The Origin of Particular English Baptists
by Elder Mark W. Fenisn

The origins of the Particular Baptists are unclear. Some have contended that they developed from Continental Calvinistic congregations who migrated to England in the 1630's. Some have argued for pro-Calvinists English separatist congregations who migrated back to England. Members of John Robinson's congregation at Leyden are
often mentioned as possible sources.

Another theory is that the Particular Baptist's developed directly from dissident radical congregations in London during the 1630's. The Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey congregation in London is often cited as the mother congregation. Some of its splinter congregations may have formed the basis of the original Particular Baptist movement…….. There were early Independent congregation with baptist leanings. Among these were: Mr. Hubbard ca. 1621 at Deadman's Place (London), they left for Ireland and returned about 1630. John Canne was their pastor on their return to London ca. 1630-33. Canne left the congregation under unspecified conditions for Amsterdam, Holland about 1633. Samuel Howe (d. 1640) became their new pastor until his death.

A number of small quasi-Baptist or primitive Baptist congregations developed in London between 1630-1645. Among these early congregations were: Samuel Eaton (d.1639) from 1633-36; John Spilbury by 1638; Praise-God Barebon(e) (1596-1679) have all been cited as possible sources for the original union of London Particular Baptist congregations.

John Spilbury has often cited as the first of the Particular Baptist congregations………… This congregation may have been a possible splinter group that defected from the depleted Lathrop congregation between 1632-37 or may be a off shoot of the earlier Duppa congregation (1630). Its relationship to the Jacob-Lathrop congregation in
unclear. -- ExLibras.com

The historical origin of Particular Baptists in England has always been debated because much of the evidence to support various theories has been subject to varied interpretations of sources and questioned in regard to historical accuracy and authenticity.
However, there is hard evidence that the earliest Particular Baptist leaders deny they originated the Baptist denomination in England and deny they originated their churches from pedobaptists.

Only five years after the supposed origin of immersion and Baptists in England, Hensard Knollys in 1645 denies they were constituted from pedobaptist assemblies:

"I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them), that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministry, being driven out of the Countries where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians-R.E.P] came to sojourn in this great City, and preached from house to house, and daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ; and some of them having dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came unto them, preached the Kingdom of God, and teaching those
things which concerns the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by the preaching of the Gospel, some of them believers consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which these Preachers, both publicly and privately, propounded to the people, unto whom they
preached upon which they were to be admitted into the church was by Faith, Repentance and Baptism. And whosoever. . . .did make a profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and would be baptized with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the church; but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized, they would not admit into Church communion." - Hensard Knollys - A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance; London, 1645

Moreover, a witness of far more greater importance is that of William Kiffin who was an intimate friend of John Spilsbury. If anyone knew the origin of the Spilsbury church it was Kiffin. Here is what Kiffin says concerning the origin of Particular Baptists in
London as early as 1645:

"It is well known to many and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ BEFORE WE HEARD OF ANY REFORMATION EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN EPISCOPACY WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS VANISHING GLORY." Wm. Kiffin: A Brief Remonstrance of the Reasons of those People Called Anabaptists for their Separation; London, 1645; page 6.

Those who read this remark by Kiffin understood him to refer to the Reformation of the Church of England. Dr. John T. Christian researched this statement and found that Kiffin had been writing this to one Mr. Joseph Richart who had in turn responded to this very
statement by Kiffin. Christian says,

"Mr. Joseph Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, affirmed that he understood the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. `You allege,' he says, `your practice, that your congregations were erected and framed in the time of the Episcopacy, and before you heard of any Reformation' (Richart, A Looking Glass for Anabaptists, p,7. London, 1645)

Here were Baptists churches, according to Kiffin, before the times of Henry VIII. And this fact was well known to the Baptists. Further on Kiffin makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians." - John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Vol.
II, p. 255

In addition to these two early Particular English Baptists testimonies there is also the testimony of the very first Particular Baptist historian living at this same period. Henry D'Anvers explicitly says,

"By all which you see by plentiful Evidence, that Christ hath not been without His Witnesses in every age, not only to defend and assert the true, but to impugn, and to reject (yes, even to death itself) the false Baptism. In so much that we are not left without good testimony of a SERIES OF SUCCESSION, THAT BY GOD'S PROVIDENCE HATH EVEN KEPT AFOOT, OF THIS GREAT ORDINANCE OF BELIEVER'S BAPTISM
EVER SINCE THE FIRST TIMES." - Treatise of Baptism, 1674; pps. 321-322
And, when speaking of other historians such as John Fox and Twisk, D'Anvers makes it plain that it is Baptists that had existed in all ages when he says:

"who have especially recorded the Doctrines and Suffering of the Baptists in all ages since our Savior's time, brought down to the year 1660;...." Ibid., last page of appendix.

In direct contradiction to these statements by Particular Baptists is the so-called "Kiffin manuscript" and it's much later but altered version the so-called "Gould Kiffin Manuscript." However, both Thomas Armitage and John T. Christian, state there is
absolutely no proof that Kiffin ever penned these manuscripts but only the assumption he did. Second, they read differently from each other proving that one or the other has been tampered with. Third, it has been proven that much of the contents are fictious and
historically inaccurate. It has all the signs of a forgery after the manner of the "false decretals" in church history. The false decretals were ocuments forged in order to slander and change the view of history. Last, these documents clearly contradict what has been demonstrated above to be Kiffin's personal belief concerning the origin of the Particular Baptists in England.

William Cathcart says of these Baptists

"The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves." (pp. 34-35 - The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, the Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)

Every English Baptist Historian (Evans, Crosby) claims that Baptists can be traced back to the apostolic era. The Welsh Baptist historians (Davis, Thomas) claim this. In addition there are church records of distinct churches that claim that their existence can be traced as far back as to the 14th century (Hillclift Church, Church of the Hop Garden, etc.) but believe they actually go back to the apostolic era.

A. 1640 Whitsitt Theory

Why then do modern historians reject the testimonies of the very leaders of the Particular Baptists in regard to their own origin? It is because they misunderstand and misinterpret several historical facts. For example, the most notable misunderstanding of historical
data in regard to the origin of Baptists in England is due to the investigative work of William H. Whitsitt the president of the Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky during the late 1880's. William H. Whitsitt speculated that immersion originated in England in 1640 because he could find nothing written prior to 1640
concerning immersion among those outside of the state church, and because all of a sudden in 1640 a flood of writings emerged suddenly defending immersion. He also discovered the so-called "Gould Kiffin manuscript" which asserted that immersion was new in England prior to 1640. However, as noted earlier, this document directly contradicts what can be confirmed as Kiffin's view of the origin of Baptists and this document is worded different than the copy possessed earlier by Crosby. Nevertheless, armed with this material Whitsitt was the first among Baptists to attack Baptist Sucessionism. According to Dr. J.B. Moody, Whitsitt's pastor (Dr. T.T. Eaton) said he asked Whitsitt claimed that he believed in Baptist Perpetuity in the sense that Baptist faith and practice can be found in every generation since Christ. He obviously did not believe in any kind of historical organic church succession but believed that any saved person was directly authorized by God to take up baptism and church constitution as clearly states that both English and American Baptists originated with pedobaptists in 1640.
However, Whitsitt failed to consider the social and political context of those days and thus was misguided in his conclusions. The researches of Dr. John T. Christian revealed that prior to 1640 it was illegal for Baptists to conduct public services or print what
they believed. In the year 1640 they were given the legal right to print their beliefs and that is why nothing in print can be found prior to 1640 but much can be found coming out of the presses in 1640 and afterwards. Even though Whitsitt's views have been thoroughly disproved by more scientific historical research, most Seminaries in all denominations, as well as, most history books still propagate his error as fact. Why? The same reason why disproven evolutionary theories are still being printed in our children's public school text
books. The evolutionist hate the Creator and evidence of creation just as much as false denominations hate historical Baptists and their historical succession to Christ.

B. Anti-Succession Theory

Another reason why modern Historians have believed that Particular Baptists did not come by succession from the apostolic era is due to a misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of a debate between English Particular Baptists over succession. Particular Baptists debated among themselves whether it was necessary to seek
baptism from continental Baptists. To understand this debate one must ask why the subject ever came up. The reason is closely related with the next topic we deal with -- "The John the Baptist Argument." The answer is that the enemies of Baptists taunted them to prove the true churches of Christ were not lost and ceased to exist during the dark
ages. As of yet, no historical research had been done or printed demonstrating Baptist succession back to Christ. However, on the continent, it was well known that the Waldenses had historical recognition of their succession back to the earliest centuries. Some of the Particular Baptists wanted to seek authority from these Waldenses in order to silence the mouth of their detractors. Apparently some did seek authority from continental Baptists. However, the greater part of Particular Baptists in England believed it was unnecessary. They believed their succession went back to the apostolic period and that nothing was needed to support it but the Word of God. However, when Henry D'Anvers in 1674 documented the historical succession of the Baptists in England this issue was
dropped. In the mean time, most of the Particular Baptists sided with John Spilsbury who defended their succession by use of the scriptures and logical arguments. Spilsbury took up the Anabaptist and Waldense interpretation of Revelation 12 and the woman hid in the wilderness to represent the primitive churches of Christ hidden throughout the dark ages for 1260 years. Both Spilsbury, Edward Drapes and others used Matthew 16:18; 28:19-20 and Ephesians 3:21 to defend and declare the succession of churches of baptized believers.

Daniel King wrote a treatise dedicated to proving the continued existence of churches of baptized believers from the apostolic times to the present. He entitled the work, "A Way to Sion." John Spilsbury and other prominent particular Baptist leaders signed an endorsement in this book.

Spilsbury did not believe they had to get authority in order to validate their churches because he believed they were validated by the Bible with or without such documentation. Knollys and Kiffin who were both friends with Spilsbury confessed their belief in church succession long before D'Anvers demonstrated it historically. Those who deny this interpretation have the problem of explaining why they used the scriptures to defend church succession from Christ to the present and at the same time used the John the Baptist argument!

C. John The Baptist Theory

This brings us to another related misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Particular Baptists and especially John Spilsbury. The Seekers and other opponents of the Baptists declared that the primitive churches had ceased to exist during the dark days of the Papacy and the ordinances had been lost to mankind. On the other hand, the Baptists claimed the primitive churches did not cease to exist and the ordinances had not got lost but was preserved up to the present and by them. However, the Baptists openly denied that any true church or true ordinances could come out of Rome. This in effect condemned all their opponents as false churches and without ordinances as these denominations had come out of Rome. Spilsbury said,

"All which grounds being well considered, I cannot see by any rule of truth to approve of the baptism administered in a false Antichristian church to be God's ordinance, instituted by Christ in his New Testament. That being there administered under a false power, by a
false Ministry upon a wrong subject, in a false body, and yet the same God's ordinance, this is more than I can find by the Word of God from which rule I dare not go……………………

Again, Secondly, God is said in the Scriptures to give or to send the vessels of His House to Babylon, as 2 Chron. 36:17, 18, 21; Jer. 27:21, 22; Dan. 1:2. Now let the like be showed, wherever God is said to give or send His ordinance of baptism unto Antichrist, until then the vessels of God's house remaining His ordinance in Babylon, shall make nothing for them to prove Antichrist's sprinkling of water on the face of an infant, to be God's ordinance of Baptism, and for her being the MOTHER OF HARLOTS IS TRUE, Rev. 17.5 WHO HAS ALL FOR HER DAUGHTERS THAT DERIVE HER BAPTISM FROM HER, AS DO ALL THAT UPHOLD HER DOCTRINE OF INFANT-BAPTISM………………
I speak in subjection, I think THE LAST CHURCH OR CHURCHES, THAT IS, ALL THE REFORMED CHURCHES, STILL RETAINING INFANT'S BAPTISM, ARE AS
MUCH AGAINST THE RULES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS THE FORMER…….."

Their opponents seized upon this statement believing the Baptists had furnished evidence for their own demise. They challenged the Baptists to prove historically that they could bridge the gap between themselves and the Apostles without going through the church at Rome. The Seekers denied that the Baptists or anyone else could do that and so the ordinances had been lost during the dark ages of the papacy. The Baptists responded to this challenge several ways. First and foremost they denied that such was true and used the Scriptures much like Landmark Baptists do today to prove it could never happen. Such Scriptures they used frequently were Matthew 16:18; 28:19-20 and Ephesians 3:21. Edward Drapes said, "I shall now in the last place show you, how long the Ordinance of
baptism was, and is to continue; wherein I shall also show, the continuance of Churches, and other Ordinances of Christ, which is, Till Christ come again the second time, without sin to salvation. Till he comes to raise up our vile natural bodies, and make them like
his own glorious body, which I shall first evidence to you from the Scriptures, and then answer those objections that seem to have weight in them against it……..

Again, consider what says the Scriptures, Matt. 16:18. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now the Church of Christ wee a company of Disciples baptized, professing
the doctrine of the Gospel, as I shall show more clearly afterwards. Now against this Church the gates of hell should not prevail, because it was built upon a Rock………….

And though we cannot see a Church successively from the Apostles, yet I shall prove there has been a Church in all ages, Eph. 3:21. Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end, Amen. Behold here a Church, in all ages. The Churches, and so the Ordinances of the Churches were not to abide only in the Apostles days, but to the end of the world, in all ages" --

Edward Drapes, Gospel Glory, pp. 33, 35, 1649

Baptists wrote three books during this time period to prove the succession of Baptists back to the Apostles --

John Spittlehouse, A Vindication of the Continual Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ, now scandesly called Anabaptists, London; 1652

Daniel King, A Way to Sion Sought Out and Found for Believers to Walk In, London,1650 and Edinburg, 1656

Samuel Fisher, "Christianismus Redivium, " London; 1655.

Second, they argued on the basis of Revelation 12 that the woman hid in the wilderness was the primitive church and that God had kept her in succession hidden in the mountains and other places for 1260 years. This was the primary argument found in John Spittlehouse's book.

However, by way of concession only, they argued IF the primitive churches did cease to exist and thus the ordinances had been lost as their enemies said (but they denied), then, God could restore them by another person like John the Baptist. They pointed out that John the Baptist was an unbaptized administrator of baptism. John Spilsbury developed this argument into a very elaborate system. Spilsbury argued that this unbaptized administrator furnished the baptized material to organize a church and thus once started then the church could administer baptism. Spilsbury further argued that the apostles had provided the churches with the written New Testament and this provided churches with authority to restore the church and its ordinances at any time if it got lost. Hence, if baptism ever got lost as the Seekers alleged it did (but Baptists denied) then any unbaptized gospel believer by the authority of the Scriptures could baptize material to organize a church and thus restore the church and its ordinances in any generation.
He went on to argue that this is exactly the same premise that the Protestant and English Reformers took in starting churches separate from Rome and the Church of England. Hence, he not only escaped the dilemma manufactured by his adversaries but turned it
around on them so they could not deny his argument without denying their own validity for separating from Rome and the Church of England. This argument proved successful in closing the mouth of the adversaries of Baptists.

However, this was only an argument by way of concession, a what if argument, because the Baptists never believed the apostolic church and its ordinances ever went out of existence. However, in lieu of no historical evidence to the contrary, this argument by way of concession proved very effectual.

Daniel King wrote a treatise entitled "A Way to Sion" demonstrating meticulously step by step both according to logic and the Bible the continuation of the church and its ordinances from Christ to his present time. In that treatise he made it clear that their consideration of the church and its ordinances being "lost" in regard to visible practice in the world was only "by way of concession" and that they never believed it to be true. He said,

"SOME CARP AND CAVIL AT THIS WORD LOST, BUT I WOULD HAVE IT NOTED, I MEAN, AS TO THE PURITY OF PRACTICE IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT, NOT IN RESPECT OF THE RULE; AND I SPEAK IN THE NOTIONIST'S SENSE, GRANTING IT BY WAY OF CONCESSION ONLY."

-- Daniel King, "A Way to Sion"

After Henry D'Anvers supplied them with the historical evidence to historically document their succession back to Christ they dropped this argument altogether. Henry D'Anver's historical vindication of the succession of Baptists back to the apostolic era met with extreme actions by the enemies of Baptists. They hated D'Anvers for providing the historical data to back the claims of Particular Baptists in so much they arranged for D'Anvers to be exiled from England. D'Anvers died in exile. However, from that point forward no Baptist ever used the John the Baptist argument again. From this point on Baptist succession was supported by both Bible and Historical documents and the enemies of Baptists centered their attacks against the historical evidences provided by Baptists. Spilsbury saw flaws in his argument by concession and made it clear that he believed in church succession when he stated that a church could not be constituted without baptism and baptism could not be had apart from a preexisting church. His words are:

"Secondly, the ordinance of baptism instituted by Christ is so essential to the constitution of the Church under the New Testament that none can be true in her constitution without it…….. For the ground and pillar that bears up the truth, and that truth so born up,
stands and falls together, as I Tim. 3:15. So that where there is not a true constituted Church, there is no true constituted Church-ordinance: and where there is a true Church ordinance in its constitution, there is at least presupposed a true Church also." --

John Spilsbury, A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptism,

He also made it clear that Particular Baptists did not believe that one could start up baptism among themselves by self-baptism when he said,

"No Place For Schism Or Self-Baptism I think by the same rule, I must disclaim them, and so separate away from them, if they do not repent, and not to leave a true Church, and
true ordinances, and go apart and erect another Church, ordinances and worship of ourselves apart from it, in opposition to it, this in my judgment is as far from any Rule in the Gospel of Christ, as for a MAN TO BAPTIZE HIMSELF. Neither of which do I approve of".

-- John Spilsbury, A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptism, 1652

When John Spilsbury spoke of the Great Commission as given by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 he regarded it as the "rule and order which Christ left……for the constituting of His church." In other words, Matthew 28:19-20 was designed and given by Christ for the
purpose of constituting churches according to a given "rule and order." He said, "Christ Left His Rule and Order For The Constitution of His Church, Faith and Baptism. And lastly, I dare not go from that RULE AND ORDER WHICH CHRIST LEFT IN HIS LAST TESTAMENT, FOR THE CONSTITUTING OF HIS CHURCH, AND TAKING MEMBERS INTO THE SAME, WHICH IS BY FAITH AND BAPTISM." -- John Spilsbury

While the leaders of the Particular Baptists were engaged in debates and polemical writings with their adversaries, the true belief and practice of Baptists were being spelled out in the Associational Meetings and Minutes. In these associational meetings they answered all questions in regard to their actual beliefs and practices. They especially made it clear what they believed in regard to proper church constitution and church authority.