the drawing up "The Declaration of Faith" of the independent baptists of Amsterdam. His reasons for leaving Amsterdam and settling in London, have been variously interpreted. Modern baptists writers, somewhat partial towards one of their early advo cates, have set him forth as a hero "actuated by motives at once pure and exalted; "* while his contemporaries were perhaps too much influenced by the prejudices which a difference of sentiments engenders. If he had been content to repair to England simply declaring that under existing cir cumstances he was convinced it was his duty to do so, no one would have blamed him. But this did not satisfy him. He must needs turn dictator to such men as Robinson, Ainsworth, Johnson, and others, asserting that it was their duty to follow his example, and terming them, "false-hearted leaders" when they refused. It is scarcely to be wondered at, that Robinson should meet this charge of recreancy, as he did in the following terms:

"The truth is, it was Mr. Helwisse who, above all, either guides or others, furthered this pas sage into strange countries, and if any brought oars he brought sails, as I could show in many particulars, and as all that are acquainted with the manner of our coming over can witness with me. Neither is it likely, if he and the people with him at Amsterdam could have gone on comfortably as they desired, that the unlawfulness of flight would ever have troubled him. But more than likely it is, that having scattered the people by his heady and indiscreet courses, and otherwise disabled himself, that natural confidence which abounded in him took occasion, under an

* Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, p. 90.

appearance of spiritual courage, to press him upon those desperate courses which he of late hath run. By which he might also think it his glory to dare and challenge King and State to their faces, and not to give way to them, no, not a foot; as indeed it far better agrees with a bold and haughty stomach thus to do, than with the apostle in the base 'infirmity' of Christ, to be 'let down through a wall in a basket,' and to run away. Where he saith, that the cities where we are neither receive us nor the word we bring, otherwise than they receive Turks and Jews, he speaks very untruly both of them and us, as, were it of use, I could show evidently. As we, then,

shall perceive either our flying or our abiding to be meet for God's glory and the good of men, especially of our family and those nearest unto us; and for our own furtherance in holiness; and as we have strength to wade through the dangers of persecutions; so we are with good conscience to use the one or other: which our hope and comfort also are, we have done in these our days of sorrow; some of us coming over by banishment, and others otherwise."* This was the right spirit, and neither Helwisse nor any one else had any warrant to prescribe what course the exiles should follow. "God's glory and the good of men" were the pole-star of the pastor of the Leyden people, as their subsequent history fully proves. Helwisse's church in London was soon scattered; but Robinson's

* Of Religious Communion, Private and Public; with the silencing of the clamours raised by Mr. Thomas Helwisse against our retaining the baptism received in England, and administering of baptism unto infants; as also a survey of the Confession of Faith, published in certain conclusions, by the remainders of Mr. Smyth's company by John Robinson (1614), pp. 41-45.

church laid the foundation of a mighty empire in the new world.

It would occupy too much space to mention the various publications issued by these parties on the one hand, and by Johnson, Clyfton, Ainsworth and Robinson on the other. Suffice it to say, that while none of them were wanting in ability, Ainsworth's and Robinson's generally bore the palm. With the views we have already expressed, it may be inferred that we deem none of them satisfactory. On particular points of the controversy, however, Robinson and Ainsworth were very successful. The reply of Robinson to Helwisse is, in many respects, a masterly production, and will be referred to again in connection with another subject. In opposition to Smyth, who made baptism the basis of the church's constitution, he argues, that "the church is not gathered, nor men thereinto admitted, by baptism. The church is not given to baptism, but baptism, on the contrary, to the church. John baptized many, but yet gathered no churches; living and dying a member of the Jewish church." The following passage on the same subject is interesting both in an historical and argumentative point of view. It refers to a matter already mentioned in the last volume.

"If the church be gathered by baptism, then will Mr. Helwisse's church appear to all men to be built upon the sand, considering the baptism it had and hath, which was, as I have heard from themselves, on this manner. Mr. Smyth, Mr. Helwisse, and the rest, having utterly dissolved and disclaimed their former church state and ministry, came together to erect a new church by baptism; unto which they also ascribed so great virtue as that they would not so

much as pray together before they had it. And after some straining of courtesy who should begin, Mr. Smyth baptized first himself, and next Mr. Helwisse, and so the rest, making their particular confessions. Now, to let pass his not sanctifying a public action by public prayer, his taking unto himself' that 'honour' which was not given him either immediately from Christ or by the church; his baptizing himself, which was more than Christ himself did;-I demand, into what church he entered by baptism? Or, entering by baptism into no church, how his baptism could be true, by their own doctrine? Or, Mr. Smyth's baptism not being true, nor he by it entering into any church, how Mr. Helwisse's baptism could be true; or into what church he entered by it ?" *

In connection with the general question, an important point arose respecting the duty of rebaptizing. Most of the exiles had been baptized in infancy according to the rites of the church of England. Smyth and Helwisse not only urged their peculiar views in respect to the exclusion of all but believers from the rite of baptism; they also pressed upon the Independents and all separatists, the duty of renouncing the baptism of England by being baptized over again. Much might be said for and against such a practice. We believe the conclusion at which the Independents arrived was, on the whole, the right one. They refused to be re-baptized. "We retain," said Robinson, "not the baptism of Babylon, but the baptism of the Lord in itself, and by the Babylonians usurped and profaned, but by faith and the Spirit now sanctified to our use. As well may the doctrines of faith there ministered, and thence brought by us, be

* Of Religious Communion, p. 48.

called stolen bread of Babylon, as baptism the 'stolen waters of Babylon.' Ainsworth took the same view. "God's ordinance," said he, "being turned into an idol or a lie, the idol is to be renounced, but the truth of the ordinance retained. Water, in popish baptism, is God's good creature; antichrist hath turned it, and the action with it, into an abominable idol. This abomination we reject; but the creature of God is of his grace sanctified unto us, and we retain it."

This last extract is from Ainsworth's reply to a work of Johnson's, entitled "A Christian Plea." In that work Johnson agrees with Robinson and Ainsworth, that baptism is not to be repeated, yet on different grounds. "Difference," he says, " is to be put between God's ordinance and man's corruptions. God's ordinance, God's baptism, is holy, and so to be acknowledged. Who dare, or can, annihilate God's ordinance for man's erroneous persuasions; or the church's corrupt ministration thereof?" Johnson maintained the same views in a previous work.* At the same time he differed from Robinson and Ainsworth in acknowledging the churches of Rome and England as true visible churches, although corrupted and fallen. Ainsworth maintained the contrary with great ability.

In a later work, published in 1623, and entitled "A Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists, etc.," Ainsworth discussed the entire question respecting baptism. Dr. Stuart in his life of Ainsworth has spoken of it as the best defence of pædo-baptism ever published. While we demur to this judgment, it must be admitted to be one of the most remarkable productions of that truly great man; replete with

* A Brief Treatise concerning Baptism of Infants, &c.