WE have now arrived to a country, where we shall not be obliged to rely altogether on the accusations of enemies, and the records of courts of inquisition for information respecting our brethren. The English Baptists have paid considerable attention to their own history, and have furnished materials from which we can gain clear and explicit accounts of their character, progress, sufferings, and circumstances, for between two and three hundred years; they have also collected from the writings of their adversaries many valuable hints respecting their brethren at a much earlier period.

About seventy years ago, Mr. Thomas Crosby, a deacon of the old church in London, formerly under the care of Dr. Gill, but now of Dr. Rippon, published, in four volumes, A History of the English Baptists. This history is something like that of our late venerable Backus; it contains a vast fund of valuable information, but is deficient in style and arrangement. About the beginning of the present century a periodical work was commenced by Dr. Rippon of London, entitled The Baptist Annual Register. This work was continued to forty one numbers, and contains many interesting accounts of the Baptists both in England and elsewhere. A History of the English Baptists has been lately undertaken by Mr.

Ivimey, a Baptist minister in London. This history, I conclude, is intended to be both an abridgment and continuation of Crosby. The first volume which closes with the seventeenth century, I have obtained of Dr. Baldwin of Boston; it is the only copy I have heard of in this country.

In the English Baptist Magazine, a few scattering numbers of which have been loaned me by my friend Dr. Baldwin, I find a few detached portions of what are entitled Memoirs of the English Baptists, written by the late Josiah Taylor of Cable, Wiltshire, England. I very much regret that I cannot get the whole of these ingenious and somewhat singular Memoirs, as they would, I have reason to believe, furnish to my hands the substance of the sketch which I am preparing to give. But they are not probably to be obtained this side the Atlantic, and it is now too late to seek them from the other.

The affairs of our English brethren furnish materials for a lengthy article, but it belongs to them to write their own history. It is now taken in hand, and perhaps finished by a gentleman, who appears well qualified for the undertaking. How large the work will be I am not informed, but I hope and am inclined to believe, it will soon be reprinted in this country.

The plan of this work admits only of summary statements and abridged accounts, and but very brief sketches can be given of the Baptists in England. I should have endeavored to reserve a larger place for them, were it not that those, who may wish to peruse their history at large, will probably soon have the opportunity of doing it, either by the importation or republication of Ivimey’s work.

The Baptists in England are divided into General and Particular, and have been since soon after the reformation. Their principal difference is in points of doctrine. It will be difficult, and indeed unnecessary, to pay a strict regard to these distinctions throughout the following sketch. Both parties have had their share of sufferings, and among them both we find a number of very worthy and distinguished characters.

About sixty years after the ascension of our Lord, christianity was planted in Britain, and a number of royal blood, and many of inferior birth, were called to be saints. Here the gospel flourished much in early times, and here also its followers endured many afflictions and calamities from pagan persecutors. The British christians experienced various changes of prosperity and adversity until about the year 600. A little previous to this period, Austin the monk, that famous Pedo-baptist and persecutor, with about forty others, were sent here by pope Gregory the great, to convert the pagans to popery, and to subject all the British christians to the dominion of Rome. The enterprise succeeded, and conversion (or rather perversion) work was performed on a large scale. King Ethelbert and his court, and a considerable part of his kingdom, were won over by the successful monk, who consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he caused to be baptized ten thousand of his converts in a day.

Having met with so much success in England, he resolved to try what he could do in Wales. There were many British christians who had fled hither in former times to avoid the brutal ravages of the outrageous Saxons. The monk held a synod in their neighborhood, and sent to their pastors to request them to receive the pope’s commandment; but they utterly refused to listen to either the monk or pope, or to adopt any of their maxims. Austin, meeting with this prompt refusal, endeavored to compromise matters with these strenuous Welshmen, and requested that they would consent to him in three things, one of which was that they should give christendom, that is, baptism to their children; but with none of his propositions would they comply. “Sins therefore,” said this zealous apostle of popery and pedobaptism, “ye wol not receive peace of your brethren, ye of other shall have warre and wretche,” and accordingly he brought the Saxons upon them to shed their innocent blood, and many of them lost their lives for the name of Jesus.

The Baptist historians in England contend that the first British christians were Baptists, and that they maintained Baptist principles until the coming of Austin. “We have no mention,” says the author of the Memoirs, “of the christening or baptizing children in. England, before the coming of Austin in 597; and to us it is evident he brought it not from heaven but from Rome. But though the subject of baptism began now to be altered, the mode of it continued in the national church a thousand years longer, and baptism was administered by dipping, etc.” From the coming of Austin the church in this island was divided into two parts, the old and the new. The old or Baptist church maintained their original principles. But the new church adopted infant baptism, and the rest of the multiplying superstitions of Rome.

Austin’s requesting the British christians, who opposed his popish mission, to baptize their children, is a circumstance which the English and Welsh Baptists consider of much importance. They infer from it, that before Austin’s time, infant baptism was not practiced in England, and that though he converted multitudes to his pedobaptist plan, yet many, especially in Wales and Cornwall, opposed it; and the Welsh Baptists contend that Baptist principles were maintained in the recesses of their mountainous Principality all along through the dark reign of popery.

Popery was the established religion of England almost a thousand years; and although the people paid Peter’s pence, and were involved in darkness, ignorance, and the shadow of death, yet some of these islanders were refractory subjects of the papal see, and some of the kings occasioned much trouble to his holiness. They had much rather be pope themselves, than submit to a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

William the Conqueror ascended the British throne in 1066. During his reign, the Waldenses and their disciples from France, Germany, and Holland, began to emigrate to and abound in England. About the year 1080, they are said to have propagated their sentiments throughout England; so that not only the meaner sort in country villages, but the nobility and gentry in the chiefest towns and cities, embraced their doctrines and of course adopted the opinions of the Baptists, for we have no information that any of the Waldenses at this period, had fallen off to infant baptism. For more than a hundred years, that is, from 1100 to 1216, during the successive reigns of Henry I Stephen, Henry II Richard I and John, the Waldenses increased and were unmolested. The two last of these kings were much engaged in foreign affairs. Richard was long absent in the holy war, and John had great contests with the pope, who laid his kingdom under an interdict, and forbid all public worship for the space of six years, only admitting of private baptism to infants.

