BAPTIST OR ANABAPTIST?

PETER DUANE BAUGH

cclesiastical movements are not static. As with the microcosm of individual spiritual experience, denominational macrocosms are subject to a variety of different phases, including growth and development, victory and defeat and stagnancy and reversal. New ideas are introduced and

accepted. Old views are modified, discarded and resurrected again. With each new period of religious thought comes a process of transition, either correcting or misdirecting, inspiring or dispiriting, uniting or dividing, but always transforming. Baptist history is inevitably an examination of this process and of our relationship to it as Baptists. The dynamic energy of Pentecost with its luminous purity and explosive growth gives way to the rise of Roman Catholicism and the long midnight of ignorance and superstition. Revivals erupt across the scene as charismatic firebrands driven by supernatural Holy Spirit power shatter the darkness with irrefutable Gospel truth. Missionary activity surges forward only to fall into decline and fade into obscurity. Reformation brings new liberties and fresh opportunities while simultaneously creating additional tensions and drawing new lines of division, hostility and antagonism. With each newly-formed alliance comes newfound comrades, while theological recalibrations drive impassible barriers between longtime friends and once-intimate associates. And yet, somehow, this dimension of transition has largely escaped the eye of the typical Baptist historian. Instead of confronting the student with an ever-fluctuating organic process with its attendant ebbs and flows, the Baptist historian in the Trail of Blood mold has often presented his subject matter as one long, steady, monotonous narrative of almost constant uniformity. This is one the greatest weaknesses of the Trail of Blood model of Baptist history, at least in its current form, and it is probably also the reason why more scholarly historians tend to dismiss it altogether. This is not a denial of Baptist perpetuity. It simply means that Baptist history is more textured, more varied than it is generally depicted as in this model. The model itself does not need to be discarded as some would claim. But it does need to be recalibrated to present us with a more detailed, more comprehensive set of data. Perhaps nowhere does this weakness manifest itself so glaringly as in the effort to trace Baptists through the Mennonites and Swiss Anabaptists. It is possibly the greatest blunder that Trail of Blood Baptist historians have made. Baptists may trace their spiritual lineage to the Waldensians, but it is through the Lollards and Welsh Baptists and not through these Reformation Era Anabaptist groups that we do so.

I. THE CATEGORIES OF THE ANABAPTISTS Before proceeding, it is necessary to define our terminology. For simplicitys sake, we will categorize Baptists of every variety (Particular, Primitive, Reformed, Independent Fundamental, Southern, Separate, Missionary, General, Regular, United, Free-will, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian, Bible-believer, American, etc.) under the name Baptist or Baptists. We will categorize those in the Swiss Anabaptist and Mennonite tradition, including the Amish and Hutterites, under the name Anabaptist or Anabaptists. We will use these two terms throughout the following pages to designate these respective denominational families.

E

In order to understand the historical process in the rise of the Anabaptists, we will also refer to subgroups within the Anabaptist family by the names which identified them at given periods of history. These groups would include the Swiss Brethren founded and led by Conrad Grebel in 1525, the Austrian Hutterites founded and led by Jacob Wiedemann in 1528 and the Obbenites founded and led by Obbe Philips in 1534.i

II. THE CONTEXT OF THE ANABAPTISTS To be fair to the current Trail of Blood model, it is only right that we acknowledge the influence and presence of the Waldensians throughout Europe during the Dark Ages, right up until the Protestant Reformation as the context in which these Anabaptists first appeared. Thomas Armitage gives the following account:

Recent investigators, and especially Keller, have clearly shown that the principles of the Waldensians spread very early in Bohemia and influenced the Reformation under Huss, giving rise at last to the Bohemian Brethren. Tradition says that Waldo himself went thither, and that his followers abounded in Austria on the Bohemian border. It

is equally clear that as early as 1182, the views of Waldo had found their way into Holland, and when persecution raged against the Waldensians in Southern Europe, many of them found refuge in the Netherlands, so that by 1233 Flanders was full of

them. Many of these were weavers (Tisserands), and the first Baptists found in Holland were of that trade. So numerous were they that Ten Kate says, All the

weaving was in the hands of Anabaptists. Van Braght records the martyrdom of hundreds of these refugees, who were known by different nicknames, and were living

quietly in the Netherlands, long before Luther was born.ii There is no reason to dispute this. The Waldensian missionary program is well-documented, and James Wylie informs us that as a result of their labors, the seed of the divine Word was scattered throughout Europe more widely than is commonly supposed.iii Beyond all dispute, the Anabaptists appeared in the historical and geographical wake of the Waldensian evangelical efforts.

