Page 1
Why were the sixteenth-century Reformers so vehemently opposed to the Anabaptist movement? By Avril Smith Introduction
Finally Zwingli succeeded in having twenty men, widows, pregnant women, and young girls thrown into misery in a dark tower. They were to be shut up with only bread and water and see neither sun nor moon for the rest of their lives, condemned to remain in the dark tower - the living and the dead together - to suffocate in the stench, to die and rot, until not one of them was left...At the same time severe mandates were issued at Zwingli's instigation: from now on, any person in the district of Zurich who was baptized should be thrown into the water and drowned without any trial or judgment.1
The Anabaptists were arguably the most severely persecuted movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thousands were drowned, beheaded or burnt to death, and their enemies came in every religious hue, from the most convinced Roman Catholic to the fiercest professor of Protestant doctrine. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Melancthon may have disagreed on many things, but this one belief united them; the m; that Anabaptists everywhere must be rooted out and destroyed as vermin. This essay will attempt to determine just what it was about the Anabaptist movement that so infuriated the Reformers. Chapter One will give an overview of Anabaptist belief and practice, with some reference to those who were labelled as Anabaptists, but would have been unwelcome additions to the congregations of those whose beliefs were most closel y bound up in the Scriptures. Chapter Two will deal with the response of Huldrych (Ulrich) Zwingli to the Anabaptists who sprang from his Swiss Reformation. Chapter Three will consider the attitudes of Luther and Melancthon, and Chapter Four will deal with Calvin’s Treatise Against the Anabaptists the Anabaptists. Chapter Five will seek to determine what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence examined in the previous chapters. 1
http://www.anabaptistchurch.org Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren Vol.I at http://www.anabaptistchurch.org
Page 2
Chapter One An overview of the Anabaptist movement
To refer to an Anabaptist movement can be misleading, in that those who were labelled as Anabaptists often had little more i n common than a rejection of paedo-baptism. Calvin, having distinguished between the Anabaptists who receive the Scriptures and those he designates ‘Libertines’, still concludes that ‘those who belong to the first sect are not in such accord with each other that one can easily produce a collection of their errors for the purpose of condemning them in any order’. 2 This essay will concentrate primarily on those who could be described as moderate Anabaptists, since the antipathy of the Reformers to those with extreme views is much easier to comprehend. I am indebted to Chris Good and his website ‘Anabaptists and the Reformation’ for a very clear explanation of the differences between the various radical movements who came under the Anabaptist ‘umbrella’. 3 In addition to those Anabaptists such as the S wiss Brethren, who would have ascribed to the Schleitheim Confession, there were the Spiritualists, the Rationalists and the Revolutionaries. Unfortunately for the moderate and peace-loving majority, majority, the Reformers, though recognizing that there were variations, rarely differentiated between the groups, treating all who accepted re-baptism as seditious and prone to violence. Though this essay will deal mainly with the doctrines of the evangelical Anabaptists, I will give a brief overview of the key teachings of each group and identify both the common ground and where they part company. Whilst the Seven Articles of the Schleitheim S chleitheim Confession encompass the core beliefs of the Swiss Brethren, it is possible to find evidence elsewhere of just what the majority of moderate Anabaptists believed. Many of the doctrines held by the Swiss Brethren, and many
2
John Calvin, Treatises Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, edit. and trans. by Benjamin Wirt Farley, Farley, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) p.40 3 Chris Good, The Anabaptists and the Reformation (1998) at: http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm
Page 3
other Anabaptists, are expounded by Conrad Grebel and his associates in their letter to Thomas Müntzer, written on 5 th September 1524. (This letter was apparently never received.) Others can be found in Grebel and Hubmaier’s disputation with Zwingli on 26 th-28th October 1523, and in the Eighteen Thesis of Balthasar Hubmaier given in 1524. 4 They believed in the absolute authority of Scripture and backed their teachings with biblical references. ‘We therefore entreat and admonish you… to seek earnestly to preach only the divine Word, and unafraid, to set up and defend only divine rites, to esteem as right and good only what is found in crystal-clear Scripture…’ 5 They condemned the baptism of children, ‘From the above Scriptures [the book of Acts and various Gospel references]…we conclude that infant baptism is a senseless, blasphemous abomination, contrary to all Scripture.’ 6 Also, the mass, the priesthood and all forms of worship not sanctioned by Scripture. 7 Many of them also rejected the Sword, since the believer’s sword is the Word of God, ‘True believing Christians are sheep among wolves…They employ neither worldly sword nor war, since with them killing is absolutely renounced…’ 8 They believed in free will and universal atonement, that is that Christ died for all but we are free to accept or reject His sacrifice. This differed from the teaching of Luther and Calvin, who denied that Christ could have died for any who would not be saved, and taught that God predestined some to life and some to damnation. They also believed that the return of Christ was imminent. For purposes of clarity, this group will be referred to as ‘mainstream’ or evangelical Anabaptists. Anabaptists. The Spiritualists emphasised the importance i mportance of the Spirit over the Word. Word. There were two main branches of this group, the Evangelical Spiritualists and the Prophetic spiritualists. The Evangelical Spiritualists were very influential in the Zwinglian Reformation and stressed the symbolic nature of the sacraments. Because of the emphasis on the spiritual rather than
4
Conrad Grebel Letters to Thomas Muntzer from the Swiss Brethren, Brethren, Conrad Grebel and Others: Zurich, September 5, 1524 in William. R. Estep Jnr (ed.) Anabaptist Beginnings: 1523-1533 (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1976) pp. 31-7 see also ‘The Second Zurich Disputation’ pp.15 - 21 and the ‘Eighteen Thesis of Balthasar Hubmaier’ (or F ridberger) pp.23-6 5 W.R. Estep Jnr, Anabaptist Beginnings (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976) p.32 6 Ibid p.36 7 Ibid pp.18 - 21 8 Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.35
Page 4
the external, many holding these views stayed within Catholicism, since outward forms were considered of less importance than unit y. Others tended towards t owards the view that i t was impossible for a Christian to sin, as external actions were of no account. The Prophetic Spiritualists laid great stress on the importance of inspiration, visions and prophecy. prophecy. They believed that the imminent return of Christ had been revealed to them through these means. The Zwickau Prophets were members of this group, as was Andreas Karlstadt. The Zwickau Prophets were Nicholas Storch, a master clothier, Marcus Thomae and Thomas Dreschel, a weaver. They were expelled from Zwickau for their radical ideas, and arrived in Wittenberg in1521. They claimed to be inspired b y direct visions and declared that the Spirit of God that inspired the m had nothing to do with Christ or the Bible. 9 Karlstadt was less extreme but he also insisted on the inner leading of the Spirit of God as more important than the Scriptures. 10 The Revolutionaries were extreme Prophetic Spiritualists and are best represented by Thomas Müntzer, who was involved in the Peasants revolt of 1525. He taught that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that magistrates should use the Sword to establish the gospel. The Rationalists put reason above the Word and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinity. Their most famous representative was Miguel Servetus who was executed in Calvin’s Geneva. They are seen as the founders of theological liberalism. Clearly all the groups did not agree on the primacy of the Scriptures, and they differed in their attitudes to state involvement in religion. Some rejected the use of force under any circumstances, whilst others saw it as a necessary tool to bring a sinful world to salvation. One factor at least united them all and t his was a belief in the necessity of separation from the ungodly. As John D. Roth clearl y explains in ‘A Historical and Theological Context for Mennonite-Lutheran Dialogue’, there were large areas of agreement uniting the early
9
Carter Lindberg The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996) p.104 Lindberg, European Reformations pp.138-9
10
Page 5
Reformers and the Anabaptists. 11 Both movements rejected the Catholic emphasis on the importance of medieval tradition and the necessity of priesthood, arguing that the Spirit was able to transform lives without the need of any intercessor but Christ. Both gave priority to Scripture as the onl y authority and sought to disseminate the Word amongst the laity. Both rejected the Catholic position regarding the number of sacraments, reducing them to two, Baptism and Holy Communion. Without the actions and influence of the Reformers, it is doubtful whether the Anabaptist movement would have taken place.
Chapter Two Zwingli and the Anabaptists
Huldrych Zwingli could be charged with bearing some responsibility for the emergence of the Anabaptist movement, since some of the earl y leaders began as his disciples. Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier, Felix Manz and Simon Stumpf were a mongst those who came to feel that Zwingli had capitulated to the authorities over his stance on the mass and the observance of images. 12 Zwingli had, himself, instigated discussion about the meaning and purpose of baptism, describing it as an outward sign, which does not wash away sin but is a sign of admission into the church and a pledge to live a Christ-like life. From this teaching, Zwingli’s followers drew the conclusion that baptism w as appropriate only for adults who had made a rational commitment to Christ. 13 W.P. Stephens notes that in 1525, Zwingli wrote, ‘I thought it much better not to baptize children until they had come to years of discretion’. 14 He held the view that the purpose of baptism was to strengthen faith, as it was an outward sign of inward washing. However, he did not stop the baptism of infants and by 1524 he felt the need to write in defence of infant baptism. Arguing from John 1.26-7 (the
11
John D. Roth ‘A Historical and Theological Context for Mennonite-Lutheran Dialogue’ in The Mennonite Quarterly Review Vol LXXVI July 2002 No. 3 at: http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july02.html 12 Lindberg, European Reformations pp.210-215 13 Ibid. p.206 14 W.P. .P. Stephens, Stephen s, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) p.194
Page 6
baptism by John the Baptist) and Acts 19.4, ‘John veril y baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus’, Zwingli explains that since those baptized by John were baptized before they knew Christ, it is perfectly legitimate to baptize an infant before he can express faith. Also, baptism replaces circumcision, which was applied t o infants before they had faith. To support this view he cites Colossians 2.11 ‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh b y the circumcision of Christ’. 15 He also argues that since infant baptism is not prohibited in the Scripture, it is most likely that infants were baptized with their parents. Zwingli published three major works on the question of baptism between 1525 and 1527. He was concerned that Anabaptist teachings on baptis m would undermine the Reformation, and accused them of troubling the church with an external issue when they taught that salvation was an internal matter. He claimed that they added to God’s word by prohibiting infant baptism, when no prohibition exists in Scripture .16 He also abandoned his previously held view that baptism strengthened faith, though admitting that he had seen this as a reason not to baptize infants in the past. He believed that the Anabaptists used baptism as device to enable them to restrain their brethren from sin, which would lead to legalism, since Christians should act from faith not from coercion. 17 Zwingli was concerned to refute the Anabaptist doctrine that the church should be pure and only those who are baptized believers can belong to it. To him, the visible church was a mixture of ‘wheat and tares’ as described in the parable in Matthew 13.24-30. (The debate over whether or not that argument is the undermined by b y the Lord’s explanation that the field is the world, is dealt with in Chapter Four). He argued that the covenant was made with all the people of Israel, including the children, and that Anabaptist views would lead to divisions in the church because baptism baptis m was a basis for unit y. 18
15
Stephens, Huldrych Zwingli p.196-7 Ibid p.199 17 Ibid pp.200-201 18 Ibid pp.264-5 16
Page 7
Zwingli attacks the Anabaptists for seeking to make changes without consulting the church. ‘For if every blockhead who had a novel or strange opinion were allowed to gather a sect around him, divisions and sects would become so numerous that the Christian body ( der
Christus) which we now build up with such difficulty would be broken to pieces in every individual congregation’. 19
Chapter Three Luther, Melancthon and the Anabaptists
Luther was seriously alarmed by the claims of Karlstadt and the Swabian peasants that their violent actions were justified by Scripture. He wrote to the Christians at Strassburg in 1524, ‘Dr Karlstadt has started disturbances among you with his fanaticism in the matter of the sacrament, images, and baptism.’ 20 As the peasant uprising continued, he also wrote to the Princes of Saxony, quoting Müntzer’s dismissal of Scripture as secondary to the internal voice of God through the Spirit. He continues: ‘As far as doctrine is concerned, ti me will tell…But when they want to do more than fight with the Word, Word, and begin to destroy destro y and use force, then your Graces must intervene…’ 21 During the Peasants’ War War of 1525, Luther realised that it was vital to regain control of the direction in which the Reformation was moving and his tract
Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes Hordes of Peasants contains language which was much harsher than that employed in previous tracts and letters. He writes: Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel…since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murderers, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. 22
19
Quoted in Stephens, Huldrych Zwingli p.266 Martin Luther Letter Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit (1524) in Carter Lindberg The European Reformations Sourcebook (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000) p.87 21 Luther Letter Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit (July 1524) in Lindberg Sourcebook p.88 20
Page 8
It was the involvement of Anabaptist figures in the peasant uprising, whether real or perceived, which really inflamed infla med Luther’s hostility towards them. There is no doubt t hat some of those who later became associated with the movement were, at the very least, sympathetic to the claims of the peasants. Balthasar Hubmaier preached against the abuses suffered by the peasants and had, in his past, been involved in anti-Semitic riots in Rebensburg and had enlisted Swiss volunteer soldiers against Ferdinand, the Hapsburg overlord of Waldshut. Waldshut. 23 The founders of the Swiss Brethren, who included Conrad Grebel, wrote to Thomas Müntzer, and although it is unlikely that the letter reached him, the contents show that the y felt that his position was close to their own. So much so that ‘It made us wonderfully happy to have found one who was one with us in a co mmon Christian understanding, and who ventured to point out to the evangelical preachers their deficiency…’ 24 However, the letter also makes it clear that the Brethren expect Müntzer to conform to t heir views on certain issues such as singing and the mass – ‘and operate only onl y according to the Word, Word, and draw and establish from the Word the rites of the apostles…although we admonish and entreat you, yet we do hope that you of yourself wish so to act.’ 25 As Müntzer was executed for his involvement in the Peasants’ War, War, any connection with him, however tenuous, would lay the Swiss Brethren open to accusations of rebellion and sedition. The terrible events in Münster, where the Anabaptist Anabaptist leaders crushed all dissent and encouraged polygamy, polygamy, before being overthrown in the massacre of 1535, came about as the result of the preaching of Bernard Rothman, a priest who was influenced by the apocalyptic teachings of Melchior Hoffman. In his biograph y of Hoffman, Klaus Deppermen argues that the tracts written by Rothman in 1533, clearly show that he saw t he policies practised in Münster as the logical conclusion to Hoffman’s Hoffman’s theology. theology. 26 Hoffman’s tract On the Pure Fear
22
Luther Against Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes Hordes of Peasants (1525) in Lindberg Sourcebook pp.97-8 23 Werner O. Packull Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation (USA: John Hopkins University Press, 1995) p.188 24 Grebel Letters to Thomas Muntzer in Estep Anabaptist Beginnings p.32 25 Ibid p.34 26 Klaus Deppermann Melchior Hoffman: social unrest and apocalyptic visions in the Age of T. Clark, 1987) p.342-5 Reformation (Edinburgh: T.& T.
Page 9
of God describes how the international kingdom of Joseph and Solomon would replace the ‘kingdom of Sodom and Babylon’ and when this was fully acco mplished the bridegroom, Christ, would appear to celebrate the Great Supper of the La mb (as described in Revelation ch.19). ch.19).27 According to Rothman, God’s dominion must be restored on earth b y the defeat of sin, both within the individual and in society. Thus Münster, rather than Strasbourg, as Hoffman had envisaged, was to be the New Jerusalem of the book of Revelations. The events at Münster convinced the Reformers of the dangerous nature of Anabaptist theology. theology. They were unable, or unwilling to draw distinctions between those whose apocalyptic beliefs led them to take up the sword against the ‘ungodly’, and those who embraced pacifism, believing that ‘from the time of the apostles until Emperor Constantine, no worldly power or sword was ever used among the Christians. Neither was it allowed according to the commandment of their master, except the sword of the Word alone’ .28 The nature of Hoffman’s ‘revolutionary pacifism’ led to an inevitable division between those of his followers who believed that it was the responsibility of the Christian to destroy the evildoer, and those who totally rejected the use of force for the believer, as Hans JürgenGoerst explains in The Anabaptists.29 He cites the case of Menno Simmons, who repudiated the militant stance of the Münster Anabaptists, but held to Hoffman’s views on the question of authority. Writing to Melancthon in 1522, Luther does not seem to be overly concerned about the emergence of a movement which rejected the baptism of infants. He declares that ‘If they do not appeal to anything but this passage, “He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved”, and to the fact that children cannot believe on their own account, that does not disturb me at all’. all’.30 In his book Luther Luther and the Reformation, James Mackinnon gives a very comprehensive explanation of Luther ’s response to the challenge of the Anabaptist movement. He argues that in the first instance, Luther merely notes the rapidity of their growth when writing to 27
Ibid pp.258-9 Anonymous Anabaptist Pamphlet c.1530 in Estep Anabaptist Beginnings pp.161-2 29 Hans Jürgen-Goertz The Anabaptists (London: Routledge, 1996) p.106 30 Martin Luther, ‘Letter to Melancthon, 13 th Jan. 1522’ in E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery ( ed.s), Martin Luther (London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, 1970) p.76 28
Page 10
