CONTEXT 1 Baptism A Fundamental Practice of
D. A statement concerning John Murton-
1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RISE OF GENERAL BAPTISTS
No attempt is made here to give a complete history of the General Baptists. However, it is necessary to relate briefly the beginning of the first English General Baptist church.
The Church Of England And The Puritan Movement.
For almost half a century the Church of England had been dealing with the Puritan movement which sought to bring a new reformation within the church. This movement began as early as 1550 when Hooper, who was appointed to the See of Gloucester, refused to wear the robes of the priesthood.
1
This led to the Vestiarian Controversy. From the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, there were those who were dissatisfied with the religious situation in England. They soon saw that
the new Queen could not be depended upon to bring about the much needed reforms in the church. The Puritans wanted to
introduce their discipline and practice into the Church of 1 John Tulloch, English Puritanism And Its Leaders (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1061), p. 8f.
i o 6
120
England, without withdrawing from that church. For at least two decades before any withdrew from the church of England they tried to accomplish that purpose.
The Desire Of The Separati sts. There were some who saw no possibility of accomplishing the reforms and changes desired, so they came out from the church and became known
3
as Separatists, or Congregationalists. Some of the leaders in this Non-conformist, or Separatist group, were Robert Browne, Robert Harrison, Henry Barrowe, John Greenwood,
k
Francis Johnson and John Smyth. Haller, in The Rise Of Puritanism, says that Separatism was the supreme expression of the religious individualism of Puritan faith and doctrine.
The Separatists held many doctrines in contrast to those of the Church of England. The differences on baptism have been pointed out in the preceding chapter. Some of these Sep- aratists, especially Smyth, saw that in Separatism too much
2 Williston Walker, A History Of The Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner1 s Sons, ) > P • kb0 •
3 Ibid., p. lj_6l.
I4. Ibid ., p . Lj_6l.
5 William Haller, The Rise Of Puritanism (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1930), p. lb1.
107
of the doctrine of the church of England was retained.
Smyth withdrew from them to become the founder of the Gen- eral Baptists.
Early Life And Education Of John Smyth. Smyth, the leader of the General Baptist movement, was born about 1570, and little is known about his childhood and early life. He was educated at Cambridge University where he was a pupil and friend of Francis Johnson, who became an outstanding
6
Separatist leader. He received his Master's degree from Cambridge in lp93> and being ordained to the clergy of the Church of England by Bishop Wickham of Lincoln, became lecturer or preacher in that city about 1600.
Smyth's Withdrawal From The Church Of England. He was dismissed by vote of the Church of England congregation in Lincoln in 1602, but appears to have held the office
7
until 1605. Walker says 1602 was probably the date of the
8
beginning of Smyth's group in Gainsborough. The exact
date of his break with the Church of England and the beginning of the Separatist group at Gainsborough is unknown, but it was between 1602 and l6o£. Though Smyth was a member of
6 Henry C. Vedder, A Short History Of The Baptists (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 19^5), P. 202.
7 Vedder, loc. cit.
8 Walker, ojo. ci t., p. i|_65 .
108
the church of England to about 1602, and a member of its
9
clergy^ he early leaned toward Puritanism. Because of his close contact with the Separatists in Lincoln he soon be- came convinced of the rightness of their position. Accord- ing to SmythTs own testimony, he passed through nine months 10 of doubt before deciding to leave the mother church. At Gainsborough he was associated with Thomas Helwys and John Murton who were later to play such leading roles in the General Baptist movement. The group at Gainsborough made the famous covenant "to walk in all his ways made known or 11 to be made known unto them".
The Persecution Under James I., And Removal Of The Congregation To Amsterdam. The Persecution of James I. of England was in full force by 1606. When James I. came to the throne he received the "Millenary Petition" from his Puritan subjects expressing their desires for religious reforms. These requests were denied and the Puritans were ordered to conform. Because of the severity of the per-
9 A. H. Newman, A History Of Anti-Pedobaptism (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1902), p. 376.
10 W. T. Whitley, Works Of John Smyth Vol. II.,
P. 337.
11 Newman, loc. cit.
109
secution the group from Gainsborough went to Holland and settled at Amsterdam. They did not join themselves to the group of Separatists already established there by Francis Johnson and Henry Ainsworth, but they became "the Second
English Church at Amsterdam". Smyth outlined the differences between his group and the "Ancient Brethren of the Separa- tion" • These differences were on Church Government and forms
12
of worship as well as on Baptism. Newman states:
That they should have proceeded along independent lines at Amsterdam was natural, seeing that their numbers were sufficient and that they had so learned and so highly esteemed a minister as Smyth, whose activity would have been hampered if with his congregation he had entered into the fellowship of a church already well organized and fully officered.13
Smythy s Connection With The Mennonites, And His
Change Of Views On Baptism. It was in Amsterdam that Smyth became acquainted with 'the Mennonites and with the theology of Jacob Arminius. He had already become dissatisfied with the position taken by the Church of England on baptism; and his own private study, as well as his contact with the
Mennonites, convinced him that infant baptism was not support- ed by the Scriptures. He expressed his belief in a regenerate
12 Whitley, 0£. cit., p. 565.
13 Newman, o£. cit., p. 377 . 1 if. Vedder, ojd. ci t., p. 203.
H Q
church membership when he said:
I must needs say that he is truly called, truly professed, is truly baptized, and so he by reason of his outward true calling, true profession of the true faith, and true baptism is discerned &
judged to be inwardly baptized, & that truly a company of men thus called, professing & baptized are
saynts.15
When he became convinced that infant baptism was not scriptural, and that baptism should be only upon one's pro- fession of faith, he saw that he had never been scripturally baptized. Whereupon, in l6o8, he baptized himself and be-
16
came known as the "Se-3apti stTt. According to the leading 17
historians this baptism was by pouring. He soon renounced his baptism, for he was convinced that the Mennonites were
the Apostolic Church and that he had blundered in beginning a new church and a new baptism. He sought admission into a 18 Mennonite church, but was not accepted. It was not until after his death that his followers gained admission into the Mennoni te church.
The Division Between Smyth And Helwys. There was a
15 Whitley, oo. cit., p. 383.
16 Vedder, loc. cit.
17 Walker, od. cit», p# I4.65.
18 John C. Carlile, , The Story Of The English Baptists (London: James Clark and Co."]J 1905) > P • 69 •
Ill
division between Smyth and his two leading followers, Thomas Helwys and John Murton. Following this split the latter two,
in l6ll, returned to England with a large portion of the 19
church. This became the first permanent Baptist Church on English soil, and was known, because of its Arminian position,
20
as a "General Baptist" church. Smyth, Helwys, and Murton are called by Newman "the Fathers of the General Baptist
21 Movement" .
2. THE TEACHINGS AND PRACTICES OF JOHN SMYTH ON BAPTISM.
The brief account of the beginning of the General Baptist movement is presented as a background for a fuller and more detailed discussion of the teachings of this group on baptism.
Smyth himself went through a progressive development of at least four distinct views on baptism. First as an Anglican, second as a Separatist, third as a Baptist and fourth as a Seeker.
As An Anglican. At first he was a clergyman in the Church of England. Having been reared in that church and educated for its ministry, it is reasonable to suppose that he held to the traditional doctrines. As shown in the prev-
19 Walker, loc. cit.
20 Ibid., p. i|66.
21 Newman, OP. cit., P. 377.
131+
ious chapter, under the section on the Church of England, baptism was originally administered in that church by
dipping or immersion of infants. Before l600 it was agreed that in case of the weakness of a child it could be baptized
22
by sprinkling or pouring. This soon led to the use of sprinkling and pouring altogether, so that by the time of Smyth's connection with the Church of England as a clergyman,
the common practice was to sprinkle or pour infants. Im- mersion was seldom used, and a personal profession of faith 23
in Christ was not demanded.
As A Separatist. In withdrawing from the Church of England and joining The Separatists, Smyth adopted a second view of baptism. This is seen in the controversy which he had with Richard Bernard, vicar of Worksop. Bernard express-
ed Separatist views but when his benefice was about to be
taken from him for so doing, he quickly returned to the Church of England. In reply to Bernard's question as to whether
baptism pledged to Christ only, or to the faith of the established church, Smyth replied:
22 Henry S. Burrage, The Act Of Baptism In The Christian Church (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1879)^, p. 155.
23 Newman ,op cit., p. 381.
131+
We will subscribe neither to the Bishop's faith, nor to the Puritan's faith, but to the faith of Christ indefinitely comprehended in the Holy Scriptures. . . . We approve unto you our faith,
church and baptisme to be true, and therefore your faith, church and baptisme is false #2l(.
This controversy between Smyth and Bernard began about 1608 when Smyth wrote a letter to Bernard in which he censured Bernard for his position. Bernard had been critical of the king and the Church of England, but would not go as far as Smyth and others went in the Separation. After Smyth went to Gainsborough as pastor, Bernard criticized him severely.
Smyth answered these criticisms and objections, and request- ed a continuance of the discussion, but Bernard ignored the request. Later Bernard sent a letter to Helwys in which he attacked Smyth and the Separation. To this letter Helwys replied, and then Bernard criticized Helwys' letter in a publication now known as The Separatist's Schisme. This was issued on June 18, 1608 . Ainsworth, a Cambridge Sep- aratist who was then at Amsterdam, entered the controversy and answered Bernard. Finally Smyth answered in a writing called Paralleles, Censures, Observations. This was a letter divided into nineteen sections in which Smyth took
2\+ W. T. Whitley, The Works Of John Smyth (Cambridge:
University Press, 1915) > Vol. II., p. 21(77"
lllj.
into account (1) his original letter, to which he added parallels, (2) Bernard's reply, which he censured, and (3)
25
Ainsworth's answer on which he offered observations. In this letter Smyth shows that the earlier preaching of
Bernard was strongly reformatory. Smyth charged him with
handling the Scriptures in such a way "that every man con- 26 ceaved that he would have been a ring leader to reformation".
He continues:
For the circumstances being considered, that this Scripture (Daniel 3*16-13) was handled when the king vrged Subscription & conformity throughout the whole land, & when divers of the forwardest preachers
were silenced, & himself then endaungered to lease his vicaridg: that then he should thus preach
was enough to have brough him within the compasse of petty rebellion, in stirring vp the myndes of
the people against the Kings proceedings: besides the shew of the text might afford that he compared
the King to Nebuchadnezzar: Subscription to the Kings comaundement of worshipping the golden
jmage: Refusal of Subscription, to the Refusal of worshipping the golden jmage: the parts of Subscrip- tion to the golden jmage: the ministers refusing Subscription to the three persons that refused
to worship the golden jmage: their Resolution &
courage to the Resolution of those three: The pre- lates that vrged subscription & conformity, to the accusers of the lews. . . .27
Smyth then points out that Bernard had changed his position since he preached those sermons. Bernard was afraid he would lose his benefice if he continued to set forth such views,
25 Ibid., p. 768.
26 Ibid., p. 333.
27 Ibid., p. 333f•
131+
therefore he ceased such preaching. In speaking of Bernard's return to the Church of England Smyth states:
By this place (2 Kings. 5.18) Mr. Bern, intended to sinne against his conscience for he did acknowledg this truth wee now professe divers tymes, & was vpoon the point of separation with some of his people with him: yet loving the world & prefermet as Naaman is thought to do he chose rather to stay stil in his vicaridge against his conscience, then to leese it & to follow Christ with a good con- science. . . .28
Smyth admits that he too had a difficult struggle in making his decision to leave the Church of England and follow the Separatists. His struggle seems to have been about the same as that through which Bernard went, but he followed through to what he felt was consistency, while Bernard did not have that courage. In referring to his own decision, Smyth says:
And whereas you object against me . . . that before I came to the truth I wrote against it Sc was distract- ed to & fro before I saw it cleered to my judgm^t 3c conscience, I must needes acknowledg it so to be. . . .29
Smyth would not admit that he ever failed to do that which he saw to be the truth. He wrote:
Shew me, how & when after the acknowledgment of the truth I fell back as you have done many tymes?
that I ever yeelded to the prelates conformity, or