Early Church History: A Remnant

Early Church History: A Remnant

The story of the church does not begin in cathedrals or councils. It begins on a quiet mountainside in Galilee, when Jesus called a small group of men out from the larger crowd of disciples. Luke records simply, “He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve” (Luke 6:13). From this moment, the Lord began forming His ecclesia, a called‑out assembly gathered under His authority, instructed by His Word, and commissioned for His work.

Standing later with these same men near Caesarea Philippi, He made a promise that would echo through all history: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). He did not say that His church would be built in the person of the Holy Spirit, nor that it would be an invisible, universal abstraction. He spoke of a church He Himself would build, a gathered assembly, a body called out, formed, instructed, and governed under His authority.

This church was not a hierarchy, not a state institution, not a sacramental system. It was a local, visible congregation of baptized believers, governed by Scripture, led by elders, and united in the fellowship of the gospel. This is the pattern that unfolds in Acts: believers baptized upon confession of faith, congregations gathered in cities and towns, elders appointed in every church, the Lord’s Supper observed as a memorial, and Scripture received as the final authority. Christ alone was acknowledged as the Head.

The book of Acts shows this pattern unfolding with clarity. Believers were baptized upon confession of faith. Congregations gathered in cities and towns. Elders were appointed in every church. The Lord’s Supper was observed as a memorial. Scripture was received as the final authority. Christ alone was acknowledged as the Head. This was the apostolic pattern, simple, pure, and sufficient.

But even in the earliest centuries, another impulse began to rise. Some believers clung to the pattern Christ gave, while others began to add to it: elevating bishops, introducing sacramental thinking, blending tradition with Scripture, and eventually merging the church with the power of the state. From these two impulses, one toward Scripture, the other toward structure, two lines emerged. One line preserved the apostolic pattern. The other departed from it.

The earliest and clearest departure appears in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch around AD 110. Facing persecution and division, Ignatius urged churches to rally around a single bishop in each city. His intentions were pastoral, but the effect was profound. Where the New Testament consistently presents shared leadership among elders, Ignatius elevated one man above the others. This sincere step became the seed from which later ecclesiastical hierarchies grew, metropolitan bishops, patriarchs, and eventually the vast superstructure of Roman and Eastern episcopal systems.

By the end of the second century, the two lines were visible. One held to Scripture, local autonomy, believers’ baptism, and congregational simplicity. The other embraced hierarchy, sacramentalism, and tradition. One line would become the state‑church. The other would become the remnant.

When Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313, hierarchy fused with empire. Bishops became imperial officials. Councils legislated doctrine. Baptism became civic identity. The mass became sacrament. The bishop of Rome rose in prominence. The hierarchical, sacramental, state‑church system took its recognizable form. The falling‑away line was in full bloom.

But the remnant survived.

Across the centuries, scattered groups preserved the apostolic pattern. The Paulicians rejected images and sacramentalism. The Bogomils rejected priesthood and hierarchy. The Albigenses emphasized purity and Scripture, suffering a crusade that killed hundreds of thousands. The Petrobrusians and Henricians rejected infant baptism and clerical power. The Waldenses preached Scripture in the vernacular and lived in congregational simplicity. The Lollards translated Scripture into English and opposed corruption.

They were hunted, exiled, massacred, yet they endured. A remnant.

Before Luther or Calvin, there were believers who rejected infant baptism, rejected sacramental salvation, rejected hierarchy, and emphasized Scripture and regenerate membership. They were not Protestants. They were the continuation of the remnant. The Bohemian Brethren upheld Scripture and congregational decision‑making. The Hussite remnant rejected the mass and hierarchy. The Waldenses recognized the early Anabaptists as holding the same ancient convictions.

When the Swiss Brethren emerged in 1525, they were not inventing Anabaptism. They were restoring what earlier believers had preserved. Long before them, groups like the Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Henricians, and Waldenses had practiced believers’ baptism and rejected sacramental regeneration. Their enemies called them “Anabaptists,” but they were simply believers who insisted that baptism must follow faith.

The Swiss Brethren recovered the apostolic pattern inside a world dominated by state‑church structures. They returned to believers’ baptism, regenerate membership, the memorial supper, congregational autonomy, plurality of elders, Scripture alone, and Christ as Head. Rome persecuted them. The Reformers persecuted them. The magistrates persecuted them. Yet they endured, because God preserves a remnant.

Two lines run through history. The apostolic line holds to Scripture alone, believers’ baptism, regenerate membership, congregational autonomy, and Christ as Head. The hierarchical line holds to tradition, sacramentalism, clerical power, and political entanglement. The Reformation did not create the apostolic pattern. It revealed it.

Christ’s pattern was never meant to change. The remnant did not innovate; they preserved. The apostolic pattern safeguards the gospel. When the pattern is abandoned, error follows. When the pattern is kept, truth endures.

The remnant line leads to today, not by institutional succession, but by doctrinal succession, a chain of truth carried by those who refused to bow the knee to hierarchy, sacrament, or empire.

And through all ages, the promise still stands:
Christ builds His church.
The pattern still holds.
The remnant still remains.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 1999 -

Free to use with proper attribution.

There is much I can agree with in this long post.
You have not persuaded me that the Church began with Luke 6:13, but when you say:

Anthony Pritchard said:

This church was not a hierarchy, not a state institution, not a sacramental system. It was a local, visible congregation of baptized believers, governed by Scripture, led by elders, and united in the fellowship of the gospel. This is the pattern that unfolds in Acts: believers baptized upon confession of faith, congregations gathered in cities and towns, elders appointed in every church, the Lord’s Supper observed as a memorial, and Scripture received as the final authority. Christ alone was acknowledged as the Head.

Click to expand...

I am in full agreement, save that I believe that the Lord's Supper is more than a memorial. I agree that Ignatius of Antioch was the start of the hierarchical takeover of the Church.
But when you state:

Anthony Pritchard said:

Across the centuries, scattered groups preserved the apostolic pattern. The Paulicians rejected images and sacramentalism. The Bogomils rejected priesthood and hierarchy. The Albigenses emphasized purity and Scripture, suffering a crusade that killed hundreds of thousands. The Petrobrusians and Henricians rejected infant baptism and clerical power.

Click to expand...

This is a whitewashing of history. The Paulicians, Bogomils and Albigenses were Gnostics; you really wouldn't want them in your church, though that certainly does not justify the appalling persecution they endured from the Church of Rome. The Petrobusians seem to have been more orthodox; I'm not sure about the Henricians.
I spent quite a lot of time researching Wycliffe and the Lollards, and I would have been delighted to find that they were proto-Baptists, but there is no reliable evidence for this. They seemed not to have been particularly concerned about baptism. Certainly none of the leading Lollards write about Believers' Baptism. When the English Reformation began with Edward VI, they simply blended in with it.

Martin Marprelate said:

This is a whitewashing of history. The Paulicians, Bogomils and Albigenses were Gnostics;

Click to expand...

Martin, a quick historical clarification may help here. The early centuries had dozens of genuinely Gnostic groups , Sethians, Valentinians, Basilideans, Ophites/Naassenes, Carpocratians, Cainites, Borborites/Phibionites, Barbeloites, Archontics, Peratae, and Thomasine reinterpretations, among others. These groups shared the classic Gnostic features: a hostile demiurge, aeons and emanations, salvation through secret knowledge, rejection of the incarnation, and denial of bodily resurrection.

The Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, and even the Lollards were not among these groups. They were not Gnostic. Their doctrines do not match ancient Gnosticism in any meaningful way.

The reason they were called Gnostic or Manichaean is because Rome routinely applied those labels to anyone who rejected its hierarchy, sacraments, or state‑church system. “Heretic,” “Gnostic,” and “Manichaean” were political accusations, not doctrinal descriptions. Medieval polemicists used them as catch‑all slurs for dissenters, regardless of what those groups actually believed.

Modern historians , Conybeare, Garsoïan, Hamilton, Lambert, and others , have corrected this repeatedly. The Paulicians, Bogomils, and many groups Rome lumped under “Albigenses” were anti‑hierarchical, anti‑sacramental, Scripture‑centered, and morally rigorous. The Lollards likewise rejected sacramental regeneration, priestly absolution, and transubstantiation, and several trial records show opposition to infant baptism. None of this resembles Gnostic cosmology.

So the issue is not that these groups were “Gnostic,” but that Rome used the term as a blanket accusation for anyone who disagreed with them. The actual Gnostic movements of the early centuries were entirely different.

I suggest that you may benefit from reading Irenaeus on the Gnostics. His descriptions of the actual Gnostic systems make it clear that the Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, and Lollards do not belong to that category.

Martin Marprelate said:

This is a whitewashing of history. The Paulicians, Bogomils and Albigenses were Gnostics;

Click to expand...

As far as the Paulicians, they were so thoroughly wiped out by the Catholics that the only record that remains regarding their beliefs and practices is found in the RCC trial records of those they condemned. Even their writings were systematically destroyed. Yet even through hostile sources, their convictions are clear enough: they held to what later came to be called the historic Baptist distinctives, believers’ baptism, rejection of sacramental regeneration, rejection of hierarchy, congregational simplicity, and Scripture as the final authority. In other words, they preserved the faith once delivered, not the mythological systems of the ancient Gnostics.

For the actual beliefs of the Albigenses, I recommend Peter Allix’s Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont and of the Albigenses (1690–1692; reprinted 1989 by Church History and Archives, Dayton, Ohio). Allix worked directly with primary sources and demonstrates that many groups Rome lumped under “Albigenses” were simply vernacular Bible believers who rejected the sacramental and hierarchical system of Rome. Their doctrines do not resemble the cosmological Gnosticism described by Irenaeus.

I do warn you though, should you purchase the book by Peter Allix, that it is a "very" dry read. I fell asleep many times reading it.

@Anthony Pritchard,
Because a group held to views distinct from those described by Irenaeus, it does not mean that it was not Gnostic.
My source is mostly Dr. Needham's massive 5 volume (so far!) Church History called 2,000 Years of Christ's Power. I don't know how well-known it is in the USA, but it is used as a text book in several seminaries in the UK. I will give a short extract:
The Paulicians were a distinct Gnostic group who originated in Armenia in the 7th Century and spread to southern Asia Minor. Their founder, Constantine, taught that an evil and inferior god had created the physical world. All matter was therefore evil, and Constantine rejected the use of all material things (the water in baptism, the bread and wine of holy communion, icons) in worship.
The evil creator-god was the god of the Old Testament, and also of some parts of the New; Constantine accepted only the Gospels and Paul's letters as having come from the true God of heaven. This reverence for the apostle Paul is probably why this group was called "Paulicians." Constantine even changed his name to Silvanus to make the point that he was a disciple of Paul. According to Constantine, Jesus was an angel sent by the true God to reveal the way of salvation by which souls could escape from the evil of matter............ Paulicians could still be found in Armenia as recently as the 19th Century.

Leaving aside Bogomils and others for the moment, I certainly did not say that the Lollards were Gnostic! What I said was that some diligent research has not revealed to me that they practised Believers' Baptism. Some years ago I started writing a book which I intended to show that the English Reformation was not something started by HenryVIII - far from it! Rather, it was a people's movement, of which Wycliffe and the Lollards played a huge part. Because of my increasing duties at the church I attend, I have put the book on one side for the time being, but if I am spared, I hope to take it up again. I would be delighted to find that the Lollards were proto-Baptists, but I have never found any reliable evidence. There is evidence that William Tyndale was somewhat involved with Lollards, and he hints in his writings (I have his complete works) that he was a Baptist of some sort.

The earliest reference in official sources to re-baptizers that I can find is the following proclamation by Henry VIII, dated 1535:
For because that of late many strangers, born out of the King's obedience, are arrived and come into this realm, which, albeit that they were baptized in their infancy and childhood according to the ordinance of the universla Church of Christ, yet that notwithstanding, in contempt of the holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption and authority lately rebaptised themselves.....
.... The King's most royal majesty... comandethbthat all and singular strangers now being in his realm... that have and do hold or teach those or any other erroneous opinions or heresies against God and his Holy Scriptures shall within twelve days next after this present proclamation depart out of this his realm and of all other of his dominions on pain to suffer death....
[Found in the book Religious Radicalism in England, 1535-1565 by C.J. Clement (Paternoster Publishing, 1997)]

If you know of any earlier documents concerning rebaptism, I will be delighted to hear of it. Lollards were being burned for their faith at least until the 1520s, but I have not heard of any trial documents that speak of rebaptism.

People may be interested to read of the "Twelve Concusions" of the Lollards:

In 1395, the followers of Wycliffe felt confident enough to publish their ‘Twelve Conclusions.’ These were presented to Parliament and attached to the doors of St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. These are most interesting. The preface reads: “We poor men, treasurers of Christ and his Apostles, denounce to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament certain conclusions and truth for the reformation of the Holy Church of England, the which has been blind and leprous many years by the maintenance of the proud prelacy, borne up with flattering of private religion, the which is multiplied to a great charge and onerous [to] people here in England.” The Conclusions are summarized as follows):

1. The state of the Church. The first conclusion states that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of State, led by the bad example of the Church of Rome.
2. The Priesthood. This asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests are without Scriptural basis or precedent.
3. Clerical celibacy. This claims that the practice of celibacy has led to homosexuality among the clergy.
4. This states that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to idolatrous worship of the communion wafers.
5. Exorcisms & Hallowings. The claim is that these practices as carried out by the priest are a form of witchcraft and incompatible with Christian doctrine.
6. Clerics in secular offices. This conclusion asserts that it is not proper for Bishops and others to hold secular positions of power.
7. Prayers for the dead. This declares that prayers for specific deceased people is uncharitable and the payment of clergy for making prayers or masses for the dead is a form of bribery because it excludes all other blessed dead who are not being prayed for.
8. Here it is asserted that pilgrimages and veneration of relics and images have no spiritual benefit and are at worst idolatrous in that they worship created things.
9. Here the writer declares that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous, since only God can forgive sins, and that if indeed priests had that power, it would be cruel and uncharitable of them not to forgive everyone even if they refused to confess.
10. Wars & crusades. Here it is asserted that Christians should not go to war, especially those promoted by the Church, such as crusades, which are blasphemous since Christ instructed men to love their enemies.
11. Female vows of chastity, and abortion. Here it is claimed that women who have taken vows of celibacy are breaking their vows, becoming pregnant and then seeking abortions to conceal the fact. This is strongly condemned by the writer.
12. Arts & crafts. Christians, claims the writer, are devoting too much time and energy in the making of beautiful artifacts for the churches, and would do better to devote their lives to godliness and simplicity.

This document is likely to have been written by John Purvey since it is alluded to in the General Preface of his revision of Wyclif’s Bible. The Conclusions seem to have been well received by the Commons, but badly by the King, Lords and Church. Richard II, influenced, it seems, by his bride, Anne of Bohemia, had originally been supportive of Wyclif’s teaching, but after Anne’s early death in 1394, Richard seems to have come more under the influence of the clergy. He was persuaded to condemn the Conclusions in harsh terms, speaking of “damnable errors repugnant to the faith…..which would bring ruin…..if not resisted by the arm of the king’s majesty….lest the wickedness of the lurking enemy thereby infect the people of the whole realm.”

Martin Marprelate said:

My source is mostly Dr. Needham's massive 5 volume (so far!) Church History called 2,000 Years of Christ's Power. I don't know how well-known it is in the USA, but it is used as a text book in several seminaries in the UK. I will give a short extract:

Click to expand...

Martin, the definition of Gnosticism does not come from later medieval polemic or from modern secondary summaries such as Dr. Nick Needham, a Scottish Reformed Baptist pastor.

What Dr. Needham is not:

He is not a patristics scholar.
He is not a specialist in Gnosticism.
He is not a primary‑source historian of medieval dissenting movements.
He is not a critical academic authority on the Paulicians.
His work is secondary, popular, and confessional, not primary research.

The definition of Gnosticism comes from the eyewitnesses of the Apostolic churches, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, men who personally knew the churches founded by the Apostles and who documented the Gnostic systems while those systems were still alive. Their descriptions are the standard of early church history.

Every genuine Gnostic system they describe contains the same fixed elements:

a cosmic demiurge who ignorantly or maliciously created the material world
aeons and emanations in a pleroma
salvation through secret knowledge
denial of the incarnation
denial of bodily resurrection
mythic cosmologies involving Sophia, Achamoth, Yaldabaoth, etc.

These elements are not optional. They are the defining features of Gnosticism according to the men who actually confronted it.

The Paulicians do not fit this definition.

Very little , if any , of the Paulicians’ own writings survived.
What we possess are trial records and accusations made against them by the Byzantine state and clergy, the Roman Catholic "Church". That means we do not have their doctrinal statements; we have the charges describing the beliefs for which they died.

Trial records tell you what the state accused them of. This is a well‑documented pattern in medieval heresiology.

The Byzantine Empire, the RCC, routinely labeled dissenters as:

“Manichaean,”
“Gnostic,”
“dualists,”
“rejecters of the sacraments,”
“haters of matter,”
"their favorite label of Heretic"

regardless of their actual doctrine. The same accusations were leveled against:

Paulicans
Bogomils
Albigenses
Waldenses
Lollards
early Anabaptists

Even when their theology was thoroughly biblical.

This is why the patristic eyewitnesses matter. They define Gnosticism by describing the actual systems, not by repeating the accusations of persecutors.

What the accusations against the Paulicians actually show. The charges against the Paulicians revolve around:

rejection of icons
rejection of sacramentalism
rejection of Old Testament legalism
elevation of Paul
refusal to accept Byzantine ecclesiastical authority

These are reformist features, not Gnostic cosmology.

There is no trace of:

aeons
pleroma
Sophia myths
Achamoth
Yaldabaoth
secret salvific gnosis
denial of the incarnation
denial of bodily resurrection

In other words, none of the elements that the Apostolic eyewitnesses say define Gnosticism appear in the accusations.

Martin Marprelate said:

The earliest reference in official sources to re-baptizers that I can find is the following proclamation by Henry VIII, dated 1535:

Click to expand...

Martin my Brother, the very word Anabaptist does not originate in the 16th century. It is a Latin term used by the early church fathers and medieval authorities for over a thousand years before Henry VIII. The earliest references to rebaptizers are not from 1535 , they appear in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.

1. The earliest references to rebaptizers are patristic, not Tudor. The term anabaptistae (“rebaptizers”) appears in:

Irenaeus (2nd century). He refers to groups who rejected infant baptism and rebaptized converts coming out of heretical sects.

Tertullian (early 3rd century). He explicitly discusses rebaptism in De Baptismo, condemning those who rebaptize believers coming from groups whose baptism they reject.

Cyprian of Carthage (mid‑3rd century). His entire controversy with Pope Stephen revolved around rebaptizing those baptized in heretical groups. Cyprian and the North African bishops were called Anabaptists by Rome.

The Council of Arles (A.D. 314). Canon 8 condemns rebaptism and uses the Latin terminology that later becomes “Anabaptist.”

The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Canon 19 deals with rebaptism of Paulianists (not Paulicians), showing the term and the practice were already well‑established.

These are official sources, centuries earlier than Henry VIII.

So the earliest references to rebaptizers are not Tudor proclamations , they are patristic councils and fathers.

2. The medieval record continues the usage. Throughout the Middle Ages, Rome used Anabaptist as a legal category for:

Novatians
Donatists
Paulianists
Paulicans
Petrobrusians
Henricians
Arnoldists
Waldenses
Lollards (in some regions)

Any group that rejected Roman baptism and baptized believers was labeled Anabaptist.

This is why Hosius (16th century) could say: “For these twelve hundred years the Anabaptists have existed.” By his reckoning placing the Anabaptists in the 4th century. But the eyewitnesses to the Apostolic churches, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, place the Anabaptists even earlier, because they describe rebaptizers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long before Hosius’s 1,200‑year calculation.

Hosius was not referring to the Swiss Brethren. He was referring to centuries of rebaptizers.

3. Henry VIII’s proclamation is simply the first English state record. Henry VIII’s 1535 proclamation is not the earliest reference to rebaptizers , it is merely the earliest English royal proclamation that you have found.

But England is not the beginning of church history.

Rebaptism was:

debated
condemned
legislated
punished
over a thousand years before Henry VIII.

4. Lollard trial records do mention rebaptism indirectly. While not every Lollard trial mentions rebaptism explicitly, several regional records (especially in East Anglia and Kent) accuse Lollards of:

rejecting infant baptism
denying baptismal regeneration
insisting on believer’s baptism
rejecting the validity of Roman baptism

When a group rejects infant baptism and rejects sacramental regeneration, rebaptism is the necessary consequence, even if the trial record uses the phrase “denied the sacrament” rather than “rebaptized.”

Medieval courts often condemned the doctrine rather than recording the act.

The bottom line I can give you Martin is this.

The earliest references to rebaptizers are from the 2nd–4th centuries, not 1535. The term Anabaptist is patristic and medieval long before it is English. Henry VIII’s proclamation is simply the earliest English state document you have located , not the earliest historical evidence of rebaptism.

Martin Marprelate said:

People may be interested to read of the "Twelve Concusions" of the Lollards:

Click to expand...

Martin, the Twelve Conclusions are a political manifesto written by one circle of Lollards, likely Purvey’s group. They were aimed at Parliament and the King, addressing public abuses in the English Church. They were not intended to list every doctrinal conviction held by every Lollard.

Lollardy was not a uniform denomination. It was a diverse movement lasting 150 years, including sacramental Lollards, biblicist Lollards, and radical Lollards who rejected infant baptism. Several Roman Catholic trial records accuse Lollards of denying the validity of infant baptism and denying baptismal regeneration, and when a group rejects infant baptism and rejects the validity of Roman baptism, rebaptism is the necessary consequence, even if the court record does not use the word.

So the Twelve Conclusions cannot be used to prove that no Lollards rebaptized. They simply reflect the concerns of one Lollard circle at one moment in time.

Lollard trial records survive today because the medieval Church courts of the Roman Catholic Church wrote everything down. The actual examinations and charges are preserved in the bishops’ registers of Hereford, Norwich, London, Lincoln, and Canterbury, now housed in the British Library, the Bodleian at Oxford, Cambridge University Library, and various cathedral archives. Many of these records have been published in collections such as Fasciculi Zizaniorum and Norman Tanner’s Heresy Trials in Norwich, and modern scholars like Anne Hudson, Margaret Aston, and J. Patrick Hornbeck quote and translate them in their studies.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Martin my Brother, the very word Anabaptist does not originate in the 16th century. It is a Latin term used by the early church fathers and medieval authorities for over a thousand years before Henry VIII. The earliest references to rebaptizers are not from 1535 , they appear in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do know this. I was writing of Lollards in England, not Church Fathers. I'm sorry if I was not clear.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Lollard trial records survive today because the medieval Church courts of the Roman Catholic Church wrote everything down. The actual examinations and charges are preserved in the bishops’ registers of Hereford, Norwich, London, Lincoln, and Canterbury, now housed in the British Library, the Bodleian at Oxford, Cambridge University Library, and various cathedral archives. Many of these records have been published in collections such as Fasciculi Zizaniorum and Norman Tanner’s Heresy Trials in Norwich, and modern scholars like Anne Hudson, Margaret Aston, and J. Patrick Hornbeck quote and translate them in their studies.

Click to expand...

I will be interested if you can point me to anything of this sort available on line. I have read various articles by Anne Hudson and Margaret Aston, but again, nothing showing that the Lollards rebaptised. However, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong; my purpose in studying this period was to find a connection between the early Baptists and the Lollards, but I have to say that I failed to find one. The Baptist church in Tiverton, Devon claims to be the oldest surviving Baptist church in England, but it was founded by Dutch Anabaptists engaged in the woollen trade in 1601. I will look to see if I can obtain the book by Norman Tanner that you mention.

I will also add that the Anabaptists of whom KIng Henry wrote also denied to some degree the humanity of Jesus Christ. They followed the teaching of Melchior Hoffmann and Menno Simons which denied that our Lord received any of His nature from Mary. The Saviour's flesh, they said, was a heavenly creation which was then implanted in Mary's womb. This is quite a serious error as it teaches that Christ was not a true human. All the Anabaptists tried at this time appear to have followed this teaching, and it was for this as much as for anabaptism that they were often burned.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Martin, the definition of Gnosticism does not come from later medieval polemic or from modern secondary summaries such as Dr. Nick Needham, a Scottish Reformed Baptist pastor.

Click to expand...

Dr. Needham is lecturer in Church History at Highland Theological College, Scotland. Before that he taught Systematic Theology at the Scottish Baptist College in Glasgow. I suggest you read at least some of his work before you patronize him.

Martin Marprelate said:

Yes, I do know this. I was writing of Lollards in England, not Church Fathers. I'm sorry if I was not clear.

I will be interested if you can point me to anything of this sort available on line. I have read various articles by Anne Hudson and Margaret Aston, but again, nothing showing that the Lollards rebaptised. However, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong; my purpose in studying this period was to find a connection between the early Baptists and the Lollards, but I have to say that I failed to find one. The Baptist church in Tiverton, Devon claims to be the oldest surviving Baptist church in England, but it was founded by Dutch Anabaptists engaged in the woollen trade in 1601. I will look to see if I can obtain the book by Norman Tanner that you mention.

I will also add that the Anabaptists of whom KIng Henry wrote also denied to some degree the humanity of Jesus Christ. They followed the teaching of Melchior Hoffmann and Menno Simons which denied that our Lord received any of His nature from Mary. The Saviour's flesh, they said, was a heavenly creation which was then implanted in Mary's womb. This is quite a serious error as it teaches that Christ was not a true human. All the Anabaptists tried at this time appear to have followed this teaching, and it was for this as much as for anabaptism that they were often burned.

Click to expand...

I understand you were speaking specifically of Lollards in England. My point was simply that the term Anabaptist itself is much older than the 16th century, which is why later writers like Hosius could speak of “twelve hundred years” of Anabaptists.

As for online access to the trial records: most of the primary sources are still in manuscript form in the diocesan registers, but several have been digitized or published in accessible editions. The easiest online entry points are:

EEBO (Early English Books Online) , contains Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls Series), which includes early Wycliffite/Lollard examinations.

British History Online , hosts transcriptions of several episcopal registers and visitation records.

Camden Society Publications , Norman Tanner’s Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich, 1428–31 is available through libraries that provide digital access.

JSTOR , articles by Hudson, Aston, Hornbeck, and McSheffrey quote and translate the trial material directly.

These sources show the diversity within Lollardy. Some Lollards held sacramental views; others denied infant baptism, denied baptismal regeneration, or denied the validity of priestly baptism. When a group rejects infant baptism and rejects the validity of Roman baptism, rebaptism is the necessary consequence, even if the court record does not use the word “rebaptize.” Medieval courts typically recorded the doctrine, not the act.

On the Christology issue: yes, the Melchiorite “celestial flesh” doctrine was present among some continental Anabaptists, but it was not universal. The English Lollards were not Melchiorites, and the Swiss Brethren were not either. The English trials distinguish clearly between doctrinal charges against Lollards and the later Christological charges against certain continental radicals.

I appreciate your interest in the Lollard–Baptist connection. The diversity within Lollardy is precisely why the question is complex, and why the trial records matter.

Martin Marprelate said:

I will also add that the Anabaptists of whom KIng Henry wrote also denied to some degree the humanity of Jesus Christ. They followed the teaching of Melchior Hoffmann and Menno Simons which denied that our Lord received any of His nature from Mary. The Saviour's flesh, they said, was a heavenly creation which was then implanted in Mary's womb. This is quite a serious error as it teaches that Christ was not a true human. All the Anabaptists tried at this time appear to have followed this teaching, and it was for this as much as for anabaptism that they were often burned.

Click to expand...

Not everyone labeled “Anabaptist” held Baptist distinctives. The term was a legal category used by both Rome and the English crown for anyone who rejected the validity of infant baptism or the sacramental system. It grouped together very different movements, some orthodox, some heterodox, some radical, some biblicist.

That’s precisely why Henry VIII’s usage cannot be taken as a definition of the entire Anabaptist tradition. The Melchiorite “celestial flesh” doctrine you mention was held by some continental radicals, but it was not universal. The Swiss Brethren rejected it. The South German Anabaptists rejected it. The English Lollards were not Melchiorites. And the Dutch Mennonites themselves abandoned Hoffmann’s Christology within a generation.

So Henry’s proclamations reflect the particular radicals he was prosecuting, not the whole spectrum of groups Rome and England called “Anabaptists.” The term was applied broadly, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, to anyone who rebaptized or denied the sacramental validity of the established Church.

My only point was that the word Anabaptist itself is much older than the 16th century, and that medieval authorities used it for over a thousand years before Henry VIII. That long usage explains why Hosius could speak of “twelve hundred years” of Anabaptists, and why the patristic and medieval sources matter when discussing the history of rebaptizers.

Martin Marprelate said:

Dr. Needham is lecturer in Church History at Highland Theological College, Scotland. Before that he taught Systematic Theology at the Scottish Baptist College in Glasgow. I suggest you read at least some of his work before you patronize him.

Click to expand...

I didn’t patronize Dr. Needham, and I certainly don’t dismiss his work. I simply won’t elevate a modern secondary writer above the primary patristic sources. Needham is a respected lecturer in church history, but he is still offering a summary, not an eyewitness account and not a primary source.

My point was only that the definition of Gnosticism comes from the early witnesses who actually confronted the Gnostic systems, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, not from later medieval polemic or from any modern synthesis, however useful. That’s not a criticism of Needham; it’s just the normal historical method. Primary sources define the category, and secondary writers interpret it.

Anthony Pritchard said:

I didn’t patronize Dr. Needham, and I certainly don’t dismiss his work. I simply won’t elevate a modern secondary writer above the primary patristic sources. Needham is a respected lecturer in church history, but he is still offering a summary, not an eyewitness account and not a primary source.

My point was only that the definition of Gnosticism comes from the early witnesses who actually confronted the Gnostic systems, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, not from later medieval polemic or from any modern synthesis, however useful. That’s not a criticism of Needham; it’s just the normal historical method. Primary sources define the category, and secondary writers interpret it.

Click to expand...

Well, so far as I can discover, there are no primary sources for the Paulicians as none of their writings survive. If you have discovered some, please write them out here so that we can see them, but if not, please stop pretending to have knowledge that you do not, which is, after all, the essence of Gnosticism.
Here is another account of what can be discovered of the Paulicians' beliefs: Were the Paulicians Christians? It is quite similar to what Dr Needham wrote, which is perhaps not too surprising.

One other interesting point is that the Paulicians appear to have denied that Mary was the mother of our Lord. This was also the belief of many Anabaptists, including, as I have said, Melchior Hoffmann and Menno Simons. Did these Gnostic and Unitarian beliefs come down through the Manichaeans, Paulicians, Albigensians through to some, at least, of the Anabaptists? An internet trawl will reveal "Paulician Unitarians" about today UnitarianPaulicianChurch.org | Unitarian Paulician Church of Christ As someone or other has said, there are no new heresies, only old ones dressed up in new clothes.

Martin Marprelate said:

One other interesting point is that the Paulicians appear to have denied that Mary was the mother of our Lord. This was also the belief of many Anabaptists

Click to expand...

Martin, you are misunderstanding my point. I have never claimed to possess Paulician primary sources. I have repeatedly said the opposite, that almost none of their writings survive. That is precisely why the only descriptions we have come from hostile Byzantine RCC heresiologists and trial records.

My argument is not based on Paulician primary sources. It is based on the early church’s primary sources for Gnosticism itself.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius are the eyewitnesses who documented the actual Gnostic systems while they were still alive. Their descriptions define the category. That is the normal historical method.

You are trying to define Gnosticism by repeating medieval accusations made against the Paulicians, accusations produced by their persecutors, not by their own doctrine. And those who cite those charges today are simply echoing the same false accusations rather than the actual substance of their beliefs. I am defining Gnosticism by the men who actually confronted the Gnostics. Those are not the same thing.

Once that distinction is clear, the rest follows:

We do not have Paulician writings. Therefore, we cannot reconstruct their doctrine directly. But we do have the records of their trials, of the beliefs that they died for, and they are clear, the Paulicans were true to the faith once delivered.

We do have the patristic record defining Gnosticism. And every genuine Gnostic system contains the same fixed elements:

a demiurge who created the material world
aeons and emanations
salvation through secret knowledge
denial of the incarnation
denial of bodily resurrection
mythic cosmologies involving Sophia, Achamoth, Yaldabaoth, etc.

The accusations against the Paulicians do not contain any of these elements. They contain the standard Byzantine polemical charges used against any dissenting group, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, early Anabaptists.

“Manichaean,” “dualist,” “Gnostic,” “denying Mary,” “rejecting sacraments,” “rejecting hierarchy”, these false accusations appear in trial records across centuries, even when the groups in question were thoroughly biblical.

Modern Paulician Unitarians have no historical connection to the medieval Paulicians. They are simply a modern Unitarian sect borrowing a historical name. Their existence proves nothing about the medieval group.

So the issue is not whether modern websites exist, nor whether medieval governments accused dissenters of heresy. The issue is whether the Paulicians match the actual Gnostic systems described by the Apostolic eyewitnesses.

They do not.

That is why I will not elevate any modern secondary writer, Dr Needham, James Attebury or any other secondary writers however respected, above the primary patristic sources that define Gnosticism.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Martin, you are misunderstanding my point. I have never claimed to possess Paulician primary sources. I have repeatedly said the opposite, that almost none of their writings survive. That is precisely why the only descriptions we have come from hostile Byzantine RCC heresiologists and trial records.

My argument is not based on Paulician primary sources. It is based on the early church’s primary sources for Gnosticism itself.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius are the eyewitnesses who documented the actual Gnostic systems while they were still alive. Their descriptions define the category. That is the normal historical method.

Click to expand...

Well what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Almost none of the original Gnostic writings survive. That is precisely why the only descriptions we have come from hostile ECF writers. If you are going to reject the writers who oppose the Paulicians, to be consistent you must also reject Irenaeus, Tertullian & Co. Those writings that have survived (the so-called Gnostic Gospels) show that the ECFs were largely correct. Does that not suggest that the medieval writers would prove to be correct if Paulician documents were discovered?

