exiles found themselves unable to land without assistance. The

exiles found themselves unable to land without assistance. The

was partly introduced in 1542 but, similar as in other provinces where the new state church was not yet fully established, the government showed itself lenient toward the Mennonites, although they were by no means openly tolerated. They had a congregation in this city. Menno writes of his experience in this place in a way which throws interesting light on the attitude of the authorities of Wismar toward the dissenters.

Menno had in Wismar a few discussions with Hermes Backereel and Martin de Cleyne, called Micron. The former came to Wismar from London. After the Smalcaldian war, when Menno saw himself compelled to leave Cologne, the Zwinglians also were oppressed in certain states. Many went to England, among them John a'Lasco and Hermes Backereel. They organized churches in London during the reign of Edward VI, and prospered for a time. The sudden death of this ruler, who was succeeded by his sister Mary, "the bloody," compelled all Protestants to leave England. On September 15, 1553, one hundred seventy-five persons embarked in two Danish ships at London for the continent of Europe. But whither could they go? The countries that could be reached by way of the sea were nearly all of the Catholic religion. They decided to go to Lutheran Denmark. King Christian of Denmark received them friendly, but when he learned that they were Zwinglians, he ordered them to leave his country. In the cold season of the year they saw themselves again compelled to take to sea.

One of the ships carrying the fugitives arrived at Wismar on December 21. The ship froze fast in the ice some distance from the shore and the exiles found themselves unable to land without assistance. The citizens and authorities of Wismar were obviously inclined to take the same attitude toward them, as the King of Denmark. Martin Luther had repeatedly given advice that Zwinglians should not be tolerated under Lutheran government; but here were people in danger of life and in sore need of help.

Menno Simons, in his defence against Martin Micron, describes the event of their coming to Wismar as follows:

"In the year 1553, a little before midwinter, it came to pass that word

came to the brethren at Wismar) to the effect that a ship load of people had arrived from Denmark, who for the sake of their faith were driven from England, and that they lay a short distance from the shore frozen up in the ice."

"When the brethren heard this, they were moved with Christian mercy toward them, as was proper and reasonable. They counselled together and did what was in their power to help them out of the ice and to make an acceptable way for them to get into the city without any commotion; as they also did, although they knew that to do so might bring to them trouble with the government."

"They met them with wheat bread and wine, so, if there should be any sick or of delicate health among them, that they might refresh and strengthen them therewith. And after they had escorted them into the city, they brought together twenty-four Thalers out of their poverty and presented them to the leading men among them, that the needy, if there were any such among them, might be served and helped. The money they refused and said, 'We need no money and ask only that work may be secured for some of us.' In this our brethren assisted them as much as they could."

"In like manner one of our number, to be of service to them, offered to take the children of John a'Lasco into his house and to do the best he could for them. To this suggestion Hermes Backereel answered, 'No, this would not be proper; for John a'Lasco is a man who often has dealings with lords, princes and other high personages; it might Oh, reader observe) injure his reputation if his children should sojourn with such people. Hearing this I observed that we had not met with the plain, true, humble pilgrims of Christ"

On December 26, 1553 Menno had a discussion with Hermes Backereel on various points of doctrine. Thereupon the Zwinglian party sent one, named Bartholomew Huysman, to Martin Micron, a minister of their persuasion at Norden in East Friesland, to request him to come to their assistance in the debate with Menno. Micron came to Wismar on January 25, 1554, and had two conferences with Menno. On February 6 the questions of baptism, the incarnation of

Christ, the oath, divorce, the calling of the ministers and the civil authorities were discussed. The meeting lasted without interception for eleven hours and ended with a common meal. On February 15 the two men met again and discussed not without bitterness on both sides, on the incarnation of Christ.

The discussions between Menno Simons and the Zwinglian leaders at Wismar must not be thought of as public affairs. Public debates between Zwinglians and Anabaptists were entirely out of the question within Lutheran territory. Menno writes: "The discussion was granted Hermes and his friends on the condition that they should tell no man since I was a poor, delicate man and hated of all the world) where the meeting took place. Upon this they, on their part, gave our brethren their hand, promising that they would never betray it. But how they have kept their word, their deeds have shown." It is clear from Menno's statements that the magistrates of the city in general entertained not unfavourable opinions of the Brethren; they did not molest them as long as they kept themselves in quietness and did not attract public attention. But public meetings of the Brethren were entirely out of the question; the authorities would have exposed themselves to grave dangers, had they granted them such liberties. The local authorities would not have admitted, if called to account, that they were aware of the presence of Anabaptists in the city.

On the question of the attitude of the Wismar authorities toward the Brethren, Menno's writings contain some interesting data. He says: "In similar manner they the Zwinglian exiles) have failed to return gratitude to the city which showed them more kindness than all the eastern lands and Denmark, when in midwinter they knew not where to find shelter and were permitted to remain in the city for some time). By their unsalted, partial writings they have caused the city to be suspected by lords and princes and by other cities, that the authorities tolerated and favoured us, although they knew no more of my place of abode than of the hour of their own death". Apparently the magistrates knew not Menno's dwelling place, and did not desire to know it. In his Epistle to Martin Micron Menno writes: "Besides you have given information concerning the place where I dwelled until

that time, which Hermes had upon his inquiry learned from a little child, although it was well known to you that everywhere my life is undeservedly sought, out of mere hatred of the truth".

Again Menno writes: "Not long after the first discussion at Wismar it was known in the streets of Embden where Menno lived and that Micron and his friends had a discussion with him.". "When I had thus answered his (Micron's) last question, they left me and went to the front part of the house. I was told by the brethren that he was still arguing there .... also some of his companions, standing about the door near the street, became too loud in their talk. Then they were told by some of the brethren, it were well if they would go, since in consequence of attracting public notice we would all be in danger of being driven from the city."

Martin Micron published under the title A True Account, in 1556, a part of the proceedings of his discussions with Menno. In this book he advanced charges of a personal nature against his opponent. Menno in turn wrote A Very Plain and Pointed Reply to the Anti-christian Doctrine and false Account by Micron Concerning the Discussion between Him and Myself, Held in 1553. This is one of Menno Simons' largest books and contains material which is of considerable historical interest. On April 12, 1556, Micron wrote to Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich informing him that about two weeks ago Menno's Reply was published and unless a strong answer was made "there is danger that many unlearned persons will be led astray by Menno's book," an evidence that his opponents recognised the great influence of his writings.

A few weeks after the discussion at Wismar, namely on February 23, when the arrival of the exiles from England had become known in other parts, they were banished from the city. They went to Lübeck. The Mennonites had not attracted public attention to the same extent. While the Zwinglians had not been in danger of their lives at Wismar apparently they did not expect that they would be permitted to stay) the laws demanded the severest measures against the Anabaptists. An edict was published on August 1, 1555 by six cities of the Hanseatic League, namely Lübeck, Hamburg, Rostock, Stralsund, Wismar and

Lüneburg against the Anabaptists as well as against the "Sacramentarians" those who denied the real bodily presence of the Lord in the supper, i.e. the Zwinglians). In all probability Menno Simons had previously returned to Holstein.

In Wismar seven elders and ministers held a conference in 1554 and adopted a number of rules and resolutions having reference to Christian practice and church discipline. These Wismar Decisions have been preserved, but evidently not in their original form. The articles, in the form in which they have been handed down to us, are of doubtful authority; the text is in part clearly corrupt and unreliable.

IX MENNO SIMONS' RELATION TO THE STATE-CHURCH REFORMATION

Menno Simons believed the Reformation in so far as it was identified with the state-churchism to be superficial and inadequate and its principles partly unscriptural.

Both Luther in Germany and Zwingli in Switzerland, the leading reformers, in the first period of their reformatory endeavours advocated the voluntary principle and liberty of conscience. Obviously they entertained in that period the optimistic hope that the Roman Church as a whole would consent to a reformation at least in those parts of the land to which the influence of the reformers principally extended. But in the course of a few years this hope proved groundless. And it became apparent that neither Luther's fellowcitizens in Saxony, nor Zwingli's countrymen in Zurich would as a whole accept the opinions of these reformers, if they were permitted to choose for themselves. Some would prefer to keep the Roman Catholic faith, and others were inclined to follow other reformers who on important questions were at variance with Luther and Zwingli, such as Carlstadt and Grebel.

The leading reformers preached the new doctrines a number of years before any changes in worship and practice were attempted. The governments protected them in the teaching of new doctrine, but were not yet ready to consent to changes in practice. Until the year

1525 the church of Saxony and Zurich did not formally throw off the papal yoke; the Roman Church was until then the state church, despite the anti-Romish doctrines which were advanced by the reformers and their friends. For many centuries the church in these lands had been nominally a unit; the Roman Church was the state church, and the state did not permit deviations from the Roman Catholic practice. It was finally realized that only if the state was permitted to fight the battles of the church, as had been the case heretofore, could the nominal unity of the church be maintained.

Both Luther and Zwingli in teaching and preaching the new doctrines were protected by the state to the full extent of its power, but this protection was subject to the condition that the reformers, in the work which they had undertaken, would go hand in hand with the state. This was deemed necessary by the reformers for the success of the Reformation. As a human undertaking it was difficult to conceive that the attempted reformation of the church could be successful to any marked degree without the aid of the state but, on the other hand, if the new creed was introduced by the state and was made obligatory for the population as a whole, the great task of the reformers was immeasurably reduced; it would consist largely in persuading the princes to accept the new doctrines. Even if the state merely tolerated the reformers without lending them its strong arm to establish a new church, Luther could hope to win a large following. But what was the outlook for the church if the state took an inimical attitude, making the preaching and acceptance of the new doctrine unlawful? It is certain that Luther's sovereign, the Duke and Elector John of Saxony, would have refused to protect or tolerate him, had he insisted on a separation of church and state and liberty of conscience. Luther, in short, came to the conclusion that "there is no way out, except through the arm of the government." He consented to an amalgamation of church and state, a departure that was fraught with the most demoralizing consequences for the cause of the church reformation.

That Luther and Zwingli decided upon the continuation of the union of church and state, became evident before any changes from Roman Catholic worship and practice were introduced. Luther entertained

the hope that the church would be granted some measure of selfgovernment by the state; he consecrated one of his friends Amsdorf) bishop for the diocese of Naumburg, but the state refused to make a proper distinction between the new bishop and other ministers. Against his own inclination Luther finally gave his consent that the ruling princes should accept the office of summi episcopi or supreme bishop of the church in their respective countries. But these princes were as a rule pre-eminently statesmen and politicians. Some of them were guilty of grave offences in life and conduct. Some of the princes who through the woeful amalgamation of church and state became the heads of the church led lives that were hardly surpassed in profligacy by the worst characters which ever occupied the so-called chair of St. Peter. Some of these princes would not have accepted the new creed, had not the new order of things greatly enhanced their power, giving them the right to rule the church and the opportunity to confiscate the wealth of the cloisters. While formerly the church had been the mistress of the state, now in consequence of making the ruling princes the heads of the church, she was compelled to take the position of the state's humble handmaiden. The ministers became, virtually, officers of the state, and were designated as such by the decrees of certain princes.

In the provinces whose rulers accepted the new creed the priests were given orders to cease saying Mass and discard certain other Roman Catholic ceremonies and usages; they should preach the Gospel of justification by faith and all the doctrines of the Lutheran creed - all on pain of dismissal from their office. The priests were as a rule willing to accept the new order of things. A new organization was not undertaken. The people were never asked to unite with a new church. The Lutheran state church was identical with the former Roman Catholic state church as concerned the membership. The changes were introduced in the church, not by the people or by the priests, but by the heads of the state. The people had no choice in the matter. The infamous principle Cujus regio ejus religio (i.e. whose is the region his is the religion) ruled supreme; this principle was somewhat later formally accepted by the Estates of the empire. In

consequence the population of a given state was compelled to accept the faith of its ruler and to change their creed if the ruler accepted a new faith. The people of the Upper Palatinate saw themselves obliged to accept not less than four changes of this sort. "Everyone" says S. Franck, "fashions his faith to please the authorities; no one will suffer persecution for the faith's sake." The qualities which make for martyrdom were crushed by the existing relation between church and state. To turn the cause of the church and of the Reformation over to the state was to destroy the true religious spirit where it existed. Surprisingly small is the number of those who died as martyrs for the Lutheran cause after the establishment of the Lutheran state churches; the few instances of martyrdom occurred in the earlier years of Luther's reformatory labours.

The failure of the state church Reformation to bring about a real reformation of the church, was fully made clear in the great crisis which resulted from the utter defeat of the Lutheran princes by the Catholic Emperor in the Smalcaldian war, not long after Luther's death. The treason of the Lutheran Duke Maurice of Saxony and other Protestant princes made possible this victory of the Catholic party. The Emperor now demanded that the Lutherans accept the so-called Interim or "go-between-religion;" they should again embrace Roman Catholicism but were permitted to give the cup to the laity and retain their married ministers until a General Council of the Roman Catholic Church to which their delegates were to be admitted, should decide whether they could further enjoy these concessions. What the final decision of the proposed General Council would be it was easy to conjecture. The Protestant ministers knew that they eventually would be compelled to resign their charges if they found it impossible to divorce their wives. The weak Melanchthon who had held that all deviation from Lutheran teaching on the part of the Anabaptists should be treated as blasphemy, was now of the opinion that the Protestants should accept the Interim, submit to the sovereignty of the Roman Catholic bishops and of the pope and restore the old forms of worship, and practically all the old ceremonies. He urged that it was kind of the Emperor to concede to the Lutherans the above mentioned

two points and it were better to accept the Interim than to submit outright to Roman Catholicism. He did not believe that the state churches were minded to bear persecution for their faith, neither did he ask them to do so. To a high dignitary of the Roman Church he wrote quite truthfully that he was not responsible for the separation of the Lutheran Church from the Roman Catholic Church.

Martin Bucer, who besides Melanchthon was the most prominent Protestant leader in Germany, was imprisoned on account of his opposition to the compromise prescribed by the Emperor, and in prison at Augsburg he also subscribed to the Interim in order that he might be set free." He was released and returned to Strasburg where he continued his opposition to the Interim. Remarkably enough he found it necessary to defend himself against the charge that his refusal to accept the religion prescribed by the civil authorities, was a proof of Anabaptist tendencies. That such a charge was advanced against him is not surprising in view of the fact that in 1546 he had asserted: To give liberty of religion to those who do not disturb the external political peace, is "an Anabaptist error." Did not the Emperor act in agreement with Bucer's own view when he used his power to suppress what in his opinion was heresy? Melanchthon and his friends advanced the view that those who refused to be guided by the religious decrees of the civil authorities were guilty of disturbance and uproar. But the Lutheran princes did not desire to have Romanism restored and to resign their positions as the rulers of the church. Maurice of Saxony turned traitor a second time. Secretly he organized a mighty league against the Emperor and compelled him to guarantee liberty of worship to the Lutherans. Thus ended the period of the infamous Interim.

Menno Simons writes with reference to these conditions:

"The fifth sign by which the true church may be known is a frank, unreserved, faithful confession of Christ's name, will, word and ordinance despite all cruelty, tyranny and fierce persecution of the world. (Matt. 10:32; Mark 8:38; Rom. 10:10). But where one is Papistic with the Papists Lutheran with the Lutherans, Interimistic with those who accept the Interim; where the Papal doctrines or

ceremonies are now abolished and now again adopted, where there is dissimulation according to the command and order of the government - what kind of church this is may be judged of those who are enlightened by the truth and taught of the Spirit of God. The fifth sign by which the true Christian church is known, is upright, valiant confession. Hypocrisy is the fifth sign by which the church of Antichrist may be known.

The greatest religious tyranny prevailed not only in Roman Catholic but also Lutheran and Zwinglian states. Anabaptists were put to death for no other reason than error in doctrine.

Menno Simons says:

"Observe, dear brethren, how far the whole wide world has departed from God and His word how bitterly do they persecute, defame, and destroy the eternal saving truth, the pure, unadulterated Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the pious, godly life of the saints. And this is done not only by the Papists and Turks but to a great extent also by those who boast of the holy Word, although in their first writings they had much to say concerning faith, that it is the gift of God and can be created in the hearts of men alone through the Word, for it is an assent of the heart and will.

"But this principle has for some years been again discarded by the theologians and, it appears to me, has been effaced from their books. For since lords and princes, cities and countries have identified themselves with their carnal doctrine, they have widely published the contrary opinion, as is fully evident from their own writings. And through their inciting publications and sermons they deliver into the hands of the henchman many God-fearing pious hearts who contradict, reprove and admonish them with the clear word of God and point out to them the true fundamentals of the holy Word, namely the powerful faith working through love, the penitent new life, the obedience to God and Christ and the true evangelical ordinances of baptism, the Lord's supper, and discipline, as Jesus Christ Himself instituted and commanded and His holy apostles taught and practised. Yes, all who out of pure love insist on this, must be their accursed

Anabaptists, disturbers, seducers and heretics; all the pious may expect this at their hands. Nevertheless, one and all of them, be they lords, princes, preachers, theologians or common people, be they Papists, Lutherans or Zwinglians wish to be called the Christian congregation, the holy church.''

