Presbyterians killing baptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew1344

Matthew1344

Puritan Board Sophomore
I’ve gotten a lot of this type of answer lately. I know it happens, just not sure in what lite it happened.

I read a book that Doctor McMahon recommended that was put as a Q&A. It mentioned that the practice of full immersion was killing new converts because of the cold.

So I see why that would anger people.

I also see the touchy subject of not including children in the new covenant community.

Any more info on this topic?

How would y’all respond to this type of comment?
2FDBF7B7-3A58-46CD-88DC-7BB1A3A9113D.png
 
Reading that post where the author keeps saying "You guys"...."our guys"...

Reminds me of this admonition: " Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Secondly, even if reformed people throughout history have done bad things, that proves absolutely nothing whatsoever about their doctrine. David committed adultery and then had a guy killed. And he's still seen as a man after God's own heart. I guarantee you I can find stories of baptists doing bad things too.
 
Is he speaking of the Anabaptists? Lutherans, Catholics, and protestants in general persecuted them and I wouldn't think that Baptists would want to identify with them. I mean, there are Anabaptists like John of Leiden who proclaimed himself "king of New Jerusalem" and married multiple wives (maybe as many as 16). But similar to what De Jager said, crying the victim has no bearing on whether the position is true or not.

That post strikes me as coming from a bizarre, unhinged individual that would not be worth interacting with.
 
I agree, arguing with people like that is pointless... Oh, and it looks like you need to charge your phone..!

In terms of historical issues:

I've read a lot about the history of baptism - not everything of course, and I've likely forgotten some of what I have - but I don't recall seeing any documented or credible cases of people having died from the cold after immersion. I'd be interested in seeing the source you mentioned. There are a few known cases of infants having been dropped into deep water and drowning... Boris Yeltsin claimed to have almost been drowned when the EO priest dropped him into a pond... Even so, an 18th century Anglican physician wrote a whole book on the benefits of cold-water bathing and and even recommended such for infants. (***NOTE: this is not an endorsement of the practice*** o_O) There's on old joke at Oxford Divinity School: What should you do if you accidentally drop an infant in a deep font? Replace the cover and turn to the Prayer Book's section on burial at sea... (bad, I know...)

Did Presbyterians kill Baptists? Not that I know of. Did establishment state-churches execute some Anabaptists? Some, yes, a relative few - Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed alike. (Baptists, proper, emerged from English congregationalism, not the Anabaptists.) Most executions involved the persons having ignored warnings to leave a particular location, or face the consequences (similar to Servetus in Geneva). Did they execute Anabaptists for baptizing by immersion? Not that I'm aware of. In those days there were a variety of modes practiced both by establishment churches and the Anabaptists alike- sprinkling, pouring and dipping were variously in use among all.

Do I think any of this excuses the historical executions of Anabaptists? Maybe, and, no. History is a messy thing, and specific happenings need to be judged with a clear-headed understanding of the milieu in which they occur. So I don't feel a need to cancel past establishment church leaders for what happened four centuries ago, or to tear down their statues, or rename streets and churches. Or to malign their ecclesial successors. Or to ignorantly bring the issue up on social media to try and score a few cheap points. So while I don't approve according to modern sensibilities, it's not quite that simple... On the other hand, historical facts like these have helped form my opposition to establishment churches. History shows that even in conceptually ideal settings, even redeemed fallen-humans will inevitably mess things up, and either neglect or exceed their own power and authority to the great detriment and even blood-shedding of their own subjects. I believe it's an over-realized eschatology, that can only be properly implemented in the eschaton.
 
Last edited:
Phil D. said:
History is a messy thing, and specific happenings need to be judged with a clear-headed understanding of the milieu in which they occur. So I don't feel a need to cancel past establishment church leaders for what happened four centuries ago, or to tear down their statues, or rename streets and churches. Or to ignorantly bring the issue up on social media to try and score a few cheap points.
Click to expand...
Excellent, brother. I wish most Christians today thought this way about history.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
Fixed to broaden the scope.
Click to expand...
Gonna be harsh but honest with my feelings.

