Mr. Wilson, to become teacher of the Boston church, which call he declined because they were “an unseparated people." At Salem, as we are told, “in one year's time he filled that place with principles of rigid separation, tending to anabaptistry." His separative principles finally became so rigid that he told his church "if they would not separate, not only from the churches of Old England but the churches of New England too, he would separate from them," which he accordingly did. In 1635 he was separated from Massachusetts. This voluntary withdrawing of himself from the churches in protest against their errors was in his view or to his hope "the breath of the Lord Jesus sounding forth in him (a poor despised ram's horn) the blast which in His own holy season should cast down the strength and confidence of all those inventions of men in the worshiping of the true and living God."

PART I

THE PURITANS

THEIR RELATION TO THE ANABAPTISTS AND QUAKERS

TOUCHING the superior powers of the earth, it is not unknown to all them that hath read and marked the Scripture that it appertaineth nothing unto their office to make any law to govern the conscience in religion. . . Christ alone is the governor of His church and the only lawgiver.-John Hooper, the first Puritan nonconformist and martyr, 1555.

Gospel constitutions, in the case of heresy or error, seem not to favor any course of violence, I mean, of civil penalties. Foretold it is that heresies must be; but this for the manifesting of those who are approved, not the destroying of those that are not. . . Perhaps those who call for the sword on earth are as unacquainted with their own spirits as those that called for fire from heaven.-Dr. John Owen, 1616–1683.

The reason (for the command, Deut. 13: 10) is moral, that is, of universal and perpetual equity to put to death any apostate, seducing idolater, or heretic.—John Cotton, "Reply to Roger Williams," 1647.

I believe that antichrist hath not at this day a more probable way to advance his kingdom of darkness than by a toleration of all religions and persuasions.-Dr. Increase Mather, 1677.

It seems at first view somewhat remarkable that the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay gave their special attention to the "obstinate and turbulent Anabaptists" as early as 1644, some twelve years before they seriously noticed the "pernisouse Quakers," against whom sub

sequently they showed a special malignancy. Of course a sufficient reason for the prior attention shown to the Baptists is found in the fact that they emigrated to this country earlier than the Quakers. Cotton Mather, grandson of the famed John Cotton (born 1663), while disliking Anabaptism, yet speaks of the early Anabaptists in wholly favorable terms, and in striking contrast with the above characterization. He says: "Infant baptism hath been scrupled by multitudes in our day who have been in other points most worthy Christians, and as holy, watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people as perhaps any in the world. Some few of these people have been among the planters of New England from the beginning."1 It is a singular circumstance that several of the oldest Congregational churches in England-many of whose members early came to this country-were afflicted with what this same Cotton Mather calls "the hydrophobie of Anabaptism." The Gainsboro Church (founded 1602), of which John Smyth -"a man of able gifts and a good preacher" (Bradford)

-was pastor, and the church of John Robinson at Scrooby (founded 1606), were probably at their beginning originally one; and both these pastors with many of their people emigrated, though at different times, to Holland, where there were already many "fratres Angli in Belgia exulantes." Smyth, who, as is commonly averred, at first joined the Brownist church, of which Francis Johnson was pastor and the learned Henry Ainsworth was teacher-though Dr. H. M. Dexter states that he established a "Second English Church at

"Magnalia," Lib. II., 459.

Amsterdam "-afterward became an Anabaptist or Sebaptist, as he is commonly called.'

In the "True Story of John Smyth" will be found an interesting discussion and a flat and vehement denial of the genuineness of the wonderful "Records of the Ancient Baptist Church of Crowle," which inform us that prior to their coming to this country, nearly all the Pilgrim fathers, Carver, Brewster, Bradford, Winslow, Prince (but not John Robinson) were Baptists!

Mr. Smyth, who seems in many respects to resemble Roger Williams, has ever been regarded as a gifted man but as wanting in stability. He says, however,

1 Dr. Dexter, in his "Congregationalism as seen in its Literature," p. 319, and in his "True Story of John Smyth," has produced much seeming evidence for Smyth's self-baptism, but we must still beg leave to doubt. Smyth's own statement is that "seeing ther was no church to whome we could joyne with a Good conscience to have baptisme from them, ther for wee might baptize ourselves." At a later date when he had adopted other views, he and his new followers speak of their former error "that they began to baptize themselves"—se ipsos baptizare. But if this refers to individual self-baptism it would prove that each one of Smyth's company baptized himself, which would be proving too much; for no one supposes that each member of his church (which a writer of that time calls "a company of Se-baptists") baptized himself. Smyth furthermore maintained that it requires two at least to institute a proper church or baptism. Edward Bean Underhill, a distinguished English Baptist, advances the idea that Smyth and others, who differed from the Dutch Baptists in several particulars, were "unwilling to resort to them for baptism, and became of the opinion that it might be originated among themselves," as in the case of Roger Williams and his friends. And from this, as he supposes, originated the charge that Smyth baptized himself. See S. S. Cutting's "Historical Vindications," pp. 57-60. We may here remark that the term "anabaptism," as used in early times decides nothing as to the mode of rebaptism. Dr. Dexter maintains that Smyth, like the Mennonites, was baptized by affusion, and that even the Anabaptists in England did not practise immersion, till about the year 1641, which last assertion will not be generally believed See Dr. Armitage's "History of the Baptists," pp. 425–465.

that to "fal from the profession of Puritanisme to Brownisme, and from Brownisme to true Christian Baptisme is not simply evil or reprovable in itself, except it be proved that we have fallen from true religion." Many adhered to him in his change of views, but the greater number opposed him and charged him with being "a murderer of the souls of babes and sucklings by depriving them of the visible seal of salvation." His successor, Thomas Helwys, with his church, about the year 1611-the year in which our Common version of the Bible made its appearance-published to the world a Confession of Faith, wherein they boldly affirmed that,

The Magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle 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, injuries, and wrongs of man against man, . . . for Christ only is the king and lawgiver of the church and conscience.1

...

Helwys, we may remark, once belonged to the "ancient church of Separatists," probably to that of Gainsboro, and, according to John Robinson's statement, he more than others furthered the cause of emigration to Holland. Probably through the influence of Smyth he was led to a change of views. Robinson and others had a controversy with both Smyth and Helwys.

1 In Crosby's second volume, Appendix II., of his History of the English Baptists" is "A most Humble Supplication to King James I., published 1620," of many of his Majesty's Loyal Subjects, Unjustly called Ana-baptists," wherein they say that "no man ought to be compelled to a worship wherein he hath not faith, seeing there is but one Lord and one Lawgiver over the conscience."