in Lausanne. Led by Pierre Viret, this Calvinist contingent largely escaped recrimination in 1555 but continued to push for the right to preach about predestination and for the establishment of a Calvinist form of ecclesiastical discipline, including the right of excommunication. It is important to note that the Lausanne ministers’ emphasis on the need for discipline did not stem merely from obedience to Calvin and general acceptance of his ecclesiological thought; the constant push for discipline resulted from the perception that the Reformation was not working in Vaud.9 Although it appears that the initially strong clerical resistance to the Reformation had waned, many nobles and common laypersons continued to follow Catholic traditions while holding out hope for a return to Savoyard rule and obedience to Holy Mother Church. Without effective ecclesiastical discipline, including the authority to excommunicate, the Calvinist ministers felt they were forced to permit the pollution of Christ’s body every time they administered the Lord’s Supper to those who resisted reform. Viret and his colleagues made a final stand on the issue in 1558, and their attempt to postpone the Christmas Eucharist led the Bernese authorities to banish them from their lands. With their departure, Calvinism collapsed in Vaud. To be sure, the Swiss Reformed faith continued to be practiced, and it eventually thrived there, but Bern was

6

The most complete account of the Bolsec affair, although one to be used with caution, is Philip Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, from 1551 to 1555: The Statements of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and other Reformed Theologians, 2 vols. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993). On some of the significant problems with this work, see the review by Brian G. Armstrong, Sixteenth Century Journal 25 (1994): 745-50. See also Frank Pfeilschifter, Das Calvinbild bei Bolsec und sein Fortwirken im französischen Katholizismus bis ins 20. Jahrhundert (Augsburg: FDL-Verglag, 1983), 1-60. 7 See below, n.33, n.36. 8 See Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 189-99. 9 See above, chapter 5, section 3.

Chapter 7

214

not Geneva, and the distinguishing marks of the Calvinist consistory and excommunication were not to be seen in Vaud. Nearly all of the banished Lausanne ministers moved to Geneva and from there into France. In this move, the shift from political Calvinism to the Reformation of the Refugees was complete. The Lausanne ministers who had once fought against Bern for the creation of a legitimate, statesponsored manifestation of the true and well-disciplined church on earth now struggled in France to create a church of true believers, free from state control but vulnerable to state persecution. Herein lay the uncertain future of Calvinism in Europe.

1.

THE BOLSEC AFFAIR AND THE CLASH BETWEEN BERN AND GENEVA

The attention given by most scholars to the Bolsec affair cannot compare to the intense scrutiny applied to the execution of Michael Servetus in Geneva.10 For many of Calvin’s contemporaries in the Swiss Confederation, however, Bolsec’s case was more significant than that of Servetus, and its political and theological impact at the time was arguably greater. Theologically, it can be seen as the key impulse that turned Calvin and – de longe durée – Calvinistic Orthodoxy toward a greater emphasis on predestination. Politically, it exacerbated existing tensions between Bern and Geneva to the point where their long-standing treaty of combourgeoisie was allowed to lapse. And ecclesiastically, it divided Protestant ministers throughout the Swiss Confederation. This division was especially acute in the Pays de Vaud, where Calvin and Viret’s old nemesis André Zébédée joined Bolsec in opposition to the Calvinists. Jerome Bolsec (ca. 1520-1584) had been a Carmelite monk in Paris when his misgivings about Catholicism led him to flee for refuge, first to Ferrara around 1545, and then, in 1550, to Veigy, an area under Bernese control just outside Geneva. He had studied medicine in Ferrara and served as a doctor in Veigy, but he never lost his interest in theology, and he regularly attended the public theological congrégations held in Geneva on Friday evenings.11

10

11

In typical fashion, Alister McGrath, for example, dedicates a separate section to “The Servetus Affair,” yet he only mentions Bolsec in reference to the latter’s polemical biography of Calvin, ignoring the controversy over predestination altogether. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin, 16-17 (on Bolsec), 114-20 (on Servetus). See Erik A. de Boer, “The Presence and Participation of Laypeople in the Congrégations of the Company of Pastors in Geneva,” Sixteenth Century Journal 35 (2004): 651-70. De Boer surmises that the idea for the congrégations stemmed from Zwingli’s creation of the

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

215

Since the members of the public were allowed to speak at these meetings, Bolsec expressed reservations about Calvin’s doctrine of predestination on a couple of occasions in 1551, and the city’s ministers tried to show him the error of his ways.12 On 16 October, however, Bolsec attended the congregation once again and launched into a vicious harangue against double predestination, saying that “those who posit an eternal will in God by which he has ordained some to life and others to death make him a tyrant or even an idol just as the pagans made of Jupiter.”13 Bolsec further argued that the doctrine made God the author of evil.14 He was immediately thrown into prison, and the Genevan ministers spent weeks arguing with him. After nearly a month, when it was clear that Bolsec would not change his views, the Genevan ministers sought the advice of their colleagues in the Protestant cantons, with the unspoken but apparent objective of winning approval for Bolsec’s execution. They told the Zurichers that Bolsec had condemned Zwingli “above all others” and warned the Bernese that he had stirred up dissent in their lands, concluding, “We want our church purged of this plague in such a way that, after having been driven off, it will no longer harm our neighbors.”15 The responses from the Swiss gave general but lukewarm support to the Genevan ministers’ position, but this backing seems to have arisen chiefly from respect for the authority of their office rather than from strong theological support for the Genevans’ position. No one was inclined to allow Bolsec to suffer capital punishment; indeed, they all counseled moderation in dealing with him.16 The Bernese magistrates, for example, showed initial

Prophetzei in Zurich and was probably brought to Geneva by Farel (ibid., 652). Considering that they were established in the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances, which Viret had a role in crafting, perhaps the Geneva congrégations were more immediately based on the weekly colloquies which had already been established the Pays de Vaud. 12 Most of the primary sources related to the Bolsec Affair may be found in CO 8:145-248 and RCP 1:80-131. 13 “Me. Hierosme Bolsec … recommença à mettre en avant ses faulses propositions de l’election et reprobation nyant qu’elles fussent ab aeterno et disant … que ceux qui mettent une volonté eternelle en Dieu par laquelle il ait ordonné les uns à la vie et les autres à mort en font un tyrant voire une idole comme les payens ont faict de Jupiter.” CO 8:145. 14 “Apres il a adjousté encore plus qu’en disant que Dieu a predestiné à vie ou à mort ceux qu’il a voulu que nous le faisons autheur du mal et de l’iniquité.” CO 8:149. 15 “Huc quoque accessit quod vestram ecclesiam implicabat. Zuinglium enim prae aliis omnibus damnans, Bullingerum eiusdem secum esse sententiae mentiebatur. In ministris etiam agri Bernensis astute dissidii ausam captavit. Nos vero sic ecclesiam nostram cupimus hac peste purgari, ne inde fugata vicinis noceat.” CO 8:207, Ministers of Geneva to the ministers of Basel, Bern, and Zurich, 14 November 1551. 16 See the responses of Zurich: CO 8:229-34; Basel: CO 8:234-37; Bern: CO 8:238-42.

216

Chapter 7

support for Calvin’s theological position but advised the Genevans that “to avoid greater scandal,” they should use, not rigorous punishment but fraternal, Christian admonitions and persuasion to draw [Bolsec] back from his error … for certainly if, because of his error, Jerome must suffer corporal or capital punishment, it is to be feared that not only in these lands but also in France and elsewhere there will be great regret and occasion for greater ill will against you and yours and against everyone of the evangelical religion.”17 Frustrated by the tepid responses from the Swiss, the Genevans settled for banishment, and announced judgment against Bolsec on 23 December 1551.18 Bolsec returned to Bern’s lands, for the Bernese had no intention of duplicating Geneva’s sentence against him, which further strained Calvin’s relationship with Bern. In Lausanne, Viret began to fret; Calvin was his friend, but he was a subject of Bern. He counseled Calvin to seek peace between Bern and Geneva and to drive off suspicion and hatred.19 The odium Calvini was swiftly becoming a refrain in correspondence referring to Calvin’s status in Bern,20 and this obviously did not bode well for the Calvinists in Vaud. Indeed, much of the “hatred of Calvin” appears to have come from the belief in Bern that he had more influence on many of the preachers in Vaud than did the Bernese themselves. The charge stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that many of the churches in Vaud had been using Calvin’s catechism and liturgy. The Bernese ordered French translations of

17

“Vous priant tresaffectueusement que veilliés tout bien considerer et pour ladvancement et entretement de la tranquilité et paix des eglises en ce present temps si trouble et dangereux, cercher et user de tous bons moyens, affin que plus grand scandale soit evité. Ce que comme nous semble se pourraz facillement faire, si avec ledict Hieronyme non par rigueur ains par fraternelles et chrestiennes admonitions et persuasions pour le retirer de son erreur lon procede … car certes si ledict Hieronyme deut souffrir à cause de son erreur punition de corps ou de vie est à craindre que non seullement en ces pays ains aussy en france et allieurs lon en prendra grand regret et occasion de plus grande malivolence contre vous et les vostres aussy contre tous ceulx de la religion Evangelicque.” CO 8:241-42, Bern city council to the Geneva city council, Bern, 7 December 1551. 18 “Et par ceste nostre diffinitive sentence laquelle donnons icy par escript toy Hieronyme Borset [sic] condampnons à debvoir estre perpetuellement banny et te bannyssons de ceste nostre cité et terres dycelle ….” CO 8:247-48 (23 December 1551). 19 “Quod ad te attinet, in hac sum sententia, ut opportuno tempore Bernam te conferas, nam non minus est necesse, sed longe magis, concordiam tentare vestrae ecclesiae cum Bernensibus, et ex animis suspiciones et odia evellere, quam cum Tigurinis.” CO 14:238 (No. 1582), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 7 January 1552. 20 See, e.g., CO 14:217 (No. 1568), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 5 December 1551; CO 14:274 (No. 1597), Viret to Farel, Lausanne, 29 January 1552.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

217

their own versions of these and ordered the Vaudois churches to adopt them at the end of 1551.21 Calvin travelled to Bern in February 1552 to defend himself against charges that he held undue influence in Vaud, and especially against the belief that he was encouraging the Vaudois ministers to adhere to Genevan ceremonial forms of baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, and feast days.22 Calvin urged the cessation of all suspicion and recrimination and tried to convince the Bernese of his esteem for them.23 His visit appears to have patched things up temporarily, but it did not put an end to all suspicion and hatred of Calvin in Bern. The Bolsec controversy continued to flare up occasionally in 1552. In April, the classe of Thonon accused Bolsec of continuing privately to seek followers by exploiting, once again, the odium Calvini.24 In November 1552, François Saint-Paul, minister of Vevey and an ally of Bolsec, refused to agree with three axioms on predestination drawn up by the classe of Lausanne.25 In general, however, the controversial outbreaks were sporadic, and other affairs between 1552 and 1554 took center stage. In 1552, five students from Lausanne were imprisoned in Lyon, and despite extensive efforts on the part of Viret, Calvin, and Bernese officials, they were executed in 1553. The episode was the initial inspiration for Jean Crespin’s popular Book of Martyrs. Also in 1552, the German Lutherans had regrouped and with French assistance forced Charles V to retreat south over the Alps, and this reprieve from the imperial threat in the Confederation and Vaud led several parishes in the common lordships to vote to abolish the Mass, 21

See Vuilleumier, 313-19 (on the liturgy), 356-61 (on the catechism). “J’entendis hier par Mr. Lavoyer le mescontentement que vous avez de moy comme si jestois cause de beaucoup de differents et que je incitasse vos prescheurs a faire ce quil me semble bon plustost que a vous obeir et surtout quant a la diversite des ceremonies comme du Baptesme, le mariage, de la Cene et des festes.” CO 14:284 (No. 1604bis), Calvin to the Bern city council, [Bern], [ca. 17 February 1552]. 23 “… petiit ut, si concordia nobis esset curae, dehortaremur tales ab huiusmodi calumniis: petiit ut omnes simultates et suspiciones inter nos cessent: se candide diligere nos, rogareque ut similiter erga ipsum simus affecti etc.” CO 14:291 (No. 1606), Haller to Bullinger, [Bern], [end of February 1552]. 24 “Hieronymus ille Genevensis tandem nobis quoque negotium facessere incipit. Accusatus est hic a classe Tononiensi, in qua agit, quod etiam illic suos privatim incipiat colligere discipulos, unde maiores possint turbae sequi…. Magno Calvini laborat odio, ex quo haec omnia proficiscuntur.” CO 14:309 (No. 1616), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 6 April 1552. 25 “Quod praedestinationis negotium concernit serpit hoc indies latius. Nos quantum possumus supprimimus et compescimus…. Lausannenses tria constituerunt axiomata, quibus cum omnes praeter Franciscum S. Paulinum Viviacensem ministrum subscripserint, ipsum vix ferre possunt.” CO 14:439, 440 (No. 1688), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 14 December 1552. Haller also includes the three axiomata. Ibid., 440. See also Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 406-10. 22

218

Chapter 7

an effort that also demanded the attention and encouragement of the Vaudois ministers. Finally, 1553 marked the controversy over Michael Servetus’ execution in Geneva. The Bolsec controversy broke out again with renewed vigor in the fall of 1554. This time Bolsec gathered allies from among the traditional enemies of Calvin and Viret, including André Zébédée. The first sign of trouble was when Calvin complained to Bullinger on 18 September that “conspirators in Bern’s lands proclaim me a heretic worse than all papists.”26 More details on the affair emerged in Geneva’s complaint to Bern about the matter: In a meeting of the classe of Morges, in the presence of a great many people, someone so slandered our brother, master John Calvin, that the rumor is common throughout the land that he is condemned as a heretic, as this word was also often repeated. Since then, Zébédée, the preacher at Nyon …, speaking about the doctrine we hold and are ready to sign with our blood, said in the middle of the sermon that it was a heresy worse than all papism and that those who preach it are devils and that it would be better to maintain the Mass. Meanwhile, one named Jerome, who, as you know, was banished from the city of Geneva for his errors, had no trouble calling our brother Calvin heretic and antichrist.27 In response, the Bernese magistrates warned the ministers in Vaud against causing dissension and division in their territory.28 On the other hand,

26

“Nam agri Bernensis concionatores me haereticum papistis omnibus deteriorem pro suggestu proclamant.” CO 15:233 (No. 2011), Calvin to Bullinger, Geneva, 18 September 1554. 27 “Or le cas auquel nous vous prions de pourvoir est tel. En une congregacion de la classe de Morges, en presence de grand nombre de gens, quelcung a tellement diffame nostre frere maistre Jean Calvin que le bruit est commun par le pais quil est condamne comme hereticque, comme aussi ce mot fut alors souvent reitere. Depuis Zebedee, prescheur de Nion, aux nopces du fils et de la fille du seigneur de Cran, parlans de la doctrine que nous tenons et sommes prestz de signer de nostre sang, dit en plain sermon que cestoit une heresie pire que toute la papaulte et que ceulx qui la preschent sont diables, et quil vaudroit mieulx maintenir la messe. Cependant, ung nomme Hierome, lequel, comme vous scavez, pour ses erreurs a este banny de la ville de Geneve, ne faict nulle difficulte dappeller nostre dict frere Calvin hereticque et antechrist.” CO 15:251-52 (No. 2020), Ministers of Geneva to the Bern city council, Geneva, 4 October 1554. See also the Genevan ministers’ complaint to the ministers of Bern. CO 15:256-58 (No. 2023), Geneva, 6 October 1554. 28 “Dont eussions bien pense et nous confie que les personnaiges nommes esdictes lettres [de Genève] se feussent de cela depourttez et bien consydere la consequence, pour obvier es troubles, fascheries, divisions, dissensions, noyses et plusieurs aultres maulx provenans de ce eis Esglises aussy es docts et instruictz en la saincte escripture ….” CO 15:312 (No. 2046), Bern city council to the French-speaking classes, Bern, 17 November 1554.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

219

they told the Genevans that they had had quite enough of Calvin and his accusations against Bern’s ministers: We admonish you that, for your part, you should take care and be advised that you and your ministers, by their words, books, or other writings, should neither publicly nor secretly offend, defame, or despise us, our ministers, churches, or any of our subjects, but should consider and hold us as members in Jesus Christ and Christian brothers.”29 This reply precipitated a rapid deterioration of relations between Bern and Geneva, and Haller linked Calvin yet again to the hated Martins: Bucer and Luther.30 The Genevans continued to demand that the Bernese take action to resolve the affair,31 while Bern leveled counter-charges against Calvin and his associates. Along with accusations regarding baptismal names and feast days, the Bernese also claimed that Geneva’s ministers were teaching that the Eucharist could not be properly administered without the practice of excommunication, that ministers who did not seek to establish the right of excommunication were “flatterers of princes,” and that in sermons these ministers proclaimed all who disagreed with them “worse than Jews and Turks.”32

29

“Et devez estre asseurez que a layde et par la grace de Dieu tousjours demourerons en ce constans vous tresaffectueusement prians en charitte Chrestienne vous admonestans que de vostre coste vous y mettez bon ordre pourvoyes et ayes advis que vous et vous ministres par leurs parolles livres escriptures publiquement ny secretement offensent diffament ne mesprisent nous ne nous ministres, Esglises, ne aulcuns de nous soubjectz, ains tiennent et embrassent comme membres de Jhesu Christ et freres Chrestiens.” CO 15.313-14 (No. 2047), Bern city council to the Geneva city council, Bern, 17 November 1554. 30 “A Geneva iterum turbas exspecto. Hieronymus ablegatus erat quia Calvinum haereticum vocitaverat.… Vestram libertatem erga Calvinum valde probo: videtur enim nimium semper Lutherum et Bucerum defendere et se alterius huius flexiloquis orationibus nimium accommodare, cum tamen satis manifestum sit, qua in re impegerint ambo.” CO 15:362 (No. 2072), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 28 December 1554. 31 CO 15:362-64 (No. 2073), Ministers of Geneva to the Ministers of Bern, Geneva, 29 January 1555. 32 “Briefve declaration de grands scandales parmi les subjects de nos magnifiques Princes et seigneurs…. 1. Ils enseignent qu’on ne peut sainctement administrer la sainte cene sans avoir l’usage et la pratique de l’excommunication. 2. On crie ouvertement aux sermons que ceux qui ne veulent point consentir sont pires que turcs et juifs. 3. Ils disent que les ministres qui ne taschent avoir l’excommunication sont ventres et flatteurs des princes.” CO 15:402 (No. 2095), Bern city council to the city council of Geneva, Bern, 26 January 1555.

220

Chapter 7

The upshot of the controversy was a ban on all things Calvinist in Bern’s territories. The magistrates forbade preaching about predestination33 and taking the Eucharist “according to Calvinist ceremonies.”34 Furthermore, they ordered their bailiff in Lausanne to investigate the rumor that the academy was using Calvin’s Institutes, which was “intolerable”; they told the bailiff to send a copy of the book to Bern so that it could be examined.35 This last instruction is surprising; after years of debate with Calvin and their own French-speaking ministers over the Eucharist and ecclesiastical discipline, it is possible that the magistrates of the largest Reformed state in Europe had never read Calvin’s most famous work. This is a jolting reminder that scholars must not place too much emphasis on the theology of Calvin’s Institutes when investigating the early Reformed church. On the same day that this order was sent to the Lausanne bailiff, the Bernese went one step further and ordered that all of Calvin’s books found in their

33

“… nous est ilz venuz a notice que aulcuns entre vous … encore tousjours soyent apres et ne cessent de mouver questions parties et pretendre innovations contraires a nous ordonnances status et ceremonies jusque a present en nous Eglises observees, voire aussy suyvants et se adjoingnans a certaines haultes et soubtiles doctrines opinions et conditions des hommes principalement touchant la matiere de la divine predestination, chose que nous semble non estre necessaire ains plus servante a factions sectes erreurs et debouchement que a ediffication et consolation. A ceste cause derrecheff tresacertes vous admonestons de vous depourter de telles choses et sans contradictions suyvre et observer nostre susdicte rescription et advertissement entant que desirez deviter la punition en icelle exprimee, assavoir deposition de vous ministeres offices et bannissement et aultre plus grieffve punition selon le demerite du cas.” CO 15.405 (No. 2096), Bern city council to the ministers in Vaud, Bern, 26 January 1555. 34 “Nous sommes advertiz que plusieurs de nos subjectz et aultres estrangers habitants riere nos terres, au grand mespris des ordonnances et divines ceremonies quelles usitons en nos Eglises jusques icy, sont allez participer et prendre la Cene de nostre seul saulveur à Geneve jouxte les ceremonies Calvinistes, et pource que à nous appartient pourvoir sur ce, et aussi que Jesus Christ l’a ordonné, vous commendons doyviez tresacertes admonester nosdictz subjects et habitans en nos terres, tant francois Italiens que aultres de quelque nation qu’ilz soyent, ne ayent ne doyvent plus ainsy user, ains suyvre jouxte lordre sur ce par nous establiz.” CO 15.406 (No. 2097), Bern city council to its bailiffs, Bern, 26 January 1555. 35 “Nous étant venu à notice que dans l’Ecole de Lausanne, l’on enseigne et instruit les ecoliers qui sont nos stipendiés et autres, dans la réligion Chrestienne, selon l’Institution de Calvin, laquelle pourtant contrarie et differe en quelques articles d’avec notre disputation, réformation, liturgies, et catechismes, et pour cela intolérable. Nous commandons donc à nostre baillif de s’en informer et de nous aviser par ecrit de ce qu’il aura trouvé en nous envoyant un double de ce livre, pour le voir et pour l’examiner.” AVL Corps de Ville B10, fol. 3vº, “Mandat Souverain au Seigneur Baillif, à ce qu’il s’informât s’il étoit vrai que dans l’Ecole de Lausanne l’on instruisît les jeunes gens selon l’Institution de Calvin” (3 April 1555).

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

221

territories and deemed “contrary to our disputation and Reformation” should be burned. They forbade anyone from entering their lands and saying or writing anything against Bern’s Reformation.36 The theological rift between Bern and Geneva was accompanied by political conflict. For years Calvin’s supporters in Geneva had been at odds with the “Perrinists” (labelled “libertines” by the Calvinists), supporters of the magistrate Ami Perrin, who favored greater magisterial independence both from the church and from the influence of the rapidly growing community of French refugees in the city. In January 1555, however, the Calvinists finally won a majority in the council elections and secured their power by extending voting rights to many of their French refugee supporters.37 Needless to say, the Bernese would have preferred to work with the Perrinists. The treaty of combourgeoisie between Bern and Geneva was up for renewal in 1556. Protracted negotiations between Bern and Geneva’s new Calvinist party went nowhere, and the treaty was allowed to expire. Geneva was left without a protector. The Bolsec affair was the death knell of Calvin’s personal involvement in Vaud. He had begun to turn away from Bern in 1550, and his experiences with Bolsec and the Bernese over the next five years confirmed that impulse. In 1555, the same year the Bolsec affair destroyed relations between Geneva and Bern, Geneva sent its first missionaries into France, initiating a new phase in the history of Calvinism.38 After 1555 the odium Calvini was so strong in Bern that he had no influence there at all. The problem was that many of Calvin’s strongest supporters still lived within Bern’s jurisdiction. The developments of the early 1550s put the ministers of Lausanne in an extremely precarious position. Bern’s hostility toward Calvin rubbed off on his followers in Vaud, yet the continuing shortage of qualified ministers in the pays romands made the Bernese loath to dismiss them, particularly since lay resistance to the Reformation continued to be strong. Bern needed its Calvinist ministers simply in order to sustain its French-speaking parishes and the Lausanne Academy.

36

37 38

“Touttefoys luy [Calvin] et tous les ministres de Geneve, par ces presentes expressement advertissons, cas advenant que nous trouvions aulcungs livres en noz pays, par luy ou aultres composes contrariants et repugnants a nostre dite disputation et reformation que non seullement ne les souffrirons ains aussy les bruslerons. Item tous personnages qui viendront, hanteront en noz pays, parlants devisants disputants escripvants et tenants propos contraire a nostre disputation et reformation, iceulx punyrons selon leur demerite de sorte que chascung entendra que ne voullons cela souffrir.” CO 15:545 (No. 2175), Sentence of Bern in the Affair of Zébédée et al., 3 April 1555. See Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 167-99. See Kingon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 59-64; 145.

Chapter 7

222

2.

CONTINUED LAY RESISTENCE TO THE REFORMATION IN VAUD

While the theologians were bickering over lofty, divine mysteries such as predestination and eternal election, the common people of Vaud had still not fully accepted Protestant reform. No doubt, the perpetual in-fighting among the evangelical parties gave them no encouragement to do so. How could the commoners be persuaded to subscribe to the new faith when the political and religious authorities could not even agree on what the new faith was exactly? The magistrates and ministers agreed that something needed to be done, but once again, they could not agree on the method. The Calvinist ministers favored strengthening the consistory and imposing intensive ecclesiastical discipline on the people. The Bernese magistrates favored more effective secular law enforcement. This question gave rise to the disputes of the late 1550s and the crisis that ultimately resulted in the banishment of Viret and his colleagues from the Pays de Vaud. The problem of continued lay devotion to Catholicism illustrates the difficulty inherent in imposing the Reformation upon a populace that had no desire to abandon the Catholic faith in the first place. The Bernese struggled to enact their Reformation through legislation. The two edicts of Reformation following the Lausanne Disputation had set the stage; “papism” was outlawed, the Mass abolished, images removed, and moral laws enacted. The success of a legislative Reformation, however, is by its nature dependent upon the efficacy of enforcement. Bern was reliant on a small handful of its own bailiffs who, in turn, had to rely on local officials. This weak bureaucratic structure could not effectively administer the conquered lands, and Bern’s laws, therefore, lacked force. Much of the initial opposition to the Reformation came, as we saw earlier, from the former Catholic clergy,39 but resistance to the Reformation persisted for years among the Vaudois laity. The nobles, in particular, had the motivation and resources to evade Bern’s control. Forced to turn Swiss and accept the city councilmen of Bern as their new lords, the nobles had very little interest in enforcing Bern’s edicts. With their rural lands lying beyond the purview of Bern’s bailiffs, they were largely able to do as they pleased. Moreover, some of them possessed territory outside of Vaud in regions that lay under Catholic jurisdiction; many nobles simply attended Mass there. The proximity of Catholic areas posed problems with regard to the common laity as well. Most areas in Vaud were within relatively easy reach

39

See above, chapter 5, section 3.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

223

of a Catholic parish. Evian was just across Lake Geneva; Gruyère lay to the east and France to the west of Vaud. Fribourg, halfway between Bern and Lausanne, stood like a Catholic island in a sea of Bernese Protestantism, and pockets of Catholicism remained in the common lordships within Vaud itself. People could and did go to these areas to hear the Mass, attend school, and find spouses. Even those who rarely ventured beyond the walls of their own town found old habits hard to break. Traditional practices, such as celebrating feast days, praying to the saints, and visiting wise women, were too deeply ingrained in the culture for the Bernese or the reformers to obliterate them overnight, or even over a generation. Finally, although many were not sneaking away to hear the Mass, neither were they flocking to the Protestant sermons in droves. Overt lay resistance to Bern’s Reformation was seen primarily in the first few years following the Lausanne Disputation (1536). The citizens of the town of Lutry, for example, a town that had previously been under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Lausanne, made their displeasure with Bern’s edicts known publicly. When the Bernese commission of 1537 arrived in the Lavaux, “The people of Lutry, Saint-Saphorin, and the Lavaux protested against the ordinances of Their Excellencies of Bern, as contrary to the liberties and franchises of the parishes.”40 Not surprisingly, the Bernese refused to revoke them. The following Sunday, after the new Protestant minister read out the ordinances on the Reformation, the governors of the town voiced their opposition.41 And on 8 April 1537, Bern sent a letter to Lutry indicating its displeasure “that the people did not want to go to hear the preaching of the Gospel, that many people protected persons living wicked lives, and that no punishments were ever imposed.”42 Rather than

40

41

42

“Ceux de Lutry, de Saint-Saphorin et la Vaux ont protesté contre les ordonnances de LL. EE. de Berne, lesquelles sont contraires aux libertés et franchises des paroisses. Messieurs de Berne ont refusé de les retirer.” Quoted in Campiche, “La fin du culte catholique à Lutry,” 317-18 (14 February 1537). “Le prédicant a donné lecture des ordonnances faites sur la Réformation par Nos Très Redoutés Seigneurs, le banderet et les gouverneurs ont manifesté leur opposition.” Quoted in Campiche, “La fin du culte catholique à Lutry,” 318 (18 February 1537). The minister was Matthieu Delacroix, who had arrived in Lutry on 18 January 1537 (ibid., 316). “Monsieur le mayor a fait assembler le Conseil général pour lui communiquer une lettre des commissaires, suivant laquelle il paraîtrait que le peuple ne veut pas aller entendre la prédication de l’Évangile, que plusieurs personnes gardent des gens de mauvaise vie et que dans ce cas aucune punition n’intervient jamais. Le mayor a donné lecture de la dite lettre, afin que nul n’en ignore et chacun se tienne pour averti.” Quoted in Campiche, “La fin du culte catholique à Lutry,” 326 (8 April 1537). After citing text after text from the Lutry council records showing just how opposed the people were to the Reformation,

224

Chapter 7

giving in to Bern’s threats, on 19 April Lutry’s neighbor, Saint-Saphorin, proposed a conference of the towns of the Lavaux to oppose the edicts of Reformation.43 An example of the extreme opposition to the Reformation may be seen in the 1537 murder of a Protestant minister at Romanel. The townspeople were gathered at a meeting when a minister coming from Geneva passed through the village; two of the men seized and killed him.44 When the Bernese heard about it, “two or three months later,” they ordered the lord of Vullierens, on whose land the village was located, to punish the guilty. When all the men of the town over eighteen years old were gathered together, a father and son were found guilty of the crime and hanged.45 In

Campiche nevertheless comments, “Selon toute probabilité, cette résistance tacite des paroissiens de Lutry fut assez rapidement brisée, de telle sorte que la majorité se rallia bientôt aux idées nouvelles.” Ibid., 326. Although overt resistance may have been broken swiftly, it is highly doubtful that the people “soon rallied” to the new ideas. Campiche’s comment is generally representative of much of the scholarship on the Reformation in Vaud from the early twentieth century; for many, the “fin du culte catholique” was definitively a good thing, and this Protestant outlook affected their interpretation of the sources. It seems much more likely that the people of Lutry continued for many years to resent the imposition of Bern’s Reformation but that they kept their opposition silent. 43 Ruchat, 6:462. 44 “… il y a au pays de Vaud nouvellement sujet aux seigneurs de Berne un village appelé Romanel, situé entre Cossonay et Morges, lequel est de la sujétion du seigneur de Vullierens, qui à présent se dit Montfort. Or est ainsi que les hommes du dit village, étant ensemble pour consulter des affaires de leur commune, de fortune ils virent passer par devant eux un prédicant venant de Genève; eux, le voyant et connaissant être prédicant, prindrent propose de l’aller désadvancer pour le mettre à mort, lequel propos fut mis à exécution par deux qui pour tout le reste eurent charge faire le dit homicide.” Pierrefleur, 134. 45 “Environ deux ou trois mois après, le dit homicide vint à notice aux seigneurs de Berne, lesquels incontinent après firent savoir au dit seigneur de Vullierens de non faire faute de punir les dits habitants du village de Romanel et coupables du dit homicide. Après le dit mandement furent incontinent tous les hommes du dit village pris et menés au château de Vullierins, de dix et huit ans en dessus, et furent défaits par justice; en telle maison furent pris et pendus le père et le fils, que c’etait grosse pitié de voir.” Pierrefleur, 134. Louis Junod, the editor of Pierrefleur’s Mémoires, comments on this episode, “L’atrocité de cette mesure de représailles [the murder of the minister] pourrait faire douter de sa réalité…. Pierrefleur est le seul à parler de cette histoire, on n’en trouve pas trace dans les manuaux du Conseil de Berne, ni ailleurs. On trouve seulement dans les comptes du bailli d’Yverdon, à l’année 1537, une mention qui se rapporte peut-être au même fait: ‘Item livré a la femme du predicant qui fust tué, XVIII florins ….’” Ibid., 13435, n.6. This last piece of evidence from the bailiff of Yverdon should be enough supporting evidence for Pierrefleur’s account, for we know of no other preacher who was killed at this time. Even disregarding that, however, I do not see why the “atrocity” of the crime should “make one doubt its reality.” Two attempts had previously been made on Viret’s life: In 1533, he was attacked by a priest on the road near Payerne, and in 1535,

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

225

this example of violence directed against a Protestant minister, we see just how high the flames of religious passion could be fanned by the mere appearance of a pastor in town; there is no indication that he was attempting to preach or break images. This depth of religious emotion would not be overcome immediately, certainly not as a result of Bernese legislation. Significantly, according to Pierrefleur’s account, Bern’s magistrates did not even find out about the crime until two or three months after the fact, which illustrates the limitations of Bern’s ability to enforce its ordinances in its French-speaking lands, particularly in noble lands. If it took the magistrates two months to find out about a murder, one must wonder how many lesser infractions of the edicts of Reformation went completely unnoticed and unpunished. Bern simply could not place officials in every one of the parishes under its control. The costs would have been exorbitant, and it would have been difficult to find some 150 qualified men who spoke French well enough to serve in that capacity. In fact, very few officials from Bern itself resided in the welsche Länder; in general, only the bailiffs were appointed directly by the Bern city council. The magistrates initially created six bailiwicks (bailliages) following the conquest of Vaud: Yverdon, Moudon, Vevey, Lausanne, Thonon, and Gex. Later, additional bailiffs were installed at Avenches, Ternier, Romainmôtier, and Nyon.46 These bailiffs were responsible for overseeing the administration of the French-speaking lands and may have been well informed about events in the towns in which they were stationed, but in most cases and for most places, they had to rely on reports from the native, local officials in the outlying regions. Particularly difficult to regulate were areas, like Romanel, that belonged to the nobility. Although Bern had extracted oaths of loyalty from the nobles during the conquest, their lands remained largely under the nobles’ own jurisdiction; furthermore, they were more likely to be located in rural areas, away from the watchful eyes of Bern’s bailiffs. Indeed, after the clergy, the nobles were responsible for much of the early overt resistance to Bern’s Reformation. Apart from the religious question, the nobles were likely appalled by the nature of their new

he was poisoned in Geneva. Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 74, 92-95. Denis Lambert and Christophe Fabri were assaulted in Thonon in 1536 (see above, chapter 4, section 4), and in 1540, Antoine Froment was nearly killed by a Vaudois gentleman in Fribourg (see below, n.55). As should be common knowledge by now, religious violence was far from uncommon in the sixteenth century, and an assault on a Protestant minister by Catholic townsmen resentful of having recently been forced to accept the new religion should not be surprising at all. Moreover, one must ask oneself why Pierrefleur, a devout Catholic, would make up a story about Catholics murdering a Protestant minister. 46 See Gilliard, La conquête du Pays de Vaud, 245-46.

226

Chapter 7

“suzerain,” the Bern city council. Their former lord, the duke of Savoy, had been a dutiful vassal of the emperor; they themselves, as members of the Estates of Vaud, had been the land’s primary governors, who (let us not forget) had outlawed “Lutheranism” not many years before.47 Their new lords, on the other hand, had withdrawn allegiance from both pope and emperor and created their own independent state. The nobles’ submission to Bern during the conquest made them vassals of the “common man.” As such, they were none too eager to act as officers of Bern on their own lands, enforcing laws they themselves did not accept and had no part in framing. In the Romanel case, it appears that the seigneur de Vullierens did not punish anyone for the murder until it came to Bern’s attention; no one was imprisoned until Bern heard of the incident and responded to it, and all the townsmen had to be rounded up to find the guilty parties. At the 1538 Synod of Lausanne, complaints were made that the nobles of Aubonne, along with the baron of Grandcour and the baron of Coppet, completely rejected the Reformation and that the latter, Michel de Viry, tried to chase off a Protestant minister whom Bern had sent to his lands.48 Jean-Roch de Diesbach, the baron of Grandcour, had left Bern when the city adopted the Reformation in 1528, only to find himself once again confronted with Bernese Protestantism.49 In July 1539, the Bernese wrote to the baron’s father-in-law, Georges de Rive, the governor of Neuchâtel, complaining that Diesbach, “together with his household, is scandalizing our subjects, doing everything contrary to our Reformation.”50 Furthermore, the Synod of Lausanne complained that the barony of La Sarraz still did not have a minister in 1538. In 1539, the Bernese made another visitation, one of whose tasks was to censure the baroness for not observing the Reformation.51 The situation of the nobles was further complicated by the fact that some of them served more than one lord; that is to say, some of their lands were

47

See above, chapter 4, section 2. Ruchat, 6:484-85. 49 Herminjard, 5:360, n. 1. On the Diesbach family, see Godet, Dictionnaire Historique et Biographique de la Suisse, 2:670-75. 50 “Ilz nous est venuz à notice comme Rochius de Diesbach, vostre beau-filz, par aulcungs temps fasse sa continuelle résidence à Grandcourt, et illaicq, ensemble son ménaige, à nous soubgects donne escandle, faisans tous actes à nostre réformation contraires: chose que nous est fort déplaisante et que bonement ne pouvons souffrir. Or puis que nous avés, entre aultres vous seigniories, faict fidélité et homaige du dit Grandcourt, vous commandons expressément de mettre aultres gens au dit Grandcourt, que observent nostre réformation, affin que ne sayons occasionés d’y avoir aultre esgard et y pourveoir comme de nécessité.” Herminjard, 5:360-61 (No. 805), Bern city council to Georges de Rive, Bern, 29 July 1539. 51 Ruchat, 6:511. 48

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

227

within Protestant Bern’s domain, but others may have been in France, Fribourg, the Valais, or another Catholic territory. In August 1539, the Bernese demanded that they choose a religion once and for all. They were ordered to appear before the nearest bailiff and “declare themselves established in one place and [declare] whether they wish to live according to the Reformation or not. And if they declare themselves for the Reformation, they must be prohibited from using papist ceremonies.” If they refused to accept the Reformation, they would forfeit Bernese protection, but not their estates, “provided that they have them managed and worked by people of the Reformed religion.”52 It is not known how many (if any) refused to accept the Reformation and left Bernese dominion to reside in Catholic lands. As with the clergy who decided to stay for fear of losing their benefices, however, one must question the nobles’ motivations and the sincerity with which they accepted the Reformation. Even if they ceased to celebrate “papist ceremonies,” some of the nobles were not eager to attend Protestant worship services. In 1543, Bern issued another decree ordering its bailiffs to imprison those nobles who “maliciously” stayed away from the sermon and to banish those who “absolutely did not wish to go.”53 Even among Catholic nobles who resided outside of Bern’s territories, there were some who attempted to upset the Protestant status quo inside Vaud. In 1546, for example, the count of Gruyère ordered his castellan of Palézieux to erect in Marascon an altar and an image of Saint George and to bring in a priest to say the Mass there. When the bailiff of nearby Moudon found out about the plans, however, he warned the castellan to abandon the subversive project and threw him in prison after the warning went

52

53

“Ayant été remarqué que plusieurs Gentils-Hommes et autres possédant des biens rière LL. EE., lesquels même ils auroient reconnus et prêté hommage pour cela, qui possédent en même temps aussi d’autres biens ailleurs, et dans d’autres païs et dominations qui ne sont pas de la Réligion, lesquels par conséquent prétendent de jouir d’une double protection, demeurant tantôt rière celle-ci, et tantôt rière celle-là. Est donc ordonné qu’ils soient cités par devant le seigneur baillif, où ils ayent à se déclarer pour un lieu fixes, et s’ils veulent vivre selon la Réformation, ou non. Et s’ils se déclarent pour la Réformation, il leur doit être défendu de se servir des cérémonies papistes, sous peine de bamps et amendes. Mais s’ils refusent d’embrasser la Réformation ils ne pourront pas se couvrir de la protection de LL. EE., excepté que l’on ne leur prendra pas leurs biens qu’ils possèdent rière eux, mais leur resteront, à condition cependant qu’ils les fassent gérer et travailler par des gens de la Réligion Réformée.” AVL Corps de Ville B5, fol. 1rº: “Ordonnance touchant les Gentils-Hommes et autres qui possédent des biens rière la jurisdiction de Berne,” 7 August 1539. “Ordre d’emprisonner les Gentils-hommes, qui s’absentoient malicieusement des Sermons, et de les tenir en prison, jusqu’à ce que LL. EE. les eussent chatiez selon leur mérite: Ceux qui ne vouloient absolument point y aller, devoient être bannis du pays.” Ruchat, 6:533.

228

Chapter 7

unheeded.54 In another case, a Vaudois nobleman in Fribourg assaulted the Protestant minister Antoine Froment as he was passing through the city on his way back from Bern. Froment was accosted in his room by Hugonin du Jordil and his valet, who drew his sword on Froment and asked, “Where are these wicked men who say that the Mass is not good?” Froment was rescued and escorted out of town by another nobleman from Vaud, Claude Charvin, who was sympathetic to the Protestant cause.55 This last case, in particular, illustrates both the relatively porous religiopolitical borders in the Swiss Confederation and the intensity of emotion on both sides of the religious divide. It reminds us that Fribourg stood as an island of Catholicism between the city of Bern and its French-speaking subjects. For official ambassadors and especially Protestant ministers travelling between Vaud and Bern, the preferred route from Vaud to Bern skirted Fribourg to the west and passed through Payerne and Murten. The most direct route, however, shot straight through the Catholic canton of Fribourg and the city itself. For some reason, Froment opted for this more dangerous route and found himself confronted not by an angry Fribourgeois mob but by a Vaudois nobleman who wanted to kill him. If Froment, a Protestant minister, was willing to risk the path through Fribourg, we can safely assume that lay travelers, including nobles, merchants, day laborers, and messengers, would have had regular contact – and opportunities to worship – with their Catholic neighbors. Fribourg was by no means the only Catholic area within easy reach of Bern’s French-speaking subjects. No single Protestant town or village in Vaud was more than about twenty-five kilometers from a parish that still celebrated the Mass. In the common lordships, even if one parish voted to abolish the Mass, there would likely be another parish just down the road that had not done so. Bern legally forbade its subjects to go elsewhere to hear the Mass, but this prohibition would have been extraordinarily difficult to enforce, for it would have required secret informers in the Catholic parishes. As we have seen, however, the Bernese had trouble enough monitoring their own lands. At least one attempt was made in 1539 to find out which citizens of Lausanne were crossing Lake Geneva to attend Easter Mass in Evian, but we unfortunately do not know what the informers discovered. 56

54

Ruchat, 6:541. Herminjard, 6:176-77, n.6. 56 “Item plus, et délivrés la villie de paques, qu’il fut le 5 de avry 1539, par le comandemen de Munsr Bonaventurat Frontoné ad ung compagniun lequel aly Eviant pour savoer ceux que porroent alers à la pasperie le jour de paques. VIII sols. – Item plus, par le commandement de Munsr le bandaret du Pont et de la Cita ad de compagnun lequel sun 55

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

229

As is frequently the case in studies of early modern Europe, the “common man” in the French-speaking lands is the most difficult group to analyze. We must rely primarily on reports from the ministers and ordinances from Bern to piece together an idea of the religious life of the people. The general picture that emerges from this evidence in Vaud over the course of the twenty-three years between the Lausanne Disputation (1536) and Viret’s banishment (1559) is one in which concerns over continued “papism” and moral levity among the people remained constant, although worries about Mass attendance gradually faded. The 1538 Synod of Lausanne painted a grim picture of the religious situation in the pays romands two years after the Bernese conquest. Entire villages had never heard a Reformed minister. Many refused to listen to the preachers where they were active or to let them baptize their children. Individuals continued to venerate saints in their homes and wear their rosaries.57 Two years later, in 1540, Viret complained to Bullinger, So rarely does the fruit of the Gospel appear, so great is the contempt for the Word and the sacraments, so great the lack of faith and charity, so great the security in sinning, there is no fear of God and practically no religion at all, so that we fear we are sliding gradually towards a certain kind of atheism, once religion and all fear of God are extinguished and driven out from the souls.58 According to Viret, Bern’s Reformation was having very little positive impact. One gets the sense from this letter that he thought Catholicism would have been preferable to the current slide toward “atheism.” By atheism, Viret certainly did not mean a philosophical assertion that there is no God, but something more akin to libertinism; evangelical liberty had been perverted into a moral and religious free-for-all. The Catholic Church had been dismantled, but the people had not yet established themselves in the Reformed Church. Individuals did and believed whatever they wanted, a problem exacerbated by the “security in sinning,” a not-so-subtle critique of Bern’s efforts to enforce its Reformation.

alers ad autre part pour semblable cas. XII sols.” Chavannes, “Extraits des Manuaux de Lausanne,” MDR 1 (1887): 21. 57 Ruchat, 6:480-85. 58 “… tam rarus appareat Evangelii fructus, tantus sit Verbi et sacramentorum contemptus, tanta fidei et charitatis inopia, tanta peccandi securitas, nullus Dei metus, nulla prorsum religio, adeo ut vereamur ne paulatim labamur in atheismum quendam, semel deleta ex animis religione et omni Dei timore excusso.” Herminjard, 6:182-83 (No. 851), Viret to Bullinger, Lausanne, 20 February 1540.

230

Chapter 7

It appears that some of Lausanne’s citizens may even have been conspiring to overturn the new order in the city, although the details are not altogether clear. In October 1541, the community of Lausanne was gathered together, because some members of the city have met together, holding a certain particular council in the bishop’s house in Lausanne and elsewhere. This matter is believed to place at risk the entire community and its liberty and franchises…. It was concluded by the community that the conspirators … and their adherents should be punished ….59 I have unfortunately not been able to find any other evidence that might shed light on these mysterious meetings. Nevertheless, since meetings took place in the bishop’s house which were seen as a threat to the liberties of the entire city, we can infer that there was indeed a conspiracy against Bernese authority; how else could the city’s liberties be threatened? Bern punished entire communities only when their citizens collectively flouted its authority. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that these conspirators in Lausanne were plotting somehow, whether by themselves or with the aid of the bishop of Lausanne or the duke of Savoy, to overturn Bernese authority and re-establish the Catholic Church. This may also help to explain the lack of additional evidence for this case; the Lausannois certainly would not want to report such a plot to Bern, or anyone else for that matter. It appears that they wished to settle the matter quickly and quietly and did so successfully. Nine years later, in 1550, Viret was still altogether unsatisfied with the progress of the Reformation in Lausanne. He and his colleague Jacques Valier drew up a list of grievances for the Lausanne city council. Their first complaint stated, It seems to us that God and the ministry of his holy Word and the Reformation of our most revered lords are greatly despised. We do not know in what manner many people in the city live nor which doctrine and law they follow. There are some who openly declare themselves

59

“Die dominica ix octobris anno quo supra, fuit congragato communitas Lausanne pro certis ipsius communitatis negotiis et praesertim quia nonnulli ex civitate se invicem cumularunt tenendo certum particulare consilium in domo episcopali Lausanne et alibi, quae res credit in praeiudicium totius communitatis et libertatem et franchisiarum eiusdem, et quia hoc conspirantes sunt videlicet Franciscus Gindron, G. Deneschal, Michael Roland, Petrus Folliardi, ut asseritur, fuit conclusum per eamdem communitatem illos et eorum adhaerentes puniri debere et data fuit potestas dominis consili illos pugniendi etc.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 92vº (9 October 1541).