Facebook is starting to feel more and more to me like a cross between a family reunion of relatives you don't really want to see and a nursing home full of people who can't move on about something. And it depresses me terribly every time I open the page.
 
I have a pastor friend (close friend) who says the same thing.

He says that is why there are not many 1689 particular Baptist to read from. “Y’all killed them.”

He says that is why he has to read from Calvin and Edwards… Presbyterians killed the Protestant baptists.

Are y’all saying that this is not true?
 
Phil D. said:
I agree, arguing with people like that is pointless... Oh, and it looks like you need to charge your phone..!

In terms of historical issues:

I've read a lot about the history of baptism - not everything of course, and I've likely forgotten some of what I have - but I don't recall seeing any documented or credible cases of people having died from the cold after immersion. I'd be interested in seeing the source you mentioned. There are a few known cases of infants having been dropped into deep water and drowning... Boris Yeltsin claimed to have almost been drowned when the EO priest dropped him into a pond... Even so, an 18th century Anglican physician wrote a whole book on the benefits of cold-water bathing and and even recommended such for infants. (***NOTE: this is not an endorsement of the practice*** o_O) There's on old joke at Oxford Divinity School: What should you do if you accidentally drop an infant in a deep font? Replace the cover and turn to the Prayer Book's section on burial at sea... (bad, I know...)

Did Presbyterians kill Baptists? Not that I know of. Did establishment state-churches execute some Anabaptists? Some, yes, a relative few - Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed alike. (Baptists, proper, emerged from English congregationalism, not the Anabaptists.) Most executions involved the persons having ignored warnings to leave a particular location, or face the consequences (similar to Servetus in Geneva). Did they execute Anabaptists for baptizing by immersion? Not that I'm aware of. In those days there were a variety of modes practiced both by establishment churches and the Anabaptists alike- sprinkling, pouring and dipping were variously in use among all.

Do I think any of this excuses the historical executions of Anabaptists? Maybe, and, no. History is a messy thing, and specific happenings need to be judged with a clear-headed understanding of the milieu in which they occur. So I don't feel a need to cancel past establishment church leaders for what happened four centuries ago, or to tear down their statues, or rename streets and churches. Or to malign their ecclesial successors. Or to ignorantly bring the issue up on social media to try and score a few cheap points. So while I don't approve according to modern sensibilities, it's not quite that simple... On the other hand, historical facts like these have helped form my opposition to establishment churches. History shows that even in conceptually ideal settings, even redeemed fallen-humans will inevitably mess things up, and either neglect or exceed their own power and authority to the great detriment and even blood-shedding of their own subjects. I believe it's an over-realized eschatology, that can only be properly implemented in the eschaton.
Click to expand...
Matthew1344 said:
I have a pastor friend (close friend) who says the same thing.

He says that is why there are not many 1689 particular Baptist to read from. “Y’all killed them.”

He says that is why he has to read from Calvin and Edwards… Presbyterians killed the Protestant baptists.

Are y’all saying that this is not true?
Click to expand...

Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance – by Michael Harrison (1640-1729) – Puritan Publications

www.puritanpublications.com www.puritanpublications.com

Here is the book :) thanks for your comment. Real good!
 
Matthew1344 said:
I have a pastor friend (close friend) who says the same thing.

He says that is why there are not many 1689 particular Baptist to read from. “Y’all killed them.”

He says that is why he has to read from Calvin and Edwards… Presbyterians killed the Protestant baptists.

Are y’all saying that this is not true?
Click to expand...
What a burden, I feel sorry for him.
 
Matthew1344 said:
I have a pastor friend (close friend) who says the same thing.

He says that is why there are not many 1689 particular Baptist to read from. “Y’all killed them.”

He says that is why he has to read from Calvin and Edwards… Presbyterians killed the Protestant baptists.

Are y’all saying that this is not true?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. One might distinguish between "killing" and "persecuting," but even that was not to the extent of some kind of mass extermination, more like (relatively occasional) imprisonment and/or stiff fines, and of course a lot of verbal and literary derision (sticks and stones...). And if one perhaps doesn't understand the difference between 1689 Baptists and the Anabaptists, then they really do need to brush up on their church history.
 
