`Theyhad said nothing about rebaptism’:TheSurprising Birth of Swiss Anabaptism Paul Brand (University of York )1

Anabaptism, the major movement ofradical dissent in the early Reforma- tion, was born in ZuÈ rich in 1525, and soon spread across northern Europe. 2 Within ten years, three distinct branches or traditions had formed: the Swiss Anabaptists, the South German or Austrian Anabaptists, and the North German or Dutch Anabaptists. 3 Despite heavy persecution from both Pro- testant and Catholic authorities, these Anabaptist communities were able to establish alasting tradition in Europe and, from the seventeenth century, in North America. The Mennonite Church, the largest group that traces its roots tothe Anabaptists ofthe sixteenth century, now has around 500 000 members worldwide. 4 The ®rst Anabaptists challenged the Lutheran and Zwinglian orthodoxies on anumber ofissues, 5 but were associated most directly with the practice of adult baptism. In many respects, this association proved bene® cial in the early attempts at missionary work. Adult baptism was areadily recognizable public act, by which followers could demonstrate their support for the movement. The simplicity ofthe act, and the range ofpossible motives for undergoing adult baptism (theological, social, emotional), which will be further discussed below, may also have helped tocover potential splits in the movement. Whilst the disparate interests ofurban and rural radicals

1 Iwouldlike to thank Professor WolfgangBehringer for his helpand support in the writing of this paper.I wouldalso like to thank the staŒ of theLondon Mennonite Centre for kindpermission to usetheir library. 2 This dissentis broadlysurveyed in George Huntston Williams, TheRadical Reformation (3rd edn,Kirksville, 2000). 3 OnAnabaptism, see C. ArnoldSnyder, AnabaptistHistory and Theology: An Introduction (Kitchener,1995). The historiography of Anabaptism has recently been assessed by James M. Stayer,`The Signi® cance of Anabaptism and Anabaptist Research’ ,inHans-Ju È rgenGoertz and JamesM. Stayer(eds), RadikalitaÈ tundDissent im 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin,2002), pp. 77 88. 4 SeeCornelius J. Dyck(ed.), AnIntroduction to Mennonite History (3rdedn, Scottdale, ¡ 1993). 5 Ausefulwork stressing theindependence of Anabaptist theology is WalterKlaassen, Anabaptism:Neither Catholic nor Protestant (3rdedn, Kitchener, 2001).

GermanHistory Vol. 22 No. 2 10.1191/0266355404gh304oa # 2004The German History Society 156 Paul Brand may have meant that they accepted adult baptism for diŒerent reasons, they could at least agree on the need for the act itself. 6 Nevertheless, the practice brought with it many problems. If adult baptism served as areadily recognizable act for supporters, it also did so for persecuting authorities: the death penalty was attached tothe physical act of adult baptism, rather than the theological views behind it. 7 The practice of adult baptism, and its concomitant rejection ofinfant baptism, may also have posed something ofa conceptual barrier for those who otherwise may have been attracted tothe movement. For centuries, the Church had taught that children who died without receiving baptism would not be saved, that baptism was necessary toovercome the punishment for original sin. Much like main- stream Protestant reformers, and many Counter-Reformation Catholics, the Anabaptists struggled toovercome popular superstition and traditional ideas, not least about infant baptism. Lutheran visitors in Saxony-Weimar at the end ofthe sixteenth century found that some villages still used atradi- tional form ofrequest for infant baptism as part oftheir otherwise reformed service. The wording was not only pre-Reformation, but `suggests that peo- ple still accepted the Catholic teaching that baptism was aprecondition of safety here and ofsalvation after death’. 8 This continuation oftraditional beliefs may also have been aproblem for the early Anabaptist movement, as the case ofGilg Schneider suggests. Schneider appears tohave accepted adult baptism and joined an Anabaptist fellowship whilst still holding avery traditional (pre-Reformation) under- standing ofthe power ofthe Eucharist. 9 His case suggests that the appeal ofAnabaptism may not have always been strong enough tofully overcome traditional or popular sacramental beliefs. But where did the practice ofadult baptism come from, and why was it attractive tothe early Anabaptist leaders? The ®rst adult, believers’ baptisms ofthe modern period took place on the evening of21 January 1525, amongst asmall group ofthose who had become disillusioned with the course ofthe Reformation in ZuÈ rich.1 0 This event, variously described as `theformal

6 On the rural urbansplit, seeClaus-Peter Clasen, Anabaptism.A SocialHistory, 1525 1618 (Ithaca,1972), pp. ¡305 309,where Clasen characterizes the ® rst decadeof Anabaptismas primarily ¡ urban.On theother hand, ¡ Werner O. Packull,`The Origins of Swiss Anabaptismin the Context of theReformation of the Common Man’ , Journalof MennoniteStudies ,12(1985),pp. 253 277 stres- ses thatthe Zu È richmovement was fromthe outset a combinationof urbanand rural radicals, ¡ and thatit was aruralideology that led to the eventual breakdown of the relationship with Zwingli. 7 Onthepersecution of theAnabaptists, see Clasen, Anabaptism, pp. 358 422. 8 SusanKarant-Nunn, TheReformation of Ritual (London,1997), pp. 61 ¡62,quotation on p. 62; thewhole chapter, `To beat the Devil: Baptism and the conquest of sin’,pp.¡43 71,contains much interestingmaterial, although with littlereference to Anabaptist practice. ¡ 9 D.JonathanGrieser, `Eucharistic Piety and the Appeal of Anabaptism in Tyrol: The Case of GilgSchneider’ , Archiv fuÈ rReformationsgeschichte ,90(1999),pp. 211 229. 10 Onthe origins and early development of Swiss Anabaptism,see Snyder, ¡ AnabaptistHistory and Theology, pp. 51 65;andG.R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge,1976), pp. 160 197.Primary sources are availablein translation ¡ in Leland Harder (ed.), TheSources of Swiss Anabaptism¡ (Scottdale,1985). The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 157 beginning ofAnabaptism’ , 11 `thebirthday ofthe movement’, 12 and the point at which `the ®rst gathered church ofsectarian ``Protestantism’’came into being’,13 clearly occupies acentral place in Anabaptist history. However, his- torians are yet tocome toa consensus about why the baptisms took place. The most recent full analysis and interpretation ofthese baptisms came in Walter Klaassen’sessay `The Rise ofthe Baptism ofAdult Believers in Swiss Anabaptism’. 14 Within Klaassen’sessay, it is possible todiscern two diŒer- ent approaches tounderstanding the believers’ baptisms ofJanuary 1525. The ®rst is that which Klaassen himself oŒers: seeing the baptisms as the result ofwhat had come before, namely the intellectual development of opposition toinfant baptism. The second, that which Klaassen identi® es in the work ofmany previous scholars, is tosee the baptisms in light ofwhat came after, namely the institutional and theological developments ofthe believers’ churches that have continued tothe present day. It is the intention ofthis paper tosuggest athird way ofreading the baptisms: by focusing on the event itself and its immediate precursors toassess what these baptisms meant for the participants and why they took place at that particular time.

I:TheEvent and theSources The Reformation in ZuÈ rich is unavoidably linked with the arrival of Huldrych Zwingli, and the start ofhis preaching at the GrossmuÈnster in January 1519. 15 His sermons were not based on the set texts ofthe liturgical calendar, but, starting with the Gospel ofMatthew, were expositions of whole NewTestament books, `notonly scriptural preaching’,but an `educa- tion in the Bible’. 16 Scriptural preaching became acall for reform based on Scripture with the deliberate breaking ofthe Lenten fast in 1522, when the printer Christoph Froschauer led agroup in the eating ofsome sausages, all watched by Zwingli. His subsequent defence oftheir actions led tocon¯ict with Hugo von Hohenlandenberg, Bishop ofConstance; on 29 January 1523, Zwingli metJohann Faber, the Bishop’srepresentative, in adisputa- tion in ZuÈ rich. The result was aZuÈ rich City Council order for clergy tolimit their preaching towhat could be supported by Scripture. Atthis point, Zwingli was holding together arather uneasy coalition: on the one hand, he had friends and supporters onthe city Council who were sympathetic tohis aims but were wary ofthe political problems that could

11 J.DennyWeaver, BecomingAnabaptist (Scottdale,1987), p. 41. 12 HaroldS. Bender, ConradGrebel, c. 1498 1526 (reprintedScottdale, 1998), p. xiv. 13 Williams, RadicalReformation , p. 213. ¡ 14 WalterKlaassen, `The Rise of the Baptism of Adult Believers in Swiss Anabaptism’,inWalter Klaassen(ed.), AnabaptismRevisited (Scottdale,1992), pp. 85 97. 15 See Potter, Zwingli; for ageneralsurvey of the early ¡Reformation in Zu Èrich,see Carter Lindberg, TheEuropean Reformations (Oxford,1996), pp. 169 181. 16 Lindberg, Reformations , p. 174. ¡ 158 Paul Brand be caused by abreak from tradition; on the other, there were also many grass-roots followers who expected radical changes in line with the Scripture he had read with them. Amongst this second group, who would gradually come toresent Zwingli’swillingness tocompromise with the authorities, were those who would play aleading role in the events of21 January 1525, most notably Conrad Grebel. 1 7 The weakness ofthis coalition was shown at the second ZuÈ rich disputa- tion ofOctober 1523, called todecide whether the Mass was asacri® ce and whether images should be allowed in churches. Whilst Zwingli and his radical followers agreed that the answer toboth ofthese questions was no, Zwingli, ever more politically aware, was willing toallow the Council todecide on what action totake in response tothis conclusion. The radical group demanded immediate action torestore Scriptural principles of worship toZuÈ rich, but demanded in vain. The coalition eventually fell apart when Zwingli, under pressure from the Council, broke his promise tocele- brate areformed, evangelical communion on Christmas Day, 1523. 1 8 Atsome point in the following year, the dispute between Zwingli and his radical opponents sharpened around the issue ofbaptism. This was not the only point on which they disagreed, but rather this issue, for anumber of reasons, came torepresent the fundamental theological diŒerences between Zwingli and the radicals. The Council again became concerned about the possible dangers ofradical dissent, and, following anumber ofprivate meet- ings between Zwingli and the radicals, apublic disputation on baptism was called for 17 January 1525. Our knowledge ofthis disputation is based on the record ofHeinrich Bullin- ger, Zwingli’ssuccessor as leader ofthe ZuÈ rich Reformation. 19 The radical group were represented by Grebel, Felix Mantz and Wilhelm Reublin. Follow- ing their presentation, `Zwingli replied methodically in all ofthe comprehen- siveness ofhis arguments and answers’,and the radicals `from then on could do nothing with his arguments nor maintain their [own] opinion’. 20 The ZuÈ rich Council, as had been expected, decided in favour ofZwingli. On 21 January, the Council issued adecree ordering Grebel and Mantz `todesist from their arguing and questioning’ ofinfant baptism; other leading members ofthe radi-

