Enclose a short note which states your request and which supplies a return address.

Preface
Forward
PART ONE: Origin of the English Baptist
I. General Baptists
II. Particular Baptists
III. London Confessions of Faith
.....A. 1644 Confession
.....B. 1689 Confession
IV. Ancient Baptist Succession in Wales
V. Old Baptist Church at Olchon
VI. The Midland Association
PART TWO: Baptist Succession in America
VII. The American Link
VIII. The Separate Baptists
.....A. Fellowship and Union with the Regular Baptists
.....B. Separate Baptist Faith and Practice
IX. The Kehukee Association
.....A. Reformation of the Kehukee Association
.....B. Revival
X. Succession to the Twentieth Century
PART THREE: Historic Confessions of Faith
XI. Three Primitive Baptists Confessions of Faith
XII. 1655 Midland Confession
XIII. 1777 Kehukee Association Articles of Faith
XIV. Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association
XV. Comparative Observations
Bibliography

A work such as this one is usually preceded with preface and introduction. However, it is my personal experience, in eagerness to "get into" a book, I often pass them by and start immediately with chapter one. I suspect my own reading habits are sometimes shared by others. But, despite my own poor reading patterns, I encourage perusers to take time to read the preamble of this treatise.

Credibility is a major concern in the presentation of any historical work, particularly when it involves church history. Since this effort explores Primitive Baptist church succession, I feel compelled to inform the reader of my methods of research and making conclusions so they are not mislead. We all know we cannot believe everything we read. Written accounts of history are not excluded from academic skepticism. It is not that historians are intentionally dishonest; rather, often they do not have complete information or understanding. This has certainly been my case. Therefore, I cannot claim every assumption is correct, nor every conclusion satisfactory. My research was not exhaustive. Financial and geographic limitations compelled me to rely on local libraries, and the generous kindness of several Elders who loaned me books. My efforts were far from perfect. Thus, they cannot be considered the final word on this subject.

Though certain limitations restricted the scope of this treatise, I was not cavalier in gathering information. I tried to be scrupulous in the selection of reference material. Because some Baptist histories were written with the intent of denominational promotion, with almost every event and character it is possible to find a historian who has written the exact opposite of other historians. For this reason I have been conscientious in my efforts to require multiple sources for each salient point I present. At times, when I believe some piece of information is both well known and commonly accepted, I have left out footnotes to save space. Also, in some cases I quote only one source. However, whenever I suspected some finding has the potential of raising eyebrows I have quoted multiple sources.

I make this point, in part, to caution the skeptic. Historical research is not valid unless multiple sources can back up a claim. I demand this standard for myself. I expect it from my critics. Little is accomplished when brethren of divergent opinions succumb to the temptation of trading quotes. I do not do it in matters of theology and I will not engage in this practice in matters of academic exploration. However, I welcome those who wish to investigate the body of this work with their own research. I have made it easy for you by supplying my sources.

My intent in writing is to present the reader with information which I found to be unavailable elsewhere as a single body of work. Further, I wish to offer observations and conclusions I have developed for myself over these two years spent researching and compiling this information. I do not present this work as a comprehensive study of the subject of Primitive Baptist origin and succession. It is a view of my own insights and understandings based upon certain events in history uncovered by my limited research. I have tried very hard to be honest and objective.

This labor has been a great source of joy for me. It provided many hours of entertainment during days which otherwise may have been spent in wasted activity. I leave it to your judgment as to whether the time was wasted.

The research was not always easy. At times it proceeded very slowly, then some bit of information was found which moved me quickly ahead. Frequently, I was at a loss as to where to look for some piece of information, or even what the next piece of the puzzle should be. Occasionally, upon finding some unexpected bit of information, I was compelled to restudy previous sources from a different perspective. Sometimes an avenue of study would open which had so many side streets of information that fully pursuing its complete course was almost overwhelming.

I found information which directly contradicted other sources. One such case is the religious identity of Valentine Wightman. Every source I found, except one, stated he was a Calvinist; the latter source identified him as a Six Principle Arminian. At this point I thought my findings of an American link to the Midland Association was invalid. However, upon more careful scrutiny, I discovered the author assumed all Six Principle Baptists were Arminians. I knew this was not so. In fact, the sixth principle, laying on hands on the newly baptized, was an error in practice which existed among the Primitive Baptists in Wales in the early seventeenth century. Though other sources note he was a Calvinist, their description of his theology cannot be accepted at face value. His theological legacy suggests he was a Primitive. Incorrect identification of Primitives as Calvinists is a common trap most religious historians seem to fall into.

The experience of collecting and compiling all the information required to compose these few pages can best be described as both tedious and exciting, slow and swift, frustrating and exhilarating, but always joyful.

God's providence was apparent to me throughout the course of research. At times it was so evident I could almost feel his hand guiding mine as I searched through library stacks, directing me to some obscure book which I discovered contained a vital piece of information. It is not expedient for me to cite the times I found my research was at an apparent dead end, only to pick up some unlikely source and turn directly to the information I needed.

However, the most extraordinary evidence of God's providence is the circumstance which moved Linda and me from California, where this study could not have been successfully concluded, to Texas. I found vital information at the Southwestern Baptist Seminary Library and book store in Fort Worth. God did not move a mountain to place us in Texas; however, he did move a large corporation! He also gave me the time to make this study, by circumstances I shall not discuss. He is such a tender and merciful God.

But kind reader, do not mistake providence for inspiration. While God apparently intended this research to occur and it be presented, the purity of His desire is surely tarnished by the failings of my efforts. I make no claims beyond a simple conviction that God manifested an approving countenance during the two-year course of research and study.

Writing Baptist history is difficult. Writing Primitive Baptist history is almost impossible, for two reasons. In the first case, most early Baptist history was written by our enemies. In the second, almost all Primitive Baptist history was written by our enemies, or those who were simply ignorant of our beliefs. In both cases, this has led to misidentification, misrepresentation, or both. In the case of Primitive Baptist history, often the only clues in searching for linkage were in the common use, from century to century, of disparaging names we have been called, as you will shortly find.

In researching ancient and old Baptist history, the problem is mis-identification. Most historians identify ancient Baptists based solely upon their beliefs in the ordinance of baptism. Perhaps in the broadest sense this is a correct association. However, if such a singular criterion is used in the distant future to identify 20th century Baptists, then many non-Baptist religions will be listed as Baptists. Perhaps some of this can be blamed on a lack of detailed information concerning ancient doctrinal beliefs; but none-the-less, the practice of combining groups under the Baptist banner which have obviously different practices and doctrinal tenets, simply because they share the principles of believers baptism and baptism by immersion, is troublesome.

This practice makes research very tedious for it cannot be assumed that all whom historians call Baptists or Anabaptists were in reality what they are called. Such is the case of the fanatic sect which captured Munster in Westphalia. Every historian I read refers to this group as Anabaptist. However, research reveals they never were affiliated with any of the main bodies of Anabaptists in Europe. They were a splinter group which left Luther's Catholic reformation movement because of a belief in believers baptism. They had no connection with the Lollards, Waldensian, Huguenots or Mennonites.

The tendency of historians to lump religious groups together based upon minimal similarities makes study of Primitive Baptist history extremely difficult. Once research moves beyond fellowship connections found in associational minutes, Primitive Baptists tend to be identified with Particular Baptists. This occurs for two reasons. First, ancient Primitive Baptists, because they were subjects of constant persecution, were inclined to look upon any other body of Baptist dissenters as allies in Christian fellowship. This is as it should have been. However, because they sometimes worshipped together and corresponded, it is assumed by historians they were part of other Baptists groups. But, distinctions are apparent, even when they fellowshipped with other groups. Their doctrine was different and they practiced closed membership and communion. Further, primitives consistently made the point they were not reformed or reformers. These facts distinguish primitives from all other Baptists. Nevertheless, the fact of incorrect identification is found in the many erroneous explanations of what the Primitives believed, which brings us to the second problem.

Most historians are unaware of distinctions between primitive and Particular Baptists, and those who do notice subtle distinctions fail to understand their significance. When theological distinction is made, unless the historian was a primitive, it is usually incorrect. Sometimes the description is generally accurate; but, invariably, the writer will editorialize his interpretation of doctrinal applications with observations which are erroneous.

This work relies upon distinctions of primitive and reformed doctrine to identify groups. Specifically, Baptists which believed in election and predestination, and also believed that a saving faith is imparted prior to actual new birth in regeneration, I identify as holding to reformed theology. In the case of the Particular Baptists, based upon Article XXIV of the 1644 London Confession and Articles X and XIV of the 1689 Confession, as these several articles appear to be statements of Calvin's theology as expressed in his Institutes of Christian Religion Book 2, Chapter 2, Number. 6 and Book 3, Chapter 11, Numbers 16, 17, they are identified as Baptists of reformed theology. Baptists which believed in election and predestination, but also believed new birth precedes faith, are identified as Baptists of primitive theology. They are not reformed.

However, such distinctions are not always clear. From the beginning, there were some among the Particulars, such as Benjamin Cox, who were primitives in their theology. Conversely, there were those among the primitives, such as William Carey, who embraced Calvin's reformed theology. For this reason, I make distinctions in this work based upon identifying documents rather than affiliations. I rely upon confessions of faith, articles of faith, statements of belief and circular letters as documents which reveal a group's belief relative to faith and new birth.

This is necessary because of a unique phenomenon which occurred during the reformation, Baptist groups with variant theologies first fellowshipped, then generally merged together. Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century primitives and reformed Particular Baptists in England often worshipped together. This general merger resulted in primitives in Northern England, the Midlands and Wales adopting the London Confession and losing their distinct identity as primitives. By the early nineteenth century the merger was nearly complete. The result was loss of the primitive faith in England.

Mergers also occurred in America. However, here the result was different. Though the London Confession was sometimes retained, as in the case of the Separate and Particular Baptist union in the Virginia Association, generally, when a merger did occur, the doctrine of the London Confession was lost over a period of time. In most instances of merger the London Confession was never adopted and primitive doctrine dominated. Over time, this resulted in the Particular or Regular Baptist losing their distinct identity. Thus, in America, primitive doctrine came to be the prevailing theology of those Baptists which held to the tenets of election and predestination. In 1638 primitive doctrine was the doctrine of Dr. John Clarke, pastor of Newport Baptist Church in Rhode Island, the first Baptist church constituted in America. It was also believed by the Separate Baptists led by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall according to their statement of belief in 1758.

Because Primitives believed in election and predestination, but did not believe in gospel instrumentality in regeneration (saving faith), they are often referred to as hyper-Calvinists. Of course, they weren't. The inclination of historians to identify them as extremist Calvinists, not only exacerbates the problem of correct identification, it also tends to hide their history by folding it into the history of more visible reformed Baptists such as the Particulars. For this reason, distinctions in Primitive Baptist history are often missed or ignored. Therefore, a study of their history includes searching for similar misnomers, consistently incorrect statements of their beliefs and practices, and similar disparaging descriptions. This tends to make researching Primitive Baptist history a bit of a treasure hunt.

Another aspect of research, which at times required cautious discernment, is the use of different names for a single group or the same name for different groups. For instance, while no distinction is made in this work between Regular Baptists and Particular Baptists, today they are not always the same group. The Regular Baptists in the 17th and 18th centuries were quite different from those who are called Regular Baptists in 20th century America. For this work the criteria for using the names Regular and Particular is point of origin. If a group claimed common origin with the writers of the first or second London Confession, I interchangeably call them Regular or Particular Baptists.

Along this same line, sometimes different groups used the same name to identify themselves. This is the case with the Separate Baptists. The adjective "Separate" denotes a common origin as opposed to common theology. Separate Baptists were people who left the Puritan Congregationalist Church and joined some group of Baptists or started their own Baptist denomination. There were three major divisions of Separate Baptists plus several subdivisions. The major divisions includes those who joined the General Baptists, those who joined the Particular Baptists, and those who became Primitive Baptists. Subgroups included Seventh Day and Six Principle Baptists. There were also Seventh Day Particular Baptists; and, Six Principle Baptist subgroups were found variously among the General, Particular and Primitive Baptists. (Six Principle Baptists practiced "Laying on of hands" as part of the ordinance of baptism. They took their name from the six principles of doctrine set forth in Hebrews 6: 1-2).

To add to all this name confusion, some groups have multiple names. This practice was the case with the Regular Baptists, as noted above. It was also the case with the Church of England, Independents, Separatists, and Presbyterians. If all of this is confusing to the reader, you have my sympathy.

Finally, not all writers of Baptist histories agree. Most often their disagreements are minor and due to incomplete information. However, in some few instances, I suspect varying accounts of history are the result of denominational prejudice. Sometimes histories were written with a polemic attitude, to indict some group or defend oneself. The phenomenon of revisionist histories reached almost epidemic proportion with works written in the period immediately following the mission/anti-mission divisions of the 19th century. I have tried to pick through this category of histories. If I could not find generally collaborative accounts, I tended to reject them.

I am compelled to give thanks to God for the extrordinary providence of His support and for of all His saints who assisted in this effort.

Many wrote or called to express their support of my efforts. Their kind words and enthusiasm often came at times of great discouragement. The love of their caring support was an elixir to my soul.

I give thanks for those who gave me access to the treasures of their libraries. The staff of the Webb Robbins Library at Southwest Baptist Seminary Fort Worth, Texas was always very helpful. They gave me complete access to their facilities, including the rare books archives. Also, several of God's saints within the Primitive Baptist family were very generous in lending me reference works from their personal libraries. Several times I was loaned rare books. I know the sacrifice that is required for one to lend to another a valuable and much loved book. I thank God for your generosity.

Several sent funds to help with the costs of printing. Others offered to print the book at their own expense. Still others assisted by finding a printer within my budget. Such an outpouring of generousity is very touching. I thank God for you. I pray that you will find this work worthy of your confidence.

I give thanks to God for His tender mercies. I cherish the memories of the many hours He allowed me to spend with Him, in prayer and meditation, during the course of research and writing.

Finally, I give thanks for my wife, Linda, for her loving encouragement and patience. Without her faithful support this book could not have been written.

This book is dedicated to my Lord and Master, with whom I spent many hours during its preparation, and to my loving wife, Linda, with whom I did not.

Elder Michael Ivey
Fort Worth, Texas
June, 1994

This book began as a simple desire to understand a seeming inconsistency which I believed existed in Primitive Baptist history relative to the question of our succession as Christ's church. I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I heard various arguments relating to differences in language, but did not accept them because the King James Version of the Bible is written in the same language and is readily understandable. I was given an explanation that the London brethren were attempting to escape persecution and so, wrote an "acceptable" confession. This did not seem to make sense to me since the church has always been a dissenting body from popular religion and always suffered persecution for her convictions. It did not seem reasonable that men who came to Baptist conviction knowing full well the persecution they must suffer would suddenly lay their convictions aside to avoid persecution.

My problem with resolving the language of the London Confession to Primitive Baptist faith was centered around the concepts of saving faith, and gospel agency as it is described in Articles 10 and 14 of the 1689 edition. In part these articles state:

Article 10, Part 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased, in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.

Article 14, Part 1. The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word; by which also and by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other means appointed of God, it is increased, and strengthened.

The archaic language and punctuation of the London Confession, to some measure, leaves the meanings of the these articles open to interpretations. However, inclusion of proof texts seem to indicate the London brethren believed in gospel agency, or instrumentality, in regeneration. Particularly, the use of II Thessalonians 2:13-14 as a proof text for Article 10 led me to conclude the authors believed that gospel utility includes its employment as a verbal instrument of effectual calling in regeneration. In addition, the use of Romans 10:14-17 to define the Ministry of the Word in Article 14 caused me to believe they were writing of the preached word, despite the use of capital punctuation. If I understand what they wrote, it is: The divine influence of faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe and thereby save their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily produced by the agency of the preached word.

My perplexity concerning the meanings of these articles was heightened when I read a copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. I discovered the language of Article 10, parts 1 and 3 in the two Confessions is identical. Also, I found the only difference in the language of Article 14, part 1 is the London Confession substituted the phrase, "by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other Means appointed of God" for the Westminster phrase "by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer." Apparently, the only hesitance the Particular Baptists had with this part of the article of the Westminster Confession was the latter's reference to baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments. The only other difference I found was incidental punctuation and capitalization. At first, I thought capitalization had some significance, but upon closer review I discovered the original transcript of the London Confession used capitalization indiscriminately. Therefore, I was unable to determine any significance for capitalized words.

Knowing that Presbyterian Calvinism teaches a principle of gospel agency in regeneration using the same two articles to set forth their position, I became convinced the early Particular Baptists also must have believed the same.

As I continued to ponder these things, it came to my attention that certain brethren, who no doubt are struggling with these same questions, are teaching gospel agency in regeneration and citing an historic perspective of church succession through the Particular Baptists as a point to support their theology. Simply put, they assert Primitive Baptists abandoned their true beliefs in the 19th century, claiming that until then all orthodox churches subscribed to the tenets of the 1689 London Confession of Faith. They reason abandonment of the London Confession occurred gradually through minor deviations in theology, which developed as an extremist response to anti-missionary, anti-Arminian sentiments. They have asserted that gospel means, or agency in regeneration is first, a bible doctrine and second, an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists owing to our historical connection to the London Confession.

I knew this could not be the case. I have read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century, which do not support gospel means. I have read Elder Wilson Thompson's autobiography in which a detailed narrative is given of his opposition in 1858 to this doctrine. And, I have read the sermons of Elder Greg Thompson in which he valiantly proclaims God's sovereignty in regeneration and refutes the notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Further, careful restudy of this issue led me to believe the bible void of a doctrine which invokes the gospel in any way to any degree as a requisite principle of new birth.

All this deepened my desire to know more about the circumstance of the writing of the London Confession. I did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession of the church; rather, my intent was simply to understand how the 1689 London Confession came to such wide acceptance among the Baptists. Also, from a historical perspective, I was anxious to know what events caused the Primitive Baptists to leave it. What I found was a Baptist succession which does not embrace the London Confession or, for some, has only coincidental contact.

The following pages are the results of my study. It is not exhaustive, neither is it infallible. It is simply an expression of my research and observations.

I have been asked why the line of succession this work claims is not listed elsewhere. My answer is, I do not know; perhaps it does exist elsewhere. However, I did not find it in any of the major works of Baptist history. Bits and pieces, sometimes hints, were found in the works of Crosby, Armitage, Underhill, Jones, Benedict and Hassell. But I could find no place in their works where these renowned Baptist historians suggested a consistent Welsh line of succession (though most note the existence of Baptists in England as early as 600 A.D.). Neither did I find a Welsh succession in the works of modern Historians such as Lumpkin, Torbet, or Armstrong. (Modern historians generally deny the existence of an unbroken succession of the church from Christ). Dr. Roy Mason does mention the existence of ancient Christians in Wales in his history, but he mostly quotes the work of Dr. John Christian. However, when all the pieces were placed together, a Welsh succession of the church unfolded.

I do not claim that such renowned historians were dishonest, or even incorrect. Each wrote books which greatly contribute to our understanding of Baptist history. However, in each case it is apparent their focal perspective was different from mine. They wrote to present a panoramic landscape of Baptist history. I have sketched a crude portrait.

The absence of an assimilated account of Welsh succession is troublesome to me. However, such a void probably resulted from the obscurity of many of the documents used by Welsh Baptist historians. Both Joshua Thomas and Jonathan Davis, who will be quoted often in the course of this work, were Welshmen. Much of their original research involved Welsh documents and manuscripts. Because of the obscurity of the Welsh language outside of Wales, it is reasonable to conclude that much of this information was hidden from both early and modern historians. I do not claim that Thomas and Davis are major historians. Their work is perhaps of little interest to those who are not specifically researching Welsh Baptist history. Also, with the exception of the Welsh Tract Church in America, most historians have considered Welsh Baptist history to be of little consequence. The Welsh Baptists were an obscure people.

Welsh Baptist history, like all early Baptist history, is sometimes difficult to discern. Many lines of fellowship, when they did exist, are now obscured by the loss of records and passing of time. I make this point to caution the reader about making assumptions. Because a single line of Baptist Succession is found in Wales, it cannot be assumed that all Welsh Baptists were primitives. We know this is not so. For instance Vavassor Howell, who will be more fully introduced in due time, was a prominent Welsh preacher. He was called by admirers the Welsh George Whitfield. Howell was reformed. His theological origin was with the Church of England. He held close fellowship with the Particular Baptists in London. Also, because of the proximity of Wales to Oxford and Bristol, locations of Anglican colleges of theology, during the reign of James many of the Calvinistic Anglican bishops which left the Church of England and turned to the Baptists were Welshman. Wales enjoyed a tremendous increase in Baptist Churches during this time.

Lines of fellowship are obscured by time and, perhaps, were obscure in many instances from the beginning. The denominational polarizations which exist today among Baptists were less acute in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Evangelists and other itinerant Baptist ministers were welcomed to preach wherever a Baptist congregation was gathered. Often these congregations were without pastors because of constant persecutions. (They preached courageous ministers who came their way.) Thus, a church which for centuries was primitive in faith one day would find herself with a reformed Pastor. This happened very often. The result of this was by the late eighteenth century most of the Baptist churches in Wales were either General or Particular Baptist. English persecution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did more than martyr God's saints. It obscured Baptist succession.

Nothing is written between the lines of this work. I have not exercised subtlety in expressing myself. If I believe something I have said it. Therefore, the reader should not try to read things into my writing. This work is not a direct or indirect attack upon anything or anybody.

Because I have suggested there is a Welsh succession of the church does not, in the least, threaten a European succession through the Apostle John and Polycarp. I am not trying to replace one succession with another. It would be presumptuous for me to discount the numerous accounts of Anabaptist activity in Europe. Not only so, it weakens my own claims. This work contains a discussion of fellowship between the two groups.

Neither am I attacking our forefathers who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900. To the contrary, I thank God for their efforts. These brethren were evidently struggling with the same issues, concerning the London Confession, with which I have struggled. They give historic precedence to my struggle. They arrived at a solution which satisfied themselves and their congregations. I applaud their efforts and its outcome. However, we cannot assume their solution is the last word on the matter. If they felt at liberty to scrutinize the London Confession from a theological perspective, is it not our privilege to scrutinize it from an historical vantage? I do not see the result of my work as confrontational towards theirs, rather as a complimentary addendum. Theological truths must always take precedent over historical perspective. But when theology and history agree, historical perspective compliments truth.

The Fulton brethren exercised their theological perspective of truth by adding footnotes to the London Confession. I have now come along and offered my applause for their work. I say to them, bravo! History affirms that your concerns were valid and your corrections accurate. Brethren in years past made the same corrections. It proves that the truths you penned at the bottom of the page are the same truths held by Old Baptists through the years. My work is merely an appreciative reaction to yours, a standing ovation.

This treatise is divided into three sections. The first chapters deal with the origins of the English Baptists. There is a brief discussion of the two London Confessions. This section also contains a summary of the ancient history of the Welsh Baptists. There is a chapter which discusses the early history of Olchon Primitive Baptist Church. It concludes with a description of the history and theology of the Midland Association.

Part Two begins with a discussion of the American Link of primitive Baptists succession. It includes a narrative of the circumstances surrounding the constitution of Newport Baptist Church. The ministries of Elders John Clarke and Obadiah Holmes are examined.

Next, there are several chapters dealing with the Separate Baptists. It discusses their transition to Baptist sentiment. A brief discussion of Elder Shubal Stearns is included. A narrative of the evangelical accomplishments of Elder Stearns and the Separate Baptists of North Carolina is inserted. It links the Separate Baptists to the Kehukee Association. The early history of the Kehukee Association is included along with the writers' impressions as to causes of their irregularities in faith and practice.

The last section is an investigation of the theology of the Midland, Kehukee and Sandy Creek Associations' Confessions of Faith. The content of each confession is examined. The Midland and Kehukee are compared and contrasted to the 1644 London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession respectively. A comparative examination of the three confessions is then discussed.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 the Puritans, who were Calvinists in their doctrinal sympathies, had reason to hope the severe persecution they were suffering would end with the ascension of James I. James was raised and educated in Scotland under the watchful tutorage of Presbyterian clergy. His avowed admiration and attachment to the Kirk and the pure doctrine and practice of Calvinist Presbyterianism gave reason for such hope.

However, James proved to be a disastrous disappointment to all non-conformists. Once crowned, he succumbed to the persuasive abilities of Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bancroft, Bishop of London. The praise and adoration which James received from these Anglican notables was in contrast to his rigid and stiff necked Calvinist mentors in Scotland, where Andrew Melville had once chastised the young royal to his face by calling him "God's silly vassal." The appeasement of James' colossal vanity lead to the edict of the Hampton Court Conference in which dissenters were given to expect nothing but rigorous persecution from their arrogant king.

This new round of persecution, with little expectation of early abatement, resulted in the migration of many dissenters to Holland. Among those who fled James' renewed oppression was a congregation of Brownists, or Separatists Puritans from Gainsborough led by John Smyth, an ex-Anglican clergyman. Their removal from England to Holland occurred around 1608. In Amsterdam they were joined by another group led by John Robinson, who later moved his congregation to Leydon and is noted as one of the Pilgrim Fathers.

In his book Shapers of Baptist Thought, James Tull makes a distinction between Independents and Separatist within the Puritan movement. He notes Independents wished to reform the Church of England, while the Separatists believed the Established Church was beyond reformation. They believed true reformation could only occur through a presbyterian polity directed from Geneva. However, the majority in both groups were Calvinists. In a sense, Independents were dissenters within the Church of England while Separatists were dissenters from without, having been either excommunicated or voluntarily separated from the Anglican body.

After arriving in Amsterdam, Smyth gradually came to the conclusion that the baptismal practice of his Calvinist Puritanism was not scriptural. Believing that pedobaptism was false, he persuaded his congregation to declare themselves not a church and disband. He then baptized himself by immersion and afterward baptized his entire congregation. Thus immersed, they proceeded to reconstitute themselves as a church, based upon believers baptism and baptism by immersion. It is from this act that historians conclude Smyth's group became a Baptist church.

Shortly after this reformation, Smyth initiated conversations regarding the possibility of joining a nearby Dutch Waterlander Mennonite Church, since they were no longer Puritan Separatists because of their rejection of pedobaptism. Because of the irregularity of their baptisms, the Mennonites were understandably reluctant to admit Smyth's group into their body. Their reluctance might also have stemmed from the fact that Smyth was a Calvinist while the Waterlanders, though Mennonites, were Arminians. However, it appears Smyth soon changed his coat and became an Arminian, urging his church to submit to baptism by the Waterlander Mennonites. Though he died before the merge occurred, a remnant of his followers finally joined the Mennonites.

Smyth's willingness to abandon his Calvinist theology attests to the pliability of his doctrinal convictions. However, Smyth must have realized that by rejecting pedobaptism he had separated his group from the Puritan movement. Evidently he felt baptism by immersion was important enough to warrant separation from his Puritan brethren. As to church identity, lacking any other direction of affiliation, evidently he willingly surrendered his Calvinism in order to gain identity with the Waterlander Baptists.

Smyth's desire to join the Mennonite congregation caused a split in his congregation, led by John Helwys. The split was not over the Arminian theology of the Waterlanders; rather, Helwys' group was uniformly satisfied with their reformation baptisms at the hand of Smyth and would not submit to rebaptism by the Mennonites. This group started a separate church, complete with an Arminian Confession of faith. Composed by Helwys in 1610 before leaving Holland, it is written in the new church's name and contains twenty-seven articles. According to William L. Lumpkin, "Mennonite influence is readily seen in the confession for it shows a departure from the hitherto markedly consistent Calvinism of the Separatist movement." Helwys included articles relating to general atonement for all believers, justification by faith as received through the gospel, and a tenet which stated saints may fall from grace through disobedience and unbelief. Article five deals with predestination. In part, it reads; "That God before the foundation of the world predestinated that all that believe in him shall be saved and all who believe not in him shall be damned, all which he knew before. And this is the Election and reprobation spoken in the Scripture, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that God hath Predestinated men to be wicked, and to be damned, for God would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance." From this article alone there can be no doubt that the Helwys group were Arminian Baptists. It was this Confession of Faith, with its high Arminian doctrine, which Helwys brought back to England.

In 1612 or 1613 Helwys and his followers returned to England. As stated, during their exile in Holland, Smyth's group underwent certain doctrinal changes resulting from their affiliation with the Dutch Mennonites. Though Smyth left as a staunch Calvinist Separatist, the portion of his congregation led by Helwys, which later came back to England, returned as strict Arminians However, Smyth's transition from Calvinist to Arminian was in keeping with his constant search for religious satisfaction. His theological journey, which started with Anglican Episcopalianism, ended with Dutch Waterlander Mennonite Arminianism. According to Baptist historian A. C. Underwood, Smyth's theological wanderings resulted in the founding of the Arminian General Baptist denomination. He wrote of Smyth, "....he stands at the fountain head of consecutive Baptist history. He may be regarded as the father and founder of the original Baptist of England and of the General Baptists in particular. After the lapse of three hundred years he must be placed in the vanguard of what is now the ecumenical communion."

When Helwys and his group returned to England, they returned as a church. This group is uniformly credited by Baptist historians as the founding congregation of the Arminian General Baptist assembly in London. The group left England in 1608 as Calvinist Separatists and returned in 1613 as Arminian Baptists. Thus, the heritage of this persuasion of Baptist conviction is first, based upon a belief in baptism by immersion and believers baptism; next, founded by spontaneous reformation and self-baptism; and last, upon the Peligian philosophies of James Arminius as they were embraced by the Waterlander Dutch Mennonites. The origin of this denomination's Baptist identity begins with seventeenth century reformation. If succession is carried any further back it leads these Baptists to Anglican, then Catholic succession.

Elder Sylvestor Hassell makes the following statement concerning the origin of Particular Baptists. "In 1633, September the 12th, the first Particular Baptist, or Calvinist, or Predestinarian English Baptist Church was founded in London, under the pastoral care of John Spilsbury, from those members of an Independent Church who rejected infant baptism; it was called Bond Street Church, and was in the parish of Wapping, London." Elder Hassell provides no further information as to the origin of this church so far as succession is concerned.

A more detailed account of the origin of Particular Baptists is Found in Underwood's History of the English Baptist. Though similar in outcome the circumstance is slightly different. First noting this group has its origin with Puritan and Pilgrim Father John Robinson, it reads, "In 1616 Henry Jacob and some of the exiled Independents returned to England from the Netherlands and began work in London. In 1633, John Spilsbury and a few others left this church, apparently because they had come to oppose infant baptism."

Robert Torbet provides additional details. His account indicates some twenty years after the Helwys group returned to England a friendly division occurred. In September 1633, by honorable dismissal, several members separated themselves from Helwys' congregation and formed an independent church constituted on Calvinist principles. Shortly thereafter John Spilsbury was elected their pastor. Within a few years this congregation came to be known as Regular or Particular Baptists. Their name was adopted based upon their belief in particular redemption.

Torbet's account also explains an apparent link up of the former Smyth and Robinson groups. He cites the presence of Lathrop as an early leader of the group formed in 1616. From this it may be assumed that the two groups merged when John Lathrop and his group left the fledgling General Baptist congregation. Thus, his reference to two branches under Henry Jacob may result from these separate origins, prior to a merger under the leadership of John Lathrop. One group was initially led by Henry Jacob, out of Robinson's Independents. The other group was led by John Lathrop, formerly with Helwys' General Baptist congregation, out of John Smyth's Separatists.

Torbet agrees with Underwood that Jacob was an Independent who left Robinson and returned to England in 1616. He gives the line of succession this way. The Particular Baptist were first recognizable as a separate group, with their own doctrine and practice, in 1638. They were first Independent Puritan Calvinists led by Henry Jacob. The church was aptly called Jacob Church. In 1622 Jacob moved to Virginia, where he died in 1624. After Henry Jacob, John Lathrop was pastor until his imprisonment in 1632. After his release from prison, he and about thirty members of his congregation fled to New England. The group which remained in England were led by two pastors. Cromwell's humorously named parliamentarian "Praise-God" Barebone led half the church which met in his house, Lock and Key, on Fleet Street. Henry Jessey cared for the other half. At this point, both Jessey and Barebone were still Puritan pedobaptists. In time Jessey came to accept believer's baptism and was baptized by Hansard Knollys who at the time was an Independent in sentiment, believing in baptism by immersion, but still a bishop with the Church of England.

B. R. White, in his work, English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century, notes that both Kiffin and Spilsbury were original members of the Jacob group, which was an outgrowth of the John Robinson Independents group.

In 1633 the Jessey group experienced a friendly split when Spilsbury and a small band left over the issue of baptismal authority. They did not object to infant baptism; however, they rejected the authority of Anglican Church baptism. In rejecting Anglican baptismal authority, the group made a transition from Independents to Separatists. (It is perhaps at this point where the former Helwys and Lathrop groups joined company.) They organized a separate church under the leadership of Samuel Elton. In 1638 another group left Jessey's church. This group believed only regenerates are qualified candidates for baptism. They are the first group out of Jessey's church to reject pedobaptism. William Kiffen was part of this group. Meanwhile, Spilsbury was chosen to replace Elton as pastor of the original group dismissed in 1633 from the Jessey's congregation. These two groups merged in 1638.

Thomas Crosby cites the earlier date, 1633, as the point at which the Particular Baptists were recognizable as a distinct denomination. Certainly, the group which later fully embraced the tenets of believers baptism and baptism by immersion is first seen as a congregation in 1633; however, at that time they still accepted the practice of pedobaptism. The doctrinal sentiment of the group which left Jessey in 1633 cannot be proven to be Baptist before 1638, after they merged with Kiffin. Spilsbury must have come to Baptist sentiment concerning believers baptism and baptism by immersion before he merged with Kiffin; but, according to Torbet, when Spilsbury left the Jessey church he was still a pedobaptist. The first documented evidence of his change in sentiment was after he merged with Kiffin in 1638. However, in practice, this group did not become a true Baptist Church until believers baptism and baptism by immersion became requirements for membership, which did not occur until 1641. According to Kiffin's manuscript, a group of members of this newly amalgamated congregation became convinced that baptism by aspersion (sprinkling or pouring) was unscriptural. This new view is known to have been held by Spilsbury, Kiffin and Richard Blunt, plus some few others. Blunt knew of Mennonites in Rhwynsburg, in the Netherlands, who practiced baptism by immersion. Because he spoke Dutch, in 1641 he traveled to Holland, where according to Kiffin's manuscript, he was kindly received and given letters for the new London congregation. It is believed the letters he received contained arguments in support of believers baptism and baptism by immersion.

Kiffin's manuscript, as paraphrased by Crosby, seems to demonstrate the Particular's desire to understand the proper mode and seek proper administration of the ordinance of baptism. "They could not be satisfied about any administrator in England to begin this practice; because tho' some in this nation rejected baptism of infants, yet they had not as they knew revived the ancient custom of immersion."

Though the context of Thomas Crosby's History of the English Baptists seems to imply that Blunt was baptized while in Holland, Crosby does not say so outright. He continues Kiffin's narrative in his own words, but makes no specific reference to Blunt being baptized while in Holland. "But hearing that some in the Netherlands practiced it, they agreed to send over one Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch Language: That he went accordingly, carrying letters of recommendation with him, and was kindly received by the church there, and Mr. John Batte, their teacher: That upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister, and these two baptized the rest of their company, whose names appear in the manuscript, to the number of fifty-three."

Neither does the continuation of Kiffin's original manuscript say Blunt was baptized in Holland. Regarding Blunt's return and the subsequent baptismal service, Kiffin wrote, "1640. 3rd Mo.; The church became to (sic) by mutual consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richard Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into ye Water, resembling Burial & rising again 2 Col. 2:12. Rom 6:4, had sober conference about it in ye Church, & then with some of the forenamed who also ware so convinced. And after prayer & Conference about their so enjoying it, none having then to practiced it in England to Professed Believers & hearing that some in ye Netherlands had so practiced they agreed and sent over Mr. Rich. Blunt (who understood Dutch) with letters of Commendation, and who was kindly accepted there, and returned with letters from them Jo: Batte a Teacher there and from that Church to such as sent him.

1641, They proceed therein, viz. Those Persons that ware persuaded Baptism should be by dipping ye Body had met in two Companies, and did intend so to meet after this, all these agreed to proceed alike togeather And then Manifesting (not by any formal Words a Covenant); wch word was scrupled by some of them, but by mutual desires and agreement each testified:

Those two Companyss did set apart one to Baptize the rest; so it was solemnly performed by them.

Mr. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock yt was a Teacher amongst them, and Mr. Blunt being Baptized, he & Mr. Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their friends that ware so minded, & many being added to them they increased much"

From this account, together with Burrage's corrected reading of Kiffin's manuscripts, several historians understand that Mr Blunt baptized Mr Blacklock and Mr Blacklock baptized Mr Blunt, and the two proceeded to baptize the rest of the congregation; which was evidently composed of two companies or churches.

William A. Whitsitt concurs with Burrage's interpretation, concluding that Blunt was not baptized in Holland. He places the occurrence of the reformation baptismal service at the earliest in 1641.

B. R. White also agrees with Burrage and Whitsitt, maintaining that Particular Baptist transformation from Puritan Calvinist Separatists to Baptists was accomplished by self-baptism. He wrote, "Blunt baptized himself." He bolsters this assertion with an article written by Thomas Killcop in 1642. Killcop was a member of Spilsbury's congregation. However, his assertion may be incorrect due to misinterpretation of Killcop's article.

The article was published as a response to the Independents' criticisms of the Particular Baptists for practicing self-baptism. Killcop's article does not specifically deny that Blunt baptized himself after returning from Holland; however, neither does he admit that Blunt baptized himself. His defense of reinstitution of immersion and believers baptism is based upon a principle that God is able to spontaneously raise up a true witness. He wrote to the Independents, "every scripture which gives you warrant to erect a church state, gives us the same warrant to erect baptism since the one cannot be done without the other, for none can put on Christ (that is visibly by outward profession) but such as are baptized into Christ.

White noted the simplicity of Killcop's argument: "If scripture gave authority for the vital act of the reconstruction of the church it must surely do so for the smaller act of reconstituting the church ordinance of baptism."

Neither did John Spilsbury's response to the controversy deny self-baptism as a method for restoring the primitive ordinance; but, like Killcop, neither does he specifically support self-baptism. He addressed his argument from the attitude of assembled believers authority, noting that when God himself calls together a congregation as an assembled church, uniting them to Christ and each other, they are authorized by Christ to choose a member or members to perform baptisms. Spilsbury wrote; "as occasion offers and authorizes him or them to administer baptism upon the whole body and so upon themselves in the first place as part of the same." He continued a defense of the Particular's origin by asserting, "wheresoever a church doth rise in her true constitution, there are her ordinances and also power to administer the same; and where a thing is wanting there must be of necessity a beginning to reduce that thing again into being."

Torbet does not believe Blunt was baptized in Holland. He makes this assertion based upon the fact that the Dutch Baptists to whom he traveled seeking instruction were Arminian Collegiant, or Rhwynsburg Mennonites. He reasons the Collegiants would not have accepted Blunt as a candidate for baptism because he did not believe their doctrine, being a Calvinist. Conversely, he asserts that Blunt would not have offered himself for baptism at the hands of Arminians. Torbet lists Shakespeare's Baptist and Congregational Pioneers, pages 180-183, Kiffin's original manuscript, and Burrage's Early English Dissenters, Vol II pgs. 302 - 305, as his sources for this information.

While Kiffin's manuscript includes both Blunt and Blacklock in the list of new members in his account of the original baptismal service, his wording is vague. It does not specifically state if members were baptized or otherwise received. However, as this was a reconstitution of their church it is reasonable to assume the list is of those who covenanted together. The inexplicit language of the document, in part, may be due to the fact that Kiffin was not present when the baptismal service occurred. He may have been in prison for preaching without proper authorization.

Spilsbury and Knolly's names are absent from the list; however, it is known they were both identified with the group both before and after the baptismal service. Knollys was in Holland and Germany in self-exile during this period of the new church's history. It is unknown why Spilsbury is not included in the original membership list. A possible explanation is that Kiffin's membership list is actually a list of only those who were baptized that day. Spilsbury is believed to have been previously baptized by Knollys.

The wording of Kiffin's manuscript suggests there may have been some present who did not submit to baptism. Kiffin's statement, "he & Mr. Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their friends that ware so minded," could infer that some were not "so minded" and were not baptized by Blunt or Blacklock. It may be that Spilsbury, like Jessey, had already been baptized by Knollys. As believers baptism and baptism by immersion are clearly stated motives and principles of the formation of the Particular Baptists it seems unlikely they would admit or retain members who were unbaptized. This leads to the probability of other occasions of baptisms.

It cannot be disputed that early Particular Baptists believed in a principle of spontaneous reconstitution of the church. Both Killcop and Spilbury use this tenet as an argument in support of original baptism. In 1646 Hansard Knollys replied to a work written by John Saltmarsh which was critical of the Baptists' requirement of baptism by immersion. Saltmarsh believed baptism was Spiritual only, therefore mode was of no consequence. Knollys' reply reveals belief in a principle of mediation of baptismal authority directly from Christ. He believed that the commission to baptize is received directly from Christ without the necessity of a succession of authority; stating, "one can baptize as warrantably in his name as could any of his disciples."

It may be that Blunt was baptized in Holland, as Crosby so infers. It is certain he and Mr. Blacklock baptized several of their friends upon Mr. Blunt's return from Holland. The possibility of some not being baptized by Blunt or Blacklock is suggested by the writings of Killcop and Spilsbury. Also, Crosby's assertion that some Particulars practiced what he called "last method of restoring baptism." infers some were not baptized in the formal constitution of the church. He claims there was a general acceptance, among early English Baptists, of a practice of unbaptized persons baptizing.

Crosby asserts the early Particular Baptists believed in two methods of instituting a "reformation." He states both were acceptable to the English Baptists "at their revival of immersion in England."

1. The regular baptism method. "The former of these (methods) was, to send over to the foreign Anabaptists, who descended from the antient Waldenses in France or Germany that so one or more receiving baptism from them might become a proper administrator of it to others. Some thought this the best way and acted accordingly, as appears from Mr. Hutchinson's account in the epistle of his treatise of the Covenant of Baptism."

2. The Anti-succession method. "But the greatest number of the English Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish Doctrine of right to administer the sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed therefore and practiced accordingly, that after a general corruption of Baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation."

It is interesting that Crosby quotes Spilsbury to support his argument that some early English Baptist practiced the anti-succession method of restoring baptism.

It must be noted that Crosby is very careful to distinguish between self-baptism and "the last method of baptism." He first denies that John Smyth baptized himself; then, discounts the significance of his self-baptism, if it did occur. He wrote, "But enough of this. If he were guilty of what they charge him with 'tis no blemish upon the English Baptists; who neither approved of any such method, not did they receive baptism from him." In his denial he is critical of self-baptism as a valid reinstitution of the ordinance. This seems a bit strange in light of his support of last method baptism. However, if his reference to "an unbaptized person" refers to Hansard Knollys, who baptized Jessey and Spilsbury, it may be that Crosby somehow gave authority to this form of reinstitution of baptism, as part of a spontaneous reformation of the church, but distinguished the "second method" from self-immersion as practiced by Smyth. Perhaps Crosby viewed Knollys, Spilsbury and Kiffen as reformed Baptists who received their baptismal authority as God called ministers of the gospel, upon the merit of restoration of the true mode of baptism.

Despite the reasoning of several historians, since the matter cannot be factually settled, this writer chooses to follow Crosby's lead and assume Blunt was baptized while in Holland and had authority to baptize others; and, that his baptism represents a succession of the ordinance. It seems extremely unlikely he would travel to the Continent only to receive instructions concerning immersion. The phrase in Kiffin's manuscript concerning Blunt's reception in Holland, "who was kindly accepted there," could indicate he was accepted for baptism. Also, denominational lines were not well drawn in that day. It is conceivable the Arminian Collegiant Baptists in Rhwynsburg were willing to baptize Blunt despite his Calvinist sentiments. The theological lineage of this particular congregation of Mennonites is unknown, therefore it cannot be concluded their own origin is outside a line of baptismal succession.

The 1644 and 1646 editions of the London Confession tend to support the notion that some Particulars did not recognize baptismal authority through a ministerial succession by laying on of hands. This is an important point for the Particular Baptists for two reasons. First, if baptismal authority requires a continuous succession by laying on of hands then spontaneous reinstitution of the ordinance cannot be recognized as a valid method of reformation of the church. Second, there is no evidence that Blunt or Blacklock were ordained ministers with a succession back to Christ at the time of the baptismal service.

The 1644 edition of the London Confession, concerning baptismal authority, states "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered disciples." In 1646 the meaning of this statement was given more clarity. It shows that a principle of succession of baptismal authority evidently was not supported by the early Particular Baptists. It reads, "The person designed by Christ to dispense Baptism, the Scriptures hold forth to be a Disciple; it being nowhere tied to a particular Church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered Disciples, being men able to preach the Gospel." Neither article mentions the need for the ordination of the administrator of baptism.

Crosby, nor any subsequent historians, present evidence that Blunt and Blacklock were authorized to baptize others through a succession of laying on of hands from Christ, as ordained ministers. No mention is made concerning Blunt being ordained in Holland. This may account for the position taken in their Confession concerning baptismal authority. At such an early date, it was too soon to impose a principle of baptismal authority. Whatever the reason for omission of this principle from the 1644 Confession, it is also conspicuously absent from the 1689 Confession.

Again, the Particular's belief in a principle of God directly granting baptismal authority may explain the absence of the principle of ministerial succession by the laying on of hands. In reading several accounts of Reformation thinking, the principle of spontaneous baptismal authority is noted. As we have stated, the principle is; God, at any time, may reform his church to its primitive faith and practice. It supports a notion that the church can become so corrupted with error that God will go outside her authority to raise a witness. When this occurs it is presumed the ordinances of the church are reinstated in primitive form, baptism being one of these. Thus, God will call men, giving them divine authority outside the succession of ordination by laying on of hands, to reinstate the ordinances. Reformation defenders use John the Baptist as a scriptural example of this principle. They mistakenly presume John was reforming the visible church from Mosaic law service to Christian dispensation. They note that John was not ordained. Also, they reason his baptisms were valid because he baptized the Savior. From their writings and practice, it appears some Particular Baptists accepted this reasoning.

Extension of the Particular Baptist's belief in a spontaneous reinstitution of Baptism, by direct authority from God rather than ministerial succession, brings into question the whole issue of church succession. If the ordinances of the church are spontaneously re-instituted, logic dictates that the church itself is re-instituted. Reinstitution of the church is reformation. Perhaps this is the reason the Particular Baptists referred to themselves as reformed and Protestants. It may also explain why their writers referred to their church as a denomination.

In every account of the origin of the Particular Baptists there is a common thread of historical detail: Particular Baptist origin is closely associated with the Anglican Calvinism of the Independents and Separatists. As former reformed Anglican Independents and Separatists, their doctrinal culture was Puritan Calvinism.

Several historical accounts examining the Particular Baptists' baptismal link to European Anabaptists have been presented. They question whether the short visit of Mr Blunt to Rhwynsburg included his baptism. Most conclude he was not.

Whether or not Blunt was baptized in Holland, his visit does not substantiate an undeniable claim of church succession for three reasons. First, no claim of succession was made by Particular Baptists at the time of their formation. Second, even if Blunt was baptized in Holland it was into an Arminian fellowship. Third, there is no evidence of an orderly succession of administration of baptism by Blunt and Blacklock because there is no evidence they were authorized to administer baptism to others through the ministerial succession of laying on of hands by a presbytary. However, despite assumptions of irregularities made by several historians, of Blunt and Blacklock's baptismal authority, Blunts trip to Holland is very important because it demonstrates the Particular's interest in baptismal authority. Crosby's description of the first method of restoration of baptismal authority, "to send over to the foreign Anabaptists, who descended from the antient Waldenses in France or Germany that so one or more receiving baptism from them might become a proper administrator of it to others," may be a specific reference to Mr. Blunt's trip to Holland.

Also, all of these difficulties can be surmounted if one assumes a church can, for a time, be in error and yet retain her identity as Christ's church. Scripture undeniably reveals this potentiality. It was certainly the condition with the seven churches of Asia as their cases are described in Revelations. Until the candlestick was removed identity remained. None but God can know with certainty if Blunt's visit to Holland and the subsequent baptisms of Blacklock and his fellow saints represents a succession of the church. Therefore, despite all the unorthodox events which led to the establishment of the Particular Baptists in London, only God may rightly judge whether these brethren constituted themselves as Christ's bride. However, their subsequent history presents a strong case they did and charity demands we consider it so.

Had these brethren searched for a continuous Baptist succession in England, it was to be found in Northern England, near the Welsh border, at ancient Hill Cliffe Baptist Church in Warrington, where Lancaster and Chester Counties meet. It was not necessary for Blunt to travel to Holland to learn about baptism. The earliest baptisms by the pastors of Hill Cliffe were performed in historical antiquity. The constitution of this oldest continuing Baptist Church is unknown, but legible markers in the graveyard date back to 1357 A. D.. Some markers are believed to be older, but centuries of erosion have rendered them illegible. Local tradition asserts this ancient church was always Baptist. In 1800 when the meeting house was rebuilt, the ancient baptistery, carved from stone, was discovered and excavated. It is described as large enough to immerse an adult.

The earliest pastor of record at Hill Cliffe was Elder Weyerburton, of the Cheshire family of Warburtons. The beginning of his pastoral care is unknown, but he remained pastor of Hill Cliffe until his death in 1594. When Mssrs. Kiffin and Spilbury were first learning of the necessity of believers baptism and baptism by immersion, Elder Tillman was pastor at Hill Cliffe. He could have instructed them more perfectly concerning Baptist succession and baptismal authority. Had they known of Elder Tillman and Hill Cliffe Church they could have received baptism from one who claimed his authority through a continuous succession of the church.

In 1642 the Particular Baptists numbered fifty-three and were meeting in two congregations. By 1644 the group expanded to seven churches. In 1644, to clarify the mode and authority of baptism, Spilsbury and Kiffen inserted a tenet of baptism by immersion in their new Confession of Faith.

In his church history, Elder Sylvester Hassell notes the partial intent of writing the original London Confession was an attempt to appease Baptist detractors. He wrote, "In 1644 they numbered seven churches in London, and forty-seven in the country; and the same year, three years before the Westminster Confession; in answer to the calumnies of Daniel Featley, an Episcopalian clergyman, the seven London churches published, in fifty-two Articles, a Confession of Faith, showing that, in all important doctrinal principles, the Baptists agreed with the "orthodox Reformed Churches." The rapid increase in congregations of General and Particular Baptist churches around the London area attracted the attention of Anglican critics. It is presumed by Lumpkin that, in part, the impetus for writing the first London Confession of Faith in 1644 resulted from the publications of several particularly scurrilous works which attacked both the Particular and General Baptists. These works included A Short History of the Anabaptist of High and Low Germany (1642) and A Warning for England, especially for London 1644. However, the final provocation for the London Particular Baptists was the appearance of a booklet entitled A Confulation of the Anabaptists and All others who affect not Civil Government 1644. This latter work identified the fledgling Baptist movement of the General and Particulars with the political excesses of a small sect Anabaptists in Munster, Westphalia. The Munster group, which was actually a dissenting sect of Lutherans, was accused of massacring the population of Munster in 1526. Rumors of this event rapidly spread, and because the sect had separated from Luther's movement over the latter's practice of infant baptism, all other Anabaptist groups were commonly identified with their excesses. In response to these vicious and untrue attacks, Spilbury requested a general meeting of the Elders of the seven Particular Baptist Churches in London for the purpose of composing a formal Confession of Faith.

It is supposed that slanderous writings against the Baptists were in response to several articles and books, written by General Baptist authors, which dealt with the issue of limitation of civil authority as it relates to matters of religious conscience. In particular, works by Leonard Busher and John Milton stirred great anti-Baptist sentiment in the Anglican Church. Busher's book Religious Peace, or, A Plea for Liberty of Conscience, which was addressed to the King, denied civil jurisdiction in matters of religion. This was viewed by the Anglican Church as a direct attack on her comfortable position as the Established Church of England. The issue of religious freedom, a Baptist principle, was falsely identified with the radical revolutionist excesses of the Munster Lutheran sect. Thus, slanderous accusations ranging from seditious treason, to murder, to cannibalism were hurled at the upstart General and Particular Baptists in England.

In a desire to reveal the orthodoxy of their faith and practice, and also to demonstrate their separate identity from the General Baptists, to whom the attacks were specifically aimed because of Busher and Milton's General Baptist affiliations, the Particular Baptist met in London in 1644 and composed their Confession of Faith.

Each of the seven churches sent two delegates, except Spilsbury's, which sent three. The Confession is considered by Lumpkin to be an expansion of the Separatist Confession of 1596 which he believes was used as a model. He links this document to Separatism because of the background of some of the signataries. Former Separatists included Spilsbury, Kiffin, Killcop and probably others.

B. R. White agrees with Lumpkin's assessment of the Confession. His analysis of this document begins with this statement. "The 1644 Confession (revised in 1646) was far from being a creation ex nihilo since twenty-six of its fifty-three articles repeated the teaching, often with only the smallest verbal modifications, of the corresponding sections in the Separatist Confession of 1596."

Historian Robert B. Hannen notes several remarkable similarities between the first London Confession and the Aberdeen Confession, written in 1616. A work by Daniel Featley titled The Dippers dipt. (1645) offers an explanation for the similarities. Featley asserted that a Scot, whose name is now unknown, joined the London Particular Baptist in 1642. From this fact, Robert B. Hannen suspects this man brought a copy of the Aberdeen Confession to the attention of the leaders of the seven churches.

In all, there were five versions of this first London Confession, the last published in 1653 at Leith in Scotland. The 1646 edition had three printings. This suggests widespread acceptance of the document among Particular Baptists.

When compared to the 1689 Confession the first London document is said to present a more accurate biblical perspective of God's law. The editors of Backus Books Publishers, who reprinted the 1646 edition of the London Confession with Benjamin Cox's Appendix, offer this observation. "There are other baptistic statements of faith already available in our day, such as the Second London Confession of 1689, which is a modification of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. Although these confessions agree on the fundamentals of Christian faith, there is a distinctive New Covenant emphasis concerning biblical law in the 1644 and 1646 editions of the First London Confession that is regretfully lacking in the Old Covenant emphasis of the Westminster and Second London Confessions. This difference has far reaching theological implications."

In the general conference of 1646 Elder Benjamin Cox, pastor of Abington Church, presented an appendix to the Confession. The existence of this document indicates that at least one church in London, of the original seven, considered the Confession either too vague or else inaccurate in presenting the doctrine of regeneration. Lumpkin describes Cox's work as characterizing a "higher Calvinism than the second edition."

Particularly, Elder Cox took exception to the Pelagian implications of Gospel agency in regeneration. In article seven of his appendix he wrote;

Though we confess that no man doth attain unto faith by his own good will; John 1:13, yet we judge and know that the Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and make him to believe and obey willingly, Ezekiel 36:26,27; Psalms; 110:3. God thus working in us both to will and to do, of His good pleasure, Philippians 2:13.

I have been unable to find any evidence that the Cox appendix was ever formally accepted and added to the first London Confession. From this, it may be assumed that others were satisfied with the positions taken in the Confession and saw little need to adjust it doctrinal tenor.

Apparently, the distinguishing theology of the First London Confession did not go unnoticed by the Arminian General Baptists. Elder Cox's appendix is, for the most part, a polemic response to Arminian theology. The content and tone of his work indicates the General Baptists were not pleased with the appearance of the London Confession. Until 1644 John Helwys' very Arminian 1610 Confession was the principle statement of Baptist theology in England. The London Confession served to undermine the influence of the Helwys document. It revealed that his 1610 Confession was not endorsed by a significant portion of the Baptist community in London.

A little known fact about the 1644 Confession may offer another plausible explanation for its adoption. In 1647, after two revisions, in which some wording was changed to remove the sting of certain criticisms being hurled by Kiffin's old enemy Daniel Featley, the London Confession was accepted by Parliament and the Particular Baptists were granted toleration. However, official toleration was lost when Charles II ascended to the throne in 1660.

The London Confession of 1689 (which was originally written is 1677) was the Particular Baptist's second great document.

By 1688, when the call went out for a Particular Baptist General Convention, the political climate in England had changed several times. During the forty-four years separating the adoption of the two Particular Baptist Confessions, a civil war occurred, a King was executed, democratic process was instituted and derailed, the Anglican church underwent reformation and a new King was crowned. Also, the cause of religious freedom suffered setbacks resulting in a systematic and legislated policy which is best described as an almost perpetual increase in intensity of persecution of dissenters.

In 1642 civil war erupted in England. Royalist Cavaliers were opposed by the "roundheads" of Oliver Cromwell's populist army. The final result of this disturbance was execution by beheading of Charles I in 1649. Long Parliament subsequently appointed Cromwell Lord High Protectorate of England. During the conflict non-conformists of every religious persuasion joined Cromwell's army. The Baptists, in particular, were well represented. Cromwell's chief-of-staff, together with many officers were Baptist preachers. For this reason, together with the fact that Cromwell personally held the principle of religious freedom, at the conclusion of hostilities the Baptists were optimistic about their future safety from religious persecution. Their optimism soon turned to dismay.

As Cromwell's administration grew in bureaucracy, it became increasingly autocratic. This was particularly the case in matters of religion, where despite a reformation of the Church of England which placed Presbyterian clergy at its head, an appetite for complete religious conformity still gnawed at the leadership. Fresh outbreaks of religious persecution occurred against the Baptists by these Calvinist brethren who now controlled the Church of England. According to James Tull the newly empowered Presbyterians held precisely the same views as their Anglican counterparts concerning religious conformity. "The Presbyterians intended for the church to be a national church, embracing the whole population in its membership. Dissent was not to be allowed; membership was compulsory. Everyone was to have his children baptized and to pay tithes. On this point there was to be little difference from the church as already established."

After Cromwell's death, Parliament initiated discussions with Charles II regarding the terms of his return to England and ascendancy to the throne. In 1660 Charles returned to power. His return marked the beginning of a new era of Baptist persecution which was both systematic and terrible.

In 1662 The Act of Uniformity was passed. This act required use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in all religious meetings under penalty of loss of position for the Anglican clergy who refused and fines and/or imprisonment for the leaders of Non-conformist congregations. The result of this act was two-fold. First, because the book was essentially Catholic Episcopalian and many preachers in the Established Church were by then Calvinists, it is estimated that approximately two thousand Anglican bishops left the Established Order and joined nonconforming congregations. Second, fines and imprisonments were systematically imposed upon non-conforming violators.

The Uniformity Act was quickly followed by other means of legislated persecution which included reinstitution of The Conventicle Act in 1664. This law forbade nonconformist religious gatherings of more than four persons over the age of sixteen.

Next, the Five-mile Act was passed in 1665. It prohibited nonconforming ministers from preaching within five miles of any city or village which sent members to Parliament or which had an Established Church within its boundaries. It also denied dissenters the right to teach in any public or private schools.

In 1670 another Conventicle Act was passed. While this law did not carry a death penalty for repeat offenders, as did the original Conventicle Act, it was particularly cruel in that it allowed the Crown to seize all property of repeat offenders. Also, this law was very effective because it allowed informers to keep one third of everything seized.

The second Conventicle Act was followed by the Test Act of 1673. This law barred nonconformist from holding civil or military office.

The Test Act was followed by The Clarendon Code, which renewed the severest forms of persecution.

The tyranny of these laws resulted in fines, public beatings, imprisonment and capital execution for dissenters. Offenders where often tortured to death. Executions were carried out by hanging, beating, beheading, impaling, dismembering, and burning. It is estimated that the malicious treatment of non-conformers (of which Baptists suffered more than any others owing to their public support of principles of religious liberty) resulted in persecution of more than seventy-thousand saints, of whom eight thousand perished. The sum total of fines levied and collected is calculated to be in excess of two-million pounds sterling, as calculated in 1850.

It was amid this climate of religious persecution that a small window of liberty briefly opened. In 1689, with the ascension of William and Mary to the throne, a new Act of Toleration was passed. This act, while not guaranteeing religious freedom, did allow provisions for non conformers to worship in peace. However, it required that all dissenting religious bodies submit a statement of their creed for approval by the Crown. Actually, approval by the crown was in form only, the substance of approval came after review by a body of bishops and archbishops of the Church of England.

When this newest Act of Toleration passed on May 24, 1689 the Particular Baptists were ready to take full advantage. On September 3, 1689 they met in a general convention for the purpose of ratifying a confession of faith which would be acceptable to the Crown, and thus provide for official tolerance of their Churches. Representatives of some one-hundred congregations met in London and adopted the 1689 London Confession.

For reasons not entirely made clear, the London brethren did not use their 1644 Confession as a model for the 1689 document. Their stated reasons were its poor circulation among the Baptists and a general lack of familiarity with this earlier document among the attendants of the convention. However, their stated reason seems a bit strange since the first Confession underwent five printings in three editions and was distributed throughout England, Wales and Scotland.

The draft finally presented to the Crown is a second edition of the 1677 London Confession, which was principally written by Mr William Collins. According to Lumpkin, this document is a modified version of the Presbyterian's 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith.

Pope A. Duncan agrees with Lumpkin's assessment. He describes the second London Confession as a purposeful attempt to align the Particular Baptists with reformation Protestantism. He wrote, "Baptists in the seventeenth century stood squarely in the Protestant tradition insofar as the great majority of their doctrines were concerned. What they had to say about most of the classic tenets of the faith differed almost none at all from those of the other Protestant churches of England. Indeed, the widely used "Second London Confession" purposely used the order and often the very words of the Westminster Confession in order to demonstrate the agreement of Baptists with classical Protestantism. Thus, with regard to such articles as those dealing with the holy Scripture, the Trinity, Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, justification, sanctification, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, one could note no significant differences between Baptist thought and that of other Protestant Christians of England. In fact, there was essential agreement on most doctrines."

The Baptists' motivation for adopting a confession similar to the Westminster creed may relate to the rise in political prominence of the Presbyterians. For a brief period, from 1650 to 1660 the Presbyterians actually held official recognition as the Established Church of England. However, with the return of Charles II, Anglican Episcopalians regained command of the Established Order. Despite losing control, the Presbyterians remained strong. They retained their official status in Scotland. In England their members still controlled a significant voting block in Parliament. Further, many Anglican clergymen remained Calvinists. Observing their successful defiance of the Uniformity and Conventicle Acts in particular, no doubt, the London Baptist believed close alignment with the powerful Presbyterians would make it politically difficult for the Crown to reject their petition for official tolerance. Thoughts of continued persecution, with a possible means of avoidance at hand, apparently induced the Baptists to identify themselves more closely with this powerful group.

The London Particular Baptists were not the first to think of closer alignment with the Presbyterians. Separatist Puritan Congregationalists had already allied themselves politically by identifying themselves doctrinally with the Presbyterians. In 1658 they adopted the Savoy Confession, a close copy of the Westminster Confession, as their doctrinal creed.

The Baptists, yet suffering terribly at the hand of the Crown, eventually realized that neither the Presbyterians nor Congregationalists were suffering the same frequency and intensity of torment. Perhaps fully understanding the political reality of their circumstance they assembled in 1689 in a General Convention and officially adopted Collin's very Westminsterish confession.

The desire of these tortured brethren to align themselves with the Presbyterians is evident throughout the document. However, nowhere is it more apparent than in the preamble of the 1677 first edition, which reads in part, "...our hearty agreement with them (Presbyterians and Congregationalists) in the wholesome protestant doctrine, which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted." The preamble of the second edition of 1688, as adopted in 1689, is less direct but equally obvious in pointing readers to its similarities with the Presbyterian and Congregationalist creeds. It reads, "...And finding no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the Assembly, and after them by those of the Congregational way, we did readily conclude best to retain the same order in our present Confession." Assembly and Congregational, both capitalized, refer to the Presbyterians and Congregationalists respectively. Further this statement indicates the London Confession was written, as much as possible, with the same topical format as the Westminster Confession.

In 1677 Collins reworked of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, to better apply to Baptist sentiment. Significant changes to the Westminster Confession included deletion of an article which identified the right of civil authority to keep peace in the church, and the section on Covenants in Chapter VII, sections 2,3,5,6. Changes were made which deal with church government. Reference to the Lord's supper and baptism as sacraments was dropped. Despite these several changes the order of the two confessions is nearly identical. The subject order of Articles one through nineteen is identical. Numerous phrases, often paragraphs, and occasionally whole articles are identical in wording.

In the London Confession an article titled "Of the Gospel, and of the extent of the Grace thereof" is inserted as Article Twenty. After Article twenty, the subject order continues to be identical through Article Twenty Seven of the London Confession. The name of Article Twenty-Eight is different. In the Westminster, which lists it as Article Twenty-Nine, the title is "of the Sacraments." The London Confession refers to this article as "of Baptism and the Lord's Supper." The order continues the same with the exception that the London Confession omits Articles Thirty and Thirty-One of the Westminster Creed. These two article deal with church government and are titled "of Church Censure" and "of Synods and Councils."

In his book, Baptist Confessions of faith, W. L. Lumpkin provides a moderately detailed comparison of the London and Westminster Confessions. He found the language of the two confessions is often identical. Their similarity is so considerable it is difficult to conclude anything other than the London Confession is a modification of the Westminster Confession with certain additions and deletions.

Lumpkin also provides a sketch of a political climate of almost continuous religious persecution of the Baptists which motivated the London brethren who, when a brief window of religious tolerance opened, were encouraged to seek official tolerance from the Crown; and therefore, penned a confession which aligned them theologically with the more numerous and politically favored Calvinist Presbyterians.

We must not think harshly of these tortured brothrens' willingness to seize this opportunity to gain official tolerance. None today have lived under constant threat of imprisonment or worse for practicing their religion. None have seen their pastors drawn upon the rack and quartered. None have gone to their meeting house and found their pastor's head mounted on a pike in the church yard.

Also, it is reasonable to conclude that the 1689 London Confession accurately represents the beliefs of its ratifiers and their congregations. To think otherwise is to accuse the Particular Baptists of surrendering conscience to political opportunity. Such a possibility flies in the face of all they suffered prior to 1689. Liberty of Conscience was, from the beginning, a fundamental tenet of the Particular Baptists. It seems highly unlikely these courageous brethren would have abandon certain elements of their doctrine simply to gain religious toleration.

With regard to gospel instrumentality in regeneration, there is evidence that at least some of the early leaders of the Particular Baptists held Calvinist Presbyterian religious views. Hansard Knollys expressed his support for this tenet in an exposition of the work of the ministry, to preach the gospel, in relation to God's sovereignty in regeneration. He declared, "I say then when they (ministers) have done this, they must leave the issue to the Lord, who onely (sic) makes this ministry powerful to whom he pleaseth, giving them repentance...enabling them to believe in him unto remission of sins and everlasting life. And surely God hath appointed the Ministry, especially for this end, that by means thereof he might worke faith in all those whom he hath ordained unto eternal life."

Knollys demonstrated a position which balanced gospel agency and election in a sermon titled The World that Now is, and the World that is to Come. He stated, "If the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit and He will communicate of his Grace to his soul. Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, John 15.5. But it is your duty to do them and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12,13. That he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Elder Cox's appendix suggests that in 1646 not all Particulars Baptists embraced certain principles of Calvinism. But, adoption of the overtly Calvinistic tenets of the 1689 Confession indicates if dissenting arguments were presented at the general conference, they were not publicly acknowledged. Inclusion of Chapter Ten, parts one and three, which deals with gospel instrumentality in the effectual call, and Chapter fourteen, part one, which describes saving faith through a concert of divine impartation and rational belief of the gospel, together with supporting scriptural references, all serve to demonstrate the commitment the conferees had to Calvin's doctrine. By expressing the heart of Calvin's theory of regeneration in their Confession they moved away from those brethren who held to primitive faith. This tends to indicate the theology of the 1689 Confession went beyond political expediency and embraced conscience. These brethren were Calvinists with regard to Gospel agency. It must be assumed they heartily believed what they wrote into their Confession.

Perhaps because of their Separatist origins, the Particular Baptists of London and vicinity suffered from certain doctrinal lapses concerning communion and baptism. Throughout the latter years of the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth they debated the issues of mixed memberships and open communion. In fact, after careful consideration of the 1644 Confession, a Particular Baptist council ruled that its authors purposely left the question of open communion unanswered. Therefore, they concluded that their intent was to permit open communion.

The positions of Killcop, Spilsbury and Knollys concerning baptismal succession have already been noted. Crosby's History of the English Baptist indicates an attitude of ambiguity existed among some Particular Baptists toward the principle of baptismal succession.

In all, it appears from the statements of early Particular Baptist leaders that baptism by immersion, upon a profession of faith, was the determining feature of church fellowship. Evidently it was their position that baptismal authority need not be through succession from Christ; rather, at any time, God allowed groups to assign this authority to one of their members and thereby institute a new beginning of church identity and authority. Thus, reformation did not require church succession for authority to baptize.

Jonathan Davis, in his book A History of the Welsh Baptists, published in 1835, notes the Particular Baptists were in controversy over the practice of laying on of hands on newly baptized members. Also, W. Gwynn Owen's book reveals the practice of fellowship with the General Baptists led to associational amalgamation between the two bodies of Baptists.

Such practices were in contrast to the early Baptists of Wales in the Midlands, who claimed their succession of Baptist heritage through the mother church in Olchon Valley located on the Wales/England border, which is part of that area of Britain known as the Midlands. Their ancient Baptist heritage included principles of closed membership and communion. They were not reformed, claiming a succession to Christ through the Apostle Paul. Former pastor of Olchon Baptist Church, John Howells, states the ancient Britons of Wales, around Olchon, maintained an unbroken chain of succession from Christ. "The true apostolic succession is to be found here, and here only, in the history of the genuine Baptists. From Paul, downwards, to this day, they have never failed as a visible body of believers, witnessing for the truth as it is in Jesus, and in maintaining the like faith and practice, continuing constant, in season and out of season, in spite of bonds, imprisonments, the fiery stake, the headsman's axe, the hangmans cord, the assassin's sword, the damp, dark, dreary, and undrained dungeon, the racking tortures of the inquisition, the perverted Roman church. There has been all along the blood-tinged ages of martyrdom an uninterrupted preservation of the primitive creed and ritual of the church of the Pentecost, so signally inaugurated in the upper room in Jerusalem. There is no missing link in this celestial chain from age to age of the remnant according to the election of grace. One of those important and super-eminent links in the "Catena" of Orthodox Christian Church history is the ancient church and chapel of Olchon. It goes back behind Luther and the Protestant Reformation. The genuine Baptist Church needed no reformation, for it never deformed or degenerated itself. Its unquenchable and sparkling transparency motto ever has been and still is, the incorruptible Word that liveth and abideth forever."

Jonathan Davis notes the ancient Baptists of Wales did not practice open membership or communion. He cited their relative isolation as the reason for their purity of doctrine and practice. He wrote of the Welsh brethren around Olchon, "We know that at the reformation, in the reign of Charles the first, they had a minister named Howell Vaughan, quite a different sort of a Baptist from Erbury, Wroth, Vavasor Powell and others, who were the great reformers, but had not reformed so far as they ought to have done, in the opinion of the Olchon Baptists. And was not to be wondered at; for they had dissented from the Church of England, and probably brought some of her corruptions with them, but the mountain Baptists were not dissenters from that establishment. We know the reformers were for mixed communion, but the Olchon Baptists received no such practices. In short, these were plain, strict Apostolic Baptists. They would have order and no confusion, the word of God their only rule."

Several historians, cite an ancient presence of Baptists in Wales. In the introduction to Orchard's History, J. R. Graves wrote; "Welsh Baptists contend that the principles of the gospel were maintained pure and unalloyed in the recesses of their mountainous principality all through the dark reign of popery. God had a regular chain of true and faithful witness in this country, in every age, from the first introduction of Christianity."

"In no country have the principles of our faith as Baptists been more generally understood and more bravely defended than in the little principality of Wales. It is commonly believed that all through the dark reign of popery, in the seclusions of her valleys and the fastnesses of her mountains, there were those who preserved the ancient purity of doctrine and worship."

"There is much evidence that the Baptists of England and Wales date back to very early times."

Jonathan Davis places Christianity in Wales prior to the reformation with this colorful description of the Vale of Carleon, which is the location of Olchon. "It is well known to all who are acquainted with the history of Great Britain, that Carleon, in South Wales, was a renowned city in past ages......The vale of Carleon is situated between England and the mountainous part of Wales, just at the foot of the mountains. It is our valley of Piedmont; the mountains of Merthyn Tydryl, our Alps; and the crevices of the rock, the hiding-places of the lambs of the sheep of Christ, where the ordinances of the gospel, to this day, have been administered in their primitive mode, without being adulterated by the corrupt church of Rome. It was no wonder that Penry, Wroth and Erbury, commonly called the first reformers of the Baptist denomination in Wales, should have so many followers at once, when we consider that their field of labors was the vale of Carleon and its vicinity."

Formal records of the origin of Christianity in Wales are lost in antiquity. However, a single legendary account is generally cited by Welsh Baptist historians. The following description of the ancient roots of the Welsh Baptists is taken from History of the Welch Baptists, by Jonathan Davis, written in 1835. "About fifty years before the birth of our Savior, the Romans invaded the British Isles, in the reign of the Welch king Cassebellun; but having failed, in consequence of other and more important wars made peace with them, and dwelt among them many years. During that period many of the Welsh soldiers joined the Roman army, and many families from Wales visited Rome; among them there was a certain woman named Claudia, who was married to a man named Pudence. At the time, Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome, and preached there in his own hired house, for the space of two years, about the year of our Lord 63. Pudence and Claudia his wife, who belonged to Caesar's household, under the blessing of God on Paul's preaching, were brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, and made a profession of their Christian religion. These together with other Welshmen, among the Roman soldiers, who had heard that the Lord was gracious, exerted themselves on behalf of their countrymen in Wales, who were at that time idolaters." Davis continues, "How rapidly did the mighty gospel of Christ fly abroad! The very year 63, when Paul, a prisoner, was preaching to a few individuals, in his own hired house in Rome, the seed sowed there is growing in the Isle of Britain."

The Apostle Paul concludes his second epistle to Timothy with greetings from some of the saints gathered with him in Rome. Among those mentioned are Pudence and Claudia. Paul's mention of these Welsh Christians casts some doubt as to their being in Wales in 63 A. D. since it is believed Paul wrote II Timothy in 66 A.D.. However, the identities of Pudence and Claudia are well documented. Claudia was the daughter of Welsh King Caratacus. Pudence was Claudia's husband. Armitage believed he was a Roman Senator.

Seventeenth century historian Edward Stillingfleet, in Orgines Britannice: or, the Antiquities of the British Churches, provides specific details of the identity of Pudens and Claudia and their involvement with Christianity in first century Rome and Britain. Quoting Moncaeius de Incunah he wrote, "That Claudia, mentioned by St. Paul, was Caractacus' daughter, and turned Christian, and after married to Pudens, a Roman senator; whose marriage is celebrated by Martial in his noted epigrams to that purpose." Stillingfleet continued his assessment of Claudia's role in the spread of Christianity to Britain quoting from Antiquities Britannicae; "That in so noble a family, the rest of her kindred who were baptised with her might be the occasion of dispersing Chritianity in the British nation."

T. Rees, in his History of Non-conformity in Wales, states that Bran Fendigaid (Bruno the blessed), a Prince of Wales, was a Christian, who, along with other Christians, returned from Rome to Wales around 60 A. D.. According to Rees, they brought with them ministers of the gospel, who introduced Christianity to Wales, establishing a link of succession from Christ.

William Cathcart, in his book The Ancient British and Irish Churches, also claims an ancient beginning for Christianity in the British Isles. He quotes the work of second century historian Tertullian to substantiate his assertion. "In whom other than Christ, who has already come, do all the nations believe? For in him have believed the most diverse people; Pathians, Medes, Elamites; those who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia; the dwellers of Pontus, Asia and Pamphylia; those occupying Egypt, and inhabiting the region of Africa beyond Cyrene, Romans and natives, even Jews dwelling in Jerusalem, and other nations; nay, the different tribes of the Getulians, and many territories of the Moors, all parts of Spain, the different peoples of Gaul, and part of BRITAIN not reached by the Romans but subjugated by Christ. In all these the name of Christ who has already come, reigns."

In 180 A. D. Faganus and Damicanus, who in Davis' words "were born in Wales but born again in Rome, and there became eminent ministers of the gospel," returned to Wales to assist their brethren. In citing their successes Davis wrote. "Though the gospel had been preached in the island since the year 63; yet, as God had not departed from his general way of disseminating his truth among the children of men, by beginning with small things in order to obtain great things, hitherto it had been the day of small things with our forefathers, the inhabitants of the ends of the earth. But now Zion's tent stretched forth; she broke forth on the right hand and on the left."

About 285 A. D. the Welsh Baptists suffered their first large scale persecutions. As Satan had been negligent of his usual policy of immediate persecutions against those newly turned to the Savior, he assaulted this small band of isolated Christians with intense hatred and destruction. During the reign of Roman Emperor Dioclesian, in the tenth persecution, the first martyrdoms on Welsh soil occurred. The elimination of Christianity in Wales was ordered.

Alban was the first Briton to fall in death for Christ. He was executed for providing shelter to a Christian bishop. Next to Alban were two of Christ's bishops, Aaron and Julius, who lived at Carleon, South Wales. With their deaths the reign of terror expanded. A command went out that every Christian be slain. Orders were given to burn all their meeting houses and writings. But persecution did not stop the spread of Christianity, for as quickly as one saint fell another stepped forward to carry forward the blood stained banner of King Immanuel.

The first Christian emperor was a Welshman. Though of Roman descent, Constantine was also Welsh. His mother was Helena the daughter of Coelgodebog Earl of Glouchester, his father Constantius, the Roman ruler of Britain. As a youth, Constantine resided in Wales, where his mother instructed him in the ways of Christ. Concerning Helena's dedication to Christ, Cathcart rote, "She was a devoted Christian, and there is some reason for supposing that she exerted and influence over both her husband and son in favor of christians, which prompted them to the toleration of their opinions." Thus, it was by a Welshman that Christianity drew the attention of all the world. However, it is a saying with English historians, and here it very accurately applies; when princes engage in religion they either do to much for it or too much against it.

Not all Welsh Christians were orthodox. The father of perhaps the greatest perversion of the doctrines of Christ was a Welshman. His Welsh name was Morgan. He is the father of free willism. Davis notes, "the Welshmen, for a considerable time, had a sort of a religious quarrel with one of their countrymen, of the name of Morgan, known abroad as Pelagius."

Davis quotes historical records which note the massacre of more than 1200 Welsh Baptists around 600 A.D. by Saxons under command of the papist monk, Austin. Because of previous successes among the pagan Saxons of England Austin ventured into Wales to spread Roman Catholicism. He requested a meeting with the leaders of the Baptists. Being agreeable to meet and discuss matters of religion, the Welsh brethren sent some twelve-hundred of their preachers and delegates to meet with Austin near Hereford, on the English border, near the cleft of Black Mountain, in a valley called Olchon. Once they assembled the papist asserted that baptism was the means of salvation, and insisted the Welsh brethren surrender their children and infants to Catholic baptism. To this the Elders utterly refused, at which point Austin ordered the Saxons, who had accompanied him to Wales, to attack the unarmed Baptists. In one day, at the hands of one Catholic monk and four-hundred Saxon malefactors, some twelve-hundred of God's humble servants fell in defence of Christ's cause.

Very little written history remains of the Welsh Baptists during the dark ages of Catholic occupation up to the reformation of the English Catholics by Henry VIII. However, some few accounts exist which testify that Christ's little band of Welsh Baptists remained as true witnesses of the glory and graciousness of God. The remnants of history which remain are mostly centered around the vale of Olchon.

Elder Joshua Thomas' book The American Baptist Heritage in Wales details the existence of an ancient Christian enclave at Olchon, in Wales, near the Midlands of England. He notes the presence of a gathered congregation is documented back to the sixth century. Welsh historian John Howells cites historical accounts of Baptist activity in the Valley of Olchon back to the first century.

Olchon church was located in the vale of Black Mountain on the border of Hereford, Monmouth and Brecknock counties on the Welsh/English border. It's location is significant in that civil jurisdiction did not extend beyond county or parish lines. Therefore, when one county persecuted the church the congregation simply moved their worship services to the adjacent county. The Black Mountains area is described by Thomas as rugged and remote, similar to the area surrounding the Piedmont Valley. He ascribes God's providence for the geographic location of the church in contributing to her longevity and purity doctrine.

The following description of the location of Olchon Church is taken from A Brief History of the Old Baptist Church at Olchon, written by John Howells. "Olchon is on the Welsh border. It is situated in the County of Hereford. The ruins of the oldest Chapel belonging to the Primitive Baptists stand on the banks of the swift flowing stream from which the narrow and romantic Valley of the Olchon takes it's name. There is another old Baptist chapel in a state of rapid decay at Ilston, in the peninsula of Gower, in the County of Glamorgan. But the Mother Church doubtless was this one at the Gellis, the old historians called it, from the woods that fringe the steep hill-sides between here and the picturesque little town familiarly known as the Welsh Hay. Near to the old ruin in the which now more than three hundred years ago our Baptist forefathers worshipped, on the hill above it, to the westward is Capel-y-fin or the boundary Chapel, so named because of the junction at this singular place of the three Counties of Brecknock, Monmouth, and Hereford."

Howells contiues his eyewitness narrative with a description of the ruins of the ancient Olchon Baptist meeting house. "Olchon is nearly midway between Abergavenny and Hay. It is situated in a narrow glen at the foot of Black Hill on one side, and the Black Mountains on the other side. It is near to the Western Bank of the Olchon rivulet. The new chapel has been built on the eastern side of this impetuous stream, on an elevated spot not far from where stands the ancient sacred and venerable remains of the medieval hollowed edifice. Here pure and undefiled religion was preserved in its primitive priority, and here the apostolic and pentecostal faith was enshrined in uncorrupted and unalloyed simplicity, and handed down to us in virgin simplicity and unpolluted integrity, when nearly the whole of Christendom besides was enshrouded in Popish perversity and anti-christian thraldom. Here was Olchon preserved intact and untampered with the divine ark of the new Covenant of Grace."

Olchon is believed to be the location of the oldest church in Wales. Her congregation of shepherds, farmers, merchants and occasional nobility moved their meeting place frequently, often worshipping at night to avoid discovery. As she was an ancient church, and do to constant fear of persecution, records of her organization do not exist until about 1600.

Elder Thomas states that Dr. Thomas Bradwardine was born in the county of Hereford, near Olchon. He believed that the famous theologian, mathmetician and Philosopher sometimes attended services there, though his visits were infrequent because because of the press of his busy life.

Thomas also states that Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into the English language, lived near Olchon in 1371. He also lists Walter Brute as an early preacher in this ancient church. He gives the following account of how Brute came to Olchon. "Now to me it appears very probable Wycliffe received much of his light in the Gospel from Bradwardine and his writings, and Brute from Wycliffe and others; and he began to sow the seed of reformation in and about Olchon, and of Believers Baptism, among other doctrines; and that long before the beginning of the Reformation began by Luther, King Richard II directed a letter to the nobility and gentlemen of the county of Hereford, and to the Mayor of the city, charging all to persecute Brute, accused of preaching heresy, in the diocese and places adjacent; and also of keeping conventicles." (Conventicles were unauthorized religious meetings).

Along with these notable men Elder Thomas includes Tyndale. He notes that Tyndale lived in the area, and as a non-conformist, possessed strong Baptist sentiments, though he probably did not attend services frequently. It was Elder Thomas' opinion, shared by other Welsh historians, that the ancient Baptists of Olchon influenced Tyndale's religious beliefs. He notes the Tyndale family name was associated with the Baptists around Olchon.

Elder Thomas presents Olchon not only as the location of the mother church in Wales, but as the virtuous bride of Christ who welcomed all struggling pilgrims who happened her way. He believed Walter Reynard (Walter Lollard) was given refuge there. While it cannot be proven Lollard actually went to Olchon, it is known that the European Anabaptist went to Wales. Elder Thomas notes that Lollard was aware of the existence of Olchon before arriving in Wales. Upon returning to Europe, Lollard was captured and burned alive, in Cologne, in 1322.

Crosby records Lollard residing in Britain for some period of time. "In the time of Edward II, about the year 1315 Walter Lollard, a German Baptist preacher, a man of great renown among the Waldenses, came into England; he spread their doctrines very much in these parts, so that afterwards they went by the name Lollards."

Lollard's appearance in Wales cannot be interpreted as the point of introduction of Baptist sentiment to English soil. There were too many previous sightings. An accurate characterization of his sojourn in the Vale of Olchon is fellowship. Lollard accepted refuge from, and worshipped with, his Welsh Baptist brethren. His presence, and acceptance in Wales solidifies the view that the Anabaptists of the European Continent and the Isle of Britain share a common origin. It was not Polycarp, or even Paul or John. It was the upper room in Jerusalem. Their common link and basis for church fellowship was the Savior, Jesus Christ.

There is agreement among Davis, Thomas, Howells and Fox that martyred Sir John Oldcastle, Lord of Cobhan, had a country home named Olchon Court, to which he fled in 1391 when he first learned of a plot against him. He was accused of "Lollardism" in 1393 and ordered to be arrested and transported to London. It is probable that Lord Oldcastle was an Old Baptist Minister. Davis notes the Baptists sometimes met in the chapel at Olchon Court where Oldcastle preached.

John Howells provides this account of Sir John's Baptist activity. "Not far from the gradually crumbling and rapidly decaying sanctuary stands another renowned and remarkable ruin, namely, the Herfordshire County Seat of Sir John Oldcastle, styled also as Lord Cobhan. Sir John Oldcastle in all probability was baptised in the rivulet that rushes contiguously by the aforesaid rustic, secluded, and verable old Chapel, in which afterwards he would be admitted by the Holy Elders and pious brethren into the Christian fellowship of the only true and scripturally constituted Apostalical Church." In his book, John Wycliff and his English Precursors, Professor Lechler writes; "Sir John Oldcastle, 'the good Lord Cobham,' as he was affectionately termed by the poor and simple, was a firm adherent of the Lollards, whose preachers he welcomed to his seat at Cowling Castle, in Kent, and refused to surrender to the command of the authorities."

Because of their friendship since childhood, while Henry IV was alive Lord Cobhan was not actively pursued despite his Baptist sentiments. However, with the ascension of Henry V to the throne, Sir John's standing with the crown changed for the worst. He was vigorously pursecuted because of his religious views. Howells notes; "His espousal to the tenets and practices of the Lollards, somewhat estranged him from the favour and affection of the Kingly court of St. James, and Windsor Castle. Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, aided and abetted by the other Popist Prelates, hunted his life to destroy it. They poisoned the mind and envenomed the heart of the young episcopally subservient Monarch against him."

In 1411 John Oldcastle was arrested and held in the Tower of London. During this period, a group of Baptists, called Lollards, gathered in the town of St Giles's Fields to offer their support for Sir John. King Henry, convinced by Archbishop Chichely that an uprising was about to occur, sent soldiers to apprehend the gathered Baptists. Thirty-nine were captured. He ordered all thirty-nine to be burned or hanged.

About the same time, Sir John escaped from London Tower and returned to Wales. A reward of one-thousand marks was set for his arrest. He evaded capture for several years while Richard was distracted with war in France. Finally, in 1417 he was apprehended at Olchon Court, carried to London, and ordered to be hanged as a traitor and burned as a heretic.

His sentence was carried out literally. Professor Lechler provides a detailed narrative of his execution. "He was placed upon a sledge and dragged through the town of St. Giles Fields. On arriving there he was taken down from the sledge, and immediately falling on his knees, he began to pray to God for the forgiveness of his enemies. His prayer ended, he rose, and, addressing the assembled multitude, warned them to obey God's commands written down in the Bible, and always to shun such teaching as they saw to be contrary to the life and example of Christ. He was then suspended between two gallows by chains, and the funeral pile was kindled beneath him, so that he was slowly burned. So long as life remained in him he continued to praise God and commend his soul to His divine keeping."

Lechler describes those to whom Sir John Oldcastle preached as, "earnest, obscure men, mostly poor, often illiterate, who yet prized the teaching of Holy Scripture, silently testifying against the corruptions of the professed Church of Christ, and so preparing the mind and heart of the people to welcome the Reformation of the sixteenth century."

An explanation should be noted as to why there are no church records for Olchon Church prior to about 1600. Elder Joshua Thomas states that at one point in his search for records he was sent to an ancient home in Hay, near the church. It had belonged to a Mr. John Rys Howell, who was occasional assistant to the minister. Mr. Howell had sailed to America but returned to Wales in his last days, where he died in 1692. Elder Thomas was instructed that Mr. Howell possessed an ancient trunk filled with manuscripts and records. He received this information about 1770. In 1775 he located the house and trunk just as described, but was too late. The trunk was full of decaying scraps of paper. Every document Mr. Howell had so carefully placed for safe keeping was destroyed by age.

Though it cannot be proven conclusively, Elder Thomas presents a good case, suggesting that John Perry was from around Olchon and probably preached there. Although there is some discussion among historians regarding Mr. Perry's identity as a Baptist, Elder Thomas cites A. Wood, a contemporary of Perry, who in Ath. Oxom plainly stated Mr. Perry "was a notorious Anabaptist, of which party he was the Coryphous (or leader)." This is supported by the writings of another of Perry's antagonists, a Mr. Strype, who charged him with practicing anabaptism. So it would seem evident by the accusations of two contemporaries of Perry that he was an Anabaptist and probably a preacher for the Baptists. It is asserted by Thomas that he lived near the vale of Olchon. He was executed for his dissenting activities in 1593 at age 34.

We have previously noted Elder Howell Vaughn as pastor of Olchon. He is the first pastor of record, though certainly not the first of memory. His earliest appearance as pastor at Olchon is set around 1633. It is known he was already Pastor of this body when Erbury and Vavassor Powell dissented from the established church and came to the Baptists. The following excerpt provides a brief sketch of Elder Vaughn. "Howell Vaughn commenced preaching we know not, neither can we find when or where he was ordained. But however, we find him the pastor of the church at the time of the reformation. He was not a learned man, like Erbury, Wroth, and Powell, as he never had a college education; but he was a plain, conscientious, and godly man, remarkably well versed in scripture. He was a very good preacher, well calculated to feed the church of God with knowledge and understanding. The church under his pastoral care, though small at first, in short time increased most wonderfully."

Davis lists two men as the Elders at Olchon from 1660 to 1688. They are Thomas Perry and John Rees Howell. The men served together, with Elder Perry serving from 1641 until his death in 1709, and Elder Howell co-pastoring from 1645 to 1699 when he died. This was a terrible time of persecution for the old mother church of Wales. Her congregation was frequently forced to flee for refuge to Black Mountain. Davis describes their sundry meeting places during this dark age of Baptist persecution. "But for twenty-eight years, in the reign of Charles the second, the church had to meet in the most secret places by night, somewhere in the woods, or on the Black Mountain, or the rough rock. They were obliged to change the place every week, that their enemies might not find them out. Often the friends of the infernal foe diligently sought them, but found them not. While the wolves were searching in one mountain the lambs were sheltering in the rock of another." Davis continues the narrative with a description of Black Rock. "The safest place they ever found, was in the woods, under a large rock, called Darren Ddu, or the Black Rock. It is a most dreadful steep, and the roughest place we have ever seen. Thus, the Primitive Baptists of Olchon found their, cleft of the rock, where often they fled for refuge." (That we latter day primitives might diligently seek God, as our cleft of the rock, and flee to him for refuge from Satan's subtle though equally destructive assaults).

Olchon was a member of the Abergavenny Association, constituted in 1653. A sad note in the history of this old associ