Did Puritanism inadvertently open the door for Anabaptism?

[Phil D.]

(This post is related to this thread, which is no longer open for additions.)

I have some acquaintances that browse the PB but are not members, and they sometimes ask me questions elsewhere about some of my PB posts that they see. I decided to respond here so that if others happen to have similar questions they can see my answer as well. I was recently asked about these comments I made in the attachment in this post, particularly the bolded part:

Even though they were severely persecuted, various Anabaptist groups had widely existed, and in a few cases even flourished on the European continent from the very earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. However, while present, the movement had remained relatively small and obscure in the British Isles. Then, as similarly had happened on the Continent, an unprecedented and increasingly effective opposition to the centuries-old and monolithic establishment state-church began to transpire.​

​

In England’s case, such confrontation was primarily led by presbyterian, along with some episcopal and congregationalist Puritans. This mainstream challenge to the existing power structure, particularly as conceived within the polity of Independency (congregationalism), helped create considerable turmoil, even to the extent of contributing to eventual civil war. This opposition then seems to have materially, if inadvertently helped open the door for the concurrent and remarkably rapid rise of various other non-conformist groups in England, especially the Anabaptists and Baptists.​

The specific question was whether this was simply the later evaluation of some church historians, or was such a concern actually expressed by any establishmentarians of that era. The simple answer is, both. (Ironically, I often fear I attach too many peripheral footnotes to my writings to the point of distraction, yet when I decide to leave one out, that’s the very point I get questioned on… SMH…)

One contemporaneous expression of this concern is from Robert Sanderson (1597–1663), an evangelical yet high-Anglican Bishop of Lincoln. Sanderson was invited to participate in the Westminster Assembly on account of his learning and piety, but declined since he was a Royalist, who could thus not swear allegiance to the Solemn League and Covenant (all similar to Archbishop James Ussher’s situation). In the following extract Sanderson indeed related a long-held fear among the old church guard that Puritanism would result in other sects also gaining a foothold in England’s religious landscape, and specifically the Anabaptists.

The Reverend Arch-bishop Whitgift [Archbishop of Canterbury, 1583–1603], and the learned Hooker [a prominent high-Anglican theologian of the same period], men of great judgment, and famous in their times, did long since foresee, and accordingly declared their fear, that if ever Puritanism should prevail among us, it would soon draw in Anabaptism after it.​

​

At this Cartwright [the de facto leader of the earliest presbyterian Puritans], and other the advocates for the Disciplinarian interest in those days, seemed to take great offence: as if those fears were rather pretended to derive an odium upon them, then that there was otherwise any just cause for the same; protesting ever their utter dislike of Anabaptism, and how free they were from the least thought of introducing it.​

​

But this was only their own mistake, or rather Jealousy. For those godly men [Whitgift and Hooker] were neither so unadvised, nor so uncharitable, as to become Judges of other mens thoughts or intentions, beyond what their actions spoke them. But these good men judged right; they only considered as prudent men that Anabaptism had its rise from the same principles the Puritans held, and its growth from the same courses they took: together with the natural tendency of their principles and practices thitherward; especially that one principle, as it was by them mis-understood, that the Scripture was adeguata agendorum regula, so as no thing might lawfully be done without express warrant either from some command, or example therein contained.​

​

The clue whereof, if followed as far as it would lead, would certainly in time carry them as far as the Anabaptists were then gone. But that it was no vain fear, the unhappy event has proved; and justified them: since what they feared is now come to pass, and that in a very high degree.​

​

[Robert Sanderson, Fourteen Sermons heretofore preached..., (London: R.N., 1657), Preface, § xxiii.]​

 

[JP Wallace]

From my reading in and around the history of Scots Presbyterianism there was a concern that independency was chink in the armour - it perhaps doesn't get said in so many words but I think its traceable in what is written.

