Persecution of the Anabaptists

[Mountain Presbyterian]

Why were the Anabaptists so terribly persecuted by the Reformed state churches on the continent of Europe in the 16th century? What made the Reformers think that killing fellow Protestants was a proper way to deal with what they perceived as erroneous doctrine? I cannot understand how it could possibly be seen as a scriptural New Testament practice to drown people you don't agree with, so I would like to understand how they defended the actions they took against the Anabaptists.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Why were the Anabaptists so terribly persecuted by the Reformed state churches on the continent of Europe in the 16th century? What made the Reformers think that killing fellow Protestants was a proper way to deal with what they perceived as erroneous doctrine? I cannot understand how it could possibly be seen as a scriptural New Testament practice to drown people you don't agree with, so I would like to understand how they defended the actions they took against the Anabaptists.

A few things to keep in mind.

1) Roman Law (Justinian's Code) had prescribed drowning for the crime of rebaptism since the 6th century. So they were just enforcing pre-existing laws. They were not coming up with something new. And that served to position the Protestants as faithful servants of the Emperor and true sons of the Holy Roman Empire, rather than rebellious heretics, as they were framed by the Roman Catholics.

2) The Anabaptists weren't modern day baptists. Some were anti-trinitarian heretics (Socinus, Servetus, Ochino). Others were seditious enthusiasts (the Zwickau and Munster prophets). All were pacifists and opposed the involvement of Christians in civil government, which undermined the state. If you want a picture of the heresies of early Anabaptists, Bullinger's treatise against them is the thing to read.

3) They were not seen as "fellow protestants." For the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries, the only Protestants were the Reformed and Lutherans.

4) For an explanation of why they thought it is correct to use state power against heretics (and remember, that was the universal view of Christians from the days of Augustine down to the 17th century), see Thomas Cartwright, "On Toleration," and George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, or if you read Latin, Theodore Beza's De Hereticis Puniendis and Calvin's Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti.

 

[3dawgnight]

See: Depravity, Total.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Joshua 22:10 ff. is a helpful passage to wrestle with as well. Israel was ready to wipe out 2.5 tribes for a perceived violation of the regulative principle of worship, so as to prevent the judgment of God. The original edition of the Larger Catechism, under the second commandment, included even the toleration of false worship as sinful. (False here being with reference supposedly to both the first and second commandments)

 

[Phil D.]

Relatively few Anabaptists were drowned for the practice re-baptizing, or for having been re-baptized (perhaps a few hundred total). And most of those drownings were actually carried out by RC rather than Protestant authorities. The most famous victim of early Protestant authorities was Felix Manz in Zürich (under Zwingli). The practice also disappeared fairly quickly among Protestants, as well as more gradually among RC's, precisely because there was a growing sense that it was indeed excessive and biblically suspect.

Some notable Protestant writings that still excoriated Anabaptist teachings while promoting a more lenient, or at least more humane approach to dealing with Anabaptists, include:

De Origine, Progressu, Sectis, Nominibus & Dogmatibus Anabaptistarum (republished as Englands warning by Germanies woes), by the German Reformed theologian Frederick Spanheim.​

​

How many horrible and pernicious Tenets, and how hurtfull both to publique and private quietnesse, lye hidden as it were behinde a curtaine, under this simple name of Anabaptists. To whom we wish from the Lord with all our hearts, the knowledge, love, and practice of that truth which by the speciall grace of God is preserved in the Orthodox Churches; and therewithall both present and perpetuall happinesse. Neither doe we go about to stir up the Magistrate against those men; nor would we have any force offered to their consciences; but thinke those meanes onely ought to be used, which may conduce to the information of those that erre, the reproving of their errors, and confirmation of the truth, so farre as it may stand with Christian prudence and charity.​

​

Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, by the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster Assembly commissioner Robert Baillie.​

