A Historical Sketch of Thomas Helwys

Upon reading the mission statement of the Helwys Society Forum, some readers have inquired about the origin of its name. Who was Helwys? Why is he important? Readers may begin with the page entitled Why Helwys?

This post will expand upon the information on that page. Although I could say much more about this man and his legacy, my comments will introduce him and some of his teachings.

Thomas Helwys (c. 1575–c. 1616) was an English lawyer and theologian who holds an important place in American, Arminian, and Baptist history because of his defense of religious liberty, general atonement, and believer’s baptism. Consequently, he is also significant for Free Will Baptists, who trace their theological lineage to the English General Baptists and Helwys. To appreciate Helwys’s impact in these areas more fully, we will first review the historical context in which these teachings were couched.

Historical context

In the late 1590s and early 1600s, Helwys affiliated with the Puritans and Separatists, two groups that were critical of the Church of England. Having received his law degree in 1593, Helwys was affluent and, consequently, capable of financially supporting these groups (in England and later in Amsterdam). In the early 1600s, he joined John Smyth’s Separatist congregation in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, England.

However, this congregation (like other dissenting congregations) came under persecution when King James I assumed the throne in 1603. He believed in the divine right of kings and would not tolerate religious groups causing discord in the kingdom. Whereas many Puritans stayed in the Church of England but sought to purify it, the Separatists believed it was beyond repair and separated from it. Thus the Separatists began to receive heavy fines and persecution. Smyth, Helwys, and the Gainsborough congregation were among these Separatists, and, consequently, fled in self-exile to Amsterdam with Helwys bankrolling the group’s travel costs.

While in Amsterdam, Smyth and Helwys came to adopt and practice believer’s baptism (in contrast to infant baptism) but then, as Smyth came increasingly under the influence of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites in other ways, Helwys, as well as a portion of the congregation, separated from him. Thereafter, Helwys and about ten members of the Gainsborough congregation returned to England in 1611. By this time, Helwys had outlined a declaration of faith that characterized the theology of the General Baptists, which included belief in religious liberty, general atonement, and believer’s baptism.

Religious Liberty

An important theme to emerge from the writings of Helwys is that of universal religious liberty. In his quintessential work on the subject, Mystery of Iniquity (1612), he argues that all people should have the freedom to choose their own religion, whatever the preferences of governing body. He believed, in the words of William R. Estep, Jr., that the king, “although a king, was but a mortal man and as a mortal man, though a king, had no authority whatever over the consciences of his subjects.”[1] Specifically, Helwys explains:

Christ is the head of his Church. . . . Let it suffice the King to have all rule over his peoples, bodies, and goods; and let not our lord King give his power to be exercised over the spirits of his people. . . . For men’s religion to God, is betwixt God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither may the king be judged between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the last measure.[2]

The doctrine of religious liberty represented an affront to the king’s authority and, shortly after publishing Mystery of Iniquity, Helwys was arrested and imprisoned in Newgate Jail where he died in 1616.

However, his thinking on religious liberty was carried forward by other General Baptists, such as John Murton. In addition, some of the people who boarded the Mayflower and landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, seeking relief for the persecution that resulted from their religious beliefs, were members of the Gainsborough congregation who Helwys led out of England into exile and back into England out of exile[3] Also, as the British colonies developed in the New World, the early Baptist leader Roger Williams argued for religious liberty partly by quoting long passages from Murton, thus drawing indirectly from Helwys himself.

Less than two hundred years later, American founders such as Thomas Jeffeson and James Madison would pull from Williams, as well as others, as they articulated the doctrine of religious liberty for the founding of the United States. Article VI of the Constitution would state that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” and the First Amendment would read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Notwithstanding the cries of progressives, the doctrine of religious liberty does not refer to the proposition that church and state are utterly separate; it refers rather to the proposition that the state should not coerce people to confess religious belief they do not hold. Religious liberty is, in a manner of speaking, not freedom from religion but freedom for religion. But this legacy goes back, not simply to the American founding, but further back to Williams, Murton, and even Helwys (as well as others I do not have the space to consider).

General Atonement

Just as Helwys is important in American history because of his emphasis on religious liberty, he is similarly important in Arminian history because of his emphasis on a general atonement for humanity. He wrote specifically, in A Short and Plain Proof, against the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, namely that Christ died only for the elect and no one else, explaining, “Where is now this conceived device that God should decree to leave and forsake some . . . The word of God hath not taught it.”[4]

Then, turning to the Scriptures, he continues, “God would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) . . . GOD is the author of no men’s condemnation, according to the saying of the Prophet (Hosea 13): ‘Thy destruction, O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.’”[5] With Calvinism, God has decreed to save only the elect, whose election is unconditional, in Christ. With Arminianism, God has decreed in Christ to save the elect, except that election is conditioned on the divine gift of faith, which in no way is a meritorious work, that an individual may accept or reject.

Likewise, Free Will Baptists hold to general atonement and conditional election. The Treatise reads, “Christ gave Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and thus made salvation possible for all men,” citing 1 John 2:2, which states that “He Himself [Jesus Christ the righteous] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” and Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people” (NASB).[6]

Similarly, Robert E. Picirilli has written on the doctrine of election in Free Will Baptist belief, writing that it is Christocentric, personal and individual, eternal, and conditional. Picirilli describes this latter characteristic as the “Arminian’s main point of departure from Calvinism.”[7]

Believer’s Baptism

Finally, Helwys is important in Baptist history. In addition to establishing the first Baptist church in England, he emphasized believer’s baptism in contrast to infant baptism. Believer’s baptism refers to the baptism of the person who voluntarily makes a profession of faith, whereas infant baptism is the baptism of a newborn or young child. Unable to find any Scriptural precedent for infant baptism, Helwys rejected it, writing, “Baptism, or washing with water, is the outward manifestation of dying unto sin and walking in newness of life (Romans 6:2–4); and therefore in no wise appertains to infants.”[8] That is to say, it is for believers: people who have professed faith in Christ.

Like Helwys’s articulation of the doctrines of religious liberty and conditional election, the doctrine of believer’s baptism emphasizes human freedom and human agency. By contrast, infant baptism does not require assent, or even faith, on the part of the child.

As in the case of general atonement, the historic Free Will Baptist faith has also taught believer’s baptism as an ordinance of the gospel, which, in the words of the Treatise, signifies “the burial and resurrection of Christ, the death of Christians to the world, the washing of their souls from the pollution of sin, their rising to newness of life, their engagement to serve God and their resurrection at the last day.”[9]

The Treatise then quotes Romans 6:4, which Helwys also referenced: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life.”

Conclusion

We could say much more about Helwys. Although Free Will Baptists view him as a theological forebear, he was an important voice for others, too. He is an unsung hero to all who value religious liberty, whether Christian or not; for this reason, he warrants more attention in American history than he receives. Helwys is also important for Christians, whether Baptist or not, who believe in a general atonement in contrast to a limited atonement. Finally, he holds significance for all English-speaking Baptists since he founded the first Baptist church on English soil. Helwys is an underappreciated but inspiring thinker who provides an example to all of us as someone who held to the courage of his convictions at a time when it was difficult and even dangerous.


[1] William R. Estep, Jr., “Thomas Helwys: Bold Architect of Baptist Policy on Church-State Relations,” Baptist History and Heritage XX, no. 3 (July 1985): 31.

[2] Thomas Helwys, A SHORT DECLARATION of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612).

[3] Nick Bunker, Making Haste from Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World: A New History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 188ff.

[4] Thomas Helwys, A SHORT AND PLAINE Proof by the Word and Works of God that God’s Decree is Not the Cause of Any Man’s Sin of Condemnation. AND That all Men are Redeemed by Christ. As also, That no Infants are Condemned (1611).

[5] Thomas Helwys, A DECLARATION OF FAITH of ENGLISH PEOPLE Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611).

[6] A Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the National Association of Free Will Baptists (Nashville: Executive Office of the National Association of Free Will Baptists, 2016), 7–8, 25.

[7] Robert E. Picirilli, Grace Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation; Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 53.

[8] Helwys, DECLARATION, Article 14.

[9] Treatise of the Faith and Practices of Free Will Baptists, 15, 31.

Author: Matthew Steven Bracey

Share This Post On

What do you think? Comment Here:

SUBSCRIBE:

The best way to stay up-to-date with the HSF

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This