of the other; but whilst the authority of the state rests upon law and its severe administration, the power of the church ought to be grounded only upon conviction, faith, freedom and love, for these are the requirements as well as the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. In a democracy the law must be a most complete defence against the wicked; the Gospel the basis of all improvement. As the principles of the church and of the state differ in this way, so do they also in the mode of their use. This difference was clearly apprehended by Zwingli. We see it above. The ecclesiastical and political reforms of Zurich had shaped themselves according to these principles. In all religious matters, conviction was first sought; in all political, proof that the letter of the law would justify or demand it, was sufficient. Whatever may be the relation of the church to the state in other forms of government, this must continue the most suitable for a democracy. Bern, on the other hand, was never democratic. It is true, indeed, that even here ecclesiastical reform was only possible by the removal of some of the most influential heads of the aristocracy, which, however, did not succumb as completely as in Zurich, so that even the friends of the Reformation and of Zwingli, who form the middle class, worked their way into the government, accepted partly from necessity and partly of their own accord, aristocratic forms and principles. The closer the connection between Bern and Zurich now became, the less could a reaction of the former upon the latter be prevented. The commercial city was rather disposed to treat with her subjects, the knightly to issue her commands. In Zurich the Great Council had, through Zwingli's influence, become the ruling authority; in Bern, as might be expected from her character, it was always the Small. As long as the Reformation was confined to Zurich, the ecclesiastical tendency predominated; in proportion as it passed over to Bern, Basel and other states, the political gained the upper hand. The question, whether the Church or the Holy Scriptures ought to decide in matters of faith, was scientific and historical; that, as to how the Articles of Confederation should be interpreted; what was the limit of the Diet's authority, and for what single states might resist a majority of the others, belonged to the sphere of public law. By the accession of Bern to Zurich, and the common position, which they had now to assume and maintain against the Five Cantons, Zwingli was obliged to take up this question touching the Confederacy, to give counsel, to mingle in politics, to tread the slippery path with one foot, as it were, whilst the other remained on the firm foundation of religious principle. The consequences of this vacillating course are apparent, from the beginning of the year 1528 onward, in the striking change manifest in his mode of dealing with the affairs of his own canton. The same man, who hitherto had done homage