Note B. p. 54.
Our note respecting the Anabaptists must be brief. An Anabaptist is one who baptizes again a person previously baptized. The Cathari, of the third century, were accustomed to baptize again those who joined them from other sects.—Murdock’s Mosheim, vol. i. p. 247. The name was early applied to those who opposed infant baptism, and who baptized those who joined them, though they had been baptized in infancy. The name, of course, expressed the views of their opponents, and not their own, because they did not consider such persons as having been baptized.
Of the history of the Anabaptists, (retaining this name for the sake of convenience,) we cannot now speak. The odium and alarm which are alluded to in the text, arose from the disturbances that occurred in Germany, about the year 1535. It would be tedious to narrate these events; but it may be stated, briefly, that the peasants, oppressed by their feudal lords, made a desperate effort to obtain their freedom. Among them were some Anabaptists, mingled with Lutherans, Catholics and others. They obtained possession of the city of Munster, in Westphalia, and held it about three years; but they were finally overpowered, and the war terminated, after immense slaughter. It seems to have been a just revolt, and a struggle for liberty; but it failed, and the leaders have been stigmatized as fanatics, and as guilty of every species of crime. The story has been told by their oppressors and enemies, and it is entitled to very little credit. Mosheim seems to have been unable to find words to express his abhorrence of the Anabaptists, to whom he imputes most of the disorders of the Rustic War. Other writers are more candid. Benedict (vol. i. pp. 246, 265) has vindicated the Baptists from the charges which have been alleged against them in connection with that war. Admitting that very dangerous doctrines were then avowed, and wrong actions committed, it is unjust to make the Baptists of England and America responsible for them. It would be as fair, to impute to Pedobaptists all the atrocities of the Papal church. It is sufficient for our present purpose, to prove, that the English and American Baptists have never held the principles which have been ascribed to the Anabaptists of Germany. The rejection of magistracy has been the most prominent charge. A company of persons, called Anabaptists, in London, published a Confession of Faith, about the year 1611, in which they say: “The office of the magistrate is a permissive ordinance of God.” And in the following article, they anticipated the doctrines of Roger Williams: “The magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, nor to compel men to this or that form of religion; because Christ is the King or Lawgiver of the church and conscience.”—Crosby, vol. i. p. 71, appendix. In a “Confession of Faith of seven congregations, or churches of Christ, in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists,” published in 1646, they say: “A civil magistracy is an ordinance of God, set up by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; and that in all lawful things, commanded by them, subjection ought to be given by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and that we are to make supplications and prayers for kings, and for all that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.”—Crosby, vol. i. appendix, p. 23. These extracts express the doctrines of the English Baptist churches on the point in question. The principles of Roger Williams, respecting religious and civil duties, are sufficiently exhibited in the Memoir. They are the principles of the American Baptist churches, and have been so from the beginning. In the Confession of Faith of the First Baptist Church in Boston, founded in 1665, and the oldest church in what was then the colony of Massachusetts, the church say: “We acknowledge magistracy to be an ordinance of God, and to submit ourselves to them in the Lord, not because of wrath only, but for conscience sake.”—Winchell’s Historical Discourses, p. 10.