*

I:

. *

C$urc0 f)ierforj> §bttit*

CONSISTING Or A SEMES OP

DENOMINATIONAL HISTORIES PUBLISHED UNDtt THE AUSPICES Of

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CHURCH HISTORY

Gtntxat <Etitor*

Rev. Pheup Schafp, D. D., LL. D. Bishop John F. Hurst, D.D.,LL. D. Rt. Rev. H. C. Potter, D. D., LL. D. Rev. E. J. Wolf, D. D. Rev. Ci.o. P. Fisher, D. D., LL.D. Henry C. Vedder, M. A.

Rev. Samuel M. Jackson, D. D., LL. D.

CONTENTS.

—Distinctive Principles.—Kclatinn to other Bodies. —Ancient Perversions of Hanlism.—Other Ancient Perversions — Me.lieval Anli]K'<tolmpti*ls.—Mt-ilieval Kvaiig.-lical Life.—The An-

■hn|itLM».—The Zuiikuu Prophets.—The Swha Analu|iiisli>.—An-■liitpiists of Silesia, Austria, ami Ainjshurg.—Analaptbl*. of Sirass. hurt; ami Hesse.—Moravian Ainitupli-ts.—Chiliaslic Ai.al>a|>li>(>. —Minister Kiniplmn.—The Mennoniles.—Italian anil Polish

An.ilj;i|iiistH.—Remark".—fin^lisl. (leiieral lhi|ili-lii.—General Hap-

W CONTEXTS.

CHAP. V—PuiiniMT Hcnkv Dissim and tiik Bai-tiiti.— Dun.

iter in New England.—President of Harvard.—Oriental Studlc*.— Rcjcctl Infanl Uaptum.—Mitchell'* Kxpcricnce*.—Proceeding* •gain*) Dunitcr.—Conference on Infanl llaplitni.—A Humble Petition.—Proaetution, ur Persecution I —Invitcil to Dublin.—Punster's Death and Will 139

CHAP. VI.— llAI'llil L'llLKL-MLS IX MASSACHUSETTS T(> I74O.—Finl UaptUt Church .,1 Wales.— My lea a Tester.— Myle* Holds a Benefice.- Annan Exclusivencss.—A New Potior Wanted.—Act for Support of Ministers.—First llupl si 1'Iiurcli of ]li»tnn,—Coiifes. ■inn of Faith.—A ItfafMMthfi.—Thirty War* irf Progrc**.—The Half-way Covenant.— I ulolcr.-uicc Hvliukcd.—I'erseculion Con-ti.lUci.— Mitigation of Persecution.—Clmflcs II. Rebuke. Intolcr-once—The Meeting-house Closed.—Baptists Tolerated—Hollis'. Benefaction'!.—Comet's I 'catli 161

(.HAP. VII.— Haitists is Pennsylvania am. uik jBMBYt.—IVnn and Pennsylvania. — Pennqicll mid Pi-iaiaqua.—Cohansey uml Phi], adclphia—The Kcilhian, Quakers.—Mcnnonites and |luiik«rds— Philadelphia Association,—Queries Answered.—A Ikurlli uf Pastors. 100

("HAP. nil— The First 1'aitisis of Main*, Snt'Ttl C.iimi.ixA, VmctxiA, Nniti CAKnitvv. CtwsFcticrr, ash Kkw Vohk—

Screven's Ordination.—Persecution at Kitlcry.—Screven (Joes to Carolina.—Marly Baptists of Carolina.—Religious Destitution— Screven's Ij-t Hays.—Virginia Mxcludcs Dissent—Marly llaplista of ConnecticuI.—Wiikcndcn at Flushing;.—First Churches of New York 116

N (I74O-I814).

CHAP. I.— New Ex<:i.axii.— The Great Awakening.—The New Lights.—Separate* Become llaplist*.—Isaac Backus.—Backus Become* a Baptist.—A Mixed Church.—First Church, Providence— Firat Church, Newport;—Second Church, Iloston.—llezckiah Smith.—Brown University.—The Warren Association.—Baptism in New Hampshire.—Vermont nnd Maine.—Statistic* 1

CHAP. II.— The Phii.aiiei.hhia I'kntkr.— The Philadelphia Ai.o-

dstinn—Rccrd, ftlkilcil—A llaptist College l , iu|anil.ii.—K* wank. June*, ami Morgan.—New V.irk.—New Vork A-si«ialirin.. a CHAP. III.—VlMiiiMA ami Niirtii Caki.iina.— Virginia—The Kc-tokton Association.—General Baptist Churches.—The Kehukcc

picture0

C0ATA'.\7:V.

A nodal Ion.—Mondial! mil Sirnrn*.—Sandy Creek Amorlnllnn.— The A"otiallon lliwolved.—ArndnlimUm.— rhdadclpliia Confo-■ion Adopted.—Rapid Increase—1'roicsi against Slavery.—I'mg.

res in North Carolina, , . . ,* 1

CHAT. IV—Shrill Carolina ami Ceokiha.— Oliver Hart.—Charles. ton Avon-union.— Richard Furmnn.—Sell lenient of (leurj;i».— Dan id Marshall.— The Georgia A social ion.—Henry llolconilje.— The I'owelton Conference.—Christian Union.—A Circular Address. — Tin' tii-ncral Committee.—Colored ll;i|'list*.. J

CIIAI'. V.—Kr.NU'rKV, Tkssksskk, Ohio, Isihana, Illinois, Mis. kiiI'NI, Miv.ii.miti, ami I.ihisiasa,— Regular, ami Kepmnne*,— Middle Ti-nnmw,—A German Chunk—IHIouh—Hli-MWl—

CIIAI'. VI.—SiKi'raH.M inn Civil, ami Rkih;ii.I s I.IIiiriv is Nkw ' Km:i.ami. — A Threatened Append — oppression ni Ashiiild. — An A|i|H.'iil for I.ilierty.—Mas-aihusut.. Praises Tol e r.itb.». — Confer ■ eme in I'hiUnli Iplib. —Mammi^'s Memorial.—A Neiv C< institution. — I.ilieriv in Massachusetts, 181.1 .... .. ;

CNAi'. vil,—Tint HmfHiiu; h>r I.iwktv av CnsmrxcK is Vta.

titMA.— Prayer lor IVrsveutor*.—Marring Law.—Repeal nf In-cor po rating Act.—Washington and the lki]iti*la.— JvHctmm and the

Hani is ts ;

I'KRIOII III.

MP Tllfc TMKNMAI. CONVENTION TO

CIIAI'. I.— Rkiumm.k-t ami I'KdM'HT.—P.nrly Kdwntional Kf.

loru,—Illiterate I'rendierii.—l'iiirly MinhioinirySoeletiei.—The Ad-

vnnec Movenielil.

CIIAI'. II.—Tim Ihiinmai. CiiNVKNin.N (iS14-45)-—Conversion

ofthejudsoiis The Xe»» Reiiel.es America.—General Cm-en.

Ihm. — Ministerial l-diicalion. — Hour. MisMoi, WorL—Columbian

New York. — ^location in Gc^ia.-Illinois and .Will 1 CIIAI'. III.— TiiKTiiii-NMAi.Ci.\-vl-:viii.\, <;»i/inn.;i.— Hoi

via

CONTENTS.

CHAP. IV,— Thb Swthkrn Rai-ti*t CoxvcH-noif.—Filler' ud Waylaml on Slavery.—Southern DiaaaiWiactloo.—DIvliian Inevitable.—Southern Itaptiat Convention.—Cooperation with other So-cietiei.—Home Hfi.sion Hoard.—The Culan Miuion.—Mountain Work.—Foreign Million Work.—" On.iv.iunsry " Baptiilt.—The Colored Baptist!.—Theological Seminary 44J

CHAP. V.— Northern, National, and International Societies, AMD Educational Ixstiti'tions (1845-94)—Mi»>ionery Union. —Foreign Mminnt.—Home MisMnni.—Pulilteation Sntiely,— Education Society.—lliolnrical Society, anil l'imi;rc«i>.—Eiluciulun. 468

CHAP. VI,—lllVISIl.SS AMI pAMIIf.l, AMI CuXl'l I'UIN.i Kkmakkk. —The Seventhly lbhtii>i..—The l)i.vi|.k..—Itapti.H nml Di.-ciptes.—(lid-1 .ami mar Limn.—Free-will UaptiM*.—The LTiri>tiana.

" niiaptiil I'arlici 484

picture1

A HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS OF THE UNITED ST>

BY

ALBERT HKNRY NEWMAN, D.D., LL.I ■MOB or Church History in McMastm University, Toroi

i

picture2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ti of the medieval and Kef-ormaiion timi'i h tim voluminous i-i 1* here yivm. A itUviii'ii of a few .pf Ihc morv ini|H<rt.in( « .>rLs U*arin[; u|"«i (lie history ol Kn^'i-li Iin|iiisd is all ihai sirin. [lrm-iii-iilJi'. Must ol tliu works referred t<. in thv llilili»graphy of vol. in- of ilif |iri-.rit *eric* art' ol interest to the student l*J lla|>ti«.l

liislury, Culiiiii.-il rvuirds art niniini; the -I vnlu.ilili' sources. For the

Ijltr |nrriip,l, fill--, nl .[Liiuminatii.nal new>|i:i]>er-. ami marlines, minutes of Ai>Mni.iti"!i«, rtjinr'. ni .kru.iiiiiiiii-ipiul -LK.ji.ii.'., Slate ami national, and ctimrotersi.il ]i.nn[>li!.t. m.iv In-consulted with |>r.jlit. Slurlni'. " Ntn Kng. land'. Memorial"; l.e.li!..rdN " I lain JiValim;": VYMuw** " Koud Xc«r» (..»., New Kiijjl.ui.t"; W,!!.„.l\-W. A,,,'., „ fin, CnfiJam " i I'lidenVXew Mii K ].m.l r!i,-.vr:Ky"; ' l...'.nuy\ " Sl-.im.ti.iM.- TIi.'.u^IiI, "; ami Kdwanb'* workstn.-ariii-i.il llu- (.run Aw.ikeninj;. m.iy In. referred to in ihis l.rief way.

1-. IK.,Ii;l-, I-:.']!. mLu'i'.'w. N.'rlirk-. j. I'. .'...yee, -m.'l l':.'('i. u'..i 1 it,...n!

Barclay, Robert, The Inner I,f. of Ihe XeI:o,o:,s SoeuUes of the Common-

we.illl: 3d id.. l.in,.1., n . 1S79. Clifford, John (.-.til...), //. A.;,//../, A',.-//;^. l.i.i.dnn, |R8|. Crosby, Thomas, The II,story ,■/the English Haflttti. 4 vols., London,

173K-1740. Evans, B., li,. I'.ulv liii,-!,:!, H.'firtf. 2 viil... London. 1S02. ■ GoHllby, Tlicmas, In-fo/hs of li-if-tut History. l.'.-idon, 1871. Gould, Geo., <</.« Communion .m.l the Ji.i/tists of A'«r:.« *. Norwich,

RlliUOGKAI'IIY.

II. Ekcush a.m. Amkkica* tUnisT IIiitoky.

Annitage, Thomu, A Hiitoiy of the Hoftiili. New Yiirk, 1M7. Benedict, David, A ductal lli.torv of Iht Haftut Denomitatim in Ameru.i anJ Other furl) oflie IVo'rU. New V.wL, 1K48.

, fifty y-.it! „mou X He /Uftists. New York, 1K60,

Cook, B,. B., St.; v .■/the liaptistt. lljliimi.ro, 1884.

Cramp, J. M., Haptiit History. l'liib<k-1|mia.

Tedder, Henry C, Start lli,tory -/Ike leftists. I'hilaiTvtjiliia, 1K9).

III. AmtUCAJI ItAiTlsr IIistokv.

Adlftin. S., Origin of Ike Institutions tf Kh.ule Ist.iuJ. I'roviilimc, 1H71. Allen, I. M., The I „it..t Sl.ile, /■of>t, 1 t ,/««„„/ te.f.tter .•„,! .limauae.

|-hila,kl,.1,i a , |Hjjt Arnold, S. 0., //«/.-t ./ /*,- .V/,i/,.,/ /•*„/,- J.lamt. Vol. i., New Vorlt,

ilak-ti&Jft, i«'i4-

-./, /('//* l:,i titular tiffin*

t ItafttAi. J* I til., willi Ni.l

<*7»- . The I K-.elofui.nlof Il.if.tisl friueiftet in KhoJe lil.iu,/. i'hiliulcl-

(.hia. Bitting, C. C, /.'/"*/.• Xvieties on./ tie Jiafrht.. 1'luliuli-lphi.i, iRSj. Boykirl, 8., Memoir ofAMel Sh. n^-l, ll.lt, I'l.ib.ldflnu, 1NS4. BroaddllB, A. (Jr.), The .Vi««u auJ Other llritiufs ofthe Kr.\ Audrrw

l!r,«Mur. llilk a Memoir of ki, Life by J, it. Jeter, DM, New York,

C»ll>)-, '■»$*. Broadus, J. A., Memoir of J, P. /lore,: New Vmk, i&»j. BrOWn, J. H., l/itbry of the America- Itaftitl I'uhiieation Scietr [l8»4-

i« 5 <»). I'hila.l.lnhin.

Barkitt, Lemuel, Mid Bead, Jesse, .' Concise History of the Kehuttt

leftist Ass.- i.ilion. Krvt-.iilt.-il., I'liibilclrihia, 1«5H. BurTage, Henry 8., A History of Ike Hoftisls in A'rw fCughml. I'hils.

ik-l|ilii:l, 1 K<|.j. -. Haftisf l/ymn-Joriten an./ their llymus. I'orlliinil, i«W.

. '-.;9-'v 77-

Oailender, John,.'» Hist ' -/'*'■

./ Ike Colour of AW.- h/.iu.t .m.t l't,i;,le,ue 17.(91 rei-Hmol .villi N,.u- l.y l-:ii.,n. \*x*. npbell, Alexander, /*,- Christina liaftitt [18

Campbell, Alexander, Ike Christian llaftist [18*1-1830]. Cindnnali,

iKKo. , The Milleuui.it llarbittffr, tSjo-tSjo.

PIPLIOGRAPIIY. xiit

Campbell, J. H., Georgia Paptists. Macon, 1874.

Cathcart, W., 731* /b/tir/ Encyclopedia, a vol*., Philadelphia, Everts, 1881.

——, The Paptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia.

Chaplin, J., Life of Henry Punster. Jloston, 187a.

Clarke, John, /// A'envs fn»m A'ew England; or, A A arm fire of A«v EuglatuPs Persecution. l«ondon, 1652; reprinted in "Collection* of the Massachusetts Historical Society," 4th series, vol. ii., |Jo*ton, 1854.

Comer, John, The Diaty of Philadelphia, 1892.

Cook, R. B., The Early and lutter Delauttre Paptists. Philadelphia, Am. Ikipt. I'uli. S«*\, 1SK0.

Cox, F. A., and Hoby, J., The Paptists in America. New York, 1836,

Crane, C. B., first Paptist Church, Postou : Pi-Centenary Commemoration. Itoston, 1865.

Curry, J. L. M., Struggles and Triumphs of Virginia Paptists. Philadelphia, 1873.

Curtis, T. F., The Progress of Paptist Principles in the hut Hundred Years. I Jos ton, i860.

Cuthbert, J. H., Life of Dr. Richard Fuller. New York, 1879.

Cutting, 8. 8., Historical I'indications. I lost on, 1859.

Denison, F., Xotes on the lutptists and their Principles in Aoneich, Conn, Norwich, 1857.

Dexter, Henry M.. •// to Roger ll'illiams. lioston, 1876.

Duncan, R. 8., .7 History of the Paptists in Missour:. St. l-ouis, 1883.

Dimeter, 8., History of the Dunstcr Family. I lost on, 1876.

Edwards, Morgan, Materials for a History of the American Haptists: Yol. i., Materials hmuirds a History of the Paptists in Penusyhtiuia, I*>th Pritish aud German. Philadelphia, 1770. Yol. ii., Materials towanls a Histoiy of the Paptists of Jersey. Philadelphia, 1792.

— • , Materials for a History of the Paptists of RIuhIc Island. In " Rhode

Island Historical Collections," vol. vi. -, Materials hn^mls a History of the Paptists in Dclaioare State.

Philadelphia, 18S5.

Everts, W. W., Il'illiam Colette. Philadelphia, 1881.

Furman, Wood, ./ History of the Charleston [.S. C] Assotiation. Charleston, 1811.

Oammell, W., Life of Roger Williams. I lost on, 1844.

Guild, R. A., History of Proton t'tiirersity. Providence, 1867.

, Life, Journals, /otters, and Addresses of the A\t: Hezehiah Smith,

D.IK, of Haverhill, Mass., fjjy-fSaj. Philadelphia, 1885. -, Life. Times, and Cortrspondence ifJames Manning. I lost on, 1864.

Hague, William, An Historical Discourse: . . . Second Centennial A*. ntrer.uiry of the First Paptist Chunh in Piwidcnee, R. I. Providence, 1S30.

History of the Paptist Denomination in Georgia. Compiled fur the " Christian Index." Atlanta, 1N81.

Holcombe, Henry, The First fruits. Philadelphia, 181 2.

Holcombe, Hosea, . / History of the Rise and Progress of the Paptists in Alalnuna. Philadelphia, 1X40.

Hovey, Alvah, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Packus, A.M. Iloston, 1859.

JHV MHUOtiKArUY.

Jrter, J. B., CtmfiKtlum fi*,,mim-,l. Nvw Y.*k. l*S7. , C,tmJ*.//um AWiamm,-,!. Nvw V>»1, IKJ7.

, /.,/■ ./ «.»;,■/ If W.

JonN, H. O., IUit,Ti.al St./,* of Hi- Un.tr 1'nUi* («r PfM*rf.t\ D.iMUl CAun*. Mil.iJ. ;;-'<.-, /:,. M.„,-i,,.„„.,. ;-.. v., !*<«,.

, //iiA-rr ./ «•■ AV.IfcMvwi-il AyViVr ('*««* ./ J-Ail.hl.lfAia. I'Mla-

dclnhia, 1X9O.

JucUon, E., lh.-1.,/.-,./AJ.mirum JH.li.rn. New York, iKBj. Xing, A., .l/,w,.,V./<„,-,'. -7Wi /,',.i-/-.,..«. ll.i.|.m, 1K14. Xing, Henry M., /;..</.■ /Y.r/V./r l:f.„.U. II..,tun, iWto. atniffht, B., J/iihvyofih? t;,;i,,.,l..r Sit i'rim.ptr I'.ifliiti. 1'rnvkk'nce,

1XJ7. Xnowlee, J. D., M.„i.,ir ,■/M^.-e llill,.,m>. Il.»l<«, iK.t*. Upland, John, /*.' Kijliii •■/ V.m,.i,ur.' ln.i/i,-it.i/>/.: Uklmmnd, 171)3. XewU.A.H.,1 Viitu.illh-.l,;y.iSi,„.l.,y l.^.l.ili,,,,. N..-W York. tN88.

. ./ Vritu.it lli.l.-ir ■■!' Hi.- S.,l-I.uli ,in,l ll,c Sim.l.iy m lh.- VArtili.m

VAhi;h. Allrud (Viilrv. .\. V., 1KK7.

, /,W*-,i; T.:uU,» < , V.-iu.-im,^ lh. S-iLhilh .iml Ike S,ni.l.,y. Alfred

IVntri-, N. V., IKSS. /(> vfSfcttttr llougkbnt i .m.: New York, l.ivi-niiufv. 1H5G. * — 1, S. W., .I/.™..//-,:/«.' *.r. II ,//„,™ .S/.,i,^lil.;i. ll.M.m, i«H-

r, C. D., M,•».■„,.•/1.1.1.r 1'./,■„„,./H.-I.I-I.I, ilinrh-Hiim, iKji. , .\l, H i,,iu «f l.l.t.r J,-iw M.n.i: Nvw Y..rk, 1*44.

Mercer, Jeaae, .1 Ih.i.ny ,.j Hi,-1,..■■<„■ i»ifti»t .t,„<,i.ili.m.

MlMHl,. .•/!',.■ rh.l.i.l.lflii.i /■:ifl,l.I ■.,-,.,I,.;,/,,;„ ,!./>./?,•?/■■.!./>. iSoj.

I'l,il.l.].]|.l,i.l, ISCI. MOM, Lemuel (i-dimr), /A. A.//"■ '. mi.l lli. .\.n,.m..l (,11/.miry. 1'liilu-

dvlvdiia. i8;b. P«tOn, W. E., .-/ Ihst.-y ,■/ thr H.iftnt* -I !.miu.iH.i. St. I...ui;. iKKR. Peck, J. 1L,," 1;iHi.-i Cl.ni- ";„r, Tli.- Pi. .»,'•,■*■ Pr,;ifh.r. New York, lR«.

Feck, John, and Lnwton, John, ./« Ilhi.»„.it Sk.uk ,■/ tie Ji.iftU

MiiiUHiury l'.-u:;ii/r.'H ,-flA.- Sl.ite .■/. \',i.' )'.</-.(■. I'lim, 18(7. Prumi/lH^t ,/ Ilir /i.lflill Vim: :>U,.;i J-r Mi!,l,m,iry /'111/vvi, h.1,1 in J'klltfr

it.lfhia in M,iy, /J'//. I'llil.xU'fjiliiu, 1S14. PnteeJiagi ••/ lAe I'M- (Vwrvw/nw, /../■/ .;/■ .WhAhw, A'. I'., .My *», j>»,

/Jj;j. Phil*M|iliM. Prveeetliugs a/Ike A.tlumat Itaflut IJiir.ili.mal l\<ntenti.m, /Sjtt tin./ itfjj.

New York, rKyo ami 187*. ftveeet/in^i i/lte .S.1-.H/H ,l,ir /.'.ifliil VuiimH, *,/./ at Vtinnv, III., ft/.Af

J."-JV, /4'yo. Hirt .ill l'lisl.'ii..il M,l.t ,i/Am.ri,,in S.1;Hlh:l,iy ItajHitt

VAitnAii, .iirj Jixftu.',■/ f-'ailh anj I'm.lit.: F*klirali<mi 1/ lh.- X.itrn$nti,'lt < 'I'll- [eni1micin|! ihf Works of Ku^ir Wil-

liam*, an.) Julin <.'<iidni\ Writing i-n lilvrl)' <>f ciinscienw]. I'rovi-

.knee. 1ft.fv.1K74.. Kfeardi 0/ /*,- (Mw> ,/ A'*../.' hlauJ .111./ Pmiif.uf.- I'l.ialali.»ii In Ail.'

Em K l.ia.l. \,.\. i., I'ntvuk-iicc, lXr.fi. Xlehardaon, B., .1/,-wmv•/ M.umJ.r C.i«/*A//. t v»K., I'liiladdpliia,

iHfJt-iSj-d.

I, John, ./ /W./ A-.ir.w//:v ,/^.m,- V,m,i.l.r.ihU liuiagt, G-»,rr*. iUf- He lirtl <;.ili,iiui;,111J Inrlh.-r Pr,%tr>t ,■/ ,1 VAnrrA ./ VArhl, in Gosfvl Onler, in li,>tt,'n, in A'.-;.' /.'« ;/.m,l, rimimtuily (lA.iiigA f,ilieiv) mIW *)■ tkt name ojf Aaattftistt. London, 16S0.

ftampty, J. &., Smiktm Paftist 7*<*%/<W Semimary [1859-1889.] Its).

timorc, 1890. Semi-Centennial Celebration ef Ike Rkode Island Paftist State Convention,

May iJ% t&7J> Providence, 187J. Semple, R, B. t A History t/ Ike AW and Progress of Ike Paftisls /* //>.

r/i//*f. Richmond, 1810; new ctl., edited uyC.AV. Ileale, Kichmuml,

Pitt ft bickiro>on, 1894. Smith, J. A., Memoir of Re*\ XatkanielCoHvr. Ikfeton, 1875. Smith, J. W. t Tke LiJeofJokn P. Ctwr. Philadelphia, 1868, Smith, 8. F.| Missitwary Shetckes. llo»ton, 1883. Spencer, David, Tke Farly Ha/this of Philadelfkia. liiiliitlclpliia, 1877. Stowart, I. D., Minutes of Ike Ceueial Confetvnee of Ike Free-willPaftist

Connection, t vols., I lost on, 1X87* , Tke History of the Free-will Paflisls. Vol. i., 1780-1830. Dover,

1862. Stockbridge, J, 0., A Memoir of the Life and Correspondence of AW.

Hatvu Sttno. lloston, 1872; 2d til., 1894. Stone, E. M., Hiografky of AW. Flhanan IVinckt'ster. llmton, 1836. Straus, Oscar 8., Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty. New

York, 1894. Taylor, G. B., Life an J Times of J. IK Taylor. Philadelphia, 1872. Taylor, James B., Memoir of AW. Luther Rice. Hal I i more, 184a

, Virginia Paftist Ministers. 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1859. The Centennial Reeonl of Ike Free-will Haf lists, sySo-iSSo. Dover, 1881. Tke First Century of Ike First Paftist Cknrek of Rick mono* % Ia., tjSit-sSSa.

Richmond, 1880. Tke Life ana* Times of tke AW. James Ireland. Winchester, Vs., 1819. Tke Missionary Jubilee: An Account of tke Fiftieth Anniversary of tke

American Paftist Missionary i '11 ion. New York, 18(19. Thomas, David, Tke Virginian Paftist; or, A View and Defense of tke

Christian Religion as it is Pnfessetl by tke Fa / lists of Virginia. Haiti-

more, Knoch Story, 1774. True, B. 0., Increase and Characteristics of Connecticut Paftisls. Meri-

den, 1NN7. Tuppor, H. A. (editor), A Decade of Foreign Missions, iSSo-iSy<>. Rich-

moiid, I Hi)l. i Fortigu Missions of tke Southern Ha Mist Convention. Richmond,

1880. , Two Centuries if I hi' First Paftist Church of South Carolina, i6Sj-

iSSJ. linhimorc, 1889. Vedder, H. 0., leftists and Liberty of Conscience. Cincinnati, 1884. Wayland, Francis, .7 Memoir of tie Life and labors of the AW. Adouiram

Jndson, IK IK 2 vol*., Iloston, 1853.

, Print if les and Practices of tke Paftisls. New York, 1857.

Wayland, F. and H. L., // Memoir of tke Life and labors of Fntncis

It'avfand. 2 vols., New York, 1808. Williams, Roger, ( % h listen ittgs Make Xot ('hrixtians. In " Rhode Island

Historical! racts," No. 14. Providence, 1K81.

\

I

t

J

INTRODUCTION.

I. DISTINCTIVE I'KINCII'I.KH OF THE IIAITIKTtt.

Tllti name " Baptist M was not a self-chosen one. In the early Reformation time those who withdrew from the dominant churches because of the failure of these churches to discriminate between the chu:ch and the world, between the regenerate and the unregenerate, and who sought to organize churches of believers only, laid much stress on the lack of Scriptural warrant for the baptism of infants and on the incompatibility of infant baptism with regenerate membership. Following what they believed to be a|x>stolic precept and example, they made baptism on a profession of faith a condition of church-fellowship. This rejection of infant baptism and this insistence on believers' baptism were so distinctive of these Christians that they were stigmatized as" Anabaptists," " Catabaptists," and sometimes as simply " Haptists "; that is to say, they, were declared to be M rcbaptizcrs," " perverters of baptism," or, as unduly magnifying baptism and making it the occasion of schism, simply M baptizers." These party names they earnestly repudiated, preferring to call themselves Brethren, Christians, Disciples of Christ, Believers, etc.

Some of the distinctive principles of Haptists have already been referred to. The following enumeration may not be out of place:

l. Haptists of all parties have, from the beginning, persistently and consistently maintained the absolute suprem-

acy of the canonical Scripture* as a norm of faith and practice. They have insisted on applying the Scripture test positively and negatively to every detail of doctrine and practice. It has never seemed to them sufficient to show that a doctrine or practice, made a matter of faith, is not contradictory of Scripture; it must be distinctly a matter of Scripture precept or example to command their allegiance or secure from them a recognition of its right to exist.

2. The application of this principle that has done more than any other to put Baptists at variance with other evangelical Christians regards the matter of infant baptism. Baptists have failed to find Scriptural authorization, whether by precept or example, for the administration of baptism to infants. They have persistently maintained that this practice is not only non-Scriptural, but that it is distinctly contra-Scriptural; that it is nut merely the introduction of a rite not authorized by Scripture, yet innocent and useful, but a complete perversion of one of the two ordinances that our Lord gave to his church for the symbolical setting forth of the great truths of redemption. Believing that baptism merely symbolizes but does not bestow or condition regeneration, they have regarded it as preposterous that the symbol should antedate by years the thing symbolized; nay, that (he symbolical rite should be bestowed without any assurance that the thing symbolized would ever occur.

Hut not only have Baptists agreed in regarding infant baptism as without Scriptural warrant and as a perversion of an ordinance established by Christ, but they have always insisted that it is in a very high degree destructive of the true conception of the church as composed exclusively of regenerate persons. If baptism in unconscious infancy entitle a person to church-membership, in any

yarded infant baptism as the almost ncccss it of a state church. If there be an est f Christianity in any particular state, it n • to the medieval conception, be cocxtensi rship with the population of the state. If ri the church depended upon the conversion 1 on a profession of faith of each individual ence of church-membership with populatio

of the question. Hence, apparently, th< n that the friends of church cstablishmcr shown to maintain infant baptism at whatci o less prominent has been the contention r regenerate membership. They have per: ncd that the New Testament conccptioi

universal is that of the entire body of th tecome personally partakers of the salv;

that the New Testament idea of a local c

a body of believers who have been re^< ictified This principle, far more than ill infant baptism, or insistence on believers' 1 ention for the precise New Testament form as always been fundamental with Baptist i of infants has been rejected not simply bt

attempt to force the conscience, or to constrain men by outward penalties to this or that form of religious belief. Persecution may make men hypocrites, but true Christians never. Their advocacy of absolute liberty of conscience has been due not simply to the fact that they have been the suffering parties, but is rather a logical result of their fundamental principles.

5. Insistence on immersion as the only allowable form of baptism should not be omitted from an enumeration of liaptist principles; neither should it have the prominent place that many opponents arc wont to give it. The uncompromising position that Baptists have long held on this matter is a corollary of their maintenance of the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture as a norm of faith and practice, and their firm conviction that the outward act commanded by Christ and exemplified by Christ and his immediate followers was the immersion of believers in* water. Anything short of complete immersion they have long been unanimous in regarding as an impertinent substitute for that which Christ appointed, and as voiding the ordinance of its true symbolical significance.

II. RELATION OF 1IAITISTS TO OTIIKK IIOIUKS OF

CHRISTIANS.

While on the points of doctrine and practice already considered Haptists believe that they have occupied a position that has advantageously differentiated them from all other bodies of Christians, they rejoice to see that many of the principles for which they have stood in the |Ktst have become the .common possessions of evangelical Christendom. The doctrine of the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as a norm of faith and practice was professed by the great Protestant leaders of the sixteenth

kELATiON TO OTHER HOMES,

; but they were driven by observation of what i to them the ruinous consequence! of the practical ig out of this principle essentially to modify their lent of the doctrine. Most evangelical denomina-of the present time profess to make the Scriptures .me, yet, on grounds that seem to Baptists wholly mssililc, many of them refuse to accept the findings he best evangelical scholarship of the age as to the jeets ami mode of New Testament baptism. laptists have, for the most part, been at one with the jman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and most Protestant nimunions in accepting fur substance the so-called .postles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, not, however, iccausc they are venerable or because of the decisions of :cclesiastical councils, but because, and only in so far as, they have appeared to them to be in accord with Scripture. Yet some Baptist parties have not merely repudiated all extra-Scriptural definitions of doctrine, but have interpreted the Scriptures in such a manner W< to put themselves at variance with these ancient formula:.

Their utter rejection of sacerdotalism, ritualism, and all forms of ceremonialism has put them out of harmony with all religions parties that stand for sacerdotal and ritualistic practices.

As regards the set of doctrines on which Augiislin differed from his theological predecessors, and modem Cal-vinisis from Armiuiaus, Haptists have always been divided. The medieval evangelical sects were all, apparently, imti-Augustinian, and the Baptist parties of the sixteenth century followed in the footsteps of their medieval spiritual ancestors in this and other important particulars. Those Baptist parties of modern times whose historical relations with the medieval evangelical parties ami the nntipedobap-tist parties of the sixteenth century are most intimate have

picture3

rejected the Calvinistic system; while those that owe their origin to English Puritanism, with Wiclifism and Lollard-ism behind it and with the deeply rooted Calvinism of the English Elizabethan age as its leading characteristic, have been noted for their staunch adherence to Calvinistic principles, not, of course, because of any supposed authority of Calvin or of the English Puritan leaders, but because they have seemed to them to be Scriptural. Calvinistic and Arminian Baptists have both had periods of extreme development, the former sometimes scarcely escaping fatalism and antinomianism, the latter sometimes falling into Socinian denial of the deity of Christ and Pelagian denial of original sin. The great majority of the Baptists of today hold to wh.nt may be called moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the evangelical anti-Augustin-ianism which came through the Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully to bear on all lxxiies of evangelical Christians.

Baptists arc at one with the great Congregational body and with most of the minor denominations as regards church government. Holding firmly to the universal priesthood of believers, they insist upon the equality of rights and privileges of all church-members, but follow the New Testament precept and example in so far differentiating the functions of the members as to bring into effectiveness the gifts and graces of each and to provide for the watch-care and edification of the entire body and for the extension of the kingdom of Christ through properly directed effort. The officers of the congregation not only owe their appointment to the vote of the entire church, but hold their positions only so long as seems good to the church. Some of the antipedobaptist parties of tne sixteenth century, following in the footsteps of their spiritual ancestors of the medieval time (Waldenses, Bohc-

kELATiON TO OTllEk BODIES. J

mian Brethren, etc.), adopted a system of general superin-tendency, as did the Moravian Brethren and the Methodists in more recent times under similar influences. Regarding themselves as essentially a missionary church, and being under the stress of almost continuous persecution, they felt the need of strong administrative heads for the direction of missionary effort, for administering the resources of the connection in times of persecution and distress, and for guarding the body from the inroads of error. But English and American Baptists have been from the first, with trifling exceptions, ardent advocates of independency, and this principle has at times been so overemphasized as to interfere seriously with concerted action of any kind, and with the growth of denominational spirit. It is only within the last hundred years that Baptists have come to rc;ilizc the power there is in associated effort in home and foreign missionary work, in education, in publication, etc. Baptists believe that through their conventions, associations, advisory councils, missionary, publication, and educational boards, with their efficient administrative officers, they have secured, without in any way interfering with the autonomy of the individual congregations, most of the advantages of prclatical and prcsbytcrial organization.

The attitude of Baptists toward Christian union is often misconceived and adversely judged by their brethren of other denominations. Baptists earnestly desire Christian union, and believe that it will come in due time; but they insist that efforts for union, to be permanently effective, must be along the line of a better understanding of the word of God and more complete loyalty thereto, rather than along the line of compromise. They are themselves anxious to be instructed in the word of God more perfectly, and are ready to abandon any position that can be shown to be out of harmony with apostolic precept or ex-

ample. That the scholars of all denominations! including Roman Catholic. Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed, are so nearly in agreement as regards the leading features of the apostolic church, including the nature of church organization, the character and functions of church officers, the number and character of the ordinances, etc, and that the consensus of scholarship is so nearly in accord with the traditional Baptist inteq>rctation of Scripture, is highly gratifying to Baptists, and encourages them to believe that the development of Christian life and practice will be in the direction of greater uniformity, and that the church of the future will more and more approximate the Baptist position. This they desire only so far as the Baptist position shall be proved by the best Christian scholarship to be the Scriptural position.

I!!. AXCIKNT AND MKDIKVAL ANTII'KDOIIAI'TISTS.

The claim of Baptists that their doctrine and polity are in substantial accord with the precept and example of Christ and his apostles would seem to make it incumbent on their historian to explain the early departure of the great mass of Christians from the apostolic standard. Christianity arose in the midst of religious ferment. The philosophies and theosophies of the Kast were never more active and aggressive than during the first three Christian centuries. Before the close of the apostolic age Gnosticism in some of its most dangerous forms was seriously threatening the life of the churches. Belief in the magical efficacy of external rites was a universal feature of paganism, and the corrupted Judaism of the early Christian age cooperated with thcosophical paganism in fixing this feature on the early churches. Sacerdotalism goes hand in hand with ceremonialism, and the pagan idea of

."* ANCIENT PERVERSIONS OF BAPTISM. g

the priest as a mediator between God and man and as the exclusive manipulator of magical religious ceremonies was not long in making its impression on the Christian churches. A careful comparison of the Christian literature of the second and third centuries with the New Testament writings cannot fail to reveal the transformation of the church in doctrine and life under pagan influence.

Karly in the second century the idea became prevalent that while instruction in Christian truth and morals, repentance, faith, fasting, and prayer must precede baptism, the remission of sins takes place only in connection with the baptismal act. Such is the teaching of the " Pastor " of Hennas (about A.D. 139) and of Justin Martyr (about A.!). 150). By the close of the second century the pagan view that water baptism possesses in itself magical efficacy begins to find expression. " Is it not wonderful, too," writes Tertullian, " that death should be wasned away by bathing? " To justify such ascription of efficacy to water baptism he expatiates on the age and the dignity of water. "Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if water know how to give life." " All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification." In the Gnostic " Pistis Sophia," Christ is represented as saying: " If any one hath received the mysteries of baptism, those mysteries become a great fire, exceeding strong and wise, so as to burn up all the sins," etc. The Kbionitic writer of the " Clementine Recognitions " thus represents the effects of baptism: "If, therefore, any one be found smeared with sins and lusts as with pitch, the fire easily gets the mastery of him. But if the tow be not steeped in the pitch of sin, but in the water of purification and regeneration, the fire of the demons shall not be able to kindle in it."

tO tttTKODUCrtOX.

With tuch passages, of which many more might be quoted, may be compared the following from the orthodox Cyprian : " For as scorpions and serpents, which prevail on the dry ground, when cast into the water cannot prevail nor retain their venom, so also the wicked spirits . . . cannot remain any longer in the body of a man in whom, baptized and sanctified, the Holy Spirit is beginning to dwell."

Side by side with the idea of the efficacy of water bap tism there had grown up among Christians the conviction that apart from baptism there is no salvation even for unconscious infants. This conviction seems first to have found expression in Gnostic and Iibionitic writings, but it had become pretty general before the middle of the third century. In the "Clementine Recognitions" (vi. 8,9), Peter is represented as saying: "And do you suppose that you can have hope toward God, even if you cultivate nil piety and all righteousness but do not receive baptism? . . . When you arc regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. . . . Betake yourselves, therefore, to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire. . . . For whether you be righteous or unrighteous, baptism is necessary for you in every respect: for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished in him, and he may be born again to God; for the unrighteous, that pardon may be vouchsafed him for the sins he has committed in ignorance."

Infant baptism was the inevitable result of the twofold conviction that infants are so affected with the guilt of the race as to be subject to damnation in case of death without baptism, and that baptism possesses magical efficacy to secure salvation. At first it would naturally be confined

OTHER ANCIENT PERVERSIONS. \ \

to infants in imminent danger of death; but these who had the keenest realisation of the horrors of hell and the virtue of baptism were not content to run the risk of the sudden death of their offspring, and so the practice grew apace. It was somewhat impeded in its progress, however, by the rise and growth of another error, namely, that post-baptismal sins are irrcmissible. It was on this ground, and on this alone, that Tcrtullian pleaded so earnestly for the postponement of baptism, until such a degree of maturity and stability should have been reached as would warrant the expectation that the candidate would be able to guard himself from the commission of mortal sins. On this ground some went to the opposite extreme of postponing baptism until near the end of life. Thus one could be assured of entering heavert with a clean score. The rigid view of Tcrtullian as regards the unpar-donablcncss of post-baptismal sins gradually gave place to a more benignant view, and from the middle of the third century the church made such provision for the restoration of the lapsed that infant baptism came to be regarded by most as the safer thing.

The Lord's Supper suffered a similar perversion, and, largely through Gnostic influence, ceased to be regarded as a memorial feast in which believers held communion with one another and with their risen Lord, and assumed the character of a mystic rite celebrated with elaborate ceremonial.

The growth of sacerdotalism has already been referred to. The process by which the simple congregational church government of the apostolic time developed into the hierarchical government of the third and following centuries, when bishops claimed to rule by divine right and to be irresponsible, cannot here be detailed.

No less destructive of the spirit of primitive Christianity

was the early intrusion of the doctrine of the meritorious. ness of external works. Jews and pagans alike attached merit to almsgiving, fasting, and the utterance of fixed forms of prayer. By the middle of the third century leading churchmen like Cyprian did not hesitate to urge almsgiving as a means of securing the remission of sins and of purchasing an everlasting inheritance.

Asceticism, also, was imported into early Christianity from paganism. The disposition to regard the body as intrinsically evil, and all natural impulses as worthy only of being trampled upon, is a well-known feature of pagan religions. Fanatical seeking for martyrdom, excessive fasting, and exaltation of virginity were the earliest forms of Christian asceticism. It was chiefly through Gnosticism and Manich.eism that ascetical ideas found entrance into the church. By the fourth century they had become dominant.

These facts are mentioned here to show that the perversion of the ordinances in the early church was no isolated phenomenon, and that Baptists are not presumptuous in rejecting ecclesiastical practices which can be traced back even as far as the second or third century.

But, it may be asked, did the church as a whole succumb to these corrupting influences? Were there none that remained loyal to primitive Christianity among the tempted multitudes? Some Baptist writers have sought to find in the Montanists, Novatians, IJonatists, Jovinianists, Vigilantians, Paulicians, Bogomitcs, etc., who successively revolted from the dominant type of Christianity, and in the ancient British churches that long refused obedience to the pope, adherents to apostolic doctrine and practice and links in the chain of Baptist apostolic succession. It p*ay suffice here to say that while some of these parties were more and some less evangelical than the church they

antagonized, no one of them can be proved to have held to Baptist views as to the nature and subjects of baptism.

Was there, then, a failure of the assurance of Christ that the gates of Hades should not prevail against his church ? Far be it! We are not able to prove, it is true, that from the close of the apostolic age to the twelfth century a single congregation existed that was in every particular true to the apostolic norm; but that there were hosts of true believers even during the darkest and most corrupt periods of Christian history does not: admit of a doubt. That a church may make grave departures in doctrine and practice from the apostolic standard without ceasing to be a church of Christ must be admitted, or else it must be maintained that during long periods no church is known to have existed. In this admission there is no implication that an individual or a church can knowingly live in disobedience to Christ's precepts without grievous sin, or can ignorantly disobey without serious spiritual loss. On the contrary, every departure, conscious or unconscious, from apostolic precept or example not only involves loss as regards the particular defection, but brings in its train other evils, which in turn bring others, until doctrine and practice become thoroughly corrupt.

Not until we reach the twelfth century do we encounter types of Christian life that we can with any confidence recognize as Haptist. Among the dissenting parties which flourished at that time in the south of France we meet with Peter de Hruys and Henry of Lausanne, both of whom took a firm stand in favor of the restoration of primitive Christianity and 'for many years propagated their views with great success throughout extensive regions. Referring to the work of Peter de Bruys in a certain region, Peter the Venerable, a contemporary, wrote: " In your parts the people are rebaptized, the churches pro-

faned, the altars overthrown, crosses burned; on the very day of our Lord's passion flesh is publicly eaten; priests are scourged; monks arc imprisoned and compelled by terrors and tortures to marry." The scourging and torturing are non-Baptist features, but the writer bears witness at least to the. utter helplessness of priests and monks in the presence of Peter's fiery zeal. Elsewhere he sums up the errors of the evangelists under five heads. " The first article of the heretics denies that children who have not reached the age of intelligence can be .saved by baptism, nor (sit) that another person's faith can profit those who cannot use their own, since our Lord says, 'Whosoever shall have believed and shall have been baptized shall be saved.*" He charges them, furthermore, with denying the real presence in the eucharist. The rest of the charges arc in entire accord with the Baptist position. Peter labored from 1104 to 112H, and Henry from 1116 to 1148. The popularity of the latter was wonderful, and multitudes were turned by him from the dominant church. We have accounts of similar antipednbaptist movements in Breton, the Netherlands, and the Rhine region during the first half of the twelfth century. Kverviu, in a letter to Bernard, refers to " certain other heretics in our land [the vicinity of Cologne], absolutely discordant from these [the Cathari], through whose mutual discord and contention both have been detected by us. These latter deny that the body of Christ is made at the altar. . . . Concerning the baptism of little children they have-no faith, because of that passage in the gospel, ' Whosoever shall have believed and shall have been baptized shall be saved.'" It is probable that Arnold of Brescia, the great Italian reformer of the same century, rejected infant baptism. If so, his position was almost identical with that of Peter dc Bruys and Henry of Lausanne, with whom

he may have come in contact The statement of Otto of Freising, one of the best informed of his contemporaries, " He [Arnold] is said to have been astray with reference to the sacrament of the altar and the baptism of infants/* is amply confirmed as to the first charge and uncontradicted as to the second.

The early Waldenscs (1178 onward) were believers in transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, and infant ba|>-tism. Under the influence of more evangelical parties, most or all of them came to reject transubstantiation and consubstantiation alike, and some of them, probably a minority, became antipedobaptists.

Peter Chelcicky, the spiritual father of the Bohemian Brethren, and one of the ablest evangelical thinkers of the fifteenth century, closely approached in his doctrinal system the position reached by the antipedobaptists of the sixteenth century. Like the later Waldenscs, he rejected the doctrines of the real presence and baptismal regeneration, and sought to make the New Testament the standard of his faith and practice. Any departure from the apostolic model, by way of addition or diminution, he considered a|>ostasy. God's law is perfectly sufficient in every particular. Any union of church and state he regarded as fraught with evil. If the entire population of a state were Christian, there would be no need of civil government. A Christian state he regarded as anomalous. In the so-called Christian state there is no place for the true Christian except in the lowest ranks. All dominion, all class distinctions, are radically opposed to Christ's requirement of brotherly equality. No true Christian can be a king or a civil officer. Christians should avoid trade, as involving deceit in seeking advantages. He insisted on the freedom of the will, yet recognized the necessity of divine grace in regeneration. Oaths and capital punish-

merit he rejected with the utmost decision. Ai regards baptism, after quoting the great commission, he proceeds: " Open and clear is the word uf the Son of God; first he speaks of faith, then of baptism; . , . and since we find this doctrine in the gospel we should now also hold fast to it But the priests err greatly in baptizing the great mass, and no one is found, whether old or young, who knows God and believes liis Scripture. . . . Baptism be* longs to those who know God and believe his Scripture." It is rather disappointing to find him adding, " If such have children, baptism should be bestowed upon their children in their conscience."

The Bohemian Brethren (Unitas Fratrum) practiced re-baptism in receiving members from-the Roman Catholic and Hussite Churches until 1537, when they reluctantly abandoned it to escape the penalties to which Anabaptists were by law amenable. Like the Waldcnscs, the Bohemian Brethren were divided in respect to infant baptism. In an apology and two confessions addressed (1503-04) to King Wladislaus, they admit that some among them have rejected infant baptism.

There is no decisive evidence that any party in England rejected infant baptism before the Reformation time, although a vigorous evangelical movement was carried for' ward there before and after the time of Wjcllf.

The medieval evangelical movements arc of interest to the student of Baptist history not simply on account of the antipedobaptist features that appear in connection with the most important of them, but still more because of the type of life and teaching which was to reappear in nearly all its features in the antipedobaptist parties of the sixteenth century. The stress laid on the imitation of Christ and on the Sermon on the Mount, the maintenance of freedom of the wilt, insistence on holy living as a

necessary expression of true faith, rejection of oaths, warfare, capital punishment, and the exercise of magistracy on the part of Christians, are common to medieval evangelical parties and to the various antipedobaptist parties of the Reformation time.

It is estimated that there were at the beginning of the sixteenth century between 300 and 400 congregations of Bohemian Brethren in Moravia and Bohemia, with a constituency of about 200,000. These had the support and protection of many of the most powerful noblemen. In the Alpine valleys of southeastern France and northwestern Italy the Waldenses (Vaudois) continued to exist in large numbers. It is estimated that they had at this period about 100 congregations, with a constituency of about 100,000. Scattered throughout the rest of Kuropc there were Walclensian congregations, the number of whose constituents may have reached 100,000 more.

During the years immediately preceding the Lutheran revolt from the papacy, these evangelical Christians were active in the circulation of vernacular Bibles and other evangelical literature.

IV. TIIR ANAllAI'TIKTtt OV TIIK H1XTKKNTII CENTURY.

The Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century had its roots in the evangelical parties of the middle ages, to which it owed its modes of thought, its type of Christian life, and its methods of work. To the peculiar circumstances of the time it owed most of the features that differentiate it from the earlier movements. The term " Anabaptist" was applied indiscriminately to all who, dissenting from the dominant forms of Protestantism and from Roman Catholicism, insisted on setting up separate

IB WTKODLCTfOX.

churches for the embodiment and propagation of their views. To the dominant parties, Thomas Munzer, the vnysticat fanatic and socialistic agitator, who never aub-■ ~nitted to nor administered rebaptism, who persisted in fcjaptizing infants, and who sought to set up the kingdom ^of Christ by carnal warfare, the scholarly and soundly •Scriptural Ilubmnier, tile intellectual ami spiritual mystic, J3enck, and the chiliaslic fauntie* of Mtinster, were nil alike —Anabaptists, and even the most Christ-like of these went ~*rc.'itc<! as eritninals of the deepest dye; There was some •excuse for this confusion in the fact that most of those ~~to whom the epithet was applied denied the Scriptural -authorization of infant baptism, and made baptism on a profession of faith a condition of entering into their fellowship.

The beginning of the sixteenth century was a time of unrest ami expectancy. A spirit of revolution was abroad. Enough of evangelical light and enough of the spirit of freedom had been diffused among the oppressed masses to insure among them an enthusiastic reception for any movement that should give fair promise of relief from priestcraft and of social amelioration. When Luther denounced indulgences and afterward went on assailing, one after another, the corruptions and errors of the Rinnan Catholic Church, those who had come under the influence of the evangelical movements of the earlier time felt that now at last the day of deliverance had come, and rallied to his support. Luther's bold proclamation of the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures, of the universal priesthood of believers, and of the right of each individual Christian to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and his repudiation of " whatever falls short of, is apart from, or goes beyond Christ," must have produced a strong impression on those who had been long listening for such a

mighty leader to voice their sentiments. It was natural that when Luther began to draw back, in deference to the views of the civil rulers and from fear of disastrous revolution, the radical reformers that had taken him at his word should refuse to conform to his moderated scheme, and should set themselves in opposition to what they con-sidercd a temporizing policy, It was natural, also, that Luther, when he fell that the evnitgclicnl cause was jeopardized by the radicals, should have counseled their violent suppression.

The first note of revolt in Germany was sounded at Zwickau, where Thomas Miinzer had become pastor of a leading church. Under the influence of Nicholas Storch, a master weaver, who had apparently come in contact with a chiliastic Huhemian party, and who possessed a wonderful knowledge of the letter of Scripture and knew how to interpret the prophecies with reference to his own time, Miinzer was led to proclaim the setting up of the kingdom of Christ, with the overthrow of the existing order. Miinzer, Storch, and a number of their followers regarded themselves as prophets, and claimed to he commissioned to lead in the establishment of a reign of righteousness and equality. After some iconoclastic procedures at Zwickau, a number of the prophets vi-ited Wittenberg with the hope of winning to their support the evangelical leaders. Carlstadt, the rector of the university, and Cellaring one of the leading scholars, recognized their claims and accepted their views. Melanchthon was powerfully moved, but turned to Luther, then in retirement at the Wartburg. for counsel. Luther left his retirement and by a mighty effort succeeded in checking the movement. The labors of Storch ami Miinzer during the next few vears.

SO INTRODUCTION.

volt, and in convincing many that the kingdom of God would be set up by a mighty display of divine power in connection with the swords of the faithful. Storch rejected infant baptism and established several congregations of baptized believers. Miinzcr retained infant baptism, after declaring it to be unscriptur.il, and devoted his energies almost exclusively to arousing the masses to revolt. The part which he played in the Peasants' War, the massacre of his deluded followers, and his own subsequent execution are sufficiently familiar. Storch is to be regarded as the father of the chiliastic Anabaptist movement, whose later history was so fraught with disaster.

This blending of antipedobaptist views with chiliastic reveries and with socialistic and revolutionary aims and procedures was most unfortunate, and caused antipedobaptist* of nil types to be regarded as the enemies of civil and religious order.

A radical movement of a widely different type we meet in Switzerland from 1523 onward. Zwingli was an advanced humanist, and had no sympathy with the ascription of magical efficacy to externa] rites. His efforts at reform -were directed largely against the superstitious practices of the Roman Church, and so general was anti-papal feeling in republican Switzerland that the reformation of idolatrous abuses met with little opposition. Cool-headed, clear-headed, a good scholar, an able theologian, a skillful debater, an adroit politician, he aimed at political and social reform almost as much as at religious. In a disputation with representatives of the llishop of Constance in 1523, he set forth his views in sixty-seven articles, and overwhelmed his opponents. In the elaboration of the eighteenth article he called attention to the fact that in the early church catechetical instruction preceded baptism. He persistently denied that infants are saved

by baptism or lost through lack of it Zwingli's type of reform rapidly spread over a large part of Switzerland and into the adjoining German and Austrian provinces. From 1521 onward, Balthasar Hubmaier, one of the ablest theologians and most eloquent preachers of the time, was chief pastor at Waldshut in the Austrian Breisgau, having left a highly influential position in Kegensburg on account of his adoption of evangelical views. In 1523 he conversed with Zwingli on the baptism of infants, and Zwingli agreed with him in holding that it was without Scriptural authorization and ought in time to be abolished. Hubmaier kept his antipedobaptist views in abeyance for some time, and by his clear and strong evangelical teaching gained such an ascendency as enabled him to carry with him the influential elements of the population in the adoption of believers' baptism.

In the meantime a radical party had appeared in the canton of Zurich. Reformatory measures were pressed forward vigorously by Zwingli, but he was hampered by the civil authorities and dared not proceed as fast as the radicals demanded. These violated fasts and threw down images before they were authoritatively abolished. They refused to pay tithes and agitated for agrarian reform. A body of earnest Christian scholars had gathered around Zwingli, who sought to impress upon him the importance of completing the reformation of the church and the inadmissibility of allowing the measure of reform to be dictated by the ungodly magistracy. That the unregenerate should be admitted to the Lord's Supper along with the regenerate seemed to them contrary to apostolic precept and example. Zwingli admitted the desirableness of most of the reforms that they urged, but could not be persuaded to ignore the magistracy. Unable longer to have fellowship with a partially reformed church, and convinced that

23 1NTH0DVCTI0N.

Zwingli mi sinfully temporizing, Grebe), Manx, BUurock, and others withdrew, and organised a church of believen on the basis of believers' baptism (December, 1524). When Zwingli saw the connection of antipedobaptism with the setting up of separate churches and the dissolution of the ecclesiastical establishment, he at once became a zealous advocate of infant baptism. The antipedobaptist movement spread with great rapidity in the canton of Zurich, and thence to Schaffhauscn, St Gait, Heme, Basle, and the Graubunden. Severe persecution for a time seemed rather to further the movement than to hinder its progress. In St Gall and its vicinity thousands were baptized in a few weeks (April and May, 1525).

Hubirwiier, with Ruubli's help, introduced believers' baptism at Waldshut (about Master, 1525), and the town authorities, supported by the people, incurred the wrath of the Austrian government for refusing to deliver him up. When obliged to leave Waldshut (December, 1525) he took refuge in Zurich, where with Zwmgli's approval he was thrown into prison, and if not technically tortured (as seems probable), was subjected to the most distressing hardships. Kxterminating persecution dispersed the Swiss antipednbaptists throughout Europe. Hubmaier took refuge in Moravia (July, 1526), where he won some noblemen to the support of his cause, and for about a year and a half (1526-27) built up a strong church and produced and published an extensive denominational literature.

In Silesia, partly through the influence of Nicholas Storch, partly through the activity of Caspar Schwenck-feldt, an -influential nobleman who had adopted antipedobaptist views, but was prevented by his mysticism from taking a strong position in favor of believers' baptism, and still more through the influence of the Swiss antipedobaptist movement, a large part of the population came to

ANABAPTISTS OF SILESIA, AUSTRIA AND AUGSBURG.

he near future a mighty manifestation of r their deliverance, and gave secret instruc-owera to be prepared to smite the ungodly inted time should come. : of teaching was perpetuated in Augsburg angenmantel, a member of one of the chief es, who published largely in defense of anti-inciples and against the corrupt practices

ned to Augsburg about September, 1527, placed his strong hand on the helm. There e been at least eleven hundred Anabaptists ut this time. Shortly after Denck's return ing of Anabaptist leaders is supposed to in Augsburg. Persecution of a violent type Denck departed, and died soon afterward f his friend CEcolampadius. Hut died in umber of executions followed. In Swabia, ranconia, exterminating measures were cn-iary, 1528. The sanguinary imperial edict ved in April, 1529.

urg authorities were even more tolerant \ugsburg, and the city has been called an

ANABAPTISTS OF STRASSBURG AND HESSE. 2$

Saviour; while Capito could scarcely be restrained from becoming an avowed antipedobaptist. Every type of antipedobaptist life had its representatives in this center. During 1526 vast numbers of persecuted Anabaptists from all parts of Alsace, southern Germany, and Switzerland streamed into the city. Here also Denck and Hatzer resided for some months, and produced a marked impression. Among other noted leaders may be mentioned Jacob Gross, a disciple of Huhmaicr; Michael Suttlcr, one of the ablest and most amiable of the untipedobaptists of the Swiss school; Wilhclm Koiibli, one of the earliest and most zealous evangelists of the time; Jacob Kautz, a brilliant preacher who went beyond Denck in the mystical character of his teaching; Pilgram Marbeck, a Tyrolese engineer, whose social position and whose devotion to antipedobaptist principles were of the highest value to the cause; and Melchior Hofmann, a Swabian furrier, whose influence was to prove disastrous.

After the issuing of the edict of Speier the Strassburg authorities felt obliged to take measures for the suppression of the deeply rooted antipedobaptist movement. Many were banished, some were tortured, but the Strassburg authorities were strongly averse to shedding innocent blood.

The Landgrave Philip of IIesse was, with all his moral delinquencies, by far the most tolerant of all the princes of Germany. In spite of the entreaties and remonstrances of such neighboring princes as John George of Saxony, and of such Protestant leaders as* Luther, Melanchthon, and Hucer, he steadfastly refused to deal severely with the people everywhere spoken against. It is remarkable that of the two thousand or more Anabaptists executed up to 1530, not one had suffered in Hesse. In 1529, in response to a remonstrance from the elector of Saxony, he wrote:

INTRODUCTION.

"We an still unable at the present time to find It in our conscience to have any one executed with the sword on account of his faith." Even after the Mflnster catastrophe, when other princes were slaughtering Anabaptists' indiscriminately, he insisted on making a distinction between fanatics and evangelical advocates of believers' baptism. " To punish capitally . . . those who have done nothing more than err in the faith cannot indeed be justified on gospel grounds," he wrote at this time.

The most noted and influential lender of the Hessian Anabaptists was Mclchior Rink, a man of splendid scholarship and noble character, but unfortunately involved in the millenarian errors of Storeh and Miinzcr. He was many times arrested, and his life was demanded by the Saxon princes and theologians, but Philip had strength enough to protect him from his enemies.

At Nikolsburg in Moravia, llubmaicr labored for a year and a half with astonishing success. The Counts Leonard and John of Lichtenstein accepted his views and received baptism at his hands. The principal evangelical preachers in the territory of the Lichtensteins, including one who had been a Roman Catholic bishop, were also convinced of the truth of Hubmaier's teaching, and became his coadjutors. A printing-press was established and Hubmaier's works-were widely circulated. Hut soon appeared on the scene and won some to his millenarian ism and his rejection of magistracy and warfare. Communism was championed by Jacob Wiedemann, and after Hubmaier's martyrdom (1528) became the dominant type of Anabaptist teaching in Moravia. Notwithstanding frequent bitter persecution, the Moravian Anabaptists by their skill and industry made themselves indispensable to the Moravian nobles, and their strong communistic organization enabled them to husband their resources for ag-

MORAVIAN AXABAPT/STS.

gave much encouragement and help to the Zwinglian party, which soon became triumphant He was equipped with a remarkable knowledge of the letter of Scripture, and with a mastery of the allegorical method of interpretation. He had long been a pronounced chiliast, and he had already reached the conclusion that Christ's human nature was not derived from Mary, but was essentially divine. Contact with the Anabaptists of Strassburg led to his conversion to antipedobaptist views. He soon found those who sympathized with him in his chiliastic and other errors, although it may be supposed that those antipedo-baptists who had been trained in the school of Denck, and those who were at this time under the influence of the soundly evangelical I'ilgram Marbeck, would give little heed to such vagaries. The prophetic spirit appeared among his followers, and hi 1530 he published a modern prophecy with an interpretation of Revelation xii., which the authorities regarded as treasonable. During the next three years, by his writings and his evangelistic efforts, he gained multitudes of converts throughout the Netherlands, Westphalia, and the lower Rhenish provinces. In 1531 the Hofmannitcs suffered severe persecution in the Netherlands, and Jan Trijpmaker, Hofmann's most influential disciple, was put to death. Hofmann now promulgated an order that baptism be suspended for two years, with the intimation that at the end of this period there would be a wonderful manifestation of divine power on behalf of the lovers of the truth. The effect of this fixing of the date of Christ's advent was wonderful. His disciples were filled with the enthusiasm of those who are assured that they have a great mission to perform, and that the time is strictly limited. From this time onward the growth of the party in the Netherlands was rapid. I.utheranism and Zwinglianism almost vanished. Throughout West-

phalia, Hesse, Cleves-Julich, and other neighboring provinces this type of teaching was rapidly propagated.

In 1533 one of Hofmann's disciples had prophesied that he should return to Strassburg, suffer six months' imprisonment, and then lead the lovers of the truth to universal victory. He returned to Strassburg and was thrown into prison, where he died ten years later. There is something truly pathetic in the history of his prophecies and his disappointments. Again and again he fixed the date of the inauguration of the glorious kingdom, and sought to explain the preceding failures. Hofmann was undoubtedly an exceedingly able and a profoundly pious man, and to his honor it must be said that he did not counsel resort to violence. Hut he awakened a chiliastic enthusiasm that was sure to lead to the horrors of Mun-ster.

Before the imprisonment of Hofmann a still more influential leader had appeared in the person of one of his Dutch disciples, Jan Matthys by name. Hofmann seems to have announced (1531) to the faithful that he himself was Klias; Enoch would appear later, and be revealed to the lovers of the truth; in two years the saints would gather at Strassburg, and to the number of 144,000 would go forth in the name of the Lord to set up his kingdom. As the end of 1533 drew near expectation was at its height, and the wildest excitement prevailed throughout the Hofmannitc connection. Hofmann was in prison, and the people grew impatient. Matthys announced himself as the promised prophet, and ordered the resumption of baptism. A propaganda was now carried forward with the intensest enthusiasm. Multitudes were baptized throughout the regions of Hofmann's activity. In Matthys we see the spirit of Mtinzer revived, and that in an intensified form. He seems to have been consumed with

hatred of the upper classes, whom he regarded as the oppressors and persecutors of the poor people of God. To him God was in relation to the ungodly a God of vengeance; The dealing of Jehovah with the Canaanites through hU chosen people was the basis of his idea of the way in which the new dispensation was to be ushered in. Christians were to take up arms, and to blot out the ungodly from the face of the earth.

Meanwhile an antipedobaptist movement of great power had been developed at Miinster in Westphalia. This city had been a Roman Catholic stronghold. Protestantism of every type had been excluded with the utmost rigor. In 1529 Bernard Rothmann, a well-educated young clergy-. man, began to preach evangelical sermons at St. Mauritz, in the suburbs. His influence extended into the city, especially among the working-classes. His followers were able by 1530 to secure for him the use of one of the city churches. Under his leadership the social democracy of the city joined hands with the Lutherans, and the reform movement became so vigorous that in December, 1532, the unpopular bishop was driven from the city and many of his influential supporters imprisoned. The success of the evangelical movement aroused the wildest enthusiasm, not only in Miinster, but also throughout the lower Rhenish provinces. Monasteries were closed, and priests were driven from the city. A number of able evangelical ministers from Cleves-Julich and other provinces soon joined Rothmann in his reforming work. Among the most noted of these were Roll, Vinne, Klopriss, and Staprade. These all, with Rothmann, soon became avowed antipedobaptists. Rothmann at this time possessed a commanding influence. He had married the widow of a syndic, and had the full support of the council and the guilds. Controversy with the Lutherans followed. The council attempted to compel

the ministers to resume infant baptism. On their refusal an order was issued for the closing of their churches and the deposition of Kuthmann. A great popular demonstration secured for Kothmann the privilege of preaching in another church on condition that he should refrain from referring to the matters in dispute. He consented to respect this requirement until he should receive some further intimation of the divine will with respect to the matter, ■ The Dews of the overthrow of Roman Catholicism in Miinstcr and of the rapid growth of antipedobaptist sentiment awakened the profoundest interest among the Ilof-mannite congregations. Early in January, 1534, two emissaries from Jan Matthys reached Minister and announced to the antipedobaptist leaders that Enoch had appeared in the person of Matthys, that the millennial kingdom was at hand, and that the baptized and redeemed should henceforth, under the dominion of Christ, lead a blessed life, with community of goods, without law, without magistracy, and without marriage. Kothmann, Roll, Vinnc, and Stralcn were baptized, and these baptized fourteen hundred others during the next eight days. These first emissaries from Matthys seem not to have fully expounded the program of their leader. On January 13th appeared two men specially commissioned by Matthys to remain in Miinstcr and to take the leadership of the movement. These were John of Lcyden and Gertom Klostcr. The former was a gifted and enthusiastic young man of twenty-three. Rothmann and the older antipedobaptist ministers were henceforth the led rather than the leaders. The city authorities were powerless to stay this wild enthusiasm. The religions institutions were seized and Roman Catholics and Lutherans alike were compelled to leave the city. persecution was renewed in the Netherlands in February. Learning of the success of his followers in Miinster, Mat-

J2 INTRODUCTION.

thys announced that it had been revealed to him that Munster and not Strassburg was the New Jerusalem. He dispatched messengers in all directions to order the faithful to meet at a particular time at some designated place. The command came to them as the voice of God. Multitudes left their homes, not knowing whither they went. Many were seized and executed on the way to Munster. Thousands reached the city of promise. Matthys himself was soon in Mitnster. The city was organized ax a theocracy. Matthys is said to have proposed the slaughter of all the ungodly that remained in the city, but was opposed by Knippcrdollinck, who had long been a leader of the social democracy, and whose influence in the new kingdom was great. The city was well fortified and was defended with the utmost determination. Messengers were sent out in every direction to proclaim the setting up of the kingdom of God in Munster. In April, Matthys was slain in attacking the besiegers. John of I.eyden soon declared that he had received a divine command to be king, and he dare not disobey. Polygamy was introduced in obedience to another sup[K>scd divine intimation. A reign of terror ensued, in which the wildest license on the one hand and the most absolute despotism on the other prevailed. For more than a year the wretched fanatics were able to resist the bishop and his allies. At last the siege was broken and rebellion was suppressed in the most summary manner.

The Munster kingdom furnished an excuse for the intensifying of jjerseciition throughout Europe. Persecution extended to Moravia, and for a time threatened utterly to destroy this flourishing branch id the antipedohap-tist brotherhood.

Among Dutch antipedobaptists that refused to follow

the lend of Matthys were Dirk and Obbc Phillips and Leonard Houweits, of East Friesland. Under the leadership of Menno Simons, supported by these brethren, the quiet antipedobaptisfs of'the Netherlands, the lower Rhenish regions, anil the regions bordering on the Mast Sea, were, after the Miinster uproar, gathered into a firmly cemented union (1537 onward). Menno was a well-educated Catholic priest, who had become interested in 1'rot-'estantism as early as 1521 and had been deeply impressed by llic martyrdom of Kickc l ; rierichs, an Anabaptist, in 1531. As early as 1533 he seems to have entered into relations with the Anabaptists without abandoning his position as Roman Catholic priest. lie used all his influence to dissuade the Anabaptists from the rash measures that culminated in the Miinster kingdom. In 1536 he withdrew from the Catholic Church, and in the following year was led by the entreaties of the quiet Anabaptists, and his conviction of their sore need of help, to assume the leadership. The Mcnnonitcs, as the party afterward came to be called, repudiated with the utmost decision all fanatical and revolutionary measures, and denied any connection with the abominations of Miinster. They adopted in almost every detail the principles and practices of the medieval Waldcnses and Hohemian Urethral, along with a far more decided maintenance of believers' baptism. They enjoyed for some time a considerable measure of toleration in the Netherlands and neighboring regions, and soon grew into a strong party. Dissension arose chiefly in regard to discipline, and toward the close of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth century Socinianism made a deep impression on the party; hut

l.VTJtODLCT/O.W

the present time, and still flourishes in the Old and in the New World.

As early as 1530 persecuted antipedobaptists from the Continent seem to have taken refuge in England and anti-pedobaptist literature to have been there in circulation. The terrible persecutions that preceded and followed the Minister kingdom drove multitudes of Dutch Anabaptists to England, where rapidly developing mamifact 11 ring enterprise offered to skilled Dutch artisans a welcome means of maintenance, while their strange, tongue shielded them to some extent from persecution. A considerable number were detected from time to time, and executions and banishments were not infrequent; but it is certain that their numbers continued to be considerable and that they exerted an important influence on English evangelical life. Must of these earliest antipcdobaplist refugees seem to have Ih.-i.ti of the IlofnianniLc type, as those who were arraigned before the authorities agreed in denying mat Christ derived his humanity front Mary. 1 .aler refugees to England were chiefly Mennonites.

In Italy an important nntitrinitariau antipedohaptist movement flourished from 1546 (or earlier) onward. Among the leaders were Camillo Rcnato, Francesco Negri, I'ietro da Casali Maggiorc, Tuiano, Isep|n> of Asola, Cch'o Scctmdo Curio, 1 Jkmnimo Ituzano, and I'ietro Ma-nelfi. These were all educated men of high social position. Tiziano's views may be summed up as follows: (1) Insistence on believers' baptism; (2) rejection of magistracy as inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity; (3) maintenance of the symbolical and memorial nature of the sacraments; (4) exaltation of the Scriptures as the only criterion of the faith; (5) denunciation of the Roman Church as devilish and absolutely antichristiait.

In 1550 about forty Anabaptist churches in northern Italy and the contiguous parts of Switzerland and Austria

were in fellowship with each other and enjoyed together the services of a general superintendent. At this date these churches were much agitated over the question " whether Christ was God or man." Sixty delegates from about forty churches met in Venice for the settlement of this question. The Old and New Testaments were, accepted as fundamental authority. Thrice during the meeting the Lord's Supper was solemnly celebrated. After forty days of earnest discussion an almost unanimous decision was reached against the deity of Christ, against the reality of good and evil angels, against the immortality of the godless and a place of future punishment, in favor of soul-sleeping, and against the propitiatory nature of Christ's sufferings.

Manelfi proved a traitor and delivered up his brethren to the Inquisition. Some csca]>cd to Moravia, and having learned there the way of the Lord more perfectly returned and attempted to win their brethren to right doctrinal views.

The religious history of Poland is closely connected with that of Italy. The Italian thinkers who disseminated anti-trinitarian views in Poland had doubtless been influenced by such antitrinitarian antipedobaptists as Ti/.iano, Curio, Negri, etc. So multifarious was the religious life of Poland during the second half of the sixteenth century that toleration was a necessity. Lutherans, Reformed, Bohemian Brethren, Anabaptists, and antitrinitarians existed side by side, each party having its supporters among the nobility. It may suffice here to say that antipedobaptist antitrinitarianism became, after a prolonged struggle, the dominant type of religion and was embodied in the Ra-covian Catechism, first published in 1605, but prepared some yc«*rs earlier. This document contains an admirable definition of baptism, entirely in accord with the Baptist view. Infant baptism is repudiated, M since we have in

Scripture no command for, nor any example of," It In answer to the question, " What, then, is to be thought of those who baptize infants?" the reply is, "You cannot correctly say that they baptize infants. For they do not baptist them—since this cannot be done without the immersion and ablution of the whole body in water, whereas they only lightly sprinkle their heads—this rite being not only erroneously applied to infants, but also, through thin mistake, evidently changed."

It may here be remarked that Michael Scrvetus, the antitrinitarian martyr, was a most pronounced opponent of infant baptism.

This brief sketch of the antipedobaptist movements in the sixteenth century may suffice to give an idea of the character and the diversity of the religious life opprobri-ously designated "Anabaptist." The following remarks may prove helpful:

1. The parties designated "Anabaptist" agreed with each other and with the medieval evangelical parties in aiming to restore primitive Christianity, in laying stress upon the practical teachings of Christ himself (as in the Sermon on the Mount), in rejecting the Augtistinian (Lutheran and Calvinistic) doctrinal system, including denial of freewill, justification by faith alone, etc., in rejecting oaths, warfare, capital punishment, and the exercise of magistracy by Christians. llubmaicr differed from most of his brethren as regards magistracy, warfare, etc.

2. Liberty of conscience was earnestly insisted upon by llubmaicr in a special treatise, and the violation of conscience was regarded by Anabaptists in general as abom- ' Enable,

3. All agreed in rejecting infant baptism and in insisting upon believers' baptism, on the grounds that still prevail with Baptists.

HUMAKA'A J;

4. Immersion was practical at St. Gait, Augsburg Strassburg, and by the antitrinitarian Anabaptists of To-land. Hut the common practice among the Swiss, Austrian, Moravian, anil Dutch parties was affusion. The importance of immersion as the act of baptism seems to have been appreciated by few.

5. A number of speculative (mystical) thinkers combined with tlie views common to the various panic* fttlli-trinitnrian anil iiiriversiilirtic views, and sonic (as tin: Italian Anabaptists) became involved in the grossest doctrinal errors.

6. Even more baleful, if possible, was the influence ol chiliasin, beginning with Storch and Munzcr, transmitted through lint ami Kink-, given wide currency by Ilofmann, and fanned into fury by Matthys. Cliiliasm lias no logical connection witli anlipcdobaptist principles and is likely to arise at any time among earnest men driven to despair by persecution. The great mass of those who took part in the Minister kingdom had adopted nntipedobaptist views simply because they were presented to them in connection with a social scheme that promised reJie/ from their burdens, tlie destruction of their oppressors, and a glorious earthly life. Under circumstances such as existed in 1533-35 chiliasm inevitably leads to fanaticism. It may well be questioned whether it is safe under any circumstances to tamper with a mode of religious thought in which so dire possibilities inhere. The extent to which the Baptist cause has been impeded by the Minister kingdom is incalculable. The Baptist name is odious throughout continental lCurope to-day because of it. In Knglund and in America the opponents of Baptists long urged their extermination on the ground that they might be expected to reenact the horrors of Miinster.

INTRODUCTION,

V. THE ENGLISH GENERAL BAPTISTS. 1

The traditions according to which Baptist churches, as distinct from congregations of Dutch Mennonite*, existed in England prior to 1609 seem to be unsupported by any evidence that the historian can accept. It is possible that some Welsh congregations of the ancient British type, or some Ivollard congregations, practiced believers' baptism in the sixteenth century or earlier, but decisive evidence is wanting. Robert Browne, probably under Mennonite influence, adopted congregational views and insisted on liberty of conscience (1580 onward). He is said to have been intimately associated with the Dutch population of Norwich, among whom were many Mennonites, and it is probable that his church was comtxiscd in part of those who had been under Mennonite teaching. Persecution soon drove Hrowne and part of his congregation to Mid-dclburg, Zceland, where again he had ample opportunity to mature his views under Mennonite influence. The congregation was broken up by internal dissension, and Hrowne, probably losing his mental poise, returned to the Church of England and died in disgrace; but he had given currency among English evangelicals to principles that were to bear fruit, notwithstanding the defection of their annunciator. Other small separatist congregations were formed in I-ondon as early as 1387 or 1588. Severe persecution and the execution of Harrowe, Greenwood, and I'cnry, caused the exodus of many of the separatists to Holland (1503 onward), and a large congregation of English exiles was gathered in Amsterdam under Francis Johnson and Henry Ainsworth (1595 onward). It may

> Sec, 00 the Central Ha|rtisH, Kvans. (hkI'IIiv, Tnylnr, t'rtnliy, Ivliiicy, Barclay, Ik-xur (" Juhn Swyili "), llnnl.ury, Ik- fluuai SdiniTtr, UYinj;aricn, •ml ihc Ilansi-ril Knullyi Snelely'n putilii-alions, as in the HiMiunraphy.

SiXGS.SSSS GUMMAS. StAPrSS'SX

be so skilled in Greek and Hebrew as to be able to extemporize a translation for the benefit of the unlearned. He held that " reading out of a book . . . is no part of spiritual worship, but rather the invention of the man of sin"; that " in time of prophesying it is unlawful to have the book as a help before the eye "; and that " seeing singing a psalm is a part of spiritual worship, therefore it is unlawful to have the book before the eye in time of singing I psalm." "The Informed presbytery, consisting of three kinds of elders," he held to be " none of God's ordinance, but man's device"; he maintained that "lay elders (so called) are antichristian "; and insisted thai" in contributing to the church treasury there ought to be both a separation from them that are without and a sanctification of the whole action by prayer and thanksgiving."

In most of these points Smyth undoubtedly made a wrong and impracticable application of principles; but underlying all was the profound conviction of the sole authority of Scripture as it was divinely given, and of the necessity of eliminating from the worship of God everything non-spiritual.

Karlj' in i6oq (N. S.) Smyth reached the conviction that infant baptism, as lacking Scriptural authorization, was to be rejected as a human invention that makes void an ordinance of Christ; nay, that it was a "mark of the beast." In this he hail the sympathy and support of his church. Having reached the conviction that the church of Johnson and Ainsworth was "a false church, falsely constituted in the baptizing of infants and their own un-baptized estate," Smyth and his followers " dissolved their church, . . . and Mr. Smyth, being pastor thereof, gave over his office, as did also the deacons, and devised to enter into a new communion by renouncing their former baptism."

According to the unanimous testimony of contemporaries and his own apparent admission, Smyth first baptized himself, then Thomas Helwys, and afterward the rest of the company. It is uhnost certain that the rite was administered by affusion and not by immersion, His opponents make no reference to the form of the rite, which they would almost certainly have done if it had deviated from current practice; and the entire harmony of Smyth and his party in this matter with the Mennonites, who at this time practiced affusion, would seem decisive in favor of the supposition that they conformed to the common practice. The chief reproach that the opponents of Smyth and his brethren sought to cast upon the new organization was that of introducing baptism anew and of se-baptism.

The following is Smyth's answer to the reproach of instability : " To change a false religion is commendable and to retain a false religion is damnable. For a man of a Turk to become a Jew, of a Jew to become a Papist, of a Papist to become a Protestant, are all commendable changes though they all of them befall one and the same person in one year; nay, if it were in one month: so that not to change religion is evil simply; and therefore, that we should fall from the profession of Puritanism toHrownism, and from ltrownism to true Christian baptism, is not simply evil or reprovablc in itself, except it be proved that we have fallen from true religion; if we, therefore, being formerly deceived in the way of pedobaptistry, now do embrace the truth in the true Christian apostolic baptism, then let no man impute this as a fault unto us."

Smyth justified his act in instituting baptism anew on grounds entirely satisfactory to modern Iiaptists. He claimed that he and his followers had just as much right to " baptize themselves " as his opponents had " to set up a true church." " For if a true church," he proceeds,

ixmovvcr/ox.

" may be erected, which is the most noble ordinance of the New Testament, then much more baptism. ... If they must recover them, men must begin so to do, and then two men joining together may make a church." Me maintained that " any man raised up after the apostasy of antichrist, in the recovering of the church by baptism," may " administer it upon himself in communion with others." The necessity for this procedure lay in the fact *' that there was no church to whom we could join with a t£o<>d conscience to have baptism from them."

It is probable that Smyth's rejection of infant baptism was due in some measure to the influence of the Mcniion-ites, who were numerous and well established in Amsterdam. A few mouths after the introduction of believers' baptism and the reorganization of the church, Smyth, unfortunately, became convinced that he had made a serious mistake in introducing baptism anew. Under the influence of the Socinianizing Mennonism of the time and place he adopted the Mennonite (Mofmannite) view of Christ's human nature, denied original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin, insisted that men are justified partly by their own inherent righteousness, and maintained that the church and ministry must come by succession, that an elder of one church is an elder of all churches in the world, anil that magistrates may not be members of Christ's church and retain their magistracy. For these errors he and his followers were excluded by a majority of the church he had founded, under the leadership of Thomas Helwys and John Murton. The excluded members to the number of thirty-two made application lo the Mennonite Church for admission, humbly confessing and repenting of their error in having undertaken " to baptize themselves contrary to the order laid down by Christ." Helwys and lu's party besought the Mennonite brethren to take wise counsel—

GENERAL BAPTISTS.

ratists had placed themselves in a position that they cou. not consistently hold. They hail renounced the Churc of England as apostate, and yet had been content witl the baptism and the ordination that they had receives in connection with that body; they claimed to be striving to set up churches of the regenerate, but continued to baptize infants, and without chiming that they were re-generated thereby, to give tlicm ft quasi-membership in their churches. Some of the opponents of Smyth, np|>ar-ently under the influence of his arguments, abandoned the extreme separatist position in favor of what is known as semi-separatism.

Smyth and Helwys, and the followers of the latter, were equally clear in their apprehension and statement of the llaptist doctrine of liberty of conscience. In a long confession of faith prepared apparently by Smyth about 1611, Art, 84 reads: "That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to muddle with religion or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion or doctrine, but to leave Christian religion free to every man's conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions (Rom. xiii.), injuries, and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king and lawgiver of the church and conscience (James iv. 12)." Helwys wrote: " The king is a mortal man and not God, therefore hath no power over the immortal souls of his subjects, to make laws and ordinances for them, and to set spiritual lords over them. If the king have authority to make spiritual lords and laws, then he is an immortal God and not a mortal man."

Helwys became convinced that fidelity to Christ required that he should proclaim the truth to his own countrymen in England, and that to remain in exile was cowardly.

Flight from persecution, he believed," had been the over-throw of religion in this island; the best, ablest, and greater part being gone, and leaving behind them some few who, by the others' departure, have had their affliction and contempt increased; hath been the cause of many falling back, and of their adversaries' rejoicing." In 1611 or 1612 he returned to England with most or all of his followers, and the church took up its abode in London, It was this company of believers who set forth from 1614 onward those noble pleas for liberty of conscience that expounded the doctrine with a fullness and persuasiveness not greatly surpassed even by Roger Williams, and to which Williams himself seems to have been greatly indebted. 1

Helwys did not go so far as Smyth in the direction of Socinianism, but wrote vigorously in defense of the position " that God's decree is not the cause of any man's sin or condemnation, and that all men arc redeemed by Christ; as also that no infants are condemned." He took a decided position, in opposition to the Mennonites, in favor of the true humanity of Christ and in favor of magistracy as an ordinance of God which " debarreth not any from being of the church of Christ." Helwys's tract against flight from persecution was elaborately answered by John Robinson, to whose citations we arc indebted for our knowledge of this document. A number of his writings have been preserved, but arc very rare.

Fortunately a considerable body of correspondence between the Knglish Baptists and the Mennonites of Holland, dating from 1624 to 1626, has been preserved in the archives of the Mennonite church of Amsterdam, and has been made available. From this correspondence the fol-

l Tract* on lil>crly of conscience, in the llonscrd Knollys Society's col-lecti<m.

towing facts may be gathered or inferred: (i) That He)* wys had passed away and that John Mutton (or Morton) was now their chief leader. (2) That there were five congregations tn close fellowship, viz., in London, Lincoln, Sarum, Coventry, and Tiverton. (3) That the London church had excommunicated one Elias Tookcy, with a number of his followers, on account of their opinion about bearing with and tolerating the weak or those of little understanding in scriptural mutters, who, however, were very conscientious in everything they knew, and peaceful and quiet in the church. From Tookcy's own letter it would seem that some of the weak ones he desired to tolerate were deniers of the deity of Christ. It seems probable that Tookcy's own views on this subject were Socin-ian rather than Trinitarian. This transaction would seem to show that the great majority of the English Baptists at this time laid considerable stress on right doctrinal views with respect to the jHirson of Christ. (4) That both parties were eager to secure recognition by the Mcnnouitcs of Holland, and to enter into union with them. It is evident that now at last, after Hclwys's death, tlie principles of Smyth had come to prevail. These Baptists were willing to yield much in order to secure the consent of the Mcnnouitcs to a union. The strength and dignity of the Mennonitc churches, and the ability of their ministers, as well as the generosity of these earnest godly j>cop1e toward the impoverished English exiles, had profoundly impressed the latter, and they felt the need of the moral support that the union would bring to their persecuted churches in England. (5) They differed from the Mennonitcs in a number of matters, but these differences, so far as they could not be explained away, they besought their Dutch friends to tolerate, at least for a time. The chief differences seem to have been with reference to oaths, magis-

tracy, warfare, and the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper. The Mennonites celebrated the Supper once or twice a year and were opposed to the weekly celebration; the English found great comfort in the weekly celebration and pleaded earnestly to be tolerated in this practice. The English did not sec their way to reject oaths, magistracy, and warfare entirely, and asked fur toleration of slight differences of opinion in these matters also. The Mennonites limited the administration of the ordinances to such as had received ordination; the English sought to explain their practice as substantially in accord with that of the Mennonites, but they would extend the privilege of administering the ordinances, in the absence of an ordained minister, to teachers and evangelists recognized as such by the church. The efforts at union would seem to have been unsuccessful. The Mennonites were too inflexible in their positions to make compromises.

After 1626 the General Baptists made rapid progress. By 1644 they are said to have had forty-seven churches, and by 1660 their membership had reached about 20,000. During the eighteenth century they shared in the general decline of religious life, and their Arminian principles made them peculiarly susceptible to the deadening influence of Socinianism. Most of their churches became openly Unitarian. As a result of the great revival under the leadership of the Wcsleys and Whitefield the New Connection of General Baptists was formed in 1760 on an evangelical basis. As thus reorganized they still constitute a respectable party in England, and are now closely associated with the Particular Baptists.

I.VTKODLCTIOX,

VI. THE ENCUSH PARTICULAR BAPTISTS. 1

The appellative " Particular " as applied to BaptisU has reference to their doctrine of redemption as limited to the elect, in contradistinction to the doctrine of universal redemption from which the General Haptists derived their designation. Hie rise of the Particular Haptists was as follows: in 1616 Homy Jacob, an Oxford graduate, who had been converted to Congregational views by Francis Johnson, and who had been for some years pastor of an English congregation at Middclburg, Zccland, returned to England with a number of his church-members, and settled at Southwark, London. lie doubtless soon gathered into his congregation the scattered members of earlier churches, so far as these had survived and remained in the vicinity. Jacob's church was to be the mother of the English Independents and of the Particular Baptists as well. Discouraged by the threatening aspect of ecclesiastical affairs, Jacob emigrated to Virginia in 1624. He was succeeded in the pastorate by John Latlirop, a Cambridge graduate. Pastor and people suffered almost constant persecution under Archbishop Laud. In 1632 forty of the members, including the pastor, were thrown into prison. I-atlirop was released in 1634, but felt obliged to emigrate to New England. During I,at limp's pastorate a number withdrew " because the congregation kept not to their first principles of separation," and because they were " convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but only to such as professed faith in Christ."

According to an account attributed to William Kiffin, a prominent actor in a later secession and afterward one of .ml the Ilanwrii Knotty*

the most influential of the Particular Baptist leaders, " the church, considering that they were now grown very numerous, and so more than could, in these limes of persecution, conveniently meet together, and believing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience and not obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that they should bo constituted a distinct church, which they performed the 12th of September, 1633. And as they believed that baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism they had received in that age as invalid; whereupon most or all of them received a Hew baptism. Their minister was Mr. John Spilsbury."

According to a record of the original church, in 1638 seven others, whose names are given, "desiring to depart and nut to lie censured, our interest in iheni was remitted, with prayer made in their behalf, . . . they having first forsaken us and joined with Mr. Spilsbury."

Spilsbury felt no difficulty about the new introduction of believers' baptism, maintaining that " baptizedness is not essential to the administrator," and repudiating the demand for apostolic succession as leading logically to "the popedom of Rome."

The Baptist leaven would continue to work in this congregation until the whole mass should have been leavened. According to the " Killin Manuscript," " 1640, 31! month. The church became two by mutual consent, just half bang with Mr. P. Barcbone, and the other half with Mr. II. Jesscy. Mr. Richard Blunt with him. being convinced of baptism, that also it might to be by dipping the body into the water, resembling burial and rising again (Col. ii. 12; Rom. vi. 4). had sober Conference about it in the church ; and then with some of the forcnamed, who also were so convinced, and after prayer and conference about their so

om them. John Batte, a teacher there and rch, to such as sent him. 1641. They pro-in—viz.. those persons that were persuaded d be by dipping the body had met in two i did intend so to meet after this; all these >cced alike together, and then manifesting brmal words) a covenant (which word was ome of them), but by mutual desires and ch testified, these two companies did set aptize the rest, so it was solemnly performed -. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock, that was a ;st them, and Mr. Blunt being baptized, he dock baptized the rest of their friends that :d, and many being added to them, they in-

»»

se who seceded with Spilsbury in 1633, and nersed in 1641, was Mark Lukar, who was ccupy the position of ruling elder and to be :er in John Clarke's church at Newport, R. L, vas " one of the first founders " (Felt), and cwport at an advanced age in 1676, " lcav-ter of a very worthy walker." This point of tween the earliest Particular Baptist church

this year he took part in a disputation with Dr. Featley at Southwark. Kiffin, besides ministering to a congregation and taking a leading part in denominational matters, was greatly prospered in trade and became possessed of ample means, which he used with liberality for the advancement of the Baptist cause.

In 1643 further trouble arose in Jessey's church on the matter of infant baptism. Hanserd Knollys had returned from New Kngland and had become a member of this church. Kiffin's account of the matter is as follows: " Hanserd Knollys, our brother, not being satisfied for baptizing his child, after it had been endeavored by the elder and by one or two more, himself referred to the church then, that they might satisfy him or he rectify them if amiss herein: which was well accepted. Hence meetings were appointed for conference abou+ it." Kiffin was engaged in these conferences, which lasted from Jan* uary II till March 17, 1644 (N. S.), "the issue whereof was the conviction of sixteen members against pedobap-tism." These withdrew, Jessey and his friends agreeing: "(1) Not to excommunicate, no, nor admonish, which is only to obstinate. (2) To count them still of our church and pray [for] and love them. (3) Desire conversing together so far as their principles permit them."

There is something delightful about the good-will with which these successive divisions occurred. A parallel case would be difficult to find.

Kiffin seems to have organized a new church some time during the year 1644. By October of this year there were seven Particular Baptist churches, on whose behalf Kiffin, Patience, Spilsbury, and others signed a " Confession of Faith, of those churches which arc commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists/ 1 The aim of the confession was purely apologctical. Baptists had been

$4 INTRODUCTION.

accused in a number of polemical writing! of holding to the most monstrous errors, and of being capable, under favorable circumstances, of perpetrating the atrocities of Munster. The document is a clear setting forth of Calvin-istic doctrine, along with a statement of baptist views on the ordinances. To guard against even the semblance of sacerdotalism it is stated that " the person designed by Christ to dispense baptism the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church-officer or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel." The confession is in almost every detail in thorough accord with the views of modern American Baptists.

In 1645 Henry Jcssey himself, pastor of the original Congregational church from which the materials for seven Haptist churches had gone forth, was baptized by I lanscrd Knollys. Part of the remaining membership followed his example, while a part stilt adhered to infant baptism but retained their membership in the mixed church.

By 1646, when a second edition of the confession was issued, a French Particular Baptist church had been added.

A few remarks seem called for by the obscurity of some of the statements quoted above. It is not possible out of the material that has thus far come to light to trace in detail the evolution of the seven churches that signed the confession of 1644. The statement quoted from the so-called " Kiffin Manuscript" with reference to the division of 1640 involves a number of difficulties. I*. Barebone, with whom half of the church withdrew, has commonly been regarded by Baptist writers as a Haptist. Yet in 1642 he published " A Discourse tending to prove the Baptism in, or under, the Defection of Antichrist to be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also that the Baptism of

Infants or Children is Warrantable, and Agreeable to the Word of God," and in 1643 and 1644 he published other polemical tracts against antipedobaptism. If in [641 he was the leader of the antipedobaptist and tmmersionist half of the dividing congregation he must soon after have abandoned his position. This is, of course, possible. From the construction of the sentence Jessey might be taken to be the leader of the Baptist half; but it appears that Jessey did not become a ltaptist till five years later. This difficulty seems inexplicable without further materials.

The party in Holland from whom Blunt received baptism were the Rhynsburgcrs or Collcgiants, a party derived probably from the Socinian antipedobaptists (1619), and, like them, practicing immersion. They had much in common with the Plymouth Brethren of the present century, laying great stress on freedom of prophesying, having no regular ministry, and baptizing freely, without doctrinal examination, those who professed faith in Christ. It seems not a little .strange that these English Calvinistic Baptists should have thought their position improved by receiving baptism from such a source.

It was an almost inevitable consequence of the circumstances under which these churches were formed that open communion should have been to some extent practiced. The separations were from the beginning peaceful, and when the pastor of the original congregation became a Baptist, pedobaptist members remained in the church. Mixed churches involved open communion. William Kiffin became a staunch advocate of restricted communion; Henry Jessey, John Tombcs, John Bunyan, and others advocated and practiced open communion. Restricted communion gained ground during the eighteenth century; but toward the close of that century and during the present century, under the influence of Robert

Robinson, Robert Hill, and Charlei H. Spurgeon, open communion has become very general among English, but not among Welsh and Scotch, Baptists. Yet the number of close-communion churches in England is still considerable.

From 1645 until the Revolution (1688) the Particular Baptists rapidly increased in numbers and influence. In the Parliamentary army a large proportion of officers and soldiers were Baptists. Through the army Baptist churches were founded in Ireland and Scotland. Through the ef- ■ forts of men like John Myles and Vavasour Powell, Baptist principles were planted in Wales; which proved highly fruitful soil. Baptists are said to have been chiefly instrumental in preventing Cromwell from assuming the dignity and prerogatives of royalty. They became greatly dissatisfied with Cromwell's military government, and many of them were prepared to aid in the restoration of Charles II., who was lavish in his promises of toleration. John Milton was an antipedobaptist and an advocate of believers' baptism, but there is no evidence of his having connected himself with a Baptist church. A number of prominent Baptists (including Jessey.Tombes, Dyke, and Myles) joined heartily in Cromwell's state-church scheme, acting as members of his Board of Tryvrs to pass upon the qualifications of candidates for the ministry, and accepting pastorates of state-endowed churches.

Under Charles II. Baptists suffered severe persecution, along with other dissenting parties. The imprisonment of John Bunyan, which is familiar, is a sample of what Baptists had to endure from the execution of the Act of Uniformity, the Conventicle Act, the Five-mile Act, and the Corporation and Test Acts.

With the Act of Toleration, under William and Mary (1689), a period of religious depression set in. At this

PrlHTICULAH ftAPTISTS.

55

time the Particular Baptists numbered many thousands. More than a hundred churches united in adopting a Baptist recension ii the Westminster Confession, which has proved the most important and influential confession ever put forth by Baptists. In a slightly modified form it has been widely accepted by American Baptists as " the Phil-

i

INTRODUCTION.

picture4

FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN AMERICA TO THE GREAT

THE BAPTISTS.

CHAPTER I.

ROGER WILLI/ .lS AND LIBERTY OF COhY

New World. " Truly it was as Utter as death to me," he wrote aome years later to the daughter of Sir Edward Coke, " when Bishop Laud pursued me out of this land, and my conscience was persuaded against the national church and ceremonies and bishops, beyond the conscience of your dear father. I say it was as bitter as death to me, when I rode Windsor way to take ship at llristol, and saw Stoke House, where the blessed man was, and I then durst not acquaint him with my conscience and my flight."

There can be no doubt but that he made considerable sacrifice, not in sentiment alone, but in position and prospects as well, in thus loyally following the dictates of conscience. " God knows," he wrote forty years afterward, " what gains and preferments ! have refused in universities, city, country, and court in Old Kngland, and something in New England, to keep my soul mule filed in this point, and not to act with a doubting conscience." He was not only an accomplished scholar (lie was familiar with the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Dutch, and French languages), but he had a dignity of bearing, an eloquence and persuasiveness of tongue and pen, and a force of character, that, apart from his influential connections, would have commanded for him the highest positions-at home or abroad.

Landing in New England in February, io.il, an attractive opening almost immediately presented itself. The pastor of the ltoston church was returning to England and Williams was invited to supply his place. Did he accept the invitation ? Far from it. The lioston church was " an unseparatcd church," and he "durst not officiate to" it. He was prompted to give utterance, while in lioston, to a conviction, formed no doubt long before—familiar antl commonplace now, startling and revolutionary then and there— that the magistrate may not punish any sort of " breach of the first table," such as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, false

convincing the leading men of the colony that lie was an impracticable anil dangerous man—all the more dangerous because of his splendid gifts and his unswerving loyalty to conscience. It whs only what might have been expected, when the Salem church A few months later invited him to be their teacher, that six of the leading men of Huston should have sent a joint letter of warning to Governor Kndicott of Salem. Thus prevented from settling at Salem, he betook himself to the older and more thoroughly separatist Plymouth colony, where he was cordially received, and soon became associated as teacher with Knlph Smith, pastor of the church. Here he remained ftbruit two years. According to Governor Bradford, " liis teaching was well approved, for the benefit whereof I still bless God, and am thankful to him even for his sharpest admonitions and reproofs, so far as they agreed with truth." According to Hrewster, elder of the church, toward the close of the period Williams began to " vent" " divers of his own singular opinions," and to " seek to impose them upon others." " Not finding such concurrence as he expected, he desired his dismission to the church of Salem," which, with considerable reluctance on the part of some, was granted. It is certain that tin. influential people of lloslon were industriously fostering any spirit of dissatisfaction that may have arisen. During his stay at Plymouth he spent much time with the Indians, and succeeded in so far mastering their language as to be able to converse freely with them and afterward to write "The Key into the Language of America," which he hoped might prove an important aid in the evangelization of the natives of the entire continent. His friendship with the Indians was afterward of incalculable advantage not only to himself but to his fellow-colonists. " My soul's desire," he wrote

^

some time afterward," mi to do the natives good. God was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit to lodge with them in their filthy, smoky holes, even when 1 lived at Plymouth and Salem, to gain their tongue." So great was his influence over them that if he had been bent on making mere nominal Christians of them, he .could, he thought, have baptized whole tribes.

In August, 1634, he was invited to succeed Skelton In the pastorate of the Salem church, having since his arrival served ns assistant pastor. The Boston authorities remonstrated, and a struggle ensued that resulted in Williams's banishment in the midst of winter, January, 1636. Befriended by the Indians, after much hardship he reached Narragansett Bay, where he secured land from the Indians and established a colony on the principle of absolute liberty of conscience.

The controversy of Roger Williams with the Massachusetts authorities that led to his banishment, and the literary controversy that was carried on between Williams and Cotton some years after the former had established .1 colony of his own, are matters of such importance in themselves, and have been the occasion of so much partisan writing on the part of Baptists and the defenders of the standing order alike, that a clear statement of the facts seems here desirable. It need scarcely be said that the idea of liberty of conscience, though it had been advocated, as we have seen, by the antipedobaptists of the sixteenth century, and though it had been set forth with the utmost distinctness and emphasis by the General Baptists of England during the twenty years just preceding Williams's controversy with the New England authorities, had not dawned upon the minds of the men of Massachusetts Bay. If anybody felt impelled to teach or practice anything nt variance with the teachings and practices of the standing

order, the world was wide and there was room enough outside of the jurisdiction of the company ; inside he could not remain. The year after Williams's arrival (1632) it was enacted that, " to the end that the body of the cum -mons may be preserved of honest and good men, ... for the time to come no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same." Exclusion from a church meant loss of citi/unship, and the (leneral Court was ready to execute ecclesiastical censures, Wc can scarcely conceive of a more perfect equipment for the exercise of tyranny and the violation of conscience than existed in this small community thus thcocratically organized. That this theocratic legislation was not a dead letter on the statute-book wc shall soon sec.

It must be admitted, on the other band, that men of convictions and conscience are not always the most agreeable members of society. The man who concentrates his attention upon one or two matters that seem to the great body of his contemporaries of minor moment, and advocates his peculiar views in such a way as to cause division and to bring the community into bad repute, can scarcely expect to be cordially treated in any age or in any land. The man who is travailing in spirit with a great revolutionary idea is likely to do far less than justice to other ideas and to existing institutions, and to act without regard to immediate consequences, Roger Williams was a man of profound convictions on a particular class of subjects. To us the importance of some of the matters upon which be fixed Ins attention is manifest; but we arc forced to admit thai he was often extreme and inconsiderate in the pressing of his convictions, The vast importance of the absolute separation of church and state, of complete separation from an apostate church, and of absolute liberty

of conscience, had completely mastered hU soul, and considerations of expediency were as dust in the balance in comparison. We can do him full honor for his consistent advocacy of these principles in season and out of season, without being unduly severe in our judgment of his opponents and persecutors.

Let us look more particularly at the points in which he came in conflict with the standing order:

1. He was an ardent separatist, regarding the Church of England as utterly apostate, and considering it a sin to have any sort of communion with it—a sin so grievous as to place those guilty of it, or who had fellowship with those guilty of it, outside the pale of his fellowship. This view he remorselessly pressed, from the date of his arrival till that of his expulsion, at great self-sacrifice and to the unspeakable discomfort of those who did not sec eye to eye with him in this matter.

2. He was radically and unalterably opposed to the charter of the company, and regarded the colony as committing an enormous sin in living under it. He insisted on having it returned to King Charles without delay as an accursed thing. In his opinion it contained " matter of falsehood and injustice—falsehood in making the king the first Christian prince who had discovered these parts, and injustice in giving the country to his English subjects which belonged to the native Indians." According to his own account of the matter, written some years later, he and others—" not a few "—were convinced of " the sin of the patents, wherein Christian kings (so called) arc invested with right, by virtue of their Christianity, to take and give away the lands of other men; as also the unchristian oaths swallowed down at their coining forth from Old England, especially in the superstitious Laud's time and domineering. And I know these thoughts so deeply afflicted the

soul of the discusser, in the time of his walking in the way of New England's worship, that he at last came to a persuasion that such sins could not be expiated without returning again into England, or a public acknowledgment and confession of so-and-so departing. To this purpose, before his troubles and banishment, he drew up a letter (not without the approbation of some of the chief of New England, then tender also upon this point before Gnd) directed unto the king himself, humbly acknowledging the evil of that part of the patent which respects the donation of land, etc. This tetter and other endeavors (tending to wash off public sins and. above all. to pacify and give glory unto God) it may be that counsels from flesh and blood suppressed." From Governor Winthrop's account it appears that Williams charged King James with blasphemy for calling Europe Christendom, and applied to King Charles some of the most opprobrious epithets in the Apocalypse. To this, among other causes. Williams attributed his banishment. When we reflect upon the extreme danger in which the colony stood from unfriendly interference on the part of the home government, it is easy to realize the consternation into which the utterance of such sentiments, and especially the proposal to write the king in person, setting fortIi the iniquity of the patent, must have thrown the responsible leaders of the colony. The ordinary arguments by which the appropriation of lands occupied by savage peoples was defended and is still defended were used i.i vain on liogcr Williams. The representation of the fearful peril lo which he was exposing the colony made no impression whatever upon him. Conscience was uttering its voice, and it should not, in him at least, go unheeded.

.V Equally strong and unalterable were his convictions against the administration of oaths to the nil regenerate,

and the inviting of such to join in prayer or in any act of worship. To protect itself against disloyal persons who were likely to cause disharmony in the colony and to send slanderous and injurious reports to England, it was decided soon after Williams's arrival to administer an oath of fidelity to the people indiscriminately. Most vehemently did Williams oppose the oath, " partly," according to John Cotton, " because it was Christ's prerogative to have his office established by oath; partly because an oath was a part of God's worship, and God's worship was not to be put upon carnal persons, as he conceived many of the people to be." " So by his tenet," Cotton proceeds, " neither might church-members nor other godly men take the oath, because it was the establishment, not of Christ, but of mortal men in their office; nor might men out of the church take it, because in his eye they were but carnal." Such sturdy opposition to a favorite measure did not tend to gain for Williams the favor of the court, especially as that self-respecting body felt itself obliged thereby " to desist from that proceeding."

4. But the immediate and probably the most influential causes of Williams's banishment were his defiant attitude toward the court and the leading churches of the colony in accepting the pastorate of the Salem church against their earnest and oft-repeated protest, and the proceedings of the Salem church and colony under his direction with reference to a certain piece of land. Salem colonists petitioned the Massachusetts Hay Court for a tract of land near Marblchcad to which they considered themselves entitled. What more natural than that the court should make its favorable action conditional on the church's making amends for its insolent conduct in installing Williams as pastor against the remonstrance of court and ministers? Do we wonder that Williams and his church were thoroughly in-

dignant at this undisguised attempt to influence church action by a bribe? Wisely or unwisely, they framed a red-hot denunciation of the procedure, and sent it to the other churches, calling their attention to the grievous sin committed by their members, the magistrates. The aim of the Salem church would seem to have been to induce the churches to compel the magistrates, by disciplinary means, to tieal righteously or else to vacate their offices. Williams has been charged with inconsistency in being a party to such an admonition; but it is not clear why the Salem church was not justified in appealing to sistcr-churches to discipline members that had committed grievous wrong. It was not against magistrates as such, but against offending church-members, that the complaint was uttcretl. lttit however justifiable the procedure may have been, it was certainly in the highest degree impolitic The churches and magistrates were irritated thereby beyond measure, and proceeded to labor so vigorously with the offending church as to induce a majority to abandon their heroic pastor and to consent to his removal. Williams on his part was led to denounce in scathing language the Massachusetts churches, and to renounce communion with them. Further, he would have no fellowship with the Salem church unless it would join him in denouncing and disfellowshiping the other churches. A majority of the members refusing so to do, he never entered the church again, but held services in his own house with such as were faithful to his principles,

The decision to banish Williams was not hastily reached. Indeed, if we bear in mind the court's freedom from conscientious scruples as to the employment of force in matters of religion, and the pertinacity with which Williams advocated views regarded as unsettling and dangerous, we can scarcely fail to admire the forbearance of this body.

THE BAPTISTS. [I'm. i.

The processes that resulted in his banishment extended over more than a year. In December, 1634, Williams was summoned to appear before the next session of the court, to be held in the following March. The charges preferred were those of preaching against the charter, and his " usual terming of the Church of England antichris-tian." John Cotton, the Boston minister, persuaded the court "to forbear civil prosecution " until the ministers should have " dealt with him in a church way to convince him of sin." Meanwhile arose the difficulty as to the freeman's oath already referred to. He was arraigned before the court and, in the opinion of his opponents, though by no means in his own, " confuted" by the ministers. But the court was not prepared even yet to adopt extreme measures. At about this time (May, 1635) the Salem church, in defiance of the court and the ministers, proceeded to make Williams full pastor. Williams was no doubt encouraged by this show of confidence to continue his sharp denunciations of charter and oaths. In July he was again summoned to court, and charged with advocating opinions dangerous to the common welfare. Besides the matters already mentioned, he is charged with maintaining " that a man ought not to pray with the unregenerate," and . " that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament nor after meat." The controversy about the Marhlehead land followed. A decree of banishment was issued October 19, 1635, to take effect within six weeks. A severe illness, contracted while attending court, prevented the carrying out of the decree within the appointed lime, and Williams was permitted to remain until spring, provided he would abstain from teaching his peculiar views, It transpired, however, that his sympathizers were in the habit of gathering at his house, ami that he was disregarding the restriction. Arrangements were made to

ClIAl-. I.]

XOCM/f WILLIAMS, t,\f

seize him and transport him to England, where he might experience the tender mercies of Laud. Forewarned, he took refuge in the wilderness, lie made his way to hi-. Indian friends, who shared wilh him such comforts as they had. " I was sorely tossed for one fourteen weeks," he wrote some time afterward, " not knowing what bread or bed did mean." He complains bitterly in another writing of having been " exposed to winter miseries in a howling wilderness." He firmly believed that if he hail perished in hia w'tliiurncsH ***"■■*'•— ! >: - ■•' * '-' ' ■

inconceivable. The following extracts set forth succinctly his view of the relations of church and state :

•■ The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul, or else that and those which he is persuaded are false. Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it: First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, . . . with a tender respect for truth and the professors of it Secondly, pcrsomtl submission of his own soul to the |K>\vcr of the Lord Jesus in the spiritual government and kingdom. Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart or met together, as also of their estates, from violence and injury. ... If it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate doth not dare adjoin, yet) he owes: First, (icrmission (for approbation he owes not to that which is evil). . . . Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any."

Here we have the gist of his contention expressed in his own words. How ably and how voluminously he defended the principles involved, by means of Scripture, history, and reason, any one can sec who will take the trouble to read "The Moody Tcnent of Persecution," " The Bloody Tenant Yet More Bloody," and other minor treatises of his bearing on this subject

Some time after Williams's banishment the learned and pious John Cotton felt it his duty to make one more effort to convert him from the error of his ways. In a long letter, afterward published, he attempted to justify the New England state-church arrangement, and the employment of the civil magistracy for the execution of ecclesias-

tical censures. He refused to admit that Williams had been hardly dealt with, and sought to throw the entire responsibility upon Williams himself. He even attributed the severe illness Williams suffered just after the decree of banishment to God's displeasure with his conduct, and suggested that he should consider banishment from a country with whose inhabitants he could have no religious fellowship a blessing rather than a hardship. Williams's somewhat caustic answer to this letter was published soon afterward. Cotton published an elaborate rejoinder, in which he ransacked the Scriptures for materials to be used in justifying the union of church and stale and the punishment of religious delinquencies by the civil magistracy. His principal reliance was, of course, on the Old Testament; but by unnatural and forced interpretations he sought to bring a number of New Testament passages to the support of his position. He appealed, moreover, to history, and endeavored to show therefrom the utter impracticability of taiistz/aire in religion. I le sought, also, to vindicate his own consistency in separating from the Church of Kngland and in denouncing the Laudian regime, and yet in New Kngland refusing toleration to those who differed from him. This called forth Williams's famous " Woody Tencnt of Persecution," already mentioned. Cotton replied in " The Woody Tencnt of Persecution Washed in the Wood of the Lamb." Williams rejoined in the most voluminous of all his works," The Woody Tencnt Yet Mure Woody, by Mr. Cotton's Kndeavor to Wash it White in the Wood of the I-imb, of whose Precious Wood, spilt in the Blood of His Servants, and of the Wood of Millions spilt in former and later Wars for Conscience' sake, that most Woody Tencnt of Persecution for cause of Conscience, upon a second Trial, is found now more apparently and more notoriously guilty."

J2 THE HAI'TISTS. ' (ft». U

It will be impracticable fur us to follow Roger Williams in the intricacies of his argument through his thousand pages. A few quotations bearing upon one or other aspect of the great question of religious liberty must suffice. Me speaks of " that body-killing, soul-killing, and state-killing doctrine of not permitting but persecuting all other consciences and ways of worship but his own in the civil state, and so, consequently, in the whole world, if the power or empire were in his [Cotton's] hand." Again: " Soul yokes, soul oppression, plundering*, ravishiugs, etc., are of a crimson and deepest dye, and 1 believe the chief of Kngland's sins, unstopping the vials of Kngland's present sorrows." "Only two things," he writes, "I shall humbly suggest ... as the greatest causes, fountains, and tap-roots of all the indignation of the Most High against the state anil country: Pint!, that the whole nations and generations of men have been forced (though unregenerate and unrepentant) to preletid anil assume the name of Christ Jesus, which only belongs, according to the institution of the Lord Jesus, to truly regenerate and repenting souls. Secondly, that all others dissenting from them, whether Jews or Gentiles, their countrymen especially (for strangers have a liberty), have not been permitted civil cohabitation in this world with them, but have been distressed and persecuted by them." Again: " The greatest yokes yet lying oil Knglish necks are of a spiritual anil soul nature." " This tenet of the magistrates' keeping the church from apostatizing, by practicing civil force upon the consciences of men, is so far from preserving religion pure that it is a mighty bulwark or barricade to keep out all true religion; yea, and all godly magistrates for [from?] ever coming into the world." Here is a fine bit of sarcasm: " Are the armories of the true King Solomon, Christ

any courage or skill to withstand sufficient!; a false teacher, a false prophet, a spiritual c ceivcr?" " If the elders ami churches and Christ have such need of the civil sword fc tenance and protection (I mean in spiritual the Lord Jesus cannot be excused for not either to express this great ordinance in his > mcnt, or else to have furnished the civil stal thereof with ability and hearts for this the and employment, to which he hath called th As a founder of a State no less than as a a great principle Roger Williams deserves and respect of all lovers of religious and civi it is the glory of the Baptists that the fit founded on the principle of absolute liberty was founded by a man who then and through qucnt life was one of the staunchest advoa mental Baptist principles, and who, shortly effected an organization of the body politic to introduce believers' baptism and to orga of baptized believers. Professor Masson civic part of Williams's life-work as M the o a community on the unheard-of principle oi

THE BAPTISTS.

[Put. |,

dcnce and the three Rhode Island towns, i mouth, and Warwick, united under the cha of laws, democratic in spirit and providin conscience, was adopted. A fuller account actions will be given in a subsequent chapt Difficulties arose again about 1651, owinj tion of William Coddington, supported by setts authorities. Accompanied by John of the Newport Baptist church and one < flucntial men in the colony, Williams agai Kn gland in the interests of his fellow-citiz< was now at the head of the government, ai proved entirely successful. After the res Stuarts it was thought best to secure a ro thus to put the colony on a footing of co with Massachusetts. It must be admitted ing a party to the securing of a royal char liams virtually receded from the radical po.* charters for which he contended so pcrti in Massachusetts, and which constituted o causes of his banishment. The staunch* Williams would hardly seek to justify his with respect to charters, oaths, rigorous « the unretrenerate in pravcr and other rclii

sary for preserving the colony from anarchy and from subjugation by the stronger colonies. *

.« %.t i» t ■ .■

KOlitlH U/UJ.IM.S.

of tlic doctrine of liberty of conscience. It is only fair that side by side with his statement of this great principle we should place his own caveat against unwarranted applications thereof:

" That ever 1 should speak or write a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience [as that it is blood-guiltiness, and contrary to the rule of the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors against the public or private weal] is a mistake, and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred. To prevent such mistakes I at present shall only propose this case: There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common ; and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or an luimati combination, or society. It hath fallen out sometimes that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship. Upon which snpposal I affirm that all the liber'.y of conscience that ever I pleaded for turns upon these two hinges: that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practice any. I further add that I never denied that notwithstanding this liberty the commander of this ship ought to command the ship's course; yea. and also command that justice, peace, anil sobriety be kept and practiced, both among the seamen anil all the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to pay their freight; if any refuse to help in person or purse toward the common charges or defense; if any refuse to obey the c<" "ion laws and orders of (he ship, concerning their com., in peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders and

;8 TUB BAPTISTS. [Ptiu u

Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, no laws nor or* dcrs, no corrections nor punishments—I say: I never denied but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their deserts and merits."

This statement as to the limitation of the application of the doctrine of liberty of conscience was made after many years of trying experience as governor and chief citizen in a new colony, which by reason of the liberal basis on which it was constituted became the resort of some of the most desperate agitators against all civil and religious order, the triumph of whose principles would have completely subverted the basis on which the community was founded. At the same time this view of the matter forbids that we should censure too severely the Massachusetts authorities for seeking to preserve the ecclesiastical and civil order to establish which they had left Kngland, and which they supposed would be jeopardized by the toleration of such teachings as those of Williams before his banishment, or those of the Baptists and Quakers, which they thoroughly misunderstood, and which they honestly supposed to be fraught with the greatest dangers to the commonweal. While we must accord all honor to Roger Williams for advocating liberty of conscience in all its length and breadth at a time when he was almost alone among men of his class and condition in grasping this fundamental gospel principle, we must beware of looking with contempt on men like Cotton and Mather and Hooker and Winthrop for following Luther and Melanchthon and Calvin and Knox, of the Reformation time, and the great contemporary theologians of Europe, in regarding the doctrine of liberty of conscience as utterly impracticable and as sure to result in civil and religious anarchy.

vet: ,*'i -<*~t~ .-tw '- -' "• - ■ •"

e£ /- &,& m - £+-r v «r t ? ** ' •.

CHAPTER II,

ROGER WILLIAMS AND THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN AMERICA,

It remains to consider Roger Williams's rotation to tlic K Baptists, The great principle of absolute liberty of con-

5 science, which Itaptists had been almost alone in advocat-

j ing since the early years of the I'rotestant Revolution, he

I • adopted, wrought out in all its consequences, and embodied

! in the constitution of the colony which he founded. The

principle of separatism from the corrupt state churches seemed to him logically to involve ihe Baptist position. lie firmly believed that the prchttical Church of England was an apostate church, and that true believers should have no fellowship whatever with such a church. He repudiated with the utmost decision ordinances administered by an apostate church, as well as its worship and teachings. He insisted with vehemence on regenerate church-membership. I lis repudiation of Church of Knojand ordinances involved, from his point of view, the repudiation of the baptism that he anil others had received in this communion. His insistence on regenerate membership involved the rejection of infant baptism. Having become convinced that these consequences were involved in his position, he was too faithful to his convictions not to go where logic led. Accordingly, about March, 1650, two years after his banishment, he repudiated the baptism he had received in infancy, and was immersed by Kzekiel llolliman, who be-

So THE BJPTiSTS. [Pit. L

fore he left Massachusetts had shown a strong Inclination toward Baptist principles. Williams then proceeded to baptize Holliman and eleven others. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in the New World. It may be of interest to note that the organization of this first Baptist church in America was only about five years later than that of the first Particular Baptist church in England under the leadership of John Spilsbury, and that the introduction of immersion by Williams was three years in advance of its introduction among the Baptists of England. 1

Precisely what personal influence was brought to bear upon Roger Williams to lead him to take this step is uncertain. Winthrop attributes his antipedobaptist views to the influence of Mrs. Scott, a sister of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, the famous antinomian agitator. It can scarcely be doubted that he was already familiar with Baptist principles as held by English Baptists, and his familiarity with the Dutch language would make it unreasonable to suppose that he was wholly ignorant of the Mennonites and their principles.

It is, of course, a matter of regret to Baptists that Roger Williams was not able to rest in what he had done in the direction of restoring the ordinances whose valid administration had, in his opinion, been lost through apostasy. Like John Smyth, the founder of the English General Baptists, he soon began to doubt the wnrrantnhlcncss of thus introducing anew believers' baptism. lie had no question whatever as to the proper subjects or the act of baptism. The only question that concerned him was that of the validity of administration. If the church had never apostatized believers' baptism would have been continued

' Contemporary itMimony la <

and would have been obligatory. Rut the ordinance having been lost, he doubted whether it could be restored apart from a special (miraculous) divine authorization. He seems to have hoped that such might hereafter be vouchsafed. Until then he could only occupy the position of a

From his vigorous, almost atrocious, polemics against the "^ Quakers, it is evident that he had no sympathy whatever with their grounds for the disuse of the ordinances. Equally decided was his antagonism to the mystical (semi-pantheistic) antinomianism of the time. In his old age (1676), in his writing against the Quakers, referring evidently to the Baptists, who by this time had greatly increased in numbers and influence both in England and in America, he remarks: " After all my search and examinations and considerations ... I do profess to believe that some come nearer to the first primitive churches and the institutions and appointments of Christ Jesus than others; as in many respects, so in that gallant and heavenly and fundamental principle of the true matter of a Christian ' congregation. Hock, or society—viz., actual believers, true disciples and converts, living stones, such as can give some account how the grace of God hath appeared unto them and wrought that heavenly change in them. If my soul could find rest in joining unto any of the churches professing Christ Jesus, now extant, I would readily and gladly do it." This is substantially in accord with the following earlier declaration (1643): "The two first principles and foundations of true religion, or worship of the true God in Christ, are repentance from dead works and faith toward God, before the doctrines of baptism or washing and the laying on of hands, .which continue the ordinances and practices of worship; the want of which I conceive is the banc of millions of souls in England, and all other nations professing to be Christian nations, who are brought by public authority to baptism and fellowship with God in ordinances of worship, before the saving work * of repentance and a true turning to God." We may be sure that if he had seen his way to the founding of a denomination more apostolic than the Haptlst, and with