My main observations of the above are:

a) Anabaptism was never a particularly strong movement in the British Isles, pretty much all 17th/18th century baptists had mode of baptism in common, but not a lot else with continental anabaptists. So in a sense I'm tempted to say that while puritanism may have opened the door to Anabaptists, not many went through that door. I don't think there really was a "rapid rise of various other non-conformist groups in England, especially the Anabaptists and Baptists" by that I mean there wasn't a rapid rise of Anabaptists, and even numerically such groups as the Fifth Monarchy Men were relatively few I think. There certainly was a rapid rise diversity among such groups but not in their culumulative membership as such. I would be happier say the flourishing of such groups developed from Independency not Puritanism - as mainsteam puritanism maintained the Establishment Principle.

b) I think the thesis may be stronger if the question was asked - "Did the strength of Independency/Congregationalsim weaken the Puritan advances made around the high point of the Puritan advance?" I'd be inclined to answer yes.

c) Arminianism was strongest inside the Established Church, not among the Puritans - so while the Church of England may have feared that Puritanism would open the door to extremism - they had plenty within their own family that were already halfway there, never mind the high church near-on Anglo Catholics!

 

[Phil D.]

a) Anabaptism was never a particularly strong movement in the British Isles, pretty much all 17th/18th century baptists had mode of baptism in common, but not a lot else with continental anabaptists. So in a sense I'm tempted to say that while puritanism may have opened the door to Anabaptists, not many went through that door. I don't think there really was a "rapid rise of various other non-conformist groups in England, especially the Anabaptists and Baptists" by that I mean there wasn't a rapid rise of Anabaptists, and even numerically such groups as the Fifth Monarchy Men were relatively few I think. There certainly was a rapid rise diversity among such groups but not in their culumulative membership as such. I would be happier say the flourishing of such groups developed from Independency not Puritanism - as mainsteam puritanism maintained the Establishment Principle.

Rev. Wallace, I appreciate your feedback, and I don’t really disagree with your overall analysis.

Terms like “rapid rise” and "flourished" are certainly relative to the context in which I use them. I wouldn’t attempt to quantify things in something like percentages, as that is impossible to do. Still, in England, especially from 1640 to 1660, numerous treatises were published sounding the alarm at the rise of various sects that were then on the ascendancy, especially the Anabaptists (which then also comprehended those we now distinguish as Baptists). For example:

​

[Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt, 1644] This fire [i.e. ‘Anabaptism’], which in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, and our gracious sovereign till now [Charles I], was covered in England under the ashes; or if it brake out at any time, by the care of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was soon put out. But of late…it hath held weekly conventicles, rebaptized hundreds of men and women together in the twilight in rivulets and some arms of the Thames, and elsewhere...They have printed diverse pamphlets in defense of their heresy...They flock in great multitudes to their Jordans…They defile our rivers with their impure washings, and our pulpits with their false prophecies and fanatical enthusiasms, so the presses sweat and groan under the load of their blasphemies.​

​

[John Lightfoot, Journal of the Westminster Assembly; 1644] We were ready to rise, and were consulting what to fall next upon. I moved urgently, that we might fall upon baptism, for the clearing of ourselves of Anabaptism, which so much increaseth: which was accordingly concluded to be done.​

[Robert Baillie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency; 1646] Hence it was that the Anabaptists made little noyse in England, till of late the Independents have corrupted and made worse the principles of the old Separatists, proclaiming for errours a liberty both in Church and State; under this shelter the Anabaptists have lift up their head, and increased their numbers, much above all other sects of the Land.​

​

[Baillie, Letters, 1646] I wrote to yow to cause some press for Vossius to print what he told me he had beside him against the Anabaptists. When Spanheim is free of Ameraut, I wish he went on with his Collegium Anabaptisticum. These are the sectaries who most encrease amongst us.​

​

And there are quite a few more like these. I can’t recall the exact source at the moment, but in the late 1640’s there was a treatise lamenting the fact that a significant majority of the Parliamentary Army under Cromwell was composed of “sectaries,” most notably Baptists.

But, again, I would grant statements like these are historically relative and necessarily based on perception, rather than sheer numbers or definable percentages.

b) I think the thesis may be stronger if the question was asked - "Did the strength of Independency/Congregationalsim weaken the Puritan advances made around the high point of the Puritan advance?" I'd be inclined to answer yes.

That was certainly the view of many Presbyterians. But as the Sanderson quote shows, establishment Anglicans took that premise of accommodation a step further and perceived the overall tenets of Puritanism in general as the base source of sectarianism and disruption in the church.

 

[JP Wallace]

Those quotes are helpful - it's not something that I have thought too much about - my reading is generally in the Scots Commissioners etc. and for sure their perspecitves in general comport with what you're quoting. I wonder if some of them perhaps blur the lines between baptist and anabaptist in terms of not representing the quite radical difference between the baptists who were growing out of independency and generally sound, and the continentally influenced anabaptists with their radical views on church, officers, charismatic gifts, political dogma etc.?

But as the Sanderson quote shows, establishment Anglicans took that premise of accommodation a step further and perceived the overall tenets of Puritanism in general as the base source of sectarianism and disruption in the church.

They would say that though - because Presbyterianism's main target was Erastianism. As King James said "No bishop, no King." And they're arguably correct! However we should also remember that the purpose of the Westminster Assembly was to reach uniformity of established presbyterianism, so properly speaking certainly among the Presbyterians there was no strong appetite to permit unlimited dissent to the longed for uniformity.

 

[Phil D.]

I wonder if some of them perhaps blur the lines between baptist and anabaptist in terms of not representing the quite radical difference between the baptists who were growing out of independency and generally sound, and the continentally influenced anabaptists with their radical views on church, officers, charismatic gifts, political dogma etc.?

I would say that was definitely the case. This is a central consideration in the attachment I linked to in the OP.

However we should also remember that the purpose of the Westminster Assembly to reach Uniformity of Established Presbyterianism, so properly speaking certainly among the Presbyterians there was no strong appetite to permit unlimited dissent to the longed for uniformity.

While true insofar as it goes, I would say the complications and incompatibilities inherently present in establishmentarianism posed the main constraint to the Presbyterians desires in this area. Parliament was not inclined to really crack down on the Independents, or by extension even the Anabaptists, largely due to the fact that their anti-royalist army was composed of large numbers of these sectaries, including their most competent general, Cromwell.

 

[JP Wallace]

I would say the complications and incompatibilities inherently present in establishmentarianism posed the main constraint to the Presbyterians desires to do this.

Well, I would say that actually your last sentence is the explanation for the failure of the Westminster Assembly (other than in Scotland and beyond) i.e the Cromwellian independent strength in the army etc. - giving rise to a breadth of opinion that brought about lamentable results.

Even when I was a Baptist I often wondered if the cost of independency has been too high - that a united front post Westminster would have given a stronger foundation for Christianity that would have stood through the Enlightenment etc. But, God's Will is known in providence and for his own good and I'm confident, gracious reasons, it was not to be!

 

[Phil D.]

Well, I would say that actually your last sentence is the explanation for the failure of the Westminster Assembly (other than in Scotland and beyond) i.e the Cromwellian independent strength in the army etc. - giving rise to a breadth of opinion that brought about lamentable results.

Well, Covenanters/Establishmentarians and I probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this... but, it was Parliament that constituted the Assembly, so due to that arrangement they were necessarily constrained by them in their ability to make actual changes and/or laws. Parliament approved some recommendations of the Assembly, which is as far as the Assembly's power went, and denied or ignored others, largely driven by political necessity or whims.

God's Will is known in providence and for his own good and I'm confident, gracious reasons, it was not to be!

Absolutely no disagreement there!

 

[JP Wallace]

Well, Covenanters/Establishmentarians and I probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this

True.....but just to be sure: Establishmentarianism is not the same beast as Erastianism. The former places both Church and State under Christ as KIng - the latter places both under an earthly king.

 

[Phil D.]

...The explanation for the failure of the Westminster Assembly (other than in Scotland and beyond) i.e the Cromwellian independent strength in the army etc. - giving rise to a breadth of opinion that brought about lamentable results.

...Establishmentarianism is not the same beast as Erastianism. The former places both Church and State under Christ as KIng - the latter places both under an earthly king.