Spalatin, ‘The Anabaptists are reputed to be increasing and to be scattered throughout every region’31 (28th December 1527), and to Jacob Probst, ‘The new sect increases marvellously in consequence of the great show of activity on the part of the living and t he boldness of its martyrs in suffering death by fire and water’ .32 Commenting on the treatment meted out to Anabaptists in the Romanist territories, he wrote: It is not right, and it fills me with pity, that such wretched people are so murdered, miserabl y burned and cruelly done to death. Every one ought to be allowed to believe what he will. If his belief is wrong, he will suffer punishment enough in the eternal fire of hell. Why will men persist in martyring such people in this life as long as they err only in matters of faith and do not, in addition, preach rebellion or otherwise resist the civil powers? 33
However, when the movement began to gain momentum in his own territory, Luther responded with greater severity. Writing Writing to Menius and Myconius he says: As they are not only blasphemous, but highly seditious, urge the use of the sword against them by right of law. For it is in accordance with the will of God that he should incur punishment who resists the civil power as the minister of God (Romans xiii 1-3). We may not, therefore, mete out better treatment to these men than God Himself and all the saints. 34. In his preface to the work ‘Concerning the Sneaks and Hedge-preachers’, which was addressed to Von Von der Thann, Luther asks who had commissioned these men and why the y do not consult with the Reformers and prove their credentials? He views the Anabaptist movement as a device of the devil, which is designed to discredit the Gospel .35 Luther appears to ignore the fact that the Anabaptists have been forced to behave clandestinely, clandestinely, because of the persecution they the y have suffered. Mackinnon argues that whereas Luther rediscovered the Gospel primarily through the writings of the apostle Paul, the Anabaptists rediscovered it mainly through Christ Hi mself. 36 31
Quoted in James Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation (London: Longmans, Green and Company Ltd, 1930) p.58 32 Ibid p.60 33 Ibid p.63 34 Ibid p.64 Ibid p.64 35 Ibid p.65 36 Mackinnon, Luther p.68
Page 11
By 1531, Luther was prepared to give his assent to the use of the death penalty for Anabaptists: ‘I, Luther, approve ( placet mihi Luthero) Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is still more cruel to damn the ministr y of the Word, Word, to propagate false doctrine and spurn the true, and in addition to seek to overthrow the kingdoms of this world’ 37 And, four years later, he joined Melancthon, Bugenhagen and Cruciger in signing a letter to Phillip of Hesse, which favoured the death penalty, believing it to be in accordance with Christian principles. Luther did add a postscript in which he reminded the Landgrave that mercy could always go hand in hand with justice. 38 Melancthon’s Melancthon’s antipathy to the movement intensified after the disastrous events at Münster. Münster. He was responsible for the interrogation of three prisoners at Jena. Heinz Krauth, Jobst Müller and Hans Peissker were clearly simple-minded believers who held the to doctrine of the community of goods, and refused to swear an oath. They did not accept the authority of the civil government, but were willing to abide b y its dictates, as far as conscience allowed. Melancthon concluded that they were perverse, ill-conditioned and opinionated, and recommended that they suffer the severest penalty. penalty. He supported this conclusion on the grounds of their refusal to submit to civil government, their objection to oaths, their communism and alleged infidelity to the marriage oath. As a result, they were found guilty of sedition, and executed. executed .39 Writing to Philip of Hesse, Melancthon insisted that the devil was at work in the movement and their teachings would lead to anarchy. anarchy. He argued that the authorities had a duty to punish blasphemy, according to Leviticus 24.16 ‘And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death’. He concluded that t he State was threatened by Separatist movements, and that an y ringleaders or obdurate followers should be put to death. 40 The main doctrinal objections to the Anabaptist movement, held by Luther and Melancthon, were enshrined in the Augsberg Confession of 1530. Although the main intent of
37
Ibid p.69 Ibid p.75 39 Ibid p.71-2 40 Mackinnon, Luther p.73-4 38
Page 12
this document was to defend the Reformers position with regard to Charles V, V, the Reformers took the opportunity to set down biblical arguments against what they perceived to be the heretical teachings of the Anabaptists and other radicals. The First Article declares the Reformers belief in the three Persons of the Godhead and condemns those who express a belief ‘that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that the “W “Word” ord” signifies a spoken word, and the t he “Spirit” signifies motion created in things’. 41 However, William William Estep argues that there is abundant evidence that ‘mainstream’ Anabaptists were convinced of the Triune nature of G od. He quotes from Hubmaier’s Twelve Articles of Christian Belief of 1526, which state: 1. ‘I believe believe in God, God, Father Father Almighty Almighty,, Maker Maker of heaven and earth, as my most precious Lord and most merciful Father… 2. I believe believe also also in Jesus Christ, Christ, thine thine only only begotten begotten Son, our Lord, that he for my sake has expiated (atoned) before thee for this fall… 8. I believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and yet with them is the only and true God…’42
Estep also claims that Pilgrim Pi lgrim Marpeck, who he describes as southern Germany’s foremost Anabaptist theologian, was clearly a believer in the Trinity, Trinity, and to illustrate this he quotes a translation of Marpeck’s writing in which he approvingly quotes Caspar Schwenckfeld: We believe there is one God and one divine Essence, but in the same divine Essence three independent (separate) Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; that all three are one God and that each Person possesses in Himself, undivided, the fullness of the divine Essence, which is also common to all three…43 Menno Simons had somewhat different views to those described, since he held the view that the meaning of the text ‘The Word was made flesh’ (John 1.14), was that Christ took nothing from Mary, but made Himself a bod y which merely used Mary as a channel. 41
F. Bente &W.H.T. Dau (Translators) ‘Augsberg Confession’ in Triglot Concordia: Concordia: Symbolic Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921) pp. 37-95 at: Project Wittenberg: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso 42 Quoted in William R. Estep The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1975) pp.183-4 43 Estep The Anabaptist Story p.185
Page 13
However, his acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is clear from his own writings such as