17 OnGrebel,see the classic, though rather dated, biography: Bender, Grebel; for morerecent material,see Heinold Fast, `Conrad Grebel. The Covenant on the Cross’ ,inHans-Ju È rgen Goertz (ed.), Pro®les of Radical Reformers (Kitchener,1982), pp. 118 131;and Hans-Ju ÈrgenGoertz, KonradGrebel. Kritiker desfrommen Scheins 1498 1526 (Hamburg,¡ 1998); of which `Conrad GrebelÐA ProvisionalLife’ , ConradGrebel Review ,¡17(1999), pp. 6 17is apartialtranslation. 18 Thedate was signi®cant: on Christmas Day,1522 Andreas Bodenstein ¡ von Karlstadt had per- formedthe ® rst evangelicalcommunion service in Wittenberg; see Lindberg, Reformations , p. 103. 19 HeinrichBullinger, Reformationsgeschichte (1567),quoted in Harder, p. 335;on Bullingeras a historian,see A.G. Dickens and John Tonkin, TheReformation in Historical Thought (Oxford, 1985),pp. 19 21;for abriefbiography, see David C. Steinmetz, Reformersin the Wings (2nd edn,Oxford, 2001), ¡ pp. 93 99. 20 Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte¡ ,quotedin Harder, p. 335. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 159 cal group who were not citizens ofZu È rich, namely Reublin, Johannes BroÈtli, Ludwig HaÈ tzer, and Andreas Castelberger, were `banished fromMilords’ ter- ritory’.21 It is the events following this Council decree that we must now con- sider in more detail. The story ofthe ®rst believers’ baptisms is told in four surviving sources. Two, those produced by Huldrych Zwingli 22 and Johann Kessler, 23 contain relatively little information and were written from what Leland Harder terms `thestate church perspective’. 2 4 Nevertheless, they are signi® cant in that they give information from outside ofthe ZuÈ rich radical group. There has been some recent debate concerning the other two, very similar, sources, both ofwhich come from within the Anabaptist tradition. The best-known account is taken from the ®rst part ofthe Hutterite Chronicle ,25 ® rst com- piled from avariety ofsources in the second half ofthe sixteenth century and handed down through generations ofHutterites tothe present day. 26 However, Leland Harder presents asecond, shorter account; 27 this, he sug- gests, is an eyewitness description, contained in aletter sent from Switzer- land toCologne in 1530, and used as the basis, albeit with `transparently apologetic’ additions, for the later account in the Chronicle.28 Such an accreditation has been vigorously denied by James Stayer. 29 Heconcludes that `there was aletter about the ®rst baptisms, certainly based on Hutterite chronicle materials, probably composed in the 1560 1590 period’,but that the ```Klettgau letter of1530’ ’’described by Harder¡ `is nothing more than a myth oflate twentieth-century scholarship’. 3 0 The diŒerences between these two sources are small, and will be discussed below. Onthe evening of21 January 1525, the radical group mettogether; Zwingli states that there were ®fteen ofthem. 31 The account in the Hutterite Chroni- cle records that when `fear came over them’,`they prayed that God grant it tothem to do his divine will and that he might have mercy upon them. Neither ¯esh and blood nor human wisdom compelled them. They were well

21 Quotedin Harder, p. 338. 22 Containedwithin Zwingli’ s Incatabaptistarum strophas eleencus (1527),quoted in Samuel MacauleyJackson (ed.), UlrichZwingli (1484 1531).Selected Works (Philadelphia,1972), p. 134. 23 Containedwithin Kessler’ s Sabbata,quoted¡ in Harder, p. 338;on Kessler, see Paul L. Nyhus, `Kessler,Johann’ ,inHans J. Hillerbrand(ed.), TheOxford Encyclopaedia of the Reformation , 4 vols.,vol. 2 (Oxfordand New York, 1996), pp. 375 376. 24 Harder,p. 338. ¡ 25 TheHutterian Brethren (eds.), TheChronicle of theHutterian Brethren ,2vols.,vol. 1 (New York,1987), pp. 43 45. 26 Ibid., pp. xi xix.¡ 27 Quotedin Harder, ¡ pp. 341 342. 28 Ibid., pp. 338 339. ¡ 29 JamesM. Stayer,¡ `Was therea Klettgauletter of 1530?’ , MennoniteQuarterly Review , 61 (1987), pp. 75 76;Stayer’ sarticleis basedupon, and is adeliberatepromotion of, Heinold Fast, `Wie doopte¡Konrad Grebel?’ , DoopsgezindeBijdragen ,4(1978),pp. 22 31. 30 Ibid., p. 76. ¡ 31 Zwingli, Incatabaptistarum; quotedin Jackson, p. 134. 160 Paul Brand aware ofwhat they would have tosuŒer for this.’ 32 Then JoÈrg Blaurock, a recent arrival in ZuÈ rich and so not mentioned in the Council decree, `stood up and asked Conrad Grebel in the name ofGod tobaptize him with true Christian baptism on his faith and recognition ofthe truth’. 33 There is some confusion as tothe events following Blaurock’sbaptism: the Cologne letter suggests that Grebel then baptized the rest ofthe group; 3 4 the Hutterite account has Blaurock conducting the subsequent baptisms. 35 Regardless ofwhich, both sources agree that all those present were baptized. We know only these basic details ofthe baptisms, and it would be useful to know more. For instance, we do not know exactly who was present. Clearly Grebel and Blaurock are certainties; likewise Felix Mantz, later tobe the ®rst Anabaptist martyr in ZuÈ rich, but important here because the venue for the baptisms is believed tohave been the house ofhis mother, Anna Mantz. Other than these three, we can speculate that the four noncitizens mentioned in the Council decree, Reublin, BroÈtli, HaÈtzer and Castelberger, were there; the other names mentioned in the letters written by Grebel toThomas MuÈ ntzer in Sep- tember 1524, that is Hans Ockenfuss, Bartlime Pur, Heinrich Aberli, John Pannicellus and Hans HujuŒ,also seem possibilities. 36 There may also have been some women present, as there were certainly women amongst the earliest supporters ofthe Anabaptist movement in the ZuÈ rich hinterland. 37 However, this excursus goes toshow how little we can really be certain of about the ®rst believers’ baptisms. Perhaps this is why, both at the timeand since, what details there are have been explained and interpreted in diŒerent ways. Weshall now consider these varying explanations. II: AnInevitable Conclusion An attemptto establish the intellectual and practical origins ofAnabaptism has been one ofthe foremost concerns ofscholars, and alarge number ofindivi- duals have been put forward as possible inspirations for the believers’ bap- tisms.38 Calvin Augustine Pater has combined anumber ofprevious theories toconstruct `a historical line ofin¯ uence’ :Andreas Carlstadt is `credited with

32 HutterianBrethren, p. 45. 33 Ibid.For abriefbiography of Blaurock, see John Allen Moore, AnabaptistPortraits (Scottdale,1984), pp. 69 93. 34 Quotedin Harder, p. ¡ 342. 35 HutterianBrethren, p. 45. 36 ConradGrebel to Thomas Mu È ntzer, ZuÈ rich,5 September1524; quoted in Harder, pp. 292, 294. 37 Onthe earliest known female supporter of the Swiss Anabaptists,see C. ArnoldSnyder, `MargaretHottinger of Zollikon’ ,inC. ArnoldSnyder and Linda A. HuebertHecht (eds.), Pro® les ofAnabaptistWomen: Sixteenth-Century Reforming Pioneers (Waterloo,1996), pp. 43 53. 38 Seefor example:Hans J. Hillerbrand,`The Origins of Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism: ¡ Another Look’, Archiv fuÈ rReformationsgeschichte ,53(1962), pp. 152 180;Calvin Augustine Pater, Karlstadt asthe Father of the Baptist Movements (Lewiston,1993); James ¡M. Stayer,`Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism:The Return of the Repressed’ , MennoniteQuarterly Review ,67(1993), pp. 5 30; and AbrahamFriesen, Erasmus,the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission (GrandRapids, 1998). ¡ The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 161

®rst opposing the sacramental nature ofinfant baptism; the Zwickau Prophets with ®rst openly agitating about it’;Carlstadt again appears, for `®rst refusing tobaptize infants and developing apositive position on adult baptism’;and the ZuÈ rich group are at the end ofthe line, credited `with initiating the ®rst adult baptisms’ .39 Such an account is merely the most elaborate ofa number ofsimi- lar intellectual family trees. Pater’sargument appears torun something like this: there was acausal chain ofevents, with the ZuÈ rich baptisms the last phase ofthe preceding intellectual development. The believers’ baptisms ofJanuary 1525 are therefore presented as an inevitable conclusion tothe growing opposi- tion tothe practice ofinfant baptism. Atthis point, it may be useful brie¯y toclarify some terminology. Infant baptism refers tothe baptism ofyoung children, soon after birth, arite that gradually came tobe required by law in Western Europe between the ®fth and seventh centuries, which indicated that the child was togrow up amember ofthe state church. 40 Theoretically, adult baptism could mean precisely the same thing, but simply delayed this required rite; the state church could still be the only option, but the formal point ofentry would be later in life. It was something similar tothis that Erasmus suggested in the Preface tohis Latin NewTestament of1522: children who had been baptized should, on reaching puberty, be given instruction in the faith and helped tounderstand what their godparents had promised on their behalf at baptism. With this greater understanding, the teenagers could renew those promises in apublic ceremony. It is perhaps unsurprising that this idea was censured for promoting rebaptism by the doctors ofthe Sorbonne in 1526, by which timerebaptism was clearly avery dangerous subject. 41 Believers’ baptism, on the other hand, suggests something quite diŒerent. Although the age at baptism is signi® cant, it is perhaps less signi® cant than the element ofchoice: believers’ baptism is not a required rite, but rather arite that the individual mustrequest, only underta- ken after much soul-searching. 42 The fundamental point for the interpretation ofthe debate about baptism in the early Reformation is that arejection of infant baptism does not necessarily mean acall for believers’ baptism. Returning toPater, he is correct toidentify the ZuÈ rich group with the intel- lectual developments going on around themin Central Europe. Grebel himself noted in September 1524 that the group saw Carlstadt and Thomas MuÈ ntzer

39 Pater, Karlstadt, pp. 107 108;on Carlstadt, see the brief biography, Ronald J. Sider,`Andreas Bodensteinvon Karlstadt: Between ¡ Liberal and Radical’, in Goertz (ed.), RadicalReformers , pp. 45 53;for ananalysis of the development of his baptismaltheology, see Pater, Karlstadt, pp. 92 114. 4¡0 For arecentdiscussion of thedevelopment of Christian baptismalpractice, see Alan Kreider, ¡ `Baptism,Catechism, and the Eclipse of Jesus’ Teaching in Early Christianity’ , Mennonite QuarterlyReview ,72(1998),pp. 5 30. 41 SeeFriesen, pp. 34 35. ¡ 42 In theclassic sociological ¡ formulation of Ernst Troeltsch,believers’ baptism is characteristicof entryinto a sect,rather than a church:see Ernst Troeltsch, TheSocial Teaching of the Christian Churches,trans.Olive Wyon, 2 vols.(London, 1931), vol. 1, pp. 331 343for distinctionbetween sect-typeand church-type, and vol. 2, pp. 694 729on theBaptist movement ¡ as Protestant sectarianism. ¡ 162 Paul Brand

`as the purest proclaimers and preachers ofthe purest Word ofGod’ . 43 How- ever, Pater’stheory is also something ofa simpli® cation ofthe situation. 44 In particular, his analysis does not explain the connection between opposition toinfant baptism, as represented by Carlstadt, and the baptism ofadult believ- ers, as practised by the ZuÈ rich group in January 1525. 45 Simply seeing the one as anecessary and inevitable conclusion ofthe other is not sucient, because it does not appear that the ZuÈ rich group or their contemporaries did so. Pater suggests that Carlstadt suspended the practice ofinfant baptism in his parish ofOrlamu È nde in the autumn of1523. 46 Shortly afterwards, he was followed in this by those members ofthe ZuÈ rich group in aposi- tion todo so, that is the serving clerics. In the summer of1524, the ZuÈ r- ich Council investigated claims that children had not been baptized in the rural parishes ofWitikon and Zollikon. It is clear that those parents who failed tohave their children baptized had been in¯uenced by Wilhelm Reublin, the pastor at Witikon and aleading member ofthe ZuÈ rich group. By the summer, some ofthe unbaptized children were six months old, suggesting that Reublin had stopped baptizing infants in early 1524. 47 Therefore, it appears there was agap ofabout ayear between the suspen- sion ofinfant baptism and the introduction ofbelievers’ baptism in ZuÈ rich. During this year, there is little documentary evidence tosuggest that the ZuÈ rich group were planning toinitiate believers’ baptism as they did in Jan- uary 1525. The only evidence tosupport such aclaim comes in Bullinger’s account ofthe January disputation on Baptism. According toBullinger, the radical group argued that baptism `should be given tobelievers towhom the gospel had previously been preached’,and `as long as baptism is not done in this manner, infant baptism is not valid and one should have himself baptized again’. 48 However, it should be noted that Bullinger was writing after the event, with the later justi® cations ofthe radicals fresh in his mind.

43 Grebel to MuÈ ntzer,5 Sept.1524; quoted in Harder, p. 289.For arecentassessment of the his- toricalproblem of the links between Swiss Anabaptismand these primarily anti-Luther radicals, see Stayer,`Saxon Radicalism’ .Stayerplays down the tradition that the Anabaptists were followers of theSaxon radicals, but suggests that `Anabaptism was onlyone distinctive fraction’ of a broad`dis- sidentradicalism’ ,theearliest examples of which were the Zwickau Prophets, Thomas Mu Èntzer,and AndreasCarlstadt (p. 6). 44 HereI write onlyabout Carlstadt’ sin¯uence or otherwiseon the Zu Èrichgroup’ sbaptismalprac- tice;in his argumentthat Carlstadt exerted a moregeneral in¯ uence over the radical group, Pater is convincing. 45 Stayer,`Saxon Radicalism’ ,p.8, agrees that `the Saxon current of anti-pedobaptism was avery importantprelude to Swiss Anabaptism’,butlike Pater does not fully explain the intellectual gap betweenthe two positions. 46 Pater, Karlstadt, p. 111. 47 JamesM. Stayer,`Reublin and Bro Ètli: TheRevolutionary Beginnings of Swiss Anabaptism’,in MarcLienhard (ed.), TheOrigins and Characteristics of Anabaptism (TheHague, 1977), p. 88; see alsothe brief biography, James M. Stayer,`Wilhelm Reublin: A PicaresqueJourney Through Early Anabaptism’,inGoertz (ed.), RadicalReformers , pp. 107 117. 48 Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte ,quotedin Harder, ¡p. 335. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 163

Indeed, there is no support for Bullinger’sclaim in Zwingli’scontemporary writings. In his account ofthe baptisms, Zwingli complained that the radi- cals `had set up rebaptism without any conference, for during the whole bat- tle about infant baptism they had said nothing about rebaptism’. 49 The statements ofthe radicals themselves appear tosuggest that we should believe Zwingli. Neither the September 1524 letters toThomas MuÈ ntzer5 0 nor the Petition of Defence written by Felix Mantz and given to the ZuÈ rich Council in December 1524 51 mention aplan toinitiate believers’ baptism in this way. In both instances, the concern ofthe radical group is simply with the link between faith and baptism, which is found lacking in infant baptism. Asimilar impression comes from aletter written by Zwingli toFranz Lambert, 52 one ofZwingli’ sallies in Strasbourg, which has been described as the `mostdetailed report available’ ofthe private disputations held between Zwingli and the radical group in December 1524. 53 It seems therefore that the ZuÈ rich group gave no indication ofplanning toinitiate believers’ baptism before 21 January 1525. Hans J.Hillerbrand has stated that the `discrepancy between insight and act’ displayed by the ZuÈ rich group in failing tointroduce believers’ baptism earlier is surprising. 54 However, this `discrepancy’ was shared by other oppo- nents ofinfant baptism: Carlstadt and MuÈ ntzer never introduced believers’ baptism, whilst Balthasar Hubmaier was only topractice believers’ baptism after contact with the ZuÈ rich group. Similarly, Klaus Deppermann notes that from autumn 1524 radicals in Strasbourg were refusing tohave their children baptized; however, believers’ baptism only came toStrasbourg with the arrival ofWilhelm Reublin in early 1526. 5 5 It seems that the questioning ofinfant baptism was relatively common in the early 1520 s, 5 6 and the sus- pension ofthe practice was far from rare, and yet it led tobelievers’ baptism only in ZuÈ rich in January 1525. The immediate spread ofthe practice was

49 Zwingli, Incatabaptistarum; quotedin Jackson, p. 134; I havetaken the liberty of replacing Jackson’suseof `catabaptism’with themore common `rebaptism’ . 50 Grebelto Mu Èntzer,5 September1524, quoted in Harder, pp. 284 294; 51 Quotedin Harder, pp. 311 315. ¡ 52 HuldrychZwingli to Franz ¡Lambert and other Brethren in Strasbourg, Zu È rich,16 Dec.1524; quotedin Harder, pp. 303 310. 53 Harder,p. 303. ¡ 54 Hillerbrand,`Origins’ ,p.176. 55 KlausDeppermann, MelchiorHoŒ mann. Social Unrest and Apocalyptic Visions in the Age of Reformation (Edinburgh,1987), pp. 178 179. 56 Williams, RadicalReformation ,p.¡432 notes that even `the magisterial reformers themselves [referringhere to Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Martin Bucer], in their initial emphasis on salva- tionby faith alone, had to grope for awhilebefore coming down ® rmlyin defense of the traditional practiceof infantbaptism’ .Thecrucial case is clearlyZwingli, who admitted in 1525 that he hadear- lierthought that children should not be baptized; however, it is unclearwhether he decidedin favour ofinfant baptism before the di culties with theradicals or onlyin reaction to their proposals. See W.P. Stephens, TheTheology of HuldrychZwingli (Oxford,1986), pp. 194 217on the development ofZwingli’ sbaptismalthought, mostly after 1524. ¡ 164 Paul Brand the result ofthe missionary activity ofthe ZuÈ rich group, in particular Reu- blin and Blaurock. 57 Weneed only see a`discrepancy’,as Hillerbrand did, if acausal chain such as that put forward by Pater is followed; without such ateleological approach, the link between the suspension ofinfant baptism and the initia- tion ofbelievers’ baptism becomes less obvious. If Pater’sline ofin¯ uence ended at the refusal tobaptize infants, then believers’ baptisms may well have followed, but only some ten, ®fteen, or twenty years later, when those who had not been baptized as infants ®nally came tomake their pledge. This is fundamentally diŒerent from the events of21 January 1525, when adults who had been baptized as children nevertheless accepted baptism again: they were not simply adult baptisms, but adult rebaptisms. 58 Therefore, it is not appropriate tosee the ZuÈrich baptisms as the inevitable conclusion tothe debate regarding the practice ofinfant baptism; rather, they were the start- ing point for adebate concerning the legitimacy ofrebaptism. The question ofrebaptism was not anew one, and the practice had along association with heresy. In particular, it was associated with Donatism, a primarily North African movement, which developed in response tothe cri- sis faced by the Christian Church during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian in 303 305.59 Afterthe persecution had ended, the position of those clergy who had¡ compromised with the authorities, in particular those who had handed over the Christian scriptures toavoid punishment, came under threat from the Donatist movement, which stressed the necessity of moral purity for Church leaders. They claimed that baptisms performed by clergy who had later deviated from the faith were not valid, and that peo- ple should therefore be rebaptized. This teaching was condemned at the

57 Onearly Anabaptist missionary activity, see Hans Kansdorf, `The Anabaptist Approach to Mission’,inWilbert R.Shenk(ed.), Anabaptismand Mission (Scottdale,1984), pp. 51 69. This emphasison the missionary activity of the Zu È richgroup is notmeant to deny the in¯ uential ¡ ® ndings ofJames M. Stayer,Werner O. Packulland Klaus Deppermann, `From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: TheHistorical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins’ , MennoniteQuarterly Review ,49(1975), pp. 83 121;they stress thatalthough the Zu È richbaptisms `have priority in point of time’ ,South German-Austrian¡ Anabaptism and Low German-DutchAnabaptism `cannot be regarded as ``derived’’fromthe Swiss Brethren’(p. 86). Nevertheless, in the months following the Zu Èrich baptisms,the practice was takenup only after direct contact with Reublin,Blaurock, or theother ZuÈrichmissionaries. 58 CalvinAugustine Pater, `Westerburg: The Father of Anabaptism.Author and Content of the Dyalogus of 1527’, Archiv fuÈ rReformationsgeschichte ,85(1994),pp. 138 163suggests that Gerhard Westerburg,brother-in-law and early supporter of Andreas Carlstadt, ¡ developed a doctrineof rebaptismperhaps as earlyas December 1522, and passed this doctrineon to the Zu È richgroup dur- inghis visitin October 1524, giving Westerburg a `crucialrole . . . indeveloping basic Anabaptist doctrines’(p. 161). However, Pater does not conclusively link Westerburg to the doctrine of rebap- tism beforeJanuary 1525; even if this werethe case, this papersuggests that more attention should be paidto the practice rather than theory of rebaptism.Westerburg was onlyrebaptized in 1534. 59 SeeW.H.C. Frend, TheDonatist Church: A Movementof Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford,1952). The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 165

Council ofCarthage in 411, and an Imperial edict ofthe following year for- bade the practice ofrebaptism. 60 Zwingli noted the similarity ofthe Donatists tothe Anabaptists in his TaufbuÈ chlein ofMay 1525: `Thirteen hundred years ago, rebaptism brought much strife also and caused so much confusion that the present rebaptism is child’splay by comparison.’ 6 1 However, the precedent was not referred toby the radicals; indeed, GeoŒrey Dipple has concluded that `Oneof the most striking features about the early writings ofthe Swiss Brethren is their almost total lack ofconcern with history.’ 62 It therefore does not seem likely that the ZuÈ rich radicals were consciously following the Donatists in undergoing rebaptism. Certainly, we cannot know for sure their thoughts on the validity oftheir own infant baptisms. However, whether the radicals believed they had received anything from their infant baptisms or not, we may perhaps conclude that they expected rebaptism toprovide themwith something, whether that was a®rst bap- tism, asecond, replacement baptism, or an addition towhat they had received in infant baptism. 63 It appears that the radical group did not at ®rst recoil from the character- ization oftheir practice as rebaptism, as they were later todo. Indeed, there was scriptural justi® cation for the practice. The key passage was Acts 19.1 7, where Paul baptizes some disciples ofJohn the Baptist, who himself had¡ previously baptized them. When Zwingli, in February 1525, challenged Hans Hottinger, aradical sympathizer, `thatit cannot be found in Scripture that anyone was baptised twice’,it was with this passage that Hottinger replied.64 Similarly, Zwingli noted that the radicals `attemptedto defend it [their baptismal practice] by the verses in Acts 19’. 65 It was only later that this justi® cation fell out offavour amongst the radicals, and was replaced by that which Bullinger claimed the radicals used in the January disputation: namely, that infant baptism was not aproper baptism, so their baptism is no rebaptism, but a®rst true baptism. This justi® cation was championed by Balthasar Hubmaier, aradical fel- low traveller and later aleading Anabaptist, but unconnected tothe ZuÈ rich

60 Ibid., pp. 275 289;see also Williams, RadicalReformation , pp. 360 361,for thelater change to theImperial Law ¡that made rebaptism a capitalcrime. ¡ 61 HuldrychZwingli, Vonder Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe ,ZuÈrich,27 May 1525;quoted in Harder, p. 367. 62 GeoŒrey Dipple, `"Yet from time to time there were men who protested against these evils":Anabaptism and Medieval Heresy’ ,inBruce Gordon (ed.), ProtestantHistory and Identityin Sixteenth-Century Europe , vol. 1: TheMedieval Inheritance (Aldershot,1996), p. 127. 63 Onother forms ofrebaptism,providing something above and beyond what is receivedin infant baptism,see Edward E. Malone,`Martyrdom and Monastic Profession as aSecondBaptism’ ,in AntonMayer, Johannes Quasten and Burkhard Neunheuser (eds.), Vomchristlichen Mysterium: GesammelteArbeiten zum Geda È chtnisvon Odo Casel, O.S.B . (DuÈ sseldorf, 1951),pp. 115 134. 64 Quotedin Harder, p. 347. ¡ 65 Zwingli, Vonder Taufe; quotedin Harder, p. 370. 166 Paul Brand baptisms.66 It is ®rst mentioned in his Onthe Christian Baptism of Believers ofJuly 1525, 67 but it is stated most clearly in the Dialogue with Zwingli’sBap- tism Book,68 written in November 1525 and published in early 1526. Hubma- ier writes: `You accuse us again and again ofrebaptism and have, however, not proven with one single word that infant baptism is abaptism.’ 69 This was tobecome the classic Anabaptist defence oftheir baptismal practice; how- ever, it was not formulated until after the ZuÈ rich baptisms of1525. Instead, there seems tohave been something ofan acceptance amongst the radicals that their baptism was indeed arebaptism. It therefore seems likely that the baptisms ofJanuary 1525 were intended tobe rebaptisms, and that they were diŒerent from the discussion ofa delayed rite ofadult baptism that had gone before. It also seems clear that these baptisms were not the inevitable conclusion ofthe debate concerning the legitimacy ofinfant baptism.

III: ANew Separate Church In February 1527, the Swiss Anabaptist group that grew out ofthe ZuÈ rich radical movement produced their confession offaith at the Schleitheim con- ference.70 Article 4gives the standard teaching on separation: `Separation shall take place from the evil and wickedness which the devil has planted in the world’;therefore, members ofthe church should `have no fellowship with them[the nonbelievers]’ and avoid `the confusion oftheir abomina- tions’.71 Accepting believers’ baptism was tobe the sign ofthis separation. Therefore, it may be suggested that the 1525 baptisms were intended tomark the separation ofthe ZuÈ rich radical group from the world, as Anabaptist baptism was later todo. There is some support for this suggestion in the sources, as the account in the Hutterite Chronicle concludes: `This was the beginning ofseparation from the world and its evil ways.’ 7 2 However, it is not possible toprove any unanimity in the ZuÈ rich radical group concerning the theory ofseparation that was later put forward in the Schleitheim Confession. It seems clear that in the ®rst months after

66 For abriefbiography, see Christof Windhorst, `BalthasarHubmaier. Professor, Preacher,Poli- tician’,inGoertz (ed.), RadicalReformers , pp. 144 157;see also H. WaynePipkin, `The Baptismal Theologyof Balthasar Hubmaier’ ,inH. Wayne¡ Pipkin (ed.), Essaysin Anabaptist Theology (Elkhart,1994), pp. 87 109. 67 BalthasarHubmaier, ¡ Vonder christlichen Taufe der Gla Èubigen (Waldshut,1525); quoted in H. WaynePipkin and John H. Yoder(eds.), BalthasarHubmaier. Theologian of Anabaptism (Scottdale, 1989),pp. 95 149;the denial of the charge of rebaptismis p.133. 68 Balthasar¡Hubmaier, GespraÈchauf Zwinglis Taufbu Èchlein (Nicolsburg,1526); quoted in Pipkin and Yoder, Hubmaier, pp. 166 233. 69 Ibid.; quotedin Pipkin and ¡ Yoder, Hubmaier, p. 180. 70 SeeWilliams, RadicalReformation , pp. 289 294. 71 BruÈderlicheVereinigung etlicher Kinder Gottes ¡ sieben Artickel betreŒend (Schleitheim,1527); quotedin John H. Yoder(ed.), TheLegacy of Michael Sattler (Scottdale,1973), pp. 37 38. 72 HutterianBrethren, p. 45. ¡ The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 167 the ZuÈ rich baptisms there were many amongst the radicals, most notably Reublin and BroÈ tli, who saw their movement not as aseparation but as one that might have widespread popularity. 73 Arnold Snyder contrasts their approach with that ofthe ZuÈ rich state reformation: `Whereas Zwingli was promoting aterritorial reform, centrally administered from ZuÈ rich, the Ana- baptists promoted aterritorial reform based on the autonomy oflocal com- munities.’ 7 4 The ZuÈ rich group attempted toachieve something like community churches at Zollikon and StGallen, 75 and the model was fol- lowed more successfully by their friend and supporter Balthasar Hubmaier in his parish ofWaldshut. Their aim in early 1525 appears tohave been not the separation ofthe few, but the conversion ofthe many. Zwingli wrote toVadian, reformer ofSt Gallen and Grebel’sbrother-in-law, at the end ofMarch 1525: `Grebel is among us, everywhere drawing tohis faction whomever he can.’ 76 Grebel does not sound like aman separated from the evil world. Snyder points out that the leaders ofwhat he terms the `second wave’ of the Swiss Anabaptist movement, namely Michael Sattler, Hans Kuenzi, Carli Brennwald, and Conrad Winckler, `all became fully committedAna- baptists only after the collapse ofthe peasants’ movement’,later in 1525. 77 It was, Snyder argues, this second wave that contributed the vision `ofthe separated church ofthe faithful which was tocarry sectarian themes several steps beyond anything seen in 1525’. 7 8 It is therefore possible toagree with Walter Klaassen in his conclusion that the 1525 baptisms were not `the act of founding anew church’. 79 It is nevertheless necessary toconsider why the opposite opinion was expressed in the Hutterite Chronicle . The Chronicle,compiled some forty years after the baptisms, sought topresent the Anabaptist movement as fully formed at its birth. Asthe Hutterites, the Mennonites, and other Anabaptist groups were by this timeseparated from the world, it was necessary for the ZuÈ rich group toappear tobe so. However, as we have seen, recent research has proved that such aconclusion can no longer be supported.

73 For thebreakthrough work onthis, seeJames M. Stayer,`Die Anfa È ngedes schweizerischen TaÈufertumsim reformierten Kongregationalismus’ and Martin Haas, `Der Weg der Ta Èuferin die Absonderung’,bothin Hans-Ju È rgenGoertz (ed.), UmstrittenesTa È ufertum1525 1975: Neue Forschungen (GoÈ ttingen,1975), pp. 19 49 and 50 78respectively; see also Charles ¡Nienkirchen, `Reviewingthe Case for aNon-Separatist¡ Ecclesiology ¡ in Early Swiss Anabaptism’, Mennonite QuarterlyReview ,56(1982),pp. 227 241. 74 C.ArnoldSnyder, TheLife and ¡Thought of Michael Sattler (Scottdale,1984), p. 71. 75 TheAnabaptist community at Zollikon in the weeks following the January 1525 baptisms is describedin Fritz Blanke, Brothersin Christ (Scottdale,1961), pp. 21 42. 76 HuldrychZwingli to Vadian,Zu È rich,31 March1525; quoted in ¡Harder, p. 356. 77 Snyder, Sattler,p.87; on thePeasants’ War, seethe most recent source collection, Tom Scott andR.W. Scribner(eds.), TheGerman Peasants’ War: ahistoryin documents (NewJersey, 1991). 78 Ibid., p. 88. 79 Klaassen,`Baptism of Adult Believers’ ,p.93. 168 Paul Brand

IV:AReformedSacrament It is common in much recent writing about the 1525 baptisms tostate that the ZuÈ rich group were simply aiming toreform what had become adebased practice. Denny Weaver describes the baptisms as representing `a desire to align baptism with their understanding ofthe NewTestament, topurify another aspect ofthe order ofworship for the mass church when Zurich hesitated’. 80 Likewise, James Stayer has concluded that the radical group `aimed at areform ofthe sacraments, tobe carried through today in Zurich and tomorrow throughout Christendom’. 81 Arnold Snyder similarly sees in the ®rst baptisms `a continuation ofearlier concerns tobe true toScripture in the matter ofchurch reforms’. 82 In this interpretation, baptism was simply asacrament in need ofreform. This reform was tobe conducted on the basis ofa particularly strong interpre- tation of sola scriptura ,summarized by Grebel in his letter toMu È ntzer of1524: `Whatever we are not taught in clear statements and examples [in Scripture], we are toconsider forbidden.’ 83 It was in this sense that Felix Mantz wrote in his Petition of Defence ofDecember 1524 that infant baptism represented `atreading-under-feetofhis only true Word’.Infant baptism was not pre- scribed in the NewTestament, so should not be practised. Baptism after educa- tion in the faith, logically therefore adult baptism, was present in the Scriptures; therefore this was the act that should be practised in ZuÈ rich. Mantz asked his opponents to® nd, `outof true clear Scripture’,evidence `that John, Christ, the apostles baptized children or taught that they should be baptized’. 84 In the absence ofsuch evidence, according tothis interpretation, the ZuÈ rich group undertook toperform anew, reformed baptism. There is some support for this interpretation when the ZuÈ rich group’s approach tothe reform ofthe Mass is considered. The matter ofwhether the Mass was asacri® ce was discussed at the second ZuÈ rich disputation of October 1523. 85 On the third day ofdiscussion, Grebel rose tospeak: whilst he welcomed the conclusion that the Mass was not asacri® ce, `there are still many abuses which the devil has also added tothis about which it is necessary to speak’.86 The abuses that Grebel went on tolist, much toZwingli’ sannoy- ance, demonstrate the rigid legalism ofthe ZuÈrich radical group. Grebel ques-

80 Weaver, BecomingAnabaptist , p. 42. 81 JamesM. Stayer,`The Swiss Brethren:An Exercisein Historical De® nition’ , ChurchHistory , 47 (1978),p. 182. 82 Snyder, MichaelSattler , p. 71. 83 Grebelto Mu Èntzer,5 Sept.1524; quoted in Harder, p. 287. On the Biblicism, speci® cally theNew Testament focus, of Swiss Anabaptism,see Werner O. Packull, HutteriteBeginnings. CommunitarianExperiments During the Reformation (Baltimore,1995), pp. 15 32. 84 Quotedin Harder, p. 315. ¡ 85 DieAkten der zweiten Disputation vom 26 28 Oktober (ZuÈrich,8 Dec.1523); quoted in Harder, pp. 234 250. ¡ 86 Ibid.;¡ quotedin Harder, p. 244. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 169 tioned whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened; whether water should be added tothe wine; whether the priest should insert the bread into the communicant’smouth. 87 It therefore seems likely that the ZuÈ rich group would have sought the reform ofthe sacrament ofbaptism with equal zeal. This interpretation has much torecommend it, but Weaver, Stayer, and Snyder do not consider the question ofwhich baptismal practice the ZuÈ rich radicals were following. This is an interesting issue, as there appears tobe something ofa paradox in their approach tobaptism. Both in their calls for infant baptism tobe replaced with adult baptism before January 1525 and their defences ofbelievers’ baptism afterwards, the scriptural justi® ca- tions most commonly used were the baptismal order in the Great Commis- sion (Matthew 28.18 20; Mark 16.15 16) and the baptisms ofthe early church described in Acts¡ (8.35 39 and¡10.44 48, for example). The radical group used these passages todemonstrate¡ the¡ scriptural link between faith and baptism that they believed tohave been corrupted by infant baptism. However, in many respects the baptism that was practised in January 1525 was more similar tothe baptism ofJesus by John the Baptist (Matthew 3.13 17; Mark 1.8 10; Luke 3.21 22). Again, we are faced with acontrast between¡ the theological¡ foundation¡ ofthe baptisms, and their physical practice. In this instance, the practice is particularly interesting: it raises the possibility that, rather than simply reforming adebased practice, the ZuÈ rich group were instead instituting baptism as undergone by Christ; that is, baptism as Imitatio Christi .88 The concept ofthe imitation ofChrist has often been seen as akey aspect ofearly Anabaptist thought; 8 9 it is clear in many elements oftheir practice, such as their taking communion as afel- lowship meal using ordinary bread and wine, and in their emphasis on the acceptance ofsuŒ ering and persecution. AsGeorge Huntston Williams has noted, this concept of Imitatio Christi was equally applicable tobaptism, as the radicals `were con® dent that they were imitating Christ in their penitential submissions tobelievers’ baptism, which thereupon exposed themto the temptations ofthe wilderness ofa conformist Christendom’. 90 Michael Servetus would later stress this aspect ofimitation tosuch adegree that he recommended baptism at the age of thirty so as toimitate Christ in every detail. 91 Whilst the ®rst baptisms did

87 Ibid.; quotedin Harder, pp. 247 248. 88 Theconcept of ImitatioChristi ¡is bestknown from the ® fteenthcentury work, Thomasa Á Kempis, TheImitation of Christ ,trans.L. Sherley-Price(Harmondsworth, 1952); the earlier history ofthe concept, up toandincluding Kempis, is discussedin Giles Constable, ThreeStudies in Med- ievalReligious and Social Thought (Cambridge,1995), pp. 143 248. 89 Seefor example:Harold S. Bender,`The Anabaptist Vision’ ¡ , MennoniteQuarterly Review , 18 (1944),p. 76, p. 78, p. 87; andRobert Friedmann, TheTheology of Anabaptism (Scottdale,1973), pp. 27 35,where he describes Anabaptism as `ExistentialChristianity’ ,`arealized and practiced ``Chris- tianity¡ of theGospel’ ’’(p.29), which, in eŒ ect, is muchthe same as theimitation of Christ. 90 Williams, RadicalReformation , p. 438. 91 Ibid., pp. 450 457. ¡ 170 Paul Brand not imitate the form ofthe baptism ofChrist, in that they did not use full immersion,92 this was afeature ofsome later Swiss Anabaptist practice. 93 Certainly, the Swiss Anabaptist movement was more concerned with repeat- ing the baptism ofChrist than were Hans Hutand his followers, who bap- tized with the eschatologically signi® cant sign ofthe cross on the forehead. 94 It is not clear how far this Imitatio Christi explanation was true for the ZuÈ rich group. As has already been noted, the baptism ofChrist was not a crucial scriptural justi® cation; instead, they relied upon examples that made clear the link between faith and baptism. The fact that infant baptism `is also against the example ofChrist, who was baptized at thirty years’,comes as almost alast thought in Felix Mantz’s Petition.9 5 The concept of Imitatio Christi may have in¯uenced the ZuÈ rich group in their baptismal practice, but there is no clear evidence that it did. One possible criticism ofthe reforming interpretation is that it fails to answer the question oftiming. Asexplained above, the radical group had been aware for at least six months and maybe as much as ayear before Jan- uary 1525 that baptism, as described in Scripture, was not practiced in ZuÈ rich. Why, therefore, did they not introduce the new, reformed practice earlier? Denny Weaver suggests that the ZuÈ rich group were waiting tosee if the Council would introduce believers’ baptism for the whole city, and that they acted only `when the council’sactions ofJanuary 1525 dashed any remaining hope ofan ocial baptismal reform’. 96 Weaver’sargument is dicult toassess, not least because he, like Calvin Augustine Pater, does not make adistinction between the postponement of baptism until adulthood, which was discussed at the January disputation, and the rebaptism ofthose baptized as children, which was not. It was the latter that was initiated by the radical group, who had already undertaken the postponement ofbaptism until adulthood in Witikon and Zollikon in 1524. They do not appear tohave waited for `ocial baptismal reform’ then, so it is appropriate toquestion why they would do so in 1525. Nevertheless, the question ofthe attitude ofthe ZuÈ rich group towards the possibilities ofo cial reform is an interesting one. Onthe one hand, Grebel was well aware ofthe likelihood ofo cial persecution, as will be discussed below, and was also, by 1525, extremely hostile towards Zwingli. In Decem- ber 1523, he wrote tohis brother-in-law Vadian: `Whoever thinks, believes

92 Animaginativetelling of the January baptisms has Grebel using `one of Frau Mantz’ ssmall kitchendippers’ to sprinkle water on Blaurock’ shead;in Moore, Portraits, p. 35. 93 For example,the baptism by immersion in the Rhine of Wolfgang Ulimann of St. Gall by Gre- belin March 1525, reported in Kessler’ s Sabbata; quotedin Harder, p. 360. 94 SeeGottfried Seebass, `Das Zeichen der Erwa È hlten:Zum Versta È ndnisder Taufe bei Hans Hut’ , inGoertz (ed.), UmstrittenesTa Èufertum , pp. 138 164;and Werner O. Packull,`The Sign of Thau: TheChanging Conception of the Seal of God’ s¡Electin Early Anabaptist Thought’ , Mennonite QuarterlyReview ,61(1987),pp. 363 374. 95 Quotedin Harder, p. 315. ¡ 96 Weaver, BecomingAnabaptist , p. 42. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 171 or declares that Zwingli acts according tothe duty ofa shepherd thinks, believes and declares wickedly.’ 97 Onthe other hand, Felix Mantz delivered his Defence tothe Council only one month before the January 1525 baptisms took place, surely with the intention ofconverting the Council tothe radical position. It seems possible that the group genuinely believed that their mes- sage, which they held tobe true toScripture, would convert the Council, even as late as the January disputation. However, it should be stressed that, as there is no evidence that the radicals were thinking ofrebaptism, it is un- likely that they would have expected the Council toreform baptism in this manner, as Weaver appears tosuggest. This sacramental reform interpretation ofthe ZuÈ rich baptisms has also suŒered from amore fundamental criticism made by Werner O.Packull. 98 Packull sees it as aform of` biblical determinism’:it assumes `thatwherever the sacred texts were read with sincerity and with commitmentto follow their precepts the outcome would inevitably lead toa reinstitution ofthe pre-Constantinian believers’ church’.The problem with such an approach is that `the Anabaptists were not the only ones appealing tothe Scriptures in the sixteenth century’ and yet no other group instituted believers’ baptism; the problem cannot be explained `by ascribing greater sincerity and honesty tothe Anabaptists’. 99 Packull suggests instead `abroader con- textual rereading’ which places the developing Anabaptist movement within `thesocial-political ®bre ofsixteenth-century society’. 10 0

V:AnAnti-clerical Act Such acontextualized, social-political explanation may be found in the attemptto see the 1525 baptisms as an application ofan anticlerical position tothe practice ofbaptism. Much recent scholarship has emphasized anti- clericalism as acommon feature amongst many ofthe early opponents of Luther and Zwingli. 101 In part, this anti-clericalism was the continuation of alate medieval tradition; it was also areaction tothe reformed attack on Catholic clergy, and the failure ofLuther’ sdoctrine ofthe priesthood ofall believers toend asense oflay subjugation. 1 02 In most instances, this scholar- ship has focused on atraditional, economic understanding ofanti-clericalism,

97 ConradGrebel to Vadian, Zu È rich,18 December 1523; quoted in Harder, p. 276. 98 WernerO. Packull, RereadingAnabaptist Beginnings (Winnipeg,1991), pp. 3 4. 99 Ibid., p. 3. ¡ 100 Ibid., p. 4. 101 Seefor exampleHans-Ju È rgenGoertz, TheAnabaptists ,trans.T. Johnson(London, 1996), pp. 8 13. 102 ¡Seethe range of essaysin Peter A. Dykemaand Heiko A. Oberman(eds.), Anticlericalismin LateMedieval and Early Modern Europe (Leiden,1994). 172 Paul Brand and speci® cally on the refusal oftithe payment tosupport the priest. 10 3 How- ever, the issue ofanti-clericalism in relation tobaptism is adiŒerent one. The argument, according toWalter Klaassen, was that `infant baptism was the sign ofthe disenfranchisement ofordinary Christians. It pre-empted their own decision and kept themin dependence on the clergy.’ 10 4 The intro- duction ofbelievers’ baptism could be seen as away ofreducing clerical input into the individual believer’sreligious life. `The baptism offaith was therefore, by contrast, an anticlerical sign . . ..It had todo with the desire for lay control ofthe church.’ 105 The argument that infant baptism disenfranchized lay Christians was one of the most important points put forward by Thomas MuÈ ntzer in his Protestation or Proposition ofDecember 1523. 106 This text is particularly interesting as it is clear that the ZuÈrich group read the work and used many ofMu Èntzer’sideas. 107 MuÈ ntzer noted that `initiation into the Christian Church has become crude monkey-play’.In the early church, `only adults were admitted, and after a lengthy period ofinstruction as church-pupils, being called catechumens because ofthis teaching’. 108 The ending ofadult baptism after instruction was for MuÈ ntzer the point ofthe fall ofthe Church. `Ever since immature chil- dren have been made Christians and the catechumens abolished, Christians themselves have become children . . . for then all understanding vanished from the church.’ 109 MuÈ ntzer did not use this argument as ajusti® cation toreinstate believers’ baptism; inspired by mystic and chiliastic currents ofthought, his concern was instead for the inner baptism ofthe Holy Spirit. Despite the very diŒerent conclusion reached by the ZuÈ rich group, it seems likely that the claim ofdisenfranchisement was nevertheless important in the formulation oftheir position. The evidence for the ZuÈ rich group’suse ofMu È ntzer’s Protestation comes from the two letters written toMuÈ ntzer by Grebel, on behalf ofthe ZuÈ rich group, in September 1524. 1 10 These letters also state quite clearly the anti-clerical thought and growing spiritual self-con® dence ofthe group.

103 Seefor example:James M. Stayer,`Reformation, Peasants, Anabaptist: Northeastern Swiss Anticlericalism’,inDykema and Oberman, Anticlericalism , pp. 559 566;and Arnold Snyder, `BiblicalText and Social Context: Anabaptist Anticlericalism in Reformation ¡ Zurich’, Mennonite QuarterlyReview ,65(1991),pp. 169 191. 104 Klaassen,`Baptism of Adult Believers’ ¡ ,p.94. 105 Ibid., p. 90. 106 Thomas MuÈ ntzer, Protestationoder empietung (Allstedt,1524); quoted in Peter Matheson (ed.), TheCollected Works ofThomas Mu Èntzer (Edinburgh,1988), pp. 188 209;for abriefbiogra- phy,see Hans-Ju È rgenGoertz, `Thomas Mu È ntzer.Revolutionary in a Mystical¡ Spirit’ ,inGoertz, RadicalReformers , pp. 29 44. 107 Grebel to MuÈ ntzer,¡5 Sept.1524; quoted in Harder, p. 286. 108 MuÈ ntzer, Protestation; quotedin Matheson, MuÈ ntzer, p. 191. 109 Ibid.; quotedin Matheson, MuÈ ntzer, p. 193. 110 Onthe signi® cance of these letters, see Hans-Ju È rgenGoertz, ` "Acommonfuture conversation": a revisionistinterpretation of theSeptember 1524 Grebel Letters to Thomas Mu È ntzer’,in Werner O. Packulland GeoŒ rey L. Dipple(eds.), RadicalReformation Studies (Aldershot,1999), pp. 73 90. ¡ The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 173

Grebel explains that the group were previously unaware ofthe failings ofthe ZuÈ rich church: `wewere only hearers and readers ofthe evangelical preach- ers who are responsible for all this error as our sins deserved’.Their point of realization came `after wetook the Scripture in hand and consulted it on all kinds ofissues’ .Thereby, the group `gained some insight and became aware ofthe great and harmful shortcomings ofthe shepherds’. 111 This is essentially the same argument as that put forward byMuÈ ntzer in relation tobaptism: that ordinary Christians can achieve spiritual maturity only by taking control oftheir own religious life. AsHans-JuÈ rgen Goertz has noted, `theargument ofemancipation played an important role in the thinking ofthe proto-Anabaptists as well as MuÈ ntzer’s’.11 2 It therefore seems likely that the ZuÈ rich group may well have been taking an anti-clerical stance by performing the believers’ baptisms of1525. The main criticism ofthis interpretation is the same as that noted above for the reforming interpretation: that it explains why the group might intro- duce believers’ baptisms, but not why the practice was introduced on 21 Jan- uary 1525. It is this question that must now be addressed.

VI:ASpiritual Release The interpretations ofthe ZuÈ rich baptisms that wehave already considered have all sought an explanation in the developments ofthe years and months leading up toJanuary 1525. However, it seems likely that aplausible explan- ation for the speci® ctiming ofthe baptisms may befound in the immediate background tothe baptisms, the days leading up to21 January. On17 January, the radical group had failed toconvince the ZuÈ rich Coun- cil that the practice ofinfant baptism was not based on Scripture and so should be abandoned. The following day, the Council ordered `all those who have hitherto lefttheir children unbaptized’ to`have thembaptized within the next eight days’,or face expulsion. 1 13 This included Grebel and his wife, who had given birth toa daughter in early January; he wrote to Vadian that `she has not yet been baptized and swamped in the Romish water bath’. 114 On 21 January, the Council eŒectively ordered the break- up ofthe radical group: ZuÈ rich residents were tostop their agitation, and nonresidents were toleave the city. It seems certain that the group were unwilling toallow this. As Grebel had written toMu È ntzer four months

111 Grebel to MuÈ ntzer,5 Sept.1524; quoted in Harder, p. 286;for adiscussionof thedevelopment oflay Bible-reading groups in Zu È rich,see Arnold Snyder, `Word andPower inReformation Zurich’ , Archivfu ÈrReformationsgeschichte ,81(1990),pp. 263 285. 112 Goertz,`Grebel Letters’ ,p.86. ¡ 113 Quotedin Harder, p. 336. 114 ConradGrebel to Vadian, Zu Èrich,14 Jan.1525; quoted in Harder, p. 332. 174 Paul Brand earlier, they prayed that `wemay all walk according toour calling and com- mitment’.115 However, the group had long been aware ofwhat they should expect from the authorities: `True believing Christians are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter’,Grebel wrote toMu È ntzer. `They must be baptized in anguish and tribulation, persecution, suŒering, and death, tried in ® re’.1 16 Likewise, Grebel wrote toVadian in December 1524: `I do not think that persecution will fail tocome. God be merciful.’ 1 17 This then was the choice faced by the group following the Council’s decree: should they sacri® ce their religious principles and conform tothe Council’sorders, or should they remain true towhat they believed tobe the Word ofGod, and thereby sacri® ce their freedom, and possibly their lives? In these circumstances the group met,illegally and no doubt in fear for their lives, and prayed for inspiration. The result `was adramatic and desperate act ofde® ance against the established church and government’. 118 It was not the ®rst such act ofde® ance that had occurred in the course ofthe Reformation in ZuÈ rich. We noted earlier the deliberate fast breaking in Easter 1522, which eventually led tothe decision ofthe Council toallow only scriptural preaching. This now appears tohave been only the ®rst part ofa campaign ofpublic action, which could perhaps betermed `ecclesiastical dis- obedience’,with the aim ofpromoting evangelical preaching. In July 1522, both Grebel and Zwingli took part in disturbing the preaching ofrepresen- tatives ofthe traditional church, dramatic acts challenging authority, parti- cularly in the case ofGrebel, who was not even acleric. 11 9 The radical group already had experience ofhow adramatic, de® ant gesture could lead to change. However, whilst it is possible that this was the intention ofthe group, a portrayal ofthe baptisms as aprovocative and public act does not ring true. If this was the intention, why not baptize in public, as they later would? Why not advertise their dramatic challenge toauthority? As we have already seen,

115 Grebelto Mu Èntzer,5 Sept.1524; quoted in Harder, p. 291. 116 Ibid.; quotedin Harder, p. 290. The use of `baptized’here is interesting,and possibly refers to thePauline theology of baptism as sharing in Christ’ sdeathand resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). However,the later Anabaptist movement led by Hans Hut would also stress suŒering as athirdbap- tism: thebaptisms of water, spirit andblood; see Williams, RadicalReformation , pp. 442 446. Gre- belmay have been responding to hints of such a theologyin Mu Èntzer’swork, butit seems¡ unlikely thatthe mystical implications would have appealed to the biblicist Swiss radicals. 117 ConradGrebel to Vadian, Zu Èrich,15 December 1524; quoted in Harder, p. 302. An interesting questionthat cannot be pursuedhere is thedegree to which this persecutionmentality was charac- teristicof the radical group as awhole,or simplyre¯ ected the psychology of Grebel, so oftenthe mainspokesperson for thegroup. See Fast, `Conrad Grebel’ ,pp.129 130;and Peter Iver Kaufman,`Social History, Psychohistory, and the Prehistory of Swiss Anabaptism’¡ , The Journal of Religion,68(1988),pp. 527 544. 118 Stayer,`Swiss Brethren’,¡p.183. 119 Thereport of thedisturbances comes from the chronicle of BernhardWyss, entryfor 7July 1522;quoted in Harder, pp. 172 176.For afulldiscussion, see Heinold Fast, `Reformation durch Provokation.Predigtsto È rungenin¡ den ersten Jahren der Reformation in der Schweiz’ ,inGoertz, UmstrittenesTa Èufertum , pp. 79 110. ¡ The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 175 it seems likely that the general public were not expecting the baptisms, and that they came as acomplete surprise. It could therefore be suggested that the baptisms were not apublic but rather aprimarily private act, and that the group found in the practice ofrebaptism some kind ofspiritual reassur- ance at atimeof crisis. This sense ofspiritual reassurance was seen much more clearly in later believers’ baptisms, and was one reason why Zwingli found the baptisms so dicult tounderstand. As W.P. Stephens has noted, `Zwingli’swhole understanding ofGod and ofsalvation is bound up in his doctrine of baptism, as well as his understanding ofman, which could not allow that the soul could be aŒected by what is bodily.’ 120 For Zwingli, the act ofreceiv- ing awater baptism could no more give spiritual reassurance toan adult than it could wipe away the stain oforiginal sin in achild. In his TaufbuÈ chlein,he suggested that `theAnabaptists themselves set too great store by the baptism ofwater’ ,and thereby `err just as much on the one side as the papists do on the other’. 121 Zwingli suspected that `many would be rebaptized not just once but athousand times. For if water baptism renews, strengthens, and comforts the soul, no one would refrain from being baptized again as often as he was tempted’. 122 This sense ofspiritual reassurance or release was recognized explicitly by Anabaptists later in 1525. Zwingli noted that `theAnabaptists cannot lie that they attribute nothing tobaptism; for they let it be known that they have received great quickening ofthe spirit by it, although that is only old-womanish and foolish chatter’. 123 Unnamed Anabaptists questioned during the second public disputation on baptism sometime in March 1525 claimed that they had feltsuch arelease. Oswald Myconius, who joined Zwingli in questioning the Anabaptists, suggested that the release `was sim- ply acessation ofthat apprehension which you yourself had created’ regard- ing the possibility ofliving asinless life. 12 4 Zwingli also downplayed the signi® cance ofthe reaction, likening it tothe release that had previously been feltduring confession, when `thepenitent could easily claim that in penance or papal absolution he experienced within himself agreat renewal the momenthe made his confession’. 125 This claim has received recent support from George Huntston Williams, who suggests that the radicals were `putting contritional believers’ baptism

120 Stephens, Theologyof Huldrych Zwingli ,p.214. For moreon Zwingli’ sunderstanding ofbaptism, see Timothy George, `The Presuppositions of Zwingli’ sBaptismalTheology’ ,in E.J.Furcha and H. WaynePipkin (eds.), Prophet,Pastor, Protestant. The Work ofHuldrych ZwingliAfter FiveHundred Years (AllisonPark, 1984), pp. 71 87. 121 Zwingli, Vonder Taufe; quotedin Harder, p. 354. ¡ 122 Ibid.; quotedin Harder, p. 371. 123 Ibid.; quotedin Harder, p. 371. 124 Ibid.; quotedin Harder, p. 354. 125 Ibid.,quotedin Harder, p. 355. 176 Paul Brand into that experiential void in adult life leftby the neglect or programmatic rejection ofsacramental penance’. 126 However, although Zwingli was in part correct in his assumption, his argument, perhaps unsurprisingly, fails to appreciate the importance ofthe act ofbaptism, and the personal sense of spiritual wellbeing, tothe individual believers. This may well have been par- ticularly true in the case ofthe ®rst believers’ baptisms, in light ofthe fear and apprehension we can imagine the ZuÈ rich group tohave feltat this time. Apossible explanation for this sense ofspiritual reassurance may be found in applying some aspects ofthe anthropological study ofritual to the practice ofbelievers’ baptism. In his classic work on rites ofpassage, Arnold van Gennep suggested that the rituals accompanying moments of transition in aparticular culture could be broken down into three elements: those ofseparation, transition, and incorporation. 1 27 `So great is the incom- patability’,he wrote, `between the profane and the sacred worlds that aman cannot pass from one tothe other world without going through an inter- mediate stage.’ 128 Edward Muir has described how the medieval form ofbaptism, practised throughout Christian Europe until the Reformation and still in use in ZuÈ rich at the timeof the believers’ baptisms, can be described in terms ofvan Gen- nep’sritual theory. The rite ofseparation took place at the door ofthe church, `thethreshold that separated the realm ofthe devil from the bles- sings ofGod’ ,where the priest conducted an exorcism on the child. In the rite oftransition, the child was taken by the priest into the church and the main liturgical parts ofthe ceremony, an elaborate aŒair involving oil, salt, and spit, were undertaken: the child, no longer physically apart ofhis or her family was likewise not yet apart ofthe wider Christian family. This only occurred in the rite ofincorporation, when the priest handed the child to the godparents, once more `incorporating the child into the Christian com- munity’.1 29 The simple ceremony performed by Conrad Grebel in many respects bore little similarity tothat outlined above. However, it is neverthe- less possible tosee it as equally rich in ritualistic signi® cance. All Christian baptismal ceremonies are fundamentally based on arite of transition: the Pauline theology that those undergoing baptism die with Christ, are raised from the dead with Christ, and therefore walk in the newness oflife (Romans 6.3 4). In addition tothis, the ZuÈ rich baptisms can be seen as undertaking a¡more complete notion oftransition. Particu- larly in Grebel’sstatements about persecution, it is possible tosee what

126 Williams, RadicalReformation , p. 432. 127 Arnoldvan Gennep, TheRites ofPassage ,trans.Monika B. Vizedomand Gabrielle L. CaŒe (London,1960), p. 10. 128 Ibid., p. 1. 129 EdwardMuir, Ritualin Early Modern Europe (Cambridge,1997), p. 21. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 177