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

231

adversaries of the doctrine we preach and others who do not go to the sermons at all, or only very rarely.60 Among the worst offenders, claimed the ministers, were the council members themselves, who were the “first to break the statutes and ordinances” and who often “remained for long periods of time without going to the sermon.”61 Practices they considered superstitious and idolatrous continued unabated, “especially sorcery and magic, observations of feasts, patron saints, and other such things prohibited in the Reformation.”62 By sorcery and magic, they were probably referring to white magic performed by wise women and cunning men.63 Bern had passed ordinances against going to these popular “divines,” on pain of being fined “as those who go to the Mass,” and the divines themselves were to be imprisoned and punished

60

“Pour le premier, il nous semble que Dieu et le ministère de sa saincte parolle et la reformation de noz très redoubtez seigneurs, sont grandement mesprisez, en qu’il y en a plusieurs en la ville, desquelz on ne scait, comment ilz vivent, ne quelle doctrine et loy ilz suivent entre lesquelz il y en a les ungs, qui manifestement se declairent adversaires de la doctrine que nous preschons, et les aultres qui ne hantent nullement les sermons, ou le font bien rarement, et jours ouvriers et festes.” Text printed in Henri Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois, vignt années de luttes pour une discipline ecclésiastique,” Mémoires de la société pour l’histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et romands, 35 (1978): 15-23; here, 17. 61 “En après, nous trouvons fort scandaleux, pour tout ce pauvre peuple que vous, noz très honnorez seigneurs, qui estes les chiefz de la ville, et presque tous voz officiers, ensemble voz femmes et familles et les leurs, excepté bien petit nombre, faicte semblablement si petite assistence aux sermons, et jours ouvriers et festes, et que souventes foys plusieurs, tant d’entre vous que de voz officiers et familles, estes premiers qui rompez les status et ordonnances faictes tant sur cela que sur les aultres poinctz de la reformation, tant de noz magnifiques Seigneurs de Berne que par vous mesmes. Car il y en a plusieurs des principaux de la ville, tant hommes que femmes, qui demeurent souventes foys longue espace de temps sans aller au sermon, non pas seulement les dimanches, qui est une chose qui ne seroit pas enduree touchant la messe en la papisterie, sans ceux qui demeurent sur les rues, à l’heure du sermon.” Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois,” 17. 62 “Quant aux superstitions et idolatries, tout en est encores plein, et notamment de sorcellerie et charmerie, d’observations des festes, des vogues et aultres semblables choses defendues en la reformation, qui seroient longues à raconter.” Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois,” 18. Du Cange defines “vogue” as a “Fête du patron d’un lieu où il y a concours de peuple.” Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, 9 (Glossarium Gallicum): 395. The Dictionnaire du moyen français is more specific geographically: “Fête annuelle du village dans l’est et le sud-est de la France.” Algirdas Julien Greimas and Teresa Mary Keane, Dictionnaire du moyen français: La Renaissance, Trésors du français (Paris: Larousse, 1992), 661. It seems from this that the festival in eastern France was also celebrated in Vaud. 63 See, e.g., Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971).

232

Chapter 7

at least as severely as their clients.64 Viret and Valier did not believe that the statutes had been effective, however. They went on to claim that immoral behavior continued to run rampant, such that, Every day one sees pregnant fornicators, many of whom leave, and one does not know what becomes of them or their children; others go into papist lands to “empty their sack,” where they are supported by their lovers and here their children are baptized by priests …. There are also fornicators who keep lovers here and there and raise their bastards before our eyes and others who turn their homes into brothels.65 The consistory was utterly ineffective since it had not met for such a long time, and even when it had, there was no justice; the poor were called to appear but not the rich.66 On the rare occasions when sentences were given, they were a sham, to the point where “fornicators have sometimes gone to

64

65

66

“Défendu d’aller vers les devins et les discurs de bonnes aventures; ceux qui le font, doivent être châtiés comme ceux qui vont à la Messe, sçavoir dix florins de bamp. L’on emprisonnera aussi ces divins, l’on leur imposera la même amende, réservé néantmoins de châtier ces derniers plus sévérement selon l’exigence du fait.” AVL Corps de Ville B10, fol. 2vº (4 June 1543). The specific identification of the penalty for seeing divines with going to the Mass both indicates how seriously the Bernese took this common practice and seems to imply that the Mass itself was a kind of sorcery, which is certainly the position taken by Viret and other Reformed authors. “Quant aux meurs, il y a grande corruption, principallement en ivrongneries et en gourmandises, et toutes dissolutions, jeux, dances, cabaretz, fornications, adulteres, maquerelages et de aultres telles insolences, tellement qu’on voit tous les jours paillardes grosses, des quelles plusieurs s’absentent, qu’on ne scait qu’elles ne les enfans deviennent: les aultres vont vuider leur sac en la papisterie, où elles sont entretenues par leurs paillardz, et les enfans baptisez par les prestres; les aultres font leurs enfans toutes seules, et mortz on ne scait comment, et aulcuns enfans meurent par mauvais traictement. Il y a aussi des paillardz qui tiennent paillardes decà et delà, et qui nourrissent leurs bastardz devant noz yeux, et d’aultres qui tiennent les bourdeaux en leurs maisons, et n’y a moien d’y metre ordre, ny à une infinité d’aultres telles choses, qui seroient longues à raconter par le menu.” Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois,” 18. “De metre ordre à toutes telles vilainies, par le moien du consistoire, nous n’y avons plus d’esperance, car il demeure souventefoys une grande partie du temps sans estre tenu, combien qu’il y ait des causes fort urgentes. Si on le tient, il y a souventefoys bien petite assistence, point d’honneur, ne de reverence, ne d’obeissance en ceux qui y sont appelez, sinon mespris, moquerie, et toute rebellion, voire jusques aux jeunes enfans. D’esgalité en justice, il n’y en a point. Les ung sont appelez, ascavoir quelcung des plus petis, les aultres sont laissez, principallement les gros, combien que leurs insolences et scandales soient tous publiques, et qu’ilz en facent mestier: et jaçoit que congnoissance en vienne au consistoire, et qu’il soit proposé de les appeler, et par plusieurs fois, il ne s’en faict rien ou bien peu.” Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois,” 18.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

233

visit their lovers in the prison itself,”67 an accusation verified by the Lausanne city council records.68 The ministers did not say anything about secret masses being held in town or people leaving town to hear the Mass elsewhere. It seems that those problems had been largely overcome by 1550. People were not going to the sermon either, however, and that was unacceptable to the ministers. Moreover, Viret and Valier claimed that some people still openly opposed their doctrine. Although they may have been referring to “libertines,” that is, to those who would be restrained by no ecclesiastical discipline or moral law, in light of the rest of the document it seems more likely that they referred more specifically to those who favored a return to the Catholic Church. From the ministers’ point of view, the laws governing “superstition” and moral behavior had succeeded in changing very little. Earlier in 1550, Theodore Beza had arrived to assume the post of Professor of Greek at the Lausanne Academy.69 Coming from Geneva, he was astonished by the very different religious situation in Lausanne: Very few seek to avoid the wrath of the Lord, no one is moved by the reproach of his neighbors. The magistrate thinks that he has performed his duty admirably when he has promulgated some edict; the warnings of the ministers are in vain, for public scandals are either ignored or unrestrained by the severity that the depravity of men deserves; zeal for the Lord is frozen. Here, certainly, the mandates of the princes [of Bern] are violated openly and with impunity; Lent is observed with no less “religion” than among outright papists; everything is in commotion with drinking, blasphemies, and fornications. In the congregations

67

“Et si aucun y est appelé, il est bien difficile de veoir de longtemps le bout d’une cause, les unes se commences, puis sont delaisses, sans estre poursuivies. Si elles sont poursuivies, il y a peu d’execution des sentences, ou pour le moins, il y a peu d’esgalité, et une grande moquerie aux punitions et grande indignité, voire jusques en telle licence que les paillardz sont quelquefoys alles visiter leurs paillardes au jaquemard, et de jour et de nuict, et que ung tas de galands y ont porté les grans barilz et flascons de vin, et y ont banqueté avecques les paillardes et tout cela sans punition quelconque.” Meylan, “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois,” 18. 68 “Lesdits Seigneurs ont ordonné que pourtant que leurs a consté que Jaques Secretan est allé entré en leurs prison de l’eveschie vers une paillarde detenue en leursdit prison s’efforçant d’entré par ung trellis … sans leurs vouloir, ains par infraction de leurs prison, qu’il doibge crier mercy à leurs Sgrs de ladite offence et doibge poier à leurdits Seigneurs six escus d’or au soleil, coing du roy de France ….” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 241vº (30 July 1551). 69 On Beza’s career in Lausanne, see Paul-F. Geisendorf, Théodore de Bèze (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1949), 33-103.

234

Chapter 7

(conciones), there is remarkable solitude. In short, the state of the church is miserable.70 Beza’s critique supports the complaints of Viret and Valier and reiterates the frustration over the magistrates’ inclination to address problems merely by issuing edicts that seem to have been consistently ignored. The magistrates of Bern and Lausanne did, in fact, promulgate multiple ordinances concerning the Reformation after the initial 1536 edicts of Reformation. Bern issued several individual ordinances over the years, expanding on the prohibitions set out in 1536 and requiring catechism for children and church attendance.71 In their 1548 general mandate on reform, the Bernese complained, We are well aware of not only the transgression but also the contempt almost everywhere in our lands for preaching, catechisms, and instruction of the youth, and for our mandates and edicts regarding the abolition of papal ceremonies, idolatries, superstitions, blasphemies, sorcery, magic, pilgrimages, drunkenness, gluttony, dances, dishonest songs, games, clothing, fornication, usury, theft, cheating, and other similar dissoluteness and iniquities ….72 By 1558, the ministers had not noticed any difference. In June, along with the Lausanne professors, they drafted a project on ecclesiastical

70

“… paucissimi iram Domini deprecantur, nemo proximorum animadversione commovetur. Magistratus se putat officio praeclare functum cum aliquot edicta promulgavit; ministrorum vani sunt clamores, cum publica scandala vel negligantur, vel ea severitate non prohibeantur, quae merebatur hominum improbitas; friget zelus Domini. Hic quidem principum mandata palam impune violantur; quadragesima non minore religione observatur quam apud meros papistas; potationibus, blasphemiis, scortationibus perstrepunt omnia. In concionibus mira solitudo. Ut paucis dicam, miserabilis est ecclesiae facies.” Correspondance de Bèze 1:59 (No. 14), Beza to Bullinger, Lausanne, 16 February [1550]. 71 See Ruchat, 6:532-43; AVL Corps de Ville B 5, B 10, EE 834, EE 706; ACV Ba 1, Bd 2, etc. 72 “… or non estans ignorans comme dict est non seulement de la transgression, ains aussi du mespris qui sont presque par tout nostre pays des predications, cathechiques et instructions des enfans, et de noz dictz mandemens et edictz touschans abolition des ceremonies papales, idolatries, superstitions, blasphemes, sorcelleries et charmilliers, peregrinaiges, yvrogneries, gourmandises, danses, chansons deshonnestes, jeulx, abillemens, pailliardises, usures, rapines, tromperies, et aultres semblable dissolutions et iniquites ….” AVL Corps de Ville EE 706 (16 December 1548). A transcription of this mandate by Janick Astréoud and catalogued under the same call number was helpful. Precisely the same wording was used two years later in an expanded Reformation mandate. ACV Ba 1, fol. 76rº.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

235

discipline.73 In outlining the need for more effective ecclesiastical discipline, they explained, Although the fathers of the family ought to be like prophets and ministers in their homes, as it is said of Abraham (Genesis 18) and Job (Job 1), how can this be done if the fathers themselves are not first instructed? Now, it is useless to hope that they may be taught at the ordinary sermons, for we have clearly seen the contrary through more than twenty-three years of experience…. In fact, how has it happened that so many young people who have never seen the Mass or papism are nevertheless better instructed in those than in the Gospel, unless their fathers taught them what they know?74 The ministers knew very well that learning started in the home. The problem was that the home was often the worst place for children to be instructed, for their parents were still carrying and passing on the papist baggage of their own childhoods. The ministers’ statement about the insufficiency of the sermon to effect real change challenges our understanding of the importance of the sermon in Reformation Protestantism. The preaching of the Word of God and its ability to stimulate faith through hearing (fides ex auditu) are commonly seen as the very foundations on which the Protestant message was built and spread. But

73

74

I included a transcription of the complete text of this project, found in the archives cantonales vaudoises, in my dissertation. Michael Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome? The Struggle for Religious Conformity and Confessional Unity in Early Reformation Switzerland,” Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 2002, appendix A. Louis Vulliemin published an excerpt of an earlier draft written in March 1558 in his edition of Ruchat. Abraham Ruchat, Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse, Édition avec appendices et une notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de Ruchat, 7 vols., ed. L. Vulliemin (Nyon: M. GiralPrelaz, 1835-1838), 7:302-07. Jean Barnaud apparently did not realize that Vulliemin had published the text of March, not the one written in June: “Vulliemin en a publié un résumé dans son édition de l’Histoire de la Réformation de Ruchat, mais il n’indique pas ses sources et son exposé est incomplet. Il diffère, d’ailleurs, au moins quant à la disposition des matières, de celui qu’ont conservé les archives de Lausanne.” Pierre Viret, 453-54. Neither author printed or even discussed the passages that follow in my text. “Item comme ainsy soit que les peres de famille doivent estre comme prophetes et ministres en leur maison, ainsy qu’il est dit d’Abraham, Gen. 18. et de Job, Job. 1. comment cela sera il practiqué si les peres ne sont premierement instruicts? Or d’esperer qu’ilz soyent instruicts aux presches ordinaires il n’y a ordre. Car nous avons veu l’experience toute claire au contraire, depuis 23 ans et plus. De les enseigner aussi avec les petits enfans au Catechisme public, voz excellences peuvent penser comme cela seroit pris. Et de faict, d’où vient cela que plusieurs jeunes gens qui n’ont jamais veu Messe ny Papisterie, y sont mieulx instruicts toutesfois qu’en l’Evangile, sinon de ce que les peres leur enseignent ce qu’ilz savent?” ACV Bd 1/1, 122-123; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 307.

236

Chapter 7

twenty-three years of preaching in Lausanne – by Viret no less, an excellent preacher according to many contemporary testimonies – had not brought about the desired results. The ministers believed that the only way to reach the people effectively was through individual instruction. The ministers pointed out that, in addition to the problems of home schooling, catechetical instruction was sadly lacking in many areas: How many children are there in the villages as well as the cities who neither go to nor are sent to catechism? How many places are there that never even hold them?... When all is said and done, if things remain the way they are, what hope can we have for young people except that, without good order established according to the Word of God, most of them will become epicureans and atheists, as we have seen all too often?75 A third problem identified by the ministers was frequent contact with or even residence among Catholics: “How many are there who leave and remain for a time among the papists, and then return infected? How many others send their children there? Or others who send them there to marry?”76 We are again reminded of the proximity of Catholic territories, which the people of Vaud would have had frequent occasion to visit. Especially in the smaller villages, young people may have had to look for spouses in the surrounding villages, some of which were still Catholic, simply in order to avoid marrying within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity.77

75

76

77

“Secondement, combien y a il d’enfans tant aux villages qu’aux villes qui ne vont, ny ne sont envoyez aux Catechismes? combien y a il de lieux ausquelz on n’en fit jamais? et quelle assistance y a il aux lieux où on les faict? Et quand tout sera bien consideré, si les choses demeurent comme elles sont, quelle esperance pouvons nous avoir des jeunes, sinon que la plus part sans un bon ordre estably selon la parolle de Dieu, deviendront Epicuriens et Atheistes, comme nous n’en voyons que trop d’experience, et dont souventesfois nous vous avons advertis.” ACV Bd 1/1, 123; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 308. “Tiercement combien y en a il qui s’en vont demourer pour un temps en Papisterie, dont ilz reviennent infectez? d’autres y en a qui y envoyent leurs enfans, d’aultres mesmes qui les y marient.” ACV Bd 1/1, 124; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 308. Bernese marriage law, like Catholic canon law, prohibited marriage within the fourth degree of consanguinity. See Joel F. Harrington, Reordering Marriage and Society in Reformation Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 85-86; Thomas Max Safley, “Canon Law and Swiss Reform: Legal Theory and Practice in the Marital Courts of Zurich, Bern, Basel, and St. Gall,” in Canon Law in Protestant Lands, Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History, 11 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992), 187-201. On marriage impediments in general, see James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

237

According to the Protestant ministers, therefore, twenty-two years after the introduction of Protestantism in the Pays de Vaud, the majority of their parishioners were far from being truly “reformed,” in either sense of the word: They had not welcomed the doctrines and practices of the Reformed Church, nor had they reformed their lives according to its moral precepts. Church attendance was low; parents passed on “papist” practices to their children rather than sending them to catechism; temptation was ever present in nearby Catholic territories, where Catholic schools, spouses, and sacraments were readily available; and immoral behavior continued unabated and unpunished. In short, from the ministers’ perspective, Bern’s “Reformation by edict” had failed. What was needed to ensure a true Reformation of the church, they thought, was effective Calvinist ecclesiastical discipline. The Lausanne ministers and professors undoubtedly had higher standards of reform than the magistrates in Bern. In all likelihood, the situation was not as bad as they made it seem. The number of pastors had increased over the years, concern over travel to Catholic regions to hear the Mass had decreased, and complaints about the opposition of the former Catholic clergy and the nobles, which had been common in the early years of the Reformation, had practically disappeared. Nevertheless, we would be wrong to dismiss the grievances of Protestant ministers as mere zealotry. No Reformed minister worth his salt would ever have been completely satisfied with the moral behavior of his parishioners, but the issues raised by the Lausanne ministers go well beyond moral levity. The specific examples they cite point not just to the sort of behavior one might realistically expect of the average citizen, but to a genuine unwillingness to abandon Catholic beliefs and traditions. The most telling testimony, it seems, comes from Beza. He had just spent six months in Geneva – a Geneva that was not yet fully under the control of Calvin’s supporters – and he was flabbergasted by the difference he saw in Lausanne. Although the Bernese had helped to introduce Protestantism in Geneva, the Genevans themselves had established a far more successful Reformation than the Bernese were able to impose in their own French-speaking territories. The Calvinist ministers in Vaud wanted to change that.

3.

THE CRISIS OF 1558-1559

In the late 1550s, the Calvinist ministers of Vaud were in a difficult position. On the one hand, the failures of Bern’s Reformation were still apparent. After twenty years the next generation was coming of age and was seemingly no less attached to the practices of the “old faith” than their

238

Chapter 7

parents. The need for effective discipline had grown acute. On the other hand, the growing antipathy in Bern to Geneva and especially to Calvin meant that it certainly was not the time for the ministers to push for a Calvinist form of ecclesiastical discipline in Vaud. Yet that is exactly what they did. Their failure killed Calvinism in Vaud, but the banished ministers would join the ranks of the Genevan missionaries, reinforcing the emerging vision that Calvinism’s future lay in France. The Lausanne ministers made no attempt to disguise their allegiance to Calvin in the theological battles of the 1540s and 1550s. Upon hearing the prohibition against preaching about predestination, they protested to Bern, After having read Calvin’s Institutes and his book on predestination and other commentaries on scripture, our conscience, together with experience and the evident testimony of most of Christendom, compels us to say that the doctrine of predestination contained in those books … conforms completely with the Holy Scriptures ….78 Shortly thereafter, Viret and Beza set off to discuss the matter in Bern. Much of the optimism of the Lausanne ministers stemmed from their belief, expressed in a letter written to Farel during this trip, that “all of the Bernese ministers not only agree with us but also in this case are more outraged than can be said.”79 The problem, they thought, lay with the city councilors, not with the Bernese ministers. These two issues, the prohibition on preaching predestination and the Lausanne ministers’ misguided confidence in the support of their colleagues in Bern, would play a significant role in the crisis of 1558, but for the roots of the tragedy, we must first look at events in Lausanne itself. The story of the 1558 crisis has been told a number of times,80 but the accounts produced thus far have failed to consider many of the unpublished documents and letters that pertain to this complicated situation. Using these documents, I hope to flesh out the important issues of

78

“… apres avoir leu l’Institution Chrestienne dudit Calvin et son livre de la predestination, avec autres commentaires sur l’Escriture, nostre conscience, conjointe avec l’experience et le tesmoignage evident de la pluspart de la Chrestienté, nous contraint a dire que la doctrine de la predestination contenue esdictz livres que nous avons leuz, les uns plus les autres moins, et conferez avec la parolle de Dieu, est en substance du tout conforme aux sainctes escritures ….” CO 15:588-89 (No. 2195), Ministers of Lausanne to the Bern city council, Lausanne, 2 May 1555. 79 “Ministros Bernenses omnes non modo nobiscum consentientes, sed etiam in hac causa supra quam dici possit egregie affectos invenimus.” CO 15:625 (No. 2210), Viret and Beza to Farel, Murten, 26 May 1555. 80 See, e.g., Barnaud, Pierre Viret, 439-75; Vuilleumier, 661-66; Charles Schnetzler, “Pierre Viret et le conflit ecclésiastique avec Berne au milieu du XVIme siècle,” RHV 15 (1907): 366-80.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

239

the dispute, which went beyond Viret’s desire for greater ecclesiastical discipline to include continued haggling over Bern’s prohibition against preaching on predestination, bitter complaints about Bern’s lack of respect for the ministers, and the ill-defined jurisdictional authority of the Lausanne city council. On 7 August 1557 Viret appeared before the Lausanne city council to offer his resignation: “Master Pierre Viret excused his weakness and frailty, asking that someone else be elected in his place, with many regretful reproaches that the people do not follow the preaching or observe the Christian Reformation.”81 The council sought to appease him by raising his salary and electing a new deacon to assist him.82 Viret does not appear to have been terribly grateful. Just nine days later, the city council complained about the “great injuries done by Pierre Viret, having preached publicly against the citizens of Lausanne.”83 The council decided to draw up articles of complaint against Viret and take them before the Bern city council.84 The Bernese encouraged both sides to settle the matter amicably.85 Viret refused to acknowledge fault, however, and the Lausanne magistrates insisted that the case be heard by Bern’s ambassadors.86 A decision on the case was delayed repeatedly, as Bern continued to ask for a peaceful resolution to the situation. In the meantime, the Christmas Eucharist was approaching and 81

“D’aultre part ledit maistre Pierre Viret cest [read: s’est] excusé de sa foiblesse et debilité de sa personne, priant d’en vouloir eslire ung aultre en son lieu, avec beaucoupt de remonstrances lamentatoires de ce que l’on ne suyt les presches ny observe l’on la reformation chrestienne.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 340rº (7 August 1557). 82 “Et touchant maistre Pierre Viret, pour son soulagement soit esleuz ung diacre sçavant et l’on luy augmenterat son gage.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 340rº (7 August 1557). 83 “Sont estés assemblés les magniffiques seigneurs lx [the council of sixty], par devant lesqueulx a esté proposé les grandes injures que maistre Pierre Viret doibt avoir presché publiquement contre les bourgeois de Lausanne en general.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 340vº (16 August 1557). 84 “Sus ce a esté ordonné que l’on doibt articule contre ledit Viret, et fere plaintifz et prendre conseil contre luy par devant noz tresredoubté princes de Berne, avec puissance eisdicts Srs xxiiii de eslire Srs ambassadeurs pour fere et dire contre ledit maistre.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 340vº (16 August 1557). 85 “Sont estés assemblés les magniffiques seigneurs lx par devant desqueulx a esté lisue l’ordonnance et descharge par noz tresredoutés princes eis Srs ambassadeurs de Lausanne contre maistre Pierre Viret faicte. Sus ce a esté ordonné que l’on doibt chercher tous les moians d’appoincter et fere accord avec ledit Sr Viret le honneur de ambes parties soit saulvé. Item si ledit Sr Viret faict confession desdits articles avec declaration d’iceulx sans prejudice de l’honneur de mes Srs que de ce l’on doibt contenter. Si moins et que il ne le veullie confesser que alors il soit procedé jouxte l’ordonnance de noz Srs tresredoutés princes.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 342vº (20 September 1557). 86 The transcript of the hearing is printed in Henri Meylan and Maurice Guex, “Viret et M.M. de Lausanne,” RHV 69 (1961): 113-73.

