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 nature, they exhibit, in the great picture of the world, a few small figures in aback ground, unstained with the blood, and unruffled with the disputes of their fellow creatures. It was their wisdom in their times not to come forward to deliver apologies to the world; and creeds with flattering prefaces to princes, the turbulence of the crowd would have caused the still voice of reason not to be heard.

Here we must leave these persecuted and dispersed brethren. We know but little of what became of them in other countries. It is probable, however, that as the fathers died off, their posterity, by degrees, departed from their principles, until they became absorbed, in the great mass of professors, with which they were surrounded.

We shall close this article with a part of a famous letter written to Erasmus out of Bohemia, in 1519. This letter describes a set of christians then in that country, in the following manner: “these men have no other opinion of the pope, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy, than as of manifest antichrists. They call the pope sometimes the beast, and sometimes the whore, mentioned in the Revelations. Their own bishops and priests, they themselves do choose for themselves, ignorant and unlearned laymen, that have wife and children. They mutually salute one another by the name of brother and sister. They own no other authority than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. They slight all the doctors both ancient and modern, and give no regard to their doctrine. Their priests when they celebrate the offices of mass (or communion) do it without any priestly garments; nor do they use any prayer or collects on this occasion, but only the Lord’s prayer, by which they consecrate bread that has been leavened.

They believe or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the church. Such as come over to their sect, must every one be baptized anew, in mere water. They make no blessing of salt, nor of water; nor make any use of consecrated oil. They believe nothing of divinity in the sacrament of the eucharist, only that the consecrated bread and wine do by some occult signs represent the death of Christ; and, accordingly, that all that do kneel down to it, or worship it, are guilty of idolatry: That that sacrament was instituted by Christ to no other purpose but to renew the memory of his passion, and not to be carried about or held up by the priests to be gazed on. For that Christ himself, who is to be adored and worshipped with the honor of Latreia, sits at the right of God, as the christian church confesses in the creed. Prayers to saints, and for the dead, they count a vain and ridiculous thing; as likewise auricular confession and penance enjoined by the priest for sins. Eves and fast-days are, they say, a mockery and the disguise of hypocrites.” “This description,” says Crosby, “does almost in every thing fit the modern Baptists, especially those in England. Their saluting one another by the name of brother and sister; their choosing their own ministers, and from among the laity; their rejecting all priestly garments, and refusing to kneel at the sacrament; their slighting all authorities but that of the scriptures, but especially their baptizing again all that embraced their way, does certainly give the Baptists a better right than any other protestants, to claim these people for their predecessors.”

POLAND Mr. Robinson has entered largely into the ecclesiastical history of Poland, and has brought to light much information respecting the Baptists in this kingdom; but we are sorry to find that the doctrinal sentiments of many, if not the most of them, were not such as the Baptists generally approve.

We know but very little respecting the Polish Baptists before the reformation. Could we come at their history we should doubtless find a people of whose doctrine and practice a pleasing account might be given.

From several historical hints it is evident that the Waldenses spread into Poland, not long after they settled in the adjoining kingdom of Bohemia; and we have already shown that where-ever these people went, they carried along with them the principles on which all the Baptist churches are founded.

Cardinal Hosius, who was a Pole, thought it a kind of miracle, that as Bohemia and Moravia were so near Poland, and the language the same, Poland should continue uninfected with the heresy of the Waldenses, for one hundred and forty years. If records were silent, appearances would be very much against such a miracle; but records the most authentic assure us that this heresy did infect Poland long before the days of John Huss, and much more after his death.

In the twelfth century, as was observed in the history of Bohemia, some Waldenses settled in Satz and Laun, and there they found many of the Greek church, who associated with them, and whom, as they were well skilled in the scriptures, they improved in religious knowledge. In the fourteenth century the Waldenses of Bohemia and Poland sent money collected among themselves, to their persecuted brethren in Lombardy. In later times, on every gust of persecution, they stepped out of one kingdom into another, and so continued to do until the reformation. The vicinity of Poland to Moravia and Bohemia, the election of two of the reigning family of Jagellon in Poland to be kings of Bohemia, and other similar events, rendered such a migration perfectly easy.” “Formerly, (says bishop Cromer) the heresy of Wickliff and Huss infected Poland, and within my memory those of Berengarius, Luther and Calvin, found their way into the country by means of merchants coming hither, and young gentlemen going into Germany for education, by which means the minds of many were infected, and now after the example and under the patronage of some noblemen, we abound with Picards, Anabaptists, Arians, and heretics of all sorts; and, O, What lamentable depravity! every one is master of his own religion, a law and a king to himself, and thus multitudes pretend liberty and become licentious.”

Thus we see that Poland was infected with heresies of different kinds, long before the reformation, and that among the heretics were the Waldenses, Picards, and Anabaptists; but I find no materials from which their history can be obtained.

Popery was the established religion of Poland, but its bands were not so strong here, as in other kingdoms; and as the Polanders were in those times passionately fond of freedom, it is highly probable that the Baptists lived openly in many places by connivance, and where this could not be done, that they retired to the forests and obscure retreats, where they followed their own regulations, and maintained the purity and simplicity of their principles. As yet the tide of Socinianism had not began to prevail in this northern kingdom.

During the long reign of Sigismund, who governed Poland forty-two years, the German reformers poured disciples into Poland; and Lutherans, assisted by Bohemian brethren, taught with so much success that popery was reduced to the lowest ebb. Several noblemen became their patrons, and the senate itself was filled with friends to reformation. It was at the latter end of this reign, that the party of which we are going to speak was formed by a Dutch Baptist.

The party which Mr. Robinson here alludes to was formed in the following manner. While the different parties of Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and the Bohemian brethren, were each disputing in defense of their peculiar tenets, John Tricessius, a nobleman of Cracow, who had devoted himself to no party, collected a large library and formed a society of men of his own character, who professed to pursue an unbiased course in search of truth. The members of this society were all distinguished either by their literary merit, their sagacity, or their rank in life. We soon find among them a Dutch Baptist minister, who was soon after excommunicated from his own church for Arianism. He was called by different names, by some Rudolph Martin, by others Adam Pastoris and by this company, Spiritus. Spiritus started some objections against the doctrine of the Trinity. His arguments were at first opposed; but it appears that the company took them up afterwards, and followed them on with a speculative curiosity, till they settled down on Arian and Unitarian principles. Tricessius continued to hold religious conferences at his house, and the company was increased by new members. Others of the nobility followed his example, and many. societies of this kind were formed. We cannot trace in order the progress of these societies, but it is sufficient to observe that they finally centered at Pinckzow, and were hence called Pinckzovians. Here they enjoyed the patronage of prince Nicholas Olesnicki, lord of Pinckzow, by whose means the monks were expelled out of a monastery, which was converted into a seminary of learned men.

From this period the Pinckzovians went on with great success; and as in these times princes and great men thought it necessary to attach themselves to some religious party or other, many espoused the cause of the Pinckzovians, and thereby emboldened them to prosecute their exertions. Pinckzow now became the residence of many famous men, who differed widely in their doctrinal speculations. Some were engaged in writing and publishing their sentiments, and others in travelling and preaching in different parts of the country. The Pinckzovians were at first an assemblage of many different characters, among whom there existed a great variety of opinions on doctrinal points. Most of them were natives of Poland, but many among them had fled hither from other European kingdoms, to escape the persecuting hands of their enemies, and find an asylum where they might enjoy and propagate their opinions. Some believed more and others less of the fundamental points of the christian system. The doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of the Savior were maintained by some, denied by others, and doubted by the rest; but infant baptism was denied by all. The whole body was of course honored with the title of Anabaptists. But this term was used in as vague a sense in Poland as in Germany. The Pinckzovians were, properly speaking, ANTIpedobaptists, but they were not all Baptists. They agreed to reject infant baptism, as a popish tradition; but they were, as a body at first, far from having clear and consistent views of this ordinance. The doctrine of believer’s baptism by immersion seemed however generally to prevail; but it was sometime before any of them reduced it to practice. These people adopted good maxims with regard to religious freedom, but they acted absurdly when they attempted to unite in one church such a discordant assemblage of religious opinions. Their discussions were often warm and pointed, and are thus humorously described by their Catholic opposers. “Good heavens!” said they, “what a racket was there at Pinckzow! The question was put, was Poland to be reformed by rules taken from the fathers, or from Saxony, or from Geneva, or from the simple scripture?

One pulled out his creed, and another his list; but the vote was carried for reforming by the simple word of God. Then the table being cleared, forth came the Bible, and that was to be the standard. Then a dust was stirred up about what the Bible had to say. One cried, it says there are three Gods. No such thing, replied another, it says there is but one God. Then down they went to the very foundations, and free-will, and justification, and faith, and works, and sacraments, and every article of the church, was overhauled. This comes of casting off the sovereign pontiff. Good heavens! what a dust was there at Pinckzow!” These people met often in assemblies, which they called synods, in which subjects of importance were discussed, and plans of proceeding agreed upon. They sometimes met by themselves, and at other times in conjunction with the other bodies of Protestants in Poland. In a synod held at Brest in Lithuania in 1568, two very able speeches were delivered against infant baptism, the first by Peter Goniadzki, commonly Gonesius, and the other by Jerom Piescarski. The latter “affirmed that infant baptism had no place in scripture; that in the two first centuries it was not mentioned; that it rose in Africa in the third century, and was opposed by Tertullian; that the first canons to enjoin it were made at a council at Mela, in Africa, in the year 418; that infant communion came in at the same time; that before this people were put into the state of catechumens, and instructed in the christian faith, that then they were examined concerning their faith, and on confessing it were baptized by immersion; that in the fourth and fifth centuries, while the papal power continued feeble though increasing, the children of believers, even those of bishops, were not baptized till they were adults, and some, as Ambrose, not till they had been elected, and were going to accept the office of bishops, and that some deferred it till they were just ready to die.” He concluded by saying, “Why the brethren, do you rise up against me for rejecting this relic of popery?