III. THE CONGREGATIONALISM OF THE ANABAPTISTS It is also worth noting that the Anabaptists, in their understanding of church polity, do share some very striking similarities to Baptists. Their zealous contention for a congregational model that is almost identical to that of the Baptists can be found in the writings of their foremost leaders, including Menno Simons and Balthasar Hubmaeir. This view of Ecclesiology was so dear to them that they frequently paid for it with their very lives, often after being subjected to the most brutal and horrific tortures available in that immediate Post-Medieval context. The oft-repeated account of their relentless, unshakable courage in the face of merciless cruelty and unfathomable inhumanity serves as a monument to the All-Sufficient Grace of God to overcome the most seemingly insurmountable difficulties and challenges. This noble spirit and admirable testimony make it all the more understandable that so many Baptist historians have sought to include them in our Trail of Blood.

IV. THE CONTRASTS OF THE ANABAPTISTS But different men often arrive at similar conclusions in different ways, while still maintaining much that is radically dissimilar and even irreconcilable. This is the case with the Anabaptists and the Baptists. Unfortunately, the similarities between the two groups have been so remarkable, so genuinely noteworthy, that Baptist historians have frequently overlooked their dissimilarities altogether or have at least failed to attach due weight to their significance. And while this oversight may be charitably pardoned as an honest mistake, it must be corrected nonetheless.

A. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF BAPTISM

1. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF THE MODE OF BAPTISM The Anabaptists practiced baptism by effusion, not by immersion. This was true of all three branches of Reformation Era Anabaptists. Whether we consider the Swiss Brethren, the Austrian Hutterites or the Obbenites of that period, we find that none of them immersed their converts or even advocated the doctrine that Biblical baptism is performed by immersion.iv The baptism of George Jacob Blaurock, a former Roman Catholic monk, by Conrad Grebel, the founder of the Swiss Anabaptists, furnishes us with an example of this. Describing his baptismal experience, Baptist historian Thomas Armitage informs us that Grebel poured water on his head.v To these Reformation Era Anabaptists, this was entirely sufficient and satisfactory. Even more significant is the case of Menno Simons, perhaps the greatest leader that the Anabaptists have ever had. Armitage seems reluctant to admit it, but acknowledges that Whether he was ever immersed is a matter of dispute, and that the Mennonites practiced pouring.vi In this debate, Simons own statements should resolve the issue entirely. In his most famous and beloved work, the Foundation of Christian Doctrine,vii Simons makes the following statement:

It seems to me that these and the like commands are more painful and difficult for perverse flesh, naturally so prone to follow its own way everywhere, than to be the

recipient of a handful of water.viii No true Baptist has ever described a genuine baptismal candidate as the recipient of a handful of water. Yet this is exactly the language and baptismal mode of the Reformation Era Anabaptists. Compare this with the clear and unambiguous language of William Tyndale in which he describes baptism by terms such as The plunging into the water, the pulling out again, and dipping:

The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again signifieth that

we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and work the will of God in us, as thou seest, Rom. vi.ix

Again: So in baptism; the thing is the promise to be of the church of Christ: the sign is the dipping into the water, with the holy words.x

2. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM Reformation and Puritan Era Covenant Theologians, whether Pedobaptist or Baptist, recognized the Covenantal significance of baptism. The difference between the two groups was their understanding of New Covenant membership based upon the nature and implications of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Pedobaptists, misunderstanding Gods Covenant with Abraham, understood New Covenant membership to include both believers and their seed. Consequently, they baptized their infants on the grounds that Abraham circumcised his children, including Isaac, who had not yet come to an age of understanding when he was circumcised. On the other hand, the Baptists, who understood the Abrahamic Covenant in the light of Galatians 3: 16 and 4: 22 - 31, rightly concluded that only believers were included in the New Covenant as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Their children could not and would not be baptized, unless they came to understand the Gospel and exercise saving faith for themselves in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.xi Notice how William Tyndale relates believers baptism to membership in the New Covenant:

For it is the covenant only, and not the sign, that saveth us; though the sign be commanded to be put on in due time, to stir up faith of the covenant that saveth us.

