THOUGH the English have, above most nations, been always very zealous of their natural rights and privileges; yet the spirit of persecution has often prevailed in this land, and under the mark of religion, the properties of men have been invaded, liberty of conscience taken away, and the most cruel and barbarous actions committed. And whenever it has been thus, those who were branded with the name of Anabaptists have been sure to feel the sharpest part of these things.
The Martyrology of the foreign Anabaptists is a large book in Folio; and the account it gives of the number of their martyrs and confessors, as well as of the cruelties that were used towards them, very much exceeds any thing that has been done in England. However, according to their number in this land, and the degree to which persecution has at any time arisen, they have always had their full share of it.
John Wickliff (Edw. III. An. Dom. 1371.) was the first person of any note, who in England opposed the corruptions of the pope and his clergy, and who met with any considerable success in so doing. He began this work in the reign of king Edward III.
There were indeed before him several who showed their dislike of many things in the established church, and frequently spoke against the superstitious clergy; but these were very few, and persons of no great character, such as did but little towards opening the eyes of the people. But this man having good natural abilities, the benefit of a liberal education, and several good friends at court to encourage and support him, and above all, being extraordinarily qualified and assisted by God, gave the first considerable check to the errors and superstition of those times. And though the Reformation was not established till about 187 years after, yet the first seeds of it were sown by him; for which reason the best historians of the Reformation in England, begin their account from the days of Wickliff.
The famous Martyrogolist Mr. John Fox, begins the second part of his history thus: 'Although it be manifest and evident enough, that there were divers and sundry before Wickliff's time, which have wrestled and laboured in the same cause and quarrel that our countryman Wickliff hath done, whom the Holy Ghost hath from time to time raised and stirred up in the church of God, to vanquish and overthrow the great errors which daily did grow and prevail in the world; yet notwithstanding, for so much as they are not many in number, neither yet very famour or notable, we will begin the narration of this our history with Wickliff, at whose time the furious fire of persecution seemed to take its original and beginning (Book of Martyrs, first edition. p. 85.).'
Bishop Burnet also begins his account of the Reformation with him, saying, 'From the days of Wickliff there were many that disliked most of the received doctrines in several parts of the nation (History of Reformation. vol. I. p. 23.).'
We find no mention of him in history till his being a graduate in Merton college in Oxford (Fuller's Church Hist. lib. iv. p. 130.); so that no account can be given of his parentage, place of birth, or manner of education. His great abilities soon advanced him to a professorship in the university, and a living, in which he had the cure of souls. When he was convinced, by the word of God of the idolatry and superstition of the times, and resolved upon a reformation, these two places gave him great advantages for the promoting his design: for by the one he was frequently engaged in disputations with the learned; and by the other, in preaching to the common people. He considered with himself that old customs and principles, that had been long rooted in the minds of the people, could not presently, and all at once, be removed; and therefore resolved to proceed gradually in his design, finding fault first with lesser things, in order to come to the greater; beginning with some logical and metaphysical mistakes, and so proceeding till he came to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and other abuses of the church. He endeavoured to expose the viscious lives and insolent behaviour of the clergy (Fox, vol. I, p. 556.) ; and especially their assuming the civil power, encroaching upon the prince's prerogative, exacting great sums from the people. This procured him the favour of the court, and particularly the duke of Lancaster (the king's son) and the Lord Piercy, which proved a great protection to him afterwards, when persecuted by the bishops.
'He translated the Bible (says Burnet - Hist. Reformation. vol. I. p. 23.) out of Latin into English, with a long preface before it, in which he reflected severely on the corruptions of the clergy, and condemned the worshipping of saints and images, and denied the corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and exhorted all people to study the Scriptures. His Bible, with this preface, was well received by a great many;' and tended greatly to open the eyes of the people, and is the first English Bible that ever was.
What was done by this famour man, towards removing those corruptions in doctrine and worship which were then in the English church, exposed him to the persecution of the Romish clergy, who exercised all the rage and power they durst against him.
First, he was deprived of his benefice at Oxford, and silenced by Simon Sudbury, archbishop of Canterbury. After this he was summoned to appear before a synod, which sat at St. Paul's church, to answer for his errors before his ordinary; but his two great friends and encouragers, the duke of Lancaster and Lord Piercy, appearing with him, nothing was done against him at this time.
An account of his errors and proceedings being sent to pope Gregory, there was quickly a bull sent to Oxford, enjoining the university and clergy to apprehend him; and a letter from the pope to the king, requiring his majesty to join with and assist the clergy in prosecuting of him.
This gace fresh encouragement to the clergy; who having exhibited certain conclusions against him, cited him to appear again before a convocation of bishops at Lambeth, with a full resolution to condemn both him and his errors; but a message came from the court, which put a stop to their proceedings.
Several other attempts were made against him; but they could not proceed till the duke of Lancaster was removed from the king, and then he was condemned at Oxford: yet he died peaceably in his bed in the year 1385, though forty one years after his body was taken up and burnt.
As to his opinions, it is very difficult now to have a certain account of them; because they who took so much care to burn his bones, did not neglect to destroy his books, which of the two were like to do them the most hurt. And to do this the more effectually, not only the prelates of England and Bohemia, but also a general council condemned all his books, and commanded them to be burnt; strictly forbidding any person to read or conceal any of them, under the penalty of being proceeded against as maintainers of heresy: so that in the year 1410, by diligent inquisition about two hundred of them were gathered together in Oxford and Bohemia, and committed to the flames. We are now therefore forced to take the account of his opinions from his enemies; and if any credit may be given to their account, he was for carrying the reformation much further than it was in the reign of Q. Elizabeth, or since. For
1. He not only denied the pope's supremacy (Fuller a Wald. p. 131.), but was against any person's assuming the title and authority of being the head of the church; asserting (Art. I.), 'That it is blasphemy to call any head of the church, save Christ alone.'
2. He condemned episcopacy as being a creature of princes setting up. For he asserted (Art. 14.), 'That in the time of the apostles there were only two orders, viz. priests and deacons; and that a bishop doth not differ from a priest.'
3. He was for having ministers maintained by the voluntary contributions of the people, and not by tythes settled on them by law; saying (Art. 24.), 'That tythes are pure alms, and that pastors are not to exact them by ecclesiastical censures.'
4. He was not for giving the church a power to decree rites and ceremonies, and to determine controversies of faith. For it is said (Art. 26, 26.), 'That he slighted the authority of general councils, and affirmed, that wise men leave that as impertinent which is not plainly expressed in Scripture.'
5. He was also against prescribed forms of prayer, but especially against imposing of them. For he saith (Art. 30.), 'To bind men to set and prescript forms of prayers, doth derogate from that liberty God hath given them.'
I am inclined to believe Mr. Wickliff was a Baptist, because some men of great note and learning in the church of Rome, have left it upon record, that he denied infant-baptism. Thomas Waldensis (De Bapt. Sac. Tit. 5. chap. liii.) chargeth him expressly with this opinion; and calls him one of the seven heads that came out of the bottomless pit, for it; saying, 'That he doth positively assert, That children are not to be sacramentally baptized.'
The same saith Joseph Vicecomes (De Rit. Bapt. lib. ii. chap. I.): 'As to adult baptism, no one ever doubted thereof, witness the monuments or writings of all the holy fathers and ecumenical councils, as well as the Scriptures themselves, especially the Acts of the Apostles; but as for infants baptism, he tells us, that Vincentius Victor, Hincmarus of Laudun, the Henrici and Apostolici, John Wickliff, &c. did all of them witness against it in their times.'
Besides, they charge him with several of those which are called Anabaptistical errors; such as the refusing to take an oath (Art. 41. condemned by the Council of Constance.), and also that opinion, that dominion is founded in grace (Fuller, Art. 51.). Upon these testimonies, some Protestant writers (Jan Van Bright. Danvers.) have affirmed that Wickliff was a Baptist, and have put him in the number of those who have born witness against infant-baptism. And had he been a man of scandalous character, that would have brought a reproach upon those of that profession, a less proof would have been sufficient to have ranked him among the sect.
But in defence of so great and learned a reformer, it is said, that those are only lies and slanders, cast upon him by the Papists, his enraged enemies; and that Vicecomes has also reckoned Luther, Calvin and Beza, among the adversaries of infant-baptism; which is, say they, a most evident falshood: that if this had been his opinion, the Council of Constance, who condemned 45 of his supposed errors, would not have omitted objecting this against him, for in such cases, they commonly over did it: that there is a treatise still extant of Wickliff's, called Dialogus, in which he speaks of the baptizing of infants, as being according to Christ's rule; and the parents intention of doing it, as a good intention.
All this does indeed render it doubtful whether he was of that opinion. Yet it is to be considered, on the other hand, that the Papists were the best capable of giving an account of persons who lived in those times; that though they often cast slanders upon those who opposed their superstitions, it follows not, that all must be false which they said of them. Fox (28, 35, and 45.), who has related his opinions, has left out one of those condemned in the convocation at London, and three of the 45 condemned in the Council of Constance, as appears by his first edition; which must be concealed for some design, not known. And although when Wickliff wrote his Dialogus, he held the baptizing of infants; yet it does not hence follow, that he might not afterwards be of another mind, and write against it in some of those two hundred books of his that were burnt; of which, as Mr. Fuller saith (Church-History, p. 135.), not a tittle is left.
Several of the Romish errors are asserted in that book; as purgatory, adoration of angels, the authority of the church, &c. which it is plain he afterwards denied. Very few who set themselves to reform religion, see all the abuses in it at first; but most commonly add new opinions, consequent to those they at first maintained; and so an honest historian (Fuller, p. 131.) supposes Wickliff to have done.
The heretical opinions charged upon Wickliff in the latter part of his life, and after his death, are much more numerous than those he was accused of at the beginning of his prosecution.
Pope Gregory charged him with 18 errors; Thomas Arundel archbishop of Canterbury with 24; the Council of Constance with 45; Thomas Waldensis computeh 80; John Luke, D.D. in Oxford, brings up the account to 266; and last of all, John Cocleus raises the number to 303.
But whether he denied infant-baptism, or not, it is certain he was the first reformer of any note, that spread those tenets among the English which tend to overthrow the practice of baptizing infants. And if he did not pursue the consequence of his own doctrines so far, yet many of his followers did, and were made Baptists by it.
He taught, that no rule or ceremony ought to be received in the church, which is not plainly confirmed by the word of God: and therefore said, 'That wise men leave that as impertinent, which is not plainly expressed in Scripture (Fuller, p. 132.).
Now, the following of this rule in reformation, must needs tend to the casting out of infant-baptism; the Paedobaptists themselves granting, that there is no direction for such a practice in the word, nor one example of it, as will be hereafter shown.
Bishop Burnet observes, it was the pursuing this principle, that gave rise to the Anabaptists in Germany; Luther (Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 110.) having laid it down as a foundation, that the Scripture was to be the only rule of Christians; that many building upon this, carried things further than he did, and denied divers things which he held, and amongst the rest the baptism of infants.
Another Tenet of Wickliff's was this (Fuller, p. 133.): 'That those are fools and presumptious, which affirm such infants not to be saved, which die without baptism, and he denied, that all sins are abolished in baptism.'
Now, it was the opinion that baptism washed away original sin, and by a secret virtue regenerated the person, and that the infant dying without it, was in danger of damnation, that began and established this practice; therefore this foundation being removed, that practice falls of course.
Nay further, it is affirmed to be a doctrine of Wickliff's (Fuller a Wald. Art. 35.), 'That baptism doth not confer, but only signify grace, which was given before.'
And in his Dialogus, although that was written while he retained divers popish errors, he asserts (Trialogus, lib. iv. chap. II. a Baxter.), 'That children may be saved without Baptism; and that the baptism of water profiteth not, without the baptism of the Spirit.' Which shows, that even then he was inclinable to the opinion of the Baptists; and makes it very probable, that when he afterwards threw off many of the errors mentioned in that book, he did also reject the baptism of infants, as it is charged upon him by his adversaries.
Amongst the followers of this great man, both in Bohemia and England, we find many Baptists. The Reformation which began so early in Bohemia, and spread so quickly through most parts of Germany, was in great measure owing to our Wickliff.
Some have thought that he fled into those parts to escape the rage of the English clergy for some time, and then returned again, and so had propagated his principles secretly there. But the account Mr. Fox gives (Martrol. vol. i. p. 606.) us seems the most probable; which is, that a certain young gentleman of Bohemia happening to be at Oxford, upon his returning back to the university of Prague, took with him several of Wickliff's books, and communicated them to Mr. John Hus, who was a man of great learning, a fruitful wit, and of extraordinary piety, by reading these books imbibed the same sentiments of religion which Wickliff had, and openly defended both Wickliff and his doctrines; and so became the first reformer there, and founder of that sect which were called by some Pyghards, and by others Hussites.
Now concerning this people, and their sentiments of religion, we have a very particular account in a letter written to Erasmus out of Bohemia, by Johannes Slechta Costelecius, dated October 10, 1519. which makes the rise of that sect to be above 97 years before that insurrection at Munster; which some would make the first rise of the Baptists, and many years before Luther and Calvin.
In the account he gives of them, he says, they mutually salute one another ny the name of Brother and Sister; they own no other authority than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; they believe or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the church; such as come over to their sect, must every one be baptized anew in mere water, &c.
Now though the account in this letter agrees almost in every thing, with the opinions and practice of the English Baptists; yet the advocates of infant-baptism would fain persuade us to the contrary, by suggesting that they did not re-baptize those that embraced their opinion, as judging baptism in infancy invalid; but judging all baptism received in the corrupt was of the church of Rome to be so. And in confirmation of this, Dr. Wall cites Ottius (Hist. Anabapt. anno. 1521.), who affirms this to be the reason of it.
But when the Paedobaptists argue after this manner, they don't consider that they hereby cast the same odium upon the Protestant religion in general, which they have so often endeavoured to fix upon the Baptists only; viz. That they can have no right administrator of baptism amongst them, and consequently no true baptism. For as bishop Burnet observes (Vol. II. p. 113.), at the beginning of the Reformation, all had been baptized in the corrupt way of the church of Rome. If that baptism was nothing, then there was none truly baptized in being. Now it did not seem reasonable, that men who were not batized themselves, should go and batize others; and therefore the first heads of the Reformation, not being rightly baptized themselves, seemed not to act with any authority, when they went to baptize others.
If, on the other hand, they affirm, that the baptism received in the church of Rome is valid; then these people must be real Anabaptists, who baptized every one anew that came over to their sect.
Nor do we find any that believed infant-baptism to be lawful, who upon departing from the church of Rome, did look upon the baptism they had there received as invalid, and so received a new baptism upon their becoming Protestants. They all abhored indeed the superstitious use of oil of chrisom; yet seeing there was in that baptism the element of water applied, the right words of institution used, and both these administered, as they thought, to a proper subject, they judged it had the essentials of a true baptism, and accordingly contented themselves with it.
'Tis therefore most reasonable to conclude, that those persons were Baptists, and upon that account baptized those that came over to their sect, who professed the true faith, and desired to be baptized into it.
As for Ottius, it is no wonder he asserts the contrary. For he writ with a great deal of warmth to expose the mad Anabaptists, who had made such confusion in Germany, and therefore would not allow any sober and religious people to be of their opinion in any thing. But Waldensis, who lived above an hundred years before Ottius, and writ against the Wickliffites and Hussites, affirms, 'that some of them maintained this heresy (Walden. Tom. III. Tit. v. c. 53. Marshall, p. 65.), that believers children were not to be baptized, and that baptism was to no purpose administered to them.'
But to return to England: Let us see how the doctrines of Wickliff prevailed there, and what was taught and practised, in the point of baptism, by his English disciples.
As in Bohemia the followers of Wickliff went under the name of Waldenses, Pyghards, and Hussites; so in England they were many years called Lollards.
Under this name were the several statutes made against them; their supposed heresies were condemned under the name of Lollardy, and the prison in London, to which they were sent, was called the Lollards Tower. Some think they derived this name from Walter Lollard, one of the Waldensian preachers in Germany, who came to England about the year 1315 and propagated several opinions, agreeing with those afterwards maintained by Wickliff. Others suppose they were so called from the Latin word lolium, which signifies tares, or hurtful weeds among the corn, and so were termed Lollards, quasi lolia, in ara Domini.
The first followers of Wickliff according to Dr. Burnet (Hist. Ref. vol. I. p. 23.), were generally illiterate and ignorant men, who were led into his opinions, rather by the impressions which common sense and plain reason made upon them, than by any deep speculations or study. 'There were, says he, some few Clerks joined to them, but they formed not themselves into any body or association, and were scattered over the kingdom, holding these opinions (against worshipping saints and images, and the corporal presence) in private, without making any public profession of them. Generally they were known by their disparaging the superstitious clergy, whose corruptions were then so notorious, and their cruelty so enraged, that no wonder the people were deeply prejudiced against them.'
In the 5th year of Richard II. (at which time Wickliff himself was alive) a bill for the suppressing of heretics passed in the house of Lords, and was assented to by the King, and published for an act og Parliament, though the bill was never sent to the house of Commons. By this pretended law, says Burnet, 'it appears, that Wickliff's follwers were then very numerous; that they had a certain habit, and did preach in many places, both in churches, church-yards, and markets, without licence from the ordinary; and did preach several doctrines, both against the faith and the laws of the land, as had been proved before the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other bishops, prelates, doctors of divinity, and of the civil and canon law, and others of the clergy; that they would not submit to the admonitions, nor censures of the church, but by their subtil ingenious words, did draw the people to follow them and defend them by a strong hand, and in great routs. Therefore it was ordained, that upon the bishops certifying into the chancery the names of such preachers and their abettors, the chancellour should issue forth commissions to the sheriffs, and other the king's ministers, to hold them in arrest and strong prison, till they should justify them according to the law and reason of holy church.'
The popish party made use of this pious fraud; and though the next parliament disowned and condemned that pretended law, yet they found means to get this new act suppressed, and went on to prosecute the Lollards with all the fierceness and severity the former law would permit; and several of their most noted preachers were apprehended, imprisoned and harrassed, by vexatious suits in the ecclesiastical courts, for as yet there was no law that reached to life.
But when the crown was usurped by Henry IV. in gratitude to the clergy, who assisted him in coming to it, he granted them a law, to their hearts content, for the burning of heretics; which passed both houses in the second year of his reign. And to the eternal infamy of the romish clergy, who procured this bloody law, upon the authority of which so much cruelty was afterwards acted, it was entered in the rolls, Petitio Cleri contra haereticos (Fox, vol. I. p. 773.).
The first who was put to this cruel death in England, merely for religion, was William Sawtre, who was burnt in London, An. Dom. 1400. He had been some-time minister of the parish of St. Margaret, in the town of Lynn; but having entertained the opinions of the Lollards, was first convicted of heresy by the bishop of Norwich, and afterwards brought to make a public recantation of the same, and so escaped for that time: but coming to London, and retaining still a zeal for the true religion, he petitioned the parliament that he might be heard in some matters relating to religion, which he believed would be for the benefit of the whole kingdom.
The clergy suspecting his design, which must have been to get the established religion reformed, or a toleration for such as dissented, got the matter to be referred wholly to them in convocation; who soon condemned him as an obstinate heretic, and procured a decree from the king for his burning.
This Proto-Martyr of the English nation (Hook's Apology, Preface.) is thought by some to have been a Baptist; because the Lollards, who lived in the diocese of Norwich, where this man first received and professed his notions, were generally of that opinion (Martyrol. vol. I. p. 673.): and Mr. Fox, in relating the errors of which he was accused by the Papists, uses the same partiality that he had done before in Wickliff's case; for of the ten errors of which he was convicted by the bishop of Norwich, he conceals the two last, as may be seen in the scroll and recantation.
Fox was doubtless so honest as historian, as not to record any thing he knew to be false; yet it is plain, by these and several other instances, he endeavoured to conceal many things that would make against the religion established in his time, or that he thought would be a disparagement to his martyrs.
The cruel and ignominious death of this good man struck a great terror into the rest of Wickliff's followers, and made them more cautious how they divulged their opinions for the future; yet such was the craft and diligence of the clergy, that they found out means to discover many of them, and by virtue of the statute ex officio, which they had now obtained, persecuted them with great cruelty, so that the prisons were full of them, many were forced to abjure, and those that refused were used without mercy (Fuller, p. 164.).
And as this persecution began in the dioceseof Norwich, so it was carried on with the greatest heat and violence.
Mr. Fox gives an account of an hundred and twenty, who were hereupon accused, and committed to prison for Lollardy in about three years time; that is, from the year 1428, to 1431 (Fuller, vol. I. p. 867, &c.). Of these, some through fear either denied or abjured their opinions; others suffered cruel penance, and others were burnt alive: as Father Abraham, William White, John Wadden, and others.
As to the opinions that were held by these Lollards, or disciples of Wickliff, in England, 'tis agreed by all, that they denied the pope's supremacy, the worshipping of images, praying for the dead, and the like popish doctrines. Whether they rejected the baptism of infants or not, has been doubted by some; but that they generally did so, is more than probable, from what is left upon record concerning them.
For the better discovering who were Lollards, there were certain articles drawn up, upon which the Inquisitors were to examine those who were suspected, and if they saw need, oblige them to abjure. Among these the 12th article was (Fox, vol. I. p. 687.), 'That the infant, though he die unbaptized, shall be saved.'
Waldensis, who wrote against the Wickliffites and Hussites, about the year 1410. affirms, that Wickliff's followers in Scotland, and some in the bishop of Norwich's diocese did hold (Marshal def. Inf. Bapt. p. 65.), that the children of believers are not to be sacramentally baptized; and that they judged it unprofitable to give children ecclesiastical baptism (Baptists Answer to Wills, p. 7.), saying they were sufficiently clean and holy, because they were born of holy and christian parents.
The Dutch martyrology gives an account of Sir L. Clifford, who had formerly been a Lollard, but had departed from their opinions, who informed the archbishop of Canterbury, that the Lollards would not baptize their new-born children. And our English martyrologist tell us (Fox, vol. I. p. 868.), that the Lollards were accused of holding these errors concerning baptism, viz. 'That the sacrament of baptism, used in the church by water, is but a light matter, and of small effect; that christian people be sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and need no water; and that infants be sufficiently baptized, if their parents be baptized before them.'
Fox indeed endeavours to excuse them in these things; and supposes they were only slanders cast upon them by their persecutors.
It is certain they did not deny water-baptism itself, as these accusations suppose; but because they denied that baptism washed away sin, and conferred grace, they charge them with saying, that it was a light matter, and of small effect: Because they held, it was the blood of Christ that saved us, and not water, they accuse them of this error, that christian people be sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and need no water; and because they rejected the baptizing of infants, as a needless ceremony, they condemn them as such that affirmed, that infants be sufficiently baptized, if their parents were baptized before them.
The persecution of the Lollards rather increasing their number than diminishing them, I shall not take notice of the particular sufferers in succession; but proceed to the reign of Henry VIII. where I find their principles about baptism more fairly stated.
Bishop Burnet says (Hist. Reform. vol. I. p. 27.), 'That in the reign of K. Henry VIII. on the 2d day of May, in the year 1511, six men and four women, most of them being of Tenderden, appeared before Archbishop Warham, in his manour of Knoll, and abjured the following errors:'
'1. That in the sacrament of the altar is not the body of Christ, but material bread: 2. That the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are not necessary, nor profitable for men's souls: 3. That confession of sins ought not to be made to a priest: 4. That there is no more power given by God to a priest than to a layman: 5. That the solemnization of matrimony is not profitable nor necessary, for the well of a man's soul: 6. That the sacrament of extreme unction is not profitable nor necessary for a man's soul: 7. That pilgrimages to holy and devout places be not profitable, neither meritorious for man's soul: 8. That images of saints be not to be worshipped: 9. That a man should pray to no saint, but only to God: 10. That holy water, and holy bread, be not the better after the benediction made by the priest, than before. And as they abjured these opinions, so they were made to swear, that they would discover all whom they knew to hold these errors, or who were suspected of them, or that did keep any private conventicles; or were sautors, or comforters of them that published such doctrines. Two other men of Tenderden did that day in the afternoon abjure most of these opinions. The court sat again the fifth of May, and the archbishop enjoined them penance, to wear the badge of a faggot in flames on their clothes during their lives, or till they were dispensed with for it; and that in the procession, both at the cathedral of Canterbury, and at their own parish-churches, they should carry a faggot on their shoulders, which was looked on as a public confession that they deserved burning. The same day another of Tenderden abjured the same doctrines. On the 15th of May the court sat at Lambeth, where four men and one woman abjured. On the 19th, four men more abjured. On the 3d of June, a man and a woman abjured; another woman the 26th of july; another man the 29th of july; two women on the 2d of August; a man on the 3d, and a woman on the 8th of August; three men on the 16th of August; and three men and a woman on the 3d of September. In these abjurations, some were put to abjure more, some fewer of the former doctrines: and in some of their abjurations, two articles more were added. First, that the images of the crucifix of our lady and other saints, ought not to be worshipped, because they were made with men's hands, and were but stocks and stones. Second, that money and labours spent in pilgrimages were all in vain. All these persons (whether they were unjustly accused, or were overcome with fear, or had but crude conceptions of those opinions, and so easily frighted out of them) abjured, and performed the penance that was enjoined then. Others met with harder measure; for on the 29th of April, in the same year 1511. one William Carder of Tenderden, being indicted on the former articles, he denied them all but one: That he had said, it was enough to pray to Almighty God alone, and therefore we needed not to pray to saints for any mediation; upon which witnesses were brought against him, who were all such as were then prisoners, but intended to abjure, and were now made use of to convict others. They swore, that he had taught them these opinions. When their depositions were published, he said he did repent, if he had said any thing against the faith, and the sacraments, but he did not remember that he had said any such thing. Sentence was given upon him as an obstinate heretic, and he was delivered up to the secular power. On the same day a woman, Agnes Grevil, was indicted upon the same articles. She pleaded not guilty; but by a strange kind of proceeding, her husband and her two sons were brought in witnesses against her. Her husband deposed, that in the end of the reign of K. Edw. IV. one John Ive had persuaded her into these opinions, in which she had persisted ever since. Her sons also deposed, that she had been still infusing these doctrines into them. One Robert Harrison was also indicted, and pleading not guilty, witnesses did prove the articles against him; and on the 2d of May, sentence was given against these two, as obstinate heretics; and the same day the archbishop signed the writs for certifying these sentences into the chancery, which conclude in these words: Our holy mother the church, having nothing further that she can do in this matter, we leave the forementioned heretics, and every one of them, to your royal highness, and to your secular council.
'And on the 8th of May, John Brown and Edward Walker, being also indicted of heresy, on the former points, they both pleaded not guilty; but the witnesses deposing against them, they were judged obstinate heretics, and the former a relapse, for he had abjured before cardinal Morton, and on the 19th of May sentence was given. When or how the sentences were executed, I cannot find: sure I am, there are no pardons upon record for any of them; and it was the course of the law, either to send a pardon, or issue out the writ for burning them. Fox mentions none of these proceedings; only he tells, that John Brown was taken for some words said in discourse with a priest, about the saying of masses for redeeming of souls out of purgatory; upon which he was committed for suspicion of heresy. But Fox seems to have been misinformed about the time of his burning, which he says was An. Dom. 1517; for they would not have kept a condemned heretic six years out of the fire. I never find them guilty of any such clemency.' Thus far Bp. Burnet.
It may very well be supposed, that most of the aforementioned persons were opposers of infant-baptism; else why were they obliged to abjure the opinion of baptism, as being neither necessary nor profitable? But if it be said, that these ten articles were esteemed heretical opinions and errors by the church in that day, therefore if they found any person guilty of one, they obliged them to abjure the whole; then I say, it is evident there were opposers of infant-baptism at that time, and that the rite of the Baptists is not of such late date as some would have it.
The king becoming sensible of his error, in being wholly ruled by the Clergy, called his high court of Parliament in the year 1528 (Baker's Chron. p. 296.). The Commons complained sharply of their grievances against the clergy (Mart. Hist. kings of England, p. 282.); especially in six things, the third of which was, that spiritual men became farmers of great granges and farms, to the prejudice of husbandmen and grangers (Hist. Eng. in 2 Eliz. p. 1186.).
The fourth was, because many abbots, priors, and other spiritual men, kept tanhouses, and sold wool, cloth, and other wares, as temporal merchants.
I mention this, to show that the clergy of the church of Rome have been employed in mechanic exercises; and I shall have occasion hereafter to make it appear that this has been the case of those of the other denominations among protestants, as well as the Baptists; though they have all joined in warm reflections on them on this account, as if they only were chargeable with this practice.
But to proceed, though we find not in history among the martyrs, many who are taken notice of as opposers of infant-baptism, the historians themselves being Paedobaptists; yet there is ground sufficient to believe, that many of them were Baptists.
James Bainham, Knt. (Fox, vol II. p. 298.) who was burnt in Smithfield, Apr. 30, 1532. seems by what he said upon his examination before the bishop of London, Dec. 15, 1531. to have been an opposer of infant-baptism.
In the year 1533. Mr. John Frith (Wall. Hist. Bap. Vol. II. p. 207.), who was burnt in Smithfield, wrote a short tract, which he called a Declaration of Baptism. 'Tis published with his other works, Lond. 1573.
King Henry having renounced the pope, and married Anne of Bulloign, she being a special favourer of the gospel, no great persecution nor abjuration was in the church of England during her time; saving, that ten Anabaptists, which the registers of london make mention of, were put to death in sundry places of the realm, An. Dom. 1535. Other ten saved themselves by recantation.
Note again, that two more, albeit the definite sentence was read, yet notwithstanding were pardoned by the king, which was contrary to the pope's law (Fox, vol. II. p. 325.).
About this time was Thomas Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury very busy in projecting the most effectual means for promoting a reformation in doctrine (Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. I. lib. 3. p. 195.). He moved in Convocation, that they should petition the king for leave to make a translation of the Bible; but Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and all his party opposed it, both in Convocation and in secret with the king.
It was said, that all the heresies and extravagant opinions which were in Germany, and from thence brought over into England, sprang from the free use of the Scriptures. And whereas in May, 1535. nineteen Hollanders were accused of some heretical opinions, denying Christ to be both God and Man, or that he took flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, or that the sacraments had any effect upon those that received them. In which opinions fourteen of them remained obstinate, and were burnt by pairs in several places. It was pretended, that all these drew their damnable errors from the indiscreet use of the Scriptures. These, or however some of them, are supposed to be Anabaptists, because Fuller mentions some under that name who suffered that year.
The proceedings of the convocation, and the articles of religion therein agreed upon, and published with the king's authority in 1536. show, that the opinion of the Baptists was then increasing in England.
This convocation sat down in June, and after some affairs relating to the king's divorce were debated, the lower house sent to the upper house, a collection of many opinions that were then in the realm. There are sixty seven set down, and are the tenets of the old Lollards, new Reformers, and Anabaptists; and after much consultation and debating, certain articles were agreed upon, and published with the king's authority.
By these articles, which are expressed at large by Fuller and Burnet, it may be seen what sort of men the whole body of the clergy condemned as heretics in those days.
But it will be sufficient here to insert only those concerning baptism.
As touching the holy sacrament of baptism, say they, 'We will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed by us unto their spiritual charge, that they ought and must of necessity believe certainly all those things which have been always by the whole consent of the church approved, received and used, in the sacrament of baptism. That is to say,
'I. That the sacrament of baptism was instituted and ordained in the New Testament by our Saviour Jesus Christ, as a thing necessary for the attaining of everlasting life; according to the saying of Christ, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu Sancto, no potest intrare in regnum coelorum.
'Item, That it is offered unto all men, as well infants as such as have the use of reason, that by baptism they shall have the remission of sins, and the grace and favour of God; according to the saying of St. John, Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit.
'Item, That the promise of grace and everlasting life, which promise is adjoined unto the sacrament of baptism, pertaineth not only such as have the use of reason, but also to infants, innocents and children; and that they ought therefore, and must needs be baptized: and that by the sacrament of baptism, they do also obtain remission of their sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby the very sons and children of God; insomuch as infants and children, dying in their infancy, shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, or else not.
'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 purgeth them from sin, by his most secret virtue and operation.
'Item, That children or men once baptized, can, nor ought ever to be baptized again.
'Item, That they ought to repute and take all the Anabaptists, and the Pelagians opinions, contrary to the premises, and every other man's opinions agreeable to the said Anabaptists, or the Pelagians opinions in this behalf, for detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned.
'Item, That men or children having the use of reason, willing and desiring to be baptized, shall by the virtue of that holy sacrament, obtain the grace of the remission of all their sins, if they shall come thereunto perfectly and truly repentant and contrite, of all their sins before committed, and also perfectly and constantly confessing and believing, all the articles of our faith, according as it was mentioned in the articles before; or else not. And finally, if they shall also have firm credence and trust in the promise of God, adjoined to the said sacrament; that is to say, that in and by this sacrament which they shall receive, God the Father giveth unto them, for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, remission of all their sins, and the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby they be newly regenerated, and made the very children of God, according to the saying of Christ and his apostle St. Peter, Poenitentiam agite, & baptizetur unusquisque vestrum, in nomine Jesu Christi, in remissionem peccatorum, & accipietis donum Spiritus Sancti; and according also to the saying of St. Paul, ad Titum. 3. Non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam, salvos nosfecit, per lavacrum regenerationis & renovationis Spiritus Sancti, quem effudit in nos opulenter per Jesum Christum servatorem nostrum, ut justificati illius gratia heredes efficiamur, juxta spem vitae eternae.'
Dr. Wall would insinuate, that there were no Baptists in England at this time; but that the King and Convocation, hearing of some in Germany, made and published these articles only by way of prevention, lest such opinions should be brought over hither. But is it probable they would have made so much stir about opinions that were not among them? Besides, the preface put to the articles in the King's name, does plainly contradict this insinuation; for therein it is said by the King: 'We being of late, to our great regret, credibly advertised of such diversity in opinions, as have grown and sprongen in this our realm, as well concerning certain articles necessary to our salvayion, as also touching certain other honest and commendable ceremonies, rites, and usages, now a long time used and accustomed in our churches, have caused our Bishops, and other the most discreet and best learned men of our Clergy of this our whole realm, to be assembled in our Convocation, for the full debatement and quiet determination of the same.'
After these articles of religion were published, Bishop Burnet tells us (Hist. Ref. vol. I. lib. iii. p. 218.): 'That those that desired reformation were glad to see so great a step once made, and did not doubt but this would make way for further changes. They rejoiced to see the Scriptures and the ancient creeds made the standards of the faith, without mentioning tradition, or the decrees of the church.'
But what little cause the Baptists had to rejoice with them, will appear by what follows:
For in October 1538. 'There was a commission, says Burnet (Ib. vol. III. lib. iii. p. 159.), sent to Cranmer, Stokesly, Sampson, and some others, to enquire 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.'
On the 16th of November, the King put forth a proclamation, in which he condemns all the books of the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, and appoints those to be punished who vented them; and in December following he sent a letter to all the Justices in England, in which, after many other things, they are earnestly pressed to take care, that all the injunctions, laws and proclamations, against Sacramentarians and Anabaptists, be duly executed. Which letter may be seen at large in Burnet (History of Reformat. vol. III. lib. iii. col. No. 63.).
In this year also there was an act of grace passed; in which, besides other particular exceptions, all Anabaptists and Sacramentarians were excepted, and all those that affirmed, there was a fate upon men, by which the day of their death was unalterably determined.
Mr. Fuller tells us (Church Hist. lib. iv. p. 229.), 'That in this year a match being made by the lord Cromwell's contrivance between King Henry and the lady Anne of Cleve, Dutchmen flocked faster than formerly into England, and soon after began to broach their strange opinions, being branded with the general name of Anabaptists. These Anabaptists, he adds, for the main are byt Donatists new dipt; and this year their name first appears in our English chronicles. I read, says he (Stow's chron. p. 576.), that four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bare faggots at Paul's cross; and three days after, a man and a woman of their sect were burnt in Smithfield.'
This, Mr. Fuller calls (Index, letter A.) the beginning of the Anabaptists in England; but he is very much mistaken in his account, both as to their beginning, and the first appearance of their name in the English chronicle, as is plain from what has been said before; but however an epitome thereof may not be improper in this place (Fuller, p. 217.).
In the articles of religion, set forth by the king and Convocation, An. Dom. 1536. the sect of the Anabaptists are mentioned and condemned; and their opinion, that infants are not to be baptized, is particularly opposed and sensured as a detestable heresy (Fox, vol. II. p. 325.).
The registers of London mention certain Dutchmen counted for Anabaptists, ten whereof were put to death Anno Dom. 1535. other ten repented and were saved.
Bishop Burnet says (Hist. Ref. vol. I. lib. iii. p. 195.), That in May 1535. nineteen Hollanders were accused of some heretical opinions; among which this, denying, 'That the sacraments had any effect on thosethat received them: Fourteen of them remained obstinate, and were burnt by pairs in several places.'
Now both these were three years before Fuller begins his account of the foreign Anabaptists that came into England. But besides this, we have mentioned instances of much longer standing, as that of Waldensis, which faith, that the Lollards, who were Wickliff's followers in Scotland, and some in the bishop of Norwhich's diocese, did hold, that the children of Believers are not to be sacramentally baptized, and that they judged it unprofitable to give children ecclesiastical baptism; saying, that they were sufficiently clean and holy, because they were born of holy and christian parents. Agreeable to this, is the account which Mr. Fox gives of some faithful christians, who were burnt at Norwich about the year 1428. For he says, though he endeavours to excuse them therein, that they say, that infants be sufficiently baptized, if their parents be baptized before them; that christian people be sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and need no water; that the sacrament of baptism used in the church by water, is but a light matter, and of small effect.
There were about 120 of this opinion; three whereof were burnt alive. These were martyrs of the Anabaptists opinion in England, above an hundred years before Mr. Fuller's date of their beginning.
But to return to the persecution of the Baptists. We find in Mr. Fox certain injunctions, given out in the 30th year of the reign of King Henry VIII. on the 6th of Nov. An. Dom. 1539. the fourth whereof was this (Fox, vol. II. p. 440.): 'That those that be in any errors, as Sacramentaries, Anabaptists, or any other that sell books having such opinions in them, being once known, both the books and such persons shall be detected, and disclosed immediately unto the king's majesty, or one of his privy council, to the intent to have it punished without favour, even with the extremity of the law.'
By this injunction it appears, that there were some in those days, who were for reforming the Sacrament of the supper from the abuses of the church of Rome; that the former were then called Sacramentarians, the latter Anabaptists (Dutch martyr. lib. ii. p. 123.).
In this year sixteen men and fifteen women were banished, for opposing infant-baptism; who going to Delf in Holland, were there pursued and prosecuted before the magistrates for Anabaptists, and put to death for the same; the men beheaded, and the women were drowned. Mr. Barnes, who was burnt in Smithfield, Anno Dom. 1540. in his speech to the people at the stake, clearing himself from being an Anabaptist, of which he was accused, says (Fox, p. 610.), 'Which sect (meaning the Anabaptists) I detest and abhor; and in this place there hath been burned some of them, whom I never favoured, neither maintained.'
Greatly did the clergy oppose one another at this time, even to the disturbance of the peace of the king himself; as appears by his speech to the parliament, Decemb. 24, 1545. where recommending love and unity to his subjects, he saith (Fox, vol II. p. 571.), 'St. Paul saith, to the Corinthians, in the 13th chapter, Charity is gentle, charity is not envious, charity is not proud, and so forth, in the said chapter. Behold then what love and charity is amongst you, when the one calleth the other Heretic and Anabaptist, and he calls him again Papist, Hypocrite, and Pharisee: Be these tokens 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 Mumpsimus, others be too busy and curious in their new Sumpsimus.'
This part of the King's speech intimates to us, that when the reformation began under his reign, there were many of his subjects went under the name of Anabaptists.
Yet after all, the popish clergy prevailed with the king, and obtained a proclamation for the suppressing and abolishing of such English books as might help to explain the Scripture; such as the books of Wickliff, Frith, Tindal, Barnes, &c. but within four months after this proclamation was issued out, the king died, and providence thereby disappointed them, by bringing his son Edward VI. to the throne; who restored the holy Scriptures in the mother tongue, abolished the masses, and received home such as were banished.
He was but nine years of age; yet proved a most happy patron to the gospel (Fox, vol. II. p. 653.).
Carolus, the Emperor made request to him and his council, to permit lady Mary to have Mass in her house, without prejudice of the law. Whereunto the King being required by the council to give his consent, would in no case yield to it, notwithstanding they laid before him what danger might ensue to him by breach of amity with the Emperor. And they being more urgent upon him, the king seeing their importunate suit, in the end his tender heart bursting out into bitter weeping and sobbing, desired them to be content: and so refused to yield unto the Emperor's request in that behalf.
In the second year of his reign, the new Liturgy, first agreed upon by the clergy, was confirmed by parliament; wherein Bishop Burnet tells us (Hist. Reform. vol. II. lib. i. p. 77.), they give the following direction about baptism.
'In baptism, says he, there was, besides the forms which we still retain, a cross at first made on the child's forehead and breast with an adjuration of the devil to go out of him, and come at him no more. Then the priest was to take the child by the right hand, and to place him within the font. There he was to be dipped thrice; once on the right side, once on the left, and once on the breast, which was to be discreetly done. But if the child were weak, it was sufficient to sprinkle water on his face. Then was the priest to put a white vestment or chrisome on him, for a token of innocence, and to annoint him on the head, with a prayer for the unction of the holy Ghost.'
In his reflections upon this part of the book (Hist. Reform. vol. II. lib. i. p. 80.), when he is pleading for the first reformers continuing the use of the cross in baptist, he tells us, they did not use it, as thinking there was that virtue followed the use of it which the Papists thought: 'For in baptism, says he, as they [the Papists] used the sign of the cross, they add an adjuration to the evil spirit not to violate it, and in the making it, said, Receive the sign of the cross, both in thy forehead and in thy heart,and take the faith of the heavenly precepts, &c.'
Fox says (Acts and Mon. p. 685. first Edit.), 'during the whole time of the six years of this king, much tranquility, and as it were a breathing time, was granted to the whole church of England; so that the rage of persecution ceasing, and the sword taken out of the adversaries hand, there was now no danger to the godly, unless it were only be wealth and prosperity, which many times brings more damage, in corrupting mens minds, than any time of persecution or affliction.'
'Briefly, during all this time, neither in Smithfield, nor any other quarter of this realm, any was heard to suffer for any matter of religion, either Papist or protestant, either for one opinion or the other, except only two; one an English woman, called Joan of Kent; and the other a Dutchman, named George, who died for certain articles, strange and dissonant from the affection of the church, which here I omit to speak of, for causes reasonable.'
These two having denied infant-baptism, and being the only persons who suffered for their sentiments in religion in this reign, I shall give that account of them and their sufferings which I find in Bishop Burnet (Hist. Reform. vol. II. part ii. p. 110, &c.).
'At this time, says the Bishop, there were many Anabaptists in several parts of England; they were generally Germans, whom the revolutions there had forced to change their seats. Upon Luther's first preaching in Germany, there arose many, who building on some of his principles, carried things much further than he did. The chief foundation he laid down was, that the Scripture was to be the only reule of Christians. Upon this many argued, that the mysteries of the Trinity, and Christ's Incarnation and Sufferings, of the Fall of Man, and the aids of Grace, were indeed philosophical subtilities, and only pretended to be deduced from Scripture, as almost all opinions of religion were, and therefore they rejected them. Amongst these the baptism of infants was one. They held that to be no baptism, and so were re-baptized. But from this, which was most taken notice of, as being a visible thing, they carried all the general name of Anabaptists.'
'On the 12th of April there was a complaint brought to the council, that with the strangers that were come into England, some of that persuasion had come over, and were disseminating their errors, and making proselytes: so a commission was ordered for the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Ely, Worcester, Westminster, Chichester, Lincoln, and Rochester; Sir William Petre, Sir Thomas Smith, Dr. Cox, Dr. May, and some others, three of them being a quorum; to examine, and search after all Anabaptists, Heretics, or contemners of the common-prayer. They were to endeavour to reclaim them, to enjoin them penance, and give them absolution; or, if they were obstinate, to excommunicate and imprison them, and to deliver them over to the secular power, to be further proceeded against. Some Tradesmen in London were brought before these commissioners in May, and were persuaded to abjure their former opinions.' I shall only mention the last of them; which was, that the baptism of infants was not profitable.
'One of those who thus abjured, was commanded to carry a faggot next Sunday at St. Paul's, where there should be a sermon, setting forth his heresy. But there was another of these extreme obstinate, Joan Bocher, commonly called Joan of Kent. She denied that Christ was truly incarnate of the virgin, whose flesh being sinful, he could take none of it; but the Word, by the consent of the inward man in the virgin, took flesh of her; these were her words. They took much pains about her, and had many conferences with her; but she was so extravagantly conceited of her own notions, that she rejected all they said with scorn. Whereupon she was adjudged an obstinate heretic, and so left to the secular power. This being returned to the council, the good King was moved to sign a warrant for burning her, but could not be prevailed upon to do it. He thought it a piece of cruelty, too like that which they had condemned in Papists, to burn any for their consciences; and in a long discourse he had with Sir John Cheek, he seemed much confirmed in that opinion.'
'Cranmer was employed to persuade him to sign the warrant. He argued from the law of Moses, by which blasphemers were to be stoned. He told the King, he made a great difference between errors in other points of divinity, and those which were directly against the apostles Creed; that these were impieties against God, which a prince, as being God's deputy, ought to punish, as the King's deputies were obliged to punish offences against the Ling's person.'
'These reasons did rather silence than satisfy the young King; who still thought it a hard thing, as in truth it was, to proceed so severely in such cases; so he set his hand to the warrant with tears in his eyes, saying to Cranmer, that if he did wrong since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer for it to God. This struck the archbishop with much horror, so that he was very unwilling to have the sentence executed; and both he and Ridley took the woman then in custody to their houses, to see if they could peruade her: but she continued by jeers and other insolencies to carry herself so contemptuously, that at last the sentence was executed on her the 2nd of May next year, bishop Scorey preaching at her burning. She carried herself then as she had done in the former parts of her process, very undecently, and in the end was burnt.'
In the year 1550, about the end of December, the same author assures us (Hist. Reform. vol. II. lib. i. p. 143.), that after many cavils in the state, an act passed for the king's general pardon; wherein the Anabaptists are excepted. 'Last of all, says the Bishop, [that is, of the acts made by this parliament] came the king's general pardon; out of which those in the tower or other prisons, on the account of the state, as also all Anabaptists, were excepted.'
This exception does plainly intimate, that there were at this time some of this opinion kept in the prisons, though they were not charged with any crimes against the state, but for the principles of religion; and that there was so much of the popish spirit of persecution remaining among those Reformers, as to exclude Anabaptists from the benefit of the king's pardon.
In the same year a visitation was made of the diocese of London, by Ridley, their new bishop. Among the other articles which he put to the inferior clergy, this was one (Hist. Ref. 158.); 'Whether any Anabaptists, or others, used private conventicles, with different opinions and forms than those established;' and with other questions about baptism and marriages. Burnet says these articles are in bishop Sparrow's collection.
'(Hist. Ref. 158.) About the end of this year, or the beginning of the next, there was review made of the Common-prayer book. Several things had been continued in it, either to draw in some of the bishops, who by such yielding might be prevailed on to concur in it, or in compliance with the people, who were fond of their old superstitions. So now a review of it was set about.' Martin Bucer [whose opinion was highly esteemed both by the king, and Cranmer the archbishop, and who had a great hand in all the changes that were made in religion in those times in England] 'was consulted in it, and Aleffe the Scotch divine translated it into Latin for his use,' [and with it was sent over into Germany] 'upon which Bucer writ his opinion, which he finished the fifth of January the year following.'
In this he advised to a further reformation in many things. 'He wished that there was a strict discipline to exclude scandalous livers from the sacrament.'
'He wished that the old habits might be laid aside, since some used them superstitiously, and others contended much about them. He did not like the half office of communion, or second service to be said at the altar, when there was no sacrament. He was offended with the requiring the people to receive at least once a year, and would have them pressed to it much more frequently. He disliked that the priests generally read prayers with no devotion, and in such a voice that the people understood not what they said. He would have the sacrament delivered into the hands, and not put into the mouths of the people, &c.'
As to baptism, 'He complained that baptism was generally in houses, which being the receiving infants into the church, ought to be done more publicly. The hallowing of the water, the chrisme, and the white garment [then used in baptizing] he censured as being to scenical. He excepted to the exorcising the devil, and would have it turned to a prayer to God; the authoritative way of saying I adjure, not being so decent. He thought the godfathers answering in the child's name, not so well as to answer in their own, that they should take care in these things all they could.'
Some of these things which he excepted to, were corrected afterwards, but others were kept, and are to this day; though the same things are still objected against by most of the nonconformists, and are one great occasion of their dissenting from the established church.
Having thus cast out many of those corruptions that were formerly in their worship, and got most of the sees filled with such bishops as were for the Reformation they set about the purging out those corruptions that were doctrinal; and most of the year following was spent in preparing articles which should contain the doctrines of the church of England. These were generally said to be framed by Cranmer and Ridley. They were agreed upon by the bishops, and other learned men, in the Convocation held at London in the year 1552 and consisted of forty two articles. As there were three articles more than there are at present, so they expressed several things different from what they are now. All that is proper to be taken notice of here is the eighth, which is concerning original sin. The Anabaptists are particularly meant, as affirming, that it conflicts in the following of Adam; for thus it begins.
'Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, and at this day is affirmed by some Anabaptists; but it is the fault and corruption of every man, &c.'
'Tis probable some of those who opposed infants-baptism in those times, had embraced the opinions of the Pelagians about original sin. But the Paedobaptists did generally charge them with his opinion, because they held that infants dying without actual sin, were not damned; and that they need no baptism to wash away original sin, but were saved without it. However, ten years after, when the articles were again reviewed and corrected in many things, they thought it proper to leave this clause out, and only charged this heresy upon the Pelagians. The 28th article concerning Baptism was the same that now it is, except the last clause, which relates to infant-baptism, which they laid down in these words: 'The custom of the church for baptizing young children, is both to be commended, and by all means to be retained in the church.'
It seems by this, that the first Reformers did not found the practice of infants-baptism upon Scripture; but took it only as a commendable custom, that had been used in the christian church, and therefore ought to be retained. This new alteration made in the Common-prayer and articles of faith, caused the Papists to say (Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. II. lib. i. p. 190.), 'That the Reformation was like to change as often as the fashion did, since they seemed never to be at a point in any thing, but new models were thus continually framing; to which it was answered, that it was no wonder that the corruptions which they hadbeen introducing for above a thousand years were not all discovered or thrown out at once.'
The length of time taken up in altering the Common-prayer and articles, obliges me to place the following story somewhat out of course.
Two years after the burning of Joan of Kent, says Bishop Burnet (Hist. Reform. vol. II. lib. i, p. 112.), 'One George Van Pare, a Dutchman, being accused for saying, that God the Father was only one God, and that Christ was not very God; he was dealt with long to abjure, but would not. So on the 6th of April, 1551 he was condemned in the same manner that Joan of Kent was, and on the 25th of April was burnt in Smithfield. He suffered with great constancy of mind, and kissed the stake and faggots that were to burn him. Of this Pare I find a popish writer saying, that he was a man of most wonderful strict life, that he used not to eat above once in two days, and before he did eat would lie some time in his devotion prostrate on the ground. All this they made use of to lessen the credit of those who had suffered formerly; for it was said, they saw now, that men of harmless lives might be put to death for Heresy, by the confession of the Reformers themselves: and in all the books published in Q. Mary's days, justifying her severity against the Protestants, these instances were always made use of. And no part of Cranmer's life exposed him more than this did: It was said, he had consented, both to Lambert's and Ann Askew's death in the former reign; who both suffered for opinions which he himself held now, and he had now procured the death of these two persons; and when he was brought to suffer himself, it was called a just retaliation on him. One thing was certain, for what he did in this matter flowed from no cruelty of temper in him, no man being farther from that black disposition of mind; but it was truly the effect of those principles by which he governed himself.'
Then Burnet goes on to give an account of the moderate Anabaptists, and says (Hist. Reform. vol. II. p. 112.), 'For the other sort of Anabaptists, who only denied infants baptism, I find no severities used to them, but several books were written against them, to which they wrote some answers. It was said, that Christ allowed little children to be brought to him, and said, of such was the kingdom of heaven, and blessed them. Now if they were capable of the kingdom of heaven, they must be regenerated; for Christ said, none but such as are born of water and of the Spirit could enter into it. St. Paul had also called the children of believing parents holy, which seemed to relate to such a consecration of them as was made in baptism; and baptism being the seal of Christians in the room of circumcision among the Jews, it was thought the one was applicable to the children, as the other. And one thing was observed, that the whole world in that age, having been baptized in their infancy, if that baptism was nothing, then there were none truly baptized in being; but all were in the state of mere nature. Now it did not seem reasonable, that men who were not baptized themselves, should go and baptize others, and therefore the first heads of that sect not being rightly baptized themselves, seemed not to act with any authority when they went to baptize others. The practice of the church so early begun, and continued without dispute so many ages, was at least a certain confirmation of a thing which had (to speak moderately) so good foundations in Scripture for the lawfulness, tho' not any peremptory, but only probable proofs for the practice of it.'
The same author informs us (Hist. Ref. part II. lib. i. p. 202.): 'That in the year 1552 a proposal was made for the correcting the grat disorders of clergymen, which were occasioned by the extreme misery and poverty to which they were reduced. That some motions were made about it in parliament; but they took not effect: So one writ a book concerning it, which he dedicated to the lord Chancellour, then the bishop of Ely. He showed, that without rewards or encouragements, few would apply themselves to the pastoral function; and that those in it, if they could not subsist by it, must turn to other employments; so that at that time, says he, many clergymen were carpenters and taylors, and some kept alehouses.'
I mention this, because it is often cast upon the Dissenters, and particularly those called Anabaptists, that they encourage tradesmen and mechanics. Now it is plain from their articles, they are for maintaining of ministers, that they may be entirely bent to their sacred office; but if, in case of necessity, they are obliged to follow trades, for the maintenance of themselves and families, it is no more that what the clergy, both Papists and Protestants, have done, till they could get sufficient allowance by law to free them from it.
But to return; these sad instances of persecution practised by the Protestants in this king's reign against the Anabaptists, are in Fox's Latin book of martyrs, but left out in his English, out of a tender regard, as is supposed, to the reputation of the martyrs in Queen Mary's days.
The same is translated by Mr. Pierce. It being short, I will oblige the reader therewith, and with Mr. Pierce's remarks upon it (Answ. to Nichols, p. 33.)
'In King Edward's reign some were put to death for heresy. One Joan Bocher, or Joan of Kent. Mr Strype tells us, her heresy was, that she believed the Word was made flesh in the virgin's belly, but not that he took flesh of the virgin. 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's church, came to him, earnestly desiring him to use his interest with the archbishop, that the poor woman's life might be spared, and other means used to prevent the spreading of her opinions, which might be done in time: urging too, that though while she lived, she infected few with her opinions, 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. Rogers on the other hand pleaded, she ought to be put to death. Well then, says his friend, if you are resolved to put an end to her life together with her opinion, choose 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 sufferings, answered him with great vehememnce, and striking Roger'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; and Rogers was the first man who was burnt in Queen Mary's time.'
This Rogers, says Mr. Pierce, was a Nonconformist, and a very excellent man, and died nobly in the cause of Christ; but this barbarity of his deserves to be exposed: and the rather, because God in his providence seems to have shown his great displeasure against it. I am apt to think Roger's friend was no other than Fox himself. As to the other instance, Mr. Strype tells us, that in theyear 1552, Sept. 27. a letter was sent to the archbishop, to examine a sect newly sprung up in Kent. He says, it appears not what this sect was; he supposes they might be the Family of love, or David George's sect; but these conjectures of his have no good foundation. I am persuaded this sect was no other than some good honest Dissenters, who having been grieved to see so much of Popery still retained, attempted a further Reformation themselves, which would be a very displeasing thing to our bishops, who expect all men should wait their leisure. Now this I ground upon a story which Mr. Fox immediately subjoins to what I just now mentioned from him.'
'Much such another instance is reported concerning Humphry Middleton (who was afterwards burnt in Queen Mary's days). That when he, with some others, had been kept prisoners in the last year of king Edward, by the archbishop, and had been dreadfully teazed by him, and the rest in commission with him, were now just upon being condemned in open court, he said unto him, well, reverend sir, pass what sentence you think fit upon us: but that you may not say you was not fore-warned, I testify that your own turn will be next. And accordingly it came to pass; for a little while after King Edward died, upon which they were set at liberty, and the bishops cast in prison. This Middleton was afterwards in Queen Marys days, burnt at Canterbury; so that the commission which Mr. Strype mentions, agrees in time and place with this story.' Thus far Mr. Pierce.
Mr. Hugh Latimer, in his Lent sermons preached before King Edward VI says (Pag. 56.),
'The Anabaptists, that were burnt here in divers towns in 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.'
In the said sermon, he further saith,
'I should have told you here of a certain sect of heretics that speak against this order and doctrine; they will have no magistrates, no judges on earth; here I have to tell you, what I have 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.'
That the Baptists were very numerous at this time, is without controversy: and no doubt, many of themartyrs in Queen Mary's days were such, though historians seem to be silent with respect to the opinions of the martyrs about baptism; neither can it be imagined, that the Papists would in the least favour any of that denomination which they so much detested and abhorred: for in the examination of Mr. Woodman, before the bishop of Winchester, in the church of St. Mary Overies, Southwark, the bishop said (Fox, p. 1578. first Edit.), 'Hold him a book, if he refuse to swear, he is an Anabaptist, and shall be excommunicated.'
Again, in the examination of Mr. Philpot before the lords of Queen Mary's council, Nov. 6, 1555 Rich saith unto him (Ibib. p. 1407.), 'All heretics do boast of the Spirit of God, and every one would have a church by himself; as Joan of Kent, and the Anabaptists.'
Another instance of their hatred and cruelty towards the Anabaptists, Spanhemius gives us an account of. David George, of Delph in Holland, being driven from his own country by persecution, fled to the city of Bazil, where he lived for some time in great reputation, and by his modest dress, liberal table, honest attendance, and prudent conversation, gained the favour both of high and low: he died in the year 1556, and was honourably buried in St. Laurence church. Some time after his death, it was discovered, that he was an Anabaptist; upon which his house, and those of his followers were searched, a certain number of divines and lawyers appointed to examine them, his opinions were condemned by an ordinance, his picture carried about and burnt, and his corpse taken up three years after buried, and burnt, &c.
During the life of this bloody queen, which was but short, two hundred and eighty four persons were put to most cruel kinds of death for religion: but he that wrote the preface to bishop Ridley's book de Coena Domini, says, that in the two first years of the queen's persecution, there were above eight hundred persons put to death for religion: so that Mr. Fox has come very short in his account, as bishop Burnet observed.
We come now to the reign of Queen Elizabeth; who, upon her accession to the crown, ordered all that were imprisoned on the account of religion to be set at liberty. Upon which, 'one, says bishop Burnet (Abridgment, lib. iv. p. 340.), that used to talk pleasantly, told her the four Evangelists continued still prisoners, and that the people longed much to see them at liberty. She answered she would talk with themselves, and know their own mind.'
Sir Francis Walsingham wrote a long letter to a Frenchman, given him an account of all the severities of the queen's government, both against Papists and Puritans. The substance of which is, says bishop Burnet (Ibid. p. 382.), 'that the queen laid down two maxims of state: the one was, not to force consciences; the other was, not to let factious practices go unpunished, because they were covered with the pretences of conscience. At first she did not revive those severe laws past in her father's time, by which the refusal of the oath of Supremacy was made treason; but left her people to the freedom of their thoughts, and made it only penal to extol a foreign jurisdiction. She also laid aside the word supreme head; and the refusers of the oath were only disabled from holding benefices or charges during their refusal. Upon Pius the Vth's excommunicating her, though the rebellion in the north was chiefly occasioned by that, she only made a law against the bringing over, or publishing of Bulls, and the venting of Agnus Dei's, or such other love-tokens, which were sent from Rome on design to draw the hearts of her people from her, which were no essential parts of that religion; so that this could hurt none of their consciences. But after the 20th year of her reign, it appeared that the king of Spain designed to invade her dominions, and that the priests that were sent over from the seminaries beyond sea, were generally employed to corrupt her subjects in their allegiance; by which treason was carried in the clouds, and infused secretly in confession. Then pecuniary punishments were inflicted on such as withdrew from the church; and in conclusion, she was forced to make laws of greater rigour, but did often mitigate the severity of them to all that would promise to adhere to her in case of a foreign invasion. As for the Puritans, as long as they only inveighed against some abuses, as pluralities, non-residence or the like, it was not their zeal against those, but their violence, that was condemned. When they refused to comply with some ceremonies, and questioned the superiority of the bishops, and declared for a democracy in the church, they were connived at with great gentleness: but it was observed, that they affected popularity much, and the methods they took to compass their ends were judged dangerous, and they made such use of the aversion the nation had to popery, that it was visible they were in a hazard of running from one extreme to another. They set up a new model of church-discipline, which was like to prove no less dangerous to the liberties of private men, than to the sovereign power of the prince. Yet all this was born with, as long as they proceeded with those expressions of duty which become subjects. But afterwards, when they resolved to carry on their designs, without waiting for the consent of the magistrate, and entered into combinations; when they began to defame the government, by ridiculous pasquils, and boasted of their number and strength, and in some places break out into tumults; then it appeared that it was faction, and not zeal, that animated them. Upon that the queen found it necessary to restrain them more than she had done formerly. Yet she did it with all the moderation that could consist with the peace of the church and state. And thus from this letter, says Burnet, an idea of this whole reign may be justly formed.'
The share the Baptists had in the severities of this reign, will appear by the following instances. Dr. Wall says (Hist. Bap. lib. ii. p. 212.), 'About the 16th year of Queen Elizabeth, a congregation of Dutch Antipaedobaptists was discovered without Aldgate in London, whereof twenty seven were taken and imprisoned. And the next month one Dutchman and ten women were condemned.' Marius de Assigny tells us (Mystery of Anabaptism, p. 368.), that it was at easter, An. Dom. 1575, which must have been the 17th of Elizabeth, that four of the former recanted at St. Paul's cross, the 25th of May; and that the rest were banished.
Their abjuration was in these words:
'Whereas, we being seduced by the devil, the spirit of error, and by false teachers, have fallen into these most damnable and detestable 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 man 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 by the assistance of good and learned ministers of Christ's church, I understand the same to be most damnable and detestable heresies; and do ask God, before his church, mercy for my said former errors, and do forsake, recant, and renounce them; and I abjure them from the bottom of my heart, protesting I certainly believe the contrary. And further, I confess, that the whole doctrine, established and published in the church of England, and also that is received in the Dutch church in London, is found true and according to God's word: Whereunto in all things I submit myself, and will be most gladly a member of the said Dutch church; from henceforth utterly abandoning and forsaking all and every anabaptistical error.'
This abjuration was taken from these Walloon Anabaptists by Dr. De Laune, who was then minister of the Dutch church in Augustin Friars in london. In the 18th year of Queen Elizabeth, An. Dom. 1575, Mr. Fuller saith (Ch. Hist. cent. xvi. p. 104.), 'Now began the Anabaptists wonderfully to increase in the land; and as we are sorry that any countrymen should be seduced with that opinion, so we are glad that the English as yet were free from that infection. For on Easter-day was disclosed a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists, without Aldgate in London, whereof seven and twenty were taken and imprisoned, and four bearing faggots at Paul's Cross, solemnly recanted their dangerous opinions. Next month, one Dutchman and ten women were condemned; of whom one woman was converted, to renounce her errors; eight were banished from the land; two more so obstinate, that command was issued out for their burning in Smithfield. But to reprieve them from so cruel a death, a grave divine sent the following letter to Queen Elizabeth.' The letter was wrote in Latin, I shall give only the English translation thereof.
Most serene and happy princess, most illustrious queen, the honour of our country, and ornament of the age. As nothing hath been further from my thoughts and expectation, than ever to disturb 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 tho' 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 thro' 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. I understand there are some here in England, tho' not English, but come hither from Holland, I suppose both men and women, who have been tried according to law, publicly declared their repentance, are happily reclaimed. Many others are condemned to exile; a right sentence in my opinion. But I hear there is one or two of these, who are appointed to the most severe of punishments, viz. burning, except your clemency prevent. Now in this 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 are left never so little a while destitute of the divine light, whither is it we do not fall; and we have great reason to give God thanks on this account, 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 roast alive the bodies of poor wretches, that offend rather through blindness of judgment, than perversness 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 Romisy 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 these things, because I am pleased with their wickedness, or favour the errors of any men; but seeing I myself a man, I must therefore favour the life of man; not that he should err, but that he might repent. Nay my pity extends not only to the life of man, but even to the beasts.
For so it is perhaps a folly in me; 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, tho' 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 highness, for the sake of Christ, who was consecrated to suffer for the lives of many, this favour at my request, which even 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 their punishment into some other kind. There are excommunications, and close imprisonment; 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 piles and flames in Smithfield, so long ago extinguished by your happy government, may not now be again revived: that 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 wemay 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.
After this, Fuller goes on and saith, 'This letter was written by Mr. John Fox, from whose own hand I transcibed it; very loth that Smithfield, formerly consecrated with martyrs ashes, should now be profaned with heretics; and desirous that the Papists might enjoy their own monopoly of cruelty, in burning condemned persons.'
'But tho' Queen Elizabeth constantly called him her Father Fox; yet herein she was no dutiful daughter, giving him a flat denial (As to the saving of their lives, if after a month's reprieve and conference with divines, they would not recant their errors, à Stow, ut prius.). Indeed damnable were their impieties, and she necessitated to this severity, who having formerly punished some traitors, if now sparing these blasphemers, the world would condemn her as being more earnest in asserting her own safety, than God's honour. Hereupon the writ De haeretico comburendo, (which for seventeen years had hung only up in terrorem) was now taken down, and put in execution, and the two Anabaptists burnt in Smithfield, died in great horror, with crying and roaring.'
Great were the hardships and sufferings of the Puritans (of whom it may be reasonably supposed, that some of them were Baptists, tho' they had not as yet formed themselves into distinct societies) by the cruelty of the bishops, instigated by the queen's hatred of them. 'She had high notions of the sovereign power of princes, and of her own absolute supremacy in church-affairs; and being of opinion that all methods of severity were lawful to bring her subjects to an outward uniformity, she countenanced all the engines of persecution, as spiritual courts, high commission (Neal's Hist. puritans, p. 602. vol. I.), and star-chamber, and stretched her prerogative to support them beyond the laws, and against the sense of the nation.'
That the Baptists had no small share in the sufferings of these times, we may gather from the supplication of the justices of the peace of the county of norfolk, who upon complaint made to them of the cruelty of the bishop of Norwich, with respect to the long and illegal imprisonment of some of the Brownists, their worships were pleased to move the bishop in their favour; with which his lordship was so dissatisfied, 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 misdemeanours. Notwithstanding his lordship's citation of them before the council, they writ again to their honours, praying to interpose in behalf of the injuries that were offered to divers godly ministers. And in their supplication they say, 'We serve her majesty and the country as magistrates and justices of peace, according to law; we reverence the law and law-maker; when the law speaks we keep not silence; when it commandeth we obey; by law we proceed against all offenders (Neal's Hist. purit. p. 388. v. I.); we touch none that 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; and yet we are christned with the odious name of Puritans, a term compounded of the heresies above-mentioned, which we disclaim.'
In the year 1589, Dr. Some, a man of great note in those times, writ a treatise against Barrow, Greenwood, Penry, and others of the Puritan sect; wherein he endeavoured to show what agreement there was between the opinions of the English Anabaptists and these men.
His method is first to show, what was the opinion of the Anabaptistical Recusants, as he terms them; then wherein these men did agree with, or differ from them; and then undertakes to confute their supposed errors.
The opinions he charges the Anabaptists with, when they are stripped of his dress, are only to this purpose:
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 people ought to have the right of choosing their own ministers:
That the high-commission court was an antichristian usurpation:
That those who are qualified to preach, ought not to be hindered by the civil power:
That tho' the Lord's-prayer be a rule and foundation of prayer, yet not to be used as a form; and that no forms of prayer ought to be imposed on the church:
That the baptism administered in the church of Rome is invalid:
That a true constitution and discipline is essential to a true church; and that the worship of God in the church of England is in many thinhs defective.
He touches but briefly on their opinion of baptizing believers only; and brings up the rear with saying, they count 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 lord and master of other mens faith.
He acknowledges, that there were several anabaptistical conventicles in London, and other places; that some of this sort, as well as the Papists, had been bred at our universities; and tells a story of one 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.
Ifthis be what their adversaries had chiefly to charge them with; what account might we have expected, had they been allowed to publish their own faith, and to transmit their own history down to posterity? And tho' this gentleman seems to deal more favourably with this sect than many others, yet he uses the unfair method which I suppose they thought lawful, in writing against heretics; that is, to assert they hold such opinions, without producing any proof of it, or referring to any of their works, lest they should publish them, and people should have opportunity to enquire what they say for themselves.
He likewise discovers too much of the spirit of persecution, that reigned in these times, and endeavours to excite the civil power to be more severe against the sectaries. 'If, says he, every particular congregation in England might set up and put down at their pleasure, popish and anabaptistical fancies would overthrow this land; the consequence would be dangerous, viz. the dishonour of God, the contempt of her majesty, the overthrow of the church and universities, and the utter confusion of this noble kingdom. Queen Elizabeth, and her honourable councillours do see, and will prevent this mischief; it is more than time to look unto it.'
With such false representations as these, the clergy have been used to frighten the court into the practice of persecution.
But to close this reign, Queen Elizabeth having by her proclamation commanded all Anabaptists and other heretics to depart the land, whether they were natives or foreigners, under the penalties of imprisonment or loss of goods; all that were of this opinion were obliged either to conceal their principles, or fly into some other country, where they might enjoy the liberty of their religion.
Upon which many of the dissenters went over to Holland: among whom there were not a few Baptists, as well English as Dutch; so that there was now no great number of Dissenters of any denomination, that dared openly to appear. 'Queen Elizabeth however, with all her blemishes, says Mr. Neal (Hist. Puritans, p. 602. vol I.), stands upon record, as a wife and politic princess; for delivering the kingdom from the difficulties in which it was involved at her accession; for preserving the Protestant reformation against the potent attempts of the Pope, the Emperor, and King of Spain abroad, and the Queen of Scots and her Popish subjects at home; and for advancing the renown of the English nation beyond any of her predecessors. Her majesty held the balance of Europe; and was in high esteem with all foreign princes, the greatest part of her reign: and tho' her Protestant subjects were divided about church affairs, they all discovered a high veneration for her royal person and government; on which account she was the glory of the age in which she lived, and will be the admiration of posterity.'
'Aussie Outpost' is pleased to be able to present to you this classic work. Please feel free to print this for reading offline at your leisure.
28/03/2010
AN OUTPOST PRODUCTION