Why do you impose silence on me under such severe injunctions in regard to a subject, which deserves a fair and full hearing? Is this the forbearance, the love, the liberty of christians? Shall I, whom conscience compels to teach the truth, he silent? Rather let me seriously exhort and beseech you to east out every tiring that popery hath brought into the church, and to cleanse the house of God from all fragments of papal rubbish. For my part I most sincerely pray, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may instruct, replenish and establish you by his Holy Spirit.” These declarations produced a great deal of reading, conversing, and disputing, both in public and private, and a great number of converts of all ranks to believer’s baptism. It is difficult to say, and not very material, who of these Polanders first administered baptism by immersion. Some say, that Matthias Albinus, minister of Ivanowitz, who was a Trinitarian, and continued so till his death. Others say, Stanislaus Paclesius, who was pastor of an Arian church, at Lublin, under the patronage of the palatine Tenckzynski, where he died in sixty-five. In the province of Cujavia, Martin Czechovicius was a warm advocate for it, and published, first in Polish and afterward in Latin, an admirable treatise, concerning the origin of the errors of the Pedo-baptists, etc.

The doctrine of the Pinckzovians was spreading far and wide, and a great number of people of all ranks declared for it. Magistrates, noblemen, knights, governors, palatines, officers of the crown, ministers, rectors of schools of great and little Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Podolia, Volhinia, Prussia, Silesia, and Transylvania, openly professed their belief of it.

There were at this time three large parties of protestants in Poland, beside the Pinckzovians. There were Calvinists, Lutherans, and the Bohemian Brethren. The Pinckzovians were denominated Arians and Anabaptists, and were the common objects of aversion to all parties, particularly the Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans, who, forgetting their own distensions, united their endeavors to suppress and extirpate them, and they at length in part effected their purpose.

The Pinckzovians had hitherto gone on with great success, their converts were many and respectable, their patrons were also numerous and great, but the patronage of the great is as uncertain as the weather, and variable as the wind. These people as yet had no settled plan of procedure, their doctrinal notions were vague and fluctuating, and many of them were intermixed among all the other denominations of protestants. But at length they were driven to a separation from them, and the Catholics and Calvinists obtained a royal edict to drive them from the kingdom. “The king was obliged to yield to the torrent, and he issued, at the request of the Catholic lords and Calvinist ministers, who were then holding a synod with the Lutherans at Lublin, an edict to banish all foreign Arians and Anabaptists, and to suppress domestic heresy and blasphemy upon pain of death. Foreigners quitted the kingdom; but such was the constitution of Poland, so little do the great lords in such an aristocracy regard laws, and so powerful were the patrons of the Arians, that though they retired as if they paid some respect to authority, yet they met, held synods among themselves, and having been driven from all other parties, formed the first churches ill these troublous times. It was about this time they began to read and study the writings of the late Laelius Socinus, who had died at Zurich in 1562, in the 37th year of his age, and had left some of his papers in Poland. Pauli retired from Cracow, some patrons expelled their ministers, others resigned, and several kept close at home, for they feared the fate of Servetus. Albinus, the Trinitarian Baptist minister, sheltered many, and Olesnicki and Philipowski more.

The Pinckzovian confederation was thus broken up and scattered, many of their members left the kingdom, but most of them remained ill a dispersed condition, until they were again collected at Racow, under the patronage of the palatine John Sieninski. Here they were called Racovians, and flourished much for a time; but at length an unlucky event exposed them to censure, banishment, and ruin. Mosheim appears to have made no distinction between the Pinckzovians and Racovians; one would think by his account that they were both the same people, under other circumstances and different names. But Mr. Robinson has unraveled this part of the history of the Anabaptists in Poland, and has shown that while they were called Pinckzovians, their notions of church discipline were peculiarly vague and incorrect. Many of their ministers were put into livings by lordly patrons, who had them at their disposal. Their churches were built in some measure after the old popish model, which the other protestants had adopted; and both ministers and churches were under masters whose patronage often involved them in snares and distress. They were all opposed to infant baptism, but as yet few of their ministers or members had been baptized. “Happy for these people,” says Robinson, “all parties agreed to detest and expel them; for then they formed a new church without a master, and agreed that each should be the lord of his own conscience. This event took place after the dispersion of the Pinckzovian confederacy. It is supposed that the famous Baptist, Rosemberg, received his ideas of founding independent churches of baptized believers, on his journey to Moravia, by conversing with the Baptists there, It is evident that by his advice and persuasion, a few professed their faith and repentance, were baptized by immersion, and formed themselves into a regular independent church. The trial succeeded, the scattered flock repaired to fold, they increased every day, and multiplied so amazingly in a few years, that all parties found they must be allowed the rights of citizens, and put under the protection of clear explicit law. Their great men were innumerable, they had power, and they would be heard. They formed flourishing congregations at Cracow, Lublin, Pinckzow, Lucclaw, Smigla, Racow, and other places, where they lived in as much peace as they could wish.

Not long after this, these people formed an establishment at Racow in the following manner: “The family of the palatine Sieninski, nearly related to Olesnicki, had always favored the Baptists. The palatine, John Sieninski, who was a Lutheran, sometimes heard their sermons, and was once extremely affected under a discourse preached by one of their plain popular teachers, John Securinius. Being asked, what he thought of the sermon? he said, we shall certainly perish, unless we live as the pious man hath been teaching us. The lady of this palatine was a member of a Baptist church. About the year 1569, he had founded a town in the palatinate of Sendomir, about one mile from Sidlow, and in compliment to his lady had named it Racow. In this pleasant spot he had allured, by granting many privileges, various classes of foreigners and natives to settle. Among the rest Securinius, Schoman, and the Baptist church of Cracow came and settled here, and lived happy and easy under the patronage of their lord. This induced more to come, and Racow became a sort of Baptist town, where the principal men resided, taught, and held synods. After the decease of the patron, his son James Sieninski, palatine of Podolia, then in the thirty second year of his age, having entertained some doubts of the Lutheran religion, desired a conference to be held between them and the Baptists. They complied. After he had heard the arguments of both parties, he thought reason was on the side of the latter, and following his own convictions he joined the church.

This was a great accession of honor, and wealth, and power to the Racovians, (for so now we must call them) and, though the patron’s munificence continued as long as his life, very much to the credit of both him and them, there is no instance, with all their heresy, of their employing power to oppress conscience They seem to have adopted an opinion, which a son of peace in Germany long after expressed aptly enough by saying, “of all heresies in the world, the most dangerous are a man’s own depraved passions.”

The Racovians flourished much for a time. Many famous characters resorted hither from different parts of the kingdom, and some by their wealth, and others by their abilities, contributed to aid the progress of this new establishment. Their patrons founded a school for them, and provided them with a printing office. The school was thronged with pupils from different parts of the kingdom. The press was employed in printing the works of their learned men; and here I conclude was published that famous work in six volumes folio, entitled Fratres Poloni, or the works of the Polish Brethren, which is in the library of Brown University at Providence.

Thus out of the Pinckzovian party originated a new set of churches, which were more decidedly of a Baptist character. They were called by the different names of Arians, Anabaptists, Racovians, and finally, Socinians.

These churches were at first composed wholly of baptized believers, but some of them in a short time adopted open communion, and particularly the one at Racow. This revolution is said to have been brought about by the younger Socinius, who also led the Polish Baptists further into doctrinal errors. For himself he was an Antipedobaptist, but not a Baptist, He rejected infant baptism as a manifest error, but he was never baptized, nor did he think baptism a scriptural ordinance; but if it were to be administered at all, it was to those who were converted from other religions to the christian. It is strange indeed that the Baptists should listen to such a teacher; but so it was, that by the superiority of his genius and address, he became the oracle of the Polish Baptists, and in time brought the greatest part of them to embrace his doctrinal sentiments, and from him they acquired the name of Socinians.

While the Racovians were going on with great prosperity, and the Baptists increasing in different parts of the kingdom an unexpected event blasted all their prospects, and involved the whole community in a scene of the deepest distress. In the year 1638, some students of the academy at Racow very rashly and improperly vented their aversion to popery by throwing stones at a wooden crucifix, that stood out of town, till they had beaten it out of its place. A complaint was lodged not against the offenders, as in a well regulated state, but against the religion which their tutors professed. The palatine, who was president of the academy, cleared himself by oath, but neither that, nor his services to the state, nor his age, (he was near seventy) nor any other consideration could prevail with the diet at Warsaw, which was now a mere faction, to admit of any excuse, or accept any amends. It was proved to be a mere freak of boys, without the knowledge of their tutors, and for which they had been corrected by their parents. Several of equestrian rank of all denominations protested against their arbitrary proceedings; but all in vain. The powerful party enacted, that the Racovian academy should be destroyed, the professors banished, the printing office demolished, and the places of worship shut up. All these decrees were executed without any alleviating circumstances, and the afflicted palatine, whom the senate had often honored with the title of father of his country, saw his city vanish like a dream, and the labor and pleasure of his whole life blasted by one order of this relentless despotism.

He survived the cruel act only one year.

For twenty years succeeding this event, Mr. Robinson informs us, persecution was carried on with unrelenting severity against the Baptists in different parts of Poland, and dreadful havoc was made with these obnoxious people. The Cossacks invaded the kingdom, and the Baptists were the first to be plundered by the consent of all parties. Next they were terribly harassed by an army of Swedes. The Catholics were hearty in promoting their destruction, and the Lutherans and Calvinists, who might have prevented their sufferings, had no small share in helping them forward. But they did not foresee that they were preparing chains for themselves, for they, in process of time, were also expelled from Poland.

Civil liberty halted only a little while, for the kingdom was dismembered, and the Poles enslaved by their powerful neighbors.

Among the patrons and members of the Baptist churches were several palatines and vice-palatines, castellans and their inferior officers, judges and practitioners in the law, members of the lower house in the diet, officers of the crown and gentlemen of the army, lords of manors, physicians, citizens, merchants, tradesmen, and people of all ranks. The rustics were bound to the soil, and no more notice was taken of them than of the salt-mines, or the forests, for they were all alike real immovable property. Of the rest some staid and worshipped God in private; others strained a point and fell into the other reformed congregations. Numbers fled, some found an asylum in Transylvania, Silesia, Bradenburg, Prussia, and the adjacent places, others of them lurked in Holland, England, Denmark, and Holstein. The king of Denmark would have granted them a settlement in his dominions, and so would some other princes, but all their humane endeavors were frustrated by the Catholic prelates of every state.

They were therefore dispersed all over Europe, and the Baptist and Armenian churches of the United Provinces received many of them into their bosom.

To recapitulate the history of the Baptists in Poland, We find that the Waldenses spread into this kingdom not long after they settled in Bohemia, which was more than three hundred years before the rise of Luther and Calvin. We have no account of their proceedings, but we may safely conclude that they carried Baptist sentiments along with them. A long time after this a Catholic bishop complains, that the Anabaptists among other sects abounded in Poland. While the reformation was going on in Germany and Switzerland, and other European kingdoms, Poland was infected with its principles. Infant baptism was doubted at first by some of the followers both of Luther and Calvin; but as these two distinguished champions took a decided stand in its favor, all inquiries upon the subject were hushed within the circles of their immediate influence; and they, instead of reforming the article of baptism, carried it farther from its original mode than the papists had done; for they had continued to dip, except in cases of necessity; but the reformers left off dipping altogether, and first enjoined pouring and then sprinkling. But among many of the reformers in Poland, infant baptism underwent a very fair and able discussion, and was by them rejected as a relic of popery. These people are very properly described by the term Antipedobaptists, that is, opposers of infant baptism, for we have no account that many of them went any farther. But they were generally denominated by their enemies, Anabaptists. They, it is true, countenanced some of the Anabaptistical errors, but we have reason to believe that multitudes of them lived and died without any other baptism, than that which they received in their infancy in the church of Rome. Many of these opposers of infant baptism, were distinguished by their learning, wealth, and princely titles, and we have no reason to believe that they were generally acquainted with the principles of vital piety. Believer’s baptism by immersion is always a cross-bearing duty, and this was probably the reason, why no more of them submitted to it. Their notions of baptism were in the main clear and consistent, but their practice was defective. I know not, however, but as many submitted to the ordinance as were fit subjects for it.

In a catechism or confession of faith published at Cracow in 1574, which is said to have been drawn up by a Baptist minister, by the name of George Schoman, the article of baptism is very well defined. “Baptism,” says this catechism, “is the immersion into water and emersion of one who believes in the gospel, and is truly penitent, performed in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or in the name of Jesus Christ alone.” Infant baptism is well fitted for a church composed of different materials, dead and alive, for it is administered to those who know nothing of the matter. But Believer’s baptism will not do for such churches, and wherever it has been adopted it has produced embarrassment at first, and division in the end. And so it happened with the people of whom we are speaking. And the genuine Baptists among them doubtless often found themselves involved in much perplexity. Had they sought instruction of the old Waldenses, many of whom we have reason to suppose maintained the simplicity of the gospel in their obscure retreats, they might have been set right at once. But they Were ambitious of worldly honor, they found themselves associated with great men, and protected by noble patrons, who thwarted their principles and led them astray. But as tempests dispel the fogs and clear the atmosphere, so the dispersion of the Pinckzovian party, opened the way for their founding independent churches of those who had been baptized on a profession of their faith. For a while the Baptists in Poland appear to have stood right as it respected the discipline of their churches, but before long they plunged into the inconsistent and embarrassing practice of open communion, and admitted into their churches Pedo-baptists, and those who held that baptism was not a perpetual ordinance. They had before adopted some fundamental errors in doctrine, and although they enjoyed worldly prosperity for a time, yet at length a terrible gust of persecution blasted all their prospects, and overwhelmed them with distress and ruin.

Hitherto we have said but little respecting the doctrinal sentiments of the Polish Baptists, and I am sorry that a more pleasing account of them cannot be given. They styled themselves Unitarians, and were first of an Arian and afterwards of a Socinian cast. When they first began to tamper with the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ, their notions were vague and fluctuating. They gave an exalted character to the Son of God, and did not entirely divest him of his divinity, and they also defended a kind of trinity for several years. They were unwilling to admit the proper deity of the Savior, and yet they knew not how to get over some of the strong expressions of scripture which advance it, and some of them professed to adore and invoke him. There is a wink, published not long since in New England, by a Pedobaptist divine, entitled Bible News, which I am sorry to find is well received by some of our Baptist ministers.

The author of this work professes to hold to the divinity of Christ, but adopts a new method of explaining that sublime and important subject. I am inclined to think that the Baptists in Poland, in the beginning of their speculations, had not arrived much farther in their descent towards Socinianism, than those Baptists in America, who have adopted the Bible News above mentioned. But they went down one step after another, until they landed in the Socinian system, so fatal to everything pertaining to christianity but the name. Lelius Socinus came first into Poland, where it is supposed he sowed the seeds of Socinianism about the middle of the sixteenth century. After tarrying here awhile, he went to Zurich, where he died in 1562. He had acquired no determinate plan of doctrine, but Faustus Socinus, his nephew, came into Poland in 1579, and from the papers which his uncle left behind him, is supposed to have drawn the system which now bears the name of Socinian.

This man was bold and assiduous in the propagation of his sentiments; he went among the Baptists and other Polish dissenters, who were inclined to Arian and Unitarian principles, and multitudes became his admirers and followers, The leading Baptist ministers were too well prepared to embrace his dangerous errors, and of course were the more easily converted; and by their influence, and the insinuating address of Socinus, the churches one after another, were won over to his sentiments, and adopted his creed. But it must be observed, that we have hitherto spoken only of the leading men among the Polish Baptists. The great mass of professors in the churches were altogether illiterate, and could not of course understand the subtle arguments, by which Socinianism is supported. We have no account at all of them, nor are we informed what they said and thought of those chilling doctrines which disrobed their Savior of his peculiar attributes, and reduced him to a level with mortals.

Robinson, who seems generally well enough pleased with the doctrine of Socinus, acknowledges that Socinianism consists in refined reasonings beyond the abilities of great numbers who joined the Baptist churches in Poland, and that it is therefore unlikely that they understood or embraced the sentiments, which were adopted by their leaders. This is an important concession, and one would think must be an insuperable objection in the mind of every candid man, against the Socinian system. The gospel of Jesus Christ is designed for the ignorant as well as the wise. The way faring man though a fool shall not err in the gospel path. That system of doctrine therefore which none but men of philosophical acuteness can comprehend, I think we may safely conclude is not of divine origin, but an invention of speculative and unhumbled men.

TRANSYLVANIA THE principles of the reformation were first introduced into this little State, which as its name imports, lies beyond the woods or forests on towards the Turkish dominions, by a Lutheran minister, who was chaplain to the prince of the country. He was succeeded in the chaplainship by Francis Davidis, a seventh-day Baptist minister, who afterwards became superintendent of the Baptist churches in Transylvania. We have seen in the account of the Moravian Baptists, that in the time of their banishments, some went into Transylvania, and it is highly probable that many of them were scattered in this country long before the times of which we are speaking.

Both Baptist and Unitarian principles appear to have been carried into Transylvania from Poland. In 1563, George Blandratta, a celebrated physician, was invited into Transylvania by Sigismund, at that time sovereign of the country, in order to the restoration of his health. Davidis, whose name has already been mentioned, accompanied him in his removal. Mosheim calls these men Socinians, but gives us no in. formation respecting their sentiments in other respects, But we learn from Robinson that they were both Baptists. Davidis was a preacher, but Blandratta was not. The first became the chaplain of the court, and the other physician to the prince. About this time several other foreigners came into Transylvania by the invitation of prince Sigismund, for the purpose of helping forward the reformation. Among them was John Somer, celebrated for his knowledge of the Greek language, and Jacob Palaeologus, a famous Hebrician. Somer was a Saxon, and Palaeologus was a native of the isle of Chios, and is said to be of the imperial family. Several other foreigners, who had been persecuted elsewhere, sought refuge in Transylvania, where persecution for religion was unknown. These refugees were Unitarian Baptists, and through their indefatigable industry and address the prince, the greatest part of the senate, a great number of ministers, and a multitude of the people went heartily into their plan of reformation. This was effected by private tuition, by public preaching, by conferences held in public by appointment with such as desired information, and by debates in the presence of the senate. The prince and the senators attended one of these successively for ten days. In the end the Baptists became by far the most numerous party, and were put in possession of a printing office, and an academy, and the cathedral was given them for a place of worship.

The year after a synod was held at Thorda, at which were present three hundred and twenty-two Unitarian ministers, who unanimously agreed to renounce infant, sprinkling as a prostitution of primitive baptism, and published thirty-two theses against it. From this period Baptist principles prevailed, and many Baptist churches were founded in Transylvania; and Davidis, who was considered half a Jew by his opposers, because he kept holy the seventh day, became the superintendent of them all. It is probable that there were many other Sabbatarians in this country, but we have no accounts respecting them.

The progress of the Baptists in this kingdom we cannot describe with any degree of minuteness. We are informed however that in process of time, they, like their brethren in Poland, adopted open communion, and tolerated infant sprinkling in their churches. They were connected with a court and with courtly characters, by whom they were corrupted and ensnared. We may furthermore observe that the Baptists have always been outwitted, when they have attempted to vie with others in worldly policy.

It is an art which they do not understand, and for which, when they keep to their original principles, they have no need.

The Transylvanian Baptists were, as to their doctrinal sentiments, termed Unitarians and Socinians. But Socinianism was not then what it has arrived to since, nor were the Baptists agreed among themselves in their doctrinal opinions. Davidis thought that Christ ought not to be called God, nor invoked in prayer. Dr. Blandratta, it seems, believed both, and he and Davidis had warm disputes upon the subject. And the doctor, hoping to recover the old superintendent to his former belief, invited Socinus, who was then at Basil, to come into Transylvania. Socinus came, and he and Davidis disputed together eighteen weeks, and ended where they begun.

Davidis thought Jesus an ordinary man; but both Blandratta and Socinus, and many other Socinians of that day, gave him a much more exalted character. Bat all of them were wrong, and they had set out in a path which led them by degrees to a cold, comfortless, and dangerous region.

I do not find that the Transylvanian Baptists met with any remarkable scenes of persecution, but still their course was unprosperous. Davidis was imprisoned on account of his opinions, and died in prison, and both Socinus and Blandratta were accused of having a hand in the business.

Blandratta, to whom the Baptists looked up for assistance, was now old and rich, and spent his latter days as many other old men have done, in hoarding up money. He had made a will in favor of a nephew, but the impatient youth stifled him in his bed. Davidis was succeeded in the superintendency or the churches by Hunyedine, and he by Enyedine, but who was his successor we are not informed. The Baptist churches here were protected by law, and enjoyed external tranquillity, but we have no information of the state of vital piety amongst them. At the times we have been describing, I am much inclined to believe there were, in obscure retreats, many genuine Baptists, the descendants of the old Moravians, who chose to keep away from the splendor and bustle of the great, and who, of course, avoided their speculations and snares.

The Baptists of whom we have been speaking, both Polish and Transylvanian, were injured by the very means from which they hoped to derive advantage. Their noble converts and patrons elevated them above their common level, which excited their ambition, and also rendered them the more conspicuous objects for the shafts of their enemies. Their learned men, by pursuing a course of speculative reasoning, corrupted their faith and led them into error.

Finally, it will be acknowledged by all, who have studied the history of the Baptists, that they like sheep flourish best in short pasture and in rocky places.

It is now proper that we should give some brief sketches of a few distinguished Baptist characters, who have not been mentioned.

Bernard Ochin or Ochinus. This man was an Italian, he had been a monk and confessor to the pope, but he offended his holiness by preaching too freely before him against his pride. Fearing the consequences of the pope’s displeasure, he fled for safety, and finally settled at Pinckzow. Robinson says he became a Unitarian Baptist, but it is doubted by Mosheim whether he ever adopted the doctrine of Socinus.

Stanlius Lutomirski. I find no account of the birth of this eminent man.

He had been in priest’s orders in the church of Rome, and secretary to the king of Poland, who intended to have preferred him to be lord primate, but his conscience, says Robinson, spoiled him for a cardinal archbishop, and converted him into a teacher of a Baptist church. He wrote the circular letter for the synod held at Wengrovia by the Pinckzovians, which is said to be a master-piece in its kind. He informed the churches that the synod had judged infant baptism an error, and had resolved to renounce it — he added that though some one had mentioned the affair at Munster, yet believer’s baptism had nothing to do with it, and that as they had always obeyed magistrates, so they had resolved to do in future for conscience’ sake — he closes with exhortations to brotherly kindness, and with adoring God, who had brought them out of the Babylonish captivity of the papal church.

Michael Servetus. This unhappy man was a Spaniard by birth, and lost his life at Geneva by means of the famous John Calvin. He was not immediately connected with the Baptists we have been describing, but as no account of him has vet been given, this seems the most proper place to say a few things respecting him. The death of this unfortunate man produced very lively emotions both of pity and resentment in the breasts of many, who were not altogether in favor of his religious opinions.

Many have written accounts of this much injured man, and uttered the severest rebukes against Calvin and his party by whom he was committed to the flames. Robinson has entered somewhat largely into his history in his Researches, tinder the Article, The Church of Navarre and Biscay; but our limits will permit us to give only the brief outlines of the character and sufferings of this famous Baptist. He was born at Villa Neuva in Arragon, in Spain, not long after the year 1500. He was bred to physic, but he was early inclined to religious studies, and at the age of eighteen he became an author. His first publication was designed to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity. The errors of Servetus on this and some other subjects we lament.

But this does not hinder us from pitying his fate, and detesting the persecuting intrigues which cost him his lift. Servetus passed through various fortunes, and published a number of works, all of which we must pass over. While he was studying at the University at Paris, he became acquainted with Calvin, who was nearly of his age. This was about twenty years before he was burnt at Geneva.

From Paris, Servetus went to Lyons, where he met with Peter Palmier, a Catholic and Archbishop of Vienna in Dauphine. The Archbishop being a lover of learned men and fond of Servetus, pressed him to go to Vienna and practice physic, and offered him an apartment in his palace. The doctor accepted his invitation, and thirteen years lived safe and happy, under the auspices of his Catholic patron. This prelate seems to have been one of those, of whom there have been numbers in the Catholic church, who think freely, but who do not act consistently who inwardly disapprove of their own corrupt system but who, for reasons best known to themselves, continue to defend it. The reformers of that day could not conceive how a Catholic Archbishop and an Anabaptist doctor, could live in peace in different apartments in the same palace. The enemies of Servetus envied his felicity, and plotted his ruin. A prosecution was commenced against him, and he was cast into prison; but he soon, by the indulgence of the jailer, made his escape and concealed himself four months, no body knows where. The prosecution was carried on in his absence, he was condemned to be burnt alive in a slow fire, and he was actually burnt in effigy. Being thus hunted by his enemies, this persecuted man next determined on going to Naples, in hope of settling there in the practice of his profession. It is supposed that he was induced to this measure by a Spanish nobleman, named John Valdesius, who was then secretary to the king of Naples, and who had embraced the principles of the Anabaptists. 20 He took his way through Geneva, but kept close for fear of discovery. While he waited for a boat to cross the lake, Calvin, by some means, got intelligence of his arrival, and although it was Sunday, yet he prevailed upon the chief syndich to arrest and imprison him. The proceedings against him are too lengthy to be related here, but the issue of them was, that on the 27th of October, 1553, this unfortunate man, with many aggravating circumstances, was burnt alive at Geneva for heresy.

A multitude of testimonies go to prove that Calvin was at the head of this barbarous affair. But omitting all others, I will transcribe a part of a letter written by him in 1561, to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the king of Navarre. “Honor, glory, and riches,” said he to the Marquis, “shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” Servetus was a confirmed Baptist, and censured with great severity the custom of infant baptism, and this was probably one of the principal things which provoked the resentment of his enemies. His doctrinal sentiments were unquestionably very exceptionable. He opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, and adopted the Unitarian scheme, but his views upon this mysterious subject were singular, and in a great measure peculiar to himself. 22 He also opposed the proper divinity of Christ, but like Paul of Samosata, he could never get over the first chapter of John, and therefore he sometimes called him God, and accounted for doing so by some sublime sort of inhabitation of the Deity in the man Jesus.

Andrew Dudith was, according to Mosheim, one of the most learned and eminent men of the sixteenth century. He was born in Buda in Hungary, in 1533. He had a most accomplished education, and went an extensive round of honors and preferments. He set out in his career of worldly glory, with the bishopric of Tinia, and was in succession privy counselor to the emperor Ferdinand, his imperial ambassador to the court of Sigismund, king of Poland, a delegate in the famous council of Trent for Hungary, and finally bishop of Chonat. But tired of the fopperies of the church of Rome, he left her communion, became a protestant, and in the end a member, and an occasional teacher of a Baptist church at Smila, a town belonging to him in Poland. “It is said that he showed some inclination towards the Socinian system; some of his friends deny this; others confess it, but maintain that he afterwards changed his sentiments in that respect.” “The greatest man, says Robinson, among the Baptists at the reformation, was the celebrated, the amiable, the incomparable Dudith, a man to be held in everlasting remembrance, much for his rank, more for his abilities and virtue, but most of all for his love of liberty,” 23 and so on. Never, says the same writer, was a finer pen than that of Dudith. “You contend,” says he to Beza, “that scripture is a perfect rule of faith and practice. But you are all divided about the sense of scripture, and you have not settled who shall be judge. You have broken off your yoke, allow me to break mine. Having freed yourselves from the tyranny of popish prelates, why do you turn ecclesiastical tyrants yourselves, and treat others with barbarity and cruelty for only doing what you set them an example to do? You contend that your lay-hearers, the magistrates, and not you, are to be blamed, for it is they who banish and burn for heresy. I know you make this excuse; but tell me, have not you instilled such principles into their ears? Have they done any thing more than put in practice the doctrine that you have taught them? Have you not told them how glorious it was to defend the faith?

Have you not been the constant panegyrists of such princes as have depopulated whole districts for heresy? Do you not daily teach, that they who appeal from your confessions to scripture ought to be punished by the secular power? It is impossible for you to deny this. Does not all the world know, that you are a set of demagogues, or (to speak more mildly) a sort of tribunes, and that the magistrates do nothing but exhibit in public what you teach in private? You try to justify the banishment of Ochin, and the execution of others, and you seem to wish Poland would follow your example. God forbid! When you talk of your Augsburg confession, and your Helvetic creed, and your unanimity, and your fundamental truths, I keep thinking of the sixth commandment,THOU SHAT NOT KILL.

Farewell, most learned and respected Beza. Take what I have said in good part, and continue your friendship for me.” This is only a sketch of a letter, but these hints may serve to show the temper and the turn of the man.