240

Chapter 7

with it the question of how Viret could administer the sacrament to townspeople who questioned his ministerial authority. On 30 November, Beza explained to Calvin, “I trust our Viret will remain steadfast, especially if you support him. He is not agitated by this controversy per se, but by the question of how the sacraments can be administered in this situation, where there is not only no order but the greatest hatred of order.87 On 7 December, Viret, the Bernese, and the Lausannois agreed that the final decision would be delayed, and that Viret would administer the Christmas Eucharist.88 Viret appeared before the Lausanne council on two other occasions before Christmas to ensure that everything was in order for the Eucharist. He asked that strangers be examined to determine which religion they followed, that moral behavior be enforced, and that everyone live “according to God and the Reformation of messeigneurs.”89 The Lausanne magistrates expressed their willingness to comply with Viret’s requests, although it is not clear whether they did so out of fear of reprisal from Bern, fear of a refusal by

87

“Viretum nostrum spero firmum fore, praesertim si eum confirmaris. Non agitur autem de hac controversia dumtaxet, sed quo pacto possint in hoc rerum statu sacramenta administrari, ubi non modo nullus est ordo, sed etiam summum ordinis odium.” Correspondance de Bèze, 2:142 (No. 122), Beza to Calvin, Lausanne, 30 November [1557]. 88 “Sont estés assemblés les magniffiques Srs lx, par devant lesqueulx le Sr maistre Pierre Viret a liseuz les articles proposés contre luy par devant noz tresredoutés princes. Lesqueulx ont ordonné que leur se doibt reconcilier avec ledit Sr Viret et fere suspendre jusques à Pasques l’ordonnance de mes Srs noz princes, et cependant recepvoir la saincte cene des mains dudit Sr Viret le tenir et reputer pour bon et vray pasteur, en ce qu’il debge tenir mesdits Srs pour capables pour recepvoir ladite saincte cene.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 347rº (7 December 1557). 89 “Sont estés assemblés les magniffiques Srs lx, par devant lesqueulx monSr Viret a proposé l’ordre que fault mettre eis choses mal dressés mesmement touchant la religion chrestienne, visitation des habitans estrangiers, pour sçavoir leur religion, les meurs, dissolutions, et biens des pouvres, l’argent genevois, et le different des articles contre lui proposés, priant mes Srs mettre ordre au totage, et ce qu’il a presché publiquement aussi les remonstrances qu’il faict de present cest a esté pour descharge son conscience et pour le debvoir de sa charge, aussi pour l’amitié qu’il porte au peuple de Lausanne. Sus ce a esté conclus de mettre ordre au totage.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 347vº (8 December 1557). “Sont estés assemblés les Srs iic [the council of two hundred] bourgeois par devant lesqueulx monSr Viret accompagnye de maistre Jaques Vallier et de maistre Arnauld [Banc, deacon in Lausanne], lequel a proposé que l’on se dehuisse preparer à la saincte cene, instruyre le peuple à bonnes meurs, de hanter les presches, avoir les pouvres par recommendés, et vivre cellon dieu et la reformation de mes Srs…. Sus ce a esté conclus concordablement de soy emender, suyvre et mettre en extreme exequution les admonitions dudict Sr Viret et icelluy remercier grandement d’icelles.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 348rº (15 December 1557).

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

241

Viret to administer the Christmas Eucharist, a genuine desire to improve moral behavior in Lausanne, or some combination of all three. The entire affair was crucially important to developments in the following year. Viret saw the Lausanne magistrates’ complaint against him as indicative of a lack of respect for the ministry, which could not be tolerated.90 The personal affront to his office convinced him all the more of the necessity of ecclesiastical discipline. At the same time, however, the Lausanne magistrates – whatever their motives may have been – demonstrated greater support for his recommendations than the Bernese had ever shown. Conscious that the Lausannois were more likely to comply with their proposals, Viret and his colleagues on a couple of occasions attempted to bypass Bern by taking their proposals instead to the Lausanne city council. At the height of the dispute between the Lausanne councilors and Viret, Viret’s colleagues Jacques Valier and Arnaud Banc had presented to the council “certain articles, namely about three points: confession, excommunication, and the refusal of vows,” which were tabled at the time.91 In March 1558, they came with Viret before the council again. Although the Lausannois had been most agreeable during the Christmas season, they realized that the ministers were asking them to circumvent Bern’s authority, and they were reluctant to do so: It was concluded and decided that they do not wish to add or subtract anything from the ordinances and Reformation of our most sovereign princes, to which they hold and refer themselves completely, offering to punish the disobedient, according to [Bern’s] ordinance and Reformation.92

90

At the beginning of the dispute, Viret wrote to Calvin, “Ego vero non statui causae renunciare quin ea agatur ut res ipsa postulat. Aut certo me amplius non habebunt ministrum, aut coercebitur ista licentia et sancietur autoritas mei ministerii ab iis qui illud tueri debent.” CO 16:599-600 (No. 2697), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 3 September 1557. 91 “Par devant mes Srs xx ont comparus maistre Jacques Vallier et maistre Arnauld lesqueulx ont prié leur vouloir assemblé les Srs lx pour soy purger de certains articles, à sçavoir de trois poinctz, le premier de la confession, l’excommunication, reffus de serements. Et pource que mes Srs les ambassadeurs sont à Berne, l’on leur reffuse lesdits lx jusques à leur retour, et apres leur avoir faict response, il[s] ont assurés les Srs bandaretz que par leur serement et cellon la coustume ilz leur doibvent assembler lesdits Srs lx.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 342rº (12 September 1557). 92 “MonSr Viret, maistre Jaques Vallier, Srs ministres, [et] messy Arnauld diacre sont comparus par devant mes Srs les lx, les priant vouloir conclure sus les articles par devant mes Srs les xxiiiie mis en avant pour la reformation de l’esglise et l’examen. Sus ce a esté conclus et arresté que ne veulent adjouter ny diminuer eis ordonnances de reformation de noz tresredoutés princes, eisquelles totalement il se tiennent et refferissent, soy offrans les

242

Chapter 7

Once before, Bern had ordered the Lausanne magistrates not to enact any laws concerning religion,93 and the Lausannois knew, therefore, that any changes they might attempt to establish would be revoked by Bern. Another event had occurred by the time Viret and his colleagues appeared before the Lausanne council in March which further confirmed them in their design to confront Bern. The Bernese had banished four ministers from the classe of Thonon for preaching about predestination.94 This move proved decisive. Viret decided that he would either win his order of ecclesiastical discipline or quit Lausanne. “We are urging discipline,” he reported to Calvin, “as much as we can.”95 Immediately after the failure of the Lausanne council to move on the issue, Calvin encouraged Viret, “You cannot haggle with them any longer; the final act must be played out so that you can prove clearly to the Bernese that it is not right to delay [discipline] further. The battle will be hard, but it is necessary. For what hope will there be in the future if you hesitate to fight now?”96 The Lausanne ministers drew up a preliminary proposal on discipline, sent it to Bern in March, and threatened not to administer the Easter Eucharist if it were not accepted.97 Viret was not hopeful: “We expect a hard response and are making preparations to leave.”98 He was summoned to Bern just before Easter, where “beyond the expectation of all, we were received amicably and courteously …. We explained before the council … that we would never administer the sacraments in the future unless the discipline ordained by Christ is established in the church, by which we can distinguish

contrevenans à icelles fere chastier cellon leurs ordonnance et dicte reformation.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 352rº (13 March 1558). 93 “Nous avons veu certainnes ordonnances qu’avez faictes sus les articles que vous ont presenté les ministres de la parolle de dieu. Et à cause que de ce [vous] n’avez puissance et à vous n’appartient de faire Edicts, Ordonnances, ne Status touchant nostre Reformation et nostre souverainité, [nous] ne voullons permettre que icelles ayent lieu, ains que icelles soient revocqués et que en ce endroit [vous] suivez et observez noz Mandemens, Ordonnances, et Status.” STAB AIII 160, fol. 314rº, Bern city council to the Lausanne city council, Bern, 3 June 1551. 94 See Henri Meylan, “L’affaire des quatre pasteurs du Chablais, champions et victimes de la prédestination (1558),” RHV 80 (1972): 15-31. 95 “Urgemus disciplinam quoad possumus.” CO 17:40 (No. 2804), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 16 February 1558. 96 “Nunc tibi cum ipsis nihil restat negotii, sed extremus actus peragendus est, ut Bernates ingenue contesteris tibi fas non esse longius cunctari. Durum certamen, sed necessarium. Quid enim posthac sperandum, si nunc confligere dubites?” CO 17:93 (No. 2831), Calvin to Viret, [Geneva], 16 March 1558. 97 This is the excerpt published in Vulliemin’s edition of Ruchat referred to in n.73 above. 98 “Exspectamus durum responsum, ac nos ad abitionem paramus.” CO 17:113 (No. 2840), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 23 March 1558.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

243

among the swine, the dogs, and the sheep.”99 The Bernese promised to look more closely into the matter immediately after Easter and allowed Viret to summon “the more unlearned, the more profane despisers of religion, and open enemies of the evangelical doctrine” before the consistory for examination before the Eucharist. This satisfied Viret, and he returned to Lausanne and celebrated the Easter sacrament as usual.100 In May, the Bernese sought to appease Viret. They ordered consistories to be established in every parish, with special “observers” to look into the moral behavior of the parishioners.101 On the subject of the perpetually contentious issue of excommunication, Bern finally seemed to give just a little ground and asked the Lausanne ministers to submit a written statement on the subject that would explain how and why it should be established.102 The ministers’ final demand, however, was flatly refused; Viret and his colleagues believed that the only effective way to educate their more

99

“Praeter omnium exspectationem sumus ab omnibus amice et humaniter excepti …. Palam in senatu exposuimus … nos nunquam suscepturos posthac sacramentorum administrationem nisi ea in ecclesia constituatur disciplina qua statui discrimen possit inter porcos, canes, et oves ex Christi praescripto.” CO 17:126 (No. 2845), Viret to Calvin, Lausanne, 4 April 1558. 100 “Responsum est: Senatui nostris satisfactum esse responsionibus: constitutum ut statim post paschatis ferias serio curentur quae proposuimus: moniti sumus, ut interea pergeremus in nostro ministerio, coenam hoc paschate celebraremus, ea tamen lege, ut quod rogaveramus perficeretur, nempe ut quos constaret esse rudiores aut magis profanos religionis contemptores et hostes doctrinae evangelicae apertiores, ad examen in consistorium vocarentur ante proximam coenam, atque hac de re scriptas esse ad praefectum literas, quas afferremus.” CO 17:126 (No. 2845). 101 “Nous avons pour extirper et refreindre telz desordres et scandales faict commandement a tous noz baillyfz de nostre pays de Savoye de (suyvant nostre coustume de pardeca touchant ces choses) dresser et observer, oultre les consistoires desja establys es villes de nostre dict pays, constituer et ordonner encores un consistoire en toutes et chacunes parroisses de leur baillyvage, ensemble certains gardiens et conservateurs jurez de nostre reformation a prendre et choisir des plus anciens estans de bonne vie et conversation, lesquelz par leur serment, qui pour ce leur sera baillé, seront tenuz de surveiller, senquerir dilligemment a la verité de tous et chascuns desordres et scandales, qui se feront en chascunes parroisses et vilages, pour d’iceulx faire deue relation audict consistoire.” CO 17:186 (No. 2878), Bern city council to the ministers of Lausanne, Bern, 28 May 1558. 102 “Mais touchant l’excommunication par vous requise estre en noz dictes eglises establie, pour ce que ne pouvons bonnement entendre quelle est vostre intention en cest endroict ou comment vous entendez icelle debvoir estre dressee et exercee: Est nostre vouloir affin que tant mieulx puissions la dessus nous adviser et resouldre d’une response, qu’ayez a veoir les articles de nostre reformation et au plus pres d’icelle faire et coucher par escrit un pourject facon et maniere qui vous semblera estre necessaire et convenable sur le faict de la dicte excommunication, icelle nous envoyant par escrit pour la dessus donner nostre advis, vous advertir de nostre bon vouloir et plaisir.” CO 17:186-87 (No. 2878).

244

Chapter 7

ignorant and obstinate parishioners was to investigate and instruct them individually in their homes. The Bernese thought this was neither necessary nor expedient.103 Significantly, they added, “Through the catechisms and instructions of the youth, with the help of God, ignorance will be abolished in a short period of time, and the posterity of those presently living will be well instructed.”104 Herein lay a key difference between the perspective of the Lausanne ministers and that of the Bernese magistrates. The Bernese viewed their Reformation as a long-term project. They were well aware that not everyone in their lands had been suitably instructed in the Reformed faith, but they hoped that by teaching the children, eventually the errors of the parents living at the time would be wiped out. From their perspective, they would not know if the Reformation had succeeded or failed for another generation. For the ministers, on the other hand, Christ’s body was not a work-in-progress. True, they did not expect change overnight, but twentytwo years was hardly overnight, and every time the body of Christ was polluted by unworthy communicants, the failures of “Bern’s Reformation” were revealed. In response to Bern’s request for an explanation of how excommunication could be administered, the Lausanne ministers and professors drew up their project on ecclesiastical discipline.105 The ministers first asked that a synod be held to deal with the problems plaguing the churches in Bern’s lands.106 This was not a new demand; they had made the same request several times, especially since Bern’s break with Geneva

103

“Et pour conclusion touchant l’inquisition et examen particulier par vous pretendu debvoir estre exercé tant envers les ignorans et idiotz en la religion chrestienne que des suspects en doctrine aultre que la receue entre vous et aultres ministres de noz eglises, Nous nentendons cela estre expedient ny necessaire et ne saurions cela permettre.” CO 17:187 (No. 2878). 104 “Veu que par les catechismes et instructions des enfans lignorance sera a layde de Dieu par succession de bref temps abatue et la posterite des presentement vivans bien instruicte.” CO 17:187 (No. 2878). 105 See above, n.73. 106 “Le second poinct est que nous ne trouvons point qu’il y ait aultre principal remede et moyen par lequel ou puisse edifier ou restablir l’Eglise, que le synode legitimement assemblé, conduict et authorisé par les Princes qui sont les gardiens et protecteurs de l’Eglise…. Ces choses considerées Tresredoubtez Seigneurs, pour obeÿr a vostre commandement nous avons mis nostre petit advis par escript, lequel nous soubmettons au jugement de toute l’assemblée d’un vray et legitime Synode, que nous vous supplions au nom de Dieu vouloir ottroyer, comme Princes Chrestiens, a voz Eglises en leur tresgrande necessité.” ACV Bd 1/1, 111, 115; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 302, 304.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

245

following the Bolsec controversy.107 The reasons they cited for holding a synod reveal some of the problems and disputes that were plaguing the church: Satan has entered the flocks here and has worked so hard that there is already excessive discord among the ministers regarding the foundations of the Christian religion, namely regarding original sin, free will, predestination, and Christ’s descent into hell. And perhaps there may be other points over which, despite all mandates and prohibitions, one side does not cease to blame the other and to disparage scandalously by binding the people, along with the magistrates and officers, together in sects and factions.108 Without a doubt, they were thinking primarily of the controversy over predestination, and the recent expulsion of the ministers of Thonon. Theological matters such as this were to be evaluated by a synod of pastors, not dictated by the civil magistrate. Following this prefatory request to Bern, the project itself began with a discussion of “The Difference between the Civil Magistrate and Ecclesiastical Order (police).” The ministers affirmed, first of all, that there is a difference, explaining, As for the civil magistrate, St. Paul says in Romans 13 that he holds the sword given to him by God that he may be a terror to those who do evil, whom he punishes as a servant of God, and he is to act for the benefit of those who do good. As for the ecclesiastical government, it is established

107

108

See, e.g., their request to the Bernese ministers in April 1558: “Disciplina constituenda ratio ea maxime probatur que iam inde ab aetate Apostolorum semper fuit in Ecclesia usurpata cuique adeo nostri principes iureiurando obligarunt nempe ut communis ac libera Synodus convocetur. Nam praeterquam quod iniquum est formam politia Ecclesiasticae non consultis ipsis Ecclesiis obtrudi, pessimi profecto et nimirum periculosi exempli esse iudicamus omnem Ecclesiam auctoritatem ad paucos homines, quicunque tandem illi sint, transferre.” MHR, Papiers Herminjard C-R 1557-1560, 234rº ; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 321 (No. 2), Ministers of Lausanne to the ministers of Bern, [Lausanne], [21 April 1558]. “Satan est entré aux troupeaux de deça, et a tellement besongné qu’il y a desja par trop grands discords entre les ministres touchant les fondemens de la religion Chrestienne, c’est à savoir touchant le peché Originel, le franc arbitre, la predestination, et la descente de Christ aux enfers, et autres poincts peut estre qui se trouveront de sorte que nonobstant tous mandemens et defenses, les ungs ne cessent de blasmer les aultres, et detracter en grand scandale en bandant le peuple et semblablement les Magistrats et Officiers en sectes et partialitez.” ACV Bd 1/1, 113; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 303.

246

Chapter 7

in Matthew 16 and 18 to bind and loose on earth what will be bound and loosed in heaven.109 In addition to the power of binding and loosing, the command in Matthew 18 to “tell it to the church” when a sinner remains unrepentant after two private admonitions constituted the biblical establishment of excommunication.110 The ministers began their first chapter on excommunication itself, We believe that this correction is very necessary to the church because it was ordained by Jesus Christ in Matthew 18 and practiced continually since then, not only by the apostles and from the time when the princes were infidels … but also much more under the Christian princes by the entire early church without any contradiction.111 They made this point to counter a common argument against excommunication, advanced – most importantly in this case – by the Bern theologian Wolfgang Musculus. Musculus argued that although excommunication may have been practiced in the early church, it was only because Christians at the time were living under pagan rulers and needed to govern themselves. It was no longer necessary under Christian rulers.112 The

109

“Car quant au Magistrat Civil, S. Pol dict, Rom. 13. qu’il tient le glaive qui luy est donné de Dieu pour estre en terreur à ceux qui font mal, lesquels aussi il punit, comme serviteur de Dieu: et pour le bien de ceux qui font bien. Quant au gouvernement Ecclesiastique, il est dressé Matth. 16. et 18. pour lier et deslier en terre ce qui sera lié et deslié au Ciel.” ACV Bd 1/1, 117; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 305. 110 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:15-18. On the various interpretations of these verses among the Reformed theologians, see Kingdon, “La discipline ecclésiastique vue de Zurich et Genève.” 111 “ Nous estimons ceste correction estre grandement necessaire à l’eglise, pource qu’elle a esté ordonnée de Jesus Christ Matth. 18, et depuis practicquée continuellement non seulement par les Apostres, et du temps que les Princes estoyent infidelles, comme nous voyons 1. Cor. 5. / 2. Cor. 10. / 2. Thess. 3. / 1. Tim. 1. et 6. / 2. Jeh. Mais aussy beaucoup plus depuis soubs les Princes Chrestiens, par toute l’ancienne Eglise sans aulcune contradiction d’icelle.” ACV Bd 1/1, 134; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 313. 112 “… verum quoniam D. Hallerum per eos scripsisti, iterum urges ut de disciplina ecclesiastica, quam nonnulli fratres hodie instanter urgent, quid sentiam aperiam, visum est tribus quatuor verbis ea de re ad te scribere. Necessariam esse ecclesiis castigationis et

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

247

Lausanne ministers insisted, however, that it is necessary: “For in fact, since it is prohibited to give holy things to dogs and swine, how can this be done, if there is no discipline for recognizing them and separating them from the children of God?”113 Again, the worry was about pollution; without excommunication the “holy things” of the Eucharist are soiled by unworthy “dogs and swine.” The power of the keys, the binding and loosing discussed in Matthew 16, had been used by popes throughout the Middle Ages to justify papal primacy. Obviously, the ministers of Lausanne could not interpret the passage in the same way. Instead, as Calvin himself did,114 they reserved this power for the elders of the church: excommunication “does not pertain to the civil magistrate, nor to the ministers of the Word, nor to the people as a whole, but to the assembly of the elders legitimately ordained by the church.”115 The sentence of excommunication, therefore, was to be determined by the consistory. The ministers sent their project to Bern on 22 June 1558. The very next day – hence, before the Bernese would have received the ministers’ draft – the Bernese reiterated the prohibition against preaching about predestination.116 Viret and his colleagues responded rashly with a letter that

emendationis disciplinam, puto nemo cordatus infitias ibit. De modo illius non convenit mihi cum illis, qui hanc necessario putant esse ad formam pristinae restituendam ecclesiae, in qua magistratus alienus erat a professione nominis Christi. Ibi necessarium erat ut iudicia castigatoria in coetibus fidelium exercerentur, de quibus in Apologetico Tertulliani Cap. 39 videre licet. Iam vero … arbitror emendationem vitiorum et castigationes delinquentium, verbo videlicet doctrinae non acquiescentium, partim per consistoria, ut vocant, in quibus et senatores et ministri sedeant, ad hoc muneris a magistratu delecti, partim a magistratu ipso in gravioribus flagitiis et incorrigibilibus sceleribus ….” CO 14:539 (No.1743), Musculus to Bullinger, Bern, 29 May 1553. Musculus’ attitude toward excommunication became even more negative in 1558/59: “In summa: excommunicationis usus sic est comparatus, ut non videam quodmodo possit rite, tolerabiliter et utiliter revocari.” Quoted in Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus, 342, n.113. It certainly seems possible that Musculus’s firmer rejection of the practice resulted from the 1558 disputes with the Lausanne ministers. 113 “Car de faict puis qu’il est defendu de bailler les choses sainctes aux chiens et aux pourceaux, comme[nt] pourra estre practiqué cela, s’il n’y a une discipline pour les cognoistre et separer d’entre les enfans de Dieu?” ACV Bd 1/1, 134; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 313. 114 Institutes IV.xii.2. 115 “… telle correction n’apartient ny au Magistrat Civil, ny aux ministres de la parolle, ny au peuple à part soy, ains à l’assemblée des anciens legitimement ordonnez par l’Eglise.” ACV Bd 1/1, 138; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 315. 116 “Combien que nous sommes confiez et tenuz certains que eussiez ensuivy et entierement observé noz admonicions, remonstrances et advertissements que vous avons faict par nostre rescription du 26e jour de janvier l’an 1555, si sommes veritablement advertis que

