A Brief Exploration of General Baptist Origins
by Jesse Owens
Where did Baptists come from? Some have speculated they have always existed in some place or another since the time of John the Baptist. Others have contended that Baptists’ origins lay in the European Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century. Still others have maintained that the Baptists sprung from the English Puritan and Separatist movements in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Baptists have at times vociferously disagreed amongst themselves about which of these claims is most accurate. Some have even explained that two arguments may somehow be combined.
Some historians and laypersons seem to favor one approach because of their theological leanings. For example, one might prefer that Baptists sprung from the continental Anabaptists because they rejected Calvinism. Or, some might prefer that they sprung from the English Puritan and Separatist movements due to their affinity for Reformed theology. But our question, “Where did the Baptists come from?” doesn’t require an answer based entirely upon one’s theology, or even the theological views of early Baptists, though the latter will certainly aid us in answering the question.
Keep in mind that the historical record is never perfectly complete. Sometimes our historical questions don’t find satisfactory answers. Regarding English General Baptist origins and external influence, we simply don’t know some things. But we do know enough to conclude that the English General Baptists, which are our only focus here, came out of the Puritan Separatist movement within the Church of England and underwent very little influence from the Continental Anabaptists.
Smyth, Helwys, and English Separatism[1]
The earliest English Baptists were the General Baptists, their name signifying their belief in a general atonement, or that Christ died for all mankind. The earliest of these English General Baptists were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. Information about the earliest years of Smyth’s life is sparse. We do know, however, that he attended Christ’s College, Cambridge, “a nursery of Puritanism,” where he encountered Francis Johnson, who soon fled with a Separatist congregation to Holland.[2] Smyth had been ordained by the Church of England in 1594, but found himself at odds with it after just a few years. Smyth, like many other Puritans, refused to accept the Church of England’s liturgy, which he believed too closely resembled the Roman Catholic Church.
Smyth’s opposition to the practices of the Church of England soon turned to his opposition to the Church of England altogether.[3] By 1607 Smyth was leading a Separatist congregation in Lincoln. Smyth and his Separatist congregation soon fled to Holland, a safe haven for those who separated from the Church of England.
Thomas Helwys was a member of Smyth’s congregation, which was not yet a Baptist congregation. Smyth’s theology underwent several key developments. Smyth had formerly believed in infant baptism and unconditional election. At some point during his time at Cambridge or in Holland, he began rejecting both. So had Helwys. After coming to believe that believer’s baptism was the only true form of baptism Smyth, Helwys, and their congregation were rebaptized.
But Smyth came to believe that the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites, which he encountered in Holland, were a true church since they too practiced believer’s baptism.[4] Furthermore, he was convinced that he, Helwys, and the others should have sought baptism by them rather than taking it upon themselves to establish a new church based upon believers baptism.
Smyth denounced his baptism and believed that his congregation should join with the Mennonites. However, the theology of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonite was deeply problematic. First, they downplayed the effects of the fall, and the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity. Second, and more importantly, they embraced what has been called “celestial flesh Christology”. That is, they believed that Christ did not receive His human body from Mary, but had received human flesh entirely from the Holy Spirit. The reason they believed this seems to be that they could not conceive of how Christ could have received human flesh from Mary and still be without sin. These theological problems seem to have not deterred Smith’s interest in joining the Mennonites.[5]
Helwys could not agree to join the Mennonites since he rejected key doctrinal points in their theology and ecclesiology. Therefore, the Smyth congregation split into two congregations, with Smyth leading one and Helwys leading the other. The Helwys congregation sought to illuminate the theological distinctions between themselves and the Smyth congregation, as well as the Mennonites, by composing a confession of faith in 1611 entitled A Declaration of Faith.
In this document, Helwys and his congregation made clear their affirmation of original sin, total depravity, the necessity of imputed righteousness for justification, and the believer’s ability to serve as a governing authority. Furthermore, the Helwys group rejected Mennonite Christology by affirming that Christ was “seed of David . . . according to the Flesh.” And, “the Son of Mary the Virgin, made of her substance . . . by the power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing her and being thus true Man like us in all things, sin only excepted.”[6]
Helwys’s defense of orthodox Christology is just one example of his attempt at doctrinal precision, but he was equally clear on each of these points how he differed from Smyth and the Mennonites. On most points, Helwys followed the Reformed tradition or modified it in a way similar to Arminius. Whereas Smyth had forsaken his former theological positions, Helwys had not.
Helwys and his congregation decided to return to England in 1612. They had originally fled to Holland because of the persecution of Separatists under the rule of King James I. They returned, however, because they did not believe it consistent with their faith to intentionally avoid persecution. Upon their return Helwys’s A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity was printed “with an appeal to King James I for toleration both of their beliefs and those of others.”[7] They knew that their return would be costly. But they had willingly returned to “lay down their lives in their own country for Christ and his truth.”[8] These General Baptists, under Helwys’s leadership, met in Spitafields and were the first Baptist church on English soil.
What About the Anabaptists?
Over twenty years ago, the eminent Baptist historian B.R. White said, “Nobody doubts that the first English General Baptists evolved from the English Separatists.”[9] He immediately added, “But there is dispute as to whether the sixteenth century Anabaptist movement, either in England or on the Continent had any measurable influence upon the development of the Separatists.”[10] “The historical, record, as it presently stands, confirms that the Baptist movement, as we know it, began with John Smyth and was continued through the work of Thomas Helwys,” Chute, Finn, and Haykin similarly conclude. “Both were Englishmen who left the Anglican Church, convinced that it was too politicized by the Crown and too Catholic for their comfort. We concur with this history, tracing Baptist beginning to 1609.”[11]
In a helpful essay, Lonnie Kliever sought to determine the English General Baptists’ theological indebtedness to the Anabaptists. According to him, Smyth and Helwys became Baptists via the Puritan Separatist tradition.[12] Kliever concludes that the English General Baptists have little to no direct indebtedness to the Anabaptists regarding their theology. Smyth and Helwys most likely arrived at their conclusions regarding the Church and baptism as the logical conclusion of the Separatist tradition and the clear teachings of the Bible. For those who believed that the Church of England had ceased to be a true Church, its baptism invalid, and infant baptism invalid altogether, the Baptist approach made logical and Biblical sense.[13]
Any theological similarities between the English General Baptists and the Dutch Mennonites are far outweighed by their theological dissimilarities. As Kliever puts it, “The English group’s modification of Puritan Calvinism is so clearly ‘Arminian’ that no Anabaptist influence need be considered significant.”[14] Smyth and his congregation do seem to have aligned themselves theologically with the Mennonites. But Helwys and his congregation, who likely maintained Smyth’s earlier theological position, did not.
Smyth and Helwys likely encountered Arminius’s theology either while they were in Holland where Arminius had lived, taught, and died, and where the theological debate concerning his views raged on. Or Smyth may have encountered similar views during his time at Cambridge when Calvinist doctrines were coming into question. Either way, early General Baptist theology, including Helwys’s theology and Smyth’s early theology, went the way of Arminius rather than the way of the Mennonites.
Conclusion
While by no means complete, this essay should serve as a helpful reminder that the English General Baptists, as one work cleverly puts it, sprung from Separatist roots planted in Puritan soil.[15] Certainly Anabaptist history, theology, and piety have much value, and itself should in no way be discredited. However, the General Baptists seem not to be indebted to them. Furthermore, this approach to Baptist history, which is firmly rooted in the existing historical record, shows how the English Baptists followed the teachings of the Reformation and later Puritanism on the Church to what they believed to be their Biblical and logical conclusion.
____________________
[1] Robert Brown is often cited as a major catalyst for the Separatist movement through two works: A Treatise of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anie and A Booke Which Sheweth the Life and Manners of All True Christians. Browne argued that civil authorities have no power within the Church or to compel people to worship. Browne maintained that a Separatist church could be established on the basis of believers covenanting together. English Baptists, such as Smyth and Helwys, followed Browne in many ways, but they maintained that a Church was established not by mere covenanting but on the basis of believer’s baptism.
[2] Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn, and Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 17.
[3] Ibid. Chute, Finn, and Haykin explain, “The critical factor in convincing Smyth that he should leave the Church of England appears to be a series of church decrees by King James I [of the well known King James Bible] in late 1604. King James required complete conformity of all Church of England ministers to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal foundation of the established church, and the Book of Common Prayer, which set for the worship and liturgy of the Church of England. The decrees also demanded support for episcopal polity.”
[4] B. R. White argues that three issues might’ve led Smyth and Helwys to embrace believer’s baptism: “ First, there was a longstanding unease of most Separatists with the baptism which they had received in what they believed t be the apostate Church of England. Secondly, there was the continuing Bible study which stemmed from their restless desire to re-model the visible church ever more closely towards what they believed to be the apostolic ideal. Thirdly, there was the practice of believer’s baptism by the Mennonites in Amsterdam. Their unease must have sharpened the question, their Bible study and their knowledge of Mennonite practice may well have provided an answer.” B. R. White, The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century (Didcot, England: The Baptist Historical Society, 1996), 19.
[5] Smyth’s congregation was not received by the Mennonites until after Smyth’s death. In fact, Helwys wrote to the Mennonites recommending that they not accept Smyth and his congregation. It was not until Smyth’s congregation became theologically aligned with the Mennonites that they were accepted.
[6] Thomas Helwys, A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611), A4.
[7] White, 22.
[8] Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612), 212.
[9] White, 15.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Chute, Finn, Haykin, 4-5.
[12] Lonnie D. Kliever, “General Baptist Origins: The Question of Anabaptist Influence,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review XXXVI (1962): 291-321.
[13] Kliever provides a fascinating citation from John Whitgift in 1574, which came about during Whitgift’s controversy with Thomas Cartwright. The citation demonstrates the logical conclusion of Puritanism: “If the preaching of the Word be so necessarily joined with the administration of the sacraments, it is in the respect of those that are to receive the sacraments, and then must it needs follow that the sacrament may be minister to none but such as are able to hear the Word of God; whereby infants must be excluded from baptism” (John Whitgift, Defence of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright (1574); cited in Kliever, 317).
[14] Kliever, 317.
[15] Chute, Finn, Haykin, 14-16.
November 7, 2016
Keep up the good work….even better, come over to England and explore the land that produced both Smyth and Helwys – and listen to the BBC Radio 4 broadcast on Helwys.