Early Baptist Historiography

It is fair to say that the current century knows more about John Smyth's congregation than any previous
generation, with the possible exception of his own. Indeed, for over 200 years after his death, Smyth was
ignored by all but a few Baptist historians, who themselves knew little.

Thomas Crosby, who produced the first general history of the English Baptists between 1738 and 1740,
devoted only a few pages out of four volumes to Smyth's congregation and these were chiefly composed of
speculation. 1 Crosby was forced to rely on vague references in general histories and the writings of Smyth's
opponents, since Smyth's own works were "not to be met with."2 Crosby set the tone for Baptist histories for
the next century. Joseph Ivimey, for instance, followed Crosby closely except that he seems to have seen
Smyth's The Character of the Beast and that he also added a few misconceptions of his own.3

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, things changed radically for two reasons. The first was
the discovery of a large body of original sources, and the second was the entry of non-Baptist historians into
the field. The chief breakthrough in the uncovering of sources occurred

when the Baptist historian Benjamin Evans

approached the Dutch Mennonite professors Samuel Muller and J. G. de Hoop Scheffer
in search of sources.

This interchange has been thoroughly described in the "Biographical Notice" prefixed

to the English edition of de Hoop Scheffer's History of the Free Churchmen

called the Brownists, Pilgrim Fathers and Baptists in the Dutch Republic

15811701.4 Hence, there is no need to repeat the story here.

What Muller and de Hoop Scheffer discovered for Evans must have exceeded his wildest dreams. They
reported that in the Amsterdam archives of the Dutch Mennonite church

was a whole section dealing with John Smyth's congregation,

including several works written by Smyth himself. 5

These documents, many of them published by Evans, Champlin Burrage, and W. T. Whifley,6 provided the
raw material for all subsequent historiography on the subject. A host of Baptist histories were written in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This was part of a general upsurge in historical study and was
fueled by the excitement of discovery and the desire of Baptists to find their roots. However, it had an
important side effect in that it stimulated research by two new groups of scholars: Dutch Mennonites and
American Congregationalists.

Dutch Mennonite Historiography

Evans's inquiries stimulated both Muller and de Hoop Scheffer to investigate English Separatists on their
own, and this turned the historical discussion in a new direction.

De Hoop Scheffer defined Anabaptism in terms common to Dutch Mennonites of his day:
the advocacy of religious toleration and religious freedom,
and the separation of church and state.

Noting that the English Separatists also believed in a free church, he speculated that earlier Dutch refugees in
England had spawned English Separatism.7 The John Smyth congregation's agreement with the Mennonites,
then, was merely a returning home. This theory touched off a still smouldering debate among Baptists over
whether their roots were Dutch Anabaptist or English Protestant.8

American Congregationalist Historiography

Baptist historical researches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries overlapped and interacted
with research by (largely American) Congregationalist historians. To some extent this was a continuation of
seventeenth-century infighting between the remnant of the Smyth congregation and English Baptists on the
one hand, and English Separatists such as John Robinson and Francis Johnson on the other. In the late
nineteenth century, the Congregationalists were busily writing their own history, based on the rediscovery of
Governor William Bradford's history of the Pilgrim Fathers and to a lesser extent on the collections of
Benjamin Hanbury.9

What touched off the interaction with Baptist historiography was a particularly bad forgery. In the midst of
the diligent search for Baptist sources, some unscrupulous person invented a fabulous account of John
Smyth's congregation before the flight to the Netherlands, alleging that both the main Smyth congregation
and the Robinson faction nwere already practicing Baptists. This lamentable fabrication was published by the
Baptist John Clifford in 1879 and used extensively in his 1881 book, The English Baptists: Who They Are,
And What They Have Done. 10 The forgery appeared in print just as the Congregationalist historian Henry
Martyn Dexter was completing his The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years.11 Dexter was
incensed by the deception and dashed off a reply, The True Story of John Smith the Se-Baptist,
demonstrating that sixty-six of the eighty assertions of the forgery were false and the other fourteen
unprovable.12
At issue in the Congregationalist-Baptist debate were certain historical facts, as well as a major interpretation
of them. As a Baptist, Thomas Crosby had attempted to defend John Smyth's reputation against the charges
of Smyth's contemporaries. Crosby doubted that Smyth had forbidden the use of Scripture in worship
services or that Smyth had baptized himself. He assumed that Smyth baptized by immersion as later Baptists
did. He also originated an error that has not yet been fully expunged from the historical record even today.
Because Ephraim Pagitt's Heresiography had accused John Smyth of being a leader of the Separatists,13
Crosby assumed that Smyth and his followers had for a time become members of the Ancient Church when
they first came to Amsterdam.

Later Baptist historiography had followed Crosby.

Dexter, however, argued convincingly that John Smyth had baptized himself,
that the Baptists did not practice baptism by immersion until some years after Smyth's death,
and that the Smyth congregation had never been part of the Ancient Church.

The central issue at stake, however, was the nature of John Smyth's character (and by implication the
direction of his congregation). Congregationalist historians followed their ancestor Bradford in feeling that
Smyth was "a man of able gifts and a good preacher" but "unsettled." He "fell into some errors," displaying
his "inconstancy and unstable judgment.'' Thus he had flitted from one opinion to another and had been
unable to retain the truth (meaning the English Separatist-Congregationalist position). Hence, he was "an
object of pity."14

Bradford used almost identical words to describe that other Baptist Roger Williams, as "having many
precious parts but [being] very unsettled in judgment ... [and] discontent.... [Williams] began to fall into
some strange opinions.... [H]e is to be pitied and prayed for."15 The historian must wonder how much
Bradford's words represented a thoughtful analysis of Smyth's character and how much they were merely the
usual insults hurled in retrospect at all Baptists. Congregationalist historians have tended to trust a little too
readily Bradford's ac-

Page 22
count, which after all was written between 1630 and 1650, about twenty years after the events he was
describing. 16

Dexter used terminology similar to Bradford's to describe Smyth: "a good preacher, and a scholar of
considerable acquirements.... [But] his mind was restless ... so that his extreme defect came to be a want of
stability."17 This was a problematic argument. Although even Smyth admitted that he had frequently
changed positions,18 this could be partially justified by the "further-light" doctrine which all English
Separatists recognized19 and which had been part of the founding covenant of the Smyth congregationand
hence part of the Congregationalist heritage. Moreover, as seventeenth-century Anglican polemicists pointed
out, there was a certain logic driving Smyth's apparent vagaries.20 However, Congregationalist historians
made the best of their argument against Smyth's character and gained wide acceptance for it.

Second, Bradford had tended to contrast Smyth's "contention" with the comportment of the members of the
Robinson congregation who "lived together in peace and love and holiness."21 Morison's extension of this to
the absurd conclusion that "unlike the other English churches in exile in the Netherlands, the [Robinson]
congregation was free of factionalism"22 ignored the fine print in Bradford's account. Bradford noted that
when differences arose in the Robinson congregation they were ''composed.... Or else the church purged off
those that were incurable."23 Not only were there disagreements, but some of them were never reconciled.
Bradford's history itself was full of war imagery.24 Moreover, the suggestion overlooked the fact that the
Robinson congregation was in fact a breakaway faction of the Smyth congregation. Nevertheless, John
Robinson's descendant, Ralph Robinson III, was still maintaining the charge in 1982: "The Amsterdam
Separatists had for some years been racked by internal quarrels, notorious scandals, and doctrinal confusion.
Smyth delighted in the excitement, but Robinson and Brewster could stomach none of it."25
Third, although the Congregationalists tended not to dwell on the subject, they preferred to associate Smyth
and the Baptists with the Anabaptist heretics rather than the English Separatists. They tended to consider
Baptists to be the product of Anabaptist influence rather than a branch of English Separatism.26 Perhaps this
was why Dexter was pleased to have discovered that the Smyth congregation had never joined the Ancient
Church. Congregationalists thus agreed with the Dutch Mennonite historians regarding Anabaptist influence
on John Smyth but rejected the assertion of de Hoop Scheffer and later Irvin B.

Page 23

Horst that English Separatism itself was descended from Dutch Anabaptism.

Further Baptist Historiography

Subsequent Baptist historiography tended to be convinced by Dexter's demonstration of the facts (not to
mention the newly available John Smyth sources). As well, one might suspect that Baptists were reticent to
press their own case out of shame over the forgery. In any case, three widely scattered Baptists agreed that
John Smyth had baptized himself. They were A. H. Newman, a Canadian; John C. Carlile, an Englishman;
and Henry C. Vedder, an American. 27 Newman and Vedder agreed that Smyth did not baptize by immersion
and that he was never a member of the Ancient Church.28 Moreover, all three seem to have accepted the
twofold assessment of Smyth that he was both gifted and restless, although they tended to idealize the latter
characteristic as a diligent following after truth. They also accepted the likelihood of Mennonite influence on
Smythbut with reservations. At the point when Smyth joined the Mennonites, these Baptist historians
departed from Smyth and turned their attention to Thomas Helwys and the General Baptists, who had refused
to join the Mennonites.

Something similar occurred in the work of W. T. Whitley, who prefaced his two-volume collection of John
Smyth's Works with the best biography of Smyth written to date. Whitley was more generous to Smyth than
any previous writer and discussed fully the extent of Mennonite influence. Just a few years later, however,
possibly as a result of English patriotism aroused by World War I, Whitley began to downplay the Mennonite
connection: "Baptists are to be sharply distinguished from the Anabaptists of the Continent."29 As a result,
his focus also shifted from John Smyth, who had become Mennonite, to Thomas Helwys, who had returned
to England.30 It is perhaps significant that Helwys's English nationalism and his concentration on the issue
of toleration and liberty tied in with England's stated war aims in the First World War. It is also suggestive
that Helwys's tract on religious freedom (A Short Declaration of the mistery of iniquity) was reprinted in
1935 but that his theological tract against predestination was not.31

This later Baptist historiography had some positive aspects. It cleared up some other factual errors,
particularly the (understandable) confusion of John Smyth with an earlier John Smith, a strict sabbatarian at
Cambridge University. In place of this error, these historians added an outline history of Smyth and his
congregation in England, pieced together from a few scattered references discovered while sifting local
English records.

Page 24
The now-accepted version of John Smyth's history was also echoed in Walter H. Burgess's massive and
factual volume, John Smith the Se-Baptist, Thomas Helwys and the First Baptist Church in England. 32
Burgess, however, attempted to mediate between the rival Congregationalist and Baptist camps. He
impartially produced studies of Smyth and the leading Congregationalist pioneer John Robinson,33 and
praised them both as pioneers of democracy and civil liberties. In this approach, Burgess was picking up and
emphasizing a theme already inherent in Baptist historiography. He was followed by W. K. Jordan, who
concentrated heavily on the political aspects of Baptist theology.34

With the turn-of-the-century surge of activity, research into John Smyth's congregation virtually ceased.
Thereafter, English and American Baptists produced a series of general texts repeating what was already
known but adding nothing new.35 This, however, did not prevent an acrid debate on that general question
which had been raised by both Dutch Mennonites and American Congregationalists: whether Baptists were
Anabaptists or Protestants.36 American Baptists especially carried on a heated exchange. The titles of the
articles, however, reveal that what was at issue was a philosophical debate based on already established facts.
No new research was inserted into this debate.

Recent Work

In the last thirty years, there has again been an increase in research into the John Smyth congregation. As a
result, a few minor additions have been made to our knowledge. J. Bakker made a theological study of
Smyth's writings.37 On the basis of their respective confessions, Lonnie D. Kliever argued that Helwys and
Smyth had great theological differences and that therefore there was little Mennonite influence on the
General Baptists. His otherwise excellent approach was marred somewhat by the fact that he misunderstood
the role and dating of some of the confessions.38
Goki Saito, in a rather limited thesis, contended that Helwys's theology was more dependent on Smyth's than
Kliever had thought.39 In 1971, B. R. White demonstrated, among other things, that the Ancient Church split
in 1610 partly as a result of the Smyth congregation's switch to believers baptism. (White was also at pains to
demonstrate that this baptism followed logically from the principles of English Separatism and was not due
to Mennonite influence.)40 Keith L. Sprunger dug out an unexamined source to elucidate some details of the
remnant of the Smyth congregation's history after they joined the Mennonites.41

Page 25

Timothy George highlighted early Baptist views on pacifism and the state. 42 One key question kept arising:
Saito, Sprunger, and George recognized considerable Mennonite influence on Smyth while Kliever and
White denied it.

Most recently Calvin Pater attempted to establish the strength of Mennonite influence by placing Smyth's
congregation in the larger context of Anabaptist protest.43 This was a noble undertaking as Smyth has often
not been considered in the broader context, but the achievement fell well short of the goal. Pater made his
attempt by adding a brief section at the end of an otherwise well-researched book on an earlier period.
Having spent 249 pages on the first decade of Anabaptism, he then leapt ahead over a century in only 29
pages! This last section of the book was inadequately researched. There seems to have been no serious
attempt to discover the most reliable sources.44
Pater's book is a good example of how old errors regarding the Smyth congregation continue to be repeated
long after they have been proven to be errors. He committed serious errors that could have been avoided by a
more rigorous examination of previous historiography: the assumption that like the Anabaptists the Smyth
congregation was led by laypersons,45 the distinction between Barrowists and Brownists,46 the erroneous
dating of the "Short Confession" of Hans de Ries,47 the facile dismissal of the significance of theological
differences,48 the assumption that the Frisian Mennonites "were apparently placated" to the point that they
accepted the Smyth congregation,49 and the equation of the labels Baptists and Anabaptists.50

At other points, Pater made some exceptionally wise judgments, for instance, in arguing that Helwys
exaggerated the differences between himself and Smyth (p. 266), that Helwys's position on free will went
beyond Arminius's (p. 269), and that there is a connection between tolerance and a belief in free will (p.
265). Nevertheless, Pater's lack of solid research to back up these assertions meant that they failed to carry
conviction.51

Conclusion

Considerable work has been done on the Smyth congregation. However, there are four main areas where
twentieth-century historiography on the subject is still lacking and where this present study seeks to make a
contribution.
The first is a result of language difficulties. Although few original sources have been discovered since
Evans's day, some of the material discovered by Evans's Mennonite correspondents has never been

Page 26

used. This material remains untranslated in Latin and Dutch, and some of it has never been published.
Instead of translating these sources, English and American historians have continued to repeat and reinterpret
the English sources. The most glaring example of this was James E. Tull's essay, which purported to be an
analysis of John Smyth's writings but which in fact passed over Smyth's Latin works without mentioning
them. 52 Hence, Smyth's writings in the period of his relations with the Dutch Mennonites remained largely
unexamined. Yet that material is crucial because, as has been noted, this is a key area of dispute.

Second, as Pater's work demonstrates, much of the knowledge that has gradually been uncovered by
historians remains largely unassembled and hence lost to those historians who have time to sample only a
little of the vast historiography. There seems to be room for a new general history incorporating fresh
research into previously unexamined sources and the scattered discoveries that have already been made by
other historians.

Third, narrowness of perspective has influenced interpretations in much of the work that has been done. The
Congregationalist-Baptist denominational bias and the resulting failure to recognize the shared origin of the
two traditions have already been discussed. So has the heated debate over whether Baptists were Anabaptists
or Protestants. Beyond this, however, there is also a national bias. English and American historians of the
Smyth congregation have had little knowledge of the Mennonites and the Dutch atmosphere in which
Smyth's congregation found themselves. Dutch historians, on the other hand, knew little about the English
and, as a result, have tended to overestimate Dutch influence. While this thesis does not claim to resolve
these problems definitively, it does make progress toward their solution, with some important new evidence
and some fresh interpretations.

Finally, there is the truism that history must continually be rewritten because of new perspectives held by
each succeeding generation and new questions that only modern researchers would think of asking. One
obvious example is that previous scholarship has concentrated on leaders such as Smyth, Robinson, and
Helwys, while little attention has been given to the dynamics of relationships within the close-knit
congregation. Yet, this holdover from the great-man school of history is at odds with the Smyth
congregation's view of themselves as a community of equals. This story is of interest to modern readers
precisely because of the interaction between the various factions within the congregation that lent urgency to
the theological debates and the all-too-human dilemmas faced by the individual members.

Page 28

No bishop, no king.

James I

Page 29
2

Separation: The Beginnings in England

The Flowering of English Separatism

The English Reformation consisted of two parts: an act of state in which the English king replaced the pope
as the head of the Church of England, and a more widespread religious revolution in which Catholic
theology and practice were replaced by Protestant theology and practice. However, Protestantism is far from
uniform, and this is also true of English Protestantism. As Lutherans had done on the continent, some
English Protestants wanted to accept some Protestant emphases (justification by faith, services in the
vernacular) but leave much of the Catholic church structure intact (such as the office of bishop). This was the
party which the Tudor and Stuart monarchs (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I) tended to favor.

There were also Puritans, who were influenced by the writings and teachings of John Calvin and other
continental theologians of the Reformed tradition. They wanted to shape the Church of England on
Reformed lines: Bible-based preaching in place of liturgy and the elaborate celebration of the Lord's Supper;
presbyterian rather than episcopal church government; a stronger church vis-à-vis the state; the teaching of
predestination; and more rigid moral standards. Like the continental Reformed, they attempted to reform the
church from within. Some Puritans, however, became impatient with the lack of change and withdrew from
the Church of England, setting up new, separatist churches on the model espoused by Puritans. Labeled
English Separatism, this movement was thus an extreme branch of English Puritanism.

The origins and early history of English Separatism are complex, but for our purposes only a few of the more
salient details need to be given. English Separatism had existed since at least the time of Robert Browne's
congregation, begun in 1581. (Subsequently, all Separatists

Page 30

tended to be labeled Brownists, particularly by their enemies.) 1 The Ancient Church of English Separatists
was established in London in 1587. The members of this congregation who escaped the clutches of the
English government fled to the Netherlands beginning in 1593. Nevertheless, one could not say that English
Separatism was a significant movement until the early years of the seventeenth centuryand the main figure
responsible for this sudden flourishing of Separatism was none other than King James I.

When James came to the throne in 1603, there was considerable uncertainty as to what religious policy he
would choose. Besides Anglicans and Puritans (the two main contenders), Catholics, the Ancient Church in
Amsterdam,2 and even the Family of Love3 appealed to James to choose their religion over the others. The
Hampton Court Conference in 1604 revealed that James had chosen Anglicanism. A proclamation given by
James shortly afterward reveals the spirit in which James had made his choice:
We do admonish all men, that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the
common and public form of God's service, from this which is now established.4

As Elizabeth had made her famous "settlement" of the religious question in the opening months of her reign
and allowed little deviation from it in the ensuing forty-odd years, so James had made his settlement. He was
serving notice that no more changes would be allowed. The divine right of kings, perhaps, like papal
infallibility, implies that the king cannot contradict himself (even if he might contradict his predecessors).

The likely impact of this on the Puritans must not be underestimated. Mary and Elizabeth had each
established religious policy at the beginning of their reigns. Neither of them had made any significant
alterations such as their father had done. The Puritans had looked forward to the change of regime as their
opportunity to change the system. Now James had made his choice. The opportunity had passed. The
Puritans had every right to think that another forty years might pass before they would have an opportunity
to change the system againand they would have been right. For the next generation they would be the
minority, at best His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Forty years is a long time, a generation. Add another forty
and the time seems forever, at least for the present generation, which is not likely to live that long. Having
been rejected by James, it would be logical for the Puritans to

Page 31
see their separation from the establishment as a permanent condition. Separatism could not be far off.

It was at this point that James gave an even greater impetus to this direction in Puritan thinking. On July 16,
1604, James reiterated in a proclamation (against the House of Commons) that no more innovations in
religion would he allowed and established November 30 as the deadline for conformity. 5 In September he
proclaimed a set of 141 canons passed by the convocation of the English Church.6 In December he obtained
a favorable court ruling that these canons were enforceable without the consent of Parliament.7 The Council
and Archbishop of Canterbury Richard Bancroft quickly set in motion the wheels of government that would
enforce these canons. By canon 37, all clergy were required to subscribe, not only to the royal supremacy
and Thirty-nine Articles, but also to episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer.