REVIEW
This review of J.M. Cramp’s Baptist History,
by C. H. Spurgeon, appeared in the August 1868 The Sword and
the Trowel.
A History of the Baptists
All who know much of the Baptist denomination must
have regretted that so few are acquainted with its early history. We are
not surprised that those who do not admit the scripturalness of our
principles should be thus ignorant; nor can we be surprised that those who
have superciliously looked upon our comparative feebleness should have put
us down as of latter-day growth; but it remains a matter of great surprise
that our own congregations should be, for the most part, uninstructed in
the past doings of our body. We certainly can boast of godly defenders of
the faith, of noble men persecuted and contemned, who have sacrificed
position, wealth, and life, for the truth; we can tell of able preachers
and learned divines, and we can rejoice in the spirit of enterprise and
heroism which has existed among Baptists of all ages. Why therefore should
there be so much ignorance abroad as to the ecclesiastical history of the
denomination? Why should so few know anything, and so many care nothing
for the early Baptists, when their history is beyond measure instructive
and interesting? We think there are several reasons to be found for this
apathy to our own history. We are not sure, in the first place, that
Baptists have ever been passionate lovers of ecclesiastical history.
Indeed, we have a notion—how far it is true we leave our readers to
judge—that religious communities which indulge too much in these
investigations, are apt to trust to the past, which in view of present
necessities is about the worst thing a religious body could do. Baptists,
too, in past days, being peculiarly obnoxious to all state-churchmen, have
had enough to do to fight for very existence, and have been too much
intent upon taking their part in the controversies of the times, and, upon
seeking present edification, to spend much thought upon presenting in the
foreground the past history of their body. Then, too, that history has
been, for the most part, obscure and scanty, and even now, as Dr. Angus
confesses, the history of baptism in the early church and in the middle
ages is still to be written. The few books that have been compiled have
been too expensive for ordinary readers, and a condensed and graphic
abstract of Baptist records has been much wanted. We are glad therefore to
find that Dr. Cramp, the able president of a Baptist College in Nova
Scotia, has endeavoured to meet this want. Dr. Cramp has long been a
laborious, painstaking student of ecclesiastical history, and his works
have been distinguished by some of the higher qualities of an historian.
His book on Baptist history* is not intended for students; at
least, it is thrown into a popular mould, and will be more acceptable to
general readers, to whom we most heartily recommend it. All Baptists
should possess a copy, and even those of our readers who do not sympathise
with our view of the ordinance of baptism, will probably be glad to know
what the immersionists have to say about themselves. The time is past, we
hope, when religious rancour forbids one body of believers to take an
interest in another. The work is so pleasantly written, and so tastefully
produced, that it would form an acceptable gift to our young men and
maidens. It traces the history of Baptists from the foundation of the
Christian church, when he whose right it was to give the mandate commanded
his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, to the close of the last century; adding a chapter — which to our
minds is the least satisfactory part of the work — on the extension of
the denomination and the peculiarities of the present period.
The primitive period is remarkable only — so
far as the point is hand is concerned — for two things: viz., the
absence during the first two hundred years of any reference in "The
Fathers" to infant baptism; and the introduction, with other
heresies, of baptismal regeneration and children’s baptism. Tertullian,
at the in-coming of the third century openly declared that remission from
sins, deliverance from death, regeneration and participation in the Holy
Spirit, were spiritual blessings consequent upon baptism. The two things
— the sacramental theory and the baptism of children (not infants) —
probably came in at the same time; for we find Tertullian indignantly
reproving those who had begun the practice of administering the ordinance
to children, on the ground that they were not old enough to repent and
believe. Chevalier Bunsen distinctly points out that "Tertullian’s
opposition is to the baptism of young growing children: he does not say a
word about newborn infants."
The same must be said of Origen. But the seeds of the
evil had been sown. Children’s baptism was clearly originated by the
sacramentarians, who considered that it was necessary to salvation. But
infant baptism was instituted by a bishop of Northern Africa, in the
middle of the third century, who confounded Christian baptism with
circumcision — a blunder frequent enough nowadays. It must be remembered
that the body of the infant was immersed, not sprinkled. Sprinkling sick
persons confined to their beds was, however, a contemporaneous innovation.
We next enter upon the transition period, when
the new system was quietly working its way. As Neander puts it,
"among the Christians of the East, infant-baptism, though
acknowledged in theory to be necessary, yet entered rarely and with much
difficulty into the church-life during the first half of this
period." Novelty needed extraneous power to bolster it up, and
infant-baptism was promulgated by men who accepted state aid, and who were
backed by a royal command that all infants should be baptised. The church
allied to the state, the tide of persecution inevitably set in. The
state-church people were the "orthodox," and as such were
recognised; all others were heretics. A controversy sprang up with regard
to those who apostatised during the Decian persecution, but who on the
return of tranquillity, sought re-admission into the churches. Novatian
held that apostacy was a sin which disqualified them from again entering
into church fellowship, and to secure a pure community, he formed a
separate church, which elected him for its pastor. These purer churches
multiplied, and continued in existence for more than three centuries, the
members being everywhere looked upon as Puritans and Dissenters. They were
Anabaptists, baptising again all who had been immersed by the orthodox and
corrupt church. The Novatians, then, were Baptists.
Then follows the obscure period — a period of
mistiness, doubtfulness, and difficulty. What Dr. Cramp terms "The
Revival Period," which extended from A.D. 1073 to A.D. 1517, includes
the Crusades, the martyrdom of Huss, and the invention of printing. Peter
of Bruys, who suffered martyrdom in 1124, was a Baptist minister, who
maintained that the church should be composed alone of believers, that all
believers should be baptised, and that baptism was of no use unless
connected with personal faith. Others followed him in the advocacy of the
same principles, giving a great deal of trouble to the Baptists by their
denunciations of ecclesiastical corruptions. "The terrible storm
which fell upon Southern France in the crusade against the Albigenses,
doubtless swept away many of the Baptist churches, and scattered their
surviving members. Notwithstanding the vigilance of the persecutors, great
numbers escaped. Italy, Germany, and the Eastern countries of Europe
received them." It is clear that "the Morning Star of the
Reformation," John Wycliffe, believed that faith was required by
those who were baptised, and those who held that infants dying without
baptism could not be saved, were regarded by him as "presumptuous and
foolish." It is also certain that many of the Lollards, perhaps the
majority of them, strongly opposed infant baptism. They were persecuted
for this by the Paedobaptists, for it was held to be a grievous departure
from the truth to believe that infants could be saved if unbaptised. There
has been considerable diversity of opinion among historians as to the
Waldenses, and both by those who assert that they were Baptists and by
those who maintain that they were not, it has been forgotten that they
were not distinguished by any uniformity of belief. "If," says
Dr. Cramp, "the question relate to the Waldenses in the strict and
modern sense of the term, that is, to the inhabitants of the valleys of
Piedmont, there is reason to believe that, originally, the majority of
them were Baptists, although there were varieties of opinion among them,
as well as among other seceders from the Romish church." One of their
earlier confessions, has this distinguishing belief, that it is proper and
even necessary that believers should use the sacraments of baptism
and the Lord’s Supper, but that believers may be saved without either.
Immersion in any case was still the mode, and incontrovertible facts,
which no one has ventured to dispute, go to prove that it was the
universal practice.
Baptists were always equally prepared for conflict and,
for persecution. At the rise of the Reformation they openly declared
themselves, coming out of their obscure positions, where they had long
worshipped their Master in quiet. seclusion. They were prepared to enlist
themselves under the banners of the Reformers. They looked upon the
defiant daring men of God whom no ecclesiastical tyranny could tame, no
Papal fulminations could awe, no threatenings could silence, as their
brothers — bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh. It is much to
be regretted that they should have been so bitterly disappointed.
The Reformers were not as yet sufficiently wide in
their sympathies, nor sufficiently clear in their Protestantism, to extend
the right hand of friendship, and loving communion to the despised
Baptists. As now, so then, Baptists were a go-a-head race, always prepared
to travel beyond others. They were persecuted, destroyed, forsaken, had
their possessions confiscated, and were reduced to the lowest depths of
poverty. In spite of the Reformers who were bemisted by Popery, they
maintained that the church of Christ should be kept as pure as possible;
that there must be no indiscriminate mixing of wheat and tares, as though
both were so much akin that there was no difference between them; that
believers only were the proper subjects of baptism; that Scripture and
Scripture alone was the sole arbiter in all theological disputes; and that
civil magistrates and earthly potentates had no control over God’s free
gift to man-conscience. We, as Baptists of the present day, have precisely
the same principles to defend, and in demanding the disestablishment and
disendowment of the Irish church, that embodiment of injustice and bulwark
against the progress of Protestantism in the sister country, we do
but propagate opinions and principles which were tenaciously held by the
Anabaptists of Reformation days — principles which find their source and
authority in Holy Writ.
No one disputes that the conduct of the Baptists of
this era, was marked at times by folly. Yet it has been the habit too much
to magnify their wrong-doings, and to stigmatise all for the acts of some.
The Reformers themselves chose out of their vocabulary all the offensive
epithets they could, and flung them at their brethren — the Baptists.
Latimer denounced them as "pernicious," and their opinions as
"devilish." Hooper regarded them as "damnable;" while
other and equally mild aspersions were made upon their zeal, their
honesty, and even common decency. The Baptists declared their sympathy
with Luther in throwing off the Pope’s authority, and carried out their
principles to their legitimate conclusion, by proclaiming themselves free
from Luther’s, or any other man’s authority. Then came the Peasant’s
War, in which Munzer joined, and for which he paid by the forfeiture of
his life. Occasion was taken by his connection with the insurgents, to
load all Baptists with obloquy and reproach. They were persecuted and
hunted down, obliged to worship in woods, far removed from the hot fierce
hand of their enemies. An historian of these times, Sebastian Franck,
affirms that within a few years no fewer than "two thousand Baptists
had testified their faith by imprisonment or martyrdom." Yet despite
the odium cast upon them, and the laws of repression enforced against
them, they continued to spread in Germany, in Italy, in Switzerland,
Austria, and Bavaria. They were hunted like sheep and compelled to
emigrate in large numbers to Moravia, and to the Netherlands, where they
were not free from the oppressor’s yoke. The records of Baptist
martyrology are very voluminous. Our readers should be acquainted with the
doings and the sufferings of these brethren, who were singled out for
unsparing manifestations of cruelty and vengeance. We recommend them
carefully to read Dr. Cramp’s admirable condensation of their trials
during this long and suffering period. One man, by name Jeronimus Segerson,
who boldly declared that he would rather be tortured ten times every day,
and then finally be roasted on a gridiron, than renounce the faith, was
burned at Antwerp. His wife, Lysken, was drowned in a sack — a fitting
death it was thought for a Baptist. The account given in the work entitled
"Baptist Martyrology," written in Dutch, is very affecting.
"She very boldly," we are told, "and uudisguisedly
confessed her faith at the tribunal, before the magistrates and the
multitude. They first asked her concerning baptism. She said, ‘I
acknowledge but one baptism, even that which was used by Christ and his
disciples, and left to us.’ ‘What do you hold concerning infant
baptism?’ asked the sheriff. To which Lysken answered, ‘Nothing but a
mere infant’s baptism, and a human institution.’ On this the bench
stood up, and consulted together, while Lysken, in the mean time,
confessed, and explained clearly to the people the ground of her belief.
They then pronounced sentence upon her. Lysken spoke in the following
manner to the bench: ‘Ye are now judges; but the time will come when ye
will wish that ye had been keepers of sheep, for there is a Judge and Lord
who is above all; he shall in his own time judge you. But we have not to
wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, powers,
and rulers of the darkness of this world.’ " Two monks visited her
in prison, but could not move her from her confidence. "On Saturday
morning we rose early, some before day, some with the daylight, to see the
nuptials which we thought would then be celebrated; but the crafty
murderers outran us. We had slept too long; for they had finished their
murderous work between three and four o’clock. They had taken that sheep
to the Scheldt, and had put her into a sack, and drowned her before the
people arrived, so that few persons saw it. Some, however, saw it. She
went courageously to death, and spoke bravely, ‘Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit.’
Thus she was delivered up, and it came to pass, to the
honour of the Lord, that by the grace of God many were moved
thereby."
The history of English Baptists is full of interest.
From the first they were peculiarly offensive to "the powers that
be." Henry the Eighth — who did so much for the Anglican
Establishmentarians that he ought to be regarded by them as a pet saint,
even as he was befooled and belarded by the intriguing Cranmer — when he
assumed the headship of the Anglican church which never acknowledged
Christ to be its only Head, proclaimed against two kinds of heretics,
viz., those who disputed about baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and such
as were re-baptised. These Anabaptists were commanded to withdraw from the
country at once. Cranmer ordered some to be burnt, and burnt they were.
Mr. Kenworthy, the present pastor of the Baptist church at Hill Cliffe, in
Cheshire, has stated that if the traditions of the place are to be
trusted, the church is five hundred years old. A tombstone has been lately
dug up in the burial ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357.
The origin of the church is assigned to the year 1523. It is evident that
there were Baptist communities in this country in the reign of Edward VI.,
since Ridley, who was martyred in the following reign, had the following
among his "Articles of Visitation:" "Whether any of the
Anabaptists’ sect or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private
conventicles, wherein they do use doctrines or administration of
sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish?" A
fearful crime which many Anglicans of the present day would be as ready to
punish were it not that other notions of religious liberty exist and
powerfully influence public opinion. We can trace the same spirit, though
in embryo perhaps, in the ritualistic prints of the present age, and
indeed in the two delightfully amiable Evangelical newspapers whose
unbounded hatred of all outside the pale of their theology and clique is
as relentless and unscrupulous as the bitterest feelings of Papal days.
All history teaches that state-churchism means persecution, in one form or
another, according to the sentiments of the age; and the only cure for the
evil is to put all religions on an equality.
Elizabeth, like her father, found it needful for the
peace and quiet of the Anglicans, to banish Baptists from her realm. This
she did so effectually that Bishop Jewel congratulated his brethren, in
1560, in the following terms: — "We found at the beginning of the
reign of Elizabeth a large and inauspicious corps of Arians, Anabaptists,
and other pests, which I know not how, but as mushrooms spring up in the
night and in darkness, so these sprang up in that darkness and unhappy
night of the Marian times. These I am informed, and I hope it is the fact,
have retreated before the light of purer doctrine, like owls at the sight
of the sun, and are now nowhere to be found; or at least, if anywhere,
they are no longer troublesome to our churches." With all this system
of repression and persecution, and notwithstanding the emigration of large
numbers, many remained in the country, and soon made their appearance, as
history attests, in what Dr. Cramp has denominated "the troublous
period," which extended from A.D. 1567 to A.D. 1688 — from the
days especially of James I. to the period when Benjamin Keach suffered in
the pillory. For an interesting abstract of the history of our
denomination during those times and during the quieter period which
followed, with its peculiarities of controversy, and conscientious
differences, we must refer our reader to the book which we have already
warmly commended to their favour.
C. H. Spurgeon