And instead of circumcision came our baptism; whereby we be received into the religion of Christ, and made partakers of his passion, and members of his church; and

whereby we are bound to believe in Christ, and in the Father through him, for the remission of sins; and to keep the law of Christ, and to love each other, as he loved

us; and whereby (if we thus believe and love) we calling God our Father, and to do his will, shall receive remission of our sins through the merits of Jesus Christ his Son, as he hath promised. So now by baptism we be bound to God, and God to us, and the bond and seal of the covenant is written in our flesh; by which seal or writing God

challengeth faith and love, under pain of just damnation: and we (if we believe and love) challenge (as it is above rehearsed) all mercy, and whatsoever we need; or else

God must be an untrue God. And God hath bound us Christian men to receive this sign for our infirmities sake, to be a witness between him and us, and also to put this sign upon our children; not binding us to any appointed time, but as it shall seem to

us most convenient, to bring them to the knowledge of God the Father, and of Christ, and of their duty to God and his law. And as the uncircumcised in the flesh and not in the heart, have no part in Gods good promises; even so they that be baptized in the flesh, and not in the heart, have no part in Christs blood. And as the circumcised in

the heart, and not in the flesh, had part in Gods good promises; even so a Turk unbaptized (because he either knoweth not, that he ought to have it, or cannot for tyranny,) if he believe in Christ, and love as Christ did and taught, then hath he his

part in Christs blood.xii

Nehemiah Coxe explains it more fully, with greater clarity and accuracy (Tyndales statement above, while clearly Covenantal in perspective, is not directed towards determining which Covenant baptism relates to, as Coxes is, though it is clear from his reference to bringing children to the knowledge of God the Father, and of Christ as well as the greater context of his writings that he rejected the baptism of infants as being clean unprofitablexiii), taking care to distinguish which Covenant baptism is related to:

And so far is the apostle from intimating that baptism came in the place of circumcision, that he speaks of them as pertaining to two covenants so different from one another, and in their complete ministry opposed to one another, that they could

not by any means (in this last respect) consist together.xiv The Baptists met the pedobaptists on their own ground, the ground of the Abrahamic Covenantxv, and confronted them with an unresolvable conflict that emerged from their misguided interpretation of that Covenant: if the children of believers were automatically included in the New Covenant as a Covenant of Grace, why did they not automatically possess salvific grace that kept them to the end? On the other hand, if the New Covenant was simply a different administration of the Old Covenant, and, as such, could be broken, then it was a Covenant of Works and not a Covenant of Grace.xvi In other words, Covenant Theology, Biblically and consistently applied left no alternative but the exclusive baptism of believers. The pedobaptist interpretation and application of it left them in a position that was entirely self-contradictory and irreconcilable with Sola Gratia.xvii The Anabaptists, on the other hand, completely rejected the concept of baptism as a seal of the New Covenant. Menno Simons attitude is representative of their viewpoint:

And as to his calling infant baptism a sealing of the covenant of grace, I would reply, if he can produce a plain passage in all the New Testament where the baptism of the believers is called a sealing of the covenant of grace, then he will have won the case.

But I know of a certainty that he can never do so.xviii So while the Baptists overcame the Pedobaptists with their own system, the Anabaptists responded by refusing to acknowledge the Scriptural parallels entirely. Instead of addressing the legitimate questions being raised by the Pedobaptists and answering them Biblically, they resorted to sheer denial. Such a response could not fail to discourage serious discussion and completely alienate the opposite party. Small wonder then, if Anabaptist growth ground to a complete halt while the Baptists continued on a highly successful course of aggressive proselytizing, both in England and in America.

B. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF SOTERIOLOGY

The Anabaptists cloudy understanding of the New Covenant had other, more serious consequences. In a bizarre twist of baffling irony, the Anabaptists ended up in a worse position than the Pedobaptists in relation to Sola Gratia. While the Pedobaptists resorted to mingling the Old Covenant with the New Covenant and Grace with works, resulting in a weird combination of Calvinism infused with what was essentially a limited Armeniansm,xix the Anabaptists turned to full-blown Armenianism of the worst

variety, in which a member of the New Covenant could still fall from Grace and be eternally damned. So radical was the Anabaptist strain of Armenianism, that Simons and his followers actually taught that a saved parent could be damned as a result of his childs sins. Simons warns his followers that this is a possibility that they must fearxx:

Therefore, all who fear the Lord, love your children with divine love; seek their salvation with all your hearts even as Abraham, Tobit, and the Maccabean mother

did. If they transgress, reprove them sharply. If they err, exhort them paternally. If they are childish, bear them patiently. If they are of teachable age, instruct them in a

Christian fashion. Dedicate them to the Lord from youth; watch over their souls as long as they are under your care, lest you lose also your own salvation on their

account.xxi In other words, the Anabaptists denied that a parents faith could save their child, but they taught that a childs sin could damn their parents! Perhaps no other point highlights just how far removed the Reformation and Puritan Era Anabaptists were from the Baptists than this one.

C. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF THE INCARNATION Another serious error held by the Reformation and Puritan Era Anabaptists revolved around the Virgin Birth and the two natures of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simons, in his zeal to exalt the Deity of Christ, and in his great caution against wrongly dividing Christ into separate persons, advocated a model of the Incarnation that in some respects resembled the ancient Docetist error. With the exception of the Swiss Brethren, who rejected Simons model, sixteenth century Anabaptists held that Jesus became a man in the virgin Mary, but not of the virgin Mary.xxii As a result, in the worst case, Jesus authentic humanity was called into question and, by extension, his validity as a substitutionary sacrifice for fallen sons of Adam. At its very best, even when most charitably considered, this view still robbed the Lord Jesus Christ of his Davidic heritage. If Jesus only became a man in the Virgin Mary, but not of the Virgin Mary, he could not rightly be called the Seed of David or the Son of David. Consequently, he could not legitimately fulfill the Davidic Covenant. Reytse Aysess, an Anabaptist martyr, describes this perspective in a letter written from prison in Leeuwaerden:

I said that Christ came by His divine power out of heaven, was conceived in Mary through the Holy Ghost, and born of her, and took upon him the form of a servant,

and became like unto us in all things, except sin, so that He was not born of the blood, nor of the will of the flesh, and did not receive flesh or blood from Mary, which came to pass in such a manner, that Mary at first could not understand it herself, for

she asked the angel: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?xxiii No Baptists of this period is known to have ever entertained such a model of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

D. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF PACIFISM The Anabaptists today are outspoken advocates of total pacifism. This is no new development for them, but harkens back to their origin in the immediate aftermath of Zwinglis Reformation. While one faction of Anabaptists became so entangled in class warfare and frenzied prophetic expectations that Millennialism turned to militancy,xxiv the greater body of them whiplashed to the other extreme through the influence of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527xxv, abjuring all involvement in civil government as sinfulxxvi and embracing an absolute pacifist position.xxvii It should be noted that their most scholarly leader, Balthasar Hubmaier,xxviii made a serious but unsuccessful attempt to steer the Anabaptists towards a more moderate position. His thoughtful and worthwhile work entitled On the Sword, written shortly before his arrest in 1527 addressed the Scriptural problems with total pacifism. Hubmaiers efforts failed to stem the tide of reactionary Anabaptist thought, however, and after twelve more years of debate within the Anabaptist ranks, his grounded, centrist, Biblical position on the subject was entirely abandoned.xxix In contrast, the Waldensians resorted to self-defense in 1488, when Pope Innocent VIII sent an army to destroy them.xxx Many Baptists served in the Parliamentary Army under Oliver Cromwell.xxxi And during the American War for Independence, Baptists such as John Gano served under George Washington in the struggle against British tyranny.xxxii In short, Baptists have never sympathized with the Anabaptist extremism of total pacifism.

E. THE ANABAPTIST VIEW OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE The Anabaptists also carried the doctrine of church discipline to an unbiblical extreme. While Baptists today are unquestionably disobedient to Scripture when it comes to this subject, reform attempts must avoid the radical tendencies advocated by Menno Simons. Simons, in a letter written in 1558, essentially carried the doctrine so far that even the marriage covenant was severed by the practice of shunning:

Concerning the separation of married person the following is specifically my conviction, position, idea, basis, and conception; yes, my life and death. Namely, we must use and employ the doctrine of separation between man and wife carefully and sanely, according to the decision of the elders and brethren named earlier and in part once more drawn up by our dear brethren Dir[k] Ph[ilips], Le[naert] Bou[wens], and

by ourselves in the presence of many elders. For the Word of the Lord must, according to our plain understanding of it, take in its reach all people without respect

of persons, and must not be turned aside in the case of husband and wife.xxxiii Notice especially the phrase in the presence of many elders. In other words, Simons position is not unique to himself. It was shared and supported by a host of Anabaptist church leaders. Once more, we find the Anabaptists resorting to an extreme that Baptists have never taken.