"If I hope to find authorities that fear God, rightly perform the office to which they have been called and rightly use their sword, I find indeed mostly a Lucifer, Antiochus and Nero. For they place themselves in Christ's stead in such a way that their decrees must have authority above the word of God. For whosoever does not keep himself according to the contents of their placards, whoever does not serve Baal, whoever observes the ordinances of Christ, whoever performs the requirements of God's word in its fruits, the same must be taken to account and suffer as a seditious rogue, he must be robbed of his possessions, etc. But those who obviously are idolaters, deceivers of souls, libertines, adulterers, deluders, blasphemers, perjurers, profane, drunkards, and like transgressors, are not persecuted, but can live at liberty and peace under their protection. I do not here speak of the good governments which are few in number and little in power who despite the imperial mandates are reluctant to persecute the Brethren, but of the evil ones of which there are many."

Frequently Menno Simons points out that the princes would excuse their attitude toward the dissenters by the imperial decree demanding that Anabaptists must be put lo death. Emperor Charles V published an edict on January 4. 1528, declaring all Anabaptists as well as those who did not in due time present their infants for baptism to be guilty of death according to divine and civil rights. This decree was made a law of the empire by the German Diet Reichstag) assembled at Speier, in April 1529. The mandate passed by the Estates of the empire demanded that "every and all Anabaptists and rebaptised persons, men and women of accountable age, shall be executed and brought from natural life to death by fire or the sword or similar ways of execution, without preceding inquisition of the theologians." All governments which tolerated Anabaptists or refused to carry out this decree were threatened with the severest vengeance.

This decree was made a law of the empire with the consent of the Lutheran as well as the Catholic Estates. Luther's own sovereign, the Elector John Frederick, who succeeded his brother John in 1532), the head of the Saxon state church, not only referred to this decree as an excuse for the execution of the Anabaptists in his own domain, but repeatedly urged the ruler of Hesse to carry out the demands of this cruel edict. He emphasized the fact that it was made a law with his own consent and published it in Saxony. It is worthy of notice that this decree was made a law a few years before the rise of the seditious Munsterite Anabaptists.

Landgrave Philip of Hesse refused to stain his hands with the blood of the dissenters. He asserted that he did not find it in his conscience "to put to death any one for the sake of his faith;" no severer sentences were pronounced against Anabaptists in Hesse, than imprisonment and banishment.' The scruples of the Landgrave against the killing of heretics caused embarrassment among the Lutheran theologians of Saxony. One of their number, Justus Menius, wrote, in 1530, a book against the Anabaptists and dedicated it to the Landgrave in the endeavour to persuade him to use severer measures against the dissenters and for this book Luther himself wrote the preface. Luther approved of the execution of persistent Anabaptists. In 1536 the Landgrave of Hesse asked the opinion of the Lutheran reformers concerning the proper treatment of the Anabaptists. In the Opinion which was consequently written by Melanchthon but was signed also by Luther the question whether Christian princes are under duty to suppress "the unchristian sect of the Anabaptists," is answered in the affirmative. The reformers refer to the laws of the ancient emperors Honorius and Theodosius which demand that "Anabaptists shall be put to death." If any one "advocated false religious doctrines, as for example on infant baptism, original sin and unnecessary separation .... " we opine that in this instance also the obstinate may be put to death." The fact alone that without his protest Anabaptists were executed in Saxony by his own adherents and as it were under his own eyes for no other reason than error in doctrine and "hedge-preaching," shows clearly that Luther was on the wrong side on this question.

"It is well known to many persons," writes Menno Simons, "that some are far more zealous and diligent to urge the law of Theodosius, (although this law was forced from the good emperor by the bloodthirsty bishops), and the mandate of Charles V and the severe decree of the German Empire against those whom they call Anabaptists, which was issued in our time, than to insist on keeping the law of God."

The emperors Theodosius II and Honorius proclaimed in 413, a law forbidding re-baptism on bane of death. In 428 Theodosius II and Valentinian III published a bloody decree against the re-baptisers who held that the baptism of the Catholic state church was invalid.

It has been asserted that the Anabaptists were, in Lutheran and Zwinglian lands, condemned to death for disobedience to the civil authorities. That all Anabaptists offended against the laws which forbade all dissent from the state church creed must be admitted. The persecution was the inevitable consequence of the prevailing union of church and state. That Luther and all other reformers who consented to state-churchism approved of these laws does not admit of the possibility of a doubt. Menno Simons says concerning the assertion that the severe measures taken against the Anabaptists were due to their disobedience to the civil authorities:

"But now, as I hear, it is claimed that it is not on account of faith but on account of disobedience. As futile as their principle is also what they advance for its support. Let the authorities command us what is right, what is conformable to the Gospel of Christ and the love of our neighbour. If then we refuse to obey, it is right that they mete out punishment."

The Swiss reformers, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin, entertained the same opinions as Luther touching the principle of liberty of conscience.

Martin Luther in his first endeavours for a reformation clearly appealed to the people. When he. somewhat later, decided in favour of state-churchism, he took the cause of the church reformation from the people and placed it into the hands of the princes. At a time when on

his part no beginning had yet been made in the actual reformation of the church, namely in the year 1522 he published his Faithful Admonition to All Christians to Desist from Disturbance. Here he endeavours to convince his adherents that it is their bounden duty "to stand still with hand, heart and mouth" until the reformation should be introduced through the civil government. He declared all independent deviation from the prescribed Roman Catholic worship and practice to be punishable disturbance, and that the necessary changes must be made only upon the initiative of the state. "Those who read and understand my doctrine correctly," he says, "will not make such disturbance; they have not learned it of me." To give the people a taste of religious liberty and independence would have proved detrimental to the interests of the contemplated new state church. And an attempted abolishment of the Roman worship by the people would have been quite unwelcome to the rulers, even if their attitude toward Lutheranism was friendly. Hence the friends of Luther in countries whose rulers did not accept the Reformation saw themselves compelled to remain within the fold of the Roman Catholic Church, or emigrate.

Menno Simons speaks repeatedly of the policy of the state church Reformers to desist from introducing evangelical forms of worship and confine themselves to teaching alone until the governments might permit practical reforms. He says:

"Before God teaching with the tongue and letter, if the works indicate the contrary, will not avail, but before Him avails the reality in power and truth. If they then say that this would cause disturbance, I reply again: If they to avoid a disturbance in the world compromise the will and word of the Lord, what kind of pastors and shepherds they in such case are I will let the right minded consider according to the Scriptures."

In his epistle On the Hedge-preachers, published in 1532, Luther repeated the assertion that all preachers or teachers who labour in any parish or district without the permission of the pertinent civil and ecclesiastical authorities were the very messengers of Satan and must in no instance be tolerated. In this booklet he also gives interesting

information about the manner in which some of the "hedgepreachers" laboured. He says:

"It has been reported to me that these sneaking fellows associate themselves with workers in the harvest and on the fields, and preach to them while they are at work, also with the charcoal-burnerand others in the forests, thus sowing their seed, scattering their poison and turning away the people from their church. Behold here the very step and manner of the devil who shuns the light and pilfers in darkness. Is there any one so stupid that he would not recognise them to be the true messengers of the devil? For the Holy Spirit will not sneak, but publicly fly down from heaven. They should be asked: Who has sent you to preach to me,?" etc. Luther disapproved of "hedgepreaching" in Catholic as well as in Lutheran lands.

Needless to say that an argument of this kind did not appeal to the Anabaptists. Melanchthon, in 1536, asked an imprisoned Anabaptist at Jena, Heinz Krauth, "why he and his sect preach in hedges and not publicly in the pulpit, nor come before the people ?" He received the striking answer: "The word of God except when preached in the church houses after the prescribed creed) is cruelly persecuted and we are not permitted to preach. Nevertheless, we must come together, and this we do openly and not secretly (although not before the eyes of those who seek our lives). And not enough that we are forbidden and hindered to preach the Word, but neither is it granted us to be doers of the Word."

Menno Simons and the dissenters in general belonged to the class designated by the theologians of the state churches as hedgepreachers. Menno writes:

"It has come to this through the misrepresentation, upbraiding, and agitation of the theologians that, alas, one can not publicly say anything about the word of the Lord, although it alone is the bread whereby our souls must live."

"That we see ourselves compelled at times to preach the word of the Lord and engage in His work at night, I fear, Gellius and the theologians are perhaps the principal cause. For through their

inimical, undeserved upbraiding, slandering and defaming they have so embittered and continue to embitter all lords, princes, rulers, and magistrates against us, that we, alas, find it impossible by Scriptural arguments or by our supplications, tears, homelessness, loss of possession and life to move them, etc.

"Despite this, Gellius and others are not ashamed to say that we from fear of the cross secretly enter cities and villages, sit with doors closed, etc., just as if we were stones or blocks of wood which do not nor can have any fear of death; while he and his friends well know that the chosen men of God, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron together with the apostles and prophets had so great fear of death that they sometimes took to flight.

"Secondly I say that as long as I have served the God-fearing with my small talent, I have taught more by far in day time than at night. Behold my reader what was right and free to Moses, Israel, Christ, the apostles and the whole primitive church, namely to engage in the word and work of the Lord at night, whether this at this time of all cruel tyranny should not be free to us, we will let the intelligent reader judge in the fear of the Lord according to Scripture.

"Since it is manifest that the whole world is so inimically embittered against us, although undeservedly, that we are not suffered to be heard or seen, and many an innocent sheep of the Lord, many a Godfearing one who is not a teacher is led to the slaughter here and there, is without all mercy executed and murdered with the sword, water and fire, and that to us homeless teachers not anywhere under the heavens is given so much as a pig-sty to live in liberty with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, but through public mandates we are judged before we are apprehended and condemned before we are convicted, and since such conditions did to my knowledge nowhere prevail in the times of the apostles, therefore I pray all my readers for God's sake to consider in the fear of the Lord what great injustice Gellius and his friends have done us, through his perverted, bitter words, viz., night-preaching, hedge-preaching etc., when we can not do otherwise, as is well known. We are prepared at all times to render an account of our faith to everyone and to defend

the truth, whenever it can be done in good faith without deceit and secret intent at our lives."

"Further we desire that the reasonable reader may take into consideration that a true teacher who preaches the word of the Lord unblameably, can not in our day live or travel openly in any kingdom, country or city under heaven, as far as our knowledge goes, if he be known."

"Besides we see with our eves that the simple innocent sheep must suffer and be led to the slaughter, though they are not teachers. And the teachers then who are blamed for all and who with Christ are hated above all evil-doers should labour in public in these mad, fearful times of all evil and tyranny. It would be great folly, for to do so is not required by common sense nor by the Scriptures."

"And although we do not teach in public meetings to which everybody is invited, nevertheless the truth is not kept as a secret but is preached here and there both by night and by day, in cities and countries, verbally and in writing, by life and death. Judges, henchmen, dungeons, fetters, water, fire, sword and stake are witnesses of it."

"In like manner Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Gelders must certainly confess at the last judgement that the word was preached to them in great power; for they, for the sake of the preached word, shed the innocent blood like water. Yea it is preached in those places in such manner that we must well say with Paul: "If our gospel is hid, it is hid to those who are lost; in whom the God of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not." (II Cor. 4:3,4.)"

"It is his urging demand that we labour and preach publicly even though he knows well that it is as impossible for us to do so without losing our lives as it is to go on water without sinking, or to take poison without dying; for alas, he and the theologians have brought it to this, by their ungrounded accusations, that we are alas already condemned to death before we have been apprehended.

Claus Felbinger, a Hutterite evangelist of Moravia wrote in 1560:

"Some have asked us why we came into the country of the Duke of

Bavaria to dissuade the people from him. I answered: We go not only into this land, but into all lands, as far as our language extends. For wherever God opens a door to us, shows us zealous hearts who diligently seek after Him, have a dislike of the ungodly life of the world and desire to do right, to all such places we aim to go and for this we have scriptural ground."

The Hutterite Chronicler Caspar Braitmichl wrote in 1570: "The Christian mission is carried out among us, concerning which the Lord commands and says: 'As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you,' and again: 'I have chosen you and ordained you, that you should go forth and bring fruit.' Therefore ministers of the Gospel and their helpers are annually sent forth into the countries where it is believed that their labours may be crowned with fruit. They visit those who desire to amend their lives, who inquire after the truth and show a zeal for it. Them they lead out (into Moravia) at night and day, according to their desire, regardless of catch-polls and henchmen and although many lose their lives in this endeavour.

Christophus Andreas Fischer, the priest of Feldsberg, in his Fifty-four Strong Reasons etc., informs us that "those who have already twice or thrice taken their lives into their hands," were as a rule chosen as missionaries. "They travel mostly at night time. They say at first that they are sent only to the poor and plain people. They read to the people from the little Zwinglian Testament, printed in Zurich, what serves for their devilish deception," etc.

While Luther forbade his followers to labour as "hedge-preachers" in Catholic countries and gave the people no voice in the affairs of the church, he not only laid the right to introduce the Reformation wholly into the hands of the princes and civil authorities, but was also willing to meet "the weak" among the princes half way in the matter of the reformation of worship and practice. The Margrave Joachim of Brandenburg introduced the Lutheran doctrine in his land in 1539. but in order not to hazard the good will of the emperor, he retained nearly all of Roman Catholic ceremonies and practices, including the carrying of the Most Holy in processions; but he accepted the doctrine of justification by faith and in the Lord's supper the cup for the laity.

Luther, when his opinion was asked, said, the old ceremonies may be retained for the time and, said he further, if it pleased the Margrave to do so, he might in the processions "dance and leap" before the Most Holy, as did David of old when the ark was brought to Jerusalem II Sam. 6:14). The preachers of Brandenburg were under obligation to maintain the old superstitious ceremonies. Instead of looking to the Scriptures for guidance, the Margrave was guided by the desire of the Catholic emperor and the preachers by the decision of the Margrave. To disregard the orders of the civil ruler would have been treated as a grave offence. Also in Silesia and in other provinces the church remained under the (nominal) jurisdiction of the Catholic bishops, despite the limited changes which had been made.

Menno Simons frequently refers to these conditions. Under the marginal title "The clergy and the judges do not serve God, but the princes," he says:

"Beloved rulers, why further multiply words? You do similarly as the priests and preachers who through the instruction of Scripture have come to some knowledge of the truth ; but since they love their poor, ease-loving belly more than God, they preach and teach it just to the extent as is specified and permitted in the mandates and decrees of the princes, so that in no case they may incur the displeasure of the world and be not deprived of their worldly honour and easy life. It is the same with you, my dear lords .... in order to maintain the friendship of the emperor and retain your fat revenues (I mean you who are guilty of blood) Jesus Christ with His innocent lambs must without mercy be apprehended, banished, robbed and condemned to death by you, as if He were the ringleader of all rogues and thieves and worthy of torture and shame."

Under the marginal title, "The preachers of our time do not serve Christ, but the Princes," Menno writes further:

"How much ever some of them boast of the holy Gospel of Christ, yet, it is not preached except in a deformed and useless fashion, and only to the extent that the worldly princes and governments will tolerate and permit. For as the princes are, so are the preachers, and as the

preachers are, so is the church; and this is carried so far that one must withdraw from Christ Jesus and His holy apostles and disregard their teaching and adhere to the princes and the theologians and believe their word - all on pain of being broken on the wheel, or burned at their hands, or killed and murdered in some other tyrannical way; just as if the preachers should be sent by the princes and not by Jesus Christ."

"The foundation of the faith and religion of the state-church preachers are the emperor, kings, princes and magistrates; what these order they teach; what these forbid they leave untouched".

"It is our conviction that in this as well as in all other matters pertaining to conscience, we can not and must not look upon rulers or princes, not upon doctors or masters of the schools, not upon councils of the church fathers or long established customs ; for here neither emperor nor king, neither doctors nor licentiates, neither ecumenical councils nor proscriptions have any authority against the Word of God. In these matters we cannot be guided by any person, human authority, human wisdom or time-serving, but we must look alone upon the expressed and clear command of Christ and the pure doctrine and practices of His holy apostles, as has been said above."

In certain states, e. g. Saxony and Hesse, the population was comparatively well prepared for the introduction of the Reformation through the government, in many places the majority welcomed the new doctrines. In other states the change was made quite abrupt and neither the people nor their spiritual advisers were in a position to be benefited by the new creed. The new doctrine and practice were contrary to what they looked upon as orthodox. They found it impossible to change their religious opinions at the command of the princes. In so far as the Reformation was not welcomed by the people and they were compelled to accept a new faith against their own conviction, the consequences proved sad indeed. There can be no doubt that the doctrine of justification by faith was largely misunderstood and hence fruitful of evil. It is a noteworthy fact that one of Luther's closest friends advanced the opinion that "good works are injurious to salvation." In the Scriptures justification by faith goes

together with repentance and conversion. This fact was largely ignored by the state church Reformers. Yet only in so far as the spiritual condition and the life of the people were improved, was the church really reformed. Menno Simons believed that "with few exceptions" the people were not bettered by the introduction of the state church Reformation. He gives us a graphic picture of conditions as evidently they were frequently found. He says of those who had accepted Luther's doctrine by order of the rulers:

"If any one can simply say with them: Oh, what dishonourable knaves and villains these desperate priests and monks are!" they curse them and wish them the French disease. The wicked pope with his shorn crew, they say, has deceived us long enough with purgatory, confession and fasting; we now eat as we have appetite, fish or meat as we desire for every creature of God is good, says Paul, and is not to be rejected ; but what precedes they do not understand, namely to those who believe and know the truth and receive the food with thanksgiving. They further say: How shamefully have they deceived us poor people, that they have robbed us of the blood of the Lord and have pointed us to their merchandise, etc., but, God be praised, we now know that our own works avail nothing, and that the death and blood of Christ alone must blot out and atone for our sins. They begin to sing a Psalm: The snare is broken and we are escaped, etc. (Ps. 124:7.), and while they speak, the beer and wine perchance flow from their drunken mouths and noses. Any one who can but join them in singing this rhyme, not considering how carnal his life may be, is a good evangelical man and an acceptable brother. And should ever some one come who in sincere, true love would admonish and reprove them and point to Jesus Christ, to His doctrine, ordinances and unblameable example, and show that it does not become a Christian to carouse and drink, to revile and curse, etc., he must immediately hear that he is a legalist, one who would take heaven by storm, a factionist, a fanatic, a hypocrite, a defamer of the sacrament, an Anabaptist. - Both teachers and disciples bear, as concerns various carnal works, the same cap, as the saying is. I write what I know and testify what I have heard and seen, and I know that I testify the truth".

"The people they console with the teaching that Christ has paid for our sins, faith alone should have our thought, we are poor sinners and can not keep God's commandments, and similar ease-loving consolations, so that every one selfishly seeks the liberty of the flesh through the new doctrine. They remain in the old corrupt way of sin, in an unchanged life, without any fear of God, just as if they never in their lives heard one syllable of the word of the Lord and as if God would not punish wickedness and unrighteousness".

"Nevertheless, through the preaching of their compromising gospel, such a wild and reckless liberty is in evidence in all Germany that you can not rebuke them for their open unchastity, intemperance, cursing and swearing, lasciviousness and foul words without being compelled to hear that you are a separatist, vagabond, fanatic, heaven-stormer, Anabaptist and other terms of reproach and insult".

"They the Zwinglian and Lutheran preachers have brought the poor, indifferent people to a disorderly, unrestrained, fruitless, impenitent life, just as if never the prophetic or the apostolic doctrine, or the Word of God had been preached, and as if never Christ nor the Holy Spirit had appeared upon earth! Had they with true wisdom and humility known, accepted and followed the Word and ordinance of the Lord and the usage and example of the apostles, and earnestly feared their God; had they not flattered the lords and princes and the world in general, but proclaimed the doctrine in true zeal without any respect of persons, or favour ; had they unto death, with faithfulness in doctrine and life, rebuked the sins of all mankind, whether of high or low station; had they in such manner obediently preached and testified of the work and Gospel of God and thus assembled and organized to the Lord a pious penitent people, that is a true church, after the apostolic example, and not sought their own gain and ease through it; and had they refrained from abusing those who are pious and fear God, then the precious Word, the glorious Gospel of the grace of Christ would never have been treated so light-mindedly, nor would the poor, unwary people have come into such a wild, dreadful condition as, alas, may now be witnessed everywhere".

What was considered the bounden duty of the state church preachers,

viz., that they must confine their labours to the place assigned to them by the government, was a grave offence in the opinion of the dissenters. Menno Simons often testifies that he was constrained in conscience, through love to God and to the unsaved, to risk his life in the endeavour to spread the evangelical truth. The Anabaptist leader Pilgrim Marbeck says of the reformers of Strasburg, in 1532, that they preach only in places to which the protection of the government extends "and not freely under the cross of Christ; therefore their gospel did not bring fruit." Jacob Gross of Waldshut complained that the reformers of Zurich "do not go anywhere. If they were true evangelists, they would go out as the messengers of God to proclaim His word and to point the erring to the true way. But now no one can prevail over them to go forth, neither by petition nor demand, for they have a spirit of fear." "The Gospel will have martyrs," says Sebastian Franck, "but these preachers bark only in their own house where they are secure." Cornelius says correctly that in Catholic countries where state church Protestantism was persecuted, the field was left to the Anabaptists who did not shrink back from dangers of torture and death. On the point of the missionary calling of the church Menno Simons differed from Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who held that the commission to preach the Gospel to all nations concerned only the apostles while Menno believed it to be binding for the Christian church as such.

Although Luther, in his booklet Of the Hedge-Preachers, says that these men "preach" to the people who are working in the harvest, in the fields and in the woods, it was evidently their custom to speak to one or a few on the subject of salvation. To refer to personal work of this kind as preaching when preaching by laymen was considered a grave offence was not to encourage religious discussions among those who were not ordained ministers. Not a few were of the opinion that uncommon interest in religious questions on the part of the people savoured of Anabaptism. In 1548 Matthaus Lother, a member of the Lutheran state church at Zwickau in Saxony wrote:

"If now faith is coupled with love and consequently one who experiences it can not refrain from speaking of it and from praising

God: if then the wise and great authorities are informed of it I speak not only of the Papists but also the Evangelical), such a man must hear that it is said: You are a hedge-preacher, an enthusiast and Anabaptist, you should be forbidden the town ; the proper place for that of which you speak is the church. And if consequently the preachers hear of it, they also reprove him, and say: Look, look! How does this enthusiast dare to hold up his head. He has perchance read some German Kadoechen and has swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all! And they exhort the authorities to bid him to turn from it and impertinently they say that to talk of such things was not committed to common people and was not becoming for them, and they should let the theologians have a care for these things. It is true, it should be heard and learned in the churches, but out of the churches it should be practised and increased. And you say: It is not committed to us; the proper place to speak of it is the church and it is for the preachers. Are these not terrible conditions among pious Christians in these latter times?"

The assertion found in the writings of Menno Simons and other Anabaptists that to lead a pious life meant to incur the suspicion of entertaining Anabaptist views is not based, as has been supposed, on an unwarranted generalization. Heinrich Bullinger, without doubt a reliable witness on the point in question, says: "There are those who are not Anabaptists but have a pronounced averseness against the pomp and frivolity of the world ; therefore they earnestly denounce glaring sin and vice and hence are by petulant persons named or revilingly called Anabaptists." By this testimony of Bullinger the assertion of the Swiss Brethren that zealous Christians of the state church were suspected to be Anabaptists is corroborated. The Brethren, according to Bullinger's further statement said:

"If we, by God's grace, carry into practice and do, believe, teach and live the doctrine which they the Zwinglians) themselves have at first advocated, we are an abomination to them; they will not tolerate us ; they denounce and upbraid us in this our Christian faith as if it were heretical and an error; they call upon the worldly authorities against us and instigate and incite them to persecute and kill us ; yea whoever

among their own denomination will do and live rightly is given by them the same name as we, namely Anabaptists."

George Wizel wrote in 1531: "Whoever speaks against the wicked customs of the times and urges the need of a Christian life, must be called an evil Anabaptist ; many a one knows not how to clear himself of this suspicion except by frequent drinking bouts. For your evangelical liberty has resulted in this, that .... he who earnestly seeks to mend his life, is considered an Anabaptist." Caspar Schwenckfeld testifies repeatedly that a pious life brought the accusation of Anabaptism. "Those who begin an earnest Christian life and live piously," says he, "are generally considered and asserted to be Anabaptists." "I am maligned both by preachers and others to be an Anabaptist, just as all who lead a true, exemplary pious life are now almost everywhere given this name." Johann Valentin Andreae, a theologian of the Lutheran state church, wrote: "Whoever seeks now to lead an irreproachable life, is called an enthusiast, a Schwenckfelder, an Anabaptist."

The theologians of the state churches, including Luther and other leading reformers, frequently referred to the Anabaptists as "work saints," i.e. legalists who disown the principle of justification by faith and seek salvation through good works. Menno Simons brands this charge as "a wretched untruth". He points out the fallacy of this accusation and asserts that this reproachful name was as a rule given those who manifested earnestness and zeal in the Christian life. In his defence against this accusation he does not deny that he and his brethren urge the need of "striving after holiness," but he protests that this is not an evidence of rejecting the doctrine of salvation by grace, and of justification by faith. He says:

"Behold, kind reader, we do not seek our salvation in works, words, or sacraments, as do the theologians, although they make assertions to that effect concerning us, but alone in Jesus Christ and in no other means in heaven or on earth. In this means alone we rejoice, and in no other. We trust, by the grace of God, to abide therein unto death."

"But that we shun carnal works and in our weakness desire to

conform ourselves to His word and commandment, this we do, not because we believe in salvation by works but because He has so taught and commanded us. For he who does not walk according to His doctrine, bears testimony by his own deeds that he does not believe in Him nor know Him and is not in the communion of the saints.-") "The believers are ready in their weakness to obey His holy word, will, commandment, advice, doctrine and ordinances, and thus they show in deed that they believe, that they are born of God and of a spiritual nature. They lead a pious, unblameable life before all men. They are baptised according to the commandment of the Lord, as an indication and testimony that they have buried their sins in Christ's death and desire to walk with Him in newness of life. They break the bread of peace with their beloved brethren as a proof and testimony that they are one with Christ and in His holy church and that they have, either in heaven or on earth, no other means of grace and remission of their sins, than the innocent body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ alone which He once for all, by His eternal Spirit in obedience to the Father, has sacrificed and shed upon the cross for us poor sinners. They walk in all love and mercy ; they serve their neighbours, etc. In short, they conform themselves in their weakness to all the words, commandments, ordinances. Spirit, rule, example and measure of Christ, as the Scriptures teach; for they are in Christ and Christ is in them; and therefore they live no longer in the old life of sin after the first earthly Adam, but weakness excepted) in the new life of righteousness which is of faith after the second and heavenly Adam, Christ; as Paul says: 'I do not now live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live, live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me,' (Gal. 2:20); and Christ says: 'If you love me, keep my commandments,' (John 14:15)."

"Think not, beloved reader, that we say this to boast that we be perfect and sinless. By no means. I confess for myself that my prayer is sometimes mixed with sin and my righteousness with unrighteousness. For I feel through God's grace, if only I follow the unction of the Spirit and measure my poor weak nature with Christ and His commandments, what is the nature of the flesh which I

inherited from Adam. Yea, if God should judge us according to our worthiness, righteousness, works and merits, and not according to His great goodness and mercy, I confess with holy David that no man could stand before His judgement (Ps. 143:2; 130:3). Therefore let it be far from us that we should trust or glory in anything but alone the grace of our God through Jesus Christ ; for it is He alone and none other in eternity who has perfectly satisfied the true righteousness required by God. It is also well known to us by God's grace, that all the saints of God, from the beginning, have ever deplored their corrupt flesh, as may be seen and observed in the instance of Moses, David, Job, Isaiah, Paul, James and John.

"But for Christ's sake we are in grace; for Christ's sake we are heard, for Christ's sake our failings and shortcomings which are committed through weakness, are forgiven ; for with His perfect righteousness and with His innocent death and blood He stands between His Father and His imperfect children and intercedes for all who believe in Him and who strive through faith in the divine Word to turn from evil and follow what is good, etc.

"Mark, beloved reader, that we do not believe nor teach that we are saved by our merits and works, as our accusers falsely assert, but alone through grace by Christ Jesus, as has been said before".

"Because we teach from the mouth of the Lord: He who would enter into life, must keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17; Mark 10:19; John 15:10); in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail but the keeping of the commandments of God (I Cor. 7:19) ; this is the love of God that we keep His commandments and His commandments are not grievous, (I John 5:3) ; therefore we are called by the preachers heaven stormers and work saints, and must hear that we would be saved by our merits, although we have always confessed and shall through God's grace confess in eternity that we can not be saved by any other means in heaven or upon earth, than alone through the merits, intercession, death, and blood of Christ, as has been fully set forth above.

"Behold, thus have these perverse people changed the very best to the

very worst. They do not observe that all Scripture clearly condemns all wanton, haughty despisers and transgressors of God's commandments who plainly prove by their deeds that they are strangers to the saving grace of God, do not believe in Jesus Christ and according to Scripture abide in condemnation, wrath and death (John 3:36)"

"But that they say we are hypocrites, and lie concerning us that we assert to be without sin, is, because we teach with all Scripture a life that shows the fruits of penitence ; we testify with holy Paul that perjurers, adulterers, idolaters, drunkards, avaricious, liars, unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5), that those who are carnally minded shall die, (Rom. 8:13; and with John, that those who sin understand purposely or wantonly) are of the devil (I John 3:8) ; and therefore we have in our weakness a heartfelt dismay of such works ; so often we have with Moses confessed by mouth and writing and ever will confess, that none is innocent before God, on account of the inborn nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21), and with Isaiah that we are all as the unclean Isa. 64:6)" etc.

"Behold worthy reader, here you have our doctrine and confession of justification as has been here set forth. Judge for yourself and know that the preachers obviously lie concerning us when they say that we would be saved by our merits and works and that we pretend to be without sin. May the Lord forgive those who they spread such shameless, gross falsehoods. O that these miserable men would once take to heart that the backbiters, slanderers and liars are of the devil (John 8:44) etc. "This, I say, is our doctrine and by the grace of God will ever remain our doctrine, for we truly know and realize that it is the invincible word and truth of the Lord. We testify therefore before you and before all the world that, firstly, we do not agree with those who teach and introduce a mere historic, dead faith which is without a change of heart, without Spirit, power and fruit; and secondly we do not agree with those who would be saved through their merits and. works."

To Menno Simons' mind it was an inconsistency that Luther held the

pope to be antichrist, but accepted his ordination and baptism as valid. Menno did not admit a fundamental difference between Papism and Roman Catholicism. Was not the pope acknowledged by the Roman Church throughout as its rightful head and representative, possessing divine authority? In Menno's opinion it was a mistake to undertake a reform of Romanism. He says:

"In the second place I say that the same church of which Gellius speaks was not only adulterated and weakened, as he says, but it has become so estranged from God that its members worship, honour and serve gods of wood, stone, gold and silver, also bread and wine, as, alas, has been publicly known these many years in all the temples and houses of worship) throughout Europe, and may yet daily be witnessed in many great kingdoms, cities and countries.

"My reader, understand me rightly. That God should not have had His elect among the above named churches, concerning this we do not dispute, but shall in humility leave this both now and forever to the gracious judgement of God, hoping that He has many thousands who are unknown to us as they were to holy Elijah ; but the question under dispute is with what spirit, doctrine, sacraments, ordinances and life Christ has commanded to gather to Him an abiding church and maintain it in His ways".

"I shall leave it to the judgement of the attentive reader whether that church which is so wholly and entirely possessed and laid waste by Antichrist may be called God's temple. If he gives a negative answer, his judgement is according to Scripture, otherwise many passages of Scripture would be fallible and false, and it would undeniably follow that God and the devil, Christ and Antichrist were in one temple and ruled one church. - If Gellius' assertions were well founded, it would clearly follow that the church of Antichrist is even now the true Christian church".

"Yes, my reader, Gellius knows as well as I what Christ has commanded us concerning baptism, how the holy apostles have taught and practised it; again that Paul renewed the baptism in the instance of certain persons who had been baptised with John's

baptism although this was of heaven), because they were not informed concerning the Holy Ghost, also that the worthy martyr Cyprian with all African bishops and the council of Nice did not consider the baptism of heretics valid, etc. Despite all this, he calls us Anabaptists, never considering that in our infancy we were baptised not only without Spirit, faith. Word, or divine command, but also without all accountability and understanding, with an obviously antichristian baptism, administered by those whom he and other theologians, of his persuasion hold to be antichrists, apostate, heretics and deceivers, who have never truly known God nor His Word and live in open idolatry, bending their knees before wood and stone, trust in the vain and useless doctrines and commandments of men, who wantonly walk according to the lusts of the flesh and worship and honour the creature of God, namely a piece of bread, as the only begotten and eternal Son of God"

"What is it that deceives and blinds the German countries even today, and what causes them to continue in their ungodliness, if not the inconsiderate doctrine of the preachers, the ill-advised infant baptism, idolatrous supper, and that the commandment of Christ and His apostles concerning separation is not practised according to the Scriptures. The people drink and carouse, curse and swear, grasp and tear, lie and cheat. In short the life which is generally in evidence is such as if God were a fabler and His word a fairy tale. Behold, such are the fruits of those who boldly boast that they are the church of Christ. Oh, would to God that they could see what Jesus Christ, after whom they call themselves, and His holy apostles, have taught them in plain words and what example they have left them, that they might be helped. But now there is nothing but playing with the letter, there is the name and boasting, but, alas, the spirit, work, power, and fruits are not apparent".

Many are the complaints of Menno Simons that the state church Reformation failed to abandon some of the leading unscriptural principles of Romanism; the changes introduced did not extend to all that is essential to a true evangelical church. He says further:

"We know well that you have destroyed the little gods of Babylon such

as the Romish indulgences, the invocation of the departed saints, celibacy, abstaining from meats and similar self-righteousness, idolatry and superstition. But, alas, the terrible wrongs and abominations have remained, such as the accursed unbelief, the obstinate opposition to the truth, earthly mindedness, the unscriptural infant baptism, the idolatrous supper and the impenitent old life which is of the flesh. The branches have been cut off in part, but the stem and the roots have remained".

"But what grieves me most is, that those also who in part have recognised the debauchery of the Babylonian woman and have put away some of her abominations, yet cling to the sophistry of men to such extent that they can be taught or moved neither by God's powerful word nor by the unblameable life, candid testimony and innocent blood of so many pious saints. - For their clamour is for the most part against the pope and his cardinals, bishops, priests and monks. And all who, reproving their deceptive doctrine, idolatrous sacraments and vain life, seek the best for their poor souls, must be upbraided by them as profaners of the sacrament. Anabaptists, fanatics, and heretics".

The most prominent point of controversy between the Anabaptists and the leading reformers was the question whether baptism is to be administered to believers or infants. At the base of this question lay principles of the most fundamental import.

Infant baptism was a necessary requirement for the maintenance of a state church such as then existed in every state. In every land church and state were united and the membership of the church was supposed to be identical with the population. The people were through infant baptism made members of the state church in their earliest infancy. Not only in Roman Catholic but also in Lutheran and Zwinglian countries every inhabitant excepting the Jews was compelled by law to hold membership in the state church; hence infant baptism was the foremost requirement in the Protestant state churches as well as in the Church of Rome. Excluding or excommunication was virtually unknown except in the instance of heretics who had been condemned to die. Even the criminals who

filled the prisons were church members. The creed of the rulers was the creed of the state. The subjects were compelled to profess the faith of the rulers. The masses of the people fashioned their faith to please the authorities, in order to escape the dungeon and the henchman. Those who dared to have a faith differing from the creed prescribed by the magistrates, were subjected to the most cruel persecution which was supposed to be perfectly right. Whosoever killed them thought he was doing God service. The issue of believers' baptism or infant baptism was one which primarily concerned the conditions of membership in the Christian church. Should the birth of Christian parents convey the right of membership in the church? Should the infants be made church members, or should those only be made members who accepted Christ and surrendered themselves to Him? Should there be exclusive state churches comprising, by virtue of the strong arm of the state, the whole population, or should the precepts of Christ and the example of the apostles be followed? Shall the boundary lines of the church be identical with those of the state? Shall "the sword of the Spirit" rule the church, or the sword of brutal force? Shall the Bible or the henchman be the final authority? Is it the mission of the church to lead those who are within its fold to accept Christ, or is the church a body of believers whose mission field is the world? Shall the church and the world be united or separated? Is the church essentially a hierarchy, or is it a body of believers? These are the questions which lay at the bottom of the great controversy on infant baptism.

Menno points out that the existing union of the church with the state and the world is unscriptural.

"The whole evangelical Scriptures teach that Christ's church was and must be a people separated from the world in doctrine, life and worship. It was likewise in the Old Testament (II Cor. 6:17; Tit. 2:14; I Pet. 2:9,10; I Cor. 5:17; Ex. 19:12).

"Since the church always was and must be a separated people, as has been heard, and it is clear as the meridian sun that for many centuries no difference has been observable between the church and the world, but all people have been blended together in baptism, supper, life and

worship without any separation, a condition which is so clearly contrary to all Scripture, therefore we are constrained by the Spirit and word of God to the praise of Christ and to the service and betterment of our neighbour from true motives, as set forth above, to gather not to us but to the Lord, a pious, penitent assembly or church .... not by force of arms or uproar as is the custom of the popular sects, a church which is separated from the world, as the Scriptures teach.".

"The German church was from the beginning Papistic and not apostolic. The church of which Gellius speaks was first established upon the foundation and abominations of the Papists, and has remained so these many years. It was originally built, not by the apostles upon the foundation of Christ but by the pope on his own foundation and was throughout a Papist and not a Christian church ; and although changes have been made it is quite obvious that it has to this hour neither teachers nor congregations nor life nor sacraments, etc., conformable to the commandment, doctrine and ordinance of Christ.

"The preachers should learn first to know themselves rightly, and then preach rightly the word of sincere repentance in the power of the Spirit. All those who accept it with a believing heart and truly repent, should then be served with Christ's sacraments according to divine institution. And those who would wickedly, deliberately despise it, should in the power of the holy word be separated from the communion of their church, without respect of persons, be they rich or poor. In this way they could begin to gather a church to Christ and in it rightly practice the ordinances of the Lord according to the Scriptures.

"But as long as they baptise the unconscious infants, esteem all whom they have baptised as Christians, dispense the bread to the impenitent, and admit all the avaricious, extortioners, pompous, intemperate, etc., to the fellowship of their church, the world shall continue to be their church and their church the world".

The ritualistic features of worship were largely retained by Luther, but

utterly rejected by the Anabaptists. Menno held that as concerns faith, practice and worship, the church must conform itself not to the Old Testament but to the New Testament standard. Under the New dispensation the worship of God is of a purely spiritual nature. The believer in Christ approaches God not through types and shadows, but in Spirit and in truth ; hence there is no room for temples of stone, nor altar, nor literal sacrifice, nor incense, nor putting on priestly robes. The Catholic churches in which prayer to saints and the veneration of images were practised, were spoken of by the Anabaptists as "idol houses." Their worship was exceedingly simple, devoid of all show and ostentation. Luther, to the contrary, in the reformation of worship, was guided by the principle: "What is not contrary to the Scripture, is for it and Scripture is for it," although it may not be established on Scripture authority. "If anything which is in use from times of yore, is to be changed or abandoned," he says, "it is to be and must be proven to be contrary to God's word." In his opinion priestly robes, the elevation of the host, exorcism, etc., were not contrary to God's word. "Erroneously we are accused that we have discarded Mass," says Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, for it is evident that, to speak without boasting. Mass is held in our churches with greater reverence and fervour, than among our adversaries. Also in the public ceremonies of Mass, there have been no marked changes except that in some places some of the songs are sung in German." Nevertheless, the sacrificial features of the Mass were abandoned.

During the Reformation era it was not possible for Mennonites and Anabaptists in general to build houses of worship, except probably in Moravia. And the Hutterites of Moravia did not build houses for this purpose, but they had large buildings of various description and found it convenient to use these for their meetings. Christophus Andreas Fischer, the priest of Feldsberg in Austria wrote in 1607 a book: "Fiftyfour Strong Reasons why the Anabaptists should not he tolerated in the Land." His twenty-eighth reason is as follows:

"There never was a heathen so wicked, never Turk so profligate, never Jew so hardened, never heretic so evil, who did not build his god a temple, his Mohamet a mosque, the Jew a synagogue for his worship,

the heretic a chapel for the confirmation of his error. But the hypocritical Anabaptists are blinder than the heathen, more profligate than the Turks, more hardened than the Jews, more cursed than all other heretics; for they have no churches or chapels or similar places in which to perform their worship, etc. Yea, before they would build any little church, they would erect a thousand times more dwelling houses, pig-sties and eating rooms Fresz-stuben) which indeed is very amazing, for they desire to be considered quite holy, pious and devoted people. Their sermons they have twice a week in their eating rooms. No feast of Mary or Apostle day is kept by them. Every Friday in the year they eat meat. Of pictures they have a decidedly unfavourable opinion, except those that are found on the Ducats and Dollars. They sing the hymns composed by their false messengers who on account of their obstinacy have been either hanged and drowned or singed and burned. Is it not true that they are the most wicked people, having no church, no worship and no sacrifice?" Fischer concludes this book by assuring the princes that their names will be written in heaven if they suppress this heresy.

A point of fundamental difference between Menno Simons and the state-church reformers is the relation of the New Testament Scriptures to the Old. Menno, as well as the Swiss Brethren and Hutterites held that the Old Testament precepts were largely intended for pre-Messianic times and have been restated by Christ and the apostles as far as they are to be followed by the Christian Church. They held the Old Testament Scriptures to be the foundation and groundwork for the New, and the latter to be the fulfilment of the Old. In matters of Christian worship and practice the New Testament Scriptures were believed to be the only authority. The union of church and state and other points which were rejected by the Anabaptists on New Testament authority, were defended by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin on Old Testament authority.

The principle of the Anabaptists that as concerns ordinances, rites, worship and doctrine nothing must be maintained in the church which can not be established on Scripture authority, was originally taught by Luther and Zwingli, but abandoned when they decided upon

a union of church and state. On the Wartburg Luther again advanced the Roman Catholic view: "What is not contrary to Scripture, is for Scripture, and Scripture is for it." He held that the old Roman Catholic cultus may be retained without Scripture authority, on the ground that it is not contrary to Scripture. The question what is to be considered contrary to Scripture he answered to the effect that only those things must be abandoned which are expressly forbidden in Scripture. And in his controversy with Carlstadt who cited the second commandment in support of his opinion that the pictures or "idols" as Luther himself speaks of them) should be removed from the churches, he defended the opinion that everything that is not prohibited in the New Testament Scriptures, although it be forbidden in the Old Testament, may be retained. He says:

"We have taught from St. Paul the Christian liberty, that all things should be free which God does not forbid with clear words in the New Testament .... Now tell me, where has He forbidden to elevate the host, or commanded it? Show me one little word concerning it and I shall yield. If they can prove from the New Testament that the pictures should be removed from the churches), we shall willingly follow them." "They introduce their own external order concerning which God has given neither a command nor a prohibition, as for instance that one should have no pictures, no churches i.e. temples), altars, should not use the word Mass or sacrament, not elevate the host, not have priestly garments," etc.

On this principle the old forms of worship and practice were largely retained. The leading reformers asserted that infant baptism and other practices are justifiable because they are not forbidden. Even exorcism, or the conjuration of Satan to depart from the infants previous to baptism, was retained as a custom that is not forbidden in Scripture - to the great offence of the Anabaptists. The form of exorcism used somewhat later among the Lutherans was: "I conjure you, your unclean spirit, to come out and depart from this servant of Jesus Christ." Menno Simons denounces repeatedly "the wretched exorcism" and other unscriptural ceremonies connected with baptism, such as breathing upon the infant, giving him salt, anointing him with

oil and saliva, etc.

The principle that the Scriptures are the only inerrant source of religious truth, the only authority in matters of faith and practice - known as the formal principle of the Reformation - was the leading principle of the Anabaptists, while both Luther and Zwingli accepted it only in a modified form. The doctrine of the inner word as held by Hans Denck and a few other Anabaptists, was not shared by the great Anabaptist denominations, viz. the Swiss Brethren, Hutterites and Mennonites. As for the Zwinglian reformers, they have frequently asserted that the Anabaptists insisted too much on following the letter of the Scriptures, "the dead letter." In reply to this argument one of the spokesmen of the Anabaptists in the discussion held in Bern, 1538, asked, "Is what Christ has said the dead letter?"

The assertion that Anabaptism has an essentially Roman Catholic tendency or that Lutheranism represents a more radical elimination of the unscriptural doctrines of Romanism, is quite untenable. The Zwinglian chronicler Johannes Kessler of St. Gall says rightly concerning the origin of the Anabaptists, that Grebel, Manz, Blaurock, and others insisted on separation from the Roman Catholic Church. They "were of the opinion that those who had been taught the Gospel and were now called evangelical, should first of all forsake and be separated from the Papal church .... But the ministers of the word of God in Zurich, above all Ulrich Zwingli would not consent to such separation." Melanchthon, in the Augsburg Confession, undertook to point out that the Lutheran creed is orthodox according to Roman Catholic standards and authorities. It may be proper to observe that in the opinion of the famous Catholic historian Doellinger Lutheranism is virtually only a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, while Zwinglianism and Calvinism are more radical in their opposition to certain doctrines held to be essential by the Church of Rome and must be considered new churches. Nevertheless both Zwingli and Calvin, as well as Luther, undertook a reformation of the church whose head was the pope. After Luther, in 1522, restored Roman Catholic worship in Wittenberg, Carlstadt spoke of him and his friends as "new Papists," and we know from Zwingli's Elenchus that a similar name was given

Zwingli by the Swiss Anabaptists. The impartial student will recognise the fact that the reformers who represented the state-church Reformation followed in the footsteps of the Roman Catholic church on certain important points which were discarded by the Anabaptists. They consented to the establishment and maintenance of national churches through "the secular arm," they followed "Antichrist," as Menno points out, in their attitude toward those who recognised state-churchism to be incompatible with Gospel principles ; they glaringly compromised the principle that the Word of God is the only authority in matters of faith. In the doctrine of the sacraments they differed from the Church of Rome to less extent than the Anabaptists. Through their consent to a union of church and state the leading reformers found themselves compelled to an attitude of compromise in various points of doctrine and practice. The great Anabaptist movement was born of the conviction that the state-church Reformation countenanced unscriptural principles which had been upheld by the former state church and, in short, sustained an unwarranted relation to the position of that body - the Roman Church.

On free will and predestination Menno disapproved of the views advanced by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. He says correctly that Zwingli in chapter six of his book On Predestination asserted, a thief and a murderer were "driven" by God to commit crime and the authorities were "driven" by God to punish criminals for their evil deeds. Of this doctrine Menno speaks as "an abomination above all abominations".

A few writers have asserted that Menno Simons differed from the state churches on original sin. Menno agreed with Martin Luther on the fact of original sin, as will be fully set forth elsewhere by quotations from his writings. He taught that all men inherit a sinful nature from Adam which would exclude them from salvation if Christ, the second Adam, had not atoned for the guilt of original sin. All Anabaptists taught emphatically that no one is condemned for the sin of Adam. Infants are saved, not through baptism but through the atonement of Christ. S. Hoekstra and K. Vos have quoted a sentence from Dirk Philips which is supposed to deny original sin. The context shows this opinion to be erroneous.

Menno Simons had a strikingly good opinion of Martin Luther personally. He says openly that on point of scholarship Luther and others surpass him by far, but protests that he could not take the opinions of these men in preference to the clear teaching of God's Word. He criticizes Luther particularly for the arguments which he advanced for infant baptism and because he consented to statechurchism, although in an earlier period he had earnestly defended the voluntary principle. Menno says in his Foundation of 1539:

"Luther writes in his sermon for the Third Sunday after Epiphany that infants should be baptised upon their own faith, and if they have no faith, he says, the baptism of infants is nothing but blasphemy of God's sacrament. Is not this a proof of terrible blindness on the part of such a highly learned man through whom God in the beginning has worked so powerfully, that he now attempts to prove that the little infants who can neither hear nor understand may have faith - clearly contrary to his own experience and also contrary to the Word of God."

The doctrine of non-resistance, as held by the Anabaptists, has been largely misunderstood. The supposition that this doctrine is ignored in Roman Catholic and Protestant theology is erroneous. Both the Roman Church and the Protestant churches of the older type recognise the principle of non-resistance to the extent of admitting that Christ has taught it. Nevertheless they do not disapprove of war. The Roman Catholic Church holds that Christ advised non-resistance, but did not command it ; hence a Christian may use the sword. Luther advanced a new view which he believed to be far superior to the Roman doctrine. He taught that a Christian must be non-resistant and can have no part in violence or blood-shed, be it in war or in selfdefence.

But a Christian is also a citizen and to a citizen it is lawful to fight, hence he is under duty to use the sword in self-defence or when the state calls him to arms. This means that when there is no occasion to fight a Christian should be guided by the precepts of Christ on the point of non-resistance ; but when such occasion arises he must for the time being ignore the fact that he professes faith in Christ and is under obligation to follow His law; as a citizen he must be guided by

civil rights and civil law.

This was the view of Martin Luther, as already said, and it has been accepted by Protestant Christendom as a whole. It is a noteworthy fact that the despised and persecuted Anabaptists and Quakers were for centuries the only Christian denominations which had a distinct testimony against war. Despite the explicit teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and other portions of Scripture on the point in question, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic theology has justified war as agreeable to Christian principles and has made it the Christian's business to take part in it when occasion presents. The most prominent Christian churches do not materially differ from pagan religions as concerns their attitude toward war. The late Pope Pius X is said to have been much grieved over the outbreak of the great war. Obviously he was moved by human rather than religious considerations. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that war is not essentially unchristian but is in harmony with Christian principles if it is carried on for a good purpose and with a righteous end in view.

The Anabaptists would have disdained the modern view that Christianity is identical with culture and that education, civilization, reform is the real remedy for sin and evil and will eventually make war impossible. Not a few writers have, previous to the outbreak of the greatest of all wars, asserted that civilization has practically outgrown war and is destined to eliminate all other evils. This view left out of consideration some striking pertinent facts, e. g. that in one of the most highly civilized countries men are murdered in times of peace at a rate of nearly ten thousand a year. And the horrible lynchings! Is war a greater evil than the lynchings? Has civilization really outgrown sin and crime?

The Anabaptists recognised that worldly government must be based on physical force, and hence the foundation of the state is radically different from that of the church. They did not accept the opinion of certain modern liberals that the state as such should be established upon moral suasion instead of force, or, in other words, that the state should deal with criminals only through instruction and admonition, the prison doors should be opened and no one further punished for

committing crime. The Bible teaches that the state is given the sword to punish evil-doers and it "bears the sword not in vain." The state would be a farce if it ceased to bear the sword and to use force against those who transgress the laws or who attack the state with arms. Now for the state to defend itself with the sword is war. War is utterly irreconcilable with Christian principles ; the fundamental principles of the Christian religion are outraged through war. The fact of war is the most striking evidence of the truth of the Biblical teaching concerning the nature of fallen man and of the world. This means that Christianity, so far as it bears the sword, is a farce, just as is a state that would be based on moral suasion and non-resistance.

