“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!)
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.
[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).