V. THE CATALYST OF THE ANABAPTISTS By now it should be apparent that the Anabaptists represent a radically different family of Christians than the Baptists. Although some doctrinal similarities might suggest a kinship, these begin to appear superficial when seen within the broader context of their general theological outlook. They are not sufficient grounds for claiming the Anabaptists as the spiritual predecessors of the Baptists. But what about the fact that they seemed to flourish in precisely the same regions where the Waldensians had labored? Doesnt that suggest some sort of a connection? How else do we explain this? Can we simply dismiss it as mere coincidence? The best answer seems to be that amidst the turmoil of the Protestant Reformation, underground Waldensian families and possibly even entire congregations, emerged from hiding and united with the Anabaptists, based upon their mutual understanding of ecclesiology. This would explain the rapid growth of Anabaptism during the Reformation and Puritan Eras, as well as the reason why that growth did not continue afterwards with its initial rapidity. This, however, would reflect a shift away from the historic Baptist position represented by the Trail of Blood, and not a continuance of it. In this model, Anabaptism would appear as a catalyst for change rather than as an agent of preservation. The result of this catalyst was departure from the historic Baptist faith in exchange for a more radical set of ideas, not a furtherance of Baptist perpetuity. This sort of catalyst is not without precedent in church history. The Montanists, for example, in the face of persecution, in all probability merged with the Pauliciansxxxiv with whom it seems that they had previously been in communion,xxxv abandoning their charismatic tendencies along the way in exchange for the more grounded Baptist views of the Thonrak. The Poor of Lyons, it is believed, were assimilated into the ranks of the Waldensians, exchanging their Roman Catholicism for Vaudois evangelicalism.xxxvi In keeping with this pattern, a Waldensian merger with the more extreme Anabaptists would only be a repetition of an ecclesiastical transition that had occurred repeatedly throughout the Dark Ages. It would not, however, be an agent of Baptist perpetuity, but a catalyst for change.

CONCLUSION The Baptists and the Anabaptists represent two distinctly different families within church history. Although certain similarities appear upon the surface, especially in terms of Ecclesiology, the serious differences between them outweigh the parallels. It is a mistake to include the Anabaptists in the Trail of Blood as numerous Baptist historians have done. The Anabaptists may, theoretically, have assimilated certain Waldensians or even groups of Waldensians into their ranks, but they did not originally emerge from among the Waldensians, much less did the Baptists emerge from the Anabaptists. It is safest and most in keeping with the facts to trace Baptist history through the Lollards and Welsh Baptists rather than through the Anabaptists.

i J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 139. ii Thomas Armitage, History of the Baptists (Springfield, MO: Baptist Bible College, 1977), 407. iii James Aitken Wylie, The History of the Waldenses (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2012), 20. iv J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 139. v Thomas Armitage, History of the Baptists (Springfield, MO: Baptist Bible College, 1977), 336. vi Ibid, 411.

vii J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 105. viiiIbid, 139. ix William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 253. x Ibid, 595. xi Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 118 - 125. xii William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 350 351. xiii Ibid, 358. xiv Ronald D. Miller and James Renihan, eds., Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 129 - 130. xv Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 155 - 156. xvi Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2010), 126 127. xvii Ibid, 97 108. xviii J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 685 - 686. xix Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 91 - 92. xx J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 390. xxi Ibid. xxii J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 420. xxiii Theileman J. van Braght, ed., The Martyr's Mirror, 2d English ed. (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 2009), 996. xxiv J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 9 - 11. xxv H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, ed., Classics of the Radical Reformation: Balthasar Hubmaier (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 493. xxvi Theileman J. van Braght, ed., The Martyr's Mirror, 2d English ed. (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 2009),1010. xxvii Anabaptist Peace Center http://www.apcwdc.mennonite.net/What_is_Anabaptism (accessed 19 April 2015). xxviii H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, ed., Classics of the Radical Reformation: Balthasar Hubmaier (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 13. xxix Ibid, 493 - 523. xxx James Aitken Wylie, The History of the Waldenses (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2012), 32. xxxi Manda Cooper, ed., This Day in Baptist History, Parliament, the Baptists, and Their Principles, by E. Wayne Thompson (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1993), 541. xxxii Manda Cooper, ed., This Day in Baptist History, A City Pastor, a Revolutionary Chaplain, a Wilderness Preacher, by E. Wayne Thompson (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1993), 327. xxxiii J. C. Wenger, ed., The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1984), 1058. xxxiv Fred C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia (London: Clarendon Press, 1898), 185. xxxv John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, vol. 1 (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1997), 44. xxxvi William Stephan Gilly, Valdenses, Valdo, and Vigilantius: Being the Articles under These Titles in the Seventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1841), 53.