The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness

By H. Leon McBeth

The Baptist Heritage: Four Century of Baptist Witness H. Leon McBeth's 'The Baptist heritage' is a definitive, fresh interpretation of Baptist history. Based on primary source research, the book combines the best features of chronological and topical history to bring alive the story of Baptists around the world.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Jan 29, 1987
• ISBN: 9781433671029

Book preview

© Copyright 1987 • Broadman Press

All rights reserved

4265-69

ISBN: 0-8054-6569-3

Dewey Decimal Classification: 286.09

Subject Heading: BAPTISTS-HISTORY

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 86-31667

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN-13: 978-0-8054-6569-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

McBeth, Leon.

The Baptist hertiage.

Bibliography: p.

Includes index

1. Baptists-History. I. Title.

BX6231.M37 1987 286'.09 86-31667

21 22 23 24 25 26 • 14 13 12 11 10 09

Preface

In a quarter-century of teaching Baptist history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I have assigned different textbooks and various other materials for students' reading. Many of these are now out of date, no longer available, or leave serious gaps by not addressing the more recent developments in Baptist life. For these reasons I decided to arrange my own research for publication and thus offer this volume to interested readers.

Three presuppositions have guided the preparation of this work; all of them will be obvious to the reader. First, I regard the Baptist denomination as a still viable expression of the Christian faith. While I value the modern ecumenical movement and rejoice in the spirit of brotherhood which increasingly prevails among believers of different labels, I do not yet see the denomination fading away. Though I write from within the Baptist tradition, I trust that the presentation and interpretation of the data has been reasonably objective.

Second, I tried to write from a sufficiently catholic perspective to be fair to the many different Baptist groups mentioned. The nature of a general history requires brevity, and at times I settled for a sentence when a paragraph was needed. Despite this brevity, my purpose was to present each Baptist group in as complete and accurate a way as possible. I hope every Baptist group mentioned will feel that they and their emphases are fairly presented.

A third presupposition of this work is that history requires interpretation. I was not content merely to dump factual data upon the page but tried to arrange it in some order and offer my own interpretations as to its meaning and significance. My interpretations are clearly distinguishable as such, and I believe they are justified by the historical facts. I offer them with a sense of modesty, remembering Oliver Cromwell's remark to dogmatic religionists, I beseech you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to think that you may be wrong.

Since Baptists now have about four centuries of continuous history, writing their story chronologically, century by century, seemed feasible. Some may find it confusing to jump back and forth across the Atlantic, but other approaches have their own problems. I was not willing to tell the story of British and European Baptists up to the present before introducing Baptist beginnings in the American colonies. One should not, I think, read about the Baptist World Alliance and the struggles of Baptists under modern Communism before even meeting Roger Williams in Colonial America.

However, within each century division, topical and geographical development are presented. Readers who prefer can realign the chapters so as to follow each Baptist group straight through from the seventeenth century to the twentieth. The century divisions are not airtight; in order to complete the story I sometimes dipped back into the previous century or overlapped a bit into the next. In chapter 16, in describing the Larger Baptist Family, I placed the story in the present century but reached back into earlier times to trace the roots of several Baptist groups.

Though I consulted the major secondary works dealing with Baptists, I drew my materials and interpretations mostly from primary sources. To have access to these original sources, I spent considerable research time in England, Scotland, Wales, and various parts of Europe. In addition, I had admission to the major libraries and archival collections of Baptist groups in various parts of the United States. In dealing with European Baptists, especially those in Eastern Europe, inaccessibility of sources and language barriers caused me to rely more on secondary sources.

In the final preparation of these pages, I was torn between the need to avoid long quotes and the desire to allow Baptists to speak for themselves. I hope most readers will agree that I found a tolerable middle ground. For the most part, I allowed the quotes to stand exactly as they were first written, but at times I modernized spelling and punctuation for the sake of clarity.

I owe thanks to so many people for help in this project that it would be impossible to name them all here. However, they know who they are, and they know how deeply grateful I am to each one of them. Carl Wrotenbery, director of Libraries, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas and his predecessor, Keith C. Wills, made their vast Baptist collection available to me and moved immediately to obtain any additional materials I requested. I also thank the following libraries and collections: Ron Deering, director, Boyce Centennial Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Library, Louisville, Kentucky; Lynn E. May, executive director, The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives, Nashville, Tennessee; The Freewill Baptist Historical Archives, Nashville, Tennessee; William H. Brackney, executive director, The American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, New York; Barrington R. White, principal, Regents Park College, Oxford University, for admission to the Angus Collection; and the Baptist International Seminary, Ruschlikon, Switzerland, for admission to its European Baptist historical collection.

For those who read portions or all the manuscript and made helpful suggestions, I am grateful. I thank them for all the improvements they suggested and blame them for none of the remaining defects. Among those readers, I especially thank Roger Hayden of Reading, England; and two of my former teachers, Robert T. Handy of New York, and Robert A. Baker of Fort Worth.

I gladly take this occasion to thank Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, for its generous assistance in the completion of this task. William B. Tolar, dean of the School of Theology, went the second mile in approving sabbatical leave time, allotting sabbatical travel funds for needed research, and providing extra secretarial help for manuscript preparation.

My family showed unusual patience with me during the time I was immersed in this project. They heard the typewriter clacking from my study many a late evening. I especially thank my wife, Ada, for her unwavering support in this and every other aspect of our shared lives.

HARRY LEON MCBETH

Unit I

The Seventeenth Century

In Europe and England the seventeenth century was a time of transition. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked the end of the Reformation era and, by its limited recognition of Protestantism, marked a new era in Christian history. Enormous changes occurred in political, social, and economic areas, changes that no one could predict, affect, or even understand. In such an unsettled and volatile environment, Baptists emerged as a separate denomination.

In England, where Baptists first took root, waves of political change marked the seventeenth century. James I, the first of the Stuarts who succeeded the last of the Tudors in 1603, effectively asserted traditional royal powers. However, James's son Charles I was beheaded in 1649 for attempting the same kind of autocratic rule. After a series of civil wars, England experimented with a rule of the saints in which Protestant radicals dominated Parliament for a time. When this failed England moved to a Commonwealth, in which Oliver Cromwell took the title of Lord Protector but increasingly acted like a king. Cromwell's rule was marked by good intentions and meager achievements. In 1660 England restored its monarchy by the coronation of Charles II. The century ended, however, with yet another king deposed, but not executed, and the acceptance of William of Orange and Mary on the throne. Though England continued to have a monarchy, real political power had passed to Parliament. The rise of various dissenting religions to challenge the Church of England was in some ways the religious equivalent of the undermining of monarchy by a strong Parliament.

Along with political change came radical revisions in the social structure. One commoner with a cannon could make castles obsolete; the collapse of castles is but one example of the decline of nobility and the rise of the common man. Early stirrings of the Industrial Revolution brought new forms of employment. The opening of the American colonies focused attention on ability rather than inherited titles; this formed one more impetus to the leveling of society and the rise of the common man. Though America was discovered earlier, the first successful English colonies in that new land date from the seventeenth century. The enormous significance of the colonies in political and economic history may obscure their equally important impact on religion. The distant colonies provided a safety valve for diverse forms of religion, a haven in the wilderness where religions that would have been crushed in England were allowed to flourish. In effect, what was considered radical dissent in England became the established norm in America. Old and New England exercised a mutual influence upon each other; stories of religious persecution in England helped undermine that practice in the New World.

Clearly the Baptists fit the temperament of their times. Conditions were right for the emergence of more individualistic forms of religion, and the spate of new religious groups in England show that they took full advantage of the day. Not only Baptists but also Levellers, Runners, Ranters, Quakers, Independents, and others rose during this unstable time. The Puritan leaven, which for all its efforts never really reformed the Church of England, had its greatest impact among the Separated churches, including Baptists.

For Baptists the seventeenth century was a time of beginnings. Their first churches emerged during this time, and they forged their distinctive denominational structures. From the first, Baptist churches were committed to the concept of inter-church cooperation. The Baptist association and the general assembly gave both local and national structure to their church life. Through a series of confessions Baptists defined their faith, and by testimony and suffering, they hammered out their concept of religious freedom for all.

Though Baptists in the seventeenth century sprang up primarily in England and Wales, a few churches appeared in Scotland and Ireland but within a few years went into eclipse. Baptists also emerged in the New World during the seventeenth century, with churches from Maine to South Carolina before 1700. Scholars debate whether the first Baptists in America represent an offshoot from the English community or an independent beginning, but one cannot doubt the close connections that later developed between the Baptists on either side of the Atlantic. In the Act of Toleration of 1689, English Baptists achieved a measure of religious liberty but at the cost of great spiritual fatigue. In America, Baptists faced religious persecution in New England and parts of the South but found liberty and an open door for growth in the Middle Colonies.

By the end of the century, Baptists could count both pluses and minuses. They faced spiritual fatigue in England; they were doctrinally divided and vulnerable to extremist views, which would devastate them in the next century; they faced a serious shortage of prepared ministers. On a more positive note, they had defined and defended their faith, had formed denominational structures which endure to the present, and had at least glimpsed the opportunity for an aggressive evangelistic outreach.

1

Baptist Beginnings

History must look at beginnings. To know the origin of a movement or group gives a head start to understanding its present identity and significance. An effort to understand that denomination of Christians called Baptists must begin with Baptist history. Who was the first Baptist? When and where was the first Baptist church established? What factors best account for Baptist origins? These sound like simple questions, and one might expect straight-forward answers. The story of Baptist beginnings, however, is surprisingly complex. Additional insights surface as new evidence comes to light. This chapter will recount the historical facts of the origin of Baptists as those facts are presently known.

Overview of Baptist Origins

The modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century. Baptists emerged out of intense reform movements, shaped by such radical dissent as Puritanism, Separatism, and possibly Anabaptism. Influenced by the Reformation theology of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, the English Bible, and a deep desire for spiritual reform, some of these Separatists adopted baptism for believers only. They later applied that baptism by total immersion and were nicknamed Baptists for that practice.

Two major groups of Baptists emerged in England in the early 1600s. While they shared much in common, they differed in their views of the atonement and church organization. The earlier group was called General Baptists because they believed in a general atonement. They believed that the death of Christ has general application; that is, anyone who voluntarily believes in Christ can be saved. The General Baptists were less influenced by John Calvin, who taught that only the predestined may be saved, and more influenced by the Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, whose theology made room for free will. The General Baptists also, like other Arminians, taught the possibility of falling from grace, and their church structure allowed only limited congregational autonomy, giving more power to the associations. Two primary founders of General Baptists were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. The earliest church of this persuasion was formed about 1609.

A later group, known as Particular Baptists, surfaced by the late 1630s, led by such men as Henry Jessey, William Kiffin, and John Spilsbury. Under the influence of Calvinism, they taught a particular atonement. They believed that Christ died not for all mankind, but only for particular ones, namely the elect. Like Calvin, they believed that God had elected some to salvation, that the elect inevitably would be saved, and that the saved could never become unelect or lose their salvation. While originating a generation later than General Baptists, Particular Baptists were destined to become the larger of the two groups. The earliest church of this persuasion dates from 1638 (some say 1633). Their organizational structure gave the local congregation complete churchly power, while associations had only advisory functions.

Both groups flourished in England. By 1650 the General Baptists numbered at least forty-seven churches. They grouped these into associations, issued several confessions of faith, and had the rudiments of a national organization. The Particular Baptists, while fewer, had at least seven churches by 1644. Those churches acted together to issue a confession of faith that year. This First London Confession wielded vast influence upon the future shape of Baptist life and thought. Present-day Baptists can be traced back to these beginnings.

This summary, like one snapshot from a larger album, gives only the briefest view and leaves great gaps. We must now fill in some of those historical gaps, first by looking more closely at religious developments in England at the time Baptists emerged as a separate denomination.

Religion in England

The Christian religion came early to the British Isles. The early Celtic form of Christianity was marked by evangelical emphases and relative independence from Church developments in Europe at the time. In AD 597 the missionary monk, Augustine, introduced the Latin form of Christianity into Britain. After a time of competition, the Latin, or Roman, form of faith prevailed. Britain became Roman Catholic, but the older Celtic faith never completely disappeared. From William the Conquerer to Henry VIII, English kings alternately obeyed and defied the popes. Through the years, a number of dissenting groups, like the Lollards, arose to challenge Roman supremacy.

By the sixteenth century, England was a cauldron bubbling with revolutionary changes in economics, politics, and religion. Religion saw radical change under King Henry VIII (1509-1547). By the first Act of Supremacy (1534), Henry separated the Church of England from obedience to Rome, though it remained essentially Catholic in doctrine and practice. Many churchmen wanted more thorough reforms. Influenced by Reformers on the Continent, especially by Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva, many agitated for more Protestant practices.

Despite his own Catholicism, Henry VIII put his son Edward VI under the training of the most Protestant of his advisers. When Edward came to the throne (1547-1553), though a mere lad, he moved England definitely toward Protestantism. As early as 1549, the Church of England adopted a new prayer book, which guided worship liturgy, and the 1552 revision of that document prescribed even more Protestant styles of worship. In 1552 the Church of England also adopted a new doctrinal standard, the Fortytwo Articles (later reduced to thirty-nine), with a distinctly Calvinist flavor. Under Edward, intense Protestant sympathizers, who had been exiled during the latter years of Henry VIII, returned to England to disseminate their views, which had been made even more Protestant by contacts with Zwinglian and Calvinistic reform movements in Europe. During the Edwardian era, clergy could be married, Catholic practices were modified, doctrine and worship moved toward Protestantism of the Calvinist variety, and limited toleration allowed the rapid spread of these viewpoints. In short, while Henry VIII severed the English church from Rome, his son Edward VI made the church Protestant for the first time.

Edward's early death led to a struggle for succession to the English throne, with religion as one major factor in a series of national and international intrigues. Catholics hoped to regain England to Roman allegiance; Protestants hoped to keep and consolidate what they had gained. Mary Tudor, Catholic daughter of Henry VIII, gained the throne and ruled from 1553-1558. In a series of legislative acts, she dismantled the Protestant system of Edward and restored the Catholic system of Henry VIII, eventually restoring the Roman allegiance which had prevailed before the Act of Supremacy. She renewed several acts leading to persecution of Protestants, with the result that many went into exile as they had earlier under her father.

However, not all English Protestants conformed to the restored Catholicism or fled into exile; some merely went underground. After some years of relative freedom to worship as they felt best, some English Christians apparently continued to worship in secret congregations as early as the 1550s. These Marian Separatists provided models or prototypes for the later English Separatist movement. Queen Mary's vigorous efforts to rid England of all remaining Protestantism, even to the point of wholesale executions, earned her the nickname Bloody Mary. The excesses of her persecutions, coupled with a growing English distaste for Romanism, turned England more decisively toward Protestantism.

Elizabeth Tudor, another daughter of Henry VIII, succeeded Bloody Mary and ruled from 1559 to 1603 as ye greate landlady of England. Shrewd and skilled in diplomacy, and not overly religious herself, Elizabeth had a personal preference for the colorful rituals of Catholicism, but political necessity pushed her toward Protestantism. Political developments in Europe, her condemnation by the Roman Church, and adverse English reaction to Mary's religion, determined that both Elizabeth and England would turn more toward Protestantism.

Elizabeth enacted religious laws which consciously combined elements of Catholicism and Protestantism. Centering around her own Act of Supremacy and Act of Uniformity, both in 1559, this religious system was known as the Elizabethan Settlement. After years of fluctuation between Catholicism and Protestantism, English religion was now settled. This settlement was a compromise, a via media, with both the strengths and weaknesses inherent therein.

Those with more intense religious views, whether Catholic or Protestant, found this system unsatisfactory; and before the turn of the century, the Elizabethan Settlement became quite unsettled. Roman Catholic pressures and political maneuvering, plus threats of assassination and military efforts to overthrow Elizabeth, forced her more firmly into the Protestant camp. The more intense Protestants also aroused the queen's ire by their desire for more Calvinist beliefs and practices. The result was that Elizabeth, beset on both sides, moved decisively to restrict both intense Catholics and Protestants and tried, with ever-decreasing success, to enforce her compromise settlement.

The Emergence of Puritanism

Church reform was in the air throughout the Western world in the sixteenth century. During this time, major upheavals occured in the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant churches were born, such as Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican, as well as the Anabaptists and other radical spiritual groups. Growing enlightenment from the Renaissance, the leaven of the Bible in the languages of the people, and the powerful preaching of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Conrad Grebel, and others had a transforming effect.

With such reforms in progress elsewhere, a growing number of English churchmen could not be content with the halfhearted religious changes in England. Gradually a distinct party emerged to advocate further reforms. Because they sought a pure church, this reforming party was nicknamed the Puritans. The word is almost as difficult to define as the movement is to pinpoint historically. For all its anti-Catholicism, modern Puritanism may root partly in the intense Catholic piety of the later Middle Ages. Later the term Puritanism came to designate a spirit and attitude almost as much as a set of religious beliefs. In sixteenth-century England, the Puritans did not want to break with the Church of England but to reform it. They wanted to simplify the worship patterns, modify church polity from episcopal to presbyterial and adopt more Calvinistic doctrines. The early Puritans, led by Bishop Hooker and Thomas Cartwright of Cambridge, regarded these reforms as biblical.

However, for reasons both religious and political, the Church of England resisted these changes. Queen Elizabeth had no sympathy with Puritanism and sought to enforce religious conformity by law. Bishops, not unnaturally, looked with little favor upon abolishing the episcopal system. Not all welcomed Calvinist doctrines, and some felt repelled by the Puritan tendency toward narrow rigidity and intolerance. After several centuries in which everyone was almost automatically a Christian and a church member, many in England could neither understand nor accommodate the militant new spirit which insisted upon a church so pure that it seemed to leave little room for human frailty. In short, the common people, church leaders, and the government did not accept the Puritan reforms completely.

Any discussion of religious dissent in England must take account of The Book of Martyrs by John Foxe. This vivid book, published in English in 1563, taught a generation of Englishmen to hate religious persecution and hunger for freedom for their faith. It set the stage for Protestant opposition to Catholicism and later for the Puritan-Separatist opposition to the Anglican Church. The book is mostly a collection of stories about Protestants who suffered for their faith. Many of the stories are authentic; others may be embroidered. This book helped focus the English mind upon religious reform.

From Puritanism to Separatism

Unable to purify the Church of England, many churchmen determined to separate and form their own independent congregations where they could institute what they regarded as biblical practices. Those who did this were called, naturally enough, Separatists. Some separated out of pragmatism; they preferred to be part of the state church, but separated temporarily to promote reform. Others separated out of principle; they had come to the conviction that the church ought to be free of government connection. These principle Separatists figure more prominently in Baptist beginnings than do the pragmatic Separatists.

One cannot say exactly when Separatism first began. No doubt Walter H. Burgess was correct when he wrote, There was probably never a time in English history when men and women interested in religion did not foregather apart from the services of the official Church to confer by speech or reading about the matters that touched their lives most clearly.¹ Whatever isolated separations existed earlier, by the 1550s groups of Separatists became visible in England. Barrington R. White pointed out in his definitive work, The English Separatist Tradition, that many earnest Christians, accustomed to more freedom of worship under Edward VI, simply refused to return to Catholicism as required by Mary Tudor.² Therefore, groups began to meet separately for worship, Bible reading, and prayer. At least two such churches met in London by the 1560s: the Privy Church led by Richard Fitz and the Plumbers' Hall congregation led by William Bonam. The Privy Church, the more separatist of the two, had left the state church to set their hands and hearts, to the pure unmingled and sincere worshipping of God.³ Describing themselves as a poore congregation whom god hath separated from the churches of england, they detailed their objections to the state church, especially the mingled and faulse worshipping therein vsed.⁴ Members of both congregations were imprisoned in 1567, and Fitz died in prison. The Plumbers' Hall group was more Puritan than Separatist, at first intending no final separation from the Church of England. Their pastor promised upon his release from prison in 1569 not to observe communion in anie howse, or other place, Contrarie to the state of religion nowe by publique authoritie established.⁵

In the excellent study, John Robinson and the English Separatist Tradition, Timothy George showed that great variety existed among the Separatist groups. Some debated such minor issues as whether to stand or kneel during prayer. Others objected to Calvinism, claiming that the doctrine of predestynation was meter for develles then for christian men.⁶ George placed the earliest separations in Kent, but pointed out that the London groups proved more influential.

Further evidence of early Separatism is contained in the well-known letter of Bishop Grindal to Henry Bullinger, dated in London June 9, 1568. Grindal complained:

Some London citizens of the lowest order, together with four or five ministers, remarkable neither for their judgment nor learning, have openly separated from us; and sometimes in private houses, sometimes in the fields, and occasionally even in ships, they have held their meetings and administered the sacraments. Besides this, they have ordained ministers, elders, and deacons, after their own way.⁷

Other letters show that new separations erupted, and the authorities could not control or curtail them. B. R. White concluded, In spite of all the efforts of the authorities, underground congregations continued to gather in London throughout the 1570s and may have survived until the activities in and around the capital first of Robert Browne and later of Barrow and Greenwood.⁸

For convenience, a brief sketch of Separatism can be presented around the stories of four important leaders and congregations. These are Robert Browne and the Pioneer Church (1581); Francis Johnson and the Ancient Church (1592); John Robinson and the Pilgrim Church (nucleus by 1606); and Henry Jacob and the JLJ Church (1616).

Robert Browne and the Pioneer Church

Whatever the earlier history of Separatism, most scholars regard Robert Browne (1550-1633) as one pioneer of the movement. Troublechurch Browne, as he was nicknamed, has usually been credited with beginning the major exodus of Separatism. However, some scholars want to modify that assessment, saying that Browne may have popularized the movement but certainly did not invent it.⁹ Browne's blockbuster publication of 1582, A Treatise of reformation without tarrying for anie, attracted widespread attention, gave an effective defense of Separatism, and attracted new converts.

Called an ignoble prophet of a noble vision, Browne was a harsh controversialist, unduly censorious and judgmental, and a known wife- beater. Later in life he withdrew from the movement he had set on foot, submitted to episcopal authority, and lived in relative comfort while his erstwhile brethren suffered persecution for practices he had taught them. Seldom does one find purer doctrine associated with a more unlovely character. It is no wonder that his followers rejected the name Brownist.

Browne graduated from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1572, where he was probably a student of Thomas Cartwright, a leader of Puritan reform. Soon Browne came to the conviction that pastors should not be appointed by bishops, but local churches should elect their own pastors. He asked whether the ordinarie assemblies of the professors in Englande be the Churches of Christ and concluded in the negative.¹⁰ He found no redeeming features in the Church of England, objecting especially to their bablinge Prayers and toying worshippe… and a thousande moe abominations. In a word, he concluded, They are not Jerusalem.¹¹ Browne acted upon his convictions; by April 19, 1581, he formed at Norwich a Separatist church meeting in private houses and conventicles. The next year he published his famous treatise demanding reform without further delay.

Two of Browne's most intense followers, Henry Barrow and John Greenwood, carried on his Congregational Separatism in London. Barrow was described as an ingenious and learned man, but of too warm a spirit.¹² If anything, he was even more critical of the Church of England than was Browne and carried Separatism a step further. His treatise on Four Causes of Separation (1587), identified false worship, false ministry, false discipline, and a false basis of membership in the Church of England as grounds for separation. Greenwood was perhaps less militant than Barrow, but he stoutly defended Separatism. His treatise on The True Church and the Fale Church (1588) listed several marks of a false church and, predictably, found all of them in the Church of England.

Both Barrow and Greenwood had also attended Cambridge, a seedbed of reform which fueled early Separatism. In 1586 both Barrow and Greenwood were imprisoned, where they remained, with some brief breaks for Greenwood, until their execution in 1593. In prison, both carried on a ministry of writing and even preaching at times. Both were rigid and intolerant. At times they advanced their faith in an unduly belligerent manner, and often elevated trifles to supreme importance. To them it was a life-or-death matter, literally, whether the church had proper ministry and discipline and whether prayers be read or prayed extemporaneously. But one must admit that to the last they had the courage of their convictions and sealed their witness with their blood. In 1592, while Barrow and Greenwood were in prison, their impromptu London meeting was formed into a Separatist church by Francis Johnson.

Francis Johnson and the Ancient Church

Another important leader of English Separatism was Francis Johnson (c.1562-c.1617). A graduate of Christ's College, Cambridge, Johnson favored reform, but for years resisted Separatism. In 1591 he obtained an order to seize and burn copies of a treatise by Barrow and Greenwood, but saved two copies out of the flames that he might study and refute them. As he studied, he was instead convinced that Separatism was both viable and biblical. Fourteen years later Johnson sought to make restitution by having the burned tract reprinted at his expense.

Johnson became a convinced Brownist, renounced his comfortable living, and went to London to confer in Fleet Prison with Barrow. In 1592 he was elected pastor of the London Separatist congregation. The executions of Barrow and Greenwood, along with John Penry, convinced the Separatists they should leave England. The Conventicle Act of 1593, providing other penalties for Separatists, also helped them decide. Most of the London congregation migrated to Amsterdam in 1593, where they came to be called the Ancient Church. Johnson did not make the trip with them, since he was then in prison for his faith, but he followed in 1597. In Amsterdam the Ancient Church elected Henry Ainsworth as teacher in place of the martyred Greenwood. The peaceful and scholarly Ainsworth led the people to put out their True Confession in 1596, a confession said to have influenced later Baptists.¹³

Like most of the Separatists, Johnson was highly critical and censorious, a stickler on small details. This Bishop of Brownism, as he was sometimes called, was probably more Presbyterian than Congregationalist, for he profoundly distrusted popular government in the church. His stern insistence upon the authority of the elders was one factor in his later controversies with John Smyth, the Baptist. In his twenty-five-year ministry, Johnson had to face three serious problems relating to free church, problems not completely settled to this day: the right exercise of discipline, the true nature of baptism, and the authority of the minister.

Many of Johnson's controversies centered in his own family. In London he had married a young widow, Thomasine Boys, who was beautiful but apparently quite frivolous. Described as a bouncy girle, she had a taste for what some considered extravagant and even immodest dress, including several gold rings; and she had money from her first husband to provide these. One particularly ornate hat became the topic of church discipline for months. One gown, said to be too daring, was ordered to be produced in church that the congregation might rule on its propriety. The congregation also criticized Thomasine for allegedly remaining in bed as late as 9 AM on the Lord's Day. Francis's brother, George, led the criticism, claiming that Francis was blinded, bewitched and besotted by Thomasine.¹⁴ In 1599 Francis excommunicated George, describing him as impious, heathenish, hideous, and moreover afflicted with crackbrainednes. Three years later he also excommunicated their father who tried to patch things up between the disaffected brothers.

Perhaps the low point of Johnson's ministry was the painful schism between himself and Ainsworth over congregational versus ministerial control of the church. The Ainsworth group pulled off to form a different church in which members could make more decisions. Their group included John Canne, considered by some the founder of the Broadmead church which later became Baptist. Another splinter of the Ancient Church went with neither Johnson nor Ainsworth but formed their own group under Elder Blackwell and sailed for Virginia about 1619.

From time to time several members of the Ancient Church were attracted to Anabaptist views and either withdrew or were excluded. In the treatise entitled An Inquirie, Johnson complained that of the members divers of them fell into the heresies of the Anabaptists (which are too common in these countreys) and so persisting were excommunicated by the rest. In 1597 Henoch Clapham had trouble with some Anabaptists in his Separatist congregation in Amsterdam and later declared that he knew of some who blew off their baptism; one baptized himself and then baptized others. Possibly the latter was a reference to John Smyth.¹⁵ The Ancient Church declined after the death of Johnson in 1617.

John Robinson and the Pilgrim Church

Another congregation of English Separatists, important in its own right, became even more famous as the Pilgrim church that migrated to Plymouth in 1620. Led by John Robinson (1572-1625), the Pilgrim church represented a milder form of Separatism. This church originated as part of the Gainsborough congregation in England led by John Smyth. When rapid growth made it unwise for such a large number to meet together, since English law forbade such conventicles, the group divided. Some remained at Gainsborough under the pastoral leadership of Smyth; the remnant removed to Scrooby Manor, where they elected Robinson as pastor. The Robinson group included two laymen, destined to become well-known in America, William Bradford and William Brewster.

The Robinson church also migrated to Amsterdam about 1608 and, for a time, was apparently in fellowship with the Ancient Church. Later Robinson led his group to Leyden, perhaps to escape the conflicts within the Ancient Church and between that church and John Smyth. At Leyden Robinson moderated his views somewhat, away from the rigid Separatism of Smyth and Johnson, more toward the mild semi-Separatism of Henry Jacob. Historians debate the sources of this change, but many conclude that Robinson was influenced by Henry Jacob, who spent some years in Holland before returning to London to form an independent congregation in 1616.

Leyden proved to be an unhappy settlement for the Robinson church. They suffered economic reverses and grieved to see their children losing the English language and marrying into Dutch families. In 1620 a portion of the church, under the leadership of Bradford and Brewster, combined with other Separatists to sail for the new world on the Mayflower. Pastor Robinson, intending to follow them later, bade them farewell with a fervent sermon, including his oft-quoted saying, the Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth out of his Holy Word.¹⁶ Robinson's church became the nucleus of the Pilgrim Fathers, pioneers of American Congregationalism, but Robinson never joined them in America, dying in Leyden in 1625.

Henry Jacob and the JLJ Church

In 1616 Henry Jacob established a Separatist church in the Southwark section of London. Like most Separatist leaders, Jacob had spent some time in exile in Holland where he exchanged views with English and Dutch dissenters of varying emphases. Apparently Jacob disliked the narrow spirit and rigid intolerance which led to schism in Johnson's Ancient Church, and he distanced himself from that fussy church, both spiritually and geographically. Jacob developed a milder form of Separatism, which some have called semi-Separatism, and for awhile gathered a church in Middelburg, near Leyden, on these tolerant principles.

Jacob returned to London, and in 1616 formed the church named for the initials of its first three pastors, Jacob, John Lathrop, and Henry Jessey. A more detailed account of the JLJ church will come later, for out of its membership came the first Particular Baptists in England.

This sketch provides at least the broad outlines of English Separatism. One may appreciate the movement and the commendable aspirations of its leaders without endorsing all they did. From today's perspective, they look fussy and judgmental, condemning those who differed from them even on minute details, and all too ready to separate from one another as they had earlier separated from the Church of England. They were marked, as Keith L. Sprunger noted, by schism and bad manners.¹⁷

Despite these blemishes, Separatism has contributed much to the Free Church tradition. The Separatists took the Bible seriously and determined to order their lives by its teachings. They insisted upon a church made up only of the redeemed, a gathered church. Rejecting a church polity based upon bishops, or rule from above, the Separatists favored some form of participatory church government; some were congregational, others more presbyterian. They favored a simple worship liturgy, without undue dependence upon stated forms, written prayers, or other worship aids.

Many of these concepts surfaced later in Baptist life and no doubt were absorbed from the Separatists. However, Baptists faulted the Separatists in that most of them did not go on to believer's baptism and religious liberty, two areas in which Baptists went significantly beyond the Separatists.

A variety of religious influences helped to group these Separatists into various denominations. Some of them came gradually to accept such concepts as salvation by grace, baptism of believers only, and religious liberty for all. Those who adopted such views were eventually nicknamed Baptists, and with them this story deals.

The Baptist denomination, as it is known today, emerged by way of the English Separatist movement. The best historical evidence confirms that origin, and no major scholar has arisen this half century to challenge it. That Baptists emerged from Separatism is clear; what is less clear is exactly why. Why did a few of the Separatists go on to believer's baptism, religious liberty, and separation of church and state, when most stopped short of these concepts? And what is behind Separatism that it should give rise to such a major religious movement? A more detailed look at the actual rise of the English Baptists will help answer these questions.

The Rise of General Baptists

The General Baptists represent the older and more Arminian version of Baptist faith in England. They believed that man has freedom to believe in Christ; that whoever will believe may be saved; that none are predestined to damnation; that the saved may renounce their faith and thus lose their salvation; and that all the local churches make up only one church.

John Smyth

The rise of General Baptists centers around a remarkable man, John Smyth (c.1570-1612). One historian said Smyth stands at the fountain-head of consecutive Baptist history; another called him a Baptist Path- finder.¹⁸ A contemporary described Smyth as one of the grandees of the separation from the church of England.¹⁹ A capable theologian and writer, Smyth's main claim to remembrance is that he founded the first identifiable Baptist church of modern times, in Holland, about 1609.

Apparently Smyth entered Christ's College, Cambridge University, in 1586 to prepare for the ministry. After graduation in 1590 he was invited to remain as a fellow at Christ's College and served for a time as a teacher there. He was ordained an Anglican priest by the Bishop of London in 1594. Smyth was greatly influenced by a teacher at Cambridge, Francis Johnson, who later led a Separatist congregation. One historian described Smyth during this early period as a fair specimen of a moderate Puritan, still accepting set forms of prayer, vocal and instrumental music in the church, and some degree of government regulation of religion.²⁰ This era of moderate Puritanism was shortlived, for Smyth was soon in trouble for his sharp criticism of the state church. One record shows he was in the Clink, a well-known English prison, for a time for his refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England.²¹

Not a man to compromise, Smyth often used strong language in his criticisms. He considered many Anglican priests as too papist (i.e., too much like Catholicism); infant baptism he equated with spiritual adultery; and he was known to rebuke prominent sinners by name from the pulpit. One historian called Smyth too downright and absolute, yet admitted that he was an engaging and forceful personality.²² Probably many would have agreed with one of Smyth's contemporaries who called him a learned man, and of good ability, but of an unsettled head.²³ Smyth was never to escape this charge of being changeable. He progressed through the stages of being an Anglican, Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, and, eventually, tried to join the Mennonites. Before his death, he developed a distinctly ecumenical outlook, seeking to avoid all denominational controversy. After his death, most of Smyth's immediate followers merged into the Mennonite Church. His defense against the charge of being changeable was that he always changed for the better.

From 1600 to 1602, Smyth served as city lecturer for the town of Lincoln, in which position he received a handsome salary plus leave to keep three kine on the commons.²⁴ In this position, Smyth was excused from such pastoral functions as baptizing infants, a practice he had by then rejected. Smyth was dismissed from this position in 1602; he had publicly rebuked the sins of prominent leaders. We have no detailed knowledge of Smyth's activities between 1602 and 1606, but we know that he was moving toward Separatism. His two major writings during this time, The Bright Morning Starre (1603) and A Paterne of True Prayer (1605), continued his criticisms of the state church and called for greater scriptural purity. During this time, Smyth also became a practicing physician, but this required only a few weeks of specific study.

The Gainsborough Church

By 1606 Smyth lived in Gainsborough, in the Midlands. The parish church there had an absentee pastor who, in Smyth's opinion, did not tend the flock well. Sometimes when the church met and the pastor was absent Smyth would preach. When church authorities heard this, they forbade him to preach further. This was apparently the final straw; soon thereafter Smyth broke completely with the Church of England. He became associated with a group of Separatists who met in Gainsborough and was soon accepted as a minister among them. Other leaders in this group included John Robinson, William Brewster, and William Bradford, some of whom later came to attention among the Pilgrim Fathers who came to America on the Mayflower. Another leader was the well-to-do layman, Thomas Helwys.

Persecution was a constant threat for such Separatists, for King James I had threatened to harrie them out of the land unless they conformed to the state church. When the group became so large and visible as to be dangerous, they agreed to meet henceforth in two groups. The Robinson-Brewster-Bradford group separated from the Smyth-Helwys group, not from any doctrinal disagreement but for convenience and greater safety. Both groups migrated to Holland as religious refugees about the same time, but there their paths diverged. The Smyth-Helwys group adopted believer's baptism and became Baptists; the other group in 1620 took passage on the Mayflower to ye wilderness, as America was then called, and became the nucleus of the Congregational Church in New England. Before they left England, Smyth drew up a covenant, which Bradford paraphrased as follows:

They shooke of this yoake of antichristian bondage, and as ye Lords free people, joyned them selves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in ye fellowship of ye gospell, to walke in all his wayes, made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavours, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.²⁵

When Smyth and Helwys led their little band to Amsterdam in 1607, they were not yet Baptists. Their motive for migration was to escape persecution. Apparently Helwys was a leader, for one record says that if Smyth brought oares, Helwys brought sayles. Helwys came from a landed family and was educated at Gray's Inn, London. If Smyth was the more dynamic and creative, Helwys made his contribution in clarity of thought and stability of action.

At first the Smyth group formed simply one more church of English refugees, of whom Amsterdam had many. They took lodging and employment in the old East India Bakehouse, then owned by the Mennonite merchant Jan Munter, located near the Amstel in the present Rembrandtsplein section of the city. They earned a living baking a kind of hardtack biscuit to supply the numerous ships using the Amsterdam harbor. The Smyth group was, at first, in fellowship with the Ancient Church. However, Smyth soon developed significant disagreements with Johnson and published these in a book titled The Differences of the Churches of the Separation (1608). The main differences centered around the areas of worship liturgy, the role and duties of ministers, and means for financial support of the churches.²⁶

Smyth insisted that true worship must come from the hart, and thus reading out of a booke in time of worship is no part of spirituall worship, but rather the invention of the man of synne. Smyth felt that spiritual worship would be compromised by use of any written helps; he would allow no booke before the eye in time of worship.²⁷ Prayer, singing of psalms, and preaching had to be entirely spontaneous. Perhaps Smyth was reacting against the Prayer Book of the Church of England, from which some ministers merely read the prayers. To Smyth, such prescribed forms robbed the Holy Spirit of His immediate leadership. Smyth went so far in this demand for complete spontaneity that he would not allow reading from the Bible during worship, since he regarded English translations of Scripture as something less than the direct word of God.

A second area of disagreement involved the ministry. While the Ancient Church, following the teachings of Calvin, acknowledged a triformed Presbyterie, consisting of pastors, teachers, and rulers, Smyth preferred a uniform ministry, in which all ministers had essentially the same function. Deacons served as lay officers, thus providing a twofold church leadership.

Smyth also differed from Johnson on church finances, insisting that in contributing to the Church Treasurie their ought to bee...a seperation from them that are without.²⁸ This was more than fussiness on Smyth's part. He regarded giving as a part of worship, and nonbelievers were no more qualified to participate than they would in prayer or the Lord's Supper.

Smyth was moving beyond the mere Separatism of the Ancient Church. The Johnson group rejected the Church of England, regarding its every spiritual act as a nullity, yet they did not renew the baptism of those who left that church. Smyth later argued that Johnson and similar Separatists must logically either return to the Church of England or go forward to the new ground of restoring baptism.

Developing Baptist Views

When Smyth and Helwys and their little band left England in 1607, they formed their church on the basis of an Old Testament covenant, argued for some degree of government control of religion, and made no provision for believer's baptism. Within two years they had changed on all these points, and Smyth had founded a church based on the baptism of professed believers.

Smyth startled friend and foe alike when he decided in 1609 that baptism should be applied to believers only and that this voluntary confession/ baptism should form the basis of the church. While much discussion, then and now, centered around his baptism, perhaps Smyth's most basic concern was not for baptism, but for a pure church. Such a church must include only true Christians; therefore, baptism must be applied only to professed believers.

Smyth persuaded his followers to disband and reconstitute their church on the basis of believer's baptism. One writer said, They dissolved their Church...& Mr. Smyth being the Pastor thereof, gave over his office, as did also the Deacons, and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptism, and taking upon them another.²⁹ John Robinson, who had been associated with Smyth in England, said that M. Smyth, Mr. Heluisse, and the rest, having utterly dissolved and disclaimed their former church state and ministry, came together to erect a new church by baptism.³⁰

However, this presented a problem, for none of them, in Smyth's view, had true baptism. He had discovered two fatal flaws in their earlier baptism: it was performed upon infants, and it was authorized by a false church, the Church of England. Instead of seeking baptism from some other group, such as the Mennonites, Smyth took the novel approach of baptizing himself. He then baptized Helwys and about forty others. Some have tried to dispute this se-baptism (self-baptism). Ivimey dismissed it as this silly charge and claimed it was fabricated by his enemies.³¹ Others deny Smyth's se-baptism more from theological than from historical grounds; they fear that, unless his baptism had proper historical succession, it would not be valid.

However, we have the clear testimony of Smyth himself, plus contemporary evidence, that he did indeed perform baptism upon himself. This se-baptism was often discussed during Smyth's lifetime; apparently, no one thought to question or deny it until almost a century later. John Robinson, who was on the scene, said, Mr. Smyth baptized first him self, and next Mr. Helwisse. The scholarly Henry Ainsworth, teacher of the Ancient Church with which Smyth had formerly been in fellowship, said simply, Mr. Sm. anabaptized himself and anabaptized others.³² Richard Clyfton, stern opponent of Smyth, wrote at length on Smyth's se-baptism. And Richard Bernard in his Plain Evidences complained of Smyth that hee is Anabaptisticall, for rebaptization; and he is a Se-baptist, because hee did baptize himselfe.³³

If this were not enough, we have Smyth's own admission that he baptized himself, along with a spirited defense of that action. He said, Now for baptising a mans self ther is good warrant, thus individual Christians may in unusual circumstances put baptisme vppon themselves, and so each of them vnbaptized hath powre to assume baptisme for himself.³⁴ In The Last Book of John Smyth, the author was still defending his se-baptism. He wrote that Christians are under no obligation to seek baptism from neighboring churches, but may being as yet vnbaptized baptize themselves (as we did) and proceed to build churches of themselves.³⁵

Why did not Smyth, becoming convinced of believer's baptism, request it from the Mennonites who then practiced it? Several people during his lifetime asked that question. Perhaps the language barrier prevented them from knowing much about the Mennonites at that early time. Smyth implied as much when he said, Seeing ther was no church to whome wee could Joyne with a Good conscience to haue baptism from them, therfor wee might baptize our selues.³⁶ Apparently it was somewhat later that Smyth became acquainted enough with the Mennonites to recognize theirs as a true baptism.

The method of Smyth's baptism was almost certainly by affusion or pouring; immersion did not become customary among General Baptists for another generation. One observer reported There was some straining of courtesy who should begin, with Smyth yielding to Helwys, but Helwys insisting that Smyth go first. There is little evidence that anyone, including Mennonites, practiced immersion this early. Ainsworth said Smyth cast water on himself. Lubbert Gerrits, a Mennonite, said his group investigated Smyth's baptism as to its foundation and form and concluded, We have not found that there was any difference at all, neither in the one nor the other thing, between them and us.³⁷ This confirms that Smyth's baptism was by affusion or pouring, since that was the form then used by the Gerrits group.

Break with Helwys

Very soon, probably within months, Smyth came to regret his se-baptism as hasty and disorderly. Perhaps he had come to regard the Mennonites as a true church from whom they might have had baptism in orderly succession. After discussion and exchange of confessions, Smyth once again changed his religious convictions and practices. He asked the church to repudiate their baptism, as he repudiated his se-baptism and membership.

Smyth had apparently come to believe that the Church & Ministerie must come by succession, that is, that true baptism could only be had from someone who possessed it.³⁸ Most of the church followed Smyth along this new twist in the road. They unchurched themselves, reported that they confess this their error, and repent of the same, viz.: that they undertook to baptize themselves contrary to the order laid down by Christ.³⁹

However, a number of the church refused to go along with these changes. Satisfied with their baptism and reluctant to join the Mennonites, Helwys and a small band excluded Smyth and over twenty of his followers. They did so with regret and with many affirmations of love and respect. Yet they sensed clearly, as Smyth apparently did not, that despite similarities on baptism they had more fundamental differences with the Mennonites. Helwys urged the Mennonites to use caution concerning Smyth's application. Apparently they did, for Smyth was not received during his lifetime. After a time of severe illness from consumption, Smyth died on August 20, 1612, ending his days without membership in any organized church. After his death, the remnant of his followers were received into Mennonite fellowship on January 21, 1615, and thus disappear from history as a separate group. Smyth recovered believer's baptism, but it was the Helwys group that continued the Baptist beginnings.

Helwys's Return to England

In 1611 Helwys led his small group back to England where they established their church in Spitalfield, a section of London. Historians consider this the first Baptist church on English soil. Helwys came to believe it wrong for Christians to flee their native land because of religious persecution; for if everyone did so, true religions could be utterly driven out. The fact that his wife Joan and their children were still in England, and apparently enduring some degree of religious persecution, may also have influenced his views.

We know something of the beliefs and practices of the Helwys group from the Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam drawn up in 1611. This confession confirms that the Helwys group continued to adhere to the Baptist principles earlier announced and then abandoned by Smyth.⁴⁰ They applied baptism to believers only, although not yet by immersion. They had departed from the Calvinism of their earlier Separate experience, making room for free will and even falling from grace. They allowed each church to elect its own officers, including preaching elders, and both men and women deacons. Perhaps under the influence of Dutch Mennonites, they embraced a semiconnectional view of the church.

Soon after their return to England, Helwys published his famous work, A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity (1612). This polemical attack upon the Church of England, and its defense of religious liberty for all, soon got Helwys into trouble. He apparently attempted to-present a copy to King James and, failing that, wrote the king a personal note on the flyleaf and sent the book to him. Perhaps the king was offended by the bluntness of Helwys's appeal for religious liberty; at any rate, Helwys was soon in Newgate Prison, where apparently he died in 1616.

Upon Helwys's imprisonment, leadership fell to John Murton (or Morton), a furrier by trade. A native of Gainsborough, Murton made the trek to Amsterdam with Smyth, became a Baptist there, and sided with Helwys in the split from Smyth. He also suffered for his faith, spending some years in prison where apparently he died in 1626. From prison he authored two significant treatises on religious liberty. His wife Jane later returned to Amsterdam and joined the Mennonites without further baptism.⁴¹ By 1624 we know of at least five General Baptist churches in England. Growth was rapid, and by 1650 at least forty-seven such churches were known.

The Rise of Particular Baptists

One often hears that early Baptists in England divided over the doctrine of atonement, but that is misleading. They did differ sharply on that doctrine, the General Baptists holding to a general atonement, that Christ died for all; the Particular Baptists holding to a particular atonement, that Christ died only for the elect. They also differed at other points, including ecclesiology, eternal security, and relation to government. However, these two groups did not divide; instead, they had quite different origins, at different times and places, and with different leaders. The Particular group, emerging about a generation later, represent not just more Baptists, but Baptists of a significantly different kind.

Both groups of English Baptists emerged out of reforming Separatism but there the similarity diminishes. Whereas the Separatism of Smyth and Helwys was rigid, the Particular group emerged from more moderate semiSeparatist congregations. Smyth required total separation from the Church of England, which he had come to regard as Antichrist. By contrast, the semi-Separatists who later became Particular Baptists accepted the Church of England as in some sense a true church, despite its many problems and imperfections. Their relation to the Church of England, and their reasons for adopting believer's baptism, look quite different from those of the General Baptists.⁴² In time, however, the Particular Baptists assumed a more sectarian stance.

Importance of Particular Baptists

Historians have tended to give more space to John Smyth and the General Baptists than to Richard Blunt or William Kiffin and the origin of the Particular Baptists. Here Underwood is fairly typical.⁴³ In A History of the English Baptists, he gave twenty-eight pages to the early history of General Baptists and barely six pages to the Particular Baptists. This historical imbalance must be corrected. Though Particular Baptists started later and grew more slowly at first, modern Baptists draw more of their beliefs and practices from them.

Such a careful historian as Norman H. Maring has said that General Baptists

always represented a small part of Baptist life in England, and an even smaller part in America. Their influence upon the main currents of Baptist life in either country appears to have been slight. Indeed, if one were to concede their connection with Anabaptists, this conclusion would have little bearing upon an understanding of the mainstream of Baptist life and thought.⁴⁴

Glen Stassen also emphasized radical discontinuity between the General and Particular Baptist witness. He said that although Baptists had their origin in England in 1611, they had a second and independent origin in 1638-41. And it is this second, independent origin which is our primary interest.⁴⁵ Stassen called for a radical reorientation of Baptist studies, to focus upon the Particular rather than the General Baptist heritage.

We must not, however, in correcting one imbalance create another. One can acknowledge that Particular Baptists