Anabaptist New Testament Biblicism and the Shift of Expectations toward Radicalization

One of my current reads is Werner Packull’s Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation.[1] I had read the publication of his dissertation, Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, 1525-1531[2] and I am refreshed to once again read his writing, which to me is solid history that is very readable–a narrative that is fastened to historical details and is sympathetic from an outside perspective without feeling the need to be apologetic in Anabaptism’s defense. In a section titled, “The Forgotten Factor: The Availability of the Vernacular Scriptures,”[3] Packull composed a mini essay on the historical circumstances that contributed to the New Testament orientation of Swiss Anabaptist Biblicism.

In that section Packull reviewed the dates of printings of the Scriptures in the vernacular that would have been available to the book distributor Andreas Castelberger and the network of friends involved in the Bible study from which Anabaptism would spring. Luther’s New Testament was completed in 1522 and was widely available. Versions tailored to the Swiss dialects became available in the following years. The Old Testament began to be available in the vernacular shortly thereafter, with a first installment coming out of Basel at the end of 1523. While the Old Testament existed in the vernacular, it was several years before it was completely translated and the translations that were available were not as widely available.

In light of the certain New Testament preference of the New Testament over the Old,[4] Packull concluded that it was possible “that the New Testament orientation of Early Swiss Anabaptism was influenced by particular historical circumstances that included the limited availability of the vernacular Scriptures.”[5] Since the Anabaptists could be loosely characterized as a bottom-up hermeneutic community reflecting the practical concerns of the congregation rather than a top-down hermeneutic authority structure under the leadership of the learned for whom the availability of the vernacular Scriptures would have less consequence, despite that there were several learned leaders among the first Anabaptists, “Swiss Anabaptist vernacular biblicism, it can be argued [as Packull had just done], took shape before a wholistic reading of both testaments was an option for a hermeneutic community that had rejected the tutelage of the learned.”[6]

The Anabaptists had a different reform polity in mind than Zwingli and the incipient cause of limited availability of vernacular Scriptures lent the Anabaptists to appeal primarily to the New Testament. This dialogically led to further differences of reform polity as the paradigm of New Testament oriented Biblicism hardened in continued Anabaptist polemics. The turning point was the issue of baptism, which reflected both the difference over reform polity and hermeneutics. The Anabaptists appealed to the New Testament on the issue while Zwingli read the Old Testament rite of circumcision at an equal level with the New Testament, justifying this move by claiming that the New Testament church instituted baptism before writing the books and letters collected in the New Testament. Packull recognized that it was not insignificant that the correlation of the breaking point of baptism and Zwingli beginning to preach the Old Testament in the Münster.[7]

Packull’s awareness of the influence of this factor on the hermeneutics of the Anabaptists prevents interpreting their New Testament orientation as a “deliberately held principled position”[8] developed in the crucible of insular theological reflection. There is one further question that comes to my mind from Packull’s research. Is the New Testament orientation of the Anabaptists in accordance to the above-mentioned factors developed in distinction to an inherent Reformation hermeneutic that held both Testaments as equal or was that orientation developed as the logical conclusion of an early Reformation preference for the New Testament that set about those factors?

It was no accident that the New Testament was the first to be translated and printed. Luther’s translation was an effort to proliferate the gospel that Luther had grounded in the New Testament, especially in passages like Mark 1:15 and explicated in his lectures on Romans. Zwingli’s demonstrated the same preference for the New Testament by preaching from the New Testament long before systematically approaching the Old. Packull contended that Zwingli’s regard for the Old Testament was always present but was obscured by the New Testaments bases for his preaching. Packull wrote, “Zwingli’s own initial preoccupation masked potential differences.”[9] The exact status of the importance of the Old Testament in Zwingli’s hermeneutics has not been given (to my knowledge) treatment but would be a worthwhile avenue of future research. However, if his change from his initial doubts of infant baptism is any indication,[10] then it seems that Zwingli possibly held to a Anabaptistic New Testament orientation and only later did he elevate the Old Testament for the purposes of combating the Anabaptists.

If a preference for the New Testament was the initial Reformation standard, then it would not be the case that the availability of the vernacular Scriptures caused Anabaptists to prefer the New Testament, although the strength of Packull’s research would confirm that that factor certainly reinforced the preference. It would then have been Zwingli, needing a polemical advantage, who turned to the Old Testament, which would have been available to him without translation. What then may be the case, as is fitting with my broader interpretation of the Reformation, is that it was not the Anabaptists radicalized their Biblicism beyond that of the reformers but rather that the reformers moderated on their previous positions, on which the Anabaptists remained consistent. Though a complete paradigm shift from the reformers/radical reformers paradigm to one of reformers (Anabaptists)/moderating reformers (Luther, Zwingli, et al.) may be more seismic than warranted, a push in that direction will move interpreters of the Reformation away from the default assumption that differences between the two parties were always a result of radicalization.

A more complex dynamic is at play. At times the radicals indeed took the reforms of the moderates beyond the positions the moderates consistently maintained. At other times the radicals were the ones who consistently maintained the initial positions on reform on which the moderates had drawn back. The continuity of ideas did not necessarily rest on the continuity of persons. What may more often be revealed to be the case was that the later split came on issues on which there was no firm position. For example, neither party retained Zwingli’s initial hesitance on infant baptism. The radicals went beyond it by practicing believer’s baptism while the reformers withdrew. Luther’s early consideration of an ecclesiola was radicalized into the separated church of Anabaptism while Luther set the idea aside for later institution (which never occurred). Historians of the Radical Reformation should be served well in gaining a new interpretive tool by being free of assuming all differences between the two camps resulted from the radicals going beyond positions that the moderates consistently maintained.

The same operating principle may be at play in the topic at hand, namely that the differing hermeneutics after the split over baptism were not necessarily indicative of one side standing firm and the other either radicalizing or moderating. The New Testament preference was observed by all but as the debates over reforms continued, Zwingli and his learned coterie lessened the distinction between the Testaments by elevating the Old to support their moderate reforms while the Anabaptists expanded on that preference almost to the exclusion of the Old Testament since they did not have it readily available to them. Their preference of the New Testament was so great that they were subject to the taunts of the moderates, who charged that they were reviving the error of Marcion.[11]

---

[1](Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

[2](Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977).

[3]Hutterite Beginnings, 27-29.

[4]In an endnote, Packull quoted John Howard Yoder’s claim that the preeminence of the New Testament among the Anabaptists is so certain that it is taken for granted. Packull called this an understatement (Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 329). Importantly, Jonathan R. Seilig concluded that the Anabaptists treated the Apocrypha as equal to the rest of the canon (“Solae [Quae?] Scripturae: Anabaptists and the Apocrypha,” MQR 80, no. 1 [Jan. 2006]: 5-34). While these claims are not cotenable, Packull is only speaking of the emerging movement of the mid- to late 1520s while Seilig wrote of Anabaptism up until the mid-1600s. Before the first century of Anabaptism was completed the historical circumstance of extremely limited availability of the vernacular Old Testament had passed.

[5]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.

[6]Ibid., 32.

[7]Soon after arriving in Zürich in 1519, Zwingli had begun preaching from the Gospel of Matthew with the mandate to preach the complete text, genealogies and all—a project that would consume the first half of the 1520s (Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 51).

[8]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.

[9]Ibid., 29.

[10]Many sources attest to this change, but the most in depth that I have come across is that of Brian Brewer, “Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, Ft. Worth, Texas, October 2011.

[11]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.

Hübmaier and Article VII of the Baptist Faith and Message

            I arrived late to a Baptist research symposium to hear the Q&A following a student’s paper presentation. I don’t know what the paper was on except that had to do with Balthasar Hübmaier. The last question the faculty panel asked of the student was if Hübmaier would affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in regards to the Lord’s Supper. The student first responded by saying that Hübmaier would prefer relying on Scripture rather than on creeds or confessions. It was a bit of a pat answer but it was essentially correct. After thinking out loud for a few seconds, the student admitted that Hübmaier likely would agree to the substance of the BFM. Unfortunately that question had been the last and my immediately upshot hand was ignored. So, let’s reevaluate the question: would Hübmaier affirm the BFM’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper?

            Article VII of the BFM reads, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”[1] Two aspects of this are important for our enquiry: the memorial aspect indicated by the words “symbolic” and “memorialize” and also the reference to the events of the crucifixion and the parousia. By referencing the event of the crucifixion the BFM bypasses the question of real presence that was at the fore of Reformation debates on the Supper. This is confirmed by Leon McBeth’s summary of historical Baptist understanding of the Lord’s Supper as “recall[ing] and reflect[ing] upon the death of Christ.”[2] McBeth further concluded that the central concern among Baptists regarding the Supper was real presence but rather the matter of who would be allowed to participate in the ordinance.

            Huldrych Zwingli’s memorial view was that the words of institution were metaphorical, with est of hoc est corpus meum taking the meaning of significant. The emphasis for Zwingli’s memorial view was the memorialized body, which was broken. For Baptist, as the BFM indicates, the emphasis is on the crucifixion event, during which that body was broken. The difference is of emphasis rather than substance on this point. While Baptists were engaged in a different debate on the Lord’s Supper, they retained an essentially Zwinglian answer to the debate from Hübmaier’s day. The first direction to take in answering the central question is to ask if Hübmaier would agree with the BFM’s understanding of real presence.

            Hübmaier’s teaching on the subject has been summarized often enough not to demand extensive treatment here.[3] John Rempel’s work, which has gained great currency in Anabaptist studies since its publication, summarizes Hübmaier’s opinion on real presence: "An ontological shift followed in which the visible church became the res referred to by the signum. That is to say, for Hubmaier the breaking of bread became preeminently a sign of the church and its covenant of obedience."[4] Further, "The Lord's Supper is [for Hübmaier] the sign that the incarnation is being carried on in the church."[5] If the Body of Christ memorialized in the Supper was for Hübmaier the church rather than the physical body as taught by Zwingli and evidently agreed to by Baptists, then Hübmaier would thus be at odds with the BFM.

            Reading Hübmaier’s writings might cause confusion if the chronological development of his controversy with his erstwhile co-reformer, Zwingli, is not taken into account. While that controversy centered on baptism, baptism was to the extent of that controversy’s reach. For instance, Hübmaier initially agreed with Zwingli, writing in one of his earliest works, Eighteen Theses Concerning the Christian Life of 1524, “The mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the death of Christ.”[6] The editors of Hübmaier’s works commented on the similarity to one of Zwingli’s 67 Theses. Interestingly, both Zwingli and Hübmaier at this stage viewed the Supper as memorializing Christ’s death, thus further demonstrating the interchangeability of the body of Christ and the event during which that body was broken.

Directions toward including the church as the body of Christ alongside the physical body (in memory) of Christ are evident as Hübmaier’s thought developed. He wrote that believers partaking in the Supper are “willing to let [their] flesh and blood be broken and sacrificed, which [they have] now become one bread and one drink.”[7] While Hübmaier’s positioning of the church as the body of Christ represented in the Supper was a development of his thought beyond Zwinglian memorialism, perhaps even to the point of assuming greater prominence over the physical body of Christ, it is not as clear that the Zwinglian starting point had been set aside.[8] In Brewer’s estimation, Hübmaier’s “Eucharistic conclusion is the same as Zwingli’s, differing only in their hermeneutical routes.[9]

If Hübmaier intended to include the church as the res to the Supper’s signum to the exclusion of the physical body, then the BFM’s reference to the memorial of Christ’s death would not be in agreement with Hübmaier’s mature theology. If Hübmaier only intended to add a second meaning to the sign, then the BFM would be within Hübmaier’s teaching, although not fully encompassing the development of the additional meaning. While this may appear to allow Hübmaier the speculative affirmation of the BFM’s declaration on the real presence debate, given that the respective doctrinal statements were forged over the fires of different controversies. To make a judgment on this is admittedly speculative (a danger that will be addressed below), but it is evidence enough that Zwingli’s position was essentially no different than that of Baptists in general and that Hübmaier came to view Zwingli as an opponent on the issue.[10] This says little about other areas of possible disagreement between Hübmaier and the BFM’s teaching on the Supper such as the BFM’s eschatological outlook[11] or the BFM’s lack of entanglement of the Supper along with baptism into Hübmaier’s disciplinary ecclesiological superstructure.[12] If Hübmaier were to affirm the BFM, it would likely be with qualification at the least.

Why then indulge in such speculation? There is a danger in speculation to the point of losing focus on what was actually said, even if there were tendencies evident in the life of a theologian whose untimely death aborted a full fruition of his thought. Also, and more urgently, there is the possibility of idealizing a theologian of near kinship that can anachronistically project onto a historical figure the image of the one speculating. I suspect that this is what happened in our case here–the student may have saw great similarity on clearer areas and made a premature judgment on a grey area. A beach ball and a bowling ball cast remarkably similar shadows but seeing only the shadow would be a poor guide to deciding whether the ball is safe to punt. To be fair to the student, he was forced to speculate because that was the question that was asked. It might not have been a fair question to ask in the first place (unless the paper was titled, “Hübmaier and the BFM: A Comparison of Free Church Perspectives on Real Presence in the Supper”). Sometimes questions must be answered simply because they are asked.

While it would be convenient to find a historical teacher quite similar to ourselves and thus validate our own position on the authority of heroes, we must remember the true value of historical theology. No theologian of the past is an authority for us beyond except where they agree with Scripture. However, when we find one who has a very similar starting point, that theologian can become an effective foil toward our own theological development. In the case of Hübmaier and the Baptists, the shared starting points include recognition of the authority of Scripture, and a free church composed of believers. Both Hübmaier and the Anabaptists should be understood for who they really were and then, listening to their voices, they can challenge our theology and thus lead us to growth. Perhaps that may only mean that we are confirmed in our positions, but the differences can force us to strengthen our arguments or alternately rebuke us in our error.

---

[1]http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp. This is the latest edition of the BFM from 2000. The wording is retained from the 1963 BFM while the 1925 BFM, reading that the Lord’s Supper “commemorate[s] the dying love of Christ.” The emphasis in the supper as memorializing Christ’s death is similar.

[2]H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman, 1987), 81.

[3]One of the more recent of which is Brian Brewer, “A Response to Grace: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss., Madison, New Jersey, Drew University, 2003, ch. 3.

[4]John Rempel, The Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism: A Study in the Christology of Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck and Dirk Phillips, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 33 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1993), 53

[5] Ibid., 80.

[6]In H. Wayne Pipken and John Howard Yoder, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian, Classics of the Radical Reformation Vol. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 32. cf. Summa of the Entire Christian Life, in Balthasar Hubmaier, 87-88.

[7]A Simple Instruction, in Balthasar Hubmaier, 334. Rempel saw notes of that direction even earlier in Hübmaier’s writings, Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism, 55-56.

[8]Rempel’s contention that Hübmaier used of the purposefully ambiguous phrase “the body of Christ in remembrance” in order to bridge from the physical body to the church (Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism, 63) might be an overstatement. Rempel may have been reading back onto Hübmaier’s use of that phrase Hübmaier’s later development, effectively suggesting that what Hübmaier intended as an addition was really a replacement.

[9]Brewer, “Response to Grace,” 98.

[10]Allowing that Hübmaier’s opposition was not against Zwingli’s position per se but rather the arguments by which Zwingli arrived at that position, it is significant that Baptist seem to also follow Zwingli’s argumentation. Millard J. Erikson, for example, significantly used “signifies” to interpret “is” in the institutional words. Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 1129-1131.

[11]Hübmaier commented on this but this was not sufficiently developed to readily facilitate comparison.

[12]Simon Victor Goncharenko placed discipline in too important a role in Hübmaier’s theology by labeling it the “central” point (“The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier’s Theology.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011, vi. See the earlier review on this site), but such overreaching would hardly be possible if discipline were not of great, if not central, importance. Brewer listed discipline among those ecclesiological activities he called “quasi-sacramental”, thus recognizing discipline’s importance near to the level of baptism and the Supper.

Review of Scholar, Pastor, Martyr: The Life and Ministry of Balthasar Hubmaier (ca. 1480-1528), by H Wayne Walker Pipkin

Pipkin, H Wayne Walker. Scholar, Pastor, Martyr: The Life and Ministry of Balthasar  Hubmaier (ca. 1480-1528). Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. x+118 pp. 250Kč (≈$13.50).

H Wayne Walker Pipkin’s 2006 lectures, given as the Hughey lectures of that year, are here published by the International Baptist Theological Seminary at which they were originally delivered. They form a brief biography according to the latest scholarship. Torsten Bergsten’s biography[1] remains the standard and Pipkin admittedly relied on Bergsten for the primary framework of his own endeavor (38n), but Pipkin’s work gives an overall update that is needed after the four decades following Bergsten’s biography.

The book begins by outlining Pipkin’s own journey, tracing many years of scholarship perhaps best embodied in his translation, co-edited with John Howard Yoder, of Hübmaier’s corpus.[2] The first chapter then outlined the history of scholarship on Hübmaier. That history included much of the recent scholarship that followed the English translation of Hübmaier’s works.

Particular attention was given to doctoral dissertations, an area that has burgeoned even more since these lectures were given. Among these, Pipkin felt that there was some promise but he also did not hold back in expressing his uneasiness toward dissertations coming from Southern Baptists. He saw that several of the students, whom he viewed as led by Emir Caner, tended to read back onto Hübmaier their own theological convictions and categories. While I agree with Pipkin insofar as I believe that Southern Baptist scholarship on Anabaptism and Hübmaier has neither yet reached its maturity nor escaped the context of contemporary denominational debates, I would not go so far as Pipkin in rejecting contemporary terminology in understanding historical theologies. Pipkin faulted Caner for using the terms “trichomy” and “dichotomy” in relation to Hübmaier (who was a trichotomist), since he viewed these terms as more relevant for fields like math or biology but not for the theology of a figure who himself had not used the terms (25). It seems as though Pipkin was revealing more of his own discomfort with that terminology rather than recognizing the usefulness of the terms in labeling Hübmaier’s thought. By the same reasoning, concepts like the trinity must also be thrown out of biblical theology since that word is not used in Scripture. Regardless of whether Hübmaier used the word, he still taught the concept. Also, Pipkin did not seem to have been aware that the interest in Hübmaier among Southern Baptists was not so much due to Caner as it has been to Paige Patterson, although Pipkin did recognize Patterson as Caner’s mentor. Following the dissertations, as was Pipkin’s tactic, in recent years would confirm that fact.

The biographical section reads quite pleasantly and Pipkin addresses topics that would not have been covered in Bergsten. Pipkin demonstrated facility beyond the theological concerns involved with Hübmaier. He gave fair play to the political situations that drove several of the steps in Hübmaier’s life. Two will give evidence to that here will be recounted since these are areas that seem to be less attended in some scholarship and because Pipkin makes a useful contribution in a book of limited distribution. I believe his book is only available directly from the seminary.

One is the political situation of Waldshut in relation to the Hapsburgs. The town sat directly across the river from Switzerland and had a tendency of identifying itself with the Swiss. As the reforms in Zürich gained momentum Waldshut sought inclusion into the influence of Zürich but the Hapsburgs did not want to lose Waldshut from Austrian hands. With Swiss independence having come 25 years earlier, Waldshut desired similar independence but Zürich could not risk the contention with Austria, thus forcing Zürich to distance themselves from any appearance of trying to annex the town (61-63). If Waldshut were to bring in the Reformation they would have to do so outside of the auspices of the Swiss.

Further alienation came from the Peasants’ War. As the anonymous “To the Assembly of the Common Peasantry” [3]makes clear, part of the peasants’ program was to reform German society in line with the economic changes that had taken place at the end of the fifteenth century in Switzerland. With Waldshut’s involvement in the uprisings Zwingli would have been pressured to dissociate himself from Hübmaier, Waldshut’s reformer, lest the Catholic cantons attack the reforms in Zürich as having spawned the rebellion (72-73). These two factors combined with differences in theology and hermeneutics helped lead to the contention between Hübmaier and Zwingli.

The book ends with an overview of Hübmaier’s theology that offers no substantially original insights but does give an introduction to his thought in the same clear prose as the biography. Two appendices round out the book: the first being a defense of Pipkin’s translation of Hübmaier’s epigram, “Die Wahrheit ist vntödlich,” and the second a revision of the previously translated Pledge of Love, revised for inclusion in contemporary incorporations into worship services of baptism. In the critical edition of Hübmaier’s works, Pipkin and Yoder translated the epigram differently. Yoder preferred to render “vntödlich” as “unkillable” while Pipkin, based on his survey of dictionaries from both the sixteenth century and from more modern times, rendered it “immortal.” This is not so much a change of meaning as much a change of emphasis. The most important support for Pipkin’s translation is Hübmaier’s own usage when writing in Latin, where he used “immortalis.”

---

[1]Balthasar Hubmaier: Seine Stellung zu Reformation and Täufertum (Kassel: Oncken, 1961).; Balthasar Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, Translated and Edited by William Roscoe Estep (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson, 1978).

[2]Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989).

[3]In Michael G. Baylor ed., The Radical Reformation, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 101-129.

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.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Hermeneutical Prophet?

              Key to the debate between Zwingli and Hubmaier on the question of infant baptism was hermeneutical method. Zwingli, following the normative principle, defended infant baptism on account that it had not been prohibited in Scripture. Hubmaier, following the regulative principle, rejected it because there was no Scriptural precedent for the practice.

               Hubmaier evidently felt the reformed argument was lacking in Scriptural foundation. Hubmaier wrote, "We have a clear word for baptizing believers and you have none for baptizing your children, except that you groundlessly drag in several shadows from the Old Testament."1 Hubmaier had also challenged Zwingli to defend his position with "bright, clear, and simple writing... without any additions."2 This Hubmaier requested after saying that he "would report on and testify to [his] reasons in the divine Scriptures that infant baptism is a work without any basis."3 Hubmaier's view was that those within the magisterial reformation that held over the practice of infant baptism were weak in their use of Scripture, adding to the Word in order to justify their position.
              Hubmaier had pointed words directed toward the magisterial reformers use of Scripture that allowed them to hold to infant baptism. This abuse of the Scripture was against the sola scriptura ideal that had in large part sparked that reformation and Hubmaier recognized that the magisterial reformers were ignoring the Scriptures that had given them their starting point in the doctrine of justification by faith. He wrote:

            "You twist yourself, you bend back and forth, but no clear Scripture will come forth. Remember what you said against Faber and published in the Article 15,4 that all truth stands clear in the Word of God. If now infant baptism is truth, then point it out in the clear Word of God. Show it to us for God's sake. Do it; do not forget. Or the vicar will complain that you have used a sword against him that you now unbelt and that you cannot suffer to be stabbed with."

            The force of Hubmaier's rebuke here is clear. As strong as Hubmaier's words may have been, they are quite chilling when compared to these lines from John Eck, former mentor of Hubmaier and constant antagonist to Luther:

            "Even though, in the preceding and following articles, the new Christians [reformers] set up the principle that they would accept nothing that could not be defended with clear biblical references; after the Anabaptists had arisen they could not defeat them and were forced to give up their principle (foundation) and concede that many things had to be believed and practiced that were not written (contained) [in Scripture], as Zwingli asserted with respect to the baptism of Mary and also the baptism of children.”5

            Just as Hubmaier had claimed, it did not go unnoticed among the Catholics that the magisterial reformers had turned against what they had once held up as their guide for truth, Scripture. Eck admitted that in terms of biblicism it was the Anabaptists who had the stronger argument. The Catholics indeed observed the magisterial reformers place back in its sheath the sword of Scripture that they had formerly wielded against their Catholic opponents. Hubmaier died before Eck wrote these words in 1530 but his rebuke foresaw what would become the rebuke of the Catholics against the same group.

1Balthasar Hubmaier, "Dialogue with Zwingli's Baptism Book," in H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder eds. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 182.

2Ibid., 172.

3Ibid.

4This was an article in Zwingli's sixty-seven theses compiled for the first Zurich disputation, which set the pace for the growing reformation movement in that city.

5John Eck, Enchiridion, quoted in Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Freedom: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and During World War I (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Kindred, 2006), 348-349.