By 1609,John Smyth and his little English-speaking “Baptist” congregation at Amsterdam (where they had fled to avoid persecution in England) had become convinced of believers’ baptism. But Smyth (he of the “unsettled head” - see the article in the previous qb magazine) began to feel that they had made a mistake in baptising themselves and should have joined up with a group already practising believers’ baptism (such as the Mennonites).
The announcement of his doubts caused disagreement in the group (sadly, disagreement seems to have been a feature of Baptists since the beginning!). Some of them, led by Thomas Helwys, disagreed strongly with the position now adopted by Smyth, even accusing him of believing that “the Church & Ministrie must come by succession”. Smyth proceeded to make application to the Mennonites for membership, together with about thirty of the congregation. Helwys, on the other hand, wrote to the Mennonite leaders, warning them that Smyth was unstable (the suspicion referred to earlier, that he had an “unsettled head”, perhaps had some truth to it).
The Mennonites did not respond immediately - they were evidently more careful than many of us today about whom they admitted to membership in their church. Smyth’s group of followers were only ultimately 1606, Smyth became the leader of the Gainsborough congregation. The dangers for separatists continued to increase, however, with the new King James I (1603-1625) threatening to “harrie them out of the land”. In early 1608 conditions were so hazardous that Smyth and about forty of his congregation left to go to Amsterdam, a haven of religious tolerance at the time.
Bradford, a leader of the Gainsborough congregation, described their action as follows: “They shooke of this yoake of antichristian bondage, and as the Lord’s free people, joined them selves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the gospel, to walke in all his wayes, made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavours, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.” True worship, Smyth insisted, must come “from the hart”, and thus “reading out of a booke” (a reference to The Book of Common Prayer) “is no part of spiritual worship, but rather the invention of the man of synne.”By 1609, Smyth was convinced that the New Testament did not teach infant baptism and had become aware of the need for believers’ baptism which, he argued, constitutes the basis of the church.
He thus persuaded his followers to disband and to reconstitute their congregation on the basis of believers’ baptism: “They dissolved their church ... and Mr. Smyth being the Pastor thereof, gave over his office, as did also the Deacons, and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptism, and taking upon them another.... Mr. Smyth, Mr. Helwisse, and the rest, having utterly dissolved and disclaimed their former church state and ministry, came together to erect a new church by baptism.” Thus, the first “Baptist” church came into being, four hundred years ago this year.John Robinson, pastor of another English separatist church in Holland and an eye-witness of this event, wrote that “Mr Smyth baptised first himself, and next Mr Helwisse.”
The other forty members of the congregation were then baptised in turn. These baptisms were by affusion (pouring); but the important point is that Smyth and his followers had come to the conclusion that the proper subject of baptism is the believer. As Smyth explained in his book, The Character of the Beast (1609), “This therefor is the question: whither the baptisme of infants be lawful, yea or nay: & whither persons baptised being infants must not renounce that false baptisme, and assume the true baptisme of Chr[ist]: which is to be administered uppon persons confessing their faith & their sinnes.... Infant baptism has been an error], a cheef point of Antichristianisme, and the very essence and constitution of the false Church, as is cleerly discovered in this treatise.”
Believers’ baptism was obviously of enormous importance to Smyth; even more important, however, was his conviction that this was what the New Testament taught.Early Baptist convictions were thus shaped by a firm belief that the word of Christ in the Scriptures is the final authority for both belief and practice. (So committed was Smyth to this principle that preachers should not even read from an English translation which might have been subject to “official” manipulation – the person doing the preaching should bring a Hebrew or Greek Bible into the pulpit and provide a free verbal translation on the spot!)
Among other practices clearly taught in Scripture, as far as Smyth and his followers were concerned, was the baptism of believers, not infants. Following such convictions would inevitably bring religious dissenters such as these into conflict with the secular authorities, and raise acutely the question of how to respond when the law of Christ and the law of the land came into conflict. Wrestling with that question will comprise the next instalment of the Baptist story.- 2 -‘Early Baptist convictions were thus shaped by a firm belief that the word of Christ in the Scriptures is the final authority for both belief and practice. ‘ accepted into the Mennonite church in 1615, three years after Smyth himself had died.
While waiting for the Mennonites’ reply, and in failing health, Smyth wrote his Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion, containing a Confession of Faith of certain English people, living at Amsterdam (1612), marked by its very early expression of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The following paragraph is often quoted:84. That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine; but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions (Rom. xiii), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience (James iv. 12).In the meantime,
Helwys had also been busy writing and in 1611 he published A Declaration of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland. Its stated purpose was to defend the “Truth of God”, to give enlightenment to their own members because of the “fearful falls of some that hath been of us” (doubtless referring to Smyth’s group), and to clear his own group of the false charges that had been laid against them. Each church may elect its own officers, including preaching elders, and both men and women deacons.
The autonomy of the local church also receives clear expression:12. That as one congregacion hath CHRIST, so hath all, 2 Cor. 10.7. And that the Word off GOD cometh not out from anie one, neither to anie one congregacion in particular. 1 Cor. 14.36. But vnto everie particular Church, as it doth vnto all the world. Coll. 1.5, 6. And therefore no church ought to challenge anie prerogative over anie other.Believers’ baptism and regenerate church membership are dealt with as follows:13. That everie Church is to receive in all their members by Baptisme vpon the Confession off their faith and sinnes wrought by the preaching off the Gospel, according to the primitive Institucion. Mat. 28.19.
And therefore Churches constituted after anie other manner, or off anie other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament.14. That Baptisme or washing with Water, is the outward manifestacion off dieing vnto sinn, and walkeing in newness of life. Roman. 6.2, 3, 4. And therefore in no wise apperteyneth to infants. In 1611, Helwys and the rest of the group (about ten in all, under Helwys’ leadership) decided to return to England. Apparently they felt that they should not have left in the first place and that they should have faced the harassment and persecution boldly.
They settled at Spitalfields, then on the outskirts of London, thus forming the first “Baptist” congregation on English soil (although they did not, as yet, use the name “Baptist” of themselves).Under the leadership of Helwys the little group grew slowly. Helwys was a man of considerable principle and courage, consumed with the importance of the principle of religious liberty, which prompted him to write A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity in 1612. He sought to present a copy to King James I, who was anything but inclined towards the principle of religious liberty! In keeping with the convictions that have characterised Baptists ever since, Helwys had fearlessly written in the flyleaf of the King’s complimentary copy:
The king is a mortal man, & not God, therefore hath no power over the immortall souls of his subiects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall Lords over them. If the king have authority to make spirituall Lords and lawes, then he is an immortal God, and not a mere man. O king, be not seduced by deceivers to sin so against God whome thou oughtest to obey, nor against thy poore subiects who ought and will obey thee in all things with body, life and goods, or els let their lives be taken from the earth. God save the king. Spittlefield neare London.
Tho: Helwys.James I was doubtless offended by this bluntness. In any event, in 1612 he had Helwys thrown into Newgate prison, from which he did not emerge alive, dying probably in 1616.It is clear therefore, that Baptist distinctives such as the direct Lordship of Christ, liberty of conscience, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were part of the Baptist DNA from the beginning of the movement.
Baptists may again be required to take a stand on these fundamental values in our own times, as legislation and social pressure again place them under threat.- 3 -‘Baptist distinctives such as the direct Lordship of Christ, liberty of conscience, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were part of the Baptist DNA from the beginning of the movement.’
The announcement of his doubts caused disagreement in the group (sadly, disagreement seems to have been a feature of Baptists since the beginning!). Some of them, led by Thomas Helwys, disagreed strongly with the position now adopted by Smyth, even accusing him of believing that “the Church & Ministrie must come by succession”. Smyth proceeded to make application to the Mennonites for membership, together with about thirty of the congregation. Helwys, on the other hand, wrote to the Mennonite leaders, warning them that Smyth was unstable (the suspicion referred to earlier, that he had an “unsettled head”, perhaps had some truth to it).
The Mennonites did not respond immediately - they were evidently more careful than many of us today about whom they admitted to membership in their church. Smyth’s group of followers were only ultimately 1606, Smyth became the leader of the Gainsborough congregation. The dangers for separatists continued to increase, however, with the new King James I (1603-1625) threatening to “harrie them out of the land”. In early 1608 conditions were so hazardous that Smyth and about forty of his congregation left to go to Amsterdam, a haven of religious tolerance at the time.
Bradford, a leader of the Gainsborough congregation, described their action as follows: “They shooke of this yoake of antichristian bondage, and as the Lord’s free people, joined them selves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the gospel, to walke in all his wayes, made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavours, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.” True worship, Smyth insisted, must come “from the hart”, and thus “reading out of a booke” (a reference to The Book of Common Prayer) “is no part of spiritual worship, but rather the invention of the man of synne.”By 1609, Smyth was convinced that the New Testament did not teach infant baptism and had become aware of the need for believers’ baptism which, he argued, constitutes the basis of the church.
He thus persuaded his followers to disband and to reconstitute their congregation on the basis of believers’ baptism: “They dissolved their church ... and Mr. Smyth being the Pastor thereof, gave over his office, as did also the Deacons, and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptism, and taking upon them another.... Mr. Smyth, Mr. Helwisse, and the rest, having utterly dissolved and disclaimed their former church state and ministry, came together to erect a new church by baptism.” Thus, the first “Baptist” church came into being, four hundred years ago this year.John Robinson, pastor of another English separatist church in Holland and an eye-witness of this event, wrote that “Mr Smyth baptised first himself, and next Mr Helwisse.”