248

Chapter 7

probably killed any possibility of a favorable response from Bern regarding their proposal on discipline: We are sent to preach the Word of God, not the mandates of men…. And therefore, most sovereign lords, since we have to answer to God concerning our ministry, we declare to you for our part and in good time, before we can be charged with rebellion, that you must not hope for us to approve of nor publish your mandates regarding predestination.… We all are also ready to endure whatever it pleases God to send us, rather than consent to anything that takes away or diminishes in any way our Christian liberty.117 If that were not enough, the ministers appended to their letter a list of complaints. The Bernese did not listen to their recommendations for the election of ministers,118 and what few sentences the consistories were allowed to give were not respected.119 They concluded,

à cela n’avez satisfaict, chose à nous tresdeplaisante et desaggreable en ayant tresgrand regret. A ceste cause somme occasionez et contraincts, derechieffz escripre à tous noz Bailliffs et vous tresacertes par cestes admonester et advertir, soubz peyne en noz precedentes lettres expressement contenue, que ledict nostre mandement et ordonnance observez et ensuyvez, sans contradiction quelconque. Car tel est nostre voulloir.” STAB AIII 161, fol. 142rº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 325 (No. 5), Bern city council to the French-speaking classes, [Bern], 23 June 1558. 117 “… nous sommes envoyés pour prescher la parolle de Dieu, et non point les mandemens des hommes…. Et pourtant, tresredoubtez Seigneurs, aians à respondre à Dieu, de ce qui concerne notre ministère, nous vous déclairons de notre part de bonne heure, et devant que pouvoir être repris de rebellion, qu’il ne faut point que vous espérez que nous puissions approuver ni publier vosdits mandements touchant la prédestination…. aussi sommes nous tous prêts d’endurer tout ce qu’il plaira Dieu nous envoyer, plutôt que de consentir a chose quelconque en laquelle nous puissions conaître que la liberté chrétienne nous soit ôtée, ou aucunement diminuée ….” ACV Bd 1/1, 155,156, 157; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 328, 329 (No. 7), Ministers and Professors of Lausanne to the Bern city council, Lausanne, 18 July 1558. 118 “… comme touchant l’ordre des elections selon les classes, duquel ilz dispensent tous les jours comme bon leur semble. Par example il y a environ deux ans qu’il nous fut mande au fort de l’hyver de faire election d’un diacre d’Aigle, a raison de quoy il fallut que les freres demeurans aux montagnes fissent un grand chemin a grand coustes, et travaulx jusques a Lausanne ou sont les escoliers de nosdits Seigneurs, auquel lieu l’election estant faicte en crainte de Dieu, et avec bonne inquisition, et selon la commandement expres de nosditz Seigneurs, les freres retournez a la maison trouvent que nosditz Souverains Seigneurs y avoyent pourveu de qui il leur avoyt pleu.” ACV Bd 1/1, 162; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 331 (No. 7). 119 “Item, comme ainsi soit que si peu d’ordre qu’il y a aux consistoires nous soit laisse pour tenir les scandaleux en bride, quelle opinion pouvons nous estimer qu’on a du consistoire de Lausanne, et de quoy peult servyr tout ce qu’ilz sauroyt ordonner contre les vices, veu

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

249

The ministers and professors [of Lausanne] do not know how to act with respect to several ordinances of our lords, seeing that they themselves ignore them every day …. In what esteem can we think our sovereign lords hold us when our testimonies, even when given at their express command, are nevertheless worth less than one of their least officers?120 The Bernese subsequently issued a terse summons to all of the ministers and professors of Lausanne.121 Before leaving for Bern, the Lausanne ministers expressed – much more humbly this time – some of their concerns. Regarding predestination, they asked for a clearer explanation of Bern’s intention. Differences in language created part of the problem: You should not find it strange, most sovereign lords, if we, who do not understand your language, have run into difficulty, seeing that your bailiffs, who had [the edicts] translated and published in our language, have given us just occasion for our fears by the diversity of translations and clear contradictions.122

que nosditz souverains Seigneurs le mesprisent tellement qu’ilz ne font difficulte non seulement d’en rompre les sentences de pleine authorite sans que le scandale soit aucunement repare, mays aussi rompe le cours de susdit consistoire, et de leurs propres ordonnances sans mesme d’enquerir de ce qu’on y a dict, ou faict, et se raportent au seul raport des parties.” ACV Bd 1/1, 161-62; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 330 (No. 7). 120 “Lesdits ministres et professeurs ne savent comme se regler sur plusieurs ordonnances de nosdits Seigneurs en les voyant tous les jours méprisées par eux-mêmes …. Item en quelle estime pouvons nous penser que nous soyons envers nosdits souverains Seigneurs, quand nos témoignages encores qu’ils soient baillés par leur commandement exprès, sont toutefois de moindre poid que celui du moindre officier qu’ils aient?” ACV Bd 1/1, 162, 163; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 331-32 (No. 7). 121 “Avoir entendu le contenu des articles à nous de vostre part envoyez, nous avons advisé de nous resouldre là dessus de nostre response, bon voulloir et playsir pour lequel entendre vous assignons jour à comparoir par devant nous à l’heure de conseil, sus le quinziesme jour du present moys. Sur ce vous sachiés conduyre.” STAB AIII 161, fol. 151rº; Bruening, “Bern Geneva, or Rome,” 335 (No. 9), Bern city council to the ministers and professors of Lausanne, [Bern], 1 August 1558. 122 “Et ne vous faut trouver étrange, Tresredoutez Seigneurs, si nous, qui n’entendons pas votre langue, y avons trouvé de la difficulté, vu que messieurs vos baillis qui les ont fait translater et publier en notre langue, nous baillé juste occasion de craindre ce que nous craignions, par la diversité des translations et contrarieté manifeste.” MHR, Archives Tronchin, 6:102rº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 341 (No. 13), Ministers and Professors of Lausanne to the Bern city council, Lausanne, [before 15 August 1558]. Following Herminjard, I indicated in my dissertation that this letter dated from the end of August. I now believe that the Lausanne ministers sent this after they received the

250

Chapter 7

It is amazing that more problems like this did not occur. Bern’s usual method for promulgating edicts in its French-speaking territories was to deliver the original texts in German to its bailiffs, who would then translate them into French for the local population. With regard to the ministers’ project on ecclesiastical discipline, the Bernese saw it as an attempt to establish a “new church hierarchy, the abolition of the old consistories, the separation of ecclesiastical and civil powers, and practically a whole new Reformation” in their lands.123 The ministers protested that they had no intention of doing so; they were simply fulfilling Bern’s own request and their duties as ministers by suggesting how to restore order in the region.124 The Lausanne ministers finally received good news, however, with respect to predestination. The Bernese clarified their ordinance, saying that the ministers could talk about predestination “when the scriptural text supports it.”125 But on the subject of ecclesiastical discipline, the Bernese and the Lausanne ministers were at an impasse. The fall of 1558 passed without trouble until November, when the ministers once again sent a new request to Bern to establish proper discipline. This time the response from Bern was clear: “We beg you to continue faithfully in the vocation to which God by his grace has called you, without bothering or troubling us further about this

summons to Bern and before Bern’s response on 15 August (MHR, Archives Tronchin, 6:105r°-106r°, Bern city council to the classe of Lausanne, 15 August 1558), since the latter responds to the concerns expressed by the Lausanne ministers here. 123 “… ibi non tantum de Excommunicatione tractabatur, sed de nova et generali Ecclesiae hierarchia, de abrogatione veterum Consistoriorum, de separandis potestatibus, Ecclesiastica et Civili, ut nova quasi opus fuisset reformatione, si ea quae ipsi petebant, in effectum perduci debuissent.” Johannes Haller, “Ephemerides D. Ioannis Halleri, quibus ab anno 1548. ad 1565. continentur, quidquid fere in utroque statu Bernae accidit, cum nonnullis aliis,” Museum Helveticum, vol. 2, no. 5 (1747): 79ff; here, 120. 124 “… quant à ce que vos excellences prennent comme pour une nouvelle réformation dressé par nous, l’avis que nous vous avons envoyé, suivant votre commandement, touchant la discipline de l’église pour remedier aux désordres … nous répondons à cela, que nous n’entendons d’avoir rien proposer contraire à votre réformation …. ce que nous en avons fait jusques ici, desja dès si temps, ne procède d’autre cause sinon que nous craignons que nous ne nous trouverions grandement chargés devant Dieu, comme Souverain juge, de ne nous être acquitter des notre office.” MHR, Archives Tronchin, 6:102v°; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 341-42 (No. 13). 125 “… est que nostre intention n’a esté ny est que lesdicts ministres et professeurs ne puissent rien prescher et parler de telle matiere, quant le texte de l’escripture le portera, ains voulons bien cela leur permettre, moyennant qu’ilz le fassent sobrement et de sorte que sela serve à ediffication et non pas à scandalle et perturbation.” STAB AIII 161, fol. 155rº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 339 (No. 12), Bern city council to the French-speaking classes, Bern, 15 August 1558.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

251

matter.”126 Once again, Viret threatened to suspend the Christmas Eucharist. Bern told the other ministers to grant him a leave of absence and elect a replacement, but they refused. Finally, on 19 December, the Bernese permitted them to call the “ignorant” before the consistory “to be duly admonished and indoctrinated there. This does not mean, however, that they may be refused the Supper.”127 Although the right of excommunication still was not granted, Viret was satisfied. But there was a problem: Christmas was approaching fast – too fast for the ministers to examine everyone whom they wished. On 23 December, therefore, Viret went before the Lausanne city council to ask that the Eucharist be delayed eight days, so that the consistory would have time to complete its investigations. The councilors “agreed, at the request of the ministers, to delay the administration of the holy Supper eight days, which will be on 1 January, so that the ignorant may be better instructed beforehand and so that any disputes might be better appeased before it is received.”128 Such was Viret’s “refusal” to administer the Christmas Eucharist. It is indeed somewhat anticlimatic. This was no showdown, with Viret refusing to administer the sacrament in the face of Bernese tyranny. It was simply a delay – and a delay for which Viret had permission, but not from the proper authorities. Bern had not authorized it. The Bernese

126

127

128

“[Nous] vous prions que … vous veuillez … continuer fidèlement en la vocation à laquelle Dieu par sa grâce vous a appelés sans plus de ce fait là nous molester ni importuner.” STAB AIII 161, fol 171rº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 344 (No. 14), Bern city council to the classe of Lausanne, Bern, 19 November 1558. “Et afin que les ignorants soient instruits et endoctrinés avant que prendre la Cene, nous ne contredisons pas que tels ignorants soient cités et remis au consistoire, pour là estre deuement admonestés et endoctrinés comme il appartiendra, n’entendant pas toutesfois que la Cene doive leur estre refusée.” MHR, Papiers Herminjard C-R 1557-1560, fol. 354vº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 350 (No. 17), Bern city council to the classe of Lausanne, Bern, 19 December 1558. “Item par devant lesdits Srs riere conseil [the council of sixty] a comparu messy Pierre Viret, messy Jaques Vallier ministres, et Arnaulz leurs diacre, lequel a faict ledit messy Viret plusieurs sainnes et chrestiennes remonstrances à eulxdits Srs tochant laz sainne instruction des ignorans avant que recever la saincte cene de notre Sr Jesus Christ, demandant entre aultres choses vhuygt jour à retarder à l’exhibition de laz saincte cene pour myeulx instruire les ignorans et reconcillier les differens au jour premier de janvier et pour plusieurs aultres causes et raisons et incidens. Et ce pour ce coup seulement. Lesquieulx Srs conseilz et riere conseilz ont conclud a laz requeste desdits Srs ministres de retarder de vhuygt jour laz exhibition de laz saincte cene, qui sera au jour premier de janvier suyvant pour mieulx estre au paravant instruyt les ignorans et pour mieulx appaiser au paravant les differens avant que laz recoivre. Et pour ce coup et ceste foys sans deroguer aulx ordonnnances de nous souverains Srs de Berne.” AVL Chavannes D12, fol. 370vº (23 December 1558).

252

Chapter 7

authorities were outraged and forbade the Lausannois from administering the sacrament as arranged on 1 January.129 On 30 December, the Bern city council decided to depose from office Viret and his colleagues Jacques Valier and Arnaud Banc, to ask the classe of Lausanne to elect replacements for them, and to incarcerate the members of the classe if they refused to do so.130 The classe of Lausanne refused to elect new ministers, and they were indeed imprisoned. The Bernese evidently believed that the members of the classe would eventually come to their senses and submit to the council’s demands. They did not. Haller related to Bullinger in disbelief how they conspired to remain obstinate, preferring to go into exile rather than submit to Bern.131 With this unexpected

129

130

131

“Nous estant venu à notice que l’administration et celebration de la Cene de nostre Seigneur par vous les ministres soit este retardée à ceste Fete de Noël prochainement passée. Vous avertissons qu’avons esté fort deplaisans et marris de ce que ne sommes obeïs en nous mandements et commandements sur ce emanés veu et attendu que ceux n’estre point contrevenants à la parole de Dieu, ains conformés à icelle, dont eussions bien pensé et nous confier que de vostre part à iceux fust esté obei comme de raison, et puisque ainsi est que nostre bon vouloir n’a esté effectue en cest endroit et la Cene du Seigneur celebrée au jour pour ce establi, ains auroit esté delayée de quelque temps et la celebration d’icelle suspendue à tel jours qu’il vous a pleu et aux dicts ministres. Avons ordonné et ordonnons en ce devoir estre supersedé jusques à nostre plus ample deliberation et declaration de nostre bon vouloir et plaisir” MHR, Papiers Herminjard CR 1557-1560, 357rº; Bruening, “Bern, Geneva, or Rome,” 352 (No. 18), Bern city council to the ministers and council of Lausanne, [Bern], 27 December 1558. Haller indicates that the people of Lausanne were also scandalized: “Valde his rebus offensus est populus.” Haller, “Ephemerides,” 122. “Post dimissum hunc nuncium 30. Decembris res omnis ad diacosios relata est. Illi tantum non furibendi decreverunt legatos illuc mitti debere ex ministris, senatoribus et diacosiis qui 1) Viretum et Collegas, ut prius quoque decretum eras, deponant ab officiis, 2) cum senatu Lausannensi graviter expostulent quod ausi sint diem constitutum coenae et passim in omnibus ecclesiis nostris observatum, sine autoritate huius senatus, qui eum constituerit mutare, 3) qui convocent classem et una cum illa alios eligant; 4) ut renuentes eligere carceribus includant, et eorum causam huc referant.” CO 17:411 (No. 2998), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 5 January 1559. “Nunc ergo quid crastino amplius actum, et quae catastrophe sequuta, et quis sit harum rerum praesens status, aperiam. 25. Februarii superfuerunt aliqui adhuc examinandi, sed omnium obstinatissimi. Nam cum ab illis qui 24 die examinati sunt intellexissent, quae cum ipsis acta essent omnia, de novo quasi conspirarunt iterum ad non consentiendum, sed ad exsilium potius eligendum, et fecerunt quoque ut aliqui ex illis qui priore die consenserant, conscientiis angerentur ita ut aegre continuerimus eos quin ad senatum redirent et adhuc cum reliquis exsilium poscerent. Factum itaque ut novem vel decem ex praecipuis exsulare mallent quam concessionibus Principium (ut vocant senatum nostrum) consentire. Quod professores attinet, qui superfuerunt omnes, Rittibus nempe, Tagaultius, Beraldus et Randonus … dimissionem amicam petiere …. Dicunt illi, se non posse communem causam fratrum deserere et bona conscientia in ecclesia esse, disciplina

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

253

show of solidarity and with Viret showing signs of a willingness to negotiate, he was called back to Bern in March 1559 in a final effort to resolve the situation.132 At Haller’s request, Bullinger wrote to Viret and urged him to come to an agreement with the Bernese: But now since I understand that you have deserted your church, I beg you, my most honorable lord and brother, and through our Lord Jesus Christ, that you do not refuse to return to it. For if in governing the church of Christ it must be considered above all that peace and tranquility remain and stumbling blocks be avoided, I do not see how you could not return to the abandoned church. It is better to have some church and discipline than none at all…. Almost all our churches throughout Helvetia, by the grace of God, are united in Christ. Therefore, it is up to you to avoid supplying our enemies with a reason for rejoicing ….133 Bullinger’s words were wasted, for Viret refused to go to Bern, thinking he would be imprisoned if he failed to reach an accord with the city council.134 The affair was over, and Viret was banished from Bern’s lands. In Lausanne, Haller reported, “Everything is totally confused …. The school is almost completely deserted …. And the schism is so great that in many places, deacons do not want to serve with pastors nor pastors with deacons within the same church.”135

illa ecclesiastica carente ….” CO 17:460-61 (No. 3022), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 28 February 1559. 132 “Interea Viretus senatui scripsit, et blande admodum, ita ut videatur non procul abesse a consensu. Itaque antequam nos illuc proficiscamur vocabitur ipse huc ut et senatus et nos cum illo agamus, si forte adhuc retineri possit: et spes adhuc superest, si illi consensus persuaderi possit, ut illius autoritate reliqui omnes quoque reduci possint. Sed quid futurum sit nescio. D. Nicolaus a Diesbach, consulis nunc vices gerens, ex animo te precatur ut per hunc nuncium qui has tibi adfert Vireto ipse quoque scribere velis, et illum ad concordiam et consensum una nobiscum hortari.” CO 17:461 (No. 3022). 133 “Nunc vero cum intelligam, abs te illam [ecclesiam] esse desertam, oro pietatem tuam, colendissime mi domine et frater, et per Dominum Iesum, ut ad eandem redire non dedigneris. Si enim in ecclesia Christi gubernanda ante omnia spectandum est ut ipsa permaneat pax et tranquillitas, vitenturque offendicula, non video quomodo non debeas redire ad desertam ecclesiam. Satius est sane aliquam habere ecclesiam et disciplinam, quam prorsus nullam …. Supersunt nostrae per Helvetiam propemodum ecclesiae, per Dei gratiam, concordes in Christo. Tuum ergo fuerit hostibus nostris nullam suppeditare exsultandi occasionem ….” CO 17:470 (No. 3025), Bullinger to Viret, Zurich, 3 March 1559. 134 “Sed is acceptis his literis, et Gallis quibusdam in consilium adhibitis verebatur ne ad hoc vocaretur, ut si consentire nollet, in carcerem coniiceretur.” Haller, “Ephemerides,” 124. 135 “Confusissima sunt omnia illic …. Schola fere prorsus est desolata …. Et tantum est in multis locis schisma, ut nec diaconi cum pastoribus, aut pastores cum diaconis in eadem

254

Chapter 7

One might well ask what role Calvin played in this crisis. After his urgent advice to Viret in March 1558 to remain steadfast in his pursuit of ecclesiastical discipline,136 Calvin hardly said another word about the situation to Viret, or to anyone else for that matter. The hand that would move every stone to keep Viret in Geneva in 1541 did not lift a finger to help him in Lausanne. He did not appeal to Bern, nor did he seek assistance from Zurich, although he was in contact with Bullinger throughout 1558. One reason certainly was that Calvin no longer had any influence whatsoever in Bern. Quite the contrary, as Viret himself indicated to Farel, “The hatred toward Calvin and the Genevans brings great hostility on us too.”137 Still, this does not explain why Calvin did not appeal to others, such as Bullinger, to mediate on Viret’s behalf. Part of the reason could be that already by the end of August, Calvin had accepted the fall of the Lausanne church as a foregone conclusion: “There is little doubt that the church of Lausanne will soon be demolished.... And Viret still is not prepared to depart.”138 Furthermore, the destruction of the Lausanne church may not have seemed such a terrible thing to Calvin at this point. The seemingly interminable series of clashes between the Bernese and the Calvinists of Lausanne and Geneva which had consumed so much of the past twenty years would finally come to an end, and Calvin would be better able to focus his attention on France, particularly with the opening of the new Geneva Academy planned for the summer of 1559. Bern’s loss did indeed become Geneva’s gain. At least four professors from the academy and fourteen pastors from the classes of Lausanne and Thonon followed Viret to Geneva. They were followed by an enormous number of students139 and others in a veritable exodus: Haller guessed that “over a thousand people migrated from Lausanne to Geneva.”140 In Geneva, Viret was installed as pastor, and the Geneva Academy was able to open in June 1559 with considerable strength, in terms of both teachers and students.

ecclesia ministrare velint.” CO 17:486 (No. 3034), Haller to Bullinger, Bern, 30 March 1559. 136 See above, n.96. 137 “Odium in Calvinum et Genevenses nobis quoque magnam conciliat invidiam.” CO 17:190 (No. 2881), Viret to Farel, Lausanne, 31 May 1558. 138 “Parum etiam abfuit quin ecclesia Lausannensis nuper eversa fuerit.... Et Viretus quidem nondum se ad discessum parat.” CO 17:313 (No. 2946), Calvin to Camerarius, Geneva, 29 August 1558. 139 Haller reported that almost all the French-speaking students had left Lausanne: “Praesertim scholastici et studiosi se mutuo mordent et lacerent mirabiliter. Galli omnes fere discesserunt.” CO 17:488, Haller’s report to Bern, [Bern], [March] 1559. 140 “Affirmant enim ultra mille homines ex Lausanna Genevam migrasse ….” Haller, “Ephemerides,” 125.

7. From the Pays de Vaud to France

255

Geneva was now also in a better position to send missionaries to France. According to Kingdon’s study, 1559 was the year during which the largest number of missionaries set out from Geneva.141 Of the 88 “Genevan” missionaries he documents, at least 24 (27% of the total and 41% of those whose previous occupation is known) had come from Bern’s lands in 15581559.142 Hence, the aftermath of Lausanne’s crisis with Bern was instrumental to Geneva’s subsequent efforts to spread Calvinism throughout France. The process of “turning French” that had begun with Calvin’s failures with the Swiss in 1549 was finally complete ten years later. In the early months of 1559, Lausanne, the only Calvinist stronghold in the Swiss Confederation, submitted completely to Bern’s interests and theology. On its first battleground, the Pays de Vaud, French Calvinism lost to Swiss-German Zwinglianism. Calvin’s efforts to transform Swiss theology and Geneva’s attempts to join the Swiss Confederation both failed. In these failures, however, Genevan Calvinism found its true strength. Unencumbered by diplomatic alliances with France, Confederation policies against polemical printing, or a Zwinglian ecclesiology that presumed a state-controlled church, Geneva could continue to expand its religious publishing empire, to plant churches throughout France, and to guide refugee and minority Reformed communities throughout Europe with a well-developed ecclesiology focused on the consistory. The collapse of Calvinism in the Pays de Vaud breathed new life into the movement in Geneva, which could at last lay claim to the position of undisputed center of the Reformation in French-speaking Europe.

141 142

Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 145. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 142-43.