In the reign of Henry III about 1218, the order of the friar Mennonites were sent over from the continent to suppress the Waldensian heresy, and many, doubtless, suffered by their means.

We must now pass on to the reign of Edward II in 1315, when Walter Lollard, a German preacher of great renown among the Waldenses, and a friend to believer’s baptism, came into England and preached with great effect. His followers and the Waldenses generally in England for many generations after him were called Lollards, 1 and Crosby has quoted authorities to show that they rejected infant baptism as a needless ceremony. In the reign of Edward III about the year 1311, John Wickliff began to be famous in England, and multitudes embraced his doctrine, and entered heartily into his views of reformation. Wickliff was famous both for writing and preaching. His writings were carried into Bohemia, and his sentiments were there propagated extensively by Huss, Jerome, and others, and among the followers of this great man in Bohemia and England we find many Baptists. There can be no dispute that Wicklift taught Anabaptistical errors, that many who built in his principles rejected infant baptism; and indeed the evidence is very strong that he himself became a Baptist. Dr. Hurd in his History of all Religions says, “It is pretty clear from the writings of many learned men, that Dr. John Wickliff, the first English reformer, either considered infant baptism unlawful or at best unnecessary.” The author of a History of Religion, published in London in 1764, in four volumes octavo, says, “it is clear from many authors that Wickliff rejected infant baptism, and that on this doctrine his followers agreed with the modern Baptists.” Thomas Walden and Joseph Vicecomes, who had access to his writings, have charged, him with denying pedobaptism, and they brought their charge at a time when it might have been easily contradicted, if it had not been true. “Walden before mentioned calls Wickliff one of the seven heads that came out of the bottomless pit, for denying infant baptism, that heresy of the Lollards, of whom he was a great ring-leader. There were now in England Lollards and Wickliffites, and a number of testimonies go to prove they rejected infant baptism. They were numerous throughout the kingdom, and for some time continued in the established church. But Rapin says that in 1389, the Lollards and Wickliffites began to separate from the church of Rome, and to appoint priests from among themselves, to perform divine service after their way.

In the year 1400, Henry IV enacted the cruel statute for the burning of heretics. And the first that suffered by this infernal law was William Sawtre, a Lollard, and supposed to be a Baptist. The signal was now given for bloody men to execute their cruel purposes in a legal way. The sufferings of the Baptists and all evangelical dissenters, from this period till the reformation, were very great. “The Lollards’ tower,” says Ivimey, “still stands a monument of their miseries, and of the cruelty of their implacable enemies. This tower is at Lambeth palace, and was fitted up for this purpose by Chicheley, Archbishop of Canterbury, who came to his see in 1414. It is said that he expended two hundred and eighty pounds to make this prison for the Lollards. The vast staples and rings to which they were fastened, before they were brought out to the stake, are still to be seen in a large lumber-room at the top of the palace, and ought to make protestants look back with gratitude upon the hour which terminated so bloody a period.” From the death of William Sawtre to the time when Henry VIII. renounced the dominion of the pope, and became head of the English church, was upwards of a hundred and thirty years. During this period many Baptists were found in this kingdom, many were obliged to flee from it, and many more were martyred in it. In about three years from 1428 to 1431, one hundred and twenty persons were committed to prison for Lollardy; some of them recanted, others did penance, and several of them were burnt alive.

In 1535, twenty-two Baptists were apprehended and put to death, and in 1539, thirty-one more of the same people, sixteen men and fifteen women, were banished the country, who, going to Delf in Holland, were there put to death, the men beheaded and the women drowned. In the same year two others of their brethren were burned beyond Southwark, in the way to Newington; and a little before five Dutch Anabaptists were burned at Smithfield. By a speech which Henry VIII delivered to his parliament in 1545, it appears that many of his subjects went under the name of Anabaptists. And Bishop Latimer, in a sermon preached before the young and amiable Edward VI, son and successor of the popish protestant Henry, mentions that he had lately been informed by a credible person, that there was at that time, one town in England, which contained more than five hundred heretics, who held the erroneous opinions of the Anabaptists.

The change, which took place under Henry VIII was in the end favorable to the cause of religion in England; the fetters of popery were broken; the scriptures in the English language were sanctioned by parliament, and by their means evangelical principles were diffused throughout the land. In a short time the Puritans arose, and pushed on the reformation beyond the bounds which the courtly reformers had set. They professed to take the Bible for their only rule, and many building on their principles, rejected the remains of popish rubbish, and embraced the principles of the Baptists.

But persecuting laws were still in force, and the ruling party both in church and state had a disposition to put them in execution. Popery was indeed abolished and protestantism established, but the Baptists soon found that the protestant power was as much determined on their ruin as the popish had ever been. In 1549, a kind of Protestant inquisition was established which consisted of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a number of bishops, noblemen, and others, any three of whom being a quorum, were instructed to examine and search after all Archbaptists, heretics, etc. Many Baptists were apprehended, how many were executed we are not informed; but we are sure that two of considerable eminence, viz. Joan Boucher, commonly called Joan of Kent, and George Van Pare, a Dutchman, were committed to the flames. Great exertions were made to save from the stake the unfortunate Joan, who appears to have been a woman of distinction, but who had been compelled by her Bible and conscience to become a Baptist. A person, supposed to be Fox, the author of the Book of Martyrs, earnestly entreated the famous John Rogers, who was afterwards burnt at Smithfield, to use his interest with the Archbishop to save the poor woman from the cruel death to which she had been doomed. But Rogers answered, that burning alive was no cruel death, but easy enough. Fox, astonished at such an answer, replied, “Well perhaps it may so happen that you yourselves shall have your hands full of this mild burning.” And so it came to pass, for Rogers was the first man who was burned in queen Mary’s reign.

Not long after this, we are informed that “the Aria. baptists began wonderfully to increase in the land; “ whether they founded many churches we cannot learn; but if they did, such was the vigilance of their enemies, they were probably soon broken up. In former times it appears many Baptists had fled from the continent, and for a time found shelter in this kingdom; but now they were hunted out by watchful inquisitors, and either destroyed or driven from the realm. A congregation of Dutch Anabaptists was discovered on Easter-day, probably about 1570, without Aldgate in London, seven and twenty of whom were taken and imprisoned, four of them recanted, and the rest were probably either banished or destroyed. One month after this, eleven other Baptists, one Dutchman, and ten women, were apprehended and condemned. One was persuaded to renounce his error, eight were banished the land, and two of the company, John Wielmaker and Henry Tot Woort were burnt at Smithfield.

Very scanty accounts have been obtained of the Baptists in England in the times of which we are speaking, and but a few of the sketches which our English brethren have preserved can be inserted here. But it is sufficient to observe that for almost a century after the church of England was established by law, our Baptist brethren throughout the kingdom, were everywhere persecuted and distressed, and many were exposed to tortures and death.

The last man who was put to death in England for religion was a Baptist.

His name was Edward Wightman, and is supposed to be the progenitor of a large family of that name in America, many of whom have been members of different Baptist churches in Rhode Island, and the neighboring States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and not a few of them worthy ministers in our churches. Mr. Wightman was of the town of Burton upon Trent, he was convicted of divers heresies before the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, and being delivered over to the secular power, was burnt at Litchfield, April 11th, 1612. This poor man was accused by his persecutors with Arianism, Anabaptism, and almost every other heretical ism, that ever infected the christian world. He was condemned for holding the wicked heresies of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Valentinians, Arians, Macedonians, of Simon Magus, Manes, Manicheus, Photinus, and of the Anabaptists, and of other heretical, execrable, and unheard of opinions. “If,” says Crosby, “Wightman really held all the opinions laid to his charge, he must have been either an idiot or a madman, and ought to have had the prayers of his persecutors rather than been put to a cruel death.”

From the death of William Sawtre, who was burnt in London, to the time that Edward Wightman perished in the flames at Litchfield, was a period of two hundred and twelve years. We have very good grounds for believing, that Sawtre was a Baptist, we are sure that Wightman was, and thus it appears that the Baptists have had the honor of leading the van, and bringing up the rear, of that part of the noble army of English martyrs, who have laid down their lives at the stake.

It is now about two hundred years since Wightman, with his enormous load of heresies, was committed to the purifying flames. Almost half of this time, the Baptists in England were, for the most part, in an uncertain state; what earthly enjoyments they possessed were held by a precarious tenure, and persecution and distress were their common lot. They had indeed some short intervals of repose, but these were succeeded by tempestuous seasons, and the cup of affliction was dealt out to them by their enemies in plenteous measure.

We have observed that Edward Wightman was the last man who suffered death for religion in England. Bat this statement needs some qualification.

He was indeed the last who suffered death for conscience’ sake by a direct course of law; but multitudes since him, both Baptists and others, have died in prisons, and came by their ends by the various methods of legal persecutions, and lawless outrage, with which implacable adversaries pursued them. Thousands have suffered by fines, scourging, and imprisonment, been driven to exile, starvation, and wretchedness, by a protestant power, which professed to have separated from the mother of harlots, and to have renounced the works of darkness. Of many of these sufferers we have obtained some information, but the history of many others must remain unknown, until that tremendous day, when the righteous Judge of the universe shall makeINQUISITION FOR BLOOD.

We shall now pass on to the founding of Baptist churches in this kingdom, and then take notice of their increase from time to time. I find that Crosby and Ivimey are not entirely agreed respecting the time when the first Baptist churches were founded in England. Crosby’s account is as follows: “In the year 1633, the Baptists, who had hitherto been intermixed with other protestant dissenters, without distinction, and who consequently shared with the Puritans in the persecutions of those times, began to separate themselves, and form distinct societies of their own. Concerning the first of these, I find the following account collected from a manuscript of Mr. William Kiffin. “There was a congregation of protestant dissenters of the Independent persuasion in London, gathered in the year 1616, of which Mr. Henry Jacob was the first pastor, and after him succeeded Mr. John Lathtop, who was their minister in 1633. In this society several persons, finding that the congregation kept not to its first principles of separation, and being also convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but to suet, as professed faith in Christ, desired that they might be dismissed from the communion, and allowed to form a distinct congregation in such order as was most agreeable to their own sentiments. “The church, considering that they were now grown very numerous, and so more than could in those times of persecution conveniently meet together, and believing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience, and not from obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that they should be constituted a distinct church, which was performed, Sept. 12, 1633. And as they believed that baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism they had received at that age as invalid, whereupon most or all of them received a new baptism. Their minister was a Mr. John Spilsbury.

What number they were is uncertain, because in the mentioning of about twenty men and women, it is added, with divers others. “In the year 1638, Mr. William Kiffin, Mr. Thomas Wilson, and others, being of the same judgment, were upon their request dismissed to the said Mr. Spilsbury’s congregation. In the year 1639, another congregation of Baptists was formed, whose place of meeting was in Crutchedfriars, the chief promoters of which were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobson, and Captain Spencer.”

There can be no dispute but that these churches were founded at the time, and in the manner above related. But Mr. Ivimey contends that they were not the first which were established in England. He has produced a passage from the writings of Dr. Some, which states that as early as 1589, “there were several Anabaptist conventicles in London and other places.” “Some persons,” adds the doctor, “of these sentiments have been bred at our universities.”

It is highly probable that the churches or conventicles mentioned by Dr.

Some, were General Baptists, as they doubtless founded many churches in England before the Particular Baptists had any. But the reader must keep in mind, that the following statements respect the Particular Baptists only.

The General Baptists will be taken notice of under a separate head.

As our brethren in this insulated kingdom were constantly loaded by their enemies with opprobrious epithets, both from the pulpit and the press, and were accused of holding many dangerous opinions, they at length put forth a confession of their faith for the purpose of clearing themselves from such unjust aspersions. An instrument of this kind was published by the Particular Baptists about tell years after their first churches were founded. 5 It was signed in the name of seven congregations, or churches of Christ in London; as also by a French congregation of the same judgment.

The ministers’ names are Thomas Gunne, John Mabbitt, Benjamin Cockes, Thomas Kilicop, John Spilsbury, Samuel Richardson, Thomas Munden, George Tipping, Paul Hobson, Thomas Goare, William Kiffin, Thomas Patient, Hansard Knollys, Thomas Holmes, Christopher Duret, Denis LeBarbier. Several editions of this confession were published in 1643, 1644, and 1646. It was put into the hands of many of the members of parliament, and produced such an effect, that some of their greatest adversaries, (and even the bitter and inveterate doctor Featly) were obliged to acknowledge, that excepting the articles against infant baptism, it was an orthodox confession.

Although but seven churches put forth this confession, yet it appears that there were many more then in being, and before the year 1646, they had increased to forty-six, which Ivimey supposes were situated in and about London. The Anabaptists, said Robert Baille, in 1646, in a work entitled, Anabaptism the true fountain of error, have lifted up their heads and increased their number above all the sects in the land.

I do not find any particular account of the number of churches from this period until 1689. About this time, William, Prince of Orange, ascended the throne of England. One of the first measures of government was, to pass the Act of Toleration the Magna Charta of the protestant dissenters; and but a few months after the coronation of that illustrious prince, we find the delegates from upwards of a hundred churches in England and Wales, met in London for the purpose of inquiring into the state of their churches, and adopting measures for their future prosperity. This was in 1689, and by this assembly was published the confession of faith, which has often been distinguished by the name of the Century Confession. This great Association of churches continued its annual sessions for a few years, when finding it inconvenient for delegates to travel so far, it was divided, and associations appear to have been kept up by the English Baptists from then to the present time. “It must not be supposed, says Ivimey, that this general assembly, consisting of a hundred and seven churches, contained all the Baptist churches in England. There were, at the same time, a great number of General Baptists, who had no concern with this assembly. There were also a number of churches of the Particular Baptists, or who, at least, held to their doctrinal sentiments, who, for particular reasons, did not unite in this great association. Some of them held to open communion, and among these were a number in Bedfordshire, which had been founded by the famous John Bunyan, who was a great advocate for that practice. Others probably had some scruples respecting the propriety and utility of Associations.

Among the manuscript writings of Morgan Edwards, I find a list of the Baptist churches in England, which appears to have been made out about the year 1768. At that time the number of Particular Baptist churches was two hundred and seventeen. Dr. Rippon in his Annual Register published a list for 1790, by which it appears that their number had increased to three hundred and twelve. Eight years after, we learn from the same Register that their number amounted to three hundred and sixty-one.

We shall now collect from the wide range of materials before us, brief accounts of the principal scenes of sufferings, which our brethren passed through from the time their first churches were founded, up to the close of their persecutions for conscience’ sake. We shall also, as we go along, take notice of some of those distinguished events which transpired in the land during the times of their afflictions, by which their reputation and tranquillity were affected, or in which they were implicated or concerned.

While the bigoted and cruel Archbishop Laud had the government of the church of England, dissenters of every class, and particularly the Baptists, experienced a continual scene of vexation and trouble. About the year 1638, many ministers were apprehended and shut up in prison. And among them was a Mr. Brewer, a Baptist minister, who lay in prison fourteen years.

In these times, the High Commission Court and the Star Chamber were two of the chief engines of wrong both in church and state; but they were terminated by an act of parliament in 1641. But other means of oppression and cruelty remained, and the Baptists were made continually to feel their force. Baptist meetings were frequently disturbed and broken up, and many eminent ministers were punished with fines and imprisonment.

Some slanderous pieces were published against them, and among the rest was one by the famous Richard Baxter. This eminent man, whose name on many accounts ought always to be mentioned with respect, and who was himself afterwards persecuted with much severity, vented the most virulent invectives against the watery Anabaptists. In a piece entitled Plain Scripture Proof, etc. we find the following astonishing accusations against the dangerous and indecorous dippers. “My sixth argument,” said he, “shall be against the usual manner of their baptizing, as it is by dipping over head in a river, or other cold water. That which is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is no ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin. But the ordinary practice of baptizing over head, and in cold water, as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth commandment, therefore it is no ordinance of God, but a heinous sin. And as Mr. Cradock shows in his book of gospel liberty, the magistrate ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his subjects — That this is flat murder, and no better, being ordinarily and generally used, is undeniable to any understanding man — And I know not what trick a covetous landlord can find out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new fines and heriots, likelier than to encourage such preachers, that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists. I wish that this device be not it which countenanceth these men; and covetous physicians, methinks, should not be much against them. Catarrhs and obstructions, which are the two great fountains of most mortal diseases in man’s body, could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, or to increase them where they are. Apoplexies, lethargies, palsies, and all other comatous diseases would be promoted by it. So would cephalalgies, hemicranies, phthises, debility of the stomach, crudities, and almost all fevers, dysenteries, diarrhaeas, cholics, iliac passions, convulsions, spasms, tremors, and so on. All hepatic, splenetic, and pulmonic persons, and hypochondriacs would soon have enough of it. In a word, it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, that are burdensome, and to ranken church yards — I conclude, if murder be a sin, then dipping ordinarily over head in England is a sin; and if those who would make it men’s religion to murder themselves, and urge it upon their consciences as their duty, are not to be suffered in a commonwealth, and more than highway murderers; then judge how these Anabaptists, that teach the necessity of such dipping, are to be suffered. My seventh argument is also against another wickedness in their manner of baptizing, which is, their dipping persons naked, which is very usual with many of them, or next to naked, as is usual with the modestest that I have heard of. If the minister must go into the water with the party, it will certainly tend to his death, though they may scape that go in but once. Would not vain young men come to a baptizing to see the nakedness of maids, and make a mere jest and sport of it?” “Poor man!” says Mr. Booth, “he seems to be afflicted with a violent hydrophobia! For he cannot think of any person being immersed in cold water, but he starts, he is convulsed, he is ready to die with fear. Immersion, you must know, is like Pandora’s box, and pregnant with a great part of those diseases, which Milton’s angel presented to the view of our first father. A compassionate regard therefore to the lives of his fellow creatures compels Mr.

Baxter to solicit the aid of magistrates against this destructive plunging, and to cry out in the spirit of an exclamation once heard in the Jewish temple, Ye men of Israel, help! or Baptist ministers will depopulate your country! Know you not that these plunging teachers are shrewdly suspected of being pensioned by avaricious landlords to destroy the lives of your liege subjects? Exert your power! Apprehend the delinquents! Appoint an Auto da Fe! Let the venal dippers be baptized in blood, and thus put a salutary stop to this pestiferous practice! — What a pity it is that the celebrated History of Cold Bathing, by Sir John Floyer, was not published half a century sooner! It might, perhaps, have preserved this good man from a multitude of painful paroxysms occasioned by the thought of immersion in cold water. Were I seriously (adds Mr. Booth) to put a query to these assertions of Mr. Baxter, it should be with a little variation in the words of David, “What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou FALSE pen? Were the temper, which dictated the preceding caricature to receive a just reproof, it might be in the language of Michael, The Lord rebuke thee!” When a circumstance is related, which took place in the year 1646, it will not be thought that Mr. Booth has treated the misrepresentations of Mr.

Baxter with too great severity. In this year Samuel Oates, a very popular preacher among the Baptists, by whom many hundreds were baptized, was indicted for the murder of Anne Martin, who died a few weeks after she was baptized by him. He was tried at Chelmsford, and great endeavors were used to bring him in guilty. But many credible witnesses were produced, and among others the mother of the young woman, who all testified, that the said Anne Martin was in much better health for several days after her baptism, than she had been for several years before. And in the end the jury pronounced not guilty. But so great was the enmity against Mr. Oates, that he was, not long after, dragged out of a house where he was visiting, and thrown into a river, his persecutors boasting that they had thoroughly dipped him.

During the reign of Cromwell, the Baptists experienced a respite from their troubles, many of them found favor with the Protector, were elevated to posts of honor and profit, and their number greatly increased throughout the land.

Charles II was restored to the throne of his ancestors, May 29, 1660. In his Majesty’s declaration from Breda, before his return, it was said, “We do also declare a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion, which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom.” How far his conduct accorded with these professions, the events of his reign will abundantly show.

The first who suffered for religion in the reign of this profligate prince, was the famous John Bunyan, author of the Pilgrim’s Progress and many other excellent works. He had been a preacher of the gospel about five years, and was exceedingly popular, though he still followed his business as a travelling tinker. While preaching at a village in Bedfordshire in 1660, he was apprehended and committed to Bedford jail, where he remained twelve years. Seven years of the time he was kept so close, that he could not look out of the door of his prison.

The year 1661, says Rapin, was ushered in by an extraordinary event which gave the court a pretence for breaking through the declaration of indulgence, which had been published. The event here alluded to was, in short, as follows: About fifty of those who were called fifth monarchy men, under the conduct of one Thomas Venner, assembled in the evening in St. Paul’s church yard, and killed a man, who, upon demand, had answered for God and the King. This gave at; alarm, the company was pursued by military force to some distance from the city, where some were taken prisoners. They afterwards returned and fought furiously in several positions until they were all either killed or taken prisoners. The prisoners were shortly after condemned and executed. This was an unfortunate event for dissenters, for the crime of a few furious fanatics was laid to the charge of all. The king took occasion from this insurrection to publish a proclamation forbidding all meetings and conventicles under pretense of religion, and commanding the oath of allegiance and supremacy to be tendered to all persons disaffected to the government; and in case of refusal, they were to be prosecuted. The consequence was, that numbers of Baptists and other dissenters were imprisoned, and their meetings every where disturbed.

This insurrection, like the Munster tragedy, was improved against the turbulent dippers. But “Mr. Jessey preaching soon after, declared to his congregation that Venner should say, he believed there was not one Baptist among them; and that if they succeeded, the Baptists should know that infant baptism was an ordinance of Jesus Christ. Mr. Gravener was present at Venner’s meeting house in Coleman street, and heard him say this; from whose mouth (says the writer) I had this account.”

Troubles now gathered thick upon our English bretheren. In 1662, the Act of Uniformity was passed, in consequence of which, upwards of two thousand eminently godly, learned, and useful ministers were obliged to leave their livings, and were exposed to many hardships and difficulties.

Amongst these were a number of the Baptist denomination, but how many cannot be determined with certainty. We are sure, however, that among the Baptist ministers were Henry Jessey, A.M. William Dell, M. A. Francis Bampfield, M. A. Thomas Gennings, Paul Frewen, Joshua Head, John Tombes, B. D. Daniel Dyke, A.M. Richard Adams, Jeremiah Marsden, Thomas Hardcastle, Robert Browne, Gabriel Camelford, John Skinner, ___________ Baker, John Gosnold, Thomas Quarrel, Thomas Ewins, Lawrence Wise, John Donne, Paul Hobson, John Gibbs, John Smith, Thomas Ellis, Thomas Paxford, Ichabod Chauncey, M.D.

Crosby has mentioned the names of a number of these ejected ministers, of whom it was doubtful whether they were Baptists, and Ivimey has omitted the names of some of whom it has been determined that they had become Baptists before this event. And among them was John Miles, who founded the Baptist church at Swansy in Massachusetts. “It is rather wonderful,” says Ivimey, “that any Baptists were found in the churches at this time, when it is considered that the first act, which was passed, after the restoration of the king, contained an exception of all, who had declared against infant baptism from being restored to their livings. It is probable also that amongst those, who had been expelled to make room for the old incumbents, some were of this denomination. The Act of Uniformity completed the business, and after this we do not find that any person who rejected the baptism of infants continued in the establishment.”

Some may be surprised that so many Baptist ministers should accept of livings in the parish churches. But it appears to have been a very common custom before these times. It is not unfrequent in this country for Baptist ministers to preach to, and receive salaries from Pedo-baptist congregations; they do not administer ordinances amongst them, unless that now and then they find some disposed to go into the water, and they commonly preach more or less to Baptist churches at the same time. And in much the same way these ministers conducted of whom we have been speaking. Whatever fault a Baptist may be disposed to find with such a procedure, it is sure that the Pedobaptists have generally the most reason to complain in the end.

The reign of Charles II exhibited a series of profligacy, cruelty, and oppression. But as the divine judgments do not always slumber, the nation was visited with very sore calamities. In 1665, a plague broke out, which was then the most dreadful within the memory of man. The number of those who died in London only, amounted to about one hundred thousand.

