In dealing with the Anabaptists as a group which discovered or held political and social views of their own, it is first of all desirable to escape from any possible preconceived notion to the effect that the term “Anabaptist” must be used to designate a variety of groups all united to a greater or less degree by some principles or beliefs commonly held. At the outset of the movement such men as Konrad Grebel and Felix Manz, in Switzerland, gave some semblance of unity to the various divisions of the sect by moving from one place to another, and by thus serving somewhat in the capacity of liaison officers. But the movement was still very young when one must say of it that there were a great many small and distinct groups which held nothing of any importance in common, yet which were generally to be designated under the term Anabaptist. Thus, considering the real character of the Anabaptist movement and its chief significance—which I take to be social—the name given to the Anabaptists is less relevant than at first might be supposed. The sectaries did not call themselves Anabaptists; and they resented the use of the name by others. At least from the year 1525 on the name was nothing but an external designation for the various sects. As Sebastian Franck has affirmed, the sects were so disunited amongst themselves that he scarcely knew how to write anything certain or final about them; and he was unable to find even two Anabaptist congregations which held views exactly the same.