Matthew1344 said:
I have a pastor friend (close friend) who says the same thing.

He says that is why there are not many 1689 particular Baptist to read from. “Y’all killed them.”

He says that is why he has to read from Calvin and Edwards… Presbyterians killed the Protestant baptists.

Are y’all saying that this is not true?
Click to expand...
Historically that is not really accurate.
 
Phil D. said:
Absolutely not true. One might distinguish between "killing" and "persecuting," but even that was not to the extent of some kind of mass extermination, more like (relatively occasional) imprisonment and/or stiff fines, and of course a lot of verbal and literary derision (sticks and stones...). And if one perhaps doesn't understand the difference between 1689 Baptists and the Anabaptists, then they really do need to brush up on their church history.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something like this...

First of all, I don't think there's any doubt some anabaptists were put to death in Geneva....but Anabaptists are not 1689 Baptists, and Geneva is not Britain.

To say that there has been some kind of concerted effort to rid the earth of reformed baptist people by presbyterians is at best historically inaccurate, at worst it is a dangerous slander that should be repented of.
 
Matthew1344 said:
Here is the book :) thanks for your comment. Real good!
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes... Here is the extract:

That which is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is no Ordinance of God, but a most heinous Sin; but dipping over-head in cold water in these cold Countreys, is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill; which forbids the taking away of our own Life, or the Life of our Neighbour unjustly, or any thing that tends thereunto: Now dipping in cold water tends to the taking away Life, as many have found by experience, who have contracted such Distempers in dipping as have hastened their Deaths: Therefore the so doing is a great Sin.​

Seems Harrison (1694) must have expropriated the idea from Richard Baxter (1653):

That which is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, ‘Thou shall not kill,’ is no ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin. But the ordinary practice of baptizing overhead in cold water, as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth commandment. Therefore it is no ordinance of God, but an heinous sin...That this is flat murder and no better, being ordinarily and generally used, is undeniable to any understanding man.​
...And I know not what trick a covetous landlord can find out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new fines and heriots, likelier than to encourage such preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists.​
...I conclude, if murder be a sin, then dipping ordinarily in cold water overhead, in England, is a sin; and if those that would make it men's religion to murder themselves, and urge it on their consciences as their duty, are not to be suffered in a commonwealth, any more than highway murderers...​
​
(R. Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof of Infant’s Church-Membership)​

In line with what I noted before, these claims are unsubstantiated, and if actual cases could be cited, given the heated religious climate of that age, they surely would have been. Both of these works are highly polemical and, as is common to the genre and used by all sides, included many sensationalist over-statements to support the author’s position.
 
De Jager said:
Reading that post where the author keeps saying "You guys"...."our guys"...

Reminds me of this admonition: " Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
Click to expand...

Hi Izaac,

I have a great hope that someday the true Church will be one in a very visible sense. Jesus prayed for this three times in John 17.
That means peace between the Paedo & Credobaptists. This union must include a mutual decision for the truth; either one of the practices will prevail or some yet-to-be-agreed-upon practice that allows the greater good of union to have the last word.

Believe me when I say that I do not have some watered-down ecumenical hope in mind–but a meeting of minds to the glory of God.
 
As it happens, I usually see this caricature pushed by Voluntarist Presbyterians to pour scorn on the establishment principle. They ask us, "What are you going to do with Baptists?" When we fail to answer their question with "Put them all to death" they argue that we have not answered their question and are just deflecting by saying that the matter should be left to magisterial discretion in light of the circumstances. (And no, I do not believe that magisterial discretion extends to applying the death penalty to anti-paedobaptists.)
 
Matthew1344 said:
I’ve gotten a lot of this type of answer lately. I know it happens, just not sure in what lite it happened.

I read a book that Doctor McMahon recommended that was put as a Q&A. It mentioned that the practice of full immersion was killing new converts because of the cold.

So I see why that would anger people.

I also see the touchy subject of not including children in the new covenant community.

Any more info on this topic?

