Church History: The 17th Century Baptists

Occasionally I listen to church history series (see this previous post), and lately I have appreciated some more in-depth church history messages focused on a particular time period: the beginnings of the Baptists in England, early 17^th century. One such series is available on Sermon Audio, four parts on the “17th century Baptists”.

Among the highlights, some history that was new to me:

The “General Baptists” (Arminian) and “Particular Baptists” (Calvinists, with “particular redemption”) began at about the same time (the General Baptists a generation earlier), but arose from different groups and continued in separate paths through this time period. The General Baptists apparently never crossed paths with, or “converted to” the next generation’s “particular baptists.”

The Church of England’s 39 Articles (1563) were Calvinistic, expressing the Sovereignty of God; it was this Anglican history that J.C. Ryle later appealed to, the 39 Articles, in referring to his church (Anglican) as Reformed. William Laud (appointed Archbishop by Charles I in 1633) put forth his “aggressive Arminianism,” telling English preachers that they could not preach anything of Calvinism – that which the country’s own articles clearly affirmed.

The interesting history and development of the “JLJ” church, a London congregation founded and first led by pastor Henry Jacob, in the early 17th century during the reign of King James I, and continuing through the 1640s with two subsequent pastors, John Lathrop, and Henry Jessey. The church began as an “illegal” church, not officially registered with the King James’ Anglican church, yet for custom and citizenship sake the church members would take their infants to Anglican churches for the “proper” English baptism. Under the persecution of Charles I and archbishop Laud in the 1630s, the congregation considered the question: was it acceptable to have your child baptized in the Anglican church? A first group split-off from the JLJ church in 1633, determining that they could not do so. Another group split-off in 1638, with church member John Spilsbury, this time over the question of whether infants should be baptized at all, determining that baptism was instead for adult believers. It is important to note as well that the church “splits” during this time were not ugly events such as are familiar in our day, but were done harmoniously with agreement and appreciation of conscience, that some members believed differently about an issue, and so the group would split off with the goodwill and blessing of the main church.

Up to this point, apparently believers baptism was done by sprinkling or pouring. Indeed, Christians in England had never seen baptism by immersion. In the late 1630s to 1640, the men at the JLJ church had regular weekly meetings to consider the mode of baptism, and even sent one member to Holland to observe the practice of baptism by immersion being done there by the Mennonites. Then, the JLJ church held the first English baptismal by immersion service, in January 1642: 53 members were baptized in the Thames river, at a time of year that was quite cold and with little sunlight.

The first London confession followed in 1644, and by 1649 the Particular Baptist churches in England were sending forth church plants to Wales.  The years 1649 to 1660 were peaceful, the interregnum and Cromwell’s rule, followed by great persecution resuming under Charles II beginning in 1660.  It was during this later time that many preachers, not “state licensed”, were imprisoned for years (including John Bunyan’s imprisonment for 12 years) and some died in prison.

The “17th century baptists” audio series includes this overall history, as well as biographical sketches of several key Baptists (including John Spilsbury and William Kiffin) and details about some of the early baptist churches.  . This series plus articles, such as listed below, tell of many interesting events from English and American baptist history.

Additional resources for 17th century Baptist history:

• English Particular Baptists of the 17th Century
• Baptist Beginnings
• English Dissenters: Jacobites
• English Dissenters: Baptists

 

The Baptist ‘Covenant of Grace’: The New Covenant

Something that was previously unclear to me, that I had wondered about especially in reference to my Spurgeon sermon reading: what is meant by the term ‘covenant of grace’? The common idea, in reference to Presbyterian-type infant baptism, is of one continuous covenant throughout the Old and New Testament, “under two administrations” such that the Old (Mosaic) covenant was also part of the “covenant of grace.”  This idea blends and confuses Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church, to come up with a “new testament” equivalent of circumcision, namely, infant baptism.  Yet this Westminster-style Covenant Theology is better known, and commonly presented as the only type of CT — such as at the local church several years ago, which briefly presented this form, followed by the (only other choice) favorable presentation of “New Covenant Theology” such that NCT “must” be the correct choice.

Yet whenever Spurgeon mentioned the “covenant of grace,” in context he appeared to really be talking about the New Covenant and what Christ has done for us. Spurgeon even described the Old, Sinaitic covenant, as the “covenant of works” to be contrasted with the “everlasting covenant” also called the “covenant of grace.” Now, after studying the matter, with reading including several articles, online group discussions, and the descriptions of the covenants in the Westminster and 1689 confessions, I realize that Spurgeon was referencing the now lesser known definition. A comparison of the Westminster and the London confessions will show that, indeed, the Westminster confession includes several additional paragraphs defining the “covenant of grace,” where the 1689 London confession is much shorter, with this basic paragraph:

This covenant is revealed through the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps until the full revelation of it became complete in the New Testament. The covenant of salvation rests upon an eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect. It is solely by the grace of this covenant that all the descendants of fallen Adam who have ever been saved have obtained life and blessed immortality, because man is now utterly incapable of gaining acceptance with God on the terms by which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Though some “Reformed Baptists” use the Westminster Confession construction of one covenant with two administrations – and only change the part relating to baptism, to believers instead of infants – another group (including Pascal Denault and Richard Barcellos) have returned to their apparently previously forgotten heritage, with the recent publication of books that explain the difference between the Westminster and 1689 versions of covenant theology. An excerpt from Pascal Denault:

By rejecting the notion of a Covenant of Grace under two administrations, the Baptists were in fact rejecting only half of this concept: they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but they refused the idea of two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant… If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in “one covenant under two administrations,” that of the 1689 would be “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant.”

The Baptists believed that no covenant preceding the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was at the stage of promise.

This makes sense and agrees with Charles H. Spurgeon’s usage of the term. A few selections from other early writers: “Sermons by Samuel Rutherford, with a preface by A.A. Bonar”

The use of this is, to show us the misery of all those who are not within this covenant, for they are in another covenant, even in a covenant which may be broken. Jer. xxxi. 31, 82; there are two covenants mentioned there ; the one whereof is broken, that covenant that He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt ; and then there is the covenant of grace called the new covenant that cannot be broken.

Also, reference selections from Benjamin Keach regarding the covenant of grace.

In closing, a selection from Spurgeon, “The Blood of the Everlasting Covenant”  (Oct. 1859)

ALL God’s dealings with men have had a Covenant character. It has so pleased Him to arrange it that He will not deal with us except through a Covenant, nor can we deal with Him except in the same manner. Adam in the Garden was under a Covenant with God and God was in Covenant with him. That Covenant Adam speedily broke. There is a Covenant still existing in all its terrible power—terrible I say, because it has been broken on man’s part and, therefore, God will most surely fulfill its solemn threats and sanctions! That is the Covenant of Works. By this He dealt with Moses and in this does He deal with the whole race of men as represented in the first Adam.

Afterwards, when God would deal with Noah, it was by a Covenant, and when in succeeding ages He dealt with Abraham, He was still pleased to bind himself to him by a Covenant. That Covenant He preserved and kept and it was renewed continually to many of his seed. God dealt not even with David, the man after His own heart, except with a Covenant. He made a Covenant with His anointed. And, Beloved, He deals with you and me this day still by Covenant! When He shall come in all His terrors to condemn, He shall smite by Covenant—namely, by the sword of the Covenant of Sinai—and if He comes in the splendors of His Grace to save, He still comes to us by Covenant—namely, the Covenant of Zion; the Covenant which He has made with the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head and Representative of His people. And mark, whenever we come into close and intimate dealings with God, it is sure to be, on our part, also by Covenant.