committed to historic Baptist & Reformed beliefs












Whereas secessionist historians have always identified Baptists with Anabaptists--either Continental(1) or English(2)--English Separatist descent historians have consistently denied any organic connection. They have contended, to the contrary, that Baptists originated from certain seventeenth century English Separatists who were congregational in polity. They were the natural product of the Bible study and teaching of the Reformation. (3) Following the pattern set by the first English Baptist historian,.Thomas Crosby, English Separatist descent historians have begun their story of Baptist origins with John Smyth and John Spilsbury, the firs t leaders of the General and Particular Baptists respectively. Smyth's se~baptism (apparently by affusion) and. Spilsbury's revival of believer's baptism by single immersion have been cited to preclude any possibility of organic connection between Baptists and Anabaptists. This chapter presents successively the English Separatist descent historians' interpretation of John Smyth and the origin of General Baptists, John Spilsbury and the origin of Particular Baptists, the revival of believer's baptism by single immersion, and Baptist churches in England and America with possibly earlier origins.


John Smyth and the General Baptists

In 1609 or 1610 an English Anabaptist church was organized in Holland and later evolved into an Arminian Baptist movement in England, subsequently denominated General Baptist churches. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, certain English Separatists--Henry Ainsworth, Francis Johnson, Richard Clifton, and their followers--settled in Amsterdam, seeking refuge from their English persecutors. John Smyth and a party of about forty adults followed from Lincolnshire for the same purpose, probably in 1606. Shortly after arriving in Amsterdam, Smyth made acquaintance with the Waterlander Mennonites and engaged in controversy with Ainsworth and company. According to Whitsitt, "the Mennonites, who opposed infant baptism, persuaded Smyth [sic] that he had never been baptized.''(4) Apparently all of Smyth's party came to hold this conviction; therefore, probably in October, 1608,

Smyth took the lead, and, after performing the ceremony of his own case, proceeded to baptize the others. The mode of this baptism, lt is believed, was by sprinkling, since that had now become the general mode in England, and the Brownists do not appear to have used any other. Certainly there was no other mode among the Mennonites, and sprinkling had by this time become almost universal in every section of Holland and Germany.(5)

Smyth's se-baptism did not please the Mennonites, however. They asserted that, since he had no valid succession of baptism or ordination, he had no authority to baptize himself or others. In January or February, 1609, Smyth, thoroughly convinced, accordingly sought admission to the Mennonite church which he believed had a true succession of baptisms and ordinations from the time of Christ. Finally, in 1615, three years subsequent to Smyth's death (1612), his followers were admitted into church membership by the Mennonites. Not all of his church, however, were willing to unite with the Mennonite church, for some claimed succession to be a mark of the beast. They believed their new baptism to be biblically valid. Their leaders were Thomas Helwys, William Piggott, Thomas Seamer, and John Murton. In less than a year this party organized a separate church of about ten members. Shortly thereafter this little church returned to London and established itself at Newgate.(6) "This was the first Baptist church on English soil for whose origin there is historical proof. "(7) By 1626 four additional churches had been organized in Lincoln, Sarum, Coventry, and Tiverton, having approximately 150 members.(8) During the next eighteen years (1626-1644) the number of congregations increased to forty.(9) Helwys' followers, having refused to become Mennonites, accepted Arminian tenets and subsequently became known as General Baptists because of their belief in a general atonement. Regarding church officers, however, they modified the Brownist practice and adopted the Mennonite use of elders and deacons.(10)

During the controversy between Helwys and Smyth, four confessions of faith were written---two by each. In analyzing their statements referring to baptism, one should first remember that the Mennonites with whom Smyth sought affiliation were not immersionists(11) and secondly "that the baptism of Smyth and his followers was the same as that of the Mennonites, namely, sprinkling or pouring."(12) The following statement of the Mennonite ministers who examined Smyth's congregation substantiates this affirmation:

Therefore first of all we ministers have according to the desire of our brethren, summoned these English before us, and again most perfectly examined them as regards the doctrine of salvation and the government of the church, and also inquired for the foundation and form of their baptism, and we have not found that there was any difference at all neither in the one nor the other thing.(13)

'Thirdly, one should remember that no immersion was practiced anywhere in Holland until 1620, at Rhynsburg. (14)

Smyth' s first confession said that "Baptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and therefore does not belong to infants."(15) Helwys' first confession stated similarly that "Baptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying, and renovation of life, and therefore does not pertain to infant s."(16) In Helwys' second confession, the statement was made "that baptism, or washing with water, is the outward manifestation of dying unto sin and walking in newness of life; and therefore in no wise appertaineth to infants."(17) Two statements were devoted to the subject in Smyth's second confession:

That the outward baptism of water is to be administered only upon such penitent and faithful persons as are (aforesaid), and not upon innocent or wicked persons . . . . That in baptism. to the penitent person and believer there is presented and figured, the spiritual baptism of Christ (that is) the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire; the baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ; even the promise of the Spirit which he shall assuredly be made partaker of, if he continue to the end.(18)

In analyzing these confessions, Whitsitt has said:

    None of these confessions prescribes immersion. When there form of administering the ordinance was once restored there was no difficulty in making it known by words like dip and plunge and immerse. These words do not occur here for the reason that no such custom was then contemplated.(19)

The last two statements by Smyth might possibly be interpreted in favor of immersion. If, however, Smyth had declared himself to be in favor of that rite, would he have expected to be received into the Mennonite church? After Smyth's death in 1612, his followers were on January 21, 1615, accepted into the Mennonite church, "without repeating the baptism, which they had previously received, it having been declared to be identical with that of the Mennonites."(20)

Since there was no difference between Helwys' group and the Mennonites as to the mode of baptism, one must look elsewhere for differences between them. According to de Hoop Scheffer, English General Baptist churches had close association wit the Dutch Mennonites until 1641 when Richard Blunt went to Rhynsburg and received immersion from John Batten. "By that act, the bond of fellowship with the Netherland Mennonites was first broken off, because from that moment forward the Mennonites were regarded as unbaptized people."(21)

Lofton has given the following summary of Smyth's theological development:

    1. Smyth held that, at his time, the world was in the depths of Antichristianism; that the visible church, with its ministry and ordinances, was lost; and that the spiritual or invisible church was still in the wilderness, without order, office, or ordinance.

    2. Neither in the Churches of Rome, England, nor among the Separatists or Anabaptists could New Testament order, orthodoxy or purity be found.

    3. By the dissolution of his Pedobaptist organization and by a self-originated baptism he and his followers as true believers, recovered the visible church, its ministry and ordinances, according to the commission of the Scriptures.

    4. He afterwards became infected with the doctrinal heresies of the Mennonites; and while he did not recant his doctrine that succession had been lost, he adopted the view that among the Mennonites true baptism and church order already existed.

    5. Helwys, Morton and the rest of their church retained and made permanent Smyth's original position as to the truth of Baptist position and history.(22)

The above interpretation and facts are contrary to a successionist theory of organic connection between Baptists and Anabaptists because of the following logical conclusions: (1) Since they originated their own baptism, English General Baptists which sprang from Helwys' church could not have had organic succession with Anabaptists. They were connected neither by baptism nor ordination with either Continental or English Anabaptists. Further, the fact of their baptism in Holland shows that they had not received believer's baptism in England. (2) Smyth's later desire to join the Mennonites did not affect in any way the lack of organic continuity between Helwys and the Anabaptists, (3) Any historical continuity between Baptists and Anabaptists must be found with Baptists other than the General Baptists who originated from John Smyth. (4) Even if organic continuity could be proved, the successionist interpretation would not suffice since the Mennonite baptism was by affusion.


John Spilsbury and the Particular Baptists

Particular Baptists are not part of any succession of Baptist churches reaching back to the Apostles, "for the origin of the Particular Baptist Denomination must be dated . . . some time after 1633, and not later than 1638."(23) With this denial, all English Separatist descent historians have agreed. Torbet has written:

Particular Baptists had no connection with continental Anabaptists. Instead, they represented a further step in the movement of English Independency (Congregationalism) towards its logical conclusion in believer's baptism. The origin of Particular Baptist churches in England may be dated from about 1638. Their antecedents us to be found In a non-Separatist or Independent congregation which had been organized in 1616 at Southwark, London, by Henry Jacob, who had emerged from Puritanism after six years as a refugee in Leyden under the influence of John Robinson.(24)

Information concerning the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey church at Southwark(25) is contained in two chief sources, the Stinton Papers or Repository, containing the Jessey Records and so-called Kiffin manuscript,(26) and the "King's Pamphlets."(27) "The genuineness of these papers [Stinton Repository], which has been much questioned, cannot, after the inquiries of Lofton and Burrage, be seriously open to doubt."(28) This Southwark church has often been called "the Mother Church of the Independents," although it eventually became a Baptist church in 1645. Five or six churches which evolved from it became Baptist. The separations arose chiefly from differences on the question of baptism:

The baptismal controversy passed through three distinct and successive stages, which must be noted with the utmost care. The first question was as to the administrator, or, who should baptize; the second, as to the subject, who should be baptized; the third, as to the mode, or, how should baptism be administered.(29)

The following summary indicates briefly what the Stinton Repository relates. In 1616 Henry Jacob organized at Southwark the oldest Independent church in England and served as pastor until 1622. He thereupon resigned and traveled to Virginia where he died in 1624. John Lathrop succeeded Jacob as pastor in 1625, but he was imprisoned in 1632. After his release, he and thirty members fled to New England. Two ministers, Praise-God Barebone and Henry Jessey, stayed behind with the majority of the congregation. In 1637 Jessey succeeded Lathrop as pastor. Having accepted believer's baptism, he was eventually baptized by Hanserd Knollys.

According to Shakespeare, in 1633, during Lathrop's pastorate, certain members became convinced that baptism by Anglican clergymen was invalid and accordingly were dismissed to form a separate church, Samuel Eaton joined them and was rebaptized along with others. In 1638,

the second stage of the baptismal controversy was reached, A further dismissal took place from the Jacob Church of some who, rejecting infant baptism, joined with Mr. Spilsbury, and were "of the same judgment with Samuel Eaton."(30)

In 1638, therefore, there were either (1) two Calvinistic Baptist churches in London, one under John Spilsbury and one under Samuel Eaten, or (2) one Calvinistic Baptist church under Spilsbury, having Eaton, and others as members. The third stage in the controversy was reached in January, 1642, when the people with Spilsbury and Eaton became immersionists. Some were thus baptized for the third time.(31) In order to clarify their theological stand, fifteen ministers, representing seven London Calvinistic Baptist churches, signed a confession of faith in 16441 the first London Confession. Incorporated in the document were articles which prescribed believer's baptism by single immersion. Thus, for the first time in modern English church history, a group of churches made this stipulation, Spilsbury and Knollys were among the signers.(32) On the basis of these developments, Calvinistic Baptists must look to English Separatism for their origin, rather than to either Continental or English Anabaptism. The following conclusions, therefore, seem to be evident: (1) Particular Baptists were English Separatists before they advocated believer's baptism. (2) They baptized by affusion before they adopted the practice of immersion. (3) A three step process led to their formation: (a) denial of Anglican baptism, (b) denial of infant baptism, (c) denial of effusion or sprinkling. (4) Such developments, thus, preclude any Particular Baptist succession from Apostolic days.


The Revival of immersion

The conviction in the 1640's that immersion was the only scriptural mode of baptism resulted in controversy and embarrassment when the wisest course of procedure was contemplated. Spilsbury and apparently most of his church members did not believe immersion to be essential to the administrator of immersion, for neither John the Baptist nor the twelve apostles had been baptized before they began baptizing others. Others, however,

were discontented, and insisted upon obtaining succession. Some of these were members of Mr. Spillsbury's [sic] flock, but it is supposed that the majority still belonged to the Independent Church from which Spillsbury's church had separated.(33)

Not being aware of any succession of believer's immersion in England, the successionist advocates, therefore, sent Richard Blunt, adept in the Dutch language, to Rhynsburg, Holland, to consult with a group of Dutch Anabaptists (the Collegiants) who had been practicing believer's immersion since 1620. John Batten, the pastor, apparently baptized Blunt, who subsequently baptized the rest of his company. "Thus the people now known as Particular Baptists became divided into two separate tendencies; the followers of Spillsbury laid no stress upon succession, his opponents regarded it as indispensable." (34)

The English Arminian Baptists accepted this change of mode almost immediately and took active part in the ensuing controversy with the pedobaptists and affusionists. They ultimately became known as English General Baptists.(35)

A revival of immersion with its source among the Collegiants may indicate a succession of Particular Baptists from Dutch Anabaptists. Several English Separatist descent historians are of the opinion that John Batten baptized Blunt.(36) Torbet, however, has said that the records my be interpreted as stating that Blunt baptized [Samuel ?] Blacklock, and that he in turn baptized Blunt.(37) Lofton has followed Crosby in saying, however, that the greater number of Baptists followed Spilsbury in maintaining that Blunt's trip was unnecessary.(38) Lofton said also that the Blunt church dissolved: "In what year, prior to 1646, this Blunt Church broke up is not stated, nor is its location given; . . . [but] it became extinct before 1646, and the regular baptism theory based upon sending to Holland for a proper administrator died among the English Baptists."(39) As to the whole successionist movement, Lofton has written:

This regular movement of Blunt seems to have been lost sight of in the great anti-succession movement of the great body of the English Baptists. . . .  It is evident, at least, that very few, if any, of General or Particular, ever adopted the Blunt method, or took their baptism from him or his people, in the restoration of immersion as elaborately detailed by Crosby, who declares that "the largest number and the more judicious of the English Baptists" repudiated this method and adopted the anti-succession or irregular method of restoration.(40)

The assertion of a revival of immersion, which is the crucial premise of the Separatist descent theory, has been attacked by successionist historians. Chief point of attack has been at the primary documentary source of information, the Stinton Repository. George A. Lofton(41) and Champlin Burrage(42) have done the most work in the area of defending this source. Other evidence has been offered, however, to corroborate these records(43). For a long period of time, immersion apparently had not been practiced in the Church of England prior to the 1640's.(44) Continental Anabaptists had migrated to England from Holland in the sixteenth century. It was unknown to them also, for the Dutch Mennonites administered affusion.(45) John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton used the same form as the Mennonites.(46) Whitsitt noted several "monuments" pointing to the change from sprinkling to immersion in the 1640's. Some were as follows: (1) The Fortieth Article of the London Confession (1644) marked the first time that an English Confession of Faith prescribed "dipping or plunging the body under the water" to believers:

That the way and manner or the dispensing of this ordinance is dipping or plunging the body under water; it being a sign must answer the things signified, which is that interest the saints have in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and that as certainly as the body is buried under water and risen again; so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of resurrection to reign with Christ.(47)

(2) Since the following instructions from this confession are not now included in Baptist articles of faith, "they must have been necessary on this occasion" because of the novelty of the act: "The word baptize signifies to dip or plunge (yet so as convenient garments be both upon the administrator and subject with all modest).(48) (3) The name "Baptist" first came into use shortly after 1641. In the years 1644, 1646, and 1654 are apparently the first times that the word "Baptist" appeared in print.(49) (4) The baptismal controversy which began shortly after 1641 agrees with the Stinton Repository. Before then there had been small occasion for baptismal controversy because Christendom had moved almost together to affusion or sprinkling.(50) Before 1641, indeed, no English books have been cited heretofore which were written for the express purpose of proving that

immersion alone is baptism. . . . Nobody wrote in favor of immersion as the exclusive act of baptism prior to 1641, for the reason that nobody in England at that period practiced immersion alone for baptism.(51)

(5) Before the 1640's no instances can be found where churches were divided on the issue of immersion. Even after 1640, some churches remained "open" Baptist churches, having both immersed and unimmersed members, The separation in relations between the followers of Murton and Helwys and the Mennonites after 1641 is also an example of division.(52) (6) The alarm that was felt in England shortly after 1641 regarding the effect of immersion upon the health of the people submitting to it indicates similarly the novelty of the act.(53) (7) The coining of the word "rhantize" during this period and its early usage in English exclusively was apparently necessary when sprinkling was first begun to be denied as scriptural baptism. Just what sprinkling might be, since it was not baptism, needed to be asserted.(54)

(8) Prior to 1641 not one case of adult immersion has been indicated among anti-pedobaptists--especially between 1611 and 1641.(55) (9) Every Baptist church in England in 1640-1641, as well as every Baptist preacher and Baptist member, originated from the Puritans or other pedobaptists as the records now stand. (10) In 1644 apparently the first jail sentence for the practice of immersion in England took place in the county or Suffolk; Laurence Clarkson was judged guilty of the specific offense of teaching and practicing immersion as baptism.

The foregoing evidence indicates, therefore, that English Baptists restored the ancient practice of believer's immersion in the 1640's. This restoration argues against a view of organic identification of Baptists with Anabaptists even if the Collegiants baptized Blunt; for (1) the greater number of Baptists thought such succession was unnecessary, and (2) ultimately both successionist and anti-successionist parties merged. Essential theological differences discussed in the next chapter substantiate even more the disparity of the two movements.


Baptist Origins not to be

Sought Elsewhere

At least ten Baptist churches in England have traditions which place their origins earlier than either Smyth's or Spilsbury's churches. Included in this number are: Hill Cliffe, Eythorne, Bocking, Canterbury, and the old French churches in London and Spitalfield. Such tradition, however, has not since been corroborated by seventeenth century Baptist writers. Since some of these writers lived in the same communities and preached at some of these churches, one would expect that they would have been aware of such traditions and would have made some mention of them in their baptismal controversies with pedobaptists.(56) Heretofore, moreover, no documentary evidence for such antiquity has been produced. Evidence is not to be found in title-deeds to land, for few extend back much over two hundred years, There is, however, some archeological evidence indicating that one or two of the sites were used for religious services or as burial-places before the seventeenth century. Vedder concluded:

The gap between these slender premises of fact and the conclusions sought to be drawn from them is so wide that only the most robust faith could span it. One who is capable of believing in the great antiquity of English Baptist churches on evidence so slender is quite capable of believing on no evidence at all--which is the quickest and safest way.(57)

Lofton asserted that "historically no Baptist church in England can be traced beyond 1611-1633" even if it is possible that earlier Lollard or Anabaptist elements remained in these communities.(58) Admitting the possibility of Lollard or Anabaptist conventicles forming the bases for these traditions, he, nevertheless, maintained that "even if you could trace the origin and continuance of such churches back to the antiquity claimed for their beginning, there is nothing in the facts of subsequent history to prove their continuance in the practice of immersion, which is also claimed for them without any proof whatever."(59) These churches therefore, were probably not Baptist originally, although they became Baptist in the 1640's.

No definite account of the origin of immersion among General Baptists has been discovered, "but we have no sufficient grounds for supposing that they anticipated their Calvinistic brethren."(60) A 1614 tract by Leonard Busher, Religion's Peace, might possibly suggest otherwise since it says: "And such as shall willingly and gladly receive it [the gospel] he hath commanded to be baptized in the water; that is, dipped for dead in the water."(61) Since Busher may have had some connection with Helwys' congregation at Amsterdam, his statement about baptism demands critical attention. No one has been able to date to determine whether or not Busher's tract was first published in England or Holland, or whether or not Busher ever returned to England from Holland. He was reported to have been in Amsterdam In 1611.(62) Internal evidence implies that the tract was written and published in Holland, "but we cannot connect him more closely than this with the Baptists in England."(63) The only definite conclusions that can be established about Busher is that, if he had practiced immersion at Amsterdam in 1611, much more would have been brought to light by now; therefore, "the most that can be safely claimed for Mr. Busher is that he was an advance herald of genuine Baptist principles in Holland, that were shortly to be reduced to practice in England."(64)

An examination of Baptist beginnings in America is helpful in finishing the account of the origin of Baptists.(65) Roger Williams established a community of Providence in 1636, having been driven from Massachusetts Bay Colony. In March, 1639, Williams and eleven others submitted to rebaptism because they had become convinced of the error of infant baptism.(66) Whitsitt related that "Ezekiel Holliman baptized Williams, and then Williams baptized the rest of the company, and so they became an Anabaptist church."(67) Since there is no reason to believe that Williams antedated the English Baptists in restoring immersion, the ceremony was probably performed by sprinkling(68) Another refugee from Massachusetts Bay was John Clarke, who fled to Newport in 1638. A minister himself, it is likely that he and his church at Newport approved the change that Williams made in 1639, for Governor Winthrop accused Clarke and several of his associates of being Anabaptists in 1640. (69) "Possibly they were rebaptized by Williams or some of the men from Providence."(70) The possibility is that Mark Lucar, who had been a member of Blunt's church in 1641, came with Williams to the colony when he returned from England with a charter for the colony in 1644. In that year the church at Newport was reorganized, and Lucar was one of the leading members. This probably signifies "that they then received immersion at the hands of Lucar, and became for the first time a regular Baptist church in the sense now accepted."(71) In all probability, the Providence church soon received immersion also. The connection between English and American Baptists is thus complete:

Mr. Lucar, who is understood to be the founder of believers' immersion in America, brought with him the ideas of succession that were so much valued in England, and many American Baptists have become committed to them. The relations between the Independents and the Baptists in America were very different from those that prevailed in England; by consequence there has never been anything like mixed churches here, and the tendency toward open communion has been very slight.(72)

American Baptists, then, have an origin going back to the first Particular Baptists at Southwark and do not have my organic connection or identification with Continental or English Anabaptists.




On the basis of the foregoing facts, Lofton reached the following conclusions which establish that Baptists have no organic connection or identification with Continental or English Anabaptists:(73)


    1. They claim to have been separatists from the Puritans, and there were no original Baptist churches, ministers or people, apart from separation, down to 1641 and later, known to history.

    2. They admit that they originated their baptism and erected their churches anew, at the hands of unbaptized administrators.

    3. They claimed to assume this prerogative under "discovery" from God and according to the Scriptures as authority for restoring Gospel order which they declared was "lost" in the apostasy."

    4. They adopted immersion, 1640-41, some thirty gears after their separation and organization began.

    5. They deny organic, baptismal or ministerial connection with prior Anabaptists; and while they all admit their origin by unbaptized administrators, they generally held that when the ordinance was restored, the necessity for restoration ceased, and that its administration should be regular, or go on in an "orderly way."

    6. The 1260 years of Antichristian reign and of the invisibility of the church were regarded by them as reaching down to their time; and they held that they had come visibly out of the Wilderness--all prior Anabaptists having failed to do more than reveal Antichrist and having sunk back under the "smoke in the temple" or into the invisibility of the spiritual church in the wilderness--having no Gospel order or baptism.

    7. They all repudiated the doctrine of visible succession as the "mark of the beast"--whether of church, ministry or baptism.

    8. They were divided as to whether the church was constituted by baptism or covenant; as to close and open communion; as to particular and general atonement; but they seemed to agree that baptism introduced the believer into the general body of Christ, and not into a particular church.

    9. In fine they claimed to have established a "Reformation" and to have had a "Beginning" of their own in England--based upon the principle of believers' baptism in 1609-1633 and upon the restored practice of immersion in 1640-41, including a newly erected church and ministry; and they claimed that their Reformation originated in Separation from the Puritans based upon a return to New Testament principles and practices which the other Reformers had not reached--not even the Puritans themselves whose reformation they commended as far as it went.



1. See Orchard, pp. 337-76.

2. See Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (4 vols.; London: Printed for the author, 1811-1830), I, 35-152.

3. See J. H. Shakespeare, p. 126.

4. Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 489. In the section on Smyth, the author has followed closely Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 489-93. For disagreement among historians as to the accurate dates in Smyth's life, see Torbet, A History of the Baptists, p. 35, n. 6.

5. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 489; Whitsitt said, A Question, p. 51, that this church was "the earliest Anabaptist church, that was composed exclusively of English people." In Agreement with Whitsitt's interpretation that Smyth baptized himself, Vedder, p. 203, concluded: "Smyth is generally called the 'Se-Baptist,' which means that he baptized himself. There can be no doubt that such was the case, since an acknowledgement of the fact still exists in his own handwriting."

6. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, pp. 35-36.

7. Ibid., p. 37.

8. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 41, citing Evans.

9. Ibid.

10. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 489.

11. Whitsitt, A Question, p. 55.

12. Ibid., p. 56.

13. Ibid., quoting Evans.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid., p. 57; citing Evans.

16. Ibid., p. 57; citing de Hoop Scheffer.

17. Ibid., p. 57, quoting Crosby.

18. Ibid., p. 57, from Barclay.

19. Ibid., p. 58.

20. Ibid., pp. 58-59.

21. Ibid., pp. 59-61; quoting de Hoop Scheffer.

22. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 40.

23. J. H. Shakespeare, p. 183. Hudson, The Encyclopedia Americana, III, 219-20, designated 1633 as the year in which the first Particular "Baptist Church was formed in London."

24. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, pp. 40-41.

25. Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey is the historical designation derived from the last names of the three Independent pastors.

26. Torbet, ibid., p. 41, n. 15, said: "The Gould manuscript, which is preserved at Regent's Park College, Oxford, contains the Jessey Memoranda (which contains the history to 1640 of the independent Puritan Congregation organized by Henry Jacob at London in 1616) and the Kiffin Manuscript (which traces the history of the first English Particular Baptist congregation, which resulted from two withdrawals from the Jacob's Church in 1633 and 1638)."

Document "Num: 1" is from Jessey's records; document "Numb: 2" is the so-called Kiffin Manuscript, See the Appendix, [ADD THE NUMBER, ETC. pp. 103-107], for extracts specifically concerned with this study.

Thomas Crosby, in writing his history, relied on materials gathered earlier by Benjamin Stinton, his brother-in-law. Some of the material had been copied by Stinton from certain papers lent to him by Richard Adams, an elderly Particular Baptist preacher. For an analysis of selected documents from these papers, see Champlin Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research (1550-1641) (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), I, 312-56; II, 292-308; and W. T. Whitley, "Benjamin Stinton and His Baptist Friends," Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society, I (1908-1909), 193-96; "Debate on infant Baptism, 1643," ibid., 237-45; "The Jacob-Jessey Church, 1616-1678," ibid., 246-56; "Records of the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Church 1616-1641," ibid., 203-25; "Rise of the Particular Baptists in London, 1633-1644," ibid., 226-36; "Stinton's Historical Researches," ibid., 197-202; "The Contents of Stinton's Repository," ibid., II, (1910-1911), 77-94.

27. These pamphlets were brought together by a bookseller, George Thomason. A relaxation of the authority of both the Church and State in England was a consequence of the

Long Parliament which assembled in 1640. Thomason saw the value of preserving the flood of publications which came pouring from the presses, and he, accordingly, began collecting as many as he could. This enterprise continued for more than twenty gears until 1662. See Whitsitt, A Question, pp. 6-7.

28. J. H. Shakespeare, p. 176.

29. Ibid., pp. 178-79.

30. J. H. Shakespeare, pp. 182-83.

31. Ibid., p. 183.

32. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, p. 43.

33. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 489-90. In this study, except in direction quotations, the spelling of proper names general follows that of Torbet, A History of the Baptists; for example, Kiffin, Murton, Knollys, Spilsbury.

34. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 490.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., A Question, pp. 88-89; Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, pp. 61, 85, following Crosby; A Review of the Question, pp. 128-30; J. H. Shakespeare, pp. 186-87; Vedder, pp. 206-208, following Crosby.

37. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, pp. 42-43, following Burrage. The source says "Mr Blacklock"; a "Sam. Blacklock" is included among those immersed; Burrage II, 303.

38. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, pp. 66-67. This interpretation favors the view that Batten baptized Blunt.

39. Ibid., p. 46.

40. Ibid., p. 67; see also p. 85.

41. Lofton, Defense of the Jessey Records and Kiffin Manuscript.

42. Burrage, I, 312-56.

43. Whitsitt, A Question, pp. 90-146.

44. Ibid., pp. 23-33; Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, pp. 72 and 249.

45. Whitsitt, A Question, pp. 34-48; Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 249.

46. Whitsitt, A Question, p. 56.

47. Ibid., p. 90; see Appendix xxxx. {change from p. 108 to name of appendix}

48. Ibid., p. 91.

49. Ibid., pp. 92-93.

50. Ibid., pp. 93-95.

51. Ibid., p. 95.

52. Ibid., pp. 95-97.

53. Ibid., pp. 97-98.

54. Ibid., pp. 98-100.

55. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, pp. 239-49. No's. 8-10 of this present series were not included in Whitsitt's list of "monuments." Lofton included some also that were listed by Whitsitt.

56. Ibid., pp. 22-23; 63-64. Lofton did not tell the names of these writers. See also Vedder, pp. 205-206; and Torbet, A History of the Baptists, p. 37, n. 9.

57. Vedder, pp. 205-206.

58. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 23.

59. Ibid.

60. Vedder, p. 208.

61. Ibid., quoted from Busher.

62. Whitsitt, A Question, pp. 67-70.

63. Vedder, p. 208; see also Whitsitt, A Question, p. 69.

64. Ibid., p. 70; see Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 90, and Vedder, pp. 208-209, for similar conclusion. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, pp. 38-39, did not give any conclusion.

65. The following account is taken chiefly from Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 491. See also, Torbet, A History of the Baptists, 202-203; A Social History of the Philadelphia Baptist Association: 1704-1940 (Philadelphia: Westbrooke Publishing Company, 1944), pp. 10-11; cited here after as Social History; Vedder, pp. 287-94; and Whitsitt, A Question, pp. 147-64.

66. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, p. 202, said "some Baptists" influenced Williams. Who these Baptists were or where they came from, he did not say.

67. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 491.

68. Vedder, p. 291, disagreed.

69. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 491. Vedder, p. 294, however, said that they were not accused of being Anabaptists.

70. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 491.

71. Ibid. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, p. 203, accepted it as Baptist only as early as 1648. IN an earlier article, "Baptist Thought About the Church, " Foundations, I (April, 1958), 22, Torbet said that "it seems he [Clarke] was already a Baptist when he came from England."

72. Whitsitt, Universal Cyclopaedia, I, 491.

73. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, pp. 525-53. The sound logic and succinctness of these statements, although lengthy, justify their inclusion.

The Reformed Reader Home Page 

Copyright 1999, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved