WHY DID THE FIRST ENGLISH BAPTISTS REJECT INFANT BAPTISM?

WHEN THE QUESTION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP BECAME A QUESTION OF BAPTISM

The Separatists believed that a congregation should be a community of people committed to following Christ, not simply everyone who lived within a particular parish.

But that raised another question.

IF A CHURCH IS A GATHERED COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS, WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED INTO IT?

Most Puritans and many Separatists continued to baptize infants.

They believed that the children of believers belonged within God’s covenant community and should receive its sign.

Other Separatists began to question that conclusion.

They asked whether the New Testament presents baptism as something given to a person who has heard the gospel, repented, and believed.

The first English Baptists emerged from that disagreement.

Their history brings us back to passages we have already examined in our baptism studies.

But here we have an additional task.

What did these early Christians actually believe?

How did their movement develop?

And why did Christians who appealed to the same Bible reach different conclusions?

1. THE ENGLISH BAPTISTS DID NOT BEGIN WITH A NEW THEORY ABOUT EVERY DOCTRINE

John Smyth and Thomas Helwys had already left the Church of England.

They belonged to an English Separatist congregation that moved to Amsterdam in the early seventeenth century.

Like other Separatists, they believed that a congregation should consist of people committed to following Christ.

But they began to see a difficulty in their own practice.

They had rejected the idea that everyone in a parish automatically belonged to the church.

Yet they still practiced infant baptism, just as the established church did.

Smyth came to believe this was inconsistent.

If baptism marked entrance into a gathered congregation of disciples, should it be administered before a person could hear the gospel and respond to it?

Around 1609, Smyth and members of his congregation adopted baptism for professing believers.

This became an important event in the beginning of the English Baptist movement.

But we must make an important distinction.

THEY DID NOT INVENT BELIEVER’S BAPTISM.

Anabaptist Christians on the European continent had already practiced it for decades.

Smyth and Helwys were part of a later English development, shaped by Separatism and contact with Dutch Mennonites.

2. WHAT DID JOHN SMYTH ARGUE?

In 1609, Smyth published The Character of the Beast, in which he challenged infant baptism and the way churches were constituted.

He argued that people should become disciples through teaching and should confess faith and sin before receiving baptism.

For Smyth, this was not merely a disagreement about the age of the person being baptized.

It was a question about the nature of the church itself.

He reasoned that if baptism was given to infants who could not yet profess faith, the congregation’s membership was not being established in the way he understood the New Testament to describe.

That was Smyth’s conclusion.

Now we must examine the passages on which such a conclusion rests.

3. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT MAKING DISCIPLES?

Jesus told His apostles:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” — Matthew 28:19, KJV

The instruction continues:

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” — Matthew 28:20, KJV

The command joins making disciples, baptism, and teaching.

Those who defend believer’s baptism understand this as a pattern in which people hear the gospel, become disciples, and are baptized.

Those who defend infant baptism point out that the passage does not explicitly say that the children of believers must be excluded.

They also understand baptism in relation to God’s covenant and the inclusion of children in the community of faith.

So we must ask carefully:

What does Jesus explicitly command?

What does the passage establish about the relationship between discipleship and baptism?

Does it prescribe the precise sequence for every person who may receive baptism?

And what conclusions require additional passages or theological inferences?

WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE PASSAGE SAY LESS THAN IT SAYS.

But we should not make it say more.

4. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE GOSPEL WAS FIRST PREACHED?

Read Acts 2:36–41.

Peter announced that God had made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ.

His hearers were:

“pricked in their heart.” — Acts 2:37, KJV

They asked:

“Men and brethren, what shall we do?” — Acts 2:37, KJV

Peter answered:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38, KJV

Luke then tells us:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.” — Acts 2:41, KJV

Notice the movement of the account.

The gospel was preached.

The hearers responded.

Peter called them to repent and be baptized.

Those who received his word were baptized.

This is a clear account of people responding to the gospel and receiving baptism.

But does Luke intend this account to answer every later question about the children of believers?

That question requires examining the rest of Peter’s statement and the other baptism accounts in Acts.

5. WHAT ABOUT “THE PROMISE IS FOR YOU AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN”?

Peter continued:

“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” — Acts 2:39, KJV

This verse is important to both sides of the disagreement.

Those who defend infant baptism point to the inclusion of children in the promise.

Those who defend believer’s baptism point to Peter’s call to repentance, the reception of his message, and the closing words:

“EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL.”

But what is the promise in this passage?

Read Acts 2:16–21, where Peter cites Joel’s prophecy about the outpouring of the Spirit.

Then read Acts 2:32–33, where Peter says the exalted Jesus has poured out what the crowd is seeing and hearing.

Then read verses 38–39 together.

Peter is announcing the promise associated with Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

He extends its reach beyond the people standing before him:

To their children.

And to those far away.

The verse does not explicitly say:

“BAPTIZE YOUR INFANTS.”

Nor does it explicitly say:

“YOUR CHILDREN CANNOT RECEIVE BAPTISM UNTIL A SPECIFIED AGE.”

The question is how the promise relates to the response Peter has just commanded.

We must identify the promise before deciding what the mention of children proves about baptism.

6. WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT WERE BAPTIZED?

Several accounts in Acts mention the baptism of households.

Lydia and her household were baptized.

Read Acts 16:14–15.

The Philippian jailer and his household were baptized.

Read Acts 16:30–34.

Paul also mentions:

“the household of Stephanas.” — 1 Corinthians 1:16, KJV

Those who defend infant baptism argue that households in the ancient world could include children and that these accounts are consistent with household baptism.

Those who defend believer’s baptism observe that the accounts do not explicitly identify an infant as having been baptized.

Read the jailer’s account closely.

Paul and Silas:

“spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” — Acts 16:32, KJV

Then:

“he was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” — Acts 16:33, KJV

The account also connects the household with rejoicing and belief.

We should not invent an infant in the household.

But neither should we claim that the word household proves there were no infants present.

AN UNMENTIONED PERSON CANNOT SETTLE THE QUESTION EITHER WAY.

We need to examine what the account actually establishes and then consider the broader biblical argument.

7. DOES COLOSSIANS 2 EQUATE BAPTISM WITH CIRCUMCISION?

Paul wrote:

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” — Colossians 2:11, KJV

He continued:

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.” — Colossians 2:12, KJV

Christians who defend infant baptism often connect this passage with God’s covenant with Abraham.

Under the old covenant, male infants received circumcision as a covenant sign.

Read Genesis 17:9–14.

The argument is that baptism is the new covenant sign and that the children of believers should not be excluded without biblical reason.

Those who defend believer’s baptism respond that Paul describes a spiritual circumcision accomplished by Christ and connects baptism with:

“FAITH OF THE OPERATION OF GOD.”

Read Colossians 2:11–13 as one argument.

Paul speaks of what believers have received in Christ.

He speaks of circumcision made without hands.

He speaks of burial and resurrection with Christ.

He speaks of faith.

He speaks of being made alive with Christ.

He does not explicitly command the baptism of infants.

But neither does this passage provide a complete explanation of how children relate to the new covenant.

So the question becomes:

Does the relationship between circumcision and baptism establish the same recipients for both?

Or does the nature of the new covenant change how people enter its community?

That takes us to Jeremiah.

8. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE NEW COVENANT?

Jeremiah announced a new covenant.

God said:

“I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” — Jeremiah 31:33, KJV

He continued:

“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them.” — Jeremiah 31:34, KJV

Hebrews 8:8–12 quotes this promise while discussing the new covenant.

Those who defend believer’s baptism emphasize that the new covenant community is described as people who know the Lord.

They argue that baptism should therefore be given to those who personally respond to the gospel.

Those who defend infant baptism understand the promise as describing the saving blessings of the new covenant without necessarily excluding believers’ children from receiving its outward sign.

The question is not simply whether Jeremiah mentions children.

It is:

WHAT KIND OF COVENANT COMMUNITY IS JEREMIAH DESCRIBING?

Under the old covenant, a person could belong to Israel by birth without personally knowing the Lord.

How does the new covenant differ?

What does Hebrews say Christ has accomplished?

Those questions need to be answered before we use the old covenant practice of infant circumcision to determine the recipients of Christian baptism.

9. DOES BAPTISM MERELY SHOW THAT SOMEONE ALREADY BELIEVES?

Here we must be careful not to combine two separate questions.

The first is:

WHO SHOULD RECEIVE BAPTISM?

The second is:

WHAT DOES GOD DO IN BAPTISM?

Christians can agree that baptism should follow a person’s response to the gospel while disagreeing about baptism’s relationship to forgiveness, union with Christ, and salvation.

Some Baptist traditions describe baptism chiefly as a public testimony or ordinance expressing faith and obedience.

Other Christian traditions understand baptism as a means through which God acts.

The early English Baptists themselves did not all use precisely the same language about its meaning.

So rejecting infant baptism does not automatically settle every other baptismal question.

Now examine the texts.

Peter said:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38, KJV

Ananias told Saul:

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” — Acts 22:16, KJV

Paul wrote:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” — Romans 6:3, KJV

And Peter wrote:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” — 1 Peter 3:21, KJV

But Peter immediately explains that he is not talking about merely washing dirt from the body:

“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” — 1 Peter 3:21, KJV

These statements must be read in their contexts.

We should not reduce baptism to a meaningless ceremony.

Nor should we treat water as possessing saving power apart from Christ.

The New Testament connects baptism with Christ’s death and resurrection, repentance, faith, forgiveness, and calling upon the Lord.

Our responsibility is to understand those connections rather than choosing one passage and making the others disappear.

10. WHY DID JOHN SMYTH BAPTIZE HIMSELF?

When Smyth concluded that his infant baptism was not valid, he faced a practical problem.

Who could baptize him?

He did not recognize his earlier baptism as sufficient.

And he did not believe ministers of the established church possessed authority simply because of their position within that institution.

So Smyth baptized himself and then baptized others in his congregation.

He later questioned whether that had been the right decision and sought fellowship with Dutch Mennonites who already practiced believer’s baptism.

Thomas Helwys and others disagreed with Smyth’s subsequent course.

The congregation divided.

This was not merely a dispute about water.

It was another dispute about authority.

MUST A CONGREGATION RECEIVE BAPTISM THROUGH AN EXISTING CHAIN OF AUTHORIZED MINISTERS BEFORE IT CAN BECOME A CHURCH?

Or can Christians who believe they have misunderstood baptism begin obeying what they now understand Scripture to require?

The New Testament describes baptism being administered by disciples and gospel preachers.

It does not describe a person baptizing himself.

But does that observation settle the validity of every baptism administered under unusual circumstances?

We must distinguish an apostolic example from a conclusion about circumstances the passage does not address.

Smyth’s decision should not become our rule merely because he made it.

Neither should his later regret become our rule.

The question remains:

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE ESTABLISH?

11. DID THE FIRST ENGLISH BAPTISTS PRACTICE IMMERSION?

Here is a historical detail that may surprise readers.

The earliest English Baptists rejected infant baptism, but they did not immediately establish immersion as their uniform practice.

Smyth’s baptism is commonly described as having been administered by pouring rather than full immersion.

Immersion became established among English Baptist congregations in the following decades, particularly during the 1630s and early 1640s.

That distinction matters.

BELIEVER’S BAPTISM AND IMMERSION ARE TWO RELATED QUESTIONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME QUESTION.

The first concerns the person receiving baptism.

The second concerns the action performed.

We must examine both.

Paul wrote:

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” — Romans 6:4, KJV

In Acts 8, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

“went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” — Acts 8:38, KJV

Then:

“they were come up out of the water.” — Acts 8:39, KJV

John 3:23 tells us:

“And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” — John 3:23, KJV

Those passages are relevant to understanding the action of baptism.

But we should not pretend the early English Baptists settled the question for us.

Their own practice developed over time.

The authority for Christian baptism must come from Christ and His apostles, not from what a later movement eventually adopted.

12. WHY DID THOMAS HELWYS RETURN TO ENGLAND?

After separating from Smyth, Helwys and a small group returned to England around 1611–1612.

They established a Baptist congregation in London.

Helwys also argued that the king had no authority to compel a person’s religious conscience.

In A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, published in 1612, he defended religious liberty not merely for people who agreed with him, but also for people whose religious beliefs he considered wrong.

That was a remarkable position in an age when governments commonly enforced religious conformity.

Think about the connection.

Helwys believed a person should respond personally to the gospel.

He also believed a ruler could not produce genuine faith by commanding religious conformity.

Those were related convictions, although one does not automatically prove the other.

The question of baptism had led back to a question we have encountered repeatedly:

WHO POSSESSES AUTHORITY OVER A PERSON’S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?

13. WHAT DID HELWYS ACTUALLY TEACH ABOUT BAPTISM?

In the 1611 declaration of faith associated with Helwys and his congregation, Article 13 connected admission to the church through baptism with a person’s confession of faith and sins.

Article 14 described baptism in relation to dying to sin and walking in newness of life, drawing upon Romans 6:2–4.

It concluded that baptism did not belong to infants.

We can see the reasoning.

A person hears the gospel.

That person responds in faith and repentance.

Baptism is connected with dying to sin and beginning a new life in Christ.

Therefore, Helwys concluded, baptism should not be administered to infants.

But again we must distinguish his argument from the biblical text itself.

Romans 6 explains the meaning of baptism for the Christians Paul is addressing.

