Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

ALL the scenes described in the preceding chapter transpired before the reformation in the sixteenth century. We have seen that the Waldenses were first found in the valleys of Piedmont, in Italy; that they were thence dispersed into France, Spain, Germany, England, and other European kingdoms. We have hitherto considered them as a collective body, without any regard to the kingdoms or countries which they inhabited. In this chapter we shall treat of them and their descendants, and of all who maintained their principles, under the heads of the governments in which they were found, and in some cases we shall find it necessary to go back beyond the period, to which in the last chapter we arrived.

GERMANY The German empire, properly so called, before the late revolutions in Europe, contained twenty-eight millions of inhabitants. It was six hundred miles in length, and five hundred and twenty in breadth. It was divided into ten circles or great districts, which were called Franconia, Bavaria, Suabia, Upper Rhine, Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Austria, Burgundy, Lower Rhine, and Upper Saxony. This great empire was singular for being a combination of upwards of three hundred sovereignties, independent of each other, but composing one political body under an elective head, called the emperor of Germany. Eight princes of the empire, called the electors, had the right of electing the emperor. The seventeen provinces known by the name of the Netherlands, in which are the seven United Provinces of Holland, were not included in the great Germanic body. Great changes have taken place in the civil divisions and government of this country since the revolution.

Our information respecting the Baptists in Germany in ancient times is extremely limited. But Mosheim assures us that they were in this empire long before the rise of Luther and Calvin. They were the descendants of the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other eminent sects. They were called by their ancient names, until about the time of the reformation; then they began to be denominated Anabaptists, and according to Robinson, this name was given to them by a Swiss pedant, who could not be easy without letting the world know that he understood Greek. In this chapter we shall treat of the Baptists under three different names. They were first called German Anabaptists, which term is familiar to all who have studied the history of the Baptists as related by their adversaries. After Menno they were generally called Mennonites. But the Mennonites in process of time settled mostly in Holland, and here they received the common name of the inhabitants of the country, and were called Dutch Baptists. These few explanatory remarks the reader ought to bear in mind while perusing the following sketches.

It is said the Dutch Baptists have published voluminous histories of themselves, but I do not find that any of their works have been translated into English, or that the Baptists in England or America have had much acquaintance with them. I find Crosby and other writers often make mention of a folio volume, called the martyrology of the foreign Anabaptists. I have taken much pains to learn something about this book, but have hitherto been unsuccessful. It is said however to contain a numerous list of ancient Baptist martyrs.

Most of the information I can find respecting the old German Anabaptists, is contained in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, and his accounts are taken from slanderous reports, and the writings of Lutherans, who, like himself, were all intent on covering the Baptists with shame, and exalting on their ruins, their own august Pedobaptist establishment. “Mr. Arnoldi and Dr. Schyn, two Dutch Baptist writers, have proved by irrefragable evidence from state papers, public confessions of faith, and authentic books, that Ezechiel and Frederic Spanheim, Heidegger, Hoffman, and others have given a fabulous account of the history of the Dutch Baptists, and that the younger Spanheim, had taxed them with holding thirteen heresies, of all which, not a single society of them believed one word; yet later historians quote these writers as devoutly, as if all they had affirmed were undisputed and allowed to be true.”

No Pedobaptist writer has made more important concessions in favor of the advocates of believer’s baptism than Mosheim, and yet no writer has treated them with more roughness and asperity, or loaded them with a greater number of reproachful terms. Whenever he has referred to their history, he has given full scope to his stupendous verbosity, and poured upon them a tremendous shower of invective and reproach. The German Anabaptists, according this writer, were a wrongheaded, a hotheaded, dangerous, deluded, fanatical chimerical tumuluous, seditious, furious, ferocious, pestilential, heretical, rebellious, turbulent, odious, pernicious, wild, savage, detestable, flagitious, mad, insane, delirious, miserable rabble of wretches, a motley tribe of enthusiasts, mad-men and monsters, whom all sober people abhorred, and whom the magistrates found it necessary to put to the most miserable deaths, for the safety of the church and the peace of the land. These and many other expressions of a similar nature are found in Mosheim’s account of the Anabaptists of Germany; indeed, he seems to have almost exhausted the vocabulary of slander, in describing this despised and unfortunate people. But in the midst of this thunder-storm of defamation, there are some intervals of candor and correctness; and some of the statements of this majestic writer every Baptist most heartily approves. And after all the frightful stories about Nicholas Stork and the mad-men of Munster, he, like other writers on the same subject, “concludes with a compliment to the modern Baptists, for having seen into the errors of their ancestors, and behaved with propriety for several years past, like a very good sort of men.”

But after all these reproachful invectives, it is found, upon strict examination, that the tumults in Germany were first commenced by Catholics, that all parties helped to carry them on, and that the affair at Munster was begun, not by the Anabaptists, but by Bernard Rotman, a Pedo-baptist minister of the Lutheran persuasion, as will be shown in its proper place.

That there were tumultuous scenes in Germany, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, no person can deny. That some real and many reputed Baptists had a hand in them, every understanding Baptist will al1ow; but that the Baptists were the principal that their Baptistical sentiments litical struggles, and that their this time, are statements which have contended, are slanderous promoters of these scenes, led them to engage in political struggles, and that their denomination originated at this time, are statements which they now do, and always have contended, are slanderous and false. But leaving this subject for the present, we will attempt to give some brief sketches of the history of the Baptists in Germany, and some of the neighboring states.

Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrine which the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites had maintained.

These concealed christians we have good reasons for believing were mostly Baptists; and by Mosheim’s concessions, and a number of concurring testimonies, they were the remains of the ancient Waldenses, who had been driven hither by papal persecutions. This hint of Mosheim’s, is the first account we have of them; and from this period we must begin to trace their progress. “The drooping spirits of these people, who had been dispersed through many countries, and persecuted everywhere with the greatest severity, were revived when they were informed that Luther, seconded by several persons of eminent piety, had successfully attempted the reformation of the church. They now started up, all on a sudden, under different leaders in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands,” and fondly hoped that the happy and long expected period had arrived, in which God was about to visit his people, and restore his church to her primitive purity and simplicity. They looked up to Luther and his associates, with the most lively hopes and expectations; they commenced their labors in an open and zealous manner, great success attended their exertions, and great numbers fell in with their views. Their progress was rapid and extensive, and soon, in a great part of Europe, they had a prodigious multitude of followers. They were pleased to find the pillars of Babylon shaken, by means of Luther and his companions; but they soon became dissatisfied with the plan of reformation proposed by the Saxon reformer. “They looked upon it as much beneath the sublimity of their views,” and therefore undertook to carry it forward to greater perfection.

Luther built his church after the old popish model, or rather he christened the old church with a new name, and called it reformed . Luther repaired the old house, but the Baptists thought it should be taken down, the rotten timbers left out, and be built anew of what good materials remained.

Luther’s churches were not made-up of good people only, but they embraced all within the parish bounds, and all, whether righteous or wicked, were admitted to communion, This mode of building, which makes all church and no world, was contrived in Babylon, but it is still followed by many, who profess to have come out of her. The Baptists held then, as they have done in every age, that the church of Christ was an assembly of true and real saints, and ought, therefore, to be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous. It is not strange, therefore, that Luther’s plan of reformation was much beneath the sublimity of their views.

The Baptists were also dissatisfied with Luther, and much disappointed when they found he had determined on retaining the old popish custom of admitting infants to baptism. They vainly hoped to see a reformation in this matter, and it is asserted on respectable authority, that “infant baptism was agitated among the reformers themselves, and that some of them were for rejecting it.”

Arnoldus Meshovius, a historian of those times, says, “that the business of Anabaptism began at Wittemburg in 1522. Luther then lurking in the castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia, and that he had companions at first, Carolostadt, Philip Melancthon, and others; and that Luther, returning from his Patmos, as he called it, banished Carolostadt and the rest, and only received Philip Melancthon into favor again.” Carolostadt, one of Luther’s associates, was almost constantly charged, even by his own party, of being a favorer of the Anabaptists; and John Gerhard, a Lutheran minister says, that he was called the father of the Anabaptists, by Erasmus Alberus. 2 Zuinglius the famous Swiss reformer, who flourished about the year 1520, was, according to his own confession, for a time inclined to reject infant baptism; but he, like many other Pedobaptist ministers, at length gained a victory over his scruples, and afterwards became a bitter persecutor of the depised Anabaptists, whose snare he had so mercifully escaped. 3 And even the great Luther himself at first suggested some Baptistical opinions. In a conference with some of the Vaudois, who practiced infant baptism, he contended that faith and baptism ought always to be connected together; and to support his opinion, brought the passage, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. This reasoning of the reformer appears strange; however, he retained infants, and found out a very convenient and ingenious way of getting rid of the charge of inconsistency. 4 The mode of baptism Luther at first clearly defined to be dipping. “The term,” says he, “is Greek, and may be rendered dipping, as when we dip anything in water, so that it is covered all over. And although the custom be now abolished among many, (for they do not dip children, but only pour on a little water) yet they ought to be wholly immersed, and immediately taken out. The etymology of the word seems to require this.

The Germans call baptism tauff, from tieif, depth, signifying, that to baptize, is to plunge into the depth. 5 “The Catholics tax Luther with being the father of the German dippers, some of the first expressly declare, they received their first ideas of it from him, 6 and the fact seems undeniable, but the article of reforming without him he could not bear.”

Luther fell out with Carolostadt, for breaking down popish images without his consent, with Zuinglius and others, for holding that the bread and wine were mere symbols, and with Munzer, Stork, and the Baptists generally, for refusing to admit whole parishes to their communion, and for endeavoring to restore the ordinance of baptism, to its original purity.

Luther was undoubtedly an instrument of great good to the church of God, but his rough and dogmatizing spirit caused distensions among the reformers, and they soon filed off into separate parties. The advocates for Pedo-baptism had great patrons, but the Baptists had none. They had always been persecuted by the papists, and soon the protestants engaged in the same cruel business.

I find no accounts by which we can form an estimate of the probable number of those, who embraced the sentiments of the Baptists in these times. According to Mesheim there was a prodigious multitude, but we are informed at the same time that they were an ignorant miserable rabble.

There is every reason for believing that the number of real Baptists was great, but it is also evident that the number of those, who were falsely so called, was much greater. Formerly all who opposed the corruptions of Rome, were, by the papists, called Waldenses; and now by the protestants, all who opposed infant baptism, sighed for liberty, or even projected any new plan of a civil or religious, of a sober or visionary nature, were denominated Anabaptists. This circumstance is suggested by Mesheim, and it is doubtless correct.

When we consider that the term Anabaptist was thus indiscriminately applied to such a heterogeneous assemblage of character, it will not appear strange that the number was great, and that many of them were visionary and seditious. But it is grievous to relate that the sword of justice, or rather of persecution, was unsheathed against all who bore the name of Anabaptists, and the innocent and guilty were involved in the same cruel fate. Even Mosheim laments that so little distinction was made between the sober and seditious, by the cruel executioners of persecuting edicts. He acknowledges that those who had no other marks of peculiarity than their administering baptism to adult persons only, and excluding the unrighteous from their communion, met with the same treatment as seditious incendiaries, who were for unhinging all government, and destroying all authority. “It is true indeed,” says this writer, “that many Anabaptists suffered death, not on account of their being considered as rebellious subjects, but merely because they were judged incurable heretics; for in this century the error of limiting the administration of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice of rebaptizing such as had received that sacrament in a state of infancy, were looked upon as most flagitious and intolerable heresies.”

Thus the old popish doctrine, that obstinate and incurable heretics ought to die, was adopted into the protestant creed. Some protestant princes appear to have been unwilling to imbrue their hands in the blood of heretics, but we are obliged to believe that the protestant ministers stimulated them to the practice. While all parties were disputing in defense of their peculiar tenets, the Baptists took the liberty of holding disputations in defense of theirs. “In the years 1532 and 1528, there were public disputations at Berne, in Switzerland, between the ministers of the church there and some Anabaptist teachers; in the years 1529, 1527, and 1525, Oecolampadius had various disputes with people of this name at Basil, in the same country; in the year 1525 there was a dispute at Zurich, in the same country, about Pedobaptism, between Zuinglius, one of the first reformers, and Dr. Balthasar Hubmeierus, who afterwards was burnt and his wife drowned at Vienna, in the year 1528; of whom Meshovius, though a papist, gives this character: that he was from his childhood brought up in learning; and for his singular erudition was honored with a degree in divinity; was a very eloquent man, and read in the scriptures and fathers of the church. Hoorn-beck calls him a famous and eloquent preacher, and says he was the first of the reformed preachers at Waldshut.

There were several disputations with others in the same year at this place.

And in the year 1526 or 1527, according to Hoornbeck, Felix Mans or Mentz, was drowned at Zurich; this man, Meshovius says, whom he calls Felix Mantscher, was of a noble family; and both he and Conrad Grebel, whom he calls Cunrad Grebbe, who are said to give the first rise to Anabaptism at Zurich, were very learned men, and well skilled in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. But the liberty of defending their sentiments by arguments was soon denied our brethren by the intolerant reformers. The cause of infant baptism lost ground so much that penal statutes were called in to its aid.

And Anabaptism prevailed so fast, that to prevent its growth the magistrates of Zurich 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.

A few cases of capital punishments for denying infant baptism are thus related by Mr. Crosby: “In the year 1528, Hans Kaeffer and Leonard Freek, for opposing infant 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 Waltzen the same year. In the year 1529, twenty of them were put to death in the Palatinate; and three hundred and fifty at Altre in Germany. The men for the most part beheaded, and the women drowned. In 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, they were used as hardly about the same time. In 1530, two of the baptized brethren were burnt. In 1531, six more of the congregation of Baptists, were martyred in the same place. In 1533, two persons, Lodwick Test and Catharine Harngen, were burnt at Munster.

But the rustic war now coming on, which concluded with the tragedy at Munster, in which some of the Anabaptists were concerned, the name now became unspeakably odious, and always excited the idea of a seditious incendiary, a pest to human society. All who were called by this name, whatever was their character or sentiments, became the objects of reproach and vengeance, and were every where exposed to ravages and death.

We shall for the present leave our German brethren in the most deplorable situation, every where hunted like savages and exposed to death in its most tormenting and revengeful forms. The Munster affair with its causes and consequences will be considered under a separate head.

It is natural to conclude that while the terrors of death in the most dreadful forms were presented before all, who opposed the baptism of infants, or in the least favored the Anabaptists, that many deserted them, and especially that promiscuous multitude, which Mosheim describes, who never entered into the spirit of their principles, and who were connected with them by most feeble ties. But on the other hand some excellent characters became members of their communion, among whom Menno Simon appears to have held the most distinguished rank. Menno, for by his first name he appears to have been generally called, was born at Witmars in Friesland, in 1505. He was ordained a popish priest, and continued a famous preacher and disputer in the Catholic connection until 1531, when he began to suspect the validity of many things in the church of Rome, and among the rest that of infant baptism. He first discovered his suspicions to the doctors of his own fraternity, then to Luther, but failing of satisfaction from any, he next betook himself to the study of the New Testament and ecclesiastical history, and as it generally happens in all such cases, he brought up at last on Baptist ground. Mosheim asserts that he went over to the Anabaptists first in a clandestine manner, and frequented their assemblies with the utmost secrecy; but in the year 1536, he threw off the mask, resigned his rank in the Romish church and publicly embraced their communion. About a year after this, he began his ministry among the Anabaptists, and “from this period to the end of his days, (that is, during the space of twenty-five years) he traveled from one country to another, with his wife and children, exercising his ministry under pressures and calamities of various kinds, that succeeded each other without interruption, and constantly exposed to the danger of falling a victim to the severity of the laws. East and West Friesland, together with the province of Groningen, were first visited by this zealous apostle of the Anabaptists; from thence he directed his course into Holland, Gelderland, Brabant, and Westphalia, continued it through the German provinces that lie on the coast of the Baltic sea, and penetrated so far as Livonia. In all these places his ministerial labors were attended with remarkable success, and added to his sect a prodigious number of proselytes. Hence he is deservedly looked upon as the common chief of almost all the Anabaptists, and the parent of the sect that still subsists under that denomination. The success of this missionary will not appear very surprising to those who are acquainted with his character, spirit, and talents, and who have a just notion of the state of the Anabaptists at the period of time now under consideration. Menno was a man of genius; though, as his writings show, his genius was not under the direction of a very sound judgment. He had the inestimable advantage of a natural and persuasive eloquence, and his learning was sufficient to make him pass for an oracle in the eyes of the multitude. He appears, moreover, to have been a man of probity, of a meek and tractable spirit, gentle in his manners, pliable and obsequious in his commerce with persons of all ranks and characters, and extremely zealous in promoting practical religion and virtue, which he recommended by his example, as well as by his precepts.” “Menno,” says Morgan Edwards, “continued preaching and planting churches in various parts of the low countries, for a course of about thirty years, and died in peace Jan. 31, 1561, after having been hunted like a partridge on the mountain, by both protestants and papists. The faith and order of this eminent reformer may, in some measure, be gathered from the fragments of his works, which are now extant. A general Baptist (as that character is understood in Great-Britain) he certainly was; but I have not seen sufficient evidence of his being what is now called an Arian or Socinian. I rather think that the term Armenian or Remonstrant would better suit his religious sentiments.” “Menno,” Edwards further observes, “was a man of parts and learning, and carried the reformation one step farther than Luther or Calvin did, and would, no doubt, have been ranked with the chief reformers, had there not been some cross-gained fatality attending the laudable deeds of Baptists, to prevent their having in this world the praise they deserve.”

Some farther account of Menno and his sentiments may be found in the account of the American Mennonites.

We have no account of the number of churches founded by Menno, but it was doubtless great; and not only the churches of his planting, but most, if not all, of his sentiments appear from his time to have been distinguished by the name of Mennonites. Ecclesiastical writers, however, have generally affixed to them the old reproachful name of Anabaptists.

About the middle of the sixteenth century, according to Mosheim, there was a warm contest among the Mennonites concerning excommunication, which terminated in the division of their extensive community. One party was distinguished by the name of rigid, and the other of moderate Anabaptists. The moderate Anabaptists consisted at first of the inhabitants of a district in North-Holland called Waterland, and hence their whole sect was distinguished by the denomination of Waterlandians. The rigid part of the community were, for the most part, natives of Flanders; and hence their sect acquired the denomination of Flemingians or Flandrians. The rigid Anabaptists were again divided on the subject of excommunication, into Flandrians and Frieslanders, who differed from each other in their manners and discipline. And to them a third denomination was added, who took the name of their country, like the former, and were called Germans; “for the Anabaptists of Germany passed in shoals into Holland and the Netherlands.” But the greatest part of these three sects came over by degrees to the moderate community of the Waterlandians, etc. Thus the great body of the Mennonites about the middle of the last century, the time Mosheim’s history was published, had come into the moderate class of Anabaptists. Mosheim considers the change was much for the better, but we may safely conclude the contrary. What this author would esteem a mark of wisdom and charity, others would count a worldly compromise, the natural consequence of a defection in evangelical zeal and purity. The rigid Anabaptists undoubtedly carried some of their principles to extremes, but I think there is no hazard in concluding that of the two they had the most evangelical creed.

The Mennonites have established a college in Amsterdam, for the benefit of their society, which is called the College of the Sun. I conclude from an expression in Mosheim, that it was founded in the former part of the last century. But I have not been able to obtain any particulars respecting the nature or extent of the establishment.

The Mennonites were, at first, every where persecuted and destroyed. “But after being a long time in an uncertain and precarious situation, they at length obtained a fixed and unmolested settlement in the United Provinces,. under the shade of a legal toleration procured for them by William, prince of Orange, the glorious founder of Belgic liberty. This illustrious chief, who acted from principle in allowing liberty of conscience and worship to christians of different denominations, was moreover engaged by gratitude to favor the Mennonites, who had assisted him in the year 1572, with a considerable sum of money, when his coffers were almost exhausted.” The doctrinal sentiments of the people we have been describing, are differently represented. They have published a number of confessions of faith; the most ancient and respectable, in Mosheim’s opinion, was published by the Waterlandians. Robinson says the Dutch Baptists have published creeds, which for the fundamental points, even Luther and Calvin might have subscribed; he also intimates that they have published others less orthodox in their contents. It seems evident, that the Dutch and German Baptists have, generally speaking, been of an Armenian cast.

Armenianism originated in Holland, and all parties seem to have been more or less infected with it.

Dr. Rippon gives an account of a church of Mennonites in Dantzic, who were Calvinists. “In consequence of letters and registers,” says he, “sent to the Rev. Messrs. Henry Roots, Isaac Van Duhrin, Erdmann Stobbe, and Peter Klein, the four ministers of a Baptist church at Dantzic, in Polish, otherwise in Royal Prussia, the following information has been communicated: Dantzic is a place of great commerce, very populous, and perhaps about the size of Liverpool. The Damzicers have numerous places of worship for Lutherans and Calvinists, the steeples of which, as you come from sea, begin to appear at the distance of about five leagues from the city. They have also an English place of worship, and a Baptist or Mennonist congregation. Your letters to the ministers of the last named society, I delivered with my own hand. Their place of worship of about feet by 32 is very neat. Mr. Roots, the elder or pastor of the church, is the youngest man of their four ministers. They have one deacon, an organ in their meeting, and one service in a day, which begins at about half after eight in the morning, and ends at eleven, They enter on worship with singing, then pray, sing again, and preach about three parts of an hour, and conclude nearly as our Baptists congregations do in England. On Lord’s day evening, by a previous appointment, I was introduced to them at Mr.

Roots’: All the four ministers were present, the deacon, and also an attorney, who understood and spoke English as well as myself. I was received in a very friendly way, and, according to the custom of the place, saluted with a kiss. All five, the ministers and deacon saluted me. Your letters were read to them, and I observed peculiar emotions in their countenances at your question; “Whether internal piety or the religion of the heart flourished among them, or in any part of Poland or Prussia?” In the conversation, which was maintained between us by the attorney our interpreter, they asked how the Baptists administered ordinances in England? How often the death of Christ was celebrated? Whether there were collections made for the poor? How we sing, and what psalms?

Whether the psalms of David only, or other compositions? I showed them Dr. Watts’ hymns and psalms, some of which the gentleman read off in Dutch; and some of theirs to me in English, consisting of psalms, and also of hymns suited to the Lord’s supper. They asked if we had organs in our chapels? I told them that they were not approved of; and was informed that in general they were not used in their congregations. They wished also to know how 1ong the sermons of our ministers are? Whether most of our preachers are learned men? Whether they are in business, or receive salaries from the congregations? I replied as well as I could. By the questions I proposed to them I find that they are Calvinistic Baptists, and are quite clear in this truth, that it is impossible for any man to be saved without a real change of heart. They are enemies to all war, and asked me, If any part of England was besieged, whether the Baptists would fight? I said, to be sure they would defend themselves against their enemies. But they said, Christ has told us we should love our enemies. I then asked, what is the difference between my going to war, and sending another in my room? as I gathered from their conversation they had provided substitutes.

They replied that both were totally disagreeable to them; but the laws of the country forced them to the latter.” The Germans and Dutch Baptists appear always to have held some sentiments peculiar to themselves. They neither admit civil rulers into their communion, nor allow any of their members to perform the functions of magistracy. ‘They deny the lawfulness of repelling force by force, and consider war, in all its shapes, as unchristian and unjust. They are averse to capital punishments, and feeling themselves bound to swear not at all, they will not confirm their testimony with an oath.

Respecting the number of communicants in the Dutch or Mennonite Baptist churches, I have obtained no information whatever. According to a list in Rippon’s Register, there were, in 1790, in and out of the Netherlands, two hundred and fifty-two churches of the Dutch and Mennonite Baptists, in all of which were five hundred and thirty three ministers. Of these a hundred and seventy-five churches, and two hundred and seventy-one ministers were in the Netherlands and Generalities’ Lands. Fifteen churches, in which were ninety-six ministers, were in Prussia. Twenty-seven churches and ninety-two ministers were in Upper Saxony. Twenty-seven churches and forty-nine ministers were in France.

The rest were in Switzerland, Poland, and Russia.

It is to be feared that vital religion is at a low ebb in these ancient churches of Baptists, and I wish I were able to say they had all maintained the ordinances of the gospel in their primitive purity, and in the manner they were maintained by their persecuted ancestors. The American Mennonites have adopted pouring instead of immersion, and it is probable that many, and I know not but most of the European Mennonites, have done the same. It is certain that the ancient German Anabaptists practiced dipping, and it is probable that the magistrates of those times, with a view of proportioning their punishment to their crimes, caused many of them to be drowned. Robinson says, that “Luther bore the Zuinglians’ dogmatizing; but he could not brook a further reformation in the hands of the dippers.”

Menno taught the doctrine of dipping exclusively. “After we have searched ever so diligently,” said he, “we shall find no other baptism besidesDIPPING IN WATER, which is acceptable to God, and maintained in his word.” After which he adds, “Let who will oppose, this is the only mode of baptism that Jesus Christ instituted, and the Apostles taught and practiced.” We find in the history of the English Baptists, that about a hundred years after Menno made this declaration, a company of christians about London became convinced of believer’s baptism by immersion; but because they could not be satisfied about any administrator in England to begin the practice, and hearing that some in the Netherlands practiced immersion, they sent over one Richard Blount, who was immersed by a Dutch minister, by the name of John Batte; that on his return he administered the baptismal rite in the same mode to Samuel Blacklock a minister, and that these two baptized the rest of the company to the number of fifty-three. At what time pouring instead of immersion was introduced among the Mennonites, I do not find. The cause of this change, according to Morgan Edwards, was as follows: “When they made proselytes in prisons, or were hindered from going to rivers, they made the best shift they could, and practiced pouring when they could not immerse. But as in Africa so in Europe, what was done at first out of a supposed necessity, became afterwards to be practiced out of choice.”

I have thus endeavored to give a brief account of the rise of the Anabaptists in Germany, of their sufferings, progress and character. Every Baptist will find many things in their character which he can but approve, but their defection from their ancient principles and practice he will lament. But it is some consolation to reflect that the principles of the ancient Baptists in Germany have spread extensively in other countries both in Europe and America.

Every party must have its share of mortification. Geneva, once the seat of Calvin and his orthodox compeers, is now overrun with French philosophy. Geneva, the source of Presbyterianism, has renounced the religion of its ancestors. “The present clergy of Geneva, by a public act of shameless apostasy, from pretended gratitude to France, have abandoned their religion, and betrayed their Savior. Voluntarily they have exchanged the Sabbath of christians for the decade of Atheists.” The primitive christians maintained baptism aright for a number of ages, and then they fell into error. The ancient Waldenses were doubtless for a long time uniform in their ideas of baptism, but in process of time some of them got to baptizing their children. The Dutch Baptists held to dipping believers at first; they still retain the subjects of the ordinance, but by a surprising change, some, I know not how many, have departed from the Apostolic mode. And although they still retain the name of Baptists, yet we can have no fellowship with their present mode of administering baptism; for with every real Baptist, pouring as well as sprinkling is null and void.

BOHEMIA I shall not attempt to give any thing like a connected history of the people of whom we are inquiring under this and the following heads. The want of materials would render such a, attempt altogether impracticable. The most that I can learn is, that there have been at different periods large numbers of christians in Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Transylvania, and other parts of Europe, which have not yet been mentioned, who maintained believer’s baptism by immersion, but who, at the same time, were much divided in their doctrinal sentiments. All I shall now attempt, will be to give some extracts of their history, and then collect some brief biographical sketches of some of their most distinguished characters.

Bohemia, before the late revolutions in Europe, was a distinguished member in the great Germanic body. The king of Bohemia was one of the eight electors of the Emperor, and was cup-bearer to his imperial majesty.

The present situation of this kingdom I am not able to state.

In Bohemia, properly so called, were comprehended the dutchy of Silesia and the marquisate of Moravia. There appears to be no information of any importance respecting the Baptists in Silesia; but of those in Moravia we have some interesting accounts. And as the Bohemian and Moravian brethren all originated from the same source, we shall connect their history under the present head.

Bohemia received the gospel from the eastern church, and not from the church of Rome. Popery, however, was introduced into this kingdom in the ninth century by two Greek monks, but it was not fully established here till the fourteenth century, and then not by the consent of the Bohemians, but by the power and artifice of the emperor Charles IV.

About this time, it appears there was an attempt made for a reformation by two of the emperors’ chaplains, whose names were Milicius and Janovius. But the attempt proved unsuccessful, and the reformers were suppressed with disgrace. But from this period multitudes withdrew themselves from the public places of worship, and followed the dictates of their own consciences by worshipping God in private houses, woods, and caves. Here they were persecuted, dragooned, drowned, and killed, and thus they went on till the appearance of John Huss and Jerome of Prague.

The names of John Huss and Jerome of Prague are generally mentioned in connection, and Bohemia is rendered famous in ecclesiastical history, on account of their labors. Under the ministry of Huss and Jerome, a work commenced in this kingdom, more than a hundred years before the rise of Luther and Calvin, which, in some respects, was similar to the reformation under them; for it began upon spiritual principles, and arose to a thing of political consequence. Both Huss and Jerome were destroyed by the council of Constance, in 1415. Jerome is said to have been a far more distinguished man than his friend Huss; but, for what reason I have not learnt, the followers of both were called Hussites.

Huss was professor of divinity in the university of Prague, a preacher in one of the largest churches in the city, and a man of eminent abilities and more eminent zeal. He taught much of the doctrine of Wicklift. His talents were popular, his life was irreproachable, and his manners the most affable and engaging. He was the idol of the people, but execrated by the priests.

He was not a Baptist, but as his sermons were full of what are called Anabaptistical errors, Wickliffites, Waldenses, and all sorts of heretics became his admirers and followers, and as he, in the spirit of a true Bohemian, endeavored to curb the tyranny of the churchmen, who the nobles knew were uniting with the house of Austria to enslave the state, he was patronized by the great, and all Bohemia was filled with his doctrine and his praise.

The cruel fate of these two eminent men produced very astonishing effects in Bohemia. The news of their death flew like lightning all over the kingdom, and it was soon all in an uproar.

The barbarous conduct of the council of Constance was considered (as all other events are) in very different lights by different people, according to their various interests and passions. The pious mourned the loss of these two eminent servants of God, while others Were filled with resentment for the insult offered to their nation.

We cannot trace in order the proceedings which followed; but it is sufficient to observe that a prodigious multitude possessing different characters and views collected, and chose John de Trautenau, surnamed Ziska, that is one-eyed, for their general. Fugitives from all parts daily resorted to him, and put themselves under his protection, till his army amounted to forty thousand. Ziska was esteemed a man of religion, but he was distinguished mostly for his skill in war. He seems to have been much such a character as Oliver Cromwell, and his army was probably not much unlike the one which was headed by the famous Protector. Some were bent on political changes, and others were aspiring at religious freedom. The martial spirit of the age undoubtedly induced many sober christians to engage in this military campaign, who under other circumstances might have taken a different course. They probably, however, soon fell out with Ziska’s warlike operations; for not long after this, we find a set of christians in this country; who made it one article of their creed not to bear arms. Ziska demolished idols, discharged monks, who, he said, were only fatting like swine in sties, converted cloisters into barracks, took towns, and strongly guarded one, Cuthna, which, as it commanded the mines, he called antichrist’s purse. He routed armies, tolerated and protected all religions, and encamped his followers on a rocky mountain, about ten miles from Prague, which he soon fortified with a wall, within which the people built houses, and to which he gave the name of Tabor, in allusion to the mount of transfiguration, where the apostle Peter would have erected tents, saying, “it is good to be here.” Here the feeble found shelter, and from this fortress the army sallied forth to repulse their enemies. The army continued its operations thirteen years, five under Ziska, and the rest under his successor Procopius. It resisted the power of Rome and Germany united, laughed at the bulls of the pope, and routed the armies of the empire. Ziska fought eleven battles, and won them all. When he was dying, a friend asked him where he would be buried? To which he replied, “When I am dead let the brethren take off my skin, let them give my flesh to the fowls of the air, and make a drum of my skin, the Germans will flee at the sound of it when you approach them in battle.” 14 The Taborites, for by this name the company was now called, chose Procopius to succeed Ziska in the command of their army. He was also a brave general, and conducted the army with courage and success. At length Sigismund, loaded with titles and misfortunes, opened a conference, and proposed an accommodation, which was accepted, preparatory to a council, which the pope had engaged to hold at Basil, for the final settlement of all religious disputes. Indeed it was high time to put a stop to the barbarous outrages committed in this distracted country, in which all parties had their share.

The council met, and among the delegates for the Taborites, Procopius was one. The general’s patience was often put to the trial in the course of their discussions. He was extremely offended with one of the orators, who was a Bohemian, and who called the delegates heretics. He started up in the council, and exclaimed, “That countryman of ours insults us by calling us heretics.” Cardinal Julian, who presided, endeavored to pacify him, and told him he had been informed that his party differed from the Roman church in many other articles beside the four that had been mentioned; he had heard they taught that the fraternities of the monks were the inventions of the devil, which was an offense to christian ears. “Very true,” replied the general, “for if neither the patriarchs, nor Moses, nor the prophets, nor Christ, nor the apostles appointed monkery, who does not see that the devil was the author of it? “ The council set up a loud laugh at the Bohemi. an captain’s logic.

A part of the Taborites were won over at the council and united with the papal party; but a great part of them persisted in their claims and continued their warlike operations after the council was over. But in about two years after the council, Procopius was slain, the officers of his army, and several thousand, who were taken prisoners, were destroyed in the most perfidious manner, and the army was disbanded and dispersed in different directions.

In Cromwell’s army there were many Baptists, and we have reason to believe there were many in this.

At one time, four hundred poor men, who had lived in the mountains for the sake of enjoying religious liberty, came down with their wives and children to Prague, and committed themselves to Ziska. It is highly probable that these were Waldenses, or Picards, the descendants of those who had come and settled in remote parts of the kingdom, more man two hundred and fifty years before, for even then in the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, Bohemia was accounted the sink of all heresies.

Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards pope Pius II visited mount Tabor for the purpose of diverting himself with the heretics. The following is a part of his description of the people and the place; “They have a sort of wooden house like a country barn, which they call a church. Here they preach to the people, here they every day expound the law, here they have one altar neither consecrated, nor fit to be consecrated, and here they give the sacrament to the people. The people are not of one faith, but every one believes what he pleases. There are as many heresies as heads, for all the heresies that have infected the church from the first ages to this day have found a way into this synagogue of satan. Here are Nicolaitans, Arians, Manicheans, Armenians, Nestorians, Berengarians, and the poor people of Lyons. The Waldenses are accounted the chief, and while they remain enemies of the vicar of Christ, and the apostolical see, while they reject all superiority and preach liberty, they must necessarily countenance all kinds of errors. When I quitted the city, I seemed as if I came out of hell.”

Aeneas Sylvius was one of the most accomplished men of his age. He arose from one high station to another, until he arrived at the popedom, When he visited the Taborites, he was an archbishop. In the visit above described, he tarried all night at the house of a concealed Catholic, who resided there for the sake of getting money. In his second visit, he tarried but a few hours, but all the time was busily employed in conversing and disputing will the Taborites. He reproved them for their heresy, and exhorted them to return to the church which he described as the immaculate spouse of Christ, the spotless dove, etc. One of the Taborites at length became impatient with his harangue, and rising up exclaimed, “Why do you decorate the apostolical see with such fine language? We know that the popes and the cardinals are slaves to avarice, impatient, arrogant, ostentatious, devoted wholly to gluttony and lasciviousness, ministers of sin, priests of the devil, and heralds of antichrist, whose god is their belly, and whose heaven is their wealth.” This man was corpulent, and had a very prominent belly, and the arch-bishop, who was never at a loss, rose up, went to him, and putting his hand lightly on his belly, said with a smile, “Whence came this swelling? Why do you reduce yourself to such a skeleton by fasting and prayer?” This well-timed jest produced a loud laugh, and they all with many compliments parted in great good humor.

Out of this company of Taborites arose a church, which was denominated Unitas Fratrum, the unity of brethren. One article of their creed was, not to bear arms; and another was, that the Scripture without tradition was a perfect rule of life for christians.

This church composed of Waldenses, Taborites, and others, was formed at Lititz, twenty tailes from Prague, probably about 1430. Not long after they had united into a church, they sent into Austria, where they found an old Waldensian preacher, from whom their newly elected ministers, received what they supposed a true apostolical ordination.

Not long after this, we find the United Brethren had two hundred congregations in Bohemia and Moravia. “Authors,” says Robinson, “disagree as much concerning the end of this church, as they do about the rise of it. Some affirm that it fell into the reformed churches in the time of Luther. Others say that it subsisted in Bohemia, till the reign of the emperor Ferdinand II and that it was then scattered and lost. The people among us, who are called Moravians, contend that they are the descendants of the Bohemian brethren, and therefore they denominate themselves as the ancient Bohemians did, unitas fratrum. It is not to our purpose to investigate this dispute. It is certain the ancient church subsisted at the reformation, and afterwards left off baptizing adults, on their own profession of faith.” “The Baptists,” says the same writer, “ought always to honor this church; it was a cradle in which many of their denomination were cherished. And all allow that the Anabaptists of Moravia proceeded from a schism in it.”

Leaving then the church of the unitas fratrum, let us turn our attention to that of the Baptists in this country; for though they were increased and multiplied by parties, who withdrew from the unitas fratrum, yet none of these parties were their founders. All Bohemian historians say, Picards or Waldenses settled in Bohemia in the twelfth century at Satz and Laun on the river Eger. Many affirm that there was a set of Arian vagrants there long before, who had fled from Mesopotamia from the Athanasian persecution, and who were joined by others fleeing from persecution in successive ages from all parts of Europe. On this account most Bohemian Catholic historians call their country a sink of heresy, and Prague the metropolis, a common and safe asylum for all sorts of heretics.

This account of the Waldenses in Bohemia is similar to those which we have of this dispersed people in other countries. We trace them in their flight, we find where they settled, and then a cloud comes over their history. Waldo, the famous patron of the Waldenses, after being every where persecuted, fled to Bohemia, where he ended his days, about the year 1179, and according to Cranz’s history of the United Brethren, as quoted by Ivimey, the company of which we are speaking, emigrated hither at the same time. This was more than two hundred years before the rise of Huss and Jerome. “These two men were not Baptists, but they taught what are called Anabaptistical errors. The following are a few of this sort: “The law of Jesus Christ is sufficient of itself for the government of the church militant.” “The church is the mystical body of Christ, of which he is the head.” “They are not of the world as Christ was not of the world.” “The world hates them, because it hates Christ; that is, the virtue and the truth of God.” “Christians ought not to believe in the church.” “All human traditions savor of folly.” “A multitude of human doctrines and statutes is useless, and on many accounts pernicious.” “No other law beside the rule of scripture ought to be prescribed to good men.” “The devil was the author of multiplying traditions in the church.” “Deacons or elders by the instinct of God, by the gospel of Jesus Christ, without any license from a pope or a bishop, may preach and convert spiritual children.” We do not say these reformers followed their principles whither they led, but we do contend that some of their hearers reasoned consequentially from them, and so became Baptists.”

In the time of Ziska we are informed, that about Prague and in various parts of Bohemia and Moravia, heretics obtained a settlement. Some had long ago lived in remote parts of the kingdom about the forests and the mines. These were now multiplied by an accession of foreigners, and by converts of Huss and Jerome, who, reasoning on the principles laid down by their teachers, entertained the same ideas of religion as the old Vaudois did. They were all indiscriminately called Waldenses and Picards, 15 and they all rebaptized; but they were of very different sentiments, some held the divinity of Christ, others denied it, some believed more, others less, but all were obliged to act with caution, for though they were generally connived at, yet they were not allowed to hold their assemblies publicly by law.

The Baptists continued to increase so much that when the disciples of Luther, went into Bohemia and Moravia, they complained, that between Baptists and papists they were very much straitened, though they grew among them like lilies among thorns.

There are two events, which we must not pass over, because they east light on two articles of some consequence. The first is, that a deputation from the Baptist churches in Poland was sent to those in Moravia.

Philipowski, collector of the taxes in Poland, Simon Rouemberg, the druggist, George Schoman, the minister, and several others, who will be mentioned more at large in Poland, came to hold a conference with the brethren in Moravia, concerning both doctrine and discipline, and honored them for their piety and good morals; but they did not approve of their doctrine, for they contended warmly for the trinity, which the Poles did not believe, however they departed in peace. This may serve to show how inconclusively they reason, who infer from the doctrine of Lewis Hetzer, that all the Moravian Baptists were Anti-trinitarians. The second event is, that some Jesuits, having got into the councils of the too easy emperor, procured an edict to enforce that which was made in the reign of Uladislaus against the Picards an hundred years before. This had no effect, for the emperor signed it with great reluctance; and as he had a little turn towards superstition, when the news was brought him immediately after he had signed the edict, that the Turks had taken Stuhl Weissenberg, one of his towns in Hungary, he exclaimed, “I expected some such blow from the moment I began to usurp dominion over the consciences of men, for they belong to God alone.”

I have not been able to learn any thing respecting the number of Baptist churches in Bohemia and Moravia; nor indeed can I gain much information respecting their history. Most of what has been said and what will follow, is taken from Robinson’s Ecclesiastical Researches, and the article relating to Bohemia and Moravia, was left in an unfinished state at his death. From what few sketches we can collect, it is evident there were many among the evangelical dissenters in these countries, who held to the leading sentiments of the Baptists. They differed among themselves on doctrinal points. In some of their maxims and modes of life, they differed somewhat from the Baptists in other countries, and large companies of them seem to have been, in their civil economy, similar to the present Moravians. They were scattered in different parts of the kingdom, and Mr. Robinson is of opinion, that multitudes lived around and within the vast herycenian forest, of whom neither friends nor enemies have obtained much information.

But Bohemia, after long and violent struggles for liberty, at length fell under the despotic and uncontrolled reign of the emissaries of Rome, and heresy, in all its shapes, was banished from the kingdom.

The pope and the court of Spain embarked in the muse, and assisted Ferdinand the emperor of Germany, to extirpate heresy and civil liberty under the opprobrious character of sedition. Having prepared matters, by reinstating the Jesuits, it was thought proper to begin with that part of the Baptists whose principles would not allow them to make any resistance, and who would remove at a word, without giving his majesty the trouble of putting them to death.

The Bohemian and Moravian Baptists were then divided into two classes, the one consisted of Cavinist Picards, and resided at different places all over the kingdom. Some of their ministers kept school; others practiced physic. The other class lived all together in Moravia, and are called in the edict by the new German name, Anabaptists. These people lived in fortyfive divisions, called colleges or fraternities, exactly as their ancestors had done before their banishment from France, about four hundred and fifty years before this period. Each of these little corporations consisted of many families, who held all things common. It is extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to determine the number of the inhabitants. Carafa, the Jesuit, who was the immediate cause of their banishment, mentions the least number, and he says they consisted of more than twenty thousand.

Others say, that each fraternity contained between some hundreds and a thousand, and thence it is inferred that they were about forty thousand.

Some of these houses carried on manufactories, others were factors and merchants, and others were employed in agriculture, and a wine trade. All were busy, peaceable, and happy, under regulations of their own making, having none of that class of mankind among them, who live on the vices and follies of their fellow-creatures. They were no burden to anybody; on the contrary, they served and enriched the community. They had founded liberty on independence, and independence on industry.

It was not an easy matter to get rid of these Baptists. The emperor’s chaplains, who were privy counselors, talked of heresy; but it was difficult to bring a direct charge against a people, who had no public faith, and who never attacked any religion by publishing creeds. They could not be charged with perjury, for they had never taken any oaths, and one of their maxims was, “swear not at all.” Sedition could not be pretended, for they never bore arms. They could not be awed by one another, for they had no masters. They could not be bribed, for they had no necessitous gentry. Filled with that unsuspicious freedom, which innocence inspires, they had not one patron at the imperial court, and their whole expectation was placed on the superintending providence of God. Prince Lichtenstein, on whose domain they lived, and to whom they paid rent, and many other noblemen, endeavored to save these people, on account of the benefits which they derived from them; so that the Jesuit, who effected their banishment, might well compliment himself for surmounting the seemingly insuperable difficulties. “When I thought,” says he, “of proscribing the Anabaptists of Moravia, I well knew that it was an arduous undertaking; however, by the help of God, I surmounted many obstacles, and obtained an edict for their banishment, though it was against the consent of some princes and governors, who had a worldly interest in supporting these profitable rascals.”

Comenius says this cruel act was colored with a pretence that king Frederick, when he passed through Moravia, visited these people, and was hospitably entertained by them. It might be reported so at the time, but this is not mentioned in the edict. The truth is, government stood in no fear of these people, and they were banished first only by the way of trial.

It was intended to rid all the emperor’s dominions of all denominations except Catholics, who, as they are nursed in ignorance, and habituated to an implicit confidence in their priests, are the only subjects fit for despotical governments; but Lutherans and Calvinists were very numerous, and powerfully supported by protestant princes in the empire, and it was not time to provoke them; but the expulsion of the Anabaptists would offend no body, for all protestant princes had been taught by their priests to do them the same honor.

Ferdinand wrote first to prince Lichtenstein and cardinal Dietrichstein, the first general of the army in Moravia, and the last governor of the province, to inform them of his design, and to require their concurrence on pain of his displeasure. Then followed the edict, in which his majesty expresses his astonishment at the number of the Anabaptists, and his horror at the principal error, which they era. braced; which was, that according to the express declarations of holy scripture, they were to submit to no human authority. He adds, that his conscience compelled him to proscribe them, and accordingly he did banish them, both natives and foreigners from all his hereditary and imperial dominions on pain of death. The jesuits contrived to publish this edict just before harvest and vintage came on for two reasons, first, that the neighboring gentry would be absent, and next, that the people might not carry away the produce of the present year.

They allowed them only three weeks and three days for their departure; it was death to be found even on the borders of the country beyond the expiration of the hour.

It was autumn, the prospect and the pride of husbandmen. Heaven had smiled on their honest labors, their fields stood thick with corn, and the sun and the dew were improving every movement to give them their last polish. The yellow ears waved an homage to their owners, and the wind, whistling through the stems and the russet herbage, softly said, put in the sickle, the harvest is come. Their luxuriant vine-leaves too hung aloft by the tendrils mantling over the clustering grapes, like watchful parents ever their tender offspring; but all were fenced by an imperial edict, and it was instant death to approach. Without leaving one murmur upon record, in solemn, silent submission to the power that governs the universe and causes all things to work together for good to his creatures, they plucked up and departed. In several hundred carriages they conveyed their sick, their innocent infants sucking at the breasts of their mothers, who had newly lain in, and their decrepit parents whose work was done, and whose silvery locks told every beholder that they wanted only the favor of a grave. At the borders they filed off, some to Hungary, others to Transylvania, some to Wallachia, others to Poland and Saek-hel; greater, far greater for their virtue, than Ferdinand for all his titles and for all his glory.

The Jesuit, who executed this business, says, ten thousand staid in Moravia, and became Catholics. That numbers eluded the search of their persecutors, and remained in the country is evident; but it is not so clear that any conformed. The persecution was carried on for seven successive years; and as persecution drives people of different sentiments together, probably they mixed with the Calvinist Baptists, and were confounded all together in subsequent edicts, in which heretics of all descriptions, Lutherans, Calvinists, Picards, and all other dissenters were confounded together, and punished with unremitted fury. All the following edicts are full of complaints that heretics met for divine worship in woods, mills, lone houses and castles, and as they could be caught, were tried for both rebellion and heresy. Many suffered and probably some remained, for in time the Austrian family found that persecution would absolutely depopulate and destroy the country; and when their power was well established, and there were no competitors, they found it politic to lighten the people’s burdens; but as liberty by connivance is only eligible when no better can be had, the Baptists seem to have quitted Bohemia and Moravia, or to remain only in some feeble scattered companies.

To recapitulate the histories of these Baptists — Authentic records in France assure us, that a people of a certain description were driven from thence in the twelfth century. Bohemian records of equal authenticity inform us, that some of the same description arrived in Bohemia at the same time, and settled near a hundred miles from Prague, at Satz and Laun, on the river Eger, just on the borders of the kingdom. Almost two hundred years after, another undoubted record of the same country, mentions a people of the same description, some as burnt at Prague, and others as inhabiting the borders of the kingdom, and a hundred and fifty years after that we find a people of the same description, settled by connivance in the metropolis, and in several other parts of the kingdom. About one hundred and twenty years lower, we find a people in the same country., living under the protection of law, on the estate of prince Lichtenstein exactly like all the former, and about thirty or forty thousand in number. The religious character of this people is so very different from that of all others, that the likeness is not easily mistaken. They had no priests, but taught one another. They had no private property, for they held all things jointly. They executed no offices, and neither exacted nor took oaths.

They bore no arms, and rather chose to suffer than resist wrong. They held everything called religion in the church of Rome in abhorrence, and worshipped God only by adoring his perfections, and endeavoring to imitate his goodness. They thought that christianity wanted no comment, and they professed the belief of that by being baptized, and their love to Christ and one another by receiving the Lord’s supper. They aspired at neither wealth nor power, and their plan was industry. We have shown how highly probable it is that Bohemia afforded them work, wages, and a secure asylum, which were all they wanted. If these be facts, they are facts that do honor to human <