Italian Anabaptism: Was there Ever Such a Thing?

“Italian Anabaptism: Was there Ever Such a Thing?”[1] - Maël L. D. S. Disseau, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Disseau’s project began as a second look at the research and conclusions of Henry A. Dewind in order to reevaluate the question of the presence of Anabaptism in Italy.[2] DeWind had concluded that Anabaptism did not have a presence in Italy but rather the group of radicals had been given that name for polemical reasons. The trademark beliefs of the Anabaptists, as seen in their Swiss and South German manifestations, were absent from the Italian group, who instead had tendencies toward what would later be identified as anti-Trinitarianism (or “rationalism” in Williams’ parlance). Since this group denied the virgin birth, the existence of hell, plenary resurrection, etc.,[3] they ought to be recategorized.

Disseau challenged this conclusion to say that the movement had originally been of the same cloth as the normative Anabaptists across the Alps. However, later developments from without the movement turned very visibly toward anti-Trinitarian teaching. Essentially, the Italian Anabaptist movement had been theologically hijacked by an outside force. Those who remained closer to the central teachings of Anabaptism either reintegrated with the local church or fled.

One failure in understanding the movement has resulted from the lack of study of the movement outside of the Italian language. This means that for the majority of those who study the Radical Reformation, primarily English and German speaking scholars, views of the Italian movement come mediated only through limited channels of research such as DeWind’s, thus limiting vital critical treatment of the nature of the movement. Because of this lack of familiarity among Anglophone scholarship, Disseau began with an overview of the movement’s origins.

The center of Anabaptist activity in Italy was Venice, which had become a veritable Strasbourg of religious liberty on the peninsula. The Venetians were lenient on these matters so as to not impede the economic benefit of trade with “heterodox” merchants. As a result, the Anabaptists in Venice generally came from three backgrounds. There were first those who came in the late 1520s and after as refugees from both the Catholic and Protestant persecutions and those who came into contact with the ethos of appeal directly to Scripture for the foundation of Christian belief. The second group was that of merchants who had been doing business in Venice. The third strain that Disseau indentified was of those who were of a distinctively rebellious spirit dominant in Venice at the time.

Tiziano, whom Disseau had used as representative for the majority view of the Italian radicals, presumably had come from French-speaking Switzerland and seems to have come into contact with Anabaptist after having fled to Grisons. After having arrived in Italy, he was referred to as having taught an “ancient” doctrine, referring to Anabaptist teaching.[4] Numerous sources mention that his teaching was German in origin. Evidence of the content of his teaching indicates that his thought developed beyond the Lutheranism that precipitated his move to Geneva. He taught several distinctively Anabaptist doctrines, including that the sword was appropriately wielded by Gentiles but not by Christians, iconoclasm and anti-paedobaptism. However (if I heard Disseau correctly), he denied free will. Also, the anti-Trinitarianism that would later be attributed to the movement, known as the “new” teaching in distinction to the “ancient” teaching, was absent from Tiziano’s teachings.

In 1550, the Venetians held a synod during which the new, anti-Trinitarian teachings were discussed. Representing these teachings was a recently arrived figure, Pietro Manelfi. Although these new teachings were decidedly not aligned with the Anabaptist teaching that had up to this point characterized the group, Manelfi prevailed. Those who retained the “ancient” doctrine were asked to leave the group. Many fled while others, finding the alternative of joining with the anti-Trinitarians unpalatable, returned to the Catholic Church. After this moment the Venetian officials persecuted the group on account of its new teachings, which were beyond what the venetians were willing to formerly tolerate. When they referred to this group, they continued to refer to them according to the old label, “Anabaptist,” despite the move away from Anabaptist teaching. This then explains the information for which DeWind had tried to account by concluding that the pejorative “Anabaptist” was only applied for polemical expediency. The group had originally been Anabaptist and kept the label despite the change in theological distinctives.

As a separate thesis within this narrative Disseau offered an explanation for why Manelfi infiltrated the group. He proposed that Manelfi was not a genuine member of the group but rather an agent of Rome. Rome had been displeased with Venice’s leniency toward those outside of the Catholic Church.[5] The plan that Manelfi executed was to join the group and radicalize its teachings beyond that which was tolerable to the Venetians. In doing so the reputation of all dissenters would be of latent seditiousness and threat to the stability of the society. Thus convincing the Venetians that dissenters from Catholicism were a threat, the Venetians would then take the actions against them that Rome desired despite that anti-Trinitarian was a minority opinion within the Anabaptist movement.

As a side note, Disseau briefly described the peculiarly Venetians execution method of the Anabaptists. The Venetians avoided public executions that would be a disturbance by executing them quietly. The offender would be placed on a plank between two boats that would then sail out. After reaching a certain distance the boats would begin to diverge, dropping the offender into the water.

---

[1]The order of the presentation of this material has been slightly rearranged in order that the thesis may be clear in this format.

[2]“‘Anabaptism’ in Italy,” Church History 21, no. 1 (Mar. 1952): 20-38. The term “Anabaptist” is left in quotation marks to reflect the DeWind’s conclusion that the group called “Anabaptist” in Italy did not truly fit the mold of what is generally referred to by that name.

[3]As evidenced by the testimony of Pietro Manelfi in the Venetian Synod of 1550, held by that movement. Disseau provided a translation of this testimony and some other documents in a handout.

[4]This was not a positive affirmation of the restorationist program of the Anabaptists that sought to restore the teaching and practice of the ancient church. Nor was it a reference to the older teaching of the Catholic teaching as opposed to the newer teaching of the Reformation. Rather, it was a localized term set against the “new” teaching among the Italian movement, namely the anti-Trinitarian and rationalist doctrines. This difference will be made clearer below.

[5]Apparently, laws against rebaptism were in effect in Venice in the same way that the Swiss had appealed to ancient laws against rebaptism in order to persecute the Anabaptists. However, the Venetians were unwilling to enforce these laws for the reason given above. This information was not part of the presentation but was given in conversation afterward.