Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:14:02.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Menno Simons—Sixteenth Century Reformer*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Hans J. Hillerbrand
Hans J. Hillerbrand
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historical anniversaries, like birthdays, must come at the appropriate time in order to be properly appreciated. The quadricentennial of the death of Menno Simons, in 1961, coming as it did at a period of marked and indeed exuberant vitality of Left Wing studies, fulfilled happily enough, this requirement.1 For Menno this was especially important, since he has been, during the past four hundred years, a man with a “bad press”—criticized not only by all of his foes outside his tradition, but also by many of his friends within.2 An appraisal of his place in the Reformation of the sixteenth century appears necessary and—in light of the state of Left Wing studies— also possible, though this must not lead to an undue postulate of profundity or relevance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1962 , pp. 387 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1962

Access options

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

References

1. There are three recent Dutch monographs on Menno, Brandsma, J. A., Menno Simons van Witmarsum (Drachten, 1960)Google Scholar; Visser, M. S. E., Minne Simens en de Minnisten (Bolswert, 1960)Google Scholar; and Meihuizen, H. W., Menno Simons (Haarlem, 1961).Google Scholar In America the quadricentennial of Menno's death brought the publication of Franklin Littell, H., Tribute to Menno Simons (Scottdale, 1961)Google Scholar and Horst, Irvin B., A Bibliography of Menno Simons, 1496–1561, Dutch Reformer, with a Census of Known Copies (Nieuwkoop, 1962)Google Scholar, as well as a number of periodical articles, mostly in Mennonite publications. For a bibliographical survey see the April 1962 issue of Mennonite Life. For a Menno assessment see also Meinhold, Peter, “Der Weg des Opfers,” Menn. Gesch. Blätter XVII (1960), 36–40.Google Scholar Meihuizen's work is being translated into English.

2. Calvin seems to have been the only major Reformer who referred directly to Menno. His comment is famous, though distinctly uncomplimentary: “nihil hoc asino posse fingi superbius, nihil petulantius hoc cane” Corpus Reformatorum X, 76.Google Scholar This comes at the end of a discussion of Menno's Christology. Cf. also Brandsma, J. A., “Johannes Calvijn en de Doopers,” De Christen LXXVI (1959).Google Scholar Traditionally Menno scholarship has been centered in Holland. Here most assessments during the past century have been negative. Cf. Cramer, S., “Menno Simons,” in Herzogs Realencyklopadie XII (1903), 588ff.Google ScholarVos, Karel, Menno Simons (Leiden, 1916).Google ScholarKühler, E. J., Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Doopsgezinde in de zestiende Eeuw (Haarlem, 1932).Google Scholar Meihuizen's monograph illustrates the more positive attitude of recent years.

3. This was pointedly brought out at the Franckenthal Disputation of 1571, where the Anabaptist spokesman declared “sagen auch des Menno's schrifften halben dasz wir kein Antwort darauff zu geben wissen, dieweil er mit uns nit einig ist, auch nie gewesen 1st” and, even more bluntly, “Menno gehet uns nit an.” Protocoll, Das ist Alle handlung des gesprechs zu Franckenthal … (Heidelberg, 1571), 171, 175.Google Scholar

4. The Mennonite Encyclopedia III (1957), 583.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., p. 586.

6. Lau, Franz, “Der Bauernkrieg und das angebliche Ende der lutherisehen Reformation als spoutaner Volksbewegung,” Lutherjahrbuch XXVI (1959), 109ff.Google Scholar

7. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons c. 1496–1561 (Scottdale, 1956), p. 668.Google Scholar Hereafter quoted as CW.

8. The customary view in Krahn, Conielius, Menno Simons (Karlsruhe, 1936), p. 24;Google ScholarBender, Harold S., A Brief Biography of Menno Simons, in CW, p. 8.Google Scholar

9. For Luther cf. Althaus, Paul, “Die Bekebrung in reformatoriseher und pietistischer Sicht,” Neue Zeitsohrift für Systematische Theologie I (1959).Google Scholar

10. Meditation on the Twenty-fifth Psalm, OW, p. 77.

11. Ibid., p. 71. Menno is somewhat ambiguous about his “ungodly desires,” for he eagerly points out that “outwardly before men I was moral, chaste and liberal, and none reproved my conduct,” OW, p. 66.

12. Reply to Gellisis Faber, CW, p. 670.

13. Köhler, Walther, “Wiedertäufer,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1st ed., V, 2017.Google Scholar Cf. here W. J. Kühler, op. cit., p. 309. “Dat de theologie zijne sterke zijde niet was, blijkt op bijna elke bladzijde.” Christian Neff lamented, in the Mennonitische Lexikon III, 89,Google Scholar Menno's “Mangel an theologiseher Bildung.”

14. Franklin H. Littell, op. cit.; Oosterbaan, J. A., “The Theology of Menno Simons,” Mennonite Quarterly Review XXXV (1961), 187–196.Google Scholar

15. Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik (Munchen, 1932), pp. 292ff.Google Scholar

16. Cornelius Krahn, op. cit., pp. 40ff.

17. Cornelius Krahn, op. cit., suggested the concept of the church as the heart of Menno's thought. H. W. Meihuizen, following the main stream of current Anabaptist scholarship, points to discipleship, op. cit., pp. 68ff. Mention should also be made of the brief, but suggestive essay By Verduin, Leonard, “Menno Simons’ Theology Reviewed,” Mennonite Quarterly Review XXIV (1960), 53–64.Google Scholar

18. The True Christian Faith, CW, p. 399.

19. Why I Do Not Cease Teaching and Writing, CW, p. 299.

20. Confession of the Distressed Christians, CW, p. 510.

21. Kind Admonition to Christian Discipline, CW, p. 409.

22. Foundation of Christian Doctrine, CW, p. 150.

23. The True Christian Faith, CW, p. 398.

24. Ibid., p. 336. Cf. also Ibid., pp. 338, 341.

25. Ibid., p. 342.

26. Christian Baptism, CW, p. 240.

27. Menno is very clear on this point.

28. The True Christian Faith, CW, p. 399.

29. The New Birth, CW, p. 96.

30. Confession of the Distressed Christians, CW, p. 505.

31. Ibid., p. 120.

32. Christian Baptism, CW, p. 252.

33. Reply to Gellius Faber, CW, p. 734.

34. Ibid., p. 735.

35. Ibid., pp. 739–741.

36. The use of the terms “restitution” and “reformation” in current scholarship to denote the differing approaches of the Reformation and the Anabaptists is only appropriate if it is kept in mind that both parties wanted to “restore” biblical Christianity. The difference was that the Anabaptists, and indeed all radicals, saw the perversion of the church to be more comprehensive than did the Reformers. Thus the reforms to be undertaken were also conceived to be more extensive.

37. Reply to Gellius Faber, CW, p. 774.

38. Ibid., p. 747.

39. Cf. Burkhart, Irvin E., “Meuno Simons on the Incarnation,” Mennonite Quarterly Review IV (1930), 113ff.;Google Scholar Cornelius Krahn, op. cit., pp. 155ff.; Schoeps, Hans J., Vom Himmlischen Fleisch Christi (Tübingen, 1951), pp. 47ff.Google Scholar, based on Krahn.

40. Reply to Martin Micron, CW, p. 910.

41. Cornelius Krahn, op. cit., p. 157.

42. Calvin's Institutio, 2.13.1, 3 contains a lengthy repudiation of Menno's Christology without, however, mentioning his name which means that it cannot be ascertained if the reference is actually directed against him.

43. The Incarnation of Our Lord, CW, p. 833.

44. Ibid., p. 792.

45. The New Birth, CW, p. 97.

46. The Incarnation of Our Lord, CW, p. 820.

47. See here the suggestive discussioa of Beachy, Alvin J., The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation. Dissertation, Harvard, 1960. 3511.Google Scholar W. J. Kühler, op. cit., p. 40, argued the central importance of Erasmus in preparing the ground for Dutch Anabaptism.

48. The True Christian Faith, CW, p. 342.

49. The Spiritual Resurrection, CW, p. 58.

50. Ibid., p. 53.

51. Ibid., p. 58.

52. For Anabaptism in general see the teitative conclusions of my article “Anabaptism and the Reformation: Another Look,” Church History XXIX (1960), 404–423.Google Scholar

53. Bender, Harold S., “Editorial,” Mennonite Quarterly Review XXXIII (1959), 266.Google Scholar

54. Althaus, Paul, Paulus und Luther über den Mensehen (Gütersloh, 1951), pp. 69ff.Google Scholar The thorough study of Joest, Wilfred, “Paulus und das Luthersche simul iustus et pecator,” Kerygma und Dogma I (1955), 269ff.Google Scholar, summarizes the discussion and offers a solution.

55. Foundation of Christian Doctrine, CW, p. 122.

56. Instruction on Discipline, CW, p. 1044.

57. Reply to False Accusations, CW, p. 563.

58. Bender, Harold S., “Editorial,” Mennonite Quarterly Review X (1936), 3.Google Scholar