Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?

“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.