So, this is perhaps a bit tangential, but as the OP'er here, and with the mods' indulgence... If you (or others here) are willing to explore this a bit further with me, I would genuinely be interested in doing so. My comprehension in this area is at best incomplete.

In the vein of our conversation, you seem to be positing that the Westminster Assembly's relationship with Parliament was Erastian, and that's why it didn't succeed in many of its aims? Or maybe I'm totally missing something.

Rather than ask a lot more questions or comment further at this point, maybe first someone can clearly lay out a working concept of how a proper Establishment church would interact with the Magistrate to effect enforcement of certain ecclesiastical concerns. Let's start with a standard issue frequently raised in this context: what should be done with those who would violate the church's position on paedobaptism (whether for or against). What punishments are appropriate in a case of ultimate refusal (fines, imprisonment, ???), and would the church or state carry out such sentences? I've asked for particulars like this before, but to little avail. I'm familiar with the very broad principles laid out in 1646 WCF 23.3, but I would like to see more detail as to how establishmentarians believe these should manifest in very practical situations like baptism.

 

[JP Wallace]

In the vein of our conversation, you seem to be positing that the Westminster Assembly's relationship with Parliament was Erastian, and that's why it didn't succeed in many of its aims? Or maybe I'm totally missing something.

I think we can put the failure down to mainly one thing: the Restoration of Charles II. The Declaration of Breda (1660) which set down the parameters of the Restoration was clearly balanced in the favour of Anglicanism, which became even more clear with the Clarendon Code - all of which essentially overturned or eroded the advances and ideals of the Assembly.

And really the Puritan ideals never recovered from that, and still haven't. Even the Glorious Revolution of 1689 was at best a halfway house, William being persuaded that Presbyterianism would eventually leave him a lame-duck king.

However in a sense during the Assembly Cromwell though committed to independency and the separation of Church and State, almost be default at times acted in and Erastian manner against the Establishmentarians!

I'd say your questions re: how an establishment principle Church State relationship would work, would probably be better in a separate thread. I think the Establishment Principle is terribly badly misunderstood and often misrepresented. In truth I suppose the theory has never had an opportunity to be tested and worked out.

However, in my opinion the state of our nations, and particularly the USA would suggest to me that the absolute separation of Church and State has hardly been a roaring success for the welfare of the nation.

 

[Phil D.]

I think we can put the failure down to mainly one thing: the Restoration of Charles II. The Declaration of Breda (1660) which set down the parameters of the Restoration was clearly balanced in the favour of Anglicanism, which became even more clear with the Clarendon Code - all of which essentially overturned or eroded the advances and ideals of the Assembly.

Yet all of the events beginning in 1642 that eventually and necessarily led up to the Restoration have to be duly considered in relation to this conclusion. And they are incredibly complex and even befuddling, at least to me. A large part of that is how the varied manifestations of church and state related and interacted with each other (often various species of establishmentarianism, really). Part and parcel to all that of course are the various Parliaments (Short, Long, Rump, Barebones, etc.), Royalists (mostly Anglican but even some Scottish Covenanters like the Engagers, then later the various Jacobite factions), odd and counter-intuitive military factions with their ever-changing and convoluted political and religious alliances and allegiances, etc. etc. etc. Then try and relate all that within the context of the several multi-faceted civil wars both in Scotland and England, various purges, and the many influential sects, clans and personalities involved in that epic, and my poor brain goes into overload...

In truth I suppose the theory has never had an opportunity to be tested and worked out.

In my humble estimate, though I imagine we'll again disagree, I believe this candid admission is attributable to Establishmentarianism being an over-realized eschatological ideal. Every model I can conceive of, or certainly that has been attempted in history, presents insurmountable problems that ultimately prove counter-productive to its very aims. It just doesn't work in a fallen world, nor will it this side of the eschaton. Add to this the inescapable reality of varying personal convictions and conscience, and I think the American revisions to WCF 23 are more realistic than the original. If they were ever to be carried out as truly intended, they would be more conducive to facilitating sustainable progress in the greater Christian church. But, again, I'm always open to being further enlightened on the subject.