How would y’all respond to this type of comment?
View attachment 9631
Click to expand...
Schismatics gon' schism. Just quit while you are ahead. He's trying to find a "gotcha" moment to brag to his FB group.
 
Relevant to the supposed physical dangers of immersion, it was pointed out to me that Daniel Neal (1678-1743; Congregationalist), in his famous History of the Puritans, tells of a woman having died after being baptized by immersion. And in checking in out, in his section on The Rise, Progress, and Suffering of the English Anabaptists, Neal does in fact briefly note:

And Mr. Oates in Essex, tried for his life at Chelmsford, assized for the murder of Anne Martin, because she died a few days after her immersion, of a cold that seized her at that time. [London: {s.n.}, 1736; 3:163]​

After poking around some more, here’s what else I found:

It seems the original account comes from 1646, as told by a Rev. Thomas Edwards (1599–1647; Presbyterian controversialist*):

There is one Samuel Oats a Weaver…who being of Lams Church, was sent out as a Dipper and Emissary into the Countreyes: Last summer I heard he went his progresse into Surrey and Sussex, but now this yeare he is sent out into Essex three or foure months ago, and for many weeks together went up and downe from place to place, and Towne to Towne, about Bocking, Braintry, Tarling, and those parts, preaching his erroneous Doctrines, and dipping many in rivers.​
​
...A godly Minister of Essex coming out of those parts related, hee hath baptized a great number of women, and that they were call'd out of their beds to go a dipping in rivers, dipping manie of them in the night, so that their Husbands and Masters could not keep them in their houses, and 'tis commonly reported that this Oats had for his pains ten shillings apeece for dipping the richer, and two shillings six pence for the poorer; he came veriebare and meane into Essex, but before hee had done his work, was well lined, and growne pursie.​
​
In the cold weather in March, hee dipped a young woman, one Ann Martin (as her name is given in to me) whom he held so long in the water, that she fell presently sicke, and her belly sweld with the abundance of water she took in, and within a fortnight or three weeks died, and upon her death-bed expressed her dipping to be the cause of her death.​
​
...At last for his dipping one who died so presently after it, and other misdemeanors the man was questioned in the Countrey, and bound over to the Sessions at Chelmsford, where Aprill the seventh, 1646. this Oats appeared, and I had the relation I now speak of, from three persons that were eare and eye-witnesses, two godly Ministers, and the other Gentlemen of great worth and qualitie, viz. that Oats being brought before the Bench, the Coroner laid to his charge, that in March last, in a verie cold season, hee dipping a young woman, shee presently fell sick and died within a short time, and though the Coroner had not yet perfected his sitting upon her death, all witnesses being not yet examined, nor the Jurie having brought in their verdict (so that the full evidence was not presented) yet the Bench, upon being acquainted with the case, and other foule matters also being there by witnesses laid against him, committed him to the Jaile at Colchester.​
​
[The first and second part of Gangræna, or, A catalogue and discovery of many of the errors, heresies, blasphemies and pernicious practices of the sectaries of this time…, (London: T.R. and E.M., 1646.), 121f.]​

The Baptist historian Thomas Crosby (1683–1751) gives this expanded version of events:

The books written against the Baptists frequently represented the practice of immersion to be extremely dangerous; and some termed them a cruel and murdering sect for using it. Now if they could but have carry’d this point, it would have confirmed their censures fix’d an eternal odium on the practice. and frightened many timorous persons from complying.​
​
...Great endeavours were therefore used that he [Oates] might be brought in guilty: Nay so fond were some of this story that they published it for a truth before it had been legally examined and added these circumstances to it [i.e. Edwards] viz. ‘That he held her so long in the water that the fell presently sick That her belly swell’d with the abundance of water she took in, and within a fortnight or three weeks died; and up on her death bed expressed her dipping to be the cause of her death.’​
​
They did indeed carry it so far as to have him arraigned for his life at Chelmsford assizes. But upon his trial several credible witnesses were produced, among which the mother of the maid was one; who all testified upon oath that the said Anne Martin (that being her name) was in better health for several days after her baptism than she had been for some years before; and that she was seen to walk abroad afterwards very comfortably. So that notwithstanding all the design and malignity that appeared in this trial, he was in the end brought in not guilty…​
​
…When the Presbyterians found they could do nothing to Mr. Oates by due course of law. they endeavoured to raise the mob against him; and in this they were more successful. For a little after, some who were known to be Baptists going occasionally to Wethersfield in that county, there was presently an alarm given, that Oates and his companions were come to that town; upon which the rabble were raised and seized those innocent people. And for no other crime but because they were ‘Anabaptists,’ they were dragged to a pump, and treated like the worst of villains; neither was Oates the person against whom they were chiefly enraged, amongst them.​
​
Not long after this Oates himself went to Dunmow in Essex. When some of zealots in that town heard where he was, without any other provocation but that of his daring to come there, they dragged him out of the house, threw him into a river, boasting they had thoroughly ‘dipt’ him.​
​
[Thomas Crosby, The History of the English Baptists: From the Reformation to the Beginning of the Reign of King George I, (London: [s.n.], 1737), 237ff.]​

__________________________

* Other Puritans were not exempt from Edwards’ severe lambasting, including Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–1646; Independent), who wrote of him:

I doubt whether there ever was any in the Christian world who was looked upon as a man professing godlinesse in that height that he hath beene, that ever manifested so much boldnesse and malice against such as himselfe acknowledges to be godly, as he hath done; Were there nothing but the Presbyteriall opinion that made the difference betweene him and me, I should not abate my esteeme of his godlinesse in the least, for I beleeve there are as godly Presbyterians as Independents. But that fiery rage, that implacable irrationall violence of his, makes me stand and wonder at him, not so much for recording stories that he hears, but that hearing such vile reproachfull things against such as he ownes to be godly, and the persons thus reproched living neare him in the City, who it may be might satisfy him in the falsnesse of the reports, so as to keepe him from publishing them.​
​
[Jeremiah Burroughs, A Vindication of Mr. Burroughes, Against Mr. Edwards, His Foule Aspersions, in His Spreading Gangræna…, (London: [s.n.], 1646), 2]​
 
Last edited:
Phil D. said:
* Other Puritans were not exempt from Edwards’ severe lambasting, including Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–1646; Independent), who wrote of him:

I doubt whether there ever was any in the Christian world who was looked upon as a man professing godlinesse in that height that he hath beene, that ever manifested so much boldnesse and malice against such as himselfe acknowledges to be godly, as he hath done; Were there nothing but the Presbyteriall opinion that made the difference betweene him and me, I should not abate my esteeme of his godlinesse in the least, for I beleeve there are as godly Presbyterians as Independents. But that fiery rage, that implacable irrationall violence of his, makes me stand and wonder at him, not so much for recording stories that he hears, but that hearing such vile reproachfull things against such as he ownes to be godly, and the persons thus reproched living neare him in the City, who it may be might satisfy him in the falsnesse of the reports, so as to keepe him from publishing them.[Jeremiah Burroughs, A Vindication of Mr. Burroughes, Against Mr. Edwards, His Foule Aspersions, in His Spreading Gangræna…, (London: [s.n.], 1646), 2]
Click to expand...

:offtopic: but I wonder if his father's reputation was one of the reasons why John Edwards (an excellent theologian in his own right) was a conformist?
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
I wonder if his father's reputation was one of the reasons why John Edwards (an excellent theologian in his own right) was a conformist?
Click to expand...
Interesting question... When Edwards Sr. was still CoE, he was actually suspended from preaching by Abp. Laud for intemperate speech...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Herald
  • Locked
The case for unity between Presbyterians and Baptists
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
kceaster
kceaster
nuclear_calvinist
General Baptists?
Replies
1
Views
804
Jake
Jake
JM
  • Locked
Regular Baptists
Replies
12
Views
5K
Backwoods Presbyterian
Backwoods Presbyterian
Y
  • Locked
Premillenialism and Baptists
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
yeutter
Y
J
  • Locked
Baptists not protestants?
2
Replies
57
Views
13K
kd116
kd116
Back
Top