​

This is almost all I have to say of the second caution also, That in the greatest pangs of our zeal we never forget charity. It’s true, in this dead age, where zeal against error or vice is so rare, and where it is found, of so low a degree, that we need not draw it down by the mixture of any allaying adjunct; yet because in some it has, and in more it may exceed, that charity which the Lord will have joyned with it, we shall be loth to separate. When ever we have to doe, not only with them in whom we evidently see some rayes of the image of God, but with very hypocrites, whom we have but too good ground to suspect of counterfeiting; yet, for charities sake, let us give them (so far as evident verity will admit) a good construction: leaving the full account and certain search of them to the Lords further discovery, whether here or in his own day. In the mean time, for the sake of that grace and truth they carry in their face and mouth, let us deal so gently with them as may be; yea, when we have to do with the grossest sinners, let us never put off the bowels of pity and humanity to the worst of them. Who hath made us of a better metall? What sometimes have we been? What before all our trials be over, may yet escape us, or our children, or our dearest friends? Who knoweth how soon these wicked persons may receive mercy, and be rescued out of Satans bands? […] What ever indignation we are obliged to carry against the sin, yet we must pity the man; and if any censure spirituall or temporall, be inflicted upon him, this justice must flow from the fountain of love and desire, by that ordinary means to recover the person, or else the execution will be no lesse heavy to the inflicter, then to him on whom it is inflicted.​

3) They were not seen as "fellow protestants." For the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries, the only Protestants were the Reformed and Lutherans.

Many also recognized Anglicans as Protestants.

 

[Theoretical]

Relatively few Anabaptists were drowned for the practice re-baptizing, or for having been re-baptized (perhaps a few hundred total). And most of those drownings were actually carried out by RC rather than Protestant authorities. The most famous victim of early Protestant authorities was Felix Manz in Zürich (under Zwingli). The practice also disappeared fairly quickly among Protestants, as well as more gradually among RC's, precisely because there was a growing sense that it was indeed excessive and biblically suspect.

Some notable Protestant writings that still excoriated Anabaptist teachings while promoting a more lenient, or at least more humane approach to dealing with Anabaptists, include:

De Origine, Progressu, Sectis, Nominibus & Dogmatibus Anabaptistarum (republished as Englands warning by Germanies woes), by the German Reformed theologian Frederick Spanheim.​

​

How many horrible and pernicious Tenets, and how hurtfull both to publique and private quietnesse, lye hidden as it were behinde a curtaine, under this simple name of Anabaptists. To whom we wish from the Lord with all our hearts, the knowledge, love, and practice of that truth which by the speciall grace of God is preserved in the Orthodox Churches; and therewithall both present and perpetuall happinesse. Neither doe we go about to stir up the Magistrate against those men; nor would we have any force offered to their consciences; but thinke those meanes onely ought to be used, which may conduce to the information of those that erre, the reproving of their errors, and confirmation of the truth, so farre as it may stand with Christian prudence and charity.​

​

Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, by the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster Assembly commissioner Robert Baillie.​

​

This is almost all I have to say of the second caution also, That in the greatest pangs of our zeal we never forget charity. It’s true, in this dead age, where zeal against error or vice is so rare, and where it is found, of so low a degree, that we need not draw it down by the mixture of any allaying adjunct; yet because in some it has, and in more it may exceed, that charity which the Lord will have joyned with it, we shall be loth to separate. When ever we have to doe, not only with them in whom we evidently see some rayes of the image of God, but with very hypocrites, whom we have but too good ground to suspect of counterfeiting; yet, for charities sake, let us give them (so far as evident verity will admit) a good construction: leaving the full account and certain search of them to the Lords further discovery, whether here or in his own day. In the mean time, for the sake of that grace and truth they carry in their face and mouth, let us deal so gently with them as may be; yea, when we have to do with the grossest sinners, let us never put off the bowels of pity and humanity to the worst of them. Who hath made us of a better metall? What sometimes have we been? What before all our trials be over, may yet escape us, or our children, or our dearest friends? Who knoweth how soon these wicked persons may receive mercy, and be rescued out of Satans bands? […] What ever indignation we are obliged to carry against the sin, yet we must pity the man; and if any censure spirituall or temporall, be inflicted upon him, this justice must flow from the fountain of love and desire, by that ordinary means to recover the person, or else the execution will be no lesse heavy to the inflicter, then to him on whom it is inflicted.​

Many also recognized Anglicans as Protestants.

Anglicans were Protestant for being under the Reformed category, albeit much broader than the Dutch or Swiss, with significant Lutheran overlap among the high church types that were not sympathetic to Rome. While it’s now grown in definition to be halfway between Geneva and Rome, the more accurate approach especially in the Elizabethan to Restoration era would be halfway between Geneva and Wittenberg.

 

[philomath]

Others will have far more knowledge on this than I do, but I may be able to recommend a resource to understand this topic and period of history better. Heresiography: A Description of the Heretics and Sectaries of These Latter Times by Ephraim Pagitt was published in 1645 in England and is currently available for free on Monergism.com.

I have only read sections of the work, but I remember one of the first sections being on the Anabaptists. Keep in mind it is a polemical work that isn't only aimed towards them. It offers many insights to the history of the Anabaptists, and the reaction towards them, from the view of a Reformed Anglican churchman of that day. I believe it touches on some of the defenses for the suppression (as Pagitt words it) of the Anabaptists.

With this suggested, it's still a topic I have much to learn on, so I'll keep an eye on this thread. There were some lectures by Dr. John Gerstner on the topic that I found helpful a while back. You should still be able to find them on Ligonier.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Many also recognized Anglicans as Protestants.

Yes, I was including them under "Reformed" (which was more true back then than it is today).

 

[MW]

Why were the Anabaptists so terribly persecuted by the Reformed state churches on the continent of Europe in the 16th century? What made the Reformers think that killing fellow Protestants was a proper way to deal with what they perceived as erroneous doctrine? I cannot understand how it could possibly be seen as a scriptural New Testament practice to drown people you don't agree with, so I would like to understand how they defended the actions they took against the Anabaptists.

The Reformed churches did not execute Anabaptists. That was the function of the civil magistrates. In the 16th century everyone assumed that the magistrate must maintain religious and social order. Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism, oaths, civil office, and the sword looked like rejecting the foundations of society. So the state punished Anabaptists as civil offenders. In many cases the Anabaptists were not "persecuted" in the modern sense but prosecuted under the civil laws of a Christian commonwealth. They knowingly violated laws concerning baptism, oaths, military service, and the authority of the magistrate. But those laws were themselves biblically grounded, and the churches followed the biblical mandate to be subject to those in authority, so the Christian people and ministers supported the State in doing its duty.

 

[Mountain Presbyterian]

A few things to keep in mind.

1) Roman Law (Justinian's Code) had prescribed drowning for the crime of rebaptism since the 6th century. So they were just enforcing pre-existing laws. They were not coming up with something new. And that served to position the Protestants as faithful servants of the Emperor and true sons of the Holy Roman Empire, rather than rebellious heretics, as they were framed by the Roman Catholics.

2) The Anabaptists weren't modern day baptists. Some were anti-trinitarian heretics (Socinus, Servetus, Ochino). Others were seditious enthusiasts (the Zwickau and Munster prophets). All were pacifists and opposed the involvement of Christians in civil government, which undermined the state. If you want a picture of the heresies of early Anabaptists, Bullinger's treatise against them is the thing to read.

3) They were not seen as "fellow protestants." For the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries, the only Protestants were the Reformed and Lutherans.

4) For an explanation of why they thought it is correct to use state power against heretics (and remember, that was the universal view of Christians from the days of Augustine down to the 17th century), see Thomas Cartwright, "On Toleration," and George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, or if you read Latin, Theodore Beza's De Hereticis Puniendis and Calvin's Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti.

It’s helpful to know that rebaptism was punishable by drowning under Justinian’s Code. It seems very strange to me that they were regarded as heretics when as a whole they seem to very closely resemble 17th Century English Baptist groups other than the pacifism and total separation from the world part of their theology. I guess part of the problem is that it seems like anyone who wasn’t part of the state church got the name “Anabaptist” slapped on them. As a further question, were the 17th century English General Baptists regarded as fellow Protestants by the English Puritans, or were they also seen as heretics?

Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2026

The Reformed churches did not execute Anabaptists. That was the function of the civil magistrates. In the 16th century everyone assumed that the magistrate must maintain religious and social order. Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism, oaths, civil office, and the sword looked like rejecting the foundations of society. So the state punished Anabaptists as civil offenders. In many cases the Anabaptists were not "persecuted" in the modern sense but prosecuted under the civil laws of a Christian commonwealth. They knowingly violated laws concerning baptism, oaths, military service, and the authority of the magistrate. But those laws were themselves biblically grounded, and the churches followed the biblical mandate to be subject to those in authority, so the Christian people and ministers supported the State in doing its duty.

The basis of this authority came from the church at some point though. I don’t really understand the argument that it was the civil government that executed heretics when there was such a blurred line between the authority of the government began and the church ended in 16th century European nations. If the government told you to do something you didn’t believe in, would you do it just because the state says so? I think this is the position the Anabaptists found themselves in with regard to baptism. I’m not so convinced that it is the job of the state to enforce infant baptism either, so I would very much like to understand how the reformers got that idea out of the New Testament.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It seems very strange to me that they were regarded as heretics when as a whole they seem to very closely resemble 17th Century English Baptist groups other than the pacifism and total separation from the world part of their theology.

While that's true of the more moderate ones, keep in mind that the reaction was in response, above all, to the least moderate ones. For example, those that took over the city of Munster, declared it the New Jerusalem, and instituted communism, required the city to be besieged.

It’s helpful to know that rebaptism was punishable by drowning under Justinian’s Code. It seems very strange to me that they were regarded as heretics when as a whole they seem to very closely resemble 17th Century English Baptist groups other than the pacifism and total separation from the world part of their theology. I guess part of the problem is that it seems like anyone who wasn’t part of the state church got the name “Anabaptist” slapped on them. As a further question, were the 17th century English General Baptists regarded as fellow Protestants by the English Puritans, or were they also seen as heretics?

By the end of the 17th century, all Trinitarian non-conformists were tolerated as "fellow Protestants" in England. See the Declaration of Indulgence (1672) and Act of Toleration (1689). Attitudes were generally stricter, though, toward the beginning of the century, and among the Scots.

 

[MW]

The basis of this authority came from the church at some point though.

Not so. For millennia civil power was understood to derive from the divine. Religion was not separated from the civil sphere. Judges are called "gods" in the Bible because they enact divine judgment. Paul teaches the powers that be are ordained of God. This is what our Lord taught Pilate. He could have no power but what came from above. It is likely that in your mind religion and the State should be separated. From that perspective you pass judgment. But to understand what is going on in the 16th century you have to look at the mindset governing affairs there and then. Otherwise your judgments will be idealistic and anachronistic.

I don’t really understand the argument that it was the civil government that executed heretics when there was such a blurred line between the authority of the government began and the church ended in 16th century European nations. If the government told you to do something you didn’t believe in, would you do it just because the state says so?

This reflects a sense of individualism that did not exist back then. People lived, worked, and survived in societies. The modern distribution of wealth among western nations has added rights to the modern individual that they did not have back then. The likelihood is that one would abide by decisions of the government and would seek reform from the inside, not separate to form isolated groups that tried to be self-sustaining. They might risk a fine or go into exile. One must try to understand the context and circumstances surrounding the enactments of governments. They don't arise from nowhere.

I think this is the position the Anabaptists found themselves in with regard to baptism. I’m not so convinced that it is the job of the state to enforce infant baptism either, so I would very much like to understand how the reformers got that idea out of the New Testament.

Christ Himself has taught that morals come before rituals. So if it were merely about baptism there would be a place for give and take. But it was not merely about baptism. Your analysis isn't taking into account the complexity of the situation.

 

[davejonescue]

The Reformed churches did not execute Anabaptists. That was the function of the civil magistrates. In the 16th century everyone assumed that the magistrate must maintain religious and social order. Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism, oaths, civil office, and the sword looked like rejecting the foundations of society. So the state punished Anabaptists as civil offenders. In many cases the Anabaptists were not "persecuted" in the modern sense but prosecuted under the civil laws of a Christian commonwealth. They knowingly violated laws concerning baptism, oaths, military service, and the authority of the magistrate. But those laws were themselves biblically grounded, and the churches followed the biblical mandate to be subject to those in authority, so the Christian people and ministers supported the State in doing its duty.

In the same way would you say the Puritans were not persecuted? Or yes because we consider them godly? Meaning, were not the Puritans and Non-Conformists persecuted by the hands of the Monarchy and the CoE? But if the permission and authority doesn't make it persecution, but divine right, then how were they persecuted at all?

 

[MW]

In the same way would you say the Puritans were not persecuted? Or yes because we consider them godly? Meaning, were not the Puritans and Non-Conformists persecuted by the hands of the Monarchy and the CoE? But if the permission and authority doesn't make it persecution, but divine right, then how were they persecuted at all?

Why stop there? Are the terrorist cells being persecuted because they are not allowed to follow through on their religious idea of Jihad? The question comes down to one's definition of persecution. If it includes qualifying words like "unjust" we are required to make a case that it was unjust. Not all suffering in the name of religion can be classed as persecution. One can think that he does God service in suffering when in fact he is getting what he deserves. 1 Pet. 3:14 compared to 4:15.

