THE

HISTORY

OF THE

English Baptists,

FROM

The REFORMATION to the Beginning
of the Reign of King George I.

_______________________________________________________

VOL. I.
________________________________________________________

CONTAINING

Their HISTORY to the RESTORATION
of King CHARLES II.

_______________________________________________________

By THO. CROSBY.
________________________________________________________

 

LONDON,

Printed for, and Sold by, the EDITOR, either
at his House in Vine-Street, Minories; or at
his House upon Horse-ly-down, Southwark.

MDCCXXXVIII.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Volume One

 

TO THE READER:

I am well aware, that some things contained in this history may awaken prejudice, censure, or displeasure, and occasion objections and offence, both to the treatise and my self. And I know that some have already declared their opinion, that facts which bring no credit to the persons of whom they are related, ought to be buried in oblivion. But such persons seem to me to be very ignorant of the duty of an historian. In answer to whom I shall only observe, that those heretical persons of the denomination of Baptists, on whom the sword of the magistrate fell so heavy, are yet upon record, and not omitted even by so late an author as the reverend Mr. Neal, and so exposed to the view of men from age to age. Therefore I thought it needful, as well as just, to have these things set in a clear open light, to disabuse all those who may have been imposed upon by false or partial and defective history in this matter, and to remove, or prevent, or allay, scandal, or censure, for time to come; and I am apt to think that many readers now and hereafter would have thought me partial, had I not taken notice of them. Neither do I think that it reflects any odium on the English Baptists, that some of their opinion in the point of Baptism, have been charged with heretical notions and heterodox opinions, Name me that body of christians in the world, which may not be equally, if not more, chargeable with the same. And yet I doubt not, God hath many faithful servants in this kingdom, amongst all the denominations of christians, who notwithstanding the imputation of heresy and heterodoxy charged on them by others, will be found among the blessed in the kingdom of glory.

And as it is utterly unreasonable to impute the miscarriages of some, to the rest of that body to which they belong, until they profess and manifest their approbation of them, so it is much more unreasonable to impute the miscarriages and bad principles of persons long since dead, to those, who in some one point, now believe and act as they did, but own not, nor abet either their bad principles, or their practical enormities.

Now though many, even of the learned, and so late an author as Mr. Neal, from whom we might have looked for more christian treatment, have made it their business to represent the Anabaptists, as they are pleased in contempt to stile them, in odious colours, and to write many bitter things, even notorious falsehoods concerning them, nay, to fasten doctrines upon them, which they never approved; yet, as shall be shown in the sequel of this history, no one sect of christians in this kingdom have merited more the favour and good esteem of their governours and christian brethren, by their peaceable carriage and behaviour towards them, than they have done. What sect of christians have showed the like contentedness under the deprivations which the legislature has seen needful to lay upon the Dissenters in general, than they? Who have been more content with the liberty allowed them by law than they? But not to be tedious in an epistolary way, I shall refer the reader to the work itself, and leave him to judge whether I deserve to be reproached for avoiding partiality.

He that considers the great trouble and pains that must attend the reading so many voluminous books, to take in the compass of so many years included in this history; and the perplexing thoughts and difficulties under which an author labours, whose principal end is to set things in a justand fair light, will, if he be candid, easily pass by small faults and little inadvertencies; but if there shall appear in the course of this history any considerable mistakes, I shall hold myself obligated to such gentlemen, who shall be pleased to represent them, promising to take the first opportunity that shall present, to retract or amend the same.

Tho. Crosby.

 

THE PREFACE:

Whoever writes a Book seems by custom obliged to write a preface to it; wherein it is expected, he should show the motives which induced him to write the same.

'Tis now many years since the materials of which a great part of this treatise is formed, came into my hands. Had the ingenious collector (Mr. Benjamin Stinton) of them lived to digest them in their proper order, according to his design, they would have appeared much more beautiful and correct, than now they do. I might here expatiate in his praise, and say a great deal of my own knowledge, both as to his industry and acquirements: But, as I shall hereafter have occasion to mention him, I omit it here: And shall annex to this preface the several opinions of the first rise of the Baptists, which he designed as an introduction to his intended history of them; being the only piece of that work which he had completed.

I was in hopes some able hand would have undertaken to complete what was wanting, in order to finish this work. To render the same less burdensome to such an undertaker, I employed my spare hours, in the best manner I could, to digest the materials in their proper order, and supply the vacancies; till at length, at the request of two worthy Baptist ministers (Mr. Wallin, Mr. Arnold), both since deceased, I communicated them to the Reverend Mr. Neal, who had undertaken to write an History of the Puritans; under which general name, I did apprehend the English Baptists might very well be included: And he had them in his hands some years.

The good character of the gentleman, with the importunity of my two friends aforementioned concurring (though I must confess it was with doubting) yet made me yield so to do. But I was surprised to see the ill use Mr. Neal made of these materials; and the rise and progress of the English Baptists, their confession of faith, their character, and their sufferings, were contained in less than five pages of his third volume; and that too with very great partiality, as shall hereafter be proved.

And it is but too well known, concerning Paedobaptist authors in general, that when they have been necessitated to speak in favour of the opinion of the Baptists, presently a vail has been drawn over the fame, either respecting their persons, principles, or morals; so that it is not an easy thing for strangers to form a right judgment of them; which makdes an history of them necessary, without any further apology. Yet, considering the great variety of opinions and humours that are in this kingdom, and the coarse treatment even of the most celebrated authors, upon the most sublime subjects; a man had need have a good share of courage, and a firm assurance of the justice of his cause, that ventures to appear publicly in such a censorious age.

The Editor does presume he is thus supported; and declares, that what he has here written is purely designed to inform the honest and well-meaning Christian, whether Paedobaptist, or Baptist; by whom he hopes it may be candidly received, in proportion to the integrity of his intentions.

Mr. Neal, in his preface (History of the Puritan, Volume III), concludes thus: 'I am sufficiently aware of the delicacy of the affairs treated of in this volume, and of the tenderness of the ground I go over; and, though I have been very careful of my temper and language, and have endeavoured to look into the mysterious conduct of the several parties with all the indifference of a spectator, I find it very difficult to form an exact judgment of the most important events, or to speak freely without offence; therefore, if any passionate or angry writer should appear against this, or any of the former Volumes, I humbly request the reader to pay no regard to personal reflections, or to insinuations of any ill designs against the established religion, or the public peace, which are entirely groundless.'

'In historical debates, says he, nothing is to be received upon trust, but facts are to be examined, and a judgment formed upon the authority by which those facts are supported; by this method we shall arrive at truth: And it shall appear, that, in the course of this long history, there are any considerable mistakes, the world may be assured I will take the first opportunity to retract or amend them".

A noble declaration, indeed! But let us now see how consentaneous his representation of the English Baptists is thereto, especially, considering what materials he was entrusted with.

He allows there were no less than fifty four congregations of them in England in the year 1644 and says (Volume III, p 161):

'Their confession [of faith] consisted of fifty two articles, and is strictlt Calvinistical in the doctrinal part, and according to the independant discipline; it confines the subject of baptism to grown Christians, and the mode to dipping; it admits of gifted lay-preachers, and acknowledges a due subjection to the civil magistrate in all things lawful".

He proceeds then to their character; which, in my opinion, is one piece of that tender ground he was to go over: And how careful he was of his temper and language, let the reader judge. For, says he (Ib. p162),

The advocates of this doctrine were, for the most part, of the meanest of the people; their preachers were generally illiterate, and went about the countries making proselytes of all that would submit to their immersion, without a due regard to their acquaintance with the principles of religion, or their moral characters".

What a malicious slander is this! cast upon a whole body of Christians, consisting of fifty four congregations, according to his own acknowledgement! To me it seems unchristian, without ground, a fact unexamined, a judgment formed without any authority produced to support the fact; and consequently the reader left to form his judgment upon Mr. Neal's ipse dixit, repugnant to his noble declaration.

But lest this should not be enough, he concludes their character by adding thus:

'The people of this persuasion were more exposed to the public resentments, because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped. All, says he, must pass under this cloud before they could be received into their churches; and the same narrow spirit prevails too generally amongst them even at this day".

This is a home stroke; and reaches the present as well as preceding ages. But I am verily persuaded the present English Baptists will not be much affected with this raillery; since our blessed Lord and Saviour himself did not disdain to pass under this cloud, as Mr. Neal is pleased to phrase it.

Dr. Featly, writing against the Baptists in his day, says: 'He could hardly dip his pen in any other liquor, than the juice of gall.' And I find Mr. Neal has not only read the Doctor, because he quotes him two or three times, but learned some of his language too: What of wit he may imagine in such kind of phraseology, I know not; but sure I am, Christ's Ordinances ought to be mentioned with more reverence, bu those who profess themselves to be Christians.

The ingenious Dr. Wall, in his elaborate history of infant baptism, speaking of the most ancient rites in baptism, acknowledges dipping to be ordinarily used in baptism. For, says he:

'Their general and ordinary was was to baptise by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant, or grown man or woman, into the water, This, he adds, is so plain and clear, by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavours of such Paedobaptists, as would maintain the negative of it; so also we ought to disown, and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English Anti-Paedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. 'Tis one thing to maintain, that the circumstance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of baptism; and another, to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent; when it was, in all probability, the way by which our blessed Saviour, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians, did receive their baptism".

And, speaking of the present state of the Anti-Paedobaptists in England, he says:

'They, that are now, are as commendable, as any other sort of men are, for a sober and grave, quiet and peaceable way of living. They profess obedience to Magistrates: And a little further, They are particularly commended for maintaining their poor liberally; as also for passing censures upon such members of their own congregations as live disorderly. This character of obedient subjects, is what they now own and profess, and what I hope is the real sentiment of most of them".

And I add, it was what they did always own and profess ever since they had a being in this kingdom; and that neither Dr. Wall, nor any other, is able to prove the contrary. His silly story about Mr. Hicks, I find in his latter edition, is recanted; therefore shall say nothing about it.

Bishop Burnet, speaking of the English Baptists (History of his own Time, p. 702), gives them this character:

'The Anabaptists, says he, were generally men of virtue, and of an universal charity".

And I would here observe, that though in the title page of this book, and throughout the same, I use the term Baptist, except in quotations from authors; it is not, as Dr. Wall observes, to cast a reproach on our adversaries; but because I think it the most proper term, by which we can be distinguished from other Christians.

Indeed he says (Dr. Wall, p2, 99): 'As they disown the name of Anabaptists, or Rebaptizers, so I have no where given it to them. As on the contrary, I do not give them the name of Baptists, nor of the baptized people; for that is to cast a reproach upon their adversaries, as concluding that they are not so. Every party, while the matter continues in dispute, ought to give and take such names as cast no reproach on themselves, nor their opponents, but such as each of them own; and such are the names that I use."

So that this worthy gentleman has taken upon himself to be our godfather, and given us the name of Anti-Paedobaptists: but, as we are not infants, we have an undoubted right to put in our exceptions.

Besides the length of the word, for I do not love hard names, it seems to me no proper name; because the people called Quakers, from whom we differ in judgment, as well as from Paedobaptists, may be included; and therefore I have rejected it. Neither shall I think that he has assumed to himself and party a proper name, till sprinkling, pouring, or any other way of washing besides dipping, is fairly proved to be baptism, either from Scripture or antiquity.

But, to return to Mr. Neal. If he would have us to understand by his ill-natured phrase, narrow sprit, that he means, because we will not receive unbaptized persons to the communion of our churches, therefore we are a people of narrow spirits; then the designed reproach, which he would fix on the English Baptists, fits all the christian churches in all ages: for it is their declared opinion, that no persons unbaptized ought to be received to the communion of the christian church, and they practise accordingly.

To omit a cloud of witnesses I might produce, who concur in their testimonies, that this great ordinance of baptism, is not only the sacrament of initiation, but also to be continued in the church unto the end of the world, I shall only add a few general and comprehending testimonies:

1. In the articles of religion, published by his Majesty's special command, Anno 1642. we have the judgment of the church of England, viz.

'Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, and visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God, &c.'

2. The judgment of the Presbyterians, suitable to which they express themselves in their larger and shorter catechisms, we find in the confession of faith put forth by the assembly of divines, Anno 1658.

'Baptism, say they, is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: Which sacrament is by Christ's own appointment to continue in his church until the end of the world.'

3. The judgment of the Congregational (commonly called Independent) churches, we have in their confession of faith at the Savoy; where were many of their Elders in October 1658, printed Anno 1659.

'Baptism, say they, is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: Which ordinance is by Christ's own appointment to be continued in his church until the end of the world.'

4. The English Baptists judgment you have in their confession of faith, Appendix No 2. Art. XXXIX. and No 3. Art. XXIV.

It is certainly commendable to keep the ordinances of Christ pure, as they were delivered; because it prevents the creeping in of the inventions of men in the worship of God. Man is naturally apt to be medling that way, and mixing something of his own with those sacred institutions which God has with greatest severity prohibited; having not spared any, no not his own people, though what they have done seems not to be out of any wicked intentions, but rather out of an ignorant zeal: Of which there are many instances in Scripture.

The Reverend Mr. Neal would do well to convince the English Baptists, that sprinkling of infants is the baptism which Christ instituted, and the apostles practised. For we grant, that it is praise-worthy for the churches of Jesus Christ to preserve and keep the ordinances of Christ, as they have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles to them. And if, after a full and fair conviction from Scripture, we remain still obstinate, a worse name than that of narrow spirits might be justly fixed on us.

I shall only reply to Mr. Neal in the words of the Reverend Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs; who, though a Paedobaptist, very excellently expresses himself in his book, entitled, Gospel Worship, or the right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God, p. 8,9, &c. His words are these:

'All things in God's worship must have a warrant out of God's word, must be commanded; it is not enough that it is not forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? but it must be commanded - When we come to matters of religion, and the worship of God we must either have a command, or some-what out of God's word, by some consequence drawn from some command, wherein God manifests his will; either a direct command, or by comparing one thing with another, or drawing consequences plainly from the words, we must have a warrant for the worship of God, &c. - When any creature is raised in a religious was above what it hath in it by nature, if I have not Scripture to warrant me, I am therein superstitious - we must be willing worshippers, but not will worshippers. You see how severe God was to Nadab and Abihu, for but taking other fire, than that which God appointed, to offer up incense, though there was no direct commandment against it, &c.'

'In the matters of worship God stands upon little things; such things as seem to be very small and little to us, yet God stands much upon them in the matter of worship. For there is nothing wherein the prerogative of God doth more appear than in worship, as princes stand much upon their prerogatives - There are things in the worship of God that are not written in our hearts, that only depend upon the will of God revealed in his word; which were no duties except that they were revealed there. And these are of such a nature as we can see no reason for, but only this, because God will have them - Though men would think it a little matter, whether this fire or that fire, and will not this burn as well as that? but God stands upon it - When Uzzah did but touch the ark, when it was ready to fall, we would think it no great matter; but one touch of the ark cost him his life. There is not a Minim in the worship of God, but God stands mightily upon it - For a man to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath, what great matter was it? but God stands upon it. So when the men Bethshemesh did but look into the ark, it cost the lives of fifty thousand and seventy men, &c.'

He further adds. 'That there is no privileges or dignities of man that can secure them from God's stroke; instancing Nadab and Abihu's case, Moses the man of God being their uncle, Aaron their father, men newly consecrated to the priests office, renowned men that God put much glory upon; yet, if they will venture but to offend God in this little thing, his wrath breaks out upon them, and kills them presently, &c.'

He adds much more to the same effect, and offers several reasons by which he judgeth that Nadab and Abihu were good men; and gives a plain demonstration that they had no wicked design: As,

1. They were young men, newly come to their office, and might not understand all things, as if they had had longer experience.

2. It's observable, for verse 1. 'tis called strange fire which he commanded not, that if there be not a command for out practice, nor such a president as the Scripture approves of, no human pretence can excuse the transgressor from the jusgment of God.

Will Mr. Neal admit Roman Catholics, who profane the ordinance of the supper, to the communion of his church? We believe in our consciences that sprinkling children is a profanation of the ordinance of baptism, an so consequently reject it; therefore our spirits will appear no narrower than his own. And if, upon a ferious review of this passage last quoted, he will endeavour to be careful of his temper, I may hope in the next edition to see it appear in better language.

With respect to their sufferings Mr. Neal very justly observes, that ministers have a right by preaching to oppose doctrines (such as they eblieve to be erroreous, I would suppose he means.); but unjustifiable at the same time to fight them with the sword of the civil magistrate, and shut them up in prison: And then mentions five or six, with little more than their names, of whom he had a large account, respecting their sufferings, before him. But they were Baptists, and so not worthy of his notice, unless he add something to degrade them.

The first he mentions is Mr. Henry Denne; of whom he only says, he was formerly ordained by the bishop of St. Davids, and possessed of the living of Pyeton in Hertfordshire. Then he mentions Mr. Coppe; and says, he was minister in Warwickshire, and some time preacher to the garrison in Compton House.

The next he mentions is Mr. Hanserd Knollys; who was, says he, 'Several times before the committee for preaching Antinomianism, and Anti-Paedobaptism; and being forbid to preach in the public churches, he opened a separate meeting in great St. Hellens; from whence he was quickly dislodged, and his followers dispersed.'

If Antinomianism be such a brand of infamy, as to put a vail upon the character of so good and pious a man as Mr. Hanserd Knollys; how came it to pass that Dr. Crisp had more than a whole page bestowed on him in encomiums to his praise, which I doubt not but he justly deserved? If I may be permitted to answer without offence, and incurring the censure of an angry writer; it should be, because he was an Independent Paedobaptist.

In the next place he says, 'Mr. Andrew Wyke, in the county of Suffolk, was imprisoned on the same account; and Mr. Oates in Essex tried for his life at Chelmsford assizes for the murder of Ann Martin, because she died a few days after her immersion of a cold that seized her at that time".

This is so unrighteous a piece of partiality, that no sentence too severe can be passed upon it; because he had before him a full account of that affair; and thereby knew how honourably he was acquitted, notwithstanding the most ernest and pressing endeavours of his Paedobaptist Brethren to bring him in guilty, thereby to fix an odium on the practice of immersion.

I was at a stand why this gentleman's christian name, Samuel, was left out in Mr. Neal's narration; seeing Mr. Neal had it before him. And I can assign no other reason for it, unless it were to impose on his readers, that they might take him to be Titus Oates, so noticed in our histories with a brand of infamy upon him. But I must leave that to his own conscience; and refer my readers to page 236 of this history, where they will find, among others, the same account of these persons mentioned by Mr. Neal as communicated to him, and leave them to judge of his partiality in this matter.

To bring up the rear of the Baptists sufferings; poor Laurence Clarkson, with his recantation at large, is exhibited.

Among the thousands of Baptists in England here is one produced; who, through the severity of the times, and being but an unsteady man in his principles, and one that had not been used to suffer for conscience sake, was tempted to make this recantation, finding he could no other way obtain his liberty.

He had been six months in prison, committed by the Paedobaptist committee of Suffolk, for that so heinous a crime of baptizing by immersion; a crime so great, that all the intercession of his friends, though he had several, could not procure his release; the committee being fully resolved not to let such crimes go unpunished: Nay, though an order came down, either from a committee of parliament, or chairman of it, to discharge, yet they refused to obey it.

Mr. Edwards, who first published this account, did it to expose the sectaries, against whom he had an implacable hatred. But, whether the weakness of this man under his oppression, or the folly and wickedness of his persecutors, were hereby more exposed, let the reader judge.

However, the Paedobaptists gained no great honour by a proselyte made after this manner: For upon his release he turned seeker; and when the Baptists expelled him from their society, as a man that had denied the truth to escape suffering, he writ a small Pamphlet (The Pilgrimage of Saints by Church cast out; in Christ found seeking truth), wherein he endeavours to excuse himself, by saying, That he did not assert the baptism of believers by immersion to be an error, but only intended that it was erroneously practised, there being now no true churches, nor true administrators of that ordinance. And it is no wonder, that a person who would make such a vile submission to his worshipful persecutors, should afterwards make such equivocations, to extenuate his crime.

Bishop Jewel signed the popish articles; and archbishop Cranmer subscribed a recantation. Here are for Mr. Neal two eminent Paedobaptist Recanters, for one poor Baptist: And if he has any more such instances, I will endeavour to supply him at the same rate.

This partiality of Mr. Neal revived my resolution to complete this Treatise, in the best manner I could, for a publication; and what is wanting in it of elegancy of phrase, hath been endeavoured to be supplied in the truth of the relation, which is the only commendation of history, and much preferable to that artificial stuff, which may find better access to some ears.

And therefore to the English reader I would now address myself, because in this land were these actions done; and their fore-fathers, with bleeding hearts and distilling eyes, were spectators of, and common sufferers under, the insulting paces of tyrannical, arbitrary power, and unlimited prerogative, and had a cup of blood prepared for them; though, blessed be God, it is otherwise with us.

This essay being the first of the kind, that has been published in this kingdom, it is to be hoped some abler hand in time may improve the same, and a more full account be given of the English Baptists.

The design of the reverend Mr. Benjamin Stinton's History being to give an account of the English Baptists only, he thought it might not be improper, and did intend to introduce it with some account of the origin of their opinion, and who have been reported to be the authors of it. And since their are various accounts given of this matter, says he, I shall briefly relate the different opinions about it, as well those held by the Paedobaptists, as those of the Anti-Paedobaptists, concerning their own original, and then leave the reader to judge which has the greatest appearance of truth.

They are generally condemned as a new sect, whose opinion and practice, with relation to baptism, was not known in the Christian church till about two hundred years ago. Bishop Burnet says (Hist. Ref. Part II. p110.), 'At this time [anno 1549] 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 rule of Christians. Upon this many argued, that the mysteries of the Trinity, and Christ's incarnation and suffering, of the fall of man, and the aids of grace, were indeed philosophical subtilties, and only pretended to be deduced from Scripture, as almost all opinions of religion were, and therefore they rejected them. Among 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.'

Mr. Marshal says (Sermon on Infant baptism, p. 5.), 'That the first that ever made a head against it [infant-baptism] or a division of the church about it, was Baltazar Pacammitanus in Germany, in Luther's time, about the year 1527.' This Baltazar is stiled Baltazar Huebmar Pacimontanus (Zuinglius, in the epistle before his answer to his book on Baptism), Dr. in Waldshut, a town near the Helvetians. He was a man of great note for learning, and did by his preaching and writing very much promote his opinion. He was burnt at Viana, in 1528. for which he is esteemed a martyr by his followers.

But, says Mr. Tombs (Examen. p. 22), Bellarmine and Cochleus say, that Erasmus himself had sowed some seeds of it also. And whoever reads his works, will find several things in them favouring the opinion of the Anti-Paedobaptists: As when he saith, in his union of the church, 'It is no where expressed, in the apostolical writings, that they baptized children;' and again (De ratio Conc.), upon Rom. vi. 'Baptizing of children was not in use in St. Paul's time; and that they are not to be condemned, who doubt whether childrens baptism was ordained by the Apostles.'

John Gerhard (Tom. 40. of his Common Places), a Lutheran minister, derives the original of this sect from Carolostadius, who was conversant with Luther, Melancthon, and the other reformers, and assisted them in that blessed work. He says, that he is called the father of the Anabaptists, by Erasmus Alberus.

Sleidan, who writ the history of the Anabaptists, does not go so far, but asserts of him, 'that he praised their opinion.'

Osiander affirms, 'that he joined himself to them.'

Melancthon, who was well acquainted, both with the man and his opinions, says of him (Com. I epist. Cor. ix. 24. Page 6.), 'that he endeavoured to promote the gospel, tho' in a wrong course.'

The short history of the Anabaptists, published in 1647, says; 'It is hard to say, whether Caroloftadius, or one Nicholas Stork, was the first founder of baptism.'

Arnoldus Meshovius, another historian of those times, lays it still nearer the door of the first reformers; and says (Hist. Anab. Lib. ii. Sect. ii. Tombe's Examen. p. 22.), 'That the business of Anabaptism began at Wittenburg, anno Christi 1522. Luther then lurking in the castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia, by Nicholas Pelargus; and that he had companions at first, Caroloftadius, Philip Melancthon, and others; and that Luther returning from his Patmos, as he called it, banished Caroloftadius, and the rest, and only received Philip Melancthon into favour again.'

These passages make it probable that this question about Infant-baptism was agitated among the reformers themselves, and that some of them were at first for rejecting that practice.

Vicecomes, a learned Papist, has left upon record (De Rit. Bap Lib. ii. c. I. Wall, Part II. p. 179.), that Luther, Calvin, and Beza, were adversaries of infant-baptism: Though the Padeobaptists look upon this only as a slander cast upon them.

'Tis certain that Zuinglius, that holy and learned reformer, who flourished about the year 1520, was for some time against it, as he ingenuously confesses, in these words (De Bap. Tom. II. p. 63.): 'When this opinion was every where so rashly and without consideration received, That all men believed that faith was confirmed by signs, we must necessarily expect this sad issue, that some would even deny baptism to infants; for how should it confirm the faith of infants, when it is manifest that they as yet have no faith? Wherefore (Baxter's Scripture Proofs, p. 291.) I myself, that I may ingenuously confess the truth, some years ago, being deceived with this error, thought it better that childrens baptism should be delayed, till they came to full age: Though (adds he) I never broke forth into that immodesty and importunity, as some now do.'

If some of the other reformers were at first of this opinion, as his Words imply, yet they might think it impracticable to carry their reformation so far at once, and that it might overthrow what they had already so happily done: And when some of this opinion afterwards had brought a scandal upon the Protestants, and occasioned such confusions all over Germany, they might be tempted to renounce this opinion, and write with so much zeal and anger, as they did against those who maintained it.

'Tis still more evident, that these first reformers looked upon sprinkling as a corruption of baptism, and endeavoured to introduce the primitive rite of dipping, as it practised by the English Baptists.

Luther has, in several places, fully declared his opinion in this matter:

'Baptism, saith he (Duveil on Acts viii. 38.), is a Greek word; it may be termed a dipping, when we dip something in water, that it may be wholly covered with water: And although that custom be now altogether abolished among the most part, for neither do they dip the whole children, but only sprinkle them with a little water, they ought altogether nevertheless to be dipped, and presently to be drawn out again; for the etymology of the word seems to require that.'

In another place he says; 'Washing from sins is attributed to baptism; it is truly indeed attributed, but the signification is softer and slower than that it can express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized, to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify.'

And that this was the opinion and practice of the chief leaders in the reformation, appears by something remarkable, that happened in those times concerning the matter.

Johannes Bugenhagius Pomeranius, who was a companion of Luther, had succeeded him in the ministry at Wittenburg, a very pious and learned divine, tells us, in a book he published in the German tongue, Anno 1542,

'That he was desired to be a witness of a baptism at Hamburgh, in the year 1529. That when he had seen the minister only sprinkled the infant wrapped in swathling clothes on top of the head, he was amazed; because he neither heard nor saw any such thing (Among the Protestants I suppose he meant), nor yet read in any history, except in case of necessity, in bed-rid persons. In a general assembly therefore of all the ministers of the word, that was convened, he did ask of a certain minister, John Fritz by name, who was some time minitsre of Lubec, how the sacrament of baptism was administered at Lubec? Who for his piety and candour did answer gravely, that infants were baptized naked at Lubec, after the same fashion altogether as in Germany. But from whence and how that peculiar manner of baptizing hath crept into Hamburgh, he was ignorant. At length they did agree among themselves, that the judgment of Luther, and of the divines of Wittenburg, should be demanded about this point" Which being done, Luther did write back to Hamburgh, that this sprinkling was an abuse, which they ought to remove. Thus plunging was restored at Hamburgh.'

But nothwithstanding this, Dr. Featly and many others will have it, that Anabaptism took its first rise at Munster; and that Nicholas Stork, Thomas Muncer, John of Leyden, Mark Stubner, Knipperdoling, Phiffer, and such like, were the first teachers of this doctrine, and founders of the sect.

These men denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the authority of magistrates, the lawfulness of taking oaths, and almost all the Christian doctrines; and were guilty of several gross enormities, such as poligamy, rebellion, theft and murder: They seized the city of Munster, proclaimed John of Leyden their king, committed abundance of violence, and caused tumults and rebellions in several places.

The extravagant doctrines and seditious practices of these men, are every where charged upon the opposers of infant-baptism, to render them odious, and a dangerous and seditious sect, not fit to be tolerated in any nation, whose principles have so bad a tendency, and whose beginning was so scandalous.

In return to all which, the Baptists allege in their own defence, that the Papists improve this story after the like manner, against the new begun reformation itself, and represent it as the consequence of letting men have the Scriptures to read, and the liberty of judging for themselves in matters of religion.

That there is great reason to suspect the truth of many things reported of this people, is evident: For in a time of war, and popular tumults, it is not easy to come to a certain knowledge of what is transacted; and if a design miscarries, it is generally censured, how just or good soever it was. The Roman Catholics charge the Vaudois, and Albigeois, and sometimes the Lutherans, with crimes almost as black as they do the Anabaptists: And as for the Protestants of those times, they persecuted this sect with so much cruelty, and wrote against them with so much bitterness, that it discredits very much what they say of them, at least makes it probable they took up some reports concerning them upon very slender evidence.

Neither do the histories of those times agree in the accounts they give of them; for some charge them with more crimes, and much greater, than others do; some accuse them with those things which are directly contrary to what is affirmed of them by others; and some with things so incredible, that their adversaries themselves look upon them to be but slanders.

They say also, that there is no just reason to lay those wars and tumults in Germany at the door of the Anabaptists; for it is plain, in the histories of those times (Bishop Jewel's Defence, P. I. c. 4.), that Papists, as well as Protestants, and of these the Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists, were concerned in them.

And the chief occasion of their rising, was the defence of their civil liberties (Dupin's Ecc. Hist. Cent. 16. Lib. i. p. 79.). When they drew up a manifesto of their demands, in twelve heads, and presented it to the magistrates, who had promised to hear their complaints, and do them justice, there is but one article, that directly regards religion; which was, that they might have liberty to choose the ministers of their churches, and depose them afterwards, if they saw occasion.

The confusions at Munster (Spanhemius Hist. Anab. p. 12. Hook's Apol. p. 11. Sleidan.), where the blackest part of this tragedy was acted, were begun by a Paedobaptist minister of the Lutheran persuasion, one Bernard Rotman, preacher at the church of St. Maurice in that city; and were carried on by him, with several other Lutherans, for some time, before any Anabaptist appeared to have a hand in it.

And though Muncer and Phiffer are said to have denied infant-baptism, and to have instilled the same opinion into others, yet they had not received or professed this principle till some time after these insurrections were begun in several parts of Germany. If these men were as vile as they are represented to be, and guilty of all those crimes of which they are accused, this could not have proceeded from their opinion about baptism, which can have no such tendency: Nor is there any colour of justice, in charging those crimes upon other Christians of that denomination, who abhor their erroneous tenets, and behave themselves after the most inoffensive manner. If all the errors which have been maintained, and all the thefts, murders, adulteries, and rebellions, which have been committed by Paedobaptists, were to be made the consequence of that opinion, it would soon appear a very bloody and dangerous tenet indeed, and render those who held it much more odious than Anabaptists.

But that which is more material to our enquiry after the first rise of this sect is, that these men did not advance this tenet concerning baptism, as a thing entirely new, but what was taught by others, who rejected the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, as well as themselves; and affirmed it to have been the opinion of the Waldenses and Petrobrusians, who had gone before them.

They did not set up themselves upon this account as the heads and founders of a new sect, or religion, as enthusiastical persons are too ready to do, if there be but the least room for it.

Dupin, a person well acquainted with ecclesiastical history, calls this (Vol. I. Cent. 16. Lib. v. p. 45.) the revival of the error.

There was before, and about this time, many people of their opinion concerning baptism, who had made a declaration of much better principles, and under better leaders.

Bishop Burnet says (Hist. reform. Vol. II. p. 110.), 'There were two sorts of these [Anabaptists] most remarkable: The one was of those who only thought that baptism ought not to be given but to those who were of an age capable of instruction, and who did earnestly desire it - These were called the gentle, or moderate Anabaptists: But others, who carried the name, denied almost all the principles of the Christian doctrine, and were men of fierce and barbarous tempers - These being joined in the common name of Anabaptists, with the other, brought them also under an ill character.'

Monseiur Bayle, speaking of the many martyrs that the Anabaptists boast of, and their martyrology, being a large book in Folio, says (Dictionary, Anabaptists, Letter F, 2d. Edit):

Could it only produce those that were put to death for attempts against the government, its bulky martyrology would make but a ridiculous figure. But it is certain, that several Anabaptists, who suffered death couragiously for their opinions, had never any intention of rebelling. Give me leave to cite an evidence, which cannot be suspected; it is that of a writer (Guy de Bres), who has exerted his whole force in refuting this sect: He observes, that its great progress was owing to three things: The first was, That its teachers deafened their hearers with numberless passages of Scripture: The second, that they affected a great appearance of sanctity" the third, that their followers discovered great constancy in their sufferings and deaths. But he gives not the least hint, that the Anabaptist martyrs suffered death for taking up arms against the state, or stirring upthe people to rebellion.'

Monseiur Bayle being a Papist, and the author he cites a Protestant, made this remark upon it:

'Observe by the way, says he, that this author refutes his adversaries, just as the Catholics refute the Protestants: And then shows how the arguments used against the one, are of equal force against the other.'

George Cassander, who lived in those times, had disputed with the Anabaptists, and visited some of their ministers in prison, does in his epistle to the duke of Gulick and Cleve, give a very good character of them who dwelt in Belgick and lower Germany, even when some others were guilty of such extravagancies at Munster and Battenburgh. He says,

'That they discovered an honest and pious mind; and thay erred from the faith, through a mistaken zeal, rather than an evil disposition; that they condemned the outrageous behaviour of their brethren of Munster; that they taught that the kingdom of Jesus Christ was to be established only by the cross. They deserve therefore, adds he, to be pitied and instructed, rather than to be persecuted.'

The learned Beza also gives a very honourable account (Hornbeek's Sum. Con. p. 364.) of many of them in his epistle to the Gallo-Belgic churches at Embden, and says:

'Many of the Anabaptists are good men, servants of God, and our most dear brethren.'

These authors had more justice than to condemn the innocent with the guilty, and to asperse the whole for the errors and disorders of a small part.

The great number of Anabaptists that were about this time in several parts of Germany, and other countries, make it improbable, that these frantic men at Munster should be the founders of this sect, or so much as the first that revived the question, about childrens baptism in those times.

Those stirs at Munster did not begin till the year 1532 (Spanhemius, p. 13.), nor did they come to any great height, or any Anabaptists appear in that city till the year 1533. And yet we find great opposition made against Anabaptists before this in several parts, both by disputations and writings, and some severe laws made against their opinion.

They were opposed at Augsburg about the year 1516 by Regius: In Saxony by Luther, 1522. In Thuringia by Micerius, 1525. In Switzerland, at Zurick, there were three public disputations held between Zuinglius and the heads of the Anabaptists, in Jan., March, and Nov. 1525. Oecolampadius also disputed with these heretics, as he calls them, the same year at Bazil; and again in the Years 1527, and 1529.

This opinion prevailed so fast, that to prevent the growth of it, the magistrates of Zurick published a solemn edict against it in 1525 requiring all persons to have their children baptized, and forbidding rebaptization, under the penalty of being fined, banished, or imprisoned. Another was put forth in 1530 making it punishable with death.

'In the year 1528 (Hooke's Apology, p. 29.), Hans Shaeffer, and Leonard Freek, for opposing infants baptism, were beheaded at Schwas in Germany; and Leopald Suyder at Augsburg for the same.'

'At Saltzburg eighteen persons of the same faith were burnt; and twenty five at Waltsen the same year.'

'Anno 1529, twenty of them were put to death in the Palatinate; and three hundred and fifty at Altze in Germany. The men for the most part beheaded, and the women drowned.'

'Anno 1533, Hugh Crane, and Margaret his wife, with two more, were martyred at Harlem; the woman was drowned; the three men were chained to a post, and roasted by a fire, at a distance, till they died. This was the very same year that the rising was at Munster.'

'Likewise in the Protestant Cantons in Switzerland (lb. p. 30.), they were used as hardly, about the same time.'

'Anno 1526, one Felix Meniz, a Baptist minister, was drowned at Zurich.'

'Anno 1530, two of the baptized brethren were burnt.'

'Anno 1531, six more of the congregation of Baptists wre martyred in the same place.'

'Anno 1533, two persons, Lodwick Test, and Catherine Harngen, were burnt at Munster.'

There is part of a letter, preserved in an author not to be suspected (Colomesius's Collection, ep. 30.), that was written to Erasmus, out of Bohemia, dated October 10, 1519, in which an account is given of a sect then in being, and which had been in that country for above ninety years, who by the character given of them, appear to be Anabaptists; and were not only long before Stork and Muncer, but also before Luther and Calvin, who set themselves to oppose the church of Rome. The letter describes them thus (Wall's Hist. Bapt. Part II. p. 200.): 'These men have no other opinion of the Pope, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy, than as manifest antichrists. They call the Pope sometimes the beast, and sometimes the whore, mentioned in the Revelations. Their own bishops and priests they themselves do choose for themselves; ignorant and unlearned laymen, that have wife and children. They mutually salute one another by the name of brother and sister. They own no other authority than the the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: They slight all the Doctors, both ancient and modern, and give no regard to their doctrine. Their priests, when they celebrate the offices of the mass [or communion] do it without any priestly garments; nor do they use and prayer or collects on this occasion, but only the Lord's prayer, by which they consecrate bread that has been leavened. 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. They make no blessing of salt, nor of water; nor make any use of consecrated oil. They believe nothing of divinity in the sacrament of the Eucharist, only that the consecrated bread and wine do by some occult signs represent the death of Christ; and accordingly, that all that do kneel down to it, or worship it, are guilty of idolatry. That that sacrament was instituted by Christ to no other purpose but to renew the memory of his passion, and not to be carried about, or held up by the priest to be gazed on. For that Christ himself, who is to be adored and worshipped with the honour of Latreia, sits at the right hand of God, as the Christian church confesses in the creed.Prayers to saints, and for the dead, they count a vain and ridiculous thing; as likewise auricular confession and penance, enjoined by the priest for sins. Eves and fast-days are, they say, a mockery, and the diguise of hypocrites. They say, the holy days of the virgin Mary, and the Apostles, and other saints, are the invention of idle people; but yet they keep the Lord's-day, and Christmas, and Easter, and Whitsontide, &c.'

This description does almost in every thing fir the modern Anabaptists, especially those in England. Their saluting one another by the name of brother and sister; their choosing thier own ministers, and from among the laity; their rejecting all priestly garments, and refusing to kneel at the sacrament; their slighting all authorities but that of the Scriptures, but especially their baptizing again all that embraced their way, does certainly give the Baptists a better right than any other Protestants, to claim these people for their predecessors.

'Tis true, some zealous Paedobaptists, who would willingly have none thought sober and religious, who deny baptism to children, have insinuated that these Pyghards, and followers of Hus in Bohemia, did not baptize such as came over to them, from any dislike of infant-baptism, but of those ceremonies which the church of Rome used in it. And Ottius does positively affirm this to be the reason of it.

But there is no proof from any authentic histories that those early Protestants, who retained infant-baptism, did any of them, upon their departing from Pepery, reject their baptism in that church, and receive a new baptism.

Walden, who lived in those times, and writ against the Hussites in Bohemia above an hundred years before Ottius, affirms (Tom. III. Tit. v. c. 53.), 'That some of them maintained this heresy (Marshall against Tombs, page 67), that believers children were not to be baptized; and that baptism was to no purpose administred to them.'

We must therefore look for a more early beginning of this sect and opinion than the insurrection at Munster, or the reformation in Germany. And we find there are some of the Paedobaptists (Cassander, Dupin. Cent. 16. Lib. v. page 45.), and those of no small repute, who affirm, that the Albigenses were the first who dared positively to declare against infant-baptism, and call the preaching of this opinion, by Muncer, Stork, &c. only a reviving of that error.

Of this sect there was a great number, in divers parts of France and Bohemia, above three hundred years before Luther's and Calvin's reformation. They went under different names, either from the places that were fullest of them, or the persons who were their principal leaders (Fox, Vol. I. p 299.): But the name of Albigenses and Waldenses were the titles most commonly given to them; the one from Albi, a place so called in Languedoc, in which were great numbers of them; the other from one Waldus, the supposed founder of that sect, who was a rich and learned citizen of Lyons, and began there to oppose the errors and superstitions of the church of Rome, about the year 1160.

The Papists impute  great many heinous crimes to these people; a method which they generally take with all who have dissented from their church. And yet Reinerus (Danvers, page 344.), a zealous opposer of them, gives a very honourable account of this sect.

'They are, says he, in their manner composed, and modest; no pride in apparel, because they are therein neither costly nor sordid. They transact their affairs without lying, fraud, and swearing, being most upon handicraft trades: Yea, their doctors or teachers are weavers and shoemakers, who do not multiply riches, but content themselves with necessary things. These Lyonists are very chaste and temperate, both in meats and drinks; who neither haunt taverns, or stews: They do much curb their passions; they are always either working, teaching, or learning, &c. very frequent in their assemblies and worships, &c. They are very modest and precise in their words, avoiding scurrility, detraction, levity, and falsehood.'

Those who write against the Baptists, charge them with abundance of heresies, and monstrous doctrines; so that it is not easy with certainty to come at their opinions.

As to the matter of Baptism, some represent those they write against, as denying all baptism. Others speak of some that allowed baptism to the adult, but denied it to infants. Others again accuse them of no error at all about baptism. But there is an expedient found out to reconcile this historical difference, which both parties agree to, and seems to be the truth, viz. That there were several sects, who went under this general name of Waldenses or Albigenses, like as there are of Dissenters in England. That some of these did deny all baptism, and others only the baptism of infants. That many of them were of this latter opinion, is affirmed in several histories of this people, as well ancient as modern. I will for brevity-sake only mention one, whose authority is the rather to be taken, because he was not only a Paedobaptist, but also set himself with great care to find out the truth of this matter. 'Tis that of Chassanian, who in his history of the Albigeois says (Stennet against Ruffen, p. 81.):

'Some writers have affirmed that the Albigeois approved not of the baptism of infants: Others, that they entirely slighted this holy sacrament, as if it was of no use, either to great or small. The same has been said of the Vaudois; though some affirm, that they have always baptized their children. This difference of authors kept me for some time in suspense, before I could come to be resolved on which side the truth lay. At last considering what St. Bernard says of this matter, in his 66th Homily on the second chapter of the Song of Songs, and the reasons he brings to refute this error, and also what he wrote ad Hildesonsum comitem Sancti AEgidii, I cannot deny that the Albigeois, for the greatest part, were of that opinion. And that which confirms me yet more in the belief of it, is, that in the history of the city of Treves, which I have mentioned before, at the end of the fourth chapter, 'tis said, that at Ivoi, in the diocese of Treves, there were some who denied that the sacrament of baptism was available to the salvation of infants: And one Catherine Saube, who was burnt at Montpelier, in the year 1417 for being of the mind of the Albigeois, in not believing the traditions of the Romish church, had the same thoughts concerning infant-baptism, as 'tis recorded in the register of the town-house of the said city of Montpelier; of which we shall speak at the end of the fourth book. The truth is, they did not reject this sacrament, or say it was useless; but only counted it unnecessary to infants, because they are not of age to believe, or capable of giving evidence of their faith. That which induced them, as I suppose, to entertain this opinion, is what our Lord says: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.'

Cassander, who has examined the question about infant-baptism with much care, and is said to have writ with more impartiality concerning the Anabaptists than any other author, makes Peter de Bruis, and Henry, who lived four hundred years before all this, to be the first that taught this opinion, and practised according to it. For, speaking of these pretended heretics, he affirms of them (Cassander's Infant-bapt. Pref.); 'That they first openly condemned infant-baptism, and stiffly asserted that baptism was fit only for the adult; which they both verbally taught, and really prectised in their administration of baptism.'

And after him, Dr. Wall says (History of Infant-naptism, Book II. p. 184.): 'I take this Peter Bruis, and Henry, to be the first Antipaedobaptist preachers that ever set up a church, or society for men holding that opinion against infant-baptism, and re-baptizing such as had been baptized in infancy;' and calls them, in the contents, the two first Antipaedobaptist preachers in the world.

But lest these early reformers should bring any reputation to the Anabaptists, he relates several infamous stories and malicious slanders cast upon them by the Papists, without any endeavours to clear them: A method that he would have hardly have taken with the first leaders of the reformation, either in England or Germany.

These were both Frenchmen, and began to propagate their doctrines, and found the sect, who after their names were called Petrobrusians and Henricians, in Dauphine, about the year 1126.

They had both of them been in priests orders, and had each of them a place or employment in that office: The former having been a minister of a parish-church, but he was turned out: The latter a monk, but had deserted the monastry, upon the change of his principles; for which reason they were called apostates, as well as heretics.

Peter began first; and after he had for some time published his opinions, and drawn many followers after him, Henry became his disciple, and afterwards his successor.

The errors they are said to defend, are digested into six articles.

1. That infants are not to be baptized.

2. That temples or altars ought not to be built; and, if built, to be puled down again.

3. That crosses are not to be worshipped, but rather broken, or trodden under foot.

4. That the mass is nothing, and ought not to be celebrated.

5. That dead men receive no benefit from the prayers, sacrifices, &c. of the living.

6. That it is a mocking of God, to sing prayers in the church.

Their opinion concerning Baptism, is all that needs here to be enquired into.

Peter, abbot of Clugny, writ an epistle to three bishops of France, against these heretics and their followers, in the year 1146. the time when they chiefly prevailed. He accuses them of all these tenets, and makes their denying of infant-baptism the first, and expresses it thus (Wall's History of Infant-baptism, Part II. p. 173.).

The first Proposition of the new heretics.

'They say, Christ sending his disciples to preach, says in the gospel, Go ye out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. From these words of our Saviour, unless he believe, and be baptized; that is, have both christian faith and baptism; for not one of these, but both together, does save: so that infants, tho' they be by you baptized, yet since by reason of their age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idel and vain thing, for you to wash persons with water, at such a time when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their souls from sin: But we do stay till the proper time of faith; and when a person is capable to know his God, and believes in him, then we do, not as you charge us, re-baptize him, but baptize him; for he is so to be accounted, as not yet baptized, who is not washed with that baptism, by which sins are done away.'

This account of their practice does perfectly agree with the modern Baptists: And the author who relates it, says also,

'That they were reported to renounce all the Old Testament, and all the New, except the four gospels. But this he says he was not sure of; and would not impute it to them, for fear he might slander them.'

So it appears that he took some care in reporting their opinions, and can hardly be supposed to accuse them so positvely of that which he only had by hearsay, or at least to make it the first article of their heresy.

A year after this author had written against them, St. Bernard, abbot of Clareval, was desired by the Pope to accompany some bishops, whom he had sent to stop the spreading of these doctrines, and reduce those who had been led into them. When they came nigh to the territory of the earl of St. Giles, Bernard writes a letter to the said earl (Wall's Hist. Bapt. Part II. p. 175.), in whose country the aforesaid Henry was at this time harboured; in which he recounts what mischiefs that heretic, as he calls him, had done.

The churches, says he, are without people; the people without priests, &c. God's holy place is accounted profane; the sacraments are esteemed unholy, &c. Men die in their sins; their souls carried to that terrible judicature, alas! neither reconciled by penance, nor strengthened by the holy communion. The infants of Christians are hindred from the life of Christ, the grace of baptism being denied them: Nor are they suffered to come to their salvation, tho' our Saviour compassionately cries out in their behalf, saying, Suffer little children to come to me, &c.'

The same St. Bernard published a little after several sermons; in one of which he complains of a sort of heretics, who pretended to derive their doctrines from the Apostles, supposed to be these Petrobrusians and Henricians: Concerning whom he says (Sermon in Cant. 66.), they laugh at us for baptizing infants, for our praying for the dead, and for desiring the prayers of the saints: They believe no fire of purgatory after death, but that the soul when it departs the body presently passes either into rest or damnation.'

'Tis true, that both these authors give them but an ill character, and impute many errors and vile practices to them: But, of these, the Paedobaptists themselves are willing to clear them.

The truth is, says Mr. Marshall (Infant-bapt. p. 66.), 'These two men did, for twenty years together, so much spread the doctrine of the Waldenses, and so plague the bishops mitres, and the monls bellies, that I wonder not, though they charged any thing upon them, which might make them odious to the people.'

Their new doctrine did strangely spread in a little time; and tho' it began only in Dauphine, it soon obtained in most of the provinces of France; and from being buzz'd about in desarts, and little villages, it began quickly to be owned by great crowds of people, and entertained in populous towns and cities: Which greatly enraged the popish clergy, and occasioned a very hot persecution. Peter was in the year 1144 taken in the territory of St. Giles, and according to the laws of those time burnt to death. Henry escaped for some time after this, and went on to propagate the same doctrines in several places; but at length he was taken also, and delivered in chains to the bishop of Ostia: But what was done with him is not said, tho' it may easily be supposed; for the men of that character don't use to be guilty of letting heretics escape out of their hands.

These persons lived in the 12th century after Christ, and had a great number of followers who kept themselves clear of many gross errors, with which the church of Rome was corrupted in that dark time. And yet there were two famous persons, who lived and attempted a reformation of religion, above an hundred years before these; who are also accused of broaching this doctrine, and founding a sect that denied the baptism of infants: That is Bruno and Berengarius; the former was bishop of Angers, and the latter deacon of the same church.

Both these are said to have attempted a reformation of some corrupt doctrines and practices of the church of Rome, about the year 1035, among which the practice of baptizing infants was one. Of this there are two witnesses produced, which Dr. Wall acknowledges to have great appearance of truth, notwithstanding his endeavours to render it suspicious.

One proof that these men were against infant-baptism, is from a letter written by Deodwinus, bishop of Leige, to Henry I, king of France; in which are these words (Wall's Hist. c. vii. Part II. p. 159.): 'There is a report come out of France, and which goes thro' all Germany, that these two,' viz. Bruno and Berengarius, 'do maintain that the Lord's body [the host] is not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body. And that they do disannul lawful marriages; and, as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of infants.'

The other proof produced, is from Guitmund, who wrote against Berengarius, towards the latter end of his life. This author, after he had taken notice of the afore-mentioned letter, and the opinions therein laid to their charge, says (Ibid. Part II. p. 160.): 'That Berengarius finding that those two opinions [of marriage, and baptism] whould not be endured, by the ears even of the worst men that were, and that there was no pretence in Scripture to be brought for them, bettok himself wholly to uphold the other [viz. that against transubstantiation] in which he seemed to have the testimony of our senses on his side, and against which none of the holy fathers had so fully spoken, and for which he pick'd up some reasons, and some places of Scripture misunderstood.'

This seems to be agreeable to the method of the first authors of the present reformation in England and Germany. They set out with a design to rescue both the sacraments from their corruptions and abuses, as has been proved; yet finding the common people uncapable of receiving so great an alteration at once, dropt the business of baptizing children, and bent their chief endeavours against Transubstantiation.

These were two famous champions for the truth, against popish errors and superstitions; especially the latter: and for above an hundred years after, all that stood up for the purity of the Christian religion, were called Berengarians. And so many were his followers, that Matthew Paris says, he drew all France, Italy, and England, to his opinion.

If any still doubt, whether there were in this age several who opposed the baptism of infants, let them read Dr. Alix's remarks on the ancient church of Piedmont, and particularly what he says concerning one Gundulphus, and his followers in Italy; divers of whom were examined by the bishop of Cambray and Arras, in the Year 1025, who represents them to have given the following reason against infant baptism (Stennet against Russen, p. 85.), viz.

'Because to an infant, that neither wills nor runs, that knows nothing of faith, is ignorant of its own salvation and welfare; in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, or confession of faith; the will, faith, and confession of another man, seems not in the least to appertain.'

Thus do the most learned of the Paedobaptists themselves make the first rise of the sect, they in contempt term Anabaptists, to be at least five hundred years before the confusions at Munster, where others would fix their origin. Nor do some stop here; but go still farther back, to find out the authors and founders of this sect, even to the fourth century. For Mr. Long, Prebendary of St. Peter's, Exon, says (History, Donatists, p. 60.):

'For, though there were great feuds between the Donatists, and others, that separated from them, on the like pretences as they separated from the Catholics, as Maximinianists and Luciferians, who were professed Anabaptists.'

Now the Donatists flourished about the year 400, as appears by several edicts published against them about that time: And, though the name Anabaptist is given in several ancient writers to the Donatists, and Arians in general, this was not because they objected against the baptism of infants, but for their baptizing those again, who had been baptized before by the Catholics, either in infancy, or at age.

But now, concerning the Luciferians, Mr. Long asserts (Ib. p. 103.):

'That they did not only rebaptize the adult, that came over to them, but refused to baptize children, contrary to the practice of the church, as appears, says he, by several discourses of St. Augustine.'

These, by his account, were the most moderate of those separated from the Catholic Church in those times: That they were called Luciferians from Lucifer Calaritanus, bishop of Sardinia, once a zealous defender of the Catholic faith against the Arians, for which he was banished by them, when they had the Power; and that his separation from the Catholics was occasioned by their showing too much countenance to the Arians, and admitting (History, Donatists, p. 102.) them upon too easy conditions, not only into their communion, but into ecclesiastical dignities.

He was a man greatly esteemed and commended on many accounts by the Catholics; great numbers were of his persuasion, and followed him, and stood independent on the Donatists congregations, or any of the other factions.

Mr. Philpot the martyr, in a letter (Ib. p. 103.) of his to his fellow-sufferer, who scrupled infants baptism, finds out another about this time, on whom he fathers the first rise of this opinion.

One of his fellow-sufferers for the Protestant religion, being in doubt about the lawfulness of infant baptism, writ a letter to him about it. In Philpot's answer to this, he says (Case of Infant Baptism, p. 96.),

'That Auxentius one of the Arians sect, with his adherents, was one of the first that denied the baptism of children; and next after him, Pelagius the Heretic, and some other that were in St. Bernard's time, as it appears by his writings.

This Auxentius (Socrates, Ecclesi. Hist. Lib. IV. Ch. XXV. Greek Copy, Ch. XXX.) was bishop of Milan, and departed this life in the year 378, being succeeded in his bishopric by St. Ambrose, who is remarkable for his being elected a bishop before he was baptized.

Others have followed this opinion; as Bullinger (Tom. III. Sect VIII.), George Phillips (Answer. to Lamb. p. 137.), Holms (Animad. on Tom. p. 93.), and the Athenian Oracle (Vol. III. p. 245.).

I shall not enquire into the truth of these representations: Both the Donatists and Arians are termed Anabaptists in several ancient authors (Wall's Hist. Vol. II. Ch. IV. Sect. III.); but the occasion of giving them that title is disputed. However, since they were accused of gross heresies, and the authors of a dreadful schism in the church, some writers against the Baptists are willing enough to represent these as their predecessors.

But, if this be doubtful, there is still a more early opposer of infant baptism produced by others; of which there is such authentic proof, as not to be denied by any; and that it Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200, and was very famous in the Christian Church, leaving many learned writings behind him.

THis man is the first Christian writer, who expressly mentions such a practice as baptizing of infants, and at the same time condemns it, as an unwarrantable and irrational practice.

Chassanian, a learned Frenchman, and zealous Paedobaptist, in his history of the Albigeois, having proved that they rejected the baptism of infants, tho' he thinks that they erred in this matter, yet endeavours to excuse them, by alledging (Stennet against Russen, p. 83.), 'That they were not the first who were of this opinion, seeing Tertullian was for deferring baptism, till persons came to years of discretion.' Dr. Wall, who in one place calls Peter Bruis and Henry the two first Antipaedobaptist preachers in the world, yet in another place acknowledges there was (Wall's Hist. Bapt. Part I. p. 82.), in the first four hundred years, one Tertullian, who advised it to be deferred till the age of reason; and one Nazianzen till three years of age, in case of no danger of death. Mr. John Goodwin the independent, being engaged in this controversy, says (Catabap. p. 74.), 'That Tertullian seems to have been the first who persuaded Christians to delay baptism, especially the baptism of their children, until afterwards.' Mr. Stokes (Remarks on Dr. Gale, p. 53.) also calls Tertullian the first Antipaedobaptist in the world.

Both parties in this controversy cite Tertullian's words, as making for them. The Paedobaptists, to prove there was such a practice as baptizing infants in the Christian church, as early as Tertullian's time: The Baptists, to improve what he says against it; and to show that the first writer that makes any mention of such a custom, dislikes and condemns it. For thus he expresseth himself (Tertull. de Bapt. c. 18.):

'They whose duty it is to administer baptism are to know, that it must not be given rashly, give to every one that asketh thee, has its proper subject, and relates to almsgiving: But the command rather is here to be considered (Wall's Hist. Bap. p. 1, 26.); Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine; and that, lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens faults. Therefore, according to every ones condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children; for what need is there, that the godfathers should be brought into danger, because they may either fail of their promises by death, or they may be mistaken, by a child's proving of wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, forbid them not to come unto me; therefore let them come when they are grown up; let them come when they understand, when they are instructed, whither it is that they come; let them be made Christians, when they can know Christ: What need their guiltless age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men will proceed more warily in worldly things; and he that should not have earthly goods committed to him, yet shall have heavenly; let them know how to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one that asketh.'

Here then is a Baptist as early as the year 200, and if, by that term, we only understand an opposer of infant baptism, he bids very fair for being the first; because that supposes such a practice to be introduced, or at least attempted. We cannot expect, that any should expressly declare themselves against infants baptism before such an opinion was broached, or that any could separate till such a practice was introduced. But, if that term be used to signify such as hold the doctrine, on which infant-baptism is rejected, viz. That a personal profession of repentance and faith is necessary from those who are admitted to baptism, this was taught and practised by persons of greater authority than Tertullian, and who lived long before his time; as will appear by the next account, which some have given concerning this matter, viz.

That the baptism of infants was, in the primitive times, left as an indifferent thing; being by some practised, by others omitted.

Some Paedobaptists, of no small reputation, finding themselves so hardly pressed in the business of antiquity, are willing to halve the matter with their brethren.

I find several men of great learning, and diligent searchers into antiquity, to go this way; as Grotius, Daillee, bishop Taylor, and Mr. Baxter. What they say to this purpose is worth observing.

Grotius, who his adversaries acknowledge, had a vast stock of learning, and was well read in antiquity, says to this purpose in his Annotations on Matt. xix. 14. taken partly from Wall, and partly from Poole.

It does not appear (Wall, par. ii. p. 23.), that infant-baptism did universally obtain in the primitive times, but was more frequent in Africa than any where else. In the councils of the ancients, one shall find no earlier mention of Paedobaptism than in the council of Carthage.

In Tertullian's time it appears (Tertullian on Baptism, Ch. xviii.), there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized, that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline; because he dissuades, by so many reasons, the baptizing of infants.

Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of those who die without baptism, mentions among the rest those that were not baptized by reason of infancy; and he himself, though a bishop's son, and educated a long time under the care of his father, was not baptized till he became a youth, as is related in his life. And Chrysostom, though according to the true opinion born of Christian parents, and educated by Miletus a bishop, was not baptized till past twenty one years of age.

But most of all, the canon of the synod of Neo Cesarea, held in the year 315, is worthy out notice; which determines, that a woman with child may be baptized when she will; for in baptism the mother communicates nothing to the child, because, in the profession at baptism, every one declares his own resolution: How much soever interpreters draw it to another sense, it is plain, that the doubt concerning baptizing women great with child was for that reason; because the child might seem to be baptized together with its mother, and a child was not wont to be baptized, but upon its own will and profession; and so Balsamon explains it (Com. Cant. Tit. 4.), that cannot be enlightened or baptized; and also Zonaras, the child in the womb has then need of baptism, when it shall be able to deliberate and choose; and many of the Greeks, says Grotius, from the beginning to this day, observe the custom of detaining the baptism of their infants, until they are able to make confession of their own faith; and then concludes, be saying, he has not brought this to overthrow the baptism of infants, but to show the liberty, antiquity, and difference of the custom.

But notwithstanding this last clause, wherein he endeavours to excuse what he had said, the Paedobaptists are very angry with him, for what he has published against their practice. One says (Rivet's Apology), 'That he was perverted by cardinal Perron, who in his answer to King James, pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists with all his might.' Another (Marshal, Def. p. 29.) accuses him with an intention herein to gratify both the Socinians and the Papists. And a third says (Wall's Hist. Bap. par. 11. p. 22.) upon this, 'That he was naturally inclined to trim all controversies in religion that came in his way; and using that vast stock of learning which he had, as princes that would hold the ballance, do their power, to help the weakest side.'

The learned bishop Taylor gives the same account, not only when he is representing the arguments of the Anabaptists, but when he gives his own sentiments in the case. His words are these, as quoted by Mr. Wall:

'In the first age, says he (Disswasive from Popery, par. ii. lib. ii. sect. iii. p. 117.), they did, or they did not, according as they pleased; for there is no pretence of tradition that the church, in all ages, did baptize all the infants of Christian parents: It is more certain that they did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Austin (Wall's Hist. Bap. par. ii. p. 24.), were born of Christian parents; and yet not baptized until the full age of a man, or more.'

And a little after: 'That it was the custom so to do in some churches, and at some times, is without question; but that there ia a tradition from the Apostles so to do, relies on but two witnesses, Origen and Austin; and, the latter having received it from the former, it wholly relies on one single testimony; which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical. He is the first that spoke it; but Tertullian, that was before him, seems to speak against it; which he would not have done, if it had been a tradition apostolical.'

Rigaltius, another writer who was very conversant with the works of the fathers, gives the same account (Annot. in Cypriani, Ep. ad Fid.):

'From the age of the Apostles, says he, to the time of Tertullian, the matter continued in ambiguo, doubtful or various; and there were some, who, on occasion of our Lord's saying, suffer little children to come to me, though he gave no order to baptize them, did baptize even new-born infants; and, as if they were transacting some secular bargain with God Almighty, brought sponsors and bondmen to be bound for them, that when they were grown up, they should not depart from the Christian faith; which custom Tertullian did not like.'

Monsieur Daille also (De ufo Patrum, lib. ii. ch. vi.), who must be reckoned amongst the men of no small learning, was of the same opinion. He says (Wall's Hist. Bapt. par. ii. p. 25.),

'In ancient times, they often deferred the baptizing both of infants, and of other people, as appears by the history of the Emperors, Constantine the great, of Constantius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian, and Gratian, out of St. Ambrose; and also by the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzem, and of St. Basil on this subject: And some of the Fathers too have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred.'

And one would wonder to find, even Mr. Baxter (Baxter's Life, book I. p. 140.), though he had writ so zealously for infant-baptism, and cast such bitter reflections upon those that deny it; yet at length to center in this opinion, and speak more favourably of them.

'And for the Anabaptists themselves, says he, as I found that most of them were persons of zeal in religion, so many of them were sober, godly people, and differed from others but in the point of infant-baptism, or at most in the points of predestination, and free-will, and perseverance. And I found in all antiquity, that though infant-baptism was held lawful by the church, yet some, with Tertullian and Nazianzen, thought it most convenient to make no haste; and the rest left the time of baptism to every ones liberty, and forced none to be baptized. Insomuch, as not only Constantine, Theodosius, and such others, as were converted at years of discretion, but Augustine, and many such as were the children of Christian parents, one or both, did defer their baptism much longer, than I think they should have done. So that in the primitive church some were baptized in infancy, and some at ripe age, and some a little before their death; and none were forced, but all left free.'

At another time, he says (Wall's Hist. Bap. par. ii. p. 26.), 'In the days of Tertullian, Nazainzen, and Austin, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring their children, when, and at what age they pleased; and none were forced to go against their consciences therein.'

The last account we have of this matter is, that in the first ages of Christianity, no infants were baptized; but that this practice was brought in, after a certain term of years, without any precedent from Christ, his Apostles, or those apostolical men that lived next after them. And this is not only the opinion of the Baptists, but many of the Paedobaptists, who have searched antiquity about this matter, do ingenuously confess the same. Many instances might be produced of this; I will only give three or four.

Walafridus Strabo (Ib. p. 10.), who lived about the year 750, is very express in this point: 'It is to be noted, says he, That in the primitive times, the grace of baptism was wont to be given to those only, who were arrived to that maturity of body and mind, that they could know and enderstand what were the benefits of baptism, what was to be confessed and believed; and, in a word, what was to be observed of those that are regenerated in Christ. But when the diligence about our divine religion encreased, the Christians understanding that the original sin of Adam did involve guilt, not only those who had added to it by their own wicked works, but those also, who having done no wickedness themselves. The orthodox Christians, I say, understanding this, lest children should perish, if they died without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, appointed them to be baptized for the forgivessness of sins (Sternet against Russen, p. 86.).'

Ludovicus Vives, in his notes on Augustine, de Civitate Dei, says, 'No person was formerly brought to the sacred baptistery, till he was of adult age, and both understood the meaning of that mystical water, and requested once and again to be washed in it.'

Suicerus says (Ib. p. 86.) the same thing, but is more positive as to the same. 'In the two first ages, says he, no person was baptized till he was instructed in the faith, and tinctured withthe doctrine of Christ, and could testify his own faith; because of those words of Christ, He that believeth, and is baptized. Therefore believing was first.'

Curcellaeus does not only confess the same, but fixes the time of bringing in infant-baptism. His words are these (Ib. p. 87.):

'Paedobaptism was not known in the world the first two ages after Christ. In the third and fourth it was approved by a few. At length in the fifth, and following ages, it began to obtain in divers places. And therefore we observe this rite indeed as an ancient custom, but not as an apostolical tradition.'

And in another place, according to Mr. Stennet, he says: 'The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ; and there appears not the least footstep of it, in the two first centuries.'

I will only add to these an English writer, whose great learning, and diligent search into antiquity, are well known. I mean the reverend Dr. Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln.

This famous gentleman, before his great preferment in the established church had either biased his opinion, or tempted him to conceal it, frankly acknowledged, that both Scripture and antiquity were on the side of the Baptists.

'I believe and know,' says he (Danvers, Cent. 4. p. 63.), in a letter to Mr. Tombs, 'that there is neither precept nor example in Scripture for Paedobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. Sure I am, that in the primitive times they were Catechumeni, then illuminati, or baptizati. The truth is, I do believe, Paedobaptism, how or by whom I know not, came into the world in the second century, and in the third and fourth began to be practised, though not generally; and defended, as lawful, from the text grosly mistake of John vi. 53. they did for many centuries, both in the Greek and Latin church, communicate infants, and give them the Lord's Supper: And I do confess, says he, they might do both, as well as either.'

When this letter was published, and improved by the Baptists, the advocates for Paedobaptism would not let the bishop rest, till he had either denied the letter, or writ a recantation. At length Mr. Wills extorted a letter from him, and leave to publish it. In this the bishop acknowledges his writing as above; but is so far from proving he was mistaken, or had misrepresented the history of those times, that he does not affirm any such thing; only tries to excuse himself, by saying, that he writ it twenty years ago, when he talked more, and understood less; and that whatever objections he had against infant-baptism, he never disturbed the peace of the church, nor declined the practice.

Thus have I traced this matter, till we are brought up to the beginning of Christianity itself: And this last opinion is that wherein the controversy resteth.

I shall only add some brief remarks on the account given of the different times assigned by the learned for the first rite of the Baptists, and the several persons whom they represent to have been the founders of that sect.

1. That the most common opinion concerning the first rite of the Baptists, and that which would reflect the greatest odium upon them, has the least appearance of truth in it, and is sufficiently confuted by the Paedobaptists themselves: viz. That they sprung from those mad and heretical people at Munster in Germany, a little after the reformation. The most learned of their adversaries, and those that have examined the histories of this people with the greatest care and diligence, make them to be much ancienter, and assign no less than seven other different periods of time for their origin; any one of which being true, will wipe away that scandal.

2. That as tradition is generally acknowledged to be the best and chief support of infant-baptism; so even this appears, from their own accounts, to be very precarious and uncertain.

There are but two ways, by which they can pretend to justify this practice; viz. from Scripture, and from antiquity.

Now the most learned and ingenious of the Paedobaptists themselves do confess, that there is no express mention of any such thing in Scripture; and that arguments from thence are, at most, but probable. Their most usual way therefore is to recur to ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the Fathers: But how unceratin and contradictory their accounts are from hence, does sufficiently appear by this collection.

3. We may see here also, that the advocates of infant-baptism do themselves confess and prove, that in all ages of Christianity almost, there have been some who have opposed that practice, as an human tradition, and unwarrantable custom.

The writings of the first two hundred years are wholly silent about it: The first that mentions it, condemns it; and very many of those, who stood up afterwards to oppose the corruptions and abuses brought into religion, declared their dislike of it.

Now for all this to be granted, and proved too, by the adversaries of the Baptists, is no small argument in their favour; and may convince the world, that their scruples in this case are not wholly groundless, nor a mere novelty.

4. In this variety of opinions, and these different accounts from ancient history, those who either want ability or opportunity to search those writings themselves; have most reason to depend on their account, who say, that there are no footsteps of infant-baptism in the first ages of Christianity; and that it appears to have been introduced a considerable time after Christ and his Apostles.

These, I say, supposing them to be men of equal learning and probity with the others, have most reason to be relied on; because it made against their own practice, and what they appeared desirous to support and maintain. Men are too apt to be partial to their own side, and to conceal or let pass any thing that would reflect upon their own practice in religion: He that appears so fair therefore, as to relate what makes against him as well as for him, is freest from suspicion.

Again: Those who appear too angry with them, for making these concessions to the Baptists, have not yet been able to confute them, by producing any direction from Christ or his Apostles to baptize infants, nor one instance of baptizing any such for the first two hundred years. And if it be said, those who talk thus are but few, in comparison of the great number that oppose them; it is answered, that truth is not always on the side of the greatest number; and that their number is not inconsiderable, when we add to them all the learned among the Baptists, and a great number of learned men in the church of Rome, who assert the same thing (Vid. Stennet against Russen, p. 173.).

5. This diversity of opinions among the learned about tradition, and the practice of the Fathers, tends to confirm the Baptists in their opinion; That the holy Scriptures are to be the only rule of our faith and worship; and that we are to practice nothing, as an institution of Christ, which is not therein contained. Supposing it could be proved, by suffcient evidence, that the churches did immediately after the apostles practise infant-baptism, it would not necessarily follow from thence that it was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Apostles; because the most ancient churches were subject to err, and those christians who lived in the very next age after the Apostles, made several additions, both in doctrine and worshp. Their writings may therefore prove fact, but not right: And the grand question would still remain; Whetjer this practice was derived from Christ, and his Apostles, or begun by some others after his death?

The writings of the Fathers therefore could only furnish them with probable arguments: and we must, after all, refer to Scripture for certainty in this, and all other controversies about points of revealed religion. But how defective are they, even in these probable arguments; and how miserably are they divided, in their opinions on this account? It is easy to discern from this collection, that they are much more successful in confuting each other, than in defending themselves: What one calls orthodox, another represents as heresy; and a practice highly applauded by one, is severely censured by another. And in ecclesiastical history there is a very great uncertainty, even as to facts.

But, in the midst of these confusions, we have a sure word; whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place (2 Pet. i. 19.). To the law therefore, and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa. viii.20.).

 

 

'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.

Outpost Homepage
Library Page
Library - Church History
TOP

28/03/2010

AN OUTPOST PRODUCTION