abundant materials for forming an enlightened judgment respecting the points at issue. The discussions of this period between such men as Johnson, Robinson, Ainsworth, Smyth, Helwisse, and others, tended, more than anything else, to the advanced knowledge and settled convictions of a later age.

In devoting this chapter to an account of these controversies, it is not our intention to dwell upon matters of mere detail, or upon topics of minor importance. A general indication of the differences that arose, and of the manner in which they were discussed, is all that we aim at.

The first of these has been referred to already at the close of the last chapter. The baptismal controversy which originated with the Reformation, has divided the Christian world more or less ever since. The question respecting the mode of baptism has generally been considered subordinate to that which respects the proper subjects of the rite. Both questions, however, have in various periods become the matter of fierce contention amongst Christians otherwise agreeing with one another. Previous to the period now referred to, the baptists, under the name of anabaptists, suffered much in consequence of their peculiar sentiments. Instead of admitting them to a fair hearing, the self-constituted orthodox made a practice of stigmatising them every where, and adopted the most violent measures for their suppression. The apparent exclusiveness of the sentiments professed by the baptists, was no doubt a principal cause of the opposition they met with. Independency, under the names of Brownism and Barrowism, was considered exclusive, because it admitted accredited Christians alone to church fellow

If

ship; much more was anabaptistry deemed exclusive, for the additional reason that it allowed no man to be a Christian, worthy of fellowship, until he was baptized as an adult believer in Jesus Christ. If Independency. was persecuted because it cast a slur upon the allcomprehending and worldly constitution of existing national churches; anabaptistry was even more violently persecuted, because it gave such a meaning to the rite of baptism, as unchurched all the nominal churches of Christendom. It would be foreign to our purpose to enter at large upon the merits of the baptismal controversy of this period. A few remarks, however, are needful to a proper understanding of the relative position of the various parties.

In the period to which we now refer, baptism was regarded by all parties too much as a rite of a positive nature based upon its own merits, rather than as a part of a consistent and harmonious system. Hence, while the churches of Rome and England regarded water baptism as essential to, or at least co-ordinate with, spiritual baptism; those who were too enlightened to fall into this error, went to the opposite extreme of regarding water baptism as a sign and seal of spiritual baptism, actually or virtually received. The former invested the rite with a mysterious efficacy, utterly inconsistent with the genius of a spiritual dispensation; the latter rendered it a formal ceremony better suited to the Levitical than the Christian economy. We are not aware of any parties who at this period took any other than these views; although in the discussions which arose, gleams of purer light are sometimes discernible, which, if followed up, might have led to the apprehension of the truth. The churches of the Reformation, the Puri

tans, and the Independents, generally speaking, adopted the latter view. The theory by which they explained the meaning of the baptismal rite, was one which would have sanctioned the reinforcement of all the ritual observances of Judaism. If baptism was performed as the sign of a spiritual baptism actually enjoyed, why not restore Aaron's priesthood, sacrifices, and service, as signs of the priesthood, sacrifice and work of Christ? True, the evangelical party occupied more harmless ground than that of the churches of Rome and England; but one quite as untenable, and one which prepared the way for the anabaptists of an earlier, and the quakers of a later period. Had they been able to perceive that water baptism was intended to be illustrative merely, having an objective reference to the design of a spiritual dispensation, and a subjective reference to all catechumens under it, whether by voluntary discipleship in the case of adults, or by hereditary introduction to the same virtual position in the case of children; had this been perceived, we should never have heard of the differences that arose amongst the evangelical nonconformists of this period. They would have consolidated their power against the gross perversions of the Roman and Anglican churches; and the Independents would never have been broken up into two parties.

*

As it was, certain individuals soon arose amongst the Independents in Holland, who saw the inconsistency of the theory of baptism, advocated by the evangelical party of that day, with the baptism of

*Those who desire to see the present state of the baptismal controversy, are referred to the recent works of Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Halley, and the Rev. Charles Stovel. Dr. Wardlaw and Mr. Stovel represent the old views; Dr. Halley the modern.

children. Instead of enquiring whether the theory was correct, they asked whether it was possible for infants to exercise faith; and concluding in the negative, they decided against the baptism of infants. The pædo-baptists might plead an exception in favour of infants on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant, and the analogy between circumcision and baptism; but this did not satisfy their minds. The baptists, still adhering to the erroneous theory of the evangelical party, saw no alternative but that of refusing outward baptism to all who were not spiritually baptized and prepared to profess their faith in Christ. They went even further than this: they came to regard baptism as the mode of admission to church fellowship, and the very basis of church organization. From this time pædo-baptist Independents, and anti-pædo-baptist Independents, became two parties; the former being known at a later period as Independents, and the latter as Baptists.

The principal parties engaged in this controversy, which was prolonged for a considerable period, were Smyth, Helwisse, and Murton on the baptist side, and Johnson, Clyfton, Robinson, and Ainsworth, on the other.

Smyth was in many respects a remarkable man. It is said that he went over from England to Amsterdam in the hope of being able to convert Johnson from "the errors of his rigid separation."* If such was his object, it must be admitted that he failed, since he became one of the most rigid separatists himself. According to the testimony of one who knew him, "he first fell into some errors about the

* Cotton's Way, p. 7; Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 52.

Scriptures, and so into some opposition with Mr. Johnson, who had been his tutor, and the church at Amsterdam. But he was convinced of them by the pains and faithfulness of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth, and revoked them; but afterwards was drawn away by some of the Dutch anabaptists, who finding him to be a good scholar and unsettled, they easily misled the most of his people, and others of them scattered away. He lived not many years after, but died there of a consumption, to which he was inclined before he came out of England."* Many testimonies might be adduced from the writings of his opponents respecting his instability; and to these may be added that of Helwisse, in a work published in 1611, in which he writes of him as a "fallen" man, and compares him to Balaam. † At the same time, much allowance should be made for him, in consequence of the unsettled state of things in relation to many important matters. On some points he was in advance of those who were in other respects his superiors, as we shall endeavour to show in another place. According to some he died at Leyden, in 1610; according to others, at Amsterdam, in 1614.‡

Helwisse was another writer of importance in this controversy. Before the death of Smyth he was regarded as a leader of the baptist party, and repaired to England, in all probability, as early as 1611-12. In 1611, he published a work, one object of which that prove no infants are condemned;" and has been supposed to have been the principal party to

was to

* Governor Bradford's Dialogue, in Young's Chronicles of the Pilgrims, p. 450, 451.

An Advertisement, &c., quoted by Hanbury, i. 418.

‡ Cotton says,

"At Leyden he never came," Way, p. 7.