II. The Doctrines of the Anabaptists

Up to the year 1525 the theorists of the Anabaptists had not spoken, their deductions dealing chiefly with the theological confirmation and amplification of their doctrines. The fundamental features of these doctrines were sufficiently evident at the beginning of the Peasant War. This seems the fittest place for explaining them, before proceeding with the account of the external affairs of the sect.

That which most strikes the observer concerning the Anabaptists is the great diversity of opinion prevailing among them. In his Chronica, which appeared in 1531, Franck (who knew and understood them thoroughly and sympathised with them on many points, although sceptically and timorously) says in regard to them: “Although dissensions exist in all sects, yet are the Baptists peculiarly disunited and split up; in so much that I know not what certainly and finally to write about, them.”

Bullinger writes in the same strain in his work against the Anabaptists. “Many hold,” he says, “that it is impossible to give an accurate account of all the distinctions and antagonistic opinions, and pernicious, horrible sects or factions existing among the Anabaptists. In truth, few communities will be found which are unanimous in their views, and have not each its own mystery, i.e., its own fantasy.” For that reason he refrains from attempting to describe all the sects, and limits himself to a recapitulation of their most important tendencies.

Dissensions and divergences of views were not peculiar to the Anabaptists. They are in part due to the same tolerance in matters of faith which had enabled the most diverse sects to dwell together peaceably in Tabor, and in part to the circumstance that the various sects only rarely acquired a stable, recognised organisation. Hence the conception of what an Anabaptist really was remained, perhaps, quite as uncertain as that of a “Nihilist” of today in Russia. Contemporary historians include among them partisans of the most varied modes of thought. On the other hand, it is natural that every revolutionary – and hence critical – movement should maintain a critical attitude, not only towards its opponents, but also towards its adherents. This makes it liable to disruption in its very infancy, and so long as it is feeling its way without firm foothold. The Anabaptists (at least in Germany) never passed beyond this stage.

Bullinger is more minute than Franck in his account of the different factions among the Anabaptists, but also more bitter. We shall confine ourselves to Franck’s narrative, and give a few of its details.

Many of the distinctions given by this author are of a subordinate character, and relate to differences of natural temperament or idiosyncrasy; in which category we may place the various views held in regard to revelations and dreams. Other points deal with certain tactical matters of little import.

But even on weighty questions and first principles there was no perfect unanimity among the Anabaptists.

Foremost of all stood the fundamental question of private proprietorship.

“Some,” says Franck, “regard themselves alone as holy and pure. Holding themselves aloof from others, they have all things in common; no one calls anything his own, and the possession of any property is a sin.

“Others have all things so far in common that they allow no one among them to suffer want. Not that one can seize another’s goods, but that in case of necessity the goods of each belong in common to the sufferer; and no one is allowed to hide anything from another, but must keep open house. While, however, the giver should be ready and willing, the receiver should be unwilling, and, as far as possible, spare his brother, and avoid being a burden to him. But herein there is much hypocrisy, deceit, and lying, as they themselves well know.

“In some places, e.g., at Austerlitz in Moravia, they have Oeconomos, or stewards, and a common kitchen-sack, from which each one is given what he is in want of; but whether this is really so, and the distribution just, I do not inquire. These anathematise other Brethren who do not walk in what they consider the right way; and this often happens, since each community puts a ban upon other brotherhoods who do not subscribe in all things to its tenets ...

“Other Baptists lay no stress on the brotherly feeling and community of goods just mentioned, and esteem it unnecessary and arrogant on the part of the Fraternities which call themselves perfect Christians and despise all else. In this sect each works for himself, and the members help, question each other, and shake hands in a way quite hypocritical (to my thinking), although I lay no blame on those who do these things in sincerity.”

Hence among the Anabaptists, as among the Taborites and Bohemian Brethren, we find two parties: one strict, taking communism seriously, abolishing all private rights in property, and supporting the Brethren from the common “kitchen-sack”; and, at the same time, the more moderate faction which recognised private proprietorship, and only demanded that each should so possess “as if he possessed nothing.” The appearance of these two parties nearly simultaneously is not an accidental, but a typical phenomenon, consequent, by the very nature of things, on the communistic movement, so long as it adhered to the basis of communism in the means of consumption.

The question of marriage is intimately connected with that of private proprietorship.

According to Franck, some taught that no one should live in family life with those of another faith; and many wedlocks were broken up in this way. Others held opposite views.

Some thought it a duty to forsake house and family after the example of the apostles (St. Luke xviii. 28-30), while many preached the contrary.

“There was also a sect among them the members of which wished, together with all things else, to have their wives in common; but they were soon suppressed by the other Brethren of the community, and driven out. Many inculpated Hut and Hätzer as leaders of this sect. If this be true, these men at all events atoned for their sin.”

Ludwig Hätzer of Thurgau is already known to us. Not only was he opposed to the bolder thinkers of his party on questions of marriage, but he was one of those Baptists who denied the divinity of Christ, and maintained that He was only a teacher and example, not an “idol.” We do not know how far his views were shared by others. In 1529 he was put to death at Constance, for adultery.

Hans Hut, of Franconia, was a bookbinder, and a zealous partisan of Münzer (who was himself far from advocating the community of wives). After the suppression of the Peasant Insurrection in Thuringia, he joined the South German Anabaptists.

The tendencies for which he and Hätzer were condemned call to mind those of the Adamites in Bohemia and the Brothers and Sisters of the Free-Spirit; and it is noteworthy that Bullinger speaks of a sect of “Free-Brothers” among the Baptists, who not only in name but in their opinions showed a close kinship with the Brothers of the Free-Spirit. We cannot decisively say whether this similarity rests upon tradition, or whether under the same conditions, but without any connection with their forerunners, like events led to like consequences.

“The Free Brethren,” says Bullinger “(whom nearly all other Baptists call the rude, wild Brothers, and curse and scorn) make the eighth sect of this people. From the very origin of the order they were rather numerous in various localities, especially in the Zurich highlands. The Baptists interpreted Christian freedom in a fleshly sense, wishing to be above all laws, because Christ had made them free. They also imagined themselves exempt from the payment of rents and tithes, and furthermore from the duties of labour. Some of the more discreet, however, teach that although these things are not incumbent as between the Brethren, yet should the heathen be paid, that they may have no cause for complaint, and may not revile the doctrines. Nevertheless serfdom should cease among Christians. Some of these Free Brothers (abandoned dissolute knaves) convinced wanton women that unless these hazarded their honour, it would be impossible for them to be saved. To this end they blasphemously abused the Word of God, which says that he cannot be saved who is not willing to forfeit and lose all that he holds dear. In like manner all ignominy and disgrace must be suffered for Christ’s sake. Because Christ said that publicans and harlots should enter the kingdom of heaven before the righteous, therefore women are to turn harlots, yielding up their honour, and thus be greater in heaven than virtuous wives. Others are more subtle; for they teach that as all things are held in common, so should the wives be also. Some affirm that after they have been rebaptized they are born again, and cannot sin; the flesh alone can and may sin. In this way great scandal and wantonness were caused by many false pretences and lies, since they dared to say concerning all these things, that they were in accordance with God’s will. Certain wanton knaves among them instituted what they called spiritual marriage; wives were told that they committed heinous sin with their husbands if these had not been rebaptized, since in that case they were no better than heathens; but that with Baptists they did not sin, there being a spiritual marriage between them.”

We have, unfortunately, been unable to discover any further contemporaneous information concerning the Free Brethren. Bullinger’s polemical treatise is by no means an unprejudiced source; but in all essential points we may rely upon the accuracy of its representations of the sect, particularly on points in which their doctrines touch upon those of the Brothers and Sisters of the Free-Spirit; namely, their “freelove”, “communistic anarchism”, and their sinlessness based on the assumption that what they did was God’s will.

Though the Anabaptists were no more unanimous in their opinions about government or public authority than in those concerning private property and marriage, they all agreed that they would have as little as possible to do with the Government. They wished to know nothing of it; at the same time they deprecated violent resistance, and preached the duty of suffering obedience.

Franck informs us that they taught the duty of unresisting submission to violence. A Christian should fill no office; “he may not have any kind of servant; neither may he go to war, or clench his fist.” Let vengeance be of God.

Some among them proclaimed that no one should take an oath. “Furthermore no Christian may take an official position in which his duty would oblige him to sit in a criminal court and judge matters of life and death, or concern himself with war.” Others at least tolerated necessary self-defence. “Nevertheless they all with one voice teach obedience to the authorities in things that be not contrary to God’s will; and the giving not only of rent and taxes, but of the cloak with the coat, and all that is not absolutely needful. They also say that they are ready to suffer violence, and even to obey tyrants ... So far as I have discoursed with the latter, they have replied to me that they are here to suffer with patience for Christ’s sake, not to fight with impatience; because the precepts and demands of the gospel were defended and established by suffering and martyrdom, not by violence; as the peasants had it in mind to do.”

Much as they agreed with the Zurich Brethren in other matters, their views on the subject of violence were the main cause of their separation from Münzer and the majority of German communists before the Peasant War.

A letter is still extant which was addressed to Münzer on the 5th of September, 1524, by Grebel, Manz Andreas von der Stülzen, Hans Okenfuss, Heinrich Aberli, and others. They affirm that they are at one with him in many things, and that “you and Karlstadt are esteemed among us as the purest proclaimers and preachers of the purest Word of God.” They rejoice that “we have found one who is of the same Christian understanding as ourselves. We who are poor in spirit have been taught and strengthened beyond measure by your tracts.” But he is not radical enough in his doctrines, and they exhort him “seriously to bestir himself, and preach without fear godly words only; to set up godly usages ... and to reject, hate, and curse all human designs, words, usages, and opinions, and even your own.” They attack his German Mass, which they consider too far removed from apostolic simplicity, and also inveigh against his advocacy of violence. Whosoever will not believe, and struggles against God’s Word “should not be put to death, but be esteemed a heathen and a publican. The gospel and its believers are not to be protected with the sword, nor should the latter so protect themselves; yet this, from what we have gathered from our Brethren, is your opinion. True, believing Christians are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter; they must be baptized in anguish and want, in tribulation and persecution, in suffering and death; by these must they be proved, and obtain the home of everlasting rest, not by physical, but by spiritual strangling. Moreover, they must not make use of the sword of the world, nor of war, as killing is an entirely bygone thing with them.”

We do not know whether Münzer received this letter, nor what reply he gave to it; but soon after its composition we find him on the Swiss frontier in communication with the Swiss Anabaptists. We are limited to conjecture respecting the nature of this intercourse, though the events which transpired after Münzer’s return to Thuringia, lead us to infer that no agreement was arrived at concerning the employment of violent measures.

The question of such measures was a crucial one with the Anabaptists, as it had previously been with the Bohemian Brethren. This is seen from the fact that in spite of their tolerance in other matters, and the existence among them of the. most diverse tendencies, they always protested against Münzer’s being considered one of them. Moreover, that reformer’s partisans held aloof from the Baptists. Franck tells us: “It is said that Münzer still has (1531) a large number of secret followers in Thuringia, who are not Baptists. Furthermore, as far as I have been informed on trustworthy authority, he has not even rebaptized.”

This last circumstance is not in itself any proof that Münzer did not belong to the Baptists. Like these, Münzer publicly declared against infant baptism. In his Protestation he writes: “In the days of the apostles care was taken that the adversary should not mix the tares with the wheat. For that reason adults only were admitted as members of the Church, after long instruction ... Ah! What shall I say? In all the books of the Fathers of the Church from the earliest extant, there is not one single word which discloses or indicates the true mode of baptism. I ask all who are learned in letters to point out to me the place in Holy Writ in which it is asserted that a single child under age was baptized by Christ and His messengers, or which may be adduced in support of infant baptism.”

At the end of January, or beginning of February, 1525, the Zurich Brethren had begun to introduce the practice of rebaptism; at a time when Münzer had probably left to take part in the great revolutionary war, and when that sort of sectarian controversy must have seemed to him trivial and of absolutely no importance.

The idea of rebaptism (or rather late baptism) was not new. It sprang up at a very early date among the Waldenses, and was afterwards especially prominent in the early days of the Bohemian Brethren. Peter Chelcicky was of the opinion that “it were better to baptize adults only, after the manner of the ancient Church, i.e., those who could confirm their faith by their works.” While not wholly repudiating infant baptism, he preferred that the rite should be limited to adults only. When the community of Bohemian Brethren was formed at Lhota in 1407, their first act was rebaptism, which was performed on all who were present; and late baptism maintained itself among the fraternity until the rise of the Anabaptists. At that time the Bohemian Brethren had acquired the character of middle-class people, and did not wish to be confounded with the Anabaptists, who bore the same features as the original followers of Chelcicky. Adult baptism now became a dangerous symbol, and for that reason the dislike to it in the Bohemian sects continued to increase until a synod held at Jungbunzlau in 1534 (the year of the Münster uprising) put a final end to the practice. Hence it was no new principle, the acceptance of which gave the Zurich Brethren their name. In fact the opposition to infant baptism was a logical consequence of the opposition to the State Church.

So long as the Catholic Church in Occidental Christendom was truly Catholic, baptism implied the reception into general society. At that time there was nothing contrary to common sense in infant baptism. It was quite otherwise after the formation of opposing heretical parties, who contested the claim of the Catholic Church, that it comprised the whole of society. When other ecclesiastical organisations had been instituted, the demand was naturally advanced that each individual should not be involuntarily apportioned to a designated Church through the accident of birth, but remain free to decide until he was able to think for himself.

This conclusion, however, was not arrived at by all the Protestant sects. The Protestantism of the ruling classes consisted merely in the effort to get possession of the Church as a means of government, and to incorporate it in the State. The Church became a part of the State – the State Church; and the Government in those countries to which the Reformation spread determined to what Church – to what “faith” – the citizens of the State should belong. This was afterwards displayed in the most marked manner in monarchical Germany, where the principle was formulated: cuius regio, ejus religio; and where the subjects of a prince were obliged forthwith and uncomplainingly to change their faith, if their sovereign for any reason changed his, or bequeathed, gave, sold, or ceded them to another monarch of a different belief.

In democratic Protestant commonwealths the power of the State Church did not lead to such absurd consequences as in monarchies; but the consequences became apparent sooner, and first of all in Zurich, where, as we have seen, Zwingli had introduced the State Church in 1523. The baptism of adults was incompatible, however, with the inauguration of a National Church. As every individual belonged by birth to a particular country, so in those countries having a State Church, he belonged by birth to a particular confession. Adult baptism implied a denial of State authority; the denial of its right to fix the belief of its native-born citizens. As administrator of the State of Zurich, Zwingli could not recognise late baptism, although earlier, and as long as he was in the opposition he avowed himself to be in favour of the practice.

On the other hand, the Brethren were made to adhere more firmly to the right of adult baptism by the increasing severity of the persecution, and the growing consciousness that they were in the minority and must renounce all hope of getting the government into their hands. They saw that they could vindicate their claims only by separating from the mass of the people and organising themselves into a peculiar community of “saints” and “elect” – two appellations which sound very arrogant, and only show that the Brethren had abandoned the hope of ever constituting the mass of the population.

Thus the question of adult baptism (or as its opponents said, re-baptism) came more and more to the front. It was just as far from being the objective cause of the struggle as was the question of Communion in both kinds among the Hussites. But as was the case with the lay chalice, circumstances caused rebaptism to be the standard round which the Brethren gathered-a token by which they recognised each other, and from which they received the name they have borne in history.