Introduction

Henry Clay Fish was born January 27, 1820, in Halifax, Vermont, to a Baptist pastor with a ministry centered in his own home that lasted more than four decades. Graduating from Union Theological Seminary in 1845, Fish soon after began his own pastoral career. For most of his adult life, he was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Newark, NJ, a service that ended with his death in 1877. From his pastoral post in Newark, Fish was influential in the start and growth of other Baptist churches, in patriotic community activities during the Civil War, and in the growth of academic interest and institutions. Fish also wrote prolifically, authoring and publishing a score of books on preaching, revivals, and Christian living, as well as other subjects.

In this short book (The Price of Soul-Liberty and Who Paid It), Fish argued that “the people of the United States” are indebted to the Baptists “for that priceless boon of Religious Freedom.”^[1] He wrote, “It is certain, beyond question, that the aspect of our institutions [i.e., those in America] had been entirely different, but for the influence of the Baptists.”^[2] Baptists, he said, were persecuted in matters of religious conviction by all who had the opportunity, but they alone, among all other Christian denominations, never responded in kind. Fish’s aim in this volume was to encourage contemporary and future Baptists to enjoy the fruit of their forebears' labors with gratitude and also to embrace a commitment to continue laboring in their own fields for soul-liberty.

Oversimplified And Erroneous History

The overall emphasis on Baptist advocacy and activism for freedom of conscience is appropriate. Fish was right to perceive a unique experience and effort among Baptists in England and America, during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, regarding the development of religious liberty. Baptists did suffer much at the hands of their Christian brethren who held civil influence and power. Thus, it is important for us today to know and remember what happened and how we arrived at our present moment.

However, historical accounts of Baptists beliefs and actions must be scrupulously accurate in order to sustain the pressure of prudent application. This is even more necessary when the author intends to lay moral imperative upon the reader. Unfortunately, Fish did not deliver on this point. His history is generally oversimplified, and it is even misleading at times. With some facts of historical development, he is either ignorant or dishonest, but the result is the same – his history is untrustworthy, his imperatives unimposing.

For example, Fish oversimplified the subject at hand by conflating “soul-liberty,” “liberty of conscience,” and “religious freedom.” These concepts are certainly related, but they are not synonymous. Indeed, Baptists of various sorts have defined these differently, and Baptists have come to different conclusions about how these should be understood and practiced.

Fish defined his understanding of soul-liberty in the first sentence of this book. He said that soul-liberty is “the liberty to think and act in religious matters without human dictation or control.”^[3] He went on to say, “Everything pertaining to religion, must be a matter of intelligent conviction and voluntary choice.”^[4] Near the end of the book, Fish claimed that “Soul-Liberty” was “incorporated into the Constitution of the Federal Union,” adopted in 1787 and amended in 1789.^[5] This, he said, was to “secure still more perfectly religious freedom.” And yet, some states in the Union at that time still had established churches, and there were still laws on the books regarding blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking. Fish’s own definition and record is not compatible with the reality because he oversimplified the concept he attempted to explain and promote.

So too, Fish misled the reader at various points in his description of historical developments. For example, Fish wrote, “Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses… the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all the ages.”^[6] Such a historical claim betrays Fish’s ignorance. Some of the earliest English Baptists aggressively distinguished themselves from Anabaptists, arguing that seventeenth-century English Baptists were wrongly associated with Anabaptists, and the claim of a historic Baptist lineage that extends unbroken from the Apostles to today has been thoroughly exposed as farcical.

Fish also claimed, “At a very early day the Baptists published their ‘Confessions of Faith,’ to show precisely what they did believe,” and then Fish went on to cite article eighty-four of the posthumously published “Propositions and Conclusions” which were attributed to John Smyth in 1612.^[7] This confession, however, was published after Thomas Helwys’s Declaration of Faith, which was a clear departure from Smyth and the Anabaptist sentiments that Smyth seemed to embrace during and after the former pair’s separation. In Smyth’s Propositions and Conclusions, article eighty-five clearly states that a Christian cannot truly follow Christ and simultaneously bear the sword of civil government.^[8]Helwys affirmed quite the opposite in 1611, and Helwys (not Smyth) is representative of later Baptists, both in England and America.

Conclusion

Baptists have indeed been united on fundamental distinctives throughout history, such as believer’s baptism, congregationalism, and the disestablishment of state churches. However, Baptists have never been a uniform bunch on the definition of soul-liberty or their expectations about how such a thing should be fostered or preserved by civil magistrates. The history and development of Baptists is vitally important for every generation, and the complicated reality is worth knowing and telling. Only after we properly understand our roots can we better recognize our shoots and subsequently cultivate Baptist fruit that will be a blessing to all.

^[1] p. 90.

^[2] p. 91.

^[3] p. 19.

^[4] p. 20.

^[5] p. 89.

^[6] p. 23.

^[7] William Latane Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, ed. Bill Leonard, Second Revised (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2011). 123, 140.

^[8] Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith. 140.

However, it is wrong to assume that no Baptists have concerned themselves with history. As a matter of fact, many Baptists (common and scholarly) have devoted a great deal of time and study to the history of Christianity, and they have been motivated in no small measure by their desire to know their place in it.

The Trail of Blood: A Pseudo-History

In the early 1930s James Milton Carroll published “The Trail of Blood,” a short book that sought to explain Baptist history as a clear line of steady Baptists from the days of the Apostles. Carroll asserted that Baptists have always been distinctly Baptist, and that they have always been distinguished from the main historic lines of Christian development.

See Carroll’s timeline here:

During his own day, some Baptists argued that Carroll’s view of Baptist history was inaccurate. While Carroll’s desire to emphasize Baptist distinctives and independence from other traditions was and is worthwhile, his use of history was not a help to his cause. As the twentieth-century decades progressed, it has become increasingly clear that Carroll’s assertions demonstrated an idiosyncratic perspective, not a correct or reliable one.

A More Accurate History

In an effort to show a more accurate (though not exhaustive) historical lineage, I have created a chart that better represents the stream of Christian development from which Baptists emerged. It must be acknowledged that Baptists share a great deal in common with other Protestant traditions, and the reason for that is the shared family tree between Baptists and those other Protestants.

Here is my summary timeline:

An Explanation

First, you can see that Protestants and Roman Catholics share a history through the developments of western Christianity. Most all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith were hammered out during the first millennium (some might argue the first few centuries). These doctrines are represented in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

The schism between East and West occurred for theological and political reasons, but one might argue that the heaviest factor was that of language. The two sides spoke different languages - Latin in the West, and Greek in the East - so their debates on the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ (i.e., human and divine) were hindered by their inability to understand one another as well as they might have otherwise. And yet, the historical and geographic reality is that western Christianity is the stream in which Protestants and Roman Catholics divided.

After the Reformation

Next, in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, various new traditions arose. Among the most prominent (at least by sheer number) were those who became known as Reformed. This tradition is marked by a shared affirmation of the Three Forms of Unity - the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism. This tradition continues today, and both the Anglican and Presbyterian traditions emerged from that fertile historical soil.

In sixteenth-century England, the Anglican tradition was established by the formation of the Thirty-nine Articles. Over the next century, many within the Church of England began to desire further purification of the church. Most of these became known as Puritans, and some dissented to become Baptists. The first Baptists in England baptized one another in 1609. John Smyth was the prominent leader (at least for a while) of this group, and Thomas Helwys became the leader and pastor of the first self-conscious Baptist church established in England in 1611/12. It was from this beginning that the General Baptists developed.

The English Baptists largely came from among the Anglicans, and the Puritans also had an influence upon some of them. Later, in the mid-seventeenth century, seven Particular Baptist churches in London published their own distinctive confession of faith - the First London Confession of 1644/46. A generation later, that group published yet another confession - the Second London Confession of 1677/89. These confessions (especially the second) played a major role early on in the development and cooperation of many Baptists in America.

Baptists in America

Both Puritans and English Baptists came to the New World during the seventeenth century, seeking to practice their tradition of Christianity without hindrance from the English crown and Church. When the Puritans arrived, they established the Congregationalist Church in their acquired domain (throughout New England). Baptists also sought to carve out areas where their tradition would be prominent (largely Rhode Island and Massachusetts).

Soon, Separates left Congregationalist churches in New England, forming new churches that practiced much the same as their old churches (including infant baptism). The exception was that they emphasized the need for conversion. In time, among these Separates, a new kind of Baptist developed. These Separate-Baptists congregated alongside their Separate brethren for a while, but the Baptist insistence upon believer’s baptism created a divide. In the mid-eighteenth century, New England Separates withdrew fellowship with the Separate-Baptists, and the latter became simply Baptist.

Baptists in America descending from English Baptists and those who emerged from the Congregational tradition in America began joining together in local associations. The first Baptist association in America was the Philadelphia Association (formed in 1707). One prominent Baptist association in New England, which included Baptists from both English and American origins, was the Warren Association (formed in 1767). The Warren Association intentionally modeled their cooperation and fellowship on the Philadelphia Association.

Redrawing Denominational Lines

The next major division and resettling of denominational lines in America came during the decades leading up to the Civil War (1861-1865). Northern Baptists and those in the south did not agree on the subject of slavery and the validity of slave-owners as missionaries. While this is a vital part of Christian and Baptist history, it did not significantly change the basic doctrine and practice of Baptist churches in America. The next development that did that was the “Modernist Controversy” of the early twentieth century.

Most every denomination in America faced this challenge, and they all divided over it in various ways. Modernists were those who redefined or rejected outright the concept of biblical inerrancy - they would not affirm that the Bible is the inerrant (i.e., without error) word of God. Fundamentalists or inerrantists were those who did affirm this doctrine.

Among the Southern Baptist Convention, the inerrantists won the day, publishing the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925. On the Scriptures, Southern Baptists affirmed “We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error…” 1925 was not the end of the debate over inerrancy among the Southern Baptist Convention, but it was an occasion that established a conservative Baptist trajectory.

Conclusion & Recommended Reading

This timeline and summary of history is not comprehensive, and it intentionally focuses on the historical developments that led up to the emergence of Baptists - especially Southern Baptists. It is my goal here to make Baptist history more accessible to more Baptists (and others who are interested).

For more on Baptist history, here is a recommended reading list (in alphabetical order):

• The Baptist Story by Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, and Michael A.G. Haykin

• Baptists in America by Thomas Kidd and Barry G. Hankins

• The Baptists (3 Volume set) by Tom Nettles

• Baptist Theology by James Leo Garrett

This was a strange development indeed, but Leland was the sort of man to do and say things that were sometimes a bit odd (even for a nineteenth-century Baptist). Throughout the years of Leland’s obstinacy, a pastor from a nearby church came regularly to officiate the ordinance for the Third Baptist Church. After nearly six years of this abstinence from the Supper, Leland finally left his Cheshire residence and home base.

Still, some of the members had fond memories of their time with Leland. Though he was rigid in his convictions and though his conscience could sometimes lead him down strange paths, he was after all a compelling preacher and a great man.

When some of the members of Third Baptist Church reached out to Leland, to see if he might return as their pastor, a small group of members went public with their perspective that Leland ought not be a pastor or even a church member who did not commune with the rest of the church. They took their grievance to their association (the Shaftsbury Association), and that’s when Leland doubled down on his position of radical individualism.

He made a public statement that basically outlined his intention to continue his abstinence from communion and even withdraw from church attendance anytime he felt it was good for him to do so. The Shaftsbury Association advised the Cheshire church “not to retain such members” who acted as Leland “in their connection and fellowship.”

Indeed, they said, “Let but a cold hearted or [nitpicking] member of the church have the example of such a man for his excuse, and such a church would labor in vain to recover to neglected duty that member.” In other words, Leland ought not be admitted or retained in membership (much less named as pastor!) if he would so flagrantly rebel against local church order and discipline. This would make a mockery of God’s household, and it would invite others to rebel in the same way.

Ultimately, however, the association could not decide for the church. The congregation itself would have to vote on the matter. The Cheshire Church Records tell a story of confusion, cowardice, and convenience.

Subscribe now

On September 28, 1811, the following four questions were presented for a vote.

Question: If a member of the church neglects to attend the regular meetings of the church, is such a delinquent member subject to discipline?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

Question: Do the members of the church feel obligated to watch over their brethren for good?

Answer: We do.

Question: Does the church believe it to be a duty of the members to attend the meetings of the church for communion?

Answer: We do.

Question: Shall the hand of fellowship be withdrawn from any member for anything excepting immorality (such as persistent non-attendance)?

Answer: Refuse to answer.

In the end, the Cheshire church held on to the fact that Leland had not committed any public and egregious sin of immorality. They reasoned that since he had not committed adultery, blasphemed, or cheated another person in business then Leland ought not be excluded from the church. However, communing together with fellow church members in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is precisely the act that distinguishes a church as a church.

In other words, they concluded that one could remain a communing member and even a pastor of a church even if they did not commune with the church.

This episode is an embarrassing and sobering reminder that individuals and churches can value the greatness of a man and the desire for convenience above the doctrine and practice of biblical Christianity. There are many ways in which churches today may avoid confronting sin, calling for repentance, and excluding unrepentant members from their fellowship. Churches can sometimes even overlook grievous errors and rebellion on the part of their church leaders and members in an effort to keep the peace, to maintain productivity, or to avoid making hard decisions.

It is hard to imagine a pastor of a church today refusing to observe or administer the Lord’s Supper among his congregation. And yet many people on church membership rosters today seem to have no problem at all with abstaining from the ordinance for years on end. Churches who allow absentee members to remain on their roster without confronting this radical individualization of Christianity will find it quite difficult to call for repentance for much of anything among their membership.

Quite emphatically, this historic affair shines a light on the tension that has always existed for Baptists between individual conscience and biblical standards. Baptists place a high value on the Bible as the only infallible and inerrant rule of faith and practice, and they also place a high value on the conscience of each individual. Problems arise when conscience contradicts biblical command or doctrine. In such cases, the Bible must inform and correct the conscience, not the other way around.

• Can Congregationalists (who were paedobaptists, or infant baptizers) church together with Baptists (who were credobaptists, or believers only baptizers)?

• Or must the Christians who differ on this point of doctrine and practice separate from one another to join or form distinct churches?

Congregationalists in colonial America were the descendants of those Puritans who had separated themselves from the Church of England in the 17th century. In the New World, former “Separates” became the establishment. In eighteenth-century America, Baptists were now the dissenting “Separates.”

It’s a bit complicated, but among the Separates gathered in Stonington, there were both Congregationalists (i.e., those formerly associated with the establishment Congregationalist churches) and Baptists (who were also formerly associated with establishment churches). The whole group was known to the broader public as “Separates,” but Separate-Baptists specifically distinguished themselves from other Separates in their practices of baptism and church membership.

Congregationalists baptized believers and their infant children into church membership. This is the definition of paedobaptism. Baptists, on the other hand, baptized only believers who possessed what they believed to be a credible profession of faith. This is the definition of credobaptism. However, both shared a congregational practice of church polity or governance. In fact, Baptists and Congregationalists had quite a lot of their doctrine and practice in common, but their differences were causing real trouble at the local church level.

Separate-Congregationalists took offense at Separate-Baptists who refused to baptize their children. Separate-Baptists took offense at Separate-Congregationalists who refused to admit that unbelievers (such as infants who could not understand or believe the gospel) ought not be baptized. Furthermore, adult Congregationalists who had been baptized as infants were perceived as unbaptized by their Baptist brethren. This caused much confusion in the practical function of local churches with members from both sides in the baptism debate.

During their synod in Stonington, both sides accused the other of sin. From the Congregationalists’ perspective, the Baptists sinned by cutting off or excluding the children of believers from baptism. Conversely, the Baptists accused the Congregationalists of sin because of their practice of knowingly baptizing unbelievers. Based on each side’s view of baptism (i.e., its meaning and purpose), they seemed to be consistently calling the other side to repentance and conformity to what they each believed was the biblical command.

Once arguments were made and anecdotes were shared, the deciding vote was a bare majority. The synod voted in favor of excluding Baptists from the Separate churches and associations. Separate-Congregationalists decided not to commune or fellowship with Separate-Baptists. In response to this decision, Baptists formed self-consciously Baptist churches, admitting only baptized believers into membership, and baptizing only those with a credible profession of faith.

This historic synod is part of the root system of Baptists in America, and Baptist churches in America today form the shoots of the Baptist foliage. It may be the present public perception that Baptists are the separating brethren from other Protestant churches on the matter of baptism. However, history shows that it was the Baptists who were censured and removed from fellowship (at least in New England).

Subscribe now

This episode reminds us that secondary doctrines matter a great deal. Those primary doctrines shared by all Christians are essential to the gospel and to Christianity. To lose or compromise on a primary doctrine is to lose Christianity altogether. Distinctively, secondary doctrines are not essential to the gospel, but they are essential to the function and unity of a local church. To avoid clarity or to reserve judgment on secondary doctrines at the local church level (such as baptism, church membership, church leadership, and church polity) is to sow seeds of disunity that will sprout divisive and self-destructive results.

As long as people are free to read the Scriptures for themselves, we will inevitably come to different conclusions about various points of doctrine. Sometimes this means we ought to simply be patient and loving with one another as we church together. And sometimes this means that we must part ways to join with other Christians who share our doctrinal convictions. Battles over secondary issues have been fought before, and we would do well to learn from them - both the battles themselves and the outcomes. Wise churches and Christians learn from the mistakes and victories of those who have gone before.

When Henry went out, his son Edward came in. But Edward’s short monarchial reign was supplanted by Bloody Mary. Mary was Edward’s half-sister, but that’s about all they had in common. Henry is credited with making England Protestant (a new religious and political institution), and Edward was the figurehead for some real Protestant advances of various sorts. After Edward, however, Mary yanked the kingdom back toward Roman Catholicism with a vengeance.

After Mary, there was Elizabeth, who led England into a full-fledged Reformation of its own, distinct from the other reformations going on in Germany, Zurich, and Geneva. During Elizabeth’s reign (which lasted 45 years), Protestantism made significant gains. And yet some Protestants started to argue that the English Reformation had not gone far enough. These Puritans (named thus because of their desire for a *purer* church) paid the price for their dissent in England under Elizabeth as well as James I after her (this King James was also James VI of Scotland, and he is also the king from whom the King James Bible got its name). Despite persecution, the Puritans also grew in number during that same period.

Over time, Separatists of various sorts arose from among the Puritan group, one of which was the Baptists. John Smyth was the first Baptist, and that honor is historically accurate. And yet Smyth was only a Baptist for a short time, and he almost immediately made an effort to join himself and his followers with a Waterlander church in Amsterdam. Thomas Helwys was among Smyth’s group, but he did not want to join the Waterlander church, and Helwys believed Smyth was wrong for asking to be received there.

Helwys was baptized as a believer by Smyth in 1609 after Smyth had baptized himself. Believer’s baptism (as opposed to paedobaptism) was and is a critical distinctive of all Baptists. Soon thereafter, Smyth’s efforts to join a Mennonite church (i.e., the Waterlanders of Amsterdam) insulted Helwys’s Baptist convictions, not least of which was belief in a physical apostolic succession. Smyth was a Baptist for only about a year.

It was Helwys, not Smyth, who was the first lifelong Baptist to establish a Baptist Church in England based on the doctrines and distinctives that have marked Baptists throughout the centuries. It was Helwys who penned a confession of faith for the first English Baptist church in history. It was Helwys who moved that congregation back to England in 1612 to be a faithful witness in a hostile environment.

Subscribe now

Helwys codified and maintained the distinctives of Baptist theology and practice:

• the chief authority of Scripture

• congregational polity

• believer’s baptism

• local church autonomy

• the two offices of pastor (or elder) and deacon

• religious liberty

Helwys’s English Baptist church generated five other churches by 1626, all embracing the same fundamental doctrines and practices. And it was Helwys who made the first appeal in England for genuine religious liberty, even for the irreligious.

Thomas Helwys was imprisoned at Newgate shortly after he arrived back in England, and he died as a martyr for the cause of Baptist Christians in a land that claimed Christ as King.

Helwys’s contribution to Baptist and Christian history is impossible to overstate. For more than 400 years, Baptists around the world have been perpetuating the doctrines and practices that Helwys pioneered at great cost to himself.

All Baptists believe (along with Helwys) that the visible kingdom of Christ ought to be comprised of conscious believers who are united by baptism in an actual assembly of covenanted members.

May Christ advance His kingdom in this world until that final day when His invisible kingdom shall be wholly joined with His visible one.