Particular Baptist Origins

[JM]

Interesting...

http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/Particular Baptist Origins.pdf

My THESIS is, those who revived adult baptism by dipping into England in the 1630-1640s era, first received it from the old Waldensian-Anabaptists. This I can demonstrate. I will show there was an unbroken succession connecting the Particular Baptists with the older Waldensian-Anabaptists. The inks in this succession are two men. They did it differently, but either way, the succession is there. The first is John Spilsbury, who accomplished this in the 1630s, and then Richard Blount who did the same, though in a different way, in the early 1640s. These two men laid the baptismal foundation for the Particular Baptist Churches that soon followed. They spread into New England in the late 1630s. From the London area, they reached out into all parts of England in the 1640s, and also went into Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the late 1640s and early 1650s.​

 

[Hippo]

I have never been pursuaded that the Waldensians do have ancient origins, it would be nice if they did for all sorts of reasons but the weight of the evidence in my mind points to a much later origin.

 

[JM]

Mike, what did you think of the pdf?

 

[A.J.]

Interesting...

http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/Particular Baptist Origins.pdf

My THESIS is, those who revived adult baptism by dipping into England in the 1630-1640s era, first received it from the old Waldensian-Anabaptists. This I can demonstrate. I will show there was an unbroken succession connecting the Particular Baptists with the older Waldensian-Anabaptists. The inks in this succession are two men. They did it differently, but either way, the succession is there. The first is John Spilsbury, who accomplished this in the 1630s, and then Richard Blount who did the same, though in a different way, in the early 1640s. These two men laid the baptismal foundation for the Particular Baptist Churches that soon followed. They spread into New England in the late 1630s. From the London area, they reached out into all parts of England in the 1640s, and also went into Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the late 1640s and early 1650s.​

I did some reading on this months ago, and saw that many Baptists (including Reformed Baptists) strongly disagree with this thesis. Those Baptists who hold the thesis the pdf file is presenting are usually ones who deny any origins the early Baptists had with the Protestant Reformation. In many cases, these Baptists are also "Landmark" Baptists who deny the existence of a universal (invisible) church.

The books I recommend on the subject are the following:

1) [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815]Amazon.com: Baptist Successionism: James Edward McGoldrick: Books[/ame]

2) [ame=http://www.amazon.ca/Edification-Beauty-Practical-Ecclesiology-Particular/dp/1842272519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235641352&sr=8-1]Edification And Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology Of The English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705: James M. Renihan: Amazon.ca: Books[/ame]

Onlines articles like Confessing the Faith of in 1644 and 1689 by Dr. James Renihan, Are Baptists Protestants? by Gerald L. Priest, and The Anabaptists and the Reformation by Christ Good may also be helfpul in answering your question. They all deal with Baptist doctrine and history.

Presbyterian Prof. Samuel Millier has this to say about the subject in the first discourse of his book, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable:

It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those pious and far-famed witnesses for the truth, commonly known by the name of the Waldenses, did undoubtedly hold the doctrine of infant baptism, and practice accordingly. In their confessions of faith and other writings, drawn up between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, as to preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The following specimen of their language will satisfy every reasonable inquirer.

"Baptism," say they, is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian brother, and that all the congregation may pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian. And for this cause it is that we present our children in baptism, which ought to be done by those to whom the children are most nearly related, such as their parents, or those to whom God has given this charity."

Again, referring to the superstitious additions to baptism which the Papists had introduced, they say, in one of their ecclesiastical documents: "The things which are not necessary in baptism are: the exorcisms, the breathings, the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils, the unction of the breast, etc. From these things many take an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of edifying and salvation."

Understanding that their popish neighbours charged them with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit themselves of this imputation as follows:

"Neither is the time nor place appointed for those who are to be baptized. But charity and the edification of the church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter.

"Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to be baptized; which they ought to do to whom they are most nearly related; such as their parents, or those whom God hath inspired with such a charity."

"True it is," adds the historian, "that being, for some hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be baptized by the Romish priests, they deferred the performance of it as long as possible, because they detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy sacrament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of it. And by reason of their pastors, whom they called Barbes, being often abroad travelling in the service of the church, they could not have baptism administered to their children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them long without it. On account of which delay, the priests have charged them with that reproach. To which charge not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many of those who have approved of their lives and faith in all other respects."[6]

It being so plainly a fact, established by their own unequivocal and repeated testimony, that the great body of the Waldenses were Pædobaptists, on what ground is it that our Baptist brethren assert, and that some have been found to credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the truth rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy and ample. A small section of the people bearing the general name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de Bruis, who were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed with the mass of their denomination in most other matters, differed from them in regard to the subject of infant baptism. They held, as before stated, that infants were not capable of salvation; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of rigorous self-denial and labour in its pursuit. Those who die in infancy not being capable of this, the Petrobrussians held that they were not capable of salvation; and, this being the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, however, is not the doctrine of our Baptist brethren; and, of course, furnishes no support to their creed or practice. But the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a very small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The great mass of the denomination, however, as such, declare, in their Confessions of Faith, and in various public documents, that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petrobrussians, in this respect, forsook the doctrine and practice of their fathers, and departed from the proper and established Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest records of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact.

In short, the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following representation. Suppose it were alleged that the Baptists in the United States are in the habit of keeping the seventh day of the week as their sabbath? Would the statement be true? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of the Anti pædobaptist body in the United States, usually styled "Seventh-day Baptists" * probably not a thirtieth part of the whole body * who observe Saturday in each week as their sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper representation, no doubt is (the only representation that a faithful historian of facts would pronounce correct) that the Baptists in this country, as a general body, observe "the Lord's day" as their sabbath. You may rest assured, my friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real fact with regard to the Waldenses as Pædobaptists. Twenty-nine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Pædobaptists. The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles altogether unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren.

I have only one fact more to state in reference to the pious Waldenses, and that is, that soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther, they sought intercourse with the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; held communion with them; received ministers from them; and appeared eager to testify their respect and affection for them as "brethren in the Lord." Now it is well known that the churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient to prove that the Waldenses were Pædobaptists. If they had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such intercourse would have been wholly out of the question.

If these historical statements be correct * and that they are so, is just as well attested as any facts whatever in the annals of the church * the amount of the whole is conclusive, is demonstrative, that for fifteen hundred years after Christ the practice of infant baptism was universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception, in the whole Christian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can countenance in the least degree, modern Anti-pædobaptism; that from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther, the general, unopposed, established practice of the church was to regard the infant seed of believers as members of the church, and, as such, to baptize them.

....

6. See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland's do.; and also Leger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in a work entitled A History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, professes to give a full account of the faith and order of these pious witnesses of the truth; but, so far as I have observed, [he] carefully leaves out of all their public formularies, and other documents * everything which would disclose their pædobaptist principles and practice! On this artifice comment is unnecessary.

 

[JM]

Thanks Albert.

 

[KMK]

I would add Sam Waldron to the list of of those RBs who disagree with the premise. I cannot remember the title of his book on Particular Baptist history, however. I will look it up when I get home.

 

[JM]

That's ok Ken, I've read enough from both sides...

 

[A.J.]

I would add Sam Waldron to the list of of those RBs who disagree with the premise. I cannot remember the title of his book on Particular Baptist history, however. I will look it up when I get home.

The name of the Dr. Waldron's booklet is Reformed Baptist Roots in America.

 

[Hippo]

Mike, what did you think of the pdf?

I have not read it in detail but I feel that it may have two main weaknesses.

Firstly it is usually reliant on secondary rather than primary sources, which really limits its use as anything other than as a document to provoke thought rather than to reach conclusions.

Secondly I am really not convinced by the logic of the whole excercise. If the links were clearly established then fair enough but the links are all very tenuous and appear to be attempting some kind of apostolic succession equivilency.

All protestants face certain problems in that as all our doctrine should be apostolic in origin therefore novelty is not good, the key point is the apostolic origin not a historic continuation.

 

[A.J.]

Ken,

Correction to my previous post. The title is not Reformed Baptist Roots in America but Baptist Roots in America: The Historical Background of Reformed Baptists in America. I haven't seen the book for a long time, and I was reminded of my mistake just this morning.

J.M.,

Here are two good articles on Baptist history (which disagree with or question the thesis of the pdf file).

Baptists: Their Historical Relation to the Protestant Reformation And the Roman Catholic Church by Fred G. Zaspel

A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail by Chris Traffanstedt