Chapter 8 CONCLUSION

Two later events have dulled our perception of the bitter religious struggles in the Pays de Vaud between 1528 and 1559: the Treaty of Lausanne (1564), which settled the political fight over Vaud, and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), which united the Reformed churches theologically. With the Treaty of Lausanne, the duke of Savoy ceded Vaud definitively to Bern in return for the Chablais and the Pays de Gex, which the Bernese had also conquered in 1536. Until this treaty was signed, there had always remained a strong possibility that Vaud would be returned to Savoyard rule and the Catholic faith. This possibility, in turn, determined Calvinism’s first objective in the battle for Vaud: to turn the people away from Catholic beliefs and practices and toward the Reformed faith. It was a difficult struggle. There had been little discontent with the church in Vaud before the Reformation, and during Bern’s 1536 conquest of the region, the people submitted on the condition that they be allowed to continue to practice the old faith. The Bernese reneged before the year was over. Forced by the new government to convert to Protestantism, the Vaudois people showed little genuine enthusiasm for the new religion and were encouraged in their recalcitrance, first, by the former Catholic clergy, who were allowed to remain in the region if they agreed to accept the Reformation, second, by the promise of a general council, and third, by the ever-present possibility that the Bernese would be forced through international diplomacy or foreign invasion to return Vaud to Savoy. With the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight, it has been too easy to forget that it was not until the Treaty of Lausanne that the Pays de Vaud’s future was secured as a Swiss Protestant territory. The Second Helvetic Confession has also served to distract us from the struggles initially faced by Calvinism in Vaud. Written by Heinrich Bullinger and accepted by Geneva and the Protestant Swiss cantons,

258

Chapter 8

including Bern, the Second Helvetic Confession was a remarkable achievement of religious unity that patched over more than thirty years of division among Reformed factions.1 These disagreements constituted Calvinism’s second battle in Vaud: the fight for theological supremacy, especially on the issues of the Eucharist, predestination, and ecclesiastical discipline. Unity was not achieved until the three men who had led the Reformation in the Suisse romande from the beginning were out of the picture. Calvin died in 1564 and Farel the following year; Viret left Geneva for France in 1561, never again to return to his homeland of Vaud from which he had been banished. Calvinist leadership shifted to the politically savvy, humanist nobleman Theodore Beza. By agreeing to the Second Helvetic Confession, Beza proved to be more amenable to compromise for the sake of confessional unity than either his predecessor in Geneva or his former colleague in Lausanne had been. The issue of predestination appears in chapter ten of the Confession, but only in terms of election, not reprobation; moreover, although discipline and excommunication are mentioned, the Confession indicates that they are to be used sparingly and “only for edification.”2 There is no mention of the consistory or of the danger that unworthy communicants would pollute the body of Christ. Predestination and ecclesiastical discipline had been the most contentious issues in Vaud during the 1550s, ultimately leading to the mass exodus of ministers, professors, and students from Lausanne to Geneva in 1559, yet Bullinger, Beza, and the Bernese were finally able to find common ground on these topics in the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566. The unity achieved through this confession, however, should not be allowed to obscure the disputes of the preceding years between the Calvinist ministers of Vaud and Geneva and the Zwinglian Bernese. Much of the disagreement between the two parties stemmed from competing understandings of Christian society itself, most often expressed through the metaphor of the body. This was, of course, a common metaphor for all social units throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages and was applied to the family, the church, and the state. Each unit was conceived of as a body, which required the proper structure – a “head” (husband, pope/Christ,

1 2

It should be noted that Basel did not accept the Second Helvetic Confession until 1644. “Cumque omnino oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio, fuerintque iudicia ecclesiastica in populo Dei, in quibus per viros prudentes et pios exercebatur haec disciplina, ministrorum quoque fuerit, ad aedificationem, disciplinam moderari hanc, pro conditione temporum, status publici, ac necessitate. Ubi semper tenenda est regula, omnia fieri debere ad aedificationem, decenter, honeste, sine tyrannide et seditione.” Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:284 (chapter 18 of the Second Helvetic Confession).

8. Conclusion

259

king/magistrate) in control of subordinate “members” (wife/children, Christian faithful, citizens) – in order that all its parts might operate effectively. “Disease” or “pollution” (disobedience, heresy, sedition) was to be avoided at all costs, often by “cutting off” the infected part. This was precisely what excommunication aimed to do. The body that the Calvinist ministers had in mind was the church, which they understood to be the body of Christ. As such, the ecclesiastical body required greater purity than the body politic, whose head was not Christ but mere mortal men. The Bernese magistrates were just as concerned about disease within the body of the state; the worst possible malady from their perspective, however, was not immoral behavior or lack of faith but divisiveness. They exacted harsh punishment for continued Catholic practice in their lands because it caused division among their subjects, not because it stained the body of Christ or polluted the sacrament of the Eucharist. The magistrates’ answer was banishment of those who continued to cause division, such as obstinate Catholic clergymen (and, as it turned out, obstinate Protestant pastors as well), but they had no inclination to excommunicate the average lay person who simply did not know the creed or continued to pray to the saints. Excommunication, for them, would only have caused further division among their subjects. In The Body Broken, Christopher Elwood has pointed to the remarkable revolutionary potential of the Calvinist doctrine of the Eucharist in Catholic lands. Calvin’s removal of the localized divine presence in the elements and his stress on the individual sanctification effected in the Eucharist, Elwood argues, completely overturned the symbolic center of late medieval French notions of sacred kingship and community.3 While he argues persuasively for the French case, he overemphasizes, I believe, the consequences of Calvin’s rejection of transubstantiation. As we see in the conflicts in Vaud, Calvin’s eucharistic theology also constituted a political threat to the Reformed Swiss governments, for his emphasis on maintaining the pure, unstained body of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist could be seen as undermining the communal aspect of the Supper that was central to the Swiss understanding of the sacrament. When the eucharistic elements are largely divested of the divine presence, as in Zwingli’s theology, the socially unifying symbolic power of the sacrament becomes all the more important. Hence, the Eucharist’s power to unify the temporal community, so powerful in Catholic France, did not by any means die in Zwinglian territories with the rejection of transubstantiation. As Elwood correctly points out, Calvin “did not view the body of Christ created by the eucharist as coextensive with

3

Elwood, The Body Broken, esp. chapters 1 and 6.

260

Chapter 8

society at large.”4 But, just like the French, the Bernese did. The breadth of the communal power of the sacrament, binding the whole of temporal society in both Catholic and Zwinglian lands, was constricted by Calvin to cover only the faithful.5 Calvin’s understanding of the Eucharist, therefore, constituted a threat to any secular government, for its intent was to delineate a purer society of the faithful within society at large. This is by no means to say that Calvinism was a separatist movement akin to many of the Radical Reformation groups; Calvinism certainly accepted the role of secular authorities. Secular magistrates, on the other hand, were frequently unwilling to yield power to any ecclesiastical body with jurisdiction independent of their own. A sympathetic secular magistrate was certainly desirable in Calvinism but not altogether necessary. All that was required was the church’s ability to regulate itself and keep the body of Christ free from pollution. This self-regulation was possible for any community through the consistory, which, together with the comforting doctrine of predestination, formed the foundations of the Reformation of the Refugees. The need for self-regulation helped lead to the incorporation of discipline into Calvinist Reformed ecclesiology as a third nota ecclesiae, or “mark of the church,” in addition to the preaching of the Word of God and the correct administration of the sacraments. Calvin himself, as is well known, did not include discipline as a nota ecclesiae, at least in the Institutes, but many of his followers, including Viret, did.6 One underlying issue in discussions of the marks of the church that has not been sufficiently addressed in Reformation scholarship is the relationship between discipline and

4

5

6

Elwood, The Body Broken, 148. See also Heiko A. Oberman, “Europa afflicta,” 104: “… Calvin insisted that the sacral community was not to be confused with the civic commune; in his own words, the corpus Christi is very different from the corpus politicum; the one ‘merely’ unites the senate with the plebs in the city walls, the other is the secret, spiritual body of Christ.” This society of the faithful is not to be confused with the elect. The elect, Calvin believed, could not be discerned within temporal society. The faithful, on the other hand, were those in God’s church on earth who had not done anything to show clearly that they did not belong to Christ. For Calvin’s discussion, see Institutes IV.i.9. Viret indicates that the marks of the church are “l’administration legitime de la pure Parole de Dieu, et des saincts Sacremens d’iceluy, et l’approbation d’icelle, avec vraye obeissance envers le ministere, lequel le Seigneur y a ordonné. Je compren sous ceste approbation et obeissance, la submission et la discipline, laquelle Jesus Christ a ordonnee en son Eglise, et la pure et entiere observation d’icelle, comme elle a esté observee et pratiquee en l’Eglise ancienne, reiglee par la doctrine des Apostres.” Pierre Viret, Sommaire des principaux poincts de la Foy et Religion Chrestienne, et des abus et erreurs contraires à iceux (Revue et augmenté) (n.p., 1564), 54. The Belgic Confession of 1561, Article XXIX, likewise included discipline as a third nota ecclesiae. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:419.

8. Conclusion

261

preaching. One of the most telling statements of the Lausanne ministers in their 1558 project on ecclesiastical discipline was that “it is useless to hope that [the common people] may be taught at the ordinary sermons, for we have clearly seen the contrary through more than twenty-three years of experience.”7 Discipline, in other words, was necessary because preaching was ineffective. The acceptance of discipline as a third mark of the church was a tacit admission that one of the fundamental assumptions of the entire Protestant Reformation was false, namely that the preaching of the “pure Word of God” would shatter the Catholic Church’s hold on the collective conscience of Europe by exposing its teachings as mere “human inventions.” One after another, the reformers, starting with Luther himself, were disabused of their initially firm belief that the church would easily, almost automatically, be reformed once the preaching of the pure Word of God was established. In Vaud, too, we have seen the same naïve optimism among the Bernese magistrates, who assumed at first that their subjects would swiftly embrace the Reformed faith once evangelical preaching was permitted. Just as Luther was brought down to earth by the radical reformers and the peasants, who took his teachings well beyond anything he had in mind, so also the tenacity of the Catholic faith in Vaud, even after the Bernese abolished the Mass and introduced evangelical preaching, led the Calvinist ministers of Vaud to conclude that preaching could not do the job by itself; discipline had to accompany it. Moreover, discipline gave the persecuted Reformed communities in France a solid institutional base at a time when properly trained and ordained ministers were in short supply and often had to serve multiple churches. With discipline as a third mark of the church, the consistory of the elders provided the glue to hold the spiritual community together in the absence of a resident pastor. Several of these French communities in the 1560s were served by former ministers of Vaud. Indeed, the Calvinists of Vaud exemplify the Reformation of the Refugees, and through them we can view the broad contours of the Reformation as a whole in French-speaking Europe. The entire Lausanne contingent was composed of religious refugees from France, with the exception of Viret himself – and even Viret had been forced to abandon studies at the University of Paris for his religious beliefs. With Francis I’s increased persecution of Protestants in the 1530s and the breakup of Marguerite de Navarre’s evangelical network in the 1540s, the center of the movement shifted from France to the Suisse romande: to Geneva, as has long been acknowledged, and to Lausanne, whose importance has not been clearly recognized. Here Calvinism was born in response to the Zwinglian

7

See above, chapter 7, n.74.

262

Chapter 8

caesaropapism of Bern and the tenacious Catholicism of the common man. The efforts of the Calvinist ministers, including Calvin himself, in the 1530s and 1540s were primarily directed not toward planting the Reformed faith in France but toward shaping and firmly establishing the church in the Swiss Confederation. The failures of 1549 with regard to the Consensus Tigurinus, the French alliance, and the abrogation of the Lausanne colloquies, however, shifted Calvinism’s future westward. This was followed in the 1550s by the complete breakdown of relations between Geneva and Bern, and it culminated with the expulsion of Viret and his colleagues, finally planting the French movement’s center solidly in Geneva. Refugees once again, the Lausanne ministers and professors had found a new calling: the evangelization of France. This story presents an important correlate to the confessionalization thesis.8 Few places better represent the confessionalization model than Bern: An expansionist late medieval city, Bern in the early modern period sought to centralize political authority and build a unified city-state through social discipline by seizing control over both church and state. The Calvinist ministers of Lausanne tried to undermine this effort with their insistence on separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They failed, but their attempt epitomizes an important phenomenon in early modern European history that pitted the confessionalizing state against the religious minority. For every Bern and Scotland, where the Reformed faith became a tool of the government, there was a France or England, where Huguenots and Puritans struggled against religious oppression and the centralizing, state-building efforts of the religious majority. As we can see in these examples, there were indeed two Reformed traditions in the Reformation, and the division between them was the very one that affected early modern European society more broadly, namely that between the state church and the religious minority. Where the Reformed Church was politically established, the confessionalization model applies in which the church was used as a tool of the state. Elsewhere, Calvinist ecclesiology offered the organization and means by which the Reformed religious minority might regulate itself, and the model of the Reformation of the Refugees pertains. Confessionalization and the Reformation of the Refugees are indeed two sides of the same coin, and each played an important role in the shift toward modernity; confessionalization encouraged the development of the centralized nation-state, while the

8

For a good summary of the confessionalization thesis, see Heinz Schilling, “Confessional Europe,” in Handbook of European History, 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1994-1995), 2:64181.

8. Conclusion

263

Reformation of the Refugees laid the practical foundations for religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. Both of these opposing religio-political models emerged during the Reformation – and first of all in Europe’s crossroads, the Pays de Vaud.

Appendix: Timeline of Major Events

Date 1474-1476 1499 1525 1526 1526 1528 1529 1530

1531 1532 1536

1537 1538

1541 1546-1547 1548 1549

Event Burgundian Wars Swabian Wars Treaty of Combourgeoisie between Lausanne, Bern, and Fribourg Treaty of Combourgeoisie between Geneva, Bern, and Fribourg Baden Disputation Bern Disputation First War of Kappel First War against Savoy Augsburg Confession, Tetrapolitan Confession Abolition of the Mass in Neuchâtel Second War of Kappel Berner Synodus Bern’s Conquest of Vaud First Helvetic Confession First edition of Calvin’s Institutes Text of the Wittenberg Concord The Lausanne Disputation Lausanne Academy opens Synod of Lausanne Calvin and Farel expelled from Geneva Zurich Conference, failure of the Wittenberg Concord Charles V and Francis I: Ten-Year Truce and Meeting at Aigues-Mortes Calvin’s return to Geneva Schmalkaldic War Augsburg Interim, Imperial annexation of Constance The Zébédée Affair in Lausanne, Expulsion of Bernese Lutheran ministers Synod of Bern Consensus Tigurinus French alliance signed by all Swiss cantons but Bern and Zurich Abrogation of the colloquies in Vaud

266 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1564 1566

Appendix:Timeline of Major Events Edict of Chateaubriand issued by King Henri II Jerome Bolsec Affair in Geneva Defeat of Charles V in Germany Execution of Michael Servetus in Geneva Bernese prohibitions against Calvinist doctrines, books, and rituals Treaty of Combourgeoisie between Bern and Geneva allowed to lapse Destruction of St. Quentin led by Duke Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy Renewal of Combourgeosie between Bern and Geneva Ecclesiastical crisis in Lausanne Expulsion of Viret from Lausanne, mass exodus to Geneva Geneva Academy opens Treaty of Lausanne Second Helvetic Confession

References 1.

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

Archives Cantonales Vaudoises Bd

Kirchen und Akademie Geschäften

Archives de la Ville de Lausanne Chavannes D12 Corps de ville B Corps de ville EE

Manual de Lausanne Mandats souverains de Berne Mandats souverains de Berne

Bibliothèque nationale de France Ms. Fr. 17890

Ambassade de Mesnage

Musée historique de la Réformation, Geneva Papiers Herminjard, C-R

Archives Tronchin

Staatsarchiv des Kantons Bern AIII 158-161:

2.

Unpublished continuation of A.-L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Réformateurs, grouped chronologically: 1546-1549, 1550-1552, 1553-1556, 15571560, 1561-1601 Manuscripts on the Reformation and the Reformed Church in Switzerland

Welsches Missivenbuch der Stadt Bern (1527-1568)

PRIMARY SOURCES

Alba, Martial, et al. Correspondance inédite des cinq étudiants martyrs brulés à Lyon en 1553, retrouvée dans la bibliothèque de Vadian, à St-Gall, et suivie d’un cantique attribué à Pierre Bergier. Geneva: Emile Beroud, 1854. Allen, P. S. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterdami. 12 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 19061958.

268

References

Anex-Cabanis, Danielle, and Jean-François Poudret, eds. Les Sources du Droit du Canton de Vaud: Moyen âge (Xe-XVIe siècle), B. Droits seigneuriaux et franchises municipales, I. Lausanne et les terres épiscopales. Les sources du droit Suisse, part XIX: Les sources du droit du Canton de Vaud. Aarau: Sauerländer, 1977. Beda, Noël [pseud.]. Confession et raison de la foy de maistre Noel Beda Docteur en theologie et Sindique de la sacree universite a Paris: envoyee au treschrestien Roy de france, Francoys premier de ce nom. [Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1533. Bèze, Théodore de. Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze. Edited by Hippolyte Aubert, et al. 26 vols. to date. THR. Geneva: Droz, 1960- . ———. The Life of John Calvin. The Ages Digital Library, version 1.0. Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998. Bucer, Martin. Martin Bucers deutsche Schriften. Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, series 1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960- . Bullinger, Heinrich. Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel. 10 vols. to date. Heinrich Bullinger Werke, 2nd Abteilung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972- . Calvin, John. Lettres de Jean Calvin: Lettres françaises. 2 vols. Edited by Jules Bonnet. Paris: Ch. Meyrueis & Cie, 1854. ———. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia. Ad fidem editionum principum et authenticarum ex parte etiam codicum manu scriptorum, additis prolegomenis literariis, annotationibus criticis, annalibus Calvinianis indicibusque novis et copiosissmis. 59 vols. Edited by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss. Corpus Reformatorum. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke and sons, 1863-1900. ———. Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta. 5 vols. Edited by P. Barth. Munich: C. Kaiser, 19261936. ———. Des scandales. Edited by Olivier Fatio. Geneva: Droz, 1984. ———. Calvin-Studienausgabe. 4 vols. to date. Edited by E. Busch, et al. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994- . Centlivres, Robert. “Fragments du Journal des Commissaires Bernois (Janvier-mars 1537).” RHV 33 (1925): 257-69; 289-97; 345-50; 375-80; vol. 34 (1926): 19-27; 55-59; 88-92. ———. “Les Capita Calumniarum de Zébédée et la réponse de Pierre Viret.” In Mélanges d’histoire du XVIe siècle offerts à Henri Meylan, 107-26. THR 110. Geneva: Droz, 1970. Chavannes, Ernest, ed. “Extraits des Manuaux du Conseil de Lausanne.” MDR 35 (1881): 122-241 [covering the years 1383-1511]; 36 (1882): 1-350 [1512-1536]; series 2, 1 (1887): 1-229 [1536-1564]. Compagnie des pasteurs et professeurs de Genève. Registres de la compagnie des pasteurs de Genève. Edited by Olivier Fatio, et al. Geneva: Droz, 1962- . Crespin, Jean. Des cinq escoliers sortis de Lausanne bruslez à Lyon. Geneva: Jules Fick, 1878. ———. Histoire des martyrs persecutez et mis à mort pour la verité de l’Evangile. 3 vols. Edited by D. Benoît. Toulouse: Société des livres religieux, 1884-1887. [Farel, Guillaume?], [and Pierre Viret?]. De La Tressaincte Cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus: Et De La Messe quon chante communement. [Basel]: [Thomas Wolff], [1532]. [———?], [and Pierre Viret?]. Letres certaines d’aucuns grandz troubles et tumultes advenuz à Genève. [Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], [1534]. ———. La Maniere et fasson quon tient es lieux que Dieu de sa grace a visites: Première liturgie des Églises Réformées de France de l’an 1533, publiée d’après l’original à l’occasion troisième jubilé séculaire de la constitution de ces églises l’an 1559. Edited by Jean-Guillaume Baum. Strasbourg: Treuttel et Wurtz, 1859.

References

269

———. Summaire, et briefve declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien, pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu. Edited by Jean-Guillaume Baum. Geneva: Jules-Guillaume Fick, 1867. ———. Un opuscule inédit de Farel: Le Résumé des actes de la dispute de Rive (1535). Edited by Théophile Dufour. Geneva: Charles Schuchardt, 1885. Forel, François. Chartes communales du Pays de Vaud dès l’an 1214 à l’an 1527. MDR 27. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1872. Gilliard, Charles. La Combourgeoisie de Lausanne avec Berne et Fribourg en 1525. Lausanne: Imprimeries réunis, 1925. Gingins-La-Sarra, Fréd. de, and François Forel. Recueil de chartes, statuts et documents concernant l’ancien évêché de Lausanne. MDR ser. 1, 7, pt. 1. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1846. Grenus, François-Théodore-Louis, Baron de. Documens relatifs à l’histoire du Pays de Vaud dès 1293 à 1750. Geneva: Manget et Cherbuliez, 1817. Haller, Johannes. “Ephemerides D. Joannis Halleri, quibus ab anno 1548. ad 1565. continentur, quidquid fere in utroque statu Bernae accidit, cum nonnullis aliis.” Edited by Jacob Simler. Museum Helveticum, vol. 2, no. 5 (1747): 79ff. Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des Réformateurs dans les pays de langue française. 9 vols. Geneva: H. Georg, 1866-1897. Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Higman, Francis M. Three French Treatises. London: Athlone Press, 1970. Janz, Denis, ed. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Junod, Louis, and Henri Meylan, eds. L’Académie de Lausanne au XVIe Siècle, I: Leges Scholae Lausannensis 1547. Études et Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Université de Lausanne 5. Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1947. Locher, Gottfried W., ed. Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Schriften. 2nd ed. 23 vols. Edited by Johann Georg Walch. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1880-1910 [Halle im Magdeburgischen, 1740-1753]. ———. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1967-2002 [1883- ]. Mansi, Gian Domenico, et al., eds. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 54 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960 [1759-1927]. [Marcourt, Antoine]. Le livre des marchans, fort utile a toutes gens nouvellement compose par le sire Pantopole, bien expert en tel affaire, prochain voysin du seigneur Pantagruel. [Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1533. [———]. Petit traicte tres utile et salutaire de la saincte eucharistie de nostre Seigneur Jesuschrist. [Neuchatel]: [Pierre de Vingle], 1534. [———], [and Pierre Viret?]. Declaration de la Messe, le fruict dicelle, la cause et le moyen pourquoy et comment on la doibt maintenir. [Neuchâtel]: [Pierre de Vingle], [1534]. Marguerite, Solar de la, ed. Traités publics de la royale Maison de Savoie avec les puissances étrangères depuis le Paix de Cateau-Cambrésis jusqu’à nos jours. Turin: Imprimerie Royale, 1836. Meylan, Henri, ed. Le Synode de Berne de 1532. Lausanne: Imprimerie Centrale, 1936. Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologia latina database. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1996.

270

References

Müller, E. F. Karl. Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903. Pahud, Alexandre. Le cartulaire de Romainmôtier (XIIe siècle): Introduction et édition critique. Cahiers lausannois d'histoire médiévale 21. Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1998. Piaget, Arthur. “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel et sur la Réformation dans le Comté de Neuchâtel.” Musée Neuchâtelois (1897). ———, ed. Les Actes de la Dispute de Lausanne 1536, publiés intégralement d’après le manuscrit de Berne. Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel 6. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1928. Pierrefleur, [Guillaume de]. Mémoires de Pierrefleur. Édition critique avec une introduction et des notes. Edited by Louis Junod. Lausanne: Concorde, 1933 Roset, Michel. Les Chroniques de Genève. Edited by Henri Fazy. Geneva: Georg & Cie, 1894. Rück, Peter. “Un récit de la captivité du Chapitre de Lausanne en février 1537.” RHV 78 (1970): 43-67. Schaff, Philip, and David S. Schaff, eds. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes. 6th ed. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988 [1931]. Segesser, Anton Philipp, et al., eds. Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede : aus dem Zeitraume von 1245 bis [1777]. 8 vols. Lucern: Meyer, 1839-1886. Strauss, Gerald. Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971. Tallone, Armando, Parlemento Sabaudo, 13 vols. Atti delle assemblee costituzionali italiane dal Medio Evo al 1831, ser. 1, section 5. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1928-1946. Viret, Pierre. Remonstrances aux fideles, qui conversent entre les papistes... Geneva: Jean Girard, 1547. ———. De la vertu et usage du ministère de la Parolle de Dieu et des sacremens dépendans d’icelle, et des différents qui sont en la chrestienté à cause d’iceux. [Genève]: [Jean Girard], 1548. ———. Exposition familiere sur les dix Commandemens de la Loy, faite en forme de Dialogues. Geneva: Jean Gerard, 1554. ———. Sommaire des principaux poincts de la Foy et Religion Chrestienne, et des abus et erreurs contraires à iceux (Revue et augmenté). N.p., 1564. ———. Oeuvres complètes. 1 vol. to date. Edited by A.-L. Hofer. Lausanne: L’Age d’homme, 2004- . [La] Visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1416-1417. MDR 2nd ser., 11. Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1921. Vulliemin, Louis. Le Chroniqueur: Recueil historique et journal de l’Helvétie romande, renfermant le récit de la Réformation de ce pays et celui de sa réunion à la Suisse dans les années 1535 et 1536. Lausanne: Marc Ducloux, 1836. Wildermann, Ansgar, ed. La visite des églises du diocèse de Lausanne en 1453. 2 vols. MDR ser. 3, 19-20. Lausanne: Société d’histoire de la Suisse romande, 1993. Zwingli, Ulrich, et al. Handlung oder Acta gehaltner Disputation zu Bern in Üchtland. Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1528. ———. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. Einzig vollständige Ausgabe der Werke Zwinglis. 14 vols. Corpus Reformatorum. Berlin: C.A. Schuetachke, 1905-1956.

271

3.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Anex-Cabanis, Danielle. La vie économique à Lausanne au Moyen Âge. BHV 62. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1978. Armstrong, Brian G. Review of The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, from 1551 to 1555, by Philip Holtrop. Sixteenth Century Journal 25 (1994): 745-50. Backus, Irena. “Médecine et théologie: L’argumentation de Claude Blancherose à la Dispute de Lausanne.” In La Dispute de Lausanne (1536): La théologie réformée après Zwingli et avant Calvin, Textes du Colloque international sur la Dispute de Lausanne (29 septembre-1er octobre 1986), edited by Eric Junod, 178-88. BHV 90. Lausanne: Presses Centrales Lausanne, 1988. ———. The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the Early Church. Studies in Reformed Theology and History, vol. 1, no. 1. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993. Bagliani, Agostino Paravicini, and Jean-François Poudret, eds. La Maison de Savoie et le Pays de Vaud. BHV 97. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1989. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980. Barnaud, Jean. Pierre Viret: Sa vie et son oeuvre (1511-1571). Saint-Amans: G. Carayol, 1911. Benedict, Philip. Rouen during the Wars of Religion. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. ———. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Benzing, Josef. Lutherbibliographie: Verzeichnis der Gedruckten Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod. Baden-Baden: Librarie Heitz, 1966. Bergier, Jean-François, “Pays de Vaud et trafic international du XIIIe au XVIIIe siècle.” RHV 63 (1955): 198-202. ———. Problèmes de l’histoire économique de la Suisse: Population, Vie rurale, Echanges et Trafics. Monographies d’histoire Suisse publiées par la Société générale Suisse d’histoire 2. Bern: Franke Editions, 1968. ———. Histoire économique de la Suisse. Lausanne: Payot, 1984. Berthoud, Gabrielle. “Livres pseudo-Catholiques de contenu Protestant.” In idem, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 143-54. THR 28. Geneva: Droz, 1957. ———. “La ‘Confession’ de Maitre Noël Beda et le problème de son autheur.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 29 (1967): 373-397. ———. Antoine Marcourt: Réformateur et Pamphlétaire du ‘Livre des Marchans’ aux Placards de 1534. THR 129. Geneva: Droz, 1973. Biaudet, Jean Charles, ed. Histoire de Lausanne. Univers de la France et des pays francophones: Histoire des villes. Lausanne: Payot, 1982. Biermann, Charles. “Divisions régionales du Canton de Vaud.” Geographica Helvetica 6 (1951): 182-185. Bodenmann, Reinhard. Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563): Destin d’un autodidacte lorrain au siècle des Réformes. THR 343. Geneva: Droz, 2000. Bonjour, E., H. S. Offler, and G. R. Potter. A Short History of Switzerland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. Brady, Thomas A., Jr. Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450-1550. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

272 ———. Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489-1553) and the German Reformation. Studies in German Histories. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995. Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521-1532. Translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990 [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1986]. ———. Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532-1546. Translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993 [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1987]. Bruening, Michael. “Bern, Geneva, or Rome: The Struggle for Religious Conformity and Confessional Unity in Early Reformation Switzerland.” Ph.D. Diss., University of Arizona, 2002. ———. “Répertoire de la correspondance de Pierre Viret.” Cahiers Pierre Viret 1. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, forthcoming. Brundage, James. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Büsser, Fritz. Heinrich Bullinger: Leben, Werk, und Wirkung. 2 vols. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004, 2005. Cam, Anne le. Charles le Téméraire, un homme et son rêve. Neuilly: V & O Editions, 1992. Campi, Emidio, ed. Heinrich Bullinger und seine Zeit. Zwingliana 31. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004. Campiche, F.-Raoul. “La fin du culte catholique à Lutry.” MDR 24 (1916): 280-88, 315-18, 321-36. Cange, Charles du Fresne, Seigneur du. Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis. 10 vols. Paris: Librarie des sciences et des arts, 1938 [1883-1887]. Chomel, V., and J. Ebersolt. Cinq siècles de circulation internationale vue de Jougne. Ecole pratique des hautes-études – VIe section: Centre de recherches historiques, Ports, routes et trafics 2. Paris: Armand Colin, 1951. Comité Farel. Guillaume Farel 1489-1565: Biographie nouvelle écrite d’après les documents originaux par un groupe d’historiens, professeurs et pasteurs de Suisse, de France et d’Italie. Neuchâtel: Éditions Delauchaux & Niestlé S.A., 1930. Coultre, Jean-Jules le. Maturin Cordier et les origines de la pédagogie protestante dans les pays de la langue française (1530-1564). Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel 5. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1926. Crouzet, Denis. La Genèse de la Réforme française 1520-1562. Regards sur l’histoire: Histoire moderne. Paris: Sedes, 1996. Cuendet, Claude. Les traités de combourgeoisie en pays romands. BHV 63. Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 1979. Decrue, Francis. Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et connétable de France, à la Cour, aux Armées, et au Conseil du Roi François Ier. Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978 [Paris, 1885]. Denis, Philippe, and Jean Rott. Jean Morély (ca. 1524 - ca. 1594) et l’utopie d’une démocratie dans l’Église. THR 278. Geneva: Droz, 1993. Dewarrat, Jean-Pierre, and Laurence Margairaz. “Le pays de Vaud bernois: lieu de passages.” In De l’Ours à la Cocarde: Régime bernois et revolution en pays de Vaud (1536-1798), edited by François Flouck, et al., 45-57. Lausanne: Payot, 1998 Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse. Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse/Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz/Dizionario Storico della Svizzera. http://www.lexhist.ch/. Droz, E. “Pierre de Vingle, l’imprimeur de Farel.” In Gabrielle Berthoud, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 38-78. THR 28. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Dumur, B. “Lausanne ville campagnarde.” RHV 11 (1903): 97-115, 129-42. Eells, Hastings. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931.

273 Eire, Carlos M. N. War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Elton, G. R. Reformation Europe 1517-1559. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Elwood, Christopher. The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Feller, Richard. Geschichte Berns. 4 vols. Bern: Herbert Lang & Cie, 1946. Freymond, Jacques. “Les relations diplomatiques de Berne avec François Ier et Charles-Quint après la conquête du Pays de Vaud.” Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte 3 (1945): 210-28. Friedrich, Martin. “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie: Ein Ökumeniker im Streit um das Abendmahl.” Zwingliana 24 (1997): 59-79. Geisendorf, Paul-F. Théodore de Bèze. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1949. Gilliard, Charles. “Les débuts de la Réforme à Lausanne.” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, n.s. 21 (1933): 249-73. ———. La conquête du Pays de Vaud par les Bernois. Histoire Helvétique. Lausanne: L’Aire, 1985 [Lausanne: La Concorde, 1935]. ———. Pages d’histoire vaudoise. Edited by Louis Junod. BHV 22. Lausanne: Imprimerie centrale, 1959. Gilmont, Jean-François. Jean Crespin: Un éditeur réformé au XVIe siècle. THR 186. Geneva: Droz, 1981. ———, ed. The Reformation and the Book. Translated by Karin Maag. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998 [Paris: Cerf, 1990]. ———, and Rudolphe Peter. Bibliotheca Calviniana: Les oeuvres de Jean Calvin publiées au XVIe siècle. 3 vols. THR 255, 281, 339. Geneva: Droz, 1991-2000. ———. Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé. Etudes de philologie et d’histoire (Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance). Geneva: Droz, 1997. Godet, Marcel, et al., eds. Dictionnaire historique et biographique de la Suisse. 7 vols. Neuchâtel: Administration du Dictionnaire historique et biographique de la Suisse, 19211933. Gordon, Bruce. “Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches.” In Calvinism in Europe 15401620, edited by Andrew Pettegree, et al., 64-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. The Swiss Reformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. ———, and Emidio Campi, eds. Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504-1575. Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Graf, Klaus, ed. “Schwabenkrieg/Schweizerkrieg 1499.” Http://www.krieg.historicum.net/ themen/schwabenkrieg/. Greengrass, Mark. The French Reformation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Teresa Mary Keane. Dictionnaire du moyen français: La Renaissance. Trésors du français. Paris: Larousse, 1992. Greschat, Martin. Martin Bucer: Ein Reformator und seine Zeit. Munich: Beck, 1990. Guggisberg, Hans. Basel in the Sixteenth Century: Aspects of the City Republic before, during, and after the Reformation. St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982. Guggisberg, Kurt. Bernische Kirchengeshichte. Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958 ———. “Calvin und Bern.” In Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt: zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17. Mai 1970 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern, edited by Martin Haas and René Hauswirth, 266-85. Zurich: Verlag Berichthaus, 1970.

274 Hagenbach, Karl Rudolf. Johann Oekolampad und Oswald Myconius, die Reformatoren Basels: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche. Elberfeld: R. L. Friderichs, 1859. Hari, Robert. “Les Placards de 1534.” In Gabrielle Berthoud, et al., Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 79-142. THR 28. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Harrington, Joel F. Reordering Marriage and Society in Reformation Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Henggeler, P. Rudolf, and Albert Bruckner, eds. Helvetia Sacra. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1972- . Higman, Francis. “Les débuts de la polémique contre la messe: De la tressaincte cene de nostre seigneur et de la messe qu’on chante communement.” In Le Livre et la Réforme, edited by Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, 35-92. Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. ———. “La Dispute de Lausanne, carrefour de la Réformation française.” In La Dispute de Lausanne (1536): La théologie réformée après Zwingli et avant Calvin, Textes du Colloque international sur la Dispute de Lausanne (29 septembre-1er octobre 1986), edited by Eric Junod, 23-35. BHV 90. Lausanne: Presses Centrales Lausanne, 1988. ———. La Diffusion de la Réforme en France: 1520-1565. Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 17. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1992. ———. Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French 1511-1551. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1996. ———. Lire et décourvrir: La circulation des idées au temps de la Réforme. THR 326. Geneva: Droz, 1998. Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern. 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel. Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980. Holtrop, Philip. The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, from 1551 to 1555: The Statements of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and other Reformed theologians. 2 vols. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. Hubler, Lucienne. Histoire du Pays de Vaud. Lausanne: Loisirs et pédagogie, 1991. Also available online at http://www.memo.fr/. Hundeshagen, Karl Bernard. Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, des Luthertums und des Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche 1532-1558. Bern: C. A. Jenni, 1842. Jacobs, Paul. Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968 [Neukirchen, 1937]. Jedin, Hubert. A History of the Council of Trent [Geschichte des Konzils von Trient]. 2 vols. [5 vols.]. Translated by Ernest Graf. London: Nelson, 1957-1961 [Freiburg: Herder, 1951-1975]. Kelley, Donald R. “Fides Historiae: Charles Dumoulin and the Gallican view of History.” Traditio 22 (1966): 347-402. ———. François Hotman: A Revolutionary’s Ordeal. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. Kingdon, Robert M. Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555-1563. THR 22. Geneva: Droz, 1956. ———. Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement 1564-1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory. THR 92. Geneva: Droz, 1967.

275 ———. “La discipline ecclésiastique vue de Zurich et Genève au temps de la Réformation: L’usage de Matthieu 18,15-17 par les réformateurs.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 133 (2001): 343-55. Kittelson, James M. Wolfgang Capito: From Humanist to Reformer. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 17. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ———, and Ken Schurb. “The Curious Histories of the Wittenberg Concord.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 50 (1986): 119-37. Knecht, R. J. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Körner, Martin. “Les péages vaudois dans les comptes du Trésorier romand à Berne au XVIe siècle.” In La monnaie de sa pièce…: Hommages à Colin Martin, edited by Paul-Louis Pelet and Jean-François Poudret, 235-250. BHV 105. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1992. Locher, Gottfried W. “Die Berner Disputation 1528.” In 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, 138-55. Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980. ———, ed. Der Berner Synodus von 1532: Edition und Abhandlungen zum Jubiläumsjahr 1982. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Lyon, Christine. “Le sort du clergé vaudois au lendemain de la Réforme.” Mémoire de licence en histoire moderne, Université de Lausanne, 1998. McGrath, Alistair. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. Meylan, Henri. “La village de Provence et la Réformation.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie, n.s. 21 (1933): 222-44. ———, and Maurice Guex. “Viret et M.M. de Lausanne.” RHV 69 (1961): 113-73. ———. “L’affaire des quatre pasteurs du Chablais, champions et victimes de la prédestination (1558).” RHV 80 (1972): 15-31. ———. “Pierre Viret et les Lausannois, vignt années de luttes pour une discipline ecclésiastique.” Mémoires de la Société pour l’Histoire du Droit et des Institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et romands 35 (1978): 15-23. Monter, William. Calvin’s Geneva. New Dimensions in History, Historical Cities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967. ———. Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Morerod, Jean-Daniel, ed. Romainmôtier: Histoire de l'abbaye. BHV 120. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 2001. Muller, Richard, “Calvin and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 34575; vol. 31 (1996): 125-60. ———. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Naef, Henri. Les origines de la Réforme à Genève. 2 vols. Geneva: A. Jullien, 1936, 1968. Naphy, William. Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation: 1541-1557. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. Oberman, Heiko A. “Europa Afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992): 91-111. ———. The Impact of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.

276 ———. “Calvin and Farel, The Dynamics of Legitimation.” Journal of Early Modern History 2 (1998): 32-60. ———. The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World. Edited by Donald Weinstein. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Opitz, Peter, ed. Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002. Ozment, Steven. The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to SixteenthCentury Germany and Switzerland. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. Paquier, Richard. Le Pays de Vaud des origines à la conquête bernoise. 2 vols. Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1943. Parker, T. H. L. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975. Pelet, Paul-Louis. Le canal d’entreroches: Histoire d’une idée. Thèse de doctorat, Faculté des lettres, Université de Lausanne. Lausanne: F. Rouge & Cie, 1946. Pfeilschifter, Frank. Das Calvinbild bei Bolsec und sein Fortwirken im französischen Katholizismus bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Augsburg: FDL-Verglag, 1983. Prestwich, Menna, ed. International Calvinism, 1541-1715. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Puech, Emile. Un professeur du 16 siècle: Mathurin Cordier, sa vie et son œuvre. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970 [Montaubon: Marius Bonneville, 1896]. Rapp, Georges. La Seigneurie de Prangins du XIIIme siècle à la chute de l’ancien régime: Etude d’histoire économique et sociale. Thèse de Doctorat, Faculté des Lettres, Université de Lausanne. Lausanne: Librarie de Droit, F. Roth & Cie, 1942. Reid, Jonathan. “King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492-1549) and Her Evangelical Network.” Ph.D. Diss, University of Arizona, 2001. Robbins, Kevin. City on the Ocean Sea, La Rochelle, 1530-1650: Urban Society, Religion, and Politics on the French Atlantic Frontier. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 64. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Roberts, Penny. A City in Conflict: Troyes during the French Wars of Religion. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Rorem, Paul E. “The Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Did Calvin Compromise?” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor/Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture: Die Referate des International Congress on Calvin Research vom 20. bis 23. August 1990 in Grand Rapids, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser, 72-90. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994. Rott, Edouard. Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des cantons Suisses, de leurs alliés et de leurs confédérés. 10 vols. Bern: A. Benteli & Co., 19001935. Rublack, Hans-Christoph. Die Einführung der Reformation in Konstanz von den Anfängen bis zum Abschluss 1531. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 40. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1971. Ruchat, Abraham. Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse, où l’on voit tout ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable, depuis l’an 1516. jusqu’en l’an 1556., dans les églises des XIII. cantons, et des états confederez, qui composent avec eux le corps helvetique. 6 vols. Geneva: Marc-Michel Bousquet & Co., 1728. Ruchat, Abraham. Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse: Édition avec appendices et une notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de Ruchat. 7 vols. Edited by L. Vulliemin. Nyon: M. Giral-Prelaz, 1835-1838. Rück, Peter. “Die Entstehung der nachreformatorischen dekanalen Jurisdiktion in der Diözese Lausanne.” ZSKG 59 (1965): 297-327. Safley, Thomas Max. “Canon Law and Swiss Reform: Legal Theory and Practice in the Marital Courts of Zurich, Bern, Basel, and St. Gall.” In Canon Law in Protestant Lands,

277 187-201. Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History 11. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992. Schaufelberger, Walter. “Spätmittelalter.” In Handbuch der Schweizer Geschichte, 2 vols., 1:239-388. Zurich: Berichthaus, 1972. Schilling, Heinz. “Confessional Europe.” In Handbook of European History, 1400-1600. Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. 2 vols. Edited by Thomas A. Brady, et al. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1995, 641-81. Schnetzler, Charles. “Pierre Viret et le conflit ecclésiastique avec Berne au milieu du XVIme siècle.” RHV 15 (1907): 366-80. St. Andrews Reformation Studies Institute. “French Vernacular Book Project.” http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_rsi/book/. Staehlin, Ernst. Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 10, 19. New York: Johnson Reprints, 1971 [Leipzig, 1927, 1934] ———. Das theologische lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 21. New York: Johnson Reprints, 1971 [Leipzig, 1939]. Stammler, Jacques. Le trésor de la cathédrale de Lausanne. Translated by Jules Galley. MDR, 2nd ser., 5. Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1902. Stauffer, Richard. “Das Basler Bekenntnis von 1534” In Ecclesia semper reformanda: Vorträge zum Basler Reformationsjubläum 1529-1979, edited by Hans R. Guggisberg and Peter Rotach, 28-49. Theologische Zeitschrift, Sonderband 9. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1980. Stein, Norbert. Burgund und die Eidgenossenschaft zur Zeit Karls des Kühnen: Die politische Beziehungen in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Struktur beider Staaten. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 3: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 110. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 1979. Steinmetz David. Calvin in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Sunshine, Glenn S. Reforming French Protestantism: The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557-1572. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 66. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003. Tappy, Denis. Les Etats de Vaud. BHV 91. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1988. ———. “Les Etats de Vaud: De l’assemblée savoyarde au mythe révolutionaire.” In La Maison de Savoie et le Pays de Vaud, edited by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani and JeanFrançois Poudret, 245-96. BHV 97. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1989. Thireau, Jean-Louis. Charles Du Moulin (1500-1566): Etude sur les sources, la méthode, les idées politiques et économiques d’un juriste de la Renaissance. THR 176. Geneva: Droz, 1980. Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Toutey, E. Charles le Téméraire et la Ligue de Constance. Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1902. Tyler, J. Jeffery. Lord of the Sacred City: The episcopus exclusus in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Vasella, Oskar. Reform und Reformation in der Schweiz: Zur Würdigung der Anfänge der Glaubenskrise. Münster in Westfallen: Aschendorff, 1958. Vaughan, Richard. Charles the Bold: The last Valois Duke of Burgundy. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2002 [London, 1973].

278 Venema, Cornelis. Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “The Other Reformed Tradition”? Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Vocabularius juris. Venice: Peregrinum de Pasqualibus, 1493. Vuilleumier, Henri. Histoire de l’Eglise Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime Bernois. 4 vols. Lausanne: La Concorde, 1927-1933. Vulliemin, Louis. Le Chroniqueur: Recueil historique et journal de l’Helvétie romande, renfermant le récit de la Réformation de ce pays et celui de sa réunion à la Suisse dans les années 1535 et 1536. Lausanne: Marc Ducloux, 1836. ———. Histoire de la Conféderation Suisse. 2 vols. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1879. Wandel, Lee Palmer. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Wanegffelen, Thierry. Ni Rome ni Genève: Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle. Bibliothèque littéraire de la Renaissance, ser. 3, 36. Paris: H. Champion, 1997. Wellisch, Hans H. Conrad Gessner: A Bio-Bibliography. Zug: IDC, 1984. Wendel, François. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated by Philip Mairet. New York: Harper and Row, 1963 [Paris, 1950]. Würgler, Andreas. “Combourgeoisie.” Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse. Online at http://www.lexhist.ch/externe/protect/textes/f/F9829.html.

