Saturday Devotion: Early Baptists for Religious Freedom

Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, in his three volume The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, writes, in this second volume, about the views of early Separatist Baptists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys on the topic of freedom of religion -- a freedom that we in the United States take for granted. Nettles writes the following. Old English forms have been modernized.

__________

John Smyth, in his Propositions and Conclusions, stated the doctrine [of religious freedom] clearly and succinctly. All the constituent elements of a mature doctrine were present:

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. 13:1-7]), 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 4:12]).

This position follows a reasoning built on the doctrines of repentance, faith, the new birth or regeneration, the nature of the church, the nature of the ordinances, the qualifications of those who administer the ordinances and maintain discipline. Magistrates are not capable of ministering to the "new creature." They are established to keep men from devouring one another and to maintain justice and civility among them. . . .

Thomas Helwys wrote Mystery of Iniquity virtually simultaneously with the publication of Smyth's final confession and thus wrote independently of him, though certainly conversant with his ideas through their long friendship and united with him on most aspects of this doctrine.

They had arrived at common conclusions about the church in their work together, and their convictions about the church led to their dismissal of the magistrate's authority as of any use or prerogative at all in its formation or propagation. In summarizing the contents of his book Helwys writes: "That none ought to be punished either with death or bonds for transgressing against the spiritual ordinances of the new Testament, and that such offenses ought to be punished only with spiritual sword and censures."

A well-spoken word indeed, for Helwys did not come up short on censure. H. Wheeler comments: "It has the passion, and to some extent, the method of the prophet Amos, for its denunciations move swiftly round the contemporary horizon to concentrate on more immediate concerns, viz., the vindication of religious liberty and of the true and consistent Separatism." . . .

Even though Helwys vigorously rejected Roman Catholic ecclesiology, he just as vigorously implored King James "that we may be free from suspect, for having any thoughts of provoking evil against them of the Romish religion, in regard of their profession, if they be true and faithful subjects to the King for we do freely profess that our lord the King that no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all."

If these requests for hands off the church and hands off the conscience were not bold and forceful enough, Helwys followed it with a clear assertion of the rationale behind his gentle admonitions.

For our lord the King is but an earthly King, and he has no authority as a King but in earthly causes, and if the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the King, our lord the King can require no more: for men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it. Nether may the King be judge between God and man. . . .

After several scriptural examples and arguments seeking to seal the points that he has made he again gives rhetorical admonition to the king to consider "by what warrant of God's word the King can now take to himself a spiritual power, and set up an Hierarchy of Archbishop and Lord B. and give authority to them to make laws and Canons of religion and to give them power to compel men unto the obedience thereof." . . .

The anti-Calvinist context of Helwys' argument indicates that he believed Calvinism fostered the assumed prerogatives of persecution. [See posts Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom and Arminius and the Remonstrants for Religious Freedom.] He even applied his central idea of the Mystery of Iniquity to the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinists. "We are not able to the full desire of our souls to discover the depth of the mystery of iniquity in this opinion of Particular Election and Reprobation and so of Particular redemption, nor to show forth the great mystery of godliness in the true and holy understanding of Universal or the General Redemption of all by Christ."

That persecution and Calvinism did not share the same soul soon would appear by the arguments of many Particular Baptists for liberty of conscience. But the followers of Helwys had not yet fired their last shot in this cause.

__________

Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, Volume Two: Beginnings in America (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 26-28.