The term "Reformed"

“By all which ye see by plentiful Evidence, that Christ hath not been without His Witnesses in every age, not only to defend and assert the true, but to impugn, and to reject (yet, even to death itself) the false Baptism. In so much that we are not left without good testimony of a series of succession, that by God’s providence hath even kept afoot, of this great ordinance of believer’s baptism ever since the first times.” Henry D’Anvers, 1674

D'Anvers was a General Baptist who had served as Governer of Standford.

 

So Baptist arose during te time of the Reformtion....

 

They arose with the disciples gathered by Christ from John the Baptist.

 

Try this out for information:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ivey/ch05.htm

 

A lot of this stuff was discussed in the 'Baptist History' forum a few months ago. No one is disputing that there were Anabaptists about during the 16th Century. I posted this a while ago.

" In March 1535, there is a Royal proclamation, warning that "of late many strangers, born out of the King's obedience, are arrived and come into this realm, which albeit that they were baptized in their infancy and childhood according to the ordinance of the universal Church of Christ........in contempt of that holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption and authority lately rebaptized themselves......
The King's most royal majesty....minding above all things to save his loving subjects.....from falling into any erroneous opinions and damnable heresies......infected by the communion and conversation of such corrupt, seditious and erroneous persons: ordaineth and staitly chargeth and commandeth that all and singular strangers now being in his realm....that have or do hold or teach those or any other erroneous opinions or heresies against God and his Holy Scriptures shall within twelve days next after this present proclamation depart out of the realmand of all his other dominions on pain to suffer death........"

We learn from various sources that around 20 Dutch Anabaptists had been arrested. Seven abjured their faith, the rest were burned- two in London, the rest being despatched around the country to be burned as a warning.

However, these folk were followers of Melchior Hofmann and held to various errors: " ....Whose opinions were: First that in Christ is not two natures, God and man. Secondly: that Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the virgin Marie [sic]: thirdly that children of infidels shall be saued: Fourth: that baptisme of infants is of none effect: Fiftly, that the sacrament of Christ's bodie is but bread onely: sixtly, that he who after his baptisme sinneth wittingly, sinneth deadly, and cannot be saued." (John Stow, The Annales of England)."

This is the earliest documented account of Anabaptists in England, and therefore the earliest account of the punishment of Anabaptists. There are plenty of cases before 1535 where proto-Protestants (Lollards) were arrested and burned but none of these was accused of baptizing adults or not baptizing infants.

Henry executed Lollards and Anabaptists indiscriminately (more that he did Roman Catholics). The only Christian to be executed during the reign of Edward VI was Joan Boucher (Joan of Kent) who was an Anabaptist subscribing to the melchiorite heresy mentioned above. The majority of those martyred under 'Bloody Mary' were also Anabaptists.

When the Particular Baptists arose 100 years later, they were very keen not to be confused with the Anabaptists. The introduction to the 1646 Confession reads:-

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off of those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and in print, unjustly cast upon them.

Who were the ignorant who needed to be informed? Those who thought these seven churches were Anabaptist.
What were the aspersions being made in pulpit and press about the churches? That they were Anabaptist.

So to prove that they were nothing whatsoever to do with the Anabaptists, the leaders of these churches compiled a confession based on the True Confession of Henry Ainsworth and the Marrow of Sacred Divinity of William Ames, both paedobaptist documents.

The seven churches therefore did not come out of Anabaptism, but out of Independent Protestantism.

 

First, it is pure assumption these were the earliest Anabaptists in England. It is one thing to state the earliest record and it is quite another thing to prove these are the earliest Anabaptists in England, especially when several churches in England claim existence long before this record.

Second, the seven churches of London did not originate with Paedobaptist clergy. Dr. Featly proves they were in existence in great numbers in 1625 long before Whitsitt's theory, long before the 1633 theory.

Third, in 1575 there was a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists in London who believed that Jesus Christ was both God and man. (a church in Broadmead, p. lxvii)

 

What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" was the position of all Particular Baptists living at the very time Reformed advocates claim Baptists began. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" is the united testimony of every single solitary English Baptist historian in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" is the testimony of archeological evidences in the church graveyards that all living in that vicinity had no questions about. There are dated headstones. What you are dismissing as pure "desire" or "mythology" John Knox was complaining about in Scotland at the very same time this historical documentation of this one particular group is noted.