A Solemn Confession of the Triune, Eternal, and True God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : ‘God, we believe and confess with the Scriptures to be the eternal, incomprehensible Father with His eternal, incomprehensible Son, and with His eternal, incomprehensible Holy Spirit…’44 Although the biblical Anabaptists accepted the doctrine of the Trinity, Trinity, some of the more radical movements rejected it. It has been noted that the Rationalists, represented by Servetus, did not accept this doctrine, which Servetus famously described as ‘a three-headed Cerberus’.45 Article VIII condemns those who deny the right to use evil men to administer the sacraments since ‘Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men’. 46 The position taken by the Anabaptists was that unless a man really knew God, it was impossible for him to lead others to know Him, since Christ, speaking of the Pharisees, said ‘they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch’ (Matthew (Matthew 15.14). The Schleitheim Confession states that: ‘The pastor in the church of God shall, as Paul has prescribed, be one who out-and-out has a good report of those who are outside the faith.’ 47 Article IX deals with Baptism, declaring it to be necessary to salvation and explicitly condemning Anabaptists as those who say that children should not be baptized. In his Large
Catechism, Luther explains the significance of Baptism, as a sacrament ‘instituted by God, Himself’ and of supreme importance ‘since He Himself has honored it both by words and deeds; moreover, confirmed it with miracles from heaven’. 48 Proceeding to the subject of Infant Baptism, Luther argues that God has shown His acceptance of it, by blessing many who have received it with the Holy Hol y Ghost, ‘But if God did not accept the baptism of infants,
44
Ibid p.187 Michael Servetus ‘Letter to Abel Poupin, M inister in Geneva’ in Lindberg Sourcebook p.179 46 Bent and Dau ‘Augsberg Confession’ 47 Michael Sattler, ‘The Schleitheim Confession’ in Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.102 48 Martin Luther The Large Catechism at: Project Wittenberg: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso 45
Page 14
He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian’. 49 Many examples could be supplied to illustrate the Anabaptist’s Anabaptist’s teaching on baptism, such as that quoted in note 3, from Grebel’s letter to Müntzer, or this from Hubmaier: Baptism in water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, is nothing other than a public confession and testimony of an inward faith and commitment. With this act one publicly testifies and before everyone professes that he is a sinner. Even though admittedly guilty yet he believes firmly that Christ, through his own death, has forgiven those sins, and made him holy in the sight of God, our Heavenly Heavenl y Father.50 Hubmaier makes it clear that since man must be brought to recognize that he is a sinner, it follows that he must have reached the age of reason. In the following chapter he states that ‘John never baptized young children but only those who felt the guilt of their sins and confessed them’. 51 Hans Hut argues that baptism is a symbol or reminder to the believer of the real baptism which he must experience in order to be truly saved: Thus the baptism which follows preaching and faith is not the true essence through which people become pious, but only a symbol, a covenant, a likeness, and a reminder of a person’s consent, so that he is reminded daily to expect the real baptism. Christ speaks of real baptism as the water of all grief, through which the Lord purifies, washes and justifies all carnal lusts, sins and impure actions (Matthew 20). 52
Article XII explains the Reformers stance on repentance and states that ‘for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance…[This condemns] the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified c an lose the Holy Hol y Ghost’. Ghost’ .53 This Article presents the Reformers belief that it is possible for a Christian to lose his salvation and then 49
Ibid Balthasar Hubmaier Of Baptism: Of several kinds of baptism, which are the same, In Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.69 51 Ibid p.71 52 Hans Hut, On the Mystery of Baptism in Michael E. Baylor (ed.) The Radical Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p.162 53 Bent and Dau ‘Augsberg Confession’ 50
Page 15
regain it, whilst the Anabaptists argued that, once saved, it was impossible to then be lost. They would undoubtedly have cited texts such as Romans 8.30, ‘whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified’. The Anabaptists believed that one who persistently sinned, was indicating that he had never been truly converted, but those who were truly converted were as good as ‘glorified’ already. already. Hubmaier denies that Anabaptists believe in sinless perfection in his tract Concerning the Christian Baptism of ‘We know that both before and after baptism, we are poor and miserable sinners… Believers. ‘We If any such speech were uttered by some foolish men, they should be confronted and set right’.54 Article XVI deals with civil affairs, and maintains the duty of the Christian to ‘sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers’ 55 and so forth. Since the Anabaptists refused to swear oaths, and did not consider themselves to be subject to civil authorities, this article condemned them. The Schleitheim Confession deals with the question of civil duty: Lastly, Lastly, it should be pointed out that it is not fitting for a Christian to be a magistrate for these reasons: the authorities’ governance is according to the flesh, but the Christian’s Christian’s is according to the spirit. Their houses and dwellings remain in these worlds, but the Christian’s is in heaven. Their weapons of conflict and war are carnal and only directed against the flesh, but the Christian’s weapons are spiritual and directed against the fortifications of the devil.56
This doctrine was based on the example of Christ: ‘Christ did not wish to decide or pass judgement between brother and brother…therefore we should do likewise’ and, ‘They wished to make Christ king, but he fled…Thus shall we do as he did, and follow him’ .57 Hubmaier disagreed with this interpretation and argued that although Christ rejected the office of judge in earthly matters, this was because it was not the purpose for which he beca me a man. 54
Balthasar Hubmaier On the Christian Baptism of Believers in Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.67 Bent and Dau ‘Augsberg Confession’ 56 Michael Sattler The Schleitheim Articles in Baylor, The Radical Reformation p.178 57 Sattler, ‘The Schleitheim Confession’ in Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.103 55
Page 16
Referring to Christ’s question ‘Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?’ (Luke (Luke 12.14) he explains ‘Notice here that Christ does not reject the office of judge…Rather, he shows that no one should set himself up as a judge unless he has been called and elected to be one’. one’.58 Speaking of the sword of justice in the hand of a Christian magistrate, he continues ‘for the sword is nothing but a good rod and scourge of God, which he ordered to be wielded against evildoers’. 59 Although many biblical Anabaptists held to the doctrine t hat civil government was for the kingdom of this world, and did not have authority authorit y over those who were in God’s God’s kingdom, on the whole they were willing to obe y civil governments as far as their consciences would allow. This did not protect them from accusations of sedition and the severe penalties which ensued, as the case dealt with by Melancthon, at Jena, illustrates. (See note 27). Article XVII deals with the second coming of Christ and the judgement of the lost. This states that the devils and the ungodly will be tor mented for eternity, eternity, a doctrine which the Anabaptists are accused of denying, claiming that there will be an end to their punishments. 60 According to Estep, this misconception arose from a wrong understanding by Johannes Kessler, of the soteriology of Hans Denck: ‘His opinion was that no man would go to hell nor would the devil be lost forever, but after a certain time all would be saved; for Paul said: God desires all men to be saved’. 61 Estep refers to J. J. Kiwiet who, in his Life of Denck , demonstrates that Kessler misinterpreted Denck’s theology, theology, which actually a ctually taught that Christ’s death was sufficient for all but only effective to those who believed. 62 Certainly, this accusation could not be levelled at Melchior Hoffmann, who writes in 1533, ‘For eternal vengeance is at the door…there will be eternal tor ment and suffering for those who have gone against the Lord’s will on purpose and for those who have knowingly spilt innocent blood and for those who have unjustly unjustl y rejected and hindered God’s truth’. 63 Ulrich Stadler, who was a
58
Balthasar Hubmaier On the Sword in Baylor, The Radical Reformation p.188 Ibid p.197 60 Bent and Dau ‘Augsberg Confession’ 61 Quoted in Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings pp.110-111 62 Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.111 63 Melchior Hoffman, Von deò reiner forchte Gottes quoted in Deppermann, Melchior Hoffman p.259 59
Page 17
leader of the Hutterite community at Butschowitz, and who died in 1540, writes ‘In the final judgement, God will sentence the immortal to either eternal life or to eternal punishment. Whoever here, in this life, is punished by God, and who accepts the punishment will not perish with the world (I Cor 11:32). 11:32). Whoever does not is bound bound by God's word to eternal death’.64
Chapter Four Calvin’s Treatise against the Anabaptists
Jean Calvin probably first came in to contact with the Anabaptists in the 1530’s but it was not until 1544 that he wrote his Treatises Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the
Libertines in reply to a plea from William Farel. The Treatises contains a reply to the Seven Articles of the Schleitheim Confession, and also includes a treatise against the Libertines. Calvin accepts that they are quite distinct from the Anabaptists, who do at least receive the Holy Scriptures. This should not give the impression that Calvin had any sympathy for the Anabaptists, who he describes as; ‘vermin [who] give rise to a whole sea of insane views… full of many perverse and pernicious errors’. errors’ .65 The Treatise deals with the First, Second Sixth and Seventh Articles, rejecting each one with Scriptural arguments, and occasionally accepting minor areas of agreement, and on the Anabaptist teaching on the Incarnation and the State of Souls After Death. The First Article deals with baptism and states that ‘Baptism ought to be given to those who have been instructed in repentance, who believe that their sins have been blotted out b y Jesus Christ, and who want to t o walk in His resurrection. Consequently, Consequently, it ought to t o be administered to those who request it for themselves, not for infants, as is done in the pope’s kingdom’. kingdom’.66 In response to this, Calvin argues that i nfant baptism has been observed since t he
64
Ulrich Stadler The Writings of Ulrich Stadler ‘Justice and Judgement in the House of God’ at: the Anabaptist Church, http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/stadler1.htm http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/stadler1.htm 65 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.39 66 Quoted from the Schleitheim Confession in Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.44
Page 18
time of the apostles and that to attribute it to the popes is ‘impudent slander’. 67 He goes on to explain that instruction before baptism was necessary for those who came to Christianity from pagan or Jewish roots, but that for the children of believers, their salvation is promised by God, ‘For it is said to him: “ I am thy God, and the God of thy children after thee” (Gen.17:7)…for this reason infants of believers are baptized by virtue of this covenant’. 68 Hubmaier rejects this argument in his On Baptism, insisting that: ‘history often shows that fathers and mothers bring forth good and bad fruit. Take as an example Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, God does not decide according to parentage’. 69 Calvin also uses the argument that baptism replaced circumcision as the confirmation of acceptance into the church, contending that, though Abraham received instruction concerning faith and repentance, his seed participated in the same benefit: ‘And thus Isaac and all the other successors were circumcised at infancy’. 70 The Second Article states that: ‘The ban ought to be used against all who have made a profession of faith and who have been baptized, but who nevertheless have fallen into some error inadvertently without intention’. 71 The offender should be warned twice i n private before being publicly banished. Calvin accepts the necessity of the ban but argues that it is the Anabaptist’s insistence that where the ban does not operate, there is no church, which is at fault. He agrees that ‘it certainly certainl y is an imperfection and unfortunate stain [ mauvaise tache] in a church where this order is absent. Nevertheless, we do not hold it to be the church, nor persist in its necessity for communion, nor do we hold that it is lawful for people to separate themselves from the church’. 72 Once again the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13) is used to illustrate the point that both good and evil people, believers and unbelievers, will remain together until the end of the world. The Anabaptists would have undoubtedly have pointed out that when Jesus explained the parable to his disciples in verses 37-42 of Matthew
67
Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.45 Ibid p.47 69 Hubmaier, Of Baptism, in Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings p.93 70 Ibid p.49 71 Quoted from the Schleitheim Confession in Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.56 72 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.57 68
Page 19
13, He said that the field was the world, not the kingdom of God. They would have understood the parable to be an explanation of why God did not immediatel y judge those who rejected the gospel. The Reformers did not see the church as separate from the world in the same way as the Anabaptists did, but rather viewed it as all-embracing, in the way that Anglicans consider everyone born within a parish to be part of the parish church. Calvin dismisses the Fourth Article, which deals with separation from the world, because it concludes with a rejection of the sword, whether to assist one’s friends or against one’s enemies. He maintains that the public sword is ordained by God for our protection, and that to condemn it is blasphemy. blasphemy. 73 Article Six deals with the question of whether a Christian should be a magistrate, and the Anabaptist arguments have already been considered. (See notes 54-57). Calvin co mments that the Anabaptists have modified their original position in that they allow that the sword ‘punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards and protects the good’ .74 However, they insist that this is ‘outside the perfection of Christ’ 75, which means that it is unlawful for a Christian to hold the office of magistrate. Calvin refers to many instances in the Old Testament Testament where godly men such as David, Hezekiah and Josiah had positions of kingly authority, authority, and also mentions Daniel, who made use of temporal power. 76 He also quotes passages which prophecy that kings will worship Christ and foster the church. He actually uses the same arguments as Hubmaier when dealing with the point that Christ refused the office of judge, explaining that this was not the purpose for which he entered the world. 77 In dealing with the Seventh Article, which states that ‘for Christians, all swearing is forbidden by our Lord Jesus Christ’, Calvin agrees that the name of God is cheapened by the proliferation of swearing oaths. However, he feels that the Anabaptists have not paid sufficiently close attention to the meaning of the words of Jesus, when He said ‘Swear not at all’, (Matthew 5.34). He refers to Deuteronomy 6.13 and 10.20, where God’s people are 73
Ibid p.72 Sattler, ‘The Schleitheim Confession’ at: http://www.anabaptists.org/history/schleith.ht http://www.anabaptists.org/history/schleith.html ml 75 Quoted in Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.77 76 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.77 77 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.84 74
Page 20
commanded to fear Him, serve Him and swear by His name. Calvin insists that Christ is teaching that our words should be truthful and free of hypocrisy, hypocrisy, but that it is acceptable to to swear to do one’s duty duty.. Only swearing that is vain and thoughtless, is wrong, and to be condemned. condemned.78 Calvin concludes the Treatise by dealing with two issues that he feels are of great importance, and which he claims are common to most Anabaptists. These are; the form in which Christ became incarnate, and the state of souls between death and the Da y of Judgement. Benjamin Firley, the translator of the Treatise, argues that it is unlikely that the view of the Incarnation which Calvin attacks here was held b y Michael Sattler, and that it was actually the teaching of Melchior Hoffman, who would not have been seen as an evangelical Anabaptist. Anabaptist.79 According to Calvin, the Anabaptists maintained that Christ was not a true man, since He took nothing from Mar y, and only used her as a channel. Hoffman explains that since ‘the whole of Adam’s Adam’s seed was cursed and damned and belonged to death and Satan…If redemption had been achieved by b y Mary’s Mary’s flesh and blood God would have wronged Satan’. 80 Menno Simmons held a similar view, quoted by Firley: ‘This same woman conceived in her womb the afore-mentioned seed, which is God’s Word, not from her body, nor of her body, but by God, by b y the power of the Holy Ghost, through faith’, and ‘The Word…was not Abraham’s Abraham’s flesh and blood’. 81 The reason that this doctrine was of such great importance to those who held it, was that they the y believed that if Christ had any part of human flesh in His being, then He would be tainted with original sin, and unable to redeem sinful people. Calvin argues that this difficulty is overcome by the miraculous conception: ‘For the Holy Spirit intervened in order to sanctify Him from the beginning and, in sanctifying Him, to preserve Him so that He might not be stained b y any human pollution of any kind’. 82 He also points to numerous texts which refer to Christ as the ‘seed’ of Eve (Genesis 3.15), Abraham (Genesis 78
Ibid p.100 Ibid p.106 fn.6 80 Quoted in Deppermann, Hoffman p.225 81 Quoted from Menno Simmons Incarnation in Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.114-5 fn.58 82 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.116 79
Page 21
12.3) and Jacob (Genesis28.14), as coming from the loins of David (Psalm 132.11) and being a shoot ‘from the root of Jesse’ (Isaiah (Isaiah 11.1). Firley describes Calvin’s treatment of the Anabaptist doctrine on the state of souls after death in the Treatise as a more readily accessible version of his Psychopannychia, which was his first theological work as a Protestant. Protestant .83 Calvin claims that ‘the Anabaptists in general all hold that souls, being departed from the body, cease to live until the day of the resurrection’ .84 It is unclear whether this was a generall y held doctrine for the evangelical Anabaptists, Anabaptists, but it is of interest to note that the Mennonite Encyclopaedia of 1617 states that:
And, even as, when a man falls into a deep sleep, his heart, soul or spirit does not entirely sleep, as the body; so also the spirit or soul of man does not die or fall asleep with the body, but is and remains an immortal spirit. Hence temporal death, in the Scriptures, is called a sleep, and the resurrection of the dead an awakening from this sleep of death. And as a sleeping man cannot receive and enjoy any good gifts, either according to the soul or the body, much less any punishment, pain and torment, unless he be previously awakened fro m his sleep; so also, believers cannot receive the perfect heavenly existence, nor unbelievers the eternal death or the pain of hell, e ither in the soul or in the body bod y, except they have first been awakened from the sleep of death, and have arisen, through the coming co ming of Christ. Christ .85 This would seem to envisage an existence in which the body sleeps but the soul is in a state somewhere between full appreciation of eternal bliss and total oblivion. Calvin differentiates between those who believe that the soul is not a separate entit y, and those who accept the existence of a soul in essence, but deny that it has ‘any feeling or consciousness, [after death] until the day of judgement’ .86 He establishes the many ways in which Scripture uses the term ‘soul’ and concludes that though man shares a living soul wi th the beasts, yet his soul differs in that it bears the image of God. This difference is illustrated by the words of Solomon, who says that at death ‘the body returns to the earth…and the soul
83
Calvin, Against the Anabaptists (Editor’s Introduction) p.24 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.119 85 Mennonite Encyclopaedia Article 31, at Mennonite Historical Society of Canada: http://www.mhsc.ca 86 Calvin, Against the Anabaptists p.120 84
Page 22
returns to God, who gave it’ (Ecclesiastes 12.7). 87 Calvin also refers to the passage in Revelations where the souls of the martyrs cry out ‘Lord, how long dost thou delay before avenging our blood?’, and are given white robes and commanded to be patient for a while (Revelation 6.9). 88 Some might deem this choice of text ironic considering the vast numbers of Anabaptists who suffered martyrdom. Calvin deals with this issue in greater depth than can be covered here, but he clearly sees this doctrine as dangerous and unscriptural, and is at pains to discredit it. Farley argues that, for his ti me, Calvin’s treatment of the Anabaptists was more charitable than most. He views them more with pit y than with blame, describing them as ‘ignorant’, ‘deluded’ and ‘foolish ignoramuses’, rather than ‘scoundrels’ or ‘blasphemers’ .89
Chapter Five Conclusions
The Reformers presented clear doctrinal reasons for their antipathy to the Anabaptist movement, primarily, primarily, their rejection of infant baptism and the swearing of the oath, with the resulting ban on the believer serving as a magistrate, and the t he emphasis by some Anabaptists on the community of goods. However, Ho wever, no two Reformers had identical responses to Anabaptist teachings, and in some instances Anabaptists doctrine was closer to what one Reformer taught than the teachings of other Reformers. An example of this is Zwingli’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper, that the words ‘This is my body’ (Matthew 26.26) are symbolic.90 The Anabaptists would have agreed with him, but Luther was never able to reconcile himself to Zwingli’s view and declared ‘Ye have another spirit than ours’. 91 The Reformers feared that doctrines that included the rejection of infant baptism and the refusal to take the oath, would be viewed as seditious by the civil authorities, and could undermine the 87
Ibid p.121 Ibid p.126 89 Quoted in Calvin, Against the Anabaptists (Editor’s Introduction) p.30 90 Stephens, Huldrych Zwingli p.238 91 Quoted in H.G. Haile, Luther: A Biography , (London: Sheldon Press, 1980) p.125 88
Page 23
Reformation. They also failed to differentiate between those Anabaptists who were known to be involved in violent and seditious activities, and those who were simply peaceful and peaceloving believers who interpreted Scripture in slightly different ways to their own. Estep believes that the Reformers were careless, in that the Lutherans confused the teachings of the Zwickau prophets and Thomas Müntzer with that of the Swiss Brethren, and the Calvinists associated them with the Rationalists and the Libertines. This, he argues, was unhelpful both to the Anabaptist cause and to accurate historical judgement of the movement. 92 Zwingli’s particular detestation and vicious treat ment of the Anabaptists may have owed much to the fact that some of the founders were his own disciples, who had found fault with the direction the Reformation was taking under his leadership. Luther clearly took fright over the Peasant War, and could not tolerate any an y movement that appeared to be associated with it. Finall y, it is hard to escape the conclusion that much of the hostility of the Reformers was due to a combination of confusion over the particulars of doctrine held by the various groups, and an inability, or lack of will, to differentiate between those who genuinely posed a threat, and those who were innocent of any offence beyond the way in which they interpreted the Scriptures.
Bibliography
Primary Sources * F. Bente &W.H.T. Dau (Translators) ‘Augsberg Confession’ in Triglot Concordia: Symbolic Books of the Ev. Ev. Lutheran Church (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921) at: Project Wittenberg: Wittenberg: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso * John Calvin, Treatises Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, edit. and trans. by Benjamin Wirt Farley, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) * Martin Luther, The Large Catechism at: Project Wittenberg: Wittenberg: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/reso * Mennonite Encyclopaedia (1617), Article 31, at Mennonite Historical Society of Canada: http://www.mhsc.ca * Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren Vol.I at http://www.anabaptistchurch.org http://www.anabaptistchurch.org (n.d.) * Sattler, ‘The Schleitheim Confession’ at: http://www http://ww w.anabaptists.org/history .anabaptists.org/history/schleith.html /schleith.html 92
Estep, Anabaptist Story p.4
Page 24
* Ulrich Stadler The Writings of Ulrich Stadler ‘Justice and Judgement in the House of God’ at: the Anabaptist Church, http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/stadler1.htm http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/stadler1.htm Secondary sources * Michael E. Baylor (ed.) The Radical Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) * Klaus Deppermann Melchior Hoffman: social unrest and apocalyptic visions in the Age of Reformation (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1987) * William R. Estep The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1975) * W.R. Estep Jnr, Anabaptist Beginnings (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976) * Chris Good, The Anabaptists and the Reformation (1998) at: http://www.rbc.org.nz/library/anabap.htm * H.G. Haile, Luther: A Biography , (London: Sheldon Press, 1980) * Hans Jürgen-Goertz The Anabaptists (London: Routledge, 1996) * Carter Lindberg The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996) * Carter Lindberg The European Reformations Sourcebook Sourcebook (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000) * James Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation (London: Longmans, Green and Company Ltd, 1930) * Werner O. Packull Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation (USA: John Hopkins University Press, 1995) * John D. Roth ‘A Historical and Theological Context for Mennonite-Lutheran Dialogue’ in The Mennonite Quarterly Review Vol LXXVI July 2002 No. 3 at: http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july02.html * E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery (ed.s), Martin Luther (London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, 1970) * W.P. W.P. Stephens, S tephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
