When people think of Thomas Helwys, they often think of religious liberty, and rightfully so. Yet Helwys’s writings address far more than religious liberty. Marvin Jones seeks to demonstrate this in his recent monograph The Beginnings of Baptist Ecclesiology: The Foundational Contributions of Thomas Helwys.[1] Jones contends that while many scholars have considered Helwys’s Mystery of Iniquity to be a work focused primarily on religious freedom, he believes the work focuses heavily, if not primarily, on Baptist ecclesiology.[2] Therefore, while Helwys’s Mystery of Iniquity does make a strong case for religious liberty, it is even more intensely focused on demonstrating the necessity of reforming the church according to the Bible in a congregational setting.
The Structure of the Book
After an introductory chapter dealing with the reception and interpretation of Mystery of Iniquity, the structure of Jones’s work attempts to mirror Helwys’s Mystery of Iniquity. Jones considers Helwys’s interpretation of biblical apocalyptic literature and compares it to former English interpreters such as John Foxe, who is most well known today for his Acts and Monuments, or Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.
Whereas Foxe was unhesitant to compare the Pope to the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church to the first beast of Revelation 13, Helwys moved beyond Foxe’s interpretation by applying Revelation to the Church of England. In Helwys’s mind, the Church of England was equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church because it retained the Roman Church’s unbiblical hierarchy.
But Helwys brought his critique even closer to home as he critiqued the Puritans for their naïve expectation that the Church of England could be reformed from the top down by Magistrates. For Helwys, the Church of England was a lost cause as it was built upon a false foundation, namely hierarchy and infant baptism, which mirrored the Roman Catholic Church. Accordingly, the Puritans were holding out false hope.
Yet Helwys took his argument a step further as he also criticized the Separatists, who had given up on the Church of England as a legitimate church but considered their infant baptisms in the Church of England to be valid. For Helwys, the Church of England was not a true church, and infant baptism was not a legitimate form of baptism. What the Separatists needed was to be baptized as believers, not retain their former baptism.
An Assessment of the Book
Marvin Jones makes a compelling case that Helwys should not be thought of as merely a forerunner for religious liberty. He should also be considered a forerunner for Baptist ecclesiology, particularly in the English context. Helwys believed firmly that men ought to be able to worship as they saw fit, even if it led to their own damnation. Kings in the human realm should not act as if they are kings in the spiritual realm. As Jones makes clear, Christ is the only King and Head of the Church.
Another strength of Jones’s work is that he ably demonstrates Helwys’s belief in the supremacy of Baptist ecclesiology. Jones writes, “According to Helwys, the true reformed church is a Baptist ecclesia.”[3] For Helwys, Baptist ecclesiology was not just one option among many legitimate options. This fact is significant when considering Helwys’s break with his dear friend John Smyth in Holland. Helwys had learned much from Smyth, but he could not remain a Separatist and he would not follow Smyth into Anabaptism. Jones is correct in asserting that Helwys owed a certain “ecclesiological debt” to Smyth, but, as Jones also notes, he did not reach Smyth’s conclusions regarding the nature of a true church.[4] In that disagreement, Helwys made his most significant contribution.
Jones’s discussion of Helwys’s view on covenant ecclesiology is also helpful. The Puritans understood the covenant of God with His people to be unconditional, which secured the Church of England’s status as a true church. However, the Separatists that God’s covenant with His people was conditioned upon the basis of their obedience to Him. Their understanding of a conditional covenant made separating from the Church of England a viable option in the first place.
But Helwys was not satisfied with Separatism. Although the movement properly understood the covenant as conditional, they retained infant baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant. For Helwys, the covenant was conditional, as the Separatists also argued, but baptism was not a sign and seal of God’s covenant with His people. According to Helwys, baptism is an outward sign of the inward sealing the Holy Spirit for the believer. Therefore, a true church is formed around baptized believers who have received the inward seal of the Holy Spirit. Jones argues this point with great clarity.
The only minor criticism that I would offer of the work (which could be construed as a benefit by some) would be its excessive amount of block quotations. These extended quotations typically bolster Jones’s argument, but at times they seem to detract from the overall flow of the book, which convolutes Jones’s otherwise clear argumentation.
Should you read the book?
Marvin Jones should be commended for this concise volume on Thomas Helwys. It’s not every day (or year) that a book on Helwys comes along so I can’t help but recommend this one. If you’re interested in Baptist history or ecclesiology then I would definitely recommend Jones’s work. Even if Baptist history or ecclesiology is new territory for you, Jones provides significant historical background that helps place key concepts within their proper historical context. My hope is that this work creates more interest in Thomas Helwys and the early English General Baptists.
____________________
[1] Marvin Jones, The Beginning of Baptist Ecclesiology: The Foundational Contributions of Thomas Helwys (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2017).
[2]Ibid., 7.
[3] Ibid., 139.
[4] Ibid., 133.
Recent Comments