What do you think?
Rate this book
Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution
In the seventeenth century, English Baptists existed on the fringe of the nation's collective religious life. Today, Baptists have developed into one of the world's largest Protestant denominations. Despite this impressive transformation, those first English Baptists remain chronically misunderstood. In Orthodox Radicals , Matthew C. Bingham clarifies and analyzes the origins and identity of Baptists during the English Revolution, arguing that mid-seventeenth century Baptists did not, in fact, understand themselves to be a part of a larger, all-encompassing Baptist movement. Contrary to both the explicit statements of many historians and the tacit suggestion embedded in the very use of "Baptist" as an overarching historical category, the early modern men and women who rejected infant baptism would not have initially understood that single theological stance as being in itself constitutive of a new collective identity. Rather, the rejection of infant baptism was but one of a number
of doctrinal revisions then taking place among English puritans eager to further their on-going project of godly reformation.
Orthodox Radicals complicates of our understanding of Baptist identity, setting the early English Baptists in the cultural, political, and theological context of the wider puritan milieu out of which they arose. The book also speaks to broader themes, including early modern debates on religious toleration, the mechanisms by which early modern actors established and defended their tenuous religious identities, and the perennial problem of anachronism in historical writing. Bingham also challenges the often too-hasty manner in which scholars have drawn lines of theological demarcation between early modern religious bodies, and reconsiders one of this period's most dynamic and influential religious minorities from a fresh and perhaps controversial perspective.
By combining a provocative reinterpretation of Baptist identity with close readings of key theological and political texts, Orthodox Radicals offers the most original and stimulating analysis of mid-seventeenth-century Baptists in decades.
of doctrinal revisions then taking place among English puritans eager to further their on-going project of godly reformation.
Orthodox Radicals complicates of our understanding of Baptist identity, setting the early English Baptists in the cultural, political, and theological context of the wider puritan milieu out of which they arose. The book also speaks to broader themes, including early modern debates on religious toleration, the mechanisms by which early modern actors established and defended their tenuous religious identities, and the perennial problem of anachronism in historical writing. Bingham also challenges the often too-hasty manner in which scholars have drawn lines of theological demarcation between early modern religious bodies, and reconsiders one of this period's most dynamic and influential religious minorities from a fresh and perhaps controversial perspective.
By combining a provocative reinterpretation of Baptist identity with close readings of key theological and political texts, Orthodox Radicals offers the most original and stimulating analysis of mid-seventeenth-century Baptists in decades.
- GenresChurch HistoryHistory
248 pages, Hardcover
Published January 15, 2019
5 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
About the author
Matthew C. Bingham
3 books11 followersMatthew C. Bingham (PhD, Queen’s University Belfast) is vice president of academic affairs and associate professor of church history at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona. He is the author of Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution and has served as a pastor in the United States and Northern Ireland. Matthew is married to Shelley, and they have four children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 10, 2020
This work is vitally important for anyone wanting to understand Particular Baptist history. It is especially important in understanding the intricacies of the “baptistic” movement out of which would come Particular Baptist.
August 12, 2020
As a Baptist, I am very interested in the history of our theological tradition and the development of our Baptist identity through the centuries. So when I heard about the publication of Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution by Matthew C. Bingham, I was immediately intrigued. Now that I have completed reading his book, I can safely say that it has been one of the most challenging and enlightening studies that I have read on Baptist history.
What is Bingham's central argument? He states: "mid-seventeenth-century 'Baptists,' especially those of a Calvinistic persuasion, are more helpfully regarded as baptistic congregationalists" (151). Therefore, it is improper to think of these men and women as "Baptists" or "Particular Baptists." Why? Bingham's answer is worth quoting at length: "I have argued that these men and women are most helpfully understood, not by any of these labels, but rather as congregationalists who, as it happened, reached novel conclusions regarding the legitimacy of infant baptism. This repudiation of paedobaptism did not instantaneously alter either their basic theological orientation or their relational networks; nor did it automatically confer upon them a new 'Baptist' identity.... A coherent, overarching pan-'Baptist' identity may well have developed over subsequent decades, but it is problematic to project this back on to the English Revolution and Interregnum" (152-153).
