Page images
PDF
EPUB

this principle which gave rise to the Anabaptists in Germany; Luther having laid it down as a foundation, that the Scripture was to be the only rule of Christians."* Without en tering also on the subject of the actual origin of the Baptists, strictly so called, which would embrace too large a field for our present object, I would beg to observe, that it is highly probable Burnet's observation is correct with respect to the German Baptists; and I trust I shall not incur the charge of illiberality if I also add, that no other supposition can satisfactorily account for the rise of the Baptists at all, unless it be granted that they originated before the Christian Scriptures were published, and derived their origin immediately from Christ and his apostles.

But to return to Wickliffe. It has been supposed, and not unreasonably, that, if Wickliffe's great and just principle of appealing to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice, led others to become Baptists, he was one also. This, however, does not follow as a natural cousequence. He might not have followed up his principle to its obvious result; although in his Dialogues, written while he retained many of his popish errors, he asserts, "That children may be saved without baptism; and that the baptism of water profiteth not without the baptism of the Spirit." + I am aware that, from his speaking lightly of water baptism, and insisting on the baptism of the Spirit, it has been supposed he was rather an Antibaptist than a Baptist. If, however, we can rely on the testimony of Johannes Slechta Costelecius, who wrote a Letter to Erasmus, dated October 10, 1519, giving an account of the Hussites, it would appear that Wickliffe was not regarded as an Antibaptist by them. For, be it remembered, that John Huss was induced to commence the Reformation in Bohemia, in consequence of reading Wickliffe's writings and Costelecius says, the Hussites" believe or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the Church; such as come over to their

• Hist. Reform. II. p. 110; and Crosby's Hist. of Bap. I. p. 12.

+ Dialogues, B. iv. Ch. xi.

VOL. XIV.

sect, must every one be baptized anew in mere water."

"Waldensis, who wrote against the Wickliffites and Hussites, about 1410, affirms, that Wickliffe's followers in Scotland, and some in the bishop of Norwich's diocese did hold, that the children of believers are not to be sacramentally baptized; and that they judged it unprofitable to give children ecclesiastical baptism."* He does not state any objection as having been made by them to the baptism of adults; and from what is stated above respecting the Hussites, it would seem more natural to conclude that the Wickliffites rather objected to the baptism of infants as not being the proper subjects of the rite, than from any supposed virtue entailed on them by their parents' faith.

Mosheim says, "It is difficult to determine, with certainty, the particular spot that gave birth to that seditious and pestilential sect of Anabaptists, whose tumultuous and desperate attempts were equally pernicious to the cause of religion and the civil interests of mankind. It is most probable that several persons of this odious class made their appearance at the same time, in different countries; and we may fix this period soon after the dawn of the Reformation in Germany, when Luther arose to set bounds to the ambition of Rome."+

This may serve as a specimen of the manner in which that historian speaks of the sect under consideration. His supposition that several persons sprung up simultaneously in different countries, presupposes a cause of their springing up which he had probably sufficient reason for not wishing to bring prominently into view; but the most obvious is that which we have already seen was assigned by bishop Burnet. The Scriptures had been circulated privately, in many parts of Europe, through the instrumentality of Wickliffe and his followers. The latter had seen what were the consequences of making his sentiments known; and had therefore lain as concealed as they possibly could till they found a very considerable body

Crosby's Hist. of Bap. I. pp. 23, 24. Eccl. Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Pt, ii. PP. 445, 446.

coming forward in Germany, who professed to make the Scriptures the standard of their faith and practice.

That many whom Mosheim designates as Anabaptists, with so many harsh epithets, were guilty of numerous crimes over, which it would delight every lover of his species, and every friend of Christianity, could he cast the veil of oblivion-cannot be denied. But their excesses are too familiar to every reader of ecclesiastical history to need being recited here.

That there were many concurring causes of the excesses into which these people ran is most certain; and I shall take the liberty of stating a few of the most probable.

Luther had not only laid it down as an indisputable principle aud as a justification of his opposition to the See of Rome, that the Bible was the only standard of faith; but on the application of the Old Vaudois, (who to secure his friendship and countenance had given him an account of their faith,) had declared his disapprobation of infant baptism. "He told them, it would be better wholly to omit baptizing children, than to baptize them without faith;" quoting the saying of Christ, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."

Was it, then, unnatural that those who looked up to him as a guide, should act upon his principle when thus enforced by the authority of Jesus Christ himself? Yet upon the circumstance alone of his early followers carrying his own principles into action, did this great but self-sufficient man conceive against them a mortal hatred, and, by exercising or instigating a succession of the most arbitrary aud cruel measures, urge them on to those very excesses which have covered their names with infamy. That their first principles were not of that dangerous and pernicious tendency which he, and Mosheim in particular, attributed to them, is, I think, abundantly evident. The latter gives the following enumeration of them:

"That the church of Christ ought to be exempt from all sin-that all things ought to be common among the faithful-that all usury, tithes and tribute ought to be entirely abolished -that the baptism of infants was an invention of the devil-that every

Christian was invested with a power to preach the gospel, and consequently that the church stood in no need of ministers or pastors-that in the kingdom of Christ, civil magistrates were absolutely useless-and that God continued to reveal his will to chosen persons by dreams and visions." This outline of their opinions, given by an arrogant German ecclesiastic, might perhaps be more correctly drawn thus: That all the members of a Christian church ought to be sincere, pious and strictly virtuous-that, in imitation of the first disciples, they should be ready to minister to each other's necessities even to the extent, if requisite, of all their property being thrown into a common stock *—that if there must be a distinct class of men to fill the office of ministers, they should be supported by the voluntary contributions of their respective flocks—that the baptism of infants was not founded on Scripture authority-that he who understands Christianity has sufficient authority for teaching it—and consequently that he has no need of episcopal ordination—and, lastly, that in religious affairs, the civil magistrate ought not to interfere; or, that when Christian knowledge and Christian practice should become universal, the office of the civil magistrate would be wholly unnecessary.

Their claim to immediate divine inspiration was only the common pretence of all other parties. Certain it is, that many of their leading principles were such as will stand the test of examination, for they are founded in reason and Scripture. Their appeal to both in defiance of ecclesiastics and princes, was probably the foundation of all the rigorous measures adopted against them; for tyrants have ever regarded appeals to reason and justice as damnable and unpardonable sins. I make this remark because it would be an act of the highest injustice to these people to omit mentioning another powerful cause of the excesses into which they

ran.

"Of all the teachers of religion in Germany at this time," says Robert

In this sense the Quakers may be considered as always having had a community of goods, their poor never being allowed to suffer actual want.

86

Robinson, "the Baptists best understood the doctrine of liberty; to them therefore, the peasants turned their eyes for counsel, Catholic priests were creatures of the Pope; Lutheran priests were creatures of Luther; the first preached blind submission to the priest; the last preached the same disposition to the magistrate; with this proviso, however, that the magistrate was a Lutheran, for they called other priests worshipers of the beast." In confirmation of this superiority of the Baptists in their notions of liberty, I need only refer to the manifesto drawn up for the peasants by Muncer, when they were demanding the restoration of their natural rights. "This instrument is applauded by every writer who mentions it," adds Robinson, "as a master-piece of its kind. Voltaire says, A Lycurgus would have signed it." I will only quote the conclusion of the third article, which is thus given: They did not desire to live a licentious life, after their own sinful passions, but they woULD BE FREE, and not submit to slavery any longer, unless slavery could be proved from the Holy Scriptures." Their just demands, however, were denied them, and their noble struggle was frustrated by the combined forces of their oppressors. Had their enterprise, founded on the indisputable truth that all men are born equal, succeeded, their rebellion would have been designated patriotism, and their names enrolled among the benefactors of mankind. Aud, had their just demands been acknowledged and conceded to them, it is highly probable they would never have spilled the blood of a single individual, but have contributed rationally, benevolently and piously to disseminate the doctrines of unadulterated Christianitythe best charter of man's natural and religious rights. As these rights were refused them, surely it is only justice to say with Robert Robinson, "That, in a people in such circumstances, REBELLION WAS A VIRTUE!"

But it is time I should leave the German Baptists.* Of their immediate successors, the Mennonites, an

• See a brief Hist. of Thomas Muncer, and the German Baptists, extracted from R. Robinson's Eccl. Researches. Sold by David Eaton, Holborn, price 1s.

95

inoffensive, and, in general, a liberal and intelligent sect, many interesting particulars might be adduced; but as this would extend my essay to too great a length, I shall turu to the history of the English Baptists, which of itself embraces a very wide field. It is in fact the history of a people whose great peculiarity has been, under all the shades of sentiment by which they have been distinguished, that the Bible and the Bible only, is the religion of Christians. indeed, acknowledge this principle; All parties, for all sects, whether established or not, appeal to the Scriptures for a sanction of their peculiar dogmas. But while the Papist supports the supremacy of the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter; the Lutheran his hierarchy and consubstantiation; the Episcopalian the divine right of bishops, and the alliance of church and state; the Presbyterian the authority of elders to prescribe articles of faith, can it be justly said that an impartial appeal is made to the Bible,-that it sanctions one and all of these forms of church government? By individuals in each church it will doubtless be answered in the affirmative; and every man who thinks the church to which he belongs the only true church, has an undoubted right to maintain his opinion. But will any one of these churches allow him to read the Scriptures and judge for himself, with the liberty of declaring his dissent from any of her dogmas, without passing a censure on his heresy or excluding him from her communion, or depriving him of some civil or religious right? Certainly not. Nor have the Baptists themselves, it must be granted, failed to exhibit proofs that they also were ignorant of the true import of their justly-admired sentiment. They have frequently overlooked, or refused to recognize the consequence which naturally flows from this principle-that, if the Bible be the standard of faith and practice, it might as well be a closed book unless every man be allowed to judge of its contents for himself, and publicly avow what he believes to be truth. But having made this concession, that the Baptists, like all other sects, have fallen into the erroneous opinion, that their church was infallible though no individual would have been so acknowledged, I must

contend that the General Baptists at least have given greater scope to free inquiry, have better understood and more generally acted upon the avowed right of every man to judge for himself, than any other denomination. In assuming this as a truth, I trust I am borne out by the fact, that, in this denomination there has been a greater variety of opinion than in any other. Would the limits of my paper permit, I should endeavour to confirm the truth of this assumption by an appeal to numerous and incontest able evidences. It is, however, perhaps unnecessary; for that which I have mentioned to their honour, has been brought, by bigots of all parties, against them as a proof that their creed is founded in error, and that they are themselves wholly indifferent to the truth as it is in Jesus.

The Baptists appear to have shared very largely in all the persecutions which have been endured for conscience' sake in most parts of Europe. Their sufferings in Great Britain alone, would occupy a sufficient length for my whole paper, were I to attempt their enumeration. I must, therefore, content myself with a brief notice of them.

The "proto-martyr of the English nation (William Sawtre) is thought by some to have been a Baptist, because the Lollards, who lived in the diocese of Norwich, where this man first received and professed his notions, were (says Crosby) generally of that opinion." He was burnt in London in the year 1400, the 2nd of Henry IV., who granted a law to the clergy for the purpose of burning heretics.

Passing over the intermediate reigns, it appears that many who suffered during the reign of Henry VIII. fell victims to their denial of Pædobaptism. This may at least be inferred from many having been called on to abjure, among other heresies, their denial of its efficacy; and from the articles relating to that subject, agreed on in the Convocation which sat in June 1536. Among these articles one item is, "That it is offered unto all men, as well infants as such as have the use of reason, that by baptism they shall have the remission of

Hist. of Eng. Baptists, I. p. 21.

sius, and the grace and favour of God; according to the saying of St. John, Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit.' But here the obstinate

heretics, it seems, very naturally thought, that qui crediderit could have nothing to do with infants and because they were so heretical and blasphemous as to deny that infants could be qualified, by bettering, for baptism, it was judged to be for the honour of Almighty God, and holy mother Church, to convince them of their impiety by burning them to death!

It appears that not less than twentysix Baptists were burnt during this reign; but whether they suffered solely for denying infant baptism is uncertain. The probability, however, is, that their opinions were all regarded as damnable heresies, and that any one of them would have been thought sufficient to entitle them to the stake. From an Act of Grace passed in 1588, the Anabaptists were excepted.

In the reign of Edward VI. the only persons who were burnt were two Baptists, Joan Bocher and George Van Pare. Of the extraordinary heroism of Joan of Kent, Burnet gives a most interesting account. No borrors could affright her, no persuasions move her, no sufferings abate the constancy of her mind. Van Pare is described by Burnet as "being accused for saying, that God the Father was only God, and that Christ was not very God; he was dealt with long to abjure, but would not. So, on the 6th of April, 1551, he was condemned in the same manner that Joan of Kent was, and on the 25th of April was burnt in Smithfield. He suffered with great constancy of mind, and kissed the stake and faggots that were to burn him." +

The death of this most devout man was very naturally brought forward in the succeeding reign, as a proof that the Protestants considered heretical pravity a sufficient justification for putting men to death, however virtuous or pious they might be in their lives.

The following remark of one of the Lords of Queen Mary's council,

* Hist. of Ref. II. Pt. ii. pp. 110, &c. † Ibid. B. i. p. 190.

will sufficiently demonstrate what dangerous heretics this sect were esteemed

In the examination of Archdeacon Philpot before the lords, Nov. 6, 1555, one of them said to him, "All heretics do boast of the Spirit of God, and every one would have a church by himself; as Joan of Kent, and the Anabaptists." Poor, narrow-minded bigot! You intended to convey a censure and yon pronounced an eulogrum! Yes, Joan of Kent and the Anabaptists had learned that to which you were a stranger-they had learned to regard religion as an affair between God and their own souls, and therefore dared to think for themselves, in defiance of tyrants, of prisons, and of death in its most horrid forms.

I must pass over the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth with barely mention. ing that the reputed Anabaptists shared largely in the sufferings which were endured for conscience' sake.

a

Fox in his Latin edition mentions several who suffered in the reign of Mary, whom he omits in his English edition. This omission Crosby conjectures, with great probability, was with the view of doing more honour to the other martyrs. He was Padobaptist himself, and could per haps, therefore, hardly consider the opposers of infant baptism as entitled to be ranked among martyrs of that class which were to be held up to admiration. But it would be an act of greater injustice than his, if his supposed endeavour to save Joan Bocher, in Edward's, and two Dutch Baptists in Elizabeth's reign, from

• It is a melancholy reflection that this undaunted Protestant martyr should so imperfectly have understood the spirit of that religion for the sake of which he suffered, as to aggravate the sufferings of his fellow-prisoners by cruel tannts and invectives, calling them "men, or rather not men, but covered with man's shape, persons of a beastly understanding,-dead dogs, blasphemously barking against our Lord;”—that he should have thought it a proof of fidelity to his compassionate Saviour, to justify his having spat on an Arian, by such an exhortation as the following:- "Speak ye that have tongues to praise and confess God, against these Arians. Suffer them not to pass by you unpointed at. Refrain not to spit at such inordinate swine"!

+ Fox, p. 1578, first ed.

being burnt, were passed over in silence. His letter to the Queen will remain an everlasting monument to his own honour, and of disgrace to her who could retain her bloody purpose after reading it.

The reign of James I. is remarkable for being the last in which the law De hæretico comburendo was put in force. Two persons suffered death under this form in the year 1611, viz. Bartholomew Legate, who was a decided Unitarian, and Edward Wightman, a Baptist. The list of charges against the latter is a self-contradictory farrago; evincing the ignorance no less than the malignity of his enemies, who, it would appear, were determined to lay so many heresies to his charge, that if one were not sufficient to justify his being put to death, another might. On this man's martyrdom Crosby makes the following remark:-" The first who was put to this cruel death in England was William Sawtre, sup. posed, upon very probable grounds, to have denied infant baptism; and this man, the last who was honoured with this kind of martyrdom, was expressly condemned for that opinion: so that this sect had the honour both of leading the way, and bringing up the rear of all the martyrs who were burnt alive in England."

In the year 1614, a number of fa milies emigrated to America, hoping to find in New England that peaceable enjoyment of their religion which was denied them at home. They were known by the general name of Puritans, but appear to have consisted chiefly of Presbyterians. It is truly lamentable that men flying become persecutors: for, not only did from persecution, so soon learned to they persecute the Quakers, but also the Baptists, who had sought an asylum in that distant wilderness. Mr. Cotton Mather says, "Having done with the Quakers, let it not be misinterpreted, if, into the same chapter, we put the inconveniences which the Churches of New England have also suffered from the Anabaptists.""But at length it came to pass, that while some of our churches used, it may be, a little too much cogency towards the brethren, which would weakly turn their backs when infants were brought forth to be baptized in

* Hist. of New England, B. vii. p. 26.

« PreviousContinue »