|
|
historical sketch of the english baptists
|
The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881 The Christian religion was introduced into Britain in the second century, and it spread with great rapidity over the ancient inhabitants, — that is, over the Britons, or Welsh, not over the English, who came to their present home as pagans in the fifth century and afterwards gave it their name. The ancient Britons, unlike the English, were not converted by missionaries from Rome, but apparently by ministers from the East, like Irenaeus, the Greek bishop of Lyons, in France. The Britons refused obedience to the commands of the pope, and they observed some customs in opposition to the usages of the Romish Church. It is highly probable that when Augustine landed in Britain in the end of the sixth century, infants were not baptized in that country. "Pedobaptism was not known in the world the first two ages after Christ; in the third and fourth it was approved by a few. At length, in the fifth and following ages, it began to obtain in diverse places." Prof. Curcellaeus, of Amsterdam, a Pedobaptist, states the truth in the foregoing declaration. (Crosby, History of the English Baptists, 1740, iii., Preface, p. xviii.) As the Britons had no relations with Africa, the birthplace of infant baptism, and no religious ties with Rome, and little intercourse with the distant East at that period, it is most likely that the infant rite was wholly unknown among them. When Augustine had his celebrated conference with the British bishops at Angustine's Oak, in 603, he demanded three things from them: "To keep Easter at the due (Roman) time, to administer baptism, by which we are again born to God, according to the custom of the holy Roman Apostolic Church; and jointly with us to preach the Word of God to the English nation." Bede's report of this meeting in his "Ecclesiastical History," lib. ii. cap. 2, is undoubtedly true. By some the demand about baptism regarded as infallible testimony that the ancient British at this time did not baptize infants. This view lays too much stress upon the report of Bede. The ancient Britons had a different tonsure from the Romish monks and their English sacerdotal converts, and the lack of uniformity about this practice was the cause of bitter controversy; and so it is possible that the ancient Britons may have immersed infants, but with ceremonies obnoxious to Augustine. The probabilities, however, are altogether in favor of the view that they rejected the baptism of such children and unconscious babes as were immersed at that time in Rome. It should be remembered that in the Eternal City at this period, and for some ages later, little children were catechised and baptized twice a year. The truth about the Britons of Augustine's day is that they were most probably Baptists, and most assuredly not Roman Catholics. The Irish and Scotch in that day were in perfect harmony with the ancient Britons in wholly rejecting papal authority, and most probably infant baptism. St. Patrick was converted just as Christians are now, he baptized converts in rivers and wells, as may be seen in "The Baptism of the Ages," and to us he appears to have been a Baptist missionary; his religious successors in Ireland, and in the Scotch churches which sprang up from their missionary labors, and the ancient British churches, continued independent of Rome for a considerable period, and gradually fell into the papal apostasy, the Irish yielding lost to the sacerdotal tyranny of the Seven Hills. Among the people now called English, the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons, who first began to enter Britain in the middle of the fifth century, and whose conversion to Romish Christianity commenced in the end of the sixth, Baptist doctrines had no place for ages after the death of Augustine, their apostle. In the twelfth century about thirty Publicans of foreign birth appeared in England. They were rustic in their manners, blameless in their their lives and their leader, Gerhard, was a man of some learning. They made one English woman a convert to their doctrines. She was probably the first Baptist of Anglo-Saxon birth. These persons took "the doctrine of the Apostles as their rule of faith." They were orthodox about the Trinity and the incarnation, but "they rejected baptism and the holy Eucharist;" that is, they rejected infant baptism, like their Albigensian brethren on the Continent, and the Romish mass, together with the remaining papal sacraments. A council of bishops met at Oxford in 1160 to try these pious rejectors of papal authority, and when they were threatened with punishment for refusing to submit to the Catholic Church, they replied, "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The council condemned them. Upon this Henry II ordered them to be whipped out of town after being branded in the forehead, and he forbade any one "to entertain them or give them any manner of relief." They endured their sufferings joyfully, and departed, led by Gerhard, singing, "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." The severity of the winter, the superstitious dread of heresy, and the terror of the king, destroyed these poor people by hunger and cold. (Collier's Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, ii. 262-63. London, 1840.) That there were numbers who held Baptist sentiments among the Lollards and the followers of Wickliffe we have no reason to doubt. Robinson, the Baptist historian, says, "I have now before me a MS register of Grey, bishop of Ely, which proves that in the year 1457 there was a congregation of this sort (Baptist) in this village where I live, who privately assembled for divine worship and had preachers of their own, who taught them the very doctrine which we now preach. Six of them were accused of heresy by the tyrants of the district, and condemned to abjure heresy, and do penance half naked, with a faggot at their backs, and a taper in their hands, in the public market-place of Ely and Cambridge, and in the church-yard of Great Swaffham." The charges against them in substance were, that they denied infant baptism (item, quod puer. . . nec egeat, nec baptizari debeat ...); that they rejected extreme unction; and said that the pope was antichrist, and his priests were devils incarnate." (Robinson's Notes on Clande's Essay, ii. 53, 55.) These Baptists held the truth before Luther preached the doctrine of justification by faith, or Cranmer favored the Reformation in England. We have reason to suppose that in the multitudes of English Lollards there were many Anabaptists, and not a few conventicles like the one at Chesterton. In 1538, according to Bishop Burnet, "there was a commission sent to Cranmer, Stokesly, Sampson, and some others, to inquire after Anabaptists, to proceed against them, to restore the penitent, to burn their books, and to deliver the obstinate to the secular arm." At this period the Baptists in England were circulating their denominational literature, and were sufficiently numerous to disturb the head of the nation. In 1560 the Anabaptists were not only numerous in England, but some of them were "creeping into Scotland," and John Knox was afraid that they might "insidiously instill their poison into the minds of some of this brethren," and he lifted his powerful pen against our people, to refute their arguments, and to keep them out of Scotland. In 1553, when the great Scotch Reformer was in London, an Anabaptist called upon him at "his lodging" and "gave him a book written by one of this party, which he pressed him to read." (McCrie's Life of John Knox, p. 137, Philadelphia, 1845.) Joseph Ivimey (i. 138) says, "It is thought the General Baptist Church of Canterbury has existed for two hundred and fifty years (written in 1811), and that Joan Boucher was a member of it, who was burned in the reign of Edward VI." This would make 1561, the year when the church was founded, but it must have existed eleven years earlier if Joan of Kent belonged to it; and it may have been older than 1550. Ivimey represents the church at Eyethorne as formed before 1581. Dr. Some, an English Episcopalian, of great repute, wrote a treatise in 1589 against Barrow, Greenwood, and others of the Puritan sect, "wherein he endeavored to show what agreement there was between the opinions of the English Anabaptists and these men. Dr. Some acknowledges that there were several Anabaptistical conventicles in London and other places, that some of this sect, as well as the Papists, had been bred at the universities." (Crosby, i. 76.) At this period the Baptists with separate places of meeting and educated ministers must have been in the enjoyment of considerable prosperity. In 1611, Thomas Helwys, pastor of the English Baptist church of Amsterdam, in Holland, concluded that it seemed cowardly to stay out of his country to avoid persecution, and that it was his duty to return and preach the truth at home, and cheer his suffering brethren; his church, when he gave his reasons, agreed go with him; and probably in 1612 the Amsterdam English Baptist church was in London, and very soon became a strong community. In 1620 the English Baptists presented King James I a very able petition, in which they declare their loyalty, tell his majesty about their grievous imprisonment "for many years in divers counties in England," explain their principles, and appeal to the king, and to the Parliament then sitting, to relieve them from persecutions. At this period there was undoubtedly a considerable number of Baptists in England; some of them formed into churches, and others scattered throughout the nation. The foundation was in existence for that magnificent denominational sucess which thirty years later astonished Baptists themselves and utterly confounded those who disliked them. Particular Baptists In 1616 a Congregational church was established in London, of which Henry Jacob was the first pastor. His successor in 1633 was John Lathorp. At that time certain members of the church holding Baptist sentiments sought its sanction to form a church of baptized believers. The approval was given. The new church was organized September 12, 1633. This community was the first English Calvinistical or Particular Baptist church whose special history we can trace with the greatest facility. John Spilsbury was its first pastor. (Crosby, i. 148.) The Protectorate was a period of remarkable Baptist growth. Our brethren were full of zeal. They used the press in every direction; peddlers cried Baptist books for sale up and down the streets of cities and towns as newsboys invite customers among us for the daily papers; tracts were distributed in the army and elsewhere; sermons were preached in the streets by brethren and on the doorsteps by sisters, like the godly women of Bedford who told John Bunyan about the Saviour; soldiers preached to each other in the barracks and on the march; and the officers were heralds of salvation when they had an opportunity. And as a result Baptist principles triumphed to an extent that created wonder and alarm. Major-General Overton, according to Clarendon,1 was a Baptist, a man of great religious fervor, and a fearless soldier. General Lilburn was an enthusiastic Baptist. Lieut-General Fleetwood, the son-in-law of Cromwell, as the "Parliamentary History"2 states, was a Baptist. Richard Baxter3 represents General Ludlow, the commander-in-chief of the forces in Ireland, as "the head of the Anabaptists in that country." General Harrison was a Baptist worthy of immortal regard. Clarendon describes "Vice-Admiral Lawson as a notorious Anabaptist who had filled the fleet with officers and mariners of the same principles."4 Of the governors and colonels the number belonging to the Baptists was remarkable. And wherever the English army or fleet was found the Baptists made themselves felt. Ivimey5 quotes a letter from Captain Richard Deane to Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, in which he says, "In the year 1649 the Baptists greatly increased in the country, and their opinions did likewise spread themselves into some of the regiments of horse and foot in the army; and in 1650 and afterwards some professing this opinion were called from their private employments and preferred to commands at sea. Among others Captain Mildmay, to command the admiral's flag-ship, under the Duke of Albemarle (Monk), when he was one of the 'generals at sea'; Captain Pack, to command the flag-ship under Sir George Ascue, rear-admiral; Sir John Harman to command the admiral's flag-ship under his royal highness the Duke of York." "In and after 1649 their numbers did increase, insomuch that the principal officers in divers regiments of horse and foot became Anabaptists, particularly Oliver Cromwell's own regiment of horse, when he was captain-general of all the Parliament's forces; and in the Duke of Albemarle'e own regiment of foot, when he was general of all the English forces in Scotland." The writer of this letter was a Baptist, and a "general at sea" with Generals Blake and Monk. In that day this title meant the highest grade of admiral. General Lilburn's troops had a large representation of Baptists, who held religious meetings wherever they were on duty; and their denominational sympathies were well known in England as the Presbyterianism of Sir Arthur Haslerig, or the Congregationalism of Oliver Cromwell. Thomas Harrison writing Secretary Thurloe from Dublin in 1655,6 describing the Baptists in Ireland, says, "They have governors of towns and cities, twelve at least; colonels, ten; lieutenant-colonels, three or four; majors, ten; captains, nineteen or twenty; officers in the civil list, twenty-three; and many [others] of whom I never heard." The writer of this letter begins it with expressions of sorrow for a country with such a list of Baptists in official positions. These Baptists were all Englishmen temporarily located in Ireland. Probably in the list above Colonel Sadler, the governor of Galway, is counted, who, according to Heath,7 with all his officers, were Anabaptists. The most remarkable record of Baptist progress in the English army in Ireland we have from the ready pen of good, murmuring Richard Baxter. He says that in Cromwell's sway, "In Ireland the Anabaptists were grown so high that many of the soldiers were rebaptized [immersed] as the way to preferment; and they who opposed them were crushed with uncharitable fierceness." This is a proof of popularity and influence, the force of which we can easily appreciate. The unprincipled heathen enrolled themselves as Christians when Constantine the Great proclaimed himself a follower of the Redeemer. And in Ireland, as Mr. Baxter affirms, Baptist principles were so precious to men in power that Pedobaptist soldiers, with an accomodating conscience, professed to adopt them to secure higher positions in the army. In a letter addresed to Cromwell, and preserved by Thurloe,8 his principal secretary, written after he made himself a dictator, and after he began to persecute Baptist soldiers because they disliked his despotical assumptions, it is asked, "Have not the Anabaptists filled your towns, your cities, your provinces, your castles, your navies, your tents, your armies, except that which went to the West Indies, which prospered so well?" This army was shamefully defeated at Hispaniola. The writer then puts some other questions to the Lord Protector: "1st. Whether you had come to that height
you are now in if the Anabaptists had been as much your enemies
as they were your friends? It was at Dunbar, near Edinburgh, where Cromwell gained a great victory over 30,000 splendid Scotch troops, with an army not more than 10,000 strong of all arms, and greatly discouraged by sickness and want, many of whom were valiant Anabaptists. From this letter, the truth of which cannot be questioned, the Baptists occupied many positions of great importance and power under the Commonwealth and under Cromwell. But the most convincing evidence of the influence possessed by the Baptists just before the restoration of Charles II is found in the efforts made by the Presbyterians to place that monarch on the throne. The first Stuart monarch of England renounced his Presbyterian education and professed principles, and ever, after he entered England, was a malignant enemy of the church of Calvin and Knox. His son, Charles I, was a wicked persecutor of everything bordering on Presbyterianism. Charles II before he ascended the throne of his fathers showed no reliable mark of improvement to win the favor of an honest Presbyterian. Nor had he a single confidential friend whose character afforded one ray of hope that Charles was favorably disposed to Presbyterianism than his father or his grandfather. The Presbyterians of England and Scotland restored Charles II. No one competent to give an opinion denies this. Why did they engage in such work? They have a grand character as the friends of liberty and of God. We have wept in reading the records of their martyrs, and gloried in the courage of their heroes. How came they to place on the throne of Great Britain and Ireland a treacherous Roman Catholic? Guizot,9 the French Protestant statesman, tells the secret when he says, "The king's interest is also supported by the Presbyterians, although they are republicans in principle; and it is only the fear that the Anabaptists and other sectaries may obtain the government which leads them to oppose the present authorities." The Presbyterians at the period referred to by Guizot, just before the restoration, had only been placed in possession of the government for the first time in several years. The Episcopalians, when Richard Cromwell withdrew from the government, were of little account. The Independents and Cromwell had it for a long time; and the new rulers were alarmed lest the Anabaptists should seize the reins of state and give lasting liberty of conscience, which to them was odious, and spread their principles still more widely through all ranks of society; and they joined the old cavaliers to bring the royal exile from Breda because the Baptists were so numerous and powerful that they were afraid they might seize the government. The king, on obtaining the crown, crushed the Presbyterians without pity, and wickedly persecuted the Baptists. They were imprisoned in loathsome dungeons; in one place sixty of them were confined in a room nine feet wide and fourteen feet long; in many of the jails the Baptists were brought in such throngs that some had to stand while others lay down to sleep. Multitudes died through the foul air of the prisons. Others were kicked, beaten, and outrageously abused, until death came to their relief. Some were sold as slaves in Jamaica. Henry Forty was imprisoned twelve years in Exeter; John Bunyan, during the same period, in Bedford; another minister twenty years in the same place; and others were hung, drawn, and quartered. But the martyr spirit never exhibited itself more gloriously than among these Baptist worthies. Their enemies were confounded, if they were not conquered, by their blessed expressions and heroism, in losses, confinement, and agonizing pains. Their love of the widest liberty of conscience, and of pure democracy, had unquestionably an extensive influence in shaping public opinion under Charles II and James II in Great Britain. So that at last the high-churchmen, whose fathers bled on many battle-fields for the divine right of kings and the passive obedience of subjects, began to believe that Englishmen had some rights which even kings should be compelled to respect; and James II, by the persuasive threatenings of an angry people, fled to France, and William III, the illustrious Hollander, ascended the throne of Britain with the joyful acclamations of most Englishmen and the speedy obedience of all; and from him and the nation came "The Toleration Act," and an extension and consolidation of British liberty; results of a glorious revolution, many of the seeds of which were planted by the teachings and instructive sufferings of our British Baptist fathers of the seventeenth century. From the persecutions of the last two Stuart kings the Baptists in England, for a long period, did not recover. They had been robbed, murdered, compelled to emigrate, and destroyed in prison in thousands, nevertheless they continued to hope, and they labored faithfully for the Master. A time of religious declension darkening the latter part of the seventeenth and more than a third of the eighteenth century was as great a calamity to our brethren. In 1720 the Bristol Baptist college was founded, and in succeeding years it largely blessed the churches; now there are five colleges in England among the Particular Baptists. The great awakening under the preaching of Whitefield exerted an immense influence over Great Britain, in the blessings of which the Baptists shared. The descending Spirit continued to favor them richly, and they projected the mission to India, and sent out Dr. Carey, the pioneer missionary of modern times. At present the English Baptists are doing a noble work for their own country, and for various quarters of the heathen world. In England proper there are 30 Associations, 1954 churches, 1385 ministers, 195,199 members. It is probable that the first Baptist church in Ireland, since the decline of early Irish Christianity, was planted in Dublin by Thomas Patient. He was a minister of apostolic zeal, and for years co-pastor with William Kiffin, of London. In 1653 churches existed in Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Carrickfergus, and Kerry. But as the Baptist officers and soldiers of Cromwell's army left these localities the churches in some cases must have been immediately broken up. At present the churches in Ireland number only 29, with 1358 members. Baptist churches were planted in Scotland by Cromwell's soldiers. The church at Leith was among the very first. But, as in Ireland, our denomination has had little prosperity, so we have failed seriously to impress the Scotch. We have 90 churches, and 9096 members, in the land from which the immortal Knox warned us. Many distinguished men have been identified with the British and Irish Baptists, such as Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, John Milton, John Bunyan, John Gill, John Howard, William Carey, John Foster, Andrew Fuller, Robert Hall, Alexander Carson, the Haldanes, Sir Henry Havelock, C. H. Spurgeon, and others, sketches of whom will be found in this work. General Baptists Until 1633 we have no distinct account of the existence of an English Baptist church resting on a basis wholly Calvinistical. After that period the points of difference between the Arminian and Calvinistical churches are clearly defined. The General Baptists were, and still nominally are, Arminians. Their first Confession of Faith was issued in Holland in 1611. In 1660 they published another, which received the sanction of 40,000 persons. At this period, just after the unhappy assumption of royal power by Charles II, they were quite numerous. In 1678 another creed was published by a section of the General Baptists, which was designed to approach Calvinism as closely as its compilers dared. In 1691 the members of this body living in Somersetshire and adjacent counties issued another Confession. After having done much for the cause of God and truth, and grown to considerable strength, some of the General Baptists adopted Unitarian sentiments, and others followed their example. The innovation led to bitter controversies, and as in the similar case of the old English Presbyterians, to the decay and dissolution of churches; this heresy caused deep sorrow to Christ's remaining friends, who mourned over the doctrinal errors and lax discipline of their churches, and at last, in 1770, they formed The New Connection of General Baptists, under the leadership of two pastors, Dan Taylor, of Wadsworth, Yorkshire, and W.Thompson, of Boston, Lincolnshire, for the purpose of reviving Scriptural piety and evangelical sentiments among the old General Baptists. Their first step was to send a deputation to the Assembly of General Baptists in London stating their reasons for separation, and bidding their former associates farewell. On the following day Dan Taylor preached to the new body from 2 Timothy i. 8: "Be not thou ashamed of the testimony of our Lord," and presided over the meeting which then formally initiated the New Connection of General Baptists. In order that there might be no uncertainty as to what they considered the faith and practice of primitive Christianity, a creed of six articles was proposed and adopted, not as a complete exposition of their whole belief, but as a declaration of their views on the points which had been often debated between them and their old associates. This creed was also intended to constitute a test, without agreement to which their former friends could not enter the new communion. It was also considered desirable that every minister should give an account of his religious experience at their next meeting in 1771, for their satisfaction concerning the reality of each other's conversion. The six articles expressed orthodox views concerning the fall of man, the nature and perpetual obligation of the moral law, the person and work or Christ, salvation by faith, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and baptism. The last article reads as follows: "We believe that it is the indispensable duty of all who repent and believe the gospel to be baptized by immersion in water, in order to be initiated into a church-state and that no person ought to be received into the church without submission to that ordinace." The number of churches uniting
was seven only, some of them far asunder as to locality, but
containing upwards of 1200 members. Repeated attempts were made
to reunite the Old and New Connections, but without avail. The
seceders went steadily forward in the work of edification and
extension, providing a collection of hymns, and a catechism
containing the most important principles of religion and reasons
for dissent from state-churches. They agreed to hold an annual
Association in different places, and to publish a Circular
Letter, written by appointment, together with the minutes of
each yearly meeting. In 1797 it was determined to provide
assistance to candidates for the ministry. Pursuant to this
resolution an academy was opened in January, 1798, in London,
and placed under the care of the Rev. Dan Taylor. About the same
time a magazine was started to aid in sustaining the academy.
This enterprise having failed, another periodical was brought
out, called the Repository, in which the general transactions of
the body were recorded, and a medium of communication opened on
subjects of common interest. The missionary spirit which had
been aroused among the Particular Baptists found favor with many
members of the New Connection, and contributions were made to
the Baptist Missionary Society. In 1816, however, it was
resolved to form a new mission, the operations of which should
be under the supervision of the annual Association. The mission
has labored with distinguished efficiency and success, mainly in
the province of Orissa, Bengal. Its income from all sources for
the year ending May 31, 1877, was £9332. Home missionary work is
carried on in the districts where the churches are chiefly
found, under the management of conferences, from which reports
are made to the annual assembly of ministers and delegates. Most
of the churches of which the New Connection was first
constituted were located in the midland district of England,
namely, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and
Derbyshire. Although they now number 184 churches, and are
scattered over twenty counties, the strength of the denomination
is still found in the midland district. All the churches still
unite in one Association, meeting annually by their
representatives for the transaction of business and for
fraternal fellowship. The latest returns show a total membership
of nearly 25,000. The annual assembly consists of ministers who
are members ex officio and of representatives sent from the
churches in a certain fixed ratio. It is never held in any place
oftener than once in seven years. The affiliated churches are
expected to contribute to the support of the denominational
institutions, such as home and foreign missions and the college.
If any church declines to render this support, it forfeits its
right of speaking or voting in relation to these institutions.
Whilst acknowledging the perfect independence of the churches,
and avoiding all synodic action which would infringe it, the
assembly claims the right to guard the faith and morals of the
Connection, and, if need be, to cut off a church from
fellowship. In like manner any minister convicted of heresy or
immorality, even if his church should adhere to him, would be
disowned, and his name erased from the ministerial list. As the
name "General Baptist" indicates, the body professes the
doctrine of "general redemption," in opposition to the doctrine
of "particular redemption," which is the tenet of the Particular
or Calvinistic Baptists. It is commonly supposed that the
designation General Baptist refers to the practice of open or
free communion. But the article on baptism already cited is
sufficient to show that the General Baptists restrict communion
to the baptized. The practice of the churches of the New
Connection is not, however, uniform in this matter. Another
mistake is not uncommon, the origin of which is also traceable
to the name. As "general" is sometimes taken in the sense of
universal, it is presumed that the General Baptists are
Universalists, -- a mistake which receives countenance from the
fact that the old body from which the New Connection seceded has
now almost entirely merged into the Unitarian denomination.
Efforts have been made from time to time to amalgamate the New
Connection with the larger body known as the Particular
Baptists, but no formal action has been taken by either section.
Almost all the churches belong, however, to the Baptist Union of
Great Britain and Ireland. Members are freely transferred by
letters of dismission from one body to the other, and General
Baptist churches sometimes choose Particular Baptist pastors,
and sense General Baptists have been settled over Particular
Baptist churches. In later years some of the ministers and
churches of the New Connection have approximated the views of
modern Calvinism. The college at Chilwell near Nottingham, for
the training of ministerial students, is well sustained. It has
fine premises, including a detached residence for the president,
and between seven and eight acres of land. Many eminent
ministers and missionaries have been sent forth from this
institution, and the standard of ministerial education been
raised to as high a level as in any other theological
seminaries. The missionary work of the body in Orissa has become
famous through the zeal and success of such devoted laborers as
Sutton, Peggs, Buckley, Stubbins, Barley, and others. Among
those ministers who have lately labored or are still laboring in
the home field, the names of Pike, Stevenson, Hunter, Goadly,
Burns, Matthews, Clifford, and Cox are widely known as preachers
and writers of eminent ability and usefulness. Though possessing
the field at an earlier day than their Calvinistical brethren,
they have never obtained the same measure of success. Notes 1 Clarendon's History of the Rebellion,
iii. 60, 728. Oxford, 1706. William Cathcart, editor, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881 |
An Historical Sketch of the English Baptists
A History of the English Baptists
|
The Reformed Reader Home Page
Copyright 1999, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved |
