"Just as in the Time of the Apostles": Uses of History in the Radical Reformation (review)

This book examines the ideas about history of different individuals and groups in the Radical Reformation. Since history was such an important element in Reformation discourse and appeals to history were as important to Radical Reformers as to magisterial Reformers, it was important for Reformers to ask the question: where had the true church been throughout most of Christian history? In answering this question the Radicals were led into arguments about history to justify their reforming programs.

Since the pioneering work of Franklin H. Littell, historians have assumed that the Radicals, and especially the Anabaptists, wanted to restore and follow the model of the primitive church of the apostles in their own day. It was their dedication to a restitution of the primitive church that set them apart from other Reformers and reforming agendas. To this hallowed view Dipple adds a number of important nuances, for all practical purposes reformulating our understanding of the Radicals' view of history. While Dipple sees the late medieval and early modern periods as characterized by a primitivist outlook that gave the past greater authority than the present, a view reinforced by the Renaissance humanists who enshrined the authority of the ancients and by magisterial Reformers with their Biblicism, the Radical Reformers were not simple restitutionist thinkers. They did share a common sense of the Church's historical deterioration, and many began by blaming medieval scholasticism for this decay, but there was great variation among groups and individuals on questions such as when the Church had originally fallen—-some placed this fall very near the Church's actual beginnings—-what period or part of the apostolic Church was to be considered pristine, and to what extent the ancient Church could or should become a model for contemporary reform activity? In fact, Radical visions of the past Church were less driving forces in their reform agendas than mirrors to reflect contemporary religious abuses. Radical historical visions thus evolved as more of the teachings and practices of contemporary churches came under attack.

Oftentimes the Radicals' appeal to a true way of belief or practice in the apostolic Church was more Biblicist than historical: it was primarily based on the activities of Christ and the apostles as related in the Bible then on some perceived historical golden age of the Church. And different Radical groups were more oriented to history and appeals to the past than others: while the Spiritualists and Spiritualizing Anabaptists were perhaps the most historically-minded in their arguments, the Swiss Brethren were by far the least. Dipple points out that involvement in religious controversies with other Radical groups or even with magisterial Reformers was a primary force pushing Radicals to develop historical arguments and appeals, although even in these cases the historical appeals were often made to legitimize particular Radical practices such as believers' baptism or the Lord's Supper. Dipple also points out that what counted for restitution of the apostolic Church for one Radical group would not be understood in the same way by other groups: thus the Spiritualists wanted to restore the Church of Pentecost and saw the true Church as one populated by individuals filled with the Spirit. Other groups, such as many Anabaptists, believed in the importance of the structure and practices of the apostolic Church in establishing a template for the true Church in their own day. Many Anabaptists therefore tended to put considerably more importance on the visible Church than did the Spiritualists.

It was a complex picture of differing views of the past, and Dipple does a fine job of making this picture clear for the reader. He deals first with the views of Renaissance humanists and magisterial Reformers and then moves on to the...