Victor W.Turner termed `the passage quality ofthe religious life’,where `transition has become apermanent condition’. 1 30 There is also asense in which the baptisms can be seen as arite ofsepara- tion in preparation for this life: although, as discussed above, the baptisms were not the act offounding aseparate church, they were surely undertaken with an expectation ofa diŒerent future. George Huntston Williams has noted that `rebaptism in the ®rst days ofthe movement was almost equiva- lent toordination or commission’;Williams also suggested that this added signi® cance was another way in which early Anabaptist baptisms imitated the baptism ofChrist. 1 31 The baptism as arite ofseparation may also ®twith this theory: an expectation ofa diŒerent future from those in the world who have not undertaken tofollow Christ in the most literal sense. However, it should be emphasized that the baptisms can equally be seen as an act ofincorporation into agroup with acommon or shared ideology. As the Hutterite Chronicle makes clear, the group `con® rmed one another for the ser- vice ofthe Gospel’. 132 Rollin Stely Armour made much the same point when criticizing what he saw as an over-emphasis on the subjectivity ofbelievers’ baptism, on the voluntarism ofthe act. Whilst this voluntarism is undeniably true, not least in the case ofthese ®rst baptisms which came about only at Blaurock’srequest, it is important torecognize `that there were objective ele- ments in Anabaptist baptism as well as subjective elements.’ Armour notes that `the baptizand not only gave atestimony as he witnessed tohis faith . . . but he received atestimony’,the testimony that the community recognized his or her spiritual rebirth. 133 In this respect, the ZuÈ rich baptisms can be seen as acon- scious recognition both ofthe diŒerences between the individual members of the radical group and the outside world and ofthe similarities between the individuals and the group there gathered. It is dicult toattain aclear understanding ofthe signi® cance ofthe ZuÈ rich believers’ baptisms without appreciating the immediate circumstances ofthe radical group. They were threatened with persecution but had vowed to remain true todivine law. By accepting believers’ baptism it seems likely that each individual would have achieved some kind ofspiritual reassurance, and that the group as awhole would also have been united together.

VII: Conclusion This paper has considered three broad schools ofinterpretation that have been applied tothe believers’ baptisms that took place in ZuÈ rich on 21

130 VictorW. Turner, TheRitual Process (London,1969), p. 107. 131 GeorgeHuntston Williams andAngel M. Mergal(eds.), Spiritualand Anabaptist Writers (London,1957), p. 44,fn. 12. 132 HutterianBrethren, p. 45. 133 RollinStely Armour, AnabaptistBaptism (Scottdale,1966), pp. 139 140. ¡ 178 Paul Brand

January 1525. Two have commonly been used by scholars: one is tolook backwards from the baptisms, and tosee their roots in the debate concern- ing infant baptism; the other is tolook forward, and tosee in the baptisms hints ofthe theological and institutional developments ofthe later believers’ churches. Athird approach has been suggested in this paper, and that is to consider the immediate background tothe baptisms. It has been suggested that when seen in this light, the baptisms are best understood as asponta- neous act, areaction tothe threat ofpersecution, and away ofspiritually emboldening the besieged group led by Conrad Grebel. Although the link is, perhaps surprisingly, not made in the sources, the story told in this approach sounds similar tothe gift ofthe Holy Spirit to the early church at Pentecost (Acts2.1 5): asmall, embattled group ®nding spiritual relief in the face ofadversity. ¡ Like the experience ofthe early church, the baptisms provided the ZuÈ rich group with the spiritual energy toundertake adangerous programme ofevangelization in their surrounding area. Interestingly, the coming ofthe Holy Spirit was also institutionalized by the early church, much as believers’ baptism was by later Anabaptists. Geza Vermes describes how this ecstatic enthusiasm, `a spontaneous happening on the ®rst occasion’,was promoted within the Christian move- ment, and eventually transformed `into aformalized rite ofinitiation into Christianity’. 1 34 The similarity tothe introduction and later spread ofbeliev- ers’ baptism is instructive. Clearly this is not the only story. Although it has been suggested that scho- lars could pay rather less attention tothe intellectual background ofopposition toinfant baptism, the in¯uence on the ZuÈ rich group ofCarlstadt and MuÈ ntzer, among others, is undeniable. Similarly, the interpretations that suggest the baptisms were an attemptto reform the practice ofbaptism in light ofscrip- tural requirements, and an anti-clerical stance toempower lay Christians, are both convincing explanations for why the ZuÈrich group would want toinsti- tutethe practice ofbelievers’ baptism. However, these interpretations do not add very much toour understanding ofwhy the January 1525 baptisms occurred at that speci® cpoint in history. It has been suggested in this paper that aconsideration ofthe immediate background tothe baptisms provides apossible explanation tothis question. It is fair toquestion why, when this approach appears toprovide such an explanation, it has not proved more popular with previous scholars. 13 5 The

134 GezaVermes, TheChanging Faces of Jesus (London,2000), p. 140. 135 It shouldbe noted that, in denying the importance of the earlier movement against infant bap- tism, this approachis super®cially similar tothat put forward by Harold S. Benderin a numberof works: seeBender, Grebel,p.133; and Harold S. Bender,`The Zwickau Prophets, Thomas Mu È ntzer, andthe Anabaptists’, MennoniteQuarterly Review ,27(1953),pp. 3 16.However, Bender’ sprimary concernwas confessional,to demonstrate that the Swiss Brethren¡were independent of those radi- cals,i.e. Carlstadt and Mu È ntzer,whose theologies did not ® twith Bender’sideaof `The Anabaptist Vision’.This approachhas been strongly criticized in Pater, Karlstadt,p.107, and has not been in¯ u- entialin the writing of this paper. The Surprising Birth ofSwiss Anabaptism 179 answer may lie in the domination over the last ®ftyyears ofhistorical scholarship ofwhat is broadly termed social history. This development has been extremely important for Reformation scholarship in general, 136 and for the study ofAnabaptism in particular. 137 Nevertheless, it may be questioned whether historical scholarship has not lost something during this domination. Fernand Braudel, in what became an extremely in¯uential approach dur- ing the 1950 sand 1960 s, warned his readers todistrust what he termed l’his- toire e ve nementielle ,the history ofevents, `with its still burning passions’, and instead tofocus on the long-term developments ofsociety and environ- ment. Hewrote: `resounding events are often only momentary outbursts, surface manifestations ofthese larger movements and explicable only in terms ofthem’ . 13 8 To suggest that this may not always prove auseful approach is not todeny the achievements ofsocial history, but simply to suggest that adetailed reading ofthe event itself should not be overlooked. In part, this is asimilar approach tothat used by microhistorians: Edward Muir writes that microhistory is aresponse toBraudel’ spromotion ofthe longue dureÂe ,areturn `tointerpreting utterances and beliefs, todescribing brief dramatic events’,and an attemptto overcome the type ofhistory writ- ing `which has crushed all individuals toinsigni® cance under the weight of vast impersonal structures and forces.’ 139 What has gone before in this paper should be enough tosuggest that an approach that emphasizes impersonal structures and forces is not necessarily successful when dealing with the ZuÈ rich believers’ baptisms of21 January 1525. The baptisms are in many respects not explicable in terms ofthe lar- ger intellectual and social movements ofthe time, and understanding the burning passions ofthat January evening may be more useful for the historian than appreciating the developments leading up toit. It may be that scholars should join Zwingli in expressing surprise at the events of 21 January 1525, and recognize that there was less intellectual baggage behind the baptisms than has previously been assumed.

136 Seefor example:Lawrence P. Buckand Jonathan W. Zophy(eds.), TheSocial History of the Reformation (Columbus,1972); Kyle C. Sessionsand Phillip N. Bebb(eds.), Pietaset Societas. New Trendsin Reformation and Social History (Kirksville,1985); R.W. Scribner, TheGerman Reforma- tion (Basingstoke,1986). 137 Seefor exampleClasen, Anabaptism.A SocialHistory . 138 FernandBraudel, TheMediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II , trans.Sia ÁnReynolds,2 vols.(London, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 20 21,the preface to the ® rst French edn (1946). ¡ 139 EdwardMuir, `Introduction:Observing Tri¯ es’ ,inEdward Muir andGuido Ruggiero (eds.), Microhistoryand the Lost Peoples of Europe (Baltimoreand London, 1991), pp. vii, xxi; see also PeterBurke, `History of Events and the Revival of Narrative’,inPeter Burke (ed.), NewPerspectives onHistoricalWriting (Cambridge,1991), pp. 233 248.On theuse of this people-centredapproach ina diŒerent historical ® eld,see the call for `people,¡ not structures; choices, not determinism’ in Eric Selbin,`Revolution in the Real World: BringingAgency Back In’ ,inJohn Foran (ed.), Theorizing Revolutions (Londonand New York, 1997), p. 123. 180 Paul Brand

Abstract Anabaptism, the major movement ofradical dissent in the early Reformation, was born in ZuÈ rich on21 January 1525, when asmall group ofthose who had become disillusioned with the course of reform in ZuÈ rich metand rebaptized each other. Historians have usually explained this event in one oftwo ways: one is tolook backwards from the baptisms, and tosee their roots in the early Reformation debate concerning the validity ofinfant baptism; the other is tolook forward, and tosee in the baptisms hints ofthe theo- logical and institutional developments ofthe later Anabaptist move- ment. This essay suggests that neither approach oŒers avery satisfactory explanation as towhy the baptisms took place, and that such an explanation should in fact be sought in the immediate back- ground tothe baptisms, namely the ocial procedure against the group by the ZuÈ rich Council. By applying some aspects ofthe anthropological study ofritual tothe practice ofbelievers’ baptism, the essay attempts toshow that the baptisms are best understood as aspontaneous act, areaction tothe threat ofpersecution, and away ofspiritually emboldening the besieged group ofZu È rich radicals.