November 9-18, 1525

Trial in Zurich

When the three-day public disputation in the Zurich Grossmünster ended on November 8, the trio of Anabaptist spokesmen—George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz—headed back to their prison cells.  At some point in the next week—perhaps as soon as the next day—they faced another round of verbal explanations of their doctrines. These discussions, however, had legal consequences: they were now on trial, and they needed to defend themselves against both oral and written testimonies submitted against them.

Zwingli’s testimony at the trial rooted the Anabaptist movement in an ecclesiology that he had already encountered several years before and viewed as perfectionistic: Grebel wanted, like Simon Stumpf before him, to form a church of “Christian people who lived completely without blame.” And Mantz had argued that “no one could or should remain in the church except those who knew they were without sin.”¹

Sebastian Hofmeister, the leading reformer in the canton of Schaffhausen who aligned with Zurich’s reforms, backed Zwingli up with his recollections of conversations he had with Grebel and Mantz. Hofmeister also had the impression that these men believed “all who are rebaptized live without sin,” and he “remembered very well that they had attempted to establish their own church and assembly.”²

But the testimonies of the Reformed ministers especially focused on portraying the Anabaptist spokesmen’s teachings as a threat to the authority of the councils that maintained law and order in the Swiss cantons. Hofmeister claimed that Mantz “talked to him about government, how there should be none.” Likewise, he said, Mantz argued that “there should be no use of the sword” and that “all who sit on courts and councils cannot be Christians.”³

Zwingli tried to connect Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock to the sentiments against the state-managed tithes and benefices that Simon Stumpf once preached against—an agenda point that later appeared in the manifestos of the peasants’ militias during the Peasants’ Revolt.⁴ Hofmeister also testified that Grebel “said that the pulpit preachers and those who had benefices could never proclaim the truth properly.” Here, Zwingli and Hofmeister were picking up on Anabaptists’ perception that pastors whose livelihoods were dependent on benefices (which came with guaranteed allocations of income from tithes that the canton collected) would have financial incentives to curry favor with government officials and disincentives from admonishing or disciplining church members who were behaving unchristianly—shying away from “speaking truth to power,” as peace activists in the twentieth century would call it. Zwingli, with his stress on rigorous pastoral education as a qualification for ministry, believed the benefice system could be reformed to reward the best-performing ministry students and thereby elevate to highest prominence the men he expected to be the most articulate defenders of church doctrine.

But the most damaging evidence entered before the tribunal came from Heinrich Brennwald, a former provost of a monastery outside of Zurich who had joined the Zwinglian reform in 1524 and been appointed to oversee Zurich’s provisions for the poor.⁵ Brennwald’s testimony qualified as hearsay, since it relied not on his firsthand experience but on an account he heard from other men. Those men related to him that they had heard Blaurock telling a fellow Anabaptist from Zollikon that “when there were enough of them [i.e. fellow Anabaptists], they might make a resistance, if one could suddenly overpower them with a company.”⁶ Zwingli also submitted a hearsay description of the account of Blaurock’s conversation that Brennwald had conveyed to him; in Zwingli’s telling, Blaurock had told the Zollikon Anabaptist that “there were so many of them that they could overpower Milords [i.e. the government of the Zurich Council] if they moved at once in an attack.”⁷ This alleged comment of Blaurock’s proved useful to undermine other Anabaptists’ teachings that Christ-followers would decline to bear the sword; instead, it played into the authorities’ fears that the Anabaptists were no different from the revolting peasants who would have wanted to establish a new state church and political regime, if only they had the military strength to enforce it. Skepticism about Anabaptists’ pacifist convictions would persist for decades.

Together with the letter Zwingli had recently received from Bern—reporting that some Anabaptists there taught that there should be no government—Brennwald’s account led Zwingli to conclude that the Anabaptists “were daring to increase their numbers in order to do away with government.”⁸

In their defenses, Grebel denied ever teaching that there should be no government and Mantz clarified that his position was that “no Christian strikes with the sword, nor does he resist evil.”⁹ This was different from denying the role of worldly government; it was simply of a piece with his view that the church should be more rigorous about its membership following the pattern of Christ. Mantz also clarified that he was not arrogating to himself the role of expelling those who live in vice from the church; he was looking to men like Zwingli, who filled the leadership role of a bishop, to be doing the work of discipline that Paul instructed.¹⁰ In response to the account from Bern that Zwingli introduced in his testimony, Grebel also went on record saying that he did not teach that practicing a community of goods was necessary for Christians.¹¹ On each of these points, it appears that Grebel and Mantz were seeking to show that they were less separatist-minded than Zwingli sought to portray them; they were committed to liturgical and disciplinary reforms that they still believed Zwingli and other Zurich clergy could implement churchwide.

For his part, George Blaurock continued to project the demeanor of a man who considered himself in the line of the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist. He showed little interest in reasoning with those in power; instead he was primed to call God’s judgment upon them and prepare for martyrdom as a consequence. He submitted a written statement presenting himself and his colleagues as divinely elected for their reforming roles and placing Zwingli and the Zurich clergy on the same plane as the papacy: “I am a beginner of the baptism of Christ and the bread of the Lord[,] together with my elect brethren in Christ, Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz. On this account, the pope with his followers is a thief and a murderer, Luther is a thief and a murderer with his following, and Zwingli and Leo Jud are thieves and murderers of Christ with their following until they acknowledge this.” When called to testify in person, he apparently repeated the charge; the court clerks wrote that “Blaurock’s answer and opinion is, as it always has been, that Zwingli, Luther, the pope and their ilk, were like thieves and murderers, for Christ says, anyone who enters by another door than through him is a thief and a murderer. Thus Zwingli teaches falsely, and infant baptism was invented by men, and what comes from man is also of the devil.”¹²

Blaurock believed God had intervened miraculously to empower him in his prophetic role. He claimed to have received visions and spread an account that he and Grebel had escaped from prison by miraculous assistance during their first imprisonment in February—creating a narrative parallel to the New Testament apostles during their missionary work. Hofmeister entered this story as an allegation of falsification against Grebel. But Grebel replied in his defense that his account of the prison escape was not unique. He also clarified that “he never said that he had ever seen visions. [Blaurock] had told him of visions and revelations, but not he himself.”¹³

Blaurock’s testimony also indicated that he still had a strong sense of being responsible as an ordained shepherd in the church. “A good shepherd lays down his soul for his sheep,” he wrote, paraphrasing Christ at John 10. “So I, too, lay down my body, my life, and my soul for my sheep: my body in the tower,¹⁴ my life to the sword, in the fire, or in the press to have my blood pressed from my flesh like Christ on the cross.”¹⁵

Consistent with this willingness to die, Blaurock testified that “it will never be found” that he made the comments Brennwald and Zwingli had accused him of saying, anticipating the use of militia force to institute Anabaptist reforms.¹⁶

Since none of these three men indicated that they would cease to rebaptize others, if asked, their defenses did nothing to allay the Zurich Council’s concerns about releasing them to public life again. On November 18, the Council ruled that all three “are to be put together into the New Tower and fed on bread, mush, and water. No one is to visit them or depart from them except the prescribed attendants, as long as God pleases and it seems good to Milords.”¹⁷ It would become the longest prison stay that each of them experienced up to this point.

Congregational Conflict in Hinwil

Meanwhile, Grüningen Bailiff Berger was trying to maintain order back in his home district. Addressing the Zurich Council on the 12th, he wrote with consternation: “As you, my lords, have in recent days conducted and concluded the disputation and discussion—which, as I hear from my people, was done well and rightly—now, gracious lords, I have been told that the Anabaptists are spreading all sorts of improper talk.”¹⁸ Johannes Brennwald, the parish priest in Hinwil whose pulpit Blaurock had seized in October, was facing open hostility to his pastorate from people in his parish on account of their theological differences.

Berger conveyed a written statement that he asked Brennwald to prepare. “When I returned home from the disputation,” Brennwald began, “much was said about the Anabaptists—namely, that they had not been sufficiently heard. Because of this, I wished to proclaim the Word of God on Sunday and proceeded in my sermon from the seventh chapter of John, specifically on the topic of circumcision: how it was given by Moses and the fathers, as the text there expresses, and the origin of it. From this, I spoke of how our conversion is expressed in baptism. For I had previously not wished to proceed or make any statements that pointed directly to baptism, but had intended to wait until the conversation had matured.” But at that point in Brennwald’s sermon, “the Anabaptists stood up and interrupted” him. Some produced a letter, which, they claimed, had explanations of their theology that had not been properly considered during the Zurich disputation. They read it aloud before the entire congregation, which included many visitors from the Bernese region of Aargau (where reports had just emerged of Anabaptism’s spread). Then they read several passages from the New Testament aloud—passages apparently chosen to counter Brennwald’s interpretation of circumcision’s parallel to baptism. “Among other things,” Brennwald continued, “one of them said to me: The blood of the Anabaptists stood in my hands and Zwingli’s; that will prove that they are righteous and not Zwingli and me. In this way, they misled the simple folk. In response to this, I spoke publicly that I would bring such matters to a higher authority. And when I went out from the church to do so, someone yelled after me that I had now accused them of enough and that I should be removed. Such things have happened along with many other indecencies, which I lay before God in complaint. And I humbly ask you, my gracious lords, for counsel and help, that it may become clear to me how I should conduct myself—for I cannot find within myself the peace and rest that I would like to have at this time.”¹⁹

Pastor Brennwald was experiencing the stress of facing a congregation that had largely lost respect for his interpretation of the Word and caught hold of the vision for congregational choice of leadership that circulated among the peasants in the run-up to the Peasants’ Revolt. The idea that pastors should be chosen and removed according to the will of the congregation, rather than appointed by outside authorities, would become an important element of Anabaptist ecclesiology.

The situation in Hinwil produced a good deal of correspondence between Bailiff Berger, the twelve judges of Grüningen, and the Zurich Council over the course of November. “Several people have expressed concern that the Anabaptists may cause unrest and dissatisfaction with the way they are handled,” Berger wrote the Council, delicately hinting that some of the twelve judges of Grüningen might believe that treading cautiously where matters of conscience are concerned would maintain order in their community better than suppressing the Anabaptists. “I have spoken with them often, and if you understand how firmly they stand in their beliefs, you will see how it is possible that this could lead to great harm.”²⁰

Following Berger’s suggestion,²¹ the Council issued a letter to the judges, rehearsing the findings of the Zurich disputation against the Anabaptists’ arguments. But it also demanded that the Grüningen magistrates “report to us without delay and respond whether you are willing to help and support us in making the disobedient and defiant Anabaptists, along with their supporters and followers, obedient and subject to punishment. Or whether you intend to support them and aid them in their disobedience.” The Council was in no mood for delicate treatment of Anabaptism; it was convinced it needed to nip their movement in the bud before it was too late. “For in good, friendly, and gracious spirit, we do not wish to conceal from you that we cannot and will not tolerate these disobedient Anabaptists, the clandestine preachers, and their gatherings and factions in any way. Rather, with the help of Almighty God and to the best of our ability, we intend to root them out and suppress them.”²² The judges of Grüningen got the message. When the letter was read out, Berger reported to the Council, “they were deeply shaken by it, for it was well composed, and they could not refute it.” The cases of several arrested Anabaptists that they heard next resulted in hefty fines. “The officials will act as your letter instructs,” he assured the Zurich Council. “I hope in God the matter will turn out well. We are now steadfast.”²³

About This Series

This post is part of a series entitled “The Reformation at 500: Timeline of the Free-Church Movement.” Click here for more information on this series.

Featured image courtesy of the Wick’sche Sammlung, ca. 1575, Zentralbibliothek Zurich, Ms. F 23, fol. 294.

1. The Trial of Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock (Zurich, between November 9 and 18, 1525), in The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents, ed. Leland Harder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985), 436-37. ↩︎
2. Ibid., 438. ↩︎
3. Ibid. ↩︎
4. Ibid., 437. ↩︎
5. See short biography at Harder, Sources, 531. ↩︎
6. Nachgänge über Konrad Grebel, Felix Manz und Jörg Blaurock (Nov. 9, 1525-Mar. 7, 1526), in Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, eds. Leonhard von Muralt & Walter Schmid (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1952), 124 (translated differently at Harder, Sources, 439). ↩︎
7. Harder, Sources, 437. ↩︎
8. Ibid., 438. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 442. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 441-42. ↩︎
11. Ibid., 439. ↩︎
12. Ibid., 440-41. Blaurock was drawing from John 10: 1-8. ↩︎
13. Ibid., 439. ↩︎
14. The prison in Zurich where Blaurock was taken was a tall edifice called the “New Tower.” See Beschluss des Rates (Nov. 18, 1525), in Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, eds. Leonhard von Muralt & Walter Schmid (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1952), 136. ↩︎
15. Schreiben und Aussagen Blaurocks (Nov. 9, 1525-Mar. 5, 1526), in Quellen I, Muralt & Walter Schmid, 125 (translated differently at Harder, Sources, 440). ↩︎
16. Harder, Sources, 441. ↩︎
17. Ibid., 442. ↩︎
18. Landvogt Jörg Berger zu Grüningen an den Rat von Zürich (Nov. 12, 1525), in Quellen I, Muralt & Schmid, 128. ↩︎
19. Johannes Brennwald, Kirchherr zu Hinwil, an den Rat von Zürich (Nov. 12, 1525) in ibid., 129. ↩︎
20. Landvogt Jörg Berger zu Grüningen an den Rat von Zürich (Nov. 14, 1525) in ibid, 129-30. ↩︎
21. Ibid., 130; Vorschlag Jörg Bergers zu einem Schreiben des Rates an die Amtsleute von Grüningen (Nov. 14, 1525), in ibid., 130. ↩︎
22. Bürgermeister und Rat von Zürich an die zwölf Richter der Herrschaft Grüningen (Nov. 15, 1525) in ibid., 133. ↩︎
23. Landvogt Jörg Berger zu Grüningen an den Rat von Zürich (Nov. 17, 1525) in ibid., 135-36. ↩︎