The Whitsitt, aka Reformed view of origins is thoroughly disproven by Dr.James Featley, and by the obvious sound Anabaptist congregation existing in London in 1575.

So, it seems that if any position is motivated by "desire" and "mythology" it is the position you are defending and Martin is defending.

However, I am going to drop out of this discussion at this point, and in fact going drop out of this forum for a while as I am going to spend the next few months thoroughly going through original sources in that period in England. So you fella's just have a hay day while I am gone.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe (and others) are saying there was a remnant Christian people who had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism ( as well as other protestant church groups)....yes others from these named churches can & did join them (Baptists) but they (the " Pure" Believers Baptists") maintained their ....can I say it, 'Structural Integrity' and were never polluted by the apostates (who trace their heritage back to Catholicism--God Forbid!

My primary question still is "Where did these 'Pure Baptists' come from?"

 

The document I quoted is a solid fact. If there were Anabaptist congregations in England before that time, there is no direct evidence for them, only anecdotal.

Can you give me the names of the original Pastors of the seven churches? If not, how do you know they did not come out of Protestant churches as Knollys and Kiffin did? Daniel Featly was the great opponent of the earliest Baptists. Kiffin and two others debated him in 1642. His aim was to show that, contrary to their claims, the Baptists were indeed no better than Anabaptists and therefore not to be considered orthodox. It was due to his criticisms that the 1644 Confession was replaced by the 1646 with its clearer disassociation from the Anabaptists. [See Featly's book, The Dippers dip't: or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears at a Disputation in Southwark]

Well whoopee-do! So there was an Anabaptist church that wasn't heretical- in its Christology, at least. What does that prove? The signatories of the 1644 and 1646 Confessions were eager to show that they had nothing to do with such churches.

 

You will not find such people. The 'Trail of Blood' is a myth. There were groups before the Reformation which practised Believers' Baptism but you would not want to be associated with the Paulicians or Albigensians, both of whom were utterly heretical. The Petrobusians and Waldensians were better, but not all Waldensians practised Believers' Baptism.

Although we respect and honour the Anabaptists for being the first to practise Independency and Separation of Church and State, the theology of almost all of them does not bear close inspection. Most of them were Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian; many (most?) of them denied that the Lord Jesus took flesh from His mother; many either denied the Trinity or were unsound about it. Others denied the Fall and/or salvation by faith Alone.

We are all 'unprofitable servants,' but the Particular Baptists came out of the Independent churches, and they took their doctrine of Independency, not from the Anabaptists, but from the Brownists.

 

When you get your,'Who am I?', question right, all of your,'What should I do?' questions tend to take care of themselves. That in itself will simply make you more usable for God.

 

I never challenged the document, only your interpretation of it.

John Spilsbury, Wapping Street Baptist Church.

Featley identified them as Anabaptists and then attempted to smear them by comparing them to the contential Anabaptists. I just finished reading The Dippers dip't: or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears at a Disputation in Southwark.

It proves your either ignorant of English Baptist history or intentionally being deceptive. They denied identification with the contential Anabaptists that Featley was comparing them to but purposely identified with previous English Anapbaptists as Broadmead Street Church records clearly and explicitly show. Broadmead was constituted in 1640.

I told JonC that I would be dropping out for awhile to do some more research. However, your ridiculous remarks could not be left unanswered.

 

I just finished reading Dr. Featley and he was purposely trying to identify them with the more heretical continential Anabaptists and their extremes. However, Featley claimed to be eye witness to baptism by immersion "head over ears" "dipt" near his own home for "over twenty years" and none of the Baptists (who were still being called anabaptists" denied it. They only denied the intentional smear job that paedobaptists sympathizers are still using on this forum.

 

The only myth is historical knowledge. You are more than willing to believe the reports of the paedobaptists. Anyone who has done any serious study in the Anabaptist history knows there were many different groups who differed with each other in many different areas. Notice your own language "most."

For the most part you are the eager mouthpiece to spread the foul false accusations by their enemies.

.

What an abominable lie! You have absolutely no evidence to prove that. The 1640 Baptists themselves utterly repudiated that very thing. The Broadmead church records clearly distinguishes between these groups and utterly repudiates your accusations.