Standard Jet DBnb` Ugr@?~1y0̝cßFNa7I(,`{6 ߱nC353y[n/|*|ڥaf_Љ$g'DeFx -bT4.0dv Y S  Y   Y Y  Y Y  Y  :Y  Y  " Y % Y  Y  Y  Y 20Y  Y   Y  ;Y ConnectDatabaseDateCreateDateUpdate FlagsForeignNameIdLvLvExtraLvModule LvPropName OwnerParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypecfkYYIdParentIdName        OYS Y Y Y  Y 2ACMFInheritableObjectIdSID  AtYObjectId YSY  Y Y Y  Y @ Y Y  Y AttributeExpressionFlagLvExtra Name1 Name2ObjectId Ordernzf edY"ObjectIdAttribute -YSY Y Y  Y @ Y L Y  Y  Y Lccolumn grbiticolumnszColumnszObject$szReferencedColumn$szReferencedObjectszRelationshipLL LLL LLL LYYYszObject$szReferencedObjectszRelationshipYv1b N  : k & W  C t/ @@@@X  @@OJmJLJkQkiQ^JmYdbkWYfkmJL^Qk`kvkJMQk`kvkdL[QMmk`kvkhoQiYQk`kvkiQ^JmYdbkWYfkmdfYMbdmQk`kvkOL  @~  @ @           d k f  :@b:@Topic Notes ϒ@DDD88888886 @y:@y:@MSysRelationships DDDDDDDDDDB y:@y:@MSysQueries 88888888886 y:@y:@MSysACEs 22222222220 y:@y:@MSysObjects 88888888886 y:@y:@MSysDb .........., y:@y:@Relationships <<<<<<<<<<: y:@y:@Databases 44444444442 y:@y:@Tables .........., Y 04X4N Y Y d YID TitleComments)*+YIDv1  LVAL{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER 2 \b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 1180 - 1540\b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 The darkness which succeeded the introduction of popery was so prevalent, that, excepting the valleys of Piedmont, which were the residence of the Waldensian churches, it soon spread over the whole of Europe, and rendered invisible every trace of the simplicity of the gospel of Christ.\fs24\par \b\fs20 THE WALDENSIAN CHRISTIANS\b0 are celebrated in history for their opposition to the antichristian usurpations of the church of Rome. The learned archbishop Usher, in his book entitled \i The succession and state of the Christian Churches\i0 [p. 242], traces its succession through them, in distinction from and in opposition to the papacy. They underwent the most dreadful persecutions; and every means which malice and cruelty could invent was used to exterminate them and their principles from the earth. The crusade against them consisted of five hundred thousand men. More than three hundred gentlemen\rquote s seats were razed and many walled towns destroyed.\fs24\par \fs20 The persecutions, however, which they suffered were far from accomplishing the design of their enemies. The archbishop says, that "as the persecution about Stephen by that dispersion proved much for the furtherance of the gospel in other parts of the world, so was it here: for those that were not so fit for the war went up and down with more freedom into most parts of Europe. Insomuch that Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius II, confessed, that neither the decrees of popes, nor armies of Christians, could extirpate them."\fs24\par \b\fs20 The archbishop farther informs us, on the authority of Matthew Paris of Westminister, that "the Berengarian or Waldensian heresy had, about the year 1180, generally infected all France, Italy, and England."\b0 Guitmond, a popish writer of that time, aLVALlso says, that \b "not only the weaker sort in the country villages, but the nobility and gentry in the chief towns and cities, were infected therewith; and therefore Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, who held this see both in the reigns of William the conqueror and of his son William Rufus, wrote against them in the year 1087."\b0 The archbishop adds, from Poplinus\rquote s history of France, that "the Waldenses of Aquitain did, about the year 1100, during the reigns of Henry I and Stephen, kings of England, spread themselves and their doctrines all over Europe," and mentions England in particular. [Danvers on baptism, p. 175-178]\fs24\par \fs20 We learn from Fox, on the authority of Robert Gulsborne, that in the time of Henry II, about the year 1158, \b two eminent Waldensian preachers and barbs, Gerhardus and Dulcinus, came into England to propagate the gospel\b0 ; and archbishop Usher, from Thomas Walden, says, that "several Waldenses that came out of France were apprehended, and by the king\rquote s command were marked in the forehead with a key or hot iron." "Which sect, (says William of Newbury, in his history of England,) were called the Publicani, whose original was from Gascoyne; and who, being as numerous as the sand of the sea, did sorely infest both France, Italy, Spain, and England."\fs24\par \fs20 Rapin, in relating the transactions of the councils of Henry II, gives the following account of these people, on the authority of the above-mentioned historian. "Henry ordered a council to meet at Oxford in 1166, to examine the tenets of certain heretics, called Publicani. Very probably they were disciples of the Waldenses, who began then to appear. When they were asked in the council, who they were; they answered, they were Christians, and followers of the apostles. After that, being questioned upon the creed, their replies were very orthodox as to the trinity and incarnation. But, (adds Rapin,) if the historian is to be depended on, they rejected baptism, the eucharist, marriage, and thLVALe communion of saints. They shewed a great deal of modesty and meekness in their whole behaviour. When they were threatened with death, in order to oblige them to renounce their tenets, they only said, Blessed are they that suffer for righteousness sake." [\i History of England\i0 , vol. i. p. 350]\fs24\par \fs20 There is no difficulty in understanding what were their sentiments on these heretical points. When a monk says they rejected the eucharist, it is to be understood that they rejected the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation; when he says that they rejected marriage, he means that they denied it to be a sacrament, and maintained it to be a civil institution; when he says that they rejected the communion of saints, nothing more is to be understood than that they refused to hold communion with the corrupt church of Rome; and when he says that they rejected baptism, what are we to understand but that they rejected the baptism of infants? These were the errors for which they were branded with a hot iron in their foreheads, by those who had "the mark of the beast, both in their foreheads and in their hands." \fs24\par \fs20 Paul Stransky, \i de Republica Bohemorum\i0 , p. 272, (as quoted by David Cranz in his \i History of the United Brethren\i0 , translated by La Trobe, p. 16,) says, "the Waldenses, in 1176, arrived in Bohemia, and settled at Satz and Laun on the river Eger. These joined those Bohemians, who were still tenacious of the rites of the Greek church. They showed them the defects of their religious exercises; and introduced among them a purer knowledge of the doctrines of the Christian faith, according to the word of God. By this means the upright were confirmed in the faith, and such as were fallen asleep, again awakened."\fs24\par \fs20 "These ancient Christians," says Cranz, after having made the above quotation, "(who, besides the several names of reproach given them, were at length denominated Waldenses, from one of the their most eminent teachers PETER WALDUS who is said to havLVALe emigrated with the rest from France into Bohemia, and there to have died) date their origin from the beginning of the fourth century; when one Leo, at the great revolution in religion under Constantine the Great, opposed the innovations of Sylvester, bishop of Rome. Nay, Rieger goes farther still, taking them for the remains of the people of the Vallies, who, when the apostle Paul, as is said, made a journey over the Alps into Spain, were converted to Christ.\fs24\par \fs20 "The testimony of their enemies themselves (continues Cranz) seems to corroborate this conjecture. Sancho Reinerus, an apostate, and persecutor of the Waldenses in the thirteenth century, writes, \lquote Amongst all sects, none is more pernicious than that of the Poor of Lyons (which is another denomination of the Waldenses) for three reasons: 1. Because it is the most ancient. Some aver their existence from the days of Sylvester; others, from the very time of the Apostles. 2. Because it is so universal; for there is hardly a country into which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all others render themselves detestable by their blasphemies; but this has a great appearance of godliness, they living a righteous life before men, believing right concerning God, confessing all the articles of the creed, only hating the pope of Rome, etc."\fs24\par \fs20 "This, (says Cranz) continued above two hundred years, till 1391, when, being discovered through the imprudence of two of their preachers, they were cruelly persecuted, and, for the most part, dispersed abroad in the adjacent countries. Yet many witnesses of the truth remained in Bohemia; who, not only in private, but in the churches and schools, and in the very court-chapel at Prague, testified against the corruption in doctrine and practice, which now broke in more and more like a torrent; to which they were farther greatly encouraged by the writings of Wickliffe, brought from England by the young noblesse who studied there."\fs24\par \fs20 Roger de Hovedon, in his \i Annals\i0 , LVALsays, that in the year 1182, "Henry II was very favourable to the Waldensian sect in England; for whereas they burnt them in many places of Flanders, Italy, and France, in great numbers, he would not suffer any such thing here; and being in his own and his queen\rquote s right possessed of Aquitain, Poictou, Guien, Gascoyne, Normandy, etc. the principal places inhabited by the Waldenses and Albigenses, and they being his subjects, they had free egress into his territories here."\fs24\par \fs20 During the reigns of Richard I and king John, which were times of great trouble, we read of no opposition made against them. Richard was long absent in the holy war. John had great contests with the pope, who laid his kingdom under an interdict, and forbad all public worship for the space of six years, only admitting of private baptism to infants. This, with the opposition made to him by the barons, found him so much employment, that these Christians had no molestation, but had great opportunities for disseminating their principles; while the king by his arms defended the Waldenses and Albigenses in Aquitain and Gascoyne, who were so much oppressed by the crusading army of the pope.\fs24\par \fs20 In the reign of Henry III, archbishop Usher says, from Matthew Paris, "the orders of the Friars Minorites came into England to suppress this Waldensian heresy." And in the reign of Edward III, about the year 1315, Fuller informs us, in his ecclesiastical history, that "\b WALTER LOLLARD\b0 , that German preacher, or, (as Perrin calls him in his history of the Waldenses,) one of their barbs, came into England, a man in great renown among them; and who was so eminent in England that, as in France they were called \i Berengarians\i0 from Berengarius, and \i Petrobrusians\i0 from Peter Bruis, and in Italy and Flanders, \i Arnoldists\i0 , from the famous Arnold of Brescia; so did the Waldensian Christians for many generations after bear the name of this worthy man, being called \i Lollards\i0 ."\fs24\par \fs20 As this LVALis an historical fact of great importance for discovering the origin of those sentiments which at length produced a reformation in the kingdom, and an emancipation from the church of Rome, it is very desirable \b TO ASCERTAIN THE OPINION OF THESE ZEALOUS CHRISTIANS ON THE QUESTION OF INFANT BAPTISM\b0 , since it will furnish us with a clue by which to judge of the principles of those who were afterwards such eminent asserters of Christian liberty.\fs24\par \fs20 If the reader will turn to what is said by Dr. Gill on this subject, in the extracts prefixed to this work, he will find the opinion of William of Newbury (as recited by Rapin) confirmed, respecting their denial of baptism; that is, of infant baptism.\fs24\par \fs20 In addition to these proofs may be mentioned what is said by Chessanion, in his \i History of the Albigenses\i0 , who (he says) were of the same sentiments. "Some writers, (says he,) affirm that the Albigenses approved not the baptism of infants; others that they entirely slighted this holy sacrament, as if it were of no use either to great or small. The same may be said of the Waldenses, though some affirm that they have always baptized their children. This difference of authors kept me some time in suspense before I could come to be resolved on which side the truth lay. At last considering what St. Bernard saith of this matter in his sixty-sixth homily on the second chapter of the Song of Songs, and the reasons he brings to refute this error, and also what he wrote \i ad Hildefonsum Comitem sancti Aegidii\i0 , I cannot deny but the Albigenses for the greatest part were of this opinion. And that which confirms me yet more in this belief is, that in the history of the city of Treves there were some who denied that the sacrament of baptism was available to the salvation of infants: and one Catherine Saube, who was burnt at Montpelier, in the year 1417, for being of the mind of the Albigenses in not believing the traditions of the Romish church, was of the same mind respecting infaLVALnt baptism; as it is recorded in the register of the town-house of the said city of Montpelier, of which we shall speak at the end of the fourth book. The truth is, (continues Chessanion) they did not reject the sacrament, and say it was useless, but \b only counted it unnecessary to infants, because they are not of age to believe\b0 , nor capable of giving evidence of their faith. That which induced them, as I suppose, to entertain this opinion is, what our Lord says, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned." [Stennett\rquote s \i Answer to Russen\i0 , pp. 79,184]\fs24\par \fs20 This statement is in part at least corroborated by Dr. Wall in his \i History of infant baptism\i0 ; and, as he was desirous of establishing the contrary opinion, his concessions in our favour are certainly of weight. Speaking of the Petrobrussians, whom he calls a sect of the Waldenses, he says, "withdrawing themselves, about the year 1100, from the communion of the church of Rome, which was then very corrupt, they did reckon Infant Baptism as one of the corruptions, and accordingly renounced it, and \b practised only adult baptism\b0 .\rquote [Part II, chap. 10, p. 527]\fs24\par \fs20 Mosheim, in his \i Ecclesiastical History\i0 , speaking of Peter de Bruis, who was a celebrated itinerant preacher, and who was burnt to death by an enraged populace at St. Giles\rquote s, in the year 1130, says, "It is certain that one of his tenets was, that \b no persons whatever were to be baptized before they were come to the full use of reason\b0 ." [Vol. III, p. 116]\fs24\par \fs20 The testimony of Mr. Brandt respecting the antiquity of these churches and of their sentiments respecting baptism is of importance to our argument. He says that "the errors and crafty inventions of popery, had never been able to find a passage to those people; since being shut up in their vallies, separate from the rest of the world, and conversing chiefly among themselves, they had retained a great dLVALeal of the simplicity and purity of the Apostolical doctrine. That this antiquity of the doctrine of the Waldenses, is acknowledged even by their greatest enemies.--\b Some of them likewise rejected infant baptism\b0 ." [Brandt\rquote s \i Hist. Ref\i0 . vol. I. Book I. p. 12] \fs24\par \fs20 To corroborate this last clause many things are produced by Dr. Allix in his remarks on the ancient churches of Piedmont. "The followers of Gundulphus in Italy were many of them examined by Gerhard bishop of Cambray and Arras upon several heads in th eyar 1025. It seems as if these people were surfeited with the vicious and debauched lives of the Romish Clergy, and did rather chuse to go without any baptism, rather than have it administered by such lewd hands, or that they had agreed to have it performed privately in their own way. Let things have been as it would it is plain \b they were utterly against infant baptism\b0 ." The citation, in part of their answer, as taken by Dr. Allix out of Gerhard\rquote s preface to Reginaldus, is this, "But if any shall say, that some sacrament lies hid in baptism, the force of that is taken off by these three causes; the first is, because the reprobate life of ministers can afford no saving remedy to the persons to be baptized. The second, because whatsoever sins are renounced at the font, are afterwards taken up again in life and practice. The third, because a strange faith, and a strange confession do not seem to belong to, or be of any advantage to a little child, who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected."\fs24\par \fs20 The doctor adds the following quotation from an Inquisitor. "They contemn the sacraments of the church because of the undue and irreverent manner wherein they are celebrated by the priests, and became they set them to sale, as also, because of the wicked and scandalous lives of manyLVAL ministers." In the next paragraph the same Inquisitor lets us know the ground of this error (as he calls it) about infant baptism. "\b Some of them are in error concerning baptism, holding that infants cannot be saved by it\b0 , Mark xvi. 16, whosoever shall believe, and be baptized shall be saved. But an infant does not believe, therefore is not saved."\fs24\par \fs20 In a little time after this lived the noted Arnoldus Brixiensis, a follower of Berengarius, who eminently opposed the Romish corruptions. And amongst some notions imputed to him, it is observed, "There was yet a more heinous thing laid to his charge, which was this; that he was unsound in his judgment about the sacrament of the altar and infant baptism." [Dr. Allix, p. 293,123,172]\fs24\par \fs20 This excellent man was condemned, hanged, and his body burnt at Rome, and the ashes cast into the Tiber. But there is a letter of Everinus to St. Bernard a little before the year 1146, wherein he speaks clearly of a sect \b which approved of adult baptism upon believing, and strenuously opposed infant baptism\b0 . The words of the letter are, "They make void the priesthood of the church and condemn the sacraments besides baptism only, and this only in those who were come to age, who they say are baptized by Christ himself, whosoever be the ministers of the sacraments. They do not believe infant baptism, alleging that the place of the gospel, whosoever shall believe and be baptized, shall be saved." [Dr. Allix, p. 143,145,147]\fs24\par \fs20 The same learned gentleman gives us an extract taken by Claudius Caissord in the year 1548, out of an old MS. of Rainerius a fryer, wrote by him 296 years before, against the Waldenses wherein he has these words, "They say, that when first a man is baptized then he is received into this sect. Some of them hold, that baptism is of no advantage to infants, because they cannot actually believe." [Ibid., p. 188,191]\fs24\par \fs20 There seems to me to be reason to believe that the Lollards in England were oLVALf similar sentiments on this subject. Walter Lollard from whom they sprung, was a Waldensian barb; and I have never seen any satisfactory proof that infant baptism was practised among these Christians at this early period of their history. These, it is likely, were the first public opposers of the corruptions of the church of Rome in England, after the fatal massacre of the ancient British Christians under the direction of the pope'\rquote legate, Austin, who has been flattered with the epithet of the English Apostle, and canonized as a Saint by the church of Rome.\fs24\par \fs20 But to return to the Britons. It might be presumed that some of their descendants, either in Wales, or upon the borders of it, that is to say, in Herefordshire and the adjoining counties, would for some ages maintain the same principles with themselves. This presumption accords with fact; for the most early and most eminent Christians in England, after the conquest, are said to have been born in this part of the island. These were Bradwardine, Brute, Sir John Oldcastle, Tyndal, Penry, and others, whose histories we shall briefly relate in the course of our work. For this information we are indebted to \i A History of the Welsh Baptists,\i0 published by Mr. Joshua Thomas of Leominster, from which we shall extract interesting particulars on this subject.\fs24\par \fs20 In this account of the Baptist church of Olchon, and Chapel-y-ffin, Mr. Thomas sayd, "Olchon is a deep narrow valley, under the black mountain, in the parish of Cludock, and properly in Herefordshire; yet on the borders of the three counties of Herefored, Monmouth, and Brecknock; and likewise on the borders of the three dioceses of Hereford, Llaudaff, and St. David\rquote s. The inhabitants of that and most of the adjoining parishes were Cambro-britons, or properly Cymry, vulgarly called Welsh or Welch, till of late years; and even now, many in those parts talk the British language, and most of the natives understand it. The ministry of the Baptists now thereLVAL is in that language.\fs24\par \fs20 "I am inclined to believe (continues Mr. Thomas) that through all the darkness of popery, there were individuals here and there among the ancient Britons, who had saving knowledge of Christ; though they had not sufficient courage to appear publicly against the growing corruptions of the Romish church. It is my opinion that the first open struggle of Protestant light against Popish darkness, among our countrymen, began at or near Olchon; and that long before the appellation of Protestant was known even in Germany. My conjectures spring from the following particulars,--\fs24\par \fs20 "\b Dr. Thomas Bradwardine \b0 was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury: he was a very learned and celebrated person in the former part of the fourteenth century. Dr. Fuller in his Church History, book iii. p. 98, says, that this worthy man was born at Bradwardine, and appears to have had his name from that place, as in former centuries it was very common for persons to take their names from the place of their birth, occupation, or habitation. Bradwardine is the name of a parish in Herefordshire, a few miles from Olchon. The word carries it in an internal evidence of its British original; but I will not pretend to guess to what particular circumstance it owed its origin. Bishop Godwin, contrary to Fuller, says that Dr. Bradwardine was born at Hartfield in Sussex. But before the latter had written his account of the worthies of England, he had received better information, for he there says that Camden, Bale, Pits, and Godwin, all differed respecting the place of Bradwardine\rquote s birth. These differences he endeavours to reconcile by saying that there was an ancient family at Bradwardine in Herefordshire, which removed thence, and had settled for three generations in Sussex, near Chichester; and that the above Thomas was born in or near that city. Hence he names him among his worthies of Herefordshire and of Sussex. He names a Thomas Bradwardine among the gentry of Herefordshire in 1433;LVAL so that it seems there were some of the family then at Bradwardine. Dr. Bradwardine was very famous for his profound and extensive erudition, and genuine piety. His common title was \i Doctor Profundus\i0 , the profound Doctor. Of all his writings, that which he wrote against the Pelagians is the most celebrated. Its title is\i , De Causa Dei\i0 , \i Of the cause of God\i0 . Dr. Gill, in his \i Cause of God and truth\i0 , refers to Bradwardine more than once, and calls him a second Austin. This commendation is great; but he did not make a formal opposition to popery as such. Though he was much abroad, yet possibly he might be of some service to his distant relations about Bradwardine and towards Olchon, by writing or otherwise. How far he was useful that way we know not. He died about 1348 or 9. Rapin, speaking of this eminent person, says, that \lquote what rendered him still more esteemed for his learning was his humility, and his zeal to instruct the people committed to his care.\rquote\fs24\par \fs20 "Very probably (continues Mr. Thomas) the famous Wickliffe received much of his light in the gospel from Bradwardine. When the latter died, he was succeeded in the see of Canterbury by Dr. Simon Islip, in 1349. Islip had so great a regard for Wickliffe, that he made him rector of Canterbury College then at Oxford. The rector preached and kept his place with great reputation till 1306, when Archbishop Islip died. Then Wickliffe was turned out of his rectory. After that he openly opposed popery, and had powerful friends to defend him against all the rage of the pope and clergy."--Thus far Mr. Thomas.\fs24\par \fs20 It is very probable that Bradwardine, Islip, and Wickliffe, received their sentiments from the followers of Lollard; and that on this account the followers of Wickliffe are indiscriminately denominated Wickliffites and Lollards. Bishop Newton, having mentioned the Lollards, says, "There was a man more worthy to have given name to the sect, the deservedly famous John Wickliffe, the honour oLVALf his own and the admiration of all succeeding times."\fs24\par \fs20 This extraordinary man, who has been justly called the morning star of the Reformation, began to be famous about the year 1361; and though he was greatly persecuted by several popes, and by the clergy in England, yet the providence of God so protected him from their malice, that he died peaceably at his own house at Lutterworth, Dec. 31, 1384. By the command of the pope his bones were taken out of the grave and burnt, and his ashes cast into a brook adjoining, called the Swift, in 1428.\fs24\par \fs20 The doctrines of Wickliffe spread very wonderfully through the land, if the testimony of Knyhton, a contemporary historian, who appears to have been his inveterate enemy may be believed. "Such (says he) was the success of his teaching, preaching, and writings, that more than half the people of England became his followers, and embraced his doctrines." Their character is thus given by Reinhar, a popish writer. "The disciples of Wickliffe are men of a serious modest deportment, avoiding all ostentation in dress, mixing little with the busy world, and complaining of the debauchery of mankind. They maintain themselves wholly by their own labour, and despise wealth, being fully content with bare necessaries. They are chaste and temperate; are never seen in taverns, or amused with the trifling gaieties of life; yet you find them always employed, either in learning or teaching. They are concise and devout in their prayers, blaming an unanimated prolixity. They never swear; speak little; and in their public preaching lay the principal stress on charity."\fs24\par \fs20 It was not long after the death of Wickliffe, that his disciples began to form distinct societies. Rapin says, that "in the year 1389, the Wickliffites or Lollards began to separate from the church of Rome, and appoint priests from amongst themselves to perform divine service after their way. Though some were from time to time persecuted by the bishops, yet these persecutionsLVAL were not rigorous. Their aim seemed to be only to hinder them from pleading prescription. Besides, a petition presented to the king by a former parliament to revoke the power granted the bishops to imprison hereticks restrained the most forward." [\i History of England\i0 , vol. i, p. 480]\fs24\par \fs20 It is probable that the liberty granted to these early dissenters from the church of England, as then established, depended in a great measure on the disposition of the monarch, and on his ability to check the cruel dispositions of the pope and the clergy. It appears evident from the history of the English church, that whenever the clergy have been left to follow their own inclinations, they have used their crosier, not in defending the flock, but in giving the followers of Christ cause to say, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."\fs24\par \fs20 The sufferings of these people from this period till the Reformation were very great. The Lollards\rquote tower still stands as a monument of their miseries, and of the cruelty of their implacable enemies. This tower is at Lambeth palace, and was fitted up for this purpose by Chicheley, Archbishop of Canterbury, who came to this see in 1414. It is said that he expended two hundred and eighty pounds to make this prison for the Lollards. The vast staples and rings to which they were fastened, before they were brought out to the stake, are still to be seen in a large lumber-room at the top of the palace, and ought to make protestants look back with gratitude upon the hour which terminated so bloody a period.\fs24\par \b\fs20 That the sentiments of Wycliffe and his followers were opposed to infant baptism, may be ascertained from several sources of information.\b0 It is well known that after the death of the pious queen Anne, wife of Richard II., and sister of Wenceslaus, king of Bohemia, the books of Wickliffe were carried into Bohemia by her attendants, as they also were about the same time by Jerome oLVAL f Prague, and other persons, in consequence whereof his sentiments spread in that country, where lived the celebrated John Huss, who, together with Jerome of Prague, fell a martyr to the fury of the papists at Constance, about a hundred years before the time of Luther. A letter describing the sentiments of the Hussites, written from Bohemia to Erasmus, dated Oct. 10, 1519, states as follows. "They renounce all the rites and ceremonies of our church;--they ridicule our doctrine and practices in both sacraments;--they deny orders (the hierarchy) and elect officers from among the laity;--they receive no other rule than the bible;--they admit none into their communion till they be dipped in water, or baptized;--and they reckon one another without distinction of rank to be called brothers and sisters." [Colomesius\rquote s \i Collection of Letters to men of note\i0 ]\fs24\par \fs20 If this was the case with respect to the followers of Wickliffe in Bohemia, what should hinder us from believing that the followers of Wickliffe in England held similar sentiments respecting the discipline of the church of Christ, and that they also maintained that none ought to be admitted into their communion until they were dipped in water, or baptized?\fs24\par \fs20 That this was the case appears from the laws made against them in the reign of Henry IV.; for among the articles by which the inquisitors were to examine them, one was, "WHETHER AN INFANT DYING UNBAPTIZED CAN BE SAVED?" This the Lollards constantly asserted in opposition to the church of Rome, \i which decreed that no infant could be saved without it\i0 . Fox says, that one of the errors they were charged with was, "that they spoke against the opinion of such as think children are damned who depart before baptism, and that Christian people be sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and need no water; and that infants be sufficiently baptized, if their parents are baptized before them." [Fox\rquote s \i Acts and Mon\i0 . vol. i. p. 752]\fs24\par \fs20 FoLVAL!x thinks they were slandered in this matter because says he, "It is so contrary to the manifest word that it is not thought any to be so ignorant of the gospel that ever did or would affirm the same." But that these people opposed the baptism of infants, is corroborated by the \i Dutch Martyrology\i0 , or \i bloody Theatre\i0 , which says from Walsingham, "that one Sir Lewis Clifford, who had been a friend of Wickliffe, did discover to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Lollards would not baptize their new-born children." [Danver\rquote s \i Treatise of Baptism\i0 , p. 2, 303].\fs24\par \fs20 Respecting Wycliffe\rquote s sentiments on this subject, many writers have positively asserted that he opposed this practice. Dr. Hurd in his \i History of all Religions\i0 says, "It is pretty clear from the writings of many learned men, that Dr. John Wickliffe, the first English reformer, either considered infant baptism unlawful, or at best not necessary." The author of a \i History of Religion\i0 , published in London in 1764, in four volumes octavo, says, "It is clear from many authors that Wickliffe rejected infant baptism, and that on this doctrine his followers agreed with the modern Baptists." Thomas Walden and Joseph Vicecomes [Catholic authorities who persecuted Wycliffe\rquote s followers], who had access to his writings, have charged him with denying pedobaptism, and they brought their charge at a time when it might have been easily contradicted, if it had not been true. The first of these charges him with holding the following opinions about baptism. "That baptism doth not confer, but only signifies grace which was given before; that those are fools and presumptuous who affirm such infants not to be saved as die without baptism; also that he denied that all sins are abolished in baptism, and asserted that the baptism of water profited not without the baptism of the Spirit." [Walden, tom. ii. c. 98, 108]\fs24\par \fs20 Walsingham says, "It was in the year 1381, that that damnable heretic, John LVAL"Wickliffe, reassumed the curses opinions of Berengarius;" of which it is certain that denying infant baptism was one. He also says "that his followers did deny baptism to infants, because they concluded them, as they were the children of believers, to be holy, and not to stand in need of baptism to take away original sin." Thomas Walden, before mentioned, calls Wickliffe "one of the seven heads that came out of the bottomless pitt, \i for denying infant baptism\i0 , that heresie of the Lollards, of whom he was so great a ringleader." [Danver\rquote s Treatise, p. 2, 287]\fs24\par \fs20 A council was held at Blackfriars, June 11, 1382, to condemn Wickliffe and his sect; at which time, while his enemies were in convocation, that terrible earthquake happened which is mentioned in the chronicles of St. Alban\rquote s, and of which Wycliffe also takes notice in his writings. This greatly alarmed is persecutors, but did not prevent their framing many articles of accusation. The eleventh article was, \i that the children of believers might be saved without baptism.\i0\fs24\par \fs20 A denial that baptism had virtue in itself to procure the salvation of the infant, and that the want of it would insure damnation, was rudely shaking the foundation on which infant baptism was then built. He is accused, however, of going still farther, and of asserting, "that none were members of the church visible who did not app[ear to be members of the church invisible; and that none had a right to church membership who did not make a public profession, and profess obedience to Christ. It is unnecessary to add, that infants, being unable to make this public profession, would not be considered by him as members of the visible church, or as possessing a right to participate of any of its ordinances.\fs24\par \fs20 Having mentioned some of the followers of Wickliffe, it seems desirable that we should more particularly notice a few of them, as persons who by English protestants ought to be had in everlasting remembrance.\fs24\pLVAL#ar \fs20 In the history of Welsh Baptists already mentioned, there is an account of one of these named \b Walter Brute\b0 . Mr. Thomas says, "I suppose he lived in or near Olchon," and mentions several reasons which make this appear probable. "It is recorded (says he) that he was a gentleman of rank, learning, and parts, though reckoned a layman by the popish clergy. Trevnant or rather Trefnant, bishop of Hereford, charges Mr. Brute with seducing the people as much as he could from day to day, and with teaching openly and privately as well the nobles as the commons. Mr. \b William Swinderby\b0 , and Mr. Stephen Ball, were preachers of note, then, intimate friends of Brute, and all of Wickliffe\rquote s doctrine.\fs24\par \fs20 "By a copy of a commission of Richard II, about 1392, it appears that Mr. Swinderby and his friends had fled into Wales, out of the diocese of Hereford. It is very probable that they had retired among the mountains about Olchon and Chapel-y-ffin, and that they there instructed our countrymen as they had opportunity, where they could soon been out of the county and diocese of Hereford. So many counties and dioceses meeting on those hills, gave some help in the time of persecution. They could shift from one county and diocese to another, as they saw occasion; so finding shelter in those deep vallies, and on those lofty hills, and craggy rocks.\fs24\par \fs20 "Mr. Fox, in his martyrology, has given us a large account of Mr. Brute and his religious sentiments, taken from the register of the bishop of Hereford. Our countrymen did confute popish errors in many articles, and reformed much concerning baptism. He held that faith should precede baptism, and that baptism was not essential to salvation; yet still admitted that the faith of godly parents was sufficient for their infants. Mr. Thomas Davye, however, in his treatise on baptism, says, Mr. Fox indeed, speaking of the opinion of W. Brute, as to the sacrament of baptism and of infants dying without it, seems to extenuate the matLVAL$ter, because he himself was for infant baptism! Mr. Davye further says, that Swinderby was one of Brute\rquote s followers, and supposes that Mr. Brute was more a Baptist than was represented by Mr. Fox.\fs24\par \fs20 "Our worthy countrymen, Mr. C. Edwards (adds Mr. Thomas) entitles Mr. Brute \i Cymro godidog\i0 ; that is, an excellent Cambro Briton, a learned layman of the diocese of Hereford; and says that he instructed his countrymen and admonished them, explaining the scriptures, and showing the difference between true religion and popish foppery exorcisms, and such things.\fs24\par \fs20 "Richard II directed a letter to the nobility and gentry of the county of Hereford, and to the mayor of the city. Among the gentlemen then named, Thomas Oldcastle is one. The letter charges all to persecute W. Brute, charged with preaching heresy in the diocese and places adjacent, and also with keeping conventicles. It seems from this, that Brute, Swinderby, and others, preached in different places on the borders of Wales; and Mr. Fox has recorded, out of the register, that they preached at Whitney and Leinwardine in Herefordshire.\fs24\par \fs20 "Mr. Brute was a reputable writer. Mr. Fox has mentioned his works on several subjects of divinity, in his \i Acts and Monuments\i0 . We are also told that Fox set forth the works of Tyndal, Frith, and Barnes, in 1573; and that it was wished the same diligence had been used in searching after and collecting the works of Wickliffe, Brute, and others. These wrote near a hundred years before printing began in England.\fs24\par \fs20 "There is no certain account that I can find (continues Mr. Thomas) where, how, nor when Mr. Brute died, whether he suffered martyrdom or not. But we may look upon him as the first public reformer among our countrymen. On his trial, as recorded by Fox, he declared that he was a Briton by father and mother, and rejoiced that he was a descendant from the ancient Britons, who had been so valiant for the truth and against popery, in former timLVAL%es. The last account Fox gives of him is in 1393. In the work of Mr. Davye, above referred to, it is said, that Mr. Swinderby, the friend of Brute, was burnt alive for his profession in Smithfield, in 1401."\fs24\par \fs20 Another reason assigned by Mr. Thomas, for concluding that Brute and his friends preached in and about Olchon is, that Sir John Oldcastle, who was so zealous for Wickliffe\rquote s doctrine, was a native, and resident of this part of the country. "His birth place and patrimony (says he) bear his name to this day. Oldcastle is a small parish adjoining to Cludock in Monmouthshire. The valiant king Henry V was also born at Monmouth; and having a great regard for his countrymen, introduced him into his household. Sir John Oldcastle married Lord Cobham\rquote s daughter, and at his father-in-law\rquote s death was created Lord Cobham. The noble Briton though in the king\rquote s court, was full of zeal against popery, and was reckoned the chief man through the kingdom in supporting, defending, and encouraging the Lollards, who were the Protestants and Dissenters of these times. For these things the popish clergy were full of bitterness and rage against him, as they knew very well that he was much in favour at court. However, after many consultations, they found means, like Daniel\rquote s enemies, to prevail with the king to have him apprehended and brought to trial as an enemy to Holy Church."\fs24\par \fs20 It is said of this excellent nobleman, that it was publicly known that he had been at great expense in collecting and transcribing the works of Wickliffe, which he dispersed among the common people without any reserve. It was publicly known also that he maintained a great number of the disciples of Wickliffe as itinerant preachers in many parts of the country, particularly in the dioceses of Canterbury, Rochester, and Hereford.\fs24\par \fs20 When the archbishop, at the head of a large body of the dignified clergy, waited on the king, he had before him with as much acrimony as deLVAL&cency would admit, the offence of his servant Lord Cobham, and begged his majesty would suffer them, for Christ\rquote s sake, to put him to death. The king told the archbishop that he had ever been averse to shedding of blood in the cause of religion: such violence he thought more destructive of truth than of error. He therefore enjoined the convocation to postpone the affair a few days; in which time he would himself reason with Lord Cobham, whose behaviour he by no means approved; and if this were ineffectual, he would then leave him to the censure of the church.\fs24\par \fs20 With this answer the primate was satisfied; and the king sending for Lord Cobham, endeavoured by all the arguments in his power to set before him, the high offence of separating from the church, and pathetically exhorted him to retract his error. Lord Cobham\rquote s answer is upon record "I ever was (said he) a dutiful subject to your majesty, and I hope ever shall be. Next to God, I profess obedience to my king. But as for the spiritual dominion of the pope, I never could see on what foundation it is claimed, nor can I pay him any obedience. As sure as God\rquote s word is true, to me it appears fully evident that he is the great antichrist foretold in holy writ."\fs24\par \fs20 This answer of Lord Cobham so exceedingly shocked the king, that, turning away in visible displeasure, he from that time withdrew from him every mark of his favour. Deserted by the king, the archbishop soon found means to get him committed to the tower; and on Sep. 23, 1413, he was cited to appear before the consistory; but not appearing, he was declared contumacious, and excommunicated without further ceremony. But though committed to the tower, and condemned to die, yet by some means he made his escape; and taking advantage of a dark night he eluded pursuit, and arrived safe in Wales, where he found an asylum, and was secured by some of the chiefs of that country from the rage of his enemies.\fs24\par \fs20 It is supposed that all this was undLVAL'er the connivance, and with the approbation of the King, who was not willing to put him to death. "We are told (says Mr. Thomas) by a Monmouthshire author, that Sir John lay concealed among his tenants and friends at or about Oldcastle, above four years; till at last, Lord Powys, a covetous and bigotted papist, for a considerable sum of money, apprehended him."\fs24\par \fs20 He was then taken to London; and the King being at that time out of the Kingdom, the Romish clergy made all speed to dispatch him by a most inhuman death. He was hanged up by an iron chain round the waist, and burnt, or rather roasted, to death, over a slow fire.\fs24\par \fs20 The translator of Rapin says in a note, "As this was the first noble blood that was shed in England by popish cruelty, so perhaps none ever suffered a more cruel martyrdom." The historian says, "Thus died Sir John Oldcastle, baron of Cobham, with wonderful constancy, perfectly answerable to the firmness wherewith he had all along maintained the doctrine of Wickliffe which he professed." There is a painting of this wonderful man preserved in Dr. William\rquote s library, in Red Cross street, London.\fs24\par \fs20 "This nobleman (says Mr. Thomas) was another instructor of the good people in and about Olchon. In the four years which he spent amongst them, it may be concluded that he did all the service he could to promote the truth for which he suffered." His martyrdom was in 1417, two years after that of the celebrated John Huss, who likewise was a worthy disciple of Wickliffe, and a hundred years before Luther began the reformation in Germany.\fs24\par \fs20 From some things contained in the confession of faith which Lord Cobham presented to the King, it is evident that he had fully imbibed the sentiment of Wickliffe, that all traditions not taught in the scripture are superfluous and wicked." This confession he thus concluded: "Finally, my faith is, that God will ask no more of a christian in his life than to obey the precepts of his blessed law. If aLVAL(ny prelate of the church requires more of any other kind of obedience, he contemneth Christ, exalteth himself above God, and is plainly antichrist.\rquote\fs24\par \fs20 Thus did Lord Cobham and his friends appear on the side of Christ, when "all the world wondered after the beast;" and when England was immersed in error, they heroically defended the truth. These were Dissenters long before the church of England, in its present form, was by law established. These shone as morning stars in our hemisphere, before the day of the Reformation. These were they who followed the Redeemer whithersoever he went; who overcame all their enemies through the blood of the lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and who loved not their lives unto the death!\fs24\par \fs20 It is to be lamented that we have not a particular account of the afflictions which the Lollards in general suffered at this time; yet it is not to be doubted that the hand of persecution fell with superior weight on the lower order of people, when even nobility was not a preservative from the rage of the clergy. There is a remark in Robinson\rquote s dissertation on public preaching, prefixed to Claude\rquote s Essay, which refers to a period forty years after this, and proves that the demon of persecution was at that time neither dead nor chained. "I have (says he) before me a manuscript register of Gray, bishop of Ely, which proves that \b in the year 1457, there was a congregation of this sort in this village, Chesterton\b0 , where I live, who privately assembled for divine worship, and had preachers of their own who taught them the very doctrines we now preach. Six of them were accused of heresy before the tyrant of the district, and condemned to adjure heresy, and to do penance half naked, in the public market-places of Ely, and Cambridge, and in the churchyard of Great Swaffham. It was pity the poor souls were forced to abjure the twelfth article of their accusation, in which they were said to have affirmed, All priests and people in ordeLVAL)rs are incarnate devils."\fs24\par \fs20 During the reign of Henry VIII, some alterations were made in the constitution of the church. In the year 1536, the articles were published, commonly called King Henry\rquote s Creed, and entitled, "Articles devised by the Kynges Highnes Majestie to stablyshe christen quietnes and unitie among us, and to avoyde contentious opinions, which articles he also approved by the consent and determination of the whole clergie of the realme." "In the translation whereof (says Fox) he altereth nothing from the old trade, heretofore received from Rome."\fs24\par \fs20 What is said about baptism is truly papistical, and \b evidently points at some who opposed infant baptism\b0 . "Item, That infants must needs be christened because they be born in original sin, which sin must needs be remitted, which cannot be done but by the sacrament of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost, which exerciseth his grace and efficacy in them, and cleanseth and purifieth them from sin by his most secret virtue and operation. Item, that children of men once baptized, can nor ought to be baptized again. Item, That they ought to repute and take all the Anabaptists and the Pelagians\rquote opinions contrary to the premises, and every other man\rquote s opinions on this behalf, for detestable heresies, and to be utterly condemned."\fs24\par \fs20 The second article runs after this manner. "That baptism was a sacrament instituted by Christ; that it was necessary to salvation; and that infants were to be baptized for the pardon of original sin."\fs24\par \fs20 In the next year we find a proclamation issued against heresies and heretics, which recites, "That of late many strangers born out of this land are arrived and come into this realm, which albeit they were baptized in their infancy or childhood, according to the universal church of Christ; yet notwithstanding, in contempt of the holy sacrament of baptism so given and received, they have of their own presumption lately rebaptized themLVAL*selves." [Ibid.]\fs24\par \b\fs20 From these articles and proclamations it is easy to discern, that there were many persons in the kingdom who, objecting to infant baptism, were baptized on a profession of faith. \b0 The methods taken to prevent their increase were ineffectual; "for in October 1538, there was a commission, (says Burnet,) sent to Cranmer, Stokesly, Sampson, and some others, to inquire after Anabaptists; to proceed against them; to restore the penitent; to burn their books; and to deliver the obstinate to the secular arm. But I have not, (says the bishop,) seen what proceedings there were upon this." [Burnet\rquote s Hist. Ref. vol. 3. p. 159]\fs24\par \fs20 From a passage in Brandt\rquote s \i History of the Reformation\i0 it appears that the Baptists in England were obliged to leave the country. He says, "In the year 1539 there were put to death at Delpt [Holland], one and thirty Anabaptists, that fled from England, the men beheaded and the women drowned." In the next year Mr. Barnes was burnt in Smithfield, and in his speech to the people at the stake he declared he was not an Anabaptist as he had been charged with, by saying, "Which sect I detest and abhor; and in this place there hath been burned some of them, whom I never favoured nor maintained." [Fox\rquote s Martyr, vol. 1. p. 610]\fs24\par \fs20 On Nov. 16, the King put forth a proclamation, in which he condemned all the books of the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, and appointed those to be punished that vended them. And in December, he sent a letter to the justices in England, in which, after many other things, they are commanded to take care that all the injunctions, laws, and proclamations, against the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists, be duly executed. \fs24\par \fs20 In this year also there was an act of grace passed, from the benefit of which, besides other particular exceptions, all Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, and all those that affirmed there was a fate upon men by which the day of their death was unalterablyLVAL+ determined, were excluded. By this it appears, that the king asserted that supremacy which his creatures had assigned to him; and that he not only condemned those who thought his opponent Luther to be right, and the King wrong, on the subject of the Lord\rquote s supper, but also set his throne above the throne of God, "in whose hand our breath is," and who has "determined our days;" and who has declared "that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."\fs24\par \b\fs20 That the Lollards had been cruelly treated in his reign previously to this period, is evident from the history of those times\b0 . In the year 1511 Joseph Brown was burned. In 1512, William and James Seely, and Joseph Brewster, shared the same fate. In 1514, Joseph Hunn was murdered in the Lollard\rquote s tower, and in 1519, Joseph Tawksby and many others ended their lives at the stake. In 1525 seven Baptists who came over from Holland, were apprehended and imprisoned. Some of whom were afterwards burned at Smithfield. In 1535, twenty-two Baptists were apprehended and put to death. In 1539, sixteen men and fifteen women were banished to Delpt in Holland, for opposing infant baptism. At this place they were taken by the papists and put to death. In the same year two Anabaptists were burned beyond Southwark, in the way to Newington, and a little before them, five Ditch Anabaptists were burned at Smithfield.\fs24\par \fs20 From a speech delivered by the king at the parliament, Dec. 24, 1545, as recited by Lord Herbert, it should seem that the epithet \i Anabaptist\i0 was a term of reproach, applicable to all those who were struggling to promote a reformation in the church and state, just as the epithet Puritan afterwards, and that of Methodist at present, have been indiscriminately applied to all who are zealous for promoting evangelical principles. "What love and charity (says Henry) is there among you, when one calls another heretic and Anabaptist; and he calls him again Papist, Hypocrite, and Pharisee? He adds, Be these tokLVAL,ens of charity among you? I see and hear daily that you of the clergy preach one against another; teach one contrary to another; inveigh one against another, without charity or discretion. Some be too stiff in their old \i mumpsimus\i0 ; other be too busy in their new \i sumpsimus\i0 ." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 42]\fs24\par \fs20 The papists, however, being the stronger party, prevailed on the king to prosecute with unrelenting cruelty all who opposed their system. The next year, Claxton was imprisoned for denying the real presence in the sacrament, and would have been burnt, but for his recantation. But a pious and excellent lady, \b Anne Askew\b0 , who was frequently at court, and a great favourite of queen Catharine Parr, after suffering the most excruciating tortures on the rack, was burned at the stake about June 1546.\fs24\par \fs20 Bishop Latimer, in a sermon preached before king Edward VI, alluding to the events of the reign of Henry VIII, says, "The Anabaptists that were burnt here in divers parts of England, as I heard of credible men, (I saw them not myself,) went to their death even intrepid as ye will say, without any fear in the world, cheerfully. Also I should have told you here of a certain sect of heretics that speak against this order and doctrine, [the king\rquote s supremacy:] they will have no magistrates, no judges on earth. Then I have to tell you what I heard of late, by the relation of a credible person and worshipful man, of a town of this realm of England that hath above five hundred heretics of this erroneous opinion in it, as he said." [Ibid. p. 62]\fs24\par \b\fs20 I cannot but think that these Anabaptists were Wickliffites\b0 ; and when it is considered how zealous this good bishop was in supporting the supremacy of the king as the head of the church, is there not reason to suspect, that they were accused of objecting to magistrates and judges, merely because they asserted what all dissenters now assert? That the civil magistrate ought not to interfere in matters of consciLVALence; and that while it is our duty to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar\rquote s," it is equally our duty to give "unto God the things that are God\rquote s?"\fs24\par \fs20 This popish protestant king died, Jan. 28, 1547, leaving in a very unfinished state, the reformation, which had been begun without his intending it. But the fetters of popery were broken; the scriptures in the mother tongue were sanctioned by parliament; and in 1540, it was enjoined by royal proclamation, that every parish should place one of the copies of the bible, which was called Cranmer\rquote s bible, in their churches, under the penalty of forty shillings a month; and though this was suppressed by the king about two years afterwards, though the influence of the popish bishops, yet as the people used to crowd to the churches after their hours of labour to hear it read, there is no doubt but the information which by these means was diffused throughout the land, laid the foundation for that glorious superstructure of Christian liberty, which by the patient sufferings of the zealous Puritans in the succeeding reigns was brought nearly to perfection. The blessings resulting to all classes of people, and particularly to protestant dissenters, from their struggles with ecclesiastical and civil despotism, we now enjoy; and we sincerely pray that they may be transmitted to our descendants unimpaired and improved.\fs24\par \pard\cf1\fs23\par } (  G|/ J  01. Contents and Preface /zB6 10. A.D. 1653-1660 Part 2ԶD809. A.D. 1653-1660 Part 1 D808. A.D. 1640-1653 Part 2D807. A.D. 1640-1653 Part 1}D806. A.D. 1625-1640o6*05. A.D. 1602-1625<[Y6*04. A.D. 1540-1602|@6*02. A.D. 45-1180.2&03. A.D. 1180-1540и6*LVAL/{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER 1 \b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 45 - 1180 \b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 It is generally supposed, that the gospel was introduced at a very early period into this country, which, at the commencement of the Christian era, was, like other heathen nations, full of the habitations of cruelty. Our forefathers were, if their own historians may be credited, gross idolaters, and were accustomed to offer up their prisoners taken in war, as sacrifices to their gods. It is said, they made a statue, or image of a man of a prodigious size, whose limbs consisted of twigs woven together after the manner of basketwork; this they filled with living men, and setting it on fire, burned them to death!\fs24\par \fs20 There are different opinions respecting the time when the gospel was first preached in Britain, and also by whom the message of salvation was at first proclaimed. Bishop Newton says, "There is some probability that the gospel was preached here by Simon the apostle; there is much greater probability that it was preached here by St. Paul; and there is absolute certainty that Christianity was planted here in the times of the apostles, before the destruction of Jerusalem."\fs24\par \fs20 Tacitus says, that "Pomponia Greaecina, wife of Pautius, and Claudia Ruffina, a British lady, are supposed to be of the saints that were in Caesar\rquote s household, mentioned by Paul, Phil. 3:22." Pautius was in Britain, A.D. 45: it is probable, Claudia may have returned with him; and it has been thought, from this statement of Tacitus, that this lady was the first British christian. Claudia is celebrated by Martial for her admirable beauty and learning, in the following epigram;\fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "From painted Britons how was Claudia [2 Tim. 4:21] born!\line The fair barbarian! how do arts adorn!\line When Roman charms a GLVAL0recian soul commend,\line Athens and Rome may for the dame contend." [Rapin, vol. i, p. 14]\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 Speed, a very ancient British author, says, that \lquote Claudia sent Paul\rquote s writings, which he calls spiritual manna, unto her friends in Britain; to feed their souls with the bread of life: and also, the writings of Martial, to instruct their minds with those lessons best fitting to produce moral virtues:" which Speed thinks was the occasion of this line in Martial\rquote s works--\fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "And Britain now (they say) our verses learn to sing." [p. 73]\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 Gildas, the most ancient and authentic British historian, who wrote about A.D. 564, in his book called \i De Vict. Aurelli Ambrossii\i0 , \b affirms, that the Britons received the gospel under Tiberius, the emperor under whom Christ suffered\b0 ; and that many evangelists were sent from the apostles into this nation, who were the first planters of the gospel, and which, he elsewhere says, continued with them until the cruel persecution of Dioclesian the emperor, about A.D. 290.\fs24\par \fs20 Fuller, in his \i Ecclesiastical History\i0 , says, "It is generally agreed, that about the year 167, many pagan temples in Britain had their property altered, and that they were converted into Christian churches; particularly that dedicated to Diana in London, and another near it formerly consecrated to Apollo, in the city now called Westminster." [\i Ecclesiastical History\i0 , Book 1. p. 13]\fs24\par \fs20 This account is corroborated by Fox, the English martyrologist, who says, "Out of an ancient book of the antiquities of England, we find the epistle of Eleutherius, written to Lucius king of Britain, A.D. 169, who had written to Eleutherius for the Roman laws to govern by: in answer to which, Eleutherius says, \lquote You have received, through God\rquote s mercy, in the realm of Britany, the law and faith of Christ; you have with you both the parts LVAL1of the scripture; out of them, by God\rquote s grace, with the council of your realm, take ye a law, and by that law, by God\rquote s sufferance, rule your kingdom of Britain." [Fuller, v. i. 117]\fs24\par \fs20 Hollingsworth mentions this epistle of Eleutherius, in such language as proves him to have understood the genuine principles of the gospel [Fuller, v. i. p. 25]; and speaks highly respecting king Lucius; of whom there is a curious piece of information on a brass plate in the church of St. Peter\rquote s, Cornhill. This plate is included in an antique frame of oak, and relates as follows: \fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "Bee it knowne to all men that in the yeare of our Lorde God 179, Lucius the first Christian king of this Land, then called Britaine, Founded the first church in London: that is to say, the church of St. Peter upon Cornehill: and hee founded there an Archbishop\rquote s See, and made that Church the Metropolitane and chiefe Church of this Kingdome, and so it endured the space of 400 yeares and more unto the coming of St. Austin the apostle of England. The which was sent into this land by St. Gregorie the Doctor of the Church in the time of King Ethelbert: And then was the Archbishop\rquote s See and Pall removed from the foresaid Church of St. Peter upon Cornehill unto Dorobernia, that now is called Canterburie, and there it remaineth to this day, and Millet a Monke which came into this land with St. Austin, Hee was made first Bishop of London, and his See was made in Paul\rquote s Churche, and this Lucius King was the first founder of St. Peter\rquote s Church upon Cornehill, and hee reigned King in this Land after Brute 1245, Yeares. And in the yeare of our Lorde God 124, Lucius was crowned King, and the yeares of his reigne were 77 yeares and hee was buried (after some Chronicles) at London: and after some Chronicles hee was buried at Glocester, in that place where the Order of St. Francis standeth now."\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 From the conversioLVAL2n of Lucius till the time of the persecution under Dioclesian, the ecclesiastical history of Britain is entirely unknown. That the Christian religion, however, made great progress during that interval of eight years, seems probable from Tertullian, Origen, Bede, and Gildas.\fs24\par \b\fs20 After Christianity was established by Constantine the great, it appears that Christians multiplied exceedingly, and that the island abounded with churches.\b0 This celebrated emperor being a native of Britain, as was also, according to Bishop Stillingfleet and some others, Helene, his mother, it is highly probable that he showed particular favour to his countrymen, by affording them his protection. Speed says, "Constantine the great was born and brought up here in Britain by queen Helene, a most virtuous and religious lady; unto whose days the succession of Christianity did here continue as by the martyrdom of many saints in the reign of Dioclesian, is apparent." [p. 77]\fs24\par \fs20 Some affirm there were British bishops at the council of Nice, A.D. 325. But though this cannot be fully proved, it is not at all unlikely, since twenty-two years after, there were certainly three British bishops at the council of Arles, who are supposed to have been those of London, York, and Caer-leon in Wales. There were also some at the council of Arminum in 359; but so poor, that their charges were borne by their brethren. Du Pin says, "The bishops of France and Britain chose rather to bear their own expences than accept of the emperor\rquote s allowance, which they thought it beneath them to do." [Rapin\rquote s History of England, p. 29]\fs24\par \b\fs20 About the year 448, the Saxons began to settle in Britain; and for more than a century were perpetually harassing the natives, till they forced them to retire from their country, and settle in Wales.\b0 Their cruelties are described in a very affecting manner by Bede and Gildas, the latter of whom says, "From the east to the west nothing was to be seen but churches burnt LVAL3and destroyed to their very foundations. The inhabitants were extirpated by the sword, and buried under the ruins of their own houses. The altars were daily profaned by the blood of those slain thereon." [Rapin, p. 44] It is very unaccountable, that after this statement, he should blame the Britons for suffering their neighbours to live so long in paganism. How was it possible that they could, with any prospect of success, attempt to convert them, by whom they were so cruelly treated, and who were endeavouring to exterminate them?\fs24\par \fs20 After they were driven into Wales, whither their invaders could not follow them, religion began again to flourish. \b Two large societies were formed; one at Bangor in the north, the other at Caer-leon in the south.\b0 From the following account, it should seem that these institutions resembled that now formed by the Baptist missionaries at Serampore, where one fund is established, from which the wants of all, however differently engaged, are supplied.\fs24\par \fs20 Danvers informs us, that "In Bangor was a college containing 2100 Christians, who dedicated themselves to the Lord to serve him in the ministry as they became capable, to whom was attributed the name of the monks of Bangor. Yet did they no ways accord with the popish monks of that or the following age? for they were not reduced to any ecclesiastical order, but were for the most part laymen, who laboured with their hands, married and followed their callings: only some of them, whose spirits the Lord fitted and inclined to his more immediate service, devoted themselves to the study of the scriptures, and other holy exercises, in order, to the work of the ministry, who sent out many useful instruments." [Danvers, \i History of Baptism\i0 , p. 336]\fs24\par \b\fs20 In this state was religion in Wales, when Austin the monk was sent into England by Gregory the seventh, bishop of Rome, with the design of converting the Saxons, or English and bringing them into conformity to the church of Rome. \b0 ToLVAL4 accomplish this, "Gregory ordered him not to pull down the idol temples, but convert them into Christian churches. The reason of this injunction was this; that the natives, by frequenting the same temples they had been always accustomed to, might be the less shocked at their entrance into Christianity: and therefore his Holiness directed that the idols should be destroyed, and those places of worship sprinkled with holy water." [Biog. Brit. Art. Augustin]\fs24\par \fs20 This was in the year 596, when Ethelbert was king of Kent. At his court, Augustin opened his mission, which was attended with such success, that the king, and his queen Bertha, and a great number of his subjects, very soon made a public profession of Christianity. The king was so zealous a convert, that he bequeathed his own palace to the church, and retired to Reculver, that Austin might be more at his ease at Canterbury. Notwithstanding all these favours, and the princely style in which he lived, this pious apostle could enjoy no content while the British clergy lived independent of his authority, and were not in a state of subjection to the bishop of Rome.\fs24\par \fs20 Independently, therefore, of the desire which Austin had to diffuse the knowledge of the gospel in general, we find \b he was particularly zealous for his own authority, and extremely desirous to subject the British Christians in the remote parts of the island to his metropolitan jurisdiction, and to the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome.\b0 This circumstance is the more remarkable, as the British bishops of that age had more enlarged views of things; accordingly they disclaimed all submission to the church of Rome, and nobly asserted their independence.\fs24\par \fs20 The account of a conference which Austin held with some of the Christians of the college of Bangor, is thus related by Robert Fabian: \fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "By the helpe of Ethelberte he assembled and gathered the byshoppes, and doctours of Britayne that werLVAL5e before disparkled. The place of Assemble was called long after, Austin\rquote s Oke; which is expounded to be Austeyn\rquote s strengthe, and is in the march of Wikeres and of the west Saxons. In this place he charged the sayd bishoppes, that they should with him preach the worde of God to the Anglis; and also that they should amonge themselves amend certain errours, tehn used in the churche: and specially for kepeing of their Easter tide, wher against the byshoppes of Britayne held opinion til Austanye shewed them a myracle by a blind Anglis or Saxon. After the which myracle shewed, the sayd byshoppes replied to the will of Austanye in that cause. But for all this, there was of them that said, that they might not leave the custome which they so longe had continued, without assente of all such as had used the same. Then he gathered a synode, to the which came seven byshoppes of Brytons with the wysest men of that famous abbey of Bangor. But first, they took counsel of an holy man, wher they should be obediente to Austanye or not. And he said, if ye find him humble, or meke, as to Christes disciple belongeth; that then they should asent to him, which mekenes they shoude perceave in him, if he at their coming into the synode, or councell, arose agayne them. When the sayde bishops entered the sayd synode, Austain sat styl in the chaire, and removed not: whereupon they were wroth and disdayned him and would not obey his requestes.\fs24\par \fs20 "He then sayd, Sins ye wol not asent to my hestes generally assent ye to me specially in iii things.\fs24\par \fs20 "The first is, that ye kepe Ester in due fourme and time as it is ordayned. The second, THAT YE GIVE CHRISTENDOME TO CHILDREN. And the thyrde is, that ye preache unto the Anglis the worde of God as aforetimes I have exhorted you. And all the other deale, I shall suffer you to amend and refourm within yourselves: \i but they would not thereof\i0 . \fs24\par \fs20 "Then Austayne sayd unto them, and warned them by manner of inspyration, That since LVAL6they wold not receave peace of theyr brethren, they shoulde of other receave warre and wretche: the which was after put in experience by Ethelfridus King of Northumberland." [Fabian\rquote s \i Chron\i0 . part v. p. 115,116]\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 Nicholson, in his \i English Historical Library\i0 , after exposing some pious frauds, says, "Bede\rquote s account of the remonstrance of Dinoth, abbot of Bangor, against the pretensions of this legate Augustine, challenging a supremacy for his master, is of better credit. The critique of Bishop Stillingfleet on it deserves attention. "There is (he says) all the appearance of ingenuity and faithfulness that can be expected; and he [Bede] was a person of too great judgment and sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a modern invention, or a new formed schedule."\fs24\par \fs20 This account is confirmed by other ancient writers. Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us, that "in the country of the Britons Christianity flourished, which never decayed even from the apostles\rquote time; amongst whom, says he, was the preaching of the gospel, sincere doctrine, and living faith, and such form of worship as was delivered to the churches by the apostles themselves; and that they even to death withstood the Romish rites and ceremonies; and that as long as the British churches possessed the country, they kept themselves sound in the faith, and pure in the worship, order, and discipline of Christ, as it was delivered to them from the apostles and evangelists." [Danvers, p. 334]\fs24\par \fs20 Fuller, in his \i Ecclesiastical History\i0 [Book ii, p. 69], has translated some verses of the ancient bard, Talliessyn, recorded in the chronicle of Wales; which show how much they opposed Romish innovations.\fs24\par \fs20 "Wo be to the priest unborn,\line That will not cleanly weed his corne\line And preach his flock among;\line Wo be to that shepherd, I say,\line That will not watch his fold always,\line As to his office doth belong.\line Wo be to him that doth not keepLVAL7,\line From Romish wolves his sheep,\line With staff and weapon strong." \fs24\par \fs20 Rapin is of opinion, that Austin died before the dreadful massacre of the Britons took place, but not till after he had baptized 10,000 Anglis in the river Swale, at the mouth of the Medway, on a Christmas day. Others think this was performed by Paulinas.\fs24\par \fs20 The account Fabian gives of the destruction of the Britons and of the monastery of Bangor is confirmed by Humphrey Lloyd, the learned Welch antiquary in his \i Breviary of Britain\i0 . "In Denbighshire (says he) near the castle of Holt, is seen the rubbish and reliques of the monastery of Bangor, while the glory of the Britons flourished: in the same were 2,000 monks very well ordered and learned, divided into seven parts, daily serving God; amongst whom those that were simple and unlearned, by their handy labour, provided meat and drink and apparel for the learned and such as applied themselves to their studies; and if any thing was remaining, they divided it among the poor. \b That place sent forth many hundred of excellent well learned men\b0 ; amongst whom it also vomited forth to the world Pelagius. And afterward by the envy and malice of Austin, that arrogant monk, and the most cruel execution of his minister Ethelfrid, those worthy men were destroyed, the whole house from the very foundation, \b together with the library more precious than gold, was razed down, and demolished by fire\b0 and sword: and hence it is manifest, that this bloody massacre of those glorious witnesses for Christ did arise from their Christian courage and zeal against those antichristian impositions of the Romish church." [Danvers, p. 336]\fs24\par \fs20 It is probable that after this the Romish pontiff obtained the sovereign dominion in ecclesiastical affairs, as we find that Ina, one of the kings of the West Saxons, in the seventh century passed a law--"That every family possessed of goods to the value of twenty pence, should pay one penny a year to blessed St. LVAL8Peter, and the church of Rome. He also prescribed a penalty for deferring the baptism of infants beyond thirty days, and a much greater when any died unbaptized." [Toulmin\rquote s \i History of Taunton\i0 , p. 6] This tax continued to be paid for several centuries, and was known by the name of \b Peter\rquote s pence\b0 .\fs24\par \b\fs20 From these few, but valuable fragments of the ancient Britons, we discover much of the genuine simplicity of Christianity.\b0 \b Making the scriptures the only rule of their faith and practice, they easily discovered the antichristian spirit of Austin, and the folly of those ceremonies which he strove to introduce\b0 . \b It is not at all wonderful, therefore, that they should refuse to give christendom to children, as they could find nothing in the scriptures to countenance such an opinion.\b0\fs24\par \fs20 It is proved by Dr. Gill, that infant baptism, for the purpose of taking away original sin, had been enforced by anathemas in the Milevitan council about two centuries before; and it is also known that \b Gregory the great, who sent Austin into England, had decreed as follows: "Let all young children be baptized as they ought to be, according to the tradition of the fathers."\b0 [Fox, vol. i. p. 130]\fs24\par \fs20 From this decree being expressed in such general terms, infants not being particularly mentioned, we account for the difficulties which Austin himself had on the subject soon after he came to Britain. Among other interrogatories proposed to Gregory, is the following respecting children; "Lest they should be prevented by death, after how many days ought they to receive baptism?" To which Gregory replied, "If present necessity, arising from fear of death, doth so require, we do not forbid an infant to be baptized the same hour in which it is born." It is hardly conceivable that this question could have been proposed, had the practice of infant baptism been of apostolic origin, or if the English had not made some objections against it. This remark LVAL9is further corroborated by a circumstance mentioned by Hogo Grotius in his Commentary on Matt. xix. 14. "It is no small evidence (says he) that Infant baptism was not usually practised in the Greek church during many centuries, because not only Constantine the great, the son of Helene, who was a zealous Christian, was not baptized till he was of an advanced age; but that also Gregory Nazianzen, who was the son of a Christian bishop, and brought up for a long time by him, was not baptized till he came to years." If it be admitted that Infant baptism was then unknown in Britain, Constantine\rquote s not being baptized in his infancy is easily accounted for: but upon no other principle can we account for this omission of his godly parents, which Fox says they were.\fs24\par \fs20 In other to obtain as much light as possible on this very interesting subject, we subjoin the following statement of Dr. Calamy, the celebrated writer on Nonconformity, who in a work entitled, "God\rquote s concern for his glory in the British isles," has paid considerable attention to this subject. He relates, from Gildas, "That Christ shewing his bright light to all the world, afforded his rays, that is, his precepts, in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when his religion was propagated without any hindrance." On this statement of Gildas, the Doctor remarks, \fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "If he meant this, of the publication of the gospel in Britain, which has been the most prevailing opinion, we must allow him to have had better advantages for knowing this with certainty then, than we have at this distance. According to this account, this island had Christianity preached in it within five years of our Saviour\rquote s crucifixion, which was very early, perhaps too early, all circumstances considered, for a place that lay so remote. All ancient writers, however, agree, that Christianity was planted in this land very soon, considering its distance from Judea. \fs24\par \fs20 "It is evident, thLVAL:at after Christianity obtained here, a great part of the inhabitants still continued pagans, and yet our holy religion made a progress. As it got ground, the temples of their ancient idols were some of them destroyed, and others of them dedicated to the true and living God. We have no account of such severities here in the primitive times against the followers of a crucified Jesus, as in other countries. That which was the last of the ten persecutions under the Roman emperors, seems to have been the first that affected this island. But in the general calamity, in the reign of Dioclesian and Maximian, about 303, the Christians here were very great sufferers. It is said, that Maximian almost rooted out the Christian religion from Britain, and that they who suffered martyrdom were almost beyond number. Gildas tells us, that their churches were thrown down, and \b all the books of holy scriptures that could be found, were burnt in the streets\b0 ; and the chosen priests of the flock of our Lord, together with the innocent sheep, murdered. St. Alban of Verulam, and Julius of Carlisle upon Usk in Monmouthshire, and many others, sealed the truth with their blood.\fs24\par \fs20 "But when the storm was over, which did not last much above a year, the Christians here, as well as in other parts, fled out of the woods and dens and caves, where they had hid themselves, and rebuilt their demolished churches, and flourished to a great degree, both in peace and unity. They were much favoured by Constantius, the father of Constantine, who continued for the latter part of his lfie here in Britain, and would suffer no man to die for his religion in his dominions. It was here also that Constantine himself, who was a native of this island, first declared himself a Christian, or inclined that way, which it is not likely he would have publicly done, had not a good part of his army been of that religion; and upon his advancement to the imperial throne, it is not to be wondered at, if more splendour attended Christainity as LVAL;it was here professed, than had been known before. But I have not, upon the strictest inquiry I have been able to make, hitherto been able to discern sufficient ground to apprehend, that from the beginning, churches or places of worship were so nobly adorned, or church government so modelled in this island, as some time after; or that the prelatical form of government was any part of that glory that was at first declared in this island.\fs24\par \fs20 "Britain (adds the Doctor) was also sadly infested with the Picts and Scots, which after various struggles, when no more help could be had from the Romans, was the occasion of calling in the Saxons to their assistance. These Saxons, whom Gildas calls, \lquote A nation odious to God and man,\rquote came hither to be a scourge to the Britons, about the year of Christ 450. They were at first received as guests, and treated as stipendiaries, in opposition to the barbarians; but at length found themselves strong enough to set up for masters, laid the whole country waste, drove the old British Christians into the barren mountains of Wales, and occasioned such confusion and desolation, as Gildas, who wrote a few years after, thought could never be enough lamented. That writer describes their cruelties, and the judgment of heaven upon a sinful people, which they were the instruments of inflicting, in such a manner, as must needs affect all that read his account. He says, \lquote that all the towns, with the beating of the rams, and all the townsmen, pastors, priests and people, with naked swords that glittered on all sides, and crackling flames, were together whirled to the ground.\rquote And our historians say, that they scarcely left the face of Christianity where they prevailed. And yet pure religion was not even then extirpated from the island.\fs24\par \fs20 "Bede, who wrote his history about the year 731, gives us a great deal of light, though allowance must be made for his being himself a Saxon, and not very friendly to the British churches, and for hLVAL<is having a monastic tincture. Christianity, in a new edition of it, with great improvements as to outward pomp, was during this period received from Rome, through the hands of Austin the monk, about the year 598. But there was a purer Christianity in the island before, that was much freer from adulterations and corruptions than that which was now introduced under the same name. There were great contests between those of the old stamp, and those of the new. The former lived in Wales and Scotland, and the latter in the heart of the country. So that there were considerable debates on foot of this island, between Conformists and Nonconformists, in ancient as well as in modern times; and the one sort were apt to carry it with a high hand, and the other forced to be satisfied with the consciousness of their own integrity then as well as now. \b The Conformists then were, in all things, for the methods of the church of Rome; and the Nonconformists were for the ways and methods of the ancient Christains, and disowned impositions. They were called too, the \i Schismatics\i0 of Britain and Ireland; because they would not receive the Romish alterations, nor submit to the authority by which they were imposed.\b0\fs24\par \fs20 "In the year 601, Austin called a synod, to which the bishops or doctors of the next province of the Britons were summoned, in which the abbot of Bangor gave him a free answer to his deamnd of conformity to Rome. He told him \lquote that the ancient Christians of this island were obedient and subject to the church of God, and to the pope of Rome, and every godly Christian; to love every one in his degree, in perfect charity; and to help every one of them by word and deed, which were the children of God: And other obedience than this he knew not to be due to him whom he called the pope, etc.\rquote Many of the poor monks, not long after, lost their lives in return for this freedom and resolution." [Dr. Calamy, "God\rquote s concern for his glory in the British isles"]\fs24\par \pard\sb1LVAL=00\sa100\qj\fs20 Having related the great contest respecting Easter, Dr. Calamy thus proceeds; "It ought not to be forgotten that the difference between these old Conformists and Nonconformists did not lie only in the time of keeping Easter: They differed also about baptism. For that was one of the three things which Austin insisted on in his conversation with the British doctors; that they should for the future administer baptism after the manner of the church of Rome, which is an argument they did use to do so before."\fs24\par \fs20 Fearing, as it should seem, that this candid statement would make an impression on the minds of his readers, that these ancient British Nonconformists were also Baptists, the doctor proceeds to make some comments upon it "Wherein the difference," says he, "between the old Britons and the Romans properly lay about baptism, is not so evident. Pits frankly owns he did not know what it was. Nor does Bede explain it, nor any of our ancient writers that I have conversed with. Some have thought they differed about the \i subjects\i0 of baptism; and that whereas the Romans baptized infants, the Britons were against infant baptism; and an argument has been drawn from thence by the Anti-pedobaptists. But an answer is returned to it by Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, where he says that \lquote Pelagius being a native of Britain, his declaring he never heard of any Christian, catholic, or sectary, that denied infant baptism, is a good evidence that his countrymen did not do it.\rquote It seems more likely that this difference should have been about the \i mode\i0 of baptism; and the very words of Austin, as Bede relates the matter, seem to look that way. For he would have them administer baptism, for the future, after the manner of the church of Rome. Now I know nothing so remarkable (continues Dr. Calamy,) in the manner of baptizing in the church of Rome at that time, as the trine immersion. That this was customary in that church is asserted by Walafridus Strabo; aLVAL>nd though we have no positive evidence that I know of, that a single immersion, or aspersion, or pouring of water, was used among the ancient Britons in their baptism; yet till something else is mentioned, with a surer appearance of probability, I am inclined to believe this was the matter of that part of the difference."\fs24\par \fs20 This interesting statement by Dr. Calamy, and his reflections upon it, require some animadversion.\fs24\par \fs20 He acknowledges, that there is no positive evidence that the Britons used single immersion, aspersion, or pouring, in their baptism; but takes it for granted that one of these must have been the mode, in order to justify the alteration proposed by Austin. But why does he speak of aspersion, and of pouring? \b We know from incontrovertible evidence, that they used immersion.\b0 Austin baptized in a river; "where," says Mr. Fox, "note by the way, gentle reader, at that time there could be no use of fonts." Immersion, therefore, being the mode then used, it should seem, according to the foregoing hypothesis, that the point at issue between Austin and the Britons was, whether baptism should be performed by a single or a trine immersion. This hypothesis, however, is inadmissible, being as improbable as it is unsupported. But let it be admitted that Austin\rquote s proposal was to baptize infants, after the manner of the church of Rome, instead of baptizing adults on a profession of faith; and then the proposition will, on the one hand, be suitable for the pope\rquote s legate to make, as an indispensable requisite to a union with the catholic church, which could not exist without it; and, on the other hand, it will appear to be an absurdity so great, that primitive Christians could not submit to it, without a sacrifice of principle and of conscience, to which even death itself was preferable.\fs24\par \fs20 [Note: It appears obvious from the very face of Austin\rquote s request to the British Christians that he was urging them to adopt infant baptism. He reqLVAL?uested three things, the second of which was "that ye give Christendom to children." That request would have made no sense had the British Christians been in the custom of baptizing infants by any mode whatsoever. D.W. Cloud]\fs24\par \fs20 The only objection which Dr. Calamy makes to this is, a partial quotation from Dr. Wall. But \b if the whole of what the latter says had been stated, it would have appeared that this objection had no weight.\b0 The words of Pelagius, as translated by Dr. Wall, are, "That men do slander him, as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any persons without the redemption of Christ, which he had never heard, no not even any impious heretic or sectary say." By these words, it is true, Dr. Wall understands Pelagius to mean, "that he had never heard of any Christian, catholic or sectary, that denied infant baptism." But does Pelagius mean this? I think not. His meaning seems to have been, that he had never heard, no, not even any impious heretic or sectary say, that the kingdom of heaven could be obtained without the redemption of Christ. The suspicion of his denying infant baptism seems to have arisen from his denying original sin; for the church of Rome had appointed infant baptism, to wash away original sin, and had decreed that without it none could be saved.\fs24\par \fs20 This misapprehension of Pelagius by Dr. Wall is the only thing which has been made use of to disprove the opinion of the Baptists, that the ancient British christians were of similar sentiments with themselves.\fs24\par \fs20 If Austin\rquote s proposal to the British christians was, that they should give christendom to children after the manner of the church of Rome, I should understand it to mean that they should christen children, as the church of Rome did. But the words, "after the manner of the church of Rome," are not in the copy of Fabian at the London institution: the proposition of Austin is there said to have been, that they should givzLVALe christendom to children. Dr. Wall indeed says that the proposition as he has related it is in a copy of Fabian at Oxford; and he also represents Mr. Wills as saying that Fabian professes in his preface to have copied it from Bede, though the doctor adds that he had not seen it. There is, however, an internal evidence, that the proposition respected the subjects of baptism, and that the words, "after the manner of the church of Rome," were added by the historian, or by some one of his copiers, and did not constitute a part of the original proposition. For if the original proposition had only respected a mode of baptism, why should any thing have been said concerning the subjects of it? It had been sufficient to have proposed to give christendom after the manner of the church of Rome, without saying anything about giving it to children. Whereas if the difference between the church of Rome and the British churches respected the subjects of baptism, and the proposition was that christendom should be given to children, it was natural for the historian to add that this was after the manner of the church of Rome.\fs24\par \fs20 To conclude; till something better be offered to disprove our inference from the above-mentioned premises, that these primitive Christians knew nothing of infant baptism, we shall continue to consider them, as being in sentiment and practice, what our opponents call us--Antipedobaptists.\fs24\par \pard\cf1\fs23\par } LVALA{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER 3\b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 1540 - 1602\b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 King Edward VI came to the throne at the age of nine years and six months; "a prince (says Neal) for learning and piety, for acquaintance with the world, and application to business, the very wonder of his age."\fs24\par \fs20 The majority of the bishops and inferior clergy were on the side of popery; but the government was in the hands of the chief reformers, who began immediately to relax the horrors of the late reign. Persecution ceased, the prison doors were set open, and several who had been forced to quit the kingdom for religion returned home.\fs24\par \fs20 The reforming divines, being delivered from that awe with which the imperiousness of the late king had inspired them, began to preach openly against the abuses of popery; and the people in the many places, inflamed by their addresses, pulled down the images in the churches without authority.\fs24\par \fs20 The famous Genevan reformer, Calvin, appears to have felt deeply interested in the reformation that was going forward in England, and set his heart (says Heylin) upon promoting one wherein "the scripture might be made the rule of faith and worship," and offered his assistance to archbishop Cranmer for that purpose. [History of Presbytery, p. 13] He also wrote to the Protector, Lord Seymour, Oct. 29, 1548, encouraging him to go on, notwithstanding the wars, as Hezekiah did, with his reformation. In this he laments the violence of some who professed the gospel, and complains that he heard there were but few gospel sermons preached in England, and that the preachers recited their discourse coldly. Many of the reformers wished to expunge everything from the church which was of popish origin. But Cranmer and Ridley, wishing to prevent discontents, consulted with flesh and blood, and resolved to rLVALBetain the vests and ceremonies. From this period the papists concluded, and that with strong confidence, that the English church would return back again to Rome. Bishop Bonner said publicly, "Having tasted of our broth, they will ere long eat of our beef." [Advance of the church of England towards Rome, p. 18]\fs24\par \fs20 In the year 1549, bishop Burnet says, "there were many Anabaptists in several parts of England. They were generally Germans, whom the revolutions had forced to change their seats. They held that infant baptism was no baptism, and so were rebaptized." [Hist. Ref. Abrig. p. 85] On Apr. 12, a complaint was brought to the council, that with the strangers who were come into England, some of that persuasion were come over, who were disseminating their principles, and making proselytes. "These people, (says Neal,) besides the principle of adult baptism, held several wild opinions about the trinity, and virgin Mary, and the person of Christ." We cannot, however, rely with implicit confidence on all that is said concerning any sect of Christians by their adversaries, since it is well known that many sects have been charged with holding sentiments which they never held, and that caricature representations have been given of their real sentiments.\fs24\par \fs20 The account Burnet gives of these persons is as follows. "Upon Luther\rquote s first preaching in Germany, there arose many, who building on some of his principles, carried things much farther than he did. The chief foundation laid down by him was that the scripture was the only rule of Christians." [Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 110] If this was the principle they held, it is probable that it was not so much their theological sentiments, as their firmness in resisting all imposition in matters of religion, which exposed them to such violent resentments.\fs24\par \fs20 In the articles which were framed in 1547, by a committee of divines appointed to examine and reform the offices of the church, it was enacted, that "in the administrationLVALC of baptism a cross was to be made on the child\rquote s forehead and breast, and the devil exorcised to go out and enter no more into him. Also that the child was to be dipped three times in the font, on the right and left sides, and on the breast, if not weak. A white garment was to be put on it in token of innocence, and it was to be anointed on the head, with a short prayer for the unction of the Holy Ghost." [Neal, vol. i. p. 64]\fs24\par \fs20 Is it to be wondered at, if these absurd notions, so popish and antiscriptural, should have a tendency to encrease the number of Baptists, who had both reason and scripture to plead for their sentiments? But such daring innovators, who presumed to rend the seamless coat of Christ, and refused to worship the idol of uniformity which the reformers had set up, were not to be tolerated in a Christian commonwealth. \fs24\par \fs20 We find therefore, that in the year 1549, a commission was given to the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Ely, Worcester, Chichester, Lincoln, and Rochester, Sir William Petre, Sir Thomas Smith, Dr. May, and some others, any three being a quorum, to examine and search after all Anabaptists, heretics, and contemners of the common prayer. They were to endeavour to reclaim them, and after penance to give them absolution; but if they continued obstinate, they were to excommunicate, imprison, and deliver them over to the secular arm. This was little better than a protestant inquisition. People had generally thought that all the statues for burning heretics had been repealed; but it was now said, that heretics were to be burned by the common law of England, and that the statutes were only for directing the manner of conviction, so that the repealing them did not take away that which was grounded on a writ of common law." [Neal, vol. i. p. 60] Before the commissioners were brought several tradesmen, one of whom, a butcher of the name of \b Thombe\b0 , abjured \b his principles, of which one was, \i that the baptism of infants was noLVALDt profitable, because it went before faith\b0\i0 . He was commanded, notwithstanding his abjuration, to carry a faggot at St. Paul\rquote s, when there should be a sermon setting forth his heresy. [Strypes \i Life of Cranmer\i0 , p. 181]\fs24\par \fs20 The most awful instance of persecution in this year was the burning of \b JOAN BOUCHER\b0 of Kent. Burnet says, "She denied that Christ was truly incarnate of the virgin, whose flesh being sinful, he could take none of it; but the Word, by consent of the inward man in the virgin, took flesh of her. These were her words. The commissioners took much pains about her, and had many conferences with her; but she was so extravagantly conceited of her own notions that she rejected with scorn all they said: whereupon she was adjudged an obstinate heretic, and so left to the secular power."\fs24\par \fs20 To the other charges preferred against this good woman by her enemies, who would endeavour to blacken her as much as possible in order to justify their own conduct, \b it is to be added that she was a Baptist; and perhaps this was the sin which was not to be forgiven\b0 . "When the compassionate young king could not be prevailed upon to sign the warrant for her execution, Cranmer, with his superior learning, was employed to persuade him. He argued from the practice of the Jewish church in stoning blasphemers, which rather silenced his highness than satisfied him: for when at last he yielded to the importunity of the archbishop, he told him with tears in his eyes, that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer it before God. This struck the archbishop with surprise; but yet he at last suffered the sentence to be executed." [Burnet\rquote s \i Hist. of Ref\i0 . vol. ii. p. 112]\fs24\par \fs20 The extraordinary efforts used to bring Joan Boucher to retract her sentiments, prove her to have been a person of note, whose opinions carried more weight and respect than it can be supposed the chimeras of a frantic woman, as she hasLVALE been sometimes represented, would have done. The account which Mr. Strype gives of her is truly honourable. "She was (he says) a great disperser of Tyndal\rquote s new testament, translated by him into English, and printed at Colen, and was a great reader of scripture herself. Which book also she dispersed in the court, and so became known to certain women of quality, and was particularly acquainted with Mrs. Anne Askew. She used for the greater secresy to tie the books with strings under her apparel, and so pass with them into the court." [Strype\rquote s \i Eccles. Mem\i0 . vol. ii. p. 214] By this it appears that she hazarded her life in dangerous times to bring others to the knowledge of the word of God. To be employed in such a work, and to die in such a cause, is the highest character that could be given to any of the disciples of Christ.\fs24\par \fs20 There are some remarks upon this circumstance in Fox\rquote s Latin book of Martyrs, which are omitted in the English from a regard, as is supposed, to the reputation of the Martrys who suffered in the next reign. But Mr. Pierce has given us the following translation in his answer to Nichols, p. 33. "In king Edward\rquote s reign, some were put to death for heresy. One of these was Joan Boucher, or Joan of Kent. Now, says Mr. Fox, when the protestant bishops had resolved to put her to death, a friend of Mr. John Rogers, the divinity-reader in St. Paul\rquote s church, came to him, earnestly desiring him to use his interest with the Archbishop, that the poor woman\rquote s life might be spared, and other means used to prevent the spreading of her opinion, which might be done in time: saying too, that though while she lived, she infected few with her opinion, yet she might bring many to think well of it, by suffering death for it. He pleaded therefore that it was better she should be kept in some prison, without an opportunity of propagating her notion among weak people, and so she would do no harm to others, and might live to repent herself. RogLVALFers on the other hand pleaded, she ought to be put to death. Well then saith his friend, if you are resolved to put an end to her life together with her opinion, chuse some other kind of death, more agreeable to the gentleness and mercy prescribed in the gospel; there being no need, that such tormenting deaths should be taken up, in imitation of the Papists. Rogers answered, that burning alive was no cruel death but easy enough. His friend then hearing these words, which expressed so little regard to poor creatures suffering, answered him with great vehemence, and striking Roger\rquote s hand, which before he held fast, said to him, Well, perhaps, it may so happen, that you yourselves shall have your hands full of this mild burning. And so it came to pass; Mr. Rogers was the first man who was burned in Queen Mary\rquote s reign. I am apt to think (adds Mr. Pierce) that Mr. Roger\rquote s friend was no other than Fox himself." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 61]\fs24\par \fs20 The name of \b TYNDALE\b0 having been mentioned, it may not be improper to give a short account of his labours and sufferings in the cause of God. He went young to Oxford, and had part of his education there, and part at Cambridge. After leaving the university, he settled for a time in Gloucestershire; but was obliged to leave his native country on account of persecution. On the continent he translated the new testament into English, and printed it in 1526. This edition was bought up by Sir Thomas More and bishop Tonstall. With the money procured from this source, it was republished in 1530: but as this also contained some reflections on the English bishops and clergy, they commanded that it should be purchased and burnt. In 1532, Tyndale and his associates translated and printed the whole bible; but while he was preparing a second edition, he was apprehended and burnt for heresy in Flanders. [Note: For a fuller and more precise report on William Tyndale and his translation efforts and the timing of the various editions of his Bibles, see LVALG\i Annals of the English Bible\i0 by Christopher Anderson. This can be located at the Way of Life web site under the Electronic Baptist History Library. Anderson, who meticulously researched his subject, published his book 34 years after Ivimey published his history of English Baptists. D.W. Cloud]\fs24\par \fs20 He was a great reformer. It is generally supposed he was born on the borders of Wales. Mr. Thomas thinks this to be very probable, as "Mr. Llewelyn Tyndal and his son Hezekiah were reputable members of the Baptist church at Llanwenarth near Abergavenny, about the year 1700, as appeared by the old church book, and there were some of the same family in those parts still remaining." It is probable, therefore, that Tyndale might derive his superior light from some of the Wickliffites about Hereford and the adjoining counties, where we have already proved that much scriptural truth was for ages deposited. To this great man we are under great obligations for our emancipation from the fetters of popery, as it is not likely these would ever have been broken off, but by the hammer of God\rquote s Word. \fs24\par \b\fs20 The sentiments of this celebrated man on the subject of baptism\b0 may be collected from the following extract from his works. After reprobating severely the conduct of the Romish clergy for using a latin form of words, he says, "the washing without the word helpeth not; but threw the word it purifieth and cleanseth us, as thou readest Eph. 6. How Christ cleanseth the congregation in the fountain of water threw the word: the word is the promise which God hath made. Now as a preacher, in preaching the word of God saveth the hearers that believe so doeth the washing in that it preacheth and representeth to us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christ, \b the washing preacheth unto us that we are cleansed with Christ\rquote s blood shedding\b0 which was an offering and a satisfaction for the sin of all that repent and believe consenting and submitting themselves unto the will LVALHof God. \b The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ as concerning the old life of sin which is Ada. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in anew life full of the Holy Ghost\b0 which shall teach us, and guide us, and work the will of God in us; as thou seest Rom. 6." [The obedience of all degrees proved by God\rquote s worde imprinted by Wyllyam Copland at London 1561] [Note from the Publisher of this electronic edition of Ivimey: We have modernized the spelling of Tyndale\rquote s words to facilitate ease of understanding for current readers.]\fs24\par \fs20 Whether Tyndale baptized persons on a profession of faith or not, it is certain that his sentiments would naturally lead him to the practice; as what is said of the subject of this ordinance in this quotation, can in no sense apply to infants; who cannot be said to "repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God." As it relates to the manner in which baptism was at that time administered, his statement is so plain that it requires no comment.\fs24\par \fs20 To return to events which took place in England during the reign of Edward VI, we learn from Burnet, that about the end of December 1550, after many cavils in the parliament, an act passed for the king\rquote s general pardon, from the benefits of which the Anabaptists were excluded. "Last of all (says he came the king\rquote s general pardon; out of which those in the tower and other prisons on account of the state, as also all Anabaptists, were excepted." This is a plain intimation that the Baptists were so numerous as to claim the attention of government, and so obnoxious as to be placed on a level with those who were imprisoned as enemies to the state. \fs24\par \fs20 In the same year a visitation of the diocese of London was made by Ridley, the new bishop. Among other questions put to the inferior clergy was the following: "Whether any Anabaptists, or others, used private conventicles, wiLVALIth different opinions and forms from those established." There were also questions about baptism and marriage. Burnet says, "these articles are in bishop Sparrow\rquote s collection." [Hist. of Refor. vol. ii. p. 143-158]\fs24\par \fs20 An event which took place in the next year shows that the Baptists were still offensive to those in power. On April 6, 1551, \b GEORGE VAN-PARE\b0 , \b a Dutchman, was condemned, and on the twenty-fifth of the same month was burnt at Smithfield\b0 . Speaking of this person, Neal remarks, "He was a man of strict and virtuous life, and very devout: he suffered with great constancy of mind, kissing the stake and faggots that were to burn him." Burnet says, that "the eminent character which he had for piety and devotion, and the fortitude and constancy that he manifested at the stake, tended more to expose Cranmer than any event which had happened. It was now said by the papists, that men of harmless lives might be put to death for heresy by the confession of the reformers themselves. In all the books published in queen Mary\rquote s days, these instances were always produced; and when Cranmer himself was brought to the stake, the people called it a just retaliation." [Neal, vol. i. p. 61]\fs24\par \fs20 Mr. Strype says that on Sept. 27, 1552, a letter was sent to the Archbishop, to examine \b a sect newly sprung up in Kent\b0 . He says it appears not what this sect was; he supposes they may be the family of love, or David George\rquote s sect; but these conjectures of his have no good foundation. "I am persuaded, says Mr. Pierce, this sect was no other than some good honest dissenters, who having been grieved to see so much of popery retained attempted a further reformation themselves, which would be a very displeasing thing to our bishops who expect all men to wait their leisure." [Answer to Nichol. p. 56] Mr. Strype in his life of Cranmer p. 208, says expressly that these persons were Anabaptists. \b In all probability many of these came to Joan Boucher\rquote s end\bLVALJ0 , as no argument could convince the divines of this age of the absurdity and wickedness of putting men to death for conscience sake.\fs24\par \fs20 Burnet seems to think that the sufferings of these persons was on account of their erroneous opinions respecting the person of Christ; and says that "the other sort of Anabaptists, who only denied infant baptism, had no severities used against them; but that several books were written against them, to justify infant baptism; and the practice of the church so early begun, and so universally spread, was thought a good plea, especially being grounded on such arguments in scripture, as did demonstrate, at least the lawfulness of it." [Burnet Abridg. part ii. p. 87] However this might be, we are hereby furnished with an important piece of information, proving, that there were persons among them who were able to defend their principles, and who were not afraid to do so, though they thereby exposed themselves to imprisonment and death.\fs24\par \fs20 The next year it was resolved in council to reform the doctrine of the church. Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley were appointed to this work, who framed forty-two articles upon the chief points of the Christian faith. These were entitled, "Articles agreed upon by the bishops and other learned men, in the convocation held in London, in the year 1552, for the avoiding diversity of opinions, and establishing consent touching true religion: Published by the king\rquote s authority." Neal does not notice the alteration in the twenty eighth article, which now stood as follows. "The custom of the church for baptizing young children, is both to be commended, and by all means to be retained in the church." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 54] \b It is worthy of observation, that infant baptism was not retained because it was commanded by Christ, or practised by the apostles and first Christians, but as the custom of the church.\b0\fs24\par \fs20 The excellent young king was a friend to toleration. John a Lasco, who was the pastor LVALKof a foreign church, published a work which was dedicated to Sigismund, king of Poland, 1555; in which it is said, that "King Edward desired that the rites and ceremonies used under popery, should be purged out by degrees; and that strangers should have churches \i to observe all things according to apostolical observation only\i0 ; that by these means the English churches might be excited to embrace apostolical purity with the unanimous consent of the states of the kingdom." He adds, that "the king was at the head of this project, and that Cranmer promoted it; but that some great persons stood in the way." Martin Bucer, a German divine, and professor of divinity in Cambridge, a person in high estimation with the young king, drew up a plan and presented it to his majesty, in which he wrote largely on ecclesiastical discipline. The king having read it, set himself to write a general discourse about reformation, but did not live to finish it. His death, which happened in 1553, in the sixteenth year of his age, and the seventh of his reign, put an end to all his noble designs for perfecting the reformation. Dr. Leighton says, when speaking of his premature death, "This king, a gracious plant whereof the soil was not worthy, like another Josiah, setting himself with all his might to promote the reformation, abhorred and forbid that any mass should be permitted to his sister. Further, he was desirous not to leave a hoof of the Romish beast in his Kingdom, as he was taught by some of the sincerer sort. But as he wanted instruments to effect this good, so he was mightily opposed in all his good designs by the prelatists, which caused him in his godly jealousy, in the very anguish of his soul, to pour out his soul in tears." [An appeal to the parliament, &c.] Neal says, "He was an incomparable prince, of most promising expectations; and in the judgment of most impartial persons, the very phoenix of his age. It was more than whispered that he was poisoned." [Neal, vol. i. p. 81]\fs24\par \b\fs20 During the reLVALLign of the sanguinary MARY, who succeeded him\b0 , it is not to be doubted that the Baptists came in for their full share of suffering, and that many of the martyrs were of that denomination, which was then numerous, although their sentiments have not been handed down to us upon that subject.\fs24\par \fs20 In the first year of her reign, 1553, we have an account of the examination of Mr. Woodman before the bishop of Winchester, in the church of St. Mary Overy\rquote s, in which the bishop said, "Hold him a book: if he refuse to swear, he is an Anabaptist, and shall be excommunicated." Also in the examination of Mr. Philpot before the lords of the council, Nov. 5, 1555, Rich said to him, "All heretics boast of the Spirit of God, and every one would have a church by himself, as Joan of Kent and the Anabaptists."\fs24\par \fs20 Spanhemius, in his account of \b David George\b0 of Delpt in Holland, who was driven from his own country by persecution, and died in London, and was honourably interred in St. Lawrence\rquote s church, informs us, that three years afterwards, it was discovered that he was an Anabaptist; upon which his followers were sought after; a certain number of divines and lawyers were appointed to examine them; his opinions were condemned by an ordinance; his picture was carried about and burnt; and his corps taken up and burnt likewise. [Crosby vol. i. p. 63,64] It is probable that David George was a member of a church of foreign Baptists that was formed in London in the former reign.\fs24\par \b\fs20 Brandt assures us that "in the year 1553, the low country exiles, who in the time of Edward VI had gathered a congregation at London (which upon his death was scattered by Queen Mary) after a dreadful northern journey in which they suffered much from the Lutherans, found at Wismar two distinct communities of Anabaptists\b0 ." [\i Hist. Refor\i0 . vol. i. book. iv]\fs24\par \fs20 These persecutions appear to have inspired the Baptists with additional fortitude in avowing their attachmentLVALM to their despised tenets; for \b in 1557, we find that many were imprisoned, being charged with holding the following opinions.--(1.) That infant baptism is anti-scriptural--(2.) That it is commanded by the pope--(3.) That Christ commanded teaching to go before baptism.\b0 These are sentiments which the Baptists still profess, and which they conceive have never been disproved. There was also a complaint exhibited against such as favoured the gospel at Ipswich, to the Queen\rquote s Council held at Beccles in Suffolk May 18, 1556, and among the crimes enumerated we find that four women were accused of refusing to have their children dipped in the Fonts at St. Peter\rquote s church. One of these is said to be a midwife, and it is particularly requested that "none might be suffered to be midwives but such as are catholic, because of evil council as such times require a number of women assembled." [Fox, vol. iii. p. 791]\fs24\par \fs20 This cruel and bigotted princess died Nov. 17, 1558. Her death put a close to a succession of cruelties which none have fully described, many hundreds having suffered death for religion; and there being but one instance in which a reprieve was granted to a person condemned for heresy. "Her reign (says Neal) was in every respect calamitous to the nation, and ought to be transmitted down to posterity in letters of blood."\fs24\par \b\fs20 QUEEN ELIZABETH\b0 succeeded her sister. In her reign there was much persecution. She was, however, preferable to Mary, though she seems to have been more than half a papist, and exercised a despotic sway over the lives of her subjects. The same severities which Mary exercised towards dissenters from the establishment when it was popish, were used towards them by Elizabeth when it became protestant. Protestants were persecuted by both;--by Mary, for refusing to subscribe to the absurd notions of transubstantiation and purgatory; by Elizabeth, for remonstrating against archbishops, and lord bishops; against the maintenance of the priesthLVALNood by tithes; against the kingdom of Christ being a kingdom of this world; against an unpreaching ministry; against the square cap and surplice; and against rites and ceremonies and ecclesiastical canons of human invention and imposition. Some of the dissenters objected to all these; others to only a part.\fs24\par \fs20 The zeal of the bishops during this period was principally directed towards the support of ceremonies. To refuse a compliance with the injunctions of the queen respecting these popish inventions, was considered reason sufficient to deprive the most eminent divines of their station in the church, of their liberty, and of their life; at a time too when there were but few ministers of the gospel in England, and the people were perishing for lack of knowledge.\fs24\par \fs20 The spirit of the times may be judged of by the following circumstance. The plague being in London and several parts of the country in the summer of 1562, a little stop was thereby put to the zeal for uniformity, yet none were preferred in the church who scrupled the habits. In proof of this we may produce the examples of two of the worthiest and most learned divines of the age. The first of these was the venerable \b Miles Coverdale\b0 , formerly bishop of Exeter. This excellent man had been long employed in assisting Tyndale in the translation of the bible. He was born in Yorkshire, was educated at Cambridge, and proceeded doctor in the university of Tubingen. Returning to England in the time of king Edward, he was made bishop of Exeter, 1551. Upon the accession of Queen Mary, he was imprisoned, and would have been burnt; but by the intercession of the king of Denmark, he was sent over into that country. When Elizabeth came to the throne, he returned to England, and assisted at the consecration of her first archbishop of Canterbury: yet because he would not comply with the ceremonies and habits, he was neglected, and had no preferment. "This reverend man (says Mr. Strype) being now old and poor, Grindal, bishop oLVALOf London, gave him the small living of St. Magnus at the Bridge-foot, where he preached quietly about two years. But not coming up to the uniformity required, he was persecuted thence, and obliged to relinquish his parish a little before his death, which took place May 20, 1567, at the age of eighty-one years. He was a celebrated preacher, admired and followed by all the puritans." [\i Life of Parker\i0 , p. 149]\fs24\par \fs20 The other was that venerable man, \b Mr. John Fox\b0 the martyrologist, a grave, learned, and laborious divine, and an exile for religion. While banished from his native country, he employed his time in writing the "Acts and Monuments" of that church which would hardly receive him into her bosom, and in collecting materials relative to the martyrdom of those who suffered for religion in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary. This he published first in Latin for the benefit of foreigners, and then in English for the use of his own countrymen, in 1561. This book gave a most severe blow to popery. It was dedicated to the queen, and was in such high reputation that it was ordered to be placed in the churches, where it raised in the people an invincible horror and detestation of that religion which had shed so much innocent blood.\fs24\par \fs20 The queen professed a particular regard for Mr. Fox, and used to call him father: but as he refused to subscribe to her articles and ceremonies, he had no promotion for a considerable time. At length, through the influence of a friend, he procured a prebend in the cathedral of Sarum. This good old man would not submit to such impositions. When he was called upon to subscribe, he took his Greek testament from his pocket, and said, "To this will I subscribe." When they offered him the canons, he refused, saying, "I have nothing in the church but a prebend at Salisbury; and, if you take it away from me, much good may it do you." In a letter to his friend Dr. Humphreys, he thus pleasantly reproached the ingratitude of the times in which he lived.LVALP "I still wear the same clothes, and remain in the same sordid condition, that England received me in when I first came home out of Germany; nor do I change my degree or order, which is that of the mendicants, or if you please of the friars preachers." [Wilson\rquote s \i Hist. of Dissenting Churches\i0 , vol. i. p. 10]\fs24\par \fs20 That no favour would be shown to the Baptists in such times as these, is what might naturally be expected. The share they had in the cruelties inflicted on dissenters will appear in a few instances which the historians of those times have preserved. Mr. Fuller says, "\b Now began the Anabaptists wonderfully to encrease in the land\b0 ; and as we are sorry that any countrymen should be seduced by that opinion, so we are glad that the English as yet were free from that infection: for \b on Easter day was disclosed a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists, without Aldgate in London\b0 ; whereof seven-and-twenty were taken and imprisoned; and four, bearing faggots at Paul\rquote s cross, solemnly recanted their dangerous opinions. Next month, one Dutchman and ten women were condemned; of whom one woman was persuaded to renounce her error; eight were banished the land; and \b two more were so obstinate that command was issued out for their burning in Smithfield\b0 ." [\i Church Hist.\i0 Cent. 16, p. 164]\fs24\par \fs20 What this writer says of the English being previously free from this infection, shows how little he was acquainted with the history of the church, as the numerous instances we have mentioned abundantly prove. The account, however, which is here given, is an evidence of the stedfastness of these people in holding their opinions, as but five were influenced by threats and promises to recant; and one of these, a woman, not till after she had been condemned to be executed. This sentence two of the men cheerfully suffered, rather than deny Him who has said, "Whosoever loveth his own life more than me is not worthy of me; and whosoever loseth his life for my sake, the LVALQsame shall find it."\fs24\par \fs20 The form of abjuration made by these Walloon Baptists is a curious document, as it proves to what lengths the prelatists wished persons professing these sentiments to go. It was taken before Dr. De Laune, in 1575, in the eighteenth year of Elizabeth, in the Dutch church, Austin frairs, London, of which the doctor was minister. It is as follows: "Whereas we being seduced by the devil, the spirit of error, and by false teachers, have fallen into the most damnable errors; that Christ took not flesh of the substance of the virgin Mary, that the infants of the faithful ought not to be baptized, that a christian may not be a magistrate, or bear the sword and office of authority, and that it is not lawful for a christian man to take an oath. Now by the grace of God, and the assistance of good and learned ministers of Christ\rquote s church, we understand the same to be most damnable and detestable heresies; and do ask God, before his church, mercy for the said former errors; and do forsake, recant, and renounce them; and we abjure them from the bottom of our hearts, protesting we certainly believe the contrary. And further, we confess that the whole doctrine established and published in the church of England, and also that which is received by the Dutch church in London, is found true according to God\rquote s word. Whereunto in all things we submit ourselves, and will be most gladly members of the said Dutch church; from henceforth utterly abandoning and forsaking all and every Anabaptistical error." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 69]\fs24\par \fs20 From this account we learn what were the errors they were charged with, and nothing but a formal recantation of which would preserve them from either banishment or death. To prevent those from being executed who were condemned, Fuller says, that a grave divine sent a melting letter to the queen, begging they might not be burnt. "This was written, (he adds) in elegant latin by Mr. John Fox, from whose hand I transcribed it. He was very LVALRloth that Smithfield, formerly consecrated with martyr\rquote s ashes, should now be profaned with heretics, and desirous that the papists might enjoy their own monopoly of cruelty in burning condemned persons." \fs24\par \fs20 The following is the translation of this letter, which does credit to the heart of the writer.--"Most serene and happy princess, most illustrious queen, the honour of our country, and honour of our age. As nothing hath ever been farther from my thoughts and expectation than ever to trouble your most excellent majesty by my troublesome interruption; so it grieves me very much that I must break that silence which has hitherto been the result of my mind. But so it now happens, by I know not what infelicity, that the present time obliges me, contrary to my hope and opinion, to that which of all things in the world I least desired; and though hitherto I have been troublesome to nobody, I am now, contrary to my inclination, constrained to be importunate, even with my princess; not in any matter or cause of my own, but through the calamity brought upon others; and by how much the more sharp and lamentable that is, by so much the more I am spurred on to deprecate it.\fs24\par \fs20 "I understand there are some here in England, not English but come hither from Holland, I suppose both men and women, who having been tried according to law, and having publicly declared their repentance, are happily reclaimed. Many others are condemned to exile; a right sentence in my opinion. But I hear there are one or two of these who are appointed to the most severe of punishments, viz. \i burning\i0 , except your clemency prevent. Now in this one affair I conceive there are two things to be considered; the one is the wickedness of their errors, the other, the sharpness of their punishment. As to their errors, indeed, no man of sense can deny that they are most absurd, and I wonder that such monstrous opinions could come into the mind of any Christian; but such is the state of human weakness, if we arLVALSe left never so little awhile destitute of the divine light, whither is it we do not fall? And we have great reason to give God thanks that I hear not of any Englishman that is inclined to this madness. As to these fanatical sects, therefore, it is certain they are by no means to be countenanced in a commonwealth, but in my opinion ought to be suppressed by proper correction. But to \i roast alive\i0 the bodies of poor wretches, that offend rather through blindness of judgment than perverseness of will, in fire and flames, raging with pitch and brimstone, is a hard-hearted thing, and more agreeable to the practice of the Romanists than the custom of the gospellers; yea, is evidently of the same kind, as if it had flowed from the Romish priests, from the first author of such cruelty, Innocent the third. Oh, that none had ever brought such a Phalarian bull into the meek church of Christ! I do not speak such things because I am pleased with their wickedness, or favour the errors of any man; but seeing that I myself am a man, I must therefore favour the life of man; not that he should err, but that he should repent. Nay, my pity extends not only to the life of man, but also to the beasts.\fs24\par \fs20 "For so it is perhaps a folly in my; but I speak the truth, that I can hardly pass by a slaughter-house where cattle are killing, but my mind shrinks back with a secret sense of their pains. And truly I greatly admire the clemency of God in this, who had such respect to the mean brute creatures formerly prepared for sacrifices, that they must not be committed to the flames before their blood had been poured out at the foot of the altar. Whence we may gather, that in inflicting of punishments, though just, we must not be over rigorous, but temper the sharpness of rigour with clemency. Wherefore, if I may be so bold with the majesty of so great a princess, I humbly beg of your royal highnesss, for the sake of Christ, who was consecrated to suffer for the lives of many, this favour at my request, which evenLVALT the divine clemency would engage you to; that if it may be, (and what cannot your authority do in these cases?) these miserable wretches may be spared; at least that a stop may be put to the horror, by changing the punishment into some other kind. There are excommunications, and close imprisonments; there are bonds; there is perpetual banishment, burning of the hand and whipping, or even slavery itself. This one thing I most earnestly beg, that the flames of Smithfield, so long ago extinguished by your happy government, may not be again revived. But if I may not obtain this, I pray with the greatest earnestness that out of your great pity you would grant us a month or two in which we may try whether the Lord will give them grace to turn from their dangerous errors, lest with the destruction of their bodies their souls be in danger of eternal ruin."\fs24\par \fs20 This melting pathetic letter had but little effect upon the high and bigotted spirit of Elizabeth. She answered, "That if after a month\rquote s reprieve, and conference with divines, they would not recant their errors, they should certainly suffer." This they refused to do, and hereupon the writ \i De haeretico comburendo\i0 , which for seventeen years had only hung up \i in terrorem\i0 , was now put in execution; and these two Baptists, \b John Wielmaker\b0 and \b Henry Tor Woort\b0 , \b were burnt in Smithfield, July 22\b0 . \fs24\par \fs20 In the year 1589, Dr. Some, a man of great note, and a violent churchman, \b published a treatise against some of the puritans, Greenwood, Barrow, Penry, and others. In this he attempts to show what agreement there was between them and the English Anabaptists\b0 . The opinions he charges the Anabaptists with, when, as Crosby says, they are stripped of the dress which he had put upon them, are as follow--"That the ministers of the gospel ought to be maintained by the voluntary contributions of the people--that the civil power has no right to make and impose ecclesiastical laws--that the high commissiLVALUon court was an anti-christian usurpation--that those who are qualified to teach ought not to be hindered by the civil power--that though the Lord\rquote s prayer be a rule and foundation of prayer, yet it is not to be used as a form and that no forms of prayer ought to be imposed on the church--that the baptism administered by the church of Rome is invalid--that a true constitution and discipline are essential to a true church, and that the worship of God in the church of England is in many things defective."--The doctor touches but briefly, says Crosby, on their opinion of baptizing believers only, and brings up the rear of his accusations with saying, "they esteem it blasphemy for any man to arrogate to himself the title of Doctor of Divinity" that is, as he explains it, to be called Rabbi, or master of other men\rquote s faith. [Crosby, vol. i. p. 77]\fs24\par \fs20 Who does not see in these articles the genuine principles of the new testament, and the true ground upon which as protestant dissenters we ought to take our stand? The right of the magistrate to interfere in religious matters being denied, religious establishments, which are founded upon the assumption of that principle, must be necessarily dissented from, and, if the principle can be proved to be false, must fall with it.\fs24\par \fs20 The Baptists of the present day have no reason to be ashamed of these sentiments of their predecessors, who at a time when the principles of dissent were so imperfectly understood, had such clear ideas on the subject, and sealed the truth with their blood.\fs24\par \fs20 From Dr. Some we learn also that at the time when he wrote, \b 1589, "There were several Anabaptistical conventicles in London and other places\b0 ." It seems then the Baptists had at this early period formed distinct churches of persons of their own sentiments, both in London, and in different parts of the country. He adds, "Some persons of these sentiments have been bred at our universities." That is to say, some of the zealous puLVALVritanical divines had pursued their principles to their legitimate consequences, and had rejected infant baptism, with the other ceremonies of the church. The doctor, to expose the Baptists, relates a story of one whom he calls T.L., "who at a conventicle in London took upon him to expound the scriptures, conceive long prayers on a sudden, and to excommunicate two persons who were formerly of that brotherhood, but had now left them." \b Who this T.L. was we know not; but it clearly appears that he was the pastor of the church\b0 , and that in their name, he declared that some persons who had left them were no longer of their communion. His explaining the scriptures and praying without the use of a form, will not now be considered as either unaccountable or heretical. We are much obliged to Dr. Some for enabling us to trace the history of our churches in England, since the Reformation, to a period almost as early as that of the presbyterian churches, the first of which in England was founded at Wandsworth in the year 1572.\fs24\par \fs20 The persons against whom Dr. Some wrote were men of respectable talents, and their names shine with distinguished lustre in the annals of the puritans. They were eminent divines, and illustrious martyrs in the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ. \b Barrow and Greenwood\b0 , after being kept in prison for many months, and there exposed to all the severities of cold, hunger, and nakedness, were, on the last day of March 1592, brought to Tyburn in a cart, and exposed under the gallows a long time, to see whether the terrors of death would affright them; but remaining constant, they were taken back to Newgate, and \b on April 6, they were carried a second time to Tyburn and executed\b0 . At the place of execution they gave such testimonies of their unfeigned piety towards God, and loyalty to the queen, and prayed so earnestly for her long and prosperous reign, that when Dr. Reynolds, who attended them, reported their behaviour to her majesty, she is said to have expressed herLVALW sorrow that she had yielded to their death.\fs24\par \fs20 The persecution of those who separated from the church of England, was from this time to end of the queen\rquote s reign very severe. \fs24\par \fs20 Many of them on this account left the kingdom; and those who remained in it were perpetually harassed and tormented by fines and imprisonment. That the Baptists were deeply involved in the suffering of these times, may be gathered from the supplication of the justices of the peace for the county of Norfolk. A complaint had been made to them of the long and illegal imprisonment of a puritan, the Rev. Robert Wright, and hereupon their worships were pleased to address Aylmer, bishop of London, on his behalf. This so offended his lordship, that he drew up twelve articles of impeachment against the justices themselves, and caused them to be summoned before the queen and council to answer for their misdemeanors.\fs24\par \fs20 These high proceedings of the bishop disgusted both the clergy and the whole country; and the justices, notwithstanding his late citation of them before the council, wrote to their honours, praying them to interpose in behalf of divers godly ministers. The words of this supplication, says Neal, are worth remembering, because they discover the cruelty of the commissioners; who made no distinction between the vilest of criminals and conscientious ministers.--"The faithful ministers of the word (say they) are marshalled with the worst malefactors; presented, indicted, arraigned, and condemned, for matters, as we presume, of very slender moment, some for leaving the holidays unbidden; some for singing the psalm \i Nune Dimittis\i0 in the morning; some for turning the questions in baptism concerning faith, from the infants to the godfathers, which is but you for thou; some for leaving out the cross in baptism; some for leaving out the ring in marriage. A most pitiful thing it is to see the back of the law turned to the adversary [the papists] and the edge with all its sharpness lLVALXaid upon the sound and true-hearted subject.\fs24\par \fs20 "We regard order to be the rule of the Spirit of God, and desire uniformity in all the duties of the church, according to the proportion of faith: but if these weak ceremonies are so indifferent as to be left to the discretion of ministers, we think it (under correction) very hard to have them go under so hard handling, to the utter discredit of their whole ministry, and the profession of the truth.\fs24\par \fs20 "We serve her majesty and the country [as justices of the peace] according to law. We reverence the law, and lawmaker: when the law speaks, we keep silence: when it commandeth, we obey. By law we proceed against all offenders: we touch none that the law spareth, and spare none that the law toucheth. We allow not of papists; of the family of Love; of Anabaptists, or Brownists. No, we punish all these. Yet we are christened with the odious name of puritans; a term compounded of the heresies above mentioned, which we disclaim. The papists pretend to be immaculate: the family of Love cannot sin, they being deified, as they say, in God. But we groan under the burden of our sins, and confess them to God; and at the same time we labour to keep ourselves and our profession unblamable. This is our puritanism; a name given to such magistrates and ministers, and others, as have a strict eye upon their juggling.\fs24\par \fs20 "We think ourselves bound in duty to unfold these matters to your lordships; and if you shall please to call us to the proof of them, it is the thing we most desire."\fs24\par \fs20 When such severities were practised against men who ventured to alter a \i pronoun\i0 in the baptismal service, for the relief of burdened consciences, it is certain that those called Anabaptists, who rejected the rite itself, would not escape chastisement. Even the justices of Norfolk say, "\i we\i0 punish these." It is remarkable, that while they mention some things that made other sects odious, they say nothing to the discredit of the0LVAL@ Baptists. May we not infer that their only error was a denial of infant baptism? But for this crime they were considered as unfit to reside in a Christian country among Christian people, and therefore the queen published a royal proclamation commanding all Anabaptists and other heretics to leave the kingdom, whether they were natives or foreigners, under the penalties of imprisonment and loss of goods. \b Consequently all Baptists were obliged either to conceal their sentiments, or fly into those countries where they might without molestation worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Many of them went over to Holland; so that there were perhaps fewer dissenters in England of all denominations at this time than at any period since the reformation.\b0 The terrors of the Star chamber, and the High commission court, or as it has been more properly called, the English inquisition, operated so powerfully as almost to exterminate all those who had the simplicity and godly sincerity to oppose that church, which with bold effrontery had declared, "The church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith;" to which might have been added,--and a disposition to punish those who will not implicitly receive her dogmas.\fs24\par \b\fs20 Things were in this state at that time of the queen\rquote s death, which took place March 24, 1602\b0 , in the seventieth year of her age, and the forty-fifth of her reign. Neal says, "As to her religion, she affected a middle way between popery and puritanism, though she was more inclined to the former. \b She understood not the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and is therefore justly charged with persecuting principles\b0 . More sanguinary laws were made in her reign than in those of any of her predecessors. Her hands were stained with the blood of papists and puritans: the former were executed for denying her supremacy, and the latter for sedition and non-conformity."\fs24\par \pard\cf1\fs23\par } LVALZ{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER IV\b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 1602-1625\b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 The persecuted puritans found in Holland an asylum which sheltered them from the rage of their enemies; and with the permission of the states, they founded churches at Amsterdam, Arnheim, Middleburg, Leyden, and other places. One of the churches at Amsterdam was founded by \b Mr. John Smyth\b0 , and was of the Baptist denomination. [\i Life of Ainsworth\i0 , p. 36]\fs24\par \fs20 In order to preserve the connection of our history, it will be necessary to give some account of Mr. Smyth, who was the first pastor of this church. He was one of the disciples of \b Robert Brown\b0 , from whom the \b Brownists\b0 derived their name. At what time he embraced these sentiments, we are not informed; but he is spoken of as one of their leaders in 1592. He was previously a beneficed minister in the church of England, at Gainsborough, in Lincolnshire. Before his secession, he spent nine months in studying the controversy, and held a disputation with Mr. Hildersham, and some other divines, on conformity to the ceremonies, and on the use of prescribed forms of prayer. In the above-mentioned county, and on the borders of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, the principles of the separation had made an extensive impression. Mr. Smyth, the pastor of one of their churches, and Mr. Robinson and Mr. Clifton, the co-pastors of another church, being harassed by the High commission court, removed with their followers to Holland. Mr. Smyth and his followers settled at Amsterdam, 1606, and joined themselves to the English church of which Johnson was pastor, and Ainsworth teacher. It was not long, however, before a serious breach took place. The subjects of debate which gave rise to this division, are said to have been certain opinions very similar to those afterwards espoused by the ArminLVAL[ians. Mr. Smyth is said to have maintained the doctrines of free will and universal redemption; to have oppsed the predestination of particular individuals to eternal life, and the doctrine of original sin; and to have maintained that believers might fall from that grace which would have saved them, if they had continued in it. In addition to this, Mr. Smyth differed from them on the subject of baptism. The steps which led him to the rejection of infant baptism, were the following.\fs24\par \fs20 The Brownists denied that the church of England was a true church, and that her ministers acted under a divine commission, and consequently considered every ordinance administered by them null and void. They were guilty, however, of this inconsistency, that while they reordained their ministers, they did not renew their baptism. The impropriety of this conduct was discovered by Mr. Smyth, whose doubts concerning the validity of baptism in the established church, led him eventually to renounce infant baptism altogether. Upon a further consideration of the subject, he saw reason to conclude that immersion was the true and proper meaning of the word baptism, and that it should be administered to those only who were capable of professing faith in Christ.\fs24\par \fs20 The other ministers of the separation appear to have treated Mr. Smyth with great asperity. They charged him with having proclaimed open war against God\rquote s everlasting covenant, and as being one who would murder the souls of babes and sucklings, by depriving them of the visible seals of salvation. They also said, that not being able to find any minister who had been baptized on a profession of faith, and objecting to the doctrinal sentiments of the German Baptists, he had profaned the covenant by first baptizing himself, and afterwards his followers.\fs24\par \fs20 In England, the learned and excellent Bishop Hall employed his pen against him and the ministers of the separation, in a work entitled, \i A common Apology of the Church of EnglLVAL\and, against the unjust challengers of the over just sect, commonly called Brownists\i0 , &c. The dedication prefixed to this work is as follows-"To our gracious and blessed mother, the church of England, the meanest of all her children dedicates this her apology, and wisheth all peace and happiness." The Bishop proceeds by saying, "no less than a year and a half is past since I wrote a loving monitory letter to two of thine unworthy sons, [Smyth and Robinson] which I heard were fled from thee in person, in affection, and somewhat in opinion. Supposing them yet thine in the main substance, though in some circumstances their own. Since which, one of them hath washed off thy font-water as unclean, and hath written desperately against three and his own fellows."\fs24\par \fs20 It is remarkable that the bishop says nothing of Mr. Smyth\rquote s having baptized himself, which from the particular way in which he speaks of him and of what he considered his errors, he doubtless would have done, if this had been the case. There is no doubt but this silly charge was fabricated by his enemies, and it is an astonishing instance of credulity that writers of eminent talents have contributed to perpetuate the slander. The character which Bishop Hall gives of him, renders this charge altogether improbable. Addressing Mr. Robinson, he says, "My knowledge of Master Smyth whom you followed, and yourself, would not let me think of you as you deserved. The truth is, my charity and your uncharitableness, have led us to mistake each other. I hoped you had been one of their guides; both because Lincolnshire was your country, and Master Smyth your oracle and general.-I wrote not to you alone. What is become of your partners, yea, your guide? Woe is me, he hath renounced Christendom with our church, and hath washed off his former waters with new, and now condemns you for separating so far. He tells you true: your station is unsafe: either you must go forward to him, or back to us. There is no remedy: either you must go forwarLVAL]d to anabaptism, or come backto us. All your rabbins cannot answer that charge of your rebaptized brother. If we be a true church, you must return; if we be not, as a false church is no church of God, you must rebaptize. If our baptism be good, then is our constitution good.-As for the title of ring-leader, wherewith I stiled this pamphleteer; if I have given him too much honour in his sect, I am sorry. Perhaps I should have put him, (pardon a homely, but in this sense not unusual, word) in the tail of his train: perhaps I should have endorsed my letter to Master Smyth and his shadow." [p. 723-794]\fs24\par \fs20 From all these expressions, which show the eminence of Mr. Smyth among the ministers of the separation, it is evident he was considered as a person of great consequence, and that his disciples were very numerous. This corroborates which is said by Ephraim Pagit; that "he was accounted one of the grandees of the separation, and that he and his followers did at once as it were swallow up all the rest of the separation." [\i Heresiography\i0 , p. 62,64]\fs24\par \fs20 In the introduction prefixed to a work printed in Holland in the year 1609, and entitled, \i The character of the Beast, or the false constitution of the church discovered in certain passages betwist Mr. R. Clifton and John Smyth, concerning the Christian baptism of new creatures or new born babes in Christ: and false baptism of infants born after the flesh. Referred to two propositions, 1. That infants are not to be baptized. 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true church by baptism\i0 . Mr. Smyth thus speaks in vindication of the separation of himself and friends from the Brownists, because infant baptism was retained in their churches:--"Be it known therefore to all the separation, that we account them in respect of their constitution to be as very a harlot as either her mother England, or her grandmother Rome is, out of whose loins she came; And although once in our ignorance we have acknowledged herLVAL^ a true church; yet nowbeing better informed, we revoke this our erroneous judgment, and protest against her as well for her false constitution as for her false ministry, worship, and government. The true constitution of the church is of a new creature, baptized into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: the false constitution is of infant\rquote s baptized, &c."\fs24\par \fs20 The manner of his reasoning concerning the restoration of the ordinance of baptism, when lost, is as follows. "The Anabaptists, as you call them, do not set up a new covenant and gospel, though they set up a new or apostolic baptism, which antichrist had overthrown: and whereas you say they have no warrant to baptize themselves, I say, as much as you have to set up a new church, yea, fully as much. For if a true church may be erected, which is the most noble ordinance of the new testament, then much more baptism: and if a true church cannot be erected without baptism, for baptism is the visible sign of the church, as disciples are the matter; then seeing you confess that a true church may be erected, you cannot deny (though you do deny it in opposing the truth) that baptism may be also recovered. And seeing, when all Christ\rquote s visible ordinances are lost, either men must recover them again, or must let them alone: if they let them alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues, as the apostles did, then men are Familists; (for that is their opinion) or if they must recover them, men must begin so to do; and then two men joining together can make a church, as you say. Why might they not then baptize, seeing they cannot conjoin into Christ without baptism? (Matt. 28:19; 28:10; Gal. 3:27.) But it is evident that all Christ\rquote s commandments must be obeyed: ergo, this commandment of having and using the communion of the church, ministry, worship, and government, those holy means of salvation which the Lord in his mercy has given us in his covenant, and commanded us to use. And if all the commandments of God must LVAL_be obeyed, then this of baptism, and this warrant is sufficient for assuming baptism. Now for baptizing a man\rquote s self, there is as good warrant as for a man\rquote s churching himself: for two men singly are no church: jointly they are a church, and they both of them put a church upon themselves: for as both these persons unchurched, yet have power to assume the church, each of them for himself and others in communion; so each of them unbaptized, hath power to assume baptism for himself with others in communion." [Page 58]\fs24\par \fs20 Here are two principles laid down by Mr. Smyth, which contradict the account given of him. The first is, that upon the supposition of the true baptism being lost for some time through the disuse of it, it is necessary there should be two persons to unite in the administration. The second is, that the first administrator must be a member of some church, who shall call and empower him to administer it to the other members.\fs24\par \fs20 Now it is reasonable to suppose that his practice was conformable to the above principles; and as there is mention made of Mr. Helwisse and Mr. John Morton [Crosby, v. i. p. 99], two ministers who were of his opinion, and who joined with him in the rules which he laid down, their method must have been this:--the seceders must first have formed themselves into a church, and then the church must have appointed two of its ministers to restore the ordinance by baptizing each other, and after that to baptize the rest of the church.\fs24\par \fs20 Mr. Smyth must have died soon after his work was printed; for in 1611 there appeared \i A confession of faith\i0 , published by the remainder of Mr. Smyth\rquote s company, with an appendix giving some account of his last sickness and death. A few articles of this confession are preserved by Crosby, in his first volume, extracted from the works of Mr. Smyth, by Mr. Robinson, pastor of the Brownist church at Leyden. In the Appendix to Crosby\rquote s second volume this confession is given inLVAL` 27 articles. From this it appears that their sentiments resembled those which are now denominated Arminian; but there is no evidence of their holding those silly and erroneous opinions which they have been charged with by their enemies.\fs24\par \fs20 James the first was now sitting on the throne of England, a prince who for vanity and bigotry has perhaps been seldom equaled. From such a king, and from such bishops as Whitgift and Bancroft, the puritans of whatever denomination could expect no favour. "The king (says Rapin) intimated at the first, that he would have regard to the tender consciences of such Catholics as could not comply with the received doctrine of the church of England; but in this there was not the least indulgence for the tender consciences of the puritans: these were all a set of obstinate people, who deserved to have no favour shewed them." [\i Hist. of England\i0 , vol. ii. p. 163]\fs24\par \fs20 In the year 1608, one Enoch Clapham wrote a small piece entitled, \i Errors on the right hand, against the several sects of protestants in those times\i0 ; in which he represented by way of dialogue, the opinions which each sect held, and somewhat of their state and condition. He notices their fleeing out of their own nation to plant a church among a people of another language; and that they alleged in their defence, Elijah\rquote s fleeing in time of persecution, and our Saviour\rquote s advice to his disciples, if they were persecuted in one city to flee into another. He also complains of those who remained in England, for leaving the public assemblies, and running into woods and meadows, and meeting in bye stables, barns and haylofts, for service.\fs24\par \fs20 He distinguishes the Anabaptists from the puritans and Brownists on the one hand, and from the Arians and Socinians on the other; and represents them all as being zealous opposers of each other.\fs24\par \fs20 The Anabaptists, according to his account, held that repentance and faith must precede baptism; that the baptismLVALa of the church of England and of the puritans was invalid, and that the true baptism was amongst them. He says farther, that they complained of the term Anabaptist as a name of reproach cast upon them; and also takes notice that some of this opinion were Dutchmen, who, besides the denial of infant baptism, held that it was unlawful to bear arms, &c. That there were others who went under the denomination that were Englishmen, to whom he does not so directly charge the former opinions, but only the denial of their first baptism, and separating both from the established church and other dissenters; adding that they came out from the Brownists, and that there was a congregation of them in Holland. [Crosby, vol. i. p. 88]\fs24\par \fs20 The congregation to which he refers is doubtless that which we have mentioned, under the care of Mr. Smyth, which existed at this time in Holland; and from what Mr. Johnson, pastor of one of the English churches, says in a work published in 1617, it is evident that his ministry was very successful, and that his principles were extensively embraced. "Of which point [infant baptism] and of sundry objections thereabout, I have treated (says he) the more largely, considering how great the error is in the denial thereof, and how greatly it spreadeth, both in these parts, and of late in our own country, that is England." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 91]\fs24\par \fs20 In the work of Enoch Clapham, before mentioned, the Anabaptist is asked what religion he is of; and is made to answer, "Of the true religion, commonly termed Anabaptism, from our baptizing."--When he is asked concerning the church or congregation he was connected with in Holland; he answers, "There be certain English people of us that came out from the Brownists."--When the Arian says, I am of the mind that there is no true baptism upon earth; he replies, "I pray thee son, say not so: the congregation I am of, can and doth administer true baptism."--When an enquirer after truth offers, upon his proving what he has said, toLVALb leave his old religion; the Anabaptist answers, "You may say, if God will give you grace to leave it; for it is a peculiar grace to leave Sodom and Egypt, spiritually so called." When the same person offers to join with them, and firmly betake himself to their faith; the Anabaptist replies, "The dew of heaven come upon you: to-morrow I will bring you into our sacred congregation, that so you may come to be imformed in the faith, and after that be purely baptized."\fs24\par \fs20 This account being given by one who wrote against the Baptists, may be safely relied on, especially as he assures his reader, that the characters which he gives of each sect was not without sundry years experience had of them all.\fs24\par \fs20 Mr. Smyth, the pastor of the church at Amsterdam, was succeeded by \b Mr. Thomas Helwisse,\b0 who had been baptized by him, and was one of the persons who was excommunicated with him, on account of their objecting to the validity of infant baptism. He had fled with the Brownists to Holland, to escape persecution. While he continued with them he was esteemed a man of eminent faith, charity, and spiritual gifts. Though he had not the advantage of a learned education, he appears by his writings to have been a man of good natural parts, which had been improved by studious application.\fs24\par \fs20 Soon after the death of Mr. Smyth, Mr. Helwisse began to reflect upon the impropriety of his own conduct and that of the other English dissenters, in leaving their country and friends, and flying into a strange land to escape persecution. Thinking this might have arisen from fear and cowardice, he concluded they ought rather to bear a testimony to the truth in their own land, where it was in danger of being wholly extinguished; and to encourage their brethren, who were then suffering persecution for Christ\rquote s sake, to "hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering." He and his friends accordingly left Holland, and settled in London, where they continued their church state,LVALc and assembled for worship, as often, and as publicly, as the spirit of the times would permit. In a treatise written by Mr. Helwisse, entitled, \i A short declaration\i0 , &c. he justified their conduct by endeavouring to show in what cases it was unlawful to fly in times of persecution. This gave great offence to the puritans who were in exile, who in a work written against him by Mr. Robinson, charged him with "vain glory, and with courting persecution by challenging the king and the state to their faces, &c." How long Mr. Helwisse continued the elder of this church, Crosby says, he could not find, but that the books wrote against them show that they went on with great courage and resolution; and notwithstanding the severities used against them by the civil power, increased greatly in their number. [Crosby, vol. i. 271,272]\fs24\par \fs20 Their intrepidity and danger may be judged of by the following circumstance. \b In the year 1614 the king, in order to show his zeal against heresy, took an opportunity to exercise it, by burning alive two of his subjects\b0 . These were Bartholomew Legate, who was charged with Arianism, and burnt in Smithfield, March 18, 1611; and \b Edward Wightman, a Baptist\b0 , of the town of Burton upon Trent, who was convicted Dec. 14, 1611, of divers heresies, before the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry; and being delivered up to the secular power, was burnt at Litchfield on the 11th of April following.\fs24\par \fs20 Amongst other charges brought against him are these:--That the baptizing of infants is an abominable custom; that the Lord\rquote s supper and baptism are not to be celebrated as they are now practiced in the church of England; and that Christianity is not wholly professed and preached in the church of England, but only in part." Who would have thought that a person would have been burnt by protestants for such opinions! Happily for our native country, this day of bigotry is past, and Edward Wightman was the last who suffered death in this way. It is ratheLVALdr a curious fact, that on the supposition of William Sautry, the Lollard, opposing infant baptism, which is highly probable, the Baptists have had the honour of leading the van, and bring up the rear of that part of the noble army of English martyrs, who have laid down their lives at the stake.\fs24\par \fs20 The persecution increased so much against the puritans, that in this year many of them left the country and fled to America. Amongst these were some Baptists, of whom honourable mention is made in Cotton Mather\rquote s \i History of America\i0 ; but as the history of the Baptists in that part of the world does not come within our design, we must refer the reader to their history, published in 3 vols. octavo, by the Rev. Isaac Backus, of New England.\fs24\par \fs20 There were however many who remained, for in 1615, the Baptists in England published a small treatise, entitled, \i Persecution judged and condemned: in a discourse between an Antichristian and a Christian\i0 . \i Proving by the law of God and of the land, and by King James his many testimonies, that no man ought to be persecuted for his religion, so he testifie his allegiance by the oath appointed by law. Proving also, that the spiritual power in England, is the image of the spiritual cruel power of Rome, or that the beast mentioned Rev. 13. Manifesting the fearful estate of those who are subject to such powers, that tyrannize over the conscience; and shewing the unlawfulness of flying because of the trouble men see or fear is coming upon them\i0 .\fs24\par \fs20 In this Piece they endeavoured to justify their separation from the church of England, and prove that every man has a right to judge for himself in matters of religion; and that to persecute on that account was illegal and anti-christian; contrary to the laws of God, as well as to several declarations of the king\rquote s majesty. They also assert their opinion respecting baptism, and show the invalidity of that baptism which was administered either in the established churLVALech or among the other dissenters, and clear themselves of several errors which had been unjustly imputed to them. It appears to have been approved by the whole body of Baptists who remained in England; for at the end of the preface they subscribe themselves "Christ\rquote s unworthy witnesses, his majesty\rquote s faithful subjects, commonly (but most falsely) called Anabaptists."\fs24\par \fs20 Though there is no name to this work, yet it is evidently the production of Mr. Helwisse and his friends. At the close of it they refer the reader to their confession published four years before, to form a judgment of their sentiments on the person of Christ; the lawfulness of magistrates, &c. &c. In the Epistle, "to all that truly wish Jerusalem\rquote s prosperity, and Babylon\rquote s destruction," they say, "It cannot but with high thankfulness to God, and to the King, he acknowledged of all, that the King\rquote s Majesty is no blood-thirsty man, for if he were, bodily destruction should be the portion of all that fear God, and endeavour to walk in his ways; as may be seen in the primitive times of this spiritual power, or beast of England, after that King Henry the Eighth had cast off the Romish beast and since (so far as leave has been granted them) by hanging, burning, banishing, imprisoning, and what not, as the particulars might be named. Yet our most humble desire of our Lord the King is, that he would not give his power to force his faithful subjects to dissemble, to believe as he believes, in the least measure of persecution; though it is no small persecution to lye many years in filthy prisons, in hunger, cold, idleness, divided from wife, family, calling, left in continual miseries and temptations, so as death would be to many less persecution; seeing his Majesty confesseth, that \i to change the mind must be the work of God\i0 . And of the Lord Bishops we desire, that they would a little leave off persecuting those that cannot believe as they, till they have proved that God is well pleased theLVALfrewith, and the souls of such as submit are in safety from condemnation; let them prove this, and we protest we will for ever submit unto them, and so will thousands; and therefore if there be any spark of grace in them, let them set themselves to give satisfaction either by word or writing, or both. But if they will not but continue their cruel courses as they have done, let them yet remember that they must come to judgment, and have their abominations set in order before them, and be torn in pieces when none shall deliver them."\fs24\par \fs20 This work is a well written pamphlet of forty-eight quarto pages, in the form of a dialogue between a \i Christian\i0 , an \i Antichristian\i0 , and an \i Indifferent\i0 \i person\i0 . The principles of Dissenters and of the Baptists are clearly stated; and certainly proves that at this early period they were numerous and respectable; and had for many years been great sufferers, it should seem from the period of the reformation, from the manner in which they speak of the persecutions they had endured from the bishops of the church of England. It concludes by the Indifferent person saying, "Well, you will yet be called Anabaptists, because you deny baptism to infants." To which the Christian answers, "So were Christians before us called sects; and so they may call John Baptist, Jesus Christ himself, and his apostles \i Anabaptists\i0 ; for we profess and practise no otherwise herein, than they, namely, \i The baptizing of such as confess with the mouth the belief of the heart\i0 . And if they be Anabaptists that deny baptism when God hath appointed it, they, and not we are Anabaptists. But the Lord give them repentance, that their sins may be put away, and never laid to their charge, even for his Christ\rquote s sake. Amen." [p. 48]\fs24\par \fs20 Another book was published in 1618, vindicating the principles of the Baptists. This was translated from the Dutch, and is said by Dr. Wall and others to have been the first \i printed\i0 in the English language aLVALggainst the baptism of infants. Had it been said, the first book that was published in England it might have been true, on account of the great difficulty there was in publishing works against the established religion, but it is certain there were many books in English written and printed in vindication of the principles of the Baptists, several years before this period. Crosby says that he had not heard of this book being answered till thirty years afterward, when Mr. Thomas Cobbett, of New England, published a vindication of the right of infants to church membership and baptism.\fs24\par \b\fs20 In 1620, the Baptists presented a humble supplication to the king when the parliament was sitting.\b0 This was dedicated, \i To the high and mighty King, James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. To the Right Excellent and Noble Prince, Charles, Prince of Wales, &c. To all the Right Honourable Nobility, Grace and Honourable Judges, and to all other the Right Worshipful Gentry, of all estates and degrees, assembled in this present parliament. Right High and Mighty;--Right Excellent and Noble;--Right Honourable, and Right Worshipful\i0 . In this, they in the first place acknowledge their obligation to pray for Kings, and all that are in authority, and appeal to God that it was their constant practice so to do. They then set forth, that their miscries were not only the taking away of their goods, but also long and lingering imprisonments for many years in divers counties in England, in which many had died, leaving their widows and several small children behind them, and all because they durst not join in such worship as they thought contrary to the will of God. [p. 2] After stating their sentiments, and challenging their enemies to accuse them of any disloyalty to his majesty, or of doing any injury to their neighbours, they conclude by praying for the king\rquote s majesty, for his royal highness the prince, and the honourable houses of parliament; calling God the searcher of heaLVALhrts to witness that they were loyal subjects to his majesty, not for fear only, but also for conscience sake, subscribing themselves those who are unjustly called Anabaptists. [p. 26]\fs24\par \fs20 This petition is divided into ten parts, and appears to be written with considerable ability. We can only give the titles of the chapters, but from these the contents may be judged of. 1. "The Rule of Faith is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost contained in the Sacred Scriptures, and not any church, council, Prince, or Potentate, nor any mortal man whatsoever. 2. The interpreter of this rule is the scriptures, and spirit of God in whomsoever. 3. That the Spirit of God, to understand and interpret the scriptures, is given to all and every particular person, that fear and obey God, of what degree soever they be; and not to the wicked. 4. Those that fear and obey God, and so have the spirit of God to search out and know the mind of God in the Scriptures, are commonly and for the most part, the simple, poor, despised, &c. 5. The learned in human learning, do commonly and for the most part err, and know not the truth, but persecute it and the professors of it; and therefore are no farther to be followed than we see them agree with truth. 6. Persecution for conscience, is against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, King of Kings. 7. Persecution for conscience, is against the profession and practice of famous princes. 8. Persecution for cause of conscience, is condemned by the ancient and later writers, yea, by Puritans and Papists. 9. It is no prejudice to the commonwealth if freedom of religion were suffered, but would make it flourish. 10. Kings are not deprived of any power given them of God, when they maintain freedom for cause of conscience. \fs24\par \fs20 In the 7th chapter they thus remind the King of his own sentiments on this subject. "We beseech your Majesty we may relate your own worthy sayings, in your Majesty\rquote s speech to parliament, 1609. Your Highness saith, \i It is a sure rule in divinity, that GLVALiod never loves to plant his church by violence and blood-shed\i0 , &c. And in your Highness\rquote s apology, p. 4, speaking of such papists as took the oath, thus\i : I gave a good proof that I intended no persecution against them for conscience cause, but only desired to be secured for civil obedience, which for conscience cause they were bound to perform\i0 . And page 60, speaking of Blackwel the Arch-Priest, your Majesty saith, \i It was never my intention to lay any thing to the said Arch-Priest\rquote s charge, as I have never done to any for cause of conscience\i0 , &c. And in your Highness\rquote s exposition on Rev. 20 printed 1588, and after 1603, your Majesty truly writeth thus: sixthly, \i The compassing of the saints, and besieging of the beloved city, declareth unto us a certain note of a false church to be persecution; For they come to seek the faithful, the faithful are those that are sought: the wicked are the besiegers, the faithful be besieged\i0 ." [p. 20]\fs24\par \fs20 It is an awful consideration, that a Prince who so well understood the rights of conscience, and the distinction betwixt those duties which Christians owed to God, and those which they were bound to observe towards the civil power, should act so diametrically opposite to his sentiments. The uncommon intrepidity of the Baptists, is evinced by their making their solemn appeal to the King and his parliament, at a time when they were exposed to all their resentments; and when, by their own principles, they were prevented from attempting to escape from the storm which threatened them.\fs24\par \fs20 This Petition was published in 1620, and the former pamphlet of 1615 reprinted with it. Both these were also reprinted in 1662, with the design, as stated in the title page, "for the establishing some and convincing others."\fs24\par \fs20 From this also it appears that there were still Baptists in many parts of the kingdom; for this petition states that they had suffered imprisonment for "many years in divers counties inLVALj England." We learn also by what has been written against them, that, notwithstanding all opposition, they kept up their separate meetings, and had many disciples who took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, endured cruel mockings, and probably scourgings also, yea, moreover bonds and imprisonments, rather than violate their consciences, or desert their principles.\fs24\par \fs20 We have further information respecting their numbers and principles, from \b a letter written by a person in London who had joined the Baptists, to his old friends, in which he defends his conduct and sentiments. \b0 This letter happening to fall into the hands of a member of the church of England, it was published with an answer annexed to it. AS it discovers something of the principles, and the spirit of the Baptists at that time, we shall give it entire for the gratification of our readers, \fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "Beloved friends,\fs24\par \fs20 "The ancient love that I have had towards you provoketh me to testify that I have not forgotten you, but an desirous still to shew my unfeigned love to you in any thing I may. I make no question but you have heard divers false reports of me, although among the same some truths; and that you may be truly informed of my state, I thought good to write a few words unto you, hoping that you will not speak evil of that which you know not, nor condemn a man unheard. The thing wherein I differ from the church of England is; they say at their washing or baptizing their infants, that they are members, of Christ\rquote s holy church, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. This I dare not believe; for the scriptures of God declare, that neither flesh nor the washing of flesh can save. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and we cannot enter into the kingdom of God except we be born again. They that have prerogative to be the sons of God, must be born of God, even believe in his name; anLVALkd the washing of the filth of the flesh is not the baptism that saveth, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. The consequence of this is, that infants are not to be baptized, nor can they be Christians but such only who confess their faith as the scriptures teach. [Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:5; John 1:12; 3:5; Gal. 6:5; 1 Pet. 3:21] from whence the word \i church\i0 is taken, can witness that it signifieth \i a people called out\i0 ; and so the church of Christ is a company called out of their former state wherein they were by nature, out of Babylon, wherein they have been in spiritual bondage to the spiritual antichrist, and from having fellowship in spiritual worship with unbelievers and ungodly men. From all, whosoever cometh, they are fit timber for this spiritual building, which is a habitation of God by the Spirit, and the household of faith. Those who thus come out of nature\rquote s Egyptian bondage, and the fellowship of the children of Belial, being new creatures, and so holy brethren, are made God\rquote s house or church, through being knit together by the Spirit of God, and baptized into his body, which is the church. This being undeniably the church of Christ, infants cannot be of it; for they cannot be called out as afore said. Known wicked men cannot be of it, because they are not called out; nor antichrist\rquote s spiritual bondage cannot be of it, because that is a habitation of devil\rquote s, and all God\rquote s people must go out of that. [Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,37; 9:18; 10:47; 16:31; 18:8; 19:3; 1 Cor. 13:13; 2 Cor. 6:4; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 1:22,23; 2:22; Heb. 3:6; 1 Pet. 1:5; Rev. 18:2,4] \fs24\par \fs20 "What can be objected against this? Are not all the sons of God by faith? If any be in Christ, or a Christian, must he not be a new creature? I pray you do not take up the usual objection which the antichristians have learned of the Jews; \lquote What tallest thou us of being made Christians only by faith in the Son, and so being LVALlmade free? We are the children of Abraham, and of believers, and so are under the promise\i ; I will be the God of thee and of thy seed\i0 . Thus are we and our children made free, whereas they neither do nor can believe in the Son.\rquote\fs24\par \fs20 "This is the Jewish antichrist fable: for Abraham had two sons, which were types of the two seeds, to which two covenants were made. The one born after the flesh, typing out the fleshly Israelites, which were the inhabitants of material Jerusalem, where was the material temple, and the performance of those carnal rites which endured to the time of reformation. The other by faith typing out the children of the faith of Abraham, which are the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the new testament state, in which is the spiritual temple, the church of the living God, and the performance of all those spiritual ordinances which Christ as prophet and king thereof hath appointed, and which remains and cannot be shaken or altered. [Gen. 17; John 8:3; "Rom. 4:8,9; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:26; 4:22; 6:15; Heb. 9:10; 12:23] \fs24\par \fs20 "Now if the old covenant be abolished, and all the appertainings thereof, as it is, being the similitude of heavenly things, even the covenant written in the book, the people, the tabernacle or temple, and all the ministering vessels, and a better covenant established upon better promises, and better temple and ministering vessels came instead thereof, procured and purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, who is the new and living way; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, sprinkling our hearts from an evil conscience, and baptized in our bodies with pure water; let us keep this profession of hope without wavering, and have no confidence in the flesh, to reap sanctification or justification thereby; but let us cast it away as dung and dross, for if any might plead privilege of being the child of the faithful, the apostle Paul might, as he saith. (See Phil. 3.) But it was nothing till he had the righteouLVALmsness of God through faith: then was he baptized into Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins.\fs24\par \fs20 "This covenant, which we as the children of Abraham challenge, is the covenant of life and salvation by Jesus Christ, made to all the children of Abraham, as it was made to Abraham himself, to them that believe in him who raised up Jesus the Lord from the dead. As also the children of the flesh are not they: they must be put out, and must not be heirs with the faithful. If they that are of the flesh be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect. Therefore it is by faith, that it might come of grace, and that the promise might be sure to all the seed that are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all the faithful. They are his children: the promise of salvation is not made with both Abraham\rquote s seeds, but with his own seed, they that are of the faith of Abraham. [Acts 8:26,32,39; Rom. 4:14; 9:8; Gal. 3:7,9,29; 4:30; Eph. 4:28; Hosea 8:18]\fs24\par \fs20 "These things may be strange to those who are strangers from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their hearts. God hath written them as the great things of his law, but they are counted by many as a strange thing. Yet wisdom is justified of all her children; and they that set their hearts to seek for wisdom as for silver, and search for her as for treasure, they shall see the righteousness of these things as the light, and the evidence of them as the noon day. They that be wise will try these things by the true touchstone of the holy scriptures, and leave off rejoicing in men to hang their faith and profession on them; the which I fear not to supplicate God day and night on behalf of you all. To whose gracious direction I commit you, with a remembrance of my hearty love to every one; desiring but this favour, that for requital I may receive your loving answer.\fs24\par \fs20 "Yours to be commanded always in any children service.\fs24\par \fs20 "London, May 10, 1622LVALn. H.H."\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 The person who published this letter, replied to it in a work entitled, "Anabaptist Mystery of Iniquity Unmasked, by J.P. 1623."\fs24\par \fs20 It will be recollected that this letter was not designed by the writer for publication. It was certainly ungenerous that a private letter on a controverted subject should be sent to the press by an opponent who intended to write against it to unmask the iniquity it contained. But if the author could discover any iniquity in this letter, he must be very quick-sighted as its declarations, however simply stated, are evidently founded on scripture testimony.\fs24\par \fs20 In the reply there is some information of consequence, for which we are obliged to the writer. He states, that the Baptists separated from the established church, wrote many books in defence of their principles, and had multitudes of disciples; that it was their custom to produce a great number of scriptures to prove their doctrines; that they were in appearance more holy than those of the established church; that they dissuaded their disciples from reading the churchmen\rquote s books, hearing in their assemblies, or conferring with their learned men. He adds, that they "denied the doctrine of predestination, reprobation, final perseverance, and other truths." [Crosby, vol. i. p. 133] And says, "I suppose their seeds are sown among you not only by their apostles, but by their books." Of their holding these sentiments there is no proof given; but should it be true, it is probable that the Baptists at that period were principally General Baptists, who, as far as we have been able to decide, maintained sentiments very similar to those which were afterwards published by the famous Thomas Grantham.\fs24\par \fs20 In 1624 there appeared still greater champions of infant baptism. These were the famous Dod and Cleaver, who united their strength to oppose what they termed the erroneous positions of the Anabaptists. Their work was entitled, The patrimony of LVALchristian children. In the preface they apologize for their engaging in the controversy, by alleging that those of a contrary opinion were very industrious, and took great pains to propagate their doctrine; that divers persons of good note for piety had been prevailed upon by them; that several had intreated their help and assistance; and that they had been engaged already in private debates about this matter.\fs24\par \fs20 From these observations it appears that the Baptists had greatly increased in England in the reign of this king, during which every corrupt art was employed to extend the prerogative, to oppress all those who had either wisdom or honesty to think for themselves.\fs24\par \fs20 In the beginning of 1625, the king died, after having by his folly and hypocrisy laid the foundation of all the calamities of his son\rquote s reign. He had been flattered by ambitious courtiers, as the Solomon and Phoenix of the age; but in the opinion of Bishop Burnet, "he was the scorn of the age; a mere pedant, without true judgment, courage, or steadfastness; his reign being a continued course of mean practices." Rapin says, "he was neither a sound protestant, nor a good catholic; but had formed a plan of uniting both churches, which must have effectually ruined the protestant interest, for which indeed he never expressed any real concern." Neal says, "I am rather of opinion that all his religion was his pretended king-craft. He was certainly the meanest prince that ever sat upon the British throne. England never sunk so low in its reputation, nor was so much exposed to the scorn and ridicule of its neighbours as in his reign."\fs24\par \pard\cf1\fs23\par } LVALp{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER V.\b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 1625 - 1640\b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 Charles the first succeeded his father. Unhappily for this monarch, he had been educated in the principles of arbitrary power and religious bigotry. The conduct of James had been productive of general discontent, which his son did not take proper means to remove. Determined to be an absolute monarch, he drove his subjects into rebellion, and fell a victim to his own measures.\fs24\par \fs20 It was during this reign that an event took place among the Baptists, which has been commonly, but erroneously considered as the commencement of their history in this country. This was the formation of some churches in London, which many have supposed to be the first of this denomination in the kingdom. But could it even be proved that there were no distinct Baptist churches till this period, it would not follow that there were no Baptists, which however has been confidently stated. We have shown that persons professing similar sentiments with these of the present English Baptists, have been found in every period of the English church; and also that as early as the year 1509, from the testimony of Dr. Some, there were many churches of this description in London and in the country. During the reign of James, we have produced unexceptionable proof that there were great numbers of Baptists who suffered imprisonment in divers counties, and that a petition to the king was signed by many of their ministers. It is thought that the General Baptist church at Canterbury has existed for two hundred and fifty years, and that Joan Boucher, who was burnt in the reign of Edward the sixth, was a member of it. Though this is traditionary only, yet it is rendered probable from her being a Baptist, and being always called "Joan of Kent." It is also said that the church at Eyethorn in theLVALq same county has been founded more than two hundred and thirty years, and that pastors of the name of John Knott served it during two hundred years of that period.\fs24\par \fs20 It is rather singular that Crosby should pay so little attention to his materials as to overlook these circumstances, and to confirm the common error respecting the origin of the Baptist churches, by the following statement. "In the year 1633, (says he,) the Baptists, who had hitherto been intermixed with other protestant dissenters without distinction, and who consequently shared with the Puritans in the persecutions of those times, began to separate themselves, and form distinct societies of their own. Concerning the first of these, I find the following account collected from a manuscript of Mr. William Kiffin.\fs24\par \fs20 "There was a congregation of protestant dissenters of the Independent persuasion in London, gathered in the year 1616, of which Mr. Henry Jacob was the first pastor; and after him succeeded Mr. John Lathorp, who was their minister in 1633. In this society several persons, finding that the congregation kept not to its first principles of separation, and being also convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but to such as professed faith in Christ, desired that they might be dismissed from the communion, and allowed to form a distinct congregation in such order as was most agreeable to their own sentiments.\fs24\par \fs20 "The church, considering that they were now grown very numerous, and so more than could in those times of persecution conveniently meet together, and believing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience, and not from obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that they should be constituted a distinct church; which was performed Sep. 12, 1633. And as they believed that baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism they had received at that age as invalid, whereupon most or all of them received LVALra new baptism. Their minister was a Mr. John Spilsbury. What number they were is uncertain, because in the mentioning of about twenty men and women, it is \i added with divers others\i0 . \fs24\par \fs20 "In the year 1638, Mr. William Kiffin, Mr. Thomas Wilson, and others, being of the same judgment, were upon their request dismissed to the said Mr. Spilsbury\rquote s congregation. In the year 1639, another congregation of Baptists was formed, whose place of meeting was in Crutched-friars; the chief promoters of which were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobson, and Captain Spencer."\fs24\par \fs20 The account of Mr. Spilsbury\rquote s church is said in the margin to have been written from the records of that church; but from any thing that appears there is nothing to justify the conclusion of Crosby, that this was the first Baptist church; as the account relates simply to the origin of that particular church, to state which it is probable was Mr. Kiffin\rquote s design, rather than to relate the origin of the Baptist churches in general, and which he must certainly have known were in existence previously to that period.\fs24\par \fs20 It must be admitted that there is some obscurity respecting the manner in which the ancient immersion of adults, which appears to have been discontinued, was restored, when, after the long night of antichristian apostacy, persons were at first baptized on a profession of faith. The very circumstance however of their being called Anabaptists as early as the period of the Reformation, proves that they did, in the opinion of the Pedobaptists, re-baptize, which it is not likely they would do, by pouring or sprinkling, immersion being incontrovertibly the universal practice in the church of England at that time.\fs24\par \fs20 It has not been uncommon for the enemies of the Baptists to reproach them with the manner in which this practice was restored. In a work published at the close of the seventeenth century by Mr. John Wall, entitled "Baptism anatomizaed," the writer says, "TheirLVALs baptism is not from heaven, but will-worship, and so to be abhorred by all Christians; for they received their baptism from one Mr. Smyth who baptized himself; one who was cast out of a church, and endeavoured to deprive the church of Christ of the use of the bible."\fs24\par \fs20 To this charge, made with so much asperity, Hercules Collins, a Baptist minister at Wapping, replies with great indignation in a work entitled, "Believers\rquote baptism from heaven, and of divine institution: Infant baptism from earth, and of human invention:" Published in 1691. Mr. Collins denies that the English Baptists received their baptism from Mr. John Smyth, and says, "It is absolutely untrue, it being well known to some who are yet alive how false this assertion is; and if J.W. will but give a meeting to any of us, and bring whom he please with him, we shall sufficiently shew the falsity of what is asserted by him in this matter, and in many other things which he hath unchristianly asserted."\fs24\par \fs20 It is to be regretted that Mr. Collins did not give the account which is here referred to. This defect is however in some measure supplied in a work published by Mr. Edward Hutchinson in 1676, entitled, "A Treatise concerning the covenant and baptism." The dedication is addressed "to the spiritual seed of Abraham, especially those of the \i baptized\i0 congregation." He says, "Your beginning in these nations (of late years) was but small; yet when it pleased the Lord to dispel those clouds that overshadowed us, and to scatter some beams of the gospel amongst us, he gave you so great an increase that Sion may say with admiration, Who hath begotten me these?\fs24\par \fs20 "Nor is it less observable, that whereas other reformations have been carried on by the secular arm, and the countenance and allowance of the magistrate, as in Luther\rquote s time by several German princes; the protestant reformation in England by King Edward, Queen Elizabeth, &c.; and the Presbyterian reformation by a parliament, commitLVALtted of estates, and assembly of divines, besides the favour and assistance of great personages; you have had none of these to take you by the hand; but your progress was against the impetuous current of human opposition, and attended with such external discouragements as bespeak your embracing this despised truth to be an effect of heart-sincerity, void of all mercenary considerations. Yea, how active has the accuser of the brethren been to represent yoou in such frightful figures, exposing you by that mischievous artifice to popular odium and the lash of the magistracy; insomuch that the name of an Anabaptist was crime enough, which doubtless was a heavy obstacle in the way of many pious souls!\fs24\par \fs20 "What our dissenting brethren have to answer on that account, who instead of taking up, have laid stumbling-blocks in the way of reformation, will appear another day. Yet notwithstanding the strenuous oppositions of those great and learned ones, the mighty God of Jacob hath taken you by the hand, and said, Be strong.\fs24\par \fs20 "Besides, it has a considerable tendency to the advancement of divine grace, if we consider the way and manner of the reviving of this costly truth. When the professors of these nations had been a long time wearied with the yoke of superstitious ceremonies, traditions of men, and corrupt mixtures in the work and service of God; it pleased the Lord to break those yokes, and by a very strong impulse of his Spirit on the hearts of his people to convince them of the necessity of reformation. Divers pious and very gracious people, having often sought the Lord by fasting and prayer that he would show them the pattern of his house, and the goings out and comings in thereof, \i resolved by the grace of God not to receive or practise any piece of positive worship which had not precept nor example from the word of God\i0 . Infant baptism coming of course under consideration, after long search and many debates it was found to have no footing in the scriptures, (the only rule aLVALund standard to try doctrines by,) but on the contrary a mere innovation, yea, the profamation of an ordinance of God. And though it was purposed to be laid aside, yet what fears, tremblings, and temptations, did attend them, lest they should be mistaken, considering how many learned and godly men were of an opposite persuasion! How gladly would they have had the rest of their brethren gone along with them! But when there was no hope, they concluded that a christian\rquote s faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, and that every one must give an account of himself to God; and so resolved to practise according to their light. The great objection was the want of an Administrator, which as I have heard was removed by sending certain messengers to Holland, whence they were supplied. So that this little cloud of witnesses hath the Lord by his grace so greatly increased, that it is spread over our horizon, though opposed and contradicted by men of all sorts."\fs24\par \fs20 Crosby says that this agrees with an account given of the matter in an old manuscript said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin. This relates, that "several sober and pious persons belonging to the congregations of the dissenters about London were convinced that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that it ought to be administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body into the water, in resemblance of a burial and resurrection, according to Rom. 6:4, and Col. 2:12. That they often met together to pray and confer about this matter, and consult what methods they should take to enjoy this ordinance in its primitive purity. That they could not be satisfied about any administrator in England to begin this practice, because, though some in this nation rejected the baptism of infants, yet they had not, as they knew of, revived the ancient custom of immersion. But hearing that some in the Netherlands practised it, they agreed to send over one Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch language; that he went accordingly, LVALvcarrying letters of recommendation with him, and was kindly received both by the church there, and by Mr. John Batte their teacher; that on his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister, and these two baptized the rest of their company, whose names are in the manuscript to the number of fifty three."\fs24\par \fs20 "But the greatest number of the English Baptists, (says Crosby,) and the more judicious, esteemed all this but needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old popish doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which neither the church of Rome nor the church of England, much less the modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed therefore, and practised accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation."\fs24\par \fs20 These testimonies to a matter of fact by such men as Hutchinson, Collins, and Kiffin, may be safely relied on, as they were all eminent Baptist ministers at a time when they could easily procure information from their aged members concerning it. At the time when Hutchinson and Collins wrote, Mr. Kiffin was still living; and from his perfect knowledge of all things in the denomination almost from the very first, he was doubtless one of the persons from whom they had received their information, and to whom Mr. Collins probably referred, who would give Mr. Wall every necessary information on the subject.\fs24\par \fs20 That Mr. Kiffin was well acquainted with this affair, there can be no doubt. He joined Mr. Lathorp\rquote s church very soon after the division had taken place in it, when he was about seventeen years of age; and five years afterwards was dismissed from it to Mr. Spilsbury\rquote s church, which was founded at Wapping.\fs24\par \fs20 It may perhaps be thought that this statement is incompatible with the history of the Baptists already given. What occasion, it may be objected, was there to send out of the kingdom a person tLVALwo be baptized by immersion, if there were at the same time so many persons in it who had been baptized in the same manner? Might not one of them have been the administrator? \fs24\par \fs20 One answer to this objection is, that by violent persecutions almost all the Baptists had been driven out of the kingdom, so that in the beginning of thereign of Charles the first, it would have been a difficult matter to find a minister who had been baptized by immersion. The conjecture of Crosby however is very probable, that if such a one or many such could have been found, yet the old popish doctrine, not yet fully effaced from the mind even of nonconformists, that the right of administrating the sacraments descended by uninterrupted succession, would prevent persons desiring baptism from applying to any but a regularly ordained minister, who had been baptized on a profession of faith by a person to be found in the Netherlands, whose baptism they thought, and perhaps with truth, had regularly descended from the Waldensian Christians, and therefore, it is not to be wondered at that they should apply to that quarter.\fs24\par \fs20 It is farther to be observed, that the account which Mr. Kiffin gives does not relate to the people who left Mr. Lathorp\rquote s church in 1633, and who settled at Wapping under the care of Mr. Spilsbury; but to "many sober and pious people belonging to the congregations of dissenters about London, who sent Mr. Blount to Holland, and were afterwards baptized by him and Mr. Samuel Blacklock, to the number of fifty-three." It is not known at what precise period this happened, but it is evident that these were not Mr. Spilsbury\rquote s people. Edwards, in his Gangraena, speaking of this church, associates with Mr. Blount the names of Emmes and Wrighters, as its ministers, and calls it "one of the first and prime churches of Anabaptists now in these latter times."\fs24\par \fs20 Still it may be asked, AS Mr. Helwisse had formed a church in London prior to the year 1615, and had been bLVALxaptized by Mr. Smyth, how was it that they did not receive baptism from him, or from his successors?\fs24\par \fs20 To this it is replied, that the church of which Mr. Helwisse was pastor, was of the General Baptist denomination, and was composed of Arminians, whereas the persons desiring baptism were probably Calvinists, between which denominations there never was much fellowship or religious intercourse, nor is there to the present day. Admitting then that there were ministers of this description, it is not probable that Calvinists would repair to them for an administrator of baptism. But as we are told that the greater number of Baptists, and the more judicious of them, considered all this to be needless trouble, it is highly probable that this account refers to a few people, rather than to the Baptists in general.\fs24\par \fs20 These observations are made for the purpose of explaining and reconciling matters of fact which have been generally misstated, and not as an apology for the conduct of our predecessors; since the Baptists of the present day unite with the greater part, and the more judicious of that time, in maintaining, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person may warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation.\fs24\par \fs20 During the period of which we have been treating, the church of England was under the government of Archbishop Laud. This prelate, who wanted nothing but the name to constitute him a pope, manifested the most implacable and bigoted spirit towards the dissenters, and all who ventured to expose the pride and oppression of the ruling clergy. The sufferings of Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, in 1633, are proofs of this assertion. The Star-chamber and High commission exceeded not only all the bounds of law and equity, but even of humanity itself. Those gentlemen being suspected of employing their time in prison in writing against the hierarchy, were cited a second time before the Star-chamber. Though the charges against them then were not proved,LVALy and they were not permitted to speak in their defence, yet the following sentence was passed against them: "That Mr. Burton be deprived of his living, and degraded from his ministry (as Prynne and Bastwick had been from their professions of law and medicine;) that each of them be fined five thousand pounds; that they stand in the pillory at Westminster, and have their ears cut off;" and because Mr. Prynne had already lost his ears by sentence of the court, 1633, it was ordered that "the remainder of the stumps should be cut off, and that he should be stigmatized on both cheeks with the letters S.I.;" after which all three were to suffer confinement in the remotest prisons of the kingdom. This sentence was executed upon them June 30, 1637; the hangman father sawing off the remainder of Prynne\rquote s ears then cutting them off. After this they were sent to the islands of Scilly, Guernsey, and Jersey, without pen, ink, or paper, or the access of friends: here they continued till released by the Long Parliament.\fs24\par \fs20 Mr. Lilburne, an eminent brewer in London, afterwards a colonel in the army, and the person to whom Mr. Kiffin was apprenticed, for refusing to take an oath to answer all interrogatories concerning his importing and publishing seditious libels, was fined five hundred pounds, and to be whipped through the streets from the Fleet to the pillory before Westminster =-hall gate, April 8, 1638. While he was in the pillory, he uttered many bold and passionate speeches against the tyranny of the bishops, on which the court of Star-chamber, then sitting, ordered him to be gagged, which was done accordingly; and when carried back to prison, it was ordered that he should be laid alone, with irons on his hands and legs, in the wards of the Fleet, where the basest of the prisoners were put, and that no person should be admitted to see him. Here he continued in a most forlorn and miserable condition till the meeting of the Long Parliament.\fs24\par \fs20 During this year many ministers were sLVALzuspended and shut up in prison. Among these was a Mr. Brewer, a Baptist minister, who lay in prison fourteen years. [Neal, vol. ii. p. 329]\fs24\par \fs20 The approaches of Laud towards popery may be discovered from his superstitious conduct in consecrating the church of St. Catherine Cree, which had been lately repaired. On a sabbath morning, the bishop, attended by several of the High commission and some civilians, approaching to the west door of the church, which as shut, and guarded by haldberdeers, some who were appointed for that purpose cried with a loud voice, "Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the king of glory may come in!" Presently the doors being opened, the bishop with some doctors and principal men entered. As soon as they were come within the place, his lordship fell down on his knees, and with eyes lifted up and his arms spread abroad, said, "This place is holy: the ground is holy! In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I pronounce it holy!" Then walking up the middle aisle towards the chancel, he took up some of the dust and threw it in the air several times. When he approached near the vail of the communion table, he bowed towards it five or six times; and returning, went round the church with his attendants in procession, saying first the hundredth, and then the nineteenth psalm, as prescribed in the Roman pontifical. He then read several collects, in one of which he prayed God to accept of that beautiful building; and he concluded thus:--"We consecrate this church, and separate it unto thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more to common use." In another he prayed, "that all who should hereafter be buried within the circuit of this holy and sacred place may rest in their sepulchers in peace, till Christ\rquote s coming to judgment, and may then rise to eternal life and happiness." After this the bishop, sitting under a cloth of state in the aisle of the church near the communion table, took a written book in his hand, and pronounced curses upon those who shoulLVAL{d hereafter profane that holy place by musters of soldiers, or keeping profane law-courts, by carrying burdens through it; and at the end of every curse, he bowed to the east, and said, "Let all the people say amen!" When the curses were ended, which were about twenty, he pronounced a like number of blessings upon all that had any hand in framing and building that beautiful church, and on those who had given or should hereafter give any chalices, plate, ornaments, or other utensils; and at the end of every blessing he bowed to the east, and said, "Let all the people say amen!" After this followed the sermon, and then the sacrament, which the bishop consecrated and administered after the following manner.\fs24\par \fs20 As he approached the altar, he made five or six low bows; and coming to the side of it, where the bread and wine were covered, he bowed seven times. Then after reading many prayers, he came near the bread, and gently lifting up the corner of the napkin, beheld it; and immediately letting fall the napkin, he retreated hastily a step or two, and made three low obeisances. His lordship then advanced; and having uncovered the bread, bowed three times as before. Then he laid his hand on the cup which was full of wine, with a cover upon it, which having let go, he stepped back, and bowed three times towards it: he then came near again, and lifting up the cover of the cup, looked into it; and seeing the wine, he let fall the cover again, retired back, and bowed as before. Then the elements were consecrated; and the bishop having first received, gave it to some principal men in their surplices, hoods, and tippets: after this, many prayers being said, the solemnity of he consecration ended. \fs24\par \fs20 The pride of the clergy at this time grew to such a pitch, that in the year 1636, a member of the House of Commons said, that "the clergy were so exalted, that a gentleman might not come near the tail of their mules; and that one of them had declared openly, that he hoped to see the day whenLVAL| a clergyman should be as good a man as any upstart jack gentleman in the kingdom."\fs24\par \fs20 The church had now reached the summit of its height and splendour, and was determined on crushing all who dissented from the establishment. In the convocation, which was held in 1640, with more pomp than the troublesome situation of the times justified, seventeen canons were published June 30, which treated upon by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, presidents of the convocation for their respective provinces, and the rest of the bishops and clergy of those provinced, and agreed upon by the King\rquote s majesty\rquote s licence, in their several synods begun at London and York, 1640."\fs24\par \fs20 Under the pretext of discouraging popery, but evidently with the design of crushing the dissenters, it was enacted, that "all ecclesiastical persons within their several parishes and jurisdictions shall confer privately with popish recusants; but if private conference prevail not, the church must and shall come to her censures; and to make way for them, such persons shall be presented at the next visitation who come not to church, and refuse to receive the holy eucharist, or who either hear or say mass; and if they remain obstinate after citation, they shall be excommunicated. But if neither conference nor censures prevail, the church shall then complain of them to the civil power, and this sacred synod does earnestly intreat the reverend justices of assize to be careful in executing the laws as they will answer it to God. \fs24\par \fs20 "The synod further declares, that the canon abovementioned against papists shall be in full force against all Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, and other sectaries, as far as they are applicable." [Neal, vol. ii. p. 348,349]\fs24\par \fs20 From this sketch of the history of this period, we may form a tolerable idea of the difficulties which attended the meetings of the Dissenters. It certainly shows also the zeal of those excellent men who were willing to risk aLVALll the horrors of excommunication, rather than meet to worship God in a way which they considered agreeable to his holy word. There is no doubt but many of the Baptists suffered persecution at this time. We have an account of one who was a celebrated preacher amongst them, who was excommunicated for refusing to attend the parish churches, and who doubtless remained obstinate, as this canon denominates those who were honest enough to resist its decrees. This was Samuel Howe, otherwise called Cobbler Howe, who, dying while he was under the sentence of excommunication, was refused Christian burial. The history of this excellent man will be more fully related in the next chapter, which will record great alterations both in church and state. Nor will this appear surprising when the superstition, bigotry, cruelty, and tyranny of the ruling parties are considered. \i Oppression\i0 , which Solomon says \i makes a wise man mad\i0 , drove the people into rebellion, and produced all its natural and terrible consequences.\cf1\fs23\par } LVAL~{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia Ref;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\qc\lang1033\b\f0\fs20 CHAPTER VI.\b0\fs24\par \b\fs20 A.D. 1640 - 1653\b0\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 At the period to which we have brought our history, very serious disturbances existed between the king and his parliament. These soon after broke out into a civil war, which continued many years, and ended in the death of the king, the overthrow of the constitution, the subversion of episcopacy, and the establishment of presbytery.\fs24\par \fs20 It may reasonably be supposed, that such a state of things would be favourable to the dissemination of those principles by which the different denominations of dissenters were distinguished. Delivered from the oppressive measures of arbitrary monarchs and persecuting bishops, they would hail the dawn of liberty; and not knowing which party would ultimately prevail, would exert themselves while it was in their power.\fs24\par \fs20 In 1644, the oppressive and cruel measures of the High commission court and the Star-chamber were terminated by an act of parliament; and thus were destroyed the two chief engines of the late arbitrary proceedings both in church and state, which had been the occasion of ruining the liberties and estates of many religious families.\fs24\par \fs20 The zeal and increase of the Baptists at that time, have excited the attention of ecclesiastical historians. Mr. Fuller says, "On Jan. 18, 1641, happened the first fruits of Anabaptistical insolence, when eighty of that sect meeting at a house in St. Saviour\rquote s, Southwark, preached that the statute in the 35th of Elizabeth, for the administration of common prayer, was no good law, because made by bishops; that the king cannot make a good law, because not perfectly regenerate, and that he was only to be obeyed in civil matters. Being brought before the lords, they confessed the articles; butno penalty was inflicted on them."\fs24\par \fLVALs20 Crosby says, that this is a very imperfect account, and he relates the matter thus: "It was not an Anabaptist, but an Independent congregation, though it is probable there were some Baptists among them."\fs24\par \fs20 "They met in Deadman\rquote s place, and their pastor at that time was Mr. Stephen More. Being assembled on the Lord\rquote s day for religious worship, though not with their former secrecy, they were discovered and taken, and committed to the Clink prison, by Sir John Lenthal, marshal of the King\rquote s bench.\fs24\par \fs20 "The next morning, six or seven of the men were taken before the house of lords. Fuller says, they were charged with having preached against the King\rquote s supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, and against the statute of the 35th of Elizabeth, which establishes the common prayer, and forbids assembling for religious worship where it is not used.\fs24\par \fs20 "The Lords examined them strictly concerning their principles, when they freely acknowledged that they owned no other head of the church but Jesus Christ; that no prince had power to make laws that were binding on the conscience; and that laws made contrary to the laws of God were of no force.\fs24\par \fs20 "As things now stood, the lords could not discountenance these principles; and therefore, instead of inflicting any penalty, they treated them with a great deal of respect and civility, and some of the house enquired where the place of their meeting was, and intimated that they would come and hear them. Accordingly three or four of the peers did go to the meeting on the next Lord\rquote s day, to the great surprise and wonder of many.\fs24\par \pard\li360\ri360\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 "The people went on in their usual method, having two sermons; in both of which they treated of those principles for which they had been accused, founding their discourses on the words of our Saviour: \i All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth\i0 . After this, they received the Lord\rquote s supper, and thLVALen made a collection for the poor, to which the lords contributed liberally with them. At their departure they signified their satisfaction in what they had heard and seen, and their inclination to come again. But this made so much noise, that they durst not venture a second time."\fs24\par \pard\sb100\sa100\qj\fs20 If this was not a Baptist church, there had been a Baptist minister before this time as its pastor. This was the celebrated Samuel Howe, who succeeded Mr. John Canne, the famous author of the marginal notes to the bible. While Mr. Howe was the pastor of the church, they were persecuted beyond measure by the clergy and bishops\rquote courts. Dying while he lay under sentence of excommunication, Christian burial was denied him, and a constable\rquote s guard secured the parish church of Shoreditch to prevent his being buried there. At length he was buried in Agnes-la-chair. In a work published this year, 1641, entitled "The Brownists\rquote Synagogue," it is said, "Of these opinions was Howe, that notorious predicant cobbler, whose body was buried in the highway, and his funeral sermon preached by one of his sect in a brewer\rquote s cart." From this it appears that his funeral was public, notwithstanding the violence of the times, and that his people took this method of pouring contempt upon the impotent rage of his persecutors, whose sentiments concerning Christian burial and consecrated ground they despised; and to prove that this was from principle, and not merely from necessity, many of the members of the church afterwards desired to be buried there also.\fs24\par \fs20 Mr. Neal says, That Mr. Howe was a man of learning, and published a small treatise, entitled, "The sufficiency of the Spirit\rquote s teaching." This however does not appear from the work, which is designed to show the insufficiency