Thomas Helwys and his congregation disavow being Anabaptists
In the midst of the discussion about Anabaptist origins of modern-day Baptists, it is very interesting that a document associated with Thomas Helwys (c.1575–c.1616), who is one of the key founders of Baptist witness in the first decade of the seventeenth century, can state quite plainly that it has been written—and I retain the spelling of the original—by “Christs unworthy witnesses,…comonly but most falsly called Annabaptists”—Obiections (1615), [p.vii].
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 8:13 pm and is filed under 17th Century, Baptist Life & Thought. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Are you sure your not meaning to refer to John Murton’s “Objections Answered by Way of Dialogue” published in 1615? I’m also not certain why you’re pointing the quote out since depending on it’s context it could have an awful lot of different meanings.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Yes, it must be by Murton then. EEBO identifies it tentatively as Helwys. The significance lies not in the author, but whether the earliest Baptists saw themselves as Anabaptists. The question has to do with the legitimacy of using the term Anabaptist as a self-identifying moniker by Baptists.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
But the term Anabaptist has a lot of connotations, so while they may not want to identify themselves as Anabaptists the trickier question becomes what about Anabaptism are they trying to distance themselves from? Anabaptist was a pejorative term in the public’s view coming from the Münster Rebellion. All the Anabaptists got stuck with what happened there and persecuted for something they completely disagreed with. So if the early baptists don’t want to identify as Anabaptists then they are either responding to an ignorant label being thrown around by the society around them or they don’t wish to associate theologically, ecclesiologically, etc. with whatever they perceived Anabaptism to be. And there are so many strands of Anabaptists they would have to invariably be distancing themselves from a particular group or groups of Anabaptists. This is why I was confused about posting a solitary quote out of context since it gives no clue to what the early baptists were distancing themselves from.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:00 am
Blake:
The ability to discern different varieties of Anabaptism is very much a product of twentieth-century scholarship.
I am guilty of not explaining the context I am responding to which is this: the argument by some that there was a willing identification with Anabaptism, even positive versions, by 17th century Baptists. I have contended that the Partic Baptists never identified themselves in this way in the 17th or 18th centuries. Second, here you have a General Baptist in the 17th century also disowning the term.
To be sure the term has big negative connotations in this era, but I think the refusal to use the term in this era by Baptists should give historians pause about using it of these same Baptists now. It was not an appropriate self-identifying moniker for these communities then, nor is it now.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:43 am
Surely you can’t deny that there are huge theological differences between the likes of Thomas Muntzer, Menno Simons, Caspar Schwenkfeld and Balthasar Hubmaier (to name only a few). Likewise their followers were very different. Varieties of Anabaptism seems to be a fact and not the result modern academic scholarship.
I’m new to the field so I understand your explanation of why you posted the quote although I personally can’t imagine why any scholar would insist on conflating baptists with anabaptists.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Dr. Haykin, did even Anabaptists at that time accept the Anabaptist name? My understanding is that it was always a pejorative term.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Blake: No, I do not think there is no difference between a Hubmaier, for example, and a Sozzini.
elnwood: good point. Does that negate what I am saying though?
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Dr Haykin
Briefly, what would you say were the theological similarities between the 17th Century Continental Anabaptists and the 17th Century British General Baptists? What were they clear differences?
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Many anti-Calvinists and Landmarkists (I have an up-bringing in both camps) have a vested interest in tracing a line of decendancy from Anabaptist to Baptist. Both camps, in one way or another, are trying to disconnect their Baptist heritage from the Reformers and English separatism. Quotes like these provide a nice anti-dote.
Thanks Dr. Haykin.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Thanks Andrew.
Micah: similarities: believer’s baptism, Bible as key authority, and in the Bible the NT; emphasis on believer’s church.
DIfferences: General Baptists were not pacifists; not did they feel it was wrong to become a magistrate; they also believed in total depravity; no community of goods.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:17 am
It does seem true that since “Anabaptist” was a virtual curse word, the early Baptists shunned any association with it. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that there are significant (indirect perhaps) theological correlations between the early Baptists and the orthodox Anabaptists. There is even some compelling evidence that the writers of the 1644 London Confession used Menno’s “Foundation Book” when composing their section on baptism. However, to be fair, the early Baptists did also have an undeniable connection to Congregationalism. Cool post…
February 8th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Dr. Haykin,
The Anabaptists were called so because they “re-baptized,” and they rejected the “Anabaptist” title because they did not consider themselves to be re-baptizing, but re-instituting true baptism.
Is it possible that the General Baptists (and Particular Baptists in the first London confession) rejected the “Anabaptist” title for the same reason? It may have everything to do with rejecting the charge of re-baptism and nothing to do with the Anabaptist movement.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Hi Dr. Haykin,
I wrote you about this question recently, and appreciate very much the reply you gave.
I found an online pdf of the 1854 edition of Confessions Of Faith And Other Public Documents, by Edward Bean Underhill.
On page 335 there is a document signed by Jessey, Knolleys, Spilsbury and others, entitled Address of the “Anabaptist” Ministers in London.
On page 343 is The Humble Apology of Some Commonly Called Anabaptists. In that document they do not deny the name anabaptist, and seem to embrace it. But they firmly deny association with those anabaptists who hold anti-government sentiments and infant baptism.
These 2 documents make me think that on occasions these men did permit themselves to be identified as anabaptists, though they were unhappy with the associations that the name caused.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:11 am
What possible edification is in all of this debate?
