Was there a group that considered themselves “Particular Baptists” in mid-17th century England? In Orthodox Radical: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution, historian and theologian Matthew Bingham argues that there was not.

According to Bingham, denominational historians, in seeking to identify their theological forebears, have done a disservice by projecting the label onto the 17th century. By grouping together the movement from which they arose under the label “Baptist,” we lose some of the fine-grained distinctions that existed among these people, resulting in a failure to understand their unique status in 17th-century England.

Outline 

In his introduction, Bingham states the thesis of his book: “I will argue that many of those presently described in the literature as ‘Baptists’ were actually far closer in their theological affinities and relational networks to the more mainstream paedobaptistic congregationalists or independents. The label ‘Baptist,’ as we shall see, is unhelpful and obscures rather than clarifies” (p. 4).

Throughout the book, Bingham argues that a more helpful label for understanding what is usually called the Baptist movement is “baptistic congregationalism.”

Chapter 1 chronicles the rise of the so-called “Particular Baptist” movement among those connected to the prominent Congregationalist church led by Henry Jacob, John Lothrop, and Henry Jessey. Chapter 2 details how these internal debates, in which many prominent congregational divines participated, resulted in the eventual baptism of Henry Jessey by Hansard Knollys. Chapter 3 articulates the book’s most substantive proposal—that the rise of the credobaptist movement should primarily be understood as the logical outworking of congregationalist principles. 

Chapters 4 and 5 test the utility of the label “baptistic congregationalism” for understanding two phenomena within the “Particular Baptist” movement. Chapter 4 explains how the unique religious toleration and privilege experienced by the baptistic congregationalists under Cromwell’s regime is best understood in light of their connection to the congregationalist movement. Chapter 5 suggests that ideological roots in the Congregationalist movement also help explain the rift between the ecumenical and sectarian Baptist spirit among those commonly referred to as Particular Baptists.

The Resolution Theory

I suggest we classify Bingham’s proposal for understanding the origins of Particular Baptists as a “resolution theory.” By that, I mean he is resolving an internal conflict within congregationalism. That is, he conceives of the movement’s rise and expansion as the logical outworking of congregationalist principles.

Bingham explains: “As they sought to further perfect the congregational project, many within the Jessey circle pressed the logic of their polity further: if the only fit members of a visible church were visible saints, and baptism was the door through which entrants into the visible church must pass, why then should it be opened to infants who cannot offer the requisite evidence of saving faith? ” (p. 80-81)

But how exactly did baptistic congregationalism bring resolution to the “congregational project?” Bingham does not explicitly formulate the dilemma within congregationalism that credobaptism resolves. But from what he writes, it is easy to construct such a dilemma. Consider the following theses accepted by paedobaptist congregationalists:

1. Initiationism: Baptism initiates people into the church.
2. Visible Saints: The church consists only of members who show credible signs of conversion.
3. Paedobaptism: Baptism is the sign of the covenant given to believers and their children.

From (1) and (2), it follows that baptism initiates people into a community composed solely of members who show credible signs of conversion. But from (1) and (3), baptism initiates believers and their children into the life of the church. We can now ask: do children—specifically infants—show credible signs of conversion? No. Thus, we have our dilemma.

4. Baptism initiates people into a community composed solely of members who show credible signs of conversion (from 1 & 2).
5. Baptism initiates believers and their children into the church (from 1 & 3).
6. Therefore, baptism initiates believers and their children into a community composed solely of members who show credible signs of conversion (from 4 & 5).
7. But children (specifically infants) do not show credible signs of conversion (from experience).

Given this reasoning, there are several possible responses: (1) deny that baptism initiates people into the church (a shared Reformed assumption), (2) deny that congregations are made up only of members who show credible signs of conversion (a pillar of Congregationalist ecclesiology), or (3) deny that baptism is the sign of the covenant given to believers and their children.

Baptistic Congregationalists chose to deny paedobaptism, thereby retaining their Reformed commitment to initiationism and their Congregationalist commitment to visible sainthood.

No False Dichotomies

Bingham’s resolution theory is highly plausible. Still, we must bear in mind that it is one factor among many that help explain the rise and growth of baptistic congregationalism, lest we adopt a false dichotomy of “competing explanations.”

While it is not the primary focus of his work, one can discern three causes Bingham considers essential to the rise of baptistic congregations: congregational, societal, and primitivist.

The Congregationalist Cause. The Congregationalist cause of Particular Baptist origins is well documented throughout Bingham’s work. Not only did baptistic congregationalism arise from within the larger congregationalist network, but the movement also enjoyed a privileged status under Cromwell that other practitioners of credobaptism never experienced, precisely because of this affiliation.

The Societal Cause. The rise of baptistic congregationalism cannot be understood apart from the societal factors that made it possible. Bingham succinctly describes the context in which baptistic ecclesiology was formed. He writes that mid-17th-century England was a “theological hothouse,” as rapidly escalating political and religious tensions in the early 1640s weakened—and eventually collapsed—the protective bulwarks of episcopacy and print censorship. As a result, “a host of innovators seized upon the opportunity to introduce new religious ideas and movements” (p. 1).

The Primitivist Cause. The primitivist (or biblicist) cause refers to the impulse among baptistic congregationalists to retrieve apostolic Christianity by permitting in worship only what the New Testament prescribes. According to Bingham, this cause can “oversimplify the internal logic of the baptistic position” and fail to explain “why this reasoning did not exert its force far sooner” (p. 67).

Such reasoning, moreover, was not unique to baptistic congregationalists. Bingham explains:

And if, in a loose but meaningful way, this process of ongoing reformation characterized the entire Protestant project, then English puritanism can be conceived as a more emphatic assertion of the same basic impulse. Under Elizabeth, the peculiarities of England’s top-down, state-led reformation produced a cadre of fiery, frustrated puritan Protestants zealous to achieve the “restitution of true religion and reformation of Gods church” by “abandoning al[l] popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment” and “bringing in and placing in Gods church those things only, which the Lord himselfe in his word commandeth.” (p. 130)

However, with these reservations in mind, Bingham does not downplay the significance of the biblicist/primitivist impulse. He comments on this mindset: “Their preference for New Testament language reveals that they saw themselves not as innovators, but rather simple Christians trying to recover a pattern of apostolic worship long obscured by the crust of popery” (p. 133).

Most scholars agree: these Baptists understood themselves as advancing the broader Protestant project of recovering primitive, apostolic Christianity.

An Analogy: Let the Baptists Cook

Even the best ingredients require the right conditions to come together. I take this as a helpful analogy for harmonizing Bingham’s construal of the rise and growth of baptistic congregationalism. These congregations emerged from a combination of ingredients at the right time:

• Primitivism (the regulative principle) → supplied the method.
• Congregationalism → supplied the structure.
• Cromwellian toleration → supplied the environment.

Rather than viewing these as competing explanations for the rise of baptistic congregationalism, we should see them as complementary; each functioning as the right ingredient at the right time.

Conclusion

Whether the term “baptistic congregationalists” ever replaces “Particular Baptists” or not, Bingham’s account offers a compelling and nuanced framework that helps Baptists think clearly and more historically situated about their roots. His book is a valuable and highly recommended contribution to the study of baptistic congregational origins.