To establish this conclusion, Bingham engages in a careful reading of primary sources from the writings in the 17th century. As a result, I appreciated his careful recounting of the relationships between the national church and those of the Congregational Way. As I continued reading his treatment, I better understood the controversies as they developed and then recognized why the move towards antipaedobaptism took place among congregationalists when it did.
This is largely because the author seeks to situate the historical context of rejecting infant baptism and the embracing of baptistic beliefs in the larger social and theological developments of the 17th century. Pushing back against most previous Baptist historiography which wants to quickly label these developments as a new movement of Baptists, Bingham wisely strives to allow these baptistic congregationalist's own self-identity to drive his study. Consequently, a fuller historical awareness is achieved and helps the reader to become more familiar with what was taking place in the time of the English Revolution and the Interregnum period.
By the time I finished reading this work, my heart was moved by the faithfulness of these men and women as they wrestled over applying Protestant and puritan principles in every area of their lives. This was far more than an academic study for me, but an opportunity to grow in my appreciation of these forefathers of my own Baptist tradition. Too many Christians minimize the importance of church history and fail to recognize the immense benefit and blessings we receive by studying how God has been at work among Christ's church. As a result, this volume will not likely receive a wide readership. But my hope is that this work will prove to be influential in a rising appreciation of Baptist history specifically, and English Reformed history more generally.
What is Bingham's central argument? He states: "mid-seventeenth-century 'Baptists,' especially those of a Calvinistic persuasion, are more helpfully regarded as baptistic congregationalists" (151). Therefore, it is improper to think of these men and women as "Baptists" or "Particular Baptists." Why? Bingham's answer is worth quoting at length: "I have argued that these men and women are most helpfully understood, not by any of these labels, but rather as congregationalists who, as it happened, reached novel conclusions regarding the legitimacy of infant baptism. This repudiation of paedobaptism did not instantaneously alter either their basic theological orientation or their relational networks; nor did it automatically confer upon them a new 'Baptist' identity.... A coherent, overarching pan-'Baptist' identity may well have developed over subsequent decades, but it is problematic to project this back on to the English Revolution and Interregnum" (152-153).
To establish this conclusion, Bingham engages in a careful reading of primary sources from the writings in the 17th century. As a result, I appreciated his careful recounting of the relationships between the national church and those of the Congregational Way. As I continued reading his treatment, I better understood the controversies as they developed and then recognized why the move towards antipaedobaptism took place among congregationalists when it did.
This is largely because the author seeks to situate the historical context of rejecting infant baptism and the embracing of baptistic beliefs in the larger social and theological developments of the 17th century. Pushing back against most previous Baptist historiography which wants to quickly label these developments as a new movement of Baptists, Bingham wisely strives to allow these baptistic congregationalist's own self-identity to drive his study. Consequently, a fuller historical awareness is achieved and helps the reader to become more familiar with what was taking place in the time of the English Revolution and the Interregnum period.
By the time I finished reading this work, my heart was moved by the faithfulness of these men and women as they wrestled over applying Protestant and puritan principles in every area of their lives. This was far more than an academic study for me, but an opportunity to grow in my appreciation of these forefathers of my own Baptist tradition. Too many Christians minimize the importance of church history and fail to recognize the immense benefit and blessings we receive by studying how God has been at work among Christ's church. As a result, this volume will not likely receive a wide readership. But my hope is that this work will prove to be influential in a rising appreciation of Baptist history specifically, and English Reformed history more generally.
February 29, 2024
Bingham is doing a controversial avant-garde work of historiography here. While I still retain questions about his conclusions, he makes his case with a compelling array of sources and through a helpful clarity of prose. This is an excellent and stimulating read and a force to be reckoned with.
Baptist historiography is broken, says Bingham, at least when it comes to mid-17th Century Baptist studies. Many "denominational" scholars who, almost always admittedly, sought to reclaim the Baptist heritage for modern application, inadvertently biased the secondary literature in terms of nomenclature and assumptions. As a result, dubious lines between Particular and General Baptists emerged more clearly than the record reflects. In the same vein, Bingham assails the designation of Baptists (big B) to any in the mid-17th century. Indeed, he terms them "baptistic congregationalists," noting their frequent identification by the congregationalist title and the absence of their being called (or referring to themselves as) Baptists. Perhaps this is just to move the semantic wrinkle in the carpet, Bingham admits. But at least this new terminology does not actively mislead.
Advancing the Puritan Separatist theory of Baptist origins from an angle distinct from the likes of Michael Haykin, et al, Bingham sees the "particular baptist" heritage as running through Puritanism, then Congregationalism, and finally terminating in their ongoing reformation with the eventual Particular Baptists. As such, he presents the Congregationalists who exhibited the logical end of their polity by their adoption of Believer's Baptism as essentially Baptists in waiting. No longer able to maintain the desire for a pure, regenerate, visible church *and* paedobaptism, these Congregationalists chose Credobaptism over an abandonment of their ecclesiology.
Baptist historiography is broken, says Bingham, at least when it comes to mid-17th Century Baptist studies. Many "denominational" scholars who, almost always admittedly, sought to reclaim the Baptist heritage for modern application, inadvertently biased the secondary literature in terms of nomenclature and assumptions. As a result, dubious lines between Particular and General Baptists emerged more clearly than the record reflects. In the same vein, Bingham assails the designation of Baptists (big B) to any in the mid-17th century. Indeed, he terms them "baptistic congregationalists," noting their frequent identification by the congregationalist title and the absence of their being called (or referring to themselves as) Baptists. Perhaps this is just to move the semantic wrinkle in the carpet, Bingham admits. But at least this new terminology does not actively mislead.
Advancing the Puritan Separatist theory of Baptist origins from an angle distinct from the likes of Michael Haykin, et al, Bingham sees the "particular baptist" heritage as running through Puritanism, then Congregationalism, and finally terminating in their ongoing reformation with the eventual Particular Baptists. As such, he presents the Congregationalists who exhibited the logical end of their polity by their adoption of Believer's Baptism as essentially Baptists in waiting. No longer able to maintain the desire for a pure, regenerate, visible church *and* paedobaptism, these Congregationalists chose Credobaptism over an abandonment of their ecclesiology.
October 9, 2025
First off, the book was pricey, very pricey! I know it would have a lot more traction if it were cheaper, but it's not likely to happen.
My reason for reading it is to further my knowledge of the Particular Baptists, their history, doctrine, and, as in the case here, their position on pedobaptism. He shows the roots of Baptist history to be that of the Reformed persuasion.
In terms of readable pages, there are 154 pages with an extensive index, almost as many as the core content of the book. He gives a history of the "Baptist Identity and equates them to being Congregationalists (Certainly not the liberal kind). This is his main argument throughout!
He does maintain that they were distinct from the Anabaptists, with a history and timeline of some of their beliefs and heresies, and why the Particular Baptists were never part of the Anabaptist movement.
Would I recommend it? Sure, but only if you can find one on the cheaper side.
It will serve as a resource for me as I continue my study of Particular Baptist History.
My reason for reading it is to further my knowledge of the Particular Baptists, their history, doctrine, and, as in the case here, their position on pedobaptism. He shows the roots of Baptist history to be that of the Reformed persuasion.
In terms of readable pages, there are 154 pages with an extensive index, almost as many as the core content of the book. He gives a history of the "Baptist Identity and equates them to being Congregationalists (Certainly not the liberal kind). This is his main argument throughout!
He does maintain that they were distinct from the Anabaptists, with a history and timeline of some of their beliefs and heresies, and why the Particular Baptists were never part of the Anabaptist movement.
Would I recommend it? Sure, but only if you can find one on the cheaper side.
It will serve as a resource for me as I continue my study of Particular Baptist History.
April 27, 2021
This is an intriguing thesis. What were the believers of the first London confession? The term 'Baptist' was not being employed, and the confession itself only says they are not Anabaptists. Bingham argues that they represented a kind of semi-separatist congregationalism that was becoming persuaded against infant baptism--against involuntary inclusion in the congregation. He explains how within a congregationalist context these men began to arrive at their convictions, and also shows how they succeeded during the Protectorate in taking that Anabaptist distinctive from being considered sectarian to being considered respectable.
I find the argument plausible. I'm not an expert to evaluate whether it is all accurate all the way down. The book is still very much written in the overstated way of a doctoral thesis, an annoying requirement perhaps due to the fact that advisors are so busy maybe because as scholarship moves online, the pace of scholarship is being accelerated.
I find the argument plausible. I'm not an expert to evaluate whether it is all accurate all the way down. The book is still very much written in the overstated way of a doctoral thesis, an annoying requirement perhaps due to the fact that advisors are so busy maybe because as scholarship moves online, the pace of scholarship is being accelerated.
September 9, 2023
“The problem becomes even more evident when we consider the anachronism of the labels “Particular” and “General Baptist.” There is no evidence that members of these churches during the 1640s and 1650s would have used the label “Baptist” to describe themselves, and they certainly would not have used “Particular” and “General” to specify what sort of “Baptists” they were.”
*****
For years, historians have insisted on the generic label of Baptist for all Christians who denied paedobaptism. Within that broad label, the modifiers “General” and “Particular” have been used to specify whether those Baptists were Calvinists or Arminians. And to explain this seemingly sudden phenomenon that sprouted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, historians have insisted that all Baptists were birthed out of the Anabaptist movement from the Radical Reformers.
In “Orthodox Radicals,” Matthew Bingham puts forward a very different and very convincing thesis. Bingham argues that these labels are u helpful because the origin story typically put forward is incomplete and often incorrect. To be clear, Bingham does not deny the impact of the Anabaptists. What Bingham does deny is that all Baptists in the English Reformation trace their origin and theology back to the Anabaptists. Instead, Bingham puts fieras the idea that the origin of Reformed believers of a Baptistic theological persuasion would trace their theology and existence to the English paedobaptist Congregationalists and the broader Puritan movement.
In fact, so clear and obvious is Bingham’s thesis about English Reformed baptistic origins that the First London Baptist Confession was given a subtitle identifying its authors as people sometimes though falsely called Anabaptists. These Reformed believers saw themselves as coming out of the stream of the Puritan and Congregationalist streams in England. What’s more, leaders in this reformed baptistic movement, like Henry Jessey, where close friends with leading congregational theologians involved in the Westminster Assembly like Thomas Goodwin and others.
Once the development of theology is understood, it becomes easy to see how this new movement of baptistic theology formed. Rather than appearing out of nowhere, this theology is the logical development of congregational theology coming from the Reformation tradition. When you come to believe that congregational polity rather than Presbyterian polity is correct, and you emphasize the reality that the keys of the kingdom were given to congregations made up of members rather than a presbytery, it’s easy to see how an emphasis on regenerate membership would lead to baptistic theology. Since the typical first step into church membership is baptism, once you claim that members must be believers, then those whom you baptize must necessarily be believers. To claim otherwise would be to have a halfway house of doctrine (a claim many baptists made towards their Congregationalist brothers).
Bingham explains the context and story of this doctrinal development while trying to elucidate the reality that this theological shift to believer’s baptism was a major one in the history of Christendom. For over a thousand years, most of Christendom had held to a form of paedobaptism. And this theological understanding helped connect the church to the state. Once that theology was severed, it changed how churches understood themselves and how they related to the government.
As a Reformed Baptist who believes in congregational polity who loves the Puritans, this book made so much sense of what had felt like an intuitively true theological context, development, and historical storyline. Bingham just made those intuitions become clear with rigorous historical scholarship. This book is a foundational text for Baptist history and must be dealt with by all future church historians.
*****
For years, historians have insisted on the generic label of Baptist for all Christians who denied paedobaptism. Within that broad label, the modifiers “General” and “Particular” have been used to specify whether those Baptists were Calvinists or Arminians. And to explain this seemingly sudden phenomenon that sprouted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, historians have insisted that all Baptists were birthed out of the Anabaptist movement from the Radical Reformers.
In “Orthodox Radicals,” Matthew Bingham puts forward a very different and very convincing thesis. Bingham argues that these labels are u helpful because the origin story typically put forward is incomplete and often incorrect. To be clear, Bingham does not deny the impact of the Anabaptists. What Bingham does deny is that all Baptists in the English Reformation trace their origin and theology back to the Anabaptists. Instead, Bingham puts fieras the idea that the origin of Reformed believers of a Baptistic theological persuasion would trace their theology and existence to the English paedobaptist Congregationalists and the broader Puritan movement.
In fact, so clear and obvious is Bingham’s thesis about English Reformed baptistic origins that the First London Baptist Confession was given a subtitle identifying its authors as people sometimes though falsely called Anabaptists. These Reformed believers saw themselves as coming out of the stream of the Puritan and Congregationalist streams in England. What’s more, leaders in this reformed baptistic movement, like Henry Jessey, where close friends with leading congregational theologians involved in the Westminster Assembly like Thomas Goodwin and others.
Once the development of theology is understood, it becomes easy to see how this new movement of baptistic theology formed. Rather than appearing out of nowhere, this theology is the logical development of congregational theology coming from the Reformation tradition. When you come to believe that congregational polity rather than Presbyterian polity is correct, and you emphasize the reality that the keys of the kingdom were given to congregations made up of members rather than a presbytery, it’s easy to see how an emphasis on regenerate membership would lead to baptistic theology. Since the typical first step into church membership is baptism, once you claim that members must be believers, then those whom you baptize must necessarily be believers. To claim otherwise would be to have a halfway house of doctrine (a claim many baptists made towards their Congregationalist brothers).
Bingham explains the context and story of this doctrinal development while trying to elucidate the reality that this theological shift to believer’s baptism was a major one in the history of Christendom. For over a thousand years, most of Christendom had held to a form of paedobaptism. And this theological understanding helped connect the church to the state. Once that theology was severed, it changed how churches understood themselves and how they related to the government.
As a Reformed Baptist who believes in congregational polity who loves the Puritans, this book made so much sense of what had felt like an intuitively true theological context, development, and historical storyline. Bingham just made those intuitions become clear with rigorous historical scholarship. This book is a foundational text for Baptist history and must be dealt with by all future church historians.
January 25, 2019
Bingham deserves to be read by anyone interested in the socio-theological impacts of the English Revolution. Time will tell, but Bingham may have overturned a significant portion of the critical literature on the topic. It’s a must read for lay people, members of the clergy, and academics alike.
December 22, 2025
This book tries to take Cristopher Hill's advertisment seriously, which is that one should never apply denominational labels to religious groups that had no denominational identity themselves.
Enter the baptists. Matthew Bingham argues that the first baptists weren't a well defined group with one identity, but at that they were just congregationalists working in the eschatological mainframe of the reformation, trying to be more primitive and more true to the New Testament than the rest of the so-called congregationalists (or independents). This logic would raise questions regarding paedobaptism that otherwise would not have been raised in the same political contexts (the association with the Anabaptists was not a fortunate one).
Congregationalism is an ecclesiological position that seeks to prove that the true church is formed by a "congregation" of voluntary people, being there voluntarily. The accent on that last part means that practicing paedobaptism would raise more problems than solve. This paired with a kind of "bibliolatry" meant for some communities a shift in sacramental practice was the way to go.
But that didn't make them BAPTIST. They were still in communion with the other Congregationalist churches. The only way these communities started behaving more like a denomination was through a sectarian push to draw sharp lines between the "baptized" and "unbaptized".
