Martyr's Mirror 5: Are the Anabaptists the True Church?

(...Click below for full post)

From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:

---

Now the point will be to give the reasons why we have called this whole work, with all the persons contained therein, after the Anabaptists; from which, as the second question, might be asked: whether all the persons mentioned, confessors as well as martyrs, none excepted, confessed the same as what the Anabaptists of this day confess? or whether any believed, practiced, or maintained higher or lower, more or less, in this or that article?

We shall treat these matters separately, and one after the other, giving the reasons as well as the answers.

REASON WHY WE HAVE CALLED THIS WHOLE WORK AFTER THE ANABAPTISTS

The reason which has induced us is twofold:

1. Because, as we have shown clearly, there have been persons in every century, from the beginning of the Gospel all along, who have believed and taught the article of holy baptism, with other articles noted in the margin-on account of which the Anabaptists have received this name-in the very same manner as the Anabaptists, and have, each in his time, instructed, engrafted, and confirmed their contemporaries therein, as may, be seen in the whole history, especially in the first fifteen centuries.

2. Because we have not found mentioned in the writings of authentic authors anything concerning those persons whom we have noted as true witnesses, which conflicts with the above-mentioned doctrines of the Anabaptists. And whenever something has been laid to their charge, which is not in harmony with the uprightness of the faith professed by them, we have shown that the witnesses to such charge were not authentic or acceptable; or that the things brought against them, were committed by them not after but before their conversion; or that, if they at any time have fallen into them, they truly forsook them before their death, and from which all this appears.

But whenever we have found that any, as regards the faith professed, were actually guilty of serious errors, offensive misconceptions, or bad actions, for which the above excuses could not be brought forward; we have dropped such entirely, and not mentioned them; that the pious and most holy witnesses of Jesus Christ might not be defiled with their unclean and unholy leaven.

---

Summary:

At issue seems to be that van Braght intends this history to be properly catholic. That is, he doesn’t mean to be restricting the scope of this history to one denomination or tradition, but wants to present a history of the (True) Universal Church. If he leaves certain people or groups out of the picture, it is because they are not part of the True Church in his judgment, and not because they are part of a different denomination.

So, he wants the history to be about the Church, not a particular subset of the Church, and yet he calls the work after the Anabaptists—one particular group. So why does he title the work after the Anabaptists? His response is, basically, that throughout the whole history of the (True) Church, the true Christians have been Anabaptists. “Anabaptists”, for van Braght, does not designate a Reformation tradition with its origins in the 1500s; rather it is the Tradition of the Church.
His identity claim (Anabaptists = The True Church) is based upon (1) a doctrinal definition of the Anabaptist faith, which includes adult baptism along with other beliefs not clearly specified here (Remember I have argued previously that in van Braght’s own view, the practice of adult baptism does not make one part of this tradition by itself; it is not a solely sufficient condition for being an Anabaptist, because he excludes the violent Munsterites from this tradition), and (2) the (impressive!) claim that there have always been Christians (since Jesus, or since Pentecost, anyway) who fit this doctrinal definition.

Anyone guilty of “serious errors” (heresies?), that is, serious departure from the above definition of the Anabaptist faith in thought, word, or deed, have been omitted from the history, in order to limit the scope of this history to the “True Church” that has kept itself pure.

Response:

First:

I remain taken aback, and indeed offended by this approach, insofar as it fails to recognize the legitimacy of most of the Church, and the relevance of most of Church history. It seems like folly to ignore the influence that certain “paedo-baptists” have had on Christian theology, even surely the theology of the Anabaptists:

There is much with which Anabaptists do (and, should, in my view) find fault with in, say, the theologies of Augustine and Luther (regarding the relationship of Church and State for both thinkers, and regarding the hermeneutics of Luther–i.e. his Law-Gospel dialectic). On the other hand, even if doctrines such as the priesthood of all believers and justification by faith can be discovered through legitimate NT exegesis, these doctrines in the mouths of these thinkers, I contend, have influenced many within the Mennonite Church today, and probably the 16th century Anabaptists as well. If we decide (as I am often tempted to do) to reject Luther’s theory of justification for a more Catholic one, the problem persists.

Again, while there were, I understand, those among the 16th century Anabaptists who held to heretical Christologies, I think most good Mennonite-Anabaptists are good Trinitarians. Surely there were paedo-baptists among the members of the Council of Chalcedon. (I would contend that Trinitarian orthodoxy was around before the Council of Nicea; but whether we are ignorant of the councils or not, at least the first four have surely influenced Mennonite thought–just as Luther has with hopefully biblical views such as the priesthood of all believers.)

Further, the way Anabaptists today read the Bible, whether they make use of the historical-critical method or a more fundamentalist approach, necessarily draws on contributions made (quite recently!) by paedo-baptists (many Lutherans on the one hand and many Presbyterians on the other, among others).

All this is to say that even if we were writing a history of Anabaptist denominations, we would have to talk about the influences of non-Anabaptist thinkers.

Second:

I am not sure how van Braght can escape the charge of arbitrariness in choosing what doctrines are marks of “the True Church”. The only way out I can see is by an appeal to biblical authority and good vs. bad exegesis of the scriptures.

Third:

Why should the true, visible Church be identified by its doctrines, primarily?



------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis