Baptism and Church Communion

“To the Christian reader. 

“When it pleased God, of his free Grace, to cause me to make a serious inquiry after Jesus Christ, and to give me some taste of his pardoning Love, the sense of which did engage my heart with desires to be obedient to his will in all things, I used all indeavers both by Converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires of God, that I might be directed in a right way of Worship; and after some time concluded, that the safest way was to follow the Footsteps of the Flock (namely) that Order laid down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by the Primitive Christians in their times; which I found to be, that after Conversion they were Baptized, added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles’ Doctrine, Fellowship, Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; according to which I thought my self bound to be Conformable. And having continued in the Profession of the same for these forty years, although through many Weaknesses, and Fears, Temptations, and Sufferings, yet not without some Witness from God of his gracious Acceptance and Strength to this very day: The sense I have of my own Weakness and Inability, would have been a Bar to me to appear in this Publick way, did I not see a necessity lying upon me for the Truth’s sake, and the sakes of many, by reason of some that have lately risen up to weaken, if not to make void, that great Ordinance of Baptism, by indeavouring to maintain, that all persons that Believe, although they never did, nor do Practice the same, may partake of the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and all other Gospel instituted Duties.”

A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, William Kiffin, 1681 [“…we dare not break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt…” (pp. 130-31)]

William Kiffin answers Robert Poole

QUERIE V. How can you vindicate by the Word of God, your Anabaptisticall way, from the sinfull guile of notorious Schisme, and disection from all the Reformed Churches?

Ans. They that run may reade what fire this pen and heart was inflamed withall in the writing and inditing this querie; but first of all, if by Reformed Churches, you mean those Churches planted by the Apostles in the Primative times, which are the platforme for all Churches in all ages to look unto, to be guided by these Apostolicall Rules left them; wee then shall vindicate by the Word of God our Anabaptisticall way, as you are pleased to call it, from that guile; and first, although wee confesse our selves ignorant of many things, which we ought to know and desire, to waight daily for the further discoveries of Light and truth, from him which is the only giver of it to his poor people, yet so far as we are come, we desire to walke by the same Rule they did, and first of all, wee Baptize none into Christ Jesus, but such as professe faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. by which faith they are made sonnes of God, and so having put on Christ, are Baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.26, 27. and that Christ hath commanded this, and no other way of Baptisme, See Matth. 28.19. Mark. 1.4, 5. Luke 3.7, 8. and that this also was the Practise of the Apostles, See Acts 2.41. and 8.12.36, 37 and 10.47, 48. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41. and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19.17, 18. Matth. 18.15. and if they remain obstinate, to cast them out, as those that are not fit to live in the Church, according to that Rule, 2 Cor. 5.4, 5. Matth. 18.19, 30. by all which, and many other parteculars I might name, it appears through Mercy, we can free our selves from that guile; and truely, if your eyes were opened to peruse your own practises and wayes, you would then see wee could better free our selves from that notorious guile of Schisme from those Reformed Churches, then you can free your selves from the notorious guile of Schismying from Rome; For 1. You hold their Baptisme true, their Ordination of Ministers true, their maintenance by Tythes and Offerings true, their people all fit matter for a Church, and so true, and yet you will seperate from them for some Corruptions; now for our parts, wee denie all and every one of these amongst you to be true, and therefore doe seperate from you; so then, when you have made satisfaction for your notorious Schisme, and returne as dutifull Sonnes to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthty Rubbish of her abominations which are found amongst you, we will returne to you, or shew our just grounds to the contrary.

Pages 12-13 of A briefe remonstrance of the reasons and grounds of those people commonly called Anabaptists, for their seperation, &c. Or certaine queries concerning their faith and practice, propounded by Mr. Robert Poole; answered and resolved by William Kiffin. London: 1645.

Learning from the Augsburg Confession

“Poor and afflicted,” Lord, are thine,
Among the great unfit to shine;
But tho’ the world may think it strange,
They would not with the world exchange.[i]

It is a common modern misconception that the Amish and Mennonites are Anabaptists, and that Baptists are not. In popular usage there is some truth to that. However, in meaning and history such a view is not correct.[ii] Historically, “Anabaptist” has been a catch-all term to describe all sorts of groups, with varying shades of belief. They were all Anabaptists in the sense that they held in common believers’ baptism, that water baptism was reserved for adults who professed their own faith, and therefore “re”baptized those who had been baptized (usually sprinkled) in infancy. It is for this practice that they were called “Anabaptists” by their opponents.[iii]

The Baptists of London prepared a Confession of Faith in 1644, which they called a confession “Of those Churches which are commonly (though falsly) called Anabaptists.” This statement has been used to “prove” that Baptists are not Anabaptists. However, we must understand the use and misuse of the term, as well as its origin. Again, it was a catch-all. If you rejected infant baptism then you were an Anabaptist, historically. On the other hand, the Baptists of London rejected the term as a self-descriptor. The confession itself does not clarify why they rejected the term. Their opponents were not impressed, and still considered them Anabaptists.[iv] In the end, this is a struggle to be recognized clearly on our own terms rather than the terms given by opponents. Baptists of strong constitution still argue that we do not “rebaptize.”[v] “Anabaptist” Balthasar Hübmaier put it this way in his Short Apology (1526):

“I have never taught Anabaptism…But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ…”

The 1530 Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) of the Lutheran Church provides some interesting insight into the views of Anabaptists in the early 16th century.[vi] This confession of faith was submitted at the Diet of Augsburg (Germany) in 1530 to His Majesty Charles V (1500–1558. Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, and Lord of the Netherlands), setting forth the views of “Our [Lutheran] Churches, with common consent.” It sets forth their views in two parts – the chief articles of faith in 22 articles, followed by 7 articles recounting Catholic abuses that had been corrected by the Lutherans (e.g., celibacy of priests). The Confession was printed in both German and Latin.

The following excerpts of the Augsburg Confession are found at the CCEL.ORG website. I provide first the Latin, for it goes back to the original time period. This provides an extra layer of research for those who understand Latin. The rest can ignore it. The Latin text is from the editio princeps, 1531, and the English translation is by Charles P. Krauth in the 1800s.[vii] I will also give an alternate English translation (and explain why later).

The Augsburg Confession condemns the beliefs of Anabaptists in five of the 22 articles of faith. We should not understand that all Anabaptists believed all of these things – which can be disproven with a little research. Rather, it is that the Lutherans thought each of these were things held by some variety of Anabaptist. The Anabaptists in concert rejected the baptism of infants and held to the biblical practice of believers’ baptism. However, they thought there were Anabaptists who were universalists, or believed in annihilation of the wicked, Anabaptists who held sinless perfection, Anabaptists who held eternal security, and, of course, Anabaptists who rejected service in civil office and military service.

Article V: Of the Ministry

Damnant Anabaptistas et alios, qui sentient, Spiritum Sanctum contingere sine verbo externo hominibus per ipsorum preparationes et opera.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others, who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward word, through their own preparations and works.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.

It is possible, considering the last phrase, that the Anabaptists were misunderstood by the Lutherans for attending on their own local congregations while refusing to attend the ministrations of the state church. There were some Anabaptists who were spiritualists, expecting to receive new or advanced revelation beyond the written word. Those might be included in this condemnation.

Article IX: Of Baptism

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui improbant Baptismum puerorum et affirmant pueros sine Baptismo salvos fieri.

They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the Baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without Baptism.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without baptism.

This is the common thread of all Anabaptism – rejecting the baptism of children and holding to believers’ baptism. Whether they are Baptist immersionists or Mennonite pourers, they are all alike Anabaptists in this regard.

Article XII: Of Repentance

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui negant semel justificatos posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum. Item, qui contendunt quibusdam tantam perfectionem in hac vita contingere, ut peccare non possint [dass diejenigen so einst sind fromm worden, nicht wieder fallen mögen]. Damnantur et Novatiani, qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post Baptismum redeuntes ad pœnitentiam. Rejiciuntur et isti, qui non docent remissionem peccatorum per fidem contingere, sed jubent nos mereri gratiam per satisfactiones nostras

They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that men once justified can lose the Spirit of God, and do contend that some men may attain to such a perfection in this life that they can not sin. [Here are rejected those who teach that those who have once been holy can not fall again.] The Novatians are also condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after baptism, though they returned to repentance. They also that do not teach that remission of sins is obtained by faith, and who command us to merit grace by satisfactions, are rejected.

They condemn the Anabaptists who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also, those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin. The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance. They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.

This first English translation of this statement is the main reason I chose to include an alternate translation. Krauth’s translation muddies two groups in one. There were Anabaptists who denied that once men were justified could lose the Holy Ghost. That is Baptist eternal security teaching, and different from the falling from grace idea held by the majority of modern-day Anabaptists. Then again, there are those who believe one can attain sinless perfection in this life. As written, these are two different statements, rather than one belief as Krauth translates it. It is not clear to me whether the Lutherans saw the Novatians as a group within Anabaptism, or a completely separate. More research could shed some light on that.

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt hæc civilia officia Christianis. Damnant et illos, qui Evangelicam perfectionem non collocant in timore Dei et fide, sed in deserendis civilibus officiis, quia Evangelium tradit justiciam æternam cordis. Interim non dissipat Politiam aut Œconomiam, sed maxime postulat conservare tanquam ordinationes Dei, et in talibus ordinationibus exercere caritatem. Itaque necessario debent Christiani obedire magistratibus suis et legibus; nisi cum jubent peccare, tunc etiam magis debent obedire Deo quam hominibus (Acts v. 29).

They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid Christians these civil offices. They condemn also those that place the perfection of the Gospel, not in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, inasmuch as the Gospel teacheth an everlasting righteousness of the heart. In the mean time, it doth not disallow order and government of commonwealths or families, but requireth especially the preservation and maintenance thereof, as of God's own ordinances, and that in such ordinances we should exercise love. Christians, therefore, must necessarily obey their magistrates and laws, save only when they command any sin; for then they must rather obey God than men (Acts v. 29).

They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5. 29.

It is well-known that many Anabaptists then and now believed Christians should not hold civil office. That was not, however, the sine qua non of Anabaptism. Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528) believed government was an institution ordained by God, that Christians should support their government and pay taxes, and even that Christians could “take up the sword” for government under the right circumstances.[viii] Pilgram Marpeck (1495–1556) was an engineer who worked in the public employ. The Münster Rebellion is a very negative, radical, and damaging example of Anabaptists and civil office. In fact, it may have helped solidify many anti-paedobaptists of that period against interacting in government affairs. The Confession seems to imply that Anabaptists did not believe in obeying magistrates, which is a misinterpretation. They also believed in Acts 5:29, but, holding the freedom of religious expression, thought that magistrates requiring religious faith and “orthodox” belief of its citizens was a violation of Acts 5:29. The Lutheran concept of a state church probably further exacerbated their misunderstanding.

Article XVII: Of Christ’s Return to Judgment

Damnant Anabaptistas, qui sentiunt hominibus damnatis ac diabolis finem pænarum futurum esse. Damnant et alios, qui nunc spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum pii regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis [eitel Heilige, Fromme ein weltlich Reich haben, und alle Gottlosen vertilgen werden].

They condemn the Anabaptists who think that to condemned men and the devils shall be an end of torments. They condemn others also, who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being every where suppressed [the saints alone, the pious, shall have a worldly kingdom, and shall exterminate all the godless].

They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils. They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.

This shows some Anabaptists were universalists, and that some were probably annihilationists (i.e., annihilation of the wicked would put an end to their punishments). The later belief sounds much like Postmillennialism, and bears more study. We do know that at least some Anabaptists were looking for and expecting a Millennial Kingdom. The various condemnations in this Confession do not embrace a single group of Bible believers. To them, anyone who rejected infant baptism were “Anabaptists.” (Perhaps even some opponents who did not even hold believers’ baptism were tarred with the Anabaptist brush!)

Final thoughts 

That’s a brief look, in a long post, of some ideas which one might draw about Anabaptists from the Lutheran Confessio Augustana. It represents what they felt were errors of the Anabaptists, as they understood them. They condemned and opposed them. Roman Catholics replied to the Confessio Augustana in August 1520 with the Confutatio Augustana. At least three times they praised the Lutherans for “condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire…” The kings of the earth stood up, and the state churches gathered together, against the Lord and against his little flock.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

---

[i] By Thomas Kelly (1769–1855).
[ii] Even the Editors of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica – certainly no bastion of Landmarkism – recognize that the Anabaptist, at the least, is the “spiritual ancestor of modern Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers.”
[iii] From the Greek baptizo, immerse, and ana, again. “Again” refers more to how their opponents viewed these baptisms – that is, baptizing again, or a second time, someone who have already been baptized. The “Anabaptists,” on the other hand, saw this as the first, real, and only baptism – that is, whatever had happened before, it was not baptism. This is one reason Baptists moved away from the term. They did not admit to “rebaptizing” or baptizing again. Other reasons were to distance themselves from other Anabaptists they considered unsound or heretical, and probably to avoid some of derision and persecution directed at all who were considered Anabaptist. The excesses, uprising, and establishment of an “Anabaptist Kingdom” at Münster, Westphalia tainted the name for years to come. Many still associate the name “Anabaptist” and “Münster” as inextricably linked. There exists the possibility and even cases of “anabaptist” practice by some who believe in infant baptism, in that they will not receive a particular infant baptism performed by some other group, denomination, etc. This is anabaptism in principle, though I am not aware of it being historically identified as Anabaptism.
[iv] For example, Daniel Featley wrote wrote of Article 39, “Here they lispe not, but speak out plain their Anabaptisticall doctrine; whereby they exclude all children of the faithfull, from the Sacrament of entrance into the Church.” In 1647 published The Dippers Dipt, or, The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over Head and Ears.
[v] “Antipaedobaptists” is another term that is probably more accurate. Baptists are against paedobaptism (infant sprinkling, pouring, and even immersing), while, in the strictest sense, do not believe that they are rebaptizing Paedobaptists when they baptize them.
[vi] Thanks to Mark Osgatharp, Baptist pastor in Wynne, Arkansas, for pointing out this resource connection.
[vii] The first English translation of the Confession was made by Richard Taverner in 1536. It has the advantage of also being from the time period. I have not seen it online, however.
[viii] Enough Anabaptists defended the use of the sword for defense of country that there is a distinct name for those who held such a view, Schwertler Anabaptists. In Anabaptists and the Sword (1972), James M. Stayer challenged the consensus teaching that all 16th century Anabaptists taught non-resistance (and wins, in my opinion).

Baptist Whipped for His Convictions

The story of Obadiah Holmes running afoul of the Church and government in Massachusetts is a well-known and oft-repeated story in Baptist history. He was publicly whipped for his religious beliefs in September of 1651. Before Obadiah Holmes, there was Thomas Painter. Painter was whipped 7 years earlier, for holding anabaptist convictions and refusing the baptism of his child.

In his July 15, 1644 journal entry, Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor John Winthrop wrote the following:

“A poor man of Hingham, one Painter, who had lived at New Haven and at Rowley and Charlestown, and been scandalous and burdensome by his idle and troublesome behavior to them all, was now on the sudden turned anabaptist, and having a child born, he would not suffer his wife to bring it to the ordinance of baptism, for she was a member of the church, though himself were not. Being presented for this, and enjoined to suffer the child to be baptized, he still refusing, and disturbing the church, he was again brought to the court not only for his former contempt, but also for saying that our baptism was antichristian; and in the open court he affirmed the same. Whereupon, after much patience and clear conviction of his error, etc., because he was very poor, so as no other but corporal punishment could be fastened upon him, he was ordered to be whipped, not for his opinion, but for his reproaching the Lord’s ordinance, and for his bold and evil behavior both at home and in the court. He endured his punishment with much obstinacy, and when he was loosed he said, boastingly, that God had marvelously assisted him.” Winthrop’s Journal, “History of New England” 1630-1649 Volume 2, James Kendall Hosmer, editor. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901, p. 171.

Not even a year earlier, at the court at Boston “the 5th of the 10th month, 1643” Painter was sentenced to time in the stocks for “disturbing the Church.” This likely shows the beginnings of his anabaptist convictions, though the court record is not specific as to how he disturbed the church.

“Painter stockt. Thomas Painter for disturbing the Church of Hingham, was censured to bee sett in stock a Lecture day, at Lecture time, except hee humble himself, and give the Church satisfaction.” Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1630-1692, Volume II, Boston, MA: County of Suffolk, 1904, p. 135.

Thomas Painter was apparently a charter member of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island.

“The last name on the list is that of Painter, the Christian name being omitted, probably Thomas Painter, of Hingham [Massachusetts].” History of the First Baptist Church in Newport, R. I.: A Discourse Delivered on Thanksgiving Day, November 30, 1876, Comfort Edwin Barrows. Newport, RI: John P. Sanborn & Co., 1876, p. 15.

Thomas Painter was born in England in 1610. He was in the American colonies by 1630, when he married Katherine (Last Name Unknown) in Boston, Massachusetts. Some sources report his death occurred in 1706, looking it seems somewhat lacking in solid corroboration.

Dirk’s Decision, by John Kaiser

A True Story of Costly Christian Compassion

Excerpt from a story of Dirk Willems, as told by John A. Kaiser. Willems was an Anabaptist captured and imprisoned for his faith in 1569. This story is of his escape from his imprisonment.

Dirk Willems was born in Asperen, Gilderland, in the Netherlands, (southern Holland), about 500 years ago. So, why mention him now?

…

Hoping to escape his pursuers, Dirk ran across a frozen body of water which might have been expected to cause his pursuers to hesitate; but one bold fellow followed Dirk onto the ice. However, because he was heavier than Dirk, or because Dirk’s passage had weakened the ice, the ice broke underneath this pursuer, and with a shriek he sank into the freezing water, calling for help.

Dirk heard that call, and, knowing what it might cost him, he turned back and rescued his pursuer and helped him to shore. It is said that the rescued pursuer begged to allow Dirk to go free, but he was reminded of his oath to his master. And Dirk knew that if he turned and ran again, his pursuer might suffer further. So Dirk was taken to a different prison—one from which he could not so easily escape.

At his trial, Dirk was challenged to give up his beliefs and to conform to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Because he refused to do so, he was condemned to be burned to death. We are told that he was tied to a stake and burned alive, and that he met his death bravely, repeatedly confessing his dependence upon God’s aid to bear his sufferings. Dirk paid a very great price to show kindness to his enemy.

After telling the story, John Kaiser calls attention to Dirk’s obedience to his Lord, our Lord’s obedience to his Father, and an hymn related to our Saviour’s love for us.

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you. Luke 6:27

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5:6

But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Such Scriptures and others inspired the following hymn.

1. My blessed Saviour, is thy love
So great, so full, so free?
Behold I give my love, my heart,
My life, my all, to thee.

2. I love thee for the glorious worth
In thy great self I see;
I love thee for that shameful cross,
Thou hast endured form me.

3. No man of greater love can boast
Than for his friend to die;
Thou for thine enemies wast slain!
What love with thine can vie?

4. Though in the very form of God,
With heav’nly glory crowned,
Thou didst a servant’s form assume,
Beset with sorrow round.

5. Thou wouldst like wretched man be made
In everything but sin,
That we as like thee might become
As we unlike had been:

6. Like thee in faith, in meekness, love,
In life in ev’ry phase;
From glory thus to glory changed,
Till we behold thy face.

7. O Lord, I’ll treasure in my soul
The mem’ry of thy love;
And thy dear name shall still to me
A grateful odor prove.

8. Thy friends, the excellent on earth,
Shall be my chief delight;
And when alone, I’ll make thy law
My study day and night.

9. Where thou dost pitch thy tent, and where
Thy honour deigns to dwell,
There I’ll fix mine, and there reside,
There thy love’s wonders tell.

10. The pledges of thy love shall there
Revive this heart of mine;
Thy love, more fragrant and more sweet
Than bowls of generous wine.

Joseph Stennett (1663-1713) wrote “Self-Consecration to God” / “My blessed Saviour, is thy love.” It first appeared in Stennett’s Hymns in Commemoration of the Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, Compos’d for the Celebration of His Holy Supper in 1697 (No. 22, pages 27-29). In the margins, Stennett lays out about two dozen references to Bible verses that are related to his hymn. They can be seen at the link above. The original has 10 stanzas, but most song books use only 4 or 5.

This common meter hymn has been set with a number of common meter tunes, including St. David by Thomas Ravenscroft. Sometimes the words are mistakenly attributed to his grandson, Samuel Stennett.

Joseph Stennett was an English Particular Baptist minister and hymnwriter. He pastored the Seventh Day Baptist Church in London from about 1690 until his death in 1713.

Menno uses Psalm 12:(6)7

...in reference to Scripture.

De doop echter is ons allen tot een teeken der gehoorzaamheid door Christus bevolen, met welken men betuigt, als men hem ontvangt, dat men des Heeren woord gelooft, date men leedwezen en berouw heeft van zijn vroeger leven en dat men met Christus begeert op te staan tot een nieuw leven, en verzekerd is van schuldvergiffenis door Jezus Christus, maar niet, dat de doop zulks kan bewerken....

Baptism, however, is commanded to us all as a sign of obedience by Christ, by which, when received, one declares that one believes the word of the Lord, that one regrets and repents of one’s former life, and that one desires to associate with Christ; stand to new life, and is assured of forgiveness of guilt through Jesus Christ, but not that baptism can accomplish it...

Ziet, dat is de eenige en rechte grond van den doop, die volgens de Schrift bewezen kan worden. Dit leern en gebruiken wij – want wij weten, dat het des Heeren uitdrukkelijk woord in bevel is, aan hetwelk wij niets toedoen of afnemen mogen, opdat wij van God (die alleen een God en Heer van ons geweten is) niet ongehoorzaam en leugenachtig bevonden worden. “Want Gods woord is gelouterd,” Psalm 12:7, “en een schild voor al degenen, die daarop vertrouwen,” Psalm 25:7. 

Behold, that is the only and just ground of baptism which can be proved according to the Scripture. This we learn and use—for we know that the Lord’s express word is a command, from which we may neither add nor take away, lest we disobey and lie to God (who alone is God and Lord of our conscience), and not be found disobedient and lying. “For God’s word has been refined,” Psalm 12:7, and “is a shield for all those who trust in it,” Psalm 25:7.

Ach, God! wat doen toch de geleerden en meesters dezer wereld, die zoo ijverig Gods woord en wijsheid zoeken te verkleinen, en zoo heftig op hun eigen ver nuft en inzicht aandringen; het zal hun toch niet gelukken, want God wil zijn eer aan geen anderen geven. Hij is de Heere, dat is zijn Naam. En buiten Hem is er geen. Jesaja 42:8.

Ah, God! what do the learned and masters of this world, who so diligently seek to diminish God’s word and wisdom, and so vehemently press upon their own ingenuity and understanding; they will not succeed anyway, for God will not give his glory to others. He is the Lord, that is his name. And besides Him there is none. Isaiah 42:8.

Tractaten over den doop, het avondmaal, enz. voorafgegaandoor een kort levensbericht en M.S’. “uitgang van het Pausdom” (Treatises on Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. preceded by a short life story and M.S.’s “exit of the Papacy”), Menno Simons (1496-1561), Amsterdam: Johannes Müller, 1892, pp. 36-37

I have never taught Anabaptism

“I have never taught Anabaptism. I know of none, except that in Acts xix. But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ, and a misuse of the high name of God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, altogether opposed to the institution of Christ and to the customs of the apostles.”

“Baptism is a public testimony of faith which the baptized one himself makes before the church, not godmothers or godfathers. In that each believing person has three witnesses in heaven: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose name and power he inwardly surrenders to God and outwardly has obligated himself to lead a new life according to the Rule of Christ.”

Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989).

Hübmaier replies to Warfield

…or something like that.[i]

Presbyterian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) writes,

“It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite...As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, ‘It is not forbidden’ in the New Testament to ‘baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized’.”[ii]

Anabaptist Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528) replies,

“It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants.’ May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumsise girls...I may make idols out of St. Paul and St. Peter, I may bring infants to the Lord’s Supper, bless palm branches, vegetables, salt, land and water, sell the Mass for an offering.’ For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things.”[iii]

Interesting how the Anabaptist/Baptist position of believer’s baptism accords with the Regulative Principle, while infant baptism does not – though a good many Pedobaptists profess to hold the Regulative Principle.

---

[i] Not a direct reply obviously, since Hübmaier wrote first by over 350 years; but the answer of Hübmaier rather than the assertion of Warfield agrees with the “Regulative Principle,” which Presbyterians are supposed to hold: “...the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture...The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy  receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God... Excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Paragraphs 1 & 5; emphasis mine

[ii] In “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” The Presbyterian Quarterly, xiii. 1899, pp. 313-334

[iii] “The Christian Baptism of Believers,” in The Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier (translated by G. D. Davidson, 3 vols., 1939, p. 121) as quoted in The Anabaptist Story: an Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (William R. Estep, 1996,  p. 90)

Additional Anabaptist Accounts

A few writings related to the history of Christians who hold believers’ baptism:

• A History of Anti-Pedobaptism, from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 by Albert Henry Newman, 1852-1933 (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1897)
• A Manual of Church History by Albert Henry Newman, 1852-1933 (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1903)
• A Plea for Anti-pædobaptists, against the Vanity and Falshood of Scribled Papers, entituled, The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and Silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653 by John Tombes, ca. 1603-1676 (London: Printed by Henry Hills, 1654)
• Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers -- "...Hubmaier uses the scriptural commentaries of the Greek fathers to enhance his argument for believers’ baptism." (by Andrew P. Klager, Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History; Scroll down and search for PDF)
• Balthasar Hübmaier: the Leader of the Anabaptists by Henry Clay Vedder, 1853-1935 (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905)
• History of the Ancient Christians Inhabiting the Valleys of the Alps by Jean Paul Perrin (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Simon, 1847)
• The Bloody Theater, Or, Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians by Thieleman Janszoon van Braght, 1625–1664 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1886, 3rd English Edition, trans. by Joseph F. Sohm)
• The Proper Candidate: an Examination of the 1525 Debate between Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier concerning Baptism -- "Hubmaier saw another weakness in Zwingli’s argument since infant baptism is not forbidden, then it is acceptable." (Master of Arts Thesis by Kurt J. Thompson, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, April 2009)

And for good measure, on persecution:

• Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Dayes, Touching Matters of the Church (aka Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) by John Foxe, 1516-1587 (London: John Day, 1563, this edition edited by William Byron Forbush)

Balthasar Hübmaier

Balthasar Hübmaier, according to Vedder:

The ethical tone of Hübmaier’s writings also marks him for distinction among the writers of his age. He is scrupulously fair to his adversaries—always fair in intention, and usually fair in deed. He never charges misconduct and heresy upon his adversaries with that light-hearted carelessness of fact which is characteristic of his age and of most of its writers—of Luther and Zwingli, for example.

And the difference in tone between his controversial writings and those of the period is marvellous. To read an average pamphlet of Luther’s, written to confute some adversary,—Wider Hans Wurst, for instance, or Contra Henricum Regem,—and then to turn to any writing of Hübmaier’s, is like escaping from the mephitic odours of a slum into a garden of spices. It is not merely that scurrilous abuse has been exchanged for courteous speech,—the whole atmosphere is different. There is a “sweet reasonableness” in Hübmaier’s attitude toward men and truth, a confident belief that he is right, but a genuine willingness to be instructed, which is rare in any age and was unique in his.

Of a brilliant English scholar it was said, as his fitting epitaph, “He died learning”; and of Hübmaier it may be said with equal truth that each year of his life saw him take a long stride forward, not only in knowledge of the truth, but in that love that is not easily provoked and thinketh no evil.

--Henry C. Vedder, Balthasar Hübmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists (New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Knickerbocker Press, 1905), 157–158