Now, in the case of the Puritans or the Covenanters, I don't think we could say everything they suffered was unjust. Some of the Puritans criticised other Puritans, and some of the Covenanters criticised other Covenanters. Some individuals acted in ways that brought the force of the law down on themselves. We would have to judge this on a case by case basis. But the cause in which they suffered was a just one. Hence we rightly speak of it as persecution.

 

[davejonescue]

But the cause in which they suffered was a just one. Hence we rightly speak of it as persecution.

And this is what I am trying to get at. If it is the Monarchy and the CoE that is invested with the divine authority to decide what is just and isn't, or what is persecution and isn't, or what is orthodoxy or isn't; how is it we can make personal judgements regarding it based on our interpretations of justice, persecution, and orthodoxy? Is it us, or those invested with the divine authority to uphold justice and define orthodoxy that get to decide?

 

[MW]

And this is what I am trying to get at. If it is the Monarchy and the Church that is invested with the divine authority to decide what is just and isn't, how is it we can make personal judgements regarding it? Is it us, or those invested with authority that get to decide?

God has given magistrates authority to judge, and they must judge according to God's law of good and evil. The church has no judicial power in a civil matter. It can only declare the mind and will of God to the magistrate. It can also beseech the government, and protest if the matter is serious enough; as can a private citizen in his own capacity. Ultimately God decides what is just and unjust. There is one lawgiver who is able to save and destroy. It was for this reason that civil society must be established on a religious foundation to begin with. And this speaks to the wisdom of those 16th century societies over and above our own.

 

[davejonescue]

And this speaks to the wisdom of those 16th century societies over and above our own.

How so when it seems more saints were persecuted, put to death, defrocked, etc. then, than in present Democratic societies? Did not many of the (proto) Reformers and the Puritans all suffer at the hands of Theocracies, Monarchies and National Churches? Yes, social evil is allowed now, but, so is the freedom to believe as conscience allows. For example, would it be better for us to be in a Queen Mary America, as opposed to how it is now?

 

[MW]

How so when it seems more saints were persecuted, put to death, defrocked, etc. then, than in present Democratic societies? Did not many of the (proto) Reformers and the Puritans all suffer at the hands of Theocracies, Monarchies and National Churches? Yes, social evil is allowed now, but, so is the freedom to believe as conscience allows. For example, would it be better for us to be in a Queen Mary America, as opposed to how it is now?

It appears that way on the surface. But it is like capital punishment. Yes, there are some who suffered unjustly, but society itself was secured within the divine order of things. The costs to society by removing this divine order is far greater, and it especially inflicts wounds on the church and the godly within that society.

 

[darrellmaurina]

It’s helpful to know that rebaptism was punishable by drowning under Justinian’s Code. It seems very strange to me that they were regarded as heretics when as a whole they seem to very closely resemble 17th Century English Baptist groups other than the pacifism and total separation from the world part of their theology. I guess part of the problem is that it seems like anyone who wasn’t part of the state church got the name “Anabaptist” slapped on them. As a further question, were the 17th century English General Baptists regarded as fellow Protestants by the English Puritans, or were they also seen as heretics?

Brock, what @Charles Johnson is saying is correct. The Anabaptists **WERE NOT** what we see today with American evangelical Baptists, let alone Reformed Baptists today, or Particular Baptists of a previous era. Not by a very long shot. The Anabaptists who were persecuted weren't even very much like their true descendants today, the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites.

These were rebels against church and state. Some were doing violent things like taking over Munster and instituting all manner of wickedness.

The Anabaptists only gained toleration -- and then mostly in the Netherlands, known (ironically) for its tolerance of dissent -- when Menno Simmons adopted pacifism.

There are reasons why the Belgic Confession, written at a much earlier date than the English Puritan documents, uses far stronger language to condemn the Anabaptists than the Westminster Confession used decades later for the English Baptists. I think it's an open question whether Guido de Bres would have written the same things he did if he'd encountered English Baptists, but we'll never know that answer. His goal was to convince the Roman Catholic authorities that the Reformed, while they weren't Lutherans, shouldn't be lumped in with the Anabaptists, and he produced a confession of faith which made very clear what the Reformed people did NOT teach.

If someone today did in an American city what the Anabaptists did in Munster, our modern American government would send in the SWAT teams and then the Army if police weren't enough to do the job. And our government would be right to do so.

These were not nice people who were "victims of intolerance." No government would, or should, tolerate what was done in Munster.

 

[Theoretical]

The German Democratic Republic put Thomas Muntzer on it’s 20 mark coin. https://en.numista.com/43372 and its 5 mark note: https://en.numista.com/205965

Also, the Peasants’ War Memorial got recast as the Thomas Muntzer monument by Communist East Germany. https://www.muehlhausen.de/tourismu...ments-and-places/peasants-war-memorial-stone/

That’s NOT remotely something that they’d do for the Amish or Mennonites. Think Robespierre or ISIS for the level of chaos and threat to civil society, especially had they gotten into power.

 

[Phil D.]

Roman Law (Justinian's Code) had prescribed drowning for the crime of rebaptism since the 6th century.

It’s helpful to know that rebaptism was punishable by drowning under Justinian’s Code

Just for clarification, the means of death prescribed in the Codex wasn't specifically drowning: ultimo supplicio percellatur - shall suffer the ultimate punishment/striking (i.e., the death penalty). Drowning seems to have been a malevolent application of that policy starting in the 1520's.

I guess part of the problem is that it seems like anyone who wasn’t part of the state church got the name “Anabaptist” slapped on them.

There very often was a general lumping together of Anabaptists and early Baptists by the Reformed and Anglicans, despite there being some very significant differences. Daniel Featley's popular The Dippers Dipt is a prime example of this.

The basis of this authority came from the church at some point though.

I think that is true to some degree, especially within political arrangements like the Holy Roman Empire (which in a rare moment of lucidity Voltaire aptly noted was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire...). Despite the idealistic relationship sometimes proposed between church and state, history has almost without exception shown the line quite easily gets blurred with unintended consequences.

 

[MW]

There very often was a general lumping together of Anabaptists and early Baptists by the Reformed and Anglicans, despite there being some very significant differences. Daniel Featley's popular The Dippers Dipt is a prime example of this.

One shouldn't regard this as singular. It was the order of the day for the polemics of that time. Errors were genealogically traced back to their origins and dealt with in mass. A very effective tool for showing how "strains" work within broader systems.

 

[Phil D.]

One shouldn't regard this as singular. It was the order of the day for the polemics of that time. Errors were genealogically traced back to their origins and dealt with in mass. A very effective tool for showing how "strains" work within broader systems.

Featley refused to see any meaningful distinction between Anabaptists and Baptists, and sarcastically dismissed the stated purpose and form of the 1644 Baptist COF that addressed that very issue.

For if we give credit to this confession and the preface thereof, those who among us are branded with that title, are neither Hereticks, nor Scismaticks, but tender hearted Christians: upon whom through false suggestions, the hand of Authority fell heavy whilest the Hierarchie stood.​

Baillie, while still essentially lumping both groups together, was at least willing to give relatively more objective consideration to the churches that produced the COF:

Their ways as yet are not well known, but a little time it seems will discover them, for their singular zeal to propagate their way will not permit them long to lurk: only the Confession of faith which the other year [1644] seven of their Congregations did put forth, and of late again in a second corrected Edition [1646] have set out with a bold preface to both the Houses of Parl. may no more be taken for the measure of their faith [i.e., the "Anabaptists" collectively], then that Confession which their elder Brethren in Holland did print not long ago in the name of all their company [1632; Dordrecht Confession of Faith (Mennonite)]. …Moreover these seven congregations cannot prescribe, and are no ways Leaders to a great number of Anabaptistick Churches over all the Land.​

​

[…] How ever the tenets which the most of them are likely to acknowledge, be these which seven of their best Churches did offer in print to the Parliament, as their common sense: We wish that all these who go under the name of Anabaptists in England, were resolved to stand to the articles of that confession without any further progresse in errour.​

​

Baptist history was not well-known in the mid-17th century, and it is still a common misconception that all of the early English Baptists directly and singularly evolved out of the Anabaptist movement. While this is somewhat true of the first General Baptists led by John Smyth, who consulted and interacted with Mennonites in Holland, the first Particular Baptists, led by John Spilsbury, evolved later and separately, emerging from a group of English paedobaptist Congregationalists that had been founded by Henry Jacob. Broad recognition and acceptance that these Baptists were significantly different from Anabaptists increased with time, and especially with the production of the 1677 and 1689 Baptist confessions, as is reflected in Reformed and Anglican writings during that later period.

 

[MW]

Baptist history was not well-known in the mid-17th century, and it is still a common misconception that all of the early English Baptists directly and singularly evolved out of the Anabaptist movement. While this is somewhat true of the first General Baptists led by John Smyth, who consulted and interacted with Mennonites in Holland, the first Particular Baptists, led by John Spilsbury, evolved later and separately, emerging from a group of English paedobaptist Congregationalists that had been founded by Henry Jacob. Broad recognition that these Baptists were significantly different from Anabaptists increased with time, and especially with the production of the 1677 and 1689 Baptist confessions, as is reflected in Reformed and Anglican writings during that later period.

I don't think it is this clearcut. It is easy to slice and dice after the fact. Smyth's trajectory led in an Anabaptist direction that not even modern Baptists could own. And I don't think you would want to associate with the type of "Baptists" described by Featley and Baillie. The affinity was not accidental. There was an historical basis to it. But my point, doctrinally, is that even the most Calvinistic of these "Baptists" could be identified as a strain of Anabaptism in the way they thought about certain things. The genealogical principle of classification was a common and effective way of dealing with errors.

 

[Phil D.]

And I don't think you would want to associate with the type of "Baptists" described by Featley and Baillie.

Well of course not. But again, a big problem with Featley is that he refused to see the 1644 COF as being honest in its expression, because it contradicted his conception of the beliefs held by the Anabaptists he was so determined to have expelled from England. And Featley was almost as critical of the SLC and WA as he was the Anabaptists...

And for the record, as I've often stated here, I consider myself more a baptist than a Baptist...

 

[MW]

Well of course not. But again, a big problem with Featley is that he refused to see the 1644 COF as being honest in its expression, because it contradicted his conception of the beliefs held by the Anabaptists he was so determined to have expelled from England.

And for the record, as I've often stated here, I consider myself more a baptist than a Baptist...

You might ask why. It wasn't because it "contradicted his conception" of Baptists. Rather, the religious situation on the ground in the early 1640s was genuinely chaotic. The slicing and dicing hadn't happened yet. People were chopping and changing constantly, borrowing bits of doctrine and practice from here, there, and everywhere. Featley was responding to the blur he actually witnessed. And this wasn't unique to the Anabaptists; the Independents had the same problem. It took decades to separate the stones from the rice.

 

[Phil D.]

Featley was responding to the blur he actually witnessed.

Featley was a rather narcissistic and biased high-churchman. As I edited my previous post to note, he was almost as critical of the SLC and WA as he was the Anabaptists...

Post automatically merged: Apr 22, 2026

It wasn't because it "contradicted his conception" of Baptists.

I think it largley was...

 

[MW]

Featley was a rather narcissistic and biased high-churchman. As I edited my previous post to note, he was almost as critical of the SLC and WA as he was the Anabaptists...

Post automatically merged: Apr 22, 2026

I think it largley was...

Reference to the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Assembly strengthens my point. These were created to bring order to a religious landscape that was splitting into fragmentation. The WA itself speaks in very negative terms of the sectarianism going on around it.

As to what you think of largely, I leave you to your thoughts and await historical details.

 

[Phil D.]

Reference to the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Assembly strengthens my point.

That seems an odd statement in context, because Featley's brutal criticism of them certainly doesn't strengthen your point. It rather points more to his radical bent against all who dared disagree with him, Anabaptists and Presbyterians alike.

See his Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicus [disciplin'd;] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction, etc.

The league illegal, wherein the late Solemn league and covenant is seriously examined; …D.F. his speech before the Assembly of divines; Dr. Featley's sixteen reasons for episcopal government.

As to what you think of largely, I leave you to your thoughts and await historical details

As I leave you to yours. I have manifestly provided much more historical detail, references, and direct citations on this matter than have you.

 

[MW]

That seems an odd statement in context, because Featley's brutal criticism of them certainly doesn't strengthen your point. It rather points more to his radical bent against all who dared disagree with him, Anabaptists and Presbyterians alike.

See his Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicus [disciplin'd;] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction, etc.

The league illegal, wherein the late Solemn league and covenant is seriously examined; …D.F. his speech before the Assembly of divines; Dr. Featley's sixteen reasons for episcopal government.

Missing the point. Featley, SL&C, and WA are agreed as to the sectaries. Consult a good history on the WA. It should have a section on the rise of the sectaries in the 40s.

As I leave you to yours. I have manifestly provided much more historical detail and direct citations on this matter than have you.

What you have provided itself speaks to the historical context. You haven't provided anything that interprets it in the manner you have taken it.