Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:07:55.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anabaptist Understanding of the Separation of the Church

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Walter Klaassen
Walter Klaassen
Affiliation:
Professor of history in Conrad Grebel College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is the purpose of this paper to determine whether Anabaptists were schismatics as was charged, to do this in the context of Protestant and especially Reformed attitudes towards Catholics, other Protestants and Anabaptists, and to describe the reasons for the separation of Anabaptism from Protestantism. The discussion will be limited primarily to the Anabaptists who had conversations with the Reformed tradition during the years 1523–1540. Much in the position of this segment of Anabaptism will apply to other parts of the movement as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 421 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bromiley, G. W., ed., Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 152.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., p. 158. See also Yoder, J. H., Täufertum und Reformation in der Schweiz (Karlsruhe, 1962), p. 162.Google Scholar

3. Ibid.

4. Cited by Oyer, John S., “The Reformers Oppose the Anabaptist Theology,” in Hershberger, G. F., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale, Pa., 1957), p. 204.Google Scholar

5. Eells, Hastings, Martin Bucer (New Haven, 1931), p. 131.Google Scholar

6. Cited by Horsch, John, “An Inquiry into the Truth of Accusations of Fanaticism and Crime Against the Early Swiss Brethren,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 8 (1934): 77.Google Scholar Henceforth MQR.

7. McNeill, J. T. ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), p. 1239.Google Scholar Cf p. 1027.

8. Ibid., pp. 1026–1031.

9. Whale, J. S., The Protestant Tradition (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 154–155.Google Scholar

10. Eells, , Bucer, pp. 56, 63.Google Scholar

11. Bromiley, , Zwingli and Bullinger, p. 119.Google Scholar

12. The Complete Works of Menno Simons, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale. Pa., 1956). p. 207.

13. Rideman, Peter, Account of Our Religion, Doctrine and Faith (London, 1950), p. 91.Google Scholar

14. Cited in Verduin, L., The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1964), p. 251.Google Scholar

15. Muralt, Leonard von and Schmidt, Walter, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz I. Bd. Zürich (Zürich, 1952), 181, 210.Google Scholar Henceforth TA Schweiz I.

16. Dillenberger, John, ed., John Calvin: Selections From His Writings (Garden City, N.Y., 1971), p. 27.Google Scholar

17. Cited in Marty, Martin E., A Short History of Christianity (New York, 1959), p. 237.Google Scholar

18. Pelikan, Jaroslav, Obedient Rebels (New York, 1964), p. 123.Google Scholar For an account of the negotiations see pp. 123–135.

19. Ibid., p. 134.

20. Ibid., p. 133. “For it is doctrine that makes men Christians or heretics….”

21. Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession.

22. Eells, H., “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts During the German Reformation,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 42 (1951): 166.Google Scholar Henceforth ARG.

23. McNeill, , Unitive Prostantism (New York, 1930), pp. 140–141, 153.Google Scholar

24. Brandi, Karl, Reformation und Gegenreformation (München, 1969), pp. 160–161.Google Scholar

25. Eells, , “The Failure of Church Unification…” p. 169.Google Scholar

26. McNeill, , Unitive Protestantism, pp. 141–143, 148.Google Scholar

27. Yoder, J. H., Täufertum und Reformation in der Schweiz (Karlsruhe, 1962), pp. 29–30, 34, 38.Google Scholar

28. For more detailed discussion of the separation see J. M. Stayer, “Die Anfänge des schweizerischen Täufertums im Reformierten Kongregationalismus” and Haas, M., “Der Weg der Täufer in die Absonderung” in Goertz, H. J., ed. Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–1975 Neue Forschungen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1975, pp. 19–49 and 50–78Google Scholar resp.

29. Ibid., p. 158.

30. Ibid., p. 159.

31. Ibid., See also Williams, George H., The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), p. 590–591.Google Scholar

32. See for example Fast, Heinold, “Die Täuferbewegung im Lichte des Frankenthaler Gespräches, 1571,” Mennonitische Geschichtblätter, 30, N. F. nr. 25 (1973): 17.Google Scholar Henceforth MGB.

33. Haas, M., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz IV. Bd (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974), pp. 466–467.Google Scholar Henceforth TA Schweiz IV.

34. Yoder, John H., “Der Kristallisationspunkt des Täufertums,” MGB 29, N. F. nr. 24, (1972): 35–47.Google Scholar But see Deppermann, K., “Die Strassburger Reformatoren und die Krise des oberdeutschen Täufertums im Jahre 1527,” MGB 30, N. F. nr. 25, (1973): 24–41;Google ScholarOosterbaan, J. A.. “De Broederlijke Vereniging een voorlopig consolidatiepunt der broederschap,” Doperse Stemmen 1 (Amsterdam, 1974), pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

35. Stayer, James, Packull, Werner, Deppermann, Klaus, “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptists Origins,” MQR 49 (1975):83–121.Google Scholar This interpretation was anticipated by Meihuizen, H. W. without elaboration in “Was There a Consensus Mennoniticus Before the Baptism of 1525,” The Witness of the Holy Spirit (Elkhart, md., 1967), pp. 252–253.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., pp. 17, 19.

37. Ibid., p. 19–20.

38. Horst, Irvin B., The Radical Brethren (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graff, 1972).Google Scholar

39. Ibid., p. 178–179.

40. Ibid., p. 179.

41. Peachey, Paul, “Answer of Some Who Are Called (Ana)baptists Why They Do not Attend The Churches,” MQR 45 (1971): 20–23.Google Scholar The critical text can be found in Fast, Heinold, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz II. Bd. Ostschweiz, (Zürich, 1973), pp. 141–165.Google Scholar

42. TA Schweiz IV, p. 102.

43. See McNeill, , Unitive Protestantism, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

44. Peachey, , “Answer of Some …” p. 11.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., p. 14.

46. For example Wolf, E., “Die Einheit der Kirche im Zeugnis der Reformation,” Evangelische Theologie 5 (1938): 139.Google ScholarBromiley, , Institutes, pp. 1051–1052, 1025–1026.Google Scholar

47. See McNeill, , Unitive Protestantism, pp. 96–102, 109–112,Google ScholarFriedensburg, W., “Martin Bucer, Von der Wiedervereinigung der Kirchen 1542,” ARG 31 (1934): 148–150.Google Scholar

48. Yoder, J. H., Täufertum und Reformation im Gespräch (Zürich, 1968), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

49. Pelikan, , Obedient Rebels, p. 15.Google Scholar

50. Hillerbrand, Hans J., “Anabaptism and History,” MQR 95 (1971): 116.Google Scholar

51. TA Schzweiz IV, pp. 293, 276–277, 278, 280.

52. Zieglschmid, A. J. F., Die ältete Chronik der Hutterischen Brüder (Ithaca, N.Y., 1943), pp. 38–40.Google Scholar

53. TA Schweiz IV, pp. 280, 282, 293, 287. For an excellent discussion of restitution see Yoder, John H., “Anabaptism and History,” in Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, ed., Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–1975: Neue Forschungen (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 245–258.Google Scholar

54. See Wolf, , “Die Einheit der Kirche,” p. 137–138.Google Scholar

55. TA Schweiz IV, pp. 281–282, 284.

56. Hillerbrand, , “Anahaptism and History,” p. 110.Google Scholar

57. Pelikan, , Obedient Rebels, p. 37.Google Scholar

58. McNeill, , Unitive Protetantzsm, pp. 39–45.Google Scholar

59. Fast, Heinold, Der Linke Flügel der Reformation (Bremen, 1962), p. 123.Google Scholar Translation from Klaassen, W., Anabaptism: Neither Catholic Nor Protestant (Waterloo, Ontario, 1973), p. 59.Google Scholar

60. Hillerbrand, , “Anabaptism and History,” p. 111.Google Scholar

61. TA Schweiz IV, pp. 466–467; TA Schweiz I, p. 141: Fast, , “Die Täuferbewegung …,” p. 17.Google Scholar

62. Eells, , “The Failure of Church Unification …,” pp. 170, 173.Google Scholar

63. See discussion by Yoder, John H., Taüfertum und Reformation un Gespräch, pp. 57–60,Google Scholar to which the following Section is extensively indebted.

64. Ibid., p. 57.

65. Simmier, Johann Jakob, Sammlung Alter und neuer Urkunden zur Beleuchtung der Kirchen-Geschitchtevornemlich des Schweizer-Landes, Zürich, pp. 1757–1763, Vol. 1 Pt. 2, pp. 49.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., pp. 496–498.

67. Yoder, , Täufertum und Reformation im Geprdäh, p. 58.Google Scholar See Hubmaiers, “Der Vralten vnnd gar neuen Leerern Vrteil” for an Anabaptist reply to this argument, Balthasar Hubmaier: Schriften, ed. by Westin, G. and Bergsten, T. (Gütersloh, 1962), pp. 227–255.Google Scholar

68. They had also appealed to a theory of succession; the fact that the Roman church had adhered to the Apostolicum meant that it was a true church for all its corruption (See TA Schweiz IV, pp. 277–278). They also argued on the basis of Genesis 17:7 that God had never forsaken the world, hence there had always been a faithful church however small (See TA Schweiz IV, p. 279).

69. TA Schureiz IV, p. 281.

70. Ibid., pp. 284, 286, 298.

71. Yoder, , Täufertum und Reformation im Gespräch, pp. 176–177.Google Scholar