“Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or
Mythology?” - Brian Brewer, Truett Theological Seminary
Dr. Brewer’s paper addressed a
concern that, though well known in Anabaptist research circles, remains to be
ignored generally in broader historical circles. The traditional historiography
has been that Zwingli’s position remained constant and he was a cooler head
offering the Reformed position against the radicals who would eventually break
from the civic reform. Brewer’s thesis was that historians have failed to
research further into Zwingli’s nascent baptismal theology. In the same vein,
they ignore Anabaptist accounts of Zwingli’s perspective.
The
Hutterite Chronicle gives an account
from the Anabaptist perspective that reveals that the radicals of the Grebel
circle felt as though they had been mislead by their former teacher. Their
perception was that Zwingli agreed with them early on in their position against
paedobaptism. However, Zwingli did not pursue the course of reforming the
church in regards to that sacrament but yielded to the social concern of not
fomenting civil unrest.
The
question must be raised of whether the Hutterite
Chronicle accurately portrays Zwingli’s early baptismal theology. Other
sources must be called into consideration. There were two Tuesday meetings held
with the Grebel circle concerning the question of Baptism the December before
the January 1525 rebaptisms in the house of Felix Mantz. Clearly by this time
Zwingli and the radicals had parted ways.
Earlier,
Mantz had demanded that written arguments be made so that there would be no
confusion over the positions held by each party. The usual perception of this
fact was that Mantz was calling up for a debate but other testimony from Mantz
suggests a different motivation. Mantz said that he “knew full well” that
Zwingli believed that baptism should be an ordinance reserved only for those
who could confess faith. At another place, he says, “I am sure” that Zwingli
shared their understanding but he could not figure out why Zwingli would not
openly express that shared understanding. That being the case, it would then
seem that Mantz called upon Zwingli to commit his ideas to paper not so that
they may serve as a source of debate but rather so that they could have a
record in writing that Zwingli had actually rejected paedobaptism, even if he
was reticent to admit it.
In
the case of Hübmaier, as is well known, there is the account of a conversation
during which he and Zwingli discussed baptism. Hübmaier pointed toward
specific, such as the exact place,
date and who else was there as testimony that he was not incorrectly
remembering that Zwingli had doubted paedobaptism. Though these testimonies
certainly indicate that Zwingli had doubted infant baptism, it must be assented
that these come from the pens of those whose own position would benefit from
the claim. Can we find evidence of that same doubt in Zwingli’s nascent baptismal
theology?
In
an early sermon, Zwingli indicated that parents in Zürich had already begun to
withhold their children from baptism. To them he gave in that sermon the
assurance that without baptism they need not fear that their children be
damned. Also, Zwingli’s January 1523 67 Theses ended with a final thesis
indicating other issues that were intended to become part of the later
development of his reform program. Included in this were the tithe and the
issue of baptism, on which he called anyone curious to come speak to him
privately. This indicates that a reform of baptism was an issue he intended to
address as the reformation progressed and also that he was not yet ready to
make his still tenuous stance publicly known. The change on the issue of
baptism did not come until later and he would then state, “I myself was
deceived,” but he claimed to have not been as dogmatic as those who would later
institute credobaptism.
What
then was the cause for Zwingli to abandon the inklings of anti-paedobaptism in
favor of a staunch paedobaptism position? Brewer suggested that soon after the
Spring of 1523, during which the last sign of anti-paedobaptism is evident by
the conversation with Hübmaier, came an outbreak of iconoclasm. The
iconoclastic controversy had a significant effect, which was that Zwingli was
forced to reconsider the pace of the reforms he was instituting. The same
effect motivated the town council, who would in response call for slower
reforms. The radical’s break with Zwingli, in contrast with the traditional
historiography, was not because he wouldn’t change his baptismal position but
precisely because he did.
Brewer’s provided an excellent
narrative for understanding the events and the evidence for Zwingli’s positions
at various points of time. He is successful in defending the thesis that the
break between Zwingli and the Grebel group was not because the latter could not
convince to Zwingli to come to their position but rather because Zwingli had
given in to the exigencies of the situation and to the council’s demands by
having gone back on the trajectory on which his earlier theology ran.
Some questions remain, however. The
first is that Brewer assigned the iconoclastic controversy the role of catalyst
in shifting Zwingli’s baptismal theology back in line with the received
tradition. Is that event the event that sparked Zwingli’s change? That event
was only the first significant event between the Spring of 1523 and the Autumn
of 1524 that could have been such a catalyst. Two possibilities remain. In that
period of almost a year and a half, there could have been other events that
could have redirected Zwingli’s theology. Also, the span of time is long enough
to credit the change to further theological reflection not guided by any
identifiable event.
Second, if the outbreak of
iconoclasm and the resulting desire for slower reforms a sufficient explanation
for the change in Zwingli’s position. According to Brewer’s narrative, that
controversy led to the call for slower reforms but the break with the Grebel
circle was not over the speed by which reforms would be instituted but rather
the content of those reforms. The Grebel circle was not merely impatient in
waiting for Zwingli to change baptismal practice but they recognized that
Zwingli opposed any change of baptismal practice at any pace. So, while Brewer’s
presentation answers the question of why Zwingli would have reconsidered the
timing of baptismal reform, it did not answer why he changed his position
altogether.