The argument that it is inconsistent to refuse to wield the sword when, under existing conditions, the state or society could not exist without it was met by the Anabaptists by pointing out that the fall of the human race is responsible for conditions that make prisons and state authority necessary. No philosophical or theological argumentation can explain away the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ has clearly taught by precept and example the principle of non-resistance. To kill men with shrapnel or bayonet is essentially contrary to Christian duty. The arguments advanced to show that war, that "wicked abominable business," as Menno Simons speaks of it, is consistent with Christian principles, can bear no weight to the unsophisticated mind.

X MENNO'S ATTITUDE TOWARD RATIONALISM

On this subject the most extravagantly incorrect views have been entertained. Various writers, giving evidence to the fact that they have never read Menno Simons' writings, have asserted that he rejected the deity and vicarious sacrifice of Christ, the universality of sin and the doctrine of justification by faith. Menno has been represented as a champion of the modern gospel of the fatherhood of God and the religious brotherhood of men whose burden is that all men are saved although they may not know it. "Modern liberalism," says a certain writer, "has its roots in the Anabaptist movement." The modern view

of toleration has also been ascribed to Menno Simons: that matters of doctrine and creed are unessential and the church should not require a defined doctrinal position on the part of individuals or of congregations, that it should not stand for defined truth but that any religious teachings should be acceptable. The assertion has been repeatedly made by modern writers that the early Mennonites disowned doctrinal tests and occupied neutral ground on questions of doctrine. Menno Simons has been represented as an advocate of the autonomy of the church in the sense that every congregation instead of recognizing the Scriptures as the final authority should be "a law to itself" in matters of faith and principle, and that the church as a whole has not the right to demand of the congregations a certain doctrinal position, and in the congregations the majority should be permitted to rule in questions of faith while the minority should be in duty bound to be satisfied with the decision. A writer in a well known German magazine has asserted that the Anabaptists rejected all dogma or authoritative doctrine, and freedom from all religious authority higher than themselves was their leading tenet; they stood for a free general union and brotherhood of men .

Now if Menno Simons held such opinions, it would apparently have been inconsistent for him to forsake the national church. He and his friends were a small minority. If the question of doctrine is not of vital importance he might well have contented himself with the doctrine of the church in which he was born and held office. In that case we should be obliged to consider him a leader in an uncalled-for schism. Was it not possible for him in the national church to lead a devoted life and to deviate even from the creed of the church, provided that he did not publicly profess his particular views?

Menno and the early Mennonite churches upheld a well defined standard of faith. No one who has read their own literature, in particular the writings of Menno Simons, can doubt this. The elders Adam Pastor, David Joris both with a greater or less following) and Francis Reines Kuyper were excluded on account of unscriptural doctrine. Menno Simons was the leading interpreter of the principles and doctrines of the church. His writings were looked upon as a

statement of orthodox doctrine and may be said to have served in a measure the purpose of a confession. That the Mennonites had until a later period, no confessions, besides the Scriptures and Menno's writings, is not an evidence of a "liberal" tendency. In our day, it is interesting to observe, a number of the most conservative Christian denominations could be mentioned who say they have no confessions beside the Bible, but it is nevertheless a fact that they hold to a well defined standard of doctrine; they have confessions in very truth, although perhaps unwritten. Of the church in which Menno laboured it must be said that the least conservative wing, namely the Waterlandians, were the first to set up a written confession. They differed from Menno in doctrine although not on fundamental points) and hence his writings were not a statement of doctrine as upheld by them. The more conservative Mennonites who for a long period did not deviate from Menno's teachings, adopted confessions at a later time.

The Mennonite confessions have been generally ignored in works on symbolics; only Mennonite and Baptist historians have taken them properly into account. The more important Mennonite confessions are:

Waterlandian confessions: 1. The Confession of 1577. 2. The confession of Hans de Ries and Lubbert Gerrits of 1581.

The Frisian Confession, prepared by Peter Janz Twisck about 1600, according to Van Braght. Thirty-three articles.

The Confession of the Upper German Churches in Holland, prepared by Jan Centsen in 1630.

Confessions of the Flemish churches: 1. The confession of 1626 (Jacques Outerman). 2. The "Olive-Branch," of 1627. 3. The confession prepared by Adrian Cornelis and adopted in 1632 at Dort in Holland, printed frequently in Dutch, German, French and English; various English editions have been published in America.

The date of the confession of the Old Flemish churches is uncertain, it is probably after 1650. A German translation was printed in 1768.

A confession prepared by Cornelis Ris was adopted in 1773 by the conference which held its sessions annually in the church called "To the Sun" at Amsterdam. This confession has also been published in the English language.

The Swiss Brethren, in 1527, adopted the seven articles of Michael Sattler at Schlatten am Randen, near Schaffhausen. Of this confession two recent editions have been published by W. Köhler and H. Böhmer, as well as an English translation. These articles treat only on the points on which the Brethren differed from the teaching of the state churches. The Swiss had no other confession until some of them in Alsace) accepted the Dort confession of 1632. It is certain that they agreed with the churches of the lower countries in their attitude toward rationalism and liberalism.

The modern argument that confessions are uncalled for and the church should occupy neutral ground on questions of doctrine, because neither the Christian believer nor the church as a whole can lay claim to the predicate of infallibility, would not have born any weight to the mind of Menno and his friends. That they were not perfect in understanding was in their opinion no reason for ceasing to defend the great truths of God's word. They were fully decided to repudiate what is clearly unscriptural and to cling to the Bible teaching on the points in question. They did not profess to have attained to all truth contained in the Scriptures, but admitted cheerfully the possibility of new Scriptural truth to come to them. If we may accept their own confession on this point, they welcomed new light from the Scriptures.

Menno says: "Gellius writes that we should be stopped and silenced, lest the unwary be deceived. I answer: A better and surer way than we have through the grace of the Lord obtained, no one can point out; of this we are fully assured from the inmost of our consciences; for we realize and are fully convinced that we have God's Word. Nevertheless we shall at any time freely offer: if any one who is God-fearing, through the Spirit, word, example, command, prohibition, ordinances and usage of the Lord in accordance with which in Christ's church everything must be ordered if it be valid and acceptable before the

throne of His majesty, and not through tyranny and the power of the authorities, could point out to us in the fear of the Lord what is in any way more appropriate and better and more conducive to the honour of God and the welfare of His church, than what we have for a number of years of enlightenment confessed and steadfastly maintained in so exceedingly much oppression, homelessness, need and persecution, we shall at any time from our hearts accept and willingly follow it. I am fully confident that all who seek the Lord and fear Him from their heart are of the same mind with me on this point" "By the grace of God I seek nothing whatever upon this earth and shall seek nothing but the unadulterated word of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this according to the record of the Scriptures. Now if I in any way err, which indeed I hope by the grace of God is not the case, I pray every one for the Lord's sake, if any one has more convincing Scripture and more powerful truth, that he through brotherly exhortation and instruction come to my aid, that I may not be put to shame in the end. I desire from my heart to accept it, if it is right". "If any one under the broad canopy of heaven, be he learned or unlearned, man or woman, can instruct me with clearer Scripture and more powerful truth, gladly will I accept and obey it. But, by the grace of God, we know that we have the sure and true way, which Christ has prepared for us. It is well with us if we walk in it and enter in at the strait gate".

Menno and his friends were guided by the aim to accept and make a part of their creed written or unwritten) all the truth that through the Scriptures would come to them and to discard everything that is not founded on God's Word. It was their foremost principle that all that may concerning doctrine and Christian practice be found in the Bible should be willingly accepted and followed. They believed the doctrinal position of the national church to be unscriptural and had therefore renounced it. Neither by pope, church fathers, emperor or state authorities they would be guided, but by God's Word alone. On the point of the authority of the Scriptures extensive quotations from Menno will be given in another place.

The church, in so far as it stands for the truth of God's word in doctrine and practice, Menno, according to his own testimony, "loved

above everything on earth." A church that does not stand for the truth of God, as revealed in His word, but takes an attitude of neutrality and general toleration on the question of doctrine, has in his opinion no excuse for existence. The supposition that he conceded to every congregation the right to set up its own creed, or no creed; to stand for any doctrine or no doctrine is quite unfounded. Such a position would be clearly irreconcilable with the emphasis which he laid on the great central truth of the Gospel: that salvation is only through faith in the atonement made by the Son of God through His blood on Calvary and further than the Christian church must be founded upon and guided by God's Word alone. The thought that all religious teaching whether founded on the Scriptures or contrary to them, should be acceptable in the church, was to him a very abomination. To hold that liberty of conscience should mean that the church be given license to disown the authority of God's Word was in his opinion to substitute religious anarchy for liberty. He realized that conscience is not an infallible guide, but is dependent upon the Scriptures for enlightenment and guidance. Hence to substitute conscience for God's Word was to his mind to reject the rightful religious authority.

While in Menno's opinion, conscience if it is not guided by the Scriptures is unsafe to follow, an erring conscience should not and could not be compelled to receive the truth. To set the erring conscience right is not the business of the state through imprisonment and persecution, but it is the business of the church through the Word of God. Menno realized that the great work of maintaining the truth and spreading the Gospel is the task of the church and not of the state. His great concern was that his own conscience and life be perfectly in tune with the Word of his God and that all men whom he found it possible to influence should reach the same goal. While he believed that it is not the province of the state to set up a standard of faith and it is contrary to all Christian principles to establish and maintain the truth through the arm of the flesh and persecute those who would not accept it, he, as already said, differed radically from the idea that the church, like the state, should occupy neutral ground on questions of doctrine. He must have realized that a church which takes the neutral

position on questions of religious doctrine and practice is as much out of place as a state which would be neutral and indifferent on matters of civil law and order, taking, in other words, the anarchistic position. The modern contention that exclusion from the church for any rightful cause is persecution, he would not for a moment have countenanced. He insisted to the contrary that scriptural church discipline and exclusion is "a great work of love," for its purpose is not only to maintain the church in accordance with scriptural principles, but to make the excluded one realize the error of his way and to win him. And an important purpose of discipline was in his opinion to keep the church pure in the wholesome doctrine of the Word, "My brethren," he says, "this is the real reason why and to what end this separation or ban is so earnestly taught and commanded in the holy Scriptures by Jesus Christ and His holy apostles, namely first on account of false doctrine, further sinful, carnal life, and again that the offenders should be admonished."

XI MENNO ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Besides the practice of infant baptism the absence of scriptural church discipline in the state churches marked a principal point of difference between Menno Simons and the representatives of the state-church Reformation. That every person born within a given state or province should without his knowledge or consent be made a member of the Christian church by infant baptism was to Menno and his friends the first and great evil; and the second was like it, namely that all who had thus been "christened" should be compelled by law to hold membership in the church, be they saints or sinners, and that in Lutheran and Zwinglian as well as in Roman Catholic lands offensive sin and vice was not punished by excommunication.

Menno Simons speaks of the exclusion of unworthy members as the ornament of the church. In his opinion a society which did not practice discipline and exclusion was not worthy of the name of a church of Christ. One of the prominent state church reformers. Martin Bucer, it is worthy of notice, although the practice of excommunication

was unknown in the church with which he was prominently connected, admitted: "It is true, where there is no discipline and no ban, there is no true church." Both Luther and Zwingli advocated the use of the ban for a time, but after all found it impracticable in the state churches.

Menno defines the church as the assembly of those "who hear, believe, accept and rightly fulfil" the teachings of God's Word. He recognises a difference between the invisible church which is the body of Christ and the visible or organized church which can not claim purity in the sense that those who are not right with God may not be found in it The assertion of many church historians that Menno hoped to gather a church which was in the real sense "not having spot or wrinkle" (Eph. 5:27) must be designated a grave error. To his thinking even those who constitute the mystical body of Christ are not free of imperfection and weakness, in other words, even the invisible church is perfect only in the sense that Christ's perfect righteousness is accounted to the believer. He held that the church as an organization should be "unblameable" in the sense that its teachings are founded on God's word alone, that it stands for all its truth and is conducted and maintained throughout in accordance with it.

Unhesitatingly Menno admitted the possibility that a member of the church be not right with God although he may not give offence that could be followed by discipline. Often he refers to the fact that among the apostles there was a hypocrite He repudiates the charge that through discipline the church was supposed to be kept pure in the absolute sense, but the fact that the church, consisting of fallible men, can not claim absolute purity was to him no reason why scriptural discipline should be disregarded. He believed the church to be "the communion of the saints" in very deed but did not ascribe to it perfection in purity in the absolute sense. Many writers have advanced charges of extreme views concerning the purity of the church against Menno Simons which are quite unwarranted. He says:

"In the fifth place we teach, seek and demand that the Lord's supper be observed as the Lord Jesus Himself has instituted and observed it, namely with a church that is outwardly without spot or blemish, that

is without noticeable transgression and wickedness; for the church judges what is visible. But what is inwardly evil, but does not appear outwardly to the church, as for example the betrayal of Judas, such God alone will judge and pass sentence on them; for He alone, and not the church, discerns hearts and motives".

It is worthy of notice in this connection that in Menno's opinion not all grievous sin need be publicly confessed. If a transgression is unknown both to the world and to the church, and the guilty one repents and confesses his sin to a brother, Menno did not believe it proper to make the matter public. He writes in 1558.

"Should it at any time come to pass that any one sin against his God in secret in any carnal abomination, from which may He through His power preserve us all, and should the Spirit of the grace of Christ who alone must awaken true repentance in us all, again touch his heart and grant him genuine repentance, of this we have not to judge, for it is a matter between him and God. For since it is evident that we do not seek our righteousness and salvation, the remission of our sins, satisfaction, reconciliation and eternal life in the ban or through the ban, but alone in the righteousness, intercession, merit, death and blood of Christ, and since now the two real objects why the ban is commanded in the Scriptures can not be sought in the instance of such a one, because, firstly, his sin is private, hence no offence can follow from it, and secondly, he is contrite at heart and penitent in life and therefore there is no need of putting him to shame in order that he may be brought to repentance, hence there is no commission of Christ, no divine command that he should be more severely taken to account, nor excluded or brought to shame before the church."

The position of the Swiss Brethren and the Hutterites on the point in question is set forth in a book of the Hutterites, in 1567: Refutation and Reply to the Swiss, Written Upon their Request. The last of the "Fourteen Articles Against the Swiss Brethren," contained in this treatise, is as follows:

"Some of them have a false and unchristian opinion and false conception in this, that they say: If perchance some one should have

become guilty of sin and vice and if no one knew of it, he might repent of the same sin, and himself ask God's forgiveness, without telling or disclosing it to any one else. Some of them, however do not take this position."

Menno Simons taught emphatically that the ban, being the exclusion of backsliders and transgressors from the church, is ineffective if it is not used on the authority of God's Word against those who through transgression or false doctrine are already inwardly separated from the church; but if, on the other hand, the ban is rightly used, the one who is excluded from the church, is excluded from salvation. He writes in 1558:

"It is to be observed in the first place that these heavenly keys are two in number, namely the key of binding and the key of loosing; even as the Lord said to Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. (Matt. 16:19.)

"In the second place, we must observe, that the key of binding is nothing else than the word of God's righteousness, the instructing, demanding, constraining, terrifying and condemning law of the Lord, through which all those who do not by faith accept Christ, the only and eternal means of grace, and do not hear His voice, nor follow and obey His holy will, are bound under the curse, sin, death and the wrath of God.

"Again, on the other hand, the key of loosing is the joyous, sweet word of grace, the pardoning, consoling, unbinding Gospel of peace by which all who truly accept Christ as He is revealed in His word, with a firm trust in His innocent blood and death with a regenerated, new, converted, willing, confiding and believing heart, fear Him, love Him, follow and obey Him, are delivered from the said curse, sin, death and the wrath of God.

"In the third place it is to be observed that this binding key is given to Christ's ministers and His people for the purpose that through it they shall in the power of the Spirit set forth into all earthly, carnal, selfwilled and impenitent hearts their great sin, unrighteousness, blindness and wickedness, together with God's righteous wrath,

judgement, punishment, hell and everlasting death, and thus render them contrite, dismayed, humble, broken, penitent, dejected and sorrowful of heart before God and little in their own eyes.

"Again, on the contrary, the key of loosing is given to the end that with it the ministers and people of Christ may direct such contrite, troubled, dejected, sorrowing and broken hearts, which through the power of the first key have been brought to feel and recognise their deep mortal wounds, their defects and sores, to the spiritual brazen serpent, to the throne of grace, to the open fountain of David, to the merciful, compassionate high priest of our only and eternal offering of reconciliation, Christ Jesus, and thus heal their perilous, malignant and deadly wounds, stripes and the bite of the infernal serpent. Therefore this key is likened in its virtue to the consoling olive branch of Noah's dove, to the salve of Gilead, etc.

"Forasmuch then, that it is clearly manifest, that Jesus Christ alone has the key of David and, to the truly, sincerely penitent unlocks heaven, looses the knot of their unrighteousness and grants forgiveness of sins; and again, as it is He who, against the impenitent carnal sinners, closes heaven, binds them under His judgement and retains their sins, and we, in His name, are nothing more than heralds, ministers and messengers who can make the divine precepts neither shorter nor longer, neither narrower nor wider than is taught us by the Spirit and commanded us by His word, as heard, therefore it is fully evident that they greatly err who in the pride of their ignorance suffer themselves to think that they have power to remit or retain the sins of any man that may have been committed against God, or who with perverse, inconsiderate minds out of carnal motives, hatred or bitterness and not purely and solely through the Spirit and Word of Christ, dare to ban or exclude any one," etc.

"Therefore, my brethren, no one is cut off by us, or separated from the communion of the brethren, but those who have already either by false doctrine or by a blameable life cut themselves off and separated themselves from Christ and His church. For we desire not to exclude any one but to receive; not to cut off but to restore; not to reject but to seek; not to trouble but to console, not to condemn but to save; for

such is the true nature and desire of a Christian brother. Whoever turns from evil, be it from his false doctrine or from his vain life, and conforms to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to which he is baptised, neither shall nor can ever be excluded or cut off by any brethren.

"But those who by admonition, tears, threatening, reproof or by any other Christian service and godly means can not be raised up and restored, we should, not without great regret and grief, separate from our assembly and thus, in obedience to the doctrine and command of God's Word, exclude the evil of which the erring brethren are guilty, lest we also be led astray by the false doctrine which ever eats as a canker, (II Tim. 2:17) or be influenced by the same vain, carnal life, since the flesh is ever inclined to evil. And thus the separated brother or sister whom we can not help or convert by pleasing services, may by this means of excluding be made ashamed to repentance II Thess. 3) and acknowledge to what he has come and from what he is fallen. Thus the ban is a very great work of love, although by those who do not understand it, it is looked upon and considered an act of hatred".

"After the offending one has been duly admonished in all love, diligence and faithfulness, the exclusion shall take place in the congregation of God with the power of Christ, that is with the binding and losing key of the divine word and of the Holy Ghost. For whenever it be practised without the word and Spirit, without love and brotherly concern, whether it be through bitterness or anger or on the basis of a false report, not conformable to the Word, or for reasons not deserving the ban, then it is not a work of God, not a medicine to the soul, nor a fruit of pure love, but a contention of Satan, a ruin and pestilence to the conscience and an obvious fruit of the flesh; in short, "before God a curse, abomination and stench. Let every person "well weigh these words of Paul and he will through God's grace learn how strictly the exclusion is commanded in Scripture and how considerately it should with the power of the word and Spirit of Christ be practised in the church. Menno proceeds to point out that the words of Paul, (I Cor. 5:5) "To deliver such a one to Satan" do not mean that this is done by excommunication, but in the ban announcement is made to the sinner of what has already taken place.

Upon the accusation of Gellius Faber that the Anabaptists were quick and inconsiderate in the matter of discipline Menno replies:

"I repeat: We have extended to them the faithful service of our brotherly love from our inmost hearts by entreating and admonishing them and have patiently borne with some for one or two years expecting the best."

The Swiss Brethren and the Hutterites, agreed with Menno on the point that "the true reason why and to what end this separation or excommunication is so earnestly taught and commanded in the holy Scriptures, by Jesus Christ and His holy apostles, is first, for false doctrine; further for sinful carnal life; further that the transgressors may be admonished to repentance, that is to say, those who would be so admonished". With equal emphasis they insisted on the need of church discipline and excommunication, but differed on the question of the avoidance of the excommunicated.

XII MENNO SIMONS' DOCTRINE ON THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

Menno Simons held a peculiar doctrine on the Incarnation: Christ did not obtain His human nature from a sinful child of Adam. God through the Holy Spirit prepared for Him a body (Heb. 10:5). Mary was truly His mother; He is called "the fruit of Mary's womb" in a similar sense as we speak of grain as the fruit of the field. This doctrine of the Incarnation has been substantially accepted by a number of well known Bible scholars of our time.

Menno says:

If Christ had been, as regards His humanity "of the impure, sinful flesh of Adam, He would through the eternal righteousness of God, be also guilty of judgement and death. And if He Himself owed a debt, how could He pay ours?" "This selfsame Word in due time descended from heaven and through the power of the Most High and of His Holy Spirit, above all human comprehension, became a true, suffering, mortal man, not of Mary, but in Mary, as John says, the Word was made flesh" To assert that Christ was, in that case, not truly human, says Menno, is

to deny God's omnipotence. He replies to the question, Whence, then, has Christ obtained His humanity? with a counter question: "Whence came the abundance of water which flowed from the hard rock? Was it not accomplished above all human understanding and comprehension through God's almighty power, to which nothing is impossible?"

Menno taught that Christ, while in the Incarnation "He took upon Him the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7) did not forego His divine nature. The old charge which has been reasserted by a few modern writers, that he believed the Word to have become flesh by a change in His divine nature, he repudiated as a slander.

"That I have ever said this, that the Word was changed into flesh and that Jesus was only man, no one will, I believe, ever be able to prove; nevertheless they have the courage to say and write such of us. I have spoken of this as the eminent apostle has taught me, namely that the Word was made flesh. This testimony I let stand unbroken and commit the mystery, how much there was changed or not changed, to Him who through His omnipotent power has so ordered it for the salvation of us all. Yet I would add, in my simplicity, if they interpret the said testimony of John, which I have quoted without changing a letter, in such a way as to make it appear that Menno teaches, with John, that the Word has been made flesh, therefore his opinion must be that it was changed into flesh, etc., they should know that change does not in every instance take away the nature of the first substance of which something consists or is wrought. Adam was a man created of earth; and although he was a man thus created, he nevertheless continued to be earth, as the Lord said, 'Dust you are and to dust you shall return.' - My reader, understand me rightly, I do not present this illustration to assert that the Word was changed into flesh, but I have presented it for the purpose of showing to the reader that even if the Word, in the Incarnation should have undergone a change, even then it nevertheless remained the Word. (John 1:14; 8:23; I John 1:2; Rev. 19:13.)"

"I say that concerning this incomprehensible, sublime subject I do in no wise make reason my counsellor, but set forth the word of my Lord which teaches me in all clearness," etc. "Since He is God's own and

true Son and has no other origin but of God, He must also have the nature of the One of whom He is; this is too plain to be controverted". "Although He humbled Himself and for our sakes for a time laid down His divine privilege, right and majesty, despite this He was God and God's Word". "Christ is truly God and man, man and God". "I confess both natures in Christ, the divine and the human".

Menno repeatedly asks forbearance of his readers for enlarging on the subject of the origin of life in his defence of the doctrine of the Incarnation. "God knows how unwillingly I do it, but necessity forces me to it". He asserts that a new life does not originate from woman, hence Christ's origin, even as concerns His humanity, could not be of Mary. Martin Micron, after his discussions with Menno, wrote to Heinrich Bullinger on March 5, 1556, informing him of Menno's opinion and arguments, and stating that the Zwinglian theologian Musculus was of the same opinion as Menno Simons regarding the origin of human life and indeed had presented this view in one of his books. It is necessary, says Micron, that Musculus be called down and prevailed upon to modify or change his attitude on this question.

"If our adversaries once observed this in the writings of Musculus," he continues, "they would utter the greatest boastings having found this teaching in our own publications) and would already among all men ascribe to themselves the victory. Great is the authority of Musculus everywhere and if he furnishes our antagonists with such weapons against us, it will scarcely be possible to stop their mouths. I beseech you .... that you admonish Musculus concerning these things, so that he at the earliest possible opportunity come to the aid of the church that is thus struggling. - If our adversaries dare to oppose us on the authority of Aristotle, what would they do, if they knew that Musculus is on their side, as doubtless they will soon know from his aforementioned work, for Menno is hunting for such things among our own writings, unless Musculus soon concurs."

From another letter of Micron it is apparent that Musculus fully complied with the wishes of his friends and repudiated his former opinion on the point in question.

Menno rejected the view that Christ as to his body was human while as to his mind and soul He was divine. "The Scriptures know of no divided Christ." If He had His human nature from Mary, "He could in such case be not more than half man, namely as concerns His mother's part according to the assertion of the theologians". "Above all human understanding" the divine and the human nature were united in Him. That this doctrine of the Incarnation has a tendency toward the denial of the deity of Christ was indignantly denied by Menno. On the contrary, his opinion was that what is generally considered the orthodox view dishonours Christ.

Although Menno held that only the regenerated are spoken of in Scripture as brethren of Christ, because they are partakers of the divine nature (II Pet. 1:4), he repudiated the idea that the regenerated are divine in the same sense as Christ. He says:

"Dear brethren, we do not say, Christ is born of the Spirit, but we say with the Scriptures that He is incarnate and conceived through the Spirit. Now it is a different matter, as you know, to be born of the Spirit and to be incarnate and conceived through the Spirit. Can any one doubt that to be born of the Spirit is regeneration?". "Christ not only calls the regenerated His brethren, but also His children, and says, Behold I and the children which God has given me, (Isa. 8:18). They are called His children because He through the word of His grace, by the power of His Holy Spirit in the sprinkling of His precious blood, has begotten them to God His Father" "Christ, the Prince of our salvation, has led us to His glory and thus accepted us as brethren and children in the faith" "On account of being born of God, and not for the sake of the birth of Adam, we are His brethren, for the regenerated have one Father with Him". "They are the true brethren of Jesus Christ who with Him are born of God". "For the reason that the regenerated are, with Christ, born of one God and have one Father, therefore He calls the sanctified who with Him are born of God, His brethren, not because of the flesh but because of the new birth. If it were otherwise, you would have to say and admit that all wicked, unbelieving and perverse men and women were brethren and sisters of Christ, as well as the believing, sincere and pious. By no means, for Christ says;

Whoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother".

The said doctrine of the incarnation of Christ was not original with Menno, but was in substance held by the Obbenites from the beginning. The opinion that Menno at the time of his conversion was not acquainted with this teaching is unfounded. In all probability this doctrine was for a time a hindrance standing in the way of his identification with the Obbenites. He writes in 1544:

"When this matter of the incarnation of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ was first mentioned and set before me by the brethren I was, when I heard it, greatly amazed and startled fearing lest I should err in the matter and be found before God in hurtful unbelief. Yea, on account of this article I was also after receiving baptism often so troubled and oppressed at heart, that for many a day through anxiety I abstained from food and drink beseeching God in tears and great uneasiness, that the kind Father by His mercy and grace would rightly reveal to me, a poor sinner who diligently although in great imperfection and weakness sought to do His good will and pleasure, the mystery of the incarnation of His blessed Son, so far as may be useful and necessary to the glorification of His holy name and the consolation of my oppressed conscience. Thus straying for days, weeks, and months, I have discussed with a few who are of your opinion, yet no one taught me sufficiently concerning this matter, for I found with them gross misunderstanding of certain passages of Scripture which they used to support their assertion, not only according to my opinion but according to the Scriptures; so that at last, after much fasting, praying, heaviness and anxiety I was fully consoled and refreshed at heart through the grace of the Lord, assured by the unerring testimony of the Scriptures, and I sincerely acknowledged and believed that Christ Jesus, forever blessed, is the Lord from heaven, (I Cor. 15:47)," etc.

Menno Simons points out repeatedly that the controversy concerning the incarnation of Christ was forced upon him by his opponents In his Brief Defence to all Theologians he asks for "a free public debate" with any one of his opponents and gives a list of subjects - ten in number - which should be made the base of the discussions, but does not

mention the Incarnation. In his first book on the subject addressed to John a'Lasco) he urges that it was most earnestly asked of him to write. In the same book he states that in his discussions with a'Lasco he was against his desire compelled to make this subject a question of dispute. To treat in this connection on the origin of human life, etc., was distasteful to him. "I am ashamed from my heart, the Lord knows, that I must speak in such a way concerning this great and holy matter; but they compel me to it".

He also testifies, in the year 1544, that he avoided to deal with the subject of the Incarnation in his sermons. He writes:

"I say again, this is my confession toward those who most earnestly ask and demand of me a statement of my faith and teaching concerning this article. Yet in my common admonitions to the brethren and friends I never teach it so completely or extensively, nor have I ever taught it so fully as I have told you (John a'Lasco) verbally. But I teach in a simple way that the blessed Christ Jesus is truly God and man, a Son of God and a Son of man, conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the pure virgin Mary, became a poor, needy man, like us in all things, except sin. Therefore, I say, that I and all teachers can do no better than to teach and set forth this matter of the incarnation and the body of Christ to the common church in a true, simple, apostolic way to edification, to love, to consolation, to sanctification, to a life in accordance with His precepts and example." "Among us there are doubtless many who fear the Lord from the inmost of their souls and have never in their life heard a syllable in regard to the mystery of this matter, as set forth above with great clearness, and have never inquired concerning it, much less do they know or understand it". "Herewith I conclude this my confession of the Incarnation of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. I write you on this subject in accordance with your desire and place it before you in all clearness, as one who is not ashamed of his faith. Nevertheless I do not teach and treat this matter to such depth in my admonitions to the brethren, or, as said above, have ever done so, but in all simplicity according to apostolic example to edification and love."

XIII MENNO SIMONS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THE MUNSTERITES

The Munsterite sect rejected infant baptism but differed from the Mennonites on other fundamental points. Under the leadership of John of Leyden, the "second King David" who was to rule until Solomon Christ) should take possession of the kingdom, they established themselves in the city of Munster in Northwest Germany. Not only did they reject the principle of non-resistance but they would destroy the wicked with the sword. They advocated polygamy and ascribed divine authority to their false prophets. After a siege of over a year Munster was conquered on June 25, 1535. John of Leyden and others of their leaders were executed.

One of the first books of Menno Simons is his Plain and Clear Proof .... Against the Abominable and Terrible Blasphemy of John of Leyden. The date of this book is not altogether certain. Evidently it was written before his renunciation of the Roman Church, in the period when he, as he later testified, undeservedly had the reputation of an evangelical preacher. To all appearance Menno, when he wrote this book, was only partially acquainted with the teachings of the Munsterites. Probably the date is somewhere in the first half of the year 1535. Menno writes:

"We should not have ventured to write, were there not a pressing need. On the one hand we can not bear the shameful deceit and great blasphemy against God, that a man be placed in Christ's stead; on the other hand those who teach such deceit, yea, abominable heresy concerning the promised David, and similar doctrines refuse to deal with us personally.

''A greater Antichrist than the one who pretends to be the promised David John of Leyden), can not come. He who is not blind, understands well what are the weapons with which Christians should fight, namely the word of God. To fight with carnal weapons is forbidden us. It is true, God will punish Babylon, but not through His Christians. The Scriptures clearly testify that the Lord Christ must first come again, before all His enemies shall be punished.

"May all those who would fight with the sword give heed to these words, yea all who would be the angels to root up the tares. Christ

indeed expounded this parable differently and says: The good seed are the children of the kingdom, the reapers are the angels. Inasmuch as the Christians are the good seed, how can they be the angels or reapers; or if they be the reapers, how can they be the seed? These are quite different things, the seed and the reapers; this is plain beyond dispute.

"Christ has not taken His kingdom with the sword, but through suffering; and they would take it with the sword! O blindness of man!

Since it is a fact that Christ combats His enemies with the sword of His mouth, He smites the earth with the rod of His mouth; He slays the wicked with the breath of His lips Isa. 11:4; Rev. 2:16); and since we are to be conformed into His image, Rom. 8:29), how can we then fight our enemies with any other sword? Does not the apostle Peter say: "For to this were you called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that you should follow his steps, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him who judges righteously" (I Pet. 2:21).

Some of the opponents of Menno Simons have asserted that in the earlier years of his reformatory labours he held the Anabaptists of Munster to be his "dear brethren" and of one party with himself. Although in his Plain and Clear Proof he speaks of John of Leyden as a blasphemer and an anti-Christ and of Munsterite principles as heresy and an abomination, it was, curiously enough, supposed that this book shows his attitude toward John of Leyden alone, and not toward his followers. In the first edition of his Foundation Menno refers to certain Anabaptists of an earlier period who for lack of knowledge were on certain points unorthodox they were not Munsterites, though Menno's opponents asserted it) as brethren. This has been taken as evidence that he made no real distinction between his own party and the Munsterites. The fact that in the first edition of the Foundation he repeatedly addresses also Roman Catholics as brethren has been ignored. The sense in which he in many instances used this expression is clearly indicated when in the same book he speaks of a certain class as his "brethren, but not in Christ Jesus, for those are brethren in Christ who abide in His holy word." Hence if he would have spoken of

the Munsterites as brethren which is not the case, as will be pointed out) this would not prove the point in question.

The opinion that Menno, at the time when he published the first edition of the Foundation, considered himself of the same party as the Munsterites is altogether unfounded. There is abundant proof that he was at that time and indeed from the very rise of the Munsterites a consistent opponent of their teaching and believed their sect to advocate even greater errors than the Roman Church. This proof is contained in the above mentioned book against John of Leyden as well as in the Meditation to the Twenty-fifth Psalm and in the first edition of the Foundation.

In the first edition of the Meditation Menno Simons says:

"Satan has through the false, unenlightened teachers perverted the spiritual sense of the Scriptures into a carnal sense; he has instituted the sword and weapons and therewith has engendered a revengeful heart against all the world; he has moreover, without any Scripture, cloaked and palliated shameful adultery with the example of the Jewish patriarchs, also a visible kingdom and king and other ungodly errors at which a true Christian is stricken with terror."

A more outspoken rejection of Munsterite principles cannot be found in Menno's later writings. A passage in this book is directed principally against some of the followers of David Joris the enthusiast, but applies to the Munsterites as well. Menno says:

"There are those who continuously cry out, grace, Spirit, Christ; but every day they trample grace under their feet, grieve the Holy Spirit and by their carnal life lamentably crucify the Son of God anew. Some of those who had once fled out of Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon and taken upon them the yoke and cross of Christ, have nevertheless fallen prey to the devil; they have been miserably deceived by the false prophets, just as if they had never confessed Your holy Word; yea, seven evil spirits have taken possession of them (Luke 11:24) and the last deception has become a thousand times worse than the first."

Obviously this means that those who were "miserably deceived by the false prophets" had fallen into greater errors than Romanism. In the

later revision the words "a thousand times" in the last sentence have been eliminated.

The first edition of the Foundation has a few clear expressions on the point in question, denouncing Munsterite teaching and showing clearly Menno's attitude toward this sect. The very aim, in fact, which Menno had in writing this book was, if we may accept his own testimony as given in the preface, to give proof of the radical differences which separated him and his brethren from the Munsterites. He says:

"Since we find that Satan can convert himself into an angel of light and sow the evil tares among the good wheat of the Lord, namely the Munsterite doctrines of the sword, matrimony, outward kingdom of Christ, idolatry, deception pretension to be of the state church when such was not the case) and other errors of similar nature, for whose sake being accused of such errors) the children of God must in our day hear and suffer terrible things, therefore we have been led to give here with an account of our faith."

Menno states in this book that there are five religious parties, viz., "Papists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, corrupt sects and Baptisers." The last are the party which he represented while the "corrupt sects" are Munsterites, Batenburgers and Davidians. "Those who have been baptised," he says, "and have again departed from the salutary doctrine of Jesus Christ, have yielded to the deception and error of the false prophets and refuse to accept instruction" are not acceptable partakers of the Lord's table. The false prophets are the leaders of the corrupt sects. These statements show conclusively that Menno by no means accepted the Munsterites as his brethren in Christ.

Concerning the principles of the Munsterites Menno says here:

"We teach, know or acknowledge no King David according to the spirit, but alone the invisible King Jesus Christ to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth who alone is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. But in all temporal things we teach obedience to the Imperial Majesty, to kings, lords and all governments whenever they do not give us command contrary to God's word. We teach, know and

acknowledge no sword than alone the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. - We teach, know and acknowledge no matrimony than what Christ Jesus Himself and His holy apostles have taught and sanctioned, namely between one man and one woman. No kingdom of God do we know, teach and acknowledge which is of this world. We know, teach and consent to no murder and robbery," etc. May the almighty eternal Father through His beloved Son Jesus Christ keep and guard all faithful hearts from these cursed heresies and abominable errors which are contrary not only to God's word but also to the law of nature."

Further: "I know that they accuse us of Munsterite errors concerning king, matrimony, sword, outward kingdom, murder, theft and similar deceptions, which accursed ungodly teaching and Satanic errors, they all say, follow from baptism, and consequently the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, the consecrated life and apostolic baptism is diligently opposed by them. No, dear rulers, no," etc.

The first part of the chapter "To the Corrupt Sects" in the same book also treats of the Munsterites as well as of the Davidites, and shows clearly Menno's position toward them. It will be quoted in another place. And in his Book on Baptism, in 1539, well as in another book published in the same year Menno expresses himself to the same effect concerning the corrupt sects, clearly including the Munsterites.

Again in his Loving Admonition, in 1541, Menno condemns "the Jewish doctrines of the sword, kingdom, polygamy and other seductions of similar nature" And in his first book addressed to John a'Lasco, in 1544, he speaks of the Munsterites and denounces their teachings in no uncertain tones. He says:

"I have written this in order that our faith, doctrine and life, may be clearly set forth and made known, to destroy the evil suspicion which is held against us in consequence of the pernicious uproar and the shameful doctrine and practice of the false prophets who go forth under a pious semblance as before God who knows our hearts, we are clear of all their abominable doctrine, uproar, mutiny, bloodshed, plurality of wives, and the like abominations. Yea we hate and from all

our heart oppose them as acknowledged heresies, as snares to the conscience and deceit, as deception of souls and pestilential doctrine."

The above mentioned Anabaptists who erred in a certain matter and were spoken of as erring brethren by Menno, were the so-called OldCloisterites. In his reply to Gellius Faber Menno gives interesting information on the question of the principles of these people. His own brother had cast his lot with them. When Gellius Faber reproachfully mentioned this fact in his attempted refutation of Menno's doctrinal position, Menno made the following answer:

"My poor brother with whom he so inimically upbraids me has not erred further than that he alas! through lack of understanding undertook to defend his faith with the fist and to oppose violence with violence, as is the manner of all theologians, preachers, priests, monks, and the whole wide world."

In another part of the same book Menno Simons tells us that the Oldcloisterites "through the ungodly doctrine of Munster" took the sword. It is clear, as will be pointed out, that these people, although they followed the Munsterites to the extent of taking the sword, can not be classed with the followers of the false prophets in Munster. There is not a shadow of an evidence that they approved of the essentially Munsterite doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, of polygamy and of the earthly kingdom of God. The Old-Cloisterites did not accept these offensive teachings. As concerns polygamy, it is improbable that they knew that this practice was defended by the Munsterites. Menno Simons, about the time of the affair at the Old-Cloister or shortly after it wrote a book against the Munsterites, namely the Plain and Clear Proof which was mentioned above. In this book the subject of polygamy is never named or alluded to; in all probability Menno, when he wrote this book was not acquainted with the Munsterite position on this point, and there is every reason to suppose that the Old-cloisterites had no better knowledge of Munsterite doctrine than Menno Simons. Indeed polygamy is to all appearance mentioned and defended in only one of the Munsterite books namely The Restitution. Polygamy, it will be remembered, was introduced in Munster by John of Leyden and was with terrible bloodshed maintained by him against

the party headed by Mollenhecke. After John's purpose had been accomplished, the teaching of polygamy was no longer set forth in the Munsterite writings. It may have been realized by them that their cause was not enhanced in the outside world by the advocacy of this shameful institution. There is no evidence that the Old-Cloisterites had become acquainted with The Restitution. Whether or not this was the case, they were neither polygamists, nor did they defend the thought of the destruction of the wicked. Clearly they took possession of the cloister, not in order to destroy their enemies, much less to slay eventually all the wicked, but to defend themselves against their persecutors. They did the monks in the cloister no harm whatever, but destroyed the images and altars.

It must be remembered that the death sentence was passed upon all Anabaptists. The poor people were chased down like wild beasts. Only in exceptional cases would recantation save their lives. Many had been killed for their faith. Those Anabaptists who did not hold the principle of non-resistance were under temptation to take the sword in selfdefence. Conceivably the example of the Munsterites made an impression on those who were persecuted to death. The Munsterites boasted of their success in defying all the world with the sword. They held that the Lord fought the battles of those who took the sword when they were innocently persecuted. If Munster could defend itself against the powers that be, could not the experiment be repeated in other places? Did not all the world, as Menno correctly observes, assert the right of self-defence? Menno testifies that "after many cruel edicts, after much persecution and slaughter" these people went to the Old Cloister to defend themselves

The said passage on the Old-Cloisterites in the first edition of The Foundation is contained in the chapter "To the Corrupt Sects." This designation is, as said above, given by Menno to certain enthusiastic and revolutionary sects which by his opponents were classed as Anabaptists, namely the Munsterites, Batenburgers and Davidians. When he published the first edition of his Foundation, there were besides these sects only two Christian denominations found in the Netherlands, namely the Roman Catholic state church and the

Brethren represented by himself. There existed also secret bands of Melchiorites, but they had not actually renounced the state church. Hence all unorthodox Anabaptists were found in the ranks of the "corrupt sects." The Old-cloisterites were not classed by Menno under this category, but they had ceased to exist previous to his conversion. He speaks of them in this chapter to show the fallacy of the accusation of the Davidians, that he denounced as corrupt sects all that were according to his understanding not entirely orthodox.

Evidently the Old-Cloisterites had formerly been followers of Melchior Hofmann, But while Hofmann did not practice baptism, waiting for the expected time of liberty and the cessation of the persecution, the Oldcloisterites had been baptised; they had become Anabaptists and were therefore in immediate danger of death. Menno held at that time the office of a priest in Witmarsum, but had come to some extent under Melchiorite influence. He admired these people for their willingness to follow the light which had come to them and to step out of the state church under such adverse conditions.

"I saw myself," he says, "that these zealous people willingly gave their life and possessions for their principles and faith, though they were in error;" they were "a well-meaning, straying flock that would so gladly do the right, if they but knew the right."

Melchior Hofmann did not teach the principle of non-resistance and Menno Simons points out repeatedly that the Old-cloisterites had never been taught the truth on the point in question; they sinned not against better light but erred unknowingly. For the reason that they followed the truth to the extent as they had received light - that they "would so gladly do the right if they only know what the right is" - that they in the face of untold persecution confessed the truth as far as they had received it, giving unmistakable evidence of the courage of their conviction; for these reasons Menno Simons speaks of them as brethren, but in order to be not misunderstood he adds, it he could not believe that they were free from Munsterite errors concerning the worldly kingdom of God, their attitude toward "the wicked," polygamy, etc., he would take a different position toward them. He condemned the use of the sword as contrary to Christ's spirit, word and example,

and believed the drawing of the sword to be a weighty error in itself, but since these people in self-defence had erred ignorantly, he made the somewhat inconsiderate statement that they "transgressed a little." In the revision of the Foundation the whole passage was eliminated.

Menno held that their error should under these circumstances not be too severely charged against them. It is worthy of notice that he took a similar position in regard to certain Zwinglians who gave their lives for the sake of their faith and followed the truth to the extent as they had received it. He says of them: "But that some of them in the beginning for the sake of the testimony which they had obtained, have shed their blood, for this we praise God and believe with James that they are blessed and that they are our companions in the tribulation of Christ (Jas. 5:11; Rev. 1:9); for their deeds have testified that they sought God and were faithful as far as they had obtained light.

It has been supposed that the Old-Cloisterites were minded to go to Munster which would indicate that they were Munsterites in principle. But had this been their intention it would be difficult to conceive of a motive why they should go to the Old Cloister and there await attack and siege by the state troops. To the contrary they were of the opinion that the Old Cloister had been given them as a place of refuge against their persecutors, a place where they hoped to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, they believed, since right was on their side, the Lord would give their undertaking success, but overlooked the fact that they transgressed by taking the sword. They referred to the Old Cloister as their Zion, for here they established a congregation of their scattered flock. They wrote letters urging others, "if they loved God and the holy Gospel they should without delay come to them to the Cloister for this was the sure place of protection which God had given His people for a certain refuge. " That the Munsterite Jan van Geelen who organized the uprising in Amsterdam on May 11, 1535, was the leader of the Old-Cloisterites is clearly a later invention of their enemies.

K. Vos asserts that Menno's brother who lost his life at the Old Cloister had been in Munster and was a prominent adherent of John of Leyden,

being identical with Peter Symonson, one of the twelve elders in Munster and later the steward of the kitchen of king John who was with five others sent forth, in December 1534, to spread the book On Vengeance and to promote the Munsterite cause in general. This author has apparently overlooked the fact that Peter Symonson returned to Munster within a few weeks, namely toward the end of December 1534." It is a pure assumption, without any evidence whatever that he was Menno Simons' brother. Were it fact, Menno's opponents would doubtlessly have been informed of it and would have made some mention of it in their books against Menno. And Menno could not have said of his brother than he erred only on one point.

The passage in question which has been supposed to show that Menno considered the Munsterites as brethren of like faith with himself, and which has reference not to the Munsterites but to the Old-Cloisterites, follows:

"I do not doubt that our dear brethren who have formerly transgressed a little against the Lord in so far as they undertook to protect their faith with the sword, have a gracious God. For they were, I hope, not tainted with the aforesaid Munsterites heresies. They sought nothing but Christ Jesus and eternal life, and for this cause they forsook all their possessions, their own kindred, yea their own lives, although afterwards they erred a little, as said above, in which respect we should not to follow them, namely, they used weapons other than patient endurance and God's Word. And it is not to be wondered at that they erred at that time, for in those times they had not the proving of the spirits (I John 4:1). The upright and pious I call my sisters and brethren because they have erred unknowingly. But the double-hearted who did not seek God with a pure heart, although they bore the name of sisters and brethren, and the leaders of the seduction, as for instance those at Munster and Amsterdam, these who are not now among the living) I leave in the hands of the Lord; He knows what judgement they have deserved and He will judge them according to His holy will."

The passages from the same book as well as from the Meditation in

which Menno denounces Munsterite doctrine as "accursed heresies and abominable errors" have been quoted above.

Another evidence of Menno's supposed friendly attitude toward the Anabaptists of Munster is stated by K. Vos as follows: "His wife's sister Margaret Edes, was troubled in mind because she had been baptised by the Munsterite minister Douwe Schoemacker, and desired to be re-baptised, but Menno as well as Leonard Bouwens refused her desire."

The only source for this interesting item is Hans Alenson's TegenBericht, written in 1630. While K. Vos and others assert that Margaret Edes entertained doubts concerning the validity of her baptism because it was performed by a Munsterite minister, Alenson does not mention this as the cause of her desire to be re-baptised, but says she believed to have received baptism without faith and repentance. From a letter written by Menno Simons to this person it is evident that hers was an over-sensitive conscience and she found it difficult to come to an assurance of saving faith.

Alenson refers to Douwe Schoemacker, the minister who baptised Margaret Edes, as a Munsterite. There is absolutely nothing known about this man, except what is contained in Alenson, who wrote about seventy years after Menno Simons' death and probably more than ninety years after the baptism in question. We do not know whence Alenson had his information concerning Douwe Schoemacker, but we do know that he is not always reliable in his statements concerning Menno Simons. There is no proof for the correctness of his assertion that Douwe Schoemacker was not at one with Menno Simons in principle. Margaret Edes was one of the circle in Witmarsum which was influenced by the Old-Cloisterites. She may have been baptised by one of their ministers. Even if Menno had accepted Munsterite baptism as valid, an assumption for which there is no evidence, this would not prove the point in question. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin accepted Roman Catholic baptism but were not Romanists.

It has been pointed out above that even before his renunciation of the state-church Menno Simons was a radical opponent of the Munsterites

and their teachings. The testimony to that effect contained in the account of his conversion and in his Plain and Clear Proof has been cited. In his later writings also we have the repeated and clear testimony that previous to his conversion and from the very rise of the Munsterites he was their opponent. He says:

"Since we against all truth are so severely attacked and accused by our opponents, we will say in defence of us all that we consider the Munsterite doctrine, cause and life, namely concerning king, sword, uproar, striking back vengeance, plurality of wives, and the outward kingdom of Christ upon earth a new Judaism, a deceptive error, an abomination, radically at variance with the spirit, word and example of Christ. Behold, in Christ we lie not. No one under the broad canopy of heaven can show or prove that I at any time of my life agreed with the Munsterites in the before-mentioned articles; for I have from the beginning until the present time opposed and refuted them with all diligence and earnestness, both privately and publicly, verbally and in writing, yea for over seventeen years and ever since I have in my weakness and according to my ability confessed the Word of the Lord and His holy name, have I taken this attitude toward them".

Again Menno says that the places in which he had held office in the service of the state church, namely, ''Witmarsum and Pingjum, must acknowledge this and be my witnesses that before my resignation I have earnestly opposed and denounced the Munsterite teaching".

Concerning his relation and attitude to the Munsterites he says further:

"We are clear and free of the abominable doctrine, uproar, mutiny, bloodthirstiness, polygamy and like abomination of the false prophets. Yea we hate and oppose such teachings with all earnestness as evident heresy, as snares to the conscience, as deception, seduction and fraud and as pestilential doctrines accursed and rejected by all Scripture".

"Behold, kind reader, this is my position and confession concerning the Munsterites, and the position of all who are acknowledged and accepted as brethren and sisters among us.

"In short, we confess and testify herewith before God, before you, and

before the whole wide world that we from our inmost hearts detest the aforesaid errors and abominations of the Munsterites, of all the world and of evil sects, which are contrary to the Spirit, word, ordinance and commandment of the Lord.

"Our persecutors accuse us and say that we are seditious like the Munsterites and that we are not obedient to the magistracy. To this we reply in the first place: That the Munsterites were seditious and in many things acted without God's word, we confess; but that we should be one with them, we deny. For the seditious abominations such as their teaching concerning king, kingdom, sword, etc., also plurality of wives and dissembling with the world, observing the unscriptural religious forms prescribed by the powers that be and other similar infamy and abomination we detest and oppose with all our heart".

"It is before God and men unchristian, yea it is manifestly tyrannical and unjust to put us in the same category and impose the same penalty upon us as on the Munsterites, who contrary to God's word and to all evangelical Scripture, also contrary to the existing authorities, established a new kingdom, taught uproar, polygamy, etc., which we so heartily detest and with the word of the Lord denounce, reprove and oppose, as is clearly evident from our whole life and teachings. It is unjust I say, to put us in the same category with these people alone for the sake of adult baptism which we have so strongly defended with the word of God and the teaching and usage of the apostles against all human philosophy and inventions .

"And if perchance you should point me to the terrible, abominable record of the false corrupted sects, and say that you must oppose baptism with the sword that thus their wicked undertakings may be prevented and hindered, my answer is, first that Christian baptism is not of the corrupt sects, but it is God's word; secondly that holy Christian baptism does not cause mutiny or shameful deeds, but the false teachers and the false prophets who boast themselves to be baptised Christians and yet, before God, are not such, are responsible for these things.

"Thirdly there is nothing under heaven which I abhor more than the

wicked cause of the false, corrupt sects Munsterites and Davidians). I do not regard death with such terror, for I know that it is appointed to all men once to die; nor the tyrannical sword, for if they take my body, it is all they can do; nor Satan, for he has been overcome for me by Christ. But if I were tainted by the abominable doctrine of the corrupt sects, my cause would truly be lost, for eternal woe would be to my poor soul. Therefore I say: If you find in me or my teaching which is the word of God, or among those who are taught by me and my brethren, any thieving, murdering, perjury, mutiny, uproar or any other criminal acts, such as were formerly and are yet found among the corrupted sects, then we desire that you punish us; for we fully deserved the severest punishment in such case".

"Inasmuch as I daily see before my eyes the terrible perils which existed even from the beginning, that so many an innocent soul has been misled and is now misled through the false prophecies, smooth words, seeming sanctity, lying signs, threatenings and false promises of the antichrists and false prophets who ever sought their own honour, fame and gain under a semblance of God's word, as was the case with the pope of Rome and John of Leyden at Munster and others, as may yet abundantly be witnessed, therefore I deem it very necessary and profitable to earnestly warn and admonish with a sincere heart all my beloved readers in the Lord, that they should not accept my doctrine as the Gospel of Jesus Christ so long as they have not thoroughly proved it with the spirit and word of the Lord, that they may not set their hearts upon me nor upon any teacher or writer but upon Jesus Christ".

While his opponents asserted that he was of the same party as the Munsterites, Menno Simons points out that among the churches and parties that were known by the name of Anabaptists, greater differences and contrasts were in evidence than among the infant baptist churches. Says Menno:

"As the Papists and Lutherans are not at one but differ from one another, much more do we radically differ from the Munsterites and from some other sects which sprang from them. That this is the truth we have well established for these many years by our writings, life,

and oral testimony before lords and princes and before the whole world, also by the blood of many pious Christians which in many lands was shed like water".

Menno Simons shows the unreasonableness of the opinion that all who practised adult baptism were therefore of one party. He says:

"We acknowledge, beloved sirs, that some of the false prophets were to outward appearance baptised with the same manner of baptism as we, just as also thieves, murderers, highway robbers, sorcerers and the like were baptised with you. - Shall the good angels be unjustly judged for the sake of Lucifer's pride, and be meted out his punishment? Or are all the apostles traitors for Judas' sake? - Were the apostles responsible for it that the Nicolaitans had their wives in common, as Eusebius relates? Or that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ and taught that Christ did not exist before His incarnation?".

"If they upbraid us and say that we must be accounted one church and body with the Munsterites, because we are baptised outwardly in the same manner, we reply: If outward baptism is so powerful as to make those who are outwardly baptised in the same manner all of one Church and body and to cause one to be included in the unrighteousness, wickedness and perversity of another, simply because both have been baptised in the same way, then our adversaries and opponents may well consider what kind of a church or body theirs is. For it is clear and well known to every man that even perjurers, murderers, highwaymen, thieves, sorcerers and such like have received the same baptism as they and moreover under the state church system, were not excluded from the church). If we, then, are Munsterites for no other reason than because of baptism, then they must be perjurers, murderers, highwaymen, thieves and rogues, for these have received one baptism with them. This can not be gainsaid nor denied. Oh no; the Scriptures do not teach that we are baptised into one body by any outward sign, such as water, but that we are baptised into one body by one Spirit," etc.

In a few of his books Menno Simons states in the preface that his

purpose is to show that the accusation against him of entertaining tumultuous and rebellious aims, on the ground that the Munsterites were revolutionists, was unjust. He points out that not only were the Mennonites not responsible for the deeds of "the corrupt sects," but that certain princes in the churches whose theologians urged such accusations had made more great political, warlike disturbance than all those who were known by the name of Anabaptists. Menno's opponents were well informed concerning uproars made by Anabaptists but memory apparently failed them touching similar sins that were committed by those who were of their own party. At Basel the Zwinglians forced the Reformation on the city and the state through a revolution (1529). Zwingli himself lost his life in an unholy war with the Catholic cantons which were to be compelled to tolerate Zwinglianism, although Catholicism was not tolerated in Zwinglian territory. The leading Lutheran princes, John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, in 1542, invaded the Catholic province of Brunswick, conquered the land, drove out Duke Henry, the rightful ruler, and forced the Lutheran reformation upon the people. One of the most worthless characters that was ever called upon to bear the sceptre of a ruler, was the Margrave Albert Alchibiades of Brandenburg-Kulmbach, a Lutheran. As a lawless adventurer he has left a record that was hardly surpassed even by that of John of Leyden. He believed that he was doing God service by killing the priests. Some of the adjoining provinces he covered with conflagration and murder. Finally he was compelled to flee to France. Facts like these will serve to make clear the following quotations from Menno Simons:

"Secondly I would say: Since again and again he (Faber) lays to our charge the errors and uproar of the Munsterites, of which we are and ever have been before God and men innocent and free, I would beseech him that he take a careful look at his own infant baptist church of which he is a head and teacher. How abominably have they for years risen up against each other, with their accursed, wicked wars they have afflicted whole countries," etc.

"Why do they so indiscreetly accuse us of uproar while we are wholly innocent and clear of all uproar and they never pay attention to their

own destructive, bloody, murdering uproars, which, alas, have no measure or end, as one may see. All this they do not notice, yea it must all be accounted right and well done. Again what bloody uproars the Lutherans have for some years made to introduce and establish their doctrine, I will leave to them to reflect upon. Nevertheless we, although innocent, must be accounted the tumultuous heretics and they the God-fearing, pious, peaceable Christians. Behold so lamentably is the understanding of this blind world darkened".

A comparison of Mennonite with Munsterite principles reveals the most fundamental differences and contrasts. A radical difference existed on the point of the sources of the Christian truth. The Munsterites held that new revelations which came to them through their prophets, were of equal if not greater authority than the Scriptures. They taught that the Old Testament Scriptures surpass the New Testament in authority and importance. Rothmann wrote on the point in question:

"We presume that everyone now knows what is the principal indubitable Scripture, according to which all Scripture must be expounded; namely Moses and the prophets. These are the authoritative Scriptures. There are also other praiseworthy books which may be called the Holy Scriptures especially the Scriptures or books of the New Testament whose truth is founded on the principal Scriptures."

The New Israel of Munster held the Old Testament to be the most authoritative part of the Bible. Menno Simons, to the contrary, taught that the Old Testament, although a part of God's Word, was, as concerns its rules of worship and practice, intended for pre-Messianic times alone. All the Old Testament, says Menno, pointed forward to Christ, the author of the New Covenant, who brought the world the full light of the truth and opened the way of salvation for fallen man. Certain points of Old Testament law were expressly abrogated in the Sermon on the Mount. Divorce, for example, was permitted in the Old Testament law, but forbidden by Christ. "Christ is our only lawgiver," says Menno. "All Scripture must be interpreted according to the spirit, teaching, walk and example of Christ and the apostles."

It is worthy of notice that the Munsterite conception of the relation of the Old Testament to the New differs more radically from Menno's conception than from that of the leading reformers. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin did not make the distinction between the Old and New Testament Scriptures on which the great Anabaptist denominations insisted, but held both to be authoritative as the rule of life and practice for the Christian Church. The Lutheran theologian. Paul Tschackert, in his work, The Origin of Lutheran and Reformed Doctrine, says that Luther "had no historical understanding of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament," and the time of the Reformation was not ripe for this understanding. This opinion leaves the Anabaptists out of consideration. The great Anabaptist denominations held, on the ground of such passages as Heb. chap. 710 and Matt. 5:31-48, that the Old Covenant was imperfect in its law, priesthood, and worship.

Paul Tschackert says correctly that Luther's approval of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse had its basis in his wrong conception of the relation of the Old Testament to the New. Plurality of wives, the darkest and one of the most characteristic points of Munsteritism was more radically and consequentially opposed by the Mennonites than by the new state churches. Among the Swiss Brethren, Hutterites and Mennonites transgressors against the seventh commandment were more severely dealt with than in the state churches. Divorce was permitted only in the instance of adultery and the stricter Mennonites prohibited remarriage while the other companion was living. Menno Simons could not have subscribed to Luther's opinion concerning the invalidity of secret betrothal, at least, he held that transgression must be followed by marriage. He says:

"He who has transgressed and not taken another should bring the disgraced one again to honour, and according to Christian love and the Word of God extricate her from her degraded state." "If you are a Christian or would be one and have seduced a poor child with your subtle temptations and promises, and if you would not lose your soul, you must marry the disgraced one. Behold this is the Lord's own word and law".

Heinrich Detmer, the historian whose speciality was the study of the Anabaptists of Munster says:

"Not with the least semblance of right can it be said that the toleration of, or the demand for polygamy was ever included in the tendencies of Anabaptism as such, or that it corresponded to the religious or other views of the Anabaptists in general. The idea of polygamy, the first attempt to introduce it in Munster, the manner of proclaiming and realizing it, all this was solely a fruit of the brain of John of Leyden.

The state-churchism of the Munsterites led to similar intolerance and persecution as was in vogue in the Lutheran and Zwinglian state churches. Liberty of conscience was openly repudiated in Munster. The Swiss Brethren and Mennonites excluded false teachers from the church; the Munsterites persecuted them, threatening them with banishment or the death sentence. Capital punishment even for criminals was believed by Menno to be inconsistent with Christian principles. The Munsterites to the contrary undertook to kill all "the wicked." The Mennonites held that "the powers that be are ordained of God;" the Munsterites believed the governments which opposed them to be not of God but of the evil one.

Menno Simons repudiated the thought that either the members of the church or the church as such is perfect. He did not believe that membership in the church assures salvation. Often he pointed out that there was a Judas among the apostles of the Lord. The Munsterites on the other hand taught that "all Israel will be saved." They held that their Zion was in the absolute sense "without spot or wrinkle" and at the same time they allowed the most glaring sin and worldliness. Theoretically there existed communism in Munster, but the idea on the church as a brotherhood was trampled under feet by John of Leyden. Famine reigned in the city, but John of Leyden, like the Rich Man "clothed himself in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day." The Munsterites were Sabbatarians, keeping Saturday as the day of the Lord.

And why not, if the Old Testament is the rule for Christian doctrine and practice?

It has been commonly supposed that all who were baptised in Munster and those who fled to the city from other places were one in doctrine with John of Leyden. The fact has been practically ignored that more than fifty persons were executed in Munster because they refused to consent to polygamy and it is well known that those who were put to death were only a minority of the number who were of one mind with them and never became guilty of bigamy or polygamy. And we do not know to what extent the troops of men and women who attempted to go to Munster and aid the Munsterite cause were acquainted with the principles advocated in the city. Nevertheless they are generally spoken of as Munsterites and a Munsterite is supposed to be one who approves of polygamy. To what extremes this thought has been carried is well illustrated by the following example. Gillis of Aachen was erroneously believed to have been among a band which on February 28, 1534, was arrested near Düsseldorf because they intended to go to Munster. On this ground Gillis of Aachen has been represented as a believer in polygamy. But the Munsterites did not defend this offensive institution at that time. In June of the same year John of Leyden for the first time advanced the thought of polygamy. - Polygamy was the result of criminal tendencies in Munster.

It is a curious fact that leading theologians of the state churches asserted that all who insisted on believers' baptism were of the same party with and represented the same cause as the Munsterites. Says Heinrich Bullinger in his great work against the Swiss Brethren in 1560:

"Here I suppose the Anabaptists of our time will say: Not all Anabaptists are minded as these Munsterites whom they themselves do not regard with pleasure, etc. To this I say: But who may trust the Anabaptists of our time (the Swiss Brethren) who would appear so very innocent? - Without doubt God in faithfulness and kindness meant through this Munsterite affair to uncover, for the benefit of the whole world and especially His own elect, the great deceptive falseness of Anabaptism and whatever is secretly hidden behind it. Yea God would open the eyes of all ministers of the word as well as of

all princes and magistrates, that they may watch the more diligently against these murderous, disguised, crafty wolves and in time, before it be too late, with proper forethought may prevent this evil, lest afterwards, when the Anabaptists consider themselves to have made sufficient preparation, the magistrates may discover the falsity and spurious spirituality of these people which in truth, as is evident from this affair at Munster, is great warlikeness, and may suffer irreparable loss as concerns their soul, honour, body and property."

The view that in the last analysis all Anabaptists represented the same cause and must be virtually considered one party is by no means as general as it once was. The author of the article Anabaptisten in the great Herzog-Hauck Theological Encyclopedia says that the Munsterite tragedy represented the summit of the Anabaptist movement and was the fruit of Anabaptist principles. The well known German theologian A. W. Hunzinger thinks the Munsterite development was by no means an extreme growth but a manifestation of Anabaptism. In the article on the Anabaptists of Munster in the above mentioned encyclopedia it is said that "considering the final principles, a Munsterite kingdom could impossibly develop from Lutheranism or Zwinglianism," it represented "a legitimate growth on the tree of Anabaptism." The Munsterites themselves were of different view. They did not consider themselves the spiritual children of the early Anabaptists. In their opinion the latter were fundamentally wrong. In their writings the Munsterites name the state church reformers as the beginners of the true reformation of the church, but never mention the early Anabaptists. Luther and Zwingli, they say, have begun the work which Melchior Hofmann, Jan Matthys and John of Leyden completed. If a Munsterite kingdom could not develop from Lutheranism or Zwinglianism, it could neither grow out of Swiss Anabaptism. Unless Bullinger's view be accepted that the principle of non-resistance to which the early Anabaptists gave a prominent place, was mere hypocrisy invented to hide revolutionary aims (a view which can not for a moment be entertained by an impartial student) a Munsterite kingdom could not possibly develop from Anabaptism. The principle

that the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith was accepted by the first Anabaptists more unreservedly and radically than by the Lutherans and Zwinglians, and this principle also made Munsteritism impossible. On the points of the union of the church and state, absence of church discipline, persecution of false teachers, the Munsterites followed not the early Anabaptists but the new state churches.

Hofmann was at first a discipline of Luther; the thought that he was ever connected with the Swiss or South German Anabaptists is a mere assumption. Rothmann, the theologian of the Munsterites, also was originally a Lutheran. And both Luther and Zwingli were originally Roman Catholics. To lay the offences of the Munsterites to the charge of the Mennonites on the ground that both were Anabaptists is as unreasonable as to accuse the Lutherans of the crimes of which some of the popes became guilty, on the ground that both were infant baptists.

In later periods a number of enthusiastic and immoral sects, much like the Munsterites, issued from the Lutheran and Zwinglian state churches, e. g., the sect of Eva Buttlar, the Zionites in Ronsdorf, and others. It would be unjust to hold the Lutherans and Zwinglians responsible for the errors advanced by those who had once been within their ranks. Menno Simons forcibly points out that the sect of the Nicolaitans consisted of those who had been members of the apostolic church.

The Articles of the Munsterites contain the following on the point in question: "In this new temple there must be only one king who shall rule over the people of God and wield the sword of righteousness, in order that the temple may not be stained by any false doctrine, for it is holy." And again: "If a prophet should arise among the people of God who would prophesy falsely and not according to God's Word, such a one shall by the whole congregation be separated and put to death, in order that everyone may realize that the abomination is punished and hated."

XIV THE BATENBURGERS AND THE DAVIDITES

After the capture of Munster the Batenburgers perpetuated Munsterite principles and practices. They derived their name from a former burgomaster of Steenwijk, John Theodor of Batenburg, the illegitimate son of a Netherlandish nobleman. The two leading principles of John of Leyden, namely that of establishing the kingdom of God through the sword, and of polygamy were enthusiastically defended by Batenburg. He became the head of a band of revolutionists and murderous incendiaries. After a very short career he was captured and executed in 1537. He is generally considered an Anabaptist, although the baptism of adults was not practised by himself or by his followers.

A man of far greater influence was David Joris, the head of the Davidians or David-Jorists. He was born in 1501 or 1502, probably at Bruges in the Netherlands. His father was a member of the society of the Rederijkers, and young David is believed to have come under their influence. He learned the trade of a glass painter, married and settled down at Delft. In 1524 he became interested in the problem of church reformation through Martin Luther's writings. Within a few years we find him a zealous Lutheran. On Ascension Day of 1528, when a great procession was held, David Joris accosted the multitude taking part in it, declaring that they erred. He would probably have been killed in consequence, by the mob, had not the burgomaster hastened to his protection. He was arrested and condemned to scourging in the market place and that his tongue should be pierced through with a sharp iron tool, but after an imprisonment of eleven weeks, he was secretly liberated. It is unknown where he sojourned during the following years. On December 5, 1531 we find him at the Hague, witnessing the martyr's death of Jan Trijpmaker and eight other Anabaptists. They evidently knew him and called to him: "Brother, are you here? Behold here we go out to confess our faith for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." One of them who two years previous had disputed with him on the point of the divinity of Christ asked him whether he remembered the discussion and receiving an affirmative answer, continued: "Now I am quite free and released of it viz. my

↑ Back to top