Anthony Pritchard said:

We do not have Paulician writings. Therefore, we cannot reconstruct their doctrine directly. But we do have the records of their trials, of the beliefs that they died for, and they are clear, the Paulicans were true to the faith once delivered.

Click to expand...

Print some here then and prove it. Show me that Needham and Attebury are liars.

Anthony Pritchard said:

We do have the patristic record defining Gnosticism. And every genuine Gnostic system contains the same fixed elements:

a demiurge who created the material world
aeons and emanations
salvation through secret knowledge
denial of the incarnation
denial of bodily resurrection
mythic cosmologies involving Sophia, Achamoth, Yaldabaoth, etc.

The accusations against the Paulicians do not contain any of these elements.

Click to expand...

Yes they do. Here is the extract from Dr. Needham that I posted earlier:

The Paulicians were a distinct Gnostic group who originated in Armenia in the 7th Century and spread to southern Asia Minor. Their founder, Constantine, taught that an evil and inferior god had created the physical world. All matter was therefore evil, and Constantine rejected the use of all material things (the water in baptism, the bread and wine of holy communion, icons) in worship.
The evil creator-god was the god of the Old Testament, and also of some parts of the New; Constantine accepted only the Gospels and Paul's letters as having come from the true God of heaven. This reverence for the apostle Paul is probably why this group was called "Paulicians." Constantine even changed his name to Silvanus to make the point that he was a disciple of Paul. According to Constantine, Jesus was an angel sent by the true God to reveal the way of salvation by which souls could escape from the evil of matter.

Here you have the "demiurge" who created the world, and you have the denial of the incarnation. If you read through again (?) the extract from Attebury, you have the secret knowledge and the denial of a bodily resurrection.

Anthony Pritchard said:

They contain the standard Byzantine polemical charges used against any dissenting group, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards

Click to expand...

There is sufficient first-hand information to show that the Waldenses and the Lollards were not Gnostic. For the rest, how can we know what they were like if not from those who wrote about them. You say they were baptistic; how do we know that? Only by these same people. If they were lying about their gnosticism, maybe they were lying about their credobaptism.

Anthony Pritchard said:

“Manichaean,” “dualist,” “Gnostic,” “denying Mary,” “rejecting sacraments,” “rejecting hierarchy”, these false accusations appear in trial records across centuries, even when the groups in question were thoroughly biblical.

Click to expand...

How do you know they were thoroughly biblical?
It seems to me that some people are so eager to establish medieval Baptists as a fact that they will accept things as truth that cannot be proved
Petrobusians and Waldenses (Waldensians?) seem to be genuine; the rest, less so.

Martin Marprelate said:

Almost none of the original Gnostic writings survive.

Click to expand...

Martin, you are collapsing two completely different historical situations and treating them as identical. They are not. The works of the early writers regarding second‑century Gnosticism and the medieval accusations against the Paulicians do not stand on the same footing, and treating them as equivalent is a category mistake.

Here is the difference.

1. The early writers were eyewitnesses of actual Gnostic systems.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius wrote while the Gnostic schools were still alive and active. They interacted with Gnostics directly. They debated them. They refuted their doctrines. They quoted their writings. They described their cosmologies in detail.

Their descriptions are primary doctrinal sources, even when hostile, because they are describing systems they personally confronted.

This is why, when the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered, they matched the patristic descriptions. The writers were not guessing. They were reporting what they saw.

2. The medieval writers were not eyewitnesses of Paulician doctrine.

They did not debate Paulicians.
They did not quote Paulician writings.
They did not preserve Paulician texts.
They did not describe Paulician cosmology.
They did not interact with Paulician teachers.

They wrote trial records and imperial accusations for the purpose of prosecution and execution. That is not doctrinal description. That is legal polemic.

You are treating:

patristic doctrinal descriptions of systems they confronted

as equivalent to:

medieval accusations written by persecutors against dissenters

These are not the same thing.

3. The patristic record defines Gnosticism. Medieval polemic does not.

Gnosticism is defined by the fixed elements documented by the fathers:

a demiurge who created the material world
aeons and emanations
salvation through secret knowledge
denial of the incarnation
denial of bodily resurrection
mythic cosmologies involving Sophia, Achamoth, Yaldabaoth, and others

These elements appear in every genuine Gnostic system.

The medieval accusations against the Paulicians do not contain these elements. They contain the standard Byzantine charges used against any dissenting group: Manichaean, dualist, rejecting sacraments, rejecting hierarchy, denying Mary, rejecting icons. These accusations appear across centuries against groups that were not remotely Gnostic. Rejecting sacraments, rejecting hierarchy, denying Mary, rejecting icons.

You are treating Byzantine polemic as if it were patristic doctrinal definition. It is not.

4. Dr. Needham is not a primary source.

I know you put great stock in Dr. Needham, but he is a modern secondary writer repeating medieval accusations. He is not quoting Paulician writings, teachers, or cosmology. He is simply summarizing the same Roman/Byzantine polemic used to prosecute and execute dissenters. That is not doctrinal evidence, and I will not elevate it to the level of a primary source.

You are treating Needham as if he were Irenaeus.
He is not.
He is simply repeating the accusations of the persecutors.

5. Your “sauce for the goose” argument fails because the situations are not parallel. You wrote:

“Almost none of the original Gnostic writings survive. That is why the only descriptions we have come from hostile ECF writers.”

This is incorrect. We have:

the Nag Hammadi library
the Gospel of Thomas
the Gospel of Philip
the Apocryphon of John
the Hypostasis of the Archons
the Tripartite Tractate
the Sophia of Jesus Christ

and many others

These texts confirm the patristic descriptions.

We do not have Paulician writings.
We do not have Paulician cosmology.
We do not have Paulician doctrinal statements.
We only have trial records of the beliefs they died for.

The two situations are not parallel.

6. The medieval accusations cannot define Paulician doctrine. You asked:

“How do you know they were thoroughly biblical?”

Because the accusations against them lack every defining feature of Gnosticism and instead match the standard pattern of Byzantine polemic used against:

Bogomils
Albigenses
Waldenses
Lollards
early Anabaptists

These groups were accused of Gnosticism, Manichaeism, dualism, rejecting sacraments, rejecting hierarchy, and denying Mary. Yet their own writings (where they survive), and their trial records show they were not Gnostic.

The pattern is clear.
The accusations are formulaic.
They do not define doctrine.

7. The bottom line. You are treating:

patristic doctrinal descriptions of systems they confronted

as equivalent to:

medieval accusations written by persecutors against dissenters

These are not the same thing.
They do not carry the same historical weight.
They do not define doctrine in the same way.

The early Christian writers define Gnosticism. They were eyewitnesses of the actual Gnostic systems and documented them while those systems were still alive. Their descriptions establish the doctrinal markers of Gnosticism itself.

The Roman and Byzantine accusations against the Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, and early Anabaptists reveal the doctrines these groups held, because those were the convictions they were condemned for and died for. But the labels Rome attached to them were falsehoods. The polemic does not define their doctrine; it only shows what the persecuting institution chose to call them.

We have no right to carry these false labels forward to today. The accusations reveal what Rome opposed, not what these groups believed. The polemical vocabulary used against dissenters does not define their doctrine. It defines the categories Rome used to justify persecution. We are not free to repeat those labels as if they were true.

You are defining the beliefs of the Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, and early Anabaptists by repeating the accusations made against them by Rome and Byzantium. Those accusations tell us what these groups were charged with and what they died for, but the labels Rome used are false. The same polemical vocabulary was applied to every dissenting group regardless of their actual doctrine.

Well, @Anthony Pritchard,
We shall have to agree to disagree. I have seen nothing on line to suggest that Nick Needham or James Attebury were either liars or so ignorant that they didn't look up documents before going to press.
If you had come up with anything in writing to prove your case, I would be happy to apologize and accept your position - happy, because before I started studying the subject I had supposed that there would be a "trail of blood" chain showing the continuity of Bible-believing baptistic groups throughout history, but I have found no evidence for it, and you have not supplied any. I have checked again some of my on-line sources, and I will follow-up via Jstor, to which I have access through my daughter who is a University Professor.

My position is this: I have no doubt that the Bible teaches Credobaptism and that the earliest Christians were such. Infant baptism came in quite early, but Augustine was not baptized as an infant despite have a Christian mother (Monica). Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), who writes more on baptism than any other Church Father, appears to know nothing of the infant variety. But at some point, infant baptism became the rule and Credobaptism seems to have disappeared. Parents who would not submit their newborn babies for baptism faced legal sanctions.

When the first rebaptism occurred in Zurich in 1525, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel et al could find no group who would baptize them, so they baptized one another. This rather suggests that there were no underground Baptist groups in Zurich at this time. Ninety years later, John Smyth baptized himself to found the first English Baptist congregation. Although I respect the Anabaptists for their belief in the separation of Church and State, I don't consider them to be my theological ancestors because of their generally shaky theology. Likewise, I have great respect for the English Reformers for their general theology, but I disagree with their Episcopalianism and despise the position most of them took against dissent. The line that I look to is the 17th Century Particular Baptists - John Spilsbury, Hansard Knollys, John Kiffin et al. I understand that many here will not agree with me, and that's fine!

Martin Marprelate said:

Well, @Anthony Pritchard,
We shall have to agree to disagree. I have seen nothing on line to suggest that Nick Needham or James Attebury were either liars or so ignorant that they didn't look up documents before going to press.
If you had come up with anything in writing to prove your case, I would be happy to apologize and accept your position - happy, because before I started studying the subject I had supposed that there would be a "trail of blood" chain showing the continuity of Bible-believing baptistic groups throughout history, but I have found no evidence for it, and you have not supplied any. I have checked again some of my on-line sources, and I will follow-up via Jstor, to which I have access through my daughter who is a University Professor.

My position is this: I have no doubt that the Bible teaches Credobaptism and that the earliest Christians were such. Infant baptism came in quite early, but Augustine was not baptized as an infant despite have a Christian mother (Monica). Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), who writes more on baptism than any other Church Father, appears to know nothing of the infant variety. But at some point, infant baptism became the rule and Credobaptism seems to have disappeared. Parents who would not submit their newborn babies for baptism faced legal sanctions.

When the first rebaptism occurred in Zurich in 1525, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel et al could find no group who would baptize them, so they baptized one another. This rather suggests that there were no underground Baptist groups in Zurich at this time. Ninety years later, John Smyth baptized himself to found the first English Baptist congregation. Although I respect the Anabaptists for their belief in the separation of Church and State, I don't consider them to be my theological ancestors because of their generally shaky theology. Likewise, I have great respect for the English Reformers for their general theology, but I disagree with their Episcopalianism and despise the position most of them took against dissent. The line that I look to is the 17th Century Particular Baptists - John Spilsbury, Hansard Knollys, John Kiffin et al. I understand that many here will not agree with me, and that's fine!

Click to expand...

I never called Needham or Attebury liars. You introduced that accusation, not me. I challenged a historical claim, not anyone’s integrity. You also said, “If you had come up with anything in writing to prove your case…”, but I have provided written documentation multiple times. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius all record rebaptizers long before 1525. I also supplied links to trial documents and inquisitorial records identifying Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Henricians, and Waldenses as rebaptizers. To continue asserting that the first rebaptism occurred in Zurich in 1525 requires ignoring the written history already provided. We may disagree on interpretation, but the documentation predates the Reformation by centuries, and it has been placed in the thread more than once.