Does it also establish the recipients of baptism in every circumstance?

That is the interpretive question.

Helwys believed it did when read alongside the Great Commission and Acts 2.

Christians who defend infant baptism understand those passages differently.

Our task is to examine the reasoning rather than treating either historical conclusion as self-evident.

14. WHY DID BAPTISTS THEMSELVES DIVIDE?

The English Baptist movement did not develop as one completely uniform group.

Two major streams emerged.

GENERAL BAPTISTS

taught that Christ died for all people. They were associated with the movement that developed from Smyth and Helwys.

PARTICULAR BAPTISTS

emerged from a different stream of English Separatist and Independent congregations. They held a Reformed understanding of particular redemption: Christ’s saving work was intended to secure the salvation of the elect.

The names General and Particular therefore referred to different understandings of the extent and saving purpose of Christ’s atonement.

They did not mean that one group practiced baptism in a “general” way and the other in a “particular” way.

And we should not assume that every belief of a modern Baptist congregation can be traced unchanged to one of these early groups.

Here is something worth noticing.

Christians who agreed about believer’s baptism still disagreed about election, grace, and atonement.

AGREEMENT ON ONE BIBLICAL QUESTION DID NOT PRODUCE AGREEMENT ON EVERY OTHER QUESTION.

We saw the same thing among the Puritans and Separatists.

We will see it again.

15. DOES A BAPTIST CONGREGATION HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENT?

Early Baptists generally favored congregational responsibility rather than government by a diocesan bishop.

Their congregations also cooperated with one another and later formed associations.

But congregational responsibility and complete isolation are not the same thing.

The New Testament describes local congregations with recognized elders.

Read Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5.

It also describes cooperation among congregations in supporting gospel work and helping Christians in need.

Read 2 Corinthians 8–9 and Philippians 4:15–16.

The question is:

WHAT AUTHORITY MAY ONE CONGREGATION OR AN ASSOCIATION EXERCISE OVER ANOTHER?

A voluntary association may help churches cooperate.

But when does cooperation become control?

When does advice become a binding command?

When does a statement of shared belief become a test that excludes Christians on matters Scripture leaves open?

Those are questions we will need to revisit as more denominations and church organizations appear in our history.

16. DID THE BAPTISTS RESTORE THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

We must be careful with that question.

The early English Baptists challenged infant baptism and the established church’s control over congregational life.

They sought to organize their churches according to their understanding of Scripture.

But they also disagreed among themselves.

Their baptismal practice developed over time.

Their views on election and atonement differed.

Their conclusions about church organization were shaped by their reading of Scripture and by the circumstances in which they lived.

So we cannot simply say:

“THE BAPTISTS APPEARED, AND THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.”

Nor should we dismiss their questions because the movement appeared in the seventeenth century.

A teaching is not established merely because it is old.

A teaching is not disproved merely because a later movement emphasized it.

THE AGE OF A MOVEMENT DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER ITS INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS CORRECT.

That is why we study the history.

And then we return to the text.

17. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THIS DIVISION?

The early English Baptists forced several questions into the open.

What makes a person a member of Christ’s church?

What relationship does baptism have to faith and repentance?

Does the new covenant require a personal response that differs from membership in the old covenant community?

What does baptism mean?

How should it be administered?

Who has authority to determine its recipients?

And may civil government compel a person to accept a religious practice?

Those questions deserve more than a denominational answer.

We have examined passages from Matthew, Acts, Romans, Colossians, Jeremiah, and Hebrews.

The reader should now be able to distinguish:

WHAT THE PASSAGE EXPLICITLY SAYS.

WHAT WE INFER FROM THE PASSAGE.

WHAT A LATER THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM OR CHURCH PRACTICE ADDS TO THAT INFERENCE.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

18. WHERE DO WE GO NEXT?

The Puritans, Separatists, and early Baptists all grew out of the English Reformation.

But they were not the only Protestants to question the Church of England’s government and worship.

Some wanted a church governed by assemblies of elders rather than bishops.

Their understanding of church government was influenced by developments in Geneva and Scotland.

They became known as:

PRESBYTERIANS.

That brings us back to one of the questions with which our entire study began.

If the New Testament calls elders overseers and shepherds, how should those elders govern the church?

And what authority should assemblies of elders exercise beyond a local congregation?

That takes us to our next study:

WHY DID THE PRESBYTERIANS REPLACE BISHOPS WITH ASSEMBLIES OF ELDERS?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE PRESBYTERIANS REPLACE BISHOPS WITH ASSEMBLIES OF ELDERS?