What Sort of Reformer?: Why Classifying Balthasar Hubmaier as a Magisterial Reformer

Is Just Plain Wrong

Submitted to Professor Rosalie Beck

Baylor University

June 1, 2007

by Craig R. Clarkson Baylor University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for REL5359 – The Radical Reformation

Spring 2007

Clarkson, 1

Introduction: The Problem and the Plan

Analysis of the theology and reform work of Balthasar Hubmaier is consistently concerned

with the extent to which Hubmaier can be considered an authentic Anabaptist. One focal point of

making the assessment is Hubmaier’s theological difference from other Anabaptists regarding the

government’s use of the Sword and the appropriateness of Christians to function within civil

government as magistrates or to wield the sword as citizens at the behest of the state. Another focal

point of making assessments regarding Hubmaier’s Anabaptism is the shape of church reform in

Waldshut, a city on the Rhine north and west of Zurich, and, to a lesser extent, in Nicolsburg of

Moravia. Hubmaier’s work in Waldshut appears magisterial in its active engagement with civil

authorities in contrast with the separatist tendencies of other Anabaptists. Thus, Hubmaier is

distanced from Anabaptism on the basis of characteristics that extend beyond the mere rejection of

infant baptism and the practice of baptizing individuals who formerly had been baptized as children.

It is important to note that these differences between Hubmaier and other Anabaptists are

approached from two different directions: variances in doctrinal theology and variances in practical

theology. The doctrinal trajectory tends to be more interested in Hubmaier’s teaching on the sword,

while the practical trajectory tends to be more interested in Hubmaier’s method of reform.

Nevertheless, most scholars recognize that the two are closely related. In fact, presuppositions

regarding the relationship between doctrine and practice and the type of research being conducted

join to set the question being asked. A doctrinal emphasis tends to view practice as propelled by

doctrine. Hubmaier’s methods of reform are seen as consistent results of his theological system and

are marshaled as support for a particular interpretation of Hubmaier’s theology. The question here,

whether explicit or implicit, is: “To what extent is Hubmaier a ‘real’ Anabaptist?” Immediately, the

project runs up against the underlying question of defining Anabaptism. A hallmark of texts on

Hubmaier is a section devoted to defining Anabaptism.

Such an approach is problematic because the heart of the matter regarding Hubmaier’s

Clarkson, 2

Anabaptism is diverted from the actual study of Hubmaier to a preliminary excursus that defines

Anabaptism. Certainly, one cannot fault a scholar for defining the terms under which a study will

proceed and this problem is mitigated in those studies where Hubmaier’s Anabaptism is not the

primary question in view. Nevertheless, when assessing Hubmaier’s Anabaptism is the issue, the

variability of defining Anabaptism robs the study of Hubmaier’s theology and practice of its vitality.

Adopt a highly constrained definition of Anabaptism that includes such concepts as separatism,

pacifism, rejection of the sword, discipleship, mutual discipline, and biblicism and start ruling people

out. Adopt a minimalist definition and start ruling in those who disagree among themselves on a

number of issues. Either way, the study of Hubmaier becomes mired in a wider issue of Anabaptist

studies because of the diversity of theological convictions among those sixteenth-century reformers

and groups who shared a common conviction that branded them as “Anabaptist” – the rejection of

infant baptism and the promotion of one of its corollaries (i.e., adult baptism, believer’s baptism, the

rejection of baptism or sacraments). At issue is what constellation of theological positions should be

considered the “core” of Anabaptism. One consequence of this abiding question of Anabaptist

studies is that one finds in Hubmaier research reviews of Anabaptist historiography similar to those

frequently found in more general Anabaptist research.

The aim of this article is to avoid this quandary by taking an alternative (and interdiscipli-

nary) approach, which thereby alters the question slightly. The idea is not completely to reverse the

emphasis on doctrine that gives rise to the question of Hubmaier’s Anabaptism, but to preserve the

tension between doctrine and practice. This means that one rejects, first, that doctrine is wholly

responsible for practical matters and, second, that the lines of influence are necessarily or even

predominantly unidirectional from doctrine to practice. That is, the first item acknowledges that the

way reform takes shape in practice is influenced by other factors, including socio-political context

and personal disposition. The second item acknowledges that these other factors and conditions in

the practical realm exert influence on doctrinal positions. The question shifts from “What kind of

Clarkson, 3

Anabaptist was Balthasar Hubmaier?” to “What kind of reformer was Balthasar Hubmaier?” By

looking at both Hubmaier’s thought and the historical record, one can better understand how his

reform differed from that of his cohorts – both magisterial and radical.

This by no means eliminates the need to make some reference to Anabaptism in general

terms or to draw effective contrasts with what others may have believed or emphasized in their

theologies while calling those others, in all their diversity, “Anabaptist.”1 It does, though, shift the

emphasis back to Hubmaier. If such an investigation into Hubmaier’s type of reform provides a

better basis from which to make a determination regarding his Anabaptism, then all the better. It

just might also provide a fuller perspective by which one decides what constitutes Anabaptism.

Of more immediate concern are the ways Hubmaier’s approach to reform have been

incorrectly characterized in previous scholarship. Looking at Hubmaier’s reform work in both

Waldshut and Nicolsburg, reform enacted in accord with local governments, the temptation is to

characterize it as magisterial. It is my contention, though, that the characterization of Hubmaier as a

magisterial reformer with an Anabaptist doctrine of baptism is propelled more by his deviation from

other Anabaptist positions regarding separatism and the sword than any substantive congruence

with the principles of reform found in Zwingli’s Zurich and later in Calvin’s Geneva. Because of its

proximity to Zurich, historical connections among the characters of the wider drama, initial

theological affinities, and the origins of the Swiss Brethren in Zurich, Waldshut is the focal point for

assessing Hubmaier’s methods of reform. What one finds is that Hubmaier’s socio-political context

in Waldshut was different than that of Zurich and this influenced the shape of reform enacted under

Hubmaier’s leadership. Furthermore, it is insufficient to rely upon simple similarities – reform

1 In this sense, I am forgoing an in-depth recapitulation of developments in Anabaptist studies related to the

Anabaptist Vision perspective, polygenesis and “the bloody theater” and adopting a minimalist definition of Anabaptism. Some of these issues will be addressed in relevant areas of this article. Although virtually every text in Anabaptist studies includes a review of Anabaptist historiography, Gerald Biesecker-Mast provides an accessible and current review with an eye toward separatism and nonresistance in the first chapter of Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2006), 35-67.

Clarkson, 4

programs endorsed by civil authority. There are significant differences regarding the relationship

between church and state. A review of Hubmaier’s interaction with civil authority in Waldshut in

light of a fresh reading of Hubmaier’s thought reveals a different picture. Although he worked

primarily in concert with local authority, his approach to reform was more populist than magisterial.

Hubmaier did, after all, find himself at odds with certain authorities and was ultimately convicted

and executed for insurrection as well as for heresy.2

Assessments of Hubmaier’s Theology and Reform

In the introduction to his influential biography of Hubmaier, originally produced as a

doctoral dissertation in 1961, Torsten Bergsten surveys the field of Hubmaier research. From this

survey one can ascertain a number of assessments of Hubmaier in terms of his doctrinal positions

and his methods of reform. According to Bergsten, much of the earliest work on Hubmaier was

marred by partisan confessional interests.3 Later, Hubmaier research turned more biographical, but

still lacked theological analysis. Of particular note is an influential biography and other work by

Johann Loserth. Loserth redeemed Hubmaier from partisan representations but provided little in

the way of assessment because he was generally unconcerned with theological analysis.4

Nevertheless, a number of others have weighed in on the subject of Hubmaier’s Anabaptism.5

Alfred Hegler considers Hubmaier an educated theologian who represents a simpler, more

conservative Anabaptism. Carl Sachsse and Wilhem Schulze, on the other hand, place Hubmaier

closer theologically to the magisterial reformers than to the Anabaptists. Baptist scholars have

2 In his pamphlet The Reason Why the Patron Saint and Chief Adherent of the Anabaptists, Dr. Balthasar Hubmaier Was

Burned in Vienna on the Tenth of March, 1528, Johann Faber (1478-1541) provides an account of his interviews with Hubmaier over a period of three days shortly before his execution and appends a “testimony” of Hubmaier’s confession. The case is heavily weighted toward insurrection rather than heresy. “Vienna Testimony” in Balthasar Hubmaier, Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, ed. and trans. H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 563-565.

3 Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, ed. William R. Estep, trans. Irwin J. Barnes and William R. Estep (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1978), 25.

4 Ibid., 32.

5 For the following summation of Hubmaier scholarship as it relates to assessing Hubmaier’s Anabaptism and his methods of reform, see Bergsten, 25-46.

Clarkson, 5

focused their interest in Hubmaier through the lens of the Free Church movement. This is where

positions on ecclesiology, church-state relations and the sword enter the analysis in ways that are

particularly applicable to assessing Hubmaier’s style of reform. Gunnar Westin regards Hubmaier

within the Anabaptist family where he took up a position between two extremes: the revolutionary

impulse epitomized by Münster and the “pacific, adopting a negative attitude toward civil authority.”

Robert Macoskey sees Hubmaier as a unique reformer forging a theological synthesis of Anabaptist

and magisterial concepts. Gerd Seewald sees Hubmaier establishing a form of state church, though

one based upon voluntary membership. This interesting construction appears again in work from

Peder Liland and Kirk MacGregor, reviewed below. For his part, Seewald considers Hubmaier’s

project as “essentially the same as Zwingli’s in Zurich and Luther’s in Saxony,” thus marking

Hubmaier as an atypical Anabaptist at best. Mennonite historians have a more ambivalent relation-

ship with Hubmaier because of that tradition’s historically held pacifism. John Horsch sees

Hubmaier’s reforms producing churches similar to Protestant state churches. John Howard Yoder

also sees state churches, distinguishes Hubmaier from real Anabaptists and regards him more as “a

consistent Zwinglian with a concept of baptism that is not Zwinglian.” Herbert Klassen holds views

similar to Yoder. In short, “there is no consensus on the part of Baptist and Mennonite historians

as to how these congregations, which Hubmaier founded and established, are described.” It seems

that Baptists see free churches where Mennonites see state churches. Turning from the assessment

of churches to the assessment of Hubmaier as a theologian and a churchman, greater consensus

emerges around the conclusion that Hubmaier “stood closer to the Magisterial Reformation than to

Anabaptism, despite his teaching on baptism.”

Bergsten himself identifies a number of outward characteristics that mark Anabaptism: adult

baptism, communal discipline, rejection of compulsion in religious matters by either the state or the

hierarchy, renunciation of military service, the taking of oaths and the death penalty and a sectarian

Clarkson, 6

free church principle that challenged the medieval idea of the unity of church and state.6 Of these,

Bergsten acknowledges Hubmaier’s variance on the renunciation of military service, oaths and the

death penalty. He is ambivalent about whether or not Hubmaier’s free church principle challenged

the medieval unity of church and state. Though uncritical of other assessments that label Hubmaier

a magisterial reformer, Bergsten affirms that Hubmaier “contended theological and practically for

believer’s baptism and the Church as a voluntary fellowship of committed disciples.”7 Bergsten

seems somewhat uneasy about the imprisonment of Hut as a result of the Nicolsburg disputation

and Hubmaier’s possible role in the Nicolsburg Articles, but the episode does not constitute a

serious challenge to Hubmaier’s rejection of compulsion in religious matters.

To these voices we can add a more in-depth review of three others: Eddie Mabry, Kirk

MacGregor and Peder Liland. Eddie Mabry, in a text on Balthasar Hubmaier’s ecclesiology, accepts

Hubmaier as an Anabaptist according to a minimalist definition; he rejected infant baptism and

advocated believer’s baptism.8 Less concretely, Mabry is willing to place Hubmaier among the

“Evangelical Anabaptists.”9 Here, Mabry is following a threefold distinction of types of Anabaptism

that originated with Alfred Hegler, is more recently identified with the work of George Huntston

Williams, and has reached a position of general use in Anabaptist studies with various shifts in

emphasis.10 The distinction is made with a number of different labels, but it generally breaks down

into evangelical, revolutionary and spiritualist (or contemplative) groups. For example, Mabry also

draws upon Macoskey’s analogous divisions: Swiss Brethren, chiliastic and mystical.11

6 Ibid., 16.

7 Ibid., 25.

8 Eddie Mabry, Balthasar Hubmaier’s Doctrine of the Church (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994), 46.

9 Ibid., 47-50.

10 William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 21. Estep, Mabry and numerous other Anabaptist scholars note that such distinctions are dangerous because they can lead to misunderstanding because of the diversity and overlap that existed among Anabaptists. Nevertheless, these distinctions remain in use because they can be effective and useful when employed in a critical and informed way. Mabry states in his text that he is following Williams.

11 Mabry, 48.

Clarkson, 7

When Mabry’s field of vision is narrowed to only ecclesiology, he comfortably positions

Hubmaier in the evangelical class. Spiritualist Anabaptists held a subjective theology that could deny

the legitimacy of the visible church as an institution. Revolutionary Anabaptists “emphasized social

revolt and setting up society under a theocracy ruled by the church, or a church-state kingdom.”

The middle ground, occupied by Hubmaier and the Swiss Brethren despite their varying views on

other issues, was a restored church based upon voluntary association where regenerate people joined

in following New Testament guidelines for living and practiced mutual nurture and rebuke.12

Mabry is not neglectful of the historical record. Another way of looking at the designation

of Hubmaier as an evangelical Anabaptist is to recognize Hubmaier’s connection to Swiss

Brethren.13 Hubmaier had contact with the Zurich radicals as early as the first Zurich disputation in

January of 1523. At that time, though, the lines were not so clearly drawn between Zwinglian

reform and the break-away group that would become the Swiss Brethren. Hubmaier demonstrates

an independence of thought that ties him neither to Zwingli or the Zurich radicals. Hubmaier at

times agreed with Zwingli on both the content of reform and its pace; at other times disagreed.

Regarding the Zurich radicals, Hubmaier had already written to Oecolampadius on January 16, 1525,

that he had instituted a ceremony of blessing for infants in lieu of baptism;14 this preceded the break-

up in Zurich later that same month, which climaxed with believer’s baptism in the home of Felix

Manz. Thus, while it was Wilhelm Reublin who arrived in Waldshut to preach in late January and

eventually convinced Hubmaier himself to be baptized (April), Hubmaier had already reached a

theological position against infant baptism. There is a genetic link from Zurich to Waldshut in the

propagation of Anabaptism that seems to place Hubmaier in close connection with the Swiss

Brethren while at the same time there are circumstances surrounding Hubmaier’s independent

12 Ibid., 89-92.

13 For the following summary of Mabry’s view on Hubmaier’s relationship to Zwingli and the Zurich radicals, see Mabry, 40-52.

14 Hubmaier, 67-72.

Clarkson, 8

theological inquiry that keep the connection tenuous.

When Mabry takes up a wider array of Anabaptist principles, it becomes harder to classify

Hubmaier with the Anabaptists.15 Mabry identifies five general characteristics of Anabaptism:

separation of church and state, rejection of infant baptism, psychopannychia, church discipline using

the ban, and the function of baptism. In all of these categories, Mabry shows Hubmaier to differ in

some way from the majority. With so many variances between Hubmaier and the general

Anabaptist principles, Mabry concludes that “there is some legitimate doubt as to whether

Hubmaier was an Anabaptist in any real sense.”16 In terms of Hubmaier’s type of reform, the most

important variance Mabry describes is in the first category – separation of church and state. Mabry

draws a direct correlation between the Anabaptist principle of the separation of church and state and

the refusal to “bear arms, take civil oaths, hold public office, and, in some cases, not even to pay

taxes.”17 After pouring three concepts – church-state relations, separatism and the sword – into one

category, Mabry sees Hubmaier departing from the general Anabaptist position when Hubmaier

adopts a more favorable view of the state as an authority ordained by God for the punishment of

evil doers and the protection of the good. This lack of distinction between these concepts is an

important facet of taking a fresh look at Hubmaier’s thought below.

Kirk MacGregor goes even farther than Mabry in his rejection of Hubmaier’s Anabaptism.

He contends that Hubmaier has been misclassified as an Anabaptist. While acknowledging that

Hubmaier was an Anabaptist according to a minimalist definition, he concludes that “Hubmaier

must be reclassified as both a Magisterial and Radical Reformer, a strange hybrid that does not seem

to be reflected by any figure or group in the Anabaptist movement.”18 MacGregor elsewhere calls

15 For the following summary of Mabry’s assessment of Hubmaier’s Anabaptism, see Mabry, 52-57.

16 Ibid., 56.

17 Ibid., 53.

18 Kirk MacGregor, A Central European Synthesis of Radical and Magisterial Reform: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006), 12.

Clarkson, 9

Hubmaier an “atypical Magisterial Radical Reformer” and “a Magisterial Radical Sacramentalist.”19

To understand these labels, we can look to MacGregor’s overall project and his definition of terms.

MacGregor seeks to uncover Hubmaier’s theological system “in its entirety” with a detailed

analysis of his writings drawing connections between Hubmaier’s writings and contributions from

the work of Bernard of Clairvaux, Luther and Zwingli.20 Most of MacGregor’s work, then, is

focused on doctrinal assessment and rhetorical analysis. His conclusion is that Hubmaier is no

Anabaptist. MacGregor considers Hubmaier a “convert” to Anabaptism only on the issue of

baptism itself, never wholly entering into other Anabaptist principles.21 MacGregor writes that as a

proponent of believer’s baptism, Hubmaier can be classified as a Radical Reformer. On the other

hand, Hubmaier cannot be classified as an Anabaptist if one moves beyond a minimalist definition

and incorporates other emphases of Anabaptism. This holds true even if one acknowledges that not

all religious convictions were held uniformly across the spectrum of those who could be called

Anabaptists. Furthermore, MacGregor focuses this conclusion upon a particular brand of

Anabaptism epitomized by the Schleitheim Confession – evangelical Anabaptists, also called Swiss

Brethren.22 This much addresses “Radical” part of the designation “Magisterial Radical Reformer.”

The “Magisterial” designation is based upon MacGregor’s analysis of Hubmaier’s work in

church reform. For MacGregor, “Magisterial” refers to a top-down approach to religious reform

through allegiance to magistrates.23 As a church reformer, MacGregor sees Hubmaier more akin to

other magisterial reformers than Anabaptists: “Like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, moreover,

Hubmaier propagated reform under the patronage of secular magistrates and successfully organized

19 Ibid., 253, 255.

20 Ibid., v.

21 Ibid., 129.

22 Ibid., 265.

23 Ibid., 8.

Clarkson, 10

free state churches in both Waldshut (1523-1525) and Nikolsburg (1526-1528).”24 MacGregor

describes Hubmaier’s congregations as both state churches and free churches in ways that are

reminiscent of Seewald, above. These churches were “free” because baptism took place based upon

the free decision of the individual and constituted the entrance into the church.25 MacGregor does

not explore the “state” aspect other than these unexplored references to patronage and allegiance.

This is enough, in MacGregor’s estimation, for the magisterial label: “By developing the unique

sixteenth-century historical modality of a believers’ state church, Hubmaier, in effect, put the

finishing touches on the cumulative case for his identification as a Magisterial Reformer.”26

Finally, MacGregor concurs with Mabry that Hubmaier was no disciple of Zwingli, also

using historical evidence. Hubmaier arrived at a Reformation position through his own theological

inquiry – especially his reading of Luther –both agreeing and disagreeing with Zwingli at times

regarding the content of reform and its pace.27 Hubmaier had an identity in his own right as an

evangelical preacher in both Waldshut and Regensburg without being a Zwinglian.28

We complete our sampling of assessments of Hubmaier’s doctrine and reform by turning to

the dissertation of Peder Liland where he endeavors to look at Anabaptist separatism through both a

theological and historical study of Hubmaier. Liland’s aim is to counter the view that incorrectly

characterizes Anabaptist separatism as “sectarian and schismatic and even as a revolutionary move-

ment.”29 According to Liland, “Separatism in the schismatic sense of the term is in Hubmaier’s view

24 Ibid., 11; see also, 177.

25 Ibid., 263.

26 Ibid., 228.

27 Ibid., 128-129.

28 Ibid., 119.

29 Peder Liland, “Anabaptist Separatism: A Historical and Theological Study of the Contribution of Balthasar Hubmaier (ca. 1485-1528).” PhD Dissertation, Boston College, 1983. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1983. Walter Klaassen voices a similar concern in an earlier article, framing his argument against the characterization that Anabaptists were sectarian and schismatic, that they lacked concern for doctrinal, ecclesial or social unity and that their separatism was born from hardheaded inflexibility and exclusivity. Walter Klaassen, “The Anabaptist Understanding of the Separation of the Church,” Church History 46, no. 4 (December 1977): 422-424, 434.

Clarkson, 11

no real alternative as an attempt to deal critically and constructively with the problem of reform.”30

Yet Liland still considers Hubmaier to be part of the Anabaptist family, and because his conception

of Anabaptism includes separatism, Liland is left concluding that Hubmaier is a separatist of some

sort. He determines that “the central aspects of Hubmaier’s reform program are quite representative

of the central thrust of Anabaptist Separatism. These may be summarized in the three emphases on

re-generation, baptism on confession of faith, and a life of discipleship.”31 It is notable that the

three emphases that are representative of Liland’s “Anabaptist Separatism” are only indirectly linked

with actual separation. That is, separation may be an implication of emphasizing regeneration,

baptism on confession of faith and a life of discipleship, but it remains unclear what makes the

implication into a reality. The separatism that Liland ascribes to Hubmaier and sees as his unique

contribution to Anabaptist separatism is “dialectical,” “prophetic” and non-sectarian separatism

because of its distinctive view of the church’s relationship to the world.32

When turning to the pattern of Hubmaier’s reform, Liland repeatedly characterizes it as an

attempt to bring renewal to the church “from below.”33 This means that renewal “applies to all

people on an equal basis and it creates a new understanding of the structures of Church and of

society.”34 Thus, Liland differs from Mabry and MacGregor on the issue of Hubmaier’s

Anabaptism by essentially arguing for Hubmaier’s Anabaptism for the sake of the contribution

Hubmaier can make to the concept of Anabaptist separatism in general. Liland’s characterization of

Hubmaier’s reform as renewal “from below” means that Liland also differs from Mabry and

MacGregor regarding his assessment of Hubmaier’s reform style.

He did not follow the same pattern as Magisterial Reformation, but he tried to let his reform which was strongly based in popular movements, represent a recognized

30 Liland, 106.

31 Liland, 173.

32 Ibid., 106.

33 Ibid., 3, 65, 114.

34 Ibid., 114.

Clarkson, 12

expression of the historical Church within society. The kind of establishment that he tried to bring about, did not open the possibility for the civil authorities to reduce the Church into their own tool of social control. Still, Hub sees a creative role in the social system, and he defines Christian participation in society in general as a fulfillment of a creative task, which is ultimately God-given.35

As Liland reclaims Hubmaier as an Anabaptist, he points to a feature proposed in this article’s

introduction, that Hubmaier’s reform was marked more by a populist tone than by a magisterial one.

Evaluating Mabry, MacGregor and Liland

With such disparate assessments, what is one to do? The conclusions could not be much

more opposed than to assess Hubmaier as a magisterial reformer on one hand and to reject this

designation on the other, to reject Hubmaier’s status as an Anabaptist on one hand and affirm it on

the other. Looking at the similarities and differences in these assessments of Hubmaier and

evaluating their contributions helps identify the key dimensions that must be addressed in a

theological and historical handling of Hubmaier’s type of reform.

Mabry and MacGregor are right to distance Hubmaier from both Zwingli and the Zurich

radicals.36 They note the independence of Hubmaier’s thought and the path he took first to the

mainline Reformation and then to Anabaptism that mark him as a disciple of neither Zwingli nor

Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz or George Blaurock. Even Wilhelm Reublin, who initiated the first

rebaptisms in Waldshut and baptized Hubmaier, cannot be counted as leading Hubmaier’s thought

on the matter. Furthermore, they do well to allow the historical record to provide clarification on

this matter where theological analysis shows an affinity for Zwingli that shifts to the Zurich radicals.

When Mabry assesses Hubmaier along his five emphases of Anabaptism, his apparent

conflation of the separation of church and state, separatism and the sword into a single category

overlooks Hubmaier’s position on the separation of church and state. He recovers somewhat when

35 Ibid., 156; see also, 171.

36 Regarding Hubmaier’s relationship to Zwingli and the Zurich radicals, see the following: Bergsten, 86, 92, 97; Mabry, 40-52; MacGregor, 119, 128-129.

Clarkson, 13

he later addresses this topic directly.37 Mabry notes that while magisterial reformers generally lack a

concept of the separation of church and state, Hubmaier made this move. Furthermore, the

distinctions he made in advocating the separation of church and state established this position

without a corresponding move toward separatism. Just as one makes a distinction between the

church and the state, one must also make, according to Hubmaier’s thought, a distinction between

the state and the world. The state is not the world; the world is of the kingdom of Satan while the

state is an agent of God ordained for maintaining peace and order by protecting the good and

punishing the wicked. While the church and the world are alien to each other, the church and the

state are complimentary. Furthermore, both the church and the state are susceptible to corruption

by the world.

MacGregor also picks up on this important aspect of Hubmaier’s development of the

separation of church and state and its implications for separatism and the sword:

While the Anabaptists made a total separation between the church and government, Hubmaier first made a total separation between the church and the world and then differentiated between the government and the world. In Humbaier’s ecclesiology, the church amounts to the visible kingdom of Christ, the focus of which is on spiritual and eternal matters, which is essentially different from the kingdom of the world, one of sin, death, and hell under the control of Satan that exerts mastery over the earth. Since those of the kingdom of Christ are yet in (but not of) the kingdom of the world, God has established civil government as his servant on earth to protect the good and the defenseless from the evil of the world, thus furnishing the church with the security necessary to carry out the Great Commission. Moreover, God has both hung the sword at the side of the government and commanded the government to wield the sword for its ordained purpose.38

Here, MacGregor pulls together several aspects of Hubmaier’s On the Sword to create an accurate

summation that points to the difference between a magisterial conception of the church and state as

two parts of a single entity – Christian society39 – and Hubmaier’s conception of separation due to

37 Mabry, 182, 186-188.

38 MacGregor, 262.

39 In his influential 1972 study of Anabaptism and the sword, James Stayer notes that for Zwingli and many others working within a late medieval framework, establishing the kingdom of Christ was a function of the corpus christianum. That is, there was less a distinction or separation of church and state and more a unified concept of society,

Clarkson, 14

separate “divinely ordained roles [that] are fundamentally distinct.”40

Yet MacGregor still calls Hubmaier a magisterial reformer, meaning a plan of reform that

works from the top down. The question is whether “top down” merely means the approval (and

resources) of the government. In such a case, “magisterial” might be an appropriate, if watered

down, appellation for Hubmaier’s reform. Interestingly, although MacGregor says “top down” and

Liland characterizes Hubmaier’s church reform as “from below,” they both acknowledge the free, or

voluntary, nature of Hubmaier’s ecclesiology.41

Finally, Liland sees Hubmaier as a member of and a contributor to what Liland consistently

calls “Anabaptist Separatism.” As noted above, Liland explains that contribution as the formulation

of a dialectical and prophetic relationship between the church and the world. That is, Liland reads

Hubmaier’s separation of church and state as a form of separatism, which is not unlike Mabry

regarding separatism as part of the separation of church and state. As demonstrated above, when

Mabry and MacGregor acknowledge Hubmaier’s distinctions between church, state and world, they

are acknowledging Hubmaier as an example of the separation of church and state without a

corresponding separatism – two distinct concepts.

This evaluation of Mabry, MacGregor and Liland points, then, to an important dimension of

inquiry into Hubmaier’s reform methods. Even when one suspends the circular problem of defining

Anabaptism and then forming a judgment about whether Hubmaier is “in” or “out,” the key

concepts of separatism and the separation of church and state must be addressed. The way one

assesses Hubmaier’s nonseparatist church-state separation influences the outcome. Emphasis on

Hubmaier’s nonseparatist positive regard for the state and its corresponding affirmation of the

sword and Christian engagement in government leans toward assessing Hubmaier as a magisterial

Christian society, that encompassed government and the church with the government taking charge of the affairs of the church. James Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1972), 49-50.

40 Ibid., 235-236. Mabry, too, observes that Hubmaier did not regard the church and state as two components of one entity; Mabry, 189.

41 Both also attribute this characteristic primarily to Hubmaier’s theology of baptism.

Clarkson, 15

reformer and a marginal Anabaptist. Emphasizing the separation of church and state as if it were

separatism appears to influence the outcome in the other direction. Furthermore, according to this

article’s plan of study, attentiveness to this feature of Hubmaier’s thought must include not only an

analysis of Hubmaier’s writings, but also an attentiveness to the historical record, allowing events

and contexts to challenge and clarify the analysis of Hubmaier’s thought. Looking primarily at his

thought, one can arrive at a magisterial Hubmaier, as a number of voices have done. Can one look

again at Hubmaier’s though and also at episodes in Hubmaier’s life that despite his positive

engagement with local civil authority in instituting reform and despite his variance from separatist

nonresistance shift the assessment from magisterial reform to a more populist type? In what

follows, theological exploration of Hubmaier’s thoughts on separatism, the government and the

sword will gradually give way to a number of examples from Hubmaier’s life to demonstrate that

church-state separation without separatism – producing, as it does, something that resembles the

paradoxical “free state church” – took shape under Hubmaier’s leadership at the behest of popular

movements and that this included the protection and involvement of local authorities without

necessarily invoking civil authority for the sake of enforcing unity and conformity or establishing the

church as an extension of the government’s purview over social order.

Hubmaier’s On the Sword

When one turns to the key concepts at play – separatism and the separation of church and

state – the place to begin is with Hubmaier’s On the Sword. Written in Nicolsburg and published with

a dedicatory epistle dated June 24, 1527, On the Sword is Hubmaier’s last published treatise and his

fullest exposition on separatism, government and the sword. Although the Schleitheim Brotherly

Union articles were produced in February of that same year, the consensus among scholars is that On

the Sword is not likely a direct response to the Brotherly Union;42 the scripture passages exposited in the

42 Bergsten, 363; Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 142; Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material to “On the

Sword,” in Hubmaier, 493; Henry Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists (New York, London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), 170.

Clarkson, 16

text do not completely correspond to those of the Schleitheim articles. Rather, the primary issue

behind On the Sword was a challenge to the unity of the Nicolsburg Anabaptist community by the

alternative teaching of Hans Hut. This tension had come to a head in May at the Nicolsburg

disputation before the manorial lords, Leonhard and Hans Liechtenstein.

Hut’s teaching was not a separatist nonresistance like that of the Swiss Brethren in the

Brotherly Union. The difference between Hubmaier and Hut regarding the sword starts with their

differences in eschatology. Hut’s expectation of a imminent parousia shaped his thought toward a

temporary pacifism in the interim before the eschaton, a separatist, if not antagonistic, stance toward

the government and oaths and the use of the sword by the godly as part of the eschatological

establishment of the kingdom of Christ on earth when the end time comes.43

Another reason for writing On the Sword was for Hubmaier to demonstrate to the Moravian

nobles and authorities that his position posed no threat. Most of Hubmaier’s Nicolsburg treatises

are dedicated to nobles and civil authorities.44 On the Sword is no exception, carrying a dedicatory

epistle to Lord Arkleb of Boskovic, then chamberlain, or chancellor, of Moravia.45 Hubmaier writes

that he wants to defend himself on the issue of his attitude toward government “so that Your Grace

might recognize and know of what conviction and opinion I have always been concerning the

government, what I have also preached publicly from the pulpit at Waldshut and elsewhere, written,

43 Hubmaier biographer Henry Vedder places Hut more closely to Thomas Müntzer in terms of advocating

human agency in establishing the kingdom of God by taking up the sword and overthrowing civil authorities. William Estep follows Vedder in this characterization. On the other hand, Robert Friedmann, in an in-depth study of the Nicolsburg Articles, proposes the more moderate view provided here regarding Hut’s interim ethic of pacifism. This position is more plausible in light of the themes present in Hubmaier’s On the Sword, the absence therein of polemics against some sort of righteous insurrection and the affinity that emerges between Hut’s teaching and Jacob Wiedeman’s emphasis on communal life, which is also presented by Vedder and followed by Estep. Vedder, 159-170; Estep, 98; Robert Friedmann, “The Nicolsburg Articles: A Problem of Early Anabaptist History,” Church History 36, no. 4 (December 1967): 404-405. See also, Bergsten, 361-377. In formulating an historical definition of the Swiss Brethren, Stayer uses Hans Hut as a point of contrast, which provides yet another view of Hut’s teaching and the distinctions made between various branches of Anabaptism. James Stayer, “The Swiss Brethren: An Exercise in Historical Definition,” Church History 47, no. 2. (June 1978): 174-189.

44 One notable dedicatory epistle comes in Hubmaier’s Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book. It was written in Waldshut shortly before he fled but was published out of Nicolsburg shortly after his arrival there in July of 1526. Hubmaier dedicates it to Leonard and Hans Liechtenstein, Nicolsburg’s manorial lords. Hubmaier, 166-170.

45 Hubmaier, 494. See also, Bergsten, 377; Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 142.

Clarkson, 17

and numerous times taught.”46 Indeed, Hubmaier provides much in this treatise toward

understanding his thoughts on government and thereby his thoughts on the key concepts of church-

state separation and separatism.

The treatise is organized around fifteen passages where Hubmaier differs with the

interpretation of his interlocutors, who, according to Hubmaier, use these passages to support a

position of pacifism and the refusal to take civil offices. Hubmaier then exposits a sixteenth

passage, Romans 13:1-6, in further support for the divine ordination of government, obedience to

government and the paying of taxes. There are a number of themes woven throughout On the Sword

that are relevant to this present study: the naivety of separatism, the nature of civil authority and

government, the separation of church and state, and the responsibilities of both the magistrate and

Christian subjects in their relationship to the state.

First, Hubmaier recognizes the impulse toward separatism that comes from a stark dualism

between the church and the world. Answering the assertion that Christians should not bear the

sword because the kingdom of Christians is not of this world, Hubmaier answers that it should not be

of this world, but “unfortunately, be it lamented unto God, it is of this world.”47 The kingdom of

Christ is not of this world, but he is Christ and we are not; those who are of the kingdom of Christ

are nevertheless in the kingdom of the world: “we are stuck in it right up to our ears, and we will not

be able to be free from it here on earth.”48 In his study of separatism and the sword in Anabaptist

thought, Gerald Biesecker-Mast draws a contrast between the separatism of the Swiss Brethren as

represented in the articles of the Brotherly Union and Hubmaier’s acceptance of the necessity of being

in the world without abandoning the struggle against the worldliness.49 “For Hubmaier, then, the

tension between separation and civility is ultimately resolved on the side of civility, since separation

46 Ibid., 495.

47 Hubmaier, 496.

48 Ibid., 497.

49 Gerald Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confession Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2006), 119.

Clarkson, 18

is not assumed to be possible, even if desirable.”50

Biesecker-Mast’s contrast of the Brotherly Union articles and Hubmaier’s On the Sword brings

back the question of Hubmaier’s relationship to the Swiss Brethren, although in a slightly different

way. Now, the question is one of doctrinal opposition. Although On the Sword is not likely a direct

response to the Brotherly Union of Schleitheim,51 the two texts are considered to epitomize two

different paths taken to answer the same question regarding the tension between “concrete

separation and civic legitimacy…the struggle for Anabaptist to be separate, vulnerable, and visible

Christians while at the same time civil, peaceful, and law-abiding subjects.”52 According to this view,

the path chosen is dictated not only by theological conviction, but also by historical context.

As a result of their stark differences as representatives of two theological paths, Biesecker-

Mast’s rhetorical analysis of the Brotherly Union is informative for understanding Hubmaier’s stance

on the issue of separatism. He notes that article four of the Brotherly Union establishes a clear series

of binary oppositions that reflect an antagonistic perspective on the relationship between the church

and the world. The opening of article six, on the other hand, admits more complexity and

ambiguity. Nevertheless, article six moves back toward binary oppositions.

But what we have here is a profound instance of rhetorical movement within a confessional text, from the establishment of a clear logic of separation, to an accounting of a perplexing problem with that logic – the legitimate place of the sword of governance – which momentarily destabilizes the binary oppositions established in the doctrine of separation, back to a clear and simple opposition between Christians and world and thus between the spiritual rule of Christians and carnal rule of magistrates.53

Elsewhere, Biesecker-Mast characterizes this movement as a shift from antagonistic to dualistic and

back again, using those terms as a twofold typology: “I argue here that in the Brotherly Union

separation can be read as both antagonistic (engendering a mutually exclusive relationship to the

50 Ibid., 120.

51 See the introductory comments on the historical occasion of On the Sword, page 16n42.

52 Ibid., 107.

53 Ibid., 106.

Clarkson, 19

broader social order) and dualistic (constituting a mutually tolerant relationship to the world), with a

considerable prejudice for antagonism over dualism being exhibited in the Brotherly Union.”54

While it may be tempting to contrast the antagonism of the Brotherly Union with dualism in

Hubmaier, the dynamic here is more complex. One must remember that Hubmaier’s key move was

to differentiate the relationship between the church and the world from the relationship between the

church and the state by differentiating between the world and the government.55 For Hubmaier, as

with the Swiss Brethren, the kingdom of the world is the kingdom of “sin, death, and hell,” whose

prince is the devil.56 But Hubmaier makes a distinction between orderly government and the

kingdom of the world:

But the devil and his cohorts do nothing for the benefit and the peace of the people, but only to their disadvantage and injury with a jealous and vindictive mind. The government, however, has a special compassion for those who have erred. It wholeheartedly wishes that it had not happened. The devil and his followers want all people to be miserable. You see here, brothers, how far these two servitudes – of the devil and of the true government – are separated from one another.57

As we will see in the third theme, below, Hubmaier’s rejection of separatism did not prevent him

from taking a position affirming the separation of church and state. Thus, if we remove the

references to “the broader social order” and “the world” that are built into Biesecker-Mast’s

typology, it is possible to say that, like the Swiss Brethren, Hubmaier considered the church-world

relationship antagonistic. How he regarded the church-state is another question.

Excursus: James Stayer, Anabaptist Separatism and the Sword

Biesecker-Mast is not alone in positing a scenario where nascent Anabaptism chooses

different paths regarding separatism and the sword. Most of the attention focuses on the Swiss

Brethren developing separatist nonresistance (i.e. two concepts – separatism and nonresistance –

54 Ibid., 28.

55 MacGregor, 262. See above, page 13n38.

56 Hubmaier, 497.

57 Ibid., 500.

Clarkson, 20

conjoined at birth) as a response, at least in part, to persecution.58 James Stayer, in particular, has

made a significant impact on this scenario. Writing in 1972, Stayer noted that Anabaptism in Zurich

was not initially separatist.59 The Zurich radicals endeavored through the Zurich disputations to

influence reform in the city. This influence was intended to impact both the pace of reform and its

extent. The repudiation of infant baptism cut across both these categories by first becoming an

issue of pace at a time when Zwingli held some theological sympathy for the radicals’ position, then

became an issue of the extent of reform as Zwingli changed course and affirmed infant baptism.

Even then, though, separatism was more of an implication of the dissenters’ act of baptism on

January 21, 1525 than a core theological conviction. That is, it was an act separating the Zurich

radicals from the Reformation in Zurich but had not yet developed a vocabulary associated with the

distinction between the church and the world. Thus, separatism as a theological principle was not

an immediate outcome of the Zurich break-up.

Swiss Brethren missionaries penetrated the Confederation, setting up networks of congregations from Berne and Basel in the west to St. Gall and Appenzell in the east. In the Empire they established themselves in Strassburg and in the cities of Swabia. The result was a heterogeneous movement without central direction and a political ethic varying according to the circumstances and personalities that dominated each local situation.60

In Waldshut, this meant Hubmaier and his growing theology of believer’s baptism as a fundamental

point for the reform of the church. Hubmaier led the citizens, residents and local authorities in that

reform, which became the basis of opposition to the authority of their Habsburg overlords. Writing

in 1978, Stayer returns to this observation.

In the places where they succeeded, Waldshut, Hallau and Tablat, the Anabaptists had a

58 Mabry, 53; Liland, 2; Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 131, 335; Stayer, “Swiss Brethren,” 190. Similarly,

while arguing that Anabaptist separation was propelled by four Anabaptist principles – “concern for a disciplined community, a different view of church order and liturgy, their position on religious liberty, and their reading of church history” – Walter Klaassen concurs that this “confessional basis” coincided with a context of intolerance and persecution that produced Anabaptist separation as a “natural consequence.” Klaassen, 436.

59 Though Klaassen adopts a “confessional basis” for exploring the principles contributing to separation, he recounts favorably the contributions of Stayer, John Howard Yoder and Martin Haas that Anabaptism was not initially separatist or sectarian. Klaassen, 428.

60 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 105.

Clarkson, 21

mass following and took over the local churches to minister to it. Rather than opposing Hubmaier’s communal church in Waldshut, Conrad Grebel wanted to establish “Waldshuts on a larger scale” in Schaffhausen and St. Gall, after having failed to do this in Zurich.61

Stated sharply, rather than emerging with separatist theological convictions, Swiss Anabaptism

initially sought reforms on terms similar to the magisterial reform in Zurich. Separatism did not

crystallize until the Schleitheim articles,62 which “marks the formulation by the Swiss Brethren

leadership of an influential and distinctive teaching on the Sword that was the common property of

the sect, rather than the private thinking of some of the leaders.”63

One of the advantages of this perspective is that recognizing that Hubmaier’s context

influenced his thought on government, the sword and separatism is a complementary approach to

the conclusion that the nonresistant separatism of the Swiss Brethren developed, at least in part, as a

result of persecution. Stated negatively, Hubmaier did not develop the same conclusions as the

Swiss Brethren because he was not pushed that direction by his socio-political context.64

While Stayer’s perspective may overstate the case in terms of historical context and disregard

the seeds of religious conviction that took root there,65 the primary criticism of Stayer was

concerned less with this scenario of evolved separatist nonresistance than with Stayer’s typology of

attitudes toward the sword: crusading, realpolitical and apolitical.66 Stated briefly, the apolitical type

places the political below the Christian, the realpolitical type places the political as an instrument for

61 Stayer, “Swiss Brethren,” 184.

62 Ibid., 190.

63 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 130. Those individuals who fall under the rubric of “private thinking” include Grebel and Manz as well as Jacob Gross and Ulrich Teck, Waldshut Anabaptists who in September of 1525 were exiled for refusing to fight as part of Waldshut’s involvement in the Peasants’ War. In his 1978 journal article, Stayer considers it “very doubtful, however, that Reublin, Mantz and Grebel thought of their concern with baptism as the basis for a separate church. Far more plausible is the view that they aimed at the reform of the sacraments, to be carried through today in Zurich and tomorrow throughout Christendom.” Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 107-113; Stayer, “Swiss Brethren,” 182; see also, Bergsten, 244-245.

64 Such a statement implies the question that we are not attempting to answer here, “Does that make Hubmaier less of an Anabaptist?”

65 See, for example, Walter Klaassen, “The Anabaptist Understanding of the Separation of the Church,” Church History 46, no. 4 (December 1977): 421-436.

66 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 2-4.

Clarkson, 22

the limited realization of Christian objectives and the crusading type demands that the political be

used to bring about the full victory of Christ.67 Crusading types who are not in power amount to

revolutionaries. The separatist nonresistance of the Swiss Brethren is accounted for as “Anabaptist

radical apoliticism” epitomized by the Schleitheim articles.68 Meanwhile, Stayer classifies Hubmaier

as a realpolitical reformer because of his acceptance of the temporal sword as an “imperfect, limited

instrument of God’s will and his equivocal teaching on resistance to tyrants.”69 The first part of that

qualification is made in contrast to article six of the Brotherly Union, which regards the sword as “an

ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ” while “within the perfection of Christ only the

ban is used for the admonition and exclusion of the one who has sinned, without death of the flesh,

simply the warning and the command to sin no more.”70 Considering Hubmaier’s nonseparatist

realism that the perfection of Christ does not prevail in the kingdom of the world where Christians

are currently situated, his positive regard for government and his active engagement with civil

authorities in the reform of Waldshut, Stayer’s realpolitical classification appears appropriate. The

problems mount, though, as Stayer uncritically equates the reform of Hubmaier with that of Zwingli:

Balthasar Hubmaier, pastor of the German-Swiss border town of Waldshut, was won for adult baptism by the Swiss Brethren. However, as the shaper of a Zwinglian theocracy he attempted the realpolitical tactic of winning the support of the Swiss and the peasants of 1525 for Waldshut’s struggle against the religious and political authority of the Habsburgs. Concerning the Sword he believed rather in the Christian coercion of the official Zurich Reformation than in the rejection of coercion of its radical opponents.71

67 Ibid., 28.

68 Ibid., 122. Biesecker-Mast, in a survey of Brotherly Union historiography, notes that Stayer’s characterization of the Swiss Brethren and the Schleitheim articles sparked criticism from John Howard Yoder, arguing that the separatism of the Schleitheim articles was not quietist apoliticism and withdrawal, but rather it instantiated social and political struggle – a decidedly political stance. Stayer eventually acknowledged that Yoder was right in his critique of the typology. In his own rhetorical analysis of the Brotherly Union, Biesecker-Mast concurs with Yoder that the argument for separation is “the product of engagement, not withdrawal;” it is “more like a boycott of the religious establishment, in both its ‘popish and repopish’ forms, than an apolitical or sectarian argument.” Biesecker-Mast, 97-101, 103.

69 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 143.

70 Michael Sattler, “The Schleitheim Articles,” in The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 177.

71 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 331.

Clarkson, 23

References to a Waldshut “theocracy” and an alleged endorsement of “Christian coercion” seem

shocking, especially from Stayer who confesses “to a certain lack of sympathy for the separatist

nonresistance which eventually won out in Anabaptism. As a liberal who can better identify with

the realpolitical ethic of Zwingli and Hubmaier than with that of any of my other protagonists, I am

alienated by the absolute rejection of the pragmatic, and of social responsibility, that is built into the

ethics of nonresistance.”72 Returning to Hubmaier’s On the Sword, contributions from his other

writings and some selected episodes from his biography, will help counter Stayer’s incorrect

characterization of Hubmaier’s reform work.

The second theme to consider in On the Sword is the nature of civil authority and

government. Government is a divinely instituted office that protects the good and punishes the

wicked. The sword is commanded to the government “by divine order, not to fight, battle, make

noise, brawl, strive, and tyrannize – as many cat-fighting names as there are – but to watch over the

orphans, protect the widows, care for the righteous and free all those who are threatened and

oppressed by power.”73 Hubmaier relies upon the civil order testified to in the scriptures from

Adam to other “God fearing people” of the Old Testament as a basis for the divine sanction of

government.74 Consistent with Hubmaier’s antagonism toward the kingdom of the world (despite

his realism regarding Christians’ circumstances of being in that kingdom), government has been

instituted and the sword given to it because of human sinfulness. Responding to an appeal to the

headship of Christ in the fifteenth passage, Hubmaier points to the reality that the members do not

agree with the head. Christ is divine, we are not; he is just and truthful, we are evil and deceitful; he

is a child of grace, we are children of wrath; he never sinned, we are conceived and born in sin.75

Thus, there is need for an agent in the world to establish and maintain temporal peace amid the

72 Ibid., 22.

73 Hubmaier, 519; see also, 507.

74 Ibid., 505; see also, 510, 515.

75 Ibid., 518.

Clarkson, 24

sinfulness.76 Yet Hubmaier does not deny that the situation should be other than it is: “For if we

had remained obedient to God and righteous, then neither law, sword, fire, rod, nor gallows would

have been necessary. However, since we have sinned it must and will be thus.”77 The same realism

that propelled his rejection of separatism also propels Hubmaier’s contention that right government

is a servant of God.

The third theme of On the Sword, separation of church and state, is closely related to the

second. As Hubmaier is making space for government, he also establishes the relationship between

government and the church. The above analysis of Hubmaier’s views on separation using Biesecker-

Mast’s typology, revealed that Hubmaier does not vary significantly from the Brotherly Union

regarding the antagonism between the church and the world. Even if Biesecker-Mast’s references to

the world are removed from his definitions of “antagonistic” and “dualistic,” the typology is still

insufficient for Hubmaier’s views on the relationship between the church and the state. Antagonism

can be ruled out by the positive space Hubmaier has built for government, but dualism defined as

mutual toleration is inadequate. Rather, Hubmaier argues that both the church and the state are

servants of God, each with a distinct function, yet complementary and even mutually supportive.

Most of the force of Hubmaier’s rhetoric is still focused on convincing his readers of the

validity of government and its legitimate use of the sword. His aim is to place government alongside

the church, which is already accepted by his opponents as an authority. One thing Hubmaier must

do is respond to the challenge that the ban is negated by the sword.78 “The ban and the punishing

with the sword are two different commands given by God.”79 The first has been handed over to the

church in order for the church to teach and administer the sacraments of baptism and communion

76 Ibid., 509-510, 522-523.

77 Ibid., 505.

78 Hubmaier’s treatment of the ban in the seventh passage of On the Sword corresponds to comments on the ban in article six of the Brotherly Union; see above, page 23n70.

79 Ibid., 504.

Clarkson, 25

within a context of discipleship.80 The second command concerns outward and temporal authority

with the result that “these two offices and mandates of the ban and external sword are not against

each other since they are both from God.”81 In similar fashion, Hubmaier separates the ban from

the sword in his earlier treatise On the Christian Ban, written in the last weeks of 1526 and published

in 1527.82 When someone falls under the ban, they should not be considered an enemy, neither

struck, driven away or killed, but Hubmaier quickly adds, “This is not said to disarm orderly

government and its sword.”83 Just as the ban is not negated by the sword, neither will Hubmaier

allow the sword to be negated by the ban.

Addressing the ninth and tenth passages together within the context of spiritual armor (Eph.

6:14-17), Hubmaier moves from speaking of one sword to speaking of two swords. Concerning

these two swords, Hubmaier writes that “one belongs to the soul and the other to the body.”84

Likewise, when Hubmaier describes the function of government to protect the oppressed,85 he adds

a margin note, “Body and property is of the emperor, but the soul of God,” and earlier in the same

passage he writes that “the worldly government has power over the flesh or body and over temporal

goods alone, but not over the soul.”86 Hubmaier is maintaining here a principle he articulated in late

1524, before his explicit theological advocacy for believer’s baptism. In his tract On Heretics and Those

Who Burn Them, Hubmaier contends, in accord with Ephesians 6:17, that the only sword the church

has for use against heretics is the Word of God. The state can use the sword against evil doers, but

not heretics. The church cannot use the sword against either.87 In both texts, then, Hubmaier

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid., 506.

82 Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material to “On the Christian Ban,” in Hubmaier, 409.

83 Hubmaier, 418.

84 Ibid., 509. Hubmaier ends the sentence with yet another appeal for coexistence, “dear brothers, you must let both of them remain in their dignity.”

85 See above, page 24n73.

86 Ibid., 519.

87 Hubmaier, 58-66; see especially, articles 20-24, 28-29 and 36.

Clarkson, 26

maintains that the sword is only to be wielded in reference to the kingdom of the world, not in

reference to the kingdom of Christ.

There are two other testimonies from Hubmaier’s writings regarding this subject, which

come from the time between On Heretics and On the Sword. Shortly before fleeing Waldshut,

Hubmaier wrote Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book. This text allowed Hubmaier to weigh in on the

subject of baptism after being unable to attend a third disputation on the subject in Zurich in early

November, 1525. In it, Hubmaier fabricates a dialogue between himself and Zwingli, relying almost

exclusively on verbatim excerpts from Zwingli’s writings to create Zwingli’s side in the dialogue.88

The text was not published until shortly after Hubmaier arrived in Nicolsburg.

While the text reflects a moderate tone that characterized Hubmaier’s writing (in particular

contrast to the harshness evident in many of the polemics of the time), the introduction, a

dedicatory epistle to Leonard and Hans Liechtenstein, is harsher. The difference comes from an

event that occurred between the writing of the text and the writing of the introduction. Hubmaier

had fled through Zurich. He was arrested there and from December of 1525 to sometime in April

of 1526 he was imprisoned there and subjected to torture.89 He writes that he offered to engage

Zwingli in a disputation, assuming the risk of punishment if he is defeated and offering immunity

from punishment to Zwingli: “But they did not want to allow my legitimate Christian and public

offer at Zürch. Instead, they wanted to teach me – a sick man who had just gotten up out of his

deathbed, hunted, pursued, who had lost everything – another belief through the executioner.”90

This rare bit of sarcasm from Hubmaier reflects a pain and anger over his treatment at the hands of

his erstwhile colleague and fellow reformer Zwingli that certainly bolstered his earlier position in On

88 Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material to “Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book,” in Hubmaier, 493

89 Hubmaier got out of Zurich by issuing a recantation of his teaching. This Zurich affair is a subject of considerable interest in Hubmaier research and is the focus of criticism of Hubmaier and the extent of his Anabaptism. For example, Bergsten reports that Yoder contrasts Hubmaier with “real” Anabaptist because he did not resist and issued an insincere recantation. Vedder, on the other hand, goes to the other extreme and writes with significant sympathy that one’s greatness should not be diminished for not being gifted by God with the necessary tools of character to withstand persecution as others have. Bergsten, 308; Vedder, .

90 Hubmaier, 172.

Clarkson, 27

Heretics and is evident in On the Sword.

Another of Hubmaier’s early publications after arriving in Nicolsburg, written in the summer

of 1526, was A Brief Apologia, in which Hubmaier presents a theological defense perhaps in response

to the accusations and rumors that had followed him to Moravia.91 Here, the tone is less personal,

but still passionate as Hubmaier writes:

Yet I ask, admonish, and warn in the name of Jesus Christ and his final judgment, all those at whose side God has hung the sword, that they not use it against innocent blood, neither through capturing, chasing, beating, putting in the blocks, hanging, drowning, or burning. For truly, truly, I say to them, the martyred and shed blood will cry up to God in the heavens together with the innocent blood of the pious Abel against such Cains, murderers, and blood spillers.92

Though his admonition is general enough to apply to improper use of the sword in reference to the

kingdom of the world, there are ample religious overtones to see that here, too, Hubmaier is denying

the government its sword in the realm of religion.

Finally, there is a theme in On the Sword concerning responsibility, both the responsibilities of

those in government and the responsibility of Christian subjects in their relationship to the state.

The primary responsibility of government is that it operate according to the righteousness and will

of God to carry out its mandate. This means that unlike the devil, government operates with

compassion.93 A Christian government “hates and envies no one. For what it does with the sword,

it does not out of envy or hate, but from the mandate of God.”94 The government punishes the evil

doer out of righteousness and love, “which it bears to the evildoer but not to his evil deed.”95 The

stakes are high; Hubmaier warns that the government “will also have to give serious account at the

last day as to how it has used the sword.”96 Under the theme of separation of church and state, one

91 Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material to “A Brief Apologia,” in Hubmaier, 296.

92 Ibid., 309.

93 See above, page 19n57.

94 Ibid., 511.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

Clarkson, 28

criteria for the right use of the sword was that it is wielded within the context of the kingdom of the

world. In that context, the sword is wielded against evil for the protection of the good, not as an

instrument of coercion. Failure to operate within these bounds puts the salvation of the magistrate’s

soul at stake.97 Nevertheless, with high stakes come high rewards. In this case, the reward is

temporal peace and protection for the church to be the church.

You must, must, must all confess that a Christian government can perform and will do such much better and more earnestly than an unchristian one, which takes to heart neither Christ, God, nor blessedness, but only thinks and plans thereby to remain in its power, pomp, and circumstance.

Thus, Hubmaier appeals for his readers to accept Christian magistracy and forms a bridge between

responsibilities of those in government and the responsibility of Christian subjects in their

relationship to the state.

So far, the primary emphasis in the themes of On the Sword has been on government – its

legitimacy, its function and its relationship to the church and to society. One of the primary issues

has been maintaining separatism and the separation of church and state as distinct concepts – two

characteristics tied to the idea of what it means to be Anabaptist. When the emphasis turns to the

Christian’s engagement in the affairs of the government, both in terms of functioning as a Christian

magistrate and in terms wielding the sword at the behest the government, another key concept

emerges that is tied to the question of defining Anabaptism: pacifism. Just as Hubmaier maintains a

distinction between separatism and the separation of church and state, he also maintains a

distinction between pacifism and the Christian responsibility to participate in the government’s

exercise of its divinely ordained tasks.

Hubmaier denies the sword to those who would wield it outside of the sanctions of civil

authority. Working with Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:52 that all who take up the sword shall perish

by the sword, Hubmaier writes that in this context “They take up the sword who use it without

97 Ibid., 499; Mabry, 189. See also, Hubmaier, 520, where the salvation of both the magistrate and the Christian

subject hinge upon the wielding the sword correctly; cited below, page 39n136. The salvation of the magistrate is the topic here; the salvation of the Christian subject is addressed below, page 29.

Clarkson, 29

calling, unorderly, and on their own authority.”98 Hubmaier expresses similar sentiment in his

Apologia,99 written while imprisoned in Vienna shortly before his execution and after a series of

interviews with Johann Faber. In article twenty seven, on government, Hubmaier writes that he is

“greatly displeased with Hanns Hutt and his followers for stirring up and misleading the

populace.”100

A Christian does not fight, strike, or kill unless he is in a seat of authority and is ordered to do it or is called to do it by the properly instituted government. Otherwise, before a Christian draws a sword he will give up his cloak and coat. He also offers the other cheek, yea even his body and life.101

Here is the distinction between pacifism and obedience to civil authority for the sake of order and

peace that Hubmaier tries to balance.

Hubmaier is willing to affirm a certain level of Christian pacifism, but his realism asserts that

it may be necessary for a Christian, without “taking up the sword” in the improper manner, to wield

the sword at the behest of the state.

If now the government may kill the evildoer, and is obligated to do that by the order of God, but is not able to that on its own, if it now commands and calls me or another to do that, then we are obligated to help it, and whoever resists is resisting the order of God and will receive over himself the eternal judgment.102

Similarly, he writes in his exposition on Romans 13:1-6 (passage sixteen of On the Sword): “Subjects

are obligated for the sake of the salvation of their souls to sustain and help their superiors so that the

evil ones are annihilated and rooted out according to the will of God.”103 Thus, the stakes are high

here, too, as Hubmaier appeals to Christian obedience to divine order and mandate. But that is not

the only way he approaches the question of the Christian’s relationship to the government.

Hubmaier also employs the concept of “office” in contrasting Christians and Christ when

98 Ibid., 497.

99 This is not the same text as A Brief Apologia mentioned earlier.

100 Ibid., 560.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid., 515.

103 Ibid., 520.

Clarkson, 30

discipleship (yet another characteristic wrapped up in the definition of Anabaptism) is the impetus

behind his interlocutors’ appeal to pacifism or their refusal to participate in government. This is a

motif that Hubmaier employs across multiple themes in On the Sword. He uses it when pointing to

human sinfulness as the reason why God sanctioned the government to wield the sword for the sake

of temporal peace.104 It also shows up at the beginning of On the Sword regarding the theme of

separatism when Hubmaier asserts that Christians are in the kingdom of the world: “However,

Christ alone can say in truth, ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ because he was conceived and born

without sin, an innocent little lamb, in whom there is no deception, without sin or blemish.”105

When working with Jesus’ words in Luke 9:56 that he had not come to destroy human souls, but to

preserve them,106 Hubmaier counters that such was not Christ’s mandate and office in becoming

human. He even points to a similar passage (Luke 12:14) where Jesus refuses to adjudicate an

inheritance dispute between two brothers. Hubmaier’s point is that Jesus did not interfere in an

“office and orderly mandate” that was not his but, rather, had been given to the government by

God.107 For Hubmaier, Jesus may recuse himself but that by no means eliminates the legitimacy of

having judges or for Christians to act in that capacity. This is the primary thrust of Hubmaier’s

exposition of 1 Corinthians 6 and from there he extends the principle to sword-bearing.108

104 See above, page 24n75.

105 Ibid., 497.

106 This clause is the heart of the matter between Hubmaier and his interlocutors, but is absent in most modern translations as the result of a text critical decision regarding the manuscripts.

107 Ibid., 500. Luke 12:13-14 is, in fact, the next passage addressed in On the Sword, so Hubmaier reiterates his point about Christ refusing to judge in earthly matters because it was not his office. See also, 506, 511, 519.

108 Ibid., 501-503. David Funk, in an award-winning essay for Providence Theological Seminary, critiques Hubmaier’s theology here as Hubmaier accepts a departure from Jesus’ example: “One of the foundations of Hubmaier’s thought seems to be an implicit rejection of the idea that Jesus is in any way normative for social and political ethics.” Although his wording is a bit too sweeping and his attempt to bring this point into conversation with Karl Barth’s critique of natural theology by way of Yoder is a bit awkward, Funk is attempting (in the context of systematic theology) to deal with the fact that Hubmaier and his interlocutors have different ethics. The basis of this difference is different interpretations of discipleship. Biesecker-Mast, on the other hand, approaches this point within the framework of his study. That is, he regards Hubmaier as employing an “individualist approach to ethics” that attempts to resolve the tension between separatism and civility that underlies all the documents Biesecker-Mast is analyzing. David Funk, “The Relation of Church and State in the Thought of Balthasar Hubmaier.” Didaskalia 17, no. 2 (Winter 2006): 48-49; Biesecker-Mast, 120.

Clarkson, 31

By analyzing Hubmaier’s On the Sword and other related texts along these four themes, we

arrive at some idea of his thought in areas that influence his method of reform: separatism, church-

state separation, pacifism, discipleship and Christian responsibility. But On the Sword is Hubmaier’s

last treatise. It is methodologically problematic to simply lay Hubmaier’s position in On the Sword

over the preceding years of his life and claim that he operated in Waldshut, or even in Nicolsburg,

according to these principles. The question emerges regarding the development of Hubmaier’s

thought in these areas over time and the extent to which On the Sword is an effective window through

which one can look at Hubmaier’s record as a reformer. The answer, frustratingly, cuts both ways.

One must give credence to the occasion of the treatise, which is divisiveness in the

Nicolsburg Anabaptist community regarding the sword and related issues. Surely this constellation

of concepts came together in this particular way because of the issues at hand. In this sense, one

must accept a certain amount of development or reconfiguration in Hubmaier’s thought and

correspondingly take care in carting it back in time. Yet, there is also Hubmaier’s attestation that On

the Sword reflects his long term teaching on the subjects it addresses. One can, at least, expect a

certain level of consistency, therefore, between “now” and “then.” Furthermore, the preceding

analysis shows complementary examples from other of Hubmaier’s writings.

The way forward is to acknowledge that we are not merely creating a measuring stick to

apply back to Hubmaier the reformer. The original problem was twofold. The first problem was

theological analysis aimed explicitly or implicitly at determining the extent of Hubmaier’s

Anabaptism often without engaging the historical record in a way that allowed the historical record

to inform the theological analysis in the same way the theological analysis influenced interpretation

of the historical record. This led to a shift in the question; a shift to looking at Hubmaier’s style of

reform. The problem here was that when assessments were made of Hubmaier’s reform they were

pushed by theological analysis and superficial assessments were made based upon his dissimilarity

with other Anabaptists rather than any significant correlation with the principles of magisterial

Clarkson, 32

reform. Engaging Mabry, MacGregor, Liland, Stayer and others and performing an analysis of On

the Sword and related writings has revealed enough about Hubmaier’s positions on separatism and the

separation of church and state to call into question the equating of Hubmaier’s reform with that of

the magisterial reformers. While a certain level of historical attentiveness has attended the process

so far, the next turn is to look, better informed on the dynamics of Hubmaier’s thought, at still more

testimony from his writings and his interactions with civil authority to show that Hubmaier was not

a magisterial reformer, that Hubmaier’s reform can be characterized better as populist, that this

characterization is consistent with what he wrote on the subject, and that the agency of the

magistrate was not a core element in his program for reform.109

The Historical Record

Mabry and MacGregor have shown that Hubmaier both agreed and disagreed with Zwingli

in matters of theology and reform from early in Hubmaier’s career as a reformer.110 His Eighteen

Theses Concerning the Christian Life, completed sometime around March of 1524 in Waldshut, are an

announcement of his program of reform and they parallel Zwingli’s Sixty-seven Theses of January,

1523; there is nothing particularly “Anabaptist” about them or that departs from mainline

Reformation principles.111 Earlier, in October of 1523 at the second Zurich disputation, Hubmaier’s

suggestions for reform sound much like Zwingli’s, but close inspection reveals an important

distinction. Hubmaier agrees with disputation before “the worthy, prominent, honorable, and wise

Lords, Mayor, large and small Council, called ‘the Two Hundred,’ of this praiseworthy old city of

Zurich, my gracious Lords, well esteemed and judged to be Christian” so that “quarreling and

controversy” over the reform of images and the mass might be “alleviated without disturbance or

109 There is neither intent nor space here for a comprehensive biographical account. Rather, what follows

makes reference to episodes in Hubmaier’s life and explains the relevance to the issue at hand. Background information is minimal and is given with the aim of orienting a reader already familiar with Hubmaier’s life.

110 See above, page 10n27.

111 Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material on “Eighteen Theses Concerning the Christian Life,” in Hubmaier, 30; Bergsten 96-99.

Clarkson, 33

disorder.”112 But on the second day of the disputation Hubmaier addresses the assembly regarding

the reform of images. After arguing from scripture against images he takes the position that reform

of images should be preceded by instruction and preaching so that “every Christian will find himself

and recognize that the images are not any use at all. Then a whole parish congregation will gather

and decide unanimously without any disorder that images shall be moved out and laid to sleep.”113

Note that while Hubmaier differs regarding the pace of reform from the likes of Andreas Karlstadt

in his tract Whether One Should Proceed Slowly, Hubmaier’s points of authority are scripture and the

gathered congregation rather than the edict of the magistrate. His earlier praise to the council is

concerned with their responsibility toward maintaining order amid the quarreling voices, but he does

not explicitly invest them with a decision-making role. Karlstadt disagrees with both tarrying for the

magistrate and with the argument that reform should be preceded by preaching and teaching –

tarrying for the weak. Nevertheless, what is evident here is another distinction; not one made

explicitly by Hubmaier, but one that is informative for considering whether or not Hubmaier is a

magisterial reformer in the sense of the magistracy invested with an adjudicatory role over the

content and pace of reform. Here, Hubmaier suggests tarrying for the weak but there is nothing to

suggest that Hubmaier expects to tarry for the magistrate. Furthermore, when Hubmaier published

his Eighteen Theses, they were an invitation to the area clergy for disputation in Waldshut. Unlike

Zurich, the disputation was closed to the public (and outside theologians) and civil authorities were

not to act as judges.114

A similar dynamic emerges in a number of letters written by Hubmaier as appeals to the city

council of Schaffhausen, a Swiss city near Waldshut. Hubmaier had fled to Schaffhausen from

Waldshut on August 29, 1524, during a particularly precarious time for Waldshut in its opposition to

112 Hubmaier, 23.

113 Ibid., 26.

114 Pipkin and Yoder, introductory material on “Eighteen Theses Concerning the Christian Life,” in Hubmaier, 30.

Clarkson, 34

Habsburgs.115 The conflict was primarily over Waldshut’s adoption of the Reformation and

Hubmaier was the focal point of imperial disfavor.116 Hubmaier’s departure was most likely

intended to relieve some of the pressure that was quickly mounting toward military intervention by

Waldshut’s Austrian rulers.117 By fleeing to a Swiss city, Hubmaier complicated things politically and

the Habsburgs began to exert pressure on the Swiss Confederation to compel its sister canton,

Schaffhausen, to hand over Hubmaier. Schaffhausen would not comply; it had come over to the

Reformation under the ministry of Hubmaier’s acquaintance Sebastian Hofmeister, though its

commitment to the Reformation was of a lesser degree than in Zurich and their protection of

Hubmaier was managed with as much political aplomb as the city could muster.

Such is the context under which Hubmaier pens four letters to the city council appealing for

them to defend his rights; that is, prevent him from being dragged away without the opportunity to

defend himself. He asks that the council give him a hearing because he is “ready and willing to

answer before your Honors any demand and accusation that anyone thinks he has against me and to

give and receive justice and then abide by the outcome, whether for weal or for woe.”118 In his final

appeal, Hubmaier makes reference to Deuteronomy 1, alluding to the system of authorities and

judges hearing cases among not only the Hebrew people but also concerning the sojourner – a

parallel to Hubmaier as a sojourner in Schaffhausen drawn to them because of their reputation for

justice. “These are the plain, clear words of God spoken through Moses, which should be weighed

well and earnestly by all who occupy seats of authority and wear the sword at their side.”119 It

appears at this point that Hubmaier has changed his mind on the issue of magisterial authority in

matters of faith. There appears here an acknowledgement of the council’s authority to adjudicate

115 For what follows regarding the historical context of Hubmaier’s brief self-imposed exile in Schaffhausen, see

Bergsten, 124-129.

116 Bergsten, 95.

117 Bergsten, 124; Liland, 55.

118 Hubmaier, 40.

119 Ibid., 43.

Clarkson, 35

the conflict, but one must remember that this is something of a blended situation. That is,

throughout his appeals to the council, Hubmaier’s call is for justice against the accusations leveled

against him. He is asking Schaffhausen to exert its civil authority to prevent the use of the sword

against him by other civil authorities in a religious matter. Hubmaier’s exposition on Deuteronomy

1 gets even more interesting. The council is exhorted to be no respecter of persons (Deut. 1:17)

and, thus, not bow to the pressure of lords and rulers but “judge and give sentence only in accord

with God’s will, which can be learned only from his Word.”120 Here is not only a reiteration of

Hubmaier’s primary source of adjudicatory authority in religious matters, but also the shadow of two

other elements important to understanding Hubmaier’s history as a reformer. First, there is a space

built here for dissent from lords and rulers. Second, that space exists within the context of one

legitimate government in contention with another. These two features are evident in the conditions

surrounding the Reformation in Waldshut.

On December 5, 1523, an imperial delegation arrived in Waldshut with charges against the

“Lutheran” Hubmaier. At issue was an imperial mandate propagated by the Diet of Nuremberg on

March 6, 1523, that included stipulations for peaceful consultation with priests that had taken a

position of reform.121 Because Hubmaier was a doctor of theology (Ingolstadt), he was actually one

of the authorities empowered with making assessments on doctrine anyway.122 “According to the

Austrians, the mandate considered the Reformation in Waldshut a revolutionary affair. The people

of Waldshut, on the contrary, declared that they were faithfully carrying out the emperor’s command

in allowing the free proclamation of the gospel in their town.”123 The result is contention between

two legitimate authorities, only one of which Hubmaier considers to be acting according to the will

of God and instructed by the God’s word.

120 Ibid., 44.

121 Liland, 50.

122 MacGregor, 245.

123 Bergsten, 96.

Clarkson, 36

Added to this situation is the popular sentiment behind the defense of Waldshut’s

Reformation and the defense of Hubmaier personally. Bergsten notes that the Reformation in

Waldshut had all the appearances of being widely supported by the population of the city “with the

mayor and the City Council in the lead.”124 In the weeks and months following the December

delegation, Waldshut continued to defend their “doctor.” A corresponding stream of anti-Austrian

sentiment grew among the people of Waldshut. In April of 1524 the Austrians extended one

month’s grace to Waldshut in which to hand over Hubmaier. On Pentecost day, May 15, the time

was up. At a meeting of the citizens of Waldshut it was suggested that Hubmaier be given up, but

no decision was reached. The following day, the women of the town marched on the council house

and demanded that Hubmaier stay.125

At the same time, Waldshut’s growing defiance toward the Austrians took on an increasingly

political tone. In fact, the timing of Waldshut adopting outright Anabaptism as a community was

influenced by Waldshut’s precarious political situation. As long as Waldshut was in fear of the

Habsburgs it coveted a protective alliance with the Reformation cities of Zurich, Basel and

Schaffhausen in the Swiss Confederation. These hopes constituted a political inhibition to the

adoption of Anabaptism.126 When hopes for such an alliance were gone (because these cities were

carefully navigating a path to avoid conflict with Austria), the pace and content of reform shifted.

The picture here is not one of a theocracy, as if religious reform was enacted in a vacuum under the

direct authority of the magistrate for the purpose of ordering society according to an official tableau

of religious convictions. The process is much messier and is marked by a community’s common

conviction regarding reform, which they arrived at in no small part by the teaching and leadership of

their pastor as well as their very real concerns regarding the political impact of their religious

reforms. This was no independent Swiss city, so their break to the Reformation posed different

124 Ibid., 97.

125 Ibid., 99-101.

126 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 106.

Clarkson, 37

dangers because of their socio-political matrix.127

The involvement of Waldshut in solidarity with peasant uprising, particularly the Peasants’

War, and the extent of Hubmaier’s engagement can significantly impact the picture of Hubmaier’s

program of reform. Asserting that Hubmaier played a significant role in the Peasants’ War, for

example, by writing one or more key documents of the peasants, paints Hubmaier as a revolutionary

– a position difficult to reconcile with a claim that Hubmaier is a magisterial reformer.128 Ignoring

the Peasants’ War is to overlook an important socio-political aspect of the Reformation in Waldshut.

Seeking an ally, Waldshut found one in the peasants’ grievance against tyranny.129

Hubmaier’s authorship of peasant texts is, for the most part, discounted and appears beyond

proving; allegations in this regard are primarily based upon Faber’s Reason and the “Vienna

testimony” appended to that pamphlet.130 The testimony states that Hubmaier confessed

concerning the articles “that he expanded and exposited them, and convinced the same [army] to

accept them as Christian and reasonable.”131 Faber’s reported discovery of the Letter of Articles,

edited in Hubmaier’s hand, among Hubmaier’s belongings after Waldshut capitulated to the

Austrians and Hubmaier had fled, the confession recorded in the Vienna testimony, the political and

military circumstances prompting solidarity between Waldshut and the peasants, a sense of

Hubmaier’s alliance with one civil authority (Waldshut) in contention with another civil authority

(Austria), and a sense of Hubmaier’s sympathy for subjects under tyranny all combine to make it

probably that Hubmaier did find the peasants’ cause legitimate. Even then, it is not likely that

Hubmaier acted as an instigator and a leader of the Peasants’ War. When Waldshut moved in

support of the peasants there is no sign that Hubmaier was the one who pushed them that direction;

127 Bergsten, 91.

128 Ibid., 44-45.

129 Bergsten contends that because of Waldshut’s involvement as a civil authority, as well as the involvement of representatives from the “lesser aristocracy,” this event should be relabeled the “So-Called Peasants’ War” because it was not wholly an affair of the peasants. Bergsten., 210.

130 Ibid., 210-225.

131 Hubmaier, 564.

Clarkson, 38

Waldshut had already placed itself on a trajectory of resistance to its Austrian overlords by defending

Hubmaier and the reform of their church.132 Rather than apocalyptic and revolutionary, Hubmaier’s

opposition to civil authority was tempered by a sense of justice and a repudiation of tyranny. If a

popular movement could make progress toward justice and a better ordering of society, Hubmaier

could accept standing in opposition to imperial authority yet in accord with local authority.

There are a few hints in Hubmaier’s writings that point this direction. They provide a basis

for understanding the second half of Stayer’s description of Hubmaier’s realpolitical orientation, his

“equivocal teaching on resistance to tyrants.”133 First, Hubmaier adds a margin note to On the Sword

at a point where he asserts the Christian’s obligation to help the government in wielding the

sword.134 He writes, “The subjects are obligated to help the government in all justifiable things.”135

Likewise, he adds another margin note to yet another assertion of the Christian subject’s obligation.

The assertion is this:

For there is no government which does not come from God. Therefore obedience consists in all that which is not against God, for God has not ordered the government against himself. Now if the government wants to punish the evil ones – as it should for the sake of their souls’ salvation – and is yet not strong enough to deal with the evil ones, then it is now to command its subjects through bells and various alarm signals, letters, or through other summons. Subjects are obligated for the sake of the salvation of their souls to sustain and help their superiors so that the evil ones are annihilated and rooted out according to the will of God.136

To this Hubmaier adds the note, “One should test the government to see whether it commands

against God.”137 Finally, a margin note to Hubmaier’s dedicatory epistle to On the Sword reads, “I

have more earnestly than any preacher within twenty miles treated Scripture concerning the

righteous government. However, I have also shown the tyrants their vices; therefore there comes

132 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 106-107.

133 Ibid., 143. See above, page 22n69.

134 See above, page 29n102.

135 Hubmaier, 515; emphasis mine.

136 Ibid., 520. See above, 30n103.

137 Ibid.

Clarkson, 39

envy, hate and enmity.”138 Through these notations one can glimpse Hubmaier’s recognition of the

tension between his impulse to make a positive space for government in the treatise and the reality,

experienced in his own life, of legitimate grievance against the government by its subjects.

On the Sword is not the only place where this tension can be found. In A Brief Apologia, within

the space of two contiguous paragraphs, Hubmaier first makes an assertion similar to the one found

in the dedicatory epistle to On the Sword, that no one in the region has worked so hard as him to

teach people to obey the government, that the government is of God and that subjects should

render to it “tolls, duties, tribute, honor, and respect.”139 But then he writes,

On the other hand I have also never taught that it is proper for the government, bishops, abbots, monks, nuns, and priests to overload their poor people, more than is godly and just, with unprecedented unchristian impositions, and to tear them away by force from the Word of God. For God will not, as truly as he is God, leave this unavenged. Waldshut must bear me the same witness.140

Conclusion

Indeed, Waldshut does bear witness to Hubmaier as a reformer. One finds, there, a

Reformation consistent with Hubmaier’s position at the second Zurich disputation. Its driving force

is Hubmaier’s teaching and preaching according to the word of God and its influence upon the

people of the city. This popular, congregational approach confers upon Hubmaier the affection

and, more importantly, the loyalty of the people and becomes the foundation of Waldshut’s

opposition to their Austrian rulers. This marks the reform of Waldshut with a character that is less

evident in Zurich and Zwingli, Waldshut and Humbaier’s closest counterparts. While this

phenomenon is influenced by a multitude of variables like local culture, history and leading

personalities, no small part was played by Hubmaier’s own principles and personal style.

A further distinction is the lack of evidence for the magistracy as an agent of church reform

in Waldshut. That is, the city council did not operate in the capacity of adjudicating religious issues

138 Ibid., 495.

139 Ibid., 304.

140 Ibid.

Clarkson, 40

or legislating reform. Granted, the council was no passive bystander in the story, but their agency

was a reflection of public sentiment and was enacted with reference to the city’s socio-political

context, with reference to the kingdom of the world rather than the kingdom of God.

In fact, Waldshut’s opposition to their Austrian rulers highlights another distinction from its

Zurich counterpart. This was no independent Swiss city. The complexities of Waldshut’s political

milieu produced a local civil authority at odds with imperial authority and this dynamic cast shadows

into Hubmaier’s writings and his thought on the myriad of topics associated with government and

the sword. At the same time, while the focal point of Waldshut’s conflict with the Austrians was its

adoption of reform under Hubmaier’s leadership, the political situation also engendered an affinity

between the interests of Waldshut and the interests of the peasants. So it is that another populist

element is added to the mix.

These elements demonstrate that Hubmaier’s reform can be characterized better as populist,

that the agency of the magistrate was not a core element in his program for reform, and that this

picture of Hubmaier’s reform is consistent with what he wrote regarding separatism, the separation

of church and state, the sword, pacifism, ecclesiology and more. Hubmaier maintained a distinction

between separatism and the separation of church and state by the way in which he made distinctions

between the church, the world and the government. Likewise, Hubmaier made a distinction

between pacifism propelled by Christian discipleship and the responsibility of a Christian subject to

duly instituted civil authority. This was a dynamic that Hubmaier, as a realist, struggled to balance

along with the added issue of tyranny. Indeed, Hubmaier’s life experiences in the reform of

Waldshut and elsewhere influenced the development of his thought. Taken together, his writings

and his history demonstrate that Balthasar Hubmaier was no magisterial reformer.

Clarkson, 41

Works Cited

Bergsten, Torsten. Balthasar Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, ed. William R. Estep, trans. Irwin J. Barnes and William R. Estep. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1978

Biesecker-Mast, Gerald. Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confession Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht. Telford, Pennsylvania: Cascadia Publishing House, 2006.

Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Friedmann, Robert. “The Nicolsburg Articles: A Problem of Early Anabaptist History,” Church History 36, no. 4 (December 1967): 391-409.

Funk, David. “The Relation of Church and State in the Thought of Balthasar Hubmaier.” Didaskalia 17, no. 2 (Winter 2006): 37-50. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, accession number ATLA0001511309.

Hubmaier, Balthasar. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, ed. and trans. H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1989

Klaassen, Walter. “The Anabaptist Understanding of the Separation of the Church,” Church History 46, no. 4 (December 1977): 421-436.

Liland, Peder Martin Idsøe. “Anabaptist Separatism: A Historical and Theological Study of the Contribution of Balthasar Hubmaier (ca. 1485-1528).” PhD Dissertation, Boston College, 1983. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1983.

Mabry, Eddie. Balthasar Hubmaier’s Doctrine of the Church. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994.

MacGregor, Kirk. A Central European Synthesis of Radical and Magisterial Reform: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006.

Sattler, Michael. “The Schleitheim Articles,” in The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 172-80.

Stayer, James M. Anabaptists and the Sword. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press, 1972.

__________. “The Swiss Brethren: An Exercise in Historical Definition,” Church History 47, no. 2. (June 1978): 174-195.

Vedder, Henry C. Balthasar Hübmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists. New York, London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905.