Index

Adelaide, Empress 101 Affair of the placards (1534) 113, 116 Aigle 10, 14, 24, 27, 29, 97, 108-112, 172, 250 Aigues-Mortes 47, 160, 204 Alps 8, 10, 12, 57, 152, 200, 219 Amédée VI, Count of Savoy 18 Amédée VIII, Duke of Savoy 19, 38, 99 Anabaptism 63, 69, 71 Ansel, André 153 Anshelm, Valerius 31 Appenzell 22, 30 Asti 53 Aubonne 97, 156, 228 Augsburg 10, 48, 75, 80, 169, 184, 194, 196, 206, 211, 215, 267, 278 Augsburg Confession 48, 75, 267 Augsburg Interim (1548) 169, 184, 194, 196, 198, 211, 267 Avenches 21, 24, 27, 97, 113, 130, 227 Baden 32, 48-53, 58-59, 90, 106, 139, 188, 267, 273 Baden Disputation 32, 139, 267 Bailliages communs See Common lordships Banc, Arnaud 242, 243, 254 Baptism 52, 71, 78, 219 Basel 10, 13, 22, 28-34, 38, 48, 50, 55, 58, 63-64, 76-90, 96, 116, 120, 184,

188, 190, 200-205, 217, 238, 260, 270, 275-280 Basel Confession, First (1534) 76 Basel, peace of (1499) 30 Beda, Noël 118-119, 270, 273 Bellevaux 100, 157 Benedict, Philip 2, 6, 178, 211, 273 Bern 11, 31-33, 37, 63-66, 73, 77, 81, 84-89, 93, 129, 145, 150, 154-156, 160, 165, 167, 170, 172-177, 181182, 188-197, 206, 208, 215, 218223, 239-240, 246, 256 Berner Synodus (1532) 63, 65, 67-75, 86, 93, 163, 173, 181, 267, 271, 277 city council 2-3, 33, 40-41, 64-69, 74, 86, 108-112, 123, 130, 146, 148, 151, 153-158, 165, 167, 170-171, 174, 181-186, 190-191, 193, 206208, 217-224, 227-228, 236, 240241, 244-246, 250-254, 261, 263 conquest of Vaud (1536) 3, 17, 22, 26, 30, 35-36, 39, 43-44, 46, 60, 110, 125, 132, 156, 162, 231, 259 disputation (1528) 32-33, 63, 65-66, 69, 81, 84, 86, 93, 108, 139, 181182, 188, 267 edicts of Reformation 143, 146, 150, 153, 155, 159-160, 162, 174, 224226

280 ministers 93, 170, 181, 191, 194, 199, 206-210, 220, 240, 247 synod of (1532) 67, 69 synod of (1549) 193-195, 198 Bernese magistrates See Bern, city council Berthelier, Philibert 38 Bex 10, 24, 29, 108-110 Beza, Theodore 166, 175-177, 201, 215, 235-236, 239-240, 242, 260, 270, 275-276 Biel 82, 89 Blancherose, Claude 142, 273 Blaurer, Ambrosius 33 Boisrigaut, Louis Dangerant, Sieur de 43, 47 Bologna 19, 57, 272 Bolsec, Jerome 58, 214-220, 223, 247, 268, 273, 276, 278 Brady, Thomas A., Jr. 22-23, 30, 39, 50, 57, 75-76, 264, 273-274, 279 Briçonnet, Guillaume 33, 107 Bucer, Martin 33, 63-64, 66-67, 69, 7493, 108, 164, 181, 188-189, 191, 194, 199, 206-207, 211, 215, 221, 270, 274, 275 Buchstab, Johannes 33 Bullinger, Heinrich 1, 2, 8, 78, 81, 83-93, 170, 187-205, 208-210, 214, 218-221, 231, 236, 249, 254-256, 259-260, 270, 273-275, 280 Burgundian Wars 18, 20, 24, 26-30, 40, 102, 267 Calvin, John xi, 1-8, 20, 38, 43, 55-56, 58, 63-65, 71-72, 79, 93, 95, 116, 118, 121, 124, 135-136, 138, 142143, 155, 162-171, 175-223, 239-245, 249, 256-257, 260-262, 264, 267, 270-271, 273, 275-278, 280 Institutes 7, 95, 135-136, 211, 214, 222, 240, 249, 262, 267 Calvinism 1-7, 63-65, 93, 95, 105, 167, 169, 178, 180, 190, 202, 206, 210211, 213, 215-216, 223, 240, 257, 259, 262-263, 273, 277-278 Calvinists 2-8, 63-64, 72, 80, 105, 140, 174, 187, 189, 194, 208, 213-214, 216, 218, 223, 256, 263, 277

Index Cambridge 211 Capito, Wolfgang 33, 66-67, 69, 74-76, 78, 85-86, 89, 92-93, 108, 277 Carlstadt See Karlstadt Caroli, Pierre 45, 140, 143, 146, 148, 164-165, 167, 175, 178-179 Cateau-Cambrésis, treaty of 59-60, 271 Catechism 3, 86, 88, 93, 136, 138, 140, 147, 162, 165, 218-219, 236, 238239, 246 Catholic cantons 32-34, 41-43, 46, 5051, 53, 55-56, 58-59, 76, 205 Catholic Church 44, 49, 57, 61, 69, 103, 111, 113, 115, 119-120, 140, 144, 153, 157, 159, 171, 189, 215, 231232, 235, 263 Catholic clergy 103, 113, 115, 136, 142, 145, 147-162, 167, 172, 187, 224, 239, 259, 261 Catholicism 3, 17, 26, 40, 44, 58, 65, 95, 96, 105, 132, 135, 144, 155-156, 216, 224-225, 230-231, 264 Chablais 29, 39, 43, 60, 111, 145, 148, 151-152, 172, 244, 259, 277 Chambéry 20, 59 Charles III, Duke of Savoy 38-42, 53 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy 20, 22, 26-29, 279 Charles V, Emperor 30, 44-52, 56-57, 59, 75, 90, 152, 157, 184, 187, 189, 193, 200, 203-204, 219, 267, 268 Charvin, Claude 230 Chateaubriand, edict of (1551) 56, 211, 268 Châtel St.-Denis 19 Chillon, Château de 12, 14, 126 Cluny 100, 101 Colloquy of Marburg See Marburg, colloquy of Combourgeoisie 23-25, 36, 38, 40, 43, 58-59, 112-113, 216, 223, 274 Common lordships 19, 24-26, 29, 34-36, 40, 57-58, 112, 114-115, 132, 137, 172, 209, 219, 225, 230 Comte, Béat 188 Confessionalization 264 Confraternities 97, 102 Consensus Tigurinus 6, 7, 170, 194, 196204, 209, 211, 213, 264, 267, 278

Index Consistory 3, 73, 173, 174, 183-184, 215-216, 224, 234, 245, 249, 250, 252-253, 257, 260, 262-263 Constance 13, 26, 32, 51, 54, 75, 80, 193, 203, 267, 279 Coppet 228 Cordier, Mathurin 175-177, 274, 278 Corsier 21, 103 Cossonay 14, 19, 101, 226 Council of Trent See Trent, council of Cranmer, Thomas 211 Crépy, peace of 48 Crespin, Jean 176-177, 219, 270, 275 Cudrefin 19 Curione, Celio Secondo 176, 187-188 Curtilles 21 Daux, Jacques 154 Diesbach, Felix de 108-110 Diesbach, Jean-Roch 228 Discipline, ecclesiastical 3, 61, 70, 72, 74, 105, 136, 163-164, 167, 170, 174, 177, 179, 181-184, 187, 197, 213, 215, 222, 224, 235, 237, 239-241, 243-244, 246, 252, 256, 260, 263 Divonne 172 Dommartin 99 Doubté, Michel 37 Drogy, Jacques 142 Du Moulin, Charles See Moulin, Charles du Ecclesiastical discipline See Discipline, ecclesiastical Echallens 24, 29, 36, 58, 172 Eck, Johannes 32-33, 139, 142 Edward VI, King of England 210 Eisenach 79 Elwood, Christopher 137-138, 261-262, 275 Emmanuel-Philibert, Duke of Savoy 17, 53, 56, 58-60, 170, 203, 268 Erasmus of Rotterdam 35, 104 Essertines 99 Estates of Vaud 19-20, 27, 106-107, 228 Estavayer 19, 27 Estienne, Robert 177 Eucharist 1-3, 64, 67, 69-72, 75-86, 8990, 93, 96, 118, 138, 156, 163, 166,

281 170, 181-182, 185-186, 188-189, 191, 194, 196-198, 200, 213, 215, 219, 221-222, 241, 244, 249, 253, 260261, 275 Everdes 29 Evian 151, 225, 230 Excommunication 3, 64, 74, 105, 142, 163-164, 174, 182-183, 186, 189, 215-216, 221, 243, 245-246, 248-249, 253, 260-261 Fabri, Christophe 127-130, 143, 145-146, 148, 193, 227 Farel, Guillaume xi, 4, 7-8, 25, 33, 3538, 47, 55, 58, 65, 93, 95-96, 108109, 111-116, 121-122, 127-130, 132, 135-148, 155, 162, 164-165, 167, 170, 175-176, 179-180, 184-185, 191, 193-195, 197, 199, 201-203, 205, 207, 211, 217-218, 240, 256, 260, 267, 270-272, 274, 278 Ferdinand I, Emperor 57 Ferrara 216 Fiez 35, 113 Four Mandated Territories 10, 24-25, 29, 35-36, 97, 108, 110, 112-113, 125, 171 France 3, 5-8, 11-12, 17, 19-21, 27, 29, 38, 42-44, 46-48, 52, 55-57, 59-60, 97, 107, 119, 138, 158, 169-170, 172177, 184, 189, 201-202, 204-205, 209-211, 213, 216, 218, 223, 225, 229, 233, 235, 240, 256-257, 260261, 263-264, 269-270, 273-276, 278, 280 Francis I, King of France 7, 43, 46-48, 50-52, 90, 107, 117, 119, 157, 204, 210-211, 263, 267, 277 Frederick III, Emperor 28 French alliance 6-7, 43, 53, 55-56, 59, 169-170, 199, 201-202, 204-205, 209, 211, 264, 267 French ambassadors 43, 47, 52, 54-55, 90, 202-204, 211 French Protestants 7, 55, 152, 204, 264 French Reformed Church 42 French-Swiss alliance See French alliance Fribourg 10-11, 13, 19, 22, 24-25, 27, 29, 33, 35-40, 43, 45, 48, 52-54, 59-60, 97, 101, 103, 112, 121-122, 130, 132,

282 136-137, 151, 225, 227, 229-230, 267, 271 Froment, Antoine 145, 227, 230 Furbity, Guy 139-140 Gast, Johann 190 Geneva 3-6, 8, 13, 17, 20-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 36-40, 42-43, 51, 54, 56-60, 63, 65, 72, 93, 95, 112, 116, 125, 135, 139, 143, 156, 162, 169, 171, 173180, 191, 202, 208-209, 211, 215216, 220, 223, 227, 239, 256-257, 260, 264, 268 academy 175-176, 256, 268 bishop 38, 97, 98 city council 36, 40, 156, 164, 180, 218, 221 eidguenots 38 ministers 162, 173, 176, 217, 220 Rive disputation (1535) 140, 143 Genoa 53 Gentilhommes de la Cuiller 39 Geranius, Cephas (pseudonym) 117-118, 137-138 Gering, Beat 188, 190 German Peasants’ War See Peasant's War Gessner, Conrad 176, 280 Gex, Pays de 39, 60, 129, 148, 152, 172, 227, 259 Glarus 22 Gordon, Bruce 2, 31, 33, 51, 65, 69, 77, 79, 201, 275 Gotha 82 Gotthard pass 13 Goumoëns 58, 137 Grand Saint Bernard pass 12 Grandcour 19, 228 Grandson 24, 28-29, 35-36, 57, 113, 122124, 137, 172 Grat, Alexius 33 Grisons See Rhaetian League Gruyère 225, 229 Grynaeus, Simon 77, 80, 85, 90 Gwalther, Rudolf 191-192 Habsburg dynasty 19, 33-34, 39, 42-43, 57, 59, 170, 202 Haller, Berchtold 31-32, 65, 83

Index Haller, Johannes 191-200, 205-206, 208209, 218-219, 221, 252, 254-256, 271 Helvetic Confession, First (1536) 64, 74, 77, 81-82, 84, 86-87, 90, 267 Helvetic Confession, Second (1566) 8, 259-260, 268 Henri II, King of France 7, 52-57, 60, 169-170, 199, 202-204, 210-211, 268 Henry VIII, King of England 48, 51 Herminjard, A.-L. 96 Higman, Francis 5, 106, 116, 118, 138, 143, 271, 276 Hollard, Christophe 121-122 Hotman, François 176-177, 276 Hugues, Jacques 129, 148 Iconoclasm 96, 114, 119-124, 129, 132, 135-138, 144 Illens 29 Jaques de Savoie, Baron of Vaud 27 Jean de Savoie, Bishop of Geneva 38 Jordil, Hugonin du 230 Jougne 12, 27, 274 Jud, Leo 84, 88 Julius II, Pope 98, 100 Jura 8-9, 12, 27 Kappel, First War (1529) 25, 34, 111, 114, 267 Kappel, Second War (1531) 34-36, 50, 58, 66, 74, 76, 84, 188, 205 Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von 76, 80 Kilchmeyer, Jodocus 188 Kingdon, Robert 5, 176-177, 189, 248, 257, 276-277 Kolb, Franz 31, 65, 83 Kunz, Peter 32, 83-85, 155, 181 La Sarraz 228 Lac de Joux 9, 100, 149 Lake Geneva 8-12, 29, 151, 171-172, 225, 230 Lake Neuchâtel 8, 11, 13 Lambert, Denis 127, 227 Laurent de Normandie 184, 209 Lausanne 4, 11, 22, 25, 28, 36-37, 39, 43, 45, 98, 102, 126, 128, 142, 144, 146, 148, 151, 153-155, 157, 159-160, 162,

Index 164-165, 173-174, 176-178, 181, 183, 185, 188-189, 191-194, 196-197, 201, 206-208, 215, 218, 222, 232, 235, 238-240, 242-243, 255-256, 260, 267-268 academy 56, 175-178, 185, 187-188, 223, 235, 251, 256, 267 bishop 18-19, 21, 26, 36, 38, 40-41, 97-101, 152, 159, 162, 225, 232 cathedral chapter 41, 97-99, 102, 141142, 150 city council 22, 30, 37-38, 41, 45, 126-127, 144, 148, 153-154, 157160, 174, 232, 235, 241-244, 253 classe 171-172, 183, 219, 252-254, 256 colloquies 170, 172, 196, 206, 209, 264 commune 19, 22, 38, 99 diocese 96-97, 103 disputation (1536) 30, 41, 44-46, 77, 103, 125, 127, 132-133, 135, 139140, 143, 148, 151-152, 157, 162, 164, 171, 173, 175, 178, 224-225, 231, 267 largess (largition) 41, 155 ministers 74, 170, 173, 183, 185, 206, 209, 215-216, 223, 239-240, 244246, 249, 251-252, 263-264 synod of (1537) 173 synod of (1538) 136, 156-157, 164167, 173, 193, 228, 231, 267 treaty of (1564) 60, 259, 268 visitation (1416) 97 visitation (1453) 96, 99, 101-104, 163 Lavaux 21, 27, 225 Les Clées 12, 14, 19 Lindau 75 Louis XI, King of France 27-28 Lucens 21, 145 Lucerne 22, 34, 42, 50, 58-60 Luther, Martin 31-32, 48, 63, 69, 74-93, 106-107, 119, 121, 169, 197, 200, 221, 263, 271, 274 Lutheranism 63, 93, 169, 182, 184, 228 Lutherans 50-52, 57, 64, 66-67, 74-77, 79, 90-93, 119-121, 187, 197, 200, 211, 219 Lutry 21, 100-101, 129, 145, 225, 274

283 Lyon 10, 13, 56, 103, 148, 151, 153, 176, 219, 269, 270, 277 Malingre, Matthieu 138 Mantua, council of 46, 77, 132, 150, 152, 157 Manuel, Niklaus 31, 276-277 Marascon 229 Marburg, colloquy of 48, 66, 74, 90 Marcourt, Antoine 114, 116-119, 137, 143, 271, 273 Marguerite de Navarre 6, 107, 176, 263 Marguerite, Duchess of Berry 60 Marignano, battle of 42-43, 205 Marks of the church 262-263 Martoret, François 182 Mass 25, 32-35, 46, 57, 71, 95, 109-111, 113-116, 118-119, 122, 125-126, 131132, 135-136, 138-140, 143, 145-147, 152-156, 160-161, 167, 219-220, 224225, 229-231, 233-235, 237, 239, 263, 267 Maurice of Saxony 57 Maximilian I, Emperor 22, 30 McGrath, Alistair 142-143, 216, 277 Meaux 8, 33, 107 Megander, Kaspar 66, 78, 84-89, 93, 165, 173 Melanchthon, Philip 75-76, 80, 83, 88, 200, 211 Memingen 75 Merlin, Jean Raymond 176 Mex 58 Meyer, Jakob 86 Meyer, Sebastian 31, 83 Milan 10, 19, 42-43, 47, 53, 55-56 Missionaries 5, 36, 95, 176, 223, 240, 257 Monasteries 97, 100-102, 145 Monbouson, Dominique de 126-127 Montagny 29, 57 Montfalcon, Aymon de, Bishop of Lausanne 98 Montfalcon, Jean de 101 Montfalcon, Sébastien de, Bishop of Lausanne 36, 40, 98, 126 Montheron 157 Montreux 103, 171 Morély, Jean 177, 274

Index

284 Morges 11, 14, 19, 103, 142, 172, 220, 226 Moudon 14, 19, 21, 99, 103, 107, 130131, 172, 227, 229 Moulin, Charles du 177, 276 Mühlburg, battle of (1547) 50 Muller, Richard 1, 4, 136, 213-214, 277 Münster 36, 96, 279 Murten 21, 24, 27-29, 35-36, 172, 230, 240 Musculus, Wolfgang 80, 206, 208-209, 248-249, 273 Myconius, Oswald 76-77, 81, 83, 85, 89, 203, 276 Nägeli, Hans-Franz 40, 110 Nägeli, Hans-Rudolf 110, 145 Nägeli, Sebastian 110 Neuchâtel 12, 23, 28, 35, 95, 97, 100, 110, 114-119, 123-125, 138-139, 143, 162, 175, 180, 193, 228, 267, 270272, 274-275 Nice, ten-year truce 46, 90, 157-158 Nicodemism 57, 117-118, 152, 185 Nota ecclesiae See Marks of the church Nuremburg 10 Nyon 14, 19, 97, 103, 145, 172, 220, 227, 237, 278 Oberman, Heiko A. xi, xii, 4, 7, 138, 169, 176, 180, 201-202, 211, 214, 262, 277-278 Oecolampadius, Johannes 33-35, 63, 76, 86, 108, 191 Ogo 97 Olivétan, Pierre 116 Ollon 10, 24, 29, 108-110 Orbe 24-25, 27, 29, 35-36, 57, 100-101, 103, 113, 120-122, 137, 152, 172, 192-193, 209 Ormont 10, 24, 29, 37, 108-112, 120, 132 Otto I, Emperor 101 Oulens 57 Outre-Venoge 97 Palézieux 229 Paris 6, 10, 12, 26, 46, 106-107, 113-114, 116, 118-119, 127, 139, 153, 166,

169, 175, 177, 216, 233, 263, 270, 274-275, 279-280 Paul III, Pope 44, 46, 48, 57, 77, 90, 104, 132, 141, 157 Payerne 18-19, 24-25, 27, 100-101, 113, 172, 226, 230 Peasants’ War (1525) 31, 95, 106-107, 111 Perrin, Ami 223 Philip II, King of Spain 57, 59 Pierrefleur 40, 66, 120-122, 137, 142, 152, 161, 226-227, 272 Plus 114, 115, 132 Predestination 2, 7, 70, 169, 197, 213217, 219, 222, 224, 240-241, 244, 247, 249-252, 260, 262 Protestant cantons 4, 47-53, 76-77, 84, 90, 92, 184, 197, 200-201, 204, 217, 259, 264 Protestants 25, 33-34, 47, 49, 51, 57-58, 63-64, 77, 80, 88, 93, 129, 139, 142, 170, 187, 189, 210-211, 214, 263 Provence (Vaud) 57 Puritans 264 Quesnoy, Eustache de 176 Reformation of the Refugees 4, 7, 169, 211, 214, 216, 262-264, 277 Reformed Church 2, 40, 149, 152, 171, 176, 178, 197, 201, 210, 231, 239, 264, 269 Reformed tradition 1, 40, 44, 57, 76, 110, 120, 125, 127, 135, 140, 214-215, 246, 259, 263-264 Rhaetian League 30 Rhellikan, Johannes 85-86, 88 Rhine River 11, 30 Rhône River 11, 111 Ribit, Jean 176 Ritter, Erasmus 83-86, 88, 155, 181 Rive Disputation See Geneva, Rive disputation Rive, Georges de 123, 228 Rolle 97 Romainmôtier 100-101, 172, 227, 272, 277 Romanel 226-228

Index

285

Rome 3, 100, 117, 170, 177, 237-238, 246-254, 274, 280 Romont 19, 27 Rovéréa, Jean de 110 Rue 19 Rümlang, Eberhard von 188, 190, 194

64-66, 76-77, 80, 83, 88, 90, 92-93, 95, 112, 151, 170, 184, 189-190, 194, 196, 197, 199, 201-203, 208-211, 213, 215-216, 219, 230, 257, 264 Swiss-French alliance See French alliance

Sacramentarians 113-114, 119-120, 122, 125, 132-133, 135-136, 140, 167, 197 Saint-Paul, François 219 Saint-Prex 99 Saint-Saphorin 21, 145, 225 Savigny-en-Lyonnais 101 Savoy 22, 29, 36, 43, 51, 53-57, 60, 170 Savoy, duke of 3, 8, 17, 19-21, 26, 30, 36, 38-47, 52-54, 57, 98, 100, 106, 111, 152, 160, 162, 228, 232, 259 Schaffhausen 22, 30, 48, 50, 55, 89, 200, 205 Schmalkald 92 Schmalkaldic League 50, 52, 64, 75, 79, 82, 184 Schmalkaldic War 48, 50, 169, 187, 197, 267 Schmidt, Konrad 188, 190 Schweinfurt 75 Schwyz 22, 34, 55 Servetus, Michael 216, 220, 268 Simplon pass 12-13 Sion 32, 97, 103 Soleure 37, 60, 97 Solothurn 22, 55 Sorbonne 119, 139-140, 143, 164, 178 St. Gall 200, 238, 278 St. Mauris 57 St. Quentin 59, 268 St.-Julien, peace of (1530) 39-40 Ste.-Croix 19 Steiger, Hans 194 Strasbourg 4, 28, 57, 63, 66-67, 69, 7478, 80, 82, 87, 89-90, 93, 139, 164, 179, 270, 280 Sturm, Jacob 50, 75, 274 Sulzer, Simon 175, 181, 188, 190 Swabian League 30 Swabian War 30-31 Swiss Confederation 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, 22-23, 26, 28, 30-33, 35, 38-39, 42-44, 47-53, 55-56, 58-60,

Ternier 145, 172, 227 Tetrapolitan Confession 75, 267 Thonon 110, 127-129, 146, 172, 219, 227, 244, 247, 256 Tournay, Jean de 130 Träger, Konrad 33 Trent, council of 46, 48-49, 57, 276 Tyrol 28, 30 Unterwalden 22, 33 Uri 22, 34 Valais 43, 59-60, 151, 229 Valier, Jacques 232, 234-236, 243, 254 Valois dynasty 26, 42-43, 59, 279 Veigy 216 Vevey 14, 97, 99-100, 103, 146, 171172, 182-183, 219, 227 Villarzel 21 Villette 21, 101, 103 Vingle, Pierre de 116-119, 138-139, 270271, 274 Viret, Pierre 3-5, 38, 80, 114-118, 124, 126-128, 138-143, 146, 148, 155, 162, 164-165, 167, 170, 173, 175198, 200-201, 203, 205-209, 215-220, 224, 226-227, 231-238, 240-245, 249, 253-256, 260, 262-264, 268, 270-274, 277, 279 De la vertu et usage du ministère (1548) 185-187, 192-193, 272 Viry, Michel de 228 Vullierens 171, 226, 228 Westphal, Joachim 201 Wittenberg 48, 63-64, 74, 76-77, 79-81, 83-84, 86-87, 89-93, 181, 188, 191, 199, 267, 277 Wittenberg Concord 48, 63-64, 74, 77, 79-81, 84, 86-87, 89-93, 181, 188, 191, 199, 267, 277 Yolande, Duchess of Savoy 27, 29

286 Yverdon 11, 12, 14, 19, 29, 101, 103, 125, 148-149, 172, 195, 226-227 Yvonand 35, 99, 113 Zébédée, André 170, 177, 185, 188-190, 192-197, 201, 206, 216, 220, 223, 267, 270 Zofingen 33, 69 Zug 22, 34, 176, 280 Zurich 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 22, 31-36, 43, 48-50, 53, 55, 60, 63, 65-66, 69, 73, 76-77, 81-93, 139, 169-170, 180, 184, 188-191, 196-201, 203, 205, 210,

Index 217, 238, 248, 255-256, 267, 270, 272, 274-275, 277-280 conference (1538) 91-92 Zwick, Johannes 80 Zwingli, Ulrich 1-2, 31-35, 63-66, 69, 76, 78-79, 83, 86, 88, 91, 93, 95-96, 106, 108, 119, 121, 142, 188-189, 191, 196-197, 200, 216-217, 261, 272-273, 276 Zwinglianism 8, 63, 75, 78, 93, 257 Zwinglians 63-64, 66, 81, 85, 87, 91, 93, 170, 197, 200