Title of the Essay
“The Anabaptists proper were those in the radical Reformation who gathered and disciplined a ‘true church’ (rechte Kirche) upon the apostolic pattern as they understood it. In a treatment of Anabaptists, the doctrine of the church affords the clarifying principle of first importance” (Franklin H Littell). Critically discuss the Anabaptist movement in light of Littell’s comment.
Commentary:
This is really home territory for me. I have an abiding interest in one wing of the radical reformation and Anabaptist Ecclesiology. Click this link to have a read on the Anabaptist transmission from Socinus to the American Restorationists including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Adventists and the Christadelphians (where I originate before my transition to orthodoxy).
Sadly, I let my enthusiasm for the topic override my close reading of the question and so I did not focus on one little word in Franklin Littell’s quote – the word “proper”. Littell was arguing that the clarifying principle of first importance for the ANABAPTISTS PROPER was their ecclesiology. I still disagree for the reasons I outline in the essay, but that misinterpretation certainly weakened my argument. I did not address a primary source in the Schleitheim Confession in sufficient detail which also cost me marks. Potentially, I have mixed up Muntzer and Munster in a couple of places too. All in all, a little painful given I was heading for my best marks for a semester so far. I still scored 80% for this one bringing my overall result to 85% for the semester.
Abstract
Franklin Littell argues that the marker of the Anabaptists (Brüder) is found in their ecclesiology. The Brüder were not known for a unified ecclesiology despite the Schleitheim Confession providing some evidence for unity. The Confession is one strand of many in the movement. The movement produced groupings as broad as a violent apocalyptic group in the Münster Brüder, an anti-Trinitarian hyper rationalist structure in the Socinian group, Sattler’s confessional and pacifist group and many others with diverse doctrine and perspectives. Littell’s view is therefore hard to sustain. The true marker of the Brüder lies instead in their hermeneutical instinct to restitutio or restoration of an idealised apostolic church. As much as a very broad movement such as the Anabaptists has a clarifying principle of first importance, it lies in a unifying hermeneutic, based around a restoration of a pure and holy church rather than reforming the existing Great Church.
Introduction
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral[1] provides a hermeneutical framework that privileges Scripture while offering three interpretive lenses: reason, tradition and experience. The Anabaptists asserted Sola Scriptura, but in light of their historical position in the age of renaissance humanism, applied a lens of reason whilst de-emphasising tradition and experience. This hermeneutic was the principal marker of the movement rather than an ecclesiology visible in for example, the Schleitheim Confession and the Ban. The Confession and Ban were products of a specific hermeneutical approach making Littell’s assertion of a unified ecclesiology somewhat downstream in character.
The marker of the Anabaptists therefore, rather than ecclesiology, was a restitution hermeneutic (restitutio) that purported to emphasis Sola Scriptura, but was reason heavy, experience and tradition light. This hermeneutical posture generated ecclesiological expressions, including the Schleitheim Confession, rather than the other way round as implied by Littell.
Littell’s Quote
Franklin Littell opines that the principal way of identifying Anabaptists is around their concept of rechte Kirche.[2] The context of his claim is that the term Anabaptist is polemic in nature and was a broad descriptor for radical groups that broke from established religion and identified themselves by a form of biblical primitivism.[3] It is debateable as to if there was a unified rechte Kirche that marked the Brüder[4] as they preferred to be known. Frank Wray notes that they were marked by a desire towards restitutio of the true church rather than reformation of the Great Church.[5] He goes on to develop this argument noting that the term restitutio was more frequently employed on the fringes of the Brüder than in the mainstream movement, but noting that it represents a pervasive attitude among the Brüder.[6]
The “clarifying principle of first importance” in describing the Brüder is ecclesiological according to Littell[7], however, it could be argued that there was never a true unifying church among them. Littell himself enumerates many different splinter groups including radical instincts such as the Zwickau group, Müntzer and Karlstadt, Grebel and Stumpf and those later Brüder such as Balthasar Hübmaier.[8] These “luminaries” of the Brüder were associated with the restitutio[9] in varying degrees but were not necessarily united in their approaches particularly when considered with aberrations such as the Münster proclivity to polygamy and communism[10] and Socinus’ later anti-trinitarianism[11].
It could therefore be argued with some utility that Littell’s position of the clarifying principle of rechte Kirche, does not in fact go far enough. The Schleitheim Confession is perhaps some evidence of an attempt to unify the deep disparity between the various groups combatting “false teachers” among the Brüder.[12] Certainly to this point, the Brüder were not unified in any meaningful way. Indeed, there were at least three separate and distinct strands, Spiritualism, Rationalist and archetypal Anabaptists[13]. Under the later leadership of Michael Sattler, they sought to pen seven points of agreement that the Brüder could unite around.[14] Controls such as the Ban may have introduced discipline towards unification, nevertheless, the movement continued to produce a wide range of belief structures including Socinian Anti-Trinitarianism.[15] So, is Littell’s position of a unified ecclesiology sustainable? Before answering that question, some groundwork needs to be established.
Origins – Zwingli and Grebel
The Brüder derided the reformers as “half-way men”[16] and this epithet deserves some deconstruction. It could be argued that the seeds of Anabaptism were sown in the period between December 1522 where Grebel was still corresponding with Zwingli in flattering terms and a letter in 1523 from Grebel to Vadian where Grebel decries Zwingli, denying that Zwingli is playing the part of shepherd.[17] Although the first “re-baptisms” did not take place until January 1525, these early Brüder came to “advocate faster and more radical measures of reform than Zwingli”.[18] Ultimately, they referred to reformers, and Zwingli in particular, as “more false than the old Pope”.[19] Zwingli argued that the true church had remained even under the papacy, being the church of the apostles which had become corrupted.[20] Grebel therefore believed that reform must be rapid, urgent and imposed, even coerced, whilst Zwingli wanted reform to be in the hands of the secular magistrates.[21] The bitter opposition was the result of two opposing world views: Zwingli’s State Church and the Brüder’s devotion to “apostolic Christianity”.[22]
The point of origin of the Brüder potentially can be traced back to Zwingli himself in 1519 and his assertion of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, debated in the two disputations of 1523.[23] Sargent argues that this was a crisis of biblical hermeneutics because the Brüder’s reading of the bible placed them in opposition to Zwingli.[24] As with any emerging framework, there is a tension in Zwingli’s thinking, in this case between the perspicuity of Scripture and scholarship in the form of original languages, founded upon a “dualistic division between human reason and divine revelation”.[25] Grebel’s cohort appear to have taken one aspect of this division, perspicuity, and developed it beyond its original somewhat hyperbolic expression to a rejection of anything which could not be reasoned from the bible.[26] It appears that Zwingli attempted to correct this somewhat in his Archeteles, “For the things which are of human wisdom, however magnificently coloured and decked out, can deceive, but not the things that are of God.”[27] Grebel on the other hand was confident of his capacity for reason in Scripture declaring his “confidence in the divine Word”, planning, in that confidence, to write to Thomas Müntzer and Kartstadt and to challenge possibly even Luther himself.[28]
The Development of Doctrine
Kevin Vanhoozer observes that “it is the word of God that forms the people of God” and “the most important ingredients include a shared history (memory), a common life (identity), and ways of reading normative Scripture (understanding).”[29] He somewhat mirrors the Wesleyan quadrilateral of Scripture through the lens of tradition (memory), experience (identity) and reason (understanding). The Anabaptists arguably sought to dispense with tradition, but this ignores the development of doctrine and tradition. Given that Canon itself was not settled until the AD300s and therefore Apostolic doctrine merged with patristic wisdom for at least three centuries, identifying a pure apostolic church, stripped of tradition, to restore, in the way that the restitutio sought to, is problematic to say the least. Littell’s rechte Kirche could not have been a restoration of what had never existed in a fully formed sense.
What did the Renaissance Church Need?
The history of challenging the authority of the church didn’t arrive with Luther. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) could be considered somewhat originating of the Brüder where in Sic et Non (Yes and No) he sought to identify the relationship between reason and faith which could be seen as somewhat in tension with the “dualistic division between human reason and divine revelation” that marks the Brüder.[30] For a thousand years, medieval interpreters relied on a fourfold schema of interpretation: “The literal teaches the events, allegory what you are to believe, the moral sense what you are to do, the anagogical where you are to aim.”[31] Nicholas of Lyra (1265-1349) asserted, “I intend to insist upon the literal sense and sometimes to insert brief mystical expositions, though rarely” which led to the proverb “Had Lyra not played the lyre, Luther would not have danced.”[32] The instinct of Luther, Zwingli and the Brüder was to discard church tradition in favour of the text and their own reasoning but this instinct hardly originated with Luther.
The Brüder’s assertion that Luther and Zwingli were “Half-way men”[33], deserves exploration in light of the apparent need for reformation of the renaissance church. What level of reformation, if any, did the Renaissance church need? It seems incontrovertible that the church by the 1400s had become quite corrupt but that reformation did not target the corruption (the matter of indulgences was both doctrinal and moral). The fact that the advent of the Bubonic Plague and the Ottomans were seen as a judgement on the church for its corruption[34] seems strong evidence for the corruption of the church and were clearly formative on the young Luther. In the midst of this political milieu, the rise of Latin and Greek classical scholarship created a thinking that whilst at this early stage was not antithetical to Christianity appears to have broadened thinking outside of the traditions of the Church.[35] The advent of Gutenberg’s invention and the consequent explosion of printed material created a wider read and more critical public.[36] People like Geert Groote (1340-1384) followed by Thomas Haemerken (à Kempis) (1380-1471), advocating a religion based in love of God and worship without special vows, assisted in creating a spiritual thought world outside of the normal bounds of church tradition.[37] This of itself created a hermeneutic that the Brüder would carry to its logical conclusion over a century later. The Brüder’s derision for Luther and the reformers as “Half-way men” indicates a rejection of the reformer’s position that the Great Church was still apostolic even if corrupted[38] seeking instead an entirely new way of religion.
What is the Actual Marker of the Brüder?
Schubert, a German church historian, asserts that the Brüder were not only the stepchildren of the reformation, but of reformation research.[39] Zwingli in his early days, writes Wray, spoke much about the return to apostolic standards and that everything should be tried by the touchstone of the Gospel and the fire of Paul.[40] Whilst Zwingli refused in practice to make such a radical break with the past, the Swiss Brüder did in fact pursue a thoroughgoing adherence to their perception of the apostolic pattern.[41] Taking for their licence, Acts 3:21 “… until the time for restoring…”, the Swiss Brüder had an attitude that the Church required restoration to the apostolic model rather than mere reforming.[42]
In a debate in Bern in 1538, the difference in attitude is stark. The Reformers asserted that the “True Church has remained within the visible church even under the papacy.” On the other hand, the Brüder claimed that they had not separated themselves from the True Christian Church but argued for the re-establishment of the apostolic pattern because the Great Church no longer possessed the apostolic institutions.[43] This was echoed by other Brüder such as in Strasbourg where it was urged that the task was similar to that faced by the apostles immediately after the ascension – missionary, preaching the gospel and gathering the lost sheep and baptising them.[44] To an extent, the markers of the Brüder included a return to apostolic pattern (as perceived by them), mission and separation (note Riedemann in particular in this regard).[45]
The question of first importance in these markers remains, what is the “apostolic pattern”? Hubmaier thought of it as a restoration of baptism and the supper in its original form and significance where Marpeck thought of it as a purified church and destroyed antichrist and the Hutterite hymnist Raifer saw it as the restoration of community goods.[46] It coalesced ultimately into: believers’ baptism, symbolic use of the supper, the ban, separation from the world, sharing of goods, non-resistance and refusal to swear a solemn oath.[47] The Münsterites went quite a way further incorporating “true Christian government” and a doctrine of marriage that incorporated polygamy.[48] In this radical manifestation, it is still possible to discern the generative marker of the Brüder, a hermeneutical method bounded by restitutio or restoration of some idealised early pattern of religion. What the Brüder sought to restore was itself a product of a hermeneutical process which they were claiming to bypass. It could be argued in fact that whilst the Brüder asserted Sola Scriptura as their unifying mantra they also applied human reason in equal weight to their crafting of religion together with some level of eisegesis.
The Difficulty of Primitivism and Literalism
Littell asserts through Bainton that the Anabaptist movement broke with the concept of an all-embracing Christian society, creating “sufficient cohesiveness to form communities of their own”.[49] The Ban purges the unworthy and unconvinced, maintaining these communities in a form of “Christian primitivism” restoring the pattern of the primitive church.[50] As noted previously, this primitivism resulted in a Münsterite attempt to restore something approaching the Davidic constituted “church”, but it also produced a hyper-rationalist interpretation of scripture in Socinus. These are two strands of the same hermeneutical method in that both apply the restitutio instinct to a different controlling referent with Müntzer working with the Davidic-Pentateuchal pattern and Socinus to the synoptic Jesus, stripped of later doctrinal innovation. The rejection of centuries of church magisterium in favour of a “restitution of all things”,[51] required determining what shape the primitive church took and determining what aspects of Scripture could be taken literally. This creates a form of hermeneutic specific to the Anabaptists where the literal and the primitive form the foundation of all these various strands of the movement. The difficulty is in determining what parts of Scripture can be taken literally – say polygamy – and what was the shape of the primitive church – the Pentateuch or the shape immediately after the ascension?
As Wray notes, the recovery of the characteristics of the early church was the goal of both the Reformers and the Anabaptists – a form of dispute between reformation and restitutio – in essence, a debate in how far either party was willing to go, halfway (Zwingli) or to some imagined purist apostolic pattern.[52] The key difficulty is in determining what is the apostolic pattern that one wishes to restore?
Was there ever an Apostolic Church
Münster is an apt test case for this difficulty. What is the apostolic church? Littell’s quote indicates some cohesion to the movement around ecclesiology in an apostolic church, but patently this is simply not the case. Akin notes the conclusion of the Schleitheim Confession that asserts divine content and authority to the confession in making known the will of God and in bringing together in “one mind” those who had been in doctrinal error.[53] The problem is that Schleitheim did not unite the Anabaptists in an apostolic church. This unity did not exist prior to or after the confession, witness the Swiss Brüder, the Münsterites, Melchiorites, Hutterites and Mennonites. Indeed, the confession explicitly excluded other Anabaptist strands where for example, the Münsterites took up the sword in contradiction of the confession’s specifically pacifist provisions.
The instinct to restoration whilst laudable, misses some distinct problems including just what is the apostolic pattern? Was it the church in Corinth that engaged in lawsuits and incest and was still in trouble when 1 Clement was written? Was it the “one accord” of Acts 15, that Paul later references in Galatians 2 as being less of a concord? Which of the 7 churches of Revelation represents the rechte Kirche? The blurring of this line from the ascension of Jesus to say the formation of Canon in the 300s makes determining an apostolic church pattern almost impossible. The fact that Canon was not complete for over 200 years and describes the apostolic church in a way curated long after the events means that the Anabaptists were relying on texts that were collated in ways that they themselves would distrust. The instinct to purity of doctrine where true preachers could only be despatched by a “pure and holy church” wrestles with a canon that was developed in a thoroughly Catholic church under Constantine. For Littell therefore, the question is whether the apostolic church he posits as an ecclesiology marker was always an ideal rather than an historical reality.
What Benefits did the Anabaptist Movement Bring?
It can’t be disputed that some reformation of the church was overdue in the 1500s and probably back to Peter Abelard in the 11th century or before. Sailer credited Luther and Zwingli with revealing the corruption of the papacy.[54] The search for rechte Kirche is not of itself a bad thing. Littell notes a loyalty in the Brüder not to church tradition but to apostolic succession as measured against New Testament ordinances.[55] They pursued guidelines in the Bible for organisation of church life as well as for the basic theology of one’s faith.[56] Akin notes that crises arise in the faith and the Schleitheim confession as an attempt at unity in such crises provided a precise and clear articulation of a faith.[57] In the chaos of 1500s Switzerland and Germany, generated by a setting adrift through the efforts of Luther and Zwingli, there was nevertheless goodwill (by the lights of the time) in pursuing truth, doctrinal precision and community. That is a model for Christianity to pursue. The honest, if somewhat misguided at times, pursuit of true religion is honouring to God and valuable to spiritual health. Ultimately, the Brüder successfully effected a separation of church from State in a unique way in which community was still paramount, but faith remained a matter of voluntary confession rather than civic compulsion.
The Legacy
The Zürich questions about hermeneutics have not gone away. Recent attempts to “recover” biblical hermeneutics as a specifically Christian and theological discipline have included debates[58] and significant works[59].[60] Ultimately, the bifurcation between infant baptism and believers’ baptism has not been resolved across the churches. The assertions around Sola Scriptura continue as defining some corners of the Christian world against others.[61]
Historic Peace Churches such as the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are obvious and clear successors of the Anabaptist movement, but Baptists share the tradition of believers’ baptism and congregational polity. One strand in the Polish Anabaptist Movement with Socinus as origin arguably developed through the Stone-Campbell movement in the US in the early 1800s into three highly recognisable groups today in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Christadelphians. Modern day Pentecostalism and charismatic groups share structural similarities in an anti-creedal instinct and an appeal to primitivism.
In the broader Church the legacy of doctrinal precision and searching the scriptures for truth can be traced at some point to the appeal by Zwingli to the Scriptures and nought else developed by Grebel into the Anabaptist movement.
Conclusion
The hermeneutical method enunciated by Albert Outler in the 1960s and known as the Wesleyan quadrilateral provides a way of encompassing all human engagement with the Word of God. It seeks to assist our understanding by engaging Scripture through reason, experience and the history of our reading and thought. More than that, it engages Scripture carefully with acknowledgement of all the ways we encounter it. The Brüder claimed Sola Scriptura and discarded history and tradition and experience but did not discard reason. Indeed, they applied humanist reason to their very determination of what Scripture to privilege in their search for rechte Kirche. They pursued a fantasy of apostolic church that never existed and manufactured an ecclesiology around a concept that widely varied in their own interpretation. As such, they could not be defined by their ecclesiology but shared a common hermeneutic of literalism and primitivism.
[1] Of course, the Quadrilateral is a modern descriptor, but is a useful lens for the purposes of this consideration.
[2] Franklin H. Littell, The Anabaptist View of the Church a Study in the Origins of Sectarian Protestantism., 2d ed., rev.enl. (Starr King Press, 1958), xvii.
[3] Littell, Anabaptist View, xvi.
[4] Littell, Anabaptist View, xv This essay will use this term in place of the polemic.
[5] Frank J Wray, “The Anabaptist Doctrine of the Restitution of the Church,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 28.3 (1954): 186, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aad3e3f4-f23b-3435-9291-73b26047018c.
[6] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 187.
[7] Littell, Anabaptist View, xvii.
[8] Littell, Anabaptist View, 4–5, 7, 13.
[9] The Zwickau Group were not strictly restitutio in instinct but certainly very radical spiritualist and the Münster group were apocalyptic and violent, quite distinct from say, Michael Sattler.
[10] Littell, Anabaptist View, 29–32; Diarmaid MacCullouch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided (2003; Penguin Books, 2004), 161.
[11] Alan W Gomes, “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604),” The Westminster Theological Journal 70.1 (2008): 50, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3c255aed-b63d-3ae0-bcf6-c2025e12dc23.
[12] Michael Wilkinson, “Brüderliche Vereinigung: A Brief Look at Unity in the Schleitheim Confession,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 56.2 (2014): 199, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=e615c3b7-dad0-395b-a163-e972b195bf65; MacCullouch, Reformation, 168–69.
[13] MacCullouch, Reformation, 168; John D Woodbridge and Frank A James III, Church History: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day (Zondervan Academic, 2013), Two:189–91, 195.
[14] Daniel L Akin, “An Expositional Analysis of the Schleitheim Confession,” Criswell Theological Review 2 (1988): 345, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=60eae8dc-5b1a-328a-b5c2-6625c4875f5e.
[15] Gomes, “Socinus,” 50; MacCullouch, Reformation, 692–93.
[16] Littell, Anabaptist View, 2.
[17] Erik T Lundeen, “The Prophetic Self-Fashioning of Conrad Grebel (ca. 1498-1526),” Church History and Religious Culture 100.2–3 (2020): 302, https://doi.org/10.1163/18712428-bja10005, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=27b4a8cd-b659-3b2c-b7b6-937d392228a8.
[18] Lundeen, “Conrad Grebel,” 305–6.
[19] Egli quoted in Littell, Anabaptist View, 14.
[20] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 187.
[21] Lundeen, “Conrad Grebel,” 308–9; MacCullouch, Reformation, 144.
[22] MacCullouch, Reformation, 150.
[23] Benjamin Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” Evangelical Quarterly 86.4 (2014): 325, https://doi.org/10.1163/27725472-08604003, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=32294bc1-528a-3911-a7ea-32941fd616f6.
[24] Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” 325.
[25] Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” 327.
[26] MacCullouch, Reformation, 155.
[27] Quoted in Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” 329.
[28] Grebel to Vadian quoted in Lundeen, “Conrad Grebel,” 310; MacCullouch, Reformation, 169.
[29] Kevin J Vanhoozer, Mere Christian Hermeneutics: Transfiguring What It Means to Read the Bible Theologically (Zondervan Academic, 2024), 35.
[30] Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” 327; John H Y Briggs, Dr Robert D Linder, and David F Wright, eds., A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, ed. Dr Tim Dowley (Albatross Books Pty Ltd, 1977), 281.
[31] Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 284; Everett Ferguson, Church History: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, 2nd ed. (2005; Zondervan Academic, 2013), One:283.
[32] Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 286.
[33] Littell, Anabaptist View, 2.
[34] Woodbridge and James III, Church History, Two:32; Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 347; MacCullouch, Reformation, 54–57.
[35] Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 348; MacCullouch, Reformation, 99.
[36] MacCullouch, Reformation, 72; Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 353.
[37] Briggs, Linder, and Wright, Lion, 354; MacCullouch, Reformation, 22–23.
[38] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 187.
[39] Roland H. Bainton, “Review of The Anabaptist View of the Church, by Franklin Hamlin Littell [and Others],” The American Historical Review 58.4 (1953): 876, https://doi.org/10.2307/1842467, http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/1842467.
[40] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 186.
[41] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 186–87.
[42] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 187.
[43] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 187–88.
[44] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 188.
[45] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 189.
[46] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 189–90; MacCullouch, Reformation, 169.
[47] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 190.
[48] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 190–91.
[49] Bainton, “Review Littell,” 877.
[50] Bainton, “Review Littell,” 877.
[51] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 191.
[52] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 186.
[53] Akin, “Exposition,” 368.
[54] Wray, “Anabaptist Doctrine,” 194.
[55] Littell, Anabaptist View, 80.
[56] Littell, Anabaptist View, 80.
[57] Akin, “Exposition,” 370.
[58] James R A Merrick and Stephen M Garrett, eds., Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy: Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Zondervan Academic, 2013).
[59] Vanhoozer, Mere Christian Hermeneutics.
[60] Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.,” 326.
[61] James R White, Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity (Bethany House Publishers, 2004).
Bibliography
Akin, Daniel L. “An Expositional Analysis of the Schleitheim Confession.” Criswell Theological Review 2 (1988): 345–70. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=60eae8dc-5b1a-328a-b5c2-6625c4875f5e.
Bainton, Roland H. “Review of The Anabaptist View of the Church, by Franklin Hamlin Littell [and Others].” The American Historical Review 58.4 (1953): 875–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/1842467, http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/1842467.
Briggs, John H Y, Dr Robert D Linder, and David F Wright, eds. A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity. Edited by Dr Tim Dowley. Albatross Books Pty Ltd, 1977.
Ferguson, Everett. Church History: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation. 2nd ed. Vol. One. 2005. Repr., Zondervan Academic, 2013.
Gomes, Alan W. “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604).” The Westminster Theological Journal 70.1 (2008): 49–71. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3c255aed-b63d-3ae0-bcf6-c2025e12dc23.
Littell, Franklin H. The Anabaptist View of the Church a Study in the Origins of Sectarian Protestantism. 2d ed., rev.Enl. Starr King Press, 1958.
Lundeen, Erik T. “The Prophetic Self-Fashioning of Conrad Grebel (ca. 1498-1526).” Church History and Religious Culture 100.2–3 (2020): 301–18. https://doi.org/10.1163/18712428-bja10005, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=27b4a8cd-b659-3b2c-b7b6-937d392228a8.
MacCullouch, Diarmaid. Reformation: Europe’s House Divided. 2003. Repr., Penguin Books, 2004.
Merrick, James R A, and Stephen M Garrett, eds. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy: Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. Zondervan Academic, 2013.
Sargent, Benjamin. “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.” Evangelical Quarterly 86.4 (2014): 325–42. https://doi.org/10.1163/27725472-08604003, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=32294bc1-528a-3911-a7ea-32941fd616f6.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Mere Christian Hermeneutics: Transfiguring What It Means to Read the Bible Theologically. Zondervan Academic, 2024.
White, James R. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity. Bethany House Publishers, 2004.
Wilkinson, Michael. “Brüderliche Vereinigung: A Brief Look at Unity in the Schleitheim Confession.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 56.2 (2014): 199–213. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=e615c3b7-dad0-395b-a163-e972b195bf65.
Woodbridge, John D, and Frank A James III. Church History: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day. Vol. Two. Zondervan Academic, 2013.
Wray, Frank J. “The Anabaptist Doctrine of the Restitution of the Church.” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 28.3 (1954): 186–96. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aad3e3f4-f23b-3435-9291-73b26047018c.