We’ve traced the beginnings of Baptist history from the turn of the seventeenth century to roughly 1640. Along the way, we’ve seen the emergence of the first General, or Arminian, Baptist church in England under Thomas Helwys, and the first Particular, or Calvinist, Baptist church under the leadership of John Spilsbury. Shortly after Spilsbury’s church separated from the so-called JLJ Church, the Baptists recovered the practice of baptism by immersion.
For the first forty years, Baptists practiced believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism. But it was not until 1640 that they became convinced the New Testament teaches a specific mode of baptism—immersion. The word itself carries that meaning.
A few people asked about the Anabaptists. Why aren’t they considered the beginning of Baptist history? Weren’t they already practicing believer’s baptism? These are fair questions, and they deserve a brief response.
Why the Anabaptists Are Not the Beginning of Baptist History
The earliest English Baptists were careful to distinguish themselves from the Anabaptists for several important reasons. First, there was no continuity between them. The Baptists did not emerge from the Anabaptists. Despite surface-level similarities, they were entirely separate movements.
They did cross paths on occasion. We saw this with John Smyth and his group in Amsterdam, and again when Richard Blunt traveled to Holland to observe Mennonites, an Anabaptist group, baptizing by immersion. But beyond these limited points of contact, the movements developed independently.
In fact, there is no clear historical evidence that the Particular Baptists initially had any connection to the General Baptists either. It appears that both groups arose and developed independently of each other and the Anabaptists.
The shared practice of believer’s baptism does not mean one movement sprang from the other. They were distinct in origin, despite claims by J. M. Carroll and others who have tried to place the Anabaptists within the Baptist lineage.
More than that, English Baptists, especially the Particular Baptists, wanted to make it unmistakably clear that they were not Anabaptists because of the Anabaptists’ reputation. Since the 1530s, Anabaptists had been widely associated with fanaticism, violence, and political revolution, largely because of events in the German city of Münster. There, an Anabaptist group seized control of the city and established a radical theocracy marked by coercion, polygamy, and violence. When a Catholic army retook the city about a year later, the leaders were executed, and their bodies were displayed in cages hung from the cathedral, which remain there to this day.
That episode made a lasting impression. Even though most Anabaptists by the seventeenth century were pacifists rather than insurrectionists, the name itself carried heavy baggage. To many ears, “Baptist” sounded like “Anabaptist,” a rebaptizer, and rebaptizers were assumed to be revolutionaries.
In some respects, the Baptists were revolutionary, though not in a violent or political sense. Their views challenged the entire civil framework of early modern Europe. Most of Europe operated under a parish system in which citizenship was tied directly to church membership. To be baptized as an infant was to be enrolled in the local parish and, by extension, recognized as a citizen.
The Baptists rejected that model, not because they were trying to reshape society or government, but because they were concerned with the church. They insisted that infant baptism lacked biblical warrant and that only professing believers should be baptized. Yet once infant baptism was rejected, the parish system unraveled. If baptism no longer marked civic belonging, then questions of identity and citizenship were inevitably affected.
That way of life feels foreign to us, but it was the reality of seventeenth-century England. It helps explain why so many viewed the Baptists as dangerous radicals.
Still, they were not radicals in the Anabaptist sense. They had no desire to seize political power or establish a state church of their own. They simply wanted to worship according to Scripture. This concern explains the tone and purpose of the First London Confession of Faith. In its preface, the Particular Baptists wrote, in modern English:
Our only purpose in publishing this confession of faith is to make known to the world what we believe. We are not trying to persuade or satisfy those who disagree with us. However, because many people misunderstand our views and are inclined to think of us either as a new and novel movement, or as holding the same beliefs as those commonly—though unjustly—called Anabaptists, we considered it necessary to give a public account of our faith. We do this in order to clear ourselves of the accusations that are so often and unfairly made against us, both from the pulpit and in print.
The desire to distance themselves is unmistakable. It was not only because some Anabaptists had been politically radical. The Anabaptists also held theological views that the Baptists considered deeply unorthodox. Many denied original sin, and some denied that Christ possessed a true human body. The Baptists had strong theological reasons for refusing the association, quite apart from the lack of historical connection.
That is why Baptist history does not begin with the Anabaptists. Some historians argue that Baptist history does not truly begin until the recovery of baptism by immersion. From that perspective, John Smyth is not the real starting point. Instead, figures such as Richard Blunt, John Spilsbury, and the Particular Baptists of the early 1640s mark the true beginning. That case can be made, and I would much rather claim John Spilsbury than John Smyth, though Smyth still has a place in the story.
In the end, precisely identifying the beginning of Baptist history is something of a moot point. As the Baptists themselves stated in the preface to the First London Confession, they did not see themselves as a “new and novel movement.” This is why I often use the word recover when describing believer’s baptism or baptism by immersion. These were practices of the apostolic church. The early Baptists did not need to learn them from the Anabaptists or from anyone else.
We saw this with Smyth, Blunt, Spilsbury, and others. Where did these ideas come from? Scripture. As they studied the Bible, they recognized that their inherited church practices did not align with Scripture. And because Scripture, not human tradition, was their authority, those traditions had to change.
In that sense, the Baptists were not beginning something new. They were recovering and restoring biblical practices that had been lost over time. They were picking up where the Reformation left off. The Church of England broke from Rome. The Puritans pressed reform further. The Separatists went further still. And the Baptists pushed further yet, all in an effort to bring the church back into submission to the Word of God.
Suffering, Refinement, and Baptist Maturity after 1640
As we pick up the Baptist story in 1640, we move beyond the earliest beginnings into a period of maturation and refinement. Over the next fifty years, the Baptists would grow not only in number but, more importantly, in depth and clarity. Largely through the crucible of persecution, they were forced to define who they were, clarify what they believed, and learn to articulate those convictions in the face of widespread misunderstanding.
As we continue, it is worth keeping several biblical passages in mind. Again and again in church history, God brings good out of the trials of his people. This runs counter to our instincts, but the church has rarely grown strongest during seasons of ease. More often, it matures through suffering. The Baptists were about to enter a prolonged season of hardship, and Scripture helps us understand what God is doing in such times.
Peter writes:
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:6–7).
James makes the same point when he teaches that trials test faith, produce steadfastness, and lead to spiritual maturity (James 1:2–4). Paul echoes this in Romans 5, where suffering leads to endurance, endurance to character, and character to hope (Romans 5:2–4).
These passages remind us that suffering can have a genuinely positive effect on believers. That may feel counterintuitive, but history repeatedly confirms it. When the Baptists were persecuted throughout the seventeenth century, they produced some of the strongest defenses of the doctrines of grace, liberty of conscience, and believer’s baptism. They also produced, in my view, the finest confession of faith in church history. Men like John Bunyan wrote enduring works such as Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners and The Pilgrim’s Progress from prison cells. Yet once persecution largely ceased in 1689, something telling happened. The General Baptists began drifting toward anti-Trinitarian views, and the Particular Baptists found themselves embroiled in disputes over hymn singing.
This is not to suggest that persecution is desirable, but it is a recurring pattern in church history. Under pressure, the church tends to grow stronger, clearer, and more refined. In times of peace and prosperity, believers often lose focus on what matters most. No one debates the propriety of hymnody while fellow Christians are being imprisoned. Such debates may have their place, but persecution has a way of clarifying priorities. In the Baptist story, suffering functioned exactly as Scripture says it does: it produced growth and maturity.
One small example illustrates this process. When the Baptists began baptizing by immersion, they faced sharp and often unfair criticism. Richard Baxter accused the practice of social indecency and spiritual recklessness. Daniel Featley published a work titled The Dippers Dipt, claiming that Baptists stripped “stark naked, men and women together,” and denounced the practice as unseemly and unfit to be named among Christians.
In response, the Baptists addressed the issue directly. In a footnote to the First London Confession, they explained that baptism by immersion was to be conducted with appropriate clothing for both the one administering baptism and the one being baptized, and always with proper modesty. Because of the accusations leveled against them, they were forced to articulate their practice carefully. That clarification then served future generations of Baptists. Criticism led to refinement, and refinement strengthened the church.
This pattern repeated itself again and again. Opposition forced the Baptists to study Scripture closely and to learn how to explain and defend their convictions clearly.
One story about Benjamin Keach illustrates the point. Keach was a significant figure in Baptist history. On one occasion, he was traveling by boat to a formal debate with a minister who opposed believer’s baptism. While on the boat, he struck up a conversation with a man who did not realize Keach was the Baptist he was scheduled to debate. The man spoke freely about his plans to debate whom he called an “ignorant Baptist.” Keach asked what arguments he intended to use, and the man explained them. Keach then asked what he expected his opponent to say, and the man outlined those arguments as well. Keach responded, “If I were that man, here is what I would say,” and proceeded to lay out a biblical defense of believer’s baptism.
When they disembarked, Keach went on to the debate hall. The other man went in a different direction and never appeared.
That story proves nothing about who was right, but it does illustrate how sharp the Baptists were compelled to become. Surrounded by critics and opponents, they were forced to refine their thinking and strengthen their arguments. If iron sharpens iron, the Baptists had no shortage of iron (Proverbs 27:17).
The Civil War, a Window of Freedom, and the First London Confession
In the early 1640s, there were only a handful of General Baptist and Particular Baptist churches. Yet the political climate in England briefly allowed for a measure of freedom. Throughout that decade, England was consumed by civil war, which was a conflict between King Charles I, who supported the state-sponsored Anglican Church, and Parliament, whose members were largely Puritans seeking further reform of the church.
In theory, England’s government functioned through a balance between the monarch and Parliament. Laws were meant to require the consent of both. In practice, however, kings often claimed near-absolute authority. There was no constitution or formal system of checks and balances like those in the United States, and the king could dissolve Parliament at will.
As King Charles and Parliament fought one another, small dissenting groups like the Baptists drew relatively little attention. Their congregations were still illegal, but the nation was distracted. This created a limited but real window of opportunity. Men such as Hanserd Knollys traveled widely, establishing new churches, and the first seven Particular Baptist congregations in London gathered to draft the First London Baptist Confession of Faith.
You will often see two dates associated with that confession. The initial version was completed in 1644, then revised and republished in 1646. Its purpose was multi-layered. The Baptists wanted to clarify and solidify their identity. They wanted the broader public to know who they were and what they believed. They also wanted to demonstrate their unity with other orthodox, evangelical churches and to distance themselves from radical groups such as the Anabaptists. In fact, they were eager to show that they stood firmly within Reformed orthodoxy, including a thoroughly Calvinistic understanding of salvation. While they had real distinctives, they believed they shared far more with their Puritan and Separatist contemporaries than they differed from them.
That clarity did not mean they softened or minimized their disagreements. The Baptists were often strikingly bold, sometimes uncomfortably so. John Spilsbury, pastor of the first Particular Baptist church, could be especially forceful. When arguing against infant baptism, he wrote that Protestants who retained it “keep themselves in the company of antichrist,” urging them either to “return to Rome or go forward to the true constitution of the church.” When addressing Arminianism, he labeled it a “doctrine from beneath and not from above” and described its teachers as being “from Satan and not from God.”
Similar language can be found among early General Baptists as well. In fact, if you read widely from this period, you will find that writers from nearly every group spoke this way. That does not mean such rhetoric was always right or appropriate.
As Christians, we are called to hold two biblical principles together. Scripture warns against destructive speech and calls us to speak the truth in love, with words that are gracious and seasoned with salt (Ephesians 4:16; Colossians 4:6). To the extent that seventeenth-century Baptists erred, it was often in speaking too sharply and without enough restraint.
At the same time, we must avoid swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. Scripture also commands clarity and firmness in matters of truth. Paul pronounces a curse on anyone who distorts the gospel (Galatians 1), and Jude urges believers to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The challenge, then and now, is to maintain the proper balance by speaking with both conviction and charity.
Growth under the Commonwealth and the Return of Persecution
As the Baptists, especially the Particular Baptists, were establishing themselves during the 1640s, the English Civil War ended in 1649. Parliament emerged victorious, King Charles I was executed, and the Commonwealth of England was declared. This marked the beginning of an unprecedented season of growth for the Baptists.
For a time, there was no monarch. Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, became the central figure of authority and sought to move England toward a republican form of government. He was not a Separatist or a Baptist, but he did support a measure of religious freedom. Some of his close associates, including Roger Williams, were Baptists.
The results were dramatic. In 1644, there were only seven Particular Baptist churches and a small number of General Baptist congregations. By 1660, the numbers had grown to roughly 130 Particular Baptist churches and about 115 General Baptist churches. Baptist congregations multiplied rapidly. Alongside this numerical growth, churches began forming associations for mutual support and cooperation in ministry, which further strengthened unity and expansion.
At the same time, religious freedom brought complications. Various fringe groups emerged, and the atmosphere of toleration emboldened them. Cromwell even appointed some Baptists to positions in his administration, which encouraged a sense of opportunity across the spectrum. Among the General Baptists, groups such as the Fifth Monarchists appeared. They believed they were responsible for preparing the way for Christ’s earthly reign and sought to seize control of the government in order to establish a theocracy. Other groups, like the Seekers, concluded that no true church could exist without unbroken apostolic succession. They were waiting for God to restore apostolic gifts before the church could be reestablished. Roger Williams himself left the Baptist church he founded in America after only a few months for this very reason.
This pattern recurs throughout church history. Persecution brings obvious hardships, but unchecked freedom carries its own challenges. Cromwell’s vision faced a serious problem: if the long-established parish system and state church were dismantled, what would hold society together? His critics argued that it could not work without the stability of a unified church and religion.
By 1660, the experiment collapsed. Cromwell died, and his son proved unable to maintain control. Competing religious and political factions, including some radical Baptist groups, contributed to the instability.
That year, Charles II, the son of the executed king, returned from exile and restored the monarchy. With the support of loyal members of Parliament, he quickly reestablished the Church of England as the exclusive state church. Nonconformists of every kind, including Baptists, were once again treated as public enemies. A series of laws followed, designed to force conformity and punish dissent. The 1660s became known as the Great Persecution.
Groups like the Fifth Monarchists only intensified the backlash. Despite the Particular Baptists’ efforts to distance themselves from radical movements, their opponents now had fresh ammunition. Charges of disloyalty and political subversion were leveled broadly. It made little difference that the Fifth Monarchists were a small minority. Matters worsened further when they attempted an armed uprising in January 1661. After that, all Baptists were viewed as enemies of the state.
The Clarendon Code and Life under the Great Persecution
Within months of the Restoration, Parliament enacted a series of laws known as the Clarendon Code. Nonconformists were first barred from holding public office. Next, roughly two thousand Puritan ministers were ejected from the Church of England. Then it became illegal for five or more people to gather for worship outside the Church of England. Finally, nonconformist pastors were prohibited from coming within five miles of any town or parish where they had previously preached. The strategy was to remove the shepherds, scatter the sheep, and bring an end to unsanctioned churches.
The Baptists were forced into an agonizing choice. They could stop meeting and stop preaching, or they could continue and risk imprisonment. Most chose the latter. This is the period when John Bunyan was imprisoned for twelve years. Others, including William Kiffin and Hanserd Knollys, managed to avoid prison, largely because they had financial resources and influential connections. Even so, they often met in secret and, at times, suspended gatherings altogether to avoid detection. Churches frequently posted lookouts to warn those inside if authorities were approaching.
In 1664, Benjamin Keach was just twenty-four years old when he was arrested for publishing a children’s book that taught Baptist doctrine. He was fined heavily, imprisoned for two weeks, and sentenced to stand on the public pillory for two full days. The pillory was a raised platform in the town square, designed for maximum visibility, with the offender’s head and hands locked in place.
Keach used the punishment as an opportunity for ministry. As crowds gathered to stare at the young preacher, he preached to them. When the sheriff ordered him to stop, he continued. When an Anglican minister attempted to ridicule him, the crowd turned on the heckler, shouting him down and telling him to examine himself before mocking Keach.
Stories like this appear repeatedly from this period. Time and again, God strengthened his people through trial and suffering.
In 1672, King Charles II made a surprising move. He issued a Declaration of Indulgence that suspended the laws against Baptists and other Nonconformists. The reasons remain unclear. Some suggest it was an act of defiance against an increasingly hostile Parliament. Others think it reflected sympathy toward Roman Catholicism. Whatever the motive, Baptists were suddenly granted a measure of freedom.
That freedom came with conditions. Pastors were required to obtain licenses to preach, and congregations had to register officially. The danger soon became apparent. When the Declaration of Indulgence was withdrawn a year later, and nonconformity was once again illegal, the government now possessed a list of ministers and churches to target.
John Bunyan was among them. Not everyone had registered, but Bunyan had registered to secure his release after 12 years in prison. Once the declaration was revoked, he was arrested again and returned to confinement.
From Persecution to the Second London Confession
Through the remainder of Charles II’s reign, until his death in 1685, the Baptists experienced repeated cycles of persecution and partial relief. Remarkably, they also showed foresight. They recognized that lasting freedom might arrive at any moment, and they prepared accordingly. During this period, the Particular Baptists, including William Collins, Nehemiah Coxe, William Kiffin, and Hanserd Knollys, came together to draft what would become the Second London Baptist Confession.
This work was completed in 1677, which often surprises people, since it is commonly referred to as the 1689 Confession. Persecution was still ongoing in 1677, so the confession was not publicly issued. It would wait until conditions allowed for its formal adoption in 1689.
William Kiffin’s role here is especially noteworthy. He was the only man to sign both the First and Second London Confessions. His ministry spans the entire formative period of Particular Baptist history, from its earliest days through the publication of the Second London Confession. He pastored the same church from 1642 until his death in 1701, a remarkable continuity that reflects both his endurance and his influence.
In composing the Second London Confession, the Particular Baptists made deliberate use of existing confessional documents. They drew heavily from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1646 and the Congregational Savoy Declaration of 1658, which itself was based on Westminster. They altered these documents only where necessary to reflect Baptist convictions. This approach served several purposes. It expressed clear unity with other Reformed orthodox groups, and it acknowledged the theological clarity and precision of those confessions. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the Baptists built upon what had already been carefully articulated.
A strong case can be made that the Second London Confession would not exist apart from the intense persecution the Baptists endured. One of their central motivations was to demonstrate their theological solidarity with other Nonconformists, particularly Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Persecution pressed them to clarify their beliefs, refine their theology, and defend their place within the broader Reformed tradition.
A few years later, after political upheaval involving James II, William of Orange, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament passed the Act of Toleration in 1689. This act did not establish full religious liberty, but it did grant Trinitarian Protestants the legal right to worship freely. That moment opened the door the Baptists had been anticipating.
Soon afterward, the Particular Baptists convened a General Assembly in London, with delegates from more than 100 churches. There, they formally adopted the Second London Confession of Faith. They were ready. Years of preparation enabled them to act decisively as soon as the opportunity arose.
The influence of this confession is difficult to overstate. Fifty-three years later, the first Baptist association in America formally adopted it. More than three centuries later, it remains the confession of my church. God used an imperfect people, sustained through decades of hardship, to give the church a doctrinal statement of enduring clarity and strength.
