tween the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, and the Independents, which we shall not resume. Our object is merely, to supply a little additional information respecting a class of professors whom he appears to have overlooked or neglected as unworthy of his notice; and to do this, it may not be amiss to look back a little, and glance at the aspect which the laws of the country bear towards the Baptists in particular.

The great increase of the Baptists seems to have provoked the Presbyterians, who were now the ruling party, to a very high degree; and the same spirit of intolerance which the Episcopalians had manifested towards the Puritàns, was now exhibited by them against all dissenters from what they, who could now prove the divine right of presbytery, were pleased to decree. The whole of their conduct, in respect of those who differed from them, shews what Milton said to be true; that "New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large."

Their spirit of intolerance may be learned from the history of those times, and especially from some acts of the government. On May 26, 1645, the lord-mayor, court of aldermen, and common-council, presented a petition to parliament, commonly called "The City Remonstrance," in which they desired, "that some strict and speedy course might be taken for the suppressing all private and separate congregations; that all Anabaptists, Brownists, heretics, schismatics, blasphemers, and all other sectaries, who conformed not to the public discipline established or to be established by parliament, might be fully declared against, and some effectual course settled for proceeding against such persons; and that no person disaffected to presbyterial government, set forth or to be set forth by parliament, might be employed in any place of public trust.”*

This remonstrance was supported by the whole Scotch nation, who acted in concert with their English brethren, as appears by a letter of thanks to the lord-mayor, aldermen, and common-council, from the general assembly, dated June 10, 1646, within a month after the delivery of the remonstrance. The letter commends their courageous appearance against sects and sectaries; their firm adherence to the covenant, and their maintaining the Presbyterian

* Crosby, vol. 1. p. 184.

government to be the government of Jesus Christ! It beseeches them to go on boldly in the work they had begun, till the three kingdoms were united in one faith and worship. At the same time they directed letters to the parliament, beseeching them also in the bowels of Jesus Christ to give to him the glory due to his name, by an immediate establishment of all his ordinances in their full integrity and power, according to the covenant. Nor did they forget to encourage the assembly at Westminster to proceed in their zeal against sectaries, and to stand boldly for the sceptre of Jesus Christ against the encroachments of earthly powers.

The arguments which this grave assembly used, to withhold from others the blessing of Christian liberty, came with a bad grace from men who had as earnestly pleaded for the privilege, while they were smarting under the lash of the prelates. "To comply with this request [of granting toleration], would open a gap for all sects to challenge such a liberty as their due: this liberty is denied by the churches in New-England, and we have as great right to deny it as they. This desired forbearance will make a perpetual division in the church, and be a perpetual drawing away from the churches under the rule. Upon the same pretence, those who scruple infant baptism may withdraw from their churches, and so separate into another congregation; and so in that some practice may be scrupled, and they separate again. Are these divisions and subdivisions as lawful as they are infinite? Or must we give that respect to the errors of men's consciences so as to satisfy their scruples by allowance of this liberty to them? Scruple of conscience is no cause of separation, nor doth it take off causeless separation from being schism, which may arise from errors of conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reason: therefore we conceive the causes of separation must be shewn to be such, ex natura rei, as will bear it out; and therefore we say that granting the liberty desired will give a countenance to schism."

Many instances of this spirit might be adduced; but we shall only notice the following. A work was published by the assembly in 1650, entitled, "A Vindication of the Presbyterial government and ministry; with an exhortation to all ministers, elders, and people, within the province of London, &c. Published by the ministers and elders

met together in a provincial assembly. George Walker, moderator; Arthur Jackson and Edmund Calamy, assessors; Roger Drake and Elidad Blackwell, scribes..

This work contains the following expressions:-"Whatsoever doctrine is contrary to godliness, and opens a door to libertinism and profaneness, you must reject it as soul poison such is the doctrine of a universal toleration in religion." The ministers in the different parts of the country seem to have been of the same mind. Those in Lancashire published a paper in 1648, called "The harmonious consent of the Lancashire ministers with their brethren in London ;" in which they say, "A toleration would be putting a sword into a madman's hand; a cup of poison into the hand of a child; a letting loose of madmen with firebrands in their hands, and appointing a city of refuge in men's consciences for the devil to fly to; a laying a stumbling-block before the blind; a proclaiming liberty to the wolves to come into Christ's fold to prey upon the lambs: neither would it be to provide for tender consciences, but to take away all conscience."*

We turn away with disgust from these intolerant sentiments, and rejoice that the attempt has been made, and that none of the predicted effects have ensued.

It was very common at this time for the enemies of the Baptists to represent the practice of immersion as indecent and dangerous, and to argue that it could not be according to divine authority, because a breach of the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill;" and the divine declaration, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." Who would have thought that Mr. Richard Baxter could have expressed himself in language like the following? 66 My sixth argument shall be against the usual manner of their baptizing, as it is by dipping over head in a river, or other cold water. That which is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' is no ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin. But the ordinary practice of baptizing over head and in cold water, as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, therefore it is no ordinance of God, but a heinous sin. And as Mr. Cradock shews in his book of gospel liberty, the magistrate ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his subjects-That this is * Crosby, vol. 1. p. 190.

flat murder, and no better, being ordinarily and generally used, is undeniable to any understanding man—And I know not what trick a covetous landlord can find out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new fines and heriots, likelier than to encourage such preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists. I wish that this device be not it which countenanceth these men: and covetous physicians, methinks, should not be much against them. Catarrhs and obstructions, which are the too great fountains of most mortal diseases in man's body, could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, or to increase them where they are. Apoplexies, lethargies, palsies, and all other comatous diseases, would be promoted by it. So would cephalalgies, hemicranies, phthises, debility of the stomach, crudities, and almost all fevers, dysenteries, diarrhoeas, colics, iliac passions, convulsions, spasms, tremors, and so on. All hepatic, splenetic, and pulmonic persons, and hypochondriacs, would soon have enough of it. In a word, it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burdensome, and to ranken churchyards-I conclude, if murder be a sin, then dipping ordinarily over head in England is a sin; and if those who would make it men's religion to murder themselves, and urge it upon their consciences as their duty, are not to be suffered in a commonwealth, any more than highway murderers; then judge how these Anabaptists, that teach the necessity of such dipping, are to be suffered.—My seventh argument is also against another wickedness in their manner of baptizing, which is their dipping persons naked, which is very usual with many of them, or next to naked, as is usual with the modestest that I have heard of-If the minister must go into the water with the party-it will certainly tend to his death, though they may escape that go in but once. Would not vain young men come to a baptizing to see the nakedness of maids, and make a mere jest and sport of it ?"*

It is with pleasure we give a place to the reflections of the late venerable Abraham Booth on these remarks, which certainly merited severe animadversion, especially as they were published at a time when, as the sequel will shew, they were calculated to produce some serious consequences * Baxter's Plain Scripture Proof, p. 134-137.

towards those who were in the practice of baptizing by im mersion.

"Were this representation just (says Mr. Booth), we should have no reason to wonder if his following words expressed a fact: I am still more confirmed that a visible judgment of God doth still follow anabaptizing wherever it comes.' It was not without reason, I presume, that Mr. Baxter made the following acknowledgment: 'I confess my style is naturally keen.' I am a little suspicious also that D. Owen had some cause to speak of his writings as fol lows:-' I verily believe that if a man who had nothing else to do, should gather into a heap all the expressions which in his late books, confessions, and apologies, have a lovely aspect towards himself, as to ability, diligence, sincerity, on the one hand; with all those which are full of reproach and contempt towards others, on the other; the view of them could not but a little startle a man of so great modesty, and of such eminency in the mortification of pride, as Mr. Baxter is.' Hence we learn that the Baptists are not the only persons who have felt the weight of Mr. Baxter's hand; so that if a recollection of others having suffered under his keen resentment can afford relief, the poor Baptists may take some comfort, and it is an old saying,

Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris.

"Before I dismiss this extraordinary language of Mr. Baxter (adds Mr. Booth), it is proper to be observed, that the charge of shocking indecency, which he lays with so much confidence against the Baptists of those times, was not suffered by them to pass without animadversion. No, he was challenged to make it good: it was denied, it was confuted by them. With a view to which Dr. Wall says, The English Antipædobaptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr. Baxter for his saying that they baptized naked; for if they had, it had been no more than the primitive Christians did.' But surely they had reason to complain of misrepresentation; such misrepresentation as tended to bring the greatest odium upon their sentiment and practice. Besides, however ancient the practice charged upon them was, its antiquity could not have justified their conduct, except it had been derived from divine command, or apostolic example; neither of which appears.'

* Pædobap. Exam, vol. 1. p. 263-265.