THIS chapter will extend from the introduction of christianity to about the time of the reformation under Luther and his associates.
All sects trace their origin to the Apostles, or at least to the early ages of christianity. But many, and especially the powerful ones, have labored hard to cut off the Baptists from this common retreat. They have often asserted and taken much pains to prove that the people now called Baptists originated with the mad men of Munster, about 1522. We have only to say to this statement, that it is not true. And notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, we still date the origin of our
sentiments, and the beginning of our denomination, about the year of our Lord twenty-nine or thirty; for at that period John the Baptist began to immerse professed believers ill Jordan and Enon, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord’s Anointed, and for the setting up of his kingdom.
But before we proceed, any farther, it is proper that the terms Baptist and Anabaptist should be defined.
A Baptist is one, who holds that a profession of faith, and an immersion in water are essential to baptism. An Anabaptist is one who is rebaptized.
The name of Baptist we admit is significant and proper; but that of Anabaptist we reject as slanderous, and no ways descriptive of our sentiments and practice; and when our opponents accuse us of
Anabaptism, we always understand the charge as the language either of ignorance or malice. In one sense there were never any Anabaptists in christendom, and yet according to historians there have been multitudes in different ages and countries. All, who ever administered baptism a second time, did it upon the supposition that the first baptism was imperfect. No party of christians ever held to two baptisms, or presumed to repeat the
baptismal rite, after it had been, in their opinion, once properly administered. In this sense there never have been any Anabaptists, although multitudes have rebaptized, or, in other words, performed in a right manner, what, upon their principles, had been improperly done.
According to Robinson there have been six sorts of christians, who have been called Anabaptists, as different from one another, as can well be imagined. The first placed the essence of baptism in the virtue of the person baptized; the second placed it in the form of words pronounced in the administration; the third in the virtue of the administrator; the fourth in the consent of the person baptized; the fifth in dipping; and the sixth in both a profession of faith and an immersion.
By all of these classes multitudes were rebaptized, and yet no party acknowledged themselves Anabaptists; for they all thought that there was one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and that their own. The Catholics most eagerly contend that pope Sylvester baptized Constance the Great into the faith of the Trinity at Rome, and the evidence seems respectable.
It is however certain that he was baptized at Nicomedia just before his death, mid it is supposed by Eusebius, into the Arian faith. Both affirm they baptized him; neither says he was rebaptized, because neither accounted the other a valid baptism. Probably, some Catholic writers express the matter exactly as it was. Sylvester baptized the emperor, and Eusebius rebaptized him. They affirm the same of the emperor Valens, and denominate both these emperors Anabaptists.
Dionysius and his followers in Egypt, the Acephali, Novatus of Rome, Novatian of Carthage, all the Novatian churches, Donatus and his
numberless followers, called after him Donatists, of whom there were four hundred congregations at one time in Africa, all rejected the baptism administered by those, who have since been called Catholics, whom they reputed heretics, and whose churches they called habitations of impurity, and all such as came from those churches to them they rebaptized.
In the year 325, the council of Nice decreed, that all who came over to the established church, from the Paulianists, both men and women, should be rebaptized, while proselytes from the Novatians or Puritans were
admitted by the laying on of hands. The reason for this difference was, that the Novarians baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, while the Paulianists, who denied the Trinity, omitted this form.
For a long time the Catholics rejected the baptism of the Arians, and the Arians in return rejected theirs. Both parties rebaptized their proselytes, and all practiced dipping.
These are a few of the many facts, which might be adduced to show that Anabaptism, as it is improperly called, is not peculiar to the Baptists.
According to the common acceptation of the term, her imperial majesty Catherine III late empress of all the Russias, was an Anabaptist. “For it is strictly true,” as an elegant and accurate historian observes, “that in the year 1745, Peter, afterwards Czar Peter III espoused Sophia Augusta, princess of Anhalt Zerbst, who, upon being rebaptized, according to the rites of the Greek church, was called Catherine Alexiefna, and so on.”1 Thus much for the general subject of rebaptization. Whatever notions of impiety people may now attach to the practice, it is certain that all parties have been more or less guilty of it.
We shall now turn our attention to that class of Anabaptists, with whom we claim relation, and who would now be considered Baptists, by
whatever name they were formerly called. This is the sixth class in Mr.
Robinson’s list of rebaptizers. They have ever held, that a personal profession of faith, and an immersion in water are essential to baptism.
Christians of these sentiments have existed in every age, and their number has been larger than their friends generally imagine, or than their opposers are ever willing to acknowledge. The first christians were undoubtedly all Baptists, and we believe they will all be Baptists again, when they are all brought to keep the ordinances of Christ as they were first delivered to the saints. For almost three centuries baptism was in the main rightly
administered by all parties, for they all required a profession of faith, and all immersed.
We do not pretend that the primitive saints were called Baptists; an went under the general denomination of Christians, and when they began to the off into parties, they took the names of the men by whom they were led.
It is not the history of a name, but the prevalence of a principle, of which we are in search. No denomination of Protestants can trace the origin of its name farther back than about the time of the reformation, and most of them have originated since that period. And I suppose it was about this
time that our brethren began to be called Baptists. And I am inclined to think that they assumed the name in opposition to that of Anabaptists, with which their enemies were continually reproaching them. But that all the primitive christians would have been called Baptists, if sentimental names had then been in use, and that there always has been a people on earth, from the introduction of Christianity, who have held the leading sentiments by which they now are, and always have been peculiarly distinguished, is a point which I most firmly believe, and which I shall now attempt to prove.
I know that all denominations take this ground, and attempt to prove that their sentiments have existed from the Apostles through every age. The Catholic pretends that his church is of Apostolic origin, and was founded by St. Peter, and he can easily prove that a very large portion of the christian world, has, for many centuries, been and now is of his belief. The Churchman pleads that all the first christians were Episcopalians, and that Bishops Paul, Peter, Timothy, and Titus, governed the churches; and he moreover supposes that Paul’s parchment, which he left at Troas, contained his episcopal authority. The Presbyterians, Independents, Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, and all contend that their churches are built after the Apostolic model. And even the Shaking Quaker, although he can make no good pretension to Apostolical
succession, yet claims relation to the hundred and forty and four thousand who have not defiled themselves with women. I am not about to dispute the pretensions or proofs of any one sect in christendom. It is not my object to show what is not true respecting them, but what is true respecting ourselves. The Episcopalian can find Bishops, and the
Presbyterian Elders or Presbyters among the primitive christians, and the Congregationalist and Independent, have good grounds for saying that the Apostolic churches were of their belief respecting church government. The Baptists believe in Episcopacy and Presbyterianism or eldership, when explained according to their sense of the terms. They hold to the zeal of the Methodists, and the inward light of the Quakers, when regulated and explained according to their sense of propriety and correctness. With most denominations they find something with which they agree. But in the article of baptism they differ from all. While their brethren all around admit infants to baptism, they have always confined the rite to professed
believers, and a baptism without an immersion is, in their opinion, “like a guinea without gold.”
The Baptists have been distinguished from other sects, not only in their views of the subjects and mode of baptism, but they have always held to other sentiments peculiar to themselves, and which they consider essential important truths, but which their opponents have branded with the name of dangerous errors or damnable heresies.
The supporters of believer’s baptism have, under every form of
government, been the advocates for liberty; and for this reason, they have never flourished much except in those governments where some degree of freedom has been maintained. Arbitrary states have always oppressed them, and driven them for refuge to milder regions. “They cannot live in tyrannical states, and free countries are the only places to seek for them, for their whole public religion is impracticable without freedom.” In political changes they have always been friendly to the cause of liberty, and their passion for it has at different times led some into acts of
indiscretion, and scenes of danger. But with a few exceptions, we may say in truth, that the Baptists have always adhered to their leading maxim, to be subject to the powers that be; and all the favor they as christians have asked of civil governments has been, to give them their Bibles, and let them alone. The interference of the magistrate in the affairs of conscience, they have never courted, but have always protested against. Classical authority and priestly domination, they have ever opposed and abhorred, and the equality of christians as such, and the absolute independency of churches, they have most scrupulously maintained. Learning they have esteemed in its proper place; but they have also uniformly maintained, that the servants of God may preach his gospel without it. The distinction between their ministers and brethren is less than in almost any other denomination of christians; whatever abilities their ministers possess, they reduce them to the capacity of mere teachers; and they consider all not only at liberty, but moreover bound to exercise, under proper regulations, the gifts they may possess, for the edification of their brethren.
We have thus endeavored to define the term Anabaptist, and have shown that it never has been admitted by any party as a significant term, but has always been considered slanderous and improper. We shall frequently
make use of it in the following sketches, but it must be understood, that we use it as a word, which custom has made necessary.
We have also attempted to give a brief definition of the term Baptist, and have at the same time exhibited some of the leading principles and features of the people to whom it is applied. We shall endeavor to give some few sketches of the history of that class of christians, whom we consider Baptists, or who have maintained the ordinances of Christ as they were first delivered to the saints. This chapter embraces a period of about fifteen hundred years; most of which time the church was in the
wilderness, and for that reason we cannot expect to learn much respecting her. No human pen has recorded her history with any degree of
correctness, but it is registered on high, and will be exhibited in the great day of accounts, In travelling down the records of a worldly sanctuary we get a glimpse now and then of the friends of godliness, and we generally behold them destitute, afflicted, and tormented. Some of the saints mistook the time of their Lord’s coming, and ventured out from their obscure retreats, in hopes to meet him in his providential dealings, but they generally met with disaster and death. Antichrist sent his archers into the wilderness to hunt the disciples of Jesus, and by them some reports have been communicated of their character and situation. But after all, we know but very little of the real church of Christ, for the long lapse of many hundred years. We have very ample accounts of the antichristian church through all her movements; and the affairs of some of the saints in Babylon are very minutely detailed. But the history of the uncorrupted church, which maintained the worship and ordinances of Christ, while all the world was wondering after the beast, is covered with obscurity, and probably lost in oblivion.
From the New-Testament account of the primitive christians, we are led to think they were Baptists. But we will quote the accounts given of them by two authors, and then the reader may judge for himself. Mosheim was no friend to the Baptists, and yet he has made many important concessions in their favor; and in relating the history of the primitive church, he has given a description, which will not certainly apply to his own church, the Lutheran, nor to any sect in christendom except the Baptists. “Baptism,”
he observes, “was administered in the first century without the public assemblies, in places appointed for that purpose, and was performed by
immersion of the whole body in water.” By this account it appears that the first christians went “streaming away (as Dr. Osgood would say) to some pond or river” to be baptized. Respecting church discipline, the same writer observes: “The churches in those early times were entirely
independent, none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by its own rulers and laws. For though the churches, founded by the Apostles, had this particular deference shown them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing on the contrary is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches,”2 and so on.
“A bishop, during the first and second century, was a person who had the care of one christian assembly, which at that time was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant,”3 and so on.
“There was,” says Robinson, “among primitive christians, an uniform belief that Jesus was the Christ, and a perfect harmony of affection. When congregations multiplied, so that they became too numerous to assemble in one place, they parted into separate companies, and so again and again, but there was no schism; on the contrary all held a common union, and a member of one company was a member of all. If any person removed from one place to reside at another, he received a letter of attestation, which was given and taken as proof; and this custom very prudently
precluded the intrusion of impostors. In this manner was framed a catholic or universal church. One company never pretended to inspect the affairs of another, nor was there any dominion, or any shadow of do. minion, over the consciences of any individuals.
Overt acts were the only objects of censure, and censure was nothing but voting a man out of the community.”
Let any candid man compare the different denominations of christians of the present day with these descriptions of the primitive church, and he will, we think, be at no loss to determine which comes the nearest to it.
But Mr. Robinson goes farther, and determines the matter just as a Baptist believes. “During the three first centuries, christian congregations all over
the east subsisted in separate, independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were Baptist churches, and though all the fathers of the four first ages down to Jerome were of Greece, Syria, and Africa, and though they gave great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one record of the baptism of a child till the year 370, when Galates, the dying son of the emperor Valens, was baptized by order of a monarch, who swore he would not be contradicted. The age of the prince is uncertain, and the assigning of his illness as the cause of his baptism indicates clearly enough that infant baptism was not in practice.”
But the primitive Baptist churches, in process of time, became corrupted with many errors, and with infant baptism among the rest. And when Constantine established christianity as the religion of his empire, errors, which before had taken root, soon grew up to maturity, the christian church as established by law became a worldly sanctuary, and those who would maintain the gospel in its purity were obliged to separate from the great mass of professors, and retire to the best refuges they could find. We have shown in the Review of Ecclesiastical History, that the church of Rome and the Greek church have ever comprehended the great majority of those, who have borne the christian name. But from these two extensive establishments multitudes have dissented. The dissenters have been of every possible description and character, and it may be truly said of every religious absurdity and fantastical opinion, that there is nothing new under the sun, for they have all been broached and maintained in former times.
All dissenters were denounced heretics, and in many cases the name was not misapplied; but on the other hand it is certain, that for many centuries we must search among reputed heretics, for what little of godliness
remained on the earth.
Mr. Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, under the head Greek Church, has entered largely into the history of dissenters from that wide spread community, and the following sketches collected from different parts of the article, contain the substance of what he has said respecting them.
“The first founders of the dissenting sects were primitive
christians, who would not conform. They had, as an ancient writer