Eight or ten thousand died in the city and suburbs in a week. This calamity was preceded by an unusual drought, and it was succeeded in 1666, by a most destructive fire, which, in three or four days, consumed thirteen thousand and two hundred dwelling houses, eighty nine churches, and many other public buildings. Thus this guilty nation, which had committed to the flames so many of the saints of the Lord, which had starved and tormented so many others in various ways, was, in quick succession, visited with three of the terrible messengers of divine vengeance, famine, plague, and fire.

In 1673, among other vile attempts to render the Baptists odious and contemptible, a pamphlet was published entitled, Mr. Baxter baptized in blood. This scandalous piece professed to give an account of the murder of Mr. Josiah Baxter, at Boston in New England, by four Anabaptists, etc.

This Baxter was said to be a godly minister, whom the bloody Anabaptists had murdered, in the most barbarous and horrid manner, merely because he had worsted them in argument. The writer of this detestable libel took much pains to conceal his fraud, and to make the story credible among the enemies of the Baptists. But providence favored our brethren to defeat the design of this base fictitious performance. The lord mayor published an interdict to prevent the sale of the pamphlet; and many of the publishers were committed to prison. Through the influence of Mr. Kiffin, at court, the matter underwent a rigid examination at the council board, when upon finding it a falsehood, the following order was published in the gazette: “By order of council.” “Whereas there is a pamphlet lately published, entitled, Mr. Baxter baptized in blood, containing a horrible murder committed by four Anabaptists upon the person of Mr. Josiah Baxter, near Boston in New England: the whole matter having been inquired into, and examined at the council board, is found altogether false and fictitious. EDWARD WALKER.” That the reader may have a view of the circumstances in which the Baptists, in these times were placed, and how their enemies conducted towards them, I will transcribe the following summary statements from the Memoirs of the English Baptists.” “Lord’s day, May 29, 1670, a congregation of Baptists, to the amount of five hundred, met for divine worship near Lewes in Sussex. Two of their enemies observed them go to their meeting house, and informed against them, upon which Sir Thomas Nutt, a violent persecutor, and three other justices, convicted the minister and above forty of the hearers. The minister was fined 20 l . and his fine laid upon five of his hearers, and the rest of the company was fined five shillings each. Warrants were issued under the hands of the justices, for the recovery of the fines by distress and sale of goods, and directed to the constables of the hundred, and the church wardens and overseers of the parish. In the month of June the distresses were made. From Richard White, fined 3l . 15s. they took value 10l . 13s . From John Tabret, fined-2l . 14s . they took a cow. From Walter Brett, a grocer, fined 6l . 5s . they took two casks of sugar, which cost him 15l. From Thomas and Richard Barnard, fined 11l . 10s . they took six cows, upon which the dairy maid told them she believed they would have a store of syllabubs, having taken so much sugar from Mr. Brett! From Thomas Tourle, fined five shillings, they took a horse, and another from Richard Mantle for a like fine. From others for similar fines they took bacon, cheese, kitchen furniture, wearing apparel, and other goods, to about treble the amount of their fines. The cattle and other property taken from the said several sufferers, were publicly sold for about half their value. “On the aforesaid 29th of May, a meeting of Baptists was held in Brighthelmstone, at the house of Mr. William Beard, who was fined 20l . for which fine the constable of the place and two assistants took sixty-five bushels of malt, and sold it for twelve shillings per quarter! “At Chillington, three miles from Lewes, Mr. Nicholas Martin was convicted of having a meeting at his house, and fined 20l . for which fine the officer of injustice took from him six cows, two young bullocks, and a horse, being all the stock he had, all of which he recovered again, but not till he had taken a great deal of trouble, and been at more than 23l . expense. “The magistrates at Dover began early to show their unrighteous zeal against the Baptists. Many of them were violently taken from their meeting house, committed to prison, and detained in confinement, to the ruin of their circumstances, and great distress of their families. These hardships urged them to petition the King and Duke of York for redress, but no relief was given. At Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, the justices endeavored to revive the old practice of punishing heretics with death. By virtue of a dormant statute made in the reign of queen Elizabeth, Mr. Stephen Dagnal, pastor of a Baptist congregation that met at Aylesbury, and eleven of his people, being taken at a meeting, were sentenced to be hanged, and as soon as sentence was passed against them, officers were sent to their several houses to seize their goods, and whatever effects of theirs could be found; which order was executed immediately, and great havoc was made of what possessions they had; but powerful intercession being made for them at court, by Mr. Kiffin, the king granted them a pardon, and sometime afterward they were all set at liberty again. “Great were the sufferings of the Baptists in Gloucestershire, particularly in the neighborhood of Fairford, Bourton on the water, Stow, and some other places. The most eminent cavaliers, embittered persecutors, rode about armed with swords and pistols, ransacked their houses and abused their families in a most violent manner. “In the county of Wilts, and diocese of Salisbury, our brethren were persecuted with great severity. Bishop Ward often disturbed their meetings in person, and encouraged his clergy to follow his example. Informers were every where at work,. and having crept into religious assemblies in disguise, levied great sums of money upon ministers and people. Soldiers broke into honest farmers’ houses, under pretense of scorching for conventicles, and where ready money was wanting, plundered their goods, drove away their cattle, and sold them a great deal under their value. Many of these sordid creatures spent their profits in ill houses upon lewd women, and then went about again to hunt for more prey. “The Baptist church at Calne suffered much; having been often disturbed when they assembled in their meeting house; in order to avoid fresh troubles they sometimes met at a mill, called Moses’ Mill, a little distance from the town, and at other times under a large white-thorn bush upon the brow of a hill, in a field called Shiepfield, about two miles from the town. The bush has ever since been called Gospel Bush; but only some very small branches of it remain. “The Baptists in Lincolnshire were persecuted with savage rage.

Not less than one hundred of them were imprisoned, some for hearing, and others for preaching the word of God. They endured not less than three hundred levies for fines. Some for two pence a week, others for 10, 20, 40, and 60l . whereby many were reduced to great poverty, and others driven from home. Presentments and excommunications, they had several hundreds, and indictments at the assizes and sessions upon the statute for two pence per week, and twenty pounds a month, not less than a thousand. “Mr. Robert Shalder, of Croft, in the said county, was long confined in prison and dying soon after his release from it, was interred in the common burying ground amongst his ancestors. The same day he was buried, certain of the inhabitants of Croft, opened his grave, took up his corpse, and dragged it upon a sledge to his own gates, and there left it unburied! “In short, there was not a protestant dissenting congregation in the kingdom but were grievously harassed, not a zealous Baptist but had a double mess of persecution, From the restoration of Charles II to the revolution under William III a space of twenty-nine years, more than sixty thousand people suffered for religion, were plundered of two millions of money,9 and eight or ten thousand of them died in gaol. Very many of the sufferers were Baptists; but they cheer filly endured the cross, despising the shame, stood fast in the Lord, and served God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.”

These legal robberies and outrageous proceedings appear to have been carried on under the sanction of a Conventicle Act, which received the royal assent in 1670. By this act it was decreed that the preachers or teachers in any conventicle should forfeit twenty pounds for the first and forty for the second offense. And those who suffered any conventicles in their houses, barns, yards, etc. were to forfeit twenty. Smaller fines were levied upon all over sixteen years of age, who were found at conventicles.

One third of the money collected of the conventicleers, was to go to the informer or his assistants. This held out a powerful motive to avaricious bigots to pillage their innocent neighbors, and some acquired considerable fortunes from the spoils of the poor afflicted people of God. One Thomas Battison, an old church warden, engaged with much assiduity in this unrighteous mode of procuring wealth. But the indignation of the populace was excited against him, and while he was attempting to distrain the goods of one John Burdolf, in which, however, he did not succeed, they tied a calf’s tail to his back, and then derided him with shouts and halloos, as he was going off to another place. Soon after he took a brass kettle from one Edward Covington; but when he had brought it to the street door, none of the officers would carry it away; neither could he hire any to do it in two hours time, though he offered money to such needy persons among the company as wanted bread. At last he got a youth for sixpence to carry the kettle less way than a stone’s throw, to an inn-yard, where he had before hired a room to lodge such goods under pretence to lodge grain; but when the youth had carried the kettle to the inn-gate, being hooted at all the way by the common spectators, the inn-keeper would not suffer the kettle to be brought into his yard; and so his man set it out in the middle of the street, none regarding it, till towards night a poor woman that received alms was caused by an overseer to carry it away.

These proceedings were in the town of Bedford, and although the people were against the distrainers, yet they had law on their side, and made terrible havoc with the property of all, who had been guilty of the atrocious crime of meeting in houses and barns to worship the God of heaven.

Our limits forbid us to pursue any further the narrative of the sufferings of our English brethren in these times of cruelty and oppression.

We shall now take notice of some of the most distinguished characters among the English Baptists, from the beginning to the present. “It was not long after the Particular Baptists had founded distinct churches, when Mr. Hansard Knollis, who had been graduated at Cambridge, formed a Baptist church in London, in the year 1641, and presided over it till his death in 1692. About the same period Mr. Francis Cornwell, M. A. of Emanuel College, Cambridge, embraced the Baptist sentiments, and became pastor of a church at Marden in Kent. “Before this, Mr. Benjamin Coxe, a bishop’s son, and a graduate of one of the universities, had joined the Baptists, by which he lost all the preferments he might have obtained in the church. “There were also at this time Mr. Henry Denne, Mr. Christopher Blackwood, Mr. Daniel Dyke, Mr. Francis Bampfield, and others; who were much distinguished for their learning and usefulness, in the reign of Charles I. “Another eminent person was Mr. John Tombes, B. D. of whom even his enemies speak in terms of high commendation. Dr. Wall, in his history of infant baptism, says, “of: he professed Antipedobaptists, Mr. Tombes was a man of the best parts in our nation, and perhaps in any other. “All these, and many besides, had good livings in the established Church, but left it either before or at the passing the Act of Uniformity in 1662. “Another learned man was Mr. Henry Jesse, who had been for several years the pastor of the first Independent Church, but being convinced of the error of infant baptism, was baptized in 1645, and was a very useful minis-tee in London for many years. He had undertaken and almost completed a new translation of the Bible, being dissatisfied with the present received version, on account of the ecclesiastical words introduced or retained by the ecclesiastical divines, at the command of James I. This work he made the master study of his life, and would often exclaim, “O, that I might finish it before I die.” This, however, was denied him. “Another person of great reputation was Charles Maria Duveil, D.

D. by birth a Jew, but embracing christianity. After passing through the church of Rome, and the church of England, he settled as pastor of a Baptist church in Gracechurch street, London. He was much supported by many of the dignified clergy, notwithstanding the change of his sentiments; among whom were Dr. Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, Dr. Sharp, dean of Norwich, Dr. Tillotson, dean of St. Paul’s, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely, and William Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph. He published a literal exposition of the gospels of Mark and Luke; also of the Acts of the Apostles and the minor prophets. “There was Mr. John Gosnold, pastor of a church in Barbican, London; who was eminently learned, and a very popular preacher, much esteemed and valued by men of note and dignity in the established church. He was intimately acquainted with Dr.

Tillotson, who was frequently his hearer. Dr. Calamy says, he was bred in the Charter-house school, and in Pembroke-hall, Cambridge; and was afterwards chaplain to Lord Grey. “Another learned man of this denomination, was the famous Thomas Delaune, who was a minister and schoolmaster in London; and who, it is well known, fell a victim to the cause of nonconformity in the reign of Charles II.”

William Kiffin was one of the earliest promoters of the Particular Baptists, and a distinguished minister among them. He was one of the few Baptist ministers, on whom the Disposer of all events saw fit to bestow much of the possessions and honors of the world. He was personally known to both Charles II, and James his successor. Crosby informs us that it was currently reported, that when Charles wanted money, he sent to Mr.

Kiffin to borrow of him forty thousand pounds; that Mr. Kiffin pleaded in excuse he had not so much, but told the messenger, if it would be of any service to his majesty, he would present him with ten thousand; that is, upwards of forty thousand dollars; the which was accepted, and Mr.

Kiffin afterwards said he had saved thereby thirty thousand pounds. Mr.

Kiffin had great influence at court, and was enabled to render essential service to his brethren. By his means the wicked and scurrilous pamphlet, entitled, Baxter baptized in blood, was examined and condemned; and by his intercession also, twelve Baptists, who had been condemned to death at Aylesbury, received the king’s pardon. But with all his wealth and influence he was a meek and modest man.

Two of his grandsons, viz. Benjamin and William Hewling, young gentlemen of great fortunes, of accomplished education, and of eminent piety, were concerned in the ill-timed and ill-fated expedition of the Duke of Monmouth, which terminated in the destruction of almost all who had any hand in it. The grandfather and father of the late Dr. Gifford of London, were also deeply engaged in this unhappy affair. And at this time perished in the flames a distinguished Baptist woman by the name of Elizabeth Gaunt. Her crime was that of harboring one of the rebels, who, with the basest ingratitude, turned evidence against her. She was condemned for treason, and theret0re died rather a patriot than a martyr.

But it is said by bishop Burner, that there was no evidence that she knew that her traitorous guest was a rebel except his own.

But many of the church of England, of Presbyterians, lndependents, and Baptists, were zealously engaged for the Duke of Monmouth, and many fell by the means of the cruel Jeffries and others.

But to return to Mr. Kiffin: He was nominated by James II for one of the aldermen of the city of London in his new charter. But this was an honor which the old Baptist Elder by no means desired. Waiting on the king by his request he addressed him as follows: “Sire, I am a very old man, and have withdrawn myself from all kinds of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty in the city. Besides, Sire” — the old man went on, fixing his eyes steadfastly on the king, while the tears ran down his cheeks “the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave.”

The king was deeply struck by the manner, the freedom, and the spirit of this unexpected rebuke. A total silence ensued, while the galled countenance of James seemed to shrink from the horrid remembrance. In a minute or two, however, he recovered himself enough to say, “Mr. Kiffin, I shall find a balsam for that sore,” and he immediately turned about to a lord in waiting.

Mr. Kiffin was now in great trials; to accept the office of alderman was much against his inclination, and to refuse, he had learnt, would be dangerous. “I went,” says he, “to the ablest council for advice, and stating my case to him, he told me my danger was every way great, for if I accepted to be an alderman, I ran the hazard of five hundred pounds, and if I did not accept, as the judges then were, I might be fined by them ten, or twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, even what they pleased. So that [thought it better for me to run the lesser hazard of five hundred pounds, which was certain, than be exposed to such fines as might be the ruin of myself and family.” Accordingly after waiting some time in suspense, he accepted the office; but things were soon changed by the coming of the Prince of Orange, and this aged minister was relieved from his burdens and snares. Crosby mentions that there were four other Baptists made aldermen at the same time, but I have not learnt their names.

Among the judges and regicides of Charles I were two eminent men, who afterwards became Baptists. These were Major General Harrison and Col.

Hutchinson.

Harrison arose from obscurity to an elevated rank among the heroes of the Commonwealth. He was very desirous to bring the king to trial, and was the officer who conducted the English monarch before the tribunal which sentenced him to lose his head on the scaffold. It was not till some time after this tragic event that he became a Baptist. The same may be said of Colonel Hutchinson. Both of these great men were executed on the restoration of Charles II.

About this time lived the famous Benjamin Keach, author of the Scripture Metaphors, and many other valuable works. In 1664, he was prosecuted and sentenced to the pillory, for publishing a work entitled The Child’s Instructer, or a New and Easy Primer. While in the pillory, he among other things said to the spectators, “Good people, I am not ashamed to stand here this day, with this paper on my head. My Lord Jesus was not ashamed to suffer on the cross for me, and it is for his cause that I am made a gazing-stock. Take notice, it is not for any wickedness that I stand here; but for writing and publishing his truths, which the Spirit of the Lord hath revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” A clergyman, who stood by, could not forbear interrupting him, and said, “It is for writing and publishing errors; and you may now see what your errors have brought you to.” Mr.

Keach replied, “Sir, can you prove them errors?” But before the clergyman could return an answer, he was attacked by some of the people, who told him of his being “pulled drunk out of a ditch.” Another upbraided him with having been found “drunk under a hay-cock.” Upon this the people, turning their attention from the sufferer in the pillory, laughed at the drunken priest, insomuch that he hastened away with the utmost disgrace and shame.

Mr. Keach was the author of eighteen practical works, some of them large, sixteen polemical, and nine poetical, making in all forty-three; besides a number of prefaces and recommendations for the works of others.

Dr. Gill, who was afterwards pastor of the same church, was the author of upwards of sixty different works, and among them was an Exposition of the Old and New Testment in nine volumes folio. Dr. Rippon, his biographer, assures us, that had the writings of this eminent man been uniformly printed in the size of his Old and New Testament, they would have made the astonishing sum total of TEN THOUSAND folio pages of divinity. Well might Mr. Shrubsole give him the title of Dr. Voluminous.

I much regret that I cannot give a more general account of the eminent characters, who have appeared at different times among the English Baptists. They, I find, mention among the skillful defenders of their doctrinal sentiments, Piggot, the Stennetts, the Wallins, the Wilsons, Evans, Brine, Gill, Day, Beddome, Francis, Ryland, and Gifford. But few of our American Baptists know that John Canne, author of the marginal references in the Bible, Dr. Ash, author of a Dictionary and other classical works, which bear his name, Thomas Wilcox, author of an excellent little piece entitled a Drop of Honey from the Rock Christ, and Winterbottom, author of the View of America, were of their sentiments.

Miss Steele, the author of those excellent hymns, which appear in our collections, was, I find by a hint in Morgan Edwards’ list, the daughter of a Baptist minister in the county of Hampshire.

At different periods in the seventeenth century, there were many long public disputes held by appointment between the Baptists and Pedobaptists on the subject of baptism; the last dispute of this kind of any considerable consequence, appears to have been held at Portsmouth, in 1699. Mr. John Tombes, Dr. Russel, Mr. Jeremiah Ives, and others, were famous disputants for the Baptists, and Dr. Featley, Mr. Baxter, and Mr.

Chandler and others, for the Pedo-baptists.

There is a pleasant anecdote related of Jeremiah Ives, in one of his public disputations, of which in the History of Baptism, we promised to give some more particular account. Mr. Ives by his many disputations became so noted that Charles II sent for him to dispute with a Romish priest. He accepted the invitation and maintained a dispute before the king, and many others, in the habit of a clergyman. “Ives pressed the priest closely, showing, that whatever antiquity they pretended to, their doctrine and practices could by no means be