Separating Baptists & The Stonington Decision
Can paedobaptists church together with credobaptists?
On May 29, 1754, Congregationalists and Baptists1 came together for a synod (or a formal gathering of ministers and laymen) in Stonington, Connecticut. Leaders and members of churches from each of these traditions were there to decide whether they could continue in mixed fellowship among their churches. The question at hand was one that would decide ongoing fellowship or separation.
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).
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.
In an effort to reduce complexity, especially for those who are not familiar with the religious history of America, I have used the term “Congregationalist” and “Separate-Congregationalist” somewhat interchangeably in this article. These were the Separates who maintained Congregational doctrine and practice even though they separated to form “purer” churches. I have also used the term “Baptist” and “Separate-Baptist” somewhat interchangeably, referring to those Separates who, in addition to separating to form “purer” churches, also embraced the doctrine and practice of believer’s baptism (i.e., credobaptism).