The other forty members of the congregation were then baptised in turn. These baptisms were by affusion (pouring); but the important point is that Smyth and his followers had come to the conclusion that the proper subject of baptism is the believer. As Smyth explained in his book, The Character of the Beast (1609), “This therefor is the question: whither the baptisme of infants be lawful, yea or nay: & whither persons baptised being infants must not renounce that false baptisme, and assume the true baptisme of Chr[ist]: which is to be administered uppon persons confessing their faith & their sinnes.... Infant baptism has been an error], a cheef point of Antichristianisme, and the very essence and constitution of the false Church, as is cleerly discovered in this treatise.”
Believers’ baptism was obviously of enormous importance to Smyth; even more important, however, was his conviction that this was what the New Testament taught.Early Baptist convictions were thus shaped by a firm belief that the word of Christ in the Scriptures is the final authority for both belief and practice. (So committed was Smyth to this principle that preachers should not even read from an English translation which might have been subject to “official” manipulation – the person doing the preaching should bring a Hebrew or Greek Bible into the pulpit and provide a free verbal translation on the spot!)
Among other practices clearly taught in Scripture, as far as Smyth and his followers were concerned, was the baptism of believers, not infants. Following such convictions would inevitably bring religious dissenters such as these into conflict with the secular authorities, and raise acutely the question of how to respond when the law of Christ and the law of the land came into conflict. Wrestling with that question will comprise the next instalment of the Baptist story.- 2 -‘Early Baptist convictions were thus shaped by a firm belief that the word of Christ in the Scriptures is the final authority for both belief and practice. ‘ accepted into the Mennonite church in 1615, three years after Smyth himself had died.
While waiting for the Mennonites’ reply, and in failing health, Smyth wrote his Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion, containing a Confession of Faith of certain English people, living at Amsterdam (1612), marked by its very early expression of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The following paragraph is often quoted:84. That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine; but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions (Rom. xiii), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience (James iv. 12).In the meantime,
Helwys had also been busy writing and in 1611 he published A Declaration of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland. Its stated purpose was to defend the “Truth of God”, to give enlightenment to their own members because of the “fearful falls of some that hath been of us” (doubtless referring to Smyth’s group), and to clear his own group of the false charges that had been laid against them. Each church may elect its own officers, including preaching elders, and both men and women deacons.
The autonomy of the local church also receives clear expression:12. That as one congregacion hath CHRIST, so hath all, 2 Cor. 10.7. And that the Word off GOD cometh not out from anie one, neither to anie one congregacion in particular. 1 Cor. 14.36. But vnto everie particular Church, as it doth vnto all the world. Coll. 1.5, 6. And therefore no church ought to challenge anie prerogative over anie other.Believers’ baptism and regenerate church membership are dealt with as follows:13. That everie Church is to receive in all their members by Baptisme vpon the Confession off their faith and sinnes wrought by the preaching off the Gospel, according to the primitive Institucion. Mat. 28.19.
And therefore Churches constituted after anie other manner, or off anie other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament.14. That Baptisme or washing with Water, is the outward manifestacion off dieing vnto sinn, and walkeing in newness of life. Roman. 6.2, 3, 4. And therefore in no wise apperteyneth to infants. In 1611, Helwys and the rest of the group (about ten in all, under Helwys’ leadership) decided to return to England. Apparently they felt that they should not have left in the first place and that they should have faced the harassment and persecution boldly.
They settled at Spitalfields, then on the outskirts of London, thus forming the first “Baptist” congregation on English soil (although they did not, as yet, use the name “Baptist” of themselves).Under the leadership of Helwys the little group grew slowly. Helwys was a man of considerable principle and courage, consumed with the importance of the principle of religious liberty, which prompted him to write A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity in 1612. He sought to present a copy to King James I, who was anything but inclined towards the principle of religious liberty! In keeping with the convictions that have characterised Baptists ever since, Helwys had fearlessly written in the flyleaf of the King’s complimentary copy:
The king is a mortal man, & not God, therefore hath no power over the immortall souls of his subiects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall Lords over them. If the king have authority to make spirituall Lords and lawes, then he is an immortal God, and not a mere man. O king, be not seduced by deceivers to sin so against God whome thou oughtest to obey, nor against thy poore subiects who ought and will obey thee in all things with body, life and goods, or els let their lives be taken from the earth. God save the king. Spittlefield neare London.
Tho: Helwys.James I was doubtless offended by this bluntness. In any event, in 1612 he had Helwys thrown into Newgate prison, from which he did not emerge alive, dying probably in 1616.It is clear therefore, that Baptist distinctives such as the direct Lordship of Christ, liberty of conscience, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were part of the Baptist DNA from the beginning of the movement.
Baptists may again be required to take a stand on these fundamental values in our own times, as legislation and social pressure again place them under threat.- 3 -‘Baptist distinctives such as the direct Lordship of Christ, liberty of conscience, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state were part of the Baptist DNA from the beginning of the movement.’
No comments:
Post a Comment