All of these and more are explored in the book, illustrated by the coloured language of 17th century Britain. It may be obvious to some, but the book only discusses the so-called "Particular Baptists", which were calvinists. The other, Armininan ones, were only much later to become part of the accepted mainstream christianity. For the 17th century the only acceptable orthodoxy was Calvinism.
Enter the baptists. Matthew Bingham argues that the first baptists weren't a well defined group with one identity, but at that they were just congregationalists working in the eschatological mainframe of the reformation, trying to be more primitive and more true to the New Testament than the rest of the so-called congregationalists (or independents). This logic would raise questions regarding paedobaptism that otherwise would not have been raised in the same political contexts (the association with the Anabaptists was not a fortunate one).
Congregationalism is an ecclesiological position that seeks to prove that the true church is formed by a "congregation" of voluntary people, being there voluntarily. The accent on that last part means that practicing paedobaptism would raise more problems than solve. This paired with a kind of "bibliolatry" meant for some communities a shift in sacramental practice was the way to go.
But that didn't make them BAPTIST. They were still in communion with the other Congregationalist churches. The only way these communities started behaving more like a denomination was through a sectarian push to draw sharp lines between the "baptized" and "unbaptized".
All of these and more are explored in the book, illustrated by the coloured language of 17th century Britain. It may be obvious to some, but the book only discusses the so-called "Particular Baptists", which were calvinists. The other, Armininan ones, were only much later to become part of the accepted mainstream christianity. For the 17th century the only acceptable orthodoxy was Calvinism.
October 10, 2025
An excellent historical analysis of the 17th century particular baptists and their continuation of congregational ecclesiology. Bingham thoroughly refutes the view that the Baptists originate from the Anabaptists as he evaluates primary sources. He looks at the congregational heritage of the particular baptists and how their view of credobaptism was a continuation of their congregational theology rather than an isolated theological view based on their distinctive view of baptism. Bingham argues against anachronistically labeling them as "Baptists" without the context of their congregational polity, which explains both their origin and theological distinctives as expressed in the second London Baptist confession of faith (1677).
Bingham argues that rather than use the categories of General and Particular baptist, which assumes the Baptists only differed on their soteriology it is better to see the groups as having distinctive ecclesiology. Bingham argues that the particular baptists are best described with the label Congregational Baptists in contrast to the General Baptists whom he describes as separatist Baptists, who did not have a robust Congregational polity.
This is essential reading for understanding the second London Baptist confession and the credobaptists beliefs of the 2LCF in their historical context. it is also very beneficial for retrieving a robust Congregational ecclesiology and avoiding the dangers of a separatist Baptist ecclesiology and elderocracy as practiced in many modern Baptist churches.
Bingham argues that rather than use the categories of General and Particular baptist, which assumes the Baptists only differed on their soteriology it is better to see the groups as having distinctive ecclesiology. Bingham argues that the particular baptists are best described with the label Congregational Baptists in contrast to the General Baptists whom he describes as separatist Baptists, who did not have a robust Congregational polity.
This is essential reading for understanding the second London Baptist confession and the credobaptists beliefs of the 2LCF in their historical context. it is also very beneficial for retrieving a robust Congregational ecclesiology and avoiding the dangers of a separatist Baptist ecclesiology and elderocracy as practiced in many modern Baptist churches.
August 23, 2024
Excellent nuanced understanding of the rise of baptistic Congregationalists in the UK mis 17th century. The "Baptist" moniker, as though there was a unified Baptist movement or that rejecting infant covenant inclusion baptism unified all who rejected not only is a myth but doesn't reflect the various strands of religious independent movements at the time. Also the course to questioning infant baptism was driven by congregational ecclesiology and the rejection of the notion of a national church, rather that a fresh look at the biblical data. That came soon after. The Puritans thoroughly rejected the analog of Christian/UK citizen and which lead to the questioning of the source of the problem which was universal infant inclusion into the church.
This book, along with the Renihan's historical studies of the late 17th century Baptist history which lead to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession should set the tone for future studies of this type.
Highly recommend.
This book, along with the Renihan's historical studies of the late 17th century Baptist history which lead to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession should set the tone for future studies of this type.
Highly recommend.
February 7, 2022
Excellent book on the history of Puritan Baptist churches in England. The author argues that the group that would eventually be named the Particular Baptists, who published the 1689 LBCF, arose out of independent Puritan churches in the early to mid 1600’s. The author calls them “Baptistic Congregationalists”, and I think his term is helpful in the nuanced discussion of baptist history. This will definitely be a book I will return to.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 22, 2023
Paradigm Shifting
Bingham’s work is profoundly helpful in understanding the complexities of retrieving Baptist identity. He provides a fresh look at “early Baptists” and challenges prevailing historiographies.
Bingham’s work is profoundly helpful in understanding the complexities of retrieving Baptist identity. He provides a fresh look at “early Baptists” and challenges prevailing historiographies.
September 3, 2025
This is, perhaps, the most important book written on the early history of what we now call Reformed Baptist. Bingham does an excellent job of researching and communicating the information while still being engaging with his readers. Highly recommend!
June 23, 2025
Perhaps no Baptist History book has gained as much acclaim in the past decade as the book “Orthodox Radicals” by Matthew C. Bingham. 9 Marks, the Gospel Coalition, and the Center for Baptist Renewal have all praised this book. But is this admiration deserved?
Bingham’s thesis is simple. The English Particular Baptists should really be called “Baptistic Congregationalists.” Bingham contends the Calvinistic “Baptists” were English Congregationalists (also known as Independents) who only differed from their Pedobaptist brethren with regard to their understanding of baptism. Bingham asserts the “Baptistic Congregationalists” were related to the Pedobaptist Congregationalists not just in their origins, but that the two groups often had church fellowship with each other.
The biggest problem with Bingham’s thesis is he failed to take into account there were two different types of English Calvinistic Baptists. Bingham knows this to be the case, for on page 22, he speaks of the “more ecumenically minded baptistic ministers.” These would include such well-known names as Henry Jessey, John Tombes, John Bunyan as well as the famous Broadmead Baptist Church. It is no surprise brethren such as these had fellowship with the Pedobaptist Congregationalists for they practiced both open communion and open membership.
At the same time there were much stricter Particular Baptists such as those within the Western, Abingdon, South Wales, and Midlands associations. These Baptists practiced what some have called the “ordinance of hearing.” For example in 1658 the Midlands Baptist Association declared “Baptized believers ought not to hear the national ministers preach nor join with them in their public worship, their pretended ministry being Babylonish, Rev. 18:4; Neither may they so hear or join with unbaptized persons, thou hoped to be godly, because they are disorderly in carrying on a public ministry without baptism.” While the first part of this statement is directed toward the Anglicans, the second half is clearly targeting the Congregational Pedobaptists.
Bingham is aware of these associational records, but says this attitude didn’t develop till the 1650’s. However, Robert Baillie’s 1647 book “Anabaptism, The True Foundation of Independency, Brownism, Antinomy, and Familism” says these stricter “Baptists” declared “the Independent and Brownists Congregations, how dear otherwise soever, to be but Antichristian Synagogues, and no true Churches.” This can be seen in the writings of much such as John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Edward Drapes, Daniel King, Samuel Richardson, Richard Lawrence, and many others who referred to Pedobaptists as either Babylonians or Antichrist due to their practice of infant baptism.
Another issue with the book is Bingham relies heavily on Champlin Burrage’s research. It is revealing that his 1912 work “The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research” is the only book that Bingham assigns an abbreviation. Burrage in turn was profoundly influenced by William Whitsitt and George Gould. This reliance colors all of Bingham’s historical observations. For example, Bingham shares the famous William Kiffin quote from 1645: “our Congregations were erected and framed as now they are, according to the Rule of Christ, before we heard of any Reformation, even at the time when the Episcopacie was in the height of its vanishing glory.” Unfortunately, Bingham responds by saying this cannot be referring to believer’s immersion because believer’s immersion (according to men such as Burrage and Whitsitt) did exist before 1641. Yet an honest, straight-forward reading of Kiffin’s words (“as now they are, according to the Rule of Christ”) tells us English Baptists practiced believer’s immersion long before 1641.
“Orthodox Radicals” by Matthew C. Bingham is a well-researched book with many interesting points. Any reader of the work will definitely learn more about the Baptist history. However, a number of Bingham’s historical conclusions about both the origin and fellowship of the English Particular Baptists are still open for debate and will continue to be challenged in the 21st century.
Bingham’s thesis is simple. The English Particular Baptists should really be called “Baptistic Congregationalists.” Bingham contends the Calvinistic “Baptists” were English Congregationalists (also known as Independents) who only differed from their Pedobaptist brethren with regard to their understanding of baptism. Bingham asserts the “Baptistic Congregationalists” were related to the Pedobaptist Congregationalists not just in their origins, but that the two groups often had church fellowship with each other.
The biggest problem with Bingham’s thesis is he failed to take into account there were two different types of English Calvinistic Baptists. Bingham knows this to be the case, for on page 22, he speaks of the “more ecumenically minded baptistic ministers.” These would include such well-known names as Henry Jessey, John Tombes, John Bunyan as well as the famous Broadmead Baptist Church. It is no surprise brethren such as these had fellowship with the Pedobaptist Congregationalists for they practiced both open communion and open membership.
At the same time there were much stricter Particular Baptists such as those within the Western, Abingdon, South Wales, and Midlands associations. These Baptists practiced what some have called the “ordinance of hearing.” For example in 1658 the Midlands Baptist Association declared “Baptized believers ought not to hear the national ministers preach nor join with them in their public worship, their pretended ministry being Babylonish, Rev. 18:4; Neither may they so hear or join with unbaptized persons, thou hoped to be godly, because they are disorderly in carrying on a public ministry without baptism.” While the first part of this statement is directed toward the Anglicans, the second half is clearly targeting the Congregational Pedobaptists.
Bingham is aware of these associational records, but says this attitude didn’t develop till the 1650’s. However, Robert Baillie’s 1647 book “Anabaptism, The True Foundation of Independency, Brownism, Antinomy, and Familism” says these stricter “Baptists” declared “the Independent and Brownists Congregations, how dear otherwise soever, to be but Antichristian Synagogues, and no true Churches.” This can be seen in the writings of much such as John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Edward Drapes, Daniel King, Samuel Richardson, Richard Lawrence, and many others who referred to Pedobaptists as either Babylonians or Antichrist due to their practice of infant baptism.
Another issue with the book is Bingham relies heavily on Champlin Burrage’s research. It is revealing that his 1912 work “The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research” is the only book that Bingham assigns an abbreviation. Burrage in turn was profoundly influenced by William Whitsitt and George Gould. This reliance colors all of Bingham’s historical observations. For example, Bingham shares the famous William Kiffin quote from 1645: “our Congregations were erected and framed as now they are, according to the Rule of Christ, before we heard of any Reformation, even at the time when the Episcopacie was in the height of its vanishing glory.” Unfortunately, Bingham responds by saying this cannot be referring to believer’s immersion because believer’s immersion (according to men such as Burrage and Whitsitt) did exist before 1641. Yet an honest, straight-forward reading of Kiffin’s words (“as now they are, according to the Rule of Christ”) tells us English Baptists practiced believer’s immersion long before 1641.
“Orthodox Radicals” by Matthew C. Bingham is a well-researched book with many interesting points. Any reader of the work will definitely learn more about the Baptist history. However, a number of Bingham’s historical conclusions about both the origin and fellowship of the English Particular Baptists are still open for debate and will continue to be challenged in the 21st century.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews