survived these calamities, it does not appear at what period he was released from prison. Previous to his total separation from the church of England, he spent nine months in studying the grounds of conformity and nonconformity; and held a disputation with Messrs. Dod, Hildersham, and Barbon, on the points of conformity, and the use of prescribed forms of prayer.+ He was preacher in the city of Lincoln, and afterwards beneficed at Gainsborough. In the county of Lincoln, and on the borders of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, the principles of the Brownists gained considerable ground. Two churches were formed, over one of which Mr. Smyth was chosen pastor; and over the other Mr. Richard Clifton, who was succeeded by Mr. John Robinson. After enduring numerous hardships and incessant persecution from the high commission, they fled from the storm, and went to Holland. Mr. Smyth and his followers settled at Amsterdam, in the year 1606, and joined themselves to the English church at that place, of which Mr. Francis Johnson was pastor, and Mr. Henry Ainsworth teacher. It was not long, however, before a very serious breach took place. The subjects of debate, which gave rise to this division, were certain opinions very similar to those afterwards espoused by Arminius. Mr. Smyth maintained the doctrines of freewill and universal redemption; opposed the predestination of particular persons to eternal life; as also the doctrine of original sin; and maintained that believers might fall from that grace which would have saved them, had they continued in it. He seems, indeed, to have entertained some very singular notions: as, the unlawfulness of reading the scriptures in public worship; that no translation of the Bible was the word of God; that singing the praises of God in verses, or set words, was without authority; that flight in time of persecution was unlawful; that the newcreature needed not the support of scripture and ordinances, but was above them; and that perfection was attainable in this life.§ Mr. Smyth differed also from his brethren on the subject of baptism. The Brownists, who denied the church of England to be a true church, maintained that her ministers acted without a divine commission; and, consequently, that * Life of Ainsworth, p. 36. + Cotton's Congregational Churches, p. 7. 0.6. Prince's Chron. Hist. vol. i. p. 19, 20.-Morse and Parish's New Eng. Life of Ainsworth, p. 38. every ordinance administered by them, was null and void. They were for some time, however, guilty of this inconsistency, that while they re-ordained their pastors and teachers, they did not repeat their baptism. This defect was easily discovered by Mr. Smyth; whose doubts concerning the validity of baptism, as administered in the national church, paved the way for his rejecting the baptism of infants altogether. Upon further consideration of the subject, he was led to conclude, that immersion was the true and only meaning of the word baptism; and that the ordinance should be administered to those only who appeared to believe in Jesus Christ. But the absurdity of Mr. Smyth's conduct certainly appeared in this, that, refusing to apply to the German baptists, and wanting a proper administrator, according to his views of the ordinance, he baptized himself; on which account he was stigmatized by the name of a Se-baptist. This is related as a fact by most of our historians; and one of them affirms, that he was baptized no less than three times. Crosby has, however, taken great pains to vindicate him from the charge of having baptized himself; yet it does not appear that he has been very successful.+ Mr. Smyth's principles and conduct deeply involved him in public controversy, and soon drew upon him an host of opponents, the chief of whom were Messrs. Robinson, Ainsworth, Johnson, Jessop, and Clifton. The controversy commenced soon after his settlement at Amsterdam, and was carried on with too much asperity by both parties.# Many writers observe, that soon after this unhappy controversy broke out, Mr. Smyth and his followers removed from Amsterdam, and settled at Leyden; whereas it is extremely obvious, from the testimony of persons who lived in those times, and even in those places, that both he and his people continued at Amsterdam till the day of his death,§ which happened about the close of the year 1610. The year following appeared," A Declaration of the Faith of the English People remaining at Amsterdam, in Holland," being the remainder of Mr. Smyth's company with an appendix, giving some account of his sickness and death. *Paget's Heresiography, p. 66.—Neal's Puritans, vol. ii. p. 46.—Life of Ainsworth, p. 38-42.-Clark's Lives annexed to Martyrologie, p. 56. +Crosby's Hist. of Baptists, vol. i. p. 95–98. p. 27. Life of Ainsworth, p. 42. Cotton's Congregational Churches, p. 7.-Prince's Chron. Hist. vol. i. A copy of this declaration is still preserved. Soon after his death, his followers returned to England; and, as it is generally supposed, they were the first of those now called general baptists in this country. Mr. Smyth possessed good abilities, was a learned man, and an able preacher, but he often changed his opinions, even to the very close of life.. This, however, was undoubtedly from conviction, as he himself declared. "To change a false religion," says he, ❝is commendable, and not evil; and to fall from the profession of Puritanism to Brownism, and from Brownism to true Christian baptism, is not evil or reprovable in itself, except it be proved that we fall from true religion."+ us. Mr. Smyth and his company were certainly very much reproached by their enemies. This, as well as their defence, we have from his own pen. "We," says he, "disclaim the errors commonly, but most slanderously imputed unto We are, indeed, traduced by the world as atheists, by denying the Old Testament and the Lord's day; as traitors to magistrates, in denying magistracy; and as heretics, in denying the humanity of Christ. Be it known, therefore, to all men; first, that we deny not the scriptures of the Old Testament, but, with the apostle, acknowledge them to be inspired of God; and that we have a sure word of the prophets whereunto we ought to attend as to a light shining in a dark place; and that whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our instruction, that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope.-Secondly, we acknowledge, that, according to the precedent of Christ's disciples and the primitive churches, the saints ought, upon the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day, to assemble together to pray, prophesy, praise God, break bread, and perform other parts of spiritual communion, for the worship of God, their own mutual edification, and the preservation of true religion and piety in the church.Thirdly, concerning magistrates, we acknowledge them to be the ordinance of the Lord; that every soul ought to be subject unto them; that they are the ministers of God for our good; that we ought to pray for them that are in authority, and not speak evil of them, nor despise government, but pay tribute, custom, &c.-Finally, concerning the flesh of Christ, we do believe that Christ is the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of David, according to the prophecies of the scriptures; and that he is the son of Mary Crosby's Baptists, vol. i. and ii. Appen. + Smyth's Character of the Beast, Pref. Edit. 1610. his mother, made of her substance, the Holy Ghost overshadowing her: also that Christ is one person in two distinct natures, the Godhead and manhood; and we detest the contrary errors." His WORKS.-1. Parallels and Censures, 1609.-2. The Character' of the Beast: or, the false Constitution of the Church, discovered in certain Passages betwixt Mr. R. Clifton and John Smyth, concerning true Christian Baptism of New Creatures, or new-born Babes in Christ, and false Baptism of Infants born after the Flesh, 1610.— 3. Differences of the Churches of the Separation.-4. A Dialogue of Baptism.-5. A Reply to Mr. Clifton's Christian Plea. RICHARD CLIFTON was a person of a grave deportment, and a successful preacher, but severely persecuted for nonconformity. He was pastor to one of the Brownist churches in the north of England, and by his ministerial labours, many souls were converted to Christ. The celebrated Mr. John Robinson was a member of his church, and afterwards his successor in the pastoral office. These worthy persons' endured most cruel persecution, and for a long time were exceedingly harassed by the high commission, and were at length driven out of the kingdom. About the year 1606, Mr. Clifton removed to Holland, and settled at Amsterdam;§ where he became teacher to the church of which Mr. Francis Johnson was pastor. He carried his views of separation much farther than Mr. Robinson, and imbibed many of the opinions of Mr. John Smyth; but it appears that he was afterwards reclaimed from so rigid a separation. He is denominated the principal scribe among the separatists, and is said to have written most to the purpose in defence of separation. As his writings were published during his exile in a foreign land, we have not been able to collect the title of more than one of his pieces; which was, "A Plea for Infants and elder People concerning their Baptism; or, a Process of the Passages between M. John Smyth and Richard Clifton," 1610. Having renounced the principles of rigid separation, he wrote, as in the work just mentioned, with great warmth against Mr. Smyth. He is said to have been one of Mr. Smyth's most violent adver * Smyth's Character of the Beast, Pref. Life of Ainsworth, p. 37. > saries. Mr. Clifton was probably living when the above piece was published; but when he died we cannot ascertain. NICOLAS RUSH was fellow of Christ's college, Cambridge, and one of the preachers to the university, but persecuted for his nonconformity. In his sermon at St. Mary's church, September 10, 1609, it is said that he delivered divers opinions contrary to the religion of the established church; for which he was convened before the vice-chancellor, Dr. Jegon, and the heads of houses, and required to deliver up a copy of his sermon. Having complied with their demands, certain offensive opinions were extracted from his sermon, for which he was immediately suspended from preaching, and enjoined to make a public recantation from the pulpit of the above church. This degrading recantation, containing an account of his offensive crimes, was the following: 66 "Whereas many christian auditors, wise, godly and religious, have been offended with many things which I "not long since uttered in a sermon in this place, justly "reprehending not only my great indiscretion, presumption, " uncharitableness, rash and bold censuring, but also some "strange and erroneous opinions I then was taken to "deliver; I am now come to the same public place (after "sundry conferences had with divers grave and learned "divines of this university) to acknowledge my fault and "make satisfaction. "And, first, in my prayer, where I used very irreverent "and reproachful speech against the clergy, or some of "them, terming them gorbellied clergy; and also some "offensive speeches, which might be taken to touch autho"rity, or some attending at court, calling them devilish "parasites, in flattering and attributing overmuch to some "in higher place: upon better advice, I now acknowledge 66 my presumptuous boldness therein. Further, in that I "did then deliver three opinions in these words, viz. that "St. Paul and Moses did faulty and err in their desires, it "coming from a scourge and force of a passion too earnest " and hot, and not sufficiently bounded with the true limits "of pure charity. And also even our Saviour Christ's prayer (Father if thou wilt, let this cup pass from me, yet "not my will, but thy will be done,) came from nature only, 66 Crosby's Baptists, vol. i. p. 92. |