February 10th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
elnwood: very good point. Thnaks.
Chad: What would be helpful I am realizing is a study of the term Anabaptist in the 17th century.
Dave: the point has to do with historical investigation. I take it we are all calmly discussing a matter that, while not earthshattering, is part of our Baptist heritage, and therefore of value, albeit small.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:18 am
Dr. Haykin:
It seems to me that German and Eastern European baptist “historians” had a vested interest proving the historicity of the Anabaptistic origins. In the shadows of the two dominant Protestant denominations, these theologically diverse groups, the so called Anabaptists, proved themselves to be worthy of attention (albeit even persecution) and protection by some rulers and the populace.
But, the Helwys-connection with the anabaptists / mennonites seems accidental. Should further findings disprove the theory, a major body of baptist historiography will need to be corrected.
I will still treasure my habán collection, though.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Agreed zsoltaros. Thanks for dropping by.
February 13th, 2010 at 4:47 am
Pardon the intrusion, I happened here by accident…or providence, time will tell. I was searching records regarding my baptismal lineage and ran across your discussion regarding the anabaptists. A book written by Jerry A. Reynolds with Darryl Hicks may be of great interest “Fundamental Error…An account of the second great falling away” Vol. 1. I remember him mentioning the anabaptists, among others. He would be the one to talk to. Amazon.com has 1 copy.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Dr. Haykin,
You mention a difference between Anabaptists and (General) Baptists was that the Anabaptists believed it was wrong to become the magistrate.
I wonder how much of that position was born out of their persecution and that church/state were inseparable at that time. I am fully Baptist in my convictions, but I think if I were in that context, I wouldn’t want to be a part of a Catholic (or a Lutheran) state government because of my Baptist convictions.
What do you think?
May 17th, 2010 at 2:53 am
I forgot to find out how this discussion went shortly after it began. Dr. Haykin I feel you don’t fully appreciate the complexities of continental anabaptism. In comment number 10 you state that a difference between early general baptists and anabaptists was “General Baptists were not pacifists.” This is not entirely true. Most general baptists may not have been pacifists but some were. You also state that anabpatists believed in a community of goods. In fact, this was a minority opinion. It is not a doctrine in either the Shleitheim or Dordrecht confessions and is really only common among the most sectarian groups like the Hutterites, some of the Swiss-Germans and the radicals at Münster. Most anabaptists were very community oriented but not to that level.
The primary frustration I have with the debate about anabaptist influence on baptist genesis is that it is driven by political interests. Sure the continental, British and arminian baptists may favor an agenda that traces an anabaptist influence, but as is evidenced here (and many other places) reformed baptists seem bent on denying any significant influence. Let the denominational politicians grind axes, scholars should be concerned with evidence and sound argument and I don’t see either side of this debate doing a great job at cooperating to construct the most likely scenario.
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:07 am
I have in my bibliography an undated apology printed in London titled, “A Confession of Faith of the Several Congregations or Churches of Christ in London, Which Are Commonly (Though Unjustly) called Anabaptists.” The name I have it under is William Kiffin, who would have written some time before 1700.
As has already been discussed, it is not clear why they shirked that title–whether because of their disagreement with the Anabaptist position or whether they denied the accuracy of that title. There is far more telling evidence, however, of Helwys’ attitude than his rejection of the name. More on that in a moment.
It has also been discussed here the theological congruity between the two groups. Communalism–whether in a strong community of goods sense as per the Hutterites or in a weaker form of emphasis on using one’s goods for the benefit of those in need in a non-compulsory manner–is present in most, if not all manifestations of biblicist Anabaptism. What must be focused upon more precisely, though, is the theological congruence of the Baptists with the Waterlander Mennonite Church.
It was this group, which had broken off from the larger Mennonite church over the issue of the strictness of the implementation of the ban, with which Helwys and John Smyth’s group had contact while in Amsterdam. Smyth’s theology was moving in an Anabaptist direction culminating in his self-baptism. He did not believe that there was a true church from whom to accept the ordinance, suggesting that he had not yet grafted himself and his followers into the Waterlander church.
Smyth later did seek union with the Waterlanders but Helwys resisted, eventually returning to England because of his objection to that direction. So, although it is ambiguous why Helwys rejected the Anabaptist moniker just from the excerpt that began this discussion, his actions more definitively evince his rejection of association with the movement regardless of title.
Blake seems aware (although I see this discussion is quite old now) that there are other motivations behind this position. I wouldn’t even say that Landmarkism is what is at stake. As contemporary evangelicals, we have lost much of our rootedness in any heritage. As I listen into the broader scope of this debate, it seems that there is a yearning to reclaim our Baptist heritage, part of which raises this question.
Many evangelicals, searching for a past, have found a ground in the Reformation, particularly of the Genevan variety. Others, not as approving of this shift, in turn have tried to shape our understanding of heritage in the direction of the Anabaptists–a turn polemically useful for those of the anti-calvinist position.
The best resource I have found so far is Goki Saito’s 1974 dissertation from over there at SBTS, “An Investigation into the relationship Between the Early English General Baptists and the Dutch Anabaptists.” It is a bit dated, but it gives an excellent survey of the debate up to that point. Since the debate doesn’t appear o have evolved much, only repeating what had been said up